Are big ships ruining ports around the world?

[sail7seas]

Nor take an excursion?:rolleyes::eek::rolleyes:

For gosh sakes, don't rub the foot on St Peter's statue at the Vatican.

 

 

So funny you po sted ^ that

 

I have a image in my head of the black statue and a long line waiting to rub the foot. Odd We never put ourselves into that line.

 

B ut I surely would s tand in line to have a n unhurried moment looking at the pieta.

[bUU]

You are painting with a pretty broad brush. I don't think that's why all of us are concerned. Some people are capable of genuine concern and of altruistic thought, if not always behavior. While the crowding can be bothersome, it is the damage to places and sites that concerns me more.

Shrouded in a backhanded criticism of larger cruise ships, my assessment is the only reasonable "painting". If it was, instead, solely an attack on tourism itself, then you might have had a point.

 

 

 

This message may have been drafted using voice recognition. Please forgive any typos.

[RDC1]

I’ve read comments that blame Rick Steves for the single-handed ruination of the Cinque Terre. Seems it was relatively unknown until he promoted it as a “back door” must-see.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

We look at Rick Steve's book to determine places we want to avoid. If a place is recommended by Rick Steve's it will be overwhelmed by American tourists carrying one of his books, thinking that it is the end all of travel.

Edited July 31, 2018 by RDC1

[RDC1]

They both don't fit under the bridge, the Amsterdam will, which is too bad ,because I'll be on her..

The Noordam will fit under the bridge. I was on her while she sailed under it departing Sydney reroute to Honolulu.

[ellieanne]

OK. So which of us will forgo our cruise plans to save the ports?

 

Honestly, I think long and hard about my vacations. But then as I said earlier, Tourist-Caused Damage has been one of my pet subjects long before it was mentioned in larger media circles.

 

It's why, even though I want to see Antarctica, I will never book a cruise there and actively encourage friends and family not to. It doesn't matter to me that HAL does not take land tours, other cruise companies do, and I do not want to encourage that kind of, even small group, tourism in any way, shape or form.

 

Likewise, I want to see the Amazon Basin, but will not take a tour there because I do not want to exacerbate the damage tourists, even so-called eco-tourists cause.

 

So, yes, I will, and DO, change my dreams and plans based on my own campaign against Tourist-Caused Damage. And I actively encourage others to do the same. I had a discussion with a lady in a travel agency about Tourist-Caused Damage and I'm happy to say I made her change her mind about one of her tours. And yes, it was only one tour, but it was a change and that helped the growing problem.

[ellieanne]

Nor take an excursion?:rolleyes::eek::rolleyes:

For gosh sakes, don't rub the foot on St Peter's statue at the Vatican.

 

I know this is a silly and sarcastic comment, but honestly, repetitive touches is a REAL and SERIOUS problem at many tourist attractions. Thousands upon thousands of people all walking the same path, all hold the same handrail, all touching the same doorknob, all kissing the same Blarney Stone, DO cause real, recognizable, and measurable damage to things. Thousands upon thousands of tourists all breathing in small caves or lava tubes do measurably change the humidity in the area and that can, and DOES, actually change the environment.

 

So, yes, if the idea is to preserve the Pieta, DON'T TOUCH IT!

[PoolSlider]

I think the Rick Steves Effect is dated. If you spend anytime at the "Must See" places in Europe you would know that. Americans are not the overwhelming horde any longer. Go to Versailles. Go to the Van Gogh Museum. Go to Hallstatt: it ain't Americans filling those hotel rooms. You see what you see and stop using dated information from a decade or 3 ago.

 

For what it's worth, I had a Royal Princess booking to the Baltics which I cancelled when I got a look at her in port in FLL 6 months before the sailing. No way I'm going anywhere with that many people.

[bennybear]

The pieta is behind glass now and has been for quite awhile. Sadly necessary. We have been fortunate to see it prior and things like Stonehenge when you could walk right up to it.

 

I have always enjoyed Rick Steves but he has had an negative impact unintentionally. Too many people don’t do any of their own research. We need to travel lightly.

 

We too thoroughly enjoyed Alberobella, Puglia, And Lecce. There is much more to see in Europe off the beaten path. But you have to be prepared to communicate not in English at times.

 

I still find some tourist’s egocentric views mind boggling. I will never forget standing in the mind blowing Musee d’Orsay and hearing a woman complain that the descriptions weren’t in English. But this is Paris, madame!

[ellieanne]

The pieta is behind glass now and has been for quite awhile. Sadly necessary. We have been fortunate to see it prior and things like Stonehenge when you could walk right up to it.

 

I have always enjoyed Rick Steves but he has had an negative impact unintentionally. Too many people don’t do any of their own research. We need to travel lightly.

 

We too thoroughly enjoyed Alberobella, Puglia, And Lecce. There is much more to see in Europe off the beaten path. But you have to be prepared to communicate not in English at times.

 

I still find some tourist’s egocentric views mind boggling. I will never forget standing in the mind blowing Musee d’Orsay and hearing a woman complain that the descriptions weren’t in English. But this is Paris, madame!

 

It was actually a small filler-type article in a Canadian newsweekly magazine I read in college about a particular set of caves in France and Stonehenge being closed or roped off because of the Tourist-Caused Damage that sparked my interest in the subject. I did my thesis on the topic using tourist attractions in my hometown. I actually introduced the idea to one of the attractions and they made changes to the tours/paths visitors take through the house as a result.

 

I have been very conscious about my and my traveling companions impact on the attractions ever since. And my family has even extended my pet concerns to others. My sister- and brother-in-law have now had lectures from my brothers about Tourist-Caused Damage and why, when traveling, they need to be careful and cognisant about the impact.

[RDC1]

I'm surprised that Venice didn't ban large cruise ships years ago. For a long time the authorities have been saying the buildings are becoming destroyed and sinking.

 

As much as I enjoy a cruise, if I want to see something in particular I find it better to visit on a land based holiday.

 

The sheer numbers of tourists in European cities at times can be quite overwhelming. I even try o avoid going into central London these days.

 

I think the vast numbers of cruise passengers descending on a place probably does more harm than good, especially as many don't spend much money, if any at all.

 

The largest ship we have sailed on had around 3000 passenger capacity, but we prefer smaller.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Venice has and will continue to sink with or without cruise ships. Stopping cruise ships from entering the city may slow the damage somewhat, but will not stop it. Venice is becoming pretty much a ghost town as far as local residents are concerned. A few still live there, but not many. Most commute to jobs from outside of the city. It is a city of hotels, dining establishments and the same 5 type shops repeated hundreds of times.

Edited July 31, 2018 by RDC1

[RDC1]

I think the Rick Steves Effect is dated. If you spend anytime at the "Must See" places in Europe you would know that. Americans are not the overwhelming horde any longer. Go to Versailles. Go to the Van Gogh Museum. Go to Hallstatt: it ain't Americans filling those hotel rooms. You see what you see and stop using dated information from a decade or 3 ago.

 

For what it's worth, I had a Royal Princess booking to the Baltics which I cancelled when I got a look at her in port in FLL 6 months before the sailing. No way I'm going anywhere with that many people.

 

The Rick Steves influenced Americans are still there in the same numbers, they are a bit more hidden due to the increase in other groups.

 

Now in many locations you also have the influx of Japanese brides doing destination picture taking. I counted 20 different brides doing their location photography on Charles Bridge in Prague one morning when I was there last year.

 

It used to be that people would rush in front of a site, quickly have a picture taken in front of it and then move on. Now you have people getting in front of something and then go through a whole series of poses with dozens of pictures. It is getting absurd.

[RDC1]

I would suggest that while cruise ships may contribute to crowding, imagine the impact if the passengers that take cruises instead arrived by plane, train or automobile. Consumed 1500 or more Air Bnb apartments, driving up real estate prices for the locals even more, forcing more of them out of the cities. At least the passengers arrive efficiently, visit the area mostly in organized groups, and depart often before dinner.

[PoolSlider]

Now in many locations you also have the influx of Japanese brides doing destination picture taking. I counted 20 different brides doing their location photography on Charles Bridge in Prague one morning when I was there last year.

 

They are actually Korean. And the Americans are all Canadian. :D

[richstowe]

Its not just the size of the ships, its the numbers too. I've been reading some very critical reviews of Alaska Ports were the town is just swamped with tourists. Its not just 1 or 2 mega ships, its when 3, 4 or even 5 midsize or larger cruise ships show up on a single and day and dump 10K passengers onto the local infrastructure.

 

10 ships with 200 passengers have the same number of tourists as 1 ship with 2000 passengers. The crying about large ships is deceitful. People are really crying about tourists other than themselves being able to afford to visit tourist destinations, nothing more.

+1

It's all about the total number of tourists (including staff) descending upon port areas not the size of the ships . One 5000 pax mega-ship is arguably less disruptive then 3 ships totaling the same amount .

 

 

There is a benefit to being a passenger on a small boat. As an example, mooring in Hamilton instead of the King's Wharf complex in Bermuda was wonderful . After visiting King's Wharf , I have no interest in overnighting there . But to argue small ships are somehow better for the port is silly if the total visitors are the same .

[Globehoppers]

Honestly, I think long and hard about my vacations. But then as I said earlier, Tourist-Caused Damage has been one of my pet subjects long before it was mentioned in larger media circles.

 

It's why, even though I want to see Antarctica, I will never book a cruise there and actively encourage friends and family not to. It doesn't matter to me that HAL does not take land tours, other cruise companies do, and I do not want to encourage that kind of, even small group, tourism in any way, shape or form.

 

Likewise, I want to see the Amazon Basin, but will not take a tour there because I do not want to exacerbate the damage tourists, even so-called eco-tourists cause.

 

So, yes, I will, and DO, change my dreams and plans based on my own campaign against Tourist-Caused Damage. And I actively encourage others to do the same. I had a discussion with a lady in a travel agency about Tourist-Caused Damage and I'm happy to say I made her change her mind about one of her tours. And yes, it was only one tour, but it was a change and that helped the growing problem.

 

Interesting post. Antarctica expeditions (vice "drive by cruises") follow the rules of IAATO and are extremely conscious of the environment, similar to visiting the Galapagos. Visitors ashore are limited in size and where they can go. From my perspective humans cause much more environmental damage through inane "policies," such as promoting coal and fossil fuel-fired electricity generation over that available from sun, wind and water electric generation. The environmental damage caused by corporate greed far exceeds that from "eco-tourism." Similarly, the damage cause by removing protections from national parks and changing our heritage lands into for-profit operations is sickening.

[ellieanne]

Interesting post. Antarctica expeditions (vice "drive by cruises") follow the rules of IAATO and are extremely conscious of the environment, similar to visiting the Galapagos. Visitors ashore are limited in size and where they can go. From my perspective humans cause much more environmental damage through inane "policies," such as promoting coal and fossil fuel-fired electricity generation over that available from sun, wind and water electric generation. The environmental damage caused by corporate greed far exceeds that from "eco-tourism." Similarly, the damage cause by removing protections from national parks and changing our heritage lands into for-profit operations is sickening.

 

Yes, but even those strictly curated trips ashore can be a problem and can result in tourist-caused damage, however unintentional it is. I don't agree with the need to go ashore in Antarctica. I object to the tours to the Galapagos as well, for similar reasons. We don't know what damage we can cause. The problem is we can't see without being there, but because we weren't there before, we don't know what damage we are causing. And I fully believe that any visit by humans to previously unexplored places causes damage of some kind, even if it's only noise pollution.

 

Look at the newly imposed speed limit in the St. Lawrence River/Gulf of St. Lawrence to help prevent whale strikes. Whale strikes can be classified as tourist-caused damage -- the cruise ships are the cause of the whale strikes. The speed limit is a good idea, but even better would be limiting the number of cruise ships in the area. I think that needs to be the next step, even if it means I miss out on a cruise when I want to go.

 

It's a problem for the trouts industry world-wide, and I'm very happy to hear that some ports are deciding to do something about it.

[AmazedByCruising]

Yes, I also heard that Amsterdam wants to move the cruise terminal outside of the downtown core or make them leave from Rotterdam. I was told by a hotel manager in Amsterdam that cruisers only spend a day or two in the city before or after their cruise and only contribute to overcrowding.

 

Overcrowding because they spend too little time in port? Airbnb contributes to overcrowding, getting Amsterdam people whose only interest is cheap beer, drugs and Nutella, who got to Amsterdam on a 20 pound sterling flight, and whose major contribution is making a mess.

 

Cruise ships bring wealthy people who spend a lot on hotels and restaurants, visit a museum or two, then spend some more money on a taxi, pay unheard of tips, and then sail away.

 

Amsterdam has a very left-wing local counsil. The rich having fun, we can't have that, let's pretend that it's them who make trouble.

 

Fortunately, people have started to explain in newspapers etc that chasing away the very best of tourists possible is not the best way to get rid of drunken hooligans. We'll see.

[navybankerteacher]

+1

It's all about the total number of tourists (including staff) descending upon port areas not the size of the ships . One 5000 pax mega-ship is arguably less disruptive then 3 ships totaling the same amount .

 

 

There is a benefit to being a passenger on a small boat. As an example, mooring in Hamilton instead of the King's Wharf complex in Bermuda was wonderful . After visiting King's Wharf , I have no interest in overnighting there . But to argue small ships are somehow better for the port is silly if the total visitors are the same .

 

The theme of this thread is: “Are big ships ruining...” —- and it is the introduction of big ships that has made cruising so affordable as to bring the crowds that over-run sites, changing them.

[MMDown Under]

Yes.

 

When I visited Alaska, I got my first taste of the effect of four "big" ships visiting Alaskan ports at once. Those "big" ships have now been replaced by even "bigger ships". Poor Alaska, such a paradise.

 

I don't like how the cruise lines try to bully governments to improve port facilities to take even bigger ships. NZ is a classic example. They still haven't been able to build a new cruise terminal for Christchurch, following a massive earthquake. Yet cruise lines are pushing for improved port access for mega ships at Auckland. Why spoil its beautiful harbour for a short season of mega cruise ship visits (during our cyclone season)?

 

The same applies to Sydney Harbour, with mega ships all wanting to be able to berth in the Harbour, one of the most beautiful in the world, for the same short cruise season.

 

The beautiful South Pacific islands don't have the infrastructure to handle big ships.

[philbob84]

There is over-tourism everywhere now. National and state parks are having a hard time copping as well.

[kazu]

Yes, but even those strictly curated trips ashore can be a problem and can result in tourist-caused damage, however unintentional it is. I don't agree with the need to go ashore in Antarctica. I object to the tours to the Galapagos as well, for similar reasons. We don't know what damage we can cause. The problem is we can't see without being there, but because we weren't there before, we don't know what damage we are causing. And I fully believe that any visit by humans to previously unexplored places causes damage of some kind, even if it's only noise pollution.

 

Look at the newly imposed speed limit in the St. Lawrence River/Gulf of St. Lawrence to help prevent whale strikes. Whale strikes can be classified as tourist-caused damage -- the cruise ships are the cause of the whale strikes. The speed limit is a good idea, but even better would be limiting the number of cruise ships in the area. I think that needs to be the next step, even if it means I miss out on a cruise when I want to go.

 

It's a problem for the trouts industry world-wide, and I'm very happy to hear that some ports are deciding to do something about it.

 

The cruise ships are NOT the cause of the whale strikes. They may be one of the causes but not the sole cause. There are lots of boats on the St. Laurence = cargo carrriers, etc and all are governed by the new rules for that reason. Fishing has also been limited now too as whales have been entangled in nets and died - not struck by ships. Banning cruise ships will not save the whales. If it was as simple as that it would have been done, I'm sure.

 

there are only around 500 of these whales left and major steps have been taken to try to save them.

[Globehoppers]

Yes, but even those strictly curated trips ashore can be a problem and can result in tourist-caused damage, however unintentional it is. I don't agree with the need to go ashore in Antarctica. I object to the tours to the Galapagos as well, for similar reasons. We don't know what damage we can cause. The problem is we can't see without being there, but because we weren't there before, we don't know what damage we are causing. And I fully believe that any visit by humans to previously unexplored places causes damage of some kind, even if it's only noise pollution.

 

Look at the newly imposed speed limit in the St. Lawrence River/Gulf of St. Lawrence to help prevent whale strikes. Whale strikes can be classified as tourist-caused damage -- the cruise ships are the cause of the whale strikes. The speed limit is a good idea, but even better would be limiting the number of cruise ships in the area. I think that needs to be the next step, even if it means I miss out on a cruise when I want to go.

 

It's a problem for the trouts industry world-wide, and I'm very happy to hear that some ports are deciding to do something about it.

 

Then, apparently, the solution is to stay in your cave (home) and not come out. Which I disagree with.

 

Exploration can be accomplished in a sane and safe manner. Understanding the world in the environment we live in is critical to human growth and intelligence.

 

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” Mark Twain

 

Expedition travel under the auspices of science and expedition groups is safe, non-polluting, and needed to understand our small life-giving world. First trip ashore in the Galapagos (you are required to stay on the paths) we came across a baby seal rejected by its mother. The naturalist reminded us that seal pups die if not cared for by its natural mother. Other seals cannot substitute. I have the picture. Its natural life. Same in Antarctica. Same in Africa on the Masai Mara. One cannot really appreciate the beauty of this world staying behind closed doors, or do anything to help others understand.

 

 

Maybe the issue is the "white man" who came to the Americas and deforested much of the east coast region, as well as damaging the environment, over the native American population which lived close to nature. Carefully managed eco-tourism by environmental groups, while expensive, is far better on the eco-system than even one drive to the grocery store in your car.

[Floridiana]

I would suggest that while cruise ships may contribute to crowding, imagine the impact if the passengers that take cruises instead arrived by plane, train or automobile. Consumed 1500 or more Air Bnb apartments, driving up real estate prices for the locals even more, forcing more of them out of the cities. At least the passengers arrive efficiently, visit the area mostly in organized groups, and depart often before dinner.

 

Cruise ship passengers do not leave as much money as tourists who book hotels and eat in the restaurants. An organized herded group just blocks the streets; I know I have been part of enough groups to know that we sometimes didn't even have enough time to browse for souvenirs let alone time for anything else except a potty break.

 

The city of Venice should have clamped down on the airbnb and hotel transformation of residential apartments. Other cities with similar problems have acted. By the way, France has closed the original Lascaux cave with the drawings and recreated a copy for visitors.

[bUU]

Cruise ship passengers do not leave as much money as tourists who book hotels and eat in the restaurants.

Many of the places we are talking about do not have the empty hotel rooms necessary to accommodate even a fraction of the number of cruise ship passengers that visit them for a day. The logical fallacy that you've hung your hat on is a false dichotomy: Since there is no choice to earn that revenue by way of tourists staying overnight in hotels, there is no alternative way for the port city to earn the revenue that is earned from cruise passengers. The cruise ships serve the financial interests of the port city by providing a place for those tourists to sleep at night (as the ship travels to the next port), which the city could not offer otherwise.

[YoHoHo]

there are only around 500 of these whales left and major steps have been taken to try to save them.

The "saving" they need is from humans. We don't need to save them; we need to stop killing them.

 

The cruise ships are NOT the cause of the whale strikes. They may be one of the causes but not the sole cause. There are lots of boats on the St. Laurence = cargo carrriers, etc and all are governed by the new rules for that reason. Fishing has also been limited now too as whales have been entangled in nets and died - not struck by ships. Banning cruise ships will not save the whales. If it was as simple as that it would have been done, I'm sure.

I cannot imagine it would "simple" to have a cruse ship ban implemented thanks to another "save the whales" campaign. The financial loss for the ports would be strongly fought by those who put that interest first. Then there are the non-believers or those who find excuses such as why pick on (big) cruse ships when cargo ships have killed them too, or fishing is a cause of their deaths (or continued purposeful killing such as Iceland and Norway (where as per Nat Geo is being used for animal feed because few humans even want to eat the meat) and Japan "scientific" research.

 

I am not saying that the financial interests are wrong to fight for their cause but "simple" is a simplistic view