Perhaps I'm easily offended.  I am, admittedly, one of the few wilderness activists who speaks disparagingly of 'Leave No Trace' accusing them of being a recreation industry booster that serves to shift the focus of management discussion from "wilderness character" to "biophysical resource impacts." I actively oppose the supposed wilderness legislation known as "CIEDRA", accusing it of being an Economic Development and Wreckreation Act .

Within Wilderness I would no more welcome being casually approached (without damned good reason) by someone wearing a uniform, than I would welcome being attacked by blood-sucking mosquitoes.

As for large groups in Wilderness, the biggest problem with large groups is their size.  Much like LNT shifts the discussion from solitude to impact, there are some who shift the discussion from group size to group behavior.

For the past 15 years, I've headed an organization that thought it necessary to say the word "Wild" before the word "Wilderness"  -- which some think is most odd.  I find it appropriate to put Wild before Wilderness and find it increasingly necessary to do so with every passing day. 

Pasted below are the first paragraphs of what I found to be an unusually offensive article that addresses the issue of how we can all be more "responsible wilderness tourists." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wilderness really isn't the place for tourists nor should Wilderness be turned into a place such a place --- as many now suggest.

Scott

 "In short, the very scarcity of wild places, reacting with the mores of advertising and promotion, tends to defeat any deliberate effort to prevent their growing still more scarce." --Aldo Leopold

 

 

 

The Wild Wilderness Raceway exists.

This logo is real.

 

 

Yesterday the American Recreation Coalition issued a news release that began with these words:
 
http://www.funoutdoors.com/node/view/1621

Washington, D.C. – More than 80 organizations recently wrote to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior calling for an inquiry into why the national park system is failing to provide the American public with the appropriate level of visitation to meet the nation’s mental, physical and spiritual needs.

 The ARC did not give further details.

Through contacts within the Department of Interior I have obtained the text of ARC's letter to Secretary Kempthorne as well as the list of organizations that have assembled themselves under the ARC's umbrella in an effort to interfere with how our National Parks are managed.
 
I've provided that information below and encourage you to read what these special interest groups have just said to their long-time friend, Mr. Kempthorne.
 
I will just add  that I was pleased to discover that the list of names contains only the usual group anti-parks trouble-markers. Most of these organizations are ARC members. Many of them are, I suspect, the same people with whom Paul Hoffman worked in his attempt to rewrite NPS management policies so as to throw the parks open to unfettered commercialization, privatization and motorization.
 
Scott 

 PS... After making this post, the ARC put the original letter online at http://www.funoutdoors.com/files/kletter.pdf where it can now be viewed 

[Several states, including Iowa and Arkansas, reported that attempts to charge park entrance fees met with such public opposition that they were discontinued.]

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.   -Thomas Jefferson

The American Recreation Coalition are not happy campers. Last year they came within an inch of re-writing the mission of the National Park System when Paul Hoffman introduced their preferred version for new NPS Management Policies. Fortunately, the American people refused to go along, and the ARC was handed a major setback.

As you will see below, American Recreation Coalition is now prepared to fight the American People.

Mind you, the American Recreation Coalition has been fighting the American People for over two decades. Unfortunately, until recently, the American People just never had a clue what the ARC was doing to them.

Scott

PS... additional information is available on ARC's website at http://www.funoutdoors.com/node/view/1611 

Last summer I participated in a study of visitor perceptions related to experiences within the popular and increasingly crowded Three Sisters Wilderness which is located 20 miles from where I live. The title that has been given to the newly published report is:

 Attitudes and Changes in Attitudes about Visitor Management at the Green Lakes/South Sister Area of the Three Sisters Wilderness: A Study of Four Stakeholder Involvement Meetings in Oregon

At the time, I viewed the study as an effort designed to give the USFS justification for managing Wilderness to standards lower than are required by law. I also thought the session seemed oddly designed to test how easily attitudes about wilderness could be swayed by the persistent, repetitive, imposition of propaganda by the researchers.

Today I read the report and my original misgivings were confirmed.

The newly released study can be read at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs7/Stakeholder.pdf

This new study is one of several related wilderness studies. Here is a link to the series. http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/F007_B.htm

The Three Sisters Wilderness study came to the general conclusion that Wilderness visitors are diverse bunch of poorly informed recreationists whose opinions about Wilderness management are remarkably labile under pressure.

As a study in sociology, this has significant value. As a study with applicability to Wilderness management, I found little of any value.

Wilderness management is governed by law. Fortunately (for now, at least) law is not as labile as were the opinions of those who participated in this survey.

Scott

   It behooves us then to do two things: First we must see that an adequate system of wilderness areas is designed for preservation, and then we must allow nothing to alter the wilderness character of the preserves."   - Howard Zahniser 

Pasted below is an electronic copy of a USFS memo. It describes a soon to be implemented Backcountry Roads pilot program and speaks of the creation and designation of a new "SUV Recreation Roads" USFS Partnership.  

This USFS memo was distributed last month at the American Recreation Coalition's Great Outdoors week.  As many will know, the ARC played a crucial role in the formation of the Scenic and Backcountry Byways programs and remains amongst the most active promoters of, and lobbyists for, those programs. The ARC is currently midway though the process of creating a new website to promote both forms of "driving for pleasure". The url for is: www.byways2021.org
 
It now appears that the ARC is playing a crucial role in the creation of yet another Federally administered  program designed to promote driving for pleasure. But this one is different. This one, if it gets beyond the "pilot" stage, will have a significant impact upon the way BACKCOUNTRY forest roads are designated, managed and promoted specifically for SUV driving.  
 
OH... you might put another outfit on your radar screens http://www.suvoa.com . SUVOA's motto is: "Standing up for SUV, Pickup and Van Owners of America." They are ugly -- very ugly.
 
ARC's President, Derrick Crandall, is on their Board of Directors as is David Humphreys, the founder of the ARC and recently retired President of the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association.
 
If you want to see how ugly ugly gets ...  visit the SUVOA website and be sure to explore their BLOG.

Scott

PS... notice in the final line the reference to Shasta Cascade Wonderland Association as the USFS partner. THAT IS IMPORTANT. That is Bob Warren's outfit. Warren speaks for both the National Alliance of Gateway Communities and for the ARC. I consider Warren to be amongst the top 20 most influential people in America when it comes to guiding the commercialization, privatization and motorization of outdoor recreation policy for America's public lands.

 "A civilized person might climb the highest mountain, swim the deepest river, or cross the hottest desert for love, sweet love. He might do anything, indeed, except be willing to pay for it." -Mark Sagoff

[The California Department of Parks and Recreation will no longer run the parking lot as a SnoPark. The Forest Service has rescinded the SnoPark's permit and is looking for a concessionaire to manage the area year round.]

[ The American Recreation Coalition is a nonprofit, Washington-based federation founded in 1979. The association provides a unified voice for recreation interests to ensure their full and active participation in government policy-making on issues such as public land management, energy, and liability.]

Quoted from appended article from today's Sacramento Bee:

    [A House committee soon will review the new proposal, but pride of authorship resides beyond Capitol Hill. It's a coalition of Californians who put aside their historic antagonisms to negotiate the package, acre by acre. "It's really the way it should be done," said Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy.]

Richard Pombo needs no introduction -- BUT did  know Pombo serves on the Advisory  Board of the National Wilderness Institute and that NWI has very specific ideas on the way Wilderness should be done?

If Pombo and / or NWI supports a Wilderness bill, what does that say to you about the bill and the compromises built into it?

Learn more http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=75

Scott

PS... be sure to see the two quotes at the bottom of this page.

 1) [Mr. Smith] said the [new NPS] policies are more balanced than have been portrayed, noting that the media misinterpreted the Secretary's statement that where there is conflict and impairment, conservation will prevail to mean that recreational use will always be secondary to preservation

 2) Smith said that "a significant initiative," announcing his legislative and other priorities will come in the next 10-14 days.

National Park visitation has been declining for about a decade. Only recently have the National Park Service and park interest-groups acknowledged this reality and begun to speculate as to the cause.

Almost invariably, declining visitation is attributed to things externals to the parks --- things such as 9/11, gas prices, excessive video gaming by today's youth and changing cultural norms. Rarely has the decline been attributed to anything actually happening within the National Park system. Rarer still is for anyone to so much as suggest that declining visitation may be correlated to escalating entrance fees.  If fees are mentioned, it is generally to praise them and then discount the possibility that they might, somehow, be involved.

The appended article is the rarest of all. It quotes a park superintended saying "Visitor numbers have been dropping for all the attractions of the park since 1999 when the fee was introduced..." and then quotes him saying  "we had a hard look at the numbers and decided to eliminate the fee."

So here's a question. If declining park visitation correlates to increasing fees in one park, is it possible the same may be true in other parks??? Is it possible the declining visitation on US Forest Service lands may also be related to increasing fees???

Scott