• 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!

Should We Privatize National Parks?

Should We Privatize National Parks?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 10.4%
  • No

    Votes: 36 75.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 14.6%

  • Total voters
    48
Coming from a state that wants control over federal lands for development I'd have to say....


NO!!!
 
Should We Privatize National Parks?

Hell yeah! Imagine all the ad revenue from having bison wander around with sandwich boards and we could broadcast new product information right on the face of half dome.
Maybe we could get one of those water screens at Niagra Falls.
 
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.

No, why let the people of a state decide they can build power plants on the Grand Canyon and shut off the rest of the Colorado River or mine inside Yellowstone because *they* will profit? Those national treasures belong to the entire nation, not to the locals to spoil.
 
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.

The govts (at all levels) protect many lands in the US. Protect and manage.

If you want to live in a toilet, that's fine but the majority of Americans will not.
 
No, why let the people of a state decide they can build power plants on the Grand Canyon and shut off the rest of the Colorado River or mine inside Yellowstone because *they* will profit? Those national treasures belong to the entire nation, not to the locals to spoil.

The land will be more than likely bought by people interested conservation, and furthermore, it will be zoned like any other property that will bar certain kinds of activities. Why you think the land would somehow not be governed by zoning laws is beyond me.
 
There's absolutely no reason for us to have "national" parks.

There's every reason to have national parks. There are some areas of land that should be preserved and made "off-limits" to those who would rather exploit the land.
 
Just so we are clear it should be noted that when private individuals are allowed to own land it is actually conserved better than public land. For example, if you let companies onto the property to cut down trees and not one of them owns the land they will not be interested in regrowing the trees, but only interested in getting more than everyone else. However, if you let them own the land they will only cut down what they need and find great interest in expanding future yields of the land by growing trees.
 
The land will be more than likely bought by people interested conservation, and furthermore, it will be zoned like any other property that will bar certain kinds of activities. Why you think the land would somehow not be governed by zoning laws is beyond me.

You just pulled all that out your ass...you have no idea who or how that land would be purchased. And since those with the most to profit would buy the land, they would do so to exploit the resources...there are alot more with $ interested in profit than protection.

Zoning doesnt protect lots of natural lands.
 
Hell yeah! Imagine all the ad revenue from having bison wander around with sandwich boards and we could broadcast new product information right on the face of half dome.
Maybe we could get one of those water screens at Niagra Falls.

A bison sandwich sounds mighty good...

CMzINKn.jpg
 
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.

Apparently we have a ton of people interested in land conservation, but none of them can be arsed to do it themselves. It reminds me a lot of hippies.
 
No, why let the people of a state decide they can build power plants on the Grand Canyon and shut off the rest of the Colorado River or mine inside Yellowstone because *they* will profit? Those national treasures belong to the entire nation, not to the locals to spoil.

Why ignore my article while quoting it? "Standard of maintenance and use can still be established at the Federal level."
 
First we need to privatize the air.

Too many people are breathing without paying for it.

You just breathed in. That'll be $5, please.
 
Apparently we have a ton of people interested in land conservation, but none of them can be arsed to do it themselves. It reminds me a lot of hippies.

A lot of people that are interested in land conservation also give to The Nature Conservancy. However, not too many people have the kind of money laying around to just buy up a park like Wrangell - St Elias National Park and set it aside for future generations. If you assume a median price of about $1,200 dollars an acre, the upfront costs for an individual to purchase Wrangell and set it aside for future generations would be just under 16 billion dollars. Of course then you would have to have money left over to hire at least a few ecologists, foresters, and rangers to manage it. So we could try to convince Bill Gates to do this, or all of us Americans could contribute just a tiny, tiny portion of our taxes every year that we all pay in together for the protection and management of that land for our generation and future generations. Thank God previous generations has the foresight to do so.

Everything we do in the public sector is not bad, or evil, or totalitarian. National Parks are a good thing. Almost everyone, regardless of their politics believe that National Parks are a good thing.
 
A lot of people that are interested in land conservation also give to The Nature Conservancy. However, not too many people have the kind of money laying around to just buy up a park like Wrangell - St Elias National Park and set it aside for future generations. If you assume a median price of about $1,200 dollars an acre, the upfront costs for an individual to purchase Wrangell and set it aside for future generations would be just under 16 billion dollars. Of course then you would have to have money left over to hire at least a few ecologists, foresters, and rangers to manage it. So we could try to convince Bill Gates to do this, or all of us Americans could contribute just a tiny, tiny portion of our taxes every year that we all pay in together for the protection and management of that land for our generation and future generations. Thank God previous generations has the foresight to do so.

Everything we do in the public sector is not bad, or evil, or totalitarian. National Parks are a good thing. Almost everyone, regardless of their politics believe that National Parks are a good thing.

I really can't say what each acre would cost. What I do now is that this is an interest that people rich and poor seem to have and there is no reason they couldn't buy the land and have the government zone the land for the purpose of conservation. I'm sure we can make the changes in zoning laws necessary to make people like yourself happy and I'm sure people competing in conservation efforts will bring about a better product than a monopoly ever could. One solution to the cost issue is that individuals interested in buying the land could collect money from those interested in their efforts and give them stock in their business in exchange for the money. This way the people interested in buying the land have the funds necessary, and those interested in their cause can benefit from their investment.
 
I really can't say what each acre would cost.

1,200 dollars an acre is the median price for undeveloped rural land in the United States.

What I do now is that this is an interest that people rich and poor seem to have and there is no reason they couldn't buy the land

Which we all did with our tax dollars.

and have the government zone the land for the purpose of conservation.

Which was done with the creation of the Parks Service.

Thats

I'm sure we can make the changes in zoning laws necessary to make people like yourself happy and I'm sure people competing in conservation efforts will bring about a better product than a monopoly ever could.

There isn't a monopoly. Private organizations like The Nature Conservancy have protected land as well. As have the states, localities, and individuals. Not to mention other countries as well. Our neighbor to the north has an impressive national park system as well. Believe it or not, the parks service does produce a better product than many private organizations, and most states (although New York State has an excellent park system as well).

One solution to the cost issue is that individuals interested in buying the land could collect money from those interested in their efforts and give them stock in their business in exchange for the money. This way the people interested in buying the land have the funds necessary, and those interested in their cause can benefit from their investment.

This is silly, we already do this, its call taxes. A small portion of the local taxes I pay goes to the county parks and rec. I, along with other residents, benefit from that public investment every time I fish, take my canoe out on, hike, run the trails on, or for that matter when my kids just go down the the local park and play basketball. I also get a voice in how they are managed. For example, our county purchased an additional 900 acres of woodlands and they are currently holding public meetings to get input on how to design the trail systems on that new park land. A small portion of my state taxes goes to the DNR, I along with other residents benefit from the investment as well. A small portion of my federal taxes goes to the management and protection of federal lands. We all benefit from that investment as well. Just a month ago I did a weeklong backpacking trip with my kids in the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness in Montana, its nearly 1 million acres of federal wilderness with streams and lakes full of trout all managed with our tax dollars, game managed with our tax dollars, trails - many of which were built with our tax dollars (many are built by volunteer organizations as well) and nearly endless opportunities to get out into true wilderness that one can find in few places on earth anymore. Not only that, we all get a voice in their management as management plans are subject to public comment every 10 years. Its not government land, its our land and everyone other than a total anarchist can see that.
 
The only way I might even consider it possible to privatize national (or even state) parks would be if the contracts for the private management were written well enough that they couldn't get away with doing **** I would dislike to said parks.

But since I have zero faith in the government to enforce such requirements in a timely fashion, and further that I would be surprised if one or more private management company DIDN'T try to fudge things a bit, I don't see myself being even remotely in agreement with private management of national/state parks.
 
Back
Top Bottom