Public Land Sell-Off Proposal: Impacts on RV Parks and Outdoor Recreation Industries

2328 Business Center Cir - Two Rivers Landing RV Resort Sevierville, TN 37876 - Great Smoky Mountains

A controversial federal land divestiture initiative has emerged in the U.S. Senate’s budget reconciliation process, led by Senator Mike Lee. The proposal would mandate the sale of 0.5% to 0.75% of U.S. Forest Service and Department of Interior lands across 11 Western states – roughly 2 to 3 million acres in total. The targeted states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Notably, the measure comes with no guarantee that the public will retain access to these lands after they’re sold. In effect, some of America’s most cherished outdoor spaces could transition to private ownership, potentially eliminating recreational access for RVers, campers, and outdoor enthusiasts. This proposal is framed as a way to address housing shortages by freeing land for development. but it has sparked broad concern about unintended consequences for the outdoor recreation economy. Even though a Senate parliamentarian has flagged the provision as a violation of budget rules – putting its immediate enactment in doubt– investors are wise to consider the scenario’s implications. This briefing provides an analytical look at the potential business impacts of such public land sales on the RV industry and adjacent sectors (glamping, private campgrounds, outdoor gear rentals), focusing on accessibility, tourism flows, local economies, asset values, and strategic considerations for investors.

Overview of the Proposed Land Divestiture

The budget reconciliation proposal originating from the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee (chaired by Sen. Lee) seeks to dispose of a fraction of federal lands to private hands. By the numbers, between 2 and 3 million acres of federal public land would be put up for auction over five years. Eligible lands would be drawn from a pool of roughly 258 million acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holdings spread across the Western states. For context, this would be the largest mandated public lands sell-off in modern U.S. history – “unprecedented in many ways,” according to public lands experts. The stated rationale is to increase land available for housing development, ostensibly to ease the housing crisis in high-growth areas of the West Indeed, a one-page Senate summary claims that using a “fraction of 1%” of federal land for homes would create jobs, help Americans achieve homeownership, and even raise revenues to fund public lands.

However, critics note the absence of any affordability requirement in the legislation, warning that the outcome could be luxury “trophy homes and gated communities” rather than relief for middle-class housing shortages. The proposal also sidesteps established land management processes – it would fast-track sales by requiring identification of tracts within 30 days of enactment and continuous offerings every 60 days until the quota is met. Importantly for recreation stakeholders, national parks, monuments, and congressionally designated recreation areas are exempted from sale in this plan. The acreage would likely come from other BLM and national forest lands, potentially near the fringes of communities or lesser-known parcels. Senator Lee even signaled a revision to exclude U.S. Forest Service tracts entirely and limit BLM sales to lands within 5 miles of population centers– an attempt to allay fears of losing remote wildlands. Nonetheless, even peripheral public lands often host trails, campgrounds or serve as gateways to bigger attractions, so the risk to outdoor recreation remains. And without explicit protections, once these lands are in private ownership, public access can be legally restricted or cut off altogether.

Public Lands as a Pillar of the Outdoor Recreation Economy

To appreciate the business impacts, it’s crucial to recognize how integral public lands are to the outdoor recreation economy. America’s public lands – national parks, forests, BLM ranges, and more – have become a backbone for tourism, adventure travel, and associated industries. In 2023, the outdoor recreation sector contributed around $640 billion to U.S. GDP, roughly 2.3% of the economy. This makes outdoor recreation larger than the oil and gas industry and even the entire auto manufacturing sector in economic terms. It also sustains approximately 5 million jobs nationwide. A huge portion of this activity occurs on federally managed lands. For example, visits to national forests and grasslands in 2021 generated $11 billion in spending and over 160,000 jobs, while recreation on BLM lands contributed another $11 billion in output supporting 76,000 jobs. National park visitors, in turn, spent $26.4 billion in 2023, supporting over 415,000 jobs (mostly in gateway communities). These figures underscore a simple truth: public lands draw tourists and outdoor enthusiasts at scale, driving revenue for a wide array of businesses – from RV parks and hotels to gear outfitters and guide services.

Crucially, the benefits of public lands extend beyond direct tourism dollars. Studies show that communities adjacent to protected public lands experience faster population and employment growth than those without such amenities. Recreation opportunities act as magnets for talent and new residents, and they help diversify rural economies that might otherwise rely on volatile extractive industries. In short, public lands are an asset that bolsters local prosperity and small businesses. As the RV Industry Association puts it, public lands “power outdoor recreation and support thousands of small businesses, RV campgrounds and livelihoods nationwide”. Any significant reduction in publicly accessible land is therefore likely to ripple across the outdoor recreation value chain.

Risks to Accessibility and Tourism Flows

A primary concern for the RV and camping sectors is loss of accessibility. The divestiture of up to 3 million acres could mean that many currently open campgrounds, dispersed camping areas, trailheads, and recreation sites become off-limits unless new owners voluntarily keep them open. The proposal explicitly does not ensure continued public access after sale. For outdoor tourism, this presents an immediate risk: fewer destinations and diminished route options for travelers. RV owners, in particular, depend on a network of public campgrounds and open lands for trip planning – from national forest campsites to BLM deserts where free “boondocking” (dispersed camping) is allowed. If even a fraction of these options vanish, it can compress visitor flows into a smaller set of remaining public areas or private campgrounds.

One likely outcome is overcrowding and strain on the sites that remain public. Popular national parks and remaining forest campsites could see even greater demand, especially if nearby alternatives are privatized. Overcrowding tends to degrade visitor experience and can prompt land managers to impose new restrictions (caps on entries, permit requirements, etc.), further limiting access. On the other hand, many travelers might simply shorten or alter their trips – for example, skipping an area entirely if they cannot easily find a place to stay with their RV. This translates to lost tourism revenue for that region. We have a dramatic parallel in the 2013 federal government shutdown, when all national parks closed for 16 days: an estimated 8 million fewer visits occurred, and $414 million in visitor spending was lost in gateway communities during that brief period. In our scenario, the land sales would be permanent (or at least long-term), meaning the lost recreation visits – and the associated spending on fuel, food, lodging, and recreation services – could be an annual loss that compounds over time. Entire travel routes or traditions (like snowbirds camping on BLM land in the Southwest each winter) might be curtailed. For the broader hospitality industry, this implies fewer travelers moving through certain corridors, affecting everything from rural gas stations to motels and outfitters that rely on seasonal tourist traffic.

Another subtler risk is the perception and planning uncertainty that reduced public land access creates. International and domestic tourists may view the Western U.S. as a less predictable destination if iconic open landscapes are sprinkled with “No Trespassing” signs or if news of land sell-offs generates uncertainty about what is accessible. Tour operators and travel agents could be hesitant to promote certain areas that might lose their protected status. In sum, the proposal threatens to constrain the very openness and freedom that underpin the American outdoor travel experience, potentially dampening tourism flows across multiple states.

RV Industry Impact Analysis

The RV industry – encompassing manufacturers, dealers, rental fleets, and the vast ecosystem of RV campgrounds – is highly sensitive to the availability of attractive places to camp and explore. RV travel is fundamentally about mobility and access to nature; thus, a large-scale reduction in public land access poses a direct challenge to the industry’s growth trajectory.

Demand for RVs and Rentals: In recent years, RV sales and rentals have surged as more Americans seek outdoor vacations and road trips. A significant driver of this demand is the promise of adventure in national parks, forests, and wide-open BLM lands. If public lands become scarcer or more crowded, the perceived value of owning an RV could decline. Prospective RV buyers might second-guess the investment if they worry that their favorite dispersed camping spot or that quiet national forest campground may no longer be available. Rental RV companies could similarly see softer demand in regions where itinerary options narrow. While die-hard enthusiasts may adapt and seek out the remaining havens, casual travelers – especially younger, new market entrants – could pivot to other types of vacations if the hassle or cost of finding camping accommodations rises.

RV Campgrounds and Parks: Paradoxically, private RV campgrounds might experience a short-term boost in business if dispersed camping on public lands is curtailed. With fewer free or low-cost camping options, more travelers could funnel into private parks, driving up occupancy. This increased demand might allow campground operators to raise rates or invest in expansion. For example, a private campground near a formerly accessible BLM area might become the only game in town for overnight stays, effectively capturing business that used to be spread across many informal campsites. From an investor standpoint, one could see a scenario where revenues at well-located private campgrounds increase due to this supply contraction in camping real estate.

However, any gains for private campgrounds are not guaranteed to be sustainable. Overall RV travel volume might decline if a subset of travelers simply stop coming due to lost wilderness access. Private campgrounds also often benefit from their proximity to public attractions – for instance, an RV park just outside a national forest relies on the forest’s trails, lakes, or scenery to attract guests. If those public lands were sold and developed (say into a housing subdivision), the campground loses much of its appeal. Over time, the lack of diverse and scenic destinations could shrink the total market of RV travelers, offsetting the bump in demand captured from displaced campers. Moreover, private campground operators may need to shoulder new costs (and risks) to keep customers satisfied – such as providing more on-site amenities or security – if campers can no longer disperse into the surrounding nature on their own. The RV Industry Association and RV Dealers Association have taken note of these risks, actively advocating for public land protections on the grounds that outdoor recreation access “supports thousands of small businesses, RV campgrounds and livelihoods” across the country.

RV Supply Chain and Ancillary Services: If reduced land access leads to fewer RV trips or purchases, the ripple will be felt in ancillary sectors. RV maintenance and service providers could see less demand if rigs are being used less frequently. Companies supplying parts, accessories (like off-grid camping gear), and aftermarket products might also sell less if the appeal of remote camping wanes. On the flip side, if public campsites become limited, RVers might invest in products that extend their self-sufficiency in fewer sites (for instance, more generators, solar panels, or water storage for longer stays in limited areas). From an investment perspective, it’s important to analyze which segments of the RV market could remain resilient (e.g. luxury RV resorts or long-term seasonal parks might thrive if transient touring declines) and which segments are most at risk (e.g. off-road RV and overlanding gear companies could struggle if BLM off-road areas are closed off).

Glamping and Private Outdoor Hospitality

The burgeoning glamping industry – from high-end canvas tent resorts to treehouses and adventure cabins – faces parallel challenges. Glamping enterprises trade on offering the beauty of nature with a touch of comfort. Many glamping sites are deliberately sited near iconic public lands, allowing guests to enjoy amenities on private property while adventuring in adjacent federal lands by day. With significant land divestitures, glamping operators may find their unique selling proposition undercut. For example, a glamping campground overlooking a pristine national forest valley could find that same valley slated for private sale and eventual development, marring the view and appeal. If formerly public trailheads adjacent to a glamping resort are closed, the marketability of those $300-per-night tents and cabins diminishes.

Investors in outdoor hospitality real estate should consider the site-specific exposure of each asset to public land access. Some properties might lose value if the public land next door is no longer a protected playground. Even if the land remains undeveloped post-sale, new owners might restrict entry or charge fees that dissuade visitors, effectively reducing the glamping site’s appeal. In short, the scarcity that makes certain glamping locations special could be eroded by privatization. This risk complicates valuation and future cash flow projections for projects that are banking on their natural surroundings to drive occupancy.

For private campgrounds and outdoor adventure resorts more broadly, similar dynamics apply. These businesses often rely on public infrastructure and attractions (like maintained trails, boat ramps, scenic drives) to enhance their guest experience. If public agencies lose land or budget (since the sale’s logic is to generate revenue, agencies might actually see some one-time funds, but potentially less land to manage), the quality of outdoor recreation infrastructure could decline. Private operators might need to invest in creating their own trails or amenities on-site, raising capital expenditure needs. In extreme cases, some may relocate or shift their focus to regions with more secure public land status. From an investment standpoint, due diligence should include an assessment of how dependent a hospitality asset’s business model is on adjacent public lands and whether those lands are among the types potentially earmarked for “disposal.”

Outdoor Gear, Outfitters, and Recreation Services

Beyond accommodations, a host of outdoor recreation service providers stand to be affected. These include companies renting RVs, campervans, and camping gear; outfitters offering guided trips (rafting, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking); and even retail gear shops in gateway towns. Their fortunes rise and fall with the number of people engaging in outdoor activities on public lands. If access is constrained, fewer customers may need to rent gear or hire guides in the affected regions. For instance, if a cluster of popular BLM off-roading trails is sold off, ATV/UTV rental companies in the nearest town will see a drop in business. Similarly, a guide service for backcountry skiing or mountain biking could lose key routes that have been a draw for clients, forcing them to either find new locales (not always easy or as appealing) or shut down.

It’s worth noting that public lands have enabled a proliferation of small outfitting businesses because entrepreneurs typically just need a permit and passion for the outdoors to start offering trips. Privatization introduces new barriers to entry and costs – a private landowner might charge hefty fees for commercial access, or simply not allow it, squeezing out small operators. This could lead to consolidation in the guide industry, where only larger companies that can purchase land access rights survive. For outdoor gear manufacturers and retailers, any decline in outdoor participation in the West translates to softer sales. Fewer camping trips might mean fewer tents, hiking boots, fishing rods, or kayaks sold. Big brands monitor participation rates closely, and a policy change that makes outdoor recreation less convenient is a red flag for future growth.

On the other hand, gear and service providers could adapt by shifting focus to remaining public venues or diversifying their offerings. If certain national forests or BLM areas become off-limits, outfitters might concentrate on national parks or state parks (though these often have more competition and stricter regulations). Some gear rental businesses could pivot to cater to more urban “staycation” experiences or shorter trips, but these likely don’t replace the revenue from multi-day wilderness expeditions. For investors in outdoor recreation companies, the key is to evaluate geographic and operational diversification. Firms with a broad footprint across many locations (and those not solely tied to Western federal lands) will be better positioned to weather localized access losses. Additionally, companies that can quickly forge partnerships – say, negotiating access on private lands or developing experiences on ranches and preserves – might turn a challenge into an opportunity, albeit with different economics (access fees will cut into margins).

Regional Hospitality and Land-Use Economics

At a regional level, the economic ripple effects of public land sales could be significant. Many Western communities have intertwined their development strategies with the presence of nearby public lands – a concept sometimes called “amenity-based” economic development. Hotels, restaurants, tour companies, and real estate in these areas derive value from scenic and recreational open space. A sudden contraction of public land can change the calculus on several fronts:

• Tourism and Local Businesses: Fewer visitors mean lower occupancy for hotels and campgrounds, reduced diner traffic at restaurants, and leaner sales for local retailers. A town that normally thrived as a gateway to a national forest may see fewer tourism dollars circulating, leading to job cuts and even business closures. Public lands are widely recognized as economic engines for localities – the National Park Service reports that national park tourism generates over $55 billion annually and supports 415,000+ jobs in local economies. While the lands in question for divestiture are not national parks, many are part of the same tourist ecosystem that feeds visitors into communities. Even a partial loss of that engine can stall a local economy.

• Tax Base and Infrastructure: Declines in tourism and outdoor recreation activity can shrink the tax base (less sales and lodging tax revenue for counties). This can strain local government budgets, ironically just as new development on former public lands might demand more infrastructure (roads, utilities) and services. In other words, communities could face the double bind of new costs to support incoming private developments while losing revenue from declining tourism. Investors with hospitality assets should model these community-level impacts, as a weakened local economy can hurt the profitability of individual businesses and property values.

• Adjacent Land Values: The value of private lands that remain adjacent to now-privatized former public lands could move in different directions depending on the new use. If a former forest is sold and subdivided into high-end home lots, the remaining private land nearby might actually see a speculative rise in value for similar residential development, but likely at the expense of its recreation/tourism value. Conversely, if a parcel known for its pristine environment is privatized and perhaps exploited for mining, drilling, or intensive logging (uses that were previously off-limits under federal management), the environmental degradation could depress the value of neighboring lands – nobody wants to build a resort next to an open pit mine or clear-cut. This unpredictability complicates land-use economics for investors: one must weigh the potential for real estate development gains against the potential loss of natural amenity value. It also raises the question of long-term sustainability – a quick flip to residential use might yield profits for some developers, but if it erodes the natural attractions of a region, it could undermine other sectors permanently.

• Resource Industries vs. Recreation: In some cases, the buyers of divested lands could be resource extraction companies (if the lands have oil, gas, timber, or mineral value). While the reconciliation bill’s stated intent is housing, once lands are on the auction block, they could end up with any number of uses. An increase in extractive activity often conflicts with recreation and tourism. For example, increased drilling on former BLM lands could deter anglers, hunters, or hikers due to industrial noise and pollution, again affecting businesses that serve those recreationists. Public lands have historically provided a balance of uses (recreation, grazing, resource extraction under permits) managed by agencies; full privatization tips that balance toward whichever use yields the highest private profit, which may not align with outdoor recreation. This shift in land use priorities could rewrite the economic makeup of some Western regions – from recreation hubs back to resource towns – which carries investment implications depending on which side of that equation one is on.

  
  

Implications for Asset Valuation and Investment Feasibility

From an investor’s lens, the prospect of reduced public land access introduces new risk factors into asset valuation and project feasibility in the outdoor sector. Key implications include:

• Impaired Asset Revenues: Assets like RV parks, marinas, hotels, or attractions that derive a significant portion of demand from nearby public lands may face revenue declines if those lands are sold. This lowers projected cash flows, directly impacting asset valuations. For example, a campground that previously enjoyed steady occupancy due to its location next to a popular national forest trail might see bookings plummet if that trail is no longer accessible. Investors must now factor in a kind of “public land risk premium” when valuing businesses – similar to how one might discount a ski resort’s value if climate change threatens its snowfall. The uncertainty around whether a given public tract will remain accessible over a 10- or 20-year horizon could shave off value in appraisals and make financing more difficult (lenders will also recognize the risk).

• Exit Strategy and Liquidity: Real estate investors counting on selling to the next buyer at a favorable cap rate might find fewer takers if the asset’s competitive advantage (proximity to open land) erodes. The pool of buyers for an RV resort or outdoor lodge shrinks if those buyers are worried about long-term visitation trends. We could see higher capitalization rates (lower prices) for hospitality properties in at-risk locations, reflecting more perceived risk. Conversely, properties well insulated from these changes (e.g., near national parks which are off-limits to sale, or in states that might intervene to protect lands) might hold value better, making location due diligence paramount.

• Project Feasibility and Development Pipeline: Investors looking to develop new campgrounds, resorts, or recreation facilities will need to reassess feasibility studies. Traditionally, being adjacent to federal land was a huge positive – it meant guaranteed open space next door without the cost of ownership. Now, unless protections are certain, one must consider the cost of potentially having to create self-contained amenities. Some projects might not pencil out if, say, the developer has to purchase extra acreage to serve as a buffer or recreation area in case the neighboring public land access is lost. In extreme cases, plans may be shelved entirely if the attractiveness of the location is too dependent on a public asset that could go away. We may also see shorter payback period requirements for projects as a hedge – investors will want to recoup capital faster in case policy changes shorten the asset’s high-margin life.

• Opportunity Costs and Capital Allocation: Money that might have flowed into expanding outdoor recreation infrastructure (new marinas, expanded campground capacity, trail improvements via public-private partnerships) could be reallocated elsewhere due to uncertainty. If federal lands are viewed as less reliable partners, private capital might shift into more controllable environments (like private theme parks, indoor recreation facilities, or overseas tourism projects) rather than domestic outdoor ventures. This could slow the growth of the outdoor hospitality sector in the U.S., at least in the West, even as demand for nature tourism remains – a lost opportunity for communities that might have benefited from those investments.

On the flip side, a contrarian investor might see select opportunities: for instance, acquiring distressed outdoor recreation assets at a discount and betting on mitigation or policy reversal, or investing in land that could be the beneficiary of displacement (areas likely to see more visitors when others close). But these strategies carry their own risks and require careful analysis of policy trajectories.

Capital Deployment Strategies Under a Divestiture Scenario

If the public land sell-off were to move forward in some form, investors in the RV and outdoor sectors should consider proactive strategies to mitigate risk and capitalize on any silver linings:

• Geographic Diversification: Avoid over-concentration of your portfolio in any single region that might be heavily impacted. For example, if you operate a chain of campgrounds, ensure that all are not adjacent to BLM land that could be sold. Diversify across multiple states or include locations in the Eastern U.S./Midwest where federal lands are scarce (and thus unlikely to be targeted). A U.S.-wide perspective is vital – regions like the Southeast or Northeast might see relatively stable access and could absorb some displaced demand from the West, so having a footprint there could balance out losses.

• Vertical Integration and Land Ownership: In some cases, it may make sense to own the land outright where you operate, even if it means buying land that the government sells. Large outdoor recreation companies or investor consortia could consider bidding on certain tracts that are critical to their operations – effectively a defensive acquisition to preserve access. While this ties up capital in land (which companies historically haven’t needed to do thanks to public ownership), it could secure long-term recreational use. Creative structures like conservation easements or trusts could be used: for instance, an investor could buy land and lease it back to an operator with stipulations that it remain open for public recreation. This essentially shifts some public land into private stewardship with a public access mandate, filling the gap if the government exits. It’s a mitigation that requires coordination (and it won’t be feasible to save all 3 million acres this way), but for key areas it’s worth considering.

• Public-Private Partnerships and Advocacy: The outdoor industry might strengthen partnerships with state and local governments to keep recreation accessible. If federal agencies divest land, state governments or local counties might step in to purchase certain parcels to turn them into state parks or open space preserves. Investors and business leaders can advocate for or even co-fund such moves, especially if it directly protects their business interests. Being at the table in these discussions (through industry coalitions like the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable) is important. Already, the industry has mobilized grassroots tools urging protection of public lands. While staying apolitical in operations, companies can still underscore the economic importance of access and perhaps negotiate concessions (e.g., funding trail maintenance in remaining areas) to show good faith in preserving recreation opportunities.

• Adaptive Business Models: Companies should brainstorm how to adapt if access shrinks. Value-added services on-site could help retain customers even if they can’t roam as freely. For instance, RV parks might add guided activities, shuttle services to the nearest remaining public attraction (even if it’s farther away), or enhanced amenities like fishing ponds, climbing walls, or mountain bike parks on their own property. Essentially, try to replicate some of the outdoor experience within the bounds of private property. Glamping sites might diversify their activity offerings (horseback riding lessons, farm-to-table dining events) to be less reliant on external scenery. Outdoor gear rental companies could expand into urban markets or partner with private ranches to offer controlled experiences. None of these fully replace the breadth of public lands, but they can soften the blow and create new revenue streams. Investors should evaluate management teams on their flexibility and innovation in this regard – those already experimenting with creative offerings will handle the transition better than those solely dependent on status quo tourism.

• Insurance and Risk Management: While there’s no direct insurance for loss of public land access, businesses can incorporate risk management practices such as more flexible cost structures. If visitation drops, companies that can scale down expenses quickly (seasonal staffing, variable cost operations) will survive better. Investors might prefer asset-light models in uncertain areas – for example, RV rental marketplaces (which don’t own the vehicles or campgrounds, but earn fees) might be less exposed than campground owners. Similarly, companies that can redeploy assets (mobile infrastructure that can be moved to different locations) have an advantage if certain areas become off-limits.

• Monitoring and Engagement: Finally, maintain a close watch on policy developments. The fate of this proposal will likely unfold over months of legislative negotiation. It has already encountered obstacles (being stripped from the reconciliation bill due to Senate rules), but elements of it could resurface in other legislation or future budgets. Investors should not assume it has vanished for good. Engaging with trade associations and lobbyists to voice industry perspectives can help shape a more favorable outcome, or at least secure amendments (such as guaranteed recreation easements in any land sales). In scenario planning, wise investors will model both the worst-case (millions of acres sold, no access) and more moderate cases (smaller acreage sold, or access

  retained via easements) to inform their strategic choices.

Conclusion

The proposed federal land divestiture presents a complex challenge for the RV, camping, and outdoor recreation industries. By potentially reducing the very resource these sectors rely on – open and accessible public land – it threatens to alter tourism flows, business viability, and investment calculations across the American West. The risk is not just to a few campers losing a favorite spot, but to regional economies and a multi-billion-dollar recreation market that has thrived on public land access for decades. Investor analysis must therefore go beyond typical market metrics and incorporate land policy risk as a factor in decision-making.

In our analysis, we identified significant risks to accessibility, with knock-on effects for RV travel demand, glamping resort attractiveness, private campground occupancy, and outdoor gear and service revenues. We also discussed how the economics of gateway communities and hospitality investments could suffer if visitor numbers dwindle. Asset values tied to recreation usage may face downward pressure, and new projects will need to clear a higher bar to be feasible in this uncertain environment. Yet, we also outlined mitigation strategies and adaptive plays – from diversification and defensive land acquisitions to business model pivots and public-private collaboration – that can help investors navigate this scenario.

Ultimately, avoiding political commentary but staying grounded in business fundamentals leads to a clear takeaway: the long-term health of the outdoor recreation economy is intertwined with the preservation of public land access. As one economic study noted, maintaining public land for recreation is crucial for “lasting prosperity” in many communities. Investors, therefore, have a vested interest in both carefully managing their exposure to this policy risk and, where possible, supporting solutions that keep the great American outdoors open for generations of travelers. The situation remains fluid, but a prudent, well-informed approach will allow stakeholders to make strategic decisions even amid the uncertainty – ensuring that their capital deployment aligns with an evolving landscape of land use and recreation in the United States.

June 28, 2025 by a Collective of Authors at MMCG Invest, LLC, RV park feasibility study consultant