Thankfully, there are just two weeks left to go in the 2016 general election. Which begs the question: Which nominee would be better for the National Park System and National Park Service?
While Democrat Hillary Clinton did put forth a statement outlining her intention to create a trust fund for the parks, not much has been heard from Republican Donald Trump on the parks specifically.
There have been reports that Mr. Trump would support the transfer of some federal lands in the West to states, a position the Republican Party adopted at its convention this past summer. And how would his proposal to build a wall along the U.S. - Mexico border impact border parks such as Big Bend National Park, Chamizal National Memorial, Coronado National Memorial, and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument?
Which candidate do you think would be best for the park system and Park Service?
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
One candidate said she'd like open borders and letting 600 million new immigrants into the country. How would that impact the National Parks System in the long term. That, I would think, would require some serious thought as to "real" outcomes. Crashing the economy as well might have an impact on dollars to the Parks, no? Things can't continue going out of wack without a reconning. If one's in the bag and accepting corruption at the highest level as long as one gets their funding than I guess everything is real groovy.
Yes, Bruce Babbitt was one of the better secretaries of the interior, but that is no indication whom Clinton would appoint--or Trump. Meanwhile, the Democrats persist in reminding us how "great" they have been. We're not supposed to look behind the curtain and concede how much they, too have given away of our public lands. Just three weeks ago, Jewell turned over another 10 million acres in the Mojave desert for wind and solar power. That's five Yellowstones, folks--FIVE. So what if President Obama declares more national "monuments?" His administration has been giving land away as fast as he has been "saving" it.
One's ideology is no excuse for being blind, is it? Back in their Arkansas days, the Clintons were no friends of the environment either, as then reported by THE NEW YORK TIMES. My ideological friends here in Seattle threw me out of their coffee house for daring to quote those articles. Seriously, they said don't come back. Then I joined the board of NPCA, and through one of its members who happened to live in Arkansas personally confirmed everything THE NEW YORK TIMES had said.
What do you want, good people? The facts or your ideology? Answer: America now hates the facts, unless they happen to come over the Internet and confirm everything we "believe." As Peggy Noonan said, we want the movie and don't read the book. Well, it's time to read the book.
In this case, the books on both candidates are depressing. This time, there is no such thing as "the lesser evil." Since evil seems the best we can do these days, look in mirror and not to the election to understand how we went astray. Nor is that my advice. Actually, it comes from Gaylord Nelson, the late senator from Wisconsin, with whom I shared the dais at a conference years ago. I was railing on about the National Park Service, and the good senator cut me off. "Look in the mirror," said. "You are the voter. If you don't like what you voted for, change your vote."
Amen. It's just that. . . How do you do that in 2016?
Trail are you sure she stated she wants 600 million to enter the US? Are you sure about that? Right now there are about 350 million people in the US, and I doubt very much by the end of Clinton's first 4 years we would see this country grow to around 1 billion people. That sort of hysteria doesn't hold much weight.
I also don't think the economy willl be saved by someone who has a history of multiple bankrupcies as a planned method of escaping debt.
In a speech she did in Brazil. One of those short $250,000 per ones.
What happens when the demo's of immigrants don't have the same connections to these natural landscapes. How would these politicians pander for their votes?
I see plenty of hispanics, indians, and asians in our National Parks. Enjoying National Parks is not strictly a whitewashed venture, so i'm not sure I agree with you Trail. I don't think race as a big of a factor in protecting landscapes as some want to con us into believing. At this point in our human evolution, conservation is an internationlly accepted concept that crosses many political persuasians, and many different races. So, try, try again.
The biggest anti-park screamers in this day and age seem to be old angry white guys that vote the R.
Of course, those old angry white guys still made the country that everyone else in the world is running to.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. While no doubt she is a "big government" politician her bottom line is her pocket book. As she has done in the past she is likely to cowtow to anyone that can directly or indirectly put money in her pocket. She sold out our uranium resources, our state department amoungst many other sell outs. I have little doubt she would sell out our federal lands if she gets the green.