• 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
No, that's like saying it's ok to give up your immune system because you're not sick right now.

Yep, it's exactly like that in the same way that blue is exactly the same as tomato.
 
Yep, it's exactly like that in the same way that blue is exactly the same as tomato.

Really? How does the color blue affect a tomato?

See....the ways words are connected means things.
 
In the same way that oil exploration affects people who don't live there.



Ya don't say.

The national resources in those areas go beyond extraction profits and those other resources that can be destroyed belong to ALL OF US and thus, we are affected.
 
Your experiences as a resident of New Hampshire are unique to this discussion.
Far more than mine though I've been hiking and vacationing in NH since 1977.
That's why I said "consider". I don't have any data to decide if it would be a good idea or not.
A brief discussion of how the NFS and AMC and locals work together would illuminate how the Northern Forest works .
 
Care to share the math? Or should we simply take your word for it?



It is on this site, where this question came up about a year or so ago. I did the math on the forums, basing it on available data from some National parks and forests in my area. The way it ended up, the park would have to charge around a thousand dollars a day per person in order to equal the profits of simply developing the land and selling it as housing subdivisions.

Look it up if you want; I don't care to go through it again.
 
Your experiences as a resident of New Hampshire are unique to this discussion.
Far more than mine though I've been hiking and vacationing in NH since 1977.

A brief discussion of how the NFS and AMC and locals work together would illuminate how the Northern Forest works .

I love our parks here. They do a great job with the mountains especially. We've hiked a lot of the Presidential range.

I'd say NH is probably very equipped to manage our parks. Other states, maybe not so much. Up here we have decent coffers and little poverty & unemployment. And we collect most of our taxes from the tourists.;)
 
Should We Privatize National Parks?

I can see it now.

Mt. Exxon National Park, formerly known as Mount Rainier...

11j3lg5.jpg
 
I can see it now.

Mt. Exxon National Park, formerly known as Mount Rainier...

11j3lg5.jpg
If all it would be is a sign, that would be borderline acceptable.

But I'm thinking we'd be touring oil rigs in the park or some ****....
 
The states are more likely to cut corners and deals which compromise the parks and make them open to exploitation as cash strapped states all compete for economic investment from the private sector. I think giving them to the states would be a bad idea.

It is the Federal Government that has cut corners, and sending control to the states would keep them from being closed when the Government shuts down.
 
It is the Federal Government that has cut corners, and sending control to the states would keep them from being closed when the Government shuts down.

Most of our large National Parks are located in rural states with a low tax base. The single largest expenditure for those rural states is education. After that its programs like SCHIP, and various safety-net type programs, then infrastructure, after that its policing and emergency services. Parks, DNR, state forests and so on are way down the list and are the first to be cut when the state gets into budget trouble. For example, Wyoming simply does not have the tax base to manage the National Parks and Forests located within that state without selling much of those parks and forests off to developers. So unless you want Yellowstone to become another Vail, leave it in the National Park System.

National Parks are a tiny fraction of our federal budget outlays, if they have issues, then fund them a little better. Why mess with this nation's single greatest idea? Our National Parks, Forests, and Federal Wilderness Areas are literally what makes this nation unique. You can strap a pack on and completely leave civilization here and experience true freedom as long as you are out there, there are few other places on earth that you can do that in.
 
Most of our large National Parks are located in rural states with a low tax base. The single largest expenditure for those rural states is education. After that its programs like SCHIP, and various safety-net type programs, then infrastructure, after that its policing and emergency services. Parks, DNR, state forests and so on are way down the list and are the first to be cut when the state gets into budget trouble. For example, Wyoming simply does not have the tax base to manage the National Parks and Forests located within that state without selling much of those parks and forests off to developers. So unless you want Yellowstone to become another Vail, leave it in the National Park System.

National Parks are a tiny fraction of our federal budget outlays, if they have issues, then fund them a little better. Why mess with this nation's single greatest idea? Our National Parks, Forests, and Federal Wilderness Areas are literally what makes this nation unique. You can strap a pack on and completely leave civilization here and experience true freedom as long as you are out there, there are few other places on earth that you can do that in.

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.
 
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.

If there are resources there to exploit, then of course the states will want them. What you would have in such a scenario is the states taking over federal lands with good timber, mining, and oil resources, while they left the federal government with what they considered worthless lands. What is wrong with the current system of National Parks? We all own and pay for places like Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Smokey Mountain National Park, and Yellowstone, not just the residents of those states. In fact, when you get down to it, the residents of states like New York, New Jersey, and California have paid a lot more for the management and upkeep of parks like Glacier and Yellowstone than the residents of Montana and Wyoming.
 
If there are resources there to exploit, then of course the states will want them. What you would have in such a scenario is the states taking over federal lands with good timber, mining, and oil resources, while they left the federal government with what they considered worthless lands. What is wrong with the current system of National Parks? We all own and pay for places like Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Smokey Mountain National Park, and Yellowstone, not just the residents of those states. In fact, when you get down to it, the residents of states like New York, New Jersey, and California have paid a lot more for the management and upkeep of parks like Glacier and Yellowstone than the residents of Montana and Wyoming.

If the only government you trust is the Federal government, then how open are you really to having a discussion? States also have to deal with the infrastructure around National Parks, they also have new national parks being created without their consent. I'm not comfortable with the absolute that all politics is local, except national parks. Everything you attribute as a fear of the converting some national parks to state parks has happened to some degree in national parks.
 
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.
 
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.

Tell that to your kids when the boundary waters have been stripped bare and turned into more condos.
 
If the only government you trust is the Federal government, then how open are you really to having a discussion? States also have to deal with the infrastructure around National Parks, they also have new national parks being created without their consent. I'm not comfortable with the absolute that all politics is local, except national parks. Everything you attribute as a fear of the converting some national parks to state parks has happened to some degree in national parks.

I don't know of any National Parks that were created without local support. In fact, as National Parks are established by congress, its a given that the local congressman is usually the bills sponsor. Its usually local movements that are the initial catalyst for the creation of a National Park.
 
Tell that to your kids when the boundary waters have been stripped bare and turned into more condos.

Technically the Boundary Waters are a Federal Wilderness Area on National Forest land, not a National Park.
 
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.

Well all I can say is thank God your view expressed above is one that hardly anyone holds.
 
I don't know of any National Parks that were created without local support. In fact, as National Parks are established by congress, its a given that the local congressman is usually the bills sponsor. Its usually local movements that are the initial catalyst for the creation of a National Park.

I was a bit broad in my definition. I was including National Monuments in with National Parks.
 
Back
Top Bottom