The battle for control over the usage of federally owned public land began almost immediately after President Ulysses S. Grant signed the legislation that established Yellowstone National Park. Despite the fact that additional legislation in the early 20th century created and empowered federal agencies including the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect and manage federal land, that battle continues today.
Although it’s always simmering just beneath the surface, the issue of how much land the federal government should own and how that land should be used has once more come to a full boil.
I believe most people would agree that the primary purpose of National Parks and Monuments is to preserve the unique ecosystems or historical sites they encompass. That leaves millions of acres of public land that, traditionally, have been conserved (i.e. wisely used) for the benefit varying mixtures of both public and private entities.
How much of a say should recreational users of public land have in how it’s managed? A lot, according to “The Outdoor Recreation Economy,” a report recently released by the Outdoor Industry Association.
The report lists camping, fishing, hunting, motorcycling, off-roading, snow sports, trail sports, water sports, bicycling and wildlife viewing as forms of outdoor recreation. The OIA’s research found that these activities and the entities that support them are directly responsible for $887 billion in annual consumer spending, 7.6 million American jobs, $65.3 billion in federal tax revenue and $59.2 billion in state and local tax revenue.
Those numbers are so large they’re almost incomprehensible. Fortunately, “The Outdoor Recreation Economy” report uses several easily understandable ways for you and me to get an accurate picture of the economic power of outdoor recreation.
For example, only hospital care, outpatient health care and financial/insurance services outpace outdoor recreation in annual consumer spending. In addition, while only $77 billion separate outdoor recreation from first place hospital care, fifth place pharmaceuticals trails outdoor recreation by $421 billion.
More Americans are directly employed by hunting and fishing (483,000) than by oil and gas extraction (180,000), a fact politicians should keep in mind when weighing the economic importance of an elk migration route versus an oil field. Outdoor Recreation’s 7.6 million American jobs exceeds computer technology’s 6.7 million and construction’s 6.4 million.
And, just for fun, more American jobs depend on recreational motorcycling and off-roading (867,000) than there are lawyers in the United States (779,000).
Not all outdoor recreation takes place on rural public land, but even in states like Missouri where 95 percent of the land is privately owned, a disproportionate percentage of it does. I don’t have any idea what percentage of fishing and boating takes place on Corps of Engineers reservoirs, Missouri Department of Conservation lakes and navigable rivers, but based on personal observation, it’s a large majority. For example, the Mark Twain National Forest’s mountains, streams and back roads draw hunters, fishermen, hikers, off-roaders, wildlife watchers, horseback riders and other subsets of outdoor recreation enthusiasts.
The economic results of this land and water suddenly becoming off limits would be horrendous, but at least some of the owners of Missouri’s other 95 percent are willing to share the outdoor recreational opportunities to be found on their property. That’s not the case in the western United States, where access to huge tracts of public land is balanced by very little no-cost or even low-cost access to private land.
It’s undeniable that the federal government’s management of the land it owns in the western states hasn’t always been satisfactory. Even so, only the federal government can — or will — guarantee that the public will always have free access to that land and that the public will always reap the economic benefits it produces.
The bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act, which was signed into law in 2016, will go a long way toward keeping the value of outdoor recreation in Congress’s eye. Also known as the REC Act, it requires an annual measure of outdoor recreation’s contribution to the national gross domestic product.
Even so, calls and letters to Senators and Congressmen will always have more impact than any law, so don’t be shy about letting them know how you feel. For more information, see www.outdoorindustry.com.
