Professor Richard Knight is well known for seeing problems and then trying to find compromise solutions. His soft-centered approach generally makes matters worse, or so I would suggest. In predictable fashion, Knight's new Op-Ed about volunteerism correctly identifies pressing real problems and then offers solutions that will, unquestionably, make matters even worse.

Where Knight goes wrong this time, is in ignoring (or perhaps not knowing) that 25 years ago volunteerism was targeted by those who now rule America as the very FIRST STEP that had to be implemented in order to ultimately bring about the very outcomes Knight so desperately hopes to avoid.

Pasted here is a short passage from "Parks, Property Rights, and the Possibilities of the Private Law" by James P. Beckwith, Jr., published by the Cato Institute in 1981.  It is one of many such papers in which the individual steps of the privatization agenda are laid out for all to read, follow, ignore or avoid as they wish.  It is, for those who care about parks or other public lands, one of the most important papers ever written.

[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. The transition to a freer legal order is not costless, however, and a prescription for change must be tempered with a sensitivity to the capacity for change of the existing legal order.]

With this in mind, I hope you'll read  Knight's latest Op-Ed (pasted below) and then reject his suggestions.

To learn more, GOOGLE for the word "privatization" combined with "volunteerism", then start reading the ONE MILLION articles you'll find available online.

Scott

It sometimes seems as if the majority of the environmental community have, in the years since Gale Norton took office,  become devotees of free-market environmentalism. Not long ago, that was the exclusive turf of policy wonks in right-wing economic think tanks. Reading the appended article from today's Salt Lake Tribune I was stricken by much things have changed.

Perhaps nowhere within the environmental community have free market solutions been so enthusiastically (and broadly) embraced as amongst public land grazing activists and amongst pollution cap-and-traders.

That's the prerogative of these people, but I wonder if they appreciate how difficult they make it for those are trying to beat back, and defeat, the policies of Norton, Scarlett, O'Toole, Anderson, Leal, Baden, Fretwell, Beckwith and similar put-your-money-where-you-mouth-is right-wingers.

Scott

The appended article is about growing problems within Maryland State Parks but it will seem remarkably familiar to park activists everywhere. It speaks of the kinds of issues plaguing parks everywhere... issues such as funding cuts, increasing user-fees, high camping fees (up to $40/night) --- all combined with ever-decreasing services.

There is, however, a novel idea expressed in this article: one that pushes the growing abuse of volunteerism into new territory. As most folks know, public land managers are increasingly been forced to depend upon altruistic volunteers,  gain-seeking special-interest groups, delinquent youth groups, prison inmates, National Guard troops and others to perform work previously done by paid employees.  Read on to discover an altogether new twist...

Scott

The appended Op-Ed in SUPPORT of Paul Hoffman's National Park reinvention plan was written by someone trying to be cheeky.  It appears on the web, courtesy of 'Frontiers of Freedom' ... a hard-right outfit created by retired Senator Malcolm Wallop.

Wallop, some might remember, served on Ronald Reagan's President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO) - the commission which, in 1987, crafted the commercialize, privatize, motorize agenda being implemented today. Also serving on that commission was ARC's Derrick Crandall.

Wallop, Crandall, Interior Secretary Norton and  NPS Director Mainella share something in common. They are all recipients of ARC's annual "Great Outdoors Award" presented in recognition outstanding achievement in advancing the Reagan PCAO agenda.

Thought it would be helpful to know that, before reading the following...

Scott

As I frequently remind folks, the management direction of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department serves as the most directly applicable working model of the free-market ideologies espoused by the CATO Institute and the Political Economy Research Center at which, I might add, Interior Secretary served as a Senior Researcher before joining the Bush Administration. (GOOGLE the keywords in this sentence to learn more).

Pasted below are two recent and very different articles about Texas Parks. The first speaks of the creation of pricey, Disneyfied, recretainment products to be marketed and sold to park visitors. The second article, written two days letter, speaks of closing and perhaps even selling the parks themselves. The second article is the more important of the two because ultimately, privatization is the management direction sought by PERC and other purveyors of free-market ideologies. Park CLOSURE is the ultimate fall-back alternative if park commercialization fails to generate sufficient operating revenues to sustain the parks without public funding, and if the private sector has no interest in operating and/or owning these park properties.

The fate of Texas' State parks is of little concern to me. The fate of America's National Parks and forests means a great deal. What is happening in Texas, is the harbinger of things to come.

I repeat, what is happening in Texas is the harbinger of things to come!

You'd think that would be obvious to all.... would you not?
You'd think people would care ... wouldn't you?
You'd think this trend could be reversed.

Scott

When my home State of Oregon recently passed a resolution calling for repeal of the federal Recreation Access Tax,  the media barely took notice. However, those working to privatize America's National Parks paid attention -- because Oregon's resolve threw an obstacle in their path!

Pasted below is an article keyed upon passage that anti-RAT resolution. It is titled "Who do you want to run our National Parks?" Its author, J. Bishop Grewell, is a research fellow at PERC, a free-market think-tank in Bozeman MT -- and that fact is important.

Before joining the Bush Administration, Interior Secretary Gale Norton was a Senior Research Fellow at PERC -- and that fact is also important.

PERC's Executive Director, Terry Anderson, in 1999 published "How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands."  Two years later, Anderson served as an advisor upon President Bush's Transition Team. Today Anderson's report serves as the roadmap for the Corporate Takeover of Nature and the dismantling of the American Commons -- and it that's not important, then I don't know what else is?!

Scott

PS.... as tantalizing as Grewell's title for this article may be, nowhere does he reveal his answer. To learn who Grewell and the other PERCies think should manage OUR National Parks, you'll want to read Anderson's report.

For folks wanting the short answer, here it is. PERCies believe there should be NO National Parks and NO National Forests. They believe there should be NO public lands of any kind. PERCies would privatize everything -- and that, my friends, is precisely what is happening today. All that stands between them and their goal are you, me and anyone else who is willing to become personally engaged in this battle. 

"I think it would be a very bad thing if we were talking about selling national forest lands, and I would be completely against that..."

[Tom Udall of New Mexico, was more skeptical. "I think it creates an incentive that could have some very adverse consequences," he said. "If you have agencies which are starved for maintenance funds, and you create the incentive to sell assets to get maintenance funds they might very well be carrying out transactions that are not the best."]

Quoted from appended article which appeared in today's Planet Jackson Hole:

 "The plan is to commodify every dollarable value that can possibly be associated with the American commons, and then sell, lease or simply turn over to private interests each aspect of those commons. ... This administration is disposing of your country, disposing of your National Parks and Forests, disposing of your constitution. They are disposing of your retirement benefits, your right to public education, your free access to public lands and roads, your public broadcasting system. They are parting-out and unloading everything. What remains to be seen is whether the people of this nation will rise up and fight in defense of what is being stolen from them."

Will the American people actively fight to retain what is being stolen from them, or will they passively accept their loss?  What do you think???

Scott

   A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves. -Henry de Jouvenel

A few days ago, I shared with you a NPS-related update titled "Unilever National Park". If I was not so concerned about the possibility of burning you out with overly frequent updates, I could send similar privatization updates on a daily basis -- the action is now occurring at such a fast and furious pace. As it is, I share only a small sampling of the almost continuous train of new privatization developments affecting your National Park System and robbing you of your American Commons.

Some people do not know that agreements such as the one described in the appended News Release have anything to do with privatization. Some are totally unaware that volunteerism is a privatization tool favored by right-wing think tanks, by the Libertarian ideologues running the Dept. of Interior and by the Bush Administration.  Some haven't a clue that Quasi Governmental organizations such at the National Park Foundation are being used for the purpose of shrinking government and replacing it with corporate rule. Some will find nothing disconcerting about the appended announcement. I suppose a few may even support such partnerships --- after all, it is a way to generate "FREE" money and "FREE" publicity for our Parks, is it not??

Some day, perhaps with your help, the vast majority of Americans will understand what is wrong with partnerships such these. Some day, perhaps if we are lucky, it will not be considered either appropriate or necessary to whore out America's Crown Jewels or force park managers to sleep with anyone who waves a $50 bill under their nose.

Then again, some day, we may get to witness Mussolini's seamless merging of state and corporate power. The CHOICE is ours.

Scott

 "The advanced nations have entered a pre-fascist social condition that will ripen in various ugly ways if the market's imperatives prevail, if commerce and finance refuse to compromise their objectives." - William Greider, 1999

Here is the final paragraph from the new "CRS Report for Congress", referenced below:

 [The emergence and growth of the quasi government can be viewed as either a symptom of a decline in our democratic system of governance or as a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the principles of market behavior are harnessed for the general well-being of the nation. One thing is for sure, however: debate between the competing management paradigms is over important issues, such as the legitimacy and utility.]

"Quasi Government" is privatized government. When Quasi Government becomes indistinguishable from Democratic Government then, by definition, what you have is "Fascism."

The Quasi Government debate is, in it's ultimate configuration, a debate about more than "legitimacy and utility. I encourage more people to become more actively engaged in this important debate.

Scott

PS.... Please note the reference to the National Park Foundation. Details are available on pages 26-27 of the report. To learn more, go to their webpage www.nationalparks.org. To learn the rest of the story, contact me.

Quoted from New York Times article:

April 28, 2005
Paying on the Highway to Get Out of First Gear
By TIMOTHY EGAN...
                                       <snip>

 But state and federal governments, beset by deficits, say they have barely enough money to service the existing system, let alone build new roads. As a result, nearly two dozen states have passed legislation allowing their transportation systems to operate pay-as-you-go roads, and in many cases, letting the private sector build and run these roads. Social engineering is merging with traffic engineering, creating new technologies that charge people a variable toll based on how many cars are on the road - known as congestion pricing - or reduce toll rates for high occupancy to encourage car-pooling. The White House wants to allow states to charge user fees for virtually any stretch of an  interstate....

That description of privatizing America's Interstates with pay-as-you-go sounds almost identical to the issue of recreation pay-to-play, now doesn't it?

Hmmmm. Coincidence? Hardly!

Interestingly enough, in an article that appeared this morning in the Casper Star Tribune, a long-time forest-fee supporter, Andy Stahl, is quoted as saying:

 "Conservatives have succeeded in convincing the public that, because of the national debt, the public can no longer enjoy the free recreational use of public lands," said Stahl, thus the institutionalization of recreation or user fees. The notion that public lands are a public commons is now history, Stahl said, replaced by "pay to play"' or temporary user fees.

If Andy Stahl can come around on this issue, then there is reason for hope. I wonder, however, will enough people come around quickly enough so that at least some significant portions of the American Commons will remain intact at the end of the Bush Presidency.

Or is it possible that the majority of American will sit on the sidelines and simply watch their commons and their long-accumulated heritage, be stolen?

The Casper Star Tribune article appears below.

Scott

I would have let the appended article on outsourcing of the National Bison Range Complex slip by without comment, had it not been for the final remark by Interior's Paul Hoffman. Hoffman, like his boss Gale Norton and like her mentor James Watt, is cut from a particular bolt of cloth. So when Hoffman says that his critics are misguided chicken-littles, I want to know what particular axe he's grinding and what agenda he is promoting.

After reading the appended article, if you wish to learn a more about Mr. Hoffman and his ongoing efforts to degrade and privatize the public commons, you might peruse some of the additional links I have provided. As for the Bison Range deal, I offer no comment. Hoffman has done the talking and you can decide whether or not to believe him.

Scott

Corporations control the politics of Washington DC so why shouldn't they also control our Nation's Cherry Blossom Festival --- or so some might ask!? (see appended, related, articles)

Why shouldn't the Disney company's Mickey Mouse be this year's Cherry Blossom Festival Grand Marshall? Why shouldn't a 75 foot Mickey be displayed at the Ronald Reagan federal building in Woodrow Wilson Plaza?

Why shouldn't the National Park Service frolic with corporate sponsors such as Disney, Comcast, Target, SW Airlines, Newchannel8 and Starbucks?

... or with Ford, American Airlines, Discovery, Kodak and Unilever?

... or with Chevron, Diversa, Philip Morris, Vail Resorts, United Techologies, Georgia-Pacific?

... or with park concessionaires, profiteers and carpetbaggers of all ilks?

What, if anything, is wrong with the Corporate Takeover of nature, of cherry blossoms, of National Parks and of everything else? Who gives a damn and who, if anyone, is prepared to joint with me in fighting to stop the wholesale commercialization of our American heritage??

Scott 

In preparation for rollout of its major new public lands legislation, ( the "National Recreation Policy Act" ), the American Recreation Coalition is readying a massive Public Relations blitz (see appended).

The ARC has already launched a brand new website called "Great Outdoors Month  ." A related website has been created by Ticketmaster/ ReserveAmerica and will be fully operational within days. That site is called "The Recreation Agency" and its slogan is "The Official Agency of the Great Outdoors." Are they serious??? Check it out and keep watching as it grows.

Please note that the ARC's slogan which adorns every page of their website is, "Outdoor Recreation in America, Brought to you by the American Recreation Coalition."

Q.    Put them both together and what do you get??

A.    'The Corporate Takeover of Nature' and 'The Disneyfication of the Wild'.

As anyone who has followed my updates knows, ReserveAmerica is a private company that now provides the gateway to YOUR public lands. If you want to reserve a campsite, get on a interpretive tour or buy a ticket to a National Park Service event, ReserveAmerica is the place to go. It is, in fact, the ONLY place to go because ReserveAmerica has the federal monopoly. Check them out!

Then understand that as your favorite recreational pursuits become increasingly commodified, the things you enjoyed doing freely upon public lands will be more tightly controlled by, and regulated for, the fiscal benefit of land managers and their corporate partners. Opportunities to participate in outdoor recreation will be MARKETED and SOLD to you. You will, in other words, become THEIR paying customer.

Hunting, fishing, hiking, floating, touring, viewing, exploring and skiing are activities that the agencies have already identified, labeled and begun marketing as THEIR "Recreation Brands"  (see their brand logos).  It would not surprise me in the least, if The Recreation Agency were to become the exclusive portal through which all paying customers will someday pass in order to access those branded activities.

Unbelievable???? --- Hardly.

Hell, it's an almost inevitable.

Preventable???? --- Perhaps.    

Scott

PS... If America's "Great Outdoors" are transformed into 'Great Recreation Shopping Malls and Fun Centers', these are the organizations who will be responsible for that transformation.

Pasted below is one of the finest user-fees-related Editorials I have read. It comes from New Hampshire and I encourage you to share it widely. These views need to be heard. You might even send this newspaper a thank you note in the form of a Letter to the Editor. They deserve it.

As excellent as this Editorial is, it is a shame they limited their comments to New Hampshire's State Park. It would have been nice had they extended these same thoughts to cover our federally managed public lands and parks. As America transitions into a Pay-to-Play nation where the measure of a person becomes the thickness of his or her billfold, it is vital that arguments such as these are heard above the din of today's "ownership-society" rhetoric.

New Hampshire, for those who may not know this, was the first of four States to pass an anti-Fee-Demo resolution. I am, in fact, privileged to have held a press conference on this topic inside New Hampshire's State Capitol building. A large and entirely bipartisan delegation of State Representatives stood with me in resolute opposition to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program --- now known as the "Recreation Access Tax."

These folks not only take their State motto quite seriously, it appears they understand the value of "public" facilities far better than do our federal public-lands managers and the folks running our country from Washington DC.

Let's spread the word. Let's remind America what the word "public" means. Should we fail to do so we and future generations, will pay a terrible price.

Scott

Yesterday I shared a State Park privatization article from New Hampshire and provided, in my introduction, some of the missing background. Pasted below is another State Park privatization article as well as a little background of relevance. This article comes from today's Denver Post and thought it's short and never says a word about privatization, it still manages to include several of the most common privatization components, including:

   ...over-reliance upon volunteers and "friends" groups ...not maintaining existing facilities while building new ...cutting use of general fund revenues, and ...being predicated upon the charging of user-fees.

What's particularly noteworthy about this article (though not mentioned in the piece) is the fact that the current Director of Colorado State Parks is Lyle Laverty. As Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources for the US Forest Service, Laverty oversaw the introduction of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program and it was Laverty who was frequently to be seen keeping company with the folks who created fee-demo, the American Recreation Coalition.

You can read Laverty's Fee-Demo Congressional Testimony here.  If you continue reading past Laverty's statement, you will come upon the testimony of Derrick Crandall, President of the ARC. It makes interesting reading and is entirely relevant to the unfolding parks privatization story.

Is it just a coincidence that the particular State Park systems that seem to be at the forefront of the privatization curve have connections to the ARC?

Scott

PS.... Laverty and Crandall have, since the mid 90's, worked in concert responding specifically and directly to Wild Wilderness' effort to tell the truth about the commercialization / privatization agenda. Here is a link to an ARC document that helps reveal the nature of their collusion.

New Hampshire's State Parks were amongst the first in this country to be required to operate as self-funded entities, deriving the bulk of their funding directly from user-fees and receiving absolutely no funding from the state's general revenues. The appended article from today's press, titled "Parks funding system comes under scrutiny," is important and will become relevant to you, no-matter where you live, after you've read this short introduction.

New Hampshire's State Parks serve as predictive tool for previewing the issues, problems and changes coming to federally managed public lands now that federal land managers are being forced to rely heavily upon user-fees and other non-traditional funding mechanisms as replacements for ever-diminishing funding.

Free-market ideologues, such as those at the Property and Environment Research Center, commonly point to New Hampshire's State Parks with pride. They use both the NH and the Texas park systems as models for what can be achieved when tax-revenues are withheld and privatization solutions are imposed. In Congressional Testimony, PERC has even used New Hampshire's system as the very model for the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program .

Former PERC Research Fellow (now Secretary of Interior) Gale Norton has made it a high priority to bring the New Hampshire State Park model to public lands near you. The appended article will give you a better idea of what to expect.

Scott

The Recreation Access Tax bill which was recently enacted contains several important, albeit subtle, privatization/ commercialization clauses that may have gone unnoticed by some. One of those clauses reads:

 "(1) PASSES AUTHORIZED.- The Secretary may establish and charge a fee for a regional multientity pass that will be accepted by one or more Federal land management agencies or by one or more governmental or nongovernmental entities for a specified period not to exceed 12 months. To include a Federal land management agency or governmental or nongovernmental entity over which the Secretary does not have jurisdiction, the Secretary shall obtain the consent of the head of such agency or entity."

'Privatization clause' - 'commercialization clause', you may ask!???

How so???

The answer is contained in the appended Associated Press article from this morning's press. See if you can spot the not-so-subtle privatization, commercialization, non-governmental RAT connection.

Scott

In a break from my usual style, a proper introduction to this vitally important article from today's Oregonian appears after the article. My introduction was written four years ago and began with the words, "Below is a perfect example of how the misadventures into the realm of industrial tourism will lead to privatization of our nation's public lands."  My "perfect example" was the then impending privatization and commercialization of Mt. St. Helens National Monument. I was predicting a future that is now, officially, upon us.

It was obvious enough what was happening. It is not obvious why we let things advance this far.  It is still unknown whether Americans are prepared to allow this same thing to happen to other National Parks and Monuments. It is anybody's guess whether we as a people will accept full Disneyfication of our shared commons as the way to, supposedly, save these treasures?  Only time will tell, but if history is any guide, I am not optimistic.

Scott

      "One tends to learn geology the day after an earthquake"