One of the key issues in the backpacker’s trip is the topic of expenses control. To be able to visit places with the least money possible is what distinguishes this type of tourism, and for this matter many destinations usually create a specific supply of hostel and camping accomodations, generally by part of the private sector. But the decision to spend less sometimes generates the appearing of a specific group of backpackers: the extreme backpackers. These ones are not looking to spend less; they, simply, don’t want to spend anything at all. They’re trying all the time to access services without paying a dime; they’d rather sleep on the street or anywhere as long as they don’t have to pay a few bucks for a camping tent or a hotel bed; they don’t use a single bus and are capable of staying on the route for days as they wait for an opportunity to hithchhike. There’s a certain pride in these kind of actions. It’s not strange, when we travel in an environment characterized for the presence of backpackers, that conversations tend to focus on who spent less; sometimes, a few cents define the discussion, and the resulting feeling is that who spend less can travel better.

In many cases, the strict in expenses backpacker trip is not a choice; there’s the willingness to travel and very little money. So, one has to be very disciplined and not spend too much if we want to keep on moving. This implies looking for the cheapest places, where we can cook, if possible; trying to save as much as we can in transportation; and usually looking for economic ways to have fun.

The problem is when many of these backpackers get together, in determined seasons, in rather small destinations, with a small population. Let’s get real: few locals would look friendly at people who want to visit their town but are not willing to spend a dime in it and who have set a goal of getting everything they can for free, when possible. One case: it’s quite common in the north of Argentina to charge for the use of public bathrooms -something usual in Bolivia and the south of Peru, but not so much in many areas of Argentina, particularly in the biggest cities, such as Buenos Aires, Cordoba and Rosario, where most of the argentinean backpackers come from. The result: long discussions between the backpackers that don’t want to pay 25 - 50 cents (US$ 0.08 - 0.16) to use the bathroom and the local people who live from the business exploitation of their town. And this is just one case. I suppose there are similar situations taking place in some other countries, but with other types of services.

When I talk about “realism”, I try to be practical: it’s hard to ask a local population to receive tourists in the best manner, if these don’t bring any benefits or if they just provoke damages. There are, of course, some limits: in many destinations, people want to charge you even just to look at the landscape, and these kind of abuse are not rare. But on the traveller’s side, excess is not unusual either. Travelling cheap does not mean, simply, to consider paying for something a sin. It’s about, above all, economizing in expenses by restricting only to the basics and indispensable. But it’s not realistic to demand the local people to watch the occupation of their public spaces in exchange of nothing.

Part of the ideas of this note came up from the comment Victor left on the article Los otros mochileros (spanish only), about the impact on Iruya, a wonderful location on the north of Salta in Argentina, of the massive arrival of backpackers, particularly during the argentinean summer time. That I disagree with some of Victor’s statements shouldn’t make us lose sight of the fact that there’s a problem to be solved in what he’s pointing. Backpacker travelling is a beautiful experience that has to include respect for local populations; getting to know their ways and habits is a form to observe the huge diversity of Argentina, many times lost under the stories that presents it as a “white and european” country. If local populations start to perceive backpackers more as a disturb than as a pleasant visit, in the long run they’ll do what many destinations that want to take advantage from tourism have done: to close free public spaces, raising the cost of hotel and other services, and delegating the task of removing “unwanted visitors” from the location to the police. The idea: to point only at “profitable tourists”. Let’s not pull the rope: authoritarian solutions are always an option in the minds of many people.