Visiting Ocean City

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by kapetrich

I am aware of the history - The National Park Act was created in 1916. That doesn't negate the fact that the east coast lacks much untouched land for public use regardless. Sorry.


Also, to the other poster who said that if a piece of land is run by the national park service it is like a NP. This is very far from reality. You should visit some truly designated NP's. The NP service manages MANY different types of land designations......National Monuments, National Historic sites (of which the east coast has MANY beautiful ones), etc.....

Source: The NPS oversee 394 units, of which 58 are designated national parks : National Park Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and btw. The east coast has 8 NP out of 58 in the entire USA. 3 of which are in FL.

So basically you're complaining just to hear yourself complain. Got it.

[pcity]

Originally Posted by kapetrich

IAlso, to the other poster who said that if a piece of land is run by the national park service it is like a NP. This is very far from reality. You should visit some truly designated NP's. The NP service manages MANY different types of land designations......National Monuments, National Historic sites (of which the east coast has MANY beautiful ones), etc.....

We're not talking about national monuments or historic sites in this thread.

A "National Seashore" is preserved, undeveloped land. It's equivalent to a "National Park", only on the ocean. It's semantics.

And just because a place is called something other than a "National Park" does not make it somehow inferior. On the east coast, a few of the most undeveloped spaces are designated as "Wildlife Refuges". That doesn't make them inferior to a "truly designated" National Park. You have to look beyond the name.

[kapetrich]

Originally Posted by pcity

We're not talking about national monuments or historic sites in this thread.

A "National Seashore" is preserved, undeveloped land. It's equivalent to a "National Park", only on the ocean. It's semantics.

And just because a place is called something other than a "National Park" does not make it somehow inferior. On the east coast, a few of the most undeveloped spaces are designated as "Wildlife Refuges". That doesn't make them inferior to a "truly designated" National Park. You have to look beyond the name.

This is just not the case. I hope you are able to visit some of our wonderful National Parks, National Refuges, National Monuments, National Seashores, National Historic Sites, etc. and see the difference.

Good luck to all.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by kapetrich

This is just not the case. I hope you are able to visit some of our wonderful National Parks, National Refuges, National Monuments, National Seashores, National Historic Sites, etc. and see the difference.

Good luck to all.

I've been to national parks all over the country. Bryce Canyon was my favorite in the west and Acadia is my favorite in the east. Do I expect to see find either of these in Maryland? No.

What differences are you talking about? Can you enlighten us, oh wise one?

This is the stupidest bone to pick anyone has ever had on city data.

[pcity]

Originally Posted by kapetrich

This is just not the case. I hope you are able to visit some of our wonderful National Parks, National Refuges, National Monuments, National Seashores, National Historic Sites, etc. and see the difference.

I have been to places in every single one of those categories, and also a couple of National Forests. The refuges, parks, forests and seashores all featured beautiful natural areas, and if you dropped me in the middle of one of them, and asked me to guess which category it was in, I would probably get it wrong.

(...unless I saw the ocean, then I'd guess "seashore" and have a pretty good chance of getting it right. LOL)

The differences are largely administrative. There are generally more restrictive rules about what you can do in a refuge, for instance. But I don't see how calling something a "park" elevates it over a "refuge" or a "seashore". You're applying a hierarchy to the national park system that doesn't exist in reality.

[openheads]

Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70

I actually have a question about the area too. I've been to Ocean City before (I live in Baltimore) but this year my family wants to visit Assateague Island. Anyone know if the best part of the national park is closer to Ocean City or to Chincoteague, Virginia? We're trying to decide where to find a motel.

But to the OP, Assateague Island is a nice national park/seashore right next to Ocean City. I think the beach is better than anywhere in New Jersey (they don't call it dirty Jersey or America's armpit for nothin and the water is probably as dirty as Mexico). I seen Venice Beach but it was a rainy and chilly day despite being in August so can't really judge that fairly. I personally prefer beaches in the Carolinas like the Outer Banks or Myrtle Beach over Ocean City.

Are you still sucking off New Jersey? Wow.

[skullman1]

I love Ocean City. There are plenty of people in your age range! There are families too but also a LOT of nightlife. Plenty of bars, clubs, beaches, etc. There is always something to do. Even walking the boards and riding rides is fun with friends your age

The water should be clearer this year as they have stopped off shore dredging. Also, stay away from OC in the beginning of June. There are tons of HS kids. Yet again, if you plan on going to bars it shouldn't bother you. Not many of them have fake ID's that will actually PASS. Good luck it's a nice place!!