Sorry, ec, I went back over the posts on this thread. I fail to see where you put the blame on the Congress which is responsible for the shortfall in appropriations. But, it really doesn't matter. You now know where to focus your energy to get tha Act reauthorized, if for no other reason than the difference that money makes in our local communities. Besides, it does
Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
What makes you think I don't understand it? I was the first to point out the shortfall in appropriations existed and the first to place the blame on Congress. And, the first to point out that vast majority of the funds that are spent don't go to the NPS.
There is no doubt that the embezzlers are our Representatives in Congress who use the money intended for the LWCF for other purposes. And aside from the small amount that goes to land acquisition, the money is managed by local municipalities. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
First, I would have the state and local programs turned over to the state and local governments. For federal purposes, how about legislation that identifies the funding source and forces those funds to only go to the intended purpose.
Again, I have to ask, WHO is "embezzling" from the fund?
It took me all of thrity seconds to find the answer. Here it is, excerpted from a posting you can find at this web address:
Sep 8th - 08:38am |
it's the "gift that keeps on giving."
No argument with that. The question is whether the LWCF is the best mechanism for making that gift. If you knew of any charity were only 33 cents on the dollar made it to the intended recepients, you would be screaming bloody murder.
Sep 8th - 08:34am |
So please share your knowledge with us. WHO is embezzling this money. We need to know so we can try to stop it. Could it be Big Oil companies that resent anything that might cut a little into their profit margins? Is it Congress? Who?
Okay, ec, how about telling us exactly WHO is "embezzling" from the LWCF?
In the meantime, I hope you had a great holiday weekend. I spent part of it in a park that displays a sign that reads something like this: "Park Development funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act."
Half-a-billion dollars over a decade is miniscule? Perspective is everything, I guess.But don't confuse park ops with what LWCF aims for: in the realm of the parks, the funds go to land preservation/protection, not park ops, and I'd say the impact has been quite significant, not miniscule. How much of the annual park budget -- your park ops -- goes to land acquisition?
While the LWCF helps the NPS with land acquisition based on the annual amount appropriated by the Congress, the real benefits of the fund go to local and municipal governments. And it is not a miniscule amount. If we believe that open spaces, parks and recreation areas improve the quality of life in our local communities, then this program should be reauthorized. But, God forb
Kurt, the NPS has received about $50 million a year the last decade. That is 15% of the LWCF allocations, 6% of what LWCF is supposed to generate and 2% of the NPS budget. LWCF contribution to the NPS operations is miniscule.
Thank you, anon, for pointing out something most of us already know -- that ec has no interest whatsoever beyond constantly spouting a continual stream of opposition to almost anything that might advance environmental progress. While constantly accusing others of "unsubstantiated" comments, only rarely does he make any attempt to provide back up information to his own claims. Trying
Or if he doesn't LIKE the answer, then it's obviously without merit.
Sep 6th - 23:44pm |
Or if he doesn't LIKE the answer, then it's obviously without merit. A person who is sincerely interested in learning truth will follow up on a question he doesn't like with some checking to find out if it's possible that he, perchance, might actually be wrong. He knows that true learning requires investigation on both sides of any issue. But that threatens preconceived
Sep 6th - 20:08pm |
The LCWF has helped acquire dozens of essential inholdings in our National Park units. This important program should be renewed withut hesitation.
Gee Rick, I didn't know asking questions was forbidden. Someone indicated the National Parks depend on LWCF Funds. Since he made the comment, I assummed he knew how much they received. I could spend some time and maybe find the answer or I could ask the commenter. If he doesn't know the answer, I know his comment is likely without merit and the research unnecessary.
Eric - I'm sincerely curious. Why do you keep asking others here to do your research for you? I don't think it's laziness - it has to be argumentativeness. Is that just a rhetorical stance you like to take? Or do you really think that asking questions on a discussion fora like this qualifies as 'research'?
I was in Flagstaff last weekend. I went to a city park that had been financed by the Land and Water Conservation Act. There are thousands of those kinds of places sprinkled across the US. This will be the real disaster if this act is not reauthorized. The support for local parks and recreation will dry up.
Please reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund before it expires later this month. National parks depend on this revenue source and it is especially critical as NPS prepares for the Centennial.
I don't think any--or most seniors--are going to be tempted just for a "free day." For $10 as indicated, you can get a great bargain for entry into any park, any day. I got one years ago--when the were free! A year or so ago, I couldn't find it; bought another one. Ten bucks? The bargain of any lifetime, and money well spent...a pittance.
So sorry for your loss, Kurt. You are fortunate to have found each other, and to have had so many wonderful experiences together in the national parks. Thank you for sharing some of the memories of your great friend.
I always like the idea of taking a small token of a lost loved one with me when I make those future trips. I'm not embarassed to admit to having had late night conversations like "Well, Dad, you made it here after all."
We took the river crossing and guide across the Rio Grande into Boquillas Del Carmen in March after they opened the new crossing. The US side is operated efficently even though it is all automated. You have to check in with the Mexican Border patrol station in town before you can see or do any shopping (2 cafes/cantinas and gift stores).
How could you forget the squirrels that roam throughout the campground at Devils Tower? ;-}
Sep 6th - 21:28pm |
How can you not have Denali on this list. It is number one for widlife by far, and i have been to all these parks several times!
Sep 6th - 19:12pm |
Waiting for Wildlife
I was in Glacier NP earlier this week and I saw one crow. That's it. :(
Sep 6th - 18:50pm |
im surprised that you didn't mention Glacier National Park...when hiking the Highline Trail, it's almost a certainty to see Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats and you've probably got a 50% chance to see a grizzly
And I have to come back to add - our visit to Glacier Bay NP a couple of months ago was rich in wildlife. Ranging from a rare wolverine sighting to orca, humpback whales, mountain goats, walrus, sea lion, a scadzillion birds, bald eagles, and more.
Speaking of enlightened, this article certainly is. Recently I visited Zion and Lake Powell. These places were swarming with Europeans. Parks don't need to change to meet the needs of Latinos and other ethnic groups. These groups need to leam the value of the natural beauty in our parks and experience them firsthand.
today I took the same trail from the entrance up to the top then back down toLost Trail to Fern Trail then back out the park. I have two pedometer apps on my cell that gave two totally different distances . Could you tell me what that distance would be? if you can help you could email me at email@example.com thank you