Posted on 12/29/2014 9:10:28 AM PST by jazusamo
Here in Pennsylvania as well . . . with the exception of Gettysburg which generates so much revenue and visitors that I don't see how they can possibly lose money. Of course, given the efficiencies of fedzilla, I suppose it is possible.
A few years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wanted to close down the Bushy Run battlefield from Pontiac's War, one of our local state historic sites. The locals stepped in, took it over and set up an auxiliary volunteer group to take it over. It is now better run that it ever was under state control.
Mt. Vernon has been successfully run by a Women's Auxiliary group since 1860-- yet another successful model of alternatives to national parks and historical sites.
The first step to creating a National Park is have either the BLM or USFS take over an area. Then sometime down the road the NPS takes it over. Prime example is the Mojave National Preserve, it started out with BLM and is now run by the NPS.
Pictured Rocks National lake shore is nice for the scenery but as far as amenities are concerned I’ll pick Tahquamenon falls state park every time (and the scenery is nice too)
Not even the Rosa version?
But, strangely enough, these are of little interest to many of his core voters.
When you raise the rates it keeps the rif raff out.
I don’t know about that. When I hit 60 something, the NPS issued me a Senior Pass for $10 which lets me into national parks for free for the rest of my life. I heard that I get a 50% discount on some concessions also, but I’ve never tried that.
I propose a Constitutional amendment that limits federal ownership of land within a state to no more than 10% of the total land mass of that state.
Best way to figure out if a favorite area is soon to be closed off as a wilderness or national park is to determine if there is oil or some other valuable mineral underneath it.
Department of Interior needs more lawyers. That’s exactly where the money will go.
That’s a great idea and a rational one, I believe 10% is probably a bit too high though.
It sounds lovely.
There are a lot of lands that — in my opinion — should have stayed state, BLM, or in private hands. In the early 1990s, there were about 324 or 326 national park units, from what I recall. Now I’m reading it’s over 400.
It aint theirs to sell. All federal lands..other than those created for defense purposes, should be GIVEN back to the counties where they lay. I would even agree that the National Parks be given to the states, but all USFS and BLM lands should be given back to the counties. If the counties do not want them, then the state takes them.
Shhhhhhh! The Feds will remember to withdraw that $10 lifetime pass. It is the one thing that the Feds have done right oin centuries.
Out here in the western region, we have several states where the Feds own or control more than 30% of the land mass.
http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf
Alaska - 60%
Arizona - 41%
California - 40%
Colorado - 35%
Idaho - 61%
Nevada - 80%
Just to name a few.
Grabbing more state land and charging you to walk on it. Priceless.
Absolutely, it’s pathetic. I was referring to an amendment, if we limit them lets limit them a lot. :-)
Perhaps, if they did not have so much land to operate and maintain...
Any additional $$$ raised with increased fees wouldn’t ever get to the parks. They’d go into the General Fund and get pizzed away on the gimme dats. It’s a scam. Veto!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.