The issue of a resident commissioner at Crater Lake became embroiled in the general debate over the need for commissioners in numerous other parks. Accordingly, the National Park Service was requested to provide data to justify the need for such persons in fourteen national parks. On April 20, 1949, Superintendent Leavitt submitted information and recommendations concerning the necessity of having a commissioner at Crater Lake. The data emphasized the need for a part-time park commissioner. During the period 1946-49 Leavitt noted that:
. . . there were many cases of misdemeanors in the park that could have and should have been taken before the United States Commissioner for hearing, but could not be handled because of our lack of a commissioner.
Only the most flagrant cases were handled by taking them before the nearest United States Commissioner, who is Burt Thomas of Klamath Falls. Under present regulations, he is authorized to hold only a preliminary hearing and fix bail by remanding them to the Federal District Court in Portland, Oregon.
During the year 1947 there were two cases of theft, and during 1948, one case of dumping garbage within the park and one case of drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
I have no suggestion to make concerning additional powers and functions that might be granted to a commissioner, and only one comment to make. Because of the nature of his duties in most parks and he would not be regularly and continuously employed, he would be happier if he could be authorized or permitted to assist in the park work, in such duties as would not be incompatible with his duties as park commissioner. I refer to such duties as giving information to park visitors, serving as librarian, helping to entertain official, distinguished, or important visitors by serving as guide to points of interest in the park, and other duties of a similar nature. There is frequent need for someone to perform these duties and often times there is not the necessary personnel available who can be spared from regular work. [35]
As a result of these recommendations, a park commissioner was finally appointed. Documentary evidence, however, indicates that the position continued to decline in importance and in some cases may have been a hindrance to park law enforcement. In 1967, for instance, Chief Park Ranger Larry L. Hakal wrote:
The inavailability of the commissioner hinders law enforcement action. Many cases are dropped after a severe warning rather than take the time to contact the Commissioner. Only the worst cases are brought to court. And usually this follows some what of a delay in contacting him. Then when court time is set either he comes to the Park or the Ranger must take his case and violator to Medford.
The commissioner is Mr. Frank Van Dyke with his office located in Medford. Mr. Van Dyke is a very busy person. He is a partner of a law firm, and president of the Medford Chamber of Commerce. In court he goes all out to see that the violator knows his rights. This may take a good half hour. He usually holds himself neutral but will give advice on tough legal matters. Some times he asks what we would like for punishment following a conviction. This we should never do as this is his and only his decision. His fines are light unless the offense is major. Traffic offenses usually will have half of the fine suspended. [36]
