Mt. Rushmore Is open

kfp673 wrote:

fickman wrote:

nevadanick wrote:
They should belong to the states anyway.

Agree.

Totally disagree! All it would take is for one really over the top crazy state politician to win a vote and they could destroy some of these monuments without the rest of us having any say. With that said, I do feel the states should have more say in the matter. For example, Washington should not be deciding if ATV's should be legal in a national forrest in Oregon. They have no clue

X2. Too much temptation to use the resources for the benefit of the state without consideration of the country. Even now, these states are finding the money, in tight budgets, to reopen these closed facilities. Why? Not for the benefit of the guy who wants to visit from across the country, but for the benefit of the state's citizens. Not that there is anything wrong with that, in this situation. In fact, its admirable. But if the state owned and operated those parks independently? It becomes "we'll manage it to our benefit, no matter what tourists from 3 states away want". One only has to look to wildlife management in the northern Rockies for examples.

Mt. Rushmore is a special case. The parking facility was built and is owned by private citizens, so they don't answer to the Feds. Mt. Rushmore itself, is NP property, but it isn't like it needs daily attention. They could close the restaurant and close the entrance at night because of the lighting ceremony. They're both Federal, but the heads don't move and frankly, they're easily visible from outside the NP property.

brirene wrote:

kfp673 wrote:

fickman wrote:

nevadanick wrote:
They should belong to the states anyway.

Agree.

Totally disagree! All it would take is for one really over the top crazy state politician to win a vote and they could destroy some of these monuments without the rest of us having any say.

X2. Too much temptation to use the resources for the benefit of the state without consideration of the country.

I agree with disagreeing, but did not want to start a political argument. While not a national monument, here is a case in point:

http://www.invw.org/article/benton-harbor-michigan-1280

The Western public lands belonged to the federal government before the states existed. Just sayin'.

It's pretty easy for me:
- The Constitution says exactly what the Federal government is allowed to do
- It reserves everything not listed for the states and the people
- It never mentions national parks

I understand the pragmatic consideration for wanting the Feds to own it, but the philosophical case isn't there.

I don't want a political debate, though. It is sad that the residents of the states are essentially being double taxed for these parks to reopen. . . triple charged if they show up and pay fees to get in.

fickman wrote:
I don't want a political debate, though. It is sad that the residents of the states are essentially being double taxed for these parks to reopen. . . triple charged if they show up and pay fees to get in.

Most if not all of the states in question have been receiving more in Federal funds than what they pay back in. Not saying that makes the situation right. Just putting a little different perspective out there.

shakyjay wrote:

fickman wrote:
I don't want a political debate, though. It is sad that the residents of the states are essentially being double taxed for these parks to reopen. . . triple charged if they show up and pay fees to get in.

Most if not all of the states in question have been receiving more in Federal funds than what they pay back in. Not saying that makes the situation right. Just putting a little different perspective out there.

I believe you say about the states getting more than they put in.

That brings up the question of what states are getting LESS than they put in? Sounds like they are getting the short end of the stick!