• 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

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...

NO
If a man believes that having national parks is socialist...then he is correct..
Socialism is not necessarily a bad thing - obviously - as the libertarians and conservative extremists would have one believe.
And, it would be cause for revolution IF these nut cases think they can take OUR parkland and sell it to big oil and big retail...
Arbo, I'd say that Utah is doing things to en-richen their lawyers , at the expense of their people...
 
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...
I doubt if the "feds" stole anything..
As I recall, the lands were the property of the federal government BEFORE, Utah became a state..
And, if wrong..., it will not be the first time...
 
It's funny to watch east coasters say the fed is just fine and good at managing land... 1) nowhere in the constitution are they to 'own' any land other than DC, 2) you don't see and deal with the BLM until you head west... believe me, the feds are just as bad at land management as they are everything else.
 
Arbo said:
There are corps with enough influence to have the feds sell them crap... The current president has loads of big corp chronies. Your point?
Click to expand...
I didn't know that he sold national parks to his loads of big corp cronies. Thanks for your salient post.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Go back to the OP, which said specifically:

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?
Click to expand...

So if a corporation could buy the park and do whatever they wanted to with it, would you support that?
 
I fully support the creation of National Parks and Wilderness Areas, their maintenance and management being done by the US Forest Service.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I didn't know that he sold national parks to his loads of big corp cronies. Thanks for your salient post.
Click to expand...

Another incapable of comprehension. Just cause I have 1.5 seconds, I'll point out it appeared you suggested that if states were in control of the lands they'd sell them off to corporations due to the amount of influence the corps have in states... I pointed out the REALITY that some have just as much influence at a national level, yet we haven't seen the land sold off to them. What this does is invalidate the idiotic point you were hinting at. But thanks for failing in your reply.
 
clownboy said:
I fully support the creation of National Parks and Wilderness Areas, their maintenance and management being done by the US Forest Service.
Click to expand...

The FS is just as bad, if not worse, than the BLM. Mismanagement, and most of the employees don't have a CLUE about the law or regulations regarding the land.
 
Arbo said:
The FS is just as bad, if not worse, than the BLM. Mismanagement, and most of the employees don't have a CLUE about the law or regulations regarding the land.
Click to expand...

I disagree, especially out West here. In fact congress taking much of the management away from the FS has resulted in devastating fires out here as well as a whole lot of mismanagement. I spent many of my childhood summers in FS camps (second and third jobs for my parents when we were young).
 
clownboy said:
I disagree, especially out West here. In fact congress taking much of the management away from the FS has resulted in devastating fires out here as well as a whole lot of mismanagement. I spent many of my childhood summers in FS camps (second and third jobs for my parents when we were young).
Click to expand...

I am 'out west' as well. The FS is typical federal nincompoops. From knowing nothing about the mining laws, to knowing nothing about where their power actually ends...
 
For all the complaining about the incompetence of the federal government, our national parks are in pretty good shape.
 
radcen said:
For all the complaining about the incompetence of the federal government, our national parks are in pretty good shape.
Click to expand...

Which ones?
 
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...

There are many other ways for corporations to make more minimum wage jobs. Such as reduce pay for their executives and pass it on down to wage earners.

I think we should keep national parks under the federal government because the federal level is under media attention much more than state governments, and so corruption is less likely.
 
samsmart said:
the federal level is under media attention much more than state governments, and so corruption is less likely.
Click to expand...

WOW. Somebody actually believes something like that??? Amazing.
 
The desire of the government to acquire land, possessions and wealth is unlimited. For example, if anyone can name any reason why the federal government should have bought the Hope Diamond (a "tax credit" for donating equates to buying it) I'd like to hear it.

If a person were to see a maps of the USA and how much of it the government has essentially seized they would be surprised. The majority of land in many areas is government land (local, county, state and federal.) And if the government can't own it, they want to at least control it as much as possible - if not entirely. If you added land that the government also has easements and other restriction on it would truly astonish most people.

Water too.

And there is a result. The United States has 12,383 miles of coastline in the US and 88,633 miles of tidal shoreline. Over 100,000 miles of saltwater shore. The Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. BUT the USA IMPORTS over 60% of it's seafood. Most of domestic fishing has been shut down.

For example, the Cedar Key area of West Florida and much of the West Coast used to be harvesting areas for shell sealife. However, that has been 99%+ banned. Cedar Keys has over 2,000 square miles of seagrass beds. ALL but 72 acres has been banned. Amazing, the government BRAGS how they have made 72 acres available for sea farming. 1/200th of 1%.

So, all the people get 1/200th of 1%to live off of. The government has all the rest. And the government boasts of how generous it is allowing that 1/200th of 1% too.
 
And the extreme efforts to protect their jobs is proving an ecological disaster particularly in the Southern half of Florida. The marriage of big business, government and the for-profit environmentalists is a true growing ecological disaster that is worsening on more levels and in more ways than I can really present.

The "scientific" community in terms of the environment are, for the most part, hired whores. Nothing else. Thus, they not only will approve of, but will even urge using the Everglades to dump massive quantities of radioactive and poisonous wastes from coal generators. But that is just an example. The disaster of evasive foreign species also is an unsolvable problem because no one is allowed to compete with the government jobs around those species.
 
Arbo said:
I am 'out west' as well. The FS is typical federal nincompoops. From knowing nothing about the mining laws, to knowing nothing about where their power actually ends...
Click to expand...

I saw that from your CV under your avatar. Your experience with the FS runs contrary to mine. As to mining laws, the FS is not the BLM and the only power I've seen them assert is to protect the national parks and forest lands.
 
Arbo said:
WOW. Somebody actually believes something like that??? Amazing.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Because it's accurate.

We all know about what the Secretary of State and the U.S. Attorney General is doing on a constant basis.

But how much do you know of your state's Attorney General or your state's Secretary of Agriculture? And the policies they are putting forth?
 
Arbo said:
Clearly you believe that, as you posted it. I find it to be quite out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

And where's your evidence of that?
 
samsmart said:
And where's your evidence of that?
Click to expand...

Evidence of what? That you believe it, or that I find such a belief to be out of touch with reality?

Seems a lot of people here do not understand what an opinion is, and they constantly clamor for a 'source' or 'evidence'... get a clue people.
 
Arbo said:
The FS is just as bad, if not worse, than the BLM. Mismanagement, and most of the employees don't have a CLUE about the law or regulations regarding the land.
Click to expand...

Are your a digruntal federal employee or retired federal employee?

My experience of 30+ years working in natural resources for the feds says your worng. IMO, what has the federal land agencies in a bind is the laws and direction given by Congress and the President Adminstration. They make the laws/regs and budgets the agencies live under. It is Congress and the President that lack the land management skills. Most federal employees working in natural resources are very dedicated to good stewardship of the land. There of course some bad employees, just like in any business in the private sector.
 
Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

The great thing about NP's being government owned is that you can see these great places free of charge. Put them in the hands of private enterprise and the land will be raped and desecrated to squeeze every possible profit out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom