View Full Version : Is Backpacking Dying Off ?
Since many people here are outdoors as often as they can be, this seems like a great place to ask. Have any of you encountered or noticed less and less people out hiking multiple-day trips?
I was reading an article that said contemporary trends in the outdoors seem to be geared more toward day hikes than week-long excursions. Being in Ohio (though we have some awesome trails and plenty of great parks) I don't believe I could get as accurate of a measure as someone from, oh say, Georgia, California, Arizona, Colorado, or even the whole New England area. There's just too many states or places to name them all. But I doubt many people makes plans to travel here just for the hiking.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but it's reinforced by the experts who compile outdoor recreation statistics. Chris Doyle, executive director of the Adventure Travel Trade Association, describes "a well-known trend" in outdoor gear sales, wherein day packs take an increasing share of the pack market while technical overnight packs are a declining percentage of total sales. "The same is true for heavy, extended-trip boots versus light boots," says Doyle. "This is all part of a trend towards 'Done in a day' that reflects consumers' continued interest in outdoor adventures, but they prefer to be in their own bed or another comfortable spot (hotel or lodge) at night."
Source: https://www.hcn.org/issues/46.12/the-death-of-backpacking
I love being outdoors, hiking, exploring, practicing bushcraft skills (that I'm thankful I rarely need), and just getting away from the great neon distraction. I realize that puts me in a minority population for hobbyist, but I have trouble believing that everyone is so caught up in smartphones and creature comforts that less and less people are getting out for anything more than day trips.
After so many years of humanity trying so hard to avoid the perils of the wild and striving for comfort and security, it's no wonder that vagabonds, tramps, and even basic outdoor enthusiasts have always been at the fringes of society. But could it really be that long-term experiences of the true wonders, challenges, and serenity of the outdoors is actually becoming a fading pastime?
I really hope not, because as interest wanes, so too does care and concern.
MuddyWaters
08-13-2015, 20:05
No
Exactly the opposite
It is rapidly increasing on many desireable long trails
Here is jmt permit trend
31662
short answer, I don't think so. Day hiking certainly involves far more people that does backpacking and it has been ever thus. But more than ever are attempting AT thru hikes and many are doing section hikes. A backpacking vacation is generally far cheaper than the standard stay in hotel or resort vacation. Ill be interested to see what others say on this.
kayak karl
08-13-2015, 20:11
NO............
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Walkintom
08-13-2015, 20:16
It's increasing. I did market research last year and it's a growing market segment.
BirdBrain
08-13-2015, 20:20
It is decreasing because the pack weights are becoming lighter. :p
Ya, interest and participation are increasing.
MuddyWaters
08-13-2015, 20:29
I suggest social media and the interweb is playing a big part.
Its easier to hear about, learn about, and get the confidence to go and do. Back in the day, if you didnt live near an outdoor oriented area, you wouldnt have a clue as to how to get involved in this kind of thing.
mtnkngxt
08-13-2015, 20:30
I think you're approaching a climax of culture. Some people will continue on with being attached to technology and simple easy life, while others are fighting tooth and nail to revive homesteading, being outdoors, learning trades, and honing their skills and themselves.
There is such thing as being too connected, and those millennials who really enjoy and pursue a relationship with the outdoors will slowly grow in numbers.
Sarcasm the elf
08-13-2015, 20:38
I remember a segment on The Trail Show podcast where they discussed these trends, I believe they said that backpacking in general was seeing a decrease in popularity, however thru hiking and long distance hiking were seeing a surge in participation.
and just getting away from the great neon distraction.
I sure could use a vacation from this three ring circus sideshow.
I suggest social media and the interweb is playing a big part.
Its easier to hear about, learn about, and get the confidence to go and do. Back in the day, if you didnt live near an outdoor oriented area, you wouldnt have a clue as to how to get involved in this kind of thing.
I think this is a big difference now. I grew up bushcrafting before that was a word. But didn't know anyone who ever backpacked. I always wanted to but rural Mississippi in the 80's was not a backpacking center.
Thru hiking has some appeal because you complete something big. But trudging through the woods for a few days isn't as romantic.
It's more complex.
National Parks are showing a decrease in visitation (except for foreigners, who sometimes seem to be the main users). And the demographics of nature users is skewed towards older people. So there is something going on here.
Certain générations don't see much to gain getting too far from their computer, their device, and their couch.
garlic08
08-13-2015, 21:30
I just got back from two weeks on the CT and it's pretty crowded (in a good way) out there, with people of all ages. I saw several younger groups on the new Collegiate Loop, which, by the way, I'd recommend for anyone.
Tipi Walter
08-13-2015, 21:47
I have done many backpacking trips and saw no one. In Feb 2006 I pulled a 15 day trip and saw no one. Last year I pulled a 24 day trip and saw no one for 23 of the 24 days. The reason? It's because I mostly backpack in the mountains of East TN. A huge percentage of the population here hates cold weather so they don't come out in winter. They hate a heatwave so they won't be out in summer. They hate rainy weather so won't start a trip in the rain. They certainly seem to hate climbing tough hills with any amt of weight on their backs. They may even hate the natural colors of green and brown.
So I'm left with a wide area of backpackaging on a solo basis with no human interruptions. Plus, they are fixated and enamored with devices and electricity; and drool over the smell of gasoline and become rolling couch potatoes. The greatest percentage of Americans I see (actually hear) are those getting their nature fix while rolling in cars or racing on motorcycles without adequate mufflers.
40 foot RVs are called "camping" and the predominant way for the average human to see nature around here is in a seated position with the no-calorie pursuit of nature. Ergo the rolling couch potato appellation.
I wrote this in a 2014 Trip Report---
"What's amazing is their ability to actually walk the distance from their house to their car! From the front door to the car could be over 30 feet and there's no explaining the gumption, fitness and courage needed to do such a thing. It's like a successful Navy SEAL training evolution and after a couple more house-to-car cycles they'll get the Trident."
Tipi, though, I agree with everything you've said here, after reading your words here and on other websites (and gazing at amazing pictures that you post) I really wouldn't expect you actually would encounter too many people out there (short of discovering some lost civilization, which I fully feel you'd be the one to do.) I'm not sure much of anybody treads where you do, lol.
Please consider that all of the above was typed with a big grin and nothing but the highest admiration, envy, and respect for you. And I've since developed an interest in the BMT because of your posts and pictures. However, I just think you find a way off the beaten path that not many others will ever be able to follow. <<= (Said with utter envy!)
I have not noticed a downward trend in the number of backpackers. The market research as to the sales of heavy multi-day packs and heavy mountaineering type boots is down, but that maybe because of lighter more compressible gear. For instance, I see more trailer runners than hiking boots out there and I hiked for the past two years with what many consider a day pack.
Mags made some posts regarding this topic here. I had some serious questions about details in how the data was accumulated and of arriving at that conclusion. I'm not saying one way or another. I'd just like to know greater details on the data.
gsingjane
08-14-2015, 06:31
I really couldn't comment on overall trends. I do know, though, that one major "feeder program" for outdoor living and activities, Girl Scouts, has pretty much walked away from the field in the past 10 years. It's way too depressing to go into here at length, but basically what's been happening is, national leadership had decided that girls don't really enjoy primitive outdoor activities, and that in any event urban families didn't have an interest in pursuing these things, so the program focus has shifted to a much more academic approach. To the extent camping survives at all, we're now supposed to go "glamping" (gag) or dovetail it with STEM activities, as if being out in nature is insufficient all by itself. Put that together with the sell-off of many, many GS properties (sell the camp, spend the money, 10 years down the line... no camp, no money) and the prognosis for ever recovering an outdoor focus is pretty poor.
I wasn't fortunate to go camping with my family as a kid, and so GS camp was my introduction to the outdoors, and the source of many wonderful memories. I don't think that today's Girl Scouts are finding that same love of nature, sitting inside working on a workbook. I do know there are alternatives for girls now, such as Venturers, but Girl Scouting for sure isn't going to be feeding too many girls into an outdoor lifestyle.
Jane
I really couldn't comment on overall trends. I do know, though, that one major "feeder program" for outdoor living and activities, Girl Scouts, has pretty much walked away from the field in the past 10 years. It's way too depressing to go into here at length, but basically what's been happening is, national leadership had decided that girls don't really enjoy primitive outdoor activities, and that in any event urban families didn't have an interest in pursuing these things, so the program focus has shifted to a much more academic approach. To the extent camping survives at all, we're now supposed to go "glamping" (gag) or dovetail it with STEM activities, as if being out in nature is insufficient all by itself. Put that together with the sell-off of many, many GS properties (sell the camp, spend the money, 10 years down the line... no camp, no money) and the prognosis for ever recovering an outdoor focus is pretty poor.
I wasn't fortunate to go camping with my family as a kid, and so GS camp was my introduction to the outdoors, and the source of many wonderful memories. I don't think that today's Girl Scouts are finding that same love of nature, sitting inside working on a workbook. I do know there are alternatives for girls now, such as Venturers, but Girl Scouting for sure isn't going to be feeding too many girls into an outdoor lifestyle.
Jane
Well, that's sobering to wake up to this morning. And I'm really sorry to hear about it. How did the word Scout even survive for the organization?
I don't have a daughter so I never kept up with the state of that organization, but if I did, that's one of the many things I would have wanted to introduce her to. Thankfully, there are girls and women out there (making big names and accomplishments in the outdoors) for young girls to see and aspire to - though, I understand that's hardly the same. Wow... That's just sad (in every sense of the word.)
I need more coffee.
Starchild
08-14-2015, 07:30
As I see it, it is evolving back to what it once was and increasing in this new way, not decreasing. Old style backpacking going down, new style (which really is the old old style) going way up.
There is a wonderful convergence happening with technology, people (society) and nature, this was our ancient and sacred connection with Mother Earth that is being reformed and reintroduced. We didn't live isolated from nature, or each other, we were part of both and our technology (tools and toys) we had with us.
The old backpacking trend has historically been for people to come into nature to get away from society and this form of escape from society and technology and has been handed down generation to generation through hiking clubs and others who ventured out. For many decades this was the main intro one had to nature.
The number has been proportionally very low and recently the hiking clubs failed reaching the next generation. Thus the old way is losing numbers, but for people who need to escape this style will never die out, there will always be those people who chose this type of experience, just it will no longer be the norm.
The new trend is that society is coming back into nature in huge numbers, not to escape life, but to live with it, to include nature as part of their normal lives, as we also include technology as part of our normal lives, and to have them blend synergisticly. The internet and the convergence of technology (smartphone), and much lighter and more comfortable hiking and backpacking gear has opened up the wilds for the 'children of the earth' (all of us) to come and play and they are coming, and mother nature welcomes her children back.
The greater use of the internet and social media, along with the growth of interest in books and movies will hit a critical mass, if it has not already, where this trend will be self sustaining, the draw of people to nature will be the shear numbers of people already drawn, and sharing their experiences and lives with others.
With the different type of experience sought between the new and old groups, a different style of backpacking is to be expected. Backpacking may involve more travel through towns along the way, not seek out places of solitude but where they can find like minded people at powerful places of great beauty.
Majortrauma
08-14-2015, 07:39
If what I saw in Dolly Sods and SNP the past month is any indication backpacking is not dieing off. Lots of backpackers, not day hikers.
Tipi Walter
08-14-2015, 08:16
As I see it, it is evolving back to what it once was and increasing in this new way, not decreasing. Old style backpacking going down, new style (which really is the old old style) going way up.
There is a wonderful convergence happening with technology, people (society) and nature, this was our ancient and sacred connection with Mother Earth that is being reformed and reintroduced. We didn't live isolated from nature, or each other, we were part of both and our technology (tools and toys) we had with us.
The old backpacking trend has historically been for people to come into nature to get away from society and this form of escape from society and technology and has been handed down generation to generation through hiking clubs and others who ventured out. For many decades this was the main intro one had to nature.
The number has been proportionally very low and recently the hiking clubs failed reaching the next generation. Thus the old way is losing numbers, but for people who need to escape this style will never die out, there will always be those people who chose this type of experience, just it will no longer be the norm.
The new trend is that society is coming back into nature in huge numbers, not to escape life, but to live with it, to include nature as part of their normal lives, as we also include technology as part of our normal lives, and to have them blend synergisticly. The internet and the convergence of technology (smartphone), and much lighter and more comfortable hiking and backpacking gear has opened up the wilds for the 'children of the earth' (all of us) to come and play and they are coming, and mother nature welcomes her children back.
The greater use of the internet and social media, along with the growth of interest in books and movies will hit a critical mass, if it has not already, where this trend will be self sustaining, the draw of people to nature will be the shear numbers of people already drawn, and sharing their experiences and lives with others.
With the different type of experience sought between the new and old groups, a different style of backpacking is to be expected. Backpacking may involve more travel through towns along the way, not seek out places of solitude but where they can find like minded people at powerful places of great beauty.
This is a very strange post even though I think I get the gist of it. It is mind-blowingly optimistic and almost expressed in covert terms especially paragraph 4---who knows what you're talking about??---although you almost explain it in paragraph 6 with your "backpacking may involve more travel through towns . . "---a very depressing trend in my opinion.
Your quote: "The internet and the convergence of technology . . . has opened up the wilds for the 'children of the earth (all of us) to come and play and they are coming, and mother nature welcomes her children back." All I can think of is this quote from Edward Abbey---
"Once upon a time there was a continent covered with beautiful pristine wilderness, where giant trees towered over lush mountainsides and rivers ran wild and free through deserts, where raptors soared and beavers labored at their pursuits and people lived in harmony with wild nature, accomplishing every task they needed to accomplish on a dailv basis using only stones, bones and wood, walking gently on the Earth. Then came the explorers, conquerors, missionaries, soldiers, merchants and immigrants with their advanced technology, guns, and government. The wild life that had existed for millennia started dying, killed by a disease brought by alien versions of progress, arrogant visions of manifest destiny and a runaway utilitarian science.
"In just 500 years, almost all the giant trees have been clear-cut and chemicals now poison the rivers; the eagle has faced extinction and the beaver's work has been supplanted by the Army Corps of Engineers. And how have the people fared? What one concludes is most likely dependent on how well one is faring economically, emotionally and physically in this competitive technological world and the level of privilege one is afforded by the system. But for those who feel a deep connection to, a love and longing for, the wilderness and the wildness that once was, for the millions now crowded in cities, poor and oppressed, unable to find a clear target for their rage because the system is virtually omnipotent, these people are not faring well. All around us, as a result of human greed and a lack of respect for all life, wild nature and Mother Earth’s creatures are suffering. These beings are the victims of industrial society.
"Cutting the bloody cord, that’s what we feel, the delirious exhilaration of independence, a rebirth backward in time and into primeval liberty, into freedom in the most simple, literal, primitive meaning of the word, the only meaning that really counts. The freedom, for example, to commit murder and get away with it scot-free, with no other burden than the jaunty halo of conscience.
"My God! I’m thinking, what incredible **** we put up with most of our lives--the domestic routine, the stupid and useless and degrading jobs, the insufferable arrogance of elected officials, the crafty cheating and the slimy advertising of the businessmen, the tedious wars in which we kill our buddies instead of our real enemies back home in the capital, the foul, diseased and hideous cities and towns we live in, the constant petty tyranny of the automatic washers, the automobiles and TV machines and telephones-! ah Christ!,... what intolerable garbage and what utterly useless crap we bury ourselves in day by day, while patiently enduring at the same time the creeping strangulation of the clean white collar and the rich but modest four-in-hand garrote!
"Such are my thoughts—you wouldn’t call them thoughts would you?—such are my feelings, a mixture of revulsion and delight, as we float away on the river, leaving behind for a while all that we most heartily and joyfully detest. That’s what the first taste of the wild does to a man, after having been penned up for too long in the city. No wonder the Authorities are so anxious to smother the wilderness under asphalt and reservoirs. They know what they are doing. Play safe. Ski only in a clockwise direction. Let’s all have fun together."
--Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire, 1968
I believe Abbey shows the real interface between wilderness and human technology, and not some revisionist idea of more Americans somehow "synergistically" combining the glories of technology with the glories of nature and wilderness. Unless you want backpackers to stay glued to their GPS devices and screens and phones 24-7 or to fly personal drones for that special gopro nature moment or to twitter out their exact locations hourly. The last forest will fall to make the next silicone chip factory.
Not to go on a Ted Kaczynski rant, but technology is ruining the Southeast wilderness areas where I backpack and nothing but a drastic change will help. The air pollution in the Great Smoggy Mountains National Park is worse than the city of LA. Nonstop overhead jet traffic from the airports of Atlanta and Knoxville and Chattanooga and Asheville kill the silence of the original forest. Screaming racing motorcyclists ruin the mountain stillness with their muffler-less harleys. ATVs want to invade the mountain trails and will do so unless stopped.
I see no trend of this getting better. In fact, by 2050 the US will have around 440 million people---not a good number for wilderness areas. Heck, the Grand Canyon already has around 60,000 tourist helicopter flights yearly. Talk about noise pollution.
Phew, sorry for this early morning RANT.
garlic08
08-14-2015, 09:02
I hope this isn't thread drift, but I think bike packing is growing fast. That type of backcountry travel would not show up in sales of traditional backpacking gear. Those folks use pretty much custom-made frame packs and the lightest in cottage-industry gear, and are doing some pretty impressive trips. I saw quite a few on the popular CT. I've met some young men and women on trail-work days and that's all they talk about. By the way, for the greatest part, I've found they are very fine people to share the trail with, and have contributed fairly well to trail construction and maintenance.
SteelCut
08-14-2015, 09:34
I hope this isn't thread drift, but I think bike packing is growing fast. That type of backcountry travel would not show up in sales of traditional backpacking gear. Those folks use pretty much custom-made frame packs and the lightest in cottage-industry gear, and are doing some pretty impressive trips. I saw quite a few on the popular CT. I've met some young men and women on trail-work days and that's all they talk about. By the way, for the greatest part, I've found they are very fine people to share the trail with, and have contributed fairly well to trail construction and maintenance.
This is absolutely true. I'm looking into doing the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (GDMTR) next summer. It's a pretty cool idea of doing a 2800 mile "thru bike" in 2 months or less.... much less time away from home. If you already have a good UL backpacking skills and setup, much of it translates over to bike packing pretty well.
If what I saw in Dolly Sods and SNP the past month is any indication backpacking is not dieing off. Lots of backpackers, not day hikers.
In the past few years, Dolly Sods has turned from a nice, isolated backpacking trip, to almost a freeway full of backpackers. Saw more people there backpacking than I do in Grayson Highlands!
Just Bill
08-14-2015, 11:43
I hope this isn't thread drift, but I think bike packing is growing fast. That type of backcountry travel would not show up in sales of traditional backpacking gear. Those folks use pretty much custom-made frame packs and the lightest in cottage-industry gear, and are doing some pretty impressive trips. I saw quite a few on the popular CT. I've met some young men and women on trail-work days and that's all they talk about. By the way, for the greatest part, I've found they are very fine people to share the trail with, and have contributed fairly well to trail construction and maintenance.
Been getting more into this too, but for a different reason... There are pretty places in illinois but not much "infrastructure" from the standpoint of safe water sources and legal places to camp. It's a bit of a mileage issue really. There are places within state parks to hike, but stringing much more than 15 miles together within a park makes it tough. On the flipside is the 500 mile Grand Illinois Trail, mileage is there in the form of rail to trail style travel but it's meant for bikers, not backpackers.
There are 30+ mile water carries and some creative camping required on most of the trail. In the chicagoland area of the trail- the only safe water sources are typically at a gas station or other business because of pollution. Also, unless you're capable of 30+ mile days, most of the trail is fairly inaccessible for most folks.
Bike packing is proving to be a good solution to the "blank" miles of the trail, as well as making large portions of the trail more enjoyable for a wider audience.
I think if that big prairie trail they are looking at will work out west some type of bikepacking options would put it in reach. Much like my local trails- while the prairie or farmland does have it's charm... walking through a cornfield for 20-30 miles just to link a section and pass through the next state park gets old fast. Hoping on the bike has helped renew my interest in the local trails for sure. For now, I just wear my regular pack.
Heliotrope
08-14-2015, 13:16
This is a very strange post even though I think I get the gist of it. It is mind-blowingly optimistic and almost expressed in covert terms especially paragraph 4---who knows what you're talking about??---although you almost explain it in paragraph 6 with your "backpacking may involve more travel through towns . . "---a very depressing trend in my opinion.
Your quote: "The internet and the convergence of technology . . . has opened up the wilds for the 'children of the earth (all of us) to come and play and they are coming, and mother nature welcomes her children back." All I can think of is this quote from Edward Abbey---
"Once upon a time there was a continent covered with beautiful pristine wilderness, where giant trees towered over lush mountainsides and rivers ran wild and free through deserts, where raptors soared and beavers labored at their pursuits and people lived in harmony with wild nature, accomplishing every task they needed to accomplish on a dailv basis using only stones, bones and wood, walking gently on the Earth. Then came the explorers, conquerors, missionaries, soldiers, merchants and immigrants with their advanced technology, guns, and government. The wild life that had existed for millennia started dying, killed by a disease brought by alien versions of progress, arrogant visions of manifest destiny and a runaway utilitarian science.
"In just 500 years, almost all the giant trees have been clear-cut and chemicals now poison the rivers; the eagle has faced extinction and the beaver's work has been supplanted by the Army Corps of Engineers. And how have the people fared? What one concludes is most likely dependent on how well one is faring economically, emotionally and physically in this competitive technological world and the level of privilege one is afforded by the system. But for those who feel a deep connection to, a love and longing for, the wilderness and the wildness that once was, for the millions now crowded in cities, poor and oppressed, unable to find a clear target for their rage because the system is virtually omnipotent, these people are not faring well. All around us, as a result of human greed and a lack of respect for all life, wild nature and Mother Earth’s creatures are suffering. These beings are the victims of industrial society.
"Cutting the bloody cord, that’s what we feel, the delirious exhilaration of independence, a rebirth backward in time and into primeval liberty, into freedom in the most simple, literal, primitive meaning of the word, the only meaning that really counts. The freedom, for example, to commit murder and get away with it scot-free, with no other burden than the jaunty halo of conscience.
"My God! I’m thinking, what incredible **** we put up with most of our lives--the domestic routine, the stupid and useless and degrading jobs, the insufferable arrogance of elected officials, the crafty cheating and the slimy advertising of the businessmen, the tedious wars in which we kill our buddies instead of our real enemies back home in the capital, the foul, diseased and hideous cities and towns we live in, the constant petty tyranny of the automatic washers, the automobiles and TV machines and telephones-! ah Christ!,... what intolerable garbage and what utterly useless crap we bury ourselves in day by day, while patiently enduring at the same time the creeping strangulation of the clean white collar and the rich but modest four-in-hand garrote!
"Such are my thoughts—you wouldn’t call them thoughts would you?—such are my feelings, a mixture of revulsion and delight, as we float away on the river, leaving behind for a while all that we most heartily and joyfully detest. That’s what the first taste of the wild does to a man, after having been penned up for too long in the city. No wonder the Authorities are so anxious to smother the wilderness under asphalt and reservoirs. They know what they are doing. Play safe. Ski only in a clockwise direction. Let’s all have fun together."
--Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire, 1968
I believe Abbey shows the real interface between wilderness and human technology, and not some revisionist idea of more Americans somehow "synergistically" combining the glories of technology with the glories of nature and wilderness. Unless you want backpackers to stay glued to their GPS devices and screens and phones 24-7 or to fly personal drones for that special gopro nature moment or to twitter out their exact locations hourly. The last forest will fall to make the next silicone chip factory.
Not to go on a Ted Kaczynski rant, but technology is ruining the Southeast wilderness areas where I backpack and nothing but a drastic change will help. The air pollution in the Great Smoggy Mountains National Park is worse than the city of LA. Nonstop overhead jet traffic from the airports of Atlanta and Knoxville and Chattanooga and Asheville kill the silence of the original forest. Screaming racing motorcyclists ruin the mountain stillness with their muffler-less harleys. ATVs want to invade the mountain trails and will do so unless stopped.
I see no trend of this getting better. In fact, by 2050 the US will have around 440 million people---not a good number for wilderness areas. Heck, the Grand Canyon already has around 60,000 tourist helicopter flights yearly. Talk about noise pollution.
Phew, sorry for this early morning RANT.
Seriously huge topic! I am glad I have seen the remote places I have. And want to see much more.. Speaking from my observations alone, it seems there is a growing trend toward the extreme sports and epic adventures. Perhaps more people trying to tackle a large trail as a physical feat and less about being in the vastness of nature and all of its glory. With FKTs being the attention getters rather than the most seen and enjoyed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JohnnySnook
08-14-2015, 14:04
I personally think thats its growing. People are getting tired of the rat race in the cities and want to get outdoors. Not have any facts to back it up but when I talk with other mountain bikers about riding and camping I seem to get positive feedback and interest.
I think the bike packing segment of camping is really growing. Lots of long trails are in the works. On one of the bike packing sites or backpack blogs I read that Z_PACKS is working with some the guys on different tent designs that use the bike as the tent support similar how hikers use their trekking poles. Hikers and bikers are all gram weanies. The more you carry the more you hurt.
For those interested mtbr.com has a really good bike packing forum.
Sorry to get off the main subject.
NPS show overall numbers are done esp when the population increase is factored in (less percentage of people overall). In raw numbers, from 1979 to 2013, the NPS reports two-millions people LESS doing overnight activities. That is including backpacking, camping and backcountry lodges, etc. . From 1979 to 2013, there was a 700k+ person decline in backpacking per NPS figures.
