
The Private Islands Inside National Parks - pepys
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/swiss-cheese-national-park/405865/?single_page=true
======
tempestn
National parks are fantastic and extremely valuable. This fund has probably
provided enormous long-term value. I do take issue with these statements
though:

> The Land and Water Conservation Fund isn’t taxpayer-funded. Since 1964, the
> government has redirected money from offshore oil and gas drilling (plus a
> couple other sources of income) into the fund...

> It’s striking to see how much land has been added by the program, at no cost
> to taxpayers.

In reality, government revenue is fungible. If this fund didn't exist, that
revenue would go toward other government expenses. So saying that it's funded
by X revenue and therefore costs nothing to taxpayers is just mental
accounting.

~~~
caf
There's a word for that mental accounting: _hypothecation_.

~~~
corin_
Similar (kind of) concept but hypothecation is about collateral, not mental
accounting, unless it has a second, different meaning too?

~~~
caf
Yes, there's a second meaning in relation to taxes / revenue where a
particular tax or revenue source is notionally allocated to a particular set
of spending.

------
calinet6
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.

~~~
rcurry
"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
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.

~~~
wlesieutre
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...](http://web.archive.org/web/20000301003832/http://www.nps.gov/legacy/criteria.html))

------
jonah
I was just visiting Glacier National Park last month and the stories
surrounding private landowners inside the boundaries of the park are pretty
colorful.

[http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/territory/private-land-
insi...](http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/territory/private-land-inside-
glacier-national-park-passes-through-generations-
of/article_94751fc6-6a9c-11df-b66f-001cc4c002e0.html)

[http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-
regional/montana/g...](http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-
regional/montana/glacier-national-park-buys-acres-of-private-land-inside-
boundaries/article_4f769d99-b8ae-5af7-9859-617c23657610.html)

[http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-
article/2002/11/01/promi...](http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-
article/2002/11/01/promises-promises-promises)

[http://landrights.org/mt/glac/mcfarland.htm](http://landrights.org/mt/glac/mcfarland.htm)

For example.

~~~
nmcveity
I was in Grand Teton a few months ago. It has 110 private inholdings[1] and
our guide talked a length about them. You drive by a few of them on the road
north of Jackson Hole. Just the drive-by made me think that these must be some
of the most desirable properties in the US.

There were also interesting stories regarding the formation of the park [2].
An interesting story, for sure, but it also helps illuminate why there are
inholdings in the park in the first place.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_River_Land_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_River_Land_Company)

------
ClintEhrlich
I'm surprised (but pleased) that the federal government hasn't simply used
eminent domain to seize all of the private land within national parks.

The idealistic side of me wants to believe that it's because these people
aren't interfering with the purpose of the park(s), and so there is no reason
to force them out. But the cynical side of me says that it's more likely that
the individuals who own this land are so rich that taking action against them
would be impracticable politically.

~~~
kijin
Not everyone owns a luxury resort. Most of the landowners probably aren't that
rich. They just happened to own some rural land when the surrounding area was
declared a national park, and most rural land isn't particularly valuable.

As for the government, why waste time and money on a politically unpopular
move (eminent domain) when they have no immediate use for that land? Since
most rural land is cheap, buying might be cheaper than the cost of a potential
lawsuit.

Sooner or later, landowners will die and their descendents will want to move
somewhere else. The government, on the other hand, can afford to wait for
years, decades, even centuries.

------
WalterBright
The national parks are a success that is indescribable in its value and
enormity.

We should be doing the same with some of the coastal waters. Those areas need
to ban all fishing and motorized boats. At the least, they will serve as
reservoirs of wildlife that can repopulate the rest of the overfished areas.

~~~
linkydinkandyou
Why do you think the national parks are a great evil?

~~~
cdcarter
He thinks the opposite.

~~~
asheldon
Enormity means great evil.

~~~
sgc
That is its first definition, not its only one. It is regularly used to simply
mean immense.

~~~
linkydinkandyou
"Gay" is regularly used to mean "stupid" but we would call out someone on HN
that uses it that way.

~~~
xlm1717
This is stupid...

------
jonah
They're pretty interesting. The inholdings I've encountered are in the Los
Padres National Forest in central California. It's strange to be hiking miles
and miles into the wilderness and then come across a homestead complete with a
house, barns, fences, horses, mules, and orchards.

This one and others I've seen in the area have been privately owned for many,
many years.

~~~
chrissnell
National Forests are another story altogether. There are many, many parcels of
private land inside them. Some NFs are more private than they are public.

Here's a longtime favorite spot of mine, in the middle of a National Monument.
I was driving offroad through this area and stumbled upon this massive, 200+
acre field that had been cleared of cedar. There was a for-sale sign and they
wanted around $2,500,000 for this plot. My dream homesite if I had the cash:
[https://goo.gl/maps/5iKAg](https://goo.gl/maps/5iKAg)

~~~
jonah
That's pretty neat, though I'd probably prefer trees on a good part of mine.

------
cjslep
I was surprised this past summer to see even Cape Lookout National Seashore in
North Carolina has an occasional odd private house, for example on Long Point
Island. It's a park with almost no presence on the continental U.S. and almost
entirely on Outer Bank islands and feels like being on the edge of the world.
Kayaking past two such houses sound-side was rather unexpected!

------
desas
In the UK our approach to national parks is quite different, due to our
history and population density. Most of the land inside them is privately held
and they contain hamlets, villages, towns and lots of farmland. I'm not sure
about other parks but the Peak District contains many quarries and factories
too.

~~~
notahacker
We also have a different approach to private land though; within reason you
can walk all over private agricultural land, and there are often rights of way
through other private land which might otherwise block a walking route.

