I've been there, and it is an incredibly cool place (a volcano on a fault line? Wow!). But I have to say, I don't think it's worthy of National Park status. It's current status as a National Monument is adequate in my opinion.

If you abuse the crown jewel label of the National Park Service, you reduce the value of the moniker.

I would say I wish the eastern rim of the volcano, which is in Lancaster, was part of the NPS. I hadn't visited that site, so I'm not sure what it's like, but it would be cool to have both sections of the volcano as part of one unit, separated by 100 miles or so of continental drift.

===========================================

My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com

Pinnacles National Monument is gorgeous and the talus caves make it a fun place as well. It would already be a National Park if it were in, say, Ohio. But it raises that same debate; what makes a site "national park worthy"? I'm not sure I would consider "great potential for tourism revenue" a qualification. At this time this monument is not easlily accessible by California standards (near a freeway), even though it is not that far outside of a couple of major population areas. Increasing tourism revenue would absolutely require the need for a new highway to the site and probably a new road between the two halves of the monument. (No roads cross from one side to the other, requiring a considerable drive to get from the easier to reach west half to the more remote east side.) I guess the first decision to be made is which we want, preservation or tourism revenue? Due to the narrow canyons and difficult terrain I don't think you can easily have both at this site. I believe that the goal of obtaining more tourism revenue would require a considerable expansion of the infrastructure, both in and outside of the park.

The "....great potential for tourism revenue” is most likely the primary driving force behind the movement to make a National Park of Pinnacles National Monument. That is sad, reprehensible, and despicable. It would be a giant step toward commercialization. JF

Right now, access to much of Pinnacles is limited - not even by foot - to minimize impacts to condor breeding and foraging areas and the whole monument is closed to overnight backpacking. And this I feel is a good thing, but if it is given "Park" status, I'm not certain but I thought there are some requirements to provide more public accessibility. This might be one instance where "Monument" status may actually provide more protection than "Park" status.

Pinnacles NM is developing a new management plan right now. The time for comments from the public was one year ago. They offered three alternative management principles as can be seen in the public newsletter from August 3 2008: http://www.nps.gov/pinn/parkmgmt/upload/PINNGMPnewsletter3_alternatives_webversion.pdf

There the three alternatives were: Research and Learning, Backcountry Experience, and Disneyl^WEnhanced Visitor Experience. The fourth option is is to continue the park management as is. In the newsletter you can find maps that visualize how those guidelines would affect the use of park land.

I've been there, enjoyed Bear Gulch Cave when the entire length was open to the public, and wish to return for some real hiking.

I really don't see how the place would warrant full "National Park" status. It's really small and doesn't have one major feature or multiple smaller features that I would think would merit the big NPS designation. I don't see how it could support the kind of visitation that Congressman Farr envision. There frankly isn't that much to do other than hike. You can drive to a few overlooks and see the Pinnacles. Right now entry is closed off at night, although they have automated gates to allow people to leave. Maybe it's good if you're a climber, but that's a rather limited segment of the population.

It's actually pretty close to a major freeway (US-101). None of the full National Parks in California are that close to any freeways except maybe Redwood (US-101 passes through it) and Joshua Tree (I-10). Freeway access is hardly a disqualifying factor, since Yosemite, Lassen, and SEKI are miles away from freeways. People go to those places despite the distances.

However - this does demonstrate that in many ways the "National Park" status is a politically derived one. There are lightly visited national parks, such as Dry Tortugas and Great Basin (I know the ancient bristlecone forest is there) where it might be argued that there wasn't really anything special that merited the designation. Some member of Congress had a spot in their district that they thought could use some tourist dollars.

The Pinnacles is a great place. Fantastic vistas and the spires are awesome. It's a hefty drive from San Jose through Hollister so it's not crowded. It gets REAL hot during July and August and is very dry. The caves are very neat, but sometimes they are closed due to the bat situation. The small pond is also fun to sit by. I also don't think it merits the status of a National Park, but then I've not been to most of the dinky ones either.

If Cuyahoga in the heart of dirty old Cleveland or the slummy looking bath houses of Hot Springs can be national parks, why not Pinnacles?

Part of the deal is that POTUS can declare a National Monument without an act of Congress.

I'd agree with Paul. Having visited all the 58 parks, I'd probably "rank" Pinnacles slightly above Cuyahoga and Hot Springs. This is the "bottom,[b]" and certainly not the "middle of the pack" mentioned by congressman Farr does. I don't know how many of those Farr has seen in person, but his assertion that many National Parks in the East wouldn't qualify as California country parks sounds equally strange to me. I always thought of Cuyahoga as a politically motivated abuse of the designation, however it is kind of cool to have a restored area elevated to such a status. Hot Springs is a bit odd. It has been protected since 1832, making it older than Yellowstone (1872). Once you consider the hills and the planned transition from city to wilds it's quite interesting. Apart from those two, I wouldn't call any other Park dinky.

Tuan.

National Parks images

Pinnacles is a dramatic and inspiring place to me. I've hiked almost every mile of trail in the park, including the north and south wilderness trails. I've climbed dozens of the craggy spires, seen huge California Condors sail gracefully past (within 50 ft!), and watched the awesome peaks glow other-wordly orange and red in color with the last rays of sun light, then hiked back to the car in the darkness to view a clear starry sky from the parking lot before leaving.

The "Monument" seems reasonably well managed to me as is. I very much like the idea that it is often not very busy, except during the spring bloom when it is extremely busy on weekends. It doesn't much matter to me whether it is designated as a National Park or Monument, so long as it continues to receive the funding necessary to preserve and protect it.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the National Park idea. I recall that Death Valley used to be designated a National Monument. In that case it seemed a no-brainer to make it a National Park. It also got expanded substantially as part of the deal, which was clearly a good thing (some people think that pristine sand dunes and dry lake beds are best used for ripping apart in ATVs!)

-Clayton