I bring this article to your attention because the National Park Service is looking to possibly add as many as 40 new park units to the NPS System. Nearly every single one of these units are historical sites.
I have to ask though, in this time of mounting public debt, and limited resources allocated to existing national parks, should the NPS really be taking on additional properties?
Let me invoke two names: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. No, I'm not making the argument that these proposed sites be excluded from the NPS based on the limited government principles they espoused during the founding of the country. Although I believe those arguments to be valid in this instance, I'm actually citing their names in relation to their homes. Although both of these founding fathers loom far larger in the historical context of this country than many, if not all of the proposed units, neither Montpelier or Monticello are within the national park system. Neither is Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington.
I'm sure there's historical value in every one of the proposed sites, thus making their preservation necessary. However, why not put the burden of preservation on the state, county or private investors? If each of these sites are indeed worthy of preservation, shouldn't they be able to stand on their own without national park status? Shouldn't they be able to attract enough visitors and donations from the people that place the highest value on these places to ensure their preservation?
My point is that if Montpelier, Monticello, Mount Vernon and countless other historical sites can stand on their own without the help of national park status, why can't these proposed units do the same?
To me it seems that the National Park Service is deviating much too far from its mission.
Jeff
HikingintheSmokys.com
Hiking Tours