Frank_C

On August 24th, 2008

• Attendance for America’s national parks peaked more than 20 years ago (in 1987).

Good. Parks were far too crowded. At least we won't hear the news talking about "loving our parks to death" any more.

• 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.

How much of this decline is due to problems accessing the park due to roads being washed out?

• 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.

Lower wilderness use means lower wilderness impact.

• Americans believe that their national parks are much less entertaining, less user-friendly, and less kid-safe than they should be.

It's not the job of national parks to "entertain" people. The Organic Act says nothing of entertainment. If you want entertainment, visit Disneyland or watch a movie. User-friendly? Does this mean the NPS should install elevators to Crater Lake's water level (as many visitors--jokingly?--requested)? "Kid-safe"? What does this even mean?

• 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.

Here, some might say I'm coming across as prejudiced, but as an "honorary Mexican" (a title given by my best friend), I'll take the risk. I visited Silver Falls State Park in Oreogn on a Mexican holiday and picked up a full bag of trash on my hike down to the falls. I can say "good" to this statement. If other cultures can't learn how to preserve nature and not throw trash on trails, then they should stay out of national parks.

• 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.

I don't think it's the job of the NPS to "please" international visitors.

• 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.

Thank god. Parks are for preservation and not for entertainment. If you can't find entertainment in watching wildlife or sitting near a waterfall, then national parks are not for you. And "needed" convenience development? National parks are NOT cities.

• 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.

First, I don't think national parks "need" improving. They were fine they way they were (wild). However, this is a huge argument for moving national park funding from a tax-based funding system to one consisting of voluntary transactions.

Reply

To stop unwanted comment spam, all comments submitted by unregistered visitors will first go through an approval queue, and may not show up on the website right away
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.