Bemused Backpacker
I would just like to thank Ethan for hosting the Google hangout a few days ago. It was my first time in a hangout and I was a little nervous, but I think it was a great debate where everyone got to put their points across. Saying that, we could have carried on debating all night and there was never going to be enough time to respond to all of the points raised. In that light I have written a post that responded to just some of the points made by Rick Calvert in particular here http://bemusedbackpacker.com/2014/08/01/wildlife-tourism-ethics-and-practices-debate-a-response-to-tbex/ as I still think a lot of his arguments still don't stand up.
As part of the hangout a lot of questions were also asked that we didn't all get chance to answer on the night. I have been given two specifically that I think I can answer, I apologize in advance as I don't know who they are from, but I hope you get to see the answers anyway.
The first question was 1 -- Although it's stated that TBEX does not pick sides, I'm pretty sure that there's a line somewhere, and SOME tours would be avoided for ethical reasons. Where exactly is the line? When is something accepted or "mainstream" enough?
Frankly I think that TBEX are picking sides, regardless of what they say. They are choosing to support and promote these unethical practices and are actively arguing for that. Some of the responses from Rick Calvert on my original article and on Matt Kepnes' site will tell you quite clearly which side TBEX is on. You are absolutely right though, there IS absolutely a line. The problem is that line is defined by tourism and travel industry and profit. If enough of the industry supported a change, then change would happen. Despite the fact that this specific issue is seen as highly controversial and many industry leaders such as STA travel etc are moving away from them, the fact is many still see a profit in it and are not. Since the DMO's are in Cancun, and dolphin tours are a big part of the package tour industry there, there is no way TBEX will take a stand or speak up against that. 2 -- It is being talked about ethics by the defendants of animal rights in this discussion as if they had the "right" ethic and those who believe in the practice of captivity have the "wrong" ethic. Isn't this a subjective matter such as religious fanatics?
Absolutely not. I take the point that the paradigm of whether exploitation and abuse of wildlife in the tourist industry can technically be seen as either right or wrong. I have no doubt that some people agree with animal exploitation just as some disagree with it. In that respect yes, it is subjective just as any opinion is. Some think war is never right, others believe war is necessary, some believe the sex trade is evil, others are actively involved in it. There will always be differing ideologies and paradigms on any topic.
This specific issue however has the weight of decades of research, academic and scientific opinion and data, expert and professional opinions all weighing in favour of it being absolutely wrong. Yes some people disagree, some may not care, but on the whole those who are saying that the ethics of stopping animal abuse and exploitation is 'right' and by default those who support it are wrong, are backed up by much, much more than just opinion. This brings it above the mere level of subjective matter.
Remember, there was once a time when the majority felt that slavery was right and dissenting opinion was just subjective. There was once a time when abuse and rape within cultural/marriage boundaries was seen as acceptable. People who disagreed only had subjective opinions.
Subjective opinion, backed up by fact, research and evidence becomes much more than that, and eventually the prevailing paradigm CAN be changed for the better.
MAJOR UPDATE: Given that Cancun's tourism board has now pulled all dolphin tours from TBEXs line up, I think it's safe to say that the boycott has been a big success so far and is certainly an important part of the answer! Look here for my response!
Well I'm guessing anyone who has read the article pretty much knows my feelings on solo travel!
Don't get me wrong, I do travel with others too, and it is a great way to travel! But I think that solo travel is so amazing and should definitely be tried by everyone at least once. The benefits are just far too amazing to pass up, especially when you are younger, say late teens or early twenties and are still pretty much trying to figure out who you are! Those periods of forced self discipline, self reliance and self reflection can be truly life changing.
And another point, there really is NO difference between a woman travelling alone than a man travelling alone. I wish people would stop reinforcing that negative aspect of solo travel. Yes there are practical differences and considerations both genders have to consider that the other doesn't, that's normal, but it doesn't in any way mean that one gender can't travel and the other can, it doesn't mean that one gender is in more danger than the other based solely on their anatomy.
Thank you! :) Glad you liked the article.
I think personally the cons of solo travel are all BEFORE people start travelling, the nerves, the worry, the anticipation, they all disappear quickly when you are on the road and find you had nothing to worry about!
I think the sharing economy has evolved into something now which almost defies any clear or easy definition and certainly no longer fits any traditional paradigm of collaborative consumption. The term has certainly been hijacked by purely for profit businesses that use it almost as a marketing gimmick, but there are also many examples within the travel industry that don't use the term but could easily come under the definition umbrella. Homestays where locals rent out a room to a traveller and give a great local perspective for relatively little in return can be counted. Travel bloggers do it all the time too, sharing each others work, offering promotion for services... the list is extensive. Very few of these however are part of an 'official' economy or widely touted as such.
In recent years (certainly exponentially so over the last decade) the growth in social media has to be one of the single most important factors not only in the growth of the sharing economy (whatever that is) but the wholesale paradigm shift in the tourism industry as a whole that the traditional travel industry just will not cut it in todays demanding society.
Matthew I think you've hit the nail on the head!
I don't think we can be more specific precisely because it is such a broad area. As a travel writer and blogger I use a wide variety of platforms dependent on need. Some DMOs require instagram or predominantly image based platforms to share content and promote their needs, other campaigns require a fast paced approach on twitter, etc. Not to mention the newer platforms starting to emerge.
As a business trying to promote it or as a traveller trying to find a good one? Because they can be very different beasts.
On similar lines as the excellent points made above I agree a lot of it comes down to money and where that money ends up. When using homestays in the past as a backpacker my money went straight into the pocket of the local who was hosting me, not (by comparison) to the profits of larger brand hotels or corporations - very little of which often goes to the local population or area. As a traveller that meant something to me alongside the other cultural and personal benefits (again many have already been mentioned) provided by small, local homestays.
In my opinion it is absolutely here to stay. Much of the 'established' sharing economy as it stands now has only become so on the heels of what travellers have been doing for a long time, and there is no reason that trend will stop.
It will evolve certainly; travellers will continue to push boundaries and discover new ways of travelling, new ways of sharing, new ways of experiencing the world, and I have no doubt the travel industry will eventually accept homestays and other aspects of the sharing economy as they become more established over time and regulations are established to help regulate it to their standards (ironically missing a lot of the point in the process). There will certainly be more widespread abuse and misunderstanding of the term 'authentic experience' within the established travel industries.
But either way, it is here to stay in one form or another.
@eurapart Thanks John, very insightful. I think you are absolutely right, the working conditions play a massive role too. But I think it is predominantly a societal paradigm we have that we always need to work harder, longer, as if taking time off is a bad thing. We need a paradigm shift on that as well as making workplaces a much better place to work in, and you are totally right the ability to work flexibly around our lifestyle is a massive part of that. Thanks for the comment btw I appreciate it. :)
I'm not a parent either, (thankfully) but I do agree a lot with Matt Barker.
There is an industry wise fix where they do shamelessly hike the prices at peak periods. They use 'competition' and 'supply and demand' as an excuse but that to me is just that, an excuse. And it is wrong!
When the fines that these schools dole out at their own discretion are still cheaper than the premium prices at peak times, you know something is wrong there, and it is hardly a surprise when parents choose to take their kids away anyway.
Travel has a LOT to offer young minds, and it should be an integral part of a childs upbringing. Almost criminalising parents for wanting to give their child a travel experience is wrong.
But again, Matt is right. There IS a middle ground. A 2 week package hol to sit by the pool in Benidorm is not educational, but if a parent wanted to take their child travelling independently through Egypt to visit museums and historical sites, or to Malaysia to learn about the wildlife and ecosystems on a responsible travel trip, then those are absolutely valid and there should be some negotiation with schools (who one can argue isn't always giving any educational experience in those two weeks anyway!)
@hitriddle Thanks, you're totally right and is a big part of the greenwashing problem.
@goodnewsmuse I don't disagree with you at all Ellen, in fact I think they are one and the same. Whether you choose to travel with your free time or enjoy some other pursuit, it is all about getting a healthy, holistic work/life balance. John above made an excellent point that it was also about making the work environment itself relaxing and a nice place to be. At the moment employers are failing on both of those counts just as much as they are failing on allowing us flexible and useful annual leave.
@Unboundly I agree it won't apply to all sectors equally. I'm a nurse for example and there would be a need to balance a no policy policy with the fact that A&E and wards need to be staffed 24/7, but in this circumstance (or any other public service, teaching, policing etc) where some constraints are necessary, there is still room I think to incorporate a more relaxed position on annual leave and certainly more room to incorporate a better paradigm on work life balance. I have had a manager for example (in the nursing profession) who expected staff to work night shifts and days in the same week, early shifts late shifts and long days mixed together, days off were split up and he wasn't competent enough to give a rota more than a week in advance. Annual leave was given on a crony basis with certain people (including himself) being allowed to cherry pick, but refusing everyone else date after date, not 'allowing' anyone to have more than a week at a time (he was an exception of course) etc etc etc. I tell you this not to moan, but to highlight and give an example of how bad things are. That paradigm and awful management just led to every good member of qualified staff leaving (including me), and myself giving a very rude response when he implemented these policies (which I told him in no uncertain terms I had no intention of following, I was telling him when I was having my holidays, not the other way round). But this seems to be the normal paradigm, and it is part of the reason that nursing has such a high burnout rate and low retention rate. It's certainly a fact that unhappy and unhealthy employees couldn't care less about their jobs and leave, or stay and maintain low productivity.
Imagine what it would be like if it was the opposite way? If employers looked after employees, treated them well and empowered them to live a good life with a strong work life balance?
I have a dream ... haha!
@goodnewsmuse Absolutely agree with that too. There needs to be changes on both sides.
It is, yes. But not on a wide scale yet. That's the bottom line.
There have been HUGE strides forward in the last couple of years alone. Education and awareness has increased, many travellers and tourists have changed behaviours toward wildlife exploitation practices because of increased awareness, and even some providers have begun to see the light by removing elephant treks or other unethical wildlife activities from their itins.
Travellers ARE being influenced in a positive way.
The problem is this is far from the norm. YET.
The travel industry is huge, and the gap year industry with its associated adventure travel and 'eco' travel greenwashing tags are booming, more now than they ever have. With that comes a growing tidal wave of tourists eager for these wildlife experiences they have seen in the glossy brochures, eager to emulate the 'once in a lifetime' bucket list mentality they see in the mass media. They want to ride elephants, they want to swim with dolphins.
So because of this it may seem like awareness campaigns and education isn't working.
It is, but it is struggling under the weight of the sheer number of uneducated tourists and travellers.
@thetravelword There are TONS of signs to take hope!
The demands may SEEM as high as ever but I think that is simply because there are more tourists than ever before (the gap year industry and adventure travel and eco travel industries are booming).
But look at what IS happening.
Many providers such as Intrepid, STA etc are reacting to this growing demand for ethical travel and are removing things like elephant trekking from their itineraries.
Seaworld has seen profits plummet (by somewhere around the 85% mark if memory serves but I would have to check that) because people are coming round to the idea that captive whale/dolphin shows etc are wrong.
Mass awareness campaigns ARE having a huge effect, the number of bloggers writing about ethical wildlife tourism is growing, as are their audiences. I myself have had countless emails/messages stating that they had no idea about the effect their actions were having on the wildlife/habitats and they would change their behaviours or at least do more research as a result.
The elephant nature park in Chiang Mai has become almost synonymous with ethical elephant tourism practices, and has boomed in popularity over the last couple of years, and as a result the awareness about elephant riding amongst tourists and travellers IS growing, and more and more ethical camps/sanctuaries/etc are popping up because people are seeing that is where the money is, that they can make as much if not more profit from running ethical and responsible camps.
All these examples and more show that there ARE signs to take hope.
There is still a huge uphill battle, and that hill is getting longer and steeper every day as the wildlife tourism industry continues to grow. BUT ethical and responsible awareness campaigns ARE making an impact and we all need to keep it up.
@hitriddle Yes I think it can. Intrepid (and others who have/are changing their policies such as STA) were a huge part of the problem because as much as many were trying to inform and increase awareness of the issues involved, these industry providers were shoving big glossy brochures of happy people riding elephants or swimming with dolphins into ill informed tourists faces and selling them a dream 'once in a lifetime experience', regardless of the harm it cause and often in full knowledge that these tourists were not making fully informed decisions.
Supply does fuel demand sometimes. If you offer a package, uninformed people WILL take it up.
Now these industry providers are offering an alternative and explaining why. And that is essential.
As much as awareness campaigns/bloggers etc can reach huge audiences, these industry providers are still the first point of contact for many package tourists/uninformed travellers. And if they see these providers are offering unethical activities, they will have no other frame of reference to know it is wrong or understand the issues involved.
That is why I have always argued that providers also have an absolute responsibility to hold themselves to a high standard and offer ethical tours and shun unethical practices, because they are the first point of contact, people do follow their lead and take what is in front of them at face value. If it is in the brochure it must be okay, right?
But now that some (by no means all) providers are giving them an alternative and just as importantly saying WHY, people who have not yet been reached by other awareness campaigns will not get the opportunity to make the unethical decision with that company (which will decrease demand for the unethical wildlife industry by a little straight off), and it will on the whole make these travellers and tourists question why, hopefully look into the issues more and make a more fully informed decision elsewhere too.
@nicolabeynon Completely agree, I have been campaigning for the same thing myself for the past couple of years.
@hitriddle You are right Matt, I get the exact same comments from people to my site all the time. How do I see the longnecks? How can I cuddle a tiger? I've heard you can ride elephants how do I do this? It really is so disheartening.
But you have to remember these things have been peddled by the mass tourism and gap year industries for a LOT of years now, and whilst experienced travellers are wise to the issues, those who don't know will fall for the industry sales pitches and the stories of other uninformed travellers who come back after doing those things full of superlatives and excitement and oblivious to the harm they have done.
It isn't an easy or quick answer but we just have to keep plugging away from both ends. Raising awareness and educating as many people as possible through awareness campaigns, individual travel blogs (we are after all the new influencers and new/potential travellers do come to us to plan/research trips so I believe we have a responsibility to act on that) and so on.
But we also need to convince industry to stop selling them too, and I honestly think the only way we will convince them is money and profit. Once they see the more responsible providers such as Intrepid or the ENP are making profit, and their customers are turning away from unethical tours, THAT is what will make industry change.
As much as they may put out a press release about how ethical they are if/when they do change, most don't give a crap about ideology or responsible ethics, they care about profit pure and simple. But as long as they turn to more responsible practices, motivation is secondary in my mind.
@vickysmith I see your point but there is a way to do things when talking about past actions. It's all about not blaming people for what they do/have done in the past (because moral/ethical guidelines DO change over time as evidence research comes to light etc) but using information to allow them to make an informed decision in the future.
For example I am pretty open (although still personally ashamed to admit) that I rode an elephant once about 14/15 years ago.
Bear in mind this was back in 2000 ish during my first gap year. Backpacking was a VERY different ball game back then. Mobile phones were still the Nokia brick variety, the internet was still very young, there was no such thing as a travel blog and information was nowhere near as readily available as it is now. So I didn't know the issues about elephant abuse and animal welfare like I do now. So on my first trip in Thailand I rode an elephant because - like so many people now - I really loved them and wanted an experience of being close to them. I didn't know the consequences of my actions. Hell, they talked about it in LP back then.
During that trek I couldn't shake the feeling that something wasn't right. My gut was screaming this isn't right. I saw the mahouts use the bullhooks, I saw the elephants being controlled, I reached down from the elephants neck to touch its ear and got blood on my hands. Literally.
It made me sick. And once I knew the facts it made me sicker still that I had been a part of that.
But that incident led me to look into the issue more, to research, to educate myself. It led me to change my behaviour and over the years become an advocate for animal welfare and an advocate for not riding elephants.
So I don't blame people for not knowing. I don't blame them for the urge, the need they have to want to get up close, and I don't blame them for having ridden in the past. What I do is use my story to say I have been in the same position, but I learned the facts and made an ethical informed decision. Here are the facts as I know them and I hope you make the same decision too.
Most do.
So yes I am ashamed of my actions 14 or 15 years ago but I don't feel like a hypocrite, and I wouldn't call anyone that either. The debate isn't - and shouldn't be - about that. It is about saying this was the norm in the past, but we know better now and things should change.
Now those people who know all the facts and STILL make the wrong choice, that's a different matter...
@stuartbutler2 I agree on some of the points there and am a huge advocate for zoos, as a passionately believe they are an essential link in the responsible tourism chain.
There are exceptions to that rule however, as I do agree with some arguments against zoos that there are a lot of bad ones, and there are some animals where captivity becomes harmful no matter the intention (dolphins and killer whales for example).
However, there are many examples of great zoos doing fantastic jobs and adhering to international guidelines and conforming to animal welfare guidelines and those set by WAZA (World Association of Zoos and Aquariums).
Good zoos have a huge and important role to play in not only the conservation of species but also the habitat, by conforming to international breeding programmes, rehab programmes and habitat preservation. Many animals would be extinct today if not for the work of zoos.
But perhaps as importantly zoos have a primary role in education. By educating the general public about the issues involved in conservation and wildlife protection, the remove wildlife conservation from that 'abstract status' that it inhabits in many peoples minds. It creates a bond between the human and the animal, it makes the animals real, the issues real, and it does make people care about the issues more, some enough to even act on it.
There always has to be that underlying rule however that the animals welfare comes first. Education (and to a lesser degree the entertainment and profit factors that also come into play) must always take second place to the comfort, safety and wellbeing of the animals. That means good enclosures that conform to best practices, no 'entertainment' shows etc, and in some cases knowing that zoos and aquariums are fantastic for some species, but not all.
Zoos are only one link in the responsible wildlife tourism chain, and they only work well alongside other options such as protected reserves etc, but they are still an important part of that chain.
@hitriddle Glad to hear that, I don't mind upvoting as a way to support/agree with an argument but the disjointed posts is a PITA. I didn't even know about the button!
@unboundly I totally agree, research is key, and even if people do get it wrong (greenwashing can be extremely clever) there are still opportunities to leave and speak to the management about how they can earn more from tourists with ethical practices. I think it is a two way system where operators and travellers have to shoulder the responsibility, but I agree it is high time travellers started thinking about their actions more.
@eurapart I think I may have not explained myself clearly enough, I actually think boycotting is an extremely powerful tool (my past actions should tell you that ;D) I just think in this case palm oil is SO widespread and SO insidious that it is an almost impossible task on its own. It is not as easy as saying I'll avoid prouducts a,b and c, because the products you still use have probably got palm oil in without you realising it too!
I do agree however that a coordinated campaign of boycotting and emailing/campaigning directly to the company, especially if done en masse, would be more effective.
@rubberhobos Couldn't agree more. I mean what kind of inhuman moron could really stone to death, shoot or beat such an amazing animal seeking help?
@eurapart Haha no, I still stick by the premise that boycotts are an extremely effective tool, but they are a tool for a specific job and purpose, not a hammer for every job.
I'm not so sure it is so easy to avoid, but I do welcome ANY proposals on how to limit it or at the very least ensure it is sourced ethically. I'll check out those links now, thanks so much :)
Sorry to be a little late to this discussion, but as the author of the original article Why I Won't Be Attending TBEX Cancun I'd like to address a couple of these questions and explain my reasoning for being so 'reactionary' to use some of the terminology I have seen here.
First of all I am a huge supporter of animal and wildlife welfare. That is the reason I have partnered my site with Care For The Wild International and the reason I promote their RIGHT tourism campaign. I have personally not always made the right choices or decisions during my ten plus years of backpacking around the world. I have ridden elephants, I have visited 'sanctuaries' and supported businesses that contributed to the exploitation and harm of wildlife. Much to my shame. I am in no way using this as an excuse, but at the time I had no idea of many of the issues involved. I think that is something that is still quite common now. If only I had known, right? Well now I do know, I have spent a long time educating myself on these issues and my behaviour has changed accordingly. Now I try and raise awareness of these issues as much as I can in the hope to change others behaviour and affect some real, positive change in wildlife tourism.
I have heard many arguments that say that a boycott is wrong because we should see first hand what is going on and report on it. I can get behind that statement and to an extent I do agree with it. However, I am not ignorant of the facts on the issue of wildlife tourism as a whole and dolphin tours in particular. I am not an expert on the matter by any means, my own degrees are in two separate fields, but I have read a lot of evidence BY experts, I HAVE visited similar places in the past, and the weight of evidence is clearly on the side of activities such as these being harmful, exploitative and abusive. I don't need to see it firsthand to know that I can not and will not support such activities.
