Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > privatizing national parks
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1655 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma, WA
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 2:52 pm 
Sure, you might be able to convince people more funding is needed. Seems like a long arduous process that will have to be repeated time and again. To me a better way to get funding is corporate sponsors, privatization, and user fees...all governed by laws and contracts who's purpose is to preserve the natural park settings. Mothballing is one idea, but won't that deny access to some people, just like charging a fee might? The end result is the same: people cannot enjoy it.

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
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 2:55 pm 
I don't understand the resistance to simply writing contracts that state what limits will and will not apply to the concessionaires in terms of park preservation. The park service already operates under rules and guidelines, applying them to willing concessionaires shouldn't be a big deal.

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
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 2:56 pm 
Lagerman wrote:
The enviromental terrorist has the whole world spoked by there frivilous lawsuits or there "protests" that explode the cost of everything. If they used moderation and not just spoiled rich kids attitude to help get things solved...
That's a bit of a broad brush, but I agree less extremism on both sides would benefit everybody. That said, wishing for less extremism won't make it so. As cliche as it is, perhaps the only solution is acheiving middle-ground goals. When everybody is unsatisifed or satisifed, depending if you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full person, you know you've done well.

“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
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 2:57 pm 
At least with mothballing two things might be achieved: One is to get people thinking about whether or not the Parks matter to them. Maybe they don't, and we should sell them or otherwise get rid of them. The other is it's a heck of a lot safer than going nuts with privitization, because one that horse is out of the barn, it's not going to ever come back. LM, I have never heard of anything remotely ecoterrorism related WRT the NP system. If you have, please share. Also what associated cost burdens such acts have had on the taxpayers. I'm not supporting ecoterrorism, I just fail to see its relevance to this discussion.

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
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1655 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma, WA
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 2:59 pm 
Blue Dome wrote:
The money is available. It's a matter of appropriations. Without getting into a forbidden political discussion, let's just say (based on Don's post I referenced) with positive pressure in Washington D.C. good things are possible. up.gif
Yes, convincing the citizens of a democracy to support something is political. Not sure how we talk about it without getting political, because that's (money) the root of the matter.

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
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 3:02 pm 
whistlingmarmot wrote:
Sure, you might be able to convince people more funding is needed. Seems like a long arduous process that will have to be repeated time and again.
No more of a "long arduous process" that has to be repeated for any other appropriations. It's pretty straightforward: if we don't like (our government) process, then let's change the process. Otherwise, we have to work with what we've got.

“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
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn



Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 3144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cleaning up the dogma.
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 3:03 pm 
whistlingmarmot wrote:
Not sure how we talk about it without getting political, because that's (money) the root of the matter.
I agree, but there is also a duty our government has to protect our natural resources. It isn't only about money.

“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
Lagerman
UnAdvanced User



Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1314 | TRs | Pics
Location: Crab'n on the Hood Canal
Lagerman
UnAdvanced User
PostFri Jun 03, 2005 9:16 pm 
marylou wrote:
LM, I have never heard of anything remotely ecoterrorism related WRT the NP system. If you have, please share. Also what associated cost burdens such acts have had on the taxpayers. I'm not supporting ecoterrorism, I just fail to see its relevance to this discussion.
It affects the system as a whole. Including NP etc etc, but I guess if I went to get into it, it would lean more to a whole different thread and not the exact discussion at hand.

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


Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 22 | TRs | Pics
Location: Vermont
Green Mountain Hiker
Member
PostSat Jun 04, 2005 9:07 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
I don't understand the resistance to simply writing contracts that state what limits will and will not apply to the concessionaires in terms of park preservation. The park service already operates under rules and guidelines, applying them to willing concessionaires shouldn't be a big deal.
Mountain Goat, I agree that in theory and in a perfect world such contract could work in perpetuity and everything would stay the same. However, all of the evidence has shown that businesses effectively write their own rules. You cannot think for an instant that Bally's would not lobby for concessions in their contracts to allow for development of National Park lands to increase their ability to generate revenues even at the expense of protecting the park. I guarantee that all of the contracts will have clauses allowing either steep fee increases or development concessions which would essentially destroy the initial design and purpose of the parks. I am actually quite shocked at the cavalier attitude some on this site have towards our National Park systems. Are you willing to let our National Park systems become altered forever because of the current administration's lack of interest in protecting our Natural Wonders?

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


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2013 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fairwood, WA
Don
Member
PostSat Jun 04, 2005 9:10 pm 
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostSat Jun 04, 2005 9:17 pm 
ditto.gif ditto.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Lagerman
UnAdvanced User



Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1314 | TRs | Pics
Location: Crab'n on the Hood Canal
Lagerman
UnAdvanced User
PostSat Jun 04, 2005 9:36 pm 
Quote:
I am actually quite shocked at the cavalier attitude some on this site have towards our National Park systems. Are you willing to let our National Park systems become altered forever because of the current administration's lack of interest in protecting our Natural Wonders?
rolleyes.gif
What you call lack of interest is actually common sense. Something the far left has a major lack of when balancing resources.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 12:30 am 
Lagerman wrote:
Something the far left has a major lack of when balancing resources.
Hiking related political discussion and ONLY hiking related political discussion, goes in the Stewardship forum. For all other political discussion and debate, please click on the politics link to the top right to discuss at ENWH, or click here to find a political discussion forum that suits you. wink.gif

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 10:48 am 
Quote:
I am actually quite shocked at the cavalier attitude some on this site have towards our National Park systems. Are you willing to let our National Park systems become altered forever because of the current administration's lack of interest in protecting our Natural Wonders?
I'm quite shocked simply contracting out services is hailed as a "cavalier" attitude. I don't remember the park service being imbued with mystical properties that allow it to clean a toilet or serve a hot dog with any more environmental awareness than anybody else, or cut a log from a trail with any more awareness or caring either. Contractors have been used for decades. A lot of trail construction to Forest services standards is done by contractors. Most of the jobs we're talking about don't pay very well no matter *who* is paying. Nor should they, every dollar spent above market rates is a dollar not spent on the park itself. Yes, I'm perfectly willing to let things change in the Park Service in regards to what we are discussing. I'm not interested in allowing fealty to the status quo trump getting services which are perfectly basic farmed out within a regulatory framework that will exist no matter who pays an employee there. 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.

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 11:06 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
I'm quite shocked simply contracting out services is hailed as a "cavalier" attitude… 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.
I don’t think anybody here is dead set against contracting out campground cleaning concessions (and further, I think you know that). People are concerned about Disney and Bally’s Resorts getting concessions that could enable development that would put the shareholders’ interests before the interests of our National Parks as natural treasures. As MC aptly wrote:
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. To produce a profit you maximize revenue and minimize costs. National Parks (not National forests btw) are supposed to be run to preserve natural/historical features and provide recreation for the benefit of all. I see these as cross purposes in many situations.
Such concern is reasonable and well-founded. For anybody interested in the welfare of our National Parks, discounting such concern is foolish.

“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
   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 noahk!
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