Do national park-related issues affect your decisions at the ballot box?
That's a pertinent question with another election season upon us, and with it the usual blizzard of ads for—or against—candidates. Unless a voter takes the time to really study a candidate's position on various issues, it can be a challenge determining where he or she stands. That said, when it's time to cast your vote, how much do park and other "conservation"-related issues figure into your decisions at the ballot box?
While it's not the case all the time, Republicans tend to favor multiple-use on public lands (mining, fracking, and logging as well as recreation), while Democrats tend to favor environmental protections (ie, no fracking) for public lands.
With that in mind, do you let possible outcomes to national parks and other public lands guide your Election Day actions? Looking at some of the (currently) toss-up races, if you're in Colorado, how do you measure the battle between incumbent U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and Republican U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner? If you're a Tar Heel, what do you think of the Sen. Kay Hagan (D)-state House Speaker Thom Tillis matchup? Down in Louisiana, will environmental issues lead you to re-elect Sen. Mary Landrieu, or opt for GOP challenger Representative Bill Cassidy?
Other close Senate races include those in Kentucky (Sen. Mitch McConnell vs. Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes); in Alaska (Democratic Sen. Mark Begich vs. Republican Dan Sullivan), and; Georgia (Democrat Michelle Nunn vs. Republican David Perdue). There are other tight races, in both the Senate and the U.S. House.
And, of course, there are states, such as Utah and Wyoming, on the conservative side and Minnesota and Oregon on the liberal side where your vote against the incumbent likely won't matter. If you're in that situation, about the best you can do is root for your favored party in one of the contested states.
Comments
It would be wonderful if you didn't have to mix parks and politics.
But since that's not an option, about the best we can do is try to keep an eye on our Congresscritters and try to find some way to convince them that there are some things of importance besides the Almighty Dollar.
Certainly the candidates attitude towards public lands plays a role but there are many other issues that I view as far more important. If they aren't addresses properly, what happens to our public lands won't be on anyone's agenda.
Unfortunately, National Parks are treated as though they were solely the purview of the representative of the district where they are located. So, because I live in an urban district that has no national parks in it, my representative has very little influence over parks management.
Can you provide an overview of which congressional and senate committees have a role in parks operations?
How politicians treat national parks is pretty much in line with how they treat other issues I care about, at least where I live, so it's only one factor in my choice of candidates.
In the Smokies it is the environmental charlatan, Lamar Alexander who is facing some competition this time in part because of his association with private entities who have been proven to receive sweetheart deals from the NPS in return for Alexander's complicity with park fee schemes. He got busted on a deal with the archives and artifacts center being housed in the backyard of his home, then his buddies were going to make a killing from the land the NPS was going to acquire. Someone broke the story and his cronies had some egg on their face and decided to "donate" some of those properties.
Get into the Blackberry Farm scandal (Lamar was one of the original investors in this Smokies bordering property, he was caught steering business to this $700 per night inn with their own private trail system within the NPS lands) and his coopting on the most unpopular backcountry tax and his colors have been shown. I hope he gets beaten resoundingly but incumbency is a tough thing to beat in a Republican state where folks vote the party line regardless of how egregious the man proves himself to be.