Category: Wildlife

Introduction

Arctic National Wild Life seems to be the latest victim of the imbalanced tradeoffs between human activities and environmental resource linkages. Confronted with the two options; to drill or not to drill, one party must never compromise the value of the wilderness (park). The proposed Oil drilling project should not be adapted since it will cause the US more harm than good. Considering the pros and cons of the project presented in this assay, ANWR drilling may help the country develop more domestic energy sources. However, as the following essay unfolds, the impacts of ANWR drilling on both the human and natural environment may easily hold back the entire initiative. The following essay presents the advantages and disadvantages of ANWR drilling under different subtopics. In every section, the merits and demerits debated compare the costs of ANWR drilling and the benefits involved.

Baloney Detection Kit

The Baloney Detection Kit used in the series of discussions provides the guidelines for the arguments presented. Whether for or against the debate, the kit gives the criteria for establishing the truth of the matter based on fundamental facts obtained from scientific evidence. Besides, the kit provides the criteria for assessing different views and differentiating mere opinions from facts. This way, it eliminates many pitfalls that would easily mislead the discussions. Wherever there is a need to justify an argument advanced for the debate or against the drilling, the kit helps in determining the appropriate methods of presenting the quantified information.

Trends in Environmental Science

In the last couple of decades, trends in environmental science have mainly focused on the 3R’s of waste management. Since all human activities revolve around the production, processing, and ultimate consumption of goods with inevitable waste generation. The concerns mainly originated from the point of view that accumulation of waste beyond a certain level leads to degeneration of the area that harbors such wastes as they turn toxic. This way they form major pollutants in the environment hence hindering the growth of other natural suitable phenomenon.

The third dimension of pollution control sought to advocate for reducing wastes disposal in the environment. In the view of preservationists, this measure targeted processing and manufacturing plants that contribute great proportions of the total waste discharges and emissions in the biophysical environment. “Going green” is however a recent slogan of environmentalists who have established that uncontrolled waste production associated with improper disposal poses incalculable effects of pollution in the US and its environs (Cunningham & Cunningham 2009, p. 134).

This measure advocates for the planting of vegetation in unsettled land areas where other activities have minimal effects on the prolific growth of natural vegetation. It also accounts for the manifold ecological effects of waste disposal in the natural environment. For example, opening ANWR for drilling poses a serious threat of environmental pollution as the companies involved could likely find it overwhelming to deal with solid wastes and liquid waste discharges. In this view, considering other forms of energy such as wind and solar harnessed from the same location would form a suitable alternative (Wenz, 1988, p. 105).

Human Population

Over the last century, the human population has grown exponentially, taking the j-shape as plotted in a curve. This follows an abundance of resources and the development of new technology in every age that allows humanity to obtain their material needs from the environment in the most desirable way possible. This same population marks a sharp divergence between available resources and the size of the population. The high population at present has presented renewed demand for necessities in terms of food and energy needs. The United States needs a sufficient supply of raw materials to meet its population needs and this includes energy from all sustainable sources (Easton, 2009, p. 74).

On the other hand, those environmentalists who advocate for the conservation of the environment do not wish to see people dead due to a lack or insufficient supply of essential goods and services. The dilemma that now engulfs the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the ANWR drilling project may then depend on the production of energy requirements for the economy with the capacity to meet future needs. Considering the demographic characteristics of the US in general, the j-shaped curve indicates possible high resources demand in the future since the projections predict slow growth with double the current effect (McKee, 2005, p. 177).

Biomes and Biodiversity

Extinction is not a trivial thing that can be taken for granted (Reijinders & Boersema, 2009, pp. 4-13). However, the current rate of commercialization that is inherent in large-scale entrepreneurship predicts possible pitfalls in the development of similar establishments in unfamiliar territories. The case of drilling oil in ANWR presents an important example of the risks posed to wildlife and wasteland against plans to expand energy supplies for the US growing economy. Preservation of endangered species and in the ANWR region in preparation for the project should form the preliminary step in determining the viability of implementing the proposal. If the project would have long-term negative impacts on the environment, then the cost of putting possible interventions to the project versus that of establishing the project should prove the worth of having the plan implemented. In my observation, this project would inevitably lead to disturbance of wildlife in the ANWR that now provide the country with income from Tourism in the spectacular features that it displays (Easton, 2009, p. 70).

As of now, ANWR is valued highly because of the sum of its natural resource endowment that includes oil prospects and wildlife in the beautiful scenery. Sinking manholes in the wilderness that boasts one of the US natural wildlife of endemic species because of prospects to meet fuel demands as of now may simply amount to oversight. Considering the fate of the caribou and a variety of other Alaskan wildlife, the proposed drilling project in ANWR has a higher likelihood of creating more harm than good, especially to real people. The environment naturally mitigates against risks of toxic pollutants because the snow and the coniferous plants buffer regional emissions against harmful effects. Similarly, the flourishing wildlife in ANWR comprising of bear and various birds species have resulted in the necessary economic befits for importing petroleum (Cunningham & Cunningham 2009, p. 134).

Food and Agriculture

New technologies adopted in agriculture have enabled farmers to produce enough food supplies for the population of the USA. However, researchers from various fields across the country have raised concerns over the manipulation of natural species’ genes to create artificial food varieties. These issues draw from the extensive use of various chemicals in the processing of Genetically Modified (GM) Species of plants and animals plants to the industrial emissions from the concerned industries to the environment. It is commendable enough to complement the work of many scientists who toil to ensure that the resulting foodstuffs from farmers across the country are safe. This is done through the use of technologies to produce abundant food supply and present safe food materials.

However, hoping that scientific techniques would succeed in modeling the ANWR environment is just but a fallacy. The contraindications of scientific evidence observed in stem cell technology and the use of fertilizers have advanced consequences to nonhuman organisms which suffer due to human ignorance of chemical use. ANWR drilling is aimed at improving the amounts of petroleum in US reserves, intensive agriculture has the potential of yielding bio-fuel using its current development methods. In the recent past, humans have used stem cell technology to improve animal and plant varieties thereby increasing the yields accruing to rearing the new species, however, utilitarian concepts have criticized this idea as unethical calling it anthropocentric.

Indeed this method of increasing food supply has resulted in more harm to people by acting as a direct cause of obesity and cancer. The fact that GM foodstuffs are blamed for medical cases of patients with the growth of cancerous cells, in my opinion, may strongly imply that foodstuffs with unclear sources be subject to mandatory screening to ensure their safety. Otherwise, it would prove tricky to take some fast food from any food store (Cunningham & Cunningham 2009, p. 130).

Climate and Air Pollutions

Currently, the US is amongst the largest producers of pollutants with significant climatic impacts across the continent and even on the planet. This, in my view, means that drilling ANWR for oil before the imported petroleum is insufficient to complement US energy demands is likely to lead to more waste emissions in the atmosphere. While the country remains relatively cold and adamant about the Vienna convention which led to the consensus of Montréal protocol, establishing petroleum extraction machinery in the ANWR would lead to more air pollution as wastes generated from the plant rises to the stratosphere. Besides carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons that would be generated to combine with other atmospheric pollutants, the ANWR project would cause major changes in the microclimate of the park and its environs before ultimately altering the climate of the ice land. On the other hand, efforts to improve air quality are worth the cost of abandoning the project, at least for a while because the cost would be borne by humans. Considering this view in the light of global warming, then it is worth having no drilling in the park.

Water

Out of the 0.02% of freshwater available for human use, a significant proportion is trapped in rocks crevices while the rest is crystallized in snow and ice. The consumption of fresh water in both domestic and commercial activities with its associated demand means that sinking oil wells in the ANWR would have a likely impact on limiting the amount of freshwater available for both domestic and commercial use. The project would result in the draining of several impurities in the flowing water from the ice land and pose harmful effects to people downstream. Similarly, it would cost more in the purification and treatment of the same water.

Energy

Nuclear energy has many benefits to the economy and even society as a whole. It provides energy that drives heavy manufacturing industries. For example, in the production of steel and making of gold materials nuclear energy provides suitable and reliable energy sources that keep the furnaces in high temperatures for longer periods. Nuclear energy also provides reliable sources of power for driving the engines of large machines such as large ships and space wagons. In recent studies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), US Department of Energy, and the US Environmental Protection Agency have admitted the adverse effects of nuclear energy as used in the state of the art equipment of US space technology; nuclear energy exposes a person to harmful effects of long-range gamma rays radiation with the possible risks of cells destruction. The particles used in the generation of nuclear power also expose people to fatal death and skin infections amongst other diseases. The proposed ANWR drilling puts all these problems on higher scales, thereby making it difficult to endorse it. Therefore, the use of nuclear energy requires adherence to high safety standards to reduce incidences of ill health occurring from its handling (Wenz, 1988, p. 156).

Solid and Hazardous Waste

The 3R’s of waste control discussed in week one reflected the means of waste management through Reuse, Recycling of waste, and reducing the waste production. Reusing waste implied reconditioning or improvising a new use of an item once used so that it can serve another purpose or the same purpose again. Reused waste however must have some characteristics such as durability and strength. Reused waste remains useful until it is worn out or can no longer serve the intended purpose. Recycling waste refers to the collection of waste, sorting them, and then heating them to provide raw materials for making new items. Reducing wastes involves the concept of using items to their simplest form possible before disposing of them. Unlike the multitude of challenges surrounding the ANWR drilling debate, solid waste control and pollution from hazardous wastes is controllable with concepts of sustainability.

Environmental Policy and Sustainability

Finding solutions to environmental problems proves tricky because of the nature of the environment. The environment is complex in its natural composition and biological functioning. For example, air pollution control and solid waste management have physical and biological consequences. In a nutshell, the environment-population-development nexus underlies the complexity in arriving at solutions to environmental problems. The linkage between the three realms exerts pressure on the environment to provide for livelihoods beyond its natural replenishment. The state of ecological imbalance in the face of development that is aimed at improving people’s living standards and growing population means that a lot of waste is disposed to the environment beyond the levels that policies and the existing frameworks can manage. To this end, only conservationists’ theories interventions can support the overwhelming problems for future sustenance including the surmounting challenges of ANWR drilling (Reijinders & Boersema, 2009, pp. 4-13).

Conclusion

Drilling oil wells in ANWR may provide a suitable opportunity for energy supplies in the country. However, as our discussions have indicated, conducting the project is undue and risky. In the face of global warming that acts as a precursor to climate change and several unratified treaties on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and Green House Gases (GHGs), the foretold impacts of ANWR drilling may cause more harm than good. Considering both sides of the arguments presented, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be opened up for drilling.

Reference List

1. Cunningham, W.P. & Cunningham, M.A. (2009). Principles of environmental science: Inquiry and applications (Custom 5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Easton, T. (2009). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial environmental issues. (Custom 13th ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. McKee, J. K. 2005). Sparing nature: the conflict between human population growth and earth’s biodiversity. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 177- 86.
4. Reijinders, L. & Boersema, J. J (eds.). (2009). Principles of environmental sciences. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 3-18
5. Wenz, P. S. (1988). Environmental justice. Albany, NY: States University of New York Press. pp. 155-64.

Executive summary

This paper looks at five main issues that relate to visitor management in wildlife parks. It considers wildlife parks that have plants and animals, as well as those that only have wild plants. Parks of any size are included in the discussion as long as they have wildlife and are recognised as wildlife parks. The paper considers some example cases in specific aspects of management such as systems used or the legal status of the parks.

The five issues that it identifies as being critical and having the highest effect of visitor management are as follows. One of them is the visitor inventory management, which concerns the handling of things that visitors possess and use as part of their visitation, including vehicles. Another issue is visitor flow modelling, which looks at the extent of analysing the characteristics and movements of visitors in the parks. The modelling is a technique used to come up with capacity needs for the parks and to influence decisions regarding other visitor management efforts.

The goal is to have accurate and timely information about visitor characteristics that is useful for making strategic choices such as altering the flow of visitors. However, the paper also shows that the legal basis of sustaining park visitor management efforts is also another issue affecting park administration. The parks have a set of laws that governs their operations.

However, in case of handling visitors, they can be limited in their jurisdiction or their ability to enforce rules so that visitors adhere to restrictions. Finally, the report discusses a final issue of budgetary support. It shows that all efforts by park managers rely on the availability of adequate funds for operations. The paper also considers the structure of parks that might affect their source of funds and ability to self-generate funds.

Introduction

Wildlife parks around the world are key attraction points for tourists keen on exploring nature. An increase in the number of visitor to a particular park is beneficial because of the associated increase in revenue. However, the increased footprint also acts as a cost to management of the park ecosystem. Administrators of wildlife parks have to employ different strategies of visitor management to ensure that they have a balance of demand by visitors and the available regeneration capacity of the wildlife parks. Visitors to parks arrive on foot, vehicles and by air or boat depending on the nature of the wildlife park.

The machinery used to access the park also has a significant effect on the ecology of the attraction. Visitor management refers to the use of policies and interventions that an agency of a protected area and its managers use in aspects of park tourism. Visitors are persons who come to the wildlife park and participate in one or more activities that the park avails (Hyslop & Eagles, 2007).

Brief Background of the Attraction Type

Wildlife parks are part of protected areas around the world. They play a critical role in enhancing the value of people in a given locality. Wildlife parks only include undomesticated animals and plants. They are sometimes fenced off from unauthorised entry and to control the movement of wild animals. The parks are managed by different administrative units in different countries. For example, they can be under a county government or a central government department. Some wildlife parks are under a private management firm that is licensed to operate and maintain them on behalf of a public authority.

Identification of Issues, Management Solutions and Recommendations

Visitor Inventory Management

Wildlife parks have a visitor carrying capacity. This capacity relates to both the actual number of visitors and the additional equipment and objects that visitors may bring to a park during the visits. Many parks have to provide two functions: they have to protect the natural resource and meet the recreation objective of their visitors at the same time.

The management of parks follows a conventional business model where visitor revenues go towards the administrative costs of the park. Surpluses revert back to the management authority and deficits require the authority to meet part of the budgetary costs. Therefore, parks have to come up with sustainable criteria for letting in visitors and must find out an optimum number of visitors that the wildlife park can carry (Ament, Clevenger, Yu, & Hardy, 2008).

One risk of allowing visitors into wildlife parks is that they can carry with them food items and materials that are dangerous to wildlife. For example, plastic bags of any size can cause havoc in a pack because they are not edible by wild animals. Visitors who bring plastic bags in this case have to leave with the bags or dispose them correctly. The challenge of park managers is to ensure that such rules are enforced and visitors report any violation (Moore & Taplin, 2014).

Visitor Flow Modelling

For parks to sufficiently manage their visitors, they need appropriate ways of visitor monitoring. However, a head count of the number of visitors into the park is not enough to inform the right strategic decisions by park management concerning visitor management.

Managers have to understand the behaviour of visitors inside the parks, the motivations of visitation and many other issues that relate to the park or the visitor. For example, some parks have some areas that are very popular with visitors at different times of the day and of the year. Park managers need accurate information to manage peak and off-peak demand for these areas (Buckley, Robinson, Carmody, & King, 2008).

Therefore, a challenge that they face is finding the right method of collecting data about visitors and using the data appropriately for planning and implementing new strategies. There are a number of conventional systems used to assist managers to accomplish their objects. For example, there are classification systems for visitors and for the different type of parks, and their ability to cope with visitor disturbances.

Managers have to identify different sections of the park and visitors that correspond to a particular classification. Thereafter, they proceed to implement protocols for managing visitors based on classifications. The main issue here is on finding the right classification system that is advanced enough to ensure that managers are able to achieve their objectives of balance visitor leisure utility and park sustainability.

Obtaining Accurate Visitor Information

National parks have to continually undergo development to respond to change in the environment and consumer demand. Therefore, managers need to effectively come up with descriptions of their visitor characteristics and to spot trends in the changes on visitor characteristics. Typically, park managers rely on a combination of traffic and visitor observation or surveys.

For sampling, the common method is spatial or use of temporal dimensions. The problem that managers face in accomplishing the sample task is the allocation of sample days. First, they have to deal with the fact that not all visitor characteristics may be obtained on days where the visitor numbers are high (Kruger & Saayman, 2014).

In addition, the typical visitor characteristic captured may not cover all the potential visitor characteristics that a park will have. Therefore, when making plans about visitor management, parks always have a risk of failure to mitigate some visitor behaviour or characteristics that can be costly to the park or to other visitors. A number of researchers have provided possible solutions on the methodology of sampling visitor characteristics to enhance visitor information in for any park.

While these methods are insightful, they still require sufficient accommodation to handle a particular park’s situation for them to be fully usable. Moreover, parks provide different opportunities for their visitors such as overnight stay or day only use. At the same time, there are exceptions to what visitors can bring to the park, such that a standard sampling method may leave out some critical information about a certain visitor category.

Another challenge for collecting sufficient visitor information is the lack of integration of park’s information management systems with other public infrastructure systems. In some countries, parks are managed in isolation and have to implement their own visitor identification systems. Many do not go beyond the capturing of the identification details of visitors.

It would be helpful for parks to embrace a deep strategy for information collection. This will include active monitoring of individual visitors to the park to have a frequency record for visitors and for particular areas of the park. Another challenge created by this need to have sufficient information about visitor behaviour is the limitation of infrastructure space in parks.

Finding a Legal Basis for Sustaining Visitor Management Efforts

The extent to which park mangers establish rules to govern visitor behaviour depends on the legal provisions available for their use. Parks have to adhere to conventional legal provisions such as human rights when dealing with visitors. In addition, they must comply with any federal or local laws that govern their operations. Thus, when implementing various systems for visitor management, such as altering the visitation times and durations to realise the appropriate balance between revenue collection and sustainability, the parks have to ensure that the time allocation correspond to present legislation.

In many countries, especially Europe, the development of a legal framework for the management of parks, including the management of visitors is ongoing. In Germany, there is an ongoing process to come up with new legislation that will alter the usage of parks such that there is an overall increase in natural states of the present vegetation (Burns & Moreira, 2013).

Parks that do not have reliable legal frameworks to use in their management face risks of being overwhelmed by visitor demands. Unless they have legal protection to ensure that they are safeguarded areas and have sufficient rights to limit the behaviours of visitors, they run the risk of dealing with visitors who have no regard for rules and regulations of conduct within the parks. Moreover, legal enforcement of rules allows parks to increase compliance with direct or indirect behaviour intervention. For example, the risk of jail term can influence a visitor’s behaviour against feeding animals with food brought from outside the park (Mallick & Driessen, 2003).

Budgetary Support

Currently, many wildlife parks operate on a fixed budget support from their respective governments. Yet, there are increasing demands to invest in appropriate technologies and other solutions that will facilitate efficient and effective visitor management. In this regard, park administrators lack sufficient funds for research and development of their operations and their parks. As such, they are unable to meet their main objective of ensuring sufficient regeneration of the parks natural resources, which is the wildlife. Eventually, the park administrators will have to let in more visitor numbers and compromise on the particular park’s ecosystem. Unless this tendency is checked by the provision of sufficient budget support, results by management will not be very encouraging (Hannam, 2005).

The assessment of the contribution of tourism activities with the support of wildlife parks is lacking in many parks. Without a reliable source of information for the parks, it is impossible to come with congruent suggestions for budgetary support that will have a significant impact on park management. In some cases, budgetary support for parks does not come from the government; instead, it comes from the local community that owns the parks as part of community land.

The support is not regular and in such cases the seasonality affects the ability of park managers to implement their visitor management strategies (Spencer & Nsiah, 2013). Budget support issues may also emerge when looking at staffs and other administration member compensation. In most cases parks are government by trustees with some members being civil servants while others are appointed from a number of stakeholders. Furthermore, appointing authorities might have a legal mandate to appoint without a supporting capacity to offer budgetary support to the appointed park’s administration (Page, 2002).

Management of Issues

A variety of management strategies and actions are being implemented by park managers. They include zoning for different types of visitors. For example, a park can have one zone that allows visitors to move in with vehicles and other zones where visitors are only allowed to interact with wildlife from a distance. These are solutions that aim to limit the physical load to the ecosystems and to reduce disturbance of wild animals in their natural habitat. Besides the rules, park managers also use educational material and programs availed for tours to the parks. The education focuses on appropriate conduct of visitors and is also a way of ensuring that there is no delivery of contraband products by visitors into the park.

There are different classifications of the approaches used by management to ensure that visitors adhere to the rules of the parks. Direct management regulates and restricts visitor behaviour. Therefore, it ends up creating a perception of reduced visitor freedom when used effectively.

The challenge for managers is to use the direct approach and at the same time allow visitors as much freedom as possible on what they can bring to the park and how they are to conduct themselves within the parks. Indirect approaches give visitors options to follow if they are to behave in a certain way. An example of direct management approaches is the limitation of axes and matches in the park to prevent damage to trees. Providing a designated area for camping within the park is also another direct intervention.

When dealing with risk of visitor inventories, managers also use the containment or dispersal strategy to deal with the danger posed by visitors. Containment limits the spatial extent of visitor impacts. On the other hand, the dispersal approach reduces frequency of use so that there is no permanent damage to the wildlife resource.

For visitor flow modelling issue, parks can have specialised management systems’ development, which utilise various technologies, they still have to configure and frequently update the systems (Akama & Kieti, 2003). In addition, they must train management staffs on usage and must consider changes in visitor behaviour over time. Currently, a number of comprehensive systems for classification and monitoring visitors are in place in many parks around the world. Spatial elements used in planning and management frameworks have been useful. They exist in U.S. National Park Service’s Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) system as an example.

In many countries, the legal basis for national parks exists within the federal nature conservation acts or equivalent acts. In cases where there is no a clear demarcation of the federal laws and the state laws, a park administration can have difficulties, but problems are more likely to emerge under the budgetary support issue.

Recommendations

Unlike commercial spaces and public areas, protected areas for wildlife require the ecosystem to remain undisturbed. Park administrators should not freely erect surveillance systems and radio towers. They cannot create roads and footpaths unless they ascertain that harm to wildlife will be minimal. Therefore, they should note that, the ability to monitor visitors throughout their stay in parks is limited. Consequently, many parks should continue working with estimates on visitor characteristics rather than actual data due to these limitations.

The issues highlighted end up curtailing efforts that the administration would have towards effective management of visitors in wildlife parks (Smith, 2011). In cases where visitor management includes preventive measures to prevent harm on wildlife, any failure to meet budgetary needs for wildlife parks ends up creating additional regeneration hurdles (Metzger et al., 2010). Therefore, funds for the management of the parks must be availed by the relevant authorities at all times.

Conclusion

There are concerns affecting effecting visitor management in wildlife parks and this paper has discussed five of them. The discussion identifies and explains the occurrence of these issues. It also offers a description of potential effects of the issues when they are not effectively addressed by the wildlife park administrations. The issues identified in this paper are visitor flow modelling issues, obtaining accurate visitor information to facilitate planning efforts, budgetary support issues, finding a legal basis for sustaining visitor management efforts and dealing with visitor investor management.

These issues directly affect the ability of park administrators to effectively manage visitors so that there is a balance with the need for recreation and the ability of parks to support the activities. The paper shows that without sufficient coordination of activities of the respective park managers and the public administration bodies such as state and federal governments, there can be little progress made. It is important to pay attention to the vulnerability of the wildlife parks to any disturbances in their natural ecosystem as recovery after interferences is not guaranteed.

References

Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya’s wildlife safari: a case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tourism Management, 24(1), 73-81.

Ament, R., Clevenger, A., Yu, O., & Hardy, A. (2008). An assessment of road impacts on wildlife populations in U.S. national parks. Environmental Management, 42(3), 480-496.

Buckley, R., Robinson, J., Carmody, J., & King, N. (2008). Monitoring for management of conservation and recreation in Australian protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(14), 3589-3606.

Burns, R. C., & Moreira, J. C. (2013). Visitor manageemnt in Brazil’s protected areas: Benchmarking for best practices in resource management. The George Write Forum, 30(2), 163-170.

Hannam, K. (2005). Tourism Management Issues in India’s National Parks: An Analysis of the Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarahole) National Park. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(2-3), 165-180. doi:10.1080/13683500508668212

Hyslop, K., & Eagles, P. J. (2007). Visitor management policy of national parks, national wildlife areas and refuges in Canada and the united states: A policy analysis of public documents. Leisure/Loisir, 31(2), 475-499.

Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2014). The determinants of visitor length of stay at the Kruger National Park. Koedoe: African Protected Area Conservation and Science, 56(2), 1-11.

Mallick, S. A., & Driessen, M. M. (2003). Feeding of wildlife: How effective are the ‘Keep Wildlife Wild’ signs in Tasmania’s National Parks? Ecological Management & Restoration, 4(3), 199-204.

Metzger, K. L., Sinclair, A. R., Hilborn, R., Grant, J., Hopecraft, C., & Mduma, S. A. (2010). Evaluation the protection of wildlife in parks: The case of African buffalo in Serengeti. Biodiversity Conservatioin, 19, 3431-3444.

Metzger, K., Sinclair, A., Hilborn, R., Hopcraft, J., & Mduma, S. (2010). Evaluating the protection of wildlife in parks: the case of African buffalo in Serengeti. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(12), 3431-3444.

Moore, S. A., & Taplin, R. (2014). A benchmarking method for visitor management by national park agencies. Visitor Studies, 17(1), 107-127.

Page, S. (2002). Tourism and national parks: issues and implications. Tourism Management, 23(3), 328-330. doi:10.1016/s0261-5177(01)00081-4

Smith, C. A. (2011). The role of state wildlife professionals under the public trust doctrine. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75(7), 1539-1543.

Spencer, D. M., & Nsiah, C. (2013). The economic consequences of community support for tourism: A case study of a heritage fish hatchery. Tourism Management, 34, 221-230.

Diversity of Life within the Sanctuary

A home to a great variety of wildlife and endangered species, the Manas Sanctuary is located in the Himalayan foothills, in the far eastern state of Assam. Designated as a wildlife sanctuary in 1928, as a “World Heritage in Danger” site in 1985, and finally as a National Park in 1990, Manas is considered to be one of the best-kept national parks in India. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, 2008) Manas has a very assorted animal population.

Being the only tiger reserve in Assam, it accommodates India’s second-largest tiger population. Aside from this, it is also popular for the rare golden langur and red panda, and other highly endangered species of birds and animals. In addition to tigers, other potentially aggressive animals in Manas are the elephants, rhinoceros, wild buffaloes, leopards, clouded leopards, and the black panthers. Other creatures include swamp deer, gaur, golden cat, pangolin, fishing cat, capped langurs, Assamese macaques, slow loris, hoolock gibbons, smooth Indian otters, sloth bears, barking deer, hog deer, sambar, and chital. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary)

Not only does Manas accommodate the Fauna, but it also contains more than 450 species of birds. Among the most popular are the great pied hornbill and the Bengal florican. Both resident and migratory species such as giant hornbills, jungle fowls, bulbuls, brahmin ducks, Khaleej pheasants, egrets, pelicans, fishing eagles, serpent eagles, falcons, scarlet minivets, bee-eaters, magpie robins, pied hornbills, gray hornbills, mergansers, harriers, ospreys, and herons reside within the area. Of course, a large variety of reptiles and butterflies can also be seen in the sanctuary. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary)

All of these can be seen by visitors through rides on boats and elephants. Elephant rides are best for visitors who would want to see wild animals, while the boat rides are for spotting animals and birds that come to the rivers to drink. Although there are no available department jeeps or guides, the tourists could hire private jeeps that will be used during the tour. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary)

The ecosystem within the Manas Sanctuary

Animals and plants of different species interact with each other all the time. Interactions could be in the form of eating together, living together, mating together, and even preying on each other. (What Is an Ecosystem?)

The Manas Wildlife Sanctuary is a home of ecosystems where both biotic and abiotic components are linked and interrelated. It is said to represent one of the most unique and best examples of the Eastern Himalayan ecosystem because 92% of the park is still under forest cover. (Management of Royal Manas National Park, 2008)

The interrelationships among the life forms within the sanctuary start with the input of energy from the sun. This energy is captured and transformed into chemical energy by cellular processes such as photosynthesis and respiration, which are then released to the environment in the form of heat. The continuous input of solar energy is a requisite for the survival of all biological systems on earth. (The Concept of the Ecosystem, 2006)

Energy moves within the ecosystem through the food web, which is basically composed of interlocking food chains. This process begins with the absorption of energy and other elements from water, atmosphere, and soil by plants, which are considered to be the primary producers in the ecosystem. Herbivores, which are considered as the primary consumers, obtain energy by consuming the plants. Secondary consumers, which are the carnivores, then eat the herbivores; detritivores, scavengers, and decomposers, in turn, consume the droppings and carcasses of the aforementioned creatures. It is important to note that during the process of decomposition, elements are not destroyed or lost; thus, it can be seen that there is endless cycling of elements within ecosystems. (The Concept of the Ecosystem, 2006)

Controls within the ecosystem are a delicate balance, which intrusions and unnecessary disturbances can easily upset. The following discussion focuses on the human intrusions and activities that are threatening the biological interrelationships within the Manas Sanctuary.

Human Intrusions That Threaten the Area

Although the wildlife sanctuary was established to protect and conserve threatened animals, there are still unwanted interactions between humans and animals that produce adverse consequences. Worthy to note is the unspecified number of infringements in several buffer zones that were set up in the sanctuary. Of particular concern is a village named Amtika, which is located in the area occupied by the golden langur.

The village communities that reside on the periphery of Manas are using the park to collect grasses, fuel, wood, fodder timber, and even for grazing of their livestock. In addition to these are the unsustainable burning activities during the dry season, hunting and extraction of timber and firewood in the buffer zone. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

Also, in February 1989, members of the local Bodo Students Union, who form about one-third of Assam’s population, occupied the park while campaigning for the autonomy of its people. The consequence of this were acts of arson, sabotage, and the massacre of more than a dozen wildlife guards by terrorists, which further caused the forced evacuation of the park staff. These gave the opportunity to professional thieves, lumber smugglers, and intruding villagers to harm and kill a number of animals including rhinoceros, elephants, and deer. These further caused substantial damages to infrastructure and guard posts in 12 areas of the part. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

In 1993, still due to human encroachments, almost one-third of Manas’ rhinoceros were stolen and at least 4 tigers and 2 elephants were killed. A significant number of trees fell and the habitat of the golden langur, hispid hare, and pygmy hog has been put at great risk. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

Stealing, which is usually done by heavily armed gangs, is still one of the greatest concerns in the park. In 1996, a boatman of the sanctuary has been shot by poachers, and the rhinoceros population decreased significantly due to these illegal activities. Action plans and conservation management strategies are continuously being proposed and implemented so as to curb, if not totally eliminate the number of activities and happenings that harm the diverse life forms in the area. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

Protection and Conservation Management Efforts/ Actions

Management plans for the wildlife sanctuary are continuously being crafted and revised. One of the activities that are being practiced so as to maintain the composition of different habitats is the controlled burning process. Other regular conservation works include the provision of staff accommodations and the development of roads and wireless network so as to improve the efficiency of anti-poaching operations and administration of the entire sanctuary. Rhino Action plans are also in place so as to address the adverse effects of poaching on the rhinoceros population. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

The WWF (World Wildlife Fund), a global conservation organization is likewise working on a project that contributes to the conservation management of Manas. The main components of the project are conservation research, institutional and capacity development, anti-poaching, transboundary dialogues, and ecosystem protection. Its objectives include 1.) conservation of the biodiversity; 2.) strengthening of park management and local community capacities via education, training, and infrastructure development; and 3.) provision of rural development activities for residents by integrating conservation and development efforts. (Management of Royal Manas National Park, 2008)

Due to substantial numbers of Indian insurgencies, the project’s current focus is on anti-poaching patrolling activities and strengthening staff capacity, while research and integrated conservation and development programs are minimal and limited to the northern part of the park.(Management of Royal Manas National Park, 2008)

Individual Contributions to the Preservation of the Manas Sanctuary

By simply not participating in activities that may cause harm to the biodiversity, (i.e. stealing animals/ killing plants and other creatures, etc.) an individual can significantly contribute to the preservation of the Manas Sanctuary. In addition to this are the initiative of the individual to actually report any illegal activities and harmful encroachments that may come to his knowledge to the appropriate authority.

Conscious effort to educate oneself about biodiversity and ecosystem and passing on to others his knowledge about such are also great contributors to the conservation and preservation efforts. Of course, giving financial aids and/or volunteering to be a member to organizations (if not pioneering an organization) whose objectives are to conserve and protect the life forms within the sanctuary contribute substantially to the efforts. Simply put, an individual’s contribution can be in terms of initiating conservation efforts or making the existing efforts effective and sustainable. The concept of sustainability with regards to sanctuary conservation is further discussed below.

Other Measures to Ensure the Preservation of the Sanctuary

The current measures and efforts to preserve the sanctuary are seen to be more than enough to achieve the preservation and conservation objectives. What is to be strengthened are the measures of making the efforts sustainable, because a project whose objectives end with the end of the project itself does not achieve its objectives at all. One way of making the efforts sustainable is by strengthening public support for biodiversity conservation. This could be accomplished by launching education and informative campaigns to the public, particularly to the local communities and village residents. These campaigns should be with high public recognition so as to ensure their effectiveness.

Strengthening public support is not an easy task which is why it is to be suggested that India, as a country, should adopt the “principle of sectoral responsibility” to provide the foundation of ensuring the sustainability of each conservation effort. This principle simply means that each sector would be taking responsibility to reduce its harmful impacts on the environment. (Weissenberg, 2007) Sectors could include the different stakeholder groups, government agencies and departments, non-profit organizations, scientific community, local authorities, private sectors, and many others more.

The implementation of this principle could be made possible by having legislation, both local and national, that would engage the various communities to actually take part in preserving biodiversity, particularly of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries such as the Manas. The internal communities of Manas and the organizations that support its cause can help in the start of the implementation of this principle by practicing it among themselves, and by disseminating it to all local communities that they can reach.

Effects of Long-Term Harmful Human Intrusion

If unwanted human intrusions remain unaddressed, not only will the sanctuary cease to exist, but looking at the bigger picture, these encroachments could lead to a significant decline in the world’s biodiversity and to the alteration of the ecological balance.

The results of these would be the loss of sustainable development and the proliferation of unexpected shocks, such as water shortages, burgeoning and spread of diseases, extreme weather conditions, and vulnerability of crops and livestock, which would further lead to the lack, if not the absence of food for the human population. (Srivastava) To put these simply, harmful human intrusions to the sanctuary would primarily endanger the life forms within it and the park per se, but, in the long run, the harm would ultimately fire back to the human beings.

References

Management of Royal Manas National Park. (2008). WWF. Web.

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. (2008). Journeymart. Web.

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. Wild India. Web.

Protected Areas Programme. (1997). World Heritage Sites. Web.

Srivastava, Paritosh. Hanging in the Balance: Conserving Biodiversity. UN Chronicle Online Edition. Web.

The Concept of the Ecosystem. (2006). Regents of the University of Michigan. Web.

Weissenberg, Marina von. (2007). Sectoral and cross-sectoral integration of biodiversity considerations. Web.

What is an Ecosystem? Alberta Online Encyclopedia. Web.

Introduction: How Does Tourism Affect Animals?

Wildlife tourism is basically the viewing of wild animals in their natural habitats. Tourism affects the ecosystem of wildlife both positively and negatively. Tourism can lead to interference and destruction of the wildlife ecosystem, leading to decrease in the population of the animals and degradation of their habitats.

Tourists will interfere with the welfare of the wild animals through their interactions with the animals. The roads and paths that offer access to the wild animals also lead to destruction of the natural habitat of the wild animals (Claggett 1997, p.23).

Tourism can also have numerous positive effects on wildlife. Due to the huge incomes that tourism generates, authorities and local communities will aim at preserving the natural habitat of the animals for continued gains in the future. Part of the money earned from tourism can be used for conservation of endangered species and safeguarding the habitat of the wild animals through fencing (Claggett 1997, p.27).

Thesis Statement

Although wildlife tourism is common in various countries, it has negative effects on the wildlife.

Positive and Negative Impacts of Wildlife Tourism

Tourism is known to finance conservation efforts of wildlife

Opponents of the argument that tourism negatively affects wildlife claim that tourism in fact promotes conservation efforts of wildlife and their habitat through provision of financial aid (Bushell & Eagles 2006, p.143).

They argue that part of the revenue obtained from tourism is channelled back to conservation efforts of the wildlife like conservation of endangered species. They also argue that local communities and authorities are dedicated to conserving wildlife primarily because of tourism as most of them earn their living through tourism related activities (Bushell & Eagles 2006, p.154).

Rebuttal to the Argument That Tourism Finance Conservation Effort of Wildlife and Their Habitats

Tourism leads to destruction and interference of the wildlife’s habitat. In places with wildlife that attracts tourists, part of the wildlife’s habitat is cleared in order to pave way for construction of amenities that meet the needs of tourists like resorts (Green & Higginbottom 2001, p.37). Tourists may engage in off-road driving and walking through wildlife habitat, which leads to trampling of vegetation and death of small living creatures.

Tourism leads to disturbance of normal activities of wildlife. Tourism disrupts the feeding and breeding patterns of wildlife. Tourists move too close to animals with the aim of viewing and taking photographs, the animals become aware of the presence of humans and cannot continue with their routine activities. A study in Mexico reveal a decrease in breeding of brown pelicans by 52 to 100% in areas frequented by tourists compared to areas not visited by tourists (Eagles & Haynes 2002, p.92).

Tourists disrupt the bonding between parent and offspring. In Canada, female harp seals’ attendance to their pups reduced when tourists were present (Eagles & Haynes 2002, p.97).

Tourism activities create awareness on conservation efforts of endangered species

Opponents of the argument that tourism negatively affects wildlife claim that tourism creates awareness on conservation of endangered species. Some tourists engage in studying of the ecosystem and create awareness to raise funds for various projects aimed at conservation of the ecosystem (Edgell 2006, p.45).

Rebuttal to the Argument That Tourism Creates Awareness on Conservation Efforts of Endangered Species

Tourism activities may lead to increased vulnerability of some species to predators. Viewing of certain species of wildlife may expose them to predators leading to a decrease in their population (Edgell 2006, p.41). Certain tourism activities may scare away wildlife from their habitat. In Kenya, increased observation of cheetahs drives them away from their habitat into community farms (Green & Higginbottom 2001, p.27).

Tourism increases cases of poaching and game hunting. Poachers masquerading as tourists gain access to wildlife that have body parts with high monetary value like elephant tasks. Controlling poaching becomes difficult and expensive (Green & Higginbottom 2001, p.23). Tourists also contribute to decreased population of wildlife through activities like game hunting and sport fishing. The effects can be severe without proper regulation of these activities.

The growing practice of ecotourism offers great benefits to wildlife

Opponents of the argument that tourism negatively affects wildlife claim that with the increase in the practice of ecotourism, greater care is taken to educate tourists of the need for preserving wildlife and their habitat (Boo 1990, p.87).

Rebuttal of the Argument That Ecotourism Offers Benefits To Wildlife

Tourism activities like noise and feeding of wildlife affects behaviour and welfare of wildlife (Mieczkowski 1995, p.64). In the Galopolos islands, artificial feeding led to disruption of breeding patterns of iguanas (Lascuráin 1996, p.99). Noise generated by motor boats and engines of motor vehicles as tourists move closer to the animals tend to disturb feeding and drinking patterns of wildlife (Newsome & Moore 2005, p.75).

Tourism leads to decreased pollution of the wildlife habitat. Tourists lead to pollution of the habitat through littering and noise pollution, which tend to scare wild animals. The use of vehicles and motor boats leads to further pollution of the environment (Lascuráin 1996, p.97). Burning firewood for providing warmth in resorts leads to environmental pollution.

Conclusion: Negative Effects of Tourism on Wildlife

Wildlife tourism is a major source of revenue for countries in Africa and South American countries. However without proper coordination, it can negatively impact on the wildlife and their habitat. For sustainable tourism, structures should be put in place to minimise the negative effects of tourism to wildlife. Efforts to educate tourists on conserving wildlife should be practiced.

References

Boo, E 1990, Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls, World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.

Bushell, R & Eagles, F 2006, Tourism and protected areas benefits beyond boundaries, CABI Pub, Wallingford.

Claggett, H D 1997, Wildlife conservation, H W Wilson Co, New York.

Eagles, F & Haynes, C 2002, Sustainable tourism in protected areas: guidelines for planning and management, IUCN the World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Edgell, D L 2006, Managing sustainable tourism: a legacy for the future, Haworth Hospitality Press, New York.

Green R, & Higginbottom, K, 2001, The negative effects of wildlife tourism on wildlife, CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast, Qld.

Lascuráin, H 1996, Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: the state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development, IUCN, Gland.

Mieczkowski, Z 1995, Environmental issues of tourism and recreation, University Press of America, Lanham, Md.

Newsome, D & Moore, S 2005, Wildlife Tourism, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

The World Wildlife Fund for Nature (“WWF”) is a “privately financed conservation organization” (Pares, 2010, p.1). The purpose of this NGO is to safeguard nature and to stop the degradation of the planet’s environment and “to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature” (Parnes, 2010, p.2). It was founded in 1960 and yet after four decades it is not only going strong but has become a very influential NGO – its Panda logo is an instantly recognized icon all over the planet. The WWF succeeded not only because of good management but also of a clear understanding of the principles governing media relations. The WWF was able to use media to enhance their image, provide a better company profile and as a result they were able to change the way the world looks at them.

The World Wildlife Fund for Nature was established in 1961 by the first General Director of UNESCO, Sir Julian Huxley (Parnes, 2010, p.2). The organization was created after Huxley made a report regarding the wildlife conservation in East Africa, saying that the regions wildlife could disappear in 20 years if nothing was done to safeguard the environment (Parnes, 2010, p.2) As a response to Huxley’s report, a group of experts made a commitment to establish an NGO that will support conservation efforts and WWF was born.

The WWF made of national level organizations that are accountable directly to their own board and donors (Parnes, 2010, p.2). However, these national level organization must send two thirds of the money that they raised to the to their headquarters in Switzerland, nevertheless they are allowed to keep the rest of the money to spend it the way they see fit (Parnes, 2010, p.2). With regards to checks and balances the WFF international in Switzerland must be transparent when scrutinized by those under it – the national level organizations as well as their donors and the authorities based in Switzerland (Parnes, 2010, p.2).

The mission statement of the WWF, the fact that it is an NGO and by reason of its organisational structure explains why its leaders has to learn the intricacies of medial relations. The WWF does not only have to maintain a good image but it also has to make its presence known at a global scale, the motivation behind the need to use the media for the success of its programs.

Media Relations

In today’s marketplace any organisation – whether it is for profit or nonprofit – could not afford to continue its operations without a clear understanding of media relations. According to experts the proper use of media relations will generate the following results:

1. improving company or brand image;
2. better media profile;
3. changing the attitudes of target audiences;
4. improving relationship with the community
5. influencing government policy at local, national or international level;
6. improving communications with investors; and
7. improving industrial relations (Bland, Theaker, & Wragg, 2005, p.55).

These are the things that the WWF needs in order to maintain its effectiveness as an NGO and at the same time to increase its capability to acquire more funding from aid agencies and private donors.

