34 



plaud my colleagues in their efforts to do so from concessioners in 

 such a way as to inure to the benefit of the park visitor and to the 

 parks, that they can meet some of the growing expenses they face 

 with providing the recreational and other park experiences, Forest 

 Service experiences, Corps of Engineer experiences, that are nec- 

 essary. And I, you know, am fully prepared to try and do that, at 

 the same time trying to reform an Act. 



It seems to me one of the problems is that we have discovered 

 that selling off parts of the parks even for the good purpose of pro- 

 viding concessions, and I would, you know, obviously testify to the 

 fact and recognize the fact that some of the concessioners were 

 there before the parks, and the function is absolutely essential. 

 There is a private service role but not on the basis on conveying. 



I think the mistakes made in 1965 ought not now to be 

 compounded. And so we need to I think, Mr. Chairman and the 

 members of the panel, find a way to provide and extinguish that 

 particular possessory interest so that we don't develop that t5^e of 

 inholding problem. 



The amounts of money here when you compare, no matter the 

 good intentions, are rather small. The amount of flexibility the 

 Park Service had and other agencies have is apparently of some 

 concern. You want to provide guidance. The guidance provided in 

 1965 was pretty good except we ought not to repeat the mistakes. 

 I obviously have used up my time. 



Mr. Hansen. Does the gentleman require an additional couple of 

 minutes? 



Mr. Vento. Well, no. I just wanted to convey the concern. I think 

 we are very close to a solution. I would look to see if we can raise 

 the dollars that are necessary. I think also we ought to try and em- 

 phasize the development outside the parks and outside the Forest 

 Service areas where it is at all feasible. 



This only ought to be done when it is not feasible to do so out- 

 side, and obviously that benefits the communities in and around 

 parks and around forests. It provides development in more of an 

 organized community type of setting, and I think we would be far 

 better off — and, as you know, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned 

 about the housing type of policy path that is in parks. And I think 

 the same holds true for that. 



I think we have got to recognize we are moving into the next cen- 

 tury, that, in fact, of course, many things that were not likely when 

 the park system and the Forest Service began offering services are 

 now able to be operated in a private way. 



I guess the question is if we continue to, in fact, accord pref- 

 erential treatment to those — I don't mean that in the legal sense 

 of the word that we were talking about, the park cap — but if we 

 end up giving preferential incentives, then you obviously discour- 

 age the development in the communities around. 



Of course, this ultimately we know today results in a little more 

 fragmentation, even for the best of intentions of that landscape, 

 whether it be park, whether it be cultural, whether it be natural, 

 the forest, or these other resources. So, Mr. Chairman, I look for- 

 ward to working with you on this. I think we go down the road. 

 We have had some elements here working together on many of 



