 |
| Senator Pettigrew. Library of Congress. |
The "Pettigrew Amendment" – for South Dakota Senator Richard F. Pettigrew – addressed issues that had rendered previous forest legislation "ineffectual and annoying."
Initially, the Federal government saw the public lands as simply a source of revenue. The General Land Office sold them off to private interests for whatever money they would bring [blog, Feb 1]. Then the Homestead Act of 1862 sparked a crucial change in the handling of the public lands.
Before, even the supposed bargain prices charged by the Land Office barred most people from ownership. An ordinary workman might make only $50-60 a month. Thus, the $200 cost of a quarter section amounted to about four months income. Although living expenses were proportionally smaller, a family might need years to set aside enough savings to buy land.
Under the Homestead Act, fees came to only $18, and that was not even due all at once. The settler had only to “prove” the plot – build some sort of home, and work the land for five years.
Newcomers settled thousands of homesteads within just a few years, and around a million within a half century. So, in that sense, the Act was successful. However, opportunists inflicted much abuse under the law. (A whole story in itself.) Some of that abuse hit forested public lands, which were already under assault. Timber pirates routinely found ways to clear cut forests, take their money, and run.
The Homestead Act allowed them to give a semblance of legality to their depredations. They paid the fees for a whole host of “settlers,” who then filed for homesteads. Besides “improving” their properties, the settlers could work for the timber company for as long as the trees lasted.
With these and their other tactics, big timber companies had razed vast expanses of forest in the East and Midwest. To combat them, in 1891 Congress authorized the President to set aside "forest reserves" encompassing tracts in the public domain [blog, Feb 1]. However, lack of any regulatory guidance or budget made the law "ineffectual" at managing the reserves.
 |
| Boise National Forest. U.S. Forest Service photo. |
Worse yet, placing those lands legally off-limits for "beneficial use" annoyed locals who depended upon them for their livelihood. As a result, they often connived with lumber companies to circumvent the reserve provisions.
The 1897 law clarified the conditions under which a reserve could be established. Thus, the legislation declared that it was "not the purpose or intent of these provisions" to tie up acreage that was more valuable as farmland or for its mineral resources. Moreover, one specific goal was "to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States."
Although there would be some further "bumps in the road," the amendment initiated the development of effective methods for managing the nation's forests.
| References: [French], [Hawley] |
| Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, Oxford University Press, New York (1965). |
| Harold K. Steen, The U. S. Forest Service: A History, University of Washington Press (1976). |