<br />-/
<br />.,
<br />
<br />'J~r' b1~4 P.
<br />
<br />Preserving the Recreation Enviroml1ent I 179
<br />
<br />approach because many planners lack the imagination and tools to correlate
<br />number:; of people with the environmental qualities of Qur natural areas.
<br />In addition to these increasing physical impacts, the Forest Service has
<br />shown little concern for the impact of their development and management
<br />decisions 011 people's recreation experiences. Many of these decisions are
<br />gradually reducing \he number of recreation alternatives that can be pursued.
<br />Many management and development procedures have been conveniently tied to
<br />the wishes of majority interests rather than the maintenance of a wide number
<br />of user-groupS, each with predictable recreation experience reqllirements, The
<br />results indicote thO! Ihe public domoin is being slowly fitted solely for those
<br />recreation pursuits involving the greatest nUl11bers of people. The impact of these
<br />majority-focused management decisions on the recreation experiences of particu-
<br />lar user-groups, such as wilderness users, has not been recognized to date.
<br />
<br />178 / Presenring the Recreation Environment
<br />
<br />are I.~st to us." In light. of present "pork barrel" management of the public
<br />domal.ll, the ~lere allocat.lOn of more recreation resources, or making those lands
<br />no~ I~l pubh~ ownershIp more accessible, is not the <lnswer but often the
<br />b~glllnlllg o,r the problem. Our nation's 200 million-plus pupulation with more
<br />leisure on Its hands is beginning to exert physical pressures on our natural
<br />resources that are beyond the comprehension of many resource planners.
<br />In the past, fed~ral. acquisition has helped to spare many of our natural
<br />resources from exploitatIOn by private enterprise. But this is only pan of the
<br />..lOry. A num.ber. of areas have been spared defilement at private hands only Lo
<br />"'l~ure exploitation by t~e publi~ resource management agencies to whom they
<br />ha\e been entr~sted. While unalumously supporting public acquisition, environ-
<br />mental protection groups have nevertheless become disheartened with many of
<br />the ~evelopment and management activities being carried out by federal
<br />agencies, The U,S, Army Corps of Engineers has probobly received the greotest
<br />altenltO~l 10 the, post because. of its impoundment procedures, The emerging
<br />trend 01 the NatlOnol Park SerVIce toward moss recreotion development has bee
<br />recognized. Court a.ctions have involved the Federal Power Commisslon and th~
<br />U,S, Deportment of Tronsportotion, The seentingly olwoys,distont Bureau of
<br />Land Management is even beginning to corne under scrutiny.
<br />
<br />TRUST IN FOREST SERVICE IS MISPLACED
<br />
<br />But what of the U,S, Forest Service? Until recently, this ogency has not
<br />r~celv~d th~ a,ltentl~n ac.corded the other agencies. lluough this agency's
<br />~llstoflC beglllnmgs With Gifford Pinchot to its present day use of such altruistic
<br />lnlJges as Smokey Bear, the Friendly Forest Ranger, and the Lassie television
<br />progrom, people hove been led to believe thot the Forest Service is the ultimate
<br />_otector of our pU,bli~ I~ds, ~oods, and waters. But recei'll experience has
<br />, O~I~ that such -"linking IS naive and the trust misplaced. Because of their
<br />\I1abl.lIty to ?redlct and eliminate the environmental destruction of their
<br />hol.dmgs, ~nvlfonment protection groups have brought sever:1l federal coun
<br />actJOns agalOst the U.S. Forest Service.
<br />If we are to su~tain the magnificence of the public domain, federal
<br />manag~ment of recre~t1on resources must insure. that they survive the onslaught
<br />of belllg 100 accessIble, to ..humans. The Forest Service misses this point
<br />altoget)~,er and counters v.:llh you are trying to lock up our resources for a few
<br />people, Rather than locklOg up our dedcote resources, they need to be managed
<br />III ~uch a way that unique ecologies are sustained. (The word "preserved" is
<br />aVOlde~ ~ here because of the recog?ition that unique ecologies are naturally
<br />dyna~lIl.,;.) Resources can be sustal~ed by determining the human carrying
<br />capacllY of each natural area. Regulation of these human carrying capacity levels
<br />can be done, hopefudy, through a manogement pion thot recognizes nlOn's
<br />collective Impact on our natural res?ur~es~-~r the hard way, by restricting the
<br />number of user~ to a~ area and c10smg It dally when this limit is reached. The
<br />latter approach IS particularly unsatisfactory in light of [he dramatic increase in
<br />outdoor recreation predicted for the I future,. But we may have to endure this
<br />
<br />POPULARITY VERSUS VALUE
<br />
<br />Popularity of an octivity should not be confused with its value, The foct
<br />Iho\ severol federally funded studies indicate that driving for ple",ure is the
<br />number one recreation pursuit in the country does not mean that we need more
<br />roads in our National Forests. Many planners, however, rely too heavily on these.
<br />national trends as their development barometers. Providing facilities for the most
<br />populor recreation activities is in itself a safe guarantee that they will be used,
<br />Even more so, it is a crass promotion of these very pursuits. With more demand
<br />generated, there must be further development. Not only is much of present
<br />recreation development closing environmental alternatives but, just as impor-
<br />tontly, it is narrowing the breadth of people's available leisure opportunities,
<br />Many people ore having to conform to the recreation developments provided
<br />because of lack of diversity, The impact of tllis "leveling process" on people's
<br />leisure opportunities is yet to be fuUy deterntined:
<br />Federal agencies must interpret recreation and their authorized responsi-
<br />bilities for providing recreation opportunities for a variety of user-groups, e.g.,
<br />hikers, snowmobilers, primitive campers, convenience campers, nature enthu-
<br />siasts, hUllters, canoeists, picnickers, motorboaters, fishermen, etc. 111ese user.
<br />groups cannot be lumped together in the site planning process if resource
<br />management agencies expect to provide qua]ity recreation experiences for any
<br />one group. Areas need to be planned for complementary user-groups if
<br />recreation is indeed to be a human outcome of resource use. With the United
<br />States rapidly becoming a nation of congested, frustration-ridden urban centers,
<br />it is imperative that our recreation resources maintain their ability to provide
<br />people with satisfying recreative experiences.
<br />The provision of open space and recreation lands is not a sufficient goal for
<br />the federal government. They must insure through user.resource planning that 1)
<br />a balanced variety of human recreation needs are met, and that 2) environmental
<br />degradation of these resources is minimized if not totally prevented.
<br />A review of ill-conceived federal recreation resource development projects
<br />reveals the growing role of the U.S. Forest Ser'Ylce in e_nvironmental destruction:
<br />
|