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

What is the National Park Service Budget?
FY 2010 Enacted - $3.16 billion
FY 2011 Request - $3.14 billion

Basically what everyone else said in this thread, RP won't cut off funding for National Parks, just move it to a diff department. I heard RP talk about something about installing user fees to pay for the national parks, giving the reason that there are people who pay for the national parks via federal taxes and then never / or are unable to visit the national parks in their lifetime. Guess it's like paying a fed tax to build a road on the west coast when ur living in New York. But it looks like the National Park department of the gov't is one of the few areas where the bureacracy hasn't tainted it, at least looking at those FY numbers (baseline budgeting and all :P).

Overall, priorities. Making SS/Medicare solvent, ending foreign engtanglments and unintended consequences obviously are take priority in Paul's plan then 100% idealistic changes like privatizing ntl parks.
 
Any examples of large private parks run by private companies?

Can't think of any large ones, but there are thousands of private parks around the US.

Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it's not a bad idea and can't work.
 
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.

I wonder what parks you are talking about here? National parks? National forests? Wilderness areas? Habitat areas? BLM land? There is a lot of land, especially out here in the west that is owned and managed by the tax payer. The federal government does a terrible job of managing it, but you can bet huge parcels would go up for sale under a Paul administration.

Much of the land has little commercial value, aside from timber, mineral resources, and recreation. There is still much gold here where I live, some estimates say around 80% of the gold, silver and copper are still lying underneath the mountains most of it on state and national forest lands. It remains to be seen how this land would be managed but property rights would protect a lot of it once it past into private hands because getting gold and other metals out of the earth is a destructive and polluting process. The state or private conservation organizations could spearhead a lot of that. The nature conservancy is one organization that already does that here locally and is very effective at it, more so than the forest service which is a huge overblown bureaucratic organization that mismanages most of the land within the national forest system and has little local connection or concern for it. It could be argued that private land trusts, conservancies, and easement alliances would do a far better job at managing these areas for recreational, resource and environmental uses.

As far as the national parks system, this too would be better managed privately as if you have ever been to a lot of these places they are abused and degrade yearly from overuse. The government finds itself in a unique place in trying to deal with these parks because it being federally owned means they are limited in the restrictions they can place on them and they are required to make the space available for taxpayer use. Yosemite is a prime example or Yellowstone, these would be better contained and managed environmentally by a conservancy that could limit their overall use and abuse. A job the federal government fails miserably at.
 
Once you destroy nature on that scale you don't ever get it back. I have issues with most of what the government does but would actually be ok with Federal ownership of the parks (and obviously by this I don't mean them hoarding a bunch of land that no one uses consistently for recreation or enjoying nature) continuing with a different system in place to pay for them, like the fees or a voluntary donation on your tax form or something.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what parks you are talking about here? National parks? National forests? Wilderness areas? Habitat areas? BLM land? There is a lot of land, especially out here in the west that is owned and managed by the tax payer. The federal government does a terrible job of managing it, but you can bet huge parcels would go up for sale under a Paul administration.

Much of the land has little commercial value, aside from timber, mineral resources, and recreation. There is still much gold here where I live, some estimates say around 80% of the gold, silver and copper are still lying underneath the mountains most of it on state and national forest lands. It remains to be seen how this land would be managed but property rights would protect a lot of it once it past into private hands because getting gold and other metals out of the earth is a destructive and polluting process. The state or private conservation organizations could spearhead a lot of that. The nature conservancy is one organization that already does that here locally and is very effective at it, more so than the forest service which is a huge overblown bureaucratic organization that mismanages most of the land within the national forest system and has little local connection or concern for it. It could be argued that private land trusts, conservancies, and easement alliances would do a far better job at managing these areas for recreational, resource and environmental uses.

As far as the national parks system, this too would be better managed privately as if you have ever been to a lot of these places they are abused and degrade yearly from overuse. The government finds itself in a unique place in trying to deal with these parks because it being federally owned means they are limited in the restrictions they can place on them and they are required to make the space available for taxpayer use. Yosemite is a prime example or Yellowstone, these would be better contained and managed environmentally by a conservancy that could limit their overall use and abuse. A job the federal government fails miserably at.

That's an interesting idea. I wonder if the federal government could own the national parks but then entrust them to conservancies for care and management and it would be something that has some honor inherent in it.
 
If we started with the most important things to fix as soon as Paul was elected and started working through them in order over two terms, I'm quite sure we would never even get to parks. There are a lot of fish to fry before we get to this difficult question. Hell, we could spend 8 years just on dismantling the MIC.
 
I think we should get rid of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms which cost us 1.12 billion dollars a year before even getting rid of the Department of Education let alone National Parks/Forests!!
 
I support anyone who feels these parks should be preserved in their current state to pool their money and buy them for such a purpose.

Are you willing to do so with your own money?
 
I think we should get rid of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms which cost us 1.12 billion dollars a year before even getting rid of the Department of Education let alone National Parks/Forests!!

Department of Education burns through $80 billion or so, hurts education and is completely unconstitutional. It would be the second thing I'd eliminate, first would be TSA.
 
Department of Education burns through $80 billion or so, hurts education and is completely unconstitutional. It would be the second thing I'd eliminate, first would be TSA.

Ok, but still the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives is infringing the second amendment, so I don't know if Ron Paul plans on keeping it, I would appreciate an answer please.
 
Ok, but still the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives is infringing the second amendment, so I don't know if Ron Paul plans on keeping it, I would appreciate an answer please.

Look at his budget and you should find an answer.
 
Ron Paul plans on getting rid of 5 agencies:

EPA
DOE
Commerce
HUD
and....ummm....


oops
 
I'm just afraid there will be some people who wants to take advantage of those historic lands and ruin it for everyone else.

You mean like the federal government does, doling out privileges to friends, sticking users and taxpayers with the bill, making arbitrary restrictions, controlling large parts of sovereign states, etc?
 
Look at his budget and you should find an answer.

Here's Ron Paul's budget plan, directly from the campaign web site:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

The only departments being eliminated are Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education. Everything else would be subject to a spending freeze or partial reduction - in some cases, all the way back to 2006 levels. 2006!! Wow!

I'm not sure why everyone keeps working under the mistaken idea that Ron Paul is going to annihilate the entire structure of government as soon as he takes office. In many cases, the spending will still be at levels *higher* than they were when G.W. Bush won re-election in 2004. And that's considered a Draconian reduction by many. Something to think about.... :(
 
Here's Ron Paul's budget plan, directly from the campaign web site:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

The only departments being eliminated are Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education. Everything else would be subject to a spending freeze or partial reduction - in some cases, all the way back to 2006 levels. 2006!! Wow!

I'm not sure why everyone keeps working under the mistaken idea that Ron Paul is going to annihilate the entire structure of government as soon as he takes office. In many cases, the spending will still be at levels *higher* than they were when G.W. Bush won re-election in 2004. And that's considered a Draconian reduction by many. Something to think about.... :(

Thank you
 
I'm not sure why everyone keeps working under the mistaken idea that Ron Paul is going to annihilate the entire structure of government as soon as he takes office.

Leave us to our fantasies.
 
Back
Top