Gifford Pinchot: Vroeë Amerikaanse natuurbewaarder

Gifford Pinchot: Vroeë Amerikaanse natuurbewaarder


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Gifford Pinchot (uitgespreek pin-sho) is gebore in sy gesin se somerhuis in Simsbury, Connecticut. Hy het gereeld saam met sy ouers na die buiteland gereis en is opgelei aan die Phillips Exeter Academy en in Yale. Pinchot keer in 1891 terug na die Verenigde State, angstig om sy kennis prakties te gebruik.Gifford Pinchot werk aanvanklik as 'n bosmeter, en het later daarin geslaag om werk te kry by George Vanderbilt se reuse Biltmore -landgoed buite Asheville, Noord -Carolina. Hy word in 1898 hoof van die Afdeling Bosbou en word onder president Theodore Roosevelt aangewys as die hoofbeampte van die hergedefinieerde Amerikaanse Bosdiens. Hy het 'n goeie vriend en medewerker van TR geword en sy leidende beginsel in die praktyk toegepas dat woude hout kan produseer en tog in stand gehou kan word vir die plesier van toekomstige geslagte.Gifford Pinchot bly op sy pos toe William Howard Taft president word. Pinchot het betrokke geraak by 'n wyd gepubliseerde geskil met Richard Ballinger, sekretaris van die ministerie van binnelandse sake, wat tot gevolg gehad het dat Taft ontslaan is. Pinchot verwelkom die afdanking omdat dit 'n groot openbare ondersoek oor boskwessies toespits. Gifford Pinchot het in 1910 begin en nog 15 jaar lank voortgegaan as president van die National Conservation Association, 'n organisasie wat hy persoonlik befonds het om 'n waghond te wees oor die ontwikkeling van openbare lande. en om die oordrag van openbare gronde na die state teen te staan. Gifford Pinchot ondersteun Roosevelt en die Progressive Party in 1912. Hy beywer hom hard vir 'n paar van die meer radikale planke in die Bull Moose -platform - werkloosheidsvergoeding en gelyke betaling vir vroulike werkers. In 1914 , Pinchot het 'n onsuksesvolle veldtog as 'n progressiewe kandidaat vir die goewerneurskap van Pennsylvania gevoer. Tydens die wedstryd trou hy met Cornelia Bryce, die dogter van 'n vooraanstaande en welgestelde gesin, wat 'n vurige voorstander was van vrouestemreg, geboortebeperking en hervorming van kinderarbeid. Sy sou later drie keer vir die kongres en een keer vir die goewerneur van Pennsylvania hardloop, sonder sukses. Pinchot was, net soos Roosevelt, 'n kritikus van Woodrow Wilson se neutraliteitspogings, maar het 'n sterk voorstander geword van die Amerikaanse oorlogspoging in 1917. In 1922, Gifford Pinchot is tot goewerneur van Pennsilvanië verkies en het 'n vooraanstaande, as omstrede rekord. Pinchot het 'n kans om homself op te volg, gesoek na 'n senaatsitplek en verloor. Gifford Pinchot word in 1930 herkies as goewerneur en staan ​​voor uitdagings wat die depressie bied. Pinchot sou later nie in die bod vir die senaat en die stoel van die goewerneur slaag nie. Gedurende die Tweede Wêreldoorlog het Gifford Pinchot 'n visvanguitlewingspak ontwikkel vir vlootpersoneel wat op see dryf. Sy verslag oor sy bosbouervarings, Nuwe baan, is postuum gepubliseer in 1947. Gifford Pinchot was die eerste professioneel opgeleide bosbouer in die Verenigde State. Sy samewerking met Roosevelt was instrumenteel in die stigting van 'n bewaringsbeweging. Oor die bydrae van Pinchot, het TR gesê: "... onder die vele baie amptenare wat onder my administrasie letterlik van onskatbare waarde aan die mense van die Verenigde State gelewer het, staan ​​Gifford Pinchot in die geheel eerste." Gifford Pinchot het 'n tweede loopbaan as 'n progressiewe politikus wat gekenmerk word deur verskillende mate van sukses. Hy is op 4 Oktober 1946 op 81 -jarige ouderdom oorlede.


Amerikaanse bewaring in die twintigste eeu

Geel-keel Vireo sing aan die rand van 'n moeras in die Crane Neck Wildlife Management Area in Groveland, MA. Phil Brown, Flickr Creative Commons

Op nasionale vlak het omgewingshistorici drie belangrike historiese dele van bewaringsdenke en -aksie geïdentifiseer wat historiese fondamente vir die kontemporêre omgewingsbeweging gelê het. Dit is utilitaristiese bewaring (bestuur van natuurlike hulpbronne), bewaringsbewaring (die behoud van natuurskoon) en beskerming van die natuurlewe. Terwyl utilitaristiese en bewaringsargumente die 19de -eeuse oopruimtebewaringsinisiatiewe oorheers het, het die beskerming van wilde habitat in die 20ste eeu toenemend 'n motivering geword vir die beskerming van die oop ruimte.

Praktyke in die 19de eeu en toenemend gesofistikeerde ekologiese studies in die 20ste eeu het gelei tot inisiatiewe om die ekologiese habitat gedurende die 20ste eeu te bewaar. Vroeë federale, staats- en private inisiatiewe om woude te bewaar wat gedurende die 19de eeu begin is, het tot in die 20ste eeu voortgeduur. Baie van die beskermde oop ruimtes wat ons vandag het - en in groot mate die argumente wat ons steeds gebruik om natuurlike plekke te bewaar en te beskerm vir hul natuurskoon-, ontspannings- of habitatwaardes - is geërf van een of meer van hierdie drie tradisies .

'N Ander neiging is en is steeds die toenemende waardering van die noodsaaklikheid om historiese landskappe te erken en te beskerm as deel van die erfenis van die land, soos blyk uit die groter belangstelling om dit in die National Register of Historic Places te noteer. Baie is reeds in die nasionale register opgeneem.


Federale rol in progressiewe era Bosbewaringsinisiatiewe
Gifford Pinchot, hoof bosbouer tydens die administrasie van Theodore Roosevelt, het die gebruik van die term "bewaring" bevorder en 'n beroep gedoen op ondersteuning vir beginsels vir volhoubare opbrengs en die skep van 'n nasionale bosstelsel wat deur hierdie beginsels bestuur word. Hy en Roosevelt het ook 'n beroep gedoen op die uitbuiting van die land se gronde en minerale en aangevoer dat ongereguleerde private uitbuiting die veiligheid van die land op lang termyn bedreig. In die lig van sy utilitaristiese bewaringsbeginsels, het Pinchot gepoog vir die oordrag van die federale bosreservate van toesig van die Departement van Binnelandse Sake na die Departement van Landbou, wat in 1905 bereik is, met inagneming van die rede dat woude as 'n gewas bestuur moet word, met die doel om volgehoue ​​opbrengs (sny nie meer hout as wat u vervang nie). Die Forest Service se leer oor houtbestuur het 'n grondslag gelê vir die beginsels van die 20ste eeuse hulpbronbestuur van die Amerikaanse Bosdiens. Hulpbronne is bestuur vir veelvuldige gebruike, insluitend hout, wild, ontspanning, reeks en water. Sommige Amerikaanse Bosdiens het volgehoue ​​opbrengsbeleid, soos die uitreiking van weidingspermitte vir beplanting van beboste grond en die versuim om voldoende habitatbeskerming vir sommige bedreigde spesies daar te stel, was omstrede met natuurbewaarders wat hul habitatbeskerming bekommer (Merchant, 2002 Penick, 2001).

Bewaringsbewustes en bewaarders van progressiewe era skeur: konflik oor die Hetch Hetchy -dam
In die 19de eeu het ondersteuners van utilitaristiese bewarings- en bewaringsinisiatiewe gereeld saamgewerk aan inisiatiewe soos National Forest Conservation en waterskeidingbeskerming. Met verloop van tyd het verskille in filosofie egter spanning veroorsaak tussen bewaarders soos John Muir, wat die bewaring van skilderagtige wildernisgebiede bevoordeel het, en natuurbewaarders soos Gifford Pinchot, wat geglo het dat natuurlike hulpbronne bedoel is om gebruik te word. Die spanning het in 1909 tot 'n val gekom met 'n voorstel om die Tuolumne -rivier in Hetch Hetchy -vallei in die Yosemite Nasionale Park op te dam om 'n watertoevoer vir die stad San Francisco te skep. Gifford Pinchot was bevoorreg om die vallei op te dam, en John Muir en ander bewaarders was hewig teëgestaan. Uiteindelik is die dam goedgekeur en het Hetch Hetchy in 1913 'n reservoir geword.

Oprigting van die National Park Service
Ondersteuning vir 'n nuwe federale agentskap om nasionale parke te beskerm, het in 1916 gelei tot die stigting van die National Park Service. Die diens is ingestel om die bestaande nasionale parke, monumente en voorbehoude wat teen daardie tyd opsy gesit is vir natuur-, natuurskoon- en historiese waardes opsy te sit, en om te sorg dat dit vir die toekomstige geslagte ongeskonde is. Die aantal nasionale parke het teen die einde van die 20ste eeu tot meer as 350 gegroei. Debatte oor die bewaring van wildernisgebiede teenoor die ontwikkeling van natuurlike hulpbronne vir hout of water-en die skeiding tussen utilitaristiese en bewaringsperspektiewe-het gedurende die 20ste eeu in een of ander vorm voortgeduur, en op federale vlak word dit weerspieël in baie verskillende bestuursdoelwitte van die US Forest Service en National Park Service. Hierdie verskillende waardes het ook staats- en plaaslike inisiatiewe beïnvloed om woude (as hout of parkgrond) in 'n aantal state in die laat 19de en vroeë 20ste eeu te red.

Gifford Pinchot, hoof bosbouer tydens die administrasie van Theodore Roosevelt. Wikimedia Commons

Die federale rol in die 20ste eeu habitatbeskerming
Terwyl baie state wetgewing aangeneem het wat bedoel was om trekvoëls in die laaste jare van die 19de eeu te beskerm, was daar 'n toenemende bewustheid dat, weens die groot afstande wat voëls gereis het, nasionale en internasionale beskerming vereis word. Audubon -verenigings, sportmanne -organisasies en ander ondersteuners vir voëlbeskerming het toenemend geliefd geraak vir 'n sterk rol vir die federale regering in die beskerming van habitatte.

In 1900 het die Lacey Act die eerste federale wetgewing geword wat die versending van voëls wat in stryd was met staatswette, doodgemaak het. In 1903 het president Theodore Roosevelt die eerste federale natuurreservaat vir die beskerming van watervoëls, Pelican Island in Florida, gevestig. Teen die einde van die presidentskap van Theodore Roosevelt was meer as 50 bykomende toevlugsoorde gevestig. In 1913 het die ondertekening van die trekvogelverdrag die federale regering primêre jurisdiksie gegee oor trekvoëls, wat staatswette vervang. Met hierdie wet het die federale regering die hoofbeskermer van watervoëls geword.

In die 1920's was daar belangrike wetenskaplike studies deur Frederick Lincoln, 'n Amerikaanse wetenskaplike vir biologiese dienste, wat voëlbande gebruik het om die belangrikste trekvoëls in Noord- en Suid -Amerika te identifiseer. Hy het vier groot vliegbane geïdentifiseer wat oor dele van die Verenigde State beweeg. Hierdie kennis sou uiters belangrik word in latere pogings om die belangrikste trekvoëlhabitat in die VSA te beskerm

Ondanks beskermende pogings het die bevolking van watervoëls in die dertigerjare steeds afgeneem en sommige spesies tot uitsterwing gedryf. Teen 1934 was daar nog net 150 reiers oor en 14 krane. In 1934 het president Franklin Roosevelt 'n kommissie gestig om die herstel van wildlewe te bestudeer. Die natuurbewaarder en spotprenttekenaar "Ding" Darling en Aldo Leopold was twee van die lede. Darling het later 'n afspraak gekry om aan die hoof te staan ​​van die Buro vir Biologiese Opname. Industrialisering en verstedeliking, met die verlies aan habitat van vleilande, is as groot bydraers tot die verlies van voëlhabitat beskou. In sommige gevalle het federale projekte vir ander agentskappe bygedra tot die verlies van vleilande. Die Civilian Conservation Corps, wat byvoorbeeld in die depressie-era aan baie bewaringsverwante projekte gewerk het, was betrokke by vloedbeheer en dreineringsprogramme vir vleilande om nuwe landbougrond te skep. Die konflik in die federale beleid het gelei tot die Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act van 1934.

Die stigting van die Amerikaanse vis- en wilddiens in 1940 het die Buro vir Visserye (Departement van Handel) en die Buro vir Biologiese Opname (Departement van Landbou) saamgesmelt. Die nuwe Fish and Wildlife Service het 'n eenheid van die Departement van Binnelandse Sake geword met 'n mandaat om visse, wild en hul habitatte te bewaar, te beskerm en te verbeter. Die Diens hou toesig oor nasionale wildtuine en visbroeiers en ontwikkel herstelplanne vir bedreigde spesies.

Die National Wildlife Refuge System het sedert 1903 dramaties gegroei sedert die eerste National Wildlife Refuge op Pelican Island, Florida, gestig is. Daar is nou meer as 530 toevlugsoorde in die National Wildlife Refuge System, wat deur die Amerikaanse Fish and Wildlife Service geadministreer word, wat 93 miljoen hektaar land en water bied wat bedoel is vir die beskerming van wild en habitat. Die Amerikaanse National Wildlife Refuge System is die mees omvattende wildbestuurstelsel ter wêreld.

Bykomende bewarings- en beplanningskwessies in die 20ste eeu
Kwessies van toenemende kommer in die 20ste eeu sluit in suburbanisering en versplintering van wilde gebiede deur padbou, ontwikkelingspatrone wat ons nou 'uitbreiding' noem. Nuwe gereedskap vir stads- en streekbeplanning is in die eerste helfte van die eeu ontwikkel, insluitend sonering. Benton MacKaye se artikel uit 1921 wat 'n Appalachian Trail voorstel, was 'n inisiatief wat nie net 'n ontspanningsroete beoog nie, maar ook 'n ongeskonde wildernisband langs die Appalachian Ridge wat oostelike stedelike bevolkings kon bevat. Die ambisieuse idee van roetes wat deur vrywilligers gebou en onderhou moet word, was 'n voorbeeld van inisiatiewe uit die 20ste eeu wat toenemend streeksgewys was en dikwels komplekse samewerkingspogings behels. Oopruimte -inisiatiewe soos staatsbosbehoudinisiatiewe in baie state was gewild onder die publiek, maar kan tot meningsverskille lei oor die omvang van gepaste ontwikkeling - hoe maklik moet toegang tot wildernisgebiede wees? Moet lodges, ski -roetes en ander geriewe bygevoeg word, of het dit die natuurskoon of die habitat belemmer?

In 1935 het Aldo Leopold, Benton MacKaye, Robert Mitchell en ander met kommer oor die groeiende netwerk van snelweë wat tot voorheen ontoeganklike plekke gelei het, die Wilderness Society gestig. Die Wilderness Society het gesorg vir die goedkeuring van die Federal Wilderness Act (1964), wat die National Wilderness Preservation System gestig het. Hierdie stelsel het nou meer as 95 miljoen hektaar beskermde grond. Die Nature Conservancy, wat in 1951 gestig is, is georganiseer met die doel om die habitat te beskerm en het meer as 1500 reservate en meer as 9 miljoen hektaar in Noord -Amerika verkry.

President Lyndon B. Johnson onderteken die Wilderness Act, 3 September 1964. Wikimedia Commons

Erfenisse van die 1960's en 1970's Omgewingsbeweging
In die tweede helfte van die 20ste eeu het die openbare kommer toegeneem oor 'n wye verskeidenheid omgewingskwessies, wat baie verband hou met lewensgehalte. In stedelike gebiede het die giftige gevolge van besoedelde lug en water toenemende kommer veroorsaak. In voorstedelike gebiede het baie probleme ontstaan, insluitend die verlies aan natuurskoon en landelike karakter, fragmentasie van habitatte en die verspreiding van skadelike plaagdoders en ander chemiese besoedelstowwe. Bestaande bewaringsorganisasies het groter lidmate gekweek en nuwe groepe het ook ontstaan. Graswortelorganisasies begin dikwels met plaaslike aangeleenthede en brei later uit oor hul kommer. Hulle het gehelp om die publiek op te voed en het 'n beroep gedoen op wetgewing wat 'n wye verskeidenheid omgewingskwessies sal aanspreek. Plaaslike pleitgroepe vir voetsoolvlak word in stedelike en voorstedelike gebiede regoor die land gevorm en werk aan 'n verskeidenheid omgewingsprobleme in hul eie gebied. Grassroots -pogings het in 1970 saamgesmelt tot 'n sosiale beweging, met die hou van die eerste Aardedag. Gemeenskappe regoor die land is betrokke by omgewingsaktiwiteite.

Twee invloedryke boeke oor omgewingsdenke in die middel van die 20ste eeu was Rachel Carson se Silent Spring, wat in 1962 gepubliseer is, en Aldo Leopold se Sand County Almanac, wat in 1948 gepubliseer is. ander algemene plaagdoders op sowel wild as mense. In die Almanak van Sand County het Aldo Leopold deur middel van werk op sy eie eiendom gedemonstreer dat die herstel van erg erodeerde grond 'n gesonde wildlewe skep. Die wetenskap van ekologie het nuwe kennis gegee van die vereistes vir die habitat van wildlewe en die gevare van fragmentasie van habitatte. 'N Derde boek, Thoreau's Walden, het 'n onmiddellike klassieke geword by baie omgewingsbewustes, wat dit gebruik het om 'n gesonder ideaal te illustreer vir mense wat in harmonie met die natuur leef.

Die groei van die wetenskap van ekologie het gelei tot 'n groter begrip van die vereistes vir habitat in die natuurlewe en die gevare van fragmentasie van habitatte. Ekologiese argumente was oortuigend ter ondersteuning van beide plaaslike inisiatiewe vir die behoud van oop ruimtes en vir die bewaring van groot dele van die wildernis. Groeiende openbare steun vir omgewingsbeskerming in die 1960's en 1970's het gelei tot die aanvaarding van baie nuwe federale wetgewing, insluitend die Wet op Clean Air (1963), die Wilderness Act (1964), die Water Quality Control Control (1965), die Wild and Scenic River Act (1968) die National Trails System Act (1968) die National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969) en die stigting van die Environmental Protection Agency (1970). Die verlies aan historiese en kulturele hulpbronne in gemeenskappe in die hele land, het gelei tot die aanvaarding van die National Historic Preservation Act (1966).

Omgewings- en oopruimte -inisiatiewe op grondvlak het in die tweede helfte van die 20ste eeu dramaties uitgebrei. Waterskeidingsverenigings, plaaslike en streeksgrondtrusts en plaaslike bewaringskommissies werk voort om skilderagtige, ontspannings- of ekologiese hulpbronne te beskerm, dikwels in vennootskap met ander organisasies en met staats- en federale agentskappe.

Beskermde oop ruimte word toenemend 'n belangrike komponent in gemeenskaps- en streeksbeplanningsinisiatiewe, met 'n wye verskeidenheid voordele. Terwyl die inisiatiewe van die 19de en vroeë 20ste eeu om oop ruimte te bewaar in die algemeen gefokus was op 'n spesifieke argument (utilitaristiese bewaring, natuurskoonbewaring of habitatbeskerming), erken hedendaagse inisiatiewe toenemend dat oop ruimte verskeie gebruike bied. Die kontemporêre greenway -beweging is een voorbeeld. Greenways skep lineêre skakels tussen oop ruimtes en bied 'n kombinasie van ontspannings-, ekologiese en/of kulturele geriewe.

Die lys van 'n toenemende aantal historiese Amerikaanse landskappe en eiendomme wat verband hou met bewaring in gemeenskappe in die hele land in die National Register of Historic Places weerspieël die groeiende waardering van hul belangrikheid vir geskiedenis, gesondheid en lewensgehalte in die Verenigde State. Die bestemmings in hierdie reisplan wat in die nasionale register opgeneem is vanweë die betekenis daarvan vir die land se erfenis, is 'n bewys van hierdie neiging.


Verdere leeswerk

Pinchot se outobiografie, Nuwe baan (1947), is partydig maar van uitstaande belang. Martin Nelson McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, bosbouer-politikus (1960), is 'n volledige, wetenskaplike en waarderende biografie. Sy verslag oor die Ballinger -aangeleentheid is opgedateer deur James L. Penick, Jr., Progressiewe politiek en bewaring: die Ballinger-Pinchot-saak (1968). Samuel P. Hays, Bewaring en die evangelie van doeltreffendheid (1959), die mees volledige studie van die vroeë bewaringsbeweging, is in sommige van sy uitsprake oor Pinchot harder as wat die getuienis vereis.


HULPBRONNE

BOEKE

McGeary, M. N. Gifford Pinchot: Bosbouer-politikus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960.

Nash, R. "Gifford Pinchot." In Van hierdie begin: 'n biografiese benadering tot die Amerikaanse geskiedenis. Vol. 2. 2de uitg. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Norton, B. G. "Moraliste en versamelaars: die saak van Muir en Pinchot." In Op pad na eenheid onder omgewingsbewustes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Pinchot, G. Nuwe baan. Covelo, CA: Island Press, 1947.

PERIODIESE

Miller, C. "The Greening of Gifford Pinchot." Omgewingsgeskiedenisoorsig 16 (herfs 1992): 1 – 20.

Watkins, T. H. "Vader van die bosse." Amerikaanse erfenis 42 (Februarie – Maart 1991): 86 – 98.


Hoe 'n berugte rassis Amerika se nasionale parke geïnspireer het

Richard Conniff

Ek het gereeld afgespeel wanneer my pa op 'n vooraanstaande gebied sou voortgaan: hoe sy immigrante -grootouers 'n beskeie opstal met twee huise, drie volwasse kinders en 'n trop hoenders op die oewer van die Bronxrivier gebou het. En dan, omstreeks 1913, hoe die regering die eiendom beslag gelê het om plek te maak vir die Bronx River Parkway. Dat die episode na byna 'n eeu nog steeds 'n rangorde was, het net na 'n manifestasie van my pa se moerse laat-konserwatisme gelyk.

Dit was voordat ek van Madison Grant uitgevind het.

Dit is 'n naam wat u hierdie jaar baie moet hoor as gevolg van die honderdjarige bestaan ​​van die National Park Service en op baie maniere 'n produk van die baanbrekerswerk van Grant as die grootste natuurbewaarder wat ooit geleef het, volgens 'n vroeë direkteur van Park Service, en 'n skepper van “the park concept, ” in die woorde van 'n ander. Maar u sal waarskynlik nie soveel as Grant se naam hoor hoor nie, want sy eienaardige denkrigting het ook gehelp om die grondslag te lê vir die doodskampe van Nazi -Duitsland.

Grant is in 1865 gebore en geniet 'n bloubloedige kinderjare in Manhattan danksy sy familie se rykdom en sy pa se reputasie as 'n dokter en 'n burgeroorlogheld. Op 16 het hy vier jaar privaat onderrig na Duitsland gegaan voordat hy teruggekeer het na Yale en daarna die Columbia Law School.

Grant was 'n aantreklike, stedelike figuur met 'n dik snor en stewige, diepgesette oë en 'n reputasie as 'n damesman. Hy het 'n regskantoor in Manhattan opgerig, maar het selde praktiseer. Hy het ook nooit 'n openbare amp beklee nie, ondanks sy skerp politieke belange. Grootwildjag was sy ware passie, volgens die definitiewe biografie van 2008 Verdedig die Meesterras, deur die historikus Jonathan Spiro, en hy het al vroeg besef dat roekelose oorjag baie spesies tot uitwissing dryf. Rykdom, sosiale verbintenisse en sy skerp verstand het hom gou lid geword van vroeë jagterbewaarders soos Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot en George Bird Grinnell in 'n skouspelagtige invloedryke groepie, die Boone and Crockett Club.

Gelukkige B-dag, nasionale parke! Liefde, Yelp Illustrasie deur Peter Ryan Geïnspireerd door Tim Murphy ’'s must-read post

Teen 1895 het Grant toesig gehou oor die bou van die Bronx -dieretuin, wat toegewy is aan die behoud van Noord -Amerikaanse spesies, en het hy sy ouerorganisasie gestig. (Die Wildlife Conservation Society, soos dit nou bekend staan, noem ook nooit Grant se naam nie.) Onder sy vele ander inisiatiewe het Grant gehelp om die veldtog te begin om te keer dat die laaste pragtige rooibos in Kalifornië nie aangelê word nie. die bisons (wat die vlaktes met bison uit sy dieretuin herlaai), en dring aan op die oprigting van die Denali-, Olimpiese-, Everglades- en Glacier -nasionale parke.

Hierdie nalatenskap klink dalk soos voer vir Park Service -toekennings en PBS -dokumentêre programme, behalwe vir een probleem: Na 1908 het Grant sy pogings namens die inheemse spesies van Noord -Amerika begin uitbrei na wat hy as sy inheemse Amerikaanse en#8221 mense en Indiese stamme beskou het. maar Noord -Europeërs, verkieslik van koloniale afkoms. ” In 1916 publiseer hy Die verbygaan van die Groot Ras om aandag te vestig op die toestand van die “Nordics, ” 'n woord wat hy gehelp het om te populariseer. Onbeperkte immigrasie ” en ondertrouery, het hy gewaarsku, dat die land na 'n rasse -afgrond gesweep het. ”

Die boek was 'n pseudowetenskaplike samestelling van stereotipes van 476 bladsye. Swart mans was 'n waardevolle element in die gemeenskap, solank hulle bly en volgehoue ​​volgelinge wat vra om net te gehoorsaam en om die ideale en wense van die meesterras te bevorder. 8220inferior, ” en “die Slowaak, die Italianer, die Siriër en die Jood was “ sosiale weggooide. ” Nadat die Joodse bevolking van New York in 80 'n toename van 80,000 na meer as 'n miljoen gesien het Grant was veral woedend oor die feit dat hy letterlik van die strate af verdryf is deur die swerms Poolse Jode. ”

Grant se boek moes 'n nasionale skandaal gewees het. Maar eugenetika, die idee dat menslike vee net soos vee verbeter kan word, het toe amper 'n gevestigde godsdiens geword. So Die verbygaan van die Groot Ras is uitgegee deur Scribner ’s en geredigeer deur Maxwell Perkins (wat later F. Scott Fitzgerald en Ernest Hemingway geredigeer het). Die president van die American Museum of Natural History het die voorwoord geskryf, en die voormalige president Theodore Roosevelt het 'n prentjie verskaf (“a hoofboek “).

Grant het sy toenemende invloed as eugenicus in 'n reeks strafmaatreëls neergelê wat gerig was op minderjarige rasse en klasse. . Maar die kommissie van Grant het die projek noukeurig beplan om die verkeerde soort ontwikkeling uit te voer, sowel as Italiaanse hutte, soos my oupagrootjie, en buurte wat bevolk is deur “ Negroes. ”

Ander het veel meer verloor as hul huise onder die invloed van Grant. Baie state het sy aanbeveling nagestreef om verpligte sterilisasie toe te pas op 'n steeds groter wordende kring van sosiale weggooide, wat altyd begin met die misdadiger, die siekes en die kranksinnige en geleidelik strek tot tipes wat swakkelinge genoem kan word. ” Grant was ook die sleutel tot die aanvaarding van 'n wet van 1924 wat immigrasie beperk deur groepe wat hy as ongewens geag het, insluitend Asiërs en Arabiere.

Toe die Nazi's hul verpligte sterilisasieprogram in 1933 opstel, het hulle gesê dat hulle die Amerikaanse padvaders Madison Grant ” en 'n Grant -dissipel, Lothrop Stoddard, gevolg het. Hitler het op 'n stadium aan Grant geskryf om te sê dat sy boek my Bybel geword het. ” Grant is in 1937 dood, te gou om te sien dat sy teorieë in massamoord verander. Maar onder diegene wat hy geïnspireer het, was Karl Brandt, die dokter agter die Nazi -program van gedwonge genadedood. In Neurenberg het advokate van Brandt aangebied Die verbygaan van die Groot Ras as bewys dat die Nazi's net gedoen het wat 'n Amerikaanse geleerde voorgestel het.

Natuurbewaarders sou dit verstaanbaar eerder vergeet. Maar dit is die moeite werd om te onthou, want die beweging het nog altyd gesukkel met elitistiese en uitsluitingselemente in sy geledere. Hierdie land het onder meer die model van onbewoonde nasionale parke uitgevind en uitgevoer wêreldwyd saam met sy lelike gevolg, gedwonge verwydering van inheemse bevolkings. Dit is ook die moeite werd om die geskiedenis van Grant te onthou, omdat minderheidsgroepe grootliks onder 22 % van alle besoekers bly en uiteindelik in ons nasionale parke tel, en nog meer in die leierskap van omgewingsagentskappe en niewinsorganisasies. Om dit te verander, moet die bewaringsbeweging erken dat die spook van Madison Grant steeds spook oor die natuurlike wonders wat hy gehelp het om te beskerm.


Frenemies John Muir en Gifford Pinchot

Montana In die 1890's het Amerika 'n omgewingskrisis ondervind. In die bergagtige Weste het grond wat opgehou is vir opstal onopgeëis, te ver en verraderlik vir voornemende boere, en heeltemal onbeskerm deur die regering. Skape dwaal oor hierdie onopgeëiste lande en maak myle kilometers lank skoon. Korporasies het hele woude vir hout gekoop. Many feared that we were headed for a timber famine in the next twenty years.

In 1896, the National Academy of Sciences created a National Forest Commission, tasked with researching and reporting policy recommendations for the administration of America’s forests. The commission took a four-month tour of the American West, surveying and ultimately recommending that the government assume protection of more than 21 million acres of forest across 13 reserves. On this trip were Gifford Pinchot, a young forester who would eventually become the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and John Muir, the most famous naturalist in American history.

The two have come to embody the conflicting philosophies at the heart of the American public land system: preservation vs. conservation. For Muir, nature was God, best preserved far from the degrading touch of man. For Pinchot, nature was a resource that ought to be sustainably shared among the most people possible. These opposing views might have made the two men natural enemies.

But camped together beside jewel-like Lake McDonald in what would become Glacier National Park, they took a liking to each other. They fished together and talked long hours into the night. They respected each other, and acknowledged their shared appreciation for the natural world. They formed an alliance around the belief that natural places like Lake McDonald were important enough for the federal government to permanently own and manage.

The story of these two icons of American environmentalism is told in John Clayton’s book Natural Rivals: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and the Creation of America’s Public Lands, published last August. The book confronts the common historical narrative that Muir and Pinchot were enemies, their relationship defined by their battle over the creation of the Hetch Hetchy Dam in Yosemite.

In 1908, Theodore Roosevelt’s Department of the Interior granted San Francisco the authority to dam the Tuolumne River in Hetch Hetchy Valley for use as a reservoir. For Pinchot, a close friend and adviser to the president, this was an obvious choice. San Francisco’s water system could not adequately serve its growing population, and the dam presented a solution. For Muir, damming Hetch Hetchy was a blasphemy. You might as well deface the world’s great cathedrals, he said, “for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.” The issue was decided in December 1913, when Woodrow Wilson signed the Raker Bill into law, authorizing the dam’s construction. Muir would die just over a year later, and many would define Hetch Hetchy as the tragic climax of his life.

Years before Hetch Hetchy, the two men were friends. They wrote letters to each other regularly. Muir deeply inspired Pinchot, who in turn helped influence Muir’s writing. One freezing night on the commission trip, the two talked until midnight, huddled around a campfire on the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Pinchot wrote that the men felt like “guilty schoolboys” the next morning, returning to their hotel to assure their travel companions they hadn’t fallen into the chasm. “It was such an evening as I have never had before or since.” This friendship was critical to the success of the National Forest Commission.

The commission reported their recommendations to President Grover Cleveland in 1889, engulfing Cleveland, Pinchot, and the rest of the commission in a political firestorm. Mining and logging interests railed against the plan. Western states accused Cleveland of an imperialist land grab. Pinchot fought these fires in Washington. He lobbied congressmen, compromised with logging and mining companies, and argued for a forest system in which these disparate groups could jointly pursue their interests.

John Muir stands with President Theodore Roosevelt on Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park in 1903.

Muir fought in the pages of the Atlantiese Oseaan en Harper's Weekly. He connected the new forests to his beloved national parks, he wrote of God in nature, he compared the commission’s congressional opponents to yellowjackets in a horse’s ear. In these magazines he articulated the diverse system that we now understand as “public lands,” a system that combines the preservation of national parks like Yosemite with a system of forests, protected by the federal government but open to every American’s use. This, a system joining preservation with conservation, was the result of his alliance with Pinchot. Muir argued that “every remaining acre of unentered forest-bearing land in all the country . . . should be reserved, protected, and administered by the Federal Government . . . forever.”

Ultimately, after Cleveland threw out a congressional bill to withhold appropriations for the Forest Commission’s new reserves, the issue landed at the feet of President William McKinley. He would sign what is known as the 1897 Organic Act into law. This law clearly proclaimed that the federal government, following the Forest Commission’s recommendation, would preserve new public lands “for the use and necessities of citizens in the United States.” It clearly states the conservationist theory of land management, the legacy of Pinchot’s work with the Forest Commission. This set the groundwork for the creation of the U.S. Forest Service in 1905, which Pinchot would head.

Today, the National Park and U.S. Forest Service embody the legacy of Muir and Pinchot’s alliance. On U.S. Forest Service land, the interests of mining and lumber companies are balanced with the recreational pursuits of hunters, snowmobilers, and cross-country skiers. In national parks, preservation reigns king, the natural world kept, as best it can be, in its natural state. As Clayton writes, the 1897 act and Muir’s Atlantiese Oseaan en Harper’s pieces are as much a climax to the Muir-Pinchot story as Hetch Hetchy. Yet we tend to focus on the latter, the story that pits Muir and Pinchot against each other. Clayton suggests that we are drawn to this conflict because its two characters embody deep conflicts within the American experience. Muir was an immigrant, an evangelist, an individualistic outsider. Pinchot was a blue blood, a Puritan, a community-oriented insider. They were introvert and extrovert. Amateur and professional. West and East. Their rivalry spoke to rivalries at the core of the American experience.

At a series of book talks, supported by Humanities Montana, Clayton has found that these conflicts still resonate deeply with audiences. “People sort of tend to lean one way or another. If you’re a poet, if you’re religious or spiritual, or you’re an artist, you’re probably a Muir person. And if you’re an engineer or a manager, or if you’re interested in fairness or democratic processes, you’re probably a Pinchot person.” And yet, for Clayton, these differences deepen the story of the two men’s cooperation as much as their rivalry. Their distinct skills and conflicting views proved complementary, helping define the diversity of the American public lands system.

Lukas Keel was an intern with Humanities tydskrif.

Republication statement

The text of this article is available for unedited republication, free of charge, using the following credit: “Originally published as “Friends of the Land: John Muir and Gifford Pinchot” in the Winter 2020 issue of Humanities magazine, a publication of the National Endowment for the Humanities.” Please notify us at @email if you are republishing it or have any questions.


Conservation versus Preservation?

Have you ever wondered why your favorite National Park is surrounded by a National Forest? Well, it didn’t happen by accident or guesswork. The fact is, it was all started over 100 years ago by two men I like to refer to as the founding fathers of America’s public lands.

Back at the turn of the 20 th Century Gifford Pinchot and John Muir had radically contrasting views of how to manage America’s wild lands and they worked tirelessly lobbying Congress and convincing Presidents to agree with them to start protecting open space.

Muir promoted preservation and Pinchot advocated for conservation.

Pinchot’s vision of managed conservation basically meant that lands owned by the federal government could not only be used for recreation by the general public but could also be used, responsibly, by industry for logging, mining and many other purposes including extensive scientific research on tens of thousands of acres of land.

Pinchot, who would eventually start and serve as the first chief of the US Forest Service that now manages or conserves 193 million acres of forested and grass lands, prevailed overall. He had help, though. President Theodore Roosevelt agreed that conservation was the best practice for the majority of federally owned lands.

The adoption of the conservation model resulted in national forests being multi-billion dollar economic engines for hundreds of small towns and communities across America. If you like winter sports, there’s a good chance that your favorite ski run is on a national forest. The same goes for swimming, hiking and camping. And, there’s a good chance that the house you live in, and some of the furniture you sit on, was built by wood harvested from a national forest.

Another of Pinchot’s concepts from his wild lands conservation philosophies resulted in creation of the Forest Products Lab, the world’s preeminent wood research laboratory and a behemoth of technology and invention located in Madison, Wisconsin. Pinchot’s vision of managing forests for profit fit into his life mantra: The Greatest Good for the greatest number…”

But Pinchot’s success was not at the expense of John Muir’s preservation legacy aimed at permitting little to no industrial profit from the federal lands that have become our National Parks. In fact, Muir’s vision resulted in protecting forever some of the nation’s most iconic open spaces totaling over 100 million acres managed by an agency that was to be called the National Park Service.

Despite arguments by some, Muir’s preservation and Pinchot’s conservation philosophies are not at odds. In fact they play, together, a huge role in protecting our natural open spaces—for generations to come.

This “working together” philosophy of land management can perhaps best be seen by looking at a map of a large national park say Yellowstone or Yosemite or Shenandoah. You’ll notice that these parks (and many others) are connected to, or completely surround by, national forests or grasslands managed by the Forest Service.

For more than 100 years the success of the dual strategy of conservation and preservation has grown more and more obvious to the millions who benefit from jobs created and those who enjoy the wild places. Throughout the world other nations seek to emulate our federal land management system.

Thanks to Pinchot and Muir our federal dual system of conservation and preservation land management works in practical ways to keep our public lands open and productive.


Gifford Pinchot and the Old Timers Volume I

In 2005, six tattered blue boxes were unearthed at the Library of Congress’s Pinchot Collection in Washington DC. The boxes contained 5,000 pages of letters describing the work of early resource conservation professionals and were labeled simply “The Old Timers.” Penned between the years 1937–1941 by the first class of American Forest Rangers to serve under President Theodore Roosevelt and first Chief of the US Forest Service Gifford Pinchot, the letters offer a mirror to the America we once were and an optimistic guidebook for the road ahead.

The Old Timers Collection is a record of extreme hardship and fearless struggle documenting the confrontations between cattlemen, miners, loggers, and the challenges of turning confrontations into cooperation and gratitude. The life of the early forest rangers wasn’t easy, but to the men and women who served, it was the best life they could imagine. Each was grateful for the chance to live a meaningful life in a time of struggle.


Forest History

The origins of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest are firmly rooted in the great national conservation movement that swept this country at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1907 President Roosevelt established the vast Rainier National Forest along the Cascade Range in Washington. To better administer these lands, the southern portion of the Rainier became a Columbia National Forest in 1908 when President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 820.

Encompassing 941,000 acres, the boundaries extended along the crest of the Cascade Range from Mt. Adams to the Columbia River, and west to Mount St. Helens. Find highlights & documents related to the history of the Gifford Picnht National Forest.


Environmentalism’s Racist History

Madison Grant (Yale College 1887, Columbia Law School) liked to be photographed with a fedora, or just his dauntingly long head, tilted about thirty degrees to the right. He belonged, like his political ally Teddy Roosevelt, to a Manhattan aristocracy defined by bloodline and money. But Grant, like many young men of his vintage, felt duty-bound to do more than enjoy his privilege. He made himself a credible wildlife zoologist, was instrumental in creating the Bronx Zoo, and founded the first organizations dedicated to preserving American bison and the California redwoods.

Grant spent his career at the center of the same energetic conservationist circle as Roosevelt. This band of reformers did much to create the country’s national parks, forests, game refuges, and other public lands—the system of environmental stewardship and public access that has been called “America’s best idea.” They developed the conviction that a country’s treatment of its land and wildlife is a measure of its character. Now that natural selection had given way to humanity’s “complete mastery of the globe,” as Grant wrote in 1909, his generation had “the responsibility of saying what forms of life shall be preserved.”

Grant has been pushed to the margins of environmentalism’s history, however. He is often remembered for another reason: his 1916 book “The Passing of the Great Race, or The Racial Basis of European History,” a pseudo-scientific work of white supremacism that warns of the decline of the “Nordic” peoples. In Grant’s racial theory, Nordics were a natural aristocracy, marked by noble, generous instincts and a gift for political self-governance, who were being overtaken by the “Alpine” and “Mediterranean” populations. His work influenced the Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe and Africa and banned migrants from the Middle East and Asia. Adolf Hitler wrote Grant an admiring letter, calling the book “my Bible,” which has given it permanent status on the ultra-right. Anders Breivik, the Norwegian extremist who killed sixty-nine young Labour Party members, in 2011, drew on Grant’s racial theory in his own manifesto.

Grant’s fellow conservationists supported his racist activism. Roosevelt wrote Grant a letter praising “The Passing of the Great Race,” which appeared as a blurb on later editions, calling it “a capital book in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts our people most need to realize.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, who headed the New York Zoological Society and the board of trustees of the American Museum of Natural History (and, as a member of the U.S. Geological Survey, named the Tyrannosaurus rex and the Velociraptor), wrote a foreword to the book. Osborn argued that “conservation of that race which has given us the true spirit of Americanism is not a matter either of racial pride or of racial prejudice it is a matter of love of country.”

For Grant, Roosevelt, and other architects of the country’s parks and game refuges, wild nature was worth saving for its aristocratic qualities where these were lacking, they were indifferent. Grant, as his Tye obituary noted, “was uninterested in the smaller forms of animal or bird life.” He wrote about the moose, the mountain goat, and the redwood tree, whose nobility and need for protection in a venal world so resembled the plight of Grant’s “Nordics” that his biographer, Jonathan Spiro, concludes that he saw them as two faces of a single threatened, declining aristocracy. Similarly, Roosevelt, in his accounts of hunting, could not say enough about the “lordly” and “noble” elk and buffalo that he and Grant helped to preserve, and loved to kill. Their preservation work aimed to keep alive this kind of encounter between would-be aristocratic men and halfway wild nature.

For these conservationists, who prized the expert governance of resources, it was an unsettlingly short step from managing forests to managing the human gene pool. In a 1909 report to Roosevelt’s National Conservation Commission, Yale professor Irving Fisher broke off from a discussion of public health to recommend preventing “paupers” and physically unhealthy people from reproducing, and warned against the “race suicide” that would follow if the country did not replenish itself with Northern European stock. Fisher took the term “race suicide” from Roosevelt, who, in a 1905 speech, had pinned it on women who dodged childbearing. Gifford Pinchot, the country’s foremost theorizer and popularizer of conservation, was a delegate to the first and second International Eugenics Congress, in 1912 and 1921, and a member of the advisory council of the American Eugenics Society, from 1925 to 1935.

Roosevelt put Pinchot in charge of the National Conservation Commission, and made him head of the new Forest Service, but he also cultivated the Romantic naturalist John Muir, who founded the Sierra Club in 1892. In the Sierra Club’s early leaders, the environmental movement has some less troubling ancestors. Following Muir, whose bearded face and St. Francis-like persona were as much its icons as Yosemite Valley, the club adopted the gentle literary romanticism of Thoreau, Emerson, and Wordsworth. The point of preserving wild places, for these men—and, unlike in Roosevelt’s circles, some women—was to escape the utilitarian grind of lowland life and, as Muir wrote, to see the face of God in the high country.

But Muir, who felt fraternity with four-legged “animal people” and even plants, was at best ambivalent about human brotherhood. Describing a thousand-mile walk from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, he reported the laziness of “Sambos.” Later he lamented the “dirty and irregular life” of Indians in the Merced River valley, near Yosemite. In “Our National Parks,” a 1901 essay collection written to promote parks tourism, he assured readers that, “As to Indians, most of them are dead or civilized into useless innocence.” This might have been incisive irony, but in the same paragraph Muir was more concerned with human perfidy toward bears (“Poor fellows, they have been poisoned, trapped, and shot at until they have lost confidence in brother man”) than with how Native Americans had been killed and driven from their homes.

It is tempting to excuse such views as the “ordinary” or “casual” racism of the time, and it does feel more like a symptom of the dominant culture than Grant’s racism and Pinchot’s eugenics, which touched the nerves of their organizing commitments. But Muir and his followers are remembered because their respect for non-human life and wild places expanded the boundaries of moral concern. What does it mean that they cared more about “animal people” than about some human beings? The time they lived in is part of an explanation, but not an excuse. For each of these environmentalist icons, the meaning of nature and wilderness was constrained, even produced, by an idea of civilization. Muir’s nature was a pristine refuge from the city. Madison Grant’s nature was the last redoubt of nobility in a levelling and hybridizing democracy. They went to the woods to escape aspects of humanity. They created and preserved versions of the wild that promised to exclude the human qualities they despised.

Their literary icon, Thoreau, had said in his 1854 speech “Slavery in Massachusetts” that even his beloved ponds did not give him pleasure when he thought of human injustice: “What signifies the beauty of nature when men are base? . . . The remembrance of my country spoils my walk.” But Thoreau also shared Muir’s problem in some ways, he created it. When he wrote about American nature, Thoreau was arguing about American culture, which, even for most abolitionists, meant the culture of a white nation. In his essay “Walking,” which gave environmentalists the slogan “In wildness is the preservation of the world,” Thoreau proposed that American greatness arose as “the farmer displaces the Indian even because he redeems the meadow, and so makes himself stronger and in some respects more natural.” For both Muir and Thoreau, working, consuming, occupying, and admiring American nature was a way for a certain kind of white person to become symbolically native to the continent.

The nineteen-seventies saw a raft of new environmental laws and the growth of the Sierra Club’s membership from tens to hundreds of thousands. But the decades of advocacy behind this wave of environmental concern shared much with the older, exclusionary politics of nature. In 1948, more than a decade before Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” (most of which was first published in this magazine), a pair of best-selling works of popular ecology sounded many of Carson’s themes, from the dangers of pesticides to the need to respect nature’s harmonies. William Vogt’s “Road to Survival” embraced eugenics as a response to overpopulation, urging governments to offer cash to the poor for sterilization, which would have “a favorable selective influence” on the species. In “Our Plundered Planet,” Fairfield Osborn, the son of Madison Grant’s friend and ally Henry Fairfield Osborn, forecast that postwar humanitarianism, which allowed more people to survive into adulthood, would prove incompatible with natural limits. While neither man evinced Madison Grant’s racial obsessions, they shared his eagerness to champion an admirable “nature” against a debased humanity that had flourished beyond its proper limits.

This strain of misanthropy seemed to appear again in biologist Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 runaway best-seller “The Population Bomb.” Ehrlich illustrated overpopulation with a scene of a Delhi slum seen through a taxi window: a “mob” with a “hellish aspect,” full of “people eating, people washing, people sleeping. . . . People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating . . . People, people, people, people.” He confessed to being afraid that he and his wife would never reach their hotel, and reported that on that night he came to understand overpopulation “emotionally.” By the evidence, what he had encountered was poverty. Ehrlich was announcing that his environmentalist imperatives were powered by fear and repugnance at slum dwellers leading their lives in public view. At the very least, he assumed that his readers would find those feelings resonant.

Even as environmentalism took on big new problems in the seventies, it also seemed to promise an escape hatch from continuing crises of inequality, social conflict, and, sometimes, certain kinds of people. Tyd described the environmental crisis as a problem that Americans “might actually solve, unlike the immensely more elusive problems of race prejudice or the war in Vietnam.” In his 1970 State of the Union address, in which he expended less than a hundred words on Vietnam, made no explicit reference to race, and yet launched a new racialized politics with calls for a “war” on crime and attacks on the welfare system, Richard Nixon spent almost a thousand words on the environment, which he called “a cause beyond party and beyond factions.” That meant, of course, that he thought it could be a cause for the white majority.


Gifford Pinchot and the Old Timers Volume II

“Gifford Pinchot is the man to whom the nation owes most of what has been accomplished as regards the preservation of the natural resources of our country…I believe it is but just to say that among the many, many public officials who under my administration rendered literally invaluable service to the people of the United States, he, on the whole, stood first.”

President Theodore Roosevelt

“Gifford Pinchot and the Old Timers Volume II” includes ten new narratives from the Old Timers Collection in the Gifford Pinchot Collection at the Library of Congress. In Volume II, we hear from Gifford Pinchot’s “first” professionally-trained forest rangers and allied professionals who describe the birthing of the nation’s first environmental agency, the US Forest Service, and the training of individuals with a virtuous vision of public service. The narratives contain tales of extreme hardship, on-the-ground problem solving, interactions with cattlemen, miners, and loggers as well as first-hand descriptions of challenges in which the Forest Ranger turned confrontation into cooperation, gratitude, and respect. The lives of the “first foresters” were not easy but a life of service to the American public and the natural world was the best life one could imagine. Each was grateful for the opportunity to find meaning in a time of struggle.


Kyk die video: Gifford Pinchot National Forest


Kommentaar:

  1. Dantrell

    As kundige kan ek help. I was specially registered to participate in discussion.

  2. Salford

    Ek dink, jy is verkeerd. Ek kan dit bewys.

  3. Jeramiah

    Na my mening is jy nie reg nie. Ek kan dit bewys. Skryf vir my in PM, ons sal dit hanteer.

  4. Andric

    Mooi lekker hou aan met die goeie werk.

  5. Eleuia

    Daar is iets hierin en ek dink dit is 'n goeie idee. Ek stem heeltemal saam met jou.



Skryf 'n boodskap