OUR OWN FIRST

Southland Times, Issue 19899, 18 June 1926, Page 11

OUR OWN FIRST

NATIONAL PARK POLICY. AMERICAN EXAMPLE. Recently the Evening Post quoted the opinions of prominent ecologists and National Park authorities in America as opposed to the introduction of foreign plant and animal life to areas reserved primarily for the preservation of native flora and faufia. Additional information has now been received in Wellington strongly supporting the opinions given, and having an intimate bearing upon the issues facing the Tongar.ro National Park Board. Writing to a friend in Wellington, Mr Barrington Moore, editor-in-chief of the journal of the Ecological Society of America, states:—“This question as to whether the parks should be kept inviolate as museums of the indigenous flora and fauna or whether they should be developed primarily for recreation, is more important than any other matter of policy. The point of view of those who would introduce exotic plants and animals and derive revenue from cutting the forest, is readily understandable. We have had the same conflict in this country, and it is only comparatively recently that it has been decided definitely in favour of keeping our National Parks inviolate as areas on which the natural flora and fauna can be found undisturbed by outside agencies. This is unquestionably the most important purpose of National Parks. There are plenty of places where shooting and fishing can be fostered without destroying the few remaining remnants of virgin wilderness. Areas on which natural conditions have been preserved are of such value for scientific study of the relation between plants and animals and their environment that the destruction of such areas is like destroying a library of original manuscripts, or a museum With collections not duplicated elsewhere. “In Switzerland the National Parks are preserved primarily for scientific purposes and used for recreation only very sparingly or not at all. In this country our scientists have long realised the scientific and educational value of the National Park. Several years ago the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest group of scientists in the country, passed a strong set of resolutions vigorously opposing the introduction of non-native plants and animals into the National Parks. Fortunately, our National Parks are large and have as yet been but little disturbed. We have always protected the parks from commercial encroachments, sometimes against strong pressure. The principal interest of the Government, however, has until recently been recreation. Last fall, to our delight, the Secretary of the Interior, charged with the administration of the National Parks, recognised the outdoor museum feature as the primary purpose of these parks.” The question of timber-cutting in the paries is dealt with in a letter from Mr Stephen T. Mather, Director of the Natiohal Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington. He writes:— “I notice the particular question on which you request information is the problem of whether or not the parks should be kept inviolate as museums of the indigenous flora and fauna or whether exotic species would be introduced. The primary purpose of the National Parks, as you will see from the organic Act creating the National Park Service, Is ‘to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’ In accordance with this Act the National Park Service does not permit the introduction of exotic species of plants and animals and maintains the scenery in its natural condition, permitting only such changes as must be made in providing the necessary accommodation for visitors. “The policy governing the establishment of new National Parks provides that these areas shall be the outstanding examples of their particular kind of scenery, and it is essential that the trees in these areas belong to virgin forests. Naturally, then, we would not consider permitting any cutting for the purpose of obtaining revenue. Our national forests, which are administered by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, are developed for ecpnomic purposes, and in these the cutting of timber under certain regulations is permitted.”