DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Our National Parks

Experience and opinion go hand in hand. Both can apply.

I was only speaking for myself. Are people not allowed to speak for themselves now? You're the one that keeps trying to talk for everyone else.

Your mom did one thing. That doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I didn't say that it applied to all consumption oriented tourists, I mentioned the tendency that I have witnessed.

If we were restricted to talking about specific cases your argument would suck a bit less. The topic is "Our National Parks." Eminent domain was involved in parks. It's still possible. How is that unrelated? The only craziness in here is the insanity of my expecting a different result when trying to have a productive conversation when you're involved.

Eminent domain is not involved in any of the portions of these stories. None. Are you now going to post the entire history of our national parks and claim it is relevant to the discussion that we were having? Bait and switch con games are obvious to thinking people. So is seeing people trying to to veer the conversation away from the actual topic to derail it from its intent. It's not the masterful craft you obviously think it is.

It's unrelated to what we were discussing. And actually you know that and seem to be playing the role of a troll at this point.

Bringing up, "Yeah but eminent domain happened several decades ago so let's talk about that" isn't any sort of attempt at trying to have a productive conversation.

How many hikers do you know? You know, those people who buy T-Shirts to commemorate their travels to the places they hike to commemorate their journeys. They too must be out their just trampling up the forests and polluting them. You've been hopping from place to place like a rabbit trying to evade a fox since this thing started and it's not getting any better for you.

The National Parks are one of the last areas of government funding that need to be touched, IMO. I love visiting them. My family's last trip with my husband before he passed was to several National Parks (Badlands, Mount Rushmore, Rocky Mountain, Arches, Canyonlands), I live about 5 minutes crom Cuyahoga Valley National Park and visit regularly. My kids and I, along with my sister and her kids, are taking a family trip to a number of National Parks this summer (using life insurance money from my husband, doing something he would have LOVED!). Rocky Mountain, Arches, Canyonlands again, and adding Brice, Zion, Capitol Reef, Grand Canyon, Joshua Tree. I have decor in my house tracking our travels over the years. The trips to the National Parks have been our favorite trips.

To lose funding for them lacks the forsight or intelligence. This is an area we could/should expand. Our parks bring in tourism, jobs, money. They provide beauty, nature, memories, history. Once those lands are mined/pipelined etc., they will never be the same again. They're no longer a natural resource for all to enjoy (the founding point of the National Parks).

All I can do is sit here and shake my damn head.

Protect Our National Parks!!

You along with millions and millions of others across generations.

The National Parks are wonderlands of nature.

They are also sanctuaries for wildlife that need protection.

Common sense and logic is all that is needed to understand.

So you going on a tangent on HAMAS and Israel is fine, but my talking about something that actually is related to National Parks is somehow out of bounds?

When one's family has had land taken through eminent domain for a park and one goes back to visit and it is a mess, it gives one a different perspective.

The idea of the National Parks is great. The actual execution is hit or miss.

Just because something is a good idea, doesn't mean you should ignore the actual specifics of how that idea is executed.

I know good hikers and I know bad hikers. You're the one that keeps trying to overgeneralize into some all or nothing narrative.

I understand this is your opinion. But I'd be interested to know if you can site another institution or organization consisting of 400+ sites and experience 323+ million visitors annually that is run more efficiently or in your view executed more efficiently? Just like any organization including, in my opinion, both government and private enterprise - with enormous scale comes some inefficiency. And a little inefficiency in execution while providing access to the wonders of the national parks AND raising a net profit in the Billions is not a bad thing. jmo

I'm not a big fan of agglomeration in general. I think the bigger an entity gets, the more it is responsible for, generally speaking, the worse it gets. Proper attention can't be given to everything. The more there is to pay attention to, the less attention each piece gets, often to the point of being overlooked altogether. I'd rather have good oversight of a 100k acre park, than poor oversight of a 1.36M acre park.

I'm also not a big fan of using profits as a measure of success. Too often, profits seem to come at the expense of other considerations. How much money the parks make is very low on my list of priorities. I don't care if they operate "in the red" if they are carrying out the mission of preservation. Yet, I'd still like to limit costs where it makes sense. How commercialized and profitable we can make the parks is not the goal for me.

Well the bigger something gets the more difficult it is to manage. Yes. That's fact.

But that doesn't answer the question - can you name something as big as the National Park Service that is run more efficiently? Just because something is large and has some inherent inefficiency due to it's scale, does not seem like a solid basis for supporting something that can potentially do much harm to natural resources that so many currently enjoy AND a service that makes money. The point of the profit isn't that it is making a large margin - it is the fact that it is not costing the tax payer to finance it.

We do not know for sure that irreversible harm is going to be done. [1] Why take the risk for a saving that is essentially pennies. [2] Does anyone think Trump and Project 2025 is about making ordinary US citizens enriched and have better lives? ... or is this purely about allowing companies to profit from looser regulations. . . which sort of brings us full circle. I can't comprehend thinking this is a good bet to make.

Because the question doesn't seem particularly relevant? Where does showing that other large entities also don't run well get us? My argument is for "right sizing."

What am I allegedly supporting?

I'm not sure that the profit numbers attributed to National Parks are as direct as some people are interpreting them. I'm guessing it's sort of like the discussion of how much income a Super Bowl brings to the surrounding region. Yes, money is coming in around it, but it's not necessarily directly paying for itself.

1. What risk are we talking about?

2. Sadly, some people do. But, it (whatever "this" is) is probably not "purely" about anything. What "bet" are we talking about?

He doesn't care if the parks operate in the red while at the same time wants government spending cut everywhere. You don't get it yet?

The purpose of the parks isn't to make money. The value they provide is not financial to me.

I still don't want the parks to waste money or spend money in ways that are detrimental to their mission.

I do want the government to cut spending across the board. I know balancing a budget is a horribly complex idea for some, but it is generally seen as the fiscally responsible thing to do.

But feel free to keep trying to twist things if it makes you feel better.

Not going into a deep dive because you seem to be avoiding any real debate here - it feels like trolling by way of a half hearted attempt at what might be a debatable point.

Your position seems to be that you are in favor of the cuts to the National Parks. You seem to have based at least part of that opinion based on the size of the organization and it's inefficiencies - it was something you stated as justification for your opinion. Hence size of the organization is a talking point.

1. The size of the Nat Parks reflects the number of sites and to some extant the number of visitors. Ergo "it is what it is". Because the Nat Parks Org has to be BIG because of this nature - either you believe everything/anything BIG needs to be culled, which would be a really bizarre position to take. Or - you think the Nat Parks is excessively inefficient and operates with poorer execution than other large organizations. THAT is why my question was asked.

2. The National parks are self funding and they "work" - they do not cost the tax payer money. Profit as such doesn't matter so much as the fact they do not cost the US tax payer money. This point is so very basic the very fact you deliberately try to miss it indicates your "debate" is in bad faith.

3. The 'bet' - is that we have beautiful, amazing natural resources. They are operated by an organization that costs us nothing. They are visited by over 300 million visitors annually. Any change to how they operate and from an environmental perspective what is allowed to take place on that land - is a risk. YOU argued just because there is change does not indicate that harm will necessarily follow. So you are betting/assuming/hoping/predicting with your opinion that harm probably won't come or won't be that significant ... there really isn't another way to interpret your statements. My point was why risk it? What's the benefit other than potentially a few dollars that are literally nothing in the big picture of Fed Govt. And knowing Trump and knowing Project 2025 and 'Big Business' - the potential to lose something precious is significant.

It really isn't hard at all. And yet ....

What you have proposed is you have no objection to the government cutting the parks funding.

You want to cut the parks income by closing visitor centers. Because you know, "trinkets bad".

Then after cutting their budget coming from both direction your answer is to wait until it can no longer sustain itself and problems arise to fix it.

I'm not sure how you think they are "making money". Not only do they use the money they generate but also the government is subsidizing them with more money.

Since when is not generating enough money to sustain yourself and running at a loss "making money"?

You haven't shown any waste of funds. Instead you simply claim the funds are wasted with no basis in fact. Visitor centers actually help generate money to help sustain the parks yet you claim they should be closed.

None of that meandering makes any sense. Something that is actually beneficial to all Americans no matter their politics is something you target while showing zero basis in facts that any of what you propose is needed or justified.

Oh that's right, what if gas prices get to high for them to drive there.....

The thread stands on its own. You can't undo the things you have posted.

I can almost guarantee your’e not a true Christian, and I can almost guarantee you’re a Christian Nationalist in the trump cult. Amen.

As far as National Parks go. I get into all of them for free with my lifetime Gold Star Family/Veterans pass. And I’ve been to many before and after Trump took over. Before trump they weren’t great but now they are understaffed, the food and restaurants are trashy. Many of the entry gates are unmanned. The parks are overcrowded and the trails are trampled and littered. Foreigners pay an extra fee to get in,(which I agree with, but it’s like $50 per person, and when they find out how much it is, many turn around. And that’s the ironic thing most off the staff are Blacks, Latinos, and Asians.