Dear Carne Asada Torta:

changing the name from Recreation Area to National Park will not change the law on environmental protection and dog walkers.

changing the name WILL demean the meaning of the category 'national park' and is one more way in our increasingly cynical culture our language is twisted out of recognition. Changing the name won't change the nature of the park resource.

Actually I and many others are aware of the struggle for civil rights for Native Americans at Alcatraz, of course. But if you were going to designate one, or two or ten significant historic areas as really defining the historic struggle for Native American civil rights, would this be the spot you would pick among all others to tell that story, sufficient to change the name to a national park to tell it??

It seems here that the name is being used to make the area something that it is not, to the loss of the significance of the original meaning of the name. It seems all about the ego of the managers to get their administrative area somehow enhanced: what the military used to call a "tombstone promotion." It seems this episode is further indication of Speaker Pelosi's unsteadiness as leader: she is doing this because she CAN not because she SHOULD. One more needless political misstep from Pelosi, from the way she wiped out Congresswoman Jane Harmon just because she was strong and valued strategic security over political and replaced her with an incompetent, the way she fought with Congressman Steny Hoyer ineptly, and many other seemingly little missteps. On the large canvas, it indicates why the Democrats cannot handle Bush. This Gateway [Ed: Golden Gate NRA?] name change thing, like the Jane Harmon thing, shows us Speaker Pelosi is politically tone deaf.

It is so sad, because we had all hoped she would help parks and help the country in real ways, not in these silly fights.

Oh John Reynolds and Rangertoo:

Your comment is way too dogmatic, and not supportable in many many small ways. I read John Reynold's comment after my last post, so call this a Post Script:

-- Congress, you need to understand, does not name the vast majority of names of park areas "on a whim." Most names are seriously discussed, and usually the Congress takes the park service's recommendation on what name to use. Congress & the congressional committees that authorize new parks, often shows more discipline and courage than the NPS, as unpopular as that is to say. Yes, there are exceptions, including the NPS allowed the republican appropriations staff to micromanage the parks, and never raised the arrogance of individuals to the spotlight as the leaders of the NPS should have. That committee had done weird things, such as Steamtown and the inexplicably located First Ladies park (a bill drafted by a supine NPS on the direction of the appropriations staffers), but for the most part, most names and most designations of most areas makes sense. Just go down the list, putting a check on one side or the other, and see.

-- The public is much less aware of the agency of government, local or national, than you guys are. I have seen plenty of examples where the public really only knew THE RESOURCE and why it was important, not who managed it. If the BLM or the Forest Service or a local government has an area called 'a recreation area' or a 'national monument' it actually is -- most of the time -- descriptive of the kind of management the area has. I remember one time reading that most people in New York City did not know the Statue of Liberty was a national park, but when the Statue of Liberty was in trouble, there was a huge flow of private money to protect the Statue. NOT because of the administrator, but because the public cared about the Statue. I don't think trying to get the public to focus on park administrators rather than the meaning of a specific place is a winning strategy for supporting the NPS.

-- All this is illustrated again and again. You know how difficult it has been for your National Park Foundation to raise money for "the National Parks" where as individual named PLACES such as the Washington Monument were celebrated and successfully funded, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC CARED ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC PLACE. Place matters, and the character and quality of the PLACE is the main thing about what is supported. Yes, of course, a talented administrator or political circle might be able to increase a public awareness for a place big time and help that place find its audience, but in the end it is not by calling all places managed by the National Park Service "National Park" that really makes the difference.

-- You are right that calling Santa Monica a "national recreation area' is the weirdest thing in the world -- and not a typical example. Santa Monica should have been called something like a 'national heritage area' and managed like the what they call "National Parks" in England. English parks are understood to have a combination of the government owning some of the land and private and non-profits owning other parts of the land. The they have a plan based on the sensitivities of different parcels and manage each parcel professionally, based on its need. The English also have "Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty" and various kinds of natural areas and reservations, with different names. Everybody in England knows each area is managed by a plan targeted to the needs of the specific area, and are not rattled by the names. But they know that "national parks" are designated for certain reasons, and "Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty" are designated for other reasons. So the name selected there, as here, is supposed to be descriptive of the analysis of the character of the resource. Yes, as with "World Heritage Site" of course there is politics in how designations happen, everywhere. But politics does not make it a "whim" or meaningless.

I think renaming Santa Monica makes more SENSE than renaming Golden Gate a national park, if you are concerned about meaning. Santa Monica has the character of one distinctive place. Golden Gate feels like a series of quite different places, and I think "recreation area" was in common use in the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation for adaptive areas to development, with the objective of providing public use around some past or new government facility (like a dam or military base). A lot of local communities have the same kind of "recreation area," made up of cobbled-togther resources.

Interesting article. Referring again to Rocky Mtn. Nat'l Parks elk overpopulation and adding bear troubles, it might not be so bad to sell a few leather jackets made of elkskin, bearskin rugs, elk and bear meat.

The current economic activities in many of the parks, of which Yosemite is a great example, serve the needs of elites who plan semi-religious retreats years in advance, and the needs of motorists above almost any value you can think of.

It's true that Yosemite and Zion, for example, have closed the upper reaches of the Nat'l Park valleys to private vehicles, but the lines of autos wanting to enter get longer each year and the political clamor obviates pushing the ever popular auto even further back, say to Modesto, or to the nearest town east of Zion's east entrance.

There might be some business for those towns, don't you think? I am proposing sustainable economic activity on the fringes of a nature we hope will sustain us forever, instead of laissez faire exploitation here.

It makes me wonder when the NPS might think a quota system will be necessary for crowd control in Zion. I'm thankful for the bus system there, though. When I first visited a decade ago, the place was gridlock all the way to the Narrows. Today, the bus is a breeze, with local stories from the bus driver to boot. Last summer I even managed to fight my way through the crowds and snag a frontcountry campsite mid-way through the July 4 weekend, despite the "campground full" signs posted everywhere. Zion was a circus, but not so crazy I couldn't find a place to park, which has happened to me on beautiful fall weekends at Rocky Mountain National Park. They probably couldn't keep the cars out of Zion anymore than they do now because, for those willing to pay the fee or show a park pass, it's on a through highway.

Lepanto - Well, seeing as John Reynolds and I have both been in senior management of the NPS and have been involved in the writing of bills and negotiation of designations with Congressional staff, I would have to counter that we are right in our assertion that the names are not as studiously determined as you may imagine. Your perspective that the public is less aware of the governing agency of the park is right - and that is exactly my point. We should WANT them to understand who the governing agency is and when a park is part of the National Park System. That is how we will gain support and funding for the NPS. We cannot depend upon locals doing the work for nearby parks. Americans must care about parks they have never seen and may never visit if we are to maintain the integrity of a national system. Coke stopped making Tab soda because no one associated it with Coke. They were not getting the benefit of the Coke name or the massive advertising dollars spent on Coke. Diet Coke solved the problem. The NPS should be thought of as the same. Get people to understand national park means any site in the National Park System and they will see their collective value.

How did we ever get the idea that national "park" was something special anyway? There was no hesitation in naming Hot Springs a national park and it predates almost all the big natural areas that came later. Nor was they hesitation in naming Mesa Verde a national park and it is primarily a cultural area. It seems this notion that the title "park" is somehow something special to be horded and handed out only to certain worthy areas is a rather new concept - and not one that can be easily defended without having to allow the "exceptions" such as Mesa Verde, Hot Spring, Cuyahoga Valley, and Congaree. The exceptions render the defense of the "park" title unsustainable.

Next year, Ken Burns series on national parks will be on PBS. It will cover only 53 "national parks." That will be unfortunate because it will continue to feed public misperceptions and will not encourage visitation, preservation, or protection of the other 338 units.

I believe the idea that National Park units were "something special" was tied directly to the public's perception centered around those first units, which included Yosemite and Yellowstone, which at the time of their designation were located in areas of the country that were traversed by few save the hearty; those who explored the "wild" country on vacation, and the mystique that grew out of the photographs, paintings, writings and the "lore of the old West" did indeed make these places "special". As government officials dipped their hands into the process, mostly revolving around an effort to bring pork to the local constituents, the whole process began a steady but undeniable downward spiral, diluting the meaning associated with the term "National Park" and the system as a whole, until every piddly nook and cranny qualified in someone's eyes as a "preserve" of some manner or other. Funding issues aside, now virtually every conservation group, be they historical, environmental, or whatever manner you care to mention lays claim to some portion of the country in the context of "significant", and while many of those claims are justifiable, no one has had the "stones" to confront the issue and draw the line as to what is and isn't "significant" or “special”, to the point where now virtually any tract of land qualifies in one way, shape or form. Shorelines, beaches, farmland, forest, barrier island, tundra, volcano, riverway, you name it; if someone's political purse can benefit from the designation, it'll find its way onto agenda eventually.

Dear Rangertoo

Let's not use "authority" as evidence of the value of our opinion. I think I have had as much, or probably a bit more involvement with more park designations and interactions with congressional staff than John -- don't know in comparison with you -- but I don't think that in itself makes me right and John wrong. I was not saying there is no politics in name designation, I was objecting to the absolutist simplicity of saying the names 'are not . . . . ANYTHING OTHER [emphasis added] than the political whim of the Congress when designated.' Again, I ask you, go down the list of all the parks, and see if ALL the names are so whimsical and debased, or if only a few examples are.

The Coke point IS interesting. But it was not about "The Coca Cola Company" it was about the specific product, Coke. When the company tried to introduce new coke, the brand or the corporate name could not save it.

There is always the danger when executives, or experienced senior managers of the NPS, appear to the public to be making the issue about themselves or their works, than the tangible thing-itself the public does care about, that the public will drive a wedge between their identity of the resource and their identity of the agents/leaders.

It may be possible to re-name ALL national parklands 'national parks,' but it is particularly silly to start with Golden Gate. Golden Gate is a collection, it is not one unit with a resource-based identity. And, I disagree that Mesa Verde is mis-named. It is a landscape of coherance and clear identity.

I agree with you that all sites are equally significant.

As this search for identity continues on, the USA will also need to keep in mind the nternational issues associated with naming. John will remember the outburst from Parks Canada when his group tried to include sport hunting within the 'national parks' in Alaska. Canada said it and the World had followed NPS leadership on names and established national policy, and the USA should not so "whimsically" throw away that understanding. I am not saying this by itself should prohibit us making changes to help public understanding, but we should be thoughtful and fair if we take these steps.

Lone Hiker, I have been impressed by the insight and authenticity of your many posts, but you are just wrong about Congress and elected officials. More than 3 out of 4 of all proposals to establish new parks are either thrown out or radically restructured to better match the need and character of the resource, and the viability of the preservation, management and interpretation strategy. It is true, I regret however, that the quality of the congressional committees of authorization, their leadership and their staff has deteriorated. This is across the board. Congress in recent years has pullied away from large vision and new legislation since the high-water mark under FDR. At the same time, we should be careful about how we describe areas of significance to some, but perhaps not to you or to others. I remember when James Watt started to reconsider all the parks established under the influence of M. Udall and Phil Burton. Many of them told the story of African American Heritage or women's empowerment or real cultural significance, and the people who opposed them were either people who only knew what they already knew, or who deliberately were trying to divide those park people who were seeking more resource preservation from those park people who were struggling to manage what they had.

Senator Scoop Jackson in 1976 tried to recognize the need to protect significant resources everywhere through his National Land Us Planning legislation. This was really the last gasp of comprehensive environmental legislation, and it was stopped cold by a coalition of fear and reaction that assumed that environmental legislation will destroy rights to land and person. More recently, national heritage areas seem to be an alternative way, bottoms up, of uniting the buisness and environmental sectors locally around strategies to protect large landscapes that have distinct character. I have heard the former head of planning in Philadelphia/NPS, Glenn Eugster, say his goal would be for heritage areas to replace Jackson's as the strategy to allow Americans to protect what they care about nationwide. It makes sense to recognize the broad value of many places as opposed to trying to divide preservation by trying to say one place is good and the other one not. Look at the examples of Italy and Britain that have struggled successfully to maintain the special character of many landscapes throughout their countries, to the delight of international travelers.

Finally, Lone Hiker, it seems to me while politics may be messy, it is really a good idea for Members of Congress to be pushed by their voters to try to protect important places. This is democracy, not pork. Back in the day when barons ruled all landscapes, no one's opinion mattered. The only places set aside where those where the elite deigned to create an environment that the elite thought pleasurable to them or edifying to the commoners. It seems to me it is a great idea for congress-people to compete to be conservationists. A diversion from attacking the motives of other countries, threatening war, building dams or give-aways to corporations or treating corporations as if they had the rights of individuals.

And when such politicians find a resource that can command a public constituency that really cares about what that resource is and what story it tells, then the task of Congress and the NPS and the rest of us is to try to provide for it the right management framework, and with a name that conveys meaning.

This is the kind of politics America needs.

Barbara Cubin has filed a bill that would block the renaming of Devil's Tower N.M. to Bear's Lodge.