Feds to Take Over CA State Parks

[Steve Dunkel]

It's not my intention to draw any political discussion but I thought this news was interesting.

[Carol Christensen]

Interesting. So long as the parks are kept open, maybe that's the answer. But I just hope "re-disposal" doesn't mean private.

"Any parkland thus conveyed, if it is found to be unavailable to the public for parks and recreation use, may revert to federal ownership for re-disposal."

[Steve Dunkel]

Interesting. So long as the parks are kept open, maybe that's the answer. But I just hope "re-disposal" doesn't mean private.

I thought about that. Do you think that government run parks in general are preferred over private? I was thinking that a conservancy might be a good alternative.

BTW, any opinions on who does the best job managing their parks; Feds, States, etc? The best I've seen were in Oregon but I'm hardly traveled enough to offer a worthwhile opinion.

[Adrian W]

"Do you think that government run parks in general are preferred over private? I was thinking that a conservancy might be a good alternative."

Yes, to public parks over private, IMHOP.

A Conservancy sounds like good alternative, maybe as a stop gap one, but would it keep the state from loosing the federal money?

Politics, the state parks are just being used to get the public more involved or nto the problem.

[Coach George Jessup]

rarely does a Govt. at any level run something better than a private venture. Much suprised at some of the answers to folk wanting these to NOT go private but stay public instead.

IMHO private with perpetual deed restrictions keeping it available for public uses as well.

[Linda R002]

Again, just an opinion but I would hope that the parks stay public. Once they go private the price goes through the roof and outprices many of us. There is a great camping spot just out of Santa Nella that we stayed at for $8.00 a night right on the lake. If it went private it would certainly cost a lot more for such a nice campspot.

[Frederick L. Simson]

Originally posted by www.foxreno.com/news
National Park Service Regional Director Jonathan Jarvis warned in a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that all six (parks) occupy former federal land that could revert to the U.S. government if the state fails to keep the parks open.

The sites are:,,,, and Border Fields along the Mexican border.

I thought this was still federal land. There is no campground there, just neglected day-use area. Highest use is by US Border Patrol Agents.

[curtis c]

i hope these parks are not closed. or taken over by the feds. many of them are prime real estate and would likely be sold to developers. These are some of the last places in California that we have cheap access near pricey cities and beautiful coastal beaches. Many on the list are near my home in northern California. It would be a final nail in California's coffin to close these parks, the money lost will be huge. not to mention here in northern California the closed parks will quickly turn into places of elicit drug havens. I also prefer public parks over private, Cheap, Clean (usually ) and nice and primitive to keep the luxury "campers" far away in their 40' motor coaches.

[BOBSMITH]

Actually, Federal ownership might be better over state ownership. Especially if the lands involved achieve monument, wilderness, or park status. The likelihood of the Feds selling the land to developers is pretty close to zero. I think the transfer would likely take place to keep the parks from closing rather than to grab the land to sell off.

Politicians love to threaten to close parks. It makes them sound tough to their constituents and they don't generally face any criticism over it.

[curtis c]

Thats good. I don't want some of my favorite places to close.

[BOBSMITH]

rarely does a Govt. at any level run something better than a private venture. Much suprised at some of the answers to folk wanting these to NOT go private but stay public instead.

IMHO private with perpetual deed restrictions keeping it available for public uses as well.

Private parks are the absolute worst. In fact, I've seen many private parks that I'd love the government to seize and turn into public parks. Private ownership of wild and park lands almost always leads to the destruction of such lands. In the past couple of year the State of NC has nabbed two formerly private parks--Chimney Rock and Grandfather Mountain. Both of those will be much better off under state ownership than they would have been under private ownership. The former private owners were considering selling the land off to developers and turning them into high income homes for the few. Eminent domain, baby. That's the way to do it right.

[Carol Christensen]

In my experience private parks with campgrounds have smaller sites & fewer trees/shrubs so they can cram in more people. They also like to add concessions and recreational "improvements" to increase profits. These things tend to destroy the nature of the area and ruin the experience for me.

Not all the CA State Parks mentioned in the article have campgrounds, like Point Sur and Ft Ord Dunes but I still wouldn't want to see them under private ownership.