Recent comments

Anon---I agree with you about sharing the parks with a wide variety of people. That is the nature and essence of my business. It's fine for each of us to share what we are passionate about to those who may be new to the experience. That is not the thread I am picking up from the previous commentary. I'm getting the impression that there is some concrete program or intiative that should spring up to address this problem.

I agree with kath: what is it that should be done? I say nothing. What say those who find this to be a pressing issue?

By the way, good thread Kurt. I hope this is what you and Jeremy were looking to accomplish with your new website. A job well done!

beamis: while i usually appreciate your perspective, i don't think trying to share the values of the experience of a national park smacks of paternalism. people love nature, period. i've lead "colored" urban youth (many that didn't speak english and weren't born in this country), "lily white" gray hairs and international visitors on various tours in various outside locations year round. in my experience, if you do it right and let them figure it out, they all get stoked, without exception. you can see it in their eyes, their faces...

This is an exquisite, unnerving and important conversation. I'm glad there's a forum for it.

Here's one important thing for us to (continue) to do. We must include ALL Americans in the story of the parks. Past prejudices and blindnesses on the parts of historians, administrators and park interpreters have erased people of various colors, ethnicities and cultures from the stories of our parks. And if you think that problem's been solved, you're not paying attention. This may be something Service insiders may have been dealing with for a while, but it's not visible to the average visitor.

Kath brought up the buffalo soldiers in Yosemite. Ironically, this proves the point. It was an African-American ranger who researched and wrote about this historical fact... almost one hundred years after the event (and not that long ago).

Go into visitors centers around the national parks and count the black and brown faces on the walls. Look for their stories. It's not that their stories don't exist; it's that we keep their stories from view. Does this sound like a marketing issue? It isn't. It's an issue of whose story we're respecting.

I've watched the Park Service struggle for decades with interpretation at Whitman Mission NHS. Only in the last five or six years has there begun to be more accuracy in describing the mixture of race, culture, gender and religion that found its crossroads there. The details of this story still have not been told accurately (though I'm working on it). By the way, from an interpretive perspective, you would think that two white New England missionaries built the first buildings at Waiilatpu. It was actually two white New England missionary, one free African-American and one Hawaiian Islander (who probably had a wife, but history has left this entirely out of the record).

Until very recently, the story of native cultures in Yellowstone was reduced to a few racially charged sentences here and there on "Sheepeaters" who "feared the park's thermal features." Yellowstone, in fact, was a major cultural crossroads whose influence (pre-Contact) affected people all over the Northern Hemisphere. Only in the last few years have we begun listening to native people's own stories about Western park areas and included them in the stories that visitors see and experience. There's a sad story of this (though it's not specifically NPS-sourced) in Rebecca Solnit's Savage Dreams, where she describes a group of modern Yosemite Indians visiting the Smithsonian Institution only to see an exhibit describing Yosemite Indians as extinct.

The parks belong to all the people, even those who never visit. They are for our children's children. Mr. Hare is absolutely correct when he states that legislation doesn't last by magic. Look at Hetch Hetchy. We will lose the National Parks unless we can help people value them whether they visit or not. I think we raise people's value of the parks by helping them understand how people in the past who were "just like me" found value in the parks and fought to protect them.

Blaming the younger generation for their tvs and blackberries is a bit like saying, "In my days..." It's rather missing the point. How can they care when they don't see themselves in it?

One poll I read a few years ago said that of ALL government services, people liked the National Parks more than anything. The only thing that could doom the National Parks is if huge population pressures make the parks and their surrounding lands housing developments, shopping centers, electrical corridors or highways. Which is why I will never understand why the environmental movement isn't against increased immigration which is the only reason the U. S. population is expanding so rapidly. Hopefully that kind of population pressure will never happen. But look at countries with a high density of population and you see no open space, no wildlife. I would hate to live to see the U. S. become like that. Meanwhile, preservationists need to work to keep the National Parks from being trampled under too much love.

Our Sunday school class of 70+ young seniors came out to West Yellowstone last winter. We stayed in West and used it to try all different things. We took a snowcoach tour into West Yellowstone one day, learned to ride snowmobiles the next day and spent the day going along the groomed trails right outside of West Yellowstone. It was just as easy as driving our golf cart back home. Some of us even rented ski's for the day and tried the ski trail at the Rendezvous Ski Trails. We were the ones that always stopped to take pictures of the beautiful scenery (while really catching our breath). We had a lot of fun and actually meet many other people like the family that came up from Florida just so their kids could see snow for the first time. I have been to Yellowstone Park many times in the summer, but coming in the winter was a real adventure for anyone (of any age.)

