Question about the States selling the parks

One more thing about private concessions in the parks.
Since the inception of both Yellowstone and the Grand canyon as National parks, the Fred Harvey Company has operated both these national parks, not the federal government.
the park service provides the rules, law enforcement and fire protection, but the Harvey company has always run both these parks........not the feds.

I think they run the concessions and such not the parks.
 
One more thing about private concessions in the parks.
Since the inception of both Yellowstone and the Grand canyon as National parks, the Fred Harvey Company has operated both these national parks, not the federal government.
the park service provides the rules, law enforcement and fire protection, but the Harvey company has always run both these parks........not the feds.

I think they run the concessions and such not the parks.

Fred harvey co paid more than half to build the light rail atthe canyon, and they operate it.
The park employee, rangers, man the gates and nothing else except interpetive rangers.
 
Contractors like the ones that watched the girl get beat up at the station?
Who are more interested in profit than protecting the park?

Parks are a trust for future generations, they are not ours to squander.

I don't know what you're rambling about.

These guards job is only to observe & report problems. The security guards contract prevents them from carrying weapons or making physical contact with attackers because of stupid government bureaucrats rules of engagement. These guard contracts cost more than police. I bet the contractor paid some campaign contributions to elected officials.

In the recreation area i work at, most of us carry weapons. While the contract I work under holds the forest service responsible for law enforcement, Arizona law REQUIRES citizens to not only 'observe and report', but to actually enforce the law if they have the ability. There is nothing in RRM's contract to prevent us from carrying a weapon, that would violate state law here. I personally have held thieves under citizen's arrest until law enforcement arrived. I have also personally stopped fights, and held drug runners at gunpoint until Aaron, the forest ranger arrived. I even received a commendation for my actions.
I have also pulled people out of the lake, waiting for the ranger would have resulted in a body or two.
Maybe what you say is true in the east, but not here in Arizona.........
 
If you're referring to the guy who was on Beck, he's renting the parks, and he saves a bundle by not having to employ state workers.

Contractors like the ones that watched the girl get beat up at the station?
Who are more interested in profit than protecting the park?

Parks are a trust for future generations, they are not ours to squander.


Are you attacking people who run parks by equating them with the 'contracted snitches' in Vancouver?
 
A: Because bureaucrats are insulated from the financial consequences....
Sounds like another case of moral hazard.


Sounds a lot like the recent bailouts :doubt:
 
☭proletarian☭;2039216 said:
If you're referring to the guy who was on Beck, he's renting the parks, and he saves a bundle by not having to employ state workers.

Contractors like the ones that watched the girl get beat up at the station?
Who are more interested in profit than protecting the park?

Parks are a trust for future generations, they are not ours to squander.


Are you attacking people who run parks by equating them with the 'contracted snitches' in Vancouver?

Yes in some cases.

all privitization must be closely monitored and regulated.
Some privatization is good and can be beneficial, but that does not mean that all of it is.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top