Study: Olympic National Park tourism brings in benefit to tune of $220 million – PDN

Another reminder that while many of us think that forestry is our largest industry, protecting those forests for tourism, is also a good return on our money. Read the whole story at the Peninsula Daily News.

The National Park Service says more than 2.8 million visitors to Olympic National Park in 2012 spent $220 million in the park’s surrounding communities.

3 Responses

  1. Al, thanks for posting this. I recently graduated from UW – Marine & Environmental Affairs and focused my research on ecotourism in the Pacific Northwest. I am trying to start a tourism research business with another graduate – Coastal Tourism Research. Many people do not truly understand the importance of tourism on our economy. Most look at impacts, while that is a concern, there is so much more to the story. The direct and indirect tourism dollars flow through more people than most are aware. Mike Montanari

    • This article was another propaganda tool for the park. It was disguised as a study done by three geologists from Colorado. In reality, it was a study to convince us citizens how important the National Park is to our economy. And it was paid for by the Park. Government promoting Government. How cool is that?
      If you really want to start a research business that has credibility, please reveal your financing sources when you do a study.
      I wish you the best and hope you can stay independent and survive without getting caught up in the grants/bribes by our government and or corporate elites. It would be nice to get a truly honest study that doesn’t promote either side but actually looks at the complete economy. This would take courage, and a very independent soul.
      However, if you could gain this credibility, you would be respected and invaluable.
      Evan Bradow

      • Well, Evan, I understand your feelings, but I’m not quite as willing to damn any study as you seem to be. Here’s why. I would need to understand where you got the notion that the people who did the study are geologists? Cathy Cullinane Thomas is a Policy Analysis & Science Assistance who works for USGS. She’s not a geologist. Folks with that title are usually database specialists or writers. So are the other folks. You can easily Google them and find their bios on the USGS FC web site. And it’s actually cheaper for the government who runs tons of reports like this to insource it to people like this than outsource it. Also, it does not appear to be paid for by the Park, but by the government, to study National Park Visitor Spending Trends which, for all of us who want to make sure our government is spending our taxes wisely, is likely to be something that both internal managers and people like our legislators would like to know is being looked at, so we aren’t wasting money. So I think your anger at this is misplaced. It’s pretty routing stuff, that can identify problem areas and highlight positive trends. The Olympic Peninsula Park seems to be a positive situation, not negative.

        As the opening statements say: All manuscriptsin the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the
        information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended
        audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.

        This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Any use oftrade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

        You might want to actually read the report and make your judgements based on their research. Thanks for commenting though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: