Grant-Kohrs Ranch Administrative History

During the summer of 1982, the first season in which the Interpretation & Resource Management Division actually functioned as such, the regional chief interpreter, Bill Sontag, visited the area to evaluate the visitor services program. He, too, discovered the perennial problem with more attention being focused on the ranch house tours than on the remainder of the resource. He observed that demonstrations were limited to blacksmithing and unscheduled ranching tasks around the grounds. The only scheduled programs were the house tours. He informally queried the staff to learn that while most of them were in agreement that greater attention need to be focused on the ranching operation than on the HS-1 furnishings (exactly what Wes Wolfe had warned against in 1977), some argued that the furnishings could not be ignored. Their very presence, he acknowledged, could not be disputed, but he reminded the interpreters that they "should not assume that the furnishings are interpretive features separable from the primary or overall theme of the park, but should find an appropriate blend of emphasis and carefully selected media which will place the two in proper relationship to each other." Sontag recommended that the interpreters lead each group out the back door of the house to another building, perhaps the bunk house, before terminating the tour. This, he theorized, would make a less distinct conclusion by introducing visitors to other features of the ranch. He recommended that the area have more living history activities conducted on a regular basis, rather than just on the park birthday. His recommendations resulted in some minor adjustments to the program, yet it would remain basically the same. [43]

Park Ranger Lyndel Meikle giving a ranch house tour, 1982. (Courtesy of Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS)

The congressional discussions preceding the passage of the bill to authorize the area specifically highlighted the unique qualities of the main house, stating that the primary purpose of the Site would be "to describe livestock ranching as it matured and contributed to the western culture and not to memorialize the individuals directly involved." [44] The interpretive challenge was to employ Conrad and Augusta Kohrs and John Bielenberg as vehicles for telling that story without, in effect, "memorializing" them. Many visitors, especially those who had been to the Site previously, came specifically to experience the house tour. The dominance of the two-story mansion over the squat utilitarian barns and sheds on the surrounding grounds was inescapable. Its visual impact alone made it difficult to downplay and virtually impossible to ignore. One long-time staff member described the program as "resource-driven," in the respect that the house is there and people expect a tour through the Victorian wonderland. Clemmensen wrote in 1987 that many visitors "care ONLY to see the house." Even when an experiment was tried by starting tours at the bunk house, she noted that, "We still had many people who acted like the 5-10 minute introduction was a chore to sit through; they only wanted to see the inside of the house." [45] Visitors have continued to come primarily to see the ranch house and, consequently, house tours have remained standard fare in the interpretive program.

Through the years variations of program activities have been tried, with more or less success. Still, the park staff perceives a need for more orientation to the business of raising and selling cattle. "It can't be done if the staff is committed to the office, VC [visitor center], and house tours," according to Lyndel Meikle, a long-time interpreter at the Site. "It can't be done in those settings, . . . [but] it can be done with a single cow in a corral." [46]

When Superintendent Eddie Lopez arrived for duty in August 1988, he brought with him an expectation from Rocky Mountain Regional Director Lorraine Mintzmyer that living history activities would be increased at the site. This was good news to most of the interpretive staff, particularly since Lopez was not wedded to the idea of providing hourly guided tours of the house. A reduction in the frequency, if not the length, of tours would free the staff to undertake other activities.

This was easier said than done. Since Grant-Kohrs Ranch had not previously immersed itself completely in the living history concept, limiting such programs mainly to special events, the staff lacked the depth of experience necessary to conduct a more intensive program. On one earlier occasion, for instance, the staff came to loggerheads over the appropriateness and authenticity of the replica period clothing to be worn at the annual birthday event. When no one could agree, a decision was made that all interpreters, except the rancher and the blacksmith, would wear NPS uniform. When Lopez arrived, he saw an opportunity to enhance the program in this regard. However, Service guidelines mandated certain standards for the conduct of living history, so Clemmensen prudently decided that "it would require more time for research and more money for costumes than we could afford." [47] By 1990 there was still no consensus among the interpreters as to what degree the living history standards should be followed. Some were of the opinion that "modern clothes that looked 'old-timey' and appropriate" for the job assigned were good enough. Others considered this unprofessional and misleading for visitors because the interpreters were neither authentically costumed nor were they appearing as uniformed rangers. In short, they represented nothing more than quasi-modern ranch folk. [48]

These philosophical disagreements were symptomatic of more serious conflicts among the interpretive staff. To relieve this situation and provide more attention to resource matters, Lopez temporarily reorganized his staff by separating the interpretive and resource functions. This had been recommended in an operations evaluation conducted by the Rocky Mountain Regional Office in August 1990. In the resulting trial situation, Clemmensen's position was re-designated as the chief, resources management, and Neysa Dickey, formerly a supervisory interpreter, was named to head the interpretive division. This arrangement worked rather well and was later formalized so that the resources chief became responsible directly to the superintendent for overseeing natural resources management issues at the Site. This also proved to be an opportune time to transfer the rancher position to the Maintenance Division. Pete Cartwright retired late in 1990, to be replaced by Gary Joe Launderville. In consideration of the increased demands imposed by a larger land base and the purchase of the remainder of the Warren Ranch, Lopez determined that the rancher and the maintenance staff should be required to work in closer concert for mutual support. [49]

Park Ranger Bill Stalker demonstrating cowboy cooking.
(Courtesy of Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS)

The reorganization did not fully resolve the questions about the degree to which authenticity should be pursued in the living history program. But, an unforeseen influence from outside the park had a significant impact. By 1991 the Rocky Mountain Region had a new chief interpreter, Ron Thoman, who was not an advocate of living history. Building on a previous operations evaluation team recommendation, Thoman strongly urged Dickey to abandon living history in favor of returning to more basic interpretation, "challenging . . . visitors to use their own imaginations rather than relying on the 'gimmicks' of period clothing which can be expensive, misleading, and just plain inaccurate." Dickey concurred that, "The decision should be based on cost and effectiveness . . . not . . . on popularity with the staff or visitors." [50] That summer Dickey reduced living history activities in favor of introducing abbreviated "peek tours" of HS-1, lasting about fifteen minutes. This helped to satisfy the public's desire to see the interior; at the same time allowing the staff to conduct half-hour guided walks around the grounds of the old headquarters ranch. The success of this arrangement was limited, as the chief interpreter noted in her annual report. "The time constraints jammed up the interpreters and contributed to burnout. Since the tours were limited to 12 people, while the AV [audio-visual] programs had no such limit, they often ran out of seating. Also, if visitors went on the house tour first, they received the 'orientation' slide program afterwards. Some elected not to see it at all [departing after the house tour]... thereby negating the advantage." [51]

Perhaps the most significant impediment to making major changes to interpretation has been the park's forced reliance on the improvised visitor contact station that has been in place since 1975. This small structure has been "a serious problem and a source of frustration for the staff' for most of the park's active life. [52] In hindsight, one might question whether the park would have been better off had the granary never been installed. Grant-Kohrs Ranch, like many other park units where basic visitor needs have been served with temporary facilities, has seen its funding requests for permanent facilities defeated. Compounding the situation, perhaps, the park staff rehabilitated and improved the old granary contact station in 1983. [53]

Parking lot and visitor contact facilities.
(Courtesy of Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS)

The fact remains that visitors at Grant-Kohrs Ranch have been deprived of a proper familiarization to both the story and the site. If the space inadequacies of the present contact station were not enough, the building itself has been something of a deterrent to visitation. Many visitors who come to the Site mistake the rustic contact station and the adjacent log cabin rest room for the historic ranch. Too, the railroad grades block the visitor's view. Unimpressed, they have departed without ever leaving their cars, thereby missing the real ranch just beyond. The regional chief of interpretation pointed this out as long ago as 1982, as has virtually every superintendent and park chief interpreter since that time. [54]

The studs-out granary, never intended to serve the long-term needs of the park, was so under-sized from the outset, hardly large enough to accommodate more than ten persons at a time, that adding an audio-visual program was out of the question. Yet, the need for a general orientation program was identified long ago. The 1980 GMP, for instance, stated that the open range cattle era, as well as the national cattle ranching industry, were to be interpreted through audio visual and exhibit media. Those, in fact, were the only effective means by which on-site visitors could be quickly introduced to the contextual history of any park theme. In its continuing struggle to meet this critical need, the park interpretive staff initiated a home-grown slide presentation in 1982, a program that was continued for several more seasons until an improved version was adopted. "Cattlemen and Cowboys," a program acquired from the National Cattlemen's Association in 1991 served as historical orientation until a fifteen-minute video was contracted and produced the next year. Until 1992 the slide programs were conducted in the thoroughbred barn (HS-15), at which time the garage/blacksmith shop (HS-3) was converted to a makeshift auditorium by the park maintenance staff. [55]

Still, the program has been handicapped by being almost totally reliant on personal services, one of the least effective methods of dealing with the historical contexts. Deprived of professionally produced exhibits and audio-visuals, visitors fail to comprehend the significance of western cattle ranching in the United States and the development of that industry, as exemplified at Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS. Visitors who gain little or no appreciation of the significance of the Site, defeat the intent of Congress in setting aside the ranch. The solution, as expressed in the 1993 General Management Plan, is to adaptively restore the red barn (HS-64) as a visitor center. "The addition of a new visitor center and state of the art facilities," stated a 1990 operations evaluation, "would lead to more efficient and effective interpretation, higher staff morale, . . . and -- likely -- significantly higher annual visitation." [56]