Anonymous is absolutely right. He said in one sentence what it took me a paragraph to say. Wayne sounds more like the marketing manager of a major corporation worried about his product's market share in the minority community than a ranger. The National Parks are not and should not be run like Disneyland worried about appealing to this or that demographic. The mission of the National Parks is to protect unique ecosystems, land forms and wildlife. Only secondarily to accommodate visitors. Attracting more visitors of any color is almost contrary to the mission of protecting the land. Yosemite's plan is already looking at ways to limit visitation to Yosemite Valley. What is Wayne suggesting, anyway? Advertising directed at minority communities?

Why are outdoor activities predominately white? Someone made the comment about fatherless households, something I hadn't though to before. If men are the primary instigators of outdoor activities then it makes sense that when 70% of black children are born out of wedlock and raised in a household with no father, there is no one to take them to parks.

It is also interesting to think about the demographics of usage of parks in areas with a high percentage of minorities. The U. S. Virgin Islands is something like 90% black, including the island of St. John, which is home to the U. S. Virgin Islands National Park. But who do you find snorkeling and hiking to the old sugar mill ruins? Not the locals, but Caucasian visitors. Same for the Natchez Trace Parkway in largely black Mississippi.

Similarly, there's the large Navajo lands just south of Mesa Verde National Park, a park devoted to early Native American culture. But who are the visitors? Not Native Americans. Glacier National Park is bordered on the east by the Blackfoot Reservation. Do they visit the park next door?

It may be culture, education, whatever. But bottom line: The National Parks should not be run like tourist attractions worrying about market share. They should be run to protect the land first and foremost.

Wayne is worried that the changing demographics of the country will mean that the parks will be less valued. The United States is also getting older with senior citizens becoming a larger and larger percentage of the population. Does Wayne propose that we make the parks more attractive to seniors so that they will continue to support the parks? Maybe put in funicular railroads to the tops of mountains seniors can no longer hike to? Following his reasoning on demographic trends that would be what the NPS should do.

First of all, it's a very interesting discussion, and I sense we are all taking it to heart. I appreciate Kurt's bibliography, though I'll insist that it wasn't necessary for us to have a serious discussion about this - it certainly adds to the richness of the discussion. I'm thankful to RangerX for being sincere and honest and putting himself out there on this issue, even if I vehemently disagree with him. And, I'm thankful that Wayne Hare has come in to add to his thoughts on the issue and see a lot to think about there.

Secondly, specifically to Jon, be careful how you use statistics. Per capita statistics are general averages and don't speak to specific populations. While economic class is an important consideration in determining park visitation (and I least of all would ask us not to consider it), it's not the only thing that explains the statistics around visitation, according to the study by Dr. Roberts that Jeremy posted. Furthermore, the strong correlation between economic class and race at the general level is itself a source of concern for us. To the extent that race has been used as a cause for economic inequity, it is worth exploring whether the reasons for that are similar or different from those that cause various kinds of inequity in the parks.

Thirdly, I think it's strange that we are talking about this problem in the parks as something that we think we need to do something about, as though diversity is spread in just the manner that Bush talks about spreading freedom to Iraq. It's not something we create; we don't just add a few numbers here, subtract a few numbers there, and voila have diversity. In fact, the language is still hierarchical, as though "we" make this happen. Here is where I can agree with RangerX to the extent that the answer isn't to set an artificial target of a certain type of person and make it our life's work to go out and get them; however, it's not because I think the target isn't so worthwhile, it's because I don't think the process is right. It still is paternalistic. The problem is much more deep rooted built on centuries of abuse and mistrust, perception, misperception, and deeply ingrained prejudices and stereotypes.

Let me try to explain what I'm getting at from an example in my experience and also to let you know that I certainly don't have answers or a magic plan to end racial mistrust, just a sense that we need to challenge ourselves to examine the ways that racism infects us in even the most subtle, unintentional ways. For several years, I was involved with an anti-war group in Washington, DC, called the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN). DAWN is an open, non-hierarchical (meaning no leaders) group of people who met on Tuesday nights and planned actions together against U.S. militarism and against social injustice. It was for the most part a great and strange mix of people - socialists, liberals, libertarians, anarchists, gay, straight, atheist, Quaker, Jew, Muslim. In two ways, it seemed to fall short in diversity. There were often far more men than women; there were usually far more whites than people of color. On the second issue, that's troubling in a city that's 2 to 1 black to white. DAWN was an open group, allowed everyone to come in, met in a racially diverse neighborhood that was accessible to anyone in the city and most in the equally racially diverse suburbs, but the group was still with only a handful of exceptions, a group of whites. The question often came up on how to get more racial diversity in DAWN since it was embarrassing for the group not to have that racial diversity. One answer seemed to be that there was a group somewhat like DAWN called "Black Voices for Peace" that was founded and run by the late Damu Smith. I visited Black Voices for Peace on a few occasions and found a group that was almost the mirror of DAWN, overwhelmingly black, with a scattered white person. Instead of being non-hierarchical in the process, Black Voices for Peace was mostly run by Damu, though he had a board of three prominent people in the African American anti-war community who made the decisions. It was not a group that many people in DAWN would have felt comfortable, with prayers, without a voice in decision-making, much less so about race. Damu was a complicated man (he died a year ago of liver cancer) who had his own radio show, worked on race and environmental justice issues (though environmental justice is such a small issue in DC), and was often fond of speaking out against white people, even as he was quick to embrace and hug me. Anyhow, when confronted by the white/black divide in the anti-war movement, Damu said the problem was that white groups come to black groups out of their sense of guilt and look to bring them along. He wondered why after so many hundreds of years that whites didn't take the lead from blacks, from those who have been oppressed for so long. Of course, that would never fly to people in DAWN, not because they were adverse to the problems of racial oppression but because of the hierarchical way in which things had been framed. So, the reality has lingered on. In 2001, at Bush's first inauguration, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson spoke to a mostly African American audience by the Capitol. At Dupont Circle, a mostly white audience rallied. Even if both groups had mostly voted against Bush, were both upset that democracy had been dealt another blow, they did it separately (and perhaps unequally as well). I can list example after example of this and the charges of tokenization and so forth. For instance, when a white group wants racial diversity (as almost all say they want), they tend to trot out the same people of color time and time again.

I've thought long and hard about the failures of DAWN on the issue of racial diversity. If the answer wasn't going out and simply recruiting people of color to join the group, and if the answer wasn't simply giving up one's beliefs and letting someone else control a group just to attain diversity, then what is the answer? I know that if I had any inkling of that answer, I'd be following through on it. It's not fun to live on these streets and be yelled at with racially derogatory remarks, at least a couple times a month. It's certainly not fun seeing how the gentrification of the city have plenty of racial elements as well, with the white population growing and the African American population declining. I live in an apartment building that happens to be about 90% Latino (mostly from El Salvador) - most of the rest are African Americans. English is the second language here, and there have been incidents of accusations against us because we are white. It's hurtful because I hate racism so much, but I have some sense that there are solid reasons where the pain being thrown back at me comes from. There are a million privileges I have had for being white, though I haven't asked for any of them. Nevertheless, I have some responsibility to do something about it. I strongly believe the first step is just this sort of dialogue where we talk about race, how it affects us, and listen to people. We're going to find all kinds of complex differences and experiences that explains why we don't just all get along, and we're going to have numerous setbacks. Yet, we have to keep talking about it. We have to learn from it. I had no idea when I moved to DC that perhaps my moving here was part of a process that could be tied to race. I thought I was just working on a Ph.D. But, that was naive of me. People are getting displaced constantly due to a lot of forces we are unwittingly a part of. We need to educate ourselves about them. My Salvadoran neighbors were in many cases displaced by political and economic upheaval in El Salvador's rural areas brought about by actions of the United States government. I didn't ever call for this upheaval; I've fought against it. Yet, whatever economic advantage I have, whatever social advantage, have led us to be the neighbors we are.

We have to keep talking; that's how we'll build a rich diversity full of rich experiences. When I talked with Damu, I'll admit there were some ways I liked him less, but it was no longer about race but about ideas. I didn't embrace him as just a man whose color led me to embrace him but because he was a man struggling for the same things I was, albeit in different ways. It was the problem of race that separated us, made us suspicious in ways we can't always imagine (another reason to talk), but it was something else that kept us separated. That sounds bad, but that's progress.

So, in the parks, I don't think you just go out and recruit people of color and "do something" about the problem of diversity. But, we cannot run away from the problem, we cannot be in denial that it doesn't exist, we cannot deny that we all as members of this society are part of its race problems. We need to talk and to listen. That's the only step that makes any sense to me. The research that Dr. Roberts shared, the experiences that Wayne Hare shared, that we are sharing now is extremely important. It undercuts the bogus logic of domination that has been part of race relations and environmental protection. It is the first step in a journey whose end we cannot map out, a hike into the wilderness, of a very important topic to us all, if we are truly to heal all the hundreds of years of abuse and mistrust. Let's hope that as we move to talk about other important issues, that we integrate this into our conversation, not just because we should out of some sense of guilt, but because we must if we are going to get a handle on the causes of everything else that's going on.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

Dear Mr. Merryman, I couldn't agree with you more. I recently visited Sandy Hook, taking the ferry from Lower Manhattan. Its beautiful beaches were crowded on a hot July day, providing welcome relief from the heat for thousands of people. But the historic and natural attractions were equally interesting. Many New York residents (and visitors) are probably casually aware that there's an old fort in Battery Park at the tip of Manhattan (it's now used as a ticket office for the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island ferries), and they may even be aware that there's a sister fort on Governors Island just across the Upper Bay (both dating from the War of 1812) — but it wasn't until I got to Sandy Hook that I realized the extent of the defense system that has been in place in some form since the American Revolution to protect New York harbor. I didn't know — until that afternoon — that the oldest lighthouse in the United States still in use is in Sandy Hook. Even the Visitors Center was interesting, with its insights into the perilous New Jersey coast and the formation of the U.S. Life-Saving Service to rescue shipwrecked sailors. As for Fort Hancock, it is beautiful — and a little sad because so many of the buildings are in disrepair and may soon be too far gone to salvage. The row of 18 officers' houses facing Sandy Hook Bay and the parade ground is a grand sight as visitors debark from the ferry. Along with the rest of Fort Hancock, they were designed by Captain Arthur Murray, who consulted on the design with Carrere and Hastings, two of the most prominent architects of the period. I particularly liked the house that is open as a museum, accurately furnished as it would have been in the 1940s. The spaciousness of the house (occupied by an Army lieutenant and his family) would be the envy of most New Yorkers and was most likely taken for granted at the time, but I imagine that few contemporary women would envy the life of an Army officer's wife, with its rigidly prescribed duties and expectations. Does Fort Hancock tell something of our national story? I think so — and am glad that the National Park Service has it and the Gateway National Recreation Area under its jurisdiction. I hope that the money will be found to help the dedicated park rangers and volunteers do the job they would like to do in preserving and interpreting the site. — Terese Loeb Kreuzer

Wayne,

Thanks very much for adding to the discussion on the website! I've been thinking about this topic all day. Your questions are good and worth exploring, specifically, what can racial diversity in the outdoors do for all of us?

But the question -- why aren't there more dark-skinned folks in the backcountry -- leads to a discussion of race that, in my opinion, misses something. As you address in your response, black folk cannot be pigeoned holed into any single stereotype (nor should they). Just like the rest of Americans, black folks are rich, poor, young, old, men, women, craftsman, outdoorsman, lawyers, bankers, ... you get where I'm going. And so, the question needs refinement, how about, why aren't there more dark-skinned families of means, like the Brotherhood of Skiers, present in the backcountry?

I know lots of white folks of means who would rather avoid the outdoors too. Like Ranger X, I've got friends who just don't get why anyone would spend a night in a tent. I have wondered today, why is it that outdoor lovers of all colors love the outdoors? In my case, I was introduced to the wonders of the outdoors by my parents, and on vacations as a kid. And so, because I know no different, perhaps to get a more ethnically diverse crowd in the backcountry, we must concentrate on the kids! Yes, the conversation does come back to kids and the outdoors. I'm not trying to avoid the issue of race (indeed, a delicate subject), it just seems to me race is far to broad a metric to ask specific questions and hope get meaningful answers in return.

Kurt Repanshek asked me to read the comments and write a response. I don’t want to get involved in an on-going discussion. I’m not an expert on this. I’m just an outdoor guy who made some observations and commented on those observations. Regarding empirical data versus hard science: Many have had the same observations as I. On August 3rd, 2005, Fran Mainella, past Director of the National Park Service wrote a memo to all “Employees, Stakeholders, and Partners” recognizing the lack of both employee and visitor diversity within National Parks. Bob Stanton, NPS Director immediately prior to Ms. Mainella was vocal and committed to the Park Service reflecting the “Face of America.” In the spring of 2006 Director Mainella’s office released a study highlighting the poor performance of the Park Service in hiring and promoting ethnically diverse staff. The National Parks and Conservation Association, http://www.npca.org/, a non-profit Park Service partner and watchdog so greatly recognizes this lack of diversity among staff and visitors to National Parks that the organization has a director of diversification, Iantha Gantt-Wright. Frank and Audrey Peterman, after an extensive recreational tour of National Parks in all corners of the country were so struck by the lack of diversity started Earthwise Productions, http://www.earthwiseproductionsinc.com/index.html, a successful environmental education and travel company to introduce a more diverse audience to our National Parks. Earthwise has become an official partner with the Park Service. When I was kayaking the White Salmon River in south central Washington state about 18 years ago, an Asian boater approached me with a smile and a handshake, saying, “It’s great to see another boater of color out here.” So, many people and organizations seem to have been able to observe this situation without the benefit of studies. The need and ability to ignore what one sees and rely on studies always amazes me. When I was young and single, I observed, as all single young outdoorsmen have, that a lot more men participate in outdoor recreation than woman. None of us needed the validation of a study. However, for those who do need the validation of studies, I have sent a list of some 47 relevant studies to this web site in the hope that National Park Traveler will make it available to its readers. Doctor Nina Roberts, a professor at San Francisco State University, has partially made a career out of passionately studying the issue, and I’ll certainly ask Doctor Roberts to respond to this site with more scholarly information than I have. So if you really need a study to validate what is easy to see, there you go.

The studies themselves are diverse and include blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. The studies include not only the Park Service, but the BLM, the Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers as well and includes large national parks as well as small state parks in such places as southern Illinois and Northern Ohio.

I’ve talked to hundreds of individuals and maybe a dozen or so groups - both as a private citizen and as a representative of different organizations - about diversity in the outdoors, and I’ve noticed a couple of things. People have an extraordinarily difficult time talking about race, and almost always need to alter the focus and talk about kids, or socio-economic status, or something other than pure race. It’s just a bad subject with uncomfortable connotations. I’ve noticed that it is difficult for people to not feel somehow blamed – if they’re white. To not go to what they might have to give up if more diversity were to exist in the outdoors. I’ve noticed that people immediately assume the discussion is about some kind of entitlement program, such as affirmative action. I’ve observed that people want to know whose fault it is that more people of color aren’t out in the backcountry. People often need to bring in diversity other than ethnic – to include religion, or Europeans, or financial diversity – as though that’s what we’re talking about and to prove that diversity in the backcountry certainly exist. (hey, I saw a GERMAN out there!!) And I guess if that’s what you’re talking about, than yes, diversity in the backcountry exist. So…I want to be as clear as I can be: Yes, the discussion is about ethnic diversity…the kind that comes with dark skin color. No, it’s not a secret code word. Yes, more kids should get outdoors. But when I go into the backcountry, I am happy to see quite a few children and I am gratified that their parents are exposing them to something they can healthfully enjoy their entire lives. But those kids that I see are almost always white. Somebody else can focus a discussion on urban youth not being in the outdoors, because that’s an issue as well. Yes, National Park issues of climate change, invasive species, environmental degradation, and excessive development are more important than the issue of ethnic diversity – but within our lifetime, as that pendulum swings and the majority of people in this country are people of color who may not have a positive attachment to nor any involvement with the land, ethnic diversity/ethnic affinity for the backcountry will take on a whole new and important meaning.

I’m not blaming anybody. I don’t buy into “white male disease.” Lack of diversity in the outdoors is not the intentional fault of any living person. And if a discussion of anything to do with race is a difficult discussion to have – well – I asked the question, “What can diversity do for all of us?” And I did have a short answer having to do with the difficulty of garnering support for our wild places and public lands when the majority population is comprised of people of color.

But how about…the great outdoors serving as a classroom of people just getting along without race being a factor at all? What better classroom? After all, if it rains we get wet, and when the temperature dips we get cold. If we flip our kayak in a class 4 rapid, we swim like heck and think about drowning. Nature doesn’t care what race you are, and for the most part, the folks that I’ve met out there don’t care either.

Race - how about…if we used the great outdoors to just get over it? Is it always going to be an uncomfortable topic? People don’t always have to feel blamed, to figure out who’s at fault, to rebel against a perceived entitlement program, to pretend that they lost their job because of somebody else’s need to hire a diverse staff.

How about…if we used the naturally occurring egalitarian nature of nature to just get over it, and in so doing began to truly live up to the national potential that our forefathers envisioned by using and involving all of our citizens? Nobody looses. Nobody gives anything up. Nobody gets blamed. Well, a person might have to give up their excuse for loosing their job.

People like to invoke, “It’s culture, not color.” I hear that all the time. But we’ve been together over six hundred years! Do we really have different cultures? Or is that a myth? When famed cowboy singer/songwriter Michael Martin Murphey played a concert in Moab, Utah a few months ago he lamented that if he’d been holding that concert a hundred years ago, 25% of his audience would have been people of color. He knows. Grant-Kohrs National Historic Ranch in Montana, a National Park Service site, right on their web site at http://www.npca.org/nps.gov/grko, exposes the lie that in the days of the old west, all cowboys were white. Grant-Kohrs knows.

As far as financial: Ahhh, myths die just sooo hard. I don’t know what the overall financial status of black Americans is. I’ve been to quite a few wealthy black suburban neighborhoods. I ski patrolled in Aspen for 6 years. The largest ski club in the country is the Brotherhood of Skiers. Skiing ain't cheap. I patrolled at Aspen for 6 years. A day pass for one person cost $78 dollars (more now), skis, bindings, and boots, with my deep ski patrol discount, cost me maybe $1,400.00 a crack. Meals at Aspen - where the Brotherhood likes to convene every few years and where the club was founded, are easily $75.00 per person, and quickly and easily go up from there. Rooms can go for $1,000's a night, but several hundred per night is standard. Plane fare to get to Aspen? And when the Brotherhood is in town, they party hearty and dress to be noticed!

What can diversity do for all of us of? It’s a real question. And it has real answers. Backed up by real studies. We can stop squandering so much time, energy, goodwill, and money on the myth of race.

I’m glad folks are in this discussion. Thanks.

To say that this has been an interesting discussion to follow would be an understatement. It's also not a new discussion, but rather one that's been poked and prodded from various angles since at least 1963, as the following list of studies indicates:

Allison, M. T. (1993). “Access and boundary maintenance: Serving culturally diverse populations.” Culture, conflict, and communicationin the wildland-urban interface. A.W. Wert, D.J. Chavez, and A.W. Magill, ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 99-107.

Bass, J. M., Ewert, A., and Chavez, D. J. (1993). “Influence of ethnicity on recreation and natural environment use patterns: Managing recreation sites for ethnic and racial diversity,” Environmental Management 17, 523-529.

Chavez, D. J. (1991). “Ethnic and racial group similarities and differences: A tool for resource managers.” Abstracts from the 1991 Symposium on Leisure Research. C. Sylvester and L. Caldwell, ed., National Recreation and Park Association, Alexandria, VA.

Chavez, D. J. (1993). “Visitor perceptions of crowding and discrimination at two national forests in Southern California,” Research Paper PSW-RP- 216, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA.

Chavez, D. J. , Baas, J., and Winter, P. L. (1993). “Mecca Hills visitor research case study,” Report BLM/CA/ST-93-005-9560, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA.

Dragon, C. (1986). “Native American under representation in national parks: Tests of marginality and ethnicity hypotheses,” Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho Department of Wildland Management, Moscow, ID.

Dunn, R. A. (1998). “African-American recreation at two Corps of Engineers projects: A preliminary assessment,” Natural Resources Technical Note REC-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Dunn, R. A. (1999). “Asian-American recreation at two Corps lakes in California: A Hmong case study,” Natural Resources Technical Note REC-12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. View on-line or download nrrec12.exe.

Dunn, R. A. (1999). “Hispanic American recreation at two Corps lakes in Texas and California,” Natural Resources Technical Note REC-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Dunn, R.A. (2002). "Managing for Ethnic Diversity: Recreation Facility and Service Modifications for Ethnic Minority Visitors," ERDC/EL TR-02-14. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. View Chapters 1-2 or Chapters 3-6 and Appendix A-D.

Dunn, R. A., and Feather, T. D. (1998). “Native American recreation at Corps projects: Results of six focus groups,” Natural Resources Technical Note REC-09, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Dunn, R. A. and Quebedeaux, D. M. (1999). "Methodology for recreation data acquisition and evaluation for ethnic minority visitors to corps of engineers projects," Technical Report R-99-1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Dwyer, J. F. (1994). “Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation,” General Technical Report RM-22, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Dwyer, J. F., and Hutchison, R. (1990). “Outdoor recreation participation and preferences by black and white Chicago households.” Social science and natural resource recreation management. J. Vining, ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 49-67.

Floyd, M. F. (1991). “Ethnic patterns in outdoor recreation participation: Effects of cultural and structural assimilation.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Science, College Station, TX.

Floyd, M. F. (1998). “Getting beyond marginality and ethnicity: The challenge for race and ethnic studies in leisure research,” Journal of Leisure Research 20(1), 3-22.

Floyd, M. F., and Gramann, J. H. (1993). “Effects of acculturation and structural assimilation in resource-based recreation: The case of Mexican Americans,” Journal of Leisure Research 25, 6-21.

Floyd,M.F., Shinew,K.J., McGuire, F.A.,and Noe, N.P.(1994).“Race, class, and leisure activity preferences: Marginality and ethnicity revisited,” Journal of Leisure Research 26, 158-173.

Frey, William H. (1998). “The diversity myth.” American Demographics 6/98, 39-43.

Glazer, N., and Moynihan, D. (1963). Beyond the melting pot. MIT and Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Gobster, P. H., and Delgado, A. (1992). “Ethnicity and recreation in Chicago’s Lincoln Park: In-park user survey findings.” Managing Urban Parks and High-Use Recreation Settings. P.H. Gobster, ed., General Technical Report NC-163, USDA Forest Service Northcentral Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, 75-81.

Gomez, E. (1999). "Reconceptualizing the relationship between ethnicity and public recreation: A proposed model." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources and Urban Affairs Programs. Short version.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation into American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. Oxford University Press, New York.

Gramann, J. H. (1996). “Ethnicity, race, and outdoor recreation: A review of trends, policy, and research,” WES Miscellaneous Paper R-96-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Gramann, J. H., and Floyd, M. F. (1991). “Ethnic assimilation and recreation use of the Tonto National Forest,” Technical Report on file with the Wildland Recreation and Urban Culture Project, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA.

Gramann, J. H., and Floyd, M. F. (1991). “Ethnic assimilation and recreation use of the Tonto National Forest,” Technical Report on file with the Wildland Recreation and Urban Culture Project, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA.

Gramann, J. H., Floyd, M. F., and Ewert, A. (1992). “Interpretation and Hispanic American ethnicity.” On interpretation: Sociology for interpreters of natural and cultural history. G.E. Machlis and D.R. Field, ed., Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, 161-177.

Gramann, J. H., Floyd, M. F., and Saenz, R. (1993). “Outdoor recreation and Mexican American ethnicity: A benefits perspective.”Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface. A.W. Ewert, D.J. Chavez, and A.W. Magill, ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 69- 84.

Henderson, J. E. (1995). “Plan of study for the Ethnic Culture and Corps Recreation Use Work Unit,” Unpublished Manuscript Prepared for Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Hutchison, R. (1988). “A critique of race, ethnicity, and social class in recent leisure-recreation research,” Journal of Leisure Research 20, 10-30.

Irwin, P. N., Gartner, W. G., and Phelps, C. C. (1990). “Mexican American/Anglo cultural differences as recreation style determinants,” Leisure Sciences 12, 335-348.

Knowlton, C. S. (1972). “Culture, conflict, and natural resources.” Social behavior, natural resources and the environment. W. Burch, Jr., N.H. Cheek, Jr., and L. Taylor, ed., Harper and Row, NewYork, 109-145.

Lee, R. G. (1972). “The social definition of outdoor recreational places.” Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment. W.R. Burch, Jr., N.H. Cheek, Jr., and L. Taylor, ed., Harper and Row, New York, 68-94.

Lynch, B. D. (1993). “The garden and the sea: U.S. Latino environmental discourse and mainstream Environmentalism,” Social Problems 40, 108-124.

Market Opinion Research. (1988). “Participation in outdoor recreation among American adults and the motivations which drive participation,” Report prepared for the President’s Commission on American Outdoors.

McDonald, D., and McAvoy, L. (1997). “Native Americans and leisure: State of the research and future directions.” Journal of Leisure Research, 29(2), 145-166.

McLemore, S. D. (1991). Racial and ethnic relations in America. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston

Outley, C. W. (1995). “The influence of perceived discrimination in determining recreation behavior of African Americans in Southern Illinois,” Presentation at the 19th Annual Graduate Research Symposium of the Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Schreyer, R., and Knopf, R. C. (1984). “The dynamics of change in outdoor recreation environments—some equity issues,” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 2, 9-19.

McGuire, F. A., O’Leary, J. T., Alexander, P. B., and Dottavio, F. D.(1987). “A comparison of outdoor recreation preference and constraints of black and white elderly,” Activities, Adaptations, and Aging 9, 95-104.

Scott, D. (1993). “Use and non-use of public parks in Northeast Ohio: Differences between African-Americans and whites.” Proceedings of the 1993 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. G.A. Vander Stoep, ed., General Technical Report NE-185, USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA, 224-227.

Shaull, S. L. (1993). “Family-related and nature-related recreation benefits among Anglo Americans and Hispanic Americans: A study of acculturation and primary structural assimilation,” Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, College Station, TX.

Simcox, D. E., and Pfister, R. E. (1990). “Hispanic values and behavior related to outdoor recreation and the environment,” USDA Forest Service Contract Report, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA.

Taylor, D. E. (1989). “Blacks and the environment: Toward an explanation of the concern and action gap between blacks and whites,” Environment and Behavior 21, 175-205.

Washburne, R. F. (1978). “Black under-participation in wildland recreation: Alternative explanations,” Leisure Sciences 1, 175-189.

Washburne, R., and Wall, P. (1980). “Black-white ethnic differences in outdoor recreation,” Research Paper INT-29, USDA Forest ServiceIntermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

West, P. C. (1993). “The tyranny of metaphor: Interracial relations, minority recreation, and the wildland-urban interface.” Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface. A.W. Ewert, D.J. Chavez, and A.W. Magill, ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 109-115.

Williams, D. R., and Carr, D. S. (1993). “The sociocultural meanings of outdoor recreation places.” Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface. A.W. Ewert, D.J. Chavez, and A.W. Magill, ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 209-219.

That this subject has held some fascination for the better part of the past half-century would seem to indicate that while there's a concern over recreation trends, no one has come up with a satisfactory cause and effect. Is it race, is it culture, is it the price of gas, is it the latest video game? Could it be as simple as the fact that kids and families can watch 40 hours of television a week and not see one commercial about the parks nor one program about the parks unless they have cable or satellite?

Why are foreign cultures (Germans, Japanese, French, etc) seemingly so enthralled with America's national parks, while our own melting pot indifferent to a certain degree? And are those overseas cultures actually so enthralled, or is it just a minority of them who have the desire and the financial wherewithal to go abroad? Is this discussion as over-stoked as are those over park visitation trends?

Perhaps the solution is best addressed from the inside out, by bringing more diversity to the National Park Service, and letting it trickle down. But that, I'm sure, is too simplistic as well.

I think it's all pretty simple -- people with the means to get to the National Parks go visit the National Parks. Those who can't afford it generally don't and/or can't. Well surprise surprise -- the percentage of African Americans who fall into the group of "can't afford it" is higher than in the group of those that "can afford it." If something isn't accessible, you generally will look for other things to spend your money on for entertainment and relaxation. Where do the National Parks exist for the most part? -- about as far away from most African Americans as you can get -- not in the cities and suburbs. So the problem to solve, if anything, is getting more spending money in the hands of African Americans while at the same time fostering a culture of caring about the Parks in the first place. You can tell them they should care about the Parks, but if they can't get to them, why care at all? The question to ask is this -- do African Americans with the means to visit the parks actually do so?

Funny though, I don't hear anyone complaining that there aren't enough cowboys visiting New York City, Miami, or Detroit.

-- Jon Merryman