Editor's Note: New National Parks

According to this criteria, Mesa Verde should be dropped. But Wind Cave should stay--grasslands, pine forest, limestone cliffs, streams, bison, proghorns, mule deer. Plenty of great backcountry.

I live in Ohio and love Ohio and it's (unfortunately rare) natural areas. But I have to admit that Cuyahoga Valley National Park (bisected by two or three Interstates) is NOT national park material. Maybe a good county or metropark. That's it. It's designation as a National Park is a total joke and everyone knows it -- or at least I hope they do. I'd hate to see a nice family drive 5 hours in their minivan to show up at a 3 mile hiking trail and an old train station.

A little late to the show, but here goes....

For those arguing over the calls to perhaps strip the "National Park" designation from Cuyohoga Valley NP, it would probably only be a redesignation to a "National Recreation Area". In many ways it seems like an urban park similar to the collection regional parks where I live. Nothing wrong with that, but where's the national significance? Same goes for Hot Springs NP. There have been several national parks that were either removed from NPS control or were redesignated to some other status.

As for the editor's call for perhaps stripping Biscayne, Dry Tortugas, Carlsbad Caverns, and Wind Cave of their "National Park" designations - that's just a sign of bias for overnight backpacking. These are spectacular places
well deserving of their status. Carlsbad Caverns is also designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

As for a previous comment about American Samoa and Virgin Islands, I would note that Hawaii National Park (now two separate national parks) was established well before Hawaii's statehood and at a time (1916) when it was uncertain whether or not they might not just remain a territory indefinitely.

As an active hunter, I can not support the addition of any current multi-use area to the National Park System. Specifically, Maine woods, the San Juan (Mountains?), White Mountains, or the Wind River range. There is already too much acreage being lost for hunting for many other reasons to turn over more land to the National Park Service and their anti-hunting stance.

Remember The Pig War ? Of course ! The American Camp of that at San Juan Island National Historical Park on Juan de Fuca Strait. The Fontana Dam of US and Cal 1 and 101. Incroyable scenery. On the ridge where earthworks remain, Olympics, Mt Baker, McKinley, and snow domed Hood horizon beyond the Islands and blue Juan de Fuca.

No camping. Except for a handful of landowners rumored as timber land connected: BAU.

San Juan Island, a beautiful rural area, clean ocean air, open hay fields, woods, of the early 20th Century. Cyclists and hikers arrive on the ferry, tour to small county park but not the American Camp end. Too far as a round trip down and back to to San Juan Island County Park.
Is there room for a hiker biker camp ? You bet ! We’re not talking a horde here maybe 20 max weekends.
Straw poll: Institutionalists nay, Oregon, Washington State, BC, and California voted 100-1 in favor.

I just canceled my subscription

The National Park Sevice's mission is:
"To conserve the scenery, and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for enjoyment of the same by such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

The 394 units of the US National Park Service all have individual resources of national significance that together create a tapestry that tells the story of America. The author should have clarified for the reader that there are, in fact, more than 15 different designations within the Park Service that serve not to diminish those units' importance, but to more appropriately define the type of resources found within that unit. To suggest that some units are more DESERVING of recognition and protection by the United States government is ridiculous. National Parks serve not only to provide opportunities for wilderness experiences, but also to connect individuals to the historical, cultural, and ecological reasons for their existence.

From a disappointed but loyal subscriber.

Many have already expressed my negative feelings about this article above. I find it a little strange that a backpacker would advocate something like this, since most backpackers I know prefer not to backpack in national parks. They're crowded, tame, and full of oppressive rules compared to wilderness areas, where myself as well as my hiking friends prefer to hike. With a handful of exceptions, National Parks are more for the general public than backpackers, and so, parks that are small and close to urban areas, such as Cuyahoga Valley, might be the most important to maintain. I say, let the wild areas remain wild by not naming them national parks, and let important refuges like CVNP stay.

I grew up in Cleveland, OH, and I went to college in Akron, OH, and I can definitely tell you that CVNP is the only thing keeping the region between those two cities from turning into one giant strip mall. It's the only substantial green space within an hour's drive of Akron, and it is heavily used. It gets people out in the woods who would otherwise not leave the couch. Additionally, the great state of Ohio is in the process of approving drilling for oil in the state parks. States cannot be trusted to protect the land, and this park must remain a NATIONAL one.

Ohio's not like the west where there are vast tracks of mostly uninhabited pseudo-wild public land. CVNP is pretty much it. To remove this park would be to do a great disservice not only to the residents of Ohio but also to the resident threatened and endangered species which depend on CVNP for protection.

If the main obstacle to new parks is that NPS can't afford to manage them, why not subcontract the management of new 'parks'? If a lumber company can bid to harvest natural resouces, why couldn't 'Wilderness Is Us' bid on contracts to manage wilderness areas for the benefit of backpackers and such?

If the main obstacle to new parks is that NPS can't afford to manage them, why not subcontract the management of new 'parks'? If a lumber company can bid to harvest natural resouces, why couldn't 'Wilderness Is Us' bid on contracts to manage wilderness areas for the benefit of backpackers and such?

Great...First we have to deal with the "drive", the "shot" and the "decision" and now northeastern ohio has to deal with the "swap". I left the sports scene in ohio for the national park scene and now I have to read outragious information in backpacker magazine. According to my national park book to be designated a national park an area most have 1)distinguished beauty 2) majesty of their natural features 3) pristine state of their ecosystem 4)historical significance or )the abundance/diversity of flora/fauna. Cuyahoga Valley National Park contains several of these qualifications. It was a very historical part of the Erie canal and the underground railroad. It is also a significant breeding area for the Great Blue Heron. To see and hear the flight of these wonderful birds overhead brings peace and contentment to my heart. Hiking the Ledges is a beautiful way to see the scenery of the park. Also, the park has a 22 mile bike/hike pathway to enjoy the parks natural beauty. Finally, the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic railroad offers another unigue way to view and enjoy the park. The best part is that it is close to home and a wonderful way to get out into nature. I am disappointed in the editor of backpacker magazine. I think your suggestion is a good way to isolate a large part of your reader population. My tax dollars should go toward something that people in the midwest can enjoy on a regular basis not just national parks out west. There are 8 national parks in California, 8 national parks in Alaska and 5 national parks in Utah. There is 1 national park in Ohio. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a wonderful park for the mid-west and if anyone trys to take our park away they will have to deal with the wrath of already scorned ohioans.

I am hoping that it was a momentary lapse in judgement or perhaps ignorance of the facts that caused you to list the Cuyahoga Valley National Park as one to drop.

I have been to Crater Lake, Yosemite, Yellowstone, North Cascades, Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Everglades and many other National Parks. They are all wonderful places to visit every few years and they have wonderful opportunities to enjoy back country hiking and other recreation. We should definitely preserve these for our use and those that come after us. However, I cannot visit these parks several times a week like I can the CVNP due to the distance from my home state of Ohio. Most of the great national parks are in remote areas and are a destination in and of themselves. It seems you would deprive us of the parks that are most accessible to the places where we live and exercise on a regular basis. Let me tell you about our park.

The CVNP has many trails. They follow streams, rivers, canals, and Indian paths. Some are hilly and involve climbing over rocks. Some are so remote that they feel like back country. The wildflowers are amazing in the spring and the summer. The leaves are stunning in the fall. The winter is equally breath-taking. There are beautiful waterfalls, rock cliffs, and caves. There is an abundance of wildlife. I have personally seen deer, fox, coyote, beavers, muskrat, snapping turtles, snakes, great blue herons, ducks, and geese. I'm sure there is a lot more. There is history as well, with the canal era buildings and remnants of the locks. There are Indian mounds. The CVNP has a variety of trails and recreational opportunities. It is a wonderful place to enjoy what God has created for our use and it's right in our back yard! It also happens to be in the top 10 of most visited parks and has one of the top volunteer organizations.

I suspect that you have never been to the CVNP or you would surely not have placed it on your list. You would be writing a feature article on it instead.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never even been to American Samoa. True, it's every bit the American backwater described by Theroux, but he never hiked the National Park.
I hope this Inception on your part doesn't reach the ears of anyone with decision making power. It's one of the newest parks! Only 23 years old! And you want to kill it already??
The hike from Fagasa to Mt Alava alone is worth the journey, but you will not find more pristine backpacking & beachwalking than this slice of the South Pacific. But you will most probably never know...
I agree with most of the sentiment here, that you shouldn't at all be suggesting we subtract.

I would love to see the Sheyenne National Grasslands turned into a National Park. This 70,000+ acre area in southeastern North Dakota is the U.S.'s largest publicly-owned tallgrass prairie remnant. What's the big deal with tallgrass prairie? It's just the world's most endangered landscape with less than 1% remaining and the home to numerous T&E species. The SNG also has 30-miles of great backpacking on the North Country National Scenic Trail.

There seems to be a bias among many 'backpackers' that for a park to be important it can only be accessed if you are willing/able to hike long miles, stay overnight, etc. Some people don't want to or can't do that, so they need some parks and other recreation areas that are easily accessed--maybe even (gasp) that allow ATVs, rockhounding, etc.

You're missing the point. We should not be retreating when protecting our national lands, but advancing.

You say that "If the NPS is too strapped [for cash]..." we should get rid of 8 parks and replace them with 8 other parks.

While the NPS may be strapped for cash, the US is not. No, rather, our politicians have chosen to make the NPS cash strapped, so they could spend our money elsewhere, various wars and rebates for the very oil companies who want to exploit our collective lands. Among many other things.

Please don't buy into the rhetoric of those who don't care about our national parks if there is a few bucks to be made for their re-election campaigns. By using their language, you are exacerbating the very problem you purport to want to help solve.

I agree that some parks such as Cuyahoga Valley do not have the sweeping vistas and stunning scenery of the western parks but they still have an important role. I backpack in Cuyahoga Valley. More importantly I take our scouts backpacking there. For these kids this is where they get their start backpacking and appreciating the national park system. Its close to home, its accessible on the weekends, they learn Leave No Trace principles and the skills they will use on future trips. More importantly is builds a constituency that values parks, wilderness, and hiking trails. These young men will be voters in a few years. Will they regard parks as some vague far off place that they can hardly connect to? Will they support parks because they had the opportunity to enjoy them often and in a challenging satisfying way?

Our troop is doing a weekend backpack trip this October in Cuyahoga Valley. I'd like to invite the editors of Backpacking Magazine to come with us and experience what the parks can mean to our youth.

Paul Turner
7720 Hartman Road
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281
Scoutmaster Troop 511

I think the NPS realizes that it's too bureaucratic and has too many regulations. I agree with the person who wrote that she avoids Denali for these reasons. I visited in 1995. I felt like I was in Manhattan: towaway zones, honky-tonk pizza parlors near the park entrance, and maybe even a magistrate judge in residence to convict people of this or that.

The NPS seems to be trying to make the national parks more appealing and I applaud its efforts. That is the way to fund all of them and not trade certain parcels for others. (Although the NPS certainly could give away the Eugene O'Neill NHS in Danville, Calif.; it's seldom visited, is not that significant historically, and could be run by the Contra Costa County Historical Society.)

I think the way out for the NPS is to loosen up and allow more mountain biking in the national parks. Fortunately, it's doing that. It has proposed mountain bike and hiking trails at Big Bend Nat'l Park and Mammoth Caves Nat'l Park. Good for it.

Backpacker is an excellent magazine--the Capitol Reef article in the current issue is first-rate, the trail info is unsurpassed, and the dangerous situation flow chart is always entertaining and informative. But one gets the sense that Backpacker's editors don't like the idea of cycling on trails. It's too bad.

How do I detect this? For one, Backpacker seems to go out of its way to mention bicycles as little as possible. For another, the editors have never, as far as I know (I've been a subscriber for years), uttered a peep in favor of mountain biking. Contrast this with Outside Magazine, which in March 2010 editorialized that bicycling should be allowed in Wilderness areas. Quite so, and good for it for saying so.

Antibike ironies abound in the national parks and Wilderness areas (I think about 50% of the NPS landholdings are also Wilderness). Here is one of the long list of rules and restrictions at North Cascades Nat'l Park: "Mountain biking is not permitted on park or forest trails except where developed for that use" (which is nowhere). Meanwhile, horses and packstock "are welcome on trails maintained to stock standards." "Horses can startle easily," of course; "When stock approach, . . . stand on the lower side of the trail."

The truth is that many younger people, whether we like it or not, regard hiking and backpacking to be boring as hell (not the Capitol Reef adventure type described in the current Backpacker, of course, but simply walking through a forest glade) and don't have the money to hire horses and pack animals for luxury excursions. But they love to ride their bikes on trails. The NPS is well ahead of many, including, I would guess, Backpacker magazine, in realizing this. I am optimistic about the NPS's future.

I say all of this, I might add, as someone who has backpacked hundreds of miles. That was earlier in life for the most part, and since then I have mountain biked tens of thousands. Both can be fabulous experiences.

We can only echo the majority voice thundered above. The editor and his staff have proposed a single-minded delusional solution for something that is not an issue. We are backpackers, kayaker/canoists, past climbers, and cavers (and not the tour cave variety). To debase a park because it doesn't achieve your narrow definition of a 'he-man backpacking spot' is to ignore the very basis of providing a venue or series of venues accessible to any and all of the citizens of the world. Yes, world; our parks are not post 'citizens only' and hopefully never will be. Hooray for all those above that defend the park system and declared the 'king to have no clothes'.

I have visited about 20 of the roughly 60 National Parks. I think Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio is the only one that I left wondering why it was a NP? Clearly though...opportunities for backpacking is not really a criteria for a NP. Like others have said, there are others ways to protect the greatest areas. Happy Trails.