Article

2005-05-16 Home Front: Politix

National Parks Director Says "Whole Parks" May Be Outsourced

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-16 17:45|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'll bet that the government could get illegal immigrants to run the parks for a fraction of what we pay the National Park Service.

Posted by DMFD 2005-05-16 18:26|| 2005-05-16 18:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Sheesh, Moose - are you terminal?

Posted by .com 2005-05-16 18:36|| 2005-05-16 18:36|| Front Page Top

#3 Aren't we all. It's the irony and the extasy don't you know.

Posted by Spemble Shipman 2005-05-16 19:40|| 2005-05-16 19:40|| Front Page Top

#4 Sheesh, he puts on his Spemble hat and goes all Yoda on us!

Posted by .com 2005-05-16 19:49|| 2005-05-16 19:49|| Front Page Top

#5 .com: In my State alone, since I was a kid, I have seen all the great places I used to visit for free grabbed by the feds, had a parking lot put in, and now you're not only charged for parking, but have to pay admission. And not just big stuff, but things like popular swimming creeks and caves, and huge areas that are now basically off-limits to most recreational use. These are not just really special, nice places, but damn near 1/3rd of my State. Where do they get off, thinking that they can land grab all of this and tell the local people they can't use it without a federal permit? "The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. Federally-owned and managed public lands include National Parks, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges." Do you honestly believe that the federal government needs more than a fraction of this State land?

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-16 21:00|| 2005-05-16 21:00|| Front Page Top

#6 yeah, moose, sometimes it's the best way to prevent loss of the resource. You should know, as an engineer directly impacted by enviro constraints...sometimes, I actually agree with the purpose, if not the methods

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-16 21:27|| 2005-05-16 21:27|| Front Page Top

#7 I would wager that those who used to maintain the places you're referring to asked for the Feds to maintain it - and the State Leg had to approve it. In other words, it was about money.

When each state was admitted to the Union the areas that were State lands and those that were Federal lands were clearly delineated. Utah, for example, is predominantly Federal land - as was agreed to when they joined. Texas kept almost ALL of the non-private land - they even own the coastlands and the off-shore rights to minerals, a unique condition. There is very little Federal land in Texas. Proposals for Military installations are happily negotiated, since they bring jobs and commerce. But it does not happen without the approval of the State Govt.

For land to become Federally managed (not sure if it is actually Federal land but perhaps that's academic, after the fact) after the state joined the Union, it is an act of the State Legislature that makes it so. The Federal Govt doesn't just run around gobbling up land. There is a measure, I think, dealing with Eminent Domain on the Federal level, but you'd have to get one of our legal beagles to address that - it sure doesn't happen without hearings and courts and such if it involves privately held land. I'm starting to think you're coming unglued.

Posted by .com 2005-05-16 21:28|| 2005-05-16 21:28|| Front Page Top

#8 I'll grant you the pre-existing ownership angle, .com, but there's no reason for them to keep it all. In particular, the choke holds on certain cities really have to go.

Remember the Homestead Act? The feds gave the land away for people to have their own place. I'm not saying that we need a bunch of farmers in the Sonoran Desert, but the federal government doesn't need all that land and it mis-uses it greatly. Note the huge fires are always on federal (or state sometimes, granted) forests, not private land for the most part.

Posted by jackal">jackal 2005-05-16 22:58|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-16 22:58|| Front Page Top

#9 .com: you may feel I may be coming "unglued", but in no uncertain terms, you *are* downright rude. Please don't act like a liberal and use personal attack to justify your arguments in the future, it makes you sound deficient. On topic, let me provide you a similar argument that was written as an editorial in the Washington Times on March 8th. "Freeing up federal lands", by Representative Chris Cannon, Utah Republican, who is chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus. Hardly someone who I would call "unglued" or "terminal". Many people in the western States, myself included would agree with him, and more, in petitioning for the return of what is our property from this ill-advised federal "taking".

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-16 23:07|| 2005-05-16 23:07|| Front Page Top

#10 The "unglued" reference is to the degree of Libertarian "ideals" you've begun to espouse recently. It reminds me why I never attended more than one Libertarian meeting. My comment was very fucking mild. I didn't use it to justify anything - it was an observation at the very end. Get over it, I don't tiptoe around anything for anybody.

What you're referring to is not "taking" - that's bullshit - it was designated Federal when they joined the Union. Period. You, and jackal, want them to give it back. Fair enough, contact your State Legislature and make your feelings known - and hold them accountable for the success or failure of doing so.

Look, you posted something erroneous - the seizure of State or private lands by the Feds - it has been Federal land since your state joined up. I corrected you, that's it. Now you've repeated the error again at the end of this last post. Can't you understand English?

I'm not for or against the issue of Federal or Federally managed land. I merely corrected an error - that today, now, at this moment, the Evil Federal Government is "taking" or "gobbling" up land. It's stupid on its face.

Posted by .com 2005-05-16 23:30|| 2005-05-16 23:30|| Front Page Top

#11 .com: You are wrong. Everything West of the Louisiana Purchase were Territorial-owned lands until Statehood. The great federal land grabs didn't even begin until Teddy Roosevelt, with the 1906 Antiquities Act, which meant only Oklahoma, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii could have agreed to surrender their lands on becoming States. Teddy, for his part, only took some of the crown jewels of the western US. But since that time, there has been a general spree of acquisitions of State lands, which culminated in the Clinton administration snatching huge tracts of land.

For your reference, the Antiquities Act. You'll note that it only mentions paying for private, not State, lands. http://www.cr.nps.gov/

In future, please reserve your rudeness for other posters. You have made it abundantly clear where you stand in several ways.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-17 00:01|| 2005-05-17 00:01|| Front Page Top

00:06 trailing wife
00:01 Anonymoose
23:59 trailing wife
23:57 badanov
23:57 docob
23:56 Al Bundy
23:42 docob
23:41 trailing wife
23:40 .com
23:40 docob
23:34 .com
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:34 .com
23:32 Silentbrick
23:30 .com
23:26 docob
23:23 Atomic Conspiracy
23:23 John in Tokyo
23:20 Cluse Jiting2689
23:18 trailing wife
23:16 trailing wife
23:15 docob
23:12 trailing wife
23:07 Anonymoose