VI. Steps Leading Toward Establishment of Crater Lake National Park

<< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >>

N. Crater Lake National Park

After the turn of the century, a new generation of conservationists came to power, emerging into a political reality under the guidance of Gifford Pinchot, chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Forestry. Pinchot advocated scientific forest management. In advising President Theodore Roosevelt in matters of conservation, Pinchot stressed the "gospel of efficiency," which preached that land and natural resources should be used to serve the needs of machinery, industry, and the production of commercial wealth. The preservation of natural scenery and historic sites for humanitarian values, this new doctrine stated, should remain subordinate to increasing industrial productivity. The persuasiveness to many of this utilitarian theory of conservation lay in its kinship with the pioneer ethic of land use. Advocates of absolute preservation suffered a severe disadvantage in that every major forest preserve prior to 1919 was located in the West, and, until mass production of the automobile in the 1920s, there was little visitation to justify use by the preservationists.

Those challenging the inadequacy of smaller parks did so against growing pressures for the reduction of reserves. To many, scenic preservation was still an extravagance; to establish parks merely as an attempt to preserve what might one day be valuable was seen as a selfish and unproductive indulgence. As a result of this lingering remnant of pioneer thinking, any new parks that might be designated were bound to be limited in extent: "As exemplified by the restriction of Mount Rainier and Crater Lake national parks to their focal wonders, the national park idea at the beginning of the twentieth century was little changed from its original purpose of protecting a unique visual experience." [28]

The prerequisite that national parks should be areas that were worthless economically was mandatory in discussions leading to the protection of Crater Lake. In spite of the fact that utilization of resources was never the major issue here that it would be at other parks, Steel was careful only to publicize the grandeur and monumentalism of this southern Oregon wonder, and not any potential economic values.

Oregon advocates realized that approval of the park by Congress hinged mostly on evidence of its worthlessness for all but the most marginal economic returns. In this vein Thomas H. Tongue of Oregon introduced Crater Lake to the House of Representatives as "a very small affair--only eighteen by twenty-two miles." [29]

Its scientific value was also touted:

Near the center of the proposed park is situated Crater Lake, which is conceded by all who have visited it to be one of the greatest scenic wonders in the United States, if not in the known world. Increasing numbers of scientists visit it from year to year for the purpose of making additional investigations. [30]

The proposed park was "of such a character that it cannot be utilized for agricultural purposes." [31] It was simply "a mountain, a little more than 9,000 feet in altitude, whose summit [has] been destroyed by volcanic action," and was "now occupied by a a gigantic caldron [caldera] nearly 6 miles in diameter and 4,000 feet in depth." In addition, Tongue hastened to assure his colleagues, the boundaries had been designed so as not to include any potentially valuable land. [32] Although large parts of the tract were covered with timber, it was mostly lodgepole pine not suitable for lumber and of little commercial value. [33] Tongue also made it clear that since "there are no settlers within the limits of the proposed park . . its establishment would in no way interfere with any vested or squatters' rights. . ." [34] The object of the bill before Congress was "simply to withdraw this land from public settlement [to protect] its great beauty and great scientific value." [35] In summary:

We are fully satisfied that the land designed to be set aside for the purpose contemplated by this bill is of such a character that it can not be utilized for agricultural purposes, nor with profit for any purpose of trade whatever, but is chiefly valuable for the purpose for which the proposed act seeks to appropriate it. [36]

Few members of the House opposed the preservation of Crater Lake, but they did wish to be certain that the park would protect no more than the wonder itself. John H. Stephens of Texas quizzed Representative Tongue about the potential for mineral deposits within the reserve proper, the bill as introduced prohibiting exploration for minerals. Tongue explained that this restriction was meant only to keep people from entering the reserve "under the name of prospecting" while their actual intent was to destroy the natural conditions of the park and the objects of beauty and interest. The House was skeptical, however, and forced Tongue to amend the bill to allow mining in the preserve. [37] Then the House reconsidered the motion and called for a vote. Thus amended, the Crater Lake Park bill cleared the House, passed the Senate without debate, and was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt on May 22, 1902. Thus, after seventeen years of concerted effort by its admirers, our seventh national park came into existence.