- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 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 on 4/10/15 at 9:20 am to steeltiger17
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?
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 on 4/10/15 at 9:20 am to steeltiger17
It wouldn't solve our problems. It's a stupid idea.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:20 am to steeltiger17
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
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 on 4/10/15 at 9:21 am to steeltiger17
If this is to sell to private firms -YAY... To private individuals who restrict access -NAY
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:21 am to steeltiger17
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
The bill was written so states can sell the rights to resources in the national parks to private industry though
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:21 am to steeltiger17
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 on 4/10/15 at 9:22 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
It wouldn't solve our problems. It's a stupid idea.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:24 am to GenesChin
you can't trust the state to do anything right. especially not LA.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:26 am to TDsngumbo
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 on 4/10/15 at 9:28 am to steeltiger17
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 on 4/10/15 at 9:41 am to steeltiger17
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 on 4/10/15 at 9:44 am to steeltiger17
The government doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. :poliboard:
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:44 am to steeltiger17
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).
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 on 4/10/15 at 9:44 am to jeff5891
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.
They pull this shite all the time with the Wilderness Act.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:52 am to Ash Williams
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.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News