I don’t have the exact wording, or source, but my understanding is that the term national park is used by the highest legislative authority responsible for land management. In our federal system governed by the Constitution, the States are that authority, other than some exceptions where the Commonwealth has jurisdiction. The case for Australia is generally accepted. America works differently, presumably through different constitutional arrangements. So, we should not shy away from calling our national parks what they are. They are correctly called “national parks” where the relevant State has declared them to be.
Peter Morgan The conservation battle is never finally won the development battle is. eiπ + 1 = 0 On 9 Feb 2020, at 11:36 am, Geoffrey Dabb <> wrote:
I found the below link about the now slightly contentious , perhaps outdated, Smokey Bear, an emblem of the agency in the United States that manages National Parks - real national parks, that is, not like our State-managed parks that are labelled ‘National’ in imitation of those Americans. Some entertain the idea that some quite large wildfires should be allowed to burn unchecked to avoid really serious fires. I don’t believe the ‘thinking’ in Australia has gone quite that far, but we are going to hear quite a lot about beneficial controlled fires, a subject complicated by the absence of a national agency with any responsibility in this area. https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/smokey-bear-75th-birthday-legacy_n_5dc5cf48e4b0fcfb7f662fda?ri18n=true
|
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
