Eco-Watch Dialogues
1/26/99

Use of the National Forests
by Dave Iverson

   Deciding which interests to serve has never been easy in public land and resource management. If anything the task of discovering the public interest seems to be getting harder and harder with the recently awakened diversity of values in the American psyche, and by "urbanization" of the Western United States with its accompanying population explosion.

   The US Forest Service was established nearly 100 years ago amid controversy over the public domain and the disposition and use thereof. As we edge close to the dawn of the 21st century we find renewed, or maybe just continued controversy over which National Forest users and owners will be pleased (and which will not) by Forest Service management decisions.

   It might prove useful to go back to the beginnings of the Forest Service and patch together a brief, selective look at "use" policy to begin an inquiry into how to best sort out the public interest for the 21st century. We will somewhat arbitrarily break the history of the Forest Service into four eras: Conservation and Wise Use, Multiple Use, Sustained Conflict, and Collaborative Stewardship. With this bit of history as backdrop, we can begin a discussion on future "use" of the National Forests and other public lands.

Establishing Conservation and "Wise Use": 1900-1950

   Following nearly a half century of complaints from American naturalists, scientists, foresters, and others, nationally owned forest land gained protection by Presidential decrees (some of them very controversial) under the Forest Reserves Act of 1891. Legendary naturalist John Muir was among the early champions of a "Forest Reserves" idea, but as we will see was not supportive of many later developments. The Forest Reserves, as reserves, was a short-lived idea. Within 15 years from their inception they became National Forests, with "use" and "conservation" as primary drivers, not preservation.

   The Forest Service was created in July of 1905 by the stroke of Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson's pen, renaming what had been the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Forestry. (See "Name of the Forest Service in 1905," Gerald W. Williams)

   The creation of the Forest Service was deemed necessary by President Theodore Roosevelt and his friend and Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot. They had been recently successful in transferring the Forest Reserves into the Department of Agriculture from the Department of Interior, and in increasing their size from 63 to 86 million acres. They felt a need for an independent agency to manage the lands. They satisfied that need by creating the Forest Service. Just two year later the Forest Reserves were renamed "National Forests," setting the stage for managed use.

   According to historian Harold K. Steen (in The U.S.Forest Service: A History), Pinchot believed that "the term reserve suggested the these federal forests were to be held inviolate." This was unacceptable to Pinchot, who had very clear plans for the National Forests as spelled out in his classic The Use of the National Forests, first drafted in 1905. Pinchot's emphasis on "use" of the National Forests set the stage for later bitter struggles between Pinchot as a champion for "use" and Muir as a champion for "preservation."

   Complimenting Gifford Pinchot's notion of use, conservation of soil and water resources was at center stage in Pinchot's message. Use was meant to be "wise use"--use that could be maintained in perpetuity, without impairment to the productivity of the soil. Pinchot insisted on protecting the soil. In his words, "The permanent wealth of a country comes from the soil. To ensure permanent wealth the soil must be kept productive." He also stressed the importance of protecting watersheds as a basis for "wise use" of all resources, with primary emphasis on wood, water, forage,and minerals. Recreation "playgrounds" were mentioned in passing in the The Use of the National Forests. "Game" was also mentioned but "wildlife" was not. "Biodiversity," "ecosystem function," and other terms common to today's "natural resources" discussions were yet to be invented. In keeping with American sentiment of the time, utilitarian conservation formed the core of "public use" in the early 1900s.

   The Conservation and Wise Use Era lasted through the Great Depression and through World War II. During this era multiple constituency groups formed, championing various uses including timbering, grazing, minerals, recreation, soil and watershed protection, Wilderness, wildlife and more. I purposefully put timbering -- logging, silviculture, and timber management -- first since it was clearly a dominant focus of the Forest Service. (See David A. Clary's Timber and the Forest Service.) The seeds were sown for "Wise Use" to be broadened into Multiple Use in the post WWII frenzy that opened up the expanses of the National Forests. From these seeds grew an era wherin the Forest Service embarked on a mission of massive road building and timbering in support of the new American dream where each family could own a home in the suburbs. (see Paul W. Hirt's A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests since World War II.)

From Conservation and Wise Use to Multiple Use: 1950-1970

   Although seeds were sown earlier, we could say that the Multiple Use era began in earnest around 1950, with the development of forest resources used to fuel the post World War II housing boom in the United States--and the accompanying expansion of the National Forest road system which could also serve to accommodate expanding recreation use from a more mobile and more leisure oriented American public. The Multiple Use Sustained Act of 1960 (MUSY) codified the Forest Service's Multiple Use mission into law. The MUSY admonished the Forest Service to manage the public lands judiciously to best meet the needs of the American people; considering the relative values of the various resources --outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish -- and considering those relative values in particular areas. Forest Service managers were further admonished to sort out those values in ways that would "not necessarily provide the combination that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output" (16 U.S.C. 531).

From Multiple Use to Sustained Conflict: 1970-2000

   Other legislative mandates like The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( NEPA ), various Wilderness Acts, The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA),and The National Forest Management Act of 1976 ( NFMA ), and The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) broadened and changed the interpretation of Multiple Use as well. These and other legislative mandates reflect changing social and cultural values that have spawned much debate, discussion, and too rarely dialogue over forest management in the form of "new forestry," "new perspectives," "ecosystem management," and most recently "collaborative stewardship."

   At the end of the 20th Century, interests now seem to conflict a lot. (See "Issues Split Outdoors Fans, Always Will," Jim Wright, StandardNet 2/3/99.) There are many more people in the United States today relative to a century ago, and much more use of the National Forests. Increasingly more people are settling in the West, at least in part to be near the National Forest, the National Parks and other scenic wonders.

   Even though there is strong agreement that the conservation agenda of "wise use" still makes sense, there are many who now question whether it goes far enough to serve the public interest in the twenty-first century. Biological diversity issues loom large today, as population and industrialization pressures continue to build. An increasing number of people worry about ecosystem functions for cleaning air and water systems, and about our stewardship responsibilities for maintaining and enhancing these and other ecosystem functions. Many people worry about threatened lifestyles and livelihoods as pressures build to change traditional management of the National Forests.

From Sustained Conflict to Collaborative Stewardship: Hope for the Next Century

    We might argue that the foundation of the Collaborative Stewardship era began with the passage of the environmental laws of the 1970s, with provisions for involving both the public and broadly-based federal interdisciplanary science teams. But the politics of public lands management in these last couple of decades have generated enough cognitive dissonance that I have chosen not to formally begin the Collaborative Stewardship Era until after the year 2000. Right now the American people seem to be still stuck in the Sustained Conflict Era even though there are at least some signs to indicate that we are about to cross another threshold and begin to embrace sustainability.

   Since his appointment, F.S. Chief Mike Dombeck has continually emphasized the need to move toward Collaborative Stewardship as have others in the Clinton Administration. In his "Conservation Leadership" July 1, 1998 letter to employees, Chief Dombeck reiterated his conservation message:

" To me, a conservation leader is someone who consistently errs on the side of maintaining and restoring healthy and diverse ecosystems even when -- no especially when -- such decisions are not expedient or politically popular. If we are to redeem our claim to be the world's foremost conservation leader, our job is to maintain and restore ecologically and socially important environmental values. A highly diversified society increasingly demands that our stewardship result in a legacy of healthier landscapes. ...

"Fifty years ago, Aldo Leopold wrote his seminal work, A Sand County Almanac. In it, Leopold spoke of his personal land ethic and the need for land managers to extend their own ecologial conscience to resource decisions. The Forest Service natural resource agenda is an expression of our agency's land ethic. If we are to redeem our role as conservation leaders, it is not enough to be loyal to the Forest Service organization. First and foremost, we must be loyal to our land ethic. In fifty years, we will not be remembered for the resources we developed; we will be thanked for those we maintained and restored for future generations."   Mike Dombeck, 7/98

   Chief Dombeck asks us to rethink our stance on conservation, use, and more. But he also stresses the importance of developing relationships with the users and providers of recreational and other experiences. In the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda he says,

"Partnerships with the recreation users, concessionaires, permittees, and local communities help us to more effectively deliver quality recreation experiences. The private-sector can often teach us new ways to deliver better services at a lower cost. We will expand the use of such partnerships and encourage more Americans to volunteer time, labor, and experience in helping us to improve interpretive services, trail maintenance, facilities, and conservation education."    Mike Dombeck, 3/98

    Amid all the talk of "collaborative stewardship," substantial and nagging concerns remain: Whose interests are to be served? How are the American people and their elected and appointed representatives to balance the various uses to serve the public interest?

   It is clear from Chief Dombeck's messages and from actual practices on the ground that corporate influence in the public lands arena is changing rapidly. More traditional corporate influences in both Forest Service and BLM lands (timber, mining, and grazing interests in particular) seem to be on the defensive. They seem to lack the political clout they once had, although their influence has by no means vanished. Corporate recreation interests, by contrast, seem to be on the offensive. Partnerships are in style, and some corporate interests now seem to gain special favor as "partners." Yet in some parts of the world, New Zealand for example, the government still shuns corporate influence in public lands decisions, believing that their presence somehow negatively influences the experience the users and owners of the resources enjoy. Our choices remain open.

Inquiry Questions:

• What type commercial uses are appropriate on the National Forest in the 21st Century?
• Is a "wise use"/multiple-use policy still sufficient when biological diversity, Wilderness, and other public use issues loom large?
• Is there still reason to be wary of large scale commercial interests?
• How ought we to fund the management of the National Forests, the National Parks, BLM lands, National Wildlife Refuges, etc.? Are user fees appropriate mechanisms? Are commercial permit fees appropriate? If so, in what mix and under what circumstances?
• What roles, if any, might non-government organizations play in the funding federal lands management? What roles, if any, might corporations and other for-profit organizations play? What roles, if any, might nonprofit organizations play? Are all nonprofits created equally?

Related sites:

• USFS Recreaton Fee Demonstration Program
• American Recreation Coalition's Fun Outdoors! Homepage
• Wild Wilderness Homepage
• Pinchot Institute Homepage
• US Forest Service -- short history by the Pinchot Institute
• Pinchot Institute's "Forest and Forest Policy" hotlist
• Thoreau Institute Homepage
• Forest Guardians Homepage

Gifford Pinchot links:

• Gifford Pinchot Biographical Sketch, Pinchot Institute
• Gifford Pinchot Biographical Sketch, Pennsylvania's Environmental Heritage
• Gifford Pinchot's "The Fight for Conservation," New York, Doubleday, Page, and Co. 1910.

John Muir and Bob Marshall links:

• Sierra Club's John Muir Exhibit
• A Wilderness Original: The Life of Bob Marshall, by James Glover

Aldo Leopold links:

• Aldo Leopold Biographical Sketch, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
• Sand County Almanac Fifty Years Later, Donella Meadows
• Aldo Leopold: A Critical Celebration of His Land Ethic, Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University, August 1998.
• Ethical Legacy of Aldo Leopold: Lectures, Forums, and more. Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University
• Favorite Aldo Leopold Quotes, Dave Iverson
• A brief History of Environmental Ethics for the Novice