National Parks Act of 2015

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor - Talleyrand

[Talleyrand]

This is a pretty self-explanatory bill, trying to preserve some of the remaining areas of true wilderness in our country before it is too late and to add to our world-class national parks system. I welcome any suggestions or additions that people have for this too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

e mentions "nearby farms and forests", will these property owns be compensated or have their land purchased from them? IF so, will $300 million be enough? Are there any other areas listed here that are presently inhabited?

[Talleyrand]

As far as I know, that's the only one which is presently inhabited by people. I think you'd only need a fraction of the $300 million we're providing for upkeep to buy out some of those farms and forests from private owners.

[Türkisblau]

That amount of money sounds like it'd be enough . Will any action from the regions need to be taken on this?

Other than any technicalities, I love the idea of this and support it.

[Blair]

Can we expand this into Alaska?

[Talleyrand]

Can we expand this into Alaska?

Of course!

That amount of money sounds like it'd be enough . Will any action from the regions need to be taken on this?

Other than any technicalities, I love the idea of this and support it.

I think that federal supremacy should prevail, though I'm not 100% sure.

[Senator Cris]

I echo the comments of Senator Turkisblau. I like the idea and I will support this in the final vote.
However, there are still some technicalities (as the role of the regional governments) that should be made clear and I'd like to hear the other Senators on this matter.

[Boston Bread]

I presume that if these areas are being National Parks, the federal government has authority over them. I support this bill and expanding it into Alaska.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The expansion of National Parks is something I've always supported.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would assume the major impediment regarding a regiona level, would be if the region owns the land. In which case the the Federal gov't would have to in my opinion purchase the land from the regional gov't, unless I am mistaken on that part.

As to Alaska, there are large groups of indigenous populations, and this should be considered with the other areas as well if there are any Native American tribes on the proposed expansions of land. I noticed that some of them call for joint administration of the land with a native tribe. As it pertains to some of these tribes, the necessity of such differs but definately when it comes to Alaska the necessity of hunting and fishing for survival comes into play. I would presume if a hunting ground were made part of a national park, such activity would be banned.

[Blair]

I would assume the major impediment regarding a regiona level, would be if the region owns the land. In which case the the Federal gov't would have to in my opinion purchase the land from the regional gov't, unless I am mistaken on that part.

As to Alaska, there are large groups of indigenous populations, and this should be considered with the other areas as well if there are any Native American tribes on the proposed expansions of land. I noticed that some of them call for joint administration of the land with a native tribe. As it pertains to some of these tribes, the necessity of such differs but definately when it comes to Alaska the necessity of hunting and fishing for survival comes into play. I would presume if a hunting ground were made part of a national park, such activity would be banned.

Sorry for taking long to get back

I looked for some information on it, and it seems like there is some provision for hunting on national grounds

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.access

Currently the only off limits part is the Alaska National Wildlife refuge, and that's only 5% of Alaska. I'd be open to not necessarily making more parts in that, but just being able to protect the land from oil drilling and human expansion

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As long as we are not slitting the throats of these populations when it comes to living a traditional lifestyle, then I wouldn't be opposed to declaring these areas national parks. For far too long and in far too many other areas be it development or the restricting of development, the loser on both sides of that equation of been Native American tribes and we need to pursue a balance when it comes to their continuance of their existing livelihood.

Since you brought it up, is there any oil production occuring in these areas currently and what would be the impact if that were to be halted?

[Blair]

As long as we are not slitting the throats of these populations when it comes to living a traditional lifestyle, then I wouldn't be opposed to declaring these areas national parks. For far too long and in far too many other areas be it development or the restricting of development, the loser on both sides of that equation of been Native American tribes and we need to pursue a balance when it comes to their continuance of their existing livelihood.

Since you brought it up, is there any oil production occuring in these areas currently and what would be the impact if that were to be halted?

I'm hoping to work with Secretary Barnes to get some native atlasian laws passed soon to improve that, because they get the bad end of the stick too much.

Alaska is divided into two well rather strange zones

The NPR is where they drill, the ANWR is where you can't drill oil. As you can guess there's been an effect to keep reducing this area to allow oil drilling. It's had a cross over effect though in Alaska as migrating birds have been harmed by the aircraft, and the pipeline has meant the 120,000 caribou can't move away-but we can't go lifting up the pipeline. I'd want to expand the Reserve to help biodiversity and local life improve in the area-rather than just drilling it to druge

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How far would you expand it?

[Blair]

Sorry thought I posted my response on saturday I'll post my amendment later when I can get something good drafted

[Blair]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As said above, I wanted to basically enshrine the weird semi-protection given in the 1980's, and basically ensure that oil drilling and other damaging practices can't be taken in the most beautiful parts of the world.

[Talleyrand]

Senators have 24 hours to object to Blair's amendment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support the amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How protective is semi-protective? I thought drilling was banned there already? And the Pacific region banned it also at one point.

[Talleyrand]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Blair]

How protective is semi-protective? I thought drilling was banned there already? And the Pacific region banned it also at one point.

It's fairly complex, and a largely trival difference. They both ban oil drilling, but the the refuge isn't actually enshrined into law and is a sort of half way way house. At least in the US only congress can declare an area a wilderness

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I see, think that handles all my questions then.

[cinyc]

Destroying dams and drawing down reservoirs is not good policy in the arid west.  People rely on water from Lake Powell.  The west needs more dams, not fewer.  If California had built more reservoirs, they wouldn't be in quite the pickle they are now.

[Türkisblau]

Glen Canyon is a source of immense natural beauty and cultural heritage for many in our beautiful country. I will oppose any effort to alter section 6 of this legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWwkqdQAztA