"National Park" push is heating up - need to call or write to the house subcommittee on National Parks

[mazzgolf]

https://www.wvianews.org/pennsylvania-news/2022-04-04/pa-nj-could-get-national-park

Quote

The advocates hope to have a national park in PA and New Jersey this year or at least by the next presidential election in 2024.

We need to call or write letters to the members of the House Sub-Committee on National Parks now, before this gets past the point of no return. Tell them there is no broad consensus for a National Park designation here, and many people in the local communities do not want it.

Here's the website that only lists the Democrats on that committee -- the Republicans have their own (https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/about/members.htm).

Unfortunately, one of the Republicans on the National Park sub-committee died a couple weeks ago (the rep from Alaska), plus you cannot email house reps from their website forms unless you live in their district. So you need to call or write them.

The list of Democrats' contact info is here on the nonationalparks.org website (I sent an email to ask that website to include the Republicans too - that should be updated soon). But for now, the list of the websites for the Republicans is this:

• https://fulcher.house.gov/offices (Ranking Member)
• https://tiffany.house.gov/contact/offices
• https://gohmert.house.gov/contact/
• https://lamborn.house.gov/contact/offices
• https://mcclintock.house.gov/contact
• https://hice.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm
• https://rosendale.house.gov/contact/offices.htm
• https://blakemoore.house.gov/contact/offices
• https://herrell.house.gov/contact/offices
• https://obernolte.house.gov/contact/offices

Edited April 7, 2022 by mazzgolf

[Jcol6268]

I think calling gets more attention then an email anyway. 

[james7]

Thanks for this 

[Bonefreak]

4 hours ago, Jcol6268 said:

I think calling gets more attention then an email anyway. 

I interned for the National Wildlife Federation after graduation of Rutgers in 2000 as a late bloomer 26 yr old college kid down in DC lobbying for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act CARA…which asked for dedicated funds obtained from oil and gas revenues be reinvested back towards conservation….ironically it recently passed last year after 20+ yrs of work!!  Biggest issue was that lawmakers absolutely hate when funds are to be dedicated so they can’t get their grubby hands on it to direct it towards their special interests and partisan ways. 
 

Anyways, from what I remember walking those looong halls of Congress trying to get support for the legislation, it requires all hands on deck…phone calls, which u hope the legislative aid for a republican Congressman is not a closet lib or anti hunter and forgets to log your call in the Congressman’s call logbook (which I think they used to do), e-mails are good cuz u have a paper trail, & ultimately physically going there n visiting each Congressman on the committee or most likely their assistant….that’s why the bus trips or million man march stuff carries so much weight…..

so let’s put together a NJWW Save the Gap bus trip!!!!

I remember one time catching a Senator, from I think New Mexico, walking the halls one day and I had a nice conversation about the conservation legislation we were lobbying for….he had been historically against it…probably because of its dedicated funds requirement…& I sensed somewhat of an arrogance to him like I was bothering him….but I got some points across to him n my team of young hot chick interns thought it was awesome I hunted down a senator in the halls of Congress!!

all that being said…I have very little faith in those Halls of Congress and it’s amazing this country works as well as it does with the partisanship, special interests, corruption, etc.  I could only imagine how great we could be if Congressmen had some accountability. 

[electric10162]

8 minutes ago, Bonefreak said:

my team of young hot chick interns thought it was awesome I hunted down a senator in the halls of Congress!!

 

[Bonefreak]

1 hour ago, electric10162 said:

I was pretty much the only male intern surrounded by a small herd of fresh out of college young does….all of which had some genuine interests in wildlife conservation…& I was bout the only guy that hunted n fished in the office….summer 2000….oh to be young again!!  I was only there for a few months n left the core area by late September n missed the rut!  Lol

[1957Buck]

20 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

 

We need to call or write letters to the members of the House Sub-Committee on National Parks now, before this gets past the point of no return. Tell them there is no broad consensus for a National Park designation here, and many people in the local communities do not want it.

 

Just Saying & do not shoot the messenger, First    Ever hear the one about the Barn Door ????  I have complied pages of support for the national park status, Even of it being a done deal.  The point many Locals do not want is is  small compared with the Numbers Local Supports, seems Politicians on both sides  NJ PA Even NY support it,  Hope to get it posted today,     

Fact ---The Millions of Dollars involved makes it almost a Done Deal,  As for The Millions of Users versus the 100s of Hunters, 

[mazzgolf]

27 minutes ago, 1957Buck said:

As for The Millions of Users versus the 100s of Hunters, 

What I have learned over the past couple weeks is the majority of people who oppose this do NOT oppose it on the grounds of losing hunting privileges. The hunting organizations opposed to this are only a part of it. Many people are opposed to this and aren't even hunters and/or aren't aware of the loss of hunting privileges (some may even be anti-hunters, but still oppose it on other grounds). It turns out that this is actually one of the few times hunters, non-hunters, and anti-hunters can agree on a common goal in opposing the National Park.

Many oppose it for other reasons that you can see on the website: https://www.nonationalpark.org/ See the section "Why are we opposed to the plan?" Loss of hunting privileges is just one of many reasons.

[electric10162]

51 minutes ago, Bonefreak said:

I was pretty much the only male intern surrounded by a small herd of fresh out of college young does….all of which had some genuine interests in wildlife conservation…& I was bout the only guy that hunted n fished in the office….summer 2000….oh to be young again!!  I was only there for a few months n left the core area by late September n missed the rut!  Lol

Sucks you missed the rut!

[Nomad]

I'd say it's a done deal.  They know what's good for you.

[1957Buck]

1 hour ago, mazzgolf said:

 

Many oppose it for other reasons that you can see on the website: https://www.nonationalpark.org/ See the section "Why are we opposed to the plan?" Loss of hunting privileges is just one of many reasons.

In all due Respect The Grass Root Movement -< Is a minority group of  people that Lost when Tocks island Happened. 

Many oppose it But the vast Majority & Towns Affected  Supports it ( it is called Economy ) and what the designation would mean in terms of Visitors & Tourism to a region that has seen some hard times The Poconos to mention one, And this Group has not come out in Support Hunting & Fishing as a Stick point, 

Even the Sierra Club Mentions supporting both being a part of the New Park As the pages I am about to posting point that out that and Both Sides,    Even the Interest with members is Thin to the numbers affected. 

[1957Buck]

Please read it all I did do some clipping but the facts are there and not it all is updates and showing the massive support not only by Locals but the Local Governments and Boards. Even Pallon & Mendez are MIA  figuring which way to FLIP 

IMO The fight is to get Hunting and Fishing - Camping allowed like Alaska and other states have done & that is mentioned on one of the pages 

Also there was No victory as some Think or want to take credit for  on Tocks Island It just Failed $$$ They accomplished Most of what they wanted. ( land grab ).  How many will read it all or care. With 11 post on it- 

As I said about the barn door - the horse is about to Leave the barn 

Note The Word Preserve and its meaning over all

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by 1957Buck

[mazzgolf]

37 minutes ago, 1957Buck said:

Note The Word Preserve and its meaning over all

I don't know what you are trying to say. We already know the Sierra Club proposes to keep SOME hunting on what is known as The Gap today. You highlight a whole bunch of sentences in these articles (BTW: one apparently comes straight from the Sierra Club's newsletter, so of course they will spout their talking points) that say this - but we already know this. The concern is NOT that we will lose all hunting - we know the proposal backers (aka Sierra Club) are trying to appease the hunting community by making SOME hunting still available by marking it a preserve. BUT HOW MUCH LAND?? WHAT LANDS WILL BE THE PRESERVE?? The Sierra Club doesn't tell you. But they do say (in the proposal, if you read it) that up to 35,000 acres will be made un-huntable (that is today huntable) if it becomes a National Park.

So, go through all those articles you pointed out - and tell us, please - WHERE DO THEY TELL US WHAT LANDS WILL BE THE PRESERVE AND WHAT WILL BE THE PARK? What lands will allow hunting and what will not? I can tell you the proposal and the Sierra Club has refused to say. They will NOT tell us what lands will be huntable as part of the preserve and what will not as part of the Park.

I've already explained this in detail before in other threads (and I quoted their proposal and presentations to prove my point). You seem to want to try to pawn off the belief to us all here that the Sierra  Club's proposal will do nothing to restrict hunting in The Gap. This is objectively false, and the Sierra Club has even admitted this explicitly in their proposal (again, I quoted them and their proposal where this is so - see my other thread).

I now believe you are a Sierra  Club member (or at least sympathizer) and are trying to push their talking points here on this forum. I noticed one article you printed came directly from your email inbox and was the Sierra Club's newsletter:

So, OK, you are a Sierra Club member or supporter and you get their newsletters and you feel it necessary to defend their proposal. That is fine. I am willing to dialogue and debate (and I have - see my other threads). But please don't mention the falsehood that this proposal will do nothing to prevent hunting in the Gap. That is not true, and I've proven it by quoting their own proposal and statements. What we do NOT know today is HOW MUCH lands we will lose to hunting. The proposal refuses to say.

BTW: If you continue to push the talking point that "hunting will not be affected by this proposal", then take a look at the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve (read those articles you posted - you will find the Sierra Club holds that West Virginia National Park up as the model for this new National Park they propose). Now - read this New River Gorge National Park and Preserve website - https://www.nps.gov/neri/planyourvisit/hunting.htm and then try to tell us NOTHING will change for hunters here. How did that work for the West Virginia hunters who were probably told "you can still hunt here like always":

They even have a separate webpage dedicated SOLELY TO DOCUMENT WHAT PARTS OF THE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE NO LONGER ALLOW HUNTING!  See:  https://www.nps.gov/neri/learn/management/no-hunting-zones.htm

[JFC1]

3 hours ago, 1957Buck said:

 The point many Locals do not want is is  small compared with the Numbers Local Supports, seems Politicians on both sides  NJ PA Even NY support it,  Hope to get it posted today,     

Fact ---The Millions of Dollars involved makes it almost a Done Deal,  As for The Millions of Users versus the 100s of Hunters, 

I have a colleague who lives in Manhattan, is a leftist, hates hunting, loves archery, and has a summer house right across on PA side. He is COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT HE CALLS THE 'FEDERAL LAND GRAB' and he hates the federal agents that he says do things like ticket and harass his family for swimming or visiting certain water falls. 

Depending on how we package the opposition, there will be a lot of Americans who "get it."

Here's an example of outreach and targets who may also oppose the Park, even though it may show my ignorance of how parks work: Won't all sorts of feeds go way up if the area gets its National Park, thus impacting the poor and minority communities who access the Delaware River etc. on Sundays in their church vans?  If you want urban pastors on your side...

I'm assuming that usage fees will be a bigger and bigger part of a national park, right? 

 

[1957Buck]

9 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

I don't know what you are trying to say. We already know the Sierra Club proposes to keep SOME hunting on what is known as The Gap today. You highlight a whole bunch of sentences in these articles (BTW: one apparently comes straight from the Sierra Club's newsletter, so of course they will spout their talking points) that say this - but we already know this. The concern is NOT that we will lose all hunting - we know the proposal backers (aka Sierra Club) are trying to appease the hunting community by making SOME hunting still available by marking it a preserve. BUT HOW MUCH LAND?? WHAT LANDS WILL BE THE PRESERVE?? The Sierra Club doesn't tell you. But they do say (in the proposal, if you read it) that up to 35,000 acres will be made un-huntable (that is today huntable) if it becomes a National Park.

So, go through all those articles you pointed out - and tell us, please - WHERE DO THEY TELL US WHAT LANDS WILL BE THE PRESERVE AND WHAT WILL BE THE PARK? What lands will allow hunting and what will not? I can tell you the proposal and the Sierra Club has refused to say. They will NOT tell us what lands will be huntable as part of the preserve and what will not as part of the Park.

I've already explained this in detail before in other threads (and I quoted their proposal and presentations to prove my point). You seem to want to try to pawn off the belief to us all here that the Sierra  Club's proposal will do nothing to restrict hunting in The Gap. This is objectively false, and the Sierra Club has even admitted this explicitly in their proposal (again, I quoted them and their proposal where this is so - see my other thread).

I now believe you are a Sierra  Club member (or at least sympathizer) and are trying to push their talking points here on this forum. I noticed one article you printed came directly from your em

 

They even have a separate webpage dedicated SOLELY TO DOCUMENT WHAT PARTS OF THE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE NO LONGER ALLOW HUNTING!  See:  https://www.nps.gov/neri/learn/management/no-hunting-zones.htm

Don't get your Panties in a bunch I am not a member of any Cub - organization And surly do not have to explain myself to you. 

These  Proposals just got me  thinking and decided to Chime in on it,  I have seen Lost causes before with Opinions and finger pointing from the 2 sides,   From Beach Replenishment to Beach Access - Restricted parking rights along the shore, There are always those who jump in and most with blinders on with their right everyone else is wrong,  

And as I Said In my Opinion getting Hunting and Fishing - Camping Allowed  Shoots your Sympathizer BS down. I print & posted both sides so others can make a Informed opinion, Not Attracts,  Good luck