A History of Forest Conservation in the Pacific Northwest, 1891-1913

There are three approaches possible in studying the history of forest conservation. It may be studied as part of a world movement, as Fernow studied it in his History of Forestry; or from the standpoint of the nation, as did John Ise and Jenks Cameron; or from the standpoint of a given region, as did Charles McKinley in his administrative study of Federal land resource policies in the Pacific Northwest.

As a world movement, forest conservation offers an interesting story. Forest conservation practices were well established in Europe by the beginning of the nineteenth century; and that century marked the spread of the movement to the overseas colonies of Europe and to the new countries of the world. Developments in governmental forest control and management in the United States were paralleled by similar developments in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and India. There was a great deal of interdependence in the movement, for science recognizes no national boundaries. Much of the early forestry work in India was done by the German forester, Diedrich Brandis. Foresters in France, England, and Italy were influenced by the publication in 1864 of a book by an American, George Perkins Marsh's Man and Nature. Bernhard Eduard Fernow was born and educated in India, Germany, and became the leader of the movement in both the United States and Canada. Gifford Pinchot owed much of his training to Brandis and Fernow, studied carefully the Indian system of forest control as a model, and himself initiated forestry practices in the Philippines. Californians and Oregonians looked to the Australian system of range and forest management for solutions to American problems. The comparative history of the movement offers interesting possibilities for research.

Yet though the movement was a world one, its fortunes varied from country to country. Such matters as federal or unitary governments; political, historical or cultural traditions; and differences in soil, topography and climate all effected the movement. The movement for forest conservation started in Canada at almost exactly the same time, and with the same men and voluntary association taking part, as in the United States; but the movement there has followed a different course. Each country has its own history of forest administration.

The third approach is the regional one, which is used in the present study. Federal policies of resource management have never had a uniform impact on all parts of the United States. The government is federal rather than unitary, with local governments jealous of their own powers. The country has a variety of physiographic provinces, so laws of general application may not work equally well in all parts of the country. A standard and often quoted example is the poor suitability of land laws framed in the humid east to the semi-arid Rocky Mountain West. Finally, land policies are apt to become partisan political issues, aligning party against party, section against section or state against state. For example, continued Federal control of Indian and public grazing lands was a vital issue during the Congressional election of 1954, in Montana, Oregon and Wyoming.

From a second point of view the regional approach is useful. Administration in all federal bureaus having to do with resource management is to some degree decentralized. Each of the administrative districts have powers of self-rule, that is, of making decisions without going to Washington for approval. In administration of national forests, the Pacific Northwest—the states of Oregon and Washington—was recognized as an administrative region to some extent as early as 1897; and complete decentralization took place in 1908. The amount of authority delegated to the Forest Service is large—larger, perhaps, than that of any other bureau. Just as the states serve as social laboratories for working out experiments in legislation, so the administrative regions serve as technical laboratories for working out plans that may have a nation-wide application. And just as the story of government in the United States cannot be told without reference to the states, so the story of resource management must take into account the regional units, as well as the central agency.

In undertaking a regional study, two things must be borne in mind. First, the region does not exist in isolation. Its relation to the national picture, and to other regions must be recognized. A regional study referring only to the region itself is apt to be antiquarian in nature; one related to the nation will illuminate both regional and national developments.

Second, the sub-regions within the region must also be recognized. The state itself is an administrative unit, in government and in resource management. Two adjoining states in the same Federal administrative regions may have widely differing policies in handling their own resources, and in reaction to a Federal program. Oregon and Washington are in the same Federal forest region, where policies are made by the state regional office in Portland. But the states have different systems of handling their state-owned timber land. In Washington, management of the land is a political matter; in Oregon, it is on a professional and non-political basis. In addition, sub-regions based on physiography, climate, industry, and culture must be recognized. Such differing areas as the arid east side, and humid west side, of the Cascade mountains; the long-settled Willamette valley and the booming Puget Sound country; and the dominance of Portland as a metropolis, all provided local variations within the region.

I have been indebted to three groups of people in writing this thesis. The History Department of the University of Washington, especially Charles M. Gates, W. Stull Holt, and Max Savelle, have continually encouraged me, and by suggestion and criticism given the work form and substance. I am also indebted to Northern Montana College for leave of absence from my teaching duties.

Librarians and archivists, both in the east and the northwest, have given freely of their time and help in running down material. I am especially indebted to Harold Pinkett and Helen Finneran of the Natural Resources Division of the National Archives who helped direct my search in that vast collection.

Members of the United States Forest Service have helped me in a great many ways. They have given me a great deal of information on persons and personalities; the time of which I am writing is not far in the past, and many still recall the period under discussion. They have also given me some idea of the high professional code under which they operate. Finally, if there is any evidence that in this thesis I have enough technical knowledge to distinguish a tamarack from a cockleburr, it is due to having learned it from association with that group.