WSP07790 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

003589 policy employed at Trappers Lake, became interested and wanted more information about it. Accordingly, Stahl arranged for Leopold and Carhart to hold a conference. Leopold visited the Denver District Office on December 6, 1919, and met Carhart there. Following the day-long discussion, Leopold requested Carhart to reduce to writing some of the salient points which had been covered. What was then simply a "memorandum for Mr. Leopold, District 3" became one of the most significant records in the history of the wilderness concept.37 Scrutinized from the perspective of almost half a century, the full import of the document can be realized. As Carhart pointed out, the purpose of the four-page memorandum was to "supplement some conversation between myself and Mr. Leopold. . . . The problem spoken of in this conversation was, how far shall the Forest Service carry or allow to be carried man-made improvements in scenic territories, and whether there is not a definite point where all such developments. . . shall stop.,,3B In considering this question, Carhart stated: There is a limit to the number of lands of shoreline on the lakes; there is a limit to the number of lakes in existence; there is a I imit to the mountainous areas of the world, and. . . there are portions of natural scenic beauty which are God-made, and. . . which of a right should be the property of all people. . . . I n Colorado. . . the great canyon of the Big Thompson represents the case where private holdings defeat the beauties of the canyon. . . . For me the aesthetic value. . . has been reduced not less than eighty percent. . . ,39 The next paragraph contained the elements underlying the national wilderness preservation system. Carhart declared: I have jotted down four different types of areas which should not contain summer homes, perhaps no campsites, and other like developments. First of these is the superlative area; the second is the area unsuited for any camp and summer home development, such as the high ridge of a mountain range; third is the area which should be preserved for the group rather than the individual. such as lakeshores, streambanks, or such a natural feature as medicinal springs; fourth group would include areas not in these three groups, but which represent those God-made and of the greatest use for preservation of any owned by the Government. There is no question in my mind but what there is a definite point in different types of country where man. made structures should be stopped.40 The remainder of the memorandum was devoted to suggesting plans aimed at defining both the stopping point and the areas which should be preserved. Carhart believed that the whole responsibility could be undertaken by the Forest Service. Alternatively, the Forest Service might ask the state to appoint an art commission or the national society might name a committee to study rural planning and landscape architecture, which could cooperate with the Service nationwide. Finally, Carhart remarked that "the question of how best to do this is perhaps the real question, rather than shall it be done."41 Here was a concept that was new to the world, and it was first proposed in 1919 by Arthur Carhart of the Denver office, United States Forest Service-several years ahead of his contemporaries. 6