A U.S. congresswoman introduced legislation Tuesday that would promote Chiricahua National Monument in southern Arizona to a national park.
Rep. Martha McSally of Arizona submitted the two-page bill, dubbed the Chiricahua National Park Act, in hopes of changing the 11,985-acre monument’s designation but detailed no other amendments to the site or how it’s managed.
“During the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, I can think of no better way to recognize Chiricahua’s unique, historic landscapes, and I’ll continue to work to pass this legislation into law,” Rep. McSally said in a release.
The monument, 120 miles southeast of Tucson, preserves an array of balanced rocks, pinnacles, and hoodoos, scenic Bonita Canyon, as well as the historic Faraway Ranch. In 1976, Congress designated all of the park except for the road corridor as wilderness.
“Having had the opportunity to hike Chiricahua and even fly over it in an A-10 many times during training, I know first-hand what a national treasure it is,” said Rep. McSally, who served 26 years in the U.S. Air Force.
McSally noted grassroots support from many local officials and governments in Arizona and New Mexico, and that nearby communities would see a boost in tourism and jobs.
“The City Council feels so strongly about this effort, we passed a resolution unanimously in support, which doesn’t happen very often,” Sierra Vista Mayor Rick Mueller said in a release.
“Southeastern Arizona businesses welcome this significant opportunity to strengthen the local economy through increased tourism in Cochise County,” Mary Tieman, executive director of the Sierra Vista Chamber of Commerce, said in a release.
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.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
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
Interesting that it wasn't mentioned that McSally is a Republican. BTW Did we ever get an answer regarding who has authority to add/expand/contract a park? Why is she proposing legislation if it can be done by DOI fiat as some suggested earlier?
Chiricahua is a lovely park, but it doesn't strike me as "National Park" calibre (a subjective assessment, to be sure). I'd prefer to see this one remain a hidden (i.e. uncrowded) treasure.
A perfect example of the ridiculous notion that the term national “park” has any more meaning that national monument, lakeshore, historic site, or other designation. If Chiricahua were to change title, it would join such national “parks” as Petrified Forest National Monument, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, and Congaree Swamp National Monument who had their titles changed through the efforts of tourism officials and sympathetic members of Congress for the sole reason of increasing tourism.
By law, all units of the National Park System are managed as equals, regardless of title. There is absolutely no criteria one can apply that applies only to the units called “national parks” that make them different. Not to mention even odder anomalies like Prince William Forest Park and the National Park of American Samoa. Are these “national parks?” They are not counted in the currently referenced 59 national parks list.
The designations are confusing and meaningless. In this centennial year of the National Park Service, I have read stories of people endeavoring to visit “all 59 national parks.” It’s a fool’s errand. Their chasing names, not places of any specific renown. There are 414 national parks. Congress and the NPS should work together to end this charade of names and simplify the more than 30 designations currently used and do the public a favor in helping them identify the National Park System. If the NPS and the parks are to survive and thrives, one of the most important things they can do is help the public understand what the National Park System is so that when it comes to votes and dollars they know what they are protecting.
I love Chiricahua National Monument. But this would be the third smallest national park — smaller than Virgin Islands National Park. It is great that Rep. McSally is a national park advocate and willing to introduce this legislation. However, such a small park would not do this amazing ecosystem justice.
What we need is a 291,000-acre Chiricahua National Park that includes the existing national monument as well as the entire Douglas Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest. Perhaps that is not politically feasible at the moment, but it should be a vision for the future.
The Chiricahuas represent one of the largest sky islands in the region. An expanded park would be incredibly diverse, with elevations ranging from 4,400 feet to 9,759 feet at the summit of Chiricahua Peak. About 158,000 acres is already designated as wilderness or it is roadless land qualified for wilderness designation. The area has numerous rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife species, as well as excellent opportunities for backcountry recreation.
Unfortunately, most of the national forest lands are being degraded under Forest Service "multiple-use" management. Livestock grazing is pervasive, fire suppression is impeding natural processes, and mining is a possibility in the future. This fragile and irreplaceable ecosystem deserves better than its present utilitarian management.
Beyond the Chiricahuas, we need to create a 1.5-million-acre, multi-unit Sky Islands National Park in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Ths park would encompass Chiricahua National Monument, Coronado National Memorial, much of Coronado National Forest, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, and adjacent BLM lands such as the Chiricahua, Dragoon, Huachuca, Pinaleno, Santa Rita, Tumacacori, and Whetstone mountains in Arizona and the Animas, Big Hatchet, Cedar, Cookes, Florida, Peloncillo, and Pyramid mountains in New Mexico.
Very little of the Sky Islands ecoregion has strong, permanent protection from resource extraction and other industrial activities. A large, diverse national park would provide that protection. We need to think big.
CJDillion,
There are actually different rules pertaining to the various designations. However, National Monuments ran strictly by the National Park Service are pretty much the same as National Parks. There also are many National Monuments that are ran by the USFS and BLM, and that started to occur during the Clinton Administration when they started creating monuments out of lands from those agencies. However, to me those are just a facade, and don't have the stricter rules and guidelines applied like the ones ran strictly by the NPS. I think what is starting to happen is that the Monuments ran by the NPS are distinguishing themselves from those monuments ran by other agencies, so changing the name to a National Park provides them with a better name recognition and brand. When you enter into a National Monument ran by the BLM, you can definitely tell that many of them are not as well protected as the ones ran by the NPS. Logging, and even cattle ranching is found in many of those BLM ran National Monuments, whereas in most National Monuments ran by the NPS those activities are barred.
So many of the Monuments ran by the NPS are having their named changed into National Parks. Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Pinnacles, etc all at one point were monuments. I know that Craters of the Moon (a place i'm very familiar with), and Colorado National Monument have proposals (or at least local groups) calling for them to change thier titles as well. Mostly though, you are right, in many cases those groups want the name change so they can attract more tourists, since the National Park brand comes with more recongnition than the monument title. The management, and protection doesn't change, because they are already protected as National Parks. By the way, American Samoa is a National Park, but I believe the difference is that the federal government doesn't outright own the property, instead it is leased by the Samoan council. I'm not sure if that's the case with Virgin Islands, but all the ones within the states are owned by the Federal government (although, many inholdings exist).
I agree with Michael Kellet that if Chiricahuas is changed into a National Park, part of the plan should be expansion, with a long term goal of incorporating USFS lands into the park, and connecting it with the Chiricahua wilderness area.. That would better protect a majority of the Chiricahua Mountain range. I'm still very much convinced the gold standard of conservation is wilderness lands protected by the NPS. But I wouldn't go so far to pigeon hole in BLM lands that were never made into wilderness areas and sit outside of the USFS district in more marginal areas. Anymore, that just creates too much animosity in the western fringes, and I think BLM lands oustide of the USFS areas should remain mixed use. Instead, i'd rather see adjacent National Forest lands to the National Monument, upgraded as wilderness, with a long term goal of protecting the majority of the Chiricahua mountains as a large scale national park that is mostly designated wilderness.
That area is actually pretty extensive in it's current protection and I think is well worth the designation. Granted, i've never lived around that park, and only been through there once, but I do remember being taken by it's scenery and felt it very worthy of the designation. It could be a fairly large park if other areas were incorporated. It also doesn't have much population near it, and I think a large scale national park could be accomplished in a few decades.
Gary -
Yes, a handful of name designations carry different rules. For example, National Military Parks can have licensed battlefield guides and off-road vehicle use cannot be permitted in national parks. There are a few others, but, laws attached to titles are relatively few. Generally, it is the enabling legislation for each park, (or monuments declared under the Antiquities Act, the Presidential Proclamation) that really specify each park’s protection other than that afforded by the National Park Service Organic Act, General Authorities, Act, and other system-wide laws. There are “national parks” that are small, that are not open 24-hours a day, that do not have camping, that do not have entrance fees, that allow grazing, where oil/gas wells are permitted, and so on. My point is, that there is no criteria that defines national “park” from most other units in terms of resources, facilities, and services. Names have been changed for tourism reasons more than once.
The 2013 report from the Congressional Research Service puts it succinctly: “Currently, there are no definitive criteria for naming a park unit. Bills to designate new units of the National Park System, or to rename existing units, may specify any title, even one not previously used in the park system. The statutory authorities and management policies of the National Park Service (NPS) generally apply to all units, regardless of title.”
We both have a lot of experience and understanding of national park management, so I respect your information. My point is that 1) the term national “park” is essentially meaningless in identifying a certain status, and 2) the NPS and Congress are doing itself a disservice by not making the units of the National Park System more easily identifiable and distinguishable from areas managed by the USDA Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, state parks, etc.
Just to add, I know Craters of the Moon well, I was once a ranger there. Fantastic place.
Creating Chirichaua National Park is a wonderful idea and much overdue; albeit not in its current form. CNM is surrounded by Coronado National Forest, Douglas Ranger District. This "sky island" range is very diverse and much of this district should be included within the national park proposal. For instance, The high mountains of Rustler Park, east to Pinery Canyon, near Portal (whre the elegant Trogon lives), south to Turkey Creek Roa (which would include Chiricahua and Fly peaks), and the entire nortern portion of the district. This Ranger District is primarily used for recreation, especially hunting in the Fall months. The Prnery Canyon Road is expecially impacted by dispursed camping and other use and it needs better protection. Including the Coronado NF, Dougals Ranger District would make this already diverse and amazing resource a spectacular national park area. Do it right...
On September 27 of an election year, with Congress struggling to return to full time campaigning, Representative McSally introduced the Chiricahua National Park Act to the delight of the Sierra Vista City Council. The purpose of the bill, which she knows will go nowhere in the expiring 114th Congress: show McSally as a true friend of ‘America’s best idea’, the National Park system and gain votes on November 8. Meanwhile the National Parks Action Fund has issued its scorecard for the current Congress, rating each member in accord with their votes on measures key to the well-being of the parks. House members were judged by their votes on 11 actions of particular moment to the park system, a few of particular concern to Arizonans: two votes regarding mining runoff in National Park waters, one to cut park funding and one which would weaken air and water quality and wildlife protections for the parks. McSally earned a grade of F with 11 votes against the parks. True friend indeed!
54% of House members and 47% of senators received an F
That tells me that is is NPAF's grading system that is out of wack not McSally's voting record.
You have no idea how their grading system works, just that you have different opinions. Another baseless "out of wack [sic]".
I know that if they are giving 50% an F, they are out of line with what the rest of the country thinks. If 50% of a class of students recieved an F, would you blame it on the students or the teacher/test?
If 50% of the students in a class received an F, the first place to look is at the students. Blaming the teacher is the usual escape route these days, but students just might be the cause of the problem.
As for being out of line with what the rest of the country thinks . . . . what is the most recent number regarding Congressional approval rating among Americans? Something like 18% isn't it?
Ah, found it. According to Gallup, currently Congress gets a passing grade from only 20% of Americans with 76% saying they are failing. That's up from a 9% approval rating in 2013.
Hmmm. Question: Who is out of line with what the rest of the country thinks? Doesn't sound like it's either Rick or NPAF.
We really need one more option on ballots at election time. How about NONE OF THE ABOVE. If none wins, then the election must be held over again, and again if necessary, until someone worth electing is elected.
Watch out, Lee. You don't wanna be labelled baseless again.
Yet around 50% like their own Congressman and the reelection rate is some 90%. Obviously these folks are not
too out of touch with their constituents. And no Lee, if 50% of the students are failing, its not the students that have a problem.
