Efforts by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to make it easier to visit and enjoy federal lands managed by the Interior and Agriculture departments make strides in the right direction, but also raise troubling questions when it comes to the protection of the National Park System and the workload and resources for the staff-strained National Park Service, according to the National Parks and Conservation Association.
While the park advocacy group applauded the intent of the America's Outdoors Recreation Act of 2022 to make federal lands access passes obtainable online and to improve coordination between the land-management agenices, it raised concerns over the bill's directive that the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management open more shooting ranges on their lands.
"These public lands are often immediately adjacent to NPS land, and the bill does not sufficiently outline mitigation efforts that must be undertaken to ensure a safe and unimpaired park experience," NPCA said in its comments to the committee.
Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke was a big proponent of shooting ranges on public lands, and during his short-lived tenure wanted to see national monuments opened to target shooting, despite the propensity of rock art panels being used as targets. There also have been instances of wildfires being started by bullet fragments.
Also of concern to NPCA in the legislation was the call for more broadband access on federal lands, something the group said deserves more study because of "the extensive use of and impacts to natural and cultural resources to build and maintain broadband at recreation sites within the National Park System ..."
While the legislation directs federal land managers to better track visitation across their lands and pilot new technologies, it does not provide any additional resources to do that work, something NPCA called out.
"Unfortunately, these sections [144 adn 145] present an unfunded mandate to land management agencies, who will be unable to successfully implement this strategy without significant federal funding," NPCA wrote. "As Section 131 of this legislation illustrates, further infrastructure investments would be needed on our public lands to guarantee the necessary internet access required for real-time data collection. NPCA is not convinced that federal land management agencies have the corresponding staff who can analyze and ensure integrity of the collected data. Since the data is intended for public use, Congress should ensure its accuracy and efficacy.
"A 21st century Park Service requires not only bold thinking, but investments in the staff and technology that are the foundational tools necessary to uphold the NPS mandate as outlined in the Organic Act," the group added. "NPCA looks forward to working with Congress and this Committee as this legislation moves forward."
Among the provisions in the legislation, which now heads to the Senate floor, are:
- A provision that directs federal land managers to identify at least 10 long-distance bike trails (i.e., bike trails with at least 80 miles in total length on Federal land), and 10 areas where there is an opportunity to develop or complete long-distance bike trails. For any existing trails identified, the Secretaries may publish and distribute maps, install signage, and issue promotional materials. Prior to any trail identification, the Secretaries are required to ensure that identification would not conflict with an existing use of a trail or road, including horseback riding. This section further requires the Secretaries to issue a report that lists the trails identified under this section.
- Another telling the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service to collaborate with State and local governments, housing authorities, trade associations, and nonprofits to identify needs and economic impacts in gateway communities. Further, this section directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, to provide financial and technical assistance to gateway communities (adjacent to recreation destinations) to establish, operate, or expand infrastructure to accommodate visitation, including hotels and restaurants. Assistance that may be provided includes training programs, technical assistance, low-interest business loans, and loan guarantees.
- A section calling on Interior and Forest Service officials to increase parking opportunities for people recreating on their lands. In order to ensure that such efforts do not add to the deferred maintenance backlog, this section allows the agencies to enter into public-private partnerships and lease non-Federal land for parking opportunities.
- A section that directs Interior and Forest Service officials to establish a pilot program for public-private partnership agreements to modernize campgrounds and buildings on Forest Service and BLM land. Agreements are not to exceed 30 years and must include certain capital expenditure and maintenance requirements. At least one agreement would be required for each region of the National Forest System and for five states in which the BLM administers land.
- A requirement that federal land management agencies conduct an inventory and assessment of current recreation resources, to identify any trends relating to use, and consider future recreation needs. After identifying underutilized locations, the agencies must consider the suitability for developing, expanding, or enhancing these recreation resources. After, the agencies are to select high-value recreation resources at which to expand and encourage recreation use.
- A requirement that Interior and Agriculture department officials develop a national strategy to increase youth recreation on federal lands.
"Increased support for outdoor recreation through federal investments in recreation infrastructure and public parks is critical to the continued success of our business and the outdoor industry,” said Lise Aangeenbrug, executive director of the Outdoor Industry Association. “This bipartisan proposal will expand Americans’ access to outdoor spaces and recreation, support local outdoor industry businesses and their employees, and bring meaningful economic opportunities to countless communities. Following nearly two years of COVID-19 related lockdowns and economic stress, these proposals would also improve the mental, physical, and economic well-being of everyone, regardless of zip code, background, or income. As this measure advances in the Senate, we remain committed to working with Congress together to ensure this vital legislation is passed and enacted into law.”
At the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel, said his organization “applauds Chairman Joe Manchin and Ranking Member John Barrasso for championing this important legislative package. When enacted, this bill will facilitate enhanced and expanded opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting for today’s outdoorsmen and women on our public lands. NSSF is especially appreciative of the provisions in this bill which would create new public shooting ranges throughout the National Forest system and Bureau of Land Management districts."
Comments
My basic point was that Buck's approach was fairly cavalier, defending his political argument over matters of life and death. It would appear that, in this case, the person at fault - the adult who did not secure their firearm - has already suffered the ultimate penalty any parent could experience. I don't know of any jurisdiction that would sanction a 3 year old having functional access to a pistoll.
After 30 or so years working in healthcare, it isn't new to me. It was all too common instead. The cavalier attitude is what I was reacting to.
Yes, tragically, where there are guns, there are accidents. To advocate limitations based on infrequent accidents is safetyism. As laid out in Coddling of the American Mind, safetyism holds that when something is not 100% safe, it is unacceptably unsafe. We as a People must reject this. We must come out of our homes and live.
Would we bar rafting the Colorado b/c some drown? Would we close Half Dome and Angel's Landing b/c some fall? B/c some jump? Should campfires be banned b/c some act irresponsibly and start wildfires? Should the parks be closed altogether b/c some people feed wildlife, vandalize historic sites, and commit other bad acts?
This line of reasoning holds that cars should be banned b/c over 36,000 Americans die every year in car accidents brought on by negligence and sometimes criminal acts.
Benjamin Franklin addressed this point when he opined, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Rick, it wasn't a "cavalier attitude". It was putting things in perspective. An anacdotal account of a child loosing his life - which could have happened anywhere - doesn't indite the entire world of shooting ranges, hunting or gun ownership.
Should prudence be discounted? With the extreme fire conditions being seen across the West, is it prudent to expand shooting ranges on public lands with tinder-dry vegetation? Particularly when land-management agencies already are strained for firefighting resources?
As far as Franklin's quote, Benjamin Wittes, editor of the website Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says it's often misconstrued. In a 2015 NPR interview he said what Franklin was really trying to get across was that, "It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means."
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-sa...
In 2011 Witt wrote a longer piece on this famous quote, pointing out that "... Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the 'essential liberty' to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security. ...In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
Should we shut down camping? Driving. Turn of the electricity? Sure we should excercise prudent, but we can be prudent in the way we operate firing ranges or hunt. They fact we have tens of thousands of ranges and millions of hunters with only a hand full of incidents each year is proof of that.
And I must say, Wittes explaination of the Franklin quote makes absolutely no sense to me. Who exactly was given up liberty in the Penn vs PA dispute?
You're not familiar with severe reactions to isolated incidents? Lots of laws are created in reaction to that which is rare but otherwise caught the public imagination.
It was about taxes being levied in order to pay to fight against natives. In the context of the letter, it was about self-governance and the ability of the government to tax.
That being said, there have been some suggestions that it was just a non sequitur. Franklin had a habit of falling in love with his own writing.