THE NATIONAL PARKS: A Forum on the "Worthless Lands" Thesis

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-AT* ********* •••••••• NATIONAL PARKS: WORTHLESS LANDS OR COMPETING LAND VALUES?

by Richard W. Sellars

Editors' Note tions based on emotion overcome the urge to acquire When Richard W. Sellars submitted his critique of Alfred wealth (p. 49). Runte's "worthless lands" thesis toJFH, we agreed to publish No qualification outweighed the precedent of "use­ it with the understanding that Runte would be invited to less" scenery; only where scenic nationalism did not respond in print and that both statements would be the basis conflict with materialism could the national park idea for comment by three scholars well known for their study and further expand (p. 65). appreciation of the national parks and their history. Hence, we In the quest for total preservation, no less than the present a kind of forum on Runte's "worthless lands " thesis; retention of significant natural wonders, the worth­ readers are invited to respond to any or all of the statements lessness of the area in question was still the only with succinct letters that may be considered for publication in guarantee of effecting a successful outcome (p. 109). a future issue. And in the book's epilogue: As for the United States, . . . national parks must appear worthless, and remain worthless, to survive K% lfred Runte's book, National Parks: The Ameri- (p. 183). /\ can Experience (University of Nebraska Press, The many difficulties with this theory stem JL JL 1979), describes the evolution of the national chiefly from two fundamental definitional problems: park idea. It discusses the various influences on the (1) Runte defines, or uses, the term national parks in early concept of public parks, the efforts to get the the most narrow construction possible; and (2) he park system on a firm political footing, the change severely limits the definition of worthless lands. from preserving only monumental scenery to pre­ These narrow definitions exclude many park areas serving entire ecological systems, and the more as well as a number of economic factors, which, recent struggles over development versus preserva­ when considered, directly contradict the notion of tion of parks or proposed park lands. parks as worthless lands. Of the several themes discussed, we are concerned here with the idea that national parks are comprised National Parks Narrowly Defined of "worthless lands"—that is, lands without eco­ The national park system is much more varied and nomic value. The author claims that scenic lands extensive than Runte would have us believe. The can be set aside as parks only if they are otherwise author indeed limits his discussion of worthless worthless, and they continue as parks chiefly lands to those units that had, or were eventually to because of their worthlessness. This idea, earlier have, actual national park designation. Today about presented in article form in the Journal of Forest 15 percent of the total number of units in the system History (April 1977), appears in detail in National fall under such designation; about 13 percent were so Parks, particularly in chapters 3 and 4. As early as designated when Runte's book was written. This the preface, Runte states that "today the reserves narrow focus—bound by the Park Service's confus­ are not allowed to interfere with the material ing nomenclature—is presented as representative of progress of the nation" (p. xii). And throughout the the "American experience" with national parks. It book he reiterates the theme: ignores the broader composition and history of the There evolved in Congress a firm (if unwritten) policy system's evolution and therefore distorts the case for that only "worthless" lands might be set aside as parks as worthless lands. national parks (p. 48). In fact, the National Park Service Act of 1916 But although Americans as a whole admit to the provided that the new agency administer what had "beauty" of the national parks, rarely have percep­ already become in effect a system of parks, which

130 JOURNAL OF FOREST HISTORY • JULY 1983 Yosemite Valley, viewed from Inspiration Point in this 1859 lithograph, stands as one of the finest testaments to the national park idea. Although the value of this and other national park lands may seem altogether evident to today's appreciative visitors, historians still debate the motives behind the parks' establishment. Were these scenic wonders set aside because they were otherwise "worthless lands," or were they established in spite of real and potential competing

economic uses.' FHS Collection included 21 national monuments, the ruins at Casa land values and alternate economic uses. Each dif­ Grande, and the Hot Springs Reservation, in addition ferent kind of park area that came into the system to 14 national parks. Today, with a very large and had its own accumulated political, economic, and complex system of more than 300 units, Park Service environmental history, but Runte ignores this. He nomenclature consists of almost two dozen different presents his theory using incomplete evidence, bas­ designations—such as national parks, monuments, ing his sweeping conclusion upon the history of only preserves, military parks, battlefields, historical a portion of the system—those areas having national parks, and historic sites, to name a few. park designation. In fact, a truly conclusive argu­ The Park Service defines national parks—one ment that park land is worthless land must consider category among many within the system—as large the whole system, including its natural, cultural, and diverse areas with enough land or water to and recreational areas. Evidence for Runte's sweep­ protect the resources adequately. Yet the national ing generalization—the "worthless lands" thesis— park category alone encompasses a diversity of park should not be restricted by the limitations of park types and sizes. For example, Yellowstone National nomenclature, which itself is often confusing and Park is a very large natural area, Mesa Verde Na­ arbitrary. tional Park is a large cultural area, and Hot Springs In this regard, the potential economic value of National Park is a smaller, essentially urban recrea­ many areas within the system (not specifically those tional area. The confusion over park nomenclature is designated national parks) is beyond dispute. Federal reflected in the book's only map (a U. S. Forest Hall National Memorial, a structure commemorating Service map following page 96), which confuses numerous historic events of outstanding importance natural and cultural types of parks. The map identi­ (including the first inauguration of George Washing­ fies Mesa Verde National Park and Wupatki, Canyon ton), sits on a .45-acre tract at 26 Wall Street, de Chelly, and Bandelier national monuments as diagonally across from the New York Stock Ex­ primary natural units, when without exception change. Castle Clinton National Monument, an early these parks are primary cultural areas, set aside not nineteenth-century military fort, is situated at the at all because of natural features but to preserve tip of lower Manhattan. These park units occupy very important prehistoric sites and structures. some of the most expensive real estate in the world. The point is that the arguments that justified Similarly, Independence National Historical Park preservation in virtually every one of these varied comprises more than 36 acres in downtown Phila­ units in the system bear directly on the question of delphia, and the varied and numerous national park

THE NATIONAL PARKS: A FORUM 131 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••It**** units comprising the National Capital Parks occupy "national parks must appear worthless, and remain more than 6,000 acres in the District of Columbia. worthless, to survive" (p. 183). Runte's failure to Some recreational areas of the system contain ex­ consider a broader variety of land values, however, tremely valuable lands, such as the variety of units leaves the argument incomplete and highly vulner­ included in both Golden Gate (San Francisco) and able. Not only did the parks contain valuable lands Gateway (New Jersey-New York) national recreation when established, but today in many park areas areas. these values have increased enormously. Nor does Runte take into account the value of the Runte himself makes it clear that national park national monuments set aside for their significance lands were not entirely worthless. He points to in prehistory. It is important to note that many early various forms of enterprise—grazing in Yosemite, excavations of prehistoric sites in the Southwest farming and ranching in Jackson Hole, and hunting brought economic benefits to people involved in alligators and snowy egrets in the Everglades—pre­ marketing antiquities, especially pottery. The 1906 existing in areas later established as parks. Also, Antiquities Act was inspired by groups seeking to according to Runte, ranchers and farmers sought to preserve these sites and specifically to prevent their divert the waters of both Yellowstone Lake and the commercial exploitation. For all its faults and weak­ Bechler River (within Yellowstone Park) for irriga­ nesses, the act has resulted in the preservation of tion, and timber operators threatened the forests of many areas by including them in the national park the Great Smoky Mountains and the Blue Ridge system, and has helped prevent the economic exploi­ area. Runte's own evidence thus cuts squarely tation of both historic and prehistoric properties on across his theory, though he fails to note the federal land. (The Archaeological Resources Protec­ contradictions. tion Act of 1979 provides even greater protection From the very beginning of the national park against economic exploitation of both historic and movement, moreover, the lands to be set aside as prehistoric properties on federal land. This act was parks had obvious potential for tourist trade. In fact, passed after Runte had written his book.) the famous campfire discussion held in September Runte states in his preface that it would be 1870, at the Madison junction in the Yellowstone "impossible in the scope of one book" to consider the country, dealt precisely with the potential economic variety of other areas in the system that are "now value of this area. Around the campfire, the Yellow­ often ranked with national parks proper" (p. xi). stone explorers discussed plans to acquire rights to This blanket disclaimer seeks to justify a limited lands containing the most interesting phenomena. focus on areas that support his thesis. But certainly This, even as Runte tells it, would have in time he offers no proof that his chosen subjects are repre­ "become a source of great profit to the owners" sentative, and the existing literature suggests that a (p. 41). However, the proposal to seek private profits broader treatment would indeed be possible in the was quickly rejected in favor of the public interest, scope of one book. In any event, the history of the and thus the birth of the national park idea—so the national parks alone cannot be isolated so neatly or story goes. In any event, according to Runte, explorer logically from the history of the national park and park proponent Ferdinand V. Hayden made it system's very complex origins, evolution, and com­ very clear to Congress in 1872 "that the explorers' position, most especially when presenting a theory determination to avoid another Niagara was indeed a having such wide implications. primary incentive for the Yellowstone Park cam­ paign" (p. 52, italics added). The development around Worthless Lands Narrowly Defined Niagara Falls represented excessive commercialism In the opening section of the chapter titled and profiteering in a scenic area. These very early "Worthless Lands," Runte states that "national efforts to prevent commercial exploitation of the parks, however spectacular from the standpoint of Yellowstone flatly contradict the "worthless lands" their topography, actually encompassed only those concept. features considered valueless for lumbering, mining, The railroad industry very quickly understood the grazing, or agriculture" (p. 49). Although no precise potential of tourism in Yellowstone and other park definition is given, in almost all instances the areas. Runte shows that the Northern Pacific Rail­ "worth" of the lands in question is judged in terms of way promoted the establishment of Yellowstone these extractive industries. The principal exception National Park and in the 1880s helped finance a appears to be the use of land for reservoir sites, number of hostelries in the park. The Santa Fe Rail­ especially the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite Na­ road constructed El Tovar Hotel on the South Rim of tional Park. Reiteration of the "worthless lands" the Grand Canyon in 1904, four years before the area idea extends the concept from the beginning of the was set aside as a national monument and fifteen national park movement to the present day, when years before Congress designated it a national park.

132 JOURNAL OF FOREST HISTORY • JULY 1983 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The commercial value of national park lands, Richard Sellars argues, is apparent in the beginnings of "indus­ trial tourism" in Glacier National Park, Montana. The majestic Many Glacier Hotel, pictured at right, was built by the Great Northern Railway in 1914-1915 as the "showplace of the Rockies." It provided accommo­ dations for park visitors and, not incidentally, greater business for the railroad that monopolized tourist traffic in the area. _„_ „ „ . tHS Collection

The Great Northern Railway promoted the establish­ The value of real estate, specifically as it pertains ment of Glacier National Park, realizing that it could to development potential for commercial lodging, virtually monopolize tourist traffic in the area. houses, cabins, small farms, and, especially today, Runte observes that these railroads had few if any condominiums, second homes, and apartments, environmental concerns in supporting parks; rather should have been central to the discussion of parks "the lines promoted tourism in their quest for as worthless lands, yet Runte disregards these real greater profits" (p. 91). It is abundantly clear from estate values. Though of lesser concern in the early the book itself that with the very establishment of history of most of the large western national parks, the national parks came "industrial tourism," gen­ such values are a major factor in limiting the growth erated by public interest in these great institution­ rate of the park system today. The notion that alized western landscapes. national parks must be "worthless to survive" must Runte also discusses the later efforts of preserva­ confront the obvious potential land values in such tionists, especially Stephen T. Mather and Horace important national park areas as Jackson Hole, the M. Albright, to promote the economic potential of Yosemite Valley, or the South Rim of the Grand tourism in the parks in order to secure a greater Canyon. Placed on the open market, such lands could degree of political and economic stability for the park produce enough revenue virtually to pay off the system. He states that they "invoked the profit national debt. In the hands of private developers, motive," sought to "dilute the utilitarian rhetoric by individual lots or condominium units in Jackson Hole playing upon the value of the national parks as an or the Yosemite Valley, for instance, could create a economic resource," and helped make Congress real estate bonanza of the first order. aware that "national parks were capable of paying Fortunately, the American public realizes the ines­ economic as well as emotional dividends" (pp. 103- timable scenic value of these and many other park 05). Runte very clearly demonstrates that these areas. For decades Americans have acted directly leaders recognized the economic value of park lands, contrary to Runte's notion that the public "rarely" not their worthlessness. lets "perceptions based on emotion overcome the Although Runte repeatedly acknowledges the eco­ urge to acquire wealth." In fact, economic values are nomic value of tourism, only in a passing, almost overridden in the public interest with virtually every timid way does he allow this to qualify his otherwise acre of prime real estate preserved by the federal very firm assertion that parks consist of worthless government in the national park system. lands. He notes, for instance, that some parks estab­ Through a discussion of the Hetch Hetchy dam lished in the twentieth century were considered to be controversy, Runte shows that the value of land as "economically valueless from the standpoint of their reservoir sites can override scenic values in a natural wealth, if not their potential for outdoor national park. Yet what he does not discuss are the recreation" (p. 140). Yet never does he bring the later and very significant preservationist victories obvious and significant values of tourism fully to over the Echo Park, Marble Canyon, and Grand bear on his analysis of parks as worthless lands. Canyon dam proposals. In these instances, dam

THE NATIONAL PARKS: A FORUM 133 ••••••••*•••••••••*•••••••*•••*••••*••••••••••••••••••••• proponents predicted that construction would bring a variety of economic benefits to large regions of the country. Nevertheless, the economic potential of these park lands (and some adjacent nonpark lands) as reservoir sites was sacrificed to preserve the great scenic and scientific values of the parks. Defeat of both the proposed jetport near the Everglades and the proposed Mineral King Basin recreational devel­ opment near Sequoia National Park provides fur­ ther examples in which the ecological diversity and spectacular scenery of "worthless" lands were ulti­ mately valued over material progress. With the exception of Mineral King Basin, Runte mentions all of these proposals in the book, but he fails to ac­ knowledge the manner in which they contradict his "worthless lands" theory. Origins and Implications of the "Worthless Lands" Thesis Ultimately, the historical significance of the idea of parks as worthless lands derives from its use as a rhetorical ploy, rather than from the reality of the park lands situation. The rhetoric of park pro­ ponents frequently contained references to the limited economic value of lands, and the argument has had no small effect on park establishment. But because the term has been used rhetorically does not in any way make it an actual fact. This is a cardinal distinction, and it deserves discriminating analysis, which the book does not provide. Instead, Runte bought the rhetoric at face value. Essentially, the "worthless lands" theory gauges American public values at rock bottom. Bluntly stated, Runte's theory implies that only if there are no economic values at stake will the American public support park establishment. Yet the American ex­ perience with national parks plainly shows the public's determination to preserve park lands in the face of sometimes immense economic values. Fur­ thermore, this great and impressive commitment Yellowstone, established in 1872 as America's first national park, demonstrates the historical conti­ has deep historical roots and remains at the heart of nuity of the nation's preservation effort. Despite the broader preservation movement in the United immense numbers of visitors, most of the park States. Much of Yellowstone, for example, remains retains its essential wilderness character. essentially unchanged since the park's establish­ FHS Collection ment more than a century ago, and its establishment and ongoing preservation have achieved internation­ al importance historically and symbolically. And to Worthless is an absolute term meaning flatly that to whatever degree the concept of parks as worthless something has no value. It leaves no room for excep­ lands applies to the national park system, it must tion or nuance. Other than for its importance as surely apply also to preservation actions in general rhetoric, the term has limited application in the and to the setting aside of other federal, state, or history of a movement that from the beginning has local lands for a variety of public uses. For instance, involved competing land values. The resulting com­ the "worthless lands" thesis ignores the implica­ promise and sacrifice of these competing values has tions of hundreds of nonfederally owned parks in been worked out in the public forum and is endured valuable land areas, two striking examples being by both sides—those who would develop and those Central Park in New York and the Boston Common. who would preserve. •

134 JOURNAL OF FOREST HISTORY • JULY 1983 • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••^•••••••••••••*#*-^****^^^^1k.^^^ REPLY TO SELLARS

by Alfred Runte

yA long with other critics of National Parks: The taneously, however, the diversion of Niagara Falls f\ American Experience, Richard W. Sellars first for hydroelectric development was hailed as a great A JV of all has missed the origins of the term collective enterprise and therefore one worth the worthless lands. The definition is not mine; rather aesthetic sacrifice. Put another way, there is a dis­ it was Senator John Conness of California, opening tinct difference between development and despolia­ the very first speech on behalf of the national park tion. By the same token, however, forbidding the idea in the United States, who resorted to this dis­ latter temporarily is no test of the nation's willing­ tinctly paradoxical note: "I will state to the Senate," ness to forego the former indefinitely. he began, "that this bill proposes to make a grant of Sellars also suggests that the Antiquities Act of certain premises located in the Sierra Nevada moun­ 1906 contradicts the "worthless lands" hypothesis. tains, in the State of California, that are for all public Here again, he ignores the distinction between crass purposes worthless [italics added], but which consti­ commercialism and commerce. Those "people in­ tute, perhaps, some of the greatest wonders of the volved in marketing antiquities," as he so blandly world."1 The phrase "all public purposes" itself deserves special scrutiny. The wording reassured Conness's colleagues that no universally recognized alternative to preservation had been detected in Yosemite. Gold especially being absent, the United States certainly could afford to recognize the valley for its substantial "intrinsic" worth. According to Sellars, this limitation of the term worthless to natural resources implies a "narrow" definition of land value. However, it was precisely this meaning of the term that was adopted and understood by Congress, not only in 1864, but throughout the history of park establishment. His­ torically, land defined as natural resources, not as personal real estate, has formed the basis of our national economy. The United States can survive without spreading skyscrapers over every acre of Central Park; it cannot survive without oil, natural gas, timber, waterpower, minerals, and agriculture. It is misleading, in other words, to suggest that the possibility of rimming the Grand Canyon with con­ dominiums can be equated with the feasibility of damming the chasm for hydroelectric power, irriga­ tion, and water storage.2 Ever since the commercial­ ization of the brink of Niagara Falls, similar projects, although lucrative, have been condemned as purely individualistic and therefore crass. Almost simul-

Senator John Conness of California opened the debate on the national park idea in 1864 with a speech on behalf of park status for Yosemite Valley. 1 Congressional Globe, 38th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 1864, Although Yosemite included "some of the greatest p. 2300. wonders of the world," Conness argued, the lands 2The most recent threat to the Grand Canyon comes from were "for all public purposes worthless." His para­ upstream. See, for example, "A River No More? Grand Canyon is doxical statement would be reiterated by later park Threatened by Power Plant Expansion," a four-page leaflet issued advocates. by the American Wilderness Alliance in 1981. California State Library photo. FHS Collection

THE NATIONAL PARKS: A FORUM 135 National Park Service North Atlantic Mld-Atlanllc National Capital Southeast Midwest Rocky Mountain Southwest Western Pacific Northwest U.S. Department ol the Regional Ollice Regional Ollice Regional Office Regional Office Regional Office Regional Office Regional Office Regional Office Regional Office National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service 15 State Street 143 Souin Third Street 1100 Ohio Drive. SW Richard B Russell Federal 1709 Jackson street P.O Bon 25287 P O. Bon 728 450 Golden Gate Avenue 601 41h and Pike Bldg Regions. Regional Boston. MA 02109 Philadelphia. PA 191O6 Washington. OC 20242 Bldg (US Courthouse Omaha. NE 6B102 Denver. CO 80225 Santa Fe. NM 87501 Box 36063 Seattle. WA 98101 Ollices, and Areas Phone (617)223-0058 Phone (215)597-7018 Phone:(202)426-6700 75 Spring Street. S W Phone:(402)221-3471 Phone (303) 234-3095 Phone (505) 988-6375 San Francisco. CA 94102 Phone (206)442-0170 1980 Atlanta. GA 30303 National Park System Phone:(404)221-5187 Phone (415)556-4122

National Park Service map. courtesy Gordon Chappell • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••A-* describes them, were out-and-out vandals. Any their natural resources. monetary reward from pilfering the artifacts of the It is not that this observation is so startling; it is American Southwest was distinctly personal and merely that its implications are so unsettling. Every­ private. Not only did the national economy as a one would prefer to attribute the national park idea whole fail to benefit, but national prestige was sorely to idealism and altruism. Accordingly, it is especially compromised by such acts of maliciousness. As tempting to reject contrary interpretations as either noted in National Parks, Congress, responding to the imperfect or contrived, as when Sellars insists that cultural anxieties of the United States, has consis­ the "worthless lands" speeches in Congress were tently distinguished between these two forms of nothing more than "a rhetorical ploy." Yet this term exploitation. The "sin" of development is not devel­ in fact resolves nothing; it merely begs the question opment per se, but development that cannot simul­ all over again. Specifically, for whom was the ploy taneously be rationalized as being in the national intended? Whom did supporters of park legislation interest.3 To borrow a modern example, individuals need to deceive, especially if the Congress was so who destroy aboriginal artifacts on the public lands altruistic and public-spirited in the first place? Why are still subject to stiff punishment. Yet the Army protest that what people say is not in fact what Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation have people mean? Given the sharpness, sophistication, inundated literally scores of aboriginal sites. In each repetition, and consistency of the "worthless lands" of these instances, however, the sacrifice has been speeches throughout national park history, some­ justified as a "necessary evil" vital for the improve­ thing more than saving "political face" was at stake. ment of the nation as a whole. Rather than reject the evidence out of hand, his­ Only by insisting that the "worthless lands" hy­ torians critical of the "worthless lands" thesis pothesis be tested in the smallest possible arena does should check the accuracy of the written word Sellars's argument have any historical merit. against the geography and natural history of preser­ Granted, citizen outrage and concern saved Mount vation. Here, too, critics of National Parks have Vernon, Independence Hall, Central Park, the Wash­ labored under a host of mistaken assumptions, none ington Mall, and a host of open spaces and historic of which is more illusory than the belief that the structures from the subdivider's bulldozer and the mere size of a park is somehow synonymous with its wrecking ball. In no instance, however, did the out­ economic value. In this vein, for example, historians come affect the national economy. Any financial have spoken about the "wealth" of natural resources denied the nation through the protection of Yellow­ losses sustained were basically local and individual; 5 in most cases, development simply shifted a few stone's "extensive" timber and mineral deposits. hundred yards from where it was forbidden to where Yet, fully 75 percent of Yellowstone's tree cover it was not.1 Comparing the city parks and corner lots consists of lodgepole pine, a stunted, toothpicklike of New York, Philadelphia, and Washington against species infamous among Yellowstone's early ex­ stands of timber, mineral deposits, waterpower sites, plorers not as potential timber, but for its frustrat­ and grazing districts affecting major regional and ing habit of toppling over into a hopelessly entangled mass that thwarted their progress south of Yellow­ national economies is a strained analogy at best. 6 Obviously the United States has not been totally stone Lake. Another presumption, equally false, is callous, nor did National Parks insist on this inter­ that the "idealists" of the celebrated Yellowstone pretation. The point of the "worthless lands" pas­ Campfire of September 1870 brought important pres­ sages is to demonstrate why the idealism of the sure to bear on Congress, resulting in the national national park idea has rarely been achieved in real­ park. Congress may have felt sympathetic, but Con­ ity. Bluntly, ecological needs have come in a poor gress was hardly naive. The crucial assessment of second because the nation has been extremely reluc­ Yellowstone's potential came from Dr. Ferdinand V. tant to forego any reasonable opportunity, either Hayden. Not only was he a government scientist, but present or future, to develop the national parks for William H. Goetzmann describes him perfectly as "par excellence the businessman's geologist" (italics

'Runte, National Parks: The American Experience (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979), p. 53. "'See, for example, John Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical 'A dramatic example of the modern perils of "leapfrog" develop­ History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961), p. 17, ment in urban planning is the nation's capital. Stymied in down­ and Gordon Chappell's review of National Parks in Arizona and town Washington by long-standing height restrictions, builders the West 23 (Spring 1981): 67. have retreated across the Potomac into Virginia, where sky­ BA detailed assessment of the Yellowstone forest and its com­ scrapers now mar the backdrops to such famous landmarks as the position is found in Richard A. Bartlett, Nature's Yellowstone Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974), pp. 53-54.

138 JOURNAL OF FOREST HISTORY • JULY 1983 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••*•••••••••••••• added).7 Personally, for Hayden to have misled Con­ structures." gress about the "worth" of Yellowstone would have Had Sellars consulted the documents, he might jeopardized government appropriations he had have realized how dated his own statement has worked long and hard to secure. The point here is become. Certainly he is no longer speaking for the that Hayden effectively silenced most of the opposi­ Park Service, for the official documents that square­ tion against Yellowstone Park that was based purely ly contradict his observation have been sitting on the on the question of its size. Time and again he shelves of national park libraries for more than a reassured Congress that the land area of Yellow­ decade. One of the most responsible and thought- stone by itself was not proof that the region con­ provoking of these is the National Park System Plan, tained significant deposits of natural resources; released in 1972. In Part 2, dealing with natural topography was the clue.8 And fortunately for history, the Park Service sought to identify every Yellowstone, Hayden's analysis withstood the test unit in the system with an area large enough to of time. warrant classification as a "natural" environment. Among the units singled out for the protection of y harshest critics, regrettably, have ignored the "significant natural features" were Mesa Verde Na­ M sources completely. Instead they have re­ tional Park and Canyon de Chelly National Monu­ sorted to a "ploy" of their own, which, for lack of ment.10 Two years later, in March 1974, the House a better term, I label "park dropping." The procedure Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation works as follows: just find the name of a national held hearings on the first official proposals to desig­ park not mentioned in the book and "drop" it into a nate portions of Mesa Verde National Park and critique as "evidence" that I purposely chose only Bandelier National Monument as wilderness. those parks whose histories agreed with my hypoth­ Throughout the hearings, a parade of Park Service eses. This, however, is just another assumption in officials and representatives of major environmental lieu of introducing new sources.9 Sellars, for exam­ organizations stressed, as one witness put it, "that ple, contends that the map following page 96 of wilderness designation in portions of archeological National Parks "confuses natural and cultural types parks and monuments is appropriate for a number of of parks." His evidence? Another statement: "The reasons." Mesa Verde National Park alone contained map identifies Mesa Verde National Park and 42,000 acres of roadless—hence "natural"—ter­ Wupatki, Canyon de Chelly, and Bandelier national rain.11 Finally, on September 22 and October 1,1976, monuments as primary natural units, when without respectively, the House and Senate approved legisla­ exception [italics added] all of these parks are primary tion designating 8,100 acres of Mesa Verde National cultural areas of the system, set aside not at all Park as wilderness. Simultaneously, Bandelier Na­ [italics added] because of natural features but to tional Monument won wilderness status for 23,267 preserve very important prehistoric sites and of its 36,971 acres.12 Granted, Wupatki National Monument in Arizona has not yet achieved similar recognition; its 35,253 acres, however, certainly en­ title the monument to treatment as both a natural 12 William H. Goetzmann, Exploration and Empire: The Explorer and prehistoric site. and the Scientist in the Winning of the American West (New York: Sellars is correct in noting that none of these parks Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 498. originally was established to protect a natural en­ "Hayden's observations included the following statement: "The entire area (italics added] comprised within the limits of the reser­ vironment. But I never claimed otherwise—the year vation contemplated in this bill is not susceptible of cultivation with any degree of certainty, and the winters would be too severe for stock-raising. Whenever the altitude of the mountain districts exceeds 6,000 feet above tide-water, their settlement becomes '"See Table 4, "Listing by National Regions of areas of the problematical unless there are valuable mines to attract people. National Park System having significant natural features," U. S. The entire area (italics added] within the limits of the proposed Department of the Interior, Part Two of the National Park System reservation is over 6,000 feet in altitude, and the Yellowstone Plan: Natural History (Washington: GPO, 1972), p. 19. Lake, which occupies an area 15 by 22 miles, or 330 square miles, "House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the is 7,427 feet. The ranges of mountains that hem the valleys in on Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Designation of Wilder­ every side rise to the height of 10,000 and 12,000 feet, and are ness Areas, Part IV, Hearings on H.R. 13562 and H.R. 13563, 93rd covered with snow all the year. These mountains are all of Cong., 2d sess., March 22, 25, and 26, 1974, pp. 45, 55, and passim. volcanic origin, and it is not probable that any mines or minerals '-Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 2d sess., September 22, 1976, of value will ever be found there. . . ." House Committee on the pp. 31888-91; ibid., October 1, 1976, p. 34446. Acreages of the Public Lands, The Yellowstone Park, H. Rept. 26 to accompany respective parks and their wilderness areas are provided in H.R. 764, 42d Cong., 2d sess., February 27, 1872, pp. 1-2. National Park Service, Index of the National Park System and "An especially revealing example of "park dropping" is Related Areas (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 15, 17, 22, 40. (For my Lawrence Rakestraw's review of National Parks in Pacific His­ book, I relied on the 1977 edition.) torical Review 51 (May 1982): 226-27. "Index, p. 17.

THE NATIONAL PARKS: A FORUM 139 In 1871 and 1872, Dr. Ferdinand V. Hayden (seated, at the far end of the table) headed the scientific expedition that assessed the fabled Yellowstone region, then under consideration as a national park. Geologist Hayden assured Congress that, although large in geographical terms, the region contained negligible timber and mineral resources or potential for agriculture. _ U. S. Geological Survey photo, FHS Collection my map represents is 1978. By then his proclamation mere number of parks, in other words, is illusory. that these parks are primary cultural areas of the Where protecting the environment in particular is system had ceased to apply categorically to any of concerned, only those parks with substantial acre­ the parks he singled out in support of this particular ages hold forth any hope of preserving sensitive criticism of National Parks. natural ecosystems as integral biological units. In this type of reaction from a ranking official of Much of Sellars's argument rests on the fragments the Park Service, I detect another example of the of the national park system. Forts, battlefields, birth­ simmering rivalry between managers of historic places of famous people, and other historic struc­ sites and their "traditional" counterparts in the tures are important to have, of course, but as sites long-established scenic areas. Increasingly the for­ they do little to protect the integrity of the American mer have voiced their displeasure at being treated land as a whole. Similarly, what Sellars suggests are like second-class rangers, so to speak. Indeed, as recent contradictions of the "worthless lands" hy­ Robert Utley recently noted, the historical branch of pothesis, such as national seashores, lakeshores, the Park Service has tired of the statement, "But scenic rivers, and urban parks, are in fact mostly that's how they do things at Yellowstone." strip reserves—narrow slivers or corridors of prop­ erty squeezed on all sides by conflicting and often As a historian myself, I sympathize, but not at the ir risk of allowing Sellars another distortion. Of the damaging encroachments. ' By grasping for the ap­ more than 300 units of the park system, he observes, parent contradictions—by "park dropping"—Sellars only "about 15 percent of the total number of units in completely overlooks the significant contradictions the system" bear the actual designation national even among the park designations he himself prefers park. But observe the acreages involved. Although to emphasize. Why is it, to cite just one noted size alone has little relationship to the actual pres­ example, that only 1,298 acres of the 3,300 acres designated the Antietam National Battlefield are ence of natural resources, a larger park is a surer 16 measure of ecological integrity. As of January 1, actually in federal ownership? 1982, the 48 units of the system designated national Fortunately, "industrial tourism," as opposed to parks comprised 46,862,406.81 acres; the 78 national mere profiteering, did come of age after the turn of monuments added an additional 4,693,988.34 acres. the century. But tourism does not contradict the In contrast, all 62 national historic sites comprised "worthless lands" hypothesis—it supports it. In the only 17,380.71 acres (about the equivalent of the Dallas-Fort Worth jetport). Similarly, the 26 national historical parks contained but 150,254.21 acres.H The '"'The serious threats posed to every unit of the national park system are listed and described in State of the Parks—1980: A Report to the Congress (Washington: Office of Science and Technology, National Park Service, 1980). Threats to the urban uIbid.. p. 10. Other similar categories include: national memo­ parks in particular are graphically described by Robert Cahn in rials (23 units), 8,228.10 acres; national military parks (10 units), "New Urban Parks Face a Fight to Survive," Christian Science 34,668.22 acres; and national battlefields (10 units), 11,037.62 Monitor. June 17, 1982, pp. 12-14. acres. "'Index, p. 32.

140 JOURNAL OF FOREST HISTORY • JULY 1983 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••^ chess game of scenic preservation, ecology was the Park history, in either case, leaves little room for pawn—only economics could checkmate economics. optimism in the future. No "victory" for preserva­ Through its evolution into an industry, tourism tion, as Sellars defines it, has come without great overcame the "limits of altruism," so to speak, by compromise, and it is he who has read these victories providing the national park system with a practical out of context, not I. Echo Park was "saved" because defense. Just "saving" the parks for posterity was Glen Canyon was sacrificed; the Grand Canyon was not sufficient reason for Congress to withhold park "saved" because preservationists accepted coal-fired resources from exploitation indefinitely, whatever power plants as the alternative to cash-register their worth. Especially in the instance of marginal dams. Thanks to John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and other economic schemes, such as the proposed diversion of philanthropists, national parks in Jackson Hole, the Yellowstone Lake during the 1920s, tourism was an California coast redwoods, and the Great Smoky effective trump card for preservation interests. Mountains come closest to being among the noted Over the long term, of course, preservationists exceptions to the "worthless lands" hypothesis. But never "win" environmental battles; they can only are they in fact exceptions, even given their important hope to minimize their losses. As Sellars himself philanthropic origins? Consider all the compromises admits, the essence of any political struggle is com­ preservation still required, especially with regard to promise. Compromise in the ecological context, re­ wildlife management (sport shooting in Jackson grettably, is simply another definition for loss. Hole), watershed protection (eliminating integral Ultimately, accepting half of an ecosystem each time ecosystems from Redwood National Park), and park it is challenged leaves no room for any ecosystem at management itself (promising more roads in the all. Historically, most of these losses were simply Great Smokies to quiet local opposition). suffered before the individual national parks were established. In each instance, Congress sought to ersonally, I find nothing especially pleasing identify and exclude from consideration for park P about detailing these problems; I, too, would status those lands whose protection might arouse prefer to be more positive and upbeat. Yet the bitter controversy in the future. Where Congress ecological limitations consistently imposed on the erred, struggles like Hetch Hetchy were the result. national parks, coupled with the written sources It is to protect this prerogative of Congress, I sug­ detailing the reasons behind those limitations, com­ gest, not because park history is so complex, that pelled me to write the history for what it was, not as new nomenclatures for national parks keep evolving. how I wished it might have been. In the same vein, I It is one thing to rethink the wisdom of holding see no reason to apologize for writing the book I natural resources in a national preserve, scenic wanted to write. Although I concede the importance riverway, seashore, or lakeshore, but quite another of historic preservation in the national park story, it to invade the sanctity of a national park.17 The latter is not this mission that makes the park system has the emotional force of 125 years of American unique. Rather, the national park idea celebrated history behind it; the former nomenclatures suggest both at home and abroad commemorates the Ameri­ lesser parks whose restructuring may continue until can invention of the "natural" preserve. National the American public learns to appreciate their own Parks: The American Experience is the history of the significance as well. evolution of the national park idea from the protec­ tion of scenic wonders to the realization that scenery alone has little to do with ecology. Finally, there is no point to engaging in semantics. '"The designation national preserve was still evolving as my As a historian, I have let Congress define the term book went to press in 1978, with only two units, Big Thicket in ivorthless lands. That nothing on this planet is abso­ Texas and Big Cypress in Florida, listed in that category. Today lutely worthless goes without saying. By the term, preserves comprise a whopping21,993,219.01 acres, second only to national parks (Index, p. 10). These preserves are the result of the Congress simply understood that the lands in ques­ Alaska lands legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter in tion were of marginal economic value or, if poorly December 1980. I submit that the designation national preserve is assessed by contemporary scientists, were still open nothing more than an insidious attempt to circumvent the quin­ to reconsideration of their park status in the future. tessence of the national park idea. Preserves are what administra­ Worthless in this context is not absolute, but tive fiat dictates; parks are protected by 100 years of precedent. Roderick Nash, for example, notes: "A new land management relative. The "worthless lands" hypothesis does not category, 'national preserves,' facilitated sport hunting in places deny the achievements of preservation; it merely that would otherwise have been part of a park. Another compro­ asks why the United States still seems to weigh mise involved mining and particularly oil and gas exploration. . . . economic issues more seriously than ecological ones. In Alaska, as in the rest of the nation, it appeared that the only wilderness certain to be preserved was that which contained no Perhaps one day Congress will establish a national valuable resources." Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, park without even asking about its other potential 3rd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), pp. 302-03. uses. Perhaps—but that day is not history yet. •

THE NATIONAL PARKS: A FORUM 141 • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Ik-**

