Karl Hess Jr., in Rocky Times in Rocky Mountain
National Park – An Unnatural History, raises ethical questions
about the future of Rocky Mountain National Park, “a unique,
irreplaceable wonder, a shimmering blue strip of hope on the
prairie horizon.” Combining eloquence and detailed research, Hess
calls for drastic changes to ensure that good stewardship becomes
the final objective.
Hess builds a strong case
and I believe him to be wholly justified in his criticism of park
administration. Rocky Mountain has been weakened by political
influences and an inbred bureaucracy unable to examine and renew
itself.
While I’m not certain that I agree with
his principal argument – that the damage caused by the large elk
herd to Rocky Mountain’s winter range proves the failure of the
park policy of natural regulation – his conviction is
useful.
The abundance of elk in the mountains is
unnatural and decidedly damaging to vegetation as we see it today.
With unabated human encroachment in bordering foothills and
lowlands, elk are blocked from their natural habitat. The public
needs to weigh the proper place and purpose of elk, and how much
civilization is willing to yield in the elk’s
behalf.
I am concerned, however, that some of the
critics of natural regulation, having been trained in for-estry and
range schools, want to manipulate wild animals as if they were
managing domestic livestock. A good scientist needs a control where
manipulation is minimal, where wildlife and plant communities are
allowed to regulate themselves. Considering that elk are heavily
manipulated everywhere else in the West, a few places ought to be
reserved for systems to work without human
intervention.
“‘Naturalness’ and wildness in the
park can and should be strived for with the balanced understanding
that neither of the two can ever be fully realized,” writes Hess.
But how to go about it in the Rocky Mountains? Hess offers as one
possible scenario: removing Rocky Mountain from the national park
system and designating it an independent and irrevocable
“conservation trust.” There would be no mandate for management
other than conditions already set by its designation as a biosphere
reserve. That’s a fitting goal, but what about all the rest of the
national parks? Do we take the whole system
apart?
Federal agencies like the Park Service and
Forest Service talk about “involving and educating the public,” but
they don’t know where or how to begin; the enlightenment of
managers is more critical. In natural resource schools, the “ranger
factories,” they prepare to deal in rules, regulations, carrying
capacity, permits, enforcement, studies of resource damage,
funding, interagency coordination that never seems to work, and
research that is more safe than significant.
Hess
is on target when he writes: “Effective reform of Rocky Mountain’s
administration entails changing the way people respond to their
duties.” That is gospel – and you can substitute the name of the
national park nearest to you. And when he adds that the revolving
door of National Park Service directors and their appointed science
program leaders has been a destabilizing influence, Hess is
undeniably right again. Rocky Times is challenging and valuable. It
merits attention and discussion.
n
Michael
Frome has been a park ranger and journalist for more than 40 years.
He is the author of Strangers in High Places – The Story of the
Great Smoky Mountains and Regreening the National Parks. He is a
professor at Western Washington
University.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Is “natural regulation’ leading to unnatural results?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
