mrchad9 wrote:What is the difference between a national park, national forest, and national preserve? I mean technically? Are they just names and then some differences tend to go along with them, or are there actual legal differences?
mrchad9 wrote:I also think- not certain- that national monuments are pretty much the same as parks except they can be created (and presumably destroyed) by presidential order whereas parks are done by congress.
jdzaharia wrote:Not being very familiar with the rest of the areas, your proposed boundaries require some explanation. What is special about the detached area to the north? Why not connect it to the main area with the wilderness that already exists there? My map shows a trail there, too.
Alex Wood wrote:As much as I like the National Park idea in general, I don't like it because it puts areas on the worldwide agenda. National Parks like Great Basin National Park, Capitol Reef, Rocky Mountain, and Sequioa/Kings Canyon are all astounding regions that should be preserved and explored but hikers, backpackers, climbers and outdoor enthusiast in general. But with national park status comes a type of visitor that you know wouldn't be there if it wasn't a National Park. They come toting their SLR's to two viewpoints, watching the 15 minute film about the park, get an ice cream and then buy a stuff animal souvenir and leave. In my opinion, this detracts for the overall experience of a region. If the area has potential to provide awesome outdoor recreation, most enthusiast will find their way there one way or another. Ease of access and trails are great aspects about national parks, but then again, going off trail is when the true adventure begins. If it comes to protecting a certain tract of land, then yes, make it a National Park to preserve it's resources.
Bubba Suess wrote:mrchad9 wrote:What is the difference between a national park, national forest, and national preserve? I mean technically? Are they just names and then some differences tend to go along with them, or are there actual legal differences?
There are significant differences, though the lines have blurred significantly over the last few decades. National parks are intended to represent singularly notable landscapes and are devoted specifically to recreational use and landscape preservation. There is no resource use (logging, grazing, mining hunting etc.) National Monuments were originally the park farm team, developing places intended to be parks or too small to be parks. National forests can have aspects of parks, but are still allow the resource usage. National preserves were developed during the big push to establish the Alaskan parks. Native people and others still hunted there. The preserves protect the resources and land, but still allow hunting and a few other usages. The big in-between the national recreation areas, which are like national-park lite. Think Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho. Lots of recreation infrastructure and resource protection but not a park (though it was intended to be). Of course, there is also admin differences, since the NPS is in the Dept. Interior and USFS is in the Dept. Agriculture. This is a clear indication of purpose.
mrchad9 wrote:Those differences make sense. I knew about mining and logging, but hadn't known about the hunting difference in preserves.
I also think- not certain- that national monuments are pretty much the same as parks except they can be created (and presumably destroyed) by presidential order whereas parks are done by congress.
jdzaharia wrote:One thing that has confused me is that some National Monuments are administered by the National Park Service, and some are administered by the BLM. 'Splain that one to me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests