University of California Berkeley
University of California Bancroft Library/Berkeley
Regional Oral History Office
THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Kenneth B. Pomeroy
THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: OPERATIONS
THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: 1928-1964
Interviews Conducted by
Amelia R. Fry
Produced under the auspices of Resources For The Future
This interview was made possible by a grant from Resources
for the Future, Inc., under which the Regional Oral History
Office of the Bancroft Library at the University of California at
Berkeley embarked on a series of interviews to trace the history
of policy in the U. S. Forest Service. Dr. Henry Vaux, Professor
of Forestry, University of California, Berkeley, is the Principal
Investigator of this project. Copies of the manuscripts are on
deposit in the Bancroft Library of the University of California at
Berkeley; also in the Department of Special Collections, UCLA
Library; in the Forest History Society, Yale University; and in
the library of Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C.
The Regional Oral History Office was established to tape
record autobiographical interviews with persons prominent in the
recent history of the West. The Office is under the administrative
supervision of the Director of the Bancroft Library.
Willa Klug Baum, Head
Regional Oral History Office
Regional Oral History Office
Room 486 The Bancroft Library
University of California
THE RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE SERIES
tape recorded interviews on
THE HISTORY OF FOREST POLICY, 1900-1950
1. Clepper, Henry, Executive Secretary, Society of American
2. Dana, Samuel T. , Dean, School of Natural Resources, University
3. Gill, Tom, Forester, author, head of Pack foundation.
4. Granger, Christopher, Assistant Chief of the Forest Service,
national forest administration.
5. Hall, R. Clifford, Director, Forest Taxation Inquiry.
6. Hartzog, George B. , Director, National Park Service.
7. Hornaday, Fred, Executive Vice-president of American Forestry
Association; and Pomeroy, Kenneth, Chief Forester for A.F.A.
8. Kotok, I. E., Assistant Chief of the Forest Service, state
and private forestry; research.
9. Kniepp, Leon F., Assistant Chief of the Forest Service, land
10. Marsh, Raymond, Assistant Chief of the U. S. Forest Service
under Earle Clapp.
11. Peirce, Earl, Chief, Division of State Cooperation, USFS.
12. Ringland, Arthur, Regional Forester, Region 3; Executive
Secretary of National Conference on Outdoor
Recreation 4 founder of CARE.
13. Roberts, Paul, Director, Prairie States Forestry Projects;
14. Shepard, Harold B., in charge of Insurance Study, conducted
by the Northeastern Experiment Station with Yale
15. Sieker, John H. , Chief of Division of Recreation and Lands.
16. Swift, Lloyd, Chief of Division of Wildlife Management.
DESCRIPTION OF SERIES
Interviews: A Documentation of the Development of
the U.S. Forest Service 1900-1950
This Resources for the Future interview series on the birth and
development of the Forest Service began as a sudden disturbance in the
ever-active brain of Ed I. Kotok in early 1964. One wintry day in early
1964, as we were putting away the tape recorder after one of our last ses
sions together, I mentioned casually that I would not be in the Bay Area
for the summer: I had to go East.
Ed s eyebrows shot up. It was obvious that a final piece had fallen
into place in a mental jigsaw that he had been carrying around for some
time. He said that there were quite a few of his retired colleagues still
in Washington, D.C., some of whom were the original "Pinchot boys." If
only, he mused, the Oral History Office could find financing for an entire
series on the Forest Service, maybe from a foundation like Resources for
Henry Vaux, then Dean of the School of Forestry at Berkeley, was the
logical one to turn to. He gave advice and counsel on a priority system
for selecting the men to interview. From deep in his perspective of special
ized knowledge of forest policy, he saw the opportunity to preserve informa
tion that would otherwise be permanently lost.* At best, the tape-recorded
memoirs could reveal, more frankly than annual reports and official letters,
some of the political and economic facts of life that influenced the develop
ment of policy in the agency. The actual decision-making process, told
first-hand and linked with the official rationales and actions on particular
issues, could be useful in appraising contemporary policy questions and their
multiple alternatives. Today, as in 1905, forest policy is a field where
special interest pressures are in a state of varying equilibrium with the
public interest. To see the policies and decisions of the past materialize,
to witness through the administrators eyes the expected or (more often)
the surprising effect of those actions in the past - such a visible continuum
could provide a depth of experience for those who are presently wrestling
with the economic and political disequalibriums of resource management.
Horace Albright, a veteran interviewee of oral history operations,
lent his encouragement to us and probably his enthusiasm to his friends on
the board of Resources for the Future. We contacted three top-priority
potential interviewees to see if they were willing to indulge us in our tape
recording scheme, and we received a yes, a no, and a maybe. This changed to
two yeses and, in place of the no, a substitute interviewee equally as val
uable. By late spring, a modest grant to the Oral History Office marked the
beginning of the series, Henry Vaux agreed to be Principle Investigator, and
we were off.
See appendix, Letter from Vaux to Fry, March 20, 1964.
Structure of the Series
The series, with a working title of "The History of Forest Service
Policy, 1900-1950", began and ended as a multiple use project. Its major
aim was to provide tape-recorded interviews with men in the Fotest Service
who during most of the half -century had been in policy-making positions.
The series also served as a pilot attempt to try the relatively new technique
of oral history as a method of gathering primary information within a specific
subject field (one which might be defined here as the origins, operations,
and effects of policy in public administration). The method, in turn, was
hung on the superstructure of a list of retirees who were considered to be
able to contribute the most to that subject.
Each major interview contains the standard stock of questions on
Service-wide controversies of the past: the attempts to reorganize the con
servation agencies - specifically, to transfer the Forest Service out of the
Department of Agriculture; the efforts to get passage of federal legislation
that would have regulated timber management on private lands; the competition
with other agencies and with private owners for land acquisition determina
tions; on-going issues, such as competing land uses like mining or grazing,
which often reflected years of patient negotiation with and bearing up under
the pressures of well-organized special interest groups.
Each interview covers as well topics that are unique to that particu
lar person s experiences, so that tracing "policy in its origins, operations,
and effects," necessitated a detective job to discover, before an interview
took place, those policy questions with which the particular individual had
had experience. It was here that an interviewee s own contemporaries frequently
gave guidance and counsel; advice was also provided by academic specialists in
forest economics, recreation, fire control, silviculture, and so on.
Given questions on the same subjects, the interviewees sometimes speak
to them from contrasting points of view, and thereby provide a critique of
inner validity for the series. For instance, while Lee Kneipp and Ed Crafts
comment on the informal power in Congress of the Forest Service s widespread
constituency, other men (such as Ed Kotok) who actually had been in the field
and involved in local public relations verify how the system worked.
The structure of an oral history series depends on many factors beyond
the control of the oral historian: the health of the interviewee, his willing
ness to interview, and how much he can or will say about his career. The
fluid state of our interview list caused our cup to runneth over more than
once with more interviewees than we could add to our original list of three.
Twice the list was enlarged - and fortunately funded further by Resources
for the Future. The phenomenon of expansion was due largely to the tendencies
of a few memoirists (especially Christopher Granger, Lee Kneipp, and Raymond
Marsh) to touch lightly on events in which he had only slight involvement,
then refer the interviewer to the man who could tell the whole story from a
leader s eye view. The result is that some of the interviews on the accom
panying list are one-subject, supplemental manuscripts.
One will find more comprehensive and general information in the
longer interviews of Christopher Granger (who was the head of timber man
agement), Ed I. Kotok (Research; state and private forestry), Leon F. Kneipp
(land acquisition and management), Arthur Ringland (field activities in
setting up the new forests under Gifford Pinchot) , Tom Gill (international
forestry), Ed Crafts (Congressional relations), and Samuel T. Dana (Research;
forestry education), the latter interviewed in cooperation with Elwood
Maunder of the Forest History Society. Earle Clapp (research, Acting Chief),
shunned the tape-recorder and is currently proof-reading his own written
account of his career, a manuscript that will be deposited in Bancroft Library
along with the other interviews.
The single subject interviews consist of Paul Roberts on the shelter
belt project of the New Deal; R. Clifford Hall s account of the Forest Taxa
tion Inquiry, coupled with H.B. Shepard s story of the Insurance Study. A
view from without is provided by Henry Clepper of the Society of American
Foresters and Fred Hornaday and Kenneth Pomeroy of the American Forestry
Association - a trio who provide a fitting introduction to the series for the
reader. George B. Hartzog, Director of the National Parks, comments on the
relationship of the two agencies; Earle Peirce gives a first-hand account of
the first time the Forest Service stepped in as principal agent in salvage
operations following a disastrous blow-down on both state and private timber-
lands. John Sieker and Lloyd Swift both contributed a telling picture of
their respective divisions of recreation and wildlife management. Without
these shorter, f rom-the-horses mouth accounts, the series would have sacri
ficed some of its validity. There are of course still other leaders who can
give valuable historic information on policy development, men who perhaps can
be included in the Forest Service s current efforts to further document its
own Service history.
With a backward glance at the project, one can say that the basic
objective of tape-recording, transcribing, and editing interviews with top
men in the Forest Service was realized. The question of quality and value
of the interviews must be decided later, for the prime value will be measured
by the amount of unique material scholars use: the candid evaluations of
leaders by other leaders, the reasons behind decisions, and the human reflec
tions of those in authority; how they talked in conversation, how they devel
oped trends of thought and responded to questions that at times were neutral,
at other times challenging. The value of the series also depends on how many
leads lie in the pages of the transcripts - clues and references that a
researcher might otherwise never connect in his mind or in the papers and
reports he reads.
Since this series was built with tentative hopes that in the end it
could justify itself both as a readable series of historical manuscripts and
as a valuable source of easily retrievable, primary material, a master index
of uniform entries from each volume was developed after the transcripts came
out of the typewriter and landed on the editor s desk. Dr. Henry Vaux helped
in setting up the broad areas of subjects to be included, and as entries were
added, the Forest History Society at Yale became interested. At present
the development of the index is a cooperative enterprise between the Oral
History Office, the Forest History Society, and the U.S. Forest Service.
A master index of uniform headings from each volume is available at the
Oral History Office and at the Forest History Society.
One frequently finds that the oral history process is a catalytic
agent in the world of research. First, it stimulates the collection of
personal papers and pictures which, while valuable during the interview in
developing outlines and chronology, are later deposited either with the
transcript in Bancroft Library or with related papers in another repository.
Another happy by-product comes from the more literate who are moti
vated by the interview to do further research and writing for publication.
Thus, Paul Roberts is currently writing an entire book, complete with all
the documentation he can locate, on the shelter belt, its whys and hows.
Ray Marsh is meticulously combining both writing and recording in a pain
staking, chapter-by-chapter memoir which will cover his earliest reconnaisance
days, the administrative posts in New Mexico, the fledgling research branch,
and his work with Congress; his stories of those earliest years have already
appeared in American Forests. Tom Gill, fortunately frustrated by the brevity
of the interviews, which were condensed into the short travel schedule of
the interviewer, is writing a more comprehensive treatise that will no doubt
be unique in this or any other forest history: Tom Gill on Gill and inter
Also, there is the self-perpetuation phenomenon oral history
begetting more oral history. The interview with National Park Director
George Hartzog has led to serious efforts on the part of the Park Service
to establish a regular annual interview with the Director not necessarily
for publication. Also under consideration is a Service-wide plan for oral
history interviews of all its major leaders, which could serve as a continu
ation of the series conducted by Herbert Evison in the early 1960 s.
Ed Kotok did not live to see the finished series. Just as Lee Kneipp
never saw his finished manuscript, and Chris Granger s final agreement,
covering the use of his manuscript, was found still unmailed on his desk
after his death. All other contributors, however, were able to devote hun
dreds of man hours to the reading, correcting, and approving process required
in finishing a manuscript. Although Ed did not get to read and approve his
own transcript, all who knew him will agree that the series stands as one
more symbol of his propensity for plunging in where few have tread before.
(Mrs.) Amelia R. Fry
Interviewer - Editor
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF FORESTRY
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
March 20, 1964
KELEY 4, CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Amelia R. Fry
Regional Cultural History Project
486 General Library
Dear Mrs. Fry:
The significance of the proposed project for securing information
from certain selected people long associated vith the development of
the U. S. Forest Service rests on two facts. On the one hand, there are
a small number of men still alive whose personal experience and memory
covers virtually the entire history of the growth and development of the
Forest Service since 1905. If we are to secure the beet possible insights
and understanding of the history of the Forest Service as a conservation
agency the recollections end mature viewpoints of these men who were
associated with the Service throughout their careers would provide unique
and invaluable source material. The time remaining during which this
information could be collected is obviously limited. A second justification
is found in the fact that to date there has been no comprehensive historical
evaluation of the role of the Forest Service as a conservation agency.
Ise has published a critical history of National Park policy under the
sponsorship of Resources for the Future which serves as an initial evalua
tion of the National Park Service. About 1920 Ise published a study on
forest policy but that is obviously now confined to only a very small
part of the significant history. A series ofJVfiws such as are suggested
in the present proposal could provide both new source material and the
inspiration for a critical historical evaluation of the Forest Service.
The results would be of the greatest importance to the field of
forest policy. The Forest Service pioneered bcth the articulation and
the implementation of the concepts of sustained yield and multiple use
as policies for natural resource management in the U. S. It instituted
numerous innovations in the organization and administration of programs
of handling federally owned resources. It developed on a large scale
new techniques for cooperation with state and local units of government
in such matters as fire protection and landowner education. It
pioneered in a number of respects in the development of research as a
functioning guide to operational policy of the government. Each of the
contributions just enumerated are of the greatest possible significance
for forest policy and for important implications going far beyond the
natural resources field. The project here proposed would throw much
light on the way In which each of the innovations noted above developed
and would contribute greatly to our understanding of them.
Very sincerely yours,
Henry J. Vaux
EDITOR S NOTE
The three interview transcripts in this volume were
originally tape recorded for my personal use as a part of
the preparation for interviewing the other foresters in the
series. As leaders in the two major national forestry organ
izations - -one public, the other strictly professional- -they
possess valuable vantage points from which to view the rise
and fall of issues and men. It behooves any student of for
est policy to tap their unique, un-textbook fund of information,
and preferably early in the research game.
So it was that I hopefully called each of them for
appointments one hot July day in Washington, and each of them
made way for me in his schedule. We had not intended to tape
record "memoirs," but we were talking, and the recorder was
taking iry notes for me. Later, back at Berkeley, as I lis
tened to the tapes, it seemed feasible to transcribe the con-
/ersations for two reasons: (1) put together, they may
provide an introduction or an orientation to the entire
series that is as useful to other scholars as it was to me.
(2) Since interest in the oral history method- -still in its
childhood at this date- -is growing, these transcripts offer
an example of the sort of pre-series zeroing-in that an oral
historian often indulges in when he is dealing with recent
and live issues.
The three men each agreed to release the manuscript
and checked it for ambiguities and errors- -in full knowledge
that these treaties herein enclosed are hardly meant to be
definitive. (To assume that in thirty-six pages one will
find all that Henry Clepper can say about the Society of
American Foresters is like expecting a pocket book Encyclo
pedia Britannic a.) It is hoped that, for the benefit of the
world of forestry and of scholarship in general, the manna
of time, inclination, and funds will simultaneously descend
on each of these men- -Kenneth Pomeroy, Fred Hornaday, and
Henry Clepper- -so that he later can write or record his
story in full.
Resources for the Future Series List ii
Description of Series iii
Editor s Note viii
HENRY CLEPPER: THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Chronology of Life ix
The Development of Forestry As A Profession 1
Educational Standards 2
Code of Ethics 8
Legislation and The Society 10
Positions of the Society 16
Federal Control of Cutting Practices 17
Economics of Forestry 27
The War Production Board 35
KENNETH B. POMEROY: THE AMERICAN FORESTRY
Chronology of Life 36A
Forest Service Issues: Federal Control of Cutting,
Transfer, and Grazing 37
The A.F.A. and Public Opinion 41
Forest Congresses 44
Identifying the Issues 48
FRED HORNADAY: THE AMERICAN FORESTRY
Chronology of Life 58A
Programs of the A.F.A. 59
Range of Membership and Issues 67
THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Clepper, Henry (Edward) Chronology
Born March 21, 1901 in Columbia, Pa. Graduated in 1921
from the Pennsylvania State Forest Academy at Mont Alto
(now a unit of the Pennsylvania State University) . Entered
the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters that year
as assistant forester; employed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for fifteen years as field district forester
and later as assistant chief of the Bureau of Research and
He entered the U. S. Forest Service in Washington, D. C
in 1936 as information specialist in the Division of Infor
mation and Education; resigned the following year to become
Executive Secretary f tne Society of American Foresters and
managing editor of the Journal of Forestry. He served in
these positions for the next twenty-eight years, except for
two years leave of absence with the Lumber Division of the
War Production Board during World War II.
While with the Society of American Foresters, he
helped establish the quarterly journal Forest Science and
the research series Forest Science Monographs. He retired
from the Society of American Foresters in 1966 to become
director of the American forestry history project for the
Forest History Society, Inc., of New Haven, an affiliate of
Yale University. He is engaged (1968) in writing a history
of American forestry supported by a grant from Resources for
the Future, Inc.
Clepper has written more than one hundred articles and
bulletins on forestry and natural resources subjects, many
on historical topics. He is editor and co-author of Forestry
Education in Pennsylvania (1957); co-editor and co-author of
America s Natural Resources (1957) and American Forestry-
Six Decades of Growth (1960); editor and co-author of Careers
in Conservation (1963); co-author of The World of the Forest
(1966) ; and editor and co-author of Origins of American Con
servation (1966) .
In 1957 Clepper was awarded the Gifford Pinchot Medal
by the Society of American Foresters, and in 1965 the award
of American Forest Products Industries, Inc., for dis
tinguished service to forestry. He was a member of the
Organizing Committee for the Fifth World Forestry Congress
in Seattle in 1960 and a member of the official U. S.
delegation to the Sixth World Forestry Congress in Madrid
He is a Fellow of the Society of American Foresters and
an Honorary Member of the Canadian Institute of Forestry.
Ref. Who s Who In America, 1968-1969
DEVELOPMENT OF FORESTRY AS A PROFESSION
Fry: The first thing that I d like to talk about is the
development of forestry as a profession. This was
already underway by the time you came in as
Executive Secretary in May, 1937. Some of the
basic problems had been ironed out.
Clepper: Concerning forestry as a profession, I make this
comment because it might be appropriate to your
general study: one of the attributes of a pro
fession is the acceptance by its members of a code
of ethics that sets up canons of conduct for the
practitioner. The medical profession, the legal
profession, and the engineering professions operate
under codes of ethics. A code of ethics is one of
the three attributes of professions in America.
(This comment does not apply to professions abroad.)
A true profession that is recognized as such
has minimum standards of education which are
adhered to and accepted. That is attribute number
two. And then there is a third attribute, not
applicable to all professions, but typical of
many state licensure. For example, in practically
every state you can think of there are laws providing
for the licensing of physicians, architects, en
gineers, dentists, and nurses, who are all recog
nized as professionals. In forestry we are now
moving into this field of state registration and
licensing. Seven states have passed such forestry
licensing laws. Those are the three keys to a
profession: a code of ethics, minimum educational
standards, and state licensure.
Plus some glue to hold it together, such as your
journals, your annual meeting, something to provide
an exchange of information.
That s right.
Now I should mention that in the October 1960
issue of the Journal of Forestry there is a
history of the Society of American Foresters. It
explains our policies and our professional develop
Yes, that is a good summary for those who are
One question that seems to be perennial regarding
the academic side of the development of forestry
as a profession is whether foresters should be
made leaders in the conservation movement and be
Fry: given a great deal of general education in order
to be aware of the role of forestry in society,
or whether they should put their emphasis on
developing forestry as a highly skilled technical
field. Can you make any comments on what the
general position of the Society of American
Foresters has been on these two things?
Clepper: Let s go back beyond my period of service with the
Society. In its role of representative of the
profession of forestry, the Society s objective was
to establish the fact that forestry had the attrib
utes of a profession. During the early period
(the 1920 s) of our attempts to provide minimum
educational standards for forestry, committees of
the Society held meetings to set up uniform cur
ricula for forestry. Those efforts bore fruit
about 1933 when S.A.F. President H. H. Chapman
undertook, with the approval of the Council of the
Society, to rate the schools of forestry on the
basis of certain criteria to which the heads of
the various schools had agreed. Chapman s work
led then to the development of accreditation for
forestry education. In 1935 these standards were
used for the grading of each institution to
determine the eligibility of its graduates for
Clepper: membership in the Society. As a result, the
graduates of 14 institutions were eligible for
membership in the Society, whereas the graduates
of six others were not. That determination
established, then, the accreditation of professional
forestry education for the first time in America.
Some of the older professions had long used accredit
ing procedures: law, medicine, dentistry, and
engineering, for example. So, when forestry educa
tion was first accredited, and our accrediting
procedures were accepted by other professions as
meeting certain standards that they recognized,
that s when forestry may be said to have become
established as a profession, for then forestry re
ceived the recognition of the other professional
Fry: Was this a committee appointed within the Society
which drew up the original point system?
Clepper: Yes, it was done under aegis of the Council.
Fry: Can you give me some of the names of the people
who were on that?
Clepper: H. H. Chapman was President. Professor Chapman s
work in connection with the development of accredit
ing in the forestry profession stemmed from the
prior work of two other forestry educators who had
completed an extensive study in depth of forestry
Clepper: education in America; those two individuals were
Dean Henry S. Graves of Yale and Professor Cedric
H. Guise of Cornell. Their book, Forest Education,
was published by Yale University Press in 1932.
But their study of forestry education did not go
into accreditation; Chapman s work in accreditation
picked up where theirs left off.
Fry: Was their work motivated by the Society?
Clepper: Yes. Their project developed out of a grant of
funds by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, to
undertake this study which had been requested by
Fry: The ones on the S.A.F. committee took this as a
kind of guide to go by, I gather.
Clepper: That is correct. The Society at that time had a
Division of Education which, as the name implies,
was made up of the members who were engaged in pro
fessional education. Professor Chapman was, in
effect, a one-man committee, but he represented
this entire group. When nis book, entitled
Professional Forestry Schools Report, was issued
in 1935, President Chapman was the sole author of
it, although his report was made with the knowledge
of this Division of Education and also with the
approval of the Council of the S.A.F. The Council,
in short, acted as a committee of the whole.
