Resource Activity on Public Land

[Roger]

I'm sorry. I thought there was one person in the state they had to answer to. Guess I was wrong.

No prob, didn't know that until the DOG article today myself! Hearing some rumbling about changing that though from some of the legislators who think the Commission has too much dinero!

[KimL]

Okay, Steph and Butch, good history work! I'm referring the history smack dab in the middle of where you were. I was in Roosevelt's era (Teddy, that is). He ran in part in 1912 against his hand-picked successor because he was mad with Taft about the forests and their connection to the Dept. of Agriculture instead of the Interior, where TR wanted them. TR was the one who established the Forest Service (1905), and TR was the one who expanded it (1907). In establishing the Forest Service, he shifted the mission from what you cited, Butch. He, like Pinchot, believed in conservation (use) leaning toward preservation, but reading him and his contemporaries, it is clear that he did not intend the kind of logging we have today on public lands. In 1906, you have to put Pinchot's conservation-preservation versus the pure preservationists, who wanted no development in parkland at all. I believe Pinchot would have loved what the NPS has become and would have had a problem with the direction the FS has taken. Pinchot wanted all public lands out of the hands of Taft-era Balinger because he did not want private mining of public resources in Alaska, which Ballinger wanted. Pinchot's idea of resource development was soil restoration and reforestation, as can be seen in the Rural Life commission reports. Both TR and Pinchot would have opposed clear cuts. Their understanding of land use comes as much from the controversy over public versus private in nearby upstate New York (see Karl Jacoby's Crimes against Nature) as much as European reserves (although those inspired French-educated Pinchot). Pinchot himself leads us back into Grant's original question; Pinchot strongly opposed power development on public land, and he (willingly) got himself fired over coal extraction on public lands. So, if we ask, "What would Pinchot do?" I think a reasonable reading tells us (1) he would favor federal over state forests, and (2) his use of them would exclude extensive logging and monoculture, and (3) he would oppose using public land for private mining leases. At least that's how most historians read them . . . . But of course neither Pinchot nor Roosevelt are here today, and Grant's question is.

Back to Grant's question: more money for ADEQ, more leasing money going to regulation. Restoration is the job of the company that is doing the leasing.

[Butch Crain]

TR...shifted the mission...it is clear that he did not intend the kind of logging we have today on public lands...

It's also equally clear that Teddy didn't envision a consumer culture that valued toilet paper over corncobs, cars over mules, swifters and vacuum cleaners over brooms, plastic diversions over time spent on the porch visiting with your neighbors. Nor could he have forseen the extent to which the forest service increased it's domain by millions of acres, both meeting those demands and protecting 100s of thousands of acres from ever being developed or harvested in the process. And all largely self sustained until the advent of catatrophic wildfire and the associated costs, which are also the result of many self destructive cultural habits.

It's self delusional to not acknowledge we are all complicit - unless you are off the grid, living in an adobe house, etc., etc. We are all drenched in the blood and sweat of every member of the military that's fought in Iraq (not Afghanistan, where we delivered a much deserved if prematurely abbreviated pounding) and should have to soak up the tears of their families. Our culture and lifestyle, including forcing energy development into someone else's backyard, are simply the kindling that fuel the corporations and politicians. And if you believe that a garage full of plastic boats doesn't contribute more to the problem than the average American that is worried about just putting food on the table, you're kidding yourself.

We're all guilty.

More on engagement - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/env ... owin_N.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KimL]

New York City had had an electric system for almost thirty years when Roosevelt left office in 1909. Roosevelt lived in world with department stores, automobiles, and the beginning of mass marketing--and toilet paper for the masses had been sold since before he was born (albeit not in the familiar roll). The redefining of conservation and preservation as similar but separate movements in the Progressive era was a direct response to industrialization, electrification, and a move away from mules. The growth of the FS in the 1920s, 1930s, and later can be tied in large part to reforestation of damaged private lands. But we are again off topic . . . .

Butch, you've got a lot of experience working with federal regulation on laying pipelines, or at least your family's business has been involved in that. How would you manage gas extraction in the wildlife management areas?

[Trismegistus]

I believe Pinchot was very clear in what he felt the mission of the USFS was -- and which it continues to be -- and rather than fall upon conjecture and perceptions perhaps we should look at exactly what he has said regarding land use, conservation and sustainable use of our natural resources:

"In the administration of the forest reserves it must be clearly borne in mind that all land is to be devoted to its most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people, and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies. All the resources of forest reserves are for use, and this use must be brought about in a thoroughly prompt and businesslike manner, under such restrictions only as will insure the permanence of these resources. The vital importance of forest reserves to the great industries of the Western States will be largely increased in the near future by the continued steady advance in settlement and development.

The permanence of the resources of the reserves is therefore indispensable to continued prosperity, and the policy of this department for their protection and use will invariably be guided by this fact, always bearing in mind that the conservative use of these resources in no way conflicts with their permanent value. You will see to it that the water, wood, and forage of the reserves are conserved and wisely used for the benefit of the home-builder first of all, upon whom depends the best permanent use of lands and resources alike. The continued prosperity of the agricultural, lumbering, mining, and livestock interests is directly dependent upon a permanent and accessible supply of water, wood, and forage, as well as upon the present and future use of their resources under businesslike regulations, enforced with promptness, effectiveness, and common sense. In the management of each reserve local questions will be decided upon local grounds; the dominant industry will be considered first, but with as little restriction to minor industries as may be possible; sudden changes in industrial conditions will be avoided by gradual adjustment after due notice; and where conflicting interests must be reconciled the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.

These general principles will govern in the protection and use of the water supply, in the disposal of timber and
wood, in the use of the range, and in all other matters connected with the management of the reserves. They
can be successfully applied only when the administration of each reserve is left very largely in the hands of the
local officers, under the eye of thoroughly trained and competent inspectors."

I am also of the opinion that Pinchot's philosophy extends to both private and public land. To differentiate between the two may be a sound political position but fails philosophically and morally if our primary concern is the preservation of our environment.

[Greg Parker]

I didn't suggest the money be used for more trucks 4 wheelers vacations or whatever for agfc employees. I thought the money should be used for land purchases. The state and the federal government have many acres in arkansas set aside as wildlife refuges that are great places to spend time even if you are not a hunter.
I heard on the radio today that Senator Steve Faris wants to put the money in the general revenue fund , however that will require a vote of the people due to agfc autonomous status. If you could vote how to spend the money what would your choice be?

[Roger]

Answers to ?'s posed to Loren Hitchcock, deputy director of the AG&FC, in a phone call about the leasing, monies and the commission's autonomy.

?: By what authority does AG&FC lease the land?
A: Amendment 35

?: Is the land the property of Arkansans?
A: AGFC "owned" this land. :roll:

?: Can AG&FC sell land to China?
A: No. (w/o explanation)

The questioner was none other than Roderick A. Bryan.

See the full exchange in comments section at link:

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasb ... x#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KimL]

Tris (and Butch and Steph), these snippets are lovely, but Pinchot, Roosevelt, Muir et al. wrote extensively, and they refined their positions over time. They were responding to a particular time and place, where Americans had deforested land at an alarming rate, and it was not difficult to imagine a world with no private sources of timber. Last I'll say on their ideologies, because there's no sense in re-typing the dozens of volumes they produced and the thousands of articles and books written at the same time by other Progressive conservationists.

Okay, so back to Grant's question: What do others think needs to be done? More regulation for timber or for oil extraction?

[Butch Crain]

Kim, since you are mistaken about current day facts (Butch Crain of pipeline building fame has been deceased for several years and was a VERY distant relative) despite their documentation on this board, forgive me if I discount your interpretation of the intent of one of the founders of my profession. You also fail to recognize the difference in scale of consumer demands on the environment over the last 100 years. I'm pretty sure no one in the early 1900's, including Teddy Roosevelt, could have predicted them either, but they didn't have the hindsight of history on their side.

Nevertheless, the key to responsible management and extraction of any natural resource is a sound contract and diligent enforcement. It's what I do for my clients and it seldom fails to serve.

[KimL]

Butch, please excuse me if I was not clear; I said I thought that you or your family had been in the business but did not say definitively you yourself had done pipeline work. Having never met you personally, I simply opened the conversation to someone I thought might be an expert with a different opinion. I'm sorry if my endowing you with knowledge about oil/gas construction offended you. That was not my intention. (Isn't your business in Damascus? Isn't this it? http://www.butchcrain.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If it is, it appears that ADEQ praised the company for voluntarily reporting and cleaning up after a spill. Feel free to reply via PM.)

With regard to my training, I'll be happy to discuss it off the main board too, since continuing to talk about it here takes us off topic. Suffice it to say that Progressive era history is my field.

[Butch Crain]

Kim, that ominous quiet on the board is every one else being bored with this discussion. I've explained everything I can about my perspective (and my familial relationships, or lack thereof, not once, but twice) on natural resources pretty exhaustively on this board. My best suggestion is that you submit any further questions to peer review.

[KimL]

Butch, since you replied here instead of by PM, I’ll do the same. Having read through your posts again, I still can't say for sure what your profession is, unless you are in the timber industry, but that could mean logging, management, and lots of other things. Given that the original post was about gas, I assumed by your first reply that you were in oil/gas. The Butch Crain Construction sign near Clinton caught my eye a few months ago when I was passing through, and I associated it with the name I read on this board. That fit too.

But back to the original topic--I suspect a lot more people have good ideas for managing resource extraction on public lands. I'm interested in hearing them. And Butch, I'm still interested in hearing details from you on the original topic.

[Trismegistus]

"Butch, I'm still interested in hearing details from you on the original topic."

I really wonder...

Tis' not yet another example of cognitive dissonance? We think and believe what we want to think and believe regardless of any facts or information to the contrary. Couple this with heuristics, dogma, positions based upon absolutes and false assumptions it's no wonder we must struggle to find common ground.

P.S. And as to the origin of the Ozark National Forest which overlays the Fayetteville Shale one can certainly look to the work of Franklin Hough, Bernard Fernow, Muir, and Pinchot or those "Progressive Conservationist" (hate labels) to which you allude to but the truth of the matter is that the forest would probably not exist today without the support of industrialists (another label) -- specifically Harry Kelly of Fort Smith. Kelly saw the beginnings of a furniture industry in Fort Smith and knew this industry would depend on a perpetual supply of hardwood timber. The area currently bounded by the Ozark National Forest at that time constituted one of the largest bodies of hardwood forests in the country and its protection was sought to assure a supply of needed hardwood. Any suggestion that our national forests were created to somehow negate any further use of the natural resources contained therein is patently false.

P.S.S. and as to the comment "So, if we ask, "What would Pinchot do?" I think a reasonable reading tells us (1) he would favor federal over state forests, and (2) his use of them would exclude extensive logging and monoculture, and (3) he would oppose using public land for private mining leases. At least that's how most historians read them . . . . How absurd! This is not how historians read them -- this is how you read them. Now I could provide a near-endless rebuttal to this position/assumption/perception -- but one thing that is certainly clear throughout Pincot's writings is that from the first to the end he envisioned a decentralized federal agency in which local forest supervisors and their rangers would have authority to plan and implement policy for each given forest -- he was not opposed to state forests per se as long as there was federal oversight and it didn't upsurp the authority of the USFS. Rather Pinchot firmly believed that the fundamental administrative unit to be no larger than a "ranger district" an administrative organizational plan that exists to this day. Similarly Pinchot was not opposed to logging and such -- his position didn't exclude any viable management option be it prescriptive burning or even clear-cutting (still one of the most effective and economical ways to manage fast-growing invasive flora) -- his focus was always on maintenance of biological diversity and maximum utilization for the good of the people. Similarly he supported the extraction of minerals and other valuable products as as legitimate use of our national forests. In fact, I'll argue that iPinchot would agree with me that it is ludicrous to even consider a blanket restriction against all resource extraction from the 193 million acres held by our forest service.

[KimL]

Tris, of course I'm interested. When it looked like Crain was part of a pipeline company that got a nice letter from ADEQ for self-reporting, I was interested. I'm still interested, but I'm still not clear on what he does. No big deal.
Muir and Pinchot were not both conservationists; how they were on different teams helps put Pinchot's definition of conservation in perspective. But I now remove myself from playing history cop on this thread. Keeping up with history cherry pickers is taking too much valuable time!

[Trismegistus]

"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is". Bill Clinton