Macross

Just call me Harry is what he said at the Edinburgh Conference. He is dropping the Prince.

Macross

I love the off season now to travel. I know here in Fl the beaches are so crowded and they turn you away once the parking lots are full at my fav state park.

Barbara

And yet the only reason anyone gives a damn about anything he says is because he's a prince.

Sue_xx_yy

"If we don't act and get ahead of this inevitable surge.."

I have never cared for carbon offsets - a bit too much like those papal indulgences for sins one supposedly could buy back in the day - but I'm beginning to warm to the idea of buying a Harry and Meghan Offset.

Lezzee: median global income - about $10000 US. Not per person, per household. About $850 a month, or $30 a day, give or take. Harry. Harry. The world is not beating a path to the door of this or that 'hot spot.' They can't afford it, even at 'package tour' prices. They can't even afford the curtains you and Meghan bought for that 'cottage' you used to live in.

I don't like cruises, I don't like what they do with the wastewater (it is rarely accidental Macross) but the damn things employ a lot of people who send the money home. Exactly what, Harry, are they supposed to do if they aren't working in tourism?

I'll pay you $30 a day, Harry, for you and Meghan to please, please, shut up. Be rich if you must, fly in private jets to climate change conferences if it floats your boat, but please, please. Shut. Up. Just go away and complain about the peasants where you can't be heard.

curiousgeo

mrwunrfl, I can remember visiting Nanzenji one autumn day in the 80’s, the grounds ablaze with fall colors and maybe at most a few dozen other people. I sat in one of the beautiful side gardens taking in the view and solitude for 30 minutes before someone else walked in.

Fast forward to last year as we shuffled along with many hundreds of other visitors to the temple being brought in by the bus load, at least 8 parked with more arriving. And that side garden was packed with people all angling for that perfect shot after paying an entry fee.

AJPeabody

In the 1960's (yup, I'm old) I visited the Colosseum and the Forum. I just walked in, no fences, no fee, few visitors, one tour group. It's not like that now.
I walked around and got lost in Venice. There were kids playing soccer, etc., and no crowds. It's not like that now.
In the 1980's my wife and I visited the Pont du Gard. We jet drove up and walked through and atop the old aqueduct over the river. There were a few others doing that, plus a few kayakers in the river. It's not like that now.
I have revisited Rome in 2012. Fences, tickets, crowds. I will never go back to Venice. It would pain me to see what is now described.

Percy

I am sure there is at least a 100 fold increase at the Galapagos from when I was there.

About the same time you were there panecott.

So that was you getting your picture taken with Lonesome George !!!

There was a restriction when I was there, some islands you could not visit on a Monday.

Wonder how it is now !

I still remember when our yacht crossed the equator line, you felt the bump .

Dukey1

It is the "overtourism" of people attending "the largest Presidential Inaugural EVER" to support the person who is helping ruin our environment that bothers me the most right now.

kswl3

Thats true, Barbara. And also true that it’s one thing to simply stop using a title voluntarily and quite another to have it officially taken away. It seems he argued to keep his HRH and place in line for the next twelve months, at least. I don’t for one moment believe we know even a fraction of what has gone on to cause their withdrawal or the behind the scenes negotiations afterwards. The internecine machinations of prominent family feuds are usually revealed either in court or history books.

Cowboy1968

I think it would be helpful if there were some rational or fact-driven criteria when a destination becomes "over-crowded" with tourists.
Currently, this has become more a fashion statement of people who live somewhere and experience changes in, for example, the availability or costs of housing for regular or lower incomes (compared to hotels and AirBnBs). Or the existence of crowds in certain places at certain times of the year.
Which all could be relevant criteria, but I don't think it's helpful for any political counteraction if there is just gut feelings and personal experiences ruling the discussion.

In addition, I was wondering what will happen to those more far-away tourist destinations that focused their economy on tourism from overseas over the last decades. Like Thailand, for example, where most tourists (I guess) come from Europe, Australia, China, Japan, North America..
It takes little effort for us to stop flying to Thailand - but what will happen to the hundreds of thousands who are employed in resorts, hotels, restaurants, attractions etc.? Do we send them them a "So sorry" note that they and their families will now be poor because we suddenly became better people that will destroy nature less?

CounterClifton

Aside from the pollution aspect, I don't know what to say about a lot of other people going where I've been or plan to go. You take what you get. Or you change your mind and do something else. A lot of places actually could do something about crowds by limiting hotels, not allowing cruise ships to dock, not having bus parking or private busses on the road and that sort of thing. Not that most places want to do that and give up the revenue.

We've talked about going to Japan as a family within the next couple of years. It sounds like it could be crowded. Or more crowded than it used to be, not that we know what that was like anyway. It would be hard to not go see Kyoto, crowds or not. But it would be nice to also find some stops that are less well known and see what "normal Japan" looks like.

On my own, I find myself thinking about places just when others are a little antsy about them. I'd really like to take a solo trip to Egypt. Reports say even the Pyramids area is pretty quiet. Sounds perfect. I also want to see India on a solo trip. That's already so crowded it probably doesn't matter how many tourists are also there.

dfrostnh

I think we stayed in Skagway 2 nights after getting off the ferry because I wanted to go on the train ride but tickets weren't available when we first got there because of a cruise ship. I think there was only one in port. The streets were crowded and I noticed that additional foods, drinks and activities were available when the ships were in port. I thought we would have trouble finding a place for dinner but late in the afternoon everyone went back to the ship and the streets were empty. Despite the crowds, not every business was busy. I walked further away from the downtown area and found a quilt shop where I was the only customer. I had a nice chat with the owner who described quilting classes. Ladies would come via ferry and stay overnight with friends. Take the class and go home the next day. I don't think Skagway would miss some of the shops that cater to tourists and possibly some of the employees are seasonal. I was surprised to see a branch of a jewelry shop I had seen in St. Thomas. My favorite souvenir, a handmade ulu and chopping bowl/board came from one of the Skagway gift shops. I use it all the time. When a friend did an AK cruise after 9/11, they were told they couldn't buy ulu knives. Of course, ulu knife makers probably compete with the mass produced ones sold in Anchorage.

People say they don't want to visit Maine during the high season because of the crowds. We find plenty of uncrowded places to visit during 4th of July week although Bath Maine is busier than usual because they have a big parade and celebrate Heritage Days. Last September I took a comic photo of a very crowded plaza. I added the comment "I think I'm someplace famous." It was the Trevi fountain. Other plazas weren't crowded although I did see lines of people with audio equipment following a tour leader in places like Plaza Navona. There were only 3 of us in a cooking class and I'm not sure how many tourists were exploring the market Testaccio when I was there. It was very busy but not overly crowded. I overhead someone staying at my hotel that one of the famous sites was just a big grassy field. I did not visit any of the popular tourist sites. I only had a short time and I wanted to learn more about food.

schlegal1

I was in Galapagos in December and it was still as you describe panecott. Still highly regulated. There are still good guides and bad guides. We saw very few other tourists because of how the government regulates the ship landings and day excursions. There are large boats and small boats. It was fascinating talking to our guide, a 32-year Galapagos veteran, about what the changes have been and the surge in tourism. She did say that she thinks the huge ships (over 100 people) are damaging to the islands even with the regulations because it's simply impossible to actually get that many people to respect the rules.

Overcrowding won't stop me from going somewhere. For the most part I can still enjoy something in a crowd. Sometimes I actually enjoy the idea that something is so wonderful or beautiful or historically significant that many people want to see and experience it. I am no different from those other tourists after all--I'm part of the "problem." (It's like that saying, "You aren't in traffic, you are traffic.").

I liked seeing the Mona Lisa in a crowd. I was ok dealing with summer in Rome and Florence. I didn't find Iceland unpleasant in a crowd. And I have been to a number of National Parks in peak season and am usually cheered by how much people want to enjoy and experience nature, even if I find parking difficult or a trail busy.

I have become incredibly fatalistic about the environment in the past 5 years or so. I do a few small things but I don't reduce my travel based on my concerns, which, if I was serious about saving the Earth, I would. Instead, I have actually moved fragile places up on my bucket list (hence Galapagos). I want to get to Antartica, see polar bears in Canada, and swim in the GBR before they are truly gone, which I expect to happen in my lifetime.

kureiff

I am curious to see whether Glacier National Park goes to a permitting system in the future. The number of visitors increases every year and parking is limited.

Many of the rivers around us are on a permit system. It makes sense to control the number of people using the corridors to keep pollution and damage down.

We were in Venice the end of October and did not experience crowds except around St. Marks during the day. I’m glad we went.

Gardyloo

Well, I dunno. There are indeed plenty of places where you can pay money to offset your footprint, and I think that's a good thing. I might do it on a case-by-case basis.

One of the hard things about climate change is the difficulty people encounter in bringing these cosmic-scale things down to a personal level. The sense of powerlessness is palpable when you think about buying a hybrid car when 80% of China's electricity is generated from coal. I keep thinking about the parable of the starfish however. So yeah, I might.

But the thing about worrying about "overtourism" is that it nudges up against elitism sometimes. "Glad I got to visit XXX when you could still see YYY; but you shouldn't because YYY is endangered by too much tourism."

And yeah, viewing a glacier from a cruise ship might seem hypocritical, but on the other hand, you seldom see glaciers where somebody isn't lecturing you about their retreat, the shrinking polar ice cap, rising sea levels, etc., which many people wouldn't hear about had they not been visiting the glacier. Does anyone believe the preservation of Venice would be as far along as it is were it not for the city's "overtourism?"

So yeah, I dunno.

LucieV

Precisely.

mlgb

I'm glad someone responded to the Galapagos comment so that I didn't need to. There are a few 100-person ships but not many. As far as I'm concerned they are still doing a good job with the ship-based tourism and screening entering passengers (you have to fly there). The bigger threat is the land-based visits and the need to feed everyone. In Ecuador, and South America, forest clearance for cattle farming and oil exploration in the Amazon, along with road construction have more environmental impacts.

Sustainable tourism also includes hiring local guides, staying in locally-owned hotels, and eating in local restaurants. When places get too popular with wealthy tourists, you also see a lot of gentrification in city centers and displacement of residents (either from conversion of properties to hotels or Airbnbs, or increasing housing costs). And replacing local shops with galleries, bars, ice cream parlors, and restaurants that are too expensive for most of the people who live there.

There are definitely places I won't go back to, including pretty much all of continental Europe.

LucieV

As I've said before: there are just too many people on the planet. We need to get rid of them.

Nelson

True enough, and I can't begrudge someone for wanting to see the same sites that we were fortunate to see years ago, now that these people have some disposable time and money.

However, I do get irked by a lack of respect shown by some of the new visitors, for example remote backcountry sites that are now trashed because people didn't pack out their garbage.

annw

Yes, I've changed my travel. I've dropped one transatlantic flight a year so am down to one or none. Flights are booked with miles/points only so flight is still in business. We only go late or off season.

I've avoided going to Venice even though I love it, buy mosaic supplies and take workshops there. Went last year for the first time in years, in locally owned hotel. Didn't go over to St. Marks area, assuming it would be packed even in October.

We've generally done train/bus travel once we land at our European hub and until we head back across the pond.

I've always wanted to get to Galapagos but would hope to go in a way that is not damaging, if that is possible.