The original forest commission, appointed under the act of 1885, was superseded in 1895, by the commission of fisheries, game, and forests, which brought allied interests under the control of a single board of five members appointed by the Governor for a term of fiveyears. In 1903, the commission was changed to a single commissioner, and another backward step was taken in 1911 by handing over the work of this commissioner to the newly created State Conservation Commission, consolidating with it several other commissions.
Here, then, for the first time on the American continent, had the idea of State forestry, management of State lands on forestry principles, taken shape; a new doctrine of State functions had gained the day. Not only was the commission charged to organize a service, with a “chief forester” and “underforesters,” to administer the existing reserve according to forestry principles, but also from the incomes to lay aside a fund for the purchase of more lands to constitute the State forest preserve. Unfortunately, instability of purpose, the characteristic of democracy, spoiled the dream of the forester. Both, commission and chief forester were, of course, political appointees, and, rightly or wrongly, fell under the suspicion, when proposing the sale of stumpage, that they were working into the hands of lumbermen. A set of well-meaning but ill-advised civic reformers succeeded, in 1893, in securing the insertion into the Constitution, then being revised, of a clause preventing the cutting of trees, dead or alive, on State lands, declaring that they shall forever be kept as “wild lands.” Later, this constitutional provision was deliberately set aside by the commission, which began to plant up some of the fire-wasted areas, the legislature appropriating money for this breach of the Constitution because it was popular: and latelypermission has also been granted by the legislature to remove trees from burnt areas in order to reduce the fire danger—the foolish objection of a Constitution notwithstanding.
In 1897, new legislation was passed to authorize the State to purchase additional forest lands within a prescribed limit, to round off the State’s holdings, a special agency, the Forest Preserve Board, being constituted for that purpose. Under this law, some $3,500,000 have been spent, and by 1907, over one and a half million acres had been added to the State Forest Preserve. This large area is withdrawn from rational economic use, reserved for a pleasure ground of wealthy New Yorkers, who have located their camps in the “wilderness” under the avowed assumption that the State can be forced to maintain forever this anomalous condition.
In later years, private planting has been encouraged by the Commission selling plant material from the State nurseries at low rates.
The most important administrative function of the Commission has been the reduction of forest fires, in which, also owing to political conditions, only partial success has been attained. The legislation of 1885 for the first time attacked this problem in a more thorough manner, providing for the organization of a service, and this served as an example to other States who copied and improved on it. Notably the forest fire legislation of Maine (1891), of Wisconsin (1895), and of Minnesota (1895) was based on this model.
Another of the large States to start upon and, differently from New York, to develop consistently aproper forest policy, was the State of Pennsylvania. As a result of a persistent propaganda by the Pennsylvania Forestry Association, formed in 1886, and especially by its active secretary, Dr. J. T. Rothrock, a commission of inquiry was instituted in 1893. Before its report was established, the legislature of 1895 provided for an executive Department of Agriculture, and included in its organization a provision for a Division of Forestry, the botanist member of the previous commission, Dr. Rothrock, being appointed Commissioner of Forestry at the head of the Division. Two years later, the final legislation, which firmly established a forest policy for the State, was passed namely for the purchase of State forest reservations. All later legislation was simply an expansion of these propositions. By 1910, the State had acquired by purchase, wild, mostly culled lands to the extent of over 900,000 acres, and the Commission had progressed far towards providing for their management and recuperation.
The unusually disastrous conflagrations of 1894; the growing conviction that the pleaders of the exhaustibility of timber supplies were right, accentuated by a rapid decline in White Pine production and a rapid, and, indeed, almost sudden, rise in stumpage prices; the example which the federal government had set in withdrawing public timberlands from spoliation; together with an increasing number, not only of advocates of saner methods, but of technically educated men, who came from the schools lately organized—all these influences had worked as a leaven in all parts of the country so as to bring in the new century with arealization of the seriousness of the situation. And, within the first seven years of the century, the change of attitude, at least, was almost completed in all parts of the country, and among all classes, the lumbermen and others depending directly on wood supplies becoming especially prominent in recognizing the need and value of forestry.
State after State came into line in recognizing that it had a duty to perform, and in some way gave expression to this recognition, so that, by 1908, hardly a State was without at least a germ of a forest policy.
Two principles had been recognized as correct and were brought into practice, namely, that the forest interests of the State called for direct State activity, and that eventually the State must own and manage at least portions of the forest area. The first principle took shape in appointing single State foresters, [as in Maine (1891 and 1903); in Massachusetts (1904); in Connecticut (1903); in Vermont (1906); in Rhode Island (1906)]; or Commissions or Boards [as in New York (1885), changed to a single commissioner with Superintendent and State foresters in 1903; in Pennsylvania (1901); in New Hampshire (1893); Maryland with a State forester (1905); Wisconsin, with a State forester (1905); Indiana (1901-03); Louisiana, with a State forester (1904); Michigan (1899); Minnesota (1899); California (revived, with a State forester, in 1905); Washington, with a State forester (1905); Kentucky (1906); in New Jersey, with a State forester (1904); Alabama (1907).]
A very important feature in these appointments was the fact, that, more and more professional or technicallyeducated men displaced the merely political appointees, or were at least added to the commissions.
The idea of State forests found expression, more or less definitely, in setting aside forest reservations or else in enabling the State to accept and administer donations of forest lands. Among the States recognizing this principle were New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, California.
Where neither of these two principles had as yet found application, at least some agency was established to give advice and investigate or experiment in matters of forest interests, and sometimes to offer assistance to private woodland owners or planters, as in Delaware, Ohio, North Carolina, etc.
Meanwhile, largely through the influence and with the co-operation of the federal Bureau of Forestry, private owners had begun, if not to apply, at least to study the possibility of the application of forestry to their holdings. The Bureau prepared “working plans” which were now and then followed in part, or at least led to attempts at a more conservative method of logging. Notably, various paper and pulp manufacturers realized the usefulness of more systematic attention and conservative methods in the use of their properties. In this connection the object lesson furnished by Mr. G. K. Vanderbilt on his Biltmore Estate in North Carolina, which was begun by Mr. Pinchot and conducted by Dr. C. A. Schenck, a German forester, requires special mention as the first, and for nearly 20 years continued experiment in applying forestry methods systematically in America.At present writing the continuance of this experiment is in doubt.
With the second decade of the century, we shall enter upon the flood tide of development, when no more need of argument for its necessity, and only the question of practicable methods, will occupy us.
So far, silviculturally, the selection forest, i.e., culling the best and the stoutest, practiced hitherto by the lumberman, without reference to reproduction, but carried on somewhat more conservatively, is still the method advocated in most cases by the Forest Service. This so-called conservative lumbering is, to be sure, the transition to better methods. According to reports of the federal Forest Service in 1907, some million acres of private timberland were under forest management or conservatively lumbered.
Planting of waste or logged lands, as distinguished from planting in the prairies, which had, sporadically and in a small way, been done by individuals here and there for many years, is practised in ever increasing amount, both by State administrations and by private owners; the New York State College of Forestry starting such planting in its College Forest on a larger scale and systematically, in 1899. At present writing, the forestry department of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company is perhaps the largest single planter in the country, having set out over four million trees (by 1910), with the avowed purpose of growing railroad ties.
By 1908, popular interest in forest conservation had become so keen, and at the same time paternalistictendencies so fully developed by the Roosevelt administration—the federal government having entered upon extensive plans of reclaiming lands by irrigation, and preparing to develop water powers, and inland waterways,—that the time seemed ripe to bring all these conservative forces into unity.
The President called together in conference the governors of all the States with their advisers, together with the presidents of the various national societies interested, and others, to discuss the broad question of the conservation of natural resources.
As a consequence national and State Conservation Associations and Commissions were formed in all parts of the Union, and a new era of active interest in economic development seems to have arrived.
The primary education of the people at large and of their governments in particular, the propaganda for the economic reform contemplated by the forestry movement, was carried on, as stated, by the federal Division of Forestry and especially by the forestry associations, which sprang up in all parts of the country, by means of their annual and special meetings, aided by the general press and sometimes by special publications.
The firstJournal of Forestry, a monthly publication, ventured into the world as a private enterprise, edited by Dr. Hough, soon after the Forestry Congress in Cincinnati, but it survived just one year, vanishing for lack of readers. This was followed by irregularly appearingForestry Bulletins, of which the writerprepared four under the aegis of the American Forestry Association.
In 1886, the Pennsylvania Forestry Association began the publication of a bi-monthly journal,Forest Leaves, which has persisted to this day. In 1895, Dr. John Gifford launched another bi-monthly, theNew Jersey Forester, soon to change its name toThe Forester, and under that name, three years later, taken over by the American Forestry Association, continued asForestry and Irrigation, changed toConservationand now again changed toAmerican Forestry. Now, half a dozen or more similar publications emanate from the various State Associations. In this connection there should not be forgotten the journal,Garden and Forest, edited by Professor C. S. Sargent, which for ten years, from 1888 to 1897, did much to enlighten the public on forestry matters.
Some provision for technical education was made long before opportunity for its application had arisen, and, indeed, before any professional foresters were in existence to do the teaching. The new doctrine attracted the attention of educational institutions, and the desire to assist in the popular movement led to the introduction of the subject, at least by name, into their curricula; the professor of botany or of horticulture, adding “forestry” to his title, and explaining in a few lectures the objects, and, as far as he knew them, the methods of forestry; or, at least some lectures on dendrology and forest geography were introduced in the botanical courses. By 1897, twenty institutions—land grant colleges—had in this way introduced the subject.
Perhaps the first attempt to present systematically a whole course of technical forestry matter to a class of students was a series of twelve lectures, delivered by the writer, at the Massachusetts College of Agriculture in 1887, and another to students of political economy at Wisconsin University in 1897.
The era of professional forest schools, however, was, inaugurated in 1898, when the writer organized the New York State College of Forestry at Cornell University, and almost simultaneously Dr. Schenck opened a private school at Biltmore.
A year later, another Forest school was opened at Yale University, an endowment of the Pinchots, father and sons. In 1903, the University of Michigan added a professional department of forestry, and then followed a real flood of educational enthusiasm, one institution after another seeing the necessity for adding the subject as an integral part to its courses. Before there were enough competent men in the field, some twenty colleges or universities called for teachers, besides private institutions. An inevitable result of this over-production of forest schools and of foresters all at once must be an overcrowding of the profession with mediocre men before the profession is really fully established.
Brief reference to the history of the first school, established by the State of New York, may be of interest, as exemplifying in a striking manner the political troubles besetting reforms under republican conditions. But for a similar occurrence in France (seep. 242), this case might be unique in the history of educational institutions. Although the schoolthrived almost beyond expectation, having in its fourth year attained in numbers to 70, larger than any French or German forest school at the time, and readily finding employment for its graduates, it suddenly came to an end in 1903. Its appropriation, unanimously voted in the Legislature, was vetoed by the Governor, on the alleged ground that the silvicultural methods applied in the demonstration forest of the College “had been subjected to grave criticism.” It is true the only silvicultural method officially sanctioned (by the Forest Service), the selection forest, had not been applied, yet the war against the College being waged by two wealthy bankers of New York and the well-known character of the then Governor suggest that other “considerations” than mere criticism of professional judgment were at the bottom of his action.
As from the start, the federal Forestry Bureau naturally continued in ever increasing degree to be the educator of the nation, not only as regards popular conceptions and attitudes, but as regards technical matter. Its bulletins, circulars, and reports on the subjects which come under investigation form the bulk of the American literature on the technical side of the subject. During the first 20 years of its existence, some 20,000 pages of printed matter were produced, and the next decade increased the crop of information apace. At first intended for popular propaganda, the matter printed was naturally argumentative, statistical and descriptive, but gradually more and more technical matter filled the pages, and now most of the publications are of technical nature.
One of the first extensive and important lines of investigation undertaken by the Division was that into the characteristics and strength, the timber physics, of American woods, which in its comprehensiveness commanded the admiration of even the Germans, and gave rise to a series of reports. The biology of American species, more or less exhaustively studied, was also begun in the old Division, as well as forest surveys, etc.
By 1902, enough professional interest was in the country to make the publication of a professional journal possible and desirable, theForestry Quarterlybeing launched by the writer, with a Board of Editors chosen mainly from the forest schools.
