Selling the Sunset, Vistas, Flowers

[jon]

The Privatization of America's Great Outdoors has become a top prioritywithin the Bush administration. And for this reason, the passage ofpermanent Fee-Demo authorization coupled with the authorization of a"Charter Forest Pilot Demonstration Program" were recently listed byUndersecretary Mark Rey as amongst the President's highest USFS legislativepriorities.www.fs.fed.us/congress/2002_Testimony/2_12_02_Rey_on_FY_2003_Budget.htm

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

Fortunately, no one need take my word for it. Fortunately President Bush'sown public lands policy advisor, Terry L. Anderson (www.perc.org), hasexplained the reality of the situation far more clearly than I could everdo.

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

But understand that Private/Charter Forests can only work when coupled withrecreation user fees. To see the result, please read on. To stop thismadness, please help us defeat fee-demo. Please reply to this message andlet us know how you intend to help.

Thanks.

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).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Scott SilverWild Wilderness248 NW Wilmington Ave.Bend, OR 97701

phone: 541-385-5261e-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.orgInternet: http://www.wildwilderness.org

June 15, 2002 is National Day of Action to PROTEST FOREST FEES.For additional information or to share your plans, please contact us.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[W]

Does anyone have the email/contact info for our senators and reps, and/or whomever it would be most useful and direct to contact regarding this issue?

I would like to compose a letter to those who are going to vote on this.

[gregm]

house:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

senate:

WA

Murray, Patty (D - WA)173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGWASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-2621senator_murray@murray.senate.gov

Cantwell, Maria (D - WA)717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGWASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-3441http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

[Dru]

Speaking as a foreign observer (whose own stupid provincial leaders are salivating to try the same thing) does anyone else see the oxymoron of "private park"? A park by definition is a public space for the enjoyment of the public, owned by the public with the right of free access. The whole question of payment for services is separate from the ownership of the land. When you say that a "park" is private, and that a fee could be charged just to enter such a 'park' (and not to use any of the services) , to me that's a call for protest at the least, and violent revolution at most. I mean if a tax on tea was enough to get you guys up in arms in the 1700's you should be able to go nuclear over something like this!

[Rodchester]

I read the article posted at the link. I found it to be a decent front for actual legal research and poor policy suggestion. However, it is just that, a quasi-academic policy suggestion.

I agree this guy is plain crazy.

That being said there are in fact many private parks all over the world. In countries with an Anglo-American legal system these are little more than corporations (there are many types, green peace is a form of a corporation). This is not new unigue or neccesarily harmful. (From Disney World to petting zoos, and everything in between.)

However, the idea of converting national parks and or forests to private ownership is nothing short of comical...no dangerous

What I cannot understand about this post, is how this guy's article connects to Bush Administration policy? Is the author now in the Bush Admin? You say "below is Mr. Anderson's vision" but the article was penned by Beckwith? Am I missing something here?

The CATO insitute (Mr. Beckwith's sponsor for the article) is well known as a right wing liberatarian style think tank. They purposefully generate all kinds of crap.

The Fee Demo program has been around for years. Yes, I hate it too. But I don't see this as a Bush thing. many very liberal people are pushing for this program as well as others like it. Was it a Clinton thing?

I think it is VERY good to point out these assholes, but we need to keep it in context. The sky is not falling, but Mr. Beckwith wants it to.

[Beck]

...The direction the Bush administration is taking on all sorts of wilderness issues is absolutely reprehensible! The Secretary of the Interior is a pro mining, anti-regulation harlot who's going to open up exploratory drilling in wilderness areas and neglected to send comments from DOI regarding wetlands issues to the Army Corps of Engineers, ensuring weakened status of wetlands protection.

Does the administration want to privatize the running of wilderness- yes! Why wouldn't they, they are NOT concerned with such trivial issues like wilderness when there's a bunch of energy policy to write with some dudes from Enron. And not to mention there's a bunch of TERRORISTS out there we need to hunt down and exterminate. We the people are getting a royal screwing by the Bush administration, thas fo sur.

[W]

Hey Rod,

You're right that the liberals are pushing for some of these regulations, and in fact the fee demo thing started in the middle of Clinton's terms. However, Bush is on record as pushing to rubber stamp the fee demo into permanent status, so the fight has to go to Bush. Clinton is out of office and we shouldn't let this degenerate into a conservative vs. liberal catfight. The issue is that there are both conservatives and liberals who hate this thing, which goes to show that the whole issue is a fiasco perpetrated by bureaucrats on both sides of the political spectrum.

