Editorial 



NEW NATIONAL PARKS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION 



SINCE the outbreak of the war, the tide of tourist 

 travel, diverted from European objectives, has 

 sought out every nook and corner of our own land, 

 and the numbers of visitors to our great National Parks, 

 the Yellowstone, Yosemite and Glacier, has more than 

 doubled. As a result, a wide public interest has arisen 

 in the entire subject of national parks, which has focused 

 in numerous definite projects, eagerly championed by 

 various localities, which would be benefited by their 

 establishment. The existing National Parks, with their 

 great number of visitors, and extensive advertising and 

 support by railroads, not only bring in considerable 

 local revenue but aid in securing large congressional 

 appropriations for good roads within and to the parks. 



New National Parks are seldom established by the pur- 

 chase of private lands. Even the groves of Giant Sequoias 

 were obtained by the Government largely by exchange 

 for other timber. In nearly every instance, these new 

 proposals involve the reservation of property now owned 

 by the nation. With few exceptions the areas desired 

 for their scenic beauty now lie within National Forests, 

 and are under the administration of the Forest Service. 

 Since every acre of National Forest land is open to 

 the free use of the public for recreation, it is evident 

 that there must exist some specific reason other than 

 the right to enter and enjoy the beauties of nature, for 

 setting aside as National Parks, lands now administered 

 as National Forests! 



This reason lies in the fact that the existing National 

 Parks are reserved wholly for recreation, and that com- 

 mercial uses such as grazing by domestic animals, lum- 

 bering, mining, agriculture and power development are 

 rigidly excluded. There exists a deep-rooted sentiment 

 in the minds of the public who seek nature for itself 

 that such commercial uses are a desecration. The lum- 

 berman's ax must be forever barred the older and more 

 decrepit are the veteran trees, the greater the charm of 

 their presence. Overgrazing by wild game as seen in the 

 immense herds of elk in the Yellowstone Park, which 

 have to be fed with hay in the winter to escape starva- 

 tion, is wholly in harmony with the true objects of parks 

 as such to preserve nature in all its wildness but the 

 presence of sheep and cattle, which destroy the same 

 wild flowers and eat the same browse as the elk, is wholly 

 incompatible with these objects. 



These convictions and prejudices are so strongly rooted 

 that the wisdom of administering areas designated as 

 parks under a separate organization is apparent. Those 

 areas like the Yellowstone upon which the public has 

 placed a high sentimental value must be free from all 

 suspicion of commercial spoliation. 

 366 



But how many large areas exist in the West whose 

 scenic features are so strikingly unique and beautiful as 

 to demand their unconditional reservation as parks? The 

 setting aside of several hundred thousand acres, upon 

 which every resource must lie idle except the exploitation 

 of the tourist, will in most localities result in greater loss 

 than gain to the local community. The timber is needed 

 for local industries, and mines would lie idle for lack 

 of it. Sheep and cattle which formerly supported hun- 

 dreds of small settlers would be expelled from these 

 national lands. Waterpower development would be pre- 

 vented. Under these circumstances, such reservations 

 would be fiercely opposed by the very communities which 

 might benefit by the tourist. 



Actually confronted by this dilemma, our statesmen 

 representing these localities have resorted to the simple 

 device of trying to eat the cake and have it too. Numer- 

 ous bills, among which may be mentioned those to create 

 the National Park of the Cliff Cities, New Mexico, the 

 Mount Baker National Park, Washington, the Sawtooth 

 National Park, Idaho, the Cabinet National Park, Mon- 

 tana, the Sequoia National Park, California, and others, 

 deliberately grant the power to the national government 

 to conduct lumbering operations, grant rights of way, 

 relinquish lands for agriculture, permit mining and graz- 

 ing, in exactly the same manner, on these proposed park 

 areas, as is now permitted on these same areas under 

 their present classification as national forests. The 

 vital distinction of "park" areas is to be deliberately 

 marred to silence local opposition, and to secure the 

 advantages of a "national park," including additional 

 federal appropriations for roads, with none of its restric- 

 tions or drawbacks. 



Aside from the dishonesty and deception inherent in 

 such proposals, there is the additional serious defect 

 that every bill of this kind proposes to remove the 

 suggested areas from the present jurisdiction of the Na- 

 tional Forest Service and transfer them bodily to the 

 Department of the Interior. As long as the existing 

 National Parks are few, large and segregated from 

 National Forests, as at present, the waste and friction 

 inherent in having two parallel administrations of national 

 lands is not so apparent. But should this movement 

 result in the creation of numerous smaller areas, upon 

 which all sorts of commercial activities are legally sanc- 

 tioned the proper administration of the resultant lum- 

 bering, grazing and other uses would demand a complete 

 duplication in the Interior Department of the organi- 

 zation of the Forest Service over contiguous areas. No 

 argument can be fund for such a wasteful plan. 



