“SOME tropical destinations have long since been discovered and made familiar; others may yet be found, by a few anyway, but are unlikely to change much anytime soon. Too much separates us from them, in culture, space and time.”

So true.  Read the article for yourself, and then tell me that you don’t want to go there.

The biggest problem with invasive species is, once in a new environment, they have no natural predators, consume native food sources- often out competing native animals, and reproduce like wildfire.  A good example of this is a small, unassuming little striped mussel- the zebra mussel.

This past summer, the zebra mussel was discovered in Massachusetts.  A freshwater mussel native to the Black and Caspian Seas, the mussel LOVES our American fresh water.

Zebra Mussels cover a shopping cart pulled from the Great Lakes. Photo from: epa.gov

In the Great Lakes, zebra mussels came over in the ballast of ocean-going vessels, and spread throughout the region by boaters who take their boat out of one lake, and put it back in another.   They clogged pipes and clung to rocky beaches, like little bivalved razors.

Then, suddenly, there seemed to be a light at the end of the tunnel- the zebra mussels  started coming into favor- they appeared to be making the waters in many inland bays  ‘cleaner!’  Could it be?  An invasive species that does more good than harm?  But the sad reality is, because they filter-feed any floating debris from the water column, they actually just made the water ‘clearer’- an important distinction.  While this clearing of the water did help some species- it was just another example of the mussel altering the native environment.  Bass and sunfish populations, fish who eat algae, boomed because increased light penetration through the water column fed the algae and increased their food source.   This is all because of the mussel’s amazing trait-  a single zebra mussel can filter up to a liter of water a day.

Unfortunately, when they filter feed the water, they take the water in, indiscriminately, including pollutants.   In taking the toxins out of the water column and concentrating them into their tissue (muscles, if you will), zebra mussels then showed another angle to their evil-ness and ability to affect change on a local ecosystem- through the much more concerning problem of bio-accumulation.

While animals can live with trace amounts of pollutants in the water, few can survive high levels of pollutants when directly ingested.  This is exactly the problem when larger animals try to eat the zebra mussels.  Although there are few native fish suited to eat zebra mussels, there are ducks, crayfish and muskrats which do.  When they eat the mussels, they don’t just eat one, but many.  And, with each zebra mussel containing concentrated toxin, they are creating a toxic meal for those who eat them, and those who eat those who eat them.  This has rendered entire foodchains toxic, and is starting to effect the lake-fish that humans consume.

In Massachusetts, the situation is just in it’s early stages.   The state has already taken the precautionary measure of closing boat ramps in certain lakes susceptible to the invasion of the mussel.    These zebra mussels most likely came from the Great Lakes to the inland lakes of Massachusetts, and they could continue to spread.  Once they’re here, there is no known effective way to complete erradicate the mussel.

Zebra mussels are of course, only one example in the growing problem of invasive species.  There are plant invasives (purple loosestrife), insect invaders (Asian Longhorned Beetle, which is a growing problem here in MA, and has a great public outreach program by advertising on billboards and in the Boston subway) as well as animal invasives (feral dogs, cats and mongooses (mongeese?) are all considered invasives).  And invasives are not only a problem here in the US.  We are sending our native species to new habitats as well.  In Austrailia, the Cane Toad, originally from Hawaii, has completely taken over parts of the country.  They gather enmasse on the roads at night, providing entertainment for some and horror for others as they pop under the tires of oncoming traffic.  There are well documented cases of non-native hedgehogs taking over the terrain in the Hebrides- (islands north of and belonging to Scotland), but the hedgehogs are believed to have come from England, or part of mainland Scotland.

Some people even consider the transport of disease globally to be a viral invasive species.

As the world homogenizes, and people travel to new and exciting locals, we bring our creatures with us.  Be careful and aware what you are bringing with you, and how you are transporting your things when you go.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Launder your clothes before returning from or going to another country, but especially if you are going to an island (because they have unique ecosystems highly suceptible to invaders).  Make sure that you don’t take any uncooked seeded fruits or nuts long distances from their source, or  leafy plants that could harbor insects.    If y0u are camping, buy your firewood locally to prevent the transport of wood boring insects.  Be wary of unfinished wooden souveniers for the same reason.  If you are a boater, clean the bottom of your boat before taking the boat to a new body of water.  Don’t dump your goldfish into a French canal, like in the movie Amelie.  Don’t take your pet mouse or rabbit on vacation with you to an exotic island.  Basically, heed the border customs restrictions, and you could potentially save a local ecosystem from horrible traumas.

FOR PLACES: There is a lot of good being done by ‘green’ travel companies or people choosing responsible ecotourism.  By traveling responsibly to pristine destinations, you can have a unique experience, close to nature, and ensure that the destination is preserved for furture travelers.   By paying a little bit more to go to a place that supports local conservation, you are supporting local conservation.

Ecotourism also opens up different venues for tourists to explore our world.  Because of ecotourism dollars, more guided hikes, white water rafting trips, glacier climbing expeditions, rainforest canopy walks, and countless other experiences are cropping up where they weren’t before.  It brings people and their money into places that previously had few visitors, and a lot of good can come of this.

Another evolution in the concept of ecotourism is  ‘voluntourism’- where people sign up to spend their vacations actively helping to make a place greener, or to help out local communities.     It is the nobelest of vacations- spending your time, making the world a greener and better place.  These trips include everything from helping the baby sea turtles make it to the ocean in Belize to teaching environmental issues to a school in Ethiopia and countless things inbetween.  One good place to go to find these volunteer projects abroad is voluntourism.org.

Another perk- travel to pristine places gives you reason to wear ridiculous hats, and gives people jobs in the safari clothing industry.

FOR PEOPLE: A lot of places engaging in ecotourism, practice under the braodest term of the word ‘sustainable’.  This also includes making sure that local communities are paid fairly for their labor (fair-trade).   By paying a higher price than you would  for non-fair-trade labor or products,  you can feel good that you are helping create an infrastructure, rather than just giving someone just enough money for them to get by.  It’s the whole ‘give a man a fish‘ theory.   The local communities then have money coming in so that they can create trade schools, and begin to build a more viable economy.

One of the biggest fair-trade success stories, coffee,  isn’t even travel-related, but does express how making our demand for a product elsewhere more sustainable, can really benefit that region.  And, because you didn’t have to go all the way to Mexico or Jamaica to buy your fairtrade coffee, someone else did.  These connections made by entreprenuers, or ecologists, have helped you to indirectly support communities.

Also, lets not forget that going to a place and supporting conservation there is not only conserving a place where you visit, but a place where people actually live.  By having cleaner rivers, solar trash compacting facilities or WHATEVER, local communities can have a better quality of life than they may have had otherwise.  This is particularly true of the voluntourism projects devoted to cleaning up a region.

FOR YOU: Travel makes people informed world citizens.  It challenges beliefs that we accept as standard living in one place, and it forces us to think of other ways to approach our own lives.  So, despite my last blog, it is not always bad that, under the guise of green tourism, more people go to a place than would have otherwise.

Go forth and travel!  (Responsibly).

Un-related to ecotourism, but new in travel- Time Magazine put out a piece today called “Could the U.S.-Cuba Travel Ban End Soon?” I hope so!

“The Kilimanjaro glaciers are indicators for a larger-scale process,” Thompson said. “It’s not just Kilimanjaro, it’s every tropical glacier in Africa, in the tropical Andes of South America, it’s the glaciers in New Guinea. We are losing all those glaciers in today’s world.”

It’s just another example of humans having a negative impact on their environment.  What I wonder is- is this ‘go see ‘em while they’re still there’ approach making the situation around Mt. Kilimanjaro worse?  What about the local communities, who will come to depend on these tourist revenue dollars created from the influx in tourists?  Will they loose some of their livelihood when the snows and tourists melt away?

Me, hypocritically, at the summit of Kilimanjaro

As an avid traveler, I often wonder when vacations are doing more harm than good.  (I know, it’s frustrating to think about these things ‘on vacation).  But it’s something that we should all be wary of- when is human encroachment on the natural environment/unique cultures ok?

Not that I intend to insert myself into every blog post, but, I’m going to do it again for clarity’s sake… when I climbed Kilimanjaro (I’m trying hard not to be hypocritical here- and I even did it to see the glaciers before they melted!), I opted to take one of the less frequented routes.  I did this, A. to avoid the masses B. to have a longer more interesting climb C. to stay in tents! and D. for the scenery.  Maybe this option made things worse- by my impacting a more pristine side of the mountain- or maybe I did more good.  It’s all about relative risk.  At least I can say that I did NOT take what has come to be known as ‘the Coca Cola Route‘- so named for it’s cushy cabins and huts that serve, yes, Coca-Cola to quench your thirst on your strenuous hike towards the summit- a path, I hear, that is littered with trash, and barely resembles the other side of Kili.

While traveling ‘green,’ and reducing our impact on our desired destination is often the sensible and best option- when should we say enough is enough, and just don’t go?

In the book Disappearing Destinations, the authors detail tourist destinations in danger of losing their unique qualities.  They ask- is the best way to save some of the world’s cultural relics to stay away?  I disagree.  I think that with enough responsible tourism operations bringing in responsible tourists, we can have a harmonious balance.

Aweful, contrived, tourist re-enactment of Maori culture.

Some of the hardcore preservationists think that we should even go so far as to close, for example, Machu Pichu to tourism (Yes- CLOSE Machu Pichu!).   2,500 visitors a day are slowly wearing away at the delicate rocks and structure of Machu Pichu, destroying this cultural relic and UNESCO World Heritage Site.

I disagree that we have to close the site off to tourism.  I do think, however, that we could put limits on the number of tourists visiting the site via permitting.  This will ensure less crowds once you reach the site, and it also ensures that everyone will get their opportunity to see these unique places for generations to come.

Is being an ecotourist, being more ‘green’ then you would have been going to another hotel?  Is it ‘greener’ than you would be at home?  What is the standard?  And most importantly-  What defines ‘green’?  The vague-ness in the word ‘ecotourism’ has given rise to a bout of mis-marketing and over-advertising for tourism businesses claiming to be eco-friendly destinations.

A label slapped on everything from high end rainforest lodges that get you closer to the forest, to sustainable hilltribe treks, ecotourism has infiltrated every budget category in almost every country.  While it is a step in the right direction, ecotourism outfitters are not always doing as much good for the environment or local communities as tourists expect or are led to believe.  While many ecotourism operations embrace tourism that legitimately reduces a visitor’s impact on the destination,  and should be applauded, many others don’t.

Unfortunately, ecotourism has come to represent reducing your ‘carbon footprint,’ and, in most non-Western countries, the tourism infrastructure is ALREADY ‘ecotourist-y’.  By staying in a local hotel in Fiji, for example, with no air-conditioning or hot water, as opposed to the ‘ecolodge’ down the street with those amenities, you might be more green.

This is the view from the hill I had to climb to get to the 'ecotourist' side of the island.

This was something I had the occasion to ponder on my visit to Fiji 3 years ago.  I opted to stay in a local lodge for much of my visit- it had no running fresh water, or electricity.  Across the island, and over the sand dunes, was a much more expensive resort- resplendent with all of the creature comforts- internet, a full bar, and scuba gear.  It advertised as an eco-resort, while spewing air conditioning into the tropical sky from all directions.  This obviously was a massive infrastructure.  It made me wonder- how is this green anyway?  I’m pretty sure what I was doing (unintentionally) was more ‘green’ than the creature- comfort ecotourism monstrosity, even though it didn’t have the label.

Since there is currently no international accrediting agency for ecotourism, it may be difficult to determine what a specific resort or organization is doing in order to give themselves the ‘ecotourist’ title.  Before you travel, or decide to stay in an eco-resort, find out exactly what they are doing for the local environment, and don’t forget to compare it to other places to stay in the area.

www.walikuku.blogspot.com