New Visitor's Center at LBH

[Lawtonka]

This is just for curiosity sake. I have heard some opinions from here and there. This is not by any means an official poll, just for fun. The reference in the # 3 question is to the former Reno/Benteen Battlefield Museum down in the Valley near Reno's Skirmish lines

[George Armstrong Custer]

hi Tim,
In my view, not only should the visitor center/museum and all attendant paraphernalia be removed from the vicinity of Custer Hill (possibly to the area of the Reno skirmish line), but all roads, pathways etc. which intrude upon Custer Hill should be removed. The area should present the visitor with an aspect as close as possible to June 25 1876. Those responsible for the site seem not to understand the old adage 'less is more'.

Visitors, in the main, want to see a battlefield site as it appeared at the time of the action - in such an unspoiled setting the mind can then conjure the scene of the event on the day it happened. The authorities should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator. If returning the site as far as possible to its original unspoiled state means a drop in dumbed down tourist hordes, with their minimal attention spans, looking to be 'entertained' - then no bad thing say I!

End of rant!

GAC

[Mike Nunnally]

If they do decide to move it to Reno Hill it will take 10 years of planning.....and another 10 years before they get started and then it will be stopped because it doesn't reflect the native American viewpoint, and stopped again from complaints from minorities, and then the handicapped, and then because it doesn't tell a feminist view point...and another 5 before they can decide on which Senator's name it should be named for....that's the way the government works.....we'll all be long gone by then!..so don't worry about it!



But I'm with the General....rip all the roads out and make the people who want to see it hike in.

Scout

[Steve Wilk]

That sounds great, but how would you reconcile the fact of the National Cemetery just a stone's throw from Last Stand Hill? Would you recommend relocating the cemetery? The cost would be enormous, and to satisfy a small hardcore following such as ours, would not fly. Please correct me if I am in error, but wasn't the battlefield first a cemetery, then only after the Park Service assumed custodianship did it become a National Monument worthy of historic preservation. People will want access to the National Cemetery and you cannot deny them that. So a road is a must.

I agree they did the whole thing back assward...you visit the end of the battle first. But then again the battle didn't end until the morning of the 27th, when the final shots were fired at/from Reno Hill. So maybe it isn't all that backwards?

But the argument for tearing out all roads and hiking in is similar to what environmental groups like the Sierra Club push for continually but never win. It is a balancing act for those who manage public lands...how to make our scenic treasures accessible to all while minimizing impact on the environment. We must remember too the bottom line is usually the buck. Reduced visitation means reduced fees collected.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Steve said:

That sounds great, but how would you reconcile the fact of the National Cemetery just a stone's throw from Last Stand Hill? Would you recommend relocating the cemetery? The cost would be enormous, and to satisfy a small hardcore following such as ours, would not fly. Please correct me if I am in error, but wasn't the battlefield first a cemetery, then only after the Park Service assumed custodianship did it become a National Monument worthy of historic preservation. People will want access to the National Cemetery and you cannot deny them that. So a road is a must.

I agree they did the whole thing back assward...you visit the end of the battle first. But then again the battle didn't end until the morning of the 27th, when the final shots were fired at/from Reno Hill. So maybe it isn't all that backwards?

But the argument for tearing out all roads and hiking in is similar to what environmental groups like the Sierra Club push for continually but never win. It is a balancing act for those who manage public lands...how to make our scenic treasures accessible to all while minimizing impact on the environment. We must remember too the bottom line is usually the buck. Reduced visitation means reduced fees collected.

Hi Steve,
I can agree with some of what you say - but I think the fundamental problem, apart from the obvious one of pure commercialization, is the concept of 'accessible to all'. In an ideal world, of course, sites such as the LBH field would be 'accessible to all'. The problem arises when this goal of universal accessibility is achieved by severely compromising the integrity of the site - thereby destroying an integral part of why people actually want access in the first place.

You raise the issue of the National Cemetery. The Custer Battlefield National Cemetery was established through the Headquarters of the Army's General Orders No. 79 of August 1, 1879. The original purpose for this was to have the site designated a cemetery for the perpetual protection of the remains of the Seventh Cavalry who were buried there. Once a cemetery is designated, of course, it is open to apply to be interred there. In my view it is unfortunate that cemetery expansion was allowed to flourish in such close proximity to Custer Hill. That said, it is a done deed and must now be accepted - as must what Connell called the surrounding 'grid of mechanically cultivated farmland'.

As to the roads and paths. My comment on removal of these referred only to those encroaching upon Custer Hill. I did not mean to imply that all access roads to the vicinity ought to be ripped up and visitors to the site have to hike in for miles. It is quite possible to get rid of the concrete scars over Custer Hill and still have vehicular access to the cemetery. In my view, any attempt to minimize the impact to the environment on Custer Hill in the cause of 'access' has been an abject failure - any paving over that immediate area is an act of historical vandalism. What is wrong with having hidden parking amenities from which the visitor has to walk (yes walk- an abhorrent four letter word to some!) perhaps some distance and roam around the protected enclosure. As it is the view from the monument is debased by the visitor center and the ribbons of concrete snaking down over what should still be grassland if the place is to retain any atmosphere.

Whilst you're absolutely right about the bottom line being the buck for some people who're paid to know better, this is a spurious argument when examined. It's also a self-perpetuating one - the more 'facilities' that are built and imposed on the site the more has to be charged to sustain them; and the more these 'facilities' attract the tourists the more the facilities will need to be 'upgraded' - with more tourists and more upgrades being cited to justify spiraling charges. Get rid of the 'facilities', apart from the weatherproof version of von Schmidt's 'Here Fell Custer', and leave Custer Hill as it looked at the 10th anniversary in 1886, and stop the 'Disney' factor at the site - it will be cheaper to run and maintain, but the vested interests don't want to talk about that!

It might be asked whether it is possible to reverse great changes which have been wrought upon a battlefield over many years, and to return it to a semblance of how it looked when the action was fought? The answer is a resounding yes.

A perfect case study of this is the British National Trust's restoration of the site of the Battle of Culloden (1746). Like LBH, this is a site which has impacted hugely on the psyche of the nations involved, and continues to generate controversy and partisan positions today. Likewise, it is the site of a great defeat, in which the defeated nonetheless fought gallantly and died in great numbers. Likewise again, most of these fallen are still buried on the field. Over the years, however, the battlefield had had main roads, side roads, paths, builtings and extensive tree planting imposed upon it. Several years ago, however, a project was begun to restore the battlefield as closely as possible to the aspect it had in 1746. And with such a will it's been done! It was decided to leave a memorial cairn erected in the 1880's on the site (much as LBH would have no option over its memorial or the cemetery), but everything else has been returned to the way it appeared when the battle was fought. They are now at the stage of planning to remove the old intrusive visitor center and relocate it to a site almost entirely hidden from the battlefield. If a small overcrowded island like Britain can value its heritage to the extent of setting aside and preserving such an iconic site, then what's gone wrong at LBH?

I will be visiting the Culloden Battlefield site next month. I will be at LBH next June 25 for the 130th. I know at which of the two it will be easiest to gaze out over the field and replay the events in my minds eye without 21st-century excrescences to intrude upon my reveries!

Sorry to have gone on at such length, and I won't bore you all by posting on it again - but this subject is a passion of mine; I cannot abide the blinkered and ultimately ruinous way in which some of the most historically interesting sites are administered in a commercially populist manner.

For those interested in what can be achieved, take a look at the Culloden site at:

www.culloden.org/the_battlefield.html

Regards,
George

[Steve Wilk]

George, with regard to commercialization....we cannot forget that the battlefield lies within the Crow reservation. The Crows depend on that commercialization for revenues. A drop in visitorship would hurt the tribe, ie jobs lost etc. LBH depends much on drop in visitation from folks heading from/to Yellowstone or the Black Hills/Mt. Rushmore area.

I don't know much about Culloden, but does it lie just off an interstate highway? It certainly doesn't lie on an Native reserve either. As for walking in, I totally agree with you on the paved surfaces. But we have the ADA law which must provide access for those who cannot walk. How would you provide for the wheelchair bound, especially those who are war vets...they cannot be denied the right to visit.

But I would love to see the battlefield undergo such a conversion. Realisitically though, I don't think there is much of a chance.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Hi Steve,
Not only did Culloden lie 'just off [the equivalent of] an interstate highway', it was until recently bisected by that highway! As part of the restoration of the battlefield the highway was rerouted to the north of the battlefield, allowing the two halves of the battlefield to be reunited. That's the kind of scale and determination I'm talking about! Further, I've checked visitor details and Culloden has parking areas for the disabled, wheelchair hire and brail facilities at the visitor center. It has not, however, carved up the site of the battle with strips of concrete simply to accomodate wheelchair access over it. Disabled visitors can survey the field from vantage points. I don't think the ADA law was intended when drafted to cause destruction to such historically important sites as LBH - but merely to give the disabled reasonable access.

As to the Crow economy - I'm sorry but they have no more right to 'theme park' an historic site - to its detriment - for their financial gain than does any other section of the community. That they do is evident by the LBH battlefield sites obsession with quoting annual visitor numbers and trying to raise these wherever possible. The custodians first and last duty should be conservation of the site - not trying to boost income through ever increasing hordes of vacuous tourists who are en route to or from elsewhere. Such places should not be concerned with profit making (either for themselves or for vested interests in the local community).

If they can reroute a long-established major highway from the Culloden site, then all that is missing from LBH is the political will to legislate for appropriate changes.

I agree with you, however, that at the present time such a scenario looks unlikely. Perhaps the various organizations dedicated to Custer research as well as those concerned with the preservation and management of historic sites are not united enough (or at all) in their lobbying efforts............

Regards,
George

[Lawtonka]

I first visited the LBH Battlefield I think in 1985 and can truthfully say that I was not at all disappointed with the facilities that existed. I too, fully support preservation and keeping the integrity of the site.

I sure was upset back then when they were discussing concessions with Blue Shield Ventures complete with trams, etc. That would have been AWFUL to say the least. I am glad that did not develop.

When the talk of the Indian memorial first began, I was concerned with how that was going to look on Last Stand Hill, but, I don't think they could have done any better than what they did. It is in harmony with the monument and I think it is a great addition to the field. Very Proper and well deserved.

Thanks to the very hard work and perseverance of Jim Court, heading the Preservation Committee. With his leadership and vision, and the help of many people pitching in funds, very important land purchases have been made protecting the field. I can remember when he started, you could get a deed to one square foot for a minimum donation and it grew from there.

I would be in favor of relocating the main visitor center to the valley, at the old Reno/Benteen battlefield museum once owned by Jason Pitsch. The old visitor center could still be used for Ranger Talks, Interpretations, and LE. I think the talks with the monument in the background makes a perfect setting.

The current road along battle ridge down to Reno Hill should always be there in my opinion. This is the only way the general public can get a real look and feel of the battlefield. I think the NPS has done a great job with that along with the new panels to help interpet the field.

The National Cemetery and old Stone House are a perfect setting in my opinion.

The main thing in my opinion, if the main visitor center was located down in the valley, it would be a great starting point to tour the battle field and there is a lot down there that could be expanded upon to enhance the skirmish lines and retreat of Reno's Battalion.

To me, nothing could be more enjoyable than to walk the roads and trails that already exist. This is one of the things I have really enjoyed at the Rosebud Battlefield and also at Fort Bowie in Arizona. At Fort Bowie, there is about a mile and a half walking trail into the fort at Apache Pass. It can also be accessed by horseback. But, in my opinion , the existing roads and trails are very important for the public to enjoy the field. More importantly, there may be a day I will no longer be able to walk the distances!

It would be very frustrating if we could no longer access the main points of the field as we can now. I have been fortunate to visit the field about 6 times in my life and can't hardly wait until I can do it again. I never get tired of it!

[George Armstrong Custer]

Hello Tim,
Of course I respect the fact that you have found the set up at LBH to be to your satisfaction, and that it allowed you to have a rewarding experience. However, I trust that you will allow me to stand by my view that the site could be presented better (last there three years ago) by restoring the site to a natural state more redolent of the setting in which the battle was enacted. I'm afraid I strongly disagree with your statement that: 'The current road along battle ridge down to Reno Hill should always be there in my opinion. This is the only way the general public can get a real look and feel of the battlefield.'

I purposely did not bring up the issue of the Indian memorial as this is an issue in which reasoned debate can lead to some very partisan discord, and I wouldn't wish our happy community here to go that route. Suffice to say that in response to your view that 'they couldn't have done any better than what they did', I'd suggest they could indeed have 'done better' - they could have placed it somewhere more appropriate entirely.

That said, I'm very happy to agree on some of the positive aspects you highlight, and in particular the program of land acquisition.

I guess everyone will have their view on what conservation means and how it should be applied in practice to a battlefield site like LBH in terms of preservation rather than development - though the early signs of your poll seem to favor more of the former and less of the latter around Custer Hill!

Regards,
George

[Lawtonka]

Hey George,

I do respect yours or anyone elses views and opinions. I find it interesting to talk about (not that anythinig will ever change because of it). I appreciate being able to discuss different subjects in a civilized manor. Remember, this is not an official poll and there is no intention to stir up any controversy. Just to experience friendly coversation and what ifs. I appreciate your responses.

My statements are general conversation and I surely do not get heartburn over anyone with a different point of view. I appreciate both views. I am glad though that we can have access to the battlefield. My most memorable trip was when I attended a horseback ride down from the Crow's Nest and crossed the LBH River where he and his battalion did. That was the ultimate experience thus far for me.