The first association of professional foresters was formed in 1900—theSociety of American Foresters—which issues from time to time proceedings containing technical discussions.
The technical book literature, partly due, no doubt, to the overpowering publication facilities of the federal government, is still scanty, and good textbooks especially are still lacking in most branches.
A series of ephemeral popular books answered the demands of earlier days, but outside of ProfessorHenry S. Graves’volumes onForest Mensurationand lately onThe Principles of Handling Woodlands, and a few minor aid books and lecture notes, there is as yet nothing of permanent value to be recorded. The writers’ own publication,Economics of Forestry, is intended less for foresters than students of political economy.
Three monumental works can be mentioned in thedendrological line, however, namely the 10th volume of the XII Census (1880) on theForests of North America; Micheaux and Nuttall’sNorth American Silvain 5 volumes, 1865; and C. S. Sargent’sSilva of the United States, in 14 magnificent volumes,—three publications which can take rank with any similar literature anywhere.
The Spanish War, in 1898, brought to the United States new outlying territory, over 150,000 square miles, in three locations, the relationship as regards government varying in the three cases, namely Porto Rico, the Sandwich Islands, and the Philippine Islands, besides several smaller islands in the Pacific Ocean.
While the latter are only temporarily under control or tutelage of the United States, and are expected sooner or later to attain complete self government, Hawaii was annexed as a Territory in the same sense as all other Territories, the inhabitants having become citizens of the United States, while Porto Rico is a dependency with partial self-government, but its inhabitants do not enjoy citizenship in the States.
All these islands are located in the tropics and hence the composition of the forest is of tropical species.
Commercially, the forests of Porto Rico and of Hawaii are relatively of little value, but their protective value is paramount, and a conservative policy is needed in order to preserve the water supply for agricultural use (sugar plantations in Hawaii) and to prevent erosion.
For Porto Rico, a beginning of forest policy was made by setting aside, in 1903, the Luquillo Forest Reservation, some 20,000 acres in the Eastern mountainous part of the island, which is under direct control of the United States government. The rest of public lands and forests was placed under the Department of the Interior of the island.
In Hawaii, even before annexation, a movement on the part of the Sugar Planters Association was made in 1897, to induce the insular government to devise protective measures. The result was the appointment of a Committee who made a report in which the writer had a hand. But not until 1903 was a Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry established, a Superintendent of Forestry appointed, an organization of district foresters effected, and a number of forest reservations established. The principle of State forest was fully recognized by planning the gradual withdrawal of some 300,000 acres and by beginning the extension of forested area by plantations. In 1910, 23 reserves with an area of 575,000 acres had been made. Distribution of plant material and of advice to planters is also part of the policy. Annual Reports are issued which attest the good common sense in the administration.
In the Philippine Islands, a territory of 120,000 square miles, largely mountainous, not only the protective but the commercial value of the timberlands is considerable. The extent is variously estimated as covering between 40 and 50 million acres (50% of total area), much of it virgin, and 16 million acres of it commercially valuable. Of the seven hundred odd speciesof trees, mostly heavy woods, composing the forest, some 160 are marketable at home and in China; yet almost fifty per cent. of the home consumption is imported from the States, owing to absence or inaccessibility of softwoods, and high cost due to excessive expense of present logging methods.
When the United States took charge of the islands it was found that the Spaniards had since 1863 a forestry service, manned by Spanish foresters, and in the lower ranks by Filipinos. To be sure, the activities of this forestry bureau went hardly beyond the collection of dues for timber licenses, which yielded little more than the cost of the service, although on paper excellent instructions were found elaborated.
It so happened that an officer of the American army, Captain George P. Ahern, had for some time given attention to forestry matters in the States, and he naturally was placed in charge of this bureau, in 1900. There were found to be around one million acres private and church property, the rest being considered State lands, but all private owners were required to register their holdings before being allowed to exercise their rights. A system of licenses for cutting timber, and of free use permits to the poor population was continued after Spanish models. Not only was an efficient administration gradually secured, but the technical side of dendrological and silvicultural knowledge was developed as rapidly as possible under the able administration of Captain Ahern, a continuously growing literature being the result.