A Hunting and Fishing Eco-Tourism Debate
There is an interesting article in the Vancouver Sun that discusses a debate that exists in determining if hunting, fishing, and trapping could be considered eco-tourism.
I guess the fact that all three of these activities existed long before cameras and tour buses hit the wilderness was quickly forgotten. The fact that many of the animal species the tourists are watching have increased in numbers due to the management and funding of anglers and hunters has also been missed.
I guess I don’t really care if hunting, fishing and trapping are considered eco-tourism. They are effective wildlife management tools that have been scientifically used for decades. I don’t want to be associated with the large groups of people in huge buses or ‘people movers’ that bust through the wilderness for a benign photo-shop animal experience.
The article includes many opinions on the topic. This is good. What bothers me is that I get the sense (from many of the viewpoints mentioned) that these activities could be considered eco-tourism if they are done sustainably. One person in the article says that,
“It certainly is an ecotourist activity. Trophy hunting is not part of ecotourism, nor is killing endangered creatures, dynamiting fish, off-season hunting, racing after wildlife in a truck or using machine-guns.
Obviously, I agree with that statement as he is describing poachers and NOT hunters, trappers or anglers. Poaching has always been illegal.
What stinks is that it had to be said that way.
Hunting, fishing, and trapping are sustainable. They always have been.
Anglers, hunters and trappers do what they do in an effort to keep these natural resources sustainable. I would like to remind our visitors that any animal that is hunted, fished, or trapped is part of a scientific wildlife management plan. Animal and fish meat can not be wasted or left to rot. THIS WOULD BE ILLEGAL. If we happen to shoot a ‘trophy buck’ or ‘trophy bear’ or catch a ‘monster fish’ we do so knowing that big or small the animal or fish we have killed is part of the management plan.
I don’t buy into trophy hunting or fishing for that reason. You just can’t go up North and shoot a polar bear for your wall – unless you have a license for that bear. You can bet that the bear is part of a bigger number of bears that biologists have indicated can be killed for sustainability reasons. It is also a sure bet that the animal is NOT left to rot and waste while the hunter makes a quick getaway on his private chopper. A picture anti-hunters would love to paint.
That would be illegal.
I am wondering if I agree with what another person said about the debate. The article states that,
“Hunting tourism and ecotourism are two different market segments of the tourism pie and should not be confused with each other.”
I can buy into that.
What do you think. Take a moment and read the article. I would be interested to hear what you think by commenting below.
That’s mostly where I was going with it. If hunting trips get classified as ecotourism and it makes some people who might have been apathetic supporters become more supportive, I think that’s a good thing.
Arthur – I am still tending to agree with you. They are different. Although, to Kristine’s point, it could bring some more good attention to hunting/fishing/trapping. Thanks for commenting.
Well I commented over on Kristine’s site about this already and at that point really didn’t have an opinion.
I think after reading the article though that this would just be a way to sugarcoat the terms hunting and fishing. Maybe I’m old school, but to change an activities name that has been a part of man and history forever just seems silly to me.
I think I definitely agree with the statement that hunting tourism and ecotourism are two different things!
I agree with you that the one sentence you cited about trophy hunting etc. That kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Besides that though, I think the article was interesting. Classifying hunting and fishing as eco-tourist activities could have some benefits. It may well help spotlight how people who hunt and fish help conserve and manage animal populations. I don’t think that would be a bad thing.
Very interesting article and debate.