For Southern Illinois and the climate, Shawnee National Park is the ‘next logical step’

This is probably a good idea especially if Illinois does not have any National Parks, which I did not realize was the case. I'm in favor of tougher regulations on natural areas in general, though so much of the enviro movement forms opinions based on vibes that I'm automatically skeptical of high-level conservation proposals. The article title refers to "the climate" but the article itself doesn't elaborate on environmental benefits.

My immediate question was this: does a national park have significantly different environmental protection regulations than a national forest? Other than the name of the department responsible for maintaining it, what is the actual environmental effect of changing the designation? I see how this could be a tourism boost, which could have indirect enviro benefits, but the name alone is exclusively marketing. More funding can directly improve park conditions (are Shawnee's lacking?), but at least some of that goes to people-focused and not climate-focused initiatives, like bigger visitors centers to accommodate more visitors.

The article says:

Since recent studies show that the moister eastern deciduous forests are among the most efficient at sequestering carbon, the timing is perfect. The National Forest Services manages for the production of board feet of lumber. The National Park Service manages for the preservation of the amazing aforementioned natural areas.

Emphasis mine. OK, if vague. "Lumber" is obviously destructive at industrial scale, but is not automatically climate evil. Management of natural spaces often means doing things that aren't intuitive, like cutting down trees in over-dense areas. (If we aren't going to allow wildfires due to safety concerns, some of the trees have to go. And some species are invasive and need to be managed to avoid crowding out native species.) If we're cutting them down anyway, lumber is often an acceptable use. Eco-sensitive lumberjacks will not raze entire acres of woodland, they will focus on individual trees.

I guess I don't know enough about how the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture manage logging to make a meaningful comment on this particular case. If anyone has more information on actual forestry practices in these areas, I would be interested in learning about them.

The National Park Service says:

National parks emphasize strict preservation of pristine areas. They focus on protecting natural and historic resources "unimpaired for future generations."

National forests, on the other hand, emphasize not only resource preservation, but also other kinds of use. Under this concept of "multiple use," national forests are managed to provide Americans with a wide variety of services and commodities: lumber, cattle grazing, mineral products, and recreation (with and without vehicles).

For example, national parks usually forbid hunting, while national forests usually allow it. Dogs are typically permitted on national forest trails, but not those in many national parks. National forests may provide trails for motorcycles; national parks do not. Both agencies have designated wilderness. In these areas, both agencies strive for maximum protection of natural landscapes.

Preface: the vibes of seeing an area that one believes to be "wilderness" are great, but "pristine/untouched wilderness" as a concept is a somewhat Romantic notion that doesn't reeeeally exist in the contiguous 48 (actually, most/any places on Earth), contrary to popular belief, even in remote places. Especially in a National Park with trails. If the goal is vibes, which it seems to be if the main argument in favor is bringing in more vibe-seeking tourists, then that's OK, but this is different than protecting an area for strictly environmental reasons.

If "both areas have designated wilderness," then that at least kind of eliminates the emissions sink issue? Even if not, only some portions of the park are going to be used for lumber at any particular time; the rest will still be sequestering carbon. If the goal is specifically to maintain a forest for lumber (and maybe have cattle graze there temporarily while there are no trees), rather than cut down a forest to use for cattle grazing permanently, that is on the sustainable end of the industrial spectrum. (Better that there are fewer cattle to begin with, but I'm not sure that is exactly relevant to Shawnee's designation.)

The original article doesn't claim this, but if the distinction is really just hunting for "vibes" reasons, I have always thought that hunting for overpopulated animals in human-adjacent areas is both necessary and useful, considering we have eliminated all their natural predators. I don't know southern Illinois so well, but many places east of the Mississippi have a huge deer problem. If the NPS will manage population levels themselves instead of letting private hunters do it, great, but that doesn't speak to me as a climate reason for a designation change.

"Trail" and "motorcycle" seem incompatible to me, but I see the environmental benefit of limiting vehicle access in sensitive areas. Exhaust fumes are one, noise is perhaps the bigger issue for wildlife, and other things like tire dust particulates also matter. More than that, maintaining extra roads exclusively for non-productive vehicles has an obvious environmental impact. But even National Parks have gravel full-width fire roads so maybe that's not so relevant. I think that the motivation for this one is more vibes/"experience of wilderness" than climate, but TBH I'm a little surprised personal/non-productive vehicles are allowed in any National Forest.

IMO, whether or not a dog is allowed on a trail is also a matter of "vibes" more than meaningful impact.

To me, the bigger issue is "mineral products." Modern mining methods are incredibly destructive. They strip away topsoil, destroy the natural landscape and affect drainage patterns, and make it difficult for plants to regrow in the future, possibly for multiple decades. (In contrast, you can have a healthy enough forest on non-mined land much faster. "Old growth" forests take over a century to develop on pristine land, but that isn't a prerequisite for biodiversity.) But it is not clear from the article whether mining is relevant to Shawnee National Forest.

If anyone has insight into the specifics of how Shawnee's land is currently used, that would be informative.