- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 1,179
- Location
- Nashville, TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
No, that's like saying it's ok to give up your immune system because you're not sick right now.
Yep, it's exactly like that in the same way that blue is exactly the same as tomato.
Really? How does the color blue affect a tomato?
See....the ways words are connected means things.
In the same way that oil exploration affects people who don't live there.
Ya don't say.
A brief discussion of how the NFS and AMC and locals work together would illuminate how the Northern Forest works .That's why I said "consider". I don't have any data to decide if it would be a good idea or not.
Care to share the math? Or should we simply take your word for it?
Your experiences as a resident of New Hampshire are unique to this discussion.
Far more than mine though I've been hiking and vacationing in NH since 1977.
A brief discussion of how the NFS and AMC and locals work together would illuminate how the Northern Forest works .
Should We Privatize National Parks?
If all it would be is a sign, that would be borderline acceptable.I can see it now.
Mt. Exxon National Park, formerly known as Mount Rainier...
Should We Privatize National Parks?
The states are more likely to cut corners and deals which compromise the parks and make them open to exploitation as cash strapped states all compete for economic investment from the private sector. I think giving them to the states would be a bad idea.
It is the Federal Government that has cut corners, and sending control to the states would keep them from being closed when the Government shuts down.
Most of our large National Parks are located in rural states with a low tax base. The single largest expenditure for those rural states is education. After that its programs like SCHIP, and various safety-net type programs, then infrastructure, after that its policing and emergency services. Parks, DNR, state forests and so on are way down the list and are the first to be cut when the state gets into budget trouble. For example, Wyoming simply does not have the tax base to manage the National Parks and Forests located within that state without selling much of those parks and forests off to developers. So unless you want Yellowstone to become another Vail, leave it in the National Park System.
National Parks are a tiny fraction of our federal budget outlays, if they have issues, then fund them a little better. Why mess with this nation's single greatest idea? Our National Parks, Forests, and Federal Wilderness Areas are literally what makes this nation unique. You can strap a pack on and completely leave civilization here and experience true freedom as long as you are out there, there are few other places on earth that you can do that in.
Let's leave it up to the states to decide whether they want to take over the parks in their state. Standard of maintenance and use can still be established at the Federal level. If a state cannot handle it like some of your examples, then I can understand Federal involvement.
If there are resources there to exploit, then of course the states will want them. What you would have in such a scenario is the states taking over federal lands with good timber, mining, and oil resources, while they left the federal government with what they considered worthless lands. What is wrong with the current system of National Parks? We all own and pay for places like Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Smokey Mountain National Park, and Yellowstone, not just the residents of those states. In fact, when you get down to it, the residents of states like New York, New Jersey, and California have paid a lot more for the management and upkeep of parks like Glacier and Yellowstone than the residents of Montana and Wyoming.
There's absolutely no reason for us to have "national" parks.
We should sell it off to a the highest bidder and let them do whatever they want with it. If a bunch of silly liberals want to pool their money together to protect lands they'll almost certainly never visit then I say more power to them. There's just no sense in it being a government operation.
tell that to your kids when the boundary waters have been stripped bare and turned into more condos.
If the only government you trust is the Federal government, then how open are you really to having a discussion? States also have to deal with the infrastructure around National Parks, they also have new national parks being created without their consent. I'm not comfortable with the absolute that all politics is local, except national parks. Everything you attribute as a fear of the converting some national parks to state parks has happened to some degree in national parks.
Tell that to your kids when the boundary waters have been stripped bare and turned into more condos.
There's absolutely no reason for us to have "national" parks.
We should sell it off to a the highest bidder and let them do whatever they want with it. If a bunch of silly liberals want to pool their money together to protect lands they'll almost certainly never visit then I say more power to them. There's just no sense in it being a government operation.
I don't know of any National Parks that were created without local support. In fact, as National Parks are established by congress, its a given that the local congressman is usually the bills sponsor. Its usually local movements that are the initial catalyst for the creation of a National Park.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?