• 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

Moot said:
I don't think Utah takes more than it's share in Federal money, nor would it break down. The LDS are too organized to let that happen.


Btw, over 3/4 of Utah is Federal BLM land. In fact, most of the west is Federal BLM land.


wpb5d6362f_00.jpg
Click to expand...

If the federal government ever collapses and there is chaos, anarchy, and violence pretty much most place in the U.S., the LDS areas likely will be an oasis of peace and civilization. LDS communities are extremely well organized.
 
Moot said:
The states would tear down paradise and put up a parking lot.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't see how anyone who lives in the Utah Valley is not a borderline tree hugger. I lived there two years and for someone who loves outdoor sports it was like paradise.
 
laska said:
If the federal government ever collapses and there is chaos, anarchy, and violence pretty much most place in the U.S., the LDS areas likely will be an oasis of peace and civilization. LDS communities are extremely well organized.
Click to expand...

The LDS plan for the worst and hope for the best. They sure are busy little bees. lol

Yep. I don't see how anyone who lives in the Utah Valley is not a borderline tree hugger. I lived there two years and for someone who loves outdoor sports it was like paradise.
Click to expand...
Utah does have some beautiful landscapes, thats for sure. The problem with the state controling so much wilderness is they don't have the funding to adequately manage it or the incentive to clean up the mess after an oil or mining company destroys the land. For instance, there's still a mountain of uranium mine tailings from the 1950s sitting there on the banks of the Colorado River near Moab. Thats how the state would manage public land. Finally, in 2001 the Federal government took over and are now in the process of removing and relocating the uranium. They hope to be done by 2019.
 
NIMBY said:
I liked your OP but the first Paragraph is like saying Obama threw a snowstorm at western SD..
I liked it because Utah is such a special state and thanks for bringing it up..
I've lost count over the decades of how many times I've driven that Escalante ridge..
A hair-raiser was going east from Boulder..1st gear all the way down.
Click to expand...

I have gone to Utah for vacations for 30 years and been all over the state but I always end up around Moab riding slick rock. Freakin beautiful state!
 
mike2810 said:
States provide fire protection for lands they manage.
Feds do for lands they manage.
Cooperative agreements exist. Cost agreements are generally set so State pays for use of Federal resources. Feds pay for use of State/local resources. Fires involving multiple land ownership, cost sharing is generally broken down by percent ownership of the fire boundaries.
Yes, States can apply for federal disaster aid.

My point, as it exists today if the States took over the management of federal lands, the State would assume the protection costs.[/QUOTE]

They would also get the revenue that land brings in.
Click to expand...
 
mike2810 said:
to some extent I can agree.
However, most States could not afford the wildfire suppression costs. State taxes would go sky high or Feds would have to pick up the tab.
Click to expand...

Wildfire suppression isn't a power of the federal govt. Either they find a way to pay for it themselves, or move out of the area. Why is it my job to pay for Utah?
 
jonny5 said:
Wildfire suppression isn't a power of the federal govt. Either they find a way to pay for it themselves, or move out of the area. Why is it my job to pay for Utah?
Click to expand...

it is on federal lands.
 
Moot said:
The LDS plan for the worst and hope for the best. They sure are busy little bees. lol

Utah does have some beautiful landscapes, thats for sure. The problem with the state controling so much wilderness is they don't have the funding to adequately manage it or the incentive to clean up the mess after an oil or mining company destroys the land. For instance, there's still a mountain of uranium mine tailings from the 1950s sitting there on the banks of the Colorado River near Moab. Thats how the state would manage public land. Finally, in 2001 the Federal government took over and are now in the process of removing and relocating the uranium. They hope to be done by 2019.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it was the FEDS that encouraged in fact demanded the unregulated uranium mining for their nuke program don't you?
 
Moot said:
The states would tear down paradise and put up a parking lot.
Click to expand...

Sure they would. I am sure there are no state parks right now, they are ll parking lots.

We don't need the all powerful federal government to manage state land.
 
Republic Now! said:
It's ridiculous that the states must await permission from the fed to maintain public land in their own state. I'd much rather public parks be funded by state governments than the federal government.
Click to expand...

States are free to have their own state parks. New York, California, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Jersey and Massachusetts (funny... all blue states) do quite well this almost. Almost 1/3 of New York is a New York park.

http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCK-ORRG_State Parks.pdf

Then there are things that are national treasures, like the Grand Canyon or Arches, that need to be preserved for all Americans.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
mike2810 said:
States provide fire protection for lands they manage.
Feds do for lands they manage.
Cooperative agreements exist. Cost agreements are generally set so State pays for use of Federal resources. Feds pay for use of State/local resources. Fires involving multiple land ownership, cost sharing is generally broken down by percent ownership of the fire boundaries.
Yes, States can apply for federal disaster aid.

