04-07-2017, 09:41 AM
(04-06-2017, 09:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Simple answer, they are right there. They know how to promote the attraction, how to encourage people to visit the attraction, how to monitor who comes and goes from the place. Every State that I know of has State Parks, as well as DNR and Wildlife officers. It makes little to no sense to keep these National Parks, when they could just as easily be State Parks in their home States. They could denote them as "National Treasures" or whatever, to put added emphasis on the significance of the site. But, for the Federal to seize these lands, and deny the individual State the opportunity to manage and perhaps profit from their existence is a bit overreaching.
Yellowstone was a national park before Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho were states. Not sure I want one park managed by three different state governments. Aside from the original colonies, weren't state lands originally federal lands? I'm not sure, but I think so.
I agree there is wasteful spending and cuts need to be made, but a proposed $54 billion increase in defense spending is a little ridiculous. Especially considering the National Parks Service budget for 2016 was less than $3 billion.
I think the state and national parks systems act as checks and balances against mismanagement and political vagaries. Some states are managed better or worse than others. Do you really believe the state of California can manage Yosemite better than the National Parks System? If the National Parks revert to the states then the states will need to raise the revenue to manage them. So you and I might see a decrease in federal taxes and an increase in state taxes.
Plus state politics is like MLB's minor league. Most of the state politicians don't have the talent to be called up to the big show.
