aA/Ms University of California Berkeley University of California Bancroft Library/Berkeley Regional Oral History Office Henry Clepper THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS Kenneth B. Pomeroy THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: OPERATIONS Fred Hornaday THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: 1928-1964 Interviews Conducted by Amelia R. Fry Berkeley 1968 Produced under the auspices of Resources For The Future PREFACE 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 THE RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE SERIES tape recorded interviews on THE HISTORY OF FOREST POLICY, 1900-1950 1. Clepper, Henry, Executive Secretary, Society of American Foresters. 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 University. 15. Sieker, John H. , Chief of Division of Recreation and Lands. 16. Swift, Lloyd, Chief of Division of Wildlife Management. ill DESCRIPTION OF SERIES Interviews: A Documentation of the Development of the U.S. Forest Service 1900-1950 This Resources for the Future interview series on the birth and development of the Forest Service began as a sudden disturbance in the ever-active brain of Ed I. Kotok in early 1964. One wintry day in early 1964, as we were putting away the tape recorder after one of our last ses sions together, I mentioned casually that I would not be in the Bay Area for the summer: I had to go East. Ed s eyebrows shot up. It was obvious that a final piece had fallen into place in a mental jigsaw that he had been carrying around for some time. He said that there were quite a few of his retired colleagues still in Washington, D.C., some of whom were the original "Pinchot boys." If only, he mused, the Oral History Office could find financing for an entire series on the Forest Service, maybe from a foundation like Resources for 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. iv 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. Results 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 vi 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. By-products 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 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION March 20, 1964 KELEY 4, CALIFORNIA Mrs. Amelia R. Fry Regional Cultural History Project 486 General Library Campus 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 Dean EDITOR S NOTE The three interview transcripts in this volume were originally tape recorded for my personal use as a part of the preparation for interviewing the other foresters in the series. As leaders in the two major national forestry organ izations - -one public, the other strictly professional- -they possess valuable vantage points from which to view the rise and fall of issues and men. It behooves any student of for est policy to tap their unique, un-textbook fund of information, and preferably early in the research game. So it was that I hopefully called each of them for appointments one hot July day in Washington, and each of them made way for me in his schedule. We had not intended to tape record "memoirs," but we were talking, and the recorder was taking iry notes for me. Later, back at Berkeley, as I lis tened to the tapes, it seemed feasible to transcribe the con- /ersations for two reasons: (1) put together, they may provide an introduction or an orientation to the entire series that is as useful to other scholars as it was to me. (2) Since interest in the oral history method- -still in its childhood at this date- -is growing, these transcripts offer an example of the sort of pre-series zeroing-in that an oral historian often indulges in when he is dealing with recent and live issues. The three men each agreed to release the manuscript and checked it for ambiguities and errors- -in full knowledge that these treaties herein enclosed are hardly meant to be definitive. (To assume that in thirty-six pages one will find all that Henry Clepper can say about the Society of American Foresters is like expecting a pocket book Encyclo pedia Britannic a.) It is hoped that, for the benefit of the world of forestry and of scholarship in general, the manna of time, inclination, and funds will simultaneously descend on each of these men- -Kenneth Pomeroy, Fred Hornaday, and Henry Clepper- -so that he later can write or record his story in full. Amelia Fry CONTENTS Preface i Resources for the Future Series List ii Description of Series iii Contents vii Editor s Note viii SECTION ONE HENRY CLEPPER: THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS Chronology of Life ix The Development of Forestry As A Profession 1 Educational Standards 2 Code of Ethics 8 Legislation and The Society 10 Positions of the Society 16 Federal Control of Cutting Practices 17 Economics of Forestry 27 The War Production Board 35 SECTION TWO KENNETH B. POMEROY: THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION- -OPERATIONS 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 SECTION THREE FRED HORNADAY: THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, 1928-1964 Chronology of Life 58A Programs of the A.F.A. 59 Range of Membership and Issues 67 Appendix 79 Partial Index SECTION ONE Henry Clepper THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS 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 DEVELOPMENT OF FORESTRY AS A PROFESSION Fry: The first thing that I d like to talk about is the development of forestry as a profession. This was already underway by the time you came in as Executive Secretary in May, 1937. Some of the basic problems had been ironed out. Clepper: Concerning forestry as a profession, I make this comment because it might be appropriate to your general study: one of the attributes of a pro fession is the acceptance by its members of a code of ethics that sets up canons of conduct for the practitioner. The medical profession, the legal profession, and the engineering professions operate under codes of ethics. A code of ethics is one of the three attributes of professions in America. (This comment does not apply to professions abroad.) A true profession that is recognized as such has minimum standards of education which are adhered to and accepted. That is attribute number two. And then there is a third attribute, not applicable to all professions, but typical of many state licensure. For example, in practically every state you can think of there are laws providing Clepper Fry: Clepper: Fry: 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 ment. Yes, that is a good summary for those who are pursuing this. Fry: 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 membership? 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. 8 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 Fry: 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 9 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. 10 LEGISLATION AND THE SOCIETY Fry: I d like to move on into policy. One of the things which influences policy a great deal in the Forest Service is that which originates in Congress. I was interested to read that in 1950 the Society agreed that no one should lobby as such for or against a bill. I wondered if this meant that this was a change in Society rules. Had there been lobbying 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 11 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 legislation. 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 12 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. 13 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 it? 14 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 15 Clepper: liaison with legislators, both federal and state, is carried out by The American Forestry Assoc iation. 16 POSITIONS OF THE SOCIETY Fry: What is the problem that organizations like yours have when questions of policy come up and you don t have time to call a meeting or a secret ballot referendum? Then, I suppose, you rely on a quick vote of your council? Through the years has there been an evolution of powers of your council on that? Clepper: No, if by your question there is any implication that the Council, which consists of eleven members, attempts to be spokesmen for 15,000 members. Actually, few issues have arisen in the field of natural resources management that were emergency issues. The broad policy matters hammered out in the federal government, the state governments, and the forest industries have been matters that were often years developing. In our annual Society meetings, and in the meetings of our Sections and Chapters, these issues have been discussed sometimes for years. (Likewise in the meetings of The American Forestry Association.) Thus we have seldom had to make quick policy decisions in a matter of ten or fifteen days. 17 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. 18 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. 19 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 20 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. 21 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. 22 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 23 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 24 Clepper: Fry: Clepper 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. Good. 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). 25 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 26 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. 27 ECONOMICS OF FORESTRY Fry: In the management of forests does the Society try to see that economic studies and the results of economic studies deal with the very difficult problem of making a forest pay? Is this trans mitted to the people who actually use the data? Clepper: Yes, but It s not done in quite the way I think you possibly visualize it. In the United States today nearly one-half of our total number of pro fessional foresters have industrial or private ties. These are foresters who are working for lumber companies or pulp and paper companies; consulting foresters who are working with them part-time; and independent operators managing their own tree farms. In brief, a sizable group of foresters in America is now practicing forestry for profit; the economic side is their main interest. Many are in executive positions in companies; for example, they are vice-presidents of Weyerhauser, or St. Regis, or Crown Zellerbach. These foresters then are not only in positions where they have executive responsibility, but they re also setting policy for their companies. As members of the Society of American Foresters, 28 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. 29 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. 30 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. 31 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 32 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. 33 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 standpoint. 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. 34 Fry: You just don t happen to own any forests in California. Clepper: [Laughter] That s the point. Doubtless, I have a different attitude than the person who owns land. 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 regulation. 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.] 35 THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD Fry: When you were the technical consultant for Lumber in the War Production Board, during 1942-1944, did this involve any kind of emergency regulation of 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 36 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. SECTION TWO Kenneth B. Pomeroy THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: OPERATIONS Kenneth B. Pomeroy 36A 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. 37 FOREST SERVICE ISSUES: FEDERAL CONTROL OF CUTTING, TRANSFER, GRAZING Fry : Pomeroy Fry: Pomeroy 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. Fry: Pomeroy Fry: Pomeroy Fry: 38 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. 39 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 40 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. 41 THE A.F.A. AND PUBLIC OPINION Fry: One question that I want to ask you, on which you can be a first hand authority, is about the role played by the American Forestry Association in policy making, whether it is handed . down by Congress or whether it comes from the Forest Service admin istration. 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 42 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. 43 Fry: You have no opinion on informal polls or accidental polls? 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. 44 FOREST CONGRESSES 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 45 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 . 46 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 47 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. 48 IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES Fry: Then primarily you try to reflect a concensus , don t you, rather than trying to convince or build up a following on behalf of a certain position? You try to get a concensus and then educate the public? 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 A.F.A. Fry: So it is dropped then? 49 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 50 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 51 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. 52 WILDERNESS 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 53 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. 54 MEMBERSHIP 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. 55 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. 56 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, 57 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 58 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 self-preservation. 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 . SECTION THREE Fred Hornaday THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION: 1928-1964 Fred E. Hornaday Hornaday, Fred Eugene - Chronology Conservationist, and former Executive Vice President of The American Forestry Association, who previously served also as the Association s Business Manager and Secretary. He retired December 31, 1968 after 40 years. He started with the Association in 1928, after positions with the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and the United States Daily-- now the U.S. News and World Report. He lives at 3508 Runnymede Place, N.W., 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 member. 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. 59 Fry: Hornaday Fry: Hornaday PROGRAMS OF THE A.F.A. In talking to Mr. Pomeroy he was able to tell me pretty much about how The American Forestry Assoc iation functioned: how you manage to get your members concensus, and how you select the issues with which you want to deal. The thing that you can comment on better than anyone else perhaps, is what The American Forestry Association had to do with the big issues of the thirties. I came to the Association in the Fall of 1928, so you can see that I ve been here some time. It was just before I came to the Association that we were active in promoting the establishment of the first wilderness area, which was the Gila Wilder ness in New Mexico. In recent years we have been active in the passage of the Wilderness Bill which is now (1964) before Congress. However, when it was first introduced there were things in it which we did not like, but which we think have been corrected in the meantime. What were those things? Well, the original Wilderness Bill, as introduced by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, called for the creation of a national wilderness preserva tion system and a Council to carry out the 60 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 61 Hornaday Fry: Hornaday 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 stand. 62 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 63 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, 64 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 65 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 started. 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 66 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. 67 RANGE OF MEMBERSHIP AND ISSUES Fry: I was wondering if you have the same problem that the Society of American Foresters has in keep ing membership intact when sharp divisions in opinion arise on an issue? Hornaday: We have the same problem. I won t say that it is a difficult problem with us, but there is one peculiarity about the set-up in The American Forestry Association, and Dr. Samuel T. Dana has mentioned this in his history of our organization. We have a board of directors of 21 men. We try to get men and women who represent all phases of our renewable natural resources; we may have forest industry men, business men, bankers, doctors; we have wilderness lovers, farm labor specialists, etc. It is obvious that they cannot all agree on the many types of legislation. On the Wilderness Bill, for example, there was some division of thinking on the part of the board. The reason for this broad representation is that we are a public service organization. We have sometimes been wrongly accused of being the tool of the forest industry, or sometimes the tool of the United States Forest Service, but actually we are trying to represent fairly the American public as a whole. 68 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. 69 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 70 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 field. 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 did. 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 71 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 72 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 73 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 gether. 74 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. 75 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 Forester. 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, 76 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. 77 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 lation. 78 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. 79 PARTIAL INDEX 80 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 Education, 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 81 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 degrees. 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.