Big Bend Administrative History

In the years between the first NPS surveys of southern Brewster County and the opening of Big Bend National Park, the park service devoted much time and money to drafting plans for natural and cultural resource management. The NPS and academicians would expand the database formed in the first months after congressional authorization, and work with the state of Texas to protect the land and its flora and fauna from exploitation. Throughout this period, the NPS faced the loss and restoration of the Civilian Conservation Corps and its camp in the Chisos Mountains, and the onset of the Second World War with its budget reductions and restrictions on travel. The park service also endeavored to fulfill the dream of an international park by means of further scientific research in the mountains of Mexico. Finally, the desire of Sul Ross State Teachers College to ally itself with the new national park took several turns, as President Howard Morelock pursued funding and facility development on his campus from the NPS and private agencies in the name of international peace and hemispheric cooperation.

One of the first studies available to NPS officials in the spring of 1937 was the full report of Ernest G. Marsh on his survey the preceding summer of the Sierra del Carmen and the Santa Rosa Mountains of Coahuila. Marsh told his superiors of his difficulties in gaining access to Mexico, as he had been told by the office of the Mexican consul in San Antonio "that other than my having to have the necessary collecting permits from the Mexican department of Caza, Pesca y Forestal for which negotiations were already underway," that he should have no problems. Then the University of Texas graduate student discovered that "the Mexican immigration officials in Piedras Negras insisted on making a very technical interpretation of my entrance, to cause me a prolonged delay." For eighteen days, Marsh "worked with the Mexican officials to have one question after another arise as we progressed." The student technician's every answer would be transmitted to Mexico City for an official ruling "before my permits were in order and my equipment bonded under the rules and regulations of Mexican law pertaining to the 'Transuente' passport issued to me." [1]

Heavy rains some 50 miles south of Piedras Negras slowed Marsh's travel substantially, requiring seventeen hours to reach the interior town of Muzquiz. From there he joined with local guides Victoriano and Fidel Villarreal to head north into the Sierra del Carmen. At the small village of Piedra Blanca the party left their automobile, and loaded their equipment onto pack mules for the remainder of the journey. "During the next month," Marsh would recall, "I experienced alternating sieges of good luck and misfortune." At times "I was truly fascinated with the wilderness of virgin nature that lay on every side," only "later to find myself damning my incompetence and fate." Yet Marsh managed to spend "long hours in the field," covering "quite thoroughly the canyons along the western sides of the northern Del Carmens." After a month in the field, "certain losses from the plant and bird collections made me think it better to return to Muzquiz and thence to Eagle Pass rather than to follow the original plans of passing at Boquillas." It took ten days to retrace his steps "over La Gacha, La Mariposa and the Canyons along the Santa Rosa Escarpment." From there Marsh had an uneventful drive to Piedras Negras, and returned home to Austin in late September. [2]

Marsh's report to the NPS included the most thorough set of color slides of northern Coahuila yet available to park service planners. The student technician took extensive notes of the flora and fauna in each picture, often remarking on their beauty and uniqueness. He also caught on film community life in Muzquiz and other villages that few Americans had ever seen. Marsh saved his most effusive comments for the fauna of the Sierra del Carmen, noting the abundance of the band-tailed pigeon, "appearing in great numbers with as many as one hundred birds flying together as they feed on the acorns and wild cherries growing in the arroy[o]s of the upper foot-hills." The Texas graduate student told his superiors that "this beautiful bird has evidently found its perfect habitat here in the northern Carmens." With an "abundant food supply," and "the absence of its most destructive enemy, man," the band-tailed pigeon flourished in the north (a condition that changed the further south Marsh observed the bird). He also saw at least four species of doves, five species of hawks, and had several sightings of the golden eagle. "The question often has been raised," wrote Marsh, "as to whether the Golden Eagle actually does kill young stock animals." The technician examined a report of seven young calves killed by eagles on La Mariposa Ranch. Marsh could not link the mutilations to the golden eagle, but he did report that "in the Del Carmen Mountains, I saw an eagle kill a large jackrabbit and fly several miles with it dangling from its claws." He surmised that "the occasions are few when [the eagle] finds it necessary to attack animals so large as calves, but when there comes the time, his great strength and courage can serve him well." [3]

Mammals of all types abounded in the Sierra del Carmen as Marsh and his guides hiked the canyons and mesas. One of the most commonly sighted creatures was the opossum, which local residents referred to as the "chicken hunter." The student technician also marveled at the number and variety of bats in the Sierra del Carmen. "The little Canyon Bat," he reported, "is very abundant throughout the Western Hills," and Marsh considered it "a rare sight to see with the aid of a long range light after nightfall the thousands that feed over the Western Hills tank." Black bears proliferated in northern Coahuila, but they also faced the hazard of hunters. Until 1932, wrote Marsh, American hunters killed several bears annually on the Jardin Ranch. That year "the owner of the north Carmen country, an official in the Mexican Diplomatic Corps, began to refuse permission to hunting parties." As a result, "only three bear are reported as having been taken since by residents who have stock on parts of the range." Marsh contended that "the heaviest drain on the bear in the northern Del Carmens over a fifteen year period" came from "hunting activities of members of the American Club, located across the mountains from the Jardin Ranch." In recent years, however, "impassable roads" had rendered the club "inactive." Thus Marsh could report in 1937 that "in general, the present status of the bear in the Del Carmen and Santa Rosa Mountains is excellent." Mexico had placed "no rigid rules of enforced preservation" on hunting bears, but Marsh believed that the animal faced "little danger of depletion." Instead, "under such ideals of habitat as are furnished by the inaccessible rocky canyon country and a bountiful food supply of acorns, madrona berries, wild cherries, and persimmons as well as small mammals," wrote Marsh, "there is every evidence of significant increases." [4]

The NPS technician could not say the same about smaller animals such as the raccoon. "I saw no sign of this intelligent little fur bearer north of the Rosita Ranch," reported Marsh, as "the last raccoon taken from the northern Del Carmens was caught by a trap in 1930." Further south towards Muzquiz, Marsh learned of sightings of raccoons, but "the status of the raccoon could be improved." The technician believed that "in those regions where he is adapted to live," the raccoon "is persecuted continuously by an abundance of dogs and men." The striped animal "is forced to take refuge in the mountains and live in discord to his preference." Marsh contended that "it is reasonable to believe that after seeing the region that raccoons were once quite common around Muzquiz and in the lowland valleys as far north as Piedra Blanca." He told the NPS that "with some enforced protection," the raccoon could be restored to the Sierra del Carmen. [5]

More surprising to Marsh was the presence of small fur-bearing animals like the mink and spotted skunk. The NPS technician caught some 30 specimens of the long-tailed Texas skunk, which he "found abundant throughout the Del Carmens and Santa Rosa Mountains." Marsh also had trapped a Mexican Badger, but could not locate the Arizona Gray Fox. Coyotes were quite common in the Sierra del Carmen, said Marsh, and "hardly a night goes by without the 'music' of this desert hunter." He most often spotted coyotes that were "small and buffy-white shading to black." Yet Marsh also recognized a larger coyote with longer and lighter hair. The student technician found "astonishing the number of coyotes which can be brought together by dragging the viscera of a butchered cow over several miles of cattle trails." Marsh recalled that "among my pleasantest experiences have been the times that I lay hidden on the leeward side of frequented trails and watched the coyote bands pass in the moonlight." He counted as many as twenty animals traveling together, and also remarked that "even though the coyote lives in such abundance to the region, it is seldom condemned as a predator." Marsh learned that "occasionally it is accused of killing goats or sheep," and in such cases "a few animals are trapped each year," in one case by "two dogs trained as killers that had the reputation of having betrayed many a coyote into his death." [6]

Marsh spoke at length also about the Mexican gray wolf, known as the lobo. Santo Domingo to the east of the mountains, wrote Marsh, "reports 200 cattle killed in 1934 and 1935 by ravaging bands of lobo." The NPS technician learned from local ranchers that "over the last fifteen years, the number of domestic stock pastured in northern Coahuila has more than doubled." Yet "reports of a wolf caught by trap are rare, principally because the wolf is a wary creature and the average Mexican trapper has not learned to match his wits." Another species of predator that Marsh noted was the Mexican cougar (sometimes called a mountain lion). "The accounts of the lion are many," wrote Marsh, "though he is seldom seen alive." He also observed that "a number of hides are found used as rugs in every hacienda." Local hunters attributed to the cougar the "killing of young horses and deer." A "Mr. Pauly of the Encantada [Ranch]" told Marsh that "a lion [had] killed three colts in his remuda on four consecutive nights in 1935," with one of the horses "found dead forty miles from the site of the killing the night previous." Marsh reported "no wholesale persecution of the lion over the region," yet "once a killer lion makes his appearance, he is pursued at once." [7]

Based on his extensive fieldwork, Marsh surmised in the spring of 1937 that "wildlife research in the Sierra del Carmen be made continuous from this study as a cooperative program between the Department of Parks in Mexico and the National Park Service." His travels through the frontier of Coahuila indicated that "such a program would be welcomed and beneficial to the Mexican department." In addition, joint studies "would stimulate a very desirous spirit of cooperation between the corresponding departments in the two nations." Finally, wrote Marsh, this collaboration "would facilitate in time, money, and results the rehabilitation of the Big Bend Park area." He noted that NPS officials like William McDougall, Maynard Johnson, and James Stevenson had called for "the making of certain ecological studies in order to determine the original status of plants and animals over the land area." Marsh also thought it wise to "observe the relation of one species with another toward the end of rehabilitation of the depleted wildlife." This latter initiative would "accomplish an understanding of the physical environment most conducive to a favorable propagation and distribution of native plant and animal species." [8]

Marsh had evidence of this because of the stark contrasts between the ecology of the Big Bend area and northern Mexico. "Subjected for many years to the adverse influence of man and livestock," wrote Marsh, the future NPS site "has been sorely used." Even "such environmental conditions as could be generated on experimental plots for ecological study could not be of the most desirable character." Marsh believed that "once a maladjustment is stimulated, even though the cause is in time removed, the original set-up cannot be established except over long periods of years." The NPS could not afford the luxury of such lengthy studies, as "the need of results is for the immediate future in order that a directional influence can be placed upon phases of the Big Bend wildlife to accomplish a timely restoration." [9]

Given this scenario, the NPS technician viewed the Sierra del Carmen as "structurally and biologically, a region essentially identical to that of the Texas Big Bend and the Chisos Mountains." He conceded that "the Del Carmen Mountains and the surrounding plains for a number of years have been subjected to the influence of man." Yet he considered this "to such a lesser degree, that excepting certain localities, words [such] as overgrazing and depletion are not needed in descriptive phrases." He noted that "certain large areas in the mountains and on the plains have been free of livestock for twenty years and longer, while more extensive tracts have seen little detrimental effect from the few live stock that they have held." This condition had occurred with "little enforcing of game laws by officials in northern Coahuila." One reason was because "upon those large ranches that hold the bits of concentrated population, the ranch owner takes great pride in the game upon his property, and under such conditions of abundance as exist, comparatively little hunting is encouraged." Marsh found this "reflected into the unrestricted areas free from molestation," where "the wildlife responds positively." Journeying out from Muzquiz, "the most impressive feature is the apparent abundance of wildlife and the congeniality it holds for its progeny." Marsh then concluded that "for a true understanding of an original, unmolested environment, and for a less expensive, more satisfactory program," Mexican and American park planners should select portions of the Sierra del Carmen to be "studied extensively, the results of which will be applicable immediately to the corresponding areas in the Texas Big Bend." [10]

Marsh's words went unheeded by NPS officials, as more pressing needs prevailed on the American side of the Rio Grande. Rollin H. Baker, a graduate student at Texas A&M College, worked in the summer of 1937 as a technician conducting an entomological survey of the future park location. For over 100 days, Baker went first to the Chisos Mountains and then fanned out across the lower elevations of southern Brewster County. The technician noted the presence of "a beautiful, tiger-striped, long-winged butterfly" in Juniper Canyon as one of the more unusual species. Nights spent on foot in Boot Canyon were punctuated by "the growls of bobcats and foxes," while during the day Baker and his crew observed "many deer, eagles, and other wild animals." He found most interesting the hike to Boquillas, where "the farmers irrigate their land along the river affording insects a wonderful playground amid the thick vegetation of the irrigated flood plain." Boquillas had a great variety of butterflies, among them the milkweed butterfly "clustering on all types of vegetation." Baker and his partners made note of a party from the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago that "spent several weeks in camp with us in late July and early August." This group sought reptiles and mammals, and Baker "enjoyed several collecting trips with them learning much from them in the ways of collecting." Baker also traveled westward to Santa Elena Canyon, where he found that its "insect fauna . . . closely resembled that of points further down the river." He concluded that "though I have collected in the Big Bend Proposed Park Area some two thousand specimens of the insect fauna, I feel that three and one-half months in an area as large as this region is not fully adequate for more than a beginning on an entomological survey." He suggested to the park service that "the area can be worked a great deal more for insect abundance and types, and there are many interesting ecological studies to be dwelt upon before a final survey can be accomplished." [11]

While Rollin Baker hiked across southern Brewster County in search of insects, the NPS approached Dr. Omer E. Sperry of Sul Ross to collect plant specimens for the future national park. Sperry, who had consulted in the past with NPS biologist Walter McDougall, asked one of his students, Barton C. Warnock, to join him in the field for the summer of 1937. Warnock, who would become the most prominent local scholar of Big Bend vegetation, took advantage of the collection of plants housed on the Sul Ross campus before accompanying Ross Maxwell and his student assistants on a survey of the area. Warnock's efforts were hindered by the lack of transportation throughout the area, and he concentrated on the Chisos Mountains "and the various interesting canyons that open into the Basin." He recorded a large Juniper tree of some 40 feet in height and two feet in diameter growing near the "Window," while the north slope of Mount Emory had a stand of large Douglas firs. When he moved down to Boot Spring, Warnock found the firs and the Arizona Cypress "to be the outstanding trees beautifying this area." [12]

The Sul Ross student then explored the Rio Grande from Boquillas to Lajitas, reporting that "the two most interesting places visited . . . were Boquillas Canyon and Mesa de Angu[i]la." Warnock and the survey crew "were able to wade and swim about a mile down the Boquillas Canyon," and they carried out "several nice specimens" from the banks of the river. Other notable sites for Warnock were Santa Elena Canyon, where he found "a species of Acacia which appears to be different from those previously collected," a weeklong trek through the Dead Horse Mountains, and another week collecting below the South Rim. Warnock reported that the most common plant in the area surrounding the Chisos Mountains was lechuguilla, followed by nearly a dozen other cacti. His final report included mention of some 500 species, of which 60 percent had not been recorded in earlier surveys. [13]

Yet another student researcher assigned to the Chisos CCC camp in the summer of 1937 was Tarleton Smith, a graduate student at the University of Texas. He worked with Karl P. Schmidt, curator of reptiles for the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, to identify specimens for future investigations of the park. Smith would travel around the basin and the lower elevations with Rollin Baker and Barton Warnock. Each day Smith and his companions would drive or hike up and down the canyons of the basin, with Smith most interested in "collecting and observing frogs, lizards, and snakes." His research included "observing their actions in obtaining food, courtship, and general activity." Smith then would try to photograph animal life, and bring back specimens for recording at camp in the evening. At summer's end, Smith returned to Chicago, where he worked closely with Karl Schmidt to prepare the identifications. Smith noted that the Field Museum had "a wonderful collection of books and papers at our disposal pertaining to the study of reptiles, probably one of the most complete collections in existence." The museum also provided other specimens that allowed for comparison of the Big Bend items, "while the wide experience and knowledge of Mr. Schmidt in the field of herpetology and in the precise manner of preparing a scientific paper were most illuminating and invaluable." Smith's work did encounter some difficulties, as "there were certain discrepancies in the literature published on a few species." This he found "especially true in the case of the racerunner lizards." Smith also faced "a scarcity of material, as in some cases only one specimen of a reptile was available." [14]

Once the student workers had departed the Big Bend area, NPS regional geologist Charles Gould returned in December 1937 to examine the status of scientific research as rumors circulated of the closing of the CCC camp in the Chisos basin. Gould joined Walter McDougall and the NPS chief naturalist, H.E. Rothrock, on a brief survey that focused primarily on the findings of Ross Maxwell. Gould's previous six visits to the area led to the conclusion that "the geology of the Big Bend is extremely complex." He noted the "great Cretaceous rocks . . . aggregating many thousands of feet in thickness," while "these beds have been faulted and folded in a very complicated manner." Further faulting and volcanic activity gave "rise to great numbers of dikes, sills and plugs." For these reasons, the park service had asked Maxwell in 1936 to prepare a geologic map, and to collect materials for a geological museum. Gould could report that Maxwell spent some nineteen months in the field, and that his work "has been of a high order." While "much yet remains to be done," said Gould, "and it will probably be many years before the last word has been said on the subject," the NPS official felt confident that Maxwell had made Big Bend's geologic history "fairly well understood." [15]

Gould also deduced from Maxwell's work that Big Bend would need "a competent vulcanologist to pass upon the origin and method of occurrence of the volcanic rocks in the area," as well as "an igneous petrographer to study under the microscope, and describe, these rocks." The park service then should dispatch "an invertebrate paleontologist, well versed in Cretaceous . . . fossils," as well as a "vertebrate paleontologist, to describe the dinosaur and other vertebrate remains." Finally, Gould asked for "a phytopaleontologist, to name and identify the fossil wood and other plant remains." The regional geologist knew that "this is rather a tall order, and calls for the best efforts of a number of men, each eminent in his own narrow specialty." Yet Gould saw in Maxwell's mapping and collecting the basis of "a complete knowledge of the geology of the Big Bend." As of December 1937, Gould had found in the CCC camp museum nearly 2,600 specimens of invertebrates, vertebrates, minerals, and rocks. "For his faithful work," concluded Gould, "both in the preparation of the geologic map, and in the collecting and preparing of the museum material, Dr. Maxwell deserves great credit." The NPS geologist believed that Maxwell "has a broad knowledge of his subject, is industrious and accurate, and has performed a difficult task in a workmanlike manner." [16]

Park service officials could add to Maxwell's data in the spring of 1938 the report of Omer Sperry, whose student Barton Warnock had indicated the extent of Big Bend's biological richness in his own study of the previous autumn. Sperry had devoted portions of the preceding eighteen months to "the collection, determination, and classification of the plants in the area." In addition, the Sul Ross biology professor had taken a series of photographs of plant life in the Big Bend, and conducted a study of "the effects of grazing as indicated by the re-establishment of plants in a few protected areas." Sperry had focused much of his time to the ferns, gymnosperms, and other flowering plants. He built upon the pioneering work of Walter McDougall, expanding the original list of 59 specimens to some 1,281 by the end of 1937. When added to the work of Ernest Marsh in Mexico, and Barton Warnock's data, Sperry could report that the "collection of the National Park Service, now housed in the Department of Biology at Sul Ross College in Alpine, contains close to 2200 specimens." Sperry believed that the final study would contain some 900 distinct plant species within Big Bend National Park. [17]

The biologist also noted that "since the names of many canyons, mountains, hills, and local sites used within the area are local and are not included in any list upon any available maps of the area," he and Warnock devised their own list of place names for reference. He also encouraged the park service to send a professional photographer to the area to record the plant life, as his own efforts were hindered by the intense light and inadequate equipment at his disposal. This would be of special benefit to the study of the six "grazing check plots in the original project." Sperry took notes of the vegetation to detail changes in the preceding year. "Several years will be needed to complete and draw definite conclusions regarding the return of the vegetation to what might be termed its normal condition," wrote Sperry. Yet "it is obvious," he believed, "that the region is greatly over-grazed and that limited and restricted grazing should be carried out if that phase of the park[']s beauty is to be developed." Sperry knew that "this report includes much more work than could have been possible of accomplishment during the 60 days allowed." This would mean compilation of a complete list of plants, and "much work should be done on the ecology, pathology, and the general biology of the area to build a basic scientific foundation necessary [for] information and publications that can be made available to the visiting and interested public in connection with a national park area." [18]

The benefit of these studies became evident in the fall of 1938, as the Santa Fe regional office notified the national media that "three plants previously unreported to science have been found in the proposed Big Bend National Park of Texas." NPS officials acknowledged the work of Ernest Marsh, as Paul Standley, nationally recognized botanist and curator of the Field Museum, named two of Marsh's discoveries: "a wild mallow (Abutilon marshii), which is similar to a hollyhock but has smaller flowers; and a wild nightshade (Chamaesaracha marshii)." This latter specimen Standley described as "a flowering plant of the potato family." As for the third new species, "a shrub locally known as 'senisa,'" Standley called it "Leucophyllum pennelli." The NPS press release said that it "resembles a snapdragon, belongs to the figwort family, and has been named for Dr. Francis W. Pennel, Curator of Plants in the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences." [19]

With the closure of the CCC camp, and the impending completion of Ross Maxwell's geologic map, the park service had to rethink its priorities for scientific work in the Big Bend area. In August 1939, Herbert Maier responded to inquiries from the Washington office about Maxwell's future. Carl Russell, chief naturalist for the park service, had wanted Maxwell to replace Charles Gould as regional geologist while the latter took a temporary position in NPS headquarters. "It is our plan," wrote Maier, "to assign Dr. Maxwell to the geological problems in connection with the CCC program in the State of Texas as suggested by Dr. Russell." The acting regional director added that "this is the work which Dr. Maxwell should actually be performing considering that his salary is being met from camp funds." Maier also wanted to "utilize Dr. Maxwell in an advisory capacity on most of the jobs that are planned for the Big Bend CCC camp because of his familiarity with 'every inch' of the area." Yet another task that Maier could assign to Maxwell would be "the study of the water supply situation in the various State Parks of Texas." Maier considered this of particular value to Big Bend, as "the only body of water in the entire area is the Rio Grande." Since the NPS planned to locate "the major tourist development and administrative buildings in the Chisos Mountains," said Maier, "this makes the matter of water supply a major problem." [20]

Water issues would persist in Big Bend for the remainder of the twentieth century, making the first impressions of Maxwell and other NPS officials important for future policy planners. Maier told NPS inspector John Diggs in December 1939 that "we should look toward a complete survey and scientific analysis of the underground water resources of this important area." Maier wanted Diggs to consider available supplies in the Chisos Basin, as current plans were that "the intensive development be located on the first shelf to the south and the operation at that point will eventually result in quite a high consumption." The acting regional director wondered if "water will have to be pumped up from wells in Oak Creek Canyon in the bottom of the Basin as now obtains in the case of the CCC camp." Some water might be found in the second and third shelves, said Maier, but "quite probably the major supply will eventually have to be brought over from Boot Spring." Maier asked Diggs to determine how much money such a survey would require, as "we are being continually cautioned regarding travel and per diem allowances." If Maxwell "is to receive free lodging while in the area and may do his own cooking," wrote Maier, "his will constitute a typical case which certain auditors now in the field are looking for and which may result in a later demand for reimbursement, in part, a thing which is always painful to the traveler." Thus Maier asked Maxwell to "await the establishing of the CCC camp in the Big Bend so that that camp can bear the expense of his study." [21]

The press of business elsewhere in the NPS system kept Ross Maxwell and other park service officials from examining the issue of water supply until the spring of 1940. Then H.E. Rothrock noted a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about the water problems facing the newly reopened CCC camp in the Chisos Basin. The acting chief naturalist for the park service apologized to Herbert Maier for not getting to Big Bend that winter to undertake such a study, but offered several recommendations for the CCC officials. Among these were monitoring of withdrawals from the camp reservoir, as "the reserves are definitely limited and the use of the area should be planned with this limitation in mind." Rothrock reminded Maier that "the reservoir is charged by water from the rains and snows which fall within the 9-square-mile acreage of the Basin." Runoff, seepage underground, transpiration, and evapotranspiration affected discharge levels, as well as use by the general public. "On my last visit to the area," reported the naturalist, "I was advised that the water level had been lowered appreciably in the wells, due to the generous use of these supplies by the CCC camp." Rothrock warned that "the volume or storage capacity of the reservoir could be estimated, but so many unknown factors exist that this approach to the problem is not practicable until more geologic data are available." For those reasons, Rothrock suggested that measurements of use, recharge, and evaporation should be taken frequently, and that this process continue "during the entire period of occupancy of the CCC camp." [22]

Water quantity and overuse was a serious issue for the NPS and its geologists. More amusing for Ross Maxwell was the rumor of a meteorite striking the Big Bend area. E.M. Flynn, a mining engineer from Toronto, Ontario, had traveled to west Texas in 1916 to search for mineral deposits. Flynn told Oscar E. Monnig of Fort Worth in 1939 that "an Old Mexican prospector whose name I have completely forgotten told me about a meteorite which he had found on the south side of the Chisos [Mountains]." The prospector brought a piece of the meteorite to Flynn, who sent it to the Smithsonian Institution for analysis. "They reported that it was a genuine meteorite," said Flynn, but could pay no more than shipping costs for its acquisition. When Flynn told the Mexican prospector that "there would be no great profit in selling it he evidently became suspicious and evasive and finally left me with the impression that the meteorite was probably across the river on the Mexican side of the line." Flynn never saw the location of the meteorite, and suggested to Monnig that "probably the only way to find the meteorite now is to get the information from some Mexican prospectors or cow punchers from that neighborhood." [23]

Maxwell pursued the meteorite story by asking several area ranchers their opinion of the tale. Robert Cartledge of Castolon and G.E. Babb of Terlingua recalled that "Flynn stayed for some time with Thomas Skaggs of Lajitas," leading both to believe that "the meteorite is in the vicinity of Lajitas." Maxwell wrote to Skaggs, who claimed no knowledge of the meteorite's location, nor was he able to reach Petra Alvarado, "the innkeeper at Lajitas," whom Babb and Cartledge suggested also might validate Flynn's story. Several other local residents, including the CCC camp caretaker, Lloyd Wade, knew of the meteorite story, but had no conclusive evidence of its location. This prompted Maxwell to hike into the Juniper Canyon area, looking for what was described as a fifteen-to-twenty ton object. "The fact that the Mexican prospector gave Flynn a piece of the meteorite," reported Maxwell, "indicates that the body was too large for a man to carry comfortably." The NPS geologist speculated that "if it is a large meteorite and struck in the loose debris of the canyon wall it probably buried itself." He also guessed that "if it struck the solid rock wall of the canyon it would probably make a scar that would show for a long period of time." [24]

Maxwell had to report that he had found "no scar of any type that might have been produced by the impact of a meteor." Hindering his investigation was the "rank overgrowth of vegetation in Juniper Canyon." This Maxwell attributed to higher precipitation levels in the basin than there had been for years. "Weeds, grass, and shrubs cover virtually all the surface," reported the geologist, "making it almost impossible to find a small meteoritic body even if one should exist." Yet the regional geologist wanted further investigation, perhaps by utilizing CCC employees when the Chisos camp reopened. The NPS should "select a few boys who have some curiosity and like to look at different kinds of rock and have a desire to prowl around to aid in the search." Maxwell also suggested more interviews with local residents. Bud Kimbel and A.R. Davis "usually work around the ranches near Marathon during the summer," said Maxwell, "and operate hunting camps or trap during the autumn and winter months." Both men had "prospected extensively in the Big Bend Country," and merited further inquiry from Lloyd Wade. Maxwell then recommended a conversation with the children of Harve Dodson, "whose ranch headquarters were at the stone cabin below the South Rim." Dodson, in Maxwell's opinion, "probably knew that locality better than anyone," and his "interest in prospecting and curiosity of different kinds of rock and mineral may have lead him to discover the alleged meteorite." Dodson's daughter, Nona, had married Pablo Baisa, a goat-herder near Marathon who had prospected on both sides of the Rio Grande. Then the CCC caretaker could inquire of the current seekers of the meteorite, among them Oscar Monnig, a Professor Goldich and his class of geology students from Texas A&M College, and Dr. E.H. Sellards, director of the Texas bureau of economic geology and the new Memorial Museum in Austin. [25]

One intriguing tangent to the Flynn story was Maxwell's discovery of other reports of meteorites in the Big Bend area. In August 1921, Lloyd Wade had been a superintendent at the Mariscal Mine when he witnessed a meteor fall to earth. Wade told Maxwell that "there was a streak of light much brighter than the sunlight and a sizzling, popping noise." After this came "a brighter flash and an explosion." Maxwell reported that the meteor "appeared, to Mr. Wade and others around the mine who saw it, to explode and fall in the vicinity of the Elephant Tusk." Guadalupe Hernandez, in 1921 a resident of Terlingua Abaja, had been plowing his fields when he heard "a roaring noise toward the Chisos Mountains." Hernandez took this as the onset of a rainstorm, but "instead of seeing clouds, the sky was perfectly clear." Then Hernandez saw "a flash like lightning and a noise like thunder over the southern Chisos Mountains." This frightened Hernandez, who later learned that "a star had fallen, and that if he could find it, he should give it to the Priest, as everything that fell from heaven belonged to the [Catholic] Church." Maria "Dona Chata" Sada then added a story where in 1911, "while she and Juan were living in Boquillas, Mexico, they were awakened by a roaring noise and flash of light which they believed to be a meteor that appeared to strike the earth in the Chisos Mountains." Maxwell considered her story valid, as "Dona Chata does not know Mr. Flynn, nor had she heard about the meteorite described by him." Ben Ordones had told Maxwell that a "Sr. Rocdindo Morin Rodriques (now deceased) found a small meteorite several years ago near Study Butte." He had taken it to Terlingua, but local residents had no memory of this. Finally, Maxwell had searched the area with Everett Townsend, who had written in his "scout book" for October 9, 1937: "'I saw a small dark colored stone, said to be a meteorite which fell in Jake Hargus' yard a few weeks ago. Someone had broken it. It appeared to be very hard, but to contain little mineral. Quien sabe?'" [26]

More substantial research on Big Bend's scientific features occurred in the spring of 1940, when Walter McDougall made a special trip to the northern part of the future park with Omer Sperry. They went to the Dagger Flats vicinity, then to Pine Canyon, and on to the Chisos basin for a conversation with Lloyd Wade. McDougall and Sperry noted that "an abundance of rain and snow during the past winter" had made the blooming season "especially fine this spring." The NPS now recognized five distinct species of cacti in the Big Bend area (yucca thompsoniana, yucca alata, yucca restrate, yucca terreyi, and yucca carnerosana). The latter species "often grows 25 to 30 feet tall," reported McDougall, "and the flower cluster may be 5 feet long and a foot and a half in diameter, composed of hundreds of the large, white, bell-shaped flowers." When the yucca carnerosana bloomed, "Dagger Flats is one of the major scenic attractions of the entire area." This led the regional biologist to recommend that "if and when the Big Bend National Park becomes a fact, it will be necessary to maintain a secondary road to Dagger Flats in order that visitors may make a side trip to view the superlative floral display there." Similar conditions prevailed elsewhere in the area, said McDougall. "Due to the favorable weather and moisture," he reported, "the vegetation on the desert looks much better than it did three years ago [1937]." The NPS biologist remarked that "this is especially true in the southeastern part of the area where even the creosote bushes were dying from lack of water." [27]

The wet spring that year allowed McDougall to compare his earlier studies and examine the effects of what he called "excessive" overgrazing. "Homer Wilson had about 1500 goats in the mountains last summer," reported the biologist, '"and probably will have a comparable number in there this year." By contrast, "Pine Canyon, which is owned by Lloyd Wade has not been pastured at all for nearly five years." Once "one passes through the gate onto the Wade property," wrote McDougall, one realized that "it would probably take 50 years and possibly twice that time for the vegetation in this area to fully recover its normal condition." Yet the NPS biologist could cite evidence from three years of experimental plots that "if all domestic animals could be removed from the area the natural recovery of the vegetation would be rapid enough to take care of the natural increase of deer and other native animals." McDougall hoped that "five years, under such conditions, would bring about a sufficient recovery to make food conditions for deer nearly ideal and might even make possible the reintroduction of antelope on a small scale." [28]

This reference to resource protection in Big Bend prompted McDougall to elaborate on the changes in fauna since his last observations in 1937. "All local men consulted agree," wrote the biologist, "that the fantail deer are increasing 'by leaps and bounds.'" Unfortunately, McDougall's contacts claimed that mule deer were in decline, "undoubtedly due, in part, to excessive hunting." The NPS biologist called mule deer "the largest deer in Texas and is much sought after by hunters." Adding to the problems of protection was "the lateness of the hunting season," which would begin on November 15; a time that coincided with "the normal date for the beginning of the rutting season." By disrupting the cycle of reproduction for mule deer, "the fawns are thus dropped late in the spring after hot weather has set in and are much more subject to 'worms' than they would be in cooler weather." Texas officials had delayed the start of deer hunting season so that "the weather might be cool enough so that the venison could be kept without spoiling until consumed." Yet "modern methods of refrigeration" rendered "this excuse for a late hunting season . . . no longer potent." McDougall recommended that "placing the hunting season 30 or 45 days earlier would result in much benefit to the deer herds." [29]

McDougall then offered insight into an unusual threat to wildlife in the Big Bend: "the pets at the CCC camp." The biologist reported seeing "three or four adult dogs and nine pups about three weeks old in camp," as well as "one adult male cat." McDougall learned that "when the previous camp moved out in 1937, one male cat was left behind and that it has become feral and is still occasionally seen." As Big Bend had yet to receive federal status, wrote McDougall, "I assume that nothing can be done about these domestic animals in camp." He asked that "the Administrative Inspector make sure that the Project Superintendent understands that dogs and cats must not be allowed to run wild in the area." McDougall further warned that "when the camp moves out of the area none of these domestic animals must be left behind," and that once Big Bend entered the NPS system, "all dogs and cats will have to be removed." [30]

Three years' absence from Big Bend also prompted McDougall to comment on public use of the future national park. "The circle at the end of the road that extends to the proposed lodge site in the Basin," wrote the biologist, "is evidently being used as a campground by the visiting public." McDougall estimated that "two or three cars per day throughout the year . . . bring camping parties to this place." Without NPS supervision, the area "is exceedingly dirty and unsightly, . . . littered with beer cans and other tin cans." Campers also had "cut down a number of trees for firewood and have destroyed other vegetation." McDougall "strongly recommended" that "this place be cleaned up and that a temporary campground, with refuse containers and possibly fireplaces, be constructed either at this same place or elsewhere." He also believed that "the Regional Forester should be asked to make recommendations concerning firewood for such a campground." McDougall doubted if the Chisos basin had enough firewood "that can be used without detriment to the forests and to wildlife." The biologist then asked that "nothing should be done to invite or encourage visitors to the area until it has been developed." Yet "the visitors are coming anyway and I don't know how we can prevent their destructive activities unless we provide a camping place." [31]

Local promotion of Big Bend's federal status had contributed to the increase in unsupervised visitation to the Chisos basin. This eagerness to make the area attractive to the traveling public (and private donors to the land-acquisition campaign) extended to another feature that irritated McDougall that spring: "the series of road signs directing the way to 'Grand Canyon.'" The biologist believed that "Santa Helena Canyon is a perfectly good name and it seems unfortunate that the State Department of Roads, or whoever put these signs, should have disregarded this distinctive name in favor of one that has been made famous elsewhere." Yet another problem that this designation posed for McDougall was that it would "automatically serve to place the Santa Helena Canyon in a secondary position in the mind of anyone who has ever seen the real Grand Canyon." [32]

To rectify these issues, McDougall reminded his NPS superiors of the preliminary draft of the master plan for Big Bend. This document "calls for a campground and overnight cabins at the mouth of Pine Canyon and a road leading from the main entrance road between Lone Mountain and the main body of the Chisos Mountains." He understood that "the park headquarters will be located somewhere on this proposed road." Such planning posed no threat to wildlife, as "the Pine Canyon site is a delightful place;" a "sort of basin with mountains on all sides and an exit on the southeast corner through which can be seen, in the distance, the Del Carmen Mountains of Mexico." McDougall believed that "the development will not extend into the [Pine] canyon proper, where they would be detrimental to wildlife, because they cannot." He also noted that "the trail leading from the old ranch site to the head of the canyon is a delightful place to hike," prompting the biologist to suggest that "this trail be maintained as a foot trail only and not as a horse trail." [33]

This issue of access in the basin drew particular attention from McDougall, as he had heard that "there will probably have to be a road of some kind, perhaps part tramway, to the South Rim in order to enable visitors to view the most scenic place in the entire area without resorting to horseback riding." The biologist cautioned his superiors: "While I wish that this were not true, I presume that it is." If so, McDougall recommended that "it should not be a road that is open to the uncontrolled use of the general public." He agreed with NPS landscape architect Harvey Cornell that "there is no real need for a 'loop' road," as he wanted "no road extending east from the southern end of the highway to Santa Helena Canyon, or, at least, none other than the secondary road that already exists." McDougall concurred with the judgment of "everyone concerned with the development of the Big Bend area . . . that the Chisos Mountains came nearer to constituting a natural and complete biological unit than any other area in the entire National Park System, with the single exception of Isle Royal[e]." The future park was "extremely important from the wildlife viewpoint," concluded McDougall, and "as much as possible of the Chisos Mountains and the rough country adjacent to the mountains on the south should be left in an undisturbed condition." [34]

The onset of World War II drew the park service's attention away from scientific research in Big Bend. With the rationing of gasoline, the closure in 1943 of the CCC camp in the Chisos basin, the reduction of NPS staffing, and the resultant loss of scholarly interest in the region, the emphasis in Big Bend shifted to land acquisition and transfer of the acreage to the federal government. Ross Maxwell would return in March 1942 to Big Bend with regional director Minor Tillotson, chief of planning Harvey Cornell, and Paul Brown, chief of the NPS's recreation planning division. Once this entourage departed the park area, Maxwell conducted new tests for water supplies in the Chisos basin, and "revised some of the geological mapping in the Dogie-Little Christmas Mountains area." He reported that "the water from the new well has a good taste, and soap lathers satisfactorily in it." A woman named "Mrs. Leslie, who has been living in one of the cabins and using the water for about one month, states that she likes the water and that to date there had not been any indication that the water would stain the plumbing fixtures." Maxwell estimated that the pumping rate of ten to twelve gallons per minute would satisfy current and future needs. "It probably will be necessary," the regional geologist admitted, "to drill this well deeper or drill more wells when Park usage demands a larger water supply." [35]

Practical considerations like water supplies joined in May 1942 with inquiries from the Abbott Laboratories in Chicago for information about the availability of fraxinus cuspidata, an ash tree that grew in the Chisos basin. O.C. Durham, chief botanist for Abbott Laboratories, wrote to the Texas state parks board "to determine whether a product occurs in the bark of this tree which is effective against malaria." Durham told Bob Hamilton of the state parks board that "certain information has recently come out of China regarding a similar species of which indicates high antimalarial activity of an alkaloid contained therein." Wartime conditions meant that "the problem of control of malaria throughout the world is now a more acute one and is of particular interest from the standpoint of our country's war effort." Abbott was "collaborating with certain governmental agencies on a rather broad front to try to find active antimalarials, either of synthetic or natural origin." Durham thus requested of Hamilton permission "to collect a minimal quantity of bark from the trees in your area." He estimated the need for "at least five pounds of true bark, dry," which meant "at least twenty pounds of bark with the corky layer and the moisture as found in fresh bark." [36]

Hamilton's response on behalf of the state parks board revealed the priority that wartime research had placed upon Big Bend. Study of the tree fraxinus cuspidata revealed that it grew in Fresno Canyon to the southwest of the future park site. This would benefit the malaria research of Abbott Laboratories, while protecting the few ash trees remaining in the Chisos basin. Hamilton also reported that "there is an abundant stand of ash trees in the mountain country south of the Fresno Canyon - this being in Mexico." If Abbott Laboratories concluded that it needed large quantities of bark for its anti-malarial work, said Hamilton, "we shall be happy to give you additional information about the trees in Mexico." [37]

From the spring of 1942 until the months prior to the opening of Big Bend National Park (June 1944), the park service conducted no formal scientific surveys of the future NPS unit. Then in September 1943, James O. Stevenson, a former park service official, sent to chief naturalist Victor Cahalane "a few comments - the personal opinions of the writer," on the NPS's plans for "the development of Big Bend International Park." Stevenson conceded that the plan for facilities and visitors services development in the Chisos basin "was o.k., but we must guard against overdevelopment and spread of structures, roads, etc., throughout the northern two-fifths of the Chisos Mountains." To do otherwise, said Stevenson, meant that "the whole wilderness flavor of the area will be dissipated." He argued that "the view from the South Rim should not be denied to anyone willing to make the trip the way it should be made - on foot or on horseback." Stevenson recalled the comment of the NPS's Hermon C. Bumpus that "'one should earn his way from the bowl (the Basin) to the rim either by a hard ride on horseback or a harder hike through a virgin country.'" Bumpus had contended that "'the achievement will consume a day, but a day never to be forgotten.'" Stevenson then commented on the rumor of a "cog railway" to the South Rim, quoting an unnamed scientist "who has a thorough knowledge and appreciation of the Chisos," as "'fantastic.'" Harvey Cornell would add to Stevenson's remarks the marginal note that "the cog railway was never a popular idea - and was made only as a substitute for a road, if [through] public demand it was found that a road or an equivalent would be unavailable." Stevenson then argued that "those who insist on viewing the Chisos wilderness from a car window will never find it." Instead, "those unwilling to walk or ride on horseback through the mountains will be better off elsewhere seeking other types of entertainment or recreation." [38]

Stevenson then offered to Cahalane his thoughts on the relationship of Big Bend to Mexico. "The Big Bend will not be a true International Park," he warned, "until Mexico acquires a sizeable tract of land south of the Rio Grande and provision is made for an interchange of travel by the people of both nations to both sections of the park." Stevenson agreed with the NPS's Tillotson and Brown that "developments should be so planned that each section complements the other rather than competes with it." Yet "until such time as the Mexican authorities give assurances that an adequate tract will be acquired in Chihuahua and Coahuila," said Stevenson, "park planning will necessarily be limited to the Texas portion of the area." Nonetheless, the former NPS official hoped that plans for a thorough biological survey would proceed. "No detailed investigation of the wildlife of the Mexican border area has been made," claimed Stevenson, citing a brief list of studies on the Sierra del Carmen (including the survey by Ernest Marsh). "The choicest area opposite the park in Texas," wrote Stevenson, "is the Fronteriza and Carmen Mountains regions." He admitted that "since the Carmen Mountain Hunting Club, owned by Americans, controls some 100,000 acres in the Carmens, acquisition of this important range may be delayed indefinitely." Then in a statement that presaged calls in the 1970s for creation of a "wild and scenic river" designation for Big Bend, the park service should press for inclusion of "the entire river region opposite the park in Texas, including sizeable tracts bordering the three canyons." Stevenson believed that this would "reduce the possibilities of pollution and poaching, give increased protection to beavers and fish life, and provide necessary range (in Mexico) for any bighorns which may be re-established in the park." [39]

With the opening of Big Bend National Park looming in the spring of 1944, NPS officials decided to conduct a "faunal survey" in preparation for future interpretative and protection programs. Hillory Tolson, acting NPS director, decided to send the best team available to prepare the data. Tolson, former director of the NPS's Region III, asked Minor Tillotson for advice on the composition of the survey team. Tillotson voiced his approval for Dr. Walter P. Taylor, senior biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as leader, and of William B. Davis, acting head of the department of instruction, fish and game at Texas A&M College. The regional director then expressed concern about the inclusion of Walter McDougall on the survey. While Tillotson considered the former regional biologist (now working for USFWS) "quite well acquainted with the Big Bend country," the director feared that "as a result of his attitude and activities on previous trips there, he is decidedly 'persona non grata' with the local people." Tillotson told the NPS director that "if Region Four [McDougall's new home at Death Valley National Monument] should be unable to release Dr. McDougall and it would be necessary to select someone else as a member of this particular party, it would suit us just as well." Tillotson further advised the NPS director: "I would certainly object to any arrangement by which he would head up the party." Taylor should be "advised of the situation" that confined McDougall "solely to technical investigations, completely disassociated from public contacts or administrative matters of any kind." Tillotson explained that McDougall was "not to assume a dictatorial manner in telling local people what they may or must not do." The regional director cautioned that "it is not the function of this fact-finding party to serve as missionaries in educating local old time Texans as to National Park Service wildlife policies," and he believed that "Dr. Taylor would have such an understanding and that Dr. McDougall would not." [40]

Tillotson's warnings about offending local sensibilities would be a feature of NPS management at Big Bend for decades to come. Thus it fell to Ross Maxwell, named in the fall of 1943 as superintendent of the new park unit, to determine the best mixture of park service policy, advanced scientific research, and community involvement. On March 22, 1944, he prepared for his role in the faunal survey by corresponding with Walter P. Taylor. Maxwell, still in Santa Fe at the NPS's regional office, had access to the draft master plan and road system plan for Big Bend. "Most of the physical development will be in the Basin of the Chisos Mountains," wrote Maxwell, but he noted that "there will be secondary physical improvements at several other points." These could be reached "only by foot or horseback parties." As for Taylor's ideas about wildlife studies, Maxwell advised that "the more accurate information we have on wildlife conditions within the park, however, the more intelligently we can plan for future welfare of the wildlife and the part that it will play in the administration and interpretation of the area." He then outlined several categories of concern, among these the plan to restock bighorn sheep in the park, the number and variety of deer, the presence of javelina, and the development of water supplies for wildlife. Maxwell asked in particular about recording the presence of beaver in the Rio Grande, along with waterfowl. Then the future park superintendent solicited Taylor's opinion on "the practicability of establishing a small herd of longhorn cattle on the park, without regard to the advisability of doing so from the standpoint of National Park Service policy, but with regard to the availability of food, water, and the welfare of the cattle." Finally, Maxwell asked for details on "correlation of wildlife management plans as between the United States and Mexico." [41]

When the Taylor survey reached Big Bend in March 1944, they marveled at the complexity and richness of the future park service unit. In a preliminary report exceeding 60 pages, the survey team paid tribute to the many researchers who had examined the area since the start of the twentieth century. "The list of these," wrote Taylor, "reads like a roster of some of the best American naturalists." He singled out the work of Vernon Bailey and Harry C. Oberholser, members of the United States Biological Survey, who in 1901 had visited Big Bend to study life zones and plant-animal communities. Their conclusions, wrote Taylor over four decades later, "are of a pioneering character and will stand for all time as a model of excellent work done at an early period." In like manner, the Texas A&M professor praised Ardrey Borrell and Monroe Bryant, "whose work advanced knowledge of mammalian fauna of the Park far and away beyond anything which had gone before." Taylor then outlined the tasks facing the survey crew. "In course of the work," he wrote, "every formation in the Park was visited and studied, although time was lacking for as thorough a coverage as would have been desirable of the northwestern part of the Park (Rough Run, Onion Flat, Smallpox Spring)." Taylor and his associates also could not investigate the foothills of the Chisos Basin below the South Rim, nor could they spend time in the Dead Horse Mountains, or the proposed international park area in Mexico. [42]

Taylor's crew also turned to historical accounts of land use in the Big Bend area in preparation for their research. "Soon after the Americans began to come into the country," wrote Taylor, "the entire Big Bend range was apparently administered by a single large cow outfit." This lent itself to open-range grazing until the first decade of the twentieth century, "when fencing was initiated in the region." Lured by the presence of cattle, "mountain lions interfered with the raising of colts, particularly on the north side of the Chisos Mountains and along the Dead Horse Range." The surveyors also learned that "along the old Boquillas ore road there was a concentration of grazing by the numerous mules and burros engaged in hauling ore to the railroad." Then "Mexicans cut the chino grass and sold it to the mule skinners." From this Taylor and his colleagues speculated that "the effects of the overgrazing which took place are still obvious." Then the introduction of goats and sheep added to the burden on the grasses, with some 3,000 sheep on the Homer Wilson ranch when the surveyors arrived. "This has entailed competition for the choicest plants," wrote Taylor, "some of which are used by several classes of livestock and big game." A particular problem was the drought of 1916-1919, when "many cattle died of starvation." Local ranchers "harvested a great deal of sotol (Dasylirion leiophyllum) at this time, as cattle feed, particularly between Green Gulch and Government Spring." In several places, reported Taylor, "the sotol was so completely eradicated that it shows very little recovery up to the present time." [43]

The aridity of the Big Bend would influence many decisions at which Taylor and his ecological survey arrived. Among the suggestions that they made were more accurate records of weather and climate, which had been collected intermittently at Johnson's ranch and Government Spring. Water supplies also concerned the surveyors, as they recommended that "location of the Park Service and concessionaire headquarters at the Graham or Daniels ranch sites should encourage greater attention to the resources of this interesting stream and heightened appreciation of its values." Taylor claimed that "already the general public (July 1944), due very largely to the fishing in the Rio Grande, regularly pass by the Chisos Mountains and go to the river, even in the hot weather of late spring and summer." Taylor also noted that "the hot springs at intervals along the river, especially between Hot Springs and Boquillas, form an added tourist attraction." One problem facing the NPS was reduced stream-flow "as the Mexicans take more and more water for irrigation above the Big Bend and as additional water is used for the same purpose by Americans in New Mexico and West Texas." The surveyors identified 70 permanent springs in the park area, "which may be depended upon to afford sufficient water for wildlife." Yet some of these springs suffered from cattle grazing, as "an abundance of manure and urine of domestic stock and rotten animals or scattered remains, either in or near the water, are all too characteristic." Taylor believed that the park service should clean out the springs damaged by stockraising, leaving the sites "the way Nature made them." The same policy would apply to the rock bowls or tinajas in the Dead Horse Mountains, Mariscal Mountain, and the Mesa de Anguila, and the "tanks" built by ranchers. "While these tanks are unnatural," said Taylor, "they may as well be left alone," as "they will disappear in short order if they are not sedulously maintained." As for dams and reservoirs, the surveyors conceded that these might "increase the amount of water available for mule deer and other animals." Yet "such developments," concluded Taylor, "would not be natural and cannot be recommended." [44]

When the ecological surveyors addressed issues of plant destruction, they expressed resignation at the scale of overuse. "It is very doubtful," reported Taylor, "whether man can assist to any great extent in the restoration of the depleted natural vegetation and animal life." The surveyors believed that "man has turned out to be a bungler at the best, and it is well to leave this area for Nature to take care of and restore as best she can." A well-qualified park naturalist could monitor such conditions as the tobosa grass, and recommend the reintroduction of antelope if forage returned. "But if the present retrogressive trend continues," wrote Taylor, "it will be better to postpone or to eliminate altogether any attempted restoration of these large animal forms which are so dependent on a proper grassy association." [45]

Taylor and his colleagues determined that the plant and animal species of Big Bend lived in what they called five principal communities: forest, woodland, sotol grass, desert scrub, and river floodplain. The trees of the Chisos Basin comprised "a relic of a formerly much more extensive forest which has decreased in extent with increasing aridity since Pleistocene times." The woodland biome occurred above 4,800 feet in the Chisos Mountains, while the sotol-grass biome could be found in the desert. The surveyors speculated that "the entire Park area, aside from that occupied by the forest and woodland formations, was formerly occupied by a grassland formation." While overgrazing for 50 to 75 years had denuded the landscape, "the Sotol-Grass Community has retained a sufficient amount of grass so it can be recognized as belonging to the plains grass formation." Taylor doubted whether "they will ever return to real grassland type even with the full protection that the National Park Service can give." He also stated that "it is quite certain no one who is now alive will ever see them as grassland in the sense that they were grassland 100 years ago." This Taylor ascribed to the fact that "any reversion to grassland, involving the elimination of the desert shrubs, will be an exceedingly slow process." [46]

Identifying distinctive animals in the Big Bend area led the ecological survey team to marvel at the many birds and mammals. Dozens of species proliferated in the park, with the "Texas blue-throated hummingbird, dwarf red-shafted flicker, Mexican phainopepla, Colima warbler, and hooded oriole" as new additions "to the known fauna of the United States." In addition, the surveyors found eleven species of birds new to Texas fauna. Taylor then listed over two dozen "common birds" that he believed would interest visitors more than the rare species "which appeal so much to the student of systematic ornithology." The list of mammals unique to Big Bend included the "big free-tailed bat and the mountain cotton rat." In contrast, "mammals which have now gone from the Big Bend Park and the restoration of which has been under discussion are the American antelope and the Texas bighorn." Taylor also remarked at some length about the presence of beaver in the Rio Grande. While he estimated that 100 beaver existed within park boundaries, "most of the beaver are forced by heavy stocking of livestock on the American side to live in burrows on the Mexican side of the river." The surveyors learned that "cattle along the river prefer to feed in the canebrakes, and the resultant trampling and caving-in of their burrows forces the beavers to establish headquarters elsewhere." Compounding this problem, said Taylor, was the fact that "the Mexicans do not hesitate to trap them." Removal of all livestock, and inclusion of the Mexican side of the river in an international park, would improve the habitat of willow, cottonwood, baccharis, and river cane that were "the key plants in the economy of these animals in the Big Bend." [47]

The animal most endangered by human habitation, however, remained the javelina. Lloyd Wade and Ross Maxwell had trapped one on the road between Government Spring and Neville Spring, leading them to conclude that "this seems to be about the center of occurrence of the animals." Wade told Taylor that the drought of the late 1920s had driven the javelina into the Chisos basin areas of Green Gulch, Pine Canyon, and Blue Creek, where they remained for several years. There was some debate about the effectiveness of the Texas law protecting the javelina. Before its passage at the behest of the park service, hide hunters received one dollar per skin, leading to their removal "by the herd." Waddy Burnham told the surveyors that the javelina was no threat to humans, and that "they are especially plentiful on sandy and brushy washes where there is lots of prickly pear." Burnham claimed that "they will eat insects, dead cows, or anything they come to, but their main reliance is prickly pears and similar vegetation." Taylor reported no sightings of javelina south and southwest of the Chisos Mountains, a circumstance for which he had no explanation. "Perhaps the requisite food and cover are lacking," wrote Taylor, "but to the casual observer at least some of the washes seem to be very nearly as favorable as the country where the peccaries are common." [48]

In matters of species restoration, Taylor and his colleagues did not support "any overt action," as they observed "sufficient seedstock of all the plants and animals in the park (except the bighorn sheep and the pronghorned antelope) eventually to populate the area to an optimum degree after the livestock are taken off." With bighorn sheep, no one could explain why they disappeared, or why they had stayed in areas of "ultra dry Edwards limestone types with no springs or other water except in tinajas." Hunters decimated the population, said some local residents, while "possible infection with the diseases of domestic sheep and goats, may have had something to do with it." In 1941, J. Stokely Ligon had written a report for the USFWS noting that "'the policy of the National Park Service, in protecting all native wildlife within park boundaries, is not such as to encourage the introduction of a vanishing species." Instead, Ligon suggested that "immediate efforts to save seed stock of the bighorn sheep might well be confined to the present range of the sheep in the Sierra Diablo Mountains, north of Van Horn, Texas." Taylor and his associates agreed, suggesting that "if proper protection can be given to the Park, and an international park developed on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, there eventually may be some natural restocking of the Park with bighorns from across the river." [49]

This feature of the proposed international park merited substantial attention from the ecological survey. Taylor wrote that "it is a fact that the river affords no appreciable barrier, in a distributional sense, even to some small rodents." Should the park service identify "a plentiful stock of bighorn sheep, prong-horned antelope, black bear, gray wolves, and other species on the Mexican side, it would only be a matter of time until some individuals would appear on the American side." Taylor claimed that "Mexico is probably the center of abundance of some of the Big Bend mammals." This would include bighorn and antelope, and "birds, many of the mammals, including predators and fur animals, as well as game species, insects, and indeed most forms of wildlife." Taylor again suggested that "if the Mexican park can be set up and protection given to existing stocks on the Mexican side both inside and outside of the proposed park, there is no reason why, over a term of years, restoration cannot proceed across the Rio Grande." [50]

Details of the flora and fauna of Big Bend were accompanied in Taylor's report by suggested interpretive programs, and also "hidden resources" for additional study. "The Big Bend," wrote Taylor, "is a great geological museum, with surface evidences of many of the processes by which the mountains, mesas, plains, washes, and river valleys have been formed." So too were the plant and animal species that were "merely indicators of processes and structures which are not seen." Taylor made note of the four kinds of turtles in Big Bend, the nineteen lizards, 23 snakes, six amphibians, 56 mammals, 241 birds, and 650 species of insects. "For the most part," wrote Taylor, "all the visitor secures is a fleeting glimpse of one or another of these animals." Yet the surveyors concluded that "nature in the Park constitutes a highly complicated mechanism, partly alive (as in the living plants and animals), partly dead (as in the soils and climate)." That was why "modifications by man, particularly through overgrazing by domestic livestock, have disarranged parts of this mechanism." Taylor recommended that visitors not only look for "day-animals" and birds, but also bats and predators. "There are few places in the country," wrote Taylor, "where it is permissible to maintain such species as mountain lion, gray wolf, black bear, bobcat, and coyote." The surveyors agreed that "it is essential to maximum park values in the area that a full complement of these predatory species be maintained in order to avoid surpluses of population among the deer and rodent groups." [51]

Facility planning also received the attention of the ecological survey, as Taylor and his colleagues believed that "the National Park Service can control use of the Park by guiding development." Linking scientific research to land-use patterns would make Big Bend more accessible to visitors, even as it protected the natural resources that had drawn the park service to southern Brewster County a decade earlier. Taylor wrote that "from the wildlife viewpoint there is little danger of injury to Park values from roads or improvements in the lower portions of the Park or along the Rio Grande." This led Taylor to reiterate his call for location of the concessionaire and park headquarters on the river (which he called "ideal"). In the Chisos Basin, the survey team found "some very real problems." These began with the "unsightly shacks" of the CCC camp, which Taylor said "should be eliminated or replaced by appropriately planned structures." The surveyors then focused upon wildlife issues in the Basin, noting that "there is strong argument for making the entire Chisos Mountains a sacred area;" a situation that Taylor concluded "appears to be impractical." No new roads should be built into the basin, although Taylor expressed "no objection to horse or foot trails to points in the lower parts of the Park." A route that made "provision for automobile travel around the mountains, the trip starting and terminating at headquarters on the Rio Grande, and making the complete circuit of the Park," said Taylor, "would likely do less harm to park values than proposed pack trips at the Basin in the Chisos Mountains to Mariscal Mountains and other points on the river." This would occur because "the pack trips at the Basin in the Chisos would tend to expand developments there, where they would likely injure park (wildlife) values." Instead, wrote Taylor, "expansion of roads and auto travel along the River and in the lower portions of the park would do little or no harm and would, at the same time, relieve the Chisos Mountains of the burden of housing, outfitting, guiding, and providing stables and feed for pack and saddle animals for tourists." [52]

The ecological survey report made special mention of the issue of domestic livestock in the park, both the existing herds of local ranchers and the dream of Conrad Wirth for a "longhorn ranch" somewhere in Big Bend. "There is an impression abroad, especially among western people," wrote Taylor, "that the great West is in a relatively unmodified condition." The Texas A&M professor attributed this mythology to the fact that "only limited farming activities have been possible in the West and that when the visitor crosses the Great Plains and semi-arid and desert country farther west, he sees very little of improvements." Instead, travelers would note "only scrubby desert vegetation or grassland which does not seem susceptible of use or modification." Big Bend had become "the source of a great deal of misconception in this regard," Taylor reported, as "enthusiastic statements have been made to the effect that this area is 'untouched' or 'unspoiled' or 'practically in a virgin condition.'" To the contrary, wrote Taylor, "none of the area is untouched and none of it is in an unspoiled virgin condition, except possibly some portions of the Dead Horse Range and some small inaccessible parts of the Chisos Mountains, such as Pulliam Canyon and the top of Flattop Mountain." The surveyors also claimed that "the native vegetation is so severely injured in much of the Big Bend area that it is questioned whether any other national park was initially established in so depleted a condition." [53]

Taylor's survey team expressed particular displeasure with the destruction of the landscape by goats, "seemingly more rapidly than ever." They then cited the case of the Homer Wilson ranch, headquartered at Oak Spring and on Blue Creek. This acreage "appears to be the most abused area in the entire Park project," wrote Taylor, "at least as far as recent and present operations are concerned." The surveyors noted grazing by cattle, horses, sheep, and goats, with "the goats and sheep in such numbers that they are rapidly destroying the most valuable vegetation." Taylor found this to be "true all over the ranch from Burro Mesa and lower Blue Creek to the Laguna and the South Rim of the Chisos Mountains." The surveyors found "an extraordinarily large number of goat droppings" along the South Rim, "and the area looked like (and smelled like!) a goat paddock." For these reasons, Taylor could only reiterate the plea of so many NPS scientists: "The most important single management item which can be accomplished under National Park administration will be the removal of all domestic animals from the Park area." Taylor realized that "this will entail the fencing of practically the entire boundary of the Park," as "even the broad buffer constituted by the Dead Horse Mountains is not a sufficient protection without proper fencing." The surveyors had found goat droppings also at Sue Peak, "indicating that on occasion goats are grazed to the highest portions of these mountains, ordinarily the most arid area of the Park." [54]

Beyond the presence of goats, Taylor and his associates identified issues of exotic animals at Big Bend, such as "the numerous wild burros, mules, and horses now within its boundaries." The surveyors reported that "grazing conditions in many portions of the Park favored horses and their relatives and many estrayed animals have become feral in character." Taylor argued that "some have doubtless been wild for several generations," but felt that "these animals should be eliminated as soon and as completely as possible." The gravity of this situation led Taylor to claim that "all other management suggestions but the one for removal of domestic livestock could be forgotten if only the livestock could be removed." The surveyors could not emphasize more clearly that "the Big Bend National Park is far more valuable to the public as a natural area free from all grazing than it would be as the temporary source of food for wartime armies or the civilian population." Taylor believed that "the amount of production involved is so small as to be negligible in the national total." This he correlated to the fact that "only a few American ranchmen have been able to survive in the region, while the number of Mexicans who have existed on the basis of small herds of goats is likewise very small." Taylor stated that "the superior values of this and similar park areas under natural conditions are some of the things that the boys are fighting for in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific Islands today." The NPS needed to remember that "those of us who have some responsibility would be false to our trust if we permitted the high values of national park establishment and maintenance to be undermined by the lesser values of temporary production of livestock," which Taylor noted "can certainly be produced more economically in other parts of the United States." [55]

Taylor's recommendations about stock removal led to a detailed description of the fencing needs at Big Bend "to exclude effectively livestock which is now grazed in areas adjoining the Park." The most critical area lay on the west and northwest sides, and a small area in the extreme eastern portion near Stillwell Crossing, "which is regularly grazed and will require immediate fencing." The boundary fences inside the new park should be removed as soon as possible, wrote Taylor, "and the wire conserved for the purpose of fencing the outside boundary." There were "many miles of good woven wire fence on some of the ranches, most notably on the Wilson Ranch in the Blue Creek-Oak Creek area." Then Taylor reported on the need to correct the boundaries as drawn by the park service, with the most critical area "the placement of the present boundary line on the northeastern side of the Park in the Dead Horse Mountains, where for a considerable distance the boundary follows the topmost ridge of the mountain range." Taylor believed that "from an ecological point of view this is an unfortunate line because it cuts a conspicuous habitat in two." In addition, "fencing the present boundary over the highest point in the Dead Horse would be so expensive as to be very impracticable." Taylor then reminded NPS planners that "on the west the Park is bordered largely by open country, which is overrun by burros, horses, cattle, and goats." [56]

Yet another section of the park boundary of concern to Taylor and the survey team was the Rio Grande. "Without a fence along the river," warned Taylor, "it will be impossible during times of low water (which are apparently increasingly more frequent) to keep livestock from trespassing into the Park from Mexico." This would be an issue of resource management for decades at Big Bend, and Taylor noted that "this consideration emphasizes the desirability of encouraging Mexico to set up a park upon her side of the Rio Grande and to eliminate the domestic livestock therefrom." Fencing, meanwhile, would hinder the "free ingress of such game animals as peccary, antelope, bighorn, mule deer, and white-tailed deer, as well as some of the predatory animals, including the mountain lion, the wolf, and the bear." Taylor wanted these animals to be "encouraged to enter the Park area," and for that reason he hoped that "all existing fences within the boundaries of the Park should be removed as soon as practicable [because] these fences interfere with the free movements of native animals, and are contrary to Park Service policy." [57]

Visitor access and points of interest then received mention in Taylor's report, with a lengthy list prepared of natural and cultural resource sites. Among these were a "small cemetery at Chilicotal Spring," "Indian writings on the The Chimneys," "old candelilla factories at La Noria and Glenn Spring, and "sites of old ranch headquarters in the Park (McKinney's, Boquillas, Hot Springs, San Vicente, Johnson Ranch, Glenn Spring, Dugout, [and] Grapevine Spring)." Taylor stated that "the whole Big Bend National Park, to a considerable extent, is an area of especial interest because of its unique combination of high and low plant-animal communities." Special notice should be given to "the portion of Mexico in the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Coahuila," as "it is characterized by wild wastes of desert and mountain country with some possibilities for the increase in game and other wildlife." Taylor remarked that "there are probably few locations in North America which are more primitive in character than these lands across the Rio Grande." This led the surveyors to the conclusion that "there is no question but that, as time goes on, more and more persons will cross the Rio Grande and enjoy themselves in this rugged mountainous and desert country." [58]

Those conditions of aridity and isolation were on the minds of Taylor and his colleagues when they offered recommendations for "protection from fire" at Big Bend. "No elaborate fire-fighting organization should be needed," they thought, yet "every possible effort should be made to prevent man-made fires about the Park headquarters and the administrative areas wherever they may be." Taylor conceded that "there is always some danger of fire in the upper part of the Chisos Mountains where the only forest area is found." He believed that "here, in the woodland and forest, fires might be highly detrimental to Park values." This area told "much of the relationship of the Big Bend to the Rocky Mountains to the north and the Chihuahua and Coahuila highlands to the south." To that end, wrote Taylor, "it is highly desirable to protect these by artificial means." He agreed that "this may be somewhat difficult under the proposed developmental plan according to which trails will be built or maintained to all the principal parts of the higher parts of the Chisos." The NPS should prohibit smoking on the trails, and prepare "a system of fire protection . . . as nearly foolproof as possible." In the case of lightning-cause fires, Taylor viewed these as "natural," and conceded that "when they occur in remote parts of the Park, such as the Dead Horse Mountains or the Mesa de Anguila, they are not necessarily destructive of park values." Instead, "they have been going on from time immemorial in many of these areas and have a legitimate part to play in the natural growth, development, and maintenance of the plant-animal communities of the park." [59]

Fire suppression needed to be part of this strategy, wrote Taylor, as "no woodcutting whatever should be permitted within the National Park area." He wanted "fallen trees, shrubs, or parts thereof, and accumulating brush and litter . . . left in place, except as clearly needed for a limited number of camp fires in pack trips." Taylor claimed that "such debris affords home and shelter to numerous small animals, such as fur animals, rodents, insects, birds, and game." From this came mulch that would "protect the soil from erosion," while "litter and brush are often of the utmost help in the rehabilitation of grasses and other plants, protecting them from grazing and browsing animals during their critical period." Taylor had heard that "cutting of timber has been carefully regulated on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande," with "a permit required from the local forest officer" to cut trees. "On the American side," wrote Taylor, "this has not been the case." As a result, "it is said that native Mexicans have crossed into the United States and removed timber from the American side of the line." In addition, "trees growing along the river have also been used freely by Americans who, up to this time, have occupied ranch and farm land along the river." Such woodcutting "must necessarily be eliminated so that the natural vegetation can restore itself." The surveyors had discovered that "much of the mesquite along the river is second growth," but Taylor hoped that "in 50 or 100 years Park visitors may be able to see what a well-developed mesquite forest (a beautiful woods by the way) looks like." [60]

Related to forest maintenance was the issue of erosion. Taylor and his surveyors had questions "as to what part of the erosion, which is so obvious on every hand in the Big Bend area, is normal erosion and what part is accelerated." The survey team believed that erosion observed along Tornillo Creek and Tobosa Flat was "of the accelerated character." In these areas, soil depletion "has proceeded so far that the originally grassy vegetation (mostly tobosa grass) has been largely eliminated and brush has been increasing in amount." Taylor blamed this situation on "gullying following the removal of the tobosa grass and the consequent lowering of the water table to such an extent that the grasses, on which, for example, the prong-horned antelope fed, cannot reestablish themselves." The only plants that could survive were "deep-rooted bushes like the creosote bush." Prohibition of grazing would "encourage the healing process," wrote Taylor, "but whether the gullying has already gone too far to be cured even by complete removal of livestock is a question." In this instance, "some sort of erosion control (spreader dams? artificial planting) might be justified." At a minimum, Taylor recommended that park staff "ascertain in which way the condition is trending, that is, whether toward more serious erosion, deeper gullies, and further elimination of grassy vegetation, or a healing of the gullies with a tendency for the grass to return." [61]

Should the NPS eliminate the source of erosion through the elaborate means suggested by Taylor, the surveyors hoped that the park service would not introduce "work stock" to the Chisos Mountains. Animals owned by a concessionaire "should not be pastured anywhere in the Park," wrote Taylor. He recognized that "possibly a limited number of Park-owned horses could be pastured on some areas of chino grass remote from the Chisos Mountains for a limited period without appreciable harm to park values." Yet "all work stock," said Taylor, "whether Park-owned or concessioner-owned, should be fed hauled feed or raised feed only." He did note that "it would be entirely possible, if deemed desirable, to devote some of the alluvial area on one or more of the ranches already established along the Rio Grande to growing feed for Park-owned horses." [62]

The last issue of resource management that Taylor addressed was the controversial longhorn ranch, which the surveyors opposed strongly. "Unquestionably the longhorn cattle would compete," wrote Taylor, "with the mule deer which are regarded by some as the most important game animals within the Park." Beyond this ecological challenge, Taylor and his colleagues considered it "practically impossible to establish a longhorn ranch which would really picture the ranching business in the early days." They claimed that "the roughest sort of headquarters and a corral were often all the equipment the pioneer ranchman possessed." Should the NPS install "a high-class establishment with a superintendent and a mess hall and all the other improvements that go with a modern ranch," it could not "reflect conditions in the old longhorn period." Yet a third obstacle would be the fact that "the term longhorn is a loose one [that] has actually been applied to almost any kind of semi-wild cattle occurring in Texas from the dawn of history." More accurate would be reference to the longhorn country between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande in southeastern Texas. Taylor noted the presence of a longhorn herd on federal land in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Oklahoma, and few of these animals had the long horns "which are the popular mark of the 'breed.'" Managing any herd within Big Bend would pose logistical challenges, and would be in violation of NPS policy released in February 1944 by acting director Tolson that "'any exotic species which has already become established in a park shall be either eliminated or held to a minimum provided complete eradication is not feasible.'" Tolson ordered that "'presentation of the animal life of the parks to the public shall be a wholly natural one,'" while "'no animal shall be encouraged to become dependent upon man for its support.'" [65]

At the conclusion of the Taylor report, the surveyors devoted several paragraphs to recommendations on the "international aspects" of Big Bend's future. "Every assistance and encouragement should be given the Government of the United States of Mexico to set up a great Mexican national park across from the Big Bend National Park," wrote Taylor. He admitted that "our own Big Bend Park cannot be effective as an ideal wildlife area until this is done." Taylor wanted protection for "the natural plant and animal life in a broad belt on the Mexican side of the line." He reminded NPS officials that "the Mexican area ultimately should function as a restoration area from which some of the most interesting animals in the Southwest would be fed into our own Big Bend National Park." Then Taylor addressed the issue of "the removal of the small Mexican population from the American side of the land." In so doing, the NPS "will make a trip into old Mexico of greater interest than ever." Taylor suggested that "accessible from the Rio Grande in this vicinity should be a number of settlements in Mexico, notably San Carlos, directly across from Lajitas." The surveyors believed that "the setting apart of the Mexican national park, along with the Big Bend National Park," would "greatly enhance the interest to all, both citizens of Mexico and the United States." Such "a truly international enterprise should go far to promote more friendly relations between the two countries." Beyond this diplomatic initiative, said Taylor, "the value and interest of our own park project would be at least doubled and perhaps tripled if there were an international setup in the region." [66]

Appended to the Taylor report was a separate document prepared by Thomas K. Chamberlain, an aquatic biologist with the USFWS at Texas A&M College. Chamberlain addressed the issue of fishing in Big Bend, building upon the research conducted in 1940 by Carl L. Hubbs. At that time, Hubbs discussed "'the opportunity of protecting and preserving here certain fish species which might otherwise become exterminated, at least in the limits of the United States.'" Hubbs contended that "'when the Park is established, the policy should be formed, and adhered to, of not introducing any exotic species, such as bass and sunfish, for they might readily consume the peculiar native fishes.'" Hubbs also believed that "'there is not enough water in the region to support any considerable amount of sport fishing, even if sport fishing should be ranked above preservation in Park policy.'" Then Chamberlain quoted from James O. Stevenson's recommendations of 1943. "'The spring and marsh area at Boquillas,'" wrote Stevenson, "'the only known habitat of the top-minnow Gambusia gaigei, should be designated a sacred area.'" Chamberlain asked that "the ideas expressed above be made the basis of the policy governing all questions relating to fish and fishing within the Park area." He agreed that "there is still a very important place for fishing in the Park program," and offered three rules. "All fishing in the Park area, including the taking of bait fish," wrote Chamberlain, "shall be confined to the Rio Grande and to those old channels of the river that from time to time become a part of the main stream during high water." The NPS also should prohibit the importation of live bait, and "no aquatic fauna or flora, native or foreign, shall be placed in, or removed from, any of the springs or other natural bodies of water in the Park area." [67]

Chamberlain then detailed his findings on the aquatic life of the park. "To call the Rio Grande fishing 'sport fishing' requires a broad interpretation of the term," said the aquatic biologist. "Yet people come daily," he reported, "every month of the year, some from great distances, expressly to fish these waters." Chamberlain remarked that "this fishing has a high recreational value," despite the fact that "there is little or no sport fishing as that term is usually understood." No regulations existed for Rio Grande use, and "there has been as tendency for a few individuals to monopolize the fishing." Chamberlain found the river to be "a rich catfish stream," with that species constituting 95 percent of the anglers' catches. Visitors and local fishermen alike reported that "the average size of these fish runs large, probably exceeding six pounds." It was not uncommon for fishermen to bring in 30-pound yellow catfish, and some had caught fish weighing 100 pounds. "The general opinion," wrote Chamberlain, "is that when the catfish are in the mood to feed nearly anything will serve as bait." Thus fishermen used minnows, goldfish, and "at such times a piece of soap will serve as well as any meat." The proliferation of catfish also permitted most anglers to set lines in the river overnight, and return in the morning for their catch. [68]

Chamberlain found this latter practice most disturbing, as it contributed to "commercial exploitation and excessive fishing." With no rules, "undoubtedly many pounds of fish go to waste because fishermen make larger catches than they can utilize." Chamberlain recalled "a typical case" where "two men, their wives, and two older children put out 125 set lines, each with a number of hooks." In order to string bait for so many lines, the party shot several rabbits on park grounds. Another fishing party slaughtered a goat "to bait some long trot lines containing hundreds of hooks each." Chamberlain heard of a party "catching, the year before, an average of 500 pounds of catfish per night for 10 nights." The average weight of these fish was fourteen pounds, with several ranging from 30 to 60 pounds. Still another angler boasted of catching a catfish "'over six feet long.'" When asked what he did with it, Chamberlain reported that "it was too big for him to handle or to use, but as it had swallowed the hook, he killed the huge fish to get his hook back and then threw the fish away." [69]

To halt this abuse of the river, Chamberlain called upon the NPS to devise regulations "aimed at rationing those fish by enforcing reasonable limitations on fishing." He predicted that "fishermen are sure to enter the Park in increasing numbers in the years to come." He also spoke out against allowing "one small party of fishermen to put out so large a number of set lines as to tie up one or more miles of fishing channel." Chamberlain had learned from Mr. and Mrs. A.R. Davis, of Marathon, that "the use by fishermen of any kind of boats, but particularly power boats, to set their trot lines, is the most serious threat to catfishing on the river." Chamberlain believed that "it is reported to be a violation of national law to use boats on the river." Yet "this is continually being done," and "the use of power boats permits anglers to run their trot lines through canyon waters that otherwise would be natural spawning refuges, such as the Boquillas Canyon, Mariscal Canyon, and the Grand Canyon of the Santa Elena." His research indicated that "the large species of catfish favor spawning in depressions and various sheltered places in river banks and cliffs which abound in these canyons." Chamberlain noted that "the precipitous canyon walls would preclude fishing in these waters were it not for the use of boats." Thus the Fish and Wildlife consultant recommended limiting visitors to the use of poles and hand-lines. "No wild land animal occurring within the Park may be used for fish bait, even when found dead," said Chamberlain, who would make an exception for turtles caught in the river. Boats would be prohibited on the Rio Grande, bag limits would be 20 pounds, and "a record shall be turned in to the Park officials of all food fish taken in the Park area." [70]

With the official opening of Big Bend National Park in the summer of 1944, the recommendations of Taylor and the ecological survey crew would become part of NPS planning and interpretation. Yet one feature of research work in the Big Bend area that did not occur was the dream of Howard Morelock to link his small teachers' college in Alpine with Big Bend's scientific agenda. While Morelock labored statewide in the late 1930s and early 1940s to raise funds for the purchase of lands in the future national park, he also tried to position Sul Ross State Teachers' College in the flow of scientific research on the Big Bend country and the international park. As early as August 1938, NPS archaeologist Erik Reed had written to Frank M. Setzler of the U.S. National Museum in Washington to recommend the "coordination of all Big Bend archaeological work with Sul Ross as the center." Reed had discussed the idea with archaeologists on staff at the Alpine college, and with Dr. Harry P. Mera, director of the Santa Fe-based Laboratory of Anthropology. Reed's concept was called the "Conference on Big Bend Archaeology," with its goal "to persuade expeditions of other organizations to coordinate their work" with NPS plans for the park. The assistant regional archaeologist wanted to build upon his 1936 reconnaissance of Big Bend, including the excavation of small caves and open sites, and the connection of these pre-contact sites with historic knowledge. This conference also could ensure professional treatment of human and faunal specimens, as per the stipulations of the Antiquities Act. [71]

Reed then outlined the "logical headquarters" for this informal network of academics and NPS technicians: the West Texas Historical and Scientific Society Museum at Sul Ross. The park service archaeologist described the Alpine campus as "fortunately equipped with quite adequate laboratory facilities, storage space, etc., which are at the service of any reputable archaeologist working in the Big Bend area." Reed believed that "to make the museum a still better base of operations," the NPS should encourage institutions and scholars working in the region to adopt "a uniform style of site designation - probably one or another variation of the Gila Pueblo system, such as already used in three of the more extensive site-surveys in the region." Researchers then would "deposit with the said museum copies of all reconnaissance-survey site descriptions." From this "a complete file of Big Bend sites will thus be built up at this logical center, for the use of all qualified investigators." Finally, an NPS-Sul Ross collaboration would address Reed's greatest concern: "Vandalism, curio-hunting, commercial collecting, and well-intentioned but inept field work by unqualified individuals." By having trained archaeologists on campus at Sul Ross, Reed hoped that "activities by unqualified individuals that cannot very well be prevented - as is often the case - shall be assisted and guided into the use of proper methods as far as possible." [72]

Nothing came of Reed's request, so in the fall of 1939 President Morelock approached the park service with a new plan for a "biological service medium" on the Alpine campus. Everett Townsend wrote to regional NPS director Hillory Tolson to promote his ideas, reminding Tolson that "scientists from all parts of the country come to the Big Bend in search of new materials in Science." Townsend noted that "practically all of these scientists come to the College first to get information as to the best places to go." Sul Ross had built what Townsend called a "$75,000 museum" that contained "more than 12,000 specimens," while Dr. Omer Sperry had a contract with the NPS to serve as an "Associate Biologist." Then Townsend claimed that "educators are more and more reaching the conclusion that field work is more important than book work, especially in the field of Science." Sul Ross subscribed to this Progressive idea, and "a lot of valuable materials in Geology, in Botany, in Anthropology, etc., are in this section." Yet another reason for supporting Sul Ross's request was that "the people of the Big Bend, together with the National Park Service, are the ones who kept the Big Bend National Park project a live issue." Townsend reminded Tolson that "some people down state and within some institutions gave little thought and no effort to the importance of a National Park in this section," and "because of imagined mineral values, did everything they could to oppose this at a most critical period." [73]

If the park service could provide the funds, Sul Ross could design a facility that included a lecture hall and laboratory, and lodging for six to ten researchers. Townsend noted that Sul Ross faculty "could take them down, work with them, and together they could achieve better results than they could without some definite equipment and well-worked out plan." The local advocate for the national park added that "It is also important to have a place for representative citizens in promoting the best interests of the National Park and other distinguished visitors." Townsend realized that "perhaps the National Park Service would not be in a position to give to the College a deed of this set-up." Yet he hoped that "a cooperative agreement can be worked out in such a way as to make this Biological Center serve the purposes that I have indicated." Tolson might consider Sul Ross's idea "premature," but Townsend claimed that "other institutions are interested in capitalizing on what the people of this section and the National Park Service have brought to the attention of the public." [74]

Park service officials from Santa Fe to Washington took notice of Townsend's correspondence, given his stature in Brewster County and his work in the Texas state legislature on behalf of the land-acquisition bill. Tolson notified Carl Russell, supervisor of interpretation for the NPS, that "it is believed that you will not desire to encourage or approve Mr. Townsend's proposal as the construction of an educational unit inside of the park area by Sul Ross State Teachers College would, undoubtedly, lead to requests for authority to do so by other institutions." Tolson also hoped that "scientific research and investigation in the Big Bend National Park (when it is established) should be handled by the issuance of permits, in accordance with existing regulations." Victor Cahalane, chief of the wildlife division of the NPS's branch of research and information, also told Russell that "the Service should not commit itself to turning over to the College functions that are the responsibility of our technical divisions." Cahalane did admit, however, that "facilities for scientific workers are lacking." Instead, he suggested that "a simple temporary laboratory and dormitory building be constructed in the Basin as a CCC project." Then the state of Texas and Sul Ross could "be requested to assume temporary custodianship for the benefit of visiting and their own scientists." [75]

Such high-level attention to Townsend's appeal netted the former Brewster County sheriff a personal note from Arthur E. Demaray, associate director of the park service. The agency was "convinced of the importance of field work to both research and education in the natural sciences," wrote Demaray, and concurred that "adequate facilities for field studies in the Big Bend area are very desirable." The associate director then noted that "such facilities are provided in some of the national parks by the park museums." These entities also were "accustomed to cooperate closely with outside institutions and organizations," said Demaray, citing the museum at Yosemite National Park. It housed "a laboratory accommodating thirty students," while "professors from the University of California, Stanford University, and other nearby colleges often bring their classes there for field study." The NPS also had under construction a museum at Ocmulgee National Monument in Georgia, "which will provide laboratory space and research equipment for anthropologists working in the Southeast." [76]

Demaray's advice for Townsend and the Sul Ross campus was "to continue your active support of this Service's program." The associate director had nothing but praise for the "valuable cooperation from Sul Ross State Teachers College, the West Texas Scientific and Historical Society, and public-spirited individuals in the vicinity of those institutions." If the NPS anticipated legislation "looking toward the appropriation of funds for the construction and maintenance of a Big Bend National Park Museum," Townsend could "be of assistance in supporting the measure." Demaray added that "in a number of national parks Natural History Societies have been organized in order that they may assist the superintendent and the park naturalist in developing educational programs." The park service official considered it "entirely reasonable" for Sul Ross "to play such a role in the Big Bend." Demaray then asked Townsend to convey to Omer Sperry, Clifford Casey, G.P. Smith, and "the many others at Sul Ross who have promoted the Big Bend National Park idea" his thanks for the "good work" that they had accomplished. [77]

Additional reasons for the park service's reluctance to build a research center at Sul Ross were its isolation from population centers, and the limited academic scope of a teachers' college. In December 1940, Ross Maxwell wrote to Region III director Milton McColm about his work on the relief map of Big Bend's geology. The Geological Society of America (GSA) that winter scheduled its annual meeting in Austin, and planned a three-day visit to West Texas (without a tour of Big Bend). To correct this oversight, the Texas chapter of the GSA wanted to place a large model of the Big Bend country on display at the architecture building on the University of Texas campus. Then Maxwell noted the problem of "how to dispose of it after the G.S.A. meetings." The University of Texas had asked for the relief map, but limited funds would restrict viewing hours for the general public. Maxwell had learned that Herbert Maier of the regional office wanted to loan the model to Sul Ross College until Big Bend had proper museum facilities. The NPS geologist believed that "Dr. Morelock would be very glad to have the model for display," but Maxwell contradicted the statements of Everett Townsend by telling McColm: "My personal thought is that very few geologists visit Sul Ross and that one of the other models, like the one now in the State capitol, would be of more value to Sul Ross." The University of Texas, despite its limitations of staffing, would make a better home for the relief model, said Maxwell, "at least until we find a more [desirable] place." [78]

While President Morelock could not know Maxwell's opinion of his school's research capabilities, he did recognize in the spring of 1942 the need to promote his campus to offset budget and attendance reductions emanating from American entry into the Second World War. The president had his school produce a pamphlet on the history and programs of Sul Ross, with emphasis on the potential for scientific work. Morelock recalled how in 1923 he had arrived in Alpine to find no paved streets, "and not a single topped highway led from the town in any direction." Sul Ross at that time had only two-year teachers' certificate programs, with a library containing fewer than 1,200 volumes. "The most difficult task facing the college from its beginning," Morelock admitted, "has been lack of adequate financial support for the dual responsibility of building a creditable educational institution and at the same time taking an active part in helping to solve pioneer problems." Yet from 1923 to the fall of 1940, Sul Ross grew in enrollment from 96 students to 521 (an increase of over 400 percent), aided immeasurably by $413,000 in New Deal agency funds for building construction by the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). [79]

President Morelock took greatest pride in his college's program development related to the Big Bend area. Seeking to imitate the regional model of the University of New Mexico, which in the 1930s pursued dreams of a national identity by aligning with the Santa Fe and Taos artists, Sul Ross opened a "Summer Art Colony" that would take students into the Chisos basin and the surrounding area. Morelock saw this as "a means of advertising Texas and for the advancement of American culture." From this institute "we should like to have scenes of our native mountains painted and placed in the public schools, in the homes, and in the art galleries throughout the country." Then Morelock spoke of his plans for laboratory facilities in geology and biology. "Every summer hundreds of geologists from colleges and universities and from oil companies all over the country," he claimed, "visit this section to examine the outcroppings of rocks of past ages." It was his dream that "a geological building on the Sul Ross campus as headquarters for these expeditions would not only be more economical in the aggregate but would accelerate scientific discoveries." In like manner, Morelock praised the work of Omer Sperry, and students like Barton Warnock, to assist the park service with its biological research at Big Bend. "Some of the largest universities in the United States," he also noted, "have permitted their candidates for the Ph.D. degree to spend at least half of their time in outdoor laboratories of the Big Bend." [80]

To ensure that readers of the 1942 Sul Ross pamphlet remembered the partnership between Alpine and the future national park, Morelock closed with praise for "the lure of the Big Bend - its romantic history, its ideal climate, the picturesque scenery of its rugged mountains, its proximity to old Mexico, and the hospitality of its people." Morelock wanted readers to know that "Sul Ross is not just another college; it has a unique environment and a distinct life." He remarked that "with good highways to this section already a reality, with a college plant representing more than a one-million dollar investment, and with an International Peace Park in the offing, and the publicity it will give to this section," the college should experience annual enrollment increases. Then in a reference to the anxieties attendant to mobilization for war, Morelock closed with a reference to Alpine's isolation as a benefit for those weary of the stress of conflict. "With the present national tendency towards decentralization of industry," wrote Morelock, "and of social and intellectual endeavor in such a manner as to provide more favorable conditions for decreasing the tempo of our modern life, educational institutions will thrive best hereafter in quiet retreats where 'plain living and high thinking' become their chief objective." [81]

By December 1942, President Morelock had convinced Arthur Kelley, chief of the park service's archaeological sites division, to visit the Alpine campus and judge for himself the potential for scientific research at Sul Ross. Kelley learned that Morelock "envisaged a collaborative arrangement with the National Park Service in which his institution with its laboratories, buildings, personnel, and other facilities for interpretation would serve as an orientation center for the millions of visitors to Big Bend National Park." The Sul Ross president defined Alpine as "the gateway to the park," with Big Bend serving as "a laboratory, a vast open-air reservoir for the original sources and natural models in place to illustrate the peculiar blend of scenic and natural phenomena." In addition, the new national park would offer "the folk atmosphere of Mexico, Spanish-America, and Anglo-America; the threshold of history in rancheria, squatter's cabin, Apache and Comanche camp sites, cave habitations of the Texas equivalent of the remotely prehistoric Basket-Makers, and beyond that the ancient hearths deeply exposed in arroyos which reflected the settlements of Early Man." [82]

Beyond Morelock's quest for a nationally prominent (and federally funded) resource program at his college, Kelley reported to the NPS director that "the dominating idea was not simply a collaboration by which there would be a division of functions between the orientation center and the natural laboratory." The NPS archaeologist stated that Sul Ross's "business is specialized in the field of producing primary school teachers." Kelley believed that "the most potent and all-pervasive educational influence which could operate to affect the largest number of highly impressionistic persons is the school teacher." He claimed that at Sul Ross, "in a Southwest setting, where many citizens are already bilingual, where four centuries of continuous cultural evolution have produced distinct but genetically related varieties of a common pattern of Spanish-American life, there is much promise for achieving an understanding between the peoples of North and Central America." [83]

As much as Kelley wanted to endorse Morelock's vision, he had his doubts about Sul Ross's capacity to deliver on these promises. "These advantages are real," wrote Kelley, "but are not mutually exclusive." He noted that "the Universities of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona possess these same attributes in varying degree." Kelley agreed with Morelock that "the advantage of geographic position, with particular reference to Big Bend National Park, of course lies with Sul Ross." Yet "the ultimate objective of making our southwestern areas function in the over-all pattern of Pan-American cultural relations," said the archaeologist, "has a strong advocate in the University of New Mexico and Chaco Canyon National Monument." Kelley reported that the "Chaco Conference has become a southwestern institution, and as the number of visiting historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and museologists increases, with the studied effort of the University of New Mexico to embrace the Americanists in future scientific conferences, that area tends to bulk largest in the minds of many of our neighbors." Kelley further noted UNM's effort "in salvaging the moribund Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe" as "an event which needs to be evaluated by the National Park Service." [84]

Morelock's contention that proximity to Big Bend mattered more than programmatic capacity also failed to influence Arthur Kelley, who saw the Austin campus as the Lone Star state's only university with "the national and international prestige, the funds and endowments, the faculty and curriculum, and the established contacts with other institutions in Latin America." When examining UT's programs in Spanish or Latin American literature, Latin American history, political science, economics, and geography, said Kelley, "the same disproportion will be found." He also worried that "Indianization is a culturally conditioning fact in most of these [Latin American] countries which it is difficult for an Anglo-American to understand." For Kelley, "only the ethnologist, the archaeologist, or the student of sociology concerned with acculturation, can bring to these people that dignity and pride in origin and achievement which our genealogists, historians, and patriotic organizations concerned with the heroic performances of their ancestors provide." The NPS archaeologist noted that while "Teotihuacan, [and] Monte Alban are not prehistoric monuments . . . they are to the majority of Mexicans a living symbol of tribal greatness." Park service researchers needed to remember that Mexican history "is native American; ours is still unconsciously perceived to be derived European, and only secondarily by the accident of historical transplantation American." [85]

Morelock's plea to Arthur Kelley prompted the NPS archaeologist to correspond with Carl Russell, seeking the opinion of top-level park service officials. "I admire Mr. Morelock's initiative," Russell told his colleagues in Chicago, and like regional NPS officials in Santa Fe he wanted the park service to "encourage [Morelock] in his program for promoting international understanding." The NPS "will find it advantageous to establish a relationship with the Sul Ross Museum," said the interpretation chief, but he also warned that "it is a mistake to adopt a policy of excluding museums and museum work from the Big Bend itself." Russell had long held that "each National Park is a museum and that our entire Service program in each park is a specialized type of museum program." Thus "to conclude that the Service will not engage in museum work at Big Bend is irrational." If the NPS agreed to house its scientific laboratory in Alpine, contended Russell, then "it would be reasonable to say that administrative work will center at Sul Ross State Teachers College." The interpretation chief noted that Ross Maxwell had initiated a promising program of research and specimen storage. "We should strive to replace the naturalist's workshop," Russell advised, "and employ a naturalist as a member of the minimum staff first appointed." The interpretation chief saw this as "museum work even though it makes no immediate contribution to public contact work - and it cannot be done advantageously at Sul Ross." [86]

Undaunted by the opinions of Russell and Kelley, President Morelock cast about in the winter of 1942-1943 for additional support for his Big Bend-Sul Ross partnership. Two avenues that opened for Morelock were a program headed by Nelson Rockefeller, Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs for the U.S. State Department, and Dr. Emery Morriss of the Kellogg Foundation. Morelock wanted Rockefeller to establish on the Alpine campus a "Pan-American House," with its goal the promotion of "International Understanding and Good Will [a program of the Kellogg Foundation]." Newton B. Drury, director of the NPS, congratulated Morelock "on all that you have done to bring this program to the attention of important leaders in Inter-American affairs." Drury had reviewed Morelock's scheme for collaboration between the park service and Sul Ross, but believed that "you do not intend that the National Park Service should commit itself to the full extent of your statement that 'all scientific material in the park area will be placed in the museum on the college campus.'" The NPS director acknowledged that "we shall look to the talents and facilities at Sul Ross to assist with research and interpretation of the Big Bend country." As a federal agency, however, the park service could not "agree to any arrangement that would limit other scientific activities or direct the placing of all scientific materials at the College." The constraints of wartime funding prohibited any long-range planning, but Drury advised the Sul Ross president that "any postwar activities should be determined as carefully and exactly as possible." The NPS director informed Morelock of his conversations with Carl Russell, and told him that Arthur Kelley would return to Alpine "to review with you the research and interpretative programs that have been conducted in other national park areas." [87]

Morelock's quixotic search for federal support and a national identity did not abate with the caution of NPS director Drury. Three days after learning of Drury's opinion, the Sul Ross president wrote back with plans for an "International Shrine" on the border of Texas and Mexico. He then asked Drury his thoughts on "a broadcasting station in Alpine for the purpose of promoting international goodwill through the Big Bend National Park set-up here." Morelock conceded that "the outlook is a little gloomy, but if some foundation could set up the money now, we could have everything ready for a big publicity program at the proper time." The Sul Ross president had plans to travel to Fort Worth for meetings with Amon Carter, where he hoped to convince the Star-Telegram publisher to apply "a part of the $25,000 'working fund' to subsidize a station here." Morelock then informed Drury of the response that he had received from Nelson Rockefeller, who "indicated that he had referred my request for scholarship students and for money to expand our Library on International Affairs to the 'Committee on Science and Education.'" [88]

Because the park service took seriously the challenge to understand the landscape of Big Bend, NPS scientists and technicians discovered much of value in the years prior to creation of Texas's first national park. The grandeur of its canyons, and the astonishing variety of its flora and fauna, would fascinate practical people like Walter McDougall and Charles Gould as much as had the romance and drama affected Walter Prescott Webb and J. Frank Dobie. Yet the callous disregard of local landowners for these features of nature and culture angered park service officials and saddened park advocates like Everett Townsend. One ironic feature of the NPS's campaign for scientific research in Big Bend was the discovery that northern Mexico's isolation and poverty had preserved the contours of the land far better than had the ambitious nortenos. The dream of an international park may have faced severe opposition among polticians and ranchers on both sides of the Rio Grande. Yet the chance to restore an American park with flora and fauna from Mexico did not escape the notice of NPS surveyors and policymakers. Finally, the park service's power to save the land could not extend to the campus of Sul Ross State Teachers College, as federal regulations and park facility development denied President Morelock's wish for a better school, with a stronger identity, than local conditions or state funding, could make possible. It would remain for the park service to enter the "last frontier" in the summer of 1944, and to redefine land-use patterns, economic strategies, and border relations as it sought to protect one of the most striking ecological zones in North America.

Figure 17: First Visitor Dining Facility, Chisos Basin

Endnotes

¹ Ernest G. Marsh, Jr., "Biological Survey of the Santa Rosa and Del Carmen Mountains of Northern Coahuila, Mexico," July 2 to September 22, 1936, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend National Park 207 Files, Box 825, DC NARA II.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Report of Rollin H. Baker, Student Technician, NPS, to Maier, September 13, 1937, 207 Big Bend Reports General File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 824, DC NARA II.

¹² Report of Barton H. Warnock, Student Technician, Big Bend State Park, SP 33T, Texas, "Collection and Survey of Plants in the Chisos Mountain Area, June 1, 1937 to September 15, 1937," October 4, 1937, 701 Flora Big Bend National Park File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949, Big Bend National Park 660-05.8 - 718 Files, Box 835, DC NARA II. Warnock also would teach for decades at Sul Ross State College, and later have an environmental education center in Lajitas named in his honor.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Report of Tarleton F. Smith, Student Technician, Big Bend, SP-33, Texas, Narrative Report, June 10, 1937 to September 13, 1937," to Maier, November 11, 1937, 207 Big Bend Reports General File, RG79, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 824, DC NARA II.

¹⁵ Gould, "Seventh Geological Report on Big Bend, SP-33-Texas," December 5, 1937, Proposed National Parks Big Bend General Part 8 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Omer E. Sperry, "Report Of Biological Consultant For The Proposed Big Bend National Park Area Of Texas, June 1936 to October 1937," March 15, 1938, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend National Park 207 Files, Box 826, DC NARA II.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Press Release, United States Department of the Interior, NPS, Third Regional Office, Santa Fe, October 14, 1938, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 8, Folder: 501.02 #1 Newspaper Articles (Folder 1), DEN NARA.

²⁰ Memorandum of Maier for the NPS Director, August 19, 1939, Proposed National Parks Big Bend Part 7 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

²¹ Memorandum of Maier for Inspector Diggs, December 7, 1939, Proposed National Parks Big Bend General Part 8 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

²² Memorandum of Rothrock for the Region III Director, April 10, 1940, Proposed National Parks Big Bend General Part 8 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 833, DC NARA II.

²³ E.M. Flynn, Toronto, Ontario, to Oscar E. Monnig, Fort Worth, Texas, June 6, 1939, Proposed National Parks Big Bend Part 7 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

²⁴ Ross Maxwell, "Report On The Field Investigation Pertaining To The Meteorite In The Big Bend Country," n.d., Proposed National Parks Big Bend Part 7 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Memorandum of McDougall for Mr. (Victor) Cahalane, "Special Report: Notes On Big Bend National Park (Proposed)," April 23, 1940, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 3, Folder: 204-10 By Field Officers Folder 2, DEN NARA.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Memorandum of Maxwell for the Region III Director, March 31, 1942, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 3, Folder: 204-10 By Field Officers Folder 2, DEN NARA.

³⁶ O.C. Durham, Chief Botanist, Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Illinois, to Bob Hamilton, Texas State Parks Board, Big Bend Land Department, Alpine, Texas, May 7, 1942, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 12, Folder: 610.01 Purchasing of Lands #3 [Folder 1], Big Bend, DEN NARA.

³⁷ Bob Hamilton, Secretary, Big Bend Land Department, Texas State Parks Board, Alpine, Texas, to Durham, May 13, 1942, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 12, Folder: 610.01 Purchasing of Lands #3 [Folder 1], Big Bend, DEN NARA.

³⁸ Memorandum of James O. Stevenson for Cahalane, September 15, 1943, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 20, Folder: 720.04 Wild Life Survey, DEN NARA.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Memorandum of Hillory A. Tolson, Acting NPS Director, Chicago, Illinois, for the Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, March 14, 1944; Memorandum of Tillotson for the NPS Director, March 14, 1944, 701 Flora Big Bend National Park File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend National Park 660-05.8 - 718 Files, Box 835, DC NARA II.

⁴¹ Maxwell to Walter P. Taylor, Wildlife Research Unit, College Station, Texas, March 22, 1944, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 20, Folder: 720.04 Wild Life Survey, DEN NARA.

⁴² Walter P. Taylor, Senior Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Walter B. McDougall, Park Naturalist, NPS, and William B. Davis, Acting Head, Department of Instruction, Fish and Game, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, "Preliminary Report Of An Ecological Survey Of Big Bend National Park," March-June 1944, Proposed National Parks Big Bend General Part 8 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ Ibid.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ Ibid.

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ Ibid.

⁵¹ Ibid.

⁵² Ibid.

⁵³ Ibid.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Ibid.

⁵⁶ Ibid.

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Ibid.

⁶⁰ Ibid.

⁶¹ Ibid.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ Ibid.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ Thomas K. Chamberlain, Aquatic Biologist, USFWS, College Station, Texas, "Fishing In The Big Bend National Park," Proposed National Parks Big Bend General Part 8 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ Reed to Dr. Frank M. Setzler, U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC, August 16, 1938, Proposed National Parks Big Bend Part 7 File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend Files, Box 823, DC NARA II.

⁷² Ibid. The "Gila Pueblo" reference was to NPS development of a southwestern center for archaeology at Casa Grande National Monument in Arizona.

⁷³ Townsend to Tolson, September 14, 1939, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Folder: 840.02 Universities and Colleges, Box 22, DEN NARA.

⁷⁴ Ibid.

⁷⁵ Memorandum of Tolson to the NPS Director, Attention: Dr. Russell, September 22, 1939; Memorandum of Victor Cahalane, Chief, Wildlife Division, NPS Branch of Research and Information, Washington, DC, September 27, 1939, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Folder: 840.02 Universities and Colleges, Box 22, DEN NARA.

⁷⁶ Demaray to Townsend, December 1, 1939, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Folder: 840.02 Universities and Colleges, Box 22, DEN NARA.

⁷⁷ Ibid.

⁷⁸ Memorandum of Maxwell for the Region III Director, "Geological Relief Model of the Big Bend National Park Area (Proposed)," December 19, 1940, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 10, Folder: 504.04 Maps [Folder 2], DEN NARA.

⁷⁹ "Sul Ross State Teachers College, The Story Of A State Institution," May 28, 1942, 833-05 Museums Big Bend File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend National Park 719 - 833-05 Files, Box 836, DC NARA II.

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ Ibid.

⁸² Memorandum of Arthur R. Kelley, Chief, Archaeological Sites Division, NPS, Chicago, for the NPS Director, December 10, 1942, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Folder: 800 Protection Services to Public #2, Box 22, DEN NARA.

⁸³ Ibid.

⁸⁴ Ibid.

⁸⁵ Ibid.

⁸⁶ Memorandum of C.P. Russell, Supervisor of Interpretation, NPS, Chicago, for Mr. Tripp, August 16, 1942, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Folder: 833.06 Museums, Box 22, DEN NARA.

⁸⁷ Drury to Morelock, February 10, 1943, 501 Dr. H.W. Morelock Sul Ross File, RG79, NPS, CCF 1933-1949 Big Bend National Park 208-41 - 501-02 Files, Box 828, DC NARA II.

⁸⁸ Morelock to Drury, February 13, 1943, RG79, NPS, SWRO, Santa Fe, Correspondence Relating to National Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas, 1927-1953, Box 13, Folder: 610.01 Purchasing of Land #4 [Folder 2] Big Bend, DEN NARA.