State parks that should be national parks

[hotdogPi]

In an ideal world, each state would have at least one National Park, but upkeep on National Parks seem to be dwindling. Not every state park gets the right amount of upkeep, either.

Do you think New England would need six? New England is comparable to the size of most states (by area). Maybe slightly larger, but that would only require two, not six.

The same argument applies to MD/DE/NJ.

[Max Rockatansky]

Having every state get a "National Park"  probably would water down the designation a little.  Some of the current National Parks are kind of questionable being designated as such (Congaree, Biscayne and Gateway Arch come to mind).  Other NPS designations probably would be appropriate if we are going by the theory that "National Park"  has brand equity.

[Rothman]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

I also don't like the hodgepodge of management of national lands, especially when it comes to national monuments.  Seems inefficient to have so many agencies involved.

[skluth]

Having every state get a "National Park"  probably would water down the designation a little.  Some of the current National Parks are kind of questionable being designated as such (Congaree, Biscayne and Gateway Arch come to mind).  Other NPS designations probably would be appropriate if we are going by the theory that "National Park"  has brand equity.

I disagree with the Arch being questionable. It's one of the most visited national parks in the country. The Arch is the tallest monument in the US, surpassing the Washington Monument. It commemorates the Louisiana Purchase which doubled the area of the young US. The site also includes the courthouse where the Dred Scott was reached. It deserves to be as much a national park as the Statue of Liberty. It may not be an outdoors national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a national park.

[kphoger]

I disagree with the Arch being questionable. It's one of the most visited national parks in the country. The Arch is the tallest monument in the US, surpassing the Washington Monument. It commemorates the Louisiana Purchase which doubled the area of the young US. The site also includes the courthouse where the Dred Scott was reached. It deserves to be as much a national park as the Statue of Liberty. It may not be an outdoors national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a national park.

I think they straddle the line between "national park" and "national monument".  I might lean toward Gateway Arch being a park and the Statue of Liberty being a monument, but that's really splitting hairs.

[Max Rockatansky]

Having every state get a "National Park"  probably would water down the designation a little.  Some of the current National Parks are kind of questionable being designated as such (Congaree, Biscayne and Gateway Arch come to mind).  Other NPS designations probably would be appropriate if we are going by the theory that "National Park"  has brand equity.

I disagree with the Arch being questionable. It's one of the most visited national parks in the country. The Arch is the tallest monument in the US, surpassing the Washington Monument. It commemorates the Louisiana Purchase which doubled the area of the young US. The site also includes the courthouse where the Dred Scott was reached. It deserves to be as much a national park as the Statue of Liberty. It may not be an outdoors national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a national park.

I wouldn't with it being a "National Monument"  which I would tend to view as being more in line with it's history.  Similarly something like Hot Springs National Park (which is very old designation) fits more what one would think of a National Monument.  I can't go on something like a back country hike Gateway Arch, the designation just doesn't fit with the bulk existing National Parks.  To me a National Park at minimum needs to feature something from the natural environment and allow one to explore it.

[vdeane]

Given that the national parks are subject to the whims of an increasingly dysfunctional federal government and government shutdowns, I am very thankful that our NYS parks are NOT national parks.  I don't want what happened to Joshua Tree National Park to happen here.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/28/joshua-tree-national-park-damage-government-shutdown

Not that state governments are much better. If I remember correctly, NY parks were shutdown under Patterson. Budget extension in ongoing budget cycle should keep things moving, but doesn't help the case of functional state government.

It looks like he threatened to do that, but I'm not sure if it actually went through - especially after the feds threatened to withhold funding.  In any case, closed is better than what happened with Joshua Tree National Park, which remained open but with nobody there, resulting in irreparable damage when trees were cut down to make new roads or otherwise vandalized.

I still find that NY is more functional than the federal government.  The Congressional budget shenanigans of 2013 cost me my job and the issues with getting state and local aid passed in 2020 could have caused the same to happen again.  Anyone counting on Congress for anything is a fool.  Unfortunately, it's impossible to get away from Congress completely due to how much is reliant on federal funding these days, but becoming even more subject to the whims of Congress cannot possibly be good.

[Rothman]

Having every state get a "National Park"  probably would water down the designation a little.  Some of the current National Parks are kind of questionable being designated as such (Congaree, Biscayne and Gateway Arch come to mind).  Other NPS designations probably would be appropriate if we are going by the theory that "National Park"  has brand equity.

I disagree with the Arch being questionable. It's one of the most visited national parks in the country. The Arch is the tallest monument in the US, surpassing the Washington Monument. It commemorates the Louisiana Purchase which doubled the area of the young US. The site also includes the courthouse where the Dred Scott was reached. It deserves to be as much a national park as the Statue of Liberty. It may not be an outdoors national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a national park.

I wouldn't with it being a "National Monument"  which I would tend to view as being more in line with it's history.  Similarly something like Hot Springs National Park (which is very old designation) fits more what one would think of a National Monument.  I can't go on something like a back country hike Gateway Arch, the designation just doesn't fit with the bulk existing National Parks.  To me a National Park at minimum needs to feature something from the natural environment and allow one to explore it.

Not sure how you're defining "national monument," but the Antiquities Act does that for us.

[triplemultiplex]

Perhaps Mount Saint Helens, although it's not eligible according to the question because it's now national forest, not state park.

Mt. St. Helens is a National Monument.  Designated after the 1980 eruption from national forest land.

Surprised no one has mentioned The Adirondacks.  Currently state land, seems iconic enough for the upgrade.  Probably not the whole thing, but some core areas that are already set aside as wilderness.

[Max Rockatansky]

Having every state get a "National Park"  probably would water down the designation a little.  Some of the current National Parks are kind of questionable being designated as such (Congaree, Biscayne and Gateway Arch come to mind).  Other NPS designations probably would be appropriate if we are going by the theory that "National Park"  has brand equity.

I disagree with the Arch being questionable. It's one of the most visited national parks in the country. The Arch is the tallest monument in the US, surpassing the Washington Monument. It commemorates the Louisiana Purchase which doubled the area of the young US. The site also includes the courthouse where the Dred Scott was reached. It deserves to be as much a national park as the Statue of Liberty. It may not be an outdoors national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a national park.

I wouldn't with it being a "National Monument"  which I would tend to view as being more in line with it's history.  Similarly something like Hot Springs National Park (which is very old designation) fits more what one would think of a National Monument.  I can't go on something like a back country hike Gateway Arch, the designation just doesn't fit with the bulk existing National Parks.  To me a National Park at minimum needs to feature something from the natural environment and allow one to explore it.

Not sure how you're defining "national monument," but the Antiquities Act does that for us.

Correct, a lot traditional National Monuments were largely actual structures or sites of archeological importance.  Recently the Antiquities Act has been used to convert Federally held lands to higher levels protective status.  A lot of the recent National Monuments in many cases would be more akin to what I would expect out of a remote National Park or National Forest.

[Scott5114]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

The problem of not having every state have a national park is that then you end up with a good chunk of people with no interest in funding the national park system. I would imagine the vast majority of Oklahomans have never been to a national park and have little concept of what one is because there hasn't been one anywhere near here since 1976. Then the lawmakers that state elects understandably won't vote to support the national park system, because it does nothing for their constituents but cost them money.

[kkt]

Perhaps Mount Saint Helens, although it's not eligible according to the question because it's now national forest, not state park.

Mt. St. Helens is a National Monument.  Designated after the 1980 eruption from national forest land.

Surprised no one has mentioned The Adirondacks.  Currently state land, seems iconic enough for the upgrade.  Probably not the whole thing, but some core areas that are already set aside as wilderness.

Mt. St. Helens is a National Monument, but administered by the Forest Service just as it was before the eruption.  I was there twice for a week each time - one unsuccessful attempt to climb, and one successful.  Reserved climbing permits and picked them up through a Forest Service Contractor.  Never once saw any Forest Service employees or vehicles.  If it was a National Park there would probably be a gate where they charged admission, rather than relying on chance to spot anyone climbing without a climbing permit displayed.  Probably walk through the climber's bivouac each evening and make sure everyone there had climbing permits as well.

But it's good that the Antiquities Act lets the President protect an area quickly.  Mt. St. Helens is in a lot better laboratory for the regrowth of a forest following a catastrophe because protections were put in place quickly instead of taking years to pass through Congress.

[webny99]

Surprised no one has mentioned The Adirondacks.  Currently state land, seems iconic enough for the upgrade.  Probably not the whole thing, but some core areas that are already set aside as wilderness.

I did in passing, in reply #3. I also said "not the whole thing" so I guess we are on the same page there. 

[kkt]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

The problem of not having every state have a national park is that then you end up with a good chunk of people with no interest in funding the national park system. I would imagine the vast majority of Oklahomans have never been to a national park and have little concept of what one is because there hasn't been one anywhere near here since 1976. Then the lawmakers that state elects understandably won't vote to support the national park system, because it does nothing for their constituents but cost them money.

I agree.  Every state having an interest in the National Park system helps ensure the whole system's funding.

I have a little skepticism that there are really states where there's no notable features worth being a park or national recreation area, seashore,  etc.

[webny99]

Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware would be my top-three "hardest to find somewhere worthy of a National Park", and even then, all three at least have coastline.

[JayhawkCO]

None of the state parks in Colorado are remotely worthy. We, of course, have four national parks and eight national monuments though. I do feel like Dinosaur National Monument (and maybe Colorado National Monument) should be Parks though.

[Scott5114]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

The problem of not having every state have a national park is that then you end up with a good chunk of people with no interest in funding the national park system. I would imagine the vast majority of Oklahomans have never been to a national park and have little concept of what one is because there hasn't been one anywhere near here since 1976. Then the lawmakers that state elects understandably won't vote to support the national park system, because it does nothing for their constituents but cost them money.

I agree.  Every state having an interest in the National Park system helps ensure the whole system's funding.

I have a little skepticism that there are really states where there's no notable features worth being a park or national recreation area, seashore,  etc.

I feel like it's important that there be one unit that's an actual named National Park, not a National Recreation Area or National Monument or what have you. We have Chickasaw National Recreation Area but I don't think most people realize that's just a National Park by another name.

And even if they don't have any notable features worth being a park, I'd say it's worth it to add a few generic-wilderness-area national parks to the system just to ensure that people have skin in the game. The audience in that case isn't the people who RV-trip to each national park checking them off the list and comparing the parks to one another as they go, it's the locals.

[Bruce]

Palouse State Park should be a national monument, if only to give the east side of the state something.

Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park could use the same treatment.

I think a lot of the large Western Washington state parks (like Deception Pass) would become unbearably crowded if they were bumped up to national park status.

Ebey's Landing is already an NPS site...

But it isn't branded as a national park, and is on a relatively "boring" part of the island. Deception Pass is already fairly popular and would definitely fit the public's image of a national park, thus driving more tourist traffic.

[formulanone]

Having every state get a "National Park"  probably would water down the designation a little.

At the risk of being trite: That's such a West Coast-thing to say.

[Rothman]

Having every state get a "National Park"  probably would water down the designation a little.

At the risk of being trite: That's such a West Coast-thing to say.

I'm an East Coaster that agrees with him.

[Rothman]

Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware would be my top-three "hardest to find somewhere worthy of a National Park", and even then, all three at least have coastline.

All three have NPS sites, albeit Delaware's is the most recent addition that has already been re-designated.

[Rothman]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

The problem of not having every state have a national park is that then you end up with a good chunk of people with no interest in funding the national park system. I would imagine the vast majority of Oklahomans have never been to a national park and have little concept of what one is because there hasn't been one anywhere near here since 1976. Then the lawmakers that state elects understandably won't vote to support the national park system, because it does nothing for their constituents but cost them money.

I agree.  Every state having an interest in the National Park system helps ensure the whole system's funding.

I have a little skepticism that there are really states where there's no notable features worth being a park or national recreation area, seashore,  etc.

If you're talking about the system, every state has a unit in that system as is.

[SD Mapman]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

The problem of not having every state have a national park is that then you end up with a good chunk of people with no interest in funding the national park system. I would imagine the vast majority of Oklahomans have never been to a national park and have little concept of what one is because there hasn't been one anywhere near here since 1976. Then the lawmakers that state elects understandably won't vote to support the national park system, because it does nothing for their constituents but cost them money.

I agree.  Every state having an interest in the National Park system helps ensure the whole system's funding.

I have a little skepticism that there are really states where there's no notable features worth being a park or national recreation area, seashore,  etc.

If you're talking about the system, every state has a unit in that system as is.

Yeah, but how many people know National Monuments are functionally the same thing as National Parks? I mean a good number of people out by me would, since we have multiple NPs and NMs within a couple hours, but I'm not sure about, say, inner urban areas. Not that I'm necessarily advocating for proliferation of NPs over NMs, but it is a point to consider.

[kkt]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

The problem of not having every state have a national park is that then you end up with a good chunk of people with no interest in funding the national park system. I would imagine the vast majority of Oklahomans have never been to a national park and have little concept of what one is because there hasn't been one anywhere near here since 1976. Then the lawmakers that state elects understandably won't vote to support the national park system, because it does nothing for their constituents but cost them money.

I agree.  Every state having an interest in the National Park system helps ensure the whole system's funding.

I have a little skepticism that there are really states where there's no notable features worth being a park or national recreation area, seashore,  etc.

If you're talking about the system, every state has a unit in that system as is.

Nice to hear that my skepticism is justified

[kalvado]

I don't like the idea of mandating that every state have a national park.  National parks should be to preserve true areas of national interest.

The problem of not having every state have a national park is that then you end up with a good chunk of people with no interest in funding the national park system. I would imagine the vast majority of Oklahomans have never been to a national park and have little concept of what one is because there hasn't been one anywhere near here since 1976. Then the lawmakers that state elects understandably won't vote to support the national park system, because it does nothing for their constituents but cost them money.

I agree.  Every state having an interest in the National Park system helps ensure the whole system's funding.

I have a little skepticism that there are really states where there's no notable features worth being a park or national recreation area, seashore,  etc.

If you're talking about the system, every state has a unit in that system as is.

There are sites of very different types within the NPS system.
When we're talking about parks, I would think of Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Everglades, and Adirondack.
Another type is high-demand tourist locations like the Statue of Liberty, Alcatraz, Niagara.  (yes, I am deliberately mixing things up here)
Places like Saratoga Moument or Martin van Buren house are yet another type of site.
And there are definitely quite a few things in between. Those types have pretty different logistics and fiscal profiles. I assume, large parks are consuming most money for upkeep, and more likely to affect public opinion.