In the following article from yesterday's Orlando Sentinel, President Bush:

a) announced his nomination of Fran Mainella to head the National Park Service

b) made the following statement about his concept of a "New Environmentalism for the 21st Century"

"It is not enough to regulate and dictate from afar," said Bush, addressing 100 guests by a freshwater pool, a tableau of lush, low-lying Pond Apple trees and sawgrass behind him. "To preserve places like this, we must bring to our work a new spirit of respect and cooperation, what I call a new environmentalism for the 21st century."

It should not surprise you to learn that Bush's phrase "New Environmentalist for the 21st Century" was lifted directly from reactionary right-wing think tanks such as the Frazier Institute and Peter Coors', Global Futures Foundation!

If you want to better comprehend what Mr. Bush was saying yesterday, please consider following the links pasted below.

And if you have any misconceptions that Ms. Mainella will be good for the National Park System, please think again.

Scott

Pasted below is a condensed version of a remarkably good article from Field and Stream. The article is about the threats of privatization of public lands and what those threats mean to those persons who enjoy those public lands.

I encourage folks to read the full article online and to gain a greater appreciation of the magnitude and urgency of the privatization threat we face under the leadership of the current administration.

And, I can not too-strongly encourage folks to pay particular attention to the final sentence of this article.

Scott

PS.... please note the significance of Pay-to-Play in this privatization scheme. Please also note that the person quoted is an advisor to President Bush and is a strong proponent of Fee-Demo.

Pasted below is the very latest "HOT NEWS" quoted directly from the web site of the American Recreation Coalition. If you are a resort developer, a concessionaire, a jet-ski manufacturer or a commercial interest hoping to tap into (and profit from) the public lands recreation market, then after reading the following you will feel as though you've died and gone to heaven. For just about everyone else, this HOT NEWS will look strikingly like the depths of hell.

You will note that ARC and the wreckreation industry recently met, in private, with Interior Secretary Norton and many of America's TOP GOVERNMENT decision makers to discuss plans for launching Fee-Demo Phase II and creating a climate ripe for public-private recreation partnerships.

It is now obvious that under the Bush Administration, The Corporate Takeover of Nature is rapidly moving into its final phase. If the general public does not become a HECK of a lot more active in stopping ARC dead in its tracks, we will soon all be living in a HELL of their making.

Time has just about run out for nature, wild and free. Your help in mobilizing America to stop this threat is required now, more than ever.

Scott

PS... Sorry is this all sounds a bit melodramatic but if you can read between the lines and connect all of the dots, what you are about to read will scare you.

The following is from today's Arizona Republic and contains interesting information about several National Park concessionaires. It makes the case that these concessionaires are ripping off the American people by not paying adequate compensation for the privilege bestowed upon them to operate private, for profit, concessions within America's Crown Jewels. More importantly, albeit somewhat hidden, this article suggest that our National Parks are threatened with privatization. The key references are:

   "park leaseholders who give up their interests are paid on the full replacement costs of the facilities they build or repair in the park instead of a depreciated value of those assets. And at the same time, concessionaires are allowed to depreciate the value of facilities for tax purposes."

   "[NPCA] believes the federal government should buy out Amfac's interest in park properties because its value will only increase, Simon said. Otherwise, the problems with competitive bidding would remain 10 years from now when the contract comes up for renewal."

When concessionaires are allowed to build facilities inside public parks, the AMERICAN PEOPLE must ultimately purchase those improvements from the private firms that built those facilities. If we do not, then the improvements effectively assure privatization of management control of these facilities and ultimately of the Parks themselves.

We're making a deal with the devil to cope with short term issues..... and this is a deal that will ultimately cost us the Crown Jewels.

Scott

PS... the legislation that made this boondoggle possible was Sen. Craig Thomas' 20/20 vision, a program championed by the American Recreation Coalition. To read, on ARC's web site, Senator Thomas' call to privatize National Park Services, click here.

For the past 18 months, if you wanted to make camping reservations at a National Forest campground you'd contact Ticketmasters at: http://fap.reserveamerica.com/camping/

Now, in a further blurring of the lines between what is public and what is private, you can use that same Ticketmasters service to book reservations of any of the RV Campgrounds operated by Good Sam Club. Good Sam Club is a member of the American Recreation Coalition. Their Executive Director Susan Bray, quoted in the news release below, is a Board Member of ARC.

If you want to really understand how special interest groups, such as the Good Sam Club, are using the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program to turn such things as traditional primitive camping experience on public lands into "Commercial KOA Slumming", please read Ms. Bray's Congressional Testimony  ...

   ...and also be sure to read the Congressional Testimony of KOA's president (also an ARC Board Member), Art Peterson .

If you do, you'll understand the Fee-Demo has almost nothing to do with funding maintenance of public lands, and almost everything to do with the commercialization, privatization and motorization of those lands.

Folks,  the Corporate Takeover of  Nature is high on the President's Agenda. I hope opposing his agenda is high on yours!

Scott 

Pasted below is an article from Illinois Parks and Recreation 1999 titled: "To Pay or Not To Pay"

It gives both sides of the Recreation User Fees debate and features noted-authority on both recreation fees and the privatization of public- paces --Leon Younger-- as the presenter of the "TO-PAY" argument.

Unfortunately for Mr. Younger, he also appears to have been involved in some very messy scandal, as reported to me by one of his admirers who wrote:

   "It seems that after a 3 year stint as Park Director Mr. Younger resigned in 1995 amid allegations of breaking state and federal laws regarding job bidding on Indy Parks golf courses, also "ghost employment" charges, surveillance of employees, using park workers to move his home furniture, etc. "

The following article is rather long, but is very good. If you don't have time to read it in its entirety, please at least read the punch-line, given here ...

Younger responds:

"After pricing certain services at a market rate, agencies should then find ways of getting the other 20 percent-those who don't have the ability to pay-to utilize the facility through credits, scholarships, etc. For example, they might consider starting a "workreation" program where kids work in exchange for the use of facilities, such as pools or ballfields. This program would give 'play dough' dollars that are work credits."

I wonder if Mr. Younger pays his employees in "play dough"....?

Scott

(To learn more, please visit the web site of www.privatization.org where both Mr. Young and the American Recreation Coalitions are listed as resources. To read more from Younger, click here).
 

The appended article from today's Spokane Spokesman Review helps make clear the fact that fee-demo is NOT providing "supplemental" recreation funding nor is it providing better service than has traditionally been enjoyed at public recreation facilities. In fact, fee-demo receipts are barely making up for the recreation budget reductions being imposed by Congress and the level of service is, if anything, declining. Fee-Demo is accomplishing nothing more than replacing the traditional public lands funding mechanism (progressive income tax) with an alternate funding mechanism (i.e., a regressive user tax).

Sadly, but predictably, Congressionally allocated funding will continue to be cut until the only funds available will be recreation user fees. And when those fees prove to be inadequate (as they surely will) then Congress will authorize experiments to test increased dependence upon public/private partnerships. When those prove inadequate, Congress will implement the ultimate solution -- privatization of management control of public recreation facilities.

Scott

The appended article about NRDC makes damned fine reading --- especially when supplemented with some background info.

The NRDC-Presidio National Park connection, mentioned in this article is very important. It was, and remains, one of the worst examples of privatization of our National Parks to come along in a very long time. Interesting, PEW was a big part of it.

http://www.forestcouncil.org/articles/guardian/anatomy_of_a_sellout.html
http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/02/Features/intro.html
http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/02/Features/time.html
http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/02/Features/found.html

... so were many of Big Greens - in addition to NRDC.

 Here's a short quote from the San Francisco Bay Guardian:

"The major Local and national environmental groups that helped privatize the Presidio are now, finally, lining up in opposition to the commercial development of the national park. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Parks and Conservation Association..."

The NRDC-Industrial Tourism connection is also very important. The link is Laurance Rockefeller.

Laurance was/(probably still is if he's alive) a NRDC Board Member and Staff Attorney. Rockefeller created the "Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission" (ORRRC) in the early '60. This led (via Laurance) to the formation of Ronald Reagan's President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO).  PCAO led (via the American Recreation Coalition) to the Industrial Strength Recreation Agenda that President Clinton introduced during his watch and which President Bush and Gale Norton will now attempt to 'perfect'.

For what it's worth, NRDC actively endorses Fee-Demo. So does National Parks and Conservation Association. I don't know about PEW.... but I expect we'll find out soon enough!

I find it curious that the Oil Fortunes of the early Rockefellers and the Pews seem to be playing such a major role in shaping public policy in the 21st Century. Very curious, indeed.

Scott 

In the days immediately before George Bush was sworn in as President of the United States I drew attention to the Original 25 Points of the Wise Use Agenda writing:

"It's been 12 years since the Wise-Use Movement held their first meeting and set their original 25 point agenda. With the cooperation of Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton, the agenda is nearly complete."

Now that Bush has had three months in office, it is now clear precisely where he is headed -- and so, I'd like to draw your attention to the following few selected points from that agenda.

Bush's National Parks Initiative is Agenda Item #11. So far, we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. The full agenda has been laid out by Bush's advisor, Terry Anderson (of PERC) and can be read at: www.perc.org/brfparks.htm

Scott 

The US Forest Service is getting ever more creative with the way in which it is 'nickel and diming' people to death with user fees. At the rate things are going the citizens of America will all be required to pay for EXACTLY what we personally use --

-- You take a breath, you pay for it. You take two breaths, you pay twice. You breath deeply and you pay a premium.

Look for a new twist soon coming in the implementation of Fee-Demo. It will be called "value pricing" or "differential pricing" and it will commodify nature to the level of absurdity I just described.

-- You visit a forest on Monday, you pay Monday's discounted rate. You visit that forest on Saturday and you pay Saturday's PREMIUM price. You stop an smell the roses too deeply, and you pay will be asked to pay extra.

Scott

The following article should make it very clear what we can expect from the Bush Administration with respect to environmental policy and specifically with respect to recreation user-fees, the Corporate Takeover of Nature and the Disneyfication of the Wild.

According to George W., forests are to be operate directly from receipts and recreation user fees are to rise.

Scott

The Canyon Forest Village development proposed near the South Rim of the Grand Canyon is being touted as a potential model for future Gateway Developments for other National Parks.

Personally, I find this possibility extremely distasteful,  but see it as being totally in keeping with the industrial-tourism tidal-wave that has taken control of our federal lands.

This article asks an important question, namely; "who's behind this plan!?"

Scott

One of the loudest voices speaking in support of recreation user fees, privatization and commercialization of our public lands is the free-market think-tank called "Political Economy Research Center. "

A few months back I helped break the story that the director of PERC, Terry Anderson, was serving as George W. Bush's public lands advisor and was recommending that all public lands should be privatized.

Now PERC has just come out suggesting that Commercializing our National Parks is actually a good thing and should be actively promoted. That article is excerpted below.

Can anyone tell me who funds PERC's work? Their web page says that 75% of their money comes from Foundations but it does not indicate WHICH foundations. PERC's themes seem remarkable similar to those of the American Recreation Coalition and I am starting to question whether there is in fact a direct connection between these two organizations.

Scott

PS... PERC's paper promoting recreation user fees can be found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa113.html

PERC'S paper promoting privatization of public lands can be found at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html
 

Below I've pasted what some might consider to be a slightly dry economic treatise that explores the concept of pricing poorer Americans out of Yosemite Valley while "maximizing total marginal benefits."  I would suggest that it is more than this. It is precisely the sort of concept that is receiving serious consideration by the Clinton Administration and by all public lands management agencies. It is, after all, the logical extension of the Pay-To-Play concept.

It appears that advocates of free-market economics are no longer content to simply repeat the old cliche: "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Now the trend is to opine: "When you are willing to pay, there is no reason to be forced to share the table with the riff-raff."

Here's a sample of what the article is about:

 "In order to reach a level of efficiency, the park needs to estimate tourists correct willingness to pay when they enter the park. For example, if the estimate is not correct and the admission fee is too high, too few people will come to the park and total marginal benefit will not be maximized. And if the admissions fee is too low, too many tourists will frequent the park and roads, parking areas, and hiking trails will be overcrowded and congested. This overcrowding and congestion will lead to disintegration of the wildlife and natural environment in the park. Thus, a valuation process is needed to determine an individual's willingness to pay for the enjoyment received from a visit to Yosemite National Park." ...

 "For example, interviewees may be asked to rank the following situations.

One: I would be willing to pay $10 more to enter the park for a pass that would guarantee parking close to all sites and lodging anywhere in the park.

Two: I would they like to pay nothing more and am willing to deal with the current or even an increase in the amount of congestion.

Three: I would be willing to buy a pass for $30 per person, per day which would allow me to hike the most scenic trails and be guaranteed that only 100 other people would be allowed on those trails.

Four: I would be willing to buy a pass for $50 per person, per day which would guarantee me a pass to park close to all sites and lodging anywhere in the park, as well as the opportunity to hike certain trails with a guarantee of only 100 other people on the trail."

Scott 

It appears that National Parks Conservation Association and Natural Resources Defense Council  are working overtime to promote concessionaire Delaware North's - Yosemite Valley Development Project.  (see article below)

I wonder what the poll results would have shown if people were more honestly asked the question: "Should  management control of our National Park's Crown Jewel be privatized?"

Can't be long till we see similar poll results showing Americans also want management control of the Grand Canyon's South Rim turned over to private developers.

Scott

Our National Park System is under attack by commercial interests.

Unfortunately, the defense of these national treasures has fallen largely upon the shoulders of a handful of dedicated, local, grassroots activists. With the exception of the National Sierra Club, I can not think of a single national environmental organizations that is actively engaged in fighting the very most egregious development proposals which now threaten the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Zion. On the contrary, these commercial development proposals are actively supported by organizations that we might typically think of as defenders of public lands and of wild places.

Perhaps it more people understood that these concessionaire proposals and the increased user fees associated with them were worked out in theory almost 20 years ago by the American Recreation Coalition in conjunction with Interior Secretary James Watt, it might encourage additional opposition to The Corporate Takeover of Our National Park System.

Below is a condensed article written in 1983 by ARC's President, Derrick Crandall. The solutions Crandall proposed then are about to be implemented today.... unless the environmental community can put a halt to the ongoing privatization and commercialization of our common wildland heritage.

Scott

PS... the following article is not available on the world wide web. It can be obtained  from Wild Wilderness upon request.

Below is a short excerpt from a MOST INTERESTING article about the privatization of San Francisco's Presidio National Park.

In this article, the author suggests that quite a few environmental organization were more the 'problem' than part of the solution.

Today, many of these same organizations can be found advocating for the privatization and commercialization of other National Parks, including Yosemite, Grand Canyon and Zion.

I fear that unless the grassroots environmental community quickly organizes and effectively opposes the Corporate Takeover of America's National Park System, the entire system may soon be sacrificed to the forces of industrial tourism.

Scott 

Be on the lookout for motorized recreation groups bearing gifts and offering to build and maintain trails.

Yesterday,  April 4th, the Committee on Resources heard public testimony concerning the 'Effect of Forest Service Rule Making Efforts on National Forest Recreation'. Of the motorized testimony, I'd like to draw your attention to an innocent sounding statement made by Carla Boucher, of United Four Wheel Drive Associations (UFWDA). She said:

 "Instead of massive closures, United (4 wheel drive) is proposing to address the maintenance backlog by having more money appropriated for road maintenance and less money appropriated for land acquisition until the lands the Forest Service manage now can be taken care of. We are also proposing that the Forest Service work in partnership with United Four Wheel Drive Associations and other recreationists through the existing adopt-a-road program. Adopt-a-road is a completely volunteer program in which recreationists and Forest Service employees team up to tackle the maintenance needs of our forest roads, for free!"

This statement is important is because it points to an important strategy being used by motorized recreation groups to gain assured access to, and control of, recreational opportunities on public lands. That strategy is, "Volunteerism and Partnerships."

Volunteerism and Partnerships is easily thought of as a "win-win" and, for this reason, this strategy is becoming a tool to accomplish tasks previously undertaken by federal land managers and previously funded with appropriated tax dollars. Volunteerism and Partnerships is yet another way of ensuring that special interest user groups get what they want - or what they are willing to pay for!

Below is the beginning of a recent speech given by environmental-villain, Senator Slade Gorton. Gorton is speaking about his "Take Pride in America" legislation (S. 1486), a Volunteer and Partnership bill crafted for Gorton by the American Recreation Coalition.

Below that appears a passage quoted from a critically important, and much older document, presented to the Clinton/Gore Administration by ARC's Recreation Roundtable.

Scott 

I've just stumbled upon a most interesting and informative document which appears to describe yet another component of the privatization of the 'Yosemite experience'.

The document is titled: "Yosemite Regional Transportation Strategy - A Regional Approach to a National Problem " and comes from the web site of a San Francisco design firm.

Scott

Below is the text of yesterday's feature article from ENN.COM, titled: "Land Privatization Sets Off Alarms".

In that article, George W. Bush's public lands advisor Terry L. Anderson gets to eat a triple helping of crow!

When you read this, please remember that Anderson and his organization are amongst the chief proponents of the Recreation Fee Demo Program!

Scott