Posted on 06/22/2006 8:22:38 PM PDT by paulat
Americans prefer video to national parks: study By Jon Hurdle Tue Jun 20, 11:36 PM ET
Americans are less interested in spending time in natural surroundings like national parks because they are spending more time watching television, playing video games and surfing the Internet, according to a study released on Tuesday.
The study, for The Nature Conservancy, found per-capita visits to national parks have been declining for years.
National park visitation data starting in 1930 peaked in 1987 at 1.2 visits per person per year. But by 2003 it had declined by about 25 percent to 0.9 visits per person per year, said Oliver Pergams, an ecologist at the University of Illinois who analyzed the data for the study.
The data, based on government statistics and other sources, were taken as a proxy for interest in nature in general.
Researchers tested more than two dozen possible explanations for the trend and found that 98 percent of the drop in national park visits was explained by video games, movie rentals, going out to movies, Internet use and rising fuel prices.
Other possible explanations such as family income or the aging population were ruled out.
There was a sufficiently high correlation between declining national park visits and the burgeoning use of electronic media that led Pergams and his associate, Patricia Zaradic, believe the two are linked. "It made us feel fairly certain that there is an association," Pergams told Reuters.
The study, to be published in the Journal of Environmental Management, concludes that the trend has negative implications for environmental stewardship.
"We may be seeing evidence of a fundamental shift away from people's appreciation of nature to 'videophilia' which we here define as the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media," the researchers said.
"Such a shift would not bode well for the future of biodiversity conservation."
Nature Conservancy President Steve McCormick said the study suggests Americans and their children in particular are losing their connection to the natural world.
"When children choose TVs over trees, they lose touch with the physical world outside and the fundamental connection of those places to our daily lives," McCormick said.
Yosemite in winter is MY kind of place....
I hope many stay home. I enjoy hiking in the parks. If people view the parks from the cars and busses, they have missed the park. Most of the attractions are the solitude of areas miles off the roads.
There is nothing like standing in waders, flyfishing in a remote clear stream or lake 5-6 miles from the parking lots.
No, none of that is the real reason.
...and rising fuel prices.
Bingo.
The pot farmers are going gang busters in the parks, I hear. Which i what Babbit etc. intended with the "Roadless" sack-o-crap they peddled in the 90's. Tanks alot a**holes.
"he study, for The Nature Conservancy, found per-capita visits to national parks have been declining for year"
The Nature Conservancy is the same group buying up large tracks of land across the country. Funded by people like Ted Turner they have significant areas under their control. Their ultimate goal is to restrict humans from the areas.
My guess is this is the first of many studies that show Americans just arent interested so they may as well close the parks and set the land aside for the animals.
I don't suppose a decline in the family structure, or the decline in educational standards in the US has anything to do with fewer families taking trips that could be deemed somewhat educational.
I'm not a big fan of national parks myself. Anyone truly interested in a vacation in natural surroundings would be better off going to places that are designated as true wilderness areas by the U.S. Forest Service. Everybody has heard of national parks like Yosemite, Acadia, Grand Canyon, etc., but how many folks have ever been to places like the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness along the Idaho-Montana border or Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota? Some of these places are absolutely desolate wilderness areas -- with no roads, no motorized vehicles permitted, etc. Nothing ruins a trip to "nature" more than getting stuck in a column of traffic behind some goofy family from New York that simple MUST stop and take a picture of Yogi Bear on the side of the road.
This person believes it's better for "biodiversity conservation" to bring thousands or perhaps millions of tourists through such an area?
What a moron.
Exactly. Although you often don't have to get too far from the Visitors Centers or parking lots before you start losing 99 percent of the people. You go about 10 minutes below the rim of the Grand Canyon, and you've eliminated the bulk of them. Or a remote trail in Yellowstone. I love our National Parks, and it's fine by me if fewer people are visiting.
House Nixes Park Fees Blamed For Driving Away Visitors
February 13, 2006
By KOMO Staff & News Services
OLYMPIA - Hoping to lure disgruntled patrons back to Washington's state parks, the House on Monday voted to repeal a highly unpopular $5 parking fee blamed for driving away millions of visitors.
House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, said the 3-year-old fee was a failed experiment after nearly a century of free access in Washington.
The fees were instituted with the Legislature's blessing in 2003 by the state Parks and Recreation Commission. Washington joined 37 other states, including all those in the West, in charging such fees.
During the first two years, the money was used to whittle away a $350 million maintenance backlog. In the current budget, it helps finance basic operations at 120 state parks.
But the fee has proven unpopular, even with outdoorsy Northwesterners - attendance has dropped by more than 7 million since it was introduced.
"Enough is enough. We have closed people out of our parks too long," Kessler said. "I don't really care what other states do. I just know that our state needs to have free access to state parks."
Kessler and Gov. Chris Gregoire say they support using $3.4 million of the state's budget surplus and laying off 22 workers to offset the loss in the short term. But no long-term replacement for the revenue has emerged.
"Nothing is free. If you take away the day-use fee, it doesn't become free state parks," said Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Bellingham.
Kessler pledged to work during the coming year to find a new source of money to replace the fees, which brought in some $11.5 million through last December.
The fee repeal passed the House 94-2 on Monday, with some Republicans suggesting the state general fund as a permanent replacement.
Other possible explanations such as family income or the aging population were ruled out.
Hmmmmmmm....that's an awfully huge leap in logic. Let's see; when I go camping, I can choose to not go to a national park, where I'm free to setup my campsite where I choose, usually somewhere other than an asphalt parking lot; I can have a campfire without having to find the ranger station and obtaining a permit that's only good for one camp spot (better know in advance where that spot is and be able to find it on a map) and only if the "fire danger" is low (meaning it rained for forty days before I went camping); I don't have to worry about a ranger jumping me in the middle of the night checking to make sure I properly prepared my campfire, have the proper fire maintenance tools, 567 gallons of water on hand and I'm not burning anything that will contribute to "global warming"....
Or I could choose a national park and have all those delightful camping experiences and more!
I'm a big fan of park fees like this -- primarily because they provide a subtle reminder to a visitor that there's a cost involved with a lot of the things they do in a park.
In all the time I've lived in Kali, I've never once been to Yosemite.
Everything I've ever heard about it makes the place sound like a tacky, noisy, overcrowded, overpriced, poorly-managed amusement park.
Which is no small feat, given the spectacular scenery that must be there.
I avoid National Parks and other areas where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is systematically violated.
It's all about where you go in a park, and which unit in the system you visit. I've been to plenty of National Park Service administrated places (National Preserves, Monuments, Historical or Battlefield Parks) that are virtually untouched by the hordes of tourists. And the Park Service generally does an excellent job at trail layouts, interpretation (particularly historical sites), historical preservation etc, though of course there are exceptions.
"At this moment the management of Rocky Mountain National Park wants to spend $18 million to hire professional sharpshooters to eliminate 700 head of elk from the park. The elk population is way out of balance as a result of the Park Service policy of NO wildlife management in the parks."
$25,000 a head. Nice work if you can get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.