Furthermore, media planning is emerging as an important new specialty in public relations (Hallahan, 2001, p.461). This is evident in the way the WWF expertly handled new media as shown in their official websites and the way they communicate through them. But perhaps the deeper reason why the WWF shows great respect to the inherent power of newspapers and TV stations to create public perception was explained succinctly by Walter Lippman who said:

Every newspaper when it reaches the reader is the result of a whole series of selections as to what items shall be printed, in what position they shall be printed, how much space each shall occupy, what emphasis each shall have. There are no objective standards here (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2004, p.259).

Others are even saying that there is no such thing as objectivity in the media and the rhetoric about fairness and balanced reporting is just all myth (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2004). The WWF recognizes the fact that they cannot be at the mercy of journalists and so they need to be proactive with regards to making them allies rather than detractors. The WWF does not only make press releases or grant interviews, the organization has a full-time communications officer from Cambodia to Canada (WWF-Cambodia, 2010; WWF-Canada, 2010). This is a clear commitment on their part to work with journalist and news agencies.

Agenda-Setting Theory

One of the most important things to consider is the impact of the Agenda-Setting Theory. Everyone is aware of the power of the media to influence society but the Agenda-Setting Theory clarifies what it means. According to communications specialists, “While the news media may not be successful in telling the pubic what to think, they are quite successful in telling the public what to think about” (Carroll, 2010, p.3). This is the immense power wielded by the media.

The real extent of the media’s power to affect the success of an organization is magnified when the principles of Agenda-Setting Theory is applied to “corporate reputation” (Carroll, 2010, p.3). Corporate reputation is a complex concept with three dimensions and these include “a firm’s public prominence, its public esteem, and the series of qualities or attributes for which a firm is known” (Carroll, 2010, p.3). If the media can set the agenda and influence the general public on how to perceive a particular organisation, then it is all the more important for companies to pay attention to media relations and its capability to bring them up or bring them down.

The WWF also understands that the traditional role of media and their monopoly on information dissemination has been broken. Politicians, CEOs, celebrities, and other newsmakers “have discovered that they can circumvent die-hard journalists to take their messages directly to the populace via sprightly talk shows, satellite news, conferences, appearances on entertainment shows, sponsored programs on cable networks, and video brochures” (Hallahan, 2001, p.462). One mistake can be blown out of proportion if there is no clear idea on how to manage media.

It is not only enough to communicate; the WWF has to learn how. This is because, “Today’s postmodern media environment is filled with ambiguous formats where the intent of messages is not readily clear to audiences – advertorials, infomercials, video news releases, home shopping shows, product placements, and, and promotional events co-sponsored by media that are reported as legitimate news” (Hallahan, 2001,p.462). Modern usage of different forms of media is liberating but it can also be difficult to control.

According to another media expert an organisation will not get the desired result when it comes to media relations if the leaders did not prepare in advance a media relations plan (Henderson, 2005). He wonders why would any organisation “ever consider launching an outreach program, issuing a news release or making any public statement without some sort of plant that provides purpose, relevance and context” (Henderson, 2005, p.61). The WWF cannot afford to simply issue press releases there must be a general overview of what the organisation is trying to achieve. It is like shooting without a target and therefore nothing is expected to be hit.

A media relations plan should have a situation overview that summarises in a few statements the lay of the land, the competitive environment and the challenges and the obstacles faced by the organisation (Henderson, 2005, p.62). There is also a need to know the audience, the objectives and a strategy for each objective (Henderson, 2005 p.62). Finally, there is a need for a position message that will clearly differentiate the organisation from competitors and as a result capture the attention of the target audience (Henderson, 2005, p.62).

Aside from having an effective media relations plan the most important thing for an organisation to accomplish is to endear itself to the press people. There is no better way to find out a successful media relations model than to examine the strategies and perspective of communications officers such as Press Secretaries. These people are not only aware of media-related concepts and theories on how media relations work, these people have real-life experiences and they know what works and what does not work. One good resource person in this regard is the former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

This is because he used to run a successful media operation and as a result of that experience he was able to develop a media relations model known as McCurry’s 4-C’s and this stands for: candour; credibility; clarity; and commitment (McCurry, 2000, p.4). He said that an organisation must consistently tell the truth in order to be credible. It should also be communicated clearly so that the media people will get a clear idea of what is being said. Finally, McCurry also said that there must be commitment on the part of the organisation to keep on telling the appropriate story because the media will appreciate this.

It looks as if the WWF as a media friendly organization has taken a page from Mike McCurry, the former White House Press Secretary under the Clinton Administration. McCurry said that it is not enough to have candour and credibility when it comes to media management he also said to include clarity and commitment (McCurry, 2000, p.3). Based on the steps made by the WWF, there is evidence to show that they want to be as clear as possible when it comes to communicating their views on environmental issues and they also are committed to keep on speaking out until communication between the WWF, their donors, partners, investors, and the general public is assured.

Thus, the WWF is not only content in reaching out to the different media outlets using a team of communications officers, the organization also hired media experts to help them create a workable strategy to manage the media. This is the reason why they enlisted the help of the Center for Development Communication, a firm specializing in the crafting of communication strategies to address social and development issues (CDC, 2010). Their expertise fits perfectly well with the needs of the WWF.

Media relations is of utmost importance because it is the only way that an organisation will be able to maximise the power of the media to enhance their image and change the way the whole world will come to perceives them. The use of media relations principles is the only way that an organisation will be able to endear itself to the press. For instance, if WWF will not use the principles of media relations then it is possible that the press will not give them a fair and balanced reporting. It has been pointed out earlier that mass media is being operated solely based on journalism principles alone. It is a business operated by business people and if they feel that an organisation is hostile to them then it cannot expect to be given glowing reviews.

If this will happen then the perception of the general public will be distorted and will defeat the purpose of using the media as a tool to enhance an organisation’s image. Furthermore, it is not enough to simply be nice to journalists. These professionals have a work to do and they are also accountable not only to their editors but also to the consumers of news materials. Thus, they need to be able to write a good material and this means that they must be able to get the truth. This is why candour and credibility was emphasized by McCurry. Journalists will not appreciate it if the story that they report is not accurate.

It is important to maintain a sense of professionalism in dealing with journalists but it is also necessary to be aware of strategies that can help the company establish effective media relations, build relationship with journalists and then to evaluate and monitor media and the effectiveness of media relations.

The first thing that needs to be done is to maintain awareness for the organization and this can be achieved by creating a media list. According to experts, “You’ll build your media list by consulting current directories…” (Hahn, 2005, p.98). After choosing the journalists and media entity that the company will work with the next thing to do is to contact them and make them partners in disseminating information regarding the company. From that point onwards the next thing to do is to maintain relationships by keeping them updated with regards to important developments within the organization (Hahn, 2005, p.98).

It will greatly increase the success of the partnership if there will be an informal media luncheon done annually or on occasion media contacts will be invited to lunch (Hahn, year, p.98). It is also imperative to write thank you notes to reporters after the company received a good coverage from them (Hahn, 2005, p.98). It will also help strengthen and maintain good relationships with the media people if the leaders of the company will familiarize themselves with the work of the media contacts and then compliment them if they filed a good story etc. (Hahn, 2005, p.98).

Finally, the organisation must show its commitment that every time it will collaborate with journalists and news agencies it must do so with consistency. It cannot be credible and truthful on a few occasions and then become unreliable the next time there is a press conference or press release. There must be a commitment to keep people informed. There must also be a commitment to bring out the best from each other. This can be achieved by giving information accurately. The WWF will benefit greatly if these principles are observed and followed.

Conclusion

The WWF understands the power of the media. Thus, it made critical steps to manage it and harness its power rather than to stand in its way. As a result they borrowed a page from McCurry’s playbook that says an organization must not only focus on candor and credibility but also on commitment and clarity (McCurry, 2000, p.3). They were also wary of the Agenda-Setting theory and the power of the media to set the agenda in news discussion and information disseminations. As a result the WWF does not only have communications officers working full-time but they also hired media experts to develop media strategies for them. This is a great factor in their success and thus they were able to influence international policies with regards to saving the environment.

References

Bland, Michael, Alison Theaker & David Wragg. Effective Media Relations: How to Get Results. London: Kogan Page Ltd., 2005.

Carroll, C. (2010). Corporate Reputation and the News Media: Agenda-Setting Within Business News. New York: Routledge.

Center for Development Communication. (2010) “CDC Home.” Web.

Cutlip, S, A. Center, & G. Broom. (2004). Effective Public Relations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hallahan, K. (2001) Strategic Media Planning: Towards an Integrated Public Relations Media Model. In Handbook of Public Relations. R.L. Heath & M. Vasquez (eds.). London: Sage Publications.

Hahn, Pamela. (2005) The Only Writing Book You’ll Ever Need. MA: F&W Publications Company.

Heath, R. (1997) Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges. UK: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Henderson, David. Media Relations. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2005.

McCurry, M. (2000) Managing the Media: Former White House Press Secretary Mike Curry tells how. Harvard Management Communication Letter.

Parnes, R.B. (2010). “How the World Wildlife Fund Works.” Web.

Pryor, B. (2004) The Role of an Environmental NGO in the Landmark Florida Everglades Restoration: An Etnography of Environmental Conflict Resolution with Many Twists and Turns. Ca: Heliographica.

Regester, M. & J. Larkin. (2002) Risk Issues and Crisis Management: A Casebook of Best Practice. UK: Kogan Page Limited.

Smith, R. (2002) Strategic Planning for Public Relations. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

World Wildlife Fund (2010). Media: Newsroom. Web.

World Wildlife Fund – Canada. (2010) Director, Communications. Web.

World Wildlife Fund – Cambodia. (2010) “Re-announced post of Communications Officer.” Web.

Introduction

Federal US agencies apply various techniques when it comes to managing refuge systems related to the land and wildlife. Obtaining a refuge is essential in terms of the protection of certain species by creating the circumstances in which said organism is inaccessible to predators and external factors interfering with its well-being. The concept relates to the mitigation of such risks as invasive species, excessive hunting, deforestation, and other factors that disrupt the balance within the ecosystem. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Forrest Service (USFS) are two federal agencies established to confront the need for refuge management to ensure the wildlife is conserved and protected. However, while the entities have similar objectives in regard to conservation and supporting ecological causes, the frameworks they use in relation to refuge management are different. In this paper, the differences in the approaches of USFWS and USFS will be discussed alongside the similarities and the benefit of each framework.

Allowable vs. Multiple Use Management

As mentioned prior, both organizations are motivated to conserve wildlife, and one of the measures that helps achieve the goal through refuge management. The US Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish, plants, wildlife, and natural habitats to ensure the management strategies maximize the benefit for the American citizens and minimize risks related to the endangerment of certain species, deterioration of fisheries, and similar challenges. The US Forrest Service, on the other hand, manages national forests and grasslands. Thus, the aim is to sustain natural resources with the purpose of providing people with the necessary benefits while ensuring the activities do not lead to the deterioration of the land. The objectives of the organizations and the aims when it comes to benefiting people ultimately illustrate the different approaches when it comes to refuge management.

USFWS has implemented an allowable use framework to maximize conservation efforts. Thus, however, does not imply that commercial activities are prohibited on the territories under the control of the agency. Nonetheless, all services such as camping, guiding, photography, rentals, agriculture, and access to the sites have to be confirmed and allowed by the agency (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2022). For example, if the allowable take of golden eagles is approximately 2300 as measured through calculations aimed toward balanced conservation, hunting premises shall not exceed the number (Millsap et al., 2022). The measure helps the entity ensure that the aforementioned activities do not interfere with the conservation objectives and will not negatively affect the areas. Thus, the resources can be used, and the lands can be interfered with of the said agency determines the activities to not correlate with negative side-effects to restoration and conservation policies.

USFS, on the other hand, operates under the premise of the multiple-use framework. The concept highlights the idea that the forests are used for more than one purpose. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 protects the concept of having a multi-use approach to natural resources obtained in the forests protected by the USFS, highlighting that the land is to serve as a conservation entity ensuring effective refuge management for maintaining a balance within the ecosystem while replenishing the natural resources later used by people (US Forest Service, 2022). Thus, the agency is to consider that the objective of restoration and conservation go hand-in-hand with maximizing natural resources such as timber. As a result, it is inevitable that while a similarity is the aim to assist in regards to ecological objectives, the difference is highlighted in the multi-use approach, which is to include additional purposes such as acquiring natural resources.

The two frameworks, while different, both have benefits and correlate with certain limitations that are to be discussed. On the one hand, USFWS can maximize the agency’s success when it comes to conservation efforts since this is the central premise. Needless to say, since commercial activities are allowed if they do not interfere with the primary goal, the entity is able to acquire financial support and rely on the profit from the aforementioned services. However, this is also a limitation since the regulatory implementations do not imply replenishing natural resources, hence, providing people with the needed goods through authorization. Moreover, the profit is lower, and the agency is limited in regard to investments in further conservation practices.

The multi-use approach, on the other hand, is effective in terms of profit and resource replenishment while less practical for conservation measures. An example is noise impact which occurs on building sites, deforestation actions, and construction activities and interferes with the ecological objective (Taylor & Schwaller, 2018). However, since the objective is to maximize natural resources, such limitations are not valid enough to limit activities related to the acquirement of wood and similar aims.

Conclusion

Several strengths and limitations correlate with the allowable use framework implemented by USFWS and the multi-use model applied by USFS. The strengths of the allowable use strategy are the maximization of conservation efforts and the focus on environmental aims, as well as the authority of the federal agency in determining commercial activities. However, the weaknesses include limited profit that can later be invested in further ecological aims as well as the limited assistance to natural resource replenishment needed by people. The multiple-use framework, on the other hand, is beneficial in assisting people with their needs and creating profit. At the same time, the limitations correlate with fewer opportunities for conservation and a more complex aim that does not facilitate activity delegation. Moreover, the framework limits the agency in determining whether the commercial processes are ethical or are to be minimized.

References

Millsap, B. A., Zimmerman, G. S., Kendall, W. L., Barnes, J. G., Braham, M. A., Bedrosian, B. E., Bell, D. A., Bloom, P. H., Crandall, R. H., Domenech, R., Driscoll, D., Duerr, A. E., Gerhardt, R., Gibbs, S. E., Harmata, A. R., Jacobson, K., Katzner, T. E., Knight, R. N., Lockhart, J. M., … Watson, J. W. (2022). Age‐specific survival rates, causes of death, and allowable take of golden eagles in the western United States. Ecological Applications, 32(3).

Taylor, P., & Schwaller, A. (2018). Management considerations for noise impacts on the Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(3), 1805–1805.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2022). National Wildlife Refuge System. FWS.gov.

US Forest Service. (2022).Moving mountains at the Forest Service. USDA.