Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 8:
INTERPRETATION

THE 1935 MUSEUM PROSPECTUS

A significant development in the evolving interpretive program took place with Shepherd at the monument. He and Bicknell drafted a report titled the "Proposed Museum and Educational Program at the Craters of the Moon National Monument," in response to the National Park Service's growing educational program development and the establishment of a Museum Division in 1935. [9] Bicknell and Shepherd stated that the monument needed a museum and educational program: "first, to preserve and display specimens of unusual scientific importance and public interest; second, to explain the natural phenomena of the Monument; and third, to fill the growing demand of the public for education." In summarizing the deficiencies in the existing program, they struck a familiar chord, noting that "these needs are inadequately met due to improper facilities and insufficient personnel." With respect to museum collections, preservation, and presentation, only Paisley's "crude specimens table" was available, and it did not protect fine specimens from exposure to weather, mishandling and possibly theft by the public. Moreover, the small display case lacked enough space to hold the entire collection, which had increased in number, nor was there a "satisfactory way in which to label and explain these specimens other than verbally." [10]

As for the educational program, that was "being carried on as well as possible under existing limits of time and personnel." It was in fact better than it had ever been with the addition of Shepherd. Both he and Bicknell interacted with visitors as much as possible, explaining the specimens in the collection, answering questions, and orienting them to the monument's sites. Visitors expressed their appreciation of this type of instruction, claiming that it enhanced the value of their visit. Other contributions to the program were covered in campfire and field lectures, mainly by the seasonal ranger. In any case, due to rising visitation and small staff, some visitors were overlooked, while those who received assistance desired more in-depth instruction or field guidance. The two men concluded that the value and necessity of an educational program was beyond question.

The experience thus far gained has proved conclusively the potential value of an educational program which would enable visitors to hear talks either in an open-air theater, at campfires, or at various places on the loop road thru the Monument. The demand for literature and maps has also increased to the point where apologies are needed to explain their lack. [11]

The principal feature of the proposed program was the construction of a museum building. The ten-room structure would house exhibits of geology, natural history, some cultural history, as well as library and new ranger-naturalist's office and living quarters. Having the naturalist stationed at the museum building would facilitate visitor contact. In this regard, the naturalist would be on duty twenty-four hours a day. The museum building would function as the central orientation point for tourists, and the exhibits would be supplemented with explanatory labels, thus relieving the shortcomings in the educational services already provided. [12] "We also believe that in so doing," Shepherd and Bicknell stated, "we are furthering the extensive educational program inaugurated by the National Park Service to develop the cultural instincts of the public." [13]

But the prospectus was just that and remained in "preliminary status," joining other study plans from other parks at the Branch of Plans and Design in the late 1930s. While the museum and educational program remained in the design stage, the monument's interpretive services waxed and waned. In 1936, for instance, funding allowed for hiring two temporary rangers, further increasing public contacts. However positive this appeared, the end of the New Deal programs and entrance into World War II diminished funding and seasonal staffing, and hence diminished hope that Craters of the Moon would receive the needed facilities and personnel to build its program. Regional Director O.A. Tomlinson's opinion that the monument was self-operating in 1943--requiring only minimal staffing and few physical improvements--caused the monument's interpretive program to suffer further setbacks. [14]

Despite setbacks and delay the Park Service continued to plan for developing the educational and museum program at the monument. Assistant Director Hillory A. Tolson called for Craters of the Moon to be included in the Museum Exhibit Planning Program for 1948. [15] Renewed emphasis only engendered the same response. In 1949 Superintendent Aubrey F. Houston reported, for instance, that preservation of museum objects was basically in the same status it had been for almost thirty years. Underscoring the area's deficiencies in this aspect of management, Houston refused to submit a priority list for museum projects in July 1950 because the monument had no museum. The superintendent suggested to the regional director that the agency begin again with another comprehensive museum prospectus and include a museum building in the monument's development plans for the 1952 season. [16]

At this same time interpretation assumed new importance in the Park Service, [17] and its effect was soon felt at the monument. In January 1951, Region Four initiated a program for producing an interpretive development outline for Craters of the Moon as part of its master plan, and hence for establishing an interpretive program. Upon completing the report by the following January, Houston reiterated his earlier analysis regarding interpretation.

We may safely assume that we must start from scratch, since there has been no physical development of interpretation devices nor any coordinated program of interpretive service and contact, to my knowledge, since the area became part of the National Park System. There have been individual efforts from time to time, such as those of Mr. Bicknell and Mr. McCarty as well as my own. But for all practical purposes the Monument may be considered as having no interpretive program at present. [18]

Houston hoped to build on the earlier educational program and museum prospectus drafted by Bicknell and Shepherd. With that document and his own outline, the Service could work out an "integrated program which will enable our visitors to see and understand the significance, as well as the scenic and esthetic values to be found here." [19]