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