Are safaris in Africa ethical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who should decide this?

The people in the countries where the safaris are.

Fortunately, that is the way it works.

I don't even understand what you are saying. The people in the countries with the safaris should decide whether safaris are ethical or not? That does not make sense -- everyone has to decide for themselves whether an activity meets their own ethical standards. If the people of Botswana are like "we are all very happy with the safari ethics in our country" but OP's DH is not then the safaris are not ethical according to his standards and it doesn't matter what people in Botswana think.

Also you are assuming there is consensus in these countries regarding safari tourism and there very much is not. Every country that offers safaris has people who oppose them and people who support them. And people make both ethical and unethical arguments both in favor and against safaris. Safaris bring in money and create employment and can increase understanding and awareness of both environmental and cultural and political issues in these countries. But sometimes the safari companies are mostly taking profits out of the country and underpay or mistreat the people employed in Africa. Some safari companies are terrible and engage in awful environmental practices. Some safari visitors are respectful of their host countries and behave well. Some very much do not. Some of the countries that host safaris have racism and oppression of certain ethnicities and the benefits of safari tourism are kept from those communities and hoarded.

It's not so simple as "Well if this is something someone in Kenya or South Africa or Botswana is willing to offer then it must be ethical and broadly viewed that way in these countries." It varies by country and can vary by company and region and practice.

The fact that you don’t understand does not make the logic any less valid.

Actually it does-- if you can't clearly communicate the logic then your point is not valid. At least not outside of your own head.

You made a claim you didn’t understand a very simple point and then typed a lot of words contradicting that claim.

…if in fact you want to discuss who can’t clearly communicate.

[Anonymous]

Staying in a South African national park campground and doing morning/evening game drives with the local trackers was relatively cheap and well run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you go with a local, ethically managed safari company like the one my friend runs in Tanzania, I can't imagine a less destructive vacation.

She previously worked at a non-profit that had quite a bit of ethical tourism and she oversaw the program.

Could safaris be unethical? Yes.

But it's not the same as voluntourism which is basically taking day labor jobs from locals. It's about learning about another part of the world, seeing nature, and giving money to a likely impoverished local economy. All good things to do.

I'd have more ethical concerns about the flight over.

What’s your friend’s company? I went to Tanzania long ago and am thinking of planning another trip soon!

It's Tanzania Choice Safaris:
https://tanzaniachoicesafaris.com/

I am the person who posted right above yours. If you've recommended Tanzania Choice Safaris before (about 2 years ago) on DCUM, I wanted to thank you. We went with them in 2023 and had a fabulous trip!

So very glad! Brenda is one of my favorite people and I've thought often (once my kids are older) about travelling with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who should decide this?

The people in the countries where the safaris are.

Fortunately, that is the way it works.

I don't even understand what you are saying. The people in the countries with the safaris should decide whether safaris are ethical or not? That does not make sense -- everyone has to decide for themselves whether an activity meets their own ethical standards. If the people of Botswana are like "we are all very happy with the safari ethics in our country" but OP's DH is not then the safaris are not ethical according to his standards and it doesn't matter what people in Botswana think.

Also you are assuming there is consensus in these countries regarding safari tourism and there very much is not. Every country that offers safaris has people who oppose them and people who support them. And people make both ethical and unethical arguments both in favor and against safaris. Safaris bring in money and create employment and can increase understanding and awareness of both environmental and cultural and political issues in these countries. But sometimes the safari companies are mostly taking profits out of the country and underpay or mistreat the people employed in Africa. Some safari companies are terrible and engage in awful environmental practices. Some safari visitors are respectful of their host countries and behave well. Some very much do not. Some of the countries that host safaris have racism and oppression of certain ethnicities and the benefits of safari tourism are kept from those communities and hoarded.

It's not so simple as "Well if this is something someone in Kenya or South Africa or Botswana is willing to offer then it must be ethical and broadly viewed that way in these countries." It varies by country and can vary by company and region and practice.

The fact that you don’t understand does not make the logic any less valid.

Actually it does-- if you can't clearly communicate the logic then your point is not valid. At least not outside of your own head.

You made a claim you didn’t understand a very simple point and then typed a lot of words contradicting that claim.

…if in fact you want to discuss who can’t clearly communicate.

"A lot of words" in this case refers to a cogent argument.

It's not PP's fault you can't read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who should decide this?

The people in the countries where the safaris are.

Fortunately, that is the way it works.

I don't even understand what you are saying. The people in the countries with the safaris should decide whether safaris are ethical or not? That does not make sense -- everyone has to decide for themselves whether an activity meets their own ethical standards. If the people of Botswana are like "we are all very happy with the safari ethics in our country" but OP's DH is not then the safaris are not ethical according to his standards and it doesn't matter what people in Botswana think.

Also you are assuming there is consensus in these countries regarding safari tourism and there very much is not. Every country that offers safaris has people who oppose them and people who support them. And people make both ethical and unethical arguments both in favor and against safaris. Safaris bring in money and create employment and can increase understanding and awareness of both environmental and cultural and political issues in these countries. But sometimes the safari companies are mostly taking profits out of the country and underpay or mistreat the people employed in Africa. Some safari companies are terrible and engage in awful environmental practices. Some safari visitors are respectful of their host countries and behave well. Some very much do not. Some of the countries that host safaris have racism and oppression of certain ethnicities and the benefits of safari tourism are kept from those communities and hoarded.

It's not so simple as "Well if this is something someone in Kenya or South Africa or Botswana is willing to offer then it must be ethical and broadly viewed that way in these countries." It varies by country and can vary by company and region and practice.

The fact that you don’t understand does not make the logic any less valid.

Actually it does-- if you can't clearly communicate the logic then your point is not valid. At least not outside of your own head.

You made a claim you didn’t understand a very simple point and then typed a lot of words contradicting that claim.

…if in fact you want to discuss who can’t clearly communicate.

"A lot of words" in this case refers to a cogent argument.

It's not PP's fault you can't read.

A cogent argument that contradicted the preliminary claim that you could not understand. Followed by repeated accusations of illiteracy. Quite ironic, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you go with a local, ethically managed safari company like the one my friend runs in Tanzania, I can't imagine a less destructive vacation.

She previously worked at a non-profit that had quite a bit of ethical tourism and she oversaw the program.

Could safaris be unethical? Yes.

But it's not the same as voluntourism which is basically taking day labor jobs from locals. It's about learning about another part of the world, seeing nature, and giving money to a likely impoverished local economy. All good things to do.

I'd have more ethical concerns about the flight over.

Some voluntourism is crap, but your statement is childishly black and white. A great many voluntourism jobs are things that would never be done if foreigners weren’t doing them. Do you honestly think the governments of impoverished nations would provide free sports camps for kids if only foreigners weren’t there doing it? That they’d be funding massive river clean ups, language tutoring, or malaria prevention programs with all that extra money they have lying around if foreigners would just stop interfering. This is the ridiculous blanket statement that a certain kind of liberal has come up with in order to feel superior to people who are trying to help others.

Regarding safaris, people in less affluent countries need to make money from their natural resources—including the animal populations—one way or another. Photo safaris and ecotourism are a much better way to do so than poaching or leading hunting safaris. Support for ethical photo safaris has long been seen as a way to decrease poaching and ill-advised environmental policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you go with a local, ethically managed safari company like the one my friend runs in Tanzania, I can't imagine a less destructive vacation.

She previously worked at a non-profit that had quite a bit of ethical tourism and she oversaw the program.

Could safaris be unethical? Yes.

But it's not the same as voluntourism which is basically taking day labor jobs from locals. It's about learning about another part of the world, seeing nature, and giving money to a likely impoverished local economy. All good things to do.

I'd have more ethical concerns about the flight over.

What’s your friend’s company? I went to Tanzania long ago and am thinking of planning another trip soon!

It's Tanzania Choice Safaris:
https://tanzaniachoicesafaris.com/

Thanks! This was just recommended twice— very cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Staying in a South African national park campground and doing morning/evening game drives with the local trackers was relatively cheap and well run.

Have also done this. It was great.

If anyone wants a specific rec, outside of Kruger and better known parks in SA, check out out Esingeni (where you can rent a campground in the bush) and Addo Elephant Park, where you can go on a short day drive with a local tracker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's how you want to spend your 20th? I think you can come up with something better.

Such as?

Disney's Animal Kingdom. Uses less jet fuel, plus there's a Mickey Breakfast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who should decide this?

The people in the countries where the safaris are.

Fortunately, that is the way it works.

I don't even understand what you are saying. The people in the countries with the safaris should decide whether safaris are ethical or not? That does not make sense -- everyone has to decide for themselves whether an activity meets their own ethical standards. If the people of Botswana are like "we are all very happy with the safari ethics in our country" but OP's DH is not then the safaris are not ethical according to his standards and it doesn't matter what people in Botswana think.

Also you are assuming there is consensus in these countries regarding safari tourism and there very much is not. Every country that offers safaris has people who oppose them and people who support them. And people make both ethical and unethical arguments both in favor and against safaris. Safaris bring in money and create employment and can increase understanding and awareness of both environmental and cultural and political issues in these countries. But sometimes the safari companies are mostly taking profits out of the country and underpay or mistreat the people employed in Africa. Some safari companies are terrible and engage in awful environmental practices. Some safari visitors are respectful of their host countries and behave well. Some very much do not. Some of the countries that host safaris have racism and oppression of certain ethnicities and the benefits of safari tourism are kept from those communities and hoarded.

It's not so simple as "Well if this is something someone in Kenya or South Africa or Botswana is willing to offer then it must be ethical and broadly viewed that way in these countries." It varies by country and can vary by company and region and practice.

The fact that you don’t understand does not make the logic any less valid.

Actually it does-- if you can't clearly communicate the logic then your point is not valid. At least not outside of your own head.

You made a claim you didn’t understand a very simple point and then typed a lot of words contradicting that claim.

…if in fact you want to discuss who can’t clearly communicate.

"A lot of words" in this case refers to a cogent argument.

It's not PP's fault you can't read.

A cogent argument that contradicted the preliminary claim that you could not understand. Followed by repeated accusations of illiteracy. Quite ironic, IMHO.

I am totally fine admitting I don't understand the "preliminary claim." You said:

You know who should decide this?

The people in the countries where the safaris are.

Fortunately, that is the way it works.

Decide what? If African safaris are ethical? I disagree that it is up to the people in the countries to decide the *ethics* of an American going on a safari there. People have to determine the ethics of their own actions. The opinions of people native to a host country would be a factor for me but not decisive. And the point above that there is actually not a consensus in any of these countries on the ethics of safaris is well-taken.

If you meant something else you should explain because that wasn't clear. If this is what you meant then you can engage with the argument. Just getting mad that someone disagreed with you and took the time to outline an actual argument (much more clearly than you did) isn't the winning move you seem to think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who should decide this?

The people in the countries where the safaris are.

Fortunately, that is the way it works.

I don't even understand what you are saying. The people in the countries with the safaris should decide whether safaris are ethical or not? That does not make sense -- everyone has to decide for themselves whether an activity meets their own ethical standards. If the people of Botswana are like "we are all very happy with the safari ethics in our country" but OP's DH is not then the safaris are not ethical according to his standards and it doesn't matter what people in Botswana think.

Also you are assuming there is consensus in these countries regarding safari tourism and there very much is not. Every country that offers safaris has people who oppose them and people who support them. And people make both ethical and unethical arguments both in favor and against safaris. Safaris bring in money and create employment and can increase understanding and awareness of both environmental and cultural and political issues in these countries. But sometimes the safari companies are mostly taking profits out of the country and underpay or mistreat the people employed in Africa. Some safari companies are terrible and engage in awful environmental practices. Some safari visitors are respectful of their host countries and behave well. Some very much do not. Some of the countries that host safaris have racism and oppression of certain ethnicities and the benefits of safari tourism are kept from those communities and hoarded.

It's not so simple as "Well if this is something someone in Kenya or South Africa or Botswana is willing to offer then it must be ethical and broadly viewed that way in these countries." It varies by country and can vary by company and region and practice.

The fact that you don’t understand does not make the logic any less valid.

Actually it does-- if you can't clearly communicate the logic then your point is not valid. At least not outside of your own head.

You made a claim you didn’t understand a very simple point and then typed a lot of words contradicting that claim.

…if in fact you want to discuss who can’t clearly communicate.

"A lot of words" in this case refers to a cogent argument.

It's not PP's fault you can't read.

A cogent argument that contradicted the preliminary claim that you could not understand. Followed by repeated accusations of illiteracy. Quite ironic, IMHO.

I am totally fine admitting I don't understand the "preliminary claim." You said:

You know who should decide this?

The people in the countries where the safaris are.

Fortunately, that is the way it works.

Decide what? If African safaris are ethical? I disagree that it is up to the people in the countries to decide the *ethics* of an American going on a safari there. People have to determine the ethics of their own actions. The opinions of people native to a host country would be a factor for me but not decisive. And the point above that there is actually not a consensus in any of these countries on the ethics of safaris is well-taken.

If you meant something else you should explain because that wasn't clear. If this is what you meant then you can engage with the argument. Just getting mad that someone disagreed with you and took the time to outline an actual argument (much more clearly than you did) isn't the winning move you seem to think it is.

You are simply doubling down with the same nonsense.

The original point was two short sentences, The ones you quoted. If you cannot understand something that simple, I am not sure any additional exposition will help you.