| Fermata Inc. - 'nature tourism;'
"The Business of Nature"
Skip 'flash intro:' http://www.fermatainc.com/home.html Fermata Inc. P.O. Box 5485 Austin, Texas 78763-5485 Office: (512) 472-0052 Fax: (512) 472-0057 E-mail: info@fermatainc.com Fermata, Inc. PO Box 148 Hampton, NY 12837-0148 Office 802 287 4284 FAX 802 287 4285 Fermata Inc. offers over 30 years of business and personal expertise in the business of wildlife watching, conservation programming, and nature tourism development. For a detailed description of the services of the firm, and the philosophy that guides its efforts: http://www.fermatainc.com/fermintro.html. Fermata Inc. is owned and managed by founder Ted Lee Eubanks. Services: Strategic Planning Economic Impact Studies Feasibility Studies Marketing Plans Fund Raising Plans Proposal Development Workshops on Resource-based Tourism Nature Tourism Adventure Tourism Cultural and Historical Tourism Agri-Tourism Resource-based Tourism Development Planning Nature Tourism Training for Community Leaders, Economic Development Professionals, Decision Makers, and Others Guide and Site Manager Training Interpretive Planning, Sign Design, Graphics, and Other Materials Ted Lee Eubanks, currently residing in Austin, Texas, is involved in studying and promoting experiential tourism as a sustainable economic approach for communities. Former Texas Governor Ann Richards named Eubanks to the Governor's Task Force on Texas Nature Tourism that developed a nature tourism plan for Texas, and he represented Texas in October 1995 at the White House Tourism Summit. In addition, Eubanks is a founding member of the board of directors of the Texas Nature Tourism Association. Eubanks serves as a member of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Landowner Incentive Program Steering Committee, a program to help support landowners who wish to enhance their properties for endangered or threatened species. Nationally, Eubanks serves as a founding board member of Watchable Wildlife Inc. In addition, Eubanks has served as a member of the board of directors of the National Audubon Society and is a former president of the Texas Ornithological Society. He has spoken and published widely on environmental, natural history, and nature tourism issues, and has been the recipient of the Roger T. Peterson Excellence in Birding Award, the Take Pride in America Certificate of Merit (U.S. Department of the Interior), the Steve Thompson Award for Special Achievement on Behalf of Wildlife (Rio Grande Birding Festival in Harlingen, Texas), and is the first recipient of the Chandler Robbins Conservation/Education Award from the American Birding Association. In order to expand beyond research and development to actual application of nature tourism "best practices," Eubanks recently formed a new corporation - World Nature Trails http://www.greatamericantrails.com/home.html. In future months this new company will begin to offer a variety of goods and services to support the development of nature tourism initiatives and projects. http://www.fermatainc.com/bio.html Fermata subscribers geographical distribution in the U.S. (map): http://www.fermatainc.com/img_win/subscribers_geography.html Additional reading: NAS Board Meeting, Santa Fe, NM, March 1998 http://home.att.net/~aibragg/boardnts/santafe.htm http://www.cqservices.com/MyCQ/News/Default.asp?V=981 Type the following (and/or many variations) in the search box: "Fermata" "Nature Conservancy" (119 hits) "Fermata" "Sierra Club" (26 hits) "Fermata" "Wildlands" (17 hits) You may, of course, build searches around Fermata's founder, Ted Lee Eubanks. Here's another bit of insight into who Ted Lee Eubanks is and what drives him: Creating a Culture of Conservation November 1995 From the Newsletter of the Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society Vol. 19 No. 3 By Ted Lee Eubanks For the past few days I have been struggling with a review of the strategic planning document (ver. 5 May 1995). Not that the concepts are particularly difficult, nor the approach enigmatic. However, as I set the document aside I am invariably left with a vacant feeling, as though I have finished a several course meal and am still hungry. Only this morning did I identify that element that I find absent from the document, perhaps even from the entire approach. Where is the heart? Where is the soul? Where is the blinding vision that orders these disparate concepts into a cohesive strategy? Therefore I would like to offer a brief comment on the "vision thing." To the best that I can determine, the vision for NAS as stated in the document is as follows: "The National Audubon Society's link to birds and its strong grassroots organization uniquely position it to become the most effective conservation organization in the United States." Following this vision, the document offers an overall recommendation: "Audubon can achieve this vision by focusing exclusively on the appreciation, protection and conservation of birds, wildlife and habitat." Now I have no difficulty in agreeing with these precepts, but neither would I categorize either statement as a "blinding vision." For example, consider the vision for NAS: "The National Audubon Society's link to birds and its strong grassroots organization uniquely position it to become the most effective conservation organization in the United States." Why? Why should we care to become "the most effective conservation organization in the United States?" How do we define effective? How do we define conservation? What about this link to birds and a strong grassroots organization that ordains our ascendancy to preeminence among conservation organizations, and why should I care? Let me offer my simple version of a vision for the sake of discussion. I believe that the most significant environmental challenge for the conservation movement today is the preservation of biodiversity (that is, intact, viable, self-sustaining ecosystems in their natural environment) in the face of relentless assault from mankind. A number of organizations share this concern. Some, like the Sierra Club and their legal defense fund, believe in a legislative, regulatory, and litigatory approach to conservation (I know this is oversimplified, but I do believe that the statement captures a basic truth). Organizations such as EDF offer scientific and technological alternatives to a few of the existing practices that threaten these natural systems and their biological constituencies. Nature Conservancy has adopted the most traditional approach of all. If the site (ecosystem, habitat) is of value and is threatened, then buy it on the open market. I believe that all of these approaches have their place and value, and I believe that all have their failings. We are entering an age of regulatory rejection, with people chaffing from what they perceive to be the undue and highhanded intervention by the government and the courts. Industry will be slow in accepting alternative technologies unless they are well tested and economically advantageous. And even the Nature Conservancy with its well touted deep pockets will never be able to buy enough land to preserve the ecological heritage of this country, never mind Latin America. However there is another approach, one that I suggest for your consideration. What about cultivating what I call a culture of conservation? At times I have mentioned the need for a conservation ethic in this country, but I am now suggesting that this ethic be integrated into the culture of this country itself. In our lifetime we have seen many such cultural evolutions. For example, smoking in public with no regard to those around you was once socially and culturally acceptable. Now, few of us would enter the home of a friend and light a cigarette without asking permission. A few decades ago few would have thought twice about driving after a few beers. Both strong legislation and a cultural change have now made such behavior socially unacceptable. When a child in Texas, I wouldn't have given a second thought to hearing an African-American called a "nigger." Even today such terminology is legal, yet this despicable word is no longer socially or morally acceptable. The culture has changed. NAS can facilitate, cultivate, and nurture the evolution of a culture of conservation. Sierra will conserve through intervention and litigation, and TNC through acquisition. NAS, however, should promote conservation of our irreplaceable natural resources through cooperation, education, and acculturation. I want to finally arrive at a destination where my fellow citizens and leaders make the right decisions the first time. I want to live in a world where environmental enlightenment and sensitivity is intrinsic and innate, not forced. Finally, I am willing to commit the time and resources to bring such an evolution about. Forget about two to five years. Start thinking decades. I'm patient. http://home.att.net/~cgbraggjr/v19n3.htm#culture http://home.att.net/~cgbraggjr/v19n3.htm ===== Birding and Conservation By Sarah Wald Excerpted from 'Hummin' Online - Oct/Nov 1997 [Vol. XIX #5] In an organization like Audubon, birding and conservation may seem wonderfully and irreversibly intertwined. Birding may even serve as that first step through which the fragility and beauty of the natural world is realized. This realization can lead to extended work in conservation without meaning an end to an individual's birding. However, there are many birders that have yet to be drawn into direct action. This might be attributable to something other than the idea that these individuals do not care about protecting the environment. They might just not have found the right outlet for doing so. As Ted Eubanks, a member of the Board of Directors of National Audubon, wrote "Although we all have encountered a conservation deficit among birders on occasions, in general I would argue that the conservation ethic among the birding public is potent." Eubanks cited several studies. One, a study of socialization and specialization among birders by McFarlane "found conservation to be a primary motive for becoming involved in birding in the first place." Eubanks own study of the wildlife watchers along the Platte River reached similar results. "In fact, we were able to find a direct relationship between species diversity, species abundance, and the willingness-to-pay by the crane watchers," wrote Eubanks. The birders in both surveys considered themselves less skilled or less devoted to birding than a "competitive birder" would be. They, themselves, were not avid birders, and birding was only one of the many outdoor recreational activities that they were involved in. The top two reasons they said they were involved in birding were "to be outdoors" and "to enjoy the sights, sounds and smells of nature." In discussing these results Eubanks wrote "For decades we in Audubon have debated the role of birding and outdoor recreation in our organization. To be honest, the debate continues to this day. I believe that our conflict is related to our inability (or unwillingness) to define 'birder' in its broadest terms. Of the 600,000 Audubon members, how many are willing to call themselves birders (particularly in the competitive sense)? Few. But how many would agree that through birds and wildlife they have found a way to experience nature? How many would agree that birding (or wildlife watching in general) is important to their lives because it lures them outdoors where they can 'enjoy the sights, sounds and smells of nature?' Most, I imagine." In future surveys Eubanks hopes to study the relationships between avidity of birding, satisfaction and the value that consumers places upon the resource. For, as Eubanks said, "We conserve what we value." It actually appears that the more avid and accomplished the birder, the lower the satisfaction rates are. What remains then is the mass of the birding public--this experiential rather than competitive birder. They are a growing sector, ripe to join in to work to conserve what they so enjoy. "My hope is that NAS, through its chapters and state offices, will expand its outreach to this group of recreationalists. In fact, I would hope that we could find ways to engage the interests of other outdoor recreationalists as well, such as hikers, campers, rafters, climbers and photographers. In my opinion, they are the foundation of our organization," said Eubanks. http://www.lmconsult.com/pvaudubon/hummin-v19_5.html ===== Conservation Notes By Lillian Light Excerpted from 'Hummin' Online - Oct/Nov 1997 [Vol. XIX #5] Harvard scientist E.O. Wilson estimates that we are losing 70 species a day throughout the world. This is a wave of extinction unparalleled since dinosaurs became extinct. What can we do about it? We can support strengthening the Endangered Species Act! Loss of habitat is the number one threat to the survival of endangered species, and their preservation is as important to humans as to wildlife. Wetlands and forest lands act as pollution filters, as well as a haven for birds, birders and other naturalists. Their preservation has always had the highest of Audubon priorities. Yet we seem to be entering an era of compromise which will unravel the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and will place biological diversity at the mercy of financial and political expediency. SB 879, by State Senator Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton), is a case in point. It would authorize the state Department of Fish and Game to issue permits for the "taking" or killing of a species as a byproduct of development. These permits would be subject to public review and would require developers to compensate for any destruction to an extent equal to the harm they cause. Such compensation would typically involve purchasing land of equal environmental value elsewhere or preservation or restoring a degraded area. Developers are happy with this bill, because they have long wanted "statutory certainty that they could kill a species, so long as they mitigated such harm, and also wanted a limit on how much mitigation government could extract" (LA Times, 9/11/97). Although the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club have supported this bill, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Native Plant Society and the Environmental Law Foundation vigorously oppose it. "There is a lot of concern that the position California appears to be taking (in Sacramento) would undermine those working on the federal level, said Amy Igrejas of the California Public Interest Research Group, which also opposes the Johnston bill. "Absolving developers of their responsibility to help with the recovery of species sets a bad precedent." The bill leaves the obligation to help with the recovery of the listed endangered species to the state, but there is no funding set aside for the state to do this. The bill also weakens the standards that CDFG would have to meet in order to grant a take permit, nor does it require that industry mitigate for impacts to species habitat as well as for direct impacts to species. I tend to agree with Tom Hayden, when he says, "The tragedy is that the politics of short term pragmatism prevails at the expense of the species that inspire and sustain the human community" (LA Times 9/12/97). Another example of compromise that will do irreparable harm to endangered species nationwide is the US Senate draft bill authored by Senators Kempthorne (R-ID) and Chafee (R-RI). Under the bill, the decision to list species as endangered or threatened will be more difficult, more politicized and more time-consuming. Instead of requiring input from biologists at the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the bill would establish "self-consultation." Thus agencies could approve projects without considering the impact on species habitat. The bill would also restrict federal agencies to those actions that are "least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome." This deeply flawed compromise is being supported by Clinton and by other senators who have records of support for ESA. This makes it doubly important that you urge both Senators Boxer and Feinstein to oppose the draft Kempthorne/Chafee bill. A call to President Clinton voicing your opposition would also help a lot. One other way you can help is to write to your Congressperson and urge him or her to cosponsor and support Rep. George Miller's Endangered Species Recovery Act (ESRA), HR 2351, which will retain the most effective provisions of ESA. It also will improve species protection on private lands by strengthening the biological requirements for Habitat Conservation Plans. Other innovative provisions include tax breaks for private landowners who implement proactive conservation measures and estate tax deferrals for lands enrolled in Endangered Species Conservation Agreements. The passage of HR 2351 will help to move the Senate toward a more balanced approach to protecting our nation's imperiled wildlife. Please ask your Congressperson to join the 55 cosponsors of ESRA. |