Chapter 6
Science and the Struggle for Bureaucratic
Power: The Leopold Era, 19631981 (continued)
PoliciesNew and Old
In its formal natural resource policy statements and its actual
in-the-field management practices, the Service was similarly
equivocating. It had entered the environmental era with minimal
understanding of the ecology of the parks; and in the 1960s and beyond,
with pressure to shift toward more ecologically attuned park management,
its changes in natural resource management were often impulsive,
politically motivated, and scientifically uninformed.
Although the National Academy study affected the role and status of
science within the bureau, the Leopold Report had the greater impact on
day-to-day resource management. In addressing the issue that had
precipitated Secretary Udall's call for the studies, the Leopold Report
advocated continued elk reduction on Yellowstone's northern range,
although it stoutly opposed "recreational" public hunting in national
parks. If ranger staffs were not sufficient to handle a reduction
program, members of the public (who should be specially selected and
trained) could assistbut for the "sole purpose of animal removal,
not recreational hunting." In contrast, for national recreation areas
operated by the Park Service (such as reservoir sites), the report
endorsed the Service's existing policy of allowing sporthunting. Citing
"precedent and logic" and asserting that national recreation areas were
"by definition multiple use in character," it declared that hunting
should be permitted "with enthusiasm." [107]
On a broader scale, the Leopold Report urged that "naturalness
should prevail" in park management. The Service should encourage native
plants and animals, discourage nonnative species, and minimize human
intrusions in the parks. Further, the report recommended "controlled
use" of fire as a management technique and questioned the Service's
extensive use of chemical pesticides to combat forest insects and
diseases, declaring that such use could have "unanticipated effects on
the biotic community" within a park. [108]
The concern for naturalness by no means precluded active
manipulation of resources, as with fire management or reduction of elk
populations. Indeed, although it acknowledged the process of continuous
change in nature, in several instances the Leopold Report advocated
preserving or re-creating a particular "ecologic scene." In its opening
paragraphs it asserted that although "biotic communities change through
natural stages of succession," such communities could be manipulated
"deliberately" through control of animal and plant populations. It
recommended as a "primary goal" for national parks that a "vignette of
primitive America" should be reestablished or maintained, to approximate
the conditions at the time of first European contactthe desired
"ecologic scene." [109]
Elaborating on his report, Starker Leopold advised the October 1963
national park superintendents conference that the "manipulation of
ecological situations" was a proper means of preserving "what it is that
we have set up to display before the public." He stated that in cases
where the Service wanted to "show a natural scene typical of an area, we
can build it if we have to." A visitor to Mt. McKinley National
Park should "have the opportunity to see the type of scene that was
observed by the pioneers . . . or whoever was the first visitor to that
area." He added, "This is the objective of ecologic planning in the
parks." [110]
In May 1963, two months after the Leopold Report appeared, Secretary
Udall declared it official Park Service policy. Previously, the Service
lacked a cohesive policy statement for overall park management. Instead,
it had relied on myriad "handbooks" developed over the years for
guidance on specific activities such as wildlife management,
maintenance, concessions, road and trail management, and master
planning. Although Fauna No. 1 still influenced natural resource policy,
by the early 1960s there was little direct reference to it.
Shortly after the Leopold Report appeared, Director Hartzog ordered
the preparation of new, concise policies. They were to be separated into
three categoriesnatural, recreational, and historicala
division generally based on land classifications proposed by the 1962
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Report and on the
perception that Congress had created three basic types of parks. First
published in 1967, with slight revisions in 1968 and 1970, the
management policies for natural areas included the Leopold Report
reprinted in full. [111]
Yet the new policies revealed ambivalence within the bureau.
Displaying a remarkable allegiance to tradition in the face of modern
ecological concepts, the policies also included the 1918 Lane Letter,
the primary policy statement of Stephen Mather's directorship. A product
of its times, the Lane Letter had placed heavy emphasis on recreational
tourism in the national parks and had characterized the parks as
"national playground[s]." Oriented toward park development, the letter
virtually ignored national park science, merely commenting that research
should be conducted by other bureaus. Its resource management
recommendations included such practices as fighting forest insects and
diseases and allowing cattle grazing in areas not frequented by the
public. In a July 1964 policy memorandum drafted by the Park Service and
included in the new policy book, Secretary Udall noted that the Lane
Letter was "sometimes called the Magna Carta of the National Parks." The
secretary declared that its policies are "still applicable for us today,
and I reaffirm them. . . . The management and use of natural areas shall
be guided by the 1918 directive of Secretary Lane." Nearly half a
century old, the 1918 statement was unquestionably at variance with
1960s ecological concepts for preserving natural areas. As a
philosophical and policy statement on parks, it contrasted strikingly
with the Leopold Report. Yet both documents were now official
policy, and both were reprinted in the 1968 policy book for
natural areas. [112]
It is especially noteworthy that Fauna No. 1 was not even mentioned
in the new policies. Nor were its recommendations included in the
appendix, although they were clearly forerunners of the Leopold Report
and far more in tune with it philosophically than was the Lane Letter.
The new policies also neglected to mention the 1963 report by the
National Academy of Sciences. This omission gives credence to Howard
Stagner's recollection that the Service wanted to distance itself from
the blunt and, as he put it, potentially "very damaging" criticism in
the academy's report. [113] Inclusion of
the Lane Letter and exclusion of any mention of the ecologically
oriented Fauna No. 1 and National Academy Report rendered the new Park
Service policy statement much less forward-looking than it could have
been. These factors also reflected the uncertain status of ecological
science in the Park Service during the 1960s and 1970s and suggested
that the Service was less than fully committed to employing scientific
knowledge as a basis for natural resource management decisions.
Moreover, fears arose among environmental groups that, with the three
categories of parks, the Service might be more inclined to neglect
natural resources in historical parks and cultural resources in natural
parks. Rejecting the perception that units of the national park system
could be categorized into three basic types and managed accordingly,
Congress, in the General Authorities Act of 1970, declared the various
types of parks to be part of a single system. The act stated that the
parks
though distinct in character are united through their inter-related
purposes and resources into one national park system as cumulative
expressions of a single national heritage; . . . and . . . it is the
purpose of this Act to include all such areas in the System.
Subsequently, in revisions of its management policies, the Park
Service abandoned the three separate administrative classifications.
Congress reaffirmed the single-system principle in the Redwood National
Park Expansion Act of 1978. [114]
|