ColumbianShop     ColumbianTalk     B2B     ClarkCountyHomes  
The Columbian
The Columbian
     Serving Clark County, Washington | May 12, 2008
47°F 47°F
» Forecast
» Weather Alerts
  Home  |   News  |   Business  |   Sports  |   Opinion  |   Arts & Living  |   Obituaries  |   Photo  |   Education  |   Classifieds  |   Jobs  |   Auto  |   Real Estate/Rentals  |   Shopping  |
 
User: Visitor [ login | new user ]   
 Search:
Subscribe | Contact Us | e-Edition | Site Map | Archives | Advertise    
OPINION columbian.com » Opinion  

Interest in the outdoors not so great


     Email This   Larger Font
     Print This   Smaller Font
Digg This Story

Advertisement
Friday, March 07, 2008
By GREGG HERRINGTON, Columbian editorial writer

Are we raising a nation of wimps, couch potatoes and Internet addicts for whom The Great Outdoors and wilderness experiences will be as abstract a notion as world peace and a Chicago Cubs-Seattle Mariners World Series?

A Feb. 18 Newsweek article reported that Americans are less and less likely to engage in traditional outdoor activities such as camping, hunting and fishing.

Here, where the mountains, lakes, streams, campgrounds and trails of the Gifford Pinchot and Mount Hood national forests are less than two hours away, that notion is shocking and troubling. What does an aversion to rugged outdoor experiences portend for future generations and the protection of our forests?

The Newsweek story reported on a study by the National Academy of Sciences and funded by the Nature Conservancy. It said the study’s authors, Oliver Pergams and Patricia Zaradic, “paint a picture of America seriously at odds with our national self-image.” … They “found declines averaging about 1 percent a year in per capita participation in the most significant outdoor activities, notably camping and hunting."

Newsweek said, “A small increase in backpacking did little to offset” the drop.

I tracked down the Pergams and Zaradic report (www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/7/2295) and learned that not just camping is declining.

“After 50 years of steady increase, per capita visits to U.S. national parks have declined since 1987,” they write. They checked Japan and Spain as well and report similar trends in those countries.

Most studies, they say, show nature recreation peaked between 1981 and 1991 and numbers have declined about 1.2 percent per year since then. On the other hand, the study didn’t target activities such as rock climbing, skiing, bicycling, windsurfing, sailing, kayaking and scuba diving. So, best case is that those numbers might somewhat offset the decline in the number of people engaged in more traditional outdoor experiences such as camping, fishing and hunting.

Word of the day: videophilia

But the authors did conclude that the increased popularity of day hiking and backpacking is “a very small countertrend. … The large decreases in more popular activities like state park visits far outweigh the small increase in hiking.”

An earlier study by the two suggested a correlation between videophilia (a love of TV, video games, the Internet, etc.) and a decline in visits to national parks: “As the most videophilic societies, the United States, along with Japan, may be the first to experience its consequences.”

Locally, the numbers are mixed but show some dramatic declines:

  • In 2001, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest had 1.78 million visitors (280,575 of them age 20 and younger). In 2006 the count was 1.27 million visitors (151,300 age 20 and younger).
  • The forest also records hikers in designated wilderness areas such as the Indian Heaven in Skamania County. In 1992, Indian Heaven hikers numbered 6,953. In 2007 the count was 5,327.
  • State hunting licenses increased slightly from 207,359 in 2001 to 210,491 in 2006. Fishing licenses went from 706,295 in 2001 to 731,492 in 2006. (The 2007 number was not available.)
  • The number of campers at Beacon Rock and Battle Ground Lake state parks increased substantially in recent years, although those, like most state campgrounds, are closer to suburbs and wi-fi cafes than to mountains or backcountry.

You, too, can take a hike

Ingrid Friedman, who is active in Nature Friends Northwest (www.naturefriendsnw.com), is worried about the next generation of hikers. “It’s a shame more people don’t get out and see the outdoors,” she said. Her group’s next hike, open to the public, is March 16 up Aldrich Butte near North Bonneville.

The Outdoors page in Thursday’s Columbian reported on a series of hikes in the Columbia River Gorge starting March 15 (www.gorgefriends.org).

In their study, Pergams and Zaradic make this point: “There’s a pretty direct pathway from exposure to nature, especially as a child, to caring about it.” If our kids don’t walk in the woods, camp in the forest and hike the high backcountry, they won’t much care as adults when those treasures are threatened.

Gregg Herrington’s column of personal opinion appears on the Other Opinions page each Friday. Reach him at gregg.herrington@columbian.com.

1. Comment by Dave Stanley - March 07, 2008 @ 07:09 AM
No mention in this editorial as to when we had to start paying to visit our own forests? Any correlation there? Also, isn't this what the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, et al want? Protect the forests by keeping us out?

2. Comment by J. Miller - March 07, 2008 @ 08:07 AM
Really Dave?

I always wanted to know why Columbia Sierra Club offers a dozen free hikes right now -- you don't have to be a member.

http://oregon.sierraclub.org/groups/columbia/outings/index.asp

And Nature Conservancy Washington has a new map so that anyone can visit their conservation projects.

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/washington/contact/art16974.html

Of course, they're only interested in BRAINWASHING YOU Dave.

You need to update your prejudices.

3. Comment by Dave Stanley - March 07, 2008 @ 08:22 AM
JM, Although you find it necessary to judge me and my prejudices, I won't return the favor. I am an active hiker, camper, and rock climber. Part of the freedom I find is going where I want, when I want. The Sierra Club's silly "Free Hikes" are very generous! Hiking should always be free. My forests and parks now requires NW Forest Passes ($5 a day/$35 a yr) and Snow Park Permits for cross country skiing ($11 a day/$35 a yr). Please try to tell me these fees don't detour users. Or does the Sierra Club's "Free Hikes" cover these fees? I wish I could be easily BRAINWASHED so I didn't realize I'm paying taxes to maintain my forests PLUS "user fees." The same mentality leads the powers that be to think I should pay gas taxes, C-Tran Benefit taxes, AND tolls to use the new bridge.

4. Comment by Jim Jones - March 07, 2008 @ 08:35 AM
Dave~ They implemented the fees so they could pay to maintain the parks and trails. If people would learn to pick up after themselves, they wouldn't need to pay others to do it.

5. Comment by Dave Stanley - March 07, 2008 @ 08:44 AM
JJ, First, I totally agree that people need to pick up after themselves. When I camp in the GP I always haul more garbage out than I take in. However, the fees were implemented because the logging industry (which used to build and maintain forest service and fire roads) were kicked out of most forests. The fees they paid the forest service for the rights to harvest were, in turn, used to maintain the forest for visitors. How did you think the forests were maintained 15 years ago, before our "user fees" came along. Also, what is the federal funding money for the forest service used for?

6. Comment by Pat L - March 07, 2008 @ 09:46 AM
Dave... how about the impact of lowering taxes on the wealthy? Don't you realize that affects the availability of all kinds of public services, and only in a downward direction? I guess those benefits to the wealthy don't "trickle down" to the national parks.

7. Comment by Dave Stanley - March 07, 2008 @ 11:25 AM
Pat, While that is an interesting tangent, it has nothing to do with this editorial. Since the U.S. had record tax revenues in '05, I'll assume my forest maintainance money is going elsewhere.

8. Comment by Rusty Starfish - March 07, 2008 @ 06:32 PM
It costs more to make war for one day than gets spent on parks (or schools) in one year.

9. Comment by Fred Goodwin - March 10, 2008 @ 09:23 AM
Gregg asks if the decline in camping and visits to national parks might have been offset by increases in rock climbing, skiing, bicycling, windsurfing, sailing, kayaking and scuba diving.

I may be mistaken, but I think most of those alternatives require some form of specialized training before you can partake -- with the exception of bicycling.

I can't point to a source at the moment, but I've read that retail sales of bikes has steadily decreased at a similar rate as the declines in camping, so given the specialized audience of the other alternatives, I'm not sure they would make up for the decline in camping.

The Boy Scouts still camp every month -- for those families who aren't camping, Scouting is a fun and safe way to introduce them to the great outdoors.

Login to post comment:
Your Email:
Your Password:
If you don't have an account, click here to create a columbian account.
Your Comment:
2000 character max
Image Code:
» Terms of Use | » All stories with comments











WOODLAND- Nice 3BR/1.5BA, new carpet, fenc...
EVERGREEN. 3 BR, 2 BA gas FP, fence, garag...
New Homes on AcreageOpen Sat & Sun 12-4 H...
TIDEWATER luxury condo. New! 2432 sq. ft. ...
Royal Ridge 2 BR, 1.5 BA, garage, FP, W/D ...
All Top Homes/Rentals
Subscribe | Contact Us | Advertise with Us | Help/Feedback | Privacy Policy
©2008 Columbian.com. All Rights Reserved - Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement.