Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > privatizing national parks
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Green Mountain Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 22 | TRs | Pics
Location: Vermont
Green Mountain Hiker
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 11:13 am 
[quote="MtnGoat"]
Quote:
i don't think changing who pays for certain services threatens degradation of our natural wonders, because Mt Rainier doesn't care who is cleaning campgrounds and I don't either. No matter who is doing it they'll be operating using park guidelines, and we can stand against destruction of physical park attributes regardless of who runs concessions.
MtnGoat, again - I agree with you that in a perfect world, no one should really care who pays the bills, as long as the job gets done. But you have still not been able to provide me with an adequate defense to my main assertion: That the private contractors will begin to lobby and obtain changes in the rules and regulations to allow for development of park lands and property to the detriment of the park lands both in the context of protecting the natural habitat and protecting the integrity of the park itself (i.e. - a place of wilderness unspoiled by man). Based on all of our posts back and forth, I know you are aware that Bally's or Disney or a myriad of other resort/hotel managers would not be interested in only cleaning toilets and doing such for the fee to the park. They would see it as a chance to bring other activities (i.e. - revenue streams) to the parks such as casinos, golf courses and other venues which have NO place in a National Park. I guess MtnGoat, the question is, would you be happy if your government allowed a golf course at the base of Rainier? Or how about a Casino? GMH

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 11:23 am 
Quote:
I don’t think anybody here is dead set against contracting out campground cleaning concessions (and further, I think you know that).
Your personal views of what I do or don't know aren't relevant. I don't need to mistate or hide my views because I don't care who agrees with what I say in the first place. I don't slip in comments concerning *your* honesty, I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor.
Quote:
People are concerned about Disney and Bally’s Resorts getting concessions that could enable development that would put the shareholders’ interest before the interests of our National Parks as natural treasures.
They can all rest assured most of us here, myself included, will vote against any construction of a McMuir which slippery sloped from having non park service employees wield shovels or trash bins.
Quote:
Such concern is reasonable and well-founded. For anybody interested in the welfare of our National Parks, discounting such concern is foolish.
I'd never discount such concern, or such lofty phraseology. I'm discounting the idea that because corporations exist to make money, they'll do so by building McMuir.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 11:31 am 
Quote:
That the private contractors will begin to lobby and obtain changes in the rules and regulations to allow for development of park lands and property to the detriment of the park lands both in the context of protecting the natural habitat and protecting the integrity of the park itself (i.e. - a place of wilderness unspoiled by man).
But the park is not a place of wilderness unspoiled by man. It has tremendous visitation, roads, parking lots, stores, trails, campgrounds. The detriment has already occurred. All we're discussing is how much degradation is acceptable. You're here arguing rules and regulations, as citizens and buisness people they have every right to do the same darned thing. I can't argue against them trying to make changes because they have every right to do so just as you or I have. What matters is the actual details of what they try to do, and at such time as Bally's is trying to profitize something that actually does damage the mtn, you and I will apparently both be against it. I guess I'm not seeing the fears of what might happen as strong enough reason for me to oppose contract work that isn't actually doing what we both do not want.
Quote:
I guess MtnGoat, the question is, would you be happy if your government allowed a golf course at the base of Rainier? Or how about a Casino?
It depends. Where is the "base" of Rainier? My point is that I'd need to see the specifics, because I'm not making distinctions based merely on impact or degradation which actually occur every single time a human enters the park. I'd venture to say I'd have a tougher time with a casino than a golf course, but I'm not going to simply write other uses out because of a predetermined opposition to other uses until I actually see the details of what would be proposed.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn



Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 3144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cleaning up the dogma.
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 11:39 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
I don't need to mistate or hide my views because I don't care who agrees with what I say in the first place.
I’ll say it more plainly: your I-don’t-know-why-everybody-is-upset-about-contracting-out-campground-cleaning-concessions argument is a strawman.
MtnGoat wrote:
I'm discounting the idea that because corporations exist to make money, they'll do so by building McMuir.
Your faith in corporate America to do the right thing if given the opportunity to bid on “whole” National Park concessions ignores recent history in corporate America. If you think Disney and Bally’s Resorts would put the integrity of Mt. Rainier National Park before their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, I wish you the best of luck.
Malachai Constant wrote:
Private Corporations are duty bound by their Articles of Incorporation to provide a profit for their stockholders and are acting ultra veries if they do not...

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” — Harry S. Truman
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 11:49 am 
Quote:
I’ll say it more plainly: your I-don’t-know-why-everybody-is-upset-about-contracting-out-campground-cleaning-concessions argument is a straw man.
Sure it is. I haven't seen anyone here concerned about what will follow from contracting out services.
Quote:
Your faith in corporate America to do the right thing if given the opportunity to bid on “whole” National Park concessions ignores recent history in corporate America.
"Recent history"? As is it's somehow now worse or different than ever? Is there some incorrupibility in govt i'm not aware of? I refuse to brand everyone as criminal because some are. We should procede forwards looking for and prosecuting crimes when they occur, but not using it's existence as a reason not to examine new ways of managing park services because criminal activity is a constant in both the corporate AND govt world. Any move to McPark the parks will have to be public and approved. If the processes for stopping what we don't want are insufficiently responsive to prevent this, then your contention that we should trust the State to protect the parks, when it isn't even responsive enough to prevent what we don't want, is already poisoned .
Quote:
If you think Disney and Bally’s Resorts would put the integrity of Mt. Rainier National Park before their duty to their shareholders, I wish you the best of luck.
Strawman.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn



Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 3144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cleaning up the dogma.
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 11:57 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
Any move to McPark the parks will have to be public and approved.
Your assumptions are noted.
Blue Dome wrote:
If you think Disney and Bally’s Resorts would put the integrity of Mt. Rainier National Park before their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, I wish you the best of luck.
MtnGoat wrote:
Strawman.
Nice try. For a corporation not to put their shareholders’ interest first would be acting against the corporation’s fiduciary duty. The liability could be substantial. It’s not a "strawman," it’s a fact.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” — Harry S. Truman
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 3:02 pm 
Quote:
But the park is not a place of wilderness unspoiled by man
Hi. 97% of MRNP is Wilderness. You sure about that? PS. The food concessions are a very bad example of future privatization since they have been privatized for, like, ever. rolleyes.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 6:55 pm 
Quote:
Hi. 97% of MRNP is Wilderness. You sure about that?
Pretty sure. As far as I know, most of the concessions are in non wilderness areas. That these exist at all, makes my statement a true one.
Quote:
PS. The food concessions are a very bad example of future privatization since they have been privatized for, like, ever.
I think they're a great example. They prove private concessions can work within the park regulatory framework, because as stated, they've been there for, like, forever! Now that they have had a toehold for as long as they have, do we have examples of these concession holders pushing for rule changes to expand their in-park soft drink and corn dog empires, in order to satisfy their stockholders?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 6:59 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Quote:
97% of MRNP is Wilderness. You sure about that?
Pretty sure. As far as I know, most of the concessions are in non wilderness areas. That these exist at all, makes my statement a true one.
So having 3% be non wilderness negates the wilderness status of the other 97%?

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 7:09 pm 
Nope. But it indicates the statement that the park is untrammeled wilderness is false. If I wanted to be even pickier, I'd point out the poster for that round may also ok the trammelation and degradation caused any human visitation whatsoever, and thus to attack someone else on the basis of what is really a sliding scale, as if the entire park is somehow pristine, is a no go. the bottom line being that whenever someone drags out "pristine" or "untrammeled" (sp?) or whatever, they really mean keeping uses THEY don't like out, not the absolutist language being argued.... which makes it clear no one is lily white here in terms of impacts. for gosh sakes the entire mountain is littered with human crap even in the "pristine" areas.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 7:10 pm 
Hm, I think the reason the Park went 97% Wilderness right after the passage of the Act was to keep goobers from trashing the place. Given the kind of anti-environmental climate of today's America, I applaud whoever had the foresight to do so. up.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 8:14 pm 
How public lands were redistributed in days of yore...
Quote:
Taking office as consul in January of 59 BC, Caesar attempted to assure the Senate that he would act legally and only for the benefit of the State. As evidence of his good faith, and at the same time hoping to embarrass his opponents, he ordered all transactions of the Assembly and Senate to be written down and published, the first time in Rome's history that this was made a routine practice. But when he introduced his legislation to distribute public land to Pompey's veterans, his old antagonist Cato attempted to kill the measure with a personal filibuster. Caesar immediately ordered him arrested by the Senate's officers and taken to prison. Cato continued to speak as he was being hustled out, and most of the senators rose to accompany him. In a rage, Caesar shouted at one and demanded to know why he was leaving; the senator replied that he preferred Cato's company in prison to Caesar's in the Senate. Caesar was shamed into halting the arrest and adjourning the Senate. Taking advantage of a little-used legal procedure, Caesar then introduced the bill in the Assembly, which had the authority to enact it without the Senate's concurrence. But when his con-Consul, Marcus Bibulus, attempted to veto it, Caesar's henchmen emptied a baset of dung over his head, beat up his escorts and then had the bill's opponents dragged out of the building. With Pompey's soldiers in evidence all around the Forum, the Assembly enacted the law providing them with land. Using the same strong-arm tactics, Caesar kept his agreement with Crassus by pushing through the tax collection law, a law from which he, too profited. Then, to strengthen his alliance wtih Pompey, Caesar altered his will to make him his heir and, further, gave his seventeen-year old daughter, Julia, to him in marriage, even though she was engaged at the time.
From Caesar Against the Celts

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
oosik
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 76 | TRs | Pics
oosik
Member
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 12:26 am 
marylou wrote:
Hm, I think the reason the Park went 97% Wilderness right after the passage of the Act was to keep goobers from trashing the place. Given the kind of anti-environmental climate of today's America, I applaud whoever had the foresight to do so. up.gif
Actually, the wilderness designation came much more recently. I thought it was the '80s, and rather than going off of memory, I actually managed to confirm it. http://www.nps.gov/mora/adhi/adhi19.htm
Quote:
The regional office held back the Mount Rainier wilderness proposal until NPS planners had completed similar proposals for North Cascades and Olympic National Parks. The three wilderness proposals were then combined in one bill, which Congress enacted on November 16, 1988. Title III of the Washington Park Wilderness Act designated 216,855 acres of Mount Rainier National Park, or approximately 95 percent of the park's total land area, as the "Mount Rainier Wilderness." As such it became a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System and subject to all the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Together with adjacent areas under Forest Service management which had been designated wilderness in 1984, the Mount Rainier Wilderness afforded a greater degree of protection from threatened development.
You wouldn't think such a move would be needed within a National Park, but somebody must have anticipated something. The one identifiable detriment of the status is the potential for imposing limits on visitation based on artificial "user encounters" standards rather than basing it on the carrying capacity of the land. That designation may limit to what degree sites get "hardened" for visitation too, but I don't know for sure if it does.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 2:30 am 
Sorry, oosik, I stand corrected. I should have checked my facts before I said "right after." BUT--the fact remains that the effort was made to designate most of the land in the WA NPs as Wilderness. To me, and this is just my opinion, that says someone had the foresight to ensure the lands designated were protected at the highest level, that being Wilderness. It makes sense to designate after the Park's infrastructure was set up in order to limit development to the existing corridors. In every case, that being all three Parks discussed here, I think if not for the Wilderness designation, we'd see development and new roads. Think about NCNP in particular. Possibly the most spectacular Park in the lower 48, and most of it can't be seen from the road. Pretty crazy, but nice someone was thinking. It's interesting to read about the history of that Park, the construction of Highway 20 was extremely controversial even back then. PS. Goat, you talk about "trammeled" NPs. Sure, there are places, especially at MRNP, but the vast majority of NCNP, in fact just about all of it, is very untrammeled.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Mongo
Member
Member


Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 302 | TRs | Pics
Mongo
Member
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 8:53 am 
If you want to see privatisation gone bad, look at Crater lake National Park. The contractor was of course pushing for more boat rides in the lake, more concessions on length of season, types of concessions, etc. etc. They were about to begin negotiations for contract renewal about two years ago when they gave one day notice and walked off the site, completely against the contract. They were probably losing money with the concession as it was, (it sure seemed like they wern't putting any money or effort into it) but I don't really know why they left. By the time the government moves forward to collect anything from them the front corporation will have gone belly up and the people taking eh brunt of the contractors actions are the visitors.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > privatizing national parks
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum