As someone who deals with visitors is several of the ways mentioned above, I say lets count them all. Visitors actually in the parks, visitors to our websites, long distance learning students and students who send mail or e-mail requests. Shouldn't we be serving the public however they visit?

I agree with many of the points mentioned already. But, for me, the most important common thread in these responses, and other discussions on the same topic, relates to the importance assigned to visitation statistics. I couldn't agree more that physical visitation is only loosely, if at all, related to relevancy of the national parks. In fact, many of the "reasons" for suggesting the parks are losing their relevance are, in my opinion, actually reasons for why the parks ARE still very relevant. In some cases, too much physical visitation actually hurts the park experience. As mentioned and discussed many times, it's a very tricky balance for the parks between visitation numbers and protecting the resources the park was created for. I've been fortunate enough to visit many NPS sites across the country (and have not intention of stopping) - but I do know that I certainly don't go there to see the crowds. So in some ways simply increases visitation numbers, without increases the ability to effectively handled those visitors, actually could hurt the parks, and the resources their trying to protect, in the long run.

Also, the concern that the concessionaires are concerned about relevancy I beleive is a bit off base. I respect the fact that they're a business and are there to make money. But I've seen many cases where they do that in a way that supports and improves the park. But I've unfortunately seen too many cases where they actually hurt the park. If there's value in the service or product they provide and they're able to sell that at a fair price (which is all to often an issue), then that's great. But if they cannot run a profitable business, then that's probably an indication that they're not providing enough value to the customer and/or the price is just too high. It's NOT a function of the relevance of the park itself.

My last point - regardless of which definition or measurement we use for "relevance", I think everyone can agree that once a park, and the significant resources that park protects, we can't get it back. So we should be protecting and maintaining our parks. Some people may not want their tax dollars being spent on that. But I'd bet all of us can come up with a list of things we don't want out tax dollars to be spent on - but they are anyway!

Probably an entire book could be written to discuss Kurt's question. I will avoid trying to give a substantive answer here because no matter what I say it will have been thought of and thought about, so I won't be contributing anything new. I'd rather comment that the National Park Service should be congratulated simply for asking this question. Not all park bureaucracies do that. We have a parks agency in the Bay Area that, in my opinion, is too indifferent (though not entirely so) about the topic as long as it continues to get tax revenue. The result is a number of parks with few amenities, few trails, and lots of ruinous cattle-grazing. In effect, they're cattle ranches masquerading as public parks. It's a vicious cycle: because relatively few Bay Area residents visit these barren cattle-oriented sacrifice areas, they're indifferent about them. As long as they're indifferent, business as usual carries on and the agency can ignore its relatively few critics. I congratulate NPS for recognizing that, in the long term, that kind of strategy would lead to (if nothing else) budgetary problems.

I think there is too much focus on individual national parks becoming less relevant. What's important is that the idea of national parks remains relevant. When an entire generation dismisses the national park idea because they have little connection with nature, then we begin to have problems. Once that occurs, visitation numbers to individual parks matter much less because the underlying system of values for not just national parks but wilderness areas and all public land begins to fall apart. And that has tremendous environmental implications all across the country. Therefore, the issue of relevance is much greater than the parks themselves.

Even if an entire generation finds protected landscapes and connection with nature irrelevant, certainly many of those those who do venture into a national park will find it both relevant and something worth preserving and celebrating. Even if the parks are relevant to only a few people, they'll be worth preserving regardless, particularly in hope that relevance will increase in future generations.

Incidentally, I doubt worries that fewer people are visiting national parks are actually coming to fruition, at least not nationwide. Preliminary 2009 visitation figures show that visitation increased at Rocky Mountain National Park by 2.4 percent over 2008. Great Sand Dunes saw a more than 5 percent increase in visitors. Arches saw a 7.3 percent increase to a record-breaking 996,000 visitors.

That's just a small sample of preliminary 2009 vistiation numbers, but if visitation is any metric for relevance, especially during a recession, it seems to be a hard argument to make that national parks are becoming less so.

Just to clarify, as far as virtual tours - this applies more to national historic sites and other places like this than actual "national parks." Always hard to know if we're talking about the specific units that are "national parks" or the entire system, which has 392 units right now plus affiliated areas.

I think what is interesting is this idea of redefining and reorganizing the nomenclature. When the proposal came up to redesignate Pinnacles, one of the responses was "wait, because we are awating a reccomendation on changing the nomenclature." In other words will we have a whole new definition of national park that is a lower standard than the old definition? Or was this just a stalling tactic to hope the bill dies...

Relevance depends on a lot of factors. I suppose it depends a lot on where one lives and proximity to NPS sites.

I happen to live near several NPS sites (Golden Gate, Point Reyes, and Muir Woods are three) within an hour's drive of home (San Francisco Bay Area). I also happen to live in a major population center. I find myself fortunate. Perhaps these aren't the grand destinations such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, or Grand Canyon, but they are special to me.

Within a long day's drive I can find myself as far as Crater Lake or even Death Valley. These places are relevant to me even if I've only visited them for less than a full day.

Along with others posting here, I find the measure of relevance by head count a little misleading. The traditional methods fail to register impact and effect. Is every visitor one more chance for a positive impact or as some have complained, is the count a negative for the crowding, visual degredation, etc.? The fact is that modern methods of assessing impact or "favorables" is a fairly well vetted strategy in the world of politics and commercial marketing. The decision makers would be well served to have these tools and measures available and the creation of a National Parks Promotion Council will bring these to the table in ways that the government alone cannot do.

And then there is the whole issue of ways that actually experiencing the natural world helps to improve mental, physical and spiritual health. As a nation tending too much to the sedentarly life and the heavy toll that obeisity and chronic disease, often based on life style choices (lung cancer, heart disease, etc.), it seems to me that the national interest in exposing as many of our citizens to healthy alternative behaviors should be a part of the health care debate.

I support the initiative to tell the park story and encourage more to get up and get out. If it takes a little strategic marketing or product incentives or celebrity spokespersons to make the case, then welcome to the world of global communications and 24/7 information cycles!! We are poorer if we fail to see the important physical connection to the land provided by the park experience.

Kurt - I found your article to be very interesting, and you posed some excellent questions. In my opinion, there is a very simple answer to your primary question about whether the parks are relevant. Absolutely and unequivocally, the national parks were relevant when they were created, they are relevant now, and will be forever relevant if our society can adequately preserve them. We are so fortunate in our country that a number of brilliant, concerned and determined individuals had the sense to set aside these incredible locations for future generations, and we are deeply indebted to people such as Teddy Roosevelt, Stephen Mather, John Muir and countless others through the years for their efforts in doing so.

Recently while visiting Death Valley, I ran into a visitor from the U.K. on vacation for ten days in California. She looked out over the desert and across to the Panamint Range and Telescope Peak and exclaimed what a stunning location the park was. The awesome, stark magnificence of Death Valley almost defies description and truly is a place that you have to see in person to appreciate. No visit to an internet site will ever, ever compare to being there in person, no matter how vivid the verbiage or powerful the photos may be. Being there in person stimulates and heightens the senses in a way that cannot be duplicated by a two-dimensional man-made computer screen. When one stands in Yosemite Valley, drives Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park, or kayaks through the ice-strewn waters of Glacier Bay, that authenticity cannot be duplicated through other means.

This fall, my wife and I were visiting Yellowstone and while driving through Hayden Valley we witnessed a pack of gray wolves suddenly attack a wary herd of elk. The fact that anyone (no matter their age, race, religion, etc) can still experience such an event is a direct result of the parks' existence. (By the way, the elk eluded capture). And for anyone who has walked up the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and read the fabled Gettysburg Address engraved in the granite walls of the memorial, they understand the value of setting aside historical and cultural sites along with natural locations as the park service has done over the years. At last count, 391 locations are now managed by the NPS and it is incumbent on our country to preserve these incredible locations not only for Americans, but for all humanity. Our national parks have become world parks. They are world treasures, and we, their custodians.

So are the parks relevant? Always. Do we have a responsiblity to promote their relevance? Absolutely. Ken Burns recent production helped reinstill or introduce, as the case may be, the importance of the parks to millions of people. Efforts such as his are vitally important in keeping the parks in the forefront of our society's consciousness. So what can we collectively do to ensure promotion and education such as this continues to happen? What will the next great installment be that continues to communicate information to society about the worldwide treasures that we hold in trust? That, in part, is where we should focus some of our attention. Guiding people across the globe in how to enjoy and appreciate the outdoors ultimately will lead to improved physical and mental health, as many others have pointed out in previously posted comments about your article.

Lastly, our world has finite resources and as more than one person has said, "They aren't making any more land." Given that fact combined with continued population growth and it is evident that the resources available, per person, are diminishing. That means less land, less water...and less nature. Sustainability must, absolutely must, become one of the primary goals for every living person on this planet. Everyone must become more accountable and responsible for their impacts on the planet. The parks can help play a very prominent role of being the "poster child" of what we are trying to save. The NPS, NPHA, NPCA and NPF other related organizations have an opportunity to lead the way in showing the world how sustainability can manifest itself through countless applications and actions. Our "highly relevant" parks were envisioned in the past by great leaders who foresaw their value, and we must take up that mantle of leadership to continue the preservation of these irreplaceable resources.