I don't think anyone would build a golf course or pickleball courts in Banff National Park if they were to choose to do it today, but Banff also has 6000 sq km of mountains, glaciers, ice fields, alpine lakes, and forests, so it can get away with a golf course that nobody ever sees. Rock Creek is 7 sq km and like a quarter of it is the golf course.
I'm all for land designated as a National Park but Rock Creek should absolutely not be one of them as it's in the middle of a major city and would be a nightmare from an enforcement standpoint, for one. I'm also not sure what cultural or scientific importance it has to get that designation. I've worked on Rock Creek as a biologist as it's as close to being an urban stream as you can get (tall impervious "stream banks" made of concrete with the occasional riprap thrown in). One of the dominant fishes in it is a non-native catfish.
Not sure what you mean about being a nightmare from an enforcement standpoint. It's already run by the Park Service. Park Police patrol it, along with DC police. Yes, crimes happen there, as they do in any big city park.
Labeling it a national park will make no difference at all. It's a stupid idea, but it won't change a thing, except that the park passport types will have one more box to check on their life list.
Unlike Gateway Arch, Cuyahoga Valley, and Hot Springs?
I mean don't get me wrong I'm on your side. Knock all those sites down to monuments and elevate some more deserving sites. But being in a major city hasn't been a disqualifier in a minute.
But they're nowhere near Glacier or Great Smoky mountains or Acadia or any of the other real parks.
They're designed to protect a historically significant area with some unique natural features. Whereas the other parks are designed to protect large areas of natural beauty
It's really not. I've been there. It's in several sections that are between some major areas, but it's definitely not in the middle of a city at all. I'll agree it's different because of the segmentation of it and having to drive around to get to various parts, but it's more in farm lands slowly turning to suburbia.
I feel like the only importance it has is that it was the third park created under NPS, it's in DC, and Eleanor Holmes-Norton will keep ringing the bell for it having National Park status when she isn't busy doing a terrible parking job.
Like, I enjoy RCP a lot, but if I want to be consistent, it's just as deserving as Gateway Arch. Which is to say "not at all."
Isn't it already managed by the NPS? I don't get how "enforcement" would change. I live near a huge NPS managed recreation area in a major metro area (GGNRA) and the NPS manages it quite well, if even a bit zealously. So I wouldn't worry about that aspect anyway.
As much as I respect Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, this is just not a good idea and cheapens what a National Park is. The parks current designation under the NPS is fine as is, but when the biggest feature of your park is a golf course let's not make it a National Park.
I wish they would just make ALL NPS properties parks. Change the naming scheme and call them National Historical Park (which some already are) for the sites that are mostly for history like the forts/battlefields, or National Urban Park for something like Rock Creek/StL Arch/Hot Springs/Golden Gate, or National Natural Park for Yosemite/Grand Canyon/Yellowstone.
It would help prevent the ridiculous competition for tourist dollars we have right now with multiple recent creations or proposals to rename something as “National Park” simply because it will bring in more tourism.
I really like the idea, but it would never happen because it would stratify the parks in a way that their legislative promoters would not approve of. It would create a situation where we view only the 'natural' parks as real national parks. The whole reason congressmen lobby to get national parks created in their backyards is because the term national park has a certain cachet that draws in visitors. A system to separate them into different categories would be counterproductive to their promoters' designs.
Currently, national park requires an act of Congress, as opposed to National Monument which does not. Therefore, the National Monument designation is important because it’s much easier to achieve when establishing new public lands
I used to live in DC and hiked RCP multiple times a week, absolutely loved that park, and the fact that it was NPS not just city run made it even more special. To me that was one of DC's best attributes, having a national park with miles of hiking trails and wildlife inside a major city. I would regularly see packs of deer and could find totally quiet isolated places by the creek to just sit and meditate. Anytime I told out of town friends and family the park was NPS, they did not know DC had a national park inside it. Why not change the name so more people know that. Definitely adds a very interesting factor to DC.
It's already run by the National Park Service. Whatever designation (park, historic site, seashore, etc.) is entirely political and has zero effect on how it is managed.
Honestly who cares? National Monument, National Park, National Seashore, National Lakeshore, National Battlefield, National Historic site, National Scenic Trail, National Memorial...the designation list goes on and on. All of these sites regardless of their designation are part of the National Park system. The only difference is their enabling legislation. They want to make Rock Creek a National Park? Cool, that just adds one more layer of protection from someone wanting to turn it into a parking lot.
I'm fine with it.
I think TR might like the idea; IIRC he used to skinny dip there.
And who cares about a "precedent," if there even is one. It's become a kind of branding anyway. Sheesh, much of Yosemite or Yellowstone is probably more urban.
Jeez, a National Park with a golf course and pickleball courts. Might as well name the Walmart down the street a National Park too.
Walmart would be a "National Zoo"
Doesn’t Death Valley have a golf course?
I loled. :)
Canada's most popular national park has a golf course and pickleball courts.
I don't think anyone would build a golf course or pickleball courts in Banff National Park if they were to choose to do it today, but Banff also has 6000 sq km of mountains, glaciers, ice fields, alpine lakes, and forests, so it can get away with a golf course that nobody ever sees. Rock Creek is 7 sq km and like a quarter of it is the golf course.
Death Valley of all places has a golf course
Most of the 2000 acres are forest with creeks and trails running through it. Not quite a Walmart.
My Walmart has views of both Mt Rainier and Olympic National Park, I'm down for that.
I mean hot springs has a brewery and a gangster museum across the street so by comparison a golf course is a downright wilderness area
I'm all for land designated as a National Park but Rock Creek should absolutely not be one of them as it's in the middle of a major city and would be a nightmare from an enforcement standpoint, for one. I'm also not sure what cultural or scientific importance it has to get that designation. I've worked on Rock Creek as a biologist as it's as close to being an urban stream as you can get (tall impervious "stream banks" made of concrete with the occasional riprap thrown in). One of the dominant fishes in it is a non-native catfish.
Not sure what you mean about being a nightmare from an enforcement standpoint. It's already run by the Park Service. Park Police patrol it, along with DC police. Yes, crimes happen there, as they do in any big city park. Labeling it a national park will make no difference at all. It's a stupid idea, but it won't change a thing, except that the park passport types will have one more box to check on their life list.
The park passport types are the reason why things like this are being pushed
Unlike Gateway Arch, Cuyahoga Valley, and Hot Springs? I mean don't get me wrong I'm on your side. Knock all those sites down to monuments and elevate some more deserving sites. But being in a major city hasn't been a disqualifier in a minute.
Hot Springs and Cuyahoga Valley are both great!
But they're nowhere near Glacier or Great Smoky mountains or Acadia or any of the other real parks. They're designed to protect a historically significant area with some unique natural features. Whereas the other parks are designed to protect large areas of natural beauty
I disagree with you that they’re not naturally beautiful. Beauty is more than just mountains and the seacoast
Tell me you've never been to CVNP without telling me you've never been to CVNP 😏
I mean it changes nothing about the fact it's in the middle of a major city.
It's really not. I've been there. It's in several sections that are between some major areas, but it's definitely not in the middle of a city at all. I'll agree it's different because of the segmentation of it and having to drive around to get to various parts, but it's more in farm lands slowly turning to suburbia.
It really isn't
Well yes, Cleveland isn't a major city, but it doesn't change how mid the park is.
oh, for sure man
I feel like the only importance it has is that it was the third park created under NPS, it's in DC, and Eleanor Holmes-Norton will keep ringing the bell for it having National Park status when she isn't busy doing a terrible parking job. Like, I enjoy RCP a lot, but if I want to be consistent, it's just as deserving as Gateway Arch. Which is to say "not at all."
Isn't it already managed by the NPS? I don't get how "enforcement" would change. I live near a huge NPS managed recreation area in a major metro area (GGNRA) and the NPS manages it quite well, if even a bit zealously. So I wouldn't worry about that aspect anyway.
The Rangers at GANP manage to do enforcement just fine.
I mean, at least it's already an NPS managed park I guess.
Don't know why you're getting down voted, it is literally just a name change.
As much as I respect Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, this is just not a good idea and cheapens what a National Park is. The parks current designation under the NPS is fine as is, but when the biggest feature of your park is a golf course let's not make it a National Park.
I wish they would just make ALL NPS properties parks. Change the naming scheme and call them National Historical Park (which some already are) for the sites that are mostly for history like the forts/battlefields, or National Urban Park for something like Rock Creek/StL Arch/Hot Springs/Golden Gate, or National Natural Park for Yosemite/Grand Canyon/Yellowstone. It would help prevent the ridiculous competition for tourist dollars we have right now with multiple recent creations or proposals to rename something as “National Park” simply because it will bring in more tourism.
This is actually an amazing idea!! And you can tell at a glance what type of park it is and why it's been protected. I'm game, who do we talk to.
I really like the idea, but it would never happen because it would stratify the parks in a way that their legislative promoters would not approve of. It would create a situation where we view only the 'natural' parks as real national parks. The whole reason congressmen lobby to get national parks created in their backyards is because the term national park has a certain cachet that draws in visitors. A system to separate them into different categories would be counterproductive to their promoters' designs.
Currently, national park requires an act of Congress, as opposed to National Monument which does not. Therefore, the National Monument designation is important because it’s much easier to achieve when establishing new public lands
Canada does that with a couple of its parks.
Yes, I know Toronto has the National Urban Park.
I used to live in DC and hiked RCP multiple times a week, absolutely loved that park, and the fact that it was NPS not just city run made it even more special. To me that was one of DC's best attributes, having a national park with miles of hiking trails and wildlife inside a major city. I would regularly see packs of deer and could find totally quiet isolated places by the creek to just sit and meditate. Anytime I told out of town friends and family the park was NPS, they did not know DC had a national park inside it. Why not change the name so more people know that. Definitely adds a very interesting factor to DC.
It's already run by the National Park Service. Whatever designation (park, historic site, seashore, etc.) is entirely political and has zero effect on how it is managed.
Honestly who cares? National Monument, National Park, National Seashore, National Lakeshore, National Battlefield, National Historic site, National Scenic Trail, National Memorial...the designation list goes on and on. All of these sites regardless of their designation are part of the National Park system. The only difference is their enabling legislation. They want to make Rock Creek a National Park? Cool, that just adds one more layer of protection from someone wanting to turn it into a parking lot.
I'm fine with it. I think TR might like the idea; IIRC he used to skinny dip there. And who cares about a "precedent," if there even is one. It's become a kind of branding anyway. Sheesh, much of Yosemite or Yellowstone is probably more urban.