In our extensive series of interviews on wildlife issues,
Dr. Michael Hutchins, and I have discussed a number of pressing global
concerns that compromise the health of ecosystems and conservation
efforts aimed at saving and restoring imperiled wildlife populations.
The distinguished conservationist and noted
authority on wildlife management and policy has graciously agreed to
discuss another relevant topic with a more promising contribution to
species preservation: responsible wildlife tourism. This evolving
industry provides great promise as a means to protect wildlife and wild
places, but it also has its challenges and must be carefully managed and
regulated.
As national coordinator for the American
Bird Conservancy’s Bird-Smart Wind Energy Campaign (2013-), former
executive director/CEO of the Wildlife Society (2005-2012), former
director/William Conway Endowed chair of Conservation and Science for
the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (1990-2005), former curatorial
intern/conservation biologist/coordinator of research at the Wildlife
Conservation Society’s Bronx Zoo (1985-1990) and having taught
undergraduate and graduate courses in animal behavior at the University
of Washington, Seattle (1979-1985), Dr. Hutchins has served not only as a
scientist and leading conservation steward, but also as an expert on
conservation and science education.
Besides his wealth of knowledge concerning
wildlife management and conservation, Dr. Hutchins also has a degree in
anthropology and a particular insight into the public perception and
social aspects of conservation practices. In addition, Dr. Hutchins is a
founding partner and director of conservation and science for World Safaris and director of conservation and science for Safari Professionals. Both are considered to be two of America’s most responsible wildlife tourism companies.
Dr. Hutchins has traveled to over 30
countries and six continents pursuing his interests in wildlife and
nature. Few have as much firsthand experience working with guides and
other outfitter personnel and wildlife tourism entities and are as
poised to discuss the topic from a multitude of angles. It is a
privilege to share the following interview I conducted with such an
esteemed colleague.
Jordan: Can you talk about the history of the wildlife tourism industry?
Michael: Yes, the evolution of the wildlife travel business
is quite an interesting one, which all started with members of the
British upper class traveling to Africa in the late 1800s and
early-1900s to seek glory and adventure. Many of the early explorers,
such as Stanley, Livingstone, Burton, Speke, and others had opened up
the continent, and European colonization followed (Hanbury-Tenison, R.
2010. The Great Explorers. London, KK: Thames and Hudson).
However, many others that could only be classified as tourists, as
opposed to professional explorers or geographers, began seeking their
own personal adventures (Bull, B. 1992. Safari: A Chronicle of Adventure. London: Penguin Books).
Many of these early tourists were seeking to
replicate the experiences chronicled in the writings of the early
explorers, and many were big game hunters. The term “safari,” which is
Swahili for “journey,” became part of popular language and was
eventually adopted into the English dictionary. The British upper class
liked to travel in style and entire outfitting companies sprang up to
meet their travel needs, offering everything from pith helmets and tents
to canned foods and firearms.
The popularity of safari-type adventures during this period peaked when former U.S. President and conservationist Theodore Roosevelt went on safari
to East Africa to hunt big game from April 1909 to March 1910. The
specimens collected were for the “National Museum,” which is now called
the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of Natural History. His travels
were reported in Scribner’s Magazine and his best-selling book, African Game Trails.
Things began to evolve again as
international travel became more affordable with the advent of modern
air travel and with the evolution of the conservation ethic and
consciousness in the 1960s and 70s. People began to consider how tourism
could harm the environment and wildlife if not done properly. The term
“eco-tourism” was coined to describe nature and wildlife travel that was
sustainable and responsible and minimizes harm to both wildlife and
ecosystems. Although sustainable, regulated hunting can still be a part
of this experience, as it was in the early days of wildlife safaris, most people are now choosing to “hunt” with their eyes and cameras.
Rules and ethical standards were developed
as wildlife tourism became more popular and overwhelmed existing
industry infrastructure. Many popular destinations for wildlife tourism
protected key areas (e.g., Tanzania and Costa Rica) from development
(e.g. the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania and Corcovado National
Park in Costa Rica) and actively managed them for wildlife conservation
and biodiversity. Today, the wildlife tourism industry spans the globe
and generates billions of dollars of revenue, while also providing an
economic incentive for wildlife and habitat conservation and cultural
preservation (Frangialli, , F. 1998. Forward in Theobald, W.F. (ed.) Global Tourism. Second Edition. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann).
Although not completely harmless, when done
properly, tourism can provide a relatively benign economic incentive for
wildlife conservation that is far more preferable to other forms of
development, including mining, oil and gas exploration, agriculture, and
so forth. This may be the best we can hope for in a world increasingly dominated by humans and their domestic animals.
Jordan: Responsible wildlife tourism has
the potential to enhance conservation efforts for animals and nature.
How does this work?
Michael: Done well, wildlife tourism can provide a strong economic incentive for wildlife conservation by being a major long-term source of jobs and income for local people.
In developing countries, such as those in East and Southern Africa,
wildlife tourism is the primary reason that significant wildlife
populations still exist. People who travel to these countries inject
needed foreign currency into their economies, create jobs, and buy local
arts and crafts and other products that contribute to human well-being
and cultural survival (Hawkins, D.E. and Kahn, M.M. 1998. Ecotourism
opportunities for developing countries. Pp. 191-204 in Theobald, W.F.
(ed.) Global Tourism. Second Edition. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann).
In fact, nature tourism is now being seen as a major contributor to poverty reduction.
Furthermore, when local people realize the economic benefits that
wildlife and nature tourism bring, they will fight for conservation,
even in the face of corruption and wildlife crime. An excellent example
is the recent response of African governments and people to the elephant and rhino poaching crises that have been sweeping across the region. African governments have been stepping up their anti-poaching efforts (e.g., Kenya) and even firing corrupt officials who have been involved in the illegal wildlife trade (e.g., Tanzania).
Consider also the opposition that has been building against the development of a road that would bisect Serengeti National Park and threaten the one of the world’s last great migrations of vast herds of wildebeest and zebra. Much of this opposition
has come from wildlife tour operators, conservationists and people who
have traveled there. With growing human populations, the pressure for
continued development is unlikely to abate and is only going to get
worse. For example, the Tanzanian government’s recent unfortunate decision to mine portions of Lake Natron,
the site of the world’s largest concentration of flamingos. Similarly,
serious consideration was being given by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo to open up Virunga National Park—home to endangered mountain gorillas– to oil exploration and drilling. Fortunately, that has not happened due to the actions of concerned individuals and organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund.
The promise of long-term revenue from
responsible wildlife tourism often appears to be the only thing standing
in the way. In developing countries, challenged by poverty and
unemployment, the reality is that wildlife is going to have to pay for
itself and wildlife tourism is one of the most benign ways in which this can be accomplished.
Jordan: Although the wildlife tourism
industry implies that it is an eco-friendly endeavor, some of the most
vigilant and conservation-minded tour operators may generate human
disturbance as a mere artifact of bringing people closer to wildlife.
From observing nesting pelagic seabirds to calving cetaceans, to
predation by apex predators, ecotourism is not without inherent threats
to wildlife populations. Is it a significant reason for concern?
Michael: There is no doubt
that the mere presence of humans can disturb wildlife and have negative
consequences for conservation. A good example would be walking through a seabird colony, causing many of the adults to leave the nest and cease incubation or temporarily abandon their chicks, which could increase their chances of being taken by predators. Another would be the risk of transmission of disease between humans and animals,
as has occurred between humans and gorillas in central Africa
(Litcghfield, C.A. 2008. Responsible tourism: A conservation tool or
conservation threat. Pp. 107-127 in Stoinski, T.S., Steklis, H.D., and
Mehlmen, P.T. Conservation in the 21st Century: Gorillas as a Case Study. New York: Springer).
Good tour operators and government
regulators are aware of these risks and many rules have been established
to reduce the potential deleterious impacts of wildlife tourism. In the
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, for example, tourists cannot set foot on
the islands without being accompanied by a trained guide and must stay
on established paths. Similarly, driving off road in some areas of the
Serengeti National Park and in all of the Ngorongoro Crater Conservation
Area is prohibited by the Tanzanian government or carefully controlled
where it is allowed. This greatly lessens the risks to wildlife
associated with nature tourism. Responsible tour operators and
regulators must be constantly vigilant for any operator not following
the rules.
