In accordance with the proverbial policy of indirection which characterizes schemes of this sort, the real purpose of this proposition is always veiled under a beneficent guise, intended to make its promoters appear as zealous guardians of the Park, rather than what they really are—conspirators for its destruction. The proposed change of boundary is ostensibly based upon the alleged necessity of having a natural boundary—that is, a boundary along the courses of streams. The present line, it is urged, is unmarked and no one knows where it is. A stream is a definite, visible line, seen and known by every one. [BV]
[BV] It is of course unnecessary to point out that an artificial line can easily be marked so that there shall be no uncertainty about its location. The hollowness of purpose on the part of those who propose this argument is disclosed by the fact that, of the 280 miles, more or less, in the proposed boundary, they provide a natural line for only about 50 miles—or along that precise portion where they want to build a railroad. All the rest of the way an artificial line is good enough!
The pernicious fallacy that lurks in this argument is plainly visible if we look a little beneath the surface. Never permit the boundaries of the Yellowstone Park to be brought down into the valleys. Nature has indeed built the proper boundaries; but they are mountain ranges, not valleys. A thousand Chinese walls heaped together would not form a barrier like the Absarokas on the east, the Snowy Range on the north, the Gallatin Range on the west, and the Tetons and the Big Game Ridge on the south. Along the present boundary line there are very few places where it is possible to build human habitations. No poacher or law breaker can there fix his stealthy abode ready at a favorable opportunity to dash across it. But if it were in the bottom of the valleys, a whole colony of these dangerous individuals would soon infest every border of the Park. Police surveillance, in any case extremely difficult, would then be well-nigh impossible. No! Whatever changes may be made in the boundary of the Park, let it always be kept among the mountain tops.
What the success of any of these projects to cut off, or segregate, portions of the Park would mean, may be judged from a single instance—that, namely, of the north-east corner of the Park. In this strip of territory are some of the finest scenery and most interesting scientific curiosities to be found upon the Reservation. It is the great winter grazing ground for the elk, and by estimate based upon actual count no fewer than 20,000 of these noble animals find their winter subsistence here. That all of this game would be almost instantly annihilated by the segregation of this strip goes without saying. More than this, the admission to the very heart of the Park of that class of reckless characters, who even now are its greatest source of danger, would vastly enhance the difficulty of protecting the remaining portions.
It is well to emphasize by repetition the few important facts pertaining to this question:
(1.) There are no private interests on the borders of the Park whose development is jeopardized by the refusal of the government to give access to them by a railroad across the Reservation. They can all be reached from the outside without encountering greater obstacles than have been overcome in scores of other places throughout the West.
(2.) There is no need of a railroad in the Park so far as the comfort or advantage of the tourists is concerned. A line along the southern border would answer quite as well, and would serve the surrounding country better.
(3.) There is no occasion to construct an electric line in the Park. Nearly all of those who visit that region oppose it.
(4.) There is no necessity for changing the present boundaries of the Reservation.