The following article is an interview entitled "Public Lands Policies and Predictions: ARC president reviews progress and discusses the future of our national parks, forest and scenic byways." This article was written by Bob Ashley in May 1998 and was published in Motor Home (MH) Magazine, the journal of The Good Sam Club.
Susan Bray, Executive Director of the Good Sam Club, is on the Board of Directors of the American Recreation Coaltion. The Good Sam Clubs itself, is a sustaining member of the American Recreation Coalition.
This article gives a good feel of the approach and attitude of the president of the American Recreation Coalition - the main group behind the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Read the entire article to get to know this opponent better.
Emphasis has been added to the article to allow an easy skim of the material that directly involves Fee Demo; text in red is especialy important to note.
As president and chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based American Recreation Coalition (ARC), Derrick Crandall is as comfortable traversing the halls of Congress as he is hiking the Appalachian Trail. A Dartmouth College gradutate, Crandall has been a key player in shaping America's outdoor-recreation policy for nearly two decades. He came to Washington in the mid-1970's to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In 1979, Crandall's interest in the outdoors led him to begin representing the recreation community through ARC, a fledgling nonprofit organization seeking to "catalyze public/ private partnerships to enhance and protect outdoor recreational opportunities and the resources upon which such experiences are based." ARC, best known today for its visible support of the National Scenic Byways Program, is a federation of more than 100 private-sector organizations, including RV, camping, marine, hotel, resort, water-ski, snowmobile, bicycle, bus-touring and amusement-park constituencies.
Shortly before this interview, Crandall participated in a Partners Outdoors Conference with corporate and government leaders. He also presided over a meeting of the Recreation Roundtable, a 9-year-old group comprised of the CEO's of some of the nation's most prominent recreation companies, from Fleetwood Enterprises to L.L. Bean.
Motor Home Magazine: Vehicle restrictions have been proposed at several national parks that the National Park Service considers congested. How should the recreation and RV communities react to these initiatives, in your opinion, and what might the long-term effect be?
ARC President, Derrick Crandall: No one likes traffic congestion, whether it's in downtown Los Angeles or in Yosemite Valley. The RV industry and the recreation community in general have to be actively engaged as the Park Service thinks about how it moves people in the parks, so that we make sure the solution is a win for us.
There is nothing wrong with separating people from their vehicles. Disney has done it for years quite effectively at Walt Disney World and Fort Wilderness Campground. That's the analogy we think the Park Service should be following. We need to make sure that people are encouraged to come to the national parks. And when they get there, we want them to have the same kind of park experience that people had 20 years ago. At times, that will mean a reduction in the number of vehicles actually driving on park roads.
MH: Do you expect that some parks will eventually limit the number of visitors coming through their gates?
Crandall: The Park Service already has begun movement in that regard. For nearly 10 years, we've had individual superintendents on TV broadcasts in San Francisco, for example, discouraging people from going to Yosemite on particularly busy days. We oppose that. We think that very few cases exist where there is really a problem wih overvisitation. The difficulty we need to address is overcrowding in terms of parking areas.
The Park Service has talked about looking at national parks much as you would look at a concert hall, where you would have to make a reservation to have access to some of our more popular parks, particularly during certain periods of the year. We oppose that. We think that, at this point, is totally uncalled for and would add a level of bureaucracy and red tape to visiting parks that just doesn't make any sense.
MH: In a similar vein, some national parks are considering bans on personal watercraft and snowmobiles. What are your thoughts on that?
Crandall: The Park Service plans to proceed with rulemaking that basically "grandfathers in" existing areas where personal watercraft are used, but requires that any new areas go through a process of public comment and rulemaking. We are not opposed to that. We would agree that whether it's snowmobiling or biking or personal watercraft, there are appropriate places and there are inappropriate places. You can't have one place that allows everything. You have to be selective. In some places there are social or environmental conflicts that you don't want to occur.
Certain kinds of activities will continue to be increasingly restricted until and unless there are modifications in those products that allow more compatibility. For example, we are looking at a new generation of personal watercraft that will be substantially quieter and will cut emissions into the water.
