true that

Sending the wrong message about recreation
CRAIG MEDREDOUTDOORS
Published: July 19th, 2008 11:00 PMLast Modified: July 19th, 2008 03:35 AM
Americans are losing touch with the land, and The Economist magazine now contends a significant part of the problem rests with today's environmental community.

Noting a lawsuit by Friends of Yosemite Valley that could force the National Park Service to limit visitation to the California park, the July 12-18 edition of the British-based global publication observes that "America's environmental movement emerged in the 19th century to push for national parks. In the 20th century, it sold them through photographs and writing. It now seems bent on driving people away from them."
That might be taking things a tad too far -- or not far enough.
Yes, some in the environmental community believe the answer to all problems is to keep the public away. If a trail gets so much traffic the trail bed begins to disintegrate, the knee-jerk reaction is to close the route instead of hardening it with gravel or decking so it will not only continue to support current users but encourage more of them.

And yes, there has developed an unholy alliance between do-nothing bureaucrats and environmentalists who want even the most benign of outdoor recreation projects saddled with endless studies. How long have plans for a hut-to-hut hiking system in Alaska been delayed now anyway?
Could it really be a decade?
The Economist sums up this problem well when it observes that "it is not clear to everyone in the National Park Service that the lack of visitors is a problem ... Some rangers, indeed, seem to view visitors as an impediment to the smooth running of the parks."
Ditto for many other land managers -- be they federal, state or sometimes even local.
Look no further than Far North Bicentennial Park where mountain biker Petra Davis was recently mauled by a grizzly bear. Has the reaction to that tragic incident been the opening of a public discussion on how the trails in the park might be made safer for the people who use this grizzly-thick area in the summer?
No. The reaction to the mauling has been simply to post signs advising people not to use trails in the park.
All too often, this is the take-home message for Americans as regards our public lands:
"Don't go in the woods; it's dangerous.''
But this is only part of the problem.
There is something else going on here, and The Economist misses it.
It's not so-called curse of the Internet either. As an information junkie, I got heavily hooked on the Internet early on. I'm an addict now, but that hasn't discouraged me from venturing outdoors.
"Like many things that go wrong in America, the drift away from nature is commonly blamed on the television, video and the Internet,'' observes The Economist. "This is implausible. The number of park visitors rose steeply between the 1950s and the mid-1980s, even as the first two electronic lures spread."
I couldn't agree more. But if it's not the Internet keeping people away, what is?
Well, how about that simplest of all limiting factors? Cost.
It used to be that outdoor recreation was something for people of modest means. Gas was cheap. Campgrounds were free. Fishing licenses cost little.
Government used to treat outdoor recreation as a good investment in creating a healthier society both physically and psychologically. Taxpayer dollars were invested in infrastructure -- trails and campgrounds -- encouraging people to get out.
So what happened in the mid-1980s? "Infrastructure" became a dirty word in the environmental community just about the same time fiscal conservatives decided that people who use the public lands should pay for their recreation.
Thus were born "user fees,'' without much thought about how maybe the tiny subsidies that were supporting parks and recreation areas might actually be paying us all back by getting portly Americans up, out and moving. I admit to a prejudice here. I worry that the American health care system is about to be crushed under a load of aging American blubber.
Perhaps a better investment all around would be to spend money encouraging people to do that which makes them healthier, but we've gone the opposite route.
We're pricing Americans out of nature.
Want to go fishing for salmon at the Russian River?
• Fishing gear, $100.
• Alaska resident sport fishing license, $24.
• Russian River parking fee, $11.
• Gas to get to the river and back, $25 to $45.
• Total, $160 to $180.
Going to the movie suddenly looks like a bargain.
If you grew up fishing, of course, you probably know you don't need a $100 fishing outfit to catch salmon on the Russian. You could forego the hip boots, fish with a junker rod and reel, and cut that part of the cost down.
But how many people in this day and age grew up fishing? How many of them have any idea that outdoor recreation should be something available to people of limited means?
The specialty publications of our time certainly don't encourage that idea. Back in the day, Outdoor Life, Sports Afield, Field & Stream and the like were largely about outdoor recreation for the everyman.
No more. General-interest outdoor publications have largely followed the niche publications -- Outside magazine, Backpacker, Fly Fisherman, Mountain Biking -- upscale.
There is a lot of writing about expensive gear, and a lot of advertising of the same disguised in the form of product "reviews." The overall impression? Outdoor recreation is expensive.
Just to go for a hike on the edge of Anchorage might require a $100 pair of "trail shoes;'' a $75 day pack; a Gore-Tex top and pants or equivalent, $200; another $100 worth of fleece; and who knows what else a salesperson at REI might tell you is vital -- $10 water bottles, $30 first-aid and survival kits; $80 water-purifying pumps, $300 GPS satellite tracking device so you don't get lost, etc., etc., etc.
Some people might suggest it would be dangerous to hike up Flattop Mountain without this stuff.
We wonder why 21st century Americans, most of whom are born and reared in urban areas, aren't getting out in nature?
Maybe it's time we look at the messages they are getting sent out about getting out in nature:
It's costly; it's dangerous; and many of the people now out there don't want company.