Got this in my email this morning. Something fishy about it. Anyone know of it? It seems not well thought out.
PB National Park?
- Thread starter bobpbx
- Start date
Beverly's 'facts' are a bit off; there is no such thing as a 'Pine Barrens State Park'. No forest either. 
I've heard the area known as the pinelands has already been considered for a National Park and was decided against. It was designated as a National Reserve in 1978, a cooperative effort with the NPS, but they don't do much, if anything. From the PPA;
Maine has been trying to have a big portion up near Baxter designated a National Park, but resistance has kept it from happening. They are now trying to get it designated as a National Recreation Area.
https://www.nps.gov/pine/index.htm
http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/reserve/
I've heard the area known as the pinelands has already been considered for a National Park and was decided against. It was designated as a National Reserve in 1978, a cooperative effort with the NPS, but they don't do much, if anything. From the PPA;Maine has been trying to have a big portion up near Baxter designated a National Park, but resistance has kept it from happening. They are now trying to get it designated as a National Recreation Area.
https://www.nps.gov/pine/index.htm
http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/reserve/
Last edited:
Ok, she is concerned about the lack of funding and wants to make it a National Park when the the National Park Service has a maintenance backlog of $12M.....and then the pines will be competing with the likes of Yosemite and the Grand Canyon for the same $$.
Ok, got it.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/08/46646...ng-to-do-list-but-cant-cover-the-repair-costs
Ok, got it.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/08/46646...ng-to-do-list-but-cant-cover-the-repair-costs
"Early in its work, the National Park Service decided not to recommend that the Pine Barrens be designated either a national park or a national monument, as had been originally proposed. Neither designation would be economically feasible, for neither would permit continuation of the indigienous agriculture, timbering, and mining activities, which the Park Serice thought did not adversely affect the aquifer. Instead, it proposed that the state take the lead in working out a comprehensive plan and suggested four possible outilines for such a plan.
. . . .
Two alternatives called for designation of a national scientific reserve, either of 175,000 or of 245,000 acres; another option was a state forest or a national recreation area of 267,000 acres; and the fourth option called for a state pinelands region of 373,000 acres."
page 43
Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands
A New Direction in Land-Use Management
Edited by Beryl Robichaud Collins and Emily W. B. Russell
Rutgers University Press 1988
You'll find quite a bit on this topic here, the process went on for decades. Fascinating book, I bought my copy more than 20 years ago.
. . . .
Two alternatives called for designation of a national scientific reserve, either of 175,000 or of 245,000 acres; another option was a state forest or a national recreation area of 267,000 acres; and the fourth option called for a state pinelands region of 373,000 acres."
page 43
Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands
A New Direction in Land-Use Management
Edited by Beryl Robichaud Collins and Emily W. B. Russell
Rutgers University Press 1988
You'll find quite a bit on this topic here, the process went on for decades. Fascinating book, I bought my copy more than 20 years ago.
Stupid idea, for the reason that SuperCooch said. There will be even less resources and money available to protect the Pines if this somehow went through.
"This step will create additional protections and funding so everyone will be able to enjoy the pine barrens in ways we previously could not for many years to come."
What does this even mean???
"This step will create additional protections and funding so everyone will be able to enjoy the pine barrens in ways we previously could not for many years to come."
What does this even mean???
Why a bid to turn Pine Barrens into a national park probably won't happen
http://www.nj.com/burlington/index....seeks_to_make_nj_pine_barrens_a_national.html
http://www.nj.com/burlington/index....seeks_to_make_nj_pine_barrens_a_national.html
I would not lose any sleep worrying that it would happen. The reasons it did not occur decades ago are even more relevant today. The increased restrictions, such as no hunting, no private homes or businesses, etc, that come with NP status would create an uproar much larger than the MAP did.
Actually even the PPA agreed it was not a good idea, but that could be because if it actually happened they all would be out of a job
Actually even the PPA agreed it was not a good idea, but that could be because if it actually happened they all would be out of a job
That may not be the case as many NP's have 501c(3)'s associated with them. The big problem would be buying all the homes and businesses within the park boundary, but they would probably try to use the eminent domain laws.
I agree. It's too populated to introduce a National Park in Nj and there are plenty of 501c(3)'s associated with Natoinal Parks. I was just pointing out that PPA's role would have to change and nobody likes change, at least if it's not on their own terms.
I just went back over the thread. I'm not sure who said hunting would be illegal.
There are provisions that can be made at the time a Park is designated by Congress. If that ever was to happen in the Pines or some portion of them it would be very important to get that set in stone from the beginning. The anti-hunting crowd has been successful in removing measures that would have opened up other Parks to hunting.
It is a horrible idea and one that many people would fight against. Me being one of them. We don't need the federal governments having any say in anything regarding this. They have too much say as it is.
Although it may be allowed in certain units of the NPS, such as NRA's and NWR's, I am not aware of any National Park that has allowed hunting, other than Grand Teton NP for the express purpose of seasonal Elk management by hunters that are chosen by permit, limited in number and deputized as Park Rangers. It is due to the numbers of over-wintering Elk at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson. It is not up to Congress, but the superintendent of a park to make the determination and requires approval, a fairly complicated process. What you can and cannot do within the boundaries of a NP are highly regulated. Until fairly recently firearms possession was not allowed. Details are in the CFR, Title 36.
Last edited:
The largest National Park in the country allows subsistence hunting. Wrangell St-Alias. They do not want people going in and sport hunting wolves and grizzlies in the Park area, but the local people are able to hunt, fish, and trap to use as part of their diet. Where cultural concerns have been made, the NPS has been accommodating.
https://www.nps.gov/wrst/learn/historyculture/upload/Subsistence brochure.pdf
That is true for some NP's in AK, if a person meets the subsistence qualifications. It is not relevant to NJ. No sport hunting is allowed in any national park and as of last year the NPS began restricting certain sport hunting in AK national preserves as well. You are trying to compare apples to kumquats.