“More people outside=more interest in protecting the environment”

I’ve been hearing this slogan for as long as I’ve been a climber. Is it a myth? Do we have any evidence that says that more people recreating outside has led to more votes for politicians who support environmental protection, more money for non profits, or something else with a net positive? Because from my point of view, the outdoors are just more crowded and access is harder.

Does anyone have insight? 

“In the end, we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand and we will understand only what we are taught.”

― Baba Dioum

I’m not so sure about the political implications of more people in the outdoors, but I do know damn well that more people in the outdoors results in more abuse and degradation of those places.

More people outside has, for decades, raised concerns about “loving a place to death”.  

And if it leads to more protections, that just might lead to something like banning fixed anchors in wilderness areas. Of course, I’m being hyperbolic about that. Oh, wait. 

I’ve grown to feel the same way. As for politics, people will vote against clean air and water, let alone public lands.  Honestly though, I feel very fortunate to have what we have. 

I disagree. The „more“ people that go outside often just consume the outdoors and try to make it their thing. When push comes to shove, lots of people won’t back down and do the reasonable thing , I.e. find another place or simply restrict themselves. I’m a city dweller that only recently (a few years ago) startet to appreciate outdoor climbing and being outdoors more, so lots of my peers are also from an urban background. I’ve heard quite a lot of mental gymnastics trying to argue that one’s own overconsumption is totally justified but those other people really need to learn how to appreciate Nature.
no one wants to hear it, but often the most environmentally friendly way of climbing is climbing in a shitty bouldering gym one can access by bike.
I don’t believe that being outside necessitates deeply caring about it because no one wants to suffer the consequences of conserving nature. 

The term "more people outside" is a laughably sad indictment on our whole modern shitshow of a society. What the fuck happened to you people???

People who make that statement often include:

- Gear companies who profit from increased traffic

- Sponsored athletes who profit from gear companies who profit from increased traffic

- Wannabe sponsored athletes who don't profit from hashtagging the wilderness to death, but sure as schist try to do so anyway.

- Gyms who profit from "gym to crag" classes.

----------

People who do not make that statement often include:

- People who have been climbing outside for more than five years.

Really we just need more access to education for people to adapt to for using their time outdoors. We gotta realize that more people is simply inevitable. Doesn't matter if its climbers or hikers or skiers, traffic in these areas will be increasing regardless. 

Best we can do is embrace it and find ways to educate the masses about minimizing their impacts and being aware of their interactions with nature. I feel like nature preserves and parks should place more emphasis and making the ethics and etiquette clear before selling a pass for entry. Signs and a list of rules on their website don't do the job anymore, the approach needs to be more active but welcoming. 

Additionally, the improper use of land, fixed gear and resources that are solely maintained by the park or coalitions need to be addressed by polite self policing. Just wanna give a major shout out to any groups who are active in maintaining and preserving areas and organizing events like clean up days and trail clearing days. We owe them the courtesy of using everything they put their time into properly and making it safe for others. 

But it sucks, whether Im climbing, hiking or surfing, I always make it a priority to take any garbage I find with me to throw away properly,

and the last 4 years, the amount of trash has been insane. I never thought I would be picking up vapes on my way out of the crag. 

This isn't an optimistic view, but people will behave outdoors the same as they behave in civilization. My observation is that in general (in North American culture at least) people tend to consume, be entitled, and not be responsible for their actions. That doesn't change once they step onto the trail. And the politicization of land stewardship hasn't done any favours. 

Before climbing, bear’s ears was a state’s rights issue. Conservation efforts were great and all, but there already are plenty of parks for people to enjoy.

After climbing, I recognize the importance of being a steward for conservation efforts. I meet amazing people who support indigenous cultures, and open my world to different viewpoints. I joined a LCO that advocates for responsible recreation and helps disadvantaged communities experience the outdoors for the first time. I am an example of someone who is more interested in protecting the environment because I got outside more.

It is not for me to judge who gets to come and enjoy the outdoors. Will some bad actors come? Of course, but don’t pretend like climbers have been packing out their beer cans and cigarette butts since the first piton was hammered. Are placing being loved to death? Absolutely, but gatekeeping isn’t going to be the answer. Financial support to mission aligned organizations and accessible knowledge is the only means which I can guess may help those uneducated to become stewards and not add to the depreciation of our climbing areas.

Well I've got 5 minutes to burn, so time to do some Serious Research. Here's a meta-study on the environmental impacts of recreation:

The authors reviewed 274 scientific articles published between 1981 and 2015 on the effects of recreation on a variety of animal species across all geographic areas and recreational activities.

More than 93 percent of the articles reviewed indicated at least one impact of recreation on animals, the majority of which, or 59 percent, were negative.

Researchers found the following negative impacts in the study:

decreased species diversity

decreased survival, reproduction, or abundance of species, and

behavioral or physiological disturbance, such as decreased foraging or increased stress.

Negative effects were documented most frequently in the studies for reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates.

Positive effects of recreation on wildlife were frequently observed on birds in the crow family and mammals in the rodent order. These effects included increased abundance and reduced flight responses.

So more people in the outdoors is a good thing, if you're a rat.

My take is that more people in the wilderness is bad, but corporations extracting resources in the wilderness is worse. So we need people to care enough to protect the wilderness, but not care enough to actually leave the couch. Perhaps the secret to protecting America's wildlife is an obese population that loves nature documentaries? In that case we're doing great :)

REI is the biggest proponent of "everyone outside" and its no secret why they want it. Its not altruism. 

The outdoors is not crowded, everyone just wants to recreate while still being close to large cities.  Outside of a very few exceptions, if you are more then three hours from a big city, you will be outside by yourself

I think that if you visit a NP or NF near a large population center, it’s pretty clear that more people tends to equal more habitat degradation. Even if we all “leave no trace”, feet on a trail is going to have a negative effect when traffic volume is high. I also don’t see votes changing much about how land is managed in terms of recreational use. The population is generally happy with the status quo, so nobody (including the current secretary of the interior) is going to change this up much. You do see temporary closures of a few areas, and entry quotas are more common than they used to be, but this is fairly insulated from the voice of voters. 

The important question is: how long must one have been climbing in order to be absolved of any responsibility for impact on outdoor areas?  What is the level of experience at which we can dismiss ourselves and blame the n00bs, or REI, or the gyms?  When can we reap the benefits of a moral high ground while engaging in the same behaviors to which we look down our noses?

The issue is that more interest in protecting the environment does absolutely nothing until there is action behind the interest. To make a horrible analogy/metaphor/simile/whatever it is; I’m interested in climbing in the Grampians. That’ll likely never happen though and provides absolutely zero benefit to the climbing in the Grampians.

The way I see it is that for every 100 new people recreating out there, you will only have maybe 5-10 activists. Those activists will not offset the rest of that groups impact. This also translates to climbing. Let’s say for every 50 new outdoor climbers you get 1 person doing trail work, bolting, grant work, etc. Those numbers aren’t sustainable for improvement.

The problem, as always, is “the average dork”.

The more “the outside” is accessible and attainable by “the average dork” the more average dorks are running amok out there (shitting, leaving wrappers, eroding trails cuz they’re lost, calling for rescue cuz they’re lost, etc.) even if they mean well, they just don’t know any better and fuck things up by mistake….cuz they’re dorks.  

 Nothing has ever been “improved” by increasing the participatory numbers of the average dork.  
(except REI’s bottom line)