I don't feel that "any tourism impacts negatively" -- it doesn't have to, it's all dependent on how the areas visited are managed. I think if we take too narrow a view of how we human observers negatively impact any part of the natural world, we'd all be required to give up our fossil-fuel-burning modes of transportation in toto. Keeping boardwalks, paths and other forms of accessibility open in reserves seems pretty harmless by comparison. And, of course, keeping reserves staffed to prevent those cigarette butts from getting chucked over the railing and to educate the visiting public is equally important.Charles Harper said:I agree, Steve, any tourism (present company excepted, of course) impacts negatively, but at least most eco-tourists hesitate before flipping cigarette butts into the underbrush or throwing rocks at the animals. Some awareness is awakened... I hope.
No disagreement here. Unfortunately, if we don't "manage" our resources (and I honestly use that term advisedly), and use that management to educate the next generation, there won't be anything left of the natural world to leave alone. I'm certainly no "(hu)man(kind) has dominion over the earth" advocate, but I also don't feel humans should be excluded from any equation. We are as much a part of the natural landscape as any wild creature. Too bad we have a propensity for altering that landscape instead of learning to live within its limitations.scampo said:Many very good points - but we could also, for some of the time and in some of the world, stop pretending its ours to 'manage' and, instead, just leave it to nature as wilderness.
We are so unbelievably anthropocentric, it's not surprising some folk become incensed with what we 'do' to nature.
scampo said:BTW - Katy - what a lovely sunset shot you use for your signature.