GOP Platform Proposes To Get Rid Of National Parks And National Forests

[Ragedaug]

They may be liberal, but they're also localized. Plus, as it stands liberals are the ones pushing back against further development of lands, sometimes to the point of silliness. The heavy development isn't a result of liberal thought, liberal thinking just tends to arise with heavily populated areas and all the random problems that come with that.

As for why we should assume Republicans want to develop federal lands? Mostly because they said so themselves. Lisa Murkowski introduced an amendment to a bill, which supports those trying to give control to states. Her stated reasoning was that.

It's a completely misguided notion that Republicans want to develop lands. They specifically choose to live in less developed areas. It's big money corporate moguls who want to further develop underdeveloped areas. Once again, there is a completely misguided notion that these guys are all cigar smoking republicans, when in truth they are very apolitical giving money to either side or both sides based on who can help them push their personal agenda.

So while your common every day liberal doesn't want to live in nature, they can respect it enough to say "leave it be", your common every day conservative doesn't want to destroy nature any more then the liberal does, because they live in it. The idea that conservatives (who created the park system in the first place) want to scorch earth is a lie planted by the politically controlled media to help drive a wedge between 2 halves of the population.

[zorkuus]

The idea that conservatives (who created the park system in the first place)

Those people don't exist anymore. The GOP is controlled by other forces now.

[Grummgug]

Nice clickbait title but its half-true at best. They aren't "getting rid of them". The plan apparently is to put them under state control instead of federal control.

[Ragedaug]

Everytime they privatize shit the government managed it goes to shit just look at student debt.

Why would you think they are privatizing it?

[Masark]

Our children, grandchildren, etc will be here long after we are gone.

A disturbingly large percentage of Americans don't think so.

[Ragedaug]

Those people don't exist anymore. The GOP is controlled by other forces now.

Both the GOP and DNC are controlled by other forces now. neither is good. The quicker you learn that the better off you'll be - and if enough people learn, the better off our country will be.

I'm not talking about the controllers. I'm talking about conservatives.

[Mihalik]

Nice clickbait title but its half-true at best. They aren't "getting rid of them". The plan apparently is to put them under state control instead of federal control.

With other words get rid of them.

States have never proven to be reliable stewards of the environment, nor do they have reliable means of funding, nor do they have the capacity to implement a cohesive national strategy.

[iceberg265]

They only care about fiscal conservation.

And by that you mean keeping all the money in their rich donor's pockets.

[zorkuus]

Both the GOP and DNC are controlled by other forces now. neither is good. The quicker you learn that the better off you'll be - and if enough people learn, the better off our country will be.

I'm not talking about the controllers. I'm talking about conservatives.

The "conservatives" you're talking about are the other side of the coin of control.

one side - big business
the other - evangelical christians

[Ragedaug]

With other words get rid of them.

States have never proven to be reliable stewards of the environment, nor do they have reliable means of funding, nor do they have the capacity to implement a cohesive national strategy.

This a completely BS fact that you pulled out of your....well, out of thin air. I go to State Parks all the time. Far more often than I go to National Parks. The parks fund themselves. Get out of the big city some time and drive around for a bit. You'll see a lot of beautiful state parks in every single state in the country.

[Garnier Fructis]

It's a completely misguided notion that Republicans want to develop lands. They specifically choose to live in less developed areas. It's big money corporate moguls who want to further develop underdeveloped areas. Once again, there is a completely misguided notion that these guys are all cigar smoking republicans, when in truth they are very apolitical giving money to either side or both sides based on who can help them push their personal agenda.

The ones pushing the legislation are Republicans, and the ones funding the effort are industries aligned with and championed by Republicans. That they donate across the aisle says more about the ones on the other side of the aisle receiving donations here.

So while your common every day liberal doesn't want to live in nature, they can respect it enough to say "leave it be", your common every day conservative doesn't want to destroy nature any more then the liberal does, because they live in it. The idea that conservatives (who created the park system in the first place) want to scorch earth is a lie planted by the politically controlled media to help drive a wedge between 2 halves of the population.

It's not about individuals. I've said this in another thread, but most conservatives I've met IRL are decent people, but collectively they end up voting for and supporting asinine things.

[iceberg265]

It's not about individuals. I've said this in another thread, but most conservatives I've met IRL are decent people, but collectively they end up voting for and supporting asinine things.

A lot of them are good people who either don't actually know or care what conservative values actually are, or are just willfully ignorant about the world. When people are asked about individual policies, the population, including republicans, overwhelmingly supports progressive ideas.

[Ragedaug]

How about this. For every one who says "States don't know how to run a park, or will just get rid of them" are exposing their completely ignorance in the matter.

"There are 6,624 state park units in the United States, according to the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD). California alone has 278. There are some 725 million annual visits to the country's state parks, compared to 276 million to U.S. national parks."

State parks preceded national parks by 50 years and are more established, maintained and visited - 3 to 1. The idea that states don't know how to run a park shows you have never been to one, and the idea that the states will get rid of them is complete non-sense and has no bearing in precedence or reality.

The complete hypocrisy amazes me. It would be nice if people would have an idea of what they are talking about before they claim to be an expert.

[starlord]

How about this. For every one who says "States don't know how to run a park, or will just get rid of them" are exposing their completely ignorance in the matter.

"There are 6,624 state park units in the United States, according to the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD). California alone has 278. There are some 725 million annual visits to the country's state parks, compared to 276 million to U.S. national parks."

State parks preceded national parks by 50 years and are more established, maintained and visited - 3 to 1. The idea that states don't know how to run a park shows you have never been to one, and the idea that the states will get rid of them is complete non-sense and has no bearing in precedence or reality.

The complete hypocrisy amazes me. It would be nice if you have an idea of what you are talking about before you claim to be an expert.

you're going to have to try a little harder to convince people they dont have an agenda with this stuff like this:

The delegates also passed language specifying that the Republican Party believes that the sage grouse, prairie chicken, and the gray wolf should be exempt from the protections of the Endangered Species Act. This not only gets into the weeds of local issues, but cuts corners in scientific species and conservation management regulations.

state parks would be easier to weasel land out of... say a red state like Alaska needs some more money. wouldnt be hard to convince them to cough up some oil land.

[Ragedaug]

you're going to have to try a little harder to convince people they dont have an agenda with this stuff like this:

state parks would be easier to weasel land out of... say a red state like Alaska needs some more money. wouldnt be hard to convince them to cough up some oil land.

They already had a ton of their own "state park land" to weasel out of if they wanted to or were going to...but for some "crazy" reason they don't. Sooo, not sure what I have to try harder about.

States already don't mismanage or privatize state parks. And they have been not-doing this for much longer then the Federal Govt.

[Tempguy]

I've learned that people tend to twist facts. Like, if one party wants to pass a bill that allows for the funding of the cure for cancer, and another party attaches a rider that says abortion will be illegal, what we here is that Party A apposes the cure for cancer.

No one actually explains that they were against the rider. So Party A looks evil. I'll have to look into this deeper.

[starlord]

They already had a ton of their own "state park land" to weasel out of if they wanted to or were going to...but for some "crazy" reason they don't. Sooo, not sure what I have to try harder about.

States already don't mismanage or privatize state parks. And they have been not-doing this for much longer then the Federal Govt.

funny you should mention that but they have actually.
and there was that whole thing about the oglalla aquifer (hey its just a greater part of the midwest's water supply.)

this just smacks of "this is payback for objecting to our need to destroy the environment for oil profits."

[Garnier Fructis]

Posting statistics which average across all states and alleging that people are saying all states are incompetent is not actually a valid rebuttal of what people are actually saying: that some states will manage them poorly.

Oklahoma sold a state park a private developer. Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to let people develop in state parks there. Christie wanted to slap a hotel and theater among other nonsense on a state park in Jersey. We've got Murkowski listing economic development as one reason for why states should get back control of federal lands.

On the other hand, we don't have any sort of breakdown of how state parks are run state by state just from the statement from NASPD. It's highly probable that the number of visitors is not equal between states, which means that we're averaging a data set with a skew, which is pretty uninformative if we're trying to assess how individual states are doing.

[muto]

State Parks are usually shit compared to National Parks. National Parks are much more well kept usually.

[Tempguy]

A quick search also shows a lot of states are having some issues with keeping state parks funded, and certain national parks probably aren't profitable by themselves, which will just further strain their resources.

What is the financial drain of a park? I mean, I know the parks where tourist roll through needs maintaining, but even that should be minimal.

And the wildlife areas where folks don't visit, shouldn't you just have to leave it alone? It shouldn't cost you money to leave shit alone.