With the fairly recent designation of New River Gorge National Park, are there any state parks that could be promoted to national status? My vote would be Baxter State Park in northern Maine because it is home to Mt. Katahdin and the start of the iconic Appalachian Trail. Any others?
Niagara Falls State Park
Numerous ones in the Big Sur area of California and Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada.
Certainly Niagara. Also Adirondack State Park, maybe not the whole thing but at least part of it.
And if Cuyahoga Valley NP is the bar? Add at least a few more from NY... Allegany and Letchworth, for starters.
None -- unless adequate resources are provided to properly maintain the parks. And I say this as a HUGE fan of the National Parks -- my wife and I have been to 42 of the 51 full National Parks in the lower 48 states, and well over half of the NPS-administered places (National Memorials, National Monuments, etc.).
With that being said, the three that jump out at me are Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Custer State Park in South Dakota, and Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Texas. All spectacular and unique.
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 06, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
None -- unless adequate resources are provided to properly maintain the parks. And I say this as a HUGE fan of the National Parks -- my wife and I have been to 42 of the 51 full National Parks in the lower 48 states, and well over half of the NPS-administered places (National Memorials, National Monuments, etc.).
With that being said, the three that jump out at me are Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Custer State Park in South Dakota, and Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Texas. All spectacular and unique.
Custer could just be annexed into Wind Cave National Park. SD 87/Needles Highway even begins in NPS owned lands already.
I would say that I think the NPS is a better steward than the state of California for Redwood parks. The NPS was pretty prepared for the KNP Fire with years of controlled burns whereas places like Big Basin State Park were an overgrown tinder box waiting to happen. The parks I referred to above in Big Sur similarly are minimally managed by the state and have had some near misses in Coastal Redwood groves.
Quote from: Rothman on April 06, 2022, 08:54:46 AM
Niagara Falls State Park
I was there this past summer and I guess I didn't even realize that it was a state park and not a National Park.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2022, 09:28:56 AM
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 06, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
None -- unless adequate resources are provided to properly maintain the parks. And I say this as a HUGE fan of the National Parks -- my wife and I have been to 42 of the 51 full National Parks in the lower 48 states, and well over half of the NPS-administered places (National Memorials, National Monuments, etc.).
With that being said, the three that jump out at me are Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Custer State Park in South Dakota, and Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Texas. All spectacular and unique.
Custer could just be annexed into Wind Cave National Park. SD 87/Needles Highway even begins in NPS owned lands already.
I would say that I think the NPS is a better steward than the state of California for Redwood parks. The NPS was pretty prepared for the KNP Fire with years of controlled burns whereas places like Big Basin State Park were an overgrown tinder box waiting to happen. The parks I referred to above in Big Sur similarly are minimally managed by the state and have had some near misses in Coastal Redwood groves.
I agree that the NPS does better than California (and most states), but in our visits to the parks I see the funds really getting stretched. And certain administrations like to throw more areas under the management of the NPS without providing adequate funding.
I haven't been to Custer since Moby Dick was a guppy so I'm not that familiar with its proximity to Wind Cave -- my selection of that park was based mostly on talks with friends and listening to podcasts. Several of our remaining parks to go to are in the Dakotas, and we are thinking about heading that way next summer. (Isle Royale and Voyageurs are in the plans for this year.) We have been to both Valley of Fire and Palo Duro Canyon within the past five years, and would strongly advocate for them to be promoted.
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 06, 2022, 11:30:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2022, 09:28:56 AM
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 06, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
None -- unless adequate resources are provided to properly maintain the parks. And I say this as a HUGE fan of the National Parks -- my wife and I have been to 42 of the 51 full National Parks in the lower 48 states, and well over half of the NPS-administered places (National Memorials, National Monuments, etc.).
With that being said, the three that jump out at me are Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Custer State Park in South Dakota, and Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Texas. All spectacular and unique.
Custer could just be annexed into Wind Cave National Park. SD 87/Needles Highway even begins in NPS owned lands already.
I would say that I think the NPS is a better steward than the state of California for Redwood parks. The NPS was pretty prepared for the KNP Fire with years of controlled burns whereas places like Big Basin State Park were an overgrown tinder box waiting to happen. The parks I referred to above in Big Sur similarly are minimally managed by the state and have had some near misses in Coastal Redwood groves.
I agree that the NPS does better than California (and most states), but in our visits to the parks I see the funds really getting stretched. And certain administrations like to throw more areas under the management of the NPS without providing adequate funding.
