• 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!

National Parks

T

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you could decide who controls and runs the National Parks would you continue the federal funding and management or would you prefer a corporation be able buy the parks and use the designated lands as they please?

Lots of pros and cons and it is likely a corporation could make a big bottom line if they had no government meddling in what they wanted to do with the land.

Consider big corporations ...Exxon, Big Pharma, Wal Mart ... I am certain they could use those resources and space to make a profit for a few and create more minimum wage jobs?

Are we hurting out country and being socialist to even have national parks?

http://www.nature.nps.gov
 
I'd rather the land go back to the states, where it belongs. Utah has passed such a measure and is preparing law suits to get over 20 million acres back from the Feds, other western states are following suit.
 
Arbo said:
I'd rather the land go back to the states, where it belongs. Utah has passed such a measure and is preparing law suits to get over 20 million acres back from the Feds, other western states are following suit.
Click to expand...

So state funding by state residents and management is your thought?
 
State at the highest level, yes. If they want or need to, they can split it out inside the state, to counties or such. When the Feds 'stole' all this land to start with, they were to give it all back, as the norm, they have not.

As for corporations, owning and running it, hell no.
 
Arbo said:
I'd rather the land go back to the states, where it belongs. Utah has passed such a measure and is preparing law suits to get over 20 million acres back from the Feds, other western states are following suit.
Click to expand...

Are the states going to pay what the land is worth? Those parks belong to everyone in the country, they were paid for be Federal taxes not state taxes. Will the states have the funds to maintain the parks in a usable manner or are they looking to sell them to the highest bidder for destruction
 
Arbo said:
State at the highest level, yes. If they want or need to, they can split it out inside the state, to counties or such. When the Feds 'stole' all this land to start with, they were to give it all back, as the norm, they have not.

As for corporations, owning and running it, hell no.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from?
 
Dion said:
If you could decide who controls and runs the National Parks would you continue the federal funding and management or would you prefer a corporation be able buy the parks and use the designated lands as they please?

Lots of pros and cons and it is likely a corporation could make a big bottom line if they had no government meddling in what they wanted to do with the land.

Consider big corporations ...Exxon, Big Pharma, Wal Mart ... I am certain they could use those resources and space to make a profit for a few and create more minimum wage jobs?

Are we hurting out country and being socialist to even have national parks?

nature.nps.gov » Explore Nature
Click to expand...

I don't know - I don't trust states for hte most part to keep up with things like they should.

I cite comments that have come out over the years in regard to 'the nation's failing infrastructure' - as states pined to the fed government to cover the cost of repairs and maintenance. A lot of people complained that 'the government gave us the land and grants to build it - but nothing to maintain it.' . . . When a STRING attached to the purse in the first place was that the STATE was responsible.

And the States let it fall apart.

That's what happens when States are ill prepared to handle a financial burden.

Only if they can present good, solid, irrefutable evidence that they're capable do I think they should be given the task.
 
Corporations own our National Parks? not only no, but HELL NO!!!!!
 
National Parks are Bureaucratic nightmares that are mismanaged and over developed but they were a great idea and the only way places to beautiful for words can be saved from those that would subdivide every inch of our country.
 
There is no way I'd ever be in favor of having our national treasures auctioned off to private/corporate hands. Even the thought of it makes me physically ill.
 
Corporations would ruin our parks if they owned them. Maybe we could let some resort companies manage them for us though. IDK.

I think too many places have been designated National Parks/Forests, etc., but certainly the biggies should stay in government hands.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Only if they can present good, solid, irrefutable evidence that they're capable do I think they should be given the task.
Click to expand...

Is there any requirement for the Federal government to proved the above as well? Because I think they have a long standing record of failure across the board...
 
Corporations operate in quantifiable measures, our National Parks are qualitative by nature. As such, the task of land management would put them at cross purpose. Realistically, an NGO/NPO under very strict charter would be the only viable alternative to State management.
 
Nothing like a corporation's 100ft wide billboard in the middle of a scenic view in Yellowstone.
 
Fisher said:
Corporations would ruin our parks if they owned them.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
 
Dion said:
If you could decide who controls and runs the National Parks would you continue the federal funding and management or would you prefer a corporation be able buy the parks and use the designated lands as they please?

Lots of pros and cons and it is likely a corporation could make a big bottom line if they had no government meddling in what they wanted to do with the land.

Consider big corporations ...Exxon, Big Pharma, Wal Mart ... I am certain they could use those resources and space to make a profit for a few and create more minimum wage jobs?

Are we hurting out country and being socialist to even have national parks?

nature.nps.gov » Explore Nature
Click to expand...

Hell no corporations should not have national parks. They'd be turned into a wasteland. Nothing but roads and buildings.
 
Henrin said:
Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Oh I am sure there are a lot of board feet of lumber or minerals to be mined in Yellowstone. You might ask yourself what would be the motive of a for-profit corporation to pay billions of dollars fair market value for the place.
 
Fisher said:
Oh I am sure there are a lot of board feet of lumber or minerals to be mined in Yellowstone. You might ask yourself what would be the motive of a for-profit corporation to pay billions of dollars fair market value for the place.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the land be zoned as a park or something of the sort? I'm not sure your fear makes much sense with that in place.
 
Henrin said:
Wouldn't the land be zoned as a park or something of the sort? I'm not sure your fear makes much sense with that in place.
Click to expand...

Why? The government has the place timbered already so why wouldn't a private owner with land rights be able to do the same?
 
Henrin said:
Wouldn't the land be zoned as a park or something of the sort? I'm not sure your fear makes much sense with that in place.
Click to expand...

Zoneing laws are mainly for cities and towns. Not wide open unused and undeveloped land.
 
DiAnna said:
There is no way I'd ever be in favor of having our national treasures auctioned off to private/corporate hands. Even the thought of it makes me physically ill.
Click to expand...


I have to agree. While I tend towards a smaller-government ideology, the preservation of State and National parks, forests, monuments and wilderness areas is, to me, a worthy and valuable practice.

I did an economic analysis once on whether running parks and whatnot would be economically viable for private corporations in a purely lassiez-faire condition.... that answer was "not really". They could make so much money developing the land that to make it worth keeping it natural (more or less) they'd have to charge as much to visit as Disney World, perhaps more. I'd hate to see our national parks and forests limited to the rich and prosperous only.
 
Henrin said:
Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Profit is a pretty good motive.

Factory may destroy natural wonder | Environment | The Guardian

Tata Chemicals, part of the giant Tata industrial group in India, plans to construct a soda-ash plant on Lake Natron in northern Tanzania, the most important breeding spot for the endangered lesser flamingo. Each summer 500,000 of the birds, three-quarters of the world's breeding population, fly to the lake to nest
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/w...st-in-mining-project.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Almost anywhere else, these caves would be preserved as an invaluable source of knowledge into prehistoric human history. But not in this remote corner of the Amazon, where Vale, the Brazilian mining giant, is pushing forward with the expansion of one of the world’s largest iron-ore mining complexes, a project that will destroy dozens of the caves treasured by scholars.

The caves, and the spectacular mineral wealth in their midst, have presented Brazil with a dilemma. The iron ore from Carajás, exported largely to China where it is used to make steel, is a linchpin of Brazil’s ambitions of reviving a sluggish economy, yet archaeologists and other researchers contend that the emphasis on short-term financial gains imperils an unrivaled window into a nebulous past.
Click to expand...

Wildlife Extra News - Huge New Zealand dam will threaten endangered species

Meridian's proposed dam would create a 14-kilometre-long reservoir covering 330 hectares of rainforest and riverbed along the Mokihinui River gorge in New Zealand's largest ever drowning of conservation land by a hydro project.

Until recently Meridian was the primary sponsor of Project Crimson, a programme to protect and regenerate rata and pohutukawa throughout New Zealand. Along the Mokihinui there is a profusion of rata that would be submerged by the hydro lake.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hell no corporations should not have national parks. They'd be turned into a wasteland. Nothing but roads and buildings.
Click to expand...

Not roads and building! This might come as a shock to you but all parks have roads and buildings.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Zoneing laws are mainly for cities and towns. Not wide open unused and undeveloped land.
Click to expand...

Ok, but the point being is that the government would not simply allow the businesses to do whatever they wanted with the land. They would most likely not even really sell the land, but lease it out for something like 99 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom