The Mara Problem: Consider Wilderness!
The Mara Problem
Consider Wilderness!
The cause for conservation in Kenya has found an undeniable ally in the safari tourism industry. In the good conservancies the fees paid by visitors go directly towards protecting animals and the people who safeguard them. The managers, wardens and rangers all take the welfare of their wildlife seriously, and they respect that more visitation means more revenue to care for that game.
For many visitors though, especially our own, safari is just as much about wilderness and the experience of being removed from a busy life. Our guests come on safari for the sense of space and vast expanse. If we were to only maximize visitation in order to maximize revenue, we would jeopardize that experience.
How to strike that balance? Simone Cheffings and Mikey McCartney come to mind when I think about their passionate efforts with the organization Campfire to safeguard campsites and access for small private operators in the Mara. The intense pressure for more revenue, though, specifically on the reserve side of the Mara, has foiled many of these efforts and today visitors can see appalling behavior among the drivers and guides. A recent article in the New York Times captured the magnitude of the problem and just how ugly tourism can be when it is unregulated and uncontrolled. It profiles a viral video of driver-guides honking their horns and jostling for space to crowd around a cheetah kill. The story is an embarrassment for the entire country, since prospective guests may assume that all safaris in Kenya are run with such disregard. The article focuses on the wellbeing of the wildlife and how disturbing the vehicles can be for animals just trying to survive. They make a good point, but what the article does not stress enough is just how compromised the wilderness experience has also become for visitors in this particular part of the Maasai Mara.
As safaris have evolved from small adventure parties to an agent-driven industry, trips have become more concentrated in specific parks with fewer visitors going to less-visited parks (but beloved by Kenyan locals and safari guides like us), like Aberdares National Park (NP), Tsavo NP, Meru NP, Mt Elgon NP and Sibiloi NP. The intense focus then creates a problem for those looking for wildlife and wilderness. The serenity of nature within the chosen parks can suddenly then feel confined and stressed when vehicles compete for a glimpse of a leopard or cheetah.
Organizations like Campfire have tried and succeeded to create solutions in the past, but money and politics have motivated a more and more decisions made regarding our National Parks. In recent years many people in tourism have resigned themselves to the idea that tourist traffic problems will only get worse. I cannot help but push back against this defeatism.
The article stresses the importance of guide testing so that the bad behavior in the video can be avoided, and yet it is unclear if this would really have any effect—how many of the offenders in the video were Guides Association members anyway? The behavior shown in the video is not caused by lack of education, but poor etiquette and moral behavior. To what extent exams and education impart better morality and etiquette is debatable: just because guides know the right thing to do doesn’t mean they will do it. Enforcement of rules and punishment for bad behavior is far more impactful. Most importantly, limiting the number of vehicles and visitors in any given high traffic safari area is the best way to improve the safari experience for all. If wilderness and the aesthetic of safari was considered with more magnitude in management decisions then infrastructure like a world bank funded powerline would never have been built crossing Laikipia, one of the best examples of sustainable wildlife tourism on Earth (the line to this day, years after construction still has no power running through its lines). Even developments by well intentioned non governmental agencies are routinely placed in glaring view of safari operations in National Parks and Conservancies. Hotels and lodges that construct glaring buildings in parks with no regard to the experience of other travelers is a particularly vexing issue. When we consider that 10% of Kenya’s revenue comes from tourism we might want to consider more seriously the consequences of bad design, irresponsible zoning and the fact that our government agencies have yet to adopt sufficient wilderness management plans.
Sadly, the article does not mention that the problem in the Mara is very localized and particularly acute on the Narok, or ‘reserve,’ side of the river. The Maasai Mara is managed by different counties on either side of the Mara river and while the Narok side has always suffered from a lack of sufficient management, the conservancy on the west side of the river (managed by the Trans-Mara County) has always been managed exceptionally well, as have the private conservancies to their north. On the conservancy side, rangers are far more active in policing visitors and managing their movements, especially with regards to large cats and wildebeest crossings. Also unlike the reserve side, the road system within the Conservancy is far superior and discourages off-road use with good design and maintenance.
The Mara remains an excellent safari destination, but until it is able to manage its gross PR problem it will continue to attract bad press for all of Kenya. Tourist numbers should be fixed within certain safari areas in exactly the same way that numbers are limited to the most popular wilderness areas in American National Parks and wilderness areas (See NPS Wilderness Protocols as they apply to specific areas in Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Everglades, Boundary Waters, Zion and more.) This may be a compromise to total revenue, but it is a compromise worth making, as well as an investment in the future. Wilderness, experience and aesthetics must be prioritized when planning for Kenya’s safari destinations and we jeopardize our place as one of Africa’s best safari countries every time we neglect these core principles.