Wild Wilderness believes that America's public recreation lands are a national treasure that must be financially supported by the American people and held in public ownership as a legacy for future generations
When it comes to outdoor recreation policy, the American Recreation Coalition is almost
certainly the most influential lobbyist in America. When the ARC put's its
"Top Ten Challenges to Recreation" onto paper, I take
careful note. I hope you will too.
As you browse ARC's list (below), several of their points will
likely be glaringly offensive. Some may seem benign and a few may
even strike you as positive.
Those who are influenced by the ARC, (i.e., lands managers, politicians,
the media, certain recreation groups and a handful of conservation groups)
will treat this list as if it had the authority of the Ten
Commandments.
I hope you will treat it for what it is. It is a listing
of the "issues that are threatening the recreation industry's
growth" -- it is that, and nothing more.
It should not become the basis for national outdoor recreation policy,
though it almost certainly will.
Scott
Things are seldom as they seem;
skim milk masquerades as
cream.
-W.S.
Gilbert
This year's Congressional Summer
Recess is a good time to pause and take stock of where things stand in the
movement to free our public lands from access fees. Here's an update of recent
developments and ongoing efforts.
S.2438 The Fee Repeal and
Expanded Access Act
The Fee Repeal Act was introduced into the U.S. Senate in
December, 2007, 4 months to the day following the unexpected death of Robert
Funkhouser, our co-founder and first President. Without Robert's ceaseless
efforts the bill would never have happened, and it is heartbreaking that he was
not there to celebrate.
The celebration was brief, however, because now comes the hard
work of getting the bill passed. It has four powerful sponsors: Max
Baucus (MT), Mike Crapo (ID), Jon Tester (MT), and Ken Salazar (CO), but it has to get through the committee process before it can move to the floor
for a vote.
It has been assigned to the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and is expected to be heard in the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. We are pushing for a
hearing in September, because after that it's hard to be noticed above all the
election-year noise. The bill must get a majority vote in the full Committee to
move forward.
You can read more about the bill and its effects, and link to a
non-partisan national legislative watch website where you can cast your vote in
favor of the bill HERE.
What You Can Do: Contact the leadership of the Committee and Subcommittee, and
urge them to schedule S.2438 for a hearing as soon as possible: Committee Chair: Jeff Bingaman (NM) 202-224-5521, Committee Ranking Member: Pete Domenici (NM) 202-224-6621, Subcommittee Chair: Ron Wyden (OR) 202-224-5244, Subcommittee Ranking Member: John Barrasso (WY) 202-224-6441.
Contact your own Senators and ask them to co-sponsor S.2438. If
your Senator is on the Committee, your call carries extra weight. View a list of
Committee Members HERE.
On June 18, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands held an important hearing on the implementation of the current
fee law, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, or RAT for short.
(Recreation Access Tax).
Chairman Raul Grijalva (AZ) opened the hearing
with a moving opening statement about Congress's commitment to free public
access to public lands, and his statement was backed with a slide show of fee
areas across the country.
Witnesses for the Forest Service (Undersecretary of
Agriculture Mark Rey) and Department of Interior (Deputy
Secretary of Interior Lynn Scarlett) then testified, claiming that the
fees are popular and are working great.
They received an intense grilling from the Subcommittee members,
and their responses were evasive at best and downright misleading at worst. It
was pretty clear that they are completely out of touch with the intense anger
and opposition that most Americans feel when they are charged money for access
to lands that they already own and pay to maintain with their hard-earned taxes.
The second panel of witnesses kicked off with Idaho
State Representative George Eskridge, who sponsored Idaho's unanimous
state resolution calling for repeal of the RAT. He was followed
by Western Slope No-Fee Coalition President Kitty Benzar, National Recreation and Park Association's Richard Dolesh, Bill Wade, who heads the Coalition of National Park
Service Retirees, and Peter Wiechers, a teacher and
kayaker from California.
A completely different picture emerged from this panel, one that
shows people being priced out of their own public lands, local economies trying
to cope with declining visitation, working families (and their kids) staying
home because they can't afford to visit the great outdoors, and agencies unable
or unwilling to account for millions of dollars in fee revenue, much of it being
charged under legally questionable circumstances.
The anti-fee witnesses carried the day, and there are strong
indications that a Repeal Bill will be introduced in the House as a companion to
S.2438 in the Senate. We will let you know the moment that happens.
You can view archived video of the hearing and read Rep.
Grijalva's opening statement and the written statements of the witnesses HERE.
What You Can Do: Contact the Subcommittee Leadership and thank them for holding
the hearing. Urge them to introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act. Subcommittee Chair: Raul Grijalva
(AZ) 202-225-2435, Subcommittee Ranking Member: Rob Bishop (UT)
202-225-0453.
Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him
or her to introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act. If your Representative sits on the House Natural Resources
Committee, your call carries extra weight. View a list of Committee Members HERE.
Beginning in 2007, the Forest Service and BLM Recreation
Resource Advisory Committees have been coming on line and beginning their work.
Known as RecRACS, they are mandated by the fee law and are
supposed to act as representatives of the public, recommending for or against
new fee areas and fee increases.
Each RecRAC consists of a spectrum of users, including
recreationists, local and tribal governments, guides and outfitters, and
environmental groups. In some areas new committees were established, in others
existing BLM advisory groups are being used. A few states (AK, NE, WY) have
opted out of the RecRAC process, at the request of their Governors. You can
see an interactive map at the Forest Service's RecRAC
website.
The RecRAC members are selected and appointed by the agencies
themselves, and the members all represent groups that are beholden to the Forest
Service and BLM for their particular activity or area of interest. They are
selected because they are likely to do the agencies' bidding.
The results are about what you would expect: a virtual
assembly-line of fee approvals.
To date, the RecRACs have approved at least 494 Fee Increases
and 218 New Fee Sites (see our Box
Score of Fee Proposals).
They have questioned only 35 fee proposals, of which 19 were
denied or tabled, and 16 withdrawn by the agencies - to be reworked and brought
back another day.
That's 747 fee proposals in just over one year, of which 712, or 95%, have been approved. If you think that's because they were
reasonable proposals, supported by the general public and in conformity with the
law, well think again.
The general public didn't even know about most of these new and
increased fees until they were a done deal, even though public support is
required by law.
Here are just a few of the problems.
Meetings have ALL been held on weekdays, during the day.
Meetings have been held by teleconference, and email meetings
are authorized.
Many of the meetings have never been publicly announced at all.
Meeting dates and times have been changed at the last
minute.
Agendas have not been made available in advance.
Agenda items have been added at the last minute without public
notice.
RecRACs have been asked - and have agreed - to "pre-approve" fee
increases up to a certain percentage.
Comments sent in about fee proposals by the public have been
withheld from, or misrepresented to, the RecRAC members by agency
spokespersons.
Minutes of meetings have not been posted for months, or not
posted at all.
The late Bernard DeVoto asked this question in a powerful essay published in 1953. I don’t believe that he really meant to lock the gate and throw the keys away, but rather to awaken the public to the critical, serious issues the parks faced at that time in history.
I feel the same question should be asked today. If anything, the issues are more critical now than in DeVoto’s day, half a century ago.
Consider that in 1992 the University of Arizona Press published my book, Regreening the National Parks, and now I am working on a new updated edition. Virtually all my research and continued study show that our treasured national parks have suffered from political interference and profiteering power, and are being reduced to commercialized popcorn playgrounds.
I hope that I can help to reverse this course and restore the esteem our national parks deserve. Toward that end I invite and welcome your input on how you see the parks, with their pluses and minuses, and your suggestions on how to best protect and manage them in the public interest. But first, this evidence:
Olympic National Park, Washington. After seven years in the making, the park has released its final General Management Plan (GMP), covering 900 pages in two volumes, and meant to guide park management for the next 20 years. A critique in the newsletter of Olympic Park Associates, the citizen group of the region, notes: “It takes some positive steps toward ecosystem protection. But despite the urging of conservationists, it tends to be overly focused on motorized use and presents a timid approach to preserving the wilderness integrity of this world-class park.”
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has before it a brief filed by a citizen coalition challenging the park’s Colorado River Management Plan as heavily weighted in favor of motorized tour boats and helicopter exchanges. The lawsuit contends those uses in the river corridor fail to preserve wilderness values, and fail to protect the Grand Canyon’s natural soundscape in violation of the NPS 1916 Organic Act. It challenges commercialization of the river in favor of concession craft while severely limiting self-guided river runners.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina-Tennessee. Conservation organizations early in July conducted a press conference in Knoxville to protest the Bush administration proposed change in EPA regulations that would result in worsening air pollution. The rule change would alter power-plant emission-reporting requirements in a way that would lead to serious underestimates of pollution increases in the park. It would make it easier for new coal-fired power plants to gain approval, and six such plants have been proposed within a 200-mile radius of the park. Great Smokies already is the most heavily polluted national park.
