NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Research in the Parks NPS Symposium Series No. 1

Four years ago Frank Fraser Darling and Noel Eichhorn presented us with their thought-provoking publication entitled Man and Nature in the National Parks (Darling and Eichhorn 1969). I regret that Sir Frank cannot be here to address you once more on this same topic and give you the benefit of his further thoughts and experiences in this field. However, I will try to carry on in his footsteps, although his strides were long indeed.

In the foreword to the second edition of his publication, Fraser Darling noted that his words were not "new or unappreciated by the National Park Service" but rather that their value lay in the formulation of ideas that were ready to be expressed by the service. We know that many of the recommendations of Fraser Darling and Eichhorn have already become realities, and this symposium is an indication of the progress that has been made in the area of research. They said things that needed saying 4 years ago and still need repeating for, in most of the world, their words have not yet been heard.

I will attempt to extend the thinking expressed in Man and Nature in the National Parks to the parks of the world. In this effort I will also not be saying anything new or previously unappreciated but rather trying to reflect the thinking in International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other international organizations concerned with similar problems.

The national park idea, as such, had its origins in the United States over 100 years ago. The first national park to be protected by the Federal Government was Yellowstone, which now approaches its centennial celebration. Yosemite Valley, of course, preceded it, but it was administered initially as a state park. The idea of natural reserves was not new a century ago, but the national park concept, as it was formulated in America, had a vitality and appeal that caused it to be adopted by other countries. Today there are over 1200 protected areas around the world that are somewhat similar to the American idea of a national park (IUCN/ICNP 1971). I say "somewhat similar" since the American national parks are not the same as those of other countries, and the confusion in terminology and purpose is one of the themes to which this paper is addressed.

What is a national park? All of us have ideas based on experience in the United States and perhaps a few other countries. But if we look at the world spectrum, our ideas may be shaken. I will refer first to some of the definitions and considerations provided for IUCN by Jean-Paul Harroy (IUCN/ICNP 1971). The first is that accepted by IUCN in its General Assembly in New Delhi in 1969.

A national park is or should be: (1) a relatively large area; (2) where one or several ecosystems are not materially altered by human exploitation and occupation; (3) where plant and animal species, geomorphological sites, and habitats are of special scientific, educational, and recreational interest or which contains a natural landscape of great beauty; (4) where the highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent or eliminate as soon as possible exploitation or occupation in the whole area and to enforce effectively the respect of ecological, geomorphological, or esthetic features which have led to its establishment; and (5) where visitors are allowed to enter, under special conditions, for inspirational, educational, cultural, and recreational purposes.

Furthermore, we find that governments are requested not to designate as national parks: (1) scientific reserves which can be entered only by special permission; (2) a natural reserve managed by a private institution or a lower authority without some type of recognition and control by the highest competent authority of the country; (3) a special reserve—fauna or flora, game, bird, geological, forest; and (4) an inhabited and exploited area where landscape planning and measures taken for the development of tourism have led to the setting up of "recreation areas" where public outdoor recreation takes priority over the conservation of ecosystems (nature park, Naturpark, parc naturel regional).

Next we find further restrictions, including: (1) a statutory basis giving sufficiently strict protection; (2) a certain minimum size; and (3) adequate staffing and an adequate budget for maintenance and protection.

Further, we note that the London Convention of 1933 and the Washington Convention of 1940 specifically rule out "hunting, killing or capturing of fauna" and "destruction or collection of flora" except under "direction and control of park authorities." Exploitation for commercial profit is forbidden.

Unfortunately, if we take these criteria and attempt to apply them strictly even to the United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves, we find that their strict application would rule out many of the world's most famous national parks (IUCN/ICNP 1971).

Thus the United States parks would not necessarily qualify since, among other things, they permit the "killing and capturing" of fauna by the general public without the clear direction and control of park authorities. I refer of course to the killing of fish which as a biologist I must insist are animals and part of the fauna. Fishing may indeed be as Fraser Darling and Eichhorn have described it: "one of those outworn privileges in a national park." I would not necessarily put it in that category, but reserve the right to view it as the equivalent of hunting.

Germany has no national parks that fit these criteria. Even France's best, La Vanoise, must be ruled out because of hunting and agricultural privileges which persist. The famous Zaire parks, which were treated in the past as strict nature reserves, would not have qualified because of this. Australia's parks are not national, but state, and one could quibble over this since the rules may vary from state to state. None of Great Britain's national parks as such will qualify since they are used for a variety of purposes including settlements and agriculture.

I believe in some ways the term national park has become too over-laden with emotional connotations and national legal definitions. It is not a useful term to work with. Rather, I would prefer to ask "what are we trying to accomplish?" Thus we can try to get away from some of those difficult to analyze phrases such as "parks are for people" and also avoid some of the scars left by past battles. In consequence, I would leave the definition of national parks untouched, perhaps as representing a goal toward which nations may strive, and talk instead about reserves.

Why do we want to set aside areas of land and provide them with protection in a certain state? There are several goals that need to be examined. Thus, we may seek: (1) to protect natural communities and wild species; (2) to protect outstanding natural landscapes, scenic wonders, and geological formations; (3) to preserve certain man-made structures or formerly occupied sites, and their settings, for their anthropological, archeological, or historical interest; (4) to maintain landscapes of unusual charm or value created by man particularly in view of the disappearance of those ways of life responsible for their creation; and (5) to provide opportunities for people to develop an understanding of the values of the above and to enjoy outdoor recreation in natural surroundings.

CLASS I: NATURAL RESERVES

These are general goals, but some of the more specific reasons for protection need stressing. Thus, under the heading of protection of natural communities and wild species there are scientific and esthetic values to be derived from: (a) the preservation of ecosystems in conditions unmodified by man to the fullest extent that this is possible. Such ecosystems need to be allowed to progress through natural succession including increases and die-offs of animal populations and the loss of certain vegetation. Wildfires, storms, diseases, insect plagues, and the like would need to be allowed to operate unchecked; (b) the preservation of various ecosystems or animal species that require disturbance and management for their perpetuation, as, for example, open pine savannas or successional forms of wildlife. These may require cutting, mowing, grazing, burning, water table manipulation, reduction or introduction of animals, etc., for their perpetuation; and (c) certain rare or endangered species of plants or animals likely to disappear without intensive protective or management measures including the removal of competitors or predators, and the creation of more desirable habitats. Under the heading related to people and recreation, there are special requirements for: (a) wilderness enjoyment, which requires the absence of large numbers of other people and of obvious signs of human interference with the landscape; (b) enjoyment of natural scenery, vegetation, and animal life in an outdoor setting by people unwilling or unable to undertake arduous wilderness travel, and (c) the need to provide outdoor centers for mass recreation including skiing and other winter sports, water sports of various kinds, feeding and transporting people in the areas selected for these activities.

Virtually all of the above goals and their special requirements are being pursued throughout the world in areas designated as national parks or by some equivalent term. I believe they are all appropriate to such areas, and much would be lost if we discouraged such goals and uses. However, confusion and controversy have derived from failure to designate the purposes for which each area has been set aside.

As a means for reaching some solution to a classification of national parks and equivalent reserves, I would like to propose two general categories: (a) natural reserves and (b) cultural reserves; and to examine their purposes and the implications of management directed toward these purposes.

These are areas of national importance having as their primary purpose the protection of nature. The natural features to be protected may include geological or geomorphological features; landscapes of special interest which combine physiographical and vegetational aspects; natural communities made up primarily of indigenous species of plants and animals; or various combinations of these. The areas selected may be outstanding in beauty or scientific interest or they may be equally representative of natural ecosystems that are, or once were, widespread. A reserve in this class may include one or more of each of the following categories:

I.A. This is an area set aside for its scientific, esthetic, or ecological values, with the latter considered to include the contribution it may make to the stability of productivity of other areas such as in a strictly protected watershed reserve. Such an area is to be maintained in an unmodified condition, or one approaching as closely as possible to this as can be achieved. Such areas should be allowed to develop without human interference even where this may involve their modification by naturally occurring fires, insect plagues, or diseases.

Use of such reserves needs to be severely restricted. Scientific study would be encouraged but it, along with any other use, must be compatible with maintaining the area in an undisturbed state. Any use for scientific, educational, or recreational purposes would necessarily require approval by the reserve administration in pursuance with the recommendations of a scientific, advisory committee.

I.B. This is an area set aside to protect a species, biotic community, or a physical feature of the environment, usually where these are of a rare or endangered category requiring specific management measures for their perpetuation. The vegetation, animal life, or terrain in such an area may be managed and modified to afford maximum encouragement or protection to the features of particular concern, including removal of competing vegetation or animal life. Use of such an area for scientific or other purposes will depend on the requirements for protection decided upon by an appropriate advisory body, and may be more or less restricted than in I.A., and subject to the same approval.

I.C. This is an area set aside to provide a limited amount of recreation within a natural setting in which the visible interference of man is held to a minimum. Protection of wild nature remains the primary purpose, with recreation secondary to this requirement. However, development of hiking trails, primitive campgrounds, marked waterways, cross-country ski routes, and similar minor modifications is appropriate to such an area. Suppression of fires, disease outbreaks, or insect plagues, where this is recommended by appropriate advisory authorities, would be permitted in such an area. In general, however, the development of roads, firebreaks, buildings or elaborate campgrounds, and similar modifications of the wilderness character of the area are inappropriate. Use by the public of motorized transportation or recreational equipment would not be permitted. Such equipment may be used by administrative personnel when this is deemed essential. Limitations on public use to prevent excessive numbers of people from visiting the area at the same time are appropriate.

I.D. An area set aside to protect natural environments that may require active modification and management for their perpetuation, and that are made available for appropriate public use. In general, limited development of roads, trails, campgrounds, lodges, and other visitor facilities consistent with the protection of the natural features of the area would be permitted. Small areas may be devoted to intensive development to accommodate tourism, intensive outdoor recreational facilities (e.g., for winter or water sports), or the installations required for the administration and management of the reserves where it is not feasible to locate these outside the reserve. In such reserves activities of a wide range may be permitted insofar as they are consistent with maintaining the natural features that the reserve serves to protect. Under the direction of the reserve authorities and with appropriate scientific advice, these may include cutting, moving, burning, or other removal of vegetation, or its grazing by domestic animals and the killing, trapping, or removal of animal life. These activities may either be carried out by the park authorities or by the public under appropriate supervision.

CLASS II: CULTURAL RESERVES

Areas of national importance having as their primary purpose the protection, from development or destructive alteration, of sites modified by man that are considered to have anthropological, archeological, or historical importance, high esthetic value, or other cultural or scientific importance. These may include various agricultural, pastoral, or other landscapes modified by man, with the exotic or domesticated species appropriate to them. They may also include sites surrounding and including buildings or other structures, villages, towns, or cities. Activities encouraged or permitted in these areas are those appropriate to maintaining their natural or man-made features. Viewing or visitation by the public will normally be encouraged under special safeguards for the areas concerned. Where appropriate, farming, pastoral activities, or other occupancy of the protected sites will be carried out, but changes in land use or other alteration in the nature and character of the area would normally not be permitted.

These reserves may be variously classified—obviously Mesa Verde National Park, The Lake District National Park of the United Kingdom, and Angkor in Cambodia cannot all fit in one category—however, I will not attempt to do so at this time.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The size of any reserve shall be appropriate to the preservation of its natural or cultural features. To protect certain cultural or geological features only a small area may be required. For other purposes, such as the protection of far-ranging animals or representative areas of highly variable vegetation, areas need to include many thousands of square miles.

The ownership of the land within the reserve need not be specified. It is essential, however, that the tenure of the reserve be guaranteed for the longest possible time through appropriate legal measures and that the reserve be managed and administered by a competent agency in accordance with its specified objectives.

Staffing and budgetary requirements for reserves will vary with conditions. An I.A. reserve in a remote area may require no permanent staff and could be managed at little or no expense, although this would be an exceptional condition. Heavily visited I.D. reserves will require large numbers of managerial personnel and a high budget for administration and management.

Areas not considered as suitable for designation in the foregoing categories include those primarily developed for outdoor recreation in which nature conservation is secondary. Those used primarily for the production of renewable resources, including production forests, range-lands managed primarily for livestock grazing, areas intensively managed to increase water yield, areas managed intensively for the production of wildlife or fish to satisfy demands for commercial or recreational hunting or fishing, areas used or to be used primarily for mineral or fuel exploitation, agriculture, residential, commercial, transportation, or industrial purposes, are all not suitable to be designated as natural or cultural reserves.

Obviously, any or all of the foregoing categories of reserves may be designated as a national park or equivalent reserve, and in many parts of the world they are so designated. Larger national parks may include several or all of these categories, but it is important that each of their boundaries be marked and the purpose of each area clearly specified to avoid confusion in regard to their use or management.

In this presentation I hope I have been responsive to questions raised by Fraser Darling and Eichhorn. You may recall that they progressed from the general question of "what is a national park for?" to the specific question of "what is this national park for?". I believe, as they did, that by addressing oneself to the question of the purpose for which an area is to be protected we avoid the immediate issue of the uses of the area. By this approach, uses to be permitted are those consistent with the purpose. Certain uses may well be ruled out for traditional, emotional, or sentimental reasons, for convenience of administration, or for protection of the visiting public. Public hunting is an example. However, we should be clear of our grounds. There is no basis for ruling out public hunting, under proper control, on the grounds of protecting common animal species that occur in widespread natural communities.

I have attempted to recognize those realities of life revealed in the United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. Thus, for example, the national parks of Great Britain fall into the Class II of the cultural reserves, whereas the national nature reserves belong in various categories of Class I natural reserves. France's national game reserves, in which hunting is permitted, would fall in the category I.D. The Naturschutzpark and Naturschutzgebiete of Germany would similarly be placed in I.D. or would combine I.D. with Class II.

United States national parks represent, often within a single park, a wide range of conditions from de facto I.A. to the more general I.D., or in many instances to Class II cultural reserves. Many other areas in the United States, however, need to be considered as equivalent to national parks. Among these are the Adirondacks Forest Preserve of New York or the very large Anza Borrego Desert State Park of California. Wilderness areas in national forests or under other administration fall clearly into I.C. Many national wildlife refuges will belong in I.B. I do not suggest that these all be termed "national parks" but only that they are clearly "equivalent reserves."

Although it may seem that many strange horses have come through the barn door labeled "national park or equivalent reserve," I propose that the responsibility for administering the various categories of natural and cultural reserves for the primary purpose of protection of nature or of cultural sites places a heavy burden on national park authorities. The questions of how to perpetuate a species, community, or landscape are not easily answered and many activities now permitted in the national parks of America are probably not consistent with the protection of nature or other values in the areas where they take place. It is clear that the research to reconcile management and use with the goals and purposes of the area concerned needs to be increased. Other chapters in this book indicate quite clearly that progress is being made even beyond the question of "what is this national park for?" to the greater specificity of "how do we protect this species?," "how do we maintain this natural community?" or "what use is appropriate to this area?" I express the hope that when the answers to these questions have been provided by research, they will be applied as quickly as possible to the management of national parks.

REFERENCES

DARLING, F. F., and N. EICHHORN. 1969. Man and nature in the national parks. Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

IUCN/ICNP. 1971. United Nations list of national parks and equivalent reserves. IUCN Publications New Series No. 15. Morges, Switzerland. 601 p.