Favoured types of birding trips (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

We not yet discussed that some places have very poor infrastructure or actually force "official" visit with a guide. There is no way to see Uganda gorillas or Galapagos or Komodo truly "independently". At the same time, most other islets in Indonesia can be birded independently, although they are at least equally remote.

In my observations, countries and reserves which restrict independent tourism and mandate "official" visits are often very poor, and also stay very poor. Part of the problem that the local "gold mine" of tourists inevitably gets monopolized by a local clique. This monopoly leads to all the poor service, stagnation, poor conservation and divide between haves and have-nots usually associated with monopolies.

I personally would not support conservation projects (including Galapagos) which include restricting independent travellers. Both because of personal egoism as (formerly) an independent traveller, and because of the bad effects it produces in the longer term.

How does Komodo restrict the independant traveller?

When I did it about twenty yeras ago, I walked down to the small boat dock in Labuan Bajo on Flores and negotiated for a boat, just me. There was the skipper and his mate and me, sleeping on a mat on the deck. A guide is essential here for safety as much as anything else but I can't see how I wasn't independant?

Gorillas, how would you open that up without compromising the safety of travellers and above all, Gorillas? Safety aside,the guides track them all the time and you'd never find them if they didn't.?

Some places have to be managed but there are examples of a 'stich up' where the locals have made a convenient 'law' that stops you birding without a guide. Tangkoko on Sulawesi is one such place where the 'Local Guides Association' have managed to manipulate it so that you cannot go in to the park without a guide, it's only them that have made this rule, not sure anyone has seriously tested it by going in unaccompanied.

 

[kitefarrago]

I'm not sure that allowing independent travellers to go wherever they please would combine well with the aims of conservation in some parts of the world. Would you really like every cruise ship or yacht to be able to stop everywhere they please, any time they please, and visit any of the Galapagos islands?

I do think that there are conversation efforts where it is desirable to restrict access as part of a scheme.

But also I do think that if we in the West ask people elsewhere to conserve whatever wild areas remain under their governance we have to provide an answer to the question how local people can benefit from such decisions. If they cut it all down for palm oil they have an income for at least a limited period of time, so I think this is a valid question. One way of ensuring that locals do benefit is to make rules that force visitors to employ them in some capacity. (I do appreciate that such arrangements are open to some kind of stitch up, and there are implementations of such schemes that don't do much, if anything, to benefit the locals.)

Most of the people on this forum are rich when compared with average earnings across the entire world population. I think demanding that others preserve wilderness areas (which we largely failed to do ourselves) and allow us to access them as we please is somewhat arrogant.

The fact that there is a lot of corruption and mismanagement in the world does not negate this.

Andrea

 

[Andy Adcock]

]I'm not sure that allowing independent travellers to go wherever they please would combine well with the aims of conservation in some parts of the world. Would you really like every cruise ship or yacht to be able to stop everywhere they please, any time they please, and visit any of the Galapagos islands?
[/B]
I do think that there are conversation efforts where it is desirable to restrict access as part of a scheme.

But also I do think that if we in the West ask people elsewhere to conserve whatever wild areas remain under their governance we have to provide an answer to the question how local people can benefit from such decisions. If they cut it all down for palm oil they have an income for at least a limited period of time, so I think this is a valid question. One way of ensuring that locals do benefit is to make rules that force visitors to employ them in some capacity. (I do appreciate that such arrangements are open to some kind of stitch up, and there are implementations of such schemes that don't do much, if anything, to benefit the locals.)

Most of the people on this forum are rich when compared with average earnings across the entire world population. I think demanding that others preserve wilderness areas (which we largely failed to do ourselves) and allow us to access them as we please is somewhat arrogant.

The fact that there is a lot of corruption and mismanagement in the world does not negate this.

Andrea

I agree totally with your first paragraph.

Palm oil is not something that's run on a small farm scale as far as I'm aware, all the plantations I've seen are enormous and owned by huge companies so this is only for the benefit of the already rich.

The example I gave of a 'stictch up', the 'guides' all have other livelihoods and guiding is a secondary income.

 

[Nutcracker]

How does Komodo restrict the independant traveller?

You get eaten by the dragons? :eek!: :-O

 

[jurek]

If they cut it all down for palm oil they have an income for at least a limited period of time, so I think this is a valid question. One way of ensuring that locals do benefit is to make rules that force visitors to employ them in some capacity.

Well meaning but naive approach. More often than not, locals can count. And realize they might earn money from tourism, but earn even more money from palm oil.

Let me show my point on proof.

Masuria, Poland, can force thousands of tourist boats not to moor in prohibited places. Why Galapagos cannot?

I could wander alone in places inhabited by mountain lions, grey wolves and grizzly and polar bears in Alaska and Canada. And the concept that everybody is responsible for own safety was natural. Why national parks in Africa restrict the same?

I could freely walk in the forest inhabited by wild orangutans in Kinabatangan and Sepilok (not to mention sun bears, king cobras and elephants), and orangutans were fine and healthy. Why gorillas in Africa could not?

Spain and Thailand got rich on tourism without forcing tourists to pay obligatory guides or special higher tourist proces. Why Africa cannot?

It often seems justified for a conservationist to ban and prohibit tourists from everything, or to charge them extravagant prices. Those brutal unwashed tourists are danger to our nice and gentle wildlife! The few examples above prove this is not a good idea in the long term.

 

[Nutcracker]

I could wander alone in places inhabited by mountain lions, grey wolves and grizzly and polar bears in Alaska and Canada. And the concept that everybody is responsible for own safety was natural. Why national parks in Africa restrict the same?

African wildlife is a lot more dangerous, and at higher density :t:

I could freely walk in the forest inhabited by wild orangutans in Kinabatangan and Sepilok (not to mention sun bears, king cobras and elephants), and orangutans were fine and healthy. Why gorillas in Africa could not?

Gorillas are more closely related to us (and Chimps even more so) than Orangs, so at greater risk of catching our diseases.

 

[Adun]

I can see jurek's point, but I can't stop seeing it as part of a bigger human set of very complex issues.

Masuria, Poland, can force thousands of tourist boats not to moor in prohibited places. Why Galapagos cannot?

Swiss citizens can freely enter Ecuador without a Visa. ¿Why can't Ecuadorian citizens do the same in Switzerland?

I could wander alone ... in Alaska and Canada. And the concept that everybody is responsible for own safety was natural. Why national parks in Africa restrict the same?

¿Why can't African humans wander just as freely as you do, in Alaska and Canada?

I'd bet most of those local guides in poor countries that do have such laws, have a low chance of being granted a visa to set a foot on the EU or US.

I'm all for letting every human wander freely, it would be a step in the right direction. Let's allow those African and Syrian birders take a peek at European and north American endemics.

 

[Nutcracker]

¿Why can't African humans wander just as freely as you do, in Alaska and Canada?

Point taken about visas, but that's not what's at issue here - it is the national parks, not the streets of African cities. Here's why entering African national parks on your own might not be a good idea: this person tried, and didn't succeed very well . . .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47843999

 

[Dortmundbirder]

Well meaning but naive approach. More often than not, locals can count. And realize they might earn money from tourism, but earn even more money from palm oil.

Let me show my point on proof.

Masuria, Poland, can force thousands of tourist boats not to moor in prohibited places. Why Galapagos cannot?

I could wander alone in places inhabited by mountain lions, grey wolves and grizzly and polar bears in Alaska and Canada. And the concept that everybody is responsible for own safety was natural. Why national parks in Africa restrict the same?

I could freely walk in the forest inhabited by wild orangutans in Kinabatangan and Sepilok (not to mention sun bears, king cobras and elephants), and orangutans were fine and healthy. Why gorillas in Africa could not?

Spain and Thailand got rich on tourism without forcing tourists to pay obligatory guides or special higher tourist proces. Why Africa cannot?

It often seems justified for a conservationist to ban and prohibit tourists from everything, or to charge them extravagant prices. Those brutal unwashed tourists are danger to our nice and gentle wildlife! The few examples above prove this is not a good idea in the long term.

