Congress Passes Outdoor Recreation's Economic Contributions Act of 2016

[katqanna]

Congress just passed the Outdoor Recreation's Economic Contributions Act of 2016 or the Outdoor REC Act of 2016 - H.R. 4665

This bill directs the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce to assess and analyze the outdoor recreation economy of the United States and the effects attributable to it on the overall U.S. economy.

In conducting the assessment, the Bureau may consider employment, sales, contributions to travel and tourism, and other appropriate contributing components of the outdoor recreation economy.

This will help give us some ammunition to fight with, recognizing the economic contribution outdoor recreation has, especially toward public access and lands.

The Outdoor Industry Assoc. estimates $646 billion in consumer spending and 6.1 million direct jobs.

 

[Josh Kuntz]

About damn time. Now if we could only get the various recreational groups to organize in a smart way the outdoor/recreation community could have a tremendously strong voice on the legislative level. This is a good step in the right direction.

 

[JDH]

I may be way off base but it seems like it could be ammo for either side. What if the sale price of the land and all the potential ways to make money from that land exceeds the economic contribution from recreation? I'm probably reading too much into it because is sat in committee from March until one week after the election. Or how my pro-transfer rep is a co-sponsor.

 

[Rob Allen]

It's been 100% of my income for going on 20 years. I have no other skills. If public land goes away I'll have to be retrained. At 45 is any employer gonna invest in me?


hmm that sounds kinda whiny and not what i meant.. I just mean that the outdoors industry is important and I hope this project shows it and that that information can be brought to bear on the topic of public lands transfer because reductions in accessible public land means a reduction in outdoor industry jobs.

 

[Straight Arrow]

JDH, I think your skepticism is warranted and is motivation to monitor the implementation of the act. In Montana, it is apparent that public lands are the primary draw for the increasing amount of tourism the state is experiencing. The overall agricultural industry has long been the primary economic engine driving Montana's economy, but it is likely to soon be surpassed by tourism. The wildlife and hunting aspects of tourism are clearly recognized and will be major factors in discussions regarding management of public lands and promotion of access to public lands, not only for hunting but also other recreational activities. I will be glad to see a mechanism for tracking the economic benefit, particularly since the dollars derived from whatever source are the only thing that seems to get the attention of the right wingers now in the driver's seat.

 

[James Riley]

I may be way off base but it seems like it could be ammo for either side. What if the sale price of the land and all the potential ways to make money from that land exceeds the economic contribution from recreation? I'm probably reading too much into it because is sat in committee from March until one week after the election. Or how my pro-transfer rep is a co-sponsor.

Hopefully the point is made that sale is a one time deal. Outdoor recreation income could continue in perpetuity. The totals there would be pretty high unless property taxes on sold land were increased to offset the loss.

 

[JDH]

It's been 100% of my income for going on 20 years. I have no other skills. If public land goes away I'll have to be retrained. At 45 is any employer gonna invest in me?


hmm that sounds kinda whiny and not what i meant.. I just mean that the outdoors industry is important and I hope this project shows it and that that information can be brought to bear on the topic of public lands transfer because reductions in accessible public land means a reduction in outdoor industry jobs.

I completely agree that outdoor industry jobs are important and I didn't think you came off as whiny. I just don't think that the politicians will believe you when you tell them that you are not worth retraining. I believe that they are that out of touch.

 

[Tkaldahl2000]

I just don't think that the politicians will believe you when you tell them that you are untrainable. I believe that they are that out of touch.

It's probably a little harsh to call him untrainable, (maybe his wife could chime in on that), but it may not be economically viable to pay for training when he already has a job that keeps him in food, shelter and clothing. And who is going to foot the bill for that retraining? If it is the new employer, that is an indirect tax on the employer. If it is paid for by the government, then it is a tax on all of us, and if he has to pay for it himself then it is a tax on him.

 

[JDH]

Absolutely the wrong choice of words. Even though I'm sure it will live on in your quote I'm going to edit it.

 

[hank4elk]

Good news for a change ,maybe!

I know I'm untrainable. Some folks I know would readily concur...............lol

With well over half my 61 yrs employed either directly as a Park Ranger,S&R Team, Woodland Firefighter, high country packer/guide, 35 yrs as a contractor who's last 20 yrs was building vacation homes & cabins & remodels thereof, and now a sort of retired rancher in a county that depends almost exclusively on the outdoors industry in most shapes or forms, I know there is nothing else that I would do anymore.
Been there,done that.