The "National Park" proposal - we have a copy

[mazzgolf]

I got a copy of the National Park proposal -- officially titled "A Proposal to Create the Delaware River National Park and Lenape Preserve".

I got this from Sandy Hull - she's the one behind the "No National Park" Facebook page and website. (Google her name - I was barely out of diapers when the Tocks Island Dam controversy was boiling, but it seems she was one of the main drivers of the opposition to that project. So she knows a thing or two about opposing this kind of effort).

Attached is a PDF of the Proposal --> NationalParkProposal.pdf 

(the proposal is also on the nonationalpark.org website here: https://www.nonationalpark.org/post/the-sierra-club-s-proposal-to-create-the-delaware-river-national-park-and-lenape-preserve)

As you read this, notice the things that you will NOT see.

• You will NOT see any maps or boundary delineations of any kind as to what will be deemed the "National Park" (i.e. where NO hunting will be allowed) and what will be deemed part of the Preserve (where presumably some hunting will still be allowed).
• You will NOT see anything talking about what kinds of hunting will be allowed and with what weapons.
• You will NOT see anything about trapping (trapping will almost definitely not be allowed anywhere in the Park or Preserve).

Here's some quotes from the proposal and my own comments as I read through this. But you read it and make up your own minds. I mainly focus on issues that are relevant to hunters, anglers, and trappers. There are other issues that people like Sandy Hull have with this proposal - see the No National Park Facebook page and website for details on these other objections.

Quote

No lands or other donations from the nearby states of New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania are required, although the states are encouraged to cooperate and collaborate in the way they determine best for their citizens and for all Americans

This goes against what the proposal's steering committee members have been saying in the past (including last summer in their video presentation). This is now saying the only lands currently included in the proposal is the 70,000 acre DEWA property (aka The Gap). So what does this mean? It means it is NOT TRUE what they have been stating up to now that "We are not proposing to take anything away that you can now do in the national recreation area including hunting" This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE if the proposal is passed as-is. Today you can hunt anything under the NJ DFW hunting regulations within virtually all of the 70,000 acres of The Gap. But this proposal will take some of that 70,000 acres (how many? which acres? they do not say) and designate it as the non-huntable National Park. Thus, as the proposal is written now, YOU WILL LOSE HUNTING PRIVILEGES in at least some portion of The Gap - potentially a large portion. Again, we do not know how much because there are no maps and no details describing what will be The Park and what will be The Preserve.

Quote

The National Park and Preserve is authorized to accept or acquire additional lands from willing sellers and donors to enhance large landscape scale connectivity, to address climate adaptation, to create wildlife corridors, and watershed protection, and to provide recreational equity for the millions of Americans living in urban and suburban areas within a day’s travel

Here is where they say the National Park and Preserve can grow over the current DEWA boundaries if state and private land owners sell or donate land to it. So if our state politicians give the go-ahead, some of our state lands could be sold or donated to this new National Park and Preserve.

Note also the use of the word "willing." Ask the people who lost their property during the Tocks Island Dam fiasco if it really was "willingly" given up. This statement could be opening the door to forced acquisition of land - something you would think couldn't happen, until you realize the feds have already done this very thing at this very location (again, as illustrated during the Tocks Island Dam fiasco).

Quote

 The Lenape Preserve will receive priority for the addition of new lands until the amount of acreage used in the creation of the Delaware River National Park has been replaced by those new lands acquired from willing sellers or donors.

Pay close attention to this sentence!! Notice what they are saying! They are saying that they know they are taking away lands from hunters and anglers - they know some lands that are currently huntable and fishable will no longer be!! So they are saying, If you give us more land, we may (not definitely, but it will "receive priority") put that towards the Preserve side to make up for the lands we took away from hunters and anglers. In fact, later on down in the proposal, they make it more explicit by saying, "The Preserve will be prioritized in any future additions to compensate for any hunting acreage lost in the creation of the National Park." So, again, it is NOT true that the hunting you can do today will not change. It most definitely will change, and they outright admit it right there. And note that any additional lands that allow trapping today, but are donated to the new Park and Preserve will almost certainly no longer allow trapping - so those lands will be lost to trappers.

So - the state or private land owners will have to give more land to the new Park and Preserve in order to get back 70,000 acres of huntable lands - that is assuming the donated lands aren't already huntable to the public in the first place (because if they are, what's the point?). That also assumes who ever is in charge of the National Park and Preserve at the time of the acquisition actually designates the new lands as part of the Preserve. Remember, it is just going to "receive priority" - it isn't required that the new lands become part of the Preserve. For example, if an anti-hunting group can sway the NPS, those new lands might become part of the Park instead. There is nothing forbidding this. And who might this anti-hunting group be? The Sierra Club comes to mind!! Yes, the very same organization pushing for this proposal in the first place! Just read the Sierra Club's own website for their position on hunting in National Parks - it says: "The Sierra Club opposes all sport hunting in national parks, which are set aside for the preservation of natural landscapes and wildlife."

Quote

The Lenape Preserve will continue to maintain all the authorities for ecological management invested in the original National Recreation Area. The Delaware River National Park will be managed according to the best available science and the management policies of the National Park Service. Both the Delaware River National Park and the Lenape National Preserve will be managed in the highest tradition of the National Park Service ...

The NPS will be the authority that oversees hunting and fishing (which means trapping will still no longer be allowed, just as it is illegal today in the Gap). BUT!! This also means any additional lands purchased or donated to the Park and Preserve will also not allow trapping! So any state lands that you can trap today, but are donated or sold to the Park and Preserve will no longer allow trapping. Note also any hunting restrictions that the NPS imposes will also be imposed on these newly donated state lands. And note also: in the future, the NPS could change hunting regulations in the Preserve.

Quote

This proposal is the opportunity to intentionally designate these lands properly and to memorialize the loss suffered by the many evicted for the Tocks Island Dam debacle.

As Sandy Hull points out, this is an insult to all those that did suffer and lost their land and property to the federal government/NPS. How does designating this a National Park do anything for those that suffered loss?

Quote

Transforming the majority of the land into The Lenape National Preserve is a more appropriate designation for traditional uses like hunting than a national recreation area can be, preserving the traditional uses like hunting by enshrining them in a more accurate designation of the Lenape Preserve

How much land? A majority could be 51% - so they are saying up to 35,000 acres will be lost to hunters and anglers if those acreage is designated the National Park. No maps or boundaries are declared in this proposal. If this proposal is accepted, who declares what is part of the Park and what is part of the Preserve?

And why is declaring it a Preserve "more appropriate" and "more accurate?" Hunting and fishing are already allowed today.

Quote

 

National Park and Preserve designation will allow fishing, boating, camping, and hiking to continue in the complex and allow for cooperation between federal and state agencies on recreation management issues.

 

So the state will have to act in cooperation with the feds - NJ DFW will not have autonomy here. And notice, again, no mention of trapping. Trapping will be illegal EVEN on the new lands that may be acquired in the future.

Quote

 

Congress need only add the new designation Delaware River National Park and Lenape Preserve and define the boundary as part of any legislative exercise and the President’s signature will make it law. In recent examples, free-standing  legislation designating a National Park has been subsequently attached to omnibus legislation: The New River Gorge designation in West Virginia, (HR 4610) was attached to the 2020 CARES Act, while in the Indiana Dune National Park  legislation (HR 1488) was included in the 2019 federal budget.

 

So Congress can ram this through via a simple amendment to an omnibus legislation or federal budget. No debate, no public input, no congressional committee hearings, nothing. Just slip it in and pass it as part of an overriding bill that is essentially unrelated, just to get it to pass. This is their proposal's suggestion?? To circumvent the normal legislative process through some backdoor mechanism? Welcome to American politics at its worst.

I'll just point out two things.

(1) As Sandy Hull points out, the Tocks Dam Project was also approved this same way (omnibus legislation). So let's not therefore make this out to be some fantastic way to designate National Park Service lands.

(2) To hold up the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve in West Virginia as a model for this DEWA redesignation boomerangs on the proponents of this proposal who say nothing will change with respect to hunting. Because as they fail to point out, that very New River Gorge National Park (only a couple years old) has already had their hunting regulations changed. They don't say what changed, but see the website https://www.nps.gov/neri/planyourvisit/hunting.htm where it says:

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by mazzgolf

[mazzgolf]

Sandy posted a link to NJWW to the No National Park Facebook page. We are going to get some views from potentially non-hunters from that Facebook page.

If anyone is reading this that has a  Facebook account, can you post a message over there with a link directly to this thread? Sandy posted a link to the home page of NJWW so it may be difficult for some new comers to find this thread.

The Facebook page post is here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/632055634520469/posts/649982349394464/

[1957Buck]

Signed FB page nothing there as yet,  It is just another Tocks Island Land Grab, ( Lenape my Ass )  Very Clear hunting Trapping will not be apart of it,  Might even Carry a Fee for its Use,   Remember who is in The Minority here,  $$$$$$ ,   

What is needed is all that land under Tocks island remain from Rt 80 to Rt 206 be held as Natural  Wilderness & limited access as most of it  is Now, 

Every attempt to make Public improvements Swimming Picnicking Boating met with Trashing and Destruction.  and were all but closed but for a few Launch Ramps,  where you leave your vehicle to be Broken into- Vandalized  or stolen. 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by 1957Buck

[230jhp]

No doubt Murphy will enthusiastically donate the WMA's and state parks in that area.

In addition to that there will be an influx of public land hunters to other state lands. They will use this as an excuse to create a permit system similar to the permits at Newark Watershed. 

Edited March 26, 2022 by 230jhp

[1957Buck]

1 hour ago, 230jhp said:

No doubt Murphy will enthusiastically donate the WMA's and state parks in that area.

In addition to that there will be an influx of public land hunters to other state lands. They will use this as an excuse to create a permit system similar to the permits at Newark Watershed. 

Donate WMA's  Doubtful, State Parks  Like Stokes Definitely,  Federal Parks for the most part have Mixed fees from Entrance to Use -& Parking , Such as Gateway NP,  Sandy hook is Free Entrance at all times  The  Use & parking Fees & Night Permits. Cost $$$$$

Being Murphy is Anti hunting and for Gun Controls he will do whatever hurts Hunters Trappers, For the Bear hunters Smokey is protected.  

 

Have the Passport which entitles anyone to Nothing Since as i posted Sandy hook is Free to Enter --- Note the part about what it does not cover,   I Believe this is no longer available but Grandfathered in & not transferable, 

[1957Buck]

This was posted before but not the Document 

[1957Buck]

This Guy from the FB.P Supports stopping the BS 

And had a lot of negative comments on him Sad

[mazzgolf]

FYI: The nonationalpark.org website is linking to this thread so people can read my analysis here. Welcome to those non-hunters who support our position of "NO NATIONAL PARK!" and are reading this thread.  We appreciate your support. Together we can beat this proposal.

And all those hunters/anglers/trappers that are against this proposal should all thank and support Sandy Hull for spearheading this opposition effort and doing a ton of work spreading the message. Go to the No National Park Facebook page and spread the word.

[1957Buck]

9 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

FYI: The nonationalpark.org website is linking to this thread so people can read my analysis here. Welcome to those non-hunters who support our position of "NO NATIONAL PARK!" and are reading this thread.  We appreciate your support. Together we can beat this proposal.

And all those hunters/anglers/trappers that are against this proposal should all thank and support Sandy Hull for spearheading this opposition effort and doing a ton of work spreading the message. Go to the No National Park Facebook page and spread the word.

Thanks for the link My mailbox & Facebook page   becomes over  full with posts by Sandy Hull 

[mazzgolf]

As I understand it, Sandy Hull is one of the many people who lost their homes and property as part of the Tocks Island Dam mess back in the 70s. So you'll have to forgive her if she's a little passionate about this issue.

[1957Buck]

1 hour ago, mazzgolf said:

As I understand it, Sandy Hull is one of the many people who lost their homes and property as part of the Tocks Island Dam mess back in the 70s. So you'll have to forgive her if she's a little passionate about this issue.

Yep & has a Axe to Grind and asking for Hunter Support nothing wrong with that. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by 1957Buck

[mazzgolf]

1 minute ago, 1957Buck said:

Yep & has a Axe to Grind and asking for Hunter Support nothing wrong with that. 

An "Axe to Grind" makes it sound as if she has no legitimate reasons for her opposition. And she never asked for Hunter Support - I actually emailed her first and asked if I could help and sent her some of the links to here.

At this point, just leave it be.

[1957Buck]

58 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

An "Axe to Grind" makes it sound as if she has no legitimate reasons for her opposition. And she never asked for Hunter Support - I actually emailed her first and asked if I could help and sent her some of the links to here.

At this point, just leave it be.

Sorry my opinion was  lost in interpretation.  And said nothing wrong with that,  back off.

[JackStraw]

If I'm not mistaken, the Hull family are the ones that sued the park service regarding the ownership of Old Mine Road and won a large sum of money. Prior to the settlement, the Hull family who owns the farm just past Vancampen had Old Mine Road closed down. Upon the settlement the road was ordered to be reopened which it was for a short time. I'm not sure why but these people once again barricaded off the road to through traffic to this day. The particulars about this feud can be found on Google.  

Edited April 1, 2022 by JackStraw
Spelling

[mazzgolf]

https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/western-newjersey/environmental-group-leader-speaks-out-after-warren-county-nj-commissioners-reverse-stance-on-national-park/article_7d237ac0-bc42-11ec-9d39-53a2d37f8994.html

3 days ago....interview with John Donahue.

As per the proposal that is out, John Donahue continues to say, "if you look at the proposal, we're asking for whatever acreage might be lost to the creation of a National Park to be added onto the preserve."

And it is true - the proposal does says, "No lands or other donations from the nearby states of New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania are required, although the states are encouraged to cooperate and collaborate in the way they determine best for their citizens and for all Americans. The National Park and Preserve is authorized to accept or acquire additional lands from willing sellers and donors . . ."

So it is true they are asking for YOU (NJ hunters, anglers, trappers) to DONATE WMA, state forests, and/or state park lands to the National Park!! You WILL lose trapping access on those donated state lands, and you almost certainly will be required to pay additional fees to the National Park Service to gain access to those WMA/forests/parks you can already access for free today. And you may lose hunting access to parts of those donated lands because once donated, it is owned and controlled solely by the NPS and they will designate what lands go into the park and what goes into the preserve. Once that land is donated, they can do with it what they want.

As I said a while ago, there are many questions that need to be answered regarding this new land they want to acquire. They have not answered any of them as far as I know.

Donahue also says here in this article from 3 days ago, "The great majority of the land would continue to be open to hunting." But he continues to refuse to say WHAT lands. What constitutes "the great majority?"  Is it 80% 90% 95%? Which acreages? And, in fact, he is either misquoted, uninformed about his own proposal, or lying - because the proposal does NOT say "great majority" -- it just says "majority" (it says, "Transforming the majority of the land into The Lenape National Preserve is a more appropriate designation for traditional uses like hunting") -- and the word "majority" could mean 50.1%. That means it is possible over 35,000 acres of The Gap could be closed to hunting.