And now a word from the Dept. of the Obvious . . .

Nature Recreation at All-Time Low

http://www.nature.org/pressroom/press/press3334.html

Arlington, VA -- February 4, 2008 -- New Nature Conservancy-funded
research shows that across the U.S. and in other developed nations,
people are spending far less time outdoors than ever before. The
study will be published this week in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.

Researchers say this study -- the most comprehensive look yet at nature
recreation -- is a "grim confirmation" of a long-held theory that
people, especially children, are spending less time in the great
outdoors.

[Oliver] Pergams and fellow researcher Patricia Zaradic, a fellow with
the Environmental Leadership Program, have been studying this issue
for several years. In 2006, they released a study showing that per
capita visits to national parks have been declining for the past two
decades.

In previous studies, Pergams and Zaradic found the decline in natural
experiences correlated with a rise in playing video games, surfing the
Internet and watching movies. The researchers call this recent focus
on sedentary activities involving electronic media "videophilia."

[excerpted]

On Feb 5, 11:06*am, "Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote:
[snip, and the quote is from some other web site]
Researchers say this study -- the most comprehensive look yet at nature
recreation -- is a "grim confirmation" of a long-held theory that
people, especially children, are spending less time in the great
outdoors.

You say this like it's a *bad* thing. Keep the sprogs off my trail.
The fewer of the little crap heads out there, making noise, dropping
litter, letting their herds of untrained dogs run loose, setting fire
to anything that will burn (including eachother), ****ing and ****ting
in the streams, deliberately uprooting growing stuff, etc., etc., and
tedious etc., the better.

The next time any of the little ****s asks you, remind them that
there are bears and wolves out there, and no TVs or radios
or internet connections. And you have to sleep on the ground.
And there are insects. And if you wear cotton you will freeze
even in the hottest part of the summer. And *nobody* knows
how to recognize poison ivy. The fewer of them the better.
Socks

On Feb 5, 11:56 am, Puppet_Sock wrote:

You say this like it's a *bad* thing. Keep the sprogs off my trail.
The fewer of the little crap heads out there, making noise, dropping
litter, letting their herds of untrained dogs run loose, setting fire
to anything that will burn (including eachother), ****ing and ****ting
in the streams, deliberately uprooting growing stuff, etc., etc., and
tedious etc., the better.

The next time any of the little ****s asks you, remind them that
there are bears and wolves out there, and no TVs or radios
or internet connections. And you have to sleep on the ground.
And there are insects. And if you wear cotton you will freeze
even in the hottest part of the summer. And *nobody* knows
how to recognize poison ivy. The fewer of them the better.

Well and good -- so who takes care of nature when you and your
generation are long gone?

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:

On Feb 5, 11:56 am, Puppet_Sock wrote:

You say this like it's a *bad* thing. Keep the sprogs off my trail.
The fewer of the little crap heads out there, making noise, dropping
litter, letting their herds of untrained dogs run loose, setting fire
to anything that will burn (including eachother), ****ing and ****ting
in the streams, deliberately uprooting growing stuff, etc., etc., and
tedious etc., the better.

The next time any of the little ****s asks you, remind them that
there are bears and wolves out there, and no TVs or radios
or internet connections. And you have to sleep on the ground.
And there are insects. And if you wear cotton you will freeze
even in the hottest part of the summer. And *nobody* knows
how to recognize poison ivy. The fewer of them the better.

Well and good -- so who takes care of nature when you and your
generation are long gone?
---------------------
What did it do BEFORE we got here? A lot better maybe?

Admittedly he's one of those child-free cretins. But if he wants
to eliminate our species he is at least consistent.
Steve

Puppet_Sock wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:06�am, "Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote:
[snip, and the quote is from some other web site]
Researchers say this study -- the most comprehensive look yet at nature
recreation -- is a "grim confirmation" of a long-held theory that
people, especially children, are spending less time in the great
outdoors.

You say this like it's a *bad* thing. Keep the sprogs off my trail.
The fewer of the little crap heads out there, making noise, dropping
litter, letting their herds of untrained dogs run loose, setting fire
to anything that will burn (including eachother), ****ing and ****ting
in the streams, deliberately uprooting growing stuff, etc., etc., and
tedious etc., the better.

That approach is a two-edged sword. Not having voters who enjoy the
outdoors may temporarily leave more room for those who do. However
long term there won't be enough political will to protect those
natural areas. We are likely to end up with trams to every major
peak, paved walkways in the woods and prohibitions against activities
regarded as dangerous such as mountain climbing or even leaving
approved trails.

In article ,
wrote:

Hal, turn the MIME/html formatting off.

On Feb 5, 11:06=EF=BF=BDam, "Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote=
Researchers say this study -- the most comprehensive look yet at nature
recreation -- is a "grim confirmation" of a long-held theory that
people, especially children, are spending less time in the great
outdoors.

Video games are cheap and fast.

Puppet_Sock wrote:
You say this like it's a *bad* thing. Keep the sprogs off my trail.
The fewer of the little crap heads out there, making noise, dropping
litter, letting their herds of untrained dogs run loose, setting fire
to anything that will burn (including eachother), ****ing and ****ting
in the streams, deliberately uprooting growing stuff, etc., etc., and
tedious etc., the better.

That approach is a two-edged sword. Not having voters who enjoy the
outdoors may temporarily leave more room for those who do. However
long term there won't be enough political will to protect those
natural areas.

Hal is generally right on this.

We are likely to end up with trams to every major peak,

Trams cost money. This kind of argument generally fails econonmically.
It depends on the country; in the US, people who want this generally tend
to seek public bonds or go private financing which mostly fails.

paved walkways in the woods and

That's an ADA complication.
That's largely also defeats by cost factors. In high traffic areas,
paving isn't always bad. This will continue to be an on going battle
independent of age.

prohibitions against activities
regarded as dangerous such as mountain climbing or even leaving
approved trails.

Insurance/health care companies. That's liability.

One news group cut to shorten the cross post.

--