Schwarzenegger proposes closing some California parks 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Wolverine Posted 12:21 pm
   11 Jan 2008

   I'm HappyClosing parks to humans would be great for wildlife and the parks themselves.  There are far too many people and we are everywhere.  What about giving other species and the land, air, and water a break for a change?

   Permalink

2. 

   chazzaw Posted 3:52 am
   12 Jan 2008

   Nat'l parks are importantThe more parks that are open and accessible to the public, the more people will respect nature and want to help sustain it. If all people see everyday is their urban surroundings, they can never develop an appreciation for the beauty and necessity of natural places. Besides, even if the parks are closed, there will still be a human presence in them to patrol and maintain, the public just won't be allowed in.

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 4:59 am
   12 Jan 2008

   Chazzaw Is Correct ...that humans who only see artificial urban areas have, in general, no appreciation or respect for nature.  However, that fact does not negate the one that humans need to remove themselves from vast areas of land, so that others can thrive there.  Humans are grossly overpopulated and modern ones don't interact anywhere near naturally with the environment, even when "just" camping and hiking.  Even if a tiny number of people are left to patrol and maintain the parks, which is not certain or clear, there would still be far fewer humans around to cause ecological problems.  So we'll just have to find another way to get urbanites acquainted with nature, but it would be great to have these areas closed to the public.

   Permalink

4. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 5:20 am
   12 Jan 2008

   nThey could charge admission, couldn't they?

   Permalink

5. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 5:46 am
   12 Jan 2008

   Neighborhoods have become Parks
   
   Parks are the bygone technology of the super dense urban center.
   New suburban communities have more greenery right where people live.
   Cars transport people between specialized islands of living: gym, school, mall.
   This is the 21st Century, not London, 1848.

   Permalink

6. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 7:00 am
   12 Jan 2008

   Just so long as......the term "closed" doesn't mean turn over to development (which the article seems to indicate wouldn't happen), then I can understand his position.
   Parks take alot of money to maintain, and he wants to try and secure more funds and possibly increase fees to the parks.  By threatenin' to close some down to the general public, he hopes the state government will react to the negative publicity by increasin' funds, which would be good in the long term.
   And just a minor note to chazzaw, these would be state parks, not national parks, that would be effected.  National parks get funded mostly by the federal government.  State parks are (unfortunately) more susceptible to the financial whims and difficulties of the individual states.

   Permalink

7. 

   chazzaw Posted 1:33 pm
   12 Jan 2008

   thanks for the factoid tasermonsI do agree with the fact that eliminating human presence in California parks would undoubtedly allow them to flourish more naturally, but it would still be a sore loss. I live about 5 miles from one of the proposed closures - Torrey Pines State Reserve - and would be very sad not to be able to hike in the park anymore. It provides a nearby access to nature and some beautiful views of the ocean. There's also an historic lodge within the confines of the park that's fun to visit and has a lot of great information. A lot of locals hike and bike regularly in the park in a safe environment. I would definitely agree with a closure of the park to vehicles, which I think is a good practice anywhere, but to close it down to visitors completely would be unfortunate. But, maybe if this proposal just means that people will have to pay to enter these various parks, the people that are willing to spend a little will appreciate the park more and no matter what, the health of the park will improve.

   Permalink

8. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 2:56 pm
   12 Jan 2008

   Well,......the parks slated for closure to the general public are supposed to be the ones that (proportionately) make the least amount of income and have the least amount of visitors.
   One way to have 'em reconsider the closures would be to sign petitions, and hold funding drives/fundraisers to help support the individual parks.  If enough funds can be raised to cover the maintenance costs, then perhaps some of the parks could stay open until more permanent means of funding could be established.

   Permalink

9. 

   bookerly Posted 9:43 am
   13 Jan 2008

   On The Other Hand
   
      The state could raise taxes to make up for the budget cuts in education, aid for the poor and the environment.
      The housing crisis is not likely to get better any time soon, which means falling revenues for some time to come.  You either ask for more money or do without.
      At one time polls in California showed that voters were willing to pay higher taxes for better schools, but politicians were too afraid of being called "tax raisers" to follow up.
      It's hard to see how the state will get anywhere on dealing with global warming under such circumstances.
   patrick in Beijing

   Permalink

10. 

    danallen Posted 5:56 am
    14 Jan 2008

    not soI also live 5 miles from Torrey Pines State Reserve, and I'm relieved to see that it is not on the closure list:
    http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/ImagePages/FG-RES ...

    Permalink