Refocusing National Parks To Encourage Visits?

Apparently some national parks are not getting the number of visitors that ought to be expected. So, the National Parks Service is looking to refresh exhibits and adjust the focus.

I'm not sure that this is a good thing. It's one thing to showcase history and culture of a particular site, but to completely change the focus of Gettysburg National Park from one detailing the battle that occurred there to one on slavery is disingenuous at best.

From Florida to California, the Park Service has brought minority children from cities to places they've never seen, hoping they will return with their parents. To make its staff more reflective, it has begun recruiting high school students for summer jobs that can be the springboard to a career.

And it looks for ways to make historical exhibits like those at Gettysburg National Military Park more relevant, refocusing on the role of slavery in the Civil War rather than battle strategy.

"We need to get beyond the 'Field of Dreams' notion, 'OK, we've built it and they will come.' They may come and they may not," said Harpers Ferry spokeswoman Marsha Wassel. "But we know for certain that when people have an understanding of something, they can reach a greater degree of caring. ... They can become stewards. They can help fight for us."

Surveys have found Hispanics and blacks are far less likely to visit the parks and far more likely to describe them as uncomfortable places. It's a problem of relevancy that, if left uncorrected, may lead to a day when taxpayers will decide they no longer value and are unwilling to fund preservation of the nation's historical and natural treasures, Barna says.

As Mrs. Lawhawk and I were going through Painted Desert and Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, one of the park wardens noted that there was a reason that the parks had so many fenced off areas that limited access - to preserve the land for posterity, but that it also prevented Americans who own that land collectively from ever setting foot on it.

It's one of those delicate balancing acts. Preservation versus access. And in many cases, the preservationists have won out.

We've gone to quite a few national parks/monuments since we've been married - Muir Woods, Alcatraz, Golden Gate, Joshua Tree, Presidio of SF, Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, Capitol Reef, Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Everglades, Biscayne, Saguaro, Painted Desert, Vermilion Cliffs, Walnut Canyon, Montezuma's Castle/Well, Casa Grande, Cedar Breaks, Grand Staircase-Escalante, Mount Rainier, Olympic, the DC and Boston parks and monuments, and quite a few others out West, and we've found them to be nothing short of exhilarating. As we've gone during off-season or shoulder season, we didn't really fight crowds, but many of those who were there were from overseas.

We make a point of planning our trips around visiting at least one national park per trip. Usually, it's more like 3-4.

Here, we're talking about changing the focus of national park exhibits to reflect current tastes, rather than the history that occurred there. I think that's a serious mistake.

Frankly, I think that many Americans take the national parks for granted regardless of color or background, and that's a shame.

If you're in the Northeast and you want to hit national parks, there are quite a few to choose from. You don't even have to go all that far to hit them in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. Gateway National Recreation Area has some amazing sights, including nesting areas for migratory birds within view of the Empire State Building.