OCR Text |
Show ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC FOREST LANDS 581 Estimate of Forest Reserves by States and Territories* Alaska_________________ 26,761,626 Arizona________________ 15,258,861 Arkansas_______________ 3,189,781 California______________ 27,968,510 Colorado_______________ 15,698,439 Florida________________ 674,891 Idaho_________________ 20,099,029 Kansas________________ 302,387 Michigan______________ 163,373 Minnesota______________ 1,204,486 Montana_______________ 20,389,696 Nebraska_______________ 556,072 Nevada.......____________ 5,109,415 New Mexico______________ 10,971,711 Noith Dakota_____________ 13,940 Oklahoma_______________ 60,800 Oregon__________________ 16,221,368 Puerto Rico______________ 65,950 South Dakota_____________ 1,294,440 Utah_____......_________ 7,436,327 Washington______________ 12,065,500 Wyoming________________ 8,998,723 Department of the Interior, Annual Report, 1909, p. 94. The haste with which the reserves were created and the inclusion within them of many improvements, as well as great areas which seemed to have little relevance to forest management, disturbed many westerners when they realized what a large proportion of the natural resources of their states was now no longer open to homestead, timber and stone entries, or to lumbering or grazing without permission from the rangers of the Forest Service. Idaho had 39 percent of its territory within the forests, California and Washington 28 percent, and Oregon 26 percent. Was there to be no end to the establishment of new forest reserves, and if not, should not Congress call a halt to a policy which some feared would hinder the growth of the western states by locking up their natural resources from development? A concerted attack upon Pinchot and the Forest Service was begun, led by Senators Henry Moore Teller and Thomas Mac-Donald Patterson of Colorado, Clarence D. Clark of Wyoming, Thomas H. Carter of Montana, Charles W. Fulton of Oregon and especially Weldon B. Heyburn of Idaho. Some of their complaints were doubtless justified but when they questioned the integrity of the officers, alleged misuse of the government frank, censored travel expenses incurred in attending pro- fessional meetings, objected to the dissemination of information concerning professional forestry practices, and tried to emasculate the Service by reducing appropriations for staff, they aroused admirers of the Service who struck back, though on a higher plane.49 Other westerners like Senators Francis E. Warren of Wyoming, Fred T. Dubois of Idaho, Francis G. New-lands of Nevada, and Reed Smoot of Utah defended Pinchot and the integrity of the Forest Service personnel though they doubtless were troubled at the extent to which the reserves were being created. In the midst of these attacks The Nation, which seemed primarily interested in civil service reform, good government, and low tariffs, expressed the thought that Congress had not risen to the support of President Roosevelt's conservation program. It lamented that both Senate and House Committees on Public Lands were so completely dominated by Senators and Representatives from west of the Mississippi, pointing out that only two of the 15 members of the Senate Committee and seven of 20 of the House Committee were from states east of the Mississippi. The public lands were not matters of concern 49 For the opposition of California to the creation of new forest reserves by Roosevelt see C. Raymond Clar, California Government and Forestry (Sacramento, 1959), pp. 189-91. |