Thom Schoenborn

tl;dr: Public lands don't cost much, yet generate a bigger economic boost
than fossil fuel extraction. Tell yer politicians.

Longer version:
This is an email from a journalist friend of mine who has a side project
she does via email. Anyway, for you mountain bikers, hikers, hunters,
anglers, and environmental stewards, I thought you might find compelling
this info about the economic benefit of keeping public lands public instead
of selling them off to private industry.

Pretty sure the OBRA-bot will filter inline links, so here's the archived
web version with lots of great additional info:

http://tinyletter.com/lschmeiser/letters/so-what-who-cares-vol-3-issue-2-how-big-is-the-outdoor-recreation-industry-anyway

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lisa Schmeiser
Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:23 PM
Subject: So What, Who Cares (vol 3, issue 2) How big is the outdoor
recreation industry anyway?
To:

The outdoor recreational industry is poised to flex its (lean, sun-gilded)
muscles. The Outdoor Industry Association has been working since 2005 to
gauge the breadth and depth of national spending on outdoor recreation and
its 2011 report found that the American outdoor recreational industry
generates $646 billion per year. If you assume that number is not wildly
inflated to make the outdoor industry look awesome, than we're looking at
an industry sector that is one of the biggest in the American economy.

I got curious and looked at the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis numbers
for 2011 (the year of the often-cited OIA study) and 2015, and if we assume
the $646 billion number isn't wildly padded, then the outdoor recreational
industry has a bigger footprint in the American economy than fossil fuel
extraction ($556 bil in '11/ $450 bil in '15) or
agriculture/forestry/fishing/hunting ($435 bil in '11 / $447 bil in '15).

But now we no longer have to take a trade association's word for the size
of their market. On December 8, 2016, the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and
Economic Impact Act of 2016 became law. Here's what the bill does:

(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Department of Commerce to enter into a joint
memorandum with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior to conduct, acting through the Bureau of Economic Analysis, an
assessment and analysis of the outdoor recreation economy of the United
States and the effects attributable to it on the overall U.S. economy.

In conducting the assessment, Commerce: (1) may consider employment, sales,
contributions to travel and tourism, and other appropriate contributing
components of the outdoor recreation economy; and (2) must consult with
specified federal agency heads and representatives of businesses, including
small business concerns, that engage in commerce in the outdoor recreation
economy.

Once the outdoor industry has solid numbers from an outside source --
estimated to be ready by 2020 -- those are figures anyone can use to form
solid economic and public policy.

So what? Once there are numbers from the government, expect them to be used
to shape national and state budgets.

There is a significant difference between how public lands and state lands
operate. The former are federally owned and managed. In terms of tax
burdens, managing the 640 million acres of federally-owned public lands
costs approximately $4 per taxpayer per year. State lands are held by state
governments and managed as fungible assets; as any Californian can attest,
state parks can and do close during budget shortfalls, and in other states,
parks have been sold off to balance the budget.

As of right now, there is a movement afoot to sell off federally-managed
lands to forestry and mining concerns. Being able to say, "Why are you
turning over lands to an industry that produces X dollars per year when
they're currently making 4X per year for this other industry?" is a pretty
compelling argument.

Who cares? Politicians, both present and aspiring. Any one of the following
affects the outdoor recreational industry: the rise of wildfires in the
western U.S.; coastal erosion in the southeastern U.S. and Great Lakes
regions; invasive species affecting agriculture and fisheries; climate
change. And in turn, the outdoor recreational industry is going to want to
reduce the factors that put a crimp in income. Individual companies are
already responding to industry-level threats -- outdoor apparel
manufacturers have already stopped making coldest-weather gear in response
to shifting seasonal temperatures -- but companies represented in the
aggregate will soon start leaning on policymakers to reduce environmental
risks. They're bad for (big) business.

Rural counties will also care about the BEA numbers: they represent a way
to quantify the impact any outdoor recreational offering has on the local
economy. They'll help support arguments for more resources -- especially
for fire fighting, erosion mitigation or pest management -- and give folks
a way to cultivate or diversify revenue by capitalizing on the call of the
wild.

Bonus reading: This Q&A with former Interior Dept. secretary Sally Jewell
is exceedingly enlightening, especially this week. If I quoted all my
favorite lines, this newsletter would be a third longer than it already is,
so I'll stick with her assessment of what awaits the next Secretary of the
Interior: "No matter what beliefs a person comes into this position with,
the job has a way of showing you what’s really going on. "

All right! Footer time! If you liked this newsletter, please pass it along
to your pals. They can then subscribe here! You can leave me comments and
pointers via Twitter (@lschmeiser). And thank you, always, for reading.

So What, Who Cares? by Lisa Schmeiser