Enviromental Protection

We definitely agree that the parks should be privately run even though there are potential downsides to that the upsides clearly out weigh the downsides. Politicians don't really care about maintenance because that doesn't buy votes instead they waste money building something that isn't necessary but gets in the newspaper. But the Government even if it allows a private company to run it needs to protect the natural environment. Let me paint you two examples of what happens when the Government steps out of the way and lets a private entity have a decision to do what they want. 1. http://grandcanyon.com... This is a Indian reservation area which gives the local Indians to do whatever they want without government intervention. What do they do? They build a lame sky walk that not only ruins the landscape but is not nearly as popular. You might be tempted to think that well if it's not popular then companies won't do it. Well there are several examples where that is true and several where it is not true. The question is would a bad decision create an irreversible effect? It is often the case since this structure is so expensive it would cost a lot to remove it and they receive enough business that it just wouldn't make sense to remove it but the vast majority would hate to see it. Most people go to parks to escape technology and advances within which is why parks like the grand canyon and Yellowstone are so popular. Theodore Roosevelt made a very wise decision and protected all the land he could out west instead of being turned into farming land. Since national parks were not very popular back then if a corporation was allowed to do what they want odds are they wouldn't be a beautiful and technology free like we see today. 2. http://www.americascave.com... This is textbook example of the potential damage that a corporation can do to a very beautiful natural area. While the show and tour is interesting and cool something is truly lost with all the technology and development that they have poured into the cave. The cave is truly spectacular but in reality is almost ruined by all the technology that they put into it. This damage is irreversible and would be too expensive to take back since they make money on it anyways. Now I am not totally against having these types of places because the technology certainly added an effect which was interesting and there obviously is demand for these types of places. Even if corporations took over the grand canyon it would still be popular no matter what so the argument that the people still come wouldn't apply to these scenarios. Instead they would ruin the experience of millions of people. A survey found that 55% percent of people who enjoy going outside enjoy finding true nature places (where technology isn't present http://www.nrpa.org...) These are the majority of park visitors so the demand to put technology into parks is just not there for the majority of people. In closing yes the parks should be run by private entities BUT the argument isn't this answer it is should the government be involved? The answer is a clear YES they should heavily regulate these private companies to make sure they leave nature alone and don't do any permanent damage. People who go to parks don't want to see a huge resort hotel that surely would pop up if it was privatized. There would be a demand for it but the majority of park goers would not support it. In a democracy you need to protect the rights of the majority opinions. The Government should privatize the parks or privatize most of them and they should be heavily involved and prevent the parks from making any radical decisions that may damage the experience of over 250 million park visitors.