1. Financial returns to the government—what concessionaires will pay for the privilege of operating on public lands. 2. Competition—opening concessions bidding processes to competition. For years, Congress has tried to pass park-based bills aimed at the large concessionaires in an effort to increase revenues for the national treasury. It appears the 105th Congress—ending in October 1998—will indeed pass a parks bill subjecting large concessionaires to open competition, but exempting outfitters.
8
That, however, would not close the book for outfitters and guides. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by six agencies in 1995, stating that competition in concessions management is healthy and calling for shorter permit terms and competition in permit renewal for outfitters. Despite a tradition of preference for renewing existing outfitter permits, and in the absence of direction from Congress, we are beginning to see competitive bidding in the permit renewal process. Today, agency policy calls for fees to be subordinate to other factors such as experience and performance, financial capacity, and health and safety records. Competitive bidding, usually through a voluntary increase by the outfitter in their annual franchise fee or percentage of gross revenues, is used as a tiebreaker. To date, agency action on bidding for permit renewals could be deemed experimental, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But, if Congress, excludes outfitters in their parks concessions bill, the agencies may move to shorten permit terms and institute fee bidding. This could have several impacts: 1. Increase agency revenues and also make managers more dependent on fees from outfitters. 2. Cause the agencies to re-evaluate fee exemptions for “institutional” groups such as scouts and camps. 3. Increase costs for outfitted wilderness users and wilderness educators, threatening access for special populations.
THE IN TERNA TI ONAL J OU RNAL OF WILDERNESS
Volume 4, Number 3
4. Destabilize the outfitting industry Outfitting and guiding are small business operations. Banks are not inclined to loan money to a business that may operate under permit for only two or three years, with no reasonable assurance of renewal. Nor would outfitters have incentives to invest in quality staff and equipment for the long haul, placing industry efforts on performance, resource protection, and user education at risk. This is of great concern to an industry seeking to raise standards and provide quality services.
Recreation Use Trends Outdoor recreation and recreational use on public lands are on a powerful growth curve. The USDA Forest Service projects recreation visits to increase from 729 million in 1993 to 930 million in 1998 (USDA, Lyons). Between 1983 and 1995, hiking participation grew 94%, to 50 million participants (ORCA). But raw numbers do not tell the whole story. While more citizens are recreating more frequently, we are doing it closer to home and in shorter intervals. Nestled on the front range of the Rockies is the city of Boulder, Colorado. With a population of just under 100,000, Boulder had: • 1.5 million visits to the city Open Space program in 1997. • 1.5 million visits to the city Mountain Parks program (Boulder). But what about wilderness? Use projections for wilderness are more difficult, because when it comes to dispersed recreation, we simply do not have the data. Solid, field-based data are lacking. And, while the private sector has some data, the outdoor industry cannot separate wilderness use from overall sales trends. They have no way of knowing if a pair of hiking boots will be worn in the backcountry or to a college football game. Efforts are underway to research and analyze dispersed use. The USDA Forest Service’s Southern Research Station, under leadership of Ken Cordell, has published Projections of Outdoor Recreation participation to 2050, concluding: