California State University, Northridge Colonel John

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE COLONEL JOHN ROBERTS WHITE AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT FROM THE PHILIPPINES TO SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in History By Geoffrey P. Kida December 20 ll The thesis of Geoffrey P. Kida is approved: Dr. Meny~vnick Date Dr. Tom Maddux Date Dr. Josh Sides, mr California State University, Northridge ii DEDICATION For Roger, Judy, Chet & Jo 111 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following people and institutions for their assistance with this project: First, the faculty and staff at California State University, Northridge. Dr. Josh Sides, Dr. Merry Ovnick, Dr. Tom Maddux, and Sue Mueller, who gave important direction and advice throughout the entire process. Dr. Charles Macune, for his inspiration and interest in the topic of this paper. The Oviatt Library staff for their helpful assistance. The Knight Library staff at the University of Oregon, Eugene. Ward Eldridge and the Sequoia Natural History Association at Three Rivers, CA. Bill Snively, for his encouragement and help during the revision process. Lastly, my family, who inspired, supported, and pressed me to complete this work. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page 11 Dedication ll1 Acknowledgements IV Abstract VI Introduction 1 Chapter One: Youth and Early Travels 6 Chapter Two: The Philippines and Iwahig Penal Colony 20 Chapter Three: Creating Change within the National Park Service 38 Conclusion 83 Selected Bibliography 85 Appendix 93 v ABSTRACT COLONEL JOHN ROBERTS WHITE AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT FROM THE PHILIPPINES TO SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK By Geoffrey P. Kid a Master of Arts in History Colonel John Roberts White managed Sequoia National Park from 1920-1947. In those years he implemented new conservation ideas that influenced national park policy and wilderness management in the United States. Prior to his time with the Park Service, White traveled extensively and experienced several important historical events. After leaving his childhood home of Reading, England, he fought with the Greek Foreign Legion before traveling to Alaska and the Yukon in search of his fortune. During his travels to America, he enlisted in the military and served in the Philippines. White spent several years with the Philippine Constabulary before managing Iwahig penal colony, also located in the Philippines. Struggling from poor health, White returned to America and actively sought work within the newly created National Park Service. After serving briefly in the Grand Canyon, White transferred to Sequoia National Park, where he fought for sustainability, especially within the Giant Forest. Vl INTRODUCTION On February 10, 1936, Colonel John Roberts White addressed his National Park Service colleagues at a superintendent's meeting in Washington D.C. He titled his speech, "Atmosphere in the National Parks," and opened by proclaiming, "Atmosphere, as I understand it, means the pervading influence which governs our national park development policies. It concerns the intellectual or moral, even in some aspects, the physical environment which we want in the parks. In language perhaps more specific, I take the atmosphere of a national park to depend upon what we permit in the way of public use, and equally what we do not permit." 1 When White began working with the Park Service in the 1920s, conservation ideas to protect wilderness were gaining momentum. The frontier no longer existed and the call to protect America's wild lands became louder. Preservation of natural environments within the national parks became increasingly important. In 1923, activist Robert Sterling Yard wrote, "Our national parks system is a national museum. Its purpose is to preserve forever ... certain areas of extraordinary scenic magnificence in a condition of primitive nature. Its recreational value is also very great, but recreation is not distinctive of the system."2 While not yet the view of the American majority, ·preserving nature beyond its utility for humans increasingly became a more widespread idea. Hal Rothman describes conservation between 1920 and 1945 as reflecting the dominant ethos in Ameri~an society. "The nation ran from the top down, with decisions 1 Superintendent John R. White, "Atmosphere in the National Parks," February 10, 1936, p. 1, Archives, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 2 Alfred Runte, Nl:lti.on11l Parks_: TheAJ11et:kiin E){ps:rieng~_ fouth edition. (Lanham, Maryland: Taylor Trade Publishing Company, 2010), 99. 1 made by a small group of leaders, typically Nmiheastern and affluent, tied to business and enamored of an easy and often opulent small-town life that industrialism had conversely granted much of the nation." In times of economic strength, America's leaders respected the values of conservation; in harder times utilizing the nation's resources seemed more important. During the 1920s, conservation became a link between past and present, and also included a business-oriented ethic.3 The struggle between preservation and public enjoyment continued into the 1930s and was aided somewhat by the concept of national recreation areas, such as Lake Mead. This compromise allowed two government agencies, the National Park Service and the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, to co-manage and encourage recreation in an already developed area of scenic beauty. 4 However, recreation within the national parks remained a constant issue, and while John White felt many forms of it were appropriate in recreation areas or national forests, he strongly advised his Park Service colleagues that within national parks, it was not. With American activities in the 1930s largely influenced by the Depression, conservation became one of the most essential employment devices ofthe era. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal organizations did more work on federal land than had been accomplished in several prior decades. 5 John White and Sequoia National Park benefited as park facilities were modernized, however the large numbers of workers and the lack of 3 Hal K. Rothman, S_ayj_ng_t]1J<_P!!Ln~t_Jhe i\meric_an_Response to the Environment in __ the_I\¥enti~!b C:~nil!IY (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee publishing, 2000), 60. 4 Douglas W. Dodd, "Boulder Dam Recreation Area: The Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the Origins of the National Recreation Area Concept at Lake Mead, 1929-1936," Southern CaliJgw.jLOuart~ly 88 no. 4 (Winter 2006/2007), 432. 5 Rothman, 61. 2 direct control over them by park managers created problems as White became increasingly more cautious when it came to development. Although conservation ideas were gaining momentum, there existed a lack of serious attempts to define what it meant to maintain natural conditions. Two human- centered approaches of wilderness management existed: to ignore or to manipulate, with the latter of the two often involving extensive interference in nature. Moreover, business still dominated 1920s society. While altering the natural environment by, for example, changing the course of a stream or feeding large mammals may seem like a poor idea to modem conservationists, some early park managers did not agree. In fact, they believed it to be suitable behavior, with the definition of natural conditions including the changes in nature they felt were appropriate.6 John White rejected the idea that wilderness should be ignored or manipulated. On countless occasions when development was encouraged, he chose to leave nature as it existed, even though it meant limited or difficult access to certain sections of the park. Stephen Mather, director of the National Park Service from 1916 to 1929, once wrote that the "greatest good for the greatest number" was "always the most important factor" in determining Park Service policy. Mather held the responsibility for implementing the 1916 Organic Act, which created the National Park Service, and clearly stated that the parks were to be maintained in "absolutely unimpaired" condition. However, the same document decrees that the parks were to be set aside for the "use, health, and pleasure of the people," and that they were to be made accessible "by any means practicable." This included roads, trails and buildings. Although Mather declared 6 Richard West Sellars, £reseryjngN.?t.!-lreinJhe NatiQ!)alf(lrks: A Iii_story (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 22. 3 he did not want the parks dominated by roads, the Mather era brought extensive road construction. 7 As the Organic Act stipulated, much of the new construction in the parks was designed to harmoniously blend with the natural surroundings. However, development also included necessary parking areas, campgrounds, water storage and supply systems, electrical power plants, sewage systems and garbage dumps, which were less aesthetically pleasing. Despite the directive for keeping the parks in "absolutely unimpaired" condition in the Organic Act, tourist development often went beyond the necessities-Yosemite housed a zoo, golf course and racetrack. Mather personally encouraged the development of the golf course, believing tourists would stay longer with more amusements.8 Although the presence of a golf course in a national park contradicted "unimpaired" nature, Mather allowed it, eager to encourage greater visitation. Furthermore, he proposed that Yosemite make a bid to host the 1932 winter Olympics.9 John White disagreed with ideas for increasing development, and was a minority in refusing to allow such additions in Sequoia National Park, believing they cheapened the atmosphere and drew attention away from the park's natural setting. Aside from an efficient, minimal road system, simple concessions, accommodations and management facilities, White believed natural wilderness areas were all that should exist within the National Parks. When compared with many wilderness managers in the 1920s, White's ideas were enlightened and forward-looking. White spent the majority of his working years delicately balancing wise development and 7 Ibid., p. 57-61. 8 Ibid., p. 62-63. 9 Mark David Spence, !)isQQ~yssing the Wildern~~_;_lndi~:tl1X@1ov_~I andthe Making oft_he National Park~ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 116.

Load more