Furthermore if I did attend, then I would be implicitly lending my tacit support to TBEX's stance on this issue, just in the same way TBEX is (regardless of what they say) lending their support to unethical wildlife tourism practices.
TBEX is a business, plain and simple. It's sole aim is profit. However, it makes that profit by stating that it represents US as a profession. It sells itself as representing travel bloggers and makes profit on being a bridge between us and the traditional travel industry providers. By taking a weak 'sit on the fence' approach and actively promoting unethical wildlife tours, it is alienating a huge proportion of the people it claims to represent, a huge proportion of the travel industry (who are generally moving towards supporting ethical choices, just look at STA, Intrepid, G adventures etc as examples) and making itself less relevant in the process.
On a personal level, I can not, and will not allow myself to be represented by a company who does not align with my moral and ethical values. By not attending and boycotting TBEX, I am making that very clear. If I did attend, then what message would that send out? That I think it is okay for TBEX to support wildlife exploitation? That by association I don't mind if the wider travel industry think I and every other professional travel blogger think exploitative practices are okay? I don't think so.
If you need another reason after that, on a purely business level for TBEX, this stubborn approach makes no economic sense whatsoever. It is bad business to alienate the people you rely on and become less and less relevant in an industry that is on the whole moving in the opposite direction.
Now, as for the issue of the boycott and whether it is the most effective method.
I completely understand where people are coming from when they say perhaps it is better to attend and discuss the issues, but I have to disagree. Now please don't misunderstand me, I really do understand the benefits of diplomacy and agree absolutely that if it was possible it would be a fantastic approach. I would much rather lead in a transformational way as opposed to a transactional one. However, sitting down and having a discussion doesn't always work at first. In fact given TBEXs often quite condescending and insulting responses to anyone who disagreed with them I'd say they weren't interested in a discussion at all. Sometimes it takes a shot across the bows to get enough attention so that people are willing to listen in a discussion and that is exactly what we have done here.
Perhaps a boycott isn't the BEST weapon we as travellers have in our arsenal, but it is sure as hell one of the best shock and awe tactics we have.
It is a way to force engagement from the industry. To force engagement from the organisers of TBEX. To get everyone's attention. Now we can start having this debate and changing attitudes. Ask yourself this would anyone even know about this issue if everyone had attended as planned, none of this had blown up and a few bloggers wrote a few posts about the ethical treatment of dolphins?
Well put it this way, If I had never written that article 'Why I Won't Be Attending TBEX', would a (pretty heavy) debate have started raging on FB? Would the organisers of TBEX have been forced to issue a statement on the issue and would Rick Calvert have been forced to comment on my post? Would Matt (Kepnes) have put out that petition? Would we be having this discussion here? Maybe?
I'd say it has been a pretty effective way to raise awareness and get a discussion going.
Some have said that bloggers aren't seen as professional by the industry by using tactics like a boycott, and that we should just go with the flow and write our opinions in our posts or 'discuss solutions' with the industry, but in my opinion that is wrong. The 'industry' or certain aspects of it at least is not always interested in a discussion. The industry, our readers and potential readers will not get the message unless we take action. Travel bloggers and independent writers are part of a very new profession, many still don't consider it as such, and we are certainly small fish in a very big travel industry dominated pond. That much is a given. But by remaining independent, by standing up for our beliefs on issues such as this I think we are being far more true to our readers and far more professional. We are declaring that we are professional travel bloggers and our opinion is not only important, it is increasingly essential to the travel industry if they want to reach their target customers. Our voice counts, and collectively it can reach a crescendo that can force real change, do real good in the industry. Rick Calvert himself has been forced to admit that TBEX will change their position if enough people protest. What does that tell you? It tells me they were happy to sit on the fence and keep their mouths shut to keep the peace with their hosts, and will only speak out on important issues when forced to. When they think it will start to affect their profits too much.
Doing this does not in any way mean that we cannot still educate our readers and raise awareness. The two are not mutually incompatible. I have heard many arguments that state we should be raising awareness instead of protesting or boycotting. Well I am. I'm doing both. I have written a number of posts on the wider issues of wildlife tourism, I have written about elephant trekking and photo prop animals and any number of other things as well as the one specific issue of dolphin tourism that we are dealing with here. I do raise awareness. I do educate. Or at least I try my damn best to.
I'd say it's going well so far.