Watching from Tanzania, our local media is not allowed to criticize the government, so this issue is not on the agenda, and most people are unaware, thank you Wendover.
Quick thing I should add. I recently went to the Mara, in Kenya. Right at the boarder of Tanzania/Serengeti. I’ve been told by guides that Tanzania literally makes controlled burns in fields to prevent animals from crossing over during migration times. This delays their migration and thus more animals for them and more tourism. The way that Tanzania and Kenya approach wildlife and just the overall respect seemed night at day.
Kenya was fortunate to have the right guy (Richard Leakey) in the right government position at the right time to set a hard precedent for the country's approach to wildlife (he was vital in creating the idea of destroying the Ivory stockpile, which helped make ivory trade illegal internationally. The ivory stockpile that first got burned in 1989 was worth millions of dollars which could have gone into conservation, but the publicity stunt from the burning raised a load of awareness of the issue which has helped more long-term)
This is a dumb video. It's literally insane. Just because there's poverty in one region, you won't have industry in another? You think France would reject tourists because one region was poor? This is insane.
That's why I love Wendover videos - he does not give you simple answers or force an opinion upon you. Rather, he presents a broad scope of information from different sides, often conflicting with each other, and then lets you work out where you stand on your own. This is top tier content.
@@seanrafabagass Poly tends to frame videos from a one sided perspective in an argumentative style. These video are presented in a more informative style.
Duck populations in Maine were in serious decline - and then a hunting program was instituted. Dollars from hunting permits were allocated to habitat conservation (there are still lots of duck boxes out today), and the population has gone back to more healthy levels. So that's one case where hunting did lead to conservation - though I think the difference was the level of affluence in the country in question: more oversight, high expectations. Corruption happens when there's not enough money to watch the people doing the watching
I can't speak to Maine's example, but I'm almost certain there were bag limits, seaons, and defined hunting regions that were managed by some level of government as well to make sure the amount of hunting done was not over the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. The one thing I didn't like about this video is it didn't really talk about what conservation was or any imperical evidence that conservation has or hasn't been successful.
@@mrichardsonmobile Yeah, they absolutely did have limits/seasons/regions. I think a discussion about population numbers at the very least could have been helpful in the video
It's also very dependent on lifecycle and breeding speed of the species vs the amount of permits and the bag limit. Would work great for small animals, not so much on rhinos
I was just on a safari here over Christmas (a much more budget tour than those mentioned in the video but still ~$5000 for 10 days). I spent a long time discussing the ethical question posed by this video with our guides. Obviously, they're biased as they are financially tied to the tourism industry, but they maintained that the tourism is viewed very positively in the country. They mentioned that tourism is the second/third largest sector of their economy depending on year (agriculture #1 and mining #2/3 depending) and the lack of tourism due to COVID showed the population of the country how bad things can get if they lose that sector. Tens of thousands of Tanzanians depend on the direct income from the industry and millions more on the indirect effects like food, local lodging, and fees paid by the incoming tourists. I felt weirdest due to the fact that Tanzania was in a severe drought and was facing food shortages, yet we were provided robust meals, even larger than we would have in the US. I would have much preferred if this wasn't the case, but again, we paid a higher price than the locals would have for that food so the rice farmers, cow herders, etc are getting a higher income than they would otherwise. Still, I'd call this a big net negative and was definitely my least favorite aspect of the trip. Then there is the point the guides made that the National Parks like Serengeti, Terengire, Ngorogoro, etc are one of the largest pieces of national pride for the local population, and ecotourism is the only reason the parks are able to continue. Tanzania has a slogan "The Serengeti shall never die" which relies on the tourists paying park entrance fees. Again, this was highlighted by the lack of tourism during COVID shutdowns. We also spoke with the Serengeti park conservation staff while there, which I specifically requested because I was curious about the conservation status with the increased development (Im an enviro sci major so this is my favorite stuff to discuss). They said that the ecosystem in the park is at the healthiest level its ever been, with poaching and disease at its lowest ever level. Animal populations are at the highest ever recorded level as well. They discussed their future conservation plans with increased post-COVID income, many of which were highly technical and very smart (e.g. chipping the safari trucks to make sure they stay on preapproved routes to limit ecosystem degradation due to heavy traffic). Lastly, the guides mentioned that western tourists coming to Tanzania is one of the only ways they can spread awareness of their country's conditions to more capital heavy countries. People like myself come back to the US and spread the word of the amazing travel but also the infrastructure development needs and over time that can help the country's relationship with the west and provide aid. Would we be discussing their country at all if not for the tourism industry? My trip was very local population facing, meeting with many rural communities and having difficult conversations like these. I think that kind of tour is very positive for the county, while the super-luxury travel and hunting travel might not be. 4-seasons getting the lodging income instead of locals mitigates the benefits of the travel. It is a very difficult ethical question, but I do believe the income and jobs that tourism provides in Tanzania is beneficial and necessary to fund their desperately needed infrastructure efforts like irrigation, road building, electrical grid development, education, etc. that exacerbate some of the largest issues in their country. Without tourists, they lose ~20% of their already low GDP.
@Mark 88 hunters need the animals to exist if they want to hunt them, and the same with the tourism industry. Without the safari animals all you have is sparse arid lands, it corrupts the original nature but makes it so that they can't afford to loose the animals and their habitat, a much better proposition to a person focusing on getting their next meal.
@@zano187 the problem with thinking hunters will always help conserve is that some people will put their selfish motives (the thrill of their own hunt) before the priorities of everyone else, so they might not care if there are no animals after their lifetime, which makes it really important to have regulations that have the priorities of everyone (even future hunters) in mind.
That is true @@justinblin. Hunting can provide a temporary solution, in both conservation and financially but it needs good governance, something which is difficult to get due to corruption. As Tanzanian I think, photo safari is the best thing for Tanzania more than hunting.
Thanks for your intelligent comments, Daniel. I'm no expert, but I've driven across the entire African continent once and done another month-long self-drive safari through East Africa as well, so I do have some relevant experience. I think the excellent point that you bring up is that there's very strong support for the tourism industry and the parks throughout East Africa. They are a huge financial benefit and source of national pride, as you point out. There is some resentment of the income gap, as well as the fact that the tourists are only interested in the animals, not the African people. (This last one comes up a lot.) Wendover flirts with the idea that the ideal solution for the Serengeti would be a wall or soldiers around the perimeter of the park to make sure it's entirely human-free, but it's certainly worth considering that the majority of people in the safari countries themselves wouldn't want this.
As a normal, somewhat middle class Tanzanian college student, living & studying in the town of Arusha, just 382km (7 hrs) from the great Serengeti, watching this video re-ignites an observation that I've been making ever since I became somewhat fully rounded. Namely, Great wealth being spent by foreign tourists amidst great poverty & suffering. & why the benefits hardly trickle down to the rest of the community 😐🤔🤔🤔
The revolution calls for an uprising of the oppressed in all parts of the world, i highly suggest you to read the works of Karl Marx on the wealth contradictions you are describing.
While we don't have much malnutrition here in the US you can bet that a similar proportion of the nation's wealth makes it down to the poorest people here. "What you call your economic system doesn't matter at all once the sociopaths have taken it over. The end result is the same: A small number of people with most of the resources." -- Me, 1998
I'm Zimbabwean, and I believe, on the whole, Safaris are a net benefit for the local communities and the African country's economies, particularly in revenue generation. When Zimbabwe had its economic collapse, the tourism industry, particularly the safari parks, saw a massive reduction in international visitors who brought much-needed forex. Even though the industry is recovering slowly today, this reduction in International tourists left a devastating economic impact on local communities And their local economy. The failings of the income generated from safari parks and similar style attractions being felt in local communities in African countries is simply due to government mismanagement of funds and inability to direct funds effectively to the development of those local communities. Safari parks are critically necessary for the preservation of our wildlife animals and the generation of income for the local community and the broader economy.
When you say safari does that include the expensive trophy hunts? That’s what I’m most curious about because it’s obviously the most controversial yet there are still sound arguments that it’s the best of limited options at the moment, if it were properly managed
@@monhi64 yes that includes trophy hunts. For instance, Save valley in Zimbabwe is a privately owned conservancy which has been exporting rhino and elephants to national parks throughout the region which has increased wildlife populations. Save valley can afford a top notch anti poaching force due to the money it receives from selling hunts (photo safaris as well but to a lesser extent)
@@monhi64 I don’t know about Zimbabwe, but in other countries these are controlled hunts, you’re only killing animals on the ‘cull’ lists. Generally aggressive or sterile animals, so you leave the breeding populations in tact. Also, the price Wendover put for trophy hunts is critically under represented. That may be the price for the permit, but the entire trip for something like an elephant, plus trophy mounting and export travel, guide services, sleeping accommodations is going to run you 100-120k.
Depending so heavily on one source of income destabilizes the economy and distorts the use of labor. Many people are unproductive until they can find a position in the tourist industry. Many youths have no jobs when they become an adult. In Funzi, approximately 40 women stood in the center of the village to sell cloth to 15 tourists.
I had the opportunity last summer to rent a safari truck and drive it around all of Botswana in a self-guided tour over 20 days with a couple college friends. It was incredibly eye opening and the biodiversity was jaw dropping. I think at the end of the day there's a really compelling argument that supports safari tourism. In Botswana (which has a democracy with minimal corruption, according to locals), it costs 20 Pula ($1.56 USD) to put a child through school for an entire year. Park fees that we paid were near $100 a day, and many locals we spoke with told us that most of the money we paid went directly into supporting children and keeping the parks funded. Yet, as we were driving through multiple parks in the country, it was clear to me that there was very little oversight or maintenance being done. The roads themselves were rough (we drove hundreds of miles of hardly maintained dirt roads seeing few people) and we almost never saw rangers. While each park had gates, it seemed like it would be easy for people to poach within or just outside of the park boundaries, and just beyond the boundaries we would find herds upon herds of cattle overrunning the natural habitats. I worry that while much of our money may have gone towards preserving these parks, as long as there is demand for poaching and beef it will be challenging to sustain the populations of these rare animals and habitats. Just my thoughts.
That's a mighty fine trolley you've got there. It'd be a real shame if someone were to tie 1 animal and five animals along separate tracks after a junction.
*Completely unsolicited philosophical pedantry* - this isn't really an example of the classic trolley case but rather the loop trolley case, where the side-track onto which the onlooker switches the trolley to kill the lesser number loops back around onto the main track, meaning the onlooker uses the person on the side-track to prevent the deaths of the others, rather than merely shifting the trolley away from them and incidentally killing the one person. That's a morally relevant difference even though lots of people still think it's fine to switch the trolley in both cases (and I do).
@Jao Bai Dun The difference is that in the standard trolley case, if you switch the trolley onto the side-track, you're not intentionally using the one person as a means to ensure the 5 aren't killed. You're intentionally switching the trolley, and you definitely intend to kill the one person, but they're not the means to avoid the death of the 5, the switching of the trolley is. Whereas in the loop case, the switching of the trolley can't be the means to avoid the 5 being killed, since if the one person weren't there on the side-track, they'd still be killed either way. So, in that example, you're intentionally killing someone to avoid 5 people dying (but not you killing them). And there are lots of people who think that the intention matters, and that you can't use people as 'mere means' in that way (see, e.g., Kant), but that you are able to switch the trolley in the standard case (though obviously there are still plenty of people who object to that as well.
I actually visited Tanzania last week, went to safari in the Tarangire national park, it’s interesting as as you’re entering you go through a so called highway, which is very similar to a two-lan suburban road, villages which look like they’ve been bombarded where countless people surround your car and try to sell you souvenirs for an extremely cheap price, and then you pay hundreds to enter the safari.
But do you know Tanzania is building SGR railway from Dar es salaam to Congo, also Tanzania is building the first electric train in East Africa, Tanzania is also amongst top 10 countries in Africa with most tarmac roads across the country also Tanzania is amongst the least corrupt countries in Africa. We thank you for visiting our country the money u used is put into development of our people.
@@juniormichael354 didn’t know that, it’s amazing and i’m all for it. I actually donated and helped build a secondary school in the Arusha region, as well as installing a solar panel to provide electricity to a family, as well as buying a goat for them. The people were extremely thankful. What region are you from?
God bless you brother, your an example of people to prove that humanity still exists... I live in mwanza region its 1:30 hour drive to Serengeti. Welcome again in Tanzania
To get poor countries to engage in conservation, you have to make it profitable for them. Rich countries have the luxury of conservation for conservation's sake. Poor countries do not.
Duh...the point of the video was that vast majority of the profit is not being used for conservation but to fill the coffers of international businesses and ironically develop more of the land that is supposedly being 'conserved'.
@@LENZ5369 Actually the video mostly agrees that safaris are a net benefit to conservation and to the people. It was a little more mixed on the trophy hunting.
As a Kenyan living in Kenya, I can assure you that here we do conservation not only for conservation's sake but for everything including at our expense. On the other hand, there are those countries that will sell their Heards for short time income. That is why Kenya is not included in that list of countries who benefit from paid Hunting and yet it is for the first time losing to some of them in tourism numbers because those rich people from rich countries decide to go to where they can ill and not where they can conserve even if takes the last rhino. So, the problem is global even if have to admit that there are bad actors too among us here in Kenya.
I’ve noticed a similar trend with Kruger National Park in South Africa. While it was never an affordable destination for the working class, it’s since moved out of affordability for the middle class as well, basically making it an exclusive holiday destination for mostly foreigners
@@MosesMatsepane Last time I checked it was R20000 a night. It’s not to the same extent, but it appears to be going that way. Definitely was better in the past
@@jerry3790 Geez! R20k a night that's madness. The last time I tried to book the prices were around R3k a night on average. With the upper end being around 7k and lower ends around 1.8k. Who's paying 20k? That's a monthly salary for middle-class people.
Very thought provoking video. As a resident of east Africa I think there are two issues that require further detail. First, tourism does create employment but the impact of displacement of pastoralist indigenous tribes increases their vulnerability which ultimately threatens their way of life - in some cases making it impossible to survive. The integration of a few safari guides does not resolve this issue. Second, spending money inside the country is beneficial when the owners redistribute that money into the local economy. A closer study at the nationalities of lodge owners will show they are predominantly foreign owned with foreign bank accounts inhibiting in-country economic stimulus. Tourism is good for foreigners, wealthy nationals and often monumentally problematic for the indigenous populations.
I do remember reading about the money from hunting not actually going to communities and I've wondered if that is the case. I think it's an insane system either way
south african hunter here - the wildlife & surrounding hospitality industry creates a lot of jobs for the communities..fun fact, the most expensive buffalo ever sold was €5 million
@@MrWilliGaming That's not true though. You can defend the animals against poaching, but it costs money. If people will pay $1200-$10k a night to watch and photograph the animals, it's probably possible to make enough money to protect that wildlife from poachers. And it creates an economic inventive to protect those animals.
It´s also weird how so many television series with episodes in Africa focus only on the "Safari" culture. There are a couple of "european doctor saves savanna animals and falls in love with tourist" movies I think to remember as a german and once I gained a broader understanding of the various cultures on this continent I kept wondering how one could enjoy these, but they have quite an audience.
@user-tt3yj4lt4u Someone not knowing what they got into after falling inlove with someone? hardly unique. combined that with how talking about anything "bad" about that life might get perceived as racist or calling the people primitive. Your comment sounds more unemphatic than like her being an idiot.
Me and my family lived in Tanzania for 12 years and went on a safari once, and intentionally avoided the Serengeti. The tourists bring loads of money in, even outside of the parks, but there are so many other problems it causes. It's such an interesting problem (or maybe not a problem) that there's nothing much to do. I really hope that the tourism industry can be a positive thing as time goes on. Ninapenda Tanzania.❤🇹🇿
The commodification of biological preservation is something happening in Etosha Nat’l Park in Namibia but in a good way. The park auctions off animals that are overpopulated to maintain numbers. Hunting lodges buy them, and if you want to go hunting, you can legally do so in these lodges. Perhaps if maintaining numbers is done correctly, the actual issue might be the distribution of the earnings from trophy hunting properly.
Hunting doesn’t happen in Tanzanian national parks. They have separate areas where it is permitted. Licenses to shoot animals is based on what is sustainable. It’s been like that for decades.
@@technewseveryweek8332Not every country does it in a sustainable way and the video rightly pointed out that only a small fraction of the money generated goes to conservation. Conservation funded by trophy hunting literally can’t exist irl because of corruption. The government is incentivised to sell as many trophies as possible for as large a profit as possible.
Unfortunately, this is true of a lot of things that start with good intentions. I was initially going to posit that donating the money others would spend on a safari might help, but I realized we've seen what an exploitative monstrosity the fundraising companies that leech off those have become. Many of these fundraising companies have latched onto the charities they claim to represent and are essentially using the organization they latched onto to justify their cold calls, email spam and mailings that generally eat up most of that donation. And a lot of times the people running those charities are made to feel powerless to do anything about it. And frankly, a charity for an organization in a poor country seeking donations from a rich country is GOING to get exploited in that way. The best approach might be to contact the parks directly and ask how to support their conservation efforts without going to these places.
Worldwide income inequality is the real issue. The world would be a better place if we stripped all of the wealth from the ultra wealthy and distributed it evenly.
So uninformed. Let’s kill the golden gooses and then we are all rich! Markets make wealth for all and not all contributors and non contributors should be valued equally.
@@rubiconnn I'm sorry, but I have zero tolerance for that BS. Economics does not function with enforced distribution of funds. Our system is broken - the rich need to be taxed FAR higher than they are to balance the system, but if we stripped all the wealth as you suggest, no one would have a job except government workers. And we've tried handing businesses over to the state. It's failed every time even without the help of the dictators that ALWAYS wind up in charge of these high-minded enforced equal outcome systems. Because invariably someone has to be in charge, and the people who seek those positions are the people who abuse them. You can have a much more involved government - as Germany and others have demonstrated. A mixed economy is the only true economy anyway, and you get a lot better results responsibly managing that reality instead of trying to pretend to be some impossible ideal like "free market" or socialism. But that still involves some people accumulating wealth. The reason I have no tolerance for it is because of how people like you ALWAYS end up enforcing it - through the extermination of entire groups of people. There has NEVER been any government that stripped away the wealth of people without executing vast numbers of people. First you have to execute the people who didn't want to give up their property. Then you have to execute the people who didn't like you executing people. And then people starve to death because you executed the people who know hot to feed them. And it's happened repeatedly. There are too many millions dead to excuse believing in that BS anymore. No, you won't get it right this time like you've deluded yourself that you will, you'll just massacre more people in the name of your own ego.
@@mattbrown6755 You vastly overestimate how much the ultra wealthy contribute. They are parasites on society, they hoard wealth and resources, and they contribute very little. At the top of the pyramid supply and demand doesn't work as they have made it so they can't be replaced by anyone and they set their own pay. You can almost guarantee that the employees below them know far more about the business that they run and they intentionally make it so that they can't rise to executive positions and put them out of a job.
@@rubiconnn If you live in a first world nation them the Ultrawealthy most likely includes you. Also most of the wealth is in stuff like buildings, art, intellectual property, brand marketing, contracts, machinery, data centres, fiber-optic cable, etc. How the fuck do you distribute those things from the USA or the EU to substance farmers in Tanzania?
Good video Wendover! One thing to also consider in this debate is the impact of safari tourism in less well managed regions. Tanzania is arguably on the better side of things in terms of governance of conservation and the Serengeti, with its internationally recognizable name, is far better run than many (maybe most) other preserves in Africa. Over-tourism without proper regulation is a real problem in some places.
appreciate the more emotionally charged video. the more candid description of the injustices here has a nice blend of documentary and commentary flavor that is more developed than in previous videos
I am so glad to see this video!!!!! I was fortunate to go on Safari twice in 2016/2018 to study and leisure. My professor is from Tanzania so we had an amazing experience. We were able to stay at Safari lodges described here, see the great migration, and see a cheetah hunt a rabbit. That was the first half of the trip. The second half was spent with local scientists doing ecology research. The dichotomy between those visiting and those who work there is night and day. A Safari day was carefully planned and executed by guides/chefs/concierges to Make sure consumers had anything we wanted. They were nice guides and really knowledgeable. as a black woman on her first trip to Africa,I had to talk with them. As soon as we got back to the hunting lodge, drivers/guides are immediately back to work . I was uncomfortable asking someone that reminded me of my dad to do anything for me. Luckily there’s a huge group of scientists that are committed to preserving the natural ecology and are very active. They care and want to see change and reduction in the number of tourists that visit,.. If I ever win the lottery, I will move Tz’s rainforest to open a tropical research center
Really interesting video. I like how you explored both sides and critically analysed the merits and arguments for and against trophy hunting and safaris within Tanzania. I am shocked honestly how little of the money, especially in the case of hunting but In both more widely seems to not go towards conservation. Obviously protecting this land is important and tourism can play a role but it would be better if we could see more of the money go to conservation and to ordinary Tanzanians as opposed to Western hotel chains and travel companies. I’ve always wanted to go on safari but would want, when I had the means to do so, support more conservation orientated groups. I imagine part of the issue is the very lack of information since I would suppose at least in the safari case most people would desire that there money is going principally towards conservation but perhaps we all just like the thrill of seeing nature and an interesting story to tell . Anyway I really found the video enjoyable.
It is hard for African governments to justify spending more money on conservation when their citizens are literally dying from poverty. "Sorry, you're going to die from malaria, we have to spend more on conservation". People in developing nations are quite resentful of westerner saying they're not doing enough for conservation, when they're literally dying and westerners send more criticism than money.
In the ideal world, all money would go to the locals/conservation. Fact is that a local, living off $1 per day simply doesn't have the means, experience or even knowledge to start a safari lodge that caters to western tourists. The world works on an incentive driven model. The western hotel chains have investors that rely on a return for their investment. How many western tourists would be willing to live like/with the locals (no running water/cellphone/internet/spotty electical supply) for a week whilst they watch these animals? How do we pay for conservation? Everyone is an idealist whilst sitting in their comfortable houses, with more to eat than 90% of the people in these countries. Fact is that these people have found a way to protect species that would have no place to exist, and most live better lives today because of it.
But why should the Tanzanians be given any money or support by the government when they provide no value? Also it's a bit of a misassumption that a government has any responsibility to its citizens when said government isn't organic. I think the whole ethics discussion is miss placed when you consider the market and its infrastructure were established for 'our' enjoyment not the betterment of local lives. Thus, investing in any organizations that do 'conservation' is just misplaced as that conservation broadly defined and implemented by us as well. The discussion should either be we exiting or how to make these enterprises more advantageous for us relative to local populations.
I live and work there. Some advice. Don’t be a pussy. Just show up. It will be far cheaper and you will learn far more by just going… things that cannot be explained will only make sense to you if you are around Africans and African Wildlife… when you are there Hunting starts to make sense. When you watch a photosafari car run over a jackal, or chase cheetahs from their kill, or block wildebeest from making it the hill and stampede eachother back down into the Bloody Mara river… taking a few old nonbreeding Elephant Bulls out for $100k a piece, does far more for the environment, and the local villagers who eat every scrap, than the Kruger National Park when it shoots 1000s of elephant families per year, from helicopters, letting them rot, in order to keep the elephant population in check because there is no more space for elephants outside of National Parks and Hunting Areas, and nobody wants to pay for elephant transfer to depleted parks… Go to Africa. Ask lots of questions… you’ll learn… we need you to come and learn… never send money to any NGO… pay in person… NGOs are helping the population boom, and infrastructure and education can’t keep up… it’s a losing game… time is of the essence… visit Katavi National Park or the Selous… or South Luangwa in Zambia… they are very undervisited and around the human tsunami is closing in…
Spot on in your assessment of the hotel chains. Ideally you could get Tanzanian owned firms to fulfill that demand, maximizing the benefit to the national economy.
I listened to a podcast about somebody who actually went on a 350000 dollar trophy hunt and he said that the animals that are normally hunted are actually old males who have already breed and won’t do it again and have killed or injured others in the herd
I went on my first and only Safari in Tanzania after climbing Kilimanjaro, and it was very reasonably priced under $2000 for everything and it was a pretty good experience
A chronic problem with African Nations is that they wildly undervalued their own resources. To them, I'm sure 7k for a lion seems like alot, but if they set the price at 50k people would still pay. Where else would they hunt a lion? Same issue with cobalt and many other resources.
See I’m looking at it for a completely different perspective. Most of these countries are lawless lands anyways how come they just can’t do a $50,000 permit to kill a poacher I would much rather pay that then pay $50,000 to kill a lion I never got the point of trophy hunting, mostly endangered species that is just cruel
@@luffy101311 Seems like the government has chosen to let people spend money to alter that environment. Kind of how money works. They could kick out all the foreign companies and tourists and manage the land as they like but I don't see that happening.
Those prices are for 5/6 star hotels. There are lodges ranging from 2-4 star prices as well, that the majority of tourists go to. Its a bit like showing the Swiss alps and only talking about the most luxuriant rooms.
You failed to mention (or at least I missed it) two critical points. 1) the endangered animals people pay to hunt are always animals which are either too old or otherwise unable to reproduce and 2) in much of Africa, villagers now actually protect and take care of wild animals in order to profit from the hunting industry. These are usually private reserves. But in these cases, hunting directly incentivises poor villages to focus their energy and resources directly to conservation. That's a HUGE benefit to conservation.
@@SomeRandomDevOpsGuy because my daughter went there and saw how they manage their herds and separate those for breeding and those for hunting. It's a widely known practice which has helped many villages out of poverty. The main job of the required guides is to make sure the hunter shoots the specific animal which has been approved for culling.
I don't understand the mindset of someone who sees a beautiful, powerful, majestic animal and says to themselves, "I want to murder that thing and mount it's skin." It's disgusting. The animal is so much more beautiful alive.
“Domains are scarce, so here’s how you gobble them up before anyone else can, even if you don’t need them.” So ironic after a video on land and population scarcity.
Hey! I live in Kenya and yup this time of year is crazy with the ultra wealthy coming in. On a positive note not said here, the animals are protected in the reserves and know that they are. When they wander to unprotected areas, they’re quickly poached and killed. In a way, tourism is FORCING the reserves to be, well, reserved for the animals. They know they’re safe there.
I love how Wendover points out a problem and shows both sides of the story , while being as unbiased as possible. the way you feel about this will ultimately depend on how it financially affects you personally. But great work as always.
As someone who grew up in Africa and incidentally visited the four seasons lodge in the Serengeti back in the days when everything was a lot cheaper than today I can say that the increased cost of tourism for foreigners is an extremely welcome policy. Since societies don't distribute wealth equally, it's very good that poor countries take as much money from wealthy Westerners (and Asians at this point as well). Problems arise, like with a lot of capitalism, in that owners of the businesses overwhelmingly reap the benefits of this wealth redistribution. The government does get something in the form of visas and park visitation fees, but that amount of money is not a great proportion of all the money made on rich tourists. When it comes to hunting permits (trophy hunting), there are a lot of benefits when it's common species, but even slightly endangered species should be much more protected. Selling permits to hunt rhinos for example should not be permitted. On a general scale the permits should be much more expensive, but it is a fine balance between pushing the hunting underground into the territory of poaching. Still, most tourists don't want to test the boundaries of law, so probably doubling or tripling prices might be completely possible without large losses. The question is ultimately balancing how to make enough profit without creating more biodiversity loss. Either way there are a lot of undercurrents of the after effects of colonialism, dysfunctional capitalism, corruption and of course climate change. In a perfect world we wouldn't be in a place where most of ecological areas would have been endangered by humanity, in a slightly less perfect world colonialism wouldn't have robbed Africa of it's wealth and people. In a further less perfect, but still good world we would have the world take care of inequality globally more broadly, taxing the rich and helping the poor, protecting the environment, both the climate and ecology as a whole. Demand more from your politicians. I recommend visiting Tanzania as a photo tourist., it is beautiful, no, gorgeous country and Serengeti is a gem, a wonder of the world. I yearn to return there from time to time.
An important thing to remember is that trophy hunters are generally after large, old, males. You can actually cull a large number of males from a population without affecting the future prospects of that population (the growth potential of most animal species is tied to the number of females). Males will typically fight and kill each other anyway when there are too many, when competing for females. So, properly managed it can be entirely upside. (Greed and profit tend to mean people take things too far though).
Wealth is GENERATED not Distributed. You can talk about the Statistical distribution of wealth like you can about height. But no one was handing out height.
@@lookingforsomething Wealth was originally generated NOT distributed is the point. The argument switches from a statistical distribution for the initial wealth then tp a physical handing out for the second. An attempt at confusion. When you buy an item your are exchanging goods and service through the use of money. This is a wealth generating activity for both parties. They voluntarily exchange to improve their position. That's not the same as taking money forcibly from someone and giving it to another.
@@OtherDAS When you buy food or any other consumables you are not generating wealth for yourself. You are transferring funds for something that will only have temporary value. What's more you reference wealth distribution in your answer, proving that the phenomenon exists.
Man, despite the ethical quandaries with respect to safaris, this still brings back good memories. Back in 2006, I helped organize a safari trip to Tanzania with a bunch of my fellow students (undergrad and grad students) and one venerable professor (who was born in South Africa and had travelled extensively on the continent) at university in Canada. Students are not normally wealthy, so we did it on the cheap - _including flights,_ we spent ~3,000 CAD per person (around 2,300 USD at the time, if memory serves) for a 16-day adventure (but we only paid 2,500 CAD as we did a ton of fundraising). We rented vehicles in Nairobi, Kenya, and drove down to Lake Victoria (crossing the border), before spending 4 days exploring both the Serengeti and Ngorongoro parks. These parks are INSANE. We saw lions (some came REALLY close to our vehicles), cheetahs, giraffes, elephants, hippos, rhinos, water buffalo, gazelles, zebras, crocodiles, baboons, wildebeest, ostriches...and that's just off the top of my head. It was like the freakin' Lion King out there, and remains an experience I'll never forget. And fortunately, because we were careful with our cash, the money we did spend went to the parks themselves, and to the people running small businesses in, and near them...and not to big developers. It's still not an ethically-neutral thing though, as creating a demand for infrastructure will result in that infrastructure being built, at a cost to the environment...but that's an issue that is common to tourism basically everywhere. The more people who want to see something, the less likely that the attraction can remain in an unspoiled state. We then took a detour up near the Kenyan border to climb the erupting volcano Ol Doinyo Lengai* (which is still the most insane thing I've ever done in my life, and I've climbed more than 10 other erupting volcanoes...this place was so remote that it took driving ~50 km off-road just to get to the base camp, and all three of our vehicles broke down at one point or another, requiring temporary fixes to keep them moving - we actually TOWED one out afterwards). We did the climb in about 5 or 6 hours (this is actually where a lot of our cash was spent, as we had guides and porters, and each got paid like, a month's local wages to work for a single day), and spent the rest of the day, and the night on the volcano (camping just 100 metres from where lava erupts), which was a bit nerve-wracking, given that two *massive* thunderstorms hit during the night (each lasting about an hour), and we were more than 3,000 metres above sea level, almost _in_ the clouds, with lightning hitting the mountain all around us, and booming sounds coming from inside the volcano letting us know that our campsite was very much alive. But we made it out, and back to Arusha. From there, we took a bus overnight to Dar es Salaam (our vehicles were boned at this point, so we took them to a repair shop to get them fixed), where we took a ferry to Zanzibar. We spent 2 nights on the fabled spice island, then it was back to Arusha, limping back to Kenya in barely-functional vehicles, and flying home. Was the trip ethically-problematic? I dunno, maybe. But for a once-in-a-lifetime experience, where most of the money went to actual local people, and not international businesses, I think it was probably less bad than most safari trips. *N.B. We were geology students. We also fit a visit to the TanzaniteOne tanzanite mine in the Merelani Hills, into our trip.
14:30 As shown in the image, this is a minor error. First off its only 11% of people who would have gone, and its just a fact of life that people who go to a place for sightseeing are not going to spend as much as the same person would trophy hunting. Not by a longshot😉
It's the same situation as the US prohibition history, if you ban something, you completely lose control over it. As it happened with banning of alcohol. But if you make it legal, you can control it, something like alcohol has things like legal drinking age. This is the same, making it legal will naturally lower poaching, you can set time limits, putting a price tag on it will allow people to get the enjoyment from it, but you will still limit the number.
The only thing I know about African hunting is that there’s a poaching problem, and probably the coolest thing I delivered as an LTL driver, was a zebra pelt. Guy and his son just came back from safari, and the pelt had to be processed, and shipped separately.
7:22 - the weirdest, most striking thing that shows how the West permeates everywhere... that man is wearing a 2000-2001 season Manchester United shirt. An English team in the Premier League, an item of clothing that's two decades old, out there in rural Africa looking brand new.
@@Bell_plejdo568p - are you trying to say that Manchester, the team that plays in Manchester United shirts in the northwest of England, isn't in the western world? Because the last time I checked, they weren't planning on moving Old Trafford to Hong Kong or Bangkok. It's a Man United shirt. It's a western team. I'm not seeing anyone there aspiring to wear a Al-Khaleej FC shirt. Glory glory Man United.
Awesome of you to mention Dorobo Safaris! My family went on a Northern Circuit tour with them and it was by far one of the best experiences of my life. We did all of the big parks but also spent time on Maasai and Hadza lands. We were able to speak with them and learn how they lived on the land etc. Dorobo is one of the good ones.
yes. i too was pleasantly surprised to see Dorobo. Their way of safaris is very ethical and brings you closer to nature and the people. Safaris shouldn't always be about seeing the animals, but more of a way to connect to the land which in turn directly benefits the people closest to those lands. That way conservation becomes a tool to generate income directly to the people living alongside the animales
Thank you so much for this video Sam. Especially your explanation about trophy hunting. I think this will allow people to make a more informed opinion about the topic.
one big element I think with Tanzania that is so scary is that the UAE owns land right next to serengeti with no regulations on hunting and then they use helicopters to drive animals into said area
Man I fking hate how TCM has become a status symbol in China for the rich but ignorant upper class. Stuff like Rhino horns and elephant tusks are pure wealth flaunts and status symbols. TCM has a lot of knowledge in there that can be useful to advance modern medicine if studied under a scientific light, see malaria treatment which is derived from wormwood for example.
I'm a scrapper, didn't have to call us out man 😕 Jk. Every scrapper knows that scrapping is the last resort because you only get paid for the raw metal, the most valuable common one(copper) being only $2-$4/lb. It's always best to try to sell as is to a local buyer if you got something that works. For example a dryer for scrap will get you about $17 at most, if processed and the motor has copper windings(if you're lucky). Without processing, about $10. But if the dryer works, you can sell it as to a private individual for $50-$200.
As a boy I was and still am wild about reptiles and bugs. I have had multiple opportunities too travel for these hobbies, I refused as a boy, and I refuse now just the same, for basically all the reasons this video nailed.
Economic inequality is like height inequality. There are people who are taller than you and shorter than you. You don't cut off tall people's legs just because they are taller. Instead, you give access to books where the short person can stand on to be at par with the tall person. And yeah, if they compete in basketball, the tall person will have the advantage. But if they compete in limbo game the short person have the advantage. But what if they cooperate instead of compete?
The Serengeti shares an ecosystem with the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. In Kenya there are three types of conservation areas. National reserves(communities live there and are part of the conservation effort together with the national and local government), national parks (just animals, and managed by the national government) and conservancies(private individuals). The Kenya Wildlife Service(KWS) is the entity that's entrusted with managing parks and reserves throughout the country. Hunting, poaching, killing or maiming a wild animal in Kenya is illegal. So if you're up for more ethical safaris just pop in to 🇰🇪.
Hunters in America already know this. Much of the same factors are in play. Wildlife conservation gets only a mere pittance from the general fund, but fishing and hunting tags go directly to maintaining our parks. Plus there is a huge lack of predators, either from a historical eradication efforts or from being politically unviable (people don't like living next to lots of predators). The overabundance of animals on the lower tiers of the food chain causes a whole range of issues in the ecosystem. Every season, a team of biologists from the local DFG conduct a population survey to allocate an appropriate amount of hunting tags.
Great video as always. However I feel you are slightly off the mark on a couple of points. First, in regards to trophy hunting. It is effective not simply because it generates X number of millions of dollars for conservation. It is effective because it gives people who would otherwise be poachers a career that is more lucrative and more moral to them personally. They have incentive to grow and maintain a healthy population of animals to continually hunt that makes them a lot of money each year, rather than a couple big scores with risk of jail time. The money doesn't have to go directly to conservation, because if you are a guide being given $1000 tips every week or two by wealthy foreigners; not only can you provide for your family but you will also be very motivated to preserve your ancestral lands from others who seek to interfere with you ability to make a living. Secondly the debate on weather too much tourism is bad for the parks. I live near Banff national park in Canada. It see's over 4 million visitors a year. Some parts of the park have been heavily commercialized with luxury resorts, ski hills, restaurants and bars. It is packed with people and cars year round. As a local who loves hiking and backpacking it is very annoying that if I want to find a quiet spot in the mountains I have to venture further and further each year. However as a human being it makes me happy that I can share the beauty of my back year with millions of guests each year. Each person on this earth has equal right to enjoy its natural beauty, wherever that location on the planet is. More resorts and roads may seem bad, but remember these parks are massive and most activity doesn't stray too far from the resorts. Thousands of square kilometers of untouched wilderness is still available inside these parks, all of which is able to be maintained for everyone's enjoyment by the $80 dinners and $20 drinks being served at the hotels.
One thing you forgot to explicitly mention is that the hunting permit system encourages the involvement of conservation authorities by giving those animals a monetary value as well. This makes the local villages less likely to outright kill problem animals. This is an important thing because not only does involving a permit holder increase the worth of the animal with no downsides to the village, it also gives conservation authorities the chance to determine if a particular animal should be relocated or taken. To call these hunts trophy hunts is a great misnomer because while the hunter may not take much of the meat, it is a standard practice to give it to the locals. The meat from some of these animals can feed a whole village for quite some time.
A lot of the video you used around the 15:40 - 16:00 minute mark is tranquilizer guns and loading/hauling gps collared elephants around. Not necessarily hunting for sport footage, as you where talking about in that section
I like how you didn’t mention the ban on hunting in Kenya in favor of eco tourism Which caused on of the worse wildlife declines seen in the country And that as soon as they reinstated hunting there was a noticeable improvement in hunting tourism You also leave out that a hunting camp is usually built to house 10-20 people maximum Where as eco tourism builds massive destructive lodges that can house 100’s
There's kind of a similar dilemma with most of the Caribbean cruise ports and resorts. While Americans are stuffing their faces, the locals are watching them thinking about how they will feed their kids today.
You could argue that the locals can’t sustain a decent income in the Caribbean, yet you see so many migrate to former colonial rich countries that have decent wages and incomes but still they land in the social system lurking of hardworking taxpayers. If all you ever care about is today and never tomorrow you will never turn 1 dollar in 2 dollars. Change the mindset and eliminate the corruption and they can easily also afford a nice cruise.
@@Mark-vn7et That's like one of the most uneducated comments in this whole thread lmao. My guy go to your nearest average or big City and then to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. They're part of our social system as well so it should be fine and then present them your way of overcoming their poverty and concerns, I think you really thought of something ground braking here. Soon there will be no poverty anymore!
It's a beautiful thing they got going over there. The humans are thriving as they build their industry. This sad story being told is a youtuber larping as a rescuer. I'm sure he saves all sorts of stuff in his mind.
I love how you present a complex and rich topic from one of the least biased ways one can find on RUclips. You're presenting a debate, a cause for thought, not clickbait or propaganda. You're doing something very very well here with this channel.
There's a topic on trophy hunting that wasn't covered here - elimination of problematic animals. Example, an old male lion that successfully wards off other males, but is infertile due to age. Eliminating that lion lets a fertile male take over, directly leading to a growth in lion population. The money paid by the trophy hunter is just a bonus in that case.
This doesn't get talked about enough. Since these animals also have limited space, population numbers need to remain stable and the animals taken through hunting keep the park at a healthy, sustainable size in terms of animal numbers. In photo only safari locations the animals will still be culled by locals and the government when their numbers grow and start to spill over into the local farms since they compete with their cattle for resources.
And what about the all the cubs that get killed when the new male takes over the pride? 😂 There is nothing wrong with killing invasive species, however on the topic of the endangered animals that inhabit the African savannah perhaps you can afford to do a little more research.
@MrKimberr there are situations where hunting will help the ecosystem but this is not one of them. Many of the animals being discussed in the serengeti are not overpopulated they're endangered. In this case there is no conservationist that thinks lions in the serengeti should be hunted. You are talking about other cases so maybe you should be specific, we are not talking about Montana here.
Maybe next time you can dig around the famous World Wildlife Fund WWF (the one with a panda logo) and see if the money goes to where they say they would go?
"put a price on their lives"... You guys do realize that actuaries exist right? We also have a number attached to our lives. When I was in high school I clearly remember my parents telling me that the trip we went to Europe wasn't a family trip and that that trip decided that a group of people who suffered a specific genetic abnormality (cardiovascular) wasn't worth 5 million dollars (approx I remember it under 10 million and above 3 million because I googled at the time what I could purchase with that amount of capital because I had no idea how much X million was worth) per person. TLDR: Medical pricing regulations require pharma to sell medicine at a reasonable cost when they liquidate to cover their research (else the pharma would subsist on a handout and all research would then be government funded thus hampering future medical progress). The genetic abnormality had a permanent cure however since the number of people that are affected was in the thousands and the high net-worth individuals were already given the opportunity to purchase the cure. The government determined that the existing potential tax basis that can be recouped with the cure be worth less than the cost of the cure. NOTE: There were no western or eastern countries willing to contribute towards the purchase of the medicine. EDIT: I mean the story doesn't matter much since at the moment of writing those that did not receive the cure have already perished as the life expectancy with the genetic defect was around 20-something years, but it does prove that we have a price tag too.
My dad is Tanzanian and while I haven’t grown up here I’m getting to know the country better and better. I think your analysis touches many good points but to me it’s too pessimistic. Bear in mind, that there are hardly any blueprints for this kind of industry to be found . Europe has killed all it’s biodiversity, so the poor nation Tanzania has to develop this in their own and the tourism industry as also the government are still learning . Meanwhile, they have already managed to establish such a new and unique industry (conservation and tourism). I’d be more graceful with the current state. People being kicked off from land for trophy hunting is valid to critique but this system of conservation and tourism in my opinion only needs a few adjustments and regulations in order to be a profitable sustainable and unique industry - a win win situation for humans and animals.
In my opinion this just shows that people need a connection to actually feel for those people. Being evicted from your land sounds pretty easy but if you look at real life examples .of people whko.who had tom leave, even under good or through understandable circumstances you see the pain and fear as well as their suffering⁸
This entire concept provides a prime example of the moral and mental gymnastics, running an end-run-round eco-spirituality concepts, and this unnecessary need for sport hunting (not for food, not for sustaining life, itself, but merely for trophies of the privileged, whomever and whatever they look like, to wipe out animals of their choice--all in the name of to "tourism". This is the deep ugliness of humanity that needs fixed, simplistic excuses be damned. I do appreciate your research on this, Sam. Thank you.
How much of that hotel revenue goes to the local people vs foreign investors? If land has value, like stated in the video, then the few areas of the Serengeti where development is allowed would be invaluable. Tax that land value to capture some hotel profits. The hotel owners get rewarded for customer service, not fortunate location.
Hey @Wendover Productions I think it would be interesting to see the failed logistics of the Bulgarian railway system. I have personally experienced it and think it can make a quite a topic. Also it could correlate to the problems of running a planned economy and other things connected to the USSR.
A lot of things require enforcement of a bargain and having seen failure to do so so frequently emphasises for me that there is no bargain and money can do what they want.
![The World's Most Useful Airport [Documentary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5-QejUTDCWw/mqdefault.jpg)
Watching from Tanzania, our local media is not allowed to criticize the government, so this issue is not on the agenda, and most people are unaware, thank you Wendover.
Why even have media at that point
@@FlorianWendelborn To Brainwash Citizens
@@FlorianWendelborn propaganda is a useful tool for every government.
@@FlorianWendelborn To control the population.
@@FlorianWendelborn To support the government
Quick thing I should add. I recently went to the Mara, in Kenya. Right at the boarder of Tanzania/Serengeti. I’ve been told by guides that Tanzania literally makes controlled burns in fields to prevent animals from crossing over during migration times. This delays their migration and thus more animals for them and more tourism. The way that Tanzania and Kenya approach wildlife and just the overall respect seemed night at day.
How did you book your safari?
Kenya was fortunate to have the right guy (Richard Leakey) in the right government position at the right time to set a hard precedent for the country's approach to wildlife (he was vital in creating the idea of destroying the Ivory stockpile, which helped make ivory trade illegal internationally. The ivory stockpile that first got burned in 1989 was worth millions of dollars which could have gone into conservation, but the publicity stunt from the burning raised a load of awareness of the issue which has helped more long-term)
You "have been told:. No evidence? Stop the rumor mill
@@amanambise5747 if I believed everything I've been told I'd sure be in trouble
Sounds like something he says when tourist pay to see the migration and the animals aren't there yet.
As an East African citizen, I've never looked at safaris from this perspective. truly eye opening.
Could you tell your perspective? I want to hear the "gut feeling", the real local thoughts
This is a dumb video. It's literally insane. Just because there's poverty in one region, you won't have industry in another?
You think France would reject tourists because one region was poor? This is insane.
@@Shramp I was going to ask this, too.
XD as a Ugandan, those numbers are on the high side. I've done national park trips for much less than 1,000$ per night. Regardless, tourism is good.
How could you not? Propaganda? Naive? Please explain.
That's why I love Wendover videos - he does not give you simple answers or force an opinion upon you. Rather, he presents a broad scope of information from different sides, often conflicting with each other, and then lets you work out where you stand on your own. This is top tier content.
*cough* Polymatter *cough*
@@EquilibriumTelevision what's the deal with poly
@@seanrafabagass Poly tends to frame videos from a one sided perspective in an argumentative style. These video are presented in a more informative style.
Youre kidding right? He was biased through the whole thing to one side. Not just this video but in most of them hes pushing one opinion.
"He"? It is a company that employs couple of dozen of people.
Duck populations in Maine were in serious decline - and then a hunting program was instituted. Dollars from hunting permits were allocated to habitat conservation (there are still lots of duck boxes out today), and the population has gone back to more healthy levels. So that's one case where hunting did lead to conservation - though I think the difference was the level of affluence in the country in question: more oversight, high expectations. Corruption happens when there's not enough money to watch the people doing the watching
US model of conservation has saved tons of other species as well!
I can't speak to Maine's example, but I'm almost certain there were bag limits, seaons, and defined hunting regions that were managed by some level of government as well to make sure the amount of hunting done was not over the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. The one thing I didn't like about this video is it didn't really talk about what conservation was or any imperical evidence that conservation has or hasn't been successful.
@@mrichardsonmobile
Yeah, they absolutely did have limits/seasons/regions. I think a discussion about population numbers at the very least could have been helpful in the video
It's also very dependent on lifecycle and breeding speed of the species vs the amount of permits and the bag limit.
Would work great for small animals, not so much on rhinos
@@vitaly6312 American alligators for example I think
I was just on a safari here over Christmas (a much more budget tour than those mentioned in the video but still ~$5000 for 10 days). I spent a long time discussing the ethical question posed by this video with our guides. Obviously, they're biased as they are financially tied to the tourism industry, but they maintained that the tourism is viewed very positively in the country. They mentioned that tourism is the second/third largest sector of their economy depending on year (agriculture #1 and mining #2/3 depending) and the lack of tourism due to COVID showed the population of the country how bad things can get if they lose that sector. Tens of thousands of Tanzanians depend on the direct income from the industry and millions more on the indirect effects like food, local lodging, and fees paid by the incoming tourists.
I felt weirdest due to the fact that Tanzania was in a severe drought and was facing food shortages, yet we were provided robust meals, even larger than we would have in the US. I would have much preferred if this wasn't the case, but again, we paid a higher price than the locals would have for that food so the rice farmers, cow herders, etc are getting a higher income than they would otherwise. Still, I'd call this a big net negative and was definitely my least favorite aspect of the trip.
Then there is the point the guides made that the National Parks like Serengeti, Terengire, Ngorogoro, etc are one of the largest pieces of national pride for the local population, and ecotourism is the only reason the parks are able to continue. Tanzania has a slogan "The Serengeti shall never die" which relies on the tourists paying park entrance fees. Again, this was highlighted by the lack of tourism during COVID shutdowns.
We also spoke with the Serengeti park conservation staff while there, which I specifically requested because I was curious about the conservation status with the increased development (Im an enviro sci major so this is my favorite stuff to discuss). They said that the ecosystem in the park is at the healthiest level its ever been, with poaching and disease at its lowest ever level. Animal populations are at the highest ever recorded level as well. They discussed their future conservation plans with increased post-COVID income, many of which were highly technical and very smart (e.g. chipping the safari trucks to make sure they stay on preapproved routes to limit ecosystem degradation due to heavy traffic).
Lastly, the guides mentioned that western tourists coming to Tanzania is one of the only ways they can spread awareness of their country's conditions to more capital heavy countries. People like myself come back to the US and spread the word of the amazing travel but also the infrastructure development needs and over time that can help the country's relationship with the west and provide aid. Would we be discussing their country at all if not for the tourism industry?
My trip was very local population facing, meeting with many rural communities and having difficult conversations like these. I think that kind of tour is very positive for the county, while the super-luxury travel and hunting travel might not be. 4-seasons getting the lodging income instead of locals mitigates the benefits of the travel.
It is a very difficult ethical question, but I do believe the income and jobs that tourism provides in Tanzania is beneficial and necessary to fund their desperately needed infrastructure efforts like irrigation, road building, electrical grid development, education, etc. that exacerbate some of the largest issues in their country. Without tourists, they lose ~20% of their already low GDP.
Nicely formulated. This is a source of income for the local people, even though it's not perfect. People still depend on it to survive
@Mark 88 hunters need the animals to exist if they want to hunt them, and the same with the tourism industry. Without the safari animals all you have is sparse arid lands, it corrupts the original nature but makes it so that they can't afford to loose the animals and their habitat, a much better proposition to a person focusing on getting their next meal.
@@zano187 the problem with thinking hunters will always help conserve is that some people will put their selfish motives (the thrill of their own hunt) before the priorities of everyone else, so they might not care if there are no animals after their lifetime, which makes it really important to have regulations that have the priorities of everyone (even future hunters) in mind.
That is true @@justinblin. Hunting can provide a temporary solution, in both conservation and financially but it needs good governance, something which is difficult to get due to corruption.
As Tanzanian I think, photo safari is the best thing for Tanzania more than hunting.
Thanks for your intelligent comments, Daniel. I'm no expert, but I've driven across the entire African continent once and done another month-long self-drive safari through East Africa as well, so I do have some relevant experience. I think the excellent point that you bring up is that there's very strong support for the tourism industry and the parks throughout East Africa. They are a huge financial benefit and source of national pride, as you point out. There is some resentment of the income gap, as well as the fact that the tourists are only interested in the animals, not the African people. (This last one comes up a lot.) Wendover flirts with the idea that the ideal solution for the Serengeti would be a wall or soldiers around the perimeter of the park to make sure it's entirely human-free, but it's certainly worth considering that the majority of people in the safari countries themselves wouldn't want this.
I’d love a video on the history of the dog food industry and why our pets meals are the way they are today.
You've been getting that ad too?
Well, it all starts with an airplane carrying a load of wolves
Well I can tell you that it is not very long. Up to about the 50s household pets mostly relied on human leftovers
My theory is it's made of people.
There's way too much dog consumption the past few years for it not to have a sinister explanation.
@@Simon-nw9bf what
As a normal, somewhat middle class Tanzanian college student, living & studying in the town of Arusha, just 382km (7 hrs) from the great Serengeti, watching this video re-ignites an observation that I've been making ever since I became somewhat fully rounded.
Namely, Great wealth being spent by foreign tourists amidst great poverty & suffering. & why the benefits hardly trickle down to the rest of the community 😐🤔🤔🤔
The revolution calls for an uprising of the oppressed in all parts of the world, i highly suggest you to read the works of Karl Marx on the wealth contradictions you are describing.
Well if the tourists disappear it will be far, far worse.
@@Ushio01 Depends on the tourists.
While we don't have much malnutrition here in the US you can bet that a similar proportion of the nation's wealth makes it down to the poorest people here.
"What you call your economic system doesn't matter at all once the sociopaths have taken it over. The end result is the same: A small number of people with most of the resources." -- Me, 1998
Cuz the citizens allow it.
I'm Zimbabwean, and I believe, on the whole, Safaris are a net benefit for the local communities and the African country's economies, particularly in revenue generation. When Zimbabwe had its economic collapse, the tourism industry, particularly the safari parks, saw a massive reduction in international visitors who brought much-needed forex. Even though the industry is recovering slowly today, this reduction in International tourists left a devastating economic impact on local communities And their local economy. The failings of the income generated from safari parks and similar style attractions being felt in local communities in African countries is simply due to government mismanagement of funds and inability to direct funds effectively to the development of those local communities. Safari parks are critically necessary for the preservation of our wildlife animals and the generation of income for the local community and the broader economy.
When you say safari does that include the expensive trophy hunts? That’s what I’m most curious about because it’s obviously the most controversial yet there are still sound arguments that it’s the best of limited options at the moment, if it were properly managed
@@monhi64 yes that includes trophy hunts. For instance, Save valley in Zimbabwe is a privately owned conservancy which has been exporting rhino and elephants to national parks throughout the region which has increased wildlife populations. Save valley can afford a top notch anti poaching force due to the money it receives from selling hunts (photo safaris as well but to a lesser extent)
@@monhi64 I don’t know about Zimbabwe, but in other countries these are controlled hunts, you’re only killing animals on the ‘cull’ lists. Generally aggressive or sterile animals, so you leave the breeding populations in tact.
Also, the price Wendover put for trophy hunts is critically under represented. That may be the price for the permit, but the entire trip for something like an elephant, plus trophy mounting and export travel, guide services, sleeping accommodations is going to run you 100-120k.
Depending so heavily on one source of income destabilizes the economy and distorts the use of labor.
Many people are unproductive until they can find a position in the tourist industry. Many youths have no jobs when they become an adult. In Funzi, approximately 40 women stood in the center of the village to sell cloth to 15 tourists.
I had the opportunity last summer to rent a safari truck and drive it around all of Botswana in a self-guided tour over 20 days with a couple college friends. It was incredibly eye opening and the biodiversity was jaw dropping.
I think at the end of the day there's a really compelling argument that supports safari tourism. In Botswana (which has a democracy with minimal corruption, according to locals), it costs 20 Pula ($1.56 USD) to put a child through school for an entire year. Park fees that we paid were near $100 a day, and many locals we spoke with told us that most of the money we paid went directly into supporting children and keeping the parks funded.
Yet, as we were driving through multiple parks in the country, it was clear to me that there was very little oversight or maintenance being done. The roads themselves were rough (we drove hundreds of miles of hardly maintained dirt roads seeing few people) and we almost never saw rangers. While each park had gates, it seemed like it would be easy for people to poach within or just outside of the park boundaries, and just beyond the boundaries we would find herds upon herds of cattle overrunning the natural habitats. I worry that while much of our money may have gone towards preserving these parks, as long as there is demand for poaching and beef it will be challenging to sustain the populations of these rare animals and habitats. Just my thoughts.
That's a mighty fine trolley you've got there. It'd be a real shame if someone were to tie 1 animal and five animals along separate tracks after a junction.
Hahaha
Nope
*Completely unsolicited philosophical pedantry* - this isn't really an example of the classic trolley case but rather the loop trolley case, where the side-track onto which the onlooker switches the trolley to kill the lesser number loops back around onto the main track, meaning the onlooker uses the person on the side-track to prevent the deaths of the others, rather than merely shifting the trolley away from them and incidentally killing the one person. That's a morally relevant difference even though lots of people still think it's fine to switch the trolley in both cases (and I do).
@Jao Bai Dun The difference is that in the standard trolley case, if you switch the trolley onto the side-track, you're not intentionally using the one person as a means to ensure the 5 aren't killed. You're intentionally switching the trolley, and you definitely intend to kill the one person, but they're not the means to avoid the death of the 5, the switching of the trolley is. Whereas in the loop case, the switching of the trolley can't be the means to avoid the 5 being killed, since if the one person weren't there on the side-track, they'd still be killed either way. So, in that example, you're intentionally killing someone to avoid 5 people dying (but not you killing them). And there are lots of people who think that the intention matters, and that you can't use people as 'mere means' in that way (see, e.g., Kant), but that you are able to switch the trolley in the standard case (though obviously there are still plenty of people who object to that as well.
wrrr
I actually visited Tanzania last week, went to safari in the Tarangire national park, it’s interesting as as you’re entering you go through a so called highway, which is very similar to a two-lan suburban road, villages which look like they’ve been bombarded where countless people surround your car and try to sell you souvenirs for an extremely cheap price, and then you pay hundreds to enter the safari.
But do you know Tanzania is building SGR railway from Dar es salaam to Congo, also Tanzania is building the first electric train in East Africa, Tanzania is also amongst top 10 countries in Africa with most tarmac roads across the country also Tanzania is amongst the least corrupt countries in Africa. We thank you for visiting our country the money u used is put into development of our people.
@@juniormichael354 didn’t know that, it’s amazing and i’m all for it. I actually donated and helped build a secondary school in the Arusha region, as well as installing a solar panel to provide electricity to a family, as well as buying a goat for them. The people were extremely thankful. What region are you from?
God bless you brother, your an example of people to prove that humanity still exists... I live in mwanza region its 1:30 hour drive to Serengeti. Welcome again in Tanzania
How did you book your safari my friend
To get poor countries to engage in conservation, you have to make it profitable for them. Rich countries have the luxury of conservation for conservation's sake. Poor countries do not.
very true 🥺
Duh...the point of the video was that vast majority of the profit is not being used for conservation but to fill the coffers of international businesses and ironically develop more of the land that is supposedly being 'conserved'.
@@LENZ5369 Actually the video mostly agrees that safaris are a net benefit to conservation and to the people. It was a little more mixed on the trophy hunting.
@Matt, I agree. In addition, the poor countries have to be willing to do it as well and have limited corruption in the process.
As a Kenyan living in Kenya, I can assure you that here we do conservation not only for conservation's sake but for everything including at our expense. On the other hand, there are those countries that will sell their Heards for short time income. That is why Kenya is not included in that list of countries who benefit from paid Hunting and yet it is for the first time losing to some of them in tourism numbers because those rich people from rich countries decide to go to where they can ill and not where they can conserve even if takes the last rhino.
So, the problem is global even if have to admit that there are bad actors too among us here in Kenya.
I’ve noticed a similar trend with Kruger National Park in South Africa. While it was never an affordable destination for the working class, it’s since moved out of affordability for the middle class as well, basically making it an exclusive holiday destination for mostly foreigners
That's not true. The Kruger is affordable for middle-class South Africans. You just need to book early, and avoid peak seasons.
@@MosesMatsepane Last time I checked it was R20000 a night. It’s not to the same extent, but it appears to be going that way. Definitely was better in the past
@@jerry3790 Geez! R20k a night that's madness. The last time I tried to book the prices were around R3k a night on average. With the upper end being around 7k and lower ends around 1.8k. Who's paying 20k? That's a monthly salary for middle-class people.
@@MosesMatsepane You two talk like there's only one place to stay! Just because there are expensive places doesn't mean there are no cheap ones!
Very thought provoking video. As a resident of east Africa I think there are two issues that require further detail.
First, tourism does create employment but the impact of displacement of pastoralist indigenous tribes increases their vulnerability which ultimately threatens their way of life - in some cases making it impossible to survive. The integration of a few safari guides does not resolve this issue.
Second, spending money inside the country is beneficial when the owners redistribute that money into the local economy. A closer study at the nationalities of lodge owners will show they are predominantly foreign owned with foreign bank accounts inhibiting in-country economic stimulus.
Tourism is good for foreigners, wealthy nationals and often monumentally problematic for the indigenous populations.
I do remember reading about the money from hunting not actually going to communities and I've wondered if that is the case. I think it's an insane system either way
Ever heard of poaching ? someone will pay for these trophies legally or not.
What's insane about it, farming is reality, and its better than poaching.
south african hunter here - the wildlife & surrounding hospitality industry creates a lot of jobs for the communities..fun fact, the most expensive buffalo ever sold was €5 million
It's not supposed to be going to humans at all, which is kinda of why it's failing.
@@MrWilliGaming That's not true though. You can defend the animals against poaching, but it costs money. If people will pay $1200-$10k a night to watch and photograph the animals, it's probably possible to make enough money to protect that wildlife from poachers. And it creates an economic inventive to protect those animals.
It´s also weird how so many television series with episodes in Africa focus only on the "Safari" culture. There are a couple of "european doctor saves savanna animals and falls in love with tourist" movies I think to remember as a german and once I gained a broader understanding of the various cultures on this continent I kept wondering how one could enjoy these, but they have quite an audience.
White people and their obsession with africa.
as a south african i am offended that you're not highlighting our contribution to movies of civil servants slowly turning into aliens
@@lm_b5080 Ah yes, "District Nein"...
@@KernelLeak lmaoooo
@user-tt3yj4lt4u Someone not knowing what they got into after falling inlove with someone? hardly unique. combined that with how talking about anything "bad" about that life might get perceived as racist or calling the people primitive. Your comment sounds more unemphatic than like her being an idiot.
Title mentiones an African safari...
"LOOK AT THIS AIR STRIP"
I love it.
Same, I LOVE random airstrips
It's not a Wendover video if it isn't mentioned any air transport stuff when possible. 🤣
Me and my family lived in Tanzania for 12 years and went on a safari once, and intentionally avoided the Serengeti. The tourists bring loads of money in, even outside of the parks, but there are so many other problems it causes. It's such an interesting problem (or maybe not a problem) that there's nothing much to do.
I really hope that the tourism industry can be a positive thing as time goes on.
Ninapenda Tanzania.❤🇹🇿
The commodification of biological preservation is something happening in Etosha Nat’l Park in Namibia but in a good way. The park auctions off animals that are overpopulated to maintain numbers. Hunting lodges buy them, and if you want to go hunting, you can legally do so in these lodges. Perhaps if maintaining numbers is done correctly, the actual issue might be the distribution of the earnings from trophy hunting properly.
Hunting doesn’t happen in Tanzanian national parks. They have separate areas where it is permitted. Licenses to shoot animals is based on what is sustainable. It’s been like that for decades.
Every country does this. It's just that some people feel like humans are killing innocent animals so its morally wrong
@@technewseveryweek8332Not every country does it in a sustainable way and the video rightly pointed out that only a small fraction of the money generated goes to conservation. Conservation funded by trophy hunting literally can’t exist irl because of corruption. The government is incentivised to sell as many trophies as possible for as large a profit as possible.
Unfortunately, this is true of a lot of things that start with good intentions. I was initially going to posit that donating the money others would spend on a safari might help, but I realized we've seen what an exploitative monstrosity the fundraising companies that leech off those have become.
Many of these fundraising companies have latched onto the charities they claim to represent and are essentially using the organization they latched onto to justify their cold calls, email spam and mailings that generally eat up most of that donation. And a lot of times the people running those charities are made to feel powerless to do anything about it. And frankly, a charity for an organization in a poor country seeking donations from a rich country is GOING to get exploited in that way.
The best approach might be to contact the parks directly and ask how to support their conservation efforts without going to these places.
Worldwide income inequality is the real issue. The world would be a better place if we stripped all of the wealth from the ultra wealthy and distributed it evenly.
So uninformed. Let’s kill the golden gooses and then we are all rich! Markets make wealth for all and not all contributors and non contributors should be valued equally.
@@rubiconnn I'm sorry, but I have zero tolerance for that BS. Economics does not function with enforced distribution of funds. Our system is broken - the rich need to be taxed FAR higher than they are to balance the system, but if we stripped all the wealth as you suggest, no one would have a job except government workers. And we've tried handing businesses over to the state.
It's failed every time even without the help of the dictators that ALWAYS wind up in charge of these high-minded enforced equal outcome systems. Because invariably someone has to be in charge, and the people who seek those positions are the people who abuse them.
You can have a much more involved government - as Germany and others have demonstrated. A mixed economy is the only true economy anyway, and you get a lot better results responsibly managing that reality instead of trying to pretend to be some impossible ideal like "free market" or socialism. But that still involves some people accumulating wealth.
The reason I have no tolerance for it is because of how people like you ALWAYS end up enforcing it - through the extermination of entire groups of people. There has NEVER been any government that stripped away the wealth of people without executing vast numbers of people. First you have to execute the people who didn't want to give up their property. Then you have to execute the people who didn't like you executing people. And then people starve to death because you executed the people who know hot to feed them. And it's happened repeatedly. There are too many millions dead to excuse believing in that BS anymore. No, you won't get it right this time like you've deluded yourself that you will, you'll just massacre more people in the name of your own ego.
@@mattbrown6755 You vastly overestimate how much the ultra wealthy contribute. They are parasites on society, they hoard wealth and resources, and they contribute very little. At the top of the pyramid supply and demand doesn't work as they have made it so they can't be replaced by anyone and they set their own pay. You can almost guarantee that the employees below them know far more about the business that they run and they intentionally make it so that they can't rise to executive positions and put them out of a job.
@@rubiconnn If you live in a first world nation them the Ultrawealthy most likely includes you. Also most of the wealth is in stuff like buildings, art, intellectual property, brand marketing, contracts, machinery, data centres, fiber-optic cable, etc. How the fuck do you distribute those things from the USA or the EU to substance farmers in Tanzania?
Good video Wendover!
One thing to also consider in this debate is the impact of safari tourism in less well managed regions. Tanzania is arguably on the better side of things in terms of governance of conservation and the Serengeti, with its internationally recognizable name, is far better run than many (maybe most) other preserves in Africa. Over-tourism without proper regulation is a real problem in some places.
appreciate the more emotionally charged video. the more candid description of the injustices here has a nice blend of documentary and commentary flavor that is more developed than in previous videos
I am so glad to see this video!!!!!
I was fortunate to go on Safari twice in 2016/2018 to study and leisure. My professor is from Tanzania so we had an amazing experience.
We were able to stay at Safari lodges described here, see the great migration, and see a cheetah hunt a rabbit.
That was the first half of the trip.
The second half was spent with local scientists doing ecology research.
The dichotomy between those visiting and those who work there is night and day. A Safari day was carefully planned and executed by guides/chefs/concierges to Make sure consumers had anything we wanted. They were nice guides and really knowledgeable. as a black woman on her first trip to Africa,I had to talk with them. As soon as we got back to the hunting lodge, drivers/guides are immediately back to work . I was uncomfortable asking someone that reminded me of my dad to do anything for me.
Luckily there’s a huge group of scientists that are committed to preserving the natural ecology and are very active. They care and want to see change and reduction in the number of tourists that visit,..
If I ever win the lottery, I will move Tz’s rainforest to open a tropical research center
This might just be my favorite logistics/sociology video Wendover has ever produced.
Really interesting video. I like how you explored both sides and critically analysed the merits and arguments for and against trophy hunting and safaris within Tanzania. I am shocked honestly how little of the money, especially in the case of hunting but In both more widely seems to not go towards conservation. Obviously protecting this land is important and tourism can play a role but it would be better if we could see more of the money go to conservation and to ordinary Tanzanians as opposed to Western hotel chains and travel companies. I’ve always wanted to go on safari but would want, when I had the means to do so, support more conservation orientated groups. I imagine part of the issue is the very lack of information since I would suppose at least in the safari case most people would desire that there money is going principally towards conservation but perhaps we all just like the thrill of seeing nature and an interesting story to tell . Anyway I really found the video enjoyable.
It is hard for African governments to justify spending more money on conservation when their citizens are literally dying from poverty.
"Sorry, you're going to die from malaria, we have to spend more on conservation".
People in developing nations are quite resentful of westerner saying they're not doing enough for conservation, when they're literally dying and westerners send more criticism than money.
In the ideal world, all money would go to the locals/conservation. Fact is that a local, living off $1 per day simply doesn't have the means, experience or even knowledge to start a safari lodge that caters to western tourists.
The world works on an incentive driven model. The western hotel chains have investors that rely on a return for their investment.
How many western tourists would be willing to live like/with the locals (no running water/cellphone/internet/spotty electical supply) for a week whilst they watch these animals? How do we pay for conservation?
Everyone is an idealist whilst sitting in their comfortable houses, with more to eat than 90% of the people in these countries. Fact is that these people have found a way to protect species that would have no place to exist, and most live better lives today because of it.
But why should the Tanzanians be given any money or support by the government when they provide no value? Also it's a bit of a misassumption that a government has any responsibility to its citizens when said government isn't organic. I think the whole ethics discussion is miss placed when you consider the market and its infrastructure were established for 'our' enjoyment not the betterment of local lives. Thus, investing in any organizations that do 'conservation' is just misplaced as that conservation broadly defined and implemented by us as well. The discussion should either be we exiting or how to make these enterprises more advantageous for us relative to local populations.
I live and work there. Some advice. Don’t be a pussy. Just show up. It will be far cheaper and you will learn far more by just going… things that cannot be explained will only make sense to you if you are around Africans and African Wildlife… when you are there Hunting starts to make sense. When you watch a photosafari car run over a jackal, or chase cheetahs from their kill, or block wildebeest from making it the hill and stampede eachother back down into the Bloody Mara river… taking a few old nonbreeding Elephant Bulls out for $100k a piece, does far more for the environment, and the local villagers who eat every scrap, than the Kruger National Park when it shoots 1000s of elephant families per year, from helicopters, letting them rot, in order to keep the elephant population in check because there is no more space for elephants outside of National Parks and Hunting Areas, and nobody wants to pay for elephant transfer to depleted parks… Go to Africa. Ask lots of questions… you’ll learn… we need you to come and learn… never send money to any NGO… pay in person… NGOs are helping the population boom, and infrastructure and education can’t keep up… it’s a losing game… time is of the essence… visit Katavi National Park or the Selous… or South Luangwa in Zambia… they are very undervisited and around the human tsunami is closing in…
Spot on in your assessment of the hotel chains. Ideally you could get Tanzanian owned firms to fulfill that demand, maximizing the benefit to the national economy.
I listened to a podcast about somebody who actually went on a 350000 dollar trophy hunt and he said that the animals that are normally hunted are actually old males who have already breed and won’t do it again and have killed or injured others in the herd
Went on Safari in Kenya. Spent lots of money in the local economy. Had a wonderful time
I went on my first and only Safari in Tanzania after climbing Kilimanjaro, and it was very reasonably priced under $2000 for everything and it was a pretty good experience
A chronic problem with African Nations is that they wildly undervalued their own resources. To them, I'm sure 7k for a lion seems like alot, but if they set the price at 50k people would still pay. Where else would they hunt a lion? Same issue with cobalt and many other resources.
See I’m looking at it for a completely different perspective. Most of these countries are lawless lands anyways how come they just can’t do a $50,000 permit to kill a poacher I would much rather pay that then pay $50,000 to kill a lion I never got the point of trophy hunting, mostly endangered species that is just cruel
As a Maasai myself I get annoyed when people travel half the world just to tell us how to live our lives😂
Don't listen
@@bugwar5545 “You should be glad people spend money to destroy your country’s environment” Yikes man lol
@@luffy101311 Seems like the government has chosen to let people spend money to alter that environment. Kind of how money works. They could kick out all the foreign companies and tourists and manage the land as they like but I don't see that happening.
@@luffy101311 Yer funny. Wrong, but still funny.
@@luffy101311 Maybe Travis wants conservationists to gtfo and let them, the Maasai, hunt the animals to sell the goods to China.
Those prices are for 5/6 star hotels. There are lodges ranging from 2-4 star prices as well, that the majority of tourists go to. Its a bit like showing the Swiss alps and only talking about the most luxuriant rooms.
You failed to mention (or at least I missed it) two critical points. 1) the endangered animals people pay to hunt are always animals which are either too old or otherwise unable to reproduce and 2) in much of Africa, villagers now actually protect and take care of wild animals in order to profit from the hunting industry. These are usually private reserves. But in these cases, hunting directly incentivises poor villages to focus their energy and resources directly to conservation. That's a HUGE benefit to conservation.
what makes you believe #1?
@@SomeRandomDevOpsGuy because my daughter went there and saw how they manage their herds and separate those for breeding and those for hunting. It's a widely known practice which has helped many villages out of poverty. The main job of the required guides is to make sure the hunter shoots the specific animal which has been approved for culling.
@@SomeRandomDevOpsGuy It maximises profit.
...Ooh, I guess the Libertarians were RIGHT.
This video is an emotional rollercoaster
I don't understand the mindset of someone who sees a beautiful, powerful, majestic animal and says to themselves, "I want to murder that thing and mount it's skin." It's disgusting. The animal is so much more beautiful alive.
“Domains are scarce, so here’s how you gobble them up before anyone else can, even if you don’t need them.”
So ironic after a video on land and population scarcity.
I love the start with runaway and planes.. classic Wendover
" Heavily modified Land Cruiser" shows land Rover Defender
So they heavily modified the Land Cruiser enough to turn it into a Land Rover.
I knew someone else had to spot it lol
Hey! I live in Kenya and yup this time of year is crazy with the ultra wealthy coming in. On a positive note not said here, the animals are protected in the reserves and know that they are. When they wander to unprotected areas, they’re quickly poached and killed. In a way, tourism is FORCING the reserves to be, well, reserved for the animals. They know they’re safe there.
I love how Wendover points out a problem and shows both sides of the story , while being as unbiased as possible. the way you feel about this will ultimately depend on how it financially affects you personally. But great work as always.
As someone who grew up in Africa and incidentally visited the four seasons lodge in the Serengeti back in the days when everything was a lot cheaper than today I can say that the increased cost of tourism for foreigners is an extremely welcome policy. Since societies don't distribute wealth equally, it's very good that poor countries take as much money from wealthy Westerners (and Asians at this point as well).
Problems arise, like with a lot of capitalism, in that owners of the businesses overwhelmingly reap the benefits of this wealth redistribution. The government does get something in the form of visas and park visitation fees, but that amount of money is not a great proportion of all the money made on rich tourists.
When it comes to hunting permits (trophy hunting), there are a lot of benefits when it's common species, but even slightly endangered species should be much more protected. Selling permits to hunt rhinos for example should not be permitted. On a general scale the permits should be much more expensive, but it is a fine balance between pushing the hunting underground into the territory of poaching. Still, most tourists don't want to test the boundaries of law, so probably doubling or tripling prices might be completely possible without large losses.
The question is ultimately balancing how to make enough profit without creating more biodiversity loss. Either way there are a lot of undercurrents of the after effects of colonialism, dysfunctional capitalism, corruption and of course climate change. In a perfect world we wouldn't be in a place where most of ecological areas would have been endangered by humanity, in a slightly less perfect world colonialism wouldn't have robbed Africa of it's wealth and people. In a further less perfect, but still good world we would have the world take care of inequality globally more broadly, taxing the rich and helping the poor, protecting the environment, both the climate and ecology as a whole. Demand more from your politicians.
I recommend visiting Tanzania as a photo tourist., it is beautiful, no, gorgeous country and Serengeti is a gem, a wonder of the world. I yearn to return there from time to time.
An important thing to remember is that trophy hunters are generally after large, old, males. You can actually cull a large number of males from a population without affecting the future prospects of that population (the growth potential of most animal species is tied to the number of females).
Males will typically fight and kill each other anyway when there are too many, when competing for females.
So, properly managed it can be entirely upside. (Greed and profit tend to mean people take things too far though).
Wealth is GENERATED not Distributed. You can talk about the Statistical distribution of wealth like you can about height. But no one was handing out height.
@@OtherDAS Wealth is both generated and distributed. Just buying an item you are redistributing wealth.
@@lookingforsomething Wealth was originally generated NOT distributed is the point. The argument switches from a statistical distribution for the initial wealth then tp a physical handing out for the second. An attempt at confusion.
When you buy an item your are exchanging goods and service through the use of money. This is a wealth generating activity for both parties. They voluntarily exchange to improve their position. That's not the same as taking money forcibly from someone and giving it to another.
@@OtherDAS When you buy food or any other consumables you are not generating wealth for yourself. You are transferring funds for something that will only have temporary value. What's more you reference wealth distribution in your answer, proving that the phenomenon exists.
Man, despite the ethical quandaries with respect to safaris, this still brings back good memories. Back in 2006, I helped organize a safari trip to Tanzania with a bunch of my fellow students (undergrad and grad students) and one venerable professor (who was born in South Africa and had travelled extensively on the continent) at university in Canada. Students are not normally wealthy, so we did it on the cheap - _including flights,_ we spent ~3,000 CAD per person (around 2,300 USD at the time, if memory serves) for a 16-day adventure (but we only paid 2,500 CAD as we did a ton of fundraising). We rented vehicles in Nairobi, Kenya, and drove down to Lake Victoria (crossing the border), before spending 4 days exploring both the Serengeti and Ngorongoro parks. These parks are INSANE. We saw lions (some came REALLY close to our vehicles), cheetahs, giraffes, elephants, hippos, rhinos, water buffalo, gazelles, zebras, crocodiles, baboons, wildebeest, ostriches...and that's just off the top of my head. It was like the freakin' Lion King out there, and remains an experience I'll never forget. And fortunately, because we were careful with our cash, the money we did spend went to the parks themselves, and to the people running small businesses in, and near them...and not to big developers. It's still not an ethically-neutral thing though, as creating a demand for infrastructure will result in that infrastructure being built, at a cost to the environment...but that's an issue that is common to tourism basically everywhere. The more people who want to see something, the less likely that the attraction can remain in an unspoiled state.
We then took a detour up near the Kenyan border to climb the erupting volcano Ol Doinyo Lengai* (which is still the most insane thing I've ever done in my life, and I've climbed more than 10 other erupting volcanoes...this place was so remote that it took driving ~50 km off-road just to get to the base camp, and all three of our vehicles broke down at one point or another, requiring temporary fixes to keep them moving - we actually TOWED one out afterwards). We did the climb in about 5 or 6 hours (this is actually where a lot of our cash was spent, as we had guides and porters, and each got paid like, a month's local wages to work for a single day), and spent the rest of the day, and the night on the volcano (camping just 100 metres from where lava erupts), which was a bit nerve-wracking, given that two *massive* thunderstorms hit during the night (each lasting about an hour), and we were more than 3,000 metres above sea level, almost _in_ the clouds, with lightning hitting the mountain all around us, and booming sounds coming from inside the volcano letting us know that our campsite was very much alive. But we made it out, and back to Arusha. From there, we took a bus overnight to Dar es Salaam (our vehicles were boned at this point, so we took them to a repair shop to get them fixed), where we took a ferry to Zanzibar. We spent 2 nights on the fabled spice island, then it was back to Arusha, limping back to Kenya in barely-functional vehicles, and flying home.
Was the trip ethically-problematic? I dunno, maybe. But for a once-in-a-lifetime experience, where most of the money went to actual local people, and not international businesses, I think it was probably less bad than most safari trips.
*N.B. We were geology students. We also fit a visit to the TanzaniteOne tanzanite mine in the Merelani Hills, into our trip.
I hope you have pictures
You have an ingenious way of presenting complex topics
Anyone who trophy hunts exposes in themselves a severe weakness of character.
*hunts for fun.
If you hunt for food and survival that's a thousand times better then to ho to the supermarket and buy meat.
wendover: ‘heavily modified Toyota Land Cruiser’
on screen: Land Rover Defender
Wow. This video was packed with well-explained and precise information. A fantastic documentary.
14:30 As shown in the image, this is a minor error. First off its only 11% of people who would have gone, and its just a fact of life that people who go to a place for sightseeing are not going to spend as much as the same person would trophy hunting. Not by a longshot😉
"Luxury tent" is a combination of words I didn't expect to see.
It's the same situation as the US prohibition history, if you ban something, you completely lose control over it. As it happened with banning of alcohol. But if you make it legal, you can control it, something like alcohol has things like legal drinking age.
This is the same, making it legal will naturally lower poaching, you can set time limits, putting a price tag on it will allow people to get the enjoyment from it, but you will still limit the number.
"... if you ban something, you completely lose control over it." You and pedophiles are of a like mind.
@@bugwar5545 just look through US prohibition, banning alcohol went so bad they unbanned it.
LoL did he delete his comment? Is he a snowflake?
The only thing I know about African hunting is that there’s a poaching problem, and probably the coolest thing I delivered as an LTL driver, was a zebra pelt. Guy and his son just came back from safari, and the pelt had to be processed, and shipped separately.
wtf
7:22 - the weirdest, most striking thing that shows how the West permeates everywhere... that man is wearing a 2000-2001 season Manchester United shirt. An English team in the Premier League, an item of clothing that's two decades old, out there in rural Africa looking brand new.
How is this the "west" clothing? football is popular sport everywhere except america
@@Bell_plejdo568p - are you trying to say that Manchester, the team that plays in Manchester United shirts in the northwest of England, isn't in the western world? Because the last time I checked, they weren't planning on moving Old Trafford to Hong Kong or Bangkok. It's a Man United shirt. It's a western team. I'm not seeing anyone there aspiring to wear a Al-Khaleej FC shirt.
Glory glory Man United.
Brilliantly researched, narrated, edited... Just a masterfully done, informative video. Thank you.
To conserve is to manage the land.
To preserve is to not touch it.
As a person from East Africa I have never looked at safaris from this perspective. Thanks.
Awesome of you to mention Dorobo Safaris! My family went on a Northern Circuit tour with them and it was by far one of the best experiences of my life. We did all of the big parks but also spent time on Maasai and Hadza lands. We were able to speak with them and learn how they lived on the land etc. Dorobo is one of the good ones.
yes. i too was pleasantly surprised to see Dorobo. Their way of safaris is very ethical and brings you closer to nature and the people. Safaris shouldn't always be about seeing the animals, but more of a way to connect to the land which in turn directly benefits the people closest to those lands. That way conservation becomes a tool to generate income directly to the people living alongside the animales
Thank you so much for this video Sam. Especially your explanation about trophy hunting. I think this will allow people to make a more informed opinion about the topic.
Thank you for using your platform for good, Wendover
might be one of the smartest and impressive thumbnails I've seen. Great design and a great video!
one big element I think with Tanzania that is so scary is that the UAE owns land right next to serengeti with no regulations on hunting and then they use helicopters to drive animals into said area
Very interesting video. Thanks for making it
I wonder how much of those hunting fees actually go toward conservation, as opposed to some government official's pockets.
You should do a follow-up video related to TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine)
Man I fking hate how TCM has become a status symbol in China for the rich but ignorant upper class. Stuff like Rhino horns and elephant tusks are pure wealth flaunts and status symbols. TCM has a lot of knowledge in there that can be useful to advance modern medicine if studied under a scientific light, see malaria treatment which is derived from wormwood for example.
TCM, or at least the bone part of it, is definitely one of the factors responsible for the fast declines of Tigers and Rhinos everywhere.
I just want to say ‘Thank You!’ for creating an excellent channel!
I'm a scrapper, didn't have to call us out man 😕
Jk. Every scrapper knows that scrapping is the last resort because you only get paid for the raw metal, the most valuable common one(copper) being only $2-$4/lb. It's always best to try to sell as is to a local buyer if you got something that works. For example a dryer for scrap will get you about $17 at most, if processed and the motor has copper windings(if you're lucky). Without processing, about $10. But if the dryer works, you can sell it as to a private individual for $50-$200.
0:36 is not a TLC, but a LL Defender. You are welcome)
I don't think people realise just how well written and paced your videos are ❤️
As a boy I was and still am wild about reptiles and bugs.
I have had multiple opportunities too travel for these hobbies, I refused as a boy, and I refuse now just the same, for basically all the reasons this video nailed.
Tourism helps some countries' economies
Economic inequality is like height inequality. There are people who are taller than you and shorter than you. You don't cut off tall people's legs just because they are taller. Instead, you give access to books where the short person can stand on to be at par with the tall person. And yeah, if they compete in basketball, the tall person will have the advantage. But if they compete in limbo game the short person have the advantage. But what if they cooperate instead of compete?
The Serengeti shares an ecosystem with the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. In Kenya there are three types of conservation areas. National reserves(communities live there and are part of the conservation effort together with the national and local government), national parks (just animals, and managed by the national government) and conservancies(private individuals). The Kenya Wildlife Service(KWS) is the entity that's entrusted with managing parks and reserves throughout the country.
Hunting, poaching, killing or maiming a wild animal in Kenya is illegal.
So if you're up for more ethical safaris just pop in to 🇰🇪.
Hunters in America already know this.
Much of the same factors are in play. Wildlife conservation gets only a mere pittance from the general fund, but fishing and hunting tags go directly to maintaining our parks.
Plus there is a huge lack of predators, either from a historical eradication efforts or from being politically unviable (people don't like living next to lots of predators). The overabundance of animals on the lower tiers of the food chain causes a whole range of issues in the ecosystem. Every season, a team of biologists from the local DFG conduct a population survey to allocate an appropriate amount of hunting tags.
Great video as always. However I feel you are slightly off the mark on a couple of points.
First, in regards to trophy hunting. It is effective not simply because it generates X number of millions of dollars for conservation. It is effective because it gives people who would otherwise be poachers a career that is more lucrative and more moral to them personally. They have incentive to grow and maintain a healthy population of animals to continually hunt that makes them a lot of money each year, rather than a couple big scores with risk of jail time. The money doesn't have to go directly to conservation, because if you are a guide being given $1000 tips every week or two by wealthy foreigners; not only can you provide for your family but you will also be very motivated to preserve your ancestral lands from others who seek to interfere with you ability to make a living.
Secondly the debate on weather too much tourism is bad for the parks. I live near Banff national park in Canada. It see's over 4 million visitors a year. Some parts of the park have been heavily commercialized with luxury resorts, ski hills, restaurants and bars. It is packed with people and cars year round. As a local who loves hiking and backpacking it is very annoying that if I want to find a quiet spot in the mountains I have to venture further and further each year. However as a human being it makes me happy that I can share the beauty of my back year with millions of guests each year. Each person on this earth has equal right to enjoy its natural beauty, wherever that location on the planet is. More resorts and roads may seem bad, but remember these parks are massive and most activity doesn't stray too far from the resorts. Thousands of square kilometers of untouched wilderness is still available inside these parks, all of which is able to be maintained for everyone's enjoyment by the $80 dinners and $20 drinks being served at the hotels.
"This feels wrong. But is it?"
Yes.
No.
This is what the video is talking about
One thing you forgot to explicitly mention is that the hunting permit system encourages the involvement of conservation authorities by giving those animals a monetary value as well. This makes the local villages less likely to outright kill problem animals. This is an important thing because not only does involving a permit holder increase the worth of the animal with no downsides to the village, it also gives conservation authorities the chance to determine if a particular animal should be relocated or taken.
To call these hunts trophy hunts is a great misnomer because while the hunter may not take much of the meat, it is a standard practice to give it to the locals. The meat from some of these animals can feed a whole village for quite some time.
I gotta say, coming down on a herd of elephants in a helicopter armed with a .50 cal seems more like an assassination than a hunting trip.
A lot of the video you used around the 15:40 - 16:00 minute mark is tranquilizer guns and loading/hauling gps collared elephants around. Not necessarily hunting for sport footage, as you where talking about in that section
They do have a note in the bottom left that says "**conservation work" during those clips.
That was refreshingly balanced in a world full of extremes. Thanks!
I appreciate anyone who online can say nuance is a part of this idea. Thanks!
"Who online can say"
🤔
this is one of the best videos wendover productions ever made!
I like how you didn’t mention the ban on hunting in Kenya in favor of eco tourism
Which caused on of the worse wildlife declines seen in the country
And that as soon as they reinstated hunting there was a noticeable improvement in hunting tourism
You also leave out that a hunting camp is usually built to house 10-20 people maximum
Where as eco tourism builds massive destructive lodges that can house 100’s
Hunting in Kenya has been banned since 1977. It's never been reinstated
The algorithm is going to hate this one. :(
Great essay again Sam & team.
I wonder how the situation in Tanzania's parks compares to Yellowstone.
There's kind of a similar dilemma with most of the Caribbean cruise ports and resorts. While Americans are stuffing their faces, the locals are watching them thinking about how they will feed their kids today.
So, I should go on a cruise, share my food with the workers and then pass out from a food coma feeling morally superior to everyone else? Got it.
You could argue that the locals can’t sustain a decent income in the Caribbean, yet you see so many migrate to former colonial rich countries that have decent wages and incomes but still they land in the social system lurking of hardworking taxpayers. If all you ever care about is today and never tomorrow you will never turn 1 dollar in 2 dollars. Change the mindset and eliminate the corruption and they can easily also afford a nice cruise.
@@Mark-vn7et
That's like one of the most uneducated comments in this whole thread lmao. My guy go to your nearest average or big City and then to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. They're part of our social system as well so it should be fine and then present them your way of overcoming their poverty and concerns, I think you really thought of something ground braking here. Soon there will be no poverty anymore!
"Americans" like the vast majority of the US population isn't struggling day to day
@@chaosXP3RT The overwhelming majority of the US IS NOT struggling to get by day to day. Stop being delusional.
0:32 In fact this Land Cruiser is SO heavily modified, it looks just like a Land Rover Defender! ;)
It's a beautiful thing they got going over there. The humans are thriving as they build their industry. This sad story being told is a youtuber larping as a rescuer. I'm sure he saves all sorts of stuff in his mind.
I love how you present a complex and rich topic from one of the least biased ways one can find on RUclips. You're presenting a debate, a cause for thought, not clickbait or propaganda. You're doing something very very well here with this channel.
A lot of his other video are obviously paid propaganda
There's a topic on trophy hunting that wasn't covered here - elimination of problematic animals. Example, an old male lion that successfully wards off other males, but is infertile due to age. Eliminating that lion lets a fertile male take over, directly leading to a growth in lion population. The money paid by the trophy hunter is just a bonus in that case.
This doesn't get talked about enough. Since these animals also have limited space, population numbers need to remain stable and the animals taken through hunting keep the park at a healthy, sustainable size in terms of animal numbers. In photo only safari locations the animals will still be culled by locals and the government when their numbers grow and start to spill over into the local farms since they compete with their cattle for resources.
And what about the all the cubs that get killed when the new male takes over the pride? 😂 There is nothing wrong with killing invasive species, however on the topic of the endangered animals that inhabit the African savannah perhaps you can afford to do a little more research.
@MrKimberr there are situations where hunting will help the ecosystem but this is not one of them. Many of the animals being discussed in the serengeti are not overpopulated they're endangered. In this case there is no conservationist that thinks lions in the serengeti should be hunted. You are talking about other cases so maybe you should be specific, we are not talking about Montana here.
Maybe next time you can dig around the famous World Wildlife Fund WWF (the one with a panda logo) and see if the money goes to where they say they would go?
Do u not know how they work and how there founded by ultra rich ppl like the rockflller and there a tool of neo-cololism
Can't see the problem. Overcharging the rich but stupid is a national asset for Tanzania!
"put a price on their lives"... You guys do realize that actuaries exist right? We also have a number attached to our lives. When I was in high school I clearly remember my parents telling me that the trip we went to Europe wasn't a family trip and that that trip decided that a group of people who suffered a specific genetic abnormality (cardiovascular) wasn't worth 5 million dollars (approx I remember it under 10 million and above 3 million because I googled at the time what I could purchase with that amount of capital because I had no idea how much X million was worth) per person. TLDR: Medical pricing regulations require pharma to sell medicine at a reasonable cost when they liquidate to cover their research (else the pharma would subsist on a handout and all research would then be government funded thus hampering future medical progress). The genetic abnormality had a permanent cure however since the number of people that are affected was in the thousands and the high net-worth individuals were already given the opportunity to purchase the cure. The government determined that the existing potential tax basis that can be recouped with the cure be worth less than the cost of the cure. NOTE: There were no western or eastern countries willing to contribute towards the purchase of the medicine.
EDIT: I mean the story doesn't matter much since at the moment of writing those that did not receive the cure have already perished as the life expectancy with the genetic defect was around 20-something years, but it does prove that we have a price tag too.
My dad is Tanzanian and while I haven’t grown up here I’m getting to know the country better and better. I think your analysis touches many good points but to me it’s too pessimistic. Bear in mind, that there are hardly any blueprints for this kind of industry to be found . Europe has killed all it’s biodiversity, so the poor nation Tanzania has to develop this in their own and the tourism industry as also the government are still learning . Meanwhile, they have already managed to establish such a new and unique industry (conservation and tourism).
I’d be more graceful with the current state. People being kicked off from land for trophy hunting is valid to critique but this system of conservation and tourism in my opinion only needs a few adjustments and regulations in order to be a profitable sustainable and unique industry - a win win situation for humans and animals.
In my opinion this just shows that people need a connection to actually feel for those people. Being evicted from your land sounds pretty easy but if you look at real life examples .of people whko.who had tom leave, even under good or through understandable circumstances you see the pain and fear as well as their suffering⁸
When the video opens with anything airplane related you know it’s going to be a good one
This entire concept provides a prime example of the moral and mental gymnastics, running an end-run-round eco-spirituality concepts, and this unnecessary need for sport hunting (not for food, not for sustaining life, itself, but merely for trophies of the privileged, whomever and whatever they look like, to wipe out animals of their choice--all in the name of to "tourism". This is the deep ugliness of humanity that needs fixed, simplistic excuses be damned. I do appreciate your research on this, Sam. Thank you.
I'm literally watching this in Arusha as I am about to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro and then go on a safari... LOL
It’s amazing how RUclips s’plainer channels like this make experts in nothing sound like experts in everything.
There is something incredibly wrong in our profit driven world if the lives of endangered and often intelligent animals cost so little.
It's because they're economically worthless. What exactly would you use a rhino for?
Like it or not trophy hunting is the single largest contributor of financial aid to to conservation in Africa.
Thank you for shedding light on the corruption we r in right now.
How much of that hotel revenue goes to the local people vs foreign investors? If land has value, like stated in the video, then the few areas of the Serengeti where development is allowed would be invaluable. Tax that land value to capture some hotel profits. The hotel owners get rewarded for customer service, not fortunate location.
Hey @Wendover Productions I think it would be interesting to see the failed logistics of the Bulgarian railway system. I have personally experienced it and think it can make a quite a topic. Also it could correlate to the problems of running a planned economy and other things connected to the USSR.
A lot of things require enforcement of a bargain and having seen failure to do so so frequently emphasises for me that there is no bargain and money can do what they want.