Big Bend Administrative History

Once Texas had committed itself to a partnership with farmers, ranchers, and railroads to stimulate growth in the vastness of the Lone Star State, the legislature had authorized in 1854 and 1875 donations of 16 sections of state land (10,240 acres) for each mile of track that the companies might construct. As Texas had no apparatus in place to survey these lands, the lawmakers agreed to allow the railroads to determine the acreage they wanted. In exchange, they would identify the even-numbered sections as state school lands, while claiming the odd-numbered sections for themselves. Supposedly this pattern of "checker-boarded" land grants would guarantee more sales (given the stake that the railroads had in the growth of any particular area where they ran track), and the money generated by the sale of school lands "has always been zealously guarded by the Legislature and the powerful school lobby or group." In 1897, the lawmakers added mineral rights to oil, gas, and coal, to the school fund upon the sale of any state lands. Two years later the legislature declared that "all un-appropriated public domain and any lands thereafter recovered by the State, as lands forfeited for non-payment of taxes, were set apart for and added to the school fund." Finally, in 1919 the state ordered that "15/16ths of the oil and gas in school lands were relinquished to the various purchasers by which Act the School Fund and the owner of the surface each own half of lease bonuses, rentals and the customary 1/8th royalty of production." [25]

In the case of Big Bend, this meant that the Public School Fund had title to 116,722.1 acres in numerous tracts scattered over the entire area, 8,470.5 acres of these in the Chisos Mountains. Higgins believed that the school fund also controlled 2499.5 acres, "the exact location and conditions of title of which are as yet not ascertained." Everett Townsend had determined that "a total of 25,595.2 acres has been forfeited to and title is now held by the State of Texas by reason of non-payment of taxes and forfeiture suits and judgments." Another discovery of Townsend's was that "the Public School Fund formerly owned a great deal of the now privately owned lands and, on the sale of such lands, retained all or part of the mineral interests, the amount reserved being dependent on the date of the respective sale." Higgins determined that "these School Fund mineral interests in privately owned lands are restricted and inalienable under present laws." Higgins considered it legally impossible "for the Federal Government or anyone else to acquire the full fee title, including all mineral rights, to any Public School Lands or tax-forfeited lands in the State of Texas." To do so, the NPS would have to seek amendment of these laws in the face of "the attitude of recent Legislatures and the powerful and continued activities of the influential school bloc." As a former member of the state house of representatives, Townsend suggested to Higgins that the NPS support a bill giving the parks board control of state mineral reserves in the park area for a total of 99 years. Townsend explained to Higgins that "when the public sees the realization of the Park, understands its recreational and educational values as well as enjoy the great financial increases in returns to the Public School Fund through the gasoline tax," Texans would not hesitate to give complete title to all rights held by the state. [ 26]

Soon after the Higgins report went to Washington, a team of high-ranking NPS officials traveled to Big Bend in August to inspect the site. Led by assistant director Conrad Wirth, the party included fifteen representatives of the park service, the ECW, the state parks board, and Everett Townsend. W.C. Carnes, now deputy chief architect for the NPS's Western Division branch of plans and design, reported on the four-day excursion through the future park site. "The purpose of the trip," said Carnes, "was understood to be two-fold: first, to submit recommendations on the desirable boundaries of the proposed National Park and second, to study the probable ultimate development, should the area acquire National Park status." This latter issue involved coordinating ECW plans with NPS ideas for the larger Big Bend park unit. Carnes recalled how impressed he had been in earlier visits to the area, and now realized that "the scenic, historic and scientific features of the area are quite varied and few, if any, of its qualities duplicate anything already existing in the National Park System." Carnes and others in Wirth's party agreed that "from a landscape point of view the suggested north boundary with a latitude 29 [degrees] 41 [minutes] is satisfactory." He dismissed talk of including "the mountains which lie north of this[line], as they "offer no incentive to commercial development and will always be part of the scenic assets of the area, without being brought within the park boundaries proper." The Rio Grande made logical sense as the southern limit of the park, reaching from Santa Elena Canyon (which locals called the "Grand Canyon"), through Mariscal and Boquillas Canyons. "The points at which the north and south boundary lines should tie into latitude 29 [degrees] 31 [minutes]," said Carnes, "are not important from a landscape viewpoint, and should be determined more from the geological and wild life standpoint, based upon the particular features and the amount of natural range it is desired to have within the park." [27]

Wirth, Carnes, and the other inspection team members took the route south of Marathon to Big Bend, which Carnes described as a "panorama . . . of mediocre scenic value." The NPS architect found a "much superior panoramic silhouette," however, in the Chisos Mountain range "when viewed from either the east or west sides." The party took the road from the Chisos Mountainswest to the mining town of Terlingua, and thence north to Alpine. They believed that neither route merited inclusion in park planning. Instead, Carnes hoped that the NPS could identify "a possible route which could be constructed in a more direct line and which would avoid the several rivers at present encountered and which are dry much of the time, but of flood water proportions after heavy rains." The Wirth reconnaissance suggested that any road come out of Alpine, with a "fork somewhere in the vicinity of Government Spring and that one branch of it lead along the west side of the Chisos Mountains and on to Santa Helena Canyon." The other fork should circle the east side of the Chisos Mountains and "terminate on the Rio Grande River at the Mexican community known as Boquillas. Carnes surmised that "fullest use of the park in the future may force the construction of a road along the Rio Grande River between Santa Helena Canyon on the west and Boquillas on the east." Yet the NPS inspection team did not wish to recommend this as part of the master plan, in that "there seem to be no points of interest between these two terminals to warrant the construction of a road, considering the construction difficulties which would be encountered both in location and in the number of drainage structures required." [28]

In assessing the challenge of road building, the architect suggested that "little encouragement should be offered tourists to visit this area until suitable roads have been constructed." He noted that "many of the existing roads follow creek beds which can become raging torrents within an hour's time after a heavy rain starts." Carnes feared that "a venturesome tourist might well become marooned in some canyon, many miles from store, gasoline, tow cars, or emergency repair service." He predicted that "should the Big Bend area become a National Park, the Service must look forward to spending a fair portion of its major road bill annually over a period of say five years and, in addition, keep a maintenance organization on hand for repair work after storms." Despite the area's desert conditions, "road construction here is not going to be inexpensive." Carnes did note, however, the presence of such road-building materials as sand, gravel, and stone in the park, thus reducing the costs of construction. [29]

When the Wirth party turned to park administration and concessions facilities, they agreed upon five items: a visitors lodge, "housekeeping cabin units," a campground, a "Government area, utilities and residences," and a "checking station." The group debated the merits of a lodge at the site known as Laguna, "well up in the Chisos Mountains." Carnes described the area as "a beautiful mountain meadow with large shade trees in abundance." NPS officials worried that "the difficulty of building a road to it, and the desirability of preserving the area undeveloped, are sufficient to eliminate it as a possible building site." Hence the party agreed upon the "comparatively level bench above the present C.C.C. camp," the future site of Basin development. "The area has a goodly number of fair sized oak trees," said Carnes, "which offer considerable shade." For Carnes and the others, "its chief attraction scenically is that it overlooks the canyon which terminates well above the surrounding plateau and which is known locally as 'The Window.'" [30]

Summarizing their thoughts, NPS planners needed to remember that "Texas was once part of the Mexican nation." In addition, said Carnes, "the area in question at Big Bend has never been developed by Americans beyond the few scattered ranches and isolated mining activities." The architect noted that "considering the possibility that the Republic of Mexico may establish a national park across the Rio Grande," he recommended that "so far as physical improvements are concerned, the Mexican hacienda, or "ranch type" of development be followed as closely as possible." Similar cultural resource issues prevailed at Santa Elena Canyon, which Carnes believed could contain "a stone or adobe ranch style of development, to function quite similar to the Phantom Ranch at Grand Canyon National Park." At Boquillas, Carnes again called for this architectural form, with the hope that "the existing Mexican ranches there can be preserved, as they are bonafide examples of same, having been [built] before there was any thought of their being used as tourist attractions." [31]

To implement this plan, thought Carnes, the NPS needed to be mindful of the partnership developed with the state of Texas. David Colp of the Texas state parks board suggested a quick resolution to the boundary survey, so that ongoing CCC activities would meet park service expectations. Carnes offered to provide an architect from the San Francisco office to begin work that fall or winter. Finally, he warned his colleagues that "since there is no public domain in the State of Texas, it seems unlikely that the National Park Service can ever use any of its road funds for construction of approach roads." He called instead for the NPS to decide "on the proposed road system for the park in order that whatever work the State of Texas or the County of Alpine [Brewster County] performs in the next few years, may be invested on an alignment which will be utilized when, and if, the park is created." [32]

When the Wirth inspection team returned from the Big Bend area to Alpine, local boosters of the park called upon them to reveal their findings in a public meeting held on August 8 at the Holland Hotel. There in the ballroom, Wirth and his colleagues spoke of their journey via car, horseback, plane, and on foot. The Alpine Avalanche reported that "Colonel Wirth was enthusiastic about the possibilities of the Big Bend from the standpoint of park development." Wirth saw "educational advantages and year round accessibility" as the park's strengths. "No other National Park," the Avalanche quoted Wirth, "included a complete mountain, offering life zones from Lower Sonoran, through Upper Sonoran and Transition, to Canadian, with their gamut of changing flora and fauna." Herbert Maier told the audience of "the financial advantages of national parks," and how "he counted himself fortunate in having Texas in his [ECW] district." David Colp then asked Brewster County residents to cooperate with the state parks board in the land-acquisition program, which he hoped would begin "immediately upon notification by the National Park Service of the boundaries of the acceptable area." [33]

True to their word, Wirth's associates returned to their offices in Washington, San Francisco, and Oklahoma City to record their thoughts on the status of Big Bend as a national park site. James O. Stevenson called the area "a true biological 'gem,'" whose "value of fauna and flora . . . lies not only in their varied nature and abundance but in the fact that many of their components cannot be duplicated in any other sections of the United States." The wildlife specialist noted the presence of more than 60 species of mammals, while recording the extinction of such creatures as big horn sheep and antelope. The Big Bend country could boast of more than 200 species of birds, a function of its location at "the meeting place of many species whose main range lies to the north or to the south." Stevenson also observed "a mingling here of typical Mexican species with others representing the Rocky Mountain fauna of the Western United States." These birds and mammals could find in the Chisos Mountains alone more than 450 species of plants. "Several eminent botanists," wrote Stevenson, "have stated that more species of plants are found on the higher slopes of the Chisos, in an area of approximately 30 square miles, than in any other region of similar size in the United States, with the possible exception of one locality in Florida." [34]

Because of Conrad Wirth's highly publicized plan for establishment of park boundaries, Stevenson and his colleagues weighed in with their suggestions based upon their particular area of expertise. "Since there are no natural barriers in the Big Bend or faunal zones which form boundaries to animal life," said Stevenson, "the best solution in insuring the protection of wildlife is to obtain an adequate tract of territory in the southern tip of the Big Bend." He called for making Boquillas Canyon an eastern terminus, with a line northward to the Sue Peaks in the Caballo Muerto range. Stevenson believed that this would offer "an adequate deer range in the desert mountains east of the Chisos," even though its lack of water and vegetation meant that "it will never have great general importance for wildlife." Stevenson's park boundary would then move north from the Sue Peaks to Persimmon Gap, "in order to control roads leading to the Chisos and to check on visitors to the area." He would have the line then run south (to the east of the Rosillos Mountains), and then westward to include Grapevine and Paint Gap Hills, which formed the southern boundary with the Christmas Mountains. From there, Stevenson would draw his line southwest from Slickrock Mountain to include Burro Mesa and the Rattlesnake Mountains, and then to the western end of Santa Elena Canyon. Once that had been achieved, Stevenson would call for "a thorough biological survey of the Big Bend and an extensive report on suitable boundaries or possible park extensions." Finally, park planners should remember that "a study of the biology of the adjacent region in Mexico, . . . with relation to a possible future international park, should be made." [35]

Bernard Manbey, associate engineer for the NPS's western division in San Francisco, echoed the sentiments of Stevenson, and offered his thoughts as a facilities designer. He marveled at the breathtaking beauty of the South Rim of the Chisos Mountains, which "at least insofar as distance goes, would be hard to beat anywhere." Manbey theorized that "the average person does not realize that there are almost innumerable mountains in Texas and range after range after range in the adjacent portion of Mexico." He recommended that "a standard horse trail from the 'Basin' to the 'South Rim' might be included as one of the first ECW projects under the 6th Period Program." The party then drove to Terlingua, forded several streams where the cars had to be pushed across, and then stopped at "the former military post at Castolon" for lunch. After a long drive across the southern tip of the future park, Manbey and his colleagues came to Boquillas at sunset. "Here, in a typical setting of Old Mexico," said the engineer, "we had our dinner with a Mexican host, Mexican orchestra, and Mexican dishes which the writer cannot attempt to enumerate or describe." [36]

Adding to the stimulating experience for Manbey was the opportunity to fly over the future park. Manbey also hiked in the Chisos to the top of Casa Grande Peak (elevation 7,350 feet). He then encouraged the party to include the area north and west of Terlingua in the park, because of "the reported wealth of unique and valuable geological formations in that district," including Solitario Mountain. Manbey also noted the unusual collection of "skulls, skeletons, bones, Indian basket work, stone arrow heads and tools," that Elmo and Ada Johnson had on display at their ranch. The Johnsons contended that these came from caves along the Rio Grande, and Elmo Johnson recommended to the Wirth party that if the NPS made a "'Natural Museum' out of one or two of the caves and show relics in various stages of discovery," the caves "would have a far greater appeal and be intensely more interesting to the average tourist." The Indian sites would only enhance the dominant theme of old Mexico surrounding Big Bend. Manbey wrote that "the C.C.C. enrollees are mostly Mexicans, the mines are worked almost entirely by Mexicans, the houses are Mexican, there are very interesting Mexican cemeteries at Terlingua and elsewhere." Thus he concurred with all suggestions to retain the border atmosphere in architecture and concessions, a situation that Manbey saw as "particularly fitting in view of the fact that the area is spoken of as an "'International Park.'" [37]

Enthusiastic reports like those of Manbey and Stevenson led NPS officials to implement some of their recommendations as quickly as personnel and funding permitted. An important feature of this process was an official survey of plant and animal life, as suggested by James Stevenson. In late September, NPS officials in Washington detailed Maynard S. Johnson and William B. McDougall to the Big Bend for an assessment of the flora and fauna that the NPS would soon inherit and protect. After ten days in the area, Johnson and McDougall went west to New Mexico and Arizona to conduct research at a future site of U.S.-Mexican collaboration in park management: the Ajo Mountains (later known as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument). They then returned to Big Bend for a month's work, and filed their reports by the close of 1935. As the NPS specialist on wildlife, Johnson noted the climate and topography of the area as highly complex and little understood. The Chisos Basin had sufficient rainfall to permit continued grazing, said Johnson, while "we were told that between Glen[n] Spring and the river there had been no rain for three years." Johnson and McDougall also did not venture into the Dead Horse Mountains. "Apparently no other Park people have been there," Johnson reported, "and Big Bend residents with whom we talked have only the vaguest notions of that section." Perhaps the reluctance to travel into the area resulted from its supposed lack of food and water, but Johnson believed that "it should be investigated." [38]

With Johnson's main focus the historical and contemporary conditions of animal life in the Big Bend, he interviewed a variety of local residents about their perceptions of native animals. Because ranchers had increased their stocks of sheep and goats in recent years, they had begun extensive operations to remove what they called "panthers" (the term used by locals for all manner of mountain lions and cougars). "I am told," wrote Johnson, "that Mr. Homer Wilson killed 28 panthers in the last six years - six or eight in the last year." Johnson also learned that "a government trapper was working in the Rosillos Mountains, trying to trap another panther." He believed that panthers were not being depleted, since "they are more abundant here than in any other park area," yet the "present drain on their numbers seems more than could be withstood permanently." Johnson hoped that "the existence in this proposed park of such a 'biological island' as the Chisos Mountains . . . perhaps offers the best chance in the United States for the perpetuation of this cat." Similar stories were told about bears in the Big Bend area, which local residents considered to be "less abundant than panthers." CCC camp superintendent Morgan told Johnson that he had found bear tracks recently near his cabin, and others said that "a year or two ago a bear was seen to swim across the river at Boquillas, going from the United States into Mexico." Elmo Johnson also offered the opinion that "bears are very abundant in the mountains on the Mexican side of the river." [39]

Two other animals noted in abundance by Maynard Johnson were several kinds of deer, and the peccary (known as the "javelina"). Deer provided opportunity for local ranchers to earn additional income by hosting hunting parties, primarily in the Chisos Mountains. Mule deer seemed the most prominent to Johnson, although "does considerably outnumber bucks--according to some estimates as much as ten to one." Texas white-tailed deer had begun to proliferate in the Chisos area, as had fan-tailed deer. For reasons not explained by Johnson, hunting parties avoided the area near the fan-tailed deer population. "Neighboring ranchers," he wrote, "have agreed not to bring hunters into the higher parts of the mountains, and the main entrance road into the Basin is prominently marked with 'No Hunting' signs." No such generosity was extended to the javelina. "Javelinas have been killed for their hides, and shot by hunters," said Johnson, "merely for something to shoot at." The peccary had "no protection at law, and practically none from public sentiment." The NPS biologist found this disconcerting, in that javelinas "are harmless in their food habits and seem destined for extirpation if they are not protected." A request by Texas game department officials "to give javelinas part-year protection by classing them as game animals failed to pass [the legislature]," he noted, and hoped that "special state action might be taken to give year-round protection to javelinas in and near the proposed Big Bend National Park, if such action were requested by or on behalf of the National Park Service." [40]

Where deer and javelinas prowled the Chisos Basin in abundance, Johnson noted the near-absence of two additional species once present in the area: big horn sheep and antelope. The former "were best known in the Mariscal Mountains," said the biologist, "at the point of the Big Bend of the river." In addition, big horn sheep sightings had occurred "in Santa Helena canyon, on Pulliam's bluff in the Chisos Mountains, and also in the Rosillos Mountains." Johnson had learned from Ray Miller, a local rancher, that "the last instance of a mountain sheep being shot in this region was in 1907" when Tom Golby came upon a band of fifteen sheep and killed one. A 1931 study of bighorn sheep in west Texas by Vernon Bailey concluded "that it is highly probable that the Texas bighorn in early days extended almost continuously in Texas from the Guadalupe Mountains (its type locality) to the Chisos Mountains." By the mid-1930s, said Johnson, "the habitat for mountain sheep in the Mariscal Mountains of the Big Bend is no doubt as good as ever, and restoration of them there would be desirable." Unfortunately, "there is at present no group of this variety of sheep secure enough to serve as a source of stock for reintroduction." Compounding the problem was the eradication of the animal on both sides of the Rio Grande, as the Mexican bighorn seemed the more common before the twentieth-century campaign of removal. [41]

With the fate of the antelope, Johnson noticed a different rationale for their demise. Everett Townsend told the NPS biologist "that he has seen antelope within the park area a number of years ago." Some still roamed around the town of Alpine, "but none now south of the railroad." Their disappearance Johnson attributed to a lack of "suitable habitat," a circumstance that also militated against "possible reintroduction." "There is now no sod or extensive grass," said Johnson, "on any part of the flat lowlands of the proposed park." He detected evidence of grasslands to the south and west of Persimmon Gap, and to the west of Mariscal Ridge. "When livestock grazing is discontinued," he reported, "grass may become reestablished in these places, and satisfactory antelope habitat restored." Should the park service wish to restore the animal sooner than that, Johnson surmised that the best opportunity for antelope would be the Sierra Quemada, south of the South Rim of the Chisos Mountains. This he found to be "somewhat broken, treeless country, with grama grass and sotol in abundance." Were the NPS to find a source of water in the area, "there is food and apparently [a] favorable situation for a considerable herd of antelope here." [42]

Johnson then spent some time discussing smaller game, along with lesser predators like the coyote, the fox, and the wolf. "Coyotes are characteristic of the flat lands in the Big Bend Park region," Johnson reported, with their main territory being the foothills of the Chisos Mountains. "In this region," he noted, "they are destructive to sheep and goats, but not to cattle." Yet "coyote skins are of little value," and local ranchers trapped them "more from the standpoint of protecting livestock than of deriving revenue from pelts." Less common in the area was the New Mexico desert fox, known to local residents as the "kit fox." As for the "Gray or 'lobo' Wolf," which Johnson labeled Canis lycaon nubilus, the biologist believed that it "probably once occurred here, though I have no definite records of it." Ranchers had reported no sightings of the lobo anywhere in the Big Bend area. [43]

Perhaps the most intriguing feature of Big Bend's wildlife was what Johnson called "wild" livestock. Later managers of the national park would struggle with feral stock throughout the mountains and deserts. Wild horses had roamed the area, said Johnson, but local ranchers had shot them "because the ownerless horses trampled their range and muddied their springs." Any horses not killed "were caught and shipped out of the region, as horse prices rose enough to make such action profitable." Johnson saw as more problematic the presence of wild burros, which he calculated "outnumber all other kinds of wild livestock." He predicted that "they will be much less easy to eliminate than were the wild horses, either by shooting or trapping." In addition, "the importance of the wild burro situation is increased by the Texas Fever quarantine south of the Chisos Mountains, and the impossibility of giving the wild burros a required dip at two-week intervals." Johnson saw evidence of some wild sheep and goats that had escaped from ranchers' corrals, while "several people have reported a group of turkeys existing wild in Boot Canyon." Finally, he reported that "a pair of hounds belonging to Mr. Ira Hector are allowed to run at large, and spend much of their time in [the] Chisos Mountains chasing deer." [44]

Once Johnson had completed his inventory of animal life in the future Big Bend National Park, he offered his recommendations to those already submitted by earlier NPS visitors. One striking difference in his report was the inclusion of the Christmas and Rosillos mountains within the park boundary, as "these mountains with the intervening flat land would provide ample range for the proposed longhorn cattle ranch without encroachment on the biological unit of the Chisos Mountains." NPS officials had considered, and would study that fall a plan to run a herd of cattle in the park area to remind visitors of the heritage of ranching in the Big Bend. Beyond this plan, Johnson saw a larger boundary providing "a buffer area which would considerably improve the survival prospects of panthers and eagles within the park, and lessen complaints against these predators by neighboring ranchers." To leave out the Christmas and Rosillos ranges meant that "access of ranchers and their stock would be across the park." Realizing the political and economic variables present in boundary studies, Johnson nonetheless asked the NPS that "consideration should still be given to the desirability of acquiring it [the expanded acreage] as [the] first addition to the original park." [45]

In matters of roads and trails, Johnson called for "only a single entrance road on the United States side, at least until traffic shows actual need of additional entrances." He argued that "the administrative problems of an international park would be multiplied by multiple entrances." Johnson had no preference between a route south from Marathon, or from Alpine through Terlingua. He also saw value in horse trails within the park, primarily in the Chisos Basin. "There should be a horse trail by way of Laguna and Boot Spring to the South Rim," Johnson recommended, as "this trail will exhibit most types of habitat in the park which are not reached by road."  He further predicted that, "as the South Rim is probably the supreme view in the park, this trail will be much used." Yet he knew that "not half the people who come into the park will spend the several dollars necessary to hire a horse, and still fewer will hire a horse more than one day." For that reason, Johnson called for several hiking trails in the basin, each to "offer some fairly strenuous climbing, and superb views, to be had without the hire of a horse." Johnson did caution his superiors that "further development of roads and trails be deferred until the need for them is clearly demonstrated, and that in any case such development be kept to a minimum." He warned that "the great bulk of the park area (especially the Chisos Mountain area) should deliberately be left alone to recover its wilderness character, undisturbed by human intrusion." If park planners accommodated his vision, prophesied Johnson, "there will be more wilderness along the trails, if the trails do not too greatly subdivide the wilderness." [46]

A similar logic should prevail in the design of overnight accommodations for visitors, said Johnson. "There will be less disturbance of the biology of the region," he reported, "if all development of public use areas (hotel or lodge, cabins, and camping area) in the Chisos Mountains [are] confined to the Basin or the road between Government Springs and the Basin, rather than scattered in several places in the mountains." He noted that calls might be made for lodging "at the river crossings -- at Boquillas, and either at Castellan [Castolon] or Johnson's Ranch." Evidence of this came from the fact that construction of accommodations for government officials, including Park Service officials, already had been authorized at Johnson's Ranch as a relief project. [ 47]