Lookouts, Latrines, and 

Lodgepole Cabins 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Intermountain 

Region 

Bridger-Teton 

National Forest

March 2003 

Administrative Facilities of Wyoming’s 

Bridger-Teton National Forest, 1904-1955

 

 Volume One: Historic Context Statement 

Forest Service Report No. BT-02-637 
Cover: Virtually unchanged since it was built by Civilian Conservation Corps workers in 

the mid-1930s, the latrine at Willow Creek Guard Station on the Pinedale Ranger 

District epitomizes the Forest Service’s quest for architectural standardization in its 

administrative facilities. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer. 
Lookouts, Latrines, and 

Lodgepole Cabins 

Administrative Facilities of Wyoming’s 

Bridger-Teton National Forest, 1904-1955 

Volume I: Historic Context Statement 

Forest Service Report No. BT-02-637 

By 

Jim Bailey, Ph.D. 

Architectural Historian 

USDA Forest Service 

Intermountain Region Facilities Group 

324 25th Street 

Ogden, UT 84401 

801-625-5704 

(Contact: Richa Wilson, Regional Architectural Historian, at above address and phone)
PREFACE 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest is developing a historic facilities management plan in 

compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The work 

includes the identification and evaluation of each administrative building that is 

potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Volume One 

of this report, which serves as the basis for evaluation, documents the forest’s history, 

each ranger district, and the forest’s architectural development. Volume Two contains 

information on resource types, evaluation methodology, and evaluation summaries. 

Much of the information for these two volumes is taken from "Privies, Pastures and 

Portables: Administrative Facilities of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1891-

1950, Report No. TY-01-1370" completed in December 2001 by Regional Architectural 

Historian Richa Wilson. 

Copies of this document will be provided to the State Historic Preservation Office in 

Cheyenne. Other depositories include the Bridger-Teton Supervisor’s Office in Jackson 

where it will also be placed on the forest’s web site, the Regional Office in Ogden, Utah, 

the Forest Service Heritage Center at Weber State University (Ogden), and the Forest 

Service History Office in Washington, DC. 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................ 1 

FORMAT........................................................................................................................ 1

FOREST SERVICE ORGANIZATION AND NOMENCLATURE............................. 2 

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 3 

RESEARCH AND REVIEW ......................................................................................... 3 

FIELD SURVEYS.......................................................................................................... 5 

CONTEXT DEFINITION................................................................................................ 5

GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION.................................................................................... 5 

MAP #1: THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM (GYE).......................... 6 

MAP #2: THE BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST .......................................... 8 

SPATIAL BOUNDARIES ........................................................................................... 10 

TEMPORAL DIVISIONS............................................................................................ 11 

THEMES....................................................................................................................... 11 

CHAPTER ONE: 1891-1907, EARLY AMERICAN WESTERN CONSERVATION

........................................................................................................................................... 12

HISTORIC FOREST SERVICE OVERVIEW ............................................................ 12 

WESTERN WYOMING: HISTORIC AND ECONOMIC SETTING ........................ 14 

FOREST ADMINISTRATION TO 1908..................................................................... 19 

FOREST OFFICERS.................................................................................................... 21 

YELLOWSTONE FOREST RESERVE: THE EARLY YEARS................................ 24 

TRANSITION: RUDOLPH “ROSIE” ROSENCRANS............................................. 26 

CHAPTER TWO: 1908-1929, THE PROGRESSIVES, EARLY INTERWAR....... 29

HISTORICAL SETTING............................................................................................. 29 

LAND ADJUSTMENTS: RESERVES TO FORESTS ............................................... 30 

WYOMING NATIONAL FOREST............................................................................. 32 

BONNEVILLE / BRIDGER NATIONAL FORESTS................................................. 33 

TETON NATIONAL FOREST.................................................................................... 35 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION: ORGANIZATION............................................. 41 

FOREST OFFICERS.................................................................................................... 42 

TRANSITION: ED CAZIER, THE “LAST SADDLE HORSE RANGER” .............. 45 

CHAPTER THREE: 1930-1942, THE NEW DEAL ARRIVES ............................... 48

HISTORICAL SETTING............................................................................................. 48 

FOREST CHANGES: NATIONAL, REGIONAL, LOCAL ....................................... 48 

MAP #3: INTERMOUNTAIN REGION FOUR ......................................................... 49 

CCC: ORIGIONS, GROWTH, ADMINISTRATION................................................. 53 

ENROLLMENT ........................................................................................................... 55 

THE CAMPS ................................................................................................................ 57 

CCC CAMP ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................. 58 

CCC AND WESTERN WYOMING............................................................................ 59 

CCC AND FIRE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................. 62 

THE CCC SWAN SONG............................................................................................. 64 

TRANSITION: THE GRAND TETON PARK ISSUE................................................ 65 
CHAPTER FOUR: 1943-1955, WORLD WAR II / EARLY POSTWAR .............. 68

HISTORICAL SETTING............................................................................................. 68 

ADMINISTRATION: LOCAL, REGIONAL, NATIONAL ....................................... 69 

FOREST CHANGES: THE BOOM HITS HARD....................................................... 71 

FIRE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................ 72 

FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 73 

AT LAST: A REAL GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK ....................................... 74 

EPILOGUE................................................................................................................... 75 

CHAPTER FIVE: RANGER DISTRICTS AND PERSONNEL............................. 77

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 77 

TODAY’S BRIDGER-TETON.................................................................................... 77 

MAP #5: THE BRIDGER AND TETON DIVISIONS................................................ 79 

BRIDGER DIVISION, KEMMERER RANGER DISTRICT.................................. 80

KEMMERER DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS ................................ 80 

MAP #KD: KEMMERER RANGER DISTRICT........................................................ 82 

KEMMERER ADMINISTRATIVE SITES: CURRENT AND PAST........................ 82 

KEMMERER DISTRICTS AND RANGERS ............................................................. 84 

BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT............................................................................... 85

BIG PINEY DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS ................................... 85 

MAP #BP: BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT........................................................... 86 

BIG PINEY ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.................................................................... 87 

BIG PINEY PAST SITES ............................................................................................ 88 

BIG PINEY DISTRICTS AND RANGERS ................................................................ 89 

GREYS RIVER RANGER DISTRICT ........................................................................ 90

DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS........................................................ 90 

MAP #GR: GREYS RIVER RANGER DISTRICT..................................................... 91 

GREYS RIVER CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.......................................... 92 

GREYS RIVER PAST ADMINISTRATIVE SITES................................................... 93 

GREYS RIVER DISTRICTS AND RANGERS.......................................................... 95 

PINEDALE RANGER DISTRICT............................................................................... 96

DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS........................................................ 96 

MAP PD: PINEDALE RANGER DISTRICT............................................................. 97 

PINEDALE ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.................................................................... 98 

PINEDALE: OTHER CURRENT SITES .................................................................... 99 

THE PINEDALE HOUSING ISSUE......................................................................... 100 

PAST PINEDALE ADMINSTRATIVE SITES......................................................... 100 

PINEDALE DISTRICTS AND RANGERS .............................................................. 102 

TETON DIVISION: JACKSON RANGER DISTRICT.......................................... 104

MAP #JA: JACKSON RANGER DISTRICT........................................................... 105 

DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS...................................................... 105 

CURRENT JACKSON ADMINISTRATIVE SITES................................................ 106 

JACKSON: PAST SITES........................................................................................... 107 

JACKSON DISTRICTS AND RANGERS................................................................ 109 

BUFFALO RANGER DISTRICT............................................................................... 112

MAP #BU: BUFFALO RANGER DISTRICT .......................................................... 113 

DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS...................................................... 113 
BUFFALO ADMINISTRATIVE SITES: WILDERNESS AND ELSEWHERE...... 114 

BUFFALO ADMINISTRATIVE SITES LONG GONE ........................................... 115 

BUFFALO DISTRICT RANGERS............................................................................ 117 

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 118 

FOREST SUPERVISORS............................................................................................ 119

BRIDGER NATIONAL FOREST* TO 1973 ............................................................ 119 

TETON NATIONAL FOREST TO 1973................................................................... 119 

BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, 1973-2002............................................ 120 

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY.................................................................................. 121

CHAPTER SIX: 1891-1907, PINCHOT PROVIDES DIRECTION ....................... 121

IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................... 122 

CHAPTER SEVEN: 1908-1929, THE PIONEER TRADITION ............................ 125

FOREST ENGINEERS .............................................................................................. 127 

IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................... 128 

BUILDING DESIGN.................................................................................................. 129 

SITE DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 130 

FIRE LOOKOUTS ..................................................................................................... 131 

CHAPTER EIGHT: 1930-1942, NEW DEAL = NEW IDENTITY....................... 133

FUNDS AND LABOR ............................................................................................... 133 

THE DESIGNERS...................................................................................................... 134 

STANDARD PLANS ARRIVE ................................................................................. 135 

REGION 4 .................................................................................................................. 136 

1935 PAINT GUIDELINES....................................................................................... 141 

THE PINE TREE LOGO............................................................................................ 142 

SPEECIAL BUILDING TYPES: BRIDGER-TETON............................................. 142

FIRE LOOKOUTS ..................................................................................................... 142 

WILDERNESS PATROL CABINS........................................................................... 144 

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.................................................................................... 146 

CHAPTER NINE: 1943-1955, PREFABS AND PORTABLES .............................. 147

SITE WITHDRAWALS............................................................................................. 147 

THE DESIGNERS...................................................................................................... 147 

IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................... 147 

SITE DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 148 

POSTWAR REGION 4 .............................................................................................. 149 

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................... 152
 ACRONYMS 

B-T: Bridger-Teton National Forest 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management 

BOR: Bureau of Reclamation 

CCC: Civilian Conservation Corps 

DOI: Department of Interior 

ECF: Emergency Conservation Fund 

ECW: Emergency Conservation Worker (used before CCC) 

FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FS: Forest Service (generally used in conjunction with USDA) 

GYE: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act 

NPS: National Park Service 

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places 

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act 

RO: Regional Office 

RD: Ranger District(s) 

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office 

SO: Supervisor’s Office 

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture 

VIC: Visitor Information Center 

WO: Washington Office 

WPA: Works Progress Administration 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

Federal law requires the Forest Service to identify, evaluate, and protect cultural 

resources on public lands. These and related requirements are mandated by the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended, the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the 

Antiquities Act of 1906, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and 

Executive Order 11593. 

Western Wyoming’s Bridger-Teton National Forest (B-T) has nearly 230 buildings used 

for administrative purposes. Of these, approximately 100 buildings are over 50 years old 

and are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NHRP). Referred to as “administrative facilities” or “improvements,” these include 

ranger station compounds, employee housing, guard stations, wilderness patrol cabins, 

fire lookouts, and storage facilities. Most are located on “administrative sites,” lands

specifically designated for administrative use. In many cases, these sites have been

withdrawn from public use. The scope of this evaluation is limited to buildings

constructed through 1955. Excluded from this project are other cultural resources like 

prehistoric sites, mining/logging cabins, ranches, recreation buildings, visitor information 

centers (VIC) or other historic resources not considered administrative facilities. 

The Forest Service receives only 12 percent of total funds needed to maintain its 

buildings.1

 The deteriorated conditions of the agency’s buildings reflect the cumulative 

effects of this budgetary shortfall. To address this situation, the B-T is developing a 

historic facilities master plan in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). Forest historic facilities were surveyed from 1999-2001 and evaluated against 

the historic context statement. The goal of this work is to develop a programmatic 

agreement and a management plan to effectively manage and guide activities that affect 

historic buildings. 

FORMAT 

The identification and evaluation of B-T historic facilities is presented in two volumes. 

Volume One is a general, administrative-centered contextual historic overview, including

themes of early Forest Service history, the forest’s early history and growth, the CCC, a 

brief look at Postwar forest history, a historic overview of each of the B-T’s six ranger 

districts, Forest Service architectural history, and a bibliography. Some items are 

necessarily repeated throughout this section for the sake of clarity. Volume Two presents 

the formal survey data, along with a detailed evaluation of each surveyed building 

prepared with these objectives: 

 

1

 Vaughn Stokes, “Vision of Opportunity, “ Engineering Field Notes 31 (January-June 1999), 2.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 1
• Document Bridger-Teton National Forest history with primary focus on the 

significant events, trends, and people associated with its administration. 

• Document the history and significance of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) 

relative to the forest’s administrative infrastructure like buildings, roads and

bridges, etc. 

• Conduct archival research and field verification of forest historic facilities. 

• Identify historical significance and structural integrity of these administrative 

facilities and evaluate them for National Register eligibility, while working in

concert with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 

FOREST SERVICE ORGANIZATION AND NOMENCLATURE 

The unique identity and culture of the Forest Service are represented by its administrative 

organization and nomenclature. It is an agency within the Department of Agriculture and 

is directed by a Chief Forester. The main office is located in Washington, D.C., and is 

referred to as the Washington Office or “WO.” The agency is divided into regions, of

which there are nine headed by Regional Foresters. The B-T is in Region Four—the 

Intermountain Region—which has its headquarters (the Regional Office, or “RO”) in 

Ogden, Utah. 

Each region contains several forests. Region Four presently encompasses thirteen forests 

in Utah, Nevada, eastern California, southern Idaho, western Wyoming, and far western 

Colorado. In the past, Region Four had many smaller forests, but recent trends toward 

administrative consolidation resulted in fewer, yet larger forests. This is the case with the 

B-T, which at 3.43 million acres is the fifth largest forest in the entire system, including

Alaska (three of the five largest national forest units are in Region Four). The present BT represents the July 1, 1973 consolidation of the Bridger and Teton National Forests into 

one contiguous forest. At consolidation it was the largest national forest outside Alaska, 

but has been since supplanted by other consolidations in Nevada and more recently in 

Idaho.2

Each forest has a headquarters known as the Supervisor’s Office (SO) and is 

administered by a Forest Supervisor. The B-T’s SO is located in Jackson, Wyoming. 

Traditionally, a forest is divided into smaller administrative units known as ranger 

districts; a District Ranger that works out of a district office manages each one. The B-T 

is divided into six ranger districts: Buffalo, Jackson, Greys River, Kemmerer, Big Piney, 

and Pinedale. The B-T also contains three federally designated wilderness areas: Teton, 

Bridger, and Gros Ventre, which comprise over one-third of its total acreage. 

 

2

 As of November 2001, the top five in order of acreage (in millions) are the Tongass (Alaska) at 16.6;

Humboldt-Toiyabe (Nevada) at 6.3; Chugach (Alaska) at 5.5; Salmon-Challis (Idaho) at 4.3; and the 

Bridger-Teton. Source: Roadless Area Conservation FEIS, Appendix A (Washington, D.C., USDA Forest

Service, 2000.) 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 2
The Bridger-Teton National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Jackson. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Certain terminology may sound strange to someone who is not familiar with the Forest

Service. For example, “on the forest” is used in place of (being) “in the forest.” The

terms “ranger station” and “guard station” have two meanings. They can refer to a 

specific building, usually one that served as a home and/or office for a forest ranger or 

guard, or they can refer to a compound that includes several buildings. These compounds 

can either be located on the forest or in nearby towns. 

METHODOLOGY 

 

Intermountain Region Architectural Historians James Bailey and Richa Wilson carried 

out the identification and evaluation of B-T historic facilities in accordance with National 

Register Bulletin 24. B-T Archeologist Jamie Schoen conducted previous surveys of 

some sites in the years preceding the formal Bailey/Wilson evaluations, and shared his

evaluations. Additionally, qualified volunteers Steve Anderson and Dave Frey assisted 

James Bailey with the surveys. The archeologist and historians completed exhaustive 

research in support of the context statement and surveyed every known historic facility. 

Finally, facilities were evaluated using the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for 

consideration. 

RESEARCH AND REVIEW 

Both architectural historians conducted detailed research on each historic facility with 

assistance from B-T Facilities Manager Bill Shields, independent building auditor Alicia

Hedges, and an INFRA list supplied by B-T Forest Engineer Craig Smith. This research 

included investigation into active and closed (inactive) files in the SO and each district 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 3
office. The majority of closed files are located in the SO’s mailroom, as well as with the 

forest archeologist. The most useful information was found in the files with the 

following numeric designations: 

• 1200: Organization 

• 1680: History 

• 2300: Wilderness 

• 2500: Watershed Management 

• 2700: Special Uses 

• 2760: Withdrawals (including Tabular Records) 

• 5420: Purchases and Donations 

• 6440: Real Property 

• 7300: Buildings and other Structures 

• 7400: Water and Sanitation 

Other valuable sources of information in Forest Service offices (at every level) include 

photo files and albums, personnel directories, land status maps, improvement atlases, 

maps, and formal building plans and drawings. Research was also conducted at the 

Forest Service Heritage Center, located on the campus of Weber State University in 

Ogden, Utah. This is the local repository for Region Four’s archival documents. In 

addition, archival B-T documents were retrieved from the National Archives and Records 

Administration (Rocky Mountain Region) repository in Lakewood, Colorado. 

Although the B-T constructed most of their administrative buildings using standard 

Region Four building plans, studies from other regions were consulted for comparison 

and context. Gail Throop’s 1979 Master’s Thesis “Utterly Visionary and Chimerical: A

Federal Response to the Depression” helped to compare the CCC’s construction efforts in 

the Pacific Northwest Region. Also consulted was Administering the National Forests of 

Colorado: An Assessment of the Architectural and Cultural Significance of Historic and 

Administrative Properties (1996) by Ralph Hartley and James Schenk. The study “An 

Inventory of and Historical Significance Evaluation of CDF Fire Lookout Stations” by 

Mark Thornton (1994) examined how the California Department of Forestry used 

lookouts for fire suppression control. John Grosvenor’s 1999 study “A History of the 

Architecture of the USDA Forest Service” is a valuable resource on the various regional 

architectural styles and the architects behind these styles. 

Other unpublished studies proved worthy. James Gilligan’s doctoral thesis “The 

Development of Policy and Administration of Forest Service Primitive and Wilderness

Areas in the Western United States” (1953) is an informative resource on the creation and 

management of the Teton and Bridger Primitive (or Wilderness) areas. Jim Hanson’s 

1973 dissertation “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains” 

critically examines CCC construction programs in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. 

Research of general Forest Service history, the CCC, and other topics was completed at 

Weber State University, the Denver Public Library’s Western History Collections, the 

Wyoming State Archives, and the Lincoln, Sublette, and Teton County libraries and

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 4
historic societies. Regrettably, other than a few photos, the local historic societies and 

museums focus their collections on nineteenth century frontier, state, and local history, 

and very little on the Forest Service, related government agencies, or twentieth century

history. Additionally, many websites offered useful information. These include fire 

lookouts, the CCC, the New Deal, as well as the websites of the USFS History Collection 

at Duke University, the Forest History Society, the Library of Congress, and other 

national forests. 

FIELD SURVEYS 

As part of the intensive survey program, both architectural historians conducted 

exhaustive fieldwork to check research findings, record significant data, and evaluate 

current conditions and integrity. Most of the work was done between June and October 

2001, although the forest archeologist evaluated some sites the two years before this 

formal study. Using approved SHPO forms, the historians surveyed each administrative 

building known or suspected to have been constructed before 1955, photographed these 

buildings from various angles using digital color and 35mm black-and-white mediums,

and sketched each site to illustrate the relationship of buildings to each other and 

significant landscape features. It should be noted that some buildings were being used as 

summer and permanent residences, so the historians did not enter to respect privacy. 

Some buildings, or sections within, also had non-standard forest or combination locks. 

No attempt was made to enter these buildings or sections. 

After the completion of fieldwork, data was entered in a Microsoft Access database. This 

allowed easy manipulation of data and the generation or queries and reports. It is planned 

to burn digital images of the B-T’s historic facilities, as well as old photos of historic 

buildings that have since vanished into history, for archival and future research purposes. 

CONTEXT DEFINITION 

GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION 

At 3.4 million acres, western Wyoming’s Bridger-Teton National Forest is the third 

largest national forest in the contiguous United States, and the fifth largest overall. 

Spanning five counties—Teton, Lincoln, Sublette, Fremont, and Park—the entire forest 

lies within what is known as the “Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem” (GYE) a 28,000 

square mile, or 18 million acre area surrounding Yellowstone National Park (see Map 

#1). Defined by Webster’s as “a complex of ecological community and environment

forming a functional whole in nature,” an ecosystem is also considered as a network of 

complex biological and physical processes in constant state of change. Although this 

complexity and change makes it difficult to delineate exact boundaries of the GYE, 

topography, wildlife, vegetation, climate, and human impact (private lands, towns, and

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 5
MAP #1: The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 6
miscellaneous development) contribute to ecosystem boundary definitions and 

limitations.3

 

Yellowstone National Park is considered the GYE’s nucleus. It is a high (average 8,000 

feet) volcanic plateau that contains over half of the Earth’s geothermal features.

Although surrounded by other major mountain ranges to the north and west, five major 

mountain ranges that comprise the B-T either adjoin the park or are part of the GYE: the 

Teton, Salt River, Gros Ventre, Wyoming, and Wind River mountain ranges stretch 

south, east, and southeast from this plateau. Two major river valleys, the Snake and the 

Green Rivers, dissect these mountain ranges and have their headwaters within this 

ecosystem. These river valleys, as well as their major tributaries like the Gros Ventre,

Hoback, Salt, and Greys, contain crucial winter forage and shelter for seasonally

migrating wildlife like elk and moose.

4

 

Human impact around the GYE is significant, especially to the north (in Montana) and 

west (in Idaho) where large-scale agricultural and urban development exist. To the south 

in Wyoming, however, human impact is comparatively much smaller. The largest town

within this portion of the GYE is Jackson, with a year-round population of around 5,000. 

Small- to medium-scale ranching, farming, developed recreational sites like ski areas, and 

localized development dominate the landscape. Towns like Pinedale, Afton, and Big 

Piney remain comparatively small (Pinedale, the seat of Sublette County, has 1,200 

residents, and is the least populated county in the nation’s least populated state). 

Generally, most of the core GYE is considered undeveloped, and over one-third of the 

area is Congressionally designated wilderness.5

 This one-third number is consistent with 

the B-T; of the forest’s 3.4 million acres, 1.3 million are designated as wilderness: the

585,468-acre Teton, the 428,169-acre Bridger, and the 287,000-acre Gros Ventre 

Wilderness areas.6

 

The contiguous B-T itself is a land of expansive vistas. When viewed on a map, the 

forest looks like an inverted, slightly askew “peace” sign, V-shaped, with the Salt River 

and Wyoming ranges comprising the south and west “finger,” the Wind River mountains 

the south and east “finger,” and the Gros Ventre Mountains and Yellowstone Plateau the 

“fist” (see Map #2). A high intermontane plateau containing the Green River basin 

separates the two southern “fingers,” while the Continental Divide serves as the eastern

boundary along the forests southern, central, and north central reaches. The northern 

stretch sees the Continental Divide bisecting the forest through the Teton Wilderness, 

over Two Ocean Pass and “The Parting of the Waters” (a National Natural Landmark), 

and into Yellowstone National Park. 

 

3

 For a concise, non-technical overview, see Dennis Glick, et. al., An Environmental Profile of the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem (Bozeman, MT: The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, 1991), 10-15. 4

 Ibid., 13-14 5

 Ibid., 14. 6

 Wilderness acreage statistics from “The Bridge” (Jackson: Bridger-Teton National Forest, 2001.) 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 7
MAP #2: THE BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST

(Ranger District Headquarters Underlined) 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 8
Like most mountain ranges in Region Four, major B-T ranges run roughly north to south, 

and are found on the forest’s central, southern, and extreme northeastern reaches. On the 

west side, or “finger,” the Salt River and Wyoming ranges run as near-continuous ridges

of high alpine peaks that stretch to just shy of 12,000 feet. On the east side, the Wind 

Rivers are arguably one of America’s most rugged, scenic, and isolated high mountain 

landscapes. Pockmarked with over 2,300 glacier-fed alpine lakes, and topped by 13,804-

foot Gannett Peak—Wyoming’s highest point—the Wind Rivers hold seven of the largest 

glaciers in the lower 48 states. At the northwestern end of the Wind Rivers, and directly 

across from the Teton Range, lie the Gros Ventre Mountains, which contain one of 

America’s most recently designated wilderness areas. At the forest’s northeastern 

reaches lie mostly high mountain ridges and peaks that border the Washakie Wilderness 

in the neighboring Shoshone National Forest. 

Between the mountain ranges lie numerous major rivers and tributaries. The Salt River 

begins at Tri-Basin Divide about 15 miles southeast of Afton, and runs north through the 

Star Valley to the Snake River. At the same point the Salt River starts, so does the Greys 

River, which slices its way north nearly 70 miles between the Salt and Wyoming ranges 

to its confluence with the Snake near Alpine, Wyoming. The Hoback River originates in 

the Wyoming Range and slices its way northwest through Hoback Canyon to the Snake, 

while the Gros Ventre River runs down from the Continental Divide west to the Snake 

just north of Jackson in Grand Teton National Park. The Buffalo Fork River originates in

the Teton Wilderness near the Continental Divide, and then meanders west toward its 

confluence with the Snake near Moran Junction. Then there is the Snake River itself,

whose headwaters originate in south-central Yellowstone National Park, and is the

Columbia River’s largest and longest tributary. 

Other than the Yellowstone River, which originates in the high mountain reaches of the

Teton Wilderness before it heads into the park, the only other major river whose 

headwaters lie exclusively within the B-T is the Green River, which, like the Snake is to 

the Columbia, is the Colorado River’s largest and longest tributary. Originating at a point 

roughly 40 miles northwest of Pinedale, the Green River carves a large path north, then 

west and due south through the vast basin that separates the B-T’s eastern and western 

reaches. All Wind River brooks, streams, and rivers situated west and south of the

Continental Divide eventually empty into the Green River, as well as all of the drainages 

from the Wyoming Range’s eastern slopes. 

The forest’s climate can generally be described as cool, with low to medium levels of 

humidity that exacerbate evaporation. Except for the higher mountains, the area 

surrounding the forest is semiarid with little to moderate rainfall. From November to 

May, snowfall is abundant, with the mountains receiving upwards to 200 inches of snow, 

and the surrounding valleys about one-third of that total. Winters are brutal, almost 

Arctic in nature: lows into the –40s and –50s Fahrenheit, not counting wind-chill, are 

common both in the mountains and valleys. The town of Big Piney boasts the distinction 

of being America’s “icebox” in winter, with an average low of –13 Fahrenheit between 

December and February. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 9
The range and scope of forest wildlife is large and diverse. The B-T supports six species 

of amphibians, six species of reptiles, 74 species of mammals, 355 bird species, and 25 

fish species. Elk, deer, moose, grizzly and black bears, bison, beaver, red-tail coyote, and 

pronghorn antelope are the dominant mammal species, while Sandhill cranes, trumpeter 

swans, golden and bald eagles, hawks, and osprey dominate tree canopies, steams, and 

rock faces. The forest is an angler’s paradise, with numerous species of native and

Yellowstone Cutthroat and rainbow trout found within ponds, lakes, and streams. 

Fremont Lake north of Pinedale is one of North America’s deepest freshwater lakes, 

bottoming out at 608 feet. 

Major B-T trees consist primarily of lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, quaking Aspen, and 

Englemann spruce. Extensive willow and cottonwood tree stands can be found next to 

streams, rivers, and bogs. Mountain maple can provide quite a colorful crimson show on 

west-facing slopes in early-to-mid-September. Lupine, Indian paintbrush, and 

Columbine are among the dominant forest wildflowers at wetter higher elevations, while 

arrowhead balsamroot and sagebrush are common at drier lower elevations. 

SPATIAL BOUNDARIES 

The survey area covered the entire B-T, including administrative sites not on the forest 

proper and located in the nearby towns of Afton, Pinedale, Big Piney, and Kemmerer. 

The forest itself is divided into six ranger districts; they are as follows, with their major

geographic features and nearby towns: 

• D-1: Kemmerer Ranger District: LaBarge Creek, Commissary and Absaroka 

ridges, Allred Flat, Fontenelle Creek, Hams Fork and Smith’s Fork Rivers, 

Kemmerer, LaBarge, Cokeville 

• D-2: Big Piney Ranger District: Upper Hoback River, Horse Creek, south Gros 

Ventre Range, the East Rim, Upper, Middle, and Lower Piney Creeks, North and 

South Cottonwood Creeks, Deadline Ridge, Monument Ridge, Merna, Big Piney, 

Marbleton, Bondurant 

• D-3: Greys River Ranger District: Greys and Little Greys River, Salt River

Range, McDougal Gap, Wyoming Range (west side), Gannett Hills, Corral Creek, 

Swift Creek, Periodic Spring, Snake River, Star Valley, Smoot, Afton, Thayne, 

Osmond, Bedford, Etna, Alpine 

• D-4: Jackson Ranger District: Lower Hoback River, Wyoming Range (east 

side), Gros Ventre River, upper Gros Ventre mountains/wilderness area, Teton 

Pass, Granite Falls, Gros Ventre Slide, Wilson, Jackson 

• D-6: Buffalo Ranger District: Blackrock, Buffalo Fork River, Teton Wilderness, 

Two Ocean Pass, Atlantic/Pacific Creeks, Hawks Rest, Togwotee Pass, Fox Park, 

Huckleberry Mountain, Enos Lake, Mink Creek, Thorofare Plateau, Upper 

Yellowstone River and Meadows, Moran 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 10
• D-7: Pinedale Ranger District: Wind River Mountains (west side), Gannett 

Peak, Green River, Green River Lakes, Dutch Joe, Elkhart Park, Big Sandy, 

Fremont Lake, Boulder Lake, Boulder, Cora, Pinedale 

(D-5, the Hoback District, was dissolved in the mid-1980s for budgetary reasons, with its

lands going to the Big Piney and Jackson Districts.) 

TEMPORAL DIVISIONS 

This historic context statement covers a period beginning in 1891 when President 

Benjamin Harrison passed the Creative Act to allow the establishment of federal forest 

reserves to 1955. It is relevant to include those early years to achieve an understanding 

of Forest Service development and culture, even though the lands that now comprise the

B-T were not withdrawn until several years later. This early period is also significant in 

that lands that include much of the present B-T were among the first federal forest 

reserves established in the United States. The 1955 cutoff date corresponds with the 

requirement that resources be 50 years or older (except in special cases) before they are 

considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places—plus a cushion of 2-3 

years. 

The period 1891-1955 is divided into four sub-periods that illustrate relevant shifts in 

Forest Service culture, patterns, and events at the national, regional, and local levels.

They are: 

• 1891-1907: Early Western American Conservation 

• 1908-1929: The Progressive Era, World War I, early Interwar 

• 1930-1942: Later Interwar, New Deal 

• 1942-1955: World War II and early Postwar 

 

THEMES 

The Wyoming State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) in Cheyenne and Laramie 

have written comprehensive context statements that helped shape this context statement.

The three most widely used in the study are Ranching, Recreation and Tourism, and

Architecture. Although not included by Wyoming SHPO, certain Areas of Significance 

listed in National Register Bulletin 16A are also applicable: Conservation, Architecture, 

and for the CCC-era buildings, Politics/Government. 

 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 11
CHAPTER ONE: 1891-1907, EARLY AMERICAN WESTERN 

CONSERVATION 

HISTORIC FOREST SERVICE OVERVIEW

As early as 1871, Congress considered legislation that addressed the management of

forests on public lands, mostly in response to growing concern over the rapid depletion of 

the nation’s natural resources. In 1875, the American Forestry Association was formed

and upon that group’s lobbying efforts, and in 1881 the Division of Forestry was created 

in the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Yet it was not until early 1891 that Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act. This 

allowed the President to designate areas as forest reserves to be administered by the

Department of Interior’s (DOI) General Land Office (GLO). On March 30 of that same

year, President Benjamin Harrison established the country’s first federal forest reserve, 

the 1,239,040-acre Yellowstone Park Timberland Reserve, adjacent to the park’s 

southern and eastern boundaries. Some of the present-day Teton Wilderness Area’s 

extreme northern and northeastern reaches were part of this preserve. 

Harrison’s proclamation followed a decade of debate over the fate of America’s forested

areas. Many late nineteenth century scientists viewed the creation of this reserve as a

crucial step in stemming the advancing juggernaut of unregulated timber harvests, 

overgrazing, mining, and watershed destruction. The creation of this land reserve marked 

one milestone in the beginning of America’s conservation movement, while exemplifying 

the need for effective land management. Northern Wyoming is significant in American 

conservation history as a region of “firsts”: the first federally-protected national park,

Yellowstone (1872), the first-federally protected forest reserve, Yellowstone Park Timber 

Land Reserve (1891), the first national monument, Devil’s Tower (1906), and the first 

federal wildlife preserve, the National Elk Refuge north of Jackson (1912). 

Soon thereafter, other reserves were created, mostly in response to petitions presented by

individuals or groups seeking increased protection of timber, range, and watersheds. 

Upon receipt of a petition, a GLO inspector would examine the area before making a

recommendation to the President. More forests were created; on George Washington’s

Birthday in 1897, a mere ten days before completing his term, President Grover 

Cleveland, via executive privilege, authorized thirteen more forest reserves. Among 

them was the Teton Forest Reserve, created from 829,440 acres of public domain land. 

This area, essentially a southern addition to the original Yellowstone Park Timber Land 

Reserve, is now part of Grand Teton National Park and the B-T’s Buffalo Ranger

District.

Cleveland’s action, however, was not without controversy. He created the Teton Forest 

Reserve without local or congressional consultation and, as a result, there was a huge 

public outcry in the West. The lack of proper GLO investigations of the reserves and of 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 12
any administrative procedures exacerbated the situation, thus leaving the reserves closed 

to public use. This led Congress to pass the Organic Act of June 4, 1897. In addition to 

clarifying administrative policies, the Act opened the previously closed reserves to public 

use and provided for their thorough examination. 

At the turn of the century, both the DOI and USDA had forestry divisions that shared 

forestry duties. While Interior administered the forest reserves, Agriculture’s Bureau of 

Forestry focused on gathering data on forests and the scientific aspects of forestry. Yaleeducated Gifford Pinchot, appointed the Chief of the USDA’s Bureau of Forestry in 

1898, advocated the transfer of all forest administration and management duties from 

DOI to the USDA. Pinchot argued that such a move would correct the inefficiency 

experienced by forest users when dealing with the GLO. He also believed that the

unqualified force of politically appointed forest officials must be replaced with 

experienced men who, like himself, received formal education in forestry science and

administration. The official transferal happened on February 1, 1905, and one month 

later, on March 3, the Bureau of Forestry was renamed the United States Forest Service,

effective July 1. 

During this time, the pace of forest reserve expansion accelerated, mostly due to

President Theodore Roosevelt. Always an ally of conservation interests, as well as a 

good friend of Pinchot’s, on May 22, 1902, again through executive proclamation, 

Roosevelt added 5 million acres to the Forest Reserve system in northwest Wyoming and

southern Montana, then redefined the Teton Forest Reserve’s boundaries. Roosevelt 

divided the new Yellowstone Forest Reserve into four divisions: Absaroka, north of

Yellowstone in Montana; Shoshone, east of the park; Teton, which extended south of

Yellowstone almost to Kemmerer; and Wind River, which stretched southeast of the park 

and encompassed most of the Wind River Range. Eight months later on January 29, 

1903, in what can be considered one of the first “consolidations” in Forest Service 

history, Roosevelt merged the Yellowstone and Teton Forest Reserves, modified the 

boundaries, and discontinued the “Teton Forest Reserve” name. 

 

By 1907, controversy over executive proclamations to create these reserves reached its 

zenith. On January 7, President Roosevelt temporarily withdrew an area of timber from 

the public domain in Washington state. Heated public protests and intense lobbying soon 

followed, and became so intense that Roosevelt eventually returned the lands. In 

response, the Congress passed an amendment to the agricultural appropriations bill 

prohibiting presidential creation of national forests in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 

Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. Now only Congress could withdraw lands for 

forests. Just before the bill was signed into law, the crafty Roosevelt created new 

reserves and enlarged existing ones for a total of 16 million additional acres, under the 

justification that he was protecting these forested lands from lumber interests. The law, 

passed on March 4, changed the name of “Forest Reserve” to “National Forest” to shed

popular perceptions that the nation’s forests were closed to public use. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 13
WESTERN WYOMING: HISTORIC AND ECONOMIC SETTING 

Although early Spanish explorers never visited what would become the territory and state 

of Wyoming, early French explorers, trappers, and traders did. According to Wyoming 

historian T.A. Larson, the French, however, never made it as far west as the Bighorn 

Mountains in north central Wyoming. One of the veterans of the Lewis and Clark 

expedition, John Colter, visited northwestern Wyoming and the Yellowstone country 

during the winter of 1807-1808 and later in 1811. Colter’s reports on the area stimulated 

a “rush” of sorts by fur traders into the western portion of the state.7

 

Located in the heart of prime beaver country, in the early nineteenth century the region 

now known as Sublette County witnessed the swift rise and decline of fur trapping and 

trading. The Green River basin was considered a gateway to lands catering to this 

nomadic industry, for beaver trappers and traders prospered because pelts were 

lightweight and commanded prices approaching eight dollars apiece. Yet the beaver pelt 

industry vanished almost as fast as it appeared. By about 1840, when beaver (and other 

fur) felt hats fell out of fashion in European and eastern American markets, so too did the 

beaver and fur trapper.8

 

The fur trapping era, which ran roughly from 1820 to 1840, also produced what was

known as the “Mountain Man” rendezvous, a system of barter and trade commercialism 

started by one William Ashley. After unsuccessful rendezvous attempts in the upper 

Missouri River country, Ashley, with help from such mountain men and explorers like 

Jedediah Smith, Tom Fitzpatrick, and William Sublette, looked to the central Rockies, 

specifically the area around South Pass on the southern edge of the Wind River range. It 

was a good central location; six successful gatherings were held from 1833 to 1840 at the 

juncture of Horse Creek and Green River, near old Fort Bonneville and the town of 

Daniel. In doing so, fur trappers and traders were the first whites to eke a living in this

harsh, uncompromising region of the Rocky Mountain West.9

Once the trapping and trading era faded, along came the westward migration. From 1840 

to 1860, hundreds of thousands of emigrants guided by famous westerners like Jim 

Bridger, made their way west along the Oregon-California-Mormon Trail to perceived 

better lives in Oregon’s farm and California’s gold country. Many also headed to Utah to 

seek freedom from religious persecution. The main route, the Oregon Trail, followed one 

route through present-day Wyoming, until it split into various cutoff routes at South Pass. 

One route that cut through the heart of (future) Sublette and Lincoln Counties was the 

Lander Cutoff, named after engineer Frederick West Lander. One of the last westward 

trails built in the late 1850s—mostly as a faster route for California-bound mail and 

emigrants—Lander’s cutoff stretched 354 miles, connecting South Pass to a point west of 

Fort Hall, Idaho.10 Its role in western Wyoming’s settlement cannot be understated, and 

 

7

 T.A. Larson, History of Wyoming, 2nd ed. rev. (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1978), 8-9. 8

 Carl Ubbelohde, Maxine Benson, and Duane Smith, A Colorado History (Boulder: Pruett, 1972), 33. 9

 Robert G. Rosenberg, Wyoming’s Last Frontier, Sublette County, Wyoming (Glendo, WY: High Plains

Press, 1990), 21-22.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 14
many trail ruts are evident today in the B-T’s southern regions like Snider Basin west of 

Big Piney and Star Valley south of Afton. 

Ruts from the Lander Cutoff of the Oregon Trail are still visible in some sections of the forest, like here at Snider Basin Guard Station west of 

Big Piney. Jim Bailey/USFS photo 

Barely nine years after Lander finished his trail, on June 25, 1868 Wyoming Territory 

was carved out of sections of Dakota, Utah and Idaho territories. With Cheyenne 

appointed as capital, the territory was divided into five huge counties stretching from

north to south: Laramie, Albany, Carbon, Carter (later Sweetwater), and Uinta.11 

Between the 1868 formation of Wyoming Territory and its admission as America’s 44th 

state in 1890, one major event and three major industries took hold and forever changed 

the landscape: the 1872 establishment of America’s first National Park, Yellowstone,

ranching, lumbering, and tourism.

Rumors of a heavily forested thermal wonderland filled with geysers, hot springs, mud 

pots, and wildlife persisted in the minds of Americans since John Colter’s 1810 visit to 

the area. After glowing reports of the 2.2 million acre region by the 1871 Frederick 

Hayden Survey (and intense lobbying by the Northern Pacific Railroad who viewed the 

 10 For more on Lander and his famed cutoff, see ibid., 28-35. 11 For more on Wyoming’s territorial history, see Larson, History of Wyoming , 64-94; Rosenberg, 

Wyoming’s Last Frontier, 37-38. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 15
park as ideal for railroad line expansion and tourism) on March 1, 1872, President 

Ulysses S. Grant signed the Congressional bill for Yellowstone’s establishment.12 

Yellowstone National Park, along with the completion of the Union Pacific Railroad in 

Wyoming’s southern reaches, helped stimulate the settlement and growth of the 

expansive valley immediately south of the park known as Jackson Hole It was not until 

the 1880s, however, that large-scale settlement in the area manifested; this is more due to 

the area’s extreme isolation, lack of improved roads, and distance from railroads than any 

other factor. According to Teton County historian Esther Allan, the first permanent 

settlers came to Jackson Hole in 1883. John Carnes, John Holland, and Mike Detweiler 

all settled on flat lands a few miles north of present day Jackson. Five years later, the 

first “authentic” wagon train carrying five Mormon families arrived from Idaho over

treacherous Teton Pass, then the only western approach to the valley.13 

Other valleys near the future national forest developed around this time, mostly due to 

ranching’s more permanent foothold and the increasing influence of irrigated agriculture

by Mormon settlers. Star Valley near the Wyoming/Idaho border was settled in the late 

1870s and early 1880s by orthodox Mormons fleeing strict anti-polygamy laws in Idaho 

and Utah, laws required before those territories could be admitted as states. A population 

boom ensued. By the turn of the century, Star Valley had been settled by not only 

Utahans and Idahoans, but by Danish, German, Swiss, and English immigrants.14 New

settlers concentrated on livestock raising and establishing a dairy industry. Once this 

took hold, large-scale, short growing season oriented irrigation techniques brought from 

Utah’s Wasatch and Cache valleys bolstered these fledgling industries. To this day, Star 

Valley is noted for its large irrigated ranches and dairy products.15

On the other side of the future forest, in the vast high-plateau region between the 

Wyoming and Wind River ranges that is now Sublette County, both cattle, then later 

sheep raising took hold. These industries, however, were less than harmonious in their 

dealings with each other, for both attempted to maintain supremacy over the other in the 

area. Cattlemen viewed sheep as little more than a locust plague that would overgraze 

the grasses down to the root, thus leaving nothing for cattle to graze on. Conflicts 

ensued, and the cattle raisers—who had powerful backing in Cheyenne from the 

Wyoming Cattlegrowers Association—established arbitrary, territorial “deadlines” in

attempts to keep sheep out of their grazing lands. In 1890, one deadline extended 

(roughly) from East Fork River on the east side of the Green River basin (near Pinedale) 

to the mouth of Fontenelle Creek (near Kemmerer), north to present-day Deadline Ridge 

 

12 Precedent for Yellowstone’s establishment came eight years earlier when the Congress gave Yosemite

Valley and the Mariposa Tree Grove to California. Yellowstone, however, is the first national park because 

it was surrounded by the federally administered territories of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Because of

this, Congress felt the new park should be also federally administered. Yosemite lied within California’s 

boundaries, and was initially given to the state for administrative purposes until its 1890 establishment as a 

national park. 13 Esther Allan, “History of Teton National Forest” n.p., 1989? Manuscript on file in the Archaeologist’s 

Office, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 14 F. Weber Kennington, A History of Star Valley (Salt Lake City: Valley Graphics, 1989), 140. 15 Ibid., 123. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 16
then northwest to the juncture of Greys River-Green River drainage.

16 Sheep that crossed

this line precipitated a number of violent, bloody raids by cattlemen; one raid in June

1895 was especially violent after a few flock owners “crossed the line”: 

The cattlemen attacked each camp, bound and blindfolded the herders and 

methodically clubbed their sheep to death. Equipment was burned, and the 

owners were “escorted” out of the region with little food, a few horses, and their

lives.... A second raid took place in the little Colorado Desert about twenty-five 

miles east of Big Piney...a sheepherder’s wagon was set on fire and rolled down

a hill. Most of the sheep were shot, and the raiders made great sport of how 

many could be killed with one bullet.17

Yet one of the most famous “raids” in what would be the future national forest happened 

in 1902 near the headwaters of Boulder Creek in the Wind River range. In one of the

largest massacres of sheep by local cattle interests, over 2,000 head were slaughtered near 

Raid Lake, and one herder was killed. “Arrests and convictions were rare,” Wyoming 

historian T.A. Larson noted, “because it was almost impossible to identify the masked

men, who were only together briefly before dispersing.”18 

By 1909, however, these range wars between cattle and sheep interests had ended, mostly 

due to sheep raisers forming associations, becoming more organized, and less willing to 

have cattle interests dictate open range grazing limitations. The formal establishment of

the national forest system and the increasing federal presence by rangers on district 

patrols also contributed to the decline of cattle/sheep conflicts. 

The region surrounding the Green River basin also witnessed the mid-to-late nineteenth 

century rise of the timbering industry, specifically the hand-hewn railroad tie. The entire 

region of what would become Sublette County—along with areas to the south and west in 

Lincoln County that drained into the Green River—provided two of the most crucial 

ingredients in the tie-hack and timbering industry: large stands of lodgepole pine perfect 

for cutting and numerous free-flowing streams and rivers perfect for driving. 

This industry began with the late 1860s push of the intercontinental railroad through the 

state’s southern reaches, and lasted until roughly World War II. Tie cutting operations in 

this area, according to Sublette County historian Robert Rosenberg, had “a profound 

effect on the settlement patterns and economy of the Green River region.... Railroad 

crossties were first cut...for the Union Pacific, but in time an enduring industry 

developed, based on the need for periodic tie replacement”19 In addition to ties, tie hacks

also cut wood mine props for coal mines near Evanston and Rock Springs, then floated 

the wood down the Green River to the distribution railhead in the town of Green River. 

 

One notable center of upper Green River valley tie-hacking activity was the Kendall Tie 

Camp. Organized in 1896, and named after Rock Springs banker Augustine Kendall, the 

 

16 Undated, untitled manuscript on the Wind River Mountains located in B-TNF SO files, Jackson. 17 Rosenberg, Wyoming’s Last Frontier, 115. 18 Larson, History of Wyoming, 370. 19 Rosenberg, Wyoming’s Last Frontier, 133. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 17
headquarters for this large camp was located on the east side of the Green River near the 

present-day Kendall Guard Station. Kendall Tie camp consisted of the main area that 

housed the main office, commissary, quarters, and sawmill, while satellite camps in the 

area furnished the lodgepole cuttings. Although the camp ceased operations in 1904, just 

after the formation of the Wind River Division of the Yellowstone Forest Reserve, the 

volume of ties hacked and driven from this area was huge, and had a profound impact on 

the future settlement and economic base of the upper Green River drainage.20 Remnants

of this camp—and its associated cemetery—can be found just southeast of the present 

guard station. 

“Dudes” in the 1920s prepare for horseback riding at the G-P Bar Ranch near Green River 

Lakes. Photo Courtesy Museum of the Mountain Man, Pinedale 

The turn-of-the-century also witnessed the rise of a new tourism based economy, both in 

the future forest’s southern regions and up north in the Teton/Yellowstone country. Early 

settlers in the Jackson Hole country took in wealthy European and eastern hunters who 

had hunted and recreated in the area prior to large-scale settlement. As the southern 

 

20 Ibid., 136-37. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 18
approach to Jackson Hole and Yellowstone became increasingly accessible, local 

ranchers in the upper Green River valley opened their facilities to “dudes,” paying guests 

who wished to live the ranch life without the hard work or seasonal hardships. 

One of the first ranchers to exploit this market was Billy Wells, who came to the upper 

Green River valley from Colorado in 1897. His Gros Ventre Lodge, located at the 

confluence of Tosi Creek and the Green River about four miles north of Kendall, 

consisted of a main lodge, several smaller “dude” cabins, a storeroom, and a bunkhouse 

all constructed with local materials. He centered his business on big game hunting in the

nearby mountains, and profited handsomely from his wealthy English and American 

clientele. Wells’ lodge remained in operation until around 1906, when the State of 

Wyoming reduced hunting seasons to about two months a year. Wells’ success sparked 

other dude ranch operations in the area. B.F. Bondurant started a dude ranch operation 

near Hoback Canyon in 1904, while Irvin Lozier took advantage of Willow Creek’s close 

proximity to the Wind River range to outfit and guide well-paying hunting parties.21 

By 1908, western Wyoming had demonstrated an ability to diversify its growing 

economic base. Ranching and dairy production, cattle and sheep ranching, tie hacking 

and timbering, and the nascent tourism/dude ranching operations all underscored a region 

building an economic foundation that, with few alterations, exists to this day. By this 

time, however, another player had entered the region. The Forest Service would develop 

conservation policies that would regulate the activities of ranchers, recreationists, and 

timber concerns, something these parties were not used to dealing with previously. 

FOREST ADMINISTRATION TO 1908 

Before examining the early history of the Yellowstone Forest Reserve, it is important to

look at how the Forest Service attempted to administer itself in the early years. Effective 

administration of the early forest reserves suffered due to an unclear organizational 

structure and no specific Congressional authority. In 1891, American Forestry Congress 

Secretary Bernhard E. Fernow suggested that a system of administration based on 

Prussian models might work best. This included forest supervisors, rangers on small

districts, and centrally directed inspectors.22 It was not until Congress passed the Organic 

Act on June 4, 1897 that specified forest administration, for it defined the Secretary of the 

Interior’s authority in administering the reserves and clarifying their purposes. 

The DOI administered the reserves, first through the GLO (1891-1901) and through 

Division R, the forestry division (1901-1905). Interior set up a system of superintendents 

who oversaw a state or group of states. In turn, they oversaw supervisors, who were in 

 

21 Ibid., 124-29 22 For a biography on the man considered as America’s first professional forester, see Charles A. Randall, 

“Fernow, the Man Who Brought Forestry to America,” American Forests 70 (April 1964) 14-16, 44, 46. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 19
charge of individual reserves, and Rangers, who were located on districts within the

reserves. Forest Inspectors also visited the reserves to resolve specific issues.23 

Interior’s Division R evolved toward the Prussian model proposed by Fernow and 

supported by Gifford Pinchot. Early on, the system was centralized, with all approvals 

coming from the Washington Office with an emphasis on inspections and reports. 

Starting in 1901, forest supervisors received more responsibility that not only 

compensated for minimal funding, but also contributed to a sense of proprietorship and 

esprit de corps.

24 Decentralization also changed the ratio of administrators. In 1898,

there were eleven superintendents and a few supervisors. By 1904, there were 5 

superintendents and 50 supervisors. 25

The rangers, who were temporary seasonal employees furloughed during the winter, 

became permanent employees. As of 1899, all rangers were furloughed by October 15,

but by 1904 over 40% were year-round employees. The Forest Guard position was 

created for temporary employees, most of whom were charged with detecting fires during 

the summer months. 26 

In 1905, forest reserve administration was transferred from Interior to Agriculture, with 

Gifford Pinchot named as Chief. Pinchot immediately implemented a more efficient 

administrative structure. In an effort to decentralize the Forest Service, in 1906 he

reorganized the field staff into three inspection districts. Headed by Chief Inspectors, 

they were known as the Northern District (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and 

Minnesota), the Southern District (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nebraska, and 

Oklahoma), and the Western District (Washington, Oregon California, and Alaska). 

A year later, in 1907, the three districts were reconfigured into six districts, eventually 

renamed “regions” to avoid confusion with smaller ranger districts (the reconfiguration 

was effective January 1, 1908; they were not renamed “regions” until 1929). District 

Four, headquartered in Salt Lake City with Raymond Benedict as Chief Inspector, 

included western Wyoming’s Yellowstone Forest Reserve. With Roosevelt appointee 

A.A. Anderson as superintendent, division headquarters for the reserve included Jackson 

for the Teton Division, supervised by Robert E. Miller, and Kendall/Pinedale for the 

Wind River Division, supervised by Zeph Jones.27 

 

23 Thomas G. Alexander, The Rise of Multiple-Use Management in the Intermountain West: A History of

Region 4 of the Forest Service USDA Publication FS-399 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1987), 20-21. 24 Donn E. Headley, The Cooperation Imperative: Relationships Between Early Forest Administration and 

the Southern California Metropolis, 1892-1908,” in The Origins of the National Forest: A Centennial

Symposium, ed. Harold K. Steen (Durham, NC: Forest History Society, 1992), 222; Harold K. Steen, The 

U.S. Forest Service: A History (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1991), 77. 25 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 21. 26 Ibid. 27 Source: Table listed in Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 35. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 20
FOREST OFFICERS 

In the summer of 1898, the GLO employed the first forest officers, most of whom were 

political appointees.

28 The typical ranger was male, of Northern European descent with 

practical experience from working or growing up on a farm or ranch. He carried out his 

ranger duties as a secondary job while continuing to operate a farm or business. Many 

were illiterate, and relied upon fellow rangers to write reports and letters.29 The ranger

provided his own equipment, horse, tack, food, tent, and other items for the job. In 

winter, rangers were usually laid off, and forest supervisors were demoted to rangers and 

often furloughed.30 In 1904, as the workload increased, several rangers received 

upgrades from temporary employee status to year round staff.31 

When the USDA assumed reserve administration in 1905, Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot 

implemented numerous changes. One change was a major shift in hiring practices. He 

viewed the system of political employees under a corrupt GLO with disdain and set about 

correcting this by increasing the level of professionalism and dedication. A major policy 

shift was the requirement that rangers and supervisors pass a two-part Civil Service 

exam. The written portion took two to three hours to complete, while the practical 

portion tested a potential ranger’s skills in horsemanship, packing, using a compass, 

elementary surveying, shooting, and tree cutting. These tests resulted in a more qualified 

work force and eliminated political nepotism. Former ranger Charlie Bayer, hired on by 

Yellowstone Forest Reserve Wind River Division Supervisor Zeph Jones, talks about his 

first day: 

When I reported for duty, I found I had to furnish a saddle and pack horses, my

tent, axes, and shovels I looked into the well-stocked room just of Zeph’s office

and asked, “can I have an axe and shovel from there?” “No, you can’t,” he

retorted. “I’m saving all that for a real forest fire.” Then he relented somewhat

and...offered me a couple of canvas water buckets to put out small fires. 32 

In 1905, Pinchot also redesigned The Forest Reserve Manual of 1902 that had been 

issued to new forest rangers. Designed to fit in a shirt pocket, the 142-page Use Book

contained all the regulations and instructions a ranger needed for his duties. It outlined 

administrative procedures and policies regarding timber and water management, mining, 

farming, construction, and grazing on the forest reserves. 

Pinchot further defined the administrative structure by clarifying certain positions and 

duties. The 1905 Use Book identified the hierarchy of field officers starting with the 

 

28 Gerald Williams, “Administrative Units and Reorganization Efforts,“ History Line (Summer 1994), 19. 29 Arthur Carhart, Timber in Your Life (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1955), 82. 30 Ralph Hartley and James Schneck, Administering the National Forests of Colorado: An Assessment of 

the architectural and Cultural Significance of Historical Administrative Properties (Lincoln: NPS Midwest 

Archeological Center, 1996), 8. 31 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 21. 32 “Early Days as a Forest Ranger, as Told by Charlie Bayer,” news clipping dated July 8, 1965, p.1. 

Found in scrapbook “Historical Information Book 4, Bridger National Forest,” Office of the Archeologist, 

B-TNF SO, Jackson.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 21
Forest Inspector, followed by Assistant Forest Inspector, Forest Supervisor, Deputy 

Forest Supervisor, Forest Assistant, Forest Ranger, Deputy Forest Ranger, Assistant 

Forest Ranger, and Forest Guard. The manual explained that the forest inspectors had, 

through training and experience, great familiarity with forest reserve business. His duties

included providing advice to forest officers, inspecting and reporting on the reserves, and 

making recommendations to improve reserve management. 

The Use Book stated that forest supervisors were men promoted from the position of

Forest Ranger or Assistant and were to be residents of the state in which the reserve was 

located. According to the 1907 public guide The Use of the National Forests: 

The Supervisor has direct charge of a National Forest. He runs all the business

upon it and is responsible for the work and efficiency of the force under him. 

From training and experience he must be thoroughly familiar with western

conditions. To do the work he must be sound in body, fit to endure a hard and 

rough outdoor life. He must be able to handle men well and deal wisely with all

kinds of people. The business requires him to have a good working knowledge 

of timber and lumbering, the live-stock industry, the land laws, and ordinary

office work. His position is a very responsible one, for he manages a public 

estate worth many millions of dollars. At present, supervisors are paid from 

$1,500 to $3,000 a year, and are reimbursed for actual living expenses when on 

field duty away from their headquarters.33

The Forest Assistant was to have “technical qualifications of high order” with formal

training in forestry and lumbering. He could be placed on any reserve throughout the 

country with the primary purpose of providing technical support. 

No one personality has received as much attention in historical accounts as the Forest 

Ranger. An aura of romance and myth surrounded early rangers, who were truly field 

men blazing new trails as they managed the country’s forests. These men were required 

to be “thoroughly sound and able-bodied, capable of enduring hardships and of 

performing sever labor under trying conditions. To discourage slackers and recreation

seekers, the Use Book clearly stated that “invalids seeking light out-of-door employment

need not apply.”34 The ranger was also prohibited from holding other jobs, mostly 

because he had enough responsibilities: 

The rangers are the men who carry out the work on the ground. They are directly 

under the Supervisor. They must thoroughly know the country, its conditions, 

and its people. They live in the Forests, often in localities far from settlement 

and sources of supply. The Ranger must be able to take care of himself and his 

horses under very trying conditions; build trails and cabins; ride all day and 

night; pack, shoot and fight fire without losing his head. He must know a great 

deal about the timber of the country and how to estimate it; he must be familiar 

with lumbering and the sawmill business, the handling of live stock, mining, and 

the land laws. All this requires a very vigorous constitution. It means the hardest 

kind of physical work from beginning to end. It is not a job for those seeking

 

33 USDA Forest Service, The Use of the National Forests (n.p.: 1907), 32. 34 USDA, The Use Book (1906), 148-49.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 22
health or light outdoor work. Rangers are now paid from $900-$1,500 a year. 

They have to furnish and feed their own horses. The government builds them 

cabins to live in and fences pastures to keep their stock in.35

The hardiness of these rangers is evident in a description of a 1905 trip that Teton 

Division Ranger Clarence Woods took as he investigated a coal company that was 

reportedly cutting mine props without a permit near Kemmerer: 

First, he crossed from Jackson over Teton Pass into the Teton Basin where his

horses wintered and brought them back to Jackson. He expected to ride his horse

southerly along the Hoback River to Kemmerer,* then up Hams Fork to the 

trespass area. Along the Hoback, he found the snow so deep that he had to ride

in the river through much of the canyon. He spent one night in lower Hoback 

Basin and started out the next day on crusted snow. By the time he reached the

upper end of the basin, the crust was too soft to support his horse. He left the 

horse on a grassy southern slope and walked ten miles to a ranch where he had 

dinner. He expected the snow to crust over during the night, so he went back for 

the horse. The crust was still too weak, so he left the horse again and walked

eighteen miles to Horse Creek Ranger Station. He met with Ranger Dick Smith 

and the two decided to ski the remaining sixty miles to Kemmerer. After several

days of travel they lost the trail. Then they followed a drainage to a ranch where 

they hired some horses which they [rode] on to Kemmerer.36

After investigating the coal company, Woods returned to Jackson: 

Then, since he was without transportation, he walked for two and half days to the 

South Cottonwood Ranger Station, borrowed a horse from the Ranger, then

returned to Jackson by the way of Hoback Basin where he picked up the horse he 

had left. He reported at the end that he “reached Jackson, none the worse for the

trip.”37

Early Forest Rangers were often in charge of more than one ranger district. They

answered directly to the Forest Supervisor and had authority over Deputy and Assistant 

Rangers, as well as the Forest Guards. Upon reporting for work, the new ranger received 

some equipment such as a marking hatchet to stamp timber, pencils, stationery, a scale 

rule, and the Use Book to guide his work. In the Forest Service’s first few years, the 

ranger’s work consisted of posting forest boundaries and classifying land by use. Upon 

Pinchot’s orders, supervisors delegated more work to the rangers. This made the ranger 

feel responsible for his area and taught the public to go to the ranger rather than the 

supervisor. 

 

35 USDA, The Use of the National Forests, 33. 36 Thomas G. Alexander, “Reflections on the Heritage of Region 4, 1988(?)” TMS Photocopy, Wells and 

Elko Offices, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service. * To follow the Hoback River 

south to Kemmerer is a geographic impossibility, for the Hoback runs northwest to the Snake, not south. 37 Ibid. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 23
In 1902, the service created the Forest Guard position to assist with the increasing field 

season workload. 38 By 1906, the service hired more Forest Guards when there were no 

qualified rangers who had passed the civil service exam, or when work was needed for 

less than six months. Guards had the same powers and duties as assistant forest rangers. 

And upon passing the Civil Service exam, guards could be promoted to rangers as 

positions became available. 

In the early years, the Forest Service found itself with a shortage of qualified men. A 

1907 recruitment effort described the work as ideal “for those who like a hard active life 

in the open.” 39 Although the salaries were low, there was potential for advancement

within the service. Applicants had to be residents in the state or territory in which the 

reserve was located, be between 21 to 40 years old, and of course pass the Civil Service

exam.

40 Yet salaries rose little over the years. In 1905, a ranger made $900 per year, 

and rose very little over the following years. In 1920, the salary was $1,100—the same

as in 1910. Many could not tolerate the meager pay and hard work; during a fourteen 

month period in 1918-1919, 460 technical foresters resigned to take jobs that paid nearly 

170 percent more than their Forest Service salaries.41 

Nevertheless, most forest officers developed a sense of land proprietorship as they

accomplished a great deal with limited manpower and funds. They examined and 

mapped millions of acres, built ranger stations, roads, and trails, and initiated 

management policies.42 Rangers lived on or near the forests and became important 

members of the community. The type of work and decentralization contributed to a high 

degree of camaraderie and dedication among forest officers. Gifford Pinchot knew what 

he was doing, and even required annual ranger meetings to give his rangers “the benefit 

of each other’s experience, to keep them in touch with the entire work of the reserve, and 

to promote esprit de corps in the service.”43

YELLOWSTONE FOREST RESERVE: THE EARLY YEARS 

Not many records exist on the operations and management of the immense Yellowstone 

Forest Reserve before its 1908 division into separate national forests. Furthermore, since 

no comprehensive history of the forest exists, most of the existing records or “histories”

are reminisces written or recorded decades after the fact. Some ranger stations mentioned 

earlier like Horse Creek and South Cottonwood do not even exist anymore. One fact is 

sure: no administrative buildings currently used on the B-T were built before the early 

1900s; the oldest buildings still standing are the office of early Blackrock/Buffalo District 

Ranger Rudolph Rosencrans, located behind the Buffalo District Office near Moran, built 

 

38 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 21. 39 USDA, The Use of the National Forests, 33. 40 Ibid., 34. 41 Steen, The U.S. Forest Service, 82, 142. 42 Ibid., 85. 43 USDA, The Use Book (1906), 151. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 24
in 1904, and the Elk Creek Guard/Ranger Station north of Kemmerer, built in 1914. Both

are single-cell log structures currently used as interpretive sites.

44 

In 1904, the entire area that comprised the drainage of Jackson Hole, Teton Basin, Swan 

and Star Valleys, the Hoback Basin, Greys River, and the lower Green River basin 

drainage was known as the Teton Division of the Yellowstone Forest Reserve. The 

supervisor’s office for this immense area was located at Elk, Wyoming, approximately 

twelve miles north of Jackson. Three men supervised the division from 1902 until 1907,

and each had an office at his primary place of residence. Charles “Pap” Deloney and 

W.A. Thompson were the first; Deloney maintained his office at his Jackson store, while 

Thompson’s office was located at his Elk ranch house. In 1903, Robert Miller became

Supervisor, and like Thompson, housed his office at his ranch one mile north of Jackson 

(near the current Elk Refuge).45

Of the three, only Deloney’s life has been documented. A Civil War veteran, he came

west to Wyoming after the war seeking adventure. As an experienced lumberman of 

French-Canadian descent, Deloney helped organize and run one of the first tie drives

down the Green River for the Union Pacific Railroad’s construction. In 1870 he settled 

in Evanston as one of the town’s founders, and fathered ten children. Deloney eventually 

served in the territorial legislature as a Representative, then as a Uinta County Senator 

(back when the county stretched from Utah to Montana). In the late 1890s, Deloney and 

his family moved north, and in 1899 started a business in the young town of Jackson. 

Appointed by Yellowstone Forest Reserve Superintendent A.A. Anderson, Deloney 

pioneered the nascent profession of forest supervision. He died in 1925.46

On the reserve’s other side was the Wind River Division, which comprised most of the 

upper Green River valley and all of the Wind River Mountains. The Supervisor’s office 

was established in 1903 in a log cabin near the Kendall tie camp (on the present guard 

station’s grounds) near the Green River’s headwaters. The Supervisor was Zeph Jones, 

an experienced forester who, tired of the isolation of Kendall, insisted on moving his

office to the one-year-old town of Pinedale: 

I have lived at this [place] now for nearly two years, having my office in a

building erected at my own expense and my family living in an old building 

formerly belonging to the Green River Lumber and Tie Company, which is a 

pretty hard proposition. The moving of my headquarters to Pinedale will give the 

business the advantage of daily mail, Notary Public, some association for my

family, and a school for my children.47 

 

44 Elk Creek Guard Station is significant in that it has never been moved from its original location, while 

Rosencrans’ Old Blackrock Office has been moved twice to be used as a “mobile” interpretive site. For

more on Elk Creek and Rosencrans, see Les Joslin, Uncle Sam’s Cabins: A Visitor’s Guide to Historic U.S. 

Forest Service Ranger Stations of the West (Bend, OR: Wilderness Associates: 1995), 122-125, 137. 45 Undated news release, History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 46 Undated Deloney bio found in scrapbook “Historical Information Book 4, Bridger National Forest,” 

Office of the Archeologist, B-TNF SO, Jackson (hereafter Bridger Scrapbook #4) 47 Letter from Zeph Jones to “The Forester, Washington D.C.,” April 21, 1905, History Files, B-TNF SO, 

Jackson. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 25
Acting Forester Overton Price granted Jones $360 for the work needed to construct the 

Pinedale office.48

TRANSITION: RUDOLPH “ROSIE” ROSENCRANS 

Perhaps the most colorful and hardest working ranger during this time and well into the 

next couple decades was Rudolph W. “Rosie” Rosencrans, appointed by Superintendent 

A.A. Anderson in 1904 as the first ranger to map, survey, and patrol the area soon to be 

known as the Buffalo Ranger District of the Teton National Forest. Born in Austria in 

1875 to the country’s Chief Forester, and orphaned at age six, Rosencrans went to live

with his sister in Bohemia, where he learned horsemanship, shooting and mountaineering. 

Skilled in mathematics and languages, he soon graduated from the University of Vienna. 

He then joined the Austrian Navy, where he learned navigation. Injured during a 

typhoon, Rosencrans debarked his ship in San Francisco to seek treatment. Instead of 

returning, however, Rosencrans headed west to be with an aunt and uncle in Butte, 

Montana, then began to frequent the Jackson Hole country in the early 1900s.49 

Rudolph “Rosie” Rosencrans, 1924. USFS Photo 

After he and Ranger John Alsop built the one-room Blackrock Ranger Station in 1904, 

then around 1915 his house, barn, and other structures, Rosie began patrolling a radius of 

about 25-40 miles in all directions by horse, ski, or snowshoe. His was a busy life, one

typical of a ranger during this time: 

 

48 Overton Price to Zeph Jones, May 13, 1905, History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 49 USDA Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, “Rudolph Rosencrans, First Ranger on the Buffalo 

District,” informational brochure at Buffalo Ranger District Office, Moran.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 26
[He] counted game, issued grazing permits; checked on hunters and trappers 

looking for poachers; built cabins, bridges and fences; constructed culverts and 

drainage ditches; cut his firewood; sharpened his tools; put out forest fires;

rescued the lost and injured and recovered bodies; marked boundaries for the new 

agricultural boundary; made not only his own but skis and snowshoes for others; 

made long trips to Jackson and distant parts of his district on skis in the winter;

drew maps of the area; posted the trails which he built and did all the other things 

that needed doing. 50

Perhaps his greatest accomplishments were his detailed district maps. Working with no 

maps, Rosie used his excellent technical and mathematical skills to survey and draw the

first detailed maps of the region. Documents of exacting detail, the Jackson Hole Courier

in 1949 praised them as “models of accuracy and unexcelled draftsmanship.” 51 

One example of a hand-drawn map (in this case, the Blackrock area) by Ranger Rosencrans. Courtesy USFS 

Although still strong in his mid-50s, in 1928 failing eyesight forced Rosencrans into early 

retirement. Many close to this pioneer ranger of the Yellowstone Plateau and Jackson 

Hole regions, as well as historian Les Joslin, speculate that Rosie lost his eyesight due to 

drawing his intricate maps under dim lighting, or perhaps years of working in sun and 

snow glare without protection. Always a loner, he lived in Jackson for 42 more years 

until his 1970 death at the age of 94. He was eventually laid to rest at a grave 

overlooking the Buffalo Fork River, now within the confines of the National Historic 

District that bears his name.

52

 

50 Allan, Teton National Forest, n.p. 51 Quote from Joslin, Uncle Sam’s Cabins, 123. 52 Ibid. Enrolled in 1980, the Rosencrans Cabin Historic District includes his house, garage, storage shed, 

barn, and his grave—but not his Old Blackrock Ranger Station., more than likely because it was sitting in

front of the Supervisor’s Office in Jackson (from 1969 to 1991) as an mobile interpretive site. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 27
Ranger Rosencrans was a significant personality in the forest’s early years as the 

Yellowstone Forest Reserve, then in 1908 as the reserve was abolished and broken up 

into some of America’s first National Forests. He exemplified Gifford Pinchot’s vision 

of the college-educated ranger, yet someone with significant outdoor knowledge and the 

intuitive instincts that only this knowledge can produce. As America’s National Forests 

grew in the next two decades, the Forest Service sought out men like Rosencrans, hard 

working, dedicated, versatile, disciplined, tough outdoorsmen—with the formal education 

needed to make them complete, professional administrators of America’s forests. In this 

sense, Rosie was a transitional figure in American conservation history as the Forest 

Reserves evolved into National Forests and as the workforce became more professional. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 28
CHAPTER TWO: 1908-1929, THE PROGRESSIVES, EARLY 

INTERWAR 

HISTORICAL SETTING 

The two decades from 1908 to 1929 witnessed positive and tragic trends and events in 

American History. This period is commonly referred to as the “Progressive Era,” mostly

for its political and economic reforms and social justice movements.53 The

implementation of labor laws, the women’s suffrage movement, expanded higher 

education, banking and credit reforms, and early civil rights efforts are all benchmark 

positive trends of the Progressive Era. On the other hand, negative events such as World

War I, the worldwide influenza epidemic, the “Red” scare, Prohibition, the Ku Klux 

Klan’s rise in politics, and the 1929 Wall Street crash contrast positive gains. 

It is also an era of major technological achievements fueled by the implications of 

science-influenced technology and increased industrial efficiency. The introduction of 

the first mass-produced assembly line car, the Model-T Ford (1909), the completion of 

the Panama Canal (1914), the first commercial radio broadcast (1920), and the first 

feature-length talking movie (1927) forever changed American social culture. Significant 

technological advances immediately preceding and during World War I also altered the 

military landscape. The invention of the tank, the rapid-fire machine gun, chemical 

warfare, and the airplane’s first use as a reconnaissance and combat weapon forever 

changed military tactics and logistics. No previous war in American History had 

witnessed such a marked rise in military hardware and technology. 

World War I had an effect on the Forest Service as employees joined the armed forces

and fewer people were available for the increasing workload. Between April 6, 1917, 

when the United States formally declared war on Germany, and August 23 of the same

year, seventeen Region Four employees enlisted in military service. A regional 

newsletter reported: 

...nine have been commissioned as officers or enlisted in the Forest Regiment;

three have applied for admission to and been accepted for the Second Officer’s 

Reserve Corps Training Camp at the Presidio, San Francisco, California; four

have been called into the National Army; and one has enlisted in the Second 

Idaho Infantry.

54

Those men who remained with the Forest Service were requested to report alien enemies 

and terrain intelligence. 

 

53 Although past interpretations of American history refer to the “Progressive Era” as the period from

c.1890 to the end of World War I, contemporary interpretations push Progressivism into the early thirties, 

mostly because many Progressive Era reformist-related trends and policies did not fully mature until the 

late 1920s and early 1930s with the New Deal—in philosophy and practice an extension of progressivism. 54 “The Intermountain Review Ranger,” 1, no. 9 (September 10, 1917), 14. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 29
The years following the “Great War” are characterized by increasing affluence fueled by

industrial expansion and technological advancements. Much like the pre-war years, the 

Progressive credo of increased efficiency remained in the spotlight. These advancements 

manifested in the average American home, which acquired telephones, plastic products, 

radios, modern bathrooms and kitchen appliances, and electricity. Advances like these 

were not lost on the Forest Service. The agency promoted telephone usage to improve

communications, particularly in fire-prone areas, and increasingly provided electricity

and modern bathroom upgrades in many of its permanent facilities. Former 

Wyoming/Bridger National Forest District Ranger Ed Cazier remembers the stringing

and maintaining of telephone wires to various administrative facilities, especially to fire 

lookout stations, as common work for seasonal and temporary employees both during and 

after the war years.55

The automobile’s rise to prominence in American culture had a significant impact both 

around the country and in the Forest Service. With the advent of this convenient 

conveyance—and the increasing improvement of highways and roads in general—some

forest officers used their personal vehicles to conduct business, then were reimbursed for 

mileage. Former Bridger National Forest District Ranger (later Pinedale Justice of the

Peace) Harmon Shannon recalled how the Supervisor’s Office constantly “fussed” with 

him to hold his mileage down.56 

Due to the rugged nature of the work terrain, however, the Forest Service was slow to 

adopt vehicles as the main mode of transportation. Some surplus vehicles were

transferred to the agency after the war, but as of 1921, the Region Four headquarters had 

no more than two or three trucks while individual forests had none.57 And although 

forest officials continued to rely on horses to conduct their business, automobiles 

eventually altered the way forests were used and managed. 

Increased recreational, mineral, and timber use led to a road construction boom in the 

1920s. This infrastructure improvement provided rangers with easier access to larger 

areas and, consequently, their districts were consolidated or enlarged. Now the ranger 

could operate from a nearby town, which led to the conversion of year-round ranger 

stations in rural areas to seasonal guard stations. 

 LAND ADJUSTMENTS: RESERVES TO FORESTS 

The years prior to 1920 saw numerous changes to the configurations, sizes, and numbers 

of western Wyoming’s national forests. The first significant move happened on July 1, 

1908, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed Executive Orders 872, 873, and 874, 

 

55 Forest Service History Series, interview with S. Edwin (Ed) Cazier by Arnold R. Standing, May 31, 

1965, p.3, History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson (hereafter Cazier interview). 56 “Bridger History Notes,” interview with Harmon Shannon by unnamed, 1965, n.p. History Files, BTNF SO, Jackson (hereafter Shannon interview). 57 Henry M. Shank, “Forty-Six Years Ago—and Later,” in The History of Engineering in the Forest

Service, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1990), 183. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 30
which abolished the huge, difficult to administer Yellowstone Forest Reserve in favor of 

smaller, separately administered units renamed Teton, Wyoming, and Bonneville 

“National Forests.” The former Teton Division of the Yellowstone Forest Reserve was 

now split into the Teton National Forest in the northern half, while the southwestern 

section of the reserve that included Afton and Kemmerer became known as the Wyoming 

National Forest. The reserve’s former Wind River Division was renamed the Bonneville 

National Forest, and was subsequently transferred (for a short time) to District Two. The 

reserve’s far northern and eastern sections became the Absaroka (later Gallatin), and 

Shoshone National Forests, and were also transferred out of District Four into Districts 

One and Two.58 

These moves dovetailed with a general decentralization trend to split large forests into 

smaller administrative units. As the first Chief Inspector of District Four, Raymond E. 

Benedict sought to increase administrative efficiency by placing smaller forests under a 

single supervisor and splitting up some of the larger ones.59 In western Wyoming, travel 

over varied, rugged landscapes with very few improved roads had much to do with this 

reorganization. Smaller administrative units were generally reshaped and redefined with 

consideration to topography and how far a ranger could travel on horseback in a one to 

two day cycle. 

The 1911 Weeks Act influenced future reconfigurations. In addition to forming some

kind of national fire policy, this act authorized cooperation between the Forest Service 

and states to protect watersheds through the purchase of lands along headwaters. This

attention to watersheds, as part of fire protection, resulted in the adjustment of forest

boundaries. Many boundaries set along rivers before 1911 were changed to ridgelines or 

mountaintops, thus allowing a drainage area to be administered as one unit.60 

Land exchanges also contributed to forest reconfigurations, as Richard Boerker explained

in 1918: 

There has also been a great need for consolidating the National Forest lands 

where these were interspersed with private or state lands. Congress has 

recognized this need and from time to time has granted authority to exchange

lands with private owners or States where such an exchange would be

advantageous to the Government through the recent consolidation of holdings.

Thus by getting government lands into a more compact body their administration

and protection are materially facilitated in many ways. Before any exchange is 

made it must be ascertained that the land in which the Government is to receive 

has equal value with that relinquished, also that the land is chiefly valuable for 

the production of timber and the protection of stream flow.61

 

58 “Establishment and Modification of National Forest Boundaries, A Chronologic Record 1891-1959” 

(Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Division of Engineering, 1959), 21-22. 59 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple-Use Management, 34. 60 Gerald Williams, “Administrative Units and Reorganization Efforts,” History Line (Summer 1994), 19. 61 Richard H.D. Boerker, Our National Forests, (New York: McMillan, 1918), 63. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 31
To counteract accusations that the government was withholding valuable land, the agency 

examined forest lands for agricultural potential. If the agency judged lands as best suited 

for agriculture or unsuited for forest usage, they were eliminated from the forest or

opened for homestead entry, as per the 1862 Homestead Act. Between 1912 and 1917, 

over 127 million acres had been examined and classified, with twelve million acres 

eliminated from the nation’s forests.62 On the other hand, Congress passed legislation 

that supported additions to the forests. The Clark-McNary act of 1924 broadened the

authorization for purchasing forested, cutover, or denuded lands within watersheds, while 

the Woodruff-McNary Act of 1928 provided additional funds for land purchases. 

WYOMING NATIONAL FOREST

On July 1, 1908, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 873 creating the Wyoming 

National Forest. This 976,320-acre unit consisted of the mid- to far-southern sections of 

the old Yellowstone Forest Reserve‘s Teton Division. The new northeastern boundary 

bisected the Wyoming Range ridge southeast along Grayback Ridge. Following ridge 

lines, the boundary then zigzagged along a line across Deadman Peak, then east through 

Lookout and Hoback Peaks then along the north fork of the Middle Beaver Creek 

drainage north of Merna. Sometime before 1925, the smaller Gannett Hills addition was 

added to the forest southwest of Smoot. With few minor adjustments, this boundary 

essentially remained unchanged until this unit’s 1973 consolidation with the much larger 

Teton National Forest. 

Upon the forest’s creation, the community of Afton was chosen for the supervisor’s 

headquarters. The move, however, was not without incident: 

While transporting this Forest office from Jackson to Afton on one pack mule, 

the animal decided that the office should be located in the Grays [sic] River and

proceeded to capsize his load, including himself, into the waters of the stream, 

from which neither one of them ever again made their appearance. 63 

Not much is known about this forest’s early years. Except for assorted homestead claims

filed as a result of the Weeks Act, early records are non-existent, as are biographies on 

the forest’s early supervisors. Even Bridger National Forest Supervisor William A. Worf 

recognized in the early 1960s that all photos, clippings, and records “must all be put 

down as forest history.” Unfortunately, other than inconsistent, hastily composed 

“History of ______” documents and scrapbooks assembled after Worf’s informal

directive, this was never accomplished.64

 

62 Ibid., 62. 63 “History of the Forest Offices of the Wyoming National Forest,” undated press release for opening of

new federal building in Kemmerer, 1936. History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 64 William A. Worf to “All Forest Personnel,” May 19, 1964, History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 32
The aforementioned forest homestead applications do provide insight as to who 

supervised the Wyoming National Forest while the SO was located in a private home in 

Afton. One October 1912 application carried the signature of Forest Supervisor James

Jewell, while another application dated November 1914 had the signature of one Charles 

Beam as Acting Forest Supervisor.65 Supervisor Worf did list (in his letter noted above) 

one John Raphael as Jewell’s predecessor, Jewell as Supervisor from 1910 to 1915, and 

Beam as his successor to 1921, a couple years before the Wyoming absorbed the Bridger 

forest and the SO moved from Afton to Kemmerer. No diaries or reminisces can be 

located on these early administrators. 

Districts and personnel are even fuzzier, especially before 1920, the date of the first 

(available) Forest Service directory. A 1920 directory lists the Wyoming as having six 

districts, Kelly, Snider Basin, Sherman, Hoback, Afton, and Smoot. With Beam as

Supervisor, the office staffed a deputy forest supervisor, lumberman, and clerk, with 

district rangers at each district. No other personnel are listed.66 Ten years later, in 1929,

C.E Favre was listed as Supervisor, and Milo Deming as his assistant, along with two 

technical assistants and a clerk. The five districts had changed to Big Piney, Sherman, 

Bedford, Cokeville, and Afton, with each having its own district ranger.67 

BONNEVILLE / BRIDGER NATIONAL FORESTS 

The creation of what would eventually be known as the Bridger National Forest was not

as clear-cut as the Wyoming or the Teton. The same day that President Roosevelt created 

the Wyoming National Forest out of the abolished Yellowstone Forest Reserve, he signed

Executive Order 874 creating the Bonneville National Forest, with the supervisor’s

headquarters in Pinedale. This expansive 1,627,840-acre unit consisted of all of the old 

preserve’s Wind River Division, including the Green River, Wind River, and Sweetwater 

drainages, on both sides of the Continental Divide.

68 

Three years later, on June 30, 1911, the 393,950-acre Washakie National Forest was 

established from part of the Bonneville, all on the east side of the Continental Divide. At 

the same time, parts of the Bonneville were eliminated to establish the Bridger and 

Washakie National Forests; the proclamation listed Bridger acreage as 577,850. Now the 

forest was divided into three separate administrative forest/units, Bonneville, Bridger, 

and Washakie. One glance at a map, however, would illustrate a nightmare to administer. 

 

65 Original homestead applications found in “Historical Information Book 4, Bridger National Forest,” 

Office of the Archaeologist, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 66 USDA Forest Service, “Service Directory, 1920,” s.v. “Wyoming-Bridger.” Although the Wyoming and 

Bridger did not officially combine until 1923, evidence here points to administrative consolidation already 

underway. Afton was too far distant to be an effective administrative location for the Wind Rivers;

Kemmerer is much closer. 67 USDA Forest Service, “Service Directory, 1929,” s.v. “Wyoming.” 68 “Establishment and Modification of National Forest Boundaries,” 22, 35, 36, 42; Richard C Davis, ed. 

Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History, Vol. II, Appendix I, “The National Forests of

the United States,” s.v. “Bonneville,” “Bridger,” “Washakie.” 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 33
No documents explaining this name and land-shuffling exist. One possible explanation, 

although conjecture, is the rugged nature of this land and the presence of the Continental 

Divide affected how administrators viewed the efficient management of these forest 

lands. The Bonneville National Forest consisted of the entire Wind River Mountain and 

Gros Ventre ranges, on both sides of the divide. Since the divide (currently) separates 

Regions Two (Rocky Mountain) and Four (Intermountain), perhaps a political power play 

erupted over who would administer this forest. The Washakie’s establishment took most 

of the Bonneville’s lands on the Atlantic, or eastern side of the Continental Divide in the 

Wind Rivers—a 1925 Wyoming National Forest map corroborates this fact. 

Yet according to a chart in Thomas Alexander’s Region Four history, one year after the 

Bonneville’s creation, in 1909, the entire forest was transferred to Rocky Mountain

District Two. The mystery deepens; two pages previous in Alexander’s history is a 1908 

map that defines District Four, and it shows the district’s eastern boundary situated well 

east of the Bonneville National Forest and the Continental Divide, almost as far east as

Buffalo. On page 102 is another 1943 map of Region Four’s redefined (mostly in 

northern Arizona and eastern Utah) boundaries, and it shows the regional boundary in 

eastern Wyoming running right down the Continental Divide. No explanation is given 

for this discrepancy.69 

One possible explanation is that this land shuffle was an effort for District Four to

redefine its eastern boundary in Wyoming with regard to efficient management, and the 

Continental Divide provided a logical dividing line. The Wind Rivers are a formidable 

barrier filled with high mountains, ravines, canyons, and glaciers; there are no auto roads 

or passes throughout its entire 100-mile length from Union Pass west of Dubois to South 

Pass east of Farson. To split the Bonneville into separate forests divided by the 

Continental Divide—then redefine the regional boundaries—made sense in an era where 

efficiency was central to the Progressive mindset. 

This happened on June 30, 1916, when Congress set definitive boundaries. Washakie 

National Forest lands on the western side of the divide were transferred to the Bridger, 

while what lands remained of the Bonneville National Forest were transferred to the 

Washakie. The name “Bonneville” was dropped forever from the annals of forest 

history. Boundaries were clarified: the Continental Divide separated the Washakie 

National Forest on the north and east sides of the divide, while the Bridger National 

Forest occupied the entire west and south sides. The Bridger’s administrative offices 

remained in Pinedale.70 

Yet the Bridger National Forest, at least in name, was temporary. On May 14, 1923, the 

entire Bridger National Forest was transferred to the Wyoming National Forest, with the

 

69 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple-Use Management, 36, 38, 102. 70 “Establishment and Modification of National Forest Boundaries,” 42; Encyclopedia of American Forest

and Conservation History, Vol. II, Appendix I, “The National Forests of the United States,” s.v.

“Bonneville,” “Bridger,” and “Washakie.” 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 34
Bridger name being dropped (until 1941, when it returned for good). Now they were 

both known as the Wyoming National Forest—west and east sections—with the 

supervisor’s office being moved from Afton to a more centralized location within the

Lincoln County Court house in Kemmerer. The supervisor’s office would remain in 

Kemmerer until the 1973 Bridger and Teton consolidation, when it moved to Jackson.

71 

Much like the Wyoming National Forest, not much is known about the 

Bonneville/Bridger’s early administrators. This is mostly due to the fact that no one 

pieced together even the most basic history beyond informal scrapbooks. The former

Supervisor of the Yellowstone Forest Reserve’s Wind River Division—essentially the 

Bonneville—was Zeph Jones (see chapter one). Not much is known about Jones, except 

that he was the Bonneville’s first administrator upon its creation. Jones had only fifteen 

rangers and assistants working with him to help improve this nearly two million acre,

difficult-to-travel reserve, helping string telephone lines and improving trails.72

Jones remained in Pinedale until his successor, H. Earl French, assumed supervisory 

duties. He remained in office until 1916, and was succeeded by Lee Cooper, the first 

Bridger National Forest Supervisor. Cooper remained in Pinedale until 1921, when

Charles Beam assumed duties as Supervisor. He stayed in office until the Bridger’s 1923 

consolidation with the Wyoming National Forest, which was administered by C.E. Favre 

out of the Kemmerer Supervisor’s Office. Favre remained as Wyoming National Forest 

Supervisor until 1936.73 

Much like the Wyoming National Forest, districts and personnel are fuzzy before 1920. 

A 1920 Forest Service directory lists five districts for the Bridger, from northwest to 

southeast: Kendall, Willow Creek, Fremont, Boulder, and Dutch Joe, with each listing a 

district ranger, but no one else (see the Wyoming National Forest for SO personnel). A 

1929 directory shows what was known as the east half of the Wyoming National Forest 

as having only two districts, the Green River (Kendall and Willow Creek combined) and

Fremont (Boulder and Dutch Joe combined with Fremont). This might be due to districts 

having improved transportation and communication infrastructures.74 

TETON NATIONAL FOREST 

Compared to the early histories of the Wyoming and Bonneville-Bridger National 

Forests, information on the Teton National Forest’s early years is abundant. This is 

because Esther Allan, the wife of former Buffalo District Ranger Karl “Sunny” Allan, 

assumed the duties of researching and writing the forest’s “history” under freelance 

contract in 1973, the year both forests consolidated. Never printed as a formal forest 

history, it nonetheless received attention in the early 1990s from B-T officials concerned 

 

71 Ibid.; “History of the Forest Offices of the Wyoming National Forest,” n.p. 72 Undated Zeph Jones clip in “Historical Information Book 4, Bridger National Forest,” n.p. 73 William A. Worf to “All Forest Personnel,” May 19, 1964. 74 USDA Forest Service Directories, 1920 and 1929, s.v. “Bridger-Wyoming” and “Wyoming.” 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 35
that the Teton Division had received so much historical attention, while the Bridger 

Division had received so little: 

It has never been printed as former Forest Supervisor Reid Jackson wanted it 

‘updated’ all the time, even though I tried to convince him that [Allan’s] contract 

called for a specific time sequence, beginning to ... then BTNF never had any

money to get it printed; what we are sorely missing is any kind of history on the 

Bridger NF, and need...to start something before it’s all lost! When B and T 

combined, the southern end was so “pissed off” at us, they sent all their records

to Denver, and wouldn’t let us review anything, so ... how we can get the job 

done[?].

75

Much like the two other forests to the south and east that comprised the old Yellowstone 

Forest Preserve, President Theodore Roosevelt created the Teton National Forest via 

Executive Order 872 on July 1, 1908. The largest of the three units at 1,991,200 acres, 

the new forest stretched from the southern and eastern reaches of Yellowstone National 

Park, west to its border with the Targhee National Forest on the Teton Range’s western 

slope, then south and east to the northern boundaries of the Wyoming and BonnevilleBridger National Forests. Much of this land includes the area that currently comprises 

Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway. 76

This forest’s early history gears itself more toward other federal agencies and their 

activities in the region, and less toward the forest itself. The first agency to affect the 

region outside of the Forest Service was the Reclamation Service, later the Bureau of 

Reclamation. Concerned over the lack of a dependable water supply in the arid Snake

River Basin of eastern Idaho, in 1906-07 the Reclamation Service constructed a 

temporary rock-filled crib dam at the Snake River’s outlet from Jackson Lake to regulate 

the Snake’s seasonal flows. After this dam breached in 1910, Reclamation built a larger 

concrete dam in 1911, and enlarged in five years later.77 By 1920, the result was an 

enlarged Jackson Lake, whose 70-mile shoreline had risen nearly seventeen feet. 

According to Allan, it was a cultural and environmental disaster: 

First it added a touch of unnaturalness to one of the most beautiful lakes in the

world. Second it backed up water over a large portion of historically significant

land. It covered the ancient Indian and trapper trail to Conant Pass and washed

away artifacts and valuable evidence of Indian campgrounds along the original

north shore of Jackson Lake. Third it raised waters and killed thousands of trees 

 

75 E-mail from Elaine Mercill to John Kuzlowski, June 3, 1991, copy in front cover of Allan’s “History of 

Teton National Forest,” photocopy in the Archeologist’s Office, B-TNF SO, Jackson. A local history buff 

that served on the State Historical Society of Wyoming, Teton County Historical Society, and the Jackson 

Hole Museum, Allan’s history lacks organizational structure and cohesive narrative. Yet it is valuable for

the information contained within its pages, and that someone pieced together widely disparate information 

on this forest that no one did with the Wyoming/Bridger. 76 “Establishment and Modification of National Forest Boundaries,” 21; Encyclopedia of American Forest

and Conservation History, Vol. II, Appendix I, “The National Forests of the United States,” s.v. “Teton” 

and “Targhee.”

77 Larson, History of Wyoming, 357. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 36
and left their skeletons to outline the shore. It nearly vanquished the forces of

conservation.78

The Bureau of Reclamation proposed more dams in Yellowstone National Park and

Teton National Forest—including one in the Thorofare Basin on the Yellowstone River 

deep within the forest’s northeastern reaches—but all were defeated in Washington D.C. 

by increasingly-powerful preservationist lobbies. In the wider context of Progressive Era 

conservation, this is not surprising, for this was the era of the Hetch-Hetchy controversy. 

Preservationists, led by Sierra Club President John Muir, tried to defeat the construction 

of a dam in Yosemite National Park’s Hetch-Hetchy valley, one designed to give the city 

of San Francisco a steady water supply. Although Muir and his allies lost this battle, the 

Sierra Club and other preservation groups like the Isaak Walton League became powerful 

political concerns whose voices demanded the attention of legislators.79 

Another government agency that became a major player in the Jackson Hole region was 

the National Park Service. Although national parks had existed in America since 

Yellowstone’s 1872 formation, the agency itself was not formed until 1916. Created

mostly to end the management of the nation’s increasing number of national parks and 

monuments by multiple agencies (for example, Yellowstone had been mostly 

administered by the War Department and the Army Corps of Engineers) the idea of a

formal National Park Service was fueled by preservationists still smarting over HetchHetchy. One agency, they and their allies argued, could focus on the efficient 

administration and management of America’s parks, while protecting cultural and natural 

resources and providing physical and spiritual respite for America’s working masses. 

The argument worked. On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the 

National Park Service Act, then appointed Chicago borax magnate Stephen T. Mather as

its first director and his close friend Horace Albright as assistant director.

80

Almost immediately, Mather, Albright, and their congressional supporters harbored grand 

designs for the expansion of their flagship property. Supported by the Departments of the 

Interior—and opposed by preservationists, local ranchers, and the Forest Service—

Wyoming Congressman Frank Mondell in 1918 introduced a bill to expand 

Yellowstone’s eastern and southern boundaries to include most of what is now the Teton 

Wilderness, the Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, and the Teton Range, arguably one of 

North America’s most spectacular mountain ranges. 81 

 

78 Allan, “History of Teton National Forest,” 145. For a detailed history of Reclamation’s early projects in

Jackson Hole, see Kenneth L. and Lenore Diem, A Community of Scalawags, Renegades, Discharged

Soldiers, and Predestined Stinkers? A History of Jackson Hole and Yellowstone’s Influence 1872-1920

(Moose, WY: Grand Teton Natural History Association, 1998), 133-144. 79 For a concise overview of Hetch-Hetchy, see Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of

Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement 1890-1920 (New York: Antheum, 1969), 192-195. 80 For a more detailed discussion on the trends and events that led to the park service’s creation, see Alfred 

Runte, National Parks, The American Experience, 2nd Ed. Rev. (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press), 82-105. 81 Diem, A Community of Scalawags, 29-30. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 37
This winter view of the Teton Range illustrates why it is one of the world’s most famous natural attractions. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Extension supporters pointed to the ever-increasing level of auto traffic in Yellowstone’s 

southern regions and northern Jackson Hole, arguing that due to increased auto traffic 

two south entrances were necessary. Part of the expansion included a new highway that 

would follow Pacific Creek from Moran up over the Continental Divide via Two Ocean 

Pass, then down Atlantic Creek to the Thorofare Basin and Yellowstone River. The road 

would then wind its way past Hawks Rest, enter the park just north of Bridger Lake, then 

follow the river and east shoreline of Yellowstone Lake where it would intersect with the 

east entrance highway west of Sylvan Pass. Supporters loved the idea of forming a 

Yellowstone-Teton auto touring loop, forever alleviating increasing traffic woes.82

These grand designs for Yellowstone’s expansion, however, seemed little more than a

pipe dream. Although the House approved Mondell’s bill (and subsequent expansion 

bills), they always died in the Senate over last minute objections by Idaho Senator John 

Nugent. In addition to the Forest Service’s objections over possible seizure of lands 

under their administration, many private parties opposed the expansion. Among the most

vociferous were Jackson Hole cattle ranchers who viewed it as a giant federal land-grab, 

and preservationists who were furious over how the Two Ocean-Yellowstone highway 

would cut through some of America’s wildest, most unspoiled backcountry. As such, 

various versions of the expansion proposal lingered well into the 1920s, and ended in part 

with the 1929 authorization of Grand Teton National Park.83 

 

82 Ibid., 25-26. Between 1915 and 1920, auto traffic to Yellowstone increased 1,409 percent, from 958

vehicles to 13,502. As the least used entrance, the South Entrance alone increased from 8 cars in 1915 to 

878 in 1920, a whopping 10, 975 percent increase (ibid., 24). 83 Ibid., 29. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 38
The idea of placing the spectacular Teton Range under some kind of protection dates 

back to 1882, when General Philip Sheridan suggested that Congress expand 

Yellowstone’s southern boundaries to include the Tetons and all of Jackson Hole. Again, 

in 1898 the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, Charles Wolcott, proposed a separate 

Teton National Park. Nothing happened until the Yellowstone expansion proposals of 

the late 1910s-1920s, and these included only the Teton range proper, not the flatlands 

and drainages to the east and south. Even the Forest Service opposed the measure, due to 

the northern third of the range carrying deep deposits of asbestos, then a valuable 

industrial resource.84

By this time, Horace Albright had been appointed as Yellowstone’s superintendent.

Using his high-profile position as a pulpit, he became the most vocal champion for a 

Teton park. He invited prominent writers and artists to Jackson Hole; one of the most

famous was author Struthers Burt, who wrote eloquently for the entire valley’s 

preservation. Albright and Burt convinced enough important people both in Wyoming 

and Washington, D.C. that establishing a park would serve the increasing national 

recreation interest while bolstering the local economy. Congress agreed. On February 

26, 1929, it authorized a small Grand Teton National Park, one that contained only the 

mountains themselves, and not the surrounding valley.85 

This distressed Burt, who warned that unless the surrounding area is given adequate 

protection from development, the “tiny Grand Teton National Park, which is merely a 

strip along the base of the mountains, [will be] marooned like a necklace lost in a pile of 

garbage.” 86 The Forest Service lost 95,000 acres to establish the park.87 Thus began a 

two-decade long battle for a larger Grand Teton National Park, one that would involve 

the controversial role of Albright working with eastern industrial philanthropist John D. 

Rockefeller, Jr. Future chapters on the Teton National Forest during the New Deal, 

World War II, and the postwar eras will examine the efforts of Albright, Rockefeller, and

other concerned parties to expand the park’s boundaries--much to the chagrin of the

Forest Service. 

Unlike the other forests to the south and east, information on the Teton National Forest’s 

early administrators and most notable rangers exist. Chapter One examined the early

career of Rudolph “Rosie” Rosencrans, who by this time was the District Ranger for the 

Blackrock-Buffalo and Jackson Districts. Rosencrans continued to survey and draw

detailed maps of the region, assist local ranchers with catching and prosecuting poachers, 

help guide backcountry travelers, improve trails, fight fires, and occasionally play host to 

famous western personalities. 

 

84 Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History, Vol. I, s.v “Grand Teton National Park”; 

Runte, National Parks, 126. 85 Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History, Vol. I, s.v “Grand Teton National Park.” 86 Struthers Burt quoted in Runte, National Parks, 127. 87 “Establishment of the Teton National Forest,” unpublished, undated manuscript, History Files, B-TNF

SO, Jackson. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 39
Perhaps the most famous was William “Buffalo Bill” Cody, who visited Rosencrans in

1914. When he lived in Europe, Rosencrans became a big fan of Cody’s famous “Wild

West” shows. Rosencrans took Cody up Open Creek to do some backcountry hunting 

and camping, and Cody remarked that if he could live in the wilderness like Rosencrans 

he would live past a hundred. Cody’s visit to the forest was a high point in Rosencrans’ 

life, although he thought Cody’s excessive drinking on the trip is what eventually killed 

him (he died three years later). Cody provided an obviously thrilled Rosencrans with a 

lock of his hair, an artifact he loved to share with friends and acquaintances until his 1970 

death. 88 

The first Supervisor of Teton National Forest was Robert E. Miller, a holdover from the 

Yellowstone Forest Reserve days. Originally appointed in 1903, Miller ended up serving 

as Teton National Forest Supervisor until 1918. His position as supervisor was but an 

extra dividend, for Miller also served as Jackson’s first banker and financial advisor. 

Miller located the first forest office in a cabin near the elk refuge, then later relocated it at 

the Bennett House two blocks east of the city park. 89

In 1918, Arthur C. “Mac” McCain succeeded Miller as Supervisor. Born in 1873 and 

raised in DuPage County and Naperville, Illinois, McCain started his Forest Service 

career in 1905 as a ranger on the Kalispell Division of Montana’s Lewis and Clark Forest 

Reserve. Much like Rudolph Rosencrans—and every other ranger of this period—

McCain purchased his own horses and supplies on a salary of $75 per month. Later, 

McCain served as a district ranger on the Otter (now Custer) Forest Reserve, then spent 

ten years in Ogden, Utah, as Assistant Chief of Grazing, of Operations, and for about one 

year he was an Acting District Forester for District Four.90 

Upon his arrival, McCain knew about the heated controversy surrounding Yellowstone’s 

proposed expansion, the proposed Two Ocean highway, and the Grand Teton park issue. 

“Whether retirement will overtake me here or whether the Teton will be swallowed up 

piece-meal by the National Park Service before that time rolls around, is problematical,” 

he remarked. McCain’s comments reflected the Forest Service’s general attitude over the 

National Park Service’s dreams of unchecked regional expansion.91

McCain also found the Bennett House unsatisfactory for a Supervisor’s Office. He 

moved the office from there to the building where the Jackson Ready-To-Wear store was 

located. Eventually, much like the Wyoming National Forest’s in Kemmerer, the SO 

found office space in the second story of the Old Teton County Courthouse. McCain 

served as forest supervisor eighteen years, one of the longest tenures in the forest, until 

his retirement in 1936. He continued to live in Jackson until his 1956 death.92 A 

 

88 Allan, “History of Teton National Forest,” 99. 89 Ibid., 112. 90 McCain bio information in letter from Elaine Mercill to Jim Bailey, March 28, 2002, in author’s files. 

Mercill was McCain’s granddaughter. 91 Allan, “History of Teton National Forest, “ 112. 92 Ibid. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 40
meadow and small guard station on the B-T’s Greys River Ranger District bears his 

name. 

District listings in the 1920 Forest Service directory for the Teton show eight small

horseback-patrolled districts: Buffalo, Blackrock, Horsetail, Goosewing, Jackson, Bryan 

Flat, Stewart, and Lee. By 1929, however, these districts had been consolidated into two 

less, obviously because of better transportation and communication infrastructures: 

Buffalo, Gros Ventre, Hoback, Jackson, Jackson Lake, and Teton.93 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION: ORGANIZATION 

As discussed previously, in 1907 Chief Forester Pinchot divided the Forest Service into 

six inspection districts. As administration from Washington D.C. proved cumbersome, 

Pinchot once again directed a reorganization in an effort to decentralize administration.

Effective December 1, 1908, the six inspection districts were transformed into field 

headquarters or “districts” headed by District Foresters.94 Each headquarters was

organized in a manner similar to the Washington Office with a law office, operations 

division (which included engineering), grazing, products, and silviculture divisions. This 

move toward decentralization gave Forest Supervisors more freedom in making

decisions. On the other hand, it also led to changing duties and more paperwork for field 

staff. 95

The various forests that now form the Bridger-Teton National Forest were in District 

Four, the Intermountain District. As discussed previously, the Bonneville National Forest 

was transferred to District Two, the Rocky Mountain, but when the Bonneville was 

abolished in favor of the smaller, easier to administer Bridger and Washakie forests, 

district boundaries were altered to include the Bridger in District Four, with the

Continental Divide as the far eastern boundary. 

With the 1908 creation of District Four, headquarters was moved from Salt Lake City 

thirty-five miles north to Ogden. Because it was a starting point for all railway shipments

heading east, west, and north, Ogden was the logical choice as the supply center. Prior to 

this, all supplies were sent from the Washington Office, resulting in huge delays.96 Clyde 

Leavitt was the first District Forester for the new District Four, serving from 1908 to 

1910, followed by Edward R. Sherman (1910-1915), Leo F. Kneipp (1915-1920), and 

Richard Rutledge (1920-1938). 

 

93 USDA Forest Service, “Forest Service Directory,” 1920 and 1929, s.v. “Teton.” 94 The Forest Service created more districts in 1914 (Eastern), 1921 (Alaska), and 1929 (North Central). 

In 1934, the Eastern Region was divided into two regions. 95 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple-Use Management, 34, 37. 96 Ibid., 34. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 41
FOREST OFFICERS 

At the forest level, a deputy forest supervisor, an assistant or examiner, and a clerk, all 

civil servants, often assisted a forest supervisor. The assistant, who could be promoted to 

examiner, was a technical person who mapped forest areas, surveyed forest boundaries, 

carried out planting work, and managed timber applications and sales.97 Like the rangers, 

he also needed practical experience in riding, construction, surveying, and cooking. 98 

The forest ranger oversaw work on the smallest administrative unit, the ranger district. 

Ranger districts were created in 1908, and were organized around grazing units.99 The

number of days the ranger spent carrying out his duties, mostly done on horseback, 

depended on the size of his district. By 1915, the average size of a district was 60,000 

acres, although they could be larger when permitted by good travel and 

communication.100 As noted in a 1928 manual: 

The district ranger is primarily a field man rather than the office worker. Since 

the district ranger is in charge of from 50,000 to over 300,000 acres and his job is

primarily a field job, it is evident that his work calls for much travel, and that he

must expect to spend much time away from home.

101

The 1915 Use book stated “the most successful rangers are usually those who have been 

brought up in timber work or on ranches or farms, and who are thoroughly familiar, 

through long residence, with the region in which they are employed.”102 Rangers were

still required to pass Civil Service exams, although they were discontinued after 1929. 

The language in the 1928 Forest Manual was a tad more refined than the 1906 Use Book. 

Instead of trumpeting that “invalids need not apply,” the manual directed rangers to be 

“young, of rugged physique, and in good mental and physical health.” Prospects needed 

a certain amount of schooling, preferably a high school education, and practical training, 

either as a seasonal under a district ranger or in a Forest Service training camp. The 

manual emphasized technical training, which could be acquired while working as a guard 

or assistant ranger between school terms. Among his various duties, the district ranger 

also served as a part-time builder who was “skilled in the use of tools and equipment of a 

woodsman.” When he was not carrying out administrative tasks, he was expected to 

construct improvements and and/or supervise the improvement work of other crews. 103 

The 1928 Forest Manual described the recommended life of a district ranger beyond 

work duties: 

 

97 Boerker, Our National Forests, 34; USDA Forest Service, The Use Book. A Manual for Users of the 

National Forests (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1915), 14. 98 Boerker, Our National Forests, 35. 99 Williams, Administrative Units and Reorganization Efforts, 19. 100 USDA Forest Service, The Use Book (1915), 15. 101 USDA Forest Service, The National Forest Manual: Regulations and Instructions (n.p.: July 1928), 4A. 102 Forest Service, The Use Book, (1915), 15. 103 USDA Forest Service, The National Forest Manual (1928), 5-A

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 42
The district ranger should ... consider himself a part of the community in which

he is located and take part in community affairs to the fullest extent compatible

with his duties and the legal and departmental limitations on political activity. 

He should be content to raise his family in the village or isolated locality where 

the headquarters of district rangers are often necessarily located..... As a rule the 

district ranger’s prestige, and therefore his usefulness, increases with the stay in 

... as part of the community. For this reason frequent transfers are not 

desirable.104

The manual did not mention the social hardships the ranger or his family might face. He 

and his wife, who was often expected to be an unpaid Forest Service employee, typically

experienced challenges from living in isolation. As a result, some couples divorced or 

transferred to a less remote locale. This is why the first Supervisor of the Wind River

Division of the Yellowstone Forest Reserve, Zeph Jones, wrote the Washington Office in 

April 1905 to request a transfer of his office from the remote Kendall site to the new 

town of Pinedale. “To give you an idea of the isolation we are subjected to at this place,” 

Jones appealed, “I will say my wife has not the opportunity to see or speak to another 

woman since the roads closed up last fall, nearly five months ago.”105

An unsung hero of the Forest Service was the ranger’s wife. Although unpaid, these

women were expected to carry out many support duties; many served as camp cooks, 

clerks and telephone operators. The wife of Teton National Forest Supervisor, Mrs. A.C. 

McCain, is a good example of an industrious ranger wife trying to make best of isolated 

situations and the possible perils: 

During one of Mr. McCain’s absences, Mrs. McCain decided to make a trip to 

the hot springs, eight or so miles above the station, and fearing to leave the 

chickens because of the danger from predatory animals, she crated them, put 

them on top of her pack-horse load of bedding and made them all safe under the 

pack cover. Mounting her horse, with a small child both fore and aft, she set out. 

On arrival at her camping place, the unusual silence of the chickens was 

explained. They had all suffocated.106

Some wives served in the capacity of a deputy or assistant ranger, by preparing reports, 

inspecting the forests, and fighting fires. A wife who did not perform these unofficial

duties adequately was seen as holding back her husband and even hurting his career.107 

The employment of the first female within forestry happened in 1913 with the hiring of 

Hallie Morse Daggett, who worked as a fire lookout on the California forests. More 

women were hired in this capacity in response to a labor shortage during World War I, 

and the suffrage movement that led to a woman’s right to vote in 1920.108 The latter

 

104 Ibid., 4-A 105 Zeph Jones to “Forester,” April 21, 1905, History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 106 Allan, “History of Teton National Forest,” 171?. 107 Lee F. Pendergrass, “Dispelling Myths: Women’s Contributions to the Forest Service in California,” 

Forest and Conservation History 34 (January 1990), 18. 108 On December 10, 1869, Wyoming became the first territory (or state) to grant women full rights to vote 

and hold political office. Larson, History of Wyoming, 79. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 43
contributed to the Forest Service’s decision to open ranger examinations to women one

year later. A Region Four bulletin stated: 

Doubtless the reason for the Civil Service Commission throwing down the bars

was the recent enfranchisement of the women of the country. They may have 

also reasoned that having women lookouts we might also use women rangers.109

In addition to receiving help from their wives, the rangers were assisted during field 

season by temporary employees such as guards, field assistants, or laborers not classified 

as civil servants. In 1917, there were around 1,100 rangers assisted by over 900 forest 

guards and assistant rangers. Much like today, these workers were typically local 

residents who held other jobs during the rest of the year.110 Most of these seasonal 

employees were hired for fire control after the horrific fires of 1910 that killed 85 people 

and charred three million forest acres in Idaho and Montana.111

Yet fire management was given little attention until after that severe fire season.112 The

1911 Weeks Act authorized and funded state and federal cooperation in forestry and fire 

protection. That same year, California’s District Forester Coert DuBois developed a fire 

plan with the Stanislaus National Forest as a model. His plan included a network of 

lookout points on mountaintops. He explained his plan in a 1914 document titled

“Systematic Fire Protection in the California Forests,” which served as a basis for fire

control in California. 

True to Progressive Era philosophy, fire research and management became more 

scientific, with central focus toward increased efficiency. Many of Dubois’ ideas were 

implemented outside of California. Nationally, forests established more lookout towers, 

often with lookout cabs, tents, or towers built at key points. Forest rangers and guards

constructed telephone lines that linked the lookouts with ranger stations. They also 

placed caches of fire tools around the forests and reached agreements with local ranchers,

companies, mines, and settlers to help fight fires.113

Advances were made in the 1920s. In 1921, Idaho’s Weiser National Forest set up a 

central dispatch system to facilitate quicker responses to reported fires. In 1924, 

Congress passed the Clark-McNary Act to supplement the Weeks Act by expanding 

federal assistance to state forestry programs. States established more forestry programs, 

and research stations experimented with new fire suppression, control, and detection 

 

109 USDA Forest Service, District Four, Alumni Bulletin (April 1921), 24, original at Forest Service 

Heritage Center, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah. 110 Boerker, Our National Forests, 36-37; Adams, “Use of Telephone on the National Forests,” p. 24. 111 James B. Adams, “Use of Telephone on the National Forests,” speech delivered before the Telephone

Society of New York, February 16, 1915, p. 24, transcript at Forest Service Heritage Center, Weber State 

University, Ogden, Utah. 112 For more on the 1910 fires, see Stephen Pyne, Year of the Fires : The Story of the Great Fires of 1910

(New York: Viking Books, 2001). 113 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple-Use Management, 66. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 44
techniques. The 1920s also saw the adoption of standardized methods of firefighting 

techniques in Region Four with the publication of a fire control manual.114

Former Wyoming/Bridger National Forest Ranger Ed Cazier remembers the arduous task 

of stringing—and maintaining—a telephone wire to the top of the forest’s (and 

Wyoming’s) highest lookout atop Wyoming Peak, elevation 11,378 feet. More of a

seasonal tent than anything (a permanent lookout was not constructed there until the 

1930s) it was physically demanding to maintain the phone connection, when dealing with 

a straight-up climb of nearly 5,000 vertical feet from the Greys River: 

The lookout lived in a tent. A telephone wire ran from Greys River to the top of 

the peak. It was my job to maintain this line. Climbing a tree or pole with

climbers was always a hard job for me until I worked up a good sweat. Usually, 

it did not take long. Luckily I was sweating profusely as I climbed the poles 

strung along a side ridge running up to the peak, for every one got more difficult. 

The last pole was the worst. From the top of it I could fall into Greys River or 

Middle Piney Lake, it seemed. What a relief to get the job done.

115

TRANSITION: ED CAZIER, THE “LAST SADDLE HORSE RANGER” 

Much like his now-retired Teton National Forest colleague Rudolph Rosencrans was in 

an earlier era, Ranger Samuel Edwin “Ed” Cazier is a transitional figure from one Forest 

Service era to another: horse to automobile. Born June 9, 1895 in Afton, Wyoming, 

Cazier attended local schools, and then worked as a sheepherder and seasonal Forest 

Service employee until his 1926 appointment as assistant ranger for the Big Piney 

District of the Wyoming National Forest.116 After attending a district ranger “school” in 

Moscow Idaho, in 1927, Cazier refused job offers in Nevada to return to the Wyoming 

National Forest’s Sherman Ranger District as district ranger. After the long, arduous trip, 

he arrived at district headquarters, the Sherman Ranger Station east of Merna, on May 1, 

1927: 

Arriving at the station, I found [the snow] to be about one and one-half feet deep. 

The buildings, consisting of a two-room cabin, barn, corral, and tool shed, sat on

a small flat next to Horse Creek. It was a beautiful setting, though isolated. The 

nearest neighbor was more than two miles away and I spent a lonely month there 

until the wife came in June. 117 

Although Cazier spent most of his time out on the range, he also remembered how he and 

his wife Valera dealt with “cabin fever,” the malady of isolation and little human contact 

in any season on the Sherman district: 

 

 

114 Ibid. 115 S. Edwin Cazier, The Last Saddle Horse Ranger (Logan, UT: Educational Printing Service, 1971) 44. 116 Ed Cazier obituary in Star Valley Independent, Afton ,WY, n.d (1983) 117 Cazier, Last Saddle Horse Ranger, 48. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 45
Due to isolation and few contacts with other people, we developed a sort of cabin

fever and had the urge to hide under the bed every time that we saw someone 

coming. We had our moments of humor and some of consolation.118

In 1929, Cazier was transferred to Big Piney Ranger District as District Ranger. Not as 

near as isolated as Sherman, he nonetheless still had to utilize the Snider Basin Ranger 

Station, twenty-five miles west, as a summer headquarters (Big Piney Ranger District 

absorbed Snider Basin Ranger District in 1926). To be more efficient, Cazier decided he 

needed a car. After carefully approaching the local banker for a car loan, Cazier came 

away with enough for a down payment and a couple monthly payments: 

Talk about prestige—right there I became imbued with the ideals of the Forest 

Service and stayed that way to the finish. It was ... the fact that I had a steady

job with the Forest Service that bolstered my credit. I bought an Essex sedan

from Platt Wilson at Kemmerer. Paying for it was like extracting teeth from a 

chicken but somehow I did it.119 

Cazier’s comments illustrate just how much times had changed. It is impossible to 

imagine Rudolph Rosencrans using an automobile for his job, let alone dickering with a 

tough car dealer over a sale price. But the Forest Service had come a long way since the 

forest reserve days, and it was about to change even more during the New Deal era. This

change, however, traveled two dichotomous paths. The infusion of money and labor that

public works programs provided would forever change the Forest Service, thrusting it 

further into the era of modernization. Conversely, the establishment of the Bridger and 

Teton Primitive (later wilderness) Areas, and others like them around America, attempted 

to keep much of the nation’s forested lands as pristine as possible. 

This sign at Cazier Guard Station commemorates the life of Ed Cazier. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

 

118 Ibid., 51. 119 Ibid., 51-52. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 46
Thus, the career of Ed Cazier serves as a thread from old to new—and back to old. He

demonstrates that despite the thrust toward modernization, a trusty horse serves its

purpose better that an automobile, at least on the rugged wilderness landscapes of the

Wyoming-Bridger and Teton National Forests. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 47
CHAPTER THREE: 1930-1942, THE NEW DEAL ARRIVES 

HISTORICAL SETTING 

In stark contrast to the relative economic prosperity of the 1920s, the Great Depression’s 

tremendous negative socioeconomic effects traumatized 1930s America. Triggered by 

the 1929 Wall Street crash, by 1932, the final year of republican Herbert Hoover’s 

beleaguered presidency, many banks had collapsed, the stock market had bottomed out, 

and annual industrial production had plummeted from a heady $949 million to a mere

$74 million. So widespread was the financial devastation that nearly thirteen million

unemployed lived, as New Deal historian William Leuchtenburg noted, in “the primitive

conditions of a preindustrial society stricken by famine,” while at least two million

wandered America in “a fruitless quest for work or adventure or just a sense of 

movement.”120 As America’s soup lines grew, so too did the restless desperation of its 

citizens. 

Now considered a major turning point in American History, the depression’s effects 

ushered in a new era and new presidency under Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

With his “New Deal” for the American people, Roosevelt immediately implemented 

numerous economic relief programs. Federal agencies, including the Forest Service, 

were charged with administering these programs, most notably the Civilian Conservation 

Corps, or CCC. This resulted in increased funding and larger labor pools that allowed the 

Forest Service to design and construct major infrastructure improvements and carry out 

increased general conservation work. 

FOREST CHANGES: NATIONAL, REGIONAL, LOCAL 

During this time, the areas of America’s national forests increased, with much of the land

acquired by purchase. President Roosevelt considered public lands as a critical factor in 

the success of his relief programs, and sought authorization to acquire more. During the 

first three years of the New Deal, forest purchase appropriations were 76 percent more 

than appropriations between 1911 and 1932.121 In addition, on May 1, 1929, the 

Secretary of Agriculture approved a name change for the nine national forest 

administration districts. Now, they were to be referred to as “regions” to differentiate

them from the increasingly important ranger “districts” that comprised each individual 

forest.

122 District Four was now Intermountain Region Four (see Map #3). 

 

120 William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940 (New York: Harper and 

Row, 1963), 1-2. 121 Ralph Hartley and James Schenck, “Administering the National Forest of Colorado” (Lincoln, NE: 

National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, 1996), 17. 122 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 101. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 48
MAP #3: INTERMOUNTAIN REGION FOUR 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 49
At the same time, the Forest Service decided to construct a new Intermountain regional 

headquarters. After haggling over whether to renovate the existing brick and wood 

building, or constructing a new one made of fireproof brick and steel in a “more 

respectable and cleaner” part of Ogden, the desires of Regional Forester Richard 

Rutledge prevailed. In 1934, a new, art-deco styled building was completed at the corner 

of 25th street and Adams Avenue, directly across from the Weber College campus in one 

of the city’s finer neighborhoods.123

During this time, the region made several alterations to its size and boundaries that 

generally remain to this time. Perhaps the most significant was the connection of isolated

northern Arizona, or the “Strip” north of the Grand Canyon, to the rest of the state upon 

the 1933 completion of a highway bridge over the Colorado River near Lees Ferry and 

the 1935 completion of Hoover Dam. With the two geographically disparate parts of 

Arizona connected, the regional office decided now was the time to allow Region Three 

(Southwest) to administer the Kaibab National Forest. Thus, the new southern boundary 

for Region Four was now set at the Arizona/Utah border.124

Although their boundaries would essentially remain unchanged, the Wyoming and Teton 

National Forests witnessed major changes in this era. The first was the establishment of

huge primitive (or wilderness areas) within both forests, areas that would dictate future

usage limits. Part of a growing interwar wilderness preservation movement led by 

landscape architect Arthur Carhart, the Forest Service’s Aldo Leopold, and 

naturalist/writer Bob Marshall, in the late 1920s and 1930s Congress set aside large 

sections of wild, pristine areas of many western national forests as primitive/wilderness

reserves.125 Leopold, in particular, was instrumental in examining how the possible 

permanent preservation of pristine forest areas could help maintain watershed and 

wildlife health. His arguments worked. On June 3, 1924, Congress set aside 500,000 

acres in New Mexico’s Gila National Forest as America’s first primitive/wilderness

area.126

By the early thirties, the trend toward established primitive areas had spread to Wyoming. 

On February 9, 1931, Congress designated the Bridger Primitive Area, made up of 

 

123 Ibid. 124 Ibid., 102. Until 1933, the Colorado River essentially cut off northern Arizona from the southern

section. 125 “Primitive” was the first term used, then later supplanted by “wilderness” sometime after WWII. Once 

the Wilderness Act of 1964 was signed into law, the use of “primitive” was forever dropped. For the 

purpose of this study, both have the same meaning. For more on Leopold, see Susan Flader, Thinking Like 

A Mountain: Aldo Leopold and the Evolution of an Ecological Attitude Toward Deer, Wolves, and the 

Forest (Columbia: Univ. of Missouri Press, 1974.) Leopold expands on his “land ethic” in his Sand County 

Almanac (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987 c.1949), originally published the year after he died. For a 

very readable bio on Marshall, see James Glover, A Wilderness Original: The Life of Bob Marshall

(Seattle: Mountaineers Press, 1985.) 126 Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd ed. rev. (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1982), 

185. For the newest scholarship on Leopold and the Gila Primitive Area, see Christopher Huggard,

“America’s First Wilderness Area: Aldo Leopold, the Forest Service, and the Gila of New Mexico, 1924-

1980,” in Christopher Huggard and Arthur Gomez, eds., Forests Under Fire (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona 

Press, 2001.) 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 50
383,000 acres of the wildest country in the Wyoming National Forest’s Wind River 

Mountains; six years later it was expanded by 245,000 acres. Located on the west slope 

of the Wind Rivers and administered by the Pinedale Forest Service office, the area 

consisted mostly of high mountains, glaciers, lakes, and forested lands that, with the 

exception of some overgrazed vegetation along stock trails, had remained pristine. The 

movement continued. On December 3, 1934, Congress designated the Teton Primitive 

Area, 565,251 acres of pristine lands, lakes, and major watersheds that buttressed the 

south and east sides of Yellowstone National Park, and administered out of the Jackson 

Forest Service office (the Gros Ventre Wilderness was established fifty years later-See 

Map #4) Increased recreational use and a quest for solitude was a major consideration in 

the Teton’s establishment: 

The Teton Primitive Area is almost ideal in that it provides camping and fishing

areas only one day’s ride away from roads, which is highly suited for the present 

recreational trend.... The undeveloped region of Yellowstone Park adjacent to

the north boundary and the undeveloped Forest Service wilderness and primitive 

areas joined at the east side are of primary importance to the interior wilderness 

conditions of the Teton Primitive Area.127

The other major event of this period was one of nomenclature. Since the Wyoming 

National Forest’s 1908 creation, the forest’s name had bounced back and forth between 

“Wyoming” and “Bridger” and, for a brief time, “Bonneville.” It was as if no one could 

decide as to what name best suited the forest. On March 10, 1941, President Roosevelt 

signed Executive Order 8709 that forever dropped the name “Wyoming” in favor of 

“Bridger” National Forest. In turn, the non-contiguous forest was divided into two 

divisions: the Bridger Division, which comprised the eastern half centered around the 

Wind Rivers, and the Wyoming Division, which comprised the western half centered 

around the Salt River and Wyoming ranges. No forest lands were added or subtracted in 

the change.128

By the 1930s and early 1940s, districts had developed on both forests that generally 

remain, with a few alterations and consolidations, to the present day. The Bridger’s 

Wyoming Division had the Afton District (Afton), with District Ranger Lowell Woods in 

charge. To the immediate north was the Thayne District (Bedford), administered by 

District Ranger Murle Markham. To the south of Afton, District Ranger Fred Graham 

ran the Cokeville District out of Kelly Guard Station (later moved to Cokeville), while 

“Last Saddle Horse Ranger” Ed Cazier was in transition from Big Piney District (Big 

Piney) over to District Ranger on the Bridger Division’s Fremont District (Pinedale),

where he remained until around 1954 (James Lambert succeeded Cazier as Big Piney 

District Ranger). Finally, the Green River Division (Pinedale) was administered by 

 

127 James P. Gilligan, “The Development of Policy and Administration of Forest Service Primitive and

Wilderness Areas in the Western United States,” (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, 

1953), 62. 128 “Establishment and Modification of National Forest Boundaries, A Chronologic Record 1891-1959”

(Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Division of Engineering, 1959), 76-77 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 51
MAP #4: WILDERNESS LANDS, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST 

KEY: 1-Teton Wilderness, 2-Gros Ventre Wilderness, 3-Bridger Wilderness 

_____________________________________ 

future Pinedale Justice of the peace Harmon Shannon. C. E. Favre, James Stewart, and 

Carl Arenston supervised the forest.129

Over in the Teton, the rugged Buffalo District and its new wilderness area was overseen 

by District Ranger Dana Cox, while District Ranger Alford Balch administered the Gros 

Ventre District, immediately south of the Buffalo. To the south of Gros Ventre was the 

Jackson District, administered by Vern Brewer, while District Ranger Charles Dibble ran 

 

129 Information taken from various Forest Service Directories, copies in the Forest Service Heritage Center, 

Weber State Univ., Ogden, Utah, and with the author. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 52
the far southern Hoback District. A.C. “Mac” McCain supervised the forest until 1936, 

then was succeeded by J. William “Bill” West.130 

The tenures of McCain and West are significant, for McCain helped design and procure 

the funding needed to build the Teton National Forest’s Supervisor’s Office on the land 

where the current office stands. West was instrumental in helping develop Snow King 

Mountain into a ski resort, utilizing airplanes for the first time in fighting fires, and in 

securing CCC funds and labor to help build a road (present U.S. 26/89) through the

Snake River Canyon from Alpine to Hoback Junctions. This new road gave Idaho 

travelers the option of avoiding treacherous Teton Pass, while providing a much shorter

route from isolated Star Valley to Jackson and points east.131 

During this era, the CCC had a pronounced impact on the Wyoming/Bridger and Teton 

National Forests. They helped build trails, campgrounds, recreational facilities, roads, 

ranger and guard stations, patrol cabins, fire lookouts, and other crucial infrastructure 

needs, in addition to fighting fires. This increased labor force, according to Ed Cazier,

allowed the ranger to delegate authority to others, a luxury previously unheard of in 

forest history. “You did less of the work yourself and dictated it to others because you 

had to have someone maintain the project,” he reflected in the 1960s.132

 CCC: ORIGIONS, GROWTH, ADMINISTRATION 

Much like his cousin (and former President) Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt 

cared deeply for the land and staunchly supported conservation principles. As New York 

governor, in 1932 he set up a relief program of tree-planting and arboretum work that 

eventually employed 10,000 people. Envisioning a similar program on a much larger 

scale to combat rising national unemployment numbers, he included this and other relief

programs as part of his presidential campaign platform. Within what historians call the

“first 100 days” of his new presidency, Roosevelt implemented many of these programs.

One specifically addressed conservation work, and eventually became known as the 

CCC. 

The concept of “soil soldiers” or a peacetime army of conservation workers was not new. 

It was previously implemented in some northern European countries and examined in an 

essay titled “Moral Equivalent to War” by Harvard professor William James. And in 

response to high unemployment and a severe fire season, in late 1931 the State of 

California implemented a public works corps program, giving its management to the 

Forest Service.133

 

130 Ibid. 131 Allan, “History of Teton National Forest,” n.p 132 Cazier Interview, p. 9. 133 Alison T. Otis et. al., The Forest Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-42 (Washington, 

D.C.: GPO, 1986), 5. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 53
Yet it was Roosevelt who implemented a nationwide program in response to widespread 

unemployment. Chief Forester Robert Stuart and some cabinet members helped draft 

Executive Order 6101 that Roosevelt signed into law on April 5, 1933. The law created 

the Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) agency with Robert Fechner appointed as

director. Although not officially named the Civilian Conservation Corps (or CCC) until 

June 28, 1937, the program was referred to as such in its early years. Other relief 

programs soon followed, including the Works Progress Administration, created in 1935. 

Administering the CCC was a complex affair involving multiple agencies. The

Department of Labor recruited potential candidates, while the War Department trained 

the enrollees. Nine corps areas were set up, each commanded by a one- or two-star 

general. The areas were in turn divided into districts, with headquarters at certain army 

posts. Until 1939, the Fort Missoula (Montana) District administered all Wyoming 

Camps west of the Continental Divide. After 1939, the Littleton (Colorado) District 

administered all Wyoming camps.134 

A regular Army officer—typically a captain or first lieutenant—commanded the 

individual camps, assisted by junior officers and some camp enrollee leaders. 

Eventually, reservists replaced regular officers for camp administration. According to

one enrollee, the reservists “saved the day” because they were happy to have the steady 

work and did not try to run camps the regular Army way, one of militaristic strictness, 

discipline, and precision.135

CCC men carried out conservation work under the guidance and supervision of the 

USDA and DOI. Agencies within these departments chose work projects based on 

suitability of character and location. Once chosen, camp locations were assigned a 

number that indicated the type of camp and the sequence of establishment. For example, 

S-51 was on a state forest, F (or NF) 4 on a National Forest, P-68 on private land, E-3 for

Erosion Camp, NP-6 a National Park, and SP-18 a state park. Each CCC company had

a numbering system that referred to the corps area and the order of formation. For 

example, Company 976, stationed in Hoback Canyon west of Pinedale, came from Corps 

Area 9 and was the 76th company formed. 

Agencies administered the camps in different ways. The Forest Service generally split 

each camp, which was led by a superintendent, into two platoons of just under 100 men, 

These, in turn, were divided into three sections, with a foreman supervising each section. 

The sections were further split into subsections made up of squads of six or seven, under 

the charge of camp enrollees. Many foremen were known as Local Experienced Men 

(LEM). The requirement that these men be locals reinforced Roosevelt’s intent to 

stimulate local economies and involve the community. The LEM made significant 

 

134 James Hanson, “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains” (unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Wyoming, 1973), 27. 135 Charles D. Simpson and E.R. Jackman, Blazing Forest Trails (Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers LTD., 

1967) 268. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 54
contributions to the CCC’s success, mostly because they were experienced in a variety of 

building trades with good supervisory skills. 136

 ENROLLMENT 

Upon its creation, CCC recruiters placed enlistment notices for young, unemployed

single men for six-month periods. The response was immediate. On April 17, 1933, the 

first camp was set up near Luray, Virginia on the George Washington National Forest. 

Within a few more days, 50 camps on the eastern and southern national forests were 

approved.137 Eventually, each state had at least one camp, and even some territories like

Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands had CCC camps. By July 1, 1933,

the program had 1,265,000 enrollees, including 15,000 American Indians. Later, the 

CCC added 25,000 war veterans.138

Wyoming’s numbers were less impressive. Although America’s least populated state 

eventually peaked at 64 camps—each occupied less than four years—as of 1934 there 

were only twenty Forest Service Camps, all in the western part of the state. The 

Wyoming CCC quota stood at about 500 men per year, but they had trouble meeting this 

quota, and enrollment standards were liberalized to include men up to 25 years of age. 

Most of Wyoming’s enrollees came from out-of-state, with the Midwest and Texas 

supplying most of the labor. Wyoming camps also had one of the highest desertion rates 

in America, mostly due to poor food, isolation, the rough year-round climate, and 

homesickness. It is important to note that all Wyoming F-camps were not year-round 

until the mid-to-late 1930s.139

Despite concerns from labor unions and cries from the Socialist and Communist parties 

that the corps’ scheme was fascist, the CCC proved very popular. Within the first three 

months, the program was recognized as the country’s largest-ever peacetime government

labor force. During the second enrollment period, many men reenlisted and the numbers 

of new enrollees overwhelmed administrators. By July 1937, 300,000 men in 1,500 

camps worked on the forests and parks. 

The program proved so popular that in July 1934 President Roosevelt issued an 

Executive Order allowing a larger enrollment of 350,000 men, 50,000 of whom would 

come from drought areas. In the same year, reservists began replacing regular Army

officers as camp administrators. By the end of this two-year period, the program proved 

popular enough to warrant its continuation, authorized by the Emergency Relief 

Appropriations Act of 1935. After becoming law on April 8, the ERA allowed the 

 

136 John A. Salmond, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study (Durham, NC:

Duke Univ. Press, 1967), 87; Hartley and Schneck, Administering the Forests of Colorado, 20. 137 Otis, et.al., Forest Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps, 8. 138 Ovid Butler, ed., American Conservation in Picture and Story (Washington, D.C.: The American 

Forestry Association, 1935), 131. 139 Hanson, “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains,” 46-158 passim. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 55
continuation of camps until the end of March 1937, and provided funding for an 

additional fifteen months. 

Soon thereafter, Roosevelt again expanded the CCC by extending the maximum age to 25

and accepting 600,000 enrollees. Enrollees had to be single, unemployed American 

citizens willing to work. Many came from America’s inner cities and, according to some, 

the CCC probably helped them from going to jail. One commander searched his 

company once a week and often confiscated razors, knives, guns, and other weapons.140 

In exchange for their labors, the men received food, housing, and clothing, although the 

quality of these items, especially the food, remains debatable in isolated Wyoming. Each 

man also received $30 per month, most of which was sent directly to his family. 

Remedial education raised the literacy rate of thousands of CCC men. While some

received a high school education, a few pursued college degrees. Vocational training was 

the emphasis, and the CCC offered opportunities in areas such as carpentry, masonry, 

landscaping, road building, mechanics, and typing-clerical work. The education of CCC 

men went beyond the practical and technical; it sought to build pride and to reward men 

for assuming responsibility, along with developing good work habits and maintaining

physical health. The goal was to provide the enrollee with the skills and disposition to 

earn a living once discharged. In his study on the CCC in the northern Rockies, Jim 

Hanson elaborates on the Corps’ role in personal growth: 

More important than the economic benefits and the work of the CCC ... was its 

program for human conservation.... Some boys learned discipline for the first 

time in their lives. Others found types of work to their liking, and stayed in the 

northern Rockies as employees of the various technical agencies. Since all the

enrollees learned work habits and skills, they left the CCC with the mental tools

to find employment. In fact, five out of every seven boys from the northern

Rockies [MT, ID, and WY] found employment upon leaving the Corps. 

He continues about how the parents of enrollees felt once their sons had returned home: 

The parents of enrollees were generally quite satisfied with the effect the CCC 

had upon their sons. They felt their boys became men in the Corps. The

enrollees learned how to work and live with others, learned a skill, and added to

their education. 141 

One unfortunate aspect of the CCC program was the treatment of African-Americans.

Although federal law forbade discrimination in camp enrollment, it was routinely 

practiced in the North and South. In a manner reflective of the times, CCC officials in

Georgia went as far as stating that “it is virtually important that Negroes remain in the

counties for chopping wood and for planting other produce.” 142 In response to pressure 

 

140 Simpson and Jackman, Blazing Forest Trails, 277. 141 Both quotes from Hanson, “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains,” 368. 142 Leslie Alexander Lacy, The Soil Soldiers: The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Great Depression

(Radnor, PA: Chilton Book Company, 1976), 74. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 56
from the federal government, Georgia’s officials agreed to obey the law, but soon 

returned to their discriminatory practices. 

States were given the mandate to enroll a certain number of African-Americans, but were

not required to integrate these enrollees. This led to a number of segregated camps 

except in areas where there were too few African-Americans to form a camp. In those 

cases, the men were allowed to be part of the white camps. It is not surprising that many 

white communities exhibited their prejudices by protesting against the location of 

African-American camps in their areas. 

 THE CAMPS 

When the program started, CCC enrollees were assigned to a main camp, but in late 1933

a decision was made to establish small sub-camps set apart from the main site. Also 

know as “spike,” “side,” or “stub” camps, these sites allowed men to carry out peripheral 

work at long distances from the primary camps. William Sholes, who enrolled in the

CCC’s Co. 976 out of Elmira, California, remembers arriving at isolated Teton National 

Forest Camp F-6 near Bondurant, and his involvement with a spike camp: 

We arrived there in May of 1935, taking all day in a convoy of military vehicles 

and civilian cattle trucks from the railhead at Kemmerer.... Fresh in my mind is 

the view of the icy peaks of the Wind River range from my vantage point, down 

in the bed rolls on top of one of the flat rack trucks. It was a cold day, spitting 

snow from time to time as we moved north. The company maintained two spike

camps in 1935. One of them was near the Granite Creek hot spring swimming 

pool, one of the first CCC projects in Western Wyoming built during the first 

CCC year. More work was done there plus some road building and improvement 

of the Granite Creek road.143

In addition to conservation work, there was a social aspect to camp life. Opportunities 

existed for men to participate in religious services, plays, dances, choirs, and sports 

activities, both in camp and out. CCC Camp F-11, located at the juncture of Sheep Creek 

and the Greys River in the Wyoming National Forest participated in assorted events

sponsored by the town of Afton. The local newspaper reported that the approximately 

100 men that made up this camp attended social activities and services at local LDS and 

other denominations. In turn, the camp’s Irish and Italian musicians entertained locals 

with their classically trained musical abilities. “And when all that talent gets together--

Zowie!” the paper noted.144

Camp life, however, was not always so rosy, especially in isolated Wyoming, which had 

America’s highest CCC desertion rates. Much of this can be attributed to the rugged 

year-round climate, and the logistics of providing supplies via rail and truck over such a 

large area. For example, enrollees of the Big Piney Camp had to haul firewood twenty-

 

143 Undated, typewritten reminisce by William Sholes, n.d., located in the Office of the Archeologist, BTNF SO, Jackson, p.1. 144 Star Valley Independent (Afton), August 19, 1933, n.p.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 57
five miles one way from the Snider Basin area to cook food and keep their barracks 

warm. And CCC inspector F.B. McConnell reported that Wyoming had the worse camps

he had ever seen, which no doubt contributed to the state’s high desertion rates.145

Indeed, camps in and around Big Piney and Kemmerer, on the southeastern side of the 

Wyoming National Forest, were among the worst. In 1938, CCC workers “not 

enamored” with Big Piney staged a huge work strike until horrible food conditions and 

lack of recreational opportunities could be resolved. DG-78, also known as “Camp 

Kemmerer,” had a lengthy record of strikes and work stoppages, mostly due to terrible 

food, abusive supervisors, and winter coal shortages. In addition, Wyoming led the three 

northern Rockies states (Idaho and Montana were the other two) in the number of losttime accidents, and had the highest vehicle accident rate in the region: $96 per month in 

equipment accidents. Much of this can be attributed to careless driving over unimproved 

roads in unpredictable weather.146 

 CCC CAMP ADMINISTRATION 

The extent of projects administered by the Department of Agriculture, particularly the 

Forest Service, was extensive. The Forest Service administered about half of all CCC 

camps, most of which worked on national, state, or private forests.147 The agency also

supervised projects for other agencies such as the Navy, the Tennessee Valley Authority, 

and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

For work on the national forests, the service procured and distributed tools and 

equipment. The agency also provided project superintendents who were typically 

experienced Forest Service men. Under them, the CCC carried out a variety of work, 

including forest improvement and protection, soil erosion prevention, and wildlife 

protection. CCC workers were responsible for half of the forest planting in American 

history, which contributed greatly to fire protection and erosion control. They also 

established tree nurseries, thinned forests, and battled moths, beetles, grasshoppers, 

weevils, blister rust, and Dutch Elm disease.148

By April of 1937 there were 38 CCC camps on Region Four’s 23 national forests. This 

was half the total number of CCC camps carrying out work for the numerous agencies in 

the Intermountain Region.149 In a 1937 radio address, Regional Forester Richard 

Rutledge expressed the significance of the CCC to his region: 

Where watersheds have been abused and floods have resulted, the CCC have

stepped in and are applying the necessary remedies.... The stockman benefits 

further because of the many betterments that are being made on his range

 

145 Hanson, “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains,” 126-135. 146 Ibid., 265-270. 147 Salmond, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 121. 148 Simpson and Jackman, Blazing Forest Trails, 274; Salmond, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 122-23. 149 R.H. Rutledge, “Radio Talk by R.H. Rutledge over KSL, April 2, 1937, 10:15 P.M. On Occasion of 

forth Anniversary Observance” TMs (photocopy), p.2. in Elko Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 58
allotment. So the tie or close relationship between the farmer and stockman, or 

agriculture in general, with Forest Service work and that of our CCC camps is

natural, distinct, and important. 

But this is not the whole story—the man in the city, the camper, the fisherman,

the hunter, and others, are all influenced by this work. Recreation improvements,

fish planting, road and trail construction, tree planting, and the one hundred or 

more important activities improve the National Forests and make them more

usable and valuable as public properties.150

Of particular significance, especially within the context of this report’s purpose, was the 

CCC’s construction of numerous forest improvements such as ranger stations, guard 

stations, warehouses, garages, overnight and patrol cabins, shelters, fire lookouts, shops, 

campgrounds, roads, and trails. Region Four, which suffered from declining receipts 

from timber sales and grazing permits, benefited more than other regions from CCC 

funding and labor. Thanks to being the least-populated state, on a per capita basis, 

Wyoming ranked third in the country in these expenditures at $108 per capita. 151

CCC AND WESTERN WYOMING 

Detailed information on western Wyoming CCC camps, specifically those involved in 

construction of administrative facilities, is sketchy at best. CCC records at the Wyoming

State Archives reveal little about specific camps in the state’s western regions, camp life,

etc. Their collections look more at camps in the state’s northern and southern stretches. 

Additionally, a call to the curator of CCC materials at the National Archives, College 

Park MD, produced no records on far western Wyoming Camps. By August 1933, barely 

one year into the program, Wyoming hosted 4,800 CCC workers in twenty-six camps,

fifteen of which were Forest Service.152 

Fortunately, some written records, interviews, and newspaper reports can help give a 

general overview of CCC activities on the Bridger and Teton National Forests. Allan’s 

history of Teton National Forest provides some information on activities there. 

According to Allan, the forest hosted two main camps, one at Dog Creek (Jackson, F-6) 

and another at Cliff Creek (Granite, F-16), all with smaller spike camps situated 

elsewhere. The primary projects completed by these CCC camps include the building of 

the Granite Creek swimming pool and campground, constructing the Hoback 

Campground, the Wilson-Fall Creek Road, and the Snake River Canyon road. In 

addition, from 1933 to 1934 these CCC camps constructed administrative facilities in the 

area currently in use by the Forest Service, all from standard Region Four building plans, 

such as the Goosewing and Hoback Guard Stations, and the first permanent Supervisor’s 

Office in Jackson The CCC also helped fight fires, performed extensive trail work and 

 

150 Ibid., 12-13. 151 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 104. 152 Otis, et.al., Forest Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps, 11. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 59
erosion control, and helped with timber and reclamation clean up, including the clean-out 

of old tree stumps along the shores of Jackson Lake.153 

The first permanent Supervisor’s Office for the Teton National Forest, constructed by the CCC in 1934 from an R4 -#54 floor plan. Note the 

pine tree logo cutouts on the fence and window shutters. USFS Photo 

It is also important to note here that these CCC camps in the Teton, at least at this time, 

were not manned year-round. Newspaper accounts show that by the end of October 1934 

all CCC camps—main and spike—had been moved out to winter stations, mostly in 

southern Utah and Nevada. Most CCC camps returned to the area in 1935, and the idea 

was tossed about building a year-round CCC camp on the Snake River south of Jackson.

Records of this, however, are nearly non-existent, except for a single “Work Project 

Report” dated August 25, 1941. This report states that since May 23, 1938, Camp F-16, 

Jackson, had operated continuously to provide construction work on roads, bridges, 

fences, telephone lines, and other infrastructure improvements.154

The report, however, also noted that due to “low company strength” and problems with 

men being Absent-Without-Leave (AWOL) that many projects were not started, let alone 

completed. Among these projects were two lookout houses, the construction of range 

drift fencing, and more telephone line construction.155 This report dovetails with 

 

153 Allan, History of Teton National Forest, n.p. 154 CCC “Work Project Report” d. August 25, 1941, in CCC Files, Office of the Archeologist, B-TNF 

SO, Jackson. 

155 Ibid. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 60
historian Jim Hanson’s assertions that Wyoming’s mountain CCC camps were among the 

most challenging to fully man, with America’s highest desertion rates.156

Moving south toward the Wyoming/Bridger, information on the CCC gets even sketchier. 

On the Bridger Division, a large main camp, F-13, was set up next to the shores of 

Fremont Lake north of Pinedale. From there, the CCC set up numerous smaller spike 

camps that worked the central and southern reaches of the forest. Much like the Teton, 

work consisted of trail building, soil erosion control, fire fighting and clearing of debris, 

fence construction, and the construction of recreational and administrative sites like Big 

Sandy campground/trailhead and Dutch Joe Guard Station. One CCC camp on the bend 

of the upper Green River (no company number given) fully manned in 1933 constructed 

new guard stations at Kendall and Willow Creek, as well as stream improvement and trail 

work. After this, all CCC camps in this area were of the temporary kind.157 

The CCC also constructed many of the present-day recreational facilities, such as the 

New Fork Lake and Green River Lakes campgrounds. Located at the north end of lower 

Green River Lake on the edge of the new primitive/wilderness area, the latter was a

modern-day marvel, with 30 units and flush toilets. “This is the only time in the history 

of the Forest Service where a campground was over-built,” Shannon recalled, citing that 

it was “quite some time” before it received full use.158 

On the Wyoming Division side near Afton, CCC Camp F-11 contributed much to the 

forest’s infrastructure improvement. In the only description found of any 

Wyoming/Bridger or Teton National Forest CCC Camp, the local newspaper noted: 

In laying out camp F-11 advantage was taken of the many drainage and 

sanitation possibilities afforded by an open meadow. The main buildings of the 

camp, such as hospital, canteen, company headquarters, supply tents, dining hall 

and kitchen, were placed in the open, as were also the scores of C.C.C. Officers

quarters and tents of the Forest Service were pitched in a nearby grove of lodge

pole pine. 

The paper also noted how local stone was used for landscaping, and the pride of the 

workers: 

Much has been added to the neat and pleasant appearance of Camp F-11 by the 

utilization of surplus rock in the construction of walks and roadways. Artistic 

rock pillars have been constructed at the entrance to the camp.... The Cheyenne 

contingent of workers raised a lofty flag pole and raised the colors on the first

day they were in camp.

159

 

156 Hanson, “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains,” 158. 157 Unpublished, undated interview with Pinedale JOP Harmon Shannon, former Bridger National Forest

Ranger, copy filed in 1650 History files, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 158 Ibid., n.p. 159 Star Valley Independent (Afton), August 19, 1933. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 61
Unlike other local papers, Afton’s Star Valley Independent, at least in the early days, 

maintained a beat reporter to keep readers informed of CCC activities. The August 24, 

1933 issue talks about how a new spike camp from F-11 was to be set up near Deer Creek 

and Greys River to construct a new telephone line. In addition, five men were in charge 

of constructing a new ranger station at this location, more than likely the present Deer

Creek Guard Station. It also discusses the new position of night watchman in the main

camp, and how seriously one Harold “Goatee” Laage took his job: 

Proving himself one of those few officers who enforce the law to the letter,

Laage recently ordered Forest Superintendent John T. Mathews and Assistant 

Forest Supervisor Van Meter to bed promptly at ten p.m. when the signal for 

“lights out” was sounded. 160

After 1934, however, the newspaper stopped reporting specifically on CCC activities, and

started discussing forest issues that affected local citizens. It is safe to assume, however, 

that Camp F-11 and its spike camps constructed administrative sites like the Afton and 

Bedford ranger headquarters complexes, Deer Creek, Meadows, and Corral Creek Guard 

Stations, and Wyoming Peak Fire Lookout. Accounting ledgers located at the 

Supervisor’s Office in Jackson reveal the exact dates and CCC material and labor costs 

incurred for building these structures; this information will be included in the evaluation 

of each building in Volume Two. 

One contrasting story of how a ranger did not feel the need for new CCC buildings at an 

existing ranger station was Big Piney District Ranger Ed Cazier. For years, Cazier had 

lobbied the Forest Service to designate Big Piney as a yearlong station, thus saving the 

summer season move to Snider Basin, twenty-five miles to the west. He elaborates: 

This made sense, as all my business with permits was done at Big Piney. It saved 

travel for both the users and me. Thinking of this, I protested the erection of 

costly buildings at Snider Basin but was voted down. Today the buildings stand

there, scarcely used, a monument to faulty judgment.161

 CCC AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

CCC crews made significant contributions to fire detection and suppression efforts. In 

addition to building 3,470 fire towers and houses—plus constructing hundreds of miles of 

roads, trails, and fire breaks—the CCC laid 65,000 miles of telephone line to support 

communications. Many were on the front lines fighting fires; Jim Hanson claims that 

refusal to fight fires ranked third behind desertion and general work stoppage due to bad 

living conditions.162 The Forest Service routinely called upon CCC workers to help fight 

fires both large and small on the forest. 

 

160 Ibid., August 24, 1933. 161 Cazier, The Last Saddle Horse Ranger, 60. 162 Hanson, “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains,” 237. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 62
CCC Crews and funding provided much-needed infrastructure in the Forest Service fire 

management program. Throughout the Bridger and Teton National Forests, from 1933 to 

1941, the CCC erected fire lookout towers, then connected them to guard and ranger 

stations via telephone wire over rugged terrain. These improvements contributed to a 

system that quickly proved its worth. As World War II approached, officials began to 

recognize the value of this system as a possible defense measure against enemy aircraft

and incendiary devices. 

In the late 1930s and 1940s, the idea of smoke jumping was discussed as one method to 

get firefighters as close as possible to a fire. On July 1, 1940, the first smokejumpers 

successfully went into action on Idaho’s Nez Perce National Forest. Other advances 

during this period included formal training programs and fuel mapping, which classified 

forest fuels. These advances supported the goals of Region Five Forester Stuart Snow of 

controlling any fire by Ten A.M. of the day after initial detection.163

The Wyoming/Bridger and Teton forests, however, seemed to struggle with finding fire 

fighters with adequate training and, more importantly, the physical stamina needed to 

fight fires. In 1940, the Bare Creek-Cottonwood fire was, according to Ranger Ed 

Cazier, the largest ever on the Wyoming National Forest. Although he was busy fighting 

a smaller fire in the Fremont District, he received orders to immediately report to Bare

Creek. Upon his arrival, he harbored serious doubts about his help: 

As I unloaded my horses from the trailer, I could look up the creek and see a 

solid wall of flames, over a mile wide, rapidly eating its way northward. Truck 

and bus loads of men were arriving .... You had to call them men but they were 

the sorriest fire crew that I had ever looked at. The Regional Office had indeed 

scraped the bottom of the barrel to produce them.... Some wore oxfords with no

socks, some wore shoes with holes in the sole, some were plainly sick, and some

took one look at the blaze and were plainly scared. 164

After weeding out the men who could not, for whatever reason, fight the fire—Cazier 

estimates over half of the work force—he spent time conducting preliminary fire training. 

For those retained he had to purchase shoes, gloves, and socks, then proceeded to train

them firefighting techniques, despite the hazards: 

We spent the balance of the afternoon trying to teach them something about fire 

fighting practice and safety. Due to time shortage, neither paid off very well.

While unloading and organizing a crew the next morning, a man with an ax on

his shoulder swung around and neatly made a hairline cut across my temple. I 

did not lose my temper but mislaid it for a time, while I read him a few more

safety rules.165

Cazier also commented about the lack of supervisors, and how he had to enlist a camp 

cook to help. “Before I got through,” Cazier commented, “ I had to use as a foreman, a 

 

163 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 120-21. 164 Cazier, The Last Saddle Horse Ranger, 74. 165 Ibid., 75.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 63
cook who had never commanded anything but a biscuit brigade.”166 He does not mention

as to whether or not these were CCC who helped out. 

THE CCC SWAN SONG 

Early on, there were efforts to make the CCC a permanent government agency. In 1933, 

Secretary of the American Forestry Association Ovid Butler called for permanency, and

two years later the Forest Service drafted a bill in support. The Forest Service proposed 

that the structure remain the same, but that its conservation aspects should be further

emphasized. The War Department agreed, and President Roosevelt drafted a bill to make

the CCC permanent. Despite initial approval, in 1937, Congress decided against 

permanence and authorized its continuation for only another two years. Although the 

CCC was popular, there were concerns about its potential military use and as an 

extension of the President’s power. 

Other factors, however, contributed to the CCC’s eventual demise. Director Robert 

Fechner’s 1939 death, the loss of enthusiasm among the agencies, the possibility of war, 

and a smaller budget for 1940-41 signaled the CCC’s swan song. Desertion was also 

becoming a big problem, with one in five enrollees leaving the corps illegally in 1939. 

An inquiry found that this was partly due to the availability of better jobs in the slowly, 

yet steadily improving American economy. Later enrollees were also younger, 

inexperienced, and less developed, both physically and mentally. 

As the possibility of war loomed, most Americans supported the idea of CCC camps as 

military training facilities. The Army supported this idea, but the CCC opposed it, stating

it would be a mistake to have a part-civilian, part-army corps. Discussions continued and 

a compromise was reached. By September of 1940, a plan was implemented to provide 

general defense training in areas such as signal communication, radio operation, first aid, 

and cooking. Some CCC companies were assigned to construct defense projects on 

military reservations. This pseudo-military training remained in place until the CCC was

dissolved. 

