• 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

Are your a digruntal federal employee or retired federal employee?

Neither, but lovely attempt at a spin into personal attack.

My experience of 30+ years working in natural resources for the feds says your worng.

Thanks for at least admitting to your bias.
 
Look Arbo, we disagree and what you're saying about the FS doesn't jive at all with my experience with them. I've shared a little of my experience with them that has led to to my opinion, what's yours? What encounter soured you so on the US Forest Service?
 
Neither, but lovely attempt at a spin into personal attack.




Thanks for at least admitting to your bias.

biased. could that not be said about you who never has worked in a federal land management position?
No personal attack. mearly trying to understand your one sided / misinformed view of federal land management employees.

No spin Arbo. you have opinions, but nothing to base it on. So show that even the majority of federal land management workers are incompentent, not caring, and want to do a poor job. Show me where I am wrong with my bias.:lol:

I mearly informed you that Congress and the President administration has more to say on what goes on with federal lands than the average worker.
 
The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

(1,000,000 square miles)

291 - Federal Lands in the US | Strange Maps | Big Think

That does not include land owned by local, country or state government. It also does not include land the government has declared can not be developed.
 
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.

Yes.

Because there's a difference between an educated opinion and an uneducated opinion.

Lack of evidence to support your opinion proves which kind yours is.
 
biased. could that not be said about you who never has worked in a federal land management position?

The spin keeps coming.

Clearly if you WORKED for the FS, odds are you are going to take offense and be defensive of anyone that has been out there and seen piss poor work done, has met other FS 'officials' that had no idea what certain laws entail, and run about as if on a power trip.

but nothing to base it on.

Other than personal experience having spent a LOT of time on such lands... but I'm guessing if it doesn't come with a link to Mother Jones, it is discounted, right?
 
Lack of evidence to support your opinion proves which kind yours is.

No, it proves many things, but they are all about you, not anyone else. This forum has a disease... those that see an opinion they don't like then scream and shout about links and other nonsense. If you disagree, fine, leave it at that. To throw a tantrum over the 'need' for 'evidence' to support an opinion is utterly stupid.
 
No, it proves many things, but they are all about you, not anyone else. This forum has a disease... those that see an opinion they don't like then scream and shout about links and other nonsense. If you disagree, fine, leave it at that. To throw a tantrum over the 'need' for 'evidence' to support an opinion is utterly stupid.

I see your point, but not valid here. Folks are chiming in with their opinions and also letting you know the experience their opinion derives from. However, the depth of your experience (that led you to your opinion) is radically smaller than those who disagree with you. Armchair quarterbacking as opposed to quarterbacking on the field.
 
Folks are chiming in with their opinions and also letting you know the experience their opinion derives from. However, the depth of your experience (that led you to your opinion) is radically smaller than those who disagree with you.

ONE guy said he worked for the FS for 30 years. That's his biased experience. I haven't seen anyone else offer anything but their opinion backed by nothing more than personal experience... hey, that's what I did. So what's the difference? OH. It's that my opinion is different. Yeah, it's that transparent. March on soldier.
 
The spin keeps coming.

Clearly if you WORKED for the FS, odds are you are going to take offense and be defensive of anyone that has been out there and seen piss poor work done, has met other FS 'officials' that had no idea what certain laws entail, and run about as if on a power trip.

Other than personal experience having spent a LOT of time on such lands... but I'm guessing if it doesn't come with a link to Mother Jones, it is discounted, right?

actually I worked for BLM.
Mother who?
Now who is spinning. and doing personal attack.
So if I am biased, then you must be because you never have worked in such a position you are critical of:lol:

here is a clue. I am not a tree hugger type. Just happen to have an opinion that disagrees with you. Guess we cancel each other out.
 
ONE guy said he worked for the FS for 30 years. That's his biased experience. I haven't seen anyone else offer anything but their opinion backed by nothing more than personal experience... hey, that's what I did. So what's the difference? OH. It's that my opinion is different. Yeah, it's that transparent. March on soldier.

Okay, well I grew up around the FS, as I explained. Also did my share of trail cutting and trail management for them. Even spent a summer up in a tower doing fire lookout - had to take classes to get that position.

No, it's that your opinion is out in left field somewhere and doesn't jive with anyone I've ever met working for the FS.
 
ONE guy said he worked for the FS for 30 years. That's his biased experience. I haven't seen anyone else offer anything but their opinion backed by nothing more than personal experience... hey, that's what I did. So what's the difference? OH. It's that my opinion is different. Yeah, it's that transparent. March on soldier.

spin. Never said I worked for the FS.
Land management for the Feds intails the NPS , BIA, BLM, FWS USFS, BOR,
What is insulting is to lump all agencies under the FS. Even Colorado has these. Each have a different missions set by Congress.
 
My personal opinion based on experience.

At one time or another, I've visited national parks in just about every state in the Union - expect Alaska and Hawaii. They are gems that should and must be shared with future generations. The first ones I visited were in my teens and pre-teens and I gained an appreciation for them.

My most recent experiences were with the South and West Rims of the Grand Canyon. In the South, I saw a combination of Parks Service and private enterprise that enhanced the experience. The West Rim experience is to see it through the eyes of the Hualapai who have lived there for generations - another worth-while experience.
 
So if I am biased, then you must be because you never have worked in such a position you are critical of:lol:

That statement is so devoid of logic it's impressive that it exists.

Okay, well I grew up around the FS, as I explained. Also did my share of trail cutting and trail management for them. Even spent a summer up in a tower doing fire lookout - had to take classes to get that position.

No, it's that your opinion is out in left field somewhere and doesn't jive with anyone I've ever met working for the FS.

So you were also a part of federal land management... shocker. As I said before, it is expected anyone that does would have a positive opinion of the work those organizations do. It's called bias.

One doesn't need to have WORKED for them to have an opinion of them. The idea that they do, as put forth by your comment, is about as insane as saying someone that never served in the military should have no opinion on the military. Logically baffling.
 
That statement is so devoid of logic it's impressive that it exists.



So you were also a part of federal land management... shocker. As I said before, it is expected anyone that does would have a positive opinion of the work those organizations do. It's called bias.

One doesn't need to have WORKED for them to have an opinion of them. The idea that they do, as put forth by your comment, is about as insane as saying someone that never served in the military should have no opinion on the military. Logically baffling.

I said you had an opinion. I also pretty much said the opinon was wrong. That was also my opinion.
This is going in circles. So you dislike what the feds to with the federal land because you had a bad experience with someone who worked for them.
Go complain to someone who cares.:mrgreen:

so prey, how would a private company do better?
 
Go complain to someone who cares.:mrgreen:

so prey, how would a private company do better?

It's a part of the discussion, if you don't like my opinion, so what. Perhaps forums are not really a good place for you.

Again, thanks for showing you don't read what others wrote, I was one of, if not the first, to say hell no to corporations owning the land.
 
It's a part of the discussion, if you don't like my opinion, so what. Perhaps forums are not really a good place for you.

Again, thanks for showing you don't read what others wrote, I was one of, if not the first, to say hell no to corporations owning the land.

sorry, I will admit I have read all your posts.

and if you don't like mine. so what also. :mrgreen:
 
your national parks are a socialist venture...pure socialism and yet even republicans feel the need to protect them...

but health care is a no no..
 
Like most other people, not just NO but HELL NO!
 
Like many on this issue, my immediate and continued reaction to the suggestion that corporations should have any real say or ownership of our national parks (or forests for that matter) is not just no, but hell no (my actual thoughts after first reading the OP).

Eventually I would love to work as a ranger in either the parks or the forests in order to help protect them. There is little reason that corporations would have to keep protected lands protected. There is no reason to believe that private entities are more likely to manage the land better, not with the same benefits all people can gain from the current access they have to those lands. Corporations are too much about the profits. This means they would go out of their way make a profit off those lands, whether it means charging large entrance or other fees to go to the parks, using the parks as waste collection sites or natural resource sources for profit, ignoring the advice of environmental scientist in order to maintain appearance and/or safety of the parks, or a combination of these or other things that would be detrimental to the forests/parks.
 
Why were national parks created in the first place?

To protect them from commercial exploitation. In some national parks they really aren't pristine as some practices such as clear-cutting was already going on before they became national parks.

Free market advocates like to spout the long-term money-making opportunities, and the incentive to preserve, yada yada yada, but the fact is that most corporations have shareholders/stakeholders that are only concerned about immediate profits. To said shareholders/stakeholders, long-term thinking means bailing out when a resource is exhausted and buying into another money-making opportunity.
 
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.

Never enough national parks....Our population is ever growing..
I'd never trust private enterprise to care for our parks. never !
 
No, it proves many things, but they are all about you, not anyone else. This forum has a disease... those that see an opinion they don't like then scream and shout about links and other nonsense. If you disagree, fine, leave it at that. To throw a tantrum over the 'need' for 'evidence' to support an opinion is utterly stupid.

OK...
Then, sir, what to you advance as a solution to this problem ?
BTW, extremists are everywhere, I have run across some, its no pleasant at all...
 
your national parks are a socialist venture...pure socialism and yet even republicans feel the need to protect them...

but health care is a no no..
Hell I consider myself libertarian and I feel the need to protect national parks by the feds.
 
Back
Top Bottom