PDA

View Full Version : Are fewer Americans visiting national parks?



futureatwalker
07-30-2011, 03:21
I've just returned from a 10-day camping trip out west. I stayed at Bryce and Zion national parks.

They were magnificent.

What I noticed while I was at these parks, however, were how few Americans I came across on the trails and in the campsites. Likely as not, when I passed someone on the trail they were German. Some French and Swiss camper were in the adjacent tent sites to us, as were some Dutch.

I'm an American living in Europe, but I don't think it's just a bias on my part. There were a lot of people from elsewhere enjoying the park, and, relatively, fewer people from the U.S.

O.K., it's 25 bucks to get in to each park for a week, but it's hard to imagine that this is much of a barrier.

I wondered if others had a similar experience.

aaronthebugbuffet
07-30-2011, 03:59
I went to Bryce about 10 years ago. There were a tons of Europeans there then too. A lot were German.

Bearpaw
07-30-2011, 10:04
Gas is $4 a gallon and unemployment is at 10%. Fears about the economy getting worse are strong enough to keep a lot of people close to home on any vacation and saving their money.

weary
07-30-2011, 10:30
All use of the outdoors is declining. Attendence is down in state parks, national parks, national forests, and even local wildlands. Hunting and fishing is declining. Love of the outdoors either begins as a child, or it rarely develops. I blame American mothers who coddle their kids and refuse to allow them to explore the wild places that abound near most American towns. The only outdoor use that is increasing is off road ATV and snowmobiling -- uses far more dangerous than playing in the woods. A thousand kids die on their machines, for every one hurt while playing naturally in the woods and wild places.

GoldenBear
07-30-2011, 11:17
So I did so.

This URL
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/
is the place to start.

Click on [Reports]
Click on "Summary Report - Multiple Years"
Highlight all years from 1979 to 2010
Click on [View Report]

and you'll find out that recreational visitation went from 205 million visits in 1979 to 279 million in 1987, went down to 255 million in 1990; and have not gotten above or below that since.
Hours of recreational visitation follow similar trends.

I'd say visitation to national parks has been pretty much flat for more than two decades. No trend upward or downward.


But how many of these visitors are from outside the U.S.?

The most recent stats I could find were from 1998, when 286 million visitors came to U.S. national parks.
This PDF
http://www.nps.gov/tourism/ResearchTrendsandDatainfo/gwustudyofinternationalparksandvisitors.pdf
states (on page 7 or 8, depending on how you define a "page") that 2.7 million international visitors came to U.S. national parks in that year-- a mere 1% of the total.

Could international visitation have gone from 1% of the total to even 20% of the total in twelve years, with no noticeable increase in total visitation?
I suppose it's POSSIBLE, but simple facts make it difficult to support that conclusion.

It seems you're taking one VERY limited observation by an admittedly biased observer, and turning it into a national statistical trend.
Facts are usually a better way to approach a question.

Carl in FL
07-30-2011, 11:54
O.K., it's 25 bucks to get in to each park for a week, but it's hard to imagine that this is much of a barrier.




I am amazed that nobody is raising a fuss over this. It isn't the money,
it's the fact that we pay taxes to maintain these parks, then we pay
admission? If we are getting added value for that $25 then there might
be some justification, but just to get past the gate? I'm disappointed.

Call your Congress-person about this, the call is only $3.95 a minute, right?

hikerboy57
07-30-2011, 12:06
just like the AMC huts, the price is as much a way to keep crowds down, as well as increasing revenue.Where I live in Long beach, a non resident pays $14 just to step on the beach, up from $5 just 10 years ago. and the beach is just as crowded. if they had kept it at $5, it would be overrun.Im not saying I endorse having to pay a fee, but much of the reallity is crowd control.the govt is broke already, so I certainly wouldnt look to the fed to eliminate access fees, Id rather make sure the elderly keep their medicare.again, we're getting close to the day, that if you dont have money, recreational options continue to dwindle.

Panzer1
07-30-2011, 12:10
I am amazed that nobody is raising a fuss over this. It isn't the money,
it's the fact that we pay taxes to maintain these parks, then we pay
admission? If we are getting added value for that $25 then there might
be some justification, but just to get past the gate? I'm disappointed.

Call your Congress-person about this, the call is only $3.95 a minute, right?

With the bedget problems this country has, I can't see them dropping the $25 fee just right now. Maybe some day in the far future they will be in a better position to lower it.

You know the state parks charge a lot more per day.

Panzer

rickb
07-30-2011, 12:24
Facts are usually a better way to approach a question.

Perhaps the percentage of foreign visitors is higher in the Western Parks.

Sure seems that way.

Far more than 1%, anyway.

weary
07-30-2011, 12:42
just like the AMC huts, the price is as much a way to keep crowds down, as well as increasing revenue.Where I live in Long beach, a non resident pays $14 just to step on the beach, up from $5 just 10 years ago. and the beach is just as crowded. if they had kept it at $5, it would be overrun.Im not saying I endorse having to pay a fee, but much of the reallity is crowd control.the govt is broke already, so I certainly wouldnt look to the fed to eliminate access fees, Id rather make sure the elderly keep their medicare.again, we're getting close to the day, that if you dont have money, recreational options continue to dwindle.
I don't know much about Long Beach, but the NAtional Park fees are to increase revenue. Congress rarely appropriates the money needed to properly maintain it's lands. It depends on fees and private donations to make up the difference. Public lands are seen as expendable by Congress. So when budget cuts are proposed the parks get the first hit. Not even the Appalachian Trail is exempt. MATC regularly gets warnings to expect less funding in the years ahead. The current budget negotiations are mostly held secretly, but you can safely bet that the park service won't escape major cutbacks.

WingedMonkey
07-30-2011, 12:50
So I did so.

This URL
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/
is the place to start.

Click on [Reports]
Click on "Summary Report - Multiple Years"
Highlight all years from 1979 to 2010
Click on [View Report].

Thanks for the link, statistics are always fun to observe.
If I go to that same page and go to "Backcountry Campers" instead of "Recreation Visits" I may see a different story, when I look at the years of some of my backcounty use in the 1990's

In 1993 when I spent a month at Yosemite, the count for backcountry campers nationwide was 2,406,697.

In 1994 when I spent a month at the Grand Canyon the national count was 2,363,827

In 1995 the year of my first AT thru-hike the national count for backcountry campers was 2,189,727

In 2010 backcountry camping was down to 1,763,541. Somewhat of a drop from the 1990's. More so if you consider the increase in our total population.

As for foreign visitors, I've always noticed a heavy presence in our well know destinations, even our Local Everglades Nation Park.

hikerboy57
07-30-2011, 12:52
I don't know much about Long Beach, but the NAtional Park fees are to increase revenue. Congress rarely appropriates the money needed to properly maintain it's lands. It depends on fees and private donations to make up the difference. Public lands are seen as expendable by Congress. So when budget cuts are proposed the parks get the first hit. Not even the Appalachian Trail is exempt. MATC regularly gets warnings to expect less funding in the years ahead. The current budget negotiations are mostly held secretly, but you can safely bet that the park service won't escape major cutbacks.
Weary, theres no doubt the intention is to raise revenues. what I meant was just like the huts and my beach, raising fees hasnt deterred the crowds.My chagrin is as we move forward, the haves will always have and the have nots, less and less.
maybe we need a new monkey wrench gang?environmental activism has been on the wane, while everyone waits for "someone else" to take action.

Carl in FL
07-30-2011, 13:09
The fees do not deter the crowds. We're in a terrible economy, but
the lines at Disney are still around the block, at $85 + tax per.

Yes, we should not cut Medicare to have free park admission, but since
programs like Social Security and Medicare are self-funding, that's a red
herring.

Either tax me and let me in or turn it over to private enterprise and let
them charge admission. But don't pretend to be both my Nanny and my Mickey.

GoldenBear
07-30-2011, 14:11
Is because the entrance fees are completely reasonable.

Their purpose is to pay for the staff and infrastructure necessary to prevent people, particularly those whose only motivation is their own profit, from destroying the parks.

In places where visitation is sufficiently low or the area "robust" that not much money is needed to do so, the fees are low or zero.
Thus, you can enter Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park for free. Or walk through Independence Hall.

In other places where the visitation is high and the area is fragile to visitation, the money needed to prevent destruction from un-thinking hordes whose basic ideology is "Nobody can tell ME what to do!" is greater. The meadows of Yosemite are visited by far more people than the mountains of Saint Elias, and are more fragile than the floors of Independence Hall. Thus, the fee is higher.

When any intelligent person notes how un-regulated private enterprise almost completely destroyed the very essence of our national parks in their early years, the need for a restraint on these self-centered, profit-only, destroyers of our heritage becomes obvious. If you want to call that a "nanny," fine. I prefer a nanny that will allow my posterity to look over Mather Point with the same sense of awe that I had, to the private developers that would utterly destroy such essence, then brag to their share-holders how much profit they made doing so. Do you wonder what the Grand Canyon would have if we had private enterprise run it? Just go to the East Rim and its Skywalk, and you won't have to do much wondering.

The fees aren't necessarily to keep the hordes away. It's to pay for the nannies that prevent those part of the hordes, who don't know or don't care enough to act responsibly, from ruining what the parks stand for.

hikerboy57
07-30-2011, 14:12
Now THATs a great answer.

Carl in FL
07-30-2011, 14:19
I agree that's a great answer. I also stand by my belief that the
government should either tax me or charge an admission fee, but
not both for the same purpose.

I also agree that private enterprise would ruin it all, mostly by giving
the people what they want. That suggestion was not serious, of course.

I believe that 97% of what the Federal government does, they should not be doing.
National parks and natural preservation is one of the very few things I fully support.
Just don't double bill me.

GoldenBear
07-30-2011, 15:26
You pay taxes that cover SOME of the cost necessary to prevent destruction of these natural and historic wonders.
And pay a fee to cover costs that the taxes don't cover. Thus, in some cases, when you use a park, you pay for its protection and upkeep. Other people, who don't use the park, don't pay.
Just like you pay extra to use a campground in some national park areas, but not others. It's the exact same thing.
Or do you think you should get free campgrounds as well?

Want to raise taxes and government spending enough to cover the full cost?
Don't count on that happening. We're already cutting food stamps, and I'd rather have every national park destroyed than see people go without proper food in the U.S. -- like was happening prior to food stamps and school lunch programs. It should be no surprise that, during World War Two, about 25% of all men who showed up at induction centers were rejected for health problems caused by inadequate nutrition. Always remember -- it wasn't until our nation realized that lack of federal help to properly feed its citizens was a detriment to its war-making capacity, that we decided to do something about that. So, if now, we as a nation are so stingy and mean-spirited that we don't want to pay to feed people, don't count on them being willing to pay to fully fund the national parks service.


BTW, I'm sorry that I interpreted your statement that one possible solution was to "turn it over to private enterprise and let them charge admission" meant that you saw that as a possible solution.

Tuckahoe
07-30-2011, 17:25
Hey we all hate taxes and fees and the like. However, I have always viewed that little bit of tax support of the national parks to be that little bit we all pay to protect national treasures and the entry fees to be the users fees charged to those that then directly use the resource.

What has always bothered me and I think anyone else is the very inefficient manner in which government wastes money.

hikerboy57
07-30-2011, 17:47
Hey we all hate taxes and fees and the like. However, I have always viewed that little bit of tax support of the national parks to be that little bit we all pay to protect national treasures and the entry fees to be the users fees charged to those that then directly use the resource.

What has always bothered me and I think anyone else is the very inefficient manner in which government wastes money.
I think the biggest abuse is the money paid for Congress' salaries.

Sly
07-30-2011, 17:58
Some parks are up, some parks are down.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm

(click home, reports, YTD park report)

Bryce and Zion were up. The largest decreases at at the Vietnam War Memorial and the Lincoln Monument. :(

Carl in FL
07-30-2011, 19:03
BTW, I'm sorry that I interpreted your statement that one possible solution was to "turn it over to private enterprise and let them charge admission" meant that you saw that as a possible solution.



I do see it as one possible solution, but not one I would support.
I support things like the NOC and the "white water" rafting there,
which I partook of a few years back, but not butt ugly things like
the Grand Canyon Skyway, which I have not and will not support.

No, I support the Federal Government protecting the naturalness
of our National Forests, to the greatest extent possible whilst still
allowing us to see and appreciate that beauty. It is at times a very
difficult task to achieve that delicate balance, and this is why I
have mixed feelings on the duality of tax-payer and user-supported
fees.

Alligator
07-30-2011, 23:15
Please keep the thread focused on National Parks and not wandering off into broader politics. Thanks.

Wise Old Owl
07-30-2011, 23:24
What part of the economy did Future walker miss? This is clear politics, The last two years has tremendously devalued the dollar - with tarp & and subsequent programs. AT the beginning of March a personal trip to the Grand Carmen, A British Island..... I discovered that gas was $7 a gallon after the conversion and a dinner was $50 US I am neither democrat or republican, but to the Germans - they love to hike, and now the AT is a cheap trip! Japan & China hold our marker, I just got back from a photo shoot in Dupont's Longwood Gardens, at $18 dollars a ticket. I felt I was only white person there. Winterthur is out of my price range... (the other Dupont Park)

Folks you need to wake up there will be a turnstile on the AT to charge for the trip in your lifetime...

After posting I saw Alligators post and I agree, and please understand I am trying..... Just wake up folks!

WingedMonkey
07-30-2011, 23:56
Well then, I'm just gonna stop going to the woods if you are the "only white person" there.

Wise Old Owl
07-31-2011, 13:20
Longwood is a large Dupont Estate, a house on some 250+acres that is covered in gardens, waterfalls, conservatories, and a mansion in the middle.... Yesterday, I got on the estate for a photoshoot with a Groupon discount ticket of $9 and most of the people were talking in Japanese, German, Indian, and Chinese' My comment about being the "only white guy there" was inappropriate - but few were talking English.


In all my years of visits to the place - it was a clear difference about who can afford to go there.

WingedMonkey
07-31-2011, 13:33
Longwood is a large Dupont Estate, a house on some 250+acres that is covered in gardens, waterfalls, conservatories, and a mansion in the middle.... Yesterday, I got on the estate for a photoshoot with a Groupon discount ticket of $9 and most of the people were talking in Japanese, German, Indian, and Chinese' My comment about being the "only white guy there" was inappropriate - but few were talking English.


In all my years of visits to the place - it was a clear difference about who can afford to go there.

While certainly not a National Park, I would imagine like the parks it relies on and markets to foreign tourists. Longwood goes out of the way to offer their webpage and ticket sales in Chinese, French, Japanese, Korean, Russian and Spanish. I have no problem taking money form any foreign visitors if it keeps a park or historical attraction running.

futureatwalker
08-01-2011, 16:17
So I did so.

This URL
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/
is the place to start.

Could international visitation have gone from 1% of the total to even 20% of the total in twelve years, with no noticeable increase in total visitation?
I suppose it's POSSIBLE, but simple facts make it difficult to support that conclusion.

It seems you're taking one VERY limited observation by an admittedly biased observer, and turning it into a national statistical trend.
Facts are usually a better way to approach a question.

Thanks for the link. I suppose I was generalising, but check out Bryce for yourself, and let me know what you think. There was no way that the % of people from outside the U.S. that I encountered was 1% of the total, but I'll concede the possibility that my experience was a statistical fluke (over 5-days). Also, I was camping, and not staying in the lodge. My suspicion, however, is that Bryce is perhaps more of a popular destination for overseas folk (who take it in, with the Grand Canyon), as opposed to some of the eastern U.S. parks and monuments.


What follows is suggestive only:




U.S. population
National Park Visits







1980
226,542,199
220,463,211


1990
248,709,873
255,581,467


2000
281,421,906
285,891,275


2010
307,745,538
281,303,769




The population data is from the census (I presume: http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspop.htm) and from the National Park Visit website.

Broadly, the U.S. population continues to increase, while visits to the National Parks, as Golden Bear correctly notes, have stayed within a limited range from 1986-2010.

On a different note: I was happy to pay the $25 charge to get in for the week. I consider it a donation for something I wish to see preserved. (And the ranger-led programs were great for children.)

Ron Haven
08-01-2011, 19:06
they are fewer people traveling period because of fuel prices.

DapperD
08-01-2011, 19:30
Gas is $4 a gallon and unemployment is at 10%. Fears about the economy getting worse are strong enough to keep a lot of people close to home on any vacation and saving their money.I agree with you on this. Unless one has a good job or any job at all, most just don't have the money to splurge on long road trips right now.

Sly
08-01-2011, 20:00
they are fewer people traveling period because of fuel prices.

If you get 20 mpg it adds about $50 for every 1000 miles of travel over a year ago. That's really not too much. I think it's more psychological than anything else.

modiyooch
08-01-2011, 20:08
I just got back, and I think there were plenty of people. too many for my taste. no parking. no vacancies.

Carl in FL
08-01-2011, 20:18
If you get 20 mpg it adds about $50 for every 1000 miles of travel over a year ago. That's really not too much. I think it's more psychological than anything else.

Ron Haven is correct but it is irrelevant. While some people will defer travel,
there are still so many people with the funds to do so, the parks get full.

When the cruise industry instituted the fuel surcharge (like $8 to $12 per
person per day) I thought it was going to affect occupancy rates. Wrong.
They were at 100%, they still are at 100%. There's enough folks with enough
disposable income to fill all the beds.

Sly is also correct; if you are committed to seeing the Grand Canyon this year,
another hundred dollars or so isn't going to defeat you. Losing your job will.

Blissful
08-01-2011, 20:26
I don't know but there was a TON of visitors at Yellowstone from all over the nation. The lots were overflowing and people everywhere. All the campgrounds were jammed.
But no one in the backcountry (though that may have been b/c of the bear attack a week before we arrived).

There was not that many at Mesa Verde, really. At Great Sand Dunes we had the trails to ourselves. Rushmore was packed. No one at Devil Tower or at Wind Cave.

We put all our money toward gas.

Mags
08-01-2011, 20:30
More than national park visitation, a trend has been noted that *backcountry* use is declining. Amount of day use vs overnight in parks, USFS, etc. is a bit down vs the past.

http://www.nsga.org/files/public/Ten-Year_History_of_Sports_Participation_4web_100521.p df

http://www.nsga.org/files/public/2010_Participation_Alphabetically_4Web_100521.pdf

Or 15.3 million participants in 1999 vs 11.1 million people in 2010. This particular report was by the National Sporting Good Assoc who make moolah of what people actually do. :)

Other reports have similar results.. Anecdotal evidence off a 'gut check' seems to show this too (go in five miles at a popular local trailhead..and there is no one! )

Pringles
08-06-2011, 16:56
A few years ago I visited Death Valley in May. I asked a question and the ranger looked at me like I had three heads and said, "You speak English." Umm, yeah. I realize it's a different park, but it's in that region. The ranger explained that once summer hits, their tourists are almost all foreign. Folks from the U.S. avoided the area because they knew it was going to be very, very hot. I have no notion if that happens at Bryce or Zion, but it might have a similar impact. Pringles

DapperD
08-06-2011, 21:23
I don't know but there was a TON of visitors at Yellowstone from all over the nation. The lots were overflowing and people everywhere. All the campgrounds were jammed. I'll bet Yellowstone is probably always packed:rolleyes:.

Feral Nature
08-09-2011, 18:43
Perhaps the problem is the increasing obesity in our country and computers. Too many people just cannot leave McDonalds or facebook.

jbwood5
08-09-2011, 20:20
We are all waiting until we can get our senior access lifetime pass. ;) Then we'll use our vacation time to visit all the National Parks. The problem is... how do we afford to get there?

Seriously though, $25 entrance fee is a chunk of change when you combine it with travel.... especially when your take home pay is in the $550 range a week. By the time you pay rent, utilities, groceries, car repairs, etc., there is nothing left:confused:.

Wise Old Owl
08-09-2011, 21:22
Jbwoods! yea thats my answer... Since the movie of Chevy Chase's Vacation.... folks here have lost interest in seeing all 50 states... part of the Mcdonalds on every corner mentality... I can see the US on TV!

The manufacture of gas guzzling Hummers and Winnebago's is in the toilet.. Just like a boat, most fifth wheels are parked permanently like a southern house on wheels no matter where you are...

Leaders take responsibility, Losers point the blame at others....... Must be the economy......

weary
08-09-2011, 22:52
More than national park visitation, a trend has been noted that *backcountry* use is declining. Amount of day use vs overnight in parks, USFS, etc. is a bit down vs the past.

http://www.nsga.org/files/public/Ten-Year_History_of_Sports_Participation_4web_100521.p df

http://www.nsga.org/files/public/2010_Participation_Alphabetically_4Web_100521.pdf

Or 15.3 million participants in 1999 vs 11.1 million people in 2010. This particular report was by the National Sporting Good Assoc who make moolah of what people actually do. :)

Other reports have similar results.. Anecdotal evidence off a 'gut check' seems to show this too (go in five miles at a popular local trailhead..and there is no one! )
All true, but very sad. I've devoted most of my waking hours in recent years to encouraging people to enjoy the woods and hills.

hikerboy57
08-10-2011, 08:09
Perhaps the problem is the increasing obesity in our country and computers. Too many people just cannot leave McDonalds or facebook.
Now you can visit mcdonalds on facebook?

Feral Nature
08-10-2011, 18:58
Yes, I am sure you can :)