truncate (TRUNG-kate) v. To shorten, as by cutting off.
My cousin Barb’s husband Jim is doubly entitled to be a crusty old bugger, being a retired police officer (he was a Captain on the Berkeley, California, police force) and a retired full-bird Colonel (USAF). Every time I visit Jim at his Bay Area home, he and I spend a lot of time discussing things. We do love to get under each other’s skin. Jim is an S.O.B. (Sweet Old Buddy) and I am a PCPWHNIHTWRW (Pinko College Professor Who Has No Idea How the World Really Works). Barb referees our discussions, being careful to duck out of the way and shield her ears when we really get into it.
During my most recent visit to the Left Coast, Jim and I were discussing national parks and he was rattling on about how he and Barb intended to visit all of them before they died. I told him that he’d have to step up the pace if he expected to visit all 391 before we planted him. He told me that he only has to visit 58, there being only 58 National Park System units designated National Park. He added that I was sadly uninformed for a geography professor, and that he intended to live long enough to dance on my grave. He did not actually say “dance.”
This conversation took place last January, and I thought I had paid no heed to Jim’s argument. (After all, I almost never pay serious attention to anything that Jim says.) But just recently I noticed that my use of national park terminology has shifted perceptibly. In the past few months I’ve gotten into the habit of referring to the 58 national park-designated units as national parks and the rest as simply NPS units.
Without benefit of conscious decision, I have subscribed to the notion that “All national parks are NPS units, but not all NPS units should be called national parks.” In other words, I have, at least at some subconscious level, come around to Jim’s way of thinking.
What a revolting development! The very thought that Jim will now be given free rein to gloat is almost more than I can bear. I briefly considered not telling him about my cognitive conversion but decided that this would be the coward’s way out. So, when I see him next month (the three of us are going to visit Redwood and Crater Lake together) I’m going to tell him that, after allowing for legitimate differences of opinion, and with due regard for his woeful ignorance of enabling legislation, Congressional intent, Supreme Court rulings, and National Park Service traditions, policies and practices, it may be technically appropriate for him to truncate his national park life list at 58.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
And can you imagine anybody wanting to be called an "NPS unit ranger"?!
MikeD--
Boston Harbor Islands has cultural sensitivity issues for the phrase "recreation area" due to the Native American burial grounds. Their name on their demo annotated species list website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/DemoSpecies/BOHA/index.cfm) went from "Boston Harbor islands National Recreation Area" to "Boston Harbor Islands, a Unit of the National Park System", and finally to simply "Boston Harbor Islands".
Rangertoo is absolutely correct: from the inside, the unit type (Park, Monument, NRA, NHS, and the others) doesn't matter. However, the public/political view is very different, and National _Park_ status is perceived as a higher status. Backers of several units have made great efforts to obtain the name change.
I admit I was unaware of current legislation, thanks for pointing that out. One of the facts that contributed to my error was that I remembered that quite a few National Monuments had been abolished, while to the best of my knowledge, this hasn't happened to any National Park.
While, technically, the change to NP status doesn't bring in itself more resources, it is often associated with an acreage acquisition and a potential increase in visitation (perception is important). Those can justify more resources.
I agree the limit can be arbitrary, however, not units have the same interest, so there is some rationale on having different designations.
Tuan.
National Parks images
@Quang-Tuan Luong:
There are a number of former National Parks. Most of them have been incorporated or split into other National Parks and a few have been "down graded" to other designations but stay within the NPS. But one has been given to the state of Michigan as a State Park and one former National Park is now a National Game Preserve of the FWS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National...
Be very careful when using Wikipedia as a source of information about America's national parks. It is riddled with mistakes and contains serious omissions. Always use more reliable sources if you have a choice.
Where can I find an accurate and up to date list of the 391 NPS units?
@Bob:
Regarding Wikipedia and the NPS: I see many omission, which is natural as the whole project is a "work in progress". But "riddled with mistakes"? Have you found serious mistakes in NPS-related articles at Wikipedia recently?
Call for participation: Let's collect five Wikipedia articles on NPS units that need improvement. Then we choose one and put all our expertize together and brush up this article.
I have found numerous mistakes in Wikipedia articles about national parks, including many I personally consider to be serious. I'm not going to joust with anybody about what is serious and what is minor. Accuracy matters, period. I stand by my original advice: Never use a Wikipedia article as a primary information source if a more reliable source is readily available. I do encourage people to fix the problems in the Wikipedia articles if they have the expertise, time, and inclination.