Cover Page

Contents

Preface
Letter

SECTION I

Orientation
Summary

SECTION II

History
Needs
Geography
Historic Sites
Competitors
Economic Aspects

SECTION III

Federal Lands
State and Interstate
Local

SECTION IV

Division of Responsibility
Local
State
Federal
Circulation

SECTION V

Educational Opportunities

State Holdings of the Monument Type

Widespread Lack of Definitions.—As has been previously stated, many holdings which do not meet the popular and fairly definite concept of what a State park should be have been accorded State park status. Many of these do contain features or objects of considerable historic, prehistoric, or scientific importance, which would undoubtedly merit national monument status.

Connecticut, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, and Oregon are among the States which make no particular distinction between properties of this sort and their larger scenic and active recreation areas, New York, Massachusetts, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, and California have set up separate classifications for them—monuments, memorials, preserves, or reservations.

The Properties Themselves.—A number of States have included properties of extraordinary interest and value. California's State monuments are valuable reminders of her colorful and exciting history. Ohio has acquired such prized possessions as the Great Serpent Mound, reputed to be the greatest effigy mound in existence; the extensive prehistoric earthworks of Fort Ancient; and a considerable group of mound-builder and more recent sites of significance. Most of Pennsylvania's State parks—Fort Necessity (the fort itself is Federal property), a battlefield site; Washington Crossing; Bushy Run; and Valley Forge—are primarily of historical importance. New York has an extensive collection of properties which help to make vivid her part in history—particularly Revolutionary history. North Dakota's State parks are largely of the historical monument type, as are several of Minnesota's. Indiana has a group of memorials, small but of considerable variety, in which the Lanier Home—the restored and completely furnished home of an Indiana banker of the middle of the last century—is unique. Illinois' historical and archeological properties are fairly numerous and varied.

Administration.—In every State but one, Ohio, properties of this sort are administered by the same agency as administers State parks. This is true in New York, where the State Council of Parks in 1929 made the following recommendation:

"Sites which are primarily historical and scientific should not be administered by the State park authorities which lack the interest and knowledge to care for them." They "should be transferred to the education department as soon as the legislature can make provision for a bureau of historic and scientific places in that department." ³

---

³ Principles Governing the New York State Park and Parkway System and Rules for the Extension of the System Adopted by the State Council of Parks, New York State Conservation Department, 1929, p. 6.

---

In interesting contrast with this recommendation is the declaration of Richard Lieber, that the man who lacks a lively sense of history is unfitted to administer State parks⁴—a conclusion based on the conviction that almost any State park possesses some historical values which need to be brought out, if the park is to be of greatest usefulness.

---

⁴ City Planning, the American City Planning Institute, the National conference on State Planning, quarterly publication, Augusta, Maine, October 1934, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 154.

---

In general, the technique of handling historical, archeological, and scientific properties is still in its infancy in addition, it must be said that there is considerable lack of interest in them by many of those entrusted with their administration. There appears to be, with a few exceptions, little disposition on the part of the States to recognize the special problems they present, and to provide specially qualified personnel to handle them and to bring out their public values.

Recreational Use.—Lack of distinction between holdings of the monument type and State parks has naturally resulted in lack of distinction in use. This has shown itself particularly in the tendency to place active recreation uses on monument areas which are badly suited to them. These tend all too often to lower or to overshadow the chief values of such properties. Such use also is not unlikely to result in neglect of the needs of the surrounding population for genuinely adequate recreational facilities.

Holdings of the monument type have a high recreational or leisure-time value, but it is one that is derived from seeing and studying. The stimulus they provide should be primarily intellectual and spiritual.

Continued >>>

Last Modified: Fri, Sep. 5, 2003 10:32:22 am PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/recreational_use/chap3-2a.htm