REI: Guilt by Association?
by Brooke Coleman
Bluewater Network

Click here for REI's Response and Bluewater's Follow-up Response

Michael Collins, REI's Manager of Public Affairs, accuses Bluewater Network of "falsely associating" REI with companies that profit from motorized recreation, and of falsely accusing REI of funding special interest groups that promote it.

Bluewater asked Collins to explain REI's collaboration with organizations and legislators tied to the "wise-use" movement, developers that support privatizing and commercializing our public lands, motorized recreation interests who, like REI, want to charge for public wilderness access. These are ideas of the Recreation Roundtable, an arm of the "wise-use" group American Recreation Coalition (ARC), of which REI is a member. "We support the concept of user-fees," emphasized Collins, "but the rest is guilt by association and not deed."

Collins claims harmless association with those he wants REI to be disassociated from, while Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), the National Forest Recreation Association, and ARC propose the "National Forest Recreation Site Enhancement and Management Act" which calls for the Forest Service "to encourage private-sector investment, construction and operation of forest-based lodges, resorts, marinas, riding stables, campgrounds, and stores." The Forest Service's Chief Operating Officer, Francis Pandolfi, helped rewrite the Forest Service's mission from "steward" of natural resources to "provider" of the recreational experience. Pandolfi is a former Chairman of the Recreation Roundtable.

While industry supports funding cuts and subsidized logging and mining, the Recreation Roundtable points to the need for budget increases. Budget increases, said a Roundtable letter to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, signed by REI CEO Wally Smith, must be implemented "at minimum - by the same percentage that the National Recreation Program is increased." The National Recreation Program means publicprivate partnerships.

This is, in practice, a subsidy program that gouges the public, discounts small businesses, local residents, and conservationists, and benefits corporate giants. When the Forest Service rolls out a plan to "provide concessioners and lending institutions with incentives to invest in improvements on the national forests," vehicle and fuel corporations, developers, entertainment firms, blue ribbon groups (and REI) will be waiting. Incentives? That's where resorts, hotels, mini-marts, retail stores, and off-road compromises come in.

Bluewater asked Collins if REI opposes ARC's motorized agenda, the Recreation Roundtable's direct affiliation with wise-use groups, or the commercial plans of roundtable members. His reply? "The Recreation Roundtable is not the forum to criticize motorized recreation, commercialization, or its supporters." Collins refused to condemn any proposed form of excessive privatization, commercialization or motorization in wilderness areas.

Presumably, Collins did not want to jeopardize REI's co-sponsorship (with ARC) of other projects, such as the Continental Divide Trail. Because it traverses National Parks, wilderness areas, and private property, in 1978 Congress designated this trail for hiking. But the Forest Service recently re-designated up to 1,000 miles for motorized traffic. ARC is lobbying for parallel trails for all-terrain vehicles. "You can't ignore motorized," proclaimed Derrick Crandall, President of ARC and Chairman of the Recreation Roundtable.

If REI is not a player, and supports only the concept of user fees, it would have little incentive to spend resources lobbying or marketing the fee program. So has it? "Not to my knowledge," Collins said.

Crandall contradicts Collins: "... the American Recreation Coalition and the Recreation Roundtable ... have invested heavily in staff and member time in helping the federal agencies covered by the fee demonstration program with project-level and national support and advice on sound fee programs… [and] arranged for top marketing and communications executives from Disney, REI and other companies to work with the Enterprise Forest fee team in the design and implementation of that project." (Congressional Hearing on Forest Fees, 2/26/98)

REI might see an opportunity to join with Blue Ribbon Coalition and ARC members such as Disney, knit itself into wilderness management policies, attract people to its stores to buy required Adventure Passes, and conveniently afford itself increased visibility and the inside track on store-front opportunities in our forests.

REI may not directly fund special interest groups. And it only indirectly profits from off-roaders who happen to buy REI equipment while purchasing Trail Passes at REI stores - on their way to public lands.

But it collaborates with wise-use groups with destructive agendas, supports profit-based policies that privatize and jeopardize our public lands at our expense, and expends company time lobbying for and marketing this agenda.

REI-sponsored "Adventures" may cover tracks in the wilderness to minimize impact. REI executives, however, have learned how to cover their tracks with the purpose of making an impact.

What you can do: Tell Collins [(253) 395-5956] and REI's board <board@rei.com> that REI should lobby Congress to stop cutting funds, and condemn ecologically destructive agendas, instead of profiting from them. REI members, please act!

For more info, contact Bluewater Network:

Write: 300 Broadway, Suite 28, San Francisco, CA 94133
Phone: (415) 788-3666 x149
E-mail: <bluewater@earthisland.org>
Surf: www.earthisland.org/bw