Grant-Kohrs Ranch Administrative History

While all of this was happening, the Regional Curator Ed Jahns initiated a meeting at the ranch in February 1977 to begin the development of an interim furnishings plan for the ranch house (HS-1). Since Superintendent Peterson anticipated opening the park to the public by the summer, thought had to be given as to how the Grant-Kohrs house was to be arranged and interpreted. There was not enough time to prepare a formal plan, so Jahns, Wheaton, and Snell spent several bone-chilling days in the main house and the bunk house trying to determine how the rooms should be furnished until more thorough research could be accomplished. The only data available to them at the time were a four historic photographs and some interviews with Warren family members. Con Warren himself spent some time with the team to share his recollections, though they were from a period considerably later than that which was being portrayed. Nevertheless, the team and park employees working together eventually put things in order well enough that the public could be allowed inside. As a final step, Jahns photographed each room and admonished the staff not to move anything without confirmation in the historic record. [18]

The interim plan was the first stage of a continuing process to refine the furnishings exhibits. In the process of locating and inviting family members to the formal dedication, slated for July 1977, the staff encountered Kohrs relatives who had spent varying amounts of time at the house when Conrad and Augusta Kohrs were still living. Two of the most influential were Florence Hershey, a granddaughter by virtue of her marriage to Robert O. Y. Warren (Con Warren's brother), and Mrs. E. W. Bache, a lineal granddaughter. [19] Following the dedication ceremony, both of these women responded enthusiastically to NPS requests to interview them for their recollections about how the house, particularly, was furnished. Rodd Wheaton was able to establish close rapport with both Mrs. Hershey and Mrs. Bache, traveling to their homes at various times to talk with them. These visits produced not only research data on the furnishings, but perhaps even more valuable were their insights to the entire Kohrs family. While there can be no doubt that Con Warren was a wealth of information, the perspectives offered by these other family members were indispensable in providing a balance regarding personalities and family relationships. The two women also recalled details about the routine management of the household, something to which Con paid little attention as a boy. The special and lifelong relationship that Wheaton formed with Mrs. Hershey also bore fruit in the form of loans, and eventually gifts, of old photographs taken at the ranch and donations of additional family heirlooms. [20]

Following a tremendously successful grand opening of the park, "Pete" Peterson departed with near-perfect timing. It took the requisite few months to select a new manager, but when Thomas G. Vaughan reported for duty as superintendent in October 1977 he was cognizant that he had arrived at a significant turning point in the park's development. Whereas the site had been closed to the public since its acquisition by the National Park Foundation in 1970, it was now welcoming visitors. In the his first annual report, Vaughan observed that, "Grant-Kohrs Ranch faces a new set of problems and a new role in the community." [21] Management emphasis was shifting from basic facilities to the more subtle issues of historic preservation. Not only did collections beg for more professional care, but the time was fast approaching when the NPS would have to step back and re-evaluate the premises on which it had based its restoration program.

Vaughan was in many ways uniquely qualified to face these challenges. A contemplative individual, the new superintendent had done graduate work in the field of anthropology and had worked in both the museum and interpretive fields. Prior to his arrival at the ranch, he served a stint as superintendent at Hubbell Trading Post NHS. The trading post, including a fully furnished historic residence, shared much in common with Grant-Kohrs Ranch resources. These similarities provided Vaughan with a firm foundation of experience to deal with the issues soon to face him at Grant-Kohrs. [22]

The first of these would greet him practically on the doorstep. Although Peterson and his staff had attempted to bring some sense of order to the museum collection of approximately 10,000 objects, the job seemed insurmountable. He and Gordon ensured that Jean Griggs, employed only part-time, attended basic curatorial training at Harpers Ferry Center. Still, the task of organizing and cataloging the collection was far beyond one person's capabilities. Pete Peterson accurately characterized the curatorial job as "a bottomless pit into which to pour money -- but worthwhile!" [23] The park staff gained little ground in cataloging the mass of Kohrs and Warren family material, despite valiant efforts.

Back in March 1977 the regional office had perceived that the park's curatorial program was floundering and needed help right away. Regional Curator Jahns returned to the ranch with a team from the museum services branch at Harpers Ferry to spend several days on-site to evaluate the situation and began drafting a collections management plan to bring some professional guidance the program. [24] As a result, a museum technician, Randi S. Bry, joined the staff later that year to replace Jean Griggs, who had transferred to the park maintenance division in June. [25]

As a supplement to park staff, two supposedly qualified individuals were contracted to catalog major portions of the enormous backlog. These were important steps, but by the time Tom Vaughan arrived the project had grounded on rocky shoals. "The fact that there are problems in the cataloging project here is no news," Vaughan informed the chief of museum services. "I think it is time to address them specifically." He forwarded samples of the contractors' work, lamenting that, "I would like to have included some acceptable products but I couldn't find any, and I searched!" He went on to cite numerous deficiencies in the quality of the work, concluding that, "If we are to judge from this sample... Grant-Kohrs has an utterly worthless collection which cannot be located on site, which cannot be linked reliably to accession data, and which is often poorly described." He summarily refused to authorize any further payment on the contract until after meeting scheduled early in January to review the terms and the quality of the product. This meeting revealed that the desired product had not been clearly articulated, nor had either party comprehended just how much time and money should have been programmed for the job. Vaughan agreed to extend the contract time for the work to be completed, which it was, but admitted that valuable lessons had been learned all around. [26]

Vaughan's interest in the curatorial aspect of the park and his commitment to improve it was evident in his November 1977 comments relating to a recently drafted long-term management plan for Grant-Kohrs Ranch. It was "mind-boggling," he wrote, that, "Not one word is expressed in the whole thing about collections, artifacts, or curatorial services." Vaughan stressed that the NPS should have an organizational structure better adapted to addressing curatorial issues. "The lack of a potent chief curator position and the separation of curatorial activities in the field from other cultural resource preservation activities is one reason our collections are in such bad shape." [27] At that time, the NPS had no chief curator at the Washington level to serve as spokesman and policy maker for the discipline Servicewide. Vaughan may not have been able to influence the agency hierarchy, but he could and did take action to realign his own staff as a means of underscoring his conviction that parks "must clearly commit resources to the care of the collections." To that end, in 1979 Vaughan made good on a decision to segregate the curatorial function as an independent division under the superintendent. [28]

As the preservation and stabilization work on the ranch buildings continued, evaluations of the stallion barns (HS-14 and 19) revealed serious deterioration caused by moisture percolation. Both of these were located on the low ground behind the ranch house and neither had foundations. They were virtually "slipping into the swamps," as Rodd Wheaton put it. Constructing foundations beneath these barns was slow, laborious work. One barn (HS-14), in fact, had to be moved elsewhere until the stonework could be rebuilt. [29]

Peter Snell, who had returned to his Denver office a year earlier, inspected the work underway during March, 1978. He expressed his satisfaction with the way the park maintenance staff was caring for the structures, but he was not pleased with "the very inconsistent workmanship of small contract jobs which have been done in the last year . . . a great deal of masonry work has been done in freezing weather." It was his opinion that the contractor had taken advantage of a lapse in oversight during the interim period between the Pete Peterson's departure and Tom Vaughan's arrival. This pointed up what Vaughan viewed as an inherent conflict in the division of responsibilities between the regional office, the service center, and the park. At some time prior to his arrival, an agreement had been made that the regional office would have primary responsibility over some buildings, while others would fall under the purview of the Denver Service Center. But, he later related, "I spent the first 18 months there reminding them that they were park buildings," and it would be the park staff that would have to live with the results of their decisions. [30]

Within a month, Rodd Wheaton traveled to the Site to further discuss the issues that Superintendent Vaughan had raised. Key among these was how the Section 106 compliance, required by the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, was being handled with so many projects underway concurrently. Up to this time, apparently, each project had been submitted separately by the park, or by the regional office, or by the service center. If it was not confusing enough for the Park Service, it certainly was for the Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Therefore, Edrie Vinson, a historian for the Montana Historical Society and Montana SHPO, was invited to attend the meeting held at the ranch in April. It was agreed that much of the maintenance and stabilization work could be classified as "routine" and covered under a memorandum of understanding. Since the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation had already consented to a "no effect" determination for these kinds of projects, Vaughan could simply forward a request for implementation through the regional office. They also reached a consensus that Maintenance Foreman Mike McWright would supervise these projects as the official NPS representative, thus saving the cost of maintaining a central office person in the field for long periods. This arrangement succeeded, for a while, and the stallion barn (HS-19) foundation was completed during 1978. [31]

Rehabilitating the major elements of the structures was one thing, but Vaughan and Wheaton also had to consider the future care of the buildings. The Park Service was obligated to preserve the structures for all time, a very large order for buildings that had never been intended to last for more than perhaps a few decades. One of the measures they devised was to contract with Harrison Goodall, a professor of industrial arts at Montclair State College in New Jersey, to conduct preservation training on-site at Grant-Kohrs Ranch. Wheaton learned that Goodall specialized in the preservation of log structures, a construction material that posed a variety of unique problems. Goodall had developed effective techniques for overcoming many of these and was willing to contract with the Park Service both for repairing certain structures at the ranch and to train employees, who would serve as his crew. In this way, initial preservation treatment could be applied to the buildings and, simultaneously, park staff could be trained to perform stabilization work in years to come. This was first tried in the summer of 1978 with great success. An effective working relationship was thus established that prospered into the mid-I 980s. [32]

Additionally, Wheaton recommended that a written guide be prepared to assist the park maintenance staff with their preservation maintenance work. This "cookbook" would provide present and future maintenance staff with specific information to enable them to care for the buildings with a high degree of professionalism and continuity of treatment. A Missoula historical architect, James McDonald, was contracted in 1978 to research and complete a comprehensive guide for sixteen of the ranch buildings during the next year. McWright, who had attained considerable expertise himself by this time, assisted McDonald. Vaughan was lavish in his praise of the completed guide, and of Wheaton who he said had "been unduly modest in estimating its value." Moreover, Vaughan said, "I am concerned with the kind of preservation maintenance guide which becomes standardized Service-wide," suggesting that this one serve as a model. He knew that the Advisory Council placed great faith in the NPS and its determinations of "no effect" on actions involving historic properties. If the guides were prepared carefully and accurately, they could save park management a great deal of time by not having to prepare compliance documents on a routine basis. Too, the preservation guide placed emphasis on personal inspections of buildings, thereby ensuring that park staff would do this regularly. Wheaton observed that the guide intentionally used a simplified format that was not yet computerized. It would, he claimed, give "Park Managers responsibility for their own resources. The 'other' system [regional office oversight] assumes that they and their staffs are incompetent." [33] Accordingly, the development of a preservation guide placed the double-edged sword of authority, and responsibility, for structural preservation firmly in the hands of the superintendent and the park staff The guide would be only as effective as the degree to which it was used.

By the latter part of 1978 the most critical work of stabilizing many of the outbuildings had either been accomplished or was well underway. The restoration of key buildings could now be considered. The ranch house (HS-1) itself loomed as the single largest, and most publicly visible, project to be undertaken. The new roof that had been placed on the building in 1973 had done much to abate interior deterioration, while exterior painting and masonry repointing had provided a cosmetic face lift to the old structure. However, complete restoration had been placed "off limits," according to Wheaton, because of the high cost. The time came, nevertheless, to consider how the centerpiece of the ranch, along with associated structures and grounds, could be refurbished to its former glory.

(click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

As is common with major restoration projects, the initial price tag was staggering -- over $2,034,000.00. The house alone would cost $660,000. It was a massive package proposal that called for the preparation of a historical base map, archeological investigations, and working drawings for all architectural, structural, and mechanical systems for six primary and thirty-seven secondary structures. [34] The cost estimate for restoring the ranch house (HS-1) later escalated to $755,000.00. [35]

Faced with this major project, Superintendent Vaughan again raised his concerns about disjointed communication among the involved offices, as well as the coordination of this multifaceted work. He felt that the park staff had not been adequately involved in the discussions that were affecting park resources, but he had "decided to live with the arrangement for a while and see how it developed before I commented." Early in May, 1979 he requested a meeting with the appropriate persons in Denver to discuss the issue. Vaughan insisted that a supervisor from the Denver Service Center be detailed to the site full-time during the upcoming project. McWright had overseen certain stabilization projects during the previous year, which had resulted in higher quality preservation work and adherence to contract specifications, but had also consumed about twenty percent of his time. "You might say the price of historic preservation work is eternal vigilance," Vaughan wrote. "Turn your back and a wall disappears . . . We are learning through the school of hard knocks, but that is a poor way to do project supervision." He went on to say that when the work was eventually completed, "apparent differences in building styles should reflect differences in original building practices, not differences in preservation practices of DSC and RMR [Rocky Mountain Region]. This meeting resulted in an agreement that DSC projects would take precedence over regional projects when it came to scheduling. In those instances when both offices had projects on-going at the park, DSC would supervise in the interest of continuity. [36]

Significantly, this conference established the policy for archeology at the Site. It was decided that in consideration of archeology's inherently destructive nature, field work would only be done when it was required by law and in those instances when the suspected location of a feature could be identified with reasonable certainty beforehand. This partially accounts for the lack of subsequent investigations into privy and dump sites on the ranch for research purposes. The other determining factor was the need to store and curate archeological materials once they were out of the ground. Grant-Kohrs Ranch already had an overwhelming museum collection requiring attention.

Questions also arose with regard to the philosophy adopted for the restoration and interpretation of the various structures, collectively spanning the entire 120-year active life of the ranch. With the day drawing ever closer when the ranch house (HS-1) would be restored, Vaughan began to hear conflicting opinions about the way that house should be portrayed. The Denver-based architectural firm of Seracuse, Lawlor, and Partners had been contracted by the Denver Service Center in the fall of 1979 to begin the process of gathering data and preparing drawings of existing conditions that would be play a vital role in the restoration process. Vaughan saw this as a critical juncture where firm direction was needed. Once again he called a meeting of "the historic preservation maffia," as he dubbed the Denver professionals, in an attempt to define the future direction for restoration at the park, specifically with regard to the Grant-Kohrs Ranch home (HS-1). The work had been proceeding under the assumption that buildings were to be restored selectively, as set forth by Peter Snell in his historic structures report. However, there were those who were of the opinion that cost, feasibility, and effect on historic fabric should be considered as well. [37]

At the meeting of December 3, 1979, the group addressed the broad scope of restoration issues at the ranch. Central to these was the National Park Service management policy that articulated preservation as the preferred alternative for all historic structures, but at the same time made allowances for restoration "when essential for public understanding and appreciation of the historical and cultural associations of the park." That an evolutionary approach would be taken at Grant-Kohrs Ranch was reflected in a 1971 planning directive to restore "historic ranch buildings to the period of 1880-1900, while more modern buildings would be "retained to show historic sequence." The philosophy was later refined and reiterated in the general management plan, which stated that each historic structure would be restored "to its identified period of time." Such an approach would utilize the buildings themselves to reflect the evolution of cattle ranching at Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS.

Then there was the question of how to interpret the older buildings whose use had changed through the years. The 1975 Statement for Management had defined an objective to restore the scene "as had existed during the period 1880-1910." The post 1930 buildings were to be adapted for park uses. Likewise, an interim interpretive prospectus, the only one ever prepared for the area, incidentally, narrowed the focus to circa 1890. Since the plan placed heavy emphasis on telling the story of frontier cattle ranching through the principal individuals who lived at the ranch, that naturally equated to the zenith of the Kohrs-Bielenberg era. The ranch house, therefore, should be restored that period, 1886-1910, and more specifically to c. 1900, rather than being preserved in the evolutionary condition in which it had been acquired by the Park Service. Donald A. Purse, in his summary of the meeting, wrote, "The present discussions bring the focus and direction of our ongoing work under this contract into question." It was the opinion of his staff that HS-1, the ranch house, should be restored to the period 1880-1910 and the bunk house (HS-2) to 1930, based on the region's instructions to "restore (not preserve) a late 19th/early 20th century ranch . . . ." Since changes in the contract might incur additional costs, Purse asked the regional director for written concurrence with the DSC position, or "specific redirection before work on . . . the restoration program can resume." [38]

Tom Vaughan read Purse's review with considerable interest, agreeing with him that a policy decision was needed as soon as possible to avoid jeopardizing the project with Seracuse, Lawlor. He perceived two basics that had to be considered in formulating the policy: 1) the actual resources of the park itself, and 2) the purpose for which the park was established. Vaughan pointed out that the resource changes with time, "sometimes because of management, sometimes in spite of it. It still remains the visible, tangible, point on the earth from which the story begins to be told." The purpose, he said, "was less tangible but less transient." The superintendent was concerned that the passage of time and successive layers of NPS planning documents could very well blur the original intent of Congress through "an interpretation of interpretations." Suggesting that everyone involved make a careful re-examination of the legislation, he cautioned that if recent NPS planning directions did not accurately mirror the first generation of documents "we can very easily wind up going off in directions not in keeping with the purpose of the Site." [39] In a subsequent management review meeting, however, Associate Regional Director Kenneth R. Ashley and Vaughan agreed that it would be difficult to justify the removal of original fabric from a building simply to satisfy an arbitrary date of importance. Sensing that the regional director would uphold this view, they also agreed to keep the distribution of Peter Snell's historic structures report for the ranch house to a minimum, since it called for restoration to a specific period and the incongruity might invite public criticism. [40]

Later during that same visit to Denver, Vaughan attended a summit meeting with Regional Director Glen T. Bean and several other key staff members for the purpose of arriving at a final determination of the restoration policy at the ranch. Vaughan later recalled that he was satisfied with the direction of the meeting, until a question arose about the proper treatment for the screen porch on the ranch house. When Bean learned that this was a very late addition to the house, he remarked, "That's within my lifetime! That can't be historic." "I knew I was dead," Vaughan remembered with some amusement. [41] He was right, figuratively speaking. Bean declared that the ranch house was to be restored to the period 1880-1910. Everyone involved agreed that "original fabric should be retained whenever possible either as visible finish or as an in situ historic finish record beneath new finish of the same type." This resulted in some interiors being restored to c. 1920, and others to as late as 1945. Similar decisions for the other buildings were to "be made individually . . . based on their role as outlined in the Act of 1972," i. e., each building would represent its most active period, regardless of those adjacent to it. In announcing his verdict, Bean upheld the principles contained in the various resource management plans and re-emphasized that Grant-Kohrs Ranch had been set aside to both preserve it and to provide the public with an understanding its national values relating to the frontier cattle era. While admitting that he had no intention of denigrating the importance of later additions to the buildings, he added that "no one resource can be all things to all people at any one time...." He was convinced that the "earlier decision that the Ranch house should represent the Kohrs-Bielenberg era to be a sound one, both from the standpoint of preservation and interpretation." The Warren buildings east of the railroads, when acquired, would serve as evidence of the modem ranching era. [42]

At last, there was to be continuity of purpose and treatment for the historic structures. The ranch house would be an accurate representation of its appearance in the last decade of the nineteenth century. Or would it? There was that shingle roof on the rear wing. Everyone in the park, the regional office, and the service center knew it was historically incorrect. But what to do about it. "This is one of the last epistles on Pkg. #113 [comprehensive restoration] I will write as Superintendent," Vaughan stated in a memo just prior to his departure. "Regional Director Bean's December 1979 decision to defer replacement of this roof until it needs it effectively removes the actual re-roofing from the scope [of work]. Plans can be made, and materials can be purchased, but we'll let the existing roof serve some more useful years." [43]

This may have made sense from a practical point of view, but the architects at DSC still were chafed at having been challenged over the question of restoration. Vaughan was no sooner out the gate and on his way to a new assignment at Harpers Ferry Center when a staff person at DSC re-opened the issue. [44] Robert J. Shelley, an assistant manager at the center, informed the newly installed regional director, Lorraine Mintzmyer, that DSC had been instructed "to restore the ranch to the determined historic period." This decision, he reminded her, was in complete concert with all of the park's planning documents. However, "it is the opinion of the outgoing area superintendent and the regional historical architect [Wheaton] that, at seven years of age, the wood shingle roof -- historically and visually inappropriate as it admittedly is -- represents too great a financial investment . . . to discard so early in its useful life." Shelley went on to say that his architects, especially Peter Snell, objected to the non-historic shingles and wanted to see them stripped and replaced with the proper standing-seam metal roofing. [45] Despite Shelley's cogent argument that it would be more economical to replace the roof while a skilled crew was on-site, the Regional Office remained convinced that it would be more cost effective to defer it for fifteen or twenty years. The shingle roof remains intact in 1997.

It appeared highly unlikely to Rodd Wheaton that enough lump sum funding would be forthcoming anytime soon to underwrite the Site's complete restoration in a single stroke. So, he and the park staff worked together to break down the comprehensive package into separate smaller ones for the electrical and security systems, general restoration of the ranch house (HS-1) and the bunk house (HS-2), and landscape restoration. [46] Wheaton used this funding strategy successfully to stabilize or restore structures at the Grant-Kohrs Ranch since his arrival in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office in 1974. Each year he reprogrammed an average of approximately $40,000.00 in unobligated year-end funds, and awarded contracts in the following year. The smaller-size projects could either be accomplished for this amount, or the work could be phased in increments from one year to the next. [47]

With the once-endangered stallion barns both secure, Wheaton turned his attention to other structures that previously had taken lower priorities on his list. His dedication to Grant-Kohrs Ranch was demonstrated in a relentless effort to preserve all of the structures at the Site. During the next two years Wheaton, still working closely with preservationist Harrison Goodall, managed to reduce the backlog of work by several projects. Goodall returned to the Site in the summer of 1980. In addition to the park staffs efforts to rehabilitate the brooding house and the chicken house that year, Goodall completed the stabilization of the ice house. The following year he completely dismantled the derelict oxen barn, which had been leaning over against the adjacent draft horse barn. This allowed the site to be regraded and a new foundation laid before the barn (HS-7) was rebuilt. That same summer the machine shed and one of the cow sheds were rehabilitated structurally and re-roofed by the park maintenance staff In 1982 the program rolled on to see work completed on the Leeds-Lyon Barn. Smaller structures, including the cattle scale and the beef hoist, also were restored. [48]

In 1983 Congress enacted the Park Restoration and Improvement Program [PRIP], which made large sums of money available to fund the huge backlog of facilities deficiencies throughout the National Park System. This windfall benefited Grant-Kohrs Ranch by making the general restoration of the Site, including the ranch house (HS-1), a reality. Besides the work on the ranch house, Superintendent Jim Taylor used PRIP funding to contract Goodall to carry out a major stabilization project on the draft horse barn to bring it up to standard. This involved repairing the foundation, replacing the sill logs, rehabilitating the roof support structure, and installing new flooring and joists in the north portion. In addition to the PRIP funding, special Jobs Bill funding was made available to the Site. With this money, the park repaired four feed racks, replaced the board-and-batten roof on the Bielenberg Barn, and rehabilitated three stock shelters. By the mid-1980s, the old ranch was making a dramatic comeback. [49]

Once the direction was established for the restoration of the ranch house (HS-1) early in 1980, attention shifted to the work on the interior of the house. Wheaton, accompanied by Jim McDonald, traveled to New York City in April 1980 to scout the wallpaper and fabric districts in an effort to locate suitable materials for the restoration. It was fortuitous that excellent original material samples had been retrieved from the house, for instance paint and paper samples from the walls and woodwork. Remnants of the original sitting room carpet were found in the second floor hallway. At some time the carpet had been moved there when it was no longer suitable for the family residence. Wheaton's mission nevertheless proved to be a difficult one. He found that those few companies having the capability of producing the needed materials were not interested in gearing up to make the relatively small quantities needed for one house. Wheaton eventually located both carpet and suitable wall and border papers, which had to be special ordered at high prices; the sitting room border paper, for example, costing $44.00 per foot. At that, some of the interior finishes still were not correct. To his astonishment, Wheaton discovered much too late that Peter Snell, who had been researching and selecting the paint schemes, was colorblind! Some of the rooms have since been repainted to the correct shades. [50]

At the same time that the interior restoration of the ranch house (HS-1) was underway, Dr. Nicholas L. Scrattish, a DSC historian, was diligently preparing the formal Historic Furnishing Plan for the house. This important document would serve as the permanent guide for interpreting the Kohrs and Bielenberg era through the interior room settings. Early in 1982 Superintendent Taylor and his staff negotiated a large donation of objects from Patricia Nell Warren, Con's daughter. The gift included art objects, silver-plate, china, crystal glassware, linens, a few pieces of furniture, and a number of personal items that had belonged to her great-grandparents. These, along with the Hershey acquisition, were especially timely because much of this material could be incorporated into the final exhibit. [51]

Refurnished rooms in the ranch house.
(Courtesy of Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS, photo by Richard Frear)

As sometimes happens when family members donate museum objects, Pat Warren became concerned when she heard a rumor that Scrattish recommended excluding items that she had understood would be displayed in the ranch house. In June 1982 she wrote a vitriolic letter to Scrattish, with copies to Regional Director Mintzmyer and Superintendent Taylor. In her tome to Scrattish, Warren blasted him for what she and her father perceived as faulty research providing "no factual basis whatever for removing the objects in question to storage . . . If the recommendations in your study are put into effect at GRKO," she continued, "the picture of that era will be falsified to that degree, and the American public will be defrauded . . . . The place never had a 'museum-like' atmosphere." She likewise took issue with his focus on the 1890-1900 time period, while de-emphasizing earlier and later eras. Perhaps the true source of her anger was revealed when she scolded Scrattish that he was obviously "not fully aware of the proper weight that ought to be given to my father's information. So, you frequently reject his information in favor of that coming from other people whose observations are less reliable." [52]

Refurnished rooms in the ranch house.
(Courtesy of Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS, photo by Richard Frear)

Wheaton, who was better acquainted with Patricia Warren than perhaps any other NPS person, sent her an informal response to pave the way for Regional Director Mintzmyer's letter to follow. In this, he explained that "most of the rooms will remain much as they are," citing the decision to retain the parlor wallpaper dating c. 1910. "As you can see," Wheaton wrote, "there are no hard and fast rules for interpretation, beyond giving special consideration for the most active period of use by the Kohrs and John Bielenberg and for providing the most suitable setting for the fabulous collection of period furnishings." [53] A few days later Mintzmyer informed the Warrens that Scrattish's focus on the years 1890-1910 was anything but arbitrary, because the NPS had previously made this determination and Scrattish was simply following the direction thus established. The regional director conceded, however, that this "has been somewhat more freely interpreted by the park and Regional Office. As a consequence, most of the first floor rooms will be preserved rather than restored." Mintzmyer concluded by assuring the Warrens that their concerns would be considered and, if necessary, addressed in an addendum to the furnishings study. [54]

An angry Nick Scrattish, insulted and dissatisfied with the decorous tone of the regional director's letter, took the liberty of crafting a frank personal retort to Pat Warren. Scrattish informed her in no uncertain terms that he not only stood by his research, but that he had indeed attempted to interview her father relative to the furnishings. After one brief discussion at a local restaurant, Con Warren demonstrated the stubborn side of his personality shown on earlier occasions. According to Scrattish, he approached Con in his yard one day with more questions, but Con rebuffed him with the curt comment that "he had already said everything he considered worth saying. The message was clear." Scrattish attributed Warren's mood to a poor working relationship with the park. "In retrospect," Scrattish remarked, "the reference can best be described as a diplomatic under-statement. In fact, no spirit of cooperation existed." He closed his letter by explaining that many of his decisions with regard to the furnishings had been based on information gained from Mrs. Bache, whose memories antedated Con's by several years. Not once in your discussion of [various rooms] do you produce a shred of documentary evidence," Scrattish wrote. "Your disagreements with my recommendations are based upon the way you think the ranch house should look for visitors . . . We operate with different principles." [55]

It is difficult to say just what factors may have contributed to the Warren outburst over the furnishings plan, but it seems reasonable to assume that it may have stemmed in part from Pat Warren's bruised ego and Con's dissatisfaction with the soured land deal with the NPS. It also was influenced by the close relationship that Wheaton had formed with Mrs. Hershey and Mrs. Bache, neither of whom had been on favorable terms with Con for many years. [56]

Plans for the complete restoration of the ranch house (HS-1) moved forward, but there was only so much that could be done to the interior until a reliable heating system was installed to stabilize the environment within the building. A key factor in the structure's remarkable state of preservation from the 1940s to the early 1970s was the slow temperature fluctuations from season to season while it was unoccupied. However, the re-introduction of heat into the building with the old coal furnace, with sometimes rapid increases during times when employees were working there, caused the plaster and paints, as well as the furnishings, to deteriorate. To prevent any more ceiling plaster from separating from the lath, James McDonald was contracted to devise a plan for correcting the problem. The park maintenance staff subsequently removed the flooring from the second story and, once access had been gained to the ceiling from the upper side, injected an acrylic adhesive into holes drilled through the lath into the plaster. [57]

Major line-item funding was then approved for fiscal year 1984 to complete work on the ranch house. This involved the replacement of the electrical system, including all of the wiring throughout the structure, and installation of security and fire suppression systems. A dry sprinkler system was designed for the Grant portion of the house and throughout the entire attic. The NPS initially considered a halon system, but questions arose about safety features to prevent accidental discharge, as well as its potential effectiveness were a fire to occur. The concept was later dropped from the project. Four new gas furnace units, incorporating humidifiers, would replace the original coal-fired heating system, although the old furnace would be retained to serve as an air exchange. An airtight environment was created by installing interior storm plexiglass on the windows and covering the ceilings of the second floor area of the Grant section with plastic sheeting. The contract was let to the Sharbono Construction firm in Helena, Montana. [58]

It had occurred to Superintendent Jim Taylor and his curatorial staff that work of such extent and magnitude would require the contractor's personnel to access virtually every part of the ranch house. This posed a double threat of both theft and accidental damage to the furnishings. Taylor made a prudent decision to remove everything and place it in temporary storage until the project was completed.

It was not easy to find suitable storage locally, yet it was necessary for the curatorial staff to continue monitoring and maintaining the collection. Eventually, Taylor successfully negotiated with St. Mary's Catholic School in Deer Lodge to lease two classrooms in the vacant building for this purpose. The park, with the assistance of Rodd Wheaton, also contracted a local firm to install security alarms in these rooms to guard against intrusion and fire. The "great move" started in the fall of 1983 when the curatorial staff began carefully packing, labeling, and inventorying all of the contents of the ranch house (HS-1). Taylor involved the Deer Lodge community by requesting the donation of Styrofoam packing, and the townspeople responded by contributing half the enormous quantity needed. Once the packing phase was completed, most of the park staff helped transfer the collection to the former school. Jim Taylor remembered that it required over twenty 24-foot truckloads to accomplish the job. He would later recall this project with a great deal of fondness for the team spirit and unity of purpose it engendered among the staff. [59]

The HS-1 renovation project began soon after the beginning of the fiscal year, in October 1983. The mechanical and electrical portion kept workmen crawling over, under, and through the old house for nearly nine months. When they finished, however, the house was ready for the last phase of what had been a very protracted project. Regional Historical Architect Wheaton located a firm in Denver, the Grammar of Ornament Company, that possessed the necessary skills to finish the interior prior to replacing the furnishings. Their efforts resulted in the restoration of three rooms, including the application of the reproduction ceiling, wall, and cove papers that Wheaton had arranged to have made in New York. The contractor finished the work in June 1984, and the following month the furnishings were returned to the house to be placed in their final arrangement according to Snell's plan and Wheaton's familiarity with Victorian interiors and customs. Nick Scrattish actually directed the placement of the furnishings.

The accomplishment was a milestone. Fourteen years after the acquisition of the ranch, and ten years after Pete Peterson and Paul Gordon had wintered in its frigid basement, the structure once again reflected Augusta Kohrs's astute good taste, and the days when Con Kohrs and John Bielenberg were among the most noted cattle kings in the Northwest.