Reader Participation Day: Call It A "National Park"

The classification of National Park has already lost a lot of meaning, or perhaps never had the mearning we wanted to apply to it.  The NPS and Dept of Interior do themselves a disservice by not organizing these units into a more understandable system, and one that holds true to the units that they're representing.  The Gateway Arch is great, but how in the world is it in the same category as Denali or Glacier??  But it does drive tourism, and turning all units into National Parks would kill that motive.  Lots of us want to visit all 62 National Parks, but the more parks are added the less likely that becomes.  If 419 became the new number, what's the point?  Reducing the number of National Parks and reclassifying those that clearly belong in another category would be more beneficial, but is never going to happen.  It's all about tourism dollars and understanably so.  Indiana Dunes might have had a more unique quality as a National Lakeshore, but will draw thousands upon thousands more tourists (like myself) as a National Park.  Same with White Sands.

I guess I must be confused.  I understand that the different designations attract political/commercial parasites and their minions to varying extents, at varying levels, and in varying ways and that can be an annoying, even destructive, factor that must be properly regulated and restrained in ways that protect the resource.  I also understand that the different designations are covered by different regs imposing different levels of and mechanisms for management and all of that can confusing to those who aren't knowledgeable of or experienced with those regs and management mechanisms.

However, it has always been clear, at least to me, that the fundamental question is whether an area, place, structure, statue, document, or whatever deserves to be protected for the present and future of the nation.  I agree that not all protected resources are equal; I understand that there are issues of prioritization and budgets; and I know that, given the existence of those aforementioned political/commercial parasites and their minions, we might not get to protect everything that deserves to be protected.  But, those issues and challenges are, at least to me, at a more substantive level than whether we, as individuals, get to check a box that we visited all the parks, have the financial or temporal resources to personally visit all the parks, or can remember or keep track of which parks we visited and their designations.  Some acquaintances once made a big show of presenting me with one of those national park passport books.  I thanked them profusely; but, once they had left, I tossed it into recycling.  At least to me, the preservation of our national identity and values has never been a narcissistic game and, even if it were, I would never ever suggest reducing the number of our protected resources, discarding ecosystems, wildlife, or national history simply to make it easier for me to declare myself the "winner" of a childish game.

The different designations given to different NPS units are only needed in order to deal with the challenges posed by those aforementioned political/commercial parasites and their minions.  Again, the fundamental question is whether an area, place, structure, statue, document, or whatever deserves to be protected for the present and future of the nation.  Given that we have already logged, dammed, mined, grazed, plowed, or otherwise "improved" almost all of the pristine continent that was North America before we got here, given that so little is left untarnished, and given that the limited areas that we have protected are literally swamped by throngs of visitors thirsty for the little that we have preserved, I am satisfied that, if something has been protected by the NPS, it's because it has some value, at a time when America has so few values left.  In that context, I am not bothered by the different designations or by the number of parks or other NPS units.  I wish more sites were being protected.  Yes, I wish that every NPS unit could receive the protections afforded a full national park; but, I'll take whatever I can get.

This discussion follows closely behind a discussion of whether White Sands deserves national park status.  I say yes.  The area is clearly special; no similar area can match it; the scenery is spectacular; and the evolutionary adaptations of the flora and fauna are unique.  Some will say the NPS budget is not enough to cover it.  I would remind them that three individuals in the United States control more welath than the entire bottom half of the American population.  The NPS budget is not the real problem nor the root cause of anything and shouldn't prevent us from doing the right thing.

I recently visited 5 National Parks. Hiked 110 miles plus in Yosemite, Zion, Bryce, Arches amd the Grand Canyon. The one thing I learned was that the designation of National Park did one thing, attract more visitors removing any thought of protection wich is the opposite of what it was intended I am sure.  I was visiting at the end of the summer, late September/ October. So visitor count was not full bore but still busy. The other thing I learned was that the NPS management is VERY hands off. There is little or no control over visitors who were out of control wandering all over every forbidden area within the parks. Don't get all PC on me but the worst were the bus loads of Asians climbing over every natural object in sight. If you make it a National Park, you better have the money to put rangers in it and have a solid stream of volunteers. Like the verse in the Eagles song Last Resort, "Call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye."

Over time Congress has created something of a mess. The time has come to simplify things and just deisgnate all units of the National Park System as a "National Park".  The publicy known brand is "National Park" and the actual management differences between all the dozens of different unit names are minimal.  I tell folks the main difference between National Parks and National Monument is how they are spelled.

Designating them all national parks would certainly simplify the management procedures and I'm all for it  ...just as long as they bring all the other designations up to the protection standards afforded full national parks and not the other way around.  Using simplification as a ruse to lower standards downward toward the lowest common denominator would not be acceptable, at least to me.  If it's an NPS property, it should uniformly receive the highest level of protection the agency provides, regardless of why it was designated.  Protection of NPS units is one of the few things that should be one size fits all.

there are 19 different designations for protected areas. while Wilderness and national park are clearly above monument and recreational area, where does historic park lie? where does conservation area fall? I would favor streamlining designations, if it was combined with a very large increase of protected areas. There are 1000 areas nationwide deserving of protected status, and many states have 0 national monuments at all.  now theres precedent for something like this, in 1933 when all the War Department parks were moved into the Park Service, places like Gettysburg , Shiloh etc. 

While we are streamling designations, and increasing protected areas, you also mandate a range of funding, 100 million per year at the low end. 2 billion a year at the high end. small parks  like the Statue of Liberty would get the minimum, while big parks, like bristol Bay, would get the max. give 10% of the parks budgets to the states for state and local conservation efforts, to help conservation groups preserve areas across the country. the more protected areas a state has, the more money it gets.