44 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Forests. The need of drawing a clear distinction between National 

 Parks and National Forests and of a definite policy governing their 

 relation is increasingly evident. Parks are being advocated where the 

 land should stay in the Forests, while elsewhere areas which should 

 be made Parks continue to be administered as Forests — for example, 

 the Grand Canyon of the Colorado. 



A National Park should be created only where there are scenic 

 features of such outstanding importance for beauty or as natural 

 marvels that they merit National recognition and protection and, on 

 this account, have a public value transcending that of any material 

 resources on the same land — such areas, for example, as those now 

 comprised in the Yellowstone and Yosemite Parks and in the Grand 

 Canyon National Monument. The areas should be large enough to 

 justify administration separate from the Forests and the boundaries 

 drawn so as not to include timber, grazing, or other resources the 

 economic use of which is essential to the upbuilding and industrial 

 welfare of the country. In addition, when Parks are created from 

 parts of the Forests, the portions remaining as Forests should not 

 be left in a form difficult or impossible to administer. 



CLEAR-CUT POLICY NECESSARY. 



The importance of a clear-cut policy is evidenced by the efforts fre- 

 quently made to secure the creation of National Parks out of areas con- 

 taining great bodies of timber, extensive grazing lands, and other re- 

 sources, the withdrawal of which from use would be uneconomic and 

 prejudicial to the local and general public interest. In most cases the 

 desire for a specific Park, where economic use of the resources also is 

 essential, has led to the proposal for an administration of the area, 

 after the creation of the Park, identical with the present Forest admin- 

 istration. Several such measures now are before Congress. Their en- 

 actment would result in a mere division of the public properties into 

 Parks and Forests, having no distinction except in name; handled 

 alike, but by duplicate organizations in different departments. Still 

 more serious is the fact that the cutting up of the Forests would 

 greatly cripple administration of the remaining lands. It would 

 doubtless mean the abandonment of large areas which should remain 

 under public ownership and control for timber production and water- 

 shed protection. It would greatly reduce efficiency in forest fire pro- 

 tection and in the handling of current business, increase the expense 



