It’s always interesting to see how America’s National Park System is portrayed internationally. One way to get a handle on that is to read park-themed articles published on an occasional basis in The Economist. The authoritative English language weekly news and international affairs publication, certainly one of the most respected of the world’s widely circulated periodicals, has a circulation of about 1.3 million. Published by the Economist Group and edited in the UK, The Economist is distributed in over 200 countries around the world. Nearly half of its readership is outside North America.
So, what has The Economist been saying about America’s national parks? Here’s the gist.
(Oh, by the way; when we say that The Economist says this, or The Economist says that, we can’t know exactly who is doing the saying. The publication – which calls itself a “newspaper,” even though it is glossy paper-printed and looks exactly like a newsweekly magazine -- doesn’t believe in bylines.)
The article of interest here is dated July 12, 2008, and bears the “Out of the Wilderness” title. Its main observations, conclusions, and assertions are these:
• Attendance for America’s national parks peaked more than 20 years ago (in 1987).
• Declining attendance at national parks is a well-established, long-term trend, not just a transient event attributable to factors such as abrupt increases in fuel costs.
• The annual attendance declines for California’s Yosemite National Park (9 of the past 13 years) should be considered ominous, given that California is America’s most dependable bellwether state and Yosemite is California’s most attractive park.
• Having become more satisfied with the recreational options available in/near cities, Americans are now less interested in outdoor recreation opportunities in rural, back country, and wilderness locales.
• Americans believe that their national parks are much less entertaining, less user-friendly, and less kid-safe than they should be.
• Hispanics, the fastest growing component of the American population, show little interest in visiting or paying for national parks; since Hispanics will soon account for 20-25 percent of country’s population, this should be a matter of great concern.
• International tourists are taking up much of the slack created by diminished park-visiting interest on the part of Americans. By implication, the National Park Service needs to work much harder attracting and pleasing them.
• The National Park Service does not understand the implications of declining attendance and has failed to effectively address the issue.
• Environmentalists pose the greatest obstacle to restoring national park attendance to historically higher norms; by blocking needed convenience- and entertainment- related developments in the parks, environmentalists have taken away the main tool for increasing park attractiveness.
• As national park visitation continues to decline, Americans will become less willing to see their tax money spent to improve the national parks and expand the National Park System.
Well, there you have it. Not very pretty, is it?
You’ll be reading more about the referenced trends and issues in Traveler. Remember, I’m not vetting this article's observations and conclusions at this time, just drawing them to your attention as an indication of how the international press is reporting on America's national parks, “the best idea America ever had.” Perhaps you’d like to comment.
Incidentally, if you should happen to read the entire article in The Economist, you will find an absolutely bizarre statement that reads like this: "Were it not for British and German tourists enjoying the weak dollar, the parks would be desolate." Folks, that has got to be one of the most asinine statements about our national parks that I have seen in recent years, and I have seen some beauts. What were they thinking?!
Comments
Kirby & Frank;
I am putting real estate and regional relocation information that I use for my own pre-purchase research (Olympic Peninsula & Alaska) on a separate temporary webpage. (This will be moved to my regular website.) Please e-mail me with any questions/comments.
Ted
"Thanks for the straight-up description of good, typical, play & work by the rules Americans. The compromising labors & unglamorous job-commitments of the many, is what enables our modern civilization to ... imagine & create National Parks, among other improvements.
We created a social system that promised benefits to those who signed up for long tours in the economic trenches, and we owe them ... including a slice of the Parks."
Thanks Ted. Whatever I may think about people as a group, anyone who has appropriate respect for the Parks has as much right to be there as anyone else, and those ordinary people are very much among those who were intended to benefit from the Parks.
"If an individual can't find entertainment or enjoyment in tracking animals, watching ants work, sitting next to a towering waterfall, canoeing, hiking, exploring Anasazi ruins, discovering dinosaur tracks, or strolling through wildflower fields, then national parks are not for this individual. No one should compromise what national parks are for the amusement of, as Beamis puts it, the "bloated, mind-numbed masses of postmodern America""
Frank C. - The characterization from Beamis makes me wince, but I can't disagree with the overall sentiment. The Parks are one of our greatest national treasures, and they need to be appreciated for what they are. People who visit should know and understand that they are not simply for doing the same things you can do anywhere, but in a slightly more outdoor environment. They exist to preserve and protect wilderness areas, wildlife, natural wonders or historical sites, and to give people the chance to see and appreciate them. A visitor center with an appropriate exhibit is fine; a comfortable room in a rustic lodge - ok. An amusement park and highrise hotels would be unforgiveable.
I have to say that I agree very much with "Frank C." I am among the 1 million plus Americans who live fulltime in an RV. Seeing and working at our National Parks and Forests is a major part of a lot of our lives. I have worked the past couple years for the Corp of Engineers as a Park Attendant Contractor. After talking to many part and full time RV`ers, I believe that the reason a lot of people don`t go to the National Parks is mostly because of the crowds.We`ve gone to Yellowstone just to find that there are no open campsites or the parks are so full of visitors that it`s very hard to get around. A lot of us had plans to travel to the northwest this summer but with the fuel prices the way they are,staying here on the east coast will be easier on the funds. It wouldn`t hurt a lot of our feelings if they shut down a couple parks every so often for a couple years just so it can recover from the human foot print left behing by those who don`t care.
Just to respond to the somewhat vitriolic attitude of some that I, or other like-minded folks on this board, are "environmental whackos", I will only say this:
Is it that horrible that we advocate preservation of a small percentage of this country in as pristine a condition as is possible in this modern world? Does having that view automatically mark us as whackos? Am I really asking for something that terrible?
Look, it's a big country. There are plenty of national forests, state forests, and private land where people can truly romp around on ATVs and shoot game. My father lives in rural West Virginia and hunts and fishes and joy rides and everything else, and I'm completely fine with it. All I'm asking is that we try very hard to keep our National Park System units as clean, and pleasant, and unscathed, as is possible. They really are few and far between, they are the crown jewels of this country, and I want to see them preserved for centuries to come.
If the root cause of reduced attendance at the parks is because the public facilities are run down, then fine, let's fix the facilities (including the long-established roadways). If it's because people forgot they were there, then fine, let's have a public service announcement campaign or something.
If, however, the root cause is simply because fewer people are [interested] in non-intrusive outdoor activities, or [interested] in any outdoor activities at all, then that's just life. I don't feel we should allow invasive off-road activities simply to draw more visitors. I don't think we should pave more wilderness simply to make it more accessible. I don't think we should build more IMAX theaters on park land to interest the video-game generation.
We should not risk the health of the parks for the sole purpose of making people interested in them again. The primary purpose of the NPS is to preserve the unique natural wonders of our country, and that's the only purpose I want for them.
==================================================
My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com
if the national parks weren't for people to use, they would need to be called something different than a park:
park |pärk|
noun
1 a large public green area in a town, used for recreation : a walk around the park.
• a large area of land kept in its natural state for public recreational use.
• (also wildlife park) a large enclosed area of land used to accommodate wild animals in captivity.
• a stadium or enclosed area used for sports.
• a large enclosed piece of ground, typically with woodland and pasture, attached to a large country house : the house is set in its own park.
• (in the western U.S.) a broad, flat, mostly open area in a mountainous region.
i realize the nps has a different mission statement than promoting recreation, but why should people pay taxes to support something they don't use? people won't protect, defend or pay for something they don't love or understand, if people stop using the parks at current numbers, i'd hate to see what happens.
in my experience, anything labeled a national park on a map is something that receives heavy visitation anyway, so you wilderness folks can get over yourselves when dismissing the crowds who really need to visit them. the commenter above had it right, the screaming kids in the cafeteria is the next round of environmentalists (hopefully ones that are less smug) and they need to see these parks, crowds or no crowds.
As an 84 year old that has visited most of these parks over the past 50 or so years
I would hope that more and more people would have the same thoughts as Frank C about our parks. If pure natural wilderness & wildlife doesn't "entertain" people let them
go to a movie , disneyland, or whatever does entertain them. This will leave room for me ( and other interested people) to relax and enjoy as I expect to on my
08/09 winter trip from Maine.
HOORAY FOR FRANK C AND PEOPLE LIKE HIM !!!!!!!
"Environmentalists pose the greatest obstacle to restoring national park attendance to historically higher norms; by blocking needed convenience- and entertainment- related developments in the parks, environmentalists have taken away the main tool for increasing park attractiveness."
THAT, folks, is the Inconvenient Truth!!!
Perhaps outsourcing is just around the corner! Sell 'em to a large corporation to be better managed.
I totally agree with Barkys' August 25th post !
Let free enterprise "entertain" folks outside our National Parks. The National Parks were saved as "National Treasures" to preserve and protect their natural beauty !