Source (https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Visitation%20Summary%20Report%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year))
Keep in mind, the population in 1979 was 225 million vs 316 million in 2013.
As for long trail numbers going up. Absolutely. But that is a very small minority in overall outdoor use. Where a previous generation may have done the hostel thing in Europe with a railpass, what captures the imagination now are the long hikes for various reasons.
And I have jaundiced view of the long distance hiking scene in the sense of how many of say, AT thru-hikers, spend time outside if it is not a multi-month hike? In other words, it is the culture of the trails/the journey aspect that is alluring. Perhaps more so than the outdoors aspect. In other words, as odd as it may sound, a person who may hike 2000+ miles may not be a consistent backpacker (One and done?)
So is backpacking dying? Naaah. Declining? Absolutely.
More thoughts here if interested...as I wrote it last year. :)
http://www.pmags.com/death-of-backpacking-a-response
Tipi Walter
08-14-2015, 16:17
Speaking from my observations alone, it seems there is a growing trend toward the extreme sports and epic adventures. Perhaps more people trying to tackle a large trail as a physical feat and less about being in the vastness of nature and all of its glory. With FKTs being the attention getters rather than the most seen and enjoyed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for bringing up speed hiking and Fastest Known Times. It's odd that some backpackers drool over Scott Jurek and others but it is what it is. We had a discussion of FKT on BPL.com recently and here's my post and thoughts:
SLOWEST KNOWN TIMES
I see no point in posting FKT accounts as it's a fringe sport in my opinion having little to nothing to do with backpacking. Just because they do it on a recognized backpacking trail like the AT or the JMT means we have to pay attention to them? If they did it on the Blue Ridge Parkway no one would care.
Why encourage fastest known times and the guys who do it? Who cares about setting a record moving quickly thru the woods?
It's crazy in my opinion. It's sort of like saying "I go to church and pray and get communion and have developed a way to do it in 3 minutes instead of the usual one hour". Or: "I have learned thru certain techniques to give my children quality face and play time in much faster allotments so instead of playing catch with Timmy for 2 hours I've shortened it to 5 minutes."
Traveling fast thru wilderness is a real oxymoron---don't buy the hype, newbs!
I'm much more interested in seeing guys pull a 21 mile trail in 7 days and do 3 miles a day while camping of course. SKT---Slowest known time.
Its going up. Good news is that we still have many areas where one can go and see no one.
More thoughts here if interested...as I wrote it last year. :)
http://www.pmags.com/death-of-backpacking-a-response
Ummmmmm... :o
I'm humbled that someone else took notice and raised it as a talking point. And offered some insightful (and well-researched) counter-points.
And, along with the info presented, kudos on the lost art of data attribution. (Even if current web links die, they can almost always be found via The Internet Archive (https://archive.org/web/), folks. Post your sources!)
Mags, if I may make two similar observations:
Unfortunately, if people do not have a vested interested in maintaining backcountry resources, the resources will go away. In our national parks and forests, backcountry patrol rangers are becoming less common. Trail maintenance is going by the way-side. And money for protection of our wild lands may dwindle.
NAILED IT!
and
If there is no interest in the backcountry, who will fight to preserve our wild lands? Do we really want the wilderness experience to be strictly a diorama about the mountains, wildlife and the natural world that is no longer accessible to most?
31666
.
Tipi Walter
08-14-2015, 16:53
Mags says,
"Do we really want the wilderness experience to be strictly a diorama about the mountains, wildlife and the natural world that is no longer accessible to most?"
Great word, diorama. Describes exactly the nature experience a huge percentage of Americans want to have: From a seat on a rolling couch in a vehicle. The forest supervisors and Park officials and Tent Police and backcountry rangers ETC seemingly have done everything in their power to make America's wild lands watchable from inside a metal and glass box while moving.
This is and was a choice made by politicians and superintendents and Mags fear has already come to pass. The main question is: Can we close more forest roads and Park roads and get people walking? Please, can we not make places harder to get to and more inaccessible?
August W.
08-14-2015, 21:10
Sheeezzzzz Tipi..... I'm right there with ya on the whole Slowest Known Times perspective for my own travels but really man, it's crowded enough already! If people want to power walk or speedy hike or do cart wheels on meth through whats left of our semi-wild places just to see how quick they can do it please effin' let them, and don't discourage there haste. Step aside and cheer, give their epic blog a click or two; just let them race thru and hustle back home, and try not to encourage them to linger. The sooner they complete their rad journey the better. I don't mean sound bossy, and i did say please.
Studies show more people work longer hours and take less vacation time. I can certainly see just having TIME for backpacking being an issue.
jmitchell
08-14-2015, 23:51
In PA, I've noticed an increase of backpackers on the trails in the last 10 years.
I'm not sure if a decrease of backpacking in the national parks is really an indicator of declining popularity. There are so many backpacking trails outside the national parks and some areas of the country have tons of trails on state or national forest land, but few national parks. Besides, popularity, fees, and regulation in the national parks may explain the decrease; maybe backpackers are simply going elsewhere.
"Do we really want the wilderness experience to be strictly a diorama about the mountains, wildlife and the natural world that is no longer accessible to most?"
The wilderness is more accessible than ever at this stage in history - NOT LESS. To expect that to change towards there being less human access overall in general isn't likely to happen. It's an idealistic overly romantic concept that wilderness in general will become less accessible although, being cut from the same cloth, I too share many of the desires of other Naturalists, as Muir, Abbey, Carson, and Leopold.
There are deep back country opportunities to experience wilderness, wilderness where little to no evidence of humanity exists, very well balanced with enormous front country "wilderness" opportunities for experiencing it as well - NOW. Yet, many humans, the masses, want to experience Nature and "wilderness" in the most human convenient most human comfortable way just as it has been since...And, there have always been a host lining up to give them that and to further promote this human centered concept for experiencing Nature and wilderness.
When expecting to connect with wilderness or Nature on human centered terms for human entertainment putting wilderness on a stage in a confined but expansive zoo like atmosphere expecting it to exist inside a convenient to control bubble apart from humanity for human convenience entailing domination, mindless destruction, subjugation, and ceaseless human "development", is this truly connecting with wilderness and Nature or is it just another human centric example of a species childishly attempting to get what it wants on its terms while in the process of "getting" destroying and heavily impacting the very thing they were reaching out to connect with?
Here's where I think you may have missed it Mags. You drew your conclusion "backpacking is declining" rather exclusively from the NPS data. The data is skewed to reflect recent NP usage at a time when the NPS has been having well publicized budgetary issues! The NPS has been making the choice to shift resources towards development and maintenance emphasis on front country services - where the masses historically congregate anyway - getting the best bang for their budgetary dollar. As we know, the masses want their "wilderness" experiences to be as convenient for them as feasible. Start taking away some of the perceived "conveniences" associated with back country footpath travel and a growing perception that is being done and I would think it is to be expected NPS back country backpacking numbers to be decreasing. I understand reliable stats on longer term backpacker usage can be hard to locate. I would like to have seen data taking from other sources getting perhaps a better more wide ranging perspective of backpacker numbers beyond just NPS data before coming to the conclusion "backpacking is declining."
Some larger SPs, where backpacking is popular, have had some budgetary issues as well sometimes resulting in similar occurrences.
And, of course, different outdoor market segments apply pressure as well not only in responding to outdoor desires but by shaping the interest in those desires as well that have affects on park budgets. We're seeing greater resources allocated towards the expansion of bicycling, paddling, etc opps in parks.
It's a directed shift too where overall the results, certainly considered by "higher level decision makers" and park personnel BEFORE the "budgetary issues", - mean greater control! Remove the funding for or shift funds from BC travel restricts many from going there having PROFOUND FAR REACHING ADVANTAGES FOR SOME.
Guys, unless you have numbers, your anecdotal hunches aren' really good. I used NPS data because it was the most readily available.
But since I enjoy a good debate, I've taken up the gauntlet. I'm also very good at Googling to find numbers versus "This is what I really think" :)
Primitive camping (not in developedcampgrounds), backpacking, and mountain climbingshowed decreases in the number of people who participated, butincreases in the number of days of participation
http://www.foresthistory.org/publications/FHT/FHTSpring2008/Cordell.pdf
So, much like the thru-hiker "proof", less people are doing it..the numbers left are more active.
Granted it is from 7 years ago..but it is Saturday morning and I am drinking my coffee and about to head out. ;)
This is from 2014...however.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/docs/outdoor-recreation/ficor_2014_rec_trends_summary.pdf
Notice the "visiting primitive areas" is expected to decline. (USFS puts it as "Visiting Primitive Areas Backpacking; primitive camping; visiting a wilderness ")
Curiously, the trend shows of less people doing it...but the core people doing it doing it more.
Keep in mind these percentages in the first example do not reflect the population growth of the United States. Factor in the population growth, and the numbers decline more.
I could do more..but I am sticking by my research vs hunches.
Informed hunches are sometimes correct.
Uninformed hunches usually aren't.
I think the much better discussion we should all be having is why is it declining? If we are left with a smaller percentage of the population invested in the backcountry....well, draw your own conclusions.
Sarcasm the elf
08-15-2015, 10:48
It doesn't surprise me that overall participation is declining. There seems to be a widespread belief that the woods are incredibly dangerous, that you need to bring the latest gear from REI (insert portlandia skit here), and have either an experienced guide and a weapon with you in order to make it out alive. I know that statement is anecdotal, but I run into people with overblown safety concerns so consistently that I can't help but believe that it is a relevant factor in declining rates of backcountry use.
My coworkers, who are mostly from NYC all think that I am going to die each time I go out on the A.T. for a week or two and when non-hikers who join A.T. message boards to learn, their first questions overwhelmingly seem to be about bears, snakes, hillbillies or "survival" questions (especially on the Facebook A.T. Groups). One of my favorite things is when I get the chance to bring a friend on their first overnight trip, they all have remarked how much tougher hiking is than they thought, but how much safer and more relaxing the trail is compared to what the had imagined it would be like. Almost all of these friends admitted that they never would have attempted an overnight trip if I hadn't been with them the first time, and after the trip was over most of them were comfortable enough to consider going again, with or without me.
There seems to be a widespread belief that the woods are incredibly dangerous, that you need to bring the latest gear from REI (insert portlandia skit here), and have either an experienced guide and a weapon with you in order to make it out alive.
I'm not very worried about the dangers. At least half of my 80# loadout for the A.T. is ammunition and Bear Grylls survival tools. I got danger covered. My bigger concern is the future of publicly available outdoor areas, the longevity of wildlife, and the overall integrity of wilderness environments in the future.
.
.
.
Disclaimer: Before I get roasted too badly, my base weight is NOT 80#, I've never bought a Bear Grylls anything, and I would never dream of bringing any ammo stronger than Gatorade and Clif bars on the trail.
Sarcasm the elf
08-15-2015, 12:01
I'm not very worried about the dangers. At least half of my 80# loadout for the A.T. is ammunition and Bear Grylls survival tools. I got danger covered. My bigger concern is the future of publicly available outdoor areas, the longevity of wildlife, and the overall integrity of wilderness environments in the future.
.
.
.
Disclaimer: Before I get roasted too badly, my base weight is NOT 80#, I've never bought a Bear Grylls anything, and I would never dream of bringing any ammo stronger than Gatorade and Clif bars on the trail.
Speaking of Ammo and available outdoor areas, you should check out the Pittman-Robertson act if you are not yet familiar with it. The act is a federal tax on guns, ammunition, fishing equipment, and fishing and hunting licenses. The funds raised are earmarked exclusively for conservation projects for wildlife species and habitat (funds are used for all conservation causes, not just those that affect game species). This tax is the single largest source of conservation funds in the country.
There is concern that long term declines in the number of hunters in this country will significantly reduce this conservation funding. While I don't want to get into a political discussion, I really wish that there was a similar tax program on general outdoor equipment (backpacking, biking, skiing, mountaineering, etc) The Pittman-Robertson was actually created at the insistance of hunters and sportsman who recognized the danger of wreckless habitat/resource loss and wanted to ensure that their sport was being done responsibly and in a way where it could be passed to futire generations.
*Before someone jumps in to comment, let me say for the record that my explanation of the act grossly oversimplifies it. People who are interested should search the web as there is a wealth of information available on the subject.
Hunting licenses may be declining, but over the last two years or so (the ammo shortage and the rebound of purchases thereafter) I've witnessed an awful lot of ammo being bought up, which mighty help offset the license deficit just a bit. Definitely have to look more in to this act. Thanks for the heads up.
iAmKrzys
08-15-2015, 12:45
NPS show overall numbers are done esp when the population increase is factored in (less percentage of people overall). In raw numbers, from 1979 to 2013, the NPS reports two-millions people LESS doing overnight activities. That is including backpacking, camping and backcountry lodges, etc. . From 1979 to 2013, there was a 700k+ person decline in backpacking per NPS figures.
I couldn't agree more. Last year we were staying at Bass River State Forest campground that had very few visitors. I found a geocache near where we camped that had this log entry which really sums it up well:
Very eerie here: middle of the summer with a nice huge campground, and only two camp sites in use. Back when I was a kid, you'd have trouble getting into a campground like this because it would be too full. Where is everyone?
I think the trend is that more people nowadays do what I call "trophy hiking" - they go for well-known trails that they can boast about on Facebook while lesser known trails get fewer visitors.
Sarcasm the elf
08-15-2015, 14:11
Hunting licenses may be declining, but over the last two years or so (the ammo shortage and the rebound of purchases thereafter) I've witnessed an awful lot of ammo being bought up, which mighty help offset the license deficit just a bit. Definitely have to look more in to this act. Thanks for the heads up.
Since you ask:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2013/05/current-rush-buy-guns-and-ammo-pittman-robertson-funds-break-all-recor
The increase in demand for guns and ammo over the last few years has produced record breaking conservation recenue throgh the Pittman-Robertson act. The problem with the recent ammo hording trend is that most people aren't using the ammo, they're just stockpiling it. Since ammo can be stored for decades and still work perfectly, there will probably be a huge slump in demand for it in the coming years once people stop stockpiling, realize that they own enough and slowly use what they have. I'm worried that this will cause a lot of problems for conservation funding.
jmitchell
08-15-2015, 15:24
Mags,
I only questioned relying on NPS data in my first post. The conclusion that popularity has declined, particularly in relation to population growth, may be correct. My personal experience is just that, but it is not an uninformed hunch. I hike and backpack regularly. I have seen more people on several trails; others remain little used.
The NPS data may have some gaps or is not otherwise clear-
There is not a category for national scenic trails, and if the NSTs are included in "other" parks, that category has about doubled in visitation.
There is a category for misc overnights, which includes "groups"; does that include backpacking groups? That category has grown.
Also keep in mind the state parks in the country far eclipse the national parks. They attract 720 million visitors. I would be curious to see those categories and if there has been any growth.
The two sources you cite do not seem consistent, although they are separated by seven years. One saw an increase in wilderness visits; the other predicts a decrease. One saw a decrease in rock climbing; the other predicts an increase.
******
If backpacking is decreasing in popularity, my hunch is that it is because outdoor recreation interests have diversified, resulting in losses for the traditional pursuits, such as backpacking, hunting, fishing. There are also generational and demographic issues. Non-whites appear to be less inclined to backpack and their populations are increasing. Maybe that will change as outdoor groups reach out to minorities and those individuals have more exposure to the outdoors.
Regardless, our need for the outdoors and nature will never disappear, regardless which activity we pursue. And while overuse brings problems and regulations, at the very least it shows people have an interest, a connection, and may be more likely to promote the protection of the places they visit. As populations and our need for resources grow, the conflict between open space and economic/resource needs will only increase. That annoying kid crying on the crowded trail today may be the one protecting it years from now.
Some of us may be taking more of an alarmist view seeing more of a declining backpacking issue than the reality.
For example in this link:
"...from 2014...
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/docs/o...ds_summary.pdf (http://www.fs.fed.us/research/docs/outdoor-recreation/ficor_2014_rec_trends_summary.pdf)
Notice the "visiting primitive areas" is expected to decline. (USFS puts it as "Visiting Primitive Areas Backpacking; primitive camping; visiting a wilderness ")
Specifically, in that link posted who is included in the 2.1% Projected Percentage Change in Per Capita Participation by Activity Group* 2008-2030?
Nowhere do I note explanations how the data was accumulated, how segment categories are being defined(who's specifically being included in various user segments), etc. Maybe, I missed it in that specific link?
Here's why I ask. Since we're on a hiking based website, mainly backpackers/hikers we have a tendency to assume all who visit primitive areas do so this way. COULD those 2.1 % projections include other who access primitive areas say bicyclists, boaters, paddlers, fly ins, skiers, snowshoers, etc? If so than correlating a 2.1% decline solely to backcountry backpackers is incorrect.
I also want to know before coming to hardline conclusions "backpacking is declining"how does the link reposted here with the included bar graph define the "hiking" category? The bar graph says that user segment is expected to increase 3.1 % PER CAPITATA. COULD backpackers also be viewed as hikers in this bar graph? Are hikers being defined as simply day hikers who do not plan to also camp or who aren't carrying backpacks? I'm not ready to make assumptions! I want to know details as how stats, graphs, etc are being defined noting how they are portrayed can be very misleading to represent different things sometimes opposite conclusion being made on the same stats.
Since you ask:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2013/05/current-rush-buy-guns-and-ammo-pittman-robertson-funds-break-all-recor
The increase in demand for guns and ammo over the last few years has produced record breaking conservation recenue throgh the Pittman-Robertson act. The problem with the recent ammo hording trend is that most people aren't using the ammo, they're just stockpiling it. Since ammo can be stored for decades and still work perfectly, there will probably be a huge slump in demand for it in the coming years once people stop stockpiling, realize that they own enough and slowly use what they have. I'm worried that this will cause a lot of problems for conservation funding.
Great article! I don't feel so alone in my ignorance now. Actually going to forward that link around to some friends today. And I cannot argue with your logic about the possibility of a coming sales slump. Too bad the gub'ment doesn't pay taxes on their purchases or we'd just have to wait for DHS to purchase another 25-million rounds (or whatever that ridiculous number was) of ammo for "training" purposes. (Stop, Google! Slowly back away from that topic, lol.)
Here's where my ignorance on the act really comes in to play... I love shooting sports and I'm Pro-2nd, but I don't hunt and I barely ever fish. As a matter of fact, I'm one of those outdoorsy types that [* takes deep breath, preparing for the usual public ridicule] that abhors hunting animals for sport. There are times and reasons to hunt and/or kill animals, but I have never believed that fun qualified as one of them. I do have friends that hunt occasionally, but we rarely talk about it, so the topic of taxes, etc., has never really arose from those conversations.
Now, in true contradictory fashion, I do hope to get some bow hunting experience one day, if the proper circumstances ever arose in the same period as the free time. But that is not just for a fun Sunday, but rather (to me) it's about fitting in with nature (and the natural food chain, cycle, etc.) on a very spiritual level. And I'm not talking about bow hunting from a tree or some other crap. People whom mistake that sedentary activity for "hunting" should really get a dictionary and look up the word "fishing" (Public Clue: One of those activities is passive and one is active - and sitting on your ass waiting on something to smell your bait or spray or salt lick, etc. ad nauseaum, is not active!)
Whew! Dialing back rant mode... So, my lack of knowledge about the act is probably because I'm only about 50% involved with spending money on the activities that fund the act. However, learning more about it (and supposing the funds are spent the way that they were intended to be spent) I'm quickly becoming a fan of this act. I wish it did something to further counter-act the selling, leasing, and pillaging of national parks - something our illustrious leaders in D.C. are getting very good at lately. But from what I've read so far from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act) and from here (http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/PittmanRobertsonFacts.pdf) I don't disagree with much anything in this act except for the last proposed amendment to it (and that's only because I don't think anyone should have to pay to support my hobbies but me.)
BTW, it is NOT a debate I seek. It is a deeper satisfactory understanding I seek before making conclusions. I tend to questions things just as Jmitchell is. Just because questions are asked it does not entail a predetermined judgement of wrong or right.
I too am now done with my coffee and about to head out....to backcountry trail maintenance and backcountry backpacking. :)
Well, since are we relying on anecdotal data... I got back from trip. The parking lot was crowded..with day hikers. I came to the back to trailhead early this morning. All the cars but mine were gone. Made my coffee as I was not ready to head home. Three cars pulled up for day hiking. I was the only overnight backpacker at a trail head one hour from Boulder. Day hiking OTOH was very popular.
As for other pursuits..that's kinda what I said. :) I think we can all agree "done in a day activities" are rising more so than overnight activities.
I am not about to do yet more research in 50 state parks (if someone wants to write a grant for me to do this..go for it! :) ) ...but here's an outdoor industry report..sponsored by Coleman no less! Since companies decide how to spend their resources based on these reports. I'm going to go with it.
http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.camping.2013.html
In brief
Thirty-eight million Americans went camping in2012 for a total of 516.6 million days. Participationis down from 42.5 million campers and 534.9million days in 2011.
Camping lost a net of 4.5 million participantsfrom 2011 to 2012 due to a high churn rate of32 percent.
Young adults lost the largest percentage ofparticipants, down from 17 percent in 2011 to13 percent in 2012.
So overnight use is declining. Now, I realize this is for camping is not backpacking specific, but you get the idea. Heck..most Americans don't even use all their vacation time. Any (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-only-take-half-of-their-paid-vacation-2014-04-03) surprise? :)
If you care about the wild places, this is cause for concern. I suspect front country amenities such as visitors centers will be fine. Backcountry trails and possibly protection? Not so much.
Don't think so? Check out what happened to the Pawnee National Grassland. Imagine if more people camped there?
wherein day packs take an increasing share of the pack market while technical overnight packs are a
Source: https://www.hcn.org/issues/46.12/the-death-of-backpacking
I love being outdoors, hiking, exploring, practicing bushcraft skills (that I'm thankful I rarely need), and just getting away from the great neon distraction. I realize that puts me in a minority population for hobbyist, but I have trouble believing that everyone is so caught up in smartphones and creature comforts that less and less people are getting out for anything more than day trips.
After so many years of humanity trying so hard to avoid the perils of the wild and striving for comfort and security, it's no wonder that vagabonds, tramps, and even basic outdoor enthusiasts have always been at the fringes of society. But could it really be that long-term experiences of the true wonders, challenges, and serenity of the outdoors is actually becoming a fading pastime?
I really hope not, because as interest wanes, so too does care and concern.
You know, if the day packs increase by a large margin and backpacks only increase by a small margin, that is still a net decrease comparatively that would account for the
declining percentage of total sales.[/COLOR]]
I see more people out, not less.
double d
08-17-2015, 06:55
Been getting more into this too, but for a different reason... There are pretty places in illinois but not much "infrastructure" from the standpoint of safe water sources and legal places to camp. It's a bit of a mileage issue really. There are places within state parks to hike, but stringing much more than 15 miles together within a park makes it tough. On the flipside is the 500 mile Grand Illinois Trail, mileage is there in the form of rail to trail style travel but it's meant for bikers, not backpackers.
There are 30+ mile water carries and some creative camping required on most of the trail. In the chicagoland area of the trail- the only safe water sources are typically at a gas station or other business because of pollution. Also, unless you're capable of 30+ mile days, most of the trail is fairly inaccessible for most folks.
Bike packing is proving to be a good solution to the "blank" miles of the trail, as well as making large portions of the trail more enjoyable for a wider audience.
I think if that big prairie trail they are looking at will work out west some type of bikepacking options would put it in reach. Much like my local trails- while the prairie or farmland does have it's charm... walking through a cornfield for 20-30 miles just to link a section and pass through the next state park gets old fast. Hoping on the bike has helped renew my interest in the local trails for sure. For now, I just wear my regular pack.
Great observation Just Bill about our state of Illinois, I just don't think people who live in/near states that have great hiking trails know how great their opportunities are.
Heliotrope
08-22-2015, 16:21
Guys, unless you have numbers, your anecdotal hunches aren' really good. I used NPS data because it was the most readily available.
But since I enjoy a good debate, I've taken up the gauntlet. I'm also very good at Googling to find numbers versus "This is what I really think" :)
Primitive camping (not in developedcampgrounds), backpacking, and mountain climbingshowed decreases in the number of people who participated, butincreases in the number of days of participation
http://www.foresthistory.org/publications/FHT/FHTSpring2008/Cordell.pdf
So, much like the thru-hiker "proof", less people are doing it..the numbers left are more active.
Granted it is from 7 years ago..but it is Saturday morning and I am drinking my coffee and about to head out. ;)
This is from 2014...however.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/docs/outdoor-recreation/ficor_2014_rec_trends_summary.pdf
Notice the "visiting primitive areas" is expected to decline. (USFS puts it as "Visiting Primitive Areas Backpacking; primitive camping; visiting a wilderness ")
Curiously, the trend shows of less people doing it...but the core people doing it doing it more.
Keep in mind these percentages in the first example do not reflect the population growth of the United States. Factor in the population growth, and the numbers decline more.
I could do more..but I am sticking by my research vs hunches.
Informed hunches are sometimes correct.
Uninformed hunches usually aren't.
I think the much better discussion we should all be having is why is it declining? If we are left with a smaller percentage of the population invested in the backcountry....well, draw your own conclusions.
I own a tourist based business on MDI home to Acadia National Park which is a very front country experience with large annual visitation (millions). Of the customers I have asked over the years not one has ever ventured north to Baxter or the AT corridor. Here on MDI people can day hike, Kayak canoe, rock climb etc. there are fine restaurants, fancy inns and lots of shopping. I think people are used to getting it all and don't want to rough it. People love the national parks but many like to drive through it. In Acadia the Most crowded areas are thunder hole and Cadillac Mt summit. You can drive to both and buy souvenirs,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk