5 ms·
Intentionally crashing a plane into a national park, in a state that deals with lots of wildfires, is incredibly reckless. Lucky no one got killed, or that a wi
by captainkrtek 3y ago
Intentionally crashing a plane into a national park, in a state that deals with lots of wildfires, is incredibly reckless. Lucky no one got killed, or that a wildfire didn’t start.
- garrettgarcia 3y agoNational Forest, not National Park
- saganus 3y agoGenuine question, what is the difference? I've never heard the term National Forest before.
- FanaHOVA 3y agoNational Parks, managed by the National Park Service, are designated primarily for preservation and public enjoyment. You're there to observe and enjoy, but not to alter. Activities like logging, mining, and hunting are generally prohibited. On the other hand, National Forests, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, follow a multiple-use and sustained-yield approach. They're designed to support a variety of activities, including logging, grazing, mining, and recreation. These activities are carried out under sustainable practices to ensure the resources remain for future generations.
- CPLX 3y agoA forest and a park have completely different uses. A national park is a place for humans, and to some extent, wildlife, to enjoy, A forest in this context is a natural resource to be exploited. For the most part it’s a place where lumber is harvested.
- chihuahua 3y agoNot true. Lots of National Forest land has campgrounds, maintained trails, wildlife protection areas, etc. There is also lumber harvesting. It's for many different kinds of use.
- CPLX 3y agoSure but the dominant use and the purpose of the system that was set up is harvesting. I’m not saying it’s what I’m advocating for it’s just an explanation of the difference. The US forest service is quite literally a division of the department of agriculture.
- ngokevin 3y agoJust from what I know, top of head without looking it up. National Parks run by National Park Service. Federally protected lands. There are lot fewer of them. They are more tourist-oriented and are treated like natural wonders for the public to experience. Very high restrictions to protect the land (staying on trail in certain areas, pets, campfires, leave no trace, camp and wilderness permits, manicured roads and trails). Has an entrance fee. Patrolled by park rangers. Often has crowds. National Forest run by US Forest Service. Also federally protected and managed. There are a lot more of them and aren't marketed with much grandeur as a national park. They often contain a maze of rough, less-maintained forest roads. You can camp anywhere in them for free mostly without any fee or permit requirement, so it's sort of like wilderness. Less stringent rules of what you can and can't do. Very easy to drive into a national forest and see no one around. If I'm ever on the road, I'll sleep in a national forest or other public lands
- Rimintil 3y agoDon't forget National Wilderness, which is run by all of them, BLM and US Fish & Wildlife, included.
- klardotsh 3y agoIn Washington I tend to have a simpler way to memorize which one I'm in: have I passed a sign that said "national X" and see mostly stumps from logging operations? Forest. Otherwise, park (and there's almost certainly a fee booth ahead).
- loeg 3y agoParks are generally more developed with facilities/amenities. NF land is just federally owned forestland. I endorse ngokevin's more detailed sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35910185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35910185
- raspasov 3y agohttps://www.nps.gov/blri/planyourvisit/np-versus-nf.htm#:~:text=National%20parks%20focus%20on%20protecting,kinds%20of%20use%20as%20well https://www.nps.gov/blri/planyourvisit/np-versus-nf.htm#:~:t.... "National parks focus on protecting natural and historic resources "unimpaired for future generations." Park rangers work for the National Park Service (NPS) under the Department of Interior. National forests, on the other hand, emphasize not only resource preservation, but other kinds of use as well."
- CPLX 3y agoIt’s beyond reckless. But ironically it’s not even close to the worst part of what he did. The whole thing went to another level when he lifted the plane out with e helicopter. There’s essentially no possible way he was going to get away with that part the mind really boggles with what he was thinking there.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago> Intentionally crashing a plane into a national park, in a state that deals with lots of wildfires, is incredibly reckless. Given that wildfires are, as you note, common, why is that supposed to be an aggravating factor? You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire. The more frequent fires are, the less fuel there is for each fire to burn. And in the other direction, if you suppress a fire, all that means is that another fire later will be worse.
- captainkrtek 3y agoSomething something “only you can prevent wildfires”… “You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire.” What if there wasn’t a fire in the first place in this location
- pvaldes 3y agoAfter some time you would have one humid ancient forest more, that would be an extremely desirable goal in California. Also very rare because is ruined by mantras that people repeat since thousands of years
- pvaldes 3y agoThis is a common myth. Not all ecosystems are fire oriented. Is much more complex than just burn more often.