By Wolfgang H. Thome, eTN | Mar 04, 2010

Almost 454,000 visitors were recorded in the financial year 2008/9, which ended on June 20, 2009, entering the fabled Ngorongoro Crater in northern Tanzania, earning TANAPA about 34 billion Tanzania shillings through park fees and permits. However, in the first half of this financial year, i.e., the period of July 1 until December 31, 2009, over 260,000 tourists have already visited the crater area, bringing the half year earnings to over 25 billion Tanzania shillings.

more..........

http://www.eturbonews.com/14719/ngor...lity-questions

That's why I appreciate the Botswana approach. Yeah, it's expensive but they prove themselves right every time. The only way to make it less popular is to raise the price. Unfortunate but true.

Why do they have to raise the price to limit access? Why not just limit access? There are other popular safari activities in Africa that aren't necessarily limited by price; they just determine that only a certain number of people are going to be there at any one time.

I'm very glad that the public lands here are not managed purely on a supply and demand basis.

If you read the article and other literature, you will see that price sesensivity has gone in reverse.

More people have visited since prices have risen than before. It is a little like Botswana, where 5 years they raised prices by 25% to test market demand.

As the price went up, the herd mentality believed the most expensive = the best.

With all the heavy flood waters, the best place to visit in Botswana will probably be the SAvute Marsh this year, not the high cost private concessions.

Anyway, back on topic, like gritty said, just limit the numbers they allow enter. We need to sustain these eco-systems.

Christabir, unfortunately I don't think any country gets it right every time. It is a bit naive to think that and the fact that there is all this hue and cry about self drivers possibly getting banned in some areas of Botswana attests to that. Making a natural resource so exclusive that only the rich can enjoy it is elitist in the extreme and will be doomed to failure in the long term. The local citizens will tire of it in due course.

It is possible, as others have said, to limit access to an area by other means than just hiking up the price. This last measure is a very rough and ready way of doing it, has no finesse to it and no equality.

I have to agree with Gritty and lbj2, have quota limits and enforce them.

I didn't say anything about self drivers. National parks should be open to the public and if there's a place to stay or a road to drive, then go to it. It's the private reserves that are high price, low volume, low(er) impact in theory. If you limit the number of people allowed to visit, how do you make up for the lost income? Do more with less? My household budget says you do less with less.

We love our national parks in the US to death, too. I'd be pretty PO'd if someone made the decision to limit the number of people who could visit. Wouldn't you?

Christabir, maybe I misunderstood you but you were comparing Botswana's approach to the OP on Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania which is, of course, a public reserve not a private conservancy. So how do we correlate what you admire in Botswana with what you would suggest the Tanzanian authorities should do to reduce numbers in NCA?