Why the declining interest in backcountry travel in the National Park System?/Bob Mishak
Glance through National Park System visitation statistics for a few years, and some puzzling numbers surface. For example: Doesn't anyone like to backpack anymore.
Ok, that was a little hyperbole. There are still a lot of backpackers in the National Park System. Just not as many as there were when Baby Boomers were coming of age.
Overall visitation to the parks in 2014 reached a record 292.8 million. But surprisingly few of those visitors spent a night -- whether in tent, on a boat, or in a lodge -- in the parks.
According to National Park Service statisticians, of those nearly 293 million who came to the parks last year, just 14.1 million stayed overnight. While that's up from the 13.5 million who spent at a night in 2013 -- that year visitation was significantly depressed by the partial government shutdown that closed most park units for 16 days -- it's slightly down from 2012 levels, when 14.3 million visitors stayed the night.
As for backcountry use, in 2014 the Park Service tallied 1.9 million overnight stays, while in 2013 there were 1.7 million, and in 2012 1.8 million. While those numbers seem bullish, they are quite a bit down from the late '70s and early '80s, when a good number of the Baby Boom generation was fit, able, and determined to see -- and sleep in -- the outdoors.
According to the Park Service, in 1979 there were almost 2.4 million backcountry travelers in the parks, or roughly 500,000 more than last year. In 1980, the number again approached 2.4 million.
Why the drop in backcountry camping, at a time when individualism is still going strong, when The North Face is seen on Broadway about as often as it is on the North Rim? That's the $64 million question.
"The NPS stats system just collects the 'how many' part of the equation - we have very little on 'why' except when there are major events, such as closings, re-openings, etc.," says Pam Ziesler, who works with the Park Service's Visitor Use Statistics Program.
Could it be related to fees charged at some national parks for backcountry access? While the small fees charged by some parks might not seem to be an impediment, access to U.S. Forest Service backcountry sites is free, says Kitty Benzar of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, and that might be draining some backpackers away from the parks.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service doesn't track backcountry usage like the Park Service does, and so has no easily obtained data that might indicate whether there has been an exodus of backpackers from park lands to forest lands.
Have those fees led you to vistas outside the National Park System?
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I'm sure it has nothing to do with daily fees concocted for backcountry camping. The NPS is brilliant. They reduced backcountry camping in the Smokies by %30 the first year they implemented a backcountry fee. And despite the bs spouted by guide services, those numbers are still down. And don't believe the fake NPS stats spouted by NPS people. Data is being collected that isn't from the NPS showing backcountry camping is down because the NPS has manipulated numbers and been caught padding them here in the Smokies. Daily I hear from folks who show up in campsites showing full on the NPS site only to find them empty. Are people really forfeiting their money to the tune of 10 people per campsite? I find it a bit inconvenient for the NPS.
If it comes from you and the SFW, it's surely "truth", right? Obviously, from your failed lawsuit, it proves that you have ZERO credibility, and anything you state should be considered with quite a bit of skepticism.
King George III called us "rabble."
Too much easily used electronic entertainment replacing outdoor activities?
Too many McDoubles and triple Whoppers producing more obesity and lethargy?
A key factor in this question is likely demographics. The baby boom generation provided a big increase in people in the prime backpacking age group in the 1970s and 1980s time period, and that coincided with the growth of the environmental movement. Census figures show a decline in percentage of Americans in the 18 to 45 age group in the past two decades. Just not as many potential backpackers out there these days.
Yep, I agree with that Jim. Just by shear numbers, the baby boomers out numbered the xers and yers. There's still a lot of young people in the backcountry.
This from Pew Research:
Kurt,
Those numbers reflect the currently living not the peak populations. The more relevant numbers would be the number of Baby Boomers in the 70s and 80s and the number of Millennials now.
More yes, but who is to say its "too much" or "too many"?
Isn't there a guideline here about ad hominum attacks?
Fads come and go.
There have been some studies of trends in the demographics of park visitors, and that would probably give even more insights to this question that trends in the general population. I recall one news story recently that described U. S. national parks visitors as largely "white and aging." If so, that's one possible factor in the declining number of current backpackers as compared to 30 years ago.
One marketing study is a bit dated (2007) but claims that "68% of backpackers are Caucasian. Backpackers skew towards a younger demographic than hikers, with 25% of all participants between the ages of 25 to 34 and an average age of 31. They are primarily male and unmarried and 31% have a household income above $75K."
I haven't chased down recent trends in the group described above, but this site says the general U. S. population age 18 to 44 is down about 6% in 2010 compared to 1980.
Some insights are probably available by delving into the following:
http://www.npca.org/assets/pdf/Committee_People_and_Parks.PDF
Jim,
I think there is a strong case for the demographics argument. I also have to agree the more recent generations have found virtual reality more attractive that real reality. I find it hard to believe that a generation that is spending $500+ for a telephone and hundreds of dollars in monthly TV and phone bills are deswaded from backpacking in the NPS because of minor gate or backcountry fees.
I tend to take a global perspective on this. Most countries now have national parks, and many of them are cherished by the citizenry in their respective countries. I don't think race plays a massive factor for people's enjoyment of National Parks, whether that's here in the states, or some place like China, Poland, or India - seems that National Parks are embraced by more than just caucasions. The economics at play is that backpacking and getting the proper equipment is not exactly cheap, even for middle class Americans.. You literally can spend 1000's on new equipment for backpacking. It's definitely cheaper than a pop-up tent, or a RV, but it's still an expensive hobby. But, most that delve deep into it, get addicted to it. I don't even want to think about all the equipment costs i've purchased over the years, as well as the costs in travel... but it's been a fairly good % of my income.
You can, but certainly don't have to.
Gary - thanks for the international perspective. I should have said the news story observed that visitors to U. S. national parks tend to be white and aging, and I made that change above. Lots has been said lately about the need to broaden the user base for U. S. national parks, and that applies to general park users, not just backpackers.
It is not just demographics. Rather, it is what young people today are taught. In the 1970s, the Environmental Studies Program at UC Santa Barbara was going gangbusters under the direction of Roderick Nash, et al. The most popular cross-over course was American Environmental History. Professor Nash taught wilderness and the students loved it. After all, it was his book. Hundreds of students annually were inspired by WILDERNESS AND THE AMERICAN MIND, backpacking anything within a day's drive of Santa Barbara, especially Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks.
Who is teaching wilderness that way today? Very few in the academic scene. Add to that the cost of college education. In 1971, the UC system was FREE. I had a teaching assistantship that paid ALL of the bills. Try that today with 10 administrators for every member of the teaching faculty--and two-thirds of the faculy teaching part-time without retirement or medical benefits.
You want to know where the backpackers have gone? To the poorhouse. You want to know where wilderness has gone on college campuses? To the guilt house. American exceptionalism is forever questioned, and it takes the teaching of exceptionalism to believe in wilderness--to believe in parks.
The 1970s were a heady time in American higher education--and it was reflected in the parks. I run out of fingers and toes listing all of my students who went into the Park Service, Forest Service, California State Parks, and related agencies.
Now, it's all about the "front-country" again. You saw what the concessionaires said the other day. Give us more "opportunities," i.e., profit centers. That means more roads and development.
Protected wilderness has always meant an active citizenry willing to stay informed. Ask then how young people are being informed--not how "many" in each group there are. In the 1970s, wilderness was a riveting subject on college campuses, and so the backcountry filled. Substitute that for a "new" curriculum and today's cost of a college education, and you see what is missing--opportunity, and with opportunity the idealism to believe in wilderness as a common good.
I think the backpacking bug gets imbedded well before college. Certainly was for me. I have to wonder whether the decline in the participation in the Boy Scouts hasn't had some influence.
The statute of limitations for ad hominem comments by King George calling the colonists a ' rabble' has likely expired.
If there was only a like button... this comment would get at least one thumbs up.
One major item is the not just the absence of income, but also the absence of free time. Yet, the numbers of through hikers on the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail are increasing.
I contend that if the US citizen were to be alllowed the same amount of vacation time as is enjoyed by most citizens of the countries of Europe, we'd see a lot more people using backpacking as a form of personal recreation.
One major item is the not just the absence of income, but also the absence of free time. Yet, the numbers of through hikers on the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail are increasing.
I contend that if the US citizen were to be alllowed the same amount of vacation time as is enjoyed by most citizens of the countries of Europe, we'd see a lot more people using backpacking as a form of personal recreation.
A very good point, EC. Scouting is also down. And family vacations lasting more than two weeks. Today, the average American vacation is 4.1 nights, which, 20 years ago, led to a blistering editorial in Conde Nast Traveler that we Americans were out of our minds. I use one of the quotes in Trains of Discovery:
The decimalization of the American vacation into 4.1 nights will be regarded by Europeans as further evidence of cultural collapse. . . Americans have tragically deserted the most heroic dimension of their own continent: size. With many other Europeans, I feel that Americans are strangers to their own country in a way that no European can be. One reason is the demise of the American railroad.
Clive Irving, Condé Nast Traveler, September 1992
Nor is it just the demise of the railroad. It is also the demise of TIME. You need it to see wilderness properly; now everyone is watching a clock.
I see that we're on the same page, Owen. You bet. Americans may play hard, but we don't play long enough. Those taking the Pacific Crest and Appalachian Trails are in the pursuit of life-changing experiences. We should all do that at least once. . .
There is as much time as ever. It is just a matter of how chooses to use it. I certainly am not one that is going to take away that choice.
You speak of choice, but it is not always a choice, especially when your employer is making demands. Or when, in going to school, you have to work as well as study. In the nineteenth century, the average workday was 14 hours and the average workweek was six days. Farmers worked even on Sunday. Would we want THAT again? Well, in many professions and industries we indeed have it, and that also affects the national parks.
However, I get your point. No one forced us to choose those lifestyles. Now all we need to do is convince the future that working ourselves to death is the way to go.
Yes it is a choice. You choose who you work for. You choose whether you go to school. If a high powered career is more important to you than backpacking, that is your choice. If you go to school, that is your choice. If you sit on your butt and watch TV all day. That is your choice.
GA-ME 2002
Come on, EC. You know what I mean. If you happen to work for anyone, it is never about just your choice. We all have a boss, as the saying goes. Or perhaps you have discovered Utopia? In that case, is the Wizard in?
Here in Seattle, we just chose to pay everyone $15 an hour, and now practically every landlord has chosen to raise the rent. Choose not to pay and move? Easy for a few people, but not for most.
Backpacking is expensive, as is dropping out of society to do it. Forty years ago, it was far easier to do than now. But yes, if you sit on your butt all day and watch television, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Georgia to Maine? Yes, congratulations. And yes, I would like to hear about it in The Traveler. And please include your pictures, too.
Eric Buck, Does GA-ME 2002 mean the Appilacian trail from Georgia to Maine? If so, Awesome. That would be a good story for NP Traveler. I am sure others would like to hear your highlights. I always thought I would like to do a backpacking trip in Yellowstone or somewhere, but we only do day hikes or shorter.
Yes David. Be glad to answer questions but don't know it is worthy of an NP Traveler story. I will say, growing up in Northern Virginia I hiked some portions of the AT as a Boy Scout. Did the same with my sons in Pennsylvania as a Boy Scout leader many years later. I had always wanted to hike the AT and I made a choice in 2002 to take the time to make it happen.
Alfred - as my son's Babe Ruth league coach said - "life is about choices". That is (or at least has been) the beauty of our country. We all can make our own choices.
As Gomer Pyle said "suprise, suprise, suprise". Of course they did and prices will go up everywhere and people will lose their jobs.
Only if you want it to be.
Not sure Kurt's server is large enough for all my pictures but would be happy to post a few. Seem to have lost the capability of doing so on this site a while back. If its still possible, Kurt, educate me - here or via email. I promise, I won't abuse.
Thanks for backing up my comments about "too much," ec. Who decides how much to "too much" are all of us who choose where to spend our money, where to spend our time, how to keep ourselves amused, what we eat, and how much or how little we choose to exercise.
Then, based upon our choices, we must live with the consequences -- whatever they may be.
Something I never did. I said more and challanged the concept of "too much"
Exactly. And if they are choosing Big Macs and Whoppers, they obviously don't believe it is excessive.
Eric, a couple of years ago I hiked the width of the AT but not the length. LOL. My wifes knees prevent us from taking too long of a hike.
David - enjoyed your comment. A few years ago my wife and I were on the half-mile paved path that leads from the parking lot to the overlook "tower" at Clingmans Dome in the Smokies. We encountered three girls in their late teens or so along that path; they were clearly not dressed for a hike, but had seen a sign along the way for the AT, and had stopped for a discussion.
One of them said something like, "Appalachian Trail? Maybe we should take that! Is it a very long trail?"
We stopped and my wife said something like, "It's over 2,000 miles long!"
After a shocked silence, the reply was "Oh!" Fortunately, that group decided to pass on the AT that afternoon :-)
Exactly. And if they are choosing Big Macs and Whoppers, they obviously don't believe the potential weight gain is excessive.
My point was that everyone chooses. While some of us choose to enjoy the outdoors, others choose to become fat and lazy and soft. Just based upon personal observation, there are a lot of Americans choosing the latter.
What's too much for me is just right for someone else.
And if you don't eat at Burger King or McDonalds, what do you care how many Burger Kings and McDonalds there are. One would be more than you need but the fact that others want them means there aren't "too many".
Back when I was physically capable I never completed the AT. It was a dream and at various times while living on the east coast I did chunks of it. I envy anyone who has made the committment to do it.
Enjoy vicariously
https://youtu.be/d_IFLJYlv4Q
Ec, nice pictures and I'm envious of your accomplishment! How long did it take?
5 1/2 months.
ec - thanks for compiling those photos into the Youtube video. An excellent way to share a lot of images online. What a great trip - and accomplishment!
Thank you. Obviously I don't have anything on Barbara in the photography department but I was carrying less equipment and certainly taking less time for each photo.
ec - I am glad you shared your experience. I have lots of admiration to anyone who is able to accomplish what you did. I hope it inspires others to set goals like this. Thanks for sharing!