Tourism: More for less or less for more?

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Tourism: More for less or less for more?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2606473 18-Nov-2020 18:56

Eva888: As they come in to land, why not hand every tourist a list of do's and dont's in words and pictures with a relevant fine or jail period next to each picture, eg littering, relieving themselves, eating a Kea etc. This way you have a captive audience and they can’t say they didn’t know. You could also show a short film as they do for customs. On the ground customs could ask if they have read and understood the rules.

Chance of a hefty fine is more likely to impress the culprits and you are not banning a subset of people because of the actions of a few. I don’t like the snobbishness of aiming for the wealthier market. As someone else mentioned, the backpacker soon grows into the future entrepreneur.

Maybe not entrepreneur but they spend spend spend into our market. But keep it clean, thats all

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2606475 18-Nov-2020 19:04

I guess if high value tourists pay megabucks to be ferried into the back country in diesel-belching SUVs and wildlife-terrifying helicopters, an argument could be made that they are actually costing more than they pay. Unlike budget travellers, who place far less demands on resources. Not saying that is the case, just that it isn't always so straight up and down. I think Minister Nash may be missing the subtlety.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2606478 18-Nov-2020 19:24

Our pre-covid tourist numbers were over what our small home could cope with and resources in may areas were being stretched. Areas were being damaged eg Tongariro Crossing, Milford Track for example. Tourism at any cost is too higher price to pay.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2606481 18-Nov-2020 19:44

I think what really bothers me about this is money being used as the determiner. It is always money, money, money. Why should our attractions be reserved exclusively for the wealthy? They already have plenty to choose from. Of course money matters, but so do other things. If we are being overwhelmed, then maybe a lottery of some kind but not just how much cash can you show.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SaltyNZ

8870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2606482 18-Nov-2020 19:55

Rikkitic:

I think what really bothers me about this is money being used as the determiner. It is always money, money, money. Why should our attractions be reserved exclusively for the wealthy? They already have plenty to choose from. Of course money matters, but so do other things. If we are being overwhelmed, then maybe a lottery of some kind but not just how much cash can you show.

Eh, you're not wrong, but personally if we can convince a few rich idiots to drop $10K on a presonalised bungie jump then we can help keep the economy ticking whilst still not having to deal with plagues of tourists.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2606511 18-Nov-2020 21:42

Rikkitic:

Maybe there is an argument to be made for banning camper vehicles that are not self-contained. I'm not sure. There was a rash of stories about tourists relieving themselves anywhere and everywhere. Was that overdone or is it really such a problem? A friendlier response might be the placement of more facilities, even temporary ones, in strategic spots together with an education campaign (accompanied by fines for transgressions) targeted at visitors.

In some areas it is/was a problem. You just needed to see the sheer number of camper vans parked up at some spots where there were no toilets/showers to know there had to be a fair number of people making use of the local environment to relieve and wash themselves.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2606542 18-Nov-2020 22:03

When I was involved in tourism about 20 years ago there was very little freedom camping and many camper vans didn't have toilets or showers. Freedom camping was covertly discouraged. The tourists paid to stay over night at a proper campsite where there were toilet, shower and cooking facilities. No doubt these people did the odd night at a spot that took their fancy and freedom camped but by and large there wasn't any freedom camping going on with the international tourists.

We need to find a way to get tourists back to using established camp grounds and strongly discourage freedom camping.

In my opinion the present situation has only developed because we have allowed freedom camping to become acceptable.

We need to make it known it isn't acceptable anymore. If that means employing people to stop people freedom camping then so be it. Yes, it will be resource intensive in the short term but if it's done properly we can change peoples attitudes and expectations so that when they come to New Zealand they will know freedom camping is unacceptable. If that stops some cheapskates from coming here so be it.

Once we have changed the attitudes we won't need to continually police freedom camping.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#2606568 19-Nov-2020 06:27

MikeB4:

Our pre-covid tourist numbers were over what our small home could cope with and resources in may areas were being stretched. Areas were being damaged eg Tongariro Crossing, Milford Track for example. Tourism at any cost is too higher price to pay.

This. I travel all over NZ every month for work. I'm tired of seeing 20 small vans parked in random rest areas, washing hanging out etc. Small town with some kind of attraction are being overwhelmed, IE Punakaiki's water infrastructure etc.

They see very little benefit from those that visit as the walk around the rocks is free. The cafes probably do ok.

nickb800

2735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 829

Trusted

#2606570 19-Nov-2020 06:35

Technofreak:

When I was involved in tourism about 20 years ago there was very little freedom camping and many camper vans didn't have toilets or showers. Freedom camping was covertly discouraged. The tourists paid to stay over night at a proper campsite where there were toilet, shower and cooking facilities. No doubt these people did the odd night at a spot that took their fancy and freedom camped but by and large there wasn't any freedom camping going on with the international tourists.

We need to find a way to get tourists back to using established camp grounds and strongly discourage freedom camping.

In my opinion the present situation has only developed because we have allowed freedom camping to become acceptable.

We need to make it known it isn't acceptable anymore. If that means employing people to stop people freedom camping then so be it. Yes, it will be resource intensive in the short term but if it's done properly we can change peoples attitudes and expectations so that when they come to New Zealand they will know freedom camping is unacceptable. If that stops some cheapskates from coming here so be it.

Once we have changed the attitudes we won't need to continually police freedom camping.

What's wrong with freedom camping in suitable vehicles i.e. those with a toilet/shower in a separate cubicle? I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater and risk ending long standing kiwi practices.

Freedom camping per se isn't the problem, it's the standard of the vehicles (onboard facilities aren't there or aren't practical or tagged with a cleaning fee) and the volumes of people doing it. We can deal with this by banning non-self contained camper hire and raising the requirements for self contained certification. Just need to work on the quasi-rental market somehow - perhaps look at the process by which non-residents purchase vehicles?

People chose to freedom camp for a variety of reasons, not just cost - in many ways commercial camp grounds don't offer the experience of New Zealand that people seek

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2606593 19-Nov-2020 08:12

I thought the world was ending when tourism stopped with covid. Yes, it causes damage, that is the point of the article, make tourists pay for the damage, whether thats rich or not rich tourists. make tourism sustainable. We go back to tourism being a huge earner for NZ and for locals, or we continue that and pickup levies from them, or we exclude many tourists and avoid the damage?

SaltyNZ

8870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2606596 19-Nov-2020 08:18

tdgeek:

I thought the world was ending when tourism stopped with covid. Yes, it causes damage, that is the point of the article, make tourists pay for the damage, whether thats rich or not rich tourists. make tourism sustainable. We go back to tourism being a huge earner for NZ and for locals, or we continue that and pickup levies from them, or we exclude many tourists and avoid the damage?

I don't think levies to pay for remediating or avoiding the damage will exclude many tourists. If you can afford a ticket to NZ plus tourist attractions, you can probably manage adding an extra few percent in levies.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2606599 19-Nov-2020 08:23

SaltyNZ:

I don't think levies to pay for remediating or avoiding the damage will exclude many tourists. If you can afford a ticket to NZ plus tourist attractions, you can probably manage adding an extra few percent in levies.

I agree, that's the point of the article as I read it. Tourism is fine, we need it, but we dont need the damage so they can pay for it, easy. I just dont get why some feel that NZ only wants rich tourists.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2606741 19-Nov-2020 10:26

nickb800:

What's wrong with freedom camping in suitable vehicles i.e. those with a toilet/shower in a separate cubicle? I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater and risk ending long standing kiwi practices.

Freedom camping per se isn't the problem, it's the standard of the vehicles (onboard facilities aren't there or aren't practical or tagged with a cleaning fee) and the volumes of people doing it. We can deal with this by banning non-self contained camper hire and raising the requirements for self contained certification. Just need to work on the quasi-rental market somehow - perhaps look at the process by which non-residents purchase vehicles?

People chose to freedom camp for a variety of reasons, not just cost - in many ways commercial camp grounds don't offer the experience of New Zealand that people seek

I agree nothing wrong with it in the right vehicle.

I wasn't clear in my post. I was referring to freedom camping in a camper van as opposed to a motor home style vehicle which is properly self contained. I didn't want to stop what has been traditionally done by New Zealanders.

I don't think it is necessary to ban the hiring of camper vans without proper self contained on board facilities but the people hiring these need to know what is acceptable to us New Zealanders.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

OldGeek

989 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2606799 19-Nov-2020 10:51

I propose a different approach - how to we allow our border to be re-opened for international tourism visitors? Is this possible when MIQ is an absolute necessity? What sort of tourist will pay for the overhead and uncertainty of managed isolation and quarantine to visit NZ?

The current MIQ system is taxpayer-funded and as such restricted to returning Kiwis. With this infrastructure in place and working (the failures are a very low percentage of arrivals) why not look at extending MIQ to a paid service? Travellers take the risk - there would be fixed cost for standard MI, but if they test positive they face an uncertain time and additional cost in quarantine. This would appeal only to tourists coming for longer periods with flexible travel timeframes - and prepared to either use unbooked accommodation or book post MI accommodation without certainty of arrival date.

They key points of this are that the risk of COVID19 escaping 'into the wild' is no greater than now, and the fees charged to tourists are high enough to cover both the cost of MIQ and the increased risks. I would kick off the discussion by suggesting that something in the order of $2k per week per room for MIQ (excludes food, drink and laundry - available through room service). If the need for Quarantine arises then that is provided but potentially at greater cost.

Not negotiable is the requirement for paid MIQ to be in facilities run or controlled by the Government as at present, primarily to ensure security and health responses are as universally good as at present.

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402 and use this code for free setup: R581402E48MJA

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2606810 19-Nov-2020 11:03

I agree with the minister. We need fewer higher value tourists. The advantages as I see it: -

- Fewer people = less disease risk;

- Less impact on natural attractions e.g. mermaid pools;

- Less congestion at attractions so a better experience;

- Less traffic, so safer.

And the overwhelming benefit. No wretched van-packers - scurge roads and reserve carparks. Driving is so much better without them.

The Maldives do it, why can't we?

Disclaimer: My retirement plan (all going well) is to operate luxury tourist accommodation.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5