Bushwalk Australia

Just came across this report on the backlash on increasing tourism. Are we part of the equation. For NZ, we Aussies are still still the number one visitor group to the country.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/anger-over ... 1527000130

I think anyone who visits a country that is (in the opinion of the locals) over saturated with tourists would be considered part of the 'equation'.

Bushwalkers especially offtrack multiday walkers would likely have less impact than most as they are likely buying a few services then heading bush. Of course, if some bushwalkers are not practising minimal impact then they are part of the problem.

Can understand the point of view of the locals. They have this pristine village/town/land, it gets featured on a travel show/Instagram and then suddenly their tranquil oasis is turned into an all you can eat buffet at Jumbos 24 hour diner.

Another angle is in the distribution of the spoils from tourism. Those who complain and protest are invariably those who are not receiving the benefits of increased tourism while those who promote are, locals or not. Had the locals being souvenir shop or food outlet owners, I suspect there wouldn't have been any complaints. So the challenge is, how can everyone benefit? Suspect it's too hard and at some point there just has to be a cap or forced reduction.

*we

In some ways, yes.

I'd say that we are tourists. On one hand, we pollute less than regular tourists, because we don't take tours, we don't litter, are more respectful of nature in general. However, we also consume less. We don't stay in fancy hotels, don't eat in restaurants most of the time, so we help the local economy less per daily stay. Although I seem to remember travellers who hike stay longer so maybe it's all balanced out. I, as a tourist, also tend to seek out more off the beaten path spots than regular tourists.

To react to the article, I think New Zealand should welcome this tourism boom. They should invest in conservation, better roads, more protected parks. Also, when you have so many tourists coming in anyway, you can afford to shut down fragile places such as glaciers. Speaking as a citizen of the n°1 tourism destination in the world, France, I'd say the solution is to market large and promote different areas equally. Some parts of France are crowded, like Dordogne and the riviera, but the rest is fine and still gorgeous. You can visit Brittany and Normandy all year without much trouble, only Mont Saint Michel can be a hastle. Same with the Alps, Alsace, the Loire Valley...and all those places still are prime tourism spots. Nowadays people know you can visit just about any region of France and have a great time. They don't know that about NZ yet. They seem to concentrate on a few spots, like Fiordland, Queenstown, Mt Cook/Pukaki/Tekapo, Abel Tasman, Fox Glacier... But areas like the Catlins or Kahurangi are undervisited. Kahurangi would greatly benefit from one or two access roads. It would probably be controvertial, but would relieve some of the pressure on Abel Tasman.

When I was in NZ I couldn't care less about the Lord of the Rings shooting locations. I went for the lakes, the rivers, the forests, the glaciers... and was pleasantly surprised by the wildlife you could see on the coast : sealions, seals and penguins especially. I couldn't believe some wildlife spots were so quiet, with very few tourists. Overall I found that when I saw tourists, it was in the form of a lot of bustours yeah, especially in Fiordland and on the West Coast. A lot more than in Australia or the US. Norway is a bit like NZ too, and that's because they both have the same thing : accessible glaciers and fjords, easily seen from the roads or after a short walk/boat ride.

If it's not your local area or home town you are a tourist/day tripper.

But generally bushwalkers have more respect and less impact than the average tourist or occasional camper I think. And see.

Well said there Hallu! It’s all part of the spectrum.

I am not subscribing to the Wall Street Journal to read the rest but sure there is a problem in NZ but without that problem how would their economy be? Australia has the same problem in all the tourist hot spots and whenever a place gets more popular it attract people who do not care about keeping it in good condition. Tourism is still a big industry in Australia but we do not rely on it as much as NZ. The best thing to do is not post stuff as soon as you find that perfect out of the way place. There are still plenty if you don't mind a bit harder access. I never really felt comfortable in any of the NZ tourist hot spots so when I could I looked for the quieter option and found some real gems. Not telling. I can recall being at the top of the gondola at Queenstown and watching some Asian tourists taking photos of themselves against the building with their backs to the Remarkables. Did not care about the view.

I now live in what could be called a tourist area. We have thousands of people coming now each year to camp and there are quite a few who leave a huge mess but with some diligent locals and a good group of rangers it is cleaned up pretty quick. They contribute nothing to our local economy as we don't sell anything and they bring all their stuff in anyway. It is really only a small part of the year but even all our secret spots are being overrun. Just have to push out further.

Xplora wrote:I am not subscribing to the Wall Street Journal to read the rest but sure there is a problem in NZ but without that problem how would their economy be?

A case of different people and groups have different priorities. Some don’t care about the economy but the environment, vice versa.

Yes, most definitely.
Taking New Zealand as a case in point, it is totally over-run by tourists of any and all persuasions, including bushwalkers ('trampers') from Australia and US/North America and very especially, tourists from Asian countries tip-toeing about the wild bush in crocodile-skin slippers. Seriously, hasn't somebody told them about the mud and leeches??

Biggles wrote:Seriously, hasn't somebody told them about the mud and leeches??

They don't go well in the advertising.

We need a mud and leeches promoter .. like Steve Irwin but much smaller... leeches, scorpions, ants, spiders ...

The more one mention leeches, deadly mud, drop bears, crocodiles and stingrays, the more are attracted to the exotic and wild. There's no bad advertising when the word is out.

Just keep the Lyme disease story in the press and plenty of reruns of Wolf Creek.

Ebola works better in that regard...

Rain and sandflies are a more powerful deterrent. It's because of bad weather and midges I still haven't visited Scotland even though I know I'd love it.

Hallu wrote:Rain and sandflies are a more powerful deterrent. It's because of bad weather and midges I still haven't visited Scotland even though I know I'd love it.

It’s a dreich day!
Find a whisky maker and Slainte