Fry: I see. But this had to be voted on, then, by the
Clepper: No. Just by the Council.
Fry: Which seemed to be more important for professional
curricula, techniques of forestry or precepts of
the role of forestry in society?
Clepper: It would be difficult to answer that question
without oversimplifying. But the results brought
about by our accreditation program established the
principle that certain core courses would be taught
in every forestry curriculum as a basis for pro
fessional practice. Those core subjects were and
are silviculture, forest management, forest economics,
forest protection, and forest or wood utilization.
Along with those core subjects go the adjunctive
subjects. For example, in order to learn silvi
culture a student has to have a knowledge of forest
soils, which in turn requires a knowledge of chem
istry. When those subjects basic to the professional
courses were also put into the curriculum, it was
discovered, as everybody knew then, that our for
estry curricula were probably topheavy with the
professional and the technical scientific subjects;
and there was insufficient emphasis on the humanities
and the liberal arts.
Clepper: So in forestry, as in other professional and tech
nical fields, we have had a continual discussion
as to the relative place of the technical versus
the liberal arts courses. The trend of the thinking
in the profession, among those who are qualified to
express opinions on this matter, is that in our
development of strong forestry curricula we should
put more emphasis on the humanities and the liberal
arts, and de-emphasize, as many technical schools
are doing, the so-called "how to do it" courses.
Fry: Were the concerns of the forest industry and
products manufacturers generally constructive as
they worked with the academicians?
Clepper: Yes. One of the developments that we re proud of
in forestry and in the Society is our relations
with the forest products industry. Foresters in
the industry and some of the executives who are
not foresters have had a constructive understanding
attitude about the profession.
Now, having said that, we realize of course
that there have been various persons within for
estry who have been critical of industry and who
thought industry should have moved faster in setting
up good forest management practices. These dif
ferences of viewpoint and opinion were all to the
good because they helped formulate policy.
Clepper: Unquestionably, our members in industry have been
quite as much interested in the development of
high educational standards as the foresters in
public practice or in institutional employment.
Fry: You weren t caught, then, on the question of
general education versus emphasis on technical
developments of industry?
Clepper: No. If I understand the point that you are emphasiz
ing, technical versus general education never was
a major controversy in our profession. It was one
of a number of issues that have been discussed
over the years and it arises every now and then.
But it was never a divisive one.
Fry: And not a hot one, I guess.
Clepper: No. Incidentally, are you familiar with the study
that we completed in 1963 entitled Forestry Educa
tion in America 1 !
Fry: Yes, I have seen it.
Clepper: It is a five-year study of forestry education,
carried on by Samuel T. Dana and Evert Johnson,
the most comprehensive ever undertaken by the Society
Code of Ethics
Regarding an ethical code of the Society, I under
stand that when disputes have arisen on the behavior
of a member, the Society of American Foresters has
Fry: been able to hold hearings, is that right?
Clepper: Not in quite that precise way. We have had a
code of ethics for the forestry profession in
force since 1948. But even before that year, we
had procedures to handle cases of alleged un
professional conduct. Fortunately, there haven t
been many. And the few that we have were not
given publicity. We ve preferred not to because,
while we don t try to conceal deficiencies, we
prefer to handle them so that neither the pro
fession at large nor the individuals involved will
Fry: When I was interviewing Ed Kotok, he was quite
interested that we try to document this development
of a code of ethics. He said that although the
code was adopted in 1948, there was a rather well
defined, unwritten code of ethics practised by the
professionally trained forester anyway, long before
1948. Is this your impression?
Clepper: Yes. It was, in effect, the code of conduct that
any professional person with ethical standards would
want to follow. The Society s bylaws defined
certain professional rules of conduct. So he is
right to that extent. But we really never had a
code of ethics written out, voted on, and accepted
by the forestry profession prior to 1948.
LEGISLATION AND THE SOCIETY
Fry: I d like to move on into policy. One of the
things which influences policy a great deal in the
Forest Service is that which originates in Congress.
I was interested to read that in 1950 the Society
agreed that no one should lobby as such for or against
a bill. I wondered if this meant that this was a
change in Society rules. Had there been lobbying
Clepper: Not really. The Society of American Foresters has
always had a lively interest in legislation and
administrative proposals that might affect all
natural resources, not just forestry alone. Almost
from the beginning of the Society and the establish
ment of its policies we ve had officers and commit
tees that followed legislation closely, as well as
administrative regulations that might affect
forestry and natural resources. Our Society was
primarily concerned with research, education, and
the advancement of professional practice, as con
trasted with the development of legislation or with
the acquisition of increased budgets for the Forest
Service. Inasmuch as our interests were of a pro
fessional nature, we were not primarily, in fact
Clepper: never had been, concerned with the espousal of
legislation. In other words, we didn t write any
bills for Congress to consider. Or if Congress
had bills before it, the Society never took an
active part in supporting or opposing specific
We have, however, had a long history of what
legally and ethically is not lobbying, but is
rather a professional interest and participation
in legislative affairs. There have been a number
of occasions, for example, the introduction several
years ago of the so-called Wilderness Bill, when
Congressional committees invited the Society of
American Foresters to appear and be heard on
various aspects of the legislation. Those were
instances when the Society was actually invited.
In other words, we do not send voluntary committees
to Congress to try to amend bills.
The logical question is, if the Society expressed
an opinion to a legislative committee on this par
ticular bill, how did we arrive at a policy with
respect to it? The way a policy was determined was
to submit a referendum to our members and by secret
ballot find out what their opinions were. Then,
when we appeared before a Congressional committee
we simply said, "In answer to your question, we
Clepper: polled our members and find that twenty percent
of them favors this aspect, eighty percent favors
that aspect of it."
Fry: And you had to offer your support for the majority
view, then, if you appeared.
Clepper: That s right. But we didn t conceal the fact that
there was a minority view also-
As you may know from your familiarity with the
Society, we have twenty-three regional Sections of
the Society throughout the United States. Some
Sections take a strong interest in state legis
lative matters- -not from the standpoint of lobbying,
but the standpoint of keeping the members informed
of proposals, bills, hearings, and actions on them.
For example, we have a Section of our New York State
members. For many years, probably twenty or more,
the New York Section has had a committee which
annually meets with one of the legislative com
mittees of the State of New York, in connection with
conservation matters generally, more particularly
having to do with forests and related wild lands.
That Section committee was set up at the request
of the chairman of one of the state legislative
committees. However, our committee of the New York
Section does not write legislation or have it
introduced or otherwise lobby for it.
Fry: You re really trying to reflect public opinion
more than educate the legislators?
Clepper: No. What we try to do is to let legislators,
whether state or federal, know what the pro
fessional forestry opinion is on a given issue.
Sometimes our professional opinion is quite dif
ferent from public opinion.
Fry: An example of this might have been the problem
that the South was having with what they called
controlled burning. Did you have this division
of professional opinion and public opinion there?
Clepper: There was division of professional opinion, al
though it was not so much a legislative matter
as it was a matter of administration under a
state s forestry policy. Some foresters early in
the development of our profession realized that
fire as a tool of silviculture had a place, but
this concept was not readily accepted by other
foresters because their whole philosophy had been
opposed to woods to fire of any kind. But today
the principle of prescribed or controlled burning
is accepted widely throughout the profession.
It is still not always accepted by local public
opinion, and that s quite understandable, too.
Fry: I guess The American Forestry Association does more
outright educating of the public at large, doesn t
Clepper: Let me explain our relations with The American
Forestry Association. First of all, it is the
senior organization. One could say that The
American Forestry Association had a great deal to
do, indirectly at least, with there being a
Society of American Foresters. Over the years we
have had strong ties and we ve worked closely
together. To be sure, there is a certain amount
of overlapping of our interests and activities,
and possibly a certain amount of duplication,
but each organization has an enormous job to do.
Neither has willingly transgressed on the field
of the other.
The American Forestry Association is a citizen s
organization. In other words, any person with an
interest in forestry and conservation and willing
to pay dues can join. Consequently, The American
Forestry Association quite rightly reflects, to
the extent that it is able to do so, and guides,
to the extent that it is able to do so, public
The Society of American Foresters is made up
largely of professional foresters and some
scientists in related fields. We re more concerned
with scientific and professional principles. Thus
much of the public education and much of the
Clepper: liaison with legislators, both federal and state,
is carried out by The American Forestry Assoc
POSITIONS OF THE SOCIETY
Fry: What is the problem that organizations like yours
have when questions of policy come up and you
don t have time to call a meeting or a secret
ballot referendum? Then, I suppose, you rely on
a quick vote of your council? Through the years
has there been an evolution of powers of your
council on that?
Clepper: No, if by your question there is any implication
that the Council, which consists of eleven members,
attempts to be spokesmen for 15,000 members.
Actually, few issues have arisen in the field of
natural resources management that were emergency
issues. The broad policy matters hammered out in
the federal government, the state governments, and
the forest industries have been matters that were
often years developing. In our annual Society
meetings, and in the meetings of our Sections and
Chapters, these issues have been discussed sometimes
for years. (Likewise in the meetings of The
American Forestry Association.) Thus we have
seldom had to make quick policy decisions in a
matter of ten or fifteen days.
Federal Control of Cutting Practices
Fry: What about the big question of public control of
cutting practices private or forests? This came
before the Society, I think, when a committee was
appointed about 1918; Gifford Pinchot was head
of this committee, and at that time the question
wasn t whether we should support public control,
but what form should public control take. This
gradually evolved reflecting general public
opinion, so that finally in 1950 the Society
voted seven-to-three to oppose the principle of
federal regulation. I d like to spend whatever
time you can give me on your comments on who in
the Society felt strongly for and against federal
regulation. You came in as Executive Secretary
right at the height of this controversy.
Clepper: This, as you know, is a subject which now is
gradually being forgotten; those who were active
in it years ago are passing out of active forestry
practice. Nevertheless, it was a most passionate
controversy during the middle years of the 1930 s
particularly. Of course, I was quite aware of
this controversy and much interested in the view
points that were developing with respect to federal
regulation, long before I ever came to the Society
of American Foresters as Executive Secretary.
Fry: Maybe I should say for the record that you had
been with the Pennsylvania Department of Forests
and Waters .
Clepper: I had been with the Department of Forests and
Waters in Pennsylvania for 15 years and had served
eight years under Gifford Pinchot during his two
terms as Governor. So I was familiar with his
viewpoint on the subject. Indeed, during his
second term as governor, I had an interesting
relationship in which I had worked on some of his
correspondence and some of his writings. Among
the leaders in the profession who took a strong
stand in favor of the principle of federal regula
tion were Mr. Pinchot, Dr. Earle Clapp, Mr. F. A.
Silcox (Chief of the Forest Service) and Mr. Ward
Shepherd, lately head of the forestry curriculum
at Harvard University.
An equally strong opposite viewpoint was ex
pressed by certain articular individuals such
as Professor H. H. Chapman, Colonel William B.
Greeley, and others I could mention.
Fry: I was talking to somebody else who is strongly
opposed, and his main argument was that this pro
posal could never have been enforced.
Clepper: Oh, yes, there s been much discussion and debate
on whether the laws proposed could have been en
forced. Actually, I suppose, any law can be
enforced up to a point if sufficient money is
spent on law enforcement. But it would have been
an exceedingly awkward undertaking on the part
of the federal government to enforce a federal
regulatory law of the kind proposed back in the
1930 s by Mr. Silcox and E. I. Kotok and Dr.
Clapp. To say that it couldn t have been done
is ridiculous; anything can be done if enough
money goes into it. But I don t think the enforce
ment would have been equitable. For every big
landowner cracked down on, hundreds of small ones
would have been overlooked.
There was another group in the Society represent
ing some of the leaders in our forestry schools and
in the state services who neither strongly opposed
nor strongly favored the principle of federal
regulation, but who in their writings advocated
improved landowner education as probably best
calculated to solve the problem.
As it turned out, a number of circumstances,
including education, did bring about a solution to
the issue without the necessity of federal legis
lation to do it. You probably know that a number
Clepper: of the states did pass so-called regulatory acts
having to do with the supervision of cutting prac
tices in those states.
Now to sum up, there are those who were ex
tremely vocal in promoting the principal of
federal regulation, who later expressed the
opinion that if it hadn t been for their strong
advocacy of federal regulation, the industry and
land owners would not have taken the steps they
did take to make federal regulation unnecessary.
There are others who from the beginning opposed
federal regulation, and who claimed that good
forest management would have been assured whether
there had been any proposals for federal regula
tion or not, simply because the capital gains tax,
the events of World War II, and the aroused
interest in good management of all natural re
sources --a dozen things all combined to make the
American public and particularly American land
owners more conscious of their stewardship.
Fry: I have understood from a number of other people
that this was one of the hottest issues that you
ever handled. That it was difficult to keep the
profession together. It must have required some
interesting steps to do it.
Clepper: As the British historian Macaulay once said,
"People are never so likely to decide an issue
rightly as when they debate it fully." Feelings
ran high and many opportunities arose for this
issue to split the Society of American Foresters
and the forestry profession. Nevertheless, the
one feature of a professional society which proves
its worth is its use by the members as a forum
for professional discussion and debate. If a
controversial matter can be discussed on a pro
fessional level by professional people without
recourse to personalities or to charges of bad
faith, hopefully in a democratic organization, the
right course will be revealed. That s what
happened in the Society. Far from worrying about
the possibility of this controversy splitting our
Society apart, I believed if the discussion could
be guided in professional channels in our journals
and our meetings, it would be beneficial because
there s nothing like controversy to keep people
interested. Federal regulation was one of the
things that kept interest boiling in our profession.
Fry: Yes. And you didn t have the problem of "what
shall we do with all the dead wood."
Clepper: [laughter] Yes. There was no dead wood to burn.
Fry: In speaking of the split, you bring to mind a
question that you may or may not be able to answer.
I ve been dealing with small segments of people
and ideas in my research and I don t have the total
picture yet of the pattern of this split. Was it,
as one might logically suppose, a straight line
with federal members of the Forest Service on one
side and your forest industry members on the other?
Clepper: That would be an oversimplification which wouldn t
be accurate at all. True, almost all the pro
fessional foresters in the forest products indus
tries were opposed to federal regulation, although
not all of them were opposed to the principle of
public regulation expressed through a state . Yes,
the forest industry foresters were by and large on
But not all federal foresters were on the
opposing side, the side of the Forest Service. For
example, I m thinking now of a number of competent,
knowledgeable, and influential foresters who were
in other federal agencies --in the Department of
the Interior, even in the Department of Agriculture,
for example, in the Soil Conservation Service-
who were not all-out advocates of federal regulation.
In fact, they were as much opposed to it as the
industry foresters were. Indeed, many foresters
Clepper: in the U. S. Forest Service were opposed to fed
eral regulation. These men, of course, could not
be articulate. They could not publicly make
statements or express opinions contrary to the
announced policy of the Chief. And no one ex
pected them to, but they held their own opinion.
How do I know that? Because when the Society
finally held a referendum on the principle of
federal regulation in 1950, the vote against it
was so overwhelming that much of the opposition
vote could only have come from Forest Service
foresters because most of our foresters worked
there. (The vote was 2545 opposed to regulation;
1,107 in favor of it; while 40 per cent of those
eligible to vote did not return ballots.) I
can t say that I know this specific forest
officer, or this federal forest supervisor, and
this regional forester were against regulation;
it was a secret ballot. But I know that among
all those votes registered against it, many had
to come from the Forest Service.
Fry: There goes my next question. [Laughter] I was
going to ask whether any of this opposition came
from any of the branch heads here in the Washington
office of the Forest Service.
Clepper: One man whom you may have an opportunity to talk
to while you re in Washington is more knowledge
able than I as regards the diversity of viewpoints
on regulation within the Forest Service family.
He is C. M. Granger. Have you met him yet?
Oh yes. And he is doing some very good work for
Mr. Granger was one of those who did not publicly
oppose the principle of federal regulation because
he was then an Assistant Chief, and obviously was
not in a position to oppose a principle which the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the
Forest Service supported. Nevertheless, he him
self was not committed to that principle. And he
would probably know more about the dissenters in
the Forest Service than anybody else I can refer
you to. He s quite frank about these events, so
it might be helpful to you to pursue that idea
farther with him.
It would be interesting to know more about the
informal influence that may have been felt by
members of the Society- -if anyone was influenced
by the points of view within the Society. Here in
Washington do you have a lot of elbow rubbing?
Granger, Christopher, "Forest Management in the
United States Forest Service," typed manuscript
edited by Amelia R. Fry, (Berkeley, 1968).
Clepper: Oh yes. We re a rather close knit group in many
ways. And at the time this regulation wildfire
was raging there were fewer elbows, so that
foresters were more intimately acquainted with
each other than is the case today. There are
almost twice as many of them now. But there
were a number of us in Washington who were fairly
well informed as to the thinking within the
profession. Ovid Butler, who was then the
Executive Secretary of The American Forestry
Association and G. Harris Collingwood, who was
then with the National Lumber Manufacturers
Association, were well informed men and highly
regarded. It was a period in which many of us
were aware of the viewpoints of the opposing
factions. I myself never got too passionately
involved in the controversy because, although
this is hindsight now, I could see that, on the
one hand, there was a developing awareness and re
sponsibility on the part of industry land owners
to improve their resource custodianship; and, on
the other hand, there were pressures on management
and on ownership to be good custodians under the
threat of federal regulation. You could sense
these forces operating. It was apparent that
given time, and provided we didn t get ourselves
Clepper: involved in another great economic depression,
there would be a development whereby the growing
of timber and the ownership of forest lands, in
stead of being a liability, would become an
And you must remember, too, that one of the
developments that brought about this eventual
diminution of the controversy was the fact that
improved forest fire control made land ownership
less of a hazard from year to year. At one time
many land owners and the industry used wild fire
as an excuse for inaction. Once they had cut the
timber they let the land revert to the state or
county because fires would follow through and
destroy what was left, hence owning the land was
a liability. In other words, they could not
produce second growth timber on it. And rather
than pay taxes on it, they let it revert to the
counties for unpaid taxes. That custom continued
for a number of years until, with increased fire
control, with better forest practices, and with
more knowledge of silviculture, it gradually
became no longer a liability to hold what we call
second growth forest land.
ECONOMICS OF FORESTRY
Fry: In the management of forests does the Society
try to see that economic studies and the results
of economic studies deal with the very difficult
problem of making a forest pay? Is this trans
mitted to the people who actually use the data?
Clepper: Yes, but It s not done in quite the way I think
you possibly visualize it. In the United States
today nearly one-half of our total number of pro
fessional foresters have industrial or private
ties. These are foresters who are working for
lumber companies or pulp and paper companies;
consulting foresters who are working with them
part-time; and independent operators managing their
own tree farms. In brief, a sizable group of
foresters in America is now practicing forestry
for profit; the economic side is their main
interest. Many are in executive positions in
companies; for example, they are vice-presidents
of Weyerhauser, or St. Regis, or Crown Zellerbach.
These foresters then are not only in positions
where they have executive responsibility, but
they re also setting policy for their companies.
As members of the Society of American Foresters,
Clepper: they read the Journal of Forestry and other pub
lications. At least they receive them. Month
to month they re informed about new research
findings and new applications of it, as reported
in the Journal of Forestry and Forest Science.
They attend our meetings and they hear new
Fry: Would you comment on the problem involved in so
many owners of forest land finding it hard to
really make a profit? This is one of the reasons
given for the timber cooperatives not working- -
the sporadic years of profit-making kind of dis
courage a person.
Clepper: Yes. Actually, it s an extremely complicated
condition; even some of the best economic brains
we have in forestry don t know the answer. So
many factors are involved. For example, consider
the case of cutover second growth woodland in New
England. If you ve ever driven through New
England or flown over it, you will observe that
here is a part of the United States that is
heavily populated. It s been settled for well
over three hundred years. It s been farmed since
the beginning of immigration to our shores. Yet
you fly over it and you see extensive forests in
Clepper: But when you get down on that land you find that
the forests are not composed of the fine white
pine that made the tall lofty masts for the ship
ping industry a hundred years ago. And the hard
woods are not the fine sugar maple that made the
furniture, perhaps, in your home. These forests
are often scrubby second growth that had been cut
over and burned over, and probably not for another
hundred years will they yield high income again
because the species grow slowly.
You as an investor could not put $100,000 into
that kind of land with any expectation of practic
ing profitable forestry on it. But you might buy
it for speculation for a hunting preserve or for
a resort area or a hedge against inflation, and
at the same time plant trees and practice forestry
on the side. From the standpoint of a forestry
operation, it would not be a profitable one.
Nevertheless, investors are doing it all the time.
Should you go to these places in New England of
the kind I ve described, where rather poor second
growth clothes the land, and try to buy a sizable
tract of it to develop as a resort or tree farm,
you would be astonished to find out how much you
have to pay for it.
Fry: I gather that this is not too much of a concern of
the Society. You re professional foresters.
Clepper: Only to this extent, that in forestry we are in
terested in seeing land kept reasonably productive
and under good management. In other words, to see
land devastated and remain in its devastated con
dition is contrary to a forester s deepest con
Fry: However, you would have no communication with
amateurs on whose land forests are secondary
Clepper: Well, we do with some of them, but they re a seg
ment of the population The American Forestry
Association and American Forest Products, Inc. have
more communications with than we do. We have com
munication with the foresters who are working for
the State of Vermont and with the extension for
esters in Vermont and with the industry foresters
in Vermont. But we don t have dealings directly
with land owners unless they happen to be foresters.
Fry: Forestry in California is, of course, deeply
affected by national policy because the federal
Forest Service lands have always comprised so much
of the timber area of the state. I m interested
in whether you think California has any distinguish
ing characteristics in the professional practice
Clepper: The three West Coast states are among the most
progressive states not only in the United States,
but in North America, as regards the development
of forestry education, forestry research, and the
application of research; and not only on federal
and state lands, but particularly on industrial
holdings. In many ways the progress that forestry
has made in those three states during the past
quarter-century has set a pattern for the rest of
the country. And of course this progress has been
one of the most encouraging developments in for
estry to those of us who are interested in it
nationally. When one considers the economic base
that forestry establishes in those three West
Coast states, and particularly in Oregon and
Washington, you realize why, in the absence of
sound forestry, the future economy of those states
would be seriously affected.
For example, in Oregon the forest products
industry is still the first and most important.
It ranks high in Washington, and although not quite
so high in California, nevertheless, it s still
economically significant there. So without a
strong economic base in forestry in those three
states, they wouldn t be as rich as they are
today. Now, if forestry continues to develop and
Clepper: make the progress that it promises to do every
where in North America, it will continue to do so
there. To be sure, there has been considerable
controversy at times, certain pulling and hauling
as between industrial, federal, and state interests
in those three states; nevertheless the disagree
ment has been within the democratic process, and
there s healthy cooperation in forestry in those
three states .
I doubt if you would hear my friend Charles
Connaughton, Regional Forester of Forest Service
Region Five, ever claim or assume even privately
that the United States Forest Service runs things
out here. He would never think that way. And
while the state forestry divisions are not as
big, either in personnal or in budget for forestry,
as the federal Forest Service, nevertheless the
state governments and the forestry divisions of
those three states have always had an influential
part in setting policies. This is not to imply
that the public agencies are lined up against
industry. Although there have been differences
between them, nevertheless, quite properly,
forestry sits on a three-legged stool. And all
three legs are needed if it s going to continue
to have a seat.
Fry: Oregon stands out for me because it s supposed to
have one of the best laws for regulation of cutting.
Is this your impression?
Clepper: Actually, California s state regulatory act can be
considered adequate if one thinks of the law as
setting a desirable goal for forest owners to strive
toward. It sets up principles for a land owner or
a forest operator who wishes to do a satisfactory
job of complying. On the other hand, if one wants
to criticize the law in California, or the law in
Oregon, for its lack of stiff penalties for non-
compliance, then one can criticize it from that
You may wish to discount what I m saying to the
extent that this is Clepper s personal philosophy
about silviculture law. As a taxpayer who feels
he owes a certain portion of his income for the
benefit of government and society, I m willing to
make my income tax payments to the federal and
state government. I try to understand what the law
says, knowing that it s my duty as a citizen to
do it. Since I ve never been indicted for failure
to pay my income tax, I have no complaint about the
law. [Laughter] On the other hand, if I were one
who rejected the law or who didn t want to comply
with it, then I might criticize it.
Fry: You just don t happen to own any forests in
Clepper: [Laughter] That s the point. Doubtless, I have
a different attitude than the person who owns
Fry: Was this Emanuel Fritz s efforts for state regu-
lations in the MO s in California?
Clepper: Emanuel was much involved in the discussion. And
he was one of those strongly opposed to federal
See Fritz, Emanuel, typed transcript of a tape-
ecorded interview conducted by Amelia R. Fry of
the University of California Regional Oral History
ice and Elwood R. Maunder of the Forest History
Society. In Bancroft Library and the Forest History
Society. [currently in process.]
THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD
Fry: When you were the technical consultant for Lumber
in the War Production Board, during 1942-1944, did
this involve any kind of emergency regulation of
Clepper: No. The Lumber Division of the War Production
Board never proposed a policy of policing timber
cutting. Such regulation was opposed by the
industry committees, of which there were several
advising on labor, logging equipment, machinery,
production costs, and products needed for war.
But there were influences favoring regulation
that came from agencies of the federal government,
specifically the Forest Service. Proposals were
made that the government impose federal regulation
of cutting practices on the industry as a wartime
measure. But the policy makers in the War Pro
duction Board advised against it, so it was never
done. Several acts of Congress granted President
Roosevelt almost unlimited powers over the
civilian economy. One proposal was made by the
Forest Service that, under the second of these
acts of Congress, he do by fiat what had not been
specifically authorized by legislation. But he
Clepper: was advised by officials in the War Production
Board and elsewhere not to do it, because, in
stead of advancing the war effort and increasing
production of forest products, it was more likely
to decrease production. The President followed
Fry: On the whole, did our forests suffer much because
of World War II demands?
Clepper: Yes, there was some overcutting and some cutting
that was not done under good forest management.
But by and large and this, I think, is a generality
that would be supported by others who know the
situation- -our American forests were damaged little
as the result of war. Some forest stands were cut
perhaps when they were too young; others were cut
wastefully. But, in general, there was not the
injurious cutting one would assume might have
happened during that period.
Fry: I know it is quitting time for you. Thank you
very much for your time this afternoon.
Kenneth B. Pomeroy
THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: OPERATIONS
Kenneth B. Pomeroy
Pomeroy, Kenneth B. Chronology
Kenneth B. Pomeroy, a silviculturist , has explored many
aspects of forestry during his career. Educated at Michigan
State and Duke Universities, he was initiated in municipal
and utility company forestry, then became an agricultural
representative of the du Pont Company.
In 1933, he joined the United States Forest Service as
an acquisition clerk. Subsequent assignments as ranger,
forester, and research center leader took him into many
regions and all three major branches of the Forest Service.
He resigned as Chief of Forest Management at the North
eastern Forest Experimental Station in 1956 to become Chief
Forester of The American Forestry Association. In the
latter capacity he directs the legislative and conservation
activities of the Association, supervises its Trail Riders
of the Wilderness program, and provides technical information
In 1960 and again in 1966 he represented the United
States as an official delegate to the Fifth and Sixth World
Forestry Congresses in Seattle, Washington and Madrid, Spain,
respectively. In 1962 he became a member of the Secretary
of Agriculture s Forest Research Advisory Committee, an
appointment he still holds. He has authored numerous
articles on popular and technical forestry subjects. He
conducted the study of forest land ownership in North
Carolina which resulted in publication of the book North
FOREST SERVICE ISSUES: FEDERAL CONTROL OF
CUTTING, TRANSFER, GRAZING
I thought that perhaps with your vantage point
here as Chief Forester with the American Forestry
Association, you could evaluate some of the
broader policy questions within the field of
forestry, questions with which an oral history
series should deal.
There definitely have been policy changes or at
least evolutions. Once we got two old-timers
together with the men who took their places
in the Forest Service. We were discussing Forest
Service activities. There was an entirely dif
ferent philosophy in the period of one decade
between people occupying the same position.
This was Marsh and Crafts?
The retirees were Ray Marsh [formerly the Assistant
Chief, including Congressional relations] and
Chris Granger [formerly Assistant Chief, National
Forest Administration] . The two men who had taken
their places were Ed Crafts, now Director of the
Bureau of Recreation, and Ed Cliff, now Chief of
the Forest Service.
Why don t you give your ideas about how this has
changed since Marsh and Granger left?
You should get this information directly from the
men involved because I was not in Washington during
the 1940 s.
Do you know whether Christopher Granger had any
thing to do with the fight to keep the Forest
Service in the Department of Agriculture rather
than transferring it to a new Department of Con
servation, which would have been a re-naming of
the Department of Interior?
He probably had something to do with it. There
is a distinction in the jobs that the two men
were assigned: Marsh s job was policy, as the
Assistant Chief; Granger s job was the administrative
head of the national forest system, while the state
and private forestry came under somebody else, and
research came under somebody else. Therefore
Granger would not come into public regulation in
the sense that Marsh would.
Granger can comment best, then, on the administrative
problems of relations of the local Regions to the
Washington office. I understand that this idea of
autonomy of the Region in the Forest Service is
unique, if it s really true.
Pomeroy: Well, that was set up before Granger s time, though;
he was carrying on the policy that had been set up
back in Pinchot s day.
Fry: On the issue of federal regulation of forest
practices, I was talking to Dean Emeritus Clarence
Korstian of Duke University, who was president of
the Society of American Foresters for awhile in the
Thirties. I got the idea from him that the ques
tion of public regulation split up and came near
to destroying that Society.
Pomeroy: Yes, I think that Korstian is right. And two
thousand foresters resigned from our Association
over that: we were against public regulation.
This was a very deep split between A.F.A. and the
Forest Service at that time. You ll find that in
Dana s write-up there.
Fry: So you sometimes have repercussions to the stands
Pomeroy: Oh yes. We only lost a thousand members when we
stood against the initial wilderness bill. Feel
ings about regulation were much deeper. But we
have survived all of those.
Fry: Are there any innovations under Granger that I
should know about?
Pomeroy: Oh, 1 don t know. The Forest Service has always
followed the Army system of line and staff
Pomeroy: administration. As far back as I can recollect
that is the system that has been followed. It
seems to have worked very efficiently. You really
have to use such a system when there is an emer
gency such as a fire, and so they gear the entire
operation in the same way. Of course, you should
interview Mr. Ed Cliff [currently Chief of the
Forest Service], since he took over after Granger
and pretty much carried on. One of the things
that Granger might enlighten you about was the
problem that he had with the grazing situation in
years gone by, the efforts of the stockmen to make
grazing use of the range a right rather than a
privilege, an effort that still goes on. But I
think that the Forest Service is in quite close
contact with the grazing people. Under Cliff there
has been a somewhat similar situation regarding
mining, but for the details of these things you
would have to talk to the men who were concerned.
Fry: I will. I am kind of using you for your evaluation
Pomeroy: Well, these gentlemen had left those posts before
I came in here. I did not come in here until 1956.
THE A.F.A. AND PUBLIC OPINION
Fry: One question that I want to ask you, on which you
can be a first hand authority, is about the role
played by the American Forestry Association in
policy making, whether it is handed . down by Congress
or whether it comes from the Forest Service admin
Pomeroy: We do not get any policy direction from within the
Congress or the Forest Service. Our function is
primarily to educate the public as to what the
issues are. It has always been our policy to give
all sides of the question in our magazine so that
our members can reach their own conclusions. Some
people get a little disturbed sometimes because it
takes us five or six years to make up our minds,
but this is due to the process by which these
things are evaluated.
A good example would be the proposal to liquidate
the Klamath Indian Reservation which came up in
1954, and was not resolved until 1958 or 1959.
A.F.A. published some 65 articles in our magazine,
American Forests, over a period of four years, and
I think that we probably had about as complete an
analysis as anyone outside of the Committee on
Interior Affairs, because anyone who felt strongly
about it one way or the other was at liberty to
Pomeroy: write in to the magazine. This has always been
our role, whether it has pertained to the miners,
or the stockmen, or the lumber industry, or the
present redwoods in California. We have always
tried to approach it the same way.
Fry: And you are available also as a source of infor
mation at Congressional hearings, although
officially you are not here to testify?
Pomeroy: No, it is not in that vein. Any citizen has a
right to express an opinion on any matter pending
before Congress. One does not have to be a lobby
ist to express an opinion. When our members decide
on some national issue and our board has acted
upon it, then we convey it to Congress. I wouldn t
say that we are active in the legislative field.
The number of things that we become interested in
might be only a half a dozen specific issues
in the course of the year.
Fry: In our western bias we are interested in knowing
how much weight the West carries in conservation
matters. Do you use the western men in conserva
tion a great deal for obtaining information?
Pomeroy: We have a large membership from California, but
our membership is nationwide; we would not detect
regional differences among our members except as
they might show up in our letters to the editor.
Fry: You have no opinion on informal polls or accidental
Pomeroy: You would have to analyze the various issues of
the American Forests in order to see what people
thought was important at the time. We always
show the person s name; if he wont give his name,
we won t publish his remarks. So if you wish to
analyze letters to the Editor, it is easy enough
to do just by going through the back issues of
Fry: One of the things I want to ask is: how does the
American Forestry Association feel about state
control of forest practices rather than federal?
Pomeroy: Here is a copy of our "Conservation Program for
American Forestry." Let me tell you how that
evolved and that may perhaps give you a better
idea of our situation.
Pomeroy: In 1962 we invited 41 or 42 people to meet with
us in Atlanta. These men were carefully selected
from amongst the leaders in all the facets of
conservation. There were federal people and
state people and private timbermen. There were
soil conservation and wildlife experts. Every
different segment of natural resource interest
was represented there by somebody. We prepared
a rough draft along the lines of that program.
Then after it has been reviewed extensively, we
held a Forest Congress here in Washington in 1963.
It was attended by 650 people. There were more
than 100 who spoke on one question or another.
Many of these recommendations were incorporated in
this program. The entire program was published
in American Forests last winter. We asked people
to vote on recommendations section by section,
recommendation by recommendation, all the way
through it--the referendum votes of 38,000 people.
A.F.A. members adopted the entire program as you
have it there by a vote of 91%, 90.61 to be exact
A Conservation Program For American Forestry
Pomeroy: This program is my guide in legislative matters.
For example, yesterday there was a hearing per
taining to the lock s Island National Recreation
Area in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This is
really a regional project, but we are interested
to the extent that it is part of the overall
recreation problem in the country. It fits in
with the recommendations of the National Outdoor
Recreation Resources Commission. In my presenta
tion I took the recommendations from our program
which pertained specifically to that subject and
relayed them to the Congress. We did not dis
cuss how many people might be benefited, or how
many acres might be acquired, what it would cost,
or any of those things. It was just the Association s
statement of policy.
Fry: How often do you have these Congresses?
Pomeroy: They are held at intervals of about ten years;
there is no set length of time. It is when there
are issues that we feel are of national significance.
Then we call a congress. The first congress was
in 1882; it really was the stimulus for formation
of state forestry associations and for state
forestry departments. A number of eastern states,
a half a dozen or a dozen, followed up from that
Pomeroy: The 1905 congress was the kickoff for conservation
as we know it today. The Governors Congress of
1908 followed the Congress of 1905. The trans
fer of the Forest Service from Interior to Agri
culture was one of the key things that came out
of that 1905 Congress. The broad goals defined
then held so well that we didn t hold another
congress until 1946. By that time the question of
land ownership had attracted considerable attention:
How much land should be in federal ownership? And
in what sort of ownership patterns? Some people
felt that the big acquisition push of the Forest
Service had reached its objective and need not be
continued. In fact, there were pressures in some
quarters to liquidate some of the national forests.
In 1953 another congress was held largely to re
fine some of the objectives that had been developed
in the preceding congress, but also to give
attention to the mining laws, which were much in
need of overhauling. Public Law 166, the Multiple
Use Mining Act of 1955 resulted from the A.F.A.
Congress of 1953. The purpose was to separate
surface rights from subsurface rights. In imple
menting that law, the Forest Service has regained
the administration of about 20 million acres. It
was land that the government already owned but
Pomeroy: had no control over it because of these private
mining claims. Something still needs to be done
in that direction by the Bureau of Land Management,
but they haven t seen fit to follow through the way
that Agriculture and the Forest Service have.
Fry: Can you give me more information on what this
acquisition problem was, back around 1946?
Pomeroy: I think in your Forestry Library back in California,
you can probably find the proceedings of these
various congresses- -1905, 1946, 1953, and 1963.
The proceedings are quite complete.
One of the key things in the 1946 congress was the
appraisal of resources - -exactly where did the
nation stand with respect to its forest resources?
There had not been a thorough analysis for some
time. It was out of this that the "T.R.R." developed,
i.e., The Timber Resource Review, by the Forest
Fry: Isn t that the Review that resulted in a much
more generous appraisal of available timber than
previous analyses had given?
IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES
Fry: Then primarily you try to reflect a concensus ,
don t you, rather than trying to convince or build
up a following on behalf of a certain position?
You try to get a concensus and then educate the
Pomeroy: Well, the first question, of course, is to identify
issues of national importance, ones we think are
significant. The next step, then, is to educate
the people to the various facets of the problem,
whatever it may be. Then to try to find a rational
approach to it. If there is sufficient interest
in it, then it is up to the staff to follow up; if
people act as if they could not care less, then
we go on to some other issue. For example, I m
sure that you have heard a great deal about the
"small woodland problem" in the past decade or so.
In the March issue of American Forest we invited
our members to write and tell us what they thought
about it--is it really a problem? If it is, help
us to define it. I ve received a total of seven
letters since then, so I assume that it is not
much of a problem to people who are members of the
Fry: So it is dropped then?
Pomeroy: I will summarize their letters and incorporate
the summary in a little article in the magazine,
and make a report to the board of directors, and,
depending upon the board s thoughts, that will
probably be the end of it. The recommendations
that came out of the Forest Congress was that the
A.F.A. should undertake a thorough study of the
woodland problem. Well, in order to undertake
such a study, we would first have to define what
the problem is and how to approach it. Informal
investigations, if you like, indicate that it is
not the problem that it has been thought to be.
Fry: How do you go about deciding what are the prominent
issues of the day? Is this just something that
you know by osmosis by being here in Washington?
Pomeroy: [laughter] I guess that is as good a way of analyz
ing it as any.
Fry: Darn it, I answered my question for you.
Pomeroy: It didn t require anyone to spell out for us that
wilderness is a national issue. You find that out
directly without someone to tell you. Some other
items might take more thought.
The reason that we were interested in the Klamath
Indian Reservation is that it involved the dis
posal of a million acres of forest land that was
under sustained yield management by the federal
Pomeroy: government. The Indians owned it, but the govern
ment held it in trust and administered it. There
were several different proposals, one of which
was to sell the land at auction to the highest
bidder(s) . It appeared that if such a volume of
timber, I think it was nearly four million board
feet--about one-tenth of the total annual cut--
if this were all thrown on the market at one time,
it would not only depress the lumber market and
have serious economic aspects locally, but it
would have long-range aspects too. The important
thing in that problem was what was going to happen
to the Indians, but that was outside our sphere.
This was a human problem not covered in our program.
We devoted all our attention to the land.
Fry: Because of the forest economic problem?
Pomeroy: Yes, that s right. Now some other proposal might
be very important locally and still we would not
take any action. There is no set pattern; these
things flow forth and back. For example, there is
the proposal of the federal administration to amend
the Internal Revenue Act with respect to the capital
gains tax. The proponents would abolish the capital
gains tax as it applied to the timber industry.
Hindsight a decade later shows A.F.A. acted cor
rectly in the Klamath matter, even though it took
several years to develop a workable solution. K.B.P
Pomeroy: This happened to come up within just a few days
of the time that we had a board meeting. One of
our directors was the gentleman who drafted the
initial capital gains provision. That was about
twenty years ago. Naturally he was very alert to
it. The board acted right away and considered
this to be of national interest. We had already
made a presentation to Congress before there was
time to acquaint our members with the subject. This
was a judgment of the board, and it was within the
framework of the program that we had then.
Pomeroy: Wilderness came up in a somewhat different way.
One of the staff happened to be at a meeting that
was held over in the Forest Service Office at
which various other conservationists were pro
posing a wilderness program. The proposal as
presented was contrary to our basic views, and
so this was taken to our board. We never did
succeed in explaining the problem to our members.
Pomeroy: It was an emotional sort of thing, a misunder
standing as to what wilderness is. We had a prime
example last fall in our congress, when a person
who was guiding one of our tour buses --the route was
along Palisades Drive along the Potomac--at one
point mentioned to the people, "Imagine, here we
are out in the wilderness." This is the average
concept of what wilderness is.
Fry: I guess the question of who is to administer these,
Interior or Agriculture, also comes up?
Pomeroy: I do not think that we ever had any question over
administration. I can t ever recall that being a
factor. The question was whether or not areas
which had not been surveyed and examined would be
blanketed into a wilderness system. We felt that
Pomeroy: they should be examined first before they were
Fry: But this was always to be under the Forest Service?
Pomeroy: The bill as written specifies that the present
agencies will administer the areas.
Fry: Something Tom Gill told me this morning made me
think that it was a potential threat to efficient
Pomeroy: It was, in the first bill. The initial bill
provided that there would be a council, and the
majority of the members would be lay people. Ob
viously, if you had some council to administer
the act, then the next step would be to put all
the areas together into a system so that they
could administer the system. This was one of the
initial fears, but that has been eliminated in
subsequent amendments. It is no longer a factor
in the proposal.
Fry: I think now that we have a pretty good idea how
you determine issues and arrive at points of view.
I don t want to take too much of your time. Some
one has told me that the American Forest Association
serves as a kind of gyroscope that keeps the
policy pendulum from swinging too far in any
direction, because you are able to reflect majority
Pomeroy: I think that s probably correct; at least that s
what we try to do. On our masthead it says,
"forests, soil, water, wildlife, and recreation."
Well, we re trying to stand for the whole multiple
use spectrum. Now- -this is both our strength and
our weakness. It works both ways. If we would
concentrate on a single issue--the extreme example
would be the Wilderness Society, which built its
whole case on wilderness.
Dorothy, will you bring Mrs. Fry a copy of "The
First Eighty Years of A.F.A." please? Dr. Dana
has summarized the Association s activities over
a period of eighty years. I think that you will
Updated to: Samuel T. Dana, The American Forestry
Association, 90 years of Service. See appendix
in primary copies of interview.
Pomeroy: find a good deal of the information that you need
on policy is at least implied there. By the way,
this is Mrs. Dorothy Dixon, who is the director
of our Trailriders of the Wilderness program.
You raised the question of our role in conservation
which I did not answer completely. Our membership
contains representatives of all conservation
interests. There is dyed-in-the-wool bird watcher,
and the organic gardener, and those who are
violently against pesticides; there is the true
wilderness lover, the hiker, and the group that
Mrs. Dixon services every summer- -we 11 take 400
people on these various wilderness trips this
summer. At the other extreme there is the private
lumberman, the furniture dealer, or perhaps the
man who has a mill yard, or maybe a farmer with a
We have a very broad make-up amongst our members.
We don t know exactly what it is, except as these
people write to us. We have never made any survey;
I don t know how you would go about determining
exactly what their interests are. There are some
sustaining members amongst the various industries.
This type of support is relatively small. The best
way to approach it is from a financial angle.
Pomeroy: About 801 of our support comes from the six-
dollar-a-year member who gets a copy of the
magazine. His interests may only be in receiving
a nice magazine that he likes to read, or it may
be more intense, to the extent of going on trail
rides or attending annual meetings, or participat
ing in the congress. He may even bestir himself
and write to the magazine. Industry support is
about 101, but I haven t checked that lately.
Contributions from people who think well of our
conservation activities comprise the remaining
10%. Therefore, you can see that we are not tied
to any specific cause.
Fry: Do you have a lot of material pass over your desk?
Pomeroy: We get reams of it. From all sources, the govern
ment and everywhere else. We get it from companies --
someone has just been made vice-president and he d
like to have his picture in the magazine. We do
not publish these items because we are not a trade
group. But with one segment of conservationists
we re labeled as a trade group, disparagingly
sometimes, and on purpose other times. Certainly
we have strong ties with various industries, but
we are not a trade group. The American Forest
Products Industry, the National Lumber Manufacturers,
Pomeroy: the American Pulpwood Association, are trade
associations and all of their activities pertain
directly to their members. We are somewhere in
the middle, and depending on what the issue is, we
may be to the right or left. As a matter of basic
policy, we never join with any other organization
in sponsoring some particular thing. We always
speak on our own behalf, and this is merely a
result of sad experience. When I first came in,
we joined with a dozen other conservation groups
in a telegram to Senator Hubert Humphrey. Be
cause of our position in the alphabet we came
first among those who signed; but when the tele
gram was printed in the Congressional Record,
Senator Humphrey had used it as a basis for a
speech. The introduction to his speech was the
body of the telegram, and then the signers were
listed at the bottom. It read as if the A.F.A.
endorsed what he had said, which we did not. The
others in the group had, but we didn t endorse his
thought. This happened to be over the initial
Wilderness Bill. Ever since then, we have in
sisted that if some statement is to be made, we
will make it ourselves.
Frequently, a committee of Congress will specify
Pomeroy: that all those who have similar views on some bit
of legislation should appoint a spokesman to speak
for th*- whole group. This would be fine if you
submitted only a printed statement, but in the
questioning the interrogation may run far afield
from what was covered in the statement; so as a
matter of policy, we do not permit someone else
to speak for us. You might say as a matter of
Fry: I certainly thank you for giving me your time.
Is there anyone here now who has been around
since the Thirties that I could talk to?
Pomeroy: Certainly. Now the person to talk to would be
Fred Hornaday .
THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: 1928-1964
Fred E. Hornaday
Hornaday, Fred Eugene - Chronology
Conservationist, and former Executive Vice President of The American
Forestry Association, who previously served also as the Association s
Business Manager and Secretary. He retired December 31, 1968 after 40
years. He started with the Association in 1928, after positions with the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and the United States Daily-- now
the U.S. News and World Report. He lives at 3508 Runnymede Place, N.W.,
He was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 28, 1900, and came to
Washington in 1901. He graduated from the old Central High School, and
the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hornaday is a staunch defender of national forests and parks. He
is an enthusiastic outdoorsman and a participant in the Association s Trail
Riders of the Wilderness program. He once stated, "Forests are meant to be
used, yes, but they are also meant to be enjoyed". He is acquainted with
more members of The American Forestry Association than any other staff
He has been a member of the Society of American Foresters, Phi Sigma
Kappa Fraternity, Cosmos Club, Rotary Club of Washington, and an Elder of
the Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church.
He has been a member of the Conservation Committee, Boy Scouts of
America; Chairman of the National Advisory Steering Committee of Keep Amer
ica Beautiful; Chairman and Honorary Member of the Natural Resources Council
of America; and a member of the Tree Committee of the D.C. Commissioner s
Planning and Urban Renewal Advisory Council.
He and his wife, Annie Claire, have two sons, Fred E. , Jr. of Dayton,
Ohio, Richard M. of DuMont, New Jersey, and five grandchildren.
PROGRAMS OF THE A.F.A.
In talking to Mr. Pomeroy he was able to tell me
pretty much about how The American Forestry Assoc
iation functioned: how you manage to get your
members concensus, and how you select the issues
with which you want to deal. The thing that you
can comment on better than anyone else perhaps,
is what The American Forestry Association had to
do with the big issues of the thirties.
I came to the Association in the Fall of 1928, so
you can see that I ve been here some time. It was
just before I came to the Association that we
were active in promoting the establishment of the
first wilderness area, which was the Gila Wilder
ness in New Mexico. In recent years we have been
active in the passage of the Wilderness Bill which
is now (1964) before Congress. However, when it
was first introduced there were things in it which
we did not like, but which we think have been
corrected in the meantime.
What were those things?
Well, the original Wilderness Bill, as introduced
by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, called
for the creation of a national wilderness preserva
tion system and a Council to carry out the
Hornaday: objectives. We were fearful that the Council had
the implication of setting up a new government
agency or organization; we felt that the wilderness
area could well be handled by the existing agen
cies- -the National Park Service and the U. S.
Forest Service, so the Council has now been taken
out of the bill.
Just as I came to the Association, I think that
the major thing that we were concerned with was
the Southern Forestry Education Project which we
started in 1925 and which ran for three years.
This was a rural forest fire prevention program.
We purchased a number of trucks and got into the
backwoods of eleven southeastern states to try to
discourage the practice of woods burning by the
rural people, and it was very successful. It was
done with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation,
as well as other contributions. We think that it
has done more than anything else to stimulate the
new forestry program in the South, and we think
that the future of our timber supply is going to
be coming from the South rather than from any
other part of the country. This is very definite.
Fry: Was this the so-called "controlled" burning?
Hornaday: No, it was not controlled burning; it was careless
and deliberate burning. The farmers had been
brought up with the idea of every spring burning
off their crop and replowing, and burning off
their brush. We had the feeling that this was
just taking the humus out of the soil and making
it less valuable for tree planting. We then started
this educational campaign which more or less led
to the practice of controlled burning. The far
mers just burned over their lands and there was
no fire protection system at the time, but now the
state forestry departments have all set up fire
protective systems, and nearly all the acreage in
the South is protected against fires. There is
some so-called controlled burning down there now,
but only on limited areas and usually by the
larger timber companies.
How much did you use the research arm of the
Forest Service in arriving at your decision to
set up this project in the South?
There was not much to go on at the time. The
Forest Service cooperated with us; their rangers
were with us on the trucks all the time. Actually,
burning was just a bad custom down there; there
really was not much research to base it on.
And there was some outright incendiarism I under
Hornaday: There was a lot of that. As a matter of fact,
there still is in the South. A great deal of it
Fry: Was there frequent communication between the
research arm of the Forest Service and whoever
here made the decision, as a whole?
Hornaday: Definitely, not only between the research arm of
the Forest Service, but between the research arms
of the various state forestry departments. We
have always worked very closely with the state
Another interesting thing occurred about that time-
it was a little later, as a matter of fact in 1933.
It doesn t pertain so much to what you have in
mind, but it has been an active project of ours:
it s the creation of the Trail Riders of the
Wilderness. We wanted to educate and inform the
members of the American Forestry Association, as
well as the general public, in the preservation
and wise use of some of our remaining wilderness
areas. Therefore we created the arm of the
Association called the Trail Riders of the Wilder
ness. The first trip we had was in the Flathead
Wilderness in Montana. I was privileged to go on
our first trip. We rode about 150 miles in eight
Hornaday: days without any rest stops. It was a real
wilderness expedition, and we have been offering
these trips now since 1933. We have fifteen trips
scheduled this year.
Fry: All equestrian?
Hornaday: All equestrian, except one trip which is a canoe
trip in the Quetico-Superior wilderness of northern
Minnesota. We call that a trail rider trip, but
actually it is a canoe trip. Most of them though
are horse-pack trips. We always have a representa
tive of the Forest Service or the National Park
Service to go along and guide us. We always take
a doctor along so the trips are perfectly safe.
rVe have taken several thousand people since 1933,
and we have never had a serious accident.
Fry: This is for your membership?
Hornaday: This is primarily for the membership, but anyone
of course is eligible to join the Association and go
To me this is one indication that The American
Forestry Association, in spite of what some people
may say, is definitely interested in the proper
use of our wilderness areas, and in their preser
vation. I think we have an awfully good record to
show for it.
Then another thing that we did just about that time,
Hornaday: we sponsored in cooperation with the U. S. Forest
Service the creation of the American Forest Fire
Foundation which was set up to recognize outstand
ing heroism in forest fire fighting. We don t
give these bronze medals and citations every year,
but any year there is any indication of heroism,
whether it be on federal or private land, we will
make an award. These awards go both to active
firefighters and to men who may have already lost
their lives in fighting fires. One year we gave
four posthumous awards. We have not given an award
since 1958, the reason being that these awards
are given to men who go above and beyond the call
of duty; simply because a man does a good job in
fighting forest fires or takes some risk, does not
necessarily mean heroism.
Later on, following the outbreak of the war, which
was on December 7, 1941, the Association went on
record as holding that there were three lines of
action that should have undisputed priority:
Number one protection of our forests from fire.
We were active in bringing to the attention of
the public the Japanese balloons that were being
sent across the Pacific, unmanned balloons which
were dropped into the Pacific Northwest and started
Hornaday: many forest fires. There was a lot of this, and
there were a lot of fires started at the time.
Fry: Some actually succeeded?
Hornaday: The balloons came. We don t how far out in the
Pacific they were launched, but they were largely
paper balloons filled with gas. They were timed
so that they would fall on the forest areas of the
Pacific Northwest. There were some very bad fires
Number two we felt that the production of our
forests should continue because wood was so des-
parately needed in the building of ships and other
Number three we asked for acceleration of re
search in the use and production of cellulose and
other forest products - -any substitute that we
could get that would preserve our wood supply.
Fry: Did you take part in the Guayule Rubber Project
during the war?
Hornaday: Not definitely. As a matter of fact, our present
Chief Forester, Kenneth B. Pomeroy, worked on that
project out there in California, so he had a lot
of experience on that. This was before he joined
Then in 1946 the Association held its third American
Hornaday: Forest Congress. We had held previous congresses
in 1882 and 1905, but I am sure that Mr. Pomeroy
has told you about the forest congresses. The
Third American Forest Congress was stimulated by,
or actually was preceeded by, our nationwide
forest resource appraisal. We felt at that time
that the United States Forest Service was not
quite active enough in bringing up their yearly
appraisal concerning the condition of our timber
resources. Therefore through members, friends,
and foundations connected with the Association, we
raised the sum of $250,000 which made this study
of our timber resources possible. We felt that
the timber appraisal figures were so interesting
that they ought to be developed at this Third
American Forest Congress. Following the Congress,
we developed the new Program for American Forestry
and then this was followed again by another
congress which was held just last June.
RANGE OF MEMBERSHIP AND ISSUES
Fry: I was wondering if you have the same problem
that the Society of American Foresters has in keep
ing membership intact when sharp divisions in
opinion arise on an issue?
Hornaday: We have the same problem. I won t say that it is
a difficult problem with us, but there is one
peculiarity about the set-up in The American
Forestry Association, and Dr. Samuel T. Dana has
mentioned this in his history of our organization.
We have a board of directors of 21 men. We try to
get men and women who represent all phases of our
renewable natural resources; we may have forest
industry men, business men, bankers, doctors; we
have wilderness lovers, farm labor specialists,
etc. It is obvious that they cannot all agree on
the many types of legislation. On the Wilderness
Bill, for example, there was some division of
thinking on the part of the board. The reason for
this broad representation is that we are a public
service organization. We have sometimes been
wrongly accused of being the tool of the forest
industry, or sometimes the tool of the United
States Forest Service, but actually we are trying
to represent fairly the American public as a whole.
Hornaday: We want to promote what is good for all the Ameri
Fry: You have a melting pot --which may or may not be
representative - -but you have a melting pot of all
these various forest interests.
Hornaday: Yes, there is no question of that. So many of
these other organizations have just one particular
subject or objective that they are interested in.
In other words, we have the National Parks Associa
tion that is primarily interested in our national
parks; we have the Wilderness Society interested
in the wilderness; the Sierra Club interested in
wilderness areas, and the National Wildlife Feder
ation that is primarily interested in wildlife.
We try to represent all of these interests although
our original purpose was to see that this country
grew more timber, and also to reforest areas which
were already cut down. I think we would be a much
larger organization if we had only one "ax to
grind" so to speak. This is what has made the
Save -The -Redwoods League so successful in California:
everyone loves the redwood trees, and it is easy
to raise money on a sentimental appeal like that.
Fry: What do you have to do with these other organizations?
Hornaday: There is no connection or affiliation with them.
Hornaday: We know the personnel of all of these organizations
very well, and we work very closely with them.
Frequently, we will join with them in going before
Congress to express our views on legislation, but
we are definitely independent, and non-political,
and non-governmental. We don t have any branches
or affiliates of any kind. There are a number of
state forestry associations around the country,
some of them very active. For example, the North
Carolina Forestry Association, and the Ohio
Association, one in Virginia, and one in Louisiana,
and several others that are very successful. There
has been some talk of having them affiliate with
The American Forestry Association. As a matter of
fact, such a move could be permitted under our by
laws, but we have never pushed it.
Fry: Do you think that the state associations would
want affiliation with the national?
Hornaday: I don t believe that they would. The North Caro
lina Association has been more interested in this
than any of the others, but I think they would like
to work on their own. Here again their problems
are local, state, and regional, and we are trying
to do a job nationally. We don t attempt to inter
fere in state forestry problems very much. Fre
quently we are called on to appeal the dismissal
Hornaday: of a state forester or some other forestry official
in the state, but we just don t think that this
is our prerogative. As a matter of fact, we try
to avoid any personality issues at all in this
Fry: What about personnel on a federal level, the For
est Service here in Washington?
Hornaday: No, we try to avoid that also. In other words,
in the retirement two years ago of Dr. Richard E.
McArdle, the Chief of the Forest Service, some of
us here in the office had certain personal prefer
ences for his successor, but we did not think that
it was our responsibility to make a recommendation
to the Secretary of Agriculture. This was a
career job under Civil Service, and we felt that
the right man would get the job; and we think he
Fry: Do you ever serve as a source of information either
on an issue itself or on public opinion regarding
Hornaday: Definitely we do. Our Chief Forester is frequently
invited to hearings in Congress to express the
views of our members. The best way we can get
their views is through our monthly magazine,
American Forests. Our magazine does not take any
Hornaday: stand on forestry or conservation issues unless
it is authorized to do so by the Board of Directors
If there is a new national park to be considered-
for example there is now being proposed A national
redwood park in California- -then our editor will
try to print all sides of the problem. He ll try
to lay out the facts, and through letters from the
members, we try to gauge public opinion and give
our expression to California state officials,
federal officials, and to our members. We try
through the magazine to get the reaction of the
lay public on these particular subjects. Other
wise every action we take is made official by the
board of directors .
Fry: It sounds as if you are sitting right here on the
pulse of everyone interested in conservation.
Hornaday: It has been very inspiring. It has been very
interesting. In all the years that I have been
with the Association, I think the reason that we
are not any larger than we are (and as of this
year- -1964--we have over 40,000 members) is because
we do not take more forceful stands on some of
these controversial issues. As you suggested,
we try to be a clearing house for conservation
issues, to keep our membership informed (and our
Hornaday: membership is the public) and to keep Congress
informed and keep Cabinet officials informed as
to what we think is best for the country.
The American Forestry association has had a repu
tation of perhaps not speaking up too often, but
when we do speak up, we are respected for doing so
because it is usually on a major issue. If there
is any criticism against some of the smaller con
servation groups, it is because they speak up on
every single controversial issue that comes along
whether it is a small natural area in some remote
state or whether it is a big national park. It
would have to be a pretty big national issue
before we would express ourselves.
Fry: There is one more question that I wanted to ask you.
I understand that the Forest Service has stated an
official position recently regarding their efforts
in international forestry. The Food and Agricul
ture Organization of the United Nations used some
Forest Service personnel, also the Administration
for International Development. What has been the
attitude of The American Forestry Association
toward the Forest Services international activities?
Hornaday: We have been getting more into world forestry in
the last five years than at any previous time in
our history. It has been done primarily through
Hornaday: our magazine, American Forests. While it is
called American Forests, our editor, Mr. James B.
Craig, has been trying to make it more of an
international magazine. We have had some fine
articles by Mr. Ray Marsh on his travels through
Scandanavian countries. We have had a number of
articles from members of the forestry division of
F.A.O. World forestry is a definite part of our
new conservation program for American forestry.
Oddly enough, it is one section of our platform
that is being criticized by some of our members
because they are assuming that this means more
government handout of foreign aid. That is not
our intention, however, There was no recommenda
tion in the program for the expenditure of money.
What we are striving for is a closer relationship
between foresters in other areas of the world to
get together and understand their problems better.
The next World Forestry Congress, which has no
connection with our own congresses, will be held
in Spain in 1966. The last one was held on the
University of Washington campus in Seattle a few
years ago. So we are definitely interested in
bringing foresters around the world closer to
Fry: Did you play any part at all in establishing
forestry as a part of F.A.O.?
Hornaday: No, we could not take credit for that. We
certainly endorsed the movement, but we did not
have anything to do with the creation of it. I
think that Tom Gill probably had more to do with
that than any forester in the country today. Tom
Gill is recognized, in my mind anyway, as the fore
most international forester.
Fry: My other question then had to do with any advice
that you might give me about what especially would
be good to get from these other men: Ray Marsh,
Cristopher Granger, and Leon Kneipp, in particular;
and Tom Gill, of course.
Hornaday: Well, maybe some of these old timers, and I say
"old timers" most respectfully, may be able to
solve the problem that always concerned me: that
is, why the American Forestry Association, founded
in 1875, has only 40,000 Americans that are in
terested in supporting this movement. I think one
of the greatest problems that we face is reaching
the man on the street to sell him on the importance
of our forests and on all the related renewable
national resources. It certainly affects his life
and the life of every citizen in the United States.
Hornaday: However, forestry has been a very difficult thing
to sell. Oddly enough, my training has been in
business; I am not a professional forester, at
least I am not a graduate forester. I happen to
be a member of the Society of American Foresters
as an associate because I have been interested in
the work for so many years . I think that the
forestry profession needs to do a big selling job
to the man on the street as to just what forestry
is. Also foresters themselves have been so keenly
interested in their work that they have not pro
moted public relations as they should have. I
think that this is a job that has to be done.
Fry: I wonder if, since The American Forestry Association
came out against federal regulation just at a time
when the Forest Service was trying to push it....
Hornaday: This was when Mr. Earle H. Clapp was acting Chief
Fry: Yes, Clapp was in, and Marsh, Granger, and Kneipp
were all in top positions in the Forest Service.
Was this period when relations were somewhat
strained between The American Forestry Association
and those men?
Hornaday: I am glad that you said "those men" rather than
the U. S. Forest Service. I would not say strained,
Hornaday: but I remember very vividly a Board of Directors
meeting held in this room when Earle Clapp was
the acting Chief Forester. He came in with a very
strong plea for the Association s directors to
back public regulation of cutting on privately
owned lands. The directors turned him down; they
didn t think that there was any need of it. And
he went away from the office here a rather sad
man, I think. I always had a great respect for
Mr. Clapp, for his feelings. But there was a
period there when our relationship with the Forest
Service was not as close as it should be. But it
has never hurt our more recent relationship with
them, and it certainly won t affect our future
relations with this important government agency.
Fry: During McArdle s administration, I understand that
this whole issue of public regulation was pretty
Hornaday: Yes, it was no longer a burning issue; there was
no need for it.
Fry: Then these men retired about that time, too.
Hornaday: Yes, that s right. There was a team in the
Forest Service there; the people you mentioned
who retired. There was a period there when Mr.
Clapp was Acting Chief where the need for federal
regulation might have been sold to the public.
Hornaday : However, our directors were just not convinced,
and I think looking back on it that we were right.
You must admit today that, while there may be a
few exceptions, the forest industry has done a
tremendous job in taking care of our forest wealth
in this country. I think that the answer is
that these big organizations like Weyerhaeuser, and
Simpson, and International Paper--so many that I
could not mention all--have large properties and
stockholders to satisfy, and it must be a paying
business with them. I think that most of them are
doing a tremendous job. I think too that the U. S.
Forest Service recognizes this.
There was a time which I recall very definitely
when there could have been some regulation. But
in our Program For American Forests, which followed
the Congress in 1946, we made a strong plea in
that program for state regulation. We thought it
should start at the state level. Then failing in
that, we might have to turn to federal regulation.
As a result of that stand, the states of Oregon
and Maryland, for example, put in state regulatory
laws which have been very, very effective. We
still think that this should be a state level job.
Fry: But that there should be some kind of public regu
Hornaday: Yes, some kind of public regulation by the states.
And industry does object to this. Call it regu
lation or guidelines or whatever you will, but
not the kind of federal regulation where you can
be penalized for not doing the job.
I think it might be well to query some of those
you speak of on how they feel about state regulation
as against federal regulation. I think that is a
very important point. I think some states have
done a fine job. Oregon is presumed to have the
model law, and you could get a copy of that.
Fry: I thank you very much. You have given valuable
information. It is getting late, and I don t want
to take up more of your time.
Hornaday: It has been a real pleasure.
American Forest Fire Foundation, 64
American Forestry Association, 37-78
American Forest Congress, 44-46, 50, 66
Policy formation, 37, 41, 56-58
Wilderness program, 52-53, 59
Chapman, H. H. , 3-5
Clapp, Earle, 18-19, 75
Congress, United States:
Testifying before congressional hearings, 70
Writing legislation, 10-12, 42
Connaughton, Charles, 32
Control burning, 26, 60-61
Crafts, Ed, 37
Dana, Samuel, 67
Conservation, 41-42, 48, 62
Forestry Accreditation, 2-8
Forestry code of ethics, 1-2, 8-9
Granger. Christopher, 24, 37-38, 40
Graves, Dean Henry S., 5
Guise, Cedric H., 5
International Forestry, 72-73
Klamath Indian Reservation, 41, 49
Korstian, Clarence, 39
Kotok, E. I., 19
Marsh, Ray, 37
Pinchot, Gifford, 17-18
Policy, general comment, 1-78
Special interests in legislation, 10-12
Silcox, F. A., 18-19
Society of American Foresters, 1-36, 39
Division of Forestry, 5
Executive Council, 4-5
Policy formation, 1-13, 16
Relations with American Forestry Association, 14-15
Relations with industry.
State forestry: administration, 69-70
Timber management, 50
in California, 31, 33
Federal regulation of, 39, 75-6
In Oregon, 31-32
Private foresters, 27-29, 31
Private management vs. federal regulation, 17-25
State regulation of, 19-20
Wartime regulation, 35-36, 55
Trail Riders of the Wilderness Program, 62-63
Transfer of the USFS, 38, 46
United States Forest Service:
Cooperation with private industry, 32, 61-62
Food and Agriculture Organization, 72-74
World War Two:
Ballon fires, 64-65
War Production Board, 35
Amelia R. Fry
Graduated from the University of Oklahoma
in 1947 with a B.A. in psychology, wrote for
campus magazine; Master of Arts in educational
psychology from the University of Illinois in
1952 , with heavy minors in English for both
Taught freshman English at the University of
Illinois 1947-48, and Hiram College (Ohio)
1954-55. Also taught English as a foreign
language in Chicago 1950-53.
Writes feature articles for various newspapers,
was reporter for a suburban daily 1966-67.
Writes professional articles for journals and
Joined the staff of Regional Oral History
Office in February, 1959, specializing in the
field of conservation and forest history.