Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is now Indiana Dunes National Park/NPS
The spending bill President Trump signed on Friday included a provision that changed the name of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore to Indiana Dunes National Park. This change takes place immediately.
The bill also changes the name of the Miller Woods Trail to the Paul H. Douglas Trail in honor of the late Illinois senator who helped lead the fight along with Save the Dunes and other citizen groups to create the national lakeshore in 1966.
"One-hundred-and-three years in the making, what a terrific tribute to the neighbors, partners, visitors and National PARK staff," said Indiana Dunes Superintendent Paul Labovitz. "We are so appreciative to the entire Indiana delegation for their recognition and support of this national treasure."
The park staff looks forward to celebrating this name change in the near future and to working with local communities and partners on spreading the word about the nation’s 61st national park.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Chicago businessman and the first Director of the National Park Service, Stephen Mather, proposed protection of the Indiana dunes as Sand Dunes National Park in 1916. It was the first park he proposed after he became Director. If Congress had acted on that proposal Indiana Dunes would have been the 10th national park in the country.
To me Mather will always be a native San Franciscan and graduate of UC Berkeley. UC Berkeley grads were prominent in the early days of the National Park Service, including Mather, Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane, and Horace Albright.
It is a beautiful and ecologically significant place. But it is too small. The park should be expanded to include 2.200-acre Indiana Dunes State Park and some key adjacent tracts of land should be acquired from willing sellers.
The 1966 law that created Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore specified that "The Indiana Dunes State Park may be acquired only by donation of the State of Indiana, and the Secretary is hereby directed to negotiate with the State for the acquisition of said park." So, the law does direct the National Park Serivce to seek the acquisition of the state park. However, the state of Indiana has never been agreeable to this. As for land acquisition, there are two obstacles: 1) the park has no money for land acquisition, 2) there are very few willing sellers who own land within the park's authorized boundaries.
It is just me, or do the last two National Parks (Indiana Dunes and Gateway Arch) feel like political payoffs rather than meaningful and necessary upgrades?
The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore had just celebrated it's 50th anniversary in 2016, it's been around for a while. The designation as a National Park recognizes its import with respect to it housing the greatest biodiversity in the continental US east of the Rockies. It is not just beaches. Over 3 million people visit the Park every year and the designation was buried in must pass legislation, as is tradition.
The name change also reflects the diversity of the park. It is in the top ten most biologically diverse parks in the National Park System and contains dozens of historic buildings, ancient and modern dunes, archeological sites dating back more than 10,000 years, trails, campground, an education center, a USGS field station, and more.
Exactly how does changing a park name consist of a "political payoff?" The park gets no more money or staff because of the name change and the employees do not get raises. Literally, the only thing that changes is the name. Changing the name of a place from "national seashore" to "national park" is not an "upgrade." It is nothing other than a name change. Laws governing the management of the park are unchanged.
Parks create more money for the economy than a lesser park unit such as a monument, historical park, lakeshore, etc...Therefore, for example in this case, Pences state of Indiana would benefit from even greater tourism and dollars that come with it with the name change.
what a joke, the Gateway Arch and this Dune Shore park are nothing signifiant when compared to the national parks legacy. it makes me sick that this legacy of national parks has been tarnished with these low quality unwonderous parcels of land. All national parks prior to this have a wow factor and this low grade move shows how unconnected our president is to reality
John Thompson, are you actually blaming Trump for this? A POTUS cannot designate a national park. Ask the congressional delegation first. That being said, I do agree that the last two new NPs have been baffling. Gateway Arch should have been made a national historical site or park.
What they should have done is take all of the Great Lakes National Lakseshores and combined them into one Great Lakes National Park just with separate units.
And the expansion of Shiloh NMP to include Fallen Timbers and other parts of the wider Corinth/Iuka campaign is an excellent development from a historians perspective. More battlefields and parks need to encompass the wider campaigns for greater context. Richmond NBP is one in particula that could benefit from two separate campaign parks, one for the Peninsular campaign and the other for the 64-65 campaign.
I think perhaps some kind of review board outside Congress needs to be created that would address some of these designations. Some of these newer NPs are cheapening the brand. NPs should be Crown Jewels. The best of all. But every politician in DC wants new NPs regardless it seems. We need a review board to separate the wheat from the chafe. I'm not talking all park units but just what becomes a National Park.
It is also surprising that Mathers home isn't a part of the NPS.
Not necessarily. I looked up the visitation numbers when Death Valley changed from National Monument to National Park and it wasn't much different. Pinnacles got one peak and it settled down. Not sure if it was because of the higher publicity or because people would have otherwise wanted to go there.
It does require a Congressional Act to declare a national park though. I believe all NPS areas require that except for National Monuments.
And if you can believe it, Mt St Helens isn't a National Park yet. Not sure if it's because the Forest Service has made it known they don't want to give it up or because there's no local Congressional support. That part of Washington isn't heavily populated, and not sure if Congress members in Portland would care to support it since increased tourist dollars might not make it there.
John thompson, my reading is that Trump had nothing to do with the Indiana Dunes designation. The congressional delegation buried it in the recent "wall" bill and it was thus signed. The acting NPS director actually testified against the NP designation. Say what you will about the Trump administration, but I think Smith's testimony is spot on:
https://www.nwitimes.com/written-testimony-of-p-daniel-smith-acting-nati...
IMHO each of the other three National Lakeshores is far superior (no pun intended) to Indiana Dunes in terms of scenery and general interest, but I'll admit that I'm not a biologist and not swayed by claims about preserving biodiversity - the area was already under the same protection that it will have in the future, right? Warren Dunes, a Michigan state park to the east, is arguably more impressive also. I don't deny Indiana Dunes is a pleasant place to visit, but NP status?
I originally hail from St. Louis (big fan of Ozark NSR!!!) and am aghast at the Gateway Arch NP designation also. I guess we should just redesignate every unit of the NPS as a NP and be done with it.
Which one? I know there's talk about the historic nature of the Mather Homestead in CT, but that's not where Stephen Mather was born or grew up.
And I've been in arguments over whether or not a place like Pinnacles deserved "national park" status. I like the place, but I just didn't get why it would be getting the crown jewel designation.
I agree this is a classic example of "grade inflation" and extends a recent trend in that direction. The name "National Park" has, since the earliest days of the National Park Service, connoted a landscape-scale natural area with numerous features of scenic, natural or historic interest, constituting a superlative example of the type of landscape in its class (be it mountains, desert, prairie, coastline, wetland, forest, etc). Indiana Dunes is a pleasant-enough place but otherwise is none of these. It is too small to be considered landscape scale, has only two or three features of interest, and in overall impression is outclassed by any one of the other 3 National Lakeshores established on the Great Lakes, all of which are larger and more scenic (sorry to say) than Indiana Dunes.
The name "National Park" has a certain cachet to it that brings a level of prestige and visibility to a park, and its surrounding communities and their economy, which other names do not, all other things being equal. The reason for the name upgrade here was local boosterism, primarily economic, in the hopes that the new name would let Indiana Dunes and its communities rise to the top and attract attention and visitation from non-local tourists who make it a point to visit all of the capital-N capital-P National Parks. It is notable that the NPS itself recommended against this upgrade; while those most often quoted in support of it are local congresspeople and chamber-of-commerce types who basically admit this.
There have been many examples of this throughout the history of the national parks system, and most have been properly sidetracked by committee chairs, Interior officials, etc, who knew and cared about the "brand" enough to protect it. The current crop of politicians does not, on both sides of the aisle, and that is the only reason this one got through. The same can be said for Gateway Arch National Park (better left as a national memorial or monument); Pinnacles National Park (better left as a national monument); and arguably Cuyahoga Valley and Congaree National Parks which ignited this recent trend back in the 2000's.
I digress, the congress - the president when he signs a bill to law, whatever it may be. I fully agree with everything you say, I have been to 38 of them and blown away. I have even psyched myself out when visiting some of them, thinking this wont be that spectacular and then I visit everything in WY, HI, UT, CO, AZ, NV, NM ,the WEST Coast and the EAST coast, the Dakotas, even Wind Cave was cool but subtle or Kentucky mesmerizing and its unbelievably iconic, I am truly awed. I thought Great Basin was going to be underwhelming and I saw the world’s oldest trees after a pilgrimage to the heights and it was one of the most humbling experiences. I feel bad for Glacier my children wont be able to see it how it was 25 years ago even, TX and Dry Tortugas. I am leaving AK for last and MI to be explored when I can really indulge. CV-in OH was kinda low key but I understand the concept. I will check out this new one but I will also take everyone’s recommendations and see the nicer places along the Great Lakes. We can only hope that we get some more goods one or uplift in some deserving ones so this trend turns a leaf for the better.
@cjdillon I'm not doubting you, Costa, nor bashing Indiana Dunes, but what are the sources & data for your claims that Indiana Dunes NP is top 10 biodiversity in NPS, and greatest east of the Rockies? Folks at Great Smoky Mountains would certianly dispute the latter, and I'd bet on Big Bend for all taxa species richness, birds, vascular plants, and probably reptiles over Indiana Dunes NP.
OK, I got curious and hit my pilot data, and now I'm doubting you a little. [12 lines of code, off the clock, not using GFE.]
In terms of sprcies richness, for species documented or asserted to occur in each park (at least one of NPSpecies, gbif, iDigBio for museum specimens, and iNaturalist), Indiana Dunes comes in tied for #31 with Shenandoah at 3171 unique scientific names. That's before crosswalking to remove synonyms, so a rough estimate of current knowledge. Great Smoky Mountains NP is #1 at 9715, but they've had an ongoing all taxa biodiversity survey for decades. Golden Gate NRA (!) is #2 with 6163; they had a BioBlitz circa 2014 using iNaturalist, so much better insect data than most parks. Other units east of the Rockies with more species recorded than Indiana Dunes incude Everglades NP, Big Bend NP, Big Thicket NPreserve, George Washington Memorial Parkway, and Deleware Water Gap.
If you go by just NPS data (NPSpecies status "Present", not hitting ICMS for vouchers or veg inventory plot data), Indiana Dunes moves up to #17 at 1884 taxa, #8 east of the Rockies. Big Thicket goes to #1 with 3853 (there's a story there about data collected in the park for other purposes but assimilated by NPS). Great Smoky Mountains drops to 12 with 2231, but they are in the process of uploading thousands of species occurrences in the park, so they soon will be #1.
I'm curious what definition of biodiverse Indiana Dunes uses, as per area, diverse at genera or family or other levels, etc., can give different answers. It's good to have bragging rights; I'm now even more curious what Indiana Dunes' bragging rights are.
@Scott Jorgenson
You mean like Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas, one of the earliest National Parks? I agree with your point about local folks thinking changing the designation to National Park will bring in more visitors and more money to them, but as y_p_w pointed out, that belief is not particularly well-backed up by data.
About time that the Midwest and specifically the Great Lakes picked up another National Park designation! This makes 2 now on the lakes (Isle Royale the other). Compare that to Canada's six great lakes parks. That being said, this is a small park and neither are we protecting new land. We need more of that to.
Yes there is some political payoff here. Despite the comment to the contrary above, an NP designation assuredly boosts tourism, royalties revenues and the like. Then there are just outright bragging rights. In the end, I feel much better about this designation than the last one which was a scant few acres in downtown St. Louis.