You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Yes and a ton of it is basically garbage anyway. Some of it probably made sense initially but has since gotten completely out of hand. For example - You see big strips in some areas where entire mountain ranges have been preserved. I'm sure the land is beautiful, but isn't that why we have national parks? Do you really need national forests that stretch the entire height of two contiguous states? And what on earth are we protecting in Nevada?
To be honest, notwithstanding having enjoyed park visits in my day, I don't think we should have national parks, outside of DC. Otherwise, land should belong in private hands or be owned by the States in which it is located. If those owners want parks, they can do that if they want.
The parks are an amazing resource both for the public's enjoyment and for scientific research. They would not look anything like they do now if they were held privately. They're one of the few things that I think the government has mostly gotten right. We do not need 1 million dollar condos overlooking Yellowstone Falls.
The parks were originally conceived as conservation areas and cultural treasures. Conservation and wise use of resources is paramount to any civilization. However, the government has broken that promise and is leasing off signifigant acreage to private interest and can't even be bothered to nationalize the profits.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Yes and a ton of it is basically garbage anyway. Some of it probably made sense initially but has since gotten completely out of hand. For example - You see big strips in some areas where entire mountain ranges have been preserved. I'm sure the land is beautiful, but isn't that why we have national parks? Do you really need national forests that stretch the entire height of two contiguous states? And what on earth are we protecting in Nevada?
[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
To be honest, notwithstanding having enjoyed park visits in my day, I don't think we should have national parks, outside of DC. Otherwise, land should belong in private hands or be owned by the States in which it is located. If those owners want parks, they can do that if they want.
[–] ForgotMyName 1 point 8 points 9 points (+9|-1) ago
The parks are an amazing resource both for the public's enjoyment and for scientific research. They would not look anything like they do now if they were held privately. They're one of the few things that I think the government has mostly gotten right. We do not need 1 million dollar condos overlooking Yellowstone Falls.
[–] didntsayeeeee 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Why the State? Why not the county?
Honestly I don't see any particular reason why it should be any one level of government rather than any other, so I'm fine with it being the Feds.
[–] Le_Squish 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The parks were originally conceived as conservation areas and cultural treasures. Conservation and wise use of resources is paramount to any civilization. However, the government has broken that promise and is leasing off signifigant acreage to private interest and can't even be bothered to nationalize the profits.