6 ms·

Was at a couple national parks this month. The chaos due to short staffing saddened me. Foolish tourists will die or be hurt, and nature will be damaged, becaus

by vonnik 2y ago

Was at a couple national parks this month. The chaos due to short staffing saddened me. Foolish tourists will die or be hurt, and nature will be damaged, because the monitors and first responders are not there. What’s the plan here? I thought these were America’s Crown Jewels, monuments we could point to and be proud of? Advice I got from a ranger: Stay away from the large famous national parks: Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite. Go to smaller lesser known national parks as well as state parks where the visitor/staff ratio is not ruinous.

marricks 2y ago
> What’s the plan here? There's only ever been one plan and it hasn't changed: 1) cut funding to a public service 2) said service goes to shit because it lacks support 3) use chaos as an excuse to privatize it so someone makes a buck then move on to the next service
- pchew 2y ago
  That's the plan for every other federal service. For public land in particular there's an extra fun bonus step of selling the land to be exploited fully. Look at the Secretary of Interior's record in North Dakota.
- mrtesthah 2y ago
  who needs public lands in the first place? https://time.com/7261219/patagonia-ceo-trump-shouldnt-sell-public-lands/ https://time.com/7261219/patagonia-ceo-trump-shouldnt-sell-p...
- tym0 2y ago
  It "worked" for the UK, now the cost of water keeps raising and the level of service keeps going down.
gryfft 2y ago
I'm sure they'll be repurposed into something profitable. Perhaps by leasing out mineral rights, or by carving out some of the choicest spots as highest-end residential real estate. No longer will America's resources be allowed to languish now that the government is finally running like a business. We can finally focus on what really matters: ROI.
- a_thro_away 2y ago
  Sarcasm, or not, I hate your correct assessment in so many ugly, broken people's perspectives.
ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
It's tricky. On the one hand, everybody seems to agree that countries should reduce their debt. On the other hand, everybody seems to complain as soon as costs are cut.
- Hasu 2y ago
  It's not tricky at all. When you're the richest country in the world and you have a lower than average tax rate, there is one very simple trick that gets rid of the debt problem.
  - ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
    But that is not what the US voted for, is it? IIRC Trump's campaign promised lower taxes, not higher taxes.
    - smt88 2y ago
      He's raising taxes on most people. He didn't talk much about taxes. He campaigned on immigration and trans issues, mostly.
    - Freedom2 2y ago
      No one could have seen this coming. Why didn't anybody warn US voters at all!
- goosejuice 2y ago
  I think the complaints are more to do with how it's being done.
- wbl 2y ago
  The US budget deficit is driven by entitlements and the Trump tax cuts . It's very easy to balance the budget with small reforms to Social security and Medicaid and raising some revenue.
- thrance 2y ago
  No, a lot of people have been tricked into thinking austerity is the only way to reduce their country's debt. All the while billionaires gorge themselves on public money and contribute ever less to society.
stevenwoo 2y ago
The GOP plan has always been to sell the vast majority of the land to the states because in the words of officials in places like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, it's worthless to locals as federally managed lands, and the states will sell the rights to the resources (timber/gas oil production/livestock grazing) or the land itself for revenue (that lasts a few years so it's only a temporary fix.) The end game is something like Texas where most land with any water supply is privately owned, where there are federal parks, state parks and private parks (mostly for hunting). It's a very short term state tax solution that trades open space for temporary tax revenue. They would leave the unprofitable bits of national parks to the federal government. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1-5119930/utahs-controversial-effort-to-gain-control-of-u-s-public-lands https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1-5119930/utahs-controver... This was part of Project 2025, as well, so we knew this going into the election but that was a lot of stuff.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  It's tricky. The original agreement on national forests was that the local community would lose out on having a property tax base but that the forests would create jobs/income in other ways. Then slowly the feds cut out all those income streams leaving communities hurting. We used to get money from a federal fund to pay for schools to make up for the lost property tax revenue but we no longer do. I don't want the forests sold, hate Project 2025 and think the current admin is doing horrible, but there has been a lot bad faith on both side to get everyone so divided, with lots of promises/commitments/agreements just flat out broken by the left without a care to the impact on actual lives. My town had three mills, today it has none. Our lake management has been switched to actively destructive to the local community (changing lake levels in ways that destroy docks/marinas/prevent boat access and impact local fish spawning) in order to send water downstream for federal pet projects even though the Feds promised it would be managed like a natural lake when they put the dam in. Our lake use to be crystal clean and you could see down 20-30 feet. Now because it's more stagnant from the damn and has time to warm up you can't see down 3. The states mentioned already have state land for state benefit, and they are managed as a resource and don't provide the type of nature that the national forests do with hunting, wheeling, camping recreation. They are heavily logged. They used to lease the land but now just sell it off and get one payday. Again I hate project 2025 but the left tore up Federal agreements with local communities like Trump is doing now and no one cared because it only ruined loggers/miners/logging truckers/mill workers' lives and 'was for a good reason' (created a logging ban for all practical purposes) or destroyed lakes they were willing to sacrifice for their pet projects lower down the watershed.
zzgo 2y ago
> What's the plan here? The plan is to sell off the Crown Jewels to fund Trump's sovereign wealth fund. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans...

by vonnik 2y ago

marricks 2y ago

> What’s the plan here? There's only ever been one plan and it hasn't changed: 1) cut funding to a public service 2) said service goes to shit because it lacks support 3) use chaos as an excuse to privatize it so someone makes a buck then move on to the next service

pchew 2y ago
That's the plan for every other federal service. For public land in particular there's an extra fun bonus step of selling the land to be exploited fully. Look at the Secretary of Interior's record in North Dakota.
mrtesthah 2y ago
who needs public lands in the first place? https://time.com/7261219/patagonia-ceo-trump-shouldnt-sell-public-lands/ https://time.com/7261219/patagonia-ceo-trump-shouldnt-sell-p...
tym0 2y ago
It "worked" for the UK, now the cost of water keeps raising and the level of service keeps going down.

gryfft 2y ago

I'm sure they'll be repurposed into something profitable. Perhaps by leasing out mineral rights, or by carving out some of the choicest spots as highest-end residential real estate. No longer will America's resources be allowed to languish now that the government is finally running like a business. We can finally focus on what really matters: ROI.

a_thro_away 2y ago
Sarcasm, or not, I hate your correct assessment in so many ugly, broken people's perspectives.

ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago

It's tricky. On the one hand, everybody seems to agree that countries should reduce their debt. On the other hand, everybody seems to complain as soon as costs are cut.

Hasu 2y ago
It's not tricky at all. When you're the richest country in the world and you have a lower than average tax rate, there is one very simple trick that gets rid of the debt problem.
- ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
  But that is not what the US voted for, is it? IIRC Trump's campaign promised lower taxes, not higher taxes.
  - smt88 2y ago
    He's raising taxes on most people. He didn't talk much about taxes. He campaigned on immigration and trans issues, mostly.
  - Freedom2 2y ago
    No one could have seen this coming. Why didn't anybody warn US voters at all!
goosejuice 2y ago
I think the complaints are more to do with how it's being done.
wbl 2y ago
The US budget deficit is driven by entitlements and the Trump tax cuts . It's very easy to balance the budget with small reforms to Social security and Medicaid and raising some revenue.
thrance 2y ago
No, a lot of people have been tricked into thinking austerity is the only way to reduce their country's debt. All the while billionaires gorge themselves on public money and contribute ever less to society.

stevenwoo 2y ago

The GOP plan has always been to sell the vast majority of the land to the states because in the words of officials in places like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, it's worthless to locals as federally managed lands, and the states will sell the rights to the resources (timber/gas oil production/livestock grazing) or the land itself for revenue (that lasts a few years so it's only a temporary fix.) The end game is something like Texas where most land with any water supply is privately owned, where there are federal parks, state parks and private parks (mostly for hunting). It's a very short term state tax solution that trades open space for temporary tax revenue. They would leave the unprofitable bits of national parks to the federal government. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1-5119930/utahs-controversial-effort-to-gain-control-of-u-s-public-lands https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1-5119930/utahs-controver... This was part of Project 2025, as well, so we knew this going into the election but that was a lot of stuff.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
It's tricky. The original agreement on national forests was that the local community would lose out on having a property tax base but that the forests would create jobs/income in other ways. Then slowly the feds cut out all those income streams leaving communities hurting. We used to get money from a federal fund to pay for schools to make up for the lost property tax revenue but we no longer do. I don't want the forests sold, hate Project 2025 and think the current admin is doing horrible, but there has been a lot bad faith on both side to get everyone so divided, with lots of promises/commitments/agreements just flat out broken by the left without a care to the impact on actual lives. My town had three mills, today it has none. Our lake management has been switched to actively destructive to the local community (changing lake levels in ways that destroy docks/marinas/prevent boat access and impact local fish spawning) in order to send water downstream for federal pet projects even though the Feds promised it would be managed like a natural lake when they put the dam in. Our lake use to be crystal clean and you could see down 20-30 feet. Now because it's more stagnant from the damn and has time to warm up you can't see down 3. The states mentioned already have state land for state benefit, and they are managed as a resource and don't provide the type of nature that the national forests do with hunting, wheeling, camping recreation. They are heavily logged. They used to lease the land but now just sell it off and get one payday. Again I hate project 2025 but the left tore up Federal agreements with local communities like Trump is doing now and no one cared because it only ruined loggers/miners/logging truckers/mill workers' lives and 'was for a good reason' (created a logging ban for all practical purposes) or destroyed lakes they were willing to sacrifice for their pet projects lower down the watershed.

zzgo 2y ago

> What's the plan here? The plan is to sell off the Crown Jewels to fund Trump's sovereign wealth fund. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans...