GREENSPEAK:

FIFTY YEARS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MUCKRAKING AND ADVOCACY

by Michael Frome, Ph.D.
University of Tennessee Press,
Fall 2002

"Even if the government takes in less from recreation sites than it costs to maintain them,
recreation is not a net loss."

       Scott Silver established Wild Wilderness in 1991 in the belief that Americans should not be required to "pay to play" on public properties they own and maintain through taxes. He found the issue goes deeper than admission charges to questions of proper use, and improper misuse, of public lands. In due course he became distressed over the congressionally authorized Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, strongly supported by commercial interests, especially snowmobile and other motorized off-road vehicle manufacturers and users, and over the failure of the "Big Greens" to oppose it. 

       I share Silver's concern. Yes, outdoor recreation spans a variety of interests, tastes and goals. Commercial resorts and campgrounds bring the conveniences of urban living into outdoor life away from home, which is fine for those who want it that way. Disneyland and other profit-making theme parks furnish mass entertainment like television and movie theaters do. But public parks are like art galleries, museums and libraries, meant to enrich society by enlightening and elevating individuals who come to them.

       There is no way to place a dollar value on a "park experience" or a "wilderness experience" and yet the simple act of visiting the natural world has become a commercial transaction. Worst of all, the agencies in charge, the National Park Service and Forest Service, make "partnerships" with profit-driven entrepreneurs bent on introducing motorized forms of recreation and commercializing wilderness.

       An Associated Press dispatch (August 7, 1999) quotes the regional forester in the Southwest, Eleanor Towns, declaring: "Free enterprise in this region is alive and well." She was referring to approval of the transfer of 272 acres of the Kaibab National Forest at the gateway of Grand Canyon National Park, for construction of 1270 hotel rooms and 270,000 square feet of retail shopping, the equivalent of four large department stores. For his part, the park superintendent, Robert Arnberger, was all for creating the new city of Canyon Village as the companion piece to unlimited tourism at the Grand Canyon. Luckily, Navajo tribal members and other Arizonans objected with vehemence and blocked the project.

       It's almost as though administrators get extra points for attracting crowds and commerce. Adolph Murie worked for the National Park Service for thirty-two years as a scientist, principally in Denali and Grand Teton national parks. On November 8, 1956, he sent a memorandum to the park superintendent of McKinley (later renamed Denali) National Park, expressing concern over construction proposed in Mission 66, the ten-year development plan for the national park system. The park superintendent of the time, Duane D. Jacobs, brushed him off: "It is quite reasonable for anyone of your many years of intimate knowledge of McKinley as purely a wilderness area to be somewhat alarmed as Mt. McKinley finally emerges across the threshold of a new era, that of a great national park set aside for the use and enjoyment of the people, which is soon to receive the intended use and enjoyment."

       In 1973, Superintendent Jack Anderson of Yellowstone National Park received the First International Award of Merit from the International Snowmobile Industry Association for his "enlightened leadership and sincere dedication to the improvement and advancement of snowmobiling in the United States." Anderson certainly earned his award when he said that elk, bison, moose, even the fawns, were unfazed by snowmobiles -- in winter, the very season when they are the weakest and need to be alone.

       Agency officials claim fees are necessary to raise funds to protect natural resources. Then they place the burden on local administrators to serve as fee collectors and marketers of recreation as a commodity -- that is how their performance will be rated. It's a terrible idea, thoroughly incompatible with principles of conservation.

       I think it more fundamental to recognize that public lands serve as the basic reservoir for meeting outdoor recreation demands in America by persons of all economic levels. Even if the government takes in less from recreation sites than it costs to maintain them, recreation is not a net loss. To the contrary, the government's role in recreation should be to support conservation, physical fitness and healthy outdoor leisure.

FEE DEMO NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION, SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 2002