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

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 ) Anything that's good for the park is okay with me.

That will be great! But only if they do NOT connect hwy 146 though the park.

I wouldn't expect changes to the road.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.