What Is Killing Camping?

I don't know what it's like in the rest of the world, but in Belgium it's illegal to go camping anywhere except for designated camping areas -- which are usually shitty, crowded, expensive and generally unpleasant. We have very little nature left, so I assume that these laws are there for the sake of conservation, but I can't be entirely certain there. After all, whether or not people are allowed to go camping, they'll still dump their rubbish in the nearest forest if they can't be bothered to pay the taxes to properly dispose of the stuff.

While I do agree that national parks and the like should be enjoyed, that shouldn't be the reason for their existence. Even if no one wanted to visit, they'd still be an important habitat for all sorts of lifeforms.

But I guess visitors might be more inclined to fork out the cash required to protect these areas than people watching the discovery channel. Doesn't it always come down to money?

Almost every year in Colorado they have fire bans. Who wants to camp without a fire? Plus traffic and finding a campsite were getting to be a headache.

I for one don't know what you are talking about. I have never been to a National Park that wasn't over crowded when I went. People love our parks. Updates and repairs are fine, but keep your TV out of my tent site.

Camping is alive and well here in the UK!

Interesting article. However, the Economist makes NOT ONE compelling argument for the decline -- just a bunch of speculation. Each point is extremely flimsy except the one they dismiss right off the bat - electronics.

What about cultural effects? I would argue that the climate in the media and culture is relatively pro-conservative which usually means a disdain for environmentalists and eco-friendly types. This may translate into giving outdoor activities like camping and visiting national parks as being a "leftist" activity. So this conservative bravado attitude that people have today due to the political climate may end up causing people to turn away from nature -- more so.

Some may feel that that hypothesis is ridiculous, but it's just as plausible as any of the hypotheses put forward by The Economist.

The bottom line is that without any useful statistics, this is all just ridiculous speculation. Where are the Freakonomics guys when you need them?

For gosh sake, people, this is THE ECONOMIST we are talking about. Of course, they are against environmentalist: they are one of the last magazine to maintain Bjorn "there ain't no such thing as global warming, pardner" Lomborg is a valid scientist.

That does not mean the magazine itself is devoid of interesting content: it's just that whoever is in charge of the editorial is a complete moron when it comes to the environment.

don't blame the conservationists for the destruction that then leads to restriction which results in conservation.

We do need education of our environment, and the best education is hands on, but if the price of that education means the destruction of that very thing we are educating about, then whats the point of allowing people free reign for hands on education..

Actually, I can give you the right answer, and neither the article nor the previous comments have listed it at all.

Camping--I'm speaking of family camping here--takes time. Camping has to be planned and organized. Who does that? Mom--and Dad to a certain extent. I'm a mom and a camp-lover, so I know how it happens.

We'd all LIKE to think that camping is a more slow-paced, relaxed, spontaneous vacation or weekend. But having to track down the cook-stove & tent and launder the sleeping bags and remember where the trail maps are means that it takes a LOT of fore-thought to create that relaxed vacation.

30 years ago, fewer moms were working outside the home, so they had more time to plan and organize. Today's family needs a vacation that almost plans itself.

I also think the current germ-o-phobe mentality has a certain influence in the trend. Camping is dirty--no way around it. That's great for my family, but not so great for a lot of our friends.

All that being said, we still go camping. It would sure happen a lot more often if I had more time.

Less campsite does equal less people going camping. Having to use he terrible http://www.recreation.gov/ and planning 6 months in advance certainly puts a damper on my camping plans.

Good! More campsites for me!

I think the camping experience offered by many national and state parks doesn't appeal to a lot of people.

For some, camping isn't much cheaper than a night in a hotel once you factor in the costs of renting a campsite and all the equipment you need to buy. These people drive out of the parks, stay in hotels and eat in restaurants.

For others, like me, setting up a tent 30 feet from the next tent, being around noisy, drunk partiers and, most of all, having to reserve a campsite a year in advance due to the advent of internet reservations takes the fun out of camping. I'm more likely to head to a remote campsite in an underutilized park or national forest.

I just find it ironic that people who care about the environment are so into camping and the outdoors!

Think about it for a second: what puts more crap into the air:
1) Sitting at home and watching TV
-OR-
2) Getting in a car, burning several gallons of gas to drive dozens or even hundreds of miles on asphalt roads cut out of the countryside all so you can go hiking, camping, climbing, etc. for your own selfish enjoyment.

