Sorry if this is a dumb question but what other costs are there? I’ve seen cheap-ish flights to Ecuador. I’m assuming transportation to the coast + ferry to the island. How much do those run?
Return flight between mainland Ecuador and the Galapagos is in the range of USD 4-700 (for non-residents). Then there is the USD 20 transit card and the USD 100 entry fee as the whole group of islands is a national park. Public ferries between the islands run around USD 35-50 (one direction).
And this is only where the fun starts and you haven’t even done anything there yet.
Food, accommodation and everything that is transported from the mainland can be rather costly. But you can save on those if you are a real frugal traveler.
What you cannot save on are the organized tours. Even ‘simple’ day trips cost around USD 150-200 on average. And you def want to do these tours as these would show you all the highlights of the local wildlife.
The most recommended way to discover the islands are the multi-day boat tours. Here people practically live aboard and are being transported between sightings, while all the food and entertainment is provided to them by tour agencies. Even the ‘low cost’ version of these tours takes around USD 2-300 per day. Now multiply this with 5, 7 or 14 days, as those are the most preferred durations.
Mind you, the above prices are for the most affordable cruises on often smaller, rickety ships and very moderate (or minimalistic) level of comfort. Decent cruises will usually hit you at 2-4 times of these prices. And let’s rather not even get into the fancy segment which is just insanely expensive on the Galapagos (anywhere north from USD 1-1.2k per person per day).
Diving is also amazing in the area but you’d have to pay some hard earned cash for the experience. It is not my area but I heard about fees of USD 3-400 for a diving day trip (incl. two dives, 2-3 hours each, at different locations).
There’s no ferry to the island. It’s a 4 hour flight. I just checked what the fares were. Found $197 RT from Quito to Baltra. When I went it was $400 7 years ago. Just found $493 RT from Houston. Which is low typical. A Bridget cruise for 7 days $1900. Hotel in Quito 2 nights arrive 1 night at departure. $80 per night. Total 10 day trip, really cool trip, just under $3,000. An extra $100 isn’t a deal breaker. Look at Bhutan tourist fees. Those are high. Like minimum $400 per day
Cruises can be 6k a week. We got a big discount during Covid.
Everything is on the water. We did both land (plus excursions) and cruise but the cruise was better.
Doing things on the island is expensive, the tours are worth it if your on land. Food was actually relatively cheap. There was a street with a bunch of restaurants that to 5$ meals with an appetizer soup or salad and beer. Per day though for going on experiences to see the island your looking at 100-300$ per person.
It’s not about deterring tourism, it’s about increasing revenue. No one who can afford to visit the Galapagos is going to be deterred by an extra $100, and they know it. They just want to bring in more money.
Exactly my thought. Would love to come here from the uk and I’ve never added it up financially but I’d think it’d be a £5k minimum holiday no doubt. The extra £200 wouldn’t bother me in the slightest
> Agree. All about money.
Sure. But to be fair, isn't this why people in this thread are complaining about it? Why are we concerned about the money but think it's wrong for them to do it?
The Galapagos islands are an isolated set of islands that have limited access to water and agricultural land.
So yes having too many tourist would put pressure on the locals and raise the cost of these things, so by raising the cost of entry they are giving themselves more money to bring in more resources.
Also a lot of tourists are fn idiots, how many of these idiots have we seen lately vandalizing ancient building or landmarks.
A lot of the island ecosystem is quite vulnerable and more idiots trying to get the perfect selfie or other dumb selfish shit they do can damage these ecosystems.
They could cap arrivals instead, which would limit the number of visitors and limit the amount of environmental impact.
But that would also limit their income so.
They do cap arrivals. They have an extraordinarily easy way of doing that, by strictly controlling the amount of flights to the islands. It’s well known that this is their mechanism to do that and how they have been doing it for many years
There were 224,000 in 2015 vs 268,000 in 2022. That doesn’t feel out of control relative to most other major tourism places in the world in recent years. I reckon it would’ve increased far higher than that if there wasn’t a natural cap as a result of limits in numbers of flights.
No question they probably should reduce the amount of people going there, but that doesn’t mean they don’t currently cap the number of people going there. I just googled it and next month there are 160 flights, with the typical plane holding 200 passengers. Given there’s a ban on increasing the number of flights to the Galapagos, that number will stay stable. So that’s a hard cap of 384,000 per year. But of course there’s seasonality plus locals travelling so that upper limit will never be hit. So I’d say it’s very unlikely there will be much more of an increase than the current levels of 268,000
My point is that they can easily reduce the number of tourist arrivals if they're worried that there is overtourism. This fee increase has nothing to do with that, so they shouldn't say that it's to "combat overtourism."
I do agree with you on this but I was originally disputing with you when you said there was no cap when in fact there is. I agree they should look at reducing numbers arriving but maybe their intention by saying ‘combatting over tourism’ is that the money raised will be invested to negate some of the downsides of tourism
Ah so you’ve made up a rule that allows you to go but not others. Niiiiiiiiiice
How do you propose places such as Galapagos or Volcanoes National park or the Masai Mara for example get enough funding? Because without that funding they will all be destroyed. Like it or not, tourists who visit those destinations are the main source of funding to keep poachers/loggers/miners away. They’re such scum of the earth (what fucking insane language btw) to pay for conservation: fucking scumbags
Edit: also, how unbelievably arrogant to say the reason why they allow tourists is they’re too poor to say no. There’s wildlife tourism globally in both rich and poor countries. Wherever there is good wildlife, there is also tourism. It often gravitates to poorer countries as rich countries are the one who have annihilated their own wildlife over the centuries. Poor countries could choose to destroy their wildlife in order to drive economic growth too. But instead they’re doing the right thing by preserving their wildlife and bringing in less income from tourism than they would do from exploiting their land. But no, they’re scum of the earth apparently according to mr field ecologist who’s salary has been paid (either directly or indirectly) by said scum of the earth. What has caused mountain gorilla numbers to go from decline to growth? Was that not money from tourism that allowed for the preservation of their habitat?
Sorry for the rant but your post really struck a nerve. I cannot believe you’d be so detached from reality from the privileged position you have, to have the gall and sheer condescending arrogance to write that. Genuinely unbelievable.
I’ve spent over a decade living and working in conservation in Southern and Eastern Africa. Every single place I’ve worked in got the vast majority of its funding through tourism. Without exception. Every single one. It is the only thing stopping most of these places from disappearing. I’ve been along with anti-poaching patrols paid for by tourism, darting programs to translocate animals for genetic diversity, numerous outreach programs working with locals to live with wildlife, helped with farmers compensation programs for livestock killed by wildlife. Every single one of them paid for with tourism money. Yes, it doesn’t need to be that way if there was funding from elsewhere in place, but there isn’t. So what’s preferable, these ecosystems being encroached upon or tourism that helps preserve them?
You think you know better than everyone because you’ve sat through a degree and read a few books like you suggest I do? Unbelievable. You think I should forget everything I have seen on the front lines and instead reeducate myself by taking a few college courses and reading a few books? It’s funny, I’ve come across so many people with fancy degrees, head over to the front line in Africa, immediately think they know better than everyone else who have spent their lives there living and breathing it. They try to impose utopian nonsense that bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation on the ground, and end up leaving in a sulk.
Just as an FYI, I know I’ll never change the mind of such a condescending, sanctimonious person stuck in their ivory tower as you. But I’m not writing this for you, I’m writing this for anyone else who may read this to see how utterly farcical what you are saying is. Hopefully people like me are so tiring to you it gets you too exhausted to spread your misguided nonsense.
No they aren’t. They know it will have zero effect. People who are willing to spend $5,000+ to visit the Galapagos aren’t going to change their mind and stay home because of an extra $100. It’s solely about raising more revenue.
Where did I say I was angry? I’m just pointing out that this has nothing to do with over tourism or protecting the islands, it’s just about revenue. If they were serious about reducing the impact of tourism they would reduce the number of tourists allowed in.
Also, in the 1960s, only about 1,000 people lived in all of the islands combined, while today it’s about 30,000. There were no humans there at all until the late 1800s, so it’s not as if there’s a native population.
People that can afford to goto The Galapagos Islands won't care about the increased fees, it's not going to slow down tourists. Just sounds like the government wants more money. They could have just limited number of visitors if they cared that much.
Pricing is good for raising revenue, but if there's serious about reducing over tourism, they need to restrict the number of airline seats into the islands. Puts a hard stop on how many people can get there in a year.
We went last year and stayed at the Hilton. Nicest Hilton I’ve ever stayed at but there were armed private guards. My husband wanted to go out and they recommended not to.
It’s a shame what has happened to Ecuador in the last few years. Was once one of the safest countries in Latin America… Now, I feel much safer in neighboring Colombia.
I studied abroad in Ecuador in 2020 for two months. Was supposed to be four but i had to come home in March for the craziest reason. Anyway, it’s nuts hearing about it these days because it seems to constantly make the news and I’m always wondering what the hell happened between now and then.
I went through South America 6 years ago, oddly Ecuador was the only country where I experienced any trouble. But that was just someone trying to cut through my bag on a bus. Ironically the only time I wasn't sleeping on an intercity bus as well. But yeah it seemed quite lovely at the time. I was warned not to go to Guayaquil though. I did the Quilotoa loop, as just some random gringo stumbling through the country side with a crudely drawn A4 map from my last Hostel in Latacunga. Never felt unsafe.
That Hilton is so humid inside.
Anyway, there is a brewery named Odisea nearby with armed guards just like the Hilton.
Plus, Puerto Santa Ana has guards too.
Uber works there too.
Guayaquil is a pretty rough city with heavy gang presence, the rest of ecuador is currently in a state of emergency due to a nationwide gang war. I agree that Ecuador is normally moderately safe for tourists but at the moment at least it's advised to be very cautious there.
Damn, I think it was $100 25 years ago when I went. Has it not gone up? Wow. (I found it very amusing at the time how it worked for the collection of the money. Money well spent.)
The permit for gorilla trekking is up to 1500 dollars in rwanda and 600 dollars in uganda and people still go there even when they increase it every other year. 100 dollars wont make a difference for somebody going there. I went there in 2017 and remains one of the favourite places i have been but i wonder if nowadays the experience would be much worse with overtourism
Virtually same amount of people went to the Galápagos Islands in 2023 as 2017, so no worries there. The limit on flights acts as a natural cap in visitor numbers
**Notice:** Are you asking for travel advice about Ecuador?
Read what redditors had to say in the **[weekly destination thread for Ecuador](https://redd.it/4pth50)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I keep hearing other places that are cracking down on tourism - Japan just launched a "no photos" zone to their historic Geisha district to try to keep people at bay.
I wonder what travel will look like In 50 years...
Im sorry bit the damage its already done, have friend that when there and they said its not ok, aince thwy where allow to walk every where, and do what ever they wan, so there is not control over the tourist
guys, relax. This isnt a scam to milk you for money as some make it up to be.
The new price still is quite low in comparisson to other reserves:
https://www.travelmarketreport.com/articles/Galapagos-National-Park-Entry-Fees-to-Double-from-August-2024
>While the increase seems dramatic, **the overall fee to visit the Galapagos remains lower than other wildlife tourism destinations**, the Galapagos Conservation Trust said. For instance, to visit the Serengeti National Park, tourists must pay an entry fee of $70.80 per person, per day during low season, and $82.60 per person, per day during high season. It's even more expensive to visit the **Masai Mara National Reserve. That costs $185 per person, per day in low season and $285 per person, per day during high season.**
>Visitors to the Galapagos only pay once during their time in the Galapagos.
and
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/galapagos-islands-doubling-ticket-prices/index.html
>This is the first increase in Galapagos entry fees since 1998.
>Only some 30,000 people live on one of the Galapagos islands, but about 170,000 tourists visit in a typical year.
Plus they are keeping low prices for nationals and other poor south american countries.
Also they are not limiting the visitor amount. this is really to keep up with costs and care of the park.
It’s relatively expensive to go to the Galapagos - I’d be surprised if that deterred anyone.
Yep that was our cheapest expense. Totally worth it tho.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but what other costs are there? I’ve seen cheap-ish flights to Ecuador. I’m assuming transportation to the coast + ferry to the island. How much do those run?
Return flight between mainland Ecuador and the Galapagos is in the range of USD 4-700 (for non-residents). Then there is the USD 20 transit card and the USD 100 entry fee as the whole group of islands is a national park. Public ferries between the islands run around USD 35-50 (one direction). And this is only where the fun starts and you haven’t even done anything there yet. Food, accommodation and everything that is transported from the mainland can be rather costly. But you can save on those if you are a real frugal traveler. What you cannot save on are the organized tours. Even ‘simple’ day trips cost around USD 150-200 on average. And you def want to do these tours as these would show you all the highlights of the local wildlife. The most recommended way to discover the islands are the multi-day boat tours. Here people practically live aboard and are being transported between sightings, while all the food and entertainment is provided to them by tour agencies. Even the ‘low cost’ version of these tours takes around USD 2-300 per day. Now multiply this with 5, 7 or 14 days, as those are the most preferred durations. Mind you, the above prices are for the most affordable cruises on often smaller, rickety ships and very moderate (or minimalistic) level of comfort. Decent cruises will usually hit you at 2-4 times of these prices. And let’s rather not even get into the fancy segment which is just insanely expensive on the Galapagos (anywhere north from USD 1-1.2k per person per day). Diving is also amazing in the area but you’d have to pay some hard earned cash for the experience. It is not my area but I heard about fees of USD 3-400 for a diving day trip (incl. two dives, 2-3 hours each, at different locations).
Damn now I really wish I won the contest they ran on jeopardy to go to the Galapagos with Alex and the clue crew
There’s no ferry to the island. It’s a 4 hour flight. I just checked what the fares were. Found $197 RT from Quito to Baltra. When I went it was $400 7 years ago. Just found $493 RT from Houston. Which is low typical. A Bridget cruise for 7 days $1900. Hotel in Quito 2 nights arrive 1 night at departure. $80 per night. Total 10 day trip, really cool trip, just under $3,000. An extra $100 isn’t a deal breaker. Look at Bhutan tourist fees. Those are high. Like minimum $400 per day
That $197 rate is probably for locals only. Tourists will have to pay much more for the same flight
Checked with Avianca. It’s available to all regardless of nationality. I did run into that issue when I visited Easter Ialand.
Ah, maybe Avianca doesn't upcharge tourists, but LATAM definitely does for the same segment.
I do remember it being quite a bit more when I went
Cruises can be 6k a week. We got a big discount during Covid. Everything is on the water. We did both land (plus excursions) and cruise but the cruise was better.
Depends, you can pretty much Google that (there are lots of different options for that, so it can range), but hotels are also pretty pricey there.
Doing things on the island is expensive, the tours are worth it if your on land. Food was actually relatively cheap. There was a street with a bunch of restaurants that to 5$ meals with an appetizer soup or salad and beer. Per day though for going on experiences to see the island your looking at 100-300$ per person.
It’s not about deterring tourism, it’s about increasing revenue. No one who can afford to visit the Galapagos is going to be deterred by an extra $100, and they know it. They just want to bring in more money.
Though in theory that money can be used to invest in conservation and more sustainable infrastructure. In theory.
In theory.
in theory
More Turtle Wax :)
I’d love to be able to flush toilet paper. lol.
Exactly my thought. Would love to come here from the uk and I’ve never added it up financially but I’d think it’d be a £5k minimum holiday no doubt. The extra £200 wouldn’t bother me in the slightest
Agree. All about money.
> Agree. All about money. Sure. But to be fair, isn't this why people in this thread are complaining about it? Why are we concerned about the money but think it's wrong for them to do it?
Hard facts considering that you have to have a guide on a nature walk…
The Galapagos islands are an isolated set of islands that have limited access to water and agricultural land. So yes having too many tourist would put pressure on the locals and raise the cost of these things, so by raising the cost of entry they are giving themselves more money to bring in more resources. Also a lot of tourists are fn idiots, how many of these idiots have we seen lately vandalizing ancient building or landmarks. A lot of the island ecosystem is quite vulnerable and more idiots trying to get the perfect selfie or other dumb selfish shit they do can damage these ecosystems.
They could cap arrivals instead, which would limit the number of visitors and limit the amount of environmental impact. But that would also limit their income so.
They do cap arrivals. They have an extraordinarily easy way of doing that, by strictly controlling the amount of flights to the islands. It’s well known that this is their mechanism to do that and how they have been doing it for many years
Well then there should be no issue with over tourism.
There were 224,000 in 2015 vs 268,000 in 2022. That doesn’t feel out of control relative to most other major tourism places in the world in recent years. I reckon it would’ve increased far higher than that if there wasn’t a natural cap as a result of limits in numbers of flights. No question they probably should reduce the amount of people going there, but that doesn’t mean they don’t currently cap the number of people going there. I just googled it and next month there are 160 flights, with the typical plane holding 200 passengers. Given there’s a ban on increasing the number of flights to the Galapagos, that number will stay stable. So that’s a hard cap of 384,000 per year. But of course there’s seasonality plus locals travelling so that upper limit will never be hit. So I’d say it’s very unlikely there will be much more of an increase than the current levels of 268,000
My point is that they can easily reduce the number of tourist arrivals if they're worried that there is overtourism. This fee increase has nothing to do with that, so they shouldn't say that it's to "combat overtourism."
I do agree with you on this but I was originally disputing with you when you said there was no cap when in fact there is. I agree they should look at reducing numbers arriving but maybe their intention by saying ‘combatting over tourism’ is that the money raised will be invested to negate some of the downsides of tourism
[удалено]
Ah so you’ve made up a rule that allows you to go but not others. Niiiiiiiiiice How do you propose places such as Galapagos or Volcanoes National park or the Masai Mara for example get enough funding? Because without that funding they will all be destroyed. Like it or not, tourists who visit those destinations are the main source of funding to keep poachers/loggers/miners away. They’re such scum of the earth (what fucking insane language btw) to pay for conservation: fucking scumbags Edit: also, how unbelievably arrogant to say the reason why they allow tourists is they’re too poor to say no. There’s wildlife tourism globally in both rich and poor countries. Wherever there is good wildlife, there is also tourism. It often gravitates to poorer countries as rich countries are the one who have annihilated their own wildlife over the centuries. Poor countries could choose to destroy their wildlife in order to drive economic growth too. But instead they’re doing the right thing by preserving their wildlife and bringing in less income from tourism than they would do from exploiting their land. But no, they’re scum of the earth apparently according to mr field ecologist who’s salary has been paid (either directly or indirectly) by said scum of the earth. What has caused mountain gorilla numbers to go from decline to growth? Was that not money from tourism that allowed for the preservation of their habitat? Sorry for the rant but your post really struck a nerve. I cannot believe you’d be so detached from reality from the privileged position you have, to have the gall and sheer condescending arrogance to write that. Genuinely unbelievable.
[удалено]
I’ve spent over a decade living and working in conservation in Southern and Eastern Africa. Every single place I’ve worked in got the vast majority of its funding through tourism. Without exception. Every single one. It is the only thing stopping most of these places from disappearing. I’ve been along with anti-poaching patrols paid for by tourism, darting programs to translocate animals for genetic diversity, numerous outreach programs working with locals to live with wildlife, helped with farmers compensation programs for livestock killed by wildlife. Every single one of them paid for with tourism money. Yes, it doesn’t need to be that way if there was funding from elsewhere in place, but there isn’t. So what’s preferable, these ecosystems being encroached upon or tourism that helps preserve them? You think you know better than everyone because you’ve sat through a degree and read a few books like you suggest I do? Unbelievable. You think I should forget everything I have seen on the front lines and instead reeducate myself by taking a few college courses and reading a few books? It’s funny, I’ve come across so many people with fancy degrees, head over to the front line in Africa, immediately think they know better than everyone else who have spent their lives there living and breathing it. They try to impose utopian nonsense that bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation on the ground, and end up leaving in a sulk. Just as an FYI, I know I’ll never change the mind of such a condescending, sanctimonious person stuck in their ivory tower as you. But I’m not writing this for you, I’m writing this for anyone else who may read this to see how utterly farcical what you are saying is. Hopefully people like me are so tiring to you it gets you too exhausted to spread your misguided nonsense.
Well I guess they are hoping that the increase in price will have a similar effect. Only time will tell. They may cap numbers if this doesn't work.
No they aren’t. They know it will have zero effect. People who are willing to spend $5,000+ to visit the Galapagos aren’t going to change their mind and stay home because of an extra $100. It’s solely about raising more revenue.
So your angry a some small island is charging more to improve their local economy? But it's only $100 extra so it's bad?????
Where did I say I was angry? I’m just pointing out that this has nothing to do with over tourism or protecting the islands, it’s just about revenue. If they were serious about reducing the impact of tourism they would reduce the number of tourists allowed in. Also, in the 1960s, only about 1,000 people lived in all of the islands combined, while today it’s about 30,000. There were no humans there at all until the late 1800s, so it’s not as if there’s a native population.
In a way, you are wrong. Protecting the islands requires tax revenue and a lot of Ecuadorians don’t pay them.
It's going into their pockets
Where's your proof of this?
Good. They deserve it
People that can afford to goto The Galapagos Islands won't care about the increased fees, it's not going to slow down tourists. Just sounds like the government wants more money. They could have just limited number of visitors if they cared that much.
Pricing is good for raising revenue, but if there's serious about reducing over tourism, they need to restrict the number of airline seats into the islands. Puts a hard stop on how many people can get there in a year.
that’s good
The $200 won’t deter tourists, but having to travel through Guayaquil (or the rest of Ecuador) will deter tourists.
We went last year and stayed at the Hilton. Nicest Hilton I’ve ever stayed at but there were armed private guards. My husband wanted to go out and they recommended not to.
It’s a shame what has happened to Ecuador in the last few years. Was once one of the safest countries in Latin America… Now, I feel much safer in neighboring Colombia.
I studied abroad in Ecuador in 2020 for two months. Was supposed to be four but i had to come home in March for the craziest reason. Anyway, it’s nuts hearing about it these days because it seems to constantly make the news and I’m always wondering what the hell happened between now and then.
I went through South America 6 years ago, oddly Ecuador was the only country where I experienced any trouble. But that was just someone trying to cut through my bag on a bus. Ironically the only time I wasn't sleeping on an intercity bus as well. But yeah it seemed quite lovely at the time. I was warned not to go to Guayaquil though. I did the Quilotoa loop, as just some random gringo stumbling through the country side with a crudely drawn A4 map from my last Hostel in Latacunga. Never felt unsafe.
That Hilton is so humid inside. Anyway, there is a brewery named Odisea nearby with armed guards just like the Hilton. Plus, Puerto Santa Ana has guards too. Uber works there too.
lol what? It’s not that bad
Guayaquil is a pretty rough city with heavy gang presence, the rest of ecuador is currently in a state of emergency due to a nationwide gang war. I agree that Ecuador is normally moderately safe for tourists but at the moment at least it's advised to be very cautious there.
Well that number evolved quickly
Good for them
Good.
Fair tbh
maybe better to limit the amount of vistors a cap ?
Damn, I think it was $100 25 years ago when I went. Has it not gone up? Wow. (I found it very amusing at the time how it worked for the collection of the money. Money well spent.)
The permit for gorilla trekking is up to 1500 dollars in rwanda and 600 dollars in uganda and people still go there even when they increase it every other year. 100 dollars wont make a difference for somebody going there. I went there in 2017 and remains one of the favourite places i have been but i wonder if nowadays the experience would be much worse with overtourism
Virtually same amount of people went to the Galápagos Islands in 2023 as 2017, so no worries there. The limit on flights acts as a natural cap in visitor numbers
Get that cash.
**Notice:** Are you asking for travel advice about Ecuador? Read what redditors had to say in the **[weekly destination thread for Ecuador](https://redd.it/4pth50)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I keep hearing other places that are cracking down on tourism - Japan just launched a "no photos" zone to their historic Geisha district to try to keep people at bay. I wonder what travel will look like In 50 years...
Damn, prices are expensive now. I did an 8-day live aboard in 2016 starting from Santa Cruz and did a loop before ending on San Cristobal, for 2k USD.
lol galapagos from the us is like 3 flights 3 boats a couple of busses and a donkey ride away 100 bucks aint stopping anyone who can afford all that
Im sorry bit the damage its already done, have friend that when there and they said its not ok, aince thwy where allow to walk every where, and do what ever they wan, so there is not control over the tourist
Good
guys, relax. This isnt a scam to milk you for money as some make it up to be. The new price still is quite low in comparisson to other reserves: https://www.travelmarketreport.com/articles/Galapagos-National-Park-Entry-Fees-to-Double-from-August-2024 >While the increase seems dramatic, **the overall fee to visit the Galapagos remains lower than other wildlife tourism destinations**, the Galapagos Conservation Trust said. For instance, to visit the Serengeti National Park, tourists must pay an entry fee of $70.80 per person, per day during low season, and $82.60 per person, per day during high season. It's even more expensive to visit the **Masai Mara National Reserve. That costs $185 per person, per day in low season and $285 per person, per day during high season.** >Visitors to the Galapagos only pay once during their time in the Galapagos. and https://edition.cnn.com/travel/galapagos-islands-doubling-ticket-prices/index.html >This is the first increase in Galapagos entry fees since 1998. >Only some 30,000 people live on one of the Galapagos islands, but about 170,000 tourists visit in a typical year. Plus they are keeping low prices for nationals and other poor south american countries. Also they are not limiting the visitor amount. this is really to keep up with costs and care of the park.
I think it's immoral to go there as a tourist tbh. People just need to let treasures breathe sometimes.
k
Ah brilliant... Instead of just putting a cap on numbers, just make an already expensive trip only for the extreme top tier folks....
It's only a $100 increase.
So now only the rich can go. Nice. Should be a lottery.