You are here

All Recent Comments

How Will A Trump Administration Treat The National Park System?

Nov 10th - 14:15pm | ecbuck

Kurt, I did read the stories, at least the ones that weren't pay services.  When the opinion is filtered out, they reflect typical examples of business disputes, the kind that occur millions of times a year.  Either that or they were bankruptcies.

Nov 10th - 14:12pm | Jerry

Humans are causing most of the climate change. Pick up a science book and read it.

Nov 10th - 14:03pm | Alfred Runte

Kurt, the bigger news this morning in Washington, DC., is that Donald Trump is closing the Revolving Door. If you serve his Transition Team, that will be it. You cannot further lobby the government you helped create.

Nov 10th - 13:58pm | Kurt Repanshek

Read the stories, Eric, read the stories.As for the 1st Amendment:

Nov 10th - 13:56pm | Rick B.

And   http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-...

Nov 10th - 13:46pm | ecbuck

Yes Kurt, large corporations have lots of accusations made and many times have disagreements about the terms of contracts.  That is far different than "refusing to pay" small businesses.

Nov 10th - 13:29pm | Kurt Repanshek

Eric, there are quite a few folks out there that would disagree with you:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/trump-files-time-trumps-lawy...

Nov 10th - 13:03pm | ecbuck

Kurt,  Trump did not refuse to pay small businesses. The hotel went bankrupt.  There was no money to pay.  Its the way business works.  And given the article I posted earlier, one can hardly blame him for not kowtowing to the press.  This is just one example that things are not going to be done the traditional Washington way and that is exactly why he got elected.

Nov 10th - 12:57pm | Rick B.

I'm afraid the parklands will be treated as an untapped resource, to be extracted. As Eric has blithely misinformed us, resource extraction doesn't always cause damage.   One can indeed take the air out of the balloon without popping the balloon, however the balloon still ends up empty and flat.

Nov 10th - 12:55pm | utahan

"Maybe Trump will clean house and make the NPS more responsible to taxpaying visitors instead of serving themselves." Please elaborate.  

Nov 10th - 12:40pm | Kurt Repanshek

Ahh, Al....“The deeds and motive of man define his personality.” ― Lailah Gifty Akita

Nov 10th - 11:46am | Alfred Runte

I am very sorry to say that history supports few of the observations here, so I will stick to just one example. Just what did Mr. Obama "do" for the national parks? Yes, he signed into law national monuments, but those lands were already ours. Today, a national monument is not what it was a century ago, when in fact the public domain could still be settled.

Nov 10th - 11:38am | ecbuck

Mike, if it is a "FACT" that CO2 is the cause of climate change, why have the models based on that "FACT" been so wrong?  The inconvenient truth is that the actual results haven't been in line with the predictions.  

Nov 10th - 11:37am | RickyAZ

Bet on massive infrastructure, and in his case visble (ie not solar panel fiascos like Solyndra). Parks will do ok. He's a builder. Schumer is the Dem Majority leader and he wants it too. Maybe they can finally declare Skyscraper National Park a reality, with Trump Tower as the visitor center, of course

Nov 10th - 10:56am | Mike Be.

It is people like you that Trump will probably put in charge of the Department of the Interior and the park service .   I am sorry the FACT man caused climate change is such an inconvenient truth for you.

Nov 10th - 10:20am | SmokiesBackpacker

Trump is a friend of coal and coal is what has caused a large majority of the trees to die off at elevation in the Smokies.  It is a by product of the burning of fossil fuels which weakened the trees to allow these other pestilences to take root.

Nov 10th - 10:05am | Gary Wilson

Snowchaser (interesting name by the way), you might want to start with the basics.  I'll post this from the EPA site before it goes away.. https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain And :

Nov 10th - 09:49am | ecbuck

Interesting commentary on the press and how it got the election wrong.  I think there are many parallels here with the AGW community. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-pr...  

Nov 10th - 09:27am | snowchaser

Biggest problem for the AGW cult is that it isn't scientific, it's emotional.  Even where they see "signs" of global warming (most of which are simply normal and natural variability), they have absolutely ZERO scientific basis for assigning that observation to human output of CO2.  They leap from "global warming" to "manmade climate change" with no science in between. 

Nov 10th - 08:36am | Rebecca Latson ...

I have a very dim view myself about this and expect the President-elect businessman opening up some areas of public lands for luxury resorts or condos.  I, too, see more energy exploration activity in and around the national parks (a hydrothermal energy plant at Yellowstone, maybe?).

Nov 10th - 08:36am | ecbuck

show little comprehension of the scientific method That is the very definition of the AGW cult.  

Nov 10th - 08:34am | Gary Wilson

Well, we are already seeing unprecedented forest fires in many national forest areas of western north carolina, tennessee, and georgia this year.  Having one of the warmest years on record over the last century, along with an extremely dry year with no rain is yet another sign of a warming planet.

Nov 10th - 08:29am | Lee Dalton

I'm afraid our parks and public lands may be only minor problems we will face. Right now, I'm ashamed to be an American. Let's Make America KIND Again.  

Nov 10th - 07:52am | snowchaser

If we could take the money being spent trying to alter nature's completely natural "climate change" and put that to the park system, we would have a large surplus of funds for people and projects.  Would you rather see that money wasted on something that won't matter for 100 years, if ever, or spent on the parks?

Nov 10th - 07:22am | SmokiesBackpacker

I suspect we will see a greater concessionaire presence in an effort to make the parks more profitable.  Then, with an oilman at the helm we can expect more exploration activities on public lands in general.  I can fully see Trump, in his ignorance and lack of exposure to anything outside a boardroom, see increasing value in board feet of timber.

Sound And Light At Chaco Culture National Historical Park

Nov 10th - 10:52am | Fred Swanson

Thanks for clarifying this, Mike.  The joint BLM/BIA review in the Chaco area appears similar in purpose to the Master Leasing Plan recently begun around Moab, Utah, where continued oil and gas development is encroaching upon scenic lands near Arches and Canyonlands national parks. Both are good initiatives, but with a new administration in Washington calling the shots, we'll hav

Nov 9th - 17:05pm | Mike Painter

"... I glanced at a newspaper headline: "Feds to Launch Expanded Review of Drilling in Chaco Region." Oh no, I thought-not here too. I didn't read the details,* but the story is all too familiar for those of us in Utah, where conservationists must fight off applications to drill or mine next to Arches,Canyonlands, and other park units.

USFWS Proposal To Delist Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly Bears Controversial

Nov 9th - 13:13pm | Kurt Repanshek

OK, guys, let's move on.

Nov 9th - 12:39pm | Rick B.

And you are so blind as to not see that interpret and apply in this question are both in the minds of the observer.

Nov 9th - 09:44am | ecbuck

Rick, I suspect your tune would change dramatically if after a couple of Supreme Court appointments the court start making conservative law.  That is why it is dangerous to "interpret" the words rather than apply them as they were meant.

Nov 9th - 02:26am | Rick B.

You are not my boss, you are not my teacher, and you are not my drinking buddy. You are definitely not a federal judge or a legal authority. Do not pretend to teach or patronize me. I read the words. You not only read them but presume to interpret them for the great unwashed masses, from your real estate office, while also stating that those whose job it is to do so may not interpret them.

Nov 8th - 23:14pm | ecbuck

Original words. Rick, you can't read "original words" from the 1700s through the eyes of someone in the 21st century.  Read the Federalist Papers, read the works of the authors of of the Document.  Do some homework and you will see what our Founder Fathers meant when they talked about "regulate commerce".  

Nov 8th - 21:28pm | Rick B.

I just read what sure looked to me like the original words mentioning the power to regulate commerce. Original words. Makes sense to me that if a "progressive court" isn't then allowed to interpret the original words then neither is Eric allowed Sorry, Professor Irwin Corey, we'll all do our own reading and research.

Nov 8th - 12:27pm | Anonymous

 The purpose of that clause was to prevent the individual states from having irregular policies regarding interstate/international/indians trade.   

Nov 7th - 16:14pm | ecbuck

I have done more than read it Dmgold.  I have studied it, the people who wrote it, the Federalst and anti-Federalist papers that argued for/against it and read the works of Constitutional scholars.  It was not the intent of the Constitution to have the Federal Government control interstate, much less intrastate commerce.

Nov 7th - 15:08pm | Dmgold

Article 1, Section 8. Maybe you ought to actually read the Constitution before you comment.

Nov 7th - 13:14pm | ecbuck

Anon - The "regulate" that our Founder Fathers were referring to was to make trade "regular" between the states.  They did not want states showing preferences towards their own businesses by tarrifing trade from other states, or different rates for different states or charging addition duties for international goods.

A Monumental Mascot

Nov 9th - 13:10pm | person

I love this place  

Nov 8th - 22:32pm | janes

Beautiful picture, majestic animal.

President Obama's Public Lands Legacy

Nov 9th - 00:51am | Sane

Now we can drain the swamp of these lying delusional progressive fantasies! We can make our Parks great again!

Nov 8th - 16:20pm | Anonymous

Land management agencies are far from running "almost entirely on volunteers now"! That said, if not for volunteers, many front-facing, recreation-related tasks would disappear, or...?

Family of Man Killed By Mountain Goat in Olympic National Park Sues National Park Service

Nov 8th - 22:12pm | Christina Miller

If you shoot a bear with a pistol I wouldn't expect to live through the experience.  Bear spray works better and has less fatalities.

Woods Hole Researchers Studying Hydrothermal Vents On The Floor Of Yellowstone Lake

Nov 8th - 20:37pm | Lee Dalton

No, Esteemed Comrade, I'm not joking.  United Media Publishing is considered to be Gospel by many conservative fans.  A few folks I know simply cannot be convinced that it is complete fantasy. After all, if it's on the Internet and it supports your beliefs about anything, it HAS to be true, doesn't it?

Nov 8th - 18:04pm | Kurt Repanshek

My b.s. meter is pegged. Lee cited a story from 2015. I found another, same quotes, from 2016, as well as one from 2014. And there doesn't appear to be a "Richard Dunn" working for the NPS.And here's the park disputing it:http://www.snopes.com/yellowstone-evacuation-volcano/

Nov 8th - 17:45pm | ecbuck

You are joking, right Lee?????

Nov 8th - 17:36pm | Lee Dalton

How many of you are aware that Yellowstone National Park was evacuated last summer because of fear the supevolcano was about to erupt? Yup.  It actually happened in July.  Here's a website that contains the story -- a story that apparently the government succeeded in keeping hidden.

Nov 8th - 14:09pm | Anonymous

Moving as far away from Yellowstone as possible wouldn't help.  

Nov 8th - 13:55pm | Alfred Runte

Moving as far away from Yellowstone as possible wouldn't help. Were Yellowstone to erupt as it did 638,000 years ago, the ash would encircle the entire globe. A "nuclear winter" of at least five years would result. No crops would grow anywhere on the planet, which itself would be covered with a minimum of three feet of ash.

Nov 8th - 12:31pm | Anonymous

1. Anytime 2. Devastating.   I recommend you move as far away from Yellowstone as possible, please.

Nov 7th - 22:52pm | Thomas Scott Pharr

What's the potential for an eruption, in the near future???? And the impact on the western "United States"?????

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide

Recent Forum Comments