Chapter 4
The Rise and Decline of Ecological
Attitudes, 19291940 (continued)
Biological Research
At their 1929 conference, the national park naturalists had noted
that scientific data on the parks' natural history were "almost
infinitesimal." This disheartening situation had begun to change that
very year, as field research for Fauna No. 1 got under way, then
continued under the Wildlife Division. Lowell Sumner later estimated
that during the 1930s about half of the biologists' work involved
research and wildlife management, while the other half was devoted to
review of and comment on proposed development projects. He calculated
that prior to World War II the biologists had produced perhaps a
thousand reports. Having joined the Service in 1935, Sumner estimated
that he himself had prepared about 175 reports before the war began. [48]
Research focused on subjects such as bison, elk, and bird life in
Wind Cave; white-tailed deer and winter birds in Shenandoah; grazing
mammals in Rocky Mountain; and deer and bighorn in Glacier National
Park. Park naturalists contributed further to the gathering of
information, as in Great Smoky Mountains, where specimens of about two
thousand plant species were collected by the mid-1930s. [49] Given the large number of documents
prepared and the limited number of biologists in the Park Service, only
a few of the reports were truly comprehensive. [50]
An important element of the biologists' programs during the 1930s
was the establishment of "research reserves," areas within national
parks designated to be used for scientific study only. Probably at the
urging of the Ecological Society of America and leading biologists such
as John C. Merriam of the Carnegie Institution, who feared the
disappearance of all unmodified natural areas in the United States, the
Park Service in the mid-1920s had gradually begun to develop a research
reserve program. In 1927 Yosemite National Park designated approximately
seven square miles of high mountain country north of Tuolumne Meadows as
a "wilderness reserve," later termed a research reservethe first
of its kind in the national park system. [51]
The park naturalists discussed the reserves at their 1929 conference,
advocating that the areas be permanently set aside primarily for
scientific study. They were to be, as the naturalists phrased it, "as
little influenced by human use and occupation as conditions permit."
Park Service director Horace Albright followed up in the spring of 1931
by issuing a research reserve policy to "preserve permanently" selected
natural areas "in as nearly as possible unmodified condition free from
external influences." In effect, the areas would help meet Fauna No. 1's
recommendation for each species to "carry on its struggle for existence
unaided." The reserves were to be entered only in case of emergency or
by special permit; as a further means of protection, their location was
not to be publicized. [52]
The research reserves emerged in the 1930s as the most
preservationoriented land-use category the Park Service had yet
devisedan important philosophical and policy descendant of the
congressional mandate to leave the national parks unimpaired, and much
more restrictive than the traditional policy of allowing park
backcountry to be developed with horse and foot trails. [53] In George Wright's view, the greatest value
of the reserves lay in providing scientists with the opportunity to
learn what certain portions of the parks were like in their original,
unmodified condition. This "primitive picture" would provide a basis of
knowledge to benefit all future research. He also believed that the
reserves would not become "an actuality" until their flora and fauna had
been surveyed. To Wright, setting aside the reserves was a "most
immediate urgency," which should be accomplished before further
biological modifications took place. [54]
The research reserves became an integral part of park management in
March 1932, when Director Albright asked that they be formally
designated through the cooperation of the park superintendents and
naturalists and the Washington office. He requested that the
superintendents indicate the location of the reserves in the five-year
park development plans (master plans), and he assigned the wildlife
biologists responsibility for gathering information and tracking the
progress of the program. By 1933, research reserves had been designated
in Yellowstone, Sequoia, Grand Canyon, and Lassen Volcanic national
parks. Others followed, in Great Smoky Mountains, Glacier, Mount
Rainier, Rocky Mountain, and Zion, as well as Yosemite, for a total of
twenty-eight designations in ten parks. [55]
The research reserve idea worked better in theory than in practice,
however. The wildlife biologists apparently did not participate in the
actual selection of many of the reserves, probably because a number of
the areas were designated while the biologists were busy completing
Fauna No. 1 and because they had not been given a meaningful role in the
master planning process. As late as February 1934, the Wildlife Division
seemed poorly informed on the exact location and character of many of
the reserves; and regarding those they knew something about, Wright
noted that some of the areas were not worthwhile research
areasindications that the biologists had had limited input in
selection of the reserves. A reserve in Lassen Volcanic National Park
was no more than a strip of land threequarters of a mile wide and about
five miles long, whereas two of Grand Canyon's reserves were so close to
the park boundary that activities outside the park were certain to
affect their biotic makeup. Observing the potentially serious external
influences on the reserves, Wright advocated the establishment of
"buffer areas" around the parks (including additional winter range for
wildlife), rather than "withdrawing further and further within the park"
to create reserves. [56] Like the parks
themselves, the reserves were not satisfactory biological units.
