You're Wrong About the Worst National Parks.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2024
- In this video, I'll introduce you to the philosophy of monumentalism, which has been one of the dominant forces shaping our National Parks since their inception. Through this lens, we can understand why certain National Parks were even created in the first place, what size they were, and what was allowed inside of them. Even today, your perception of the "best" and "worst" National Parks has probably been influence by ways of thinking that can be tied directly back to... monumentalism.
Support NPD on Patreon: / nationalparkdiaries
Follow NPD on Instagram: nationalparkdiaries
Sources and Resources:
"National Parks: The American Experience" by Alfred Runte
Images and Music:
Storyblocks - Розваги
Haven’t watched this video yet but I already love it. I’m from boring flat old Indiana. Yes, the Midwest doesn’t have the soaring mountains or the vast seacoasts or the uniqueness of the desert. But I firmly believe that the National Park system should protect and highlight all of the massive varieties of landscapes our country contains, which does include some places that aren’t as great of photo ops for Instagram. Nature should be able to exist for its own sake, not just because we place aesthetic values on it.
I just moved out of Illinois. I think Indiana Dunes NP is a great example of what you’re talking about. It’s a beautiful place, but I’d arguably say it’s not as “beautiful” as some shore/dune landscapes in Western Michigan that are not protected places, but Indiana Dunes is a significant and important ecological landscape and absolutely deserves to be protected.
Grasslands National in Saskatchewan is incredibly beautiful to my eye, but then I did grow up on the Prairies...
This 100%. Yes, Congaree isn't as awe inspiring as the Grand Canyon but it's not trying to be. It is what it is ... an incredible swampy scenery, that pulls you in and forces you to appreciate the wetlands landscape. I love seeing the diversity between all the NP's. I'm shocked we don't have a NP glorifying grasslands yet, as I feel that's the lone category (Mtn, desert, forest, seashore, tundra, volcano, cave, etc) that hasn't been adequately designated yet. But no matter how hard I try ..... Gateway Arch ... uh NO !!!!!
Very much agree; unfortunately there is definitely a popularity aspect involved - maybe they'll start getting some bison populations strong there and that would help I think
@@blastedmcgraw152it deserves to be protected as a lakeshore, its original designation, not as a national park. A national park should at least be an exceptional example of its type. ID is not that.
I went to the Indiana Dunes last August for the first time and my word was I floored. My friend and I only had time to do one trail (1 afternoon trip and we had to drive the 4.5 hours each way) but I was really stunned at how many different types of ecosystems we passed through on that 2 hour hike. I honestly expected it to be a big pile of sand. Instead, we got to see the transition from grasslands to shallow pond to open bog to forest to dune meadows to beach and shoreline. Every step of the way, we saw different plants and birds and insects, and even a few reptiles. I’ve been to the Smokey Mountains, to the Grand Canyon, to Mount Rainier, and, sure, Indiana Dunes doesn’t have the vistas (but the view over the lake to the Chicago skyline isn’t half bad). But the park is nevertheless just as spectacular as the others I’ve seen, just perhaps in a more subtle way. You have to pay attention to “get” the point. But I did, and I’m grateful that the park was preserved and that I got to go see it.
Love hearing about experiences like that! That's what I'm talking about!
I LOVE Lake Michigan dunes. I just don’t think that the Indiana part of the dunes are worthy of the national park. Check out sleeping bear. Now that’s something.
I live next to Saguaro Nat'l Park. That is one of the first attempts to preserve unique flora instead of scenery. It was designated in 1933 as a Nat'l Monument, second tier status since it's main purpose was to protect the giant Saguaro cactus. It wasn't until 1994 that it was made a Nat'l Park.
Saguaro is super diverse too! You go from desert scrub to Aspen forest in the Rincons. Totally underrated
"I don't want to make videos that show the best place to take an Instagram picture. I want to make videos that cut deep to the heart of national parks, that expose their soul, their very essence. I want to ask questions of these places and our relationships with them. I want to show you that they're not just pretty pieces of scenery." This is why I love this channel. This is why you're unique and an important advocate for our national parks. Every national park is a jewel. Some shine more brightly than others, but they are jewels nonetheless.
Hetch Hetchy is an important story but it's part of a larger story of how the need for water has destroyed some of California's most unique ecosystems from the Owens River Valley, to Tulare and Mono Lakes, to the San Joaquin and Sacramento River delta, indeed the entire San Joaquin River, the San Joaquin Valley with parts of it subsiding by 20-30 feet putting the very aqueducts that changed it in danger, the Salton Sea, among others. Hetch Hetchy is the one that impacts a National Park directly but there are hopes for some places such as the Klamath River where dams are being dismantled to allow the river to flow freely again. Hopefully one day Hetch Hetchy Valley, which I understand to be as beautiful as it's sister Yosemite Valley, will be restored. Being in a national park, it should be.
❤I wish I could have made this statement. My thoughts exactly. I love this channel and forward its content to others at every opportunity.
Y'all are the best! Thanks for the kind words and thanks for supporting the channel ❤
The recovery of Cuyahoga Valley National Park’s landscape is the real story there. The now thriving Beaver Marsh used to be a junkyard and dump. People need to do more research when visiting places like CVNP and Congaree so they can appreciate the subtle small things as much as scenic vistas.
❤❤❤
Wholeheartedly agree! Education and context is vital to appreciating so many of these parks - hence the existence of my channel lol.
CVNP is severely underrated and I will straight up argue with people when they disparage it.
I spent two days at CVNP and it was… fine. Like I’m glad it’s a park, and the recovery story is interesting, but it feels more like a city park or a state park. Despite it being the closest National Park to where I live in the Detroit area, I can’t see myself ever wanting to go back there. There’s a bunch of metroparks and state parks right next to me that are just as good.
In this house we love and support Cuyahoga Valley, America's greatest comeback story
🤘🤘🤘
Fantastic video dude! It's not all about the scenery all the time. There are so many sites of ecological, cultural, and historical value that absolutely need preservation alongside those grand views of the more famous parks.
Exactly!! And thanks for watching!
It was great to hear you bring up Hetch Hetchy; it can to mind as soon as you started discussing the monumentalist approach to designating National Parks.
There's some irony in the fact that while most National Parks were established in and around areas and features deemed economically worthless, today the presumed economic boon that "big P" Park status will give via tourism is one of the primary motivating factors considered when determining whether an existing NPS unit will be "upgraded." While there's certainly a fair argument to be made that places like Indiana Dunes and New River Gorge are ecologically and culturally distinct enough to be worthy of "big P" status, this new line of thinking has also led to Gateway Arch's re-designation.
""Big P" National Parks don't need to be monumental in 19th century terms, but they should be something truly distinct: a preservation of ecology, biology, geology, culture, history... SOMEthing that makes it so unique, so irreplaceable, that it deserves to be among one of the 63 places in our continent-spanning country that we've decided they'll be held in permanent trust by and for the public. There are very few people who believe the desire to give the city of St. Louis an economic uplift gives Gateway Arch adequate rationale to be elevated to its present status, and I hope it isn't used as a precedent to diminish the importance of the National Park status.
Hetch Hetchy is a great example of lost landscape which was ruined before being studied enough to know what we would loss by flooding it. It was a different time and perhaps a good national lesson.
But why does it have to be that unique? Why preserve Mt. Rainier, Mt. Lassen, the North Cascades, and the Olympics but not Mt. Hood, Mt. Baker, Mt. St. Helens, or Mt. Shasta? Why include Longs Peak but not Pikes Peak or Mt. Evans? It’s a shame we don’t try to keep or make more of every corner of the world pretty, even if it’s a built environment.
@@LeeHawkinsPhoto Incidentally Mounts Hood, Baker, St. Helens, and Shasta are all protected parts of National Forest lands. The NPS isn’t the only federal agency engaged in conservation and responsible land management.
I hope Gateway Arch remains an outlier as well. I have a whole video on the economic motivations for its redesignation, so I won't go into it here, but I agree with you!
I’m sure I’m not the only one, but this video feels like a direct response to a comment I made on the White Sands video.
Conserved area should not be looked down upon just because they’re surrounded by urban development. In fact, those places should be celebrated. These underdogs finally won significant battles against the over-reaching commercial interests in the area, and that’s a beautiful thing.
Not every National Park needs to have “epic” or “monumental” scenery. In the most basic sense, a park is a place to get away from normal life. Whether it be a child’s playground, an urban green-space, or a remote wilderness, parks are about reserving and preserving a place for nature and history, or even just simple escapism. Parks are awesome, be them National, State or local.
Thanks for another great video. I’m glad I’m not the only with a passion for all these amazing places.
This is definitely a topic I've been mulling over for a while. It's a sentiment I notice a lot online and wanted to use this video as a way to help people understand why we might have such engrained thinking about our National Parks. I agree with your sentiment completely and appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. Thanks!
I had an amazing experience visiting and camping in Congaree National Park. Saw way too much wildlife and some of the most otherworldly scenery. It's an incredible piece of nature and history.
Congaree is my absolute favorite park, I couldn't agree more!
So glad to hear that! Congaree is one of my favorites and I defend it every chance I get
U P Michigan here. We humans are used to macro lenses. When you go micro, all of these places are miraculous! Thank you!
Great analogy, love it!
I absolutely love this video! I love great scenery as much as anyone, but there is so, so much more to see in every park. Thank God you understand this! So many people go to a park and their destination is a waterfalls or scenic overlook. I am certainly up for that. But, always so much to see and hear on that hike to the destination. People often don’t care, or are totally unaware of their surroundings, because their interest is the destination. As an example, I recall being in the parking lot of a visitor’s center in Shenandoah NP. I see an eagle overhead, there is a raven patrolling the area looking for food scraps, there are warblers in the spruces, juncos hoping around also looking for food scraps. No one entering or leaving the center notices any of this wildlife. I’ve seen my share of these ‘best’ and ‘worst.’ National parks. They are simply a reflection of the creators personal interests. Another time I was in Zion NP, there was a ground squirrel or chipmunk nearby, forgot what species. I laid down to take photos which I did. When I wanted to get up, I was surrounded by lots of people that I was trapped. Had no one noticed these animals previously!
Well said! I love scenery as much as the next guy, but it's not ALL that I appreciate about National Parks. I love all the small, subtle things too.
Saw the title and already fell in love with this video! Since starting my NPS journey, parks like Indiana Dunes, Congaree, and Hot Springs call out to me! They're at the top of my list. I've visited "monumental" parks out in the west like Grand Canyon and Zion (I live in AZ) but nothing gets my itch like the "least" liked ones. Maybe im a sucker for underdogs, but I sooo want to get these parks before they become popular and chances of solitude are gone.
Congaree is my home state park, so I definitely have a soft spot for it and all the other "underdog" parks. I just find so much to love in these places beyond "views," although I love those too! Basically, I think we should love ALL of our parks, regardless of monumentality!
Go to Great Basin in Nevada and be blown away by the bristlecone pines. You will be fascinated by those small, gnarled trees.
Unfortunately we live in a society that needs constant "entertainment". Yet, I do believe there are many lovers of our National Parks who are seeking inner peace and soul restoration and enjoy the beauty and uniqueness each National Park provides. It is an important topic, and there are many of us out there who feel the way you do. We will love all of the parks, regardless of the reasons why they were established in the first place.
Glad to hear it, thanks for watching!
Great episode, Cameron! This kind of thinking is how massive protected areas like Nevada's Basin & Range NM fly under peoples radar. It isn't as sexy and photogenic as other parks, but it's unique position at the southern edge of the Great Basin, combined with a rich Native American history, and an ecologically intact area, are it's real value.
Great point! I tend to think of our Eastern landscapes as undervalued by this type of thinking, but you're totally right that there are still places in the West that suffer from it too. Great example, and thanks for watching Mike!
Thank you so much for putting words to a feeling I've had for a while. As someone who has found a lot of beauty in the Great Plains but has struggled to excite his friends this speaks a lot. I've found much wonder in Badlands NP and Agate Fossil Beds NM.
Prairies are super underrated. I get the same feeling from them as I get from being on a boat when you can't see shore- just an overwhelming sense of *vastness*, being smacked in the face with the sudden awareness of just how much *bigger* the world is than you could ever truly comprehend... It's so cool.
Congaree is one of my favorite parks and it gets the "worst park" treatment a lot, so I'm used to having to stick up for it. Keep fighting the good fight for our more underappreciated landscapes!
Loved the passion and poetic descriptions! I'm being being introduced here to a variety of national parks that I don't know much about. Today we watched your video on the redwoods for our homeschooling and loved it so much that I kept glued to this channel way after the children had moved on to their other homeschooling. These videos have really encouraged me and made my day today!!!
I'm so glad to hear that! Welcome to the community - can't wait to share more park stories with you!
There's a discourse similar to this in animal conservation circles: 'Should we save pandas?' I believe is something like the name of a video on it - arguing whether we should be allowing what's more charismatic decide where resources go. Though it's definitely a bit different here due to the legal stuff, I think I'd argue the same as I do with that.
The quieter, more 'boring' places of course deserve just as much as the big beautiful ones, but we do still need the big gorgeous places as a stepping stone to that, a connection. 'if we don't work to save things like this weirdly specific bug, any work to save this cool animal will be moot because it's the basis of the food chain' becomes 'if we don't protect places like this "boring" low land, the health of the ecosystem that makes up these awesome mountains will be devastated and greedy companies will feel more freedom to try and bully their way into destroying it outright'. There must be appeal to both logic and non-logic
Unfortunately, our brains are wired for "spectacle," and so we're naturally drawn to bigger, flashier things. Conservation (both of wildlife and landscapes) falls in to the same category, but I think we can push back against the trend and hopefully help people realize that ALL of it is worth protecting, not just the charismatic species or big landscapes. Thanks for your comment!
Thank you Cameron! I didn't realize I was perpetuating this negative view of parks and I'm so glad I watched this.
Thanks for watching!
Thanks, Cameron, for bringing this topic to the public conversation.
Thanks for watching!
I’m on the history side of the NPS so I might look at things a bit different.
For instance why isn’t the Lincoln Highway part of the NPS but the Washington-Baltimore parkway is? Like Lincoln way is the first route connecting the two coasts shouldn’t that be enough?
Or how about the different President homes. Some like Lincoln, FDR (Hyde Park), Garfield (Lawnfield), or Truman are part of the NPS. Others like Coolidge are part of the state park system. Or you have some that are independent like Jefferson’s Monticello, Mount Vernon, or the Pierce Manse. And finally some homes are privately owned and still used as residential properties such as Zachary Taylor’s home in Louisville, Gerald Ford’s in Grand Rapids (I heard while he was alive he would write to those who lived in his old homes which was kind of cool), or Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland’s homes in Princeton. There just is no consistency.
Or even battlefields. The battle of North Anna for example is the link connecting Spotsylvania to Cold Harbor. The county has beautifully preserved the site and has very nice markers. It would fit right in to the NPS to ensure people get the whole story of the overland campaign. Instead people just drive past it. On their way to Richmond distracted by King’s Dominion at the same exit.
You could say I’m wrapped up in monumentalism and maybe I am, but I just question the logic of what it takes to be in the National Park system. To some degree as long as the historical site is preserved I am generally ok. But I do enjoy seeing logic in things.
For some, the point of them being a park is simply that they are a park. Take prairies…after all the prairie land is destroyed and made into farm or cities, the preservation of that is what makes it special. It doesn’t have to be “special” today to be worthy of preservation. Also take old barns…100 years ago there was nothing special about them, but today, the very fact they are still here and were never destroyed makes them special
Good point. Places can become "special" when they become "rare," so it's important to prioritize preservation BEFORE we get to that point!
The beauty of the grand parks is what really got me to be passionate about the environment and led to me appreciating the intricacies of all protected lands. Great video as always
Thanks for watching!
Been to Indiana dunes and Hot Springs. ID is underwhelming and seemed like a check the box type of park. Hot Springs surprised us, it’s really the first NP, it wasn’t managed right and many lessons were learned when parks were established. I think there needs to be a realignment in what a park is versus monument, etc. craters of the Moon and Organ Pipe have NP potential. St Louis arch and Mesa Verde might be better as monuments. I think it’s about funding. Parks need to support a wide range of issues. The right categorization is important.
ID is a terrible park. It’s a poor representation of its ecological type and is riddled with inholdings, including a very obvious and obtrusive coal powered steel plant.
Gateway arch i agree but mesa verde? Hard disagree
I love it, I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to share with us!
Thanks for watching!
We have been to Congaree 3 different times and each was a different experience. Friends who visited concurred with its beauty and thanked us for the plug. They all plan to visit again.
Love to hear it. Congaree is one of my favorite parks - there's just a subtle beauty and serenity in that place, not to mention it's incredible ecosystem value. That's why I hate to see it, and any park, listed as one of the "worst" - it just erodes all the other things that make these parks special.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
MY two summer adventures in 68 and 69 focused on the "lesser" known parks and monuments,
their reasons for existing and the knowledge and experiences they offered away from the "monumental" ones.
I am not a loner, but being alone in these places, or practically alone, gave me a peaceful way to appreciate them as they were before we named them.
It reminds me of that Zen question, "If a tree falls in the woods and there is on one around to hear it,
does it make a sound?" Yes, I know that is a philosophical statement to calm our minds but
Yes ,
it does, because the other animals that exist in these places hear it, it is our belief that we are all important
that is dangerous to ourselves and the world.
Cheers,
Rik Spector
Great insight, Rik! And glad to know you enjoyed the lesser known parks. Thanks for watching!
While not a National Park, Letchworth State Park in Western New York state has an incredible story of land reclamation and I think goes right to what you're saying. William Letchworth bought land along the Genesee River near a series of waterfalls. It was also near a major logging operation. His saw his little piece of paradise being taken away because of rampant and unchecked logging. He pulled his money and resources together and ended up purchasing the land the operation was operating on and he reforested the property. Today, Letchworth is known as "The Grand Canyon of the East" but still has strong resource and economic influence. At the very north end of the park is what's known as the Mt. Morris Dam, which provides hydroelectricity for the region while also providing flood control. It takes up a very small section of the overall park but both ideas coexist.
Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of that park. I think there are stories of parks all across the country that stand out beyond "monumental scenery," all with stories worth telling.
I LOVE this video. And i am so on board with your message. Youvr gained a new subscriber. Thank you for your perspective!
Glad you enjoyed it and welcome to the community!
I'm from Valparaiso, Indiana and I can definitely see why people are underwhelmed by the National Park portion of the Dunes. A lot of people point to Michigan as better examples of dunes in Michigan but you can go five minutes down the road from the National Park to find better dunes, bogs, and prairies. I agree, this does not mean that that area of the Dunes should not be protected. Looking back on the history of Indiana's lakefront, it's amazing that the National and State Parks are in as good of a state as they currently are. This is a testament to the fact that these areas are needing protecting. Without protection, we wouldn't have the Indiana Dunes and Indiana residents who want to see Lake Michigan Dunes would have to go to Michigan. That's not a world that I want to live in.
