Bryce Canyon
Historic Resource Study
NPS Logo

NATIONAL PARK STATUS (continued)


LAND ACQUISITION

Senate Bill 1312 resulted in the February 25, 1928, Act of Congress which made the title Bryce Canyon National Park official. By virtue of this Act, and a corrective Act dated May 14, 1928, [231] a total of 11 sections of land were added to the future national park. These were: (1) the E1/2 of the E1/2 of Section 25 in T. 36 S., R. 4 W.; (2) the E1/2 and SW1/4 of Section 20, and all of Sections 21, 28, 29, 30, and 33 in T. 36 S., R. 3 W.; (3) all of Sections 24 and 25 in T. 37 S., R. 4 W.; and (4) all of Sections 19, 20, and 30 in T. 37 S., R. 3 W. From May 14, 1928, to June 13, 1930, Bryce Canyon included 22.625 sections, or 14,480 acres (Map 5).

Lands added to Bryce Canyon as a result of the 1928 Acts had to be excluded from Powell National Forest. This, of course, required close cooperation between the National Park Service and the Forest Service officials. The Chief Forester, Colonel Greeley, was willing to relinquish land to the Park Service, and asked only that it be land of particular scenic value. [232] Randall Jones, Union Pacific's agent in Cedar City, had thought for some time that Little Bryce Canyon and Boat Mountain belonged to the park, and available evidence suggests that Park Service officials concurred with his assessment. [233] They also wanted sufficient surrounding area to make these attractions accessible from Forest Service roads in Bryce Canyon. It is worth emphasizing, however, that indiscriminate additions to Bryce Canyon made no sense to either Mather or Albright. In fact, there was a deep seated unwillingness on Mather's part to acquire so much Forest Service land that road building obligations would overwhelm the future park's budget for years to come. [234]

The direct relationship between the size of Bryce Canyon and the financial obligations of the National Park Service toward it did not, however, prevent Senator Smoot of Utah from assiduously attempting to enlarge the park. Smoot actively opened his Congressional campaign in the spring of 1930 with Senate Bill 4170, a bill "To provide for the addition of certain lands to the Bryce Canyon National Park . . . and for other purposes." [235] On June 13, 1930, Senate Bill 4170 resulted in Public Law 352 of the 3rd session, 71st Congress. This law, and the joint recommendation of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, authorized President Hoover to issue Proclamation No. 1930 on January 5, 1931.

Smoot's original bill, introduced on April 15, 1930, and House Bill 11698 sponsored by Utah Congressman Don Colton the following day, asked that any or all of unsurveyed Townships 37 and 38 S., R. 4 W. not already included in the park be added to it. [236] This general request was later made precise, and took in the following parcels by virtue of the Presidential Proclamation of January 5, 1931:


Unsurveyed T. 37 S., R. 4 W.

1. S1/2 of Section 2
2. S1/2 of SE1/4 of Section 3
3. S1/2 and NE1/4 of Section 10
4. All of Sections 11, 14, and 15
5. E1/2 and the E1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 16
6. E1/2 of SE1/4 of Section 20
7. All of Sections 21, 22, and 23
8. W1/2 of Section 27
9. All of Section 28
10. E1/2 and E1/2 of SW1/4 of Section 29
11. S1/2 of Section 31
12. All of Section 32
13. N1/2 of Section 33.

The principal effect of President Hoover's January 5, 1931, Proclamation was to more than double the size of Bryce Canyon from 22.625 sections (14,480 acres) to 47.75 sections (30,560 acres). Southwest expansion along the Paunsaugunt rim allowed the Park Service to take under its protection points of scenic interest as far south as Rainbow Point (Map 6).

On the very day President Hoover issued Proclamation No. 1930, Senator Smoot introduced Senate Bill 5564 to the 3rd session of the 71st Congress. Eight days later Congressman Colton followed with the near-duplicate House Report 16116. Smoot and Colton asked for the removal of Section 30 in T. 37 S., R. 3 W., and Section 25 in unsurveyed T. 37 S., R. 4 W., but the real thrust of their bills was the proposal to add approximately 9.42 sections northeast of the park, as well as a total of 1 section to the far south. These proposed additions promised to entail the National Park Service with no further road building obligations, so high Park Service officials—especially Albright—favored the measure.

Park Service Director Albright explained his position on House Rule 16116 in a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, dated January 17, 1931:

The area covered by this bill is adjoining and contiguous to the Bryce Canyon National Park and comprises approximately 6,360 acres [sic]. [237]

Approximately 3,400 acres of this area are within the Powell National Forest and the remaining approximately 2,960 acres are a part of the public domain but were withdrawn by Executive order dated January 5, 1931 for classification and in aid of legislation. The lands in the bill are not of any great value for grazing purposes and are of greater value for scenic and scientific purposes than for economic development.

This bill also proposes to eliminate 1,280 acres from what are now within the boundaries of the national park and add same to the Powell National Forest. The adjustment of the boundaries of the Bryce Canyon National Park as provided for by the bill is along lines worked out by the superintendent of the Bryce Canyon National Park and the regional forester of the United States Forest Service under agreement between the two services. This adjustment will not change in any way the financial obligation of either service.

. . .

I have to recommend that H.R. 16116 . . . be given favorable consideration and enacted into law. [238]

The House Report did become Public Law 675 of the 3rd session, 71st Congress on February 17, 1931. President Hoover used this law as partial authorization for Proclamation No. 1952, dated May 4, 1931. Additions to Bryce Canyon included in the Proclamation are listed below with necessary emendations:

T 36 S. R 3 W.

Surveyed

1. S1/2 of SW1/4 of Section 2
2. S1/2 of S1/2 of Section 3
3. SE1/2 of SE1/4 of Section 4
4. E1/2 of Section 8
5. All of Section 9
6. N1/2 of Section 10
7. NW1/4 of Section 11
8. E1/2 of NE1/4 of NW1/4 and E1/2 of NW1/4 of NW1/4 and E1/2 of NW1/4 of NW1/4 and N1/2 of SE1/4 of NW1/4 and S1/2 of NE1/4 of SW1/4 and N1/2 of the S1/2 of SE1/4 of NW1/4 and N1/2 of SE1/4 of SW1/4 of Section 17.

Note:

Both the Act of February 17, 1931, and Proclamation of May 4, 1931, erroneously described Section 17. The correct description should read: E1/2 and NE1/4 of NW1/4, etc. This correction was made by Public Law 485 of the 2nd session, 77th Congress on March 7, 1942. Public Law 485 of the 2nd session, 77th Congress, brought to an end the legislative history for Bryce Canyon.

9. S1/2 of S1/2 of Section 19
10. S1/2 of NW1/4 of Section 20.

Unsurveyed

1. S1/2 of Section 10
2. SW1/4 of Section 11
3. W1/2 f Section 14
4. All of Sections 15 and 16
5. W1/2 of W1/2 of E1/2 and NE1/4 of NE1/4 of Section 22

Note: Both the Act of February 17, 1931, and Proclamation of May 4, 1931, erroneously described Section 22. The correct description should read: W1/2 and W1/2 of E1/2, etc. This correction was made by Public Law 485 of the 2nd session, 77th Congress on March 7, 1942.

6. N1/2 of NW1/4 of Section 23
7. W1/2 of Section 27
8. N1/2 of NW1/4 of Section 34.

The principal effect of President Hoover's May 4, 1931 Proclamation was to increase Bryce Canyon from 45.75 sections (29,280 acres) to 56.22 sections (35,980 acres). Northeast expansion along the Paunsaugunt rim allowed the Park Service to take under its protection points of scenic interest as far north as Shakespeare Point.


Boundaries — Marian Frost Settlement

Section 2 of the June 7, 1924, Act establishing the Utah National Park Stipulated that:

. . . nothing herein contained shall affect any valid existing claim, location, or entity under the land laws of the United States, whether for homestead, mineral, right of way, or any other purposes whatsoever, or shall affect the rights of any such claimant, locator, or entryman to the full use and enjoyment of his land . . .

The full meaning of this provision was not an issue until Marion Frost, a resident of Tropic, directed a complaint to the State Land Board on September 22, 1930. This complaint was soon referred to the General Land Office in Salt Lake City for an answer. In it, Frost explained that "Park Surveyors" had sent him notice to move his house and fence from a 40 acre tract in Section 33, T. 36 S., R. 3 W. This property, Frost contended, was as much his as the patented homestead adjoining it—upon which he claimed settlement since 1917. [239]

Frost originally had his house and other improvements located on the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 in Section 34, T. 36 S., R. 3 W., and after patent moved them to the unsurveyed SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 33—the land in question. "About" September 1928 Frost sold his 120 acre homestead, comprising the W1/2 of the SW1/4 and NE1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 34, and the 40 acre tract in Section 33 to Jesse L, and Mary L. Jolley of Tropic. At the time of the sale Frost gave the Jolleys a written statement, transferring all rights and interest in the homestead, and promised he would deliver deeds to the unsurveyed land in Section 33 as soon as they were obtainable. [240]

If Frost's claim was valid, its effect on the young park would be singularly negative. Naturally, the most far reaching implication involved the cardinal condition imposed for the creation of a National Park at Bryce Canyon by the June 7, 1924, Act: that all land within the park be owned by the Federal Government. If this condition had not been fulfilled, then everything done by the National Park Service since its administrative takeover on September 15, 1928, was illegal. Secondarily, if the 40-acre tract were removed from the park, it would be left as an isolated, unsurveyed block, with contiguous land to the north and west already having been added to Bryce Canyon (see Map 5).

Responsibility for certifying that the land in question was free of encumbrances lay with the General Land Office, Department of Interior. However, Eli F. Taylor, Registrar of the Land Office in Salt Lake City, had already muddied the water by recognizing Frost's title to the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 33. This forced the National Park Service to seek a solution from higher authorities. On September 30, 1930, Bryce Canyon/Zion Superintendent Scoyen directed correspondence to Acting National Park Service Director G. A. Moskey, plainly asking for advice. A week later Moskey told Scoyen to wait until the Land Office in Washington, D. C., conducted an investigation and issued a decision. [241]

Scoyen was understandably uneasy. On October 8. 1930, he wrote National Park Service Director Albright that:

. . . the General Land Office in Salt Lake advises that they . . . had no way of knowing the existence of this claim, and, on the basis of information presented, there could be doubt as to the validity of Frost's claim. However, in view of the fact he has sold this claim, it will be necessary for him to prove that this transaction was completed before the land was put in the park. If this cannot be done the purchaser will have no claim to the land and Frost's claim will no longer be effective. [242]

Given the issue's seriousness the General Land Office in Washington, D. C., moved quickly to resolve it. On November 11, 1930, Acting Assistant Commissioner John McPhaul of the Land Office wrote a stern letter to Registrar Taylor, definitely implying that Taylor was guilty of hasty judgment in recognizing Frost's claim to the unsurveyed 40 acres in Section 33, Early in January 1931 Assistant Commissioner Thomas C. Havell of the General Land Office reached a final decision, holding that neither Frost nor his successors in interest—the Jolley family—had a valid claim. Havell's decision was immediately approved by John H. Edwards, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Edwards' action denied Frost any right of appeal. The case was closed.

Havell's reasoning followed the principle enunciated by Superintendent Scoyen 3 months earlier. Thus, it could be demonstrated that Frost had legally sold the 120 acres in Section 34 to the Jolley family, but the "sale" of 40 acres in Section 33 was another matter. In Havell's words:

The original act [i.e. June 7, 1924] excepted from its provisions valid existing claims, locations and entries under the land laws "whether for homestead, mineral, right of way, or any other purpose whatsoever." Under the terms of these acts, any valid existing settlement claim within the areas set aside for park purposes is protected from the force and effect of the withdrawal, so long as the claim is properly maintained. Upon the failure of such claim, however, by relinquishment, attempted sale, or otherwise, the withdrawal at once becomes effective and prevents any further appropriation of the land.

It would seem, therefore, that upon the sale of the said patented land and the attempted sale of the settlement claim by Frost, the withdrawal attached as to the unsurveyed land and prevented any further lawful appropriation thereof; that the settler, Frost, has forfeited whatever right he had to such claim and that the purchaser, Mrs. Mary L. Jolly [sic], has no right thereto which can be successfully asserted as against the withdrawal. [244]


Abbreviated Grazing History

Expansion of the park, especially to the southwest, did not merely imply the National Park Service would be saddled with road building responsibilities. There was, as well, another major consideration: the opposition of local stockmen. These men reasoned that if certain areas upon which they grazed animals were absorbed into Bryce Canyon, they were likely to lose rights whose value was calculable. For example, a stockman selling a herd of sheep which had the right to graze on National Forest land was normally paid about $3 extra for each animal covered by the permit. Consequently, if land under a valid Forest Service grazing permit was acquired by the new park, local stockmen expected the National Park Service to either buy out applicable grazing rights or continue to allow grazing in the area. [245]

Grazing was well established at Bryce Canyon, dating back to Mormon settlement of the area in the late 1860s. With the creation of the "East Division" of the Sevier National Forest in 1903, grazing at Bryce Canyon naturally came under Forest Service supervision. [246] The situation continued when the "East Division" was added to the Powell National Forest in 1919. [247] In fact, the Forest Service issued grazing permits at Bryce Canyon until 1929. As an interim measure the National Park Service Director authorized the Forest Service to handle grazing through 1929. [248]

Conditions of leniency ostensibly prevailed during the issuance of Forest Service permits from 1904-29 and in retrospect it can be demonstrated that between 1907-40 total forage in the Bryce Canyon area inexorably declined. [249] In 1936, 6 years after the Park Service began imposing grazing restrictions, grass was still scarce along the Paunsaugunt rim. In 1930 the dead and partly dead stumps of shrubs such as snowberry, willow birch lear, aspen, and yellow pine were all too evident. [250] Their sad presence was poignant testimony to the story of overgrazing at Bryce Canyon.

In accordance with a memorandum of understanding between the two services, dated December 2, 1927, the Forest Service agreed to relinquish lands of exceptional scenic value to the future national park on condition the National Park Service refrained from imposing immediate or drastic action on local stockmen. At the time, District Forester Rutledge stressed that grazing permittees be given reasonable time and opportunities to locate alternate ranges. [251] Bound by this understanding, and the disinclination to buy away grazing rights, the National Park Service had little room for maneuver. It was, however, the intent of the Park Service to effectively impose those restrictions left at its disposal. The most important of these required that no transfer of grazing rights be made from one permittee to another without the personal approval of the National Park Service Director. [252] The principle here was clear: no sale of stock necessarily carried with it the right to graze the animals at Bryce Canyon.

Between 1928-31 cooperation between the Forest Service and Park Service was absolutely essential. Nearly all of the land covered by proposed additions to the park remained under the Forest Service's protection. A "field agreement" between the two services, dated December 4, 1930, put into effect the following measures for these lands: (1) no change of existing privileges to the detriment of current permittees; (2) administration of permits and fees by the Forest Service, in accordance with cooperative Forest Service-National Park Service plans; (3) no increase in the number of livestock permitted in areas contiguous to Bryce Canyon; (4) transfer of grazing permits allowed with a 20 percent reduction in each case; and (5) the elimination of grazing as a long-range goal. [253] President Hoover's May 4, 1931, Proclamation was partially reflective of this agreement, stipulating that stockmen had the right to drive their animals across the southwestern addition to the park. [254]

Inter-service cooperation during the years 1931-35 had the effect of eliminating grazing in the north-central area of Bryce Canyon. Encouraged, the Secretary of the Interior asked the National Park Service to study means for the speedy elimination of all grazing. A wide range of possibilities was given careful consideration by park personnel, and, in the end, their recommendation was to continue the December 4, 1930, Forest Service-National Park Service agreement for gradual reduction. In 1939 the Secretary accepted this recommendation, but wanted the National Park Service to cooperate more closely with the Grazing Service to find nearby ranges on which stock then grazing in Bryce Canyon could be easily transferred. [255]

In 1940 the status of grazing at Bryce Canyon was as follows:

Permittee No. and Kind of Stock Time on park
Findlay Brothers500 sheep1 month
John Johnson1,000+sheep1 month
Samuel Follock824 sheep1 month
East Fork Cattle Association802 cattle & horses10 percent [256]

Subsequently, the trend toward gradual reduction continued. In 1944 Johnson sold his sheep and began to raise cattle. Findlay followed suit the following year. In 1946 Pollock sold his sheep, terminating all sheep grazing in Bryce Canyon. Johnson's permit was invalid in 1951. By 1953 the only permittees in the Bryce Canyon area were these:

Permittee No. of Stock
Findlay Brothers288 cattle
East Fork Cattle Association484 cattle [257]

This satisfactory trend was brought to a temporary halt in 1956 when the Johnson permit was reinstated. It had been unilaterally terminated by the National Park Service in 1951 because of nonuse. Unfortunately, the Forest Service was not informed, which constituted a breach of the December 2, 1927, Memorandum of Understanding between the two services. Then, between 1951-56 the local Forest Supervisor's office had continued to carry Johnson as a permittee. [258] Although this was a temporary setback to the Bryce Canyon grazing termination program, in the long-run the incident was probably beneficial. It certainly had the effect of making Park Service personnel aware of the fact that a closer working relationship with the Forest Service was indispensable.

Of the two additional permittees, the Findlay Brothers were considered the more difficult problem. Their cattle watered at Riggs Spring on the Lower Podunk, a locale that was inside the park but which furnished very little forage. To get the Findlays to give up their permit inside the park, Bryce Canyon personnel had to consider piping water from Riggs Spring outside the park. Relations with the other permittee, the East Fork Cattle and Horse Association, were generally good. In 1956 the Association voluntarily agreed to reduce the level of grazing by its animals within the park. [259] Johnson's permit was not reinstated in 1957. He had divided his forest grazing permit among several members of his family. The Forest Service then refused to transfer to another operator that part of his permit which was applicable to park lands. [260] The Findlays and East Fork Cattle Association doggedly maintained their permits through the 1963 grazing season. Both permittees continued to cherish the water supply at Riggs Spring. In order to exclude these cattle, the park scheduled a fencing program for fiscal year 1964. Riggs Spring was understandably given top priority. [261]

Adequate funding during fiscal year 1964 enabled Bryce Canyon to pipe water from Riggs Spring to a trough outside the park's boundary. [262] This part of the boundary was also fenced. Completion of a 13 mile sector of fence along the west boundary eliminated grazing on the East Fork permits. By the end of the calendar year 1964, permit grazing at Bryce Canyon had been eliminated. [263]



<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>


brca/hrs/hrs5a.htm
Last Updated: 25-Aug-2004