I just moved out of Illinois. I think Indiana Dunes NP is a great example of what you’re talking about. It’s a beautiful place, but I’d arguably say it’s not as “beautiful” as some shore/dune landscapes in Western Michigan that are not protected places, but Indiana Dunes is a significant and important ecological landscape and absolutely deserves to be protected.

Grasslands National in Saskatchewan is incredibly beautiful to my eye, but then I did grow up on the Prairies...

This 100%. Yes, Congaree isn't as awe inspiring as the Grand Canyon but it's not trying to be. It is what it is ... an incredible swampy scenery, that pulls you in and forces you to appreciate the wetlands landscape. I love seeing the diversity between all the NP's. I'm shocked we don't have a NP glorifying grasslands yet, as I feel that's the lone category (Mtn, desert, forest, seashore, tundra, volcano, cave, etc) that hasn't been adequately designated yet. But no matter how hard I try ..... Gateway Arch ... uh NO !!!!!

Very much agree; unfortunately there is definitely a popularity aspect involved - maybe they'll start getting some bison populations strong there and that would help I think

@@blastedmcgraw152it deserves to be protected as a lakeshore, its original designation, not as a national park. A national park should at least be an exceptional example of its type. ID is not that.

❤I wish I could have made this statement. My thoughts exactly. I love this channel and forward its content to others at every opportunity.

Y'all are the best! Thanks for the kind words and thanks for supporting the channel ❤

❤❤❤

Wholeheartedly agree! Education and context is vital to appreciating so many of these parks - hence the existence of my channel lol.

CVNP is severely underrated and I will straight up argue with people when they disparage it.

I spent two days at CVNP and it was… fine. Like I’m glad it’s a park, and the recovery story is interesting, but it feels more like a city park or a state park. Despite it being the closest National Park to where I live in the Detroit area, I can’t see myself ever wanting to go back there. There’s a bunch of metroparks and state parks right next to me that are just as good.

Love hearing about experiences like that! That's what I'm talking about!

I LOVE Lake Michigan dunes. I just don’t think that the Indiana part of the dunes are worthy of the national park. Check out sleeping bear. Now that’s something.

Saguaro is super diverse too! You go from desert scrub to Aspen forest in the Rincons. Totally underrated

🤘🤘🤘

This is definitely a topic I've been mulling over for a while. It's a sentiment I notice a lot online and wanted to use this video as a way to help people understand why we might have such engrained thinking about our National Parks. I agree with your sentiment completely and appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. Thanks!

Congaree is my absolute favorite park, I couldn't agree more!

So glad to hear that! Congaree is one of my favorites and I defend it every chance I get

Hetch Hetchy is a great example of lost landscape which was ruined before being studied enough to know what we would loss by flooding it. It was a different time and perhaps a good national lesson.

But why does it have to be that unique? Why preserve Mt. Rainier, Mt. Lassen, the North Cascades, and the Olympics but not Mt. Hood, Mt. Baker, Mt. St. Helens, or Mt. Shasta? Why include Longs Peak but not Pikes Peak or Mt. Evans? It’s a shame we don’t try to keep or make more of every corner of the world pretty, even if it’s a built environment.

@@LeeHawkinsPhoto Incidentally Mounts Hood, Baker, St. Helens, and Shasta are all protected parts of National Forest lands. The NPS isn’t the only federal agency engaged in conservation and responsible land management.

I hope Gateway Arch remains an outlier as well. I have a whole video on the economic motivations for its redesignation, so I won't go into it here, but I agree with you!

Congaree is my home state park, so I definitely have a soft spot for it and all the other "underdog" parks. I just find so much to love in these places beyond "views," although I love those too! Basically, I think we should love ALL of our parks, regardless of monumentality!

Go to Great Basin in Nevada and be blown away by the bristlecone pines. You will be fascinated by those small, gnarled trees.

Exactly!! And thanks for watching!

Great analogy, love it!

Glad to hear it, thanks for watching!

Great point! I tend to think of our Eastern landscapes as undervalued by this type of thinking, but you're totally right that there are still places in the West that suffer from it too. Great example, and thanks for watching Mike!

Well said! I love scenery as much as the next guy, but it's not ALL that I appreciate about National Parks. I love all the small, subtle things too.

Unfortunately, our brains are wired for "spectacle," and so we're naturally drawn to bigger, flashier things. Conservation (both of wildlife and landscapes) falls in to the same category, but I think we can push back against the trend and hopefully help people realize that ALL of it is worth protecting, not just the charismatic species or big landscapes. Thanks for your comment!

ID is a terrible park. It’s a poor representation of its ecological type and is riddled with inholdings, including a very obvious and obtrusive coal powered steel plant.

Gateway arch i agree but mesa verde? Hard disagree

Prairies are super underrated. I get the same feeling from them as I get from being on a boat when you can't see shore- just an overwhelming sense of *vastness*, being smacked in the face with the sudden awareness of just how much *bigger* the world is than you could ever truly comprehend... It's so cool.

Congaree is one of my favorite parks and it gets the "worst park" treatment a lot, so I'm used to having to stick up for it. Keep fighting the good fight for our more underappreciated landscapes!

Great insight, Rik! And glad to know you enjoyed the lesser known parks. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

It's the "underwhelming" sentiment that I'm really trying to hit at in this video. They might be underwhelming in terms of pure scenery, but the park holds an incredible wealth of biodiversity and ecosystem types. That's as important, if not more, than scenery, for me.

Love to hear it. Congaree is one of my favorite parks - there's just a subtle beauty and serenity in that place, not to mention it's incredible ecosystem value. That's why I hate to see it, and any park, listed as one of the "worst" - it just erodes all the other things that make these parks special.

Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of that park. I think there are stories of parks all across the country that stand out beyond "monumental scenery," all with stories worth telling.

I'm so glad to hear that! Welcome to the community - can't wait to share more park stories with you!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Good point. Places can become "special" when they become "rare," so it's important to prioritize preservation BEFORE we get to that point!

So glad you're here, welcome!!

Yeah, I certainly think that's a more modern management style. We eventually adopted this in the US as well, but our early days were definitely all about Monumentalism.

There has been a movement more recently though to establish national parks that conserve underrepresented habitats even if they are not necessarily rich in charismatic wildlife.

Glad to hear it!

Eastern hardwood forests are my happy place. I so so wish they were still as expansive as they once were, but I'm very grateful for what we do have protected. Thanks for your comment!

Oh, I plan on it! Cuyahoga is a story I've been wanting to tell since day 1 of this channel, but I'm waiting until I can visit in person to really do it justice. I'll be visiting later this month and hopefully telling that story shortly after.

@NationalParkDiaries don't discount some of the attached metroparks too - there's some overlap with some of the summit metroparka, specifically Hampton Hills and O'neill woods, and Hampton has gobs and gobs of spring ephemerals, plus lots of mushrooms and some mycoheterotrophic plants. Also while not CVNP, the various parks systems have been working to take down all the dams and the last one to come down is the Gorge dam in Cuyahoga Falls - I can't wait for the falls to be exposed again, but the dam is worth seeing while it is still here.

Thanks for watching! It may be an uphill battle in the fight against monumentalism, but I'm happy to carry the torch

That's the thing though - in the beginning, big scenery DIDN'T take up big space. In Yosemite, only the Valley was protected initially. In Mt. Rainier, it was literally just the mountain. In most of these early parks, the "big spaces" were literally excluded from protection because they still had economic value. Monumentalism limited what sorts of places were protected, rather than expanded them.

I think monumentalism initially gets your attention. Then we learn of the economic potential of hiking and the tourism benefits. I love nature and the best way to protect it is through monumentalism atleast when it comes to the National Park branding. Nobody is going to complain if some of these more boring parks are redesignated as National Wildlife Refuges or National Preserves.

Same!

Thanks for watching!

The type of monumentalism I'm here for 🙌

That's exactly why I made this video lol! I hope it can "re-calibrate" the way people think about these places (great phrasing by the way!)

Glad you enjoyed it and welcome to the community!

Glad to hear it! I don't think you'll be disappointed in the birding or ecology at the park - those are 2 of its strong suits for sure. I recommend a paddle while you're there - best way to see the park imo!

The thing is, our National Parks already take up a pretty small percentage of land compared to the land we already use for resource extraction and development. Fighting for more and bigger parks is the bare minimum that park advocates have to do to protect places that are already threatened with development. Personally, I think the Alps are a poor example because of the long history of exploitation in Europe. Our landscapes in the US are still untouched by the hand of heavy development, and we have an opportunity here to protect them for posterity. Not saying the alpine model doesn't work for them, just that I don't see it as a viable model here in the US.

Maine Woods is certainly an interesting one - I have it on my list of things to cover already. As far as I know, that's an ongoing effort rather than a failed one? Or am I out of the loop? I could have missed something.

@NationalParkDiaries it's currently an ongoing affair, but it's now mostly working to enlarge and redesignate Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument into Maine Woods National Park

I think it's long history of preservation is reason enough to be a National Park imo. Love your passion for the park! Didn't know about the brewery though, that's awesome! Going to have to check that out when I visit.

@@NationalParkDiaries they also have really good food too. They converted one of the old bathhouses into a brewery/restaurant. There is some really good hiking and scenery in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains, if people don’t mind driving a little from the park (but it’d be similar distance to having to drive in Yellowstone or the Smokies to get places). The Ouachita Mountains were almost a national park, it was vetoed by Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. Probably because it was timber land.

Thanks so much for watching!

I'm glad to hear that! I don't think there's any better way to protect our parks for the future than raising and educating the next generation of stewards.

Seems like Isle Royale is another one of those parks that suffers from the "scenery trap," where people think there's nothing to see. I'd say Lake Superior's largest island and an untouched wilderness with the longest running predator-prey interaction study is pretty cool, but what do I know 🙃

Have to play the KZfaq game with the title, but I'm glad you stuck around to watch! It's an important subject that I feel very strongly about, as you can tell 😅

Hahaha, I think I'll stick to my little KZfaq community here ☺️ We can all make change in our own ways and I think right here is the best place for me at the moment! Thanks for watching!

Thanks so much for watching!

I'm planning to visit Ocmulgee later this month (hopefully!) do a video on it!

Thanks for watching!

Totally agreed!

Perhaps your own research may provide adequate answers?

@@reverendbStaard Maybe s/he's interested in what National Park Diaries specifically has to say on the subject?

As I understand it, it mainly has to do with the diversity of habitat types within the park. Bogs, fens, woodlands, savannas, prairies, riparian areas, dunes of course (and more). These types of habitats give rise to a wide array of different plant and animal species. The NPS has it listed as the 5th most biodiverse park in the System. Honestly, that deserves its own video!

@@NationalParkDiaries I would like to see that

Yeah, I was surprised to learn of the shear diversity of habitats there at first too, many of which are subtle and not immediately "striking" to a visitor. It's another example of how education can help foster a greater appreciation for a park.

Great analogy, well said!

Sad facts. Used to be quiet up here in Maine, you could immerse in the nature and forget there was a world of man for awhile, but that's a thing of the past now. There's no places that aren't swarmed by people anymore. When I was a kid and you went deep into the woods, you may have very well been the first human any of those animals had even met. Now you might be the first human they met that particular day ): it sucks really. Too many people everywhere.

A park like American Samoa preserves an ecosystem and a landscape that is, quite literally, impossible to see in any other place in America. It's one-of-a-kind. Not to mention it's unique management relationship with the local Samoan people. I think we have a duty to preserve and protect places like that, regardless of their "monumental scenery" or accessibility. I think accessibility is an important, but not all-encompassing factor, for National Park preservation. At the time Yellowstone was created, it certainly wasn't accessible to the typical American family. That changed over time, just like our concept of what a National Park "should be," and I think American Samoa, along with other hard-to-reach parks, provide benefits to us as Americans beyond our ability to access them, even if they don't fit a more traditional version of what we expect our National Parks to look like.

That's a great framing. I do think a lot of this comes down to ingrained attitudes and generational ways of thinking. The "idea" of a National Park is over 100 years old in this country, and we've always associated them with these big monumental landscapes. When we started to understand ecology, biology, and the importance of ecosystem preservation, unfortunately, a lot of the monumental thinking was still ingrained. I like the wilderness framing, but I'm afraid it might get kind of muddled since we do have an actual legal definition of wilderness in the US, including areas both within and outside of National Parks. I think, for me, the best long term solution is just large scale education efforts, which is actually where a lot of my frustrations on this issue come from. Many influencers and creators, who are driving a lot of the discourse around National Parks nowadays, perpetuate stereotypes of "good" and "bad" parks, making it really hard to buck the trend. It's one of the main reasons I even made this video - to hopefully just put out something that flies contrary to the prevailing narrative in the hopes of changing a few minds. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!

@@NationalParkDiaries I agree since we have a wilderness type designation already. Perhaps we something like Biodiversity protection zone/area/thingy :) This could include why this economically valuable plants cant be harvested or very limited/controlled harvesting in ways that do not endanger the protected diversity. Monied interests would eventually erode anything but total exclusion though. I need to go find your park types video and rewatch that.

Already on the list!

@@NationalParkDiaries Yay!

If you're going to a national park as a way to economize, you're missing the entire point.

Agree to disagree on this, I guess. I think preserving National Parks as purely monumental landscapes cheapens the value of other landscapes and values in the public eye. It devalues them to our society if we only think that National Parks are important because they contain pretty scenery. Our understanding of National Parks, how we value them, and how we manage them, has changed dramatically since they were first created - the idea of a National Park isn't static. I think our changing ideas and understandings should be reflected in the places we consider to be National Parks, and for me, that means moving on from a _purely_ monumental approach to National Park designation.

@@NationalParkDiaries I can see your point, and I would not want people to overlook other landscapes and ecosystems… I think my answer to that would be expansion of national preserves and raising awareness for the wildlife refuges and national forests in the overall conservation system. I myself, and many others who love the outdoors, started first with monumental sights and that led me to discover different types of preserves and protected areas. I’m actually on my way to walk in a wetland at a national refuge as I type this, so that process works effectively 😉

@microcosm1957 No complaints from me there! I think I'm coming at this from the perspective that the NPS is _the_ premier conservation agency in the US. They're the sites that, for better and for worse, have the most visitation, recognition, and cultural significance. No doubt, I would LOVE for wildlife refuges and National Forests and State Parks and all these other wonderful conservation areas to be treated the same - they're absolutely deserving of it - but as long as the NPS carries the weight that it does, I would like to see all of its units given the credit they are due and not devaluing them in the eyes of the public simply because they're not monumental. I appreciate your perspective on this issue and am certainly glad these places have benefitted you in so many ways!

@@NationalParkDiaries National Preserves are a very under-utilized category of the NPS. Would love to see all the bottomland hardwood forests of the southeast conserved under that umbrella.

@@microcosm1957 Yep, and they're becoming increasingly common for new park designations in the lower 48 too. Both Great Sand Dunes and New River Gorge have used them in combination with a National Park designation, and the proposed Ocmulgee National Park would incorporate a Preserve section as well.

Yep! As our understanding of ecosystems and ecology have evolved, so has our understanding of the importance of protecting these places - and adding them to our National Park System!

I'm glad to hear it - both are great parks!!

Had to put my game face on for this one - I'm very passionate about this subject lol. Thanks for watching!

Glad I could help!

I'm so glad, me too!!

I would argue that none of them have to be the worst. To me, they're all unique and different in their own way and I prefer not to try and sort them into "best" and "worst" rankings.

Any good resources on this? I haven't come across it in my readings, but it sounds fascinating and I'd love to look into it more if you know of any historians or researchers discussing this viewpoint? Thanks!

I appreciate your comment, but I disagree that park status should be rooted in Monumentalism. While it is true that certain park redesignations have been rooted in political favors, and I am in favor of the "park categories" approach in general, I think we should still judge these parks on their own merits, like the examples I gave in my video. These are places that, to me, tell a more complete story of America's natural resources and heritage. This country is lucky to have a tremendous diversity of landscapes and ecosystems, each of which are worthy of protection. Many of these landscapes are indeed "monumental," but our more subtle landscapes are just as important ecologically and biologically speaking, like our wetlands, coastal areas, grasslands, etc. I think our idea of a "National Park" should reflect our new understanding of ecosystem function and biodiversity, and should continue to change as we continue to learn. These types of landscapes have always been undervalued and underappreciated, and I think it's only right that our National Parks protect these types of places in addition to the "monumental" ones.

@@NationalParkDiaries I think a combination of both approaches is best. There are still a ton of monumental places to protect as parks still: for example, the Columbia River Gorge, Mt St Helens, Mt Hood, the Owyhee Canyonlands, and the High Cascades of Oregon (Three Sisters/Mt Washington and surrounding volcanic terrain). All of those places I think are worthy of park status. Similarly, North Cascades National Park should expand to include Artist Point as well as Washington Pass and that eastern half of the North Cascades that is missing. But rather than protecting just the core features of each, the boundaries should be wide and expansive to include the whole biological area of importance too. For example, the whole northern half of the Mt Hood National Forest (excluding the Columbia R. Gorge) should become Mt Hood National Park, which would make the park larger than Mt Rainier National Park. It is unfortunate that because of monumentalism, places like the section of forest between the Olympic Coast and the Olympic Mountains of Olympic NP were not included in the park-so now we have to disconnected parts because that area was opened up to private timber use and is now private land. And also Mt Rainier, much of the western side is private land and heavily covered in clear cuts. It would have been nice to have the park's boundaries extend further west. Even if you look at a map of Mt Rainier NP, the eastern side of the park extends out much further from the summit than the western side does. And the western side is hardly even bounded by forest service land-most of it is private land or state land. Bringing back monumentalism but on a wholistic approach (focusing on biodiversity) could lead to creating more parks that are truly monumental and deserve park status, like Mt Hood or the Oregon High Cascades. But I also feel like monumentalism can include places that are significant in a collective sense-like swamps, dunes, and lesser scenic places in the east coast are still important and "monumental" in terms of representing the whole of the country's natural landscape-even if it isn't super remarkable on its own scenic merit. I just think that even though say, swamps may be common in the southeast, it is still important to include at least one in the system. I think we're lacking a few types too, for example: the New England portion of the Appalachian mountains.

@NatureShy I'm in agreement for the most part, but semantically speaking, at that point, it's not really monumentalism anymore. Monumentalism is concerned ONLY with protecting the "monumental" scenery, so that the ecologically important lands could be excluded for extractive uses. Whenever you start incorporating those surrounding lands into the NP effort, you're following a more biological approach to management, which is exactly the opposite of monumentalism (and more in line with how we manage parks now). You're getting the monumental aspects of the scenery with these protections, yes, but you're also recognizing that the ecosystem is more than the scenery, so you've pretty much moved beyond the "monumentalism" approach at that point. I only argue the semantics because I think having a distinct term and moving away from "monumentalism" is important to fully embrace that more holistic approach you're talking about. On the whole though, I think we're pretty much on the same page!

@@NationalParkDiaries Oh interesting! I must have misunderstood monumentalism then. Like something such as Indiana Dunes, I feel like doesn't deserve park status, but would be better as a national monument or wildlife refuge. Though, perhaps I don't fully understand that park enough. It feels pretty equivalent to a place like the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which is protected primarily for its rich biodiversity and ecosystem bridge function between the Cascades, Klamath Mountains, Trinity Alps, and the Sierra Nevada. But I wouldn't consider it someplace that should be a national park really. However, parks like Conagree, definitely worthy of being a national park for its tall/old growth trees. I think more places deserve park status just as far as fully representing the various ecosystems of America. Like we're missing something for the northern Appalachians, for example. Maybe Pictured Rocks would be more appropriate for the Great Lakes, too. Something to represent the Midwest better, even if Indiana Dunes have their own ecological value-I'd just think it would be better fit in a different category, otherwise every national monument and national wildlife refuge could become a national park. Though I understand the argument for Indiana Dunes being a park too. I love birds so much, but it seems like that park specifically would be better suited in a different category.

And the closer NPs like Cuyahoga, New River, Indiana Dunes, etc. are SO great!! We certainly are lucky to have those close-ish NPs and amazing state parks everywhere, but it’s interesting to see how things have changed even since those 3 became true national parks.

I think a lot of the problem in Pennsylvania, should a NP effort be mounted there, would be administrative. With the recent spate of redesignations elsewhere, all of these parks have simply changed from one NPS designation to another (Cuyahoga Valley NRA to NP, for example). Places in PA that would be on the list for NP status would either be coming from an entirely different federal agency (like Allegheny NF) or aren't even administered by the federal government at all (like state parks). That's going to make it really tough for any NP effort. But I still think PA is a beautiful state and one I hope to explore more of it!

Thanks for watching!

Well said! Useful, but outdated. Would love to see more protections for those landscapes you mentioned

You've left essentially the same comment on three videos now, but I'll choose to respond to this one just to keep things concise. While the NPS does have several different designations (all of which I've covered in a separate video), and some of the parks you mentioned certainly could fit into separate designations, or have even carried a different designation in the past, I think it's beneficial for the long term health of the National Park "brand" to actually expand and incorporate parks that might not meet the typical definition of a "National Park." The definition of a National Park has changed many different times over the years, one of the things this video was highlighting, and I see no reason why that definition can't continue to change as we continue to expand our knowledge and understanding of the ecosystems and landscapes these parks are protecting. Limiting "National Parks" only to scenic views does an extreme disservice to the many incredibly biologically, historically, and culturally diverse landscapes that some of the parks you mentioned currently protect. As to the question of politics, well, parks have always been political, going all the way back to the days of Yellowstone. It's impossible to ignore politics when it comes to National Park, as any student of NPS history knows - it just looks a little different nowadays. You also mention tourism impacts. If anything, new National Park designations are designed to increase tourism, not decrease it. This has been seen with the redesignations of New River Gorge, Indiana Dunes, and others. Lastly, to say that National Preserves and Wildlife Refuges provide the same level of protection status as National Parks isn't quite true. Yes, they confer a certain level of protection, but National Preserves are designed to allow commercial hunting and certain extractive uses, and National Wildlife Refuges are managed by a completely different agency (USFWS) and have completely different management goals and mandates, which usually doesn't prioritize public access like National Parks. The National Preserve designation has even been used in combination with the National Park designation at recent parks like New River Gorge and Great Sand Dunes, and is proposed to be used at Ocmulgee if that were to become a National Park as well. Ultimately, I think this comes down, again, to our shifting perceptions of National Parks as a society over time. I think it's only fitting that perception being expanded to include places of great biological, cultural, and historical value, rather than excluding them because they aren't "scenic" enough.

​@@NationalParkDiaries Very thorough response! What's @user-cr1iz8fw6h's agenda, other than being a troll?

⚽🤘

While it's certainly true that some parks have been created as political favors, I think it's important that we still evaluate these parks on their own merit, like with the example I gave in the video. Sure, they might not be as scenic compared to other parks, but they still have tremendous ecological and biological value that is well worth NP status, regardless of our human preferences for scenery.

It depends on what metric you are using for "good". The area around the Indiana Dunes was the site of some absolutely seminal ecologic research. It is one of only a couple places in the world where the complete dunal ecosystem is preserved intact. There was historic experiments that led to the development of manned flight that took place in the Indiana Dunes. If all you want is the beach and the frontal dunes, by all means truck on up 94 to Warren Dunes. But there's much more irreplaceable ecosystem in Indiana Dunes.

@NationalParkDiaries … I think you’re ignoring the brazen fact that National Park status is entirely political lol and depends on political will, political climate. The Chiricahua National Park Act has been stuck since 2022 for this reason. New River Gorge became a National Park for this reason. National Monuments are also extremely political in nature. For example, the new National Monument created by Biden in Arizona or Bears Ears, etc. There’s plenty of National Monuments, other NPS parks that are just as stunning and deserving of National Park branding imo. The National Park name is a branding at this point and attracts tourism. I think “monumentalism” is important to keep the prestige of the National Park name alive. I think New River Gorge, Cuyahoga Valley, Congaree, etc. should be branded National Preserves.. Hot Springs and Gateway Arch could be National Monuments or Historic Parks. Then nobody would complain about it.

@gtwfan52.. there’s plenty of unique nature spots in the country that aren’t National Parks lol. Bring it in the NPS system with a different name. The National Park branding is the flagship of the NPS park system and you’re ruining the prestige that comes with the branding.

@@user-cr1iz8fw6h I'm not ruining anything, guy. Those decisions aren't mine. Branding is only important if you are trying to make money. I'd personally like to see the states turn over all their funding to the federal government, but that's me. You do you, just don't go around accusing others of doing things.

Same here! I will defend it every opportunity I get

Thanks for watching!

Thank you!

@@NationalParkDiaries It would be nice if you visited New Zealand and explored some of our treasured parks.