Yellowstone National Park, Montana-Idaho-Wyoming. “From mid-December to mid-March Yellowstone bans automobiles from most of the park, but it welcomes snowmobiles on 189 miles of snow-covered roads. One of these machines can emit as many hydrocarbons as 250 cars – and there are about 80,000 snowmobiles in the park each season. Park employees complain of headaches, nausea and throat irritation from the pollution, and fresh air has to be pumped into park entrance booths. The Bluewater Network, leader of the national campaign to keep snowmobiles out of the park, calculates that in addition to fouling the air, two-stroke snowmobile engines dump 180,000 to 210,000 gallons of unburned gasoline and motor oil on Yellowstone’s ecosystem each season.” – Ted Williams, Forest Magazine, Summer 2008.
In April 2007, I titled a post "Laverty the Disaster" and concluded it with this warning:
I believe the President's selection of Lyle Laverty for the #3 position within the Department of Interior represents just about the worst possible choice. "Disaster" does not begin to describe what we can expect if he is confirmed.
Pasted below is an article from today's Rocky Mountain News about a newly completed audit of Colorado Parks as it had operated under Laverty's leadership.
Here's the bottom line of that audit.
"There is a pervasive, long-standing culture of abuse, waste and loss," said Jennifer Harmon, a legislative auditor. "It needs a complete turnaround."
Today the Department of Interior needs a complete turnaround and a fresh start. The same thing can be said about the Legislature, the Judiciary the Executive Office, the National Park Service, the US Forest Service and a lot more. The appended article suggests: ".... it's like the inmates are in control." I'd suggest that many of those now in control should rightly be inmates.
Sustainability (and wilderness, for that matter) are dead ideas. Say goodbye to them. All ecosystems, in 100 years, are moving ~100 - 150 miles north or an equivalent up ...
To which I'd like to respond.
I agree that the ecology of designated Wilderness areas is subject to change (perhaps radical change), but strongly disagree with the claim that wilderness is "a dead idea."
With regard to "sustainability", that politically motivated frame was invented in the 70s as an ecological analogue of the "New Deal." It was a compromise intended to sustain capitalism during a period of intense environmental attack and to avoid taking meaningful actions on such growth-unfriendly issues as population control and over consumption. The hope was that by working within the system (as contrasted to opposing it or trying to modify it), the conservation community could take the hard edge off unlimited growth and spare the planet the worst of its impacts.
Contrary to anyone's assessment that the concept of sustainability is dead, I suggest that few who possess power or influence will be kissing that idea farewell anytime soon. The decades old concepts of sustainable growth and sustainable development are about to blossom and the result will be unnecessarily extreme and disastrous overshoots on numerous fronts.
Following the PR-frame created by the recreation/tourism industry, public land managers are aggressively promoting "the Great Outdoors" as being a vital weapon in the "War on Childhood Obesity." The theory (or should I say, "the spin") is that with proper marketing and private investment, nature can be remade into something sufficiently enticing to lure children from their couches and game consoles. Of course, it won't any longer be "nature" but, as the recreation/tourism industry never stops saying, children don't really like or appreciate nature . As the industry has been saying for nearly three decades, "the Great Outdoors" must be transformed into something relevant to today's youth. In reality, and as I have said for a more than a decade, the recreation/tourism is using children in their effort takeover control of outdoor recreation on the public lands.
Curiously enough, the recreation/tourism lobbied hard to erect the recreation fee barrier between children and nature. Without the ability to charge and retain fees for recreation on federally managed public lands, the industry could never hope to profit from the transformation of nature into a venue for the consumption of wreckreational products, goods and service.
The result, of course, has been the growing disconnect between children and nature and perhaps even some proportion of the childhood obesity epidemic. I would be giving too much credibility to the recreation/tourism industry's spin if I were to suggest that there is more that a minor correlation between childhood obesity and the National Parks and forests. There are many factors involved and a much greater contributor to this problem is pay-to-play as applied to school sports!
In the USA, the response to this crisis has been to erect higher economic barriers. The governmental response has been to make public lands and public schools LESS public. The consequence has been that fewer children are getting exercise in natural, urban, and school settings.
Fortunately there are parts of the world where such idiocy is being questioned. Pasted below is an article from Canada in which the correct connections are drawn.
"[There are] ways to trim a bloated, deficit-ridden state government budget. One would be to make many agencies and commissions self-supporting through user fees; another would be to eliminate useless agencies and commissions altogether", or so says the Libertarian Party of California in a recent article condensed below.
In 1981, the Libertarian James P. Beckwith Jr., writing for the Cato Institute, laid out a series of privatization protocols in a publication titled "Parks, Property Rights, and the Possibilities of the Private Law." He suggested that outright sale of parks was too radical a concept for the short term. He proposed instead an orderly progression that would eventually (in perhaps two or three decades) get to the desired endpoint. Here's a passage from his introduction to that seminal paper:
The organizing principle of this paper is one of ascending radicalism: from reform through volunteerism and privatization of services to the outright abolition of public ownership and the transfer of the parks to private parties.
Today we find that the ground work has been done. The privatization tools and techniques laid out by Beckwith are commonplace and widely accepted. Today the second in command of the Department of Interior is a Libertarian with the stature of Beckwith himself.
Articles such as the one which follows, appear in publications each week. I've condensed this one to narrow the focus specifically to the privatization of parks. Appreciate, however, that what is at stake is the privatization of everything and understand that what was, during the Reagan Era, looked upon as being too radical to be considered, is being considered (and acted upon) daily. Most of all, understand that user-fees are a step (a crucial step) on the path leading to sale/disposal.
What follows is a comment letter sent to the Supervisor of the Shawnee National Forest.
Hurston A. Nicholas, Forest Supervisor
Shawnee National Forest
RE: Shawnee Recreation Fee Comments
Dear Mr. Nicholas,
I can't recall having been to the Shawnee NF and the way things are going, it's possible I may never get there. That said, I'd like to keep the option open and have interest in the forest under your supervision.
There was a time when I avidly explored our public lands. I did so with the hope and expectation that I'd be pleasantly surprised with what I'd discover.
Between 1991 and 1994, I slept more than 500 nights with my back upon the ground at National Parks and upon other public lands from coast to other (and most points in between). My then infant son, grew up in a tent. He did not suffer from Nature Deficit Disorder and did not need the FS's More Kids in the Woods marketing promotion.
Shortly after the imposition of the Recreation Fee Demonstration program I became, in effect, a homebody and my son (now in college) has almost no interaction with nature or with the lands upon which he grew up.
Once the FS got into the swing of charging fees, raising fees and treating outdoor recreation as if it was a commodity to be marketed and sold to paying customers, my expectation of a visit to the National Forest inverted. No longer did I set out into the woods with the expectation of experiencing some unknown delight.
In the new pay-to-play world my expectation was that of fear -- fear that I'd be disappointed. My fear was that I'd chance upon some wonderful place and would be prevented from getting out of my vehicle because I would not pay the fees. I would not pay those fees on moral principles, because I know the extremist Libertarian ideology that went into the fee program and because the organization for which I have served as Executive Director since 1991 is staunchly opposed to the commercialization, privatization and motorization of public lands -- three threats all directly related to pay-to-play.
Daily progress is being made in the ongoing fight to end pay-to-play on the national forests and today I have good news to share. That said, I almost chose not to distribute the appended article because, in addition to reporting the news, it is larded with Forest Service misdirection. It concerns me that as Congress moves toward repeal of the Forest Service's fee-charging authority, the agency will likely respond with outright lies and deliberate deceptions. Sorting fact from fantasy will become evermore difficult and your help will be vital in the task of grounding the issue to bedrock realities.
Eight years ago I wrote an essay titled, What would Thoreau say? I'm providing a passage here and encourage you to read the entire, 650 word, piece. It presents truths to which land management agencies have no honest rebuttal.
[As the cost of recreation rises toward its free-market potential, private sector investors will be encouraged to develop, through private/ public partnerships with federal agencies, an ever-wider array of commercialized recreation products. We, the customers, will be given the opportunity to purchase or to forgo these products in accordance with our willingness and/or our ability to pay. These newly created commodities will encompass not only those nature-based recreational activities that we have traditionally enjoyed on public lands. They will also include entirely new, and far more profitable, forms of 'eco-tainment', 'edu-tainment' and 'wreckre-tainment'. The result will be the Corporate Takeover of Nature and the Disneyfication of the wild.]
Regardless of anything the Forest Service says to the contrary this is, what Thoreau would call, "the hard bottom of rocks."
Scott
"Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe...till we come to the hard bottom of rocks in place, which we can call reality."
-Henry David Thoreau
I know the 'Badlands' east of Bend well. Our Senator, Ron Wyden, is currently working to designate this area as 'Wilderness' and our town is heavily festooned with bright yellow lawn signs that loudly proclaim - "Protect Badlands Wilderness".
Wild Wilderness chose not to take any position until we could read the language of the bill. Now that it's been introduced and having read it, it's my opinion that this bill is much improved compared to the Badlands legislation introduced two years ago. That said, I am not yet displaying a yellow sign in my front yard.
A decade ago, I wouldn't have hesitated to support just about any new Wilderness proposal. Today one can't ignore the fact that just because an area is designated as Wilderness doesn't ensure that the wildness of the place will be preserved. If one wants to get a clearer sense of how an area will likely be managed once designated, it's important to read the bill with care and to pay close attention to the associated buzz.
Appended are two items of buzz. The first is a quote from Senator Wyden. The second is a online reader's comment to an article that appeared in our alternative media. I don't know the author, but knowing what I do about the Forest Service, the BLM, our local politicians, visitor's bureau and land managers, I appreciate the points he makes.
Do own a boat?
Several boats, perhaps?
How about a toy boat?
My wife, son and I own a motorized dingy. We pay a registration fee for this boat, though there are years when it never sees the water. We're OK with that. We purchased this boat knowing it would need to be registered.
We also own three kayaks, an inflatable canoe and a small raft like the one picture here. These boats were cheap to purchase and none of them requires payment of a registration fee. That may soon change and I have a real problem with that!
Imagine having to pay an annual registration fee on that inflatable you purchased for the kids or on the old canoe you keep behind the garage in case friends come visiting.
Appended is an article about efforts to require the registration of non-motorized boats in Idaho, one of several states now considering similar fees.
The US Forest Service lost the authority to charge entrance fees in late 2004 when the recreation fee demonstration program was repealed and previous fee authority was replaced with the newly passed, and more restrictive, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement (FLREA).
Whereas under the authority of fee-demo, the Forest Service had almost unrestricted ability to charge fees of all kinds, here's what the language of the FLREA to says on this topic.
(2) PROHIBITED SITES.--The Secretary shall not charge an entrance fee for Federal recreational lands and waters managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service.
So, now knowing that the USFS may not charge an entrance fee, have a look at this one minute-long video taken at a USFS entrance fee station on the Deschutes National Forest.
The USFS is breaking the law. If challenged they would claim that what you saw in the video is not an "Entrance Station." They would claim that this is a convenience station and that they are making it easy for visitors who want to purchase recreation passes, to do so.
If a federal judge (or perhaps a Senator or Congressman) were to watch this video, do you suppose the USFS could get away with such a bogus claim??
Those who believe in the US Forest Service and have faith in them -- are will likely see one thing in the appended News Release.
Those who do not believe in the Forest Service, those who have lost all faith in that agency, and those who are familiar with the American Recreation Coalition as a black-hat, anti-environmental lobby group shamelessly exploiting the issue of "kids in nature" as a vehicle with which to further commercialize, privatize and motorize our National Forests, will likely to see something entirely different.
Is there a right and a wrong interpretation for the appended News Release?
Written by Kitty Benzar - Western Slope No Fee Coalition
Thursday, 05 June 2008
DEAR PUBLIC LANDS SUPPORTER:
Fee Alert!
A congressional hearing has been scheduled in Washington DC for Wednesday June 18th at 10am EDT, on public lands access fees.
Your comments are needed and may be emailed directly to the House's National Parks, Forests and Public Lands subcommittee for inclusion as testimony in the official record of the hearing.
Below you will find background information, some points to include in your comments, the format required, and the email address to send them to. There is also a sample letter to fax to Subcommittee members requesting their attendance at the hearing.
You can also watch the hearing live on your computer, on June 18th! Information about the live webcast will be posted at the Subcommittee website.
So let me be plain about this. Public lands recreation policy was captured by the ARC in the early 90s and the USFS dances to the industry's drum beat. The ARC is anathema to the cause of Wild Wilderness and our respect for the USFS is at a nadir. This new public-private campaign puts a smiley-faced mask in front of ARC's ugly face. I'm asking people to look behind the mask.
National Get Outdoors Day is the latest PR campaign of an unholy public-private alliance. The mission of the campaign has little to do with its stated purpose.
During Great Outdoors Week, ARC's wreckreation lobbyists will push their commercialization, privatization, motorization agenda. They will bestow honors upon federal employees who have served them unusually well. This year's recipient of their highest honor will be Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.
Now with that introduction, please browse the list of organizations that have lined up in support National Get Outdoors Day (see below). On it you will find several of ARC's closest allies such as National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, Americans for Responsible Recreational Access, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, ReserveAmerica, National Ski Areas Association and Tread Lightly. You will also find the names of all of this nation's federal public land management agencies.
You will also find on this same list the names of organizations not normally associated with anti-environmental causes. Have some these organizations made a mistake? Or are some of us possibly mistaken in our own estimation of some of these groups??
Scott
PS... I encourage people to go to the official National Get Outdoors
Day website and to click upon the link at the bottom of the page — the link which says
"Brought to you by..."
Written by Kitty Benzar, Western Slope No Fee Coalition
Tuesday, 03 June 2008
Dear Public Lands Supporter:
The two class action lawsuits filed on May 5 against the Forest Service in Arizona and Colorado are starting to draw media attention. Pasted below is one of the best, from the Tucson Weekly.
These are groundbreaking cases that seek to show the Forest Service has far exceeded its legal authority in the way it has implemented the fee programs at Mt Evans and Mt Lemmon. There are many more fee programs that are similar, and these cases will have an impact nationwide.
Thanks to those who have made donations to WSNFC earmarked for this effort, and please keep them coming. Donation info at our website.
Forest Fees were in 1997 an isolated example of the neoliberal privatization agenda at work. Few of the people with whom I then communicated even knew there was such a thing as a 'privatization agenda' or that the intended outcome was what one might reasonably call, "the Corporate Takeover of Everything". Many doubted the very existence of such an agenda. And while a decade ago the privatization agenda was already (albeit only conceptually) broad-based and far-reaching, examples of its implementation were comparatively few and far between.
Starting a decade ago, I focused attention upon what I called "The Corporate Takeover of Nature" while trying to raise general awareness for the larger issue of which recreation user fees and the associated Disneyfication of outdoor recreation were merely a small component.
Today examples abound. The tools and techniques that were pioneered and perfected with the Forest Fees/privatization experiment are being employed cookie-cutter fashion. Today the agenda can be observed everywhere and the takeover of everything is proceeding at warp speed and largely unchecked.
Appended is an Op-Ed from the Chicago Tribune which explores "solutions" to the growing problems associated with air travel. I share it in an effort to present an nearly perfect translation of Forest Privatization tools into Travel Privatization tools.
Those familiar with the privatization of outdoor recreation will see the incredible similarities -- similarities that extend right down to the fine details of technique. Those unfamiliar with the issue are invited to visit the website of the organization that claims to have invented the very word "privatization. The address is www.privatization.org --- and YES, these folks also lay claim to Forest Fees.
I'd just add that in the appended article, the $15 bag fee is of little importance. Focus your attention upon that fee and you'll miss the story completely. The guts of this article are found in what are presented as "long term" answers.
Advertisers have no manners, zero regard for privacy and absolutely no respect for the sanctity of unmolested public space. They'll hit potential customers anywhere they can and are always searching for new ways to do so.
I can remember going to the ocean as a kid in the '50s and seeing banners towed behind airplanes as well as ads written in the sky by slow flying smoker-writers. Today machine emboss mile-long messages into the coastal sand while advertising entrepreneurs work out the details of casting brand logos upon the Moon.
While we wait for the arrival of the Moon Swoosh, you might be interesting to know that the invasion of the Flogos has already begun.
As the appended article asks:
[Imagine getting up in the morning, taking your cup of coffee and morning paper out to the porch or deck for a few minutes of peace, and, instead of starting the day under God’s pristine sky, you look up and see it’s filled with Mickey Mouses or little purple pills or Nike Swooshes or political ads. … The possibilities are as limitless as they are dismaying.]
QUESTION:
Should there be laws to protect at least some spaces from advertising, or should every inch of this planet (and beyond) be fair game to advertisers?
In yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune, Tom Wharton's appeared under the headline "Public-lands bill may look better, but it's still a pig." His column is about Utah's proposed "Washington County Growth & Conservation Act of 2008" — a wilderness bill cut from shoddy cloth — and what, until recently, would have been deemed "unusually shoddy cloth." Unfortunately, our standards have fallen so low there is little that is unusual about this particular pig.
Wharton focuses his attention upon land sale provisions within this so-called "Wilderness" bill. He calls upon the conservation community and specifically upon 'national environmental groups' to oppose this bill. Wild Wilderness is with Wharton.
I'd like to add one thought not mentioned by Wharton. As a direct consequence of the Milton Friedmanesque 'Shock Doctrine' and the economic crisis now being inflicted upon the citizens of America by our elected leaders, we will soon be asked to sell off and/or privatize virtually every asset held in common, including our public lands. In that regard, America stands poised to become the next Pinochet's Chile.
Some will say, "nonsense, that will never happen." Others will say, "well perhaps just a little privatization would be okay, so long as the price is right and the money is well spent".
To both groups, I offer this thought:
At a fancy London dinner party, George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have asked Lady Astor, in front of others, if she would spend the night with him for a million pounds.
"Why yes Mr. Shaw, I suppose I would," she replied.
To which Shaw responded: "Well then, how about five pounds?"
"Mr. Shaw," the suddenly indignant Madame Astor retorted. "What do you think I am?"
"I've established that," Shaw replied. "What I am trying to establish now is the price."
With the era of mass, wholesale, privatization of America and its heritage laying before us, now is not the time for conservationists to be stepping onto this
avalanche slope. Or to use a different metaphor, now is not the time to be distracted with the temptation to pinch pawns -- not when we are threatened with almost imminent check-mate.
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized
by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts
to advance understanding of
criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.
BLOG 
I feel the same question should be asked today. If anything, the issues are more critical now than in DeVoto’s day, half a century ago.
With regard to "sustainability", that politically motivated frame was invented in the 70s as an ecological analogue of the "New Deal." It was a compromise intended to sustain capitalism during a period of intense environmental attack and to avoid taking meaningful actions on such growth-unfriendly issues as population control and over consumption. The hope was that by working within the system (as contrasted to opposing it or trying to modify it), the conservation community could take the hard edge off unlimited growth and spare the planet the worst of its impacts.
Following the PR-frame created by the recreation/tourism industry, public land managers are aggressively promoting "the Great Outdoors" as being a vital weapon in the "War on Childhood Obesity." The theory (or should I say, "the spin") is that with proper marketing and private investment, nature can be remade into something sufficiently enticing to lure children from their couches and game consoles. Of course, it won't any longer be "nature" but, as the recreation/tourism industry never stops saying, children don't really like or appreciate nature . As the industry has been saying for nearly three decades, "the Great Outdoors" must be transformed into something relevant to today's youth. In reality, and as I have said for a more than a decade, the recreation/tourism is using children in their effort takeover control of outdoor recreation on the public lands.
Daily progress is being made in the ongoing fight to end pay-to-play on the national forests and today I have good news to share. That said, I almost chose not to distribute the appended article because, in addition to reporting the news, it is larded with Forest Service misdirection. It concerns me that as Congress moves toward repeal of the Forest Service's fee-charging authority, the agency will likely respond with outright lies and deliberate deceptions. Sorting fact from fantasy will become evermore difficult and your help will be vital in the task of grounding the issue to bedrock realities.
I know the 'Badlands' east of Bend well. Our Senator, Ron Wyden, is currently working to designate this area as 'Wilderness' and our town is heavily festooned with bright yellow lawn signs that loudly proclaim - "Protect Badlands Wilderness".
We also own three kayaks, an inflatable canoe and a small raft like the one picture here. These boats were cheap to purchase and none of them requires payment of a registration fee. That may soon change and I have a real problem with that!
Advertisers have no manners, zero regard for privacy and absolutely no respect for the sanctity of unmolested public space. They'll hit potential customers anywhere they can and are always searching for new ways to do so. 
QUESTION: 
I'd like to add one thought not mentioned by Wharton. As a direct consequence of the Milton Friedmanesque '