Replies

The great majority of my visits to National Parks are to Civil War battlefields, and I am generally in favor of the NPS placing more emphasis on historical sites (and not just those related to the Civil War). These will very often have the advantage of being smaller in size and more accessible to urban areas, especially in the east.

Yellowstone is fine, but when you've seen one geyser, you've seen then all. And the feds already own more mountains than any of us could hope to climb. Looking at the funding and geographical balance, historic preservation is sadly underserved in the NPS.

The tricky issue will be coordinating with state and local park authorities. I can point to a great many sites with national historical and cultural significance that should be saved. But whether the feds or a local agency should do the job is a different issue. If a stronger federal-state partnership enhances preservation, great. If a bigger federal role induces states and localities to pull back and wait for free money from Washington, it could be counterproductive.

I would agree with you about the emphasis on historic sites, particularly if the idea as I suspect is engaging urban populations, since so many are in or near urban areas. The problem in creating new ones is also that, so many are in the east, costs would be high. Not like the feel your pain FDR who created Shenandoah and the Smokies by throwing out the people who lived there for generations. And I suspect as you indicate, most candidates might well be better candidates for state and local protection. Perhaps with some federal role

Yellowstone is fine, but when you've seen one geyser, you've seen then all.

You think Yellowstone is just about geysers??

There are 20 things in Yellowstone that could be a stand alone great park. Yes, it's my favorite park. It's magnificent.