Mr. CAMMERER. Yes; I think that is the only case. I think that was due to the fact that there were no bids received of the kind desired, and the director had to go out and try to get somebody to go in there and put his money into the business. The CHAIRMAN. Are any of the parks self-sustaining? Mr. CAMMERER. At Crater Lake last year the receipts practically equaled the appropriation. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your opinion and belief that ultimately these parks will become self-sustaining? Mr. CAMMERER. It is Director Mather's hope that they will be. Some parks might present a better opportunity for that than others. We do not know just how far that can go. Senator SPENCER. What is the general situation as to Yellowstone Park? Mr. CAMMERER. Yellowstone Park is very nearly self-sustaining. The park concessionaires pay for their privileges in the Yellowstone Park, and then, too, there is a motor license fee. That park comprises 3,300 square miles, and the license fee for the use of that road mileage is $7.50 a car. Out of the 140,000 visitors that went to the park last year I do not believe we had more than five kicks on that. For that they get sanitation, firewood, policing, and recreation. The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe the time will ever come when there will be a provision for the lumbering of the overripe timber in the parks? Mr. CAMMERER. I do not, sir. We plan to have the Yellowstone Park in its natural condition 500 years from now, or 1,000 years from now, just as it is. We think the country can well afford to maintain these small areas, small as compared to the rest of the country, in their natural condition. In fact, Senator, here in the East there is a tremendous public demand for these new parks, the Great Smoky National Park and the Shenandoah National Park, and I think nobody has any doubt as to the desirability of those parks, and as to the desirability of leaving them in their natural condition. It is well known that if those areas were maintained under Forest Service standards timber could be cut for certain purposes, but they want them for national parks. Answering your question, I have no hesitancy in saying, with regard to timber in the national parks, that they should be kept in their natural condition perpetually. Senator CAMERON. Has your department in mind the enlarging of the parks, taking in land in addition to what you now have? Mr. CAMMERER. În several of the parks it is desired to have an adjustment of the boundaries. The Yellowstone National Park was established in a rectangular shape, but of course the parks are best administered along topographical boundary lines. A river makes an excellent boundary line, and a mountain range the same way. For purposes of jurisdiction and control that is the best method. Where an 80 or 90 mile boundary line is run straight you do not have anything except the boundary markers a mile apart to go by. So in several instances it is desired to make modifications in the boundary lines. I do not know whether any of you gentlemen have seen the Teton Mountains south of the Yellowstone Park, but it is contemplated putting those into the Yellowstone National Park as a fitting complement to the exhibits to the north. In the Grand Canyon National Park we only have a very narrow fringe on each side of the canyon and perhaps an extension of that some distance back would be desirable. That is a matter that Colonel Greeley and Director Mather are going to study this summer. The same is true of Crater Lake National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, and the Yosemite National Park. In the Yosemite, for instance, Senator, we have an area on the west that is in the national park where we can not control the grazing on account of private holdings. We are perfectly willing to have that area cut out of the national park and restored to the Forest Service for economic purposes. Then there is a small area to the southeast that is spectacularly scenic which at one time was in the park and was taken out, which we feel should go back into the park. There are a few instances of that sort. Senator CAMERON. What part of the Grand Canyon Park would you contemplate extending, and in what direction? East and west or north and south? Mr. CAMMERER. It would be north and south; not east and west. Senator CAMERON. That has not been promulgated yet? Mr. CAMMERER. No; it has not been decided upon. A committee has been formed which is going to look into that some time this coming summer, of which Chief Forester Greeley and Director Mather will be members. Senator CAMERON. That would come out of the forest reserve, both north and south? Mr. CAMMERER. Probably so. Senator CAMERON. There is a game preserve on the north side. It would come into the game preserve on the north side? Mr. CAMMERER. I have never been on the north side, Senator, and only a day or two on the south side. I could not answer that. Senator CAMERON. Have you at this time any maps of the area that you propose to take in in that section? Mr. CAMMERER. Nothing definite, Senator; no. It is subject to the study of the committee this summer. Senator CAMERON. Nothing has been definitely settled, then? Mr. BOWDEN. Would you mind stating for the record the names of the members of the committee to make a study of the proposed extension of the Grand Canyon Park this summer? Mr. CAMMERER. The committee to study the national park extension projects is composed of Congressman Temple, of Pennsylvania, as chairman; Colonel Greeley. Chief Forester, as a member; Director Mather, of the National Park Service, as a member: Maj. W. A. Welch, of the Interstate Palisades Park of New York, as a member; and Mr. Charles Sheldon, of Washington, as a member. Senator CAMERON. That committee was appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, I presume? Mr. CAMMERER. No, sir; that committee was appointed by the President's Committee of the Outdoor Recreational Conference, composed of Cabinet members. Senator CAMERON. Do you know who are the members of the President's council? Mr. CAMMERER. They would be the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of War, and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cammerer, are there any provisions of law for the exchange of private holdings within the national parks for public lands of the national parks? Mr. CAMMERER. The laws relating to Glacier National Park have a provision of that nature, to make an exchange of that sort in cooperation with the Forest Service. There are subsequent laws governing the Yosemite Park, permitting the exchange of timber on the park land for privately owned timber or timber and land within the park. That comes under a special timber exchange act, which is pretty comprehensive, and I would have to refer to that act for the exact wording. These are exceptions. The purpose is this, that here and there, at the important points where the visitor would go, there will be private holdings of timber within the park boundaries which may be cut. These laws were made in these instances for the purpose of protecting that timber and keeping it there on the land, in exchange for timber of equal value somewhere in the park where its cutting would not do any harm to the scenery, or rather, would be less objectionable. That is under acts of Congress, Senator, approved April 9, 1912, and amended April 16, 1914. The CHAIRMAN. They are similar to the acts providing for consolidation of the forest reserves? Mr. CAMMERER. Yes; something like that. The CHAIRMAN. Where they exchange timber for land, or anything you call for? Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir. There are only one or two instances of that nature that come to my mind. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any considerable private holdings in the national parks? Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir; there are quite a few, comparatively. We are just starting to map them now. They have not been mapped for a number of years, because we did not have the office help to go into that. We are just now starting to map them. Senator CAMERON. Will you furnish them to the committee? Mr. CAMMERER. I will be very glad to when compiling has been finished. The CHAIRMAN. Is it believed to be desirable that the Federal Government should acquire the private holdings within the national parks? Mr. CAMMERER. We think it is very desirable; yes, sir. Take the Glacier National Park, where there are many small farms, comparatively. Where there is a private section of 640 acres in the heart of the park, it presents to us, for instance, the danger of fire, and then there is always the possibility of something being carried on, in an illegal way, that we might have to look into. Furthermore, it always presents a possibility of a conflict with our own concessions, in this way. You take a park that has been developed, like the Mount Rainier National Park, for a great many years and brought to a point where there are adequate accommodations for the tourists. The people of the surrounding cities have put their money into it. Now, if we had a private holding of, say, 640 acres at a strategic point a mile or two away from the hotel, by the time we had the tourist travel going to this hotel and had it on a paying basis, why, the owner of that property could put up a competing hotel. That is perhaps a selfish viewpoint, but I think it is a proper administrative viewpoint. The CHAIRMAN. It leaves it open to them to exploit the resources of the park? Mr. CAMMERER. Yes. They have all the rights that go with private property. Senator CAMERON. On the other hand, would it not perhaps, encourage the traveling public and give them a better chance to have prices equalized if there were more places for them to go in these parks? The parks, I understand, are intended as the playground for the public, and they should not be so restricted that the rich people can have all the benefits as against the poor people who have not the means to take advantage of the facilities. Mr. CAMMERER. You are right about that, Senator. Senator CAMERON. It is generally understood that when a national park is created it is intended as a public playground for the whole people, is it not? Mr. CAMMERER. That is right, sir. Senator CAMERON. And you do not want to have it otherwise, do you? Mr. CAMMERER. That is right, sir; and the ordinary tourist is especially well taken care of in the public camps. Senator CAMERON. Well, as long as the people who have these private lands in the national parks are good citizens and conduct a legitimate business, don't you think it would be well to encourage them to make a livelihood within the parks? I infer from what you say that you think the Government ought to own every parcel of land within the parks, to be administered by the Park Service? Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Why could not that be adjusted, Senator Cameron, by the granting of competitive concessions? Senator CAMERON. I think it could be, but up to the present time there has not been any opportunity. Mr. CAMMERER. Public demand prescribes the number of concessions in the parks. Senator CAMERON. I should think, from what little knowledge I have of the West, that the park system is on an equality with the granting of leases on the public domain or on the forest reserve, and that everybody ought to have an equal right to participate in these advantages. Mr. CAMMERER. They have always had that right, Senator, in the parks. It would have done Director Mather's heart good to have anybody come forward with money, in many of these instances, to put the concessions in the park, such as the hotels and transportation. In most of the places it has been a pioneering business. You will doubtless remember, from your familiarity with the Grand Canyon National Park, that when we took over that park they had had that hotel operation down there for many years. Now, you can take the development of the parks right here in Washington-I have been a park man for 15 or 20 years-you can take Potomac Park and Rock Creek Park and the other parks here in Washington, and they eliminate all private holdings that the Government should have. Now, take Yellowstone National Park; there is no private property in there at all Senator CAMERON. Pardon me a moment. Was there any private property within the boundaries of the Yellowstone National Park at the time that was created? Mr. CAMMERER. To the best of my recollection, there was not; no, sir. But here is the fact: It is a matter of constant wonder to the visitors who come to the Yellowstone Park that they can take a four and a half day trip, all transportation paid, 84 miles from the nearest city at the northern entrance, over an area of 3,300 square miles, where all the food and supplies have to be brought in, for $54 a person via the hotels; or at the camps at more moderate prices, at $45 a person. Or they can go in public camps there, after paying their $7.50 license fee, and spend a day or a week or three months there and get all the conveniences we offer the motor tourists. You can not beat that in the cities-$10 a day for three meals and lodging and all transportation under those conditions. Now, you take a park that has just been developed, like Crater Lake National Park. Crater Lake National Park for many years was being operated on a shoestring. It was due to the insistence of Members of Congress who went up there that the director was assisted in making a change and getting financial help to make it. He went to Portland and said to the Portland business men and the chamber of commerce that they had to get in there with their money and put in better hotel facilities. The people that go there now find that there is a hotel there where they can get accommodations at so much per day, and they know there is no cheaper accommodation there, and they also know that there are public camps. there. If they are motoring they may go to some of the public camps, bringing their own supplies, or they may stay at the hotel. But they do not have the choice, Senator, of going to a camp as they have in the Yellowstone-I mean, $4 or $5, at the trip rate. The time will come when the demand on Crater Lake's facilities and accommodations will be such that the hotel can not meet it, and they will have to enlarge their hotel and perhaps put in private camps and camps of a cheaper nature. It has been the director's idea everywhere where the demand required it to put in camps of a cheaper nature. Now, as evidence of that, we have recently opened up the Zion National Park. The operator in there wanted to put up a hotel. The director said, "No, we do not want a hotel; we need a simple camping arrangement with a central dining room." In the Yosemite National Park they have their hotels. They have the moderate-priced camp at Camp Curry, and the Yosemite lodge, which are very popular. You can get three meals a day and lodging there for a stated price, or you can go to the hotel or camps and get a bed for the night and go to a cafeteria for meals. They have cafeterias there. We have tried to anticipate everything, and the gentlemen of the Congress who have almost every year made |