Is the outdoor sector ‘drunk on its own wine’ when it comes to conservation?

That’s the red meat of a recent article by Todd Wilkinson, the award-winning environmental journalist and founder of Mountain Journal, whose recent work (“Outdoor Recreation equals conservation: Debunking the Myth” and “Juggernaut: Industrial Recreation Deepens Its Tear Across America's Wildlands”) is raising eyebrows and getting some serious forwarding action in advocacy circles.

Part of a larger series in Mountain Journal simply titled … “Enough” … the first piece was triggered by a proposed and controversial “glamping resort” on the Gallatin River west of Bozeman, Montana. The article specifically calls out their current ad campaign (pictured here) which promises that this new development in a pristine and previously conserved area (apparently with plenty of asphalt and rental magnifying glasses) will increase conservation somewhere else at some other time.

After lambasting the Gallatin project for spraying an Orwellian level of greenwash, the article turns its cold gaze to the entire outdoor recreation sector, labeling the entire idea of outdoor recreation stimulating conservation as a convenient delusion.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem spans beyond Yellowstone National Park boundaries to include Jackson to the south and Bozeman to the north, and is arguably the Alpha location for tales of both wildness and overuse. Over the last two decades – not to mention the last two years –  the entire area has seen a crescendo of human encroachment, including record summer visitation to Yellowstone National Park, the steady uptick of Epic and Ikon winter crowds, and proliferating development to support both full-time and part-time residents. With no shortage of straws on the camel’s back of northwest Wyoming, it’s easy math to understand how Wilkinson went from calling bullshit on a single project to spreading full strength disdain across the outdoor recreation community.

From the perspective of an outdoor recreation advocate and outdoor sector business owner … there was one word that repeatedly came to mind while reading Wilkinson’s case that the connection between outdoor recreation and conservation is but a fantasy.

Ouch.

It stung because I’ve said it. I’ve written it, and I’ve believed it. I’ve also heard other people say it –  writers, retailers, sales managers, company presidents. I read about how outdoor recreation stimulates conservation in an advocacy letter supporting 30x30 last week. And I saw those same words in an Outside article yesterday.

On first read, I didn’t take the article as Wilkinson deliberately driving a wedge between conservationists and outdoor recreation advocates. It felt more like a glass of cold water to the face.

But as the article stuck with me over a few weeks, I wasn’t so sure. 

Have I been deluded this entire time about outdoor recreation and conservation? Does the entire conservation community feel the same way as he does? Are outdoor recreation and conservation actually close-knit allies working together in harmony? Or are they something else altogether? Are they frenemies? Are they friends at all?

My gut feeling is that if you asked 10 people from the outdoor sector about the relationship between outdoor recreation and conservation, about eight or nine of them would say things are healthy, positive, and generally good. But if you asked 10 people from the conservation world the same question …  would the answer be the same?

Without being overly defensive, let me be appropriately defensive for a moment. A no-compromise, blanket description of all outdoor recreation advocates as being drunk on their own wine when it comes to the realities of their impacts and the role of conservation is simply not true. 

In my experience — which includes more than 20 years in the outdoor industry as well as the broader outdoor recreation economy — there is widespread acknowledgement and understanding of the significant impacts of human activity on wild places and the importance of conservation. There’s also a high level of comprehension that the outdoor sector is uniquely reliant on the presence of all types of durably protected lands and waters, ranging from urban parks and close-to-home multi trail systems, to remote locales and blue sky wilderness areas where it should all just be left alone … and that without keeping the “big O” in Outdoor then the whole thing is just pickle ball and car campers.

One specific example of this is the Confluence of States Accords which included conservation and stewardship as priority one. This foundational outdoor recreation advocacy document has been signed by 13 states, and has also been used almost verbatim by many of them as the framework for their own outdoor recreation offices or initiatives. One result of that foundational framework has been the adoption of 30x30 goals by many key outdoor organizations such as Outdoor Industry Association.

It also seems that if someone’s goal was actually to drive a wedge between outdoor recreation and conservation – that it would be a wildly counterproductive strategy. If you were to pick one business community that would be your best bet to help support conservation goals and stimulate growth of new conservationists, it seems like outdoor recreation would be high … if not the highest by far …  on the list. The idea of an actual conflict between the conservation and outdoor recreation communities feels like a big myth of its own, in the same vein as the ongoing trope of the “skier vs. snowboarders” rivalry which is increasingly just an older generation’s way to express their concern about new faces on previously wide open terrain.

All that said … I’m thankful and appreciative for Wilkinson’s article. 

There is clearly an ever-widening gap between the impacts of those who use and the benefits of those who give back. There’s also a rapidly proliferating community of businesses who are wearing the outdoor costume without any semblance of outdoor context (or ethos). One tiny example? On a recent United flight, the plastic-wrapped-in-plastic snack box featured the sporty image of nordic walkers in front of a cascading waterfall.

There’s also significant negative impacts that will result from misunderstanding the roles and intersections of outdoor recreation and conservation. Outdoor recreation is not a find-and-replace term for conservation, nor does it have an instantaneous effect on local conservation – it’s not an Easy Button that takes people from a whiff of fresh air and a fish on the line to service project volunteerism and minting checks to their local Land Trust. It takes more than that, and in the grand scheme of things, the outdoor recreation community has both a huge advantage — as well as an obligation — to embrace the challenge of educating users of all kinds, because …well… we’re closest.

In the same way that the outdoor sector needs all levels of conservation, it also needs all levels of people to make it work, from super-fluent outdoor policy wonks to first day beginners, from national advocacy groups to state OBAs, from federal decision makers to local land managers. The outdoor sector also need to think farther forward on conservation support than the next fiscal year’s line item. For example, while many outdoor recreation groups have listed a commitment to 30 x 30 as a policy priority … how many have thought through what that would look like, exactly, in their part of the sector, or in their part of the world?

So where do we go from here? Is it enough for outdoor recreation communities to better understand the role they play in both supporting and undermining conservation? Is it enough for the conservation community to better understand the role that a potentially intimate ally can play from within a growing and politically popular business sector?

Sometimes, the best thing to come out of throwing outdoor recreation under the bus is the stimulation of a broader conservation.

###

There's an assumption about our psychology in the "recreation encourages conservation” line. I think the truth of this is that we do fight for what we love -- but I also think the question is what are we really fighting for when it comes to conservation? Are most of us fighting for the wild habitat itself or for the experiences we've loved there? Probably more the latter, but for a long time that's been pretty good fuel for conservation. Now though, with greater population pressure it's getting put to the test, and it may no longer really work as the experiences we love are not helping the places we love.  This raises interesting and really challenging questions about limits, access, and how to find the balance between supporting healthy ecosystems and the value for people of being able to get out into those ecosystems. I'm currently thinking more about the power of backyard or intimate "wilderness," and how closer to home relationships with nature through parks, local trails, etc. are going to be key, as is a willingness to dive into questions of equity when it comes to access. (-- Kate Williams, CEO, 1% for the Planet)

The article raises an important flag around the conveniently assumed connection between conservation and recreation – but the problem is not monolithic. Places like the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, where charismatic species abound, serve as ground zero for those tensions. I work in New England where we have a dearth of public lands compared with our western counterparts, combined with large population, development and yes – recreation - pressure. This tension is one of many reasons why my organization, Trust for Public Land, is unique among conservation groups in our focus on raising new public investment and projects that address the glaring inequity in access to close-to-home nature, while also conserving wilder places: more than 100 million Americans, including 27 million children, don't have access to quality parks close to home. One giant data point in support of the theory of change that recreation may *sometimes* equal conservation is the 2020 passage of the Great America Outdoors Act. Passage of this historic, bi-partisan law overcame this polarized time in American history to secure $1.9B over five years for stewardship of public lands, and permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900M per year. This is one of the biggest environmental victories in decades and will meaningfully stem conversion and development of natural lands and waters. Would this have happened without voters on all sides of the aisle falling in love with the outdoors? Probably not. And maybe it even a lights a path toward healing some of our country’s painful divides. One can hope. (-- Shelby Semmes, Trust for Public Lands, Vice President, New England Region).

While the outdoor recreation community and the more traditional environmental community have ideological differences, they share a love of place and a desire to protect the outdoors. Ginning up a fight within the conservation community seems profoundly unproductive in the face of the climate crisis, extractive activities, and the loss of protected land/encroaching development. We share much more in common than we disagree on, and we also have common enemies that benefit greatly when we are distracted by small ideological battles and miss the bigger picture. With so many potential conservation priorities on the horizon, we have a lot we can accomplish together, including protecting 30 percent of our land and water by 2030, investing in climate action, and protecting more public lands. Wilkinson needlessly foments conflict among allies for conservation. Why? Perhaps for two reasons: 1. The outdoor recreation community is a growing political force, and that can feel like a threat to folks who have long wielded a tremendous amount of power in the traditional environmental community. The outdoor community's advocacy has moved a lot of key conservation policy across the finish line in recent years, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the John Dingell Public Lands Package, and the Great American Outdoors Act. There are some who see that as an asset, and some who see it as a threat. 2. As a recreationist himself, Wilkinson understands the powerful connection between people and place. And like many people of his generation, he struggles with seeing his outdoor experiences changing, especially as more people want to get outside. As recreation becomes more popular--and more accessible to people who have been historically excluded from the outdoors--we have a responsibility to build and maintain sustainable outdoor recreation for everyone, rather than tell people they can't get outside.  Finally, I would note that his entire argument that "recreation equals wildlife conservation" is a straw man because I haven't seen anyone arguing that, and I'd encourage him to think about conservation beyond just wildlife preservation. (Tania Lown-Hecht, Communications Director, Outdoor Alliance).

My overall sentiment is that conservation orgs in general have felt that their missions and values are often worn like a costume by many outdoor recreation businesses and outfits. They put on the conservation costume when it serves them but often do not really advance the cause. There are some great companies like Patagonia or Stio who are really trying to narrow this division. But conservation groups are incredibly concerned about trail proliferation, user traffic, “glamping” infrastructure, etc. that is driven only by the dollar and adrenaline pumping experiences versus respect for natural communities and all the benefits they bring to our lives. People spend thousands of dollars on equipment and travel to these places and yet how are they actually investing in the headwaters, forests, deserts, canyons, and mountains that they love so much—especially when we are at a tipping point? The urgency around our accelerating crisis of both species extinction and climate change is what is driving these articles to be emerging at this crucial time (there are a few others that have recently come out). Folks closest to the problem cannot stay quiet anymore. They see the degradation of our forests and waters happening at an alarming rate while they see recreationists biking on trails too early or cutting glades in forests, etc. and they’ve had enough. I think we would all like for a greater marriage between the conservation ethos and outdoor rec. We also need to expand access to people and communities who have not traditionally had access to these places or haven’t felt comfortable in these spaces but we have to balance that with overuse. It is a critical time to be navigating these issues with a tremendous amount of forethought, planning, and consideration of both our natural and human communities. There is a lot to unpack here and it will be an important dialogue today and in the years to come. My sense is that this is just the beginning of a more honest conversation between two groups that have been uncomfortable bedfellows at best. (-- Eve Frankel, The Nature Conservancy, Director of Strategic Communications)

Fundamentally, I believe the premise that people protect what they love, and won't love something they have no experience of remains true. But like all sound bites, distilling this to "recreation encourages conservation" is grossly simplistic. The situation is more nuanced, and those of us involved in conservation and recreation have a huge responsibility to tackle this conversation if we are going to facilitate the kind of thoughtful land use policies we need.  We still have to create spaces for people to develop connections that encourage them to understand their impacts -- from near and far. We can't forget that denying access could also backfire and create a culture that is even further from making changes and sacrifices to stop damaging, extracting and polluting than we are now -- and we are already dangerously removed from the consequences of our actions. An intellectual understanding is insufficient: a visceral appreciation goes much further. Today, I am watching the places I love -- and promote as a professional in the Outdoor Recreation realm – grow in ways that don't really benefit our communities or our ecosystems. And yet, we can't be NIMBYs. If we don't like the way this is unfolding, we have to step up and create systems that guide healthy outcomes. We certainly can't rely on simplistic slogans. We will need to wrestle with the uncomfortable realities that Todd highlights very effectively. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff tends to take generations, and we may only have minutes. (--Karrie Thomas, Executive Director, Northern Forest Canoe Trail)

I still firmly believe that getting people outdoors through recreation is an essential piece of building relationships between humanity and our natural environment. There's a reason why so many conservation groups are both staffed by avid recreationists, and have their own programs to get people out experiencing (and hopefully also helping to clean up, maintain, and otherwise steward) conserved lands. The core theme of our Outdoor Economy Conference this year was "Stewards of Opportunity", exploring how we can be long-term stewards of the opportunities offered by the outdoors. For the outdoor economy to have a net-positive effect on our people and places, it cannot be purely consumptive. We have to find ways to engage both visitors and locals alike more deeply with our outdoor places, help them understand their own impacts on the land and its natural inhabitants, and be empowered to take positive action. Chestnut Mountain Nature Park is a great example of this. It conserves critical wildlife corridors,preserves/improves habitat, and engages people in taking care of their wild places, while also providing an accessible recreational amenity for locals and visitors, and driving economic development for a rural mountain community. It is a game-changer for the town of Canton, NC, and for the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, which championed the project. In this case, recreation certainly equals conservation, and vice-a-versa. I visited a lot of trailheads during my post-Conference vacation last week, and not one of them had 21st-century infrastructure to make it easy to donate money or time to the trails, learn more about our conserved lands, or get involved with local conservation or trail maintenance organizations. The vast majority of people's outdoor experiences are in the front-country, not deep Rocky Mountain Wilderness; they've got cell service and plenty of chances to engage people before and after they hit the trail. If we want to conserve our most wild, remote places, we have to go further "upstream" to connect with folks in the front-country and help them understand what it means to recreate responsibly, and how we can support our wild places. I think there's a lot of room for creative, entrepreneurial work in that arena. (-- Noah Wilson, Organizer, Outdoor Economy Conference; and Director of Sector Development at Mountain BizWorks).

I appreciate the framing of "debunking the myth" of recreation equals conservation as a catchy title and simplified way of arriving at the point. And this reductionist conclusion is not wrong -- to suggest recreation and conservation always go hand-in-hand is indeed false. There are plenty of examples of recreation leading to detrimental outcomes for the environment. My most recent trip to Moab, a place I've been to several times over the past two decades, clearly underscored for me the damage that can be done.  But I also worry about any approach suggesting all outdoor recreation is equal -- a singletrack trail through the woods has a different environmental footprint then, say, the sort of 'glamping' resort proposed on the Gallatin. My strong point of view, and one that VMBA is generally taking as we consider future trail projects, is that we need to assess the net impact of any new recreational asset. Trails, and the surrounding infrastructure, have impacts – positive and negative. We have to accept and understand what is on both sides of the ledger when we consider whether and how to embark on a new project. And the impacts of a trail on land already in use for recreation, say for hunting or forestry, versus lands that are truly untouched are very different. We understand that there are areas that should remain 'trail-less', though also that we need more trails and, in Vermont especially, ways to sustainably enable 'backcountry experiences' on two-wheels. As a clear example where recreation directly promotes conservation, I would consider the Velomont Trail, which seeks to conserve up to 214,000 acres of land as part of the effort to construct a 70% singletrack corridor from Massachusetts to Canada. These would be newly protected lands that would previously have been open to development, and the paired conservation vision is why the Trust for Public Land is a partner in the Velomont effort. I also think we should be careful to dismiss the idea that outdoor recreation promotes and appreciation for and desire to preserve & protect the outdoors. That idea was a driving force behind my decision to leave environmental sustainability consulting and take the helm at VMBA. I believe connecting folks with the outdoors is a critical piece of protecting our future in the woods and engendering an appreciation for even broader issues like climate change. (--Nick Bennette, Executive Director, Vermont Mountain Bike Association).

My reaction to this article is a mixed one. The author has some very valid points and some points I would push back on. While this article basically states that Recreational Engagement does not spur a valuable Conservation ethic, I can speak specifically to some examples where it has. The work done around trying to stop the Twin Metals Mine in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area has been directly influenced by tapping the voices of the huge amount of people who recreate in that space and has nearly stopped the mining effort. Yet there is no doubt that those folks recreating in that place are also a threat to that space as well, but most certainly the lesser of two evils. Here in the city of Duluth, we have over 17,000 acres of undeveloped land. Most of it is not protected from development. Something The Minnesota Land Trust has been trying to change for nearly a decade. As a Community we utilized recreation to engage our Citizens around valuing these spaces and it worked. Spaces that were forgotten and neglected were transformed into valued recreational spaces. Straight off some were protected — however many were not, and it was crazy how fast houses started going up near the trails themselves. It was quickly realized that working with the City on making sure the land was protected was a priority, and we are having success with that as we can now call in our user groups, our City Parks and outdoorsy neighbors to rally and protect what a decade earlier most considered trash land.  While it is not Yellowstone, its impacting in a positive way of life for Duluthians every day. Recreation is most certainly consumptive and the only way to balance that threat out is for effective and well resourced land management. A lot of the conflict in the article focuses on are the two big W's. The Western experience — the idea of “West is the Best" has been sold so long and so convincingly that it's finally catching that region, meanwhile much of the rest of the US is still enjoying amazing, authentic recreational experiences with nobody around.  The articles also focuses on Wilderness and the idea of "Un-wilding" and I think its important to note that much of Conservation in the United States is not just focused on Wilderness with a Capitol W.  Conservation also focused on other Natural spaces as well.  Granted they are not the untouched ecosystem the author speaks to in Yellowstone, but in the idea of engaging people in needed to get involved to protect a place like Yellowstone they matter a lot.  The idea that people dont belong in Wilderness, or "Un-wilding" to me is an outmoded construct, because as we know, long before Europeans arrived on the continent, Native Americans existed in harmony with Wilderness for millenia. As media and marketers, we don't have to sell the idea of going outside so hard and in a manner that is so consumptive. That brand of marketing is an industry achilles heel.  The suffering, brave, elite white guy dealing with adversity and challenge to get to his "Stoke" is what's killing us. It promotes consumption. It could be about folks seeing a butterfly for the first time, or taking a walk. We have sold recreation as consumptive and we don't have to. Places like Minnesota and Vermont should heed the warning we see from our Western partners and the way they have marketed themselves and the lifestyle they present. It can definitely be oversold and the idea that we could or should throttle back — you dont need to be on a "Best Places to Live” list and that maybe you should stay under the radar is a valid one. ( – Hansi Johnson, Director of Recreational Lands, Minnesota Land Trust).

I'm not sure if I buy it—yet. Bozeman, Bend, Moab, Park City, Jackson... these places are problems, for sure, but I attribute much of that to industry navel-gazing by companies,  outdoor types and conservation groups that don't realize how much recreation is to be had by avoiding those A-List destinations and their A-list wildlife species. I do agree with one thing though: I never liked the idea of benefits to the "Outdoor industry" being measured entirely in economic terms, and how many millions are contributed to our GNP or whatever. The true value of a wilderness area is certainly not measured by the amount of money we spend on gear to visit one. (– Tom Bie, Editor, The Drake)