Jump to content



Photo

USA's newest national park declared

california pinnacles national monument ancient volcano. san andreas fault

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,995 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 14 January 2013 - 23:18

Pinnacles National Monument in California was signed into law as the United States' 59th and newest national park, now bearing the name Pinnacles National Park.

The new park, with its spectacular rock formations, beautiful spring wildflowers and group of endangered condors, is a popular tourist attraction, located in the Gabilan Mountains east of central California's Salinas Valley, according to a statement from the Department of the Interior. The park encompasses 27,000 acres of wild lands.

The stunning rock formations, called pinnacles and from which the park gets its name, are the remnants of half an ancient volcano, worn down by erosion over the eons. The matching half of the volcano lies 195 miles (314 kilometers) to the southeast, on the other side of the San Andreas Fault. (The 1976 discovery that the halves were connected showed the degree of offset along the fault.)

more


#2 DrakeN2k

DrakeN2k

    Neowinian

  • 1,137 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 10

Posted 14 January 2013 - 23:35

Such a bad move for the economy , reducing land adviable for homes, road and shopping centers. And what if shale gas was found , what a waste of a renewable resource.

The trees are just sat there doing nothing think of much $$ you could get for the timber.

Stupid move.

#3 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,995 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 14 January 2013 - 23:38

^ We have many thousands of homes and other buildings just setting empty.

The USA needs another 'shopping mall' like a hole in the head.

And this park is mostly rocks.

Attached Images

  • pinnacles-park.JPG


#4 Glassed Silver

Glassed Silver

    ☆♡Neowin's portion of Crazy♡☆

  • 10,729 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 04
  • Location: MY CATFORT in Kassel, Germany
  • OS: OS X ML; W7; Elementary; Android 4
  • Phone: iPhone 5 64GB Black (6.0.2)

Posted 14 January 2013 - 23:45

Such a bad move for the economy , reducing land adviable for homes, road and shopping centers. And what if shale gas was found , what a waste of a renewable resource.

The trees are just sat there doing nothing think of much $$ you could get for the timber.

Stupid move.

Well, last time I checked the US wasn't exactly a very densely packed country, so... wtf?

Glassed Silver:mac

#5 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • 1,280 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 14 January 2013 - 23:48

^ We have many thousands of homes and other buildings just setting empty.

The USA needs another 'shopping mall' like a hole in the head.

And this park is mostly rocks.


Level it and build a huge trailer park.

On another note, that looks awesome to climb.

#6 zhangm

zhangm

    Just bitter.

  • 9,990 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 02

Posted 14 January 2013 - 23:58

We could have covered that land with more empty government buildings.

#7 vetneufuse

neufuse

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,974 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 04

Posted 15 January 2013 - 00:01

for some reason was expecting it to be called the Obama National Park..... duno why

#8 dfuk

dfuk

    Neowinian

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 08
  • Location: Plymouth UK

Posted 15 January 2013 - 00:09

Well, last time I checked the US wasn't exactly a very densely packed country, so... wtf?

Glassed Silver:mac

But look at the location Prime real estate sandwiched between fault lines so any thing built there will be destroyed in a few years.
Americans like to build in dangerous places, earthquake zones, tornado ally, hurricane susceptible areas and on the coast but below sea level.

I remember watching an episode of Time Team US when the excavated a find that was dated late 1870s and the host was amazed and called it an ancient object, at the time i was living in a building built in 1843.

#9 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,634 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 15 January 2013 - 00:13

Such a bad move for the economy , reducing land adviable for homes, road and shopping centers. And what if shale gas was found , what a waste of a renewable resource.

The trees are just sat there doing nothing think of much $$ you could get for the timber.

Stupid move.


I applaud your effort but you've got to be a lot more subtle than that if you want people to believe you actually mean any of that.

#10 44MLX

44MLX

    Neowinian

  • 721 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 11
  • Location: London
  • OS: Win 8
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 15 January 2013 - 00:22

Keep nature as it is, good decision IMO.

#11 episode

episode

    Neowinian Fanatic

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 01

Posted 15 January 2013 - 00:30

I applaud your effort but you've got to be a lot more subtle than that if you want people to believe you actually mean any of that.


He got a few.

#12 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 00:36

But look at the location Prime real estate sandwiched between fault lines so any thing built there will be destroyed in a few years.
Americans like to build in dangerous places, earthquake zones, tornado ally, hurricane susceptible areas and on the coast but below sea level.

I remember watching an episode of Time Team US when the excavated a find that was dated late 1870s and the host was amazed and called it an ancient object, at the time i was living in a building built in 1843.

Since when is "tornado ally" a dangerous place to live? Stop watching so much tv.

#13 dfuk

dfuk

    Neowinian

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 08
  • Location: Plymouth UK

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:08

Since when is "tornado ally" a dangerous place to live?

If its not dangerous why build shelters?

#14 Nothing Here

Nothing Here

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 08
  • Location: California, U.S.A.
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro / Kororaa 17

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:16

Pinnacles is beautiful. It's about time they did this.

#15 webeagle12

webeagle12

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,276 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 04

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:20

Such a bad move for the economy , reducing land adviable for homes, road and shopping centers. And what if shale gas was found , what a waste of a renewable resource.

The trees are just sat there doing nothing think of much $$ you could get for the timber.

Stupid move.


and in Beijing thread you said that it's ok to live in polluted cities.

Not sure if trolling or serious.... but you need get your head up straight.