We believe that many local communities around the world are fundamentally and inextricably embedded within the ecosystems of their area. For larger towns and cities, there is a greater degree of separation between natural ecosystems, wildlife, and humans. It is easy to sit in a city, well-removed from the realities of rural subsistence communities, and pundit for animal rights over the survival needs of communities around the world. But when it comes to smaller local towns, villages, homesteads, or individual subsistence farmers or fishers, the separation between human and nature decreases drastically. Many communities around the world rely directly on local ecosystems and the fauna and flora they provide in order to survive.

When it comes to protecting and improving local ecosystems, their biodiversity, and their populations, the humans who interact with those ecosystems cannot be excluded. If local communities, who may have relied on their local ecosystems for many generations, are excluded from accessing those resources, this could work against conservation efforts. It could lead to damaged communal livelihoods, population migration, or it could increase the likelihood of poaching for subsistence.

At all of our conservation bases around the world, whether they be terrestrial, coastal, or marine conservation bases, we always involve the local communities in the conservation work. We do so by providing educational workshops that aim to improve understanding of local species and ecosystems, and manners of sustainable interaction and consumption.

Our aim is to improve local passion and commitment towards their own ecosystems, and give them ways to better manage their own natural resources. We do this collaboratively with local community members, so that future generations can continue to interact and consume from their local ecosystems and maintain their traditional way of life.

We don't condone or offer participants the opportunity to engage in medical veterinary procedures due to our "first, do no harm policy." Read more here.

A: They should not.

Reason: Firstly, it can be dangerous to get close to wild animals. Both for the human and for the animal. The wild animal could injure the person and both animal and human could contact diseases spread through the water, air or by touch. In addition, disturbing the animal can interrupt its natural behaviour. If enough visitors are allowed to do this it can put the animal under threat. For example, whales and sea turtles might be disturbed by divers coming to close to them, stopping them from eating, nesting, or mating, and forcing them to look for new living grounds. Finally, if visitors are conducting conservation research, getting too close to the animal; can skew research data as the animal will be behaving as it would if it is disturbed by a natural threat.

A: The organisation should.

Reason: Many visitors to protected areas do not realise how some of their habits might harm the beautiful environment they have come to see. Organisations that promote the protection of these areas should provide visitors with a series of guidelines before they enter the reserve. This might involve information about the impact of littering and plastic pollution, touching and removing certain plant and animal species, and keeping one’s distance from local wildlife species.

A: They should.

Reason: Long-term, sustainable conservation efforts can only be effective if the initiatives for projecting local wildlife and the environment is locally led. Any organisation that has conservation as one of its main goals should be focusing on how to engage the local community with these efforts. This does not only involve creating awareness around why it is important to preserve environments and species and how to achieve this, but should also focus on other sustainable development efforts like childhood education and adult vocational training, to support local economic growth.

A: They should not.

Reason: According to FTT, any organisation that claims to treat its animals, including wild animals, well should allow the animal access to the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare which include, 1) freedom from hunger and thirst, 2) freedom from discomfort, 3) freedom from pain, injury and disease, 4) freedom to express normal behaviour, and 5) freedom from fear and distress. Not only should they provide the necessary space, natural environment, enrichment activities, and food, but they should not pressure the animal to perform any act that is unnatural. In addition, they should provide wildlife veterinarians at least twice a year to check on the animals and have enough staff trained in animal husbandry to conduct regular health checks. If the organisation claims to support ongoing conservation efforts, they should not allow people to touch, feed, and bathe animals. This will not support the integration of animals into the wild as they should be able to feed and bathe themselves. If the animal is a domestic breed, such as a cat or dog, local care organisations are within acceptable ethical guidelines when welcoming participants to feed, bath, and socialise with these animals. You can check these institutions against the same five freedoms of animal welfare with the awareness that natural behaviour will involve human contact as they rely on humans for survival.

A: They should not.

Reason: Breeding of wild animals in captivity can assist in conservation efforts, however, unscrupulous organisations have used breeding for profit. International visitors are used to rear juvenile specimens of threatened wild species, and once they are grown these specimens are often then traded illegally. A reputable organisation would never allow you to hand-rear a wild animal, as this has been proven to be harmful to the animal’s ability to socialise and look after themselves in the wild. It also means that they aren’t afraid of humans, which could put both humans and the animal’s life in danger in the future. There is almost never a reason to separate a young wild animal from their mothers and if the organisation claims that the animal is orphaned they should be able to provide legal proof of how they were rescued. If the organisation claims to breed wild animals they must be able to prove that it is for conservation purposes and have the legal documents, both national and international, to back this up. In all cases, a young wild animal should be with its mother or a surrogate of its own species. This is not the case for domesticated species like dogs and cats, and working with animal welfare institutions who offer participants the opportunity to rear orphaned puppies and kittens are functioning within ethical guidelines, granted that they comply with the five freedoms of animal welfare.

A: If they do, there should be strict safety policies in place.

Reason: Every year many people are injured in captive wild animal attractions. No reputable organisation should allow you to come into close contact with species listed as Hazard Category 1 in the Association of British Travel Agents or ABTA Animal Welfare Guidelines without sufficient distance from the animal, training, and risk mitigation provided by trained professionals. These include big cats of all kinds including lions, leopards, cheetahs, and caracal; megaherbivores like elephants, rhinos, buffalo, giraffe and hippos; large primates, like great apes and large monkeys; as well as dangerous reptiles like poisonous snakes and crocodiles. They should also have a policy in place to protect visitors and educate them about these practices on arrival. They should instruct visitors to keep their distance from animals and not disturb their natural behaviour. They should also have a record of any injuries caused by animals and be insured against injuries caused by their captive wild animals.

A: They should be able to.

Reason: There must be a demonstrable, legally justified reason for taking the animal out of the wild. If they have an injury, there must be a plan to reintroduce them into the wild including a set release date. They can only remain in captivity if they cannot be healed or cannot fend for themselves. This should be verified by a veterinarian and an animal behaviourist. If the animals are kept in captivity to preserve their species from poaching or habitat destruction, the organisation should be able to supply the necessary documentation from the conservation organisation they partner with. Ideally they should be able to provide proof of how they comply on both a local and international level. In addition, the organisation should be able to provide proof that their plan for reintroducing animals back into the wild actually works. There are many examples of great intentions not succeeding, reintroducing animals into the wild is incredibly challenging. When investigating an organisation be sure to ask about their history of long-term reintroduction successes. They should be able to tell you how many individuals were reintroduced, where, when, how long the animal continued to live in the wild, and whether they were successful, hunting, socialising, and breeding.

A: You should be able to.

Reason: If an organisation claims that they are holding animals in captivity for conservation purposes they should be able to provide the legal proof that they are compliant with national and international policies that confirm they are allowed to hold the specific species for their specified purpose. It is also important to check their financial records to ensure that they are not trading wildlife illegally for profit and to check the reputation of the conservation organisation that backs them.