The most obvious answer regarding Paris, London and Rome is that they're huge urban areas with an infrastructure in place to handle tourists. No doubt they're a net benefit to those cities.
The Pyramids have been a tourist destination for long enough that whatever ecological damage that's going to happen already has; more tourists aren't going to further degrade things, ecologically speaking. Surely, however, there are tourist destinations where negative environmental impact of visitors outweighs any economic benefits. So-called ecotourism is having an impact on pristine areas of rain forests and other sensitive areas, all so rich Western folk can get up close and personal with orangutans (to use one example). I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing, I'm saying that tourism to environmentally sensitive areas needs to be assessed, monitored and regulated in some way that balances the needs of all involved. I'm also of the mind that saying something will attract tourists or bring in revenue is only one consideration in deciding if projects of the scale of Mount Rushmore or Crazy Horse should proceed. I don't think that's so radical, is it? Anyway, I've said all I need to say to explain my position. This is getting tiresome. I'm going for a walk with my camera. Have a great day! Cheers, frank On October 25, 2015 4:08:11 PM EDT, John <[email protected]> wrote: >Tourists go to Paris for the Eiffel Tower; London for Big Ben; Rome for >the Colosseum. They go to Egypt for the pyramids & the Spinx. Tourism >provides a significant revenue in each of those places. > >Why should the Dakotas be denied? > > >On 10/25/2015 12:38 PM, knarf wrote: >> Is bringing tourists out there desirable? >> >> Cheers, >> >> frank >> >> On October 24, 2015 5:40:43 PM EDT, Bob Sullivan ><[email protected]> wrote: >>> Ann, >>> You need to get over it. >>> The sculpture has brought thousands (millions) out to look at the >Black >>> Hills. >>> Otherwise, folks would never go there. >>> Regards, Bob S. >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 4:34 PM, ann sanfedele <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> In answer to Mt. RUshmore? >>>> >>>> Ithink they areboth desecrating nature , but asa reply to Rushmore >>> bothers >>>> me less - >>>> >>>> Nice shots, Don - >>>> >>>> On 10/24/2015 2:25 PM, Jack Davis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I imagine the thought of just tweeting >>>>> the viewing area and being done with it is prevalent in the teams >>> quiet >>>>> mutterings. >>>>> >>>>> J >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 24, 2015, at 10:28 AM, knarf <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't say it's hideous artwork but it's certainly a >>> desecration of a >>>>>> beautiful natural formation. >>>>>> >>>>>> If they stopped now I'd be pretty pleased. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> frank >>>>>> >>>>>>> On October 24, 2015 12:03:12 PM EDT, Donald Guthrie >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> On the subject of statues carved out of the hillside this one is >>> among >>>>>>> the controversial set. Is it the hopeless dream that will be >never >>>>>>> completed, another hideous artwork, or a great tribute to Native >>>>>>> Americans who have blessed the project. It is being done >entirely >>> with >>>>>>> private funding & contributions. But many complain that more >money >>> has >>>>>>> been spent on the observation point than on the carving. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These photos were all taken in September 2015 from the >observation >>>>>>> building which is a mile from the statue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.flickr.com/gp/valdon/340104 >>>>>> -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
