The scientifically esteemed Natalie Portman (at least by Jake) led a troupe of celebs in a baby gorilla naming ceremony/fundraiser at Rwanda's Volcanoes National Park the other day, trying to raise awareness to both the conservation of the critically endangered primates and Rwanda's attempts to attract ecotourists. This part of the article caught my eye:
Speaking at the ceremony, Rwandan President Paul Kagame called for strict measures to ensure the protection of mountain gorillas.
But with park entrance fees at 500 dollars, gorilla-watching by high-end foreign tourists is also a key source of revenue, and Rwandan officials also advocated the development of the region's tourism capabilities.
Five-hundred bucks? High cost attracts wealthy westerners who are more likely to financially support conservation and local business.
You do get a tour for you money, but the gorillas are extremely demanding:
- To minimize possible transmission of human diseases, visitors are asked to maintain a distance of 7m (about 22 feet) from the gorillas. If you are sick with a cold, flu or other contagious illness, please do not visit the gorillas.
- Viewing time is limited to one hour.
- Maximum 8 visitors per group.
- Spitting in the park is strictly prohibited.
- Should you need to cough, cover your mouth and turn away from the gorillas.
- When with the gorillas, keep your voice low.
- Try not to make rapid movements that may frighten the gorillas.
- If a gorilla should charge or vocalize at you, do not be alarmed, stand still, look away from the gorilla and follow your guide's directions.
- Do not litter.
The gorillas will also need large baskets of fresh organic fruits and vegetables (no celery or turnips please) placed at the following locations - backstage, in each dressing room, and in the bathrooms. Starched jungle print linens will be set under each basket. The toilet paper provided will be no less than six ply. Please, no filming photos of the gorillas without Sony's permission and a 50 dollar fee. Servers will be referred to by a singular grunt.
Damn gorillas. Who do they think they are, Elton John?
All joking aside, this sort of program is a great model for countries that have natural areas and endemic critters that people want to see. As E.O. Wilson and others have been saying, ecotourism will encourage local governments to take measures to protect unique populations of animals and plants while, in theory, making a profit from the influx of potential consumers. If the profits from ecotourism could trump profits from turning forests into farmland or stripmines, it would lessen the pressure felt by NGOs to step in and lobby in these countries.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
thanks you admin.
This reminds me of what Aldo Leopold wrote in his essay "Marshland Elegy";
"But all conservation of wilderness is self-defeating, for to cherish we must see and fondle, and when enough have seen and fondled, there is no wilderness left to cherish."
Not that I'm saying we should discontinue all eco-tourism, but I do worry about the way we change/transform wilderness in order to save it, essentially making outdoor zoos. It's still better than strip mining and turning it all into farmland, but I do have to wonder about the long term effects of eco-tourism on wildlife and wild areas. I just read A Primate's Memoir and the baboon troop that Sapolsky was studying was ravaged by a strain of bovine tuberculosis that originated from tainted meat left out in the dump at the nearest lodge, and quite a famous and well-reputed lodge at that.
Why spiders SHOULD be considered "insects". Or at least a sub-category of insects. Exo-skeleton. Multiple legs. Creepy crawly. And if it quacks like a duck, people. So for some stuffy scientists, biologists, zoologists, paleantolgists, etc, to come up with artificial nit-picky labelings and distinctions, to make spiders a totally different species, like "arachnids", is silly. Why can't "aranchids" simply be considered a TYPE of "insect"??? (As well as scorpions, or dust mites, or whatever else.) The average person (and even insect and animal lover) doesn't generally in practical purposes separate spiders from the category of "bugs" or "insects". Why?? Cuz even though there ARE SOME basic differences here and there (like 8 legs instead of 6, two body segments instead of three, and claw jaw munching distinctions, whatever blah blah, those are just hair-splitting differences in the overall picture of it. Cuz again, just who came up with these uptight definitions of these things in the first place. When you see a spider in your bathtub (and I like spiders, by the way), you automatically think "bug" or "insect" or "creepy crawly" not "aracnid". So let's lose the silliness already on this subject. (By the way, "evolve" is presumed as fact, without sound solid basis for it, though 80% of scientists dogmatically insist differently. No real evidence. Gaps are still gappish. Just a side point and another topic.)