Undoubtedly one of the strongest arguments supporting ecotourism surrounds the industry’s effect on poaching.

Studies around the world have shown that in areas where Ecotourism plays a vital role in the economy, there is a lower rate of poaching and illegal animal harvesting activities. As with other aspects of ecotourism and environmental protection, it just logically follows that these places that rely so heavily on the environment for their sources of income would want to protect this resource.

One place that exemplifies this effect is the African continent.

Take Hoedspruit for example. This small town in the Limpopo region of South Africa is home to less than four thousand people, but hundreds of native species. Many of them, including rhinos, cheetahs, and South African Wild Dogs, are endangered and on their way to extinction. In the wake of clamour for Ecotourism opportunities and the chance to see these rare species, several travel experiences have provided the small community with not only jobs, but a sudden sense of reliance upon the natural wildlife. Previously in the area, poaching was the highest profit industry. After all, an individual rhino horn can sell for well over thirty-thousand dollars to the right buyer and other select items can rake in similar profits. Now however, individuals who were previously poachers see higher value in protecting these animals and earning steady profits from showing them off on tours and safaris. African Rhino populations in the areas have risen steadily since the Hoedspruit Endangered Species Centre first began running the area’s first ecotourism experience in the early 2000’s. The Centre’s three week long Wildlife Conservation Experience sees visitors from all over the world and throws ten percent of its profits into anti-poaching and rehabilitation efforts in order to strengthen local wildlife populations and in turn strengthen their business.

Africa isn’t the only region who have found success in stopping poaching however. In Costa Rica the Great green macaw, in Spain the Egyptian vulture, in India the hoolock gibbon, in Namibia the African penguin, in the Savanna African wild dog and cheetahs, and in Brazil golden lion tamarins have all benefited from ecotourism and the connected emotional connection locals suddenly have to the environment.

As previously discussed in situations where Ecotourism is benefiting the environment and acting as a stabilizing, positive force in the constant battle to protect mother nature, there are drawbacks and examples where ecotourism simply isn’t helping to mitigate or decrease poaching.

In Sumatra, Orangutans have been heavily endangered for decades now. Due to a mix of logging practices destroying their natural habitat and developed nations clamoring to take them out of their natural habitat in order to own an Orangutan as a pet, these beautiful creatures’ numbers have consistently been in decline. However, due to their gentle nature and the luscious jungle they call home, this species appeared to be a prime candidate for ecotourism. Unfortunately despite multiple efforts and different organizations attempting different business models, there was at best a minimal effect on the Orangutan’s population in Sumatra. Similar stories can be seen in Sea Lion populations in New Zealand where ecotourism was in fact worsening seal pup deaths and hastening the species decline.

Overall, the argument for ecotourism when it comes to aiding in lowering poaching and promoting specific species health and well being appears to be a strong one. If there is one theme to be taken away from all of this blog’s research into ecotourism, it is that this isn’t a blanket solution that works stunningly in every instance. The issue of Ecotourism and sustainability as a whole is a complex one that deserves a careful and leveled eye at every stage, but the sheer body of evidence supporting ecotourism in regards to this specific topic is to great to ignore. Especially given the fact that many scientists agree the earth is currently in a near ice-age level extinction rate, preserving whatever species society can is of the utmost importance. Ecotourism needs to be considered a viable and valuable option within this debate.

SOURCES

“A Unique Strength: How Ecotourism Can Save the Wild.” Red Panda Network, redpandanetwork.org/a-unique-strength-how-ecotourism-can-save-the-wild/.

Castley, Guy, et al. “Going on Safari? Research Shows Ecotourism Can Help Save Threatened Species.” The Conversation, 1 Apr. 2018, theconversation.com/going-on-safari-research-shows-ecotourism-can-help-save-threatened-species-54746.

“Ecotourism: What’s Stopping Us?” Global Wildlife Conservation Group, sites.utexas.edu/wildlife/2015/04/17/ecotourism-whats-stopping-us/.

Weiner, Eric. “Ecotourism: Can It Protect the Planet?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 May 1991, www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/travel/ecotourism-can-it-protect-the-planet.html.

Ecotourism is a term originally created in the 1960’s to describe the burgeoning industry where travelers were shown natural wonders in order to inspire environmental awareness upon their return home. Borneo, Costa Rica, and the Galapagos have all come to economically rely upon the hordes of tourists who travel to their shores in search of mother nature’s greatest treasures. Logically, this industry that didn’t even exist a century ago has inspired many debates surrounding its effectiveness, its damages, and its future. Ultimately, society has come to ask, “is Ecotourism sustainable?”

Those who support its use ultimately believe that ecotourism fulfills its original intention. Individuals in favor of the industry’s continuation site stories such as the Tatshenshini River where the outcries of Eco-tourists prevented the introduction of an open-pit copper mine that would’ve destroyed not only the tourists’ site but more importantly the natural ecosystem. According to a study done by the International Ecotourism Society, “More than three-quarters of United States travelers feel that ‘it is important their visits not damage the environment” (Macalester College Environmental Studies Department). Proponents of Ecotourism then logically argue that this new awareness within tourists is pushing them to be more environmentally friendly within their everyday lives; not just their vacation time. Additionally, Ecotourism is a huge boost to economies that may otherwise be in dire times. These communities often base most of their revenue off of tourist’s money and entire communities have grown to heights previously blocked to them because of this industry.=

Alternatively, many call for the reduction in Ecotourism because of its negative impact upon the environment which it claims to promote. The sheer volume of individuals that Ecotourism draws in puts such a strain upon the environment that the supposed benefits can’t neutralize. Trails in forests become downtrodden from thousands of feet crashing through the underbrush and coral reefs are destroyed by hands touching despite warnings not to. Ultimately, even though visitors to these wonders of mother nature may be more “green-minded,” their effect on the environment isn’t magically erased. Additionally, ecotourism is extremely damaging to native populations and cultures. As seen in Nepal, cultural items have been appropriated, native shrines have been desecrated, and the people who have lived in this Ecotourism haven are being run out of their homes by capital hungry companies that see the thousands flooding in to bask in nature’s wonder as dollar signs to be cashed in. This also plays out in how native population’s development is treated. As Jim Butcher of Canterbury Christ Church University puts it, “ecotourism’s focus on preserving “nature” damages local people’s ability to develop sustainably and lift themselves out of poverty. The environment is effectively prioritized above the needs of local people” (Kennedy Rita). By hurting those who came before Ecotourism, the industry once again appears to be helping others when in reality it is merely perpetuating its own profit.

The debate between these two sides is heated and, more often than not, unproductive. Ultimately though, once one considers both sides, it is evident that ecotourism simply just isn’t sustainable in its current form. The benefits from Ecotourism simply aren’t quantifiable or evident enough to justify all of the environmental detractions. Given the fact that the main argument for ecotourism is its supposed proliferation of environmental awareness is defunct, there must be severe changes made to the Ecotourism model if it is to be treated as a legitimate part of environmentalism.

In reality, Ecotourism serves as an avenue for passivity in sustainability. Patrons of rainforests or national parks can feel that their money and their “new found perspective” is them playing enough of a role to affect climate change and the dangerous pathway our planet is heading down. Ecotourism lulls people into a false sense of activism and a false sense of progress. Especially given the reality of Ecotourism’s tax on the environment, allowing millions to think that they’re helping when all they’re doing is hurting is unacceptable and simply not sustainable if real change is to be achieved for environmentalism.

Given its popularity however, it is illogical to ask places that have become economically dependent upon this industry to suddenly drop Ecotourism all together. Logically then, the question follows: “How do we make Ecotourism sustainable?” There is no definitive answer, but many solutions may lie in governmental regulation of Ecotourism, additional charges to enter certain locations, or more environmentally minded education in Ecotourism locations. As with all issues of sustainability, the decision needs to be made soon and decisively if the effects are to be mitigated.

SOURCES

“Top 10 Ecotourism Destinations.” Shermans Travel, www.shermanstravel.com/advice/top-10-ecotourism-destinations.

Macalester College Environmental Studies Department, www.macalester.edu/academics/environmentalstudies/students/projects/citizenscience2008/effectsofecotourism/effects.html#_ftnref2.

“Ecotourism social & environmental effects.” Lapa Rios, www.laparios.com/social_enviroment/.

Kennedy, Rita, and Leaf Group. “Positive & Negative Effects of Ecotourism.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, traveltips.usatoday.com/positive-negative-effects-ecotourism-63682.html.

