As much as I love the rugged splendor of the Pinnacles National
Monument, I had some qualms when I first heard that South Valley
Congressman Sam Farr wants to reclassify the wilderness area as
a
”
national park.
”
But after pondering Farr’s idea, I believe his name change
notion might be just what America needs to preserve its
federally-managed parks.
As much as I love the rugged splendor of the Pinnacles National Monument, I had some qualms when I first heard that South Valley Congressman Sam Farr wants to reclassify the wilderness area as a “national park.” But after pondering Farr’s idea, I believe his name change notion might be just what America needs to preserve its federally-managed parks.
If passed, Farr’s bill (HR 3444) would put the Pinnacles on the A-list of America’s nature-oriented tourist attractions. But I found myself wondering why our local representative believes the Pinnacles ranks on the same echelon as Yosemite, Yellowstone and Grand Canyon national parks. At 14,500 acres, the relatively small and unknown Pinnacles just doesn’t seem to possess the same jaw-dropping grandeur or the postcard photo opportunities of Half Dome, Old Faithful or a mile-deep ditch in Arizona.
Changing the classification status of the Pinnacles would not add one iota to the other-worldly magnificence of the craggy volcanic rock formations which give the southern San Benito County national monument its name. And the famous California condors that make their home at the Pinnacles would not gain any additional protection from the new designation.
The main selling point for Farr’s name-change idea seems to be a matter of marketing. “Pinnacles National Park” simply sounds a whole lot sexier than “Pinnacles National Monument.”
About 3.4 million people visit Yosemite National Park annually. Compare that to the 167,000 who trek to the Pinnacles National Monument each year. How many more people might visit the Pinnacles if it became listed in the national parks catalog? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
With an effective advertising campaign, San Benito County merchants could use the new national park status to lure vacationers and daytrippers to the South Valley region. Tourists visiting Monterey or San Francisco might have a hankering to see America’s newest national park nearby. And all those tourists will need food, gasoline and lodging – necessities the business people in Hollister and San Juan Bautista will gladly provide in exchange for monetary compensation.
As much as I want to support the economic development of San Benito County, my conscience just can’t justify Farr’s Pinnacles proposal on a money-making scheme basis alone. The United States is blessed with plenty of other natural wonders equally worthy of being re-named as national parks.
Farr also notes that the Pinnacles has “historical significance for the state” and “it provides an important refuge for the California condor.” I still cannot support his proposal based on those two considerations. Sure. There’s the romantic legend that the bandit Tiburcio Vasquez hid his treasure trove of stolen gold somewhere in the Pinnacles – and all that bullion still remains waiting to be found. But the monument’s cultural and geological history has little “significance” compared to other regions of California. I also can’t comprehend Farr’s reasoning that the Pinnacles serving now as a sanctuary for birds with 8-foot wing-spans supports the need to turn it into a national park.
Despite the fact that Farr’s arguments for making the Pinnacles a national park are weak, I do strongly agree with his rebranding scheme. Blame documentary filmmaker Ken Burns for changing my mind. Burns’ latest public TV documentary is devoted to showing viewers the history and majesty of U.S. National Parks. Bay Area author and conservationist Wallace Stegner once described these federal parks as “America’s best idea.”
The National Park Service was established in 1916 with the mission “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same … as will leave them unimpaired for future generations.” The success of the idea led almost 100 other countries to create about 1,200 national parks outside the United States.
America’s national parks safeguard our wilderness heritage. Unfortunately, many of our elected officials show little concern for preserving these national treasures for future generations. Cutbacks in funding have caused the national park service to suffer a deficit of more than $8 billion – money needed to repair roads, crumbling bridges, buildings, trails and other amenities.
That shortsightedness in caring for our national parks impacts communities – especially rural communities. A study done in 2003 looked at California’s 23 national parks and found that they generated $1.18 billion in total spending and created 30,000 jobs. They also generated $514 million in personal income.
I hope Congressman Farr’s proposal of renaming Pinnacles as a national park might inspire the upgrading of other federally-managed wilderness areas. Creating more national parks would promote a greater public appreciation for our wild lands. That would encourage more of us to visit these “crown jewels,” making us more appreciative of how valuable these natural wonders are to our national legacy. That, in turn, would lead us to maintain and preserve our nation’s parks for future Americans.
