The
BIG TEN Public Land Conservation Challenges For a New Century: Where
do we go from here?
Mike Dombeck
Professor of Global Environmental
Management & System Fellow of
Global Conservation,
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point;
Former Chief, US Forest Service
Berkeley, California November 13, 2001
The tragic events of September 11 are indelibly etched in our minds.
We will never forget the images that were played back to us on TV
time and time again. For many of us, it was the first time we felt
threatened. Truly threatened that our very essence, as a nation
and as a people, was being put in danger. And it has caused us to
reflect very deeply on our lives, our country, and what the future
may hold.
I have spent the better part of my life in the business of land
management, conservation and research. I have had the great honor
to lead the nation's two largest federal land management agencies.
And have had more than one person's share of Congressional hearings
and debates about the what, why, and how of public land management.
When I think about the people who live in the Middle East, whom
we now believe are our enemies, I am saddened. Do they not share
the same needs of us all? Surely they are good people, at least
the great majority of them. And yet, at least a small group of them
are willing to give their own lives to harm ours. What drives such
fanaticism? Is it cultural differences? Lifestyle? Is it our insatiable
thirst for oil? That is no excuse for killing innocent people.
I think about the land in the Middle East and how much of it is
simply used up from countless centuries of human use, centuries
of pushing the land beyond its limits. I have been there and have
seen some of it. Today, what was referred to as the "fertile
crescent" is anything but fertile and productive. Once-green
valleys are brown and perennial streams are dry. Topsoil and water
are scarce - the land is used up.
There is a lesson here for all of us. We can't all be sky marshals
protecting travelers or microbiologists searching for the cure for
anthrax or other biological warfare agents. But we can all be good
stewards of the lands and waters that sustain us. Living within
the ecological limits of the land and not allowing short-term economic
gains to override the land legacy we bequeath to future generations
is the strongest demonstration of patriotism that I know.
Famous Presidents like Thomas Jefferson and Theodore and Franklin
Roosevelt were dedicated to the land. On July 1, 1864, in the heat
of the Civil War, President Lincoln signed a bill granting Yosemite
Valley and the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias to California to
be protected in their natural state. As the country was being torn
apart by the Civil War, President Lincoln must have recognized the
importance of preserving our natural wonders. Since Lincoln's time,
numerous pieces of legislation and executive orders have protected
millions of acres of our land.
President Kennedy, who like Lincoln is not well known for conservation
policies, said this: "Conservation...can be defined as the
wise use of our natural environment: it is, in the final analysis,
the highest form of national thrift - the prevention of waste and
despoilment while preserving, improving and renewing the quality
and usefulness of all our resources." Kennedy and Lincoln,
like Jefferson and the Roosevelts, understood that protecting this
country and our way of life meant taking care of the land.
You and I, as citizens of the United States, together own hundreds
of millions of acres of land. This is our birthright, a gift from
our forbears, many of whom died securing the land and the freedoms
we enjoy. One of the most patriotic things we can all do as citizens
of the United States is care for the land.
Our public lands--over 500 million acres--are uniquely American.
Other cultures have their great pyramids or works of art. England
and Spain have their great sea captains, Rome and Athens their great
temples, and the Far East its dynasties. We in the United States
have our public lands, the remnants of our wild frontier. It was
this frontier that shaped our character as a people and a nation.
Our heroes are the likes of Davy Crockett, Tecumseh, Daniel Boone,
Sacagawea, Lewis and Clark and Chief Joseph. We admire them for
their endurance and skill, tested by the vast wild places of the
American frontier.
At one time, we viewed our public land as a vast storehouse of
inexhaustible resources. Whoever was capable of exploiting those
resources for personal profit could do so, in the name of progress
and civilization.
Too often, the result was environmental disaster. It was the tragedy
of the commons, a tragic part of our history. Overgrazing the western
rangelands and the cut-and-run era which ended a century ago that
eliminated all but a few acres of old-growth forests in my home
state of Wisconsin and throughout much of the East and upper Midwest
are just a few examples. The fires, floods, and erosion that followed
degraded our lands and waters, sometimes for generations to come.
Quality of life in these areas declined because the land was abused.
The BIG TEN conservation challenges
Now I'd like to switch gears and talk about what I had planned
to talk about before the events of September 11.
My intent is not to give a political speech or a technical lecture.
I want to talk about the land - specifically common sense public
land conservation. For the sake of simplicity, I'm calling these
challenges the BIG TEN. My list is not all-inclusive. I won't say
very much about the huge complex topics of global warming or overpopulation,
for example. Besides, my area of experience and expertise is the
public lands. These are simply ten of the issues that I faced at
both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and that I
believe are relevant today.
1872 Mining law
I mention the 1872 Mining Law first because it is perhaps the most
vexing and outdated natural resources law in the U.S. This statute
is a product of an era when women and most minorities could not
vote. The nation was struggling through Civil War reconstruction
and St. Louis represented the western frontier to most citizens.
Its antiquated royalty provisions are well known and simple. None
exist. It is a blatant giveaway of public resources. In addition,
it allows privatization of public land for $2.50 to $5 per acre,
sometimes to foreign or multinational mining companies.
Every other natural resource use--timber, grazing, oil & gas,
recreation--is subject to approval or rejection by field managers
for environmental or safety reasons, all but hard rock mining.
Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior during the Kennedy &
Johnson Administrations, left office in 1969 saying this was an
archaic law badly in need of change. The last failed attempt to
change the 1872 Mining Law was in the early 1990s, early in the
Clinton Administration. It nearly succeeded, but Congress adjourned
just before the job was complete. The Republican sweep of the House
and Senate in 1994 sucked the momentum out of the reform of the
1872 Mining Law.
Updating the 1872 Mining Law should be at the top of the list of
conservation priorities for congressional and administration action.
Instead, the Bush Administration has chosen to relax the conservation
provisions of the mining regulations developed by the Bureau of
Land Management over the past couple of years.
Wild land fire
The Smokey Bear campaign was perhaps the most successful public
education campaign in our history. In 1968, more people knew who
Smokey was than could name the President. Smokey was the second
most popular character in the United States. Santa Claus was number
one. Today, the challenge is to help people understand that although
fire is always dangerous, all fire is not bad. Like wind and water,
fire is one of nature's cleansing agents.
Unhealthy forests today are due to a combination of past timber
management practices and the cumulative effects of 100 years of
fire suppression. We are good at fighting fire. We have the best
firefighters in the world. Our firefighters put out 98% of the fires
during their initial attack. In the year 2000, the Forest Service
alone spent over $1 billion fighting fires.
The challenge is to put fire back on the land. And do it in a way
that doesn't harm people. Forests evolved with fire and are adapted
to withstand fire. If they weren't, there would be no forests. Our
houses and communities adjacent to the forests are the new additions.
The sprawl of housing developments in rural areas, foothills and
even up mountainsides is occurring all over the country. This is
especially problematic in high fire frequency areas like much of
California and the intermountain West.
The urban-wildland interface is now spread over millions of acres.
The millions of dollars that we pour into wildland fire fighting
may not save your house. Structural fire fighting requires very
different skills than fighting forest fires. If you live in a fire-prone
area, the single most important thing you can do to prevent your
house from burning because of a wildfire is to take precautionary
measures within 200 feet of your house, including: take extreme
care to keep flammable fuels, such as tall dry grass, dense evergreens
or dry brush, away from buildings; keep stacks of firewood well
away from structures and use fire resistant roofing and siding materials;
and maintain a perimeter of non-flammable material around houses
to serve as a firebreak.
Last year, the Forest Service received its largest budget increase
ever, mostly to rebuild our fire fighting capability and reduce
fire risk on the land. Careful prescribed fire, fuel treatments
and thinning of fuels are part of the solution. And yes, it makes
sense to utilize the wood fiber to meet our growing needs.
I hope the Bush Administration is working as hard on implementing
an ecologically balanced fire management plan as it is on rolling
back mining regulations, water quality standards, and roadless policies.
If the wildland fire plan turns into little more than an accelerated
commercial logging program, it will quickly become a controversial
"black hat" program, just like the infamous "salvage
rider" did after the bad 1994 fire season, when it was dubbed
"logging without laws." Unfortunately, that is the direction
things appear to be headed.
Exotic species
A September 30, 2001 Associated Press story headline that ran in
the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel stated: "Invasive species threaten
Great Lakes." The State of the Great Lakes 2001 Report suggests
that biological pollution is a more substantial threat than chemical
pollution. Some scientists believe that only deforestation during
the lumbering era was as ecologically damaging as the spread of
invasive species.
In the West, the spread of noxious weeds is estimated to be over
4,600 acres per day. Leafy spurge has infested over five million
acres in 23 states, causing economic losses of some $100 million
annually. Yellow star thistle has spread to eight states and has
infested over 12 million acres in California alone. So many acres
are infested with yellow star thistle in California that it had
to be removed from that state's noxious weed list, because by law
all noxious weeds on the State's official list must be treatable.
Star thistle has long surpassed the treatable stage.
The exotic species problem is sometimes described as an explosion
in slow motion. I'm usually an optimist. But when it comes to controlling
exotic species, the picture is bleak. Dutch elm disease wiped out
the majestic elms and changed the look of hundreds of cities and
towns. Chestnut blight killed that tree and changed the great eastern
hardwood forest ecosystems forever. There is white pine blister
rust, kudzu, melaleuca in the Everglades, and the long and growing
list of species displacing native rangeland plants. The impacts
of the recently discovered Asian longhorn beetle remain unknown.
But we do know it has made its way into North America via the ports
of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. We know its effects will be
bad, we just don't know how bad.
One of the unintended by-products of our modern transportation
systems and daily travel to every continent is that we are flying
and shipping millions of organisms- bacteria, seeds, insects, and
others- around the world on a daily basis, to places they have never
been. We have recreated Pangeaea at least in the biological sense.
This was the geologic era before the continents drifted apart. We
have kicked the natural processes of evolution into high gear.
A key reason that managing exotics is difficult is that many of
them thrive in disturbed habitats. Our best defense against exotics
is protecting remaining undisturbed native habitats and maintaining
the natural biodiversity. And yes, we do need effective import inspections
and standards. We also need a science-based approach that is proactive
and predictive, versus our typical reactive approach of trying to
corral the horse after it's out of the barn.
Land fragmentation and sprawl
Let's look at some rates of fragmentation:
- An average of 3.2 million acres per year of forest, wetland,
farmland, and open space were converted to more urban uses between
1992 and 1997 - an area about twice the size of Delaware,
- Or over 8,700 acres per day, more than double the rate of development
of the previous decade, while human population remained relatively
constant.
- From 1982-1992, the development rate was an average of 1.4 million
acres per year or 3,800 acres per day. Land fragmentation increases
as tract size diminishes.
- From 1978-1994, the proportion of private forest ownerships
of less than 50 acres nearly doubled.
This brings real meaning to the familiar quote, "Buy land,
they ain't making it any more."
Our parks are being loved to death. Recreation on all public land
is growing rapidly, as private land is increasingly posted with
"no trespassing" signs making it off-limits to all but
those with specific permission from the landowner. Thank goodness
the public lands remain open to all, but we must not overuse them
or degrade them.
Decades ago, Aldo Leopold ventured a prediction: "Fifty years
from now, the ac-quisition of public game lands may be recognized
as a milestone in the evolution of democratic government."
That prophecy came true: Americans cherish their public wildlands
as a major achievement of the United States in the twentieth century.
We have 104 million acres of congressionally-designated wilderness,
much of it rock and ice. But all major ecosystems are not represented.
Bottomland hardwoods and tall grass prairie, for example, are missing
and should be added to the system.
Our remaining wildlands and roadless areas will be increasingly
important as years go by, simply because "they ain't making
it any more." There are more and more people who must share
the same number of acres.
Somehow the stark reality of the loss of big unfragmented tracts
of land is lost on those that call themselves "conservative."
Consider the road system we have on our public lands today. We have:
- 386,000 miles of roads in our National Forests, with an $8.4
billion maintenance backlog - in other words, we can't afford
to take care of the road system that we have, and
- more than 500,000 miles of roads on federally-managed land.
On less than _ of the total land base we have enough roads to go
around the Earth sixteen times, or more than the distance to the
Moon and back.
Should the Bush Administration be relaxing our roadless policies
when the science tells us that these wildlands are the remaining
habitats for many endangered, threatened, or rare species? They
provide us with the cleanest water in the country. These areas are
the scientific repositories of what undisturbed landscapes were
like.
