Are fewer Americans visiting national parks?

[futureatwalker]

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]

I went to Bryce about 10 years ago. There were a tons of Europeans there then too. A lot were German.

[Bearpaw]

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]

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]

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/ResearchT...ndvisitors.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Now THATs a great answer.

[Carl in FL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.