MH: What are your thoughts on concession reform?
Crandall: One thing to realize is that, under current management, any payment by concessionaires to the Park Service or other agencies goes to the black hole of Washington. It does not come back to actually help management and protection of the area where the concession is located. Is concession reform needed? In that case, absolutely. We need to make sure that any fees paid by a business operating on public lands come back to help manage the land areas.
Otherwise, our view of concession operations around the country leads us to two conclusions: First, overwhelmingly, concessionaires are doing a wonderful job aiding the Park Service in caring for visitors. They are really customer-focused. We like that. Secondly, we think that an awful lot of the concessionaires probably could make more money by investing in the stock market rather than in our national parks.
You have to remember that a concessionaire operating in a national park is exposed to great risks that he can't control, like the flooding of Yosemite. The concessionaire who came in and made lots of incestments as part of the Yosemite contract is finding that the cash that was initially projected to pay off those investments isn't there any more. It's a complex issue that is going to require some careful scrutiny.
MH: What is ARC's view of corporate sponsorships for parks, an idea that faltered in the last session of Congress?
Crandall: There has always been a role for corporations as partners on America's public lands, and there will be even more opportunities in the future. The idea of concessionaires in the national parks goes back to the earliest days of the National Park System. More recently, we've seen growth and investment in ski areas, marinas and small resorts that have served the public very well.
The question is: Do we go way beyond that and invite the Kodaks and the General Motors or McDonald's to actively support the federal-land management agencies? It's a matter that we will have to experiment with because there has to be a gain for the American public. We are not doing this for the benefit of the corporations.
MH: Isn't some experimentation already underway?
Crandall: Yes, there are a lot a experiments underway already, some involving federal agencies. But, actually, the states are two steps ahead of the feds. The New York state-park system has an official soft drink, just as the Olympics has an official soft drink and everything else . At the federal level, there has been a growing realization that there is some kind of a marriage that is possible, but our experiments have proven that it's also an area where there can be a lot of controversy.
During the Park Service's 75th anniversary in the early 1990s, the National Parks Foundation did some lecensing of the anniversary logo. One of the licenses was to a manufacturer of hunting knives. There was a lot of controverst about that because in most national parks there is no hunting. Someone had the nub of a good idea, but the execution was flawed.
More recently, two years ago, we authored legislation in Congress that would have allowed a corporation to become some kind of an exclusive supporter of the national parks or a specific national park. We were fine-tuning it when our progress was interrupted by a series of Doonesbury cartoons. Cartoonist Gary Trudeau was prompted by an environmental organization to target this concept with the humorous notion that a national park might actually be sold to a company and renamed something like "Kodak's Grand Canyon."
MH: That wasn't what you envisioned?
Crandall: Not at all. We see a win-win situation at a growing number of national parks; for example, where there are privately funded Imax theaters and other kinds of visitors centers nearby. We wouldn't mind some of those visitor facilities being put on public lands and a company being a sponsor. If a government agency doesn't have the resources to do a good job of interpretation, shouldn't we find a way whereby a company like IBM could sponsor the production of a high-quality interpretive film or an interactive visitors center? I think there is a role. We just need to figure out what it is.
MH: ARC supported the current fee-demonstration program, through which federal land-management agencies can set their own fees. Has the program met your expectations?
Crandall: We are greatly pleased with the way the program has worked out. For most of 10 years, the recreation community has worked with Congress and the land agencies to address the issue. We recognized that, overall, fees previously paid for less than 10 percent of the recreation services provided on federal lands. And we knew that, eventually, there had to be a better balance. However, Congress was very apprehensive about moving ahead in an anti-tax, reduce-the-size-of-the-government atmosphere. Therefore, in 1995, when we devised this concept of a fee-demonstration program, we intentionally wanted to limit the number of sites.
We judge the program in two ways: First, are there some new and better recreation experiences that people are encountering? And seconf, is the Congress comfortable with the program and not hearing political backlash? On both counts, the answer is a resounding yes.
This year some $150 million in additional revenue will be spent at the grass-roots level on America's public lands. We are seeing better trails and more frequent trash pickup - modifications that make the American public happy with their recreation experience. Secondly, we are very pleased that Congress is comfortable with the program. And the majority of the people who are being assessed these fees are quite supportive.
MH: Some of the members of your coalition, primarily private-campground owners, are fearful that these added fees and the improvements they fund will lead to increased competition from the public sector. Do you agree?
Crandall: We are concerned that additional revenues generated from public lands be well spent. We want those to go to services that are obvious to visitors so that they feel good about paying the fee. Fees should not be a disincentive for visiting areas. You have to charge in order to provide what the visitors expect.
When a visitor leaves a national park, two questions need to be asked: Did you have a good time? And, did you get good value for what you paid? I do not expect - and the Forest Service has taken action to prevent - the use of these new fees to in any way undermine existing or potential private-sector operations on public lands.
While there will probably be some mistakes made concerning the reinvestment of those fees, overall we are convinced they are being used as we always intended them to be used: to add interpretation programs and put more rangers on the trails.
MH: Do the additioanl fees, used to improve roads and campgrounds unfairly increase competition with the private sector, as some private campground operators contend?
Crandall: We don't think that's the case at all. We believe the Forest Service largely will be out of the developed-site camping business within the next 10 years. Where we do see a difference is in the need to upgrade or consolidate existing campgrounds that are too small to be economically viable if they were operated by the private sector. If you have three 40-site campgrounds in a national forest district, we may well see that those are essentially closed and a new 120-site campground is built to today's standards, using private-sector dollars.
MH: Congress has been loosening the purse strings somewhat for public lands. How do you view this trend?
Crandall: It's largely a [positive] shifting of dollars. Recently we've seen recreation construction budgets continue to go down and the operating budgets go up. That's a dufference from previous years, when Congress tended to support construction projects - like a new visitors center or campground - that led to a ribbon-cutting ceremony and a picture in the newspaper. More and more now, we are finding that the pressure from Congress is generally to do a better job of maintaining the existing recreation sites rather than to purchase new tracts of land.
MH: What's behind this change?
Crandall: The American public precipitated it by the decision that they've made at the polls during the last three elections - about spending money more responsibly. People love their public lands, and Washington has been looking for solutions that provide better quality recreation at lower prices. The fee-demonstration program is a wonderful example.
MH: The U.S. Forest Service has established a moratorium on building additional roads through forests. What are your thoughts on that?
Crandall: This is a controversial issue. The environmental community sees roads as connected exclusively with timber. The Forest Service is experiencing a shift from an era when virtually all of its 400,000-mile road system supported its timber-cut program to a time when primary users of the national forests - in addition to timber interests - will be recreationists.
To end this controverst, the Forest Service has placed a moratorium on building roads into roadless areas, which will make the environmental community happy. In addition, the Forest Service is making progress toward redirecting and reformatting the forest-roads program from its current timber focus into a program that deals with the legitimate access needs that Americans have [in order] to enjoy their national forests.
We expect that the 400,000-mile system will shrink. Some of those roads simply are not important or have significant environmental problems associated with them, such as siltation of streams, and will be obliterated. Others will be converted to trails. So we are going to see an opportunity to enhance, whether it's for 4x4s or mountain biking or hiking, by converting roads into essentially a lower level of use. It also will allow the Forest Service to refocus available dollars on those roads that are important.
Our national forests are one of America's prime playgrounds, and we are pleased that the new chief of the Forest Service, Mike Dombeck, is pushing aggressively in this direction.
MH: Will recreational enhancement of the national forests take some pressure off the congested elements of the National Park System?
Crandall: Absolutely. The national parks have areas that are overtaxed, at least for portions of the year. And there are many opportunities in America's national Forests and parts of the National Park System to enjoy an equivalent quality of recreation.
MH: State fish-and-wildlife departments are pushing for a federal excise tax on recreation-equipment sales to be used by the state to promote and protect non-game wildlife. The program is called Teaming with Wildlife. ARC and many in the RV industry oppose the tax. What are its prospects?
Crandall: I think it's quite likely that at some point in 1998 Congress will be considering legislation to impose this excise tax. I am optimistic that Congress will listen to our perspective and will not proceed with anything that looks like what is now being touted by its proponents. It is a specialty tax, not a user fee. While we have sympathy with the need of America's wildlife, we simply don't believe that a specialty tax on recreation - a $1.75 billion tax over the next five years - is justifiable.
We think the wildlife needs of this nation need to be looked at the same time we look at the other needs of America's recreationists: trails and trailheads and marinas and campgrounds. In the best case, we should solve those needs collectively. This idea of a single-purpose new federal program is reflective of the 1960s, not the realities of the 21st century.
MH: Is there any way Teaming with Wildlife could be changed so that you could support it?
Crandall: We have suggested to the proponents that there are ways to generate significant sums through voluntary measures, perhaps through wildlife license plates. The recreation industry would look favorably upon a proposal whereby we would encourage the American public to buy those license plates voluntarily.
We might be able to devise a voluntary program where every advertisement, whether it's a Coleman or Zebco or Fleetwood, might encourage people to buy these plates. We could even provide a national toll-free fulfillment center to distribute application forms to convert plates for people from different states.
MH: How has the National Scenic Byways Program fared since its inception, and what are its prospects for reauthorization, considering that it's currently held up as part of last year's transportation bill?
Crandall: We expect that when Congress finally gives us a long-term highway bill, Scenic Byways will do great. Otherwise, the designation process has gone slower than we hoped. But few things in Washington ever occur with the pace that we optimists think they should.
We've only had one round of designations, and 20 routes have been designated. We think it's important to continue to move through the process. By mid-1998, we will have a second round of designations, and we expect to end 1998 with a network of 50 to 100 Scenic Byways.
MH: Does that mean it will also be properly funded?
Crandall: No, that's a separate issue. What we did in 1991 was set up a special funding program to pay for the development of state Scenic Byways programs and to actually do things on America's favorits roads. It could pay for things as simple as pull-offs by a pretty spot, so that people could safely get off the road to take some pictures or have some lunch.
It could pay for things like an interpretative kiosk and low-power radio transmitter to tell people about the corridors in which they are travelling. You could also build climbing lanes because some of the routes are in mountainous areas. We looked for ways to make sure the driving experience is a positive one.
The funds available on average for each of the first six years was about $14 million. We've gotten $30 million or $40 million in requests [to date], and we haven't been able to fund all of them. Now we do expect that the Congress, as it creates the next-generation highway bill, will increase the funding. We think it will end up somewhere in the range of $30 million to $40 million a year. We are happy with that. It has a broad constituency. The environmentalists, the tourism community and the recreation industry like it.
MH: Some of the members of your coalition expressed concern about the global-warming agreements that were agreed to in December in Kyoto, Japan. How do you foresee the impact on recreation and the RV industry?
Crandall: I can't speak for anybody but the ARC. Our position is very clear. Recreation in this country depends upon clean air, clean water and beautiful scenery. We support legislation and regulations that protect those qualities. We also strongly support the ability of the American public to make choices as to where they go for their enjoyment.
To the extent that we can, we absolutely should reduce any impact on the environment, whether that's emissions into the air or water. But we think that can be done in ways that don't alter the lifestyle of the American public.
We flat-out oppose traumatic measures prohibiting manufacture of vehicles that aren't able to get 30 miles to the gallon or more. Obviously there are very few RVs or tow vehicles for RVs that could get that kind of mileage with today's technologies. We also would oppose any kind of onerous tax on motor fuels as a way to reduce emissions of gases thought to contribute to global climate change. What we are saying is, let's sit down and figure out what can be done to the maximum extent possible to bring about that kind of positive change in how we relate to our environment.