There is tremendous pressure to dam the rivers of southern Chile for hydroelectricity, and to build thousands of miles of transmission lines through primary forests, for the benefit of the mining industry in the distant Atacama desert. If people do not visit the area to take advantage of its natural attractions, the area will be inundated and deforested.

Sent by Wayne Bernhardson | 2:47 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I'm a big fan of Dan Neil's automotive writing and I think one reason for his success is that he doesn't write about cars as some subset of life, but rather he integrates his personal beliefs and experiences into that reporting.

I'm glad he's raised this topic. It gives politicians and travellers alike an excuse to consider a different course of action.

Sent by Chicago Listener | 2:48 PM ET | 06-09-2008

What amazes me is that we have environmental organizations that are encouraging excessive travel. Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation both tout there concerns about climate change and yet encourage members to travel all over just to stroke their egos.

Sent by Aaron Alto | 2:51 PM ET | 06-09-2008

The "Expert's" comments on allowing only those "Qualified" to go to certain destinations smacks of cultural elitism at it's finest. How did he become an expert? As a professional tourist, of course. It's up to local and national governments to regulate tourism at sensitive sites. Also, the analogy of lunar travel makes no sense. If individuals had the means to go, they would.

Sent by Mitch | 2:57 PM ET | 06-09-2008

That Mr.Neil's article ultimately recommends himself as our eyes to the world's endangered destinations proves the snobbery of his premise. Literature is rife with stories of exotic locales, but it's a very special treat to get to experience the world firsthand. No one should be discouraged from doing so.

Sent by Raina | 2:57 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I'm listening to the program now, and would like to add the story of where I am from. I was born and raised in a small town in Southeast Alaska where tourism is one of the major industries driving the economy. I have to agree with one recent caller that taking tourists out of our towns would have a severe impact on the economy, but the reverse is also true. The cruise ships are having a significant impact on the environment, and a negative impact on many communities. The cruise companies buy up all the waterfront property with the result that in the summer, when the tourists arrive to experience Alaska, all they experience are summer temps from the continental US and cheap products imported from China by the cruise owners.

Sent by Clea Will | 2:58 PM ET | 06-09-2008

Commenting on the broadcast - I think Neil is over simplifying things - there is a lot of room between sending cruise ships into a coral reef and a total ban on tourism to these places. The marketing of these trips as being luxurious and "easy" is what must stop - believe me, that will cut down on the "ugly americans" leaving McDonalds wrappers at Machu Pichu.

Sent by Krishna Jain | 2:58 PM ET | 06-09-2008

Everyone talks about how educational travel is, but I see Americans treating the 3rd world no better today than they did 30 years ago. We are just as willing to start wars, rip off natural resources, and look the other way at poverty, famine and disease as we ever were. I challenge anyone to show me a shift in attitudes that matches the increase in American tourism. Somehow the "educational" nature of the experience doesn't seem to translate into any genuine shift in awareness.

Sent by Alan Shusterman | 2:58 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I do feel this is rather condescending coming from someone who has been to the "resort lodge" in the Ecuadorian jungle. Why doesn't he choose his trips more wisely and then he can recommend the "good" ones? I too wrestle with this idea as a wildlife biologist, but I know that there are "good" ecotourism companies that help to provide incentive to the locals to protect their environment rather than over-ranching, farming, or harvesting. Without some of these incentives, these areas would already be gone.

Sent by Marguerite Hendrie | 2:59 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I detect a whiff of elitism in Dan Niel's comments. Just who gets to go to these sites, and who chooses the lucky ones? Only folks who are erudite enough to explain their importance to the rest of the unwashed?

Sent by Bob Madar | 3:00 PM ET | 06-09-2008

It is true that travel increasingly damages the environment. One cannot help, however listen to Mr. Neil, without wondering about his contribution to this with his extensive travel.

How good of him to offer to travel for all of us and bring back the news!

Sent by Susan Forrest | 3:01 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I agree and disagree with Dane Neil. I agree that mass tourism should be avoided to protect local environments and communities. However, I think it is more "dispiriting" for people stay in their couches and deny them to see some of the most awe inspiring places in the world. The option to forgo traveling is extreme. It is ultimately up to the individual traveler to develop a traveling experience that is more socially responsible. Sometimes this can be only be learned by actually going to these places and meeting the people in these communities.

Sent by Pablo Soledad from San Francisco | 3:02 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I traveled to the Gallapagos last summer and can say with all confidence that tourism isn't as big a threat to the islands as the local residents! The tourists are closely monitored and most are ecologically sensitive people (or else they wouldn't go there on vacation) but the Ecuadorians who live there give little thought to throwing garbage into the water or the streets and seem to take much of their unique environment for granted.

Sent by Glenn Williams | 3:03 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I agree in part with Neil and I believe he has raised some significant concerns. We should carefully weigh our decisions on where to travel in the interests of preservation, however, traveling by video, travel diaries, and such is not the same. I have traveled very little, but as my husband and I reach retirement we would like to selectively travel. It is easy for Neil to suggest to those of us less traveled to stay at home, while he has traveled extensively.

Sent by Nancy Skilling | 3:04 PM ET | 06-09-2008

How elitist can you get? Only travel writers should go to exotic places because they can then report on such places to us? That is such bunk. Travel writers leave no smaller footprint than the rest of us who travel to exotic and eco-endangered places. And why should we trust that such writers will actually see and feel the things we tourists might find captivating? It is all about the experience. Perhaps one day before too long technology will allow us to actually "experience" a place without having to leave our easy chairs. But for now, at least while I am physically able, a trek through the wild or a steep climb up a mountain is all about the "experience."

Sent by caroline mcvitty | 3:06 PM ET | 06-09-2008

An environmental point that I believe would offer another perspective to Dan Neil's argument, "No Reservations," is the local inhabitants' opinions, of whichever preserved area of the world, of oncoming tourist and their affects on energy consumption and pollution to that area.

Sent by James Williamson | 3:08 PM ET | 06-09-2008

Your guest does great damage to those of us who want to preserve the environment,with his arrogant attitude,it's ok for me but not you to see these wonders.Shame on him

Sent by John Goodhart Sr | 3:10 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I hope that you follow up this program with one about the downside of tourism here at home. I live in Black Mountain, NC--near Asheville. When I moved here in 1962, this was a very heterogeneous town with a lots of visitors. I saw 2 mosquitoes in 2 years. Now, thanks to the visitors and dammed waters, there were lots of mosquitoes when I moved back 26 years ago. I have watched fictions about tourism and the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs destroy the town and area I loved. And there is no political will to engage this gentrification. So, I'm leaving because my hometown left me a long time ago.

Sent by Harry Hamil | 3:12 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I have set up an NGO called Adventure Aid [www.adventureaid.org] which combines volunteering overseas and "green" tourism which supports a living wage for the guides and staff, helps the tourist to be respectful of the people and environment and contributes to the local people and their surroundings. This bring much needed capital to the area and is the best way to help the people out of poverty.We are working in the Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania.

Sent by Jonathan Levy | 3:18 PM ET | 06-09-2008

Ideologically, I completely agree with Dan Neil's view on ceasing ecotourism; however, realistically, this could never come to be. First off, Mr. Neil's plan to remediate the issue by granting only some the right to travel while others are denied the right is a type of autocratic isolationism. The overall cultural stigma of America would not allow this type of law. During the conversation aired today, I remember Mr. Neil comparing limiting tourism to the regulation of space travel. The primary issue with this comparison is that the public never originally had the right to space travel - we do, however, already have the right to tourism. There is a huge difference between never having a right in the first place, and then taking away a right. Especially with the increase in Globalization and the already melding of cultures through travel, this concept of ceasing ecotourism, presently, would be like a child trying to stop a falling boulder.

Sent by Torrie from Baltimore | 3:21 PM ET | 06-09-2008

Enjoy what you have, where you are. We are presented with a deluge of enticing brochures and advertisements to whet our appetite for travel as much as for new cars and fancy shoes. Take a moment and enjoy your own community and country.
Also, in my travels, I have been disappointed by going to someplace just "to see" it. Many times the places are overrun with tourists, full of people hawking junk, and, while generally impressive, do not live up to the dreams we have built about seeing such places. "Must see" locations are sometimes the least memorable. Instead, enjoy the simple differences of other cultures, relax and people watch. Find home-stay and working volunteer vacations to places out of the tourist stream. You won't see grand temples but you will see and make acquaintances and friends to drive your respect and interest in other cultures and people.

Sent by Erik Smith | 4:05 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I have to agree 100% with Mr. Neil. You don't have to go as far away or any place nearly as exotic as the Galapagos islands. I've been to many National Parks and nearly all of them have signs or warnings about the negative impact that millions of visitors have on the ecosystems of the parks. These include severe erosion, acid rain, pollution, etc. As Mr. Neal said, in a fragile ecosystem our very presence can destroy the ecosystem. I would much rather know a beautiful and exotic place exists and never see it in person then know it was once there and I helped destroy it.