I haven't been to Custer since Moby Dick was a guppy so I'm not that familiar with its proximity to Wind Cave -- my selection of that park was based mostly on talks with friends and listening to podcasts. Several of our remaining parks to go to are in the Dakotas, and we are thinking about heading that way next summer. (Isle Royale and Voyageurs are in the plans for this year.) We have been to both Valley of Fire and Palo Duro Canyon within the past five years, and would strongly advocate for them to be promoted.
Even the difference in funding between the NPS and NFS is massive. The fires down in Sequoia National Forest last year were way more intense than Sequoia National Park. At minimum the former at least had more road infrastructure to move resources through to fully surround the fire.
Dead Horse Point State Park should become part of Canyonlands National Park.
^^^
Goblin Valley State Park to the west or Dead Horse/Canyonlands might be National Park worthy if some BLM lands in the San Rafael Swell was added to it.
Not a state park but parts of the white mountains national forest should be a national park.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 06, 2022, 08:49:41 AM
With the fairly recent designation of New River Gorge National Park, are there any state parks that could be promoted to national status?
For those not familiar, BlueOutback7 is eluding to the West Virginia state park on the south rim (Grandview) that is literally the backbone of the newest National Park. But the two state parks on the north rim might even be more deserving: Hawks Nest and Babcock. Although Babcock is included in the Preserve, the entirety of Hawks Nest remains on the far northwestern edge of the National Park. I'm somewhat surprised that they were not incorporated into the National Park itself, but West Virginia is mighty proud of its state park system and these are two of the gemstones.
Make sure you plan your trip to New River Gorge when the rhododendron are in bloom. The best part of Babcock is hiking into Glade Creek Hollow through the boulders beneath a canopy of rhododendron thicket. The Catawbas bloom in mid-May/late-May, whereas the Great Rhododendrons bloom in late-June/early-July. One source says to check with the State Park ranger in advance to get a better idea of when to expect the blooms to be at their peak. Same can be said for the trails at Hawks Nest.
(Don't get confused. There is a Glade Creek on both the north side and the south side of the New River Gorge. Glade Creek Hollow is on the north side and Glade Creek Gorge is on the south side. The lower part of Glade Creek Gorge is also in the National Park, located upstream of Grandview. I've heard that those trails are great as well, but you ought to contact the National Park ranger to get the rhododendron status).
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 06, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
None -- unless adequate resources are provided to properly maintain the parks. And I say this as a HUGE fan of the National Parks -- my wife and I have been to 42 of the 51 full National Parks in the lower 48 states, and well over half of the NPS-administered places (National Memorials, National Monuments, etc.).
With that being said, the three that jump out at me are Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Custer State Park in South Dakota, and Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Texas. All spectacular and unique.
A really interesting question is if any parks are actually making money for the NPS, and if any of the sites listed here can become profitable. As of 2019, NPS receipts were about 20% of overall budget, but I suspect things may differ from site to site. Looks like half of their receipts was from Statue of Liberty ticket sales alone.
I wonder how things work with Niagara park for NYS. There is no entrance fee for pedestrians, but a lot of attraction ticket sales and parking fees. Visitation is huge, it would be 4th most visited NPS location. I bet Niagara is a money-maker for NYS parks.
We discussed that more than once - but my strong impression is that Niagara is not properly managed by NYS and would benefit from NPS management. Not that everyone agrees with that, apparently. I can find some older threads and not to mess with this one.
Again, if it is actually a money-maker, NYS would resist the transfer, and additional funding to straighten things would be paid off.
Another shout-out to an Appalachian canyon park: Breaks Interstate Park on the Virginia/Kentucky line. It used to be called the Russell Fork Canyon, but nowadays folks simply call it "The Breaks" or "Breaks Canyon". Not as spectacular as the New River Gorge, but deeper and certainly worthy of a way-out-the way roadtrip. That section of the Russell Fork of the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River (that's a mouthful of rivers) is the deepest canyon in the East.
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
Quote from: kalvado on April 06, 2022, 06:06:45 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 06, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
None -- unless adequate resources are provided to properly maintain the parks. And I say this as a HUGE fan of the National Parks -- my wife and I have been to 42 of the 51 full National Parks in the lower 48 states, and well over half of the NPS-administered places (National Memorials, National Monuments, etc.).
With that being said, the three that jump out at me are Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Custer State Park in South Dakota, and Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Texas. All spectacular and unique.
A really interesting question is if any parks are actually making money for the NPS, and if any of the sites listed here can become profitable. As of 2019, NPS receipts were about 20% of overall budget, but I suspect things may differ from site to site. Looks like half of their receipts was from Statue of Liberty ticket sales alone.
I wonder how things work with Niagara park for NYS. There is no entrance fee for pedestrians, but a lot of attraction ticket sales and parking fees. Visitation is huge, it would be 4th most visited NPS location. I bet Niagara is a money-maker for NYS parks.
We discussed that more than once - but my strong impression is that Niagara is not properly managed by NYS and would benefit from NPS management. Not that everyone agrees with that, apparently. I can find some older threads and not to mess with this one.
Again, if it is actually a money-maker, NYS would resist the transfer, and additional funding to straighten things would be paid off.
I'm not sure how many of the National Parks charge admission now -- I have a Senior Pass (good for the rest of my life for a one-time $80 fee) so I don't pay that much attention. The most-visited park (Great Smoky Mountains, with upwards of 10 million visitors per year) has no entrance fee; I believe that is because US 441 traverses the park. Many of the western parks have a $30 entrance fee that is good for seven days, and they are also implementing an admission reservation system for entrance to the park because they are becoming so crowded.
I find the need to adequately fund the NPS to be a separate issue from the question in the OP.
That said, the need for increased maintenance and law enforcement funding is quite evident. NPS relies far too much on untrained volunteers as is.
Not necessarily should be, but could be:
Mackinac Island State Park, Michigan - actually was a national park, the second national park ever, from 1875 to 1895.
Starved Rock State Park, Illinois.
MN contenders:
Lake Itasca State Park
Minnehaha Falls Regional Park in Minneapolis
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 06, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
None -- unless adequate resources are provided to properly maintain the parks. And I say this as a HUGE fan of the National Parks -- my wife and I have been to 42 of the 51 full National Parks in the lower 48 states, and well over half of the NPS-administered places (National Memorials, National Monuments, etc.).
With that being said, the three that jump out at me are Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Custer State Park in South Dakota, and Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Texas. All spectacular and unique.
Well said. Congress is happy to make new national parks, but not so great about funding upkeep even for the existing ones, and worse things happen during Federal government shutdowns than just the parks being closed to visitors.
Many of the California, Oregon, and Washington coastal beaches and adjacent lands are beautiful enough to be national parks, but I'm not sure they'd be better taken care of or funded than they are now.
Perhaps Mount Saint Helens, although it's not eligible according to the question because it's now national forest, not state park.
Kodachrome Basin in Utah could make a good national park, although I know you can scarcely throw a rock in Utah without hitting a national park.
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.
Quote from: Bruce on April 07, 2022, 03:10:24 AM
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...
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2022, 09:09:25 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on April 07, 2022, 08:00:11 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2022, 09:09:25 PM
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.
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. I usually figure at least one or two things aren't functioning due to age, vandalism, or lack of support.
On a very local level, we get about the same level of quality of park upkeep and acquisition from a non-profit volunteer organization like the Land Trust of North Alabama, since the state has limited coffers. There's even a few "private land preserves" which are kind enough to let you stroll around on weekends; but you must stick to the rules, like toting away your own garbage, stay in the preserve limits, and don't steal things, or you're banned (these are rules I can agree with).
Quote from: formulanone on April 07, 2022, 09:20:55 AM
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.
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 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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: skluth on April 07, 2022, 11:20:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: kalvado on April 07, 2022, 08:00:11 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2022, 09:09:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: skluth on April 07, 2022, 11:20:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: kkt on April 07, 2022, 12:50:29 AM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: skluth on April 07, 2022, 11:20:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 07, 2022, 02:35:57 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 07, 2022, 12:50:29 AM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 07, 2022, 02:35:57 PM
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. :biggrin:
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2022, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: kkt on April 07, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2022, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 06:53:31 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 07, 2022, 03:10:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
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. :)
Quote from: formulanone on April 07, 2022, 05:16:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
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.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2022, 03:19:37 PM
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.
Quote from: kkt on April 07, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2022, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:23:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 07, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2022, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:23:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 07, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2022, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
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 :)
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:23:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 07, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2022, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on April 06, 2022, 10:23:06 PM
Not necessarily should be, but could be:
Mackinac Island State Park, Michigan - actually was a national park, the second national park ever, from 1875 to 1895.
Starved Rock State Park, Illinois.
I was going to say Mackinac Island too. I guess it's ok as a state park though.
Places shouldn't be designated as a "National Park" instead of a "National Monument" or a "National Wildlife Area" just for the expressed purpose of getting more people to visit.