Tourism Dip In North Sparks Fear For Its Future

[Heng]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land. More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.

[Ajarn]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. My house is within a man-made jungle

When I see these big new houses in new muubaans without any greenery, they look so naked and unappealing. Hot, too!

[Johpa]

Falang tourists discovered Chiang Mai?    Myself, we're fairly proud of the fact that we discovered Bangkapi.  Just a bunch of native Sioux and Navajo before we got there. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My apologies for not having put the word in quotation marks to more clearly indicate my intended meaning.

[Johpa]

Anyone driving around in the hills around the north can see quite clearly that the locals don't need Bangkokians to ###### things up- they've been doing that quite nicely themselves...

The entire area around Ponyang, for one example, is being turned into growing areas. I have photos of mountain views in the area from 15-20 years ago that show completely forested moutain sides that are now completely un-forested and being used by mostly Hmong to grow cash crops which are sold in Chiang Mai markets...

Along the road from Mae Suay to Fang, you can see the fields growing in size every year, stretching right up to the tops of the moutains. None of this is private land, either. Fires are lit, then the land is cleared and planted with cash crops... Ignored by authorities, it seems.

Same along the road to Wiang Haeng, especially around the two largest Lisaw villages (more like towns now). A couple of months ago, while driving through there at night, it was easy to see the lines of fire everywhere.... In the photo below, this line of fire that goes up the mountainside is perhaps 500 meters long, starting from the edge of the road. Completely ignored by any authorities, even though this was beautiful forest with many old-growth trees...

No sign of any interest from authorities, once again....

The sad part of 'TiT'. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Johpa]

Oops, sorry, hit the wrong button.

[chownah]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

[Heng]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

True, but how many times in human history have people chosen to protect "natural" treasure as the expense of tangible treasure?

[Ajarn]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but how many times in human history have people chosen to protect "natural" treasure as the expense of tangible treasure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many times actually, but nearly enough, obviously.

In my birth state of California, authorities are extremely serious now about environmental issues, sometimes to extremes... But California has done a lot to protect forests, especially... If I go to the States, I can feel pretty safe about the rivers and lakes I swim in being free from dangerous pollutants. No way would I have that same confidence here, frankly, and with good reason.

As you suggest, the profit motive is going to be a priority for many. But that's no excuse to simply put one's head in the sand and not fight against those who want to destroy the environment to fill their own purses.

Thailand has had accomplishments on some environmental issues, but many more remain and continue to grow....

[Limbo]

Yeah, the north sucks.  All you tourists just stay away from the north.  Its really ugly here and absolutely nothing of interest to do.  Better to go south....but not north....definitely not north......

I agree absolutely!

Lanna culture? Shopping in Big C? Foreigners in short pants on flip-flops?

The one after the other old temple is replaced by the modern standard version.

Restauration of beautiful old things doesn't seem to fit within the 'tam boon' notion.

Very regrettable.

Matchbox architecture with a 'galae' on the rooftop is called Lanna culture.

Everybody has his or her mouth full about 'Lanna-culture' and if you ask what that means they really don't know.

'Lanna-culture' exists, I think. Like Santa Claus, some would say.

When the Northern cultural autorities refer to it, they refer to it as something from the past. So what could schoolclasses benefit from learning about Lanna culture, dear Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce of Chiangmai? Could you give an exemple?

[chownah]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but how many times in human history have people chosen to protect "natural" treasure as the expense of tangible treasure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm still trying to understand exactly what point you are making. Are you trying to say that the Thai government and the Thai people are doing just as much as everyone else in preserving natural habitat and you think it is unfair for people to single out Thailand as being so bad in this effort?

[Heng]

I'm still trying to understand exactly what point you are making.  Are you trying to say that the Thai government and the Thai people are doing just as much as everyone else in preserving natural habitat and you think it is unfair for people to single out Thailand as being so bad in this effort?

Preserving natural habitats now? Of course not. Maybe after it's been nearly razed to the ground (as say the state of the environment in 1800's California was when compared to present day California), then we'll take up some token efforts to protect what's left. How could one expect anything more?

[chownah]

I'm still trying to understand exactly what point you are making.  Are you trying to say that the Thai government and the Thai people are doing just as much as everyone else in preserving natural habitat and you think it is unfair for people to single out Thailand as being so bad in this effort?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Preserving natural habitats now? Of course not. Maybe after it's been nearly razed to the ground (as say the state of the environment in 1800's California was when compared to present day California), then we'll take up some token efforts to protect what's left. How could one expect anything more?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape. If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape. I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is. Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data?

Are you Thai?

[Heng]

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is.  Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data? 

Are you Thai?

Yes, Thai.

My point is that it's easy to point fingers at "deforesters" when you've already deforested to your heart's content. And no kidding the rate is faster nowadays. We're working with chainsaws, not axes.

[Ajarn]

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is.  Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data? 

Are you Thai?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Thai.

My point is that it's easy to point fingers at "deforesters" when you've already deforested to your heart's content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on Heng, "You have already deforested" ??

I haven't. Have you?

So, now what?

[Heng]

Well, we did clear out a few trees several years ago to make another driveway, but in general, we tend to keep the trees where they are.

[Johpa]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where would one find old growth forests in Northern Thailand? The closest I have found in Chiang Mai are the narrow strips along creekbeds that were too steep to be forested long ago. I did see some healthy secondary growth forests years ago out along the border west of Khun Yuam. And I vaguely remember some healthy secondary growth forests around the Kok river and while hiking up to Akha villages like Wawee when such villages were only accessible by foot.

When I first lived in Thailand one could still find photos in the villages of people having shot deer or forest felines. Now it is hard to find anyone alive who remembers having seen monkeys, deer, and the like in the long ravaged forests up north. One can still find elephants, but they all have chains draging from their feet. And it has been several years since I have been offered pangolin meat. Hike through the forest now and it is nothing but insects and small birds. Good thing I can eat grubs.

Sorry, but to even find descriptions of old growth forests in Chiang Mai you might want to try reading some of the 18th & 19th century travel writers.

[Johpa]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.  More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where would one find old growth forests in Northern Thailand? The closest I have found in Chiang Mai are the narrow strips along creekbeds that were too steep to be forested long ago. I did see some healthy secondary growth forests years ago out along the border west of Khun Yuam. And I vaguely remember some healthy secondary growth forests around the Kok river and while hiking up to Akha villages like Wawee when such villages were only accessible by foot.

When I first lived in Thailand one could still find photos in the villages of people having shot deer or forest felines. Now it is hard to find anyone alive who remembers having seen monkeys, deer, and the like in the long ravaged forests up north. One can still find elephants, but they all have chains draging from their feet. And it has been several years since I have been offered pangolin meat. Hike through the forest now and it is nothing but insects and small birds. Good thing I can eat grubs.

Sorry, but to even find descriptions of old growth forests in Chiang Mai you might want to try reading some of the 18th & 19th century travel writers.

[chownah]

I think if you compare the decrease in forest cover in California from the 1800's until today and compare the same for Thailand you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  If you look at the rate of deforestation in California today and Thaland today I think you will find that Thailand is in much much worse shape.  I'm not judging anyone or any gov't...just trying to reply to your post because you see I still don't see what your point is.  Also I could be wrong in my assertions here....anyone got a site with real data? 

Are you Thai?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Thai.

My point is that it's easy to point fingers at "deforesters" when you've already deforested to your heart's content. And no kidding the rate is faster nowadays. We're working with chainsaws, not axes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish you were right in your assertion that in the US they have "deforested to your heart's content." There is a lumber industry in the US whose heart will not be content until all old growth forest is cut. People and organizatoins whose prime goal is money will never have contented hearts....this is the same everywhere in the world.

[Ajarn]

A good start might be with your own (or family) land.   More businesses or homes with lush foliage could inspire more to do the same, instead of going down the concrete industrial estate route.    

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planting trees in deforested areas is a good thing....but....it does not in any way make up for the loss of old growth forests. Old growth forests contain unique eco systems which have evolved over literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I want to say that planting trees and foliage is a good thing...but it is important to not cut down all of the old forests if you want to preserve the great national treasure Thailand has in it biodiversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where would one find old growth forests in Northern Thailand? The closest I have found in Chiang Mai are the narrow strips along creekbeds that were too steep to be forested long ago. I did see some healthy secondary growth forests years ago out along the border west of Khun Yuam. And I vaguely remember some healthy secondary growth forests around the Kok river and while hiking up to Akha villages like Wawee when such villages were only accessible by foot.

When I first lived in Thailand one could still find photos in the villages of people having shot deer or forest felines. Now it is hard to find anyone alive who remembers having seen monkeys, deer, and the like in the long ravaged forests up north. One can still find elephants, but they all have chains draging from their feet. And it has been several years since I have been offered pangolin meat. Hike through the forest now and it is nothing but insects and small birds. Good thing I can eat grubs.

Sorry, but to even find descriptions of old growth forests in Chiang Mai you might want to try reading some of the 18th & 19th century travel writers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said old growth forests. I said some old-growth trees, of which there are some still around in isolated areas and small patches, mostly in National Forests. The real damage being done is to watershed areas

Good thing I can eat grubs

Good thing that you don't have to, living in the States

[mnoorsapl]

Tourism dip in North sparks fear for its future

CHAING MAI: -- The northern region is becoming less popular among tourists as its charms as a cultural and arts centre are losing their lustre, according to a recent survey by the Tourism Authority of Thailand.

Saowaluk Chimada, vice-president of the Chiang Mai Chamber of Commerce, said the North’s tourism industry might have experienced a slowdown because the region’s main tourist destinations, Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, have lost their charm through constant development.

The Nation/Citylife 2005-05-15

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"cultural and arts centre are losing their lustre" may be promote Grungtep concept be of some help?. There are definately a lot of trees in the Northern than in the Central plains.

"North’s tourism industry might have experienced a slowdown " is more sensible reason. Why? May be divert those international flights to Chiegmai Airport will definately boost up tourism.

[Foggy Bottom]

Some of the reasons for the decline in tourism in the north .....

Overdevelopment of cities such as Chiangmai whilst not adding daytime activities for tourists within the cities themselves - not everyone wants to spend all day crammed into a minibus driven by a suicidal maniac

Greed of the locals, especially taxi drivers - example the (still) published official fare by Songthaew within any city's limits throughout Thailand is 8 Baht. Until 2000-2001, most songthaews had stickers to this effect in the passenger compartment, but stories of songthaews demanding upto 100 baht from tourists (e.g. night bazzaar to Thapae gate) are common nowadays - even tuk tuks charge less than that.

"Improvement of facilities" so that all the sub-300 baht per night guest houses are becoming 500-1500 baht per night hotels. The north's traditional budget travellers cannot afford these rates.

Conversion of tourists from independant travellers (who spend their money all over the place in "small" businesses), to large chapperoned tour groups spending the 2.6 days average stay in the big hotels and only being taken to authorised sights - never seeing the "real" north or businesses.

The Social Order Policy which has effectively shut down Chiangmai from midnight each night without thought for the body-clock time zone differences of tourists who have jetted across 5-8 time zones in under 12 hours. Such that the time at which this government shuts everything down is the body-clock time at which tourists are just starting to think about going out for the evening.

There's more, but it just continues to show that this government is so blinkered that they're intent on killing their cash cows in the name of nationalism.

Effects outside their control includes global paranoia about "islamic countries" (ie the South), SARS, Bird Flue, Tsunami factor, the Iraq & Afghan wars on terror, Taksin's War on Drugs and associated human rights criticism in western press, murder of tourists and expats by Thai cops - all making heavy press in the west, etc

Most tourism facility development in the north has been geared at Thai tourists rather than foreign tourists - hence the "classy" hotels used to boast about non-existent wealth or status by the tourists. Tied to this are the racist policies of dual pricing at natural assets such as waterfalls and parks, as well as temples and museums etc.

Plus tourists ain't as dumb as we often paint them - e.g. having seen lacquerware in the night bazaar at 100 - 200 baht for certain items, having a trekking company then drop them off at the factory showroom bearing price tags of 1000-1500 baht for the same designs sets a certain resentment into the tourists - one that is repeated to friends when they get back home.

Old English Adage - A happy customer will tell one or two people, an unhappy one will tell 10 - 20 people.

[johng]

Gaz Chiangmai : Good post,... although I don't live in the north. most of your comments apply equally to Pattaya

( where I live for now ) and most likely to the whole of Thailand.

Edited May 26, 2005 by johng