For The Trees An Illustrated History of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests 1908-1978

Back in 1876 when Dr. Franklin Hough first began gathering information about the nation's forests, [1] the interrelationship of resources—soils, water, timber, wildlife, range—had only begun to be understood. The post Civil War years had seen the sunset hours of the American frontier. A frontier possessing great wealth. The developers and speculators wasted no time taking advantage of the lucrative conditions of the late 1800's. Only a few persons in that century seemed aware or concerned that the exploitation of resources could not go on forever. What, for example, was to happen when all the western timber was gone? No one had replanted after harvesting; nor had many seed trees been left standing so that nature might recover.

It was not until 1875 that the American Forestry Association organized to build public support of forest conservation. And although there was no professional forestry as such in the United States, the forest conservation movement sounded one of the earliest calls to save some of the many resources then being gobbled up. Congress, in 1891, finally authorized setting aside certain lands from the public domain as Forest Reserves. On March 30, Congress reserved 1.2 million acres in Wyoming and it became the Yellowstone Timberland Reserve. [2]

Reserved areas were first set aside because of the timber holdings and because of the watershed that the timber protected. Everything related: The trees held the soil, preventing erosion and allowing the soil to build and replenish itself, recycling the nutrients broken down in the process of decay. By holding the soil, the trees kept streams clear and free of sedimentation. Trees slowed rainwater runoff so that flooding was less severe. Watershed protection became an integral part of timber protection. Wildlife found more food and shelter in the Forest Reserves. And people—even in the last years of the 19th century when the population of the United States was less than 75 million—even then, did people seek out wild places. When the frontier reached the Pacific Ocean, this need only grew, and it continues to exert an appreciable force on land use and resource planning.

The question of resource management became more important, more compelling to those persons committed to forest conservation. In 1898 Gifford Pinchot was appointed the head of the Forestry Division of the Department of Agriculture. Pinchot believed in resource use; that the nation's forests were to be used, not just set aside. But Pinchot believed in a far-sighted and fair use, and use which would "provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people." Pinchot believed that the homesteader and the lumber giant could both benefit from the Forest Reserves.

In 1905, Pinchot succeeded in his efforts to have the Forest Reserves transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture—bringing the forests and the foresters together for the first time. [3] The Forestry Division was renamed the United States Forest Service, and two years later, in 1907, the Forest Reserves were renamed the National Forests, a name that Pinchot believed reflected a forest management concept of use.

Most of the first two years of the Forest Service's existence were spent in protective efforts—just as these first years were spent in Arkansas. Boundaries had to be established. Much of the National Forest land had not been surveyed or mapped. Roads and trails were needed to provide access to the forests. Fire protection occupied most of the ranger's time and attention. The trees had to be protected from fire to hold the soil, to stabilize the watershed, to provide wildlife habitat, and to provide a growing population a place for recreational pleasure. Householders and cattlemen depended on the rangelands for grazing. Everything related. All these multiple resources had to be protected and managed so that they could be used.

"You will see to it that the water, wood, and forage of the reserves are conserved and wisely used for the benefit of the homebuilder first of all; upon whom depends the best permanent use of the lands and resources alike." James Wilson's letter to Gifford Pinchot, February 1, 1905. Photo No. 18903A, by Ralph Huey, 1914.

Not until June 12, 1960, however, did multiple use achieve official status and find a name for itself. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (Public Law 86-517) did not lay down new principles for forestry or for the Forest Service. It provided Congressional confirmation of an already established policy and practice. Multiple use became the management concept under which the increasingly complicated resource juggling act could operate. Furthermore, this act stipulated that all forest resources—the timber, water, range, recreation, and wildlife—would be managed equally; that no single resource was inherently more important than any other resource. Sustained yield provided the insurance policy for the future, mandating an on-going maintenance and high-level productivity without damage to the land. [4] About this same time Arkansans began reevaluating their own state's resources.

Arkansas's population in 1960 passed the one and one-half million mark. The median family income was $3,184 and half the adult population had less than a 9th grade education. [5] Arkansas, in 1959, had produced 64.1 million bushels of soybeans, 1.5 million bales of cotton, and 40.8 million bushels of rice. The dollar value on these crops came to more than $500 million. [6] And ranking second only to agriculture in the state's economy was the timber, or wood products, industry. Still, the state continued to decline in population—another 6.5 percent decline since the 1950 census. [7] Arkansas's most valuable export seemed to be her people, especially her young graduates. [8]

Arkansans, however, took pride in the state's vast acres of woodland and farmland. They could boast of clear, free-flowing streams and rivers. The woods and rangelands had room for wildlife—deer, turkey, bear, and quail. The air was clean. Underground, there was barite and lead and natural gas. [9] An interstate transportation network was under construction. The Arkansas River was being made navigable from the Mississippi River to the port of Catoosa, near Tulsa. Beginning in the 1960's, people within and outside the state, looked more seriously at the many resources Arkansas possessed.

The Ozark National Forest had entered a period of more intensive resource management: The reforestation projects undertaken by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's had provided experience in replanting; timber sales during the war years and following had brought business to the forestlands; and, wildfire—the major threat to the forest for so many years—had decreased.

Moreover, the 1960's became significant years in conservation history. The 89th Congress became known as the "Conservation Congress" because of its work in this area and in environmental affairs. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act was followed by the Forest Service Omnibus Act of 1962. The National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act was passed in 1964, as well as the Wilderness Act. And there was more environmental legislation. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act in 1964, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968, and the culmination of the decade's work in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The purposes of this act: "to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality." [10]

Such legislation was not only significant for what it meant in terms of future Forest Service policy and planning, but also as an indication of the effectiveness of the conservation movement in the United States. The environmental legislation of the 1960's appears to have been a measure of the shift in attitudes which had taken place over one hundred years. From the attitudes of 19th century exploitation, through the years when rugged individualists did not regard any lands as public, nor pay more than lip service to the idea of any greater public good. There were periods, too, of apathetic indifference; but, the 1960's for all the unsettling turmoil they brought to the nation, did stir up an appreciation for the country's resources. Ecology became a best seller. The man in the street became informed about the biological systems and food chains. He read about the Silent Spring and The Outermost House and came to understand The Quiet Crisis.* Aldo Leopold, who wrote A Sand County Almanac, was a forester and ecologist. He became not only an authority to cite, but also an inspiration to what had become a cause. By the arrival of the 1970's this new awareness had become honed to a fine edge of concern—concern shaped further by recurrent energy problems and disturbing world developments. All these changes—the attitudes, the legislation, the problems of world energy and world resources—have affected the National Forests and the resources which they contain.

---

*Silent Spring was written by Rachel Carson; The Outermost House by Henry Beston; The Quiet Crisis by Stewart L. Udall.

---

These changes in attitudes occurred in the Ozarks as well. The settlers in the first 20 years of the forest's history had resented public lands being set aside, protected and regulated. Today, however, people in the Ozarks, and in many parts of the nation, want to have more than glib reassurance of the permanence of their National Forests. They want a voice in determining the management policies and directions of this national resource.