Another criminal idiot in the National Parks

bucky wrote:
It seems we have salt tracks and side tracks here.

Long threads always wander. Which is fine so long as it doesn't steal the focus from a question asked by the OP.

"Serious question because I'm seeking to understand, are you against national wildlife refuges and recreation areas?"
------------------------------------------------------------

Why would I be? I haven't said I was against any type of parkland. Tho the locals in Utah certainly have objections to a couple of the recent NM. My only objection to to the park formation situation is that I do not think the President should be able to seize vast tracts of land by fiat. I think that power should be returned to the congress.

I think many of us don't think that the NPS does a good job of managing the parklands it controls tho.

It seems we have salt tracks and side tracks here.

agesilaus wrote:
OK you are correct, I was lumping together National Parks and the National Monuments. The nps.gov list 17 parks that it operates in Utah alone. There are 77 National Monuments operated by NPS and 25 more by BLM. The Forest Service operates some parks, I know of several here in FL. And so does COE. Then there are National Wildlife Refuges and Recreation areas. So all together I think most people would say there are at least several hundred federal parks.

And I just checked, they list 28 parks in MD.

Serious question because I'm seeking to understand, are you against national wildlife refuges and recreation areas?

I get the hulabaloo over the National Monument but it's a complex issue that can't be lumped together. The Feds forcing a monument that locals didn't want is quite different from the vast public land, mostly BLM that is open to the public - and from all political persuasions. There are boondockers, ATV'ers, hikers, hunters, etc. and most follow the rules.

I have seen the problem and the problem is us (that may be a quote but is melded into personal memory). The bottom line is that there will always be a trespasser or user that defiles a natural setting.

FWIW, I hunt Whitetail deer in a National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge is only open to human transit (on foot) for three weeks during Whitetail Season. It's illegal to enter the refuge during any other time. It is now common to see and hear hunters on ATV's inside the refuge prior to and during the hunting season. They erect permanent stands attached to trees (illegal) and leave their garbage all over. Eventually, the Refuge will be closed to entry, spoiling the use for compliant hunters wishing to use one of the last pieces of undisturbed land in the State.

I will lose the experience of seeing otters, fishers, moose, and all other manners of wildlife that is difficult to experience elsewhere. There is something very humbling and fulfilling to see wolf tracks on top of your boot tracks in the snow.

OK you are correct, I was lumping together National Parks and the National Monuments. The nps.gov list 17 parks that it operates in Utah alone. There are 77 National Monuments operated by NPS and 25 more by BLM. The Forest Service operates some parks, I know of several here in FL. And so does COE. Then there are National Wildlife Refuges and Recreation areas. So all together I think most people would say there are at least several hundred federal parks.

And I just checked, they list 28 parks in MD.

NJRVer wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
I don't know how I answered your post before you posted it. I must have powers that remained hidden even from me all these years.....heh.

As for this point: "What about the person who lives in the city and doesn't have access to rural land? Public land is the answer."

So you are saying someone living in Baltimore needs access to grazing land in Nevada? Why not one of the hundreds of national parks or thousands of state ones. There is no shortage of parkland in most of the country. Why you have the Shenandoah not too far from you.

So why are you so hell bent on giving away the country?

That's right, giving it away. The land out there is not going to bring some massive amount money. Nobody lives there, there is no infrastructure to support anybody living there and I personally like it that way when I drive through that area.

Good point. There are blocks of land in AZ that would love to buy. 30 acres or so lots that don't break the bank. But the problem is there isn't water or electric anywhere near the property.

Much of the private land that is adjacent to public land is ranches managed for $5,000/week hunts. I make good money but I can't do that. I can hunt on the public land for the cost of travel, hunting licenses, etc. And most states fund wifdlife management and conservation off hunting fees. Public land generates far more hunting license revenue than a private ranch does.

The post and several others disappeared.

You keep referring to grazing land. Have you been out west? That is a fraction of public land. And there aren't "hundreds" of national parks. There are 59 national parks. Much of what you are referring to are national forests, national wildlife refuges, etc. managened by - drum roll - BLM, the very public land we are talking about.

agesilaus wrote:
I don't know how I answered your post before you posted it. I must have powers that remained hidden even from me all these years.....heh.

As for this point: "What about the person who lives in the city and doesn't have access to rural land? Public land is the answer."

So you are saying someone living in Baltimore needs access to grazing land in Nevada? Why not one of the hundreds of national parks or thousands of state ones. There is no shortage of parkland in most of the country. Why you have the Shenandoah not too far from you.

So why are you so hell bent on giving away the country?

That's right, giving it away. The land out there is not going to bring some massive amount money. Nobody lives there, there is no infrastructure to support anybody living there and I personally like it that way when I drive through that area.

agesilaus wrote:
I'm on the side of the western states so you pointing out Florida is an eastern state makes no sense. Furthermore Florida has a number of NP and a good chunk of the panhandle is owned by the Feds (military). Just a guess but Everglades NP may be bigger than Maryland.

As for your other point, if you were a million dollars in debt, would it make sense to sell off excess property to pay the debt down $250,000? I think that would be the conservative path don't you?

Also I wasn't saying that you have no right to an opinion, I was pointing out that you may not appreciate the situation out west. Most people follow this:

"I've got an opinion on everything." T. Boone Pickens

My comment about acting like a liberal was directed at the ad hominem comment made by another, not you so I don't understand why you thought it did.

Would I sell off excess property to pay off debt?
Depends on the "property".

Would I sell off my house and be homeless? No.

You know what they say about owning land...."They ain't making any more of it"