Will future generations thank us for the wildlands that we opened
up or the oil fields that we developed? Or will they thank us more
for oil that we saved for them and the wild places that we left
wild? Which is the truly conservative approach?
Several years ago, a forestry professor handed me a copy of the
humorous timber baron's lexicon. It said a "roadless area was
an area in need of roads."
Old Growth Forests
More than any other issue, old growth symbolizes the National Forest
management conflict and controversy for the past 30 years. The basic
question is how many acres of our old growth forests do we want
to keep?
The first Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration struggled
with the spotted owl debate. But the issue is really about old growth
with the owl as the legal hook. Here are some of the facts:
- In the late 1980s, timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest on
federal land was at an all-time high, some 5 billion board feet
per year.
- Even as many said this was unsustainable, the timber industry
wouldn't com-promise at 3 or 2 billion board feet per year and
some powerful politicians backed them up.
- Judge Dwyer shut down all federal timber harvest in that area.
- The President, Vice President, several cabinet members and several
agency heads went to Portland, Oregon to try to resolve the issue.
Outside of waging war, this amount of Executive level attention
on any issue is rare.
- The result was the development of the Northwest Forest Plan
for 24 million acres; it was completed in 11 months and stood
the test of the courts.
- It was based on the best use of science of any large-scale land
plan.
- It was the first and best large-scale land use plan.
- It required adaptive management and watershed scale analysis.
- It allowed for a timber harvest level of about 1 billion board
feet.
- It established a "jobs in the woods program" to assist
displaced timber workers.
- It provided a 10-year "safety net" of funding to assist
counties dependent on the payments from timber receipts to pay
for local schools and roads.
This is just one example of how political and tenacious the old
growth forest debate can be, especially when the "conflict
industry" and lobbyists square-off.
In my home state of Wisconsin, we revere the tree that built America,
Pinus strobus, the white pine. The white pine forests were leveled
by the turn of the last century in the cut-and-run era. I wonder
if we will ever have old growth white pine forest in Wisconsin again?
Is there public support? Where? And how long will it take? Surely
none of us living today will ever see the majestic white pine forests.
I wonder if our great grandchildren will? Finally, one last question:
what in the world are we doing cutting old growth forests on public
lands? It's time, past time, that we recognize the ecological and
social values of these forests and leave them intact.
The same timber baron's lexicon I mentioned earlier defined old
growth as "senile trees that belong in a home, preferably as
a 2x4 or 2x6."
Loss of Biodiversity
We are losing species at an alarming rate and the trend must be
reversed. Preserving the genetic library of life is the right thing
to do. Aldo Leopold put it this way: "To keep every cog and
wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."
Many wildlands serve as a biological refuge for native species,
often their last refuge. Our national forests and grasslands, for
example, contain 181 of the 327 watersheds identified by The Nature
Conservancy as critical for the conservation of biodiversity in
the United States. The National Forest System supports 366 species
of plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act, plus another 2,800 sensitive species and
numerous imperiled plant communities. High biodiversity enhances
ecosystem stability, resistance to invasion by nonnative species,
and resilience.
In a less familiar quote, Leopold spoke with great eloquence and
sadness to the planners of a passenger pigeon monument. He said,
"There will always be pigeons in books and in museums, but
these are effigies and images, dead to all hardships and to all
delights. Book-pigeons cannot dive out of a cloud to make the deer
run for cover, nor clap their wings in thunderous applause of mast-laden
woods... They know no urge of seasons; they feel no kiss of sun,
no lash of wind and weather. They live forever by not living at
all." This quote says it all when it comes to preserving all
life forms on Earth.
Off-road vehicles
I believe off-road vehicle or all-terrain vehicle use will be the
public land issue of the decade. It will be much more difficult
to resolve than the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest simply
because it is more complex with very entrenched opinions on all
sides of the debate. Off-road vehicle use on public land is an unusual
mixture of keeping activities within the ecological limits of the
land and what people perceive as their individual rights.
We have more people going more places on public land more often,
with more kinds of all-terrain vehicles than ever before. Many people
want to go anywhere anytime with anything regardless of the impact
on the land, water, vegetation, or wildlife. During my tenure as
head of both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, I had
more field managers say this was their most difficult challenge.
I recall a conversation with a conservative Western senator who
didn't want me to elevate or take on the issue. I asked him if he
knew any ranchers or private landowners who let anybody who wanted
to go anywhere, anytime with anything? The answer was no.
Bringing support, order, and agreement to the use of all-terrain
vehicles on public land will be exceedingly difficult and controversial.
It will make the spotted owl issue look easy. But if the agencies
and community of interests do not take it on, it will likely be
thrown to the courts. Isn't leadership all about not shying away
from difficult issues? It would be a great test of the mettle of
the Bush Administration.
But whatever the mechanism to resolve the off-road vehicle use
issue, what is most important is this: all of our activities must
take place within the ecological limits of the land.
Private land conservation
Few areas offer more promise for conservation and watershed restoration
than the millions and millions of acres of privately-owned land
in the United States. For example, about two-thirds of the forests
in the United States--some 490 million acres--are in non-federal
ownership. This includes over 9 million woodland owners who own
tracts of land of less than 100 acres. According to a 1996 National
Research Council report, we have over 20 million acres of forest
classified as urban and community forests and over 60 million acres
of cities and towns sprawling over what once was forestland. Of
these, only a small percentage have professional science-based plans.
The opportunities are tremendous.
For example, research done by Dr. Greg McPherson and his colleagues
here in California at the Center for Urban Forest Research reported
that there are some 177 million trees in energy-conserving locations.
This saves California utilities $500 million annually in wholesale
electricity purchase and generation costs. These trees save consumers
about $1 billion in air conditioning costs. McPherson's models predict
that if Californians planted 50 million more shade trees in strategic
locations, the energy saved would be equivalent to seven 100 MW
power plants.
Shouldn't a national energy strategy put greening our cities and
towns with tree planting ahead of or at least on par with drilling
for oil on sensitive lands or more nuclear power plants? This is
a no-brainer. Urban and suburban reforestation should be at the
forefront of international policies and treaties. Trees produce
oxygen we breathe, sequester carbon reducing global warming, reduce
storm water run-off saving money and improving water quality, and
improve the looks and livability of our urban communities.
Water
I believe water is the issue of the century and will be the issue
of the millennium. Last March, the International Herald Tribune
cited a report that indicated that two-thirds of the World's population
would be dealing with water shortages within the next 25 years.
In California, water is a volatile issue. In the arid Southwest,
battles are brewing over the waters of the Colorado River, already
badly depleted. The Great Plains states, from the Dakotas to Texas,
depend on the Ogallala Aquifer. It is rapidly being depleted much
faster than it is being replenished, and is now 10 to 100 feet below
original levels.
The cleanest water in the country flows off of our forests. Collectively,
our public lands are by far the largest and perhaps most important
water provider in the United States. As Forest Service Chief, I
had a speech I called "The Forest Service: The World's Largest
Water Company."
The 192 million acres of national forests and grasslands alone
provide drinking water to more than 60 million Americans living
in some 3,400 communities in 33 states. We knew the exact value
of a board foot of timber and a ton of coal, but we didn't know
the value of the water. So a team of experts went to work and found
the marginal value of water from national forestlands to be more
than $3.7 billion per year. That does not include the savings to
municipalities from reduced filtration costs.
Our challenge is to restore watershed function. Watershed function
is the interaction of the soil, water, and vegetation. The objective
is to keep water on the land longer. Put simply, watersheds catch,
store and release water over time.
Given the fundamental importance of water to all life, watershed
health and water quality should be the basic measure of success
for our public land managers.
Education
I mention education last because I feel it is the most important
of the ten issues. We need to help all citizens and landowners understand
and appreciate the full spectrum of what the land does for us as
a nation and a society. Today a greater proportion of humans than
ever before is living further removed from the land. Eighty percent
of the U. S. population is urban or living in cities and towns.
Our challenge is reconnecting people with nature.
As resource managers and scientists, we spend too much time talking
to each other and too little time helping people understand the
very basics of what healthy functioning watersheds do for us. We
must learn to communicate in a way that connects peoples' hearts
and minds with the land and the outdoors. And that doesn't mean
that they have to live in the woods or out on the prairie. They
just need to understand and appreciate the land that sustains us.
One reason I believe we are not doing a good enough job of communicating
is this: a recent study by notable conservation policy analyst,
Neil Sampson, showed that the proportion of the federal budget allocated
for natural resources is 50% of what it was in 1962. In the corporate
world, that would most likely be a fatal loss in market share. We
must make investments in the land for the long haul. We must build
support for good land management. It's the patriotic thing to do.
Not one of us wants future generations to look back at our time
and ask, "Why did they use the land up?" Education is
key to maintaining our quality of life over the long haul.
Reflections on the past
The last decade or so, as I was thrust into big controversial national
conservation issues, I spent more and more time reading and reflecting
about the history of conservation. I'd like to close with a story
about a tragedy that was very different from the tragedies of September
11, 2001, but is in some ways similar. It thrust the nation into
shock and changed the course of history.
A little over one hundred years ago, on September 6, 1901, a shot
was fired that that seriously wounded U.S. President William McKinley
as he attended the Pan American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York.
Vice President Theodore Roosevelt was visiting members of the Vermont
Fish and Game League at a luncheon on Lake Champlain. Upon hearing
the news, the Vice President rushed to Buffalo to monitor the president's
precarious condition.
In a few days, President McKinley had recovered sufficiently that
Roosevelt was able to leave Buffalo for a short vacation in the
nearby Adirondack Mountains in his home state of New York. Vice
President Roosevelt met his family at Camp Tahawus at the base of
Mount Marcy, the highest peak in the Adirondacks. They spent the
evening of September 11 at a cabin upslope from the camp. The next
morning Roosevelt, his wife Edith, two of their children, and several
other members of a climbing party started up the mountain. They
spent the second night in cabins about halfway up.
The following morning the climbing party split, with Edith and
the children headed back down and Roosevelt and the others reaching
the peak by late morning. Descending then to the shore of Lake Tear
of the Clouds, the highest source of the Hudson River, they paused
for lunch. A guide emerged from the trees with a yellow telegram
with news that President McKinley's condition had deteriorated and
instructing the Vice President to return to Buffalo at once. After
an arduous journey out of the mountains, Roosevelt boarded a night
train to Buffalo, arriving there at dawn on September 14. The President
had died. That evening, Theodore Roosevelt took the oath that made
him the nation's 26th president.
Roosevelt's rise appalled many of the political leaders of his
own Republican Party. As governor of New York, Roosevelt had shown
the troublesome tendency for the protection of natural resources
and the reining in of corporate power. Roosevelt's initiatives in
New York flummoxed the high, mighty, and influential. They found
a convenient solution to get this "bull out of their china
shop": draft Roosevelt for the Vice Presidency. Six months
later, "that damned cowboy" was President.
Roosevelt's White House tenure from 1901 to 1909 defined modern
conservation. He understood and believed in science. Not since Jefferson
had someone so well-versed in the sciences occupied the White House.
His conservation legacy is immense: more than 250 million acres
of national forests, national monuments, national parks and refuges.
This fascinating story was taken from an essay by Dr. Curt Meine
which appeared in the most recent issue of Conservation Biology.
What are our policy-makers' views on conservation today? The Wilderness
Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964 with a vote
of 373 to 1. How would that vote turn out today? Most of our progressive
conservation and environmental legislation was signed by Republican
Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Gerald
Ford. Today, political conservatives seem more often than not to
be anti-conservation and anti-environment. Often the perception
is economy versus the environment, rural West versus the urban East.
There are important lessons to be learned from the past, especially
in land management where we must always take the long view. Perhaps
the most important lesson is, don't use the land up for short-term
gain, or for any reason. Humans may not control climate change or
desertification, but we do influence it. We need only to look to
parts of the Middle East to see the stark result.
The Bush Administration would do well to follow the example of
what Teddy Roosevelt did one hundred years ago. The Bush Administration
should provide a conservation vision for this new century, a vision
that has as its premise "the greatest good for the greatest
number, in the long run."
Introducing:
Mike Dombeck
Mike Dombeck is Pioneer Professor of Global Environmental Management
at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point and UW System Fellow
of Global Con-servation. He served as the Acting Director of the
Bureau of Land Management and Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
Back
to List of Horace Albright Lectures Back
to Horace Albright Lecture
Center
Lectures Center
for Forestry Home |