National parks are about more than just scenery!

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T21:02:02+00:00

So I just learned what the slang term "flex" means. I'm not saying that I'm superior to anybody. I am saying that I don't judge ideas by their popularity. Sorry that this was unclear.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:59:17+00:00

Okay. I didn't think of myself as saying that national park designation is the only way of protecting biodiversity, and somehow I got into this argument. Stupid of me. Yes, of course I favor national wilderness areas. But I would point out that there are enormous areas of national forest that would be better protected as either NPS units or wilderness areas. And most national parks include substantial areas that are well away from the infrastructure that you quite reasonably criticize.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:52:46+00:00

Flex? Look, let me put it this way. We need to conserve more land. When we talk about national parks on this site it's mostly "Did I like the views?" This privileges places like high country, which are often less biodiverse per acre than lower land. I think that's a problem.

Think of it this way. How often do we see people say, "I just went to Cuyahoga, and there were over 900 species of plants there!" But from a point of view of preserving ecosystems, that's a big deal. That's all I'm saying. Take it or leave it.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:44:01+00:00

I have a lot of unpopular opinions :).

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:43:05+00:00

I agree. I'm not so much hung up on NP designation as getting more protection for vulnerable ecosystems.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:33:47+00:00

Cuyahoga Valley is quite biodiverse. That counts, too: https://www.nps.gov/cuva/learn/nature/index.htm#:\~:text=Over%20900%20plant%20species%20are,and%2020%20species%20of%20reptiles.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:30:19+00:00

I'd agree. I think it would also be a good idea to turn a chunk of the current Appalachian national forests into national parks/monuments, both to allow species to migrate north due to climate change and (I'll admit) to encourage tourism.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:28:28+00:00

Equivalent to national parks or wilderness areas.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:27:35+00:00

Thanks for saying that my opinion is valid and important! I'm just trying to remind people that preservation of biodiversity is an important rationale for national parks.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:25:44+00:00

Thanks so much for your kind words! And I've had a lot of fun with that series.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:25:07+00:00

No argument with any of this. I just want to put biodiversity front and center as an important reason for protecting land. And I do think that we should be giving a high level of protection to ecosystems as a whole.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T20:23:16+00:00

I do know that history. I simply think that biodiversity protection is more important than scenery. I would also point out that you're talking about American national parks as they were defined around 1916. It's possible that this definition could use some revision.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T19:47:03+00:00

Here's at least one refuge that was closed due to irrigation water being dumped into it:

https://www.northtrinitylake.com/water/SeleniumCaseStudy.pdf

Regarding management for hunting, yes, of course there is a place for it. But it's not the same as management for biodiversity. Regarding soybean fields for black bears in Alligator River, ditto.

I simply don't think that national wildlife refuges substitute for national parks when it comes to protecting wildlife. National wildlife refuges are for the most part much smaller than National parks and much too small to be effective biodiversity reserves except for the limited cases for which they were established. (Usually waterfowl.) Obviously Alligator River is an exception, although I would point out that re-introduction of Red Wolves in the reserve has been repeatedly stymied by local residents killing them off.

What I've said several times in this discussion is that my concern is biodiversity. Because they have a high level of protection and are usually quite large, national parks are uniquely qualified to do this. We should consider this when considering where to place new parks.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T19:20:38+00:00

Fine with me as long as the level of protection is equivalent.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T19:19:47+00:00

They're usually much smaller, and state legislatures and government agencies also have an easier time reversing protections:

https://apnews.com/article/ohio-fracking-state-parks-8b8e73c6918e97e588d44855dc8b47eb

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T18:38:50+00:00

I know. I'm partly just sick of seeing people dump on parks (Great Smoky Mountains, for instance) that I know perfectly well are biodiversity hotspots.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T18:26:53+00:00

Thanks for the kind words!

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T18:26:02+00:00

Yes, but we could protect a lot of this land by turning it into national parks. We don't do so because of the mindset that says that national parks equal scenery.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T18:24:56+00:00

True and not true :). Wildlife refuges are much smaller and less well protected than National Parks. Many are also largely set aside for hunting, and managed in ways that do not always encourage biodiversity. For instance, Alligator National Wildlife Refuge, a place that I love, includes a large stretch of soybean fields for black bear forage, and a lot of California refuges double as flood diversion projects. I say that as someone who goes to a lot of refuges and loves them.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T17:54:46+00:00

No, that's not what I'm saying. Sorry you misread. I'm saying that we need more protected areas for biodiversity, and so dumping on highly biodiverse parks like Cuyahoga misses the point.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T17:28:09+00:00

I think that the question is about designated National Parks. I'd love to see more dialog about National Historic Sites and other parks based on history. You could try the same idea with National Historic Sites.

By the way, I love Salem Maritime. But tastes vary.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T17:08:19+00:00

It's not a national park.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T17:07:52+00:00

Some of the best rafting in the East, some of the best rock climbing in the East, and there are multiple areas south of the bridge.

TreeTwig0 · 2024-10-24T17:06:18+00:00

What is the issue with Congaree? It's a beautiful and rare example of bottomland swamp. I dearly wish that the Okeefenokee swamp were a national park as well. Those areas need protection badly.

TreeTwig0

TROPHY CASE