Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 4:
LAND ISSUES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

PARK VERSUS MONUMENT: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The creation of Craters of the Moon as a national monument rather than a national park is a theme that has relevance throughout the area's history. Changing the status from monument to park has arisen several times since Craters of the Moon's designation, raising the question of standards and what defines a national park. Traditionally, parks preserved only the most sublime tracts of the western landscape. Parks were large natural areas, diverse, panoramic, and pristine. They were the best of the best: the "crown jewels" of Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier. [81] Whether Craters fit into this category has been the subject of some debate. Monuments by virtue of the Antiquities Act were to protect specific natural and cultural sites of scientific and historical value within a small area. How the monument rated in beauty, natural diversity, and size has formed important elements of the discussion, not just as a matter of principle, but because many equate park status with increased tourism and national recognition. For these reasons, Idaho residents have periodically lobbied for redesignation of Craters of the Moon as a national park.

That monuments could become parks grew out of the expansion of the National Park System. When adding new parks, the Service inconsistently adhered to its espoused standards and opened the door for exceptions. Interpretation of the Antiquities Act, with its broad language, led to a wide range monument types and sizes in the early 20th century, blurring the distinction between monument and park classification. This occurred because the creation of parks was subject to the will of Congress and often met with congressional delays. The 1906 legislation, on the other hand, bestowed upon the president the power to establish monuments, bypassing lengthy and costly political battles. The Park Service's two energetic and resourceful leaders, Stephen T. Mather and Horace M. Albright, often employed the monument category as a storehouse for threatened lands meeting political opposition as national parks. Grand Canyon, Zion, and Acadia national parks, for example, began as national monuments; once political conditions were favorable, they were upgraded to national parks. Application of the monument designation in this manner clouded classification standards and how the Park Service viewed the role and value of monuments in general. [82]

Most of the parklands created from monuments were "parks-in-waiting." Characterized by spectacular scenery and size, they overshadowed a conglomeration of smaller areas presenting an archaeological, historical, or geological theme. When these elite sites were gone, the remaining monuments were relegated to a "second-class" distinction; administratively, they suffered from inadequate funding and neglect. Focused on collecting more jewels for the park crown, the Park Service overlooked the needs of monuments in the process. The federal reorganization of 1933 consolidated the administration of national monuments under one agency, the Department of the Interior, for the first time, granting them better management and a higher station. Even so, the past was hard to shake. And the popular view throughout Park Service history, it seems, is that park status confers more prestige and importance on an area. [83]

The limited historical documentation surrounding its designation suggests that Craters of the Moon did not experience the monument-park type of tactical maneuvering. There is no evidence that the monument's establishment was embroiled in controversy. The government carved the area's boundaries out of a remote, uncharted section of the public domain deemed economically worthless. Moreover, the area's characteristics fell within the guidelines of the Antiquities Act. The volcanic phenomena were compressed within a small geographic range. Simply put, Craters of the Moon was a monument to geology.

There never seems to have been any question about Craters of the Moon's distinction from the start. Early resolutions, for example, emphasized setting the site aside as a monument. Director Stephen Mather concurred when he discussed the area's merits in terms of how well they matched the Antiquities Act's provisions for scientific values. Congressman Addison T. Smith, who thought highly of the area, favored monument over park status as a political expedient. Furthermore, as the activities of men like Robert Limbert attest, protection was more important than classification.

Yet the monument was not entirely free of discussion over park status. In the four years after the monument's designation, talk surfaced about the possibility of upgrading the area to a national park. The seeds of reclassification had been planted in the creation era when some supporters had pictured an area measuring 250 square miles. Not surprisingly, when news of the 1925 and 1926 surveys and expansion plans surfaced, Arco residents grew excited hoping that the monument's enlargement would lead to its conversion into a park. In October 1926, the Advertiser noted that Stearns had discovered new and extensive features, such as tree molds and caves, adding greatly to the monument's significance. To protect these discoveries, the monument might be enlarged by as much as one hundred square miles. These new developments, the paper concluded, made "the monument of such importance that he [Stearns] will recommend that the Monument be made a National Park." [84] Reclassification would bring increased Park Service attention in the form of appropriations, maintenance, and administration. Primarily, though, it would bring increased importance and recognition to the region.

Harold Stearns' enlargement report of March 1927, however, contained no recommendations for altering the monument's classification. One last attempt occurred in December 1927. Addison Smith proposed "to introduce a measure in congress [sic] at the present session to have this change take place." [85] Despite this announcement, no legislation entered the federal record, and when the monument's size was increased in 1928, its classification remained the same. Presumably, the same reasons which applied in 1924 carried weight four years later.

Although Craters of the Moon received little opposition, addressed either as a monument or as a park, the national park idea was not cast about casually in Idaho. Idaho is the only western state without a national park. Reasons for this can be seen in the near century-long debates over the Sawtooth national park proposals. They evince the strength of the state's powerful mining, timber, and grazing lobbies to oppose any infringement on resources perceived to be exploitable. Hardly the rival of the Sawtooths in scenery or resources, Craters of the Moon has nevertheless been the focus of discussion for Idaho's first national park. Within the last two decades, the debate over national park classification has resurfaced, raising many of the same issues discussed in the 1920s.