With all due respect, why do you guys constantly mix up National Parks with National Heritage Areas ? Legally they are totally different entities. National Heritage Areas are not National Parks, not even close (although a National Heritage Area can have an existing National Park within its borders).
National Heritage Areas are designed to preserve private property while also preserving whatever it is that the area is supposed to be about.
National Heritage Areas are basically and eastern phenomenon. These are areas that are not suitable for National parks. There currently are 27 National Heritage Areas which operate with varying levels of success. They are much different from National Parks and rely on local support to keep them running. If the locals don't like them, they cannot survive.
Bingo!!! And that is the problem. Perserving = regulation. Regulation kills property rights and property ownership. We are not paranoid out here for no reason though you seem to think we are. This is what everyone has been trying to tell you but you seem to get hung up on how you are different.
We see no difference betweem a heritage area and the NPS because it doesn't matter if you are the ones regulating or not, buying land ot not. You will cause regulation and that is tbe enemy of everyone here in the west.