Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Delaware Water Gap NRA

I have read the people against it are worried about a larger influx of tourists if it changes to NP status. More people means less trout I guess.
 
I read all the "worries" from the folks and to me they are all non-issues. No hunting, they took care of that with making most of the land a National Preserve, which can be hunted on. Big influx of people, well anyone that has been there knows that there is nothing to bring an influx. As a matter of fact, they are removing areas that once brought people, for instance, Watergate.
But TU, what is their beef?
 
I was assuming the same beef as the "worriers"...I am just guessing here. I have no problems with NP status up there. People like to make issues out of mothing so they can "be heard". We live in a fucked up world my friend...So when you find out the beef, let me know. Thanks
 
I have a major problem with this. New Jersey is giving up land owned by the citizens of NJ to the federal government, for what reason? What are they going to do to make it better? Nothing. We are giving up ownership and management of that land for no reason other than more federalism. This should, at the very least, be put on a referendum. I can't believe people are rolling over for this. It stinks. We will all regret it. If this happens residents of this state will never have input it on it again, management of the land and resources gets more distant and out of touch, and there is not a single good reason to do this.
 
How much, and what land is NJ giving up? I read that it was optional for the State to add any state owned lands to be incorporated into existing Federal lands. Did I read that incorrectly?
 
Something like this. The Sierra Club is the primary proponent of this.

"The Sierra Club’s plans call for the recreation area to triple in size to more than 200,000 acres by connecting existing state preserve lands in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and unifying them under federal management. Some connecting private lands would be purchased as part of the upgraded designation."


I'll offer you a logical argument also as part of an answer. Why would New Jersey have to agree if the federal government already owned all of the land? If the state of New Jersey must agree for this to go forward, it would confer ownership of some type or form to the land, or some of the land, in question, or the NPS could just do what they wanted.

My point is that the implications things like this and the future plans of the entity wanting it are never clear, more often by design than not. And the farther the management of these gets from the state of NJ, the less input and weight that input has on it's uses. If the state controls that, os some of it now, why would anyone want to give that up?

Here is another favorite quote about this from the Sierra Club:
"John Kashwick, vice chairman of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, said upgrading the area to a park is a social equity issue and a way to make a national park accessible to underserved populations in New York City and Philadelphia"

That is a canard and is obvious, because it has nothing to do with the the preservation and management of that land or the other purported environmental goals. Social Equity. Right..........
 
OK, I read that quote from the Sierra club. That spot is already serving the "underserved" populations of those cities. It is just NJ doing the serving. Would the NP rangers? police? WTF do you call them now? enforce the laws or let people shit all over the park as they have been under NJ management? TU wouldn't touch the State park for steram clean-ups ehn I asked. and no one else was interested at the time. I am specifically asking about Van Campens area...
 
I look foremost at where this came from, and it is the Sierra Club and a retired NPS person that worked with them on this and others around the country like it. The last thing they care about is what you or me think or want. You can see from the original proposal what they wanted to do, which was take control of 200,000 acres which has now shrunk to 70,000 because of hard pushback. We all want land preserved and clean water, I just have watched that group push regulations that further restrict people of using and accessing the land and crazy political crap. I think many of them would rather nobody is allowed to even go on much of it if they could have their way. They don't pass the smell test for me.
 
Can you please expand on how the Sierra Club restricts people from using the land? What power do they have over the State and National Park people? I hope you can tell me, because I have no time to do any research right now. Someone needs to keep an eye on the "underserved" population because what I saw was, dirty diapers left in the creek, hot coals from grills being tossed in the creek, rednecks swimming in the best fishing hole on the creek, general garbage, bottles, cans, aluminum foil, plastic containers being tossed haphazardly around the area. When I spoke to the state park people, they stated they were not equipped to deal with the people and were quite frankly intimidated from saying anything. Will the National park people do their job or let the "underserved run rampant...?
 
Last edited:
Hi Lightenup-in fairness it is stuff I have seen in the past. What I would suggest is just go to their website and see if what they are preaching aligns with what you want and are comfortable with it. If so, go for it. It's not for me. And I believe, maybe wrongly-but I don't think so-that since they are the prime entity that is pushing this and is the genesis of it-you should pay close attention to who and what they are, because they can have an way outsized influence on what happens. It is them and a retired NPS employee that re the ones pushing this. Kinda like Sam Fried of FTX designing crypto regulations for Gensler.
 
"The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States.

Our mission is

  • To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth
  • To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources
  • To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environments
The New Jersey Chapter’s 20,000+ members are a powerful force working to defend our right to a livable environment. We are pushing back against years of discriminatory environmental policies, responsibly promoting clean energy sources like wind and solar, fighting plans for new and unnecessary fossil fuel infrastructure, and working to make it possible for everyone to experience New Jersey’s unique and beautiful natural environment."

Sounds good to me, but I also see that when people get power they tend to abuse it...that being said, this mission statement can obviously be taken too far. For example, making gas stoves illegal, signing laws that internal combustion engines for cars will be illegal before we have a viable an environmentally friendly alternative. Electric cars are not that. I know that isn't the Sierra Club, but same idea. If The Sierra Club is reasonable about their statement, and let people enjoy the wild areas, while enforcing policy against the "underserved" who litter and destroy, instead of being afraid of them, then fine. A change of some kind, imo, is needed as the NJ park service was letting people get away with pretty much anything.
 
Make it a national park all they way up to Hancock. Let tax $ from Texas and Oklahoma pay for better roads and real law enforcement to keep it all clean. When was the last time you heard about how shitty Yellowstone is?
 
Back
Top