3 ms·

"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 immeasurabl

by 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.
- satori99 11y ago
  I am not aware of any free-to-use national parks in NSW. There is a fee even for day use at the Royal National Park. I think State Parks are free, but I have had to pay whenever I have camped in NSW or Tasmanian National parks. It is possible to buy an annual pass for all parks in NSW for a reasonable price. http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/passes-and-fees http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/passes-and-fees
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  National Parks in the US have to meet four specific criteria to be granted the designation: 1) It is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource. 2) It possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural themes of our Nation's heritage. 3) It offers superlative opportunities for recreation, for public use and enjoyment, or for scientific study. 4) It retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of the resource. In the whole USA there are 59 such sites. But there are also national forests, national monuments, national seashores, national reserves, national historic sites, national historic landmarks, and other similar designations. Our state forests system sound similar to what you mentioned from Australia. We had a couple of pretty huge ones near where I grew up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothrock_State_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothrock_State_Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle_State_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle_State_Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sproul_State_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sproul_State_Forest Reference for National Park requirements, I only found an old link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000301003832/http://www.nps.gov/legacy/criteria.html http://web.archive.org/web/20000301003832/http://www.nps.gov...)

by rcurry 11y ago

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.
satori99 11y ago
I am not aware of any free-to-use national parks in NSW. There is a fee even for day use at the Royal National Park. I think State Parks are free, but I have had to pay whenever I have camped in NSW or Tasmanian National parks. It is possible to buy an annual pass for all parks in NSW for a reasonable price. http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/passes-and-fees http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/passes-and-fees
wlesieutre 11y ago
National Parks in the US have to meet four specific criteria to be granted the designation: 1) It is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource. 2) It possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural themes of our Nation's heritage. 3) It offers superlative opportunities for recreation, for public use and enjoyment, or for scientific study. 4) It retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of the resource. In the whole USA there are 59 such sites. But there are also national forests, national monuments, national seashores, national reserves, national historic sites, national historic landmarks, and other similar designations. Our state forests system sound similar to what you mentioned from Australia. We had a couple of pretty huge ones near where I grew up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothrock_State_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothrock_State_Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle_State_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle_State_Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sproul_State_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sproul_State_Forest Reference for National Park requirements, I only found an old link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000301003832/http://www.nps.gov/legacy/criteria.html http://web.archive.org/web/20000301003832/http://www.nps.gov...)