Let’s Get Businesslike With Federal Lands

[BuzzH]

Perhaps from reading Abbey at too young an age, I'm against Industrial Tourism in National Parks in general, but that ship sailed long ago. He was, as one of his biographies said, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness. No Savior followed though.

So, on a practical, rather than philosophical note, raising the entrance fees isn't a bad idea. Basic supply and demand, and demand is surging. An extra few bucks isn't going to change anyone's vacation plans. And not by 15 bucks either, make it 30, and recoup $47 million.

Tax mountain bikes, tents, sleeping bags, and all camping and hiking equipment (except boots, that would get tricky) at the current PR rate, with resources going to support natural resources. Add in all fishing gear with money going to stream restoration and other worthy projects.

I'm as anti-tax as the next person, but like taxes on guns and ammo, etc. to support wildlife. Sell it as supporting habitat, and I'll bet there would be enough buyers to get it passed.

Like most things, not a binary choice. We can have a little business and a little not-for-profit.

We already tax fishing equipment, that was passed in 1950, Dingell-Johnson act for the exact purpose of what you're talking about.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

View attachment 361469
Interesting that I've never seen anyone attempt to quantify the value of a public land user day, which is a benefit, and just like any good business/businessman you must factor in your actual benefits. I get more mental and physical health value out of a 2 hr hike on public land than I would a 2 hr therapist session, which would cost me ~$300-400/hr (plus an hr at the gym, but that's a negligible cost). There doesn't appear to be any decent stats compiling user days on all public lands, but if I take a small sample, Mt. Rainier NP, which had ~ 2 million users in 2024, and extrapolate that out across WA, I think you could assume an easy 10 million user visitations to public lands in WA (WAG), at $500 of value provided per visit, we get $5 billion in just WA alone, multiply that 25 states (assuming some have more visitations and others have less, and being conservative that 1/2 have zero visitations), we get ~$125 billion in value (though @kwyeewyk should check my math). That already provided a better than expected ROI.

Then let's factor in that we're talking about real estate, and everyone loves to include land appreciation when discussion the ROI for real estate. Public land increases in value at the same rate or more of nearby adjacent private land. So we seen another 5-10% increase in our base land value annually.

I seems to me, we're making out like bandits.

The only leg public land divesture is supported by is individual greed.

This has been done. Many times in the past 30 years. And it never gets legs because as The_Jim says, most people are so disconnected from the outdoors they simply don't care.

I've seen the value of public lands promoted by lots of organizations, the value of birdwatchers, the value of sportsmen and women, the value of fishing, etc... Not sure who the audience is really supposed to be. Select members of congress maybe, but I have never once in my life had a conversation with another person about what value any of these things actually have.

We now have at least 3 generations that grew up with gov subsidized outdoor recreation, going all the way back to the CCC and WPA days. Free camping, free infrastructure, free, free, free. All because the nation was coming out of a great depression and people needed to be put to work. Now all that infrastructure is crumbling and the labor and materials are no longer cheap. The chickens have finally come home to roost, and the people in power don't understand the problem because none of that has ever cost them a dime.

 

[The_Jim]

This has been done. Many times in the past 30 years. And it never gets legs because as The_Jim says, most people are so disconnected from the outdoors they simply don't care.

They don't care or don't know. I grew up in eastern Nebraska. There is basically no public land aside from a few state parks and wildlife management areas. Most people around here have no idea what they have. Those are the folks that need to be convinced public land is a good thing.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

They don't care or don't know. I grew up in eastern Nebraska. There is basically no public land aside from a few state parks and wildlife management areas. Most people around here have no idea what they have. Those are the folks that need to be convinced public land is a good thing.

I grew up in Texas (don't hold that against me) and it's the same way. Those who are lucky enough to have family land, think they have all they need and don't see the point of public land. Those who aren't that lucky, don't have enough public land to enjoy. And those who make the laws, don't understand why managing public land is so expensive (for the reasons I cited earlier) and frankly don't care because every single politician has access to all the private land they ever wanted.

 

[Bonasababy]

I’ve directly seen 1-3 used as arguments against WLA acquisitions in several counties, and they are a common theme in some conservative counties who hate the feds.

Not just a western thing. We have "no net loss" policies all over the place in rural counties here. NNL of farmland. No approval of more public land unless an equal amount is sold. It started as a knee jerk reaction to no net loss of wetland laws. Farmers and developers who can't drain or convert and develop as easily --or cheaply--anymore have been pushing against any new public land acquisitions ever since.

We just had another example of a common similar occurence. Plans to take over a large and unique tract (undeveloped forest with a lot of lakeshore once owned by a major corporation) as a state wildlife area. The in lieux of tax payment by the state would be MORE than the county had been taking in on taxes from the former large corporation owner. Some in the county are still saying it shouldn't become public land.

That said, there are some legit funding issues counties deal with and IMO as hunter/conservationists we need to be sensitive to those where they are actually real (and not contrived/false).

 

[whatnot]

Here we are in the midst of another Utah legislative session, as the speaker has openly said they plan on taking Utahs stupidity to lower courts.

And, I realize this will go over well, 10X more dudes showed up to support SFW at their outdoor swap meet and circle jerk (57,000 last year), or in Minneapolis for BHA brewfest than can be bothered to even drop a call here. SLC is where this bullshit spawns out of. It's where the fight is, but whenever I talk to my legislators here I ask who they talk to, ands it's always SUWA and the other bush hippy groups. I guess they put a much higher value on tge land than the consumptive folks do.

 

[Irrelevant]

This has been done. Many times in the past 30 years.

Can you provide a link? Because like I said, I've never seen a study that attempted to quantify in dollars and cents the value of a public land user day.

There have been plenty of attempts to describe that value qualitatively, which is probably the better metric anyway, but I've never read anything about applying monetary value to those trips. You could argue that you shouldn't ever try to put a dollar amount on a spring hike in the wildflowers, or catching a cutthroat in a crystal clear alpine tarn, or scrambling to the top of a peak. But when the opposition speaks no other language, and wields all the power, then by god we'd better learn how to speak their language.

 

[sapperJ24]

Can you provide a link? Because like I said, I've never seen a study that attempted to quantify in dollars and cents the value of a public land user day.

There have been plenty of attempts to describe that value qualitatively, which is probably the better metric anyway, but I've never read anything about applying monetary value to those trips. You could argue that you shouldn't ever try to put a dollar amount on a spring hike in the wildflowers, or catching a cutthroat in a crystal clear alpine tarn, or scrambling to the top of a peak. But when the opposition speaks no other language, and wields all the power, then by god we'd better learn how to speak their language.

Only replying here as this is the most recent comment on the topic of quantification.

The economic future of outdoor recreation in New Mexico’s Cibola and McKinley counties - Headwaters Economics

New modeling of trail use in Cibola and McKinley counties, New Mexico has identified more than $1.7 million in visitor contributions to the local economy each year.

headwaterseconomics.org

From the Headwater Economics' analysis, they modeled the following estimates from 110,000 trail uses by 33,000 trips:

$1.7 million in visitor spending
at local businesses by people who come for outdoor recreation. This spending represents new money brought into the community.

$249,000 in labor income
generated by trail users across diverse businesses, including retail, lodging, restaurants, and professional services.

$127,000 in state and local tax revenue
generated due to economic activity created by trail users


I'd be curious how this aligns with folks local to the area. I've never recreated there nor am I an economist so I can't speak to any of that. Headwater Economics has lots of other analysis on the value of public lands as well.

 

[Flynarrow]

Public land is the basis for many outdoor related businesses. But the hidden business benefits may be far greater. Think about businesses that chose to locate and grow their business near public lands because the owners valued them and employees were easier to find if outdoor amenities were nearby. Or the small business owner who would benefit to move operations elsewhere but stayed in the rural west because of those amenity resources. Or the hotels, restaurants, car rentals, etc from people seeking these public land experiences.

Or the income circulation in communities from agency employees and their contractors to maintain these public lands. Or the ranches that remain in business because of the public land grazing and its subsidized very low grazing fees.

 

[Irrelevant]

Only replying here as this is the most recent comment on the topic of quantification.

The economic future of outdoor recreation in New Mexico’s Cibola and McKinley counties - Headwaters Economics

New modeling of trail use in Cibola and McKinley counties, New Mexico has identified more than $1.7 million in visitor contributions to the local economy each year.

headwaterseconomics.org

From the Headwater Economics' analysis, they modeled the following estimates from 110,000 trail uses by 33,000 trips:

$1.7 million in visitor spending
at local businesses by people who come for outdoor recreation. This spending represents new money brought into the community.

$249,000 in labor income
generated by trail users across diverse businesses, including retail, lodging, restaurants, and professional services.

$127,000 in state and local tax revenue
generated due to economic activity created by trail users


I'd be curious how this aligns with folks local to the area. I've never recreated there nor am I an economist so I can't speak to any of that. Headwater Economics has lots of other analysis on the value of public lands as well.

See that misses my point entirely.

That report talks about what people who recreate are spending nearby. I'd like to see someone quantify the value of the public land experience itself to the user.

I pay $240 for Mariner's tickets for my family, $30 for parking, $60 for gas, and $100 for food and drink. We enjoy the trip. That means we are getting at least $430 worth of enjoyment from that experience. But I get way more enjoyment out of a Sunday hike to a lake to catch some fish. And that's just the enjoyment aspect. Studies also show that that hike decreases my blood pressure, rebalances my brain chemicals, and generally adds to my longevity. Those are benefits that theoretically should (or could) have a monetary value.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Very timely that you bring this up, @Oak. With PERC based in Bozeman, I knew Terry quite well when he was the Executive Director. We would go to lunch and joust about these topics, never changing either person's mind. No doubt he's very intelligent. He is an avid hunter. His ideas in the WSJ piece are pretty toned down compared to past ideas he has proposed for public lands.

When I read that article it got me started on my treatise of the history of what I call the APL movement, or Anti-Public Land movement. I am about a third of the way through the history and why it is so relevant to what is going on now. Terry himself, and people I met through Terry, were a helpful window to what the goals were, and still are, of the APL movement; at least in my mind formed over almost forty years of engagement on this.

As a note, since Terry departed from PERC, PERC has moderated a lot and has shifted from "sell or transfer the public lands" to more of a "manage them better and here's how" approach to improving public lands. The new ED, Brian Yablonski, was the chairman of the Florida wildlife commission for the Jeb Bush administration. He has a much wider view of the issues at hand and complexities that come with managing public land.

That 1999 piece is not the only time Terry and others have proposed this idea. His writing is often used by the APL movement as support for what I call the 50-year liquidation strategy, the focus of my long-winded dissertation I hope to have done in a few weeks. From this "group think" comes Gayle Norton and William Perry Pendley, both from the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the latter being the unconfirmed Assistant BLM Director under the prior Trump administration.

Pendley, who is the author of the Project 2025 chapter dealing with public lands, has never hidden his desire to sell such. In 2016, in the National Review, he wrote a long article as to why and how it should be done.

View attachment 361400

The APL movement got their asses handed to them in the 1980s when they came out with the idea to sell the public land. With that beating, the Republican party moved the APL folks to a darker corner of the room. Yet, they're not fools. They came up with a strategy of how they could use Congress to make the public lands of America a mess, mismanaged, underfunded, a liability, and a revenue loser for locals, such that the time would eventually come where Americans would show little opposition to liquidating these lands; the long-term goal of the APL movement.

The 50-year strategy as witnessed by those of us who have been in this since the 1980s, and confirmed from tidbits gathered in my discussions with people like Terry, strategy fully promoted in articles from Pendley and others, the directives called for in public land chapter of Project 2025, shows that the strategy goes something like this:

1. Defund the agencies - Don't give them the resources to properly manage. Since public lands are such a low priority in Congress, it is easy to use public lands and agency funding as bargaining chips in bigger debates. Since 1990, such has happened.

2. Defund the rural counties with large tracts of public land - Federal lands do not get taxed as our private lands get taxed. Instead, we have two programs to offset those lost taxes - PILT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) and SRS (Secure Rural Schools). Both allow Congress to appropriate money to replace lost tax revenues. Yet, that assumes Congress would fully appropriate such amounts. They don't appropriate enough and stiff the counties. The APL movement pressure Congress to lower the appropriations for county payments that are supposed to replace lost tax revenues. Why? Because it is part of the 50-year plan to piss off rural folks, their County Commissioners, and their School Boards, by not allowing the Federal Government to pay the going rate on property taxes, resulting in lower collections and school funding, and causing locals to have a higher property tax burden than they should have. Since 1990, this plan has worked well and rural counties have lost a lot of Federal receipts.

3. Promote the idea of better land management, but pressure Congress to keep status quo - As I've stated in many videos, every single problem that frustrates us with Federal land management could be solved by Congress. Yet, Congress, as much as many of them complain, do nothing. For some in Congress who know little about public lands, it is a function of ignorance. For others, it is intentional disregard for their constituents interests.

4. Block every attempt to increase revenues from Federal lands - Some may not know that the Feds are to share with counties receipts from Federal lands of grazing, timber, O&G. Yet, when we try to get grazing lease rates somewhere above the 10% charged on adjacent state or private lands, these APL sympathizers in Congress squash any attempt that would increase the Federal revenues. That hurts counties, adding to #2 above, as there is now less revenue to share with Counties. O&G royalty rates increased recently, but they are still much lower than state or private royalty lease rates. Timber stumpage rates are below private stumpage rates. The Hard Rock Mining Act of 1872 exempt hard rock miners from any royalty payment on gold, silver, copper, and other minerals. When we ask Congress to impose a royalty on hard rock minerals, the biggest opponents are the APL sympathizers in Congress. In front of cameras they complain that Federal lands don't earn enough money, while in the dark room meetings they cut deals to make sure Federal land payments stay way below market rates.

There are more prongs to their approach, such as not funding backlogs, ignoring deferred maintenance, redirecting budgets to wildland fire, etc. . To their credit, they've been strategic, patient, and well funded. If you read the public land chapter in Project 2025, it gives you a clear picture of the road map they see ahead.

Their methods are far more nuanced. When Mark Kenyon was writing his book about public lands, he interviewed me while following on a bear hunt in 2017. We felt that the "State Transfer" idea was getting called out for what it was, an attempt to liquidate Federal lands. He asked me what I thought would be the next approach. I gave him my thoughts. He posted this on IG yesterday and I was surprised what a shitstorm it caused.

View attachment 361401

I stand by those words from 8 years ago. What I see over the last eight years and what I read in comments and proposals from the APL crowd and their sympathizers, confirms that even more today. I would say that even without the changes that will come to public land management resulting from terminating many important Federal employees.

Maybe I'm lost in a big conspiracy theory I've cooked up since my days of first encountering this movement in Nevada in the 1980s. Could be.

Maybe my epitaph will say, "Here lies Newberg, the dumbass who spent most of his adult life trying to prove a theory that Congress was compliant in the liquidation of public lands." Those are surely a possible outcome.

For now, with what I know, what I see, the criticisms I get for my distaste of political parties, and having seen this trend across many Congresses and many Administrations, I suspect I'm going to my grave believing in that theory, and believing in it more each day.

Shitter's full. Blame Congress.

As always very informative and insightful. Here's another musing. Perhaps part of the issue is that the feds are looking at the "profit from Federal lands" too narrowly. Yes the federal agencies themselves are losing money and that should be looked at but let's ask who does profit from those lands? I hunted outside of Craig CO a few years back, and had a wonderful experience (with the exception of the bout of altitude sickness, nasty business that was ). Anywho, during that week every hotel, restaurant, grocery, etc was filled with hunters. That local economy and others like it thrive off hunters, and the reason is because there is such a vast area of public lands to hunt. (Please don't let this descend into griping about crowding ) So one can argue that the existence of public lands is a huge boost to many small local economies. Now it may be that there is a large nefarious plot to get rid of all public lands, and I have no doubt there are officials in office who would gladly do just that. But maybe, just maybe, some of these officials would change their tune if they were reminded how vital federal lands are to the small communities that sent them to D.C. In the first place. I'd say it's worth a try.

 

[longbow51]

Everyone needs to re-read Desert Solitaire, by Edward Abbey.

It's about the soul of America. I've already posted about ways to increase revenues for National Parks, but that's just to stop the bleeding of dollars; they already sold out. Abbey explains it well. Having sold out to Industrial Tourism, might as well maximize National Park's income ( and rolling over in his grave, wherever it is, Cactus Ed, Park Ranger at Arches Natural Money Mint is surely doing so).

The rest, save it in its natural state.

I co-founded a chapter of the Sierra Club, and carried their cup proudly, but we need to re-focus.

Foot, horse, llama, and mule travel only in USFS.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Everyone needs to re-read Desert Solitaire, by Edward Abbey.

It's about the soul of America. I've already posted about ways to increase revenues for National Parks, but that's just to stop the bleeding of dollars; they already sold out. Abbey explains it well. Having sold out to Industrial Tourism, might as well maximize National Park's income ( and rolling over in his grave, wherever it is, Cactus Ed, Park Ranger at Arches Natural Money Mint is surely doing so).

The rest, save it in its natural state.

I co-founded a chapter of the Sierra Club, and carried their cup proudly, but we need to re-focus.

Foot, horse, llama, and mule travel only in USFS.

The man's got a point. Or at the very least less ATV trails lol

 

[Irrelevant]

Everyone needs to re-read Desert Solitaire, by Edward Abbey.

It's about the soul of America. I've already posted about ways to increase revenues for National Parks, but that's just to stop the bleeding of dollars; they already sold out. Abbey explains it well. Having sold out to Industrial Tourism, might as well maximize National Park's income ( and rolling over in his grave, wherever it is, Cactus Ed, Park Ranger at Arches Natural Money Mint is surely doing so).

The rest, save it in its natural state.

I co-founded a chapter of the Sierra Club, and carried their cup proudly, but we need to re-focus.

Foot, horse, llama, and mule travel only in USFS.

National parks are sacrificial lands for people who call a hotel an adventure and a fully furnished yurt a tent. they're not my people, but they deserve something as well. Plus it keeps them away from the better places-the quiet places- my places.

 

[INMT]

National parks are sacrificial lands for people who call a hotel an adventure and a fully furnished yurt a tent. they're not my people, but they deserve something as well. Plus it keeps them away from the better places-the quiet places- my places.

You’re 90% right. Having worked in the backcountry in both parks and wilderness areas, there are areas in National Parks that are far more wild and less visited than large wilderness areas. But for the most part that statement is correct.

 

[The_Jim]

See that misses my point entirely.

That report talks about what people who recreate are spending nearby. I'd like to see someone quantify the value of the public land experience itself to the user.

I pay $240 for Mariner's tickets for my family, $30 for parking, $60 for gas, and $100 for food and drink. We enjoy the trip. That means we are getting at least $430 worth of enjoyment from that experience. But I get way more enjoyment out of a Sunday hike to a lake to catch some fish. And that's just the enjoyment aspect. Studies also show that that hike decreases my blood pressure, rebalances my brain chemicals, and generally adds to my longevity. Those are benefits that theoretically should (or could) have a monetary value.

that’s what I was trying to say only it’s the exact opposite. Like the mariners tickets have $0 value to me it’s worth $430 to you.

Public land recreation has no value to a huge swath of Americans.

 

[elkduds]

Here we are in the midst of another Utah legislative session, as the speaker has openly said they plan on taking Utahs stupidity to lower courts.

And, I realize this will go over well, 10X more dudes showed up to support SFW at their outdoor swap meet and circle jerk (57,000 last year), or in Minneapolis for BHA brewfest than can be bothered to even drop a call here. SLC is where this bullshit spawns out of. It's where the fight is, but whenever I talk to my legislators here I ask who they talk to, ands it's always SUWA and the other bush hippy groups. I guess they put a much higher value on tge land than the consumptive folks do.

SUWA is a damned effective conservation/public land advocacy group in a tough state for same. Calling effective allies names flies in the face of forging the alliances that are our best hope in preserving public land. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

 

[Bonasababy]

that’s what I was trying to say only it’s the exact opposite. Like the mariners tickets have $0 value to me it’s worth $430 to you.

Public land recreation has no value to a huge swath of Americans.

The bigger problem we are dealing with now is public lands don't have enough value to billionaires, and they are calling in their favors.

 

[Irrelevant]

Public land recreation has no value to a huge swath of Americans.

Certainly yes for many. But it doesn't need to have value for everyone. It just needs to have value. I may get 30-50 $500 uses from public land, while someone else might only get 3. But one thing I have noticed is that when those midwestern folks do get a chance to visit, they would often rate the value much higher than I would.

Take my in-laws, they're from the unholiest-of shitholes in Indiana. But to this day they can remember, cherish, and love the two vacations they took to public lands during my wife's childhood. Even though I know the destination and have heard the stories and think it was a tier III vacation at best, at least compared to what I've experienced. I have no doubt my father-in-law would rate them in the tens of thousands vs my measly few hundred.

 

[MTGomer]

Raise revenue. Suppose that entry fees to Yellowstone National Park increased for foreign nationals that overcrowd the park, are pushy, rude and can’t drive from $35 a car to $150 per person. This would allow more modest increases, such as charging most Americans $40 per car while allowing those residents of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming that live in gateway communities to enter the park for free.

• Win-win-win.

Mr. Anderson is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

I like this version