• 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

More important to me than buffer zones are proper safety techniques..
As we have seen, there really is no buffer zone when the pipelines break near the Yellowstone River..
Just kidding, remember when Dick Cheney wanted to plow the Absorokas into the Yellowstone caldron..
Lately, I've been staying in KOA Kamping Kabins just west of West Yellowstone..
The peaceful ride along the Madison R. is priceless and all roads within the Park are finished.
sawyerloggingon said:
I see no problem with doing things NEAR parks or wilderness. Just how far should this buffer zone extend in your opinion? One mile? Ten miles? A hundred miles???? The boundary is the boundary.
Click to expand...
 
I couldn't agree with you more..
But it is a threee-day drive with my wife..
We now have a long-time friend from back here retired there..
And you didn't even mention your Crater Lake, but did intimate the Banana coast.
clownboy said:
Oregon kicks ass in that regard. Deserts, mountains, shoreline, forests and green, green, green.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
No, the reason the parks are shut down is because the Democrats refused to fund them, despite a Republican offer to fund federal parks as well as Veterans Affairs.
Click to expand...

As Mike Lee from Utah would say, that is so last week..
The rest of us here are having an adult "conversation" going down memory lane.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Have you ever even visited Utah's parks or do you just sit in your house and bitch about them?
Click to expand...

I've been all over them thar hills and then some. Yes, I've been to all of the Utah National Parks except Mt. Timpanogos...it's on my bucket list. lol

We used to have friends that lived in Moab and we'd go on hikes that weren't even on the map to see little known ruins and petroglyph's. From belly crawling along 1 ft. ledges and inching up and down endless revenes....almost getting my face swiped off by a bear at Yosemite....charged by a buffalo in Yellowstone.....to canoing down the Green River and seeing dinsaur footprints and rapid river rafting on the Colorado....to back packing into the high mountains and deserts.....trilabyte and precious stone hunting central utah.....hot springs after skiing in the winter.....boating, camping, hiking in summer....there aren't many state and national parks in Utah that I haven't been to. I love my state for it's natural beauty and wonders and would like it see it kept that way. I'm also a member of SUWA.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I see no problem with doing things NEAR parks or wilderness. Just how far should this buffer zone extend in your opinion? One mile? Ten miles? A hundred miles???? The boundary is the boundary.
Click to expand...

A boundry as far away as your backyard would be fine with me. The noise and the air pollution from the machinery and big trucks kicking up dust on dirt roads scarring of the land and the environmental impact of the workers and their housing needs ...yeah, they could ruin tourism to Arches and Canyonlands, no question about it.
 
NIMBY said:
As Mike Lee from Utah would say, that is so last week..
The rest of us here are having an adult "conversation" going down memory lane.
Click to expand...

"Memory lane" is not the topic here.

The fact remains that the Republicans tried to fund Parks and Veterans Affairs and the Dems refused. Will you be able to remember that?.
 
Still playing politics with effects instead of solutions for causes!!
Grant said:
"Memory lane" is not the topic here.

The fact remains that the Republicans tried to fund Parks and Veterans Affairs and the Dems refused. Will you be able to remember that?.
Click to expand...
 
I will do my usual question asking, by what authority does the federal government own land, and parks?

since the constitution does not give them this power, and it states the federal government can only have buildings, at the approval of a state.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I'm talking admission fees, national parks are money making machines.
Click to expand...

I really doubt that. Admission fees are a minute part of the total revenue generated by a national park. I really doubt they cover the operating costs of the park. IF parks were profitable in their own right, they would not have been shuttered, as they would not need government funds to operate. What state, in its right mind, would want to own the loss leader? Why would a state want to own a national park when under the current system, they get the milk without the cost of the cow?
 
Last edited:
Thankfully ernst, by the authority of A. Linclon and T.Roosevelt, which is why their faces are on Mt. Rushmore..Do you know the story behind the monument??
Along with the greatest Federal landgrabber of all, T. Jefferson, and our First President.
ernst barkmann said:
I will do my usual question asking, by what authority does the federal government own land, and parks?

since the constitution does not give them this power, and it states the federal government can only have buildings, at the approval of a state.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Thankfully ernst, by the authority of A. Linclon and T.Roosevelt, which is why their faces are on Mt. Rushmore..Do you know the story behind the monument??
Along with the greatest Federal landgrabber of all, T. Jefferson, and our First President.
Click to expand...

the Louisiana purchase, was a purchase from France for 15 million dollars, however the federal government did not take the land and put it under it's control.

according to constitutional law, the federal government [congress] must get permission from a state for a federal buildings to exist in a state, and the federal government[congress] only has authority in a state over those federal buildings only and no where else.

the constitution makes no mention of buying land from a state just to buy land and hold it, HOWEVER buying land from France is an a power of the federal government because anything international is federal power.....
 
My brother once asked me what to expect with logging when going to Yellowstone/Grand Teton in the National Forests and 'near' their boundaries..
With a wide-panorama, he saw the clear-cuts..
Closer-up, he would see a thin strip of trees along the edge of a road with grotesque clear-cuts.
Moot said:
A boundry as far away as your backyard would be fine with me. The noise and the air pollution from the machinery and big trucks kicking up dust on dirt roads scarring of the land and the environmental impact of the workers and their housing needs ...yeah, they could ruin tourism to Arches and Canyonlands, no question about it.
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
according to constitutional law, the federal government [congress] must get permission from a state for a federal buildings to exist in a state, and the federal government[congress] only has authority in a state over those federal buildings only and no where else.....[/B]
Click to expand...

Which came first out west, the Federal govt. or the States??
Many Natl Parks came before states, along with their Federal military outposts.
 
NIMBY said:
Which came first out west, the Federal govt. or the States??
Many Natl Parks came before states, along with their Federal military outposts.
Click to expand...

although you are correct when it comes to territories of the u.s...as when Yellowstone was created, however the federal government has created parks in established states, and as I stated from the constitution, no such power exist.

Samuel Adams states that it a government building existing before the constitution was ratified, then it would still remain federal property to the new government.

however again the constitution states that the federal government[congress] only has authority in states, where federal buildings are....or in case of parks like Yellowstone, that they have no authority over state or private property.
 
ernst barkmann said:
although you are correct when it comes to territories of the u.s...as when Yellowstone was created, however the federal government has created parks in established states, and as I stated from the constitution, no such power exist.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that states rights are different before and after statehood??
Samuel Adams states that it a government building existing before the constitution was ratified, then it would still remain federal property to the new government.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Feds control some natl parks and not others; same with buildings??
however again the constitution states that the federal government[congress] only has authority in states, where federal buildings are....or in case of parks like Yellowstone, that they have no authority over state or private property.
Click to expand...

As examples to disagree, what about Interstate roads--railroads--canals, Natural disasters, interstate commerce-three R's--roads, rails, rivers-
 
France--Spain--Mexico--Russia--we've taken or swindled all of them for land--As with England--Manifest Destiny--GTF out of our hemisphere--the rough rider--I view states abusing their 'rights' and 'powers' with much more disdain than those Countries since this is Present Moment Awareness time.
ernst barkmann said:
the Louisiana purchase, was a purchase from France for 15 million dollars, however the federal government did not take the land and put it under it's control.

according to constitutional law, the federal government [congress] must get permission from a state for a federal buildings to exist in a state, and the federal government[congress] only has authority in a state over those federal buildings only and no where else.

the constitution makes no mention of buying land from a state just to buy land and hold it, HOWEVER buying land from France is an a power of the federal government because anything international is federal power.....
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Are you saying that states rights are different before and after statehood??-
Click to expand...

if its not a state, its a territory and the federal government has full federal authority over it, once it becomes a state it is sovereign, and controls it own lands.

anything the federal government created in that state before it became a state, like a park or building is federal property.




NIMBY said:
Are you saying that Feds control some natl parks and not others; same with buildings??-
Click to expand...

saying that Yellowstone was created under a territory..[this gives the federal government full power to do as they wish], it is legal for the government to create it, however the government has no authority to create a park inside of a state, because the constitution states they can obtain land only for buildings and with the states approval.

article 1 section 8 clause 17


NIMBY said:
As examples to disagree, what about Interstate roads--railroads--canals, Natural disasters, interstate commerce-three R's--roads, rails, rivers-
Click to expand...

they can build post roads, railroads did not exist when the constitution was created, dams are not in the constitution.as to commerce in reading the constitution and the federalist papers the federal government has no authority over commerce inside a state, only between the states, or as the constitution states...among the states.

for congress to have authority ,they must create an amendment.
 
Overall, great post..
Several areas to multi-quote and it's getting late..
I appreciate your thought and effort..
National Parks and Lands are easily in the top 5 categories of what I love in life.
I will repost on #117 tomorrow.
ernst barkmann said:
if its not a state, its a territory and the federal government has full federal authority over it, once it becomes a state it is sovereign, and controls it own lands.

anything the federal government created in that state before it became a state, like a park or building is federal property.

saying that Yellowstone was created under a territory..[this gives the federal government full power to do as they wish], it is legal for the government to create it, however the government has no authority to create a park inside of a state, because the constitution states they can obtain land only for buildings and with the states approval.

article 1 section 8 clause 17

they can build post roads, railroads did not exist when the constitution was created, dams are not in the constitution.as to commerce in reading the constitution and the federalist papers the federal government has no authority over commerce inside a state, only between the states, or as the constitution states...among the states.

for congress to have authority ,they must create an amendment.
Click to expand...
 
upsideguy said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Congress doesnt have the power to run parks, so its moot. The federal govt is allowed to have DC for the seat of the govt, purchase land from states for military structures, and make rules regarding the things they own. Thats it. Nothing about aquiring land from states for preservation or recreation. Utah was territory illegaly aquired during the MExican War, and then the people of Utah owned it. The federal govt did not own any of the land when it became a state. There were no parks.
 
jonny5 said:
Congress doesnt have the power to run parks, so its moot. The federal govt is allowed to have DC for the seat of the govt, purchase land from states for military structures, and make rules regarding the things they own. Thats it. Nothing about aquiring land from states for preservation or recreation. Utah was territory illegaly aquired during the MExican War, and then the people of Utah owned it. The federal govt did not own any of the land when it became a state. There were no parks.
Click to expand...

No, but the federal government does, so its moot.

Isn't all territory acquired via war illegally acquired?
 
NIMBY said:
My brother once asked me what to expect with logging when going to Yellowstone/Grand Teton in the National Forests and 'near' their boundaries..
With a wide-panorama, he saw the clear-cuts..
Closer-up, he would see a thin strip of trees along the edge of a road with grotesque clear-cuts.
Click to expand...

I've seen that, too. But in all fairness to Yellowstone, the park was decimated by a forest fire a few years ago and now some sort of pine beetle is killing the rest of the trees. The devastation is just beyond belief until you see it for yourself.

But if you want to see something really disturbing check out the forests in British Colombia on Google earth. You'll see huge swaths of barren circles where forests used to be.
 
jonny5 said:
You said it was an act of Congress, not the govt. And no.
Click to expand...

National parks are created by an Act of Congress, and then administered (run) by the National Park Service, which is an agency of the Department of Interior.
 
jonny5 said:
Congress doesnt have the power to run parks, so its moot. The federal govt is allowed to have DC for the seat of the govt, purchase land from states for military structures, and make rules regarding the things they own. Thats it. Nothing about aquiring land from states for preservation or recreation. Utah was territory illegaly aquired during the MExican War, and then the people of Utah owned it. The federal govt did not own any of the land when it became a state. There were no parks.
Click to expand...

When the Mormons first migrated to SL valley it was Mexican Territory. They never "owned it". As part of the treaty signed after the Mexican American War....the US "bought" the cession territory from Mexico....actually they just deducted the money from the Mexico's debt owed to the US.


"....The United States also paid $15,000,000 ($298,310,309 in 2005 dollars) for the land, and agreed to assume $3.25 million in debts to US citizens.[2] While technically the territory was purchased by the United States, the $15 million payment was simply credited against Mexico's enormous debt towards the U.S. at that time...."
Mexican Cession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Later, the Missouri Compromise divided up the ceded territory which in part became the Utah territory and included the entire Great Basin region. Utah didn't become a state for at least another 45 years after that. To this day the federal government still "owns" over 3/4 of the land inside the borders of the state of Utah.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
But if you want to see something really disturbing check out the forests in British Colombia on Google earth. You'll see huge swaths of barren circles where forests used to be.
Click to expand...

You are so spot on with the Canadian forests..
Canada, all of it, isexhibit A on how to decimate your natural resources..
Last time I was on Icefields Parkway in Alberta, the # of grizzly was said to be below the in-breeding # of 500..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom