A graphic of a purple bear in front of a solid red circle with a yellow moon, with "Headwaters" text

Podcast

Headwaters

Glacier, Interpretation, Education, and Volunteers Directorate, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate, Climate Change Response Program

Headwaters is a show about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else.

Episodes

Season 6

Season 6 Trailer

Switchback | Preview

Transcript

TRAILER 1 Peri: [building synth music] Headwaters is a podcast about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. Sound effects: [Door squealing open, footsteps] Daniel [to Peri]: Okay, Peri, we're going into the library. What are you. What are you hoping to find today? Peri [to Daniel]: So this season, which we're calling "Switchback," has a lot of primary research in it. It's about 20th century history. Daniel [to Peri]: Yeah, we've interviewed historians, we've gone in the archives... you know— Peri [to Daniel]: We've also gotten to talk to and interview a lot of people who lived through these stories. Daniel [to Peri]: It's not just about Glacier. Peri [to Daniel]: Yeah, it is about Glacier, but it's also about a lot more. [drumbeat] Peri: We tell natural and cultural stories about the role that national parks play in the American project. Peri [to Daniel]: That's one of the things we've done a lot, is look through old newspapers. And the back issues are bound in this [laughing] gigantic book that's like three feet tall. Each of these weighs like 15 pounds [paper rustling]. Peri: [synth music fades in] This season of Headwaters is a six-episode exploration of the 20th century history of Glacier National Park, [pages turning] asking what it really means to belong here. Daniel [to Peri]: [pages turning] Okay, so Peri is flipping through the Hungry Horse News. Peri [to Daniel]: There's just random local coverage, like here there's a photo [laughing] of a little boy with a skunk. The caption reads: "Stinky eats dog food, liverwurst, ice cream, and is real affectionate."[beat drops] Peri: The first episode explores changes in fire management over time. Peri [in the field]: [helicopter blades whirring in background] I bet they're going to repel out of that helicopter. [high-pitched] Oh look they dropped the line! Rick Trembath: So in 1967, fire was all bad. We very aggressively fought fire. Jane Kapler Smith: The approach to fire was growing... it was developing. Dr. Stephen Pyne: This was an agency wide trauma. Peri: Then we studied two eras, the 1930s and the 1960s. Moments when the federal government tried to confront its own racism. [beat drops] Dr. Turkiya Lowe: The CCC mandated that there be no discrimination based on race, which at the time, was ab-so-lutely bold. Director Robert Stanton: I lived my first 23 years, under that insidious doctrine of separate but equal. Peri: Next, [beat drops] a caravan of cars plows through wilderness and a road is built to nowhere. Suzanne Nobles: The projects and the funding in Mission 66 literally went to roads and car infrastructure. Dr. Perri Meldon: We wouldn't have been able to enjoy the park in the way we did if it weren't for these roads. Suzanne Nobles: Environmental groups felt like natural spaces were essentially just being trounced. Mary Ann Donovan: I did come across a tarred-over amphibian [laughs]. Daniel [to Mary Ann Donovan]: Oh wow. Like it had gotten run over and then it had gotten paved over? Mary Ann Donovan: [laughing] And then it got tarr— paved-over. Daniel [to Mary Ann Donovan]: Wow. Peri: In an episode about World War Two, Glacier becomes a surprising crucible for antiwar movements. People fight for their convictions, for better and worse. Marc Johnson: There was no year that was more tumultuous than 1941. Titus Peachey: My whole life has been very shaped by the issues of war and peace. Marc Johnson: He was making common cause with anybody. He did not do nearly enough to distance himself from the anti-Semitic attitudes that gripped a portion of the America First movement. [beat drops] Peri: Another episode follows Glacier's rivers downstream to the dams that block them. Courtney Stone: What did it mean to protect lands via the National Park Service? If we could flood them with a dam. Dr. Shawn Bailey: Change any one variable? And I think there's a— you know, there's a decent chance this dam gets built. Brian Lipscomb: This is an important cultural site for us. This is a powerful place for us as Tribal people. And you're going to put a dam here. Peri: The final episode is about glaciers, historic gatherings of bald eagles. Migration becomes a theme that challenges our ideas of home. Dave Shea: So our maximum count on one day was 639 bald eagles. Becky Williams: The largest concentration, south of Canada and Alaska. Dave Shea: It was another exotic species in the park. So even though the whole thing was not natural... Mary McFadzen: It was just spectacular. Harriet Allen: I think, you know, recognizing how quickly [laughing] something like that can be lost when you think, oh no, they'll be here forever, and there's so many. Archival Audio: [distorted] Today's national park system is both more and less than it might be. Peri: This season is called Switchback. It's about moments when history's path took a turn. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. Music: ["More and Less" by Frank Waln plays]

Switchback is a 20th century history of Glacier National Park. A collection of turning points in the American story as seen from Glacier National Park. The series explores moments when perspectives changed and when people reconsidered who, and what, belongs in a national park.

Season 6 Trailer

Switchback | Trailer

Transcript

Lacy: [music] Headwaters is brought to you by the Glacier National Park Conservancy. Peri: Headwaters is a podcast about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. [building synth] Dr. Stephen Pyne: This was an agency wide trauma. Dr. Turkiya Lowe: The CCC mandated that there be no discrimination based on race, which at the time was absolutely bold. [drumbeat starts] Peri: We tell natural and cultural stories about the role that national parks play in the American project. Brian Lipscomb: This is an important cultural site for us. This is a powerful place for us as Tribal people. And you're going to put a dam here. Director Robert Stanton: [tense building synth] I lived my first 23 years of that insidious doctrine of separate but equal. Dr. Turkiya Lowe: This season of Headwaters is a six-episode exploration of the 20th century history of Glacier National Park, asking what it really means to belong here. Dr. Shawn Bailey: Change any one variable. And I think there's a there's a decent chance this dam gets built. Suzanne Nobles: Environmental groups felt like natural spaces were essentially just being... trounced. Marc Johnson: There was no year that was more tumultuous than 1941. Titus Peachey: There were large numbers of people who had deeply held religious convictions against the war. [music fades out] Marc Johnson: He was making common cause with anybody. [building tense synth] He did not do nearly enough to distance himself from the anti-Semitic [drumbeat starts] attitudes that gripped a portion of the America First movement. Jane Kapler Smith: People were astounded and I think also terrified. Peri: This season is called Switchback. It's about moments when history's path took a turn. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. Mary Ann Donovan: I did come across a tarred-over amphibian. [laughs] Daniel: Oh wow. Like it had gotten run over, and then had gotten paved over. Mary Ann Donovan: Had gotten tarr—paved over. Daniel: Wow. Music: [music fades out]

This season of Headwaters is a six-episode exploration of the 20th century history of Glacier National Park—asking what it really means to belong here.

Episode 1

Switchback | Living with Fire (and each other)

Transcript

Daniel: [moody chords start] Headwaters is brought to you by the park's nonprofit partner, the Glacier Conservancy. Donations from listeners to the Conservancy are what make Headwaters possible. If you'd like to support the show, go to glacier.org. Beyond that, leaving a review in your podcast app or sending this episode to a friend is a big help. Music: ["Origins" by Frank Waln plays. Distorted vocals read: "What we see in the park today and its origins about a million years ago."] Gaby: [moody chords continue] It's August 1929. It's been hot and dry for a long, long time. And a whisper smoke rises over a ridge just outside of Glacier National Park. In a matter of hours, that distant west becomes a monster of a fire. And it's headed toward the park. It's called the Half Moon Fire. And Harry Gisborne is watching through wire rimmed glasses. [music fades out] He's taking scientific measurements from a vantage point high above the fire's path. Recording his observations. Harry Gisborne [Voice Actor]: [moody bass fades in] The great pillar of smoke belching from the north face of the mountain seem to move slowly. Black bodies of unburned gases would push their fungoid heads to the surface of the column, change to the orange of flame as they reached oxygen, and then to the dusty gray of smoke. Huge bulges would grow slowly on the side of the column, obliterating other protuberances, and being in turn engulfed [bass fades out]. Gaby: The thinking at the time is that even a raging fire like this would move across a land at no more than one mile an hour. But the wind picks up, and as Gisborne watches, the half moon fire boils over. He turns and runs along the ridge to safety. Looking back long enough to see what he calls a fire whirl, a tornado of fire, it burns two square miles in just a minute or two. His heart is pounding from adrenaline and from the thrill of discovery. He didn't know a fire could do this. A few miles north. Park Service staff in Bolton, which is now called West Glacier, meet in the fire cache to get shovels and backpacks of gear. The National Park Service is only 13 years old and glaciers, few rangers are spread out across the park's million acres. But no matter how many men they gather or what tools they grab, [starting flute notes of 'Wild West" by Frank Waln fade in] they weren't ever going to stop these fires. How could they fight something that they couldn't even begin to imagine? Still, the experience of trying [drumbeat starts] will shape fire response for the next century. [string instrument begins] This is Headwaters, a show about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. Music: ["Wild West" plays] Peri: This season is called Switchback. It's a collection of stories from the park's 20th century. [music fades out] These are moments when the direction of history took a sharp turn. I'm Peri. Gaby: And I'm Gaby. Peri: Wildfire has been part of this landscape forever. You might have seen some of the intense fires in recent years on the news or had to experience the intensity for yourself. How we fight fires across the country today has a history, and it can be traced back to Glacier. This episode is about the changing role of technology in wildfire management, and our changing attitudes toward fire from suppression to acceptance... kind of. We ask: do bulldozers belong in national parks? Does wildfire belong in a national park? To some, all of this is an uncertain proposition. Sound effects: [door squeaking open, footsteps] Daniel [to Peri]: Okay, Peri. We're going into the library. What are you. What are you hoping to find today? Peri [to Daniel]: So, we're coming into the library to look at some old issues of the Hungry Horse News. We're hoping to look at some issues from 1967 and 1988, which were big fire years in the park. And the back issues are bound in this gigantic book that's like three feet tall. [paper rubbing sounds] Each of these weighs like 15 pounds [laughs]. [thudding sound] Okay. So we're looking for, [page turning sounds] I think, mid-September, but you just kind of flip through and flip through and see what you find. And like, there's discussion about these fires, and about Night of the Grizzlies and what is fire's role in a national park? Like does it belong here? But there's also... just random local coverage like here, there's a photo [laughs] of a little boy with a skunk. The caption reads: "Stinky eats dog food, liverwurst, ice cream, and is real affectionate." [laughs] Daniel [to Peri]: And when's this from? Peri [to Daniel]: This is 1967. In the fall. [page turning sounds] Smoking rocks would come from out of the void, landing on the asphalt. It was no place for man to be. Daniel [to Peri]: Fun summer. Peri [to Daniel]: [laughs] It was a dramatic summer in the park and I imagine it was probably a pretty hard one... to be here for. [page turn, transitioning into drumbeat] Peri: On a hundred degree day in July, Madeline and I drove down to Missoula to tour a pivotal site in fire history and fire science. Peri [in the field]: Actually, maybe take a left and we'll go around the back on Fire Cache Way. Yeah, it's kind of appropriate, it's a pretty smoky day. Ooh, Helicopter! There's a helicopter flying just like, 100 feet over us. This is also the smoke jumper base, you can probably hear it if you open the windows. Sound effects: [car window rolling down, sound of helicopter blades thwopping increases] Peri [in the field]: I bet they're going to repel out of that helicopter. Peri [in the field]: Oh my god! They are! So we are here for a tour of the fire lab. [drum fades out, helicopter still audible in background] I've just always heard about and seen reference to all this cool science and research that comes out of here... and so it's kind of cool to actually be here. I'm very excited. And I hope we get to light some stuff on fire. [door opening] Hello! Woman #1: Come on in. I'm... Peri [to Woman #1]: Thanks. Peri: Harry Gisborne, who watched the Half Moon Fire's history-making blow up, was the foremost fire scientist of his time. Today, his portrait hangs in the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. Peri [to Woman #1]: Ohhh... that is striking [Woman #1 laughs]. It does really feel like he's kinda... Woman #1: He's always, like, lit up in the hallway— Peri [to Woman #1]: And looking at you— Woman #1: I know right. Peri [to Woman #1]: —expectantly. And also, like "make good choices." Peri: He's not wearing his glasses in his portrait, but his keen gaze meets everyone who walks up the front steps of the fire lab. My tour guide is Dr. Sara McAllister, who greeted me looking equally ready to write a scientific paper or go for a 30-mile bike ride. She's a research mechanical engineer who studies the physics of fire behavior. Peri [to Sara]: So every time, you know, people drive by their local ranger station and see Smokey Bear out there with the arrow pointing to the fire danger... that— Sara: Yup. Peri [to Sara]: —that came out of this lab. Sara: That came out, still comes out of this lab. Peri [to Sara]: Cool. Sara: It's been rebooted and and revised somewhat recently by my colleague whose office is right there. Matt Jolly [laughs]. Peri [to Sara]: Wow. Sara: So it's still you know, we're still updating it and revising it and... trying to take into account new knowledge and— Peri [to Sara]: Mhm. Sara: —new, you know, climate factors and things like that. Peri [to Sara]: Yeah. Peri: But to understand fire management now we have to go back over a century. Even before the Half Moon Fire in August of 1910, 3 million acres of mostly national forest land burned in just two days in what became known as the big burn. Sara: Very formative, right. And the Forest Service at this point was only about five years old. And it's a little bit of history about forest service right, or... something that's kind of not... not too obvious. Is it's under the Department of Agriculture? Right. Peri [to Sara]: Right. Sara: Not the Department of Interior, like all of the land management agencies. And the history of that goes back to the fact that the Forest Service has always been a timber management agency. Peri [to Sara]: Right, like trees are a crop— Sara: Trees are a crop. We're supposed to be raising them, and harvesting them— Peri [to Sara]: Mhm. Sara: —and providing wood for the country, basically, right— Peri: And the Forest Service didn't want to see 3 million acres of its crop on fire. Sara: —and that prompted Harry Gisborne to start thinking about fire and trying to put some pieces together—. Peri [to Sara]: Mhm. Sara: —to be able to recognize days that are high fire danger— Peri [to Sara]: Mmm. Sara: —and what are the factors that are driving you know, these these crazy, insane fires. Peri: Gisborne and his peers devoted their careers to the science of fire, asking questions and finding answers to understand it all a little better. And take just a bit of the uncertainty out of what a fire might do. But at the time it was all in service of putting fires out more effectively and safely. At the time, most people thought that fire did not belong on the landscape. Fire was the enemy. Archival Audio: [male chorus of voices singing "Look down, look down, that lonesome road."] Certainly no road is more lonesome and desolate than a road through a burned over blackened and ugly forest. [chorus sings: "Look down, look down, that lonesome..." and fades out] Man #1: Northern Rockies has been a really central in developing American fire policy, largely because of the Forest Service. But it also was influential thanks to Glacier in shaping National Park Service policy. Peri: As Glacier goes, so goes the nation. This is Dr. Stephen Pyne, an expert on American wildfire history. Steve: I'm Steve Pyne. I'm basically a fire historian, also an emeritus professor at Arizona State University and, an urban farmer. Peri: The late 20s were a tough time here. The park had only been founded a few years ago in 1910, and it had very limited resources to fight fires in those decades. Steve: In the 20s. You don't really have a core of firefighters that you can draw on. You're just pulling people out of bars and, you know, unemployment offices or they got laid off from the railroad, and they're just raw labor. Peri: Needless to say [laughing], this did not go very well. It was hard to convince people to do this dirty and dangerous work. And most who agreed to help were at best, reluctant, and at worst, drunk. But they were the only option. And the young Park Service felt like they needed to throw everything they had at these fires, including money they didn't have. Steve: The Park Service spent... oh I think it was about $300,000 or something, which was a huge amount of money back then, putting out these fires. The assistant director, Horace Albright, was sent out personally to supervise, and... it was a real stunner. Peri: They couldn't stop those fires. And for an agency that saw their identity and purpose as protecting these park lands, particularly from fire, this was devastating. And the consequences burned the entire Park Service. Steve: To pay for that, it had to take the money for fighting the fire out of its regular budget, which meant shutting down some small parks and other facilities because they simply couldn't afford to pay for them anymore. So this was an agency-wide trauma. Peri: Just a few months after the 1929 Half Moon Fire, that burned through West Glacier, the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. When FDR took office and created the Civilian Conservation Corps, hundreds of thousands of young men were sent west. An instant infusion of labor, that was desperately needed. Steve: Almost overnight, you could create an infrastructure for fire. You could get lookout towers, get trails. You could get telephone lines to lookouts and between guard posts and so forth. So you create for the first time, really an infrastructure for fire. Peri: No longer limited by a shortage of men, the systems they created helped take some of the chaos and the uncertainty, and some of the fear, out of the threat of wildfire. They may not have been able to remove fire altogether, but they could try to spot every single fire and put it out by 10 am the next morning. Archival Audio: [mellow chords fade in] And fires were suppressed even when they were ignited naturally [fire burning and crackling]. We had little knowledge of the impact of our actions. [chords fade out] Peri: This boom lasted for about ten years until the country entered World War Two. And those young men all joined the military. But the war brought about a different kind of boom [moody chords fade in] that would change firefighting forever. Music: [chords play] Gaby: It's August 1967. Fires are ripping through Glacier. One is on the west edge of the park, right above the brand-new Camas Road and the proposed Glacier View Dam site. In fact, it's in the same spot as one of the costly fires of the late 1920s. Another one is right in the heart of the park. [chords fade out] That one is burning east, along Going-to-the-Sun Road. Willie Colony is sweating. He's smoking cigarettes to calm his nerves as he drives up the road. He's the park's fire control officer and he's doing a final sweep of the closed road to make sure no one gets trapped. But he knows that the further he drives uphill, toward the Loop, [bass fades in] the closer he's getting to the path of the fire. Glacier only has a few dozen staff who double as firefighters, and they've all been called in. The local Flathead Hotshots are also on-scene. Everyone wants to suppress these fires. They've summoned crews from as far away as Alaska to help, alongside smokejumpers who will parachute into the fire. Big, heavy bulldozers are carving miles of fireline to stop its spread. They're trying to regain a bit of certainty, a bit of control, but they're not going to get it. And the scars left behind by those efforts will remain on the landscape for decades. The air is thick with smoke and Willie has to drive slower and slower as visibility gets worse. In the thick smoke, it's hard to know whether to keep driving, hoping it's better up ahead or turn around, wondering if the road behind him is already blocked by flames. [bass fades out] Time has blurred the edges of this story. But some say will these shelters from the flames in the long tunnel on the way to the Loop. Years later, we'll hear his story from someone who worked with him, and how together they helped Glacier reconsider its relationship with fire [moody chords fade in]. Steve: After World War Two and especially Korea, huge amounts of stuff become available. You've lost the CCC. You've lost that sort of human muscle. [chords fade out] But you can replace it with mechanical muscle from war surplus equipment. Peri: In the 1950s and 60s, there were new tools in the battle with fire. Instead of men with shovels, you had everything the U.S. military had to offer. Steve: In fact, equipment centers are created, the Forest Service developed several, simply dedicated to converting military equipment into firefighting equipment. So lots of trucks, bulldozers, helicopters, airplanes. The surplus of equipment made it economically possible to continue firefighting. And in this case, even militarize it in a certain sense. And so you've got a lot to throw at it. And firefighting continues to be effective. Peri: The goal was the same: to put out every fire. This new machinery was more effective and more destructive, too. But at the same time, scientific innovations were also adding other tools to the arsenal. Sara: I hate to say nowhere else in the world has wind tunnel facilities [Peri laughs] like this? But they're are few and far between [Sara laughs]. Right? Peri [to Sara]: Cool. Sara: So it's a metal wind tunnel that's not flammable that you can light things on fire in— Peri [to Sara]: Wow. Sara: —and measure how quickly they spread in a wind. Not too many exist. Peri: Because wind is fundamental to fire. Sara: Oh, for sure. So without wind, your fire is not really a problem. You've put it out by then because it's not going anywhere very fast, right— Peri: When fires do crazy things, usually wind is involved. Sara: Oh yeah, like almost 100%. Wind and topography. Topography can also be pretty tricksy. Peri [to Sara]: Sure. Sara: I mean, let me turn the lights on in here [mechanical clicking]. So it's a wind tunnel big enough to actually stand up in. Peri [to Sara]: Whoa! [mechanical clicking] Okay. So on one side, there's this little red wind tunnel that sort of looks like a it's like maybe three feet by three feet. But then on the left is this like... full size one... Sara: It's about nine feet by nine feet. Peri [to Sara]: —yeah. You could stand in it. You could get it. It looks like there's little tinfoil things in there. I feel like I see charcoal [laughs] fire remnants. Peri: It was an exciting time to be a fire scientist. Some were using those very wind tunnels to try and figure out exactly how a fire spreads. Other scientists were testing new ideas about where fire belongs in a landscape. And crews in the field were getting to see it all unfold firsthand. No one knew it at the time, but 1967 would be the fire year that started to change everything. And a young Midwesterner named Rick Trembath watched it all happen. Rick: Yeah. I'm Rick Trembath. I came out in 1967 to be on the Flathead Hotshot crew at age 18 from northern Minnesota. And at that time the prerequisites for hiring was if you were a forestry student, a male, and an athlete, they were interested in you. Peri: This was the very first season for the brand-new Flathead Hotshot Crew, a high-level fire crew that was based right outside the park. Rick: I remember coming out with my parents, they drove me out from Minnesota... in June and... it was raining, a lot. And I'm wondering about, you know, "why did I sign up to be on a fire crew if it's raining all the time?" Peri: But sure enough, it dried out around 4th of July. And by August, there were two major fires burning in Glacier. The first started on Huckleberry Mountain, right across the river from Rick's camp. It was called the Flathead Fire, or the Huckleberry Fire. And Rick's crew was right in the thick of it. Rick: There was a lot of camaraderie with the other members of the crew. It was a family. You know, we got to know each other. And then we started the adventures of going out on fires. And you camp together, you eat together, you do everything together. All summer long. We were 40 days through July, all of August and part of September, without a day off. Peri: They were working their hardest, 40 days in a row, no less, to put the fires out, in line with the fire suppression policy at the time. Rick: So in 1967, fire was all bad. We very aggressively fought fire and to the detriment of safety. We we ended up with a lot of injuries and accidents as a result. But in '67, I was brand new to to fire and to this area. And so I just basically was a person that did what he was told. The one real memorable experience I have, though, was where we did cross the Flathead River. It took two trips with a D8 for our whole crew of 25 to get across on the dozer. Peri [to Rick]: What's a D8? Rick: D8 dozer? Peri [to Rick]: So you rode the dozer across the river? Rick: Yeah. [Peri laughs] Yeah. The river was so low, it didn't push water with the fans. Peri: Dozer is fire speak for a bulldozer. And they were used extensively to try and corral the Flathead Fire, their speed and power overcoming the limitations of a hand crew. Rick: For us in the hotshot crew business, we used shovels and pulaskis. It takes a lot of work to build a little fireline. A dozer can push one in a matter of seconds, so... very aggressive at trying to work a fireline along the edge of a fire. Peri: Bulldozers were actually invented, maybe, to use for suppressing wildfires. Here's Stephen Pyne again. Steve: Well, that's a murky story, and I've tried to confirm what I understand to be the story, and I can't, but I can't unconfirm it either. So the story I have is that the winter of 1927, in California, a guy with the Forest Service, and a guy with the Bureau of Roads, got together and decided it would be great if they had a better device for making firebreaks, firelines. Basically, the bulldozer was really a mechanical mule. It pulled a plow behind it. And they got the idea of putting a movable blade on the front, and that created the bulldozer. Peri: The problem, as you might imagine, is that using a bulldozer to plow a fireline leaves quite a scar behind. Steve: A bulldozer, provides a lot of mechanical muscle to punch through difficult terrains like forests and scrape a fairly good wide fireline. It's a brutal way to do it. And you're uprooting, you're removing stuff, you're taking the soil down to where it can erode if it rains. But you can put in effective firelines... pretty quickly. And that's why bulldozers remained, where the values are high, or you're protecting communities or something, a standard tool. But they come with a lot of costs. And the scar is not easily healed. Peri: The Flathead Fire was burning quite close to a lot of roads and bridges and buildings, so using bulldozers seemed warranted at the time. The dozers cut 28 miles of line around that fire, pushing down trees, digging up and plowing under pine needles and duff into a clear-cut scrape around the flames. But they were also used on the other fire burning at the time, the Glacier Wall Fire. This one was right in the center of the park, burning on the slopes beneath a steep cliff that you can see on your left as you drive up Going-to-the-Sun Road past Avalanche Creek. The bulldozers ripped a nine-mile line of forest down to bare soil around that fire. Archival Audio: The bulldozers, by some rule that governs them, seem to aim first at the most beautiful, wild places of America. [fades out] Peri: Rick looks back and thinks about those dozers differently now. Rick: My philosophy has changed to the point where I feel like a lot of what we did in the '67 fires was inappropriate. Those scars are still on the land. So the Flathead Fire previously burned in the 1926 fire. And then it's burned again in the 2001 Moose Fire. So the same acreage I've seen burn three different fires. And you know what? It's going to burn again. Peri [to Rick]: When you walk around or drive around this area now, how do you feel looking at, you know, that north side of Huckleberry Mountain: seeing the places that burned, seeing the dozer lines? Rick: I have more of a problem seeing the dozer lines than I do the fire area because they shouldn't be there, especially on the scree slope that you can see on the other side, you know, right across from Glacier View Mountain? Fire areas are all growing back. They just look like part of the natural forested landscape. Peri [to Rick]: And so it's been 57 years and there's... you can still see it. Rick: Yup, you can still see them. Peri: As it turned out, 1967 would be the last gasp for that era of single-minded fire suppression. But change came slowly. Archival Audio: [sound of heavy machinery fades in] ...into parking lots. That is how America the Beautiful is becoming America, the Bulldozed. Woman #2: And then in fall of '73, I got a ride to the top of the pass and I rode down the pass on my bicycle to West Glacier, where I lived for most of the winter, doing volunteer work in the research office. Peri [to Woman #2]: Oh, cool. Peri: I've moved to and from West Glacier plenty of times in my seasonal career, but never by bike. This is Jane Kapler Smith. Jane: I really think of that time as a period when the approach to fire was growing... it was developing. So '67... people when I got there and '70, people were still traumatized from the two big fires, big severe fires, plus the grizzly fatalities from 1967— Peri [to Jane]: True. Jane: —those two things were interwoven and and [faint bird sounds in background] people were just... astounded. And I think also terrified— Peri [to Jane]: Mhm. Jane: —that that sort of thing could happen. Peri: August 1967 was a tough month in the park. Within one week, there were those two major fires burning: the Flathead Fire and the Glacier Wall Fire. But there was also an infamous bear attack. Two young backpackers had been found dead on the same night, but in different areas of the park, after they were dragged out of their campsites by grizzly bears. It came to be known as the Night of the Grizzlies. Jane: So you can see when I got there in '70 and people were talking about fire, there was this... drama, glamor, fear... all together. Peri: Jane worked in Glacier for the rest of the '70s, then went to grad school in fire ecology and ended up working at the Missoula Fire Lab for over 20 years. But those first seasons in Glacier were her introduction to fire. Jane: So there was a clerk typist opening in the fire control office. Peri [to Jane]: Uh-huh. Jane: Working for Willie Colony, who was the fire control officer. He was a chain-smoker [Peri laughs]. I was in this little tiny basement office and my workspace was... you know how desks have those pull out little ledge. I had a typewriter on that ledge [Peri laughs] and Willie was over to my side, smoking [Peri laughs]. But brilliant man and total fun. So Steve Kessell came in, who turned out to be a key researcher in just developing fire ecology in the park. And he and Willie started talking about how fires really needed to burn more. Peri [to Jane]: Hm. Jane: And here I am with my ears getting [Peri laughs], you know, longer and longer listening to this thing. Really? Huh. Never thought about that. Peri: A few years after Jane's ears started growing longer, she decided she wanted to see for herself what her boss was talking about. Jane: And walked that fireline. Peri [to Jane]: Wow. Jane: In '77, it was... the fire was ten years old. We bushwhacked up to the foot of Heaven's Peak and went down the Glacier Wall fireline, which you can still see from the High Line trail, vividly—. Peri [to Jane]: Ohhh. Jane: —take your binoculars. You can see that trail... dozer line in the middle of Glacier Park. Peri [to Jane]: So it was coming up underneath that cliff— Jane: Right. Peri [to Jane]: —and then they put a dozer line on top of a cliff. Jane: Atop. Exactly. Peri [to Jane]: That seems crazy to me. I mean, I'm not a suppression... specialist— Jane: They had bulldozers— Peri [to Jane]: —but that seems crazy. Jane: Come on! [Peri laughs]They had to use them! Come on. Peri [to Jane]: That, in some ways seems to encapsulate fire [Jane laughs] management of the '50s, '60. It's like, well, we have the dozers, we have the aircraft... Jane: So we can... so what that means is we could really eliminate risk in this direction, that direction. Yeah. Whether— Peri [to Jane]: At what cost. Jane: —we need to or not. Peri: You know that old saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." But by the '70s, the broader approach to fire management, by the government, was starting to change. People both within the fire community, and outside it, were questioning the need for total suppression of fire. Managers were no longer limited by what technology they could use, but what they should use. And fire ecologists in a handful of parks were starting to understand that fire belonged in these landscapes, something that many tribes have understood and practiced for millennia. But it's one thing to understand the ecology and another thing to accept the risk and uncertainty that come with allowing fire to have its place in a national park. But a new tool was starting to arrive in park offices that would help reduce that uncertainty. Jane: When I started working for Glacier in... for the Park Service in the summer of '73, there were [Peri laughs] no computer programing positions. Peri [to Jane]: Wow. Jane: And Willie and I both learned Fortran and started programing. So here comes this guy who wants to do computer modeling of the vegetation following fire... [voice fades and continues playing in the background] Peri: This work has a lot of pieces: fire ecology, physical science, and computer modeling. Jane and Willie's work helped put all these pieces together. In the field, in Glacier, and at the Fire Lab in Missoula. But even so, it took time to put it into practice. Jane: So maybe it was just good luck that in the '70s we had fairly moderate weather. We had occasional fires. Everybody got exciting when a lightning, you know, [Peri laughs] forecast was in. But... we didn't have major fires through the time I worked there. Peri [to Jane]: So you say you got excited when there was lightning because you... hoped that there would be a fire to test out some of this new— Jane: Oh we didn't [voices overlapping] get to that point early on— Peri [to Jane]: —not yet. Jane: The fire crews got excited because they saw overtime. Peri [to Jane]: Yeah. [Jane's laugh fades out] Peri: Jane handed me a piece of paper with a long list of every fire in the park from 1967 through the end of the century. On the right-hand side of the page, for every fire, there's a line that says how the park responded to it. Did they try and put it out right away? Or did they just contain it, and monitor it, for the health of the forest? [voices fade in] Jane: ...that's right. So here's Huckleberry: suppression. And it's not in their table, but I mean, they meant suppression... with dozer lines. So— Peri [to Jane]: So you have '67: management strategies: suppression, control. Jane: Control, control, control— Peri [to Jane]: '68 to '87. Numerous fires: suppression. Control. [laughs]. Jane: Yep, that's right. [Peri laughs] Now here's here's Logging Fire. Now we get a little bit of prescrib— a little bit of prescribed fire— Peri [to Jane]: Ohhh. Okay. Jane: —and this: '84, I think, is the first fire that they actually said, "oh, we don't have to completely put it out.". Peri [to Jane]: Yeah, it says suppression containment. Jane: Yeah. Peri [to Jane]: —not... Jane: But it wasn't "we've got to— Peri [to Jane]: Control... Jane: —beat it down all the way around." Peri [to Jane]: Yeah. Huh. Jane: —and I remember that because Willie and I would write letters or correspond. And I remember him writing or maybe telling me on the phone: "we finally had a fire that we didn't totally stomp out." Peri [to Jane]: Wow. Peri: After decades of suppression, suppression, control, control, the mid-1980s marked a turning point. Over the course of a few small fires, the park starts to actually put into practice what they learned over the last few decades. But if you know anything about wildfire, you probably know what's coming in 1988. Archival Audio: Good evening from the news station. [string music plays in background] I'm Al Nash with this special report on the fires which have plagued the northeast corner of Yellowstone National Park today [fades out]. Peri: It was an infamous fire year in Yellowstone. Hundreds of thousands of acres burned, with national media fixated on the story. And Glacier had its very own dramatic fire later that fall, the Red Bench Fire. That one burned across a mix of jurisdictions: Park Service, Forest Service, and privately-owned land, homes, and businesses, each one bringing a different tolerance for uncertainty. Jane: '88... Yellowstone on fire and Red Bench at the same time. And there was this reversal: "we're going to put out fires. We don't want to do this anymore." Peri [to Jane]: Like, this has gone too far. No more. Jane: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we can't. It's too risky. Peri: The Red Bench Fire in 1988 burned thousands of acres in its first few days. It burned right through the community of Polebridge just outside the park, destroying multiple buildings. And sure enough, [drumbeat fades in] the dozers came right back out again. Music: [Music plays, fades out] Peri [to Daniel]: So I'm back in the library looking for coverage of the 1988 Red Bench Fire [paper rustling]. Here is the opinion page. And people are debating... they're not only debating whether bulldozers belong in '88, but they're looking backward at their use in 1967. Daniel [to Peri]: I think we want to look at the front page back here. Peri [to Daniel]: Let's just check [paper rustling]. Daniel [to Peri]: Yeah, it's right here. Peri [to Daniel]: Oh. [gasp] Daniel [to Peri]: See, this is the dramatic one. Peri [to Daniel]: Okay. So most of this most of the paper is black and white, but they did a color nighttime photo of trees torching. Daniel [to Peri]: A column of hellish flames on the front page of the paper [both laughing]. What's the headline? Peri [to Daniel]: Pretty much. Peri [to Daniel]: Well, the main headline is "Red Bench Fire lights up region." And then right below it says "Dozers reluctantly rolled onto park ground." God. There's a deer burned to a crisp, titled "Fire victim. Carcass was near Polebridge." This is interesting. Superintendent Gil Lusk last week allowed fire officials to use, "whatever was necessary to contain the burn. That included bulldozers to cut fireline." Daniel [to Peri]: I want to read this one. Where does he say it? "'We would have liked to have done it some other way, but we didn't have the luxury of not using dozers,' Lusk said. 'We were serious about getting this fire out.'" Huh. [moody chords fade in] Peri [to Daniel]: Interesting. Yeah. I guess it's one thing to abstractly feel like fire is something that belongs in a national park, but it's a very different thing once flames are headed toward Polebridge. Music: [Music plays] Gaby: It's the fall of 1973. A cool wind is rustling. The yellow aspen leaves and bald eagles are starting to congregate in Glacier on their way south. Meanwhile, a young woman named Jane is also migrating. She's packing up at the end of her third summer in the park. Everything she owns fits in a backpack, albeit a very large one. After three seasons of working at a lodge on the east side, she's thrilled to have a winter position volunteering at Park Headquarters. It will be just the start of a long, exciting career in fire science. But at this point, she still uncertain of her path. Jane doesn't have a car, so she wheels her bike out to Going-to-the-Sun Road and catches a ride from Saint Mary up to Logan Pass. From there, she unloads her bike, straps on her giant backpack, and flies down the west side of the road. [music fades out] Despite the cool wind making her eyes water, she can see evidence of recent wildfires. Blackened snags hint at past dramas while green regrowth springs back to life. Across the valley, the paths of bulldozer lines are also still visible along the cliff edge. She brakes hard ahead of the switchback at the Loop, then squints in the sudden darkness of the West Tunnel, where her future boss, Willie Colony, maybe took refuge from the flames that burned up the slope six years ago. But she hasn't met him yet and hasn't heard this story yet. She puts her head down, relaxes her grip and coasts toward West Glacier [bass fades in]. Daniel: Because of the volatile nature of the Red Bench Fire, unusual measures had to be taken. It was fought with heavy machinery, bulldozers. Willie Colony is coordinating the park's fire rehabilitation, he said. We will try to obliterate those bulldozer scars as much as possible. Hungry Horse News, 1988. [bass sounds closer, drumbeat switches between left and right channels, then sounds further away] Music: [music comes closer, "Origin" by Frank Waln plays: "Origins. Origins. Origins. What we see in the park today. Today. What we see in the park today, had it's origins about a million years ago. Origins. Origins. Or-origins. Origins. Origins. About a million years ago. Origins. Origins. Origins. Or-origins. What we see in the park today, had its origins about a million years ago."] Peri [to Sara]: What? What was the cutting edge of the technology in like 1960? When this place opened. Sara: [whispering] I'll show you. [Peri gasps, Sara laughs] Let's go in the burn chamber. [Peri gasps] Peri [to Sara]: Are we gonna see flames? Sara: We could. Peri [to Sara]: Wow. Okay. We're in this giant corrugated metal square room with all these pipes, and there's this giant table in the middle, and... Wow. Sara: Yeah [laughs]. Peri [to Sara]: It smells a little... like... formerly fiery. Sara: Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of— Peri [to Sara]: Things have been burned here. Sara: So the burn chamber itself is about 40 feet by 40 feet, and then it's 70 feet tall. Way, way up there, too. So this is where we do other experiments that don't require wind. Peri [to Sara]: Ah, ok. Sara: So this big, huge beast of a thing sitting in the middle of the floor right now is we call it "Big Sandy," Peri [to Sara]: Big Sandy... Sara: Because it is a big sand burner— Peri [to Sara]: Kay. Sara: And it's got a pneumatic lift that we can use to adjust the slope— Peri [to Sara]: Okay. Sara: —so it's our big tilting burn bed where we can look at these slope— Peri [to Sara]: Slope affects how fire moves too. Sara: Yes. Peri [to Sara]: There are many knobs [Sara laughs] and tubes and dials for the record [laughs]. Sara: And like four big huge tanks of propane in the back. Peri [to Sara]: Wow! [voices fade out] Peri: Sarah reached for a jug of propane, and it seemed like my dream of seeing flames was gonna come true. But instead of going over to Big Sandy, she poured some of the fuel into a tall, see-through column. Sara: —spiral on the bottom. [in background, "wow"] So as it's pulling in the air, the air is being pulled in in a spinning motion— Peri [to Sara]: Ohhh. Sara: —so once we get it going and it'll light up, you'll see it'll kind of like take a second, but it'll spin up and and turn into a fire whirl. Peri [to Sara]: Cool. Sara: I'm going to give her a go here before too much evaporates [lighter clicking]. Peri [to Sara]: [gasp] Look at it go! Okay. So it's kind of going up normally? The way that it would, but it's starting to rotate [rustling sounds, gasp]. I love fire. [gasps] It's going in a circle. Look! It's making a whirl! It's like a tiny tornado! [gasp] Wow. Ooh, I feel the heat. Wow. Sara: So... fire whirls are kind of one of those things that happen on tons of different fires. They can be totally innocuous on a prescribed fire. They'll form like just a little whirl, maybe on the backside— Peri [to Sara]: It's like a tiny little tornado. Sara: —of a tree, tiny little tornado that you're like [in high pitch] "oh isn't that cute!" Peri [to Sara]: Like a whirlpool in a... river— Sara: Right, exactly— Peri [to Sara]: —like a, it goes around a rock. Peri [to Sara]: — and they form in a very similar fashion, right? So the way this is designed is we've restricted the air to come in through this, these ducts— Peri [to Sara]: Ohh, it like makes a spiral on the bottom. Sara: —that are in a spiral— Peri [to Sara]: So you both light things on fire and you have these wind tunnels, and to be able to do both of those things is like the advent or the— Sara: Yes, that we needed a building like this to be able to do it. Peri [to Sara]: The raison d'etre of this— Sara: You got it. Peri [to Sara]: —lab. Like every every day I get to actually come into the lab and do experiments is a very good day. I fully love my job because [Peri laughs] I do get to lay things on fire for a living [both laugh, audio fades out]. So, yes, every... Peri: Scientists have learned a lot over the past century about the intricacies of how fire operates. And fire models have gotten really good, in large part thanks to work done at the Missoula Fire Lab. But still, there's a lot more that goes into the decision making equation on a fire. Jane: And that's kind of the pattern, I think, for fire that we want to have fire doing its thing. And we know there are benefits, and we also know that we can't escape it... we're going to have fire. And at the same time, the minute you say, "oh, let's not control on this flank, let's not let's not put anything out." Woah... even partial fire use, it's really scary because things get burned up. People hate smoke— Peri [to Jane]: And even however rare that is, it really looms large— Jane: You know it's possible [sound of hand slapping leg]— Peri [to Jane]: —in the memory— Jane: We see it... [audio fades out] Peri: But those computer programs that Jane first started working with in the '70s... by the '90s, they were starting to be able to predict how a wildfire might spread over hours, days or even weeks. In 1994, there was a new fire start called the Howling Fire in the backcountry of Glacier. It was only a few acres and fire managers thought it could potentially do some good, ecologically. But other staff were concerned it might burn toward the village of Apgar. After a call to the Fire Lab and some overnight model runs on a hard-working computer, a black and white map arrived by fax. Each differently patterned blob on the map showed the probability that the fire would burn a certain area, and it showed that it was pretty unlikely to move toward the homes and businesses in Apgar and West Glacier. Knowing this, the park superintendent felt comfortable keeping the fire. It ended up burning about 2000 acres, never approaching any roads or buildings, and adding to the diversity of habitat in the North Fork of the park. Sara: [indistinct voices audible in background] Well, I mean, the work is definitely evolved. I mean, as you know, one would hope over 50 years— Peri [to Sara]: I mean, sure. [both laugh] Sara: —that things I mean, we have different questions. We have sometimes we have the same questions, but we have new ways of approaching it— Peri [to Sara]: Mhm. Sara: —I mean, we looked at the difference in, for example, how the wind tunnel itself works, right? Peri [to Sara]: Yeah. Sara: —and we have ways of measuring things that you can only of imagined in the '70s. Peri [to Sara]: It seems like the fundamental question of the Fire Lab has always just been like, how does fire work and how does it move across the landscape? But over time, you guys have had different tools, like the advent of computers— Sara: Right. Peri [to Sara]: —different ways of measuring and approaching that, and tackling that problem. But the fundamental question has always been the same. Sara: Yeah. Yep. Yeah. And we're still working to answer it 50 plus years later. 60 years now. Peri [to Sara]: 64! [both laugh] And counting. Jane: I think overall in fire, as well as in many other aspects of our lives... I wish we were better at dealing with uncertainty. Peri [to Jane]: If we had the perfect model and could perfectly understand fire behavior, what would that do for us? What problems? Without solving what problems that not solve? [Jane laughs] Jane: Well, that's... it's not going to happen [Peri laughs] because... there are just too many variables— [bass begins building in background] Peri [to Jane]: And even if— Jane: —we know that. Peri [to Jane]: —there were a perfect fire behavior model, you don't have the perfect weather forecast. Jane: Exactly. So... if we had that perfect model, maybe then we wouldn't be deciding on risk. We'd be deciding on what to sacrifice. Peri [to Jane]: Hm. Jane: [blows air] So if your perfect model says, "hmm... these four buildings are going to go... should we sacrifice those for the sake of... perpetuating a species?" Whoa! Now that's creating a political risk! Peri [to Jane]: Maybe uncertainty sounds better now. Jane: [laughing, speaking more loudly] Maybe uncertainty sounding a little better. [Peri laughs] We have to live with the fire and we have to live with each other. Archival Audio: [keening strings and flute fade in] Fire is as necessary a factor in the determination of a natural ecosystem as is rain or snow or the sun itself. [music fades out] Peri: Living with fire is something that people talk about a lot today as both climate change and our history of fire suppression contribute to more intense fires. But it's not an easy thing to do... technology can help us, but there's no single tool that can answer all of our questions, or remove all the uncertainty. It's a complicated question. So we talked with someone who could visualize what living with fire looks like. Tony: We have a deep relationship with fire and our landscape because we've understood from from our ancestors in our cities since we've been here, that fire is part of this landscape. My name is Tony Incashola Jr. I'm a Confederated Salish Kootenai member, and I work for Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes. Peri: Tony is the director of Tribal Resource Management on the Flathead Indian Reservation. Tony: Our Tribe literally lived with with fire. We had special people called Sx͏ʷpaáms. Their job and their task was to go out and be prescribed fire igniters. And... there was never an issue because there was never any borders, never any fences, never any ownership at that point it was all... one landscape. Peri: Borders are one of the fundamental challenges for managing wildfire. In a society that sees land as property, as something that can be privately-owned, you inevitably encounter different opinions about how fire should be managed. Tony: As soon as pioneers or homesteaders moved further west and they seen the resources here, the first one that was obvious was the timber resources. And when Westerners came over here and seen our Tribe lighting fires and possibly burning up those valuable resources, it was halted right away. Ownership, resources, money... is what really drove drove out in banning our tribe from being able to practice our and continuing our cultural burning. Peri: And that cultural burning can accomplish a lot of different things. Tony: We've used fire in many different ways of not only clearing trails, clearing campsites, travel corridors, but we've also used fire for purposely setting to replenish certain medicinal plants, certain berries, certain first foods. Peri: First Foods is a term the Confederated Salish and Kootenai people used to describe the plants and animals that they've been living with since time immemorial. And these foods are often fire-dependent. Think about huckleberries or whitebark pine seeds. Tony: We were losing medicinal plant sites, first food harvest sites, our wild game, our berries. We had to start including all those type of thoughts into our forest management. It wasn't for growth and yield wasn't for maximum revenue retention anymore. It was for restoration. We've been managing for resiliency and health as opposed to crop and production. Peri: Uncertainty is inevitable with wildfire and sometimes there are negative impacts. But Tony explains both the ecological and cultural benefits that fire can bring. Tony: So one one prime example is is an area we call Jocko Prairie. Peri: Jocko Prairie is a high elevation meadow just north of Missoula, where trees had started to creep in due to a lack of fire. But instead of just growing timber, the Tribe wanted to burn the meadow to support all kinds of plants, especially camas, which are beautiful blue flowers whose bulbs are a first food. Tony: Previously there was very minimal, to little evidence of camas within that prairie, that meadow. And after fire, there was a carpet of camas that bloomed the next year. We're actually working on a project now and visiting with elders and looking at historical areas of where [sound of hand tapping table] are there more sites like this camas prairie site [string music fades in] or different types of gathering sites that are now overgrown or now unusable for historic reasons. And able to build a Cultural Burning Plan, Prescribed Fire Burning Plan, for cultural reasons, to restore these areas back to pre-European contact where we can gather those medicinal plants again. We feel a certain responsibility as stewards to the land. This is our land and we've. This is land that that has taken care of us and we know we need to take care of it. Living with fire has changed. Acceptance of fire is different than it used to be. Music: ["Runaway" by Frank Waln builds and plays] Gaby: This show is only possible because of donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. Learn more at glacier.org. If you like this episode, share it with a friend who might appreciate it. Also, we'd love it if you gave us a rating and review in your podcast app. Frank Waln makes our music and Stella Nall created our art. Check them out on Instagram. Headwaters is made by me. Gaby Eseverri, Daniel Lombardi, Peri Sasnett, Madeline Vinh and Michael Faist with support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Elizabeth Maki and Sophia Britto. Thanks to our good friends in Glacier's Cultural Resources program, including Jean, Anya, Keiko, Sierra, Brent, and Kyle. We couldn't make the show without them. Special thanks this episode to Ilana Abrahamson, Thomas Dzumba, Jeremy Harker, Tony Incashola, Jr., Jane Kapler Smith, Dr. Sara McAllister, Dr. Stephen Pyne, Helen Smith, Rick Trembath, Lois Walker, Larry Wilson, and Dr. Vita Wright. Additional support for this episode came from the NPS Fire Communication and Education Grant program. Thanks for listening. Peri: Okay. The last thing I have to share is this Smokey Bear PSA from the '90s. Archival Audio: [Funky music starts: "One day these rats were playing in the woods." Sound of match being struck. "Wanted some matches and that's no good. Yow. Listen to Smokey before you give it a try..."] Smokey Bear: Only you— Archival Audio: ["Don't play with matches... don't play with fire." Beat drops. "Fire. Because there's nothing very funny about a freaked-out bunny, nothing very nice... about a homeless mice. So if a gorgeous forest is what you desire, don't play with matches... don't play with fire.] Smokey Bear: Only you can prevent wildfires. Music: [Fire!]

Uncertainty and imagination. A history of fire management in Glacier and beyond, told through three 20th century fires and a visit to the Missoula Fire Sciences Lab. To what extent can we—or should we—control nature?

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Episode 2

Switchback | A Road to Nowhere

Transcript

Daniel: [dreamy synth music fades in] Headwaters is brought to you by the park's nonprofit partner, the Glacier Conservancy. Donations from listeners to the Conservancy are what make Headwaters possible. If you'd like to support the show, go to glacier.org. Beyond that, leaving a review in your podcast app or sending this episode to a friend is a big help. Gaby: It's September 1969. A caravan of 28 trucks is clunking up a remote creek in the backcountry of Glacier. This is a publicity stunt. A black bear sends her cub up a tree for safety when she smells the truck exhaust. She stands guard as the engines echo through the forest. But, given the party-like atmosphere, no one notices the wildlife. They travel next to a creek, but they also drive right in it. The caravan crosses the stream a dozen times as they ascend the valley. Plowing over aspen saplings and bouquets of wildflowers is easy. Crossing fallen spruce trees is harder. The passengers cheer whenever an especially challenging obstacle is overcome. The newspapers say their goal is to publicize the feasibility of completing the Circle 8 Road System. That is, a new road connecting Montana, Alberta and British Columbia in a remote spot called Akamina Pass. [red-breasted nuthatch birdsong fades in] Glacier and Waterton are already connected by a road on the east side. But the caravan wants a connection on the west side, too, creating a grand loop. This figure eight of roads, called the Circle 8 Loop, would open breathtaking scenery to drivers [tree swallow birdsong fades in] unlocking areas like Akamina Pass that would otherwise only be available to hikers. [synth music fades out, voices and footsteps fade in] Gaby [in the field]: ...so how far were we just walking? A mile or so? A little less? Peri [in the field]: [ruby-crowned kinglet birdsong fades in] Yeah, so we just walked up about a mile from the highway. We are now at Akamina Pass, which I feel like a lot of mountain passes, you have to walk a really long way and climb very high to get to and it feels like a big achievement. This is like, "oh! We're here already?" Gaby [in the field]: Yeah. When you said we're at Akamina Pass, I was like, "Uh... what?" [laughs] Speaker 4 [fading out] You might not have known... Gaby: Members of the caravan are reveling in the belief that they are doing something new. Madeline [in the field]: [gasp, western tanager birdsong fades in] Can I read this again? Gaby [in the field]: Yeah. Madeline [in the field]: Ok. "This is the trade route to the Kootenai who are noted among the Blackfoot for their tobacco, which plays an important role within Blackfoot societies. These routes were used by the Blackfoot to get to the tobacco flats.". Gaby: [Swanson's thrush and western tanager birdsong fade in] Like the rest of North America, this landscape has been lived in and loved by more than 600 generations of Indigenous people. The North Fork corridor in particular has been a primary travel route since time immemorial, but no one has ever driven over it. [footsteps fade in]. Gaby [in the field]: It's funny to think about a car being here because they were also kind of like, old timey cars... [laughs, audio quiets] Gaby: [ruby-crowned kinglet birdsong fades in] Along with journalists and adventure seekers, the party includes some local political leaders: the superintendent of Waterton Lakes National Park, and Alberta's director of tourism are part of the group, as are two rangers from Glacier. But despite the downed trees and the dozen creek crossings, all 28 trucks make the 70-mile journey in just one day, complete with morning coffee and Apgar Village and a celebratory dinner in Waterton Townsite. The caravan is such a hit that they pledged to make the trip an annual event. [crunching footsteps and voice fades in] Peri [in the field]: ...but in general, I'd say Akamina Pass is a pretty low, wide, wide-open pass. It seems much less treacherous than Logan Pass. If I was looking for somewhere to put a road. Gaby: [birdsong continues] And maybe one day, with the help of a road, all of this could be open to the public. After all, that's what national parks are all about, right? Peri [in the field]: It's pretty wild to imagine a highway right here. I mean, the terrain in some ways is more inviting to a highway than Logan Pass or lots of other mountain passes. I've driven Teton Pass, Monarch Pass— Gaby [in the field]: Totally. Peri [in the field]: —like many other Rocky Mountain passes, like this would be a great place for a road [starting flute notes of "Wild West" by Frank Waln fade in] if I were to build one. But I mean, we're just standing here listening to the birds and the breeze, and it's hard to imagine. Gaby: [drumbeat begins] You're listening to Headwaters, a show about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. [strings start] We're calling the season: "Switchback," looking at moments when the park suddenly changed course. ["Wild West" plays] Gaby: I'm Gaby. Peri: And I'm Peri. This episode is about how national parks came to be defined by a feature [music fades out] that challenges their very mission: roads. This is a history of a loop road that was never built. The Circle 8 Road over Akamina Pass. But it also questions what modes of travel belong in a national park. [string music fades in] The story switchbacks and changes direction over time. Are cars and roads tools for mobility and access? Or agents of violence and destruction? Archival Audio: [light piano music plays] Later in 1916, the National Park Service was created. The Congress established a double mandate: [voice distorts] conserve park resources and also make them available [echo-y] for public enjoyment. It's an enormous challenge. [car audible in background] In the early days, determination to sell the national park idea to the public led to policies that seemed to favor use over preservation. [music fades out] Peri: Cars are an inextricable part of American life. You need one to get to work, to go to the store, or to see your friends and family... whether you like it or not. And we see our national parks by car too: road trips across the country, drive up campsites, scenic loop drives. But when cars come to parks, they bring their problems with them too: air pollution, sound pollution, light pollution, and more. In 2021, Glacier's biggest source of greenhouse gases that warm the climate was from cars and trucks. In other words, driving Going-to-the-Sun Road contributes to melting the same glaciers that people drive here to see. Parks are often romanticized as having been created to preserve nature... but the reality is that big business and economic development were often crucial motivators for designating national parks. [archival audio fades in] Railroads, in particular had a big influence early on. Archival Audio: [grand string music] See America. First: the West! Peri: [music fades out] Glacier National Park was created with support from the Great Northern Railway, who saw this as a destination that could sell train tickets. They also built a lot of the early hotels and chalets in the park. Their trains brought visitors here who then had little choice but to stay in the company-owned hotels, and eat in the company-owned restaurants. From there, it was horses, not cars that took you around the park. [string music and cymbal beat fades in] Archival Audio: Now, in the old days, the only way to really see the park, was from the back of a mighty steed. Well... Peri: [archival audio fades out] But that changed over the first half of the 20th century. The chalet system had a hard time surviving the Great Depression and World War Two and the rise of affordable cars and a growing middle class helped chip away at the railroads business model. After Going-to-the-Sun Road opened in 1934, driving your own car through the park became the iconic Glacier experience. [voice and string music fade in] When you say the words Glacier National Park, many people think of glaciers, but a lot of others think of Going-to-the-Sun Road. Archival Audio: You can drive here on the Going-to-the-Sun Highway. [audio fades out] Peri: The Ford Motor Company even made an elaborate ad in 1939 that was basically a short film [voice and string music fade in] about driving through the park. Archival Audio: The modern automobile... Peri: [Ford commercial volume decreases] To Ford, the automobile was the future of national park travel. But not everyone was convinced. [Commercial volume increases] Archival Audio: ...for an unforgettable vacation. [commercial fades out] Peri: Interior Secretary Harold Ickes argued in the early '30s against letting cars speed through parks. [orchestral music fades in] Voice Actor as Harold Ickes: I am not in favor of building any more roads in the national parks. I do not have patience with people whose idea of enjoying nature is dashing along a hard road at 50 or 60 miles an hour. Peri: But this was a losing battle. [cymbal-driven beat and string music fade in] The car was already out of the proverbial garage. Archival Audio: [voice fades in] Accessible by auto over the Going-to-the-Sun Highway... Peri: [archival audio fades out] The National Park Service would reaffirm their commitment to cars in 1956, and this switch reflected a transition happening across the country. And it wasn't happening by accident. [chords fade in]. Music: ["Conserve Park" by Frank Waln plays] Suzanne: [music fades out] My name is Suzanne Nobles, and I'm an interpretive park ranger at Yosemite National Park. And I had a project last year that highlighted Yosemite's Mission 66 Architecture. Peri: Mission 66 was an infrastructure program that built a lot of the visitor centers and campgrounds and roadside bathrooms that you see when you visit a national park. The program started in 1956 to be finished by 1966, which was the 50th anniversary of the creation of the NPS. Hence the name: Mission 66. Suzanne: So Mission 66 was a ten year billion—with a B—dollar project to essentially revitalize the parks in particular, after years of neglected budgets due to World War Two, and all sorts of other things. The parks infrastructure was deteriorating... and at the same time visitation was rapidly rising. Peri: Things reached a crisis point and the director of the NPS, Conrad Wirth, started lobbying Congress to fund his vision for a program that would create agency-wide solutions. It was approved in 1956, the same year as the Federal Aid Highway Act, which funded and created the country's interstate highway system. It was a decade that would forever change the way Americans navigated their lives and their cities, as well as how they saw national parks. Instead of from the back of a horse, or out the window of a train car, they looked through the windshields of their cars. What was a slow shift in the first half of the 20th century, was made official and intentional with Mission 66. Suzanne: And a family road trip vacation, like we still romanticize that in a lot of ways. We still... you know, the idea of scenic drives through... through parks is still a big thing. And some of those predated Mission 66, right? But we doubled down on those ideas during Mission 66. Peri: You might expect that scientists and conservationists were involved in the early planning stages of such a big project... but, they weren't. Instead, it was the auto industry that helped plan the future of national parks. Suzanne: Prior to Mission 66, Conrad Wirth had already had some partnerships with the automotive industry. And in the initial kind of roll out of Mission 66, there was actually this big dinner essentially celebrating the kickoff of Mission 66 that was co-sponsored with the American Automobile Association, which is, we now know as Triple A. And then as time went on, there were other fossil fuel companies and automotive companies that ran brochures, advertisements, all sorts of things... so they were kind of in cahoots with NPS through Mission 66. Peri: You can see this change in how people visited parks in the local paper. Daniel: Five years ago, most of Glacier's campers were in tents, but now the majority are in off the ground trailers or pickup campers. Hungry Horse News, 1965. Peri: In the 1950s and 1960s, the National Park System was rebuilt and restored, but it was also reimagined. Suzanne: A lot of the projects and the funding in Mission 66 literally went to roads and car infrastructure, so it enabled a larger volume of visitation by car. The design of visitor services was also very car-centric. Get out of your car and you just get everything you need done in that one place, right? Suburbia and shopping centers were becoming quite popular, and so park planners were like, “hey, like, let's incorporate this idea into parks.” So it was very like, how can we make this convenient to people who are arriving by car. Peri: Changing a national park visit from something you could do by train or boat if you wanted, to something you basically had to do by car... was obviously something that benefited the auto and fossil fuel industries. In retrospect, Mission 66 clearly increased the carbon footprint of national parks, although climate change was not yet a well-known concern. And the public never had input on these projects. This was before laws that require public consultation. Suzanne: One of the big criticisms and friction points was that environmentalists were not given any input in the beginning planning stages of Mission 66, and that proved to ruffled some feathers [laughs]. Peri: And there were some major projects undertaken as part of Mission 66. It brought two new visitor centers to Glacier, along with lots of bathrooms, campgrounds, and employee housing. It also funded a new road to nowhere, the Camas Road. There were two reasons to build this new road. One was to add one more piece of the proposed Circle 8 Road that would connect West Glacier to the North Fork Valley, which would then connect to Akamina Pass someday. If the whole loop was finished, then it wouldn't be a road to nowhere after all. By the 1960s, the idea been around for decades, and had pretty widespread support. In 1956, Glacier's superintendent described the road as vital, because he expected Going-to-the-Sun Road traffic to double in the next ten years. The second reason for the Camas Road was to stop the possibility of the Glacier View Dam being built and flooding part of the park. The thinking was: build the road and make the valley a beloved destination. [staccato piano chords fade in] Then, people would be upset if it was flooded by a dam. In peak Mission 66 thinking, a road was a tool for conservation. The road, the cars, the tourists... all belonged here. A massive hydroelectric dam did not. Suzanne: One of the big criticisms of Mission 66 was that it basically did nothing for research and for science in the parks and really neglected that. [music fades out] The Park Service only employed two biologists in the wh— entire Park Service, which is [laughing] really low. Peri: Environmental activists raged against these new developments, calling parks "national parking lots." [piano music fades in] They felt like speeding cars and massive trucks didn't belong in a national park. Just a few years later, in 1970, Joni Mitchell wrote the lyrics "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot." [music fades out] Suzanne: Fundamentally, the main critique boiled down to that it was a, quote, development program and not a conservation program. So environmental groups in particular felt like... natural spaces were essentially just being trounced with all this development. [piano music plays] But Mission 66 was pretty narrow-minded, and that era was pretty narrow-minded on who deserve access to parks and the sort of middle-class, suburban, white nuclear family was sort of the idealized visitor and everything was designed to cater to them really, and sometimes to the exclusion of of other groups. [piano fades out, archival audio fades in] Archival Audio: [musically layered and echoey voices) A novel plan: Mission 66. And also, make it available for public enjoyment. It's an enormous challenge. Resources. It's an enormous challenge. Challenge. Gaby: [dreamy synth music fades in] It's summer 1966 and the National Park Service is turning 50 years old. Mission 66 is complete, and there's a long line at the entrance station. [swallow birdsong fades in]The cars lined up pay $1 per day to enter the park or $4 for a 30 day pass. The birds flying above, they get in for free. There are cliff swallows, small blue and white birds that have just returned from wintering in South America. Each summer they migrate here to nest and lay eggs for countless generations, they've built their nests on cliffs, molding balls of mud into domes that hang like little apartment complexes. This year, they built their homes on the tall vertical walls of the brand-new St. Mary Visitor Center. This dramatic Mission 66 building—with ample parking—will greet visitors on the eastern edge of Glacier [birdsong and music fade out] once it opens in August. From their perches near the roof, the swallows might have noticed crowds gathering for the ribbon cutting ceremony. They could have watched the park's four woman naturalists working as usherettes, seating attendees. Swooping over the podium, they may have seen Montana Senator Lee Metcalf and Park Service Director George Hartzog nervously checking their notes before giving speeches. They must have heard the Flathead High School Band. I wonder if they like the sound of trumpets. The ribbon is cut and the visitor center is open. As the swallows leave their nests each day to hunt for moths and flies, they see a stream of people enter and leave, waving postcards and souvenirs from the gift shop before they drive away in their cars. [synth music fades in] But before they migrate south in the fall, they hear the complaining: "pooping swallows don't belong on a brand-new building" some say. "People come here to see animals and birds." A ranger replies. Within a few years, the rangers will decide that pooping swallows are just too much. [swallow song fades in] They really don't belong. A string of thin wire is hung around the eave of the building, then electrified. Any bird that tries to nest on the St. Mary Visitor Center will be shocked. [music and swallow song fade out] Peri: In the 1990s Going-to-the-Sun Road was in desperate need of repairs. Decades of avalanches shifting hillsides and endless freeze-thaw cycles had done a lot of damage. Some sections were at risk of catastrophic failure. Mary Ann: My name is Mary Ann Donovan and I worked as a biological science technician for nine years. Peri: The project to restore the road ended up costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and it took decades. Some of the most difficult work was in the years after 2011, when crews rebuilt the alpine sections of the road. So during those years, the park hired Mary Ann Donovan to patrol the road and study how the construction work was affecting wildlife. Our producer Daniel and I talked with Mary Ann about her work. Mary Ann: My first job was with compliance for the Going-to-the-Sun Road construction— Daniel [to Mary Ann]: —they were rebuilding— Mary Ann: —rebuilding the road, yes. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: —over like ten years, right? Mary Ann: Yes. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: So it was a huge project. Mary Ann: It was a huge project. And, you know, I came in [gentle piano music fades in] as wildlife tech and it did not take long to understand that my species of concern was human. I... I tried to give a lot of compassion to humans. Peri: Mary Ann made sure the construction crews didn't accidentally leave their lunch out where a bear might find it. And when bighorn sheep backed up traffic, [laughing] she helped herd them off the road. When lines of cars had to wait for construction delays, she helped those visitors appreciate the view. [music fades out] Mary Ann: The lines of cars were s— long, they were incredibly long and idling cars... are noisy, especially if there's 200 of 'em. And the smell... was awful. Peri: Mary Ann would drive Going-to-the-Sun Road back and forth all summer long, and if there weren't too many cars going too fast, she would get out and walk on the side of the road. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: While you were doing patrols, you're also keeping a tally of roadkill, and I suppose removing the animals killed off the road. Mary Ann: If it's safe. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Okay. Mary Ann: But making a note if I can't... Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Mm. Mary Ann: You know. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: So what did a typical day... or what did that look like on a— Mary Ann: It depends on where it is and where it was. If it was a straightaway, there'd be more animals. I would put on my ever-handy orange vest and get out there and just... look, and walk. And that's how I found so many birds and voles kind of thing. And it just was amazing to me because I— when I did them in the car, I'd be going 25... and looking around and I'd miss 'em. I always contended that our speed limit was too high and you talk to [laughing] anyone else, it's too low, but it's too high. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Were you finding like, dead animals every day? Mary Ann: Oh yes. Yeah, I was reading... because I was getting ready for this. [laughing] My notes. I kept journals— Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Oh yeah, yeah. Mary Ann: —there were more roadkill than I remembered. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Really... Mary Ann: —and different. Yeah, Yeah. Marmots... one time a hawk. Birds are hard to spot. Deer... though. Deer were were hit frequently. Bear... not too frequently, but bear—black bear—would be hit around the Rising Sun. That was a problem for a long time. Peri: Which begs the question can anything be done to reduce road kill? Mary Ann: That's the problem that has to be relieved is, you know, do we have shuttles, do we slow it down? And it's not going to be solved by going all to electric vehicles. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Mhm. Mary Ann: You will solve some problems, but you won't solve the fact that we are so married to our vehicles as a way of getting around. I used to use the shuttle system when I was working sometimes, but it just took too long [laughing]. Peri: Mary Ann is kind, quick to smile, and passionate about conservation. In her retirement, she still volunteers on wildlife projects with the park, and as she read through her long, grim list of notes, we asked her how she handled the experience of dealing with dead animals day in and day out. She said it took thick skin and a sense of humor. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Do you feel like you have kind of you're okay with a dark sense of humor sometimes? Mary Ann: Oh yes. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: After all this roadkill you had to see and everything? Mary Ann: Yes, yes, yes. I am quite at home with dark humor. I did come across a tarred-over amphibian [laughs]. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Oh wow. Like I had gotten run over and then it had gotten paved over. Mary Ann: —and then gotten tar— paved over [laughing]. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Wow. Mary Ann: Yeah. Yeah. And then the smaller ones will attract the bigger ones... to come when they can at night or whenever. It's just... starts a circle of death. Peri: For Mary Ann, and for visitors, animal and car collisions could be pretty traumatic. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: Well, so what's it like when you show up then? Mary Ann: [gentle piano music fades in] That's terrible... for the visitor. For me. Daniel [to Mary Ann]: These are animals you see that are hidden either dead or dying. Mary Ann: Yes. Yes. So that's a big impact. My day was ruined with the Avalanche one. It was just... it was like... it was ruined. You just feel like this shouldn't have happened. I heard it. I was doing a Harlequin survey, and so I was down at the river and I heard it. So I went up. And it was alive. And it was a doe. And she was alive. Peri: Mary Ann arrived on scene to that injured doe and an elderly couple. Mary Ann: It was... my body. Just adrenaline. Just. Oh my gosh. That's. And it was just hard. It was hard. Every time an animal dies, that's human caused. And it wasn't their fault. I think they might have gone... been going a little too fast, but they weren't going 50 or anything like that. And... that was hard. Just the hearing of it. And and they were very upset, and I was very upset [laughing]. And we were all very upset. And we had to call [deep breath] Chuck... to come and dispatch it. And I just know... he's a sensitive person. So it's like, "come on out, Chuck [laughing, hand clap]. I heard this terrible thing and I want you to come out." So that's what was hard... I… it's... I don't like seeing animals hit. [piano music fades out, dreamy synth music fades in] Gaby: It's 1934. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's train is arriving in Glacier National Park. Once the train comes to a stop, he unlatches his wheelchair so he can move around. The secret service, muttering code words into radios, oversees the president's heavy ramps and wheelchairs. They use codenames for these devices because their presence might give away the president's location. The agents call FDR's ramps, “Dayton Articles” and his wheelchairs were probably disguised as “Fifty-Fours.” A crowd has gathered because they know the president is visiting the park today. Roosevelt's valet grabs the president's cane and helps him prepare to greet the audience. His entourage, including his wife, Eleanor, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes and Montana Senator Burton K. Wheeler, are already mingling with the crowd outside. Once everything is in place, the president stands, and with a little help, steps outside to greet the crowd. [music fades out] Balanced in one spot, he waves and says a few pleasantries. Then, it's only a short walk directly to the car waiting for him. He continues conversations with local leaders, like Glacier's superintendent, while seated in the car. The rest of the day goes on like this: the forest loving president tours the park from the back of a convertible. He rolls up Going-to-the-Sun Road into the alpine. He breathes in the smell of sub-alpine firs and whitebark pine. He visits a CCC camp and has lunch in one corner of the park, and then gives a speech and has dinner in another corner. Wherever he goes, a cloud of dust and exhaust follow. He seemed to enjoy the trip— in every picture of the drive, [music fades back in] he wore a wide grin. And in a speech he would go on to give that day, he said: "There is nothing so American as our national parks... It is, in brief, that the country belongs to the people; that what it is and what it is in the process of making is for the enrichment of the lives of all of us." But a few years earlier, before the road was completed, this visit would have required a multi-day outing on horseback— a trip unrealistic with both FDR's schedule and his disability. Peri: For all the challenges that cars pose—the exhaust, the noise, the carbon emissions, the roadkill—one of their benefits is the access they provide, for presidents and the public alike. Woman #1: Access writ large is really fascinating, and I think it's something that the Park Service is often thinking about because we're trying to break barriers in public space and on public lands. And so in that regard, accessibility can be as much. Is there a financial barrier that keeps you from getting to the park? [music fades out] Do you feel safe? Do you feel you belong there? Those can also be barriers. So, what are the barriers to access writ large are questions that I'm interested in more broadly. Peri: Perri Meldon has spent most of the past decade studying accessibility and disability in national parks. Perri: I am one of two national coordinators of the National Park Service's Mellon Humanities Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. That is a program that aims to support commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the project that is the United States. Peri: Perri doesn't work for the NPS, but she's been working closely with the agency and our partner organizations since 2017. She was initially hired to work on the "Telling All American Stories" website, writing articles about place-based disability history. Perri: Connecting national historic landmarks, listings on the National Register of Historic Places and national park units to stories of disabled peoples in place over time, or those who have been perceived to have disabilities. And that really launched a path for me that I continue to be awed by and grateful for. Since then, though, I've always lived with spinal fusion and scoliosis, I... this had never been limiting for me and my ability to navigate the world. But since about 2020, I've been living with chronic pain. Daniel [to Perri]: Do you feel like that's changed things for you, like feeling a more personal connection to it? Or just reaffirmed what you were already doing? Perri: It certainly reaffirmed. It also makes me much more personally aware of conversations around visible and invisible disabilities. That lived experience does make a difference. Not necessary, but it again, it underscores it. Peri: According to the CDC, more than 1 in 4 American adults have some kind of disability. Some are cognitive. Others are physical. Daniel [to Perri]: I was thinking we should go through some definitions, maybe just starting with, like, defining disability. What's the most useful way to define disability too? Or what are the pros and cons of defining it as an individual or medical issue versus defining it as a social or collective issue? Perri: Well, I think the first thing one can always do is ask people first what language they use for themselves. Don't make assumptions. Daniel [to Perri]: I think it was powerful for me to learn or to start thinking about disability as a non-static thing. Like it's not like... you know, it's something that can come and go in anyone's life. Perri: Disability and disablement can occur at different points in life. It can also be perceived in different ways as disablement or not. Disability is so interesting because I think it's often perceived as this neutral... or nonpartisan.... or medical experience, and yet it can be highly politicized, it's extremely culturally influenced, and for some it is a medical diagnosis, and for others a medical diagnosis can't capture it. For others, it is culturally or socially informed by the barriers to care, to access to finances, to a strong social safety net. So it really does vary. It is not a fixed term. Peri: Perri pointed out that the experience of living with disability is very personal and it depends a lot on context. It's something that can develop at any point in your life and will be affected by your access to medical care and social support. [distorted staccato piano chords fade in] People with visible disabilities can face stigma and mistreatment, but other disabilities are invisible. Woman #2: So 1921 is when FDR contracts polio. What we think is polio. At the time, it was called infantile paralysis because the thinking [music fades out] was it mostly affected children. Peri: This is Dr. Shelby Landmark. She's currently a postdoctoral fellow who's researching FDR's disability and helping the National Park Service tell that story. Dr. Landmark: Work stress, mental stress, as well as physical stress can suppress your immune system. So he was generally healthy at 39 years old, but he starts to feel ill and he just goes to bed early that night. And the apocryphal story is that he never came down the stairs again. That kind of dramatic story. He got ill that night and then he lost a lot of physical function from the neck down. So he had to have everything done for him. And his wife, Eleanor did a lot of that. So she did a lot of his like brushing his teeth and shaving and helping him get dressed and feeding him and all of these things. He even had a catheter. Peri: Roosevelt did recover function in his upper body and some movement in his lower body, but he navigated the rest of his life with limited mobility, usually walking with a cane or with some other kind of support. Daniel [to Dr. Landmark]: Can you expand on what the general public perception of disability was at this time? The 1920s, the 1930s, maybe even into the 1940s? Dr. Landmark: Certainly at the time it was stigmatized. And we still have that stigma today, like we culturally still have that. However, we also had the two world wars that left a lot of people physically disabled. So nowadays we have—thanks to the disability rights movement and thanks to disabled self-advocates—we have a disability acceptance culture where it's okay to be disabled, you don't have to constantly be trying to regain the ability to walk or make yourself seem able-bodied. We're moving towards a culture of acceptance. At this time, that didn't exist. Peri: In the 1930s, there weren't a lot of accommodations for people with disabilities. Many people have looked back and thought that FDR was trying to hide his disability, because there aren't many photographs of him in a wheelchair. But Dr. Landmark pointed out a more practical reason: Dr. Landmark: I think that people don't consider the fact that that infrastructure to allow for wheelchair use in public didn't really exist. So it made sense for him to have to walk into buildings. It made sense for him not to use a wheelchair in public. He did use them at home. Daniel [to Dr. Landmark]: So even if someone wanted to use a wheelchair all the time in the 1930s or '40s, there weren't curb cuts, there weren't ramps. So it just it actually wasn't a practical tool. And that even if you depended on a wheelchair all the time, you were going to have to figure out a different way to get around in that era. Dr. Landmark: That's right. Yeah. But he also used his car a lot and would do unusual things with his car, like give speeches from his car and do wartime inspections from his car. And there was more infrastructure for that. So I think that's why he relied on the car a lot, which had hand controls so he could use it with his hands instead of his feet. Peri: There are tons of famous photos of FDR. If you conjure an image of him, he might be at his desk signing something or maybe sitting next to Winston Churchill. But you've also definitely seen photos of him sitting in a car, wearing a fedora, probably, and smiling and waving. Daniel [to Dr. Landmark]: Let's talk more about the cars then, because the wheelchair infrastructure doesn't exist, but car infrastructure is starting to exist in a big way in this era, even in a wilderness national park like Glacier, there's a road going right through the middle of it. And so he's able to visit a national park like Glacier in 1934 and tour right through the heart of the park in a convertible car. This is something that he did a lot right, is use a car to improve his accessibility around the world. Dr. Landmark: The cars he drove, like the Ford Phaeton, was built to handle off-roading, you know, gentle off-roading. And he famously would drive through the woods and try to escape the secret service and, you know, be kind of funny like that. So he had a car that was not fancy or really special. It was a working man's car—to an extent—that he had custom hand controls built into. Daniel [to Dr. Landmark]: What about from then on and today, do you think the cars are seen today as an important piece of accessibility infrastructure? Dr. Landmark: I do. And maybe most people don't think about it, when you first think about like mobility devices... I mean, think about how many accessible spaces you see in a parking lot. I think if we can share this story of FDR using cars as mobility devices and inspiring others to do that, maybe we can contribute to more of the public valuing a car as a useful mobility device and a useful mode of transportation for a lot of disabled people. I mean, they're still hand controlled cars. You know, I know plenty of people who are physically disabled and have hand-controlled cars. Peri: While cars can be helpful mobility devices, they also have a disproportionate impact on pedestrians that use wheelchairs. A 2015 study found that wheelchair users were 36% more likely to be killed by cars than pedestrians who are walking on foot. So cars sit at a difficult intersection of both access and exclusion. Today, there's a suite of laws that mandate access for people with disabilities. Some from the late '60s and '70s and the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. But these were hard won. Advocates spent decades lobbying for these laws. In 1990, dozens of activists with disabilities climbed out of their wheelchairs and crawled up the steps of the Capitol building. It would be called the Capitol Crawl. [staccato piano chords fade in] The changes they achieved allow all people to push for greater accessibility to public spaces, including Glacier National Park. Back to our conversation with Perri Meldon. Daniel [to Perri]: Do you have similar thoughts on how you define accessibility? I think in the Park Service it often is seen through a fairly narrow, kind of regulatory lens, whereas there is another view of it, like you said, that is about considering all barriers to access. Dr. Landmark: I agree. I think one of the most exciting parts of thinking about accessibility beyond the law is universal design. It's a concept that comes out of the 1980s from a disabled architect, an architect with polio, named Ronald Mace. And he, along with many other disability advocates and architects, developed a whole framework for a set of guidelines that if you make something accessible for people with disabilities, you're also making things accessible for a much broader population. Peri: Today, universal design is everywhere, even if you don't notice it. In national parks. Universal design is the reason for captions on park films and the three-dimensional relief maps that you often see in visitor centers. Those binoculars mounted on a pole that you see at some scenic pullouts? They're almost always installed at two different heights, one at a standing height and one at a seated height, which also happens to be great for kids. Daniel [to Perri]: Do you know how much? Mission 66 did include thoughts of accessibility? Or did we just sort of miss the boat on that? Perri: As far as I know, I think the Park Service missed the boat. Peri: Mission 66 came before early accessibility laws. And a lot of them, like the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, weren't strongly enforced. Perri pointed out that the key to getting facilities improved was often visitors themselves. Perri: Parks were often able to avoid updating their facilities until someone complained. Complaints were a really important form of activism from the general public. They could point to the law and say, These are my rights. I'm legally entitled to access to these spaces. Daniel [to Perri]: Kind of what you're pointing out is that it wasn't a narrow miss. In many ways, it was actually missed by decades. Well, what about Mission 66 and roads? Mission 66— it was very car-centric in its approach to infrastructure. And while they might not have considered adequately accessible design in when they're making the visitor center, I'm curious if you feel like it's a a move toward a more accessible national park to focus on roads and visitor centers in general? Perri: The truth is that it does make it less accessible. When you leave a park to be just trails, we need spaces that are wilderness and backcountry and we need those places protected. But I don't know how many times I've driven Skyline Drive or the Blue Ridge Parkway with older family members who can't physically get onto the trail. We wouldn't have been able to enjoy the park in the way we did if it weren't for these roads and then the facilities that come with them. Daniel [to Perri]: Cars are such a dilemma when thinking about this because like we've been saying, cars create so much opportunity for access. They allow you to go to Logan Pass and see a wild alpine environment that maybe you can't hike to. But on the other hand, cars are dangerous and they cause climate change and they're not affordable and they're exclusive and etcetera, etcetera. Perri: We should all have access. And we also need to minimize our carbon impact, which does not mean that it's an individual choice and rather has to be a really organized community-wide or federal choice. Daniel [to Perri]: I'm saying, there's this dilemma between cars improving accessibility and cars having negative impact. And you're saying, let's imagine a third option [gentle piano chords fade in]. Perri: Yes. Why do we have to think it's one or the other? I don't think it's that much to ask. I think that it is also central to Ronald Mace's ideas of universal design, that if it's going to serve one, it's also going to serve many more. We should all have that right. It needs some concerted effort and some really critical thinkers. But I'd like to think that we're capable of doing that. Daniel [to Perri]: In many ways. Ultimately, accessibility is actually about allowing someone or allowing anyone to feel that sense of belonging in a national park. Perri: That's a really good definition. Accessibility is... it's about feeling like one belongs. [music fades out, birdsong fades in] Peri [in the field]: We are way up on Akamina Ridge. We've hiked all along the whole ridge today, and we're looking down into the valley. Madeline [in the field]: And we can just barely see the trail that we took on our way up here. It looks like a tiny little piece of string that's just draped along the valley floor. Peri [in the field]: And if we look all in the other direction, we can see the road we drove here on and then parked at the bottom of Akamina Pass. Madeline [in the field]: Wow. I actually didn't see that. That's really cool. Gaby: It's 1967. Mission 66 has built more than 100 new visitor centers across the country, including the two in Glacier that opened last summer. But in the fall of '67, Glacier superintendent is celebrating the opening of the park's Mission 66 Road: the Camas Road. He says that this is just the start. At $2.5 million, the 11-mile road is the most expensive Mission 66 project in the park. The superintendent says that the Camas Road is just the first section of the grand loop that will eventually take drivers over Akamina Pass into Waterton Lakes National Park. This new road will alleviate traffic all around Glacier. In fact, they might turn Going-to-the-Sun Road into a one-way. But he's wrong. The rest of the road will never be built. It takes seven years to finish the Camas Road, and during that time, the world changes. The Wilderness Act passes in 1964. In 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, is signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The environmental movement crystallizes into something formidable. You can't just build a road through a national park anymore. After the caravan of 28 trucks triumphantly drove over trees and through creeks to reach Akamina Pass, conservation groups start to ask questions like "Why are these people allowed to drive off-road through national parks in the first place?" And "do we really need yet another road through sensitive habitat for grizzlies and wolves?" Another voice of opposition comes from British Columbia. The road needs to cross a corner of British Columbia's land, but the provincial government sees little to gain from the project. In 1977, the Loop Road is officially dropped from Waterston's management plan. The Akamina Loop is not going to happen. George Bristol, a historian of Glacier, sums it up like this: "without the Canadian connection. The Camas Road is simply a road. Not quite to nowhere, but nothing like what was once envisioned." Daniel: Park visitation will probably double again in less than 20 years. But obviously the Sun Road won't be made into a superhighway. A thought to be considered for the year 2000, if not before, is that Glacier won't be able to accommodate private automobiles across the Sun Road anymore. Hungry Horse News 1976. Madeline [in the field]: Would you take the road if there was one here, do you think? Peri [in the field]: There's definitely a tension. Like on the one hand, I'm like, wow, we can just zip down this really flat, open looking valley and down the North Fork stop at Polebridge, get home in a couple hours. That will be really convenient. I feel like I would come to Canada so much more. But on the other hand, like, I can't imagine there being a road and car noise floating up to me from the valley like trucks and motorcycles going by. It would change this so much. Madeline [in the field]: Do you feel any of that tension driving Going-to-the-Sun Road? Like, not quite the same thing, but— Peri [in the field]: Oh, totally. In some ways, it's like this giant scar across the landscape. You know, like this. We gouged out this pathway through the mountains and then built a whole bunch of arches and masonry to support it, and then we plow it with, like, massive machines and fossil fuels every spring so that people can access it. [laughing] It's crazy! But on the other hand, how many people get to go to Logan Pass and drive to the alpine that would never be able to see the alpine in Glacier, which is so magical. And I love to visit there. [first notes of "Runaway" by Frank Waln play] Madeline [in the field]: Mhm. Peri [in the field]: Like, my parents would never hike to the alpine from Glacier's valleys. That's like not accessible to them. Madeline [in the field]: Not many people are getting to see what we're seeing right now. Peri [in the field]: Which of course is an experience that I value. Like, it's great to be up here with a few dozen other people. It's quiet. It's peaceful. It would be a different experience with hundreds of people. Madeline [in the field]: Like is it bad? Is it good? There's not one answer. Yeah. Madeline [in the field]: Do you think Glacier has a good balance? Peri [in the field]: Well, I don't know. I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision. ["Runaway" plays] Gaby: This show is only possible because of donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. Learn more at glacier.org. If you liked this episode, share it with a friend who might appreciate it. Also, we'd love it if you gave us a rating and review in your podcast app. Frank Waln makes our music and Stella Nall created our art. Check them out on Instagram. Headwaters is made by me, Gaby Eseverri, Daniel Lombardi, Peri Sasnett, Madeline Vinh, and Michael Faist, with support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Elizabeth Maki, and Sophia Britto. Thanks to our good Friends in Glacier's Cultural Resources program, including Jeanne, Anya, Keiko, Sierra, Brent, and Kyle. We couldn't make the show without them. Special thanks this episode to Lisa Bate, Dr. Ethan Carr, Mary Ann Donovan, Edwin Knox, Dr. Shelby Landmark, Dr. David Louter, Dr. Perri Meldon, Suzanne Nobles, and Lois Walker. Thanks for listening. Peri: Here's another snippet for you about cars and national parks from our conversation with Dr. David Louter, author of Windshield Wilderness. Dr. David Louter: It's not a clean relationship, it's complicated. And I think that's what makes parks such special places and spaces, is that they offer kind of an opportunity for a national dialogue about what are national parks? How should we interact with them? What is our relationship with nature? How do we appreciate these places and and not destroy them? And I think that's what cars bring up, right? It's not that cars are like, you know, the best thing ever for national parks, but it's like we have a complicated relationship with nature. We just as humans, enjoy but destroy at the same time it seems.

Preserve or protect? After falling in love with driving to the sun, a road is built to nowhere in the 1960s. Mobility for some is restricting for others. Have National Parks become national parking lots?

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Episode 3

Switchback | Objecting to the Good War

Transcript

Daniel: [ethereal chords start] Headwaters is brought to you by the park's nonprofit partner, the Glacier Conservancy. Donations from listeners to the Conservancy are what make Headwaters possible. If you'd like to support the show, go to glacier.org. Beyond that, leaving a review in your podcast app or sending this episode to a friend is a big help. Gaby: It's 1942. The superintendent of Glacier National Park has just received a tip from the local radio station. They say they've heard from a bus driver that he was asked to be ready to transport "Japanese enemy aliens" into the park sometime soon. This is news to the superintendent. The Park Service is being blindsided by a plan to imprison [music fades out] Japanese civilians inside Glacier National Park. Less than two weeks earlier, a Japanese submarine surfaced off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, and opened fire at an aviation fuel tank on shore. The city went into a panic and eyewitnesses claimed to see the submarine flashing signal lights to someone on shore. President Roosevelt uses this as an excuse to say that Japanese Americans, both American citizens and immigrants who aren't eligible for citizenship, might be colluding with the enemy. He orders anyone of Japanese descent in the Western United States to be forcibly removed from their homes and incarcerated. When the park superintendent is tipped off that one of these camps will be in Glacier, he immediately writes to his boss in the regional office. His boss worries that since this pertains to the war effort, they're in a weak position to object. Still, he says to the superintendent, write up a list of reasons why turning the park into an incarceration site is a bad idea. So, he does, with one concern underlying all others: arson. The national security concern shared by both Glacier's superintendent and President Roosevelt is that Japanese Americans will try to ignite forest fires and torch the American West. Later in the war, in 1944 and '45, the Japanese military will float thousands of incendiary balloons on the jet stream into the United States. While none start forest fires, at least one of these balloons floats into Glacier. Another lands in Oregon and kills five children and their teacher on a Sunday school trip. Needless to say, fires are a major concern, and it's out of this paranoid era that the Smokey Bear campaign is launched. Just a few years later, in 1947, the Wartime Advertising Council coins the slogan [opening flute notes of 'Wild West" by Frank Waln start] "Only you can prevent forest fires." So when Glacier's superintendent argues that the military really shouldn't use the park as a prison camp because of the arson risk, it feeds a popular sentiment [drumbeat starts] and works. Glacier is moved [strings start] to the bottom of the list and no Japanese Americans are ever incarcerated here. Music: ["Wild West" plays] Gaby: This is Headwaters, a show about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else [music fades out]. I'm Gaby. Peri: And I'm Peri. We're calling this season: "Switchback," looking at moments when history seems to take a sharp turn. Times when we were going one direction and then switched back like a trail zigzagging up a mountain. This episode is about two very different anti-war movements and how they intersected with a national park in remote northwest Montana. It considers how we remember those anti-war movements today. With the benefit of hindsight. Where do pacifists belong in a country at war? And how do you decide which wars are worth fighting? [futuristic bass starts] It's 1941 and fire is looming, no matter who you are. By the end of the year, the United States will join World War Two, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Today, it's remembered as "The Good War," and American men and women lined up to join the war effort to defeat fascism and save democracy [music ends]. But there was a small minority who refused to fight. Man #1: General Hershey, who was director of Selective Service, is often quoted as saying that CPS was an experiment to determine whether or not the rights of minorities could be protected in a time of national emergency. Peri: The CPS was the "Civilian Public Service," and for pacifists during the war, it was an alternative to fighting. Rather than being drafted into the military, you could do another kind of service for your country. And some of them came to Glacier National Park. Man #1: My whole life has been very shaped by the issues of war and peace, visiting and working in countries that have experienced war. Myself being a conscientious objector. Peri: Titus Peachey is a retired peace education coordinator for the Mennonite Central Committee, and Mennonites are one of the three historic peace churches with Quakers and the Church of the Brethren. And all of these faiths hold nonviolent beliefs. So during the Vietnam War, Titus was a conscientious objector and did alternative service. But earlier in the 20th century, before World War Two, there wasn't a separate path for conscientious objectors. They either had to fight, or go to prison. And in some cases they were killed for their beliefs. Titus: In World War One, conscientious objectors, while they were recognized, they still had to serve and they had to do that service, under military command. That just made for a very, very difficult environment. And many of the conscientious objectors were treated very harshly. My great-uncle, Ed Beitzel, was sent to Fort Meade in Maryland, and at one point he was taken out back behind some buildings, told to turn his back, and there were three men with guns [futuristic bass starts] doing a mock firing squad. They didn't shoot him, but they meant to do some kind of psychological torture. Man #2: During World War One, my father-in-law suffered considerably as a conscientious objector within a military camp. Peri: This is from an oral history with another conscientious objector [music fades] named Luke Birky. Luke Birky: He was placed in the army and he refused to even to wear the uniform. And so he suffered a great deal at the hands of his fellow draftees. In fact, they took him out one night and hung him from a tree. [futuristic bass fades in] But fortunately, an officer came by and caught them before he had— he had lost consciousness, but he did not die. Peri: And even in more benign circumstances, trying to find a path as an objector within the military system was incredibly challenging. [music fades] Titus: You know, some of these young people had very tender consciences coming from conservative Mennonite communities that had been very separate from the world. The onus was placed on each individual conscientious objector to figure it out. So they had to decide things: will I march? Will I carry a gun? Will I wear a military uniform? Will I peel potatoes? And my great-uncle Ed Beitzel even wrote home to his pastor, wondering if it would be okay for him to help build a latrine or not. Peri: This was not a good solution for anyone, either the objectors or the military. So in the late 1920s and '30s, especially as tensions in Europe were growing, leaders from these faiths knew that something had to change. So they joined forces to negotiate with the government and the military. Titus: So I think they realized that there was a problem here because there were large numbers of people who had deeply held religious convictions against the war. We don't want to force them to violate their consciences, but they are a minority, and we don't want to make it too easy because we [laughing] need soldiers for the war. Peri: The result was the creation of the Civilian Public Service, or CPS, in 1940. The CPS provided a formal option for objectors to plead their case to the draft board, and if they were approved, they'd be assigned to a camp where they'd perform nonviolent work of national importance, and under civilian direction, [ethereal chords fade in] rather than the military. These conscientious objectors arrived in Glacier in late 1942 and their service in the national parks would leave behind a legacy that you can still see in the park today—if you know where to look. Gaby: It's 1934. Anti-Semitism is at its height in America. Immigration from Europe has been severely restricted over the past decade. The KKK has had a recent resurgence, and Jews are often blamed for the First World War. Businessman Henry Ford spreads these beliefs widely [distorted futuristic bass fades in], saying that all wars are caused by Jews seeking profits. During the Great Depression. FDR's New Deal is derided as the "Jew Deal." But all of this feels far away from Glacier National Park. [bass fades out] Senator Burton K. Wheeler is sitting on the north shore of Lake McDonald, watching as his kids splash happily in the water [chords fade out]. You can picture it... maybe he's thinking about where to go fishing tomorrow. There's a little pond that's named for him up the North Fork. He could go there if he wanted, though it's awfully far. But then his wife, Lulu, comes outside and gives him a message from work that will change his fishing plans and so much more. Wheeler is starting along a trail that will switch back again and again as he climbs ever higher up a mountain of political power. This path will lead him into packed arenas and onto stages next to America's most famous anti-Semites. [ethereal chords fade in] The FBI will spy on him. He'll spar with presidents. State secrets will be leaked. Through it all, Wheeler will fight against America's entry into World War Two. Peri: The Wheeler's cabin was an idyllic spot in the heart of Glacier, and it was a leased inholding that they'd bought from someone who'd purchased it before the park was created. But it was more than a vacation spot. It was also a social center for the community on the lake. John Hoag was the Wheeler's neighbor back then, and he later recorded an oral history about his summers there. John Hoag: That was a happy camp, there. The Wheelers would go hiking. They would go climbing. They would they had sailboats, they had horses. And they included me in lots of their trips. They had lots of guests there, including the Native Americans from over at Browning would come over—they were very welcome there with the Wheeler group. And the Wheelers knew one of the old homesteaders up in the North Fork. They made it a point to be friendly to everybody. That was just their nature. Peri: And despite being a teenager at the time, he felt a camaraderie with Wheeler. John Hoag: I never worried about saying anything to Senator Wheeler, I could talk with him like a Dutch uncle because, you know, he took things in stride. Even if you said something wrong, he would laugh it all off. Woman #1: You know, he came from this very dour New England family. Somehow, when they got to grandfather, the youngest of 11 children, grandfather was always smiling. Peri: Senator Wheeler's granddaughter, Frederica, also recorded an oral history. Frederica: And this to me was his genius, was his not only his love for them, [voices and laughter audible in background] but then they reciprocated with love back to him. As I said, you just couldn't help but like grandfather, it didn't matter if he said the most insulting, horrible thing to you [someone laughs]. You forgave him. Peri: Wheeler's rise to power infamously began in Butte, Montana, where he stopped on his way to start a law career in Seattle. He lost his money in a poker game and had to stay. At least, that's how he told the story. From there, he was swept into politics. He served a term in the Montana state legislature, and he was appointed as a U.S. attorney in the early 1900s. He was an independent thinker. He fought for the little guy and he wasn't afraid of a controversy. Marc Johnson wrote a biography of Wheeler, and he points to World War One as a formative moment in his early career facing wartime prejudice. Marc Johnson: He served quite controversially as U.S. attorney in Montana during the First World War, was forced to resign basically over allegations that he had not properly prosecuted draft resisters and others who opposed the war. Peri: Here's Wheeler himself speaking about that time. Burton K. Wheeler: Hysteria swept all over the West, and everybody who had a German name or a foreign name was suspected of being pro-German. And and every labor organization which asked for higher wages, they were accused of being pro-German, and every farm organization was. And then because I wouldn't prosecute every labor leader that asked for higher wages or every farm leader or everybody that had a German name, unless they produced evidence to me, then they accused me of being pro-German, notwithstanding the fact that I had been pro-Ally. Peri: That experience affected Wheeler for the rest of his life. He remembered how neighbor turned against neighbor, how he was pressured to prosecute anyone who spoke against the war and how the war gave the government too much power to trample civil liberties. He was a New Deal Democrat who believed in the power of government to do good. [ethereal chords fade in] But he was also suspicious of letting any government or corporation or individual get too powerful. Gaby: It's 1934. Wheeler has his feet in the water and visions of trout dancing in his head when his wife Lulu comes outside and gives him a message from work. It's a message from the White House. The president will be coming to Montana. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, head of Wheeler's political party, is touring the country promoting the success of his New Deal programs. And he's making a stop in Glacier. Peri: [music fades] Roosevelt's visit to the park is very carefully orchestrated. He and his entourage get off the train in West Glacier. They drive Going-to-the-Sun Road in the park's iconic red busses. And they end the day in Two Medicine. They're welcomed by Blackfeet tribal members in full regalia, and they're serenaded by young men from the Civilian Conservation Corps. Roosevelt addresses cheering crowds and makes a radio address from the chalet. And Wheeler is along for the ride. Standing right next to Roosevelt on stages and train platforms across the park. Marc Johnson: It's a reelection year for Wheeler. He's on the ballot in 1934, not facing a really strong opponent, but nonetheless, he is running for reelection. Peri: Early on, Wheeler was a big FDR supporter. He was the first senator to support Roosevelt's candidacy in 1930. And his influence helped FDR a lot in the West. Marc Johnson: I believe that Wheeler had every reason to think that he was going to be considered for maybe the vice presidency on a Roosevelt ticket, certainly to be considered for a cabinet position and maybe offered a job like the attorney general or Secretary of the Interior. None of that happened. Peri: Wheeler was a staunch New Deal Democrat in the early 1930s, and he and FDR were natural allies, at least on paper. Marc Johnson: I think they were oil and water personality wise. Wheeler went out of his way to be candid and to be, at times controversial, purposely controversial. And Roosevelt was a master at, you know, kind of sanding the rough edges off of a lot of political issues, making them more palatable to a broader range of voters. Peri: And despite these differences, they'd worked well together in the past. But what happened on the trip to Glacier started a slow but irrevocable shift. Marc Johnson: Not once on that trip did FDR utter Wheeler's name. Never to say "I'm glad to be here with my great friend, B.K. Wheeler. He's done so much for Montana." Peri: Wheeler is standing on stage with FDR, but at no point does Roosevelt even acknowledge him. Marc Johnson: It's fascinating to me that a politician with the acute sense of political skill that FDR had, would snub a member of his own party so completely, in his own backyard. So it's hard to believe that it wasn't a calculated snub. Peri: This was as unthinkable then as it is today—a popular president is campaigning with a senator whose up for reelection, and in his home state, too—and doesn’t throw him a single bone. Marc Johnson: And I think it really hurt him personally, angered him, no doubt, and made him increasingly [ethereal chords fade in] skeptical of Roosevelt on a whole range of things going forward. Gaby: It's August 1st, 1945. Luke Birky's heart is pounding as he stands in the back of an airplane. He's opposed to violence, but he's not opposed to danger. The wind is whipping across his face from the open door of the plane. Luke looks out, watching as a wisp of smoke rises from the forest below. They're not over enemy territory, or over any theater of war. Luke is a smokejumper, a firefighter who parachutes into fires, but he's not putting out a fire today. Another jumper is injured. A broken leg, they said. And Luke and his crew are coming to the rescue. The small plane they're in tilts, and starts to circle the spotter watching carefully. It's like finding a needle in a haystack, except the haystack is on fire. And once they find them, they have a tall order: they have to carry the injured man another nine miles through brush and deadfall to the nearest road. But Luke has been fighting fire all summer. He's young, he's fit, and he's ready for the challenge. And when his spotter looks up and slaps him on the leg, Luke jumps out the door of the plane. [eerie whistle] Peri: The establishment of the Civilian Public Service gave a lot more options to the young men of the peace churches. One of those options was fighting. The extent of the Holocaust [music fades out] would only be revealed as the war went on. But some men, even those raised in a pacifist faith, felt that the war against fascism was worth fighting. It was a point of debate that divided many nonviolent communities. Titus: Of the Mennonite young men who would have been eligible for the draft, roughly 40% actually got drafted and went off to fight. The remaining Mennonites, who did not want to fight, who considered themselves conscientious objectors, they could have gone in as medics, as noncombatants, or they could have done alternative service in Civilian Public Service, or they could have gone to jail. Peri: This was a decision that each person weighed carefully. About 25,000 conscientious objectors ended up serving as noncombatants in the military and about half that many, like 12,000, participated in the Civilian Public Service. And at the far end of the spectrum, some people felt that even joining the CPS was too much. Participating in the draft system in any way was to be complicit. [futuristic bass fades in] Titus: Out of the total population who were drafted, roughly 6000 went to jail, rather than participate in an alternative service program, and rather than being drafted in going to fight. Peri: This subset of people came from a lot of different [music fades] faiths and political persuasions. It included civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, and Dave Dellinger, who was a seminary student at the time and would later become one of the Chicago seven, famously opposing the Vietnam War. These men refused to even register for the draft, and they chose to spend the war in prison. Titus: In fact, there are stories of some people who went into CPS and then came under conviction that this was too great a compromise with their conscience and walked out of CPS and went to jail. Peri: But for a lot of young men, the CPS program was a useful compromise. Many of them were sent to national parks like Glacier, where they did important work like fighting fire, working on trails, building fire lookouts and a lot more. One of these CPSers who came to Glacier was Luke Birky, who you heard earlier talking about his father-in-law's experience during World War One. He recorded this oral history about his CPS experience in his 90s. Luke Birky: I was raised in a in a Mennonite home. We were German in origin. My parents spoke Pennsylvania Dutch. And so I did grow up in a rather isolated way, in a in a way. And I followed the what I understood Jesus response was not to resist when people did things bad against you and that you would live all the way to death if necessary, rather than to injure or hurt other people. Well, I was drafted in January of 1943, and it was a quite a satisfactory arrangement as far as I was concerned. So I was able to do work that I considered important for the for the common good of the US, and it did not cause me to violate my conscience. And so I was quite satisfied with that. Peri: He was stationed in Belton, which is now called West Glacier. But after a while working in the park didn't feel like enough for him. Luke Birky: And I worked in the shop up there, and again, we worked for the Park Service. And again, it was is work in the outdoors. It was trail maintenance, fire control and so on. And I was very happy there, but had the opportunity to volunteer to go into the smokejumpers. Peri: If you're not familiar with smokejumping, you might find it a little... farfetched. Basically, it's an elite group of firefighters that parachutes out of a plane to reach particularly remote fires. Luke Birky: Smokejumping was seemed to be it was a new way of fighting fires. Many of us grew up in in the West and had a great deal of concern about forest fires. And so, many of us liked it, it was a challenge. It was exciting. It was a little scary. I suppose also, many of us had been labeled as yellow bellies cowards for not wanting to go into the war. For some of us at least, there was a secondary motivation that we may have wanted to show we had courage also. Peri: And along with many other skills, smokejumping certainly requires courage. Luke Birky: Prior to smoke jumping. If there was a fire, they'd notice smoke and then they'd get a crew and they'd hike in maybe a day or so to get to the fire because we worked mostly in the wilderness areas. But the idea of the smokejumpers was that within a matter of hours after a fire started, that you could get there before it had a chance to spread. It was exciting, you know, to jump in the out of a plane was an exciting episode. All the other guys, the first jump, I know, they turned pale. I don't think I did, [laughing] but the rest of them did. Peri: In those days, it was even more dangerous as they were figuring out how to design their parachutes and how to fight fire safely. Luke Birky: Well, other than the jumping and coming down into very rough terrain, the biggest danger was if a fire got out of control. And I did jump on one fire where we were just beginning to fight fire and the wind came up and the fire went up into the trees, crowned and starts moving very fast then. And so we just had to run for our lives and get away. Peri: Just a few years later, in 1949, 13, Smokejumpers died near Helena, Montana, and almost exactly the scenario that Luke Birky is describing. Norman Maclean memorialized the tragedy in his book "Young Men and Fire." But the CPS smokejumpers escaped disaster, if narrowly. Luke Birky: There were no CPS men lost. We had several with very severe injuries, and I jumped in twice to carry guys out. Peri: But despite the risks he faced, he looked back on smokejumping and his time in Glacier with fondness. Luke Birky: This was an enormously stretching time for me in lots of ways it was very painful for me, but it was also one of the best times that I had. It was a time of testing our own convictions, [piano chords fade in] our own beliefs. And out of that, I moved from being more just nonresistant, being opposed to killing, to being a much more of an activist kind of outlook where I thought there would be things that we can and should do to work for peace instead of just being opposed to war. Peri: By 1940, Paris had fallen to Axis forces, and German U-boats were sinking dozens of Allied ships every month that were trying to bring aid to Britain. America, however, was still staying out of the fight. Looking back, the American entry into World War Two seems like a foregone conclusion. Compared to more complicated motivations for other wars, the fight against fascism is remembered proudly. But in 1940, before the attack on Pearl Harbor, public opinion was genuinely conflicted. Many Americans didn't want to get involved in another war, but they also didn't want to see fascism overrun European democracies. Making things more complicated, both Germany and Britain were engaged in secret propaganda battles to shift public opinion in America. The Nazis desperately wanted to keep the U.S. out of the war, while the British said they needed the support of their allies to survive. Marc Johnson: The public had no appetite for U.S. involvement in another war and really was concerned in the main that the president's foreign policy was constantly moving the country inevitably in the direction of more— more engagement, more involvement in the war. And that's what Wheeler was trying to warn against. Peri: That's Wheeler's biographer again, Marc Johnson. It's easy to forget now just how Fresh World War One felt in the American memory at the time. The war had only ended about 20 years ago, and people felt like it was a pointless conflict between imperial powers, where millions of men died in the muddy trenches of Europe for nothing. Wheeler's mother was also a devout Quaker, and he was raised in the faith. But he also had strong memories of the prejudice and erosion of civil liberties during World War One. And he felt like any war was an opportunity for the government to centralize power and crack down on dissenters. And Wheeler's suspicions and dislike of FDR didn't help things either. Marc Johnson: He opposed war, generally speaking. Had long been an advocate of less U.S. military involvement around the world, and he saw what was happening in Europe as simply an extension of the age-old battles between empires on the European continent. And he wanted no part of it. And he was convinced that most Americans wanted no part of it. Peri: Throughout the 1930s, the tensions between Wheeler and FDR have been escalating, and after starting as allies, they've become full on rivals. Come 1940, Roosevelt is running for reelection for an unprecedented third term, and he's walking on quite a tightrope. He has to prepare the country for war, while also assuring the public that he won't actually lead them into war. But he knows Britain can't stand alone for very long, and America may have to join the fight sooner or later. Man #3: Thinking in terms of today and tomorrow. I make the direct statement to the American people that there is far less chance of the United States getting into war if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack by the Axis, than if we acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely to an Axis victory, and wait our turn to be the object of attack in another war later on. Peri: With this reasoning, Roosevelt calls for the first-ever peacetime draft in American history, and this forced conscription is exactly what Wheeler has been saying FDR will do all along. Wheeler says a peacetime draft will be the end of free democracy. "Hushed whispers will replace free speech. Men and women will be shackled by the chains they have themselves forged." Despite these strong words, a majority of Americans supported the peacetime draft legislation, and it passed Congress easily. Ironically, within it was the clause that established the Civilian Public Service, and conscientious objector status, which Wheeler probably would have supported on its own. [lively drumbeat starts] But even so, there's a growing anti-war movement across the country, and it's gaining steam, especially on college campuses. Students recognize that if the U.S. goes to war, they'll be the ones fighting. At Yale, students organize a group to advocate against entry into the war, and it quickly gains momentum, opening chapters across the country. Its early supporters included future presidents Gerald Ford and John F. Kennedy. [drum fades out] Senator Wheeler, though never a member, tours the country and quickly becomes one of their top speakers. The group's name, "America First." [futuristic bass plays] The Civilian Public Service was a welcome option for young conscientious objectors. But in a wartime climate, their views were not very popular. So because of this, CPS camps were often tucked away in remote spots like Glacier. Titus: Some people feel like the creation of CPS camps, many of them in national parks or very rural areas away from large population centers, might have been an attempt to kind of get them out of public view and away from a lot of interaction with the public so that there wouldn't be this tension, or the resentment build up. It was difficult, I think, for people in communities where their sons had gone off to war and faced danger and perhaps even been killed, to see that the CPS workers could do something else without experiencing any kind of risk or harm or danger. How is that fair? And, you know, looking back, you can understand that. Peri: Still the CPS did a lot for the park, which was really feeling the loss of the CCC, and the wartime labor shortage. The objectors were young men who, unlike the CCC, generally came from farming backgrounds, so they had skills that easily applied to work in the park. And their work was definitely appreciated. But today there's not much left behind. So catching a glimpse of their legacy requires a bit of a field trip. [birdsong, drum-beat, car driving sound fade in]. Peri [in the field]: We parked at the Loop and walked just a tiny bit down the trail. Peri: Madeline and I drove partway up Going-to-the-Sun Road to try and get a look at one of the only tangible reminders left of the work the CPS did in the park. Madeline [in the field]: And Peri is setting up the scope right now... I might get my first look [drumbeat fades out] at the Heaven's Peak Lookout. Peri: The lookout was built in 1945, and it's basically a one room box with panoramic windows and this massive stone foundation. It sits on the very northern end of this long ridge that extends north from Heaven's Peak. And it's so windy up there in the winter that the lookout's roof has to be fastened down with steel bars. Peri [in the field]: Okay. I have it in the scope... do you want to take a look? Madeline [in the field]: [gasp] Cool. Oh, wow. Okay. First of all, great job getting it in this in the scope. It's just right smack dab in the middle. Peri [in the field]: Thank you. Madeline [in the field]: Now that I've seen it in the scope, I can see it with my eyes, but it— it does blend kind of right in. Peri: As we took turns looking through the scope at the little square lookout silhouetted against a drizzly morning sky. We heard footsteps. Peri [in the field]: Hi. Madeline [in the field]: Do you all want to take a peek at this? [laughs] We are looking at the Heaven's Peak lookout, which is up on that ridge— Man #4: Yeah. Peri [in the field]: —do you know anything about the building? Man #4: No, no we don't. Madeline [in the field]: If you do want to look through the scope? Man #4: Oh, that'd be wonderful. Madeline [in the field]: Yeah! It's a really cool little building. You just have to say what you think when you see it. Man #5: So what is it? I didn't hear what you said to him. Peri [in the field]: So the scope is pointed at a fire lookout that's up on the ridge there. It's called the Heaven's Peak Lookout. And it was built by conscientious objectors during World War Two that were stationed here. Man #5: Okay. Peri [in the field]: Oh! You're wearing a Vietnam veteran hat. Man #5: Oh, I am! [laughs] Peri [in the field]: Yeah. So it's an interesting story of park history. Man #5: Okay. Madeline [in the field]: Did you see it? Man #5: Yeah, I did see it. Man #4: What do you think of it? Man #5: Neat. Man #4: Well, that's a remarkable piece of history— Peri [in the field]: Yeah. Man #5: Yeah. Man #4: —walk down this trail, you'd never even notice that... Man #5: Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Peri: In 1942, Glacier's superintendent said "the CPS camp, with only about 80 men, did more in one week than we were able to accomplish with an entire work detail from a CCC camp in a whole month." So for the park, this was not only a fresh source of labor, but it was also basically free for the government. Because the peace churches wanted to hold on to some say in the program, they agreed to foot most of the bill to support the men. [birdsong fades out] Titus: Now, government provided some facilities, some tools, etc. in various locations. But the Mennonite, Quaker, and Church of the Brethren denominations, and others as well, provided the funding. Mennonites in their homes would can food to ship to the CPS camps, provide blankets and quilts, and things like that. Peri: If the army had paid the objectors the same wage that soldiers got, the CPSers work would have cost $22 million. But each man only received a stipend of $5 per month. And even out of this tiny allowance, the Belton men still managed to donate almost $1500 over the course of their service to the War Sufferer's Relief Fund. Peri [in the field]: [traffic sounds in background] I think the lookout is the most famous thing that they built and the most recognizable. Madeline [in the field]: Do you know about some of the other legacies that they left behind or projects that they've been a part of? Peri [in the field]: I think some of their work that's better remembered was working in mental hospitals, which had pretty dire conditions at the time, and people were treated pretty cruelly. But they had these beliefs in nonviolence, and so the way that they interacted with the patients at these mental hospitals was very different than the norms for the time. And it ended up changing a lot of the ways that mental health care is practiced in this country. They also volunteered for experiments—one was on starvation, like in 1945. People were [piano chords fade in] seeing the conditions in Europe were like, we need to know more about the effects of malnutrition on the human body— Madeline [in the field]: Hm. Peri [in the field]: —to help people after the war. And more than 400 CPS members volunteered for 36 slots in that study— Madeline [in the field]: Wow. Peri [in the field]: —to basically be... they were given food, but they were undernourished for like six months. Madeline [in the field]: And it was these young men volunteering to be put through what must have been a horrible experience. Peri [in the field]: Yeah. There was a flier that advertised the study that said, "Will you starve so that others might be fed?" Peri: One participant in that study said, "everyone else around us is pulling down the world. We wanted to build it up." [decisive string music fades in] Marc Johnson: There was no year that was more tumultuous than 1941. Peri: Things were not going well in Britain. German bombs were pounding London every night during the Blitz, [music fades out] and 100,000 Londoners were sleeping in subway stations each night because there weren't enough bomb shelters. And a lot of parents, including the king and queen, sent their children away to the countryside. Tensions were peaking at home, too. Roosevelt was rallying for aid to Britain, while Wheeler was ratcheting up his own anti-war rhetoric. Marc Johnson: He is criticizing Roosevelt's foreign policy, saying that the president is secretly desiring to get the United States into another foreign war, particularly, as Wheeler saw it, to bail out the British Empire. Peri: Within Wheeler's political base, there was no love lost for the British, especially in Irish communities like the city of Butte, Montana. It's also hard to understate the personal animosity between Wheeler and FDR at this point, as Wheeler is one of the country's most vocal opponents of the war. He, and America First, are convinced that Roosevelt wants to get us into the war, and the arguments get pretty nasty. Marc Johnson: And Wheeler is increasingly critical of Roosevelt during 1941, calling him a warmonger surrounded by warmongers. And, of course, this leads to pushback from Roosevelt and others. Peri: Roosevelt went as far as having the FBI secretly spy on Wheeler. And when Wheeler's beloved cabin, where he would spend summers on Lake McDonald, burns down in 1941. Wheeler requests permission right away from the Park Service to rebuild it. But weirdly, his request is escalated all the way up to Roosevelt's Interior secretary, Harold Ickes. Marc Johnson: As Ickes said to President Roosevelt, the guy's been squatting on public land for 20 years, and this would be a good opportunity to throw him off. And Roosevelt clearly considered it. Peri: There are some surprisingly petty letters between FDR and Harold Ickes talking about how they would have loved to deny Wheeler the chance to rebuild his cabin. But someone else approved the request before they could put a stop to it. Marc Johnson: But again, it just kind of underscores the level of tension between the administration and Wheeler. It's not like the president of the United States didn't have anything else to do. But somehow, some way, he still had time to consider the issue of a cabin lease in Glacier National Park. Peri: Throughout 1941, the sympathies of the American public are starting to lean toward Britain. So, the centrist membership and following of America First dwindles. Nazi sympathizers and anti-Semites are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the organization. And yet, Wheeler doesn't turn away. [futuristic bass plays] Marc Johnson: He took a number of cross-country trips, at the behest of the America First Committee, paid for by the America First Committee. So these were, you know, big rallies in places like Madison Square Garden, and the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles. [bass fades out] And Wheeler was often the final speaker. Peri: Almost all of the 450 chapters of America First requested Wheeler as a speaker in 1941. In speech after speech, phrases with anti-Semitic undertones start to appear in his rhetoric. Americans are being tricked into war by internationalist bankers, he said. A clique of Wall Street bankers and Hollywood elites are stirring up pro-war sentiment, he complained. A prominent Jewish leader who himself was opposed to the war, refused to share a stage with Wheeler because of his, quote, anti-Jewish statements. [futuristic bass plays] Marc Johnson: He did not do nearly enough to distance himself from the anti-Semitic attitudes that gripped a portion of the America First movement. He was making common cause with anybody who was willing to oppose U.S. involvement in the war. And it's the great black mark on his career in many ways [bass fades out] that he did not speak out more forcefully than he than he did. Peri: And at no point does he really seem to reckon with the possibility that there might be a valid reason to join the war against fascism. Marc Johnson: I give him the benefit of the doubt for being truly anti-war and having been radicalized by his experiences in Montana during the First World War and his belief that the United States was building an international empire to rival the British Empire in that period between the wars. What is hard to reconcile is his willingness to see Nazi domination of Western Europe, particularly with Great Britain on her knees in 1941, and how critical U.S. involvement in the war was becoming, if Western democracies were going to survive. [ethereal chords play] Gaby: It's 1941. The Chicago Tribune's Washington office is mostly empty, but one reporter is still sitting at his desk. His typewriter is clacking furiously, a lit cigarette dangling from his mouth, as he rushes to finish his story before press time. And the story is a blockbuster. It's a leak of top-secret documents called the "Victory Plan," that Army and Navy High Command have drafted in preparation for war in Europe, Africa and Asia. To anti-war isolationists like Senator Wheeler, this is proof that Roosevelt has been planning to lead America into war. But to the War Department, it's just responsible planning for a completely plausible scenario. After all, the government writes a lot of plans. The reporter stubs out his cigarette and reads over his pages. Is it irresponsible to share this information with the American public and with Axis leaders? No. He decides the people have a right to know. He gathers his story, switches off the light and walks out to file it. [sound of distant bomb detonating] The story is published on December 4th, 1941, with the headline "FDR Secret War Plans." As Wheeler had cautioned all along, the secret documents have revealed to the world that America is planning for war. What the country doesn't know is that in three days, the Japanese Empire will bomb Pearl Harbor and change everything. [sound of distant bomb detonating] President Franklin D. Roosevelt: December 7th, 1941. A date which will live in infamy. The United States of America was suddenly deliberately attacked. Gaby: But even so, the leak has consequences. [Roosevelt fades out] Right after Pearl Harbor, Congress votes to declare war on Japan, but not on Germany. For a few tense days, it's still unclear whether the U.S. will join the war in Europe. But on December 11th, Germany will make that decision for us, declaring war on America. One of the reasons they cite is these very leaked documents which show that the U.S. has been planning for an extensive war in both Europe and the Pacific. Burton Wheeler manages to be absent for both votes on the declarations of war. He cast no vote either way. But as soon as America joins the conflict, Wheeler fully supports the effort. "Let's beat the hell out of them," he says. [tense synth fades in] He explains that he didn't think we should join the war, but now that we're in it, we should give it our all. A few months later, in February 1942, President Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066, authorizing the forced removal of all people of Japanese descent from the West Coast of the United States. In the coming weeks, Glacier's superintendent fights to stop the park from becoming an incarceration site, and he'll succeed. But more than 100,000 men, women and children are incarcerated elsewhere, the majority of them American citizens. They're given a few days to pack what they can carry, sell what they can't, and prepare to leave their homes indefinitely. Internal memos refer to their destinations as "concentration camps." [futuristic bass plays] Tsuguo "Ike" Ikeda: When President Roosevelt declared war, it felt really uncomfortable. I slouched down so I wouldn't be so visible. You know, I felt ashamed. I felt as though our fellow students were looking at us, and we were the enemy. Gaby: These are excerpts of oral histories from Japanese Americans who were incarcerated during the war. Sue Kunitomi Embrey: Well, I think the whole procedure ignored the constitutional rights of individuals. We were denied personal freedom. We were denied the right to a trial, a right to legal counsel. We were deprived of our property and our personal effects. And that raises the whole question of the whole Bill of Rights being ignored by our government, and used against its own citizens. David Sakura: I think one of the most vivid memories I have is that of my brother Jerry, who was about what, two and a half, three years old. [music fades out] And he was visibly disturbed by the whole experience of the uprooting of the new circumstances of the crowds of people. I remember him crying constantly, and my mother was so distraught because she couldn't comfort him. And what I remember most distinctly is that his voice became so hoarse after crying so long that his voice... became more of a hoarse, animal-like sound. It was an inhuman cry of pain by my three-year-old brother. [decisive strings play] Gaby: 40 years later, the U.S. government formally apologized for incarcerating Japanese Americans, attributing it to "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." President Roosevelt has trampled over civil liberties, just as Wheeler warned he would. In the face of this, there's some evidence that Wheeler tries to work against the incarceration of Japanese Americans, but he keeps his critiques behind closed doors. President Roosevelt will die in office in 1945, never learning who was behind the leaked war plans that were part of Germany's motivation to declare war on the United States. It's not until 1962 that the leaker is revealed. The source? Senator Burton K. Wheeler. ["Runaway" by Frank Waln plays] Gaby: This show is only possible because of donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. Learn more at glacier.org. If you like this episode, share it with a friend who might appreciate it. Also, we'd love it if you gave us a rating and review in your podcast app. Frank Waln makes our music and Stella Nall created our art. Check them out on Instagram. Headwaters is made by me, Gaby Eseverri, Daniel Lombardi, Peri Sasnett, Madeline Vinh, and Michael Faist, with support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Elizabeth Maki, and Sophia Britto. Thanks to our good friends in Glacier's Cultural Resources Program, including Jean, Anya, Keiko, Sierra, Brent, and Kyle. We couldn't make the show without them. The oral histories you heard describing the Japanese American incarceration were from Tsuguo "Ike" Ikeda, Sue Kunitomi Embrey, and David Sakura. Special thanks this episode to Jami Belt, Sarah Bone, Judy Ehrlich, Anneliese Jakle, Marc Johnson, Titus Peachy, Jack Polzin, Chuck Sheley, Dr. Bradley Snow, Rick Tejada-Flores, Andy Uhrich, Sarah Williams, The Film and Media Archive at Washington University in St. Louis, The Montana Historical Society, and the Mansfield Library at University of Montana. [music ends]

Conviction and compromise. Two anti-war movements converge in Glacier National Park in the 1940s. Does moderation belong in the middle of World War II?

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Episode 6

Switchback | Where Is an Eagle From?

Transcript

Daniel: [hypnotic synth starts] Headwaters is brought to you by the park's nonprofit partner, the Glacier Conservancy. Donations from listeners to the Conservancy are what make Headwaters possible. If you'd like to support the show, go to glacier.org. Beyond that, leaving a review in your podcast app or sending this episode to a friend is a big help.

Gaby: [western tanager birdsong] Where I'm from, there are parrots. Their chartreuse green and cinnamon red is everywhere. At the beach, they perch on palm trees, above loud streets filled with traffic. They build their homes on telephone poles. tree swallow birdsong] At soccer games, they fly and squawk overhead. So, like most people, I've always assumed they belong here. I'm from Miami. And to me, home and parrots are inseparable. But I only really noticed them in the first place because of my mom. My mom's love for animals has been around longer than I have. She says her first true love was a chicken named "Teresita." Her second was a canary named "Flautín." She groomed Flautín's nails, and he taught her to whistle and mimic bird songs. Flautín and Teresita are long gone. But when my mom video calls me with an unfamiliar parakeet perched on her shoulder, I'm really not surprised. It all started when my mom was on a walk and a flash of red popped out from the leaves of a tree. She sweetly greeted it in Spanish: "Hola." The parrot cocked its head and responded, [in parrot voice] "hola" right back. She found out later the parrot was an escaped pet named Perri. The exotic bird rides on my mom's shoulder all morning until her owners come and pick her up.

Gaby's Mom: ...Y le empecé hablar, "¡Hola, hola! Chiquitín, que cosa más hermosa." Yo lo veía, y me miraba y me decía, "chee, chee, chee."

Gaby: As funny as it sounds, this isn't a unique story. Pet birds escape and survive in Miami all the time. Many species of non-native parrots have become established in city parks. [music fades out] That is, they now nest and reproduce on their own. [American robin birdsong, hypnotic synth fades back in] Today, you can find flocks of parrots in Chicago and Brooklyn, in Tokyo, and Barcelona, countless cities across the world where they once arrived as pets, but have now settled in as residents. The parrots of Miami aren't native there either—they're pretty far from their home range—but nonetheless, people appreciate seeing them around the city. And this part of the story isn't unique either [music fades out]. Many non-native species are disparaged for their negative impact on the local habitat, but others are widely celebrated. A few examples— honeybees are loved for pollinating our foods, but are not native to the Americas—they're from Asia. Oryx are prized by big game hunters in New Mexico, but they're native to the Kalahari Desert [starting flute notes of "Wild West" by Frank Waln fade in] in Africa. Another example is a type of fish here in Glacier National Park: kokanee salmon. Kokanee are at the heart of this episode about non-native species. [drumbeat starts] They were introduced to the region over a century ago, and for a long time they were celebrated [strings start] until everything fell apart.

Music: ["Wild West" plays]

Gaby: Welcome to Headwaters, a show about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. I'm Gaby. We're calling this season "Switchback." We're telling stories about when the park went in a different direction, like a switchback on a trail. This episode is about native and introduced plants and animals, and our relationship with them.

Glacier Superintendent: Kokanee salmon, an introduced species, have become the most frequently caught fish in Lake McDonald, Superintendent of the Park, William Briggle, 1969.

Gaby: In the 1960s and '70s, thousands of kokanee salmon migrated into Glacier every fall. These non-native fish were an excellent food source for bald eagles, so much so that the eagles started to gather in the park every year to feast. [drum hit]

Woman #1: Kokanee salmon were planted into Flathead Lake in about 1916.

Gaby: This is Becky Williams, who was a park naturalist in the 1980s.

Becky Williams: And by the 1930s, some of them had found their way to Lower McDonald Creek. That had ideal spawning conditions for kokanee.

Man #1: Lower McDonald Creek is about 60 miles as the raven flies from Flathead Lake.

Gaby: And this is Dave Shea. He studied the park's bald eagles in the '70s and '80s. [drum hit]

Dave Shea: But they would come this far because the spawning conditions were so good. The cold, clear, clean water. [drum hit, pulsing synth fades in]

Becky Williams: The fry would hatch out and swim down to Flathead Lake and live there for four years. And then come up and spawn.

Dave Shea: Kokanee are actually a landlocked form of the Pacific sockeye salmon, and these kokanee would average maybe 12 to 14 inches long.

Becky Williams: The salmon had a four-year cycle. They would come up and spawn and that was the end of their life cycle. So they'd die.

Dave Shea: But they would show up here in Lower McDonald Creek by the thousands, somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 every year. So it was quite a phenomenon.

Becky Williams: The dead fish [low rhythmic vibrations fade in] were an easy food source for the migrating young bald eagles. They could just flounder around as they pleased and pick up dead fish off the banks.

Dave Shea: And that's when when the eagles started showing up. [drumbeat starts]

Gaby: During the 20th century, bald eagle numbers were declining, but you could still find them in Glacier with a little luck.

Becky Williams: By the late '30s, there were a number of eagles that would show up there.

Dave Shea: And the first record of bald eagles in any concentration in the park was in 1939, and that's when 37 of them were counted.

Becky Williams: And that number stayed fairly steady.

Gaby: Then unexpectedly in 1962, there was a major congregation of them in the park. Every fall, more and more eagles gathered in Glacier. Even while their numbers remained low elsewhere across the country.

Dave Shea: So a maximum count on one day in a seven-mile stretch was 639 bald eagles.

Gaby: And they kept coming because of an abundant—but non-native—food source.

Becky Williams: There were so many dead fish that on occasion the white-tailed deer would eat fish.

Dave Shea: At one time, the largest concentration of bald eagles—

Becky Williams: The largest concentration south of Canada and Alaska. The word got out and people came from all over the country. [music fades out]

Gaby [to Dave Shea]: How long were you involved in the eagle project?

Dave Shea: Let's see... 1971 through '77 is when we kind of did some preliminary counting. And then from there, from '77 to about '93 is when we were actually doing the research project.

Gaby: In the '70s, bald eagles were rare and declining across the country, so biologists kept track of their numbers in Glacier. To count the eagles, Dave would climb into a canoe at first light. The trees were decorated with fresh snow and there was ice along the bank. As he floated down, he counted each bald eagle he passed.

Dave Shea: At one point, where McDonald Creek hits the Middle Fork, we actually tipped over. We ran into some ice and things there. And then at that point, the road to the Quarter Circle Bridge was all snowed in. So we had to continue on for four more miles down the Middle Fork through the ice [chuckles]. And we did some some hard paddling to stay warm.

Gaby: Dave always paused in front of a big tree that the eagles like to perch in. Later on, when that tree died, Dave thought maybe it was because it had been covered in so much eagle poop all the time.

Dave Shea: [eagle calls] To be able to document the increase in birds, and then ultimately, the decrease, you know, it's pretty, pretty unique situation.

Gaby: The National Park Service deals with these kinds of unique non-native situations all the time. Remember the non-native African oryx in New Mexico that I mentioned earlier? White Sands National Park built a big fence to keep them out of the park. Lots of parks, including Glacier, use herbicides to strategically remove invasive weeds. To help deal with and define these challenges, the Park Service often uses three words. First is the term "native."

Peri: A native species is a plant animal or any other organism that occurs in a place because of natural processes.

Gaby: Second is "non-native."

Peri: Non-native species are plants and animals living in areas where they don't naturally exist. Non-native species are frequently called "exotic," "alien," or "introduced."

Gaby: And finally, there's the term "invasive."

Peri: Invasive species are specific type of non-native species that cause some kind of significant harm. They're a leading cause of biodiversity loss and declines of endangered species.

Gaby: In this episode, kokanee salmon on their own are not particularly harmful to the rest of the environment, so we won't call them invasive, but they are an introduced or non-native species. Another example in this episode that you'll hear about are lake trout. [hypnotic synth fades in] They are a highly invasive species. In fact, they have devastated Glacier's native fish populations on the west side of the park. It's 1984. Bald eagles are on the endangered species list, and Kay is in town on a business trip. She knows Glacier National Park is nearby, but it's November, so she's not planning to visit. [music fades out] Then one of her chatty coworkers starts talking to her about congregations of bald eagles. He says she needs to go to the park. "Trust me," he says. For most people in 1984, bald eagles are a rare sight. So Kay decides to take a slow drive to the park and the experience changes her life. She parks in Apgar and walks the few hundred yards towards the bridge as the trees open, Kay starts to see the flocks of eagles on Lower McDonald Creek. She stands with a crowd of visitors on the Camas Bridge. A park ranger offers Kay a look through a spotting scope. The lens reveals a bird the size of a child that is ripping apart a bright red fish. There's a hush over the crowd as they listen to the eagles chatter and chatter. [synth fades back in] Kay will eventually move to the area, in part because of her experience with the eagles. When fall arrives, and she drives back into the park to see the eagles, the spectacle and all of the eagles are gone. Decades later, one of our producers, Michael, is confronted about the eagles while working at a visitor center.

Michael: He comes up to me and, you know, I do the normal like, "hey, how can I help you?" And [laughing] he just kind of looked at me and was like:

Gaby: 'the eagles are gone."

Michael: "I'm sorry. [chuckling nervously] I don't know. I don't know what you mean."

Gaby: "the epic congregations of eagles. They're gone now."

Michael: I had no idea what he was talking about. And he just said it with such... confidence.

Gaby: The hundreds of eagles that impressed people for decades. The eagles that brought in television crews, the eagles that rip the heads off of fish, the eagles that made people want to move here—they're gone now.

Michael: He needed some explanation for why this thing not only wasn't happening anymore, but wasn't even remembered. And that was the first time I'd ever learned about the eagle congregation on Lower McDonald Creek. [mischievous piano music fades in]

Woman #2: We all kind of lived and breathed it for a few months in the fall. It was just magical.

Gaby: That's Elaine Caton.

Elaine Caton: I was a freshman, had just moved to Missoula a couple of months before to go to college, and then some friends and I went up one weekend and and, you know, I really didn't know have any idea what to expect.

Woman #3: And, well, it was just spectacular.

Gaby: And that's Mary McFadzen. Mary and Elaine worked together researching Glacier's bald eagles in the 1980s.

Elaine Caton: Many hours staring through spotting scopes together, [music fades out, laughter in background] looking at eagle nests, over the years.

Mary McFadzen: I mean, you know, everybody's like, "oh look at that eagle, look at that one, that one got a fish."

Elaine Caton: Then you could hear the eagles, like, chattering. They'd be chattering. I mean, that's the best word I can think to describe it.

Mary McFadzen: You know, and everybody's pointing things out, and they had spotting scopes. Everybody's got binoculars, and the crowds were just going wild and [laughing] we had to keep people quiet because it's like the eagles are right there.

Elaine Caton: Yeah, I, just like Mary, I remember just being on that bridge [pulsing synth fades in] and being amazed and, you know, it's beautiful and—

Mary McFadzen: And so, you know, from a landscape perspective, it was just it's just gorgeous.

Elaine Caton: You know, you'd get up before dawn and be going out there and watching or catching birds or whatever and—

Mary McFadzen: Yeah, we'd arrive at the bridge and of course there's always people there.

Elaine Caton: —and then when you were frozen, you'd come back and, [chuckles] you know, somebody would give you a hot chocolate and you'd sit around talking about the morning and how it went.

Mary McFadzen: You know, the numbers of people increase throughout the day and we we'd hang out as long as we could. But it was cold on some days. [pulsing synth, decisive drumbeat, low rhythmic vibrations fade in]

Gaby: The eagle congregations were a big draw for tourists, but they also raised a lot of scientific questions.

Elaine Caton: Besides the viewing at McDonald Creek Bridge, there was also a blind, you know, and we did capture birds, to, to mark them sometimes.

Gaby: And because bald eagles were both iconic and a threatened species, park managers wanted to know more about their congregations in the park.

Mary McFadzen: You know, freezing cold, looking for bird tracks. Get to the blind. We have buckets of fish.

Elaine Caton: Not knowing if there were grizzly bears up there in the dark [laughing]...

Mary McFadzen: We'd walk down to the oxbow—

Elaine Caton: So going out there to to set the traps up and—

Mary McFadzen: You know, and then you just setting the traps, your fingers are frozen.

Elaine Caton: —steel jaw traps like those used to catch large mammals. But the hinges, the spring on the traps were loosened so that they didn't close as tightly as they would—

Mary McFadzen: Yeah, using padded leg-hold traps is really standard practice then for trapping all sorts of well, eagles in other parts of the country.

Elaine Caton: —then we wrapped the jaws of the trap, the ones that would close on a foot with foam padding—

Mary McFadzen: And we take the fish and attach it to a stake in the creek. And then we'd put the leg-hold traps around that—

Elaine Caton: Someone would always put their fingers in and let the traps close on their fingers to make sure it wouldn't hurt. You know.

Mary McFadzen: The theory is that eagle comes in and they would be walking around and pecking at the fish and then take a step and get caught in the leg-hold trap.

Gaby: From the '60s and well into the '90s, [music fades out] park biologists studied and surveyed the eagles, capturing and marking the birds—either with wing tags or a radio transmitter—allowed them to tell the eagles apart, and track them throughout the year.

Elaine Caton: That's one thing about being able to identify an animal is that it suddenly makes it an individual and not just—we like to connect individuals, I think.

Mary McFadzen: —and then when you did catch a bird, you know, someone would be holding the eagle, usually two people—

Elaine Caton: —and put a hood on it, you know, like a falconer’s hood.

Mary McFadzen: And then we'd take them back and, you know, process them, as they say, and take measurements, and if it was a decision made to put a transmitter on it, we put a backpack transmitter on it. If the wing markers were determined, we'd put a wing markers on it, too. And then I think after that, when we're ready to go, we would drive back and release it and everybody would be happy, including the eagle [laughter in background].

Gaby: One of the eagles they caught was a young female. They put bright orange markers on her shoulders that said "A68" so that she could be identified from a distance. She was fit and feisty. So they also put a lightweight radio transmitter on her. [eagle call, mischievous piano fades in] This way, someone could follow her throughout the winter and find all the places she called home. For Elaine and Mary, the scientific spectacle of studying the eagles was... life changing. However, they say the friendships, mentorship, and community that surrounded the research was equally impactful.

Elaine Caton: For me at least, it's really hard to separate, you know, the biology, learning about the eagles and seeing them. But, you know, the people we worked with were on an equal footing in a different way, or they just gave it so much depth... and it was just an amazing experience... in a number of aspects, not just the scientific part of it.

Gaby: Mary and Elaine can't help but bring up Riley and Pat McClelland, a lot. Riley and Pat were biologists at Glacier for a long time, and beloved community members. Their care and support for their team seems almost tangible—even all these years later.

Elaine Caton: And we were sort of their adopted kids. [laughter in background] I mean, they we had Thanksgiving dinners with them—

Gaby [to Elaine]: Aw.

—they just took care of all of us. Anybody who didn't have any place else to go was invited, a big potluck. And it was great. Yeah. Really extraordinary people.

Gaby: Many Montana communities are tight-knit. And sometimes it can be hard for newcomers to feel connected. But the culture Mary and Elaine found in the community of eagle researchers was very welcoming. So welcoming that they went on to dedicate their careers to Montana bird science and conservation. Even today, they're both still concerned about the future of birds in the state.

Mary McFadzen: But that whole history is amazing. And Rachel Carson, I mean, she was, you know, a woman, a female scientist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And thank god we [laughing] have a person like that, you know, back then that wrote about it and then people acted on it [hypnotic synth fades in].

Elaine Caton: I mean, we've had such great success in so many ways, for example, with DDT and raptors. But, you know, we've still seen such declines in birds and—

Becky Williams: Yeah.

Archival Audio: [eagle call] This is the majestic bald eagle unique to North America—

Gaby: It's 1970. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology releases this film to raise awareness about the plight of bald eagles. Only a few hundred of remain in the Lower 48.

Archival Audio: [string music in background]—emblem of the nation. Bald eagles were once abundant throughout most of the continent north of Mexico. But their numbers have been greatly reduced as they have been forced to retreat from advancing civilization to their last refuges in Alaska, Western Canada, and Florida...

Gaby: The trouble begins with the widespread use of insecticides like DDT, or dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane. The US military introduces it to control mosquitoes that transmit malaria and other diseases to troops in World War Two. Soldiers get dusted in it. It saves millions, maybe hundreds of millions of lives from insect-borne diseases. Then people spray it in their homes and on their sofas and encourage their children to ride their bikes behind the spray trucks. The use of DDT spreads like a weed.

Archival Audio: Many eagles recently found dead have been killed by insecticides which are washed into the water by rainfall and build up in the fish which the eagles eat...

Gaby: But then DDT is linked to cancer in people. It builds up in our bodies, and in animals bodies, and remains for a long time. When sprayed, the toxin leaches into waterways where it's absorbed by the fish that the bald eagles will eat. This weakens their eggshells and kills the next generation of eagles. For other birds, simply destroying their food source: insects, is damaging enough.

Archival Audio: — laws and drastic reduction of the use of persistent pesticides. Eagles may soon be gone from their last refuges. Chosen as a national emblem about 200 years ago...

Gaby: Through the 1960s, the voices speaking out against toxins like DDT begin to harmonize. Environmental and social campaigners come together to push for a less toxic society. A scientist named Rachel Carson leads the choir.

Rachel Carson, Archival Audio: And the poison travels from link-to-link of the food chain, and the following springs are silent of robin song. Not because we sprayed the robins directly, but because the poison traveled step-by-step...

Gaby: Carson uses both environmental and social arguments to challenge the use of pesticides. In 1962, she vividly imagines a nightmare spring in which there are no birds to sing. Her revolutionary book becomes sheet music for other activists. [string music fades in]

Archival Audio: CBS Reports: the Silent Spring of Rachel Carson.

Rachel Carson, Archival Audio: They should not be called insecticides, but biocides.

Archival Audio: A spokesman for the chemical industry, Dr. Robert White-Stevens: The major claims in Ms. Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring" are gross distortions of the actual facts. The real threat then, to the survival of man, is not chemical, but biological in the shape of hordes of insects that denude our forests, ravage our food supply and leave in their wake...

Gaby: In 1965, agricultural workers in California are vocal about the harm of pesticides on ag workers. Grape pickers go on strike and millions of people boycott grapes in support. Through organizing and protesting, a coalition of farmworkers led by people like Cesar Chavez and the Dolores Huerta—halts the use of DDT on grape farms.

Dolores Huerta, Archival Audio: Okay, "abajos" now. Things we want to get rid of, alright? Down with racism! [crowd in background: "¡Abajo!"] Down with sexism! [crowd in background: "¡Abajo!"] Down with homophobia! [crowd in background: "¡Abajo!"] Down with pesticides! [crowd in background: "¡Abajo!"] Okay, can all of us working together, can we build a society...

Gaby: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who shares a literary agent with Rachel Carson, writes letters of support to Chavez, and gives speeches linking the civil rights and environmental causes together.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Archival Audio: Down to this that all life is interrelated. [hypnotic synth fades in] We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality.

Gaby: In 1972, the federal government bans DDT. Because of DDT and poaching, bald eagle populations continued to decline across the country. This made Glacier's yearly congregations of hundreds of birds special, but also scientifically interesting. A few pairs of eagles were known to live in Glacier year-round. But the hundreds of eagles at the congregation definitely weren't all native to the area. They had to be migrating through. Everyone wanted to know: where were these eagles coming from? And where were they going? To find out, Glacier's biologists followed the eagles all winter long.

Harriet Allen: My name's Harriet Allen.

Gaby: One of these biologists was Harriet Allen.

Harriet Allen: And I worked on the eagle project in 1980 and '81.

Gaby: Elaine and Mary, who we heard from earlier, would catch and mark eagles that were feeding on the salmon in Glacier. Then, it was Harriet's job to track those eagles.

Harriet Allen: Well, it was a huge mystery where they were coming from and where they were going to once they left Glacier.

Gaby: Harriet's work helped confirm that the bald eagles congregating in the fall were not park residents, or at least not native-born ones. They were coming from their summers in Canada and heading south to spend their winters in the United States.

Harriet Allen: It was a very big mystery as to where they went. You know, here they were at Glacier in the fall, feeding on fish, and now they're down here in the desert in Utah, feeding on jackrabbits. And some of these are hatch-year birds, so they're just off the nest that year, so they don't have a memory of where these places are. So somehow, they were communicating.

Gaby: If you did this project again today, it would be a lot easier.

Harriet Allen: Well, it was before we had GPS collars.

Gaby: You'd put a tiny satellite tracker on the eagle and then you'd sit back on the couch and the data would be beamed right into your smart watch. But back then, you had to hold a radio antenna and listen for beeping pulses.

Harriet Allen: So we had to have line of sight to locate the eagles. And they were fitted with transmitters that had two different pulse rates.

Gaby: Whenever the eagles perched:

Harriet Allen: Slower rate.

Gaby: And whenever the eagles were flying?

Harriet Allen: It was a fast pulse.

Gaby: So at the beginning of each fall, Harriet was assigned an eagle to shadow for the winter.

Harriet Allen: Exactly.

Gaby: Then she waited for her eagle to start migrating.

Harriet Allen: And then waiting until they took off. And they all took off at different times, of course.

Gaby: In 1981, she spent the winter in her Toyota Corolla, trying to stay right behind one of the migrating bald eagles. It was a young bird with orange winged tags labeled A68. But Harriet called her Patience.

Harriet Allen: Patience was one of the first ones.

Gaby: Traveling like an eagle was tough. Harriet had to stick to highways, while Patience could take shortcuts over mountains and across lakes.

Harriet Allen: Luckily, they perch at night so you could sleep at night. There were a couple other birds that went south, and so sometimes you could pick up more than one bird at a time. But you were focused on that particular one bird to stay with them.

Gaby: But it was also intimate. They spent their days together. Harriet and Patience both traveled light, picking up food as they went. The two of them tracked south and southwest, until they hit the Idaho-Oregon border. For a while, Patience rested on a big island in the middle of the Snake River.

Harriet Allen: Well when Patience went south into Idaho, she would perch everyday on this big cottonwood tree on the island, I could watch her from the other side. At one point, I lost the signal. I thought "well, she's taken off. She's gone further south, probably." And so I got a small plane chartered to go up and look and see if I could find her. And oddly enough, I was getting the signal I could pick up a very weak signal. Still back on the island. And so that was very odd. And it was also in a fast pulse. And immediately... I was concerned.

Gaby: So remember, fast pulse meant the transmitter was horizontal. That usually meant the eagle was flying, except Patience wasn't. So that could mean one of two things: the transmitter fell off... [building tense synth] or something worse.

Harriet Allen: When I was flying, I was listening for her signal. And once we confirmed that it was coming from the island, then we landed the plane and knew we had to get on the ground. I couldn't get out to the island because I didn't have any way—I didn't have a boat. And so I had to go find some biologists that worked for Oregon. And they took me out to the islands in a boat. And then we tracked the signal.

Gaby: The island was uninhabited. But a local rancher kept some livestock there and had also been using it as a garbage dump.

Harriet Allen: And that's when I found her in this garbage dump buried under a piece of metal siding. You know, like they use on houses, and trailers? And it was covering her up, but it didn't block the signal. Which—it was really sad to see her like that in a garbage... pit.

Gaby: The bird that Harriet had named Patience and spent endless hours watching was dead.

Harriet Allen: He had livestock on the island, and he was afraid that—she hadn't done anything—he was afraid that was gonna get his livestock. So. He drove up under the tree and shot her.

Gaby: The poacher killed Patience because he thought she was a threat to his livestock.

Harriet Allen: They had taken the wing markers off of her, but thankfully didn't see the transmitter.

Gaby: Harriet retrieved Patience and helped collect evidence at the site.

Harriet Allen: There was some paperwork that we found in the dump that had this name on it, and he ended up saying, yes he had shot the bird.

Gaby: The person who shot and killed Patience confessed. The case went to court and Harriet testified about Glacier's eagle research. The poacher was sentenced and fined $2,500, which in 2024 would equate to about $9,000. The court ruled that about half of that fine would go to support Glacier's bald eagle research.

Harriet Allen: It was six-months suspended jail sentence. And a lot of people came in to testify in support of him in all about his character and how much he loved wildlife. Sometimes people define wildlife differently. [hypnotic synth fades in] I was... devastated to find her like that. It was just a shock to lift up the piece of metal and see this beautiful, majestic bird. Placed in a garbage dump. [eagle call]

Gaby: It's 1987, in a small town just outside of Glacier National Park and lots is happening. [music fades] The headlines in the paper read "Horse Dies on Trail." "Fish-full Thinking: Kokanee Hotspots." And "Shrimp in Water. Non-hazardous." The last one catches my attention. Here's the first line: "With every mouthful of water you swallow, you are ingesting a mouthful of tiny freshwater shrimp." The director of the lab that is testing water samples says, "eating the shrimp is no more harmful than eating fish. There's lots of microorganisms in water. The shrimp just show up because they're bigger." The city says that its tests are consistently coming up 100% safe. Mysis shrimp are cold water loving and can be almost too small to see, but not quite. Sometimes called "opossum shrimp," they are not native to this area. If you have a goldfish, you might even buy a kind of mysis shrimp as pet food, being advertised as "excellent for all types of fish!" Except for perhaps one. But we'll get to that. The town chemically treats its drinking water, but somehow the newspaper says the shrimp survive the chlorination process. [drum hit] Eventually, they will upgrade to a filter system that removes things like shrimp. [drumbeat starts] Stick with me here because things get kind of weird. Two decades before the news article on shrimp in the drinking water, these shrimp are introduced into the waters of Flathead County. And some fisheries managers are hoping that the beloved kokanee will eat them and get bigger, more populous. Everyone loves the salmon migration and the eagle congregations. Why not make a good thing better? As the years go by, the kokanee are not eating the mysis shrimp. They would. But the problem is the shrimp are nocturnal, and the kokanee are active during the day. They miss each other, like the sun and the moon. To make matters worse, the mysis shrimp starts spending the nights eating the kokanee's favorite food: zooplankton. As if this all wasn't bad enough, another introduced fish—lake trout—are happy to stay up late eating shrimp. Then, as the lake trout get bigger, they start eating the kokanee. The whole system devolves rapidly. And by 1989, the kokanee virtually disappear from Glacier and the lake trout take over the watershed. With this new food source, the lake trout population expands. They go from being a troublesome invader to an all out invasive crisis. The lake trout spread throughout Glacier and caused major declines in native fish populations. To put it all more simply, the eagles are native. The kokanee the eagles are eating are not native. The shrimp which the fish won't eat are not native either. The shrimp were introduced to make more kokanee. But because ecology is complicated and weird, the opposite happens, and kokanee populations crash. With the kokanee gone, the eagles no longer have a reason to congregate in Glacier, [pulsing synth and bass fade in] so they don't [drumbeat starts]. The glorious congregations of bald eagles that everyone came to see, the eagles that made communities of scientists and naturalists, that brought attention to DDT, that inspired people to migrate with them all winter in their Toyota Corollas... the eagles that made people love birds—they're gone now.

Music: [mischievous piano, distorted archival audio saying "Today's national park system is both more and less than it might be" plays then fades out slowly]

Gaby: Before all of this, before the peak counts of eagles, and before the kokanee salmon populations crashed in the late 1980s, there existed an unpopular opinion: that the salmon didn't belong in the park. [music ends] In 1969, the State of Montana proposed introducing another species of non-native salmon into the area: the coho salmon. Unlike the kokanee, who eat zooplankton, coho salmon eat other fish. Glacier's managers strongly opposed the idea. They worried that if the coho were introduced, they would eat the park's native fish. The park superintendent said they wouldn't be so concerned if the coho only ate the kokanee. That same year, 1969, park biologists started looking at ways to remove the kokanee salmon from the park. Some thought that since they were not native, they should be kept out or kicked out. The first idea was to simply construct a large barrier that would block the migrating salmon from entering the park. A kind of fish dam. But that never went anywhere. The next idea was chemical. The plan was to pour a chemical called "morpholine" into the water to "imprint" the baby fish. Then four years later, when those fish were returning to spawn, they would pour the chemical into a different creek outside of the park. If it worked, the salmon would go there instead of into the park. But this idea was never implemented either. And when the salmon migrations eventually collapsed, it was not because people tried to stop them, but because people tried to encourage them. [hypnotic synth and eagle calls]

Mary McFadzen: You know we'd go and there just be a few eagles, like 30 or 40 or something, you know, just low numbers. And it's like "aw." So we cherished each one we got to count [laughing] because there were so few of them.

Daniel: The local newspaper, Hungry Horse News, in August 1987: "Kokanee salmon are the most popular fish in northwest Montana. But the fishing in Flathead Lake this year is, in a word, terrible."

Elaine Caton: I mean, it's funny. People always think they can—we can make things better, right, by doing more stuff.

Dave Shea: It was kind of a gradual thing, [music fades out] but it was certainly... a big difference in something that had been going on for for all those years and then suddenly was not.

Harriet Allen: At least to not let that be forgotten. That was an incredible aggregation that occurred at Glacier and it was a huge thing during those years. And then all of a sudden it was gone.

Daniel: Biologists counted only 144 fish on Tuesday, and they say that bald eagles may not stay long, because of the limited food source. October 7th, 1987.

Elaine Caton: Even though they were non-native, they had provided this amazing food source for eagles.

Becky Williams: Many of them probably still use this general route flying south. But there wasn't any big Thanksgiving feast for them like there used to be.

Daniel: What's the kink in the food link? The annual Bald Eagle Convention has failed to materialize so far this fall. But one must remember the entire eagle salmon attraction was man-induced. Even if it's not a natural occurrence, the Eagle Show is fun to watch, and it's popular. We hope the salmon fix this sudden kink in the food chain. October 21, 1987.

Elaine Caton: Also just provided this opportunity for people to learn... thanks to the work of the naturalists and the biologists, you know they could learn about animal migration and... I don't know. So it was so it was hard that way. I mean, it was tough.

Becky Williams: And it probably put a major adverse impact on the young eagles because they no longer had a food source that was so easily accessible.

Dave Shea: Yeah, it was another exotic species in the park. So even though the whole thing was not natural, again, it was a really important thing for these endangered birds, a really good source of of nutrition for 'em at a critical time of the year.

Daniel: Glacier National Park Interpreters wait for Eagle Viewers at McDonald Creek. A lack of significant numbers of eagles this fall has caused a drop in visitors to the area. November 1987.

Harriet Allen: I think recognizing how quickly something like that can be lost when you think, " Oh no, they'll be here forever and here's so many." And—but I think it's an important part of Glacier's story.

Gaby: The most eagles ever recorded in the park's congregations was in 1981. Remember, Dave counted 639. But six years later, when he got back into his canoe, a lot had changed. The weather was the same, but the salmon were gone. And so, for the most part, were the eagles. The big tree, now dead from all the eagle poop, only had one eagle left on it. The paper ran a photograph of rangers standing all alone on the once-packed Camas Bridge. The headline read "Empty Bridge."

Daniel: Kokanee numbers are low and eagle visits are likely to be few as well, leaving Glacier National Park without its major fall attraction for a second year in a row. It looks depressingly similar to last year. September 1988.

Becky Williams: I feel lucky. And when. There wasn't climate change threat like there is now. I think everybody in my generation feels the same way. And we... regret that younger generations won't experience what we did. So that makes activists out of some people.

Gaby: The congregations on Lower McDonald Creek have disappeared and those eagles have dispersed and found different migration stops. But in the decades since the 1980s, bald eagles have made a comeback. What was once a species on the brink of extinction is now a relatively common sight.

Woman #4: This is truly a historic conservation success story.

Gaby: That Secretary Deb Haaland, the first native person to lead the Department of the Interior.

Secretary Deb Haaland: The bald eagle has always been considered a sacred species to American Indian people. Similarly, it's sacred to our nation, as America's national symbol. The strong return of this treasured bird reminds us of our nation's shared resilience and the importance of being responsible stewards of our lands and waters that bind us together.

Gaby: In the 1960s, scientists estimated there were fewer than 500 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the United States. Today, thanks to continued conservation efforts, there are over 70,000 nesting pairs—out of a population that numbers 300,000. [hypnotic synth starts, eagle call] It's 2022 and I'm moving from Florida to Montana. My new coworkers and neighbors greet me with so much kindness and generosity. They pick me up from the tiny local airport and show me around. We go to the grocery store together and in the parking lot I'm greeted by bumper stickers—and they're pretty widespread. "Don't California My Montana." "Montana's Full. Go Back to California." [music fades out] But one particular sticker really gets to me: "Keep Out Invasive Species." It has outlines of several states, including Florida. As in, people from those states are outsiders, invasive species that do not belong here, and that they—meaning me—should be kept out. Or kicked out. What does it mean to be from somewhere? When do we start to call a place home? And how do we know that we belong? An eagle born in another country can be native to glacier. A fish that's never left local waters can be invasive. Where I'm from, there are parrots. And they are native because I was born in Venezuela, where parrots have lived longer than people, but I grew up in Florida, where the parrots have arrived only recently. So, when I'm asked, it's often easier to say I'm from Miami. Both those things are true. I'm from Miami, and I'm from Venezuela. And actually, from a bunch of other places too. In a piece for Orion Magazine, Anjali Vaidya wrote: "I look like no one in my family photos. I look like all of them, [waxwing and Swainson's thrush birdsong fade in] I don’t fit categories well [hypnotic synth starts]—but scratch the surface, and none of us do.”

Gaby [to Woman #5]: Everyone has brought up how good it felt to be here in the fall, even though it's cold. Even though it's a little quieter and it's a time of change. How good it felt to just be here in this community and to feel like they belonged and that they... had a purpose.

Woman #5: There is definitely a sense of community I have, [American robin song, music fades out] but I still feel this really deep connection with the park, even though I haven't worked for the Park Service for so many years.

Gaby: Ellen Horowitz guided hundreds of visitors to see the bald eagles during their fall congregations.

Ellen Horowitz: I'm Ellen Horowitz. [voices audible in background] I'm a former Glacier National Park naturalist. I started with the Park Service in 1981 and worked in the park through 1993 [red-breasted nuthatch in background].

Gaby: She led walks and made a papier mâché kokanee salmon for kids to look at. She set up spotting scopes and shared binoculars.

Ellen Horowitz: We'd usually have two scopes set up out here when there'd be a lot of people. And there were times when it could be pretty, pretty crowded. It was busy. I mean, there were just—there was one day it was like, "Hey Doug, you rea—you realize we have reached a thousand people. I mean, a thousand people have come out here to see this! "

Gaby: Eagles migrating in the fall was the center of her year in Glacier.

Ellen Horowitz: I mean, there was always a sense of like, this is something really special. You know, this is something to be really respectful of. And so, of course, we encouraged people to just like, you know, be as quiet as they could. But, you know, you can only do so much as far as that goes because it's exciting. When you see eagles, it's like, "woah."

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Wow.

Ellen Horowitz: It was yours for that little bit of time. You know, it belonged to you. That you could just have this opportunity to just look out and to see, you know, the eagles sitting that close to you and without disturbing them.

Gaby: On a late summer morning, the two of us walked along the creek where she used to guide visitors to see the eagles.

Ellen Horowitz: I'm just looking right now at this old stump. [Gaby laughing in background] Oh my gosh. That tree growing out of it is so tall. I remember when it was this big.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: [laughing] you remember that tree?

Ellen Horowitz: Oh gosh! Yeah, I do. I don't know how tall that tree is now. Six feet, maybe more?

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Probably.

Ellen Horowitz: But it was probably—I remember when it was six inches! And all of the little forget-me nots-that were flowers... gone feral!

Gaby: [footsteps] As we're talking, Ellen really can't help but notice everything and everyone around her. When I ask her a question, she first looks around and then responds.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: What was it like walking this trail with people who had never seen something like this and had just gotten their orientation?

Ellen Horowitz: I, I don't remember that so much. But what I do remember walking through was this European mountain ash tree, right here. And I remember... often stopping at this tree—bears would sometimes... they would have been out here, ahead of us. But I do remember talking about some of the marks on this tree because I just—I love it. And—

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Oh wow. You can really see them.

Yeah—you can see where... deer may have been rubbing some antlers, here's marks from sapsuckers right here.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: These sort of perfect ovals, all in a row.

Ellen Horowitz: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just perfect and just...

Gaby: And suddenly, it feels like I'm the visitor. And Ellen is taking me back in time to one of her programs.

Ellen Horowitz: There are—there's a couple of native mountain ash, but—

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: They're smaller, right?

Ellen Horowitz: They are lot smaller, yeah. The European mountain ash tend to grow tall like this. Yeah. There's also some maple trees right here that are not our—

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Right.

Ellen Horowitz: —native maple. So I probably would have talked about—mentioned it, but not... not dwell on it particularly. And so this would have been planted by someone, you know, maybe who had a cabin here. And the same with the maples. I wouldn't call this tree, you know, an invasive, or the maple. And I try to be careful with with saying like "non-native plants" because not all non-native plants are invasives.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Mhm.

Ellen Horowitz: I do see a difference. I don't know that I necessarily think of a non-native species as being bad. I just notice it as... and think about in terms of "how did this get here?"

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: I love that. I think that's something that I've been thinking about a lot with this story is that... I'm trying to move into calling them "introduced species" because I think it implies that they have a story, and that people had a role in how they got here.

Ellen Horowitz: And I love that you call them introduced. I'm going to start using that one. [Gaby laughs] I think it's way better.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Yeah!

Ellen Horowitz: Yeah, it is. Yeah, It doesn't mean that they're bad, you know, it's just... they're there. And you know who planted them. Now, those are the—some of the things I think about. [eagle call]

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Totally. [eagle calls, water sounds, gasp] Look who it is.

Ellen Horowitz: Oh, you got—wow! Okay.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: [laughing] And right there, that's a bald eagle!

Ellen Horowitz: Yeah, hello eagle. [Gaby laughs] Good spotting! [starting string music of "Runaway" by Frank Waln fades in]

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Aw. Ellen's waving hello. Hello!

Ellen Horowitz: Wow. That was so... perfect.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: [laughs] Aw. Wow. The white on its head and tail are so crisp.

Oh yeah, and some of those last flaps before going out of view—that tail... just seemed to shimmer. Yeah. That was neat.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Incredible.

Ellen Horowitz: Yeah.

Gaby [to Ellen Horowitz]: Yeah.

Music: ["Runaway" plays with red-breasted nuthatch birdsong in background]

Gaby: This show is only possible because of donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. Learn more at glacier.org. If you liked this episode, share it with a friend who might appreciate it. Also, we'd love it if you gave us a rating and review in your podcast app. Frank Waln makes our music and Stella Nall created our art. Check them out on Instagram. Headwaters is made by me, Gaby Eseverri, Daniel Lombardi, Peri Sasnett, Madeline Vinh, and Michael Faist with support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Elizabeth Maki, and Sofia Britto. Thanks to our good friends in Glacier's Cultural Resources Program, including Jean, Anya, Keiko, Sierra, Brent, and Kyle. We couldn't make the show without them. This episode was inspired by the talented Anjali Vaidya. Special thanks to Harriet Allen, Lisa Bate, Dr. Elaine Caton, Steve Gniadek, Ellen Horowitz, Mary T. and Riley McClelland, Mary McFadzen, Genevieve and Dave Shea, Kay Stone, Becky Williams, Dr. Vita Wright, and University of California Television. This episode is in honor of the whole McClelland family. Thanks for listening.

Migration and belonging. A convergence of non-native species helps save, and then scatter, iconic bald eagles. Belonging is not just a feeling: it’s something we build together. What does it mean to be from somewhere?

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Season 5

Episode 1

Climate Interpretation with Diane Sine

Transcript

Lacy Kowalski: Headwaters is brought to you by the Glacier National Park Conservancy.

Peri Sasnett: You're listening to Headwaters, a show about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. My name is Peri, and this episode is an interview that my co-host Daniel did with longtime park ranger and educator Diane Sine about telling stories about our glaciers to park visitors.

Peri: This is one in a series of conversations we've been having with a wide variety of climate change experts. They don't have to be listened to in any order. Each one stands on its own and they all focus on a particular aspect of the way the world is being altered by the burning of fossil fuels. Over the past century and a half, human activity has released enough greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's climate more than one degree Celsius, with only more warming on the way. Throughout 2023, Daniel sat down with experts to talk about how that warming is altering Glacier National Park, our lives, and our futures.

[Theme music fades in.]

Peri: This is one of my favorite interviews in a long time. Diane is an amazing person, a local legend, really. And I found her stories surprising and resonant. She's been visiting the park's glaciers for decades and has seen so much change firsthand. I think you'll really enjoy this conversation.

Daniel Lombardi: So, Diane Sine, welcome to the podcast, welcome back to the podcast.

Diane Sine: Thank you, Daniel.

Daniel: Will you remind people who you are, where you work, how long you've been doing it?

Diane: My name is Diane Signe and I work at Many Glacier. I'm the lead interpreter over there and I have been in the park for quite a while. I've been in interpretation pretty much all my adult life during the summers here and even before that, when I was a college student, I worked at the Many Glacier Hotel. So I've been hanging around Many Glacier since 1980.

Daniel: Wow. So maybe let's start with what is many glacier for someone who's, like, never been to Glacier. And then I am curious to hear about your first time visiting many Glacier.

Diane: So Many Glacier as a region of the park with a rather confusing name. Yes, we get the fact that it's improper English, "Many" is plural, "Glacier" is singular. So there's one of the first problems right there, but it's simply a region of the park. The Many Glacier Hotel is there. And the name came about in the early years of the park, simply referring to the fact that there were multiple glaciers at the head of the valleys, pretty much a glacier at the head of each one of the valleys.

Daniel: Yeah. Which is like four or five glaciers or something. It's not like many, many glaciers, right? A few, right? It's Many Glacier.

Diane: And it sort of sounds like "mini" glacier, as in "tiny glacier." So we get confusion about people thinking that it's "mini glacier." Sure. Hey, maybe that's an appropriate name in some ways.

[Music fades in and then concludes.]

Daniel: What is a glacier? What makes Grinnell Glacier actually a glacier?

Diane: Remember, I'm not a geologist. I'm an elementary teacher. So a glacier, whether we're talking about those massive ice age glaciers that were thousands of feet thick, that carved out these valleys in Glacier National Park, or whether we're talking about the comparatively small glaciers that were here. Well, are here today. And we're part of the Little Ice Age. Places such as Grinnell Glacier.

Diane: To have a glacier, you simply have to have a place where more snow falls every winter then can completely melt during the summers. So over the years, that snow builds up, it accumulates. It actually recrystallizes fairly quickly and it forms a dense ice. And once you have this thick, dense ice, you eventually get—and there are lots of variables—but say when it gets to 70 to 100 feet thick, there is so much mass or so much weight pressure that it actually starts to flow. And so the bottom of the glacier starts to flow and there's actually movement. So a glacier is a mass of a moving ice. And that confuses people sometimes. Sometimes they think, well, is it rolling down the valley? And in the case of all these glaciers in Glacier National Park, they're actually becoming smaller all the time. But there's movement within the mass of ice. There's more accumulation of ice at the upper elevation of the glacier, and then the ice flows through. So whether a glacier is growing or receding is simply a matter of economics. Is there is there more snow and ice being added to that mass every year or is there more melting happening? And the reality here is there's more melting happening.

Daniel: Right. Is there is your summer more intense? Or your winter more intense? And that that balance has shifted.

Diane: So one of the fascinating things you mentioned, the moraine, and of course, that's the end of the maintain trail today. And it's a very impressive mass of accumulation of unsorted material. We call it glacial, glacial till. So there are large rocks and boulders in there. And there also is a lot of just very small, almost sand and gravel. But it's it's fascinating to my brain to try to imagine how long the edge of Grinnell Glacier sat at one place for that amount of moraine material to pile up on top of itself in that one location. And the glacier still moves that moraine material. There's still there's still rocks and boulders and gravel and sand within the layers of the ice and being scraped from beneath and become part of the mass of moving ice. But throughout my lifetime, the glacier has been receding so quickly that the modern, quote, marine material is just sort of smeared across the limestone ledges up there. There's no accumulation compared to what created that moraine. That was the edge of the ice when George Bird Grinnell was up there.

Daniel: So it's a mass of ice that moves.

Diane: That's right. The ice within the glacier moves.

Daniel: How did Grinnell Glacier get its name?

Diane: Grinnell Glacier is named for a guy named George Bird Grinnell and George Bird Grinnell was a well-to-do Easterner. He was very interested in the West. He was interested in conservation issues, really. He came from the background of sort of a gentleman hunter. So at that point, George Bird Grinnell was editor of Forest and Stream Magazine, which was kind of the the big outdoorsman journal of that time. And so in that role, he got to know James Willard Schultz. He read Schultz's writings about this area and became interested in exploring it. So Grinnell first came into this area in 1885, and on that trip he got up up into the Swift Current Valley and could could see Grinnell Glacier from a distance and was interested in it. But then he came back in 1887 with a group of other guys, and they actually hiked up to Grinnell Glacier. And it was on that trip that the friends that he was with basically named the big old chunk of ice that they got to for him for Grinnell.

Daniel: So Grinnell didn't name the glacier after himself. His buddies named it for him.

Diane: Right. It appears that his his buddies named it for him, although it also appears from his writings that he probably was very agreeable to having something named after him, would be my guess.

Daniel: And he did then name a ton of mountains and lakes and everything all around the park. He he was throwing out names pretty easily.

Diane: George Bird Grinnell did name all sorts of features in the park. I think it's it's, it's interesting because if you think about it, any noticeable feature, any real obvious kind of feature would have had multiple names already. It's not like there hadn't been people on this landscape for as long as time goes back. So, you know, the Blackfeet, the Kootenai, everybody would have had names for all of these obvious features, but those names hadn't been written down. Some of the names that George Bird Grinnell applied to features in what is today Glacier National Park, very much reflect the kind of trip that he was on in the 1880s. If you go into the Saint Mary Valley, we have names that he gave such as Gunsight Pass, Fusillade Mountain, Single Shot Mountain. And all of those names came from the fact that George Bird Grinnell was on a hunting trip and was thinking a lot about hunting.

Daniel: Yeah.

Diane: So Single Shot Mountain is actually where he did it. In fact, shoot a bighorn sheep with a single shot.

Daniel: Okay. All right, George. So his friends name this glacier for him. He went back many, many times, from my understanding, to Grinnell Glacier and and saw it over the course of his whole adult life, was making trips up to the ice. And I'm curious if you know anything about kind of his how he saw the glacier and how that might have changed over time, because I think early on he made predictions that, you know, this glacier is going to disappear soon.

Diane: Right. In a way, we're really fortunate that George Bird Grinnell, was a writer, and so he very much left evidence of how he thought and his impressions. And even that very first trip up to Grinnell Glacier is well documented because he wrote the whole story in various installments so that he could publish them in Forest and Stream Magazine. So we know that after those first trips where where this area really inspired him, as it does so many of us. And he he first suggested in an article that he published that perhaps this was an area that should be protected with national park status. And that didn't happen right away. There were a lot of people who weren't excited about that idea. But finally the park was established in 1910 and he continued to come back periodically and visit it. So he went from coming into the Swift Current Valley, hiking up to Grinnell Glacier, where there was no trail. They were just finding their own route. Certainly people had been there before, but there wasn't a record of people having been there before. And then he came back in later years after the Many Glacier Hotel was built, a road all the way into the valley, and then a developed park service trail from the hotel up to Grinnell Glacier. And he saw those changes both in visitation and the changes in the glacier, the ice itself.

Daniel: Yeah, we think about like today, we think about living in a an era of such fast and profound change. You know, now. But from his perspective, he was in an era of profound change, too. He went from really an undeveloped wild area to some extent, and then saw that become a tourist hub and a national park and also saw the climate and the environment really changed the glaciers throughout that time, too. And that would have been, what, from the 1880s to the 1930s. Right.

Diane: He very much wrote about the changes in the area due to the, quote, development and visitation. And of course, that was actually something that was partly due to his efforts. It was significantly influenced by his efforts. But basically, he he felt like he had promoted the idea of establishment of a national park for for a greater good. And yet he felt like what had happened as a result of that had basically ruined or certainly compromised the experience that he had personally first had when he had come into this remote wilderness area.

Daniel: Yeah.

Diane: So it's also interesting because he also wrote about the changes in the ice itself. So glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier were probably at their largest size in the mid 1800s. So when George Grinnell was up there in the 1880s, you know, that wasn't that long after the maximum size of, quote, modern Grinnell Glacier. And already by his later trips up into the into the valley, I know in the twenties he was documenting that it had changed dramatically and it was a much smaller glacier than he had originally seen. And of course, that was long before any of us were talking about climate change or really understanding what was going on. But he certainly knew what he was observing and understood that there were changes.

Daniel: He saw those changes happening. Yeah. Hmm. Yeah. So we here in the park, we have a chance to see, you know, in recent decades, climate change and glacier melt that is really almost entirely caused by human climate change. But in George Bird Grinnell's era, that was climate change that was mostly naturally the ending of the Little Ice Age.

Diane: And then we have a lot of records from the park naturalists that were were going up there in the 1920s and 1930s. Morton J. Elrod was the first person employed as a Ranger naturalist, leading hikes up to Grinnell Glacier. And he he was a biology professor from the University of Montana. And so in the mid 1920s, he started to document he had noticed that, you know, every year he was having to actually walk farther to get to the edge of the ice when he went to Grinnell Glacier. So Morton J. Elrod started to document, you know, how many steps it was, how many paces, to get from a certain big rock on the moraine that we now refer to as "Elrod's Rock." And so he set the stage for actual scientific research documenting the changes up there. And so we know that there were pretty dramatic changes, quite dramatic changes in the twenties and thirties. And then it appears that that recession of the glaciers slowed down significantly and then took off again actually after I started working here in the in the 1980s.

Daniel: So one of the things that Grinnell was big on was creating a national park here. He was involved in this area for decades before it was a national park. Then in 1910, Congress makes Glacier National Park a reality. One of the things I know you are particularly fascinated in is how does that name get picked? Glacier National Park. Why is it called that?

Diane: Yeah, I am fascinated by by the whole issue of the name of the park. Because while we have really good documentation for a lot of things, we do not have a document that said, "We are going to establish Glacier National Park and give it that name because," fill in the blank.

Diane: So you come to a place called Glacier National Park, and one of the first questions at a visitor center is, you know, "Where is the glacier?" "Where can I drive to a glacier?" "Where can I touch a glacier?"

Diane: And often people are expecting massive ice fields like you have in Patagonia or up in Alaska. They're they're visualizing something different from what we have today. And so I noticed that in my earlier years as a ranger, I would overhear a lot of other people sort of trying to make it okay with visitors saying, "Oh, well, you know, you're not going to be able to drive to a glacier. But really, the park was named for this glaciated landscape from the Ice Age glaciers. So you're experiencing everything Glacier has by, you know, driving up the St. Mary Valley or the Lake McDonald Valley."

Daniel: So it's kind of confusing because the park does have active existing small mountain glaciers. And 10,000 years and more ago, the park was carved by massive Pleistocene Ice Age glaciers. So both are true. But which one was the park actually named for? That's a little bit murky.

Diane: That that's the question. And that's the question I tried to answer in looking back through the historical documents, it's very evident that before the park was established, before they came up with the name, one of the things that people were really excited about was that this was a place south of Alaska in the United States where you could take the railroad up to the mountains and then you could actually get to glaciers. You know, folks, folks were working really hard to hike up to places like Grinnell Glacier or Sperry Glacier. It was really the West Side glaciers like Sperry Glacier that I think led to that name, because in those early years people would come on the Great Northern Railway and they would make their way up to Lake McDonald, take a boat up the lake. There was no no road at that point. And then they would hike up to Sperry Glacier, and this was a place you could actually hike to a glacier. We have plenty of original documents that make it clear that people were really excited about the fact that there were honest to goodness glaciers here. And we have every reason to believe that. That's why they named it Glacier National Park.

Daniel: It was kind of a or it was actually a a tourist package, basically come stay in our hotel and we will take you to a glacier in Glacier National Park. So you look through early park documents, you look through advertisements that the Great Northern Railway had to try and get people to come visit this place. We look at newspaper articles from when the park was established in 1910, and for the most part everyone's talking about the active, small, glaciers in the mountains here. So it seems that that's probably what they named it for.

Diane: Even even the very first superintendents annual reports that we have in the archives, when they just give an overview of this new national park and what it has to offer to the American people. They emphasize that it has glaciers. And none of those writings ever say. They talk about it being a beautiful place with nice scenery. But they never say, "and it has a glaciated landscape, so it should be called Glacier National Park.".

[Music fades in and then concludes.]

Daniel: How what was your first visit? How did you first come to many Glacier?

Diane: I grew up in Seattle and I grew up in a family that did a lot of camping and hiking and visited national parks with our tent. And so I had come to Glacier on family camping trips a couple of times in my childhood, and I actually distinctly remember the first time I was in the Many Glacier area. We spent a night at Granite Park Chalet. We hiked the Highline in from Logan Pass, and then the next day we hiked over Swiftcurrent Pass and actually hiked into the Many Glacier area coming down from the Continental Divide.

Daniel: Wow. Today, most people take the long, bumpy road in from Babb, but you came in on foot, which is seems really special.

Diane: Yeah. We can almost pretend like I'm an old pioneer or something, but it wasn't quite like that.

Daniel: Tell me how that that led into a career in Many Glacier.

Diane: Yeah, I was one of those nerdy national park fans as, as a child, I loved it when our family camping in national parks. I always was excited to go to the ranger talks in the evenings. So I also remember on on that same trip we came back into Many Glacier another day and we went on the Ranger-Guided boat trip and hiked to Grinnell Lake. And I distinctly remember that that hike was being led by a female ranger, and I believe that was the first time I had ever seen a female ranger, because they weren't that common at that point. And I don't know that it was it was an "aha moment" that set the track, but it was certainly an awareness that, oh, that would be a really cool job.

Daniel: You're in an inspiring place, having a good time and you see someone leading a path that maybe you could follow.

Diane: Absolutely. It looked like it looked like a good life and turns out it is a good life. You know, I want to clarify. I really don't feel like I've had a career in Glacier National Park or career as a ranger, because for me, Glacier has always been a passion more than a career. I had a career as an elementary teacher, and then I would spend my summers working as a ranger in Glacier because I was passionate about it. And even though I do it for a little bit longer and I no longer teach, I'm retired from teaching. For me, the park has always been a passion and a choice rather than something that I felt I was stuck in. I guess career doesn't have to be a negative word, but for me I think of it differently.

Daniel: Oh, I like that. Yeah. That the word "career" implies... Uh, it implies an amount of work that you don't necessarily feel. This is just a good way to spend the summer.

Diane: Exactly. And not to gloss over it. There's plenty of work involved. But but I've I've chosen to have Glacier be a positive in my life, more than a negative at any time.

Daniel: But for that, though, you were working for the hotel and you went on a hike up to Grinnell Glacier. I don't know. What do you remember about about seeing the glacier for the first time?

Diane: I very much remember that that first time I hiked up to Grinnell Glacier, I got to the end of the trail at the top of the moraine where where you look, you know, down at Upper Grinnell Lake and across at the glacier itself. And my impression and actually I have photographs of it to back it up was the glacier itself wasn't very far away.

Diane: From from the moraine the glacier was right there, in your face. As opposed to now where it's quite a distance across that basin to get to the ice itself. And now when people hike up there, people get to the moraine and they they look and they take it all in and then they always seem to be enticed to... They want to get closer to the glacier itself.

Daniel: The glacier was big enough. You didn't have to hike further once you got to the edge, that was good enough.

Diane: Exactly. And in those first years when I visited, I never did actually go out on to the glacier itself. For many years then after I started working as a ranger here and leading interpretive hikes up there, we would actually walk on the ice and go out onto the ice itself. But it seems like in those those early years when I was hiking up there as a college student in the summers, it was a more intimate experience just being able to see it from the moraine.

Daniel: You know, On that first trip you took to the glacier in '81, did you think, Oh, this is all going to be gone someday? Or did you see that change coming?

Diane: My memory of when I started working as a ranger and really paying attention to bigger ideas having to do with the Grinnell Glacier. We were fascinated by the stories from the twenties in the thirties when when Upper Grinnell Lake first appeared as the meltwater lake, as the glacier receded and pulled away from the moraine.

Diane: You know, it was fascinating to think that that lake hadn't been there in the George Bird Grinnell times. And of course, we have wonderful repeat photography showing the thickness of Grinnell Glacier and that Salamander (what we call Salamander Glacier today) up above, was simply the upper lobe of a Grinnell Glacier connected by by an icefall there.

Daniel: When George Bird Grinnell first visited it was just kind of the whole back of the valley is just one big mass of ice. And now we have names for the different pieces because they've separated and a lake has formed at the edge of the glacier. So it's really changed a lot.

Diane: I mean, we spend so much time in the park talking about geology in terms of things being millions and a billion years old, and then to to see these changes happening just, just in the short history of the park actually existing, is kind of mind blowing.

Daniel: Yeah. In your first years hiking up to Grinnell, I'm guessing that not a lot of people were talking about modern human-caused climate change.

Diane: I don't remember people really talking about climate change at all in those early years. I was very fortunate to be mentored by rangers like Bob Schuster, who had been around since the mid-sixties. And, you know, he was documenting that since he had started in 1967, he really hadn't noticed changes in Grinnell Glacier. And then suddenly in those later eighties, everything just seemed to take off with rocket speed. And it's it's been changing, it feels like hourly, ever since.

Daniel: Yeah. So in the at least anecdotally, in the sixties and seventies, it seemed like Grinnell was holding fairly steady. But then that really changed kind of at the start of your time going up there.

Diane: I clearly remember that in my early years, leading the hikes up to Grinnell Glacier, what the very special thing was that we would actually lead our visitor groups out onto the ice. We had an ice ax and we had been trained to to be safe and know what we were doing because glacier travel is not something to to take lightly. There are a lot of potential hazards, and we certainly do not encourage people to go out onto the ice today because not only do they probably not have the background to recognize the risks with the crevasses and hidden dangers, but it has also changed so much since we did lead that hike because the edge of the ice has become much more rotten and undercut.

Diane: But my memory is that a couple times during the summer a friend and I, after we had concluded our organized hikes, we'd we'd take a little excursion on our own down to the outlet of Grinnell Glacier. And this is where the water actually came rushing from underneath the ice. And it led down to into the stream that that went over the waterfall and drains that entire valley. And so when we would walk down there, we would be walking across the basin with this massive wall of ice on our right, and then we would get down to where the water came gushing out from underneath the wall of the edge of Grinnell Glacier. And my memory is that at that point where the outlet was, the ice was rising, at least at least 30 feet above me, if not more. I actually I have photographs of that. I'll have to show you.

Daniel: Okay. Where as now, you'd be... It'd be kind of tricky to find a spot where the ice is, what, ten feet high?

Diane: Yeah, today when you get... So today, to take that walk that I would take. In the late 1980s down to the outlet. You're simply walking across this open limestone wide valley in a way it's it's a hanging valley where where I had ice on my right. Today, there are all sorts of plants and wildflowers growing up. We actually have small trees that are growing up. It's it's like that very first step in plant succession. After that, those soils have first been exposed after they were covered by ice for for thousands of years. And it looks much more raw and rocky. I've heard people describe it as almost a moonscape, as if we had any experience on the moon. But with that raw, open, rocky-ness, I, I see people just wandering all over the place and yet they're not thinking about the fact that they're compact in that soil. They're actually stepping on and tiny plants and and we're really threatening that that future glorious subalpine meadow.

Daniel: Yeah. Do you remember when you first heard about climate change as a concept? Like, modern-day human-caused climate change?

Diane: The first thing I remember is when I was an SCA, Student Conservation Association, intern for the Park Service, working at the St Mary Visitor Center. And I remember that one of the books that was for sale there at St. Mary was what I remember as a as a children's book. It was not a scholarly tome by any means, but basically a children's book about climate change. And I can remember picking that up off the shelf and reading it during my spare time, which even there is a rather amazing change because there's never a spare moment in any of the visitor centers in Glacier today. But there were moments I could read a book and learn at the desk.

Daniel: Wow. Yeah. So you are you find this kid's book in the visitor center and it kind of explains the basics that, humans are changing the climate, and causing the glaciers to retreat. And that's one of your first at least one of the first times you can remember really seeing that put together.

Diane: I feel like that that was the beginning of providing me with a framework to then take in other information, be interested in learning more.

Daniel: All right, then let's talk about a pivotal moment in Grinnell Glacier history, and in maybe the history of climate change, happens when Vice President Al Gore visits the glacier.

Diane: That was a pretty big deal to have the vice president to have the vice president come to Grinnell Glacier on a day trip from Washington, D.C. was not your typical day in Glacier National Park.

Daniel: Okay.

Diane: And I first became aware of it because suddenly we had all of these men in khaki fishing vests and earpieces wandering around the Many Glacier Valley. And it it turned out they were the advance-team for the Secret Service.

Daniel: And they're trying to blend in.

Diane: They so did not blend in.

[Laughing]

Daniel: Okay. So then what ended up being your job, your role, for the Vice President's visit?

Diane: Yeah. So in 1997, I was in the middle of my teaching career in in Kalispell. And then it turned out the Vice President was coming and we needed to have all sorts of extra personnel. And so I was asked if I if I was available to help that day. And I wasn't available because I was a teacher. And that was the day I was supposed to be in the classroom. But I called my principal and I pleaded, I have this chance to be involved in this event with the Vice President. "Could I please use one of my personal days for the school year?"

Diane: So that's what I did. And it turned out that my job was to deal with the media that was going to go up the trail ahead of the vice president.

Daniel: Okay.

Diane: So the Secret Service had been telling us that Al Gore was in very good shape and he was a good hiker and that he was going to have no problem hiking up that trail. And the people who were handling all the logistics understood that the media wouldn't necessarily be in as good shape as the Vice President.

Diane: So the media pool was a combination of local Montana media and then all sorts of national folks. And I remember them telling me that they'd they'd boarded a plane in Washington, D.C. (They had boarded Air Force Two in Washington, D.C.) at something like 3:00 in the morning Eastern Time. And they they flew out to Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls. And then at that point, they got on three Chinook helicopters—

Daniel: Wow!

Diane: —that flew them to what we used to endearingly call "Babb International Airport," which is a pasture in Babb that used to have an air sock on it. And I remember that they had to go down and get the cows out of it.

Daniel: Shoot them out of the way.

Diane: So they'd brought in the special armored vehicles from from elsewhere and a motorcade that picked them up and drove the entourage up to Many Glacier Hotel. And at that point, the Park Service had built a big stage at the end of the hotel where there was a view of Salamander Glacier and the Grinnell Basin behind.

Diane: And he gave a speech about climate change. The whole purpose of this trip, as he was Vice President, he had a passion for trying to raise public awareness to the issues of climate change.

Diane: And so he gave his speech there—I missed the speech because as soon as the the the entourage arrived at the Glacier Hotel, the, quote pre-positioned press and I jumped on a boat and then eventually got up to the head of the valley. And we started hiking at their pace so that we could get up there ahead of the vice president.

Daniel: Okay. So Al Gore is giving his speech about global warming. And you didn't get to see that part because you were taking the reporters and the press up, up the trail to meet everyone else at the glacier.

Diane: Right. One one of the humorous things about that day was when we had had the Secret Service running around the entire week before. The Secret Service knows bad guys. They know security, but they were in a panic about bears.

Daniel: Oh, of course.

Diane: Just like many visitors to Glacier National Park that have no idea about bears. They were under the impression that there was a bear lurking behind every corner that was going to be an incredible threat to to the Vice President. And, of course, the the risk of anything happening in Bear country is incredibly low.

Daniel: Of course.

Diane: And but but it's understandable. So I can remember as we were hiking up the trail, I look up the hillside and periodically stationed up above the trail throughout the hike, I could look up and I would see a secret serviceman accompanied by a glacier National Park ranger to protect the Secret serviceman from bears.

Daniel: Of course.

Diane: The trail was completely open for hikers that day. There were there were regular hikers just hiking on the trail and running into the Vice President.

Daniel: So there was like—what was the the mood? Do you remember? And what did Al Gore think of it?

Diane: He actually hiked with Dan Fagre, who was our our local expert on what was happening with climate change and with the with Grinnell Glacier. And so he hiked with Dan Fagre and with Dave Castiel, who was our our senior ranger interpreter in the valley at that time.

Diane: So as part of that effort that Al Gore had as vice president tied in with that, you may remember he came up with a national speaking tour is the way I remember it, that that then turned into a book called, "An Inconvenient Truth." And from my perspective, it was really that era of him coming out with "An Inconvenient Truth" that really got the general public talking about climate change. And and certainly having the same kinds of varied viewpoints and opinions.

Diane: And it's unfortunate, in my opinion. Well, here I go with opinions, but it's it's unfortunate that that something that really is scientific has has become so polarizing. But I feel like that was the first that I became aware of that polarizing aspect of it as well.

Daniel: His visit really brings a lot of attention to the concepts of global warming and climate change. So that just starts to become a more talked about subject in America. But it also makes that connection between global warming and Glacier National Park, like, forever cemented together.

Diane: So it's no surprise that when we're in a place called Glacier National Park, it's an easy concept, rather iconic for national and even international media to pick up on Glacier National Park and its disappearing glaciers. And so that is something that from that Al Gore time on, it seems like the public is very aware of that, no matter where they're from.

Daniel: Yeah. Did you note did you see that play out in front of your eyes then? You know, in the summers after the vice president's visit, you're leading people on hikes up to Grinnell Glacier. And I'm guessing that people's questions and how people felt about seeing the glacier started to shift around then.

Diane: Yes. In my first year leading hikes to Grinnell Glacier, we weren't talking about and people weren't asking about current changes up there because there wasn't anything that noticeable in front of our eyes right then. But certainly since then, it's something that people are very aware of and their frequent frequently asking about.

Diane: And I've always felt like my goal as an interpreter in Glacier National Park isn't so much to educate them as to the minutia of the science, but simply to to show them what we're seeing on the landscape.

Diane: One of the incredible tools we have are those repeat photography examples that were there—there was actually a guy with a big old camera on that George Bird Grinnell trip to Grinnell Glacier in 1887. So we have a photographic record of what has been going on in that valley since 1887.

Daniel: Wow. And so that really helps you show and illustrate that change to people who are hiking up to Grinnell for the first time ever. You just show them a picture what it used to look like.

Daniel: Grinnell Glacier has gone through periods of very, you know, somewhat stable periods. It's gone through periods of rapid retreat, which we're seeing more and more of in recent years. And there's been kind of a, as that glacier retreats, a changing in how much water it's impounding and the we call the lake, "Upper Grinnell Lake." And that's changed size over time because of the way the ice is or isn't blocking that water from draining down the valley.

Diane: Right. And in my early years leading the hike up to Grinnell Glacier, the glacier itself impounded Upper Grinnell Lake. And then we knew that there was a channel that the water from Upper Grinnell Lake was following underneath the ice and then popping out in that dramatic rush and the outlet where where I'd walk along the the steep wall of ice and see the water coming out. Today, the glacier is not impounding the lake at all. There's there's still a significant meltwater lake up there, but it is flowing, flowing freely past the glacier, to the outlet.

Daniel: Right.

[Music fades in and then concludes.]

Daniel: One of the cool things about the National Park Service is—and about this park—is that we are getting to see this what is usually a very long geologic process. We are seeing it play out in on a human timescale, a human lifetime. We're seeing ice retreat and then plants and trees and things grow back into place. Like that's pretty wild.

Diane: And I feel like that's one of the things that makes the hike to Grinnell Glacier such an incredible opportunity for people today. I see people have all sorts of emotional responses to that area. It's beautiful. It's it's gorgeous. It's it's stark. And to be up in the Grinnell base and close to the lake, to the upper lake and close to the ice itself is really unlike any place else people experience in Glacier National Park. And today, people understand that that ice is disappearing and it's not going to be with us forever. And people express a lot of sadness about that. And I certainly feel that that sadness, that sense of loss as well. But at the same time, I try to focus on the incredible opportunity we have that, this is in a national park. It's a place that we do have the opportunity to actually be connected to what's happening. It's not just something that we're reading about in the news. It's not just some lingo about climate change, but because of these resources protected by the National Park Service, people are able to experience that up close and see it for themselves and and have that much emotional response, which perhaps is what people need to have in order to take climate change seriously.

Daniel: To understand it. So do you encounter a lot of people feeling sad or grieving or saying goodbye to the glaciers when they come on your hikes?

Diane: I do find a lot of people who are who are sad and almost distraught in some cases, and I've been amazed in recent years how many visitors I have met throughout the park who verbalized that they came to Glacier National Park because they want to see this place before the glaciers are gone.

Daniel: Wow. So when when you encounter those visitors that are distraught, what's what's your approach? What do you try and tell them?

Diane: Well, I certainly don't tell them how to feel. I give them the information that that I can share about what has happened at Grinnell Glacier in the past, what seems to be happening. Right now. We it's it's very unlikely that anything could change that eventuality right now.

Daniel: Hmm.

Diane: But I try to focus on the fact that there are things that humans do still have control over with climate change. Certainly the rate of change, you know, how extreme it's going to become or are things that are still within our control and the human species is pretty incredible.

Daniel: Right.

Diane: We we have incredible abilities with technology and problem solving. None of it's going to be easy. And I think that's in my opinion, that's where we are right now, is that as a society, perhaps we're wrestling with how much we're willing to commit to to solve a problem that is not simple.

Daniel: It makes me think of how special of a place this park is in Grinnell Glacier especially. And the you know, as a ranger, you going up there and using the place to help people figure out how they can be a part of that change, how they can, what they can do.

Diane: And that's one of the amazing gifts of a national park, is that it's a place that each person can experience individually. And and if they have some of those sad feelings up there. Perhaps that's okay. Perhaps. Perhaps that's a good thing. I try to not leave people in despair. I try to to point out some of the positives that can come about simply because of that awareness and and some of the positives. You know that there are endless possibilities. But at the same time, I'm not the one to tell every body that things are going to be okay.

Daniel: Yeah. So, Diane, when you hike up to Grinnell Glacier these days, how does it feel for you?

Diane: In a way, I guess it feels profound. It feels... It feels like a gift for me personally that I have been able to experience this valley over enough years to actually see the changes myself. It's it's not something that I have to read about and and wonder, you know, "What is this climate change thing? What's really happening?"

Diane: Whether we had words for it or not. I have experienced and seen incredible changes up there. And I think it's natural that with changes, I think for many of us, there's a sadness. There's there's a longing for the way things used to be.

Diane: It's not just the glacier. This park has a visitation today that's double what it was when I started working here. And so there there are changes in the glacier. There are changes in the visitor experience. And of course, there is a sadness. And yet I do I do feel excitement that at least we have places like Glacier National Park where I'm able to to see and experience these raw, real realities.

Daniel: Yeah... When you think about all the people, you know, driving and flying out for vacation at Glacier and or when you think about the Vice President flying and all these helicopters and airplanes to get there, there is a kind of contradiction, you know, in the amount of fossil fuels being burned for us to go see and say goodbye to this glacier that's melting because of the burning of fossil fuels.

Diane: Life is not simple. The world is not simple, and the world is not black and white. I lead a life that's dependent on on a lot of fossil fuels. And here in Glacier National Park, as the Park Service, we really do care about these issues. And yet one of the most iconic experiences in Glacier National Park is driving going to the Sun Road. Our park is known worldwide as being the park with the iconic road, the first National Park Service road, where actually driving the road was the experience as opposed to simply getting from one point to another. So it's all wrapped up and it's all complicated. And I think I think it's a slippery slope when people expect there to be easy black and white answers.

Diane: To a certain extent, I feel like we look at the Grinnell Glacier base and we understand Grinnell Glacier is receding and for a moment we just need to be with that reality. And then the next step is that maybe we'll be able to start doing something about it.

Daniel: Hmm. That's really well-put. How have you changed since your first visit to Grinnell?

Diane: My hair got gray. That happened ridiculously early, though. I think one way I have changed is that I have accepted that reality. That things aren't simple and they're not black and white. I think when I was younger, I wanted to jump to answers and I wanted to know it all. And I wanted to think that I had all the answers. And now I'm not so sure that there are easy answers for most of the things that I wrestle with. But I believe we need to keep wrestling and and we'll find our way to an answer at some point.

Daniel: And being okay with living in that complicated, contradictory gray area.

Diane: And accepting the fact that a place like Glacier gives us that opportunity to feel more connected to the world, at least at least for me, I can't I can't speak for other people. But protected places such as Glacier allow me the time and the space to ponder and problem solve and process some of those issues.

Daniel: I think you're, of course, connected to the Many Glacier area, to Grinnell Glacier. But do you feel like you're kind of part of it?

Diane: I think it would be presumptive of me to to be part of it, but it's part of me. Many Glacier is a huge part of me, and for that I am very thankful.

Daniel: Well, thanks for coming and talking to us, Diane.

Diane: Thank you, Daniel.

[Ending music fades in and plays under credits.]

Peri: Headwaters is funded by donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. As an organization dedicated to supporting the park the Conservancy funds a lot of sustainability initiatives, from solar panels on park buildings, to storytelling projects like this one, the Conservancy is doing critical work to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. You can learn more about what they do and about how to get involved at Glacier.org.

Peri: This show is created by Daniel Lombardi. Michael Faist. Gaby Eseverri, and me, Peri Sasnett. We get critical support from Lacie Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Kristen Friesen, and so many good people with Glacier's natural and cultural resource teams.

Peri: Our music was made by the brilliant Frank Waln, and the show's cover art is by our sweet friend Stella Nall. Check out Frank and Stella's work at the links in the show notes. Besides sharing this episode with a friend who might appreciate it, you can help us out by leaving a rating and review in your podcast app. Thanks for listening.

A conversation with longtime interpretive ranger Diane Sine about a lifetime of watching change in Glacier. This episode was recorded in May of 2023.

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Overview of the park’s glaciers: https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/glaciersoverview.htm

Episode 2

Climate and Community with Mike Durglo, Jr.

Transcript

Lacy Kowalski: Headwaters is supported by the Glacier National Park Conservancy.

Peri Sasnett: Welcome to Headwaters, a show from Glacier National Park, which is the traditional homelands of many Indigenous groups that still live in this area today. This episode is an interview we did with Mike Durglo Jr, who's a climate leader at the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. We talked about how Native American tribes can lead the way through the climate crisis. This episode is part of a series of conversations we've been having with a wide variety of climate change experts. These episodes don't have to be listened to in any order; each one stands on its own. And they all focus on a particular aspect of the way the world is being altered by the burning of fossil fuels over the past century and a half, human activity has released enough greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's climate over one degree Celsius, with only more warming on the way. [subtle beat begins to play] Throughout 2023, Daniel sat down with experts to talk about how that warming is altering Glacier National Park, our lives and our futures. It's critical to remember that Glacier has been a home for people since time immemorial. This has never been an empty landscape. It has been loved and cared for by people for thousands of years. And to find our way through the next century, we'll need to have a lot more conversations like this one. [synth beat contines to play, then resolves]

Mike Durglo, Jr: I call myself a seed planter because just giving people hope.

Daniel Lombardi: Thanks for joining us, and can you introduce yourself?

Mike: Thank you. [Introduces himself in Salish] Good morning, everybody. My name is Standing Grizzly Bear. That's my given name. My English name or my [speaks Salish] name is Mike Durglo. Currently, I'm the department head for the Tribal Historic Preservation Department for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Working for the tribes for, it was 40 years.

Daniel: Wow. Yeah. Congrats. That's pretty amazing. And so that's just down west, southwest of the park, so one of the park's neighbors. Yeah, well, yeah. Give. Give me an overview, then, of what are the climate change impacts that you're seeing on the Flathead reservation, what you're seeing in this area.

Mike: You know, you think about the air quality and what's what's been happening, and even even this year, earlier smoke. I mean, it was early. A few years ago I was driving to my office to work, and there was so much smoke that I couldn't even see the mountains. I live right there, you know, at the base of of the mountains at McDonald Peak, and my office was only like eight miles from my house. But I'm thinking, my grandson had doubles this morning, football practice, double practices. And I'm thinking, I hope that those kids are not outside playing, you know, practicing for football right now in this.

Daniel: Because the air is so toxic.

Mike: Right. And, you know, it was not just the kids, but the elders, and the people that are most vulnerable to the all the smoke. And so we had I don't remember if it was the the Earth Day event that you came to, but it was one of our gatherings where Dr. Lori Byron and her husband attended that. Anyway, I talked about that. I told I shared that story and I shared my concern for the people being out in that smoke. And a few months later, Dr. Byron calls me and says, Mike, would you be interested in putting up some Purple Air monitors? I said, Heck yeah. I didn't really, you know, I was like, So what do we do? And I don't know if you're familiar with them, but they're only about this big, they're inexpensive and they measure PM 2.5 air quality, and they give you real time data. So she sent me seven monitors. We're putting them up around the reservation at seven schools. They have a what's called a flag program that you can, the kids can put out a flag. So if it's a bad air day, they can put out a red flag. If it's a good day, it's the green flag. And there's all these different ones in the middle. And just this year we're putting up I don't remember how many, 14 more? We're going to put them in, inside and outside.

Daniel: So that's great. Yeah. And so that's a kind of climate adaptation, the dealing with air quality, which can be degraded by just burning fossil fuels and cars and stuff. Around here, it's often caused by wildfire, which itself is exacerbated and expanded by climate change.

Mike: Our fire seasons have shifted. So here what we've seen over the last, I don't know, several years is later wildfires burning later in the season. So we're still fighting wildfires in October and November when the fire season used to, you know, go of like from August to September maybe. So climate change isn't the only thing that that messed up there. We we did too, as human beings. I mean, you're all familiar with that one guy, what did he say? [does a silly, deep voice] "Only you can prevent wildfires."

Daniel: Smokey the Bear. [both laugh]

Mike: Yeah. Smokey the Bear is like... A hundred years of fire suppression has not helped. Mhm. To speak. I was invited to speak about historic use of fire on the land. Mm hmm. As you read in some of Lewis and Clark's journals of, you know, walking through this beautiful plains with grass up to their shoulders and it's like that didn't happen all by itself. Mhm. That happened from the tribes living on the land for those thousands of years and you know, using fire as a tool. We didn't follow the bison around, the bison followed where we burned. Mhm.

Daniel: Because the grass would grow back greener.

Mike: We burned those areas and then the bison would go back to those areas and feed. So that it made us easier to hunt. So, you know, a thousand years of that understanding how the land works, it's so, you know, you go back to fire suppression and the way it is now. Climate change plus fire suppression equals catastrophic wildfires. [synth beat marks a transition]

Mike: We were one of the first tribes, right, in the United States to develop a climate strategy. That was back in 2012. My boss and my boss's boss, you know, they were asked several times about what is the tribe's stance, what is the tribe doing about climate change? What are you guys actually doing? And at the time I was the Environmental Director, and I was also the chairman of the RTOC, the Regional Tribal Operations Committee, that's region eight tribes. There's like 17 tribes in Region Eight: North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah.

Daniel: Why do you think it's important to start with a plan? Like was that always automatic, you knew like, the first step is to create a climate plan?

Mike: Whatever agency it is, it don't matter if it's a tribe or the city or the county or federal agency, all of the different programs focus on a certain aspect. There's fisheries, there's wildlife. They're focused on whatever their media is there. So really, I feel like, and this might be hindsight, right? I feel like the whole process ended up bringing all of us in a in a tighter circle. When when I was asked to coordinate that effort, I wanted ours to be more comprehensive. And we had nine sectors. So air, water, fisheries, wildlife, forestry, people. And also I wanted to make sure that we included traditional knowledge. My dad was really a big support. He was actually the department head for Tribal Historic Preservation when I was the Environmental Director. So he he contributed a lot to that plan. And I always say that one of the most awesome parts of that process was interviewing my elders. So I did eight interviews, and my dad being one of those, and those are all available on that website and you can watch those. And I wanted to make sure that we we very much included traditional cultural knowledge within the planning effort.

Daniel: One of the reasons I'm super interested to talk to you about this is because Glacier National Park, we're in the process of trying to write a climate action plan. So I think what you said about how the importance of a plan early on, at least looking back, was that it brought everyone together and got everyone to kind of get on the same page. Did you find that like people were ready for that or like, was there anyone resistant to like, "Oh, this is going to add more work to me" or anything like that?

Mike: When I started doing climate change work it's like, when people saw Mike Durglo coming down the hall, they would slam their door and lock it and pull their shade because they knew that Mike was going to come and ask them to do more work. I mean, they're already busy. They're already doing their their full time work in their field. And I come along and say, "Hey, I need you to come to our meeting because we're talking about impacts of climate change on fisheries" or whatever. They were already doing climate change work without calling it climate change.

Daniel: Yeah, climate change is one of those things that so often it seems like it's adding on to... It's not even always creating new challenges, but it's also often just like a layer on top of a heavy workload that already exists.

Mike: It's more work. I've been doing, you know, my job as the Environmental Director at the time plus climate. It's really something that you have to be passionate and compassionate about. So the reason I wanted to rewrite the plan was based on that newer evidence, the projections or the the science that we were looking at in 2012 was conservative. Yeah, you know, we had hope. "Yeah. Everybody's going to understand us. Everybody's going to going to get it. That things are changing, that we're we need to start looking at alternative fuel sources and alternative energy and all that stuff, and everybody's going to jump on board." That hasn't happened.

Daniel: So let me recap some of that. It was about ten years ago now, 2012, you all released the your climate plan. And now looking back, it looks a little conservative. It looks a little too optimistic. And we've seen the impacts of climate change, that were predicted back then, we've seen them come to pass much sooner than predicted. And so now you're working on updating, creating a new plan. And it seems clear to me that the CSKT, and you in particular, have been leaders nationally in terms of developing a climate action plan, especially leaders in helping and working with other tribes on their climate plans. Does that feel right?

Mike: Oh, absolutely. In fact, back in 2016, I received an award from President Obama. I got to go to the White House. And that award was for leadership in climate change. It's not that I do what I do to get an award or a pat on or anything like that, but it was very honoring. You know, I was honored and humbled to be there. And that was just for the work I've been doing to help other tribes like Blackfeet, Fort Belknap, the Crows. I've helped different tribes and even up into Canada. [synth beat plays to mark a transition]

Daniel: Climate change is impacting, you know, every sector of the wheel of life, as you were describing it, including people and cultural resources. So maybe let's get into that. What is a cultural resource?

Mike: A resource could be a culturally modified tree or a rock cairn, or a fire pit, historical fire pit. Or, I mean, a lot of those are associated with campsites, right? So those resources, like culturally modified trees, how do you protect that from climate change? Mm hmm. In our database and in Glacier National Park's database, we have identified over 300 cultural sites or resources.

Daniel: So to zoom out for a second, you worked on a project where you identified cultural sites and resources, which are basically any evidence or significant item or place that was used by or is used by members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, either today or

Mike: Yeah, sure.

Daniel: Thousands of years into the past. And so you're identifying those objects. Sometimes they're trees that were modified or used by people, sometimes they're campsites, sometimes they're actual artifacts, sometimes they're just spots and places. And so then you're looking at, how is climate change potentially going to impact these specific resources?

Mike: So I'm going to give you an example of of potential impact to a site that's along a stream, and that is another historic campsite. Well, what's happening at that campsite is the banks of the stream are eroding. Mm hmm. And it's I mean, you know, that's a natural process. But however, what we're seeing is increased runoff in, you know, that -- what we like to see is gradual runoff. Right? Right. In the spring, we want the snow to gradually come out of the mountains, causing minimal damage or minimal erosion. But what's happening is it comes crashing down. Like what we're seeing is that snow melt in an accelerated time period, and all that water comes crashing down the side of the mountain. Well that's causing increased erosion in that certain site, not just that site, but all the different sites along the streams. So we look at what what can we do using Western science to mitigate or to help with the process of slowing that erosion. So we come up with a list of maybe four alternatives: we can put riprap into that site; we can move some of those artifacts that are around the site or in and around the site; one alternative might be do nothing. And that's the things that we present to the elders. And and the elders could say, we don't want you around that site. We want we don't want you doing nothing there. We want you just to leave it and let the natural process take place. So those are the kind of things that we looked at in that project, that pilot project, as far as climate impacts to those cultural sites.

Daniel: And you found there's lots of sites, significant sites in the park in Glacier National Park. And would you say that they're fairly secure and safe, or would you say that there's a lot of threats to those cultural sites?

Mike: It's not just the Confederate Salish and Kootenai Tribes that utilize Glacier National Park. Mm hmm. It was a common use area for a lot of tribes, as you know. Mm hmm. Blackfeet, the Kootenai Bands from Canada, different Blackfeet, Ktunaxa, Piikani bands from Canada, Blood Tribes, and us, used Glacier National Park for millennia.

Daniel: So all these different groups, all these different tribes have connections and cultural sites and cultural artifacts and significant connections to areas in the park. Do you feel like those are fairly safe or is climate change threatening them significantly?

Mike: I think that's part of the process that we wanted to look at when we did this pilot project.

Daniel: You have to figure it out.

Mike: Yeah. In the work that I've done, pretty much all of my career in natural resources, you start out with a base study, right? What do we have, and how how is it potentially impacted? We know that a lot of these sites are pretty safe, but they're all being impacted by climate change and people.

Daniel: What I'm hearing you say is that monitoring and studying and paying attention to how these sites are being impacted by climate change, that's sort of where we're at in the process now is being vigilant. [synth beat marks a transition]

Daniel: Do you feel like tribes across the country are-- how do you think they're facing climate change as as the impacts are accelerating? Do you think they're kind of poised to be leaders and everyone's got a plan kind of ready, or are the tribes struggling to catch up, or is it some of both?

Mike: Yeah, I think it's some of both, really. I think the tribes, the connection that we have with Mother Earth and I'm not saying everybody doesn't have this, but we've lived on the landscape for thousands of years on this landscape, Glacier National Park, the Flathead Valley. And it's all included. You know, we've we've been here for thousands of years. So really, we we understand not so much anymore. I don't think maybe that's one of the things we need to do is reconnect reconnect to the land. Because I, I remember stories from my grandparents and my parents talking about how people really, back then listened to the land, and almost like had a conversation with the land. And it's like they knew by looking at different things on the landscape what kind of winter we're going to have, or what kind of summer or, you know, any the stuff like that. So I feel like we really need to to have that connection and, you know, in order to feel the pain or whatever that we're causing Mother Earth. In order for us to survive, we have to reconnect to that circle. We can't take ourselves out of it. Above it or below it. We are part of it. Mm hmm. So. And I just feel that that's one of the commonalities that tribes have across the whole world is that connectedness. And I know you know, I'm just not saying that, you know, tribal people have that connection. Every nationality -- I don't care if you're French, German, Korean. Everybody has that. My ancestors are buried right here in this ground. That's how you walk every day in your life. And that's like a respect that you realize that these this is where my ancestors are buried. So then you have to walk in beauty to keep those ancestors happy. Mm hmm. And that's right here in Glacier National Park.

Daniel: You were describing this important connection to our earth, to the environment around us, and that everyone can have that, it's a matter of sensitivity. And. And, yeah, learning from your elders. And during the climate planning process, you were able to interview your elders. And I'm curious what you learned from them. You know, that was that you were able to really ask them about that connection to the earth and noticing when the wheel is out of balance, notice that our climate is changing. So were there some clear lessons for you after interviewing that your elders?

Mike: You know, a lot of the those elders talked about how it used to be. My dad talked about how deep the snow was when we when we drove down to the country roads. And Ig Couture from Elmo talked about how the lake used to freeze over every year, and we used to be able to go ice fishing, and he talks about ice skating too, across across the lake. The differences of my dad, you know, looking at maybe 50 to 75 years and talking to his grandparents, so that's another 50 to 70, so we're talking about like 150 years of knowledge, you know, passed down over over time. The cultural and traditional knowledge that our elders passed down to us is more about living in harmony with the land and having respect for that.

Daniel: I like hearing your stories from getting to talk to elders and tribal members from all over the country. It's really interesting. You must have picked up just so many lessons and ideas and experiences along the way. You know, you're not just having conversations locally, but you're having conversations all over. So I'm curious, yeah to just hear any other stories or lessons that you've come across.

Mike: I did a workshop, so when I work with ITEP, we bring in probably 30 representatives from the tribes in the area, and there was an elder woman at that workshop. I was doing my presentation and she was like, "Mike, you know, I'm tired of having to adapt." And when we talked about trying to help them develop plans and strategies, it's like, "hell, we don't have time to plan. We have we're in reaction mode. Our village is falling into the river." Or the ocean. And, you know, their cemeteries are being eroded away because of climate change and increased erosion. Mm hmm. So, you know, they're all in, like, reaction mode and trying to help them develop some kind of a plan or strategy, you know, how do they deal with that? [synth beat plays to mark a transition]

Daniel: How are you thinking about climate change these days, in terms of like, what kind of an issue is it? Because a lot of people think about it and they think, "oh, that's an environmental issue or that's a wildlife issue." Or sometimes now we're hearing more people talk about it being a health issue and a public health issue. What is it for you, you think? Is it partly a spiritual or economic, or how do you think about climate change?

Mike: I feel like it's all of the above and people are really starting to understand that. The impacts are spiritual, they're social, they're physical, they're mental. All of these things that are happening around us affect our whole our whole being. One of the programs that came about because we were working on climate change was the EAGLES program. But EAGLES is Environmental Advocates for Global and Local Ecological Sustainability. Say that three times. [Daniel laughs] That was a result of my brother Jim and I just having a conversation one evening about getting youth more involved in what we were doing, right? And the whole idea around that was to engage the youth in doing activities within the schools and within the communities to help, you know, help with like recycling, with putting in community gardens.

Daniel: So the EAGLES program is an effort that you and your brother created to engage the youth on the reservation, to work on sustainability, to work on fighting climate change, to try and be better stewards of the earth. So I think you're saying, you know, that for you, one of the biggest climate solutions that's out there is engaging young people.

Mike: As adults, as older people, we have to take responsibility. We can't just leave it all to the younger generations.

Daniel: You know, the past ten, fifteen years, you've been working on climate change constantly, doing all kinds of really innovative and important work. But it's interesting to me that you're saying that you hope your legacy is the EAGLES program and is working with young people. I think that's interesting that that is the key for you.

Mike: On the reservation and across the whole country on reservations, if you do a good thing or a great thing, they name a conference room after you. Or a road or homesite or whatever. It's like you drive down the road and there's, the road is named after somebody. I said, I don't want a conference room or a road or a homesite named after me. I want people to add that to what I want my legacy to be, that my grandkids will remember me and say, this is something my papa started, and this is why we're here. This is why we're doing what we're doing. That's one of the things that for me anyway, I've always thought of it as, or maybe hoped that this would be my legacy. This is what I want to leave on this Earth when I'm gone. And I was thinking about seven generations from now or, you know, 100, 200 years, and my grandkids, my great grandkids will be here and they'll say, "My papa started this." [synth beat plays to mark a transition]

Daniel: I wanted to just ask you about, you did these interviews with elders and you learned a ton of information about the way the climate is changing and how they're seeing it, and the lessons that they've learned.

Mike: It's kind of one of those things like after I did the the Elder interviews, Sadie Saloway from Elmo, I seen her like two weeks later at Walmart. Right. And Sadie seen me in Wal-Mart. And she's come, almost come running over to me. "Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike! I want you to come back and visit me!" Because I went to her house, and "I thought about so many things after you left. I want to you know, I want to share that with you." And and oh, my goodness, a couple of weeks later, she passed away. So, you know, those are the things that [get a bit choked up] just you know, you think about the value and the lesson that we can take from those visits.

Daniel: And then you didn't get a chance to go interview again.

Mike: Right. I didn't get a chance to go back. In all this work, you know, it's like so important, I think, to to get that perspective of the Elders. And there's so much that's like, I seen something that says when you lose an elder, you lose a library of knowledge. And just like with my dad, and I shared with you that my dad was really a support for the work I did. And he had so much knowledge of our culture and our history and Tony Incashola Senior, and all the elders that -- out of the eight I interviewed, Stephen Smallsalmon's the only one left with us today.

Daniel: Wow.

Mike: So, yeah.

Daniel: The two biggest solutions to climate change that I'm hearing from you is like connecting with the youth and also listening to and talking to the Elders as well. Mm hmm.

Mike: Yeah. And doing everything we can. Mm hmm. Being responsible to our Mother Earth and to each other, I think, you know. [guitar and drumbeat begins to play]

Daniel: Well, thanks so much, Mike. This has been great.

Mike: Thank you.

[guitar music continues to play through credits]

Peri: Headwaters is funded by donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. As an organization dedicated to supporting the park, the Conservancy funds a lot of sustainability initiatives from solar panels on park buildings to storytelling projects like this one. The Conservancy is doing critical work to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. You can learn more about what they do and about how to get involved at Glacier.org. This show is created by Daniel Lombardi, Michael Faist, Gaby Eseverri, and me, Peri Sasnett. We get critical support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Kristen Friesen, and so many good people with Glacier's, natural and cultural resource teams. Our music was made by the brilliant Frank Waln, and the show's cover art is by our sweet friend Stella Nall. Check out Frank and Stella's work at the links in the show notes. Besides sharing this episode with a friend who might appreciate it, you can help us out by leaving a rating and review in your podcast app. Thanks for listening.

[music concludes]

A conversation with Mike Durglo, Jr., climate coordinator and head of Historic Preservation for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. This episode was recorded in September of 2023.

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

CSKT Climate Resiliency: http://csktclimate.org/

Episode 3

Climate and the Cryosphere with Dr. Caitlyn Florentine

Transcript

Lacy Kowalski: Headwaters is supported by the Glacier National Park Conservancy.

Peri Sasnett: You're listening to Headwaters, a show from the icy mountains of northwest Montana about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. My name is Peri, and this episode is an interview that my co-host Daniel did with glaciologist Dr. Caitlyn Florentine—about how the U.S. Geological Survey studies the park's glaciers. This episode is part of a series of conversations we've been having with a wide variety of climate change experts. These episodes don't have to be listened to in any order. Each one stands on its own. And they all focus on a particular aspect of the way the world is being altered by the burning of fossil fuels. Over the past century and a half, human activity has released enough greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's climate over one degree Celsius, with only more warming on the way. Throughout 2023, Daniel sat down with experts to talk about how that warming is altering Glacier National Park, our lives and our futures.

[background drum and bass music builds]

Peri: Glaciers are the park's namesake. So digging into the details of the science around them feels like the heart of the park's story. I will say this is a fairly wonky and detailed conversation about glacier science. I studied geology, so I loved it. But I think no matter your background, you'll find it thought provoking.

[music concludes]

Daniel Lombardi: Dr. Caitlyn Florentine, welcome to Headwaters.

Caitlyn Florentine: Hello. Thank you for having me.

Daniel: Can you introduce yourself? What's your job? What do you do?

Caitlyn: Yeah. My name is Caitlyn Florentine, and I work as a glaciologist for the U.S. Geological Survey. I'm a research scientist.

Daniel: So what have you been up to for the past couple of days?

Caitlyn: I've been here in the park doing fieldwork on Sperry Glacier.

Daniel: So you were up up in the mountains for the past couple of days?

Caitlyn: Yes.

Daniel: That's exciting.

Caitlyn: Yes, We had excellent weather.

Daniel: Do you think of yourself as a glaciologist or you study the cryosphere? How do you describe what you do?

Caitlyn: I consider myself a cryosphere scientist, and the cryosphere is the portion of the earth that is frozen. So anything involving frozen water: land, ice, sea ice, permafrost, seasonal snow. So I'm a glaciologist, and I think of it from sort of a geophysical perspective.

Daniel: You approach the study of the cryosphere, you approach glaciology from a very quantitative way. What does that mean?

Caitlyn: Correct. We are interested in being very sort of precise with the numbers. So quantifying the amount of water that's entering and exiting the glacier system, for example. So rather than having a sort of description of the quality of what's happening, we also strive to put numbers to that so that we can start to be a bit more precise and exact in our understanding, which then enables us to connect to other studies and sort of systems of the of the earth.

Daniel: So what made you want to get into this field? How did you get started in the study of the cryosphere?

Caitlyn: I really love the mountains and to be in the mountains and there is a plethora of snow and ice in mountain environments. So I studied geology as an undergrad at Colorado College, and I was really fascinated by earth processes and I knew I wanted to study something on timescales that were relevant to humans. And so I made a choice for graduate school between volcanology and glaciology. And then my sort of recreational interests led to me choosing glaciology ultimately.

Daniel: Oh, that's super interesting. Cool. Yeah, because you could have studied a geology that, you know, spans millions or even billions of years, but you had a desire to keep it on a human scale or closer to a human scale anyway.

Caitlyn: Exactly. My colleagues who study seasonal snow, for example, are inspecting processes that are happening over the timescale of seconds or or hours or days. And it's sort of that opportunity to toggle the window of time that we're considering, I think really captivated me and drew me to the cryosphere.

Daniel: Oh, that's okay. That plus you want to go be able to go up into the mountains for work. So it's a good fit. Well, what makes your work important? Like, why does the cryosphere matter? Why do glaciers matter?

Caitlyn: The cryosphere right now is changing very quickly, relative to what we've observed in the last ten, twemty, fifty, a hundred years. And so that rate of change makes it really important that we not only document the changes that are occurring and understand the sort of pace of that change relative to the historical context, but also that we understand how these systems are working. Because with the rapid change of the cryosphere, so changes to seasonal snow and changes to glaciers, there are consequences downstream. So one sort of motivating example of why glaciers are important is the meltwater that glaciers provide. So a glacier sitting on the landscape will have some discharge of meltwater during the late summer months, at least in this part of the world. And that delivery of meltwater during a time of year that would otherwise be quite dry can be really critical for the aquatic habitats and for sort of broader water resources.

Daniel: I'm hearing you say kind of two things in particular there. One of them is that studying the cryosphere is important because it's changing and it's an indicator of change. So it's helpful in understanding how the world is changing. But you're also saying glaciers and the cryosphere is made of water, and water is important to people and wildlife and everything. They're valuable for that reason. Is that right?

Caitlyn: Yes, exactly.

Daniel: So I don't know if you know this, Caitlyn, but historians think that maybe one of the first euro-Americans to document a glacier here was this military guy John Van Austell, in the 1870s. But the complication is that he didn't realize he was looking at a glacier when he was. And so it wasn't until like ten years later, he came back to the same area inside what is now the park with a geologist. And they're like, oh, that's a glacier. And so then this area starts to be known as a place with glaciers. Of course, the Native Americans, the Kootenai people, the Blackfeet people, they had words describing the ice of this place. They they knew this place was full of snow and glaciers and ice for a long time before that. All of this is kind of me building up to ask you, you know, like some people might be surprised that glaciers are kind of hard to spot, surprisingly. What do you think? I mean, is that does that feel right?

Caitlyn: Yeah. So a glacier as it's now defined, it gets trickier when the ice masses get smaller. So if you're in a landscape where, there's, you're looking down a valley, and particularly at a time of year when the seasonal snow is absent. And so you're just looking at bare rock and bare ice, it will probably be quite evident what is a glacier versus what is not. Also, if you're looking at a glacier that has a lot of evidence of motion. So if you're looking at the terminus of a tidewater glacier and there are giant chunks of ice calving off into the ocean, then the sort of, all of the criteria for defining a glacier—ice that moves—is really in your face and really evident. In a landscape like Glacier National Park, the glaciers are much smaller and you have to hike a lot further into the mountains to observe them. And this has been true for the last last several centuries, if not last many thousands of years. This landscape did have big valley filling glaciers, but that was up to tens of thousands of years ago, maybe 12,000 years ago.

Daniel: So to put that another way, if you go to Alaska or if you came to this area 12,000 years ago, you're going to notice some glaciers, like they're pretty obvious because they're huge chunks of jagged moving ice. But these days in this place, glaciers are covered by seasonal snow. They're covered in rocks. They're they're smaller. It's a more complicated thing to discern. So it's not surprising that visitors today, when they come to the park or scientists a century ago maybe weren't sure at first when they were looking at a glacier.

Caitlyn: Precisely.

Daniel: Well, let's get a definition out of the way, then. Really simply what what is a glacier?

Caitlyn: A glacier is a body of ice that moves.

Daniel: Okay, simple enough.

Caitlyn: And when we talk about glaciers as moving bodies of ice, it's important to understand that, like most of us interact with ice when it's stagnant and it isn't under sufficient stress to deform and flow. But ice is actually a vicious material. So a comparable material would be honey or ketchup. So glacier ice will deform when it's under pressure. So same is how you have to hit a ketchup bottle to get the ketchup to come out of the bottle. So we sort of have two components of glacier motion. One is the ice deformation, the sort of vicious, fluid motion that I just described. And then one is the the sliding of the ice over its bed. When water gets to the bottom of a glacier, it can sort of pop the ice off its bed. And that decoupling and reduction of friction causes the glacier to move.

Daniel: Interesting. One of the things I'm taking away from what you're saying is that nature and glaciers, they don't really fit in a box. We say like this is a glacier, but in reality it's kind of a continuum or a spectrum of of movement of ice and water and rocks. Right?

Caitlyn: Precisely. And that's where science can be helpful for clarifying this complexity and ambiguity that would otherwise be difficult to navigate or interact with. So when we assign a scientific definition for what is a glacier, then we can start to categorize nature and put a more precise understanding to how much water is frozen in the landscape, for example.

Daniel: Mm hmm. All right. Well, can you give me some more basic facts about the park's glaciers? How old are they? When, when did they form?

Caitlyn: Yeah, that's an interesting question. And I think it's important when we ponder that question to understand that because the glacier is moving, it's sort of cycling ice through itself.

Daniel: Hmm.

Caitlyn: Every every year at all times.

Daniel: So because a glacier is moving ice and it's ice that's, you know, cycling through, any piece of individual ice is going to be less old than the footprint or the existence of a glacier in that area.

Caitlyn: Exactly.

Daniel: Okay. Interesting. And so let's describe that process now. I guess simply glaciers, you say, are a mass of ice that's moving. How that happens is you get a lot of snow in the winter. It compresses into ice and then it flows under its weight and melts out the other end. So it's this like conveyor belt of moving ice. How do you define or how do you describe that process, like the glacier anatomy 101.

Caitlyn: Yeah. So traditionally and sort of in our most well behaved, textbook understanding of a glacier, we have this body of ice that stretches from some high elevation zone to a lower elevation zone. And the high elevation zone typically can be described as the accumulation zone. So there's actively mass accumulating every year in that zone. So there's more snow that accumulates, then melts in the accumulation zone at high cold elevations. And so you have this conveyor belt motion and the snow that's accumulating, up high is compressing and eventually densifying into ice, which then is flowing towards the ablation zone.

Daniel: Okay, so basically it's colder up higher and it's warmer, down lower. So the higher zones, you get a lot more snow, it compresses into ice and then the glacier flows and if it's growing, it's going to keep flowing until it reaches a place that's warm enough that it melts.

Caitlyn: Precisely.

Daniel: And that's happening kind of on a seasonal basis, but it's also happening on a really much larger timescale, too.

Caitlyn: Yeah. However long it takes, those particles that are deposited in the high accumulation zone. The sort of timescale of their residence time, if you will, within the glacier will be defined by how fast the glacier is moving. So there are places on the Greenland ice sheet where it takes thousands of years for a snowflake that falls at the top of the ice sheet to make its way all the way to the margin and melt out. The glaciers here in Glacier National Park are much smaller, so the residence times would be much shorter.

Daniel: Like, it might take a snowflake that lands at the top of Sperry Glacier a few decades to reach the melt zone or the ablation zone?

Caitlyn: Precisely. And we have evidence of materials, you know, materials from the human system being deposited up high on Sperry Glacier, for example, and then melting out several decades later. So that's an indicator of the residence time.

Daniel: Yeah. So the evidence we have on Sperry Glacier for that residence time, was there a a ski? That like, got lost up on Upper Sperry Glacier and then eventually melted out?

Caitlyn: Yes.

Daniel: Okay. So do we know like, oh, this ski is from the seventies or something?

Caitlyn: Precisely.

Daniel: So you can say, okay, it takes a few decades for the for a snowflake or a ski to move through the glacier.

Caitlyn: Yes.

Daniel: Interesting. Now, we should explain that moraines are—all the little crumbs of the mountain that the glacier is like scraping off, they pile up around the edge of the glacier, and that's called a moraine. So there's. Yeah. Do you have a good way to explain what a moraine is?

Caitlyn: Yeah. So a moraine is a hill of poorly-sorted rock that's deposited on the edge of a glacier. So it's sort of a sharply crusted hill that hugs the edge of the glacier. And so it will form as those crumbs of rock and sediment are deposited along the margin of the glacier. When the glacier occupies the same position for a long period of time. However, when the glacier starts to retreat, that moraine will persist, so it acts as evidence and demarcating the stamp that of land that the ice occupied for some long period of time.

Daniel: So that's helpful. If you're a scientist without a whole lot of fancy technology a century ago, you can just like hike around in the park and you can see a glacier, but then you can see like, Oh, there's a moraine, and I can see where the glacier used to be because the dirt pile or the moraine surrounding it is far away from the ice now. So I can tell that the glacier is retreating away from where it used to be.

Caitlyn: Exactly.

Daniel: Interesting. Yeah. So there's all these clues of what the glaciers have done in the past using those clues. Do we know how? How old are the park's glaciers?

Caitlyn: Interesting question. There's been a sort of waxing and waning of glaciers in their present configuration. Now, 12,000 years ago, we have evidence, we know that this entire mountain range was encased in ice when we go further back in time. But the sort of predominant thinking and understanding, piecing together other geologic evidence is that these mountains were relatively ice free, roughly 7,000, 6,500 years ago. And then the the present modern glaciers sort of formed and have persisted. So it's it's an interesting, like the question of how old are the glaciers is actually sort of more interesting than one might think because it's not just a stagnant patch of ice sitting on the landscape. It's dynamic and it's interacting with the climate system and then it's physically flowing.

Daniel: That's super interesting. And I think that's like my take away from this whole conversation and is that these questions that seem simple, like what is a glacier? How old are the glaciers? They seem simple, but they actually have a lot of layers. And the more you dig in to it, the more complicated it gets.

Caitlyn: There are physical constraints over how fast a landscape can evolve, and that's what makes the current moment in time that we're living in right now so sort of fascinating. And what really underscores Earth science in general is we can't always look to the past for analogs of how the Earth's system responds to the sort of radiative forcing, or the mismatch between how much heat we're keeping in the Earth's system versus how much is being radiate, like vented back into space.

Daniel: Okay, I really like that because in climate change thinking and sciences, there's a lot of understanding that because we're changing the climate so fast, we can't necessarily look at the past and how the climate has changed in the past to understand how it's going to change in the future. And yet, because we can't see into the future, but we have some tools to see into the past, we end up kind of relying on inevitably and maybe over relying on evidence from the past to make guesses about the future. One thing I know that glaciologists or scientists, geologists were doing here in Glacier National Park a century ago is they're they're taking the cutting edge technology that they had a camera and they're going out near and on the glaciers and they're taking pictures. How does that come back up today? Like, what is the these historic photos? What does that allow for today?

Caitlyn: So if you have a camera today and go back to the exact same location, you can take the same picture. And the only thing that has changed is whatever's changed on the landscape. And so that repeat photography exercise provides a really objective qualitative documentation of how the landscape has changed.

Daniel: And so that was kind of a sub-project that your team at the U.S. Geological Survey started doing in the nineties as a way, Oh, let's collect up these historic photos that scientists took a century ago, and let's take the same pictures from the same vantage point. Let's take it again. We can even try and take it on the same day or about the same time of year time a month and see how how things have changed. So it's it's a very intuitive kind of science. Just what did it look like 100 years ago with a photo? And what does it look like today?

Caitlyn: Exactly. So it provides the starting point for understanding the character of landscape change. And then with our modern techniques, we can start to dig into, you know, addressing questions of what exactly is driving that change? What does that change say about what's going to happen in the future?

Daniel: The repeat photos are cool because they I mean, they answer the most very basic question: are things changing? But it's it's very qualitative. As you say, it's it's not super measurable. We can see that oh, yes, Sperry Glacier is a lot smaller now, but it's hard to measure that. Which shifts us then to the science and the approach to studying the cryosphere that your team has had for the past couple of decades. Where repeat photography is a nice communication tool and a good, you know, starting point to understand the the quality of the change. But now you're bringing Newtonian physics and really measurable science to the glaciers.

Caitlyn: Yeah, and I would say the repeat photography project is a precise scientific exercise. So it is providing a very objective, repeatable, you know, it's reproducible. And it's not, there's no sort of manipulation or prerogative or agenda that's influencing the outcome of that photograph. So it still is applying the scientific method of the objective to capture the same image from the same exact location.

Daniel: Yeah, that's important to remember that the repeat photos aren't just, you know, 100 years ago and today there's actually a lot of intervals in there. And we can repeat photos now that were taken in the eighties or the nineties. And so I think that's important. What you say about, it is a very scientific approach, but it's also a very powerful communication tool to see how things change.

[brief drum & bass music interlude]

Daniel: So you mentioned this at the start, but the past few days you've been up in the park, you've been in the mountains, you've been at Sperry Glacier. So you're still venturing into the field, just like the scientists and the glaciologists a century ago. But it's a little different. Let's talk about about your past few days. What were you trying to do up there and what was it like?

Caitlyn: Yeah. So this week we approached Sperry Glacier to measure the winter mass balance. So we visit Sperry Glacier twice a year: in the fall, and in the spring. And in the fall, we're measuring how much ice the glacier has lost during the mount season. And in the spring, we're measuring how much snow has accumulated on the glacier during the winter season. And so these two measurements give us an understanding of the mass balance, or the mass budget of the glacier. So mass balance is basically the checking account for water mass on the glacier every year. And here in Glacier National Park, we started taking these measurements in 2005 on Sperry Glacier. However, the U.S. Geological Survey has been conducting this mass balance research on glaciers in North America since as early as the 1950s. So the mass balance measurements involve installing stakes on the glacier surface, were measuring snow depth and also snow density. So we're measuring how deep the snow is, and then we're measuring the the mass of the snow. And this year, we've seen a very precipitous decline of the seasonal snowpack. And so we were measuring snow densities that were quite high for this time of year. So usually spring snow densities are maybe 500, 550 grams per cubic centimeter. In the wintertime, lighter, fluffier snow. I mean, at Bridger Bowl, the sort of coldsmoke, as it's referred to, is about 10% water mass. And in a more typical winter snow pack around here, in the sort of wetter climate of Glacier National Park is maybe 30, 40% water mass. And so we were in the springtime, it's maybe 50% water mass. And this week, on Monday, we were measuring 60%. So that's quite dense. And we also were measuring snow depths that were quite shallow relative to what we've measured in the past 18 years. So it was pretty bony. The snow cover is thin,.

Daniel: Pretty bony.

Caitlyn: Probably about a month ahead in the melt season relative to sort of the typical progression.

Daniel: Let me go back to the start of this. So this has been going on since 2005 here on Sperry Glacier, but it's been going on a lot longer around the country and around the world. And when you actually go to do it, it sounds like it gets pretty complicated, but the concepts kind of simple. Basically, you're going up and you're measuring the glacier. How thick is it? How dense is it in the spring and in the fall? And then you can if you do that over time, you can see how the mass of the glacier is changing from winter to summer and over time.

Caitlyn: And it's even simpler than that because we're just measuring the surface. So we're just measuring how much mass is added and how much is subtracted. So we don't actually measure how thick and dense the glacier writ large is. We're just sampling how much mass is entering and exiting the system. So we have these little dip sticks, basically point measurements at stakes around the glacier, and that gives us the starting point for understanding that seasonal rhythm. And then we take those measurements back to the office and we then extrapolate from those points to get a glacier-wide balance. We then calibrate those measurements against measurements from space in order to account for the fact that we're not going to install stakes where there are locations that we can't access on foot. So we're not going to install them in crevasse zones, we're not going to install them at the base of avalanche paths. And so knowing that we have this bias, this sort of systematic bias that we need to correct, we calibrate against different representations of the surface mass balance. So these stake measurements, though, that I'm describing that we just collected this week for field measurements are very powerful because they provide direct measurements of the seasonal rhythm of mass accumulation and ablation.

Daniel: So some years I suppose you're seeing the glacier grow, right?

Caitlyn: So this will be the 18th year of glacial logical measurements on Sperry Glacier. And I think there's only been one year that we've seen a positive balance. And so overall, Sperry has lost more mass than it has gained in the past 18 years.

Daniel: Interesting. So you're taking these measurements of Sperry Glacier and you can see, you can graph it then and you can see it like, oh, it held kind of steady this year. Oh, it dipped a little Oh, it maybe went up a little. But overall, you're watching it trend downward.

Caitlyn: Yes.

Daniel: Now, that seems like a great system, but it also seems like a lot of physical work. You have to get up to the glacier. You have to drill these holes. You have to put in all these stakes and everything. So you're this is really only happening at Sperry Glacier. It's happening a lot of places around the world and around the country. But here in the park, you're only doing it at one glacier. And I'm guessing that that's just because because it's a lot of work.

Caitlyn: Yes, it is logistically demanding. And for that reason, continuous records like this are very rare on our planet. So of the 200,000 glaciers on Earth, only one in every 10,000 has a continuous decades long mass balance record. So it really requires a commitment to repeat these measurements in a systematic way such that there is a cohesive, uninterrupted record. Which is really powerful scientifically, because then it allows us to understand those that seasonal rhythm.

Daniel: Right, because we have repeat photos. The repeat photos can tell us, Oh, look, the glacier got smaller over the past 50 years or 100 years, but it doesn't really tell us what happened in between and these measurements. You're doing the mass balance measurements. They tell you what happened in between.

Caitlyn: Exactly. And they help us to understand how the glacier responds to years where there may have been a big melt season. So a very hot, dry summer. But if there was also a big snow season preceding that, then the glacier may actually be in balance for the year or close to balance, whereas there could be years where the summer melts And sort of the lived experience of being in these mountains in the summer isn't that noteworthy. And then when we look at the cumulative record, we can start to really sort of understand the precise connection between the glacier and the ambient climate.

Daniel: So this is a fairly simple concept. You're measuring the the snow in the spring and measuring how much it melts in the fall. In my head, one of the big changes, one of the big shifts in glaciology happens with airplanes and aerial photography. Can you explain what changes? What does that allow for?

Caitlyn: When you can view the glaciers and the mountains from an aerial perspective, you gain an understanding of how the glaciers are changing across the region.

Daniel: It's too much work to go hike up to every glacier and measure how its mass balance is changing. But once you start being able to take pictures from the air, you don't know how how the mass is changing, but you could start measuring how the area of the glaciers are changing. So in my head, tell me if this is right, aerial photography or even from satellites, I guess—that's a big shift in the study of the cryosphere.

Caitlyn: Yeah, and I'd say it's true not just for the cryosphere, but for Earth sciences in general. Our ability to view our planet from a distance. We have a time series of glacier area at various snapshots starting in 1966, and that was generated by tracing the area of the glacier from aerial images. So pictures taken from airplanes provide that baseline imagery that we can then use to trace the extent of the glaciers. And then if we have aerial or satellite imagery from the modern era, we can do the same thing and then we can quantify the area change.

Daniel: The disadvantage is you don't know how much snow is falling on the glacier in the spring and you don't know how much is melting in the fall. But the advantage is you can look at all of the glaciers in the park at once. You can take pictures of them all. So that that's a huge advantage. So I guess the basis for glacier science in this area, as I understand it, is these aerial images. You have pictures of the glaciers from above. And then that coupled with the mass balance measurements that's just happening at Sperry Glacier, but happening over eighteen years. So those two things together, you start to get a pretty good picture of how things are changing.

Caitlyn: Definitely.

Daniel: And I guess the change that we're seeing is you have these pictures from 1966, and the area is getting smaller and all the glaciers. So that doesn't tell us if they're getting thinner necessarily or thicker or whatever. But it it does tell us that the area is getting smaller. So that's by area. We're talking about a measurement squared. So like square acres or square kilometers, right?

Caitlyn: Yes.

Daniel: So another thing I want to ask you about then, aerial images, that, that starts to unlock a new way of understanding the cryosphere on earth. But with satellites, it also starts unlocking, studying the cryosphere on other planets. So as a fun piece of trivia, like other planets have glaciers, right?

Caitlyn: Yes, Other planets have ice. And it's something that is definitely a point of interest, especially for the search for life on other planets.

Daniel: Oh of course

Caitlyn: There's sort of this tagline, follow the water.

Daniel: Yeah. Which is super interesting and interesting that glaciers on earth are made of rocks and water, but in other places in the solar system, they could be made of, I don't know, nitrogen or carbon dioxide.

Caitlyn: Well, and another factor to consider is like a glacier on Mars will have different dimensions than a glacier on earth because the gravitational force on Mars is different.

Daniel: I mean, the fundamental principles are still the same. But some of the numbers are going to shift because you have different gravity and. Interesting.

Caitlyn: Exactly.

Daniel: Okay. So all of that to me reinforces the importance of of approaching the science in a really quantitative way, having like, ways to really measure the glaciers.

Caitlyn: Exactly.

Daniel: Your research is on the cutting edge of those quantitative methods.

Caitlyn: Yes. So as we've described, we have this glacialogical approach. Which is very logistically demanding and time consuming, but it provides us the advantage of having seasonal information0ù so precise, a precise understanding of winter accumulation and summer ablation. But it's for one single glacier within the mountain range. And then we have the advantage of aerial photography and aerial imagery which provides information about the aerial extent of the glacier for the entire mountain range. And so photogrammetry is a technique that sort of marries the advantage of both approaches. And so photogrammetry is basically leveraging the same sort of phenomena that happens with our eyeballs, where there are two images that are offset. And if there are offset and overlapping, we can use that two dimensional information from the aerial image to sort of recreate the third dimension. And then if we repeat that exercise, say, with aerial imagery from the 1960s and satellite imagery from 2023, we have elevation information from both those years and we can difference the elevations to calculate the vertical change. And then we have a measurement of mass change across the landscape using photogrammetry. And we can compare that to our glacialogical measurements that give us the really fine tune seasonal information.

Daniel: This is kind of blowing my mind. So so basically, by taking two offset pictures of the glaciers from the air, you can use math, geometry I guess, to make a lot of different calculations about the shape, the three dimensional shape of the glaciers.

Caitlyn: Precisely.

Daniel: That's incredible. It sounds difficult to calculate.

Caitlyn: It involves specialized expertise, and actually the technology that, and the sort of workflows that the USGS Glacier Group leverages were originally developed for NASA's missions, for the Apollo missions. So for surveying the surface of the moon.

Daniel: There's all kinds of ways that studying the glaciers is being approached. We've hinted that mostly what you're observing is that glaciers are getting smaller. But let's let's talk about that. So is that true? All the lines of evidence point towards the glaciers are shrinking.

Caitlyn: Yes.

Daniel: Hmm.

Caitlyn: It's important, though, to understand that there can also be situations. Not so much for the glaciers here in Glacier National Park, but glaciers elsewhere where the dynamics aren't necessarily so sort of the flow of the ice isn't always directly coupled to what's happening with weather and snow accumulation and ice melt in any given year.

Daniel: The simple equation is like, well, it's hot in the summer so the glacier melts. If it's not super snowy in the winter, then the summer is stronger than the winter and the glacier gets smaller. But what you're saying is, yeah, that's that's generally very true. But there's there's some real nuances happening on specific glaciers that have more to do with water under the glacier, how steep is the glacier? One I've heard about is wind, right, and drifting. That's a big thing here in Glacier National Park, right?

Caitlyn: Exactly. And so one of those local processes that you just described is the wind drifting and wind scour of snow. Snow, snow, avalanche accumulation is another example. The shading of the surface from the topographic relief.

Daniel: It's not just how much snow falls in the winter. It's also like how much snow falls and then blows onto the glacier.

Caitlyn: Exactly. That redistribution of snow is a big important process for controlling the spatial variability of snow accumulation. And and so it becomes a relatively major influence on the mass balance of these small glaciers.

Daniel: Do you know off the top of your head, kind of the ballpark numbers that we're talking about, how much snow falls in the mountains of glacier versus how much drifts on top of Sperry Glacier?

Caitlyn: That's an open question. We have some ongoing studies that have quantified those different processes, like sort of the direct accumulation versus the relative accumulation, according to, or driven by wind drifts.

Daniel: Is it something like, you know, a high elevation forest in Glacier National Park is going to get a a couple of meters of snow over the winter. But the top of Sperry Glacier, where the wind's blowing, it's going to get like dozens of meters of snow, is that?

Caitlyn: One way I like to think about this topic is there is a glacier there for a reason. So, yeah, it's been favoring snow accumulation and the persistence of that frozen water mass. And that's how the ice forms to begin with. So generally, the, the location of the glaciers particularly now in a time when I mean, this the mountain range here in Glacier National Park is sparsely glacier ice to begin with. And when I say to begin with, I mean, like since 200 years ago.

Daniel: Mm hmm.

Caitlyn: And then with climate warming and conditions trending towards a climate that's less and less favorable to maintaining glacier ice on the landscape, those local processes become increasingly influential in terms of the persistence of ice.

Daniel: One thing that people think a lot about the park's glaciers is like, Oh, they're getting smaller. So as they get smaller, they're going to melt faster and faster. Like that's intuitive. Like, we think that's common sense. But your research has found that's not really quite true, that as they get smaller, they also become more shaded, they become more sheltered and they become relatively more snowdrift, you know—and wind blown snow lands on more of the glacier. So they're almost becoming more resilient as they get smaller.

Caitlyn: Yes. This question of relative vulnerability is really interesting and we're really keen to address that very question of do we see enhanced ice loss through time as the summers get warmer and warmer, or do we see more resilience as the glaciers are relegated to these shady wind-loaded spots? And what we're finding is that that resilience and that sort of niche like refugial setting has a buffering capacity that only can go so far.

Daniel: Mmhmm.

Caitlyn: So then if we once the glaciers experience sufficient melt, it just can't keep up even with that refugial setting.

Daniel: Okay, it helps the glaciers to be shaded and snow drifted and and tucked into their little cirques. But at a certain point, if the climate gets hot enough, it doesn't matter.

Caitlyn: Exactly.

Daniel: But it does seem like it would make predicting when the glaciers are going to be gone, quote, unquote. You know, that that starts to become pretty tricky when you start realizing that it's not just a uniform rate of retreat.

Caitlyn: Exactly. And that I mean, that hits the nail on the head. It's really important to understand how much ice is there to begin with, not just in the footprint, but also in the thickness. Like we do our best to represent these spatially variable processes and models, but having direct measurements of how much where actually—how much snow is actually accumulating at a location really helps us to at least start to constrain that margin of uncertainty.

Daniel: Right. Right. So we we know through a lot of lines of evidence that all of the glaciers are generally retreating and getting smaller. But saying or predicting when they'll be gone is pretty hard to calculate precisely at this point. And it also kind of depends on how you define gone and a whole bunch of other things.

Caitlyn: That's where some of these details really start to start to matter. But every sort of scientifically sophisticated, well constrained, physically informed model of the progression of glacier ice in Glacier National Park portends the continued demise of this frozen water.

Daniel: Well, to wrap up, you were just up at Sperry Glacier. What was it like up there after a winter in the office?

Caitlyn: The snowpack at Sperry Glacier this year was lower than it has been in past years, and we were struck by how much bare ice was exposed. There's this scour spot on Sperry Glacier, where we often see bare ice even in and throughout the winter. But certainly in the spring, once the melt season has started. However, the amount of bare ice that was exposed was definitely noticeably larger than it has been in the past. The other thing that was striking is that we could hear meltwater, which isn't common for the spring trip so often the spring trip, it feels more like winter still in the Sperry Glacier Basin and it definitely felt like spring. And obviously those sort of qualitative descriptions and the experience of being a human being on the landscape, that informs our sensibility of what's happening this year on Sperry Glacier with this winter mass balance. But the measurements of snow, depth and density will help us to really quantify how much snow has accumulated on the glacier. But it really seems like this melt season is proceeding a lot faster than a sort of a typical melt season.

Daniel: Sperry Glacier's melting out fast. Wow. A lot of your job is very quantitative. A lot of these complex Newtonian physics and first principles that we're talking about, programing out computer models. But it's special. And nice to catch you today right after you're coming out of the field and just having kind of the human experience on Sperry Glacier and on a on a year when it's changing particularly fast.

[upbeat background music builds]

Caitlyn: Yeah, we'll see. We'll have to compare it to other years where we've seen a relatively stout winter snowpack and mild, cloudy summer. So that's the beauty of having these measurements and this record all the way back to 2005. We can really put what we're seeing this year into into context. But thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. It's really nice to catch up.

Daniel: Yeah, this was a good conversation. Thanks for coming, Caitlyn.

Caitlyn: Yeah, you're welcome.

Peri: Headwaters is funded by donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. As an organization dedicated to supporting the park, the Conservancy funds a lot of sustainability initiatives from solar panels on park buildings to storytelling projects like this one, the Conservancy is doing critical work to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. You can learn more about what they do and about how to get involved at Glacier.org. This show is created by Daniel Lombardi. Michael Faist, Gaby Eseverri, and me, Peri Sasnett. We get critical support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Kristen Friesen, and so many good people with Glacier's natural and cultural resource teams. Our music was made by the brilliant Frank Waln, and the show's cover art is by our sweet friend Stella Nall. Check out Frank and Stella's work at the links in the show notes. Besides sharing this episode with a friend who might appreciate it, you can help us out by leaving a rating and review in your podcast app. Thanks for listening.

A conversation with Dr. Caitlyn Florentine, research physical scientist with the US Geological Survey, who studies snow and ice in Glacier. This episode was recorded in May 2023.

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Overview of the park’s glaciers: https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/glaciersoverview.htm

Episode 4

Climate and the Future of Forests with Dr. Tyler Hoecker

Transcript

Lacy Kowalski: Headwaters is supported by the Glacier National Park Conservancy.

Peri Sasnett: This is Headwaters, a show about how Glacier National Park is connected to everything else. My name is Peri, and I'm talking to you from the dense forests of northwest Montana. This episode is an interview that my co-host Daniel did with forest ecologist Dr. Tyler Hoecker about how wildfires exacerbated by climate change are upending our forests. This episode is part of a series of conversations we've been having with a wide variety of climate change experts. These episodes don't have to be listened to in any order, each one stands on its own. And they all focus on a particular aspect of the way the world is being altered by the burning of fossil fuels. Over the past century and a half, human activity has released enough greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's climate over one degree Celsius, with only more warming on the way. Throughout 2023, Daniel sat down with experts to talk about how that warming is altering Glacier National Park, our lives and our futures. [drum and synth beat starts to play] I find fire fascinating, so I think this conversation was one of my favorites. I feel like I've heard most of the usual stories about wildfire so many times, so I was really excited to hear about Dr. Hoecker's research on how forests are responding to climate change. It felt like a new angle. I learned a lot, and I hope you do too.

[beat concludes]

Daniel Lombardi: So, Dr. Tyler Hoecker, welcome to Headwaters.

Tyler Hoecker: Thanks so much for having me.

Daniel: It feels pretty good that we're talking today, or auspicious or bad, on like just this week the smoke really rolled into the park. We have several new fires burning right around us. It's very much fire season, so it's a good time to have this conversation. Will you introduce yourself and talk about kind of your job and the work you're doing right now?

Tyler: Sure. So I'm Tyler Hoecker. I'm a research scientist at the University of Montana in Missoula. And right now I'm doing research trying to understand how climate change is changing fire activity across the western U.S. and trying to project how fires and forests might change into the future.

Daniel: How did you get into fire stuff, like how did that become the path for you?

Tyler: I think everybody is sort of drawn to fire, in a, in a weird way, you know, fires are pretty important, has been an important like catalyst, you know, for civilization. And so I think it's sort of just a compelling thing.

Daniel: It's kind of a universal concept, that fire and flames draw your eye and like draw you in.

Tyler: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's hard to think about forests in the West without thinking about fire. I remember as an undergrad, I took a a forest ecology and policy class, and we went to a community fire meeting. And I just remember being really fascinated by the process. And it was clear to me pretty quickly that it was really important at shaping forests in the West. And so I was really interested in understanding it. And, you know, it's sort of interesting to think back on that. You know, that was 2010. And, you know, I think fire scientists probably understood what was what was unfolding in terms of fire in the West. But I don't think anybody would have been able to really predict, you know, what's happened in the last 13 years since in terms of the amount of area burned every year. And, yeah, the types of fire events that we're seeing every summer now.

Daniel: Yeah. So let's jump into some fire ecology. At one point I was hiking up Mt. Brown and it was kind of in the fall, early fall, the fireweed was blooming and like the sun was rising and kind of glowing through it. And there was the cloud layer was like fog all in the forest. And so I was walking through that and it had burned, you know, like a year before. So everything is charred and crisp and like pretty black. There's no living trees. But in that morning light, it was so beautiful. And for me it was kind of like a pivot point. This, like black backed woodpecker, flew down and landed on the tree in front of me and was feasting on beetles that like the fire-killed trees. And I was like, Oh my gosh, like fire is not ugly. The aftermath of fire can be really beautiful. And I knew intellectually that it's also ecologically important. So maybe we can start with something like that. Like why, why is fire important in a place like Glacier National Park?

Tyler: So one of the things that I like to, to maybe start by kind of acknowledging or stating is that fire, in seasonally dry places, is inevitable. I mean, it's important to think about the benefits and the risks and things like that. And it's also important to acknowledge that it's inevitable. And it's just it is. And it will always, it will always happen in seasonally dry places.

Daniel: Yeah. So like, this place gets dry. There's lots of things growing here -- trees -- it's going to burn.

Tyler: Exactly. And so that means that everything that we see when we look at forests in fire-prone places are shaped by fire. Right? And so the species that we see, that's the forest structure or kind of the age of the trees and the way that they're arranged on the landscape in a place like Glacier, that that is driven primarily by fire and the history of fire.

Daniel: The animals and the trees that have lived here for millions of years have lived here with fire for billions of years. They always have coexisted.

Tyler: Exactly. But the biggest thing is that fires create what we call, like heterogeneity. You know, the opposite of homogeneity. Heterogeneity is variation in species composition, in structure and physical structure of a vegetation. And that heterogeneity confers resilience, right? And so a forest and an ecosystem that's heterogeneous, that's diverse and variable is going to be more resilient to future disturbances, to different pressures and stresses to insects and pathogens to drought.

Daniel: So would you say, when you say that fire creates heterogeneity in an ecosystem, in Glacier National Park, it kind of sounds like you're saying fire creates complexity.

Tyler: Absolutely.

Daniel: Okay. And that creates complexity means different habitats, which means that allows for biodiversity for more kinds of life to live in one place.

Tyler: Absolutely. So biodiversity basically emerges from complexity. Right? A complex system has more niches, has more opportunities for different types of organisms, and that creates a richer system.

Daniel: Compared to, say, a cornfield or like a forest that's all just one kind of -- lodgepole pine say. You know, it's just all one tree. So only certain kinds of birds, only certain kinds of animals are going to live there. You start mixing that up, you burn it and different trees start growing, then you're getting more complexity. You're getting more biodiversity.

Tyler: Yep.

Daniel: That's cool.

Tyler: Yeah.

Daniel: Not every tree in the forest has the same adaptations to fire. Some trees are adapted where they like a little bit of fire. Others, they only grow in places that probably aren't going to burn. So maybe you could break that down a little bit. Like, what are the strategies for trees? What are your options?

Tyler: Right. So trees or plants, you know, have these, as you described them, quirks, right. These characteristics. And in, and in sort of the ecology world we call those traits, but I think makes more sense to call like a strategy. So basically your options are to avoid fire, to be a species that can either hang out for a long period in the understory and during a long fire free period, or can tolerate cool, wet sites where fire is less common and happens never or very infrequently. So those are species like subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, western red cedar, western hemlock. Those are trees that grow in regions or in microclimates that tend not to burn very often or tend to burn very infrequently. And so there's a long fire-free interval in which they can establish and become dominant.

Daniel: So if you're familiar with the park, then like somewhere like the Fish Creek campground or the Avalanche area. These are like little pockets in the landscape where a creek goes through the middle, they get a lot of rain right there, they get a lot of snow. And so you have a lot of cedar and hemlock, these forests that are really dense and dark and mossy, you can just feel that it doesn't feel like fire comes through there very often.

Tyler: Exactly. Yeah. And so the other strategy or another strategy is to resist fire, and to survive fire as an individual. So those are species like ponderosa pine, western larch, and they have things like thick bark. They drop their lower branches, so that there aren't ladder fuels that would carry flame to the crown. They have rot-resistant wood, so that when their trunk is scarred by fire, that exposed wood doesn't rot. Hmm.

Daniel: And then there's all kinds of species that are-- there's all kinds of other strategies, too.

Tyler: Yeah. And so there's there's maybe sort of a third strategy around what we might say, fire embracing, or fire resilient.

Daniel: Fire loving.

Tyler: Yeah, fire loving. And so these are species that, like in the case of lodgepole pine, they've adapted a strategy where individuals are killed, but they have mechanisms for their genes to carry on. So older lodgepole pine tend to produce some serotinous cones, and they're, they're cones that are closed, and they're bound up by resin. And serotinous cones stay closed until they're heated by fire.

Daniel: They're waiting for fire.

Tyler: They're waiting for fire. And so this is a strategy. This is like putting all your money under the mattress and waiting for that opportunity to strike it big. Right? So the individual bearing those cones is probably dead, as are all of the individuals around it. But what you have is this environment that's perfect for lodgepole pine seedlings. It's bare mineral soil, it's high light, it's low in competition. And so they seed, you know, millions of seeds onto a, into an environment that's perfect for for their regeneration. And so then you have a new single-age cohort that recovers after the fire.

Daniel: Interesting.

Tyler: The other sort of version of being a fire-embracing, or fire-resilient, is to be able to resprout. So that things like aspen or cottonwoods or shrubs.

Daniel: That is they're not good at surviving the fire, but they'll grow back faster than every -- all the other trees. Right.

Tyler: So they survive in a way, their underground structures survive. The top is killed and they can re sprout from that underground. Those underground root structures.

Daniel: It doesn't have to regrow its roots, it's already got them.

Tyler: Yep. It's starting with a bit of a trust fund there and so can do really well.

Daniel: So there's we have all these trees in the park. We've got ponderosa pine in the North Fork, we've got cedar, we've got big dense forests of lodgepole and larch. We've got it all in Glacier. It's a pretty diverse place. So what is the fire regime or what is the history and pattern of wildfire, naturally, in Glacier National Park?

Tyler: Yeah. So, you know, one of the things that's really fun and cool about studying fire in Glacier is that high tree diversity. So you have all of these different individual species that sort of respond and coexist with fire in different ways like we talked about. And what that also means is that the fire regime across Glacier is different depending on where you are. So most of Glacier is what we would call Subalpine forest. So that's forests that are dominated by species like Engelmann Spruce subalpine fir douglas fir, larch, western white pine a little bit.

Daniel: Okay.

Tyler: So these are sort of the mid to high elevation, you know, before you get into that alpine whitebark pine zone. Those are forests that burn infrequently and at high severity. So infrequent in that context means every 150 to 300 years or so.

Daniel: Wow.

Tyler: So that's what we would call infrequent. Mm hmm. And because there's this long time period between fires, there's a long opportunity or a lot of opportunity for biomass to accumulate. And so that means that when fires do come through, they burn at high severity, they burn really hot, they kill most of the trees, they burn off the organic matter on the, on the surface of the soil. There are some places in Glacier that have a more frequent and less severe fire regime. So places like the North Fork, because they're in sort of a warm, dry microclimate and because they have species that can survive fire, that sort of creates the conditions for a more frequent fire regime, which would be burning every 5 to 50 years or maybe 5 to 100 years.

Daniel: So it could be pretty common. Yeah, every five years.

Tyler: Yeah so that's-- and then at low severity, meaning that relatively few individuals are killed in a fire. Right. So maybe some trees are killed, but most of the large mature individuals survive and maybe the small trees in the understory are killed. Hmm. It's also important to note that in a lot of places, those frequent fire regimes were supported by human burning, you know, by by cultural burning, by Indigenous people.

Daniel: Okay. So the park has some areas that historically would have burned pretty regularly, maybe sometimes even as much as every five or ten years, and burning at a fairly low severity. It's clearing out the shrubs and burning the grasses around the trees, burning some of the little trees. But most of the park is stand-replacing fires. Most of the park is not burning that often. In recent years we've had the Howe Ridge fire. We've had the the Sprague fire. What kind of fires are those? Are those the frequent fires or the infrequent ones that happen only every few hundred years?

Tyler: So those two fires together were a really cool opportunity as a scientist, because what we had there was fires that burned in forests that were historically pretty similar on either side of Lake McDonald. And those both of those fires burned almost into that Cedar-Hemlock zone, but mostly in that kind of mid-elevation subalpine forest zone. And the Sprague Fire was really kind of what we think of as typical of the historical fire regime in Glacier. So fire where those trees were in that range of 150 to 300 years old. So you had old forests, pretty big trees, relatively dense and had not experienced fire for a long time.

Daniel: So this the Sprague fire then, I remember when that started, and that's the fire that ultimately burned down Sperry Chalet. This-- this is a fire that you're saying is what we would expect in Glacier National Park, that those trees, 200, 300 years old, they're kind of right on schedule to to burn.

Tyler: Right.

Daniel: But then now things are changing. What is the relationship, if we step back for a second, between fire and climate? We know things are getting hotter. I'm sure that's changing fire here.

Tyler: Yeah. So all fire regimes are driven by three things, basically. By vegetation, climate and ignitions. So we kind of we talk about like a fire triangle defined by those three things. But which is more important or more influential varies from place to place. And so in a place like Glacier, ignitions are not particularly limiting, and vegetation is not particularly limiting. You know, if you think about the forests of Glacier, they have a lot of biomass, right? We have a lot of trees. There's plenty of fuel on the landscape. Okay. And so what tends to limit fire activity in Glacier is climate.

Daniel: Because we also have a lot of lightning strikes.

Tyler: Right. So we almost always have the vegetation ingredient. We almost always have the ignition ingredient, at least during the summer. And what determines whether we have fires and in particular what drives whether we have big fires -- big fires that burn for a long time -- that's really driven by climate.

Daniel: So to put it simply, there are always enough trees here for a good fire. It's really just, is the climate dry enough for it to happen?

Tyler: Exactly. Yeah. There's always enough vegetation on the landscape to burn. And it's whether or not the, the environment and the weather is suitable for burning.

Daniel: So now maybe tell you could tell me some more about then, what are the trends? What's been happening in recent decades? What are we kind of forecasting to see? I mean the headline we know is it's, it's getting hotter. Climate change is warming this place up. How is that affecting fire?

Tyler: Sure. So because climate is a, is a big driver of all fire regimes, and especially in places like Glacier, where climate is the main driver of the fire regime, fire activity is really sensitive to changes in climate.

Daniel: Like big picture, what are we seeing across the American west? I mean, I think we're seeing more fire, right?

Tyler: Yeah. So we're seeing we're seeing longer and hotter fire seasons. So we're seeing that fires can happen for more of the year. They can last longer and they're burning hotter and burning at higher severity, affecting more of the landscape.

Daniel: One study I've seen estimated across the broader American west, something like doubling. We've already seen a doubling of the amount of wildfire burned since the eighties.

Tyler: Yeah. And so we also know that we can see this trajectory of increasing area burned. And the other thing that's different now is that these forests are burning and then trying to recover in a climate that's very different than it was 100 years ago.

Daniel: This is really where your research comes in then.

Tyler: Right, and then seedlings are trying to reestablish in an environment that's several degrees warmer and much drier than it was when the last fire happened. So it's kind of this combination of increasing area burned and increasingly warm, dry conditions that make it more difficult for trees to reestablish after a fire. So that's part of what makes modern fire activity so different.

[drumbeat plays, marking a transition]

Daniel: So maybe we could talk then now about the Howe Ridge fire, and as an example of kind of how the regeneration is changing.

Tyler: Right. Yeah. So some useful context for the Howe Ridge fire is that it burned entirely within the footprint of the 2003 Robert Fire. You know, that was the conventional wisdom in the Northern Rockies is that places that have recently burned are unlikely to burn again for at least a few decades.

Daniel: But so then in 2018, 15 years later, it burned again, like really just the exact same spot. And that was unexpected for fire managers and scientists. Right?

Tyler: Right.

Daniel: Okay. I was watching the fire the night it really took off, burning downhill in a way you wouldn't expect. And a, a woman was watching and crying about the fire. And I was talking with her and I, I didn't really know what to say. And I was like, "well, yeah, I, I didn't think a fire could burn in a spot where it had already burned just 15 years ago." And she was like, "Well, that's climate change. I know it is." And that kind of stunned me. But I was like, I guess she's right.

Tyler: Yeah. And so I talked about how the area that was burned in the Sprague fire was really old and this forest was sort of at a stage where it was, you know, sort of ready to burn. Right. And when that fire burned through, there was all these sort of material legacies left that allowed the forest to recover rapidly. Right. So there are stands that had a lot of serotinous cones. There were big live trees all around the edge of the burned area to, to seed into that area. And when we went back into the the area that the Sprague Fire burned, it was basically like walking through wildflower meadows. It was like a sea of hollyhock, like I've never seen.

Daniel: Wow.

Tyler: And then there'll be other areas that were like a sea of fireweed. Hmm. And that's sort of like what we expect post-fire landscapes to look to look like in the Northern Rockies.

Daniel: So this is really fire being an agent of change and diversity and beauty, the kind of the way we'd expect fire to be here historically or traditionally.

Tyler: Right.

Daniel: And that's the Sprague fire. That's really interesting.

Tyler: Yeah. And so I wasn't here for it, but that's what I imagine things looked like after the 2003 Robert Fire. So the Robert Fire, or like the landscape following the Robert fire, regenerated similar to to what is happening right now after the Sprague fire. Mm hmm. And so we had these, you know, really dense stands of mostly lodgepole pine and larch. But some of the other species that we would expect, like Doug fir and spruce and fir were regenerating in that site. Mm hmm. And then 15 years later, a lot of that standing wood that was killed in 2003, a lot of those snags fell. And so you have a ton of coarse woody debris, sort of matchsticks all across Howe Ridge. So it actually creates these conditions that are really conducive to very high severity fire.

Daniel: Yeah. So basically that's lots of big trees that died in 2003, they're laying on the ground, laying on top of each other. And then all in between those, coming up, are young baby trees that are, you know, less than ten feet tall sometimes. And they're really close together. So now you've got big logs and lots of little bushy trees all mixed together really tightly.

Tyler: Yep. But if you have all these matchsticks and you're going weeks into the summer without rain, you have an opportunity to really dry out these big fuels. And you have all these fine fuels, like you said, sort of right there, intermixed with all of the dead wood. And then you get these warm, dry conditions, you get an ignition, and you get some strong winds, and that can that can burn these very young forests in a way that we haven't observed much before the last few years.

Daniel: Hmm. So then that's where things are a little bit unexpected.

Tyler: Absolutely. So we measured both of these fires two years post-fire. Okay. So the Sprague Fire we've sampled in 2019, and Howe Ridge we sampled in 2020.

Daniel: Two years after they burned.

Tyler: Yep. So kind of the key pieces of information that we were after was, the density of trees -- how many trees are there, you know, per area? And what's the composition? What species are they? Mm hmm. Because we wanted to know how the forest that was regenerating was similar or different to the forest that was there before. And so in general, what we found in the Sprague Fire was that the composition that we sampled in those first few years post-fire was pretty similar to the composition beforehand. So there was a little bit less of the spruce and fir, which you might expect because they're very fire sensitive and they're a little bit more shade tolerant. But we had basically the full suite of species that we saw before the fire, we were able to identify post-fire.

Daniel: So the Sprague Fire like, is an example of the forest regenerating kind of as you'd expect. You see most of the trees that were there, that were burned, you see most of them growing back up.

Tyler: Yeah.

Daniel: And then you're comparing that to the Sprague fire, to the Howe Ridge fire.

Tyler: Right. And so we did the same thing in the Howe Ridge fire, as I mentioned, you know, fires are are really complex and heterogeneous in terms of their severity. We went to places that burned at high severity because we were really thinking about the future, and thinking about as the climate becomes warmer, it's really these places that have burned at high severity that are going to give us the best sort of window into the future climate -- where forests are headed.

Daniel: You didn't survey randomly. You picked intentionally areas that burned really severely.

Tyler: Right. So it's not that those places characterize the whole fire or and certainly not that they characterize the whole park, but they characterize what happens in a forest when it burns twice and when it burns at high severity twice.

Daniel: So what happens?

Tyler: So now we've burned it twice. There's almost no material left on the landscape to provide these shaded microsites for seedlings. We're really far now from seed sources and any of the seed sources that might have been within that burned patch. Like serotinous lodgepole pine haven't had the opportunity to develop. Serotinous cones don't develop on lodgepole pine until about 30 years in. And so you have no serotinous cones.

Daniel: Because they weren't ready.

Tyler: They didn't have long enough to develop and mature and then even non-serotinous cones, these trees are just 15 years old, right? So they're just approaching sort of sexual maturity. So they may have some cones, but probably not very many. Uh huh. So it's kind of, you know, this combination of factors where the post-fire environment is much harsher for regeneration because we're missing this residual forest structure that acted like a canopy. And we're missing a lot of the seed sources that are, you know, essential for the forest to regenerate.

Daniel: So it's kind of like the fire burning a little bit ahead of schedule. Though that may have happened in the past, we don't know quite how often, it's definitely unusual for the past century.

Tyler: Right. So now you're really locked into this trajectory of only the most fire-adapted species can really reestablish in that type of setting. And so what we saw was, you know, the vast majority of our plots were either larch, dominated by larch, or lodgepole pine.

Daniel: So comparing them, the two survey sites, you're swimming through fields of wildflowers on one side, and then on Howe Ridge, are you just baking in the sun?

Tyler: Basically. I mean, it depends where you were, but particularly that south-facing slope of Howe Ridge that you see when you look across Lake MacDonald, you know, that's a south-facing slope. So it's particularly warm and dry. And so that area before 2003, that band along the lakeshore, that was Cedar-Hemlock forest. Hmm. And you can imagine what it's like to walk around in it, in an old-grown Cedar Hemlock forest. It's totally shaded. It's, you know, you have plants that don't even photosynthesize, there's so little sunlight. It's moist, right? Huge old trees.

Daniel: Lots of moss.

Tyler: Yeah. Moss and

Daniel: It's like the Avalanche Creek area

Tyler: It's like Avalanche Creek area. Yeah. So you go from that before 2003 to now, you have a setting where it's super dry, rocky, and it's mostly willow and some aspen, some larch, some Douglas fir seedlings coming back, but really low tree densities, particularly in that area. So I think it's just really striking that in this one particular area, we went from an old growth Cedar-Hemlock forest to a really hot, dry shrub field.

Daniel: Wow.

Tyler: In 20 years.

Daniel: Yeah. Interesting.

Tyler: So it's not that reburns are are everywhere all the time right now. But what makes them so interesting from a science perspective is that we think of them as like this window into the future. Yeah. And so that's why we want to go into those places now and start to understand what's happening. And, you know, the thing with the Cedar-Hemlock forests around Lake MacDonald is those are established centuries ago. Mm hmm. And so not only has there been modern climate change, but, you know, there were fluctuations in climate before the industrial period, and those forests established during what was called the Little Ice Age. So it was a particularly cold period at the end of the Holocene, the last kind of interglacial period.

Daniel: When the park's glaciers were really robust.

Tyler: Right. So that's when those forests established. So they establish in a climate that's really, really different from the climate today. Mm hmm. And so the thing that's cool and fascinating about trees is that they're really long-lived and they're really resilient. So trees can sort of be out of sync with their climate for a pretty long time.

Daniel: Interesting.

Tyler: Right? Because they have these big roots that can access water from a lot of different places. They create their own microclimates. Mm hmm. So the Cedar-Hemlock forests around Lake McDonald have been out of sync with climate for a while. Mm hmm. But what we're seeing is that fire is really catalyzing that change. Mm hmm. Where eventually, if the climate continued on the trajectory that it's on, even in the absence of fire, those Cedar-Hemlock forests may die during a severe drought or something like that. But fire comes through and is really the event that catalyzes that shift in in an abrupt way.

Daniel: Hmm. Can you give me some more details on that? Like what's regrowing? Grass?

Tyler: Yeah, I mean, what that looks like is, right now that landscape is is really dominated by shrubs. It's really open. And in a few decades, it may be like a more open forest that we find really pleasant and desirable. Or it may be that we just have this really prolonged period of recovery, and we may never get a forest recovering in the way that it was before.

Daniel: Hmm. So to some extent, fire re-burning more regularly, burning hotter, more often because of climate change, it's kind of simplifying the landscape a little bit. Whereas historically, traditionally, the wildfire was more of a diversifying agent on the landscape.

Tyler: I think that's a really good way to put it, yeah. And that's what's so hard to grapple with, is that like if we're able to sort of mitigate global climate change, and temperatures sort of plateau, and rates of burning plateau, it's not impossible that the historical forest types that were there can reestablish. But with all those caveats, that would still take, you know, a century to play out and it's -- a century is a long time. For people. You know, it's not so much time for trees, but it is a really long time for people. And so I think sometimes like, us, especially scientists, kind of get hung up on like, well, how permanent is this transition? Like, it's not going to be that way forever. And I think sometimes that's missing the point a little bit. Because it is that way now, and it's going to be that way for the next few decades to centuries. And that's really what matters for us. Right. And yeah, for several generations of people on the landscape.

Daniel: That's what matters for us and for anyone we're ever going to meet.

Tyler: Exactly.

[drumbeat plays, marking a transition]

Daniel: And then I guess if we're making predictions about what Glacier's going to look like 100 years from now, the safest bet is that all of these different things are going to play out in different places. Some places are going to become grassier, some -- it's going to be all of the above, I guess.

Tyler: Exactly.

Daniel: Okay.

Tyler: What that means, though, is that, you know, those are a few different pathways that are all possible and like you said, are are all likely to play out somewhere on the landscape. Mm hmm. What's less and less likely are old forests, and forests dominated by really fire-sensitive species. Mm hmm. So old subalpine, spruce-fir forests, old cedar-hemlock forests, old whitebark pine forests, those are the types of forest that we probably will see less of in Glacier in the future. Or will occupy less of the park than they do now, or than they did in the past.

Daniel: Yeah, maybe this isn't even your job to answer this, but what's the response then? What can we do to adapt to this?

Tyler: I mean, I do think that, yeah, it's not my job to say exactly what we should do. I do think it's my job to try to help to provide information about, this is what we think is happening, and these are the likely scenarios. What we should do about it really depends on what do we value? What do we find desirable, what do we find undesirable? And what are we willing to do? Mm hmm. There's a really useful framework for climate adaptation that was actually developed by the National Park Service Climate Change Response program called RAD: Resist, Accept, Direct. And it's a really useful way to think about, okay, here's where we're headed. And then it helps us to decide, okay, is that where we want to go? And then if it's not, let's think about the options. We can resist -- in Glacier, resistance means when we have a really hot, dry summer and there's a fire in the park, we're going to put sprinklers in Avalanche Creek. Mm hmm. Or we're going to do things like they did in Sequoia and wrap Mylar around precious individual trees. Yeah. Right. That's resisting.

Daniel: Doing everything we can to stop it from burning.

Tyler: Doing everything you can, right? Or or bringing in air tankers and suppressing fires right when they start. Mm hmm. And sort of saying, Yeah, fire -- we know fire is like an important ecological process in Glacier, but we're not really comfortable with the consequences, and so we're going to resist.

Daniel: Mm hmm.

Tyler: Directing might be more like, let's allow certain types of of change to play out, and let's sort of give some nudges or kicks along the way to help the system move in a direction that we find more desirable.

Daniel: Like prescribed burning, maybe.

Tyler: Like prescribed burning, or fuel treatments, or thinning out vegetation to modify fire behavior when it does happen. Mm hmm. Or in the case of like, replanting, maybe we replant with species that are more fire-adapted or more drought-tolerant than what was there before. Instead of just replacing the forest with what exactly what was there before. Right. So that was Direct. And then Acceptance is just saying here in Glacier, we're just going to let things run their course and see what happens. Mm hmm. And just be okay with what that, whatever that is.

Daniel: Yeah. And it could be, you know, in this part of Glacier, in these situations, we accept it. And in this part of Glacier, and in these circumstances, we resist or direct it.

Tyler: Exactly. And so if it looks like we're headed towards a park-like larch forest, we might say, yeah let's accept that. That sounds good. We like, we like hiking through that better than we like hiking through really dense lodgepole pine. Like, maybe that's okay. But when that means, you know, a transition to invasive cheatgrass, maybe that's not acceptable to us anymore.

Daniel: Yeah.

Tyler: I do think it's important to just like, just at least acknowledge, you know, it is hard to watch old growth Cedar Hemlock forest burn. You know, like, even if there are beautiful wildflowers that come up after. Mm hmm. It can be beautiful and fascinating and also sad.

Daniel: Yeah. And it's like, it is a natural part of this ecosystem, and yet it is also increasing in severity due to human-caused climate change. And it is like, a natural thing, and it was also like, toxically unhealthy for our lungs to live in it. [both laugh] Right. Like.

Tyler: Right.

Daniel: It's all of this.

Tyler: Yeah. I mean, I think that's where it adds a lot of complexity to the "what to do about it" as well. Because you can take a perspective that like we're just going to let things play out and be hands off. But the reality is that we are already having an influence on this system. You know, even if we're not out there harvesting trees, you know. And so pretending that we aren't influencing the system is is sort of, I think, a sort of choosing to ignore the influence that we know we're having.

Daniel: That we already have. Not to mention the 10,000 years of history of people intentionally having a lot of influence anyway. So it's like....

Tyler: Right. So I think, you know, it gets tricky and we should be careful about everything we do as, you know, like stewards of a landscape, but, like the context for stewardship is changing really rapidly, and so we might need to get more comfortable with things that we've previously found uncomfortable.

[guitar and drumbeat starts to play]

Daniel: Mmhmm. Well, Dr. Hoecker, thanks for coming in, chatting with me. This has been really, really fascinating.

Tyler: Awesome. Thank you, Headwaters team, for having me. Pleasure to be here.

[hopeful, slightly ambiguous music continues to play]

Peri: Headwaters is funded by donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. As an organization dedicated to supporting the park, the Conservancy funds a lot of sustainability initiatives from solar panels on park buildings to storytelling projects like this one. The Conservancy is doing critical work to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. You can learn more about what they do and about how to get involved at Glacier.org. This show is created by Daniel Lombardi, Michael Faist, Gaby Eseverri, and me, Peri Sasnett. We get critical support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Kristen Friesen, and so many good people with Glacier's, natural and cultural resource teams. Our music was made by the brilliant Frank Waln, and the show's cover art is by our sweet friend Stella Nall. Check out Frank and Stella's work at the links in the show notes. Besides sharing this episode with a friend who might appreciate it, you can help us out by leaving a rating and review in your podcast app. Thanks for listening.

A conversation with Dr. Tyler Hoecker, who studies forest ecology and the changing dynamics of fire as the climate warms. This episode was recorded in August of 2023.

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Climate change in Glacier: https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/climate-change.htm Dr. Hoecker’s research: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112721009051

Episode 5

Climate and History with Elizabeth Villano

Transcript

Lacy Kowalski: Headwaters is brought to you by the Glacier National Park Conservancy. You're listening to Headwaters, a show from Glacier National Park.

Peri Sasnett: Glacier is usually thought of as a nature park, but it's also steeped in human culture and history dating back thousands of years. My name is Peri, and this episode is an interview with climate change interpreter and park ranger Elizabeth Villano. She talks about how climate change isn't just a nature or science story, but is also a history and culture story, and about how national parks and historic sites across the country can lead that conversation. This episode is part of a series of conversations we've been having with a wide variety of climate change experts. These episodes don't have to be listened to in any order, each one stands on its own. And they all focus on a particular aspect of the way the world is being altered by the burning of fossil fuels. Over the past century and a half, human activity has released enough greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's climate over one degree Celsius, with only more warming on the way. Throughout 2023, Daniel sat down with experts to talk about how that warming is altering Glacier National Park, our lives and our futures. [drum and synth beat starts to play] This is an interview that surprised me. Each turn in the conversation went in directions I didn't expect. I've always known that climate change is a big story that connects to pretty much everything, but I'd never heard it explored this fully. If you enjoy visiting national parks, or especially if you like going to ranger programs, this conversation is for you.

[beat concludes]

Daniel Lombardi: Elizabeth, welcome to headquarters.

Elizabeth Villano: Thanks so much, Daniel. It's great to be here.

Daniel: Will you introduce yourself? Where do you work?

Elizabeth: I work for the Climate Change Response Program, which is the centralized unit within the National Park Service that does climate change communication, resilience, adaptation work for all of the National Park Service sites.

Daniel: And before that, you worked for a bunch of national park sites in the San Francisco Bay Area, right?

Elizabeth: Yeah, I worked at Alcatraz Island, the Marin Headlands, Muir Woods, and Rosie the Riveter World War Two Home Front National Historical Park.

Daniel: Okay, so you're you are a park ranger wearing the flat hat, talking to the public, talking about trees, talking about the history of World War Two, talking about all kinds of stuff.

Elizabeth: And federal prisons.

Daniel: Okay. And now you're working with all the national parks around the country, four hundred-some of them. And you're helping them incorporate climate change into what they're already doing?

Elizabeth: Yeah, I think at last count, there was 424 National Park Service sites across the country.

Daniel: Okay.

Elizabeth: And all of those interpreters have a really important job of engaging the public with their site specifically. Mm hmm. And so I am kind of in the next step up from that, where I help create training materials and actually facilitate and lead trainings that help those interpreters find their own site connection to climate change.

Daniel: Is there a park site that isn't connected to climate change?

Elizabeth: Definitely not.

Daniel: And that is exactly why I wanted to talk to you. We're having this whole series of conversations about climate change in the national parks. And I wanted to talk to you because you are talking to all these other national parks, talking about how climate change is connected to everything we do, including historical and cultural park sites. It's not just about the big nature parks like Glacier.

Elizabeth: Yeah, exactly. And in those big nature parks like Glacier, finding the unexpected connections that sometimes create the deeper meanings for visitors.

Daniel: So there for sure wasn't any like, you know, "aha" wake up moment for you on climate change. Like what underpins, you know, what's your motivation? Why do you want to tell climate stories at all?

Elizabeth: So the mission of the National Park Service is to preserve these places that we're in unimpaired for future generations. Mm hmm. And a lot of people understand when we say things like, don't feed the bears, right? That's not an unimpaired state. That is humans feeding bears. Mm hmm. They understand when we say don't throw litter on the ground. Right. Because that's not unimpaired. If we really want to stay true to our mission statement, then we absolutely have to talk about here's ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint so that these places remain unimpaired for future generations, for people to continue enjoying these beautiful places that we love and cherish so much. That's just another form of advocacy that we absolutely need to do.

Daniel: Especially in a place like Glacier that's so easy to see. And such an important point you're making is that. Climate change is impacting and changing in a negative way. Glacier National Park. And we have to acknowledge that and we have to explore it. We have to talk about it. We have to tell the climate stories of Glacier National Park and of all the other park sites as well.

Elizabeth: Mm hmm. Yeah. Even if your park site doesn't have a glacier to melt or, you know, a sea level rise that will destroy your resource, you're still a part of this larger interconnected system across the nation where if we are protecting the National Park Services resources, you're a part of that movement. So part of my work is developing training tools so that anyone across the Park Service can say, How do I talk about climate change more effectively? And then the other part of that is actually leading and facilitating trainings.

Daniel: And that's one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you, is because I know you're working on a a big resource, a big toolkit called History and Hope, which is a tool that's going to help more national parks, especially national historical parks, talk about climate change and talk about climate change in places that maybe they haven't a lot in the past. Is that right?

Elizabeth: Yeah. The full title is History and Hope: Interpreting the Roots of Our Climate Crisis and Inspiring Action.

Daniel: Okay. I'm I'm really excited to talk to you today. And I want to talk to you about how the national parks can interpret climate change into the future. Maybe a new approach to talking about climate change that's different than what we've done in the past. But let's start with you a little bit. Did you have a moment or a turning point where you started thinking about climate change a lot more or differently?

Elizabeth: Well, you know, I was thinking about if I had a wake up moment in thinking about climate change as a whole, and I realized the answer is no. It's just been a part of my consciousness since I can remember. Mm hmm. And I think that unfortunately, that's just how the trajectory of climate change, knowledge and understanding is going to go. And as you talk with people who are younger than me, especially, there's no wake up moment. It's yeah, I was born into a world that is increasingly in hospitable and is going to change in ways that we can't imagine or comprehend. Mm hmm.

Daniel: You could imagine a climate scientist 30 years ago or something, and they do some experiments or finally read some new research, and they have this wake up moment. But for people, for millennials, for Gen Z, for younger people, there's not moments like that. It's sort of you learn about it before you really understand it. And it's just climate change is kind of an ever present thing. Is that what I mean? That's how it feels for me too.

Elizabeth: Yeah, absolutely. It's just a part of how I view the world. Any time I'm in the outdoors, it's always kind of there in the back of my mind. And I think a part of my journey with the Park Service was figuring out, okay, we have this massive systemic issue and we're only really talking about it in spaces we think of as natural. But of course, this problem is so much bigger than just in natural spaces. Mm hmm. So how do we use park service sites that are more than just natural? All the cultural history embedded into them to help us think through those really challenging issues with climate change?

Daniel: Yeah. Why? Why And how do you think National Park sites, whether they're cultural or historical or natural, like why are park sites so well-suited for communicating climate change?

Elizabeth: I think first I've noticed in myself and other Park Service interpreters that we kind of hold a false binary of what's natural and what's cultural. Mm hmm. We say, like, this park is natural. There's glaciers, there's trees, there's rocks. And this park is cultural. It talks about wars and World War Two. And yeah, every park site has all of it.

Daniel: Like Glacier National Park is known as a natural park. We have grizzly bears. We have glaciers. Right. But of course, there's a lot of cultural and history here. And I imagine in the same way a site like Rosie the Riveter, you know, that's interpreting World War Two history, it's really a culture site. But of course, it is also part of the natural world and about the natural environment. So they're connected. But beyond that, there's something about like place based learning. And when you go to a place, it helps you learn about something like climate change in a different way. I think national parks as a whole are getting, you know, 300 some million visitors were really trusted and park rangers are really trusted. A. Authorities. It makes something so important like climate change, it makes it really important to talk about at such important places like National Park sites, I think. Do you agree?

Elizabeth: Yeah. And when people come to these sites, they're kind of in a different state of mind. Mm hmm. You know, they're on vacation mode. They're more open to learning, receiving information and feel really connected to the place that they're in. Mm hmm. National parks have such an immense power of place, it can kind of transport you into a different way of viewing the world. Yeah. And not just that. I think if you think about who the nation's storytellers are. Mm hmm. We're kind of the only agency or one of the only agencies that's employed to tell stories of our nation's past, as well as a trained workforce who understands how to dig into these histories and help people find their relevance with them. You'll often hear interpreters or the phrase interpretation. Mm hmm. And I used to get a lot like, What does that mean? Mm hmm. I'm not a language interpreter. I don't translate French to English, but I do interpret why this place matters to you and what helps you find your relevance to it. And so that was really the purpose of this project. And this toolkit is finding more ways we can interpret climate change so that we can say, here's a connection in this park site that maybe relates back to your own life more, that relates back to the qualities of being a person existing in a really messy world.

[drumbeat plays to mark a transition]

Daniel: How did you start out talking about climate change when you were interpreting to the public? When people ask you about climate change, how how did you approach the topic with people?

Elizabeth: It was pretty dark, really.

Daniel: I think it was the same for me.

Elizabeth: I was working at Muir Woods National Monument, which is a beautiful redwood forest about an hour north of San Francisco, and the fog in and around the Bay Area is decreasing. It's decreased by about 30% since the 1950s. And the redwoods rely on the fog. Uh, so at the end of my talk, I would kind of, you know, the crescendo would be the fog is disappearing. And what is that going to mean for these trees? And I think, you know, I would just leave these really uncomfortably long pauses where I would start imagining the worst and people would start imagining the worst.

Daniel: Mm hmm.

Elizabeth: And I think the the underlying tone of what I was saying is, I'm so glad you're here now because they're not going to be here anymore. Mm hmm. And. When you're engaging with people, when you're doing programs, it's so energizing usually. And I would just leave these programs feeling so depleted and sad and depressed. And we've seen that people who are interpreting climate change, people who are doing the science of climate change, are really starting to feel depressed and worn down because we're so immersed in this topic that feels really hopeless.

Daniel: Yeah, I think you know that That's exactly how I approached interpreting and talking to the public about climate change when I first started as well. I was, you know, I'm not afraid of scary stories. I like the the doom side of things. I definitely early on focused on climate impacts. You know, climate change is causing wildfire to increase. It's causing the glaciers to melt. And here's how these animals are impacted and this is how much hotter it is. And, you know, telling kind of the the heavy impact side of the story, that was definitely the way I went at it. And I don't know that, you know, I would think that that half is important. You have to recognize that. But it definitely feels like there's something missing.

Elizabeth: Yeah. I mean, did you feel hopeful when you talked about that?

Daniel: I... I don't... I don't know that I did. I think I felt really pretty pessimistic, and I'm guessing that's how the audience felt as well.

Elizabeth: I mean, we are just such social creatures. Like if you think about when your friend is sad, like it kind of pulls you down to. Especially like as the authority figure when you were sad. Like people feel that. Yeah. The doom and gloom approach to climate change interpretation. I think it's pretty pervasive. And, you know, I think in part it's because we have a lot of science. There's no disputing really these climate impacts. And so as an interpreter, when you're looking for something to talk about, you gravitate towards these facts and you want to share them with people you feel so passionately about, the place you live in, work in play in, that you want to bring people into that with you. And I just think. You know, if you are a first time visitor to a National Park Service site and you go to a talk about glaciers melting and then you go back home and it's kind of hard to get food on your table or you're worried about making rent or, you know, you're stuck in a city. You kind of forget what it was like to be in that place. Like, what does a melting iceberg mean to you? If you like, picture your eyes and you think about climate change. The images that are going to come to mind are probably. Icebergs, melting polar bears losing their homes. Maybe like lakes that have been dried out from immense drought or wildfires. And I think as a public, as people were pretty good at understanding the natural impacts of climate change and where the conversation has just lagged for a long time, both in parks and media, is what that means for people.

Daniel: Yeah, it sounds like you're saying the national parks are this perfect venue to talk about climate change, but that most of the time we have focused on the impacts of climate change and we haven't really made the connection for, you know, someone visiting a national park, the connection between how the glaciers are melting and why that matters, or why climate change matters for that person's life at home. Like that connection isn't being made.

Elizabeth: Yeah, and that's played out in the data. Americans are really good at understanding the link between climate change and environmental issues. And then just increasingly bad about thinking about the intersectionality of it. We're great at seeing climate change as an environmental issue, but when you start to think about how climate change will impact our economy, it gets worse. If you start thinking about the intersection between climate change and health, it gets even worse. Although I think during the pandemic there was some conversation about the ways in which climate change will start to increase the risk of vector borne illnesses, increase the risk for pandemics. So maybe we've gotten a little bit better at that. But way at the bottom of that list of comprehending is climate change and social justice. The ways that climate change really increases and magnifies the risks which people are already living in today.

Daniel: Elizabeth, you're thinking about how the national parks are a perfect place to talk about climate change, but how the story and the conversation about climate change has been so negative and so impact in nature focused, then I think there was like a moment where that shifted for you. The story flipped around and you started thinking about the climate conversation in national parks in a new way.

Elizabeth: Yeah. So I went from working in Redwoods at Muir Woods National Monument to interpreting war history and homefront history at Rosie the Riveter World War Two Home Front National Historical Site. So Rosie the Riveter is not a place where people come to expecting to think about climate change. There is kind of that question among staff to like, is this really the place to be talking about climate change? This is an event that happened in the 1940s. This has not just doesn't really have any natural resources to speak of. Leave that to another park site. Hmm. But I'm Italian. I'm not good at leaving things alone. And so I started to think about how how to bring in this story here. And the way in which I decided to do it was let visitors make that connection themselves. And so I put up a whiteboard in the middle of this industrial space. Mm hmm. That said, during World War Two, the country mobilized around a common cause. What cause do you want to mobilize around now? And there is a whiteboard marker. And that was it. So people started to throw their responses up. And I collected all the data, and I tabulated and I tabulated per month. Mm hmm. And I put together word clouds where the biggest word in the middle of this word cloud was the thing most responded to. Mm hmm. And so I started to look at which responses had the most traction. And without fail, month after month, no matter what was happening in the news, it was always climate change.

Daniel: Were you surprised?

Elizabeth: I think I was hopeful. Yeah. And I felt empowered. Hmm. You know, it was that idea that I think a lot of the barriers in talking about climate change are more in my head than it is actually in people's minds. You know, they come to national parks. Seeking answers, seeking perspectives of what happened in the past, and intuitively wanting to make those connections to the present.

Daniel: So then what happened next?

Elizabeth: I came up with a ranger talk called When History Rhymes, kind of based off of that idiom that Mark Twain didn't say, but people think he did. That history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes. So really using this idea of, okay, well, why would we even talk about history if we're not going to try to learn from it? If we are the nation's storytellers, how do we help people draw lessons from that so that we can help them draw their own conclusions and come away from these sites addressing the issues on their minds, which time and time again was climate change.

Daniel: So basically it's like, how can we take the lessons from mobilizing the history of mobilizing for World War two? What can we apply from that to today? Or what do we definitely not want to apply, But like using history as a tool to understand the present and the future. Is that right?

Elizabeth: That's exactly right. And I think World War Two is is actually a great example because a lot of people would come in, would say, oh, that was the greatest generation. That was the last time Americans were really unified. And that's true to an extent. And it also kind of leaves out the ways in which we mobilized at the expense of Japanese-American citizens who didn't need to be excluded, incarcerated. The ways in which they were. And so the way which we default to telling history tends to be pretty cherry picked. And I think that when telling history, it's really important to really encompass everything that goes into it so that when you're thinking about how to create a future, you can kind of course correct from the ways in which we maybe didn't do it well the first time.

Daniel: So there are also lessons from World War Two about what we what we don't want to do if we're going to mobilize and unify as a country. How can we improve this time, From the last time we did that.

Elizabeth: Our mobilization around World War Two was visionary in a lot of ways. Yeah, it brought women into the workforce. It brought people of color into the workforce. It brought people with disabilities into the workforce. I think it was really a time our country said what other creative talents out there exist and how can we utilize them to combat this really large threat that we're facing? This threat of fascism that we all agree is really important? And that that is truly a lesson to be learned in thinking about mobilizing around climate change is how many different pools of talent exist that we can pull from and weave in to climate actions, climate solutions.

Daniel: So there's lessons that things that we can really that can really inspire our response to climate change. And then there's also things like, Oh, we can also do better than we did before. So it's both.

Elizabeth: It also helps us get to the idea of unintended consequences. Mm hmm. Right. Because World War Two, as a person of Jewish descent, I'm not going to say that the emissions we created from World War Two were worth it. Mm hmm. Mobilizing around World War Two was crucial in facing this threat of fascism that was harming people's lives around the world. And if you look at the data emissions trends from World War Two, it's through the charts.

Daniel: Right after the greenhouse gas emissions that were emitted from tanks and industry and building ships and all of that for World War Two. Those greenhouse gas emissions contributed a lot to climate change.

Elizabeth: It was really one of the the key moments of globalization that set forth the global trade routes that today we take for granted so much the ways in which the country flipped itself to bring parts together from around the country faster.

Daniel: It really set globalization and industrialization on a new trajectory.

Elizabeth: Yeah. And then the economic prosperity after World War Two, the ways in which cash was just flushed into the system for the everyday American. Hmm. That also made it so that we were buying a lot more. We were consuming a lot more. Our carbon emissions per person really increased. We went from one car households to two car households. We started getting washing machines. These are all things that are good. But really get to this idea of progress and how progress looks so different for different people and the unintended consequences that can arise from it.

Daniel: It's super interesting to hear you make the connection from, you know, this starting point of responding and mobilizing to World War Two, and then you start seeing all these knock on effects that are very connected to climate change, but also connected to justice and inequality. And that it starts as one thing, you know, or it seems like one thing responding to World War Two. And then you see that it shifts the trajectory of history in a million ways afterward.

Elizabeth: Yeah. And I think that's the coolest thing about Park Service sites, is that every site across the country just has their fingers in almost every period of history you can. And so if you look at all of these sites across the timeline, you actually have a pretty comprehensive picture of who we've been as a society. The decisions that have been made intentionally or unintentionally, that have kind of been steering us towards this current moment of intense climate change.

Daniel: Okay, so now you're working for the Climate Change Response Program and you're talking to park rangers around the country. You've been doing workshops and stuff and you're asking, what do you want visitors to your park to take away from a program about climate change? What have you found out from that, from those conversations?

Elizabeth: The more that we bring out the history of that park site and how people were embedded into that story, the more we see ourselves in it, both in the people of the past as well as who we can become as a future people. I think rangers are searching for ways to communicate to the public that there's still hope and ways to help people find their own place in getting involved.

Daniel: Yeah, which is pretty different from the like, traditional approach which focuses on, you know, nature and animals and the impacts climate change is having on those things, like the impacts of climate change on, you know, melting glaciers. It's pretty different.

Elizabeth: I think grounding people in the realization that there is work to be done, that we are not doomed at this point. Like I actually think we're in the best time to be alive because we're not really locked into anything. We were locked into a certain amount, but it's not it's not concrete from here. There's so many different ways to make it better or worse, depending on the actions we take. And I think that when we as interpretive staff, when we help people realize what their role is in the story, help open up that space, that there are things to be done, then we've really succeeded. And I think there's different ways to do that. And the field as a whole hasn't really come up with the perfect way.

Daniel: At the end of a program on climate change, everyone wants to know, you know, what can I do? What can I do about climate change for me? And what do you say?

Elizabeth: One of the resources I really like to share is called a climate Venn diagram created by Dr. Ayana Elizabeth: Johnson, who's a really prominent marine biologist. She's a Black woman in science, and she really explores the intersection between race and climate.

Daniel: And so she has these overlapping circles of a Venn diagram describing how anyone can get involved in working on climate change.

Elizabeth: Yeah. Okay. And the questions she asks you to consider are: What do you enjoy doing?

Daniel: Mm hmm.

Elizabeth: What work needs to be done? And what are you good at? Hmm. And where the intersection of these three circles overlaps is a space for you to think about your own contribution. I think the good and the bad news about climate change is that it's so big and it's so overwhelming that it can feel almost like there's too much to do. But that also means that almost anything that you find joy in, there's a space for you in a climate solution, in a climate action.

[drumbeat plays to mark a transition]

Daniel: So tell me what it's what it's been like talking to people around the country, talking to park rangers around the country about how they are doing climate change interpretation.

Elizabeth: Yeah. So I led a training recently at the Channel Islands. Mm hmm. And one of the things we talked about is trying to put ourselves in the shoes of people who are making history. Hmm. I think we, like, personally have thought about history kind of passively. A lot. Mm hmm. Where it just kind of happens.

Daniel: Where it's, like, governed by forces beyond actual people. And we forget that there are real people with names and, like, feelings involved.

Elizabeth: Yeah, exactly. Mm hmm. And so we. I did this both in my programs and with park rangers, where we came up with a list of social changes that have happened over time. Mm hmm. Things like curb cuts on sidewalks or sewage systems.

Daniel: Curb cuts being like, allowing wheelchairs to go onto sidewalks.

Elizabeth: Yeah. I didn't know this, but, you know, it's only been within the last 30 or 40 years or so that those became prevalent. If you were in a wheelchair before then, it was just hard to navigate cities.

Daniel: Curbs did not have like, slopes that you could go up.

Elizabeth: No.

Daniel: So what about the sewage systems then? What's the story behind that one?

Elizabeth: Yeah, I mean, people just used to toss their refuse out in the street. Right? It was like, kind of gross. And no one was really taking responsibility for cleaning it up. And that obviously created a lot of diseases. Mm hmm. You know, a lot of these social systems that we take for granted today, also, a lot of our rights, our voting rights, our civil rights, the fact that women can have bank accounts and credit cards, these are things that we're not just handed to us. They were fought for by people, like you said, with very real emotions against systems that seemed pretty insurmountable.

Daniel: You're describing an understanding of history that is humanizing. You know, there were people throughout history that created the world we live in today.

Elizabeth: And, you know, I imagine that if you asked an abolitionist, do you think that you can actually fight against this massive economic system that profits off of bodies for free.

Daniel: That being slavery.

Elizabeth: Yeah, I imagine that people would have felt pretty pessimistic about the outcome. Yeah, I don't think it was a guarantee at any point that they were going to win. And I think that reminding ourselves that these people and movements had feelings and doubts and insecurities and were just people trying to rise to a moment to confront a crisis that they believed was important and reimagine a world that didn't rely on the systems that they were lived in and trapped in. That's huge. And helping my thinking about climate change.

Daniel: Yeah, that's really powerful that there's lessons we can apply to climate change today.

Elizabeth: And I think that there's almost a skepticism of rangers about and historians about going into the emotions of history. Mm hmm. We think of history as kind of this set of facts that are almost emotionless. And that's how it's been taught too. Mm hmm. Devoid of the human experience. But when you start to go into that and you start to realize that history is just a bunch of people's opinions smushed together that you're thinking about, and those people weren't living in the same world as us, but experiencing the same feelings as us. Then you start to understand a lot more how to apply that into the future, how to confront the pessimism, the anxiety, the doubt, the insurmountable pity we feel of climate change. And look at times in the past where people have overcome these same feelings and persevered through them to create the world we live in now, that sometimes we take for granted.

Daniel: Yeah, it's really powerful to imagine the early days of World War Two and how daunting that must have felt, or the the fight against slavery, or the civil rights movement or the the right to vote that these were such big challenges. And climate change is a similar challenge today that as an individual, it's pretty easy for it to feel so overwhelming.

Elizabeth: Yeah, I think climate change is one of those issues that both manages to make it feel like it's your fault individually, that anything you do is causing it.

Daniel: Mm hmm.

Elizabeth: But also that there's nothing you can do to solve it. And that tension is really hard.

Daniel: Yeah.

Elizabeth: I think one of my turning points in my own interpretation of climate change came from when I was willing to let myself be more vulnerable with the public.

Daniel: Opening up a little bit.

Elizabeth: Yeah. In my programs, I would literally say to people, I'm going to take off my ranger persona now. I'm going to be me, a human who has a job and wears a badge. And I think by doing that, and giving people space to feel the very, very real emotions around climate change, that's almost a necessary foundation to seeing yourself in the solution for climate change.

Daniel: Which is a big part of what you're trying to do then, is is help park rangers interpret climate change and tell the stories of climate change in a way that. Everyone can feel like they're part of the story.

Elizabeth: Yeah, I mean climate change is a human-caused issue, and it has to have a human-caused solution. And I would say the thing that we know that sets us apart as people is our ability to learn from the past. And so this toolkit really or my approach to climate change interpretation, wants to look at a full picture of the past and really take all of the lessons and all of the humanity we can from it.

Daniel: Good and bad.

Elizabeth: Good and bad.

Daniel: I wanted to ask you about this, you know, to push back on that idea a little bit. Like climate change is so huge and difficult and like it's a tough topic on its own. So why do you want to go dragging history into it? It feels like it could make it even more difficult.

Elizabeth: It absolutely could. But climate change is not a simple story. And so when you try to simplify it and you try to just look at it through a very baseline lens, you're going to get a simple solution. And we know this is not a problem with a simple solution.

Daniel: Okay.

Elizabeth: Yeah, it's interesting. In my career as a Park Service interpreter, the two things I've really focused on are talking about climate change and then elevating these undertold stories. And I found that when I bring up these undertold stories, the things that we kind of think about as touchy.

Daniel: Mm hmm.

Elizabeth: That's when people are push back the most. You know, they're like, "why are you talking about this?"

Daniel: This sensitive topic?

Elizabeth: Right.

Daniel: Okay.

Elizabeth: But my job as a historian, as the nation's historian

Daniel: And storyteller.

Elizabeth: And storyteller, is to tell all American stories. Mm hmm. We have a Park Service initiative called, "telling all Americans' stories." And historically, over time, those stories were from a pretty small group of Americans. They were generally white, powerful, affluent men stories who absolutely had a role in shaping who this nation is. And we were giving them such an outsized amount of attention that when we pull our attentions back a little and bring in other narratives, it almost can feel like a statement, when in reality it's just broadening the picture. At MuirWoods where I worked, the story we told for decades and decades very largely revolved around three powerful, affluent men who absolutely helped save the forest. Without them, it would not have been there. But as a woman who doesn't have a lot of money to throw around and causes, I was like, "okay, so that's not my solution. I don't see myself there." And so when we started to expand the story and say who else was involved, what other characters were in this, then I started to see myself more in it. The women who helped fight for and saved Muir Woods didn't have the right to vote. So if you look at today, some of the people who are going to be most affected by climate change -- youth -- they can say, "Oh, I don't have the right to vote yet, but I can see instances in which people used a different form of social pressure to get the cause that they cared about to succeed."

Daniel: That's interesting. The story of Muir Woods, this park unit in the Bay Area. The wealthy, powerful white men that, that pushed to create and preserve those trees in that forest... That's not the whole story.

Elizabeth: Yeah. And I would say from the time the forest was protected in 1908, up until 2018, that's the only story we told. What that story left out was that for generations and time immemorial, that forest was protected and stewarded by the Indigenous people of that land, the Huimen Coast Miwok, and the first movement to actually try to mobilize around and protect their woods was this elite, upper class white women's group called the California Club, who didn't appear on a single sign. And so when we started to expand that story, to bring in the role of women, to bring in the stewardship of Indigenous people, not only did we show that there were more spaces in social movements, there were more people at play than just the well-known figureheads. Mm hmm. Not only that, but there were these really deep pools of knowledge on how to best steward the place that we all care about so much.

Daniel: Yeah. So you're bringing in these other stories, you're broadening the history of Muir Woods, but you're trying to do this across the Park Service. And it's, it's good because it's more inclusive, like you're including more people in the story. But it's also helpful because you're getting a deeper and richer understanding of who we are and what this country is.

Elizabeth: Yeah.

Daniel: And I think it also maybe helps us imagine who we can be.

Elizabeth: I completely agree with that. I think an argument I hear a lot about bringing up these touchy histories is like, "Oh, you're just focusing on the bad stuff." Hmm. But, I mean, if you think about raising a kid, if you're not talking about the bad stuff, how are they going to learn how to be a better adult? Like, it's that it's those formative lessons that teach us who we were and who we want to become. And I think the more I learn about the power of storytelling, the more I really appreciate our role in doing it. And we've actually found that when people today are listening to the same engaging story, their heart rates synchronize across time, across space, so their heartbeats will literally sync up when listening to that same engaging story, which shows that our bodies are just hardwired for this. Across time immemorial, we've used stories to dictate who we are, whether we're talking about creation myths. Or, you know, biblical narratives or the Grimm's Fairy tales.

Daniel: Or the story of World War Two.

Elizabeth: Yeah, exactly.

Daniel: It really emphasizes the importance of what we're trying to do in the National Park Service and what interpretation is trying to do.

Elizabeth: Exactly. Use that power of place to help people realize their place in a really broad story over time.

Daniel: Elizabeth, where are you seeing some really cool stories emerging from the national parks? Where are you seeing history and climate change really intersect in an interesting way? Because I know you're talking to people all around the country.

Elizabeth: Yeah. This product that I've mentioned earlier, I think at this point we've collaborated with around 40 different park sites around the country.

Daniel: This History and Hope Toolkit and program you're, you're working on.

Elizabeth: Mm hmm. I think sometimes the strongest stories are the ones that are the least expected. Mm hmm. So, for example.

Daniel: Like, everyone expects Glacier National Park to be talking about melting glaciers and climate change. That's old news, right?

Elizabeth: Exactly. Like, how does that really apply to me? Mm hmm.

Daniel: Do you have any examples of parks that are telling these cool stories about history and climate?

Elizabeth: One of my favorites is from Maggie Walker National Historic Site out in Virginia, where it's a woman who was really central to a lot of conversations around Black economic empowerment in the early 1900s.

Daniel: She was a social justice activist.

Elizabeth: Absolutely.

Daniel: Okay. So you don't really expect that to be connected to climate change.

Elizabeth: Right. And, you know, it's a story that by and of itself deserves to be told. Mm hmm. But Maggie Walker also lived through a period where her house went from candlelight to electricity, which at the surface level is like, okay, she lived through a period of technology change. Mm hmm. But then you start to think about how much society changed when she lived through it. Mm hmm. Like, her house became electric. She got a dishwasher at some point or something like that. Like these little things that we take for granted today are actually immense amounts of societal change of everyone who lived through it. Mm hmm. And when we think about the scope of the challenges today for climate change, it can feel big. You know, it's like, wow, so much needs to change. But that has happened time and time and again.

Daniel: So she's living through a really revolutionary time.

Elizabeth: Mm hmm. Yeah. I mean, if there's one trait I would call humans, it's adaptable. Hmm. Especially if there's something that can make our lives better. Mm hmm. So Maggie Walker went from candlelight to electricity? Mm hmm. She went from a horse and buggy to a car. And not just any car, but an electric car, which I didn't know was invented in the early 1900s.

Daniel: Wow.

Elizabeth: Right. So when confronted with a better option, we've taken it time and time and again. And I feel like right now we're we're nervous about the changes that need to happen. But that's just been a part of the experience of being a person over time.

Daniel: And it's cool that National Park Sites can tell that story about how we've gone through these big changes in the past.

Elizabeth: Yeah. And, you know, that's at a historic site in Virginia. But the infrastructure at Glacier has changed over time too.

Daniel: Right.

Elizabeth: It's incorporated these new technologies. So you come here thinking about, oh, the glaciers are melting. We've heard that story. Mm hmm. It's not that it's not an important story. But what if, when you're here, you can also think about the ways that society has adapted to new technologies over time?

Daniel: Right. The first park headquarters was here with, you know, logs of wood.

Elizabeth: Probably from the park.

Daniel: Yeah. And, you know, today we have solar panels on the roof. It's a big change.

Elizabeth: That's a story of the innate creativity, adaptability and just pioneering spirit of people. And I think that's something that when I look to the future, I identify those as traits we really need to embody.

Daniel: And we really need to tell stories like that in the national parks.

Elizabeth: Yeah, exactly.

Daniel: So looking at our past, looking at our history, that helps us. It helps us imagine the future and see how we've gone through these changes before. And I think it can help us think more creatively about the solutions that we're working on right now, like the solutions to climate change that we're implementing. Have you seen that play out or how have you seen that?

Elizabeth: I think that's spot on. I think that sometimes in the environmental movement it feels like there's a crisis of imagination. That we feel like we have to settle for these options that aren't really getting to the root of the problem. You know, if we put-- if we transition to solar panels everywhere, that is fantastic. And I think what that's missing also is that the same systems that have created climate change are also the same systems that have really set up and exacerbated a lot of the social inequalities that we're still very much grappling with. I think in both of these cases, there's the idea of something being deemed as "expendable." And I put that in air quotes, but I'm on a podcast, so imagine those air quotes around the word expendable. Mm hmm. Where we think about people as expendable. We absolutely as a society thought about people who were enslaved as expendable. Mm hmm. We thought about the Indigenous stewards and caretakers of this land as expendable for this idea of progress. And progress has brought us to where we are today. And it was done so with the mentality that there was okay things to sacrifice along the way. And I see that a lot of times in climate solutions as well, where we say, "okay, well, we can get some stuff out of this. You know, we can just try to reduce our emissions without looking at the people or places or land that have been viewed expendable along the way."

Daniel: Tell me about this "yes/and" approach to history.

Elizabeth: Well, the "yes/and" approach, I think, comes from improv like. "Yes... And. I like that idea -- and." Mm hmm. And I think we can "yes/and" the successes of history. And a great example of that is the creation of the National Park Service that you and I both work for. This Service that we are a part of, the National Park Service, was a revolutionary idea. That we should protect places around the country for future generations. Mm hmm. We've been called America's best idea. Mm hmm. But the "and" part of that comes from the ways in which the creation of the National Park Service disregarded the existence, the sovereignty and the intentional land management of the places that we've protected by Indigenous people.

Daniel: So you're saying the National Park Service is a pretty cool idea?

Elizabeth: Yes. America's best. So they say. Yeah.

Daniel: So yes. And we can do better as we go forward. We can do better.

Elizabeth: Yeah. And I think the way to do better now is that we have land that's been protected through this incredible idea -- and -- what are the ways that we can incorporate those deep pools of knowledge from those Indigenous people over time? These are people who have lived and sustained and stewarded landscapes for time immemorial, who have so much knowledge accumulated and built up. And there's actually there's been studies that have shown that land stewarded intentionally by Indigenous people can be more productive, more biodiverse than land that's just been left alone. Kind of reshapes our idea of what a wilderness is.

Daniel: It's kind of hard, I think, for people to imagine the world they want to see. It's easier to imagine the worst case scenario.

Elizabeth: I completely agree with that. And I think, you know, that gets back to what we were talking about earlier, where if you look at movements of the past, I think it was a huge feat of the imagination that they even fought for those big social changes. I imagine that if you were enslaved, thinking about an economic system that didn't revolve around slavery must have been mind boggling.

Daniel: It would have been a really, you know, sci-fi utopian kind of thinking to imagine a whole different world.

Elizabeth: Yeah. And almost any social change you can think of, the world that they fought for was must have just felt incomprehensible at the time. The way that sometimes I feel myself thinking about climate change now, which is when I think about a just equitable climate future, it can almost feel incomprehensible and insurmountable. Hmm. And I think that that's that's par for the course with these movements. That's a part of the process. And it's okay to let yourself feel that and recognize that we've gone through that before. We've come out on the other end.

Daniel: Yeah. That studying our our own history can be an inspiring reminder of that.

[drumbeat plays to mark a transition]

Daniel: For people going to interpretive programs, what motivates them to take action on anything, I guess, but what motivates people to take action on climate change?

Elizabeth: I think the verdict is still out, but from what I've seen, the biggest discourse is kind of around, is it fear or is it hope?

Daniel: Like, should this ranger program inspire people and be hopeful so that they'll, they'll take action? Or should it scare them? And should they be worried into taking action?

Elizabeth: Yeah, exactly. You know, I think that there's merit in both. We don't want to sugarcoat the fact that the climate is changing. We are locked in to a degree of changes.

Daniel: Mm hmm. The glaciers here are melting, and the climate has already warmed quite a bit.

Elizabeth: Yeah. And I think that if you try so hard to be hopeful that you don't acknowledge any of that, then you're, you're in a false sense of hope. Mm hmm. And there's one of the biggest ideas I've seen around it is that if you're talking about hope, there's two different types of hope. There's the hope that something will happen. Someone will do something kind of that passive hope, that passive you of history we've been talking about. And then there's an active hope. The hope that if you do something, it can make an impact. And one of my favorite quotes is by an author, Rebecca Solnit, where she says, "Hope isn't just a lottery ticket that you sit on the couch clutching. It's an ax that you break down doors with." And I think that's really where I lean towards, is I want to instill in you the confidence that there's still things to be done, but that it's not just going to happen. Nothing in history has just happened. There are people pushing forces, and you're going to be involved in that, and the causes you care about, or it's just going to happen to you.

[hopeful guitar and drumbeat plays]

Daniel: I love that. Thanks so much for talking with us about all this today.

Elizabeth: Yeah. Thank you so much for having me.

[music continues to play]

Peri: Headwaters is funded by donations to the Glacier National Park Conservancy. As an organization dedicated to supporting the park, the conservancy funds a lot of sustainability initiatives, from solar panels on park buildings to storytelling projects like this one. The Conservancy is doing critical work to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. You can learn more about what they do and about how to get involved at Glacier.org. This show is created by Daniel Lombardi, Michael Faist, Gaby Eseverri, and me, Peri Sasnett. We get critical support from Lacy Kowalski, Melissa Sladek, Kristen Friesen, and so many good people with Glacier's natural and cultural resource teams. Our music was made by the brilliant Frank Waln, and the show's cover art is by our sweet friend Stella Nall. Check out Frank and Stella's work at the links in the show notes. Besides sharing this episode with a friend who might appreciate it, you can help us out by leaving a rating and review in your podcast app. Thanks for listening.

A conversation with Elizabeth Villano, from the NPS Climate Change Response Program, about telling climate stories and finding hope. This episode was recorded in June of 2023.

Glacier Conservancy: https://glacier.org/headwaters Frank Waln music: https://www.instagram.com/frankwaln/ Stella Nall art: https://www.instagram.com/stella.nall/

Climate change in Glacier: https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/climate-change.htm Climate change across the NPS: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/index.htm

Prev
of 6