It's the "underwhelming" sentiment that I'm really trying to hit at in this video. They might be underwhelming in terms of pure scenery, but the park holds an incredible wealth of biodiversity and ecosystem types. That's as important, if not more, than scenery, for me.
Love your passion. There are hikers with this monumentalist mentality and they can be a drag to hike with, always needing the wow factor and missing the beauty that’s there.
Thanks for watching! It may be an uphill battle in the fight against monumentalism, but I'm happy to carry the torch
In South Africa, by contrast, national parks were initially primarily declared to safegauard areas with significant wildlife populations, geographic grandeur was a secondnary consideration.
Yeah, I certainly think that's a more modern management style. We eventually adopted this in the US as well, but our early days were definitely all about Monumentalism.
There has been a movement more recently though to establish national parks that conserve underrepresented habitats even if they are not necessarily rich in charismatic wildlife.
Glad to hear it!
Thank you for all the awesome content and the amazing video!
Thanks so much for watching!
CVNP is truly a lovely park, though it still bears some of the scars of its history - but I dare someone to go stand in a grove of old tulip poplars next to a quiet stream in the valley and say that the experience isn't a little magical. I really would love to see you do some focus videos on some of these smaller parks to help bring to light their positive qualities, since so much online content just focuses on their perceived negatives.
Oh, I plan on it! Cuyahoga is a story I've been wanting to tell since day 1 of this channel, but I'm waiting until I can visit in person to really do it justice. I'll be visiting later this month and hopefully telling that story shortly after.
@NationalParkDiaries don't discount some of the attached metroparks too - there's some overlap with some of the summit metroparka, specifically Hampton Hills and O'neill woods, and Hampton has gobs and gobs of spring ephemerals, plus lots of mushrooms and some mycoheterotrophic plants. Also while not CVNP, the various parks systems have been working to take down all the dams and the last one to come down is the Gorge dam in Cuyahoga Falls - I can't wait for the falls to be exposed again, but the dam is worth seeing while it is still here.
There are more kinds of "awe-inspiring" than just big. I have been to many of the National Parks -- Olympic and Sequoia, Arches and Zion, and also Congaree. I currently reside on the North Carolina Coastal Plain, and let me tell you: I'm awed by the "leafiness" here. The eastern deciduous forests are a shadow of what they once were, but the surviving remnants are enough to suggest what must once have been.
Eastern hardwood forests are my happy place. I so so wish they were still as expansive as they once were, but I'm very grateful for what we do have protected. Thanks for your comment!
Cuyahoga Valley National Park is in my backyard. It may not be the most popular, however its comeback is monumental!
The type of monumentalism I'm here for 🙌
I’d be interested to see a video about the failed attempts to make national parks, such as the Maine Woods National Park. I’m not sure if it has much overlap with things you’ve covered before, as it may even be from one of your videos I even heard of that to begin with. But I think it’s an interesting story and says a lot about the process of making a park.
Maine Woods is certainly an interesting one - I have it on my list of things to cover already. As far as I know, that's an ongoing effort rather than a failed one? Or am I out of the loop? I could have missed something.
@NationalParkDiaries it's currently an ongoing affair, but it's now mostly working to enlarge and redesignate Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument into Maine Woods National Park
Love your work such a great in depth discussion and I agree with you 100% keep up the good work!
Thanks so much for watching!
i'm not sure monumentalism is flawed. big scenery takes up big space, which means effectively more lands for other types of conservation as well. well, maybe yellowstone was a fluke.
That's the thing though - in the beginning, big scenery DIDN'T take up big space. In Yosemite, only the Valley was protected initially. In Mt. Rainier, it was literally just the mountain. In most of these early parks, the "big spaces" were literally excluded from protection because they still had economic value. Monumentalism limited what sorts of places were protected, rather than expanded them.
Love this. Thanks! Some of my favorite parks are the"worst"
Same!
Had no idea where you were going with this video. Glad I watched it.
Have to play the UA-cam game with the title, but I'm glad you stuck around to watch! It's an important subject that I feel very strongly about, as you can tell 😅
I live near Hot Springs NP and am a staunch defender of the park. It's a truly unique and interesting place, but one that gets a lot of flack. I always wonder how the park would be different if it had been "discovered" at the same time as places like Zion or Yosemite. How the management of the resources would have changed. Hot Springs is the oldest protected lands in the US, and it was always managed in a way for people to use the spring water instead. What if it had never been developed, and the springs left to run naturally instead? What if the national park protected more of the surrounding mountains? But now the park contains many significant historical buildings, and the city of Hot Springs has such an interesting history itself. It's well-worth visiting. Especially since you can get a drink from the only brewery in a National Park, and the only one in the world that uses hot spring water to brew beer!
I think it's long history of preservation is reason enough to be a National Park imo. Love your passion for the park! Didn't know about the brewery though, that's awesome! Going to have to check that out when I visit.
@@NationalParkDiaries they also have really good food too. They converted one of the old bathhouses into a brewery/restaurant.
There is some really good hiking and scenery in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains, if people don’t mind driving a little from the park (but it’d be similar distance to having to drive in Yellowstone or the Smokies to get places).
The Ouachita Mountains were almost a national park, it was vetoed by Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. Probably because it was timber land.
I think the reason ordinary park visitors say that a park like Congaree is the "worst national park" really comes down to expectations. "National Park" and "grand scenic vistas" are a strong association in the minds of most Americans. It's not that Congaree or other parks that lack sweeping grandeur are actually "bad"; they are wonderful and valuable for what they are; they just don't match the ingrained idea most Americans have of the phrase "National Park," so people who fail to re-calibrate their expectations get disappointed by what isn't there instead of appreciating what is.
That's exactly why I made this video lol! I hope it can "re-calibrate" the way people think about these places (great phrasing by the way!)
The problem for me is the purist philosophy that drives environmentalisms push for more and bigger national parks. If we had a more moderate approach to areas that we want to protect where development could happen, but in guided ways that don’t seal off lands, you would get greater public and state support. The great alpine meadows populated by cottages throughout the alps is a great example of persevering the essential characteristics of the environment without sealing it off from human habitation.
The thing is, our National Parks already take up a pretty small percentage of land compared to the land we already use for resource extraction and development. Fighting for more and bigger parks is the bare minimum that park advocates have to do to protect places that are already threatened with development. Personally, I think the Alps are a poor example because of the long history of exploitation in Europe. Our landscapes in the US are still untouched by the hand of heavy development, and we have an opportunity here to protect them for posterity. Not saying the alpine model doesn't work for them, just that I don't see it as a viable model here in the US.
I just found this video having been to most of the National Parks at this point, and while I mostly agree with you and enjoyed many of the parks you mention, Hot Springs is still an exception. I scrolled through your channel and was kind of surprised to not see a video on it based on your passion here. I'm not trying to argue it shouldn't be protected, but why is it a full-on National Park instead of a National Monument, or National Historic Park or something like that? I mean sure it's got a little hill with decent hiking and okay views, but it just doesn't feel right when you need to go and pay a private company to fully experience the namesake of the park.
IMO, it's an insanely uniquely beautiful area, but Yellowstone is the worst National Park. I've seen too many rangers there not caring about doing their job of protecting the park and people and just allowing the place to turn into a madhouse, which is completely unlike any ranger of any agency I've seen anywhere else. I feel like it should be the poster child for why entry reservations are necessary in some cases.
Amazing video, Thank you for the perspective shift!
Thanks for watching!
I love Isle Royale because it is my local park. It always scares me to see it on the bottom of the national park rankings...
Seems like Isle Royale is another one of those parks that suffers from the "scenery trap," where people think there's nothing to see. I'd say Lake Superior's largest island and an untouched wilderness with the longest running predator-prey interaction study is pretty cool, but what do I know 🙃
Arizona has quite a few national parks but pretty much the major one people go to is the grand canyon. But many of the other ones are just as nice and even nicer iMOO.
Gateway Arch is the only truly bad NP I would undo in a heartbeat
Sir, you must be destined to be a leader of policy within the National Park System. You must do it, your philosophy and attitude is exactly what's needed.
Hahaha, I think I'll stick to my little UA-cam community here ☺️ We can all make change in our own ways and I think right here is the best place for me at the moment! Thanks for watching!
We have been to 45 national parks and 200+ other NPS sites over the past 50 years. I have to admit that we have fallen into the monumentalism trap at times, but have evolved in our thinking over the years. We were disappointed in Indiana Dunes, but should take another look at it after viewing this video. We are currently on a mission to inculcate our appreciation of the NPS in our grandchildren just as my father did with me and we did with our offspring when they were growing up. Great Sand Dunes was a favorite so we need to get the grands out there someday.
I'm glad to hear that! I don't think there's any better way to protect our parks for the future than raising and educating the next generation of stewards.
I still think National Parks should be Monumental and universally recognized as grand scenery. I do agree with you that peripheral lands surrounding monuments should be preserved and that biodiversity deserves to be protected, but under other designations. I think an expansion of National Preserves and National Rivers systems would do better at crafting a niche for all the diverse ecosystems outside of the monumental image of the parks. National Parks would serve as the first step into the natural world, which should lead people to understand the ecosystems surrounding the monumental landscape as well as being led to other NPS sites, then to appreciation of the NFWS or USFS sites in their area and understanding the ecosystems across the continent. Monumentalism is not the “end all and be all” of conservation, but it is a worthy niche deserving of special status, if at least only for the public perception among common people all around the world
So much of eastern US has been ignored. There is so much beauty, diversity and culture in the eastern US. There is a bill in Congress now to make Ocmulgee National Historical Park in Macon, GA into Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve. This area is home to ancient Indian mounds and was the capital of the Muscogee Creek nation before they were forcibly removed in the early 1800's...it would also protect a biodiversity that is rare...being located along the Fall Line. It would be the first national park co-managed by a removed indigenous tribe.
I'm planning to visit Ocmulgee later this month (hopefully!) do a video on it!
I know it was kinda an aside and not the point of the video but question on Indiana Dunes. How is it is more biodiverse than all of Hawaii? Aren’t most of Hawaii’s species endemic? Why is Indiana dunes so biodiverse? Can you expand on this?
Perhaps your own research may provide adequate answers?
@@reverendbStaard Maybe s/he's interested in what National Park Diaries specifically has to say on the subject?
As I understand it, it mainly has to do with the diversity of habitat types within the park. Bogs, fens, woodlands, savannas, prairies, riparian areas, dunes of course (and more). These types of habitats give rise to a wide array of different plant and animal species. The NPS has it listed as the 5th most biodiverse park in the System. Honestly, that deserves its own video!
@@NationalParkDiaries I would like to see that
I'd love a full length about Assategue
Already on the list!
@@NationalParkDiaries Yay!
Indiana Dunes was awesome I've never seen such variety in a short distance. It was like you'd go up a hill and enter a different world. I think most people go to the beach and the beach only and don't understand, or they hike too fast and don't actually see any of the amazing things in the forest.
Yeah, I was surprised to learn of the shear diversity of habitats there at first too, many of which are subtle and not immediately "striking" to a visitor. It's another example of how education can help foster a greater appreciation for a park.
In my mind's eye the last National Parks i want to visit
are the parks buried in people.
Unfortunately, my most-loved parks are now overrun
with yuppie larvae.
Sad facts. Used to be quiet up here in Maine, you could immerse in the nature and forget there was a world of man for awhile, but that's a thing of the past now. There's no places that aren't swarmed by people anymore. When I was a kid and you went deep into the woods, you may have very well been the first human any of those animals had even met. Now you might be the first human they met that particular day ): it sucks really. Too many people everywhere.
Hold on, can we ask you questions about the duds? What do you think American Samoa offers?
Personal opinion: I think NPs should be accessible by the typical American family should be able to visit.
There are other naming conventions and preservation vehicles better suited than the vaunted “national park” tag.
A park like American Samoa preserves an ecosystem and a landscape that is, quite literally, impossible to see in any other place in America. It's one-of-a-kind. Not to mention it's unique management relationship with the local Samoan people. I think we have a duty to preserve and protect places like that, regardless of their "monumental scenery" or accessibility. I think accessibility is an important, but not all-encompassing factor, for National Park preservation. At the time Yellowstone was created, it certainly wasn't accessible to the typical American family. That changed over time, just like our concept of what a National Park "should be," and I think American Samoa, along with other hard-to-reach parks, provide benefits to us as Americans beyond our ability to access them, even if they don't fit a more traditional version of what we expect our National Parks to look like.
FYI: Colorado State Parks CHARGE EXTRA FOR ONE TO SHOWER, like $11 per day is not enough money for them!
If you're going to a national park as a way to economize, you're missing the entire point.
It’s refreshing to hear this! Thank you for sharing with compassion, and shedding light on this subject to those who may not understand.
Thanks for watching!
As a rabid defender of Congaree and New River Gorge, I support this!
I'm glad to hear it - both are great parks!!
I definitely think we have to protect land used by other animals and insects. We can’t have everything. We need to share and national parks are a good way of doing that
Yep! As our understanding of ecosystems and ecology have evolved, so has our understanding of the importance of protecting these places - and adding them to our National Park System!
To me 'Monumentalism' sounds as destructive as that of dog breeds. Where the goal has moved away from how practical a certain dog breed is, to merely a certain look. This push has led to so much inbreeding and the vanishing of entire dog breeds that it's hard to keep track of the scope of the damage to the dog genome, but we do know that large parts will be gone forever.
If we only start demanding our national parks and vacation spots and dogs and so on to fit our tastes, then we'd end up with a very shallow experience, not to mention depleted gene pools and ecosystems.
Great analogy, well said!
I love Conagree!! :)
I'm so glad, me too!!
great video - thanks!
Thanks for watching!
This dude is intense lol. Loved the video
Had to put my game face on for this one - I'm very passionate about this subject lol. Thanks for watching!
It bothers me that, despite plenty of NPS sites, Pennsylvania doesn’t have a true national park. I think it’s because of monumentalism. They must feel like many places here can “only” state be state parks. I just wish more credit was given to the natural landscape of my state, I suppose.
And the closer NPs like Cuyahoga, New River, Indiana Dunes, etc. are SO great!! We certainly are lucky to have those close-ish NPs and amazing state parks everywhere, but it’s interesting to see how things have changed even since those 3 became true national parks.
I think a lot of the problem in Pennsylvania, should a NP effort be mounted there, would be administrative. With the recent spate of redesignations elsewhere, all of these parks have simply changed from one NPS designation to another (Cuyahoga Valley NRA to NP, for example). Places in PA that would be on the list for NP status would either be coming from an entirely different federal agency (like Allegheny NF) or aren't even administered by the federal government at all (like state parks). That's going to make it really tough for any NP effort. But I still think PA is a beautiful state and one I hope to explore more of it!
Could you out-flank monumentalism and use some definition of 'wilderness' area signal/message to the public a different conversation of protection of biodiversity? Monumentalism is great within it's limitations, but a wider conversation with the public and politicians may be needed. I'm speaking out of my posterior on this, but need ways of saying to the public this is not about huge mountains, but see these 'boring' looking areas, the diversity here is.....blah blah blah. How do we educate ignorant people like me to say this park is about something other than huge chunks of rocks?
Very interesting video pointing out an interesting topic.
That's a great framing. I do think a lot of this comes down to ingrained attitudes and generational ways of thinking. The "idea" of a National Park is over 100 years old in this country, and we've always associated them with these big monumental landscapes. When we started to understand ecology, biology, and the importance of ecosystem preservation, unfortunately, a lot of the monumental thinking was still ingrained. I like the wilderness framing, but I'm afraid it might get kind of muddled since we do have an actual legal definition of wilderness in the US, including areas both within and outside of National Parks. I think, for me, the best long term solution is just large scale education efforts, which is actually where a lot of my frustrations on this issue come from. Many influencers and creators, who are driving a lot of the discourse around National Parks nowadays, perpetuate stereotypes of "good" and "bad" parks, making it really hard to buck the trend. It's one of the main reasons I even made this video - to hopefully just put out something that flies contrary to the prevailing narrative in the hopes of changing a few minds. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!
@@NationalParkDiaries I agree since we have a wilderness type designation already. Perhaps we something like Biodiversity protection zone/area/thingy :)
This could include why this economically valuable plants cant be harvested or very limited/controlled harvesting in ways that do not endanger the protected diversity. Monied interests would eventually erode anything but total exclusion though.
I need to go find your park types video and rewatch that.
Love the old US Soccer crest
⚽🤘
I think there's another social construction that really helps to explain your point and that is American Legacy. Monumentalism was just another way to create exceptionalism out of nothing. But economic contribution is the first qualification of American Legacy. The parts of monumentalism that mark the typical rankings of these parks aren't just in their history but how much development and economic creation they're capable of as parks today.
Any good resources on this? I haven't come across it in my readings, but it sounds fascinating and I'd love to look into it more if you know of any historians or researchers discussing this viewpoint? Thanks!
I don’t disagree with the concept that these places are of worthy of protection and classification within the National Park System. But, it is also the reason the Dept of Interior and NPS have varying “categories” for these protective assignments. The classification of National Park should mean something - like crown jewels of the NPS. Monuments, battlefields, historical sites/parks, recreation areas and preserves further protect areas of interest within their class of assignment. Elevation to “park” status should be rooted in Monumentalism. Otherwise, all NPS locations will be subject to possible reassignment and thereby dilute those monumental places. The NPS worked hard into the 1960’s to properly relegate protected places to their proper assignment. The locations now being assigned as full “parks” are nothing more than the purchase of political capital. Evidence of this is New Rover Gorge NP was added into the Covid relief bill. I mean c’mon man.
I appreciate your comment, but I disagree that park status should be rooted in Monumentalism. While it is true that certain park redesignations have been rooted in political favors, and I am in favor of the "park categories" approach in general, I think we should still judge these parks on their own merits, like the examples I gave in my video. These are places that, to me, tell a more complete story of America's natural resources and heritage. This country is lucky to have a tremendous diversity of landscapes and ecosystems, each of which are worthy of protection. Many of these landscapes are indeed "monumental," but our more subtle landscapes are just as important ecologically and biologically speaking, like our wetlands, coastal areas, grasslands, etc. I think our idea of a "National Park" should reflect our new understanding of ecosystem function and biodiversity, and should continue to change as we continue to learn. These types of landscapes have always been undervalued and underappreciated, and I think it's only right that our National Parks protect these types of places in addition to the "monumental" ones.
@@NationalParkDiaries I think a combination of both approaches is best. There are still a ton of monumental places to protect as parks still: for example, the Columbia River Gorge, Mt St Helens, Mt Hood, the Owyhee Canyonlands, and the High Cascades of Oregon (Three Sisters/Mt Washington and surrounding volcanic terrain). All of those places I think are worthy of park status. Similarly, North Cascades National Park should expand to include Artist Point as well as Washington Pass and that eastern half of the North Cascades that is missing. But rather than protecting just the core features of each, the boundaries should be wide and expansive to include the whole biological area of importance too.
For example, the whole northern half of the Mt Hood National Forest (excluding the Columbia R. Gorge) should become Mt Hood National Park, which would make the park larger than Mt Rainier National Park. It is unfortunate that because of monumentalism, places like the section of forest between the Olympic Coast and the Olympic Mountains of Olympic NP were not included in the park-so now we have to disconnected parts because that area was opened up to private timber use and is now private land. And also Mt Rainier, much of the western side is private land and heavily covered in clear cuts. It would have been nice to have the park's boundaries extend further west. Even if you look at a map of Mt Rainier NP, the eastern side of the park extends out much further from the summit than the western side does. And the western side is hardly even bounded by forest service land-most of it is private land or state land.
Bringing back monumentalism but on a wholistic approach (focusing on biodiversity) could lead to creating more parks that are truly monumental and deserve park status, like Mt Hood or the Oregon High Cascades. But I also feel like monumentalism can include places that are significant in a collective sense-like swamps, dunes, and lesser scenic places in the east coast are still important and "monumental" in terms of representing the whole of the country's natural landscape-even if it isn't super remarkable on its own scenic merit. I just think that even though say, swamps may be common in the southeast, it is still important to include at least one in the system.
I think we're lacking a few types too, for example: the New England portion of the Appalachian mountains.
@NatureShy I'm in agreement for the most part, but semantically speaking, at that point, it's not really monumentalism anymore. Monumentalism is concerned ONLY with protecting the "monumental" scenery, so that the ecologically important lands could be excluded for extractive uses. Whenever you start incorporating those surrounding lands into the NP effort, you're following a more biological approach to management, which is exactly the opposite of monumentalism (and more in line with how we manage parks now). You're getting the monumental aspects of the scenery with these protections, yes, but you're also recognizing that the ecosystem is more than the scenery, so you've pretty much moved beyond the "monumentalism" approach at that point. I only argue the semantics because I think having a distinct term and moving away from "monumentalism" is important to fully embrace that more holistic approach you're talking about. On the whole though, I think we're pretty much on the same page!
@@NationalParkDiaries Oh interesting! I must have misunderstood monumentalism then. Like something such as Indiana Dunes, I feel like doesn't deserve park status, but would be better as a national monument or wildlife refuge. Though, perhaps I don't fully understand that park enough. It feels pretty equivalent to a place like the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which is protected primarily for its rich biodiversity and ecosystem bridge function between the Cascades, Klamath Mountains, Trinity Alps, and the Sierra Nevada. But I wouldn't consider it someplace that should be a national park really.
However, parks like Conagree, definitely worthy of being a national park for its tall/old growth trees. I think more places deserve park status just as far as fully representing the various ecosystems of America. Like we're missing something for the northern Appalachians, for example. Maybe Pictured Rocks would be more appropriate for the Great Lakes, too. Something to represent the Midwest better, even if Indiana Dunes have their own ecological value-I'd just think it would be better fit in a different category, otherwise every national monument and national wildlife refuge could become a national park. Though I understand the argument for Indiana Dunes being a park too. I love birds so much, but it seems like that park specifically would be better suited in a different category.
We aren't necessarily wrong. I mean one of them has to be the worst. But when you are the worst among the best of the best of the best, it can't be all that bad, right?
I would argue that none of them have to be the worst. To me, they're all unique and different in their own way and I prefer not to try and sort them into "best" and "worst" rankings.
Congree is one of my favorite parks. I always am so disappointed when I see people bag on it.
Same here! I will defend it every opportunity I get
I agree with your video, but be careful how thickly you apply the "video essay voice". It can start to sound pretty disingenuous after a while.
I believe some national parks (Indiana Dunes, Cuyahoga Valley) were made national parks for the same reason military bases get spread around to different states (to earn funding support of various people in congress from those states -- without those parks, Indiana and Ohio wouldn't have any). Those two parks are fine as local parks (I've visited and enjoyed both for a day), but they're definitely not standouts or national travel destinations (unless you really like disappointment). Indiana dunes really isn't even as good some of the Michigan state parks located along the lake with the same kind of terrain.
While it's certainly true that some parks have been created as political favors, I think it's important that we still evaluate these parks on their own merit, like with the example I gave in the video. Sure, they might not be as scenic compared to other parks, but they still have tremendous ecological and biological value that is well worth NP status, regardless of our human preferences for scenery.
It depends on what metric you are using for "good". The area around the Indiana Dunes was the site of some absolutely seminal ecologic research. It is one of only a couple places in the world where the complete dunal ecosystem is preserved intact. There was historic experiments that led to the development of manned flight that took place in the Indiana Dunes. If all you want is the beach and the frontal dunes, by all means truck on up 94 to Warren Dunes. But there's much more irreplaceable ecosystem in Indiana Dunes.
Monumentalism as a concept was necessary in the early establishing of the National Parks we all love today. But it is woefully outdated in modern times with our current understanding of ecology and biology and shouldn't be used as an argument against protecting large intact pieces of land and water for conservation or recreation. Monumentalism is why what some would call quintessential American ecosystems or landscapes like the prairies, the bayous, or the woods of the northeast still lack any sort of real adequate national park protections (or really any protections if I'm being honest).
Well said! Useful, but outdated. Would love to see more protections for those landscapes you mentioned
I like your passion.
Thank you!
@@NationalParkDiaries It would be nice if you visited New Zealand and explored some of our treasured parks.
@@patrick247two HIGH on my list, trust me. A little pricey, but I'll make it one day!
' Man you ment well.' i been to several sites. like an pre furr the dess oh let areas. bad lands,toad stool walked to mt presidents with fund group event. worked, teton lodge co. ol faithfull store no nine? walked over parts dee vide. Hanover ,roanoke, much of Az. gran canyun twice by bike, rim an towns twice each. now Mar fa, tex as is. big been park only seen once visit but am a site in me self watchin life go by on hiw 90. the ol royal road, an cattle route...
huzzah!!! Every park I've visited was great.
I feel the same! They're all special in their own way!
Thanks!
Thank you so much!!
I promise to always love every National Park, through you, my super smart grandson. I love every one of your videos and YOU!❤❤❤❤❤
Love you too!!
excellent insights into our national park's creation and management.
Thanks for watching!
Just here to say that Indiana Dunes is a terrible national park and the fact that Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore was given National Park status over Sleeping Bear Dunes up the coast in Michigan is a catastrophe. The scale of the dunes in each park, the amount of inholdings (there is even a massive coal powered steel plant with Indiana Dunes boundaries), and the respective quality of the water, air, land, and natural resources in each clearly establish Sleeping Bear as the obvious choice to represent the important freshwater dunes ecosystem. The fact that Indiana Dunes was chosen instead points to the political manipulations going on behind the scenes, not the quality or importance of the land itself. I would even go so far as to argue that almost all of the Michigan state parks dotting the Lake Michigan shoreline were better candidates than the lackluster Indiana Dunes. It is unfortunate that for so many national park lovers, Indiana Dunes will be their only encounter with the stunning landscape along the Lake Michigan coast. Speaking as someone who has visited various parts of that coastline many times, a visit to Indiana Dunes would not compel me to visit Lake Michigan again.
Honestly, one could argue the title of national park nowadays means that it’ll be loved to death because we assume monumentality. It might be better that gems like Sleeping Bear Dunes, Pictured Rocks, Valles Caldera, Dinosaur, etc., aren’t trampled the same way Zion, Yellowstone, or Yosemite get. They’re still preserved for posterity.
Yeah I almost passed up visiting Sleeping Bear Dunes because I had been to Indiana Dunes and figured "well, I've been to the national park one, the lakeshore is probably similar if not a bit less impressive." That could not be more wrong. IMO Indiana Dunes was the least interesting of all the national lakeshores.
Worthy of protection? yeah I guess. Worthy of NP status (especially over Sleeping Bear Dunes)? Not really. Just because something is worthy of being protected doesn't mean it should be a NP. Many other NPS unit categories as well as other agency, state, etc. parks exist to protect land.
and tbh. About Indiana dunes and gateway arch. In my opinion, they’re really political designations and goals by their states more than anything. Both received resistance from the NPS itself when considering promotion to full fledged national parks. But (yes this runs counter to the whole point of the video), if someone wants to make a ranked list of parks, at least there’s not too much offense when Gateway Arch ranks last, even though its literal “monumentality” is the only reason anyone would care.
I was surprised to hear you say the word “frozen” when referring to the tundra in Yellowstone. Growing up in sunny Southern California, the word tundra is relatively new to me. I can’t recall where I first heard the discussion but that saying “frozen tundra” when describing a scenery, was grammatically incorrect. It’s redundant because the word tundra literally meant frozen.
Apologies from the kid that thinks he knows more than the teacher…
If Cuyahoga Valley is a worthy national park than I honestly don't know how you can say literally any place is not national park worthy. Now, that is a legitimate outlook - as I'm sure you know that is basically what Canada is doing by having a national park representing every single kind of land type in the country. But that isn't what our national parks are meant to be. These recent national parks should all remain as what they were prior to their re-designation. We've not had a worthy re-designation since Joshua Tree and Death Valley.
Have you been to that park?
@@boxsterman77 yes, and I've been to almost every np in the lower 48.
@@safepetproductsimpressive. I just paid it a visit. Ive been to the big parks, to wit Yosemite, Yellowstone, Rainer, Grand Canyon, Mammoth, Shenandoah, etc, and while it is by no means comparable to those places, it has some special aspects worthy of preservation. It doesn’t always have to be a contest.
@@boxsterman77 that is true. I've got a nice county forest preserve right near my house which is certainly no less than Cuyahoga. Maybe it should be a np as well.
I actually think the Canadian approach of preserving representative landscapes and ecosystems is exactly what we should be doing. With a country like the United States, we're very fortunate to have the diversity of landscapes and ecosystems that we do, and I think we should be looking to preserve as many of them as National Parks as we can. "What our national parks are meant to be" has changed many times over the years since their initial creation, and personally, I see no problem with that definition continuing to change as we continue to learn and develop our understanding of biology, ecology, ecosystem function, etc.
Your title is misleading. It should be, "Monumentalism."
The complaint about nothing to do can be valid. A park is not simply a preserve. We have those too. A park implies recreation, even if it's just hiking.
With the rising popularity of Taylor swift- when will we get a video comparing all her songs to national parks? It won’t be until then that I can decide my least and most favorite parks
Man, what an amazing idea! He should really do this
Banned.
@@NationalParkDiaries no
I think national Parks should mainly protect unique landscapes and stunning scenery. I think that maybe a dozen National Parks aren’t worthy of the status; at least when you consider the boatload of places that should be National Parks.
No, the framing of preservation versus use is not an offshoot of "monumentalism". It is just a fact of life. Land has different value to different people, and those values have to be balanced somehow. That means preservation people won't get as much preservation as they want, and timber/mining/farming/recreation people won't get as much of that as they want.
National Park Diaries wants a National Park System that is not so much a park system as an anti-development system. It should include all areas he doesn't want to see changed. He doesn't like the fact that it is still--well, at least partly--only a park system.
But why book a plane ticket or drive hours to arrive at a national park with no monumental views? Maybe designate another entity to protect ecosystems like BLM instead of national park land
BLM land provides way less protections than NPS lands, so I wouldn't recommend that. As for booking plane tickets or driving to see less monumental parks, I think that decision ultimately rests with the individual, but shouldn't factor in to a park's designation status. If people aren't interested in visiting a less monumental park, that's fine, but that doesn't stop a park from being ecologically or biologically important and worthy of NP status.
@@NationalParkDiaries Thanks for the informative response. Another strategy could maybe creating a new entity that is separate from national park but more protective than BLM to conserve the ecosystems more. I’m under the impression that the “National Park” designation is not going to change away from a monumental status, so a new entity would be beneficial. It would also free up more government funds for the “monumental” national parks to keep them even more pristine.
@@dylanpausic5026 the wilderness designation fits what you're describing really well. It operates on all federal land, regardless of agency, and is the most protective category of land we have in the US. I have a whole video on it if you want to learn more!
I'm not against the preservation of the land. I'm against States thinking they need the federal government to preserve land for them and to make them feel special..... I've been to that one in South Carolina..... Ehhhh. I'd rather the limited funding they have go to good use
I think protecting one of the few remaining old growth bottomland forests is a good use
@@meganstahlberger608 It was fully protected before it was a national park. There are vast amounts of lands across the country that are fully protected, and rightfully so. It doesn't mean they should all be national parks.
"Bro I think all he means to say is that every ecosystem deserves protection."