55 Comments
User's avatar
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume's avatar

Another great article, Jim!

I would add private ranching on public lands, which supplies less than 2% of American beef even though it takes up 250 million acres of BLM and Forest Service land. Like the other extractive industries you mentioned, its economic impact is trivial. Also like the others, it inflicts terrible environmental damage on our public lands.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

You know I thought about including it and probably meant to, but ended up going with the big extractive industries. That said, I've updated this piece to include it know. If you're a longtime reader you know my stance on grazing on public lands. You can read about that here: https://morethanjustparks.substack.com/p/cattle-dont-belong-on-our-public

Kollibri terre Sonnenblume's avatar

I remember reading that one this spring, yes. It was a good one.

I happen to be working on an end-private-ranching-on-public-lands piece for next week for my own Substack, so the subject is at the front of my mind right now.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Excellent! I look forward to reading it!

Erick Olsen's avatar

Informative and critical info here - thank you!

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Thanks Eric. We'll keep chipping away!

Anthony P's avatar

Once again, you have exposed the big lie otherwise known as the Trump Administration. As you point out, the economic benefits provided by the people who visit America’s national parks and forests far outweigh any benefits derived from the extractive industries. The problem—from the vantage point of Trumpland—is that these benefits flow to state and local governments as well as middle income Americans whose incomes depend on tourism revenues. Donald Trump and his confederacy of scoundrels, however, are not interested in the economic well being of Americans in the middle. Rather, their entire focus is on making those who are obscenely wealthy even wealthier. The billionaires who own and operate these extractive industries have bought and paid for an administration which has shamelessly done their bidding since Day One. The Republican Party, which has now become a wholly owned subsidiary of the one percenters, believes that so long as they wage culture wars against so-called “Woke Democrats,” Americans will simply sit back and watch while they carve our country up on behalf of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and all of the other vulture capitalists.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Bingo. We have a winner. That's it. The economic benefits from recreation don't benefit Republican donors and the ultra wealthy. They benefit regular people. And this administration can't stand that.

Luu's avatar

This is vital information for countering the current push to give away public lands or extract every resource till there is no life left. Especially critical is the fact that the public is left with the clean up after giving it all away.

You are helping to educate the people about public lands at a time when we are also learning about the value of undisturbed land’s importance in climate regulation. When we tear apart or pave over the earth recklessly we destroy the biological processes allowing life as we know it. This is a problem now because of the world wide development and commodification of the planet.

So it is much more than recreation but I think you have contributed greatly to the economic argument. Now we must also understand the value of our public lands for protecting life itself.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Well said. The economic argument is their whole thing so it's important to expose it as the lie that it is. Once you understand that their position is built on a massive lie, it's a lot easier to see clearly.

LaVonne Ellis's avatar

Joni Mitchell said it all: "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Farmer Sam👩‍🌾🐑🌱's avatar

So glad you took the time to write this. In the region of Maine where I live, we have numerous state and national parks. Outdoor recreation drives the economy and it breaks my heart to think of losing these national and natural resources.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Thanks Sam! I lived in the woods west of Bangor for two years. So much natural beauty up there.

Brian MacKay's avatar

And, the cool thing about Maine is that one of it's key sources of tourists (and tourism dollars) is Canada. The President is actively working to dissuade Canadians from spending any money in the US. Rooms in Old Orchard Beach must have been very cheap those past summer

JWFehrer's avatar

A slow painful death by a thousand cuts… will we never learn…?

Thank you for your clarity and reporting on this subject

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Thanks. Hard to watch isn't it? We'll keep fighting.

The Blue Marble's avatar

Great article! Thanks, Jim!

curt s sanders's avatar

Jim this is the thing of beauty.. and the irrefutable truth! Thank you!

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Thanks Curt!

Bill Lundeen's avatar

Thanks, Jim. Great coverage as usual. It’s such a joke, this whole political double-speak.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Thanks Bill. I'm hoping people will share these numbers with their not-so-like-minded friends and maybe we can win a few converts.

Jim Dandy's avatar

Thanks Jim, I never saw an article that analyzed and summarized things the way you did. Great information and I'm saving it to my "special" folder on my laptop.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Thanks a lot Jim, I appreciate you sharing that. That's exactly what I'm trying to do here.

Mo Khan's avatar

Excellent Article !

JB's avatar

This is a story that needs to be broadcast from every mountaintop, or at least every network. Sadly, way too many folks have no time or money when their workday is done to even experience these places. Which sure corroborates your story.

Aris Nakos's avatar

@Jim Pattiz that’s an excellent study. I love how you cobbled up the numbers to make a case that wakes us up.

Barbara Shields's avatar

Those of us using the public lands can see the economic powerhouse with every visit. There are more people out there every time I go to a mountain or forest or desert.

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Exactly. And now we have the numbers.

sedesert's avatar

Great piece. Im curious about the larger economics at play, too. Im not sure its a sound argument to priortize one industry over the other based on revenue alone. After all, the recreation economy depends on some of rhe "things" being extracted. What do we import that we would otherwise extract here? Are we just outsourcing environmental damage?

Jim Pattiz's avatar

Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it! And those are fair questions. A couple things: First, I’m not arguing that we have to eliminate resource extraction. I’m arguing that we’ve been pretending for decades that it’s the dominant economic force on public lands when it simply isn’t. Recreation towers over it. Second, very little extraction actually happens on public land compared to the industry as a whole, so we’re not talking about gutting national supply chains here.

And third, outsourcing environmental damage only happens if we choose bad partners. That’s why I referenced Canada, their environmental safeguards are similar to ours, and they have a timber industry scaled to supply big countries like us (not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot better than what this administration is pursuing). There’s a huge difference between smart resource policy and the absurd free-for-all we’ve been sold.

P Kawake's avatar

Greed.