[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 11353-11356]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 11353]]

  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK GREEN

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 15, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4578) making 
     appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
     for other purposes:

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following 
resolutions for the Record.

       Whereas, our National Forests were established in the 
     1920's for multiple use including soil and water protection, 
     recreation, and timber production, and;
       Whereas, harvesting is an integral component of multiple-
     use management of forest lands, and;
       Whereas, it is not in the best interest of sustainable 
     ecosystem management to ban commercial logging on National 
     Forests, and;
       Whereas, the health of adjoining private and other public 
     forest lands would be in jeopardy if National Forest lands 
     were allowed to become overstocked and subject to insect and 
     disease infestations, and unnecessary fuel build-up were 
     allowed to create the potential for disastrous wild fires, 
     and;
       Whereas, timber harvested on the National Forests is vital 
     to many local and regional economies, including that of Vilas 
     County, and;
       Whereas, Whereas, Wisconsin's National Forests are not 
     producing below cost timber sales and are not virgin forests, 
     and;
       Whereas, there would be an increase in pressure to harvest 
     County Forest Lands and private lands in the area if 
     harvesting ceases on the National Forests within the state, 
     and;
       Whereas, the State Forester of Wisconsin is also opposed to 
     the halting of commercial logging on National Forests.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Vilas County Board 
     of Supervisors is opposed to the National Forest Restoration 
     Act and other legislative proposals which propose halting 
     commercial logging on the National Forests.
       Be it further resolved, That copies of this resolution be 
     forwarded to the Governor, to Wisconsin's Representatives and 
     Senators in the United States Congress, George Meyer, 
     Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, Gene 
     Francisco, State Forester, the Wisconsin County Forests 
     Association, and the President of the United States.
       Respectfully submitted by: Vilas County Forestry, 
     Recreation, & Land Committee.

                                  ____
                                  

                          Resolution No. 14-00

       Whereas, the counties of Wisconsin support sound forest 
     management policies, which assure that the National Forests 
     of Wisconsin are available for multiple uses such as 
     recreation, logging, and the protection of wildlife, and
       Whereas, when the Federal Government created the 
     Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests, they promised the 
     forests would be made available for multiple uses by the 
     people of Wisconsin and
       Whereas, President Clinton and the National Forest Service 
     have recently proposed the Roadless initiative, which would 
     place up to 74,000 acres of the Nicolet and Chequamegon 
     Forests of limits to logging and motorized recreation, and
       Whereas, This program, along with other restrictions 
     already placed on the national Forests will have an adverse 
     effect on the economy of the entire state, and
       Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Counties 
     Association (WCA), have unanimously passed a resolution 
     stating vehement opposition to the Roadless plan, and
       Whereas, the National Forest Service is currently revising 
     its Land and Resource Management Plan, which could place even 
     more restrictions on use and access of the National Forests, 
     and
       Whereas, the National Forest Resource Committee, made up of 
     concerned parties from around the Great Lakes Region, led by 
     WCA and including logging companies, recreation enthusiasts, 
     policy makers and others, has been formed to fight against 
     further restrictions on use of the National Forests.
       Therefore be it resolved, That the Oconto County Board of 
     supervisors does hereby:
       1. Oppose programs such as the Roadless Initiative that 
     place unwanted and unnecessary restrictions on use and access 
     of the National Forests, and
       2. Advocate a new Land and Resource Management Plan which 
     would rollback several costly, unnecessary restrictions on 
     National Forest use and access, and
       3. Support the efforts of the National Forest Resource 
     Committee in its fight to ensure that such goals are met.
       Be it further resolved, That a copy of this resolution be 
     forwarded to the Wisconsin Counties Association, the 
     Governor, the U.S. Congressman who represents Oconto County, 
     and U.S. Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl.

                                  ____
                                  

                               Resolution

       Whereas, the counties of Wisconsin support sound forest 
     management policies, which assure that the National Forests 
     of Wisconsin are available for multiple uses such as 
     recreation, logging, and the protection of wildlife; and
       Whereas, when the Federal Government created the 
     Chequamegon and Nicolet National forests, they promised the 
     forests would be made available for multiple uses by the 
     people of Wisconsin; and
       Whereas, President Clinton and the National Forest Service 
     have recently proposed the Roadless Initiative, which would 
     place up to 74,000 acres of the Nicolet and Chequamegon 
     Forests off-limit to logging and motorized recreation; and
       Whereas, this program, along with other restrictions 
     already placed on the National Forests, will have an adverse 
     effect on the economy of the entire state; and
       Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Counties 
     Association (WCA), have unanimously passed a resolution 
     stating vehement opposition to the Roadless Plan; and
       Whereas, the National Forest Service is currently revising 
     its Land and Resource Management Plan, which could place even 
     more restrictions on use and access of the National Forests; 
     and
       Whereas, the National Forest Resource Committee, made up of 
     concerned parties from around the Great Lakes Region, led by 
     WCA and including logging companies, recreation enthusiasts, 
     policy-makers and others, has been formed to fight against 
     further restrictions on use of the National Forests.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Forest County 
     Board of Supervisors does hereby:
       1. adamantly oppose programs such as the Roadless 
     Initiative that place unwanted and unnecessary restrictions 
     on use and access of the National Forest use and access; and
       2. advocate a new Land and Resources Management Plan which 
     would roll back several costly, unnecessary restrictions on 
     National Forest use and access; and
       3. support the efforts of the National Forest Resource 
     Committee in its fight to ensure that such goals are met.
       Be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be 
     forwarded to the Wisconsin Counties Association, the 
     Governor, Congressman Mark Green, and U.S. Senators Russ 
     Feingold and Herb Kohl.
                                  ____


                               Resolution

       Whereas, the United States Forest Service is in the process 
     of developing their Forest Plan Revision with respect to the 
     Ten Year Plan for use of the Nicolet National Forest; and
       Whereas, a significant portion of all management 
     alternatives proposed for the national forest land based in 
     Forest County is allocated for research and restrictive use 
     in all of the alternatives of the plan that are presently 
     being developed; and
       Whereas, the Forest County economy and recreational 
     activities depend upon use of the national forest; and
       Whereas, the proposed Ten Year Plan will result in more 
     land going into restrictive use, non-motorized use, of 
     wilderness areas; and
       Whereas, Forest County objects to the allocation of any 
     more land going into such limited uses; and
       Whereas, heretofore, when land was purchased from Forest 
     County by the Forest Service, it was represented by said 
     Forest Service that the land to be purchased was to be 
     utilized for timber production as well as other multiple 
     uses. The proposed Ten Year Plan varies considerably from 
     such representations; and
       Whereas, Florence County has adopted a similar Resolution 
     objecting to the present revisions of the Nicolet Forest Ten 
     Year Plan; and
       Whereas, it is appropriate for the Forest County Board of 
     Supervisors to object to the proposed revisions in the Ten 
     Year Plan with respect to the Nicolet National Forest.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Forest County Board 
     of Supervisors, That said Board strenuously objects to any 
     land under Federal ownership being used for anything other 
     than multiple use and management for timber production.
       Be it further resolved, That a true and correct copy of 
     this Resolution, upon its adoption, shall be forwarded by the 
     County Clerk to appropriate representatives of the United 
     States Forest Service so that Forest County's position on the 
     matter can be made known.

                                  ____
                                  

                         Resolution No. 41-2000

       Whereas, the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests are 
     two large public forests

[[Page 11354]]

     of great interest and concern to the residents of northern 
     Wisconsin, including those of Oneida County, and
       Whereas, these Forests provide forest products, 
     recreational opportunities, clean air and water, and scenic 
     beauty to said residents, and
       Whereas, the Nicolet and Chequamegon are currently going 
     through a planning process which will dictate their future 
     management policies and objectives, and
       Whereas, there are several initiatives emanating from 
     sources outside northern Wisconsin which are attempting to 
     sway the planning process and thereby the future management 
     of the forests to include large roadless areas and to 
     eliminate commercial harvesting of forest products, and
       Whereas, these proposals would negatively impact the 
     economy of Northern Wisconsin and the ability of both the 
     residents and visitors to Northern Wisconsin to travel 
     through and enjoy these National Forests, and
       Whereas, when the Federal government sought to purchase the 
     lands for these forests in the early part of the 20th century 
     it made an agreement with the local governments that these 
     lands would provide stability for the local economy through 
     sound resource management, and
       Whereas, by locking up large areas of the forest and 
     thereby curtailing the recreational potential and the 
     production of forest products, this promise would be broken, 
     and
       Whereas, roadless areas also prevent the forest from being 
     protected from the dangers of fire and large tracts of 
     overmature timber are subject to disease and insect 
     outbreaks, so
       Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Oneida County 
     Board of Supervisors go on record in support of the 
     production of forest products from the National Forests in a 
     sustainable forestry initiative in conjunction with the 
     concept of multiple use management, and
       Be it further resolved, That the Oneida County Board of 
     Supervisors go on record in opposition of roadless area 
     initiatives which preclude citizens reasonable access to the 
     recreational and aesthetic amenities of their forest, and
       Be it further resolved, That this resolution be forwarded 
     to United States Forest Service, U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, U.S. 
     Senator Russ Feingold, U.S. Representative Dave Obey, U.S. 
     Representative Mark Green, State Senator Roger Breske, State 
     Representative Joe Handrick, State Representative Lorraine 
     Seratti, Wisconsin D.N.R. Secretary George Meyer and the 
     Wisconsin County Forests Association.

                                  ____
                                  

[From the Chequamegon Nicolet Chapter, Local 2165, National Federation 
of Federal Employees, International Assoc. of Machinists and Aerospace 
                                Workers]

                     Roadless Initiative Opposition

       Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest employees ask that 
     Wisconsin forests be excluded from the ``Roadless 
     Conservation'' plan from Washington.
       Employees say the Draft EIS is flawed, greatly 
     underestimates detrimental economic impact and fails to 
     specify any beneficial environmental impact.
       Call Art Johnson at 715-762-5112 for more information.


                               Resolution

       Whereas, The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest has only 5 
     miles of road building, but 55 miles of road obliteration per 
     year.
       Whereas, The Chequamegon-Nicolet road system has not been a 
     major public concern on the Chequamegon-Nicolet.
       Whereas, The Chequamegon-Nicolet wilderness areas are 
     important, but are underutilized and make up only 1% of the 
     recreational use of the Forests.
       Whereas, The Chequamegon-Nicolet's recent Notice of Intent 
     to revise the Management Plan did not identify roadless areas 
     as a topic.
       Whereas, The Draft EIS of the Proposed Roadless 
     Conservation plan from Washington does not identify nor 
     analyze beneficial or detrimental impacts on timber, 
     economies, recreation, or ecosystem protection on the 
     Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, as required by NEPA and 
     40 CFR 1500-08.
       Whereas, The negative impact on timber sales will cause an 
     estimated job loss of 75 local jobs per year and an economic 
     loss of nearly $75 million to Wisconsin's economy, the 
     cumulative impacts will be much greater.
       Whereas, The Union is concerned about the loss of jobs; and 
     concerned about a lack of relevant, specific information in 
     the Draft EIS;
       Therefore, The Union suggests that the Chequamegon-Nicolet 
     National Forest be eliminated from the proposed Roadless 
     Conservation plan and that these issues be analyzed by the 
     ongoing revision of the Forest Management Plan.
       Passed unanimously at the May 18 membership meeting.

                                  ____
                                  

  [From Forestry in Wisconsin--A New Outlook, Official Report of the 
Wisconsin Commercial Forestry Conference Held at Milwaukee, March 1928]

                Federal Activities in Wisconsin Forestry

 (By L.F. Kneipp, Asst. Chief Forester, U.S.F.S., Washington, DC, 1928)

       The present Federal forestry activities affecting Wisconsin 
     consist of: Silvicultural Research (Lake States Forest 
     Experiment Station, St. Paul) and Forest Products Research 
     (Forest Products Laboratory, Madison). Taxation studies and 
     co-operation in fire control, educational activities and 
     planting is also being conducted. Establishment of a National 
     Forest.
       Establishment of a National Forest.--The redemption of the 
     lost provinces of forestry, i.e. the 81 million acres of now 
     unproductive lands, presents special and peculiar problems, 
     for on these lands new forests, in large degree, must be 
     built from the ground up by heavy initial investments which 
     for long periods of time will produce little or no cash 
     returns. To permit of Federal co-operation in this work of 
     forest reclamation the Clarke-McNary Law provides that with 
     the prior consent of the state, lands may be purchased by the 
     Federal government and permanently administered as national 
     forests. This provision is an extension of an elaboration of 
     the so-called Weeks' Law under which the United States has 
     purchased almost three million acres of land in the 
     Appalachian chain from New Hampshire to Alabama.
       The purpose of the United States in buying these lands is 
     to restore them to a condition of maximum forest productivity 
     by intensive management, planting, fire protection, etc.; to 
     make them sources of permanent timber supply and bases for 
     permanent wood-using industries and communities. As these 
     processes go forward research and experimentation will 
     develop and eventually the areas will be concrete 
     demonstrations of the best principles and methods of forest 
     management and thus examples to other owners of forest lands. 
     There is no selfish purpose in this proposal, no cleverly 
     concealed invasion of state powers, but solely a desire to 
     contribute toward the solution of a problem of national 
     concern which in some states is so staggering in its 
     proportions that the probable maximum effort by the states 
     and its citizens will only partially alleviate the situation.
       The field of Federal forest ownership is found in those 
     parts of the lost provinces which offer little or no prospect 
     of private action or of county or state action. If private 
     initiative or county or state initiative is able adequately 
     to cope with the situation, there is no need for Federal 
     intervention. If, however, neither private, county, or state 
     agencies are prepared to carry out the necessary and 
     desirable steps then there is room for effective 
     participation by the Federal government.
       Wisconsin has its lost provinces of forestry in abundant 
     measure. The estimated area of depleted and unproductive land 
     seems to be not far from 10 million acres of which most is 
     situated in a roughly triangular area based on the north 
     boundary of the state and within which the acreage of 
     improved farm land is at a minimum. There was a time when 
     these lands supported a wealth of timber that was one of the 
     glories of the state, but only pitiful remnants of that 
     wealth remain today and little is being done to effectively 
     replace it.
       Nevertheless, these lands are a great potential source of 
     wealth and social service. Their capacity to produce timber 
     has been demonstrated and is unquestioned. They lie in 
     relatively close proximity to what eventually will be 
     probably the greatest timber consuming center of the nation. 
     Developed as forests they will afford the means for outdoor 
     recreation for which there will be increasing need as the 
     population multiplies and the strains of modern existence 
     increase. To the State of Wisconsin these lands are both a 
     challenge and an opportunity.
       Under the provisions of the Clarke-McNary Act a program of 
     forest land purchases has been evolved which provides roughly 
     for the acquisition of approximately two million, five 
     hundred thousand acres in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, 
     and Wisconsin. The so-called Woodruff-McNary Bill, which has 
     passed both houses of Congress and may by this time have 
     become a law, establishes a fiscal policy for carrying out 
     this program.
       The act of consent of the State of Wisconsin establishes a 
     maximum area of 500,000 acres and requires in addition the 
     consent and concurrence not only of the Governor, the 
     Director of the Conservation Commission, and the Commissioner 
     of Public Lands, but that of the county commissioners of the 
     counties in which purchases are to be made as well. The 
     determination of the extent to which Federal ownership of 
     forest lands would be desirable in Wisconsin rests therefore 
     with the state and county officials.
       Preliminary and rather superficial studies have shown that 
     in Wisconsin there are at least six areas within the 
     provisions and purposes of the Clarke-McNary Law could be 
     made fully effective. These are as follows:
       1. An area of approximately 200,000 acres in Forest, 
     Oneida, and Vilas Counties of which part is on the drainage 
     of the Wisconsin River and where white pine, hemlock, and 
     hardwoods are important types.
       2. An area of approximately 150,000 acres situated in the 
     extreme northeast corner of Price County with possible minor 
     extensions into Iron County or Oneida County. This

[[Page 11355]]

     area is on the drainange of the Flambeau River and was at one 
     time characterized by excellent stands of white pine, 
     hemlock, and hardwoods.
       3. An area of approximately 150,000 acres in Peshtigo and 
     Oconto Counties principally of sandy plains type and 
     supporting a typical pine stand.
       4. An area of virtually denuded land, perhaps 100,000 acres 
     in extent, situated in Bayfield County between Moqua and Iron 
     River.
       5. An area of approximately 100,000 acres situated in the 
     eastern parts of Jackson and Monroe Counties. Primarily of 
     the sandy plains type.
       6. An area of approximately 150,000 acres lying diagonally 
     across the southeastern corner of Douglas County and 
     northwestern corner of Washburn County and the northeastern 
     corner of Burnett County.
       Only one of these areas has as yet been definitely proposed 
     by the Federal government. That is the one in Forest, Oneida, 
     and Vilas Counties and thus far the consent of Forest County 
     has not been secured. As to the others, they are merely 
     possibilities.
       The foregoing sketches briefly the Federal forest policy as 
     laid down in the Clarke-McNary Act and financed in the 
     Woodruff-McNary Bill, and the possible applications of that 
     policy in a co-operative private, State, and Federal effort 
     to solve Wisconsin's idle land problem.
       The Lake States Forest Experiment Station is the Federal 
     Government's effort to create a body of dependable facts 
     about the growing and utilization of timber crops. The Forest 
     Service has already established 11 regional forest experiment 
     stations, including the Lake States Station at St. Paul. The 
     activities of the Station extend to Wisconsin, Michigan and 
     Minnesota. Its task is not unlike that of agricultural 
     experiment stations except that it deals with forest crops 
     instead of agricultural crops. It carriers on investigations 
     into the nature of the different kinds of forests found in 
     the region, their adaptability to certain soils, their growth 
     and yield, and methods of securing their re-growth after 
     cutting; it studies forest fires, their occurrences, causes 
     and factors controlling their spread; it studies methods for 
     planting up land that does no come up naturally to forest--
     from the collection of seed and raising forest nursery stock 
     to planting out under conditions most adapted for the success 
     of the plantations; it is co-operating with the College of 
     Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin, particularly in a 
     thorough understanding of the forest fire situation in the 
     state, and in determining the growth that takes place in the 
     hardwood hemlock forests after selective logging.
       The Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, operated by the 
     U.S. Forest Service in co-operation with the University of 
     Wisconsin, is a national institution but is performing much 
     research of direct importance to Wisconsin forestry. The 
     Laboratory's function in a broad way is to so improve the 
     processes of forest utilization that the full use-value of 
     wood is realized. The three main phases of the Laboratory's 
     research program consist in determining the physical and 
     chemical properties of the many native species of woods, 
     finding the requirements of various uses in terms of these 
     wood properties, and adapting the one to the other as far as 
     possible through scientific manipulation of growth and 
     manufacturing processes. It is conducting experiments to 
     develop better designs of wood products, better kiln drying 
     and air seasoning methods, better preservative treatments, 
     and better wood glues and fastenings; and it is carrying on 
     studies to improve methods of manufacturing pulp and paper 
     from wood and methods of logging, milling and lumber grading.
       While the number of research units is nearly adequate, the 
     present amount and stability of their appropriations is quite 
     inadequate to deliver all the facts on which to build a 
     complete forest policy. Hence the McSweeney-McNary Bill, now 
     pending in Congress. This bill aims to do for forestry 
     research what the Clarke-McNary Act is already doing for 
     forest protection and administration, namely, to lay down an 
     adequate program for the next ten years and to provide for 
     its execution in co-operation with all agencies concerned.
                                  ____


         Historical Development of the Nicolet National Forest

                          (By J. Terry Moore)

       ``National Forests exist today because the people want 
     them. To make them accomplish the most good the people 
     themselves must make clear how they want them run. Gifford 
     Pinchot in Use of the National Forests. May 1907.''--
       The birth of Wisconsin's first national forest was no easy 
     task. The process required a lengthy series of approvals at 
     the federal, state, and local levels before the purchase of 
     land could even begin. One rejection could have derailed the 
     process. This paper focuses on the events leading to the 
     establishment of the original purchase unit that eventually 
     became the Nicolet National Forest, with some attention given 
     to the people who made things happen. The time period covered 
     is from summer 1927 through the end of 1928. The sources of 
     information are the files of The Rhinelander Daily News, The 
     Forest County Republican, The Vilas County News Review, the 
     records of Forest, Oneida, and Vilas counties, the Forest 
     Service, and the Marathon County Historical Society, curators 
     of the personal papers of J.D. Mylrea, President of the 
     Thunder Lake Lumber Co.
       Authority for establishing National Forests by purchase of 
     land comes from the Act of March 1, 1911 commonly known as 
     the Weeks Act. When passed the Weeks Act stated that no land 
     could be purchased ``until the legislature of the State in 
     which the land lies shall have consented to the acquisition 
     of such land by the United States for the purpose of 
     preserving the navigability of navigable streams.'' This was 
     known as enabling legislation and gave the states latitude to 
     set conditions on the size or approval process for purchase 
     areas. The Weeks Act was later modified by the passage of the 
     Clark-McNary Act (June 7, 1924) which authorized purchase 
     land for National Forests when such lands would promote a 
     future timber supply. Citing the Clark-McNary authority, the 
     Wisconsin legislature enacted legislation on June 26, 1925, 
     empowering the United States to acquire land, not exceeding 
     100,000 acres, for the establishment of a national forest. 
     The legislation required ``that any tract or tracts so 
     selected shall be first approved by the governor, the 
     commissioners of public lands, and the conservation 
     commissioner.'' In June of 1927 the state's legislation was 
     amended authorizing an additional 400,000 acres of purchase 
     bringing the total to 500,000 acres. Two additional changes 
     were made. The original language requiring approval of each 
     tract was changed by substituting the words ``boundaries of 
     any area so selected'' for the statement ``any tract or 
     tracts so selected''. A new requirement that any ``areas so 
     selected be approved by the county boards of each of the 
     counties in which lands were to be purchased'', was added.
       The Legislative actions by the Federal and State 
     governments set the stage for the Forest Service to advance a 
     proposal to establish a ``purchase unit'', the term applied 
     to the areas selected and approved per the enabling 
     legislation. According to an article in The Rhinelander Daily 
     News, November 10, 1927, Colonel W.B. Greeley, then Chief of 
     the Forest Service was in Madison to confer with L.B. Nagler, 
     Wisconsin Conservation Director, on the proposal to establish 
     a 500,000 acre purchase in Forest, Oneida, and Vilas 
     counties. The articles also stated that representatives of 
     the Forest Service would be contacting the three county 
     boards to determine their position on the proposed purchase 
     unit.
       The November 11, 1927 issue of the Rhinelander Daily News 
     contained an editorial reporting that the proposed purchase 
     unit had received the full support of the Forest Service, the 
     State Conservation Commission, and the Governor of Wisconsin. 
     The editorial supported the proposal and urged the three 
     county boards to approve the action during their annual 
     meetings scheduled for the next week.
       ``If approved by the county boards, the action will be a 
     long step forward in the reforestation program. The Federal 
     government will buy worthless land, good only for forestry, 
     from the present owners. When merchantable timber is 
     produced, it will be cut and sold and a large part of the 
     proceeds will be turned back to the town in which the land is 
     located.''
       The editorial recognized one negative factor, that the land 
     would not produce income while the forest was being restored 
     but The Rhinelander Daily News did not view this as a valid 
     objection, however, because the cut-over lands were going tax 
     delinquent and the counties would lose revenue in either 
     case.
       On November 16, 1927, E.W. Tinker who was then a Forest 
     Service lands assistant in the Denver, Region 2 office and 
     Crosby Hoar of the Superior National Forest in Duluth, 
     Minnesota arrived in Rhinelander to discuss the proposal with 
     the Forests, Oneida, and Vilas County boards during their 
     annual meetings. Tinker and Hoar appeared before the Oneida 
     board in the morning and the Vilas board in the afternoon of 
     the same day. Their reception was enthusiastic, and both 
     boards quickly passed resolutions approving the purchase unit 
     under a suspension of the normal rules of procedure. Later in 
     the week Tinker and Hoar addressed the Forest County Board, 
     but were not successful, as the Forest County Board tabled 
     the motion for further consideration.
       An editorial in the November 27, 1928, issue of The 
     Rhinelander Daily News reported that Forest county withheld 
     action on the proposed forest reserve on the advice of C.L. 
     Harrington, Superintendent of Forestry of the State 
     Conservation Commission. Harrington advised the board that 
     approval of the federal proposal would remove lands from the 
     tax base forever because the federal government had no funds 
     to implement management on the acquired lands. Mr. Harrington 
     also objected to the action on the basis that it would 
     delegate to the federal government a program which belonged 
     properly to the state. The editorial agreed in part that 
     there would be a period of loss of income while the lands 
     were restored, but strongly supported the action taken by the 
     Oneida County Board. The editorial concluded with a request 
     to Mr. Harrington ``refrain from misleading the people of 
     northern

[[Page 11356]]

     Wisconsin who have an opportunity to get the cut-over lands 
     back into their best use--forestry.''
       An editorial in the November 29, 1927 issue of The 
     Rhinelander Daily News states that the paper had received 
     dispatches from Madison to the effect that the State 
     Conservation Commission was heartily in favor of the proposed 
     federal forest reserve. The editorial said that the message 
     from Madison could ``be interpreted in no other fashion than 
     that which indicates the commission's displeasure with the 
     activities of C.L. Harrington in appearing before the Forest 
     County Board.'' The Daily News editorial also cited an 
     editorial from the Antigo Journal which states:
       ``The Antigo Journal urges Forest county to convene in 
     special session and cancel their former action and to act 
     favorably on the matter. Langlade county will join in on the 
     forest project when they are asked, but Langlade county had 
     not been contacted by the forest service. The Journal 
     supports the proposed forest based on future values of the 
     land 25 to 30 years hence.''
       In tabling the issue of a federal forest, the Forest County 
     Board did not dismiss the idea out of hand. In later meetings 
     they agreed to discuss the matter further at the February 
     1928 board meeting. That discussion resulted in two 
     significant actions. First that the question of a federal 
     forest would be put to a county wide referendum at the spring 
     elections scheduled for April 3, 1928; and second that the 
     county board would sponsor a public information meeting on 
     the issue prior to the election.
       The March 15, 1928 edition of The Forest County Republican 
     reported the substance of the public meeting held March 14, 
     1928, at the Court House in Crandon, Wisconsin. Representing 
     the Forest Service were L.A. Kneipp, Assistant Chief Forester 
     from Washington, D.C., and E.W. Tinker from the Denver, 
     Colorado Region 2 office, that at that time, had 
     responsibility for Forest Service activities in the Lakes 
     States area. The State of Wisconsin was represented by O.C. 
     Lemke, Wausau, Wisconsin, a member of the Wisconsin 
     Conservation Commission; Col. L.B. Nagler, Conservation 
     Director, Madison, Wisconsin, and C.L. Harrington, Wisconsin 
     Chief Forester, Madison, Wisconsin. Numerous county board 
     officials were present as well as citizens from Antigo, 
     Rhinelander, and Park Falls, Wisconsin. The article 
     specifically notes that the representatives from Park Falls 
     were present as part ``of a move to get this proposed 
     national forest established in Price county, in case the 
     voters of Forest county turned down the proposition.''
       At the completion of the public meeting the fate of the 
     future Nicolet National Forest rested with the voters of 
     Forest County. This position was highlighted in an editorial 
     appearing in The Forest Republican, March 29, 1928.
       ``There are several counties in the state who only wish 
     that the voters of Forest county will turn down the proposed 
     proposition so that they will get a chance to secure this 
     forest reserve for their county. The Forest Republican 
     believes that if we turn it down and the reserve goes to some 
     other county; we will regret it later when the benefits begin 
     to accrue to the counties entertaining it.''
       On April 3, 1928, the voters of Forest county approved the 
     establishment of a purchase unit in Forest County. The 
     referendum passed in all precincts in the county with the 
     exception of the town of Alvin. At the May 2, 1928 county 
     board meeting, the Forest County Board voted unanimously to 
     approve the federal forest reserve. The board approved a 
     purchase unit as proposed, except it did not include any of 
     the proposed purchase area within the town of Alvin. Forest 
     County action led to establishment of a three county purchase 
     unit encompassing approximately 148,480 acres within the 
     boundary proposed by the Forest Service.
       While Forest County action appeared to be the last approval 
     required to advance the proposal to the National Forest 
     Reservation Commission in Washington, D.C., for final 
     approval, one more hurdle appeared at the last moment. The 
     state's legislation authorized the State Land Commission, 
     composed of the state treasurer, secretary of state, and 
     attorney general, to ``sell and convey for a fair 
     consideration to the United States any state land within such 
     areas'' (i.e. State School Trust Lands). An article in the 
     May 17, 1928, Rhinelander Daily News reported that the State 
     Land Commission had refused to approve the plan for national 
     forest lands in Wisconsin. The article reported that the 
     objection was based on a concern that some of the state lands 
     secured loans to school districts in each of the counties. 
     While the objection of the land commission was not reported 
     as final, the delay was enough to prevent the proposed 
     purchase unit from coming before the National Forest 
     Reservation Commission's May meeting. Since the National 
     Forest Reservation Commission met only twice per year, in May 
     and December, the last minute objection effectively delayed 
     the proposal.
       Six days later, The Rhinelander Daily News reported that 
     the State Land Commission approved federal forest areas in 
     Bayfield, Forest, Oneida, Price, and Vilas counties. The Land 
     Commission adopted a position accepting the plan for federal 
     forests, but specified that lands securing loans in the 
     forest area would not be included in the transfer to the 
     federal government. The Daily News report concluded with the 
     statement that Colonel Nagler, director of conservation, 
     telegraphed to the federal forest body that the land 
     commission had approved the transfer.
       On December 12, 1928, the National Forest Reservation 
     Commission approved the establishment of the Oneida Purchase 
     Unit, consisting of approximately 148,480 acres (or 232 
     square miles) in Forest, Oneida, and Vilas counties under 
     authority of Section 6 of the Clark-McNary Act. The reasons 
     for acquisition were stated as: ``(a) Timber production; (b) 
     determination and demonstration of best principles of forest 
     management in the region; (c) stabilization of waterflow.''
       My conclusions drawn from this history are that the Nicolet 
     and Chequamegon National Forests exist in Wisconsin today 
     because of the support of the people in the counties where 
     the forests are located. Three factors influenced my 
     findings: (1) The process for approval of the original 
     purchase units placed the ultimate approval authority in the 
     hands of local officials, i.e. the county boards; (2) While 
     there was some opposition at the local level, the majority 
     opinion not only endorsed the idea of national forests, but 
     had counties actively competing for the opportunity to have 
     portions of the authorized 500,000 acres of forest purchase 
     located within their counties; (3) Local supporters were 
     motivated by the belief that the long term economic gains 
     that would result from the federal government's acquisition, 
     restoration, and management of the ``cut-over'' lands would 
     exceed the short term losses of a reduced county tax base, or 
     any of the alternative management strategies then proposed 
     for the cut-over lands.

     

                          ____________________