28 TH E's A UsD.0. B OuN BU Ui tae 
AN OUTDOOR RECREATION PROGRAM 
It would cost approximately $200 million to relieve some of the existing 
deficiencies and meet 1970 State recreation needs. This $200 million could 
be divided into $100 million for acquisition of 200,000 acres of land at $500/ 
acre, and $100 million for facility development. If this program were beyond 
the State’s fiscal resources, at least one-third of it or approximately $62.5 
million could relieve 50% of the land deficiency and 12.5% of the facility 
deficiency by 1970. This $62.5 million could be obtained by a variety of means 
which would yield approximately $12.5 million each year. 
The 4:1 proportion of land acquisition to facility development and the 
462.5 million, five-year action program is based on studies by our Depart- 
ment. This program could be expanded to $100 million with the use of exist- 
ing and future sources of Federal funds for the planning, acquisition and 
development of recreation lands. These Federal aids include: The Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, HHFA Open Space Program, Dingell-Johnson/ Pitt- 
man-Robertson Funds, Accelerated Public Works Program, Small Watershed 
Program and possibly new sources of aid to be developed in President John- 
son’s Great Society Program. A $100 million bond issue could also do the 
same job. 
If a $100 million program could be implemented by 1970, it would solve 
only one-third of the need. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commis- 
sion Report indicates a six-fold increase in outdoor recreation demand from 
1960 to 2000. This is based on a doubling of the population and tripling of 
leisure time. We face a possible 600% increase in outdoor recreation demand 
by the year 2000. In light of these projections, it is obvious that Illinois will 
continue to fall farther behind at an even faster rate unless a bold and dra- 
matic attempt is made now. 
These needs can and must be met at all levels of government and with 
the help of the private sector. Recreation is a government responsibility no 
less than health, education, transportation or public safety. The State can 
and should play a pivotal role in providing recreation opportunities for its 
residents and visitors, but it cannot do the entire job. The time is long over- 
due for local units of government to undertake what they can and should do 
themselves. The State has no more responsibility for providing local play- 
grounds or golf courses than local units of government have to provide ex- 
tensive hunting, fishing or camping opportunities. Each level of government 
has its share in the enormous task ahead. The State cannot perform its mis- 
sion effectively if it assumes the financial and administrative responsibility 
of local units of government. 
Beyond the provision of land and facilities lies the challenge for meaning- 
ful programs to accommodate recreation demands. The essence of a compre- ~ 
hensive outdoor recreation program is the widest possible range of opportuni- 
ties. Although user preferences can be implied by the number of participants 
in a given activity, the availability of facilities or areas for various activities 
is also important in determining their popularity. For example, while nature 
study, hiking and horseback riding usually rank among the lowest in number of 
users or visits, this is no indication of their lack of potential popularity. It 
may indicate a lack of opportunity or programs to promote these activities. 
We must provide for all types of activities, and not just concentrate on those 
which appear popular. This approach, in addition to opening new recreation 
horizons, can also distribute the pressures now concentrated in a relatively 
narrow range of activities and seasons. 
