Who are public lands for?

[SAJ-99]

I thought this was important enough to put here. A recent article in WSJ points out how the economy is driven by the top 10% of earners. (Link attached, may require a subscription). For definition, top 10% of earners are those households with income > $250,000/yr. The data drove the title. I have also given a chart on vacation budgeting because it seems relevant. Guys like @Treeshark have a certain view, and I may disagree with it to some extent, but also have respect for it. If you were in charge of pricing tag, who do you price them for? And in the end, who are public lands for? ...

From the article
"Between September 2023 and September 2024, the high earners increased their spending by 12%. Spending by working-class and middle-class households, meanwhile, dropped over the same period."

Some summary charts from that and another WSJ articles...

Top 10% are about 50% of all spending.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-rich-spending-2c34a571

 

[Treeshark]

If you were in charge of pricing tag, who do you price them for? And in the end, who are public lands for?

Interesting subject and I hope it gets participation.

@SAJ-99, what are your thoughts on these questions? I think I have an idea where you’re going on the first one, but not the second.

 

[Nameless Range]

I didn’t read premises, both in their initial creation and subsequent proclamations of sanctity, that the “who” Public Lands are for is tied to how much those “whos” spend annually or earn.

If functionally, the thought is they are “for” those who spend the most on them (or for them), I could imagine other arguments associated with function that they are for (or aren’t for) other demographic subsets that disproportionately use/don’t use, volunteer/contribute, harm/improve them.

I think though, that any time we try to shoehorn worthiness into the use or purpose of a public trust, the philosophical underpinnings of that public trust risk destabilization to the point of jeopardizing their future.

We can, and I do it to, bring up the secondary and tertiary benefits of public lands to make our preferences work, but those chunks of earth are for Americans. That’s who they are for.

 

[SAJ-99]

Interesting subject and I hope it gets participation.

@SAJ-99, what are your thoughts on these questions? I think I have an idea where you’re going on the first one, but not the second.

Big Fin’s story of wandering public lands as a kid resonates with me, so I like the idea of those lands allowing a kid to explore, learn to hunt, and stay out of trouble. But these numbers are frightening. 60% of Americans live east of the Mississippi. Can they afford a vacation to western US to enjoy those lands or are they relegated to the Appalachian KOA campgrounds? Half the country certainly can’t afford an elk tag.

I am for taking a loss on these lands to retain the opportunity for people to enjoy them. But we have to admit that only about 30% of Americans can even afford to enjoy them. And a big % of them are mad that they foot the bill. Ideas like “charge a fee” are great but push more people out of the opportunity financially.

When I reread this, it all sounds like wandering. Bottom line, I’m getting tired of fighting for something while more kids sit at home playing video games.

 

[Nick87]

only about 30% of Americans can even afford to enjoy them

Only 30% have discretionary income?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Big Fin’s story of wandering public lands as a kid resonates with me, so I like the idea of those lands allowing a kid to explore, learn to hunt, and stay out of trouble. But these numbers are frightening. 60% of Americans live east of the Mississippi. Can they afford a vacation to western US to enjoy those lands or are they relegated to the Appalachian KOA campgrounds? Half the country certainly can’t afford an elk tag.

I am for taking a loss on these lands to retain the opportunity for people to enjoy them. But we have to admit that only about 30% of Americans can even afford to enjoy them. And a big % of them are mad that they foot the bill. Ideas like “charge a fee” are great but push more people out of the opportunity financially.

When I reread this, it all sounds like wandering. Bottom line, I’m getting tired of fighting for something while more kids sit at home playing video games.

They absolutely can afford an elk tag. Cow tags are relatively affordable - as are doe tags.

As far as traveling - its actually never been easier in a lot of ways - you can ask for help on facebook, internet, etc and get it if you have a convincing story. You can rent cars one way, fly easier/cheaper/ship things, stay places (airbnb etc or renting/reserving a public/private campsite), plan routes. What would someone in 1980 have done?

Also - worth mentioning. A lot of family i have that is not of high means uses public lands all the time when visiting our family in the west. They love camping. Hiking. Fishing. And enjoying all of it. Just what the hell would we have done in wyoming if those things were privatized and expensive? I disagree that public lands are for the rich, simply because some folks dont live adjacent.

Fyi - we dont take a "loss on the lands" from what i understand the department of interior is cash positive because of the blm, fs, nps and in spite of other programs within.

 

[Treeshark]

Thanks for expanding, @SAJ-99.

I’ve reread both of your posts a couple of times- I’m having a tough time finding a place where we materially disagree.

I may be off, but it seems that the question you’re really asking is this: how do we protect the existence of federally owned public land via creating more/preserving the existing active users. Or at least asking if we are pricing out many of the current users of these lands.

Am I close?

 

[SAJ-99]

Only 30% have discretionary income?

No. But if your vacation budget is less than $2000 the math gets hard. What do you think you spent on your trip to NM last year? We use to drive across country when I was a kid and I think our budget was higher than that in the late 1970’s. Gas, food, motels, etc. We only did one trip each year for that reason. I’m not sure $2000 gets you much. You sure as hell arent going to Disney.

If you are starting a business that is focused on people’s discretionary income, you are going to focus on the top 20%. Why should a NP, Yellowstone or Glacier or Yosemite, not focus on the same people?

 

[Treeshark]

But these numbers are frightening. 60% of Americans live east of the Mississippi.

That number grows substantially if you were to move that line just a bit west and dissect the country basically in half north to south.

I believe over 80% of the country lives in the eastern half of the country.

 

[Nick87]

What do you think you spent on your trip to NM last year?

With the tag, probably about $1,400 for the trip itself. My point being even of the let's say 30% (assuming that's the right number) how many of that are going to prioritize spending that on exploring public lands? Most people I know would look at my one trip per year like some sort of trip to hell lol. Most would rather get shitfaced on a beach in Mexico.

 

[SAJ-99]

They absolutely can afford an elk tag. Cow tags are relatively affordable - as are doe tags.

As far as traveling - its actually never been easier in a lot of ways - you can ask for help on facebook, internet, etc and get it if you have a convincing story. You can rent cars one way, fly easier/cheaper/ship things, stay places (airbnb etc or renting/reserving a public/private campsite), plan routes. What would someone in 1980 have done?

Also - worth mentioning. A lot of family i have that is not of high means uses public lands all the time when visiting our family in the west. They love camping. Hiking. Fishing. And enjoying all of it. Just what the hell would we have done in wyoming if those things were privatized and expensive? I disagree that public lands are for the rich, simply because some folks dont live adjacent.

Fyi - we dont take a "loss on the lands" from what i understand the department of interior is cash positive because of the blm, fs, nps and in spite of other programs within.

It’s a good point. It is possible. And I don’t really know what the income statement looks like on public lands, just saying I don’t mind a loss

If I remember correct, the USFs estimated about 165million user days per year. If we say the average visit is 5 days, that is 33million people. Sounds like a lot, but still less than 10% of population. And I may be making some judgements on the demographics of that 10% after all RVs and ATVs.

 

[texwest44]

I've had similar conversations to this about hunting and fishing in the past - they're not cheap hobbies by any means, especially if you don't live close to where you're doing these things, or you've just recently started and you're putting together gear kits. There are definitely ways to keep costs down - used markets, online Asian mass-produced factory gear, splitting travel expenditures with others, living nearby, etc., but by and large outdoors recreation is a money-intensive hobby. This is America where credit/debt spending is second nature, so that has to be accounted for, as well, which muddies the water a bit. There's a fair amount of people out there engaging in high-cost recreation and putting it all on credit or taking out loans.

So that's probably how I'd answer the question. Public lands are "for" 3 primary groups of people: locals who've been at it for awhile and made it their lives, the wealthy class who can afford the duality, and folks who utilize a fair amount of credit/debt systems. Or at least something pretty close to that.

 

[BigHornRam]

I grew up in a fairly poor family of 6. Somehow my parents came up with the money to do at least one camping or backpacking trip a year to places like the Sierra's, Death Valley, Yellowstone, the Beartooths, Wind River range, ect. Don't know what hunting licenses costed back then, but do know we couldn't afford them. We did buy fishing licenses in all the different states however.

If public lands are important to you, you will find a way to enjoy them, no matter what your economic status is, IMO.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It’s a good point. It is possible. And I don’t really know what the income statement looks like on public lands, just saying I don’t mind a loss

If I remember correct, the USFs estimated about 165million user days per year. If we say the average visit is 5 days, that is 33million people. Sounds like a lot, but still less than 10% of population. And I may be making some judgements on the demographics of that 10% after all RVs and ATVs.

At 18:25 @Big Fin and @MHMT used the income statement from project 2025. I imagine thats pretty reliable data as baseline for a minimum revenue as i dont think accounting items with gray area P2025 would want to make look pretty.

Pretty remarkable since we basically give away many commercial activities, as discussed here commonly and in the video too.

 

[SAJ-99]

If public lands are important to you, you will find a way to enjoy them, no matter what your economic status is, IMO.

Agree, but it doesn't address what I am getting at. To rephrase the question how do we get more people to enjoy them if proximity and cost become limiting factors?

 

[Big Fin]

"Who are the Public Lands for?" I find that to be a great question to ask.

To me, the answer is all Americans. Yet, as many point out, that's not within the financial and/or geographic reach of many, even with 25 million USFS acres east of the Mississippi River.

As America becomes more urbanized, as it has since the late 1800s, the geographic reach is harder and harder. I read that same article in the WSJ and I thought about a lot of things, but I didn't put in the context of how that impacts the financial reach of people to enjoy public lands. Distance increases costs to enjoy anything, whether public or private, whether business or pleasure. So I see those as related issues that are hard to separate.

I think we often get hung up on the individual use of these lands. There is a huge collective use, also. Improved watersheds, local and regional economies based on tourism or extractive activities on these lands. The benefit of having the government be the largest holder of subsurface rights and how that protects citizens from having monopolies/oligarchies control the ownership of these subsurface minerals, such as oil & gas. A place for wild species that require immense acreage for their annual cycles of migration and existence that would be compromised if those same tracts were owned by 100 different private parties with 100 different goals or motivations. Places for US military installations that are usually criticized when close proximity urban population centers. And more if I wanted to give it another ten minutes of consideration.

Is the US better off with or without a large public estate, absent our own personal benefits? I would suggest we are way better off.

Has my life been better because of a large public estate? Yes, in so many ways that I'd incur higher server storage fees if I were to list them all in detail.

So, I go back to my original answer, "All Americans," knowing that benefit will vary by degrees.

 

[BigHornRam]

Agree, but it doesn't address what I am getting at. To rephrase the question how do we get more people to enjoy them if proximity and cost become limiting factors?

A lot of outdoor organizations sponsor youth camps on public lands these days for kids growing up in economically disadvantaged families.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Our public lands are the envy of every citizenry across the globe. As wealthy as they are, think about which public lands so many Europeans pay to see. Ours. I've personally talked to hundreds of people across the globe who traveled to the U.S. to visit our parks, forests and refuges. They all say the same thing. Wish they had these places in their country, and to hold on to them as tight as we can. Especially those from wealthy developed European nations, who often use their country as cautionary tales.

Our public lands should be for all Americans. Finances and physical abilities will always influence an individual's access, but our model of public land ownership is the envy of the world. Anyone who wants to change that is interested in making a buck.

 

[BigHornRam]

That number grows substantially if you were to move that line just a bit west and dissect the country basically in half north to south.

I believe over 80% of the country lives in the eastern half of the country.

This is the map you are referencing here. Interesting that California is the most populated state and included in the 20% west side.

 

[mdhunter]

This is the map you are referencing here. Interesting that California is the most populated state and included in the 20% west side.

View attachment 362578

Well, since we all agree on this. How about we start Monday Night Football an hour earlier? Seems reasonable to me