*It really is unfortunate when people who "depend on tourism for their livelihood" don't think of the possible economic repercussions of legislation which probably has the least amount of effect on the legislators who are wealthy enough to get around it (by going elsewhere for their "treatments") as it is going through the law-making process*

Intrepid, et al, next time you are in a hotel, look around at the maids, bellmen, busmen, waitstaff, housemen, etc, all hourly employees who will be out of a job, or will have their hours cut severely if the industry falters. <i>Those</i> are the people who can least afford any cut at all. Those are the ones hurt. As much as I hate to say the following, but if and when they went to the polls, do you really think that was their thought process? Do half of us even know how our representatives would vote on such an issue? I myself have no idea. Why punish them? Most are barely scraping by as it is.

It doesn't matter what the cause: a flag with a repressive symbol in the corner, a tomahawk representing a baseball team, an Olympic event in an anti-gay community, ultimately it is not the state that suffers, but the little people in it, who happen to have the very least say in their fates!

No, an abortion policy (to either extreme) would never affect my travel plans.

Ordinarily I would not boycott a destination for political reasons - since that is not primarily the reson for travel - unless they were truly major.

For that reason I did not travel to South Africa under aparthied.

And I beleive this situation is another in which the political stance of the government is so egregious that it demands people of conscience take a stance - in the hope of bringing this state back out of the middle ages.

At the time I went to Ireland neither abortion nor divorce were legal. I don't agree with banning these choices, but I went to Ireland anyway and I would go again. I think divorce has since been legalized, but it wouldn't affect my travel plans either way.

Many people from other parts of the world do not agree with the death penalty. Does that stop people from visiting states that have the death penalty? I don't think so.

The Chief source of income in SD is Agriculture. Perhaps it might get their attention more if you boycottted their Chief Crops like corn, soy beans oats, wheat.

Most of the places that tourists go to are under the control of the National Park Service, with civil service employees. Not the State.

There was a Don'tBuyThai boycott to protest the child prostition/organized pedophilia tours to Thailand. That did make me start paying more attention to where our goods come from.

Thinking out loud about the question...
Unfortunately, when one boycotts a destination, the state dept of tourism usually has no idea why there is a dip in travel. Then the effects are as Malesherbes described--lower level, hourly employees lose hours or jobs. Even if a traveler indicated to the dept. why they changed their plans it would have little effect on the legislators. The best way I can think of to indicate dissatisfaction would be to organize a letter writing campaign to the local newspapers explaining why travel plans are cancelled.

Aileen, I thought about that, that the main destinations are national parks. But I also recalled my last vacation there, and how much money we spent in private business establishments. We bought gas and souvenirs and groceries. However, I'm not sure a boycott would work. Unless, say, bikers relocated their rally from Sturgis to somewhere in Montana or wherever. I'm also not sure a boycott is the right way to protest, if you wanted to protest. I would never have let it stop me from going to Ireland, for example. When I read that upthread, it made me stop and think. I appreciate all these thoughtful replies.

Boycotts seldom work because the first thing the &quot;Powers That Be&quot; say is &quot;who are they that think they can tell us what to do?&quot; Then they dig their heels in and the situation is worse.

I remember years ago, that Coca Cola had some labor problems and the local unions decided that their members would not drink Cokes. You know about how effective that boycott was, don't you!!! Nothing takes the place of a ice cold Coke and nothing can take the place of the natural wonders of South Dakota.

Most definitely. I have in the past and will in the future.

Well said Malesherbes...

Yes. I would support such a boycott.

-Bill

NO!

Absolutely not.

The people hurt most by the boycott are the minimum wage unskilled labor positions. Those jobs are the first to be eliminated when tourism falls off. You don't need a full staff of housekeepers if the hotel isn't full.


Those are the people who typically are not registered voters who do not have the resources the middle class does to change things.

The wealthy are impacted last. Very last. They are the ones with the power to make a change.

South Carolina is currently being boycotted by the NAACP. We've had to South Carolina NAACP Presidents to resign over this stupid issue.

I would not boycott SD for banning abortion just as I would not boycott ANY state for allowing abortion.

Yes, I would support a boycott.

If some poor, deserving people in SD get less pay because I don't go there, then more poor, deserving people in other states will get more pay because I go there.

To those who support the SD legislation and would make a &quot;special trip&quot; to support the state:

Would you then <b>boycott</b> NYC?, DC?, Boston?, SF?, LA?, NO?, Maui? Seattle?, Vancouver?, Montreal?, ALL OF CANADA(!)?, Miami?, Philly?, all the other great places in this country (and abroad) that strongly supoort this basic human right?

Taking your position to its logical conclusion, your vacation choices become Waco, Salt Lake City, Lawrence KS, and the like.

bardo1- i like the way you think. not to mention it could result in a more thoughtful group of tourists visiting Seattle.

And why not thinking a boycott/states allowing the death penality ??
Thinking of protecting the life- all life has to be protected, isn't it ??
Erik.

Uh, oh. More arguing about morals and politics. ((N))

South dakota has never been on my most &quot;wanted to go to&quot; travel list. But, no I would not boycott a state because of idiot politicians. I think there are idiot politicians in many states. I wish people would realize some issues are not so black and white.
I would not go somewhere if I thought it was unsafe (certain places in the world like the middle east (right now) for example).