House to consider bill encouraging private development of state parks

Agree, PW it's a mediocre sized deal. "Conservation" which is a way to save our resources is a great way to go, I'm all for it. So if we can "Hijack" another "Thread" could we put carp, tarpon, musky, gemmy, Gefilte fishing into the .....................Forum
 
I don't think people realize just how desperate this State is for revenue streams to help fund the pension burden....

Remedy, 401k like the rest of us.
When retirees receive more money than the average salary of the state there is a problem.
 
It seems like a bad idea to me. How long until the private companies are crying they are going broke and need to start charging for parking or admission? Cutting down timber? Some even worse money making scheme?
 
chubmaster wrote:
McSneek; was it Cacapon? It's a great golf course.
Click to expand...

Yep. And it in no way impeded on the rest of the park. Used to make an annual trip with a large group. We stayed in the cabins. Guys, no one in their right mind is getting in to golf course development these days. Don't think that should be a fear as it relates to this situation.
 
CRB wrote:
I don't think people realize just how desperate this State is for revenue streams to help fund the pension burden....

Remedy, 401k like the rest of us.
When retirees receive more money than the average salary of the state there is a problem.
Click to expand...

Politicians rarely fix root causes of problems. They only apply band-aids and duct tape solutions and kick the can down the road workarounds.
 
I have been to other states with parks that have more developed facilities. Some, like Pipestem in WVa, seem to pull of a good mix of developed and undeveloped park. I wouldn't want PA to go into this in a big way but I'd be open to an experiment on on a park or two. especially if the land was added to make it work.

For instance if land was added on the south shore of Nockamixon that could be developed while leaving the north shore undeveloped. How about at Bald Eagle SP where it's already somewhat developed around several sides? Grant both of these are leveraging Army Corp of Engineers lakes. But these are the types of areas it could work.

Even better might be to allow one or two new parks to be added using a mixed theme as an experiment.
 
McSneek, I agree with your sentiment. Cacapon was opened 80+ years ago, and the circumstances were completely different. I wish Pennsylvania had a park like Cacapon, but the golf business is stale and I don't want to see modern development of our Parks.

Laurel Mountain State Park is the closest thing to Cacapon, with a ski resort instead of a golf course.
 
If planned and executed right, it could work. I work in a business park north of Detroit that is somewhat green. minimum trees removed, trees replanted, our building is leads certified, hiking trails, etc. Frequently, I see deer and turkeys in our front and back area. Also, I worked for a company in New Hampshire that had a similar set up. Not all businesses are blood sucking leaches out to rape and pillage the land. Just saying don't always expect the worst.

Don
 
franklin wrote:

Even better might be to allow one or two new parks to be added using a mixed theme as an experiment.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my thought. Don't mess up the parks that are existing, but if you want to experiment with the idea, then make a few new hybrid parks. If the model tanks, hopefully the Commonwealth could unload the properties to the private sector.

Did folks have a backlash when they modernized the campgrounds and added electrical hookups? It used to be $6/night when I was a kid and our family could take a relatively cheap vacation for a whole week with fees like that. The nightly price has increased by 3-4x, but potentially opened the campgrounds up to clientele that would not have tented. What people want in a park changes over time, so it's not a bad idea to think of ways to do management differently. I don't think managing a golf course falls anywhere underneath the realm or expertise of DCNR and given the current climate for golf as a recreation sport, I think it would be a bad business idea too.

It would be interesting to see the occupancy rates for places like the Bald Eagle Inn, or the Inn at Cook Forest, or even the hotel rooms at Kings Gap Environmental Education Center. My wife isn't all that fond of tenting, but our family really enjoys the state park cabin system and utilize that maybe on average ten nights a year.
 
I don't see any good out of this period. Any time a politico mentions development of public lands it's time to run the other way. There are plenty of private entities out there to cater to those who want comfort or amusement. Leave the public lands alone!
 
Bonzoso wrote:
I don't see any good out of this period. Any time a politico mentions development of public lands it's time to run the other way. There are plenty of private entities out there to cater to those who want comfort or amusement. Leave the public lands alone!
Click to expand...

This is all I am saying. I think if done the correct way, with minimum impacts and the correct designs and uses, it could be alright to generate more money...but how often do our politicians do the right thing versus the most profitable thing when it comes to money.

I'd agree with what some others have said, and wouldn't have a problem if they added to the state park system and some of the land they bought already had a golf course or office space, but don't want new development on existing parks other than maybe updated buildings for accomodations.
 
When Theodore Roosevelt set aside National Parks and Forest Land he intended for it to be preserved and protected for all of eternity.

Natural habitat is shrinking steadily. It's time for a precedent to be set - DO NOT TOUCH AN INCH of state park or forest land, don't even think about it, not now or ever, period.

 
If you added a golf course to Bald Eagle SP would you really notice? Or the south shore of Nockamixon? Or even on part of Tyler by the community college?
 
franklin wrote:
If you added a golf course to Bald Eagle SP would you really notice? Or the south shore of Nockamixon? Or even on part of Tyler by the community college?
Click to expand...


There are plenty of golf courses, pools, amusement parks and casinos :roll: around without building more on citizen owned land set aside to preserve.

It's the forests and streams that are shrinking.

Just another scheme to make money for the pollies by being greased by the developers to get prime land cheap to make mucho bucks from publicly owned land.

Bad precedent set..........just say "no!"
 
Today they take A parts of some State Parks, tomorrow they take over all the state parks. Next we have no forests due to some awesome idea to make money and then go our streams. Once A politician gets started they wont stop. They don't care about the people or nature. Only their own pockets. Nothing good will come out of this.
 
henrydavid wrote:
When Theodore Roosevelt set aside National Parks and Forest Land he intended for it to be preserved and protected for all of eternity.

Natural habitat is shrinking steadily. It's time for a precedent to be set - DO NOT TOUCH AN INCH of state park or forest land, don't even think about it, not now or ever, period.
Click to expand...

So no roads, cabins, pit or flush toilets, visitor centers, trails, bridges, etc.? Are those included in your spectrum of not touching state park or forest land? Just trying to understand what changes is acceptable.
 
afishinado wrote:
franklin wrote:
If you added a golf course to Bald Eagle SP would you really notice? Or the south shore of Nockamixon? Or even on part of Tyler by the community college?
Click to expand...


There are plenty of golf courses, pools, amusement parks and casinos :roll: around without building more on citizen owned land set aside to preserve.

It's the forests and streams that are shrinking.

Just another scheme to make money for the pollies by being greased by the developers to get prime land cheap to make mucho bucks from publicly owned land.

Bad precedent set..........just say "no!"
Click to expand...

Bald Eagle and Nockamixon weren't set aside for people to preserve. They were flood control projects. It's nice that they have some undeveloped land but they also have developed land or are directly adjacent to developed land. Some other flood control projects with state parks are relatively undeveloped with natural value which I certainly wouldn't touch.
 
if the state government had any degree of efficiency they could maximize the income from the businesses they already have set up on state parks ie. boat and cabin rentals. however governments are so incredibly inefficient and, as already pointed out, they're giving away the store to retirees. the degree of business already on state lands seems tolerable because we've been used to it for years but it probably costs them more than they make. what if they turned these business over to private enterprise, got rid of the state employees and split the profit with the private guys? of course in my opinion there could be no additional development beyond what is there already.

Actually if i was paying good money for a vacation there are much nicer places i'd rather go (to fish, play golf, beach, mountain bike, etc) than most of the PA state parks, regardless of the degree of additional development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Forum Posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing

USGS Stream Gauges

USGS Pennsylvania Stream Gauges

Share this page

Back
Top