Chapter 3
Perpetuating Tradition: The National
Parks under Stephen T. Mather, 1916-1929 (continued)
Forest Management
Throughout Mather's directorship, the Park Service maintained a
steadfast policy of protecting the forests from two major threats, fire
and insects, of which fire-the "Forest Fiend," as Mather called
it-seemed the greater. For assistance, Mather turned to the Forest
Service, which had developed expertise in fire fighting. Moreover, many
national parks were adjacent to national forests; thus the two bureaus
shared miles of common boundary and recognized fire as a common enemy
threatening their different interests and purposes. [134]
Even though the Forest Service had a fundamentally different mandate
for land management-providing for the harvest of a variety of
resources-the Park Service readily accepted the Forest Service's
total-suppression fire policy (this was, after all, a continuation of
the army's policy for the parks). When Sequoia superintendent John White
proposed the alternative of "light burning" of forest debris and
understory as a means of avoiding larger conflagrations, Park Service
leaders stayed with tradition and supported full suppression, as
practiced in the national forests. [135] In
accord with the thinking of the time, and seeking to keep its forests
green and beautiful, the Park Service viewed suppression of all park
forest fires (it did not differentiate between natural and human-caused
fires) as fully compatible with its mandate to preserve the national
parks unimpaired. Under Mather's prodding, Congress in 1920 began making
annual appropriations for fire control in the parks.
A prime example of fire's threat to adjacent lands administered by
both services occurred in the summer of 1926, when major fires broke out
in Glacier National Park and in neighboring national forests. For most
of the summer the Park Service and the Forest Service fought these
fires, at huge expense. [136] The Glacier
fire was especially important in that it inspired the Park Service to
create an office of forestry-the first formal organizational designation
specifically for natural resource management. Forestry management had
begun as simply another duty placed under forester Ansel F. Hall, who
was chief of the recently created Division of Education as well as the
Park Service's "chief naturalist." But in the summer of 1928, Hall hired
John Coffman from the Forest Service, and the division's designation was
changed to "education and forestry."
Going beyond the customary use of generalist rangers and other
available personnel to fight park fires, Hall's and Coffman's positions
marked the first use of in-house, professionally trained foresters. In
addition, the Park Service in 1927 had joined the Forest Protection
Board, an interagency organization that fostered cooperative fire
suppression, and on which Coffman served as national park
representative. [137] The forestry office
was located in Hilgard Hall, on the University of California campus in
Berkeley. A den of forestry expertise, Hilgard Hall also housed the
Forest Service's California Forest and Range Experiment Station and the
university's forestry study programs. [138]
Such close proximity to other foresters surely encouraged an even
stronger commitment to strict fire suppression in national parks.
Coffman went to work energetically, overseeing fire protection for
the Park Service "as thoroughly as a Fire Chief in the U.S. Forest
Service," as he later put it. His duties were reflected in the "Forestry
Policy," a comprehensive, systemwide statement on national park fire
management prepared by Hall and Coffman in the fall of 1928. The new
policy called for the Service to prepare fire plans for all parks for
the "prevention, detection and suppression" of fires; train firefighting
personnel; cooperate with other federal and state agencies with lands
near national parks; implement "hazard reduction" (such as the removal
of combustible dead trees) in areas with high fire potential; and
establish a fire reporting and review process for each fire season and
for individual fires. This statement became official Park Service policy
in 1931. [139]
The Forest Protection Board also planned to fight forest diseases and
insect infestations. Participating on the board, the Department of
Agriculture's Bureau of Plant Industry had the primary responsibility
for assisting the Park Service and other participating bureaus in
disease control. Of particular concern was white pine blister rust, a
nonnative fungus. Albright reported in 1929 that the bureau had checked
for blister rust in Acadia, Mount Rainier, and Glacier. This disease
eradication program would lead to extensive control efforts in the
1930s. [140]
Although the Park Service's new forest policy statement contained no
reference to forest diseases, it did have a section on insect control,
which received increased attention during Mather's time. By the
mid-1920s Congress was appropriating funds for the control of insects in
the parks. Principal targets at the time included the lodgepole sawfly
and spruce budworm in Yellowstone, the needle miner and bark beetle in
Yosemite, and the pine beetle in Crater Lake (where Mather feared the
infestation was "utterly beyond control"). To combat such attacks, the
Service used chemical sprays and also felled infested trees, peeled off
their bark, and burned them. [141] The Park
Service relied on the Bureau of Entomology, which trained personnel and
frequently supervised the control work. The bureau was, Mather noted,
very supportive in combating insect "depredations" that threatened to
cause "injury of the scenic beauty." [142]
Significantly, the Service concentrated its insect control effort in
scenic areas important to the visiting public, such as along road and
trail corridors and in zones of special appeal. Mather reported in 1925
that in Yellowstone spraying had been increased "along the roads and at
places of the most scenic importance." Insect control at Crater Lake the
following year focused on protecting "a beautiful stand of yellow pine,
one of the three finest forests in the park." [143] Indeed, the policy of concentrating on
areas important to the public would be reiterated in the Service's 1931
forest policy statement: unless there were extenuating circumstances,
"remote areas of no special scenic value and not of high fire hazard,
little used or seen by the public and not planned for intensive use
within a reasonable period of years, may be omitted from insect control
plans." [144]
Like fire, hordes of insects threatened to damage forests over vast
tracts of public land, no matter what mandates governed their
management. Thus, a February 1928 meeting of the Forest Protection
Board, attended by several national park superintendents, stressed
multibureau cooperation in insect control. The insect spraying program
was, in the words of a Forest Service representative at the meeting,
usually carried out "regardless of boundaries" between the parks,
forests, and other public lands. Horace Albright agreed to the
cooperative effort, stating that the Service's forestry office stood
ready to participate. [145]
In protecting forests and other areas of the national parks, the
Service faced the problem of livestock grazing, which impacted native
flora and fauna in many parks. During the campaign to create the Park
Service, Mather had supported grazing in the parks as a means of
securing congressional support. Authorizing livestock grazing in all
parks but Yellowstone, the Organic Act was followed by Secretary Lane's
policy letter of 1918. Diverging from the act's general authorization of
livestock grazing, Lane declared that sheep would not be allowed in
national parks. The Service was seriously committed to fighting this
use, more damaging than cattle grazing; and its fight against sheep
would prove more successful than against cattle.
Regarding cattle, the Lane Letter declared they could graze in
"isolated regions not frequented by visitors, and where no injury to the
natural features of the parks may result from such use." [146] In Sequoia the army had terminated
grazing, but the Service revived it in 1917, under pressure from
ranchers who-emboldened by the Organic Act's authorization of
grazing-claimed they needed park lands to ensure sufficient beef
supplies because America's entry into World War I seemed probable. Even
after the armistice negated this purported patriotic rationale, the
ranchers fought to continue grazing (a pattern that occurred in other
parks during the World War II era). Although Mather opposed increased
grazing in the parks during World War I, in his public pronouncements he
sometimes showed a willingness to compromise, noting after the war that
grazing exemplified "the principle of use" of the parks and would
be allowed where it did not interfere with tourist use. [147]
In stark contrast, scientific judgments on grazing recognized the
extensive impact on the national parks. Charles C. Adams, a well-known
biologist with Syracuse University, surveyed several parks and commented
on overgrazed conditions in a 1925 article in Scientific Monthly.
In Sequoia, for example, Adams reported that areas in the northeast part
of the park had possibly "suffered more... than any other overgrazed
area" he had seen in a national park or even a national forest. And on
Grand Canyon's south rim, the "extreme overgrazing" was so bad in both
the park and the adjacent national forest that Adams believed it was
impossible to tell by the range condition whether the land was "in the
park or in the forest." He added that, partly as a result of earlier
livestock grazing, Grand Canyon had already been "greatly modified from
a natural wild [area]" before becoming a national park in 1919. [148] Although Mather strongly opposed repeated
attempts by ranchers to increase grazing privileges, cattle grazing
continued in many national parks and would prove an enduring vexation
for the Park Service.
|