Inside Our Outdoor Policy

61

While the commissions specic proposals for expanding the governments role have yet to be carried out, the push for more public landownership and control continues in the political arena. On January 11, 1999, President Clinton proposed his Lands Legacy initiative, which would allocate a onetime $1 billion for protecting wilderness, parks, and coastal areas. Nearly half this amount would be used for land acquisition, including 450,000 acres near and in Mojave and Joshua Tree national parks in California; land inside Floridas Everglades National Park; 100,000 acres in national forests and wildlife refuges in New England; and parcels along the Lewis and Clark Trail and at Gettysburg, Antietam, and other Civil War battleelds.11 The announcement came on the heels of Vice President Al Gores smart growth initiative, which would use $1 billion in tax credits and federal grants to help communities put the brakes on private land development. In particular, the federal government would provide support to communities that work together on smart-growth plans and allow more federal transportation dollars to be used to reduce gridlock, expand mass transit and encourage regional planning.12 Of course, this presumes that urban sprawl is rampant in America and that, therefore, the federal government needs to expand its role here as well.13 Ignored in these proposals is how owners of critical private lands are responding to the increasing demand by providing recreational opportunities and environmental amenities, particularly as they relate to wildlife. Private lands constitute 60 percent of the 1.35 billion acres of Americas forests and rangelands, and they provide some of the best habitat for game and nongame wildlife in the United States.14 Also ignored is the federal governments record of stewardship, which has not always been good. With thousands of acres added to the federal estate each year, operating budgets are stretched. This, combined with poor incentives for good stewardship, raises questions about the federal governments ability to meet the demands for recreation and environmental amenities. THE ECONOMICS OF OUTDOOR RECREATION To understand how the private sector can provide more outdoor recreation, it is necessary to recognize that individuals respond to prices. Consumers move away from buying relatively high-priced goods by nding lower-cost substitutes. If recreational opportunities are available at a low or zero price, then consumers can be expected to take advantage of those opportunities and use them to the point at which the additional value in consumption is equal to the additional cost. At the same time, producers will not shift resources away from alternative productive uses, such as farming or ranching, and into recreation when prices for such activities are not high enough to yield positive returns. Product substitution is often ignored in the formulation of natural resource policy because prices faced by decision makers are often zero or nominal. For example, the Gallatin National Forest in southwestern Montana attracts thousands of shers, hunters, hikers, and campers every year. Yet, the Forest Service has failed to monetize the value that recreationists place on the area. The fees charged are so low that revenue from recreation amounted to $410,000 in scal