.gif)
Proceedings
MENU
The Field Of Education In The National Parks
The Educational Program And Its Place In National Parks Administration
Administration Of Park Museums
Scientific Aspects Of The Park Protection Program
The Research Program In The National Parks
Use Of Recorded Scientific Data
Libraries In The National Parks
Photography And Visual Education
General Administrative Problems
|
Proceedings Of The
First Park Naturalists' Training Conference Held At Educational
Headquarters, Berkeley, California:
November 1-30, 1929 |
|
THE FIELD OF EDUCATION IN THE NATIONAL PARKS
A DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL PARK STANDARDS
By Frank T. Been
In the preparation of this introduction to our discussion of national park standards I found that these standards were very clearly and concisely presented in the leaflet "National Park Standards" prepared by the Camp Fire Club of America, whose statements have been approved by clear-thinking men and by the outstanding outdoor organizations of this country. Additions to this publication would be superfluous. Discussion of this important topic can be advantageously based upon the statements set forth in this pamphlet.
May I suggest that we review these standards in order to determine the worthiness of them? If they meet with the approval of this conference, should we not request Mr. Hall to submit a statement of his approval as it was determined during discussion in this meeting? If these standards do not seem to us high enough, let us prepare another set to present to the Director for his approval.
Perhaps the standards as presented by the Camp Fire Club are too high to be effectively maintained. For instance, in the outline of standards the object of the national parks seems to be mainly scientific and educational. The original purpose of the national parks was to preserve areas in their natural state for the enjoyment of the American people. In spite of their valuable scientific and educational possibilities, they are generally accepted by the public as areas of recreation. Shall we interpret "recreation" to mean only physical exercise in the out-of-doors, or has it a broader significance?
We are building more and more roads. Are we defeating the park principles by so doing? We are expanding the privileges given to concessions and hotels in the parks. Is this expansion becoming objectionable to park visitors? Standard No. 7 states that "parks must be kept free from industrial use". In the national parks large scale hotel developments are encouraged with the justification that they are necessary for the accommodation of the park visitors. If the parks are to be sanctuaries for inspiration and nature education, we may be obstructing their purpose by permitting large hotels because the people who patronize them are primarily pleasure seekers. If there were no hotels, these people might use the government campgrounds where they would be closely surrounded by the wonders of the park.
Being forced to live this close to Nature, they might be more readily affected by the wonder and beauty than if they were surrounded by bellboys, waitresses, lavishly appointed suites and lobbies, steam heat, etc. It may be maintained that the people using these places are a small percentage of the park visitors. We may grant that, but I feel that large hotels and busses are out of place in areas where nature is to be preserved, and the presence of these is benumbing to the people who appreciate nature, and they detract from our efforts to instil an appreciation of nature. Every day during this past summer I heard objections expressed concerning these concessions. If there must be accommodations maintained for train travelers, I contend that they should be conducted in the simplest manner possible because love and appreciation for nature cannot be inspired in ultra civilized surroundings.
As the parks are today conducted their outstanding attraction is "recreational", in spite of the fact that park standards place recreation last in consideration. If they are to be preserved as natural areas, people must be attracted to them for their natural attractions and not for their recreational possibilities. To draw people to our parks we have stressed fine roads and comfortable hotels rather than the knowledge to be gained by visiting them. In short, our whole plan of administration thus far has been largely centered around recreational use, but if appreciation in Nature is to be the primary purpose, we may find it necessary to take drastic steps to change our methods.
References:
National Park Standards. By Camp Fire Club of America.
Essential Facts of War on National Park System. By The National Parks Association.
Educational Activities in National Parks By Ansel F. Hall.
Studying Nature in Place. By Chauncey J. Hamlin.
Administration of the National Parks of the United States. By Stephen T. Mather.
Investigations for the site of a national park in Japan. By Sazo Ujihara.
Nature preservation and national parks in Japan By Keiji Uyehara.
(Last five taken from Proceedings of the First Pan-Pacific Conference on Education, Rehabilitation, Reclamation, and Recreation)
National Parks and National Monuments. By E. Lucy Braun.
Union of Interests and Management of Natural Areas. By V. E. Shelford
(Last two taken from Naturalists Guide to the Americas).
Note: Following each paper presented at this conference the subjects thus introduced were discussed in detail, the park naturalists and other members present expressing their views. In each case an effort was made to arrive at a consensus of opinion, and these conclusions recorded - only in exceptional cases involving a difference of opinion - is the discussion reported verbatim.
The lively discussion precipitated by Mr. Been's paper on National Park Standards hinged around the following important questions:
Are the parks being "over developed"?
Is mass production mitigating against effective educational work and should we attempt to limit the numbers served?
What is the correct interpretation of "recreation"?
National Park Standards.
Are the parks being over developed? It was agreed that:
A. Accommodations should not be limited to any one class as, for example, camp grounds for automobile tourists or hotel camps, but instead that there should be all scales of accommodations provided by public service operators and the government within the parks and that this should be required by the Park Service as warranted by physical conditions. This is advisable as it will result in visitors having accommodations similar to those to which they are accustomed in every day life and will not make necessary a personal readjustment which might interfere with their physical, intellectual and inspirational enjoyment of the park.
B. At the earliest possible moment a survey of the parks should be conducted by the administrative department of each individual park with the cooperation of the engineering, landscape and educational divisions, to determine definitely upon a permanent plan of land use which would definitely limit utilization as follows:
(1) Areas of intensive use by large numbers (centers of population, roads, etc.)
(2) Wilderness areas penetrated by trail only.
(3) Wilderness reserves or research reserves to be protected against all outside influences and not penetrated by the public.
C. It is felt that the setting aside of areas of intensive use and the provision for physical necessities and comforts of the visiting public within these areas will very definitely result in lessening the damage to virgin areas of the park, and will make for the closer realization of the ideals set up under the "National Park Standards".
Is mass production mitigating against effective educational work and should we attempt to limit the numbers served? A lively discussion on the advisability of limiting the numbers served by the educational division in order to provide for the opportunity of more intensive service resulted in the conclusion, that:
A. All park visitors are potentially interested in the educational program and that any attempt to limit the number of park visitors would essentially mean limiting our educational possibilities.
B. That an opportunity should be given to all park visitors to voluntarily take advantage of the service offered by the educational division and that their acceptance or rejection of the invitation will, for the present, be the extent of our "selection".
C. That it is the duty of the Park Service to meet the needs of the great number of park visitors by an increase in staff which will adequately take care of both physical administration and interpretation of major features.
What is the correct interpretation of "recreation"? After much discussion on this subject it was concluded that the word "recreation" as applied to the national parks should include physical, mental, and inspirational elements and that our educational program should be directed toward the realization of the latter two features without losing sight of the first. All members of the conference are agreed that the term "physical recreation" should be substituted for the word "recreation" in the pamphlet National Park Standards and other Park Service records.
National Park Standards. The pamphlet, "National Park Standards" was read and discussed as a whole and then each individual paragraph was discussed in detail. The results of this discussion were as follows:
I
"National Parks are spacious land areas essentially in their primeval condition and so outstandingly superior in quality and beauty to average examples of their several types as to demand their preservation intact and in their entirety for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of all the people for all time."
We believe that this definition should be modified so as to also include areas of outstanding archeological and historical interests.
We also suggest that the phrase "in their primeval condition" be modified to read "in their primeval condition or as nearly primeval as circumstances permit". This would justify the setting aside of such areas as the Great Smoky and Shenandoah National Parks, and similar areas which might conceivably be added to the park system in the future.
We question whether national parks should be defined as "spacious land areas", and suggest that it might be advisable also to include a statement as to the quality of the exhibit regardless of area. As an example, we cite Bryce National Park which occupies a comparatively small area but which is a superb example of one of our types of natural features.
"It follows:
1) That park areas must be of national interest to warrant their commitment to national care."
Concurred unanimously.
2) "That the area of each park must be a logical unit, embracing all territory required for effective administration and for rounding out the life zones of its flora and fauna."
The Park Naturalists especially endorse this statement and are agreed that boundaries should be adjusted to include sufficient areas to guarantee a year round habitat for fauna and flora. Furthermore, it may be advisable to add biotic and scenic units even though it be necessary that these be set up as separate administrative units.
3) "That each park area shall be a sanctuary for the scientific care, study, and preservation of all wild plant and animal life within its limits, to the end that no species shall become extinct."
We interpret this paragraph as also including predatory animals.
4) "That wilderness features within any park shall be kept absolutely primitive."
We agree as to the value of the objective of "preserving wilderness features in primitive condition", but we question whether this is practicable. We ask, "What shall be the policy to be adopted in the control of insect infestations, tree diseases, diseases of park fauna, and forest fires occurring under natural conditions (lightning, etc.)?" While not recommending the discontinuance of such artificial control, we wish to point out that such control very definitely influences "natural conditions".
5) "That with respect to any unique geological formations or historic or prehistoric remains within its confines each park shall be regarded as an outdoor museum, the preservation of whose treasures is a sacred trust."
Unanimously concurred.
6) "That the existence of the parks is justified and insured by the educational and spiritual benefits to be derived from contact with pristine wilderness."
We suggest that this read, "spiritual, educational and physical benefits".
7) "That parks must be kept free from all industrial use, and that sanctuary, scientific, and primitive values must always take precedence over recreational or other values."
We feel that "industrial use" should be more definitely interpreted to mean any commercial use not directly essential to the tourist or park administration.
We feel that this entire statement needs a more definite interpretation Our interpretation of the term "recreation", as noted above, is that it includes physical, mental and inspirational elements, and also we feel that the expression "or other values" needs amplification.
II
"National Parks must be considered from two points of view: as a system, and individually.
The National Park System should be perfected: (1) by elimination of units that fail to meet its standards; (2) by addition of units that will fully maintain or increase its supreme. scenic magnificence, its scientific and educational superiority, and its character as a unique national institution; and (3) by withdrawal of existing legislation authorizing in certain parks the utilization of resources in a manner inconsistent with National Park Standards."
Unanimously concurred.
"National Parks should differ as widely as possible from one another in their physical aspects, and the National Park System should represent a wide range of typical land forms of supreme quality."
We suggest that the phrase "a wide range of typical land forms of supreme quality" be modified to read "a wide range of typical land forms, biotic communities, or extensive archeological or historical exhibits of supreme quality."
We further suggest that the word "typical" be omitted as being in consistent with the phrase "supreme quality".
"To preserve the National Park System, it must be recognized: (1) that any infraction of standards in any park constitutes an invasion of the system; and (2) that the addition to the system of any park below standard lowers the standard of the system. Every proposed use of any park in defiance of National Park Standards and the admission to the system of any park falling short of the standards must be resisted. Areas essentially of state-park caliber or primarily of local interest must not be admitted to the National Park System."
Unanimously concurred.
Section III of paragraphs numbered National Park Standards is repeated below with the for purpose of discussion, which follows:
The first official step toward National Park creation by Congress is the introduction of a bill. According to Congressional precedent since the beginning of the system in 1872, the bill is referred to the Committee on Public Lands, which in turn refers it to the Secretary of the Interior for a report on its standards and availability.
The Secretary of the Interior refers the bill to the National Park Service for examination of the area and for report back to him. Such examination should be made at the expense of the National government, not of the local community which would profit by the park's creation. In this procedure lies the great safeguard of the standards.
Exact metes and bounds from studies made by the National Park Service should be established by Congress in the organic act of every new park.
Congress should not empower individuals, committees, or commissions to choose new National Parks or to determine their contents and boundaries, but it should depend upon the government's one permanent expert park organization, the National Park Service, which alone possesses the requisite knowledge, tradition, and experience, united with responsibility to the people.
Committees to consider boundary problems should be strictly advisory to the National administration, to which alone they should be empowered to report.
National Parks and additions thereto should be created only from lands now in the possession of the Federal government or from areas presented to the government free from private holdings.
Land offered for creation of a new National Park, whether in national or private possession, should not be considered by Congress, nor should the proposed park be promoted, until it is thoroughly studied by the National Park Service and found fully up to standard.
Areas required to round out existing National Parks should be added at the earliest opportunity, but only if recommended by the National Park Service; and wherever possible park areas should be rounded out so as to include feeding grounds for the wild life found therein.
It is the fixed policy of the Federal government to purchase no land for new National Parks, but it should purchase at once alienated areas within the boundaries of existing parks. This distinction is fundamental and exceedingly important.
All existing National Parks now up to the standards set forth should remain as created, subject to modification only upon the favorable recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service, based upon expert investigation.
National Parks not up to National Park Standards should be transferred to some other classification in the national domain or turned over to states for local care and use.
Appropriations should be adequate to enable the National Park Service to protect existing parks and their forests against fire, vandalism, and any other agencies of destruction, and to maintain the system in accordance with National Park Standards."
Referring to paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 above, we are agreed that it would be desirable to have the investigation of an area conducted prior to the time that the bill is introduce in Congress.
We believe that more study should be given to the question of whether the proposed national parks should be investigated by:
(a) solely the National Park Service;
(b) the National Park Service in cooperation with advisors appointed from without the government service, or;
(c) by either or both of the above agencies in cooperation with other government bureaus.
Paragraph 3 of Section III is unanimously concurred.
In considering paragraph 6 of Section III, we believe that the criterion for the creation of a new National Park or an addition to a National Park should be principally whether or not the area meets the National Park standards as defined above. We believe that if the area in question does meet these standards, the government should take a definite part in its acquisition rather than leaving it solely to private initiative.
Paragraph 7, Section III, unanimously concurred.Paragraph 8, Section III, unanimously concurred.
Paragraph 9, Section III, referred to discussion of paragraph 6 of this section.
Paragraph 10, unanimously concurred.
Paragraph 11, the phrase, "turn over to States for local care and use" was questioned by several delegates, who held that there was danger in including this phrase and that it might be inadvisable to provide for reclassification only in this manner. Other delegates approved the phrase as it stands. No unanimous decision was reached.
Paragraph 12, concurred unanimously.
IV
"In administering National Parks and keeping the system up to standard, it is important:
That development of parks as units be planned with a view to their coordination as parts of the system. Interpark highways and air lanes, for example, should be planned from the systemal point of view."
Unanimously concurred.
"That each park be administered individually for the development of its highest usefulness to the people of the nation first, and thereafter to the people of its neighborhood."
Unanimously concurred.
"That no industrial use be permitted. For example, no logging should be permitted on park lands, by exchange or otherwise."
Refer to remarks above under Section I, paragraph 7.
"That scientific, educational, and inspirational values dictate the major uses of parks.
We suggest that this paragraph read that "inspirational, educational, and scientific values dictate the major uses of the parks".
"That cultivation of crowds for the sake of records or profits, and the introduction of the pleasures of ordinary roadside and mountain resorts be regarded as a violation of National Park Standards."
Unanimously and heartily endorsed.
"That scientific administration be applied to the maintenance of every park standard, and particularly to the preservation of wilderness, wild-life, and geological features."
Unanimously endorsed. We consider this paragraph particularly important.
"That a suitable educational program be developed, using the natural features of the parks as instructional material. The National Park Service should inform the public concerning park aims and emphasize the necessity of caring for irreplaceable objects of natural and scientific interest."
We suggest that the phrase "irreplaceable objects" be changed to road "all objects".
"That roads be developed in each National Park only for the purpose of protection and to bring the public in touch with the principal features of the park. In no case should they be built where they would in any way impair natural features. Wilderness and sanctuary areas should be reached by trail only,--such areas to remain undeveloped."
Unanimously endorsed. In this connection it is suggested that at the earliest possible moment the Park Service announce a permanent land classification plan for all areas within each individual park, certain areas being reserved in wilderness, others developed only by trails, and others allocated to permanent intensive use. Such a classification should be based on a study from the protective, administrative, engineering, landscape and educational points of view.
"That airplane landing fields, as in the case of railroad stations, be located outside park boundaries. They should be considered only for the needs of interpark flights. Flying across National Park areas should be closely regulated."
Unanimously endorsed.
"That any park buildings be as unobtrusive as possible, harmonizing with their surroundings. They should be erected only where necessary for the protection of the parks and the comfort of the public, and at the locations where they will least interfere with natural conditions."
Unanimously endorsed.
"That concessions be granted only for such business as is necessary for the care and comfort of visitors, and then in definitely localized areas. Such concessions should not interfere with the rights of individuals under park rules to provide for themselves while visiting the parks."
Unanimously endorsed.
"That recreational use of any park be confined to roads, concentration locations, and trails so chosen as to interfere as little as possible with major uses and not at all with the rights of future generations to enjoy nature unmodified."
We believe that this statement should specify the types of recreational use to be so regulated. Our conception of recreation is expressed above in the section preceding the discussion of the pamphlet "National Park Standards".
Continued >>>
Top
Last Modified: Mon, Oct 31, 2002 10:00:00 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/proceedings/proceedings1b.htm
.gif){kind=small}