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

[1957Buck]

26 minutes ago, JFC1 said:

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."

 

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

 

Those who get and those who Don't 

Since there are no fees mentioned & most National Parks The Delaware National Park and Gateway National Park is free   ( Sandy Hook) Has Use Fees Sandy Hook is Free you pay a fee to PARK & Night Fishing Pass

And Charging a fee would Not stop those you mention from not attending . 

Edited April 7, 2022 by 1957Buck

[mazzgolf]

1 minute ago, JFC1 said:

Won't all sorts of [fees] 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...

Yes!!! This is one of those other objections made to this proposal that I talked about (other than loss of hunting access), and this objection is made by non-hunters as well. There will be access fees to the National Park (where/how collected? how much? No one will say). In fact, Donahue has supported access fees in the past, but could not get his way when he was in charge of DEWA. So he has punted on that and seems to want to pull the "Nancy Pelosi" way of governing ("pass it before you know what's in it"). See his presentation last summer (again, I don't like to just say something without having backing evidence) - particularly this video snippet (watch and read transcript where he says, "... the reality is that we were looking at charging cars that come and park and people that recreate and not trying to stop every car going down the road. So nowadays, and they are experimenting with this at other places, you could not have people collecting fees. People could use EZPass. There could be stations where you could buy your ticket. But none of this is actually part of the proposal at this moment. So it's not about charging fees. This proposal would go forward with or without fees. That's something that's determined in an entirely different process.")

Now - back to your "impacting the poor and minority communities" - YES! In fact, the National Park Service has a big interest in diversity and inclusion. Since 2013, they even have an office dedicated to it - it is called the "Office of Relevancy, Diversity and Inclusion" -- just read the NPS's webpage for this office: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1244/index.htm .  NatGeo has a couple articles on it - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/article/more-diversity-how-to-make-national-parks-anti-racist and https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/diversity-accessibility-representation-inclusion - notice the liberal tone to all of these.

You will read this in that second NatGeo article:

Quote

Besides looking inward, NPS is raising greater awareness about parks in marginalized communities. ... Aside from lack of visibility with certain groups, the NPS struggles with affordability: While many parks are free, the well-known ones have significant fees, and recent price hikes didn’t make things any easier. A 2011 NPS technical report found that “69 percent of Americans with household incomes of over $150,000 said they visited one or more national parks in the past two years, compared with only 22 percent of Americans with household incomes of less than $10,000.”

Now, by charging new fees to access land that is free today will go against this push for diversity and inclusion. A $15 or $20 fee (or more, who knows?) will affect the poor much more than the middle-class and thus the poor will not have the access to this new National Park as they enjoy today, compared to more affluent people. So you will get LESS participation from lower income Americans, and that is NOT what the NPS wants (it certainly goes against the goals of their Office of RDI).

So, yes, what you mention has already been brought up, and I hope it continues to be brought up. This, again, is one more reason why even some liberal Democrats are in agreement with other more conservative folks in opposing this effort.

[1957Buck]

At least someone has the right approach . 

Fees never stopped anyone,  Sandy hook Charges per car load and has had increases in fees with Capacities reached before noon and the line of traffic still backed up for miles and being diverted south to beaches with Beach tags and Parking fees where family of 5 could cost $75 or more overall. 

Wasted enough time on this already just making Points of information   Go Brandon  

[mazzgolf]

34 minutes ago, 1957Buck said:

Fees never stopped anyone,  Sandy hook Charges per car load and has had increases in fees with Capacities reached before noon and the line of traffic still backed up for miles

This is another instance where you do not understand the point. Of course traffic will increase, no one is arguing that. This is exactly one of the talking points of the Sierra Club! "Build it and they will come" - they are touting this as a benefit - you will get more visitors (regardless of fees). Literally no one (on either side) is saying otherwise (whether having more visitors is a positive or a negative depends on your point of view).

But that's not the point that myself and @JFC1 were making. The point is that you are PRICING OUT lower-income people, minorities, and others that traditionally do not have the same disposable income as more affluent Americans. So, sure, you'll get more people to visit, but those additional people are just going to be those who are more affluent and can pay the fees. For you to say "fees never stopped anyone" - you are thinking "fees never stopped anyone that can afford it" - but if you don't think a $20 fee won't stop someone who barely makes a living wage, you are what they call "privileged" Of course additional fees will stop at least some poor people from coming; that should be common sense.

Why is this important to the discussion? Because the National Park Service Office of Relevancy, Diversity, and Inclusion is trying to do the exact opposite ("We will also . . . be responsive and welcoming to the needs of the full spectrum of the increasingly diverse and multi-cultural American public."). They are trying to get MORE minorities and lower-income people to participate in visiting National Parks  - so the addition of newer/increased fees will do the complete opposite of what the NPS is trying to accomplish.

And yet fees are exactly what we can expect. There is nothing in the proposal that prohibits the NPS from adding access fees, and John Donahue (the leader of this push for the National Park who used to be in charge of DEWA) is on record saying he supports additional fees, had tried in the past to get additional fees, has ideas for how to collect additional fees (e.g. he mentions EZPass) and said the decision to add additional fees and what their amounts will be is to be determined later in a separate process (presumably after the National Park has been established).

In short, creating a National Park will likely cause LESS minorities and the poor to visit it, and that goes against the goals of the NPS. Thus, based on this point, even the most liberal, progressive Democrat should be against this proposal and should join forces with the hunting/angling/trapping community in opposing this effort.

 

[JFC1]

2 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

 

In short, creating a National Park will likely cause LESS minorities and the poor to visit it, and that goes against the goals of the NPS. Thus, based on this point, even the most liberal, progressive Democrat should be against this proposal and should join forces with the hunting/angling/trapping community in opposing this effort.

 

And at least in this case we want those voices heard since they help us oppose the federal land grab

[JFC1]

1 hour ago, 1957Buck said:

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   

If you want to hunt, camp, fish, hike in a small, reduced area, be my guest. I guess you like federal "protection" in your natural areas.  I like swimming outside the ropes, or in places with no ropes and buoys.

[Bonefreak]

They will figure out how to ruin a good thing.  Go Brandon!

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MbznzLpqw

 

[Mountain Goat]

First time I heard anything about it in Pa.

[Mountain Goat]

Sorry it did not go through.  I will try to find the news link.

[mazzgolf]

8 minutes ago, Mountain Goat said:

First time I heard anything about it in Pa.

IMG_6213.MOV

Thanks for that (I downloaded the .MOV file here and watched it). That news story certainly did cover the main objections - that being (a) the proposal is vague and no one is answering questions for additional details and (b) hunting access will be reduced, and local communities are not happy about that.

I'm glad they didn't carry the water for the Sierra  Club in that - they told it like it is.

Edited April 7, 2022 by mazzgolf

[mazzgolf]

Well, well....

I'm SHOCKED (!) the Sierra Club doesn't list "hunting" anymore as an "unimpacted use" in the proposed National Park. Really? What happened to their talking point they have been using since last year? The ol' "We are not proposing to take anything away that you can now do in the national recreation area including hunting."

Hmmmm.... anyone want to continue to say we'll still be able to hunt just as we can today in The Gap?

(BTW: how much you want to bet new access fees will be charged to visitors who want to boat and fish in the new National Park? But I digress...)

REPORTER: "...but hunting, a critical economic component to local businesses, is conspicuously absent, and local authorities are seeking additional details as well."
MATT OSTERBERG, PIKE COUNTY COMMISSIONER: "This county is very, very tourist based, and part of that tourism is driven by hunting and fishing and outdoor activities -- hunting and fishing being extremely important. And when we start to hear that there might be restrictions on that use on that property, that gives us pause."