Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 39 posts

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#3

Post by tomohawk »

These are long overdue reforms. The states east of the mississippi did not have the lionshare of their land retained by the federal government when they became states. West of the river is a different story. With the federal government owning 2/3rds of the land in the west, things are way out of whack.

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#5

Post by jschwartzi »

tomohawk wrote: post #3

These are long overdue reforms. The states east of the mississippi did not have the lionshare of their land retained by the federal government when they became states. West of the river is a different story. With the federal government owning 2/3rds of the land in the west, things are way out of whack.

Are they? A huge portion of my state is federal or state park land, and people flock to these places to get away from the cities and the suburbs. If Lee had his way, the federal government could start selling lands in places like Mount Rainier National Park or the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. These areas host numerous trailheads, picnic areas, campgrounds, and the like.

I can't help but agree with the author of the article, that Lee just wants to sell these lands off to rich people who will deny access. We have a long history in Washington of exploring the Cascades and the Olympics and I want that to continue for the foreseeable future. These lands are the birthright of our children and we should steward them as such.

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#6

Post by seattle_spring »

greggarious wrote: post #4

Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

I think "nature" in this article refers to actual natural treasures (Grand Staircase, Yosemite, etc.), not just some random forest on some rolling hills.

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#8

Post by StronglyTyped »

seattle_spring wrote: post #6
greggarious wrote: post #4

Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

I think "nature" in this article refers to actual natural treasures (Grand Staircase, Yosemite, etc.), not just some random forest on some rolling hills.

Clearly you've never been to Appalachia. It's beautiful, and it's full of poverty.

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#9

Post by woodruffw »

seattle_spring wrote: post #6
greggarious wrote: post #4

Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

I think "nature" in this article refers to actual natural treasures (Grand Staircase, Yosemite, etc.), not just some random forest on some rolling hills.

I don't think the Blue Ridge Mountains count as rolling hills, and I would count them among our national treasures.

That being said, the fact is that WV's natural resources have been subjected to some of the most profound (and least regulated) economic exploitation in the country. So I don't think the GP's point is correct.

Post reply on HN