Chapter 6
Science and the Struggle for Bureaucratic
Power: The Leopold Era, 19631981 (continued)
The Leopold and National Academy
Reports
Appearing in 1963, the Leopold and National Academy reports were
threshold documents. As the first studies of their kindreviews of
Park Service natural resource management conducted by experts from
outside the bureauthey had much greater effect than would the
numerous reports on park management and science that appeared in
subsequent years. Indeed, long after its appearance the Leopold Report
would be particularly well remembered. Not only did it receive
widespread publicity, with reprints in several national publications,
but also, as noted in the Sierra Club Bulletin, it enunciated
ecological principles at an "extremely high political level."
Additionally, its resounding nationalistic challenges became a kind of
call to arms for the Park Service: that each park should be an "illusion
of primitive America," and that the Service should preserve or create
the "mood of wild America." These phrases inspired a patriotic,
ethnocentric goalto maintain the landscape remnants of a pioneer
past as they were "when first visited by the white man" or when "viewed
by the first European visitors." Ignoring Native American perceptions of
landscapes and wilderness and the possibility of ecological change
resulting from Native American use of lands, this New World imagery
suggested a kind of wilderness pastorale that had enormous appeal
to many in the Park Service. [23]
Reflective of the growing awareness of ecology and the complex
interrelatedness of nature, the Leopold Committee responded to Interior
secretary Udall's request to analyze specific wildlife management issues
by placing the concerns in a broad ecological and philosophical context.
It put "in good perspective," as Conrad Wirth commented, "the immediate,
as well as the distant view." A. Starker Leopold, chairman of the
committee and primary author of the study, acknowledged that the report
was "conceptual not statistical," with emphasis on the "philosophy of
park management and the ecological principles involved." [24]
The Leopold Report set the stage for serious tension within the Park
Service when it stated flatly that the "major policy change" recommended
was for the Service to "recognize the enormous complexity of ecologic
communities and the diversity of management procedures required to
preserve them." Even more, it urged that scientific research "form the
basis for all management programs" and that "every phase of management"
come under the "full jurisdiction of biologically trained personnel of
the Park Service"extraordinary challenges to a bureau long focused
on accommodating tourism. [25]
In August 1963, five months after the Leopold study appeared, the
National Academy submitted its report. As Leopold had done with his
committee, biologist William J. Robbins both chaired the committee that
prepared the report and was the principal author. The agreement by which
the Park Service authorized the academy's study clearly reflected
ecological concerns. It noted that the parks were "complex natural
systems" that "constitute a scientific resource of increasing value to
scientists in this country and abroad," and that for proper management
they needed a "broad ecological understanding and continuous flow of
knowledge." [26]
In a substantially longer document than the Leopold Report, the
academy discussed the scientific aspects of managing natural systems,
made detailed recommendations for change, and bluntly criticized the
Service's failure to support science. It portrayed Park Service
scientific research in unflattering terms. The program lacked
"continuity, coordination, and depth," and was marked by "expediency
rather than by long-term considerations." Further, it "lacked direction"
and was "fragmented," "piecemeal," and "anemic," with insufficient funds
being requested or appropriated. Overall, the report noted that the
Service had little appreciation of research and its potential
contributions to park management. To the academy it seemed
"inconceivable" that scientific research was not used to ensure
preservation of such "unique and valuable" properties as the national
parks. [27]
Asserting that the Service had "some confusion and uncertainty"
about the purposes of the parks, the report defined the parks as
"dynamic biological complexes," which should be considered a "system of
interrelated plants, animals, and habitat (an ecosystem) in which
evolutionary processes will occur under such control and guidance as
seems necessary." Beyond the large, popular mammals normally of concern
to the Service, species unknown to the general public (such as blind
fish found in park caves, or thermophilic algae and other organisms
associated with hot springs) presented national park management with
"challenging questions of a fundamental character." [28]
The National Academy made numerous recommendations potentially
affecting Park Service organizational structure, personnel, and budget:
in these regards, its impact was greater than that of the Leopold
Report. Most important, it argued that the Service needed a "permanent,
independent, and identifiable" scientific research unit that should have
"line responsibility," not "simply an advisory function." To the
academy, strength and "independence" were key elements for the program's
success. Directing the program should be a "chief scientist," who would
supervise natural history research and the research staff, and an
assistant director for research in the natural sciences, who would
handle the administrative aspects of research and related activities.
Both positions should report to the Park Service director, thus avoiding
intervening and possibly antagonistic levels of bureaucratic authority.
In addition, the Service should assemble a staff of about ten "highly
competent" scientists in the Washington office, who would evaluate
research needs and thereby determine necessary scientific staffing in
the parks. [29]
To further ensure independence from park managers, the report urged
that scientists be stationed in parks but answer directly to the chief
scientist in Washington. The research program should also be supported
by special centers that would be established in or near selected parks.
To be commensurate with science funding in other federal land-managing
bureaus, Park Service science should receive about ten percent of the
bureau's annual budget (at the time it received only a tiny fraction of
one percent). Moreover, the report recommended that a scientific
advisory committee be created for natural history research, and that, as
necessary, each large natural park should have its own advisory
committee. [30]
In a foreshadowing of resistance to substantive change to the
science programs in the years ahead, Park Service leadership reacted
defensively to the National Academy's barbed criticism. Although the
Service responded with rhetorical enthusiasm to the report and Director
Wirth urged that every employee "should become familiar" with it, in
reality the leaders did not care for the document. [31] Howard Stagner, longtime member of the
Park Service directorate, later recalled that they even considered
suppressing the report, mainly because they did not want the blunt
criticism to be made public. Stagner stated that the document's language
was such that it could be "very damaging"; thus the Service decided,
"Let's distribute it and say we agree with it." The Park Service did
authorize release of the study, but, in Wirth's words, it did "not seem
necessary . . . to reproduce the full report for general distribution."
Rather than formal publication, the National Academy put the document
out in typescript, as a soft-bound, inhouse report. Perhaps as a result,
it seems to have received very little attention in the press and was
largely forgotten by Park Service rank and file, other than scientists.
[32]
Ironically, the National Academy's study was influenced by the Park
Service's own internal, unpublished report, "Get the Facts, and Put Them
to Work," prepared in October 1961 by Stagner with input from biologist
Lowell Sumner, as part of Stagner's effort to prompt a review by the
academy. In some instances the same wording even appeared in the two
documents. Both viewed the science programs as "fragmentary" and
"piecemeal," and one of the academy's sharpest criticismsthat the
Service's science programs lacked "continuity, coordination and
depth"was taken verbatim from "Get the Facts." It is obvious,
however, that even though the Park Service would allow certain criticism
from within ("Get the Facts" [33] could be
absorbed in the bureaucracy and rendered ineffective), its leadership
disliked being publicly reproached and sought to limit the impact of the
academy's report.
The environmental era raised resource management questions that
clearly required scientific data. Regarding the Leopold Report, Conrad
Wirth stated that it put the Service's 1916 congressional mandate into
"modern language." [34] In fact, written by
scientists (mostly biologists), both the Leopold and National Academy
reports gave a scientific perspective to national park
managementa kind of ecological countermanifesto that marked the
beginning of renewed efforts to redefine the basic purpose of the
national parks. In the short span of a few months in 1963, the Park
Service found its natural resource management subjected to far greater
scrutiny than ever before and faced recommendations for radical changes
in its organization, operations, and policy. Much of National Park
Service history since 1963 may be viewed as a continuing struggle by
scientists and others in the environmental movement to change the
direction of national park management, particularly as it affects
natural resources.
|