Tourism study flawed

Dear sir:
I am writing this letter in response to recent articles in local newspapers regarding the results of a study on the economic impact of tourism in Sunset Country.
I have had the opportunity to review the report released from this study, and I have serious concerns regarding the methods used to obtain the information on which the report is based.
The study was prepared for the North Western Ontario Tourism Association, a lobby group established by tourist operators to ensure their interests are voiced. NWOTA acquired the services of PFK Consulting out of Toronto to conduct an analysis of the economic impact of tourism in Sunset Country.
This is like a pharmaceutical company hiring a consultant to analyze the benefits of the drugs it produces.
Unbiased? Impartial? Probably not.
In order to conduct the study, PFK Consulting sent questionnaires to tourism operators requesting financial and operational data. Going back to the pharmaceutical example, this is like the consultant basing its report on a questionnaire sent to the pharmaceutical companies requesting information on the benefits and side effects of the drugs they produce.
The public would not accept the results of a drug study conducted this way, so why should a lobby group be able to take advantage of the same type of self-serving study?
I am not trying to undermine the value of the tourism industry nor its importance to the local economy; however, I do have concerns about the dangers of this type of study method being used to influence decisions and public opinion.
I am much more inclined to put my faith in study results that appear in established peer-reviewed journals. The “Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,” a well-respected scientific journal, published a paper written by Anthony J. Usher in 1987 entitled, “Ontario Lake of the Woods Fishery: Economic and Social Analysis.”
This paper was based on a three-year, large-scale economic and social analysis of the fishery on Lake of the Woods. The following are some of the findings:
•“If net operation revenues are analyzed on an implicit basis (which would take into account amortized costs of capital and modest opportunity costs for non-compensated labour), rather than on a cash flow basis, tourist operations and commercial and domestic fisheries all operated at a loss” (translated this means the tourism industry is not all it is cracked up to be).
•“Commercial and domestic fisheries were more profitable than the tourism industry, and more of their revenues stayed in the local area.”
•“The commercial and domestic fishery generated considerably more jobs relative to revenue than the tourist fishery did.”
These are all well-researched and unbiased facts that paint a much clearer picture of the true nature of the fishery in the area. I wonder if NWOTA would have been as quick to release to the media the results of the Usher paper as they have been the study that they have just commissioned, funded, and been the primary source of information.
We have just witnessed local outfitters in their battle against interest groups and their campaign to ban the spring bear hunt. I am shocked that tourism operators—who have seen themselves victims of lobby groups armed with biased arguments—are so quick to initiate and support a process that is as flawed as the anti-spring bear hunts arguments put forth not so long ago.
The tourism industry is, and will continue to be, an important part of the local economy in Northwestern Ontario. However, tourism is not without its drawbacks and it is not the answer to all of the areas economic needs.
We will all benefit from a balanced and diverse use of our natural resources. This balance is important in developing a stable economy for all local residents.
Respectfully,
Daniel Kelly
Director, Resource
Management Unit,
Anishinaabeg of
Kabapikotawangag
Resource Council