Fewer Americans are visiting national parks. Administrators ask why

[Pig Pen]

I heard somewhere that there is now a jail at Yellowstone. Is this true? If so, it is probably not a good idea for me to go there.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

This topic has come up before. I'm wondering what statistics are available on a per-park basis, and in fact what park(s) are they even referring to?

Is the WMNF considered a national park? I only see the AT listed for NH (from Kevin's link at nps.gov.) It is obviously a national forest. When they track visits there are they tracking day passes? Week passes? Season passes? Do they count cars-per-day? Or people in those cars (hard to do -- haven't seen a ranger in the lots this year...)

Wish I was hiking today. My knee is bothering me

Tim

 

[DougPaul]

Is the WMNF considered a national park?

As you noted, it is a national forrest: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/

USDA Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/

Just to make things more confusing, the NPS is part of the Department of the Interior and the FS is part of the US Department of Agriculture...

While the specific managment objectivess of the FS are different from those of the NPS, the FS also faces multiple potentially conflicting objectives. While I do not have specifc info on visitation rates, my guess would be that the trends are similar to those of the national parks. Perhaps there are some stats on the website.

Doug

 

[RoySwkr]

A friend who is an amateur philosopher says it's a generational thing - just as the hippies rebelled against their parents life in suburban Levittown by living outdoors, people today are cocooning with their electronic toys as part rebellion against the older set. In a couple more generations, outdoor parks will fill again.

I remember reading the Acadia master plan for a few years ago when they were afraid of more visitors and were talking about requiring everybody to use shuttle buses on the park road. So they should be glad business has dropped off.

8 years ago camping at Acadia was free in winter and $8 in summer, now it's closed in winter and (did I hear $20) in summer. So of course there are fewer campers in winter now and for a similar price you can get a private campsite with more amenities such as showers.

I wonder if part of the problem is that motor homes keep getting bigger. It used to be that senior citizens would use their 50% discount to camp in parks and then go spend the day in town. Now you can camp for free at Wal-Mart and there's plenty of pull through spaces for huge motorhomes which may not even fit in Park campgrounds. I remember one day at Big Bend when a guy told me he was staying in the Park lodge because it was cheaper than investing $35k in a motor home. Just then a motor home went by that dwarfed the Jeep Grand Cherokee it was towing, and I asked him which part of that rig the $35k would buy.

 

[marty]

I also tend to wonder if many people had a less than fantastic time at the Natonal Parks and thus do not desire to visit them anymore.

I recently experienced this at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. There I endured mobs of pushy people, huge RV's, traffic jams, unfriendly workers and abundant tourist traps just outside the park. Would not recommend the place to anyone, despite its enormous beauty. One of my friends who recently visited Yellowstone has similar feelings about his experience.

Maybe a drop in National Park visitors would be a good thing...

 

[Andrew]

For clarification Acadia (Blackwoods) is still open for free winter camping but now charge a reduced rate during Nov & April (used to be free).

Blackwoods was temporarily closed for reconstruction during the past two winters- I'm not certain if the closure will continue into this winter. I highly recommend this as a winter destination as the park is uncharacteristically nice and quiet.

Government angencies are very slow to complete year end reports and data might show an upsurge for 2006 as compared to the last couple of years. At least that is what I have observed in this neck of the woods (Southwest NH).

The last boom in outdoor recreation occured in the late 1990's I believe as a result of the economic upsurge with subsequent disposable income to spend on nifty gadgets that would supposedly make woods travel more convenient and safer. Retailers boasts of "Dry, Lightweight, Breathable...and oh so fashionable" helped fuel alot of outdoor interest. Yes this is the base of so much of our culture.

It was not that long ago that only serious hikers who were willing to make a serious investment could afford a Gore-Tex parka.

 

[Pig Pen]

Paraphrasing Yogi Berra:

Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

In terms of accurately counting visitors - where admission is charged such as in the National Parks, it's not difficult to get an approximation as each car stops at a toll gate in many instances. There are exceptions to this, however. For example - in Zion the toll is collected on one side only, so if you enter/exit the same place, then no record of your visit is made. And the only place in Death Valley where a fee is collected is at Scotty's Castle, and only a fraction of the people traveling thru Death Valley each day go there. Even where there's a gate, the fee is per vehicle, and I've never noticed any real attempt on the part of the ranger to count the number of passengers. And, no fees/counts are collected if you enter/exit a NP outside of the regular gate hours. When it comes to estimating the number of visitors to the large National Forest in New England (WMNF and GMNF) - how in the world to they come up with those numbers? Are you a visitor if you live in Thornton and drive thru the Notch to get to Home Depot/Shaws/Walmart in Littleton? Probably not, but ... what if you stop on your way to admire a view?

Personally, I think the numbers are a bit suspect for any visitor counts, whether it's park, forest or otherwise. I can accept a statement from the Feds that visits are up or down, but to actually quantify that - it's a bit shaky IMHO.

 

[forestgnome]

Agree with KR's above post. They claim that WMNF gets more visitors than Yellowstone. It's just a guess. I see noone counting.

Whether numbers are up or down, the parks are still packed with mobs in the usual places. Workers have to wear respirators in the winter due to so many snowmobiles. I wouldn't go anywhere near such a place because I love nature.

 

[Jaytrek57]

Most NPs get a pretty accurate "count" on the number of people who camp (front/back country), b/c most require some kind of permit.

As far as minorities and youth (experience w/both)...it comes down to $$$...nothing more. $$$ provides the opportunity and given the opportunity, ALL kids enjoy the outdoors or the "experience" of being outdoors (camping, hiking, etc..) with their peers. Even the fat kid who plays with their new Playstation .

Strictly speaking about National Parks. Outside of Acadia and Boston Harbor Islands, very few inner city youth from the NE will step foot in a National Park. Location, $$$, severely hamper the opportunities in this matter. Not to say there are not great alternatives, there are...but places like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Zion, etc., are for the most part unrealistic b/c of $$$.

The last boom in outdoor recreation occured in the late 1990's I believe as a result of the economic upsurge with subsequent disposable income

I also believe, and this is just MHO, that Krackuer's book, Into Thin Air (97?) had something to do with it. Just an uneducated guess.

Whew...to much thinking on a Sunday morning...Go Patriots!!

Peace.

 

[Rick]

Visits are down at almost all national parks, even at Yosemite, notorious for summertime crowds and traffic jams. Meanwhile, most of the 390 properties in the park system are begging for business.

I thought this was a good thing?? Do we really need populated places to justify funding to protect them?? Isn't that the whole idea behind setting aside natural places

Meanwhile, the parks' most loyal visitors over the last several decades are vacationing elsewhere. Baby boomers are changing the way they play. Some of the more adventurous have embraced mountain biking and similar sports that are not allowed in many national parks. But as they age, most boomers are less interested in pitching tents and sleeping on the ground.

"I do believe that there is a significant trend, 'Done before dinner,' " said Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the Outdoor Industry Assn. "Baby Boomers want hard adventure by day and soft adventure by night. They want to paddle and rock-climb and also their Cabernet and almond-crusted salmon with asparagus. And a nice bed."

I don't care for the cab and salmon routine, but sometimes it is easier to just rent a cabin or get a motel room and grab some daypacks than to pull everything together - As I get older, I still like the adventure but sometimes my 47 year old back hurts just a little too much to keep crawling in and out of a tent or sit on a rock for dinner... I used to help out a small outings company and there were always numerous paddling and backpacking trips with tent camping on the calendar each year. The schedule seemed to start to change around 2000-2002. Clients were aging and would rather have cabins/rooms with showers and day-hike.

Many young families, too, are spurning the parks. According to Emilyn Sheffield, a social scientist at Cal State Chico on loan to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, children have more say in family vacation destinations than ever before and, if they must be outdoors, they prefer theme parks.

Of my 30 some-odd coworkers that have kids. All that is ever talked about is beach vacations, golf course vacations and Disney. Backcountry adventures simply are not an option to folks who grew up in cities and/or are heavily orientated towards fashion and technology.
I am leading a cub-pack now and trying to put together a short hike to a shelter on the AT, 18 miles away. I am receiving feedback from some parents that that is just to far to drive for a hike when our town has 2-3 parks in the city limits (these aren't parks with trails, just small village parks with a ball-field, restrooms and pavilions) - And why do the kids have to hike so far, can't they just walk around the park and then play on the swing set?. I will continue to work on them. (what if.... someone gets hurt? ...snakes? Bees?...rocks....etc...)

A Nature Conservancy study funded by the National Science Foundation and released last July found a correlation between the drop in national park visits and the increasing popularity of at-home entertainment, including video games and the Internet.

So.... Will most tents now be purchased for camping out at the local big box store awaiting the release of the newest fad.....

Author Richard Louv writes of a "nature deficit disorder" and suggests parental fears about kidnapping and crime are keeping children off neighborhood streets and out of parks.

Aha!!! But there is the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet to keep them informed, No???

"We scare them to death with signs and pamphlets warning them about bears, snakes, spiders, poison oak, drowning, driving on ice and in snow and all the other disclaimers we provide," said Alexandra Picavet, the spokeswoman at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. "Small wonder they are terrified."

We were in Ontario a few days ago and stopped on the Niagara Parkway at Whirlpool Rapids where The Spanish Aero Car touches the cliff before it returns to it's dock. the parking area has a 20' drop off at the edge and the only thing to protect you from going over is a is a 3" curb. I commented to my wife that in US, that would never work because it is incumbent upon the nation to protect the citizens from doing absolutely stupid things. we'd have a huge guard rail/Chain Link Fences and and Big signs saying, "Warning!!! Do not drive over the curb".
I think as a nation we capitalize on protecting people from their own stupidity due to all the litigation. I sometimes think the new outlets are a new form of terrorism by continually warning (scaring?) folks about everything that could possibly harm them. (announcements on TV... "Could your child wind up dead tomorrow morning from .....yadayada... Tune in to channel 11 at 6PM to see what happened...."

One example of inadvertent exclusion was at Kings Canyon, where rangers began to notice in recent years that Latino families from the Central Valley visiting for the day complained they could not find enough space at family picnic sites.

The park service had assumed that a family would be able to fit at one picnic table that seated about six people. But the extended Latino families visiting Kings Canyon often numbered 15 to 20 people, a size the park defined as a "group" requiring a permit.

That happens in our local parks here - We have some sizable Latino areas. You stop by a park on a weekend afternoon to enjoy the sunshine and let your child play on the playground, but there are no picnic tables -They are all being used by large extended family gatherings sometimes all moved together or sometimes they have their stuff spread out on all the tables, but put 2-3 together as the main area. (there are not group pavilions that can be reserved for groups of 10-40, I have found them empty many times).
I think many folks start to avoid going to the parks or drive to parks further out in the suburbs to either get a picnic table or have some solitude and avoid the crowds and the loud music.

Some members of Congress have offered solutions they say would put parks more in step with what Americans want, including more commercialized activities and businesses. With the backing of industry, some politicians have called for opening more parks to motorized recreation.

I can't help but think that this is a bad thing. Members of Congress are the ones that are usually completely out of touch with the average constituent and feel that throwing money against it (especially if in their geographic area) will solve the problem (Which I am still not sure exists...)

James Gramann, a social scientist at Texas A&M University and visiting chief social scientist for the park service, cautioned, "We can't be driven simply by changes in public tastes, because we also have responsibilities to resources that we are mandated to protect."

Critics contend that if park service officials become slaves to recreational fashion, national parks would roar with the sound of jet skis, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, and cellphone towers would rise among redwoods and touch-screen computers would dot wilderness trails.

"When you put technical contrivances in, it replaces nature, and what sets the parks apart is their authenticity," said Bill Tweed, former chief resource ranger at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

"The next generation will challenge the national parks. They might ask, 'Why do we need parks when we can simulate them?' In a rush to make parks relevant, we will end up destroying what makes them unique."

I find it amazing that the folks desiring to protect the park are considered "Critics". I suddenly appreciate Gov. Baxter's rigid insistence on the land he set aside way back when....

 

[David Metsky]

I heard somewhere that there is now a jail at Yellowstone. Is this true? If so, it is probably not a good idea for me to go there.

There have been jails in Yosemite and Yellowstone for decades, nothing new there.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

As far as minorities and youth (experience w/both)...it comes down to $$$...nothing more. $$$ provides the opportunity and given the opportunity, ALL kids enjoy the outdoors or the "experience" of being outdoors (camping, hiking, etc..) with their peers. Even the fat kid who plays with their new Playstation .

How much does $$$ does it take to visit a NP? How does it break down? Air fare? Admission fees? Dining (think captive audience ala ski area)? Kids might enjoy being outdoors but often do not have the decision-making authority in the family (my kids don't decide where we go for vacation.) Are air fares much higher due to park locations (more expensive, fewer routes, less competition)?

Can you point to some published data supporting your statement (I believe your experience, but would like to see some scientifically supported evidence.)

Do other attractions suffer similarly along minority lines? Put another way, is the percentage of minorities at Disney greater than, less than, or equal to the percentage at the NPs? Can we find this out? I'm not sure private enterprises would release marketing data like this...

An interesting survey might be "Given $5000 to spend on vacation, would you take your family to...

A) A national park
B) Disney World
C) A major league baseball game ;-)
D) Hawaii
E) Europe
.
.
.
"

And then correlate the choices to race, socio-economic status, etc. Even better might be to level all choices so the dollar value (retail) is the same, and then play the "You've just won a vacation of your choice" game and see what gets chosen. If 3 days at Disney comes out 5 to 1 over 2 weeks at a NP, then you know it's not $$$, but rather marketing.

Given a choice, my kids (6 and 4) would pick Disney over a NP and they've never been to either. But they get the Disney marketing machine in their faces almost daily.

Tim

 

[charlos]

my theory involves playstations, ipods,chips,dips, & netflix.
i live in spanish halem....never heard anyone complain about the price of a portable playstation or the razorphone!!!!!!!!! so the quote about the parks bieng expensive really doesnt float with me.
it seems that many people in my area feel uncomfortable with the outdoors because its foriegn to them(fear of the unknown) i think this may be partly the fault of the crummy public educational system in certain areas, you cant enjoy what you dont know exists.

 

[Jaytrek57]

Perhaps I should clarify.

I don't think the NPs are too expensive (admissions).

The opportunity for urban youth to visit these places are based on location, experience and $$$.

I can not speak to the "family" aspect of taking kids outdoors, but I can from an afterschool perspective (B&G Club).

If I wanted to take 6 kids on a 10 day, van based trip to say the Grand Canyon...I could probably do so at a bare minimum of $50.00 per kid/per day. (gas, food, lodging, equipment, misc., etc). That's $500.00 per kid.

1. The vast majority of families I work with could not afford that.
2. If I had the club pay for the whole thing, that's $5000. For 6 kids. I could not justify that with 250 plus more kids to serve each day.

I don't have scientific data to support this opinion, just experience. If I (club)had more money, we could do bigger, farther trips...it is really pretty simple.

The great thing about data is that...well...you can make it dance.

Peace.

BTW... I would choose hawaii!!!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thank you for the response. We have not established any issue with minorities, per se. The argument so far is purely financial. Can't relocate the parks. Minorities and persons of lesser financial means tend to be in cities away from the parks. Can't relocate the cities. Can't relocate the people.

Attracting such demographics seems as practical as climbing Everest in a T-shirt and sneakers. Probably the result of well-intentioned law applied to an impractical situation. Kind of like building ramps at the huts.

If I (club)had more money, we could do bigger, farther trips...it is really pretty simple.

If money was no object, would the parents let the kids go, or is there really a fear of the unknown at play here?

my theory involves playstations, ipods,chips,dips, & netflix.
i live in spanish halem....never heard anyone complain about the price of a portable playstation or the razorphone!!!!!!!!! so the quote about the parks bieng expensive really doesnt float with me.
it seems that many people in my area feel uncomfortable with the outdoors because its foriegn to them(fear of the unknown) i think this may be partly the fault of the crummy public educational system in certain areas, you cant enjoy what you dont know exists.

Do the people of which you speak travel at all? If it's a matter of "they don't know it exists" then we're back to "it's a marketing problem".

Given my proximity to the WMNF, my love of New England, and limited vacation time and money to spend, I don't foresee going to a NP any time soon. I can see spending some time at the Grand Canyon or Yosemite at some point, but it's probably a once-in-a-lifetime trip, when the kiddies are old enough to appreciate it.

Tim

 

[sleeping bear]

my theory involves playstations, ipods,chips,dips, & netflix.
i live in spanish halem....never heard anyone complain about the price of a portable playstation or the razorphone!!!!!!!!! so the quote about the parks bieng expensive really doesnt float with me.
it seems that many people in my area feel uncomfortable with the outdoors because its foriegn to them(fear of the unknown) i think this may be partly the fault of the crummy public educational system in certain areas, you cant enjoy what you dont know exists.

TOTALLY agree!

Our society is so disconnected from the natural environment it makes me want to barf. Schools teach microbiology and genetics but students can't name the tree outside the window. Dirt = germs, strangers in the woods, overstressed and overworked. These days parents work so much too (to pay for the iPods, cell phones, credit cards etc.). The number of vacation days Americans take has decreased dramatically too. So we'll be happy to drive our "Mountaineers" and "Yukons" a half mile to work everyday while we squawk away on our cell phones....

...that's most of why I moved back to MI where more people appreciate and know about the outdoors.

 

[Woody]

While my kids were growing up we went to Disney twice. My wife planned the trips. I just do what I'm told. We have never taken a family vacation to a national park. We have taken day trips to Cape Cod National Seashore. For the most part, other than Acadia, most of the interesting (IMO) national parks are quite a ways away. My wife and I did visit the Grand Canyon before the kids were born and I have been to Mount Rainier NP.
I would have to say that time and money are the limiting factors in vacation planning. There is just so many choices competing for my vacation time and money.
I'm glad we took the kids to Disney. I think they will fondly remember those two vacations for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, my son and I have spent a lot to time in the White Mountains. We have done a lot of hiking and climbing and staying in the AMC huts. Unfortunately, my daughter and wife were not interested in joining us. Their loss, but I know my son had fun and will have great memories as will I.

 

[jjmcgo]

How I'd spend it

I would take the $5,000 vacation money and my children and grandchildren to the New York Stock Exchange so they could see how it works and then I would invest for them the remaining balance in the Janus Orion Fund which has grown at better than 20 percent a year in the past three years!
Then, I'd spend a couple hundred of my own money and take them camping in the WMNF.

 

[forestgnome]

One quick point about demographics; there is a misconception about the wealth of people living far from cities and closer to national parks and forests. While there are plenty of second homes of wealthy folks in these areas, the average person living far from urban areas is eeking it out. We happily opt for limited economic activity for a country lifestyle.

I've never been out west to a np, but I will soon, and money for vacation is the issue. When my wife and I finally go for it, we will carefully plan the trip to avoid crowded places. To us, there's little diffrence between The Bronx and Yellowstone NP. We'll avoid Grand Canyon as we would any urban center. We like little towns with a market and a few restaurants, etc. where we can purchase provisions and then explore the np. Places where there are attempts to "modernize" and attract urbanites, as described in this thread, would be places to avoid for us. But then, we don't have t.v. and I wouldn't know an ipod from a blackberry.