Posted on 08/24/2016 5:22:42 AM PDT by SJackson
It is to funnel taxpayer dollars into bankrupt socialist “utopias”; “workfare”. However, they won’t generate revenues; the locals won’t go (or would show up when it is “free”), and tourists know these places are dangerous.
“Historic preservation has been part of the NPS’s mandate for generations. Think Gettysburg and Antietam, and work out from there. “
Battlefields are one thing and a good thing to preserve. Old and”traditional” Homosexual gathering spots are absurd.
Look for Highway rest areas to have NPS monuments for queer activity at some point down the road.
Every park involves judgments. I am bracing for an effort to remove confederate statuary from the battlefield parks.
I’m 100% on board with this new “urban agenda” for the National Park Service. Maybe it will keep these urbanites at home so they don’t bother me in the mountains. LOL.
Speaking of mission creep, looks like they could solve this problem of the unaffordability of road trips for urban blacks (who are not yearning to visit national parks, but the current govt just can’t accept that as a fact) by just giving them free RVs and gas cards with our tax money, no?
What could go wrong?
The gambit is but yet another valve and pipe to drain the treasury into politically auspicious pockets
The Democrat party is a criminal enterprise
And the definition /declaration of "Historic" is where the creep comes in.
People will flock to the inner cities! /s
Fire them all and hire people who will do their job without all this mumbo jumbo pansy crap.
I would agree with you about the emphasis on historic sites, particularly if the idea as I suspect is engaging urban populations, since so many are in or near urban areas. The problem in creating new ones is also that, so many are in the east, costs would be high. Not like the feel your pain FDR who created Shenandoah and the Smokies by throwing out the people who lived there for generations. And I suspect as you indicate, most candidates might well be better candidates for state and local protection. Perhaps with some federal role
Urban "parks", probably. the King already owns much of what's west of the Mississippi. Thus the clearly discriminatory fact that the eastern United States is National Park deprived.
Didn’t mention it, but when I mentioned industrialized Detroit as a historical candidate in my first post, not entirely sarcasm, I was thinking of Pullman. Haven’t been there, sketchy neighborhood, and if like most parks I have to leave any personal protection in my car. From your comment, it isn’t bringing out the local population. And I do think it’s a good thing to encourage urban population to visit National Parks, but I think the idea should be exposing them to what’s out there, not bringing the parks to them. I’ve friends who don’t go to parks, don’t camp, don’t go outdoors. IMO their loss, but they live their lives just fine.
I think there is a preservation role, for National Parks perhaps foremost, but beyond that I agree. If the people don't come, no matter.
Thank you, Stonewall National Monument. Urban. Let's build one in Ferguson.
There are more white Americans alive today than ever. The demographics have not radically shifted. We were invaded.
Fedzilla is just like any other competitive organization: they want to grow sales 10% per year without regard to environmental damage. They need to keep their ponzi pension schemes going. If the government schools, jails, and free hospitals start emptying out then Fedzilla imports new customers no matter how problematic they are.
Afterward it occurred to me that the NPS is concerned that 78% of its visitors are non-Hispanic whites, but that is right in line with the percentage of whites in the general population. Where is the demographic imbalance?
Another site that probably will come under the NPS is the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site in Illinois. That is a major pre-Columbian archaeological site with a fine museum and spacious grounds with miles of trails among the mounds. I grew up nearby and have lost track of how many times I have visited. I still make it a point to go when I am in the area. It is on the outskirts of East St. Louis (from the top of Monks’ Mound you have a fine view of the Arch) and the neighborhood, while not being the disaster area ESL is, is kind of run down. Nearby is a long-standing Mexican community. The same thing there as Pullman. I hardly ever see minorities there, except the vendors and artists who show up during the Native American Arts Festivals.
You think Yellowstone is just about geysers??
There are 20 things in Yellowstone that could be a stand alone great park. Yes, it's my favorite park. It's magnificent.
No kidding! Saying that Yellowstone is just geysers is like claiming that the Rockies are just a bunch of big hills!
Trees, wildlife unseen anywhere else, azure and turquoise lakes, rivers and streams of unfathomable beauty: Some folks really don’t get it.
Wildlife is ok in its place. Whatever rings your chimes. But I’ll take history any day. The NPS is big enough to serve more than one constituency, but it’s badly overbalanced in favor of the big western parks.
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.