Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many off-the-beaten-trail areas in the country that are as spectacularly beautiful as many of the national parks but for one reason or another have avoided acquiring park status.
What area do you think deserves to be a national park, but isn't yet?
I'll kick this off with:
Red River Gorge (Kentucky/Tennessee)
An impressive collection of hundreds of arches, natural bridges, sandstone cliffs and other rockforms. It's as if someone scraped out a chunk of Utah's landscape and dropped it in the southeastern climate with trees and humidity growing over it.
The eastern US is underserved by national parks. I think this would be a very logical addition, since it would be very different from all the other eastern parks we currently have, and it's a rare and precious type of scenery. And in this case it could bring much deserved tourism to an area that needs it.
Last edited by JMT; 08-05-2015 at 07:45 PM..
Reason: copyright violations
There are many off-the-beaten-trail areas in the country that are as spectacularly beautiful as many of the national parks but for one reason or another have avoided acquiring park status.
What area do you think deserves to be a national park, but isn't yet?
I'll kick this off with:
Red River Gorge (Kentucky/Tennessee)
An impressive collection of hundreds of arches, natural bridges, sandstone cliffs and other rockforms. It's as if someone scraped out a chunk of Utah's landscape and dropped it in the southeastern climate with trees and humidity growing over it.
The eastern US is underserved by national parks. I think this would be a very logical addition, since it would be very different from all the other eastern parks we currently have, and it's a rare and precious type of scenery. And in this case it could bring much deserved tourism to an area that needs it.
I agree that the east is underserved by national parks.
Personally, I've been to a lot of places in the west that I think are national park-worthy. But I have to say that Dinosaur National Monument in CO/UT is my submission for a contender. Covering difficult terrain on the arid eastern flank of the Uintas and containing some of the most important dinosaur dig sites in the world, multiple petroglyphs, impossibly bizarre rock formations, huge canyons and the confluence of the Green and Yampa Rivers, I think it's as impressive as anything I've seen in either state. And that's saying a lot. Oh, and on the rugged CO side, it's virtually empty. Worth the trip if you're in the area, to be sure!
National Parks attract hordes of tourists which then necessitates developing an infrastructure like new paved roads, campgrounds, concessions, hotels, and so on to protect the environment from the crowds.
One of the things that make National/State Forest areas appealing to many is that the lack of facilities helps keep the crowds down and preserves the natural character of the area.
In huge NPs like Yellowstone, the sheer size of the area mitigates this somewhat, but those with circumscribed geography, such as those oriented along rivers or canyons, like Yosemite, or like Red River in Kentucky would be, I think it is too much.
Don't get me wrong, I like the National Parks, but I certainly don't consider NP status to be the litmus for an areas beauty or importance to America's natural landscape.
National Parks attract hordes of tourists which then necessitates developing an infrastructure like new paved roads, campgrounds, concessions, hotels, and so on to protect the environment from the crowds.
One of the things that make National/State Forest areas appealing to many is that the lack of facilities helps keep the crowds down and preserves the natural character of the area.
In huge NPs like Yellowstone, the sheer size of the area mitigates this somewhat, but those with circumscribed geography, such as those oriented along rivers or canyons, like Yosemite, or like Red River in Kentucky would be, I think it is too much.
Don't get me wrong, I like the National Parks, but I certainly don't consider NP status to be the litmus for an areas beauty or importance to America's natural landscape.
I love National Parks, but I agree with you. When I want to camp, kayak or just get away to nature, I actually prefer state parks and national forests. An area is not less important or beautiful to me because it hasn't achieved NP status. Usually, it means that area is cheaper and less crowded.
Ricketts Glen State Park in PA. According to Wikipedia there were plans to make it a national park in the 1930's, but WWII happened and the plans were abandoned.
One of the things that make National/State Forest areas appealing to many is that the lack of facilities helps keep the crowds down and preserves the natural character of the area.
National and state forests allow logging, resource extraction and hunting though with rules. They also allow more development, in the sense of say, a ski resort. So from a preservation standpoint, a national forest isn't to the level of a national park. A national recreation area or monument has similar or nearly as much protection without as tourist infrastructure. There's also wilderness areas within forest which do have very high levels of preservations, except the idea of wilderness areas often seems to be "let's make it as hard to access as possible" — one wilderness area in the White Mountains National Forest doesn't put mile numbers on the trail signs to enhance your wilderness experience.
Then not all national parks are managed for tourists; North Cascades National Park for example has very little tourist infrastructure besides hiking trails. Olympic National Park is rather undeveloped except on the edges. Though I agree in many cases, a national forest designation is fine. One plus of national forests is less access and permit restrictions, often you allowed to camp anywhere.
National and state forests allow logging, resource extraction and hunting though with rules. They also allow more development, in the sense of say, a ski resort. So from a preservation standpoint, a national forest isn't to the level of a national park.
True, but National Forest also allows the National Wilderness designation which provides more protection than National Parks in that it allows no roads, mechanical equipment from cars right down to chainsaws and mountain bikes, nor any permanent structures, not even an outhouse. All trail maintenance is done by hand. A far cry from Yellowstone Lodge and its tourist buses and traffic jams on the network of paved roads crisscrossing the park.
National Parks with their focus on accomodating all forms of tourism, to State and National Forest with their resource provision to NF Wilderness with its hardcore preservation ethic all play their role.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
