The Privatization of America's Great Outdoors has become a top priority within the Bush administration. And for this reason, the passage of permanent Fee-Demo authorization coupled with the authorization of a "Charter Forest Pilot Demonstration Program" were recently listed by Undersecretary Mark Rey as amongst the President's highest USFS legislative priorities.

Unfortunately, the general public and even some within the activist community have yet to aggressively oppose this monstrous threat. Unfortunately, when I speak of the USFS and National Park Service as using fee-demo to  "Sell the Sunset", there are still some who believe I'm exaggerating.

Fortunately, no one need take my word for it. Fortunately President Bush's own public lands policy advisor,  Terry L. Anderson, has explained the reality of the situation far more clearly than I could ever do.

Pasted below is Mr. Anderson's vision for how America's Public Lands would/will be managed once they are privatized.

But understand that Private/Charter Forests can only work when coupled with recreation user fees. To see the result, please read on. To stop this madness, please help us defeat fee-demo.

Scott

--- begin quoted ---

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2-6.html

     A private park owned in fee simple absolute could be managed in a variety of ways. For example, the corporation could hold title to the land and charge admission. Under traditional tort principles the firm would owe a duty of reasonable care to the ticket purchaser who would be an "invitee." The firm could monitor entry at the gate and ration access to a wide variety of activities and amenities. (45) Park visitors could be required to carry appropriate nontransferable permits, such as hiking or fishing stamps. The firm could issue stamps for such pursuits as spelunking, bird watching, fishing, hunting, or skiing. The stamps, in responding to the sensitivity of the price system would be as diverse as consumer preference could make them. The gate fee could cover such hard-to-charge-for amenities as the sky, broad vistas, and fragrant flowers. Specific fees might then be charged for particular amenities, such as caverns, geysers, and waterfalls. In this way, the cross-subsidization of consumers of particular amenities by nonusers could be reduced to a minimum.

  (45) The following owes much to conversations with Terry Anderson. For a general discussion of legal aspects of parks and recreation areas under private control, see 4 Am.Jur.2d, Amusements and Exhibitions (1962 & Cum. Supp. 1980).
 

Comments (0) >>

Write comment

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment