Having lived or worked in a handful of tourism-focused small communities in the world (three, to be exact), each at different degrees of dependency, it is fascinating that the discussions around tourism and its degree of welcome in the community is… exactly the same, everywhere.
The debates around the benefits of tourism dollars, the value of municipal attention being directed into amenities that feel more visitor-focused than locals, the crowds, parking, locals with their noses out of joint, and whatever other competing interests, are more background noise for this piece, where I’d rather argue it is possible for multiple ideas to be held and applied at the same time—something that gets lost in a lot of general rhetoric.
The ideas I’d like to espouse are: It is possible to roll out the red carpet to visitors, while also having rules and expectations around behaviour that are not optional.
We actually do it already—those tired-looking signs on the side of the highway saying “keep right, let others pass” might read like a suggestion, but according to the road rules, that’s the law. Go for a drive down the Sea to Sky and count the number of peanuts hanging out in the left lane for no reason, and it’s clear there are at least a few drivers who cannot read.
Feeding wildlife is also illegal, but when gaggles of tourists encounter a black bear on the valley floor, there is a chance you will see something thrown at them to eat.
It’s also illegal to be drunk in public, but… well there’s a reason the municipality’s resort operations department have theories on who is pulling up flower beds around town late at night.
My point is Canada already applies rules with harsh consequences upon everybody, and by extension visitors. But visitors are less likely to be aware of what the rules are, unless there’s signage everywhere.
It’s a kindness to let visitors know what they can do, and more—how they should behave—when in Canada, lest they run afoul of a more-zealous-than-normal police officer or do something that gets them filmed by a nosy local and slandered on a local community group.
There are plenty of examples of stricter rules and harsher applications in other parts of the world—like Thailand, where nobody is permitted to criticize the royal family. Or many Muslim nations where women are expected to cover their hair, or in China, where publicly acknowledging the Tiananmen Square massacre will avail you to a tour of Beijing’s finest dark rooms.
These are extreme, but we know about them. Laws in Canada are no different, we’re just a little more passive about advertising them, and far less enthusiastic about the degree of application.
A comparable country is Australia. Many Whistlerites would have travelled there, and seen that educational message from the Australian government that says in no uncertain terms you cannot bring any unprocessed food with you, and all the ways you will have a bad time if you do. There’s also a checklist of all the other things you need to be thinking about, and you can get in pretty serious trouble for lying, or even be turned around and sent back the way you came.
Yet, Australia is still regarded as a friendly and welcoming tourist destination despite the government being clear about import rules, up front.
Likewise, Italy is regarded as friendly and welcoming, yet it grapples with overtourism in communities that unlike Whistler, are a critical mass of everything and not just a resort community. Various communities in Europe weigh up limiting visitation, charging for attendance, fining visitors who misbehave and more—and yet the tourists go, and the locals take their money.
Whistler can do the same. How? Well, that’s another debate, but rolling out the red carpet without being clear that this is a community where people live, and it collectively has expectations of visitors, is an invitation to be treated like a doormat.
So don’t be afraid to have expectations around visitors, Canada. For the sake of your sanity, and the future of the tourism sector, you may need it. Having expectations will not scare visitors away.
Not setting out and voicing expectations will simply breed resentment, and it is resentment that would jeopardize Whistler’s reputation as a welcoming community, not entirely reasonable rules of conduct.