Expressing deep concern about the reserve program, Victor Cahalane,
Wright's assistant division chief, wrote in September 1935 about the
problem of selecting research reserves in parks so "artificialized and
mechanized." Cahalane believed that the difficulty of finding even
relatively small unaltered research areas indicated the extent to which
the Service had failed to meet its basic mandate to protect the parks'
wilderness character. Reflecting biologist Ben Thompson's earlier
comments about alterations to natural conditions in the parks, Cahalane
wrote that Glacier National Park had no pristine area worthy of becoming
a research reserve. This had occurred "not by reason of a network of
roads" in Glacier, but because "all streams now contain exotic species
of fish, because the wolverine and fisher have been exterminated from
the entire park and the bison and antelope from the east side, and
because exotic plants . . . have been carried to practically every
corner of the park." Recognizing the existing problems with "pristine"
areas in the parks, Cahalane called for a "show-down on this matter of
preservation of the greatest resource of the National Park Service
the wilderness." []
Beyond the difficulty of identifying minimally altered natural areas
to be designated as research reserves, these areas were the product of
decisions made wholly within the Park Service and were therefore subject
to administrative discretion and vulnerable to the sudden impulses of
management. The reserves had no specific mandate from Congress. They
could be protected, ignored, or, as happened with Andrews Bald research
reserve in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, created and then
summarily abolished. Indeed, the "show-down" that occurred over Andrews
Bald went directly against the biologists' recommendations and reflected
the Park Service's ingrained disregard for scientific research. The
outcome was an ominous portent for the science programs overall.
Designated a research reserve in the mid-1930s, Andrews Bald was one
of several such areas in Great Smoky Mountains intended to be strictly
preserved so that "ecological and other scientific studies" could be
conducted on a long-range basis, especially to determine natural plant
succession. (The "grassy balds"open, mountaintop areas of grasses
and lowgrowing shrubs, and without tall treeswere one of the
primary scenic features in the Smokies. They were then, and remain
today, of special scientific interest.)
In early April 1936, a terrific windstorm killed hundreds of trees in
and around Andrews Bald, precipitating a sharp debate in the Service
over how to manage the area. Dead and dying trees, some still standing,
littered the landscape and, in the minds of the superintendent and most
of his staff, constituted a fire hazard that needed to be cleaned up.
[58] Superintendent J. R. Eakin wanted a
cleanup, as did the park's rangers and foresters; and in a letter to
Park Service director Arno Cammerer, Eakin stressed the potential fire
problems. Reflecting an ongoing disagreement over what to do with
naturally killed trees, the superintendent noted that "again" the
Wildlife Division and the naturalists were "not concerned with fire
protection" and the danger that might arise if dead trees were left in
place. Particularly concerned about scenery, Frank E. Mattson, the
park's resident landscape architect, argued for cleanup of the windfall,
stating that because the bald attracted so many sightseers, it should be
treated "much as a trailside or roadside" area. [59]
By contrast, the wildlife biologists (supported by park naturalist
Arthur Stupka) advocated special consideration for the reserves, so that
scientific studies could "be started and continued thru the years to
come." They urged that the trees be left untouched. Although
acknowledging the fire prevention concerns, the biologists argued that
the windstorm was a natural phenomenon and that cleanup of the area
would "thwart the objectives" of Andrews Bald research reserve. Still,
Superintendent Eakin believed the area constituted a serious fire
hazard; in an exchange of correspondence with the Washington office, he
insisted that the trees should be cleared. [60]
In a stinging reply to Eakin, Acting Director Arthur Demaray finally
granted permission for clearance, but added that the Andrews Bald Biotic
Research Area was thereby abolished. He further stated that "I wish to
call your attention to several factors which you seem to have
overlooked": the reserve had been approved by Eakin himself, it was
included in the park's master plan, and preservation of such areas was
"an established policy of the Service." In the acting director's view,
the superintendent's insistence was forcing a change in the official use
of the area from research and strict preservation to recreation: "The
reason the research area is now abolished is that you have convinced us
you made an error in approving its establishment. Its apparent proper
use is primarily recreational." [61]
Andrews Bald illustrated the vulnerability of the reserves to
administrative discretion and, too, the vulnerability of research in the
national parks. An area committed to serve research purposes over a long
period of time was subject to sudden modification as a result of
internal decisionmaking. Indeed, the urge to clear the trees was not
truly based on whim, but reflected the deep-seated, traditional
allegiance of the superintendents, foresters, and landscape architects
to preserving national park scenery and accommodating public use, while
generally showing little interest in science.
Even though the research reserves were supported by the director's
policy pronouncement of 1931 and represented the bureau's strongest
commitment to preservation of natural conditions, the Park Service
eventually disregarded the entire program. Certainly most reserves did
not vanish in as confrontational a way as did Andrews Bald, yet Lowell
Sumner later recalled that the research reserve program came to be
largely ignored, beginning about the time of World War II. [62]
Although it may seem that ignoring the research reserve program
meant that these areas would be left alone with no human interference,
this was very likely not the case. With the program untended and the
reserves in effect forgotten, these areas of special research value were
subjected to alteration through such practices as fire protection (for
example, the removal of trees from Andrews Bald), firefighting, forest
insect and disease control, grazing, and fish stocking and harvesting.
The neglected research reserves were subject to the kinds of
modifications that concerned George Wright in the early 1930s when he
stressed the "most immediate urgency" of establishing the reserves. [63]
|