---"These proposals for the national park system are unconscionable," said Craig Obey, vice president of the National Parks Conservation Association. "It's hard to believe anyone could even contemplate drafting something this extreme."---
National parks are 'extreme' from a constitutional standpoint.
But hey, only 'right wing' extremism matters.
Excuse me, Mr. Pope, but Legislators can determine what we sell and what we keep. It's called the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, which was intended to be the most powerful for a reason.
The feds own more land then anyone. An unconstitutional set of circumstances if there ever was one. Sell them off. Now.
Yes, you could say I'm human-centric. Let's drill the crap out of ANWR and inch closer to independence from Mohammed's death cult.
Lack of human presence = highest form of natural beauty.
Very smart move when running in a 50/50 district in enviro-whacked California! /s
Billions with a B just for the lease sales. Throw in land sales, crude sales, refined sales, and a host of other sales as well as wages, tax revenue, etc etc, it is unconscionable not to offer the leases for sale. Only stupid anti-business, anti-american, vice-presidents of extreme environmental groups, would even suggest such lack of action in the face of reality.
How about returning the land confiscated by the Federal Government to its rightful owners???
The federal gov't owns 30% of the land area of the US, including over 50% of the land west of the Mississippi. It is time to appoint an independent commission, like the recent Base Realignment Commission (BRAC) to find which properties are essential to the government's function and which are luxuries we are better off selling to the highest bidder.
We cannot have our cake and eat it too- we are fools to keep printing and borrowing money while sitting on millions of acres, some of which could fetch very high prices.
If the enviros object, they are free to bid on a parcel. Let them put their money where their mouth is, like Ted Turner, who has bought a lot of land.
Yet National Parks are a persistent drain on the nation's treasury.
Why is that?
Perhaps because we have politicians forever proclaiming them "national treasures" and such, appropriating millions on questionable improvements for visitors whose entrance fees barely cover rangers' salaries.
A private business operating like this would go belly-up after the first season.
Yet, with all the natural beauty National Parks have on display, people love to go there to camp, observe nature or just have a good time. There's no reason a smart operator (say Disney, or even the Sierra Club) couldn't turn a profit while keeping things in a mostly natural state so people can enjoy a wilderness experience. They're not about to destroy it as long as the public has such reverence for natural beauty. A private operator looking to make money would be more likely to improve access for the disabled and elderly folks who may have difficulty enjoying much of our National Parks. We're not all able to hike steep trails, you know.
Is there need to even mention that most popular parks have far from adequate accommodations? They were planned for a population of 50 million, not 300 million and growing, and with much more leisure time and better transportation than 100 years ago.
Yes, it is indeed time to sell off these National Parks. Pombo's idea won't fly in this Congress, since he's not serious anyway -- he's using it as a wedge to get action on ANWR. I would hope he will sponsor a bill in a future Congress to do what has to be done and divest the federal government from the parks business.
They should sell the national parks regardless. Let Disney operate them as campground, or, better yet, let the enivironmentalists pitch in their own money to buy the parks. Then they can operate them as they wish without complaining all the time about the park and forestry services.