It's especially bad for self-righteous eco-tourists who fail to see the damage caused by hopping on an airliner so they can explore/climb/camp remote areas like the Alaskan wilderness. These same people then come home and whine about someone driving an SUV (unlike their planet friendly Subaru!) Talk about hypocrisy!

If you really cared about the planet you'd stay home and read a book, hike around your neighborhood, or ride a bike.

Might the decline in camping have something to do with our dependence on "creature comforts"? Personaly, I hate camping. It would be the lack of toilets that keeps me from liking the experience. But, isn't the idea of camping to see the country? To sleep in a tent? To maybe even TALK to one another?

Camping isn't declining at california State Parks, I have to make reservations 7 months in advance to get good sites. If i waited 6 months they would be all taken.

One has to wonder if the authors of the Economist article ever went camping much in the US national parks - and got there by road??

For many coastal residents, it requires a long drive in a vehicle loaded up with gear and plenty of money and time spent enroute and returning, on food and hotel. The alternative for many had become flying to Denver or Salt Lake, for example, renting an SUV or camper truck, and tooling around the parks for day visits. The entire Yellowstone loop is bumper to bumper with these kind of visitors at peak season, for example.

There is the added benefit of shaving 5 or 6 days for a coastal resident and not having to deal with bear/tent issues.

Another thing not accounted for is that an increasingly large portion of US citizens were born in cities and can't even abide a single mosquito or tick. They are babies when it comes to the outdoors and watching "nature" videos on TV has them all paranoid about what they might face if they got out of their cars.

Along these liines: TV has become an adequate surrogate for many, I would agree.

amen to cyclocross...

maybe to have a greater positive impact on the environment people need to just start doing less...not more.

I keep trying to get my girlfriend to go camping, but her objections basically boil down to having access to modern toilet facilities.

When I was a kid (early 1980s), my parents chose a homesteader standard-of-living, so it was more like growing up in the 1940s. Since we had a composting toilet and no A/C, going camping didn't seem like as much of an inconvenience. It was just as comfortable outside as it was inside.

I like A/C and a shower every morning, now, too. And now I'm much more conscious of other people -- when I was a kid, I would have just set up a tent on the side of the road if my bike-trip had gone past dark. Now I worry about what the residents of the area will think, and what type of cop (public-safety-geek? drunk-with-power?) is going to visit my tent in the middle of the night and whether he'll feel like tasing a 30-ish guy (who really should know better) in a borderline trespassing situation. And since I travel by car most of the time, it really is just as easier to get a hotel room -- and the hotel really doesn't add that much to the gasoline cost.

As Ed Abbey said, it's not enough to fight for the land, it's more important to enjoy it while you can. I don't think sitting around watching TV is going to inspire any passion for environmentalism, camping or public lands. People must go, get in their hopefully fuel efficient cars (or public transportation) and experience the land so necessary for America's ecological integrity. And, I don't think having a car dealership in Yosemite is going to engender any sort of passion for national parks, either. Parks need to be refuges from the monuments of capitalism that pave our cities, and parks must be islands of peace and spectacular beauty that will impassion visitors to protect, preserve and celebrate our natural world.

Or turn part of your boring suburban lawn into a wildlife area by planting native grasses, trees, and scrubs.
I am perfectly happy to pay for national parks, regional wildlife areas, and any ecosystem conservation even if I never go there or even see it.
Just knowing it is there is enough.

@cyclocross: Interesting point of view. There are a number of counterpoints I can think of though.

What about people that bike to campgrounds? What about people that take off work to go camping -- the commuting cost outweighs the travel cost in many cases essentially saving energy. What about the energy you burn in your house with air conditioning or heat or whatever? You almost certainly don't burn that same amount of energy while in the woods. And you almost certainly don't generate the same amount of waste. What about fresh air? Air quality within the house is surprisingly bad in most cases. What about just appreciating nature? What about having fun? By your logic all fun is "selfish enjoyment". And if you're going to be THAT cynical, why live at all?

I also think your "stay home and watch TV VS. go camping" is a false comparison. To be fair, you must consider 2 different vacations. Consider going to disney world vs going camping. Clearly camping is the more eco-friendly choice there.

Or are you seriously arguing that people should all take vacations by staying home?

Or lets take your argument a step further. Why breathe? You are converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. Why not just suffocate yourself?

The view on this article is very simplistic.

Various national parks have had serious disasters they have dealt with in last 10-15 years..

Yellowstone was burnt down --3-4 months of fire in late 80's-- Yosemite also has the same issue-- various forest fires & floods.. over the years.

Having been to few of the national parks, they all are very crowded, and dirty and do feel like they have not been upgraded for last few centuries.. The campgrounds are so crowded- that you get to hear complete strangers next to you. There is no feeling that you are one with nature unless you are willing to hike go to remote places.

I don't get the National Park attitude of all or nothing. Each national park has a lodge that was built 100/200 years ago that they call 5 star amenities-- (they forget to mention 5star amenities for 100 years a go)
The rest of the places are crowded and uncomfortable..
and dirty..

I've camped at three national parks over the last year and found each to be a great experience. Yosemite fills up regularly months in advance so I don't think it is turning away too many people. Besides it would be hard to complain about amenities we you can have pizza and beer right in the middle of the valley. At Sequoia & Kings national park there are great services at the main campgrounds. The one with the least by way of amenities that I have visited was Joshua Tree but it was hard to complain when you get to set your tent up right in the middle of amazingly huge granite formations.

There are tons of activities that people can involve themselves with at these parks. From ranger programs to self guided activities to just wandering around and exploring. It may not be for everyone since there isn't an electrical outlet at every campground but then again that wouldn't really be camping.

I agree that activities like camping may not have the same place in the lives of many people that it may have in the past. With all the distractions and activities abounding in today's homes and cities it would be hard to find the time to travel quite a distance so that you can do without the amenities of modern life. I feel though that such a decline requires those that do appreciate the outdoors and these types of activities to share them with as many people as possible.

If you enjoy camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, or any other outdoor activity I strongly urge that you reach out to friends and family and offer to bring them along every chance you get. I think it is also necessary to develop an understanding of the responsibility that comes with outdoor activities both in terms of the preservation of the areas you visit and your safe conduct while there.

Maybe I'm a little naive but I think that once people are actually shown how to enjoy these activities they'll find that nothing can quite replace the experiences they will have.

For most people, camping means driving 30 minutes to an hour to nearest forest, setting up a Walmart brand tent, and letting their kids play in the mud. Camping typically does not involve flying across the country to Yellowstone. That popular form of camping rises and falls with the economy -- if people can afford to take more lavish vacations, they will. The 90s were a boom time, so people could spend more on vacations, so they hauled their family to the beach. We may now see a rise in camping, as the economy falls, although it will be mitigated somewhat by rising gas prices that will cause some not to take vacations at all. Camping is also taking a hit due to the increased accessibility of other outdoor sports, like mountain biking.

As for Yellowstone, I'd like to see a comparison of how prices have changed over time compared with other vacation destinations. Whenever I look at going to a national park like Yellowstone or Yosemite, it seems far more expensive that it ought to be -- the airline tickets are higher, because you usually can't fly into a big city, and the lodging usually seems pretty outrageous for what you get, and arranging a backpacking trip is nearly impossible because the buses run at bizarre times and not on schedule. The whole thing is a headache. I don't think they need to (nor should they) build more entertainment, I just think maybe they need to be run less like the government. So, instead I usually go closer to home, where there is less hassle.

while some or all of the points may contribute to a lack of camping, i'll tell you why we don't go - it's yucky. there's bugs and dirt and restroom facilities are always gross or non-existant. where we live, it is also painfully hot for most of the year and camp ground shower facilities are gross, too.
The only positive i have ever felt from camping is that first hour in the morning when you get up and the sun is just coming up and everything is still and quiet. . . but, then the sun comes all the way up and it's hot and gross again.

The other problem with camping these days is that a lot of the places that I went to as a kid are now camp-condo's. I went tried to take my girlfriend to the campground that we went camping at, when I was in high-school (1978-81), and they wouldn't rent us a spot. After a discussion with the owners, who recognized me, the let us take a walk around, at least. Now they rent their camp sites to people who put 30-foot double-wides on them, rather than weekender or weekly camping. If I had the money to throw away, I'd go for it, but they wanted more than I make a year, to rent a spot to put a [mobile home] cabin in the adirondacks.

--Hawk

Rob's comment is right on: you can't protect nature by hiding in the city. All those comforts have to come from somewhere, and besides, experiencing the land is like nothing else.

I'm afraid Liz ("It's icky and yucky and I need a drink") is missing out on an amazing thing.

Let's not forget the USFS (United States Forest Service) the biggest builder of roads in the nation. All to provide access to timber and natural resources on public lands.

The USFS is also responsible for our national parks and has ruthlessly cut the budgets of all the parks for years and years.

The look and degradation of the parklands are due almost explicitly to their drive to sell trees at a loss while ignoring the rest of their charter.

The only hassle I have been encountering is overcrowding at some parks. These are the parks my friends & family mark off & don't revisit.

Some of the best camping is technically camping without footprint on state grounds (illegal with small fine I imagine). Carry in and carry out please

RexAnne hit the answer right on the nose. I agree one hundred percent - it is the lack of family participation.

I grew up in, and have continued to be involved in the Scouting organization for over twenty years. In that time I have seen the role of parents increasingly evolve from participating in the program to simply dumping their kids off on the curb in front of the meeting location. There are some that can't even manage to make the effort to get the uniform on their kids.

Yes, there are probably many more reasons why camping isn't "cool" any longer; however I think this is the most urgent issue to address (parent's involvement in their kids lives).

The longer away we live from nature, the less we care about it; it's a downward spiral.

I don't think it's so terrible to use the gas to go camping, most people use a lot more gas commuting than they do vacationing. And usually you have a full or nearly full car when you go camping. We have a lot of camping here that's within a couple of hours drive, and if you have a small car and are using a tent, I don't think it's such a big deal. My 4 year old can hardly ride with training wheels, so I don't think he could ride up a mountain with all the gear to go camping. If you've never experienced nature, then you'll have less incentive to save it. They say exposing children to nature helps them learn as well, so I think the pros outweigh the cons. I bike commute all year, so the less than 1000km I travel isn't that significant, since I used to travel that in 2 weeks commuting.

I put off visiting Yosemite for years, I was afraid of the crowds and the bumper-to-bumper traffic. Two years ago, I tacked a visit onto the end of a trip to northern California and Oregon.

I couldn't believe I had let all the bad press keep me away. Sure, there were lines of cars and RVs and elbow-to-elbow crowds in the valley, but I still felt privileged to enjoy such a spectacular setting. I loved seeing the extended families camping, picnicing and tubing on the Merced. I chuckled every time I saw a cell phone doing a 360 degree photo snap. People were cheerful and more than accommodating when I wrestled my tripod into position for a photo.

I think the years of negative press bemoaning the crowds and the traffic have done more to discourage visitors than anything else. I didn't have any trouble appreciating the majesty of Yosemite Valley while sharing it with thousands of others. Everyone we encountered had the same complaint ... they should have planned to stay another day. I wouldn't expect to have Niagara Falls, the pyramids of Giza or the Sistine Chapel to myself so why would expect fewer crowds at a setting as awe-inspiring as Yosemite?

And for those who lament the Yosemite that was twenty and thirty years ago ... just get a mile onto any trail and you'll be virtually alone or just go somewhere else. We walked the Panorama trail from Glacier Point down to the Mist trail and encountered fewer than twenty hikers in July on the first three-quarters of the hike. We visited redwood groves outside the park, Mono Lake, and Convict Lake and encountered few, if any, other tourists.

The Economist entirely misses the point ... it all comes down to advertising and public image. The National Park Service doesn't have a very effective public relations strategy. It can't compete with the prime time ads, the travel junkets and the package tour industry ... and no commercial interest has a stake in promoting the park (since the hotel rooms are already sold out). There is just not enough money to made in shuttling people through a national park. I don't believe that people actually care less about the parks. I just think media coverage reinforces a negative dualist view ... the parts of the park that area easy to access are impossible to enjoy because of the crowds and the parts that are not crowded are off-limits to the average out-of-shape American. Why this is the predominant focus is no surprise ... controversy and voyeurism are what sells!

The last three times our oldest son went camping some of the nice people at the campgrounds stole all of his gear. That was enough for him. There is often excess drinking and violence. It's not like it was in the thirties and forties when you could leave your stuff at the camp and expect to find it when you got back. There are just enough low lifes in the campgrounds these days to ruin it for the nice folks. Unfortunately, it can be a good way to ruin your vacation.

When my family visted Colorado in 2000 we went to Rocky Mountain National Park. Traffic was horrendous, the trails were crowded, and the car and truck exhaust was overpowering. It almost ruined the experience for us.

If, as you claim, attendance is down, it might actually become a pleasant vacation again.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude or mean, but some of you sound like little female dogs, if you know what I mean. Camping is gross, it's hot, wahhh there's bugs... HELLO! It's called the outdoors for a reason.

Yes, everytime I set up a tent I get bitten by misquitoes and oftentimes covered in ticks. Big deal. We are a part of nature, whether we like it or not. Anyone who can't put up with camping on a concrete slab that is within walking distance of a bathroom (even if it's a gross one) is really sad. You should spent a LOT more time outdoors. People act like being outdoors is like being in hell. I love air conditioning, too, and it doesn't get much hotter here. It's about 93-95F every day and the humidity is some of the highest in the country outside, every single day. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but it's just nuts that people are so "grossed out" by what we lived in for millions of years. It's part of nature and should be at least a small part of life.

Please go outside more and get over the gross factor and I think you'll like it more... a lot more. I just didn't know that anyone other than kids whined about it being hot or gross or the bugs. But that's just me-- maybe I'm a freak!

I for one love to camp with my kids and gkids. The problem for us is that eveyone works and it is difficult to get all of us "off" work at the same time. Also it costs gas, food, park fees, wood for camp fire, etc. It isn't cheap like it used to be years ago when I was a child. Plus how safe is it anymore. I wanted so much to go camping this year and it looks like it might not happen when school is starting for the youngsters earlier this year. We got out June 7 and are returning Aug 12! Whats up with that? Our summer seems a month shorter than usual. So its barbecues and plastic swimming wading pools for thel ittle ones at home. What really matters is we are together and laughing.

Just prior to the Fourth of July weekend, a co-worker was discussing her plans to go camping a few hours away. She mentioned what she had budgeted for gas and the campground fee and I came up with a brilliant plan that Cyclocross and Gindy coincidentally stumbled upon. I told my co-workers that I was too broke to leave town (even by bicycle), so I would be going car camping - in my own backyard. I would just pull my car through the back gate, pitch my tent, and live off bottled water and dried fruit for three days. I would just sit on a cooler staring at my weed-infested, sun-scorched backyard, and then pack everything up and head inside late on Sunday night.

I live in Denver; maybe I'll rent out space for conventioneers and journalists to camp in my yard. One dollar to use the garden hose.

Icelander - you really do need to get off of the paved road, or at least get up there before noon. It makes a world of difference.

I just came back from a 14 day vacation traveling across the country.
1 night we stayed in a hotel (only because the state park had closed it's gate before we got there), 1 night in a hostel, 5 nights were with friends, and the rest we were camping. It was an amazing experience.
I stayed in Badlands National park, and think it is one of the best places to camp ever, and stayed in Yellowstone National park, and really enjoyed it there. You can't see things like that in the rest of the country.
We drove a Corolla and tent camped. I know darn well we used a lot of gas, and that's not great for the environment, but there are tremendous benefits to seeing and knowing what the rest of the USA looks like, and what the people are like. There were places we stayed that didn't even have water (national forest in Montana) and places we stayed that had pools and laundry facilities (KOA). You just have to be prepared for what you are going to, and be open to the challenges.
While I was that at Hostel I ate breakfast with two people from Australia who said "You know that's so great, because so few Americans travel their own country."
I'm not sure why people are camping less, but I think that it's sad. I hope that people get back to tent camping, because it's a great experience.

"What about people that bike to campgrounds?"

That's what I do and it's a totally different deal. Like I said in my post, I'm talking about people who DRIVE or FLY to get to outdoor destinations.

"What about people that take off work to go camping -- "the commuting cost outweighs the travel cost in many cases essentially saving energy. "

Yes, but that's not most people. Visit a state park on a weekday and that's readily apparent! Majority of camping and outdoors recreation is done on weekends/holidays.

"What about the energy you burn in your house with air conditioning or heat or whatever? You almost certainly don't burn that same amount of energy while in the woods."

Driving 50 miles and especially flying hundreds of miles burns more energy than sitting in your house. FWIW, my house doesn't even have air conditioning.

"Air quality within the house is surprisingly bad in most cases. "

What about your backyard or neighborhood park? Those are just as outdoors as the forest that's 50+ miles away.

"What about just appreciating nature?"

What ab