KEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 47 



In administering the national forests, the department has been 

 carrying on an expanding business through a period of rapidly rising 

 prices with an almost stationary appropriation. This has made it 

 necessary to practice the most rigid economy. It is impossible to 

 handle the forests efficiently on the basis of the prewar appropriations, 

 and the protection and development of these resources should not be 

 restricted for lack of men to handle the work involved. 



NATIONAL FORESTS AND NATIONAL PARKS. 



For many years the movement for setting aside from the public 

 domain permanent reservations of wild lands as national heritages 

 failed to recognize any substantial difference between national parks 

 and national forests. As regulated use of the timber and grazing re- 

 sources of the forests developed in importance, however, a clear dis- 

 tinction of fields began to appear. The forests, in the nature of the 

 case, must always have an important value as recreation grounds, and 

 must be administered with definite provision for recreational use along 

 with the development and use of their material resources. Areas 

 of scenic grandeur or natural wonders which are exceptional in char- 

 acter should be incorporated in national parks, but for every area 

 of this sort there are literally hundreds of mountain peaks, lakes, 

 or beautiful canyons within the forests which do not justify their 

 designation as parks. 



This situation must be recognized in seeking a sound basis for 

 determ.ining what areas should be incorporated in national parks. 

 If their primary public utility arises from economic resources for 

 which, sooner or later, there will be a legitimate demand, they 

 should not be embraced in parks. As our Western States expand in 

 population and industry, it will not be possible to withhold the parks 

 from demands for water power, for irrigation, and, indeed, for timber 

 and forage, unless they are limited to areas m which the beauties 

 and wonders of nature are, in reality, so dominating that they justify 

 prohibition of conflicting forms of use. Above all, the national con- 

 ception of our great parks as areas so fine and wonderful that they 

 belong to the whole country should not be cheapened by making them 

 simply a means for local development or advertisement. 



Nor should we build up, under the name of national parks, public 

 properties which are open to various forms of commercial exploita- 

 tion and which are, in fact, merely national forests under a different 

 designation. Areas whose dominant public values are economic do not 

 belong in the parks. They should remain or be placed in the national 

 forests if they serve the primary functions of the forests — the produc- 

 tion of timber or the protection of watersheds. On the other hand, 

 the economic service rendered by the forests should be no bar to the 

 administration of small areas at many points within them for public 



