Skip to main content

Full text of "Interviews with Henry Clepper, Kenneth B. Pomeroy and Fred Hornaday : oral history transcript / 1968"

See other formats


University of California Berkeley 

University of California Bancroft Library/Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office 

Henry Clepper 

Kenneth B. Pomeroy 

Fred Hornaday 

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 
Berkeley, California 


tape recorded interviews on 

1. Clepper, Henry, Executive Secretary, Society of American 


2. Dana, Samuel T. , Dean, School of Natural Resources, University 

of Michigan 

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 

and acquisition. 

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. 



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 
the Future. 

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 
national forestry. 

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 



March 20, 1964 


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 


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. 

Amelia Fry 


Preface i 

Resources for the Future Series List ii 

Description of Series iii 

Contents vii 

Editor s Note viii 



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 



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 

Wilderness 52 

Membership 54 


ASSOCIATION, 1928-1964 

Chronology of Life 58A 

Programs of the A.F.A. 59 

Range of Membership and Issues 67 

Appendix 79 
Partial Index 


Henry Clepper 

Henry Clepper 

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 
Education . 

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 
in 1966. 

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 


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 
pursuing this. 


Educational Standards 

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 
bodies . 

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 
the Society. 

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 
be injured. 

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. 



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 
before this? 

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 
opinion . 

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 



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 
one side. 

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 





Fry : 

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 

this study. 

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 
asset . 

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. 



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 
technologies discussed. 

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 
all directions. 


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 
victions . 

Fry: However, you would have no communication with 
amateurs on whose land forests are secondary 
interests . 

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 
of forestry. 

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.] 



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 
the industry? 

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 
that advice. 

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 

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 
for members. 

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 
Carolina Lands. 



Fry : 



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 
you take. 

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. 


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 
the magazine. 

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 
beginning . 


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 
Service . 

Fry: Isn t that the Review that resulted in a much 

more generous appraisal of available timber than 
previous analyses had given? 

Pomeroy: Yes. 


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. 

Fry: Why? 

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 
put in. 

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 
management . 

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 
opinion . 

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 
wood lot. 

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 . 


Fred Hornaday 

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., 
Washington, D.C. 

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. 






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 





Fry : 

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 
down there. 

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 
forestry departments. 

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 
war goods. 

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 
our Association. 
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. 


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 
can people. 

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 
an issue? 

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 
much dropped. 

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 
Cliff, Ed, 
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 
Grazing, 40 
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 
Politics : 

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 

United Nations: 

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 

historical magazines. 

Joined the staff of Regional Oral History 

Office in February, 1959, specializing in the 

field of conservation and forest history. 

14 04lf.