I am an avid hiker and believe that there may be room for more U.S. national parks. However, in the story (Illinois Times Feb. 2) on a proposed Shawnee National Park, I noticed some points that need clarifying.
The area now in Shawnee was not all a pristine, untouched area in the 1920-30s. Intensive farming on land not suitable for row crops spurred by the demand for food in World War I resulted in erosion of the hilly terrain, with depleted fields. Franklin Roosevelt promoted the creation of eastern “New Deal Forests” to restore such damaged environments. In 1934 the government began acquiring land from willing sellers and Shawnee National Forest was born. There was no mention in the article that the beautiful forest we have today is the result of just under 90 years of U.S. Forest Service management of a damaged environment. They have not been perfect but they have not been terrible at it either.
The article does not mention the fact that the best 10% of Shawnee (seven areas of about 28,000 acres) has been designated federally protected wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Federally designated wilderness (whether in a national park, forest, wildlife refuge or Bureau of Land Management land is protected from development. In addition, there are 80 other designated areas in the forest that protect significant natural and cultural resources. Becoming a national park may not enhance protection of these areas.
The article presents some arguments by the U.S. Forest Service that a national park designation would result in less land management and a takeover by invasive species. In reality most national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges and many Bureau of Land Management areas have invasive species management plans.
The park proponents are focused on the term “national park” as though any lesser designation is insignificant. I lived for one year 12 miles north of the Buffalo National River in Arkansas. This part of the U.S. National Park system preserves 135 miles of the most beautiful river in the Ozarks. With the third largest wilderness east of the Rockies, it is perhaps my favorite national park area, but it does not have the name national park. So if parts of the Shawnee Hills are named a “national monument” or “national preserve,” I am fine. By the way, the U.S. Forest Service manages five national monuments.
The article alluded to but did not make clear that while there are some large tracts of forest land owned by the government, much land in the national forest boundaries is still privately owned with smaller government-owned tracts interspersed among them. These small tracts would not necessarily be appropriate for national park designation and continued management of these areas by the U.S. Forest Service may be the best option.
All this being said, I think some portions of the Shawnee Hills merit study as a potential part of the national park system. It is likely that the best model for consideration would be a multi-unit park, like Saguaro in Arizona and Theodore Roosevelt in North Dakota. Both parks preserve the best natural, non-contiguous areas in a region under one park administration.
For a Shawnee Hills National Park, a feasible western unit would include the Bald Knob and Clear Spring Wilderness, La Rue Pine Hills Natural Area, Little Grand Canyon and Pomona Natural Bridge and the government-owned property connecting them.
There are three potential eastern units. One would be the Burden Falls and Bay Creek Wilderness to Bell Smith Springs and adjoining Forest Service property. Another could be the Lusk Creek Wilderness area and adjacent Forest Service property. Finally there is the Garden of the Gods Wilderness and the Forest Service property extending to the Pounds Hollow/Camp Cadiz area.
I encourage your readers to make some time to visit these areas, form their own opinions regarding the future of the Shawnee Hills and let their federal representatives and senators know your opinion.
Stephen Soltys of Springfield is a retired physician who loves to hike and canoe (he wore a hole in a Coleman canoe after 30 years) and encourages you to vacation in southern Illinois.
This article appears in Emergency response under scrutiny.
