Safaris in national parks in Africa can lead to close encounters with wildlife, such as this cheeta/Sean SmithEditor's note: Sean Smith is a former Yellowstone National Park ranger, and an award-winning conservationist, TEDx speaker, and author. He recently had the opportunity to visit some national parks in Tanzania, and returned home with thoughts of what the National Park Service might learn from its African colleagues.
I recently returned to the Northwest after a two-week Tanzanian safari. It was an amazing experience. The trip took us through Arusha, one of Tanzania’s larger cities, out to Tarangire and Serengeti national parks, and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The parks and conservation areas were filled with wildlife from the ubiquitous wildebeest to the rare black rhino.
African National Parks share many similarities with their American counterparts.
The parks are big. Serengeti, for example, is more than 3.7 million acres or roughly 1.5 times the size of Yellowstone. Put another way, Serengeti is larger than the state of Connecticut.
The parks are well-visited. Despite having to travel over many poorly maintained dirt roads, parks like the Serengeti and Ngorongoro see roughly 1 million tourists annually.
The parks protect natural and cultural resources. The Tanzanian Park Service, like its U.S. counterpart, protects both natural and cultural resources. Olduvai Gorge in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area protects one of the world’s most important historic sites and some of the oldest fossilized human remains. They like to say at Olduvai, if one traces his/her lineage back far enough, everyone is from Tanzania.
Yet, the Tanzania Park Service diverges from the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) on many issues. The African approach on several issues is an approach the NPS should copy.
Conservation over Recreation
The Tanzania Park Service places conservation and the protection of natural resources and wildlife over private recreation. Nearly every visitor to Tanzania’s national parks has a guide. These guides receive extensive training on resource and wildlife protection. The guides are taught to get the visitors deep into the parks for close-up but safe interactions with the wildlife. Private recreation such as hiking, mountain biking, and swimming is practically non-existent.
Yet, despite this focus on guided rather than private access, park visitors report high satisfaction with their safari adventures.
Elephants seemingly are habituated to humans and their vehicles/Sean Smith
Here in the United States, the NPS mistakenly promotes the idea that it has a dual mandate, one that requires the NPS to balance conservation with recreation. This is incorrect and the courts have consistently ruled that when there is a conflict between conservation and recreation, the law requires the Park Service to favor conservation. The Park Service’s continued pushing of the dual-mandate myth creates undue management headaches, as every recreation interest from snowmobiles to off-lease dog walkers demands access to the national parks. As a result, the national parks are compromised by questionable activities that in many instances do not require a national park setting to enjoy.
Africa takes conservation crimes seriously
Tanzanian park rangers and their African counterparts take environmental crimes seriously. During our safari, I asked our guide if the truck broke down, how would we contact the rangers for help? Our guide responded, “We wouldn’t. The rangers' job was to patrol the borders looking for poachers. We would have to get ourselves up and running again.”
This focus on poaching was recently rewarded when Tanzanian police arrested Feisal Muhammad Ali, the world’s most-wanted ivory trafficker. Meanwhile, rangers in South Africa shot and killed suspected rhino poachers. While I’m not advocating for the summary execution of park criminals, the U.S. government could do more to increase the understanding of the severity of environmental crimes. However, its handling of the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada and the courts' unwillingness to impose stiff penalties for poaching sends the message that resource crimes are no big deal.
Hyena in the grass/Sean Smith
Focus on experiences
Another area of focus for the Tanzania park rangers is a on visitor experience rather than amenities. To say the roads of Serengeti and Ngorongoro are rough is an understatement. In some instances, park roads are little more than a mud streak. Meanwhile, the Tanzanian national parks spend little on so-called necessities such as Wi-Fi and cellphone coverage. Interpretive displays are often rudimentary and lack any high-tech whiz bang features found in the United States. However, they provide information in multiple languages, increasing public understanding of why the parks are important.
Rather than providing distractions, the Tanzanian parks focus on preserving authentic experiences. An authentic experience is one that improves a visitor’s appreciation and understanding of park wildlife and natural features, while allowing low-impact intimate interaction with those resources. Unfortunately, many U.S. park activities significantly diminish authentic experiences.
America’s National Park Service will celebrate its 100th birthday in 2016. During the upcoming year, it’s expected the NPS will seek public comment on how best to ensure the park system and Service reach their bicentennial. The agency should look to Africa for guidance.
Sean Smith is a former Yellowstone Ranger, and an award winning conservationist, TEDx speaker, and author. He writes national park thrillers from his home in the shadow of Mount Rainier National Park. To learn more about his conservation work and novels, check out his blog: www.seandavidsmith.blogspot.com or follow him on twitter: @parkthrillers
Comments
EC, I believe their reference was to your comment at 9:38 p.m. last night that if park resources weren't conserved in US parks, we'd be left with "Ethiopia." Could that not be construed as disparaging both Ethiopia and Ethiopians?
You know, Rick B., I am delighted to "clarify." Fact: The Organic Act called for the preservation of wildlife, but Stephen T. Mather killed off the half he didn't like--wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, badgers, wolverines, etc. Imagine if Mather had been in charge of the African parks. What "bloodthirsty animals" would he have eliminated then? Yes, American parks "have scenic vistas and wildlife," but the wildlife remains last on the list. Wolves only came back to Yellowstone 20 years ago, and still are not fully "accepted" by many people in the Park Service that I personally know.
Africa remains a true wilderness in that ALL of the wildlife is valued. Yes, African parks have "scenery," but the scenery people want is the wildlife. They WANT the lions, not just the zebras. For every 100 pictures my Seattle friends show me of Africa, 95 have wildlife, and 90 of those are pictures of LIONS. For every 100 pictures my Seattle friends show me of Yellowstone, 95 have geysers, hot springs, and waterfalls. They go to Yellowstone--as did our forebears--to see the "wonders," as it were. Sure, it's exciting when any wildlife appears, and yes, our national parks became wildlife refuges by default. But that is not why they were set aside in the nineteenth century, while for Africa--whose major parks appeared in the twentieth century--wildlife was the prized resource from the start.
If you want to argue with this old professor, remember, I am an old professor. "Sorry, Al?" "You wanna reconsider that point?" No, I don't want to reconsider it. I have spent my entire life studying all of the points relating to our national parks. I am not "disagreeing" with you; rather, I am asking you to think of nuance and the weight we give certain values. Our national parks are weighted toward scenery, or would you go to Yellowstone just to see bison poop in the woods?
I love the bison, but yes, they are the add-on. In 1872, Yellowstone was all about "monumental" American scenery, just as Africa became the place many went to see "monumental" animals, and in Theodore Roosevelt's case, shoot a few thousand. The Park Service cannot learn from Africa unless, yes, it adopts the same restrictions so wonderfully discussed in the article above.
Not disparaging, recognizing an economic fact. And, it says nothing of African people or African things.
Sorry Alfred, but I disagree with your comment. Our National Parks do have wildlife. Glacier is one of the last respites for Wolverines in this country. Wolves and Grizzlies are in mostly National Parks (glacier, yellowstone, grand teton), while are sporadic in range elsewhere. I've spotted more than my share of Grizzlies in the GYE over the years. Cougars and bobcats thrive in places like Joshua tree, and many of hte desert parks in the southwest. Florida Panthers are pretty much only found in NPs. And in the East Coast black bears are prominent in many of our National Parks. So, I disagree with your comment. Alaska parks are another case in point and I don't know of many large carnivores in jeopardy of being eliminated in Alaska. Yes, Africa is wild. But the same can be said of the NPs here in the United States. Sure, there are a few species here and there missing, but they are on their way back, or the NPS is doing a lot to preserve them. Woudn't be surpised if you even see cougars again in the appalachians in 50 years, even if they might be a slightly different subspecies than what existed before. Africa has a huge poaching problem. Much bigger than here in the US.
Like most species they are at the whim of politics. How would those that argue for wildlife describe the dissaperance of Wolverines from the Sierra Nevada? I'd like some day to see where reality can be received more than political expedience. We're not there yet and may be getting worse. Some politico making many to believe whatever he can? Gotta get a bit smarter to see through the BS.
Alfred, I find myself in agreement with T. Thomas and Gary Wilson, I have much respect for your positions on issues and I am aware of your lifetime of study of the NPS. What little history I do know leads me to believe you must study the context of the times when Mather and Albright decided/accomplished what they did. Politically, it was no easy task. We have done well in the parks, and any fault finding I have for current NPS policy fall in line with the T. Thomas comment. Actually I have been involved in a major iconic park for going on 55 years, I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the area, but I do find the vast majority of current employees are keenly aware of the ecological values in their area and work hard to maintain that balance between visitor access and park resources. It can be done, in Yosemite for example (95% of which is designated wilderness), wildlife objectives are of prime importance even in Yosemite Valley. I do think that during the peak summer period, visitor demand exceeds supply. We spent 12 years litigating that issue (WSRA requires said), but, as you know, the agency, once the NEPA process is successfully completed, makes the final decisions on the alternative selected. There was some success, a visitor capacity number was set for the Merced River corridor, many of us felt it was to high, but it will be interesting to see how evolves.
No, Al. As a former Seattlite, I'm familiar with your willingness to appeal and appeal, and I do not chose to argue with you. I was just making a point. Have a nice day and thanks for your response.
Exactly, Kurt. Multiple dismissive comments to Ethiopia and Ethiopians, chosen apparently at random as a 'bad example'.