@@patrick247two HIGH on my list, trust me. A little pricey, but I'll make it one day!

Thank you so much!!

I feel the same! They're all special in their own way!

Love you too!!

Thanks for watching!

Honestly, one could argue the title of national park nowadays means that it’ll be loved to death because we assume monumentality. It might be better that gems like Sleeping Bear Dunes, Pictured Rocks, Valles Caldera, Dinosaur, etc., aren’t trampled the same way Zion, Yellowstone, or Yosemite get. They’re still preserved for posterity.

Yeah I almost passed up visiting Sleeping Bear Dunes because I had been to Indiana Dunes and figured "well, I've been to the national park one, the lakeshore is probably similar if not a bit less impressive." That could not be more wrong. IMO Indiana Dunes was the least interesting of all the national lakeshores. Worthy of protection? yeah I guess. Worthy of NP status (especially over Sleeping Bear Dunes)? Not really. Just because something is worthy of being protected doesn't mean it should be a NP. Many other NPS unit categories as well as other agency, state, etc. parks exist to protect land.

and tbh. About Indiana dunes and gateway arch. In my opinion, they’re really political designations and goals by their states more than anything. Both received resistance from the NPS itself when considering promotion to full fledged national parks. But (yes this runs counter to the whole point of the video), if someone wants to make a ranked list of parks, at least there’s not too much offense when Gateway Arch ranks last, even though its literal “monumentality” is the only reason anyone would care.

Add New River Gorge, Hot Springs, Cuyahoga Valley, etc. to the political list. I agree.. they should be protected lands but they shouldn’t have the National Park branding. National Preserve or National Wildlife Refuge is more appropriate. Watering down the National Park branding is bad for tourism aka bad for NPS funding and political support. Nobody talks crap about Big Thicket National Preserve but people hate Congree NP. Why indeed lol?

Have you been to that park?

@@boxsterman77 yes, and I've been to almost every np in the lower 48.

@@safepetproductsimpressive. I just paid it a visit. Ive been to the big parks, to wit Yosemite, Yellowstone, Rainer, Grand Canyon, Mammoth, Shenandoah, etc, and while it is by no means comparable to those places, it has some special aspects worthy of preservation. It doesn’t always have to be a contest.

@@boxsterman77 that is true. I've got a nice county forest preserve right near my house which is certainly no less than Cuyahoga. Maybe it should be a np as well.

I actually think the Canadian approach of preserving representative landscapes and ecosystems is exactly what we should be doing. With a country like the United States, we're very fortunate to have the diversity of landscapes and ecosystems that we do, and I think we should be looking to preserve as many of them as National Parks as we can. "What our national parks are meant to be" has changed many times over the years since their initial creation, and personally, I see no problem with that definition continuing to change as we continue to learn and develop our understanding of biology, ecology, ecosystem function, etc.

BLM land provides way less protections than NPS lands, so I wouldn't recommend that. As for booking plane tickets or driving to see less monumental parks, I think that decision ultimately rests with the individual, but shouldn't factor in to a park's designation status. If people aren't interested in visiting a less monumental park, that's fine, but that doesn't stop a park from being ecologically or biologically important and worthy of NP status.

@@NationalParkDiaries Thanks for the informative response. Another strategy could maybe creating a new entity that is separate from national park but more protective than BLM to conserve the ecosystems more. I’m under the impression that the “National Park” designation is not going to change away from a monumental status, so a new entity would be beneficial. It would also free up more government funds for the “monumental” national parks to keep them even more pristine.

@@dylanpausic5026 the wilderness designation fits what you're describing really well. It operates on all federal land, regardless of agency, and is the most protective category of land we have in the US. I have a whole video on it if you want to learn more!

Why not National Preserve, National Monument or National Wildlife Refuge? They get the same protections.

Man, what an amazing idea! He should really do this

Banned.

@@NationalParkDiaries no

I think protecting one of the few remaining old growth bottomland forests is a good use

@@meganstahlberger608 It was fully protected before it was a national park. There are vast amounts of lands across the country that are fully protected, and rightfully so. It doesn't mean they should all be national parks.

It can be protected just fine as a National Monument or National Preserve. I just don’t agree with the watering down of the National Park branding.