[HN Gopher] Group buys up large tracts of land in Romania to cre...
___________________________________________________________________
Group buys up large tracts of land in Romania to create 'European
Yellowstone'
Author : geox
Score : 230 points
Date : 2024-03-29 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (english.elpais.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (english.elpais.com)
| pfdietz wrote:
| Have you ever seen the movie Cold Mountain? The story was set in
| the Appalachians, but the movie was filmed in the mountains of
| Romania. Beautiful.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I don't think the Carpathians look much like Appalachia - I'll
| have to check the film out and see.
| jderick wrote:
| Maybe they can create one without all the traffic.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Yellowstone is an _animal watching experience_... so watch all
| the humans in their animal-ing.
| bombcar wrote:
| Just go to any other part of the park; though the other parts
| are not as "interesting".
|
| Visit the Zone of Death! Almost completely empty!
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Death_(Yellowstone)
| justrealist wrote:
| I buy this for Yosemite but let's be real, if I'm going to
| Yellowstone I'm taking my toddlers to see the geysers, not on
| a 20 mile in-and-out hike up a mountain.
| bombcar wrote:
| Of course - though there are other geysers available (most
| in Yellowstone, of course):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geysers
|
| Popular things are popular for reasons, after all.
|
| The best I've found is visit at inconvenient times; early
| or late in the season, or early in the day.
| wbl wrote:
| Was just in Yosemite: the mountains look just as pretty
| with snow and you can snowshoe from Badger Pass.
| samatman wrote:
| The Zone of Death isn't quite a classic "HN tries to compile
| the law" topic, lawyers have tried to have the boundaries
| rewritten after all.
|
| But what would happen if/when a felony is committed in the
| Zone of Death is fairly clear. A local judge would rule that
| "State and district" needs to be interpreted in the intention
| of the legislature, and can only be "State or district" when
| those differ, since "neither State nor district" isn't going
| to lead to a "fair and speedy trial".
|
| But this opens a wedge for appeal on procedural grounds,
| which any defense lawyer would be duty-bound to take, and the
| whole thing would end up in front of the Supreme Court. Which
| is a waste of everyone's time, SCOTUS should be creating
| meaningful precedent with its limited time, not futzing
| around with the one spot on the map where the Sixth Amendment
| is ambiguous.
|
| What wouldn't happen is the perpetrator going scot-free.
| That's not how it works.
|
| It's a cool name though. Very in keeping with the West in
| general.
| hollywood_court wrote:
| This reminds of "Free Fire" by C.J. Box.
| bombcar wrote:
| One of the novels written to try to get Congress to fix
| the technical issue.
| bombcar wrote:
| The only case that gets close to it was resolved (in part)
| by the perpetrator taking a plea deal that included the
| guarantee that they would NOT petition for redress.
| hnbad wrote:
| Given how the US legal system works in practice, a plea
| deal is also the most likely outcome for any other
| felony. Playing for time isn't really a good idea when
| that translates to extremely long jail times while
| waiting for a trial you're not going to win anyway.
| someguydave wrote:
| Yeah it always seemed unlikely that "the law does not
| apply" conclusion makes sense there when judges regularly
| "nope" less solid procedural arguments out of their courts.
| burkaman wrote:
| I haven't been to Yellowstone so maybe this doesn't make sense,
| but is there a reason they couldn't implement the same system
| as Zion? During most of the year the main road in Zion is
| closed to private cars, and everyone uses the (very good)
| shuttle system, or bikes or walks.
| sofixa wrote:
| I did a trip through a bunch of national parks recently, and
| was thinking why the hell isn't there some sort of organised
| transit - be it shuttle busses, or trains for the capacity.
| The amount of space wasted for parking _in a nature preserve_
| was crazy, not to mention all the infrastructure for the
| traffic jams.
|
| Then went to Grand Canyon and Zion and saw they have shuttles
| which are sometimes exclusive (if the shuttle is operating
| you cannot take the road), which makes so much more sense,
| and even allows for more flexibility (you can go on a hike
| which is out, and not have to walk back the same way but hop
| on the shuttle bus).
| burkaman wrote:
| I don't know why it isn't more common, especially when most
| parks have a relatively short main road/loop that 90% of
| visitors never leave. Yosemite for example has a great bus
| system that goes everywhere you need, except that they
| don't block private cars so the buses constantly get stuck
| in traffic. I think the exclusive shuttles at Zion are
| relatively new, so maybe it will spread to more parks in
| the future.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Zions shuttle system frankly blows. I went last week and had
| to wait 2 hours in line for it. Meanwhile you go to the kobol
| canyon area and I did not see a single person all day.
| thousandautumns wrote:
| Must vary widely, because I went in August and there was 0
| line at all. A lot of places are on Spring Break in the US
| right now, so that may contribute to your experience.
| jhj wrote:
| I live near Yellowstone in Wyoming. The park is a lot more
| massive than Zion, usually involving multi-hour drives to get
| around, and there are multiple roads in the park, all of
| which don't necessarily see the same levels of traffic.
|
| There also tend to not be as many people driving around
| slowly gawking on the roads themselves (unlike Zion or
| Yosemite, say), since most of the park doesn't have crazy
| vista views, it's mainly a high altitude, flat-ish volcanic
| plateau in the middle. The specific sites along the roads
| will have the traffic mostly.
| dendrite9 wrote:
| I think Yellowstone is too big for that compared to places
| like Zion and Yosemite which have relatively small valleys
| where people concentrate. I'm not sure shuttles to see Tioga
| Pass would make sense in the same way they do in the valley.
| marssaxman wrote:
| There is in fact a high country shuttle operating in the
| Tuolomne Meadows area. It makes four stops per day at Tioga
| Pass:
|
| https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/tmbus.htm
| sib wrote:
| Zion (the parts people see, at least), is tiny by comparison.
|
| Also, as a photographer, the shuttle system is pretty awful.
| It's no longer easily possible to do get out to where you
| want to be well before dawn.
| malermeister wrote:
| Transylvania is absolutely stunning. There's a trek called the
| Via Transilvanica that's on my bucket list:
| https://youtu.be/5gpbns_jqRY?si=TxGZXN6rCH2IQOoM
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Ahh, bollocks (sort of)! Romania...one of the last cool places on
| earth that isn't full of idiots. Oh well, gotta go find somewhere
| else again. *packs of dogs can be a pain....especially whilst
| cycling.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Are you...upset at nature preservation?
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| No, US-American tourists
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| As a frequent reader of r/europe, Americans have FAR from
| the worst reputation for tourists within Europe, it's not
| even close.
|
| At least among larger countries, they might actually have a
| better than average rep.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| Better than who out of curiosity?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Probably british youths on holiday, they are pretty
| notorious. This demographic of american is just as bad
| but can only afford to get belligerent domestically in
| florida or south padre isle during spring break, much
| less afford a flight to europe.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Exactly, shitty American tourists are staying within
| America or going to Mexico/nearby Latam countries.
| kelnos wrote:
| Right, and this is why I believe American tourists (in
| general) have a much worse reputation in Latin America
| than in Europe.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| The ones that get slammed the most that I've seen are
| probably the Brits, Russians, and Chinese. Apparently
| Brits are notorious for getting super drunk and fucking
| around. Russians are known as being really entitled and
| rude (and sometimes aggressive IIRC), and there's Chinese
| tourists also being rude and ignoring rules in huge
| packs.
|
| The stereotype of American tourists is that they're
| ignorant and loud (and bad dressers), but also friendly,
| curious, great tippers (which makes Americans very
| popular among hospitality workers), and mostly rule-
| abiding. Though the bad ones are often REALLY bad.
|
| Best reputation is the Japanese. Almost everyone says
| they're super polite and respectful.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| True, and Americans tend to stick to tourist traps, you
| don't find at many of them at random Slovenian lakes.
|
| A young group of brits abroad can be found anywhere and
| everywhere
| bombcar wrote:
| > great tippers
|
| This covers a multitude of sins, because the most likely
| person to be annoyed by tourists are the workers who
| interact with them.
| hnbad wrote:
| The stereotypes around Russian and Chinese tourists have
| a lot to do with relative wealth, I think. If you're from
| Russia or China and you decide to go to Europe (or in the
| case of Russia more specifically Western Europe) for a
| vacation, you are likely fairly well-off in your home
| country even if your relative wealth doesn't necessarily
| translate to the country you're visting. This comes with
| a certain sense of entitlement typical of "new money".
|
| The part about Russians being more aggressive (I'd even
| say more likely to credibly threaten violence) might have
| to do with the level of corruption in Russia making it
| more likely for you to get away with even violent crime
| if you can afford it. At least this would match what
| Russian ex-pats I've met say about their home country.
|
| I'd say American tourists in Europe are generally
| relatively well-behaved because they're conscious of how
| they might be perceived (remember the travel advice to
| pretend you're Canadian?) but e.g. in Germany they're
| often known for being noisy, which is generally seen as
| rude. I've heard a lot of complaints about American
| tourists "talking too loud" even in regular conversation,
| and the heavy use and expectation of "social smiling"
| (i.e. feigning friendliness as courtesy) can be extremely
| off-putting.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'd love to see the research behind that. I don't know
| where Americans rank, but I wouldn't guess we rank high.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| From what I've read: American tourists in Latin America
| fucking suck, but the ones that go to Europe or Japan are
| largely fine.
|
| Anyway, it's easy to find threads about tourists on
| r/europe or r/askeurope: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEuro
| pe/comments/6zq6lu/which_for...
| alistairSH wrote:
| Personal experience from travel in Iceland, Peru, UK
| (mostly Scotland), and Italy. Obviously generalizations
| and anecdotes, so take with a grain of salt.
|
| Americans often stand out. Look more "touristy" - wearing
| shorts, goofy bags, unstylish footwear, etc. Most likely
| to ask "what do you do?" (for a living). Not rude, but
| can be more boisterous/social than some others.
|
| Chinese - tend to travel in large tour groups. Frequently
| dressed poorly for conditions (Jimmy Choo shoes while
| touring Icelandic waterfalls). Disembark from buses and
| race to get a selfie before the rest of the crowd. Not
| purposefully rude, but the sheer number/concentration of
| them makes them stand out.
|
| Europeans are generally don't stand out. Usually dress
| the least obviously touristy. Usually happy to make chit-
| chat, but less likely to initiate than US-Americans.
|
| And stupid people come from all backgrounds. While in
| Iceland, there was an Asian fellow who insisted on
| sticking his hand into the geysers, despite warning signs
| in ~8 languages. Same trip, some German teens ran out
| onto an icy lake, despite signs warning of falling
| through the ice. And at the big waterfalls, there were
| people from all races/nationalities jumping fences to get
| better shots for their Insta feeds.
|
| My personal pet peeve is people who litter or otherwise
| ruin natural beauty. And again, they come in all shapes,
| sizes, colors, creeds, etc.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Americans often stand out. Look more "touristy" -
| wearing shorts, goofy bags, unstylish footwear, etc._
|
| Interesting. When I travel, I usually dress the same out
| in public as I do at home (well, modified for the local
| weather, anyway). Usually that means jeans, t-shirt, and
| possibly a hoodie and/or jacket if the weather is cooler,
| with fairly plain sneakers or perhaps a nicer shoe,
| depending on how much walking I expect to be doing. I
| tend to not carry a bag with me unless I'm going to or
| from an airport or train station. If I do need a bag,
| it'll usually be a backpack or shoulder bag, something I
| would use at home for a similar purpose.
|
| I do expect that there are a lot of us who inexplicably
| dress differently when traveling, but I wonder if your
| assessment of American tourist dress as "goofy" or
| "unstylish" is just that the styles that are popular over
| here aren't popular where you live and where you've
| traveled and seen American tourists.
|
| I really don't get why some people drastically change
| their wardrobe when traveling, though.
| AcedCapes wrote:
| It would be interesting to see some kind of data on this.
|
| I have a mutual friend that does tours in Europe. This
| was his and his worker's sentiments as well. Talking with
| them we thought there may be a lot of self-filtering
| going on in his situation. He does historical tours and
| those seem to attract a less rowdy group.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| I don't dislike US-Americans. Very _far_ from it.
|
| Most US-Americans that I have encountered (both abroad
| and stateside) are a lovely bunch, great tippers, and
| have a distinct happy-go-lucky attitude that is hard to
| find anywhere else.
|
| The crux: When a place gets popular with a certain
| tourist demographic (through Instagram, Tiktok, whatever)
| there is an inflection point where the place / experience
| starts to become commodified, expensive, and bad.
|
| Similar to an influx of large amounts VC money in that
| niche community app that you used to love.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| I like how the first thing you mention liking is
| Americans giving you extra money.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Why 'me'?
| kelnos wrote:
| > _US-Americans_
|
| You can just say "Americans". It's a well-recognized
| demonym, everyone knows what it means, and no one is
| going to be confused and think you mean someone from one
| of the many other countries in North or South America.
|
| And it's not some sort of "injustice" that the US "stole"
| the term American to refer to solely themselves. It's
| just... not a big deal.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| _> It 's just... not a big deal._
|
| Says the thief? ;)
| keybored wrote:
| If the US has such awesome national parks (and I believe
| it) then they don't have to fly across an ocean to get that
| _Yellowstone_ experience.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| The people are extremely welcome, yet the market forces
| that come with mass tourism are often very destructive.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Do you get a lot in Romania? I would suspect there's about
| 15 other more popular countries in Europe for Americans to
| visit... The UK, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal,
| Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Czechia, Greece, Turkey,
| Netherlands, etc are all more popular to go to as an
| American than Romania.
| kelnos wrote:
| The implication was that a new big national park would
| attract annoying tourists. (A different poster suggested
| American, but there are certainly annoying tourists from
| many places in the world.)
| xemra wrote:
| Wonder if they have considered albania. From what I have seen it
| has an amazing landscape and imo better t
| budududuroiu wrote:
| Visiting Romania :) Living in Romania :(
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| I beg to differ
| ethbr1 wrote:
| What are the pros and cons?
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Pro: Amazing nature, you can do whatever you want,
| entrepreneurial spirit, great Gbit (!!!) WiFi everywhere,
| lovely people
|
| Con: Bad streets, derelict villages, corrupt politics, low
| trust
| budududuroiu wrote:
| Pros (imo): Daily essentials not-yet commodified, can
| access amazing produce for cheap. Geopolitically stable,
| crime is mostly petty or white collar. Nature.
|
| Cons (imo): no progressive tax rate, effective ~50% tax on
| income unless you want to do tax evasion (Romanian past-
| time), very likely to die on the road as public transit is
| in a state of disrepair, choice of healthcare between
| expensive and inefficient private sector, or a public
| sector where you have to bribe your way to not contracting
| infections while getting treated for something else.
| xandrius wrote:
| Cons (imo) definitely outweigh the pros though.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> expensive and inefficient private sector_
|
| Interesting, I found the private sector to be better
| there than in western Europe. Much quicker, easier and
| cheaper to get a cehck-up, MRI, CT scan, physiotherapy,
| dentistry, etc.
|
| The public system though, yeah, it's rough.
| huytersd wrote:
| Interesting. I guess the impression that a lot of people
| have of Romania is that it is riddled with violent crime.
| bad_user wrote:
| Not having a progressive tax is a feature, not a bug. If
| a progressive tax would be introduced, I'd either start
| avoid taxes in any way possible, or I'd seriously think
| about emigration. Because yes, the rich always finds ways
| to evade taxes, while the middle class gets screwed. And
| I'm also not interested in subsidizing the poor.
|
| The total taxes you pay on a regular work contract are
| around 41.5%, and much of that goes to pensions. Many
| people in the gig economy, that haven't contributed, will
| wake up one day to a harsh reality.
|
| The public healthcare system mostly works, even if
| underfunded and with problems. In Bucharest we benefited
| from treatments and expertise that would be very
| expensive out of pocket or difficult to find. Private
| healthcare is mostly a hoax, much like private education
| (in this country), stop paying for it.
|
| Bribery is much less common. Still happens, but you can
| also get in trouble.
|
| We barely have any homeless people, all the shopping
| malls are full, and home ownership is very high. Official
| stats can be misleading.
|
| Our politicians are incompetents, that's true, but we are
| in NATO, we are in EU, we are a regional power, and we
| avoided far-right strongmen or communists thus far.
|
| Many Romanians have emigrated, lifting the economy
| actually, and also many came back. Since the shock of the
| 90s, the country's economy became really fluid.
|
| Unfortunately, Romanians are some of the most pessimist
| people.
| mhitza wrote:
| > The total taxes you pay on a regular work contract are
| around 41.5%, and much of that goes to pensions.
|
| With VAT on each purchase (unless you're not living month
| to month, and are able to set aside some of your income)
| the effective taxation is closer to 60%.
|
| I don't want to go into the topic of why I think
| progressive taxation is better than what we have now, but
| I wanted to raise this point because many stop at the tax
| rate on their salary.
| budududuroiu wrote:
| Pensions in Romania are a joke, ask your relatives that
| recently retired.
|
| Can I remind you that out of the immediate survivors of
| the Colectiv fire, 70% of them contracted hospital-
| acquired infections? (Which were conveniently overlooked
| by the coroner) Private healthcare is a hoax that most
| employers can and will redirect their contribution to,
| further increasing the hole in which the public sector is
| getting into.
|
| Bribery isn't less common, it's just becoming
| increasingly inaccessible to common folk. Police is still
| in cahoots with "businessmen". Health and safety
| authorisations are still handed out like hotcakes to the
| ones in the inner circle. -> https://www.romania-
| insider.com/investigations-and-dismissal...
|
| Our malls are full but industry is dead. We're a consumer
| economy
|
| We're part of NATO, oh so proud of it, yet barely scrape
| together an impotent 1.6% of GDP for our defence. Our
| navy is in such bad state that in NATO joint exercises
| foreign soldiers training with us thought our ship was on
| fire (it wasn't, just badly maintained and burning with a
| thick black smoke).
|
| I also find it funny that you say we "avoided communists"
| and "home ownership is high" in the same breath. I wonder
| why home ownership is that high, and what policy lead to
| that.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> Can I remind you that out of the immediate survivors
| of the Colectiv fire, 70% of them contracted hospital-
| acquired infections_
|
| That is indeed terrible, but as another who emigrated
| west I realized, malpraxis is rampant here as well, it
| just doesn't make it into the news as much. Incompetent
| doctors and medical whoopsies can kill me here as well
| even if the system is overall better.
| bad_user wrote:
| > _Pensions in Romania are a joke, ask your relatives
| that recently retired._
|
| Both my parents have decent pensions. It's directly
| proportional to your contributions. Small lifetime
| contributions, small pension. Nowadays, a part of those
| contribution also gets invested, and my current net worth
| would actually allow me to retire right now.
|
| > _Bribery isn't less common, it's just becoming
| increasingly inaccessible to common folk._
|
| Bribery being less accessible literally means that it's
| less common, but maybe we aren't speaking the same
| language. Local police is more corruptible, but try
| bribing DIICOT, see how well that works out. Also, in
| general, there have been many cases in which people got
| caught taking bribes, so, depending on who you try
| bribing, you can be kicked out of the room, or contacted
| by authorities.
|
| Colective was a tragedy. But it was also a hyped news
| story by all tabloids. My son suffered from Lylle's
| syndrome when he was 1-year-old, also treated at one of
| the hospitals where they treat burned victims. He was
| also born premature at 30 weeks with 1.2 Kg. My mother
| was operated for acute pancreatitis, which at that time
| had a 70% death rate. I have an aunt that's a cancer
| survivor. Both me and my father had several surgeries in
| our public hospitals. And I don't practice bribery. Take
| from this what you will.
|
| > " _Our malls are full but industry is dead. We're a
| consumer economy_ "
|
| Yet we are producing and exporting more than ever, with
| the GDP going through the roof, adjusted for inflation.
| What in the world is a " _consumer economy_ " anyway?
|
| I hear these same words from my father, a common myth,
| but he has the excuse that he was a communist party
| member. What's yours?
|
| > " _I also find it funny that you say we "avoided
| communists" and "home ownership is high" in the same
| breath. I wonder why home ownership is that high, and
| what policy lead to that._ "
|
| During communism home ownership was nearly zero, as
| everything was owned by the state. And nowadays Bucharest
| is in the top cities when it comes to affordable housing
| when reported to the number of average salaries needed to
| buy a home. City planning is poor, nearly non-existent in
| places, but Romania builds plenty of housing, which makes
| it affordable, with some exceptions.
|
| Do you still live in Romania? And if you do, do you know
| the country you're living in? :-)
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > I wonder why home ownership is that high, and what
| policy lead to that.
|
| Post-Soviet privatization?
|
| If I had to guess...
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| Romania was never soviet.
| gniv wrote:
| It really depends on your personality. If you're used to
| the niceties of the west, you may be frustrated by many
| things in Romania. The infrastructure is still behind. If
| you're more laid back you adapt and learn to enjoy. Being
| healthy helps a lot.
| alecsm wrote:
| Living in Romania is not that bad if you make enough money but
| living there with the median income is complicated that's why
| many of us are living abroad.
|
| Quality of life has increased dramatically since the 90s
| though.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| Romanians complain more about their country than people from
| Africa, Syria or Afganistan. Most pessimistic bunch ever.
|
| Not that life in Romania is excelent, but the Romanians who
| complain a lot only look at Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, etc
| and forget most of the world has it vastly worse than them.
| jterrys wrote:
| The latter two don't really have the internet to complain
| about their country though
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| I'm talking about in-person complaining as I met a lot of
| people from those countries and none complained as much as
| Romanians. And assuming those people don't have internet is
| just silly.
| Perz1val wrote:
| Post communism
| cozzyd wrote:
| I think you can stop your sentence after the third word.
| (source: am Romanian)
| kabes wrote:
| I have some Romanian colleagues and they're all quite
| patriotic and often talk about how great Romania is.
| 6502nerdface wrote:
| It's noticeably improving, though! Over the last 10 years or
| so, both their GDP per capita and household income per capita
| have roughly doubled. Now when I visit medium-sized cities
| there I am amazed to find latte-slinging coffee shops and craft
| beer-pouring gastropubs that would look right at home in
| Brooklyn.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> Now when I visit medium-sized cities there I am amazed to
| find latte-slinging coffee shops and craft beer-pouring
| gastropubs that would look right at home in Brooklyn._
|
| True, but that's not an accurate measurement of the quality
| of life or income of the average Romanian. They're are just
| businesses serving an afluent urban clientele (mostly
| corporate/IT workers and other high income people) that's
| like what 10% of the national population or something but
| overly represented in much higher proportions in the big
| cities.
|
| Go to the smaller cities or villages and you'll see a
| different picture: lots of people with precarious education,
| unemployed or making minimum wage in dead-end jobs and living
| paycheck to paycheck unable to afford to fix broken teeth,
| hospitals and schools falling apart, etc.
|
| The country's still much better to live in (especially in the
| 5 big cities) than what the average of the planet has to deal
| with, but there's a reason why statistically it's at the
| bottom of the EU charts. Tech workers sipping gourmet coffee
| in the big cities are the exception but don't represent the
| norm.
| greenpresident wrote:
| I randomly know some people who did research on the relationships
| between the stakeholders that are involved here. See:
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08941920.2021.1...
|
| I find the whole thing facinating.
| UberFly wrote:
| Private money is what kicked off the National Parks system in the
| US. Glad to see this happening anywhere. I hope it stays in the
| public trust though.
| bavent wrote:
| Really? I thought it was Terry Roosevelt. Do you have a source?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| It was Teddy. Via executive orders.
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-theodore-
| roosevel...
| bombcar wrote:
| He came way later - it began much earlier: https://en.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Park_S...
|
| You have to look at the history of each individual park,
| some started out as government land and remained such,
| others were private resort islands, etc.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I suppose it comes down to your definition of kicked off.
| There were only a few lands protected as national parks
| before Teddy arrived and protected more land than any
| other individual has ever done.
| jameshart wrote:
| But often with the support or lobbying of private
| interests. Generous souls like Lorrin A. Thurston of
| Hawaii, who would like you to remember him as the newspaper
| publishing philanthropist who used his wealth to promote
| his interest in volcanology and persuade Roosevelt to
| create the Volcanoes National Park. Which is true - in
| 1916, the park was established by Woodrow Wilson (helped by
| Teddy's endorsement).
|
| But the same kind of private interest taking an interest in
| the affairs of state has its dark side too: Thurston also
| was the author of the "bayonet constitution" which
| undermined the Kingdom of Hawaii's sovereignty, and formed
| the 'committee of safety' which enlisted the US Marines in
| a coup that overthrew Queen Lili`uokalani, and installed
| Sanford Dole (the fruit guy) as and President, and
| ultimately brought about the annexation of Hawaii.
| underlipton wrote:
| I don't know the history, but if it's anything like the
| public libraries here (and several other institutions), a lot
| of it would have been bankrolled by robber barons trying to
| secure their legacy and avoid taxation. In other words,
| guilting rich people and threatening nationalization of their
| wealth works.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > a lot of it would have been bankrolled by robber barons
| trying to secure their legacy and avoid taxation.
|
| Do you have a cite for that?
|
| BTW, donating to charity is tax deductible. For example, if
| I donate $100 to charity, I can deduct $100 from my taxable
| income.
|
| My choices:
|
| 1. paying taxes: I pay $20 2. donating to charity and
| deducting it from my income: I pay $100
|
| I'm $80 worse off financially by donating to charity rather
| than paying taxes. As a tax avoidance scheme, donating to
| charity doesn't deliver.
| hnbad wrote:
| That's a very naive understanding of how charities work.
| You don't donate to _a_ charity, you donate to _your_
| charity.
|
| Now, obviously your charity still needs to act as a
| charity so that money can't go back in your pocket but
| there are plenty of things the charity might spend it on
| that are in your financial interest and because you
| founded it, you likely have sufficient influence over it
| to make that happen even if you don't formally personally
| make its decisions.
|
| Also, if you donate $100 in stock to a charity, that
| deducts your taxable income by $100 but it doesn't cost
| you $100 in income. Arguably a more egregious example for
| this is high art where you can create and destroy value
| through auctions (i.e. the value of your donation may be
| massively inflated compared to what you paid for it).
| WalterBright wrote:
| > there are plenty of things the charity might spend it
| on that are in your financial interest
|
| How do you think Carnegie's libraries across the country
| benefited Carnegie financially?
| underlipton wrote:
| I might have overstated how common it was, after a bit of
| Googling.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04
| /09...
|
| https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
| art...
| sib wrote:
| Yellowstone National Park - 1872
|
| Sequoia National Park - 1890
|
| Yosemite National Park - 1890
|
| Teddy Roosevelt - president from 1901 - 1909
| bombcar wrote:
| Roosevelt's Time Machine was well known.
| shafyy wrote:
| There are already tons of national parks in Europe, it's not
| like this is the first one.
| jesprenj wrote:
| > European Yellowstone
|
| That makes it sound like national parks were invented in the USA
| and there are no national parks in Europe ... So when a new store
| opens outside of the US it's called European Wallmart?
| azulster wrote:
| yellowstone is literally called the first national park in the
| world so...yes?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| To cite sources:
|
| >> _On March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed The
| Act of Dedication law that created Yellowstone National
| Park._ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_P
| ark#Hi...
|
| I believe the Yellowstone claim is based on the fact that it
| was the first park explicitly declared for the benefit of the
| public by a federal government.
| bombcar wrote:
| There are national park-like things that existed before,
| but they were often technically owned by the King or
| somesuch.
| jffry wrote:
| It's a direct quote from somebody who donated to the project,
| found in the first paragraph of the article:
|
| > The aim is to create "the European Yellowstone," as the
| largest donor of the initiative described it
| colechristensen wrote:
| National parks were invented by the USA and Yellowstone was the
| first one in 1872. It is also very large.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Yellowstone is massive, but only 4% the size of Romania.
|
| https://mapfight.xyz/map/ro/#yellowstone
| jkaptur wrote:
| The article says it's the term used by the largest donor to the
| project.
| keiferski wrote:
| Of particular note is that there are a ton of bears in Romania,
| much more than in other European countries, with something like
| 60% of all European brown bears. [0] Glad to see that someone is
| attempting to preserve this.
|
| 0. https://www.mossy.earth/rewilding-knowledge/romanias-
| brown-b...
| nottorp wrote:
| There are more bears than the land can sustain. Go to any
| tourist (or non tourist) spot in the mountains and they'll come
| down and steal from your garbage _in town_.
|
| Look up Brasov. It's a reasonably large touristic town and it
| regularly gets bears at the periphery.
| keiferski wrote:
| I don't know much about the particular situation, but isn't
| it likely that is just caused from human settlements
| expanding?
| pfdietz wrote:
| Bears are common in western US mountain towns. The solution
| is being careful with garbage, including use of bear-proof
| containers.
|
| I'm not sure this is a sign of "too many" so much as that the
| bear population is healthy, meaning it's up against the
| carrying capacity, as a healthy population should be.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| My mom lived in Paradise, CA. There was at least one black
| bear who roamed the neighborhood because it took a dump in
| the middle of her lawn to proclaim ownership of their land.
| According to neighbors, it didn't get into garbage
| containers there. There were red foxes, opossum, deer, and
| corvids to do that.
|
| In parts of rural, wooded America, you don't venture
| outside in situations where you could surprise a large
| animal without some sort of stabby weapon or firearm if you
| value your life (if they decide to charge) and that of
| critters (to try to scare them off).
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> they 'll come down and steal from your garbage in town_
|
| You mean their home? Bears were there before humans settled
| and built towns.
|
| IMHO can't really complain about bears wehen you're the on
| encroaching on their turf, not the other way around.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I never understand these arguments.
|
| You mean mastodon home,surely? They were there before
| bears! How about pterodactyl?
|
| How far do we go / where do we arbitrarily draw the line?
|
| I am all for ecology, preservation, being in sync with
| nature etc, but I find fundamentally flawed and dishonest
| arguments like these don't contribute to the cause. Over
| billions of years, every single species alive displaced
| some other species, multiple times over.
| generic92034 wrote:
| > Over billions of years, every single species alive
| displaced some other species, multiple times over.
|
| I can mostly agree with the rest of your points. But how
| many species are killing off thousands of other species
| in such a short time frame?
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| And that's absolutely an argument I will support! and
| very much do care about.
|
| It's just a fundamentally _different_ argument to "Well
| _clearly_ , arbitrary species A here at some arbitrary
| time B is the natural and morally right owner of these
| lands".
| generic92034 wrote:
| As long as this is not seen as justification to displace
| any other species just when we feel like it (because they
| probably displaced some other species), I can agree.
| digging wrote:
| Were bears completely extinct in the area and
| reintroduced from elsewhere? If not, there's no arbitrary
| line being drawn whatsoever. It's _currently_ bear
| habitat.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _" Well clearly, arbitrary species A here at some
| arbitrary time B is the natural and morally right owner
| of these lands"._
|
| Which is not what the person you replied to said. I read
| it as "bears were there first, don't be surprised when
| you move there and find bears".
| mlyle wrote:
| I think he's just saying that if you move in somewhere
| where there were lots of bears.... don't be surprised
| when bears show up and are annoying.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| This. I just said humans should not complain about bear
| issues when they settle in bear territory. Don't know why
| others need to get their knickers in a twist.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The "surprise" comes from the fact this was historically
| a solved problem. People simply killed the annoying
| predators and nuisance animals.
|
| We are in a transition state of cultural values and
| expectations. People expect to being free from annoyances
| because that was the norm for hundreds if not thousands
| of years. The rules have changed around how we treat
| animals, but people have not internalized all the
| resulting impacts.
|
| For what it is worth, there are still lots of places,
| even in the US, where the old solution is still in
| effect.
| rsdfdfdfdf wrote:
| Historically there were much less humans, and more
| wilderness for animals. Applying the historical solutions
| in modern day would mean extinction of species in many
| places.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| That may be true for some species, and not others.
| However, I was not attempting an appeal to history, just
| providing explanation. After all, historically, most
| people did not care about the extinction of many species,
| or even thought their eradication was a benefit.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| While I'd probably vote to shoo the bears, I don't think
| the argument is particularly hard to understand.
|
| Like the folks who build their house at the bottom of a
| flood plain or fire area and then demand help for ensuing
| disaster.
| keiferski wrote:
| The point of this argument is to compare humans with
| animals they replaced, not animals with other animals,
| because the assumption is that we, as humans, are
| ethically capable of engaging with this kind of question
| in the first place. I don't think anyone is arguing that
| "the land belongs to the bears and no one else."
| dylan604 wrote:
| > where do we arbitrarily draw the line?
|
| clearly, a line is if both species are alive at the same
| time and competing for resources. we don't have do be
| moronic/sophomoric about the discourse.
| larrik wrote:
| I live in a regular town in Connecticut and I have bears
| attack my garbage regularly, so I'm not convinced that's all
| that weird.
| miahi wrote:
| Unfortunately, Romanian bears are brown bears (Ursus
| arctos), not black (Ursus americanus). They are not easily
| scared by people and encounters with them can be very
| dangerous.
| bwanab wrote:
| I understand the difference, but if you find yourself
| inadvertently getting between a black bear and her cubs,
| I think you'll find they can be very dangerous, also.
| rsdfdfdfdf wrote:
| I don't think there's a much difference in behavior
| between the species, probably Romania just has more bears
| living close to humans, which makes them less afraid and
| conflicts more likely. For the record, my home country
| (Finland) has about 2000 brown bears, and they have
| killed only a single person during past 100 years. Most
| of the time they try their best to avoid humans, and the
| majority of people living in the countryside have never
| even seen one.
| lukan wrote:
| Romania has more than 2 persons killed each year and many
| more injured.
|
| "Between 2016 and 2021, there were 154 bear attacks on
| humans, resulting in 158 injuries and 14 deaths"
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-bear-attacks-on-
| huma...
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Just for comparison, how many persons are killed by
| humans each year?
| BodyCulture wrote:
| There you have it! Romanian people taste much better than
| Finish!
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> Romania has more than 2 persons killed each year and
| many more injured. _
|
| Statistics can be misleading without context. Especially
| when you see dumbfucks in Romania film themselves pulling
| over and get out of their cars so they can get close to
| bears to feed them biscuits and pet them as if they're
| stray cats/dogs. How can you blame the bears then? At
| that point such deaths are just natural selection at
| work.
|
| At least in the past when we were cavemen, some member of
| the tribe would get mauled by a wild animal and the rest
| of the tribe would take note not to fuck around with
| those animals and pass that knowledge to their offspring,
| but somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost commons
| sense and personal responsibility and if some idiot
| engages with a wild animal and gets killed it's now the
| animal's fault for being "dangerous" and not his fault
| for being a dumbass who's now been thankfully erased from
| the gene pool.
| pvaldes wrote:
| I bet that a fair quote of them were hunting bears
| lupusreal wrote:
| Eurasian brown bears and North American brown bears are
| ostensibly the same species of bear, but you'd never
| guess it from the attack statistics. Eurasian brown bears
| are considerably less likely to attack than their North
| American counterparts. I think the Eurasian brown bears
| have been subjected to more evolutionary pressure to be
| more docile (from people hunting down the aggressive ones
| more comprehensively and probably for longer than in
| America.)
| larrik wrote:
| Unlike the other commenters, I do agree that IS
| different. The black bears here are not on the same level
| as a grizzly or kodiak or other brown bear. The ones here
| ARE becoming a bit more aggressive for unknown reasons,
| though.
| rickydroll wrote:
| Speaking of bears, a bunch of libertarians took over Grafton
| NH, and the bears won.
|
| https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-
| state-...
| exe34 wrote:
| Are you sure it's the bears that are invading or is it the
| monkeys with their stick technology?
| vikramkr wrote:
| The land can sustain them fine, that's just what it's like to
| live near bears. Tons of places are like that - you get used
| to it lol don't worry. There was a Tom Scott video on work
| folks are doing to develop bear resistant trash cans and the
| like: https://youtu.be/Xn_O2li_jpk?si=BUPxDOxXaOJdxC_v
|
| It's funny (and sad) that wildlife has been so thoroughly
| decimated in parts of the world that people are so shocked by
| such thoroughly mundane things but it's an important reminder
| that ecological restoration work must involve working with
| locals and understanding the cultural forces at play to make
| these projects a success. Including making sure that
| externalities are accounted for and that the people in the
| area share in the benefits (economic like tourism, cultural
| like restoration of culturally significant animals and
| ecosystems, environmental depending on the intrinsic value
| people give to preserving the environment, etc). I'm seeing
| it in the replies to this thread - it's easy for folks in
| places like the American West to be dismissive of concerns
| like these but the idea that the wild is worth preserving is
| frankly a relatively recent one. If you just assume that
| obviously everyone values bears being alive while the other
| person just assumes that everyone values eliminating or at
| least suppressing bear populations to never have to deal with
| them everyone is just going to walk away assuming the other
| person is crazy
| ReleaseCandidat wrote:
| > much more than in other European countries, with something
| like 60% of all European brown bears.
|
| There are about 5000 (even it it were 10,000) in Romania, which
| is way less than 50% of the european population.
| https://www.euronatur.org/en/what-we-do/bear-wolf-lynx/bears...
| keiferski wrote:
| I don't see any numbers in the link you provided.
|
| Edit: I looked again and I think you're referring to the
| image. It looks like the link I referenced was excluding
| Russia. Romania does seem to have 60% of bears everywhere in
| Europe west of Russia and parts of Finland and Estonia.
| ReleaseCandidat wrote:
| Romania has about 5000, Slovakia and Ukraine about 2000
| about 4000 from Ex-Yugoslavia to Greece and 2500 in
| Scandinavia. So, still way less than 50%.
| keiferski wrote:
| I think the confusion might be because the Carpathian
| zone includes Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine, and the
| site I linked to is using that number solely for Romania.
|
| In any case, it's not my website and the general point
| remains that the specific region has a big percentage of
| European bears.
| ReleaseCandidat wrote:
| I didn't want to critisize you, just to get the numbers
| straight. I'm actually living in one of the regions with
| many bears (the northern end of the lower tatras) in
| Slovakia.
| Fricken wrote:
| >Several years ago, 80 bison were reintroduced two centuries
| after their disappearance from these territories...
|
| I had no idea there were bison in Europe.
|
| The provided hyperlink leads to an article about bison being
| reintroduced in Mexico. Here is an appropriate article about
| bison being rewilded in the Southern Carpathians:
|
| https://rewildingeurope.com/blog/free-roaming-bison-populati....
| ReleaseCandidat wrote:
| Yes, there are some of them in various european countries.
|
| https://www.eurowildlife.org/news/wisents-in-slovakia-the-po...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_bison
| auselen wrote:
| I've read about them after getting introduced to:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubrowka
| jnurmine wrote:
| I am of the firm belief that this drink, mixed with apple
| juice, should be marked as Unesco world heritage already.
| lukan wrote:
| I never tried that combination (I also drink very rarely),
| but it sounds interesting .. and I do like the bison grass
| vodka on its own.
| yread wrote:
| There is also the beer https://zubr.cz/cs
| renegade-otter wrote:
| There is bison in Chernobyl: https://www.rferl.org/a/bison-
| chernobyl/28357813.html
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| There is almost every EurAsian animal in Chernobyl. Once
| humans fucked off, animals took over.
| m463 wrote:
| It would be interesting to compare population density of europe
| vs the rest of the world over history.
|
| I have imagined that europe was always heavily populated, while
| north america was sparsely populated (allowing endless bison).
| Might not be that true, maybe europe wasn't that dense, and
| also disease killed so many when the first europeans arrived.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The US used to have many competitors to the bison. Many
| different kind of larger bison. Different types of horses.
| Giant sloths and so on.
|
| The European Northern plane just turned more into forest
| rather then remaining more open.
| svachalek wrote:
| Contact with Europeans spread new diseases that killed off
| the vast majority of the Native American population. So it's
| likely Europe was more populated but not to the degree that
| settlers found here -- they were moving into a post-
| apocalyptic wasteland.
| Maken wrote:
| Prehistoric European cave paintings should make that obvious.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| The more the better, but there's already a "European Yellowstone"
| in the form of Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park in Belarus, of
| similar size, home to many of the remaining European buffalo.
| aix1 wrote:
| I'm guessing you mean the bison. (At least that's what
| Belovezhskaya Pushcha is known for, other than being the
| largest area of primeval forest in Europe.)
| hnbad wrote:
| Correct. Buffalo and wisent are both bison.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > Buffalo and wisent are both bison.
|
| There are also buffalo that are not bison, like the
| domestic water buffalo.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo
| Shatnerz wrote:
| Buffalo and Bison are often interchangeable in American
| English.
|
| I know in Polish, "zubr", which is the European Bison, is
| often translated as buffalo and the American Bison is known
| as "bizon" which is understandably translated as bison. I
| would not be surprised if Belarusian was similar.
| jameshart wrote:
| Calling bison 'buffalo' is a North American thing, generally.
| It's part of a huge pattern of naming confusions between
| British and American English for ungulates. An elk in Eurasia
| traditionally means what is a called a moose in North
| America, but in North America what they call an elk is more
| similar to a European red deer. America also calls its
| pronghorn (which is not an antelope) an antelope, and its
| reindeer caribou, unless they're pulling Santa's sleigh.
| Muskoxen also aren't oxen.
|
| But the bighorn sheep is really a sheep and it does have big
| horns, so they have that going for them.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Yeah, but I'm an ex-Brit, so that's not really a good
| excuse :)
|
| My wife's Belarusian though, and I have been to
| Belovezhskaya Pushcha and seen these buffalo/bison
| beasties, so I've got that going for me!
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| Not just English.
|
| The Dutch word for _Alces alces_ (the animal called a moose
| in North America and an elk in Europe) is "eland".
|
| Dutch settlers in South Africa decided to use that word for
| the large antelope of the genus _Taurotragus_ , which is
| still called an eland in English.
|
| Modern Dutch distinguishes the two by calling the antelope
| an "eland antelope", while Afrikaans calls the moose/elk an
| "American/European eland".
| maelito wrote:
| Please do this in France too. So much land, but agriculture
| everywhere.
| WalterBright wrote:
| People like to eat.
| r00fus wrote:
| France is a major food exporter. Some of those lands could be
| re-acquired by the state for non-food uses.
|
| Our capitalist world economy equates wealth based on
| extraction, not preservation. It really needs to be
| reimagined if we're going to be sustainable at all.
| tmnvdb wrote:
| That exported food is also feeding people.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Our capitalist world economy equates wealth based on
| extraction, not preservation
|
| Why is there no shortage of corn, cows, pigs, and chickens,
| then?
| yosito wrote:
| Reminds me of a fast food slogan, "Ya gotta eat! Rally's!"...
| not exactly the most appetizing slogan.
| maelito wrote:
| Way too much, as shows the spreading obesity epidemic.
| klyrs wrote:
| Let them eat cake!
| slau wrote:
| There's a moment in the movie R.M.N. where a young Frenchman is
| in town to "count the bears". During a town hall, he tries to
| explain that he's there to help identify how many bears there
| are and help protect them.
|
| One local throws a jab back at him: "You kill all the bears in
| your country and reap the benefits of developing [your
| land/economy], and then come to ours and tell us to protect
| nature."
|
| Fantastic movie, highly recommended. If you do watch it, watch
| the original version with the burnt in subtitles. The subtitles
| have different colours to indicate which language is being
| spoken, and it has a lot of relevance for the movie and
| context.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Oh, as in a big park. Not a supervolcano. Fine, then, carry on.
| junaru wrote:
| Call me pessimist but (emphasis mine):
|
| > We can only buy from private property, but not from
| municipalities or landowners' associations, so our strategy is to
| acquire what we can and donate it to the state *only if it
| creates a national park*
|
| So foreign "donors" are buying land that they gonna keep if local
| government doesn't do what they want.
| jameshart wrote:
| There's a bit of a trend of foreign meddling trying to preserve
| Carpathian landscapes - King Charles III of Great Britain has
| been at it too: https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-king-charles-
| trees-transylva...
|
| Powerful aristocrats and mysterious patrons buying up parts of
| Transylvania to ensure the preservation of the old ways? Sounds
| like the background to a Dan Brown novel...
| orthoxerox wrote:
| I am disappointed they didn't plan to drill for geysers.
| Geothermal activity is the first thing that comes to mind when I
| hear "Yellowstone".
| fred_is_fred wrote:
| I was also confused when I read this. Yellowstone has bears and
| buffalo, but that's not why it was made a park.
| paul7986 wrote:
| I have only been to Iceland (jan 2023..first time out of the US
| and loved it's culture & many things about it) then in May 2023
| visited Yellowstone. Iceland has a lot of natural wonders but
| Yellowstone has more varied natural wonders and all in a smaller
| area.
|
| I'd personally recommend Yellowstone over Iceland if your looking
| to experience the best/most unique natural wonders (grand canyon,
| tons of waterfalls, a massive geyser Old Faithful compared to
| Stokkur, wildlife safari, hot and colorful out of this world
| scolding hot pools and more). I do need to do the ring road in
| Iceland, but Iceland surely does not have wildlife nor colorful
| hot pools (that i know of anyway).
| ReflectedImage wrote:
| How do they intend to install the super volcano underneath?
| BuffaloBagel wrote:
| The Gorongosa project in Mozambique has revitalized Gorongosa
| National Park while involving local communities.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorongosa_National_Park
| anon291 wrote:
| Say what you like about America but our public lands are worth
| more than all the crown jewels of Europe.
| burkaman wrote:
| I could be wrong but I'm guessing nearly every European would
| agree that their own national parks are also worth more than
| their crown jewels.
| krapp wrote:
| And ironically, both were stolen from the people who owned
| them.
| hasoleju wrote:
| This really sounds too good to be true. I understand why the
| locals are sceptic at first. If they achieve their goal of
| creating a national park with 200.000 square hectares they have
| covered 3% of the Romanian forests. That is impressive.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-29 23:01 UTC)