• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Utah national parks to open Saturday with state aid

Oh yes."....people were not permitted to drive through the park and sightsee and take photographs".

Not allowed to sightsee or take photographs?

Personally I believe the tourists, not the brownshirts.

Tourists aren't all they're cracked up to be. Even when the park is open they tend not to follow the rules and leave their garbage around and put themselves and others in danger. Every year we hear about some tourist getting lost, or stranded on a cliff ledge or getting too close to the buffalo and the bears. Some tourists are just rude, obnoxious assholes and think the world should revolve around them. I suspect that's the case for most of those tourists complaining the loudest.
 
Only if Americans decide it. The federal govt does not have the power to declare land that is part of a state as a national treasure owned by the federal govt.


...unless they were federal lands to begin with, which is the way something becomes a park. If they were federal lands, its pretty much an act of Congress to make it a park. No state objects to just a thing as designating land as a national park means it becomes a tourist destination.
 
Nope, we don't need the state to manage federal land and we don't need some outsider telling us what is best for our state, either.

In this case the Federal government is the outsider so your statement doesn't make sense.
 
If the states are making money from the parks, then there's even less reason why the fed needs to be involved.

No, the designation of national park is what puts the park on the tourism map. I doubt you could cite a state park that has the draw of any of the top 15 national parks (maybe the Adirondack park by its pure size and proximity to major metropolitan centers).

This is why congressmen are continually lobbying congress to have monuments and historic sites federally designated. I know of no movement to go the other way.
 
There's always two sides to every story.....


".....Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said rangers didn't confine guests to the lodge but might have been on foot patrol nearby to prevent visitors from getting close to Old Faithful geyser and other park attractions.

"We did not have people stationed at lodging facilities for any reason," Nash said. "The immediate area at the inn, the restaurant, the adjacent stores and gift shops would have been accessible, but we did close the boardwalk and the hiking trails in the area. And they all remain closed."

As for the armed rangers, Nash said most of the rangers who were not furloughed are the ones who normally carry firearms.

He said all visitors in the park when it closed were given the same message.

"Boardwalks through thermal areas were closed, hiking trails were closed, and that people were not permitted to drive through the park and sightsee and take photographs. That was a consistent message shared with all visitors who were in the park last week," Nash said. "Our contacts all started with an apology."....read......

Yellowstone Tour Group Treatment Draws Complaints - ABC News




"....At a time when park rangers have been referred to as gestapo by visitors who were forced to leave Yellowstone, Anzelmo wanted to remind the nation that essential park employees still on the job have been participating in search and rescue operations, flood repairs and other maintenance work while taking abuse from the public.

“This is not the fault of any federal agency,” she said. “It’s the fault of Congress.”...read....

Report: Yellowstone loses $9M so far from shutdown




Personally, I think the federal government does a fantastic job managing the National Parks. It is one of the few things they do right.

How much does it cost the federal government for people to take photgraphs? Is there a danger of hurting your index finger?

Does this not prove they are doing this just to cause pain?
 
Dozens of people staged a protest run through Valley Forge National Historical Park on Sunday after a runner and others were ticketed amid the government shutdown.

Source

This is the sort of thing that puts the lie to this insipid Obama admin tactic. Somehow they have the money to pay the folks to be there to catch and ticket those who ignore the closure order.
 
How much does it cost the federal government for people to take photgraphs? Is there a danger of hurting your index finger?

Does this not prove they are doing this just to cause pain?
I would suggest liability reasons

1. From people suing if they hurt themselves at the park. Without proper supervision, maintenance and cleaning of the parks and monuments the government leaves themselves open to claims of negligence and lawsuits. Given the lawsuit happy US public it is a real concern

2. It is illegal for the US government to actually spend money not authorized during this time frame. Those that authorize it can be held on criminal charges

If agencies don't have authorization to spend money, it is illegal for them to carry out any non-essential activities that require spending money, which is pretty much everything.

On the one hand, this is a good process in theory. Every year Congress has to look at the programs in place and decide whether they're still worth funding at the old levels or whether something has changed and they should adjust funding levels.

On the other hand, it runs into practical problems. The government has grown a lot since this process was put into place and there's a lot more obstruction now than there was then, so most years this doesn't actually happen on time.
The Daily Dot - The government shutdown, explained like you're 5

So keeping a park open for the public to come and see it is definitely not essential and could result in the agency managers being held on criminal charges. Having staff kept on for security would be considered essential and not see the managers put up for criminal charges

Although that exception has been broadly interpreted by the OMB and the DOJ[3] to give executive agencies wide discretion over how to spend their remaining funds, the statute was amended by Congress in 1990 in response to a 1981 opinion issued by Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti to make it clear that the term emergencies does “not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

A 1995 opinion by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel over that amendment confirmed the earlier DOJ opinions, although it slightly narrowed the interpretation of “the safety of human life or the protection of property” to mean that they must be “compromised in some significant degree” by the lack of funding.[4]

A 2011 OMB memorandum also confirmed that the executive branch still views those DOJ opinions as establishing the guidelines for the continued operation of the government during a lapse in funding.[5]

The OMB refers to those government functions that can continue to operate because they meet the emergency definition as “excepted” functions. Federal employees who “are needed for the performance of those ‘excepted’ functions” can continue to be employed even in the absence of a CR or an appropriations bill.[6] In fact, the OMB says that federal employees can continue to work who are necessary not just to protect life and property but to perform activities “expressly authorized by law” or “necessarily implied by law,” an extremely broad standard.[7]
What Happens During a Government Shutdown?


So if the Obama admin authorized keeping the parks open, then the republican party/ controlled congress could have the administration brought on charges. Given how well the two get along I could see the republican congress doing just that. So in effect the Obama admin is following the letter of the law and wisely so
 
This is the sort of thing that puts the lie to this insipid Obama admin tactic. Somehow they have the money to pay the folks to be there to catch and ticket those who ignore the closure order.

That falls under the protection of property aspects of the ADA law
 
...unless they were federal lands to begin with, which is the way something becomes a park. If they were federal lands, its pretty much an act of Congress to make it a park. No state objects to just a thing as designating land as a national park means it becomes a tourist destination.

Designating wilderness areas as a protected wilderness and national parks is a way to preserve the land. If the Utah state politicians had their way....they'd be drilling, mining and polluting right smack dab in the middle of a national park if they could. The federal government is the only thing that is protecting the wilderness (and the people) from the tyranny of the states and cheap, greedy, ignorant, self serving state politicians. Thank God for the Federal Government.
 
That falls under the protection of property aspects of the ADA law

Nonsense. ADA is a federal law that is supported by federal funds that Obama's admin is saying are unavailable to hold those facilities open in the first place. If they have the money to provide personnel to do the monitoring and ticketting they could be watching the park instead.

Not to mention ADA wouldn't be applicable here. If the park is closed for all there is no discrimination of folks with disabilities.
 
Designating wilderness areas as a protected wilderness and national parks is a way to preserve the land. If the Utah state politicians had their way....they'd be drilling, mining and polluting right smack dab in the middle of a national park if they could. The federal government is the only thing that is protecting the wilderness (and the people) from the tyranny of the states and cheap, greedy, ignorant, self serving state politicians. Thank God for the Federal Government.

Unfortunately that's less than true. The feds can and do allow resource and timber extraction from designated wilderness areas. They just don't allow the state to do so.

Btw, states designate wilderness areas too. Screw the feds and what they've done to our forests out West here.
 
Nonsense. ADA is a federal law that is supported by federal funds that Obama's admin is saying are unavailable to hold those facilities open in the first place. If they have the money to provide personnel to do the monitoring and ticketting they could be watching the park instead.

Not to mention ADA wouldn't be applicable here. If the park is closed for all there is no discrimination of folks with disabilities.

◾Protection of federal lands, buildings, waterways, and other property of the U.S.;


What Happens During a Government Shutdown?

Protection of federal lands and building, essential under the ADA

Keeping the park open, to the general public is not essential and doing so would be illegal
 
Tourists aren't all they're cracked up to be. Even when the park is open they tend not to follow the rules and leave their garbage around and put themselves and others in danger. Every year we hear about some tourist getting lost, or stranded on a cliff ledge or getting too close to the buffalo and the bears. Some tourists are just rude, obnoxious assholes and think the world should revolve around them. I suspect that's the case for most of those tourists complaining the loudest.

Well if you want to discourage tourism you're going about it the right way.
 
I would suggest liability reasons

1. From people suing if they hurt themselves at the park. Without proper supervision, maintenance and cleaning of the parks and monuments the government leaves themselves open to claims of negligence and lawsuits. Given the lawsuit happy US public it is a real concern

2. It is illegal for the US government to actually spend money not authorized during this time frame. Those that authorize it can be held on criminal charges

The Daily Dot - The government shutdown, explained like you're 5

So keeping a park open for the public to come and see it is definitely not essential and could result in the agency managers being held on criminal charges. Having staff kept on for security would be considered essential and not see the managers put up for criminal charges

What Happens During a Government Shutdown?


So if the Obama admin authorized keeping the parks open, then the republican party/ controlled congress could have the administration brought on charges. Given how well the two get along I could see the republican congress doing just that. So in effect the Obama admin is following the letter of the law and wisely so

OK again, how is somebody going to hurt themselves taking a picture?

The taking of photographs was specifically mentioned as something that was not allowed. There could be no other reason other than thrying to make it hurt.

Standing in one spot and clicking a picture is not a dangerous activity.
 
Are you sure we're talking about the same ADA? The ADA refers to the Americans with disabilities act. What are you talking about?

Under Article I of the Constitution, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This constitutional limitation is implemented by the federal Antideficiency Act (ADA), which makes it illegal for federal officials to spend money in excess of appropriations or to obligate the government to enter into contracts before an appropriation has been passed to pay for such a commitment.

The Antideficiency Act

The reason the national parks are shut down right now
 
OK again, how is somebody going to hurt themselves taking a picture?

The taking of photographs was specifically mentioned as something that was not allowed. There could be no other reason other than thrying to make it hurt.

Standing in one spot and clicking a picture is not a dangerous activity.

The park would be closed for a variety of reasons.

First, general safety of the public. With no maintenance the chances of slips, trips or wild animal attacks go up, and leave the government open to lawsuits. Second protection of the federal lands. The would not have the same level of staff to watch out for vandalism and general property destruction. The would not be able to stop thugs from throwing garbage in the geyser or from illegal hunting. Shutting down access is realistically the easiest method of following the protection of federal lands aspect and limiting the liability of the government from lawsuit happy americans
 
The Antideficiency Act

The reason the national parks are shut down right now

Heh, nice, but it since it's passage the ADA most often refers to the Americans with disabilities act. Read your own link, among the exceptions is:

■Protection of federal lands, buildings, waterways, and other property of the U.S

The only reason those parks are shut down is that Obama's admin wants Americans to feel the pain and pressure his opponents.
 
The park would be closed for a variety of reasons.

First, general safety of the public. With no maintenance the chances of slips, trips or wild animal attacks go up, and leave the government open to lawsuits. Second protection of the federal lands. The would not have the same level of staff to watch out for vandalism and general property destruction. The would not be able to stop thugs from throwing garbage in the geyser or from illegal hunting. Shutting down access is realistically the easiest method of following the protection of federal lands aspect and limiting the liability of the government from lawsuit happy americans

Your own link says that is not true.
 
The park would be closed for a variety of reasons.

First, general safety of the public. With no maintenance the chances of slips, trips or wild animal attacks go up, and leave the government open to lawsuits. Second protection of the federal lands. The would not have the same level of staff to watch out for vandalism and general property destruction. The would not be able to stop thugs from throwing garbage in the geyser or from illegal hunting. Shutting down access is realistically the easiest method of following the protection of federal lands aspect and limiting the liability of the government from lawsuit happy americans

We are talking about people that were already there when the park was closed. Why stop them from taking pictures?

I think you know the answer, you just don't want to say it. You keep going back to protecting people from themselves.
 
Heh, nice, but it since it's passage the ADA most often refers to the Americans with disabilities act. Read your own link, among the exceptions is:



The only reason those parks are shut down is that Obama's admin wants Americans to feel the pain and pressure his opponents.

No the parks are shut down because they do not have the authority to have park staff working, with the exception of those essential to the protection of the park. No ticket takers, no grounds crew, no cleaners, no park guides, no one but those essential to keep the land and building protected are allowed to work
 
No the parks are shut down because they do not have the authority to have park staff working, with the exception of those essential to the protection of the park. No ticket takers, no grounds crew, no cleaners, no park guides, no one but those essential to keep the land and building protected are allowed to work

Indeed, and not all parks and federal lands require ticket takers. Cleaning and protection from vandalism, trash ARE essential to the protection of that land.
 
We are talking about people that were already there when the park was closed. Why stop them from taking pictures?

I think you know the answer, you just don't want to say it. You keep going back to protecting people from themselves.

Why

A banana peel was left on the ground, granny slips and breaks her hip. They sue the government for negligence, and win.

Or little Timmy goes wandering off, gets lost in the woods. The parents try to find someone to help look for little Timmy, but can not find anyone (and it would be illegal for park rangers to work for free). Little Timmy gets eaten by a cougar, the parents sue the US government

Aunt Abby wants a closer look of the geyser, she gets up real close, and without park guides to warn her getting that close is dangerous, she gets burnt badly when it erupts, she and her family sue the government.

Plenty of reasons to keep the parks closed, vandalism and safety being primary. Defense against lawsuits being another
 
Indeed, and not all parks and federal lands require ticket takers. Cleaning and protection from vandalism, trash ARE essential to the protection of that land.

Keeping out people is the only aspect that would be essential. A janitor would not be seen as essential. Only keeping the boilers operating would be considered essential, not picking up trash, as the trash would not be there is people are not there. Vandalism is easiest to prevent when people are not around
 
Why

A banana peel was left on the ground, granny slips and breaks her hip. They sue the government for negligence, and win.

Or little Timmy goes wandering off, gets lost in the woods. The parents try to find someone to help look for little Timmy, but can not find anyone (and it would be illegal for park rangers to work for free). Little Timmy gets eaten by a cougar, the parents sue the US government

Aunt Abby wants a closer look of the geyser, she gets up real close, and without park guides to warn her getting that close is dangerous, she gets burnt badly when it erupts, she and her family sue the government.

Plenty of reasons to keep the parks closed, vandalism and safety being primary. Defense against lawsuits being another

Case one, she has no case, she knows the park maintenance is shut down, that's purely a signage issue.

Case two, emergency services are exempt from the shutdown as noted in your link.

Case three, happens all the time right now and they have no case. Once again a signage issue. Besides protection and guarding of the geysers falls under the exemptions noted in your link.

Protection from vandalism falls under your linked exceptions. The law suit issues fall under simple signage.
 
Back
Top Bottom