National Parks - who should own the place ?

[The Lawspeaker]

SwordoftheVistula gave me an idea here:

Private ownership of land and water resources will be encouraged. If you own a piece of land or a river, you're not going to let some idiot dump crap in it, at least not without paying a steep price. This will create the best balance between human/industrial needs and the environment.

Concerns regarding air pollution and such are best resolved through the court system rather than regulatory schemes, if someone causes you a specific harm by pollution then you can sue them.

Why not privatise natural reserves ? Now we are in the Netherlands are basically hijacked by all sorts of environmental action committees and I can't say that this is doing nature or the economy - or security for that matter a real favour.

A nice example of this: there was an explosion in the population of wild boar in the Hoge Veluwe National Park (the Netherlands) which caused considerable trouble for those living around the area. The population of wild boar reached well over a 1000 where 200 ought to be living and there was of course not enough food so they scoured through farmlands and private gardens- with some getting themselves killed on main roads. Despite of this: hunters were usually not allowed to shoot them by special interest groups (mainly "greens" and lefties) and the left in parliament that strictly forbade or curtailed hunting.

This could have been stopped in a much more efficient way. Why not privatise the park itself and hand it over to the existing private foundation that found it and takes care of it on behalf of the government, sell admission tickets to those that want to come and visit - , train private rangers, build some lodges and a small hotel and sell hunting licenses to people in case there is a massive surplus - the meat of those animals that has been curtailed can be taken by the hunters and minor excess wildlife can be curtailed in a method of "ranching". Selling the meat on the market.

The money can be spend on maintaining the park and the owners of the park can simply be kept in check by Staatsbosbeheer who would keep the role of national overseer.

In that respect I believe that private ownership is more efficient in maintaining land then leaving it to all sorts of organisations with the notion that the land is "in public ownership" while no one gives a damn about it.
It would also give a mayor incentive to improve connections between national parks and other natural reserves because there is a commercial incentive.

In the same way I believe that the subsidies that are now given to environmental organisations to protect the countryside and the natural surroundings should now be given to farmers on the condition that they take over the maintenance of their area on a commercial basis.

[Psychonaut]

Why not privatise natural reserves ?

There are some of these, and there is nothing stopping those who are so inclined from setting them up. This is one of those things that, I think, the government has to do to maintain the uncitied integrity of the US. By and large, citizens/corporations with enough money to buy large tracts of wilderness do so with a very specific purpose: to convert the land into money. This in nearly all cases involves destroying that which makes it desirable for outdoorsmen, and also involves cutting off access to the public. There is definitely no economic benefit to the National Parks Service, but I for one feel that our nation would be spiritually poor without such vast woodlands. For, what happens to ancient forests when there are no governmental limits on expoitation: he situation of massive deforestation in the Rainforests.

[SwordoftheVistula]

It would still be preserved for tourism purposes.

Another thing which would be prevented, is all these massive wildfires which happen because of all the dead wood sitting around waiting to burn. Why is all this wood there? Because logging is not allowed.

[Albion]

National Parks in the UK are owned by a number of individuals and organisations. Our national parks are rather large in relation to our land area specifically because the government doesn't have to buy all the land in the area it designates. Take Wales for example, its around 20% national parks.

Our national parks are mostly owned by:

• Private individuals, land owners, farmers
• The National Trust (a conservation charity)
• Wildlife charities
• Water boards
• Shooting estates
• and a few areas, in most less than 5% by the National Park authority itself

There can be conflicts between farmers and game keepers over access and use of land, but generally the parks run quite well.
The national parks have a lot of powers, especially over planning and overlap and function similar to counties. The government has not had to buy the land but simply protects it and maintains a steady balance.

[Albion]

Privatising anything that the nation should own is a bad idea. National monuments such as Trafalgar square, famous landscapes such as the white cliffs or Ben Nevis and important historic buildings should all be publicly owned.

[BeerBaron]

I don't condone the ownership of natural resources necessary for the country to operate. In the US PT barnham or some other oil tycoon owns the largest fresh water resource, this is highly dangerous socialites and tycoons know no borders and have no allegiance.

I am for state ownership of resources like Norway and the north sea oil, that benefit the future of the nation.

[Birka]

I don't condone the ownership of natural resources necessary for the country to operate. In the US PT barnham or some other oil tycoon owns the largest fresh water resource, this is highly dangerous socialites and tycoons know no borders and have no allegiance.

I am for state ownership of resources like Norway and the north sea oil, that benefit the future of the nation.

And who determines what is beneficial for the nation? Politicians are the biggest crooks that ever existed. Criminal warlords and corporate raiders pale in comparison to life long politicians.

[BeerBaron]

And who determines what is beneficial for the nation? Politicians are the biggest crooks that ever existed. Criminal warlords and corporate raiders pale in comparison to life long politicians.

you elected them

[Birka]

you elected them

In the US, the incumbent candidate wins over 95% of the time. There are no real elections in the US.
Once they weasel themselves into office, they become professional crooks for as long as they want.

[Magister Eckhart]

[FONT="Georgia"]Why not privatise natural reserves ? Now we are in the Netherlands are basically hijacked by all sorts of environmental action committees and I can't say that this is doing nature or the economy - or security for that matter a real favour.

Because private individuals are philistines and proles with no appreciation of natural beauty and therefore cannot be trusted to preserve it.

They turn this:


Into this:


Idiot tourists do enough damage to Yellowstone without handing over the property to be carved up by individuals who will more than likely do even more damage in pursuit of profit.

Our holy groves were once hewn down by foreigners for the sake of principle, now we do it ourselves for the sake of profit. What sort of cultured man would allow it, let alone encourage it? The National Park Service was founded with the express purpose of making sure no one builds a Walmart at Waterloo, a Starbucks over Stonehenge, or a McDonalds in the middle of Manassas. In the hands of private individuals, one wonders if there would be any places of beauty or historical significance left that don't have a gas station or department store build over them.