Relation of Wild Life to the Public 393 



mission and the Roosevelt Wild Life Station. The idea was to 

 conduct just such investigations and demonstrations as had already 

 been started in the Park during the previous seasons (cf. Roosevelt 

 Wild Life Bulletin, Vol. i, p. 53, 1921). 



Our party began work there by making a study of the fish, as a 

 basis for properly managing the waters (cf. Adams, Hankinson and 

 Kendall, '19), and preparing guide booklets on birds for the park 

 visitors (Silloway, '20). But we were soon importuned to study 

 some method of controlling the leeches in one of the most frequented 

 bathing lakes, and incidentally controlling the mosquitoes (by means 

 of fish), and finally to aid in the control of the algae causing 

 " water bloom " which also annoyed the bathers. These investiga- 

 tions were made by Moore ('22, '23), and Smith ('24). In the 

 effort to control the " bloom," it was found that the copper sulpha^'e 

 also killed the fish. It then became a study of how to harmonize 

 all these interests, and this series of problems could not be solved 

 without the aid of scientific men. It will be seen that these are 

 relatively new kinds of park problems, and that they are a direct 

 result of intensive use occasioned by the proximity of the Park to 

 our largest city. These new park activities are due primarily to 

 Mr. Edward F. Brown's ideas of camp development which Mr. 

 Perkins accepted (cf. Jessup, '19, p. 159) and organized in the 

 Park on such a large scale that it became the largest camping park 

 in the world (cf. Silloway and Brown, '20). 



The main advantages which the public will derive from such a 

 staff of experts ought to be self-evident. It is rarely that one must 

 show that a lawyer or engineer is needed for a technical problem, 

 but how to gain similar assistance for the educational, scientific and 

 like problems in the parks is not quite clear, even to some of 

 our best park leaders. This is natural when we recall that most 

 of those engaged in park work have gone into it without a pro- 

 fessional park training, and for this reason, although they may have 

 a special interest and experience in some phase of the work, as a 

 rule they do not have a comprehensive grasp of the problems, or 

 the technical knowledge needed for many diverse undertakings. 

 For these reasons it is worth while to summarize some of the major 

 advantages of such a professional staff: 



I. Trained men are necessary for scientific, educational and 

 technical work. They must have the time and facilities to master 

 these problems and to adapt them to the situation. We have 



