News Forum - Rare clouded leopard struts its stuff in Thailand’s new wildlife safe haven

[Thaiger]

In the mountains of Kanchanaburi in western Thailand, hidden cameras are capturing more and more clouded leopards, Indo-Chinese tigers, gaurs, and other wildlife. Recognising the importance of the conservation of Thailand’s wildlife, Thailand’s Treasury Department is preparing to declare an area of land covering 219,000 rai of land a non-hunting area. The huge conservation area …

The story Rare clouded leopard struts its stuff in Thailand’s new wildlife safe haven as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[cowslip]

so to help with this, the funding for National Parks has been reduced by 30%, the Director is enmeshed in scandal - the amount of money involved is estimated as the same as the funding for Elephant ditches that haven't been built to restrict elephants from encroaching onto arable land, which in itself is often encroaching onto NP listed land.

Thai is very keen to declare areas National Parks and Wildlife reserves because it looks good, but the funding for this has actually reduced over the years. The hopeless dual pricing policy is just an example of how inept at management the department has become.

[Manu]

13 hours ago, cowslip said:

so to help with this, the funding for National Parks has been reduced by 30%, the Director is enmeshed in scandal - the amount of money involved is estimated as the same as the funding for Elephant ditches that haven't been built to restrict elephants from encroaching onto arable land, which in itself is often encroaching onto NP listed land.

Thai is very keen to declare areas National Parks and Wildlife reserves because it looks good, but the funding for this has actually reduced over the years. The hopeless dual pricing policy is just an example of how inept at management the department has become.

If I take apart the forever corruption's issue (well, it is Thailand), funding cuts for national parks are not a Thai speciality, it is happening all over the world. In fact Thailand is not the worst by far considering the size of the wildlife here. For example...

This is in England ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/08/funding-cuts-leave-englands-national-parks-facing-existential-crisis

This is in Australia... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-06/national-parks-underfunded-former-ranger-warns/11282562

And on and on... It seems it is not a priority anywhere.

As for dual prices.

Firstly, national parks in Thailand are not only funded by entrance fees but also through the government's central budget, so therefore Thai people's taxes.

Secondly dual prices is again not a Thai speciality, in fact it is all over the world. I found on a forum someone asking a question about dual prices to know which countries to avoid as a tourist on a budget after experiencing it in Thailand and Taiwan (it is about general tourist attractions, but it is obviously the same for national parks). Someone's answers is exactly what I would write myself here (especially what I put in bold) so I will copy and paste it to save time:

Quote

There are places all over the world with different prices depending on where you come from. Museums in all sorts of countries do it, including Singapore, Russia, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, and more. This is hardly surprising, since without such a scheme many local residents would be unable to afford their own country's attractions! Plus, locals may pay in the form of taxes (which partially fund many public museums), which you as a foreigner do not pay.

https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/42227/what-countries-have-separate-pricing-fees-for-international-tourists-for-country

 

 

[cowslip]

4 hours ago, Manu said:

If I take apart the forever corruption's issue (well, it is Thailand), funding cuts for national parks are not a Thai speciality, it is happening all over the world. In fact Thailand is not the worst by far considering the size of the wildlife here. For example...

This is in England ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/08/funding-cuts-leave-englands-national-parks-facing-existential-crisis

This is in Australia... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-06/national-parks-underfunded-former-ranger-warns/11282562

And on and on... It seems it is not a priority anywhere.

As for dual prices.

Firstly, national parks in Thailand are not only funded by entrance fees but also through the government's central budget, so therefore Thai people's taxes.

Secondly dual prices is again not a Thai speciality, in fact it is all over the world. I found on a forum someone asking a question about dual prices to know which countries to avoid as a tourist on a budget after experiencing it in Thailand and Taiwan (it is about general tourist attractions, but it is obviously the same for national parks). Someone's answers is exactly what I would write myself here (especially what I put in bold) so I will copy and paste it to save time:

https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/42227/what-countries-have-separate-pricing-fees-for-international-tourists-for-country

How do you figure the sins of another country justify or mitigate the sins in Thailand?

[cowslip]

4 hours ago, Manu said:

Firstly, national parks in Thailand are not only funded by entrance fees but also through the government's central budget, so therefore Thai people's taxes.

I don't suggest anywhere that the parks re funded only by entrance fees. 

[Manu]

1 hour ago, cowslip said:

How do you figure the sins of another country justify or mitigate the sins in Thailand?

I was not trying to justify anything, just pointing out the fact that it is common practice around the world and that Thailand is actually not doing that bad, at least not as bad as your comment seems to suggest.

[Manu]

1 hour ago, cowslip said:

I don't suggest anywhere that the parks re funded only by entrance fees. 

So therefore surely you understand dual prices and therefore you should not mention it as a bad thing then, no? Especially if you take also into account that on top of that, local residents would be unable to afford their own country's attractions if it did not exist atlhough they are already paying for those parks with their taxes.

[cowslip]

13 minutes ago, Manu said:

I was not trying to justify anything, just pointing out the fact that it is common practice around the world and that Thailand is actually not doing that bad, at least not as bad as your comment seems to suggest.

What is the point of your post, then?

[cowslip]

8 minutes ago, Manu said:

So therefore surely you understand dual prices and therefore you should not mention it as a bad thing then, no? Especially if you take also into account that on top of that, local residents would be unable to afford their own country's attractions if it did not exist atlhough they are already paying for those parks with their taxes.

You clearly have not looked into dual pricing in National Parks and the effects they have.

They are of no use to funding the parks as the money they raise is negligible and displaced by the lack of attendance by those who would otherwise have =visited.

The truth is they are part of the incompetence that surrounds the entire running of Thailand's national parks.

 

you really don't seem to have a point of view and far as I can see your posts are just gainsaying for the sole purpose of gainsaying.

[Manu]

1 minute ago, cowslip said:

What is the point of your post, then?

Like I said,  that Thailand is actually not doing that bad, at least not as bad as your comment seems to suggest and surely less bad than many countries around the world. Not sure why you think that my post has less of a point than yours. I read your point, then I made just another one that disagrees with yours.

[KaptainRob]

An argumentative Member has taken a wee holiday to reconsider the FG's.

Note: Manu provided all the detail necessary in his 1st post in this thread.

[Soidog]

6 hours ago, Manu said:

Firstly, national parks in Thailand are not only funded by entrance fees but also through the government's central budget, so therefore Thai people's taxes.

So foreigners don’t pay taxes in Thailand then? They don’t pay 7% VAT on everything they buy? Don’t pay Aviation tax on their tickets? Foreigners with businesses don’t pay company tax? I would estimate that your average 10 day holidaymaker pays more tax than many Thais pay all year, or ever! I’m afraid the tax excuse doesn’t wash with me. If it was the reason, then why is there dual pricing in other areas such as restaurants and MB/car hire? Or is the excuse then that the food is grown on Thai Land and cars drive on Thai Roads?
 

Truth is, It has nothing to do with logical, morally based principles and all to do with opportunity to rip off people who have no choice or unaware. It’s a shameful act that foreigners should not support in any way. 
 

[Manu]

16 hours ago, Soidog said:

So foreigners don’t pay taxes in Thailand then? They don’t pay 7% VAT on everything they buy? Don’t pay Aviation tax on their tickets? Foreigners with businesses don’t pay company tax? I would estimate that your average 10 day holidaymaker pays more tax than many Thais pay all year, or ever! I’m afraid the tax excuse doesn’t wash with me. If it was the reason, then why is there dual pricing in other areas such as restaurants and MB/car hire? Or is the excuse then that the food is grown on Thai Land and cars drive on Thai Roads?
 

Truth is, It has nothing to do with logical, morally based principles and all to do with opportunity to rip off people who have no choice or unaware. It’s a shameful act that foreigners should not support in any way. 
 

I am not necessarily defending dual prices in general although in so many cases I find it fair. But this thread is about National parks.

Quote

They don’t pay 7% VAT on everything they buy?

The average 10 day holiday maker pays 7% on everything they buy for... 10 days, Thai people 365 days per year. (not to mention VAT for some goods can be refunded at the airport when you leave). So not sure about your calculation. Unless you are talking about rich tourists compared to the poorest Thais / Thai people with the lowest salaries, in which case I find it just fair cause it means that those tourists spend more money in 10 days than the poorest Thais spend in one year: a very unfair inequality from a human being point of view. If those tourists find this unfair, then maybe they should stay home.

Quote

Don’t pay Aviation tax on their tickets?

Aviation tax is generally for aiports maintenance (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/airport-tax.asp). I am not sure but I very doubt it is different in Thailand.

Quote

Foreigners with businesses don’t pay company tax?

There for sure, it is not fair.

Quote

If it was the reason, then why is there dual pricing in other areas such as restaurants and MB/car hire?

That is not the case at all where I am, and I do not know a single restaurant that does that. And I know them all. But what you are refering to are mass tourists spots: I can give you a list of hundreds of mass tourism places around the world where it is just the same. Mass tourism always attracts dual or/and inflated prices. I am sure like myself you have been many times out of mass tourists spots in Thailand, in the country side or small towns where a farang is a rarety. They are always as suprised as happy to see you eat their food that they are showing clearly and proudly what you are supposed to pay for it (which is always ridiculously cheap). I defy anyone to tell me otherwise. The 100s times I did this, and being as curious as I am, I always check just to see...

But like I said 2 or 3 times already above, tax is not the only criteria, most of all there is also the argument that many local residents would be unable to afford their own country's attractions. Which foreigners are selfish enough to find that fair? There are only 2 options really (reminder: the thread is about national parks):

1- Everyone pays the high price (the tourist's price) for national parks, therefore only tourists and wealthy Thais can visit them, but not the Thais with low salaries, the poorests.

2- Everyone pays the low price (the Thai's price) for national parks, then there will not be enough money to fund the park.

Which one you wish for? And like I said, this is the case in so many countries worldwide for the exact same reasons.

Quote

It’s a shameful act that foreigners should not support in any way. 

Most attractions like museums and national parks have their dual prices clearly stated so if people find it shameful, there is also the option of not going in to show that they do not support it. In fact, since that it is also the case in so many countries, especially in developping countries with Western mass tourism (but by far not only, plenty of that too in the West), there is also the option of staying home in order not to support it.

(Note: I have started to notice many years ago already that it seems that the majority of us arguing about dual prices (for attractions and national parks) are most of the time the most wealthy of us. Probably not a coincidence I guess...)

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, Manu said:

Which one you wish for?

As you suggest, this isn’t the place to debate dual pricing.
 

I don’t wish for either of your choices. National parks need to be central government funded. Some of the $84 billion of revenue from foreign tourism should be invested back to attract more people to visit the National Parks.  

[Manu]

23 hours ago, Soidog said:

As you suggest, this isn’t the place to debate dual pricing.

Well it is if we debate about the official dual pricing policy for national parks or even attractions in general but not about bike rentals (do you know many Thais who rent bikes in places you go in Thailand?), or even restaurants then it is not (if you happened to have experienced this in a restaurant, personally never as far as I know and I always check, it is just crooks not because of (un)official dual prices policy).

s

Quote

I don’t wish for either of your choices.

So free for everyone then?

Quote

National parks need to be central government funded.

Well, like I said above it is, one part from central government, the other from entrance fees...basically like pratically all national parks anywhere.

Quote

Some of the $84 billion of revenue from foreign tourism should be invested back to attract more people to visit the National Parks.

Well we could say that if we knew how much already is invested back? If we do not know the answer to that, what "more" does even mean? But as far as I know, Thailand seems to be doing better than other countries like you own for example, England has definitely abandonned the idea of investing more in order to attract more tourists in its national parks.

[Soidog]

30 minutes ago, Manu said:

do you know many Thais who rent bikes in places you go in Thailand?), or even restaurants then it is not (if you happened to have experienced this in a restaurant, personally never as far as I know and I always check, it is just crooks not because of (un)official dual prices policy).

Yes I do. When I go to Pattaya I often meet up with a couple of Thai men I use to work with. Whenever we rent the bikes they always do the renting. I have to pay 250 a day while they will be offered 150-200. On one occasion my Thai friend asked for discount. The young lad said he would call his boss to ask. During the conversation, the boss asked “Is it a Thai or Farang”.

On the restaurant side of things. I’ve been in restaurants in tourists areas where there are two menus, one in English and one in Thai. When I picked up the Thai menu there was panic as the prices were cheaper in there. The same goes for when I go in some restaurants with Thai friends. We always get the Thai menu then as the comparison would be obvious. It doesn’t happen in all restaurants of course, but my point is that dual pricing as a policy example, is issued by the government on things such as National parks. Why wouldn’t ordinary Thais feel it’s ok to do the same with their business. 

36 minutes ago, Manu said:

So free for everyone then?

Jumping to conclusions. That’s certainly one option. Another is to charge everyone the same and offer a discount to people who are on social credit. As you know, many Thais are far far wealthier than many Foreigners. So this isn’t about the ability to pay. it’s pure opportunism. 

 

47 minutes ago, Manu said:

Well we could say that if we knew how much already is invested back? If we do not know the answer to that, what "more" does even mean? But as far as I know, Thailand seems to be doing better than other countries like you own for example, England has definitely abandonned the idea of investing more in order to attract more tourists in its national parks.

Well as you say, you don’t have the figures and perhaps get your U.K. news from left wing sources such as the Guardian or BBC? It’s worth noting that U.K. government spends £350m per year of tax payers money on National Parks. Yes, in recent years, cuts have been made and that figure was over £400m. The fact is you don’t just keep handing out tax payers money without some challenge to reduce operating costs.
 

The Thais set aside an impressive £300m (that’s the budget) so perhaps 50% of this actually makes its way in to the parks as a result of systemic corruption. Also, Thailand has 147 National Parks compared to 15 in the U.K.  Spending per National Park in U.K. is therefore £23.3m compared to £2m for Thailand. The total U.K. national park area is 22,600sq km. Thailand claims 30% of its area are designated National parks. Obviously much of that are actually marine conservation areas and so it’s not easy to compare like for like. But even taking 10%, this equates to around 51,000sq km. the U.K. therefore spends £15,400/sq km compared to just £5,800/sq km in Thailand. And that’s taking a very conservative size of actual park area. So you see, the U.K. is doing rather well compared to Thailand and I’m sure compared many other countries, once you take the time to check for yourself.  

[Faz]

You're way off-topic, gents.

Want to debate dual pricing, open a new topic.

Moderator.

[Soidog]

5 minutes ago, Faz said:

You're way off-topic, gents.

Want to debate dual pricing, open a new topic.

Moderator.

Agreed @Faz. @Manuseemed to think otherwise and I felt compelled to rebuke his comments. I did in fact try to kill the debate before it started. I’ll leave it to Manu to decide if he wants to waste more of his time by opening a new topic. 

[Faz]

Off-topic post, although amusing, and the replies have been removed.

No frivolities or flirting with spots permitted in the News sections