Yes. There are a lot of things in this poor old world that just don't make a whole lot of sense, aren't there?
Politics has to be right there at the top of the list of nonsensical nonsense.
Actually Lee, human naure is quite predictable.
Human naure might be, but I haven't experienced much of that.
"And no Lee, if 50% of the students are failing, its [sic] not the students that have a problem."
Yes, it is. For example, look at Mr. Wilson's use of grammar. The National Park Service, etc., does not "ran" the national parks; it "runs" them. Ran is the past tense of run. I therefore question Rep. McSally's decision to establish a national park no "average" American will be able to spell.
Today, the average "student" in America is on his or her smart phone [sic] nine hours a day--and learning nothing, from what I see. So, the next time you blame us teachers for failing the students, please look in the mirror before you press send.
Engliish Teacher- Do 50% of your students get an F on your exams? I doubt it.
No, their parents would scream, but yes, 50 percent sometimes deserve an F. They don't read; they complain about every assignment, but again, they know their parents will take it out on me. Homework? If they can't finish it in under a minute, they can't be bothered. I can just imagine, if Donald Trump is elected president, what will happen to the English language then. He is barely speaking at the fourth-grade level, just about where my high-school seniors are speaking now.
If they deserve the F, they should get it. Period.
Trouble is, it's much easier and better suited to conservative agendas to blame schools and teachers than it is to place responsibility where it actually belongs -- with students and parents in most cases. But perhaps that's part of the new American "human naure."
However, I doubt very much that 50% of English Teacher's students receive F grades. I'll bet that ET is doing all he or she can possibly do to engage and encourage even the most reluctant and lazy to do better. But as they say, "You can lead a student to a book, but you can't make him read it."
In the meantime, this proposal to turn Chiricahua into a national park smacks of election year pandering.
Nice idea. Wrong reason.
Consider this observation from Peggy Noonan this morning:
"This year I am seeing something, especially among the young of politics and journalism. They have received most of what they know about political history through screens. They are college graduates, they are in their 20s or 30s, they're bright and ambitious, but they have seen the movie and not read the book. They've heard the sound bite but not read the speech. Their understanding of history, even recent history, is superficial. They grew up in the internet age and have filled their brainspace with information that came in the form of pictures and sounds. They learned through sensation, not through books, which demand something deeper from your brain. Reading forces you to imagine, question, ponder, reflect. It provides a deeper understanding of political figures and events."
"Everyone in politics is getting much of what they know through the internet, through Google searches and Wikipedia. They can give you a certain sense of things but are by nature quick and shallow reads that link to other quick and shallow reads. Sometimes subjects are treated in a tendentious manner, reflecting the biases or limited knowledge of the writer."
"If you cannot read deeply you will not be able to think deeply. If you can't think deeply you will not be able to lead well, or report well."
As a professor, I never gave 50 percent of my students Fs, because yes, I encouraged everyone to read. And it was still the age of reading, after all. In other words, all of my colleagues gave me their support, and I in turn gave them mine. If you didn't read, you were going nowhere fast, and there was no way to work around it.
When EC says (claims) that the teachers are to blame, he forgets that now everyone works around it, starting with the parents (themselves on the internet) who think that junior is doing just fine. Well, junior isn't, at least not in the public schools, where the average reading level has been stuck at fifth grade since at least the 1990s.
It is no wonder that our political discourse is a mess, whether about the national parks or the future of the country. In a democracy, discourse relies on nuance. All we have today is charges. It is far easier for anyone to make a charge than to understand cause and effect. Why do we stand for it? I think Peggy Noonan is right. It is because, having forgotten how to read, and instead bending to 24/7 "news," we're exhausted. "Everyone is tired, and chronologically tired people live, perilously, on the Edge of Stupid."
Nine hours a day on the internet is too much, even if it is The Traveler. Yes, think of the Centennial we might have had if everyone had read a book.
Bravo, Alfred. Bravo!
(And Peggy Noonan, too.)