Grant-Kohrs Ranch Administrative History

Typical of his agrarian counterparts throughout the western United States, Con Warren was reluctant to invite what he may have perceived as needless government involvement, if not intervention, in his ranching business. In the rural West, even a strong appreciation for family heritage and regional history often do not equate with public use of one's property. It is not surprising , then, that none of the ranch owners named in the National Survey report elected to permit visitor access to their sites, although three of them, the J. A. Ranch, Grant-Kohrs Ranch, and the Tom Sun Ranch, did agree to the other provisions. [12] Thus, the cattle industry theme continued to be publicly interpreted by only two areas already in the Park System, North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park and the all-encompassing Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis. Neither of these, in fact, had as its primary focus the cattle industry. Nor, in fact, was there enthusiastic support within NPS for acquiring additional areas to represent that theme. According to one Service historian, "Traditionally, the National Park Service has had a negative attitude toward the cattle industry theme . . . grazing has been looked upon as an adverse use in most . . . parks." [13]

By the mid-1960s, Con Warren was in his middle years by this time and had accepted the fact that neither of his children would pick up the reins of running the ranch. Yet, Con possessed a strong sense of pride in his pioneer heritage and the contribution of his forebears to Montana's cattle industry. Without anyone in the family willing to carry on the tradition by working the ranch, there was little point in maintaining the business. Con began to think in terms of somehow preserving the place beyond his lifetime, perhaps as a museum for Deer Lodge. He and his wife discussed the possibilities from time to time, but were unable to arrive at a solid solution until 1966, when Nell suggested approaching the National Park Service. The ranch, after all, had been officially inspected and recognized for its significance. "We wrangled about it for thirty days before I finally sat down and did it," Con remembered in a later interview. "So, if it hadn't been for her, we wouldn't be standing here right now." [14]

Warren's subsequent communication with the Montana congressional delegation prompted Chester C. Brown, chief of planning in the Washington office, to request assistance from nearby Yellowstone National Park. Accordingly, Superintendent John S. McLaughlin assigned historian Aubrey C. Haines to make an on-site investigation of the area with a view to its potential for becoming a unit of the System. Haines at that time was serving a stint as acting ranger-in-charge at Big Hole Battlefield. Traveling to the ranch on July 28, 1966, he met with the Warrens and made a cursory inventory and evaluation of the structures. It became apparent to Haines during their conversations that despite Con's expression of lofty motives for parting with the ranch, he was willing, even anxious, to sell. Haines recommended to McLaughlin that, "further study of the area" was warranted because of the "good condition of the premises, their obvious integrity . . . and the possibilities for a meaningful presentation to the public." [15] However, Haines would confide years later that the place impressed him, "as a kind of run down, remnant of a ranch" that was going to require a lot of money to develop. [16]

Communication now established with the Service, Warren wrote directly to the Washington Office during the following January to bolster his case for bringing the ranch under the protective umbrella of the National Park Service. Con wanted to know if the ". . . Department would be interested in developing a museum or recreational area at this Historic Site," at the same time offering his complete assistance. [17] Assistant Director Theodor R. Swem responded in a supportive tone, asking if Warren had given any thought to, "what measures might be helpful in assuring preservation of the ranch buildings and collections." Swem also queried Warren as to whether he had in mind a time schedule for selling the property, even though his letter had not indicated any particular urgency. The Washington official concluded on a note of caution that all of the usual factors of suitability and feasibility would need to be investigated, "before we can take a position in regard to the ranch's potential as an addition to the National Park System." [18]

In his missive of a few weeks later, Con reiterated the obvious need to set aside the 1862 Grant-Kohrs house. Beyond that, however, he was uncertain just what the NPS might consider as historically significant for inclusion in a national historic site and suggested that it might be appropriate for professionals to "clarify the boundaries of the Kohrs-Grant ranch." Con candidly admitted that he did not have the financial resources to preserve the ranch, moreover he wished to retire in the not-too-distant future. With those considerations in mind, he was willing to negotiate the sale of the ranch at any time. [19] Russell E. Dickenson, chief of new area studies and master planning (and future NPS director), subsequently advised Warren that his office was already encumbered with a heavy workload, therefore it would be impossible to undertake a study at Grant-Kohrs for some time. He did offer the promise that his staff would conduct the project as soon as possible. [20]

Good to his word, Dickenson saw to it that historian Merrill J. Mattes and architect John Calef, both from the San Francisco Planning and Service Center, paid a visit to the site in September 1967a. [21] Mattes's report favored NPS acquisition, though he outlined several conditions that would have to be weighed very carefully. There was no question in his mind that the ranch was a historically important site; that already had been confirmed by its National Historic Landmark designation. While Mattes was a seasoned academic historian, he recognized the potential impacts of a new form of interpretation termed historical animation, or "living history," as it became known in the NPS, that was catching fire throughout the nation [22] By the late 1960s, there were many "living farm" demonstrations active in the throughout the United States. Mattes challenged the Service to consider whether or not it wanted "to embark on an expanded program of living demonstration areas, including a western ranch holding" and, if so, to make a determination whether the Grant-Kohrs Ranch was "the most feasible candidate for such representation in the National Park System." Of a more practical nature were the questions of whether Warren would sell at a reasonable price, making a donation of the historical objects and records, and whether Congress could be convinced to pay the high price commanded by prime agricultural lands. Mattes estimated that the total cost for acquisition and development would exceed one million dollars. [23]

The wheels of bureaucracy turned slowly and it was not until early in 1969 that Swem notified Warren that while the Service had not lost interest in the ranch, it would be some time before a master plan could be prepared. Swem explained that this planning exercise was basic to the preparation of a specific proposal for consideration by the Secretary of the Interior and the Advisory Board. Funding, he pointed out, simply was not available to accomplish this. He added that an even greater hurdle in the process would be the act of Congress necessary to authorize the area, along with a funding appropriation. [24]

This was a grim forecast that might have dashed any hopes Warren had for the quick sale of his property, were it not for Swem's suggestion that he consider an arrangement with the National Park Foundation. It was for just such circumstances that this organization had been chartered by Congress. The officially-sanctioned partner of the National Park Service relied solely on private donations to acquire options on identified critical lands, and to hold them in trust until congressional funding was forthcoming. Thus, tracts of land vital to Park Service interests, that might otherwise be lost to prior sale or degraded by adverse impacts, could be protected in the interim.

This was clearly not the answer Con wanted to hear. He initially ignored Swem's suggestion, choosing instead to turn up the heat under the Park Service. Writing to Swem in July 1969, the businessman in Warren came to the fore. His frustration with what he perceived as a needlessly slow process surfaced as he pointed out to Swem that very little had been accomplished in the two and one-half years of discussions. In a "fish, or cut bait" ultimatum, Warren told Swem that he had received a very attractive offer to sell the whole ranch to another party and that he was running out of time to respond. "If by [September 1, 1969] the Park Service has not made a move to acquire . . . the Historic Site," Warren wrote, "I would have only one alternative and that would be to dispose of the antiques and artifacts and sell the whole property as a ranch." [25]

Whether or not Con was bluffing may never be known, but one thing is certain -- this no-nonsense rancher knew how to get the attention of the National Park Service. The very next month Ralph Lewis, chief of the Branch of Museum Operations, found himself in Deer Lodge, Montana. There he spent a full day with Con surveying the contents of the 1862 ranch house and several of the outbuildings. That Lewis was mightily impressed is evident in his report. He noted, once again, that the entire site possessed a high degree of integrity in its magnificent collection of site-specific artifacts, its original structures, and in its landscape. Here at an old-time working ranch, he noted, "The cowboy and other usually over-romanticized elements of the wild West fall into proper perspective and seem to gain impact in the process." [26] This visit seems to have either appeased Con for the moment, or belied his threat. Whichever it was, the ranch remained unsold.

In following months, the National Park Foundation opened communication with Warren, but the road was a rocky one initially. Warren hosted Robert R. Garvey, assistant secretary for the National Park Foundation and executive secretary for the Advisory Council , at the ranch late in 1969. At that time the two reached agreement on major points. Garvey also initiated an appraisal of the ranch lands. [27] Yet, upon his return to Washington, Garvey was stunned to learn that Warren had declared the negotiations to be at an end. Once again, insufficient basic data and the absence of a defined concept plan deprived the players of a foundation for the frank discussions that Con Warren expected. Neither party understood just which tracts of land were considered significant for inclusion in the proposed historic site. Further, the Warrens rejected the idea of being granted a life estate on their home and the parcel of land encompassing the modern ranch operation east of the railroad tracks. Garvey attempted to rescue the relationship as best he could, blaming the breakdown on "a lack of information regarding requirements, both ours and yours." [28] He encouraged Con to reconsider his stance, assuring him that the Foundation had not changed its mind about the significance of the ranch.

Con's favorable response to Garvey's entreaty may well have been in deference to an ailing wife's desire to see the ranch preserved as a public historic site. If he was still considering a sale to anyone other than the government, Warren made no further mention of it. He quickly submitted to the Foundation and the NPS a revised proposal containing several alternatives for protecting the historic ranch, as well as preserving a viable portion of the Warren Hereford operation. [29]

After teetering on the brink of collapse for months, the negotiations suddenly made a turn-around, due in no small part to Bob Garvey's diplomacy. He and Con seem to have established a mutually respectful working relationship during Garvey's visit to the ranch. By the first of April 1970 Warren had firmed up his earlier proposals for dividing the property to accommodate both park and ranch needs. The essence of this plan was to sell thirty-five acres containing the historic home ranch buildings, plus an additional ten acres east of the tracks, south of Con's house, for visitor parking and access. Additionally, Warren would grant easements on adjacent lands, the whole priced at $311,000.00. A separate contract would be negotiated for the antique furnishings and ranch equipment based on appraised value. Warren's attorney in Helena, Peter Meloy, prepared the formal offers and forwarded them to Garvey, suggesting at the same time that Garvey should plan to meet with him and the Warrens as soon as possible to work out the details. [30]

After this meeting took place, late in June of 1970, Garvey returned to his Washington office where he conferred with John D. McDermott, his assistant secretary on the Advisory Council. Garvey was faced with the critical decision of having proposals for two eligible sites, Carousel Park in Maryland and Grant-Kohrs Ranch, but money enough to acquire only one. When asked for his recommendation, McDermott immediately suggested the ranch. He reasoned that the Park System had no area devoted exclusively to representing the cattlemen's empire, a sub-theme in the recently adopted National Park Service Plan. The concept for such a plan had originated in 1964 with Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, who had advanced the idea that the Park System should be expanded. His successor, Walter J. Hickel, likewise became convinced that there were "serious gaps and inadequacies which must be remedied while opportunities still exist if the System is to fulfill the people's need to see and understand their heritage . . . ." [31] NPS Director George Hartzog and his staff capitalized on this opportunity by designing the plan around a thematic framework for expanding the System's cultural parks through careful evaluation of appropriate sites and buildings. Accordingly, the plan encouraged controlled expansion of the System by outlining historical themes that ought to be represented by sites meeting specific criteria of significance and integrity. These served as an objective method for screening out unwanted or marginally-significant parks, so often imposed upon the NPS by delegates eager to promote local economies, and garner support for the next election. At the same time, the process exposed a wide range of deficiencies in themes that were either under-represented, or not represented at all. [32] Hartzog had guidelines in place, coincidentally, by the spring 1970. Considering the Department's emphasis on fleshing out the System, Garvey the politician saw a serendipitous advantage in promoting an under-represented type. [33]

Garvey immediately initiated procedures for finalizing the deal to acquire Grant-Kohrs Ranch. Following a legal review of the provisions contained in the sale offer, the Foundation's attorneys deliberated with Meloy until a tentative agreement was reached in August. The decision turned on a key factor -- the Warrens' decision to donate, rather than sell, the artifact collection. These favorable developments influenced the Advisory Board at its October 1970 annual meeting to "emphatically recommend that the National Park Service negotiate immediately" with Warren to acquire the ranch. [34] In the deal that was struck, the Warrens relinquished 130 acres in fee, plus 1180 acres of easement, for a single payment of $250,000.00. Although a meeting to finalize the deal had been scheduled early in September, the closing was delayed until November 13, 1970. [35] With that, the papers were signed and the legendary ranch passed out of family hands for the first time in 104 years. No doubt Con Warren had some feelings of regret when the time actually came to sign away the place, but he would later admit that, "really, that's kind of what saved my bacon is when I made that sale . . . otherwise, I think I'd be flat broke now, maybe worse than flat." [36] Con's decision was probably the best compromise he could have negotiated; the ranch was preserved, he retained his home and business, and there was cash to pay his debts.

Separate from the land sale was an agreement executed the same day between the Warrens and the National Park Foundation (NPF). The document was intended to guide the use of the area by both parties during the interim period. A provision of this accord called for an inventory of the historical objects on the site, which were to be donated to the NPF rather than purchased. Another was significant for authorizing National Park Service personnel, acting on behalf of the Foundation, to assume responsibility over the area. [37]

One of the members of that first reconnaissance party was Park Ranger John R. Douglass, then serving as the West District naturalist in Yellowstone National Park. Douglass conducted an informal inspection of the site and, as a result, developed some recommendations for the immediate future of the ranch. Besides the need for researching the buildings, he saw an urgent need to establish an official presence at the site. He observed that Con Warren had "shown remarkable patience in dealing with the multitude of Park Service personnel," but Douglass felt it was time to designate one individual as coordinator for the area. Too, he recommended that a caretaker be assigned to live on-site for protection and to carry out minor maintenance work. [38]

Vernon E. Hennesay (front row, right) with group, Yellowstone National Park.
(Courtesy Yellowstone NP)

The staff at Yellowstone National Park moved quickly to act on the caretaker issue. Early in December, arrangements were completed to move a mobile home from Yellowstone to the ranch. Tom Pettet, a Butte, Montana native and member of the Mammoth District maintenance crew, was detailed for the assignment. Since Pettet shared quarters at the park with his mother, both were relocated to Grant-Kohrs. By mid month, Acting Midwest Regional Director Robert L. Giles, headquartered in Omaha, was able to report to Director Hartzog that the site was occupied and that utilities connections had been made with the city of Deer Lodge. [39]

For a few weeks following the purchase, Douglass continued in his liaison role, making community contacts in Deer Lodge and laying the groundwork for housing Pettet at the ranch. Vernon E. Hennesay, the assistant superintendent for special services at Yellowstone National Park, also had become involved by virtue of his catch-all staff position. It became increasingly apparent that a single key person should be designated to coordinate communications both within the NPS and with outside organizations. Issues such as utilities connections, fire protection agreements, and basic maintenance priorities were already arising that required the attention of an employee vested with authority to act on them. Furthermore, Pettet's placement at the ranch raised questions about supervisory responsibility. Douglass complained that, "The man does not know what he is supposed to do. Who is to tell him?" Acting on Douglass's suggestion, Yellowstone Superintendent Jack K. Anderson named Hennesay to head the effort. [40]