Michael Kelleher Changing Approaches to Management at the Tsankawi Mesa of Bandelier National Monument s demonstrated by a special section of The George Wright Forum titled “Taking Stock: Changing Ideas and Visions for Parks” (Volume 17, Number 2), both the park idea and approaches to managing parks Ahave changed greatly over the past century. Parks have been “man- aged, exploited, enjoyed, glorified, or left alone, depending on the ideals espoused” during a specific period (Carr 2000, 16). This is particularly true of the national parks, which have been, seemingly contradictorily, developed for mass tourism and preserved in a relatively unaltered state depending upon the management approach taken by the National Park Service (NPS). The Tsankawi unit of Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico can stand as a particular- ly relevant example of the agency’s changing concept of park stewardship. Throughout much of its history as part of a protected national monument, this mesa was to have been developed to accommodate large numbers of visitors, similar to the principal area of Bandelier, Frijoles Canyon. Because NPS never followed through on these plans, Tsankawi was preserved as an intact cultural landscape containing the remains of an unexcavated pueblo, ceremonial kivas, cavates, pictographs, and a prehistoric footpath worn deeply into the rock of the mesa. Recently, it has become a focal point for a new approach to park manage- ment: NPS and other land management agencies now recognize such areas as indigenous ancestral sites that are important to contemporary Native American culture, and are engaged in efforts to consult with tribes on their preservation and interpretation. It is remarkable that an area that NPS wanted to intensively develop for much of the last century could now be a model for sensitive man- agement. However, this new approach only came about recently and Tsankawi was preserved more because of a lack of funding for development than as a result of a conscious preservation effort. Establishing Representative John E. Lacey, chair- a National Monument man of the House Public Lands Efforts to protect Tsankawi and Committee, Hewett helped draw up other archeological sites on New several proposals for a park of between Mexico’s Pajarito Plateau began as 150,000 and 250,000 acres, called early as 1899, when the archeologist either Pajarito Plateau National Park Edgar Lee Hewett recommended that or the National Park of the Cliff Cities. a substantial part of the region become Hewett and Lacey were joined by a national park. Working with those who saw a national park as a 58 The George Wright FORUM boon to tourism and a means to park placed under its jurisdiction. In enhance the image of the territory — anticipation of a future land transfer, and, beginning in 1912, state — of on two separate occasions the agency New Mexico. As was often the case sent to the region representatives who with proposals for national parks, reported on the resources and made opposition came from proponents of recommendations for their manage- development who did not want to see ment. These early reports displayed such a large area put off limits to graz- NPS’ seemingly contradictory goals of ing, timber cutting, and home- protecting resources while promoting steading. They had allies in the feder- development to accommodate visi- al government, particularly the then- tors. Following his inspection tour in young United States Forest Service the summer of 1919, Herbert Gleason (USFS), which managed much of the wrote that NPS would be a better pro- Pajarito Plateau as an area dedicated to tector of the archeological sites within the utilitarian use of natural resources. the national monument than USFS, By 1916, USFS had to contend with but would also make these sites more the new NPS, which joined the move- accessible to visitors. Of the detached ment for a national park. USFS coun- Tsankawi and Otowi mesas, Gleason tered the park movement with a pro- complained that the “Forest Service, posal for a smaller national monument apparently, takes no pains to protect that would protect some of the archeo- these ruins from irresponsible relic- logical resources in the area but avoid hunters or to maintain in proper shape putting a large tract of land off limits to the roads leading to them” (Gleason development. On February 11, 1916, 1919, 6). NPS criticism of USFS’ fail- three discrete areas containing signifi- ure to provide for visitation to cant archeological sites were pro- Bandelier was countered by the USFS claimed as Bandelier National argument that it was a better steward Monument by President Woodrow of the archeological sites because it Wilson through executive powers would not build roads that made them granted by the Antiquities Act. The more accessible to looting, nor would new monument totaled 22,400 acres it construct a hotel in Frijoles Canyon, and included the major sites at Frijoles as NPS proposed (Rothman 1988, 29- Canyon and the separate Otowi and 30). Tsankawi mesas. The new monument The report on a 1930 inspection came under the management of USFS, carried out by senior NPS officials displeasing NPS, which continued to Jesse Nussbaum, superintendent of advocate the creation of a national Mesa Verde National Park, M.R. park (Rothman 1988). Tillotson, superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, and Roger NPS Development Plans Toll, superintendent of Rocky During the period that Bandelier Mountain National Park, was even was under USFS management, NPS more visitor development-oriented. continued its efforts to have the monu- The superintendents concluded that ment included within a larger national much of the land around Bandelier Volume 20 • Number 1 2003 59 was not of sufficient scenic value to Bandelier, the inspection party offered warrant inclusion in a national park seemingly contradictory recommen- and argued that NPS take over only dations, stating that it was “of great the national monument. Then, it importance that as many as possible of could begin new developments for vis- these prehistoric ruins should be pro- itors, most importantly the construc- tected and preserved in their present tion of a road into Frijoles Canyon condition, for future generations,” but where the most significant archeologi- also recommending new excavations cal sites were located. They noted that “with a view of acquiring all possible while Frijoles Canyon received 3,000 information from the ruins, and of to 4,000 visitors a year, the detached protecting the structures from further Otowi and Tsankawi sections of the deterioration and making them avail- monument received far fewer people, able for public inspection and instruc- as there was little at each site to attract tion.” The party recommended that the public. However, this could be Otowi and Tsankawi “be developed remedied by their development. Of and made features of interest to visi- Otowi, they wrote that there was “little tors,” who would be able to “combine to interest visitors at the site of the a trip to these ruins with a visit to” main pueblo. It could however be Frijoles Canyon, “thus making a com- made of interest by re-excavation.” bination trip, which would present The inspection party found the more features of interest than would Tsankawi mesa more interesting, both one area alone.” (Nussbaum, because of the spectacular view from Tillotson, and Toll 1930, 29-30 , 67) the top and because the “ruins of Clearly, NPS was interested in devel- Tsankawi have been only partly exca- oping Bandelier National Monument vated and offer almost their original for the sake of visitation. value for scientific excavation and With Nussbaum, Tillotson, and development for visitors” (Nussbaum, Toll recommending that NPS take Tillotson, and Toll 1930, 12, 16). over the management of Bandelier Although the superintendents favored National Monument rather than seek the excavation of Tsankawi, they want- to have a national park established in ed to preserve certain aspects of the this region, the agency temporarily site. The road to the mesa ended a abandoned its park proposal. In 1931, half-mile away and the party did not USFS agreed to transfer the monu- believe it “desirable to build a road all ment, along with additional land that of the way, since visitors should would allow the Otowi and Tsankawi approach the ruins on foot, over the mesas to be combined into one area, worn trails used by the prehistoric which was then referred to as the inhabitants.” As for the ruins, few Otowi Unit of Bandelier National people visited them because “they Monument. The transfer was made on have been but partly excavated, and no February 25, 1933, but the idea of cre- effort has been made to bring out the ating a national park on the Pajarito features that would be of interest to Plateau remained alive within NPS, visitors.” Like the 1919 report on which made additional park proposals 60 The George Wright FORUM later in the 1930s and again in the Bandelier that led NPS to consider 1960s. developing Tsankawi into a major des- Despite the recommendations of tination in the national monument. In the 1930 inspection party that 1956, officials from the NPS regional Tsankawi be excavated, after NPS took office in Santa Fe noted that the “trail over Bandelier National Monument to Tsankawi is increasingly popular,” development was limited to Frijoles but a lack of funding prevented the Canyon. Here, using Civilian park from providing visitors with any- Conservation Corps labor, a road was thing more than a self-guiding inter- constructed to ease access to the pretive trail (NPS 1956). At this time, canyon, and a visitor center, adminis- NPS was planning Mission 66, a ten- trative facility, and lodge were con- year effort to make all of the areas in structed on the valley floor near the the National Park System capable of major archeological ruins.