Epilog:
MAN AND NATURE IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
You cannot improve it. The ages have been at work
on it, and man can only mar it.
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1903
|
(Courtesy of Glacier National Park
Historical Collections)
|
One summer evening over a decade ago, a friend and I
argued long into the night as to whether people were motivated to
exploit nature because of their own personal greed or whether the
"unimpaired" aspects of wilderness impelled or inspired people to gain a
"windfall" from its natural wealth. Was nature or man the producer of
change? I do not recall how our argument ended that evening, but as one
observed the history of Glacier National Park, it becomes obvious that
man is both acted upon and the actor. People came to Glacier with
specific goals. They came to hunt game, trap for furs, mine for copper,
explore for oil, or fulfill other personal desires. The history of the
area is filled with examples of people who came to Glacier seeking one
thing, either failing or having their attention diverted, and then
pursuing a new goal which the forests, lakes, or mountains seemed to
offer.
The similarity of action among many of Glacier's
historical characters linked them with a common traituse of the
park to fulfill personal needs. Just a few examples serve to show this
adaptable and flexible attitude. Dr. Lyman Sperry, a professor, a
lecturer, and a naturalist, entered the Lake McDonald area, was
enchanted with its beauty, and became a "self-styled" explorer in the
region. Immediately he planned to stake several claims at Avalanche Lake
and own some of this real estate. While he allowed that opportunity to
pass, within a few years he became an ardent preservationist, advocating
national park status for the area. Then, a little over a decade later,
after the national park had been formed, Sperry actively campaigned for
the construction of a roadway through this protected area. Sperry's
reaction to Glacier was a combination of enchantment, intrigue, personal
gain, altruism through preservation, and finally, encouragement of use
in conservation. He was, in turn, a visitor, speculator, explorer,
conservationist, and developer. He changed his actions as the status of
the land changed.
William R. Logan entered the region as a guide and
packer for the exploration expedition of Raphael Pumpelly in the 1880s.
One may presume that the area impressed him in light of his later
association with Glacier as its first superintendent. By 1900, along
with several thousand other speculators, Logan invested in mining
exploration on Glacier's east side. When he was appointed Glacier's
prime protector in 1910, he seemed to be unable to apply "protection" to
all aspects of this preserve. He argued that the private landowners and
unpatented mining claims should be abolished because they were
"incongruous" and at the same time he proposed an extensive network of
roads and other developments. Encouraging tourism was not "obtrusive" to
Logan, but a handful of old homesteads and mines needed to be
eliminated. Cutting swaths for the "transmountain" road was sanctioned
by Logan, but he strongly attacked cutting timber for hotel
construction. In his role, Logan filled positions as an explorer,
speculator, protectionist, and also a developer, as time warranted and
as nature seemed to require.
A less well-known character, Dan Doody, displayed
similar attributes. Attracted to Glacier by the mining boom, Doody filed
numerous claims, hoping for mineral wealth. When mining proved
fruitless, Doody began to hunt and trap in the mountains and finally
obtained a homestead along the Middle Fork near Nyack Flats. After the
park was formed, Doody became a ranger and later took the job as a park
hunter. As a miner, trapper, homesteader, ranger, and destroyer of
undesirable animals, Dan Doody adapted to different roles as he
responded to changing times and the different offerings of nature in
Glacier.
|
Among the participants in Glacier's
history, those who initiated and developed Going-to-the-Sun Road
probably had the greatest impact upon the way Glacier is viewed and
managed today. Visitors were able to bring their machines into the heart
of the park and a significant percentage were bonded to that narrow
strip of pavement. If modern Americans are to comprehend the idealism
and meaning of preserving natural areas, then the first stride to
understanding is the step out of the automobile and into the woods of
Glacier. (Courtesy of Burlington Northern, Inc.)
|
We could also select almost any park superintendent
as an example of a park guardian. Superintendents were directed by law
to protect the natural features of Glacier. At the same time they were
expected to cater to the visitors who entered the park and to insure
that visitors' "use" and "enjoyment" was possible. Whether it was
because of local economic pressure or because of a national park policy
of attracting visitors, park officials were also promoters. Serving as
the buffers between private business interests and the public, park
officials had to assume the roles of diplomats. With almost any official
we could select, then, the roles of bureaucrat, developer, promoter,
statesman, as well as preservationist were used in his actions toward
Glacier Park.
Similarly, we could select an average "Joe Tourist."
His reason for entering Glacier was to see a national park. He brought
his automobile and possibly his camping trailer. After driving a
considerable distance and paying an entrance fee, he "expected" certain
things. He "expected" to see the park from the comfort of his
automobile. He "expected" to be able to eat a meal when he became hungry
and to find a convenient rest room when necessary. He "expected" to have
a place to stay since he was far from home. Even though his primary
concern was to see and enjoy the park, his expectations included the
mundane aspects of daily life. Thus, the visitor may be a utilitarian
conservationist since he likes the park and intends to use it, a
developer because he demands gasoline, food, and lodging, and a
statistic, since his presence was recorded and used to verify plans and
future expectations.
All of these people reacted to Glacier in different
ways. Some, like the tourist, came expecting to enjoy Glacier Park but
ended up looking for a gasoline station. Others, like Dan Doody, came
looking for copper and ended up killing mountain lions for the
government. A few men, like George Bird Grinnell, entered the area to
hunt big game and saw in Glacier a need for protection and preservation.
If one could agree then, that everyone who entered Glacier brought
certain expectations and reacted in different ways to what they found,
then who among them left the greatest historical impact upon this
area?
The Native Americans had the least impact upon
Glacier. While they hunted for game, visited the lakes, and crossed the
passes, they changed very little of what they found. At one time tepee
poles still remained as signs of their presence in parts of the park. At
the turn of the century, the relic of a buffalo skull marked Indian
activity on the top of Chief Mountain. Since the Indians physically
changed so little in the area, their impact might have been forgotten
had it not been for James Willard Schultz whose numerous books gave a
rationale for using Indian names in Glacier. Of any group, the Indians
least affected the region.
Similarly, the explorers did not alter the features
of the park. Many of these men came and left without changing any aspect
of the region. The fishing or hunting they might have done produced
changes which are imperceptible today. Even their glowing reports failed
to attract hordes of settlers to this region.
But expectations of mineral wealth drew far more
people to the area beginning in the 1870s. These miners produced
substantial changes in the region, including the first town at Altyn
near Many Glacier. Even though the town and the mining interest was
transitory, relics of their equipment, holes in the mountains, and
individuals who turned to other occupations remained as remnants of that
period. Some private land ownership, especially the Cracker Lake Mine,
remained as a problem for park officials and an incongruous element
within the park. Of all the mining activity, most of its obvious
evidence was abolished and today's park visitor has to search to find
its remains.
Conservation-minded people left an obvious impact:
that of the park itself. At the same time, these conservationists did
not clarify how the area was to be used. Since the park establishment
provided for preservation and use, unique natural scenes were combined
with utilitarian facilities like roads, hotels, and coffee shops. The
definition of wilderness preservation evolved slowly, and not until the
Wilderness Act of 1964 were more stringent guidelines drawn, further
defining the use of the park. Conservationists left a park behind as
evidence of their concern, but they also left a choice for park managers
either to keep the park in wilderness or to open it for extensive
use.
|
(Courtesy of Glacier National Park
Historical Collections)
|
Park officials and railroaders combined their
influence to create facilities intended to satisfy the expectations of
park visitors. They realized the need for transportation, lodging, and
food, and introduced those elements into the park scene. As visitation
increased, development correspondingly increased and more changes were
introduced. The completion of Going-to-the-Sun Road in 1933 altered the
interior of the park by creating a corridor of development through the
middle of the park. The existence of the road also promoted the use of
the private automobile as the primary means of seeing Glacier. The road
dominated the use of the park for the vast majority of visitors, with
campgrounds, visitor centers, restaurants, motels, and other facilities
augmenting their stay. The many efforts to protect the region from such
dangers as poachers, tree diseases, dam-building projects, and the like,
seemed to have little impact upon the region's natural setting when
compared with the active program of development inspired by the
combination of businessmen and park officials. Their impact remains the
most visually predominant and the most controversial if preservation is
a concern. These officials were told the area was to be used and
enjoyed. Glacier could not be fenced in. But stimulating the use and
reliance upon automobiles along with that continued orientation has led,
as one superintendent stated, to the primary "trouble" in Glacier
National Park.
The national park idea is one of the more idealistic
concepts in American history; the National Park Service has been charged
with fulfilling that ideal in Glacier National Park. Determining how
visitors can see, enjoy, and experience the mountain environment of
Glacier while not destroying it is clearly a National Park Service
responsibility. With idealistic Park Service leadership and a less
demanding public attitude, the impact of man upon the natural beauty of
Glacier Park may be actively reduced for the benefit of future
generations and to our historical credit.
|