Sent by Peter C. Githens | 4:33 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I agree with Mr. Neil about not going to certain places just because you can. Most tourists don't consider the effects tourism has on the environment or the cultures that are damaged as well. I am a student majoring in Hospitality/Tourism and never considered the negatives involved with this industry until a class I had recently. A woman mentioned this about Africa, "The tourists care more about the animals than the people." Before you travel learn as much as you can about the culture and their Human Rights policies.

Sent by Matthew | 4:35 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I remember being a child and thinking, "Why can't people just leave the rain forests alone?". Now as an adult I understand the concept of economy and gross domestic product and the futility of trying to get someone to care about the environment when they can't feed their own family. The guest here espouses the same naive child-like view. Tourism is money and it _can be_ the most environmentally friendly form of making money. What needs to happen, obviously, is that a responsible attitude towards tourism needs to take place. Instead of everyone staying away from the Galapagos Isl., only allow a few hundred a year to visit. Now you earn more money per head thanks to supply/demand and fewer people to contaminate the site. The guests suggestion to just stay home (and let your garden hose run 'cause THAT's environmentally friendly!!) is about as responsible, intelligent, and scientific as teaching 16 year olds that abstinence is the way and to downplay or ignore safe sex. Religious right notwithstanding, I think science has weighed in pretty definitively on this subject as well as environmental tourism.

Sent by A. R. Thomas | 5:10 PM ET | 06-09-2008

My heart sank as I listened to your guest's treatment of such an important topic. I sincerely hope his clumsy elitism doesn't squelch any positive change that may come with broader public awareness. Witnessing a sermon delivered by one who does not "practice what he preaches" is bad enough, but being told to abstain by a seeming "glutton of tourism" who advises the public to feed instead off his slideshow-leftovers is much, much more unsettling.

Sent by Erin Brown | 5:46 PM ET | 06-09-2008

As co-author of the book that Mr. Neil misrepresented during this interview (Disappearing Destinations: 37 Places in Peril and What Can Be Done to Help Save Them), I'd like to point out that responsible travel can be critical to the survival of fragile destinations. It offers an economic alternative to resource extraction, which would increase significantly without tourism. It creates a culture of conservation in places where the natural assets are best left untouched. And it gives local causes global clout--there's nothing like seeing a place firsthand to turn a traveler into an advocate on its behalf.

Tourism accounts for one in ten jobs worldwide, with many of those jobs in the world's poorest countries. Halting tourism in places like the Galapagos and Machu Picchu would cause widespread joblessness and lead to the growth of much more destructive industries. Instead of pushing would-be travelers into their armchairs and would-be tourism professionals into unemployment, let's encourage the growth of responsible travel before it's too late.

Sent by Kimberly Lisagor | 6:10 PM ET | 06-09-2008

I listened to most of this show about responsible tourism. I found the guests views to be a bit over the top. He seemed to be blaming travelers for all of these woes when I think that there is plenty of blame to go around. I think that we need to understand that countries like Thailand, Mexico and others that have many of these exotic locales are looking at the dollar signs and not at the long term implications of such tourism. As experience shows, when you leave any decision to politics, it's always going to be link to monetary incentives. Rarely do governments "do the right" thing when it comes to these things.

And the guests view that one should only travel through their TV with high definition movies is just ludicrous. A monopoly on travel and learning sounds authoritarian. Who is to say who would be among the chosen few?

We can't throw the baby out with the bath water when solving the world's problems.

Sent by Keith | 6:28 PM ET | 06-09-2008

all I can say is that regardless of the damage that tourists to do any place, what really steams me is Neil's incredibly smug and smarmy superiority and elitism. A "Priest Class" of the annointed who would be the only ones allowed to go to places and tell the rest of us about it? Of which, of course, he regards himself as one of the High Priests of the Church?

Yeah. Maybe if the country goes as fascist as it appears to, we'll have a Ministry of Travel in which Neil can decide from on high who has the right to go anywhere.

Please, Mr. Neil: keep your sleazy elitist attitudes to yourself

Sent by LilyRose | 8:57 PM ET | 06-09-2008

While Dan may be right about some tiny island with the last two whatevers left in this world, I bust my hump all year long to go to a resort on the "Mayan Riviera" to snorkel and photograph the only gems left for a guy like me, I don't pinch the fish, wear crisco based suncreen, steal crystal skulls or any of the countless bad things that others have done in the past. I do however relax in a familiar paridise with my wife, tip extravagantly, absorb the cultural difference and relish the cultural sameness. the average Jose in the Talum to Cancun area is just trying to raise his family, just like me and the only thing he has to "sell" is the beauty and wonder of this area, and while many people in this region are digging the precious prehistoric limestone up, roasting it in waste oil and shipping it to the us as cement others are creating as sustainable economic system based on the wonder and awe of the world around us. Perhaps Dan and his Spouse would like to go with us next year for a week of wonder.

Sent by Mike Sowdal | 9:16 PM ET | 06-09-2008

Isn't there some middle ground here? Yes, I agree that huge cruise ships should be prevented from entering delicate areas, and all attempts should be made to make tourism more eco-friendly. But cutting off these beautiful places from the public is an elitist, unwise, and downright sad option!
The following ideas might be impossible, but I thought I'd pose them anyway. Maybe governments could somehow regulate the number of tourists that come or at least make sure people don't come all at once. (People would have to make reservations WAY in advance.) Another option (and this is coming from someone who can't afford trips like this in the first place) is to raise the price of visiting these endangered ecosystems. Yes, I know, this makes it less available to people like me, but it just means that I'd have to save up for a while and select only a couple places to visit in my lifetime.
Seeing our world "live" lets us see how interconnected we all are. Dan said that people should be happy experiencing tourism on HDTV. Um, I don't think so! Being in a beautiful place is a deep, magical, and spiritual experience. We must keep the environment in tact, but we must also keep traveling. It keeps us human.

Sent by Annie Abrams | 1:50 AM ET | 06-10-2008

I, too, was offended that Mr. Neil felt privileged to tell others not to do what he has done extensively. I also disagreed with one characterization of Galapagos, following a call by Tony, in which he seemed to imply that tourism pressure would only continue to increase because "it's all about the money." Galapagos is an especially bad example to use to make this point, especially for a US citizen. On Galapagos, people are permitted to live on small parts of only four of the 16 main islands. They have chosen to preserve all other islands, the vast majority of their area, as nature reserves, and are successfully either preserving and restoring their pre-human ecology, while enacting limits on both human residence and tourism. Compare this to what US has done on Hawaii and then ask yourself whether Ecuador's decisions are really "all about the money". They are world leaders in how to do this right.

Sent by Patty in St. Louis | 9:30 AM ET | 06-10-2008

My family went to Yellowstone and Grand Teton last summer. Before we left, we watched some National Geographic specials on the parks. We can see all of the other peoples accounts we want, but nothing will replace watching the sunrise off the mountains, or the hike I took with my son where we saw a bear. We also watched lots of specials about Israel before our family trip there. None of those programs were a life changing experience like being there was.

The light and air in the gallery is bad for the Mona Lisa. Let's close the Louvre and have Dan Neil tell us all about it.

Sent by Matthew Ross | 9:51 AM ET | 06-10-2008

Who is this "we"? During the interview on NPR, Dan Neil kept saying that "we should do this" and "we should not have allowed that" regarding impact of tourism on environments, particularly in the Galapagos Islands, the southeastern Mexican coast, and Madagascar. "We" and what army will push an environmental policy on sovereign nations? You *do* realize, don't you, that it will take force or genuine threats of force to coerce compliance outside our borders. Can you say "Ugly American"?
Dan Neil also said that "we" could support indigenous people so that they would not rely on tourism. Whose money are you offering?
Dan Neil said that "we" should only allow approved patrician travelers to visit beautiful places and "bring back the news and photos" to the rest of us working class plebians. Wow. If that does not define elitism, I don't know what does.
But I guess it is okay with him because he is an environmental elitist and surely wisdom will die with him.

Sent by Laura Childs | 10:33 AM ET | 06-10-2008

I wholeheartedly agree with Dan Neil about opting to leave the remote, wild places alone.
Hordes of people (even a few at a time in 'eco-groups') changes/ruins the ecology of a place.
We humans don't need to see and do everything. It IS good to simply read about places (old travel books are fascinating and will help one see just how much 'trampling' we've already done.)
Better yet, start getting to know the historical places in your own backyard (the wonderful man-made parks, buildings, etc.) or take up beekeeping, gardening, tree care, make a fish pond, turn your house lot into a certified wildlife habitat... do something productive for our environment!
Travel is more about ego than a real desire to learn about a place. When I listened to the callers, I noticed how they all started out by saying "When I went to... *wherever it was they went*...and it struck me as just a way to brag about themselves.
The only way to be good stewards of our earth is to stop putting ourselves first.

Sent by Karen M Johnson | 10:16 PM ET | 06-10-2008

I've just listened to the program in full having heard the tail end of it live. Perhaps the speaker is over generalizing about eco-tourism. I've just returned from the Galapagos Islands several weeks ago having travelled with National Geographic/
Lindblad Expeditions. The restrictions on tourism were quite rigid and protective of the wildlife. The government of Ecuador continues to monitor tourism and protect the environment. 97% of the archapelego is designated national park and off limits to tourism. Portions of our trip costs were directed to support the conservation efforts on the islands, the Charles Darwin Research Station, and the adoption of one of the islands for eradication of invasive/exotic species. Perhaps the Galapgos Islands are the best case scenario of controlled tourism. Perhaps more 'exotic' destinations require similar control efforts.
To restrict the ordinary person from these destinations is to restrict broadening our understanding. I have had the good fortune to travel to domestic and international wilderness areas and have only had my appreciation for wilderness & biodiversity and desire to protect it has been deepened. Protection in the context of conservation and educational tourism to me is an important way of expanding our understanding.

Sent by Randi Levin | 12:01 PM ET | 06-11-2008

I lived in East Africa for seven years and founded the International Galapagos Tour Operators Association. I've just made a series of films on critical issues facing Galapagos to give travelers an appreciation of what's really at stake and raise money for conservation.

It is a precarious time for Galapagos. Diving, however, is very limited and is not wrecking the place. And only 1% of the islands are currently visited by travelers. It's still a good model for tourism.

I do hope the interview will discourage the growth of the wrong kind of tourism to fragile areas. But I fear it might do just the opposite.

The more serious, responsible travelers will hear the message and stay away. The rest will have more incentive to check it off their lists before it's gone. Big companies will be happy to step in and cater to these travelers. Companies who used to attract good travelers will see their demand shrink. We've seen that happening in Galapagos and have had to fight off one large cruise ship, fortunately with success, for now.

Unfortunately, in places like the Serengeti, Galapagos and many others, if we don't find a way to develop sustainable tourism, we will lose them. There's absolutely nothing else for Galapagos except extracting sea life until it's completely depleted (or possibly developing resort tourism for Ecuadorian travelers.) And the Serengeti will be plowed into wheat fields (something that was suggested already).

In reality, no matter how much we want it, we cannot stop the march of globalization and reverse the incursion into these areas. Planet Earth and the recent BBC Galapagos series are examples of the virtual travel idea, but they just fuel demand.

So rather than suggesting that people stay away, which simply won't happen, it's better to (a) design experiences that will attract the right kind of travelers and (b) educate travelers, especially about companies that are seriously involved in conservation and sustainable travel. And alas (c) rationing will undoubtedly have to be done in many places as well, hopefully not de facto rationing by price point.

There is a segment of the travel industry that's really committed and does lobby for responsible travel. These companies deserve recognition. They will attract the right kind of traveler in numbers that can be sustained. They deserve our support.

Sent by Dave Blanton | 2:30 PM ET | 06-11-2008

It's very amusing that people accuse Dan Neil of elitism. His suggestion that he would travel in place of everyone else was clearly tongue in cheek.

More to the point, the real elitists are the tourists! They are the tiny fraction of the world's population that can afford to jet around the world collecting experiences and leaving greenhouse gases and ruined coral reefs in their wake. It's ridiculous for one tourist to say to another, "you are more of an elitist than I am."

Sent by Alan Shusterman | 6:34 PM ET | 06-11-2008

Most people are ignoring the key message: Travel Responsibly! As unreasonable it is to rely on a "travel elite" to feed us with stories and high-def pictures of endangered places, it is just as ridiculous to aspire to visit every exotic location yourself. To experience the culture & environment of a place first-hand is very valuable indeed, but it is essential that we all avoid being greedy. And back to the first point, as children should be taught from a young age: leave only footsteps (gentle ones) and take only footprints. As adults, we learn that we can tread lightly & also leave a positive impact on a place. Make your vacation an opportunity to volunteer your family's time to help a local population (in an exotic place). There are many such resources for "waging peace" by giving back. Do some REAL good while you're out there!

Sent by Carla in Williamsburg | 5:27 PM ET | 06-13-2008