I can answer you to the Gorilla case at least, as I ahve experienced it last year in Uganda on my own.
First of all, you would probably not see any Gorilla at all without the guided organization they are delivering there and probably would get lost in the forest of Bwindi if you ever leave the few trails they are having.
Personally the experiecne I have been getting there was really a once in a lifetime and worth every cent. But that is my personal opinion of course.

If there wouldnt be the Gorilla "Industry" there probably wouldnt be any forest left, it would be logged down and converted into farmland, as it have been done in the surrounding.
There are several communities making their livings of the gorillas and conservation is poor countries is often very simple. Do I earn more money by protecting or by destroying the Nature. Therefore Iam happy to support local communities which are the best way to ensure, that the nature is being protected. I was very impressed by the organization of the Ugandan Wildlife Authority, which would not be possible without the way it was done here. And therestriction was in Kibale and Bwindi Forest, where you have been walking. Driving without a guide in the savanna National parks was not a problem at all.

Third. Simply safety issues. For you and for the animals.
I think in this case poaching is not very common anymore in Uganda but non habituated gorillas and elephants are a safety issue for the people. And people are a safety issue for the gorillas. Let it be alone on possible diseases that are going to spread on the animals when you would be that lucky to encounter a habituated group on your own.

I fully understand the point, that someone doesnt like the "programm" which is delivered by guides and like it more exploring the sites on their own. I include myself on that. Iam doing indepently what I can. But I think in some cases it is very necessary to do so.

 

[opisska]

I guess a lot depends on how you got to birding. I came from the angle of being into nature and outdoors in general, so traveling completely on my own was natural for me way before I had any notion of the possibility to actually see more birds than a seagull and a pigeon. I also did this while having virtually no money, which shaped my approach to paying for anything along the way. I still remember my first visit to the Pyrenees, a 10 day itinerary which cost me, including getting there from the Czech Republic, the grand sum of 40 EUR, which was entirely spent on food, mainly in a supermarket in Prague before the journey even started. A lot has changed as I now have the money for plane tickets and rental cars which take me to places previous undreamed of, but the idea that traveling is mainly a game of getting somewhere while spending as little money as possible has stuck with me. After all, with unlimited money, where would even be the challenge and fun of it all? What would even be the point?

Now there is the second thing about me and that is that I don't go along well with "normal" people. I tried a "somewhat guided" tourist activity once, namely a 3-day jeep excursion across SW Bolivia from Uyuni. This takes you into incredible landscape, which is otherwise super hard to get too, because it's too far to walk without sources of water and Bolivia offers virtually no self-drive 4x4 rental, so you'd have to actually buy a vehicle to do this yourself. The landscape is truly fantastic, but I still mostly hated it - mainly because a third of the time was wasted waiting for lunch and dinner to be server and doing similar other silly activities I just don't care for at the slightest. I like to commit to what I am doing and I don't want to wait until other people drink their morning coffee or watch them fight their badly packed luggage. Maybe I am a loner, but at least my wife is sharing this attitude with me, so I am not completely alone in this. Granted, some birding tours may be better, but it's really hard to judge before the actual experience and, judging from my experience with people in general, chances that I would personally enjoy the company of a randomly chosen guide are very, very slim.

As others have mentioned, this then leads to problems with places that "require" you to have a guide. However, I have found that these problems are not so bad for me so far. I have been traveling internationally for only 17 years now and traveling outside the hitchhikable area of Europe for some 10 years, from the moment I started making some (although laughable for most of you) amount of money. Even though I spend 2-3 months from a year somewhere out and about, I have still not even remotely run out of places to go where I can roam freely without a guide sucking on my wallet and looking through my bucket list, I am not getting anywhere close to that point at any time soon. My life list is around 1950 birds, so out of the 10000+ species that are there in the world, I don't feel the need to tick those few that would be so hard to find without a guide.

Maybe this will all change, but so far, I have to tell you that this all "exploring the world on my terms" deal is pretty great. Sure, I do get occasionally pissed when I bump into a "guide-only" red tape kind of situation, but you know, if you are in the middle of a rainforest, it's sometimes not very hard to see, that nobody is gonna ever notice that you have ignored a piece of paper stapled to a tree ..