Should Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore be renamed as a national park?/NPS
Since it was authorized in 1966, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Indiana has always been known as a national lakeshore. But now some members of Indiana's congressional delegation think it should be renamed a "national park."
On Wednesday the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks will consider their legislation. In doing so, the politicians note that as long ago as 1916 there was a suggestion that within that area there be a Sand Dunes National Park established.
In further justifying the name change, the proposed legislation notes that the Great Lakes form the largest freshwater system on Earth, that Lake Michigan is the second largest Great Lake by volume, that the southern shore of Lake Michigan includes some of the most geologically and biologically diverse areas in the United States, that the “Indiana Dunes” were formed over a period of 12,000 years by natural forces, including glaciers, wind, and water, and that Indian tribes, including the Miami and Potawatomi Indian tribes, inhabited the Indiana Dunes region for over 10,000 years.
The legislation also points out that "local conservation efforts to preserve the Indiana Dunes began as early as 1899 when Henry Cowles, a botanist from the University of Chicago who is known for being one of the founders of contemporary ecological study and thought, published an article entitled “Ecological Relations of the Vegetation on Sand Dunes of Lake Michigan” in the Botanical Gazette, bringing international attention to the intricate ecosystems on the Indiana Dunes. On October 30, 1916, 1 month after the establishment of the National Park Service, Stephen Mather, the first Director of the National Park Service, held hearings in Chicago, Illinois, to gauge public sentiment on establishing a large portion of the southern shore of Lake Michigan as one of the first national parks in the United States, to be known as the “Sand Dunes National Park."
However, Mather's plans were interrupted because the United States entered World War I and national focus shifted away from national parks to national defense.
The measure is scheduled to be considered when the subcommittee meets Wednesday at 4 p.m. local time.
Comments
These are reasonable questions. The name designation does not change the mission or management of the lakeshore. By law, all units of the National Park System are managed the same, regardless of title. That is one reason why the titles are virtually meaningless. There is no such thing as "national park status." The management does not change with name changes. The park would periodically have to replace signs and publications, so those costs would have to be absorbed, but they would not be that extensive. As to why change the name? Yes, many people will choose to visit a place called a national "park" because the public has been conditioned to think the the name means something. It does not and we should stop pretending it does. The current myriad of designations merely leaves the public confused as to what is and is not in the National Park System and where their park passes apply. It is time people stopped thinking that the title national "park" caries some sort of tangible value. The names are at the whim of Congress and many "national parks" started as other designations and simply had their name changed. At Indiana Dunes, the local community would see this as a completing the 80-year fight for this park and a final chapter in bringing the desire for what was once proposed as Sand Dunes National Park into existance.
So as to cost, I would say $5M conservatively, to pay for the research, change of signage, probably increase in staff salaries, etc.. Interesting how when it is in their own back yard Senators suddenly want a National Park designation.
https://www.nps.gov/goga/planyourvisit/designations.htm details a bit of the differences. In a recent Reddit post by people 'affected' by the Trump presidency there were numerous posts by scientists who found their access to both grants and access to the area curtailed when scaled back from a National Park or NRA to just BLM lands. Wonder if there is some additional funding and research grants that might come with a Park designation.
I disagree that the title National Park is meaningless. If that was so, why would people bother to rename NPS units in the first place? And who "conditions" the public and why? I've discussed that at length in a 2000+ word piece, so I am not going to try to cut and paste here, if interested in my opinion see: http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/what-is-a-national-park/
When a 91 acre spot in St. Louis with a stainless steel arch became a National Park, then all arguments on what should be a National Park became redundant. The whole confusing name thing, National Lakeshore, National Military Park etc. should now be done away with and make all NPS sites National Parks.
The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore - like several other National Parks - is comprised of several parcels but mostly it is 2 big beautiful areas, plus the magical Pin Hook Bog and the Heron Rookery. It is an exquisite diverse area with a remarkable historical and ecological legacy and so important in Bird Migration pathways - absolutely a National treasure. Better to look forward and not backwards into "what might have been" . (BTW/ the Cuyahoga Valley has neither the biological nor landscape diversity of the Dunes. ) Actually, i think that all 14 of the National Lakeshores and National Seashores (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_national_lakeshores_...) should just be designated "National Parks" because that is what they are and these other desigantions are just confusing.
Staff salaries do not change because of a name change. This park superintendent is at the GS-15 level, so it will not go higher. I cannot think of any research that would be needed. New signs would not cost anywhere near $200,000 never mind $5 million. As noted earlier, by law, all units of the National Park System are managed the same, regardless of title. Titles are simply public nomenclature and it can be shown that designations have little in the way of consistency. National "lakeshore" is a tough name for the public to understand because 1) there are only 4 of them, and 2) lake shore (2 words) and lakeshore (one word) describe geographic features. The title "national lakeshore" does not sound like a park to a lot of people. It is not uncommon to see media call the place "Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Park," because they cannot figure out any other way to indicate that this a a park, not a geogrphic location.
Indiana Dunes Metro Park would be the better.
I listed to the subcommittee hearing, which is recorded at https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-mee.... It was pretty brief. The NPS Deputy Director, P. Daniel Smith read a statement indicating the position of the NPS with respect to each measure (support, neutral, oppose). The Subcommitee members asked the NPS to provide rationales for their position. The NPS did NOT support Indiana Dunes National Park. I reserve my own opinion for after a visit, but looking at the map, objections by "Jeremy" rings true.
I disagree with the idea that now that we have the anomaly of Gateway National Park (which the NPS did NOT support), everything could be a National Park. If anything, it is time to stop that problematic slide. For more commentary, see https://www.terragalleria.com/blog/gateway-arch-national-park-thoughts-o...