We believe that this definition should be modified so as to also include areas of outstanding archeological and historical interests.
We also suggest that the phrase “in their primeval condition” be modified to read “in their primeval condition or as nearly primeval as circumstances permit”. This would justify the setting aside of such areas as the Great Smoky and Shenandoah National Parks, and similar areas which might conceivably be added to the park system in the future.
We question whether national parks should be defined as “spacious land areas”, and suggest that it might be advisable also to include a statement as to the quality of the exhibit regardless of area. As an example, we cite Bryce National Park which occupies a comparatively small area but which is a superb example of one of our types of natural features.
“It follows:
1) That park areas must be of national interest to warrant their commitment to national care.”
Concurred unanimously.
2) “That the area of each park must be a logical unit, embracing all territory required for effective administration and for rounding out the life zones of its flora and fauna.”
The Park Naturalists especially endorse this statement and are agreed that boundaries should be adjusted to include sufficient areas to guarantee a year round habitat for fauna and flora. Furthermore, it may be advisable to add biotic and scenic units even though it be necessary that these be set up as separate administrative units.
3) “That each park area shall be a sanctuary for the scientific care, study, and preservation of all wild plant and animal life within its limits, to the end that no species shall become extinct.”
We interpret this paragraph as also including predatory animals.
4) “That wilderness features within any park shall be kept absolutely primitive.”
We agree as to the value of the objective of “preserving wilderness features in primitive condition”, but we question whether this is practicable. We ask, “What shall be the policy to be adopted in the control of insect infestations, tree diseases, diseases of park fauna, and forest fires occurring under natural conditions (lightning, etc.)?” While not recommending the discontinuance of such artificial control, we wish to point out that such control very definitely influences “natural conditions”.
5) “That with respect to any unique geological formations or historic or prehistoric remains within its confines each park shall be regarded as an outdoor museum, the preservation of whose treasures is a sacred trust.”
Unanimously concurred.
6) “That the existence of the parks is justified and insured by the educational and spiritual benefits to be derived from contact with pristine wilderness.”
We suggest that this read, “spiritual, educational and physical benefits”.
7) “That parks must be kept free from all industrial use, and that sanctuary, scientific, and primitive values must always take precedence over recreational or other values.”
We feel that “industrial use” should be more definitely interpreted to mean any commercial use not directly essential to the tourist or park administration.
We feel that this entire statement needs a more definite interpretation Our interpretation of the term “recreation”, as noted above, is that it includes physical, mental and inspirational elements, and also we feel that the expression “or other values” needs amplification.
II
“National Parks must be considered from two points of view: as a system, and individually.
The National Park System should be perfected: (1) by elimination of units that fail to meet its standards; (2) by addition of units that will fully maintain or increase its supreme. scenic magnificence, its scientific and educational superiority, and its character as a unique national institution; and (3) by withdrawal of existing legislation authorizing in certain parks the utilization of resources in a manner inconsistent with National Park Standards.”
