The lack of management authority in the 1891 ‘Creative Act’ caused consterna- tion in many communities of the west. First, settlers could not (legally) access the timber within the new federal reserves. Secondly, it appeared that the lands would not make a contribution to economic growth as the act did not acknowledge any permitted uses.
After much debate, Congress passed the ‘Organic Act’ in 1897(16 USC 475) declaring that the purposes of the forest reserves were: (i) to improve and protect the forest within the reservation; (ii) for the purpose of securing favourable conditions of water flows; and (iii) to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the people of the USA (Dana and Fairfax, 1980).
As with most laws, this one left much room for interpretation. Some hoped that the protection and preservation aspects of the language would be empha- sized; others hoped that the use aspects would be highlighted. Gifford Pinchot, the
first professionally trained forester in the USA, soon became Chief of the Forest Service and came down strongly on the side of use, albeit conservative use:
In the administration of the forest reserves it must be clearly borne in mind that all land is to be devoted to its most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people, and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies. All resources of the reserves are foruse, and this use must be brought about in a thoroughly prompt and businesslike manner, under such restrictions only as will insure the permanence of these resources. The vital importance of forest reserves to the great industries of the Western States will be largely increased in the near future by the continued steady increase in settlement and development. The per- manence of the resources of the reserves is therefore indispensable to continued prosperity, and the policy of this department for their protection and use will invari- ably be guided by this fact, always bearing in mind that theconservative useof these resources in no way conflicts with their permanent value.
You will see to it that the water, wood, and forage of the reserves are conserved and wisely used for the benefit of the home builder first of all, upon whom depends the best permanent use of lands and resources alike. The continued prosperity of the agricultural, lumbering, mining, and livestock interests is directly dependent upon a permanent and accessible supply of water, wood, and forage, as well as upon the present and future use of their resources under businesslike regulations, enforced with promptness, effectiveness, and common sense.
(Letter from Secretary of Agriculture Wilson to Pinchot when he became Chief Forester of the USDA Forest Service, but apparently written by Pinchot – Dana and Fairfax, 1980, p. 82)
Pinchot’s vision led to the sustained yield model that dominated forestry for most of the last century: his vision called for use of the resources of the national forests – especially wood, water and forage – to assist in the economic develop- ment of the west. Pinchot’s model of conservative use – use at a rate that would not impair the permanent value of the forest – served as a guiding principle. It was expressed through the idea of a regulated forest, in which the same amount of timber would mature each year, and a sustained yield of commercial timber products. These concepts were utilized by generations of foresters (including the author) to calculate the allowable cuts on the national forests for much of the 20th century.
This vision was implemented through scientifically trained foresters with their ‘science’ coming from disciplines that supported the sustained-yield model of forest management – silviculture/mensuration (inventory, growth and yield)/
management (harvest scheduling). Forests would be grown as a crop with the goal of a regulated forest. Wildfire and pests would be controlled and sup- pressed. All lands that could produce commercial crops would produce them over time. Roads would be built in forests to provide access for timber harvest and to allow control of wildfire. Old growth would be a high priority for harvest so as to make way for fast-growing second-growth stands (Cleary, 1986; Hirt, 1994; Langston, 2005).
In the north-west, the national forests were inventoried to identify land pro- ductive enough to produce timber on a continuing basis. Then foresters used for- mulas to calculate the maximum harvest level over time from these forests consistent with concepts of sustained yield. Many of these calculations, though,
were theoretical exercises, as there was relatively little demand for this timber in many parts of the west for many decades; private timber was cheap and avail- able. After the Second World War, though, federal harvests ratcheted upward, reaching 20% of the softwood harvest in the USA, as economic prosperity combined with depletion of private supplies led mills to the federal woodpile.
Important facts to support this approach to forest management included an estimate of the amount of merchantable volume on each area and its growth.
Also, because the sustained-yield model rested on long-term growth, the produc- tivity of future stands under different intensities of management was important to estimate. Much effort was devoted to collecting this crucial information on growth and yield, such as Bulletin 201 (McArdle and Meyer, 1930).
As mentioned above, the facts and relationships about growth and yield were embedded in concepts such as the regulated forest and various procedures for calculating the allowable cuts. All these ideas had a strong foundation in European forest management, where early foresters like Pinchot studied. They reflected the goal of a balanced set of age classes, which would then produce a constant output of timber forever; this was presented as the appropriate way to manage forests (Davis and Johnson, 1987).
Underlying these facts and concepts were a set of world views – views about the way the world worked, about what the future held, about relationships that foresters accepted as truisms, about values that foresters held dear. First and foremost was the notion of an approaching timber famine that could be pre- vented only by adopting the ‘scientific’ approach to management that they advocated. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, when these ideas were gaining credence, trees were harvested without much thought of future forests (Dana and Fairfax, 1980). Studies like those of Hough (1878) raised alarm bells about the implications of continuing down this path. Thus, it is not surprising that the forestry profession anchored its work in the desire to thwart an approaching tim- ber famine. Secondly, foresters believed that sustained-yield timber production was compatible with, indeed productive for, other forest values. Foresters were not totally blind to the multitude of values that people seek from forests, whether they are water, wildlife, recreation or spiritual renewal. They did believe, though, that these values could be protected through Pinchot’s conservative use under the oversight of professionals. Thirdly, foresters believed that the sustained-yield model would provide for economic and social sustainability through the provi- sion of regular, constant timber volume.
Key elements of this world view have been summarized by Duerr and Duerr (1975) as ‘tenets of faith’ – the strong long-term demand for wood products, the need for maintaining a sustained yield, the wisdom of the forest manager and, over everything, the primacy of timber production. As pointed out by Duerr and Duerr, this world view helped the foresters work through all the imponderables and uncertainties of their work.
In forestry schools there was no need to articulate these tenets of faith – they were implicit in the classes, the textbooks and the discussions (see, for example, Davis and Johnson, 1987). Thus, while often unstated, they dominated and directed forest management, and especially federal forest management, through the middle of the 20th century.
Passage of the Multiple-Use, Sustained Yield Act in 1960 (PL 86-517;16 USC 528) did little to change this world view. Timber primacy still drove the agency’s priorities (Cleary, 1986), with foresters in charge, tremendous demand for the softwood timber from the national forests and the continuing concern over timber scarcity. The public’s increasing desire for protection of wild places was satisfied largely by the Forest Service designating areas of low commercial value as backcountry and later by Congress designating these types of areas as wilderness.