Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 8:
INTERPRETATION

THE 1952 PROPOSED PROGRAM

Although preliminary, Houston's interpretive outline documented the status of interpretation at the monument. In terms of themes, the natural environment received the most attention. The wide assortment of volcanic features associated with a fissure eruption compressed into such a small area offered the perfect arena in which to study and enjoy the geological phenomena. The biological environment was important for how it related to the volcanic landscape, especially plant adaptation and the abundance of life found throughout the seemingly desolate lava. Humans also fit into this category, since rock mounds marked Native American trails through the area. Only a few scientific studies, however, supported the interpretation of geology, flora, and fauna. While Houston attempted to interest universities in research, knowledge of the monument's resources remained mostly incomplete. [20]

Along with the shortcomings in research, interpretation at the monument was suffering setbacks because of increased numbers of visitors to the area. [21] Rising visitation in the postwar travel boom, the regional increase in population with the establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission site near Arco, and the improvement of national highway access to Craters of the Moon all resulted in additional visitors to Craters. The monument, then as now, was not a destination area. Visitors en route to or from Yellowstone National Park or Sun Valley, for instance, stopped in at the monument for a brief visit, reinforcing the "rest stop" perception of the monument by regional and Washington offices. Traveling mostly by auto, the majority of visitors toured the monument in several hours and left, leaving only a small percentage to spend the night in the campground or at Crater Inn.

The short period of time larger numbers of visitors stayed at Craters increased the pressure on the small staff to convey the monument's significance to more people in a shorter period of time--without the proper facilities to do so. Typically, two permanent employees, the superintendent and the supervisory ranger, along with a few seasonal rangers attempted to inform and interact with visitors as best possible. A seasonal ranger greeted the public at the checking station in the monument headquarters, collected a .50 cent fee, handed out a leaflet, directed visitors to the rock display table and the loop drive. For these reasons as well as a lack of adequate parking and personnel, the superintendent complained that "It is impossible to give more than a very few minutes to interpretation," especially for those who have "more than a superficial interest." Moreover, without a museum, the headquarters office functioned as an interpretive center, interfering with administrative duties during the summer months, and insufficiently meeting the informational interests of the general public. This further reinforced the need for an orientation hub.

The limited interpretive program relied heavily on the self-guiding theme. The loop drive, connecting the frontcountry sites, was central to this activity, offering turnouts and trails to the sites and beyond. Interpretive devices such as waysides and signs were incomplete, though, and improvements to them would only add to the visitor's experience as would the addition of self-guided trails. In addition, limitations of staffing and increases in visitation impeded what personal interpretive services the monument provided. Conducted tours were popular but restricted to special groups. As a rule, seasonal rangers and the superintendent conducted interpretation through short contacts in the form of roving patrols. Major events such as Opening Day saw an increase in regular activities, as did holidays and Sundays. Moreover, the best known form of interpretation in the Park Service, campfire talks, was missing from Craters of the Moon after 1939 and continued to be during the early 1950s due to low demand, among other reasons. While the monument continued to rely on the Stearns pamphlet, Houston noted that his staff hoped to form a natural history association some time in the near future to correct deficiencies in publications. Away from the monument, the superintendent also presented talks about Craters in the local and regional communities. Some headway in interpretation was being made in the early 1950s, yet the persistent lack of proper facilities and personnel continued to restrict any noticeable development. Until these improvements occurred, visitors would continue to criticize the monument's administration.