Visitor spending in and near national parks contributed to the U.S. economy at a record high level last year.

Grand Teton is one park looking at how to manage increasing visitation. Lodging, meals and other 2023 visitor spending in communities near national parks contributed more than $55 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 400,000 jobs, according to the National Park Service. Grand Teton National Park ranks fifth for visitor spending, at nearly $750 million. The park said visitor numbers are increasing and the trend is expected to continue.

Jennifer Newton, social scientist at Grand Teton National Park, said they have been collecting public comments this summer.

"We're really at a phase and a point where we're interested in getting public feedback on what our desired conditions are in the park and what we should be managing for," Newton explained.

After some fluctuations during the pandemic, Newton pointed out visitation rates in 2023 were similar to 2019, though how and when those visitors used the park shifted. According to a July report, 43% agreed Grand Teton National Park was "too crowded."

The visitor spending report also tallies the labor income, value-added and economic output based on each national park and each state. Wyoming ranks high in several of these categories. Newton noted the information is helpful at the local, regional and federal levels.

"That's really helpful whenever you think about things, too, like for every dollar that Congress invests in national parks, there is a greater than $10 return on that investment," Newton emphasized.

In the 2025 federal budget, the Biden administration requested $3.6 billion for the National Park Service, an increase of more than $250 million from the 2024 budget.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for public lands access are raising alarms about a lawsuit that could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Utah has filed a suit arguing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is holding about 18.5 million acres of land in the state unconstitutionally, saying it can't keep unappropriated land in perpetuity.

Idaho and twelve other states have joined the suit. They say federally controlled land should be transferred to states.

But Executive Director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, Nick Fasciano, said that would be disastrous for public lands and the people who use them.

"State ownership of land at this scale is a direct path to privatization," said Fasciano. "State budgets do not have the capacity to manage lands at enormous scale like this without selling it off. Idaho has a constitutional mandate to maximize the financial return of the land under its management."

The U.S. Justice Department said Utah's claims are "without merit" in a brief filed with the Supreme Court.

The BLM manages nearly 12 million acres of land in Idaho.

Outdoor recreation has been increasing in Idaho, adding nearly $4 million to the economy in 2023.

Fasciano said hunters, anglers, and other recreationists fear privatization will mean they're cut off from access to public lands.

But he noted that when Congress tried to transfer public lands to states in 2017, there was an overwhelming response from the hunting community and the legislation was dropped.

"Hunters," said Fasciano, "we spend so much of our lives on public lands that we're very invested in these things continuing to be open and public, and prepared to get pretty loud in opposition to this sort of idea."

Fasciano said public input on how lands would be managed could be reduced if the state is in charge as well.

"The federal government has the ability to hold lands in perpetuity and has the financial capability to manage them," said Fasciano. "The state does not. And so, it's not a question of local versus federal management. It's a question of whether or not these are open and accessible to the public and available for habitat for wildlife or if they're not. And that's the big fear."




get more stories like this via email

Members of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance are supporting two moratoriums on concentrated animal feeding operations to be voted on today by the Arkansas Administrative Rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council.

Concentrated animal feeding operations are large agriculture facilities which keep animals confined in small spaces.

Gordon Watkins, president of the alliance, said Regulations 5 and 6 include a moratorium on swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the watershed, but Regulation 5 does not include adequate public notification requirements. He pointed out the regulation only requires a request for a permit be posted on the Department of Agriculture website.

"If someone wants to put a 10,000-animal hog-confinement facility next door to you, you'd probably like to know about that," Watkins contended. "Secondly, in order to oppose a permit -- legally -- it's a 30-day comment period, and unless you submit comments on it, you do not have standing to legally challenge a permit."

He acknowledged Regulation 6 has stronger notification requirements which include notifying nearby landowners, publishing the permit request in the local newspaper and contacting school superintendents within a 10-mile radius of the proposed facility.

The last concentrated animal feeding operation allowed near the Buffalo National River, C and H Swine, was shut down in 2019. Watkins added he is a farmer but feels the area needs to be protected.

"It's the first National River ever created in the country. It's also a state icon," Watkins stressed. "If you look at any of the literature, put out by the department of tourism to promote the state, you'll see images from the Buffalo National River. It's an economic engine to some of the poorest counties in the state."

It was discovered in 2018 the C and H swine operation contaminated the water quality in Big Creek and the Buffalo River. Today's meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m.


get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: In the second paragraph, the term "mature forests" was replaced with language to more accurately describe the lands connected to the provided stastic. (1:53 p.m. CST, Oct. 30, 2024)

Did you check out fall colors in Wisconsin this month and wonder how old the trees are? There is a chance they are not in what's known as an "old-growth forest."

Regional voices are weighing in on a federal plan to expand these lands, to tap into their benefits. The U.S. Forest Service has gathered public input on a proposed National Old Growth Amendment, with a priority to conserve and restore these characteristics on federal lands. Only 17% of the acres within federally managed forest land falls under the category.

Jeff Niese, a Wisconsin-based forestry consultant, supports expanding the acreage, describing it as an underrepresented landscape in the Badger State.

"Foresters have a long-range perspective on managing ecosystems, not just trees," Niese explained. "We have a better concept of what we started with if we have saved all the pieces in some of our forest ecosystems and types."

Such pieces can include standing dead trees and multilayered canopies. Conservation advocates said they set the tone for more biological diversity and carbon sequestration. The amendment is expected to emphasize local solutions and Niese hopes the final plan sets aside some parcels of land where nature is in charge of the management, aside from forest supervisors. He cautioned political and economic factors can complicate efforts.

The initiative also strives to be more inclusive of tribal leaders.

Jason Schlender, executive administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, sees promise in having a bigger voice.

"If it's to support wild rice restoration, or if it's to assist with deer populations, those are things that we can do based on research and based on knowledge transferred to us from an Indigenous perspective," Schlender emphasized.

As The Pew Charitable Trusts has pointed out, Schlender stressed climate change poses a threat to old-growth forests. Pew officials say among other things, the final plan should articulate a framework for establishing future generations of old-growth forests. Even in places where logging is no longer a primary threat, skeptics suggest the Forest Service has not placed enough scrutiny on the timber industry.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.


get more stories like this via email