As the nation’s economy improved, so too did the public’s desire to move away from the 

age of welfare. This perception contributed to the CCC’s demise. Corps officials 

recognized this, and sought to revise the program’s image as a relief organization. Such 

perceptions, however, were too deeply ingrained to be effective. Higher civilian 

employment rates and armed forces expansion replaced the need for a CCC. The Forest 

Service recognized the changing climate of relief work on the eve of World War Two: 

The advent of the CCC and ERA was accompanied by a heavy cut in the Forest

Service regular appropriations for essential construction and maintenance works

and CCC and ERA funds are now being cut down without being replaced. 

Means should be made available so the Forest Service can, through essential 

work projects, provide at least part-time employment to people who must look to 

 

166 Ibid., 76.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 64
it for a means of livelihood. Forest guards ... men for construction and

maintenance in road work and other projects, etc., are included here. 167

On June 30, 1942, President Roosevelt dissolved the CCC after nine productive years of 

existence. By this time, over half of the 2.5 million enrollees had worked on national, 

state, and private forests under the Forest Service’s supervision, while over 3 million had 

been involved with the agency in one form or another. Many of these men learned to 

work, received an education or job skill, and traveled to new parts of the country, while 

their learned skills in cooperation, supervision, and discipline trained them for military 

service during World War Two. The program’s total cost: Two billion, 969 million 

dollars, which amounted to less than $3,000 per enrollee involved. Of this, 40 percent 

went to the dependents of enrollees via monthly allotments.168

Perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the CCC program was the Forest Service itself. The 

agency received a huge infusion of funds and labor that allowed for the construction of 

much-needed facilities. New buildings provided a cohesive, professional image, while 

improved roads, trails, and recreation sites afforded better access to forest resources. In 

essence, the CCC transformed the Forest Service into a more professional and efficient 

government agency, one that could attempt to meet the needs of the postwar recreation 

and resource usage boom. 

TRANSITION: THE GRAND TETON PARK ISSUE

As the CCC strived to improve the Wyoming/Bridger National Forests and the 

surrounding national parks, controversy simmered over the stealthy financial activities of 

eastern philanthropist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in the Jackson Hole region. The previous 

chapter examined how both Rockefeller and his good friend and Yellowstone National 

Park Supervisor Horace Albright helped establish the small Grand Teton National Park in

1929. This park’s establishment, however, only included the mountains themselves, and 

not the surrounding valleys—lands left to the profit-driven whims of private developers. 

That private developers could do as they please with Jackson Hole was unconceivable to

both Rockefeller and Albright, who wanted the entire area under park service protection. 

To check this development—and to lessen local suspicion—in 1927 Rockefeller created 

the “Snake River Land Company” out of Salt Lake City, and over the next few years 

proceeded to covertly purchase nearly 35,000 acres of private land astride the northern

stretches of the Snake River, or nearly 22 percent of that portion of Jackson Hole that 

eventually was accorded national park status. It was not until 1930 that Rockefeller’s 

actions became public knowledge, thus infuriating local residents over what they 

perceived as a clandestine land-grab scheme backed by the park service.169

 

167 “A Forest Program. Background Information for Nevada, 1941[?]” TMs, Elko Office, HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service. 168 Office of the Forest Service History Office, “Information Sheet: Salute to the Civilian Conservation 

Corps 50th Anniversary, 1933 to 1983,” copy in the Office of the Archeologist, B-TNF SO, Jackson. 169 Runte, National Parks, 125-26. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 65
It was Rockefeller’s stated intent to turn over all lands purchased under the Snake River 

Land Company moniker to the National Park Service for inclusion in an expanded Grand 

Teton park. The covert method in which he accomplished this, however, created so much 

anger among locals that Congress refused, for nearly two decades, to accept his 

donations. “But while he intended his gift to be free of cost to the nation,” national parks 

historian Alfred Runte observed, “he could have hardly realized that Congress would not 

accept it for another twenty years.” 170

For the next twenty years, park proponents and opponents quarreled over their 

perceptions of what was best for the valley, arguably one of the most scenic in America. 

Arguments shifted constantly. At times they centered on the conflicting aesthetic versus

utilitarian conservation philosophies of the National Park Service and the Forest Service,

while at times they revolved around the struggling western rancher versus overbearing 

eastern wealth. That the arguments were emotional was the only consensus. 

On March 15, 1943, the contentious squabble over Jackson Hole’s fate reached its apex. 

Acting under Rockefeller’s assurances that within one year he would divest his entire 

valley holdings, President Roosevelt, under provisions of the 1906 Antiquities Act, 

created the 221,610 acre Jackson Hole National Monument out of the north end of 

Jackson Hole. Most of the reserve was carved out of Teton National Forest and Snake 

River Land Company holdings. Citing “national interests” as his reason for creating the

monument, Roosevelt assured the protection of all private interests. In addition, he 

predicted that postwar tourism would bring more money to the Jackson area.171 Now the 

debates switched to questioning “stroke-of-the-pen” powers that the executive branch of

government held over America’s public lands, and the issue of state’s rights against the 

federal government’s wishes. 

The monument’s creation unleashed a juggernaut of protest throughout Wyoming and the 

West. Almost every Wyoming politician, newspaper, and large state association opposed 

Roosevelt’s proclamation, while Teton County residents viewed it as a blow to their 

potential property tax base. Although somewhat a Herculean struggle, minority voices 

made themselves heard. Former Wyoming Governor Leslie Miller stated that if

opposition to the monument succeeded, then a day would come “when Wyoming would

hang her head in shame,” while the executive director of the Isaak Walton League opined 

that “the many dramatic stories about the dispossessing the ranchers, ruining the cattle 

business, and taking upwards of 200,000 acres off the tax rolls, amount to nothing but 

hysterical or malicious bunk.”172 

Minority voices were muted under the din of opposition. In 1944, Wyoming 

Congressman Frank Barrett introduced a bill to abolish the monument, then subsequent 

bills to check the powers of executive privilege, specifically the creation of national 

 

170 Ibid., 126. 171 Larson, History of Wyoming, 499, 500. 172 Leslie Miller, “The Jackson Hole Monument Controversy” typewritten manuscript, July 1, 1943, in

History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson, p. 13; Casper Tribune-Herald, July 31, 1943. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 66
monuments without the consent of state legislatures. The governors of California, 

Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah joined Barrett in signing a resolution condemning 

the monument. In December 1944, both houses of Congress passed Barrett’s bill to 

abolish the monument, only to have it pocket-vetoed by Roosevelt.173 Much to the

chagrin of many peeved westerners, Roosevelt’s controversial monument endured. 

Even local and regional Forest Service officials opposed the monument, which 

transferred away 130,000 acres of Teton National Forest acreage plus two active guard 

stations. The agency made its anger known. Citing instructions to remove all “movable” 

items from Jackson Lake and Kelly Guard Stations before their transfer to the park 

service, Forest Service workers loosely interpreted this order and essentially gutted their

facilities: plumbing, bathroom fixtures, doors, cupboards, drawers, cabinets, hardware, 

removing a huge water tank at Jackson Lake that involved cutting a four foot square hole 

in a floor, along with someone hiding a dead skunk in the main building. At Kelly, a 

built-in hutch and dinette, range, hot water tank, and pipes were removed. This gutting 

left both facilities in poor condition, with Forest Supervisor Felix Koziol allegedly 

transferred for these actions of “active opposition.”174

Certainly, the central theme in the controversy surrounding the Tetons was one of 

perceived heavy-handed colonialism, or of federal landlords in Washington, D.C. 

directing the socioeconomic destinies of a faraway western lands at the expense of local 

interests. Increasing localized revolts against these perceptions, collectively known as

the ‘Sagebrush Rebellion,” would become a looming factor in how federal agencies, 

including the Forest Service, would attempt to administer recreation- and resourceoverloaded public lands in the postwar era. 

 

 

173 Larson, History of Wyoming, 501. 174 Robert Righter, Crucible for Conservation: The Creation of Grand Teton National Park (Boulder: 

Colorado Univ. Associated Press, 1983), 121-123. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 67
CHAPTER FOUR: 1943-1955, WORLD WAR II / EARLY 

POSTWAR 

 HISTORICAL SETTING 

This period, dominated by World War II and its immediate aftermath, is characterized by 

heightened national defense activity followed by increased economic prosperity. As in 

the past, the Forest Service mirrored national trends. As the United States became more

entrenched in the war effort, the agency inventoried its resources as they pertained to 

national defense. Forest officials prepared for the war by appointing a full-time defense 

coordinator in each regional office, providing advice and assistance to the forest products 

industry, permitting emergency grazing, and developing fire protection schemes to 

protect against enemy incendiary devices. In an effort to conserve resources, Region 

Four promoted such measures as reusing carbon paper more often and a “share-a-ride” 

program.

175 

Development on the national forests halted, particularly in range and administrative 

improvements. There were exceptions, however. Timber was extensively logged to 

support the war effort, and the road system was expanded to facilitate extraction of 

minerals such as chrome and tungsten. The war effort was a national movement, and the 

Forest Service helped out as much as any other government agency. 

Many forest personnel contributed directly by joining the armed forces and participating 

in defense activities. Forest Service engineers, as well as many CCC enrollees, according

to historian J.J. Bryne, “were a bulwark of the Seabees and other construction activities 

of the Defense Department.”176 With nearly 2,000 Forest Service personnel joining the

armed forces, the agency suffered from a lack of qualified employees and the remaining

staff felt the pressure of fulfilling additional duties.177 Conscientious Objectors (CO) 

serving in Civilian Public Service camps helped alleviate the strain, although there is no 

record of any of these CO camps in western Wyoming’s isolated forests. 

After the war, economic growth and prosperity led to a growing demand for materials 

and goods, thus requiring increased levels of logging, mining, and grazing. Land 

stewardship was replaced with commodity production, which meant increased extraction 

of forest resources. In some areas, funds and labor channeled to restoring areas, 

particularly timbered lands, which were subject to destructive practices during the war. 

The backlog of other work, such as maintenance and construction of improvements, also 

began to receive attention. 

Recreation resources gained importance as Americans enjoyed their economic prosperity 

and more leisure time. The increased availability of cheap gas and affordability of cars

 

175 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 131. 176 J.J. Bryne, “Brief History of Engineering in the Forest Service,” in The History of Engineering in the 

Forest Service (Washington, D.C.: GPO 1990), 5. 177 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 131. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 68
facilitated travel, and the national forests and parks experienced more use. Additionally,

as postwar America became more urbanized—and in turn suburbanized—more 

recreation-geared urban Americans rushed to the forests and parks. As the 1960s 

approached, recreation-oriented federal agencies like the National Park Service, and to a

lesser extent the Forest Service, had to respond with recreation plans that stressed

modernization and expansion. For example, the Park Service’s “Mission 66” program 

laid the foundation for infrastructure improvements to address the postwar tourism and 

recreation boom.

178 

 ADMINISTRATION: LOCAL, REGIONAL, NATIONAL 

The decrease in funds and labor during the war, as well as restrictions on forest resources, 

caused the Forest Service to re-evaluate its administrative system. Three regional 

foresters, including Region Four’s William B. Rice, carried out a study to determine 

efficient uses of funds. They concluded that a ranger district should have a minimum

workload of 2,000 hours per year and a forest should have 18,000-25,000 hours per year. 

Forest officials developed plans to reconfigure or consolidate forests and ranger districts

to better utilize the reduced budget and staff.179 The plans, first implemented in 1944, 

resulted in the closure of many ranger stations and an increased workload for district 

rangers. Some districts now approached a million acres in size.180

Despite curtailed budgets and reduced personnel levels, Chief Forester Lyle Watts did not 

lessen the agency’s commitment to decentralization. 1943 stood as a banner year in

Forest Service history; for the first time, grazing authorizations could be administered on 

the forest supervisor level, and not through a regional office. Another dramatic change

was Watts’ desire for larger and more cost-efficient forest units. He authorized a study 

investigating this possibility, and soon after the war smaller forest units, for example

Utah’s Manti and LaSal National Forests, consolidated in Watts’ quest for increased cost 

efficiency. 181 

As forest use gained momentum after the war, the agency needed more employees. 

Hiring practices changed to accommodate Forest Service employees returning home from

the war. Some veterans, exposed to the Forest Service during their CCC tenures, took 

advantage of the GI Bill. Many studied general forestry while others went into

burgeoning fields of specialization like fish and wildlife biology. As the number of staff 

increased, management practices became more formal and bureaucratic, with the 

adoption of stringent rules for salaries and promotions.182 By 1955, the formerly pocketsized Use Book had transformed into a bulky, six-volume tome. Additionally, the search 

 

178 For more on Mission 66, see Arthur Gomez, Quest for the Golden Circle (Albuquerque: Univ. of New 

Mexico Press, 1996.) 179 Ibid, 132. 180 Hartley and Schneck, “Administering the National Forest of Colorado,” 31. 181 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 136. 182 Ibid., 131. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 69
for government housing in small, isolated district towns with little or no private housing 

became a front-burner issue. 

The most striking trend during the decades immediately following the war was the 

increase in recreational tourism on the region’s forests. Although tourist visits dropped 

during the war, afterward they exceeded pre-War levels. The forests were becoming, 

according to historian Thomas Alexander, “less and less the preserve of the logger and 

stockman as many people sought recreation way from the town and cities where they 

lived.”183 Fremont District Ranger Ed Cazier remembered that recreational use in 1940 

“was little more than a trickle but by 1953 it had become a strong moving current.” He 

also noted that the rebuilding of wilderness trails, due to increased recreational use, was

“a must,” and had six-man crews constantly rebuilding trails on his Fremont District.184

One recreational pastime gaining momentum that would forever impact national forests 

not just in Region Four, but across America, was lift-served downhill skiing. Part of

America’s growing fascination with a sport that had European roots, ski areas sprouted 

up all over the region much to the efforts of one-time Teton National Forest Supervisor 

Felix Koziol and developer Averill Harriman, who financed the Sun Valley Idaho, ski 

resort in the mid-1930s. Regional Forester Richard Rutledge appointed Koziol as a 

winter recreation specialist, to investigate the possibility of establishing more ski areas. 

Working with CCC camp specialist (and expert skier) Alf Engen, the two investigated 

and pioneered such resorts as Idaho’s Bogus Basin, Utah’s Snow Basin, and Wyoming’s 

Jackson Hole.185 

With the exception of a couple consolidations on the Teton, ranger districts on both 

forests remained unchanged. On the Bridger’s Wyoming Division, D-1 (Cokeville) saw

four district rangers administer this district: Garland Toland, Fred Baugh, Bill Deshler,

and Dean Rowland. D-2 ‘s (Big Piney) only district ranger during this time was James

Lambert, while D-3 (Afton) had Arch Gerdner and Vaughn Tippetts as district rangers. 

D-4 (Bedford) had Doug Wadsworth, Murle Markham, and Vern Brewer overseeing 

district operations. On the Bridger’s Bridger Division, D-5 (Fremont) saw a period of 

stability, led Ed Cazier (Fremont became Pinedale District in 1955), while D-6’s (Green 

River) operations were supervised by District Ranger Harmon Shannon. Kemmererbased Forest Supervisors included Carl Arentson (1973-1950), William Dresskell (1950-

1953), and Jay Sevy (1953-1957).186 

On the Teton, 1943 saw the small Jackson Lake and Teton Districts consolidate into the 

larger Jackson District. Here there is a pattern of rangers shifting from one district to 

another, rather than bring on new rangers, whenever supervisory needs occurred. D-1, 

the Jackson, had District Rangers Vern Brewer, Doug Wadsworth, and Adolph 

 

183 Ibid., 149. 184 Cazier, The Last Saddle Horse Ranger, 78. In 1954, Cazier left the Bridger for a position on the 

Sawtooth National Forest in Burley, ID. He retired in 1958. 185 Alexander, The Rise of Multiple Use Management, 149. 186 “USDA Forest Service Directories” (1944-1955), copies with author and at the Forest Service Heritage

Center, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 70
Wogensen. D-2, the Buffalo District, had District Rangers Dana Cox, Verland Taylor, 

Charles Taylor, and John Deinema oversee operations. D-3, the Gros Ventre, was 

supervised by Bill Frome, Charles Dibble, Wogensen, and Robert Safran. D-4, the 

Hoback, showed a little more stability, with Dibble and Gray Reynolds supervising 

operations. Jackson-based Forest Supervisors included Felix Koziol (1942-1944), 

Wilford Hansen (1944-1945), and Arthur Buckingham (1945-1957).187

FOREST CHANGES: THE BOOM HITS HARD 

Other than lowered budgets and personnel levels during the war, and increased 

recreational usage in the postwar years, there were not many changes to either the 

Bridger or Teton National Forests. Acreage remained the same, and, as previously 

mentioned, districts remained unchanged until the 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless, heavy 

timber logging in both forests during the war provided raw materials for temporary war 

offices and barracks, ships and docks, gunstocks, explosives, shipping crates, etc., to the 

point that the armed forces and their ancillary industries, tonnage-wise, consumed more 

raw wood than steel during World War II.188 

In addressing the postwar recreation boom, both forests continued to rebuild and improve

CCC-built roads and campgrounds. The steadily increasing numbers of recreationists on 

both forests after the war pointed to the need for these improvements. On the Bridger, in 

1938 only 20,860 recreationists visited the forest, while by war’s end, in 1945, the forest 

saw 18,310 tourists actually use recreational facilities. By 1949, however, that number 

had doubled to 40,960 recreationists, while five years later the numbers skyrocketed to 

176,050, a whopping 429 percent increase. The largest increases between 1945 and 1955 

came in Bridger Wilderness usage, from 4,770 visitors per year to 27,500, and 

campground usage, from 5,969 campers in 1945 to 91,945 ten years later. Furthermore, 

if the total number of “passing through” visitors on highways, roads, and water routes are 

taken into consideration, in 1945 the total number of visits on the Bridger are a mere

19,850, while ten years later the number jumps to 192,900.189 

Increases on the Teton National Forest are even starker, taking into account that Jackson 

was now a double-national park gateway town. In 1938, 20,500 recreationists took 

advantage of the Teton’s facilities. By 1945, the number has increased moderately to 

34,300. Ten years later, that number jumped to 184,750, with the largest increases being 

in winter sports (the Snow King Resort immediately adjoining Jackson was developed 

during this time) and general picnicking. If one looks at the total number of visitors, 

including those just passing through on the improving federal and state highway system, 

the numbers reach giddy heights: from 73,250 visitors in 1945 to 1,278,150 in 1955, an 

increase of 1,745 percent! (Wyoming’s visitor numbers during this time increased by 

 

187 Ibid. 188 Allan, History of Teton National Forest, n.p. 189 “Region Four Statistics and Other Information,” bound copy in History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson, s.v.

“Recreation.” 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 71
nearly 2,000 percent, from 106,900 in 1945 to 2,132,490 in 1955.)190 To say the Cowboy 

State experienced a postwar tourist boom is little more than an understatement. 

 

Multiple factors support this increase. Huge improvements to Wyoming’s paved primary 

and secondary highways facilitated the driving of longer distances in a shorter time by 

more people. The rise in the postwar construction of the “Motor Court Hotel,” or 

“Motel,” provided travelers with all the convenient services motorists needed, for many 

had diners and gas stations located next door or attached to the motel. Larger cities and 

smaller towns broadened their economies to provide services for travelers. More 

affordable automobiles and cheap gasoline helped travelers get to their destinations, 

while some pulled some mobile campers, or travel trailers, behind their vehicles to save

money—hence the meteoric rise in camping numbers. In larger context, postwar 

America was in a boom cycle, one already supported by the foundation of a strong 

wartime economy. Affluent Americans, in general, had more money, more time to spend 

it, and more choices where to spend. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

World War II presented an alternative use for the Forest Service’s fire management

infrastructure. As early as 1937, California’s lookout operators were trained to spot any 

kind of aircraft. The Forest Service was given the responsibility of ensuring that all 

lookouts were winterized and temporary cabins erected at strategic spots. California’s 

detection program, also known as the Aircraft Warning Service (AWS) spread along the

West Coast and eventually across the nation.191

As early as the mid-1930s, officials in the Bridger and Teton forest offices requested and 

received approval for the construction of numerous fire lookout houses on strategic peaks 

throughout both forests. Meant to replace temporary tent and canvas/rock structures, all 

were built with CCC labor and funds; most, however, were not completed until 1941-

1942.192 Designed to supplement other methods of reporting fires, including ground

reporting and airplane reconnaissance, the towers were spread out so each could cover 

overlapping spatial areas of up to forty unobstructed miles in each direction.

Additionally, some towers had yellow numbers painted on the south slope of their roofs 

so fire recon pilots knew their name and locale. 

Although fire prevention efforts were emphasized and promoted with the 1944 

introduction of the Smokey Bear campaign, labor shortages continued to plague the 

service. More men were trained as smokejumpers, and heavy equipment like bulldozers 

were used to build fire lines. After the war, the Forest Service began to rely more on

 

190 Ibid., s.v. “Teton” and “State Total.” 191 Mark V. Thornton, “A Survey and Historic Significance Evaluation of the CDF Building Inventory:

California Department of Forestry Archaeological Reports Number 17,” (Sacramento: California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Archaeology Office, December 1994), 19. 192 USFS Building Records, History Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson. Some delays were due to very wet

weather in the summer of 1941. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 72
heavy equipment, including pumper trucks, helicopters, and tank trucks, as well as an 

improved radio communications network. 

FACILITIES 

Most of the work involving facilities during this period revolved around maintaining and 

improving trails and buildings built before or by the CCC. Increased visitors to the 

forests dictated the regular maintenance and upgrade of trails and roads. It is during the 

postwar era that both forests, especially the Bridger, began to shuffle buildings from one 

site to another to better suit their needs. Most building moves centered around 

administrative logistics and to provide government employee housing in towns with 

scarce private housing of any kind, given the fact that the service was on a hiring boom. 

The old Cokeville District (Bridger D-1) is a good example. Originally administered out 

of the isolated Kelly Guard Station in the forest’s southern interior reaches,193 in 1941 the 

Forest Service decided that the small town of Cokeville, about 35 miles west of 

Kemmerer, was a better year-round district administration site. Six years later, in 1947, 

the primary dwelling at Kelly Guard Station, a 1&1/2 story R4 Plan 1 originally built by 

the CCC in 1933-34, was cut into three pieces, removed, placed on trucks, then 

transported down narrow Hams Fork road to downtown Cokeville. 

The old Kelly Guard Station Plan 1 residence, now sitting in Cokeville. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

It served as the District Ranger’s primary residence until 1967, and was sold to a private 

owner in the early 1970s.194

 

193 Not to be confused with the former Kelly Guard Station near the town of Kelly north of Jackson. 194 Marc Harris, “History of the Cokeville Ranger District,” (1968), n.p., manuscript in History Files, BTNF SO, Jackson. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 73
The same occurred in Pinedale in the early 1950s. A small town with little private

housing, the Forest Service deemed the main dwelling and garage (built in 1934 by the 

CCC) at Kendall Guard Station—along with a garage at the soon-to-be-dismantled 

Fremont Guard Station—better suited as government employee housing. In 1952, the 

Kendall dwelling (identical to the one moved from Kelly), and its garage were moved to 

a lot on north Franklin Street in Pinedale. After being placed on concrete foundations, 

the garage was attached to the back of the house, then remodeled to provide multiple 

bedrooms (a small coal room was attached to the rear sometime later). Soon after, the 

two-car garage from Fremont Guard Station was moved and placed immediately to the 

south of the main house, now 332 N. Franklin Street. It is still used by the B-T’s 

Pinedale Ranger District as employee housing.195

The Kendall Guard Station residence before it was moved to Pinedale and extensively remodeled. USFS Photo 

As detailed in the sections on districts and administrative sites, it was common for the 

forests to shuffle their buildings from one site to another—and sometimes back again—to 

address specific needs of either administrative or interpretive nature. This was common 

practice in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

 AT LAST: A REAL GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK 

The previous chapter examined how eastern philanthropist John D. Rockefeller, under the 

auspices of his Snake River Land Company, covertly purchased nearly 35,000 acres of 

land adjacent to the Snake River for inclusion in a possible expanded Grand Teton 

National Park. To further complicate matters, President Roosevelt’s 1943 Executive 

 

195 USFS Buildings Files, B-TNF/Pinedale Ranger District Building (7300) Files, Pinedale. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 74
Order declaring Jackson Hole National Monument set off a firestorm of contentious

debate over the power of legislative decree. Correctly predicting that a postwar tourism 

boom would legitimize his decree—and that this boom would bring increased revenue to

Jackson and Teton County—Roosevelt held firm and vetoed all approved congressional 

legislation to dissolve the monument. After all, the goal was a park that not only 

included the mountains proper, but the surrounding river valleys and drainages. 

History has shown that all lengthy sociopolitical legislative struggles eventually wear 

down opposing parties. In the late 1940s, both weary sides of the nearly thirty-year-old 

Teton park squabble reached an agreement. With assurances that a compromise would be

reached within a year, on December 16, 1949, Rockefeller deeded all of his Jackson Hole 

property (estimated acquisition price: $1.5 million) to the federal government. Then, on 

September 14, 1950, all compromises were finalized: President Harry S. Truman 

abolished Jackson Hole National Monument, then formally rededicated it, the old park, 

and Rockefeller’s former lands as the new 310,517 acre Grand Teton National Park.196 In 

an aesthetic sense, the new park was a victory, for now developers could not ruin the 

sweeping vistas of the Snake River Valley landscape that provided an essential frame for 

viewing the Tetons. 

By the time the final version of Grand Teton National Park manifested, it had swallowed 

up numerous Teton National Forest administrative sites. Under park protection were the

(northern) Kelly, Jackson Lake, and Arizona guard and ranger stations, as well as Signal 

Mountain and Blacktail Butte fire lookouts. 

EPILOGUE 

By the mid-1950s, it was clear that America’s National Forests had come a long way 

since the days of forest reserves, Teddy Roosevelt, and Gifford Pinchot. Once an agency 

dominated by rangers and clerks, it was on the verge of transforming into an agency 

staffed by graduate-educated and trained professionals. Forest Service history has 

demonstrated that the agency is not static. Incremental yet significant advances in 

technology, especially in communications and transportation, have defined how the 

agency handled administrative adjustments. Most importantly, these trends are not local. 

Across the nation, changing forest administrative policies and procedures reflected 

America’s increasing technological and economic growth. This becomes increasingly 

apparent during the early Interwar years (early 1920s) when districts started to 

consolidate and the automobile became the preferred method of patrol. 

One era however, sticks out. Much like the rest of America, the New Deal is the major

turning point in Forest Service history. Formerly an agency literally hanging on a wing 

and prayer, the huge influx of New Deal funds and labor programs to put these funds to 

constructive use resulted in a newly professional agency with standards, especially 

concerning buildings, structures, and general infrastructure. As a result, the Forest

Service donned a new administrative professionalism, one better suited to effectively deal 

 

196 Runte, National Parks, 143-44. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 75
with increasingly diverse public usage. Not until the 1970s and the rise of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and grassroots environmental consciousness did the 

agency undergo such a dramatic transformation. 

Thus, the historic administrative buildings of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, 

especially those constructed by the CCC, reflect an age of dramatic transformation in all 

government sectors: political, social, and even cultural. To step inside a CCC-era barn

that is nearly original, or eat lunch in a remote guard station that has barely changed over 

the last seven decades, can the results of this transformation be fully understood and

appreciated. 

Willow Creek Guard Station on the Pinedale Ranger District is the B-T’s finest example of a New Deal era guard station that, with the

exception of the latrine being moved around, is virtually unchanged since constructed by the CCC in the early 1930s. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 76
CHAPTER FIVE: RANGER DISTRICTS AND PERSONNEL 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 

It is difficult to obtain a completely clear picture of how districts evolved over the 

Wyoming/Bridger and Teton National Forests before the mid-1920s. Suffice to say that 

before this time, smaller equaled more time- and labor-efficient. This is the era of 

rangers patrolling districts by horseback, with most districts small enough for a maximum

two-day patrolling cycle. After the automobile forever changed patrolling methods and 

logistics, districts in turn became larger. Smaller consolidated into larger, and close-by 

towns became preferred year-round headquarters for larger districts. As a result, many 

smaller administrative sites fell by the wayside. 

It is not that these ranger and guard stations were ineffective as district offices, for most 

were effective part of the year. The vagaries of long, rough northwestern Wyoming 

winters, however, suggested the need for district ranger stations that could be staffed 

year-round. Towns such as Afton, Big Piney, Cokeville, Jackson, Kemmerer, Pinedale,

and Thayne, due to their permanent mail, communications, banking, and service support 

facilities, made for more efficient year-round forest administration. Thus, as the service 

modernized and districts consolidated, administration shifted from district headquarters in 

remote ranger stations to permanent year-round headquarters in nearby towns. 

After 1920, the Forest Service issued personnel directories by forest and district. 

Valuable historical documents, these directories can help detail how B-T districts evolved 

over time, who were the main administrators, and where the districts were administered.

Additionally, from about the mid-1950s, these directories illustrate the increasing number 

of trained, specialized positions that go beyond the standard ranger and clerk listings.

TODAY’S BRIDGER-TETON 

Before examining how the B-T’s districts evolved, it is important to understand current 

configurations. When the Bridger and Teton National Forests consolidated in July 1973, 

at 3.4 million acres it was the largest national forest unit outside of Alaska. With a 

couple district consolidations and one elimination (D-5, or Hoback, as a result of the 

1984 creation of the Gros Ventre Wilderness), ranger districts have remained essentially 

unchanged. Current district boundaries follow rivers, roads, ridgelines and drainages, 

and average just over one-half million acres in size. Three districts, Jackson, Buffalo, 

and Pinedale, are considered “wilderness districts,” in that most of their field

administration requires labor by foot, horseback, or aerial observation. 

The Forest Supervisor’s office is currently located in Jackson. The forest has two 

divisions, the Bridger (south) and Teton (north, see Map #5). in turn, the two divisions 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 77
house six ranger districts. The Bridger Division, which comprises the old Wyoming and 

Bridger National Forests, has four: 

 D-1: Kemmerer District, headquartered at Kemmerer 

 D-2: Big Piney District, headquartered at Big Piney 

 D-3: Greys River District, headquartered at Afton 

 D-7: Pinedale District, headquartered at Pinedale 

While the Teton Division, which comprises most of the old Teton National Forest and 

small portions of the old Bridger, has two ranger districts with extensive wilderness 

lands: 

 D-4: Jackson District, headquartered at Jackson 

 D-6: Buffalo District, headquartered at Blackrock 

In being as informative and as complete as possible in examining how the B-T’s districts 

evolved since about 1920 (when the Forest Service first printed formal directories) this 

chapter will examine each current district and detail how it evolved, beginning with the 

Bridger Division. Additionally, former administrative sites either gone or in private

hands will be examined to the best degree research can provide. 

The old Fremont Lakes Guard Station before it was dismantled in the 1950s. The garage in the center is now the garage at 332 N. 

Franklin, Pinedale. USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 78
MAP #5: THE BRIDGER AND TETON DIVISIONS 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 79
BRIDGER DIVISION, KEMMERER RANGER DISTRICT*

Headquartered in Kemmerer since the 1973 consolidation, this small district comprises 

much of the lower third of the western Bridger Division. Major geographic landforms

include LaBarge Creek, Commissary and Absaroka ridges, Fontenelle Creek, Ham’s Fork 

and Smith’s Fork Rivers, and the towns of Cokeville, Diamondville, LaBarge, and 

Kemmerer, the seat of Lincoln County. As of 2002, district acreage stands at 280,500 

acres—the forest’s smallest—and the office is located on the northern edge of town on 

U.S. 189. It has occupied this location since 1995. 

Before the 1973 consolidation, the Kemmerer Ranger District was known as the 

Cokeville Ranger District, also D-1 of the old Bridger National Forest. Southern, eastern, 

and western boundaries are the forest boundaries proper, while the northern boundary 

follows Smith’s Fork River north to Poker Hollow, then southeast to a point just north of 

Scaler Guard Station and LaBarge Creek, then to the forest boundary (see Map KD). 

Elevations range from 6,900 feet at Sawmill Creek to 10,343 feet at Bald Knoll on 

Deadline Ridge. 

KEMMERER DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS 

Established in 1918, the Cokeville District was primarily one of stock raising and 

grazing. The district has also seen extensive logging, milling, and tie-hacking operations, 

especially before World War II. Before 1941, district offices were located at the remote

Kelly Guard Station, about 28 miles northeast of Cokeville. Forest Service directories 

from 1920-1929 list a separate Kelly Ranger District, then all “Kelly” entries cease. It is 

assumed that although the smaller Kelly district was absorbed sometime in the mid-late 

1920s by the larger Cokeville District, a seasonal office remained at the guard station 

until 1947. That same year, the Forest Service cut Kelly Guard Station’s main dwelling

into three pieces, then moved it to Cokeville to serve as a district ranger dwelling. It was 

sold to a private party in the early 1970s. 

Records indicate that from the early 1940s to 1964, the forest maintained year-round 

district offices in downtown Cokeville, first at the city hall until 1949, then to the Bear 

River Mercantile building until 1953, then to another larger building just west of the

mercantile. In 1964, district offices moved to an unassuming, single-level peach colored

brick structure on the south end of town along U.S. 30, where office space was shared

with the Soil Conservation Service. This building still stands, but is abandoned. In 1973, 

the district was renamed Kemmerer; the same year, the Bridger and Teton consolidated. 

As a result, district headquarters moved to Kemmerer after the Teton’s office in Jackson 

was named as the new forest supervisor’s office. 

 

*

 All information on this district taken from typewritten manuscripts, “History of the Cokeville Ranger 

District” and “Bridger National Forest, Cokeville Ranger District” dated approximately late 1960s; from

USFS Building (7300) and History (1650) Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson, and D-1 Office, Kemmerer; USFS 

Directories, s.v “Bridger” and “Bridger-Teton”; and USFS maps from 1938-present. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 80
Before this 1973 consolidation, Kemmerer served as the host town for the Bridger 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office. In 1920, it was located in the Holmes Building in 

downtown Kemmerer, then in 1925 moved to the Lincoln County Courthouse Building. 

In 1936, the Bridger moved operations to the new federal building (which currently 

houses the city post office), where it remained until the 1960s. 

Sometime in the 1960s, the office moved to the Diamondville City Hall building. In 

1975 the SO moved to a brick ranch-style structure on the boundary between Kemmerer 

and Diamondville, then in 1985 to a leased General Services Administration building in 

Diamondville, where it remained until the new office (below) was completed ten years

later. 

The current D-1 office, located on the north end of Kemmerer since 1995. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 81
MAP #KD: KEMMERER RANGER DISTRICT 

___________________________________ 

 KEMMERER ADMINISTRATIVE SITES: CURRENT AND PAST 

Other than the current district office, the Kemmerer District currently maintains four 

historic administrative facilities on the forest, as well as another one in Kemmerer. 

Originally built to monitor lumber-cutting, tie-hack and stock activities, La Barge, Scaler, 

and Kelley Guard Stations are currently used by seasonal personnel working on the 

forest. All are available for rent in the winter to snowmobilers and skiers. The district 

also maintains an interpretive site at the Elk Creek Ranger Station about 32 miles north of 

Kemmerer, currently the oldest site on the forest’s southern reaches. In addition, the 

forest has a combination garage/oil house located just behind the Westerner Cafe in

downtown Kemmerer. An adjacent lot once housed a large warehouse, but it burned in a 

September 1969 fire and was subsequently demolished. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 82
 The old Kemmerer Warehouse burned down September 1969. Sections of the foundation still remain. USFS photo 

The district’s other documented administrative sites included the old Fontenelle Guard 

Station, located near the confluence of Little Bear and Fontenelle Creeks in the district’s

far southeastern section, and Smith’s Fork Guard Station, located about 20 miles 

southeast of Afton along the Smith’s Fork River Not much is known about Fontenelle, 

except that it was abandoned and torn down sometime before the 1960s. Research 

produced no photos. Smith’s Fork Guard Station was sold to a private party and moved 

to Afton in the 1970s. 

Smith’s Fork Guard Station before being moved to Afton. USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 83
KEMMERER DISTRICTS AND RANGERS

Kelly District Cokeville District 

George Dunn, 1920-1922 Fred Dunn, 1918-1923 

William Hanke, 1922 Fred Graham, 1924-1926, 1929-1940 

R.A. Beauchamp, 1923 Robert Dalley, 1927-1928

Robert Dalley, 1924-1927 Bill Lucas, 1941 

A.A. Hasel, 1928 Garland Toland, 1942-1945 

Fred Baugh, 1946-1950 

Absorbed by Cokeville District, c. 1929 Bill Deshler, 1951-1952 

Dean Rowland, 1953-1956

Richard Wheeler, 1957-1963 

Forrest Osborn, 1964-1966

Garth Baxter, 1967-1970 

Phil Moffett, 1970-1973 

Renamed Kemmerer District , July 1973 

Kemmerer District 

Phil Moffett, 1973-1983 

 Robert Riddle, 1984-1991

Jim Wickle, 1992-1997 

Mesia Nyman/Mark Booth, 1998-2000

Mark Booth, 2001- 

 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 84
 BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT*

Created in 1908 and headquartered in Big Piney since World War I, Big Piney Ranger 

District is a good example of how larger districts absorbed smaller districts as patrolling 

became more efficient. The long and vast 443,000-acre Big Piney District comprises the 

entire east slope of the Wyoming Range, plus the Hoback Mountains and part of the Gros 

Ventre Mountains that drain into Hoback River. Major geographic landforms include the

upper Hoback River, Horse Creek, South Gros Ventre Mountains, the East Rim, Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Piney creeks, North and South Cottonwood creeks, Deadline Ridge, 

Monument Ridge, Snider Basin, and the towns of Merna, Big Piney, Marbleton, and 

Bondurant. 

The present district’s southern and western boundaries buttress the Greys River and 

Kemmerer districts. The southern boundary runs southeast of Tri-Basin Divide along 

Packsaddle and Deadline ridges, while the western boundary straddles the crest of the

Wyoming Range all the way north to U.S. 189/191 at the Hoback River, just east of 

Granite Creek. The boundary, now next to the Jackson District boundary, then runs all 

the way north-northeast to the Gros Ventre Mountain, then winds east and south toward 

the Green River and “The Rim,” about 25 miles west of Pinedale, where it then follows

the eastern forest boundaries (see Map BP). The highest point is the summit of 11,343-

foot Wyoming Peak, the location of the state’s highest fire lookout structure. 

 

BIG PINEY DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS 

The current Big Piney District used to be a collection of smaller districts centered around 

ranger and guard stations. Much like Cokeville/Kemmerer, Big Piney District was one of

mostly stock raising and timber harvest. Since the area was so long and vast, it made

sense for the Forest Service to have multiple districts to monitor stock and lumber 

activities. Over time, these smaller districts—Hoback, Sherman, and Snider Basin—were 

in turn absorbed by the one district centered around an urban infrastructure: Big Piney. 

As rangers turned from horse and foot patrols to using automobiles—then to airplanes 

around World War II—the need for smaller districts faded into history. 

Over time, Big Piney District boundaries have been modified, at times due to a ranger’s 

suggestion. For example, until 1938, the Greys River served as the western boundary 

until Big Piney District Ranger Ed Cazier successfully convinced the forest supervisor

that to shift the boundary east to the crest of the Wyoming Range made for more efficient

administration. 

*

 Sources for this district include the typewritten, undated manuscript “Big Piney Ranger District”; from

USFS Building (7300) and History (1650) Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson, and D-2 Office, Big Piney; USFS 

Directories, s.v “Bridger” and “Bridger-Teton”; and USFS Maps. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 85
 

MAP #BP: BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT 

_________________________________ 

The district’s northern portion, from the Wyoming Range’s central stretches, Bondurant 

Valley, the upper Hoback drainage, and the Gros Ventre Mountains are part of what used 

to be the B-T’s Hoback District, eliminated in 1984 and absorbed by the Jackson and Big 

Piney districts. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 86
BIG PINEY ADMINISTRATIVE SITES 

Since 1985, the district headquarters has been located in a former restaurant on the south 

end of Big Piney. Before this, the office was located in an adjoining building that now 

houses a barbershop, and from the 1930s to the late 1960s, the former office at 440 

Nichols Street (see Volume II). The location of Big Piney District offices before the 

CCC built the 440 Nichols office and garage are presently unknown. Another house,

built in the 1920s and located at 240 Smith Street, served as the ranger’s residence before

the availability of private housing. The district still uses the building for staff housing. 

The building on the right is the current district office, located on the south end of Big Piney. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Some current administrative sites served as former district headquarters. The Sherman 

Guard Station, located about five miles west of Merna on Horse Creek, was the district 

office for the Hoback-Sherman District, which combined with the Big Piney District just 

before World War II. Snider Basin Guard Station, twenty-five miles west of Big Piney, 

was headquarters for the old Snider Basin District, and was absorbed into Big Piney’s 

fold in the mid 1920s. Rangers continue to use Snider Basin as a seasonal station. 

Big Piney District maintains many administrative sites, including a large number of 

strategically placed fire lookout towers. Deadline Ridge, Prospect Peak, Wyoming Peak, 

and Monument Ridge have CCC-era fire lookouts at their summits, with current

discussion centered on the possible seasonal re-staffing of Deadline Ridge and 

Monument Ridge lookouts due to their relatively sound structural conditions and ease of 

access (the only two lookouts on the B-T that can be accessed with a 4WD vehicle).

Guard stations currently in use include Sherman, Snider Basin, and Hoback; these 

facilities provide housing for seasonal employees as well as shelter for winter 

recreationists. 

The Big Piney work center about one and one-half miles south of town contains a historic 

barn still used for tack and feed storage. This barn has been moved at least once from its

original location along State Highway 350, about one-half mile west of town. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 87
BIG PINEY PAST SITES 

Other former administrative facilities not used by the Forest Service include the North 

Cottonwood Ranger Station (privately owned since the early 1970s) and the remnants of 

Beaver Guard Station a few miles north of Sherman Guard Station on South Beaver 

Creek. North Cottonwood Ranger Station, built in the 1920s, provides good fuel for B-T 

forest lore. According to Big Piney District Ranger Ed Cazier, the three-room log

structure was built for rangers to monitor tie-cutting activities in the Cottonwood Creek

area. Still, every time Cazier stayed overnight, he was convinced that the house and area 

were haunted by the spirit of a “departed tie hack on his annual binge,” although the 

sounds were created by small, nocturnal animals scurrying about inside and outside the 

cabin. 

Ed Cazier’s cozy North Cottonwood Ranger Station deep in the grips of winter. It is now privately owned. USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 88
 BIG PINEY DISTRICTS AND RANGERS

Hoback District Snider Basin District 

(no listing before 1920) Fred Graham, 1920-1921 

Albert David, to 1920 William Ray, 1922 

Charles Brackett, 1923-1924 

Combined With Sherman, c. 1920 J.J. Albano, 1925 

Combined with Big Piney, c. 1925 

Sherman District Big Piney District 

Fred Graham, 1908-1917 Fred Graham, 1908-1917 

Perry Ashdown, 1918-1919 Leo Phest, Bill Ray, 1918-1922 

Irvin Smith, Albert David, 1920-1923 Charles Brackett, J.J. Albano, 1924-1929 

Leo Fest, 1924-1926 S.E. Cazier, 1929-1940 

S.E. Cazier, 1927-1928 James Lambert, 1941-1960

J.J. Albano, 1929-1937 Bill Paddock Jr., 1961-1965 

Rodman Barker, 1966-1976 

Combined with Big Piney, c. 1937 Francis Carlson, 1977-1988 

Greg Clark, 1989- 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 89
 GREYS RIVER RANGER DISTRICT*

Headquartered in Afton since 1972, when it was created by the merger of the former

Afton and Thayne Ranger Districts, the Greys River Ranger District comprises most of

the Bridger Division’s western half. As of 2002, district acreage stands at approximately 

471,000 acres. Major geographic features include the Greys and Little Greys River, the 

Salt River Range and west slope of the Wyoming Range, Gannett Hills, Corral Creek, 

McDougal Gap, Swift Creek, Periodic Spring east of Afton (the only known cold-water 

geyser on Earth), Snake River, Star Valley, and the towns of Afton, Bedford, Thayne, 

Etna, Grover, Alpine, and Smoot. 

Greys River Ranger District’s boundaries adjoin three districts: Jackson on the north, Big 

Piney on the east, and Kemmerer to the south. The northern boundary runs along the

south bank of the Snake River, then south and west down the west slope of the Salt River 

Range to a point near Salt River Pass south of Smoot. A small addition, the Gannett 

Hills, adjoins the west side of U.S. 89 to the Idaho border; administration here is shared

with the Kemmerer District. The district’s eastern boundary leaves the Snake River at 

Bailey Creek, then runs south along the west side of the Wyoming Range all the way to 

Cheese Pass and Tri-Basin Divide. It then weaves west following LaBarge Creek

drainage to Commissary Ridge, Sheep Pass, and down Salt River drainage to Salt River 

Pass. (see Map GR) The lowest elevation is 5,620 feet near Alpine, while the highest is 

Wyoming Peak, 11,343 feet. 

 DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS 

History on this side of the forest dates back to 1908, when Afton was named the 

supervisor’s office location for the old Wyoming National Forest. Once the Wyoming 

and Bridger forests consolidated in 1923, the office was moved to Kemmerer, a more 

centralized and less-isolated locale. The Greys River Ranger District, like Big Piney, is a 

good example of how smaller districts eventually merged into larger ones as patrolling

became more efficient. 

Before World War II, this side of the Wyoming National Forest was divided into three 

smaller districts: Afton, Bedford (later Thayne), and Smoot. The Smoot District, whose

boundaries are unknown, was the first to be absorbed, most likely by the Afton Ranger 

District sometime in the mid-1920s. Not much is known about Smoot District or where it

was administered, except that Forest Service directories list Smoot, current population 

100, as the Post Office drop. 

 

*

 Sources for this district include the typewritten, undated manuscripts “Welcome to the Greys River 

Ranger District,” “Historical Data: Afton Ranger District,” and “History of Thayne District” from USFS 

Building (7300) and History (1650) Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson, and D-3 Office, Afton; also USFS 

Directories, s.v. “Bridger” and “Bridger-Teton” and USFS Maps. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 90
MAP #GR: GREYS RIVER RANGER DISTRICT 

______________________________________ 

Bedford Ranger District’s history is clearer. Early grazing maps show the dividing line 

between Bedford and Afton districts to be a line running east of Turnerville along Willow 

Creek, then heading south and east of Forest Park to the Wyoming Range. It is unclear as 

to where this district was managed prior to the 1930s. During this decade, a small CCC 

spike camp working out of nearby Grover Park built a four-building administrative 

complex in Bedford. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 91
This complex remained as the district’s administrative headquarters until the early 1960s, 

when the Forest Service sold the Bedford property to move into new headquarters in 

Thayne, about five miles west. Once out of Bedford, the name changed to Thayne 

District (although some documents referred to it as Bedford-Thayne). It would remain 

this way until the 1972 consolidation of Afton and Thayne districts created the present 

Greys River Ranger District. 

The old Bedford Ranger Station, located about 5 miles east of Thayne. Most of the buildings are now gone. USFS Photo 

GREYS RIVER CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE SITES

The current district office is located at 125 Washington on Afton’s north end. It has 

occupied this location since the 1960s when it was known as the Afton Ranger District. 

Before the 1960s, the old Afton Ranger District office was located on 5th street in the

“Afton Complex,” a series of CCC-era buildings that still exist. Before this time,

however, it is not clear as to where the district office was located. Some early histories

point to the office being worked out of the ranger’s private residence, but no reference is

made as to the location of said residence. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 92
The current Greys River office, built in the mid-1960s. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Administrative sites on the Greys River Ranger District are numerous. In addition to the 

Afton Complex, which is now used for equipment storage and for permanent and 

seasonal employee housing, the forest maintains a tack-feed barn in Osmond south of 

Afton (moved from the Afton Complex in the mid 1960s), a newer work center north of 

town, and employee housing in Thayne. 

Numerous CCC-era guard stations dot the district: Deer Creek, McCain, Cazier (former 

Corral Creek, named in honor of Ranger and Afton native Samuel E. Cazier), and 

Meadows, which also serves as a helicopter base-of-operations during the summer fire 

season. Like other districts, workers use the stations in the summer for housing, and they 

are rented in the winter to recreationists. The district also helps with the maintenance of 

Kemmerer District’s LaBarge Guard Station, mostly because of its location adjacent to 

the Greys River district. 

The district also maintains, but does not staff, numerous CCC-era fire lookouts 

strategically placed near Greys River and adjoining drainages. Deadman (a.k.a. 

Greyfall), Cabin Creek, and Elk Mountain lookouts cover a vast spatial area, and when 

working with other lookouts on the Big Piney District, can cover the entire forest’s 

southern stretches. As with a couple lookouts on Big Piney District, there is discussion 

of rehabilitating then staffing Cabin Creek and Elk Mountain lookouts during the summer 

fire season. 

GREYS RIVER PAST ADMINISTRATIVE SITES 

Other guard and ranger stations have long been abandoned. The Bedford complex was

sold to a private owner in the early 1960s. The Forks of Greys River Guard Station, 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 93
located at the confluence of Greys and Little Greys Rivers, was once a timber-cutting

checkpoint for activities on the Little Greys River, but was abandoned in the 1960s and 

moved upriver to Meadows Guard Station to serve as a bunkhouse. 

The former Forks of the Greys River Guard Station office, now the Meadows bunkhouse. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 94
GREYS RIVER DISTRICTS AND RANGERS 

Afton District Bedford District 

(Before 1918: Gliddeon Barstow, John 

Graham

G.W. Leaman, 1909-1917

John Ingram, John W. Davis, 1918-1923

George Yeaman) Fred Graham, 1924-1928 

James Moffett, 1919-1922 G.A. Turney, 1929-1934 

J.J. Albano, 1923-1924 Lowell Woods, 1935-1937

Ona Harrison, 1925-1937 Murle Markham, 1938-1943, 1946-1949

Lowell Woods, 1938-1943 C Douglas Wadsworth, 1944-1945 

Arch Gardner, 1944-1946 Vernon Brewer, 1950-1957 

Vaughn Tippetts, 1947-1957 Milton Sill, 1958-1962 

James Bossi, 1958-1961 

C. D. Wadsworth, 1962-1967 Renamed Thayne District, 1962 

W. Doug Haws, 1968-1972

Combined with Thayne, renamed

Greys River 1972 

Smoot District Thayne District 

(No entries before 1920) Milton Sill, 1962-1963 

Ralph Dyment, 1964-1966

James Moffett, 1920-1922 Frank Grover, 1967 

Harry Redford, 1923 Jay Sevy Jr., 1968-1972 

Combined with Afton District?, c.1924 Combined with Afton, renamed Greys 

River, 1972 

Greys River District 

W. Doug Haws, 1973-1979

David Garber, 1980-1983 

Gerald Hawkes, 1984-1988

John Newcombe, 1989-1993 

Walter Rogers, 1994 

Mesia Nyman, 1995-2002 

Levi Broyles (acting), 2002- 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 95
 PINEDALE RANGER DISTRICT*

 

Headquartered in Pinedale since the 1973 consolidation, this massive district, the B-T’s 

largest, comprises all of the eastern half of the Bridger Division. Major geographic 

features include the west slope of the Wind River Mountains, the Continental Divide, 

Gannett Peak, Green River, Green River Lakes, Big Sandy, Dutch Joe, Fremont Lake, 

Boulder Creek and Lake, Elkhart Park, and the towns of Cora, Pinedale, and Boulder. As

of 2002, district acreage stands at about 830,000 acres, of which 489,126 acres are 

federally designated wilderness lands divided between the Bridger Wilderness and a

small eastern section of the Gros Ventre Wilderness. 

The Pinedale Ranger District is another in the B-T system whose boundaries have not

changed a great deal over time, although some wilderness lands within have been 

adjusted since the Bridger Primitive area’s initial establishment in 1931 (and its official 

legal status attained with the 1964 passage of the Wilderness Act). Boundaries on the 

southwest and south are the forest boundaries proper, while the Continental Divide serves 

as the eastern boundary between Pinedale District, the Shoshone National Forest, and the 

Wind River Indian Reservation. The district’s eastern boundary heads southwest along 

the Pass Creek drainage, cuts through the eastern Gros Ventre Wilderness, then heads 

south to “The Rim” at U.S. 189/191. It then weaves northeast following the upper Green 

River Valley, then winds southeast toward Pinedale. A high-altitude district, elevations

range from 7,300 feet at Sandy Beach north of Pinedale to 13,804 foot Gannett Peak, the 

highest point in Wyoming. (see Map PD) 

 DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS 

Like other B-T districts, the Pinedale District is primarily one of stock raising and 

recreation, and in the non-wilderness areas, some logging operations. Some of 

Wyoming’s earliest tie-hack camps were located near Kendall before the forest was

formed. These camps helped build the Union Pacific Railroad across Southern 

Wyoming. Since World War II, recreation has been a huge attraction to the district, for 

the rugged peaks and scenery attract climbers from around the world, while thousands of 

large and small glacier-fed lakes and streams make for some of Wyoming’s best fishing. 

Because of the district’s vastness and extremely rugged and remote geographic nature, it 

is no surprise that as many as six smaller districts administered it in its early years from 

1908 to before World War II. Running from northwest to southeast, the original forest 

had Kendall, Green River, Willow Creek, Fremont, Boulder, and Dutch Joe Districts, 

with an average size of 133,000 acres each. Again, as in the rest of the forest, advances 

in transportation and communications—and the search for centralized efficiency—caused 

 

*

 Sources for this district include the typewritten, undated manuscript “Pinedale District Historical 

Information” and USFS Building (7300) and History (1650) Files, B-TNF SO, Jackson, and D-7 Office, 

Pinedale, also USFS Directories, s.v “Bridger” and “Bridger-Teton” and USFS Maps. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 96
MAP PD: PINEDALE RANGER DISTRICT 

____________________________________ 

larger districts like Green River and Fremont to absorb smaller districts like Willow

Creek and Dutch Joe. 

Forest Service directories indicate that the Boulder, Dutch Joe, Kendall, and Willow

Creek Districts were the first absorbed by the larger Green River and Fremont Districts

by the mid-1920s. This is the general pattern throughout the forest. Records are

incomplete as to where these smaller districts were administered, although logically the

Dutch Joe District was administered out of the old Dutch Joe Ranger Station near Big

Sandy, while Kendall was administered out of the old Kendall Ranger Station north of 

Cora. Willow Creek and Boulder Districts, however, have no information as to their 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 97
administrative whereabouts, and only list Cora and Boulder as their respective post office 

drops. 

By the time of the 1973 B-T consolidation, the vast Pinedale District had narrowed into 

two sections, mostly to facilitate administration. The dividing line ran due north from

Fremont Lake to just south of Gannett Peak—the northwestern, known as the Green 

River District, and the southeastern, which bounced between three names: Fremont, 

Pinedale (current), and Jim Bridger. One year later, in 1974, the line was lifted, with

Pinedale District retained as the preferred name. 

 PINEDALE ADMINISTRATIVE SITES 

Records indicate that after all the smaller district consolidations that left only the Green 

River and Fremont/Pinedale/Jim Bridger Districts, both were administered out of 

Pinedale. Before the 1930s, a lot at 243 W. Pine Street in downtown Pinedale contained 

an old office used by the Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest to 1923, when the 

Bridger and Wyoming consolidated and the supervisor’s office moved to Kemmerer. 

The Assistant Forest Supervisor used the building until 1927, then as headquarters for the 

Pinedale-Fremont District. In 1933, the original building was demolished, and in its 

place the CCC built an office/dwelling for yearlong use as the headquarters for the 

Fremont Ranger District of the Wyoming (Bridger after 1941) National Forest. It is 

currently used as much-needed employee housing. 

In 1933, on south Franklin Street, the CCC built another office and dwelling. The

improvement plan clearly stated that this building would be used as the Pinedale District 

Ranger’s office, and as winter headquarters for the Kendall District Ranger. Yet records 

contradict each other, for the Kendall District was absorbed by the much larger Green 

River District in the mid-1920s. Perhaps the names “Pinedale” and “Green River” were 

interchangeable during this time, but it can get confusing. 

The old Pinedale Ranger Station, built by the CCC in 1933. Note the pine tree cutouts on the shutters. USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 98
1938 forest maps—the first reliable ones located with district division lines—do confirm

that there were two districts on this section of the Wyoming/Bridger: Green River and 

Fremont. Both the south Franklin building and the building on 243 W. Pine were used as 

administrative headquarters until the mid-1960s, when the Fremont-Pinedale-Jim Bridger 

District Offices were moved to Rock Springs under a cloud of controversy over distance

(100 miles south of forest lands). The South Franklin building has since been sold a few 

times over for private use. 

After the Jim Bridger District Office in Rock Springs closed in 1972—and both Green 

River and Jim Bridger districts consolidated in 1973 and were renamed the Pinedale 

District, D-7 of the B-T in 1974—district offices moved into an office building in 

downtown Pinedale, currently the Pinedale Town Hall. In 1993, the district moved into 

its new office on the east end of town next to Faler’s Grocery Store. 

The current district office, located on the east end of Pinedale. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

 

PINEDALE: OTHER CURRENT SITES 

Downtown Pinedale also houses a small work center, which contains a large fire 

cache/warehouse (built in 1964) and other smaller, modern storage buildings of nonhistoric nature. Additionally, a CCC-built six horse barn that used to be located near the 

corner of Wilson and Lincoln Streets was moved in the 1960s to a lot about a mile north 

of town off the Fremont Lake Road, in the newer Favazzo Subdivision. Still used by the 

Forest Service for tack and feed storage, the barn is now part of a larger work and 

proposed housing center. 

Guard, ranger, and wilderness patrol-cabin stations still in use by the Pinedale District 

include Kendall Guard Station, the Green River Lakes Visitor Information Center (the

former G-P Bar Ranch), a modern work complex on Fish Creek about ten miles

northwest of Kendall, Willow Creek Guard Station near Cora, Elkhart Park Guard Station 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 99
north of Pinedale at the wilderness gateway, isolated Cross Lake Patrol Cabin in the

Bridger Wilderness’s central reaches, and Dutch Joe Guard Station near the Big Sandy 

Wilderness access in the district’s southeastern reaches. 

 THE PINEDALE HOUSING ISSUE 

A lack of housing has always been a major issue in Pinedale District administration. This 

is why, in 1952, administrators decided to uproot, transport, and remodel the dwelling 

and garage at Kendall Guard Station—built by the CCC less than twenty years earlier—

and relocate both at 332 N. Franklin. After placing both on concrete foundations, 

builders attached the garage to the rear of the house, remodeled the inside to provide 

additional bedrooms, and then built a small coal and fuel room on the rear of the old

garage. To provide vehicle winter protection and storage, the Forest Service moved the 

garage from the soon-to-be-abandoned Fremont Guard Station and placed it at the end of 

the driveway. Ten years later, another ranch-style house was built across the street. Both 

are used as employee housing. 

PAST PINEDALE ADMINSTRATIVE SITES 

Pinedale District has a history of many more administrative sites either burned down, 

dismantled, sold off, or reduced to rubble by nature. From northwest to southeast, guard 

and checking stations existed at “The Rim,” or Faler, Jim Creek (near Kendall), Green 

River Patrol Cabin, Spring Park, Fremont Lakes, Boulder Guard Station near Boulder 

Lake, South Fork Patrol Cabin near Scab Creek, and Sweetwater Guard Station twentyfive miles southeast of Dutch Joe. Not much information exists on these stations. The 

single building at Jim Creek Guard Station was moved to Boulder Guard Station in 1953. 

Green River Patrol Cabin collapsed under snow in the mid-1990s. Spring Park was sold 

to private concerns at an unknown date, while Fremont Lakes, after a big fire that 

destroyed the main warehouse, was eventually dismantled and buildings either relocated 

(see 332 N. Franklin above) or auctioned off. Although the South Fork Patrol Cabin still 

exists, Sweetwater Guard Station burned down in a 1975 fire. 

Sweetwater Guard Station. USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 100
Fire lookout history of the Pinedale District is even sketchier. A 1954 forest map shows

that a few scattered peaks throughout the district had lookouts, listed (again from

northwest to southeast) as Newfork, Willow Creek, and Crow’s Nest Lookouts. Whether 

these were actual structures, or temporary fixtures, cannot be determined. Research 

produced no plans or pictures for any of these lookouts. Currently, Pinedale District has 

no historic fire lookout structures. 

The old log Kendall Guard Station house/office, built in the late 1900s, was dismantled in the 1930s to make way for a 

larger house, which was uplifted and moved to Pinedale in the early 1950s. USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 101
PINEDALE DISTRICTS AND RANGERS 

Boulder District Dutch Joe District 

Edmund Cockins, ?-1920 Martin Murphy, ?-1924 

Combined with Fremont, c.1921 Combined with Fremont, c.1925 

Fremont District Pinedale District 

Chauncey Terry, ?-1920 Theodore Koskella, 1955-1956 

Edmund Cockins, 1921-1922 Kenneth Roberts, 1957-1964 

Ernest McKee, 1923-1927

Robert Dalley, 1928-1938 Renamed Jim Bridger, 1965

Samuel E. Cazier, 1939-1953 

David Gaufin, 1954 

Renamed Pinedale, 1955 

Jim Bridger District Pinedale District 

Dee Ritchie, 1965-1967 Malcom Holt, 1974-1976 

Thomas Kovalicky, 1968-1969 Ted Cox, 1977

Lewis Campbell, 1970-1973 Sam Warren, 1978-1986 

 Charles Jones, 1987-1988

Combined with Green River 1973, 

renamed Pinedale 1974 

Robert Reese, 1989-2001 

Craig Truelock, 2002- 

 

Kendall Willow Creek

Harry Cheeseman, 1920-1925 Dave Hicks, 1920 

Chauncey Terry, 1921 

Combined with Green River, 1926 Robert E Clark, 1922 

Harmon Shannon, 1923-1927 

Combined with Green River, 1927 

Continued>>>

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 102
Green River 

Harmon Shannon, 1928-1953 

Darrol Fluckinger, 1954-1958 

Acting, 1959-1962 

James Moorehead, 1963-1966 

Forrest Osborn, 1967-1971

Malcom Holt, 1972-1973 

Combined with Jim Bridger 1973, renamed Pinedale 1974 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 103
TETON DIVISION: JACKSON RANGER DISTRICT*

Of all the B-T’s districts, the least written about, at least at the district level, is the 

Jackson District. There is no informal typewritten manuscript that outlines basic district

history, and district files that should contain historic information on buildings and district 

history are empty. Since the current district is the result of mostly post-1973 

consolidations and adjustments, histories of former districts that now comprise the 

Jackson, such as the Hoback (not to be confused with the tiny Hoback District of the old 

Wyoming National Forest) and Gros Ventre Districts, do exist. These district histories

can help illustrate how the Jackson District, both old and new, evolved over time,

although specific district information remains incomplete. 

One of only two districts on the B-T’s Teton Division, the vast Jackson District occupies 

roughly the lower half of the division. It is the only district on the B-T that spans four 

counties: Teton, Lincoln, Sublette, and Fremont. Headquartered in Jackson since the 

Teton National Forest’s creation in 1908, the current Jackson Ranger District is 

comprised of 687,192 acres, 37,600 of which are Caribou-Targhee National Forest (C-T) 

acreage administered by the B-T on the north bank of the Snake River near Alpine 

Junction. 

Bordered on the east by the Shoshone National Forest and the Continental Divide, the 

boundary line runs south from a point just west of Fish Lake Mountain, then weaves 

southwest along the western boundary of the B-T’s Pinedale District. Following 

ridgeline contours, the boundary then winds a northwesterly course into the Gros Ventre 

Wilderness, then at Corner Peak it heads due south into Sublette and Lincoln counties all 

the way to Cliff Creek Pass, where it adjoins Big Piney District. 

The district line then takes an abrupt turn north, adjoining the Greys River District along 

the far northeast ridge of the Wyoming Range to the Snake River near Bailey Creek.

Heading west along the Snake’s north bank into the small area of the C-T administered

by the B-T, the district boundary then heads north along the east boundary of the C-T and 

the Snake River Range, past the legendary Teton Pass, to its terminus at the Jackson 

Mountain Resort and Grand Teton National Park. The district’s western and northern 

boundaries are the national park/forest proper, the National Elk Refuge, and the Buffalo 

District (see Map JA). 

 

*

 Sources for this district include the typewritten, undated manuscripts “Hoback Ranger District” and “Fact 

Sheet for the Gros Ventre District,” located in History (1650) Files and USFS Building files (7300) BTNF SO, Jackson., Information also taken from USFS Directories, s.v “Teton,” and USFS Maps. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 104
MAP #JA: JACKSON RANGER DISTRICT

__________________________________ 

Major geographic landforms include Gros Ventre River and range, Snake River and 

range, Gros Ventre Slide and Slide Lake, Granite Highline, Lake, and Falls, the east side 

of the Wyoming Range, and the towns of Jackson and Wilson. Jackson District is also a 

wilderness district, containing most of the 287,000 acre Gros Ventre Wilderness, 

established in 1984. Low and high elevations include 5,900 feet on the Snake River near 

Bailey Creek and 11,864-foot Doubletop Peak in the Gros Ventre Range. 

 DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS 

Much like the forest’s other districts, Jackson’s is one of smaller districts consolidated 

over time. And like all the other districts, the Jackson is one of livestock grazing, timber 

cutting, and, since the 1950s, increased year-round recreational usage. Forest Service 

directories point to much smaller districts such as Bryan Flat, Faler, Goosewing, 

Horsetail, Lee, Stewart, and Teton all eventually absorbed by the larger Jackson, Hoback 

(again, not to be confused with the “Hoback” District that was part of the old

Wyoming/Bridger), or Gros Ventre Districts. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 105
Similar to the neighboring Pinedale District, much of this has to do with the vastness of 

an area that stretched all the way from the Idaho border to the Continental Divide, where

smaller, easier to patrol and administer districts made sense. Like everywhere else on the 

forest, with the improvement of roads and telecommunications—and the advent of the 

automobile and airplane as means of patrol—larger districts became standard. 

Unfortunately, no known maps delineating the smaller districts’ boundaries exist. 

 

The mid-1920s stand as a period of major Teton National Forest district consolidation. 

Around 1925, the small Bryan Flat District east of Hoback Junction consolidated with the 

Hoback District; about a year later the Faler District east of Bondurant was absorbed by 

the Hoback. Further north, in the mid-1920s the larger Gros Ventre District absorbed the 

small Goosewing and Horsetail Districts (all were administered out of Kelly before the

1943 declaration of Jackson Hole National Monument), while the small Lee and Stewart 

Districts near Wilson were placed into the Jackson District’s fold. The other western 

district, the Teton, escaped consolidation until 1943, when it was placed under Jackson’s 

administrative aegis. By 1944, districts were set: Jackson, Gros Ventre, and Hoback, all

with offices in Jackson. 

It remained this way until 1972, when Forest Supervisor Tom Coston announced another 

consolidation. This time, the Jackson District was to be abolished and broken in two, 

with one section going to the Hoback District and another to the Gros Ventre. This did 

not last. In 1984, the final consolidation-adjustment occurred upon the creation of the 

Gros Ventre Wilderness Area: the smaller Gros Ventre District and parts of the old 

Hoback District were combined to resurrect the current version of the Jackson District 

(part of the old Hoback went to the Big Piney District). This configuration remains to 

this day. 

CURRENT JACKSON ADMINISTRATIVE SITES 

In addition to serving as multiple-district headquarters, Jackson has always been the

location of the Teton National Forest Supervisor’s Office. As a previous chapter noted, it 

is hard to trace exactly where the SO was located before the mid-1930s, for the office 

jumped from one building to another as space and needs dictated. It was not until the

1930s that Forest Supervisor A.C. McCain helped develop an improvement plan with 

new, permanent office space on the north end of Jackson adjoining the Elk Refuge.

Working with the plan, the CCC, along with private contractors, built an office building 

and various garages and storage facilities, along with extensive landscaping. Unlike

decades past, the Teton National Forest now had a permanent home; it was to remain this

way until the 1960s, when a newer, more spacious office building took its place. In 1973, 

the same building became the Supervisor’s Office for the newly consolidated B-T NF. 

The current Jackson District office is housed in the former Bureau of Reclamation prefabricated building just north of the SO. Before this, however, information is nonexistent as to where the district office was located. According to B-T Archeologist Jaime 

Schoen, the former Jackson district office was located in an upstairs office in downtown 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 106
Jackson, and moved to the current office when Reclamation completed upgrade work on 

Jackson Dam and vacated in 1989. He believes that many historic and building records

might have been lost or discarded in this shuffle.

The Jackson District has only a minimal number of administrative sites still in use. The 

Bryan Flat Guard Station near Hoback Junction is an interesting mixture of pre-CCC and 

CCC-era buildings, and has been used as a seasonal and Youth Conservation Corps 

summer work camp. Goosewing Guard Station 20 miles east of Kelly is a CCC-era 

ranger station that houses summer workers patrolling the Gros Ventre Wilderness. The 

Cottonwood Work Center near Hoback Junction contains mostly newer, non-historic 

buildings for employee housing and storage. Nelson Drive in Jackson provides 

affordable, modern housing in an expensive ski-resort town. 

 JACKSON: PAST SITES 

Older forest maps show many other administrative sites not in use, or absorbed by the 

National Park Service during Grand Teton’s piecemeal expansion. Small guard stations 

at Lee, Stewart, and Bull Creek no longer exist, while the Kelly Guard Station, once the 

office of Gros Ventre (and other smaller) districts, was turned over to the National Park 

Service after the 1943 declaration of Jackson Hole National Monument. 

The old Kelly Guard Station north of Jackson. Note the “Temple Front” of the Plan 51 at the far right, which reflects George L. Nichols’

vernacular interpretation of the Classical Revival style. USFS Photo 

Jackson District also had an extensive fire lookout network, with lookouts on Munger 

Mountain, Deer Creek, Sheep Mountain, Cache Creek, Signal Butte, and West Gros 

Ventre Butte. In the mid-1970s, however, the Forest Service deemed some lookouts as 

potential liability issues and fire hazards, then torched Munger and Deer Creek lookouts. 

As a result, the Jackson District has no historic lookouts. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 107
In a controversial move to discourage squatters and reduce liability hazards, some fire lookouts

throughout the Teton National Forest –and surrounding forests--were torched by the agency during 

the 1970s, in this case, Deer Creek Lookout near Goosewing Guard Station. USFS Photo 

 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 108
JACKSON DISTRICTS AND RANGERS 

Bryan Flat District Faler District 

William McKahan, 1920-1925 Roy Connor, 1921-1925

Combined with Hoback, c.1925 Combined with Hoback, c.1925 

Goosewing District Horsetail District 

Albert Gunther, 1920 Felix Buchenroth, 1920 

Bruce Coulter, 1921-1924 Bruce Coulter, 1921-1924

C.E. Dibble, 1925

Combined With Gros Ventre, 

c.1925 

Combined With Gros Ventre, 

c.1926 

Lee District Stewart District 

Earle Harris, 1920-1925 Charles Horel, 1920-1925 

Combined With Jackson, 1926 Combined with Jackson, 1926 

Continued>>>>>

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 109
Teton District Gros Ventre District 

Charles Horel, 1926 Albert Gunther, 1920-1921 

C.H. McDonald, 1927-1931 Bruce Colter, 1922-1925 

Richard Ohl, 1932-1935 Charles Dibble, 1926-1935

Various Acting, 1938-1943 Alford Balch, 1936-1942, 1946-

1948 

Combined with Jackson, 1943 Adolph Wogensen, 1949-1953 

Robert Safran, 1954-1956 

Mel Long, 1957 

George Rinehart, 1958-1960 

Blaine Cornell, 1961-1962

Alden Schuldt, 1963-1968

Steve Scott, 1969-1970 

Glenn Beckman, 1971-1975

S.R. Lisonbee, 1976-1979

Joe Kinsella, 1980-1984 

Abolished and Consolidated 

with sections of Hoback 

District to form new Jackson 

District, 1984 

Hoback District 

Albert Gunther, 1918-1921 

Roy Connor, 1921-1927 

James Lambert, 1928-1935

Charles Dibble, 1936-1945

Gray Reynolds, 1946-1958

Henry Shank, 1959-1960 

Tom Brierley, 1961-1963 

Wayne Foltz, 1964-1969 

James Mower, 1970-1974 

James Lawrence, 1975-1977 

Garth Baxter, 1978-1984 

Abolished 1984; Sections 

to Big Piney-Jackson 

Continued>>>

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 110
Jackson District, 1918-1972 (Old) 

Felix Buchenroth, 1918-1935 

James Lambert, 1936-1940

Vernon Brewer, 1941-1947 

C.D. Wadsworth, 1947-1953 

Adolph Wogensen, 1954-1956, 1960-1961 

Henry Shank, 1957-1959 

Wiley Daniels, 1962-1965

Mel Long, 1966-1968 

Lynn Sprague, 1969-1970

Jay Levy, 1971-1972 

Absorbed into Gros Ventre and Hoback Districts, 1972 

Jackson District, 1985-Present (New) 

(Formed from sections of Hoback and all of Gros Ventre) 

Joe Kinsella, 1985-1988 

Charles Jones, 1989-1996 

Various Acting 

Nancy Hall, 1999- 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 111
 BUFFALO RANGER DISTRICT*

As one of the first districts formed in one of America’s first national forests, Buffalo 

District history goes all the way back to 1908, when local legend Rudolph Rosencrans 

singe-handedly patrolled and mapped the entire district. Of all the B-T’s districts, the

Buffalo Ranger District north and east of Moran Junction is truly the consummate

“wilderness district.” Of its 750,000 acres, only 164,514 acres are non-wilderness; the

rest belong to the 585,486-acre Teton Wilderness. Most of the non-wilderness lands are 

located south and east of the Buffalo Fork River in lands adjoining the eastern boundary 

of Grand Teton National Park, the northern boundary of the Jackson District, and the 

western boundary of the Shoshone National Forest. 

Although the district’s present configuration is vast, its borders have not changed much

over time. The only notable changes came with reductions on the west side with the 

establishment and expansion of Grand Teton National Park. Currently, the district’s 

western boundary is Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial 

Parkway. The boundary then runs due east, adjoining the southern boundary of

Yellowstone National Park, past the Continental Divide and the Yellowstone River all the 

way to the park’s southeast corner. Then the district boundary follows the park’s 

boundary north to just south of the East Entrance at Eagle Pass, then weaves southeast 

along the boundary with the Shoshone National Forest. Most lands here are designated 

wilderness. 

Just north of Togwotee Pass, the boundary runs into the Continental Divide. At Two 

Ocean Mountain, the southern district boundary adjoins the northern boundary of the

Jackson District, then follows drainage lines all the way west to Lost Creek Ranch south 

of Moran Junction. Major geographic features in the Buffalo District include Buffalo 

Fork River, Atlantic and Pacific Creeks, Two Ocean Pass, “Parting of the Waters Natural 

Landmark” (where one can actually see Two Ocean Creek split into Atlantic and Pacific

Creeks), Enos and Bridger Lakes, Hawks Rest, Yellowstone River and Meadows, Turpin 

Meadows, Petrified Ridge, Grouse Mountain, and Blackrock Creek. The only town of 

note is Moran, located within Grand Teton National Park’s boundaries. Elevations vary 

from 6,700 feet near Moran to 12,165-foot Younts Peak in the Teton Wilderness (see

Map BU). 

 

*

 Sources for this district include the typewritten, undated manuscripts “Buffalo Ranger District” located in

History (1650) Files and USFS Building files (7300) located at the B-T SO, Jackson and D-6 Office at

Blackrock; Information also taken from USFS Directories, s.v “Teton,” and “Wilderness Administrative 

Structure Review” (Schoen, 1993), and USFS Maps. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 112
MAP #BU: BUFFALO RANGER DISTRICT

 _______________________________________ 

 DISTRICT HISTORY AND MODIFICATIONS 

Unlike other B-T districts, the Buffalo’s smaller-into-larger district pattern evolved 

simply. Upon the Teton National Forest’s 1908 creation, there were three districts: 

Blackrock, Buffalo, and Jackson Lake. The first two were administered out of 

Blackrock, while Elk served as the Post Office drop for Jackson Lake. In the mid-1920s, 

Blackrock and Buffalo Districts merged to form the Buffalo District. In 1943, upon 

President Roosevelt’s controversial Executive Decree that created Jackson Hole National 

Monument, the Jackson Lake District was abolished and what lands remained were 

absorbed into the Buffalo District. With a few minor land adjustments, this configuration

remains to this day. Originally classified as a primitive area in 1934, the Teton achieved

official wilderness status in 1955 and legal protection with the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 113
 BUFFALO ADMINISTRATIVE SITES: WILDERNESS AND ELSEWHERE 

To help administer such a vast area, the Forest Service, with help from private local 

contractors, in the 1920s built a series of patrol cabins in strategic locations throughout 

the wilderness. Designed to be reachable within a day’s ride for wilderness rangers, all

cabins were equipped with fire gear, emergency medical supplies, and two-way radios. 

Maps from 1928 show four log cabin-style guard stations, only of which two remain: the 

identical Enos Lake and Nowlin Meadows, both built in 1927. The other two, Browns

Park and Cub Creek, were either destroyed by fire or consumed by nature. The first 

Hawks Rest Patrol Cabin, badly damaged by an irate grizzly bear in the late 1940s then 

later torn down, was also built during the 1920s.

Enos Lake Patrol Cabin, Teton Wilderness. Nowlin Meadows Patrol Cabin is identical. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

It should also be noted that a 1938 wilderness map shows other patrol cabins not 

previously noted: Gravel Creek and Two Ocean Pass. It is unknown as to when they

were built, but both were destroyed by unchecked wilderness fires. (It is Forest Service

policy to let wilderness fires burn; the two major fires that ravaged southern and eastern 

Yellowstone in 1988 started in the Teton Wilderness.) 

After World War II, the Forest Service and local contractors constructed two more patrol 

cabins: the replacement for the old Hawks Rest Patrol Cabin in 1950 and Fox Park in 

1958. Now considered historic, Hawks Rest will be detailed in the upcoming “Buffalo 

District” chapter on current administrative structures. Currently, the district uses four

patrol cabins for administrative support: Enos Lake, Nowlin Meadows, Fox Park, and 

Hawks Rest, from late May through early October. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 114
During the 1930s, CCC construction activity was extensive everywhere in the forest 

except the wilderness areas. This is mostly due to remoteness and labor logistics of no 

mechanized travel of any kind. The only CCC-constructed building in the Teton 

Wilderness is Huckleberry Fire Lookout, located in the western reaches of the wilderness 

just south of Yellowstone. Constructed in 1938, the two-story lookout is basically a 

square, saddle-notched log structure on the bottom, topped off by a standard Region Four 

window-encased, hipped roof top floor. The lookout was enrolled on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on July 3, 1983, and was spared destruction in the 

1988 Yellowstone fires when firefighters took defensive positions around the peak to 

prevent the lookout from advancing fire lines. 

The other major administrative site on the district is the Blackrock Work Center, located 

just north of the District Office. Mostly a mélange of modern, non-historic houses, prefabricated cabins, trailers, warehouses, and garages, it does have a historic aspect. It is 

here in the early twentieth century that Rudolph Rosencrans built a series of log and 

chink structures, including a house, garage, barn, and shed that are currently listed on the 

NRHP as the “Rosencrans Cabin Historic District,” enrolled on August 6, 1980. Still 

used by rangers and employees for housing, equipment, and tack storage, all the buildings

on the district are in good shape and have been well maintained over time, both 

structurally and with historic integrity. As such, Buffalo is the only B-T district with two 

NRHP sites, Huckleberry Lookout and Rosencrans Cabin, and one National Natural 

Landmark site, the “Parting of the Waters” near Two Ocean Pass in the north-central

reaches of the wilderness. 

Other administrative structures at Blackrock still in use include a bunkhouse and a shed, 

as well as a gas house adjacent to the Rosencrans Cabin district. In addition, a few nonhistoric structures built in the 1950s that originally belonged to the nearby Hatchet Ranch 

are used for storage and employee housing; these are located about one mile east of the

Buffalo District office on the north side of U.S. 26/287. Other former administrative sites 

not in use are Gravel Peak and Baldy Mountain Lookouts. No information exists on 

these sites. 

Current headquarters for the Buffalo District are located in a roadside building about 10 

miles east of Grand Teton National Park’s Moran Junction, on the south side of U.S. 

26/287. District headquarters has always been in this area, beginning with the old cabin 

built by Rudolph Rosencrans back in the early 1900s. (It has been moved several times,

and currently sits behind the district office as an interpretive site.) The oldest parts of the

current building date back to the 1930s, with the entire structure subjected to several 

remodels, expansions, modernizations, and additions over time. 

BUFFALO ADMINISTRATIVE SITES LONG GONE 

Maps from the 1940s and 1950s show other administrative sites, originally part of the

forest, that were taken over by the National Park Service upon the expansion of Jackson 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 115
Hole National Monument and Grand Teton National Park. These include the Arizona, or 

“Rim” Guard Station up north near the park’s northeastern boundary and the Jackson 

Lake Guard Station near Moran. While the building at Arizona is long gone, the Jackson 

Lake facility is still used by the park service. In addition, a couple fire lookout sites that 

used to belong to the Forest Service were taken over by the National Park Service: 

Spalding Bay and Signal Mountain, both located on opposite sides of Jackson Lake. No 

information remains on file about these lookouts. 

Jackson Lake Guard Station, 1937. FS workers gutted these buildings before they were turned over to the park service in 1944. USFS Photo 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 116
BUFFALO DISTRICT RANGERS 

Blackrock District Jackson Lake District 

Rudolph Rosencrans, 1908-1926 Rudolph Rosencrans, 1920-1926 

Richard Ohl, 1927-1930 

Combined with Buffalo, 1926 C E Price, 1931-1933 

Alford Balch, 1934-1935 

C J Langer, Victor Stokes, 1936-1939 

Karl Allan, 1940-1943 

Combined with Buffalo, 1943 

Buffalo District

Richard Ohl, 1920-1925 

Rudolph Rosencrans, 1926-1928 

Karl Allan, 1929-1939 

Dana Cox, 1940-1945 

Verland Taylor, 1946-1948

C E Dibble, 1949-1952 

John Deinema, 1953-1956

Adolph Wogensen, 1957-1959 

Richard Payne, 1960-1961

Donald Hooper, 1962-1967 

John Hooper, 1968-1971 

James Lawrence, 1972-1975 

Mac Murdock, 1976-1984

John Baglein, 1985-1991 

Bill Bass, 1992-1997 

Charles Jones, 1998-1999 

Nancy Hall/Tim Short, 2000- 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 117
CONCLUSION

This overview of the B-T’s districts and how they evolved over the last eighty years 

reveals consistent patterns with regard to administrative practices and policies. The first 

is that the forest’s districts, in general, followed similar national patterns of consolidation,

with the first occurrences in the Interwar years and the second during the postwar 

recreation boom. As autos and airplanes replaced horses and mules for ranger patrols—

and as roads and communications improved—districts expanded. In turn, as districts 

expanded, the need for more administrative sites dwindled. As western Wyoming’s small 

towns were able to offer more basic services, district offices took advantage of logistic 

centralization, using the remaining major administrative sites as remote patrol shelters, 

seasonal work centers, or renting them to recreationists. 

Another pattern is one of personnel itself. In looking at who served as district rangers in 

the above tables, a distinct pattern of promoting or hiring within emerges, with one ranger 

working in another district then returning quite a common occurrence. For example, a 

district ranger who served in Bedford District could just as easily serve as a district 

ranger in Afton, due to familiarity of terrain and knowledge of nearby communities. 

Rangers like Karl Allan, Richard Ohl, and Ed Cazier worked multiple districts because

they knew the land, the people, and, at least during the war years, filled in due to the lack 

of qualified personnel. In addition to possessing excellent public-relations skills, these

rangers were versatile outdoorsmen who could rapidly learn any land upon transfer. 

Perhaps the most significant pattern is the increasing number of support personnel and 

specialists working each forest and district. Before about 1950, clerks and administrative 

assistants were the only employees of note listed alongside rangers and assistant rangers. 

After 1950, it became more commonplace to find range, wildlife, fire control, and

engineering specialists listed in the directories. After 1970, an increased level of 

specialization is noted: forestry technicians, archeologists, wildlife biologists, recreation

and timber/vegetation professionals, NEPA professionals, etc., begin to find their names

listed. This reflects how the Forest Service has grown from simple ranger and clerk days 

to a multifaceted agency attempting to address contemporary multiple use and need

challenges through the hiring and continued training of educated specialists. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 118
FOREST SUPERVISORS 

BRIDGER NATIONAL FOREST* TO 1973 

Robert E. Miller** 1902-1908 

Zeph Jones** 1902-1910 

John Raphael 1908-1910 

James E. Jewell 1910-1915 

Charles E. Beam 1915-1922 

H. Earl French 1910-1914 

Harry Hall 1914-1915 

Lee E. Cooper 1916-1920 

C.E. Favre 1922-1936 

James O. Stewart 1936-1937 

Carl B. Arenston 1937-1950 

W.W. Dresskell 1950-1953 

Jay L. Sevy 1953-1957 

Arthur Buckingham 1957-1961 

William A. Worf 1961-1965 

William O. Deshler 1965-1972 

Jack Lavin 1972-1973 

*Also known as Bonneville and Wyoming National Forests. Became Bridger in 1941. 

**Denotes supervisors for the Yellowstone Timber Reserve 

TETON NATIONAL FOREST TO 1973 

Charles Deloney** 1898-1902 

W.A. Thompson** 1902 

Robert E. Miller 1902-1918 

Arthur C. McCain 1918-1936 

J. William West 1936-1942 

Felix C. Koziol 1942-1944 

Wilford Hansen 1944-1945 

Arthur Buckingham 1945-1957 

H.H. Van Winkle 1957-1963 

Robert L. Safran 1964-1972 

Charles T. Coston 1972-1973 

**Denotes supervisors for the Yellowstone Timber Reserve 

Continued>>>>

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 119
BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, 1973-2002 

Charles T. Coston 1973-1975 

H. Reid Jackson 1975-1985 

Ernie Nunn (acting) 1985-1987 

Brian Stout 1987-1995 

Sandra Key 1995-1997 

Tom Puchlerz 1998-1999 

Carole “Kniffy” Hamilton 2000-

present 

 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 120
 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 

CHAPTER SIX: 1891-1907, PINCHOT PROVIDES DIRECTION 

Numerous administrative sites were withdrawn from public use to accommodate forest 

officials as they carried out office duties and fieldwork. Early maps designated all of

these as ranger stations while later maps differentiated between ranger stations, guard 

stations, and administrative pastures. The latter were often overnight pastures and tent 

camps spaced a day’s ride from each other. The rangers and guards spent their nights at 

these sites when policing their districts. These sites were typically fenced for pack and 

saddle stock, but unlike the ranger or guard stations, had no buildings. 

Ranger stations were sited to take advantage of water, existing or potential pasturage, 

shelter from the weather, and accessibility. To a lesser extent, forest officials considered 

the availability of mail delivery and the laying of telephone lines when selecting a site. 

The 1906 Use Book provided some guidance: 

Lands needed for the supervisors’ headquarters, rangers’ gardens, or pastures, 

and Forest Service nursery sites should be selected ... from nonmineral, 

unclaimed lands, and will be specially reserved from any form of location or

entry. Supervisors should recommend sufficient reservations to meet the future 

as well as the present needs of the service. If it becomes necessary to

recommend the reservation of land probably valuable for mining purposes or 

embraced in an invalid claim, a special report should accompany the 

recommendation, showing the necessity for reservation and the character of the

claim.

197

The manual went on to guide the location and conditions of the Supervisor’s Office: 

Reserve headquarters should be located in the nearest town to the reserve that

offers proper railroad, telephone, telegraph, and mail facilities, and may be 

secured only through the permission of the forester. In every case an office 

should be equipped with a proper sign. Request for authority to rent a house 

must describe the location and condition of the buildings and the rooms, and give

in detail what is secured with the office, as light, heat, telephone, and janitor 

service. In every case a lease will be prepared by the Washington office for 

execution by the lessor. Supervisors must never occupy an office that is

furnished rent free by a company or an individual.198 

At first, the withdrawal process was informal. The ranger or other forest official 

submitted a “Report on a Proposed Administrative Site” that described the character of 

the terrain and any other improvements. If the Forest Supervisor approved, he signed and 

forwarded the report –with attached map, usually a drawing—to the District Forester for 

approval. 

 

197 US Department of Agriculture, The Use Book (1906), 25. 198 Ibid., 121 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 121
IMPROVEMENTS 

When the forest reserves were created, they were not expected to be self-supporting for 

some time. This was partly due to the construction needed to support the Forest Service’s 

basic functions. The rangers needed roads and trails to inspect rangeland, timber and 

water resources, while lookouts, fires lines, and telephone lines were necessary for an 

effective fire prevention system.

199 The first ranger stations were built with the ranger’s 

own money; it was not until 1903 that Wapiti Ranger Station on the Shoshone National 

Forest west of Cody, Wyoming, was constructed as America’s first officially funded 

ranger station.200 

The 1905 transfer of forests to the Department of Agriculture bought about increased 

funding for the construction of improvements, and the Forest Service began building the 

necessary facilities. Pinchot directed the rangers to spend as much time on roads and 

trails, but also encouraged them to build cabins and fence pastures when needed. He 

indicated that abandoned settlers’ cabins could be used.201 Additionally, cooperation 

with local authorities was deemed necessary to facilitate this increased construction; in

1906, the Reserve Engineering Section was formed to supervise this work. 

The minimal Congressional funding and negligible income from forest receipts were used 

for infrastructure, leaving very little to construct buildings. Even when money was 

available, the $500 building limit set by Congress did not pay for anything but the 

smallest, most basic of structures. As a result, regional and forest headquarters were

typically located in rented commercial buildings or even houses, while the rangers often 

lived in tents on the forest, sometimes year-round.202 

After the 1906 court case Light vs. USFS, which confirmed the Forest Service’s 

jurisdiction over forest resources, the agency’s supervision of grazing and other uses 

increased. This led to a need for more administrative structures.203 According to the

1906 Use book, all efforts were made to provide year-round rangers with permanent 

cabins:

It is the intention of the Forest service to build these as rapidly as funds permit.

Wherever possible cabins should be built of logs, with shingle or shake roofs. 

The hardware, glass, and door and window frames may be purchased on 

authorization from the Forester. Cabins should be of sufficient size to afford

comfortable living accommodations to the family of the ranger stationed in them,

and this ranger will be held responsible for the proper care of the cabin and the 

ground surrounding it. It is impossible to insist on proper care of camps if the 

forest officers themselves do not keep their cabins as models of neatness. 

 

199 Boerker, xliv-xlv. 200 Hartley and Schneck, 37. 201 USDA The Use Book (1905), 72. 202 Boerker, xliv-xlv. 203 Hartley and Schneck, 37. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 122
Rangers’ cabins should be located where this enough agricultural land for a small 

field and suitable pasture land for a few head of horses and a cow or two, in order 

to decrease the often excessive expense for vegetables and feed.... The amount 

of agricultural land necessary to supply a ranger’s family with vegetables and to

raise hay and grain enough to winter his saddle and other stock will vary greatly

in different localities, but as a general rule it will not be less than 10 nor more 

than 40 acres. 

The pasture should be of sufficient size to support the stock not in use by the 

ranger during the summer, and only in cases where it is obviously necessary 

should they include land that could be used for agriculture. They will vary in

size, according to the quality of the feed, from 40 to 200 acres. A two or three 

wire fence strung on posts or trees 30 feet apart will, in most cases, be sufficient

to protect these pastures from range stock....204

The Old Blackrock Ranger Station, built in 1904 by Rudolph Rosencrans, is the B-T’s oldest surviving administrative structure. From 1969 to 

1991 it sat in front of the SO in Jackson as a “mobile” display. It now sits behind the Buffalo district office. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Efforts were made to give the Forest Service buildings a “professional yet amiable” 

appearance for the public’s sake.205 Under Pinchot’s direction, ranger stations were to be 

 

204 USDA, The Use Book (1906), 108-109. 205 Hartley and Schneck, 13. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 123
“neat and sanitary, providing examples for campers” and the “rangers’ privies had to be 

more than fifty yards from the house with at least a six-foot vault.” Pinchot and his staff 

also decided that the American flag should fly over the head man’s tent in the field.206 

These simple instructions were the seeds of a standardized approach to building

construction, design, and layout that became widespread by the 1930s. 

Using much of Ranger Rosencrans’ gear, the interior of Old Blackrock Ranger Station is an interpretive “museum” that depicts how a ranger’s

office might look in the Forest Service’s early years. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

 

206 Steen, The U.S. Forest Service, 83, 64. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 124
CHAPTER SEVEN: 1908-1929, THE PIONEER TRADITION 

Around America, forests were consolidated and subdivided as the Forest Service adjusted 

and refined its goals and policies. These actions resulted in redrawn boundaries and the 

withdrawal of numerous administrative sites. Many were merely posted as administrative 

sites, but some were formally withdrawn under the Reclamation Act of 1902 in an effort

to protect water power sites since there was no other authority to do so at the time. 

President Theodore Roosevelt had no problem with this, but his successor Taft, elected 

in 1908, viewed this method as potentially illegal. Although he did not rescind those that 

had already been improved, Taft prevented further withdrawals until Congress authorized 

such actions.

207

On February 12, 1912, new procedures for administrative site selection and withdrawal 

went into effect. The policy stated that if land for rangers’ headquarters, pastures, 

corrals, and other administrative uses could not be found on the forest, then vacant and 

unappropriated public land could be withdrawn under an act of June 24, 1910. Proposed 

withdrawals had to consider present and future uses as well as administrative needs.

Rangers’ headquarters, which would typically be no more than 160 acres, were to be sited 

where there was enough agricultural land for a pasture and garden, as well as adequate 

irrigation water.208

The old Goosewing Guard Station, c.1925. USFS Photo 

Once a site was selected, it was to be located by legal subdivisions if on surveyed land, or 

by metes and bounds survey if on unsurveyed land. He site was to be posted with 

notices, with a map and report discussing proposed improvements sent to the Forest 

Supervisor. If approved, the Forest Supervisor would then send the report to the District 

Forester for final approval. Lands not within forest boundaries would be formally

 

207 Pamela Ann Conners, “Patterns of Water and Hydroelectric Development on the Stanislaus National 

Forest, 1850 to 1920” (MA Thesis, Univ. of California Santa Barbara, 1989), 91-92. 208 USDA Forest Service, The National Forest Manual (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1912), 52. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 125
withdrawn by Executive Order. The District Forester could cancel withdrawals if they

had not been withdrawn by the Secretary of the Interior or by Executive Order, otherwise 

they had to be formally revoked by the Secretary or another Executive Order.209 This

formal procedure sought protection against mining and/or homestead claims. 

Availability of services and roads continued to determine the locations of administrative 

sites. The 1915 Use Book stated “The district rangers have their headquarters at the 

nearest business center, or if that is not practicable, permanent headquarters, with barn 

and pasture, are provided on the Forests.”210 As before, small areas of land sited 

conveniently around the ranger district were withdrawn from use to serve as overnight 

camps and pastures. 

As dictated by the Washington Office, administrative site names reflected local people 

and geographic features. On the Bridger-Teton, many were named after water features

(Enos Lake, Green River Lakes), the setting (Bryan Flat, Snider Basin), settlements (Big 

Piney, Kelly), and people (McCain, Kendall). Others referred to flora and fauna (Willow 

Creek, Deer Creek), while some adopted peculiar local names (Dutch Joe, Big Sandy, 

and Scaler). Fire lookouts were generally named after the peak on which they stood 

(Deadman, Wyoming Peak). Of interest was the availability of these administrative sites

to the public, who could use them under special-use permits as long as there was no 

conflict with forest work. Even those sites used as ranger stations could be occupied 

when the Forest Service was not using them or if joint use was deemed practical. 211 

This trend continues to this day, with winter recreationists able to rent Forest Service 

administrative cabins for recreational use. 

In the 1920s, automobiles and more roads improved forest access; as a result, smaller 

districts were consolidated and the ranger was able to live in town, as noted in a 1921 

bulletin: 

...employees have found it necessary to live where social conditions are 

unfavorable in poor and inadequate living quarters and often under adverse

climatic conditions. We can not change the climate but we are gradually 

changing from the plan of putting a man and his family up in some isolated

canyon, to one of locating him on the main thoroughfares and sometimes in the 

centers of population where the conditions are less severe and the opportunities 

for communication and transportation are better.212

Ranger stations in remote and rural areas eventually became guard stations that were used 

only during field seasons. A good example on the Bridger-Teton are Sherman and Snider 

Basin Guard Stations near Big Piney, which originally served as district headquarters for

their respective districts. In the 1920s, as the automobile became the new, preferred

means of patrol for rangers, smaller neighboring ranger districts were consolidated to 

become the larger Big Piney Ranger District. This dovetailed with Big Piney’s

 

209 Ibid., 53. 210 USDA Forest Service, The Use Book (1915), 15. 211 Ibid., 58. 212 USDA, Alumni Bulletin, 44. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 126
increasing service infrastructure, so a decision was made by the forest to headquarter the 

Big Piney district in Big Piney. Thus, Snider Basin and Sherman Guard Stations became

seasonal administrative facilities. 

Forest officials were instructed to select administrative sites, which were kept to a 

minimum, after careful consideration of current and future needs. They could withdraw 

sample plots for regional experimental stations (of which there were none on the BridgerTeton) but were to avoid mineral lands and, unless absolutely needed, agricultural lands. 

Officials were given instructions on withdrawing sites: 

While land classification has removed most of the danger that tracts valuable for 

public purposes will be listed, a continuation of the practice of reserving such 

tracts is desirable to emphasize their special values and to prevent impairment of 

those values by issuance of ill-considered permits.... Not all reserved areas are a 

matter of formal record or posting, since forest lands are already reserved. In a

certain sense all national forest lands are reserved for public service purposes, 

and any area may be used for the purposes enumerated. Special reservation is

necessary only where there may be some other demand for the land, and only 

areas which may possibly be later claimed or coveted for private purposes require 

the protection of a recorded dedication. Such a special reservation is 

accomplished by use or dedication inside the forests, or use Executive order 

outside of the forests. 213

FOREST ENGINEERS 

Before forest engineers got involved with building design and construction, they were 

primarily concerned with surveying and civil engineering projects like roads, bridges, and 

water control features. W.E. Herring was the first chief of the Washington Office 

Engineering Section. Pinchot created this section in late 1906 with ten civil engineers, 

several telephone experts, and draftsmen. When the forests were organized into districts 

in 1908, herring became a district engineer and O.C. Merrill became Chief of 

Engineering at the WO.

214

In 1920, Merrill was succeeded by T.W. Norcross, who had joined government service 

shortly after receiving his civil engineering degree in 1904. he began his career with the 

USGS, leaving for a two-year stint with the City of Springfield, Massachusetts. In 1910, 

Norcross transferred from the USGS to the Forest Service where he served as District

Engineer for the Rocky Mountain and Southwestern districts. Promoted to Assistant 

Chief Engineer at the WO in 1913, seven years later he became chief. By the time 

Norcross retired in 1947, the Engineering Division was in charge of all construction and 

maintenance work, including the architectural and structural design of administrative

improvements.215

 

213 USDA Forest Service, The National Forest Manual, 57-L. 214 Byrne, 3. 215 “Theodore W. Norcross,” in The History of Engineering in the Forest Service (Washington, DC: USDA

Forest Service, 1990), 15. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 127
While O.C. Merrill was still Chief, in 1908 A.T. Mitchelson served as his assistant in 

Ogden; he may have been the first Region Four engineer, but this is not certain due to his 

unclear duties and position.216 At that time, engineering was a branch within the Division

of Operations.217 The Engineering Branch was later nearly abolished, with work being

carried out with the assistance of an engineer headquartered in San Francisco. Joseph P. 

Martin, appointed Region Four’s Chief Engineer in 1910, graduated in 1900 from Lehigh 

University with a degree in civil engineering, then worked for U.S. Steel and the Virginia 

railways before joining Region Four. In 1911, shortly after Martin arrived, the Region 

Four Engineering Office was re-established, focusing primarily on water power 

investigations. 

In 1916, the Federal Aid Road Act was passed, transferring roadwork from Region 

Four’s Operations Division to Engineering.218 This led to the establishment of a separate

Section of Engineering the following year. The job of the new section was to carry out: 

... the work of Geography, including the Atlas work, and the road work under the 

10% and Section 8 funds, the greater portion of the water work, and all survey 

work except Entry Surveys and such topographic survey work as may be done in 

Grazing or Silvicultural Reconnaissance.219 

The section included several surveyors, clerks, printers, and draftsmen. By 1921, chief 

draftsman Don Jackson was overseeing three draftsmen—a misnomer since they were all 

women: Inez Corn, Rosalie Holberg, and Mary Malan. Holberg was one of the few 

people who came west from the WO when the Forest Service was decentralized.220 The

section grew and, in 1927, it was the largest in the Region Four office, having 14 of the

50 RO employees.221 

IMPROVEMENTS 

The 1907 Agricultural Appropriation Act provided funds to construct permanent 

improvements on the national forests. The work was to improve the protection and 

administration of the Forests by providing better means of communication and 

transportation. Many roads, telephone lines, trails, cabins, barns, and pastures were 

constructed with the act’s money. By 1916, the nation’s forest boasted 227 miles of 

roads, 1,975 miles of trails, 2,124 miles of telephone lines, 81 lookout structures, and 545 

dwellings, barns, and other structures. Over the next two years these numbers exploded: 

over 3,000 miles of roads, 25,000 miles of trails, 23,000 miles of telephone line, and 360 

lookout cabins and towers, thus demonstrating the agency’s burgeoning infrastructure.222

 

216 R.F. Grefe, “Engineering in Region 6: USDA Forest Service,” in Ibid., 274. 217 USDA Alumni Bulletin, 51-52. 218 Ibid. 219 “The Intermountain Review Ranger,” 1:2 (10 January 1917), 4. 220 Shank, 182, 184. 221 Alexander, “Reflections on the Heritage of Region 4.” 222 Boerker, xliv-xlv. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 128
Crude cabins constructed of available materials with hand tools defined the first Forest 

Service administrative buildings. Some were abandoned cabins, often by miners or 

homesteaders, but others were built by the first rangers. Although required to be handy 

with an axe and have some knowledge of construction, the ranger was more concerned 

with providing shelter at a minimum cost during his free time or in the few hours that he 

was not fulfilling his administrative duties. Following in pioneer traditions, the rangers 

built one- or two-room cabins of logs, stone, or milled wood resting on a primitive 

foundation of stone or wood. The roof, typically front-gabled, was often sod or bare 

earth, later replaced with metal sheeting or wood shingles. Although floors at first were 

dirt, wood or concrete floors became more commonplace. 

Although some of these utilitarian structures served only as temporary stations to be used 

by guards or rangers during the field season, others were meant to be permanent homes 

for the ranger and his family. The cabins were often poorly constructed and provided 

minimal shelter against the snow and wind, but were an improvement over the tents some

families lived in, even during the winter. They were typically heated by stoves, although 

some had fireplaces. The primary reason these buildings were so small and cheaply

constructed was the $500 construction limit set by Congress. The limit was lifted to $650 

by 1917, and in order to facilitate permanent improvements and building quality, by 1925 

the limit approached $1,500. 

BUILDING DESIGN 

Very little is known about the Forest Service’s standard building plans prior to the 

Depression. They existed as early as 1908, as noted in the August Field Program for that

year: 

The Standard Plans for Rangers’ Cabins and Bills of Material have been sent out

to all supervisors. The set bound in heavy board covers is to be retained in the 

supervisor’s office, and the sets bound in manila are for use in the field.... 

Supervisors who have not received these plans or require additional sets should 

make requisition for them to the Property Clerk, Ogden Utah.223

In several regions, standardization of construction was apparently taken lightly or 

ignored, with some forest creating their own plans.224 Standard plans were often 

modified depending on the available labor, materials, and site. Further modifications 

resulted from the use of materials that were recycled from earlier buildings. These older, 

lower quality buildings became available as ranger and guard stations were abandoned

and new stations were developed in response to changing policies and shifting forest and 

district boundaries. Examination of archival records and physical evidence does not 

reveal the extensive use of standard plans on the Bridger-Teton before the Depression. 

 

223 USDA Forest Service, Field Program for August 1908, 44. 224 Hartley and Schneck, 42, 47. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 129
From an architectural standpoint, Forest Service structures of this period can best be 

described as vernacular rather than by stylistic definitions. Rangers relied on locally 

available materials, simple forms, and little or no ornamentation. Some details, such as 

exposed rafter tails, made subtle references to the Bungalow and Arts and Crafts 

movements. The latter, with its emphasis on natural forms and materials, replaced the 

ornate Victorian and Classical Revival Styles at the turn of the century, while the 

Bungalow movement represented efficiency is spatial design and affordability. 

The main house at Bryan Flat Guard Station, constructed in 1914 (and expanded in 1931) is a good example of preCCC forest vernacular. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

SITE DESIGN 

In 1917, the Forest Service hired Frank Waugh as a consultant landscape architect. In 

one of his two reports, Waugh emphasized the need for landscape engineers in the Forest 

Service and in early 1919, Arthur Carhart was hired as the agency’s first permanent 

landscape architect. A graduate of Iowa State College, Carhart first worked in the Rocky 

Mountain Region. During his short Forest Service tenure, he advocated the protection of 

wilderness and the development of recreation sites. Unfortunately, the agency was not 

ready for someone like Carhart—the field of recreation was just developing—and he

resigned in 1922. He was replaced with Ingvald Horgan, who only stayed a few months.

Although recreation planning began to receive more attention, the Forest Service did not 

hire another landscape architect until the New Deal era. 225

 

225 Wayne D. Iverson, “Landscape Architects and the US Forest Service,” paper presented to the USFS 

Interregional Landscape Architects Workshop, Tucson, AZ, May 21, 1990. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 130
Thus, the lack of site design professionals is reflected in the layouts of early ranger and 

guard stations. The relationship of buildings to each other was dictated by basic needs 

such as the location of a spring, a creek, or the development of a pasture. This approach 

is most evident in pre-New Deal era Bridger-Teton administrative sites like Blackrock 

and Bryan Flat. 

FIRE LOOKOUTS 

Fire lookouts hold a great deal of romantic fascination for many people and much has 

been written about them. The National Register of Historic Lookouts recognizes

significant examples of this building type and interest groups have been formed to 

preserve and use them. Although there are currently 8 lookouts still standing on the 

Bridger-Teton, none of them date from this period; all were built during the New Deal 

with CCC labor. 

Several forest fires in 1910, particularly in Idaho and Montana, ushered in the 1911 

Weeks Act that, among other things, provided funding to improve fire control efforts. 

This led to the construction of roads, fire breaks, and trails, as well as support structures 

such as lookout towers, fire caches, and houses. The telephone gained more importance, 

not only in carrying out forest administration, but also in fire control. Since remote and 

inaccessible sites relied on quick communication, telephone lines were some if the first 

improvements constructed. 

In the Forest Service’s early years, a network of lookouts on high peaks provided 

continuous coverage for early fire detection. Those serving as lookouts typically lived in 

tents, as no buildings were constructed at these remote locations. By 1911, some small

cupolas and cabins were constructed. Advances were made in 1914 when the national 

windmill company Aermotor began providing lookout towers in Region Five.

Constructed of 7’ x 7’ cabs on top of steel or wood towers, these lookouts were used only 

for observation, not living. Located in the Midwest, Aermotor provided cabs and towers 

to the Forest Service through the 1930s.226 However, there are no Aermotor towers on

the Bridger-Teton; the closest are in Idaho. 

Lookout use and design advanced in the early 1910s after Region Five’s District Forester, 

Coert DuBois, wrote America’s first fire plan.227 Region Five, which includes the vast 

forests of California, has always been concerned with fire protection and his efforts paved 

the way for advancement in other parts of the country. In 1914, he took his plan one step 

further in his report Systematic Fire Protection in the California Forests. He discussed 

lookouts, proposing that a one-room structure, measuring not more than 12 feet square, 

served as the lookout person’s home, office, and workroom. 228

 

226 John D. Grosvenor, A History of the Architecture of the USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service 

Engineering Staff Publication EM-7310-8 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1999), 96. Grosvenor (and subsequent

authors) incorrectly spelled Aermotor as “Aeromotor.” 227 Thornton, “A Survey and Historic Significance Evaluation of the CDF Building Inventory,” 9. 228 Grosvenor, 96.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 131
A lookout’s location was determined by topography, views, positions relative to other 

lookouts, and accessibility. In 1915, James Adams described the construction and 

furnishing of different lookout stations: 

The station house is usually a one-room building so constructed as to resist high

winds and heavy rain or snowfall, with protection against lightning. A 

continuous window or strip of glass extends entirely around the building in order

that a view may be obtained in every direction. As on shipboard, economy of 

space is necessary and the furnishings are designed with this in view. In addition 

to the simplest kind of domestic furniture, a work table on a raised platform in 

the center of the room is provided. This table is equipped with maps, fire locator, 

a telephone, and other appurtenances for carrying on the work. Lookout men are 

usually subsisted by the Forest Service, and the best grade of provisions ... as 

well as water and fuel must be packed to the station.229

Lookout design enjoyed several refinements and in 1917, DuBois designed a 14’ x 14’ 

live-in cab. This was the precursor of all live-in cabs built in California, and was 

eventually adopted by Region Four in the 1920s. 

 

229 Adams, 31-33. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 132
CHAPTER EIGHT: 1930-1942, NEW DEAL = NEW IDENTITY 

FUNDS AND LABOR 

The twelve years from 1930 to 1942 witnessed a dramatic change in the number and 

quality of improvements constructed on the national forests. Although America 

experienced seriously grim conditions during the Depression, the Forest Service and 

other agencies benefited from increased relief funding and labor pools. In 1932-33, the 

Forest Service hired hundreds of engineers, building and landscape architects, and 

recreation planners to design and supervise construction of roads, trails, buildings, utility 

systems, communication systems, campgrounds, and watershed improvements.230 These,

along with administrative buildings, were usually constructed with relief funds and labor. 

The number of buildings at ranger stations increased for a variety of reasons: a national

mandate to provide separate quarters for the ranger and visiting officials, an increase in 

government-furnished vehicles requiring garages, and a desire to provide more 

comfortable working conditions.231 For the first time, there was also money to build 

special structures for housing items such as flammable liquids, water pumps, and 

equipment. Sizes of buildings, particularly houses, increased as funds came from a

variety of sources and building limits grew to $2500 in 1930. 

The flurry of building activity that started in 1933 received a good deal of planning. The

Forest Service hired architects and landscape architects to develop standard building 

plans and guidelines for site layouts. Forest officials were encouraged to carefully 

consider their needs with particular attention toward the future. Chief Forester Stuart 

emphasized this when he wrote, “I hope no single structure will be erected nor excavation 

made which will be later found unused.”232 He also recognized that the agency would not 

always enjoy the benefits provided by these relief programs: 

When the unemployment relief emergency is over we will have a small excuse 

for asking appropriations for improvement construction except to meet needs 

unforeseeable at this time. When the unemployment relief program is over we

should be able to carry administrative and protection forward with little or no

improvement funds except for maintenance.233

On the Bridger and Teton National Forests, forest officials capitalized on the situation 

and oversaw construction of many new administrative sites as well as improvements of 

older sites. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) carried out most of this work, aided

in the early years by Emergency Conservation Fund (ECF) workers. Many of the

enrollees had little or no construction experience, but were trained and guided by forest 

 

230 Byrne, 5. 231 USDA National Forest Manual (1928), 63-A; Hartley and Schneck, 55. 232 Supernowicz, “Contextual History,” 11. 233 Ibid., 11-12. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 133
personnel and foremen from local communities. Quality of work concerned some

officials. After inspecting one ranger station in Region Four, Regional Architect George 

L. Nichols—the architect who designed all of the region’s standard building and structure 

plans during this period—noted that all 

labor on this job has been CC [sic] except one carpenter foreman, and 

considering this, I feel we have done a remarkable job. The job lacks 

professional finish but much of this can be improved and covered up when the

final painting work is completed. If we had someone on the job who could pick 

out the places that need attention to make the job one of first quality, I am sure it

would be worthwhile....234

THE DESIGNERS 

Although the engineering units carried out much of the facility design and planning, the 

Forest Service began to recognize the need for building design specialists. A consultant, 

W. Ellis Groben, played a strong role in developing the agency’s architecture by

promoting standard plans and raising the quality of design. A graduate of the University 

of Pennsylvania and L’Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, Groben served as chief architect 

for the City of Philadelphia before he was hired as a consulting architect for the Forest 

Service. He advocated the idea of an agency identity while allowing for flexibility in 

design and materials to conform to regional styles and environment. Groben issued 

several publications (discussed below) that directed the development of Forest Service 

architecture and site planning. 

At the start of this period, T.W. Norcross continued to serve as Chief Engineer in the 

Washington Office. In Region Four, Joseph Martin remained as Chief of Engineering

with the help of administrative assistant and former Forest Supervisor W.W. Blakeslee.

Martin eventually left and was replaced by Arval L. Anderson in 1938. The drafting 

section included Architectural Engineer George L. Nichols, who was hired in 1928 as the 

Region’s first architect and who is credited with designing many of the standard plans. 

The trend toward hiring trained design professionals became apparent with the addition 

of landscape architects. In 1935, the Forest Service hired a consulting landscape 

architect, A.D. Taylor, to prepare a report on recreation facilities. After his summer 1935 

visit to Region Four, Taylor produced photographs and a report titled Problems of

Landscape Architecture in the National Forests. Taylor’s report reflected the design 

philosophy of the times and made recommendations for landscaping and signage of 

primitive areas, roads, and recreation sites. Taylor urged the Forest Service to hire

landscape architects; by 1937, there were 75 in the agency, most of whom were involved 

with recreation and/or ranger station planning and development.235 

 

234 George L. Nichols to Operations, 17 July 1936. 235 Iverson, 5. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 134
STANDARD PLANS ARRIVE 

During the CCC period, the Washington Office encouraged the regions to develop 

standard building plans that reflected their identities. In 1935, Groben compiled technical 

information and design guidelines to assist the regional designers. This document was

supplemented in 1936 and 1937 before it was published in 1938 as Principles of 

Architecture Planning for Forest Service Administrative Improvements. A few examples 

of Groben’s guidelines reveal his architectural training as well as his personal 

preferences: 

• Buildings in a group should be of similar character and appearance. Other 

buildings that would be retained may dictate the appearance of new construction. 

• Combinations of materials should be avoided (e.g., a stone building with brick 

and wood porch posts). Use local materials whenever possible. 

• Textured and tinted plaster or paint is desirable for interior spaces when no 

wallpaper or other applied covering is used. 

• Wood siding should not be more than 8” in width. Drop and imitation log siding 

should be avoided because the former gives a “miniature, toy-like appearance,” 

and the latter looks “too uniform.” 

• Avoid “X” and “Z” bracing on the exterior side of garage and barn doors since it 

is “disturbing and unsightly.” 

• Color schemes made of several shades of the same color are best. Add ochre to 

white paint to give it a warmer appearance. Avoid “delicate colors” when 

painting the interiors of buildings used primarily by men. 

It is interesting to note that several of these principles were ignored by Region Four’s 

designers. Drop siding, imitation log or Shevlin siding, and “X” and “Z” bracing on 

garage and barn doors are commonly found on Region Four’s administrative buildings. 

Groben’s guidelines were supplemented with a publication titled Acceptable Plans Forest

Service Administrative Buildings. Issued in 1938, this document is a compilation of 

standard plans from each region. It portrays different architectural characters through the 

application of various materials and styles. Many designs were of vernacular nature, but 

the Pueblo Revival, Park Rustic, Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, and Art Deco styles

are also represented. The Region Four plans for a guard station (Plan 53), office (Plan 

54), CCC central repair shop and mess hall are included. 