That being said, some species are more
sensitive to human activities than others, and it depends on the
situation. In fact, animals in areas that have low rates of tourism are
likely to be more stressed than animals in areas where humans are a
frequent, but benign, neutral presence. In the Serengeti, for instance,
animals have become highly habituated to tourist vehicles and have
little, if any, reaction to their presence. Cheetahs will often jump
onto vehicles in order to get a better view of their surroundings or lie
down in the shade created by a vehicle to stay cool. The reaction to
humans traveling on foot, however, is often quite different. In fact,
they flee, indicating the degree of habituation that animals develop to
vehicles. (see related link)
In the Galapagos Islands, animals exhibit a
phenomenon called “island tameness.” Having evolved in the absence of
predators, most animals do not flee at a human’s approach. This, of
course, has made the animals highly vulnerable to human hunting or to
the depredations of introduced predators, such as feral cats. However,
hunting is not allowed on the islands now and efforts to eradicate
introduced species, such as destructive feral goats and cats, have
ramped up in recent years to the benefit of wildlife. Nonetheless, tourism can increase the risks of species introductions, so park managers and tour operators must be forever vigilant. Of course, there are other environmental impacts from responsible wildlife tourism,
including the use of fossil fuels for transportation, road-building,
waste produced at hotels, tented camps and other facilities, etc.
This is one reason I prefer the term
“responsible wildlife tourism” to “ecotourism.” No tourism is perfect
from an ecological point of view. However, responsible wildlife tour
operators and facility managers do their best to follow all of the rules
regarding wildlife protection and to choose in-country partners (who
provide transportation, accommodation, and other amenities) that operate
as sustainably as possible and do not have major deleterious
consequences to wildlife or their habitats (Murphy, P.S. 1998. Tourism
and sustainable development. Pp. 173-190 in Theobald, W.F. (ed.) Global Tourism.
Second Edition. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann). This makes sense
because the health of wildlife and their habitats is critical to the
future of the wildlife tourism industry.
Jordan: Several nations that are
considered popular ecotourism destinations, like Botswana and Australia,
have instituted national strategies for the development, management,
and accreditation of tourism vendors and programs. Can you talk about
certification and standardization of the wildlife tourism industry and
the future of such programs? Will more nations adopt such policies and
standards in the near future? Are they effective in reaching their
objectives?
Michael: Yes, it makes
sense for nations to plan for tourism, carefully regulating the industry
and the infrastructure that comes with it (Bramwell, B. 1998. Selecting
policy instruments for sustainable tourism. Pp. 361-379 in Theobald,
W.F. (ed.) Global Tourism. Second Edition. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann. Overdevelopment can be a big problem for wildlife
and their habitats and should be avoided. However, as Bramwell (1998)
pointed out, “Government preferences for direct public regulation or
self-regulation in tourism may be guided more by politics and ideology
than to have a balanced approach.” Countries are better off limiting the
number of tourists that visit important wildlife areas and charging
more for the experience than seeking a mass, cheap market.
Certification of sustainable timber and
other products has helped consumers make good decisions about purchasing
products. That being said, I have some serious reservations about
certification programs for wildlife tour operators. Having a piece of
paper issued by a third party may look good, but it doesn’t ensure that
the company in question is knowledgeable, experienced and following all
the rules. When shopping for a reputable, responsible wildlife tour
company it is critical to do some of your own research and not rely upon
others to do it for you, which is essentially the function of a
third-party certification program. Important questions to ask are: What
is the background and training of the owners and driver-guides?; How
long has the company been in business?; Do they work with responsible
in-country partners?; What is the company’s philosophy of responsible
wildlife tourism? (This should be clearly stated on their web site.); Is
safety a priority?; What kinds of information and instruction are you
given prior to and during your trip? (e.g., a detailed itinerary showing
what you will do and where you will stay, a discussion of health
concerns and preparations, etc.); Can the company put you in touch with
others who have traveled with them and are willing to provide a
reference?; and last, but not least, does the company donate a portion
of its profits towards conservation and associated human welfare
projects in the countries they travel in? Both companies that I work
for, or co-own (Safari Professionals and World Safaris)
donate a minimum of 10 percent of their profits to assist with wildlife
and habitat conservation and associated human welfare projects and also
give travelers an opportunity to donate if they wish.
Jordan: Cultural experiences are another aspect of wildlife tourism. How does tourism impact traditional societies?
Michael: As I have training
in anthropology as well as wildlife biology, I have given a great deal
of thought to this topic. Of course, tourism can have both positive and
negative influences on traditional cultures (Swinglehurst, E. 1998. Face
to face: The effects of tourism on societies past and present. Pp.
82-97 in Theobald, W.F. (ed.) Global Tourism. Second Edition.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann). However, if it is done right, it can
provide needed financial assistance and be a learning experience for
all. I’ve had numerous unique cultural experiences myself that have had a
profound influence on me. In 2002, I traveled to Papua New Guinea with a
small group of scientists and conservationists from Conservation
International. We attended the Highlands Festival, a gathering of nearly
90 different tribes in the city of Mount Hagen and took a boat down
small tributaries of the great Sepik River where we visited several
small villages, interacted with local people, and purchased traditional
art. At one point I asked the driver of our boat, a young man from a
local village, “Do you like it that we come here?” He thought about it
for a moment and then looked at me and said, “Yes, we do” I immediately
asked, “Why?” He said, “Honestly, you’re entertainment for us. How else
would we get to meet people from Washington, D.C., London, or other
places around the world? Furthermore, you buy our art, which allows our
villages to buy things we need like generators and medicine.”
Of course, I’ve seen the bad side of tourism
as well. In the early 1990s, I traveled to Taman Negara, a national
park in northern Malaysia. One of the park rangers took us to meet the Orang Asili,
the aboriginal people of the Malay Peninsula. Upon arrival, we were
introduced to an elderly gentleman who, dressed in a simple loin cloth,
took us into the jungle to demonstrate how he hunted gibbons with a blow
gun. My companions and I felt privileged to catch a brief glimpse of
his world, so different from our own. But others were not as respectful.
Before leaving, we passed by the temporary huts the people had built
for shelter. Remarkably, there was some European graffiti on one of the
huts and candy wrappers littered the area. I had noticed that the
people’s teeth were in poor condition—no wonder with tourists giving
them sweets. As we got back into our boat at dusk and left the village,
the old man stood on the riverbank and waved goodbye. A feeling of
sadness overwhelmed me as I could tell that the Orang Asili’s way of
life was changing, and not necessarily for the better.
That being said, I have also seen remarkable
ways in which tourism has helped people to maintain their traditional
way of life in spite of the many attractions of and pressures for
modernization. In my many travels to East Africa, I have had numerous
opportunities to interact with the Maasai people.
This is primarily a herding culture and cows and donkeys are prized
possessions. Interestingly, I have had both satisfying and unsatisfying
cultural experiences with the Maasai. I visited one tourist boma in 2011
near the Ngorongoro Crater that I did not enjoy. After a quick, cursory
tour of the village, we were pressured into buying hastily-manufactured
trinkets. That highly commercialized version of the cultural experience
can be contrasted with my visit to northern Tanzania in 2014. There, we
spent a whole day with our Maasai hosts who introduced us to people and
walked us around their village, where we were able to gain a much
better understanding of Maasai daily life and culture. The people seemed
more comfortable with our presence. The experience was less
choreographed, less commercial and more of a learning experience for
both our travelers and the Maasai.
At the end of our visit, people still put
out some things for my group to consider purchasing, but my travelers
were more prepared to spend because they were not being pressured, and
in getting to know the people, they felt more inclined to help. The
Maasai are poor by Western standards and the money brought in from tourism helps them to maintain schools and seek medical care when needed.
By profiting from tourism, the Maasai can also begin to understand the
importance of keeping abundant wildlife in the areas they live,
including large predators, such as lions. In conclusion, tourism can
have both positive and negative impacts on traditional cultures, but if
done well, can be a win-win situation for both tourists and local people
and their communities. Indeed, there is a trend in responsible tourism
called community-based conservation, which is gaining in popularity. In
such cases, local communities own and manage the tourist operations on
their traditional lands, which directly link the economic benefits of
tourism to wildlife conservation and human welfare (e.g., the Maasai Wilderness Trust
is one of the most innovative and effective examples of a true
partnership between a tourism operation and traditional communities).
Jordan: One role that captive wildlife
attractions seem to serve is one of education. But opponents of zoos
and aquariums often contend that wildlife belongs in the wild and that
it is more educational for people to observe animals in a natural
setting. But is really feasible for everyone to be offered such
opportunities at an affordable cost?
Michael: This is an
excellent question. Wildlife tourism is an incredible way to experience
nature and to contribute to wildlife conservation and human welfare
worldwide, especially in developing countries. Furthermore, it offers
real, not virtual life experiences. However, it can be expensive and a
majority of people—even in the richest of countries—cannot afford to
travel to exotic locations, or may do so only once or twice in their
lifetimes. Customized trips to East Africa, for example, can cost
several thousand dollars—not something that is feasible for those
struggling to make ends meet, or who are completing their education,
buying a house, starting a family or forging a new career.
So what are the alternatives? One can
certainly watch National Geographic or other wildlife programming on TV,
but this is simply not the same as seeing the real thing. Or, you can
go to a professionally-managed zoo or aquarium. If you are near a good
one—one accredited by a regional zoo association and that maintains high
levels of professional animal care—you can observe and learn about live
animals from around the world in settings that resemble their natural
habitats. This is one of the strongest and most cogent arguments for
professionally-managed zoos and aquariums. Accredited zoos and aquariums
do provide a location where urban dwellers—perhaps those most divorced
from nature—can view wild animals in naturalistic habitats and
experience some semblance of reality in a safe and educational
environment (Hutchins, M. 2003. Zoos connect us to the natural world. Boston Globe,
2 November). Extreme animal rights activists who want to close
zoos—even the best institutions—would deprive tens of millions of people
of that experience. In fact, more people visit accredited zoos and
aquariums in the United States than all professional sporting events
combined. Furthermore, those institutions offer structured educational
experiences to millions of children conduct valuable research and
contribute more than $130 million to in situ conservation annually.
Would wildlife and people be better off if
all quality zoos and aquariums were closed tomorrow? I seriously doubt
it. It is important to point out, however, that even the best of zoos
and aquariums cannot offer the same experience as does responsible
wildlife travel. And this is why many zoos and aquariums have
established travel programs in addition to their animal exhibits and
on-site education programs. As I said in a recent interview for the
Association of Zoos and Aquarium’s member magazine Connect, “Zoo
and aquarium travel programs open a window on the world that is not
otherwise possible, even in the best of institutions. To observe
wildlife in its natural habitat and immerse oneself in other cultures is
the educational experience of a lifetime—one that greatly increases the
traveler’s appreciation of both nature and humanity” (Lewthwaite, T.
2014. Making connections: An East African adventure. Connect March: 48-50).
I am a strong proponent of having real, as
opposed to virtual, experiences in life and one cannot have such
experiences from the comfort of one’s easy chair. Having a living,
free-ranging lion staring you in the eyes in close proximity is simply
not the same as seeing one on TV or observing one in a zoo enclosure.
While you remain safely inside your safari vehicle, the chills running
up and down your spine are palpable and real. And this is precisely the
kind of intense, personal experience that can lead people to lifelong
commitments to wildlife and habitat conservation. Of course, I do not
want to undervalue the importance of seeing and understanding our own
wildlife here in North America. In the United States or Canada, you can
also have great wildlife experiences by visiting a National Wildlife
Refuge, state park or national park, where it is possible, often with
much patience, to study and photograph wildlife unique to your own
region. Places like Yellowstone or Denali National Park are classic
wildlife locations where one can still experience the primal drama and
wonder of nature. But you’re not going to see wild Galapagos tortoises,
marine iguanas, kangaroos, platypuses, quetzals, giraffes, lions,
ostriches, or poison dart frogs in their natural habitats. That requires
travel to the places in the world where these creatures exist.
I also do not want to oversell the reality
of wildlife tourism, which is highly dependent on luck and serendipity.
The behavior of free-roaming wild animals is unpredictable and one must
often be both observant and patient to maximize one’s experience in the
field. For example, visitors to wildlife areas are not going to see
lions or cheetah hunting or killing wildebeest or to be able to view and
photograph their favorite or hoped for birds on every trip. Honest tour
operators can truly guarantee little except the chance to encounter
wildlife and to get you into the right places at the right times. The
more time spent in the field, the better the chance of actually seeing
what you are looking for. In addition, a knowledgeable, experienced
driver-guide can greatly increase your chances of experiencing or
photographing the desired species or events. It is always best to not
have unrealistic expectations, but to be flexible and experience things
as they unfold.
Jordan: Can you put into perspective for
our readership, just what impact the wildlife industry has on the global
economy or for the economy of developing nations, like Kenya or
Tanzania? You have traveled to many great wildlife destinations and
currently co-own a travel company and work for another. Can you talk
about some highlights or tourism activities that may warrant special
attention for their exceedingly successful and/or sensitive conduct in
your opinion? I’m thinking of those that particularly contribute to
conservation or share a conservation ethic demonstrative of what we hope
for.
Michael: The economic
impact of wildlife tourism on premier wildlife destinations in
developing countries is substantial. In places like Kenya and Tanzania,
wildlife tourism is one of the most important sources of foreign
currency and is critical to their economic future. There is one
principle I would emphasize, however: The profits from tourism must
benefit local businesses and people if they are to provide the needed
economic incentive for wildlife and habitat conservation. Far too often,
the true beneficiaries are wealthy investors from developed countries.
The companies I co-own and/or work for, Safari Professionals and World Safaris
make a point of partnering exclusively with locally-owned companies to
provide guides and vehicles and, where possible, use camps, lodges and
hotels that are owned by and/or hire from the local communities. We also
partner with local companies who fully understand their
responsibilities towards wildlife and traditional cultures and who are
committed to following all applicable rules and regulations for tourism
that promote wildlife conservation, human welfare and dignity.
Both Safari Professionals and World Safaris
tithe 10 percent of their net profits to wildlife conservation and to
associated social welfare projects, such as supporting clean water and
education. Unfortunately, not every travel company lives by these
principles, but perhaps if more did, the beneficial impacts of
responsible wildlife tourism would be even greater. The other
organization I work for, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), is
currently experimenting with another way of directly linking tourism to
wildlife conservation. ABC
has established, with local partners, a growing number of in-country
reserves for threatened and endangered birds in Central and South
America (American Bird Conservancy 2010. The Latin American Bird Reserve Network.
The Plains, VA: ABC). Recognizing that the costs of operating these
reserves will not be sustainable without generating some form of regular
income, ABC and its partners hope to develop and promote the reserves
as responsible wildlife tourism destinations. Bird watching is big business,
generating billions of dollars of revenue in the U.S. alone, and ABC
and its partners are hoping to turn the intense interest of bird
watchers and photographers into a reliable source of income that will be
able to maintain these important habitats in perpetuity.
Jordan: What does the future hold for wildlife tourism?
Michael: That is an
extremely good question. One thing is clear: Responsible wildlife
tourism and the many jobs and local economic benefits that come with it
cannot continue to exist in the absence of effective wildlife
conservation. The
business is entirely dependent on having live animals to observe and
photograph and on maintaining the complex habitats that support them.
The business will thus survive only if wildlife survives, and there are
some big challenges ahead. In Africa, for example, there have been many
recent problems with the poaching of elephants and rhinos to fuel the
illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn for art and traditional Asian
medicine. Fueled by corruption and organized crime, these illegal acts
are literally draining the lifeblood from the economies of African
nations. Many developing countries have to choose
between short-term economic gains from mining, oil exploration and
other forms of development to address rampant poverty and unemployment.
Unfortunately, such short-term solutions typically benefit only a few,
whereas if done properly, wildlife and nature tourism can offer
long-term economic benefits to a wider range of people.
Of course, this is only possible if middle
and upper class residents of developed countries decide to spend their
money on wildlife travel. This is another challenge, as with continuing
global urbanization, fewer people are visiting national parks and
maintaining an intense interest in wildlife and nature (Louv, R. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder.
Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books). Like it or not, if international
wildlife tourism dries up, it will be easier and easier for the
pro-development forces to win the coming battles for conservation. There
are many other challenges, of course, including the looming threat of
climate change and growing human populations leading to further
development and loss of wildlife habitat, many of which have been
discussed in my previous interviews.
However, many people, especially those in the U.S., do not realize that
one of the absolutely best actions they can take for global wildlife
conservation is to engage in responsible wildlife travel and thus help
to provide local economic incentives for wildlife conservation
SOURCE: Posted by Jordan Carlton Schaul of University of Alaska; Grizzly People on July 1, 2014 National Geographic
0 comments:
Post a Comment