The National Park Service Organic Act The National Park Service Organic Act was passed by Congress and Signed by President Woodrow Wilson on August 25th, 1916. This act created the National Park Service (NPS), an agency within the Department of the Interior, and put it in charge of the management of national parks, national monuments, and reservations in order 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” (Organic Act of 1916). The Organic Act, as it is commonly referred to, has four sections. The first section states the creation of the NPS and establishes
…show more content…
It also provides for certain salary amounts to be paid to each officeholder. Section 2 of the act gives the director “supervision, management, and control” (Organic Act of 1916) of the national parks and monuments. Section 3 charges the Secretary of the Interior to make rules and regulations concerning the management of NPS land and determine punishments for violations. The Secretary also may dispose and sell timber from this land as long as it is done to prevent insect or disease damage from ruining the natural scenery and damaging historic objects. Animals and plants that are detrimental to the use of parks, monuments, and reservations may also be destroyed. Park visitor accommodations are permitted on these lands, and livestock grazing is allowed if it is not detrimental to the purpose of a park. All permits for activities on these lands must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The fourth and final section states that nothing in the Organic Act itself “shall affect or modify the provisions of the Act approved February fifteenth, nineteen hundred and one, entitled ‘An Act relating to rights of way through certain parks, reservations, and …show more content…
It has been challenged many times, but the authority of the NPS to interpret it and implement policy always seems to have the final say. Explanation and definitions could have been originally included in the act rather than in the Lane Letter, but this likely would’ve limited the freedom of the NPS to interpret the Act and allow for policy to change along with new scientific understanding. If the Act were to be directly amended today to update its wordage with modern terminology, especially in regard to concepts such as conservation, ecosystem management, and recreation, it is likely that current political pressures would sway Congress toward a decision that may undermine its original purpose. Therefore, it is probably best to leave it as is and continue to explain and reaffirm it in other pieces of
It also provides for certain salary amounts to be paid to each officeholder. Section 2 of the act gives the director “supervision, management, and control” (Organic Act of 1916) of the national parks and monuments. Section 3 charges the Secretary of the Interior to make rules and regulations concerning the management of NPS land and determine punishments for violations. The Secretary also may dispose and sell timber from this land as long as it is done to prevent insect or disease damage from ruining the natural scenery and damaging historic objects. Animals and plants that are detrimental to the use of parks, monuments, and reservations may also be destroyed. Park visitor accommodations are permitted on these lands, and livestock grazing is allowed if it is not detrimental to the purpose of a park. All permits for activities on these lands must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The fourth and final section states that nothing in the Organic Act itself “shall affect or modify the provisions of the Act approved February fifteenth, nineteen hundred and one, entitled ‘An Act relating to rights of way through certain parks, reservations, and …show more content…
It has been challenged many times, but the authority of the NPS to interpret it and implement policy always seems to have the final say. Explanation and definitions could have been originally included in the act rather than in the Lane Letter, but this likely would’ve limited the freedom of the NPS to interpret the Act and allow for policy to change along with new scientific understanding. If the Act were to be directly amended today to update its wordage with modern terminology, especially in regard to concepts such as conservation, ecosystem management, and recreation, it is likely that current political pressures would sway Congress toward a decision that may undermine its original purpose. Therefore, it is probably best to leave it as is and continue to explain and reaffirm it in other pieces of