I believe that California has all the resources to generate a culture and economy around wildlife and botanical ecotourism. Many worldwide regions less biologically rich or unique have capitalized on both public and private land tourism. However, in the 8th largest economy in the world, there seems to be little interest or need to promote it as a biological hotspot. Places like Belize, New Zealand, the Galapagos and even Wyoming, Alaska pale to California (at least, in comparison by the standard definition of biodiversity) but are viewed as worldwide wildlife meccas. There is no doubt that each of these locations has diversity worth boasting about, and I by no means wish to diminish their contributions to the natural world by suggesting that part of their allure is clever marketing. However, I do not think it can be denied that part of what excites a tourist about seeing a kiwi or a Kodiak bear is the mythos that surrounds these species; a mythos that is carried on postcards, logos, swag, children's books, and stuffed animals. 

​

Few marketing triggers, however, are as clever as "The Big 5" of subsaharan Africa. 

​

Teddy Roosevelt coined the "Big 5" term to describe the 5 most dangerous African mammals to hunt. Today, marketing tourism essentially uses the term "Big 5" to describe the animals tourists most want to see: the African elephant, the white rhinoceros, the Cape buffalo, the lion, and the leopard. I've often tried to think up what the "Big 5" of California would be, if our region could successfully pull off a safari industry. These species would have to be exciting to see in nature, and possible to see from tourist areas in the state. Friends Tammy Lim, Ken-ichi Ueda, and Douglas Long have also helped brainstorm this concept. Here our the ideas below.  

​

​