In 1940, Groben wrote Architectural trends of Future Forest Service Buildings, in which

he criticized standard buildings that did not work in plan, but were praised because they 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 135
blended externally with the environment. He called for more creativity and a unique 

identity for the Forest Service.236 

Despite orders from the WO not to use “X” bracing, Region Four designers freely used this and “Z” bracing on barn and garage doors, like on 

the Elkhart Park Barn, Pinedale Ranger District. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

Site planning and landscape design were addressed in 1936 by consultant A.D. Taylor, 

author of Problems of Landscape Architecture in the National Forests. He addressed 

building placement and advised locating the dwelling across the driveway from the office 

and service buildings. In urban areas, he advised that offices and houses should be 

oriented toward the street, while rural offices and houses should face a road, driveway, or 

scenic view. Support structures like barns and garages should sit at the rear of the site.237

 REGION 4 

In 1933, the Region Four office, most likely under architect George Nichols’ guidance, 

issued a building handbook that set forth guidelines and standards for site development

and building design. Revised in 1936 and 1937, the Building Construction Manual

provided guidance on everything from site design, building orientation, appropriate 

styles, and paint schemes. The manual included standard plans, materials lists, and 

specifications for houses, barns, sheds, cellars, toilets, garages, and storage buildings. 

Nichols designed many of the buildings, of which there were four types: 

 

236 Hartley and Schneck, 91. 237 Ibid., 76.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 136
1. Facilities for the permanent officers and equipment, consisting of housing, an 

office, and support structures such as warehouses, equipment buildings, shops, 

barns, and garages. These were considered the most “pretentious,” and were sited 

together in groups of three or more as headquarters for supervisors and district 

rangers. Of all the remaining Bridger-Teton administrative sites, the Afton 

Complex best reflects this specific type. 

2. Facilities for temporary officers and equipment, consisting of housing, an office, 

and support structures. These were less “pretentious,” with only one to three 

structures assembled together. Willow Creek Guard Station on the Pinedale

Ranger District is a good example. 

3. Fire protection including housing, lookouts, storehouses, and caches. Locations

and numbers were determined by fire control needs. (Unlike other Region Four 

Forests like the Boise or Payette, Bridger-Teton fire lookout sites have only one 

structure—the lookout cabin.) 

4. Recreational structures such as kitchens, shelters, and toilets. 

One of Regional Architect George L. Nichols' standard plans, in this case a Plan 1 Dwelling. This is one of Region Four’s most popular floor 

plans. Four are still used by the forest in Afton, Pinedale (2) and Snider Basin. Courtesy USFS 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 137
Many of Nichols’ designs are utilitarian with few architectural details and may be 

classified as vernacular. Some of them, primarily offices and dwellings, reflected

Nichols’ interpretation of the era’s prevalent styles: the Plan 1 and 8 dwellings exhibit the 

bilateral symmetry of the Colonial Revival style, while the “temple front” of the Plan 5,

7, and 51 offices/dwellings suggest the Classical Revival style. 

Modifications to standard plans were allowed, but this required official approval that was 

not always sought. Forest officials and foremen supervising the CCC crews often added 

or eliminated windows or doors in response to local weather conditions, adjusted room 

sizes to accommodate specific functions, and omitted some elements due to budgetary

constraints. 

The Region Four building manual encouraged a thorough analysis of building needs 

before choosing a particular plan, stating: 

Care and consideration should be given, in planning your needs, that you look 

reasonably into the future, but caution should be used to make certain that we are 

not building too far ahead. It is certain that we do not wish to have on our hands 

... a number of empty or unused buildings.... Certainly we should not build

anything that we do not intend to maintain, and every additional building is going

to take a material amount of maintenance.238

Building plans were assigned a number and there often several versions of each plan. For 

example, a Plan 51 was an office with no bathroom; Plan 51-B had a bathroom. The 

guidelines for selecting these plans were set forth in the manual:

Dwellings: The house was considered the most important of all structures on a site and 

was to be placed in a prominent position such as the highest point on the site. All other 

buildings were to “serve as a frame or background.” Dwellings for supervisors could 

either be a Plan 3B or 3C while year-round ranger stations were to be of Plan 1 or 2. 

Ranger and guard stations used more than five months but not a year would be Plans 7, 8, 

or 53. For those sites used 3-5 months, the houses would be Plans 7 or 51. Plans 4, 5, or

6 were for houses occupied 1 to 3 months. Plumbing fixtures were typically not provided 

unless running water was readily available or could be obtained at a reasonable cost. 

Offices: These buildings, which were to be built at year-round headquarters only, would

be plan 5 or 51 for rangers and Plan 54 (of which there were several versions) for 

supervisors. (The Teton National Forest Supervisor’s Office that preceded the current 

building was a Plan 54.) Office buildings were usually of more than one room so they 

could also be used as storage or quarters for seasonal employees. As the second most 

important building, the office was to be highly visible and accessible to the public. 

Barns/Fly Sheds: Barn Plans 11 (4-horse) and 12 (6-horse) could be built at year-round 

stations. At temporary or smaller stations, the Plan 13 (2-horse) barn or Plan 14 Fly Shed 

 

238 USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Building Construction Manual, (1935), BP-11. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 138
were preferred. The standard fly shed was a one-room structure with an opening, but no 

door, in one end. There were no stalls or mangers as found in the larger barns. 

Support Structures: Construction of support structures such as warehouses, equipment 

buildings, powder houses, cellars, and woodsheds was to be based on need and not 

dictated by the Regional Office. Guard stations and lookout sites, which would typically 

consist of just a dwelling and latrine, might include a one-car garage with or without a 

storeroom. Combination buildings were encouraged to decrease the number of buildings 

on site and for reasons of economy. Buildings such as gas houses and blacksmith shops 

that posed a fire hazard were to be separate and placed away from other buildings on site. 

When there was no basement for cold storage, cellars could be constructed using doublewall construction with 18 to 24 inches of sawdust between them and in the ceiling. 

A typical 1930s Region Four Site Improvement Plan, in this case, the Afton Complex, Afton WY. Courtesy USFS 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 139
Site Design: The 1935 handbook provided sample site plans that carefully considered 

access, image, and the relationship of buildings to each other. To create a pleasing 

arrangement, a building was to be placed at right angles to, but not lined up with, other 

buildings on the site. Those buildings used most frequently like the dwelling, garage, and 

office were grouped closely together while others were set towards the rear, with the barn 

being furthest away. For privacy reasons, housing for temporary workers was to be set 

away from the ranger’s residence. To reduce fire hazards, buildings were to be at least 50

feet from each other. 

Although the rangers and supervisors on each forest were responsible for developing the 

initial site plans, Regional Office designers produced the final plans. They often 

considered future needs by showing future buildings and developing planting plans. The

house typically had a lawn or yard enclosed by a fence, climate-appropriate vegetation, 

walkways, and usually a flagpole. The 1935 manual stressed the preservation of trees or, 

if none were present, the planting of new ones. Standards were given for the dimensions 

and arrangements of walks and driveways. 

Materials: In addition to standardized building plans, this era is represented by the 

consistent use of building materials throughout Region Four. Construction was to be of 

logs when conifers dominated the natural landscape. Smaller buildings could be frame

construction covered with siding milled to look like logs. Called “Shevlin” siding after 

the Bend, Oregon company that produced it, this product could also be used in the gable 

ends of log buildings for economy’s sake. Frame structures were to be built in areas of 

broadleaf vegetation, or when neither conifer or broadleaf were predominant. 

Windows were often 6-pane sliders, although 6/6 double hung or six-pane casement were

not uncommon, particularly on residential buildings. Shutters, louvered on the lower 

half, had a Forest Service pine tree logo cut into the upper panel. While the most 

common door had five panels, front doors typically had one or more panes of glass and 

sometime a fanlight (common on Plans 1 and 8). Large doors on barns and garages had 

“X” or “Z” bracing and presented a visually distinctive appearance. 

Foundations were usually poured concrete, but if local materials and skilled labor were 

available, stone was substituted. Concrete was also popular for the floors of utilitarian 

buildings like garages and cellars. Wood skid foundations were sometimes used on small 

buildings like gas houses or fire lookout cabins. Roofs were generally covered with 

wood shingles and stained, although batten-profile metal roof sheeting is becoming more 

commonplace in the region’s snow-heavy areas. Interiors were finished with plaster (in 

year-round dwellings) or composite board such as Nu-Wood, Firtex, Masonite, or 

plywood (in seasonal dwellings). Floors were usually wood, as were the built-in kitchen 

cabinets and trim. 

Paint: Predominant vegetation, exposed rock or earth, or adjacent buildings determined a 

site’s paint scheme. Each of the five standard schemes provided variations for log and 

frame buildings and were not to be mixed with other schemes. In other words, only one 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 140
body color, one trim color, and one roof color were to be used for all the site’s buildings. 

The dark brown stain formerly used on Forest Service buildings was no longer allowed. 

To insure consistency in color, the RO purchased and mixed all paints and stains; local 

purchases were not permitted. Despite these restrictions, exceptions were made for sites

that had older buildings with the former color schemes or that had a mix of log and frame

buildings. The manual discouraged the painting of large, older buildings like barns, but 

did not prohibit such action. In these cases, new siding was seen as viable substitute. 

 1935 PAINT GUIDELINES 

Scheme and Setting Log, Log Siding, or Shakecovered buildings Frame/Painted Buildings 

1 (Conifers)

Body Light or medium brown stain Light terra cotta or stone paint

Trim Med. Brown stain or red stone

paint 

Red stone, light terra cotta or 

Oak brown paint 

Roof Roof Green or med. brown 

stain (light brown body only) 

Roof green or med. brown 

stain (light brown body only) 

2 (aspen, cottonwood, maple) 

Body Silver Grey stain Light grey paint 

Trim White paint White paint 

Roof Driftwood or Roof Green stain Roof Green stain 

3 (sage, willow, prairie, oak) 

Body Silver grey stain Sage paint 

Trim White paint White paint 

Roof Driftwood stain Roof green stain 

4 (In Towns) 

Body White White

Trim Nile green paint Nile green paint 

Roof Roof green stain Roof green stain 

5 (Rock outcrops/cliffs, earth) Confer with RO to develop 

color scheme

Interiors also had standard color schemes that varied with the building’s function. The

interior paint of fire lookouts maximized light absorption to prevent harmful reflections. 

Although it was recognized as a depressing color, the standard lookout interior was an 

olive green oil stain or flat olive green paint. Dwellings and offices were to be painted in 

the following colors: 

Interior walls: Light green, light tan or buff, cream, colonial ivory 

Woodwork: If of good quality: clear varnish, or stain and varnish. Otherwise, 

use pearl grey, light tan, nile or sea foam green, old ivory, colonial 

ivory, orchid or gloss white enamel paint. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 141
Floors: Varnished, waxed, or when permitted, covered with linoleum. 

Porch Ceiling: Match adjacent paint, or use clear varnish if new 

Porch Floor: Dust color or light pearl floor paint 

 THE PINE TREE LOGO 

The origin of the familiar pine tree logo is presently undetermined but its use throughout 

the Forest Service suggests it came from the Washington Office. It is often associated 

with the CCC era but was used prior to that time. A 1921 Alumni Bulletin reported: 

The lone pine tree should be known to everyone for it is the symbol of a fine

ideal, and the very word “forest” carries an instinctive appeal to every normal 

human being.239

A prevalent motif in Region Four’s 1935 building plans, the pine tree was usually used in 

decorative panels of window shutters. The recreation handbook of 1935 included 

drawings of a fence with a 3⁄4” panel from which the logo is jig-cut. A label refers to this 

as “Pine Tree of Universal Design #1451.” In her study of Region Six, historian Gail 

Throop noted that the number, placement, and design of the logo were not always

consistent with regional specifications. CCC crews used the logo as a means of selfexpression, and sometimes went overboard in the number they cut, applied, forged, and 

carved on shutters, gable ends, porch pediments, mailboxes, latch plates, etc.240 

Consulting architect Groben felt that the logo should not be overused. “The effect 

created by their repeated use in the same building,” he noted, “is very unfortunate, 

resulting in their loss of all Forest Service significance.”241

SPECIAL BUILDING TYPES: BRIDGER-TETON 

FIRE LOOKOUTS 

Region Four planners included several standard fire lookout plans in the 1935 Building 

Construction Manual. One plan, known as the R4 Plan 80, was traced from Region 

One’s modification (Plan L-4) of the 14’ x 14’ cab originally developed in California.

The hipped-roof Plan 80 was versatile, and could be reduced in size to fit a small

 

239 USDA Alumni Bulletin, 31. 240 Elizabeth Gail Throop, “Utterly Visual and Chimerical: A Federal Response to the Depression,” (MA 

Thesis, Portland State Univ., 1979) 43-44. 241 W. Ellis Groben, Principles of Architectural Planning for Forest Service Administrative Improvements,

(USDA Forest Service, Division of Engineering, n.p.) 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 142
mountain summit. With the exception of Huckleberry Mountain Lookout in the Teton 

Wilderness--which is listed on the National Register and follows a unique (to the forest), 

two-story live-in cabin floor plan--all 7 fire lookouts that still stand on the Bridger-Teton 

are CCC-built R4 Plan 80s of varying dimensions and construction methods: pre-cut log,

wood frame, etc. 

The Plan 80 fire lookout on Monument Ridge west of Bondurant is unusual in that the bottom half is pre-cut log construction, with numbers 

etched in the logs to indicate directional placement. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

By the late 1950s, however, it was evident that fire lookout cabins were giving way to a

more efficient means of patrol and detection: the airplane. In 1957, two lookouts at 

opposite ends of the Bridger-Teton were abandoned: the aforementioned Huckleberry 

Mountain and Wyoming Peak, while all of the lookouts in the forest’s southern reaches 

were abandoned by 1970. (Some like Munger Mountain and Deer Creek were burned by 

the Forest Service in the mid-1970s to discourage squatters.) Yet the circle always comes

around. Currently there is discussion of renovating and restaffing a few Bridger-Teton 

lookouts during the summer fire season. The lookouts at Elk Mountain, Cabin Creek, 

and Monument Ridge have been tentatively slated for eventual seasonal use, pending 

funding. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 143
WILDERNESS PATROL CABINS 

Because nearly one-third of Bridger-Teton National Forest lands are federally designated

wilderness, many small, one- or two-cell patrol cabins were constructed from the late 

1920s to the 1950s to house rangers on wilderness patrol. Their duties are essentially the 

same as the ranger of the early 1900s: they still access the Wilderness on horseback, 

carry shovel and saw to clear trails, and use patrol cabins as a place of shelter and 

comfort. Not counting radio repeaters (or Huckleberry Fire Lookout) a total of 12 patrol 

cabins have been documented in the Teton and Bridger Wilderness. Of the 12, only 5 are 

still used by wilderness rangers and other Forest Service workers: Cross Lake (Bridger), 

Fox Park, Nowlin Meadows, Hawks Rest, and Enos Lake (Teton). Of the five, four are 

historic: Nowlin Meadows and Enos Lake (identical cabins built in 1927), Hawks Rest 

(the second version, built in 1950), and Cross Lake, built in 1947.242 Fox Park was built 

in 1958. 

Enos Lake Patrol Cabin, Teton Wilderness. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

There is, however, controversy over nomenclature and influences. Although some

archaeologists point to the so-called “Rocky Mountain Cabin” architectural style as the 

influence for many of these patrol cabins, architectural historians point to roots for this

style not in the Rocky Mountains, but brought to America by Finnish immigrants who 

built cabins of this style as they settled in the Great Plains, then hunted, trapped, and 

mined the mountains of late nineteenth-century America. Whatever the roots, the 

structural elements remain consistent. This style is distinguished by a square or 

 

242 The first Hawks Rest Patrol Cabin, built in the early 1920s, was destroyed by an irate grizzly bear in the 

late 1940s. Browns Park and Two Oceans Pass cabins burned in the massive 1988 Yellowstone fires, two 

of which (Huck and Mink) started in the wilderness. A third patrol cabin, Cub Creek, was dismantled and

burned by Forest Service personnel in 1967. Other wilderness patrol cabins like Green River, Pilgrim

Creek, Bull Creek, and Gravel Creek have collapsed and dissipated or have deteriorated to various stages of

ruin. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 144
rectangular single-cell floor plan, horizontal log construction with square-notched ends, a 

lack of decoration, a front-facing gable, a single door offset in the gable end, roof slopes 

under 45 degrees, a preference for iron stoves over fireplaces, and the front gable end of 

the roof extending an average of 50 percent beyond the cabin’s front gable elevation.243

All of these attributes helped the cabin builder make most advantageous use of materials 

to deal with the often-harsh environment. Using logs for construction takes advantage of 

an abundant resource; to make the cabin small uses this resource conscientiously. Having 

the door in the gable end provided easier access during the winter months by keeping the 

area free of snow. The roof’s low angle helps to keep snow from falling off, thus 

providing an extra layer of insulation. And, the use of an iron stove instead of a 

fireplace/chimney network facilitated faster and easier construction. 

The small size of these wilderness patrol cabins is a good example of the Forest Service 

ethic of rustic vernacular architecture on the Forest. Early administrators felt that any 

construction should create a minimal impact on the environment, both visually and to the 

resource itself. In the 1910s, when the Forest Service began building patrol cabins in the 

wilderness areas, they looked around to see that the extended-roof cabin style was being 

used extensively by loggers, trappers, and miners. They saw how effective and 

economical it was, and modified the design to meet their own needs. 

Although not a wilderness patrol cabin, the cabin at Elk Creek Guard Station on the Kemmerer Ranger District reflects the elongated 

roof/square-notched construction style typical of so-called “Rocky Mountain” cabins. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

 

243 Mary Wilson, “The Rocky Mountain Cabin,” in Log Cabin Studies (Ogden: USDA Forest Service, 

Cultural Resource Report #9, 1984). 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 145
 

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS 

The December 1941 declaration of war on Japan marked the end of the work relief era

and extensive building activity. Some buildings in Region Four were left incomplete,

while proposed construction required approval from the War Production board. In 

addition to building restrictions, construction was hampered by the loss of Forest Service 

design specialists. Many joined the military or got jobs in the private sector. Those who 

remained were assigned to critical work; some even served as district rangers. In 1942, 

the CCC was disbanded, thus ending the most prolific era ever in Forest Service planning 

and construction. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 146
CHAPTER NINE: 1943-1955, PREFABS AND PORTABLES 

SITE WITHDRAWALS 

Executive Order 9337, dated April 24, 1943, sought to protect administrative sites against 

mining claims by establishing a clearer withdrawal process. In Region Four, the

Regional Forester directed the forest supervisors to evaluate existing administrative sites

and ensure their formal withdrawal.244 This led to the release or revocation of many sites

that were no longer needed and the formal withdrawal of other sites. 

In 1949, Chief Forester Lyle Watts issued a circular explaining that further site 

withdrawals of Forest Land under EO 9337 would be done by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). Watts instructed the regions to prepare withdrawal requests, giving 

priority to those in “mineralized lands,” for submission to the WO, who would in turn 

submit to the BLM. 245 Additional direction in 1950 stated that administrative sites

subject to entry should be withdrawn under EO 9337. This did not apply, however, to 

those that were not subject to entry, or to lands purchased under the Weeks Law and the 

Receipts Act.246 On the Bridger and Teton National Forests, numerous withdrawals of 

administrative sites were made in 1955 and 1956 to replace or supplement earlier 

withdrawals.

THE DESIGNERS 

In 1947, Chief Engineer T.W. Norcross retired from the Washington Office, with A.P. 

Dean taking his place. At the regional level, in 1942 Region Four engineer Arval 

Anderson took military leave from his duties. Henry M. Shank served in Anderson’s 

absence until 1946, when he returned to an engineering staff of 90 people. 247 Anderson 

continued to serve as Regional Engineer until 1959, when he transferred to Region One;

he remained there until 1963. George Nichols remained as Region Four’s architect, and 

developed more standard plans, publishing them in a 1946 manual. He left the agency in 

1956 and was replaced by William Turner. 

IMPROVEMENTS 

As relief funds and labor were eliminated, the Federal government implemented 

measures to support the war effort. Restrictions were placed on certain materials, mineral 

and timber resources were reserved for military use, and manpower and funds were 

channeled to the armed forces. As a result, there was a sharp decline in building activity 

on the national forests and throughout the country. The emphasis shifted from

construction of new buildings to the upkeep and maintenance of existing ones. 

 

244 U-Circular No. 97 from Acting Regional Forester W.B. Rice to Forest Supervisor, 30 January 1943. 245 WO Circular No. U-220 from Chief Lyle Watts to Regional Foresters, 16 December 1949. 246 Circular No. U-197 from Acting Regional Forester A.G. Nord to Forest Supervisor, 25 January 1950. 247 Byrne, 7; Alexander, The Rise of Multiple-Use Management, 150. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 147
To meet its administrative needs, the Forest Service acquired Army surplus equipment 

and buildings, some of which had been used by the now-defunct CCC. As the forests 

became more accessible by vehicle, many ranger station designations changed from 

permanent to seasonal. These were increasingly referred to as “work centers” instead of 

“guard stations,” a term that attracted negative connotations both during World War II 

and later the Cold War. Re-use of materials and adaptations of existing buildings were 

prevalent as they were modified for changing uses. Garages and barns were converted to 

bunkhouses to accommodate work crews, while dwellings began to serve as offices.248 

The Forest Service also began to rely on prefabricated buildings. Developed significantly 

during the war, these buildings relied on mass production for ease and swiftness of 

construction. Prior to the war, prefabricated houses were sold by several private 

companies, and the Farm Security Administration used them to house low-income

families. Most “pre-fab” houses were made of wood and plywood. They were 

supposedly “insulated, weather resistant, flame resistant” as well as “strong, light and 

easily handled.”249

And as the Forest Service entered the second half of the Twentieth Century, in the 1950s 

it prepared for an ambitious building program symbolic of the nation’s relative

prosperity. Many ranger district offices were moved to towns and located in increasingly 

popular ranch-style buildings, which were seen as more modern and progressive than 

those of the CCC era. These district offices, still referred to as ranger stations, often 

became large compounds with the addition of more service-oriented structures such as 

warehouses and radio buildings.250

 SITE DESIGN 

Many of the agency’s landscape architects left during the war. This, in concert with the

minimal funding and lack of construction, led to a near halt in site development. The 

postwar period saw an increase in this kind of work, particularly in the field of recreation. 

The number of landscape architects increased, although most were involved in civil 

engineering projects. This focus on the rebuilding of the forests’ infrastructure caused 

attention to be shifted away from ranger station improvements. It was not until the late 

1950s, when the Forest Service initiated “Operation Outdoors” to compete with the 

National Park Service’s similar “Mission 66” program, that funding and talent were 

acquired and allocated to outdoor design and planning. Even then, all of the efforts were 

directed toward recreational improvements and not administrative sites.251

 

248 Hartley and Schneck, 32, 91. 249 Office of War Information, American Handbook (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1945), 394-96. 250 Carhart, 98. 251 Iverson, 6. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 148
 POSTWAR REGION 4 

When George Nichols published a revised manual of building plans in 1946, he included 

many of his plans from the 1930s. He also presented new plans for portable buildings 

and designs that reflected a shift in Region Four’s architectural identity. In keeping with 

national trends, Nichols used an architectural vocabulary of multi-pane industrial 

windows, banked windows, shallow eaves, and minimal detailing. In the 1946 manual, 

Nichols provided new direction on the construction of administrative site buildings: 

• Dwellings: Three-bedroom houses would be built at year-round stations or 

in town when year-round occupancy is intended. Smaller buildings would 

be built as summer stations. 

This 3-bedroom ranger residence in Thayne, WY typifies Postwar Region Four administrative architecture, with its modern, ranch-style floor 

plan and attached garage. Jim Bailey/USFS Photo 

• Offices: These would be built only at year-round headquarters and were to

be of R4 Plan 54K or 51. Other plans could be used for the supervisor’s 

headquarters. 

• Barns: Nichols noted that many of the barns were not used as much as 

anticipated. He attributed this to the construction of barns that were larger 

than necessary or in areas they were not needed. Plus, the increasingly 

widespread use of automobiles and trucks reduced the need for barns. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 149
• Work Camps: This new type of administrative site accommodated work 

camps of 10 to 100 men. Nichols provided site layouts and standard plans 

for camp buildings constructed of pre-fabricated panels. 

• Portable and Unit Buildings: Nichols recognized the need for portable 

buildings as temporary housing, noting that “this type of structure can be 

used far better than unsatisfactory or too costly housing now available at 

many headquarters. In timber operations lasting a year or so, they can be

used and then moved to a new operation.252

Although Nichols admitted that some old buildings should be removed, he also supported

the rehabilitation of others, noting they should be brought to current standards. He 

developed standard plans for additions to the CCC-era buildings, offering to make special 

plans when necessary. He also supported moving buildings as needs dictated.

The Nichols-drawn improvement plan for 332 N. Franklin, Pinedale. Courtesy USFS 

A good example on the Bridger-Teton was the 1952 uprooting of a Plan 1 dwelling and 

Plan 23 garage from Kendall Guard Station. These buildings, along with a couple 

 

252 Nichols, “Inspection of Buildings.” 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 150
smaller structures from the abandoned Fremont Lakes Guard Station, were moved to 

Pinedale (332 N. Franklin), placed on new foundations, expanded (in the case of the 

house) and now serve as employee housing in a town with historically low vacancy 

numbers. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 151
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Adams, James B. “Use of Telephone on the National Forests.” Speech delivered before the Telephone 

Society of New York on 16 February 1915. Transcript. Forest Service Heritage Center, 

Weber State Univ., Ogden, Utah. 

Alexander, Thomas G. “From Rule of Thumb to Scientific Range Management: The Case of the 

Intermountain Region of the Forest Service.” Western Historical Quarterly 28 (October): 409-

28. 

__________. “Reflections On The Heritage Of Region 4, 1988(?)” TMs [photocopy]. Wells and Elko 

Offices, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service. 

__________. The Rise of Multiple-Use Management in the Intermountain West: A History of Region 4 

of the Forest Service. USDA Publication FS-399. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office, 1987. 

Allan, Esther. History of the Teton National Forest. n.p., 1990. 

The American Tree Association. Forestry Almanac. Washington DC: The American Tree Association, 

1924. 

Boerker, Richard H. D. Our National Forests. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1918. 

Box, Thadis W. “Arid Lands – Questionable Policies.” In Our American Land: The 1987 Yearbook of 

Agriculture, 131-34. Ed. William Whyte. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987. 

Briggs, A.E. “Memoirs of a U.S. Forest Ranger, 1963” TMs [photocopy]. Elko Office, HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service. 

Butler, Ovid, ed. American Conservation in Picture and Story. Washington, DC: The American 

Forestry Association, 1935. 

Byrne, J.J. “Brief History of Engineering in the Forest Service.” In The History of Engineering in the 

Forest Service, 3-8. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990. 

Carhart, Arthur H. Timber in Your Life. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1955.

Cazier, S. Edwin. The Last Saddle Horse Ranger. Logan, UT; Educational Printing Service, 1971. 

Cohen, Stan. The Tree Army: A Pictorial History of the Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942. 

Missoula, MT: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1980. 

Conard, Rebecca, Paula Juelke Carr, Susan Lehman, and Pamela Post. “An Evaluation of Historic

Administrative Buildings on the Stanislaus National Forest.” Santa Barbara, CA: PHR 

Associates, December 1989. 

Conners, Pamela Ann. “Patterns and Policy of Water and Hydroelectric Development on the 

Stanislaus National Forest, 1850 to 1920.” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Univ. of California Santa 

Barbara,1989.

Dana, Samuel Trask. Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States. New York: 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 152
Davis, Richard C., ed. Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History. New York: 

Macmillan, 1983. 

Diem, Kenneth and Lenore. “A Community of Scalawags, Renegades, Discharged Soldiers and

Predestined Stinkers”?: A History of Northern Jackson Hole and Yellowstone’s Influence, 

1872-1920. Moose, WY: Grand Teton Natural History Association, 1998. 

Fairfax, Sally K. “Making New States and Establishing Public Domain.” In Our American Land. The 

1987 Yearbook of Agriculture, 7-9. Ed. William Whyte. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 1987. 

Gilligan, James. “The Development of Policy and Administration of Forest Service Primitive and 

Wilderness Areas in the Western United States.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of 

Michigan, 1953. 

Glick, Dennis, et.al. An Environmental Profile of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Bozeman, MT: 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, 1991. 

Gomez, Arthur. Quest For the Golden Circle. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1996. 

Grefe, R.F. “Engineering in Region 6: USDA Forest Service.” In The History of Engineering in the 

Forest Service, 274-80. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990. 

Groben, W. Ellis. Principles of Architectural Planning for Forest Service Administrative Improvements. 

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Division of Engineering, 1938. 

Grosvenor, John R. A History of the Architecture of the USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service 

Engineering Staff Publication EM-7310-8. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 

1999. 

Hanson, James. “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains.” Unpublished 

Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Wyoming, 1973. 

Harper, Charles Price. The Administration of the Civilian Conservation Corps. Clarksburg, WV: 

Clarksburg Publishing Company, 1939. 

Hartley, Ralph and James Schneck. Administering the National Forests of Colorado: An Assessment 

of the Architectural and Cultural Significance of Historical Administrative Properties. Lincoln, 

NE: NPS Midwest Archeological Center, 1996. 

Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement 

1890-1920. New York: Antheum, 1959, reprint 1969. 

Headley, Donn E. “The Cooperation Imperative: Relationships Between Early Forest Administration 

and the Southern California Metropolis, 1892-1908.” In The Origins of the National Forest: A 

Centennial Symposium, 217-33. Ed. Harold K. Steen. Durham, NC: Forest History Society, 

1992. 

The History of Engineering in the Forest Service. (A Compilation of History and Memoirs, 1905-1989). 

USDA Forest Service Publication EM 7100-13. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 

1990. 

Hoyt, Ray. Your CCC: A Handbook for Enrollees. Washington, DC: Happy Days Publishing 

Company, n.d.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 153
“The Intermountain Review Ranger.” Newsletter for US Forest Service District Four, Ogden, Utah. 

Originals and copies located in the Forest Service Heritage Center, Weber State Univ., Ogden, 

Utah. 

Iverson, Wayne D. “Landscape Architects and the USDA Forest Service.” Paper presented to the

USDA Forest Service Inter-Regional Landscape Architects Workshop at the Doubletree Hotel 

in Tucson, Arizona on May 21, 1990. Transcript. Elko Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest, USDA Forest Service.

Joslin, Les. Uncle Sam’s Cabins: A Visitor’s Guide to Historic U.S. Forest Service Ranger Stations in 

the West. Bend, OR: Wilderness Associates, 1995. 

Kane, John Francis. Picturesque America. New York: The Union Library Association, 1935. 

Kennington, F. W. and Kathaleen Hamblin. A History of Star Valley, 1800-1900. Salt Lake City: Valley 

Graphics, 1989. 

Kingsbury, Louise. “Environmental Education.” Utah Preservation, 1 (n.d.): 60-65. 

Lacy, Leslie Alexander. The Soil Soldiers: The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Great Depression. 

Radnor, PA: Chilton Book Company, 1976. 

Lamar, Howard, ed. The Reader’s Encyclopedia of the American West. New York: Harper and Row, 

1977. 

Larson, T.A. History of Wyoming. 2nd ed. rev. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1978. 

Link, Arthur S. and William B. Catton. The Age of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1921-1945. Volume 2, 

American Epoch. A History of the United States Since 1900. 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. 

Knopf, 1973. 

Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940 (New York: Harper and 

Row, 1963. 

Merrill, Perry H. Roosevelt’s Forest Army: A History of the Civilian Conservation Corps 1933-1942. 

Montpelier, Vermont: Perry H. Merrill, 1981. 

Nash, Gerald D. The American West in the Twentieth Century: A Short History of an Urban Oasis. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd ed. rev. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1982. 

National Historic Lookout Register. http://www.firetower.org/listings/us278.html (December 1999).

Nichols, George L. Engineering Handbook, Building Construction Section. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region. n.p.: 1946. 

Norcross, T.W. Acceptable Plans Forest Service Administrative Buildings. USDA Forest Service, 

Division of Engineering. n.p.: 1938. 

Office of War Information. American Handbook. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1945. 

Olsen, Foyer. “History of White Pine Division, 19 March 1941” TMs [photocopy]. Elko Office, 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 154
Otis, Alison T., William D. Honey, Thomas C. Hogg, and Kimberly K. Lakin. The Forest Service and 

the Civilian Conservation Corps: 1933-42. USDA Forest Service Publication Forest Service395. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986. 

Pendergrass, Lee. “Dispelling Myths: Women’s Contributions to the Forest Service in California.”

Forest and Conservation History 34 (January 1990). 

Proceedings of the American Forest Congress in Washington, D.C., 2-6 January 1905. Washington,

DC: H.M. Suter Publishing Company, 1905. 

Randall, Charles A. “Fernow, The Man Who Brought Forestry to America.” American Forests 70 (April 

1964), 14-16, 44, 46. 

Righter, Robert. Crucible for Conservation: The Creation of Grand Teton National Park. Boulder: 

Colorado Univ. Associated Press, 1983. 

Robbins, William G. American Forestry: A History of National, State, & Private Cooperation. Lincoln: 

Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1985.

Rosenberg, Robert G. Wyoming’s Last Frontier: Sublette County. Glendo, WY: High Plains Press, 

1990. 

Rowley, William D. U.S. Forest Service Grazing and Rangelands: A History. College Station, TX: 

Texas A&M Univ. Press, 1987. 

Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience, 2nd ed. rev. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska 

Press, 1987. 

Rutledge, R.H. “Forest Research.” Lecture given at the Idaho Forest School, 1928. Transcript. Forest 

Service Heritage Center, Weber State Univ., Ogden, Utah. 

 __________. “Radio Talk by R.H. Rutledge over K.S.L., April 2, 1937, 10:15 P.M. On Occasion of 

Fourth Anniversary Observance” TMs [photocopy]. Elko Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest, USDA 

Salmond, John A. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study. Durham, 

NC: Duke Univ. Press, 1967. 

Shank, Henry M. “Forty-Six Years Ago – And Later.” In The History of Engineering in the Forest 

Service, 182-97. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990. 

Simpson, Charles D. and E.R. Jackman. Blazing Forest Trails. Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 

1967. 

Starr, Eileen F. Architecture in the Cowboy State, 1849-1940. Glendo, WY: High Plains Press, 1992. 

Steen, Harold K. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. 3d ed. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press,

1991. 

__________, ed. The Origins of the National Forest: A Centennial Symposium. Durham, NC: Forest

History Society, 1992. 

Stokes, Vaughn. “Vision of Opportunity.” Engineering Field Notes 31 (January-June 1999), 2. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 155
Supernowicz, Dana E. "Contextual History and Classification or Fire Lookouts in California, Summary 

of “Fixed Point Fire Detection: The Lookouts,” by Mark V. Thornton, n.d.” TMs [photocopy]. 

Elko Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service. 

__________. Contextual History of Forest Service Administration Buildings in the Pacific Southwest 

Region. n.p.: USDA Forest Service Region 5, January 1989. 

Swanson, Sherman and John L. Artz, “Resolving Issues With People, Not for Them.” In Our American

Land. The 1987 Yearbook of Agriculture, 114-17. Ed. William Whyte. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1987. 

 “Theodore W. Norcross (1883-1965).” In The History of Engineering in the Forest Service, 15-16. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990. 

Thornton, Mark V. “A Survey and Historic Significance Evaluation of the CDF Building Inventory, 

California Department of Forestry Archaeological Reports Number 17.” Sacramento: 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Archeology Office, December 1994. 

 __________. “An Inventory and Historical Significance Evaluation of CDF Fire Lookout Stations, 

California Department of Forestry Archaeological Reports Number 12.” Sacramento: 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Archeology Office, 1991. 

Throop, Elizabeth Gail. "Utterly Visionary and Chimerical: A Federal Response to the Depression." 

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Portland State Univ., 1979. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, District Four. Alumni Bulletin. April 1921. Forest

Service Heritage Center, Weber State Univ., Ogden, Utah. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Building Construction Manual. 

n.p.: 1935. 

__________. Log Cabin Studies. Forest Service Cultural Resource Report #9. 1984.

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 100 Years of Federal Forestry. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1976. 

__________. A History of the Architecture of the USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC: USDA 

Forest Service, Engineering Staff, 1999. 

__________. Directory (a.k.a. Service Directory, Organizational Directory). 1920-1960. 

__________. Establishment and Modification of National Forest Boundaries. Washington, DC: USDA 

Forest Service, Division of Engineering, 1959. 

__________. Field Program for August 1908. n.p.: 1908. 

__________. Field Program for February 1908. n.p.: 1908. 

__________. “Highlights in the History of Forest Conservation, 1948” TMs, [photocopy]. Elko Office,

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

__________. Intermountain District Forest Statistics. n.p.: 1923. 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 156
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS. 

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, 2000. 

__________. The National Forest Manual. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1912. 

__________. The National Forest Manual: Regulations and Instructions. n.p.: July 1928. 

__________. The USDA Forest Service—The First Century. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, 

2000. 

__________. The Use Book. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905. Transcribed on

www.lib.duke.edu/forest/usfscoll/072-074.htm (March 2000). 

__________. The Use Book. Regulations and Instructions for the Use of the National Forest 

Reserves. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1906. 

__________. The Use of the National Forests. n.p.: 1907. 

__________. The Use Book. A Manual for Users of the National Forests. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1915. 

__________. The Use Book. Regulations and Instructions for the Use of the National Forests. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1907. 

__________. The Use Book. Regulations and Instructions for the Use of the National Forests. 

Administrative Edition. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1908. 

__________. The Wilderness Movement and the National Forests, 1964-1980. Washington, DC: 

USDA Forest Service History Series FS 391, 1984. 

US Department of Agriculture. CCC Forestry. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1937 

__________. Directory Forest Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1933. 

__________. Directory Forest Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934. 

Williams, Gerald W. “Administrative Units and Reorganization Efforts.” History Line (Summer 1994): 

19-26. 

Williams, Joseph O.I. "Cultural Resources Report, BLM No. NY-75-36 (N-056), USFS No. TY-75-932, 

26 July 1975" TMs [photocopy]. Las Vegas Office, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, USDA 

Forest Service.

Wilson, Richa. "Privies, Pastures and Portables: Administrative Facilities of the Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest, 1891-1950, Report No. TY-01-1370, December 2001." Region 4 Office 

(Ogden, Utah), USDA Forest Service. 

Woods, C.N. “Thirty-seven Years in the Forest Service, 1939” TMs [photocopy]. Elko Office, 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

 

Vol. 1, Lookouts, Latrines, and Lodgepole Cabins, Page 157