Five days ago, as quoted from a press release from National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council:

[The top executive at one of the nation's leading off-highway vehicle recreation organizations told a Congressional panel today that active management of OHV use on federal lands is working and that the closure of public lands to the millions of Americans who enjoy motorized recreation would be "a step backward.]

The testimony is important and an excerpt is appended.

Five years ago, in a message shared with the conservation community but not with the general public, I made a prediction and issued a warning. Five days ago a top executive from the motorized recreation industry confirmed the accuracy of that prediction and warning.

Here is that prediction/warning. Appended is an excerpt from the press release. My hope is that the conservation community will consider the ramifications of my warning -- now that its accuracy has been confirmed.

Scott

October 30, 2003

My take is this.

Motorized recreation WILL be more aggressively managed because that is what the motorized recreation industry WANTS.

New opportunities for managed motorized recreation will be provided by land management agencies. Public/private partnerships between land managers and motorized recreation clubs will build, maintain and operate these new ORV parks, playgrounds and trail systems. The Tread Lightly message will dominate the landscape and "responsible recreation" will dominate every discussion about recreation management. No longer will there be any debate whether motorized recreation is appropriate -- the issue will be how best to deliver motorized recreation, i.e., how best to provide this service/product.

And it should go without saying that motorized recreation will be funded predominately through grants, partnerships, volunteerism, gas-tax rebates, green-sticker fees and recreation user fees, etc...

Motorized recreation will become a heavily managed commodity which will be made available in whatever quantity the market demands.

TRUE... the amount of cross-country travel will be reduced.
TRUE... motorized play areas will be designated.
TRUE... law enforcement will increase somewhat.
TRUE... a few "outlaws" will be strung up and made examples of...

And equally true, the debate about whether motorized recreation is appropriate or not will be over.

As I see it, "managed recreation" will mean that the land managers will sell recreational access. So long as the recreation occurs within acceptable parameters it will be permitted. The more money such recreation generates, the more such recreation will be provided and the more acres of public lands will be dedicated to such uses.

So as much as I personally like the concept of managed recreation, I expect that in the hands of those land managers who are now doing the bidding of the Bush Administration and the recreation industry, "managed recreation" is not going to achieve the results any of us are hoping for.

On the contrary, I think managed recreation will simply serve to further advance the recreation industry's efforts to commercialize, privatize and motorized recreational opportunities on America's public lands. And until we confront the of pay-to-play issue and remove the financial incentives for recreation mismanagement that user-fees create, we stand no chance whatsoever of stopping this agenda. 

The appended article, titled "How public wildlife became something for sale" speaks narrowly of the commodification of wildlife and the transformation of traditional ethical hunting into outfitted, pay-to-bag, trophy-taking. It speaks of the diminution of wildlife that has resulted from this transformation and is an interesting article even when read in a vacuum.

The article becomes more valuable when you realize that the concepts presented are applicable to more than the taking of wildlife. It becomes more meaningful when you appreciate that in pointing an accusing finger at Texas and its policies, which are said to be the worst in the nation, Jim Posewitz is pointing to the State and policies which, for the past 7 years, have served as the model for privatization of virtually everything, including everything associated with the "great outdoors".  It has served as the chief model for the transformation of outdoor recreation on our public lands into the marketized, pay-to-play fee-asco that exists today.

The harm which has already resulted from these policies, is incalculable. 

Undoing that harm will not occur unless an active public makes it happen.

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 International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) has, in recent years, repositioned itself both ideologically and politically. Formerly a non-motorized recreation group with wheels, today IMBA is, practically speaking, a motorized wreckreation group without motors.

IMBA has taken a radical turn and as part of this transition, it is aligning itself ever more closely with the American Recreation Coalition and other anti-environmental / motorized / access interest groups.  Pasted below a recent example of the company IMBA now keeps.

I'd just add that IMBA is not the only non-motorized group in this position. Look at the list and you'll see two others, both of which are card-carrying members of the ARC.   Keep a sharp lookout and you will notice others. This transformation of recreation groups into wreckreation groups, and indeed the transformation of recreation into wreckreation,  is a disconcerting trend.

Scott 

The appended article about using motorized recreation as a local economic engine requires little introduction, other than to say that what is described for Washington and Idaho is occurring in all parts of the country.

Motorized recreation is everywhere being touted for this purpose.  The worse the economy gets, the heavier it will be promoted. I hope that the response of my community will NOT be to boast and tout their preferred forms of recreation so as to engage the motorized industry in what would amount to a recreational arms race.

Better responses can be made.

Scott

 "If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going
    to do is make the rubble bounce." -Winston Churchill

In May of this year I posted a blog entry titled: "Clayoquot's Ultra-Luxury Privatized Wilderness" and offered this comment:

Because the parks commercialization and privatization agenda is further advanced in Canada than it is here in the states, looking North provides a clear peek into the future that awaits our own National Parks and Wilderness areas. THIS is the direction things are headed. And while this future has already arrived in Canada, it may yet be avoidable here in the USA.

In August the LA Times ran a story on "Glamping"  — which is precisely what I had written about in May.

I has prepared to let this article pass without comment — until I ran across a version of it that began with these words:

Campers can take the wilderness out of the experience

Camping is not just for ordinary folks anymore. "Glamping - glamor camping -  is in vogue for families who want nature neatly packaged.

THIS is the direction things are headed — and while this particular article is about glamping on private property, many outfitter/guides practice glamping within designated Wilderness. This is the trend being promoted by public lands administrators. And as everyone in the business knows, there's more money to be made in glamping than in camping.

Unfortunately, the future portended by these articles may no longer be avoidable.

Scott  

For the longest while, pro-off-road vehicle interest groups have promoted the PR-message which says there is nothing inherently wrong with off-roading and whatever problems are associated with the activity can all be attributed to "the few bad apples" who fail to follow the rules and, by so doing, spoil it for everyone else. That's the "Tread Lightly" message and it has served the motorized recreation community well.

More recently, the conservation community began using a remarkably similar message. According to their newly adopted frame, "Everyone has a right to access our public lands, but no one has the right to abuse these lands or ruin the experience of others enjoying America's Great Outdoors."  That's really not very different from the Tread Lightly message, is it?

With there being so little difference in the way both sides of the motorized recreation issue frame their messaging, I found the appended article from Alberta Canada refreshing. It offers a stark, and presumably heart-felt, contrast to the carefully managed, professionally crafted, sterile messages that now dominates all discussion of this issue.

Scott
 

Earlier this year, the American Recreation Coalition (ARC) and the National Forest Foundation (with support from the American Petroleum Institute, the US Forest Service, Tread Lightly and Yamaha) held a series of "Recreation Forums". The process was tightly controlled and designed to advance the ARC's wreckreation agenda.

As a follow-up, the ARC, in conjunction with the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC), Americans for Responsible Recreation Access (ARRA) and other wise-use / motorized interest groups now seek to elaborate upon the gains resulting from those forums.

Pasted below is an article from the current edition of BlueRibbon Magazine. It explains what, specifically, these motorized recreation groups seek to achieve as a consequence of those Recreation Forums.

Please note the use of the "kids in the outdoors" messaging in this BRC article. The "Kids" message (in all it's permutations -- inner city, obese, diabetic, Richard Louv, nature-deficient, etc. -- is a winner and is now used in everything originating from the recreation industry, from motorized user groups and, of course, from their partners, the federal land management agencies. Unfortunately, it's also used by a few conservation groups.

Finally, I'd like to draw attention to the Forest Access Strategy (FAS) described below and state emphatically that this is NOT, as the article claims, new. Following the BRC article is a 10 year old ARC document that clearly set the stage for "managed recreation", "travel management planning", and FAS.

Scott 

It has just been announced that commercial motorized tours on Segway™ scooters will be permitted within Anteitam National Battlefield (see appended).

This is a prefect example of the commercialization, privatization and motorization of the National Parks. It is an example I have previously explained in considerable detail back when the idea was in its early test phase— (click here and here to read learn why this is such a bad idea!)

Riding Segways within the parks is the future. I have no doubt about that. Not with the American Recreation Coalition pushing it. Not with the inventor of the Segway being a close, personal, friend of the Bushes (pictured at right). And not with the Segway company gasping for air an desperately in need of using the National Park System to do its marketing!

Using the National Park to sell products will take many forms. Having paying customers motor-scootering on the walkways of Anteitam National Battlefield while riding rented, branded, vehicles is merely one of 'em.

Scott

PS... it is obvious that this is commercialization and motorization. It may not be obvious that it is privatization. Perhaps this cartoon will help explain why this is so.

Appended is an LA Times article about the soon to be opened Skywalk perched above the Grand Canyon and, more importantly, about a trend in outdoor recreation about which I've been writing for the past decade. I've called that trend "The Disneyfication of the Wild"

I'd like to introduce today's article with a passage I wrote several years ago in reference to Grand Canyon National Park which, by comparison to what is described below, seems almost tame. Looking at this latest development, perhaps for all of these years I've been underestimating the magnitude of the transformation that await us!

Wreckreation in the great outdoors is what profit-oriented special interests are working to promote through efforts to commercialize, privatize, and motorize our public lands. Consider, for example, the results of these efforts on one of America’s most spectacular natural wonders, Grand Canyon National Park.

It starts with a drive, often a very long one. Once past the fee booth, where visitors hand over twenty-five dollars to get into the park, most vehicles head directly to the South Rim overlook. After finding a parking space, which can be a real challenge, visitors stop briefly to admire the view. They often spend the bulk of their time and money in a gift shop, a restaurant, or a motel—facilities that are operated under contract by park concessionaires. During their brief stay, visitors can expect to see and hear dozens of commercially operated helicopters and small aircraft flying tours low above the canyon rim. The drone is unrelenting and can be heard on the Colorado River, six thousand feet below.

Visitors who want to float the Colorado River in their own boats and with their own friends will need to plan far in advance. The demand is so high, in fact, that the waiting period for permits for recreational boaters taking self-directed trips is nearly twenty years. But if you don’t mind being herded down the river as a paying passenger on a commercial tour with dozens of other people piled atop motorized pontoon boats, you can do that trip tomorrow. For those tourists with more money than time, there’s no need to even run the entire river. Several commercial trips divide the river into upper and lower runs with helicopters to shuttle passengers back and forth. The National Park Service has privatized access to the Colorado River and has contracted out 80 percent of all services to commercial providers. 

Scott

Whatever one thinks of the American Recreation Coalition today, it's sometimes worth reminding oneself that the ARC is the creation of the petroleum industry and the makers of powered recreation vehicles. Transforming America's public lands into pay-to-play motorized playgrounds is not, and never was, their raison d'ętre. The transformation of recreation into wreckreation and the destruction of wildness, for which they are absolutely responsible, was merely the consequence of ARC serving their primary mission and masters.

  Lets not forget that the ARC was born in 1979 as a response to the gas-crisis then gripping the nation. That crisis had caused the sales of recreation vehicles to plummet to zero. Something had to be done to SAVE THE INDUSTRY!

ARC was launched with unusual financial and political backing and quickly became the top outdoor recreation advisor to Presidents Reagan and Bush Senior.  By the mid 90s, ARC dominated America's public lands recreation policy. It is in that role, as the masters of policy and the overseers of bureaucratic land managers, that most people are now familiar with the ARC. Yet just as vampires return to their crypt, when necessary the ARC returns to its oily roots. Few are familiar with those roots -- and roots matter.

Pasted below is a recent article describing how ARC is worried that the 110th Congress might raise federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards -- and by so doing, harm the recreation industry. You can be assured that if Congress takes up this issue, ARC will be lobbying against the raising of those fuel economy standards.

Scott

• TO LEARN THE BACKGROUND AND TO READ THE FOREWORD TO THE ARC-PUBLISHED BOOK PICTURED ABOVE,  CLICK HERE.
• To get a sense of ARC's efforts as deny Climate Change, click here.
• To better appreciate ARC's efforts as SUV / anti-CAFE lobbyists, click here.
• To see how ARC and it's federal partners promote recreational gas consumption, click here.

Dear Jerry

I recently read your column titled “What’s Wild?”  while browsing the “Wild Wilderness” website. I am a fourth generation Northern Californian who spent her childhood roaming the National parks the old fashioned way....Every summer in the 60’s my family trekked off to a National Park or Forest through San Jose State’s “Field Studies and Natural History”. I remember being awakened early in the morning and eating cold pancakes in a big old lodge while being briefed by a real Park Ranger in a green uniform who knew everything there was to know about our surroundings. I remember complaining to my parents about having to get out of my cozy sleeping bag in the early chilly dawn but my real memories are of the remarkable nature hikes, smelling and identifying the bark of trees, spending long moments watching a particular bird or other wildlife creature and learning every wild flower in the park. In the evenings after a hearty spaghetti or meatloaf dinner we’d all return to that lodge for a nature slide show and a hot chocolate, sometimes going out for a campfire story or two. Oh those were the glorious days of old!

Nothing was removed from the wilderness, everything was appreciated in it’s natural sate and we left feeling invigorated and at peace knowing that we existed together with such natural wonders.

Fast Forward.............

<CONTINES>

The snowmobile.
It's a machine many people once loved to hate.
The early models were noisy.
Many were dangerous.  

Those were the first words of the 1980 article which appears below  -- and here is a picture of one of those dangerous early models.

Compared to today's sportsters, I'd say this old Polaris looks positively benign.

This article is a blast from the past containing buried treasure for who would find if of interest to know more about the early history of snowmobiling in Yellowstone National park and what Derrick Crandall was doing before he became the President of the American Recreation Coalition and before America's federal land managers starting eating out of his hands.

Scott

You've heard my buzz-words a thousand times --- the commercialization, privatization and motorization of recreational opportunities, the Corporate Takeover of Nature, the Disneyfication of the Wild.  When's the last time you've seen as clear an example of those words in action as in the appended article about "Pure Wilderness Escape"?

In my book, this is a near perfect example of what industrial recreation is about, yet this example does not involve an ORV. Much of what threatens wildness does not involve ORVs, though motors are almost invariably involved. The transformation of the outdoor recreation now taking place involves turning countless blank spots on the map into pre-packaged opportunities for the consumption of commodified, privatized, motorized experiences.  This is the future industry planned for wildlands recreation more than twenty years ago. This the the vision to which today's land managers have subscribed  What is described may, in one form or another, yet become the fate of National Parks and wilderness - both big and little "w" wilderness alike.

We in the conservation community spend far too much energy criticising motorized recreation without questioning whether we ourselves have become part of the problem. We focus too narrowly, or so I suggest.

Scott

Were it not for the fact that federal recreation managers have been so captivated by the motorhome industry, and so obsequious to that industry's every desire, I'd take no joy in seeing an industry collapse. Even knowing how much harm this industry has done to public lands management, seeing it now wither is but a bittersweet experience.

For more than a decade, traditional tent-oriented campgrounds on public lands have been undergoing a process of upgrading to meet the demands of the motorhome industry. As a result of these changes, participation in traditional camping has been put into a state of decline. As a consequence, land managers are moving even further away from managing existing campgrounds for those traditional values that made camping such a popular family pastime. A downward spiral was created by the motorhome industry's success in convincing public land managers that the future of "camping" will be motorhome based.

 Today the collapse of the motorhome industry is underway and unstoppable. I share none of the optimism expressed by recreation vehicle industry touts expressed in the appended article.

 And why does any of this matter, especially to those who are not themselves into the motorhome life-style!? Because federal land managers have been creating a future upon the premise that their customers want more more-highly developed, motorhome-friendly, recreational opportunities. They are betting upon a future that is not to be and they are destroying the future that might have been.

Scott

Quoted from appended news article from today's Oregonian:

[The Forest Service, meanwhile, has found itself pinched between the conflicting federal regulations that, on one hand, prohibit most buildings in Wilderness, while simultaneously mandating the protection and maintenance of historic structures. "We wanted them to fix it up and keep the airfield always open...."]

The article continues....

[The agency conceivably could have hired a concessionaire to run the ranch as the National Park Service does with many facilities. But that would have meant prohibitively expensive upgrades, a Forest Service spokeswoman said...]

At issue, is the management of designated, big W, Wilderness.

Difficult to believe .... isn't it?

Isn't it???

Scott

Quoted from appended article published today about an new effort to authorize user-fees for OHV use in Arizona:

[The Sierra Club was officially neutral on the 2006 bill, but lobbyist Sandy Bahr said the environmental group now opposes the 2007 version... While welcoming signs for current trails and enforcement of access restrictions to protect environmentally sensitive areas, Bahr said the bill is troubling because significant funding for new trails could open additional areas to riders. "It's pretty open-ended."]

When recreation user fees were foisted upon public lands by the American Recreation Coalition in 1996, the press dubbed the paradigm these fees created as "Pay-to-Play."  It now turns out that the press was wrong and that moniker is misleading.

The American Recreation Coalition and the motorized recreation interests it represents, created what they understood would become "Pay AND Play". The concept was simple -- You PAY, You PLAY. Outdoor recreation would be transformed into an item of commerce and the great outdoors would be packaged, marketed and sold to paying customers in the form of value-added products, goods and services. Delivery would be primarily through public-private partnerships and / or through cooperative agreements with access-oriented recreation organizations. And, most important of all, those who paid more, would get more.

I'll just add, there are reasons WHY you will find more than 500 hits when GOOGLING for "American Recreation Coalition" combined with "Arizona". Those reason make today's news article an issue of National importance. I would encourage folks to look upon it as such.

Scott 

The monthly newsletter of the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds  (ARVC) is a valuable source of information emanating from the purveyors of commercial camping.  Being tightly affiliated with both the motorhome industry and the American Recreation Coalition, ARVC's website provides a portal for those wishing to know more about the concerted efforts of these industry groups (working collaborative in tandem) to guide, shape, mold and when possible actually set outdoor recreation policy at the State and National level.

Pasted below is an excerpt from their November newsletter and here is a snippet from that excerpt:

Many ARVC member parks and campgrounds are located near national parks and benefit significantly from the popularity of the parks. Declining visitation of any magnitude is not welcome news for those parks. With Kempthorne's pledge to reverse declining attendance and with RV and tent camping in the national parks playing a significant role in that drop, efforts to reinvigorate tent and RV camping in the parks could become a point of contention among the RV industry interests. In order to attract back tent and RV campers, the national parks may institute programs to expand and upgrade park service campgrounds to improve their appeal. This can be done either directly by the park service or through a concession or permitting program that would entice private sector interests to invest in upgrading park service camping facilities.

Scott