History of the Forest Service

On rumors that a timber famine was a reality, Congress enacted the Forest Reserve Act in 1891. The law allowed the president to withdraw forestlands from the public domain so that they could not be abused by the timber and grazing industries. Congress had created the National Forest System. At this time only roughly 30 million acres were within forest reserves and they were mainly limited to high altitude areas in the Rockies (Clary 1986). Yet, these areas fit the early purpose of the reserves, which was to preserve watersheds and control flooding (Robinson 1988). The reserves were basically forests containing the headwaters of streams with grazing as their only economic use. However, with the passage of the Organic Act in 1897 at the behest of Gifford Pinchot, the sale of dead, mature and large-growth trees through selected cutting was allowed. Gifford Pinchot was not some timber industry lobbyist; he was the leading forestry expert in the U.S. at the turn of the century. Thus, the early management of the forest reserves was under the principles of multiple-use forestry with sustained-yield timber management (Robinson 1988). These seem like novel management principles today but they are not, the middle period with wanton clear-cutting as the single management priority was actually the aberration.

Gifford Pinchot was one of many social reformers around the turn of the 19th century. Pinchot had a powerful friend who shared his conservation philosophy in President Theodore Roosevelt. During Roosevelt’s term from 1901 to 1909 he set aside 132 million acres of forest (Frome 1971). Roosevelt also approved of gathering all forestry work under Pinchot’s wing of the Agriculture Department. The Transfer Act of 1905 finally brought about the change Pinchot was seeking and all administration of Federal forest reserves were brought under Pinchot’s soon-to-be-named Forest Service. Gifford Pinchot became the first chief of the Forest Service

With the transfer of the forest reserves to the Forest Service and with an experienced forester at the reins, a common direction was finally established for the newly coined ‘national forests.’ Pinchot decided that the forests were to be used, which was not contrary to conservation he believed, and that the needs of the local community should come first (Clary 1986). The administration of the forestland should be “devoted to the most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people… Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run” (Clary 1986). This utilitarian idea was very important and “the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run” was a founding philosophy for the Forest Service and has affected their policy to this day. The fledgling Forest Service agency spearheaded efforts to improve forest management on private and public lands, to establish effective reforestation programs and fire fighting.

The next major piece of legislation influencing national forests was the Weeks Law which President Taft signed into law in 1911. The Weeks Law created a National Forest Reservation Commission and authorized federal purchasing of land for watershed protection. This essentially allowed the creation of national forests in the eastern half of the U.S.

The Forest Service continued to expand, as did the area under its control. But, the agency’s mission seemed to morph into a partnership with the forest industry rather than sustaining the local communities with objectives involving multiple use and sustained yields. Around World War II, industrial forestry (involving clearcutting and road building with the mantra 'cut it and run') became increasingly common as the powerful forest industry gained concessions from Congress (Frome 1971). Americans slowly reacted to the increased pillaging of their common lands and influenced Congress to pass the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (MUSY) of 1960. The two key points of this act was that the Forest Service would have to manage for multiple uses and sustained yields in the national forests. These two principles were defined as:

"(a) ‘‘Multiple use’’ means: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. (b) ‘‘Sustained yield of the several products and services’’ means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land" (http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/350/MUSY.htm).

The act attempted to force the Forest Service to manage for more than just timber output, but because the act could be widely interpreted, this did little to rein in the destructive timber industry's hold over the Forest Service. Another idea to try and loosen the timber industry's grip on the agency was the requirement of forest plans for every national forest. Forest plans became a requirement after the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA) of 1974. The forest plans drew up the goals and desired conditions for each national forest and established actions and management directions that could help reach those conditions. The forest plans were revised every 10 to 15 years. The agency’s pro-timber bias continued to grow despite another Congressional effort to restore balance through the 1976 National Forest Management Act. The National Forest Management Act, beyond requiring that the land be managed for a variety of purposes into perpetuity, established the procedural requirements for developing and revising forest plans. The act was again not strict enough to force the agency to end its pro-timber collusion. The act legalized clear cutting with some restrictions applied. The timber industry continued to grow throughout the Nixon and Reagan administrations when the amount of timber sold from national forests reached a high of 12.6 billion board feet in 1989 www.forestadvocate.org/century/usfs.html).