Chapter 6:
Second-Class Sites
THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) did
little to alleviate the dismal conditions at most national monuments.
The new agency had minimal resources and vast responsibility. The parks
were its focus, and in the scheme of the fledgling agency, the monuments
were mere complements to spectacular places like Yellowstone and
Yosemite. During the late 1910s and early 1920s, political realities and
the view of the leaders of the NPS made national monuments into
second-class areas. Tourism became the raison d'etre for the national
parks, but the monuments were inaccessible and undeveloped, and most
remained unsuitable for extensive visitation. Special-interest groups
such as American scientists continued to propose various uses for areas
set aside as national monuments, but no coherent sense of purpose
emerged, and the suggestions failed to ameliorate the predicament of the
monuments. Guarded almost exclusively by a loose-knit group of
volunteers, the monument designation became a holding category. With
support from the NPS, Congress regularly promoted the most important
monuments to park status. The remainder were left outside of the vision
that Stephen T. Mather and Horace M. Albright had developed for the
agency.
As the first director of the Park Service, Mather
embarked upon a broad and extensive program to ensure that the most
awe-inspiring scenic places in the nation were reserved as national
parks. His work reaped immediate dividends. As conditions in the
national parks improved, Mather and his new agency developed a following
among the public and a contingent of vocal supporters in Congress. By
the time he retired because of his health in January 1929, the park
system contained six new national parks, including five created from
former national monuments: Sieur de Monts, Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce
Canyon, and Carlsbad Cave. The removal of the most visually spectacular
of the monuments to the park category blunted the scenic dimension of
the monument category. During Mather's tenure, Congress also authorized
three additional parksShenandoah, Great Smoky Mountains, and
Mammoth Caveeast of the Mississippi River, all the result of
Mather's and Albright's vision of an agency with national scope. [1]
An important offshoot of Mather's
development-oriented administration was the emergence of a system of
concessions and accommodations. Before 1915 concessions in the national
parks were a fiasco. Predatory hucksters competed for the attention of
rail travelers, making grand and usually false promises. The food in the
parks was dismal. During Albright's inspection of Yellowstone in 1915,
twenty cases of ptomaine poisoning occurred. Mather advocated regulated
monopolies in the parks and began to standardize accommodations. With
quality as his objective, he initiated programs designed to offer
visitors a range of economical services. As assistant to the secretary
of the interior in 1915, he arranged for the railroads that served
Yellowstone to allow visitors to combine their tickets, so that visitors
could enter the park on one railroad through one gate and leave by
another, on a different line, without paying an additional charge.
Mather was determined to make the national parks into serious
competitors for the attention of the American traveler. He wanted his
visitors to be comfortable, often repeating his adage that "scenery is a
hollow enjoyment to a tourist who sets out in the morning after an
indigestible breakfast and a fitful sleep on an impossible bed." [2]
Mather also developed the "pragmatic alliance"
between the railroads and the national parks. The link between American
railroads and the national parks dated from the establishment of
Yellowstone, which had been supported by Jay Cooke and the Northern
Pacific Railroad. Early in the twentieth century, railroad entrepreneurs
like Louis W. Hill, of the Great Northern Railway, began to see the
parks as a boost to their business. Mather joined with such people, and
facilities rapidly improved. [3] After the
implementation of Mather's plans, record numbers of visitors flocked to
the national parks. Western railroads such as the AT&SF, the Denver
and Rio Grande (D&RG), and Hill's Great Northern carried visitors
all over the West. Visitors found comfortable beds and food that did not
incapacitate them.
But the parks still did not have competitive status
as tourist attractions, and Mather continued to initiate plans to speed
their development. After some cajoling, Robert Sterling Yard, Mather's
friend from his days at the New York Sun, joined the Department
of the Interior. Yard orchestrated a massive publicity campaign that
culminated in the printing of the National Parks Portfolio, an
oversize folio that contained large pictures of the best scenery in the
national parks. Places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and
Glacier National Park were the flagship areas, and the agency promoted
them accordingly.
In contrast, the national monuments did not have a
clearly defined place in Mather's and Albright's plans. Congress also
ignored the monuments. The original NPS appropriation of $3,500 averaged
out to $120 for each of the twenty-four monuments of the Department of
the Interior. There was no money for salaries. Volunteers had to run
each area. With the exception of places with national park potential,
such as Grand Canyon and Zion national monuments, the promotional work
of the agency also passed over the monuments. Most monuments with
natural features were neither as spectacular nor as large as the leading
national parks. They reflected comparatively little of the grandeur of
the West. As a result, whatever identity the monument category had came
from its archaeological component. But archaeology had only specialized
appeal. Mather was primarily an advocate of inspirational scenery, and
he did not believe that promoting prehistoric sites would help to
develop the system.
The rising popularity of the parks also meant that
there were more visitors at national monuments, which remained
ill-prepared for tourist traffic. Railroads took people within striking
distance of the national parks, and as the automobile began to encroach
upon the American West, many of the national monuments in the Southwest
experienced sizable increases in the number of visitors. By the early
1920s some monuments located along major thoroughfares, such as Papago
Saguaro and the petrified Forest, entertained more than 50,000 visitors
a year. Their newly found popularity was a problem. Although publicity
and technology brought more people to the national monuments, the Park
Service lacked the means to protect the areas. Accessibility meant a
significant human impact even upon places that were once sufficiently
protected by GLO special agents visiting once a year. Areas that had not
been well served by that system were in even greater danger.
The early programs of the Park Service inadvertently
placed the majority of the national monuments in an inferior position.
Lacking money and workpower, the agency did little to prepare these
areas for the new influx of tourists. The parks and monuments were not
"as alike as two peas in a pod," as Bond had suggested in 1911. Scenic
monumentalism was what the parks epitomized; by rail and auto, Americans
swarmed to see these spectacular sites in the late 1910s and 1920s. [4] The majority of the national monuments,
however, contained features other than postcard scenery. When the agency
established its priorities, the development of the monuments was largely
left out.
The ambiguity of the definition of the national
monuments affected the protection of the areas included in that
category. It became impossible to speak of the national monuments as a
cohesive category. Many monuments preserved for natural values lacked
the features that characterized the important national parks. At the
same time, these places had little in common with the archaeological
reserves that formed the core of the category. Despite the preponderance
of natural areas, the educational and scientific communities agreed with
W. J. Lewis, a GLO special agent, who believed that the monuments were
"reserved for scientific, historic and other educational purposes." [5] Historic, archaeological, and natural areas
had few common values and fewer shared problems. Generalizations about
the needs of the national monuments simply did not hold true.
The greatest obstacle to the development of the
national monuments was that they had no clear purpose comparable to that
of the national parks. Under Mather, the parks became the pinnacle of
western tourism, and in May 1918 Secretary of the Interior Franklin K.
Lane spelled out the criteria for administering the national parks. [6] There was no such clarity about the existence
of the monuments. The ease with which they could be established ensured
that the monuments defied categorization. Some had obvious potential as
tourist sites. Others were so remote or obscure that visitation was
beside the point. Nor were there evident standards for entry into the
monument category. Many were consolation prizes, proclaimed as a favor
to a member of Congress or to a special-interest group after the failure
of a bill to establish a national park. Others were established as the
result of public pressure on a representative, senator, the Department
of the Interior, or the National Park Service. The monuments were
simply a hodgepodge the catchall category of federally held park areas.
The NPS brought no more coherence to the national monuments than existed
prior to its founding.
Scientists were the most important supporters of the
national monuments. The diversity that hindered the administration of
the category enhanced its appeal to a wide range of specialists.
Archaeologists and anthropologists were the first to exert their
influence, but after most of the important prehistoric ruins in the
public domain became national monuments, the dialogue between
archaeologists and the Department of the Interior stabilized. Natural
scientists followed the lead of the archaeological community. They had a
particular stake in the administration of the category and were eager to
implement their programs among the monuments. But the goals of the
scientific community differed from those of the Park Service. Tourism
was never high on the scientific agenda, and the objectives of
scientists were often at odds with what Mather envisioned for the park
system.
The advent of extensive western and southwestern
tourism created problems for preservationists, and archaeological sites
became the first point of contention. The national parks were staffed,
and the NPS could keep track of visitors there. But isolated monuments,
particularly those with archaeological ruins, were susceptible to
vandalism. Pothunting remained a cottage industry in the Southwest, and
visitors who unthinkingly walked off with surface artifacts compounded
the damage of vandals. The archaeological community sought monument
status for archaeological ruins as a way to create legal sanctions
against pothunting and destruction. Archaeologists wanted to discourage
visitation at unsupervised archaeological ruins, but Park Service
officials believed that the only way to build support was to encourage
travelers. Mather's priorities won; as the volume of visitation grew,
archaeologists rushed to excavate.
Ironically, the archaeologists who hurried to dig
sites found themselves crowded out by the general public. During the
first decade of the twentieth century, few besides archaeologists,
sheepherders, and vandals had been interested in archaeological ruins in
the Southwest. But by 1920 people were seeking out remote places. They
carried away artifacts in their cars, and many carved their names into
the walls of prehistoric ruins. Archaeologists often arrived at sites
after the public had defaced them. The scientists who had fought against
government restriction in 1909 pleaded for it in 1919.
The natural areas in the monument category were a
coveted prize, and natural scientists in the government wanted to
implement their programs in these areas. Staff members from the U.S.
Biological Survey advocated using the monuments as wildlife sanctuaries.
Ample precedent existed for this view. Theodore Roosevelt had referred
to the Grand Canyon and Mount Olympus as important "wildlife preserves,"
and the Forest Service treated some of its remote monuments as game
preserves. But if the monuments became wildlife refuges, there were
obvious consequences for Mather's vision of the park system. This issue
came to the fore in January 1917, at the fourth National Parks
Conference, when Dr. T. S. "Tombstone" Palmer of the U.S. Biological
Survey became an outspoken proponent of the idea that the national
monuments were most useful as a refuge for wild animals.
Palmer sought to clarify the confused position of the
national monuments by establishing a system of classification that
ascribed a comprehensive purpose to the category. "The existence of some
of the most interesting reservations is scarcely known to the public,"
the thin and bespectacled Palmer told the packed audience in the
auditorium of the new National Museum in Washington, D.C. "Much less has
the tourist or casual visitor a clear idea of what constitutes a
national monument, of the diverse character of monuments, or of the
distinction between a national monument and a national park." He offered
more sophisticated classifications that focused on the value of some
monuments as wildlife preserves.
What made national monuments valuable as wildlife
sanctuaries was exactly what made them controversial in the first place:
they encompassed areas of land large enough to allow animals to live and
breed, unimpeded by humanity. Six of the eight monuments that Palmer
thought had potential as wildlife reserves were in excess of 1,000
acres: the Grand Canyon, Mount Olympus, Pinnacles in California,
Colorado National Monument, Papago Saguaro, and Sieur de Monts. Only
two, Muir Woods and El Morro, were less than that size. In the view of
this important government biologist, these eight monuments could serve
as animal habitats in lieu of wild land.
Palmer's proposal inadvertently challenged the
priorities Mather had established for the NPS. His ideas amounted to an
unconscious attempt to resurrect the scientific designation of the
Antiquities Act, something the emphasis on tourism had overwhelmed.
Mather saw scenery as the primary value of natural areas, but seven of
the eight areas with the potential to serve as wildlife refuges were
included in natural monuments. They could not serve Mather's and
Palmer's ends simultaneously.
Yet Palmer's perspective forced an analysis of the
monument issue. He gave new significance to many previously ignored
monuments. The Pinnacles National Monument, which Bond called
unimportant in 1911, was critical in Palmer's view, because it had
become one of the last breeding places of the California condor. Papago
Saguaro, between Tempe and Phoenix, housed giant cacti; the saguaro,
for which the monument was named, was the natural home of the elf owl,
the gilded flicker, and the Arizona woodpecker as well as a many other
desert birds. But before Palmer's presentation the Park Service regarded
Papago Saguaro, Pinnacles, and their counterparts as minimally
important.
To dramatize his point, Palmer noted that even the
Grand Canyon had potential as a wildlife reserve. The 806,400-acre
monument went a long way towards protecting various kinds of wildlife
from the increasing activity at the trailheads and along the rims of the
canyon. People had access to only a few thousand acres at the Grand
Canyon National Monument. There were hundreds of thousands of acres more
suited to animals, providing the kind of inaccessibility that sheltered
wild creatures from the focus of American travelers. The steep canyon
walls "furnish[ed] a safe retreat for mountain sheep," a species that
Palmer contended was numerous in the Grand Canyon. Smaller mammals and
birds were also prevalent in the Grand Canyon, Palmer noted, "for the
rugged walls naturally discourage and prevent pursuit."
On the cutting edge of modern biological science,
Palmer revealed an environmental awareness that foreshadowed the
development of modern ecological science. Yet he had to nod in the
direction Mather and Albright led the Park Service if he was to have any
impact upon agency policy. His view of Muir Woods as the "most
accessible point at which to observe the [redwood] tree amid it
[sic] natural surroundings" put him on a parallel track with
Mather and the Park Service. But Palmer saw Muir Woods as a complete
biota, the value of which lay not only in the preservation of redwoods,
but in "all those species of plants, birds and other animals which find
their native habitat in the peculiar conditions under which the redwood
thrives." Scientists could study the interworkings of the natural world
at Muir Woods. To that end, Palmer suggested that scientific and
ornithological groups closely monitor the site, so that visitors could
also "check up on the observations and perchance add to the records of
the occurrence of rare species. [7]
In this respect, Palmer's foresight was limited. He
did not envision the vast numbers of people that would come to places
like Muir Woods, nor did he consider that unsupervised visitors,
particularly those encouraged to watch rare species closely, might not
share his reverence for wildlife. As visitation increased and the Park
Service made its areas more accessible, the value of some of the
monuments as wildlife refuges became dubious. Muir Woods could not have
been much of a habitat the day after the San Francisco Examiner
held its annual picnic with 9,000 guests there in 1920. [8] Despite Palmer's attempt to reconcile
different functions, scientific use of the monuments in the way that
Palmer envisioned remained incompatible with the vision of the NPS.
Palmer tried to give the monuments an identity of
their own, but his proposal highlighted the weakness of this diverse
category. He represented natural scientists, a special-interest group
with its own agenda. Palmer's suggestions offered an unwieldy compromise
that blurred the distinction between the wildlife monuments and the
national parks. A place like Muir Woods or El Morro had value as a
habitat only as long as few people visited it. In fact, the idea of
promoting scientific study as a way to encourage tourism spelled
disaster for the monuments. In their rush to see what the scientists
and public relations people promoted, visitors inadvertently destroyed
the very things they came to find.
In 1917 Palmer was the one person with a thorough
understanding of the national monuments. His suggestions cut across the
artificial boundaries established by the Antiquities Act and highlighted
many of the same problems Frank Bond had seen earlier in the decade.
Palmer stressed the issues that plagued the development of the national
monuments for the coming decades. His entire presentation emanated from
the fact that there was not clearly defined purpose for the monuments,
which allowed him to make a new suggestion. His idea did not resolve
the problem, but it did bring it to the attention of the Park
Service.
Maintenance and protection of the national parks and
monuments were critical issues in 1917. Mather began to take care of the
parks, but a system of care for the monuments had still not been
developed. Palmer pointed out that if the monuments received no
protection, the qualities that inspired the reservation of the areas
would deteriorate as more people visited. No matter what purpose finally
emerged as primary, if the various monuments were destroyed in the
interim, the reason for preserving them would disappear as well.
As usual, other issues closer to Mather's priorities
overshadowed national monument questions. As the preeminent item in his
program was to include the very best and most spectacular sites in the
West among the national parks, Stephen T. Mather sought to convince
Congress to make the Grand Canyon a national park. In 1917 the park
conference focused on the status of the Grand Canyon. It was more
important to the agency than all of the other national monuments
combined. Mather, Secretary of Agriculture David F. Houston, and much of
Congress agreed that the Grand Canyon deserved park status, and
visitation figures bore this out. In 1915, 116,027 people visited the
Grand Canyon, 6,415 more visitors than the combined totals of
Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier national parks for that year, and an
astronomical increase from the 813 visitors recorded in 1900.
The Grand Canyon was not the first national monument
that Mather coveted and subsequently acquired as a national park. The
precedent for changing the status of a site dated from 1916, when
Congress created Lassen Volcanic National Park from two national
monuments administered by the Forest Service. On the same day he signed
the Grand Canyon National Park into law, President Woodrow Wilson signed
a bill making Sieur de Monts, the first Park Service area east of the
Mississippi River, into Lafayette (now called Acadia) National Park.
During Mather's years at the head of the National Park Service, Zion and
Bryce Canyon followed, and the agency laid the groundwork for the
transformation of the Carlsbad Cave National Monument to national park
status.
The monument selected for park status contained the
kind of scenery that characterized the national parks, but they often
had to be altered to differentiate them from the remainder of the
monuments. In order not to taint the park category with the second-class
stigma of the monuments, areas that the agency wanted to transfer had to
resemble existing parks more than the remaining monuments. Initially
designated as scientific national monuments, these "way-station
monuments" had been established because of their scenic value, but
making them parallel to the national parks often required manipulation.
Because the Antiquities Act limited national monuments to the smallest
area that allowed effective management, most of the monuments were small
areas. In contrast, western national parks were perceived as vast. At
least in the West, the small size of most monuments doomed them to
monument status. Enlarging a way-station monument became an important
way to differentiate it from the areas left behind in the monument
category.
By the late 1910s, Mather began to develop a strategy
for the Southwest, with particular emphasis on the Four Corners area,
where Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah come together. [9] The Grand Canyon was the jewel of the nation,
and Mather envisioned a network of park areas connected by roads to
bring American motorists to the region in droves. The beautiful scenery
of the Southwest appealed to Mather and Albright, at the same time that
sparse settlement and the inhospitable climate meant that few people
contested the development of park areas. The Grand Canyon was Mather's
pinnacle, but as more Americans began to own automobiles, he also wanted
to have national parks within driving distance along the dusty western
roads.
Mather first looked for new southwestern national
parks in the monument category, and the remote Mukuntuweap National
Monument in southern Utah became one target of his vision. Mukuntuweap
centered around Little Zion Canyon in the southwest corner of the state.
There were few roads and fewer people in the region, and the railroads
that traversed the area, including the Union Pacific and the D&RG,
had difficulty finding passengers. When the monument was established in
1909, there had been little need to protect the site. As late as 1914,
G. E. Hair, the division chief of the GLO in Salt Lake City, remarked
that "were it not so far from railroads and the main travelled highways
of the state, the number of tourists would have been greater than [the
estimated three hundred]." Two years later Hair's subordinate T. E. Hunt
commented: "It would be difficult for anyone to injure, deface or carry
away anything pertaining to the principle features of this monument. . .
. No supervision whatever is exercised over this reservation and little
seems necessary at the present time" [10]
The monument was established in advance of need.
During the 1910s, railroads began to promote travel
in southern Utah, and activities in the Mukuntuweap area gained
momentum. By 1917 W. W. Wylie, the originator of the "Wylie Way" system
of camping in Yellowstone, opened tourist camps in Little Zion Canyon,
the heart of the monument. Utah senator Reed Smoot engineered a $15,000
appropriation for road improvement at the Mukuntuweap monument, far
outstripping the budget of the other twenty-three Department of the
Interior national monuments that year. The NPS also became aware of the
value of Zion Canyon. Director Mather mentioned the region as a possible
"all year round resort." [11]
Compared to the size of most of the scenic national
parks, Mukuntuweap was a small area. Road improvements made the monument
accessible, but transforming its status required further work. On 18
March 1918 Woodrow Wilson enlarged the monument to 76,840 acres, five
times its original size, and changed its name from Mukuntuweap to the
more manageable Zion. The name change played to a prevalent bias of the
time. Many believed that Spanish and Indian names would deter visitors
who, if they could not pronounce the name of a place, might not bother
to visit it. [12] The new name, Zion, had
greater appeal to an ethnocentric audience. With its spectacular scenery
and larger size, Zion resembled the other national parks more than the
remaining monuments.
Woodrow Wilson's enlargement followed the precedent
set by Theodore Roosevelt, but it represented a departure from most of
Wilson's actions in land policy. His earlier efforts were directed
toward appeasing special interests that wanted to make use of reserved
portions of the public domain. In 1913 Wilson signed the Hetch-Hetchy
bill. In 1915 he halved the Mount Olympus National Monument to
accommodate mining interests, and two years later, he allowed sheep to
graze temporarily in Yosemite.
Wilson's reversal revealed that Zion was clearly
being groomed for higher status. The addition to Mukuntuweap/Zion made
it larger by almost 120 square miles. Although still noticeably smaller
than Yosemite, to which it was often compared the combination of its
spectacular scenery, increased size, and change of name made Zion worthy
of consideration for national park status. In addition, the road
appropriation was the first money Congress provided for any individual
monument, a clear indication that Mather and Albright wanted Zion in the
park category. Their objectives became more obvious when the agency
banned firearms in the monument, resulting in a noticeable increase in
the deer population. The Park Service also paid to fence the canyon
mouth to prevent grazing, and "a marked improvement was manifest to all
in the richness of the splendid canyon's appearance." [13]
The attention that Washington, D.C., lavished upon
the Zion National Monument confirmed that the Park Service sought its
conversion to national park status. Stephen Mather was certainly a
strong proponent. During his first visit in 1918, he pronounced Zion
Canyon "national park material of the first order." [14] Despite poor state roads, travel
restrictions imposed by the government during the First World War, and
the influenza pandemic of 1918, all of which cut deeply into the number
of visitors during the 1918-19 travel season, Congress established Zion
National Park on 19 November 1919.
Mather's enthusiasm for the southern Utah area also
resulted in the rapid conversion of the Bryce Canyon National Monument
to national park status. Albright visited the area in 1917 and told
Mather of its beauty. Two years later Mather and a carload of friends,
including a Salt Lake City banker named Lafayette Hanchett, drove for
two and one-half days across dismal state roads to Panguitch, about
eighteen miles from Bryce Canyon. Mather was astonished to find that
more than half the people he talked to in Panguitch had never been to
the canyon. When he and his friends drove the remaining miles the
following day, Mather found out why. The "road" was little more than an
animal trail. But the rigor of the trip did not detract from the
spectacular view that the travelers found. As the car arrived, Hanchett,
who had seen the canyon, had Mather close his eyes. When they reached
the brink of the canyon, Mather opened his eyes and "let go with a fine
burst of Mather enthusiasm." The eventual park status of the area was
assured at that moment. [15]
Converting desire into reality was a tricky
proposition, and Mather used the USFS and the Union Pacific Railroad to
achieve his ends. In 1923 a national monument was established at Bryce
Canyon. The Forest Service retained administrative control of the area
because the monument was carved from national forest land. The
proclamation declared the monument as the dominant use of the tract, but
that meant little. The administrators of the Powell National Forest,
which contained the monuments, were allowed to use Bryce Canyon for the
same purposes as the rest of the forest. The following year, Utah
senator Reed Smoot, an important ally of the Park Service, convinced
Congress to authorize the area as a national parks, subject to the
acquisition of private lands within its boundaries. Mather refused to
assume responsibility for the new park until the Union Pacific Railroad
exchanged its holdings in the area for other federal lands. Upon
completion of the transaction in 1928, Bryce Canyon joined the national
park category.
In the Southwest, it appeared that the quickest way
to secure park status for a region was first to proclaim it as a
national monument. The monument designation safeguarded the area from
land claims, and the NPS simply awaited the best opportunity for
conversion. Always a small area, Bryce Canyon did not threaten local
interests. It had little commercial value to timber and livestock
interests. Its exquisite scenery, often described as "Yosemite in Grand
Canyon colors," ensured its eventual status. The establishment of Bryce
Canyon as a national monument, even under the administration of the
USFS, was only a prelude to its conversion to park status.
Mather saw the remaining national monuments in the
Southwest quite differently. Most were inconsequential to his goals.
Places like Natural Bridges and Rainbow Bridge in southern Utah were
simply too far from existing roads and rails. Capulin Mountain, an
extinct volcano in northeastern New Mexico, and others like it did not
contain the kind of features that the Park Service generally promoted.
As a result, while the areas made over into parks basked in considerable
attention, the remaining monuments languished.
|