Naryan, Sujata. Below the Surface: the Impacts of Ecotourism in Costa Rica. University of Michigan, www.umich.edu/~csfound/545/1998/narayans/chap07.htm.

The images of NFL players, coaches, and even fans, taking a knee have been splayed across every newspaper, homepage, and TV screen. They do so to stand up for the Black Lives Matter Movement and protest against racism in America. The reaction to these small dissents have been mixed on all regards, but one thing is for sure: everyone has an opinion. Unfortunately, despite there being such a strong emotional response, there isn’t any actual catalytic strength with the movement. In a week or two, the hashtag will fade and the discussion around the topic will too. The movements Kairos, the very thing that allowed this recent show of support to be so pervasive, is also the exact reason this surge of opinion will soon fade.

Kairos is an opportune moment. It is a situation that allows for an argument to be relevant to its viewer. “Social activism” like the viral Ice Bucket Challenge for MLS or the NFL taking a knee this past week relies heavily on Kairos. Social activism prays on a perfect storm that invades every media outlet and for a brief amount of time, all one can discuss is the stand being taken by seemingly everyone.

Kairos on its own however cannot allow an argument to stand and because the very nature of Kairos requires it to be a very specific situation that only lasts a short amount of time. It is but a fleeting thing. Think about the last time you saw someone wearing an I <3 Boobies bracelet or someone with a Stop Kony button. Both the issues of breast cancer and child soldiers in sub-Saharan Africa still exist but the Kairos for their movements doesn’t exist to the non-affected public.

Social activism doesn’t have another foot to fall back on as its participation is often very simple and not deeply thought out. Social activism needs stronger elements if it wants to ever actually enact the change it calls for.

So yes, the NFL may have taken a stand by taking a knee but as soon as this iteration of popular activism blows over, the effects of police violence and racism towards black men and women will still exist. Colin Kaepernick, the very first NFL player to take a knee in support of BLM, is still jobless because of the negative press surrounding his protest. Without more effective measures and a more sustainable exigence, any cause supported by social activism, is doomed to be as relegated to the trash pile as Colin Kaepernick is.

The United States is a nation not unfamiliar with tragedy and through the fall of The Twin Towers, school shootings, bombings, and all the other horrors we’ve seen since the turn of the century, there has emerged a standard response. We look at our worst nightmares come to life and then we look to our leaders and expect them to tell us how these demons will only make our nation stronger.

On August 12^th, President Donald J. Trump failed miserably at this very endeavor.

At an unrelated event, Trump had this poignant moment in the wake of the events in Charlottesville where the world sat back and expected to hear the usual speech about tragedy and its community building side effects, but Trump took a dangerous misstep that ultimately sealed his demise. Past speeches from President Bush and President Obama had always been definitive. Their words created a line in the sand that separated Americans from the heretics that either committed or were complicit with the tragedy. We all expect it and even though many of us logically know of the words’ hollowness, we are still comforted by having them thrown into our social ether.

Analyzing Trump’s comments on the 12^th, it is obvious that in the statement written for him, all the hallmarks that the nation wanted were there. He authoritatively calls for unity in this time of divisiveness and he denounces those who preach hate and act upon prejudice. The only problem lies in the addition of the phrase “on all sides” when speaking towards that hate and prejudice. This disruption left us without our usual delineation and team mentality and heavily tarnished Trump’s ethos.

When discussing Trump, it’s inaccurate to say that his credibility is ever destroyed. His fan base and even the detested media love to offer him chances for redemption at every opportunity. Unfortunately for Trump, the fallout from his comments on Charlottesville will be much harder for him to overcome because at such a moment of Kairos, his misstep reverberated around the world.

The fact that he did have the basics of social convention makes the mistake an even more ironic one. The phrase that caused him so much trouble awkwardly juts from the more formal and organized content of what can be assumed to be his provided statement. It’s not a new thing for Donald Trump to go off on a tangent and get burned for it. If the man could just simply read, it is inarguable that the media would’ve passed this off as another day, another tragedy.

Looking forward, we can already asses that this will happen again. As seen in the August 22^nd speech in Arizona, Donald Trump claimed innocence without every actually repenting for his spontaneous addition. He merely blamed the media for misinterpreting him and was able to get back to his cheering fans.

Love him or hate him, after analyzing the original statement, the media reaction, and his words, it’s obvious Donald Trump is going to be a president who sets his own standards.