Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Keep fucking around and see what happens

You’re about to go John Rambo on their ass aren’t ya!!!

Posted

The issue isn't as simple as the new directive wants to make it seem.  For context, I live on the border of commercial tree farms in the coast mountains (almost all Weyerhauser after they bought Willamette Industries in a hostile takeover) and national forest.  I've been here since the late 90s, so I've witnessed the changes.   I've had many friends who started working in the woods the week after high school graduation.  The local logging industry is not like it used to be for a few basic economic reasons.

First, the infrastructure is gone.  There used to be mills all over the place.  Fed conservation efforts like spotted owl protection led almost all local mills to shut down.  I could have reached a mill in either direction from my house in five minutes.  Now the nearest is an hour away in the Willamette Valley.  The first big consequence of that change is that transport costs have increased dramatically.  There are more efficient ways to transport finished product long distances than logs.  Coupled with much higher diesel prices, it simply costs a lot more to log here now.  Throw in a new housing bubble burst 15 years ago, and it's even worse.  Much like re-shoring industrial manufacturing, the stated goal of the new tariffs, the solution would not be achieved in the short term, and big business is loathe to invest without long term guarantees, which aren't available when regulations are subject to change at the whim of the executive branch.  No new mill would be open here before the the next president takes over.

Second, the population is less than half what it was in the early 90s.  There used to be post offices and small stores within easy reach.  Now there's only one option to grab a beer within a half hour, and the postal service tried to shut down our weekday only, 4 hour per day post office.  Round trip to the grocery store is three hours.  The workforce left when the employers did.  Those who remain are mostly unemployable tweekers.  It's a long commute for a very physically demanding job.  Good workers have better options than trekking out here, and they'd have very few housing options locally compared to 30 years ago.

TL;DR  there's no magic wand solution to start utilizing the national forest land nestled right here in the most productive timberlands in the country.  It's gotta be even worse elsewhere.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • 5 weeks later...
Posted

Considering how many western rural red states rely on national parks to bring in tourists, I think this would backfire.  Or at least face serious resistance. Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, South Dakota especially.

So I’m sure the list will be Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington, mostly. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Js1 said:

Considering how many western rural red states rely on national parks to bring in tourists, I think this would backfire.  Or at least face serious resistance. Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, South Dakota especially.

So I’m sure the list will be Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington, mostly. 

All it takes is one ‘tweet’ declaring it a great idea and boom, they’re on board. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, bluto said:

All it takes is one ‘tweet’ declaring it a great idea and boom, they’re on board. 

I would normally agree with you, but the economic numbers from national parks/forests/monuments show that they will likely face intense pressure from back home to push back on cuts.  Governors don't want higher unemployment numbers and state legislators don't want a reduction in revenue/annual visitors that they use to pad the state coffers and budget: 

Montana - $5.4 billion in tourism spending, 66k jobs
Wyoming - $4.8 billion in tourism spending,  33k jobs
Utah - $12.71 billion in tourism spending, 160k jobs
South Dakota - $5 billion in tourism spending, 59k jobs

Nationally, national parks brought in $26.4 billion in spending by visitors and 415k jobs. $55.6 billion in economic output for the United States

And again, it will somehow be "targeted" to affect Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington most of all.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I would normally agree with you, but the economic numbers from national parks/forests/monuments show that they will likely face intense pressure from back home to push back on cuts.  Governors don't want higher unemployment numbers and state legislators don't want a reduction in revenue/annual visitors that they use to pad the state coffers and budget: 

Montana - $5.4 billion in tourism spending, 66k jobs
Wyoming - $4.8 billion in tourism spending,  33k jobs
Utah - $12.71 billion in tourism spending, 160k jobs
South Dakota - $5 billion in tourism spending, 59k jobs

Nationally, national parks brought in $26.4 billion in spending by visitors and 415k jobs. $55.6 billion in economic output for the United States

And again, it will somehow be "targeted" to affect Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington most of all.  

Blah blah blah you sound like a trans woke libtard.

It's totally worth it to destroy the livelihood of tens of thousands of people for performative Project 2025 bullshit, which will be justified because someone somewhere once wrote a paper on their observations of homosexual behavior in a grizzly bear or somesuch.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I would normally agree with you, but the economic numbers from national parks/forests/monuments show that they will likely face intense pressure from back home to push back on cuts.  Governors don't want higher unemployment numbers and state legislators don't want a reduction in revenue/annual visitors that they use to pad the state coffers and budget: 

Montana - $5.4 billion in tourism spending, 66k jobs
Wyoming - $4.8 billion in tourism spending,  33k jobs
Utah - $12.71 billion in tourism spending, 160k jobs
South Dakota - $5 billion in tourism spending, 59k jobs

Nationally, national parks brought in $26.4 billion in spending by visitors and 415k jobs. $55.6 billion in economic output for the United States

And again, it will somehow be "targeted" to affect Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington most of all.  

Ryan Zinke is one of Montan's congressman.  Look up his track record a Secretary of the Interior during Trump's 1st term.   Dude would be perfectly happy to sell off the NPS and gut it.  

Edited by Macanudo
Posted
16 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

who would buy a national park ? 

any company or anyone associated with any of that would be in for a world of pain 

Bullshit. Private Equity buys some of the most beautiful land in the entire country, and then does one of two things: develops it for the people rich enough to buy homes/land tracts there, or they simply operate the already vastly profitable park system, increase costs to visit by 20%, and find other ways to monetize it, and make even more money. 

national parks print money. That's what private equity loves. Hell, you're talking about groups buying up tracts of farm land that doesn't make money without subsidies, and you think they'd blink at buying PROFITABLE land?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...