rainier national park actually dropped. and to put that into perspective, by 1915 we have good roads running from tacoma, washington, to mt. rainier national park, and we have the automobile age coming into fruition. the average time spent at mt. rainier national park prior to 1905 was 30 days, after 1915 it was eight hours. when we think of challenges that railroads faced, the tacoma eastern didn't have challenges in terms of high mountains to be able to climb or tunnels to be able to drill through. what they did have was a lot of political influence by the big brother, the northern pacific, which was an interchange partner that they had. and the northern pacific really felt like it was their responsibility to develop mt. rainier national park, and they did not like the idea that tacoma eastern was going to have access to the best route into mt. rainier national park. and so they tried to develop a secondary entrance into mt. rainier national park called the carbon entrance, but that one was, didn't have very good access to

national parks system. " the national parks system is yellowstone. after that you have your silly and the national park that was established with mount rainier. here in tacoma the railroads realized they had a golden opportunity for people and take advantage of the natural wonders that are available to them at melt rainier national park. the tacoma eastern railroad had begun in 1890 and had built this way south 100 miles. it took them until 1905 before they got to the gateway of mount rainier national park and from there, the trip would have taken upwards of a week to be able to get there by horseback. now it only took a matter of hours. to put this into perspective, higher to the arrival of the railroad in 1905 the average stay at mount rainier national park was 30 days. when you came to recreate, you are expected to get the entire experience, meaning you came out, you brought in your packing equipment, you were going to go and either walk the wonderland trail which circumnavigation volcano where you were going to climb the peak, one or the other. each one of those undertakings took a tremendous amount of time and it took a tremendous amount

-- mount rainier national park. they develop something called , that had entrance very good access to the places that people wanted to go. tacoma eastern became the way to get to mount rainier. you had direct access to the facilities at longmire, that is where membrane your national park was located and you also had easier access to paradise which is where everyone wanted to go. privately it was being sponsored by the milwaukee road. they had been secretly funding the construction bonds for the tacoma eastern railroad. tacoma eastern became a subsidiary of that railroad, when the rocky road transcontinental arrived in 1809, it turned tacoma eastern into a subsidiary of the milwaukee road. you are able to be able to catch a train in chicago and although it to mount rainier national park on one ticket. in 1919, 1918, december 31, the milwaukee road absorbed tacoma eastern and a lot of the subsidiaries and formed one gigantic corporation. at that point it became solely known as the milwaukee road. the passenger trains o

rainier national park. i

book is wales to paradise and it is about the train that ran from tacoma washington to mount rainier national park and the reason why i wanted to write the book was i wanted to focus on a specific railroad

national parks service. many people were enthusiastic about mt. rainier park being created. there is a little thing in your packet that's wonderful. it's a brief passage. a man says to them -- okay. do you want to -- the fellow says to them, don't you think you might want to pay attention. this is a little bit like the ecosystem thing. tacoma man, 1915, speaks to stephen mather and horace albright, and he says, why -- why these borders. why would you put these borders on the park? they're straight lines. the borders do not reflect what's on the land. could you think about making the borders in some relationship to the land forms? horace albright and stephen mather say to this man, that's an interesting idea. apparently they asked him to write it up and send it to them so they could think more about it, but they didn't get his name and they never heard from him. so always, in our company, is tacoma man. and we may or may not know enough to think don't let him get out of here before we get that idea and we really think about it. when we're doing the men of their times thing, t

is where horace albright worked with the founding of the national parks service, a lot of local people were very enthusiastic about mt. rainier park being created. there's a very brief passage, a man says to them, do you want to -- the fellow says to them, don't you think you might want to pay attention, this is a little bit about the ecosection. and he speaks to who race albright and he says, why these borders? why would you put these borders, they're straight, the park line, they don't reflect what's there on the land. so horace all bright and steven mathers say to this man, well, that's an interesting idea. and apparently they asked him to write it up and send it to them so they could learn more about it. and they never heard from him. always in our company is tacoma man, and we may or may not know enough to think, don't let him get out of here before we get that idea and we really think about it. tacoma man was around in 1915, and it took a while, and now everyone struggles with where are the borders of the ye yellowstone national park and there was tacoma man, who was he was, turning on the lights. anyway, there's tacoma

[laughter] >> as you know, homes to the two largest national parks and your proposal would cut both parks by 7% from mt. rainier would see quite a reduction of 881,000 and another would be 900,000. so i am trying to understand that the parks were already underfunded now these cuts make the problems were so can you explain why cutting these parks and park personnel on the front lines is the right strategy to balance?. >> the infrastructure increased $38 million. that is not a cut. the front line is the park and since i have been secretary i think i have been to maine, new hampshire , utah montana, alaska, connecticut montana, alaska, connecticut , it is clear the front line is too thin. so my assessment with the department of interior we have to middle management and too few in the parks a we're going through a process how to push more assets to the front line. we have seen every cost-cutting measure it we find ourselves too short needed in the parks. yes we need more scientists in the field and was lawyers but also look at the region's three-year to heavy in the our regions and unfortunately that has taken a to

national parks. your proposal would cut both parks by about 7% from at rainier, which with the of .unding reduction of 881,000 the reduction of 900,000 in olympic work. i'm trying to understand these parks were already underfunded and the funding cuts will only make the problems worse. can explain why you think cutting these parks support functions of park personnel from the front lines is the right strategy and balancing as you say a budget? >> infrastructure increased $38 million. that is not a cut. secondly, frontline is our parks. since i've been secretary, i maine, newo let's see, utah, connecticut.ka, i have toured monuments. it is clear the front line is too thin. for thesessment department of interior, we have too many middle-management above and to few in the parks. we're are looking at going through a process, coronation with you, how to push more assets to frontline. measurest-cutting previous to this is always regionalized assets up. infind ourselves too short the parks. yes, we need more scientists in the field and less lawyers, but also you look at our stack on the region, we are too hea