Getting political

Off-topic
#1

Several times in this forum things have gone off on a political tangent inappropriate for the thread. While I agree that those threads were an inappropriate forum, I do like the Idea of keeping all public forums open to civic debate. So, hopefully with the moderators indulgence, I’ll start one off.

Parks

I am a huge fan of the national parks hear in the states. I have however heard some argue that they are poorly managed. Hears what I suggest they do.

A great deal of the parks Should remain the same. But just beyond were the family campgrounds end. Where the wilderness begins, they should:

Build a large fence around the parks. Allow native large animals such as cats, bears, and elk to reach there precolonial numbers(per acreage).

Admittance to the parks would require that a member of your party be equipped with the minimum of a 45 caliber handgun. These weapons should be subjected to a rigorous background check that all should be encouraged to go through. Upon passing this check the license to carry a weapon within the parks would become A free pass to the parks and a job opportunity for would be tour guides.

If we don’t watch out, the corporate bundys of the world will take our parks from under our feet. I love our parks. I want to keep them. But we need to restore them to there natural condition before we lose them.

#2

Have you been to Glacier Natl Park?

2 Likes
#3

No, I wish. I go to the Sierras every year with my family. We allways go to the same place though. I’m going to have to make a point of touring threw the parks soon.

#4

“Build a large fence around the parks.”
BUILD THE FENCE BUILD THE FENCE ! TRUMP AND PENCE !
xD Sorry i just had to ^^

3 Likes
#5

LOL I hate those guys. No relation. :smile:

#6

No worries it’s just a joke :slight_smile:

#7

I visited some Nat. Parks in Canada (BC and Alberta). They only build fences at highways to protect the drivers and the wildlife. And no needs for guns…

#8

Accidental shootings skyrocket.

#9

I’ll give you five to one odds that Canadians who go out into the forests carry firearms.

The need for the return of large animals(including predators) to the parks is on the cusp of ecological failure. The overgrowth of small brush causing extreme fire hazard as well as the lack of proper nutrients in the soil(formerly deposited by bear and cat feces) are at a critical stage.

If your going to have large predators back in the parks, as I believe we must, then we need to ensure that the predators don’t get the idea that humans are an easy meal.

#10

Eh, depends on the park i suppose. Rocky Mountain national park seems just fine to me.

You need to consider the implications of this. Especially with wolves, a few packs of those fuckers absolutely decimated the elk population of Yellowstone (what was it? 25% down per year?). And then there is the issue with live stock, and the inevitable clash with farmers.

Wolves have been gone a long time now. The ecosystem has adjusted, (enormous lack of fear in elk, and deer) and over population can be dealt with by hunting easily enough (how it was done in my state Colorado).

Doubt it. People who carry are typically the best of the gun community in terms of responsibility and being law abiding.

1 Like
#11

DiseasePests_Banner_688x280

Just fine is it? There is good evidence that the beetles are just feeding off of the dead and dying trees that are no longer able to sustain themselves after the loss of most of the large animals that benefited them in secondary and tertiary capacities.

wolves

The people who manage Yellowstone will tell you the reintroduction of wolves has been a great success. The negative press that I think your referring to comes mostly from the ranching community who have lost a number of there livestock with the return of the wolf. This is one of the reasons I suggested large fences. If you are taking the side of the bundys and think that cattle grazing on public land is their inherent right and should be protected from predators, then I would suggest that you should be more concerned about being held liable for your destructive practices on public lands.

#12

Beatles are a problem for the entire state, not just the park. Go up to Breckenridge some time, nothing but dead trees. I’m no expert, but is there really anything that can be done about the beetles? Ive always heard it would take an intense freeze to kill them all.

#14

Your right. Were I go every year in the Sierras we are experiencing the same thing. More evidence that it is a systemic problem.

A botanist I once talked to claimed the best thing to fight off the Beatles was healthy trees. Healthy trees create a lot of sap. Anyone familiar with liquid circulatory systems will yell you that the higher a system is, the more pressure it takes for the liquid to reach the top. Healthy trees will push most of the Beatles out.

#15

Glacier has apex predators. Rangers carry but that doesn’t do you much good if you’re hiking (and fishing for cuththroat trout) at Avalanche Lake (where grizzly signs are posted) or pretty much the vast majority of the park

In the old days, country/farm folk had guns (shotguns, rifles, a few handguns) but without the militartic attitude one sees more of now

#16

I see the licensing for park permits to need not only law enforcement and safety screening but also habitat awareness and general social skill certification. I did mean Rigorous.

#17

Our Secretary of Education appointed by Trump had an interesting comment on something like this. She wanted to defund education on the federal level but increase funding for it at the state level as each individual state would have its own issue to deal with and it is more appropriate if it is dealt with by those who know the faces or have experience with the problems at hand in those particular states and districts.

What does this have to do with parks? Well, she brought up a school in Montana that absolutely has to have fences for entirely separate reasons than the ones in big cities like New York City (I’ve been there and seen them, asked what they were for. )

In places like New Jersey and New York, they have such a bad gangland problem that they put the fences up to help protect the kids. Kids will be kids and are prone to wander and the streets in those places are not safe so they are built to keep kids in.

Whereas in Montana, the school in question is next to a national park, and they had to have a fence and armed guards in the event a bear gets on school grounds, as had happened before. That fence was built to keep the dangerous wildlife out.

Naturally, when she used that as an example of why school districts and states should have more autonomy, and thus responsibility for the funding of schools and dealing with particular issues, she was
erroneously criticized for saying all schools need fences to protect kids from bears.

#18

What? The federal government only wants to spend money on there secret global war plans and continues to cut services to the country? Surprise surprise surprise. So much for draining the swamp.

#19

Lived in SE, SW, MidW and abroad. Autonomy for states and districts is never ‘the’ problem. US primary (like save file corruption) and secondary (like halberd physics bug) education just sucks

#20

True, but as someone who tried to become a teacher and gave up after a semester of observation, I can say at least part of the problem is that the Teacher’s Union has become so politicized that they’ll protect teachers over students and have made it near impossible to fire bad teachers, even those who abuse students.

A Project Veritas tape recently came out that infiltrated the Teacher’s Union. If you don’t know who Project Veritas are, they are a group of undercover journalists who do sting operations. They go undercover and try to discover the truth of whether or not there is corruption and then they film it.

They got some high level union leaders on film confessing that if a student is coming forward talking about how a teacher is abusing the students in any way, and even if they have evidence the union will call the students a liar and side with the teacher and put all the funding in helping the teacher. They got school districts across the country to make it so that if a teacher is have inappropriate relations with a student, they can’t fire them but put them on paid leave where the teacher goes to some place or another where they are supposed to reflect on their actions, no teaching anyone, and they still get paid.

If a principle or school district really wants to fire a bad teacher, the union makes it near impossible to do so without a lot of money.

In the early 2000’s Los Angelas school districts had to spend over $3 million to fire three bad teachers because the Teacher’s Union fought so hard to keep them in their jobs.

The Teacher’s Union overall is not helping improve education.

#21

You’ve just pointed out symptoms of a larger disease. The core is rotten. Doesn’t mean teachers, admin, parents, etc don’t care or don’t work hard. Just means system is ineffective esp with respect to STEMI. The system focuses on teaching and supporting that via considerable admin overhead, not on learning

1 Like
© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz