Started By
Message

So how many people would be OK with selling off National Parks?

Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:18 am
Posted by steeltiger17
Member since Mar 2015
490 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:18 am
quote:

SA 838 is a budgetary amendment which backs support for and funding of state efforts to take over federal land. It was part of a larger debate over the 2016 fiscal year federal budget.

Introducing the amendment, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) stated, "When we have an opportunity to consider this amendment, a vote for it is really a vote in support of — as a priority of this Congress — comprehensive approaches to land policies to facilitate economic development, empower States and improve our conservation systems."

The back story is that there's ongoing, and potentially unconstitutional efforts taking place in Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska and Idaho to see those states take possession of public land from the federal government, then allow the exploitation of their resources by private industry.

AmericanProgress.org calls it "…a losing battle that amounts to little more than political grandstanding to rally their extreme conservative base and feed an antigovernment narrative. Such bills contradict the majority of public opinion in these states, as well as economic realities and constitutional precedent dating back to the mid-19th century."

The senate's budgetary amendment to support this privatization carries no legal weight — it's not a law — but does signify a troubling level of support for the privatization of public land. And make no mistake, this is about privatization and resource exploitation.

Efforts to "reclaim" public land are financially support by special interest groups like ALEC and Americans For Prosperity. ALEC is primarily funded by ExxonMobil while Americans For Prosperity was founded by David and Charles Koch.

SA 838 passed 51-49. Democrats unanimously opposed it, while all but three Republicans voted for it. The holdouts were Corey Gardner of Colorado, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

LINK


This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 9:27 am
Posted by Chad504boy
4 posts
Member since Feb 2005
166127 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:19 am to
the answer is 51
Posted by Hermit Crab
Under the Sea
Member since Nov 2008
7161 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:20 am to
need a little more context.

sell them to third party operators that will run the parks and conserve them?

Or just sell them to the general public to do whatever they want with the land?
Posted by TDsngumbo
Alpha Silverfox
Member since Oct 2011
41526 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:20 am to
It wouldn't solve our problems. It's a stupid idea.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83517 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:20 am to
I'd be ok with it if there were still some type of regulation on who they were sold to and their intentions

It would be a sad day if Yellowstone was bought by a developer and turned into a wealthy, gated suburb

but if it was bought with the intention of keeping the park, just run by a private entity, I'm all for it

This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 9:21 am
Posted by CaptainJ47
Gonzales
Member since Nov 2007
7334 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:21 am to
If this is to sell to private firms -YAY... To private individuals who restrict access -NAY
Posted by GenesChin
The Promise Land
Member since Feb 2012
37706 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:21 am to
Technically, this bill only gives the land to the states to be run. It in no way sells the parks off to private industry.



The bill was written so states can sell the rights to resources in the national parks to private industry though
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:21 am to
Well I do a lot of hunting in Kisatchie so no, I wouldn't like it. My other hunting area, Jackson/Bienville wma is already rumored to no longer be public soon.
Posted by Placebeaux
Bobby Fischer Fan Club President
Member since Jun 2008
51852 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:22 am to
quote:

It wouldn't solve our problems. It's a stupid idea.
Posted by AUbagman
LA
Member since Jun 2014
10561 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:24 am to
Posted by Mung
NorCal
Member since Aug 2007
9054 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:24 am to
you can't trust the state to do anything right. especially not LA.
Posted by Navytiger74
Member since Oct 2009
50458 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:26 am to
quote:

It wouldn't solve our problems. It's a stupid idea.


This. But the measures were non-binding resolutions. They are symbolic. Just Congress reminding us that they're still bored and still stupid.
Posted by MyNameIsNobody
Member since Dec 2013
1132 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:28 am to
quote:

So how many people would be OK with selling off National Parks?


it is public land dumb dumb...."outside of national parks"

LINK

Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:38 am to
Terrible idea
Posted by Ash Williams
South of i-10
Member since May 2009
18144 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:41 am to
I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks. Everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swing set. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck.
Posted by Dennis ODell
New Orleans
Member since Jun 2010
375 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:44 am to
The government doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. :poliboard:
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79104 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:44 am to
I'm ok with it in some situations, given that it won't apply to national parks and preserves.

But there are some republicans/conservatives who would eagerly dice up swaths of public lands (including national parks) to sell or otherwise develop, simply because the environment is for liberals and we hate liberals. It's absurd.

Public land conservation is not at all antithetical to conservative ideology. Obviously I'm not talking about taking over a farm to save a yellow spotted Kansas beetle, but we should control more of the environmental/conservation narrative. Part of that means breaking down the wall between outdoorsy people generally and the Southern outdoors (see OB board).
Posted by BoostAddict
Member since Jun 2007
2986 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:44 am to
It doesn't do that at all. It's (for example) to limit politicians from New York from public land grabs in Utah, giving the states a say-so in the matter.

They pull this shite all the time with the Wilderness Act.
Posted by studentsect
Member since Jan 2004
2258 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:52 am to
quote:

I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks. Everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swing set. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck.

Posted by Ash Williams
South of i-10
Member since May 2009
18144 posts
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:54 am to
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram