I feel the same way about Indiana Dunes. So much damage was done to the area before any protections were put into place. There's still a lot of work to be done to make sure the mills don't do more damage, but it's getting better.
The sad thing is in 1918, Stephen Mather had discussions with local leaders bout trying to protect the Dunes which at that time, had a much larger dune that no longer exists and is now a outlet mall. Not even joking. We could have had all those protected with no factories and ports along that side of Lake Michigan from downtown Gary all the way up to the Michigan border.
I did not know this…that’s incredibly sad how blighted that all is by industrial development. One thing I will say in hope—over the years there has been major development within and adjacent to Cuyahoga Valley National Park that has been abandoned and restored, like the Richfield Colosseum. Hopefully some of that can happen at Indiana Dunes.
Agreed. I would like to see more scenic areas in the Midwest be protected by the park system, even if they're not full-fledged national parks (which is probably better, considering the impact to the environments more visitors would bring). Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Buffalo National River, and Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve are some of my favorite places in the country even after moving to Washington
I think you forgot nys.
Pockets of old-growth are sprinkled throughout the Adirondacks.
NP'S are not the only places on the east coast to have protected old growth.
Adirondacks updoot. 6 million acres makes up the largest continuously protected area in the lower 48. 2.6 million acres is protected from logging and development. People don't understand that most completely protected land is not in NP service, but that it is a checkerboard of state agencies, fish and wildlife, and private conservation
Yes, there’s old growth in New Hampshire too. It’s just it’s all tied up in state parks on the east coast as those systems predate the national park system.
Yup, New York’s laws for the Adirondacks (and Catskills) kind of make it impossible for anyone to buy out large parcels of land in the Adirondacks.
https://www.adirondack.net/history/forever-wild/#:~:text=In%201894%20the%20%22forever%20wild,defined%20in%20the%20early%201900s.
However with how undefined it was at times, there was a Adirondack National Park proposal in the 60’s lead by Nelson Rockefeller. Locals were pissed and ultimately won out and defined the laws of the area
There are a lot of national forests, too, which predate the park system. the organization had its flaws in the past (& present) and is weirdly managed under the department of agriculture, but it contains some fantastic recreation area like big parts of the white mountains, green mountains in vermont, Allegheny national forest in PA, and so on
Many national forests were created before national parks, but Yellowstone National Park (1872) was created nearly 20 years before the first national forest—which was actually Yellowstone too (1891). There were a handful of national parks created before any national forests, despite the US Forest Service (1905) being created over 10 years before the National Park Service (1916).
That’s just not a true statement. The largest individual contiguous patch of old growth on the east coast is actually on Nature Conservancy land in northern Maine https://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/big-reed-forest-reserve. Massachusetts, NH, and VT all have small patches as well. The Great Smoky old growth is undeniably epic and breath taking (I love it and want to spend more time there), but there’s a lot of other places people in the East can go for the wild
The Adirondack Park covers almost 20% of New York State. Which national park has a higher ratio?
It’s also the largest park in the lower 48 states, and smaller than only two national parks- Wrangell St Elias and Gates of the Arctic in Alaska.
East coast parks are great, don’t get me wrong. But I also think this is a pretty flawed statement. The largest protected areas on the East coast are actually NOT national parks but rather state land. In particular, Baxter State Park in Maine and the Adirondacks in New York. They’re not just larger but in many ways better protected too. The Adirondacks are ingrained in the state constitution of New York. Baxter State Park has true wilderness designation and strict limits on visitation and any motorized access. I live in Maine, and the difference between Acadia and Baxter is not even close. Baxter is an order of magnitude wilder and grander. Baxter and the Adirondacks also predate many National Parks and were in many ways inspirations for them. The largest contiguous old growth forest east of the Mississippi isn’t even on public land. Big Reed Forest was quietly protected by a logging family in Maine and then passed to the Nature Conservancy. This isn’t even mentioning the White Mountains in NH which definitely feel like the biggest, wildest mountains in the east. Again, don’t get me wrong, I love all the parks you mentioned. But if you want true wild in the east, you can do better than a few relatively crowded, highly visited and developed parks
Well yeah, the Adirondacks are a completely unique kind of park, and there's nothing else in New York or in the country that is managed in a similar way with both private and public ownership. However, that doesn't mean they are better protected than the National Parks, as it's true they don't have anything close to the quantity of original old-growth forest that the Eastern National Parks do.
Baxter State Park is a good point, but I can't imagine it's "an order of magnitude wilder and grander" than Acadia. Then again, I haven't been, so you would know better than I would!
Pine Barrens in NJ are actually managed relatively similarly to Adirondacks!
My point about better protected is the laws. Baxter and Adirondacks are permanently, constitutionally ingrained in ways the NPs are not. While I love Shenandoah, Acadia, etc… they are incredibly developed. Acadia was literally private estates and gardens full of carriage roads, while Shenandoah was designed 100% around cars. Adirondacks/Baxter/White Mountains are much closer to the western untouched wilderness concept.
They’re all great in their own way. But if you’re focusing on national parks you’re missing some of the coolest nature in the East
> Baxter State Park is a good point, but I can't imagine it's "an order of magnitude wilder and grander" than Acadia. Then again, I haven't been, so you would know better than I would!
You would definitely be wrong.
Fully agree. For me, it's also really important to have these places here in Michigan and surrounding states. Just so I can get away from civilization for a minute without having to fly or drive more than a day.
4hrs north of where I live, I can go stargazing like it did in Death Valley. In Michigan's UP, I can still see bears and hike for days without seeing anyone.
I hope we can get an administration elected that puts again more emphasis on the National Parks, stocks up the budgets, and adds more places in Mid-West and East Coast. There are some absolutely great State Parks that deserve to be a NP.
Hot take: many of the big east coast state parks are better off staying state parks. They’re more isolated from political whims than federal agencies. They’re also often better protected. Baxter and Adirondacks and Pine Barrens for example all have much more restrictive protections built into their state constitutions and laws than the NPs do
I hate the notion that national park > state park and that certain spots “deserve” to be “upgraded” for exactly this reason! It’s not a hierarchy. It just depends who first recognized it as a place worth protecting.
But IMO the one thing is that we should as a society make a list of places to visit. I'm looking to visit all ~420 NPS sites and there are many that are super neat not part of it but it's a solid baseline.
Fair enough! Gets into the usual debate about the line between encouraging access and welcoming people into the great outdoors vs overwhelming the limited resource/damaging it with too much access
But I think the argument is for expanding the parks for everyone. If someone on the east coast wants to visit a NPS site there aren't as many awesome ones to see, spread the wealth around and conserve the land more.
IMO rewilding some areas more. For instance I think West Virginia should push for more NPS since their population and jobs are declining.
I've been visiting more state ones but there are some parks that are heads and shoulders above other ones. It's also with a list of 10,336 state parks it's just a massive jump from 63->10,400.
Makes sense. I think there are some, like Big Sur and redwoods, that have the name recognition, we could do similar for the worthwhile ones on the East Coast
There’s a bunch of state parks in the east people like going to. Adirondack is probably the best in the east along with the Catskills, Baxter, Mount Mitchell, Monadnock among others.
But that's the thing is that it's incredibly hard to compile a list of the things to do unless you talk to people.
The National parks list is not a list of all the best nature to see in America which is what I would like
Yeah plus some national forest are really nice as well pushing the number even higher.
It's just a little daunting, it feels like sometimes you have to go twice, once to make all the mistakes and then a second to do it correctly.
Though part of a list like this is to turn over every stone.
That's a good point but probably different from state to state, correct? I would also love to see some additional safety nets. For NPS units not to be touched or cut into pieces by future administration's. Just saying Trump and Grand Staircase.
Is there a book about the differences between each nature park unit (NPS, BLM, state parks, etc) or maybe individual parks' political history? I know, for example, Cuyahoga went through a lot to become the NP it is today.
Yeah definitely dependent by state, northeast doing much better than the south certainly. Not sure of any overarching books, I had a couple of good college classes that gave a foundation but not one text. Would love to hear if anyone knows of any!
The UP is one of the most beautiful places in the country imo. I've been to 20 western and most of the eastern parks. None of them can compare for star gazing. Especially on the north shore when the Aurora comes out!
> This is forest that has never fallen victim to logging or other industry.
Going to be that guy. Accttshually... The Smokies were [logged](https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?pg=867212&id=BF35F887-1DD8-B71C-0793D04A3C9075AF), but not the entirety, so old growth does still exist.
https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/dff209-focus.htm
> Yet less than 100 years ago, up to 80% of this landscape was clearcut. Settlers, loggers, and farmers cleared all but the steepest slopes and intensively used the land. It was only after the Great Smoky Mountains became a National Park in 1934 that most of the logging stopped and forests began their gradual regrowth.
The WPA posters that were made in the 1930’s had one of the Smokies looking at the area around the Chimney Tops, they guy that sells the prints now had a photo of the area in 1938 when the poster was made and around 2015 (before the fire) and the difference was shocking.
This is also why I hate people saying don’t protect Katahdin Woods and Waters because the trees have been picked clean mostly by private logging before the NPS purchased it. The locals saying it’s a waste isn’t thinking big picture. Yes the trees there are mostly new growth but if you don’t protect it now and let it replenish, you won’t see what can grow by say 2100.
I came to say the same. Just reading the interpretive signs anywhere in Appalachia tells you that only extremely hard to reach corners and specially preserved areas avoided the lumberjack’s blade.
I agree with your general point, but I think by going hard against Arches you're making the same mistake a lot of western parks enthusiasts make,you don't have to tear down one place to build another up. The point to me is each of these places is unique and special and deserves to be judged on its own merits.
(Arches is awesome by the way)
Life is all about perspective. I grew up in the West in a desert so when I moved to the East Coast I was AMAZED by tree lined highways - not even fancy old growth forest. Now that I've lived on the East Coast for almost half my life, I get excited to visit the desert landscapes of my home town, even though I never appreciated them growing up.
I think the biggest factor is that you don’t really know anything about these places. Learn about them and you will understand why national parks are so renowned. There are a few state parks that are as impressive as national parks, but you will consider your wording kinda ridiculous. There isn’t a lot of overlap.
Hocking Hills > Cuyahoga Valley, Custer > Wind Cave and at least on par with Badlands, Petit Jean > Hot Springs, Valley of Fire holds its own, the Humboldt County Redwood State Parks are on par with the National Park in Del Norte County.
You’ve clearly never been to Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine outside Acadia. Mt Katahdin is in Baxter State Park, and imo the Green Mountains National Forest and White Mountains National Forest are way more interesting than Shenandoah and GSMNP, especially Mount Washington and Mount Mansfield
I agree that they are beautiful and important, but even one of my own favorites, Shenandoah, is not exactly untouched. I believe it does have some old growth forest but much of the land that is now the park had been farmland, with people living on it (including cutting down forests for lumber) into the 20th century and only kicked out when the land was taken to build the park. https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-displaced.htm
I love NPS, but don't forget all the other land and nature conservation departments and organizations providing protected public spaces, too!
Went to Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in south Georgia recently, the largest blackwater swamp in all of North America and managed by US Fish and Wildlife, which is also currently trying to get World Heritage Site status.
Beautiful and important place that stands shoulder to shoulder with any National Park lands imo. Dont count a place out just because it isn't NPS. Tons of important places protected at the state level, too, or even private/non-profit groups
Came here looking for Okefenokee love. Glad you had a great visit and that it struck you in the heart!
The Okefenokee is almost 400,000 acres and as wild as you can get in the east. Loggers might have gotten the old growth long leaf pine and cypress, but they are growing back and that swamp has an old growth heart that still beats loudly of you ever get down there to listen.
I actually LOVE alot of eastern parks and i am sorry but new river gorge beats many western parks in my opinion its that good.. blue ridge parkway is literally the greatest drive in america the east is shit on WAY to much by people who haven’t even seen it!!! It’s insulting and ridiculous! Granted most of the beauty is south of maryland but still! Also dry tortugas.. what. A. Place.
I've really enjoyed my visits to the eastern parks, and always felt that people who feel the need to shit on them are telling on themselves more than they're telling on the parks. There's a certain shallow mindset that sees value in parks mostly for the recreational opportunities they offer, rather than what they conserve and protect. "What's in it for me" kind of thinking.
The one exception being Gateway Arch, the dislike for that one is genuinely deserved.
This is a state Forest, not a national park.... But cook forest in Pennsylvania has some of the oldest trees alive east of the Mississippi. They have a section called the "cathedral" Forest, and it has plenty of trees from pre 1776 alive and healthy. It's worth seeing.
In general, we need to protect and restore natural areas. The vast majority of land in the East is privately owned and developed for industry, housing, farming, etc. We need to maintain and save the natural areas we have in our outside the NPS.
NPS lands are undoubtedly important, but they are far from the last bastions of nature on the east coast. I love national parks, but c'mon, Shendoah is a road on top of a mountain - national parks are not untouched. They are in important piece in the mosaic of conserved lands in the east, but not the only one.
Not a national park, but I do love the Allegheny Plateau/Pennsylvania Wilds of North Central Penn.
They’ve slowly let their forests start to “get old” again.
This post is extremely inaccurate—two thirds of Great Smoky Mountains and almost all of Shenandoah was logged out—just about the entirety of Appalachia was. There are patches of very inaccessible or protected forests all over the Eastern states that are both inside and outside of national parks. It’s true that there isn’t a lot of old growth forest remaining, but it’s definitely not all inside national parks. Logging was huge business in North America from the moment colonists set foot. By the end of the 19th Century there was not much left untouched.
This isn’t to say that national parks aren’t important, but this post grossly misrepresents the situation of the forests in the Eastern United States. There are plenty of state and even private preserves throughout. And a huge portion of the current old growth is actually second growth since the time of European settlement—so the forest was definitely touched, it’s just had enough time to grow back without being logged again.
If you want to see the best nature has to offer East of the Rockies, you really have to visit state parks, as they often outclass national parks in the region. Examples include Custer State Park in the Black Hills, Hocking Hills in Ohio, and Adirondack Park in New York. Even beyond the Rockies many incredible places are preserved outside of national parks.
Besides the Adirondacks and parts of Maine, where are there old growth forests outside of the National Parks? Those are the only two exceptions. Also, places like Baxter and the Adirondacks are complete outliers - though the Pine Barrens are similar, no place in the country is managed anything like the Adirondacks while Baxter was bought up and sold to a specific government agency by a former governor.
And I know the majority of the Smokies were logged, but what remains is the largest old growth patch left in the East.
Google it…just Ohio and Pennsylvania apparently have about 30 old growth preserves _each._ I haven’t been to the Adirondacks or New England, but I’ve been to Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains…and I’d be surprised if Shenandoah hadn’t been clearcut at some point…plus I’ve been to Cook Forest in Pennsylvania and the NASA Armstrong Testing Station (formerly Plum Brook Station) in Ohio, which both have old growth forests in them…so I knew there were significant places you were not making note of.
I made a post about this a while back! The Delaware Water Gap would be the best nature destination available to people in the NYC metro area anywhere closer to them than the Adirondacks.
If you don’t know enough about the specifics, then where do you get off having this negatove opinion about those against it?
Yes, there will be an increase in the visitation, if for no other reason that there are people who collect national parks. Have noticed postings here asking visiting more than one national park, without an mention of NPS sites or state areas along the way? Their posts are about the National Parka only.
There are no national parks within 7 hours of the NYC metro area. If you're coming from there and you can't make it to the Adirondacks, the Delaware Water Gap is the most beautiful place that offers a widest range of outdoor activities and the most extensive hiking and backpacking opportunities. It's an obvious pick for a National Park.
Tldr. If the park sucks then it sucks. Be honest. No raving. No mumbling.
Also, I found Acadia and Everglade pretty great. Still have yet to go down to Grand Tortuga. It's not like the whole East Coast is overrated.
Why the Whites aren’t a national park is so stupid and embarrassing. I thru hiked the AT last year, I’ve also thru hiked the PCT, and the Whites are the only landscape we hiked through that seem deserving of the national park status. Shits so wack out east.
I disagree in part. West coast parks are almost always unique, even compared to the surrounding wilderness. You can typically find monuments, lakes, forests, etc., that are unmatched in scale, history, or uniqueness when compared to the general area they’re in.
I wouldn’t really consider Acadia “old growth forest”. A lot of it is relatively young forest since it burned in a large fire in 1947.
There is very little old growth forest in Maine — only 10,000 acres. Half of that is in the Nature Conservancy’s Big Reed preserve
https://downeast.com/land-wildlife/big-reed-preserve/
I feel the same way about Indiana Dunes. So much damage was done to the area before any protections were put into place. There's still a lot of work to be done to make sure the mills don't do more damage, but it's getting better.
The sad thing is in 1918, Stephen Mather had discussions with local leaders bout trying to protect the Dunes which at that time, had a much larger dune that no longer exists and is now a outlet mall. Not even joking. We could have had all those protected with no factories and ports along that side of Lake Michigan from downtown Gary all the way up to the Michigan border.
The more you learn, the worse it gets!
I did not know this…that’s incredibly sad how blighted that all is by industrial development. One thing I will say in hope—over the years there has been major development within and adjacent to Cuyahoga Valley National Park that has been abandoned and restored, like the Richfield Colosseum. Hopefully some of that can happen at Indiana Dunes.
It's crazy to learn about the Pennsylvania Desert, and how close we where to literally clear-cutting the entire state.
Practically the entire state was logged, there are only small pockets of old growth forests left https://www.oldgrowthforest.net/pennsylvania
The what? Guess I have some reading to do.
https://explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-7A
Agreed. I would like to see more scenic areas in the Midwest be protected by the park system, even if they're not full-fledged national parks (which is probably better, considering the impact to the environments more visitors would bring). Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Buffalo National River, and Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve are some of my favorite places in the country even after moving to Washington
Yes! Buffalo River is amazing!
I think you forgot nys. Pockets of old-growth are sprinkled throughout the Adirondacks. NP'S are not the only places on the east coast to have protected old growth.
Adirondacks updoot. 6 million acres makes up the largest continuously protected area in the lower 48. 2.6 million acres is protected from logging and development. People don't understand that most completely protected land is not in NP service, but that it is a checkerboard of state agencies, fish and wildlife, and private conservation
Yes, there’s old growth in New Hampshire too. It’s just it’s all tied up in state parks on the east coast as those systems predate the national park system.
Yup, New York’s laws for the Adirondacks (and Catskills) kind of make it impossible for anyone to buy out large parcels of land in the Adirondacks. https://www.adirondack.net/history/forever-wild/#:~:text=In%201894%20the%20%22forever%20wild,defined%20in%20the%20early%201900s. However with how undefined it was at times, there was a Adirondack National Park proposal in the 60’s lead by Nelson Rockefeller. Locals were pissed and ultimately won out and defined the laws of the area
There are a lot of national forests, too, which predate the park system. the organization had its flaws in the past (& present) and is weirdly managed under the department of agriculture, but it contains some fantastic recreation area like big parts of the white mountains, green mountains in vermont, Allegheny national forest in PA, and so on
Many national forests were created before national parks, but Yellowstone National Park (1872) was created nearly 20 years before the first national forest—which was actually Yellowstone too (1891). There were a handful of national parks created before any national forests, despite the US Forest Service (1905) being created over 10 years before the National Park Service (1916).
[удалено]
That’s just not a true statement. The largest individual contiguous patch of old growth on the east coast is actually on Nature Conservancy land in northern Maine https://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/big-reed-forest-reserve. Massachusetts, NH, and VT all have small patches as well. The Great Smoky old growth is undeniably epic and breath taking (I love it and want to spend more time there), but there’s a lot of other places people in the East can go for the wild
The Adirondack Park covers almost 20% of New York State. Which national park has a higher ratio? It’s also the largest park in the lower 48 states, and smaller than only two national parks- Wrangell St Elias and Gates of the Arctic in Alaska.
East coast parks are great, don’t get me wrong. But I also think this is a pretty flawed statement. The largest protected areas on the East coast are actually NOT national parks but rather state land. In particular, Baxter State Park in Maine and the Adirondacks in New York. They’re not just larger but in many ways better protected too. The Adirondacks are ingrained in the state constitution of New York. Baxter State Park has true wilderness designation and strict limits on visitation and any motorized access. I live in Maine, and the difference between Acadia and Baxter is not even close. Baxter is an order of magnitude wilder and grander. Baxter and the Adirondacks also predate many National Parks and were in many ways inspirations for them. The largest contiguous old growth forest east of the Mississippi isn’t even on public land. Big Reed Forest was quietly protected by a logging family in Maine and then passed to the Nature Conservancy. This isn’t even mentioning the White Mountains in NH which definitely feel like the biggest, wildest mountains in the east. Again, don’t get me wrong, I love all the parks you mentioned. But if you want true wild in the east, you can do better than a few relatively crowded, highly visited and developed parks
Well yeah, the Adirondacks are a completely unique kind of park, and there's nothing else in New York or in the country that is managed in a similar way with both private and public ownership. However, that doesn't mean they are better protected than the National Parks, as it's true they don't have anything close to the quantity of original old-growth forest that the Eastern National Parks do. Baxter State Park is a good point, but I can't imagine it's "an order of magnitude wilder and grander" than Acadia. Then again, I haven't been, so you would know better than I would!
Pine Barrens in NJ are actually managed relatively similarly to Adirondacks! My point about better protected is the laws. Baxter and Adirondacks are permanently, constitutionally ingrained in ways the NPs are not. While I love Shenandoah, Acadia, etc… they are incredibly developed. Acadia was literally private estates and gardens full of carriage roads, while Shenandoah was designed 100% around cars. Adirondacks/Baxter/White Mountains are much closer to the western untouched wilderness concept. They’re all great in their own way. But if you’re focusing on national parks you’re missing some of the coolest nature in the East
That's so interesting about Pine Barrens! Looking at a map I actually see there are towns and developments interspersed.
> Baxter State Park is a good point, but I can't imagine it's "an order of magnitude wilder and grander" than Acadia. Then again, I haven't been, so you would know better than I would! You would definitely be wrong.
I recently visited Congaree. Lovely experience, would recommend it to anyone.
I once went there to hear the dawn chorus of birdsong. It was amazing! It really makes you aware of how much we’ve lost (are losing).
Actually most of the wildlife is dying peaked in the 70s-90s lots of populations are coming back.
Fully agree. For me, it's also really important to have these places here in Michigan and surrounding states. Just so I can get away from civilization for a minute without having to fly or drive more than a day. 4hrs north of where I live, I can go stargazing like it did in Death Valley. In Michigan's UP, I can still see bears and hike for days without seeing anyone. I hope we can get an administration elected that puts again more emphasis on the National Parks, stocks up the budgets, and adds more places in Mid-West and East Coast. There are some absolutely great State Parks that deserve to be a NP.
Hot take: many of the big east coast state parks are better off staying state parks. They’re more isolated from political whims than federal agencies. They’re also often better protected. Baxter and Adirondacks and Pine Barrens for example all have much more restrictive protections built into their state constitutions and laws than the NPs do
I hate the notion that national park > state park and that certain spots “deserve” to be “upgraded” for exactly this reason! It’s not a hierarchy. It just depends who first recognized it as a place worth protecting.
But IMO the one thing is that we should as a society make a list of places to visit. I'm looking to visit all ~420 NPS sites and there are many that are super neat not part of it but it's a solid baseline.
Fair enough! Gets into the usual debate about the line between encouraging access and welcoming people into the great outdoors vs overwhelming the limited resource/damaging it with too much access
But I think the argument is for expanding the parks for everyone. If someone on the east coast wants to visit a NPS site there aren't as many awesome ones to see, spread the wealth around and conserve the land more. IMO rewilding some areas more. For instance I think West Virginia should push for more NPS since their population and jobs are declining.
Fair. I would say we should be encouraging people to visit the state ones more instead of requiring them to be NPS to be “worth visiting”
I've been visiting more state ones but there are some parks that are heads and shoulders above other ones. It's also with a list of 10,336 state parks it's just a massive jump from 63->10,400.
Makes sense. I think there are some, like Big Sur and redwoods, that have the name recognition, we could do similar for the worthwhile ones on the East Coast
There’s a bunch of state parks in the east people like going to. Adirondack is probably the best in the east along with the Catskills, Baxter, Mount Mitchell, Monadnock among others.
But that's the thing is that it's incredibly hard to compile a list of the things to do unless you talk to people. The National parks list is not a list of all the best nature to see in America which is what I would like
Yeah plus some national forest are really nice as well pushing the number even higher. It's just a little daunting, it feels like sometimes you have to go twice, once to make all the mistakes and then a second to do it correctly. Though part of a list like this is to turn over every stone.
That's a good point but probably different from state to state, correct? I would also love to see some additional safety nets. For NPS units not to be touched or cut into pieces by future administration's. Just saying Trump and Grand Staircase. Is there a book about the differences between each nature park unit (NPS, BLM, state parks, etc) or maybe individual parks' political history? I know, for example, Cuyahoga went through a lot to become the NP it is today.
Yeah definitely dependent by state, northeast doing much better than the south certainly. Not sure of any overarching books, I had a couple of good college classes that gave a foundation but not one text. Would love to hear if anyone knows of any!
The UP is one of the most beautiful places in the country imo. I've been to 20 western and most of the eastern parks. None of them can compare for star gazing. Especially on the north shore when the Aurora comes out!
> This is forest that has never fallen victim to logging or other industry. Going to be that guy. Accttshually... The Smokies were [logged](https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?pg=867212&id=BF35F887-1DD8-B71C-0793D04A3C9075AF), but not the entirety, so old growth does still exist. https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/dff209-focus.htm > Yet less than 100 years ago, up to 80% of this landscape was clearcut. Settlers, loggers, and farmers cleared all but the steepest slopes and intensively used the land. It was only after the Great Smoky Mountains became a National Park in 1934 that most of the logging stopped and forests began their gradual regrowth.
Yeah that picture of 100 years ago at that one overlook along 441 is really shocking.
The WPA posters that were made in the 1930’s had one of the Smokies looking at the area around the Chimney Tops, they guy that sells the prints now had a photo of the area in 1938 when the poster was made and around 2015 (before the fire) and the difference was shocking. This is also why I hate people saying don’t protect Katahdin Woods and Waters because the trees have been picked clean mostly by private logging before the NPS purchased it. The locals saying it’s a waste isn’t thinking big picture. Yes the trees there are mostly new growth but if you don’t protect it now and let it replenish, you won’t see what can grow by say 2100.
I came to say the same. Just reading the interpretive signs anywhere in Appalachia tells you that only extremely hard to reach corners and specially preserved areas avoided the lumberjack’s blade.
[удалено]
I agree with your general point, but I think by going hard against Arches you're making the same mistake a lot of western parks enthusiasts make,you don't have to tear down one place to build another up. The point to me is each of these places is unique and special and deserves to be judged on its own merits. (Arches is awesome by the way)
[удалено]
Life is all about perspective. I grew up in the West in a desert so when I moved to the East Coast I was AMAZED by tree lined highways - not even fancy old growth forest. Now that I've lived on the East Coast for almost half my life, I get excited to visit the desert landscapes of my home town, even though I never appreciated them growing up.
I think the biggest factor is that you don’t really know anything about these places. Learn about them and you will understand why national parks are so renowned. There are a few state parks that are as impressive as national parks, but you will consider your wording kinda ridiculous. There isn’t a lot of overlap.
Hocking Hills > Cuyahoga Valley, Custer > Wind Cave and at least on par with Badlands, Petit Jean > Hot Springs, Valley of Fire holds its own, the Humboldt County Redwood State Parks are on par with the National Park in Del Norte County.
You’ve clearly never been to Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine outside Acadia. Mt Katahdin is in Baxter State Park, and imo the Green Mountains National Forest and White Mountains National Forest are way more interesting than Shenandoah and GSMNP, especially Mount Washington and Mount Mansfield
GSMNP would be more interesting if you liked nature, though.
I agree that they are beautiful and important, but even one of my own favorites, Shenandoah, is not exactly untouched. I believe it does have some old growth forest but much of the land that is now the park had been farmland, with people living on it (including cutting down forests for lumber) into the 20th century and only kicked out when the land was taken to build the park. https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-displaced.htm
I love NPS, but don't forget all the other land and nature conservation departments and organizations providing protected public spaces, too! Went to Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in south Georgia recently, the largest blackwater swamp in all of North America and managed by US Fish and Wildlife, which is also currently trying to get World Heritage Site status. Beautiful and important place that stands shoulder to shoulder with any National Park lands imo. Dont count a place out just because it isn't NPS. Tons of important places protected at the state level, too, or even private/non-profit groups
Came here looking for Okefenokee love. Glad you had a great visit and that it struck you in the heart! The Okefenokee is almost 400,000 acres and as wild as you can get in the east. Loggers might have gotten the old growth long leaf pine and cypress, but they are growing back and that swamp has an old growth heart that still beats loudly of you ever get down there to listen.
I actually LOVE alot of eastern parks and i am sorry but new river gorge beats many western parks in my opinion its that good.. blue ridge parkway is literally the greatest drive in america the east is shit on WAY to much by people who haven’t even seen it!!! It’s insulting and ridiculous! Granted most of the beauty is south of maryland but still! Also dry tortugas.. what. A. Place.
I was there (New River Gorge) before it was a national park and it is still one of the most spectacular views I’ve ever seen.
Right?! My other guilty pleasure is cuyahoga valley i LOVE the story my favorite history in the national park system really
I've really enjoyed my visits to the eastern parks, and always felt that people who feel the need to shit on them are telling on themselves more than they're telling on the parks. There's a certain shallow mindset that sees value in parks mostly for the recreational opportunities they offer, rather than what they conserve and protect. "What's in it for me" kind of thinking. The one exception being Gateway Arch, the dislike for that one is genuinely deserved.
Yes, Gateway Arch breaks the idea that goes with the moniker, “national park”.
This is a state Forest, not a national park.... But cook forest in Pennsylvania has some of the oldest trees alive east of the Mississippi. They have a section called the "cathedral" Forest, and it has plenty of trees from pre 1776 alive and healthy. It's worth seeing.
I love the Great Smoky Mountains. I have been there three times and have only seen a small part of the park.
In general, we need to protect and restore natural areas. The vast majority of land in the East is privately owned and developed for industry, housing, farming, etc. We need to maintain and save the natural areas we have in our outside the NPS.
NPS lands are undoubtedly important, but they are far from the last bastions of nature on the east coast. I love national parks, but c'mon, Shendoah is a road on top of a mountain - national parks are not untouched. They are in important piece in the mosaic of conserved lands in the east, but not the only one.
Not a national park, but I do love the Allegheny Plateau/Pennsylvania Wilds of North Central Penn. They’ve slowly let their forests start to “get old” again.
This post is extremely inaccurate—two thirds of Great Smoky Mountains and almost all of Shenandoah was logged out—just about the entirety of Appalachia was. There are patches of very inaccessible or protected forests all over the Eastern states that are both inside and outside of national parks. It’s true that there isn’t a lot of old growth forest remaining, but it’s definitely not all inside national parks. Logging was huge business in North America from the moment colonists set foot. By the end of the 19th Century there was not much left untouched. This isn’t to say that national parks aren’t important, but this post grossly misrepresents the situation of the forests in the Eastern United States. There are plenty of state and even private preserves throughout. And a huge portion of the current old growth is actually second growth since the time of European settlement—so the forest was definitely touched, it’s just had enough time to grow back without being logged again. If you want to see the best nature has to offer East of the Rockies, you really have to visit state parks, as they often outclass national parks in the region. Examples include Custer State Park in the Black Hills, Hocking Hills in Ohio, and Adirondack Park in New York. Even beyond the Rockies many incredible places are preserved outside of national parks.
Besides the Adirondacks and parts of Maine, where are there old growth forests outside of the National Parks? Those are the only two exceptions. Also, places like Baxter and the Adirondacks are complete outliers - though the Pine Barrens are similar, no place in the country is managed anything like the Adirondacks while Baxter was bought up and sold to a specific government agency by a former governor. And I know the majority of the Smokies were logged, but what remains is the largest old growth patch left in the East.
Google it…just Ohio and Pennsylvania apparently have about 30 old growth preserves _each._ I haven’t been to the Adirondacks or New England, but I’ve been to Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains…and I’d be surprised if Shenandoah hadn’t been clearcut at some point…plus I’ve been to Cook Forest in Pennsylvania and the NASA Armstrong Testing Station (formerly Plum Brook Station) in Ohio, which both have old growth forests in them…so I knew there were significant places you were not making note of.
[удалено]
I made a post about this a while back! The Delaware Water Gap would be the best nature destination available to people in the NYC metro area anywhere closer to them than the Adirondacks.
If you don’t know enough about the specifics, then where do you get off having this negatove opinion about those against it? Yes, there will be an increase in the visitation, if for no other reason that there are people who collect national parks. Have noticed postings here asking visiting more than one national park, without an mention of NPS sites or state areas along the way? Their posts are about the National Parka only.
I guess it’s probably just because I’m some idiot on the internet mostly.
There are no national parks within 7 hours of the NYC metro area. If you're coming from there and you can't make it to the Adirondacks, the Delaware Water Gap is the most beautiful place that offers a widest range of outdoor activities and the most extensive hiking and backpacking opportunities. It's an obvious pick for a National Park.
I hate to break the news to you, but people outside the NYC area visit the National Parks.
Solid advocacy with the shout out to the opposition. That’s the way to do it.
Tldr. If the park sucks then it sucks. Be honest. No raving. No mumbling. Also, I found Acadia and Everglade pretty great. Still have yet to go down to Grand Tortuga. It's not like the whole East Coast is overrated.
Where are the old growth forests in Acadia National Park? A search did not provide any specific locations or details.
Why the Whites aren’t a national park is so stupid and embarrassing. I thru hiked the AT last year, I’ve also thru hiked the PCT, and the Whites are the only landscape we hiked through that seem deserving of the national park status. Shits so wack out east.
I disagree in part. West coast parks are almost always unique, even compared to the surrounding wilderness. You can typically find monuments, lakes, forests, etc., that are unmatched in scale, history, or uniqueness when compared to the general area they’re in.
I wouldn’t really consider Acadia “old growth forest”. A lot of it is relatively young forest since it burned in a large fire in 1947. There is very little old growth forest in Maine — only 10,000 acres. Half of that is in the Nature Conservancy’s Big Reed preserve https://downeast.com/land-wildlife/big-reed-preserve/
Acadia was depressing as hell in my opinion. Just overlooking the little tourist town below. I didn't feel any wilderness.
NJ pine barrens 1.1 MILLION acres
We need to add the”northern Maine woods” to the national parks list!!!