You are here

Idaho's Bid For A National Park

Share

Published Date

April 14, 2007

    Idaho has no national park to truly call its own.
    Most of Yellowstone lies within Wyoming's borders, Craters of the Moon is a national monument and preserve, Nez Perce is a national historical park Idaho shares with Montana, Washington and Oregon, Hagerman Fossil Beds is a national monument, Minidoka Internment is a national monument, and City of Rocks is a national reserve.
    And some Idahoans take exception to being without a full-fledged national park. Back in 1992 the state drafted a list of prospective park sites and shipped it off to the Interior Department, where it's wallowed. The problem, according to NPS officials, is that none of the sites has grassroots support.
    Among the sites on the list were Craters of the Moon, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.
    While I'd love to see the Sawtooth NRA with its jagged range of mountains, thick forests, many lakes, and sweeping bottom lands gain park status, there are some conflicting uses that would have to be addressed: logging, mining, hunting, and ranching.
    That actually might not be too big of a hurdle, as some national parks carry the additional "preserve" designation that allows hunting and in some cases oil and gas exploration.
 

Comments

Kurt, before we focus on Idaho, let's try to make the National Park Service truly national and get a beach, river, historical site, something, for Delaware.

The NPS can't take care of what it has...why take more land and lock it up for envirowackos & bad-science scientists?????

Trish, you must be referring to the political hacks that infest the upper runs of the chain of command at the Interior Department these days. Perhaps you're thinking of Julie A. MacDonald. What's that you say? You never heard of Ms. MacDonald? Read about her here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033001998.html

As incredible as SNRA is, it really is incompatible with being a "national park". Its current status seems to work just fine, no need to alter it just to make the NPS feel better. And COTMNM is halfsies with BLM, so they can't have that one either. They could take the NPS chunk and call it a 'national park', but I'm sure they don't want the somewhat incompatible uses that are found on the BLM-managed land. Again, change for change's sake doesn't make much sense. Idaho is a phenomenal state - having a 'national park' just to say they do won't change that. Besides, most of it is already managed by USFS and BLM. The NPS has to take a backseat occasionally.

Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.