Talk:National Park Service

message: I suggest that along with the budget section there should be an "income" section which details how much money the park service collects in fees and other income. This would provide a clearer picture as to the overall cost of the park service, whether it is revenue neutral, and which parks operative at an effective profit.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.44.133 (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Income 

message: There are many books sold in most of the National Parks that "contradict science".  You'll find them in the appropriately labeled inspiration section, or cultural history section.  Why bring up this one item which is related to the discredited press release from that PEER group which apparently lied that the Park Service employees were told not to tell the age of the Grand Canyon?  I'd suggest removing this entire section if that is the finest example of National Park Service controversy anyone can drag up.  --207.154.79.131 11:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Wikipedia is based on consensus.  I think the whole section should be removed from this article.  If anything, it belongs at Grand Canyon National Park or Grand Canyon, but not in this article for the whole Park Service. Nationalparks 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  This section is irrelevant to the article's scope.--Son of thunder 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree.  Snowmobiles, personal watercraft, the USPP chief, there are so many other controversies that this is a red herring.  The whole section should go.  If anybody really feels that strongly about this information being in Wikipedia, a whole other article could be created for just that topic if one really wanted to do due dilligence and include a representative sampling of "controversies" over the years in addition to this relative footnote.Shoreranger 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy?

message: The Criteria section states that "Parks may be established in either of two ways: by an Act of Congress or an Executive Order of the President under the Antiquities Act. Most have been established by an Act of Congress with the Presdident confirming the action by signing the Act into law." Is this really true? I thought that a national park could be established only by an act of Congress. The Antiquities Act (see the Antiquities Act page) is used only to establish national monuments, never national parks. National monuments can, of course, be administered by the National Park Service, among other organizations.
If what I've said is true, then the sentences I quoted should be emended. The simplest way would be to change "Parks" to "Park units." Another option would be, "A national park is established by an Act of Congress, with the President signing the Act into law. A national monument is established by an Executive Order of the President under the Antiquities Act. A national [whatever] is established by..." etc.
Would someone who knows better than I do please comment?
Thanks. Sharon Leigh Wilson (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How national parks are established 

message: In the "Classification as of 2003" table in the "Nomenclature" section, national historic trails are not mentioned. According to the National Historic Trail page, there are 18 of these (15 in 2003). This table also says that there are three national scenic trails. According to the National Scenic Trail page, there are 11 (8 in 2003). Still, I'm reluctant to update these two aspects of this table, because that would affect the total number of units and the total acreage.
Advice? Thanks. Sharon Leigh Wilson (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  national historic trails and national scenic trails 

message: This continuing insistence by the NPS to rewrite history is unbelievable.  Hot Springs was established in 1832 as a "national park" by an act of Congress.  The legendary Stephen Mather himself stated that Hot Springs was the first National Park.
The National Park Service Portfolio, written by Robert Sterling Yard, published by the National Park Service, and printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office in 1921, lists a basic chart of National Parks on page 6, "Chronologically in order of their creation." Hot Springs is listed first.  
And on page 229:  "The reservation [Hot Springs] is the oldest national park, having received that status in 1832, forty years before the wonders of the Yellowstone first inspired Congress with the idea that scenery was a national asset deserving of preservation for the use and enjoyment of succeeding generations."
All references to Yellowstone as the first NP are incorrect. Rickbolger (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/Oldest National Park 

message: Okay, how do we count the 1st?  Hot Springs Reservation was initially created by an act of the United States Congress on April 20, 1832, (Wikipedia article Hot Springs National Park), but was redesignated In 1921, by act of Congress, the site's name was changed from the Hot Springs Reservation to the Hot Springs National Park.(Wikipedia article Hot Springs National Park).  Thus does designation as a 'Reservation' count as a national park?  If so, how do you handle, The idea for the National Mall was originally conceived by Pierre Charles L'Enfant in his plans for the city of Washington, D.C., created in 1791. (Widipedia article National Mall)?  It was created in 1791?  Meanwhile, Yosemite National Park claims to be the 1st because A park bill passed both houses of the U.S. Congress, and was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on June 30, 1864, creating the Yosemite Grant. (Wikipedia article Yosemite National Park).  
So, now which is the 1st?  Yellowstone gets credit for being the 1st park set aside with the idea that 'superlative scenary' should be set aside for the nations enjoyment.  Not for practical purposes, i.e., Hot Springs medicial uses, nor grants to states for 'local' protection.  The concept, not so much the area, which lead to a 'National Park ethic' seems to have occured in 1872, not previously.  Yes, you can make all kinds of arguments for other parks, but If you think it's settled with Hot Springs, don't talk to the people in Washington, who work and play on the National Mall.  After all, in another generation, park names may again change and Hot Springs may not be a national park.  Check out Mackinac Island, it too could lay claim to being a first.  First to have been and now gone.
Following the Civil War, the island became a popular tourist destination for residents of cities on the Great Lakes. Much of the federal land on Mackinac Island was designated as Mackinac National Park in 1875, just three years after Yellowstone was designated as the first national park.
. . . When the federal government left the island in 1895, all of the federal land, including Fort Mackinac, was given to the state of Michigan and became Michigan's first state park.
 (Wikipedia Mackinac Island)  (Chris Light (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal Oldest National Park 

message: I've looked at the categories and wonder why this article is included in the Forestry in the United States, the Forest services (national), and Logging categories.  Neither topic is addressed in the National Park Service Article, nor are the types of work, science, agencies, nor individuals listed associated with the National Park Service.  This is a tradition among the U.S. Forest Service of a fight between Gifford Pinchot of the Department of Agriculture and the secretary of the Department of the Interior. See the Pinchot-Ballinger Controversy article. 
I propose to remove these three category labels to de-link the National Park Service Article from forestry related articles.
{Chris Light (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: In National Park Service#Nomenclature, it says there are 74 national monuments, but both List of areas in the United States National Park System#National Monmuents and List of National Monuments of the United States include 75 NPS National Monuments. I don't want to fix the number on this page though because the total would then be 393, which I don't think is right. Can anyone clarify? Reywas92Talk
=== corrected ===
I've corrected the number in the List of areas in the United States National Park System#National Monmuents and List of National Monuments of the United States to show the current number posted by the NPS. It also happens to be the number of sites listed in this article.  That's 74, not 75 as originally noted in the other articles.  Thanks  Chris Light (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of National Monuments 

message: I've corrected the number in the List of areas in the United States National Park System#National Monmuents and List of National Monuments of the United States to show the current number posted by the NPS. It also happens to be the number of sites listed in this article.  That's 74, not 75 as originally noted in the other articles.  Thanks  Chris Light (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrected 

message: I updated the section on the national trails system.  The system also includes national recreation trails, and there is now a national geologic trail so I added this info and noted the fact that new trails have been added since the system's inception.  I also deleted the list of trails.  This list in the article was out of date and if you updated it it would be pretty long.  I don't think you need the list as other designations are not listed out that way in the article, and some trails are not even run by the park service.  If someone feels strongly about having them listed you could do it, but it needs to be updated in any case but I don't see why a list is necessary for this article which is on the park service.  I also deleted an image, the caption of which said it had something to do with the national trails system.  The sign, however, is just a picture of the NPS logo in sign form and has nothing to do specifically with national trails.  Since the NPS logo is already at the top of the main article, I don't think it needs to be duplicated.  For the record, the national trails system has a logo, see link below.  I'm not sure if this logo is official or if it was created by the nonprofit org The Partnership for the National Trails System. 
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/recreation/natl-trails-system-40-years-celebration.jpg
MDuchek (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trails system 

message: Second paragraph under sub-heading Climate Friendly Parks, the first sentence (as extracted, below) is a jumble.  Anyone know what was being attempted?   GeeBee60 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Friendly Parks some edit help 

message: The celebration in the 2016 Rose Parade was reported in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, of all places almost two years ago on January 16, 2013. Socalphoto (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Centennial in 2016

message: I appreciate the effort to improve discussion of concessions in the parks, but I've removed and modified a couple of the sections. The section about concessions in Glacier NP imputed an unsourced connection between two events contrary to WP:SYNTH and was partially sourced to a personal WordPress blog. The section about Xanterra's Grand Canyon NP lawsuit is WP:NOTNEWS; we don't include every single lawsuit ever filed by or against someone in their encyclopedia article, and given that Xanterra was later awarded the contract anyway, it doesn't seem to merit space in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concessions-related material 

message: Someone needs to mention the twitter account of the NPS being deactivated by the new administration. Maplesyrupcan (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Drmies. Not really a notable event for the NPS as a whole. Bahooka (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw today that their Twitter was restored. No doubt harsh words were spoken, haha. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the text, then noticed this discussion.  Whatever your feelings about Trump, this is not a newspaper, and the "rogue Twitter account" is beyond the scope of this article.  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal; while the incident might belong in a more detailed historical article such as History of the National Park Service, it's not likely at this point to merit space in the main encyclopedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitter account 

message: - Adding a section detailing the demographics of people who make a visit to national parks on an annual basis (race, sex, etc)
- Add more detail to accessibility, possibility highlighting the benefits of access to a national park
ZephyrBlade (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to Expand Visitation/ Accessibility  

message: "America's Best Idea" should NOT redirect here -- I wanted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Parks:_America%27s_Best_Idea
Fixed Reywas92Talk 05:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirection from "America's Best Idea" 

message: On another page, the page preview for this article (National Park Service) appears without text. The image does show, but the entire area that's supposed to contain the start of the article is empty. There's probably something going on with templates taking over the "top" of the article and thus the page preview. 110521sgl (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page preview text not showing