Chapter 3
Perpetuating Tradition: The National
Parks under Stephen T. Mather, 1916-1929 (continued)
Ecological Concerns and Mather's
Leadership
During the Mather years, objections to the Service's management of
national park flora and fauna were infrequent (except for complaints
from ranchers and others who basically opposed parks and wanted access
to their resources). The Ecological Society of America's 1921 resolution
against introduction of nonnative species was similar to resolutions by
the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted in 1921
and 1926. [149] Yet these statements hardly
represented sustained criticism. The protest that built up in the middle
and late 1920s against the killing of predators was perhaps the most
severe criticism of the Service's natural resource management
encountered during Mather's time. As was true of professional
organizations, few individuals criticized the Service's treatment of
nature in the parks. Joseph Grinnell, who had a special interest in
Yosemite, may have been the most consistently vocal advocate for
managing the parks on a more scientific basis. [150]
Probably the most penetrating critique came from biologist Charles
Adams, who in his 1925 analysis of the parks urged that park management
align itself with the emerging science of ecology. Adams' examination of
such programs as fire, wildlife, and fish management led him to conclude
that the Service must develop an ecological understanding of its natural
resources. As he put it, if the Service is to preserve the parks "in any
adequate manner... there must be applied to them a knowledge of
ecology." He referred to the "theoretical" policy of maintaining the
parks as wilderness-a policy to which the Park Service had "not
adhered." The Service was not meeting what he believed to be its true
mandate, the preservation of natural conditions in the parks. [151] Adams' critique was important as an early
effort to promote ecologically based management of the national parks
(and thus to interpret the Organic Act in that regard). Yet even more
important was that it had little if any effect on national park
policies: the Park Service under Mather was firmly set on a different
course.
Adams noted also that naturalists in the parks were not "devoted to
technical research, but in the main to elementary educational work with
the park visitors." [152] Indeed, in
addition to its manipulation of flora and fauna, the Service's natural
history concerns focused on ensuring public enjoyment, not preserving
biological integrity. Establishment of Ansel Hall's Education Division
in 1925 confirmed the naturalists' duties as an important part of park
operations. Hall, the chief naturalist, advised parks on museum planning
and operation, and on hiring ranger naturalists and giving nature walks
and evening campfire talks, among other programs. (The naturalist and
education functions were forerunners of today's "interpretation"
activities.) [153]
In the late summer of 1928, Hall's division rather suddenly moved
toward generating a scientific base for natural resource management when
Yosemite's assistant park naturalist, George M. Wright, an independently
wealthy biologist, offered to fund a survey of national park wildlife.
From his observations in Yosemite and other parks, Wright understood
that the Service had no scientific understanding of its wildlife
populations. [154] Presented with his
proposal, the Park Service, after some deliberation, agreed to its first
systemwide research designed to enhance management of natural resources.
The project was to be conducted by an expanded educational division.
Moreover, Wright's proposal prompted Albright's November 1928 suggestion
to Mather that the Service develop its own scientific expertise, as it
had already done with landscape architecture and engineering. As
Albright saw it, the Service needed "a few specialists with scientific
training who have strictly the National Park point of view." [155]
Under Mather the Park Service had established itself as a national
leader in recreational tourism, but had done nothing in the way of
research-based preservation of natural resources. Only at the very end
of Mather's directorship-and with the promise of private funding-did the
Park Service move to develop in-house scientific expertise to address
natural resource management issues. Yet this shift toward ecologically
informed management would have to contend with the emphasis on
recreational tourism that Mather had firmly established, building on the
policies of earlier park managers.
Little concerned about science and ecology, Stephen Mather was a
promoter, builder, and developer of the national park system.
Conservationists of later generations would question his devotion to
tourism and the treatment of nature in the parks during his tenure, but
his efforts greatly advanced the formation of a system of national parks
that are today highly valued both for their scenery and for their
biological richness. Assuming leadership at a propitious time in
national park history and backed by highly placed conservation-minded
friends, Mather made the parks an enduring feature of the American
landscape and a source of national pride. He resigned as director
effective January 12, 1929. Through fourteen years of extremely
demanding work, interrupted by nervous collapses and culminating in a
heart attack and a stroke, he sacrificed his health for what he saw as a
truly grand cause. When Mather died in January 1930, a year after his
resignation, tributes poured in from Congress, conservation groups,
businessmen, officials, and friends across the country.
In organizing the Park Service and giving it direction, Mather
imparted his vision of what national parks should be-ideas which the new
bureau's emerging leadership readily accepted. In effect, Mather
envisioned the national parks as "nature's paradise," a kind of rugged,
mountainous version of peace and plenty. The Service sought to present
the parks as a paradise of beauty and richness, free of fires and
predators. Underlying Mather's vision were strong social concerns. He
had thoroughgoing democratic and patriotic tendencies: to him, the
national parks were places where American people, through "clean living
in God's great out-of-doors," could renew their spirits and become
better citizens. Furthermore, the parks were "vast schoolrooms of
Americanism," where people could learn to "love more deeply the land in
which they live." [156]
It is important to note that the management traditions firmly set in
place by Mather and his emerging leadership cadres flowed quite
logically from the founders' vision of the parks as scenic pleasuring
grounds. Moreover, throughout Mather's career, Congress did not
challenge his management and development of the parks. Rather, through
creation of numerous new parks and through increased funding for
development especially during his last years as director, Congress
clearly indicated its approval of Mather's policies.
|