Not National Parks, but NPS would like them to be

[uintahiker]

I was thinking earlier this week about places that are NOT National Parks, but that the National Park Service wouldn't hesitate to add them if the opportunity arose. Yes, there's cool spots next to some National Parks, but I was thinking about places that are separate and independent, so that a new National Park unit would be created by the acquisition.

So, rules for properties to add to this list:
1. Private ownership or State ownership- ie land not under Federal control
2. Not adjacent to property currently in the NPS.
3. Worthy of becoming a national playground (park), or for protection (monument)
4. Inclusion on the list is for the critical/most condensed unit possible. IE, No "Utah National Park"

I've got 2 places that come to mind, but there's got to be more out there.
1. The Alamo
2. Antelope Canyon

Where else do you think of?

 

[Dave]

Limiting this to areas under state/private ownership really whittles down the options in the west. Utah's state lands are checkerboarded into small SITLA parcels. Most of the rest of the undeveloped areas are BLM/FS.

 

[Vegan.Hiker]

While I think the State does a decent job managing the 6.2 million acres of Adirondack State Park, I think the grandeur of the High Peaks region warrants NP status. Admittedly though, I'm not well versed in the ramifications for each type of designation, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that NP status = higher level of protection.

Not my picture (taken from the Adirondack Mountain Club website)

 

[Parma]

Back in the day they tried to make the Sawtooths a national park...and I'm sooo glad they didn't!

 

[uintahiker]

Limiting this to areas under state/private ownership really whittles down the options in the west. Utah's state lands are checkerboarded into small SITLA parcels. Most of the rest of the undeveloped areas are BLM/FS.

You also have the reservation lands in the west

Admittedly though, I'm not well versed in the ramifications for each type of designation, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that NP status = higher level of protection.
View attachment 29866

Not necessarily, just a higher level of bureaucracy, so yeah, I guess so! The goal for National Parks is to basically make the site mostly accessible for the highest number of people. National Monuments are to protect from some uses. Either status leads to an increase in visitors

Back in the day they tried to make the Sawtooths a national park...and I'm sooo glad they didn't!

I remember being below Lonesome Lake in the Cirque of the Towers in the Winds thinking that the Cirque of the Towers Visitor Center would be somewhere close by if the Wind Rivers were a National Park. Definitely another place that's better NOT as a National Park.

 

[Absarokanaut]

Within the "Blue Line" of the Adirondack "Park" I think half or more of the land is privately held with hundreds if not thousands of individual parcels, the high acreage number you quote Vegan is a marketing ploy, it is NOT the biggest park/forest in the country, etc. That negative I had to jab you with aside, remember your sense of humor, makes it a really tough proposition for one of the most beautiful places there is to become a real park even with the landmark environmental/conservation history. I also think New York States motives are far from as insidious as Utah, Wyoming's, etc., so I like it remaining in state hands as an example for resource grabbing wannabe state governments is imperative IMO.

What's the huge private place in Maine the owners want to donate for a new park?

We have so little State Land in the West its hard for me to think of much aside from the Colorado State Forest.

Ted Turner's Vermejo Park in NM would be AWESOME.

 

[Vegan.Hiker]

You are absolutely right John. There are small towns and residences littered throughout much of the ADK's which would make it impossible. I had the high peaks region more in mind, which is reasonably undeveloped, but even that might be impossible and devoid of rationale.

 

[ogg]

I know many people, myself included, would like to see the NPS take over the entirety of Santa Cruz island in Channel Islands National Park. Currently, the Nature Conservancy owns something like 85% of the island, and public access to their holding is limited to a single trail under controlled conditions. The Nature Conservancy is a private non-profit group that buys up threatened land and sequesters it from all potentially damaging use- including public access, or if public access is allowed it is on a very limited basis. They also engage in restoration, remediation, etc. The Nature Conservancy's efforts to restore native habitat and endangered species on Santa Cruz Island are laudatory. In fact, quite a success story. In light of that, now seems like a good time to expand public access on a gradual and controlled basis, with an ultimate end towards public access to the entire island, perhaps even with a pathway to the entire Island being a National Park. As far as I know there are no plans and no precedent for this at this point.

 

[toejam]

As a backcountry traveler, I hate visiting National Parks. They have too many stupid rules and are magnets for idiots. It would only make sense to take over places that are already over-used to the point of potentially irrepairable damage.

 

[Absarokanaut]

On SC Island did not the Nature Conservancy work with/pay a private landowner to limit development and doesn't that private landowner have the power to limit if not entirely exclude public access since ultimately we are talking about private property? From a conservation aspect I appreciate preventing development but like the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance here I look at most of these deals as the NC or Alliance predominantly acting in their client's interest as a real estate company and getting them incredibly sweet deals at the expense of public access. If no public funds are used not much we can say but I believe there actually have been public funds used on some deals.

 

[ogg]

On SC Island did not the Nature Conservancy work with/pay a private landowner to limit development and doesn't that private landowner have the power to limit if not entirely exclude public access since ultimately we are talking about private property? From a conservation aspect I appreciate preventing development but like the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance here I look at most of these deals as the NC or Alliance predominantly acting in their client's interest as a real estate company and getting them incredibly sweet deals at the expense of public access. If no public funds are used not much we can say but I believe there actually have been public funds used on some deals.

The Nature Conservancy owns their portion of Santa Cruz Island outright but whatever the terms of the purchase were seem to have been kept under wraps. The island had been the subject of litigation for decades amongst various parties and their heirs; my personal take is that the purchase agreement with Nature Conservancy could very well have had some sort of covenant prohibiting public use as a way of the former owner thumbing his nose at those pressuring him to sell his holdings for public use. If this indeed true, even though profit was not necessarily the prime motive, it still seems a bit shady and backhanded.