View Full Version : Amazing how things have changed in 20+ years
Different Socks
02-19-2014, 17:27
In 1991 issue of American Hiker:
"One trend we couldn't help to notice over the last 2 decades was the decline in the number for overnight campers in the backcountry".
According to NPS, backcountry permits were 1/2 what they were in 1976. Then they go on to say,
"we're only experiencing a temporary lull in the backcountry".
Funny how "temporary lull" is 15 years long and we all know it's gotten so bad since then that now nearly everywhere you go there is some kind of fee to pay to be on the trail, in the backcountry, stay overnight, or simply just be there.
Prime Time
02-19-2014, 17:44
Perhaps there's some correlation between over usage and a need to recover the cost associated with same?
bamboo bob
02-19-2014, 17:51
I don't get what you are saying. There's a lull?
Sierra2015
02-19-2014, 17:52
I don't get what you are saying. There's a lull?
Apparently there was one in the early 90's.
Starchild
02-19-2014, 17:54
Perhaps it's associated with hiking clubs that charge fees.
I have been a long term member of some hiking clubs with their fees, and their quandary is why their membership was aging. They comforted themselves with the notion that the younger generations didn't have the time for such things. I opened their eyes (well one club) to meetup.com where the generations of hikers they sought after were flocking to in numbers they could not imagine possible.
From that I deduced 'stop charging the people for access to their own inheritance (the land), it was never yours to take in the first place.' It was never their right to charge people, but only their privilege to show people.
bamboo bob
02-19-2014, 18:09
I don't get it. How do clubs charge for access to the trail? What trail? The AT somehow?
Prime Time
02-19-2014, 18:23
I don't get it. How do clubs charge for access to the trail? What trail? The AT somehow?
The only access fee I ran into on the AT was to enter Great Smokey Mountains National Park which is administered by The National Parks and Recreation Dept, not a club. The AMC charges for staying at some of their designated camping and lodging facilities in heavily visited site, as does the Vermont AT club but there is nothing mandatory about staying in any of these. My experience is again as I stated earlier, fees appear when extreme over usage creates costs above and beyond available funding and or dues. I don't think anyones getting rich over them.
Different Socks
02-19-2014, 18:41
The only access fee I ran into on the AT was to enter Great Smokey Mountains National Park which is administered by The National Parks and Recreation Dept, not a club. The AMC charges for staying at some of their designated camping and lodging facilities in heavily visited site, as does the Vermont AT club but there is nothing mandatory about staying in any of these. My experience is again as I stated earlier, fees appear when extreme over usage creates costs above and beyond available funding and or dues. I don't think anyones getting rich over them.
Technically speaking, if one chooses to hike on the AT in WMNF, to park their car at the trailhead, even if they use a different trail to get to the AT, they have to pay a fee.
Overnight backcountry use, in general, has steadily gone down over the years. "Done in a day activities" are what is popular. Car camping spiked a little bit in the recession, but expect it to decline again as the economy improves.
"Likewise, the number of backcountry campers in our national parks has fallen by nearly 30 percent since 1979."
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/07/decline-of-backpacking.html
(The original NPS link from where the quote is from is missing it appears)
Stats from said report in graph form:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Onh1Hza6FkE/UBUiR_GXxLI/AAAAAAAAC4Y/aKP-FcYCVVE/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-07-29+at+12.44.21+PM.png
That's an interesting chart! Since thru hiking numbers seem to be going up, does it follow that back country use declines must be due to fewer weekend/short trips?
That's an interesting chart! Since thru hiking numbers seem to be going up, does it follow that back country use declines must be due to fewer weekend/short trips?
I'd say so. Americans work more, recreate less (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93604) and have crammed calendars when they do recreate. Spending s a whole night without an iPhone, work e-mail and logging in to check on the project? Ain't gonna happen.... :)
Americans, esp in the so-called professional classes, don't work in the office as much as are checking work email, responding to issues on weekends and definitely blur the work-life balance more so than in the past.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/technology-is-blurring-the-line-between-work-and-play/article8412565/
So...less time to get out in the woods.
People who thru-hike or section hike are a definite minority in terms of backcountry use.
Prime Time
02-19-2014, 19:23
Technically speaking, if one chooses to hike on the AT in WMNF, to park their car at the trailhead, even if they use a different trail to get to the AT, they have to pay a fee.
Actually there are no fees required at any of the principal trail heads to the AT which are Glenncliff, Franconia Notch, Crawford Notch, Pinkham Notch, and Gorham. I'm not sure about Knisman Notch. There are parking fees at many other WMNF trailheads, but not these.
capehiker
02-19-2014, 20:11
When I lived in NH, I remember paying to park at Pinkham for the weekend. Circa 2001-2004.
Prime Time
02-19-2014, 20:27
When I lived in NH, I remember paying to park at Pinkham for the weekend. Circa 2001-2004.
Not at the AMC Joe Dodge Center, at least I've never paid to park there in the the 20 years or so that i've used it.
Pedaling Fool
02-20-2014, 09:42
That's an interesting chart! Since thru hiking numbers seem to be going up, does it follow that back country use declines must be due to fewer weekend/short trips?I'm guessing here, but I think the use of backcountry sites and hiking can't be viewed in the same light. Many people that do a thru-hike (regardless of in one trip or via sections) are sort of on a mission. However, many of those same people would not really be attracted to backcountry camping trips.
I think the people that hike long-distance trails see themselves as on a journey, whereas camping or spending time in the backcountry is just not the same.
I don't know what the future of thru/section hikes are, but feel pretty confident that use of backcountry sites will continue to shrink.
SunnyWalker
02-20-2014, 10:01
In lots of parks there are no fees for camping out in the "back country". If one uses a campground that is established with running water, toliets, etc., one may have to pay fees. In Nat'l parks one may pay an entry fee but no fee for camping if you are in the "backcountry" doing your camping. I am basing this off of two Nat'l parks I have been in lately.
I don't know what the future of thru/section hikes are, but feel pretty confident that use of backcountry sites will continue to shrink.
The real question is whether this is a good or bad trend. Personally, I'm in favor of seeing fewer people when I'm out backpacking. But of course, at some point, it becomes such a small number that it's just that much easier to say "ah, let's just pave it all, nobody will care."
marti038
02-20-2014, 10:02
Sounds to me like further evidence that a growing portion of the US population would rather sit in front of the moving picture box than get outdoors and do something...oh, I don't know...challenging?
To be fair, the baby boomers are aging and many, not all, were more apt to go for a hike in the 70s and 80s than they are today. I still think the trend is mostly due to a growing lack of interest in the outdoors by many Americans. We have so many more things to distract us now.
Many miles of trails on National Forest lands in NC and VA have vanished due to light use and no maintenance over the past several decades. Lack of funding for the upkeep of both fire roads and trails preceded the relatively newer fees I am seeing. When I was coming up maybe ten percent of the people I knew used the backcountry regularly. Among my teenagers cohort, today's percentage seems much smaller. Anecdotal at best, but it seems that while AT use may be increasing, overall real backcountry use would be down with or without fees. That said, the existence of new access fees are not going to help turn the trend around.
The real question is whether this is a good or bad trend. Personally, I'm in favor of seeing fewer people when I'm out backpacking. But of course, at some point, it becomes such a small number that it's just that much easier to say "ah, let's just pave it all, nobody will care."
I'd say it is a bad trend overall. Trails will go into disrepair. Access will be even less. Less protection in the long run.
If people aren't emotionally invested into a place, is there a reason for most people to protect it?
Sounds to me like further evidence that a growing portion of the US population would rather sit in front of the moving picture box than get outdoors and do something...oh, I don't know...challenging?
That and "done in a day" activities are the more popular outdoor options. Get in a good hike/climb/skin/mt bike ride, be back in time for the next social obligation. And still have time to check up on the work e-mail and respond to any "issues".
So it goes.
There will come a time when satellite connectivity becomes affordable for the masses and email/internet will be available on satellite connected "super smart phones" at which point there won't be much of an excuse to not be in the backcountry even for those who want to stay "connected". As someone who doesn't even own a regular smart phone, being "connected" all the time seems rather pointless and what I like to get away from. I have carried a Spot but that isn't keeping me connected, just keeping others in the loop on my whereabouts.
Tuckahoe
02-20-2014, 11:13
I realize the focus of this discussion is on backcountry camping permits, but I think that putting it in a greater context might give another perspective.
I would love to compare the graph above with one focused on heritage tourism -- ie visits to historic sites and museums, historic reenactment, national parks and hertiage sites. I would bet that the same trends shown in the graph above would also be reflected in similar visitation figures for historic and heritage sites.
Simply when times are good and patriotic feelings are running high, folks get out to see the country. To see what I mean compare these dates, to the ups and downs of the graph --
1975-1983 Bicentennial of the Revolution and American Revolution.
Early 80s Iran Hostage Crisis, Bombing of Marine Barracks in Lebanon, Recession.
Late 80s Reagan's 2nd term, 1984 LA Olympics, Conflict with Libya, Bicentennial of the American Constitution, 125th Anniversary American Civil War, 50th Anniversary of the start of WW2.
1990 20th Anniversary of Earth Day, Collapse of Communism and Fall of the Iron Curtain, Ken Burn's The Civil War, Start of the Persian Gulf War.
1991 End of the 125th Anniversary of the Civil War, Victory in the Gulf War, 50th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor.
1994 50th Anniversary of Operation Overloard/D-Day
1998 Stevel Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan
2001 September 11, Steven Spielberg's Band of Brothers
2002 DC Sniper
Early 2000s Afghan and Iraq Wars, Recession
After working in museum education for the last 20 years, in can tell you that seemingly unimportant events can really impact visitation and the reasons that folks travel. It was amazing how many people got out at hit parks and sites simply because of a Film like Saving Private Ryan or The Civil War. And in turn how much it seemed the DC sniper just let the air out.
I also think that Mags is spot on with the "done in a day" activities.
Some other random thoughts as well. Travel and attitudes towards travel have changed. I think that when most of us were kids driving and camping were as much fun getting to the vacation locations. I can remember my family's 1979 trip cross country from Virginia to Tn, IL, and Washington, and back, in a VW pop-up camper and staying at all sorts of KOA and National Park camp grounds. Who travels cross country and camps as part of a vacation anymore?
I have noticed that many of the commercial campmgrounds that we stayed at when I was a kid are now RV parks.
How many of us remember the picnic waysides along highways? They are not there anymore.
And one last thought, I get the vibe when talking to folks today that any sort of camping, hiking, and outdoor activities are for Boy Scouts, Preppers and Survivalists.
Sierra2015
02-20-2014, 11:43
Overnight backcountry use, in general, has steadily gone down over the years. "Done in a day activities" are what is popular. Car camping spiked a little bit in the recession, but expect it to decline again as the economy improves.
"Likewise, the number of backcountry campers in our national parks has fallen by nearly 30 percent since 1979."
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/07/decline-of-backpacking.html
(The original NPS link from where the quote is from is missing it appears)
Stats from said report in graph form:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Onh1Hza6FkE/UBUiR_GXxLI/AAAAAAAAC4Y/aKP-FcYCVVE/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-07-29+at+12.44.21+PM.png
What is the world was going on between 83 and 93?? That's such a big drop!
Different Socks
02-20-2014, 11:51
Actually there are no fees required at any of the principal trail heads to the AT which are Glenncliff, Franconia Notch, Crawford Notch, Pinkham Notch, and Gorham. I'm not sure about Knisman Notch. There are parking fees at many other WMNF trailheads, but not these.
Been awhile since I lived out that way, and a few years since I hiked there so thanks for the heads up. Still it's not nice that they charge you to park at any trailhead, any where!
What is the world was going on between 83 and 93?? That's such a big drop!
There were a couple of recessions right around that time... though I would have thought that would have added to trail use, not taken away from it.
What is the world was going on between 83 and 93?? That's such a big drop!
This is just a guess....
But the baby boomer generation who made backpacking so popular in the 1960s and 1970s were now in their 30s and 40s in the early 1980s to mid 1990s.
Prime time for starting/raising families and establishing a career. (Google the show "Thirty-something" and the movie "The Big Chill")
By the mid90s there may have been a blip as free time was a bit more avail again. The kids were teens or even in college, the careers were established. Time to backpack and camp a bit more like they used to.
I don't think it is any coincidence, though, the the decline again starts about the time that people really started to get online in a big way. And I can't emphasize enough how technology is blurring the line between work, play and leisure time.
Twenty years ago, a mid-level manager may have stuck around a bit longer in the office than a grunt like me. But would otherwise be free on weekends and evenings.
Now? The same mid-level manager is on their iPhone or work issued laptop even on weekends keeping on top of things (or at least APPEARING to :) ). Even the more ambitious grunts do this too.
So, even less incentive to be off the grid
http://www.telegram.com/article/20130608/NEWS/106089934/1116
"Whether it’s with a smartphone, a tablet or home computer, a recent survey by Opinion Matters on behalf of GFI Software found that more than four out of five employees of small-or medium-size businesses checked work email on weekends. Nearly six out of 10 kept up on vacation. "
re: Heritage parks and recession
Interesting thoughts as well. The two may be related in the sense that if you are worried about your job, you don't take off much. And heritage parks go with the boost in patriotism and "done in a day" motif for the most part
re: Survivalists
Never thought of that angle. Probably a lot of negative connotation now to people who "go off the grid" even if they check their phone on a daily basis but aren't connected 24/7 like many people. Are you some kind of survivalist nut???? Very good point.
Sierra2015
02-20-2014, 13:09
There were a couple of recessions right around that time... though I would have thought that would have added to trail use, not taken away from it.
Wasn't there an economic boom in the 1980s? The stock market went through the roof and the real estate market ballooned out.
I dunno for sure. Lol. I wasn't alive for most of the 80s.
I googled and it came back with how the recession ended in 82.
Maybe the 80s were just a super materialistic time.
In the eighties I and my extended family were frequently in USFS back country for weekend trips. However, since we did not have to register or pay a fee, no one now knows we were ever there.
Wasn't there an economic boom in the 1980s? The stock market went through the roof and the real estate market ballooned out.
I dunno for sure. Lol. I wasn't alive for most of the 80s.
I googled and it came back with how the recession ended in 82.
Maybe the 80s were just a super materialistic time.
Late 70's to early 80's was pretty bad. things turned around quickly by the mid 80's though
Kerosene
02-20-2014, 13:35
Maybe the 80s were just a super materialistic time.Yep. Interest rates were sky-high through at least '85 also. As a boomer, I graduated from college in '79, started a career, got my MBA, bought a house, and had a child in '90. Whereas I probably backpacked 1,000 miles in the '70s, I had all of one 100-mile backpacking trip throughout the 80's and 90's.
Drybones
02-20-2014, 13:47
Overnight backcountry use, in general, has steadily gone down over the years. "Done in a day activities" are what is popular. Car camping spiked a little bit in the recession, but expect it to decline again as the economy improves.
"Likewise, the number of backcountry campers in our national parks has fallen by nearly 30 percent since 1979."
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/07/decline-of-backpacking.html
(The original NPS link from where the quote is from is missing it appears)
Stats from said report in graph form:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Onh1Hza6FkE/UBUiR_GXxLI/AAAAAAAAC4Y/aKP-FcYCVVE/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-07-29+at+12.44.21+PM.png
Good info, I like graphs, they make it pretty easy to understand. The decline may be attributed to the wussification of the younger generation and this country in general.
Drybones
02-20-2014, 13:51
Wasn't there an economic boom in the 1980s? The stock market went through the roof and the real estate market ballooned out.
I dunno for sure. Lol. I wasn't alive for most of the 80s.
I googled and it came back with how the recession ended in 82.
Maybe the 80s were just a super materialistic time.
It was a mixed blessing back then, mortgage rates were 12%, but, I had CD's that paid 10%.
4eyedbuzzard
02-20-2014, 14:25
There seems to be a loose correlation with US birth rates (and other factors) which peaked in 1957 at 4.3 million but fell to 3.1 million by 1973 before rebounding to around 4 million in 1989 where they have remained fairly steady since. But it's just a loose correlation and more on the decline side. I think if you look at some of the ideas Mags, Tuckahoe and others noted along with age, geographic and demographics trends there is likely a stronger correlation to be found. But there is a possible issue of how accurate the usage data is - how was it compiled, was the process consistent across the years, etc. Possible GIGO issue. Confirming the downward trend though are the retailers and manufacturers, who definitely know what gear is being sold and what the market trends are, which seems to be more DIAD (done in a day).
Interesting topic.
I just want to hike the CDT before somebody writes a NYT bestseller about it.
It definitely seems to me that thru hiking crowds are getting bigger everywhere.
Sierra2015
02-20-2014, 15:12
... Did things get deleted?
show me the monkey
02-20-2014, 15:43
Not sure that # of thru-hikers over the years correlate to this chart and some of the other things discussed. The number of hikers rose steadily with definite "spikes" after certain mainstream trail-related events. For example: in 1987 National Geographic published an article on the trail and thru-hiking and we saw a noticible jump in numbers. In late 1995 there was "Trailside", a TV show on PBS that focused on thru-hiking for a couple episodes and we saw a jump in 1996. Not long after that "A Walk in The Woods" was published and another jump...
TConfirming the downward trend though are the retailers and manufacturers, who definitely know what gear is being sold and what the market trends are, which seems to be more DIAD (done in a day).
Interesting topic.
Indeed. Money talks. If there were a huge upsurge in backpacking, the gear and clothing sold would reflect it as such.
But more mountain bikes, climbing gear and "lifestyle clothing" is sold than anything at outfitters.
Manufacturers want to make a buck after all. They will make what the market demands.
As for the "wussification of America". I call shenanigans. Going out into the backcountry is not an UberWilderness Person challenge. Heck if that was true, people would not rock climb or mountain bike as much. Arguably more technically challenging and less "wussy" than backpacking (I don't agree with that point either)...
I honestly and truly think that we live in a growing culture of connectivity. And to be away from said connectivity is perceived to impact family, personal and professional life.
And yeah, I think this topic is interesting, too. More interesting than the latest discussion of what knife to bring or how effective is a Sawyer Squeeze Filter. :) Backcountry use and access is not as "sexy" as the latest gear but is far more important IMO.
re: Did things get deleted?
Yes. A moderator (not me in this case) removed the overtly political discussion
re: Number of thru-hikers
I am sure there is some graph on some blog. :) But thru-hikers of ANY of the long trails are blip compared to overall use. Up to 3 million people the Appalachian Trail in some form (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about-the-trail). How many thru-hikers are there? How many are on the AT for two weeks? Even if the number is inflated due to multiple users being counted more than once, I am sure it vastly outnumbers the amount of LD hikers out there (we'll call a long distance hike two weeks for this purpose).
show me the monkey
02-20-2014, 16:03
re: Number of thru-hikers
I am sure there is some graph on some blog. :) But thru-hikers of ANY of the long trails are blip compared to overall use. Up to 3 million people the Appalachian Trail in some form (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about-the-trail). How many thru-hikers are there? How many are on the AT for two weeks? Even if the number is inflated due to multiple users being counted more than once, I am sure it vastly outnumbers the amount of LD hikers out there (we'll call a long distance hike two weeks for this purpose).
Let me clarify... the number of thru hikers based on completed thru hikes reported to the ATC that year.
Wussification?
What about "domestication"? I think this goes along the lines of increased connectivity...increased dependence on "modern comforts" and rejection of anything counter to that.
"you want me to what?!? sleep on the ground, OUTSIDE!!! without my i[thing]? You're nuts man."
lonehiker
02-20-2014, 19:03
Didn't read each post but I think there is a direct correlation to decreased outdoor anything to the advent of video games. When we were young, and I'm not that old, we were outside "playing" the majority of the time. We didn't come inside until time to eat. Now, you don't see kids playing in neighborhoods as you once did. You grow up indoors, why would your behavior change as you get older? They have progressed from video games to all this social media stuff.
Prime Time
02-20-2014, 19:28
I for one question the data in the graph. A 40% drop followed right away by a 40% increase in a decade doesn't make sense. Data may have been lost or the collection method may have changed for a time. I don't know, it just doesn't make any sense. If you draw a line straight from start point to end point of the trough, the graph makes perfect sense. A slow steady decline that could be due to 2 factors. Declining numbers of people in their prime hiking years (baby boom drop off) and young adult obesity/couch potato syndrome, etc.
Good point, LoneHiker:
http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/excerpt/
Didn't read each post but I think there is a direct correlation to decreased outdoor anything to the advent of video games. When we were young, and I'm not that old, we were outside "playing" the majority of the time. We didn't come inside until time to eat. Now, you don't see kids playing in neighborhoods as you once did. You grow up indoors, why would your behavior change as you get older? They have progressed from video games to all this social media stuff.
Growing up in the 1980s, we had arcades. Had to bike or walk there and pretty soon we were all out of quarters and went to play outside. Now every kid has an iPad or x box and never goes outside. Yeah, I realize this makes me sound old...
We can question the data itself..but i think the overall point is this: People are spending less time on overnight outdoor activities.
Some blame video games, some blame connectivity, some blame that we are not John Wayne types anymore, others our busy schedules and demands, etc.
But, it is obvious backcountry use is declining over all. And in twenty years, the backcountry experience will be very different for better or worse.
BUMP. I don't want to clog up the PCT thread :)
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/07/decline-of-backpacking.html
The NPS study it links to is, alas, gone.
"Likewise, the number of backcountry campers in our national parks has fallen by nearly 30 percent since 1979."
Read the rest of the thread and google if still curious.
So to our friends who live near the very famous Appalachian Trail, I would say that is aberration. The AT is very famous and attracts people who read Wild, Lost in the Woods, etc who want to hike a famous trail.
In the mean time, backcountry use has overall dropped by nearly a third in a generation.
And, with the money talks theme, look at Steven B's comment on that article
"This trend has been with us for some time. I worked part time for the outdoor, hiking, camping store Recreational Equipment Incorporated, (REI.com) about 13 years ago and I learned this drop off in off-road camping and visitations was the subject of some discussion amongst the marketing people at the company. Even then they knew the trend was away from backpacking and towards day trips and perhaps car camping trips and this was bothersome since REI was into more of the traditional mountaineering sports. There was talk of picking up more family camping gear, more snow sports, more jogging and other fitness related gear, while easing up a bit on the hard core backpacking stuff."
Found it!
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/AbstractsAndForecasts
Check out the 2012 report. Amazing drop in ovenight stays (not just backpacking) between 1979 and 2012 in NPS units.
Mags, if you stipulate "overnight" campers vs. day hikers, I'm sure the data is right. I see few serious backpackers these days but I see lots more day hikers. Trailheads in the Whites are packed most weekends, year-round. Decent winter weekend day, probably a dozen peakbaggers or more on any 4000 footer.
If the peak is 3999 feet it'll probably be deserted.
fiddlehead
03-21-2014, 20:46
Call me selfish, but I certainly prefer the lower numbers.
I don't want to see hordes of people on any hiking I do.
I don't think I could enjoy an AT hike again.
Unless it was a SOBO.
But fortunately, there are plenty of trails out there.
Odd Man Out
03-21-2014, 22:40
Based on the amount of floor space I've seen dedicated at local outfitters, everyone is kayaking and paddle boarding these days.
I think the inherent problem with backpackers is they don't spend much money so they have little leverage in the economy.
Think about it. What a sucky buisness model it is where your job is to sell as little as possible to people whose daily expenses are zero when they doing their thing.
Different Socks
03-21-2014, 23:51
In lots of parks there are no fees for camping out in the "back country". If one uses a campground that is established with running water, toliets, etc., one may have to pay fees. In Nat'l parks one may pay an entry fee but no fee for camping if you are in the "backcountry" doing your camping. I am basing this off of two Nat'l parks I have been in lately.
Sunny, ya gotta try the experience at the Grand Canyon. First ya pay to get in, then pay for a backcountry permit, then pay for each night of use for each person. The cost of 2--3 people entering the park and going into the backcountry for 4 nights is more than the cost of a family of 4 entering the park and staying at a campground!! I am sorry but that is ridiculous considering the fact that the family of 4 has toilets, piped water, fire rings, trash bins and other things. Backcountry sites have just a site and maybe a toilet and only possibly a nearby water source!!!
What about the cost now to travel to these destinations? My income has unfortunately declined over the past few years and my buying power has declined steadily. With gas at almost $4 a gallon, a trip to the backcountry is a more expensive proposition than ever before.
And I have always driven smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.
Couple the increased cost of transportation with rising prices of equipment and provisions and it is tough for many of us to get out like we want to.
And then there is the "gamification" of our youth and low emphasis on being a walking culture. In my mind it adds up to lower use of our wilderness. If one cannot drive to see the vista or waterfall, one may not put out the effort to see same.
futureatwalker
03-22-2014, 04:27
Sunny, ya gotta try the experience at the Grand Canyon. First ya pay to get in, then pay for a backcountry permit, then pay for each night of use for each person. The cost of 2--3 people entering the park and going into the backcountry for 4 nights is more than the cost of a family of 4 entering the park and staying at a campground!!
Perhaps, but it's is definitely worth it. The first night I camped on the rim and I think it was $30 or so a night at the campground. The next nights were down in the canyon. The backcountry permit fee was $10 (can't remember) and then $5 a night per person. No fires down there, but just an amazing experience.
I realize the focus of this discussion is on backcountry camping permits, but I think that putting it in a greater context might give another perspective.
I would love to compare the graph above with one focused on heritage tourism -- ie visits to historic sites and museums, historic reenactment, national parks and hertiage sites. I would bet that the same trends shown in the graph above would also be reflected in similar visitation figures for historic and heritage sites.
Simply when times are good and patriotic feelings are running high, folks get out to see the country. To see what I mean compare these dates, to the ups and downs of the graph --
1975-1983 Bicentennial of the Revolution and American Revolution.
Early 80s Iran Hostage Crisis, Bombing of Marine Barracks in Lebanon, Recession.
Late 80s Reagan's 2nd term, 1984 LA Olympics, Conflict with Libya, Bicentennial of the American Constitution, 125th Anniversary American Civil War, 50th Anniversary of the start of WW2.
1990 20th Anniversary of Earth Day, Collapse of Communism and Fall of the Iron Curtain, Ken Burn's The Civil War, Start of the Persian Gulf War.
1991 End of the 125th Anniversary of the Civil War, Victory in the Gulf War, 50th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor.
1994 50th Anniversary of Operation Overloard/D-Day
1998 Stevel Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan
2001 September 11, Steven Spielberg's Band of Brothers
2002 DC Sniper
Early 2000s Afghan and Iraq Wars, Recession
After working in museum education for the last 20 years, in can tell you that seemingly unimportant events can really impact visitation and the reasons that folks travel. It was amazing how many people got out at hit parks and sites simply because of a Film like Saving Private Ryan or The Civil War. And in turn how much it seemed the DC sniper just let the air out.
I also think that Mags is spot on with the "done in a day" activities.
Some other random thoughts as well. Travel and attitudes towards travel have changed. I think that when most of us were kids driving and camping were as much fun getting to the vacation locations. I can remember my family's 1979 trip cross country from Virginia to Tn, IL, and Washington, and back, in a VW pop-up camper and staying at all sorts of KOA and National Park camp grounds. Who travels cross country and camps as part of a vacation anymore?
I have noticed that many of the commercial campmgrounds that we stayed at when I was a kid are now RV parks.
How many of us remember the picnic waysides along highways? They are not there anymore.
And one last thought, I get the vibe when talking to folks today that any sort of camping, hiking, and outdoor activities are for Boy Scouts, Preppers and Survivalists.
YOU hit the bulls eye! YOu know your stuff! I have been saying and will repeat After the movie bill Bryson hits next year I fully expect to see 10,000 people hit the AT, no joke, You just provided the proof! Its all good. I hiked 18 miles last week on the AT in Maryland and fully expected to see nobody. I ran into over 80 overnighters The shelter Ed Garvey was full and there were 10 tents within sight, the Dalgreen campsite had over 50 campers, I was surprised.
Sunny, ya gotta try the experience at the Grand Canyon. First ya pay to get in, then pay for a backcountry permit, then pay for each night of use for each person. The cost of 2--3 people entering the park and going into the backcountry for 4 nights is more than the cost of a family of 4 entering the park and staying at a campground!! I am sorry but that is ridiculous considering the fact that the family of 4 has toilets, piped water, fire rings, trash bins and other things. Backcountry sites have just a site and maybe a toilet and only possibly a nearby water source!!! Yep they spend a lot of money rescuing the ill prepared and we all pay the price. Perhaps New Hampshire has the better idea, offer insurance and that will defray the cost of rescue, and if you do not have it YOU pay for your own rescue.
What we need is a new JOHN DENVER!!!!
Call me selfish, but I certainly prefer the lower numbers.
I don't want to see hordes of people on any hiking I do.
I don't think I could enjoy an AT hike again.
Unless it was a SOBO.
But fortunately, there are plenty of trails out there.
I think the world would be a better place if more folks spent more quality time in the woods. (Or simply, to have the time and the means to do so.) From the POV of civilization as a whole, I see the declining numbers as not a good thing. We can't get by dissing nature for very long.