You are here

Reader Participation Day: Is The National Park System In Danger Of Becoming A Catchall System?

Share

Is the National Park System in danger of turning into a catchall system? Should a site dedicated to the nuclear arms race, another to union organizers, and another to First Ladies really fall under an agency that started out preserving spectacular vistas and landscapes, that showcases Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon?

With the National Park Service soon to launch into its second century overseeing the park system, this would seem to be a timely question, as the agency already is stretched thin with budgetary and staffing issues. Can it afford to also be expected to be a sort of National Historic Service, an agency that oversees and interprets historic moments in the country that have no direct connection to the landscapes the agency was initially charged with overseeing?

This is not to question the significance of some of these sites that are finding their way into the National Park System, but rather to discuss the appropriateness of their inclusion under an agency tasked with conserving "... the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." 

Comments

Jim,

Thanks for the link.  It is nice to know that some of us can civily share information so that all of us can expand our knowledge base and gain further appreiciation for differing perspectives.

Per the link, it would appear to me that many units would fall short of these criteria:

A proposed unit will be considered
nationally significant if it meet
s all four of the following
standards:
it is an outstanding example of a
particular type of resource.
it possesses exceptional value of quality illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural
themes of our Na
tion’s heritage.
it offers superlative opportunities
for recreation for public use and
enjoyment, or for scientific
study.
it retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of the
resource.

I don't know anything about the organization, but an article today on the website nextcity.org illustrates the potential risk of political pressure to establish new NPS areas based more and more on the hope of a boost to local economies. The article, "14 Billion Reasons to Support the National Park Service" begins as follows: 

"Across America, communities look to tourism to boost their economies, and when it comes to attracting more visitors, many cities are looking to the National Park Service (NPS). Some in Chicago are aiming to revitalize a poor, historic neighborhood with the help of an NPS designation. In Northern California, Rosie the Riveter National Park has recast Richmond’s waterfront."

Whether it's always true or not, there's a perception that the NPS designation has a Midas touch for local economies, and that message is getting a good bit of media attention. That siren song of more dollars in local cash registers holds potential pitfalls for the NPS going forward if the quality of new additions suffers as a result. 


In Northern California, Rosie the Riveter National Park has recast Richmond’s waterfront."

With only a little over 30,000 in attendance last year its doubtful the park itself has had meaningful impact.   The creation may have motivated the area's constituants to do what they should have done in the first place - but then that is their job, not the Federal governments.

That siren song of more dollars in local cash registers holds potential pitfalls for the NPS going forward if the quality of new additions suffers as a result.

Anything that dilutes the quality is likely to have pitfalls for the NPS.

 


It's too bad that Congress countermands recommendations of NPS.


It's too bad that Congress countermands recommendations of NPS.

Generally I would agree with that.  How often does it happen? 


Did a little research. 

In the first 70 years after the establishment of Yellowstone, there were 32 units created out of a total of 149 (21%) that had less then 100k visitors in 2013.  The next 70 years, there were 110 out of 220 (50%).*

That is what happens when you go searching for causes.

* Statistics are for units that had visitor counts in 2013

 


In 1933, the War Deparment transferred battlefields, cemeteries and national monuments to the National Park Service. I wonder what the discussion was then.

The National Park Service is not just about "protecting and preserving". It's also about interpretation. What does the site mean? Why was it preserved? How does it fit in with our national history?

 

Danny

www.hikertohiker.com

 

 


We should certainly dump the "ego parks."  Those homes, birthplaces, and all the other places associated in some way with a past president -- except for those who had profound effects on our nation's history, such a Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and a few others.

How many places have been designated or proposed to recall Clinton?  Three?  Not sure and don't want to look it up.  But so far it seems that his birthplace, boyhood home, and back seat of one of his cars have been proposed.

While we're at it, let's ban the naming of Federal buildings, courthouses, highways, dams, bridges and other structures for the Congresscritter who dragged home the pork needed to build a monument to himself.  They could be named, instead, in honor of people who have really contributed something to the country.  People like Medal of Honor recipients or those whose work to improve medical care, education, culture or other worthy efforts is really worth remembering.

 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.