New US National Park

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

ziplock

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Posts
2,512
Maybe this has been  posted  already?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/the-us-just-got-a-new-national-park/ar-BBTOOoT?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

The 15,000-acre Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore just got a major upgrade: On Friday, February 15, President Donald Trump signed a bill that changed the landmark's official name to the Indiana Dunes National Park. The site is now America's 61st national park?and the first-ever national park in the state of Indiana.

The name change took up only a few lines of text in the broad, 465-page House Joint Resolution 31 (you know, the one most famous for partially funding the U.S.-Mexico border wall). So when the President approved the budget, he also (quietly) created a new national park. Just another confusing day in the world of U.S. politics, folks.

Semantics aside, this new designation is lovely news. The Indiana Dunes stretch for 15 miles along the shores of Lake Michigan, making it a popular spot for swimming?and even surfing?during the summer. It's also one of many beloved day trips from Chicago, reachable by car and the South Shore Line from the city. While the dunes themselves are the star attractions, the park also encompasses prairies and forests, attracting hikers and snowshoers during the colder months. (Note: The Indiana Dunes State Park is located inland of the Lakeshore, and will be managed separately by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.)

It's easy to see why the site has long been an attraction for Midwesterners: 3.6 million people visited last year, according to the Chicago Tribune, and this shiny new title of "National Park" is only going to make it more popular for the entire country. As the 61st member of a prestigious club, the Indiana Dunes will now appear anywhere national parks are featured?think books, calendars, tourism sites, and must-visit lists?making it an even more official essential road trip stop and bucket list item. The park will not receive any new funding or special treatment (it's been protected by the NPS since 1966, when it became a national lakeshore), but hey, that publicity boost is truly priceless.

The news also marks a major win for Indiana, which has been trying to upgrade the famous dunes for 103 years. Stephen Mather, the first director of the National Parks Service, made the first push back in 1916, but the government had to devote its time and resources to WWI and never saw it through. The state's current legislators have continued to fight the good fight, but it was U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky who successfully added the provision into House Joint Resolution 31 last week. No disrespect to the gentlemen from Indiana, but we think Leslie Knope


 
I have camped at Indiana Dunes and it is not National Park worthy in my book. It is a nice place but not nearly impressive enough to turn into an NP. The reason I object is because the NP service has had budget problems for many years and adding another park only increases the number of mouths they will have to feed. Spread the money even thinner. And there are not 61 National Parks, only 58 but adding one makes the total 59. And another thing is there is a law that any new National Parks must be 30,000 acres minimum and the dunes is only 15,000. (Mod edit: redacted political commentary)
 
We cannot afford to properly maintain the parks we have so it is stupid to add more parks to the system. Don't worry, the land grab is coming. When The Great Sand Dunes was turned into a National Park it was also 15,000 acres and it took then about ten years to expand to 30,000 acres and actually become a National Park. I would bet that Indian Dunes won't officially be a park until it grabs a bunch more land. (Mod edit: redacted political commentary)
 
Ha, I live in Indiana, visited the Dunes last summer.  Nice place, not worthy of being called a National Park by any means.  It was just a deal made with the Politicians.  Yes that's correct, I used the forbidden P word in the forum.  ::)
 
Utclmjmpr said:
Check wiki to see how wrong you are.>>>D
Nope, Wiki is wrong. Google says 58. There are the 47 pictured in my photo in the lower 48. Plus Virgin Islands, American Samoa and eight in Alaska. Oops there is one more bringing the total to 59. Gateway Arch was made into a National Park last year.
 

Attachments

  • 46 Signs 05 (1).jpg
    46 Signs 05 (1).jpg
    259.1 KB · Views: 12
Check the Wiki site. It lists 61. Which ones do you think they got wrong?
World Atlas and National lusted 60 last year.
NPS lists 61.


I do agree that NPS doesn?t have funds to maintain the Parks it has but to me the solution is for the federal government to properly fund ALL our NPS sites.
 
Wendy said:
Check the Wiki site. It lists 61. Which ones do you think they got wrong?
World Atlas and National lusted 60 last year.
NPS lists 61.


I do agree that NPS doesn?t have funds to maintain the Parks it has but to me the solution is for the federal government to properly fund ALL our NPS sites.
Ok I don't want to argue about the number of parks, that is not the important thing. The important thing is the ones we have are falling apart and there is no money to fix them:

"The National Park Service maintenance backlog is estimated at $11.6 billion as of fiscal year 2018. Lawmakers and experts are huddling over the problem even as the president again proposes cutting the parks? budgets."

This figure is for the bad roads, falling down visitors centers and signage problems. The parks are overrun with people and being loved to death.
 
SeilerBird said:
The parks are overrun with people and being loved to death.
Wendy said:
I do agree that NPS doesn?t have funds to maintain the Parks it has but to me the solution is for the federal government to properly fund ALL our NPS sites.

Agree. But to say we should not have more park land when there isn't enough for the visitors we already have is a self-defeating prophesy. The answer is to get the lawmakers to properly fund them. The budget is over 3 trillion dollars and lawmakers do not allot enough to the parks to fix broken benches. This occurs for one reason, we let them prioritize in this fashion.
 
seilerbird,

I don't see this one in your collage:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Harpers_Ferry_Park_sign%2C_WV_IMG_4662.JPG

http://tipsforfamilytrips.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Harpers-Ferry-for-Families-800x800.png

This is  a nice  place.  About  an hour  or so  from me.  Have you been here?

Can someone  make  the  pics  show up here?
 
Wendy said:
I do agree that NPS doesn?t have funds to maintain the Parks it has but to me the solution is for the federal government to properly fund ALL our NPS sites.

The problem is funding is allocated annually. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
 
ziplock said:
seilerbird,

I don't see this one in your collage:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Harpers_Ferry_Park_sign%2C_WV_IMG_4662.JPG

http://tipsforfamilytrips.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Harpers-Ferry-for-Families-800x800.png

This is  a nice  place.  About  an hour  or so  from me.  Have you been here?

Can someone  make  the  pics  show up here?
No I have not been there. It is not a National Park. It is a National Historical Park which is a whole different thing. Here is a list of the NPs and it is not there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_United_States
 
ziplock said:
Can someone  make  the  pics  show up here?

Here you go
 

Attachments

  • Harpers Ferry sign.jpg
    Harpers Ferry sign.jpg
    345.6 KB · Views: 21
  • Harpers Ferry.jpg
    Harpers Ferry.jpg
    333.7 KB · Views: 21
We all know the rules. Let's please not consciously get the politics started.
 
I did not think it was political to state the house was responsible for funding the national park system, that's a fact. And it's also a fact that the Democrates are now responsible for promoting that agenda,,one that we all can get behind.>>>Dan ( I,  am not Welch, but have enough Irish to enjoy haggling a point.>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom