DOCSLIB.ORG

National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NPS Form 10-900 OMBNo. 1024-0018 (Rev. Aug 2002) (Expires: 1-31-2009) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places -2007 Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to CompleWiri^^tionA[-Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Listening Point other names/site number 2. Location street & number 3128 Listening Point Road D not for publication N/A city or town Morse Township Ely vicinity state Minnesota code MN county St. Louis code 137 zip code 55731 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this ^nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property Exl meets D does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ^nationally Qstatewide D locally. (QSee continuation sheet for additional comments.) ^ Signature of certifying official Dat<££ritta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer __ State or Federal agency and bureau Minnesota Historical Society In my opinion, the property D meets D does not meet the National Register criteria. (Q See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official/Title Date State or Federal agency and bureau /* 4. Rational Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: Date of Action "HO entered in the National Register. D See continuation sheet. D determined eligible for the National Register. D See continuation sheet. D determined not eligible for the National Register. D removed from the National Register. D other, (explain): Listening Point St. Louis Co., Minnesota Name of Property County and State 5. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many boxes as apply) (Check only one box) (Do not include previously listed resources in the count) ^ private D building(s) Contributing Noncontributing n public-local [>3 district 3 1 buildings D public-State Dsite sites D public-Federal CH structure structure D object objects 1 Total Name of related multiple property listing Number of contributing resources previously (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing. listed in the National Register N/A -o- 6. Function or Use Historic Functions Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions) DOMESTIC/camp_______ RECREATION AND CULTURE/museum LANDSCAPE/conservation area LANDSCAPE/conservation area______ EDUCATION 7. Description Architectural Classification Materials (Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions) No Style______________ foundation STONE walls WOOD/log WOOD/weatherboard roofWOOD/shingle other ASPHALT/shingle Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) Listening Point St. Louis Co.. Minnesota Name of Property County and State 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria Areas of Significance (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property (Enter categories from instructions) for National Register listing) Conservation D A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Literature our history. ^ B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. D C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack Period of Significance individual distinction. 1956-1982 D D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations Significant Dates (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.) 1957 Property is: 1959 D A owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. Significant Person D B removed from its original location. (Complete if Criterion B is marked above) D C a birthplace or a grave. Olson, Sigurd F._______________ D D a cemetery. Cultural Affiliation D E a reconstructed building, object, or structure. D F a commemorative property. Architect/Builder IE3 G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance unknown within the past 50 years. Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.) Previous documentation on file (NPS): Primary location of additional data: Q preliminary determination of individual listing (36 13 State Historic Preservation Office CFR 67) has been requested, ^ Other State agency n previously listed in the National Register D Federal agency D previously determined eligible by the National Register D Local government D designated a National Historic Landmark n University n recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey D Other #_____ Name of repository: n recorded by Historic American Engineering Minnesota Historical Society________ Record #_____ Listening Point St. Louis Co.. Minnesota Name of Property County and State 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property approx. 20 Crab Lake, Minn. 1956, Photorevised 1986 UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet) 1. I 1 I 5 | |5|7|3|3|5|7 |5|3|0|5|9|0|7 Zone Easting Northing 2. I 1 I 5 I |5|7|4|0|5|9 |5|3|0|5|9|2|2 3. 5 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 9 |5|3|0|5|4|8|8 Zone Easting Northing 4. I 1 I 5 | |5|7|3|3|6|2| |5l3lO|5|4|7|l[ D See continuation sheet Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.) 11. Form Prepared By name/title David C. Anderson organization date street and number 169 Lundy Bridge Drive telephone 563-382-3079 city or town Waukon state Iowa zip code 52172 Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: Continuation Sheets Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Photographs Representative black and white photographs of the property. Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items) Property Owner______________________________________ (Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.) name street & number telephone city or town state zip code Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 120 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., Washington, DC 20240. PS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Listening Point Continuation Sheet Name of property St. Louis Co., Minnesota County and State Section _7____ Page 1 DESCRIPTION Listening Point is a historic district of approximately 20 acres located on the east shore (south arm) of Burnt- side Lake, about 9 miles west of Ely in northern St. Louis County, Minnesota. The nominated property com­ prises 12 % lots in the Sha-Wa-Nok Beach subdivision of Morse Township and includes three contributing buildings and two contributing structures. (1) These are a cabin, sauna, outhouse, platform/dock, and a system of trails (or footpaths). Also on the property is a canvas covered, wood frame yurt which is non-contributing and two woodsheds. Natural Landscape Features The property is in northern Minnesota within the Superior National Forest that includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). Burntside Lake is located just outside the BWCAW to the south and east. It is irregular in shape and covers 11 square miles with 53 miles of shoreline and 180 islands set in hilly, tree covered terrain. A ledgerock point of land is a distinctive landscape feature in the district. It extends into the lake to the south­ west and creates a small cove with a sandy bottom. This exposed bedrock dates to the early Precambrian Age, roughly 2.5 to 3 billion years ago, and is classed among the oldest rock in the world. Here at the point, the rock surface is enlivened by quartz veins that contrast with the predominantly darker shades of the surrounding Ely greenstone.
Recommended publications
  • Wilderness Act and Howard Zahniser

    Wilderness Act and Howard Zahniser

    WILDERNESS ACT AND HOWARD ZAHNISER In: The Fully Managed, Multiple-Use Forest Era, 1960-1970 Passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 involved decades of work on the part of many people both inside the Forest Service and from a variety of interest groups. As early as the 1910’s and 1920’s, there were several important proponents of wilderness designation in the national forests. Three men are considered pivotal in these early years and all were Forest Service employees: Aldo Leopold, Arthur H. Carhart, and Robert Marshall. Their efforts were successful at the local level in creating administratively designated wilderness protection for several areas across the country. At the national policy level, there was a series of policy decisions (L-20 and U Regulations) in the 1920’s and 1930’s that made wilderness and primitive area designation relatively easy, but what was lacking was a common standard of management across the country for these areas. Also, since these wilderness and primitive areas were administratively designated, the next Chief or Regional Forester could “undesignate” any of the areas with the stroke of a pen. Howard C. Zahniser, executive secretary of the Wilderness Society (founded by Bob Marshall), became the leader in a movement for congressionally designated wilderness areas. In 1949, Zahniser detailed his proposal for Federal wilderness legislation in which Congress would establish a national wilderness system, identify appropriate areas, prohibit incompatible uses, list potential new areas, and authorize a commission to recommend changes to the program. Nothing much happened to the proposal, but it did raise the awareness for the need to protect wilderness and primitive areas from all forms of development.
  • Land Ethic Observe • Participate • Reflect Leaders Join Us for a Special Land Ethic Leaders Program! November 14 - 16, 2016 at the Watershed Center (Springfield, MO)

    Land Ethic Observe • Participate • Reflect Leaders Join Us for a Special Land Ethic Leaders Program! November 14 - 16, 2016 at the Watershed Center (Springfield, MO)

    Land Ethic Observe • Participate • Reflect Leaders Join us for a special Land Ethic Leaders program! November 14 - 16, 2016 at the Watershed Center (Springfield, MO) Presented in partnership between the Aldo Leopold Foundation and the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks. What is Land Ethic Leaders? In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold set forth his most enduring idea, the “land ethic,” a moral responsibility of humans to the natural world. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic idea is extremely relevant in today’s society, but it can be difficult to define, discuss, and implement. To even begin that monumental task, we need leaders who are deeply committed to rolling up their sleeves and building a land ethic at the grassroots level in communities everywhere. The workshop uses the land ethic as a powerful platform for helping leaders learn to facilitate dialog about the meaning and value of conservation in today’s world. Our “Observe, Participate, Reflect” framework is based in Leopold’s own method of helping lead his family and students in the process of developing their personal land ethic. During the two and a half day training, 20-30 participants explore and deepen their own land ethic together through outdoor observation, environmental service, and reflective discussions. Activities are largely planned and facilitated by members of the group. Afterwards, participants walk away with new relationships, tools, and ideas to inspire creative ways to bring the land ethic back home. Why You Should Attend Environmental conservation work can be gratifying, but it can also be emotionally draining as we grapple daily with tough questions.
  • Wilderness, Recreation, and Motors in the Boundary Waters, 1945-1964

    Wilderness, Recreation, and Motors in the Boundary Waters, 1945-1964

    Sound Po lit ics SouWildernessn, RecdreatioPn, ano d Mlotoris itn theics Boundary Waters, 1945–1964 Mark Harvey During the midtwentieth century, wilderness Benton MacKaye, executive director Olaus Murie and his preservationists looked with growing concern at the wife Margaret, executive secretary and Living Wilderness boundary waters of northeast Minnesota and northwest editor Howard Zahniser, University of Wisconsin ecolo - Ontario. Led by the Friends of the Wilderness in Minne - gist Aldo Leopold, and Forest Service hydrologist Ber- sota and the Wilderness Society in the nation’s capital, nard Frank. 1 preservationists identified the boundary waters as a pre - MacKaye’s invitation to the council had identified the mier wilderness and sought to enhance protection of its boundary waters in richly symbolic terms: magnificent wild lands and waterways. Minnesota’s con - servation leaders, Ernest C. Oberholtzer and Sigurd F. Here is the place of places to emulate, in reverse, the Olson among them, played key roles in this effort along pioneering spirit of Joliet and Marquette. They came to with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. Their work laid the quell the wilderness for the sake of civilization. We come foundation for the federal Wilderness Act of 1964, but it to restore the wilderness for the sake of civilization. also revived the protracted struggles about motorized re c - Here is the central strategic point from which to reation in the boundary waters, revealing a deep and per - relaunch our gentle campaign to put back the wilderness sistent fault line among Minnesota’s outdoor enthusiasts. on the map of North America. 2 The boundary waters had been at the center of numer - ous disputes since the 1920s but did not emerge into the Putting wilderness back on the continent’s map national spotlight of wilderness protection until World promised to be a daunting task, particularly when the War II ended.
  • Ed Zahniser Talk on Wilderness

    Ed Zahniser Talk on Wilderness

    "There is [still] just one hope . ." Memory as Inspiration in Advocating Wilderness and Wildness By Ed Zahniser A Brown-bag Lunch Talk by Ed Zahniser to the Staff of the Wilderness Society 900 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 February 15, 2000 Time as an arrow has not been invented here yet. Time is not an arrow here. Time is not an arrow hurtling along an inevitable trajectory with the neo-Darwinian myth of social progress as its arrowhead. No. Time is like a spiral. And yes, the tradition you and I are so much a part of in this room has been here on Turtle Island since the beginning of time. See, the beginning of time is right down there - see it? It's not far down- right there! On the spiral. We'll be there shortly. Think of spiral time like this Slinky toy. Pass it around. Get a feel for spiral time. That funky gap in this slinky, where the spiral got sprung, well, maybe that's the atomic bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. "We can't talk about atoms anymore because atom means indivisible and we have split it." [Jeanette Winterson] We can talk about wilderness and wildness, about perpetuity. You can hear the beginning of time in our stories we tell. Listen. The alphabet is not invented yet. Our words are still like things. Our words still point to real things in the world of sense and feelings. We still enjoy reciprocity with the sensuous world [David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous]. Trust me.
  • The Wilderness Act of 1964

    The Wilderness Act of 1964

    The Wilderness Act of 1964 Expanding Settlement Growing Mechanization “Wilderness protection is paper thin, and the paper should be the best we can get — that Versus upon which Congress prints its Acts.” David Brower, 1956 “Let’s be done with a wilderness preservation program made up of a sequence of threats and defense campaigns! Let’s make a concerted effort for a positive program … where we can be at peace and not forever feel that the wilderness is a battleground.” Howard Zahniser 1951 “If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them with a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it”. Lyndon B. Johnson Wilderness Act of 1964 Statement of Policy “ …to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition…” Sec 2(a) Wilderness Act of 1964 Statement of Policy “…it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.” Sec 2(a) The Wilderness Act….. 1. Created a NWPS and established a process for adding new areas NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 1964 9.1 Mil Acres 54 Wilderness Areas 2014 109.8 Mil Acres 762 Wilderness Areas The Wilderness Act….. 2.
  • A WILDERNESS-FOREVER FUTURE a Short History of the National Wilderness Preservation System

    A WILDERNESS-FOREVER FUTURE a Short History of the National Wilderness Preservation System

    A WILDERNESS-FOREVER FUTURE A Short History of the National Wilderness Preservation System A PEW WILDERNESS CENTER RESEARCH REPORT A WILDERNESS-FOREVER FUTURE A Short History of the National Wilderness Preservation System DOUGLAS W. SCOTT Here is an American wilderness vision: the vision of “a wilderness- forever future.” This is not my phrase, it is Howard Zahniser’s. And it is not my vision, but the one that I inherited, and that you, too, have inherited, from the wilderness leaders who went before. A Wilderness-Forever Future. Think about that. It is It is a hazard in a movement such as ours that the core idea bound up in the Wilderness Act, which newer recruits, as we all once were, may know too holds out the promise of “an enduring resource of little about the wilderness work of earlier generations. wilderness.” It is the idea of saving wilderness forever Knowing something of the history of wilderness —in perpetuity. preservation—nationally and in your own state— is important for effective wilderness advocacy. In Perpetuity. Think of the boldness of that ambition! As Zahniser said: “The wilderness that has come to us The history of our wilderness movement and the char- from the eternity of the past we have the boldness to acter and methods of those who pioneered the work project into the eternity of the future.”1 we continue today offer powerful practical lessons. The ideas earlier leaders nurtured and the practical tools Today this goal may seem obvious and worthy, but and skills they developed are what have brought our the goal of preserving American wilderness in per- movement to its present state of achievement.
  • Guide to the Microfilm Edition of the Papers of Ernest Oberholtzer

    Guide to the Microfilm Edition of the Papers of Ernest Oberholtzer

    GUIDE TO THE MICROFILM EDITION of the PAPERS OF ERNEST OBERHOLTZER Gregory Kinney _~ Minnesota Historical Society '!&1l1 Division of Library and Archives 1989 Copyright © by Minnesota Historical Society The Oberholtzer Papers were microfilmed and this guide printed with funds provided by grants from the Ernest C. Oberholtzer Foundation and the Quetico-Superior Foundation. -.-- -- - --- ~?' ~:':'-;::::~. Ernest Oberholtzer in his Mallard Island house on Rainy Lake in the late 1930s. Photo by Virginia Roberts French. Courtesy Minnesota Historical Society. Map of Arrowhead Region L.a"(.e~se\"C ~ I o A' .---.....; ., ; , \~ -'\ ~ • ~ fI"" i Whitefish---- Lake Fowl Lake ~/ ~ '""'-- F . O)"~"~'t\ ~~ , .tV "" , I -r-- ~Rlucr~ v'" '" Reprinted from Saving Quetico-Superior: A Land Set Apart, by R. Newell Searle, copyright@ 1977 by the Minnesota Historical Society, Used with permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .•• INTRODUCTION. 1 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 2 ARRANGEMENT NOTE 5 SERIES DESCRIPTIONS: Biographical Information 8 Personal Correspondence and Related Papers 9 Short Stories, Essays, and Other Writings 14 Miscellaneous Notes. • • 19 Journals and Notebooks • 20 Flood Damage Lawsuit Files 34 Quetico-Superior Papers • 35 Wilderness Society Papers • 39 Andrews Family Papers •• 40 Personal and Family Memorabilia and Other Miscellany 43 ROLL CONTENTS LIST • 44 RELATED COLLECTIONS 48 PREFACE This micl'ofilm edition represents the culmination of twenty-five years of efforts to preserve the personal papers of Ernest Carl Oberholtzer, The acquisition, processing, conservation, and microfilming of the papers has been made possible through the dedicated work and generous support of the Ernest C, Oberholtzer Foundation and the members of its board. Additional grant support was received from the Quetico-Superior Foundation.
  • Preservation of Man ” 1851 • Philosopher • Emerson Transcendentalism

    Preservation of Man ” 1851 • Philosopher • Emerson Transcendentalism

    What are NR’s? • Tangible substance • Function or use What is an environment? • A collection of NR’s in a defined area What is a Ecosystem • All of the ecological processes in a n environment What is wilderness? • Theoretically an undisturbed environment • Big “W” • Little “w” U. S. History and the Environment • Growth of the U.S. • Traditional view of NRs • 1890 closing of the frontier • CidliConservation and population Modern View of the Environment • Technology • Wilderness • Product of civilization • 3rd world European View of Wilderness • European landscape of the 1600s • Perception of wilderness • Basis of bias - RliiReligion - Superstition and folklore Settlers View of the NA Wilderness • Paradise Myth • Reality • Not prepared to live “with” the env. Settlers’ Bias on the Frontier • Safety • Effect of wilderness • Doing God’s work – Manifest Destiny • Wilderness = waste Romanticism • Late 1700s – mid 1800s • Urban, educated , wealthy • Writers and artists • CiCoincid es wi ihhth the growth of sci ences • Enthusiasm for wild places Romanticism • Sublimity • Awe •Deism • GhkhGreat watchmaker theory • Primitivism • The noble savage Start of the American Environmental Movement • Europe = history, cities, culture • USU.S. = Wilderness, NRs • American wilderness = American character • MifDManifest Dest iny Hudson River School • American wild landscape as inspiration • Thomas Cole • First American art form • View o f Amer ican art ist, wri ter, etc Henry David Thoreau • 1817 – 1862 •“In wilderness is the preservation of man ” 1851 • Philosopher
  • David Brower: the Making of the Environmental Movement by Tom Turner

    David Brower: the Making of the Environmental Movement by Tom Turner

    Review: David Brower: The Making of the Environmental Movement By Tom Turner Reviewed by Byron Anderson DeKalb, Illinois, USA Turner, Tom. David Brower: The Making of the Environmental Movement. University of California Press, 2015; x, 308 pp. ISBN: 978-0-520-27836-3 US $29.95 cloth; 978-1- 520-96245-3 US$29.95 ebook . Printed on 30 percent post-consumer waste paper. In the Foreword, Bill McKibben equates Bower to John Muir and regards Brower as the most important conservationist in twentieth century America. David Bower had an “indomitable spirit” that “drew you in” (p. x). Yet, for those who personally knew him, Brower was a complicated person who, depending on the circumstances, could be labeled as charismatic, imaginative, aggressive, or reckless, among other descriptors. Among his more notable flaws, he had difficultly falling in line with authority, such as, bylaws and board directives. Brower was a long-time member of the Sierra Club and was its one and only executive director. Brower moved the Sierra Club from an outings club to a conservation club, a move that greatly increased the membership. He led campaigns to create parks, block dams, and in working with Howard Zahniser, win passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Brower also had failures, for example, supporting Glen Canyon Dam in trade for blocking two dams in the Dinosaur National Monument. In later years he realized that Glen Canyon would have been well worth saving as well. Brower pioneered in the effective use of mass media, including films, Exhibit Format books, and full newspaper ads.
  • Crossing Boundaries for the Border Lakes Region

    Crossing Boundaries for the Border Lakes Region

    Wilderness News FROM THE QUETICO SUPERIOR FOUNDATION FALL 2008 quetico superior country The Quetico Superior Foundation, established in 1946, encourages and supports the protection of the ecological, cultural and historical resources of the Quetico Superior region. Near Tettegouche State Park. Photo by Jim Gindorff. Crossing Boundaries for the “The loss of silence in our lives is a great tragedy of our civilization. Canoeing is one of the finest ministries that can Border Lakes Region happen.” By Charlie Mahler, Wilderness News Contributor – Reverend Paul Monson, Board Member In an era of increasing partnership “It’s not that there aren’t other collaboratives that of the Listening Point Foundation and a in the Quetico Superior region, the are interested in similar types of objectives,” he strong believer in the restorative value of said. “I think one of the things that makes this col- camping and canoeing. Border Lakes Partnership provides laborative unique is that the interested parties got July, 24 1937 - October 28, 2008 a model for what cooperative together because of a sense of common purpose. In efforts can accomplish. other cases, some of these more collaborative groups that have worked across agencies have got- The collaborative has been at work since 2003 ten together because there’s been conflict or issues developing cross-boundary strategies for managing they needed to resolve.” forest resources, reducing hazardous forest fuels, and conserving biodiversity in the region. Members Shinneman, himself, embodies the shared nature like the U.S. Forest Service Northern Research of the Border Lakes Partnership’s efforts. “My posi- Station, Superior National Forest, Minnesota tion is really a unique one,” he said.
  • Leopold's Last Talk

    Leopold's Last Talk

    Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Volume 2 Issue 2 12-1-2012 Leopold's Last Talk Eric T. Freyfogle Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjelp Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric T. Freyfogle, Leopold's Last Talk, 2 WASH. J. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 236 (2012). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjelp/vol2/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Freyfogle: Leopold's Last Talk Copyright © 2012 by Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy LEOPOLD’S LAST TALK Eric T. Freyfogle* Abstract: During the last decade of his life, Aldo Leopold (1887–1948) delivered more than 100 conservation talks to various popular, professional, and student audiences. In them, he set forth plainly the central elements of his conservation thought. By studying the extensive archival records of these talks one sees clearly the core elements of Leopold’s mature thinking, which centered not on specific land-use practices (good or bad), but instead on what he saw as deep flaws in American culture. Leopold’s sharp cultural criticism—more clear in these talks than in his lyrical, muted classic, A Sand County Almanac—called into question not just liberal individualism but central elements of Enlightenment-era thought. This article distills the messages that Leopold repeatedly presented during his final years.
  • November 2004 Court Rules Park Service Violates Wilderness Act End of Motorized Vehicle Tours in Georgia’S Cumberland Island Wilderness

    November 2004 Court Rules Park Service Violates Wilderness Act End of Motorized Vehicle Tours in Georgia’S Cumberland Island Wilderness

    NESS W R A E T WILDERNESS D C L I H W • WATCHER • K E D E IL P W IN G SS WILDERNE A Voice for Wilderness Since 1989 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wilderness Watch Volume 15 Number 3 November 2004 Court Rules Park Service Violates Wilderness Act End of motorized vehicle tours in Georgia’s Cumberland Island Wilderness — By George Nickas he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently slammed the door on the National Park TService’s motorized sight-seeing tours through the Cumberland Island Wilderness. In one of the most detailed and powerful court opinions for Wilderness preservation, the three judge panel ruled that the motorized tours violate both the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The ruling puts a stop to the sight-seeing tours the park service initiated in 1999 as a part of an “agreement” be- tween anti-wilderness factions on the island, Clinton administration officials, a local Congressman and some conservation groups. Wilderness Watch opposed the agreement arguing that motorized tours in Wilderness were illegal and damaging to the area’s wilderness character. The Celebrate 40 Cumberland hiker. WW file photo. years Wilderness court agreed, writing that “The language of the …Wilder- ness Act demonstrate[s] that Congress has unambiguously prohibited the Park Service from offering motorized trans- portation to park visitors through the wilderness area.” No increase in motorboat permits for Boundary Waters Wilderness, by Kevin Proescholdt. Page 3 Cumberland Island contains historic structures dating from the late 1800s to mid-1900s. Most of the popular tour Celebrating Wilderness in 2004, by Roderick sites lie outside the Wilderness boundary on the south end Frazier Nash.