Try the political quiz
+

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

23 Replies

 @4RWBHXSfrom California  answered…4yrs4Y

Run it like a business. Charge realistic entry fees. Restart the WPA. Get fit healthy people working to preserve park improvements and access.

 @4S8GF99from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

Why should a citizen who never wants nor can afford to visit these places be held responsible? They should be offered and run by private enterprises with feasible plans for mainteneses from reasonable attendance fees. The only roll the Government should with them is crime and regulation of attendance fees the same way they addressed the airline industry.

 @4RWHTC5from Iowa  answered…4yrs4Y

The national parks are the people's parks and not BIG government. Preserving and protecting YES... Handing that responsibility over to the Fascists NO!

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...13yrs13Y

Yes, and the government should protect more land

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...13yrs13Y

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...13yrs13Y

Yes, but allow limited logging, drilling, and mining

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...13yrs13Y

No, the government currently owns too much land

 @MQ8RGS from Iowa  answered…4yrs4Y

They should be preserved, but the gov should have more important bills to pay

 @MWD994 from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

Cost too much for government to do this...hire privately to preserve and protect

 @MWRXPC from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Someone should protect them, but I don't know if the best caretaker is the government.

 @LXV2XQ from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

Allow limited logging and possible drilling and mining and allow more public access

 @LYJ374 from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

The majority of superfund sites are owned by the government. They have proven unreliable when it comes to protecting the environment.

 @N47JQF from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, allow limited drilling and forestry, using best practical ecological means, as well as use hunting to control over population of some species.

 @N437CC from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

The gov does own too much land. Each state should be able be have eligible voters decide if some land should be opened for recreation or industry, or sale to pay down the national debt (non-citizens or foreign countries should never be allowed to own any part of the USA).

 @LYF3HB from California  answered…4yrs4Y

The government seems anal about some factors of park management and tends to go more politically based and also more profit based. Their "experts" on fire management, where applicable, appear to be uninformed on issues and make many mistakes on fire control issues.

 @LZ2MPG from California  answered…4yrs4Y

 @MSQXL3 from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

Choose more wisely which lands deserve to be declared "Parks." Remove the ultra-ego's of the N.P.S to declare any property a "Park" because of an inflated individual ego!

 @MSVS4M from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Parks should be administered, but they should not be expected to remain unchanged.

 @MZG22R from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

It is my view parks should have portions that would be farmed for timber for example and refurbished. Use the example of Epcot using hydroponic growth for food. If they were a self sustaining by using their products for monies that would only be given back to the parks. I have seen where trees die because they have not thinned out, so not touching something does not always guarantee the best solution.
Secondly, the states that have these parks should have a vote in the decision making.

 @ML62M5 from Kansas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but no more new acquisitions, the EPA stops over- regulating and the government should sell land back to private citizens whenever feasible

 @MNRXJW from Wyoming  answered…4yrs4Y

National Parks are okay as is, but Bureau of Land Management lands all need to be auctioned off.