Commentary on the warred in the Yellowstone proposal, what it is—serve as useful keys to under­ "Worthless Lands" Thesis have warred in virtually every park pro­ standing values in a cultural and histor­ posal since, and war more or less regu­ ical context. Societies, after all, choose by Robert M. Utley larly in most existing parks. Rare is the to protect the objects and emblems of park that does not, in its authorizing act their collective pride; great scenic won­ irroring life, history is full of of Congress, represent a compromise ders, natural preserves, and game parks complexities, ambiguities, con­ between altruism and materialism. Red­ do not survive by accident. Though such Mtradictions, and nuances that wood National Park in California is a preserves are not generally viewed as make historical truth elusive and, once prime example. The park preserves red­ cultural or historic resources, they in captured, exceedingly difficult to eluci­ wood forests of enormous economic po­ fact are; that they exist at all is a date. Historians constantly face the tential—altruism; but the park excludes statement about the time in which they dilemma, on the one hand, of over­ adjacent redwood forests vital, for eco­ were established, and that they continue simplifying in the effort to give sharp logical reasons, to the survival of those to survive is a clear indication that they definition to historical themes and, on set aside—materialism. are still regarded as having great public the other hand, of burying themes al­ The Sellars and Runte points of view worth. They may be valuable to the together in a welter of qualifications. appear to represent extremes of altruism national psychology, to the regional tour­ Sellars and Runte, it seems to me, are and materialism, although it is unlikely ist trade, or to the continuing thread of tugging at each other from the opposite that either is as extreme as appearances national identity, but one can scarcely horns of this dilemma, and, as often suggest. Contrary to Runte's assertion, I question that they have value. "Worth," happens, the truth falls somewhere see the problem essentially as one of in short, may or may not be measured in between. semantics. The term worthless lands has economic terms. As Sellars points out, and as Runte the virtues of clarity, simplicity, easily It would appear to me that Richard concedes (with qualifications), no park perceived meaning, historical precedent, Sellars and Alfred Runte are, then, lands were intrinsically worthless at the and a very large content of historical speaking somewhat to cross-purposes. time when set aside, and all park lands truth. But it also, in my judgment, dis­ Certainly the national parks were not have appreciated since, some spectacu­ torts the understandings, motives, and "worthless lands" at any time except in larly. The value, moreover, is not just in intent of those in government and out the narrowest of economic senses. More­ intangible aesthetics but is readily mea­ who shaped the national park system. For over, even in the narrow sense, the surable in dollars. Even in 1872, the most, their purpose was, and is, to find economics of park establishment is now, establishment of the "worthless" Yellow­ that compromise between altruism and and was when the parks were created, stone country as a national park had the materialism that best captures the public essentially relative—and was recognized powerful support of the Northern Pacific interest. That the term originates in the as such. As Runte says, the great parks Railway, which expected to fill its Pull­ rhetoric of early park promoters justifies did not appear to contain essential oil, man sleepers with tourists bound for the its use, but this does not relieve the natural gas, timber, waterpower, min­ park. historian of the obligation to lay on it the erals, or agricultural capacity. Yet they Yet the comforting assurance of Yel­ appropriate qualifications. were often known to contain these re­ lowstone's worthlessness for exploita­ Sellars has not demolished the "worth­ sources to some degree. That Yellow­ tion by miners, lumbermen, or farmers less lands" thesis. He has, however, stone National Park was "worthless" undeniably aided, perhaps decisively, the supplied some of the qualifications. • when created, therefore, says nothing passage of the Yellowstone Park Act, and more than that relative to production the evidence clearly demonstrates its Mr. Utley, the author ofnumerous works costs, its timber was of less value than significance in the origins of Yosemite on the history of the American West, has other, better, and more readily accessible and other national parks. I myself have had major federal responsibilities for timber. In short, to denote such areas as sat through, or testified in, too many historic preservation and has served the "worthless" is to employ emotional ter­ congressional hearings on proposed National Park Service as chief historian minology that neglects a complex histor­ parks or monuments in the recent past and assistant director. Now retired from ical context. That the lands set aside for to see this factor as a phenomenon of the government service, he lives in Santa Fe, national parks were not seen at the time remote past. New Mexico. as essential to the nation's economy is Actually, worthless is not the right likely true; that for some the worth they word. It has connotations of extremity later gained arose from the tourist dollar that detract from its accuracy in this is certainly true. Neither of these con­ context. Still, minimal economic value siderations proves such lands to be and minimal potential for private exploi­ Upon Reading Sellars "worthless" in any usefully interpretive tation have always loomed large in the and Runte sense of the word. minds of members of Congress who sit in by Robin W. Winks I do not find the evidence cited by judgment on legislation to authorize new Sellars convincing. To be sure, he does parks. It seems safe to assume, more­ here are many criteria by which not confront directly the major thrust of over, that in this careful scrutiny of historians attempt to measure cul­ Runte's thesis. Despite the fact that quantifiable values, Congress reflects T tural values. The national symbols virtually all that Sellars says is factually the dominant public sentiment. people choose to preserve—the visible correct, the facts chosen do not speak In fact, altruism and materialism reminders of how a nation came to be directly to the argument to be answered.

142 JOURNAL OF FOREST HISTORY • JULY 1983 •••••••••••••••••••

cause, in any congressional debate, and certainly in the final vote, semantics lead to the kind of alliance that defeated slavery. Both papers contain numerous asser­ tions with which I would like to quarrel. I will limit myself, however, to two comments. I believe Runte is correct in saying that his thesis cannot be refuted simply by dropping exceptions into a critique of his argument. The argument Establishment of Redwood National Park in 1968 embodied the conflicting goals of must be taken as given, and it requires materialism and altruism. The park preserved stands of redwoods of enormous sustained analysis and reexamination. economic worth, but it failed to include adjacent forestlands vital to the park's But I feel he engages in much the same ecological integrity. The photo above, taken in 1976, shows the effect of logging approach in analyzing how wilderness operations directly above the Tall Trees Grove on Redwood Creek. Park boundaries were expanded two years later in the most costly land acquisition measure ever designations have been applied in parks passed by Congress. originally set aside essentially for ar­ Dave Van de Mark photo, courtesy Save-t he-Redwoods League and Alfred Runte chaeological reasons. In truth, his charge is aimed at the confusing designations Runte's basic thesis cannot be disproved was little evidence that the planters used by the National Park Service for by citing units of the national park themselves knew this. Given the ignor­ many of its units. The rationale for system that were purely historical, that ance of the planters about the decline in designations such as parks, monuments, were established within urban environ­ the slave economy—real though it was— preserves, historic sites, historical parks, ments (and thus had different forms of the humanitarian impulse was genuine battlefield sites, battlefield parks, memo­ "worth" as open spaces), or were estab­ and was necessary to the abolition of rials, lakeshores, seashores, recreational lished after the wave of environmental slavery. Finally, by the 1970s historians areas, and so on has been obscured in awareness left behind a vocal constit­ further realized that all views were com­ recent years, so that the relative value uency of its own. patible, none mutually exclusive. Some (or "worthlessness") that might attach On the other hand, I think Runte is planters had sensed that slavery would to any given designation is quite impos­ also mistaken, particularly in his conten­ not pay in the future; they united with sible to determine except on a case-by- tion that people generally say what they humanitarians who were indifferent to case basis. This charge does not speak mean. This has not been my experience the question of the "worth" of slave for or against his central thesis, how­ in historical research; people lie, obfus­ labor. Humanitarians in turn were ever, which remains provocative, though cate, confuse, or simply lack the lan­ happy to argue that slavery did not pay, unproven. In the end, Runte virtually guage by which they can express their or would not pay in the future, to win says so, since he too admits that "worth­ innermost feelings, which often must be to their alliance the votes they needed. less" is not absolute but relative. Of extracted from what they do. I choose a This view does not render the humani­ course. Nor do we need a symposium to parallel in quite another field of history: tarians any less humanitarian; it merely discover that most legislators are impre­ the antislavery and abolitionist move­ shows them to have been shrewd. cise, all language is relative, and over­ ments, especially in Britain. In the 1920s Many Americans may well have ar­ stated theories tend to attract overstated the conventional wisdom on this subject gued that Yellowstone was "worthless" rebuttals. was that the British government had put in order to hold developers at bay. I do John Steinbeck, in his Travels with an end to the slave trade in 1807, and to not tell my friends of my favorite small Charley (1962), wrote: "It is my opinion slavery within the British Empire in country inn, after all. Many potential that we enclose and celebrate the freaks 1833, for humanitarian reasons. By the exploiters may have felt genuinely that of our nation and of our civilization. 1940s a reverse view was widely held: certain park lands were worthless; Yellowstone National Park is no more that the so-called humanitarians were others may not have known or may have representative of America than is Dis­ hypocritical and that slavery was ended thought the lands would remain worth­ neyland." Just so. The representative is by the West Indian interest in the British less for their lifetime and had no desire to seldom preserved. The unrepresentative, Parliament, who had realized that slav­ look further. Many, perhaps, saw poten­ precisely because it is unusual, will be ery did not pay. In short, either the tial profits, including natural resources, preserved and, in being unusual, is a "humanitarians" were fools, or they in the park areas, and yet were happy, in testimony to a nation's values. Such a were duped by hard-nosed planters, or the interests of a higher cause, to assert place, then, can scarcely be worthless. • they simply lied; "realism" triumphed that the lands were worthless. I do not over "idealism" in the abolition of slav­ think we really know. I do not think that Mr. Winks, a professor of history at Yale ery. By the late 1960s, however, more any historian who ascribes a given effect University, has written broadly in the sophisticated research had demonstrated to a single cause really knows. Runte fields of comparative imperial and diplo­ that, even though historians (using book­ says there is no point in engaging in matic history. He is currently chairman of keeping methods not known to the semantics; he will let Congress define the National Park Service Advisory Board planters) could demonstrate in retrospect "worthless lands." There is every point and has personally visited 310 of the that slavery was no longer paying, there in engaging in semantics precisely be- system's 334 units.

THE NATIONAL PARKS: A FORUM 143 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• speak thus. Such arguments were fre­ quently rhetorical, as Sellars notes, in­ The "Worthless Lands" tended to disarm the many champions of Thesis: Another Jacksonian democratic ideals who had the power to thwart creation of any Perspective parks to which they chose to offer by Thomas R. Cox serious opposition. Debates over the creation of parks were shaped by class as well as ideologi­ here is no question that Alfred cal considerations. It was easy to see Runte's National Parks: The them as undemocratic reserves for the T American Experience and his re­ wealthy. When the first national parks lated articles are valuable—or that they were being established, few Americans have stirred controversy. The essay by could afford to take their leisure far from Richard W. Sellars is but the latest home. Speaking of Yellowstone and attack. Sellars focuses on what has come Yosemite in 1882, the San Francisco to be known as the "worthless lands" Chronicle put it bluntly: "The rich— thesis, which is the most original portion foreign and native—enjoy a monopoly of of Runte's work and central to it. Runte's these pleasure grounds. It is wrong in reply restates—and qualifies—his case. principle and oppressive in practice for In the judgment of this reviewer, any government to tax the common Sellars does not go far enough in his people and the poor for the exclusive critique. The "worthless lands" thesis, I benefit of the rich." Not until the 1920s, submit, is flawed at its heart by pres- when the automobile revolutionized entism—the historian's cardinal sin of American use of leisure time, could judging past events by present-day stan­ Robert Sterling Yard write, "We can no dards and values. Moreover, Runte's longer dismiss national parks as travel work appears inadequately informed by resorts, or consider them from a class relevant historical literature. History is a point of view. . . ." One should hardly be cumulative discipline; a scholar ignores surprised if Conness and others went out the work of his predecessors at his peril. of their way to further the belief that the land involved in proposed parks was Automobiles revolutionized Americans' Yet Runte, seemingly intent upon forcing use of leisure time and made national all into the procrustean bed that is the worthless—that is, that the advocates of parks accessible to greater numbers of "worthless lands" thesis, ignores con­ parks were not proposing to take from tourists. Winding through the dense trary conclusions of others—or denies poor would-be farmers to give to the rich. forests above are visitors to Mount that their arguments are informed by But one should not interpret such Rainier National Park, ca. 1912. evidence. statements too literally. If no one had S. C. Lancaster lantern slide, courtesy K. J. Fahl The creation by Congress of the early seen economic value in the land that was national parks needs to be viewed within to be made into parks, there would have commercial gain. The argument misses the context of the times, and especially in been little reason to protect them with the point. Those whom he dismisses light of the prevailing perception of the park status. The lands might have been were carrying out digs to turn a profit, proper role of the federal legislature in worthless for agriculture or mining, but, not to advance wanton destruction. dealing with public lands. A host of as Sellars points out, they could be Those who fenced off mineral springs, studies of federal land policy have made readily put to other uses, most notably to caves, and geysers or erected hotels, clear that in the nineteenth century attracting tourists. Facilities to cater to cabins, restaurants, and dance halls Congress was generally expected to en­ visitors sprang up during the late nine­ beside them did so for the same motive courage national development by speed­ teenth century near almost every acces­ that moved "pot hunters": personal ily transferring public lands to private sible natural wonder. They appeared profit. Although the quest for private ownership. Land questions focused not so near some even earlier, threatening to profit had long fueled the nation's much on whether this should be done, destroy much of the beauty that had material progress, early parks advocates but on how to encourage family farms called the facilities into being. Against opposed such development both because while preventing engrossment of the such uses, national park status promised it despoiled the site's natural beauty and land by a wealthy few. When Senator at least some protection. because it frequently barred free public- John Conness and others described pro­ In his rebuttal, Runte tries to escape access to the natural wonders or scenery posed parks to fellow congressmen as the implications of this for his "worth­ that had drawn visitors in the first place. encompassing "worthless" lands, they less lands" thesis by limiting his defini­ One pioneer put it succinctly in 1871 in meant that creating the parks in ques­ tion of worth to the use of natural explaining why he set aside Soda Springs tion would not be a violation of Con­ resources that further national develop­ as Oregon's first dedicated public park: gress's basic responsibility to encourage ment. He is especially contemptuous of "nature's special gifts are not intended family farms and the democracy they those who carried out digs in order to for private exploitation." The supposedly buttressed. One did not need obtain Indian artifacts. They were national parks were established for to be a dyed-in-the-wool Jacksonian to "vandals," rather than people seeking precisely the same reason: to prevent

144 JOURNAL OF FOREST HISTORY • JULY 1983 ••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••**••••••••

private exploitation that might be de­ tion of commercially valuable resources. structive or was otherwise deemed And resources were locked up—as the contrary to the public interest. Lands economic traumas of the redwood indus­ that needed (or warranted) such protec­ try and local economy following creation tion were by definition not worthless. To of Redwood National Park dramatically try to sidestep this fact, as Runte does demonstrate. with the argument that profits not Runte's arguments that early parks earned in resource extraction are ir­ Stephen T. Mather, director of the were not delimited along natural bound­ relevant to the material development of National Park Service from its founding aries and failed to include lands neces­ the nation, is simply unsound economics. in 1916 until 1929, clarified the national sary to the health of their ecosystems— The problem with many of the early park idea and dedicated his career to and his repeated resort to ecological national parks was not that they encom­ protecting the park lands from inappro­ arguments elsewhere—are especially passed only worthless lands, but that priate development. Lands that needed presentist. Ecological understanding was people saw so many things of value in such protection, Thomas Cox argues, far in the future when most of America's "were by definition not worthless." them. When the area around Mount national parks were created. Early park KHS Collection Lassen became a national park in 1916, it makers were interested in "natural won­ already boasted some 1,200 summer Mather worked assiduously to define ders" and monumental scenery, not bio­ homes, a fact that created subsequent more precisely just what the national logical preserves, as Hans Huth and Earl problems for park management. Glacier park system and its constituent units Pomeroy had made clear long before National Park had not only summer should encompass, and he spent much of Runte claimed "monumentalism" for his homes, but also valuable timber stands, his time fending off proposals for parks own. Parks failed to include key portions reservoir sites, railroad routes, and graz­ that did not measure up to his standards. of the ecosystems involved not because ing lands within it. Congress recognized Among these was Secretary of the Inter­ the lands involved were too valuable the existence of all these when it created ior Albert B. Fall's idea of making a commercially to be given park status, but the park in 1910; it sought to accommo­ national park out of grazing and timber because they lacked sufficient scenic date a variety of uses through what a land near his ranch in New Mexico. merit. later generation would have called a Mather's objections were not that the But if Runte seems consistently guilty multiple-use policy. Such a mixture of site had nonscenic commercial value but of failing to view his subject within its uses seemed less anomalous then than that it had too little scenic merit to be a historical context, Sellars is at times now, for there was as yet no firm concept national park. Mather also attempted to guilty of the same offense. Runte's objec­ of what a national—or any other pub­ rid the national system of parks, such as tion that Sellars uses the contemporary- lic—park should be. Patterns of manage­ Sullys Hill and Piatt, that had little to bureaucratic definition of national parks, ment and use varied as much as did the justify being classified as national parks. not that of most Americans over the parks themselves. Mather undertook this work to narrow years, is sound. Runte is addressing the The attitudes of early park advocates and clarify the definitions of what na­ question of the value of old-line, tradi­ concerning which of the many possible tional parks were and of what uses tional national parks; the worth of much uses would be tolerated were in large should be allowed within them because, of the rest of what is now administered part shaped by the values of the well-to- like many others, he considered the by the National Park Service is really do classes from which nearly all of them parks priceless and feared that without irrelevant to that question. sprang. To most such people, the rude careful protection they might be de­ Sellars does not need to argue for a facilities that appeared beside many a spoiled. broader definition of national parks. tourist site seemed desecrations. They The extensive historical literature on Even using Runte's narrower termi­ wished for finer facilities and a higher individual parks provides further nology, the "worthless lands" thesis class of visitors. Summer homes and grounds for dissent from the "worth­ must be judged as ahistorical. In the final grand hotels were two means to this end: less lands" thesis. Many a park came analysis, Runte's attempt to read the they would attract a stable and prosper­ into being only after a long struggle recent struggle between the champions ous group of visitors. Park status would against those who feared a "locking up" of economic development and environ­ provide the means by which use could be of resources. Such objections would have mental protection back into a period planned, controlled, and kept "proper." made no sense if the land involved had when parks and the issues surrounding Stephen T. Mather's work in behalf of been worthless, yet the history of the them were viewed in a very different a Park-to-Park Highway to link up the parks movement is replete with exam­ light tells us more about the pitfalls of national parks of the West also aimed at ples of parks that were established only historical research than about the his­ bringing increased numbers of comfort­ after extensive debate over the propriety tory of the early parks movement. • ably well-off visitors to the parks. Like of doing so. Such debates became es­ mountaineering groups, parks advocates pecially common after Mather had suc­ Mr. Cox, a member of our Editorial were as yet unconcerned with the dan­ cessfully narrowed the range of uses that Board, is a professor of history at San gers of overuse; instead they sought to was to be allowed within national parks. Diego State University. He is the author of encourage more visitation. Far from As a result, the grounds for protest numerous works in forest and conservation viewing parks as worthless, they saw shifted from earlier concerns about a history and is completing a book on the them as having value that was as yet drain on the public purse to opposition to state parks movement in the Pacific North­ insufficiently appreciated. closing out private (or public) exploita- west.

THE NATIONAL PARKS: A FORUM 145 Journal of i|t Forest History

VOLUME 27 • NUMBER 3 • JULY 1983 Editor FHS PRESENTS: Ronald J. Fahl Associate Editor AN EVENT-PACKED WEEK IN PORTLAND Richard W. Judd Graphics Editor History of Sustained-Yield Forestry: A Symposium Ann Williams Forest History Group, S6.07, IUFRO Assistant Editor Western Forestry Center Lorraine Kashara Portland, Oregon Photo Consultant October 18-19, 1983 Leland J. Prater Editorial Board IUFRO FOREST HISTORY SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE David A. Clary Bloomington. Indiana TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18 Thomas R. Cox • registration morning San Diego State University • plenary session • concurrent sessions Wilmon H. Droze <* Georgia Agrirama afternoon • concurrent sessions Susan L. Flader • reception (Oregon Historical Society) University of Missouri. Columbia William H. Hutchinson WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19 California State University, Chico morning • concurrent sessions JohnM. McClelland, Jr. Longview Publishing Company afternoon • concurrent sessions Longview, Washington evening Charles S. Peterson • SAF Awards Banquet (Marriott Hotel) Utah State University FHS ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE Lawrence Rakestraw Michigan Technological University THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20 R. Newell Searle 9 a.m.-4 p.m. • field trip to Tillamook State Forest Cargill, Inc.. Minneapolis. Minnesota • FHS Banquet (marks end of Stewardship Project) David C. Smith evening University of Maine at Orono FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21 Donald C. Swain morning • committee meetings University of Louisville • Presidential Awards Luncheon Herbert I. Winer Mead Corporation. Dayton. Ohio afternoon • business meeting Graeme Wynn University of British Columbia The Journal of Forest History is 37th Annual Meeting of the published quarterly by the Forest Forest History Society History Society. 109 Coral Street. Santa Cruz. California 99060. The Western Forestry Center Society sends JFH to all of its Portland, Oregon members. JFH is also available by subscription at $19 per year in the October 20-21, 1983 I'nited States, at .$17 (11. S. funds) in Canada, and at Sift elsewhere. Single copies are available at $-1 each plus postage. Inquire about back issues and prices. Microfilm subscriptions may be purchased from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. JFH is indexed in America: History and Life. Environmental Periodicals: Bibliography, Historical Abstracts. Forestry Abstracts, and the Bibliography of Agriculture. JF'H began as the Forest History Newsletter in 1997. It was known as Forest History from 1998 to 1974. when the current title was adopted. Elwood K. Maunder founded the magazine and served as editor-in- chief until 1978. c Copyright 1983 by the Forest History Society, Inc. Second class Write or call FHS headquarters for complete preregistration materials. postage paid at Santa Cruz. California. Forest History Society. 109 Coral Street. Santa Cruz. CA 95060 — (408) 426-3770 ISSN 0094-5080 USPS 205-020 Journal of Forest History

VOLUME 27 • NUMBER 3 • JULY 1983

ARTICLES "THE COMPLEAT FORESTER": David T. Mason's Early Career and Character by Elmo Richardson, page 112 WOOD USE IN THE AMERICAN FURNITURE INDUSTRY by Harold W. Wisdom and Carmen Del Coro Wisdom, page 122 JAMES GRAHAM COOPER, PIONEER NATURALIST AND FOREST CONSERVATIONIST by Eugene Coan, page 126 THE NATIONAL PARKS: A Forum on the "Worthless Lands" Thesis National Parks: Worthless Lands or Competing Land Values? by Richard W. Sellars, page 130 Reply to Sellars by Alfred Runte, page 135 Commentary on the "Worthless Lands" Thesis by Robert M. Utley, page 142 Upon Reading Sellars and Runte by Robin W. Winks, page 142 The "Worthless Lands" Thesis: Another Perspective by Thomas R. Cox, page 144 FOREST HISTORY IN THE MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICES: A Need for Balance by Robert 0. Anderson, page 146 BOOK REVIEWS

International Organization and the Conservation of Nature, by Cutting up the North: The History of the Forest Industry in the Robert Boardman, reviewed by Raymond F. Dasmann, Northern Interior, by Ken Bernsohn, reviewed by John page 150 Parminter, page 154 The Mill on the. Boot: The Story of the St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Making the Most of the Best: Willamette Industries' Seventy-five Company, by Murray Morgan, and Empire of Wood: The Mac- Years, by Catherine A. Baldwin, reviewed by W. D. Hagenstein, Millan Bloedel Story, by Donald MacKay, reviewed by Charles page 155 E. Twining, page 150 Joseph LeContc: Gentle Prophet of Evolution, by Lester D. Stephens, Boteater: A History, by W. J. Reader, reviewed by J. K. Hiller, reviewed by Susan R. Schrepfer, page 156 page 152 Welsh Woods and Forests: History and Utilization, by William Redwood Lumber Industry, by Lynwood Carranco, reviewed by Linnard, and A History of English Forestry, by N. D. G. James, H. Brett Melendy, page 153 reviewed by J. V. Thirgood, page 156 REGULAR FEATURES NEWS BIBLIOSCOPE OUR AUTHORS page 159 page 160 page 162 COVERS

Furniture making was one of the first industrial uses The photo on the back cover captures a stellar cast of for the abundant hardwood resources of North America. officials strolling to the site of a dedication ceremony at Our cover photo (FHS Collection) demonstrates one of an the Lady Bird Johnson Grove in Redwood National Park, infinite variety of shapes that American hardwoods have August 27, 1969. The park itself, established a year earlier, taken in the hands of skilled furniture craftsmen. While suggests an ironic tension between materialism and altru­ the preferred species have changed to satisfy consumer ism in the national park idea. The original park boundaries tastes in furniture and other needs of the manufacturers, preserved some of the tallest specimens of California's wood itself has remained the key material used in the coastal redwoods but failed to protect surrounding timber- industry. In an article beginning on page 122, Harold and lands within the larger ecosystem, which many believed Carmen Wisdom provide a historical overview of wood use was essential to sustain the giants. In a special forum in furniture making. Their article was written for the beginning on page 130, five historians distinguished in the Encyclopedia of American and Forest Conservation History, field of park history assess the motives behind America's a new reference work that is advertised inside the back commitment to its natural wonders. cover of this issue.