PERSPECTIVES
Talking for a moment as a research ecologist with a passionate
interest in conservation biology, I am very concerned about
human influences on wildlife and their habitats. This includes
any negative impacts caused by tourism, including wildlife tourism,
and I have co-authored a lengthy report for the CRC for Sustainable
Tourism on the negative effects of wildlife tourism on wildlife.
Having said that, I have also been a co-author of a report on
the positive effects, and believe there are enough of these
to justify promoting responsible wildlife tourism around the
world, as long as we can minimize the negative effects.
Talking again as a tour operator, I really want to know what
effect we have on the wildlife. Are our activities gradually
affecting the wildlife in ways that will either improve visitor
experience or might they ultimately destroy the very things
we are trying to show them? Are the animals going to start avoiding
the areas we use? Are they going to behave less naturally? Are
we likely to cause, however gradually, any changes to their
habitat? What if a lot of other tour companies start doing the
same kinds of things in the same places? How are these effects
going to be compounded? If those other tour companies, my competitors,
are not required to minimize their impacts, might they in the
short-term give their guests more exciting experiences but in
the long term spoil the wildness of the area, the naturalness
of the experience and the probability of seeing a diversity
of wildlife?
I'm also concerned that conservation-minded people - including
many potential customers - look at wildlife tourism simply as
exploitation for capital gain, and are very cynical about the
term "ecotourism." There are certainly enough examples of ignorance
and bad practice to justify some of these attitudes, but we
are not going to correct this situation by pretending there
are no negative effects. Instead, as an industry we must be
able to show the world that we do very seriously keep up to
date with all possible problems and try to avoid them.
Often this is easy enough. There are many excellent opportunities
for giving our guests marvelous wildlife experiences without
apparently affecting the animals in any way. The grand finale
for my own 3-day wildlife tour is watching 500,000 large fruitbats
taking to the skies at dusk, the main crowd taking about 20
minutes to pour past us, often coming quite close, and our guests
often making such comments as "wow, this is like being in a
Gothic movie" or "um ... you don't have vampires in Australia
do you?" The colony has been here for many years and not only
watched by people standing here for many years but been the
object of strenuous but unsuccessful efforts of some local residents
to deter them from roosting so close to their homes by cracking
whips and such like. I very much doubt that our small, quiet
group is having any kind of impact.
At other times, there is some conflict between what guests
want to do and what seems best for the animal. I've only had
one who wanted to wrestle a koala when we saw one walking along
the road - a guest from San
Diego who was a great fan of the Crocodile Hunter and apparently
wanted to practice with something a bit smaller. That sort of
request is easily enough dealt with. Many others can be handled
by good interpretation.
But what about guests who want to get close to a nervous animal
for a better look, a good photo, or just a feeling of "closeness"
to a wild creature. Or those who earnestly, desperately want
a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take a flashlight photo
of a nocturnal creature? What about those happy souls who just
can't seem to realize they are talking loudly or whistling?
We do know quite a lot nowadays about impacts of wildlife
tourism on wildlife: the paper on negative effects that I co-authored
with Karen Higginbottom was the result of two years of literature
research and interviews. However there is much that we don't
know, and some very strong and highly polarized opinions that
sometimes appear to be based more on philosophical viewpoints
than on any study or observations on actual effects on either
individual animals or populations.
There are many issues, but I'll just briefly mention three,
and then go on to how we as operators might cooperate to form
a nationwide database of information on how to research and
implement ways of minimising effects.
Two issues that are important not because they might have
the greatest effect but because they are activities very commonly
indulged in during wildlife tourism are spotlighting and hand-feeding.
HAND FEEDING
The whole question of hand-feeding is highly emotive, with extreme
views fervently supported in each direction but very little information
on effects other than some rather obvious problem cases, such
as animals that become too bold and aggressive, or overpopulating
at the expense of others. Many tour operators are faced with a
situation where they know there is plenty of wildlife but can
never be sure they will find any when taking their guests on tour.
They can explain to their guests that they are seeking animals
in the wild, not visiting a zoo, but there is still an uncomfortable
feeling that their guests will be less than satisfied (and will
not recommend their tours) if they do not encounter particular
anticipated species. Live-trapping animals or restricting their
movements by fences would often be illegal, and also fail to give
guests the feeling of seeing animals in the wild. It is tempting
instead to provide feed at regular interval which increase the
possibility of the animals' presence. And some guests of course
are utterly delighted at the prospect of physical contact with
a wild creature.
I never allow hand feeding in a National Park or other wilderness
area, and always explain to our guests why this is so. But what
about less natural situations, such as farm homesteads or picnic
areas in highly altered habitats? If we adopt the totally purist
approach and tell everyone (as some interpreters do) how selfish
and wrong it is of them to want to feed the animals, do we needlessly
upset some very nice people who get a lot of pleasure out of
close contact in relatively harmless situations? Can the kind
of "bonding" some tourists feel when feeding animals strengthen
their conservation interest in the future? These are difficult
things to test: but what we can test is some of the effects
the hand-feeding might have on the animals, so that if we think
there is an important positive effect we can weigh this against
the degree of negative effect it might have. Effects are likely
to differ widely from species to species and in different kinds
of situation -
SPOTLIGHTING
The effects of spotlighting have not been studied in detail for
many species. Robyn Wilson of Townsville has found three species
of possum to not care what colour is used as filters on spotlights,
as long as the light intensity was decreased, and that the sound
of quiet adult voices and passing cars don't worry them as much
as the crunching of gravel. This is useful information. But can
we generalize these findings to other animals? To koalas? To owls
and frogmouths? To leaf-tailed geckos? Frogs? Even to other possum
species? What about fish, spiders, scorpions ....? What bothers
each of them? How much does it matter? (that is, are they just
disturbed for a minute or two, or do they avoid the area for the
rest of the week?)
We know that nocturnal animals will behave more naturally
if light intensity is lowered and that there are various ways
of doing this - for instance using filters or nightscopes or
infra-red videos, or simply tilting the spotlight so that the
animal is in the periphery of the light rather than receiving
the full-on glare. Ray Ashton has evidence that some animals
will change behaviour if spotlighting is more frequent than
once every three nights.
WHAT WE DON'T SEE
Another aspect that concerns me is the effect of wildlife tourism
activities, and of ecotourism and nature-based activities generally,
is what we do to the animals we never know about. Numbats are
known to take cover under logs when they detect approaching footsteps,
but the walker may never know there were numbats around, precisely
because they have taken cover. How often does this happen with
bandicoots or antechinus while we're out there looking for owls
and koalas? How often with button-quails or other shy ground-foraging
and low-nesting birds while we're leading people past their favoured
sites, perhaps on a daily basis? The lizards we see while walking
might get over a disturbance quite rapidly - what about the ones
we didn't see?
We make promises for accreditation that we will not do activities
that will unduly disturb wildlife, but these do not always translate
easily into actual distances for each species, or indications
that an animal is being affected.
There's already quite a lot that we know. Melissa Geise's
work on penguins has shown very nicely how best to approach
penguins, and the signs that they are getting disturbed and
ready to stand up, exposing their eggs to cold air. We know
that when a kangaroo stands bolt upright, staring at you with
ears pricked towards you, she will probably bolt if you don't
back off and will certainly do so if you come any closer. We
know that crocodiles and alligators will desert their nests,
exposing eggs to predators, if tour boats come too close. We
know that waterbirds prefer canoes to motor boats (hardly surprising).
I could go on for the next hour - there is a lot of other information
in the CRC report on "Negative Effects of Wildlife Tourism on
Wildlife."
There is also a lot of other information out there, gathered
by tour operators, national park rangers, ecologists and amateur
naturalists which, while perhaps not yet suitable for publication
in a scientific journal, would be very valuable for others to
share and discuss. Perhaps in collating information we might
find conflicting observations. We could discuss these and try
to determine why we might see different effects in different
situations.
NETWORKING
What I'm now setting up is a network of tour operators and other
nature interpreters to share information on effects of wildlife
tourism on wildlife and their habitats. As tour operators we might
not wish to share all our secrets with potential competitors,
but on the topic of not disturbing the wildlife we really should
be cooperating. It is the right thing to do environmentally -
and if not interested in doing the right thing environmentally
we should not be claiming to be part of ecotourism. It is also
the ethical thing to do as an industry, as well as making good
practical sense. We surely do not wish to disturb the animals
we might need to see again, and each tour operator should each
be responsible enough not to knowingly spoil the chance of others.
So one thing we can do is to gather all the information we
can on the effects of what we do, and share it. The database
I have set up includes for each record contributed:
|
