DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

The purpose of the parks isn't to make money. The value they provide is not financial to me.

I still don't want the parks to waste money or spend money in ways that are detrimental to their mission.

I do want the government to cut spending across the board. I know balancing a budget is a horribly complex idea for some, but it is generally seen as the fiscally responsible thing to do.

But feel free to keep trying to twist things if it makes you feel better.

He doesn't care if the parks operate in the red while at the same time wants government spending cut everywhere. You don't get it yet?

Because the question doesn't seem particularly relevant? Where does showing that other large entities also don't run well get us? My argument is for "right sizing."

What am I allegedly supporting?

I'm not sure that the profit numbers attributed to National Parks are as direct as some people are interpreting them. I'm guessing it's sort of like the discussion of how much income a Super Bowl brings to the surrounding region. Yes, money is coming in around it, but it's not necessarily directly paying for itself.

1. What risk are we talking about?

2. Sadly, some people do. But, it (whatever "this" is) is probably not "purely" about anything. What "bet" are we talking about?

Well the bigger something gets the more difficult it is to manage. Yes. That's fact.

But that doesn't answer the question - can you name something as big as the National Park Service that is run more efficiently? Just because something is large and has some inherent inefficiency due to it's scale, does not seem like a solid basis for supporting something that can potentially do much harm to natural resources that so many currently enjoy AND a service that makes money. The point of the profit isn't that it is making a large margin - it is the fact that it is not costing the tax payer to finance it.

We do not know for sure that irreversible harm is going to be done. [1] Why take the risk for a saving that is essentially pennies. [2] Does anyone think Trump and Project 2025 is about making ordinary US citizens enriched and have better lives? ... or is this purely about allowing companies to profit from looser regulations. . . which sort of brings us full circle. I can't comprehend thinking this is a good bet to make.

I'm not a big fan of agglomeration in general. I think the bigger an entity gets, the more it is responsible for, generally speaking, the worse it gets. Proper attention can't be given to everything. The more there is to pay attention to, the less attention each piece gets, often to the point of being overlooked altogether. I'd rather have good oversight of a 100k acre park, than poor oversight of a 1.36M acre park.

I'm also not a big fan of using profits as a measure of success. Too often, profits seem to come at the expense of other considerations. How much money the parks make is very low on my list of priorities. I don't care if they operate "in the red" if they are carrying out the mission of preservation. Yet, I'd still like to limit costs where it makes sense. How commercialized and profitable we can make the parks is not the goal for me.

I understand this is your opinion. But I'd be interested to know if you can site another institution or organization consisting of 400+ sites and experience 323+ million visitors annually that is run more efficiently or in your view executed more efficiently? Just like any organization including, in my opinion, both government and private enterprise - with enormous scale comes some inefficiency. And a little inefficiency in execution while providing access to the wonders of the national parks AND raising a net profit in the Billions is not a bad thing. jmo

Hope we find a win tonight. Work at drawing fouls, but show some sense and use the paint. Hero ball and missing 3's have helped us lose. Hustle and pound the rebs. Get them on their heels. Good luck.

As long as the defense doesn't fall apart/regress with the coaching change, we will continue to match up well against them.

I'm not wild about the tougher start to the year. Bucs will be good as they are healthy. I'm still not sold on the Jags, in general, but it would be beneficial to have easier opponents to try to build momentum.

Most of the time I refrain from any predictions.

However, for once I will say this.

Aaron Rodgers resigning with the Steelers is no blessing.

For the first time since before Tomlin IMO the Steelers are sub .500.

Tomlin saw the writing on the wall.

So you going on a tangent on HAMAS and Israel is fine, but my talking about something that actually is related to National Parks is somehow out of bounds?

When one's family has had land taken through eminent domain for a park and one goes back to visit and it is a mess, it gives one a different perspective.

The idea of the National Parks is great. The actual execution is hit or miss.

Just because something is a good idea, doesn't mean you should ignore the actual specifics of how that idea is executed.

I know good hikers and I know bad hikers. You're the one that keeps trying to overgeneralize into some all or nothing narrative.

You along with millions and millions of others across generations.

The National Parks are wonderlands of nature.

They are also sanctuaries for wildlife that need protection.

Common sense and logic is all that is needed to understand.

The National Parks are one of the last areas of government funding that need to be touched, IMO. I love visiting them. My family's last trip with my husband before he passed was to several National Parks (Badlands, Mount Rushmore, Rocky Mountain, Arches, Canyonlands), I live about 5 minutes crom Cuyahoga Valley National Park and visit regularly. My kids and I, along with my sister and her kids, are taking a family trip to a number of National Parks this summer (using life insurance money from my husband, doing something he would have LOVED!). Rocky Mountain, Arches, Canyonlands again, and adding Brice, Zion, Capitol Reef, Grand Canyon, Joshua Tree. I have decor in my house tracking our travels over the years. The trips to the National Parks have been our favorite trips.

To lose funding for them lacks the forsight or intelligence. This is an area we could/should expand. Our parks bring in tourism, jobs, money. They provide beauty, nature, memories, history. Once those lands are mined/pipelined etc., they will never be the same again. They're no longer a natural resource for all to enjoy (the founding point of the National Parks).

All I can do is sit here and shake my damn head.

Protect Our National Parks!!

I'm just a couple years shy of 55. At that point, I will have one in college and one not far off from it. So I would need to be able to pay for that. (about $200K total for the both) And with only my income supporting us all (and trust me, my income is below poverty levels) we do/will get financial aid.

My house is paid off, but needs many repairs, so I need about $50K just for that. Plus property taxes and home owners insurance are needed. My car is about $18K from being paid off (most of which I currently have in savings, but am keeping my savings for emergencies). I'd like to be able to take my children on trips to new places each year - and evenutally include grandchildren ($7-$10K per year). I'd also like to keep the kick butt health insurance I've currently got (seriously lucky with it, it's why I keep my low paying job - well, that, and I love what I do). I also need to have another $5k for my youngest son to get a car when he turns 16 to be the same budget as what I gave big brother.

To retire at 55 I'd need a few million. It also includes a cushion for medical issues as well. I'm thinking about $7 million. Much of it would be invested until I need it and I'd try to live off of interest/retirement/SS as much as possible.

One thing that really jumps out to me is the furthest the Browns travel west this year is New Orleans. I don’t think they have a plane ride over 2 hours. Less travel, less jet lag.. that should be a bit of a boost for such a young team. It is more like a college travel schedule.

The two games in Florida and the one in New Orleans are the furthest travel. Back to back in Jacksonville and Tampa might just keep them down there for the week.

Eminent domain is not involved in any of the portions of these stories. None. Are you now going to post the entire history of our national parks and claim it is relevant to the discussion that we were having? Bait and switch con games are obvious to thinking people. So is seeing people trying to to veer the conversation away from the actual topic to derail it from its intent. It's not the masterful craft you obviously think it is.

It's unrelated to what we were discussing. And actually you know that and seem to be playing the role of a troll at this point.

Bringing up, "Yeah but eminent domain happened several decades ago so let's talk about that" isn't any sort of attempt at trying to have a productive conversation.

How many hikers do you know? You know, those people who buy T-Shirts to commemorate their travels to the places they hike to commemorate their journeys. They too must be out their just trampling up the forests and polluting them. You've been hopping from place to place like a rabbit trying to evade a fox since this thing started and it's not getting any better for you.

Experience and opinion go hand in hand. Both can apply.

I was only speaking for myself. Are people not allowed to speak for themselves now? You're the one that keeps trying to talk for everyone else.

Your mom did one thing. That doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I didn't say that it applied to all consumption oriented tourists, I mentioned the tendency that I have witnessed.

If we were restricted to talking about specific cases your argument would suck a bit less. The topic is "Our National Parks." Eminent domain was involved in parks. It's still possible. How is that unrelated? The only craziness in here is the insanity of my expecting a different result when trying to have a productive conversation when you're involved.

There is nothing about any of the things posted that have anything to do with eminent domain. Please let me know in the future when it actually does.


Either it's your opinion or it's your experience. Make up your mind.

My mom was one of those people who collected miniature spoons everywhere we went on vacations. Simply to commemorate all the places we had traveled including national parks. And she was one who believed in leaving things in nature as you found it. Making generalizations about any group of people is part of what's wrong with our culture.

So does or does not eminent domain apply to our current discussion involving the further protections to our national parks or government lands? No it does not. In cases where it does we may agree. But going on some tangent ride on the Crazy Train about something totally unrelated to the topic at hand isn't a journey I will be taking with you.


I never said I was speaking for everyone. I said you were only speaking for yourself. A thinking person would easily understand the difference.

Eminent domain doesn't apply where?

It has applied in the past with regards to parks, it can in the future. There are in holdings in National parks and the government retains the right to use eminent domain to claim them. If they want to expand, they can.

"Historically, the power of eminent domain was used extensively to assemble land for major national parks. Some of the most iconic natural treasures in the U.S. were created by displacing thousands of private landowners.Shenandoah National Park: In the 1920s and 1930s, the Commonwealth of Virginia utilized eminent domain to condemn over 1,000 individual tracts of land, displacing more than 500 families so the park could be established.Cuyahoga Valley National Park: During the park's creation in the 1970s, the government used condemnation powers to buy up hundreds of homes in and around the park boundaries, resulting in decades of tension with local communities." Straight from nps.gov.

Does a website replace the experience? No. I never said it did. Yet, you can do research before a trip instead of being told what you need to know at a site that requires maintenance, infrastructure, and staffing (infrastructure that can be disruptive to nature) when it's too late to actually prepare. The national debt keeps growing. Cuts need to be made.

Yes, in my experience stuff focused tourists tend to be focused more on themselves than the detritus they leave behind. Yes, I am speaking my opinion. One's own view is the only one that one can confidently speak on. Speaking from the view of everyone is impossible, and your thinking that you can is laughable.

Yes, people that think understand that you are flailing around again.

Very disappointing loss.

I shut it off during the 3rd qt.

I disliked the effort. They played like the game was meaningless.

I could be surprised but I don't see them winning game seven in Detroit.

Some do but not nearly enough of them.

I'm pretty sure this isn't a simple issue of "distrust" when it includes "everyone/everything".

Your basis for not having visitor centers was " If you don't sell the stuff, you don't need the building, utilities, or employees." That's simply not true. And you also brought up eminent domain which doesn't even apply here. These visitor centers were for the public before there was even an internet. And the idea that you can simply replace them with a website is pure foolishness. Do you find visiting a website the same as having real life experiences? Or maybe that's the rabbit hole many have climbed down into at this point.

So let me get this straight, woman and men who collect things along their journey to commemorate their travels "do a horrible job cleaning up after themselves and disturb things they aren't supposed to" according to your experience?

What is happening here is you are speaking how something pertains to you as an individual and neglecting to speak on this topic from the view of everyone. It's a pattern we see all too often in our society today.


And then sometimes there is no point to be missed when someone is simply flailing around trying to make points that don't exist. People who think understand that.

Lots of giggles from countries who get threatened.

Don't look at me. I'm not teaching him