Few people, even foresters, think of forestry as influenced by sociological knowledge, principles, or activity. Actually, the practice of forestry is not only for the development of society; it is also being retarded by a lack of sociological concepts which the sociologists, not foresters, should enunciate

Gisborne, H. T.

English

Iowa State University Computer Science Technical Reports

Sociological Shackles on Forestry

Few people, even foresters, think of forestry as influenced by sociological knowledge, principles, or activity. Actually, the practice of forestry is not only for the development of society; it is also being retarded by a lack of sociological concepts which the sociologists, not foresters, should enunciate.</p

Gisborne, H.

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University (ISU)

Sociological  Shackles  on  ForestryBy H. I. GISBORNE, In Charge,Division  of Forest  Management.Northern  Rocky  Moumtain  Forest  amd  Range  Experiment  Station,M¬ssouia,  Monta,naIT'EW  people,  even  foresters,  think  of  forestry  as  influencedby sociological knowledge, principles, or activity. Actually,the practice  of forestry  is  not only for the  development  of  so-ciety; it is also being retarded by a lack of sociological conceptswhich the sociologists, not foresters,  should enunciate.More than 55 years ago that keen observer, Rudyard Kipling,saw the  condition and  stated the case  about  as  clearly as  any-one has ever since done it.  In 1889, Kipling took a cross-countrylook at our American way of life and wrote:"The  great  American  Nation-which  individually  nevershuts a door behind its noble self-very  seldom attempts  toput back  anything  that  it  has  taken  from  Nature's  shelves.It grabs all it can and moves on.  But the moving on is nearlyfinished and the grabbing must stop; and then the federal gov-ernment will have to establish a Woods and Forests Depart-ment the like o£ which was never seen in the world before.And  all  the  people  who  have  been  accustomed  to  hack,mangle,  and  burn  timber  as  they  please  will  object,  withshouts  and  protestations,   to   those   infringements  o£  their(rights)."Obviously Kipling saw the dependence o£ our society upon ourforests.  He saw this clearly because he was already "forestry-wise.''   He  saw  too  the  future  dependence  of  successful  for-estry  on  socio-political  action,  for  he  was  socially  and  politi-cally wise.About 15 years later, in 1906, when Secretary of AgricultureJames Wilson transferred the old Forest Reserves from a pre-servation  status  into  National  Forests  on  a  use  basis, ,he  toosaw the social significance of our forests.  And he took politicalaction  to  make  those  forests  serve  those  social  uses.   In  histransfer order he stated specifically that each o£ these NationalNineteen Forty-three 28Forests henceforth should  be  put  to  "its  most  productive  usefor  the  permanent  good  o£  the  whole  people  and  not  for  thetemporary  benefit  of  individuals   or  companies."    Here  wassociological  and  political  action  o£  the  first  order.   More  than100  million acres  of  land  were  affected.   Three  times  as  muchforest land,  however,  and the  most productive by far,  still re-maimed outside the realm of this social order, in private owner-ship.But  about  10  years  after  Wilson7s  order  and  25  years  afterKipling foresaw this social development, Gifford Pinchot madea remarkable observation.  He stated, in his book "The Trainingo£ a Forester,"  that in his opinion  the  entire profession of for-estry had in reality adopted the definitely social axiom, "For thegreatest  good  o£  the  greatest  number  in  the  long  run."   Headded,  "Before  the  members  of  any  other  profession  dealingwith  natural  resources,  the  foresters  acquired  the  long  lookahead."   That this was aimed  directly and specifically at PEO-PLE  and  not  just  things  is  clearly  evident  in  an  article  pub-lished  in  1916  by  one  of  the  District  Foresters  then  servingunder  H.   S.   Graves  who   followed  Pinchot   as   Chief.    ThatDistrict Forester,  Coert DuBois, was perhaps the first to statethe federal forestry objectve with emphasis  on the sociologicalbenefit.   In  his  article,  "The  Mountain  Communities  and  theForest  Service"   (Univ.  of  Gal.  Jour.  of  Agriculture,  Vo1.  IV,No.  3,  Nov.  1916) ,  DuBois  used photographs and  text to  illus-trate the fact that "The Forest Service works with FOLKS aswell  as  with  trees  and  trails"  and  "These  are  the  people  forwhom the Forest Service  is working."   That was  27  years  ago.The sociological objective has never changed.But  then came  a long  lag  in new  activities  relating  forestryto sociology.  The advent of the Civilian Conservation Corps in1933,  however,  broke  this  lag.   It  broke  it  with  a  procedurewhich was a social as well as  an economic measure.   The  rela-tionship was  exceptionally  direct:  life  in the forests  would  begood for the boys;  their work would be  good for forests.  Afternine years o£ trial, both of these benefits are almost universallyconceded.During that nine-year period, other progress and one markedchange  also  became  evident.   On privately  owned  forest  landsthe "Tree Farm" idea was born and began to be put into prac-tice.   While some o£ this  may  have resulted  from  certain pres-sures, most of it undoubtedly can be attributed to the firm be-]ie£  by  all  professional  foresters  that  forestry  should  be  "forthe  greatest  good  o£  the  greatest  number  in  the  long  run."24 Ames  ForesterMany lumbermen and private timberland owners know all theworkable techniques of forestry.  And they know the £orester'smaxim, perhaps ad nauseam.   Nearly all the large owners andoperators   also   have   technically   trained   foresters   in   theiremploy,  some  o£  these  men  being  in high  executive  positions.At  least  in  the  backs  of  their  minds,  and  frequently  in  theirforest  management  practices,  these  men  inescapably  felt  andfrequently  showed  their  belief  in  the  social  maxim,  "For  thegreatest good of the greatest number in the long run.''Some  progress  has  been   evident,   but  if  in   1942   Kiplingshould have remade his trip and rewritten his book "From Seato  Sea,"  it  is  doubtful  if  he  would  have  greatly  changed  hissociological  observation  of  53  years  before.   He  would  haveseen that on at least one-half of our forest land,  and probablymore, "the great American nation" was still not succeeding  inits  attempt  "to  put back  anything  that  it  has  taken from  Na-ture's shelves.''I£ Kipling had reached this conclusion in 1942, he might havetossed  another  "rag  and  a  bone  and  a  hank  of  hair"  at  thesociologists and the  great AmeI`iCan Public.   For without  evena trip from sea to sea he would have observed almost anywherein the United  States the  great  change  that has taken place  inthe  familiarity  o£  our  sociologists  and  the  people  in  generalwith  our forest  conditions  and  our forest problem.   He wouldhave  wondered  how  they  could  see  so  much  but  do  so  little.As  Ellison  has  pointed  out  in  the  August  1942  issue  of  theJournal  of  Forestry,  the  number  of  annual  visitors  to  theNational  Forests  now  practically  equals  the  total  populationof this country.  While this does not mean that every  memberof the  populace has  a  chance to  see  either what is being  doneto  or  for  our  forests,  Kipling  might  have  wondered  how  somany people could look and still not see enough to cause themto act. He might, with reason, have asked the sociologists whatthey  DO  with  their  knowledge  of  "the  phenomena  and  de-velopment  o£ society."Obviously  any  social  phenomenon  involving  a  number  ofpeople  equivalent  to  the  total population  of  a  country  shouldconstitute  a  development  worth  more  than  mere  study.  Kip-ling might have said,  "I told you  50  years  ago what was  goingto happen.   Now practically  all  of you  have  seen it with yourown eyes.  What are you going to DO about it?  Persist in thoseall-American  attributes  of  tpassing  the  buck'  and  tlet  Georgedo  it,' or buckle  down and DO something?"But  these  evidences  of  inertia  are  not  the  only  shacklesNineteen Forty-three 25hung on forestry and foresters by  the  students  and leaders  o£the constitution and development of society.  They, the leaders,definitely  expect the forester  to  give  "adequate  protection"  totheir forests from fire, insects,  and disease.   But they give himno  definition  whatever  of  "adequate"I   Engineers  have  a  rulewhich  they  can  follow:    The  cost  of  the  dike,  the  cost  of  thestorm  sewers,  must  not  greatly  exceed  the  cost  of  the  citystructures  which  the  dike  and  the  sewers  protect  from  flooddamage.   Such values  can be  approximated  satisfactorily.   Butthe forester may be protecting a recreational area heavily usedby  the  public.   That  area  has  a  social  re-creational  value  byreason  o£  its  trees  and  brush,  rocks  and  rills.   Burn  off  thetrees and brush and what is the social value remaining? Shouldthe  forester  evaluate  this  social  loss?   Or  is  that  the  functiono1:  the  sociologist  who  studies  the  phenomenon  of  132  millionvisitors to the National Forests, nearly 500,000  annually to o7t,aNational  Park?Out  on  the  ground,  the  Forest  or  Park  ranger  is  franklyspending all the money he can get to protect these forest valuesfor the  public.   And  in  almost  all  cases  he  can  show  you  thatthe funds available  are  not  enough  if  you' want to  avoid largeand  recreationally  ruinous  fire  scars  on  your  favorite  land-scape following the next critical fire season.  In a few cases  (seeKoch's "The Passing of the Lolo Trail" in the Journal o£ For-estry,  February  1935) ,  experienced  foresters  not  only  admitthat  enough  money  is  available  but  claim  that  too  much  hasbeen  spent,  considering  the  type  of  forest  resource  at  stake.But  Koch  is  a  white  pine  silviculturist,   a  saw-log  forester.Should  he  assess  the  value  of  that  highly  recreationa1,  highlyhistorical Lolo trail?  Earl Loveridge, another experienced for-ester,  says  "No,"  the  "costs  of  real  protection  in  this  countryare  justified  by  he  true  values."   Should  Loveridge  thereforeassess  these  values?I£  the  destructible  forest  benefits  and  values  are  primarilysociological, what do the sociologists say?  So far-nothing, justnothingIIn the meantime the ranger and his  supervisor,  and all for-esters in general, are trying their best to manage these forestsfor the  greatest good  o£ the  greatest number in  the  long  run.But  they  are  forced  to  do  this,  shackled  by  a  total  lack  o£interpretation  o£  the  key  word,   "adequate.''    They   dedicatetheir  work  and  their  lives  to  a  sociological  axiom,  but  whencases  arise  demanding  specific  interpretation,  the  sociologists26 Ames  Foresterare  conspicuous  by  their  absence.    They  seem  to  say,  "LetGeorge,  the forester,  do it  all."Many other cases could be cited, such as the costs justifiableto  develop  the  forests  in those  ways  for  which  the  AmericanYouth  Commission  commended  the  Forest  Service  and  thePark  Service  in  its  recent  report  "Youth  and  the  Future."Other  cases  also  could  be  anticipated  which  are  certain  toarise in the future, such as maintaining public support for cmeyforestry  measure  if the  Forest  Service  succeeds  in its  avowedobjective  of  a  philosophy  of  plenty.    IF  foresters  should  besuccessful in producing plenty of timber, livestock forage, wild-life,  recreational  settings,  and  clean  forest  waters,  how  longwill it be before politicians and the public  erroneously reason,"Well,  if they  are  doing  so  well  in  their work,  that  is  prima-facie  evidence that they are getting too much money.   We willreduce their appropriations until they don't do so well."Present  day  students  o£  both  forestry  and  sociology  mightfind  in  this  problem  and  project  a  highly  profitable  field  forproductive  specialization.Supervisors of high school education also might well follow thelead  of  the  High  School  Supervisor  for the  State  of  Montanawho  has  recently  recommended  that  a  comprehensive  forestconservation course be taught in conjunction with the presentcourses in "Sociology" or "Problems o£ American Democracy."Sociology and Forestry are inseparable.  Either one can shacklethe other.But  as  long  as  foresters  follow  the  maxim  first  stated  byWilson, refined by Silcox, pushed by Clapp, and most recentlyrestated  by  the  newest  Chief  of  the  Forest  Service,+ Lyle  F.Watts   (Iowa,  B.S.F.   '13,  M.S.F.   '28),  the  sociologists  do  notneed to  fear social  impediments  imposed  by  the  foresters.   AsWatts put it, in his first word  of greetings to his organization,"You and I have a lot to do with trees in the forest and in thefarm woods;  with forage on open ranges and in pastures, withwildlife,  and with  soil erosion  and  the like  .  .  .  I  am  confidentthat we all think and work with these things because they aretools through which PEOPLE may be served .  . . I know whathappens to PEOPLE in forest  communities  after  their  timberhas been  liquidated  improperly  or too  fast  .  .  .  forest  land  re-sources  can bring  reasonable  security  to  PEOPLE  who  workin  a  given  locality  and  who  want  to  own  HOMES  and  raiseFAMILIES."As  is  evident,  Forestry  has  become   one  form   of  appliedNineteen Forty-three 27

https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/bitstreams/8b420b15-b174-48db-a2ee-b3291d3ee93b/download

Sociological Shackles on Forestry

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Iowa State University Computer Science Technical Reports

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University (ISU)