John Donahue presents "Why a National Park and Preserve" Zoom meeting tonight

[mazzgolf]

They posted the Zoom meeting link and meeting ID information for tonight's presentation by John Donahue on the National Park proposal. John Donahue, along with the Sierra Club, leading the push to turn The Gap into a National Park - his presentation will be "pro-National Park".

http://www.friendsofdewanps.org/why-a-national-park-and-preserve.html

If you live and hunt up by The Gap, you'll want to listen in and see what questions are asked and how they are answered. I know I submitted a bunch of questions - but I am guessing most, if not all, will go unanswered.

Starts in less than an hour - 6:30pm tonight, April 21, 2022.

----

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86939432119?pwd=OExuZTJvKzUwZGhMNHh4SmlLTE5ZQT09

Meeting ID: 869 3943 2119
Passcode: 843897

 

[buck169]

Thanks ,  I will be there to listen to their bs reasons for this. And how they will trip on their answers.

[mazzgolf]

I just signed on and can see John Donahue is logged in and I can see the presenter's cover screen. So it is up - you can log in now. Meeting starts in about 15 minutes. 

[Coyoteslayer]

Is that the guy from the Donahue show in the 90s?

[Bucndoe]

I watched it. Seems very one-sided 

[Haskell_Hunter]

All of these things are one-sided.  I am dealing with the development of the property behind my house right now, and it's a shitshow at the Wanaque Town Hall.  The people in the Wanaque municipal government do not represent the people in this town.  They represent everyone else.

[mazzgolf]

OK. He actually addressed most of my questions.

Just off the top of my head (I didn't write down any notes).

1. Trapping will not be allowed anywhere - that's a congressional decision (if I heard him correctly). I really am not concerned WHY it is prohibited, just that it IS prohibited. Whether it is a congressional edict or an NPS rule is really irrelevant.

2. He skirted the donation-of-state-lands issue ... "the proposal doesn't say anything about state lands" - but he didn't address what happens IF state lands are absorbed. I think the answer is clear - hunting will be prohibited if those state lands are added to the  Park side, allowed if in the Preserve side. It is not guaranteed donated lands will go into the Preserve - only prioritized.

3. He said they are looking at 90%/10% model of New River Gorge (Preserve to Park lands ratio) - so that means at least a 7,000 acres loss of hunting. That's minimum. Because the proposal doesn't SAY 90/10 - it just says "a majority" will be the Preserve. So we have a range now - it will be a loss of hunting acreage between 7,000 and 35,000.

4. There is no guarantee about additional access fees. They cannot say because they will not control that. It will be up to the NPS once the re-designation happens. In other words, additional access fees may happen, we don't know, but if it does, you won't know it until the proposal passes and the National Park and Preserve is in place (i.e. too late to push back on it).

5. There is no guarantee of additional federal funding. He said new National Parks usually get $0 additional money the first year. Funding goes in 5-year planning cycles. So presumably they are "hoping" the feds will give more funding to the National Park after year 5 (that's what I inferred - he didn't say that.). But, again, we won't know that ahead of time. So there is no guarantee how much or even if more federal money will come to the new Park because of the new designation. He made the point that New River Gorge got new money, but that's only because more federal dollars were spread across the entire NPS budgets. We want to know how much additional money will we get BECAUSE OF the fact DEWA is now a National Park (i.e. above and beyond what DEWA would have gotten without being redesignated). He did not say, and in fact, he cannot say. That is up to the NPS budget process/congressional approval - and that will only happen AFTER the re-designation (and like he said, probably not even in the first year).

6. Recreational hunting rules are governed by the state - all other wildlife management is governed by NPS. What does that mean? Sounds fishy - if the feds don't want predators controlled by hunting, for example, they can shut that down, I guess. In other words, from what he said, it sounds like the NPS will have at least some say when it comes to wildlife management (including, I presume, reclassifying game animals as non-game (non-huntable) animals).

7. "So what if additional one or two buildings are added to the Preserve and you lose hunting lands around it in the safety zones? There are already hundreds of buildings there, so it will have minimal impact anyway". I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said. But the point is, we will lose some additional huntable lands around new buildings that are constructed in the Preserve... and it could be substantial if they go ahead with a Lenape Cultural Center (I will assume that will not be a tiny shack but could take up a lot of space - but this isn't part of the proposal today so they can just say, "it's not in the proposal").

8. There is no map - they have people working on it. So they can't say today "this is where the Preserve will be, this is where the Park will be".

OK, that's all off the top of my head. He answered a few other questions. Hopefully they recorded this. I do not know if they did. So it may or may not be published.

Edited April 22, 2022 by mazzgolf

[Coyoteslayer]

27 minutes ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

All of these things are one-sided.  I am dealing with the development of the property behind my house right now, and it's a shitshow at the Wanaque Town Hall.  The people in the Wanaque municipal government do not represent the people in this town.  They represent everyone else.

When I was a kid they wanted to build a shopping center across from our house in what was woods. My father knew he couldn't stop them....but he was the biggest pain in the ass they ever had. He single handedly held up construction by 2 years. Contesting everything. Placement of entrances exits sign locations even what bulbs would be used in the signs!! Each time they had to adjourn to next meeting and get answers or solutions!! He enjoyed it I think.

[Bonefreak]

46 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

OK. He actually addressed most of my questions.

Just off the top of my head (I didn't write down any notes).

1. Trapping will not be allowed anywhere - that's a congressional decision (if I heard him correctly). I really am not concerned WHY it is prohibited, just that it IS prohibited. Whether it is a congressional edict or an NPS rule is really irrelevant.

2. He skirted the donation-of-state-lands issue ... "the proposal doesn't say anything about state lands" - but he didn't address what happens IF state lands are absorbed. I think the answer is clear - hunting will be prohibited if those state lands are added to the  Park side, allowed if in the Preserve side. It is not guaranteed donated lands will go into the Preserve - only prioritized.

3. He said they are looking at 90%/10% model of New River Gorge (Preserve to Park lands ratio) - so that means at least a 7,000 acres loss of hunting. That's minimum. Because the proposal doesn't SAY 90/10 - it just says "a majority" will be the Preserve. So we have a range now - it will be a loss of hunting acreage between 7,000 and 35,000.

4. There is no guarantee about additional access fees. They cannot say because they will not control that. It will be up to the NPS once the re-designation happens. In other words, additional access fees may happen, we don't know, but if it does, you won't know it until the proposal passes and the National Park and Preserve is in place (i.e. too late to push back on it).

5. There is no guarantee of additional federal funding. He said new National Parks usually get $0 additional money the first year. Funding goes in 5-year planning cycles. So presumably they are "hoping" the feds will give more funding to the National Park after year 5 (that's what I inferred - he didn't say that.). But, again, we won't know that ahead of time. So there is no guarantee how much or even if more federal money will come to the new Park because of the new designation. He made the point that New River Gorge got new money, but that's only because more federal dollars were spread across the entire NPS budgets. We want to know how much additional money will we get BECAUSE OF the fact DEWA is now a National Park (i.e. above and beyond what DEWA would have gotten without being redesignated). He did not say, and in fact, he cannot say. That is up to the NPS budget process/congressional approval - and that will only happen AFTER the re-designation (and like he said, probably not even in the first year).

6. Recreational hunting rules are governed by the state - all other wildlife management is governed by NPS. What does that mean? Sounds fishy - if the feds don't want predators controlled by hunting, for example, they can shut that down, I guess. In other words, from what he said, it sounds like the NPS will have at least some say when it comes to wildlife management (including, I presume, reclassifying game animals as non-game (non-huntable) animals).

7. "So what if additional one or two buildings are added to the Preserve and you lose hunting lands around it in the safety zones? There are already hundreds of buildings there, so it will have minimal impact anyway". I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said. But the point is, we will lose some additional huntable lands around new buildings that are constructed in the Preserve... and it could be substantial if they go ahead with a Lenape Cultural Center (I will assume that will not be a tiny shack but could take up a lot of space - but this isn't part of the proposal today so they can just say, "it's not in the proposal").

8. There is no map - they have people working on it. So they can't say today "this is where the Preserve will be, this is where the Park will be".

OK, that's all off the top of my head. He answered a few other questions. Hopefully they recorded this. I do not know if they did. So it may or may not be published.

Man….these fricken people can f*^k up a wet dream!!!  SMH 

[Coyoteslayer]

12 hours ago, Coyoteslayer said:

When I was a kid they wanted to build a shopping center across from our house in what was woods. My father knew he couldn't stop them....but he was the biggest pain in the ass they ever had. He single handedly held up construction by 2 years. Contesting everything. Placement of entrances exits sign locations even what bulbs would be used in the signs!! Each time they had to adjourn to next meeting and get answers or solutions!! He enjoyed it I think.

He actually measured the distance from proposed entrance to the school down the street and insisted they were 5 feet short of minimum. They had to re survey lol!!!

[Bucksnbows]

13 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

OK. He actually addressed most of my questions.

Just off the top of my head (I didn't write down any notes).

1. Trapping will not be allowed anywhere - that's a congressional decision (if I heard him correctly). I really am not concerned WHY it is prohibited, just that it IS prohibited. Whether it is a congressional edict or an NPS rule is really irrelevant.

2. He skirted the donation-of-state-lands issue ... "the proposal doesn't say anything about state lands" - but he didn't address what happens IF state lands are absorbed. I think the answer is clear - hunting will be prohibited if those state lands are added to the  Park side, allowed if in the Preserve side. It is not guaranteed donated lands will go into the Preserve - only prioritized.

3. He said they are looking at 90%/10% model of New River Gorge (Preserve to Park lands ratio) - so that means at least a 7,000 acres loss of hunting. That's minimum. Because the proposal doesn't SAY 90/10 - it just says "a majority" will be the Preserve. So we have a range now - it will be a loss of hunting acreage between 7,000 and 35,000.

4. There is no guarantee about additional access fees. They cannot say because they will not control that. It will be up to the NPS once the re-designation happens. In other words, additional access fees may happen, we don't know, but if it does, you won't know it until the proposal passes and the National Park and Preserve is in place (i.e. too late to push back on it).

5. There is no guarantee of additional federal funding. He said new National Parks usually get $0 additional money the first year. Funding goes in 5-year planning cycles. So presumably they are "hoping" the feds will give more funding to the National Park after year 5 (that's what I inferred - he didn't say that.). But, again, we won't know that ahead of time. So there is no guarantee how much or even if more federal money will come to the new Park because of the new designation. He made the point that New River Gorge got new money, but that's only because more federal dollars were spread across the entire NPS budgets. We want to know how much additional money will we get BECAUSE OF the fact DEWA is now a National Park (i.e. above and beyond what DEWA would have gotten without being redesignated). He did not say, and in fact, he cannot say. That is up to the NPS budget process/congressional approval - and that will only happen AFTER the re-designation (and like he said, probably not even in the first year).

6. Recreational hunting rules are governed by the state - all other wildlife management is governed by NPS. What does that mean? Sounds fishy - if the feds don't want predators controlled by hunting, for example, they can shut that down, I guess. In other words, from what he said, it sounds like the NPS will have at least some say when it comes to wildlife management (including, I presume, reclassifying game animals as non-game (non-huntable) animals).

7. "So what if additional one or two buildings are added to the Preserve and you lose hunting lands around it in the safety zones? There are already hundreds of buildings there, so it will have minimal impact anyway". I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said. But the point is, we will lose some additional huntable lands around new buildings that are constructed in the Preserve... and it could be substantial if they go ahead with a Lenape Cultural Center (I will assume that will not be a tiny shack but could take up a lot of space - but this isn't part of the proposal today so they can just say, "it's not in the proposal").

8. There is no map - they have people working on it. So they can't say today "this is where the Preserve will be, this is where the Park will be".

OK, that's all off the top of my head. He answered a few other questions. Hopefully they recorded this. I do not know if they did. So it may or may not be published.

The lack of any maps is very telling. Their first attempt at this which we effectively killed off quickly had maps and they showed the usurpation of state owned lands in PA, NY and NJ. In NJ, they included all of Stokes and Worthington SFs, all of Flatbrook- Roy WMA and PA Gamelands as well. I would bet my life the maps haven’t changed one iota. I have personal issues with Donahue. That man lied to me when I worked for Trout Unlimited and it was the second time he did that to that organization. Can’t trust him as far as I can throw him. 

[Jim_]

I live in NJ 11th district, which only goes as far northwest as Sparta. Regardless, Rep Mikie Sherril told me that the majority of the calls to her office are in favor of this plan.

Speak up, people. It may seem futile, but the people who look at things differently from you .... contact their elected officials.