Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikabike
You must not have hiked up the high trails there. The sand dunes and the seasonal stream are the big draw, of course, but the park also includes trails that climb much higher than the tallest dunes. These trails start in the forested areas and go above treeline. That provides a large range of “interest” ecologically, with plenty of opportunity for “in-depth” activity. What you really are complaining about is the exact opposite: wanting a wide range of easy, no-depth-of-knowledge-required activities. Many tourists stay stuck inside their cars, jumping out briefly to take selfies with signs and posted famous landmarks. Harder to do in parks where you must walk a longer distance from cars and roads!
True, I didn't explore the mountains in GSDNP. Though if I were hiking in that part of Colorado I'd aim for Blanca Peak or the Spanish Peaks.
I'm thinking the eastern forks of Long Island or some of the barrier islands on the Southern New England coast such as Block Island or Martha's Vineyard would have been a splendid National Park. But the areas got quite a bit of settlement long before land preservation and national parks had ever been conceived.
I'm not sure why Great Sand Dunes in southern Colorado has National Park status. I visited there, seemed to have just a few mere hours of interest and not a lot of in depth activity. It was good enough to be preserved as a National Monument without have to pay fees of a National Park. I find White Sands National Monument in New Mexico to be a bit more interesting than this place.
Agreed the park is small, and packs too many big crowds into the small area of land on Mt. Desert Island. It would be good to expand the park to other coastal areas of Maine. I always went in the fall, which still draws crowds but not nearly as bad as the crowds that jam pack the place in the summer making the place less enjoyable.
Exactly. When I say other areas of Maine, we can expand Acadia to other areas of the Maine coast, it does not have to exactly touch the existing national park. In fact, I am looking at a map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadia_National_Park ) and Acadia already has two non-connecting areas, Isle Au Haut and Winter Harbor. It would nice to add some more areas.
However, the land in coastal areas tends to be more expensive than inland. It would take some $$$ money. Especially offshore islands like you mention above. Islands are seen as destinations and when you combine them with things like beaches, lighthouses, some seafood restaurants and a little local history and culture, you get a major tourist drawer. Which means land is even more $$$ expensive.
National Parks are becoming too crowded! Some of the best places are in the National Forests or in off the beaten track National Monuments. Turning there places into National Parks would ruin them. So, I say a lot of places shouldn’t be National Parks in order to spare then from overpopulation and overtourism which is quickly becoming a global plague.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
Exactly. When I say other areas of Maine, we can expand Acadia to other areas of the Maine coast, it does not have to exactly touch the existing national park. In fact, I am looking at a map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadia_National_Park ) and Acadia already has two non-connecting areas, Isle Au Haut and Winter Harbor. It would nice to add some more areas.
However, the land in coastal areas tends to be more expensive than inland. It would take some $$$ money. Especially offshore islands like you mention above. Islands are seen as destinations and when you combine them with things like beaches, lighthouses, some seafood restaurants and a little local history and culture, you get a major tourist drawer. Which means land is even more $$$ expensive.
I guess we can be grateful the Rockerfeller's got that land they could acquire. Fortunately they worked miracles in Wyoming when the got the entire valley beneath the Tetons in what seemed so unlikely even at the time. I've known about the two other divisions of Acadia and but now I'm more curious to visit them next time I'm in the area.
I think they should turn the Meadowlands in NJ into something more protected. There is not much wilderness left in the Hudson River's mouth if any. Plus NYC does not need anymore development. Anyone who wants to develop should go to a place that needs the money thrown at them like Trenton, or Baltimore.
The question that needs asked is what will be the benefit from all these "new" national parks?
For several of them (like the one postulated for North/Central PA) there are established towns and industries. Do those people get bought out? Do they get life estates?
For the industries, extractive, agricultural and manufacturing, the same question needs to be asked. Do the oil and gas wells get capped, do the dairy farmers get bought out and their herds turned in Campbell's Vegetable Beef Soup, do the numerous small manufacturers close down and their employees get "retraining" in the hospitality trade? In the case of PA the Allegheny National Forest is already established and the controlled logging of it (when environmentalists allow it) provides jobs and lumber products to the area and US. The same with the gas wells it encompasses.
It also it a large tourist draw centered around hunting for the most part. A lot of that activity would have to end, meaning loss of jobs, unless that park would operate under different rules than now in place for many parks. Not to mention that area also has already established state parks.
The question that needs asked is what will be the benefit from all these "new" national parks?
For several of them (like the one postulated for North/Central PA) there are established towns and industries. Do those people get bought out? Do they get life estates?
For the industries, extractive, agricultural and manufacturing, the same question needs to be asked. Do the oil and gas wells get capped, do the dairy farmers get bought out and their herds turned in Campbell's Vegetable Beef Soup, do the numerous small manufacturers close down and their employees get "retraining" in the hospitality trade? In the case of PA the Allegheny National Forest is already established and the controlled logging of it (when environmentalists allow it) provides jobs and lumber products to the area and US. The same with the gas wells it encompasses.
It also it a large tourist draw centered around hunting for the most part. A lot of that activity would have to end, meaning loss of jobs, unless that park would operate under different rules than now in place for many parks. Not to mention that area also has already established state parks.
I would think the same could be said of Maine.
North Central Pennsylvania already has extensive public lands that is already owned by the state of Pennsylvania like the Susquehannock State Forest, Elk State Forest (home to part of Pennsylvania's elk herd), and the Sproul State Forest. So it is not necessary to close down dairy farms. That is over 700,000 acres of state forest (Great Smokies NP only has 522,000 acres) right next to each other but most people do not know that because it is state land and not a National Park. In addition there are a number of other state parks, hiking trails, ski areas and state parks in the area that can all or partially be connected.
Believe me I do understand what your saying. You would not have to turn the entire area into a National Park (I do not think Pennsylvania would even want too) but even if just a portion of it, say 150,000 to 200,000 acres was turned over to the Feds, the tourist potential would greatly increase in that area.
The simple fact of the matter, whether it is right or wrong, is that the word "National" elevates the status of a park, forest, recreation area, battlefield, wildlife refugee etc. And that can mean increased tourist dollars for the local area. Case in point, the beautiful Pine Creek Gorge in North Central Pennsylvania. Most people never heard of it, because it is not a Federal park. Same with the spectacular Letchworth Gorge in New York (which in most countries would easily be a National Park) or the wild Baxter State Park in Maine.
On the island of Kauai, Waimea Canyon State Park, Kōkeʻe State Park, and Nāpali Coast State Wilderness Park (which are all directly adjacent to each other and operate as one park) should be combined and turned into a national park.
I was there a couple years ago and was completely BLOWN AWAY by the spectacular beauty and grandeur of this area. They call Waimea Canyon the "Grand Canyon of the Pacific", and it really is! The Nāpali Coast is unreal and unlike anything I've ever seen before. You drive several thousands of feet up into the mountains and see the climate and ecosystem change right before your eyes. How this place isn't already a national park is bewildering to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
