From a Sacramento Bee editorial:
Overnight camping stays in the national parks have dropped more than 20 percent over the past decade. The outdoor industry finds long-distance backpacking is off by 25 percent since 1998.
It might be tempting to write this off to an increasingly sedentary culture, but that doesn’t mesh with increased interest in snowshoeing, canoeing and kayaking, telemark skiing and trail running.
So why don’t people want to do overnight camping in parks and on remote trails? Some people write it off to Americans wanting cushy vacations. But that’s just a restatement of the question: Why do they want cushy vacations and not an outdoor experience?
Just leaves more room for the rest of us, I figure.
This trend bodes poorly for the future of wilderness protection. Without a sufficiently large constituency who values wilderness undisturbed by the lasting effects of a human presence, the legislative bodies could just as easily take that protection away again. And the loss would not just be to those few who like quiet time away from civilization. It would also be a loss to everyone who wants things like real food, fresh water, and clean air.
The question is, how can we help people to learn the difference between that quiet moment watching a bear and her cub and that exhilarating moment of tearing up the hill on an ATV. What can those of us who care about wild places do to reverse this trend?
Feeling selfish about having more of the backcountry to yourself sounds good, until you realize that the declining numbers of backcountry travelers means declining numbers of constituents who support wilderness protection. Ouch!
Steve,
Sorry to disagree with you, but I grew up surrounded by wilderness areas (Montana) and I have been watching the political actions taken for and against the wild areas my entire life.
It has been my experience that the most vociferous “defenders”** of the wilderness are those who actually know very little about it, or spend much time in it.
** I used quotations as these “defenders” or “environmentalists” quite often do more harm than good, due to the combination of lack of knowledge, and their passion for the cause.
dropkick:
So the important question is, what have you seen to be the effective actions that result in more and better wilderness protections?
Are your saying that the people who do spend time in wilderness and backcountry areas don’t appreciate it and don’t care what happens to it?
Do you think that a shrinking constituency for wilderness recreation will be able to exert adequate political pressure to counteract the forces of development, and prevent the reversal of wilderness act protections?
Steve,
I wrote my last post badly and added unnecessary comments, which somewhat obfuscated the point I was trying to make.
The point I was trying to make is that political constituency does not equate with usage.
Some of the most vocal supporters of wilderness areas have little or no contact with the outdoors.
P.S. At the risk of clouding my point again, I want to clear up some of what I was trying to say before in my unnecessary additions.
I was trying to use the quotation marks to signify someone who uses the title “defender” or “environmentalist” without deserving the title or truly understanding the environment. And there are many of these people.
– This is not to say that there aren’t people who deserve these titles and our respect.
Dropkick wrote: “Some of the most vocal supporters of wilderness areas have little or no contact with the outdoors.”
I understand that the “most vocal” might not be the most effective. So my question to you is, who in your experience are actually the most effective advocates?
In my experience as a volunteer guide for groups like college mountaineering clubs, or the Sierra Club: People who have little previous interest in wilderness preservation, when guided into extended outings in wild areas, almost always become more active either politically, or at least are more likely to express their advocacy within their social network.