I was intrigued by Bob Brown's recent posting about Nat Monuments and Nat Parks. I visited many of these parks/monuments in the South West last year and having developed a lifelong passion am on my way back in a couple of weeks time.

What criteria is used to categorise an area as a N Park or N Monument? For example, I was surprised to read in a posting that Death Valley has recently been upgraded from a monument to a park? To me, given that it's such a vast area, I would have thought there was no question about it that it was a Nat Park? But the size of the area must not come into it? Or does it?

Also, what criteria is used to categorise an area as a State Park as opposed to a National Park? e.e. Dead Horse Point, in S. Utah is a State Park, yet it was right next door to Canyonlands National Park, also in Utah. Why are they so defined? And, did I visit Arches Nat Park, or or Nat Monument?

Clarification would be much appreciated. They're all stunning whatever they're called.
Many thanks folks.

The difference is simple. National Parks are declared by act of Congress, National Monuments are declared by presidential proclamation. It is as simple as that. The fact that one area is a park and another a monument is in no way a reflection of size or beauty, simply how it became part of the National Parks Service system.

Thanks, Paul. It does seem simple. I had no idea about the Acts of Congress or Presidential proclamations on such matters, so, be patient with me as I don't have a handle on your processes, does that mean therefore that if a US President personally thinks a place should be a monument, he and he alone can declare it as such?

Here in the UK we have National Parks and the criteria for defining them thus is quite different and tend to be because such areas are of outstanding natural beauty, or of historical/archeological interest.

Technically, the Antiquities Act governs the criteria for establishing a national monument, and the President is supposed to follow it. However, there has been controversy over misuse of the Act. For example, in 1996, President Clinton established the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, much to the dismay of public officials. The Antiquities Act specifies that monument land must "be confined to the smallest area" necessary to preserve and protect areas or objets. However, Grand Staircase encompasses 1.7 million square acres (not sure if that is precise). Utah officials object because preserving all that land takes away potential economic resources from schools and other communities. As a result, some have been calling for legislation which would allow national monuments to be declared only with authorization of Congress.

Joan you actually pose a good question.
The original idea was that major scenic and or cultural attractions would be designated National Parks by Congress and supervised by the National Park Service. Yellowstone was the first one, but since then the idea has grown to the extent that it may have gotten out of hand. There are many areas that are designated National Something or other, such as historical sites, historical parks, and seashores. When I said that Death Valley had been "upgraded", that might have been a little of a mistaken verb.
Change of classification and status is perhaps more like it.

There are quite a few areas that individual states, acting under the laws of that particular state, have designed as state parks. Some of them are truly outstanding, such as Baxter State Park in Maine. Dead Horse Point park that you referenced in Utah just happened to get there first, before all of Canyonlands was designed as a National Park. So even though it touches on the northern part of Canyon Lands, it is actually a part of the Utah State Parks system.
I was asking about National Monuments because there are so many of them, and as a rule, they tend to be smaller and less spectacular than National Parks. But, they are not without merit and scenic and/or historical reward.

Moreover, there are areas that are beautiful that have no formal designation. Much of Monument Valley isn't a national or state anything, but that does not detract from the scenic beauty of that part of Arizona.

Unfortunately, some of the designated areas are scenic duds as far as I am concerned. I am still trying to figure out how Hot Springs in Arkansas got to be a National Park. There is always politics in anything the government touches.

Just because a tract of land carries a National something or other designation is no guarantee that it is a magnificent place to go. I don't think there is much argument about the National Park designation for Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Glacier, and a couple of others. But some of the others leave me wondering.

To make it more complex, areas of National Forests are designated "wilderness areas" and "primative areas". I am not sure what the distinction between the two might be, but National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture while National Parks are under the Department of the Interior. The two organizations have different ideas about management.

If you check out

www.nps.gov/partner/wact.html

(text of the 1964 Wilderness Act) and you'll find its definition as

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its ommunity of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land
retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

I searched in vain for a definition of a "primitive area," which SEEMS to be an old term for what we would now call wilderness. Or MAYBE we have wilderness in National Forest areas and primitive areas in Bureau Land Management. I couldn't figure it out.

BTW, Monument Valley has no formal U.S. designation because it isn't under U.S. control -- it's on Navajo land.

What a pleasure to read this thread ... no name calling, no assumptions on a poster's part by what another one might have meant,and on and on and on ... and Joan hit the nail on the head when she said that whatever they'll called, there all stunning.

My question - if Congress declares an area a National Park, and the President declares an area a National Monument, who determines what compromises a National Seashore?

Thanks

I went to the NPS website and tried to figure out what was what there. After reading all of the government gobbledegook, I now know who writes the income tax instructions --- the same guys and gals who wrote up that stuff for NPS. No wonder that agency is a fiscal nightmare.

I am curious about something Paul said in his communication above about Navajo Land and any desgination of Monument Valley as a National something or other. I looked at a map of Arizona, and if I interpret it correctly, the Navajo Nation surrounds the Hopi Reservation.
It also extends beyond the borders of the State of Arizona. But within the area that look to me to be within the Navajo territorial bounds, there are three National Monuments: Canyon de Chelly, Navajo, and Rainbow Bridge.
So, more questions than answers here.

I know on our trip to Canyon de Chelly, we were forced to tour the floor of the canyon with Navajo guides and buses.
So I concluded that we were in Navajo Country, even if the canyon is a National Monument.
As for the seashores, parkways and the like, I concluded from the confusing blurb on the NPS website, that these were presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act. But again, that is subject to much review and revision.

I also found a list of National Monuments, identified as such. So that may help my listing, but not my appreciation of what is there. Some of them are really hard to believe. There is one National Monument in northwest Texas that claimed less than 4,000 visitors per YEAR!! That is something on the order of 11 to 12 visitors per day!! (I wonder if the figures were a misprint.)

The issue of who controls what and how on Native American land (like the National Monuments within the Navajo land) -- indeed, the size of the Native land itself -- is subject to negotiation between two sovereign nations: the U.S. and the individual tribes. I guess the U.S. has negotiated national monument designation for some parts of the Navajo nation but, as of yet, not Monument Valley. Apparently a part of these negotiated treaties is a restriction of who can go into private lands within the national monuments. Of course, this is all speculation on my part; I don't really know for sure.

I don't think that visitor info on (presumably) Alibates Flint Quarries Monument is a typo. Please note that the place is (1) protected only because it is an archeological site, and is thus of limited attraction to most visitors; (2) quite far from major population centers; (3) open only during the summer; and (4) visitable only during Ranger-led tours, which take place at 10:00 and 2:00. It is not a place for the casual tourist; you REALLY have to WANT to go there. And how many people want to visit a site with nothing but several archaic flint heads?

Well that answers the question of the Monument in Texas. The description I read was not very complete.
There are a lot of them, with Montezuma's Castle sounding like an interesting place to visit along with Waputki, both in Arizona. We went to Canyon de Chelly the last time we visited the Grand Canyon. Interesting place; and hearing the interpretation from the Navajo side revealed a story that was quite different. I guess the winners usually write the history books.
Anybody been to Chaco in New Mexico??

Contributors to this thread have offered excellent, comprehensive information and explanations. Many thanks to you all.

I wonder if there has ever been a thread on this site where people not only list their favourite National Park/Monument/Wilderness area, but try to explain what it is about the place, that evokes enduring, almost indescribable, emotions and the determination to return (if possible)? I'm not explaining myself too well, but as an example, if I were to try to describe Arches National Park, which I visted in November last year, I think I would almost have to give up after a couple of attempts. OK, I can describe the colours in the 8 am. November sunlight, the silence and the shapes of the rocks, but there is something else about the place which even the most articulate guide books, could never put into words. Trying to do so seems like an injustice to the area.

I should have thought of this a while back as I am returning to the US in a couple of weeks. I have a month this time. Meanwhile, if anyone would like to share ...

Thank you again. Most helpful.

Hi Joan. Over my life I have visited the majority of the National Parks outside of Alaska and Hawaii.
My favorites are: Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Arches, Glacier, and Mesa Verde. But on my list are also the Grand Tetons, Lassen, Ranier, Olympic, Crater Lake, Rocky Mountain, Acadia, the Smokies, Carlsbad Caverns, Mammoth Cave, Kings Canyon/Sequoia, Zion, Capitol Reefs, Canyonlands, Everglades, Petrified Forest, Big Bend, Shenandoah - Skyline Drive, and the North Cascades. So pick one or more and I will be happy to tell you my "take" on the park. I do a lot of photography, with indifferent results, so I have ways to refresh my memory as to what I saw.

I have also visited a few National Monuments, of which Canyon de Chelly is my favorite with Natural Bridges NM and Colorado NM being a close second. But there are many of these I have missed, and that was my hope when I started the original thread. I got a few suggestions.

The one National Park I have missed, outside of Alaska, is Death Valley.
Until this year my only chance to visit was in the summer, and it is simply too hot for me to want to go there then.
It is one of those parks that can be enjoyed best in early spring or late fall when temperatures are not dangerously high. So I may do it in the near future.