National Parks at Risk?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Imported, Mar 20, 2004.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Javierdude22: i just read that because of severe budget cuts from Congress, the raging forest fires of the past years, and the costs of Homeland Security, that National parks are in severe financial problems.

    It seems they are gonna have to cut jobs, services, and maintenance to historic buildings, bridges, roads etc.

    So this is where its come to with the friggin annual budget deficit and huge defense spending.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0319_040319_parks.html#main
     
  2. B_RoysToy

    B_RoysToy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    7,558
    Likes Received:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    memphis, tennessee
    I cringe to think what else will happen to us if the Bush regime is elected this November to another four years. How anybody fails to see and understand what is happening is beyond me, Javier.

    Luke
     
  3. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Also that twelve-figure tax cut. But that's the government for you.
     
  4. HungArnold

    HungArnold New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Niagara Falls, Canada
    if the government cut spending how would it steal oil from other countries under the banner of liberation? where was liberation when the government propped various kleptocracies, sychophantocracries and idiocracies?
     
  5. jay_too

    jay_too New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    Yea, the Bush administration has and is doing a most excellent job of destroying our National Park System and our wilderness areas. While there is not enough money to fund needed national resource and environmental priorities, there is money to fund building access roads through our national forests.

    Why? Would you believe making it easier access for possible oil and natural gas exploitation and selling timber at discount to loggers and paper mills? I guess it is time for the robber barons to recoup some of their investment in Dumbya.

    jay
     
  6. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Javierdude22: [quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1079831304;start=0#4 date=03/24/04 at 09:26:31]
    Why? Would you believe making it easier access for possible oil and natural gas exploitation and selling timber at discount to loggers and paper mills? I guess it is time for the robber barons to recoup some of their investment in Dumbya.
    jay[/quote]

    This is what I fear mostly Jay. I hope Alaska will remain relatively untouched for as long as possible.

    I have heard about ridiculous plans, all worked out, but not approved (yet), also involving water schemes. One for example is to divert rivers in Alaska (the Yukon?) through Canada to California...well...Southern California (gotta keep those pools refreshed daily right). California has no objections, but obviously Canada and Alaska do. It would involve a series of dams and canalizations, with their effects on the environment.

    But, maybe in 25 years right?
     
  7. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Columbia and Colorado are already diverted to deal with the Southwest's need of swimming pools. These kinds of crazy schemes are pretty common in Washington; of course, you can't start screwing with rivers like that and not expect problems. It's why hydroelectric dams aren't on the normal list of alternative energy sources; if they were put in effect in Washington, for example, you could say bye-bye to salmon.
     
  8. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Javierdude22: [quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1079831304;start=0#6 date=03/27/04 at 16:48:21] if they were put in effect in Washington, for example, you could say bye-bye to salmon.[/quote]

    That is why the Columbia already practically is salmon-less. As well as many other rivers.

    But you know how the government keeps the treehuggers "happy"? By breeding salmon in a tank, then transporting them upstream so they can be caught again downstream. Yeehaa!

    Gotta love artificial realism...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted