Wilderness Under Threat as Visitors Stay Indoors

Guardian Unlimited ^ | February 5, 2008 | David Adam

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Fewer people are visiting national parks and taking part in outdoor activities such as camping, according to new research that suggests people are falling out of love with the natural world.

The study by US conservationists discovered an "ongoing and fundamental shift away from nature-based recreation" that they say could threaten future efforts to preserve wilderness areas. The experts say people now make up to 25% fewer trips than they did in the 1980s, and say the rise of computer games could be to blame.

Oliver Pergams, a biologist at the University of Illinois, and Patricia Zaradic of the US Environmental Leadership Programme, compared records of visits with dozens of national parks, state parks and other public land across the US, Japan and Spain. They also analysed US licence applications to hunt deer, fish and shoot ducks, as well as surveys on the popularity of outdoor pursuits such as camping and hiking.

They found that the popularity of almost all activities peaked in the 1980s and then went into sharp decline. This drop reverses the trend seen in the post-war decades, which saw a boom in their popularity. Only the number of day hikes has increased. The Spanish data did not show a clear trend, but were for a relatively short period. The study is published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers said: "All major lines of evidence point to a general and fundamental shift away from people's participation in nature-based recreation. The cultural shift away from nature recreation appears to extend outside of the US, to at least Japan, and the decline appears to have begun 1981-1991. The root cause may be videophilia [a preference for indoor media activities]."

[Brett66]

If we could just carry chainguns into forests so we could do that cool Predator-style tree destruction, I’m sure more gamers would go for the outdoor excursions.

[T-Bird45]

Thanks for the info on Canoe Canada — sounds like something I need to put on my list. It will have to go on the list with a Fall trip to Philmont along the lines of what you did. I am envious but hopeful I can do it someday.

[RonF]

T-Bird, what section of the country are you in? From the Chicago area it’s anywhere from 12 to 14 hours to drive to Atikokan, Ontario.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“No government involved and no eminent domain.”

Do your own homework and educate yourself. If you dare. ;)

http://www.stopncannexation.com/index.htm

You’re being led down the Primrose Path. But, it’s your money. Spend it where you see fit, supporting causes you believe in. But, when you own some land one day, and your rights are challenged to do with what you will with our Private Property, give me a ping.

This stuff is NO different from Smoking Bans, Trans-Fat Bans, Helmet laws, etc. Any time Government is influenced by lobbyists for one group or another, that group IS involved. And anytime Government does a land grab of any kind, you can be assured a conservation group of some sort is behind it.

Do you really think groups like The Nature Conservancy don’t have an agenda to promote? The NRA does. Planned Parenthood does; conservation groups do, too.

[T-Bird45]

Central Oklahoma so it would require planning for at least one overnight en route.

[gracesdad]

“Do your own homework and educate yourself. If you dare. ;)

http://www.stopncannexation.com/index.htm";

Please explain to me what forced annexation in North Carolina has to do with eminent domain or the NC conserving property. The site you posted has to do with cities trying to annex parts of a county into the city. It has nothing at all to do with eminent domain.

“And anytime Government does a land grab of any kind, you can be assured a conservation group of some sort is behind it.”

Most of the land grabs (eminent domain) these days are to build something — a road, utility lines, business centers. No conservation at all. Why would conservation groups be behind that destroying land?

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Look a little further around that site, and do a little research on your own. I have no dog in your fight, but I have one in what they do to private land owners here in WI. You worry about your state, I’ll worry about mine.

I can hardly wait to inherit that land. It’s 200+ acres of woodland, tillable farmland, has a pond and a trout stream on it. I’m looking ahead to self preservation so I can use that land as *I* see fit, with no meddling by any conservation advocacy group.

It’s obvious I can’t convince you of anything, so I won’t press this any further. Have a good day! :)

[gracesdad]

I saw the eminent domain section and took a quick look. Virtually every case I saw was about DEVELOPERS, not conservation groups, trying to declare areas blighted so they could grab it and build. Needless to say, developers are not conservationists.