What would happen to National Parks if Ron Paul close down Department of Interior?

Vanilluxe

Vanilluxe

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
766
I'm kind of concerned that our national parks will be ruined if he sells off those plots of land, is this really going to happen?
 
I defiantly think this is an issue worth alot of thought. The constitution really doesn't allow for the fed to control land this way. I am actually curious to see if we can come up with a proper solution to this. There has to be a good way to keep public land and obey the constitution. Maybe pay to use, so that we can be fair to those who don't use it. Doesn't seem like it should cost much to take care if parks, you might even be able to let it be privately run.
 
I'm just afraid there will be some people who wants to take advantage of those historic lands and ruin it for everyone else.
 
Why couldn't there just be state parks? Or national parks managed by the states? Does a park suddenly become better if it's a national park?
 
Vanilluxe said:
Some states don't have the funds to run national parks.
Click to expand...
And the federal government currently does? ;P

Maybe if the federal government didn't spend the money on it, they could decrease federal taxes, and the state could slightly increase their taxes to fund it, if the people in the state support it.
 
eduardo89 said:
They will once the federal governemnt stops stealing from their citizens.

If they don't have money, then privatize.
Click to expand...

I am afraid of privatizing, unless there is a contract that guarantees the survival of the park and it will not be converted to commercial/industrial use which will ruin all the history of the parks.
 
Vanilluxe said:
I am afraid of privatizing, unless there is a contract that guarantees the survival of the park and it will not be converted to commercial/industrial use which will ruin all the history of the parks.
Click to expand...

Why would they ruin the park? They'd make no money off people going to a crappy park.

Anyways, private organizations are much better at preservation and restoration of nature than the government.
 
eduardo89 said:
Why would they ruin the park? They'd make no money off people going to a crappy park.

Anyways, private organizations are much better at preservation and restoration of nature than the government.
Click to expand...

There are some people out there who don't care about continuing the parks and may deforest the trees for paper and lumber for example, or they may mine resources which will destroy the landscape ruining the park for everyone else, and that is unacceptable.
 
Privatization would be really bad. They wouldn't last long when that land is worth more to real estate developers. Can you imagine how much you could sell houses for in Yosemite Park?

What if the parks could be run by the government at a profit? Shouldn't be too hard by raising entrance and camping fees. The waitlist for the campgrounds at Yosemite and Yellowstone are enormous.

Another idea is to give a super cheap long term lease to something like The Sierra Club, who can respect it and treat it right.
 
Last edited:
eduardo89 said:
Why would they ruin the park? They'd make no money off people going to a crappy park.

Anyways, private organizations are much better at preservation and restoration of nature than the government.
Click to expand...

National parks are not really worth the risk of privatizing. If you look at private theme parks, most of them are pretty poorly taken care of. Technically property owned by the federal government is federal property, the Constitution doesn't grant such authority to have cabinet department take care of it though our Constitution doesn't grant a Air Force either.

I agree with the concern that state will not have sufficient funds to pay for national parks, it does not matter about the content.. I trust the government to take care of our parks. I would not trust private industry to preserve and restore nature. I see no problem with sending the states the property rights, but it would mean the state might need federal aid to maintain them (which I see no problem so long as the federal taxes are not being wasted).
 
dskalkowski said:
National parks are not really worth the risk of privatizing. If you look at private theme parks, most of them are pretty poorly taken care of. Technically property owned by the federal government is federal property, the Constitution doesn't grant such authority to have cabinet department take care of it though our Constitution doesn't grant a Air Force either.

I agree with the concern that state will not have sufficient funds to pay for national parks, it does not matter about the content.. I trust the government to take care of our parks. I would not trust private industry to preserve and restore nature. I see no problem with sending the states the property rights, but it would mean the state might need federal aid to maintain them (which I see no problem so long as the federal taxes are not being wasted).
Click to expand...

Never thought I'd see that said on RPF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Trump Throws Base Under the Bus with Real ID China-Style, National Face Recognition Database
Replies
2
Views
71
jmdrake
jmdrake
Michael Landon
I need help.
Replies
5
Views
622
Intrepid
Intrepid
PAF
Trump Administration to Enforce Real ID
Replies
1
Views
37
PAF
PAF
PAF
Why We Need the Rule of Law
2
Replies
30
Views
149
69360
6
Anti Federalist
A NH freedom solution - ‘It's borderline criminal’ – Manufactured housing lot rental fees
Replies
4
Views
491
69360
6
Back
Top