I agree that the Private Park thing, while outrageous by principle, is hype that won't ever see the light of day. but the facts are that paying to use forest land is already happening and could get worse. We need to spell out to our leader the "services" that we, the public, expect- if any- and further, demand that the federal government fund the USFS to the effect that the USFS does not have reason, cause, or need to ask the public to pony up. Our tax dollars are not covering something they are supposed to!

[mattp]

Thanks Rodchester. Along a similar vein, let me add that I believe we may not want to adopt Scott Silver and his Wild Wilderness organization as our torch bearer, either. While I am grateful for his efforts to bring this important issue to public attention, and I hope he sticks with it, I have also heard that Scott Silver may be a contentious fellow who unnecessarily alienates people. I suggest that if anyone is going to write their congressperson or call the Forest Service, they do at least some of their own research and do not simply cut-and-paste something from Wild Wilderness. Before undertaking political action, we should all think for our selves anyway, and your messages will be more effective this way, whether or not you have questions about Scott Silver's leadership and communication style.

I have heard from Access Fund people that Mr. Silver was very divisive in the meetings between climbers and the Forest Service, and I've heard through the grapevine that he has taken stances against climbing (not just against bolting) in discussions of recreational access. Whether this is true or not, I am sure that many of you who would protest or write your congressperson about fee demo would not want to be seen as opposed to non-motorized recreational access on public lands, and I would suggest that you take every opportunity to clarify that you believe that this access should be protected and, as W noted, paid for with tax money or revenue from some other source.

[slothrop]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodchester:

What I cannot understand about this post, is how this guy's article connects to Bush Administration policy? Is the author now in the Bush Admin? You say "below is Mr. Anderson's vision" but the article was penned by Beckwith? Am I missing something here?

The CATO insitute (Mr. Beckwith's sponsor for the article) is well known as a right wing liberatarian style think tank. They purposefully generate all kinds of crap.

---

Beckwith's source for the passage about selling the "sky, broad vistas, and fragrant flowers" is Terry Anderson, who, according to Scott Silver, is an advisor to Pres. Bush. Anderson is a leading proponent of enviro-capitalism -- "doing good while doing well". He runs a think tank in Bozeman, MT called the Political Economy Research Center (PERC), "The Center for Free Market Environmentalism". A dubious marriage of ideas, if there ever was one.

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by slothrop:

Beckwith's source for the passage about selling the "sky, broad vistas, and fragrant flowers" is Terry Anderson, who, according to Scott Silver, is an advisor to Pres. Bush. Anderson is a leading proponent of enviro-capitalism -- "doing good while doing well". He runs a think tank in Bozeman, MT called the Political Economy Research Center (PERC), "The Center for Free Market Environmentalism". A dubious marriage of ideas, if there ever was one.

---

Not necessarily dubious in all cases. Market forces can lead to environmental choices if supported through appropriate lehgislation. Look at MEC or the Green Buildings Initiative or environmental certification issues. All cases where free market consumer choice is able to choose green options and is doing so , as a result of enabling legislation. For an example of how it doesnt work look on the legiuslative end, at the differing fuel economy standards for cars vs. "light trucks" aka gas guzzling SUVs.

[Beck]

Just wait until the Bush Administrations sends out a RFP requesting bids to contract park entrance operations out to private industry- Hasn't the USFS already done that with campgrounds? Does anyone remember the USFS cabins all over the country (over twenty THOUSAND of them) that you could rent for 10 bucks a day? Those got axed by the Reagan Administration because they weren't cost effective.

I believe that our current administration (and that includes the legislative branch!) are very interested in reducing federal outlays by privatizing whole sectors of operations previously maintained by the feds. Look at the privatization of the postal service, deregulation of the energy industries, giving the states the burden of welfare and refusing to subsidize Amtrak, or numerous other debacles showing the erosion of our governments interest in protecting intangible rights of we, the people.

THERE'RE GOING TO TRY AND DO IT!

[Rodchester]

Good dialoge here...

"Beckwith's source for the passage about selling the "sky, broad vistas, and fragrant flowers" is Terry Anderson, who, according to Scott Silver, is an advisor to Pres. Bush."

Does that mean that this whole thing is Anderson's vision? Big stretch? Hmmm. Crying wolf?

This type of name calling and bashing tactic will only serve to alienate many who are against the Fee Demo and many other similar programs.

Who is spreading propaganda here?

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodchester:

Good dialoge here...

"Beckwith's source for the passage about selling the "sky, broad vistas, and fragrant flowers" is Terry Anderson, who, according to Scott Silver, is an advisor to Pres. Bush."

Does that mean that this whole thing is Anderson's vision? Big stretch? Hmmm. Crying wolf?

This type of name calling and bashing tactic will only serve to alienate many who are against the Fee Demo and many other similar programs.

Who is spreading propaganda here?

---

Rodchester, are you suggesting Carlos Buhler has something to do with this?

[W]

THIS IS ALL CHRIS BOSKOFF'S FAULT!

AND THE NORTH FACE!

[Rodchester]

DRU & W:

Damn you two are on to me. I must escape to the grassy knoll now...run away run away.

[W]

Thanks Greg

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

Thanks Rodchester. Along a similar vein, let me add that I believe we may not want to adopt Scott Silver and his Wild Wilderness organization as our torch bearer, either. While I am grateful for his efforts to bring this important issue to public attention, and I hope he sticks with it, I have also heard that Scott Silver may be a contentious fellow who unnecessarily alienates people. I suggest that if anyone is going to write their congressperson or call the Forest Service, they do at least some of their own research and do not simply cut-and-paste something from Wild Wilderness. Before undertaking political action, we should all think for our selves anyway, and your messages will be more effective this way, whether or not you have questions about Scott Silver's leadership and communication style.

I have heard from Access Fund people that Mr. Silver was very divisive in the meetings between climbers and the Forest Service, and I've heard through the grapevine that he has taken stances against climbing (not just against bolting) in discussions of recreational access. Whether this is true or not, I am sure that many of you who would protest or write your congressperson about fee demo would not want to be seen as opposed to non-motorized recreational access on public lands, and I would suggest that you take every opportunity to clarify that you believe that this access should be protected and, as W noted, paid for with tax money or revenue from some other source.

---

Good post Mattp. Just because one is against the fee demo, does not make them an ally (or foe) re: backcountry access. These two issues are completely seperate.

I'm still on the fence about the fee demo, but if I had to jump to one side or the other right now I'd be against it on principle if not practicality.

[cj001f]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodchester:

Good dialoge here...

"Beckwith's source for the passage about selling the "sky, broad vistas, and fragrant flowers" is Terry Anderson, who, according to Scott Silver, is an advisor to Pres. Bush."

Does that mean that this whole thing is Anderson's vision? Big stretch? Hmmm. Crying wolf?

---

Rodchester - the following is the full quote from the article(direct)"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. "The # 45 is the following footnote -"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)

You may want to note that this document was written in 1981. Not that Anderson's changed - as another CATO document(that he cowrote) from 1999 show's(the direct link is below this quote)- "Fully a third of the land area of the United States is owned by the federal government. Although many Americans support the preservation of those lands, analysts on the left and the right agree that the federal government has done an exceedingly poor job of stewarding those resources. Indeed, the failure of socialism is as evident in the realm of resource economics as it is in other areas of the economy.

Four criteria should guide reform efforts: land should be allocated to the highest-valued use; transaction costs should be kept to a minimum; there must be broad participation in the divestiture process; and "squatters' rights" should be protected. Unfortunately, the land reform proposals on the table today fail to meet some or all of those criteria.

Accordingly, we offer a blueprint for auctioning off all public lands over 20 to 40 years. Both environmental quality and economic efficiency would be enhanced by private rather than public ownership. Land would be auctioned not for dollars but for public land share certificates (analogous to no par value stock certificates) distributed equally to all Americans. Those certificates could be freely transferred at any time during the divestiture period and would not expire until after the final auction. Land would be partitioned into tracts or primary units, and corresponding to each tract would be a set of distinct, separable, elemental deed rights. Any individual with a documented claim to rights defined by those deeds, however, would be assigned the appropriate deed or deeds. Once divested, tract deed rights would be freely transferable."http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html

While I may not like is policy - he can't be all bad "Anderson is an avid outdoorsman who enjoys fishing, skiing, and ice climbing"http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/anderson_t.html

I know it's long - but there needed to be some meat added.Carl