Creating national parks doesn't happen every day. Lately, it seems the quickest way to create one is to legislatively redesignate a national monument as a national park (See Pinnacles National Park). But it doesn't hurt to dream, does it?
Here are five picks from the Traveler for new national parks. We offer up these nominees without consideration to fiscal impact because once you start to consider the costs -- mainly economic costs, but also political -- the possible can become impossible. With that understood, we view the following locations as truly spectacular places that should be preserved for future generations.
* Wind River Range, Wyoming
The Wind River Range in west-central Wyoming visibly defines spectacular. With 40 peaks that soar above 13,000 feet, including the state's highest point at 13,809 feet, glaciers, grizzlies, elk, bighorn sheep, lakes and trout streams, this craggy range runs roughly 100 miles north to south and 30 miles east to west.
Currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the range contains officially designated wilderness and is one of the country's premier hiking and backpacking areas. The range also harbors the headwaters of the Green River.
You can lose yourself in the Winds for days on end, spot North America's largest herd of bighorn sheep, find challenging climbing routes, or fancy yourself as a latter-day mountain man.
* Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Idaho
This 756,000-acre NRA long has been considered for inclusion in the National Park System. Indeed, back in 1911 a group of women in Idaho called for such a move, according to a history of the NRA's creation.
Stanley Lake in the Sawtooth NRA. Photo by Fredlyfish4 via Wikipedia.
In 1960, then-U.S. Sen. Frank Church introduced legislation to have the area considered for park status, and six years later even introduced a bill calling for Sawtooth National Park, but local opposition derailed it.
This wide expanse of wild lures river runners, climbers, backcountry skiers, anglers, backpackers and more. Cyclists challenge themselves on attacking the highway over Galena Summit, while families carry on long traditions of camping at Redfish Lake.
New England needs another national park, and the one proposed for the North Woods would not just be gorgeous, but would benefit wildlife species such as Canada lynx, Atlantic salmon and the eastern timber wolf threatened with extinction for lack of habitat and protect the "wild forests of New England."
The hardwood forests, lakes, and rivers would help build a strong recreation sector that would pump money into the surrounding towns. The streams and lakes here long have been plied by canoeists.
Talk of creating such a national park extends back over two decades. Proponents, along with pointing to the natural resources that could be protected, believe the cachet of a "Maine North Woods National Park" would bolster the region's economy through businesses that cater to park visitors.
* Ancient Forest National Park, California and Oregon
With climate change under way, protecting migrational routes, and providing migrational routes, for wildlife and even plants is vital to help ensure their survival.
The boundaries of the proposed Ancient Forest National Park run from Oregon south into California.
Park Service Director Jon Jarvis back in August of 2011 called for establishing "a national system of parks and protected sites (rivers, heritage areas, trails, and landmarks) that fully represents our natural resources and the nation's cultural experience." He also cited the need for creation of "continuous corridors" to support ecosystems.
The proposed 3.8-million-acre Ancient Forest National Park spanning parts of southern Oregon and northern California would meet those goals.
Within its proposed borders there already exist officially designated wilderness and roadless areas, places perfect for both recreation and wildlife.
The proposal is to set aside a solid block of land 3.8 million acres from the Rogue River in Oregon to the Eel River in California. It will forever allow the free migration of species from the coast and Redwood National Park to semi arid inland canyons. The park would include already established wilderness areas and already designated critical wildlife areas along with about 1 million acres of unprotected inventoried roadless areas.
* San Rafael Swell, Utah
Talk of turning the Swell into a national park has simmered for decades, going back to the 1930s when local officials proposed a "Wayne Wonderland National Monument." The proposal went nowhere, for the Swell, but is pointed to as an impetus for Capitol Reef National Park.
Nevertheless, the wondrous landscape of colorful reefs of rock, deep canyons, and sandstone walls bearing ancient pictographs remain. So, too, do the tales of outlaws such as Butch and Sundance losing possees by galloping into the maze of canyons. Within the Swell you can find ancient granaries, stone arches, bald eagles, bighorn sheep, feral horses and mules, homesteader cabins, and old mining operations. There are opportunities for canyoneering, river running, backpacking and day hiking and more.
Today there are fewer and fewer pristine and preserved areas left in the country, a fact that has the clock ticking on the few remaining places that deserve national park status. While much opposition no doubt exists to each of the above proposals, they could be crafted in such a way to mollify many of the critics.
By creating a "national park and preserve," the enacting legislation could be written in a way to allow some traditional ways of life, whether they involve grazing livestock, hunting, or logging in a sustainable fashion. Communities could remain in place, with the "park-and-preserve" boundaries excluding them.
What other places do you think should be added to the park system?
Comments
They were special places BEFORE they were national parks. Making them parks had nothing to do with them being special.
First of all, noone is asking for dogs to run freely nor that mountain bikes be allowed on every trail or boats on every water. As I said before there may be reasons not to allow bikers or boaters on certain sections. But to deny that there are restrictions that come with NP status is denying reality. Those restricions - rightly or wrongly - discourage people from coming to those lands.
Yeah, Kings Canyon was so special they were logging the giant sequoias. At Petrified Forest they were stealing the fossilized wood, at Yellowstone they were hacking off pieces of travertine, even from Old Faithful.
The Smokies were almost deforested, at Everglades they were working to drain the river of grass, Acadia was in danger of being divided up for "cottages" known today as trophy homes, Death Valley was being mined, Olympic was being logged, etc etc.
As for reality, the Park Service does have a different mandate for managing its holdings than do the U.S. Forest Service and BLM, as I know you know.
EC - very sorry to hear about Yellowstone's restrictions on your wife; that really does not seem fair.
Having said that, the more complete and accurate picture of reality is that NP status may create restrictions that may entice potential visitors, and may deter other potential visitors.
EC- you aren't paying attention. Your use of "special" is strictly subjective. The folks draining the Everglades certainly did not view that land as "special". There was no "special status" to preserve as far as they were concerned. So in fact NP designation DID create a "special status" that we are all forced to recognize, like it or not. We have now agreed, by law, that this place is "special". This makes the use of the term a fact, not a subjective view held by some nature-loving, sawgrass hugger. You may love the Everglades; I may think they are a massive waste of land, but neither of us, as citizen-owners, can now deny their "specialness". Bear in mind this is by no means permanent; we could change our minds at any time and decide that the Everglades are not so "special" after all.
Went to Mt Reiner we hiked up the trail, saw this beautiful little meadow off to the right that looked like it was a trail. The sign said stay out and explained why. We came to a trail that did let us go inside a meadow that had interpretive signs that made it even more clear why we needed to stay on the trail, were satisfied and then kept on. No Problem!
It really isn't that hard to figure out for me. National Parks and national park lands all have a bigger overriding principal that supersedes mountain bikes, pets, fishermen, horses, ATVs and any number of modern toys that can be contrary to that mission. The idea that National Parks are my land (our land) doesn't sit well for me, brings to mind the "Tragedy Of The Commons" scenario. I like the idea that National Parks belong to the Flora, Fauna, special geological features and identified historical physical and cultural attributes present. They are living museums not gigantic play toys to be subdivided by special interest lobbyist. We are guests. The more people that visit the more restrictions imposed.
Yes, restrictions exist at NPs. That's kind of the point. Without restrictions they would be just like any other logged, mined, farmed, populated, trampled, over-recreated, and otherwise despoiled areas.
Yes, these places were special before they became NPs. But it's only because of NPs that they remain special. Without NPs SEKI would be chapparal, PEFO would be just another badland, GRSM would be bald mountains, EVER would be nothing more than West Miami, and ACAD would be just another congested seaside city.
As much as I love my dogs, it strikes me as selfish and foolish to think I should be able to take them along to any wilderness I desire. Dogs disrupt widlife, pick fights, get hurt, get wildlife hurt, spread disease, etc. It's generally a bad idea to bring them into the wild. The value of preservation of our limited remaining wilderness trumps the entitlement mentality one may have to do whatever one wants wherever one wants. It's "for the benefit and enjoyment of The People" not "for the benefit and enjoyment of ME ME ME!!!!"
If someone is deterred from visiting a park because they can't engage in whatever potentially harmful activity tickles their fancy, I would say "mission accomplished." Yellowstone, Yosemite, et al. aren't hurting for visitors.
Unfortunatly we must have rules-- some people just don't think the 'rules" apply to them.Thats why no dogs in the park-- I have dogs and love them but I understand other people don't want to see a dog on a trail in Yellowstone or in any other Nat Park. If a dog sees a bear its going to start barking--- the next person coming along will miss the chance to see that bear. Plastic bottles? Yea I love taking plastic bottles with me when I kayak--- but in several of our spring feed rivers here in Florida they are outlawed--- why-- because some people throw them in the river. It ruins the whole experience for others to be in a wild place and see trash in the river.Thats why there has to be some restrictions. I've been to many Nat Parks-- am far from "rich" and have never felt any park was just for the "rich". Funny how the rich seem to get blamed for all kinds of things?
Kurt- Those places are "special". They were special BEFORE they became NPs. NP status may have preserved that special status but it didn't make it. And to equate logging sequoias, stealing fossilized wood and hacking travertine to hiking with your dogs, biking or paddling a river is just absurd. The reality is NP status creates restrictions that may deter potential visitors. Again you can argue whether that is right or wrong but you can't argue that those restrictions don't exist. I can say for a fact, I am deterred from spending time in Yellowstone because I cant hike the trails with my dogs.