Interesting that it wasn't mentioned that McSally is a Republican.  BTW Did we ever get an answer regarding who has authority to add/expand/contract a park?  Why is she proposing legislation if it can be done by DOI fiat as some suggested earlier?

A perfect example of the ridiculous notion that the term national "park" has any more meaning that national monument, lakeshore, historic site, or other designation. If Chiricahua were to change title, it would join such national "parks" as Petrified Forest National Monument, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, and Congaree Swamp National Monument who had their titles changed through the efforts of tourism officials and sympathetic members of Congress for the sole reason of increasing tourism.

By law, all units of the National Park System are managed as equals, regardless of title. There is absolutely no criteria one can apply that applies only to the units called "national parks" that make them different. Not to mention even odder anomalies like Prince William Forest Park and the National Park of American Samoa. Are these "national parks?" They are not counted in the currently referenced 59 national parks list.

The designations are confusing and meaningless. In this centennial year of the National Park Service, I have read stories of people endeavoring to visit "all 59 national parks." It's a fool's errand. Their chasing names, not places of any specific renown. There are 414 national parks. Congress and the NPS should work together to end this charade of names and simplify the more than 30 designations currently used and do the public a favor in helping them identify the National Park System. If the NPS and the parks are to survive and thrives, one of the most important things they can do is help the public understand what the National Park System is so that when it comes to votes and dollars they know what they are protecting. 

I love Chiricahua National Monument. But this would be the third smallest national park -- smaller than Virgin Islands National Park. It is great that Rep. McSally is a national park advocate and willing to introduce this legislation. However, such a small park would not do this amazing ecosystem justice.

What we need is a 291,000-acre Chiricahua National Park that includes the existing national monument as well as the entire Douglas Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest. Perhaps that is not politically feasible at the moment, but it should be a vision for the future.

The Chiricahuas represent one of the largest sky islands in the region. An expanded park would be incredibly diverse, with elevations ranging from 4,400 feet to 9,759 feet at the summit of Chiricahua Peak. About 158,000 acres is already designated as wilderness or it is roadless land qualified for wilderness designation. The area has numerous rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife species, as well as excellent opportunities for backcountry recreation.

Unfortunately, most of the national forest lands are  being degraded under Forest Service "multiple-use" management. Livestock grazing is pervasive, fire suppression is impeding natural processes, and mining is a possibility in the future. This fragile and irreplaceable ecosystem deserves better than its present utilitarian management.

Beyond the Chiricahuas, we need to create a 1.5-million-acre, multi-unit Sky Islands National Park in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Ths park would encompass Chiricahua National Monument, Coronado National Memorial, much of Coronado National Forest, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, and adjacent BLM lands such as the Chiricahua, Dragoon, Huachuca, Pinaleno, Santa Rita, Tumacacori, and Whetstone mountains in Arizona and the Animas, Big Hatchet, Cedar, Cookes, Florida, Peloncillo, and Pyramid mountains in New Mexico.

Very little of the Sky Islands ecoregion has strong, permanent protection from resource extraction and other industrial activities. A large, diverse national park would provide that protection. We need to think big.

CJDillion,

There are actually different rules pertaining to the various designations.  However, National Monuments ran strictly by the National Park Service are pretty much the same as National Parks.  There also are many National Monuments that are ran by the USFS and BLM, and that started to occur during the Clinton Administration when they started creating monuments out of lands from those agencies.  However, to me those are just a facade, and don't have the stricter rules and guidelines applied like the ones ran strictly by the NPS.  I think what is starting to happen is that the Monuments ran by the NPS are distinguishing themselves from those monuments ran by other agencies, so changing the name to a National Park provides them with a better name recognition and brand.  When you enter into a National Monument ran by the BLM, you can definitely tell that many of them are not as well protected as the ones ran by the NPS.   Logging, and even cattle ranching is found in many of those BLM ran National Monuments, whereas in most National Monuments ran by the NPS those activities are barred.

So many of the Monuments ran by the NPS are having their named changed into National Parks.  Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Pinnacles, etc all at one point were monuments.  I know that Craters of the Moon (a place i'm very familiar with), and Colorado National Monument have proposals (or at least local groups) calling for them to change thier titles as well.  Mostly though, you are right, in many cases those groups want the name change so they can attract more tourists, since the National Park brand comes with more recongnition than the monument title.  The management, and protection doesn't change, because they are already protected as  National Parks.  By the way, American Samoa is a National Park, but I believe the difference is that the federal government doesn't outright own the property, instead it is leased by the Samoan council. I'm not sure if that's the case with Virgin Islands, but all the ones within the states are owned by the Federal government (although, many inholdings exist).    

I agree with Michael Kellet that if Chiricahuas is changed into a National Park, part of the plan should be expansion, with a long term goal of incorporating USFS lands into the park, and connecting it with the Chiricahua wilderness area..  That would better protect a majority of the Chiricahua Mountain range.  I'm still very much convinced the gold standard of conservation is wilderness lands protected by the NPS.  But I wouldn't go so far to pigeon hole in BLM lands that were never made into wilderness areas and sit outside of the USFS district in more marginal areas.  Anymore, that just creates too much animosity in the western fringes, and I think BLM lands oustide of the USFS areas should remain mixed use.  Instead, i'd rather see adjacent National Forest lands to the National Monument, upgraded as wilderness, with a long term goal of protecting the majority of the Chiricahua mountains as a large scale national park that is mostly designated wilderness.  

That area is actually pretty extensive in it's current protection and I think is well worth the designation.  Granted, i've never lived around that park, and only been through there once, but I do remember being taken by it's scenery and felt it very worthy of the designation.  It could be a fairly large park if other areas were incorporated.  It also doesn't have much population near it, and I think a large scale national park could be accomplished in a few decades.

Gary -

Yes, a handful of name designations carry different rules. For example, National Military Parks can have licensed battlefield guides and off-road vehicle use cannot be permitted in national parks. There are a few others, but, laws attached to titles are relatively few. Generally, it is the enabling legislation for each park, (or monuments declared under the Antiquities Act, the Presidential Proclamation) that really specify each park's protection other than that afforded by the National Park Service Organic Act, General Authorities, Act, and other system-wide laws. There are "national parks" that are small, that are not open 24-hours a day, that do not have camping, that do not have entrance fees, that allow grazing, where oil/gas wells are permitted, and so on. My point is, that there is no criteria that defines national "park" from most other units in terms of resources, facilities, and services. Names have been changed for tourism reasons more than once.

The 2013 report from the Congressional Research Service puts it succinctly: "Currently, there are no definitive criteria for naming a park unit. Bills to designate new units of the National Park System, or to rename existing units, may specify any title, even one not previously used in the park system. The statutory authorities and management policies of the National Park Service (NPS) generally apply to all units, regardless of title."

We both have a lot of experience and understanding of national park management, so I respect your information. My point is that 1) the term national "park" is essentially meaningless in identifying a certain status, and 2) the NPS and Congress are doing itself a disservice by not making the units of the National Park System more easily identifiable and distinguishable from areas managed by the USDA Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, state parks, etc.

Just to add, I know Craters of the Moon well, I was once a ranger there. Fantastic place.