Manipulating Nature's Paradise National Park Management Under Stephen T

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Manipulating Nature's Paradise National Park Management Under Stephen T Manipulating Nature's Paradise National Park Management under Stephen T. Mather, 1916-1929 by Richard West Sellars Controversies over national parks continually make headlines as the National Park Service encounters public debate on fire control, restoration of wolf popu­ lations in Yellowstone, intensive development of the Yosemite valley, and other issues. Such debates raise fundamental ques­ tions concerning the purpose of the parks: Why were they set aside by Congress? Were they primarily meant to be vacation areas for public enjoyment? What role should science play in caring for the parks, and how much effort should be made to preserve their natural conditions? When the National Park Service came into being in the early C _Z twentieth century the answers to Z these questions seemed quite i clear. They were heavily > weighted in favor of public use < ~r and enjoyment rather than pres­ U z o z= ervation, and they fostered X x management practices that rr altered the national parks forever. o o rc Tourists at Beryl Spring, •>,p Yellowstone Park, 1920 Spring 1993 been to preserve park resources such as wildlife, fish, and forests in their natural condition.2 But a close look at early park service management dis­ closes substantial flaws in that assumption. In fact, the new mandate to leave the parks unimpaired changed the direction of national park management very little from the pre-1916 focus on preserving the parks' scenery and popular game animals and providing good fishing opportunities for public enjoyment. Stephen T. Mather, the Na­ tional Park Service's principal founder and first director, generally adhered to the policies and practices set by the United States Army and civil­ ian superintendents who had overseen the parks in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu­ ~f. ries before Congress created the park service. 2 Instead of setting new directions for park manage­ ment, the immediate effect of the Organic Act was to strengthen national park leadership. It brought the parks under efficient, coordinated supervision and enabled Mather to accelerate park develop­ ment for public use and enjoyment. -' s National park management under Mather's Stephen T. Mather, ca. 1922 direction from 1916 to 1929 should be considered the park service's initial administrative interpreta­ tion of its legislative mandate, reflecting the A fter establishing Yellowstone National service's perception of Congress's true intent re­ I—\ Park in 1872 and subsequently other garding the parks. As the Organic Act's chief -JL. J\. parks such as Sequoia, Yosemite, and proponent, Mather surely had a clear understand­ Glacier, Congress created the National Park Ser­ ing of congressional intent. And, indeed, wide­ vice in August 1916 to oversee this growing sys­ spread support of his administration of the parks tem of scenic reserves. The 1916 legislation, known suggests that the service met its mandate much as the park service's Organic Act, mandated that as Congress and the public wished.2 the national parks be treated differently from other Nevertheless, extensive alterations of the parks' public lands where extraction of natural resources natural conditions occurred during Mather's ten­ was encouraged to enhance America's economic ure. The National Park Service did not follow a growth. The park service was given a truly distinc­ policy of noninterference with nature, nor did it tive mandate: limit its operations to park protection activities, to conserve the scenery and the natural and his­ such as patrolling boundaries or attempting to toric objects and the wild life therein and to pro­ stop vandalism to natural features. Instead, under vide for the enjoyment of the same in such man­ Mather the service manipulated nature in the ner and by such means as will leave them unim­ 1 parks in two fundamental ways—through devel­ paired for the enjoyment of future generations. opment and construction to accommodate tour­ The charge to leave the parks "unimpaired" ism and by direct interference with flora and fauna. became the principal standard for national park Stephen Mather, a wealthy Chicago business­ management. Today, some observers assume that man educated at the University of California, had this mandate has from the beginning meant that [National Park Service] are to reduce development and promote pres­ the National Park Service's primary purpose has ervation of resources" (p. 65). Similarly, Robert B. Keiter, "National Park Protection: Putting the Organic Act to Work," in Our Common 1. Hillary A.Tolson, IMWS Relating to the National Park Service, the Ijinds: Defending the National Parks, ed. David J. Simon (Washington, National Parks and Monuments (Washington. D.C.: National Park Ser­ D.C.; Island Press, 1988), 81, argues that the Organic Act "sets forth an vice, 1933), 10. impressive, unambiguous resource preservation mandate." And Alston 2. Historians of the national parks take differing views of the Chase, in Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First Organic Act's primary purpose. John Lemons and Dean Stout, argue in National Park (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1986), 6, comments that "A Reinterpretation of National Park Legislation," Environmental Law the National Park Service's "sole mission is preservation." By contrast, (Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College), 15 (Fall 1984), Alfred Runte, in National Parks: The American Experience (1979; 2nd 53, 65, that the Organic Act's primary mandate is to preserve park ed. rev., Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987), 82-105, empha­ resources: "the purpose of natural parks is to preserve pristine ecologi­ sizes the parks' tourism and economic potential as key motivating cal processes" (p. 53); and that "the most basic fiduciary duties of the factors for the legislation establishing the National Park Service. 4 Richard West Sellars joined the campaign for a national parks bureau develop the parks and thereby increase their ac­ early in 1915. Polished and at ease with the rich, cessibility and popularity. powerful, and famous, he was also frenetically Working closely with his top assistant, Horace enthusiastic. His biographer referred to him as M. Albright, who had a pervasive influence on "the Eternal Freshman" who was "almost patho­ national park policy during this period and who logically fraternal."' Mather developed an intense became the park service's second director, loyalty to the national parks, and soon after pas­ Mather succeeded in his transformation of the sage of the Organic Act his friend, Secretary of the parks, which he had proclaimed in 1916 to be Interior Franklin K. Fane, appointed him as the "greatly neglected."7 By the time his health forced National Park Service's first director. Fervently him to resign in January 1929, the parks had idealistic in his drive to preserve America's great undergone extensive development involving vir­ scenic areas, Mather devoted his energy, and tually every type of construction needed to sup­ much of his own money, to effective promotion of port tourism and park administration. Shortly af­ the national park cause, using finely honed busi­ ter Mather's resignation, Albright summed up ness skills that had enabled him to amass personal park development that occurred before and dur­ wealth as head of a borax company with mines in ing Mather's tenure by reporting that the service the West. was responsible for "1,298 miles of roads, 3,903 As one of his principal goals, the aggressive miles of trails, 1,623 miles of telephone and tele­ new director sought public acceptance and sup­ graph lines." Furthermore, national parks had campgrounds, museums, park office buildings, port for the parks by opening them to greater 8 tourism to increase their popularity. He asserted and many other facilities. that with national parks, "the greatest good to the In effect, during the Mather era the service greatest number is always the most important came to regard national parks as being factor determining the policy of the service."5 In "unimpaired" as long as their development was his crusade to popularize the national parks he restricted to that which supported tourism and courted their chief constituencies, the tourism was fitting to the natural scenery. That is, parks industry and the traveling public. Railroad compa­ must be appropriately developed for tourism. With nies had for several decades campaigned to attract highways winding through majestic park land­ vacationers to fill the hotels they built in or near scapes and with rustic log and stone buildings and Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount Rainier, and other bridges, much of the development was designed parks." And the emerging fascination with auto­ to harmonize with the scenic beauty and thus mobile travel fit perfectly Mather's plans to seemed not to impair the parks. For instance, the Samuel T. Woodring, chief ranger at Yellowstone National Park; Stephen T. Mather, head of the National Park Service; and Horace M. Albright, superintendent of Yellowstone, (left to right) stand with their x hands on a gate made •< from elk antlers at opening ceremonies of Yellowstone National Park's northern •}. entrance in 1926. s - =r | X 3 Montana The Magazine of Western History Spring 1993 service in the 1920s constructed rustic-style head­ feasible the parks should be developed for winter quarters buildings in parks such as Sequoia, Grand sports; and beginning during the last weeks of Canyon, Glacier, and Mount Rainier. Ranger sta­ Mather's directorship Horace Albright led an ag­ tions were built in many parks, some in a "trapper gressive campaign to host the 1932 Winter Olym­ cabin" style suggestive of the fur trade era and pics in Yosemite. Although the service lost out to particularly favored by Mather. And park conces­ Lake Placid in this effort, Yosemite initiated a sionaires often erected splendid rustic structures winter sports carnival in 1931 using facilities de­ including Sequoia's Giant Forest Lodge, the Phan­ veloped during Mather's time, such as a toboggan tom Ranch in the depths of the Grand Canyon, and run and ice rink, to attract hundreds of off-season the spectacular Ahwahnee Hotel in the Yosemite tourists.12 9 valley.
Recommended publications
  • Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, However, Went Unnoticed
    • D -1:>K 1.2!;EQUOJA-KING$ Ci\NYON NATIONAL PARKS History of the Parks "''' Evaluation of Historic Resources Detennination of Effect, DCP Prepared by • A. Berle Clemensen DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEA.'! NATIONAL PAP.K SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPAR'J'}fENT OF THE l~TERIOR DENVER, COLOR..\DO SEPTEffilER 1975 i i• Pl.EA5!: RETUl1" TO: B&WScans TEallillCAL INFORMAl!tll CfNIEil 0 ·l'i «coo,;- OOIVER Sf:RV!Gf Cf!fT£R llAT!ONAL PARK S.:.'Ma j , • BRIEF HISTORY OF SEQUOIA Spanish and Mexican Period The first white men, the Spanish, entered the San Joaquin Valley in 1772. They, however, only observed the Sierra Nevada mountains. None entered the high terrain where the giant Sequoia exist. Only one explorer came close to the Sierra Nevadas. In 1806 Ensign Gabriel Moraga, venturing into the foothills, crossed and named the Rio de la Santos Reyes (River of the Holy Kings) or Kings River. Americans in the San Joaquin Valley The first band of Americans entered the Valley in 1827 when Jedediah Smith and a group of fur traders traversed it from south to north. This journey ushered in the first American frontier as fifteen years of fur trapping followed. Still, none of these men reported sighting the giant trees. It was not until 1833 that members of the Joseph R. 1lalker expedition crossed the Sierra Nevadas and received credit as the first whites to See the Sequoia trees. These trees are presumed to form part of either the present M"rced or Tuolwnregroves. Others did not learn of their find since Walker's group failed to report their discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • National Park Service a History
    National Park Service A History National parks have been called "the George Catlin, noted painter of the best idea America ever had." The American Indian, first expressed the idea of preserving special natural national park idea. On a trip to the and cultural places in public Dakotas in 1832, Catlin became ownership ran contrary to the concerned about the westward prevailing national mood during the movement's effects on Indian 19th century, when most Americans saw civilization, wildlife, and nature as something to be subdued and wilderness. He wrote of this dream history as what had happened in the that they might be "by some great Old World. But as the wilderness protecting policy of the government receded and remnants of prehistoric preserved ... in a magnificent park civilization and revolutionary A nation's park, containing man landmarks were lost, some saw the and beast, in all wildness and need to protect outstanding examples freshness of their nature's beauty!" of the nation's heritage. In 1864 the Federal Government first Four more national parks were created moved to protect a grand natural in the 1890s: Sequoia, General Grant landscape when it granted Yosemite (forerunner of Kings Canyon), Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Yosemite (to which California later Grove to the State of California to returned Yosemite Valley and the be "held for public use, resort, and Mariposa Grove), and Mount Rainier. recreation ... inalienable for all Without funds or staff to manage the time." Eight years later in 1872, parks, the Secretary of the Interior following exploration of the arranged with the Secretary of War to Yellowstone region in the Montana and have Army engineers and cavalry units Wyoming territories, Congress develop and protect most of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Directors of the NPS: a Legacy of Leadership & Foresight Letters •LETTERS What You Missed
    RANGThe Journal of the Association of ENational Par Rk Rangers ANPR ~6£SL Stewards for parks, visitors and each other The Association for All National Park Employees Vol. 21, No. 3 • Summer 2005 Directors of the NPS: A Legacy of Leadership & Foresight Letters •LETTERS What you missed ... I unfortunately did not attend the Rapid City Ranger Rendezvous (November 2004) and re­ Stay in touch! cently read about it in Ranger. There I found the Signed letters to the editor of 100 words or less may be published, space permitting. Please text of the keynote speech by ranger Alden Board of Directors Miller. If for no other reason, reading his include address and daytime phone. Ranger speech made me for the first time truly regret reserves the right to edit letters for grammar or Officers not attending. What a perfect synthesis of length. Send to Editor, 26 S. Mt. Vernon Club President Lee Werst, TICA Secretary Melanie Berg, BADI. history and vision in simple, powerful words! Road, Golden, CO 80401; [email protected]. Treasurer Wendy Lauritzen, WABA It is a great tribute that he has chosen to work with the NPS (and, hopefully, become an Board Members YES! You are welcome to join ANPR ANPR member!). If members haven't read Education 6V; Training Kendell Thompson, ARHO even ifyou don't work for the National Park Fund Raising Sean McGuinness, WASO this, they should, either in the Winter 2004/05 Sen/ice. All friends of the national parks are Interna! Communic. Bill Supernaugh, BADE Ranger (page 8), or at the excellent and infor­ eligible for membership.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservationists and the Battles to Keep Dams out of Yellowstone: Hetch Hetchy Overturned
    Conservationists and the Battles to Keep Dams Out of Yellowstone: Hetch Hetchy Overturned Michael J. Yochim Abstract Between 1919 and 1938 irrigation interests in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming repeatedly tried to construct reservoirs in Yellowstone National Park by damming several large park lakes and Bechler Meadows. Conservationists of the time joined forces with Horace Albright and Steven Mather of the National Park Service to oppose the dams. Ultimately successful in all their efforts, their key victory came in 1923 when they defeated an attempt to dam Yellowstone Lake. This victory reversed the loss of protected status for national parks that had occurred just ten years earlier at Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park. By chronicling the protracted conflict over dams in Yellowstone, I illustrate that the conservationists (including Mather and Albright) reestablished the funda- mental preservation policy of the national parks and empowered the newly cre- ated National Park Service to carry out its mission of park protection. This effort was the key battle in proving national parks and wilderness to be inviolate to industrial, exploitive uses. Conservationists both defined and tested the inviolate policy in Yellowstone; their battles in Dinosaur National Monument and the Grand Canyon cemented it into place. Introduction Far off, there lies a lovely lake Which rests in beauty, there to take Swift pictures of the changing sky, Ethereal blues, and clouds piled high. When black the sky, when fall the rains, When blow fierce winds, her face remains Still beautiful, but agitate, Nor mirrors back their troubled state. Within a park this treasure lies, — Such region ne’er did man devise — The hand of Mighty God, alone, Could form the Park of Yellowstone.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register Off Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form 1
    N. H. L. ARCHITECTURE IN THE PARKS NPS Form 10400 (342) OHB So. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS UM only National Register off Historic Places received Inventory—Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1 • Name__________________ historic The Ahwahnee Hotel and or common_____________________________________ 2. Location street & number Yosemite Valley __ not for publication city town Yosemite National Park . vicinity of state California code 06 county Mariposa code 043 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use __ district __ public x occupied __ agriculture __museum _x building(s) _x. private __ unoccupied __ commercial —— park __ structure __both __ work in progress __ educational __ private residence __site Public Acquisition Accessible __ entertainment __ religious __ object __ in process x yes: restricted __ government __ scientific __ being considered __ yes: unrestricted __ industrial __transportation __"no __ military _x_ other: Luxury Hotel 4. Owner off Property name Yosemite Park and Curry Company street & number city, town Yosemite National Park __ vicinity of state California 5. Location off Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Mariposa County Courthouse street A number city, town Mariposa state California 6. Representation in Existing Surveys__________ title National Register of Historic Places has this property been determined eligible? __ yes __ no 1977 .state __county local depository for survey records National Park Service cHy, town Washington state D - C. 7. Description Condition Check one Check one __ excellent __ deteriorated __ unaltered x original site __ ruins x altered __ moved date .
    [Show full text]
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia & Kings Canyon-Volume 1
    Draft National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior General Management Plan and Sequoia and Kings Canyon Comprehensive River Management Plan / National Parks Middle and South Forks of the Environmental Impact Statement Kings River and North Fork of the Kern River Tulare and Fresno Counties California Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index Page intentionally left blank SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS and MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER Tulare and Fresno Counties • California DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index This document presents five alternatives that are being considered for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks over the next 15–20 years. The purpose of the Draft General Management Plan is to establish a vision for what Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks should be, including desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, as well as for visitor experiences. The no-action alternative would continue current management direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives (it was originally alternative B when the alternatives were first presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The preferred alternative is the National Park Service’s proposed action, and it would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while adapting to changing user groups. Alternative A would emphasize natural ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development; alternative C would preserve the parks’ traditional character and retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and alternative D would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests
    Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Current Management Direction ................................................................................................................. 1 Types of Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite Forest Dynamics Plot
    REFERENCE COPY - USE for xeroxing historic resource siuay VOLUME 3 OF 3 discussion of historical resources, appendixes, historical base maps, bibliography YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK / CALIFORNIA Historic Resource Study YOSEMITE: THE PARK AND ITS RESOURCES A History of the Discovery, Management, and Physical Development of Yosemite National Park, California Volume 3 of 3 Discussion of Historical Resources, Appendixes, Historical Base Maps, Bibliography by Linda Wedel Greene September 1987 U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service b) Frederick Olmsted's Treatise on Parks ... 55 c) Significance of the Yosemite Grant .... 59 B. State Management of the Yosemite Grant .... 65 1. Land Surveys ......... 65 2. Immediate Problems Facing the State .... 66 3. Settlers' Claims ........ 69 4. Trails ........%.. 77 a) Early Survey Work ....... 77 b) Routes To and Around Yosemite Valley ... 78 c) Tourist Trails in the Valley ..... 79 (1) Four-Mile Trail to Glacier Point ... 80 (2) Indian Canyon Trail ..... 82 (3) Yosemite Fall and Eagle Peak Trail ... 83 (4) Rim Trail, Pohono Trail ..... 83 (5) Clouds Rest and Half (South) Dome Trails . 84 (6) Vernal Fall and Mist Trails .... 85 (7) Snow Trail ....... 87 (8) Anderson Trail ....... (9) Panorama Trail ....... (10) Ledge Trail 89 5. Improvement of Trails ....... 89 a) Hardships Attending Travel to Yosemite Valley . 89 b) Yosemite Commissioners Encourage Road Construction 91 c) Work Begins on the Big Oak Flat and Coulterville Roads ......... 92 d) Improved Roads and Railroad Service Increase Visitation ......... 94 e) The Coulterville Road Reaches the Valley Floor . 95 1) A New Transportation Era Begins ... 95 2) Later History 99 f) The Big Oak Flat Road Reaches the Valley Floor .
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge of the Big Trees
    Challenge of the Big Trees Challenge of the Big Trees CHALLENGE OF THE BIG TREES Lary M. Dilsaver and William C. Tweed ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association, Inc. CONTENTS NEXT >>> Challenge of the Big Trees ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association dilsaver-tweed/index.htm — 12-Jul-2004 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/index.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:17 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) Challenge of the Big Trees Table of Contents COVER LIST OF MAPS LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS FOREWORD PREFACE CHAPTER ONE: The Natural World of the Southern Sierra CHAPTER TWO: The Native Americans and the Land CHAPTER THREE: Exploration and Exploitation (1850-1885) CHAPTER FOUR: Parks and Forests: Protection Begins (1885-1916) CHAPTER FIVE: Selling Sequoia: The Early Park Service Years (1916-1931) CHAPTER SIX: Colonel John White and Preservation in Sequoia National Park (1931- 1947) CHAPTER SEVEN: Two Battles For Kings Canyon (1931-1947) CHAPTER EIGHT: Controlling Development: How Much is Too Much? (1947-1972) CHAPTER NINE: New Directions and A Second Century (1972-1990) APPENDIX A: Visitation Statistics, 1891-1988 APPENDIX B: Superintendents of Sequoia, General Grant, and Kings Canyon National Parks NOTES TO CHAPTERS PUBLISHED SOURCES ARCHIVAL RESOURCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INDEX (omitted from online edition) ABOUT THE AUTHORS http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/contents.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:22 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) List of Maps 1. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Vicinity 2. Important Place Names of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Broken Ankle Lessons Learned Review Circle Meadow Prescribed Fire Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks August 2012
    Broken Ankle Lessons Learned Review Circle Meadow Prescribed Fire Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks August 2012 Broken Ankle Lessons Learned Review – Circle Meadow Prescribed Fire – Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 1 Contents 1. Leader’s Intent………………..……………..…………………. 3 2. Introduction………………….….…...……….....….…………… 3 3. Incident Narrative……………………………...……….…....... 4 4. The Medical Response…………..……….……...………........ 12 5. Lessons Learned from Participants A. Medical Operation………..….………….…….………. 16 B. General Operations………………..…………………. 17 C. Risk and Decision Making………….……….……….. 17 D. Key Take Home Message: Medical Scenario Training………..….………... 18 6. Trees of Special Interest………………………………………. 19 7. Commendations……………….………………………….……. 23 8. Further Learning Opportunities………………….....………… 24 9. Review Team……………………………...……….……......... 25 10. Appendix – ‘Trees of Special Interest’ Section 5-4 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Fire Management Plan…….………………...... 26 11. Special Tribute to Daniel Holmes………….…….………….. 30 Broken Ankle Lessons Learned Review – Circle Meadow Prescribed Fire – Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 2 1. Leader’s Intent On July 17, 2012, the Superintendent of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks issued a Delegation of Authority for a team to review a broken ankle incident that occurred on the Circle Meadow Prescribed Fire on June 26, 2012. From the Superintendent’s Delegation of Authority direction to the Lessons Learned Review Team: The primary goal of the review is to determine lessons learned and better manage risk into the future. I would like your team to focus on two specific issues for Organizational Learning: 1. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks “Trees of Special Interest Policy” (and how it is implemented) found in the Park Fuels and Fire Management Plan; and 2. The post-incident medical response.
    [Show full text]
  • Than Campfire Conversation
    More Than Campfire Conversation In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt insisted on camping alone with John Muir while the pres- ident was on a tour of Yosemite. This encounter no doubt encouraged Roosevelt to support the eventual inclusion of Yosemite Valley into the larger Yosemite National Park. With the 2016 National Park Service (NPS) commemorations winding down, I took another look at the agency’s centennial webpage where there is a special feature with the biographies of “ear- ly national park visionary leaders” (https://www.nps.gov/bestideapeople/index.html) Muir and Roosevelt are there, reunited once again and given top billing as the lead visionaries of the national park movement, along with Stephen Mather, the politically adroit and charismat- ic first NPS director (Figure 1). Figure 1. “The Early Leaders,” from the National Park Service website. The George Wright Forum, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 271–274 (2016). © 2016 George Wright Society. All rights reserved. (No copyright is claimed for previously published material reprinted herein.) ISSN 0732-4715. Please direct all permissions requests to [email protected]. The George Wright Forum • vol. 33 no. 3 (2016) • 271 They are all credited with “groundbreaking ideas preserving America’s treasures for future generations,” with Muir praised as “the father of national parks.” Roosevelt was of course a great conservation-minded president and Muir was a brilliant publicist and a passionate and influential park and wilderness advocate. However, national parks had already been in existence for more than 30 years at the time of the camping trip, and the establishment of a National Park Service would not happen until 1916, 13 years later, when Roosevelt had long been out of office and John Muir was dead.
    [Show full text]