Kitabı oku: «A Brief History of Forestry.», sayfa 32
Another unquestionably most influential, official report was that upon “Forests and Forestry in Germany,” by Dr. John A. Warder, United States Commissioner to the World’s Fair at Vienna in 1873. Dr. Warder set forth clearly and correctly the methods employed abroad in the use of forests, and became himself one of the most prominent propagandists for their adoption in his own country.
About the same time appeared the classical work of George B. Marsh, our minister to Italy, “The Earth as Modified by Human Action,” in which the evil effects on cultural conditions of forest destruction were ably and forcibly pointed out.
Among these earlier publications designed to arouse public attention to the subject, should also be mentioned General C. C. Andrews’ report on ‘Forestry in Sweden,’ published by the State Department in 1872.
The Census of 1870 attempted for the first time a canvas of our forest resources under Prof. F. W. Brewer, as a result of which the relative smallness of our forest area became known.
All these publications had their influence in educating a larger number to a conception and consideration of the importance of the subject, so that, when, in 1873, the committee on forestry of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was formed and presented a memorial to Congress, pointing out “the importance of promoting the cultivation of timber and the preservation of forests, and recommending the appointment of a commission of forestry to report to Congress,” there already existed an intelligent audience, and although a considerable amount of lethargy and lack of interest was exhibited, Congress could be persuaded, in 1876, to establish an agency in the United States Department of Agriculture, out of which grew later the Division of Forestry, a bureau of information on forestry matters. Dr. Franklin B. Hough, one of the signers of the memorial, was appointed to the agency. It is to be noted as characteristic of much American legislation, that this agency was secured only as a “rider” to an appropriation for the distribution of seed.
While these were the beginnings of an official recognition of the subject by the federal government, private enterprise and the separate States also started about the same time to forward the movement. In 1867, the agricultural and horticultural societies of Wisconsin were invited by the legislature to appoint a committee to report on the disastrous effects of forest destruction. In 1869, the Maine Board of Agriculture appointed a committee to report on a forest policy for the State, leading to the act of 1872 “for the encouragement of the growth of trees, exempting from taxation for twenty years lands planted to trees, which law, as far as we know, remained without result. About the same time a real wave of enthusiasm regarding the planting of timber seems to have pervaded the country, and especially the Western prairie States. In addition to laws regarding the planting of trees on highways, laws for the encouragement of timber planting, either under bounty or exemption from taxation, were passed in Iowa, Kansas and Wisconsin in 1868; in Nebraska and New York in 1869; in Missouri in 1870; in Minnesota in 1871; in Iowa in 1872; in Nevada in 1873; in Illinois in 1874; in Dakota and Connecticut in 1875; and finally the federal government joined in this kind of legislation by the so-called timber-culture acts of 1873 and 1874, amended in 1876 and 1877.
For the most part these laws remained a dead letter, excepting in the case of the federal government offer. The encouragement by release from taxes was not much of an inducement; nor does the bounty provision seem to have had greater success, except in taking money out of the treasuries. Finally, these laws were in many or most cases repealed.
The timber-culture act was passed by Congress on March 3, 1873, by which the planting of timber on 40 acres of land (or a proportionate area) in the treeless territory, conferred the title to 160 acres (or a proportionate amount) of the public domain. This law had not been in existence ten years when its repeal was demanded, and this was finally secured in 1891, the reason being that, partly owing to the crude provisions of the law, and partly to the lack of proper supervision, it had been abused, and had given rise to much fraud in obtaining title to lands under false pretenses. It is difficult to say how much impetus the law gave to bonafide forest planting, and how much timber growth has resulted from it. Unfavorable climate, lack of satisfactory plant material, and lack of knowledge as to the proper methods, led to many failures.
A number of railroad companies, opening up the prairie States, planted at this time groves along the right of way for the sake of demonstrating the practicability of securing forest growth on the treeless prairies and plains.
There was also considerable planting of wind-breaks and groves on homesteads, which was attended with better results. Altogether, however, the amount of tree planting, even in the prairies and plains, was infinitesimal, if compared with what is necessary for climatic amelioration; and it may be admitted, now as well as later, that the reforestation of the plains must be a matter of co-operative, if not of national, enterprise.
At this time also, an effort was made to stimulate enthusiasm for tree planting among the homesteaders and settlers on the plains by the establishment of arbor days. From its inception by Governor J. Sterling Morton, and its first inauguration by the State Board of Agriculture of Nebraska in 1872, Arbor Day gradually became a day of observance in nearly every State. While with the exception of the so-called treeless States, perhaps not much planting of economic value is done, the observance of the day in schools as one set apart for the discussion of the importance of trees, forests and forestry has been productive of an increased interest in the subject. Arbor days have perhaps also had a retarding influence upon the practical forestry movement, in leading people into the misconception that forestry consists in tree planting, in diverting attention from the economic question of the proper use of existing forest areas, in bringing into the discussion poetry and emotions, which have clouded the hard-headed practical issues, and delayed the earnest attention of practical business men.
Private efforts in the East in the way of fostering and carrying on economic timber planting should not be forgotten, such as the offering of prizes by the Massachusetts Society for the Promotion of Agriculture (as early as 1804 and again in 1876), and the planting done by private land holders at Cape Cod, in Rhode Island, Virginia, and elsewhere. These efforts, to be sure, were only sporadic and unsystematic, and on no scale commensurate with the destruction of virgin forest resources.
A touching attempt of two noble Frenchmen to teach their American hosts a better use of their magnificent forest resource, although of little result, should never fail of mention. André Michaux and his son, André Francois, who, between 1785 and 1805, explored and studied the forest flora of the United States, and published a magnificent North American Sylva in three volumes, left, in recognition of the hospitalities received, two legacies of $20,000 for the “extension and progress of agriculture and more especially of silviculture in the United States,” which bequests became available in 1870. The American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, a trustee of one of the legacies, has devoted its income to beautification of Fairmount Park, providing a few lectures on forest botany and forestry, and collecting a forestry library, while the other legacy has been used by the Massachusetts Society for the Promotion of Agriculture to aid the botanical gardens at Harvard and the Arnold Arboretum, besides offering the prizes for tree planting referred to above.
3. Development of a Forest Policy
This first period of desultory efforts to create public opinion on behalf of a more conservative use of forest resources was followed by a more systematic propaganda, in which the Division of Forestry, growing out of the agency in the Department of Agriculture, took the lead. This it did officially as well as by assisting the American Forestry Association, soon after organized with a view of educating public opinion. For 15 years, the chief of the Division acted either as Secretary or Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Association.
The first forestry association had been formed on January 12, 1876, in St. Paul, Minn., largely through the efforts of Leonard B. Hodges, who was the first to make plantations in the prairies for the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. This association was aided by State appropriations, which enabled it to offer premiums for the setting out of plantations, to distribute plant material, and also to publish and distribute widely a Tree Planters’ Manual, revised editions of which were issued from time to time.
In 1875, Dr. John A. Warder issued a call for a convention in Chicago to form a national forestry association. This association was completed, in 1876, at Philadelphia, but never showed any life or growth.
In 1882, a number of patriotic citizens at Cincinnati called together a forestry congress, incited thereto by the visit and representations of Baron von Steuben, a Prussian forest official, when visiting this country on the occasion of the centennial celebration of the surrender of Yorktown.
A very enthusiastic and representative gathering, on April 25, was the result, lasting through the week, which led to the formation of the American Forestry Congress. In the same year, in August, a second meeting was held in Montreal, under the patronage of the Canadian government, and the name was changed to the American Forestry Association. In 1898, it began the publication of a propagandist journal, The Forester (later changed to Forestry and Irrigation then to Conservation, and now again to American Forestry). It has now a member-ship of over 5,000. Much of the early educational propaganda was done through this association. Indeed, this association, holding yearly and intermediate meetings in different parts of the States, became the center of all private efforts to advance the forestry movement. Twelve volumes of its proceedings contain not only the history of progress in establishing a forest policy, but also much other information of value on forestry subjects.
Other local or State forestry associations were formed from time to time, more or less under the lead of the national association, and exist now in almost every State, while several other societies, like the Sierra Nevada Club and the Mazamas of the Pacific coast, and State horticultural societies in various States, made the subject one to be discussed and to be fostered. The most active of these associations, since it was formed in 1886, publishing also a bi-monthly journal, Forest Leaves (at first less frequently), is the Pennsylvania State Forestry Association, which has succeeded in thoroughly committing its State to a proper forest policy, as far as official recognition is concerned.
Usually as a result of this associated private effort, the States appointed forestry commissions or commissioners. These commissions were at first for the most part instituted for inquiry and to make reports, upon which a forest policy for the State might be framed. Others have become permanent parts of the State organization, with executive, or merely educational functions. Such commissioners of inquiry were appointed at various times, in Connecticut (1877), New Hampshire (1881 and 1889), Vermont (1882), New York (1884), Maine (1891), New Jersey (in Geological Survey 1894), Pennsylvania (1893), North Carolina (in Geological Survey 1891), Ohio (1885), Michigan (1899), Wisconsin (1897), Minnesota (1899), North Dakota (1891), Colorado (1885), California (1885).
It was but natural in a democratic country that these movements sometimes became the play balls of self-seeking men, political wire pullers, and grafters, or more often of ignorant amateurs and shallow sentimentalists, aided by half-informed newspaper writers. Infinite patience was required to steer through these rocks the ship of true economic reform, and to educate legislators and constituents to its true needs. The very first forestry congress was really conceived with a view of advancing political preferment of one of its organizers, and many another “forestry” meeting was utilized for a similar purpose, the new, catchy title attracting the gullible.
One of the first State forest commissions, well endowed to do its work, soon fell into the hands of grafters, and created such scandals that they led to its abolishment, and to a set-back in the movement everywhere. Arbor day sentimentalism discredited and clouded the issue before the business world; the movement was in constant danger at the hands of its friends. Antagonism of the lumber world was aroused by the false idea of what the reform contemplated, and, in the absence of technically trained foresters to instruct the public and the amateur reformers, and to convince legislators of the absolute need of discontinuing old established habits, progress was naturally slow, and experienced many setbacks.
It was a hard field to plow, grown up with the weed growth of prejudice and custom, and means and tools for the work were inadequate.
The federal government was naturally looked to to take the lead. The first two agents, employed in the Department of Agriculture to “report on forestry”, unfortunately lacked all technical knowledge of the subject, the first, a most assiduous worker, being a writer of local histories and gatherer of statistics, the second a preacher. The third, the writer himself, had at least the advantage of this technical training, but, at the same time, the disadvantage of being a foreigner, who had first to learn the limitations of democratic government. Only the paltry sum of $8,000 was at his disposal for plowing the ground, and even after the agency had been raised to the dignity of a Division in 1886, for years no adequate appropriations could be secured, and hence the scope and usefulness of the work of the Division was hampered.
The Forestry Association, inaugurated with such a flourish of trumpets and with such a large membership at the start, had in the first two years dwindled to a small number of faithful ones, and was without funds when the writer became its secretary.
In spite of these drawbacks, the propaganda had progressed so far in 1891, that, through the earnest insistence of the then Secretary of the Interior, John W. Noble, who had been won over to the views for which the Division and the Association stood, a clause was enacted by Congress in “An act to repeal timber-culture laws and for other purposes,” giving authority to the President to set aside forest reservations from the public domain. Again, this important legislation, which changed the entire land policy and all previous notions of the government’s functions concerning the Public Domain, was not deliberately enacted, but slipped in as a “rider”, at the last hour, in Conference Committee. In this connection the name of Edward A. Bowers, in 1887 Special Agent in the Department of the Interior, and later Assistant Commissioner of the General Land Office, deserves mention as most active in securing this reservation policy.
Acting under this authority, Presidents Harrison and Cleveland proclaimed, previous to 1894, seventeen forest reservations, with a total estimated area of 17,500,000 acres.
The reservations were established usually upon the petition of citizens residing in the respective States and after due examination, the Forestry Association acting both as instigator and as intermediary.
Meanwhile no provision for the administration of the reserves existed, and the comprehensive legislation devised by the Chief of the Division of Forestry, which included withdrawal and administration of all public timberlands, failed to be enacted, although in the Fifty-third Congress it was passed by both Houses, but failed to become a law merely for lack of time to secure a conference report. But the purpose of the advocates of forestry was to create such a condition as would compel Congress to act, by continually withdrawing forested lands that would lie useless until authority was given for their proper use and administration.
In order to secure influential support from outside, a committee of the Forestry Association induced the then Secretary of the Interior, Hoke Smith, in 1896, to request the National Academy of Sciences, the legally constituted adviser of the government in scientific matters, to investigate and report “upon the inauguration of a rational forest policy for the forested lands of the United States.” After an unnecessary so-called “junket” of a committee of the Academy to investigate the public timberlands, a preliminary report was submitted recommending the creation of thirteen additional reservations, with an area of over 20 million acres, and later a complete report was made with practically the same recommendations which had been urged by the Forestry Association.
President Cleveland, heroically, proclaimed the desired reserves all on one day, Washington’s birthday, 1897, without the usual preliminary ascertainment of local interests, and immediately a storm broke loose in the United States Senate, which threatened the overthrow of the entire, toilsomely achieved reservation policy; and impeachment of the President was strongly argued in a two-day (Sunday) session. Congress, however, came to an end on March 4, before it had taken any action, but, as it had also failed to pass the annual Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, it was immediately recalled in extra session.
Then, again, by a clever trick and in an indirect and surreptitious manner, instead of by open, direct and straightforward consideration and deliberation of a proper policy, most important legislation was secured in the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, which provided for the temporary suspension of the reservations lately set aside until they could be more definitely delimited, private claims adjusted, and agricultural lands excluded, by a survey, for which $150,000 was appropriated to the United States Geological Survey. The agricultural lands were then to be returned to the public domain for disposal. At the same time, provisions for the administration of the remaining reservations, much in the sense of the legislation advocated by the Division of Forestry and by the Forestry Association, and especially for the sale of timber, were hung on to this appropriation clause. Under this act the reserves were administered until 1904.
If the interior history of this bit of legislation were revealed, it would probably appear that, not conception of the importance of the subject, but the need for the employment of a certain organized survey party in the Geological Survey was at the bottom of it.
While this law had set aside one year and a limited sum to accomplish the survey, this could not, of course, be done, and hence appropriations were continued, and the date for the segregation of the lands was deferred sine die. For years this forest survey continued, giving rise to magnificent volumes, issued from the Geological Survey, describing the forest reservations – a very useful, educational piece of work, not at all contemplated by the legislation – for which not less than $1.5 million have been expended. By 1905 some 110,000 square miles had been examined when this work was handed over to the Forestry Bureau.
Thus it happened, almost by accident, that finally the aims of the reformers were realized, the appointment of forest superintendents, rangers, etc., to take charge of the forest reservations was secured, and rules and regulations for their administration were formulated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, marking the beginning of a settled policy on the part of the United States government to take care of its long neglected forest lands. In this work of first organization the name of Filibert Roth, a German-born forester, deserves mention.
Meanwhile, the Division of Forestry had continued to bring together and distribute in the shape of reports, bulletins, circulars, addresses and letters, such information useful for the education of the public, of wood consumers, and timberland owners, as its limited appropriations permitted, undertaking also some scientific investigations, especially in the line of timber physics.
Soon after, in July, 1898, when the writer resigned his position as Chief of the Division of Forestry, to organize the first professional forest school, the New York State College of Forestry, Mr. Gifford Pinchot, took charge of the division. Young, ambitious, aggressive, with some knowledge of forestry acquired in Europe and with influential connections and a large fortune, he easily secured the first need for effective sowing on the well-plowed field before him – appropriations. Whatever had been feebly begun could be broadly, sometimes lavishly, extended, and the new idea of making “working plans” for private timberland owners could be developed – a great educational work, which, earlier, when even co-operation with State institutions was considered a questionable proposition, would have been turned down as too paternal.
In five years the appropriations had increased tenfold, to over $250,000; and in the first decade of the new regime, around $3,000,000 had been spent on forestry investigations, not counting expenditures on forest reservation account.
A further strong support came into the field, when Mr. Roosevelt became President of the United States, in 1901, and unreservedly threw his overpowering influence into the balance, to advance forest policies.
Owing to his interest, the withdrawal of public timberlands from entry proceeded at a rapid rate: by 1902, the reservations had grown to 65 million acres; in 1905, there were over 100 million acres included; and by the end of his administration, 175 million acres had been placed in reservation.
The anomalous condition, which placed the survey of the forest reserves in the Geological Survey, their administration in the Land Office, and the scientific or technical development of forestry in the Department of Agriculture, was finally ended in 1904, when, on February 1st, the whole matter was placed in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, with its Forestry Division, which had been changed into a Bureau of Forestry, and then changed its name again to Forest Service.
With this transfer, it may be said, the federal forest policy was fully established, at least for its own lands, and all that remains to be done is the perfection of details in their administration and the development of silvicultural methods.
With appropriations which now (1907) exceed $950,000 for investigating work alone, limitless opportunity seems to be open to extend the many directions of inquiry and solve the silvicultural problems, and satisfy the educational function of this government agency.
But, besides the administration of the federal timberlands and the educational and other assistance of private owners, a further expansion of the Forest Service is developing under the paternalistic and socialistic tendencies referred to before, which may ultimately lead to the purchase and federal control of forest reserves in the Eastern States. Such expansion, was, indeed, proposed in the establishment of reserves in the White Mountains and the Southern Appalachians, propositions which have been resisted by Congress for the last seven years, but with ever weakening resistance. Finally in 1910, success was attained, and the federal government placed in position to acquire these forest areas, to the amount of $10,000,000.
Meanwhile the single states have begun to develop their own policies.
Outside of legislation aiming at protection against forest fires – which nearly every State possessed from early times, ineffective for lack of machinery to carry it into effect – and outside of the futile attempts to encourage timber planting referred to, no interest in timberlands was evinced by State authorities for the first two-thirds of the century, since practically all these lands had been disposed of to private owners, and the authorities did not see any further duties regarding them.
The first State to institute a commission of inquiry was Wisconsin, in 1867; but with the rendering of the report, prepared by I. A. Lapham, one of the active early propagandists – the matter was allowed to mature for thirty years.
The next State to move, in a feeble way, in 1876, was Minnesota, the legislature making an annual grant of money to its forestry association.
The appointment of commissions of inquiry then became fashionable.
New Hampshire appointed such a commission in 1881, which reported in 1885, without result, and another commission in 1889, whose report, in 1893, led to the establishment of a permanent commission of inquiry and advice, with a partial supervision of forest fire laws. Vermont followed suit with a commission of inquiry, in 1882, whose report made in 1884, remained without consequences.
In Michigan the expedient was resorted to of constituting the State Board of Agriculture a commission of inquiry, whose report, published in 1888, had also no consequences except those of an educational character.
Similarly, the State of Massachusetts ordered the State Board of Agriculture in 1890, to inquire “into the consideration of the forests of the State, the need and methods of their protection,” with similar results, or lack of result.
In New Jersey, the matter was referred to the State Geologist, who, since 1894, has made reports on forest conditions and needs. Similar reference of the subject was made in the State of North Carolina, in 1891, and in West Virginia.
The first more permanent State institution deliberately established as an educational and advisory agent was the Forestry Bureau of Ohio, in 1885, which published a number of annual reports, but eventually collapsed for lack of support.
In the same year, three important States, New York in the East, Colorado in the Middle States, and California in the West, seemed simultaneously to have awakened to their duty, largely as a result of the propaganda of the American Forestry Association.
In California, a State Board of Forestry was instituted, with considerable power and ample appropriations, which, however, eventually fell into the hands of unscrupulous politicians and grafters, the resulting scandals leading to its abolishment in 1889.
In Colorado, which when admitted to Statehood in 1876, had, in its Constitution, directed the general assembly to legislate on behalf of the forestry interests of the State, these interests were rather tardily committed to a forest commissioner, who was charged to organize county commissioners and road overseers throughout the State as forest officers in their respective localities, to act as a police force in preventing depredations on timbered school lands and in enforcing the fire laws. Col. E.T. Ensign, who had been most instrumental in bringing about this legislation, was appointed commissioner, and, with singular devotion, in spite of the enmity aroused by his activity, which eventually led to a discontinuance of appropriations, tried, for a number of years to execute this law. With his resignation from the office, this legislation also fell into innocuous desuetude.
In New York, concern in the water supply for the Erie Canal, had led such a far sighted statesman as Horatio Seymour, twice Governor of the State and once running for the Presidency, to conceive the need of preserving the Adirondack watershed in State hands. Accordingly a law was passed, in 1872, naming seven citizens, with Horatio Seymour chairman, as State park commission, instructed to make inquiries with the view of reserving or appropriating the wild lands lying northward of the Mohawk, or so much thereof as might be deemed expedient, for a State park. The commission, finding that the State then owned only 40,000 acres in that region, and that there was a tendency on the part of the owners of the rest to combine for the enhancement of values should the State want to buy, recommended a law forbidding further sales of State lands, and their retention when forfeited for the non-payment of taxes.
It was not until eleven years later, in 1883, that this recommendation was acted upon, when the State through the non-payment of taxes by the owners of cut-over lands had become possessed of 600,000 acres.
In 1884, the comptroller was authorized to employ “such experts as he may deem necessary to investigate and report a system of forest preservation.” The report of a commission of four members was made in 1885, but the legislation proposed was antagonized by the lumbermen’s interests. The legislature finally passed a compromise bill, which the writer had drafted at the request of Senator Lowe, entitled “An act establishing a forest commission, and to define its powers, and for the preservation of forests,” the most comprehensive legislation at that time.
The original forest commission, appointed under the act of 1885, was superseded in 1895, by the commission of fisheries, game, and forests, which brought allied interests under the control of a single board of five members appointed by the Governor for a term of five years. In 1903, the commission was changed to a single commissioner, and another backward step was taken in 1911 by handing over the work of this commissioner to the newly created State Conservation Commission, consolidating with it several other commissions.
Here, then, for the first time on the American continent, had the idea of State forestry, management of State lands on forestry principles, taken shape; a new doctrine of State functions had gained the day. Not only was the commission charged to organize a service, with a “chief forester” and “underforesters,” to administer the existing reserve according to forestry principles, but also from the incomes to lay aside a fund for the purchase of more lands to constitute the State forest preserve. Unfortunately, instability of purpose, the characteristic of democracy, spoiled the dream of the forester. Both, commission and chief forester were, of course, political appointees, and, rightly or wrongly, fell under the suspicion, when proposing the sale of stumpage, that they were working into the hands of lumbermen. A set of well-meaning but ill-advised civic reformers succeeded, in 1893, in securing the insertion into the Constitution, then being revised, of a clause preventing the cutting of trees, dead or alive, on State lands, declaring that they shall forever be kept as “wild lands.” Later, this constitutional provision was deliberately set aside by the commission, which began to plant up some of the fire-wasted areas, the legislature appropriating money for this breach of the Constitution because it was popular: and lately permission has also been granted by the legislature to remove trees from burnt areas in order to reduce the fire danger – the foolish objection of a Constitution notwithstanding.
