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
Buxton and Gutz- (and Kurt)
There are two issues here. Are the rules reasonable and the original question, do the rules deter people from coming to the parks. I think that there is little doubt that the latter is true - and that was the point that Quiet was making.
Now I happen to believe the two rules Gutz sited are silly. They are a typical case of the many being punished for the actions of a few. On the otherhand, rules against chisling travertine or stealing fozziized wood are reasonable, but then it doesn't take NP status to have those rules.
For Scott - those places were "special" long before man ever came to America. It wasn't NP status that made them special. Was it right to stop the draining of the Everglades? Sure, but it didn't require NP status to accomplish that.
ec...under state and local rules the land always seems to have less protection than the NPS provides. So if you believe in the protections the NPS provides, you would be "for" including special places under this protection. As for bringing more or less people to visit...I do not think that is NPS's primary mission.
And I don't think anyone here is arguing that it is. My only argument is that some restrictions that come with NP status are petty and deter some people from coming to the parks.
What is petty to some is important to others. For instance:
* Dogs bark, whether they're on leashes or locked in vehicles while their owners are strolling a trail or simply hitting a restroom. That's a sound many in the parks probably don't want to hear. Dogs also bark more when they see wildlife, and if not carefully tended by their owners can chase wildlife. They also tend to squat whenever the need strikes them. Unfortunately, not all dog owners pick up after their dogs.
* Many mountain bikers like to ride fast on single-track trails. Many hikers don't like to get in collisions with mountain bikers. Equestrians complain about mountain bikers, mountain bikers complain about equestrians.
* Kayakers and canoeists like to paddle rivers and streams. Folks admiring the Yellowstone River as it flows into the Hayden Valley of Yellowstone, or flying fishing the river, might not want to see paddlers on it. (That said, it doesn't seem to be an issue in nearby Grand Teton, where float trips and paddlers run the Snake River daily...)
As for park visitation, last year there was a 4 million increase in visitation from 2011 for the system as a whole, Yellowstone already has surpassed 1 million for this year, Yosemite Valley is struggling with crowds, as is the Grand Canyon's South Rim, lodging in many parks is booked for the summer season. That would not tend to indicate that very many people are deterred from visiting the parks due to any "petty" regulations.
Just an FYI, it is designation as "Wilderness," not National Park, that preserves land ("restrains human influences"). The National Parks have so much land designated as wilderness because that land was designated as wilderness before the NPS got it. The NFS, BLM, and Wildlife Service also have millions of acres designated wilderness. Some of this land is being considered for National Park status.
It seems to be easier to get land designated as wilderness than to get land designated as National Park. And personally, I would like to see much more land designated wilderness rather than national park. I love our national parks and visit any one of them as often as possible. But there are wilderness areas in the country that equal or surpass the national parks which I fear would be forever altered with national park designation.
dahkota,
Sorry, but I have to disagree with some of your statements on wilderness vs. national parks. I am a strong supporter of both and have been involved for years in both wilderness and national park campaigns. I think you have some mistaken information about both.
National parks existed for almost a century before the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. There is no land that was designated as wilderness before it came under National Park Service administration. The reason so much of the National Park System is designated as wilderness is because 1) it was kept roadless and undeveloped by the National Park Service and 2) unlike the Forest Service and BLM, the park service is not a "multiple use" agency that wants as little wilderness as possible.
The National Park System has almost 44 million acres of wilderness. There are another 26 million acres of roadless areas in our parks that are recommended by the National Park Service for wilderness designation. The agency with the next-highest amount of wilderness is the Forest Service, with only 36 million acres, even though the National Forest System is more than twice the size of the National Park System. The National Wildlife Refuge System has 20 million acres of wilderness, but this is on a land base that is almost twice the size of the National Park System. The BLM has a pathetic 9 million acres of wilderness on a land base that is three times the size of the National Park System.
The National Forests and BLM lands have millions of acres of additional potential wilderness. However, these agencies oppose wilderness (as well as national parks) because they are off-limits to resource extraction. They do their best to prevent those designations. For decades, the only way to protect lForest Service and BLM lands from logging, grazing, mining, and other destructive activities was to take them away and designate them as national parks. The Wilderness Act was passed so that lands could be left with the Forest Service and BLM, but with an overlay that prohibits most industrial activities. Unfortunately, those agencies have never learned to appreciate wilderness and they have minimal resources to protect them or educate the public about them.
You are right that it is generally easier to designate wilderness than national parks. This is because in the 1990s, the Congress unwisely imposed a burdensome three-step process for studying and designating new national parks — congressional authorization of a study, a lengthy and cumbersome study process, and more congressional legislation to designate a park. The designation of wilderness requires only one step -- congressional legislation to designate it.
The National Park System is strongly supported by the public. There are dozens of national park proposals waiting for action. If we streamline the national park designation process, it will lead to a major wave of new parks across the country.
You should not worry that existing wilderness areas would be degraded it they were incorporated into national parks. In fact, the opposite is true. Wilderness is congressionally designated under the Wilderness Act. National park designation would not affect a previous wilderness designation.
In fact, that wilderness would have stronger protection than before. Livestock grazing is allowed under the Wilderness Act, due to a political compromise back in 1964. As a result virtually all National Forest and BLM wilderness areas allow livestock grazing -- even though it does tremendous damage to ecological and recreational values. Livestock grazing is not allowed in National Park System wilderness areas. So the strongest possible federal land protection is designated wilderness within a national park.
Only the lazy consider Wilderness Areas "off limits."
Park the car, get out, walk a few miles, and it's all yours.
Dogs barking on trails and bothering the wild-life i want to see and people throwing garbage around doesn't fall in the "silly" catagory in my opinion.....go figure