Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000919 <br /> <br />policy employed at Trappers Lake, became interested and wanted more information about <br />it, Accordingly, Stahl arranged for Leopold and Carhart to hold a conference, Leopold <br />visited the Denver District Office on December 6, 1919, and met Carhart there, Following <br />the day-long discussion, Leopold requested Carhart to reduce to writing some of the salient <br />points which had been covered, What was then simply a "memorandum for Mr. Leopold, <br />District 3" became one of the most significant records in the history of the wilderness <br />concept,37 <br /> <br />Scrutinized from the perspective of almost half a century, the full import of the <br />document can be realized, As Carhart pointed out, the purpose of the four-page <br />memorandum was to "supplement some conversation between myself and Mr, Leopold. . , . <br />The problem spoken of in this conversation was, how far shall the Forest Service carry or <br />allow to be carried man-made improvements in scenic territories, and whether there is not a <br />definite point where all such developments, . . shall stop,"J8 In considering this question, <br />Carhart stated: <br /> <br />There is a limit to the number of lands of shoreline on the lakes; there is a limit to the number of <br />fakes in mcistence; there is a limit to the mountainous areas of the world, and. . . there are portions <br />of natural scenic beauty which are God-made, and. . . which of a right should be the property of all <br />people. . . . In Colorado. . . the great canyon of the Big Thompson represents the case where private <br />holdings defeat the beauties of the canyon. . . . For me the aesthetic value. . . has been reduced not <br />less than eighty percent. . . .39 <br /> <br />The next paragraph contained the elements underlying the national wilderness <br />preservation system, Carhart declared: <br /> <br />I have jotted down four different types of areas which should not contain summer" homes, <br />perhaps no campsites, and other like developments. First of these is the superlative area; the second <br />is the area unsuited for any camp and summer home development, such as the high ridge of a <br />mountain range; third is the area which should be preserved for the group rather than the individual, <br />s~ch 85 lakeshores, streambanks, or such a natural feature as medicinal springs; fourth group would <br />include areas not in these three groups, but which represent those God.made and of the greatest use <br />for preservation of any owned by the Government. There is no question in my mind but what there <br />is a definite point in different types of country where man.made structures should be stopped,40 <br /> <br />The remainder of the memorandum was devoted to suggesting plans aimed at defining <br />both the stopping point and the areas which should be preserved. Carhart believed that the <br />whole responsibility could be undertaken by the Forest Service. Alternatively, the Forest <br />Service might ask the state to appoint an art commission or the national society might name <br />a committee to study rural planning and landscape architecture, which could cooperate with <br />the Service nationwide. Finally, Carhart remarked that "the question of how best to do this <br />is perhaps the real question, rather than shall it be done."41 Here was a concept that was <br />new to the world, and it was first proposed in 1919 by Arthur Carhart of the Denver office, <br />United States Forest Service-several years ahead of his contemporaries. <br /> <br />6 <br />