Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
Pothole Dome (Tuolumne Meadows, Yosemite National Park)

The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (84% of Full)

JanSport Memorial Day Event is here. Up to 25% Off Best Selling Backpacks. Limited Time Only! Plus Free Shipping in All Orders - Shop Now! Offer available from May/24 to May/29.

 


Advanced

Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

avatar Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 05, 2010 08:48PM
Pinnacles National Monument, a 26,000-acre swath of spectacular volcanic rock formations outside Soledad, Calif., would be elevated to a National Park under legislation introduced Thursday by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/08/pinnacles-national-monument-california-parks.html
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 05, 2010 08:52PM
I love Pinnacles. I've hiked every mile of trail on the park map (and several miles off-trail) multiple times - including the 'unmaintained' north loop (great place for spring wildflowers). I've done volunteer work when they acquired the new parcel on the east side, including incorporating the old private campground into the park's borders (enjoy the fences - a lot of sweat went into those smiling smiley ) Anything that's good for the park is okay with me.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 06, 2010 07:22PM
That will be great! But only if they do NOT connect hwy 146 though the park.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 06, 2010 07:24PM
I wouldn't expect changes to the road.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 06, 2010 08:05PM
I personally don't agree with Pinnacles being declared a "National Park". It's wonderful in its own way, but I don't see that it has the requirements/significance for getting the designation.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 06, 2010 08:51PM
Quote
y_p_w
I personally don't agree with Pinnacles being declared a "National Park". It's wonderful in its own way, but I don't see that it has the requirements/significance for getting the designation.
Well, if Sleeping Bear Dunes can get National Park status, why not the Pinnacles? The Pinnacles has a far more interesting geologic history than some sand dunes on the shore of a big lake.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 07, 2010 09:35AM
Quote
Dave
Quote
y_p_w
I personally don't agree with Pinnacles being declared a "National Park". It's wonderful in its own way, but I don't see that it has the requirements/significance for getting the designation.
Well, if Sleeping Bear Dunes can get National Park status, why not the Pinnacles? The Pinnacles has a far more interesting geologic history than some sand dunes on the shore of a big lake.

I looked it up. Sleeping Bear Dunes was never a "National Park". It was established in 1970 as "Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore". I know there were some units that were delisted as "National Parks", with some being really sketchy. Some stayed in the NPS with a different designation, so went to other agencies, and a few even went back to private ownership.

I just don't see Pinnacles with the premier designation of the National Park Service. Visitation is low, and it probably couldn't handle many more people than it already gets unless they create bigger parking lots. It's certainly got some pretty good hiking, but still limited.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2010 10:19AM by y_p_w.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 07, 2010 09:53PM
Quote
y_p_w
I looked it up. Sleeping Bear Dunes was never a "National Park". It was established in 1970 as "Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore". I know there were some units that were delisted as "National Parks", with some being really sketchy. Some stayed in the NPS with a different designation, so went to other agencies, and a few even went back to private ownership.

I just don't see Pinnacles with the premier designation of the National Park Service. Visitation is low, and it probably couldn't handle many more people than it already gets unless they create bigger parking lots. It's certainly got some pretty good hiking, but still limited.
I don't really place such a need for something to be extraordinarily special for it to be designated a national park. I see it more as a way to give something greater protection. With more money coming along with the designation maybe they can fix up some of the camp grounds or put in some kind of visitor center that explains how it's only half of a volcano and how some geologists claim it isn't.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 08, 2010 07:45AM
Quote
Dave
I don't really place such a need for something to be extraordinarily special for it to be designated a national park. I see it more as a way to give something greater protection. With more money coming along with the designation maybe they can fix up some of the camp grounds or put in some kind of visitor center that explains how it's only half of a volcano and how some geologists claim it isn't.

However - those things don't require a "National Park" designation per se. Locally, I go to Muir Woods NM, which has a decent interpretive system, although no visitor center per se other than the bookstore manned by volunteers. Didn't Dinosaur NM have a pretty decent visitor center - at least until it was temporarily closed for structural reasons?

Even so, with the federal budget in its current state, I don't see where the money comes from to pay for a lot of these things. Yosemite had to resort to donations to help build the new Lower Yosemite Fall Trail and buildings.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 08, 2010 08:43AM
Quote
y_p_w
However - those things don't require a "National Park" designation per se. Locally, I go to Muir Woods NM, which has a decent interpretive system, although no visitor center per se other than the bookstore manned by volunteers. Didn't Dinosaur NM have a pretty decent visitor center - at least until it was temporarily closed for structural reasons?

Even so, with the federal budget in its current state, I don't see where the money comes from to pay for a lot of these things. Yosemite had to resort to donations to help build the new Lower Yosemite Fall Trail and buildings.

I just don't see a problem with it. I have far more important things to worry about.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 07, 2010 12:12AM
Quote
y_p_w
I don't see that it has the requirements/significance for getting the designation.

There's only one requirement: an act of Congress.
avatar Re: Pinnacles National Monument: California's new National Park?
August 07, 2010 03:47AM
Quote
y_p_w
I personally don't agree with Pinnacles being declared a "National Park". It's wonderful in its own way, but I don't see that it has the requirements/significance for getting the designation.


I guess that half of a volcano split and displaced by tectonic plate movement along California's most prominent fault line is more commonplace than I imagined. (Now, a valley carved by a glacier ....)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2010 04:11PM by szalkowski.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login