African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 7(42), pp. 5637 -5643, 2 November, 2012 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.834 ISSN 1991-637X ©2012 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Relationship between forest protection and hunting tourism in Turkey Ş. Başkaya1*, E. Başkaya2 and A. Arpacık2 1
Faculty of Forestry, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Management, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey. 2, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Forest Engineering Program, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey. Accepted 1 June, 2011
Turkey is located over the junction, called Anatolia, between Asia, Europe and Africa, and is regarded as the cradle of many civilisations throughout history. In the natural course of the history, forests together with many other natural resources in the region have been heavily utilized and thus suffered tremendously. The rate of deforestation was on the increase until 1980s but stabilized thereafter. The last statistics indicated that there is a slow but gradual increase in the area covered by forests. The increase in the forested land area can be ascribed in part to the fact that the population of rural areas has decreased dramatically due to socio-economic reasons. Also, coupled with the changes of the perceptions and attitudes of the public towards forests brought about by the increasing quality and standards of life, the reforestation and afforestation efforts have contributed significantly to the increase in the forested area over the last few decades. All these developments have also fostered an ever increasing interest in hunting tourism in forestlands. While hunting dates back to very ancient times, in Turkey where hunting tourism has a short background, a close relationship is observed between forest protection and hunting tourism. In this study, the historical development of hunting tourism in Turkey and its influence on forest protection are handled and analysed, and solutions for problems encountered in this matter are presented. Key words: Forest protection, hunting tourism, illegal cutting, poaching, Turkey. INTRODUCTION Hunting tourism can be defined as a form of tourism where a person travels outside his/her municipality of residence for the purpose of hunting (Lovelock, 2008). Hunting tourism considered as an important tool for rural development in many countries in the world, helps protect threatened species and their habitats, and paves the way for the socioeconomic development of local people (Erdoğan, 2003). Hunting tourism supposed to have started in Africa in the late 19th century (Steinhart, 1989) can be grounded back upon the travel of many adventurous hunters into the
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected],
[email protected]. . Tel/fax: 90462.377 2824.
depths of Africa, America and South Asia to find and hunt new animals when European countries dominated these continents (Çanakçıoğlu and Mol, 1996; Başkaya, 1999). Later on, these expeditions have also become a source of income through the trade of ivories, crocodile, leopard, tiger and lion skins which the hunters collected. Hunting tourism has developed significantly in the course of time, and become one of the fastest growing forms of tourism. The hunters who wish to hunt species of high trophy value play an important part in this fast progress. Today, recreational trophy hunting, a form of ecotourism, is the motor which drives a multi-million dolar global hunting industry (Damm, 2008). It is also less harmfull to nature than photographic tourism (Morrill, 1993). Moreover, while acknowledging the harm done to natural resources through
5638
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
misconduct and malpractice, hunting tourism brings more benefits to local communities and provides more revenue for wildlife conservation programs than does photographic tourism (Baker, 1997). In Kenya, the birthplace of trophy hunting of Africa (Lindsey et al., 2006), trophy hunting was banned in 1977 due to overshooting and corruption (Leader-Williams and Hutton, 2005). Today in Tanzania whose hunting regulations date back to 1889, the amount of hunting revenue in which trophy hunting has a great share is about 28 million dollars (Baldus and Cauldwell, 2004). In 23 sub-Saharan African countries where trophy hunting is permitted, the annual income is 201 million dollars per year (Lindsey et al., 2007). In Germany, where the hunting revenues are increasing day by day and hunting statistics kept as correctly as possible, 1.102.604 Roe deers (Capreolus capreolus), 67.246 Red deers (Cervus elaphus) 55.407 Fallow deer (Cervus dama), 6.888 European mouflon (Ovis orientalis), 4.389 Alpine chamois (R. r. rupicapra), 1.637 Sika deer (Cervus nippon), 646.790 Wild boar (Sus scrofa), 553.945 Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), 421.573 Wild hare (Lepus europaeus), 231.689 European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), 55.407 European badger (Meles meles), 54.790 Raccoon (Procyon lotor), 30.053 Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides), 921.186 Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus), 468.262 Wild duck (Anas sp. and the others), 267.824 Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and 18.973 Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) were hunted during the hunting season in 2008/2009 (DJV-Handbuch, 2010). The history of hunting in Turkey dates back to hundreds of years ago, but hunting tourism is quite a recent matter. Hunting has historically been an important source of nourishment and entertainment for Turks, and was utilized as a tool to get prepared for wars. Hunting in Anatolia until the late 1700s was maintained in such an orderly manner that it received a high admiration from the European world of the time. However, parallel to the ever increasing poverty among the people across the lands Turks lived, traditional hunting regulations were not observed as they should have been. This resulted in misuse of natural resources including game species which could not be stopped with written regulations made in 1869 and 1882. With the Law of Land Hunting of 1937, radical regulations were put into effect, but the targeted success was not achieved (Anonymous, 1937). The first hunting tourism activity in Turkey involving foreign hunters was initiated in 1951. Many members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) most of whom were Americans and those who came to the country as commissioners hunted in Turkey in an unrestricted and irresponsible way in 1950s. As a matter of fact, by 1960, game animals had almost gone extinct in many places as a result of the selfish, thoughtless, irresponsible and egocentical hunting carried out by these people. Moreover, thanks to the Turkish hospitality, friends of the Turkish people who went to Europe for work in the early 1960s enjoyed a free and almost unlimited hunting in
the country. From 1963 onwards, the hunting tourism was actually brought to lifesome people started to organize hunting tours with a sole objective of making profit. The first game animals to hunt were East Anatolian mouflon (Ovis ammon orientalis), Wild goat (Capra aegagrus) and Brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Eastern Anatolia. Some foreign tourism companies collaborating unofficially with some Turkish citizens organized hunting tours without observing any real regulations. It was not until 1967 that strict regulations were put into practice that required the travel agents to get permission from the ministry. In 1971, Hunting Tourism Regulations were prepared, and various arrangements made. Hunting was prohibited for foreigners by the decision of the Central Hunting Commission between 1967 and 1977. In the country, the first regulation was legally made for hunting tourism with the hunting of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in 1977 (Serez and Baskaya,1996; Başkaya, 1999). Turkey is located in an important geographical position uniting Asia, Europe and Africa, hosting representatives of many wild animals found on all these three continents. The country has also been a cradle of many civilizations for hundreds of years. And as a result, forest with all the resources therein have been heavily exploited and destroyed due to wars, population increase, excessive and illegal wood-cutting, unplanned urbanization and land-use change, grazing and forest fires. Although it is rich in the variety of species, some species have become extinct, some are on the verge of extinction and some have experienced a decline in the density of their population. Asiatic lion (Felis leo persicus) known to have lived in the country until the early 13th century, Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus asurus) living in B.C., Wild ox (Bos primigenius) living until 1st century B.C., Wild Asian Ass (Equus hemionus) living until late 12th century, Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) living until 19th century and African Darter (Anhinga rufa), which has not been seen since Lake Amik was dried in 1960s, have all become extinct. Caspian tiger (Felis tigris virgata) last shot near Hakkari/Uludere in 1970, Anatolian leopard (Panthera pardus tulliana) and Striped hyaena (Hyaena hyaena) having scattered populations in many areas and Fallow deer (Dama dama) living only in Antalya are on the verge of extinction (Başkaya and Bilgili, 2004; Başkaya et al., 2008). While the forestlands that constitute the crucial habitats for the game species covered nearly all of the country hundreds of years ago, they declined back to 20,2 millon hectars representing only 26,1percent of the country’s total land area (OGM, 2010). Forest fires, excessive and over grazing, illegal wood cutting, nonwood forest product procurement in an excessive and destructive way, lack of coordination between institutions making regulations for forestlands, deforastation for settlements are but few examples of this decline in forested lands (Anonymous, 2004). This deterioration in forestlands and the decline in the population of wild
Başkaya et al.
animals continued until the last quarter of the 20th century. There has been a gradual and promising improvements taking place in both forest lands and in the population of wild animals in the country since the hunting tourism was legally started for the first time in 1977 (Serez and Baskaya, 1996; Başkaya, 1999). However, there has been little research on the relationship between hunting tourism, considered as a tool contributing to the conservation of wild animals, wildlife habitats and forest protection. In this study, the relationship between hunting tourism and protection of forests in forestlands in Turkey was studied and some recommendations were presented for some important problems encountered.
MATERIAL AND METHODS In order to evaluate the relationship between forest protection and hunting tourism in Turkey, a retrospective analysis of hunting tourism is necessary. In this regard, official documents about hunting tourism were heavily consulted. These documents has a record of the animals hunted, location of the hunting ground, hunting fee as well as the details about the hunters and the tour organizers. In addition to the official documents, interviews were made with mainly the forest villagers, tour operators, hunting tourism companies, hunting guides, the chiefs of forest management units and the members of provincial directorates of the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks. Moreover, the knowledge and experiences we gained through directly participating in activities of hunting tourism in many regions of the country after 1990 provided a foundation to examine the problem on site. Also among the sources that were utilized were the ecosystem based forest management plans prepared in 2002 for the State Forest Conservancies in Artvin - Camili, Kırklareli İğneada and Bulanıkdere, Ardahan - Yanlızçam and Uğurlu, Kastamonu Kızılcasu, Denizli - Honaz, Balıkesir - Gürgendağ, Antalya – İbradı, and Karabük – Çitdere to integrate biological diversity into forest management plans (Baskent et al., 2008a, b). Using the information gathered from official documents, literature and interviews, and the knowledge and experience gained from field observations and studies, main problems encountered and positive developments observed in forestry and wildlife across the country were determined. As a ressult, the relationship between forest protection and hunting tourism was analysed, and some recommendations were presented for the problems encountered.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Hunting tourism, which began with wild boar hunting in 1977, gained momentum with the incorporation of wild goat hunting in 1981. According to official records, a total of 17.810 animals of 13 species have been hunted so far in hunting tourism, including 15 thousand wild boars (Sus scrofa), 2.250 wild goats, 165 Anatolian chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra asiatica), 171 red deers, 84 roe deers, 24 Anatolian mouflons (Ovis ammon anatolica), 88 brown bears, 16 gray wolves (Canis lupus), 5 goitered gazelles (Gazella subgutturosa), 3 hybrid wild goats
5639
(Capra aegagrus x Capra domesticus), 2 golden jackals (Canis aureus), 1 red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and 1 Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Of these, brown bear and gray wolf are normally hunted only when they pose a danger, but were occasionally hunted when they had high population levels in the past. However, the statistics about hunting tourism were superficially kept until the late 1990s. The number of animals hunted were systematically registered less than the actual number, indicating both an implicit corruption and a mere ignorance. The species most hunted and yielding most revenue in hunting tourism in the country are wild goat, wild boar, Anatolian chamois, red deer and roe deer (Tables 1 and 2). It is observed that the number of species hunted are on the increase year by year (Table 1). This is partly due to the fact that some portion of the hunting fee has been allocated to the legal personalities of villages and towns of hunting ground since 1994. In addition, with the new hunting law and the regulations made accordingly, the number of species introduced to hunting tourism and the number of animals hunted have been observed to increase (Table 1). Hunting tourism revenue was 40 thousand dollars in total in 1981 whereas it gradually increased to 170 thousand dollars in 1994 when legal personalities started to receive a portion of the hunting fee. In 2010, the hunting tourism revenue reached 3,674,000 dollars, accounting for 27,7% of all game and wildlife revenues (Anonymous, 2010b). The contibutions, ranging between 10 and 50% according to the species hunted and hunting ground in 1994, have gradually increased over the years and reached up to 40 to 55% in 2010 to2011 hunting season. Since the contributions from hunting tourism revenues were paid to legal personalities in villages and municipalities, there has been a continuous increase in hunting tourism revenues as Turkish Lira while there has been some decreases in total revenues due to fluctations in the exchange rate of dollar in some years (Table 2). It has been determined that local people used to make some profit only when they carried the hunted animals, rented out such pack animals as mules, served as hunting guides, or received tips upon a good hunting until 1994. In general, it was then extremely uncommon that the hunting organisations would rent a means of transportation around the hunting area. Renting village houses during hunting was not a common practice. The organisers would utilize their own resources for transportation and accommodation. But over the course of years, parallel to the ecotourism activities, the use of local transportation and accommodation means have gradually increased. With the direct payments from hunting tourism revenues to the legal identities in villages in 1994, both invidiuals and the legal personalities benefitted from this situation, and the share of the legal personalities have accordingly been spent for the common use of villagers.
5640
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
Table 1. Number of animals hunted in the hunting tourism between 1990 and 2009 (Anonymous, 2010).
Hunting season 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
1 22 36 45 42 46 50 31 17 6 24 27 25 51 89 82 117 164 181 196
3 110 271 247 288 342 308 373 313 238 354 417 338 533 772 741 1208 1883 2202 1709
2 1 1 2 5 11 9 10 5 11 3 1 3 2 4 8 21 12 20
4 7 3 11 10 15
5 9 15 37 28 35
Wild animal * 6 7 22 10 7 6 9 13 7 8 7 6 9
8 1 3 1 1 8 2 -
9 2 -
10 1 -
11 1 -
(*) 1, Wild goat; 2, Wild boar; 3, Anatolian chamois; 4, Roe deer; 5, Red deer; 6, Anatolian mouflon; 7, Brown bear; 8, Gray wolf; 9, Golden jackal; 10, Red fox; 11, Eurasian lynx.
Table 2. Hunting tourism revenues between 1990 and 2009, and the amount of contribution paid to legal personalities in villages after 1994 (Anonymous, 2010).
Hunting season
Total hunting tourism revenues
Contribution for legal identities in villages
1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997
TR Lira 174.800 495.800 837.330 2.154.800 5.311.080 8.589.176 15.215.480
USD 80.419 113.360 121.036 195.420 169.232 193.160 184.365
USD 22.133 28.510 43.700
TR Lira 779.075 1.448.304 4.252.000
1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
18.484.222 26.849.337 69.951.274 153.856.241 215.861.910 408.199.000 528.940.000 517.441.000 1.618.824.000 2.535.985.000 2.775.837.000
111.506 100.955 128.347 211.675 155.373 255.295 385.674 384.143 1.138.413 2.152.788 1.828.614
28.837 34.479 43.526 106.255 81.007 117.693 159.445 171.513 163.192 520.768 508.008
5.219.560 9.619.623 24.400.319 76.354.826 111.950.000 187.432.000 218.745.000 231.029.000 232.060.000 613.465.000 771.157.000
2008-2009
3.302.200.180
2.189.787
554.533
836.236.760
Başkaya et al.
5641
Figure 1. Forested lands and species hunted in 2010-2011 hunting season (1, Wild goat; 2, Hybrid wild goat; 3, Anatolian chamois; 4, Anatolian mouflon; 5, Goitered gazelle; 6, Red deer; 7, Roe deer; 8, Wild boar; 9, Golden jackal; 10, Red fox).
In Turkey, hunting areas allocated for hunting tourism were mostly concentrated around Antalya in the Mediterranean Region and Artvin in the Black Sea Region in the early years. However, today hunting tourism is realized in a large part of the country including state, private and sample hunting grounds, as well as widlife development areas, national parks and many other areas belonging to the state forest enterprisers (Anonymous, 2010a). The primary common feature of these areas is that amost all of them are covered by forest habitats. The only exceptions are the places where Hybrid wild goat, Anatolian mouflon and Goitered gazelle are found around Konya, Adıyaman and Şanlıurfa, respectively (Figure 1). Today, hunting tourism is realised in 13,3 million ha, accounting for 63% of the total forest lands of the country (Anonymous, 2010a). An important portion of the rural population in the country lives in these forest lands where hunting tourism is done. While living conditions of the villagers, who settle in villages within and around the forested areas and whose source of living are forestry and animal breeding, get easier day by day, migration to cities with high standards of living continues. Despite the fact that there is a depopulation of rural areas, the number of people living in forested areas as a whole is still around seven million, which makes up 10% of the country population (Anonymous, 2008; TUIK, 2010). People living in forested areas are in close interaction with wild animals. While villagers may harm wild animals through poaching, wild animals may harm villagers
through damaging their crops, fruit trees and fruits, beehives, domestic animals and their food, and even endangering their lives. The most problematic species for villagers are brown bear, gray wolf, wild boar and roe deer. It has been observed that in the early years of hunting tourism, local people went against hunting tourism in all areas but they consented to especially the hunting of brown bears, gray wolves and wild boars which they considered harmful. It has also been determined that villagers did not consider roe deers as a problem in the early years of hunting tourism because they had a low density of population, but today their population has increased to a level at which they are considered harmful. The main reason why local people were against hunting tourism in its early years was because they considered wild animals as their own as part of the traditional way of the use of natural resources. Therefore, they strongly protested against hunting made by the local or foreign hunters coming from distant locations. As a sign of discomfort and a way of protesting, although not legal, local residential hunters would hunt the animals in an area for which some hunting quota had been granted before the tourist hunters arrived to the site. It was also frequently observed that they tried to prevent the tourist hunters from hunting by disturbing the animals in the area through making noise by shooting or by other means during hunting, or by vandalizing the vehicles and taking a strong stand against the hunting guides. The negative perception of the public and the attitudes developed against the hunting tourism were due mostly to the
5642
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
improper implementation of the decision taken by the Central Hunting Commission according to the Law of Land Hunting of 1937 (Anonymous, 1937). Despite all these failures, hunting tourism has gradually progressed and become one of the popular activities in the country, because it has contributed substantially to the economy. What generally makes hunting tourism, which is also an effective tool for game management, economically attractive in Turkey can be attributed to the fee paid to the government for hunting, the price charged by the travel agencies for hunting organiations, the cost of transportation, accomodation, food and bevarage. Other motives include the potential business oppurtunities provided through the trading and industrial business of hunting rifles and armament, hunter possessions, optical instruments for observation, the taxes paid for hunting dog food and other necessities, treatments of animal diseases, animal training, the trading of books and journals about hunting, jobs for organisers, hunting guides, carriers, and animal drivers, the renting of jeeps, minibuses, mules, horses and hunting dogs from villages and towns around the hunting area, the charges paid for accomodation and food. (Çanakçıoğlu and Mol, 1996; Serez and Başkaya, 1996). Apart from the economic contribution hunting tourism provided, public awareness has been greatly increased thanks to the campaigns for hunting tourism run by the Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks, the non-governmental organizations and wildlife experts, helping change the negative perception and attitudes developed against hunting tourism in the country. The problems encountered in the early years of hunting tourism have disappeared gradually, thanks to the increase in the rate of training and literacy throughout the country, the general acceptance by the public that hunting animals belong to the whole public, the growing publicity of hunting tourism, and the hunting conservation works run more successfully than ever before. Today, local people have come to the point where they compete with each other in order to make hunting tourism attractive in their neighbourhood for all game species available. Moreover, it is not uncommon to come across news in the papers about some villages restoring their schools, fountains, village guest houses, and water supply, power and transportation infrastructure with the revenues earned through hunting tourism. These news spread quickly together with some exaggeration and increase the competition among villages. However, there are still important problems with respect to hunting tourism. Major problems are the low population status of many species, the lack of such places as hunting lodges for hunters to accomodate, the inadequacy of experienced hunting guides, the long-lasting bureaucratic procedures, and the lack of experts in the provincial areas. It has been seen in recent years that wild animals have
been conserved much more easily in areas where the interest and support for hunting tourism have grown compared to other areas. Now, as a result of the increased public awareness and the appearant financial support, local people trying to conserve their wild animals acknowledges genuinely that their habitats should be protected. Forest villagers in areas where hunting tourism is gaining popularity have taken the risk of economic loss as a result of less forestry works. One of the main motivations behind this is that they earn more money with less effort. The contribution ranging from 40 to 55% paid to the legal personalities and other benefits of hunting tourism for the region have contributed a lot to the change of the attitudes of villagers towards hunting tourism in a positive way. Today, thanks to hunting tourism being benefical for local ecosystems and rural communities (Haakana, 2007), villagers voluntarily struggle against poaching and begin to exert pressure for less tress to be cut in the forests. Especially during the ecosystem-based forest management planning initiated after 2002 in pilot projects in different regions with the participation of local people, it has been clearly observed that local people have put so much effort for less trees to be cut in areas having potential for hunting tourism. Although the participation of local people into the forest management planning has no legal foundation as of yet, (Güneş and Coşkun, 2010), today the planning teams try to incorporate the voluntary contribution of local people (Baskent et al., 2008a, b) into forest management plans. While forested lands were said to have covered almost all of the country centuries ago, only 20.2 million hectares of forested land was present in 1963, which made up 26.1% of the total land area of the country. Subsequent years have seen a gradual increase in the areas covered by forests. As of 2004, total forested land area was 21.2 million hectares accounting for 27.2% of the total land area (OGM, 2010). According to the General Directorate of Forestry responsible for the management of the country’s forests, main reasons for the increase in the areas covered with forests are the increasing awareness of people, planting works, forest encroachment into the agricultural and range lands that used to be utilized by the forest villagers prior to the depopulation of the rural areas after mid 1970s, and the incorporation of functions other than wood production into forest management plannings after 1973 (OGM, 2010). The revenue-yielding practices of hunting tourism that started in 1977 was the most important factor considered in forest planning other than wood production. . However, in forest planning, hunting tourism was paid due attention only after 1990s, and it was not until 2002 that hunting tourism gained real importance. The involvement of hunting tourism concerns in forest planning has made an important contribution to the solution of “the problem arising from the lack of coordination between institutions engaged in practices in forested lands.” As a matter of fact, the practices of
Başkaya et al.
hunting tourism have taught not only local people but also the General Directorate of Forestry responsible for the management of the forests and the Directorate of Nature Conservation and Natonal Parks in charge of wild animals that wild animals and forests could be protected together. As a result of this, these two institutions so far in conflict with each other have carried out many cooperated works involving both wild animals and forests. In conclusion, more efforts should be invested to solve the main problems encountered in good practices in sustainable hunting tourism. Among the remarkable points to be seriously considered are to employ university graduate wildlife experts responsible for wildlife in general in each province and assistant personnel responsible for activities carried out in hunting tourism, that is, hunting guides, recording, reporting, protection and inventory. Both technical and assistant hunting tourism personnel have to undergo a sound and comprehensive practical training program and know relevant foreign languages. Also, precautions should be taken so that bureucratic obstacles and problems arising from the lack of coordination between institutions can be reduced. Hunting lodges should be built in and around hunting areas so that tourist hunters can feel at ease. And most importantly, training and awareness programs should be carried out continuously to increase public awareness. REFERENCES Anonymous (1937). The Law of Land Hunting, The Official Gazette, Number: 3603, Ankara. Anonymous (2004). The National Forestry Program of Turkey, Turkish Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ankara. p. 89. Anonymous (2008). Forestry Statistics, Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Turkish Statistical Institute, Printing Division, Ankara. Anonymous (2010a). Decision of the Central Hunting Commission in 20102011Hunting Season, Turkish Ministry of Environment and Forestry, The Official Gazette, Issue. 27592, Ankara. Anonymous (2010b). General Directorate of Environmental Protection and National Parks, Bureau of Game and Wildlife, Hunting Tourism Statistics: 1981-2010, Ankara. Baker JE (1997). Development of a model system for touristic hunting revenue collection and allocation. Tourism. Manage. 18(5):273-286. Baldus RD, Cauldwell AE (2004). Tourist hunting and it’s role in development of wildlife management areas in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam. p. 146. Başkaya Ş (1999). Hunting Tourism”. Forest and Hunting 1:19-21. Başkaya Ş, Başkaya E, Bilgili E, Gülci S (2008). Population Status and Principal Threats for the Large Carnivores in Alpine, Turkey”. Mammalian Biology, Special Issue, Abstracts of Oral Communications and Poster Presentations, 82nd Annual Meeting of the German Society of Mammalogy, Sept. 14-17, Vienna, Austria. pp. 5-6. Başkaya Ş, Bilgili E (2004). Does the leopard Panthera pardus still exist in the Eastern Karadeniz Mountains of Turkey, Oryx, 38(2): 228-232. Baskent EZ, Baskaya S, Terzioglu S (2008a). Developing and implementing participatory and ecosystem based multiple use forest management planning approach (ETÇAP): Yalnızçam case study. Forest Ecol. Manage. 256:798-807.
5643
Baskent EZ, Terzioglu S, Baskaya S (2008b). Developing and Implementing Multiple-Use Forest Management Planning in Turkey. Environ. Manage. 42:37-48. Çanakçıoğlu H, Mol T (1996). Information on Wild Animals. İÜ Faculty of Forestry Publication No: 3948, ISBN No: 975-404-424-4, İstanbul. p. 550. Damm GR (2008). Recreational Trophy Hunting: What do we know and what should we do? Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting. pp. 5-11. DJV-Handbuch (2010). Jahresjagdstrecke Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Jagdjahr: Dauer vom 1. April bis 31. März des Folgejahres. Erdoğan N (2003). Environment and (eco)tourism. Erk Publication, Ankara, p. 317. Günes Y, Coskun AA (2010). The legal aspects of public participation in forest management in Turkey. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 5(13):1539-1548. Haakana HP (2007). Product Development in Hunting Tourism, German hunters as a target group for a Finnish service provider. Bachelor’s thesis. Jyvaskyla University of Applied Sciences, School of Tourism and Services Manage. p. 29. Leader-Williams N, Hutton JM (2005). Does extractive use provide opportunities to reduce conflicts between people and wildlife. In: Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S.J., Rabinowitz, A. (Eds.), People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp.140– 161. Lindsey PA, Alexander R, Frank LG, Mathieson A, Romanach SS (2006). Potential of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlifebased land uses may not be viable. Anim. Conserv. 9:283-298. Lindsey PA, Roulet PA, Romanach SS (2007). Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conserv. 134:455-469. Lovelock B (2008). An introduction to consumptive wildlife tourism. In: Tourism and the consumption of wildlife. Hunting, shooting and sport fishing (ed. Lovelock, B.) Routledge, New York. pp. 3-30. Morrill WI (1993). The Tourist Safari Hunter's role in conservation. Working paper, Safari Club International, Herndon, Virginia, November. p. 8. OGM (2010). Forest Property in Turkey. General Directorate of Forestry in Turkey, Data Processing Branch Office, Ankara. Serez M, Başkaya Ş (1996). Hunting Tourism and its Practices in Our Country, Dostlar Rastgele Hunting Nature. Cult. J. 1:18-20. Steinhart EI (1989). Hunters, Poachers and Gamekeepers: Towards a Social History of Hunting in Colonial Kenya. J. Afr. History. 30(2):247264. TUİK (2010). Population Statistics. News Report. Turkish Prime Ministry Statistical Institute, Ankara. p. 15.
