Introduction
There was a time, through the middle of the twentieth century, when
the national parks reigned indisputably as America's grandest summertime
pleasuring grounds. Managed by the National Park Service after 1916, the
spectacular mountains, canyons, forests, and meadows set aside to
provide for the public's enjoyment appealed tremendously to a public
increasingly mobile and enamored of sightseeing and automobile touring.
To make the parks accessible to millions of vacationers, graceful
winding roads were constructed, with romantic names like Going to the
Sun Highway or Trail Ridge Road. Huge rustic hotels built of log and
stone, such as Yellowstone's Old Faithful Inn and Grand Canyon's El
Tovar, welcomed overnight visitors to the parks. In hotel lobbies or in
nearby museums, courteous park rangers stood ready to take eager
visitors on nature walksout into the crisp, pine-scented mountain
air to enjoy the wonders of trailside forests and streams. In parks such
as Sequoia and Yellowstone, visitors fed bears along roadsides or
gathered in specially constructed bleachers to watch rangers feed bears;
and at dusk each summer a firefall of burning embers cascaded from the
heights of Yosemite's Glacier Point.
Enjoying immense popularity, the national park system grew to
include areas in the East and Midwest while continuing to expand in the
West, where it had begun and where the majority of the older and more
famous parks are located. Preserving remnants of the wild landscapes of
the frontier, the parks were from the beginning a part of frontier
history and romantic western lore. Most national parks were truly
isolated, and the nearby lands were little developed and sparsely
populated. For many park rangers, working in the vast, majestic parks
seemed a kind of lingering frontier experience: long assignments in
remote backcountry areas; horse patrols along park boundaries; and
primitive, wood-heated log cabins to house the family.
In recent decades the situation has changed. Today many national
parks, although still beautiful, are marred by teeming, noisy crowds in
campgrounds, visitor centers, grocery stores, and restaurants, and by
traffic jams on roads and even on trails. The push and shove of hordes
of tourists and the concomitant law-enforcement problems eclipse the
unalloyed pleasure that earlier generations surely experienced. Bland,
unattractive modern structures have replaced many of the rustic park
administrative buildings and tourist facilities of the past. Housing for
rangers and other employees frequently is comparable at best to urban
tract homes. Spending fewer hours in the backcountry, rangers more and
more find themselves encumbered by office work. In addition, the
National Park Service has experienced a decline in its discretionary
authority, as it must confront powerful, competing special-interest
groups that watch every move. With their natural conditions degraded by
air and water pollution, accelerated development of adjacent lands,
extensive public use, and inappropriate actions taken by the Park
Service itself, the national parks have become the focus of angry
battles over environmental issues that often result in litigation by
batteries of lawyers.
Set within the context of this broad array of national park
operations and issues, the environmental and ecological aspects of
national park management principally the treatment of natural
resourcesform the central theme of this volume. This study traces
over many decades the interaction of bureaucratic management with the
flora, fauna, and other natural elements in parks of scenic grandeur
that are intended to be visited and enjoyed by large numbers of people
yet in some fashion to be preserved. The book begins in the late
nineteenth century, when the earliest parks were established and when
management principles were first set in place. It extends almost to the
present day, when the recency of issuesmany yet
unresolvedflattens the perspective from historical to
journalistic.
The first chapter, based mostly on secondary sources, summarizes the
period before the National Park Service was founded in 1916. Subsequent
chapters, drawing extensively on primary documents such as internal
memoranda and reports (most of them never before researched), include an
analysis of the legislative history of the act creating the Service and
the intent of that act. Next is a detailed account of national park
management over timein effect, how the act was implemented: the
growth and development of the park system during the 1920s, the rise of
biological science within the Park Service, and the bureau's triumphs in
recreational planning and development during the New Deal. The story
continues with the World War IIŠera retrenchment and declining interest
in biological science, the Park Service's reinvigoration during the
tourism explosion of the 1950s, and the Service's clash with the
environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s even as it began to
revitalize its biology programs.
Rather than presenting a broad study of conservation history, this
book focuses chiefly on internal Park Service concernson how a
bureau created to administer the national parks arrived at management
policies for natural resources, put them into practice, and in time
changed many of them. Especially since its wildlife biology programs
gained strength in the 1930s, the Park Service has not been of one mind
about how to care for the parks' natural resources; philosophical and
political disagreements have been persistent.
Indeed, present-day management of nature in the parks differs
substantially from that in the early decades of national park
historythe most fundamental difference being the degree to which
science now informs the Service's natural resource practices. And in an
age of ecological science, the extent to which the Service manages parks
in a scientifically informed way may be seen as a measure of its true
commitment to ecological principles. It may also be a measure of its
commitment to the ethical purposes always implicit in the national park
concept, but more recognized todayprincipally, that within these
specially designated areas native species will be protected and
preserved.
It might be assumed that management of national parks with the
intent of preserving natural conditions would necessarily require
scientific knowledge adequate to understand populations and
distributions of native species and their relation to their environment,
and that without such information the parks' natural history is fraught
with too many questions, too many unknowns. At least from the early
1930s, this argument was voiced within the Park Service's own ranks. Yet
it has not been the view of park management throughout most of the
Service's history.
Because National Park Service decisionmaking most often has not been
scientifically informed, the question arises as to what kind of
management has been taking place, and why. Thus, in this study the
management of nature in the parks is placed in the larger context of
overall park operations and bureaucratic behaviorin ecological
terms, it is placed within its "bureaucratic habitat."
The analysis is also expanded to embrace the corporate culture of
the National Park Service. Of special interest is the extensive
development of the parks for what might be called recreational
tourismpleasure travel focusing on appreciation of nature and
enjoyment of the out-of-doors. This overriding emphasis on tourism
development fostered the ascendancy of certain professions such as
landscape architecture and engineering, and largely determined the
Service's organizational power structure and its perception of what is
right and proper for the parks.
Implementing its 1916 congressional mandate as it deemed proper, the
Park Service engaged in two basic types of nature management:
development for tourism, and what was later termed natural resource
management. Both affected natural conditions in the parks. Although not
generally perceived as such, tourism development amounted to a kind of
de facto management of nature. It often resulted in extensive
alterations to natural conditions, especially along road and trail
corridors, and in pockets of intensive use (for example, along the south
rim of the Grand Canyon or throughout the Yosemite Valley). By contrast,
natural resource management involved direct, purposeful manipulation of
natural elementsincluding the nurturing of favored species, such
as bison, bears, and game fish; or the reduction of populations of
so-called problem species, such as certain predators or tree-killing
insects. These two basic types of nature management, factors in park
management from the earliest decades, affected plants and animals
throughout the parks, to the point of eliminating some species. This
alteration of natural conditions created perplexing situations for later
generations of managers and scientists.
The central dilemma of national park management has long been the
question of exactly what in a park should be preserved. Is it the
scenery the resplendent landscapes of forests, streams,
wildflowers, and majestic mammals? Or is it the integrity of each park's
entire natural system, including not just the biological and scenic
superstars, but also the vast array of less compelling species, such as
grasses, lichens, and mice? The incredible beauty of the national parks
has always given the impression that scenery alone is what makes them
worthwhile and deserving of protection. Scenery has provided the primary
inspiration for national parks and, through tourism, their primary
justification. Thus, a kind of "facade" management became the accepted
practice in parks: protecting and enhancing the scenic facade of nature
for the public's enjoyment, but with scant scientific knowledge and
little concern for biological consequences.
Criticism of this approach began in the 1930s, increased during the
environmental era of the 1960s and 1970s, and is commonly voiced today.
Nevertheless, facade management based largely on aesthetic
considerations remains quite acceptable to many. Far easier to
undertake, and aimed at ensuring public enjoyment of the parks, facade
management has long held more appeal for the public, for Congress, and
for the National Park Service than has the concept of exacting
scientific management.
Yet aesthetics and ecological awareness are not unrelated. Whatever
benefit and enjoyment the national parks have contributed to American
life, they have undoubtedly intensified the aesthetic response of
millions of people to the beauty and the natural history of this
continenta response that could then be pleasurably honed in more
ordinary surroundings closer to home. Beyond the sheer enjoyment of
scenery, a heightened aesthetic sensibility may have inspired in many a
deeper understanding of, and concern for, the natural environment. This
benefit defies quantification, but surely it has had consequences of
immense value, both for individuals and for the nation.
The persistent tension between national park management for
aesthetic purposes and management for ecological purposes underlies much
of the following narrative.
|