Customer Reviews

Yosemite and the Mariposa Grove: A Preliminary Report, 1865

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Most people associate John Muir with the foundation of Yosemite National Park. Frederick Law Olmsted, to the extent he is remembered at all, is thought of as the founder of America's urban parks, most notably Central Park in New York. Yet long before Muir traveled to the Yosemite Valley, Olmsted was there. He had moved to California to manage the Mariposa Estate mining district during the Civil War but he quickly discovered the quiet beauty of Yosemite. Determined to help preserve this unique treasure, he was named chairman of the first state Yosemite Commission charged with managing the "Yosemite Grant." (In 1864, Yosemite was not a national park per se, but the government granted it to California to manage for recreation and future enjoyment.) This report was delivered to the rest of the commissioners in 1865 as they camped in the Valley. At the time, Yosemite was just a small reserve consisting of the Valley proper and 4 square miles of the Mariposa grove, but Olmsted offered a grander vision than the limited grant of the federal government.

This "preliminary report" is rightly seen by historians as foreshadowing the role of the whole National Park Service. In addition to requesting what was seen at the time as a huge sum of money for park maintenance, Olmsted hoped to employ scientists to study the broader Yosemite ecosystem. He also recognized the scenic value of the high Sierra and Tuolumne Meadows and sought protection for these areas as well. In an oft quoted passage, he argued that the goal of park managers should be "the preservation and maintenance as exactly as possible of the natural scenery; the restriction, that is to say, within the narrowest limits consistent with the necessary accomodation of visitors, of all constructions markedly inharmonious with the scenery..." Many see in this phrase a vision entirely consistent with the modern environmentalist movement.

But Olmsted was not a modern environmentalist or even park manager. He was, if anything, more farsighted than those who claim his legacy today. In the first instance, Olmsted recognized that preservation of natural resources for the purpose of recreation and personal renewal is something only wealthy societies can afford. One cannot imagine him siding with the contemporary left in criticizing the wealth capitalism generates. It was this very wealth, he correctly notes, that allows for an appreciation of Yosemite as the scenic beauty it is. But Olmsted differed even more fundamentally from the modern environmentalist movement. The latter seeks to limit access to the wilderness to better preserve it. But Olmsted, living in the period when America's most bloody war was fought in part to decide who was entitled to citizenship, had a much more egalitarian vision. Wealthy elites in the past, he noted, had always found a way to escape to their private preserves. But in America, the parks should be open to everyone. Towards that end, he advocated building modern roads into the Valley so that the Valley could be available "for the free use of the whole body of the people forever." Of course, he also believed that landscape architecture, a field he pioneered, would be needed to limit the impact on the environment. But one cannot imagine him gradually closing the inexpensive cabins to replace them with pricey fine lodging as has already happened in Sequoia and is happening in Yosemite and elsewhere. In an age where various environmentalists are proposing an elitist vision that the parks be closed to cars and visitation limited (to whom, one might ask) Olmsted's argument that Yosemite is part of our cultural heritage for everyone is refreshing.

In all, this little booklet is a very important document. Olmsted was the first to understand the importance of national parks and to articulate the vision that they are foundational to a republic. It is an important vision, and one that should be read and reviewed even today, nearly a century and a half later. This is doubly the case because those who claim to be Olmsted's successors have in fact undermined his vision and we are in danger of losing his most valuable legacy to our time: free access to our national parks and heritage.