Congress looks to add to Oregon Caves. What about Mount St. Helens?
shoot...@yahoo.com
Bruce Jensen
> http://wedeserveapark.blogspot.com/2008/04/congress-looks-at-adding-t...
IMHO - and it is JUST an opinion - Oregon Caves NM is not a great
candidate for NM status anyway, aside from the fact that any
relatively unspoiled natural environment is worth protecting. The
caves themselves are really pretty mediocre compared to numerous
others that are in NPs, SPs and private hands, at least in part
because of damage done over the years. If the criterion for a
national park unit is extraordinary natural features, then Oregon
Caves misses the boat. The forest environment at the surface is
probably of greater interest than the cave.
MSH, on the other hand, while not unique, does have some very
extraordinary, educational and accessible features all over its
expanse that make it as good or better than many other areas that are
already parks. While not every excellent area *must* be a park for
the purpose of encouraging tourism and boosting the economy, if one
measures MSH against lots of other established parks, it fares
favorably on the more typical types of features, and has a fascinating
active volcano to boot.
Bruce Jensen
y_p_w
> MSH, on the other hand, while not unique, does have some very
> extraordinary, educational and accessible features all over its
> expanse that make it as good or better than many other areas that are
> already parks. While not every excellent area *must* be a park for
> the purpose of encouraging tourism and boosting the economy, if one
> measures MSH against lots of other established parks, it fares
> favorably on the more typical types of features, and has a fascinating
> active volcano to boot.
The one thing I'm trying to clarify is whether or not this interest
group is looking to get full (Congressionally declared) National Park
status or just wants MSH to be administered by the NPS. I could still
be "Mt St Helens National Volcanic Monument" while being administered
by the NPS. Part of this seems to be the tourism aspect that you
suggest. However - full National Park status doesn't necessarily
result in a lot of visitation or tourism.
For example, Lassen Volcanic National Park is closer to the SF Bay
Area than L.A. and had a nearby population center in Redding. They
have interesting thermal features similar to ones found in
Yellowstone. However, They don't have any lodging close to their main
road and annual visitation is under 400,000. They still struggle to
get adequate funding, although the new visitor center should be open
by this summer. I don't see how Mt St Helens would be any different.
Bruce Jensen
All good points. I think the MSHNP boosters want to enhance tourism
with an enhanced park designation, but you are right - neither Lassen
nor places like Redwood or even North Cascades are being swallowed by
visitors. Usually the old established crown jewels get the crowds.
What surprises me is that Olympic gets so much visitation - for a park
whose main geologic features are accessible only to backpackers and
mountaineers, it gets more than all but a handful of locations.
Bruce
y_p_w
Could be a matter of proximity and lack of extensive visitation.
Olympic NP doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. It's like a day
trip for visitors from Seattle. Just shoot in and out at one of the
little road entrance points like Hoh Rainforest. It also calls into
question each park's methods of determining the number of unique
visits. I've read some just use metal detecting ground loops and
estimate the number of people per vehicle.
I don't know if getting full National Park status has done much for
overall visitation at Joshua Tree, Saguaro, or Death Valley. Death
Valley's overall visitation trends don't seem to be related to the
status as a National Park. Right now annual visitation is lower than
when it became a National Park in 1994.
Peter Lawrence
>
> I don't know if getting full National Park status has done much for
> overall visitation at Joshua Tree, Saguaro, or Death Valley. Death
> Valley's overall visitation trends don't seem to be related to the
> status as a National Park. Right now annual visitation is lower than
> when it became a National Park in 1994.
Just about all National Parks visitation rates have been trending
downward over the past ten years, most likely the result of higher gas
prices, higher entrances fees, and higher lodging costs.
Visiting a National Park is less of a bargain that it used to be. And
at some parks, it has become downright expensive unless you camp.
- Peter
Bruce Jensen
Maybe - but check Yellowstone. Last year was a record high
visitation. Maybe less a bargain, but still far better than almost
any other deal around. I never get my money's worth the way I get it
at parks, unless I am backpacking, whcih is essentially dirt cheap.
- Bruce
el...@no.spam
Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>most likely the result of higher gas
Yeah, that can scare a lot of people: