4 ms·

Acadia (http://npmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/acadia-map.jpg http://npmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/acadia-map.jpg) has always been an example of this for me, both

Acadia (http://npmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/acadia-map.jpg http://npmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/acadia-map.jpg) has always been an example of this for me, both in how many private lands like this exist in National Parks, and of the striking difference between the east coast and the west in land ownership and attitude. It's dotted with and surrounded by private land, despite being a natural wonder in the class of Yosemite or Yellowstone in grandeur and uniqueness. At certain points, you drive over bridges that cross golf courses, and you can't help but wonder whether this Disneyland nature park isn't also inextricable from its web of humanity and history. The west is still wild, and it's a human wonder that we've managed to keep it that way. I'm glad for public land. Its value to our society is truly immeasurable.

douche 11y ago
People have lived more or less continuously on Mount Desert Island since the end of the Seven Years War (It was in something of a DMZ between French Acadia and British Massachusetts, and everyone that tried to settle there soon got burned out by one side or the other). The only reason that the park exists is that it became a resort town for the Gilded Age tycoons, and they bought up all the land that makes up the park, because they didn't want anyone industrying up their summering place. Most of the palatial mansions burned in a wildfire in the 40s, and the tourism has a more middle-class flavor these days, but there's still a huge distinction between the natives and the summer people. I always enjoyed Baxter State Park more. Up there, if you get off the AT, you might not see a person for days, unless you come out on a road and a log truck happens by.
DiabloD3 11y ago
I live in Ellsworth (15 minutes from Bar Harbor, you have to drive through Ellsworth to get to any part of Acadia National Park). You're overlooking a large part of the history: most of the park was donated land that was owned by the Rockefellers, of which they continually have grown the park over the past 50 years. The park doesn't have islands in it as much as the park ate up all the land AROUND these islands, making the islands exist in the first place. I suspect Acadia is the only national park that is growing at the rate it has over the decades.
- calinet6 11y ago
  Oh I realize the history, hence why I said "inextricable from the humanity and the history" -- so true. I guess it's just a different way of looking at land, and the history is a big part of it. The parks of the west existed before the land was touched, so they have an air of wilderness about them. The East Coast was largely settled, so the National Parks here (what few there are) had to be slowly cut from owned lands like you're talking about. It's no better or worse, just different. I'm glad that Acadia is reclaiming the private lands for the public good, and I'm glad that Yosemite has reserved them to prevent them from ever being privately owned. Both are a net positive. But I still can't shake the difference in attitude about the land on the east coast versus the west. In the west, the National Parks are for the land itself, and I feel like a visitor being allowed to set foot as a privilege and an honor granted by the great wilderness so much larger than myself. On the East coast, National Parks and beaches and forests somehow feel like they exist for people and the land is there for us, and has no greater purpose than that. I find this in how people treat them and think about them and talk about them; it's why I said "Disneyland parks" before, it feels like people go to them for their own benefit. It's a subtle but remarkable difference, and it's pervasive in the culture, I find. No one will probably read this, but I find it interesting all the same.
rcurry 11y ago
"The west is still wild, and it's a human wonder that we've managed to keep it that way. I'm glad for public land. Its value to our society is truly immeasurable." So true - I remember what a shock it was when I moved from New Mexico to Texas. I thought, "Texas is huge, it's going to be great to live there with all that open space." Then I got there and found out that they had sold off every square inch of their state to private parties. The first week I was there, a coworker told me how excited he was to have found a great "hunting lease", and I was like "What the hell is a hunting lease?!?" He tells me you have to PAY people if you want to go out for deer season or whatever. I was shocked by it, literally. I have lived most of my life in various states where there are huge tracts of land that are just "yours" to go out in and do whatever the heck you want. It was really sad to see a place that large, with virtually no public land open for recreation. I do prefer National Forests and Wilderness areas over Parks though - I like the idea of wild, untamed places where you can just head out into the brush for a week and sometimes not even see another soul. New Mexico was great for that, you could spend a week out in Gila wilderness and never see another person. I'm glad to see that California is still like that in a lot of places - I was just up in the Mojave desert a few weeks back, and I felt like I was the first person that had ever set foot there. It's fun trying to imagine what it must have been like to be the very first people that wandered around out there.
- vacri 11y ago
  I was surprised travelling across the US at a cultural difference - here in Australia, a 'national part' is a non-developed or little-developed area of land for everyone, free to enter, usually with campgrounds. In the US, a 'national park' is often a non-trivial payment to enter, with airconditioned visitors centers, good roads, staff everywhere, and sometimes even hotels and restaurants... Not all national parks are like that, but the first few I visited were. Bit of a shock. I learned later in my trip about 'public lands' in the US, which were (basically) unmaintained and free for all to use, which was closer to national parks back home.
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    You must be from the east. In WA, there are massive tracts of land that you can't get through, privately owned. This of course doesn't matter much - who wants to get to the Gibson, anyway, but .. its not like Australia doesn't have its own private owners.

douche 11y ago

People have lived more or less continuously on Mount Desert Island since the end of the Seven Years War (It was in something of a DMZ between French Acadia and British Massachusetts, and everyone that tried to settle there soon got burned out by one side or the other). The only reason that the park exists is that it became a resort town for the Gilded Age tycoons, and they bought up all the land that makes up the park, because they didn't want anyone industrying up their summering place. Most of the palatial mansions burned in a wildfire in the 40s, and the tourism has a more middle-class flavor these days, but there's still a huge distinction between the natives and the summer people. I always enjoyed Baxter State Park more. Up there, if you get off the AT, you might not see a person for days, unless you come out on a road and a log truck happens by.

DiabloD3 11y ago

I live in Ellsworth (15 minutes from Bar Harbor, you have to drive through Ellsworth to get to any part of Acadia National Park). You're overlooking a large part of the history: most of the park was donated land that was owned by the Rockefellers, of which they continually have grown the park over the past 50 years. The park doesn't have islands in it as much as the park ate up all the land AROUND these islands, making the islands exist in the first place. I suspect Acadia is the only national park that is growing at the rate it has over the decades.

calinet6 11y ago
Oh I realize the history, hence why I said "inextricable from the humanity and the history" -- so true. I guess it's just a different way of looking at land, and the history is a big part of it. The parks of the west existed before the land was touched, so they have an air of wilderness about them. The East Coast was largely settled, so the National Parks here (what few there are) had to be slowly cut from owned lands like you're talking about. It's no better or worse, just different. I'm glad that Acadia is reclaiming the private lands for the public good, and I'm glad that Yosemite has reserved them to prevent them from ever being privately owned. Both are a net positive. But I still can't shake the difference in attitude about the land on the east coast versus the west. In the west, the National Parks are for the land itself, and I feel like a visitor being allowed to set foot as a privilege and an honor granted by the great wilderness so much larger than myself. On the East coast, National Parks and beaches and forests somehow feel like they exist for people and the land is there for us, and has no greater purpose than that. I find this in how people treat them and think about them and talk about them; it's why I said "Disneyland parks" before, it feels like people go to them for their own benefit. It's a subtle but remarkable difference, and it's pervasive in the culture, I find. No one will probably read this, but I find it interesting all the same.

rcurry 11y ago

"The west is still wild, and it's a human wonder that we've managed to keep it that way. I'm glad for public land. Its value to our society is truly immeasurable." So true - I remember what a shock it was when I moved from New Mexico to Texas. I thought, "Texas is huge, it's going to be great to live there with all that open space." Then I got there and found out that they had sold off every square inch of their state to private parties. The first week I was there, a coworker told me how excited he was to have found a great "hunting lease", and I was like "What the hell is a hunting lease?!?" He tells me you have to PAY people if you want to go out for deer season or whatever. I was shocked by it, literally. I have lived most of my life in various states where there are huge tracts of land that are just "yours" to go out in and do whatever the heck you want. It was really sad to see a place that large, with virtually no public land open for recreation. I do prefer National Forests and Wilderness areas over Parks though - I like the idea of wild, untamed places where you can just head out into the brush for a week and sometimes not even see another soul. New Mexico was great for that, you could spend a week out in Gila wilderness and never see another person. I'm glad to see that California is still like that in a lot of places - I was just up in the Mojave desert a few weeks back, and I felt like I was the first person that had ever set foot there. It's fun trying to imagine what it must have been like to be the very first people that wandered around out there.

vacri 11y ago
I was surprised travelling across the US at a cultural difference - here in Australia, a 'national part' is a non-developed or little-developed area of land for everyone, free to enter, usually with campgrounds. In the US, a 'national park' is often a non-trivial payment to enter, with airconditioned visitors centers, good roads, staff everywhere, and sometimes even hotels and restaurants... Not all national parks are like that, but the first few I visited were. Bit of a shock. I learned later in my trip about 'public lands' in the US, which were (basically) unmaintained and free for all to use, which was closer to national parks back home.
- fit2rule 11y ago
  You must be from the east. In WA, there are massive tracts of land that you can't get through, privately owned. This of course doesn't matter much - who wants to get to the Gibson, anyway, but .. its not like Australia doesn't have its own private owners.