Fewer Americans are visiting national parks. Administrators ask why

[Ed Poyer]

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.

Forestnome: When you go, check out the National Monuments, such as Lava Beds, Dinosaur, etc. These are run by the NPS, but get fewer crowds. The surrounding areas are less 'touristy' as well. The Rangers have more time & energy to spend with you, & the destinations are often just as attractive as the Parks.
Ed

 

[Kevin Rooney]

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.

forestnome - You could do this this and STILL see the Grand Canyon. Just view it from the North Rim, not the South. Rarely crowded, and the old lodge is much the same as it was when the RR built it many years ago. It's a bit remote, but a beautiful drive thru a national forest - no towns, houses, etc, and plenty of deer, coyotes, etc. If you're doing a major road trip, consider doing it after visiting some of the outstanding NP's in Utah, like Zion or Escalante (I think Escalante is still a Monument, not a NP).

As for costs of a road trip (month long) - I've been privileged to do a few over the past dozen years, including 3 with my wife. We found our costs average about $100 per day for everything - gas, lodging, meals, etc. Staying in older motels in a small town can be a delight, and more economical as well. We eat simply - breakfast is usually a bagel, yogurt, fruit, etc from a supermarket - you get the idea. We live simply, not cheaply. Much depends upon how you each view "vacation" - some equate the term with fancy dining, expensive lodging, etc - nothing wrong with that per se. But, if you are of average means (like most of us), and you can scrape together $3K, I think most couples could spend a month on the road and have a terrific time. And, if you camp occasionally, the costs per day go down even further.

And to add to Ed's comment above - I'd second the notion of visiting Monuments as well. I believe the designation of National Park is a progressive thing - IIRC, the designation of Monument is usually followed in a few years by Park.

 

[KayakDan]

This is a subject that could go on forever..and I'm not sure there is a correct answer. Probably a hundred correct reasons is more like it. I do,however,think there a a couple of primary reasons.
Obesity is at an all time high,both adults and children. Physical activity,such as hiking in a park,may not have the same appeal that it would have 40,50,60 lbs ago.
The entertainment choices today are mind boggling. DVD,MP3,Hi-def,Xbox,on and on...and kids just absorb this stuff. I saw a kid about 9yo,with his mother at a store the other day. This kid gets out of the minivan and walks into the store with his mother,never taking his eyes off the gameboy he was using. It was kinda sad to watch actually. Playing outdoors becomes a low priority,because the allure of all the high tech "wow" toys keep kids indoors.Hiking and camping just aren't "glitzy" enough for kids fed on a steady diet of fast moving special effects and action.
Maybe it's a generational demographics issue. The boomers who grew up on "go outside and play",were more likely to have a higher percentage who kept their interest in outdoor activities. The boomers are now maturing,and reaching a point where many cannot,or no longer want to engage in those outdoor activities any longer.The generations following,have grown up on a diet of "hi-tech",multi-media and graphics-indoors. Are they so disconnected,that those outdoor activities don't occur to them,or have no appeal?
I guess what it comes down to is competing for attention,and video games and Disney are winning.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

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

I'd choose A hands down. My second choice would be E. I've always wanted to return to Germany and hike the Bavarian alps. Although, I'm not sure how far that $5k would go for a trip like that. I wouldn't even consider B & C . I might consider D only if it was a hiking trip away from the crowded beaches.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

This is a subject that could go on forever..and I'm not sure there is a correct answer. Probably a hundred correct reasons is more like it. I do,however,think there a a couple of primary reasons.
Obesity is at an all time high,both adults and children. Physical activity,such as hiking in a park,may not have the same appeal that it would have 40,50,60 lbs ago.
The entertainment choices today are mind boggling. DVD,MP3,Hi-def,Xbox,on and on...and kids just absorb this stuff. I saw a kid about 9yo,with his mother at a store the other day. This kid gets out of the minivan and walks into the store with his mother,never taking his eyes off the gameboy he was using. It was kinda sad to watch actually. Playing outdoors becomes a low priority,because the allure of all the high tech "wow" toys keep kids indoors.Hiking and camping just aren't "glitzy" enough for kids fed on a steady diet of fast moving special effects and action.
Maybe it's a generational demographics issue. The boomers who grew up on "go outside and play",were more likely to have a higher percentage who kept their interest in outdoor activities. The boomers are now maturing,and reaching a point where many cannot,or no longer want to engage in those outdoor activities any longer.The generations following,have frown,and are still growing up on a diet of "hi-tech",multi-media and graphics-indoors. Are they so disconnected,that those outdoor activities don't occur to them,or have no appeal?
I guess what it comes down to is competing for attention,and video games and Disney are winning.

This is why I do everything I can to keep my son active and interested in hiking. So far so good.

 

[dvbl]

...To us, there's little diffrence between The Bronx and Yellowstone NP...

Try a little experiment. Start out at Old Faithful area, then hike a few miles and set up camp at Mallard Lake for a few days. The following week, start out at East 170th St, then hike a few blocks and set up camp at Claremont Park for a few days. Then please report back to us and let us know if you still think there is "little difference between The Bronx and Yellowstone NP."

Yeah, I understand the point you were attempting to make, but come on.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Hiking and camping just aren't "glitzy" enough for kids fed on a steady diet of fast moving special effects and action.

Have to agree with that. I ran into a family coming down a trail this summer - their two teenagers were playing some kind of electronic box WHILE hiking, completely ignoring what surrounded them. Pretty sad.

My fear is that this type of "news" as to reduced visitation will be leveraged in a way to alter the NPS's core mission of protecting our natural heritage, by attempting to "enhance recreational opportunities" in terribly short-sighted ways. Restoring the funds that the parks so desperately need to protect what we have, in my mind, is the first order of business.

The National Parks Conservation Alliance is a great site to monitor for developments in this arena.

 

[forestgnome]

Try a little experiment. Start out at Old Faithful area, then hike a few miles and set up camp at Mallard Lake for a few days. The following week, start out at East 170th St, then hike a few blocks and set up camp at Claremont Park for a few days. Then please report back to us and let us know if you still think there is "little difference between The Bronx and Yellowstone NP."

Yeah, I understand the point you were attempting to make, but come on.

Ummm...I guess I need to be more specific, less dramatic. There is little difference in our lack of desire to visit either place, because both are far too crowded. Hiking in a crowded np would be like taking a shower in a rain jacket. This is only based on what we read, never been out west or to the Bronx.

Thanks, Kevin and Ed for suggestions. I'm keeping notes with some maps, and as the time draws near I'll start a thread about uncrowded destinations. One big advantage for us is that we don't care about biggest, highest, most popular, etc., just beautiful forested mountains.

The mission statement of the np system says nothing about making sure lots of people visit, but just to protect the places in case we want to, right? There may be social trends that make our group sad, but those mouth-breathers gazing into their ipods and gameboys like what they're doing. Let's just protect the places, and if some don't visit it's fine by me.

 

[dvbl]

...I'm keeping notes with some maps, and as the time draws near I'll start a thread about uncrowded destinations. One big advantage for us is that we don't care about biggest, highest, most popular, etc., just beautiful forested mountains....

...The mission statement of the np system says nothing about making sure lots of people visit, but just to protect the places in case we want to, right?...

forestnome, I hope you get to Yellowstone. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. If you go see Old Faithful at high noon on a sunny day, it'll be the type of experience you're dreading...traffic jams, gift shop frenzy, etc. But if you do your driving early morning and late evening, and if at all possible go there right after labor day when the schools are back in session and the crowds are way down...then I think you'll enjoy your trip. Rangers and/or video presentations at the visitor centers claim that about 95% of Yellowstone visitors never get more than 1/2 mile from that big figure-8 loop road. So once you're on the trail, you're "safe". For me, money and time are always the limiting factors, but I'd love to go back to Teton and YNP.

 

[David Metsky]

Hiking in a crowded np would be like taking a shower in a rain jacket. This is only based on what we read, never been out west or to the Bronx.

What everyone is saying is that even in the most crowded national parks, there are vast areas where almost no one goes. Those areas are breathtakingly beautiful, unspoiled, and relatively easy to get to, it's just that the vast majority of the public doesn't put out the extra effort to see them.

There are also even vaster (is that a word?) areas outside of the national park system with tons more spectacular scenery, and if you can you should get to them all. But to dismiss the Yosemite backcountry because the Valley is crowded is to miss some amazing places.

-dave-

 

[clg898]

Nobody has mentioned that over the same period skier and snowboarder visits are way up after years of declines. Snowshoeing is also booming (according to one person I spoke with the Tubbs/Atlas line is the most profitable of all of K2 Sports areas). There are two things at work with snowsports: first, newer equipment has made it easier for boomers to return to the sport and to continue skiing at older ages; second, the younger generation has been drawn to the "extreme" appeal of skiing/boarding. Taken together, you have something for the whole family... easy turning skis and groomers for the boomer parents and "extreme" terrain (glades, park, pipe, etc) for the younger set.

For all of the technical advances in outdoor fabrics, equipment, etc. sleeping on the ground is still sleeping on the ground. I don't think this appeals to the aging backs of the majority of boomers. Also, I think young people don't find backpacking, hiking, camping provides the adrenaline rush that they seem to require in their outdoor pursuits.

Frankly, I think that National Parks have been too "tamed" to attract younger adventure seekers (the under-30 crowd) in large numbers. With paved walkways, railing, flush toilets, numerous interprative sites, whole villages of overpriced lousy pizza, etc. I think many of the large NP's like Yosemite feel safe, controlled, and antiseptic. Take the snowboarding teen out of the terrain park and bring them to Curry Village in Yosemite and I'm willing to bet you'll hear them complain of being bored, listening to their IPods, etc. Take them on a bushwhack through the backcountry to remote ponds, jagged peaks, etc. and I bet you get a bit more of the adrenaline and less of the slack-jawed boredom of Curry Village.

The trouble is that the boomer parents are far too out of shape and uninterested in true backcountry adventure to take their kids far into the backcountry.

I think the problem, if you want to call it a problem, of decreasing visitation needs to be addressed by a two-pronged approach. First, do a better job of marketing the existing high-end lodge properties and improve the 4-star experience for the salmon and cabernet crowd. You don't need to expand existing facilities, just upgrade the experience at places like the Awanahee Hotel to a true world-class 4 star experience. Give the boomers wine tasting and guided hikes and the almond crusted salmon they apparently want.

At the same time, encourage visitation to the backcountry by highlightingthe vast areas that are more than a quarter mile from the road. Highlight backcountry ski touring in Yellowstone, write about ice climbing in the Tetons, big wall climbing in Yosemite, multi-day backcoutry adventure in RMNP. If you look at the NP literature it is 99% dominated by attractions within 100 yards of the main park roads. They can do a better job of highlighting the adventure available away from the roads, lodges, and valley floors to the thrill seeking, increasingly wealthy and childless, 25-35 demograhpic. I almost never rely on the official NPS literature when planning my own trips to the backcountry in the NP's. I have to wade through various guidebooks and websites to plan my trips. Market the parks to the outdoor adventure set rather than to the non-existent, 1950's Leave it to Beaver nuclear family.

I think both of these can be done without detracting from the conservation mission of the NPS. Neither require extensive, or really any, changes to existing regulations. In fact, I think a strong argument can be made for scaling back on human encroachment within the parks and allowing many place to revert to a "wilder" state than currently exists.

I want people visiting our National Parks. I'm afraid that it will be increasingly difficult to set aside more land for recreation/conservation if the other side can argue, "why bother creating a new park if people aren't visiting the existing parks?" It's in the best interest of all conservation or outdoor recreationally minded people to see visitation increase and for more people to experience the natural treasures that are entrusted to public stewarship.

 

[RoySwkr]

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

Hey CD, how about Veterans Day next year - or even Xmas?

Blackwoods was temporarily closed for reconstruction during the past two winters

Which has of course reduced visitors recently