My point, as it exists today if the States took over the management of federal lands, the State would assume the protection costs.
Click to expand...


sawyerloggingon said:
They would also get the revenue that land brings in.
Click to expand...

The states already get the revenue that national parks bring in.... They may not get park admission fees, but they get ALL of the other revenue generated by tourists (which is 95% of the revenue to be gained by having a national park). The states are anxious to reopen these parks because their closure, particularly in a state like Utah, has a huge negative impact on tourism.

Moreover, its actually in the states interest to have a national park rather than a state park as 1) the national government picks up the capital expenditure tab, which is huge (yet states benefit) and 2) a national park has much more panache than a state park (how many people go out of their way to go the the Adirondack park, even though it is twice as large as Yelllowstone?)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
States are free to have their own state parks. New York, California, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Jersey and Massachusetts (funny... all blue states) do quite well this almost. Almost 1/3 of New York is a New York park.

http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCK-ORRG_State Parks.pdf

Then there are things that are national treasures, like the Grand Canyon or Arches, that need to be preserved for all Americans.
Click to expand...

Colorado isn't a blue state.
 
upsideguy said:
sawyerloggingon said:
The states already get the revenue that national parks bring in.... They may not get park admission fees, but they get ALL of the other revenue generated by tourists (which is 95% of the revenue to be gained by having a national park). The states are anxious to reopen these parks because their closure, particularly in a state like Utah, has a huge negative impact on tourism.

Moreover, its actually in the states interest to have a national park rather than a state park as 1) the national government picks up the capital expenditure tab, which is huge (yet states benefit) and 2) a national park has much more panache than a state park (how many people go out of their way to go the the Adirondack park, even though it is twice as large as Yelllowstone?)
Click to expand...

If the states are making money from the parks, then there's even less reason why the fed needs to be involved.
Click to expand...
 
Republic Now! said:
Colorado isn't a blue state.
Click to expand...


You say that, why?

I say its blue because the preponderance of evidence says its blue:

Last two presidential elections - Blue
Two Democratic US Senators - Blue
House of Repres. 4 to 3 - Well, Red (but three of the four districts are in play, with only one blue district in play)
Governor - Blue
State Legislature - Blue.

Now, a good Republican (and there aren't very many of those) could win statewide, but they better hurry, as the demographics of Colorado are also trending even more blue.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Utah state parks are at least as well run as fed parks and they are not used as political pawns by power hungry presidents.
Click to expand...




The state wants control over federal lands simply so they can 'drill baby drill' on some the most protected scenic wildlife areas in the world and to sell off huge parcels of land to private developers. There is absolutely zero benefit for the public to sell off or let the state control their public lands. For one thing, it would raise state taxes, the public would never see the profits, and if the land is sold they wouldn't have access to it anymore. So what would be the point...what is the benefit for the public? After all, it is their land and it should stay that way for future generations to enjoy.
 
Mason66 said:
Sure they would. I am sure there are no state parks right now, they are ll parking lots.

We don't need the all powerful federal government to manage state land.
Click to expand...



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.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
The state wants control over federal lands simply so they can 'drill baby drill' on some the most protected scenic wildlife areas in the world and to sell off huge parcels of land to private developers. There is absolutely zero benefit for the public to sell off or let the state control their public lands. For one thing, it would raise state taxes, the public would never see the profits, and if the land is sold they wouldn't have access to it anymore. So what would be the point...what is the benefit for the public? After all, it is their land and it should stay that way for future generations to enjoy.
Click to expand...

It's not public land; it belongs to the federal government and the US President. They are the boss, not you.America, Your Vacation Wonderland! | National Review Online
 
Grant said:
It's not public land; it belongs to the federal government and the US President. They are the boss, not you.America, Your Vacation Wonderland! | National Review Online
Click to expand...
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.
 
upsideguy said:
States are free to have their own state parks. New York, California, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Jersey and Massachusetts (funny... all blue states) do quite well this almost. Almost 1/3 of New York is a New York park.

http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCK-ORRG_State Parks.pdf

Then there are things that are national treasures, like the Grand Canyon or Arches, that need to be preserved for all Americans.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Moot said:
There's always two sides to every story.....Personally, I think the federal government does a fantastic job managing the National Parks. It is one of the few things they do right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They will take the power and there is nothing you can do about it. They won't even allow you to photograph it if they should so decide.
 
Grant said:
They will take the power and there is nothing you can do about it. They won't even allow you to photograph it if they should so decide.
Click to expand...

I think some veterans in DC are showing otherwise today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom