History of the Priest 

River Experiment Station

Kathleen L. Graham

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-129

June 2004
Graham, Kathleen L. 2004. History of the Priest River Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-129. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 71 p.

Abstract

In 1911, the U.S. Forest Service established the Priest River Experimental Forest near Priest River, Idaho. 

The Forest served as headquarters for the Priest River Forest Experiment Station and continues to be 

used for forest research critical to understanding forest development and the many processes, structures, 

and functions occurring in them.

At the time the Forest was created, Idaho had been a State for only 11 years. The early Forest Service 

leaders, such as Gifford Pinchot, Raphael Zon, and Henry Graves, were creating a new department and 

making decisions that would impact the culture, economics, and history of not only the State of Idaho and 

the Northwest, but the nation. The location of the Forest, in a remote section of northern Idaho, was due 

partly to the need for research on tree species within the Pacific Coast forest region, but also because it 

contained large amounts of western white pine, the prized tree species for construction.

Since the Forest’s establishment, numerous Forest Service researchers, educators from colleges and 

universities across the nation, and State and private forestry personnel have used the Forest to solve 

problems impacting forests and economics, not only locally and regionally but also worldwide. Researchers such as Bob Marshall, Harry Gisborne, Richard Bingham, and Charles Wellner made enormous 

contributions to the forestry industry. Due to the importance of the research still being conducted, it 

continues to attract dedicated scientists today.

Key words: western white pine, fire, silviculture, progressive conservation, McSweeny-McNary Act

The Author

Kathleen L. Graham has two degrees from the University of Idaho—a bachelor of science in 1993 and 

a master of arts in 2001. Currently she is a higher education software consultant and continues to enjoy 

researching and writing historical pieces. This current document was written in partial fulfillment of her 

master of art degree.

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526
History of the Priest River 

Experiment Station

Kathleen L. Graham

Foreword

No one can doubt the central place of forests in the history of Idaho and the Pacific Northwest. Residents 

have a close connection with forest lands – the identity of the region is closely tied to forests. While in 

recent years scholars and the general public have come to realize that American forests require considerable attention and care, Kathleen Graham’s study of the Priest River Experiment Station, near Priest 

River, Idaho, clearly shows that scientists, the Federal government, and other entities boast a long history 

of forest management, research, and education.

Graham places this history within the context of important national trends. Established in 1911, the Priest 

River Experimental Forest was a part of the Progressive conservation agenda Theodore Roosevelt and 

Gifford Pinchot advocated. One element of Progressivism was certainly a reliance on experts and their 

research, and the Priest River Experiment Station provides a first-rate example. The impact of the New 

Deal, particularly the Civilian Conservation Corp, is another illustration of how developments on the 

national scene were reflected at the Station. Following World War II, the Station followed the national 

pattern, and its efforts became more highly specialized.

As is fitting, Kathleen Graham’s work emphasizes the scientific research accomplished at the Priest River 

Experiment Station and its impact on forest management and practices throughout the country. Although 

located in an isolated part of northern Idaho, the Priest River Experiment Station played a vital role in 

forest research, in part due to the place of western white pine (a prominent species in the area) in the 

building trades industries. From the Station’s early pivotal role in the study of fires and their prevention, 

to later work on forest insects and diseases, tree genetics, timber management, and silviculture, Graham 

traces the many contributions scientists at the Station made.

These individuals – Forest Service employees and scientists – played a critical role in the history of the 

Priest River Experiment Station. Kathleen Graham excels at providing the reader with insights into the 

personalities of researchers as well as informative discussions regarding their scientific experiments and 

discoveries.

Kathleen Graham’s work makes a real contribution to the history of Idaho, the Pacific Northwest, and 

the nation. Her history is much more than an institutional study; she makes the Priest River Experiment 

Station and the many people associated with it over the years come alive. Her work leaves no doubt as to 

the significant role the Station played in forest research and in history in general.

Katherine G. Aiken

Professor of History and Department Chair

University of Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Acknowledgments

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the many who have supported me during my graduate 

school work. Members of the History Department at the University of Idaho, including Dr. Kent Hackmann, 

Dr. Robert Coonrod, Dr. William Swagerty, and Nancy Dafoe, have encouraged and helped in numerous 

ways not only for my thesis but also during my undergraduate work. Dr. Katherine Aiken has been a 

wonderful instructor and major professor and deserves my special thanks. A special thanks also to Cheryl 

Oakes, Librarian and Archivist for the Forest History Society at Duke University, who aided me in my 

research of historical documents. Terrie Jain, who has been working on her dissertation during the same 

time I have been working on my thesis, has been a wonderful friend and provided needed encouragement 

on various occasions. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Russell, for his love, patience, and help. 

Without his support I would not have been able to complete my undergraduate degree one class at a time 

nor the confidence to proceed to a master’s degree.

Thanks to all.

Kathleen L. Graham

May 2004

iii
Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Early Beginnings of Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Creation of the U.S. Forest Service and Region One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

U.S. Forest Service Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The 1910 Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Transfer From Pinchot to Graves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Clarke-McNary and McSweeny-McNary Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Time is Ripe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 2: The First Years of the Priest River Experiment Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Priest River, Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Early Research Begins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 3: The Larsen Years 1913 to 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Era of Bob Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The Convoluted Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Gisborne Era Begins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The Depression Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Fire Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 4: The 1940s War Years and the Gisborne Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The War Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Postwar and the Gisborne Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

The End of the Gisborne Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

The Gisborne Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 5: Disciplinary Research 1950 to 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Research Emphases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

The Era of Success But Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Chapter 6: New Forestry 1975 to Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Administration and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Anniversaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Research Emphases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

End of a Millennium and Beginning of the Next . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Chapter 7: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Appendix A: Personnel Who Established the Priest River Experimental Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendix B: Initial Costs of Establishing the Priest River Experimental Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Appendix C: Directors, Superintendents, Scientists-in-Charge of the Priest River 

 Experimental Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix D: Forest Service Chiefs, with Extended Biographies of Those Who 

 Directly Impacted the Priest River Experimental Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix E: Popular Article by Bob Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

iv
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 1

Idaho’s early history was influenced 

by a variety of individuals and groups 

including miners, farmers, politicians, 

railroad men, and lumbermen. The 

State was founded in 1889 with a 

population of approximately 32,000, 

and geography played a key role in how 

the State developed (Schwantes 1991). 

Not only did the State have mountains, 

it had two large rivers (the Snake and 

the Salmon), Hell’s Canyon, lakes, high 

deserts, and forests that separated the 

residents.

Because gold was discovered in 

Pierce, Idaho, the northern part of the 

State developed faster than the southern 

part. However, as settlers moved 

westward using the Oregon Trail, 

southern Idaho’s population gained 

in numbers when farmers and towns’ 

people took advantage of open lands 

for farming and ranching opportunities. 

Because Idaho had so few voters, was 

located within the Rocky Mountains, 

and contained a huge supply of timber, 

the Federal government saw the area as 

a perfect location for supplying wood 

products for the growing nation.

By the turn of the century, northern 

Idaho was known for its forests, lakes, 

mountains, and remoteness. Transportation was limited to horses, wagons, 

and trains that whisked passengers by 

on their way to Seattle, Washington. 

There were few settlers and, therefore, 

few towns in the panhandle of Idaho. 

Yet, because of the route of the Great 

Northern Railroad, the town of Priest 

River grew and provided railroad ties 

for the tracks.

In 1911, the Priest River Experiment Station was established by the 

Federal government to promote the 

fledgling efforts of forest research. The 

types of tree species, 

the climate, and the 

elevations provided 

the ingredients for a 

variety of study sites for 

Western research projects. Those who came 

from Washington, DC, 

to determine the exact 

location of the site must 

have been amazed at 

seeing the area. Charles 

Leiberg, a dendrologist 

from the General Land 

Office, evaluated the 

area when it was made 

a forest preserve, and in 

his report he indicated 

that the reserve contained a huge supply of western white 

pine, the most important tree species 

for wood products at that time. After 

timber companies depleted the inventory of eastern white pine, they headed 

westward to find a new inventory 

from which to profit. But by the turn 

of the century, conservationists such 

as Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford 

Pinchot were calling for controlling the 

harvesting of timber and for replanting 

to replenish the depleted forests.

 Forest management was in its 

infancy and little information was 

available for those interested in 

maintaining and enhancing the forests. 

Other than research conducted in 

Germany, there was no effort being 

made to understand the hows and whys 

of tree growth, the impact of fire, or 

how to maintain an adequate supply of 

timber for future generations. But farseeing individuals, Gifford Pinchot and 

Raphael Zon in particular, recognized 

the need to create locations dedicated 

to discovering the mysteries of various 

tree species. Because trees require such 

a long period to grow, the researchers 

had to be patient and willing to wait 

for Mother Nature to divulge her 

secrets. It takes a special personality 

to be a forestry researcher, and those 

who have made significant impacts on 

research have that rare combination 

of curiosity, determination, patience, 

and knowledge. But they also must be 

self-confident and in general display 

a “do it my way” attitude. Often, this 

strong-willed attitude influenced the 

direction of the research and the methods employed. They had no instruction 

book then and are still creating it now.

This report describes the evolution 

of the Priest River Experiment Station 

from those early years to the present. 

While many researchers have contributed to the body of knowledge, this 

paper singles out only a few of the most 

noteworthy individuals who have made 

contributions to research not only useChapter 1: Introduction
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

ful on Federal and State lands but also 

on government and private lands worldwide. For example, the fire research 

done at Priest River led to the creation 

of the smokejumpers, the fire research 

laboratory in Missoula, Montana, and 

the National Interagency Fire Center in 

Boise, Idaho, to fight forest fires nationwide. Because humans are encroaching 

into forested, rural areas, the lives of 

people are threatened and the loss of 

property has skyrocketed. And as the 

fires in New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, 

Colorado, and other Western States 

during recent summers demonstrated, 

the need for further research continues. 

This report also shows how disease 

and insect devastations have impacted 

forests causing economic hardships for 

an important industry in the State, and 

how critical research helped reduce the 

damage caused by these pests.

Although Priest River Experimental Forest’s role has been significant to 

the forest industry and to the State of 

Idaho, most residents are unaware of 

these activities. With this report, past 

and current critical research, and the 

researchers themselves, should be more 

appreciated.

Nestled in the northern panhandle 

of Idaho near the pristine area of Priest 

Lake is the Priest River Experiment 

Station (over time the Station went 

through a number of name changes; the 

current name is “Priest River Experimental Forest”). This forest has been 

the site of many experiments that have 

led to breakthrough research. How did 

this remote area of the Western United 

States become the site of a national 

Forest Service research station, who 

were the contributing scientists who 

impacted forest research nationwide 

and worldwide, and how did they come 

to do their research here?

The story begins with a multitude 

of unrelated incidents that culminated 

in the creation of the Northern Region 

(Region One) of the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Experimental Research 

Station.

The Historical Context

The early history of northern Idaho 

is tied to the Native American Tribes 

who lived in the area such as the Coeur 

d’Alenes, Blackfeet, and Spokane 

Nations. The first Euro-American 

movement into the area came in the late 

1700s when the Hudson Bay Company 

obtained exclusive rights to all furbearing animals on lands that were 

claimed by the company. Euro-American explorers were in search of the 

Northwest Passage that would link the 

East to the Pacific Ocean, and despite 

efforts by the French and English, none 

were able to push the frontier beyond 

the area just north of present-day 

Montana. With the Louisiana Purchase 

in 1803, President Jefferson purchased 

all the territory in the interior part of 

the now-Continental United States from 

France. America now owned a huge 

but unknown quantity of new territory. 

Following the Lewis and Clark expedition, the area was opened to settlement 

although at the expense of the Native 

American Tribes who lived there. 

Except for the fur traders sponsored by 

the British North West Company, the 

area remained sparsely populated for 

many more years. David Thompson, 

a surveyor and geographer in charge 

of opening a fur trade in the area of 

the headwaters of the west-flowing 

Columbia, Kootenai, and Clark Fork 

Rivers, entered Idaho in the spring of 

1808. He set up a trading post near 

present day Bonners Ferry, just south 

of what is now the Canadian border. 

Over the years, the British and French 

attempted to establish additional fur 

trading locations, especially for beaver 

pelts, but with limited success.

By the mid-1800s another group 

of Euro-Americans entered the area. 

Missionaries, such as Henry and Eliza 

Spalding, came to convert the Native 

Americans. Later Father Pierre-Jean 

DeSmet established a mission at St. 

Maries, Idaho. The greatest change to 

the area, however, came in 1860 when 

Elias Pierce discovered gold in Idaho 

on the Clearwater River. Although 

his discovery brought miners to the 

area, few of them stayed once the gold 

played out, and boom towns died as 

quickly as they sprang up. However, 

some towns did grow as regional 

locations for the mining industry such 

as Butte and Missoula, Montana, and 

Lewiston, Idaho. Due to its critical 

location on the Clearwater and Snake 

Rivers, Lewiston later became the capital of the Idaho Territory. Settlers who 

were unable to find success in mining 

resumed their former professions of 

farming and supplying timber to the 

mining industry and established small 

settlements. This growth sparked the 

interest in creating a stable government, 

and the push for Statehood gained 

momentum.

In 1787, Congress had established 

the Northwest Ordinance for governing territorial expansion and the 

incorporation of new frontiers into the 

United States. Idaho and Montana were 

included in the Oregon Territory that 

Congress created in 1848. In 1853, the 

Territory was split so that Idaho and 

western Montana became part of the 

Washington Territory when Oregon 

received Statehood. Because of fear of 

being politically outnumbered by miners, both the Washington and Dakota 

Territories lobbied Congress to create 

an Idaho Territory, which Congress 

did in 1863. Over the next few years, 

the area became a political dilemma. 

Because of bitter fighting with the 

Mormon population in the southern part 

of the State, Idaho failed to make any 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 3

progress toward achieving Statehood. 

In 1889, President Harrison authorized 

in a bill the areas of Montana, Idaho, 

and the Dakotas to create and submit 

constitutions to be considered for 

Statehood. Finally, in 1890, Territorial 

Governor George Shoup convened a 

constitutional convention, and Idaho 

was granted Statehood on July 3, 1890.

With the completion of the contiguous United States, citizens who had 

been told that their natural resources 

were inexhaustible began to realize that 

the vast amount of minerals, timber, 

and lands even in the West were no 

longer limitless. By the turn of the century during the Progressive Era, many 

saw the need to bring under control the 

effects of the Industrial Revolution. 

While the period from 1830 to 1914 

marked a zenith of scientific progress 

including medical and biological 

advancements, it also marked an era 

when social and political changes were 

overwhelming. The Civil War, for 

example, shaped industries between 

the North and South and standardized 

the monetary system, and businessmen 

such as Andrew Carnegie and Gail 

Borden created industrial empires; also, 

Northern politicians created legislation 

that insulated American businesses 

against foreign competition (LaFeber 

and others 1992).

Industry brought not only prosperity but also changes in the economic 

status in the United States. Cities grew, 

pollution from the numerous manufacturing plants impacted the surrounding 

countryside, and the demand for 

natural resources forced newly formed 

companies such as Standard Oil, U.S. 

Steel, and Ford Motor Company to 

produce huge quantities of products to 

meet the demand but with devastating 

consequences to the environment. 

Because of this industrial revolution 

and the concern for its consequences, 

Congress enacted the Forest Reserve 

Act (26 Stat.1095) on March 3, 1891, 

that authorized President Grover 

Cleveland to set aside large tracts of 

timbered land, mostly in the Western 

United States, for Federal Government 

administration. Among other changes, 

the act abolished the sale of public domain lands. Three weeks after passage, 

the first Forest Reserve, called the Yellowstone Park Timber Land Reserve, 

was established for 1.2 million acres on 

the south and east sides of Yellowstone 

National Park.

Trains played a significant 

role in the development 

of the West.
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

When Congress created the 

Territories of Idaho and Montana in 

1863, the Federal government held title 

to all the land with the General Land 

Office in the Department of the Interior 

administering these lands. In 1862, 

Congress passed the Homestead Act, 

allowing unrestricted settlement on 

public lands, the Timber Culture Act in 

1873, the Timber Cutting Act of 1878, 

and the Timber and Stone Act of 1878 

to aid in transferring these lands into 

private ownership. The Act of 1897 was 

a significant step because it provided 

for the organized protection and systematic use of the Forest Reserves for 

purposes of protecting the water supplies of the Western States and helping 

guarantee continuous timber supplies. 

It also awarded power to the President 

to create additional Forest Reserves 

that greatly impacted the newly admitted Western States. The regional Forest 

Reserves were created on February 

22, 1897, and included the portions of 

what would later become Region One 

of the U.S. Forest Service, including 

the Bitterroot, Lewis and Clark, Black 

Hills, and Flathead Reserves. The Priest 

River part of the Kaniksu was created 

in 1898 (Baker and others 1993).

In addition to controlling and 

protecting the forested lands in the 

West, there was also an interest in 

transcontinental rail routes to the West 

Coast. In 1864, Congress directed the 

Northern Pacific Railroad to create a 

route from Lake Superior to the West 

Coast either to Portland or to the Puget 

Sound. To entice the railroad company 

to build in such a difficult and remote 

location, Congress promised to provide 

40 sections of land per mile through 

the Idaho, Montana, and Dakota areas. 

Along with other compensations due 

to Native American reservations and 

homesteaded lands, the Northern Pacific Railroad acquired 44 million acres 

of land, of which 3 million acres were 

in northern Idaho (Baker and others 

1993). A second transcontinental line 

owned by the Great Northern Railway 

was laid from Minot, North Dakota, 

to the Puget Sound area providing 

a rail line for Bonners Ferry, Idaho, 

and Spokane, Washington. Because 

of the necessity for ties, pilings, and 

cords of wood to fuel the locomotives, 

local lumber entrepreneurs filled the 

need from their sawmills. The original 

4,000 miles of construction required an 

estimated10 million ties, meaning that 

railroads provided a long-term demand 

for all types of lumber (Baker and others 1993). Even the Federal government 

saw the need to supply the railroads. 

Army Colonel Henry C. Merriman built 

one of the first commercial sawmills at 

Fort Sherman (Coeur d’Alene, Idaho) 

in 1878; it lasted until 1898 when the 

fort was taken out of commission. In 

1880, Frederick W. Post built the first 

water-powered sawmill at Post Falls, 

Idaho. Others followed with mills in 

Rathdrum, Idaho, and a steam-driven 

mill at Coeur d’Alene.

Frederick Weyerhaeuser was 

among the early lumbermen to see 

the future in the West. Already the 

largest timber producer in Minnesota, 

in 1900 he purchased 900,000 acres of 

land in the Washington-Oregon region 

plus another 40,000 acres containing 

western white pine on the Clearwater 

River, Idaho (Baker and others 1993). 

He also purchased lands on the headwaters of the St. Joe River and the Pend 

Oreille-Kootenai areas in Idaho. Many 

small timber companies, including 

the Potlatch Lumber Company, were 

created from these purchases, and each 

produced between 50 to 70 million 

board feet of lumber each year (Baker 

and others 1993).

Other timbermen followed, but 

these lumber entrepreneurs discovered 

the terrain in the West was much more 

difficult to control than they had found 

in the East and Lake States, so flumes 

and other methods of moving the harvested timber were created. As a result 

of their interest in getting the timber at 

whatever cost, the environment, land, 

and waterways were often abused and 

misused. Western white pine, spruce, 

and Douglas-fir, in demand in the 

East where the supply was short, were 

exploited. About 40 million board feet 

were harvested in the Idaho-Montana 

territory in 1879, but by 1899, with the 

completion of the railroads, the harvest 

was escalated to 320 million board feet 

(Baker and others 1993).

Because most of the timber 

harvested came from Federal Reserves, 

concern rose over the damage caused 

by some of the careless loggers, and 

a regulating process was viewed as 

essential to protect the government’s 

property. To monitor the forested 

lands, the Director of the General 

Land Office appointed J.B. Collins as 

Superintendent in 1899, and an office 

was established in Missoula, Montana. 

Eight Forest Rangers, including Major 

F.A. Fenn, who later replaced Collins 

as Superintendent, and Captain Seth 

Bullock, were among those appointed 

to help patrol the vast areas. By 1899, 

the Alta Ranger Station, the first in the 

nation, had been built by Rangers H.C. 

Tuttle and N.E. Wilkerson on what is 

now the Bitterroot National Forest in 

Montana. The cabin, which is now on 

the National Register of Historic Places 

and is maintained by the Forest Service 

and private donations, was originally 

paid for by Tuttle and Wilkerson without reimbursement.

Early Beginnings of 

Conservation

Although the turn of the century 

saw the most dramatic changes for conservation, early steps toward protecting 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 5

forest lands had been implemented as 

far back as the colonial days. Because 

of the need for having a supply of timber for building purposes, especially for 

ship construction, Easterners planted 

trees to replenish depleted supplies 

of high-grade timber. Settlers moving 

westward also planted trees to provide 

wind breaks and building supplies, but 

few saw the need to conserve forests, 

which seemed to be limitless, for the 

long-term future. Some conservation 

efforts were started in the 1870s when 

the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science was formed 

to influence Congress and State 

legislatures to preserve forests. The 

first Federal law, in 1876, provided for 

the appointment of a Forestry Agent 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

In 1881, the Division of Forestry in 

the Department of the Interior was established to do investigative work and 

general public education in forestry, 

and in 1886 the Division was given 

permanent rank. Bernhard E. Fernow, 

a German forester who had immigrated 

to the United States in 1876, headed 

the Division of Forestry. Fernow wrote 

numerous articles on forestry and testified before Congress on forestry issues. 

When he resigned from the Department 

of the Interior in 1898, he became Dean 

of the newly created forestry school 

at Cornell University. But before he 

left, he authored the “Report Upon the 

Forestry Investigation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 1877—1898,” 

which described the research work 

done by the Department at that time.

The American Forestry Association 

was organized in 1875 to promote 

forestry. This group sponsored the first 

American Forest Congress in 1882 

where several State governors participated. The most significant step was 

made in March 1891 when Congress 

passed a law authorizing the President 

to set aside areas in the public domain 

as forest preserves, although the law 

failed to provide for the administration 

of these reserves. Because most of 

these lands were in Western States, 

the closed areas were unpopular with 

Westerners who pushed to have the 

lands available for mining, farming, 

and privately owned lumber companies. 

By 1896, the Secretary of the Interior 

asked the National Academy of Sciences to review forestry practices, and 

the report they produced recommended 

that efforts be made to provide for 

the protection and administration of 

the Forest Reserves. The Act of June 

4, 1897, granted the authority for 

administration of the reserves with the 

objectives “to improve and protect the 

forests within the reservations, or for 

the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows and to furnish a 

continuous supply of timber for the use 

and necessity of citizens of the United 

States” (Clepper and Meyer 1960: 4).

The 1890s also saw changes to 

the Division of Forestry in the 

Department of Agriculture in the 

areas of education, research, and 

working with private owners of 

forested lands. The first attempt 

to actually “practice” forestry 

was in 1892 when Gifford Pinchot was employed to manage 

the 7,000 acre forest on George 

W. Vanderbilt’s Biltmore Estate 

in North Carolina. Pinchot, from 

a wealthy Pennsylvania family, 

became interested in conservation and forestry at an early age. 

There were no forestry schools 

in the United States, so Pinchot 

studied at L’Ecole Nationale 

Forestiere in Nancy, France, after 

completing his undergraduate 

degree at Yale. The European 

influence on forestry at this time 

cannot be understated. Pinchot, 

for example, had been highly influenced by Sir Dietrich Brandis, who led 

forestry in Germany in the 1800s and 

who had observed forestry practices 

throughout Europe and India. President 

Theodore Roosevelt recognized 

Brandis’ contributions. Germany was 

also developing experimental forests 

for research, which became the basis 

for the development of experimental 

forests in the United States.

In his memoirs, Pinchot states: 

“When I got home at the end of 

1890...the nation was obsessed by a 

fury of development. The American 

Colossus was fiercely intent on appropriating and exploiting the riches of the 

richest of all continents” (Pinkett 1970: 

15-16). Pinchot felt that there was little 

that could be done to control what the 

private forestry owners did, but “on the 

national Forest Reserves we could say, 

and we did say, ‘Do this,’ and ‘Don’t 

do that’” (Limerick 1987: 298). His 

mission became to change American 

President Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford 

Pinchot crafted the conservation policies 

that shaped early forestry.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

attitudes to manage existing forests 

with emphasis on natural reproduction 

and not tree planting for replacement of 

the stand. According to one historian, 

Pinchot may have been driven by an 

omnipotent right based on his wealthy 

and privileged background, which led 

to a forestry practice that ostensibly 

supported democracy while advocating 

its direction under an elite group of 

professionals (Limerick 1987). Indeed, 

by 1894, Pinchot presented a paper 

“Forester and Lumber in the North 

Woods” (Pinkett 1970: 33) to a number 

of prominent advocates, including 

Theodore Roosevelt, on forest preservation. The focus of his paper was 

to distinguish the differences between 

logging solely for profit versus forestry 

that would get the largest return while 

protecting and increasing the productive capacity of the forest. Because of 

this conservation view, Pinchot later 

became politically aligned with the 

Bull Moose Progressive Party headed 

by Theodore Roosevelt.

As the first professionally trained 

American forester and recognized for 

his abilities in this new profession, 

Pinchot left Biltmore when he was appointed by President William McKinley 

to head the Department of Agriculture’s 

Division of Forestry in 1898. That same 

year, Carl A. Schenck, who succeeded 

Pinchot as Forester for the estate, 

opened the Biltmore Forest School, a 

private school to train foresters. Public 

courses in forestry were available only 

in Europe, but in the fall of 1900, with 

money from Pinchot and his family, 

Yale University began a curriculum of 

graduate professional forestry education, and other universities followed 

over the next few years based on 

Pinchot’s views on forestry education. 

The New York State College of 

Forestry was also established at Cornell 

University, the first undergraduate 

forestry school at the college level. In 

1903, Yale made Pinchot a Professor in 

the Forest School.

As Pinchot’s efforts to create a 

National Forest policy grew, he became 

more influential in Washington, DC. 

By 1897, President Cleveland created 

13 additional Forest Reserves in South 

Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, 

Washington, California, and Utah without consultation with the legislators 

from those States. Despite opposition 

from many Western Senators, enough 

support for the Forest Reserves was 

found to allow for the approval of 

Cleveland’s proposal. Pinchot personally toured the forests in the Western 

areas evaluating the timber and seeing 

first hand the variety of species not seen 

in the East. He even climbed Columbia 

Peak in Washington located in what 

would later become the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest named for him in 1949. 

Pinchot began to collect a staff of 

foresters including Henry Graves (who 

was the second American- schooled 

forester), William L. Hall, Albert Potter 

(an Arizona range man who provided 

expertise on range issues), and Raphael 

Zon. Zon later became instrumental in 

creating the Priest River Experiment 

Station. From 1905 through 1940, Yale 

graduates became Pinchot’s leaders in 

the Forest Service.

In 1900, the Secretary of the Interior asked the Secretary of Agriculture 

to provide some technical advice 

on managing the Forest Reserves. 

Pinchot, working in the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forestry Division, was 

asked to respond, and his proposal for 

the administration of the forests under 

a centralized system later became the 

foundation for the Forest Service. At 

that time, however, the Department of 

the Interior failed to take any action on 

the plan.

Seven foresters—Gifford Pinchot, 

Henry S. Graves, Overton W. Price, 

Edward T. Alan, William L. Hall, Ralph 

S. Hosmer, and Thomas H. Sherrard 

(all Forestry Division employees 

with Pinchot)—founded the Society 

of American Foresters in 1900. This 

was the first professional organization 

in the United States, thus giving the 

field of forestry in the United States a 

professional level like that already seen 

in Europe where forestry practices had 

been conducted for a number of years.

Creation of the 

U.S. Forest Service 

and Region One 

Theodore Roosevelt, a champion 

of forest conservation, recommended 

in his first message to Congress after 

being elected President in 1901 that the 

Forest Reserves be transferred from 

the Department of the Interior to the 

Department of Agriculture under the 

direction of the Bureau of Forestry. 

However, opposition forced the change 

to be delayed until 1905. By then, 

however, even the private industrialists 

and lumbermen recognized the need to 

work with the President. Industrialist 

Frederick E. Weyerhaeuser of Minnesota and James J. Hill, President 

of the Great Northern Railway 

Company, recommended cooperation 

with government officials such as 

Pinchot. Roosevelt recognized the 

need to consolidate the various forestry 

programs scattered under the General 

Land Office, the Geological Survey, 

and the Bureau of Forestry under one 

unit. He also saw the need to put the 

forestry program under the control 

of one person. When the transfer was 

made, the Bureau of Forestry became 

the Forest Service, and 2 years later the 

Forest Reserves were renamed National 

Forests. Roosevelt appointed Pinchot 

administrator of the newly created 

Forest Service.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 7

Pinchot reorganized the Forest 

Service and created three districts, 

increasing it to six by 1908. An inventory of the amount of standing timber 

in the country in 1907 showed 2,500 

billion feet, a yearly lumber cut of 40 

billion feet, a yearly growth of only 

one-fourth as much (Greeley 1951). 

District One (renamed Region One 

after 1933) was formed from lands in 

Idaho and Montana as well as North 

Dakota and South Dakota. William B. 

Greeley, a Yale graduate who would 

later become the third Chief, was 

selected as the first Regional Forester 

and set up the first administrative office 

in Missoula, Montana, in the National 

Bank Building. Greeley was a product 

of Pinchot’s Yale Forestry School 

and completed his master’s degree in 

1904. Greeley hired such professionals 

as Ferdinand Silcox, R.H. Rutledge, 

Robert Y. Stuart, A.W. Cooper, David 

Mason, and C.H. Adams. Several of 

these men would be involved in the 

creation of the Priest River Experiment 

Station and would later become leaders 

in the Forest Service administration in 

Washington, DC.

By 1910, there were 50 employees 

in the Missoula office. Under Greeley’s 

direction, the Supervisors of the National Forests, which changed in number 

over the years with consolidations and 

realignments, became the protectors of 

the forests nationwide. Among these 

men were F.A. Fenn, Charles Ballinger, 

and Elers Koch, who was Assistant 

District Forester. The other positions 

included rangers, forest guards, forest 

workers, and clerical staff. Koch 

administered the inaugural ranger’s 

examination in 1906, marking the first 

time that foresters, as Civil Service 

employees, were required to meet professional standards to be hired. Rangers 

were expected to build living quarters 

on their own time. Among the duties of 

these supervisors were fire protection, 

appraising timber, arranging for timber 

sales, overseeing logging contracts, 

supervising grazing on Federal lands, 

monitoring and maintaining lookouts, 

building and maintaining trails, and 

working with the public. Often, working 

with the public was the most difficult 

part of the job as many, especially 

Westerners, perceived that the Federal 

government exerted too much control 

over the best areas of timber. Pinchot’s 

vision of local administration was 

intended to resolve problems at the local 

level and to pacify the West by not allowing “Easterners” to administer lands 

in the West, but often this resulted in 

forest officials versus local politicians. 

For example, Governor F.R. Gooding 

of Idaho opposed the creation of additional National Forests and, in his 1906 

campaign, accused the forest rangers of 

engaging in political activities against 

him (Pinchot 1998).

U.S. Forest Service 

Research

Because of Pinchot’s interest in 

forestry education, he was also keenly 

aware of the need for more scientific 

research to facilitate forest management. His own research had produced 

two publications in 1896, The Western 

White Pine and The Adirondack Spruce.

From 1898 to 1905, Pinchot’s forest 

Gifford Pinchot, first chief of the U.S. 

Forest Service.

Gifford Pinchot (seated, second from right) and members of the 1905 Use Book 

Revision Committee.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

assistants used field investigations to 

study particular species of trees’ growth, 

range of the species, soil requirements, 

insect damage, effects of fires on 

present and future stands of timber, and 

other scientific data. He created the Section of Silvics (Latin for “trees”) in the 

Forest Service in 1903 to coordinate and 

classify all the data collected. By 1907, 

the Forest Service was also cooperating 

with several universities and State agricultural experiment stations to improve 

nursery planting, cultivation, and tree 

adaptation to various regions.

However, not all the data collected 

were being used to make management 

decisions wisely, nor was there any correlation as to how these pieces of data 

interacted. Raphael Zon wrote a paper, 

“Plan for Creating Forest Experiment 

Stations,” in May 1908 basing his thesis 

on German research being done on experiment stations created in the 1870s. 

Pinchot agreed with Zon’s conclusions, 

and the first experiment station, Fort 

Valley, was established in July 1908 in 

the Coconino National Forest near Flagstaff, Arizona, and a second was created 

in 1909 near Manitou, Colorado. The 

Priest River Experiment Station soon 

followed in 1911. Zon’s plan was to 

establish stations in each silvicultural 

region across the nation over the next 

few years. The Office of Silvics, headed 

by Zon, administered all the stations.

Pinchot also recognized that a 

national wood-testing laboratory was 

needed to concentrate forest products 

research in one institution. The Forest 

Service invited several universities to 

make offers for a cooperative laboratory. 

Rivalry between the University of Wisconsin and the University of Michigan 

elicited political pressure by the Congressmen from the two States, but after 

consideration, Pinchot accepted the bid 

from the University of Wisconsin, and 

in 1910, the Forest Products Laboratory 

was established in Madison.

Items that required field investigations and long-term research included 

reforestation, grazing impacts, and 

logging techniques. However, among 

the main issues that needed research 

were forest fires and their effects. 

Pinchot, during his first year as Chief, 

authorized studying the history of 

forest fires. His staff cataloged 5,000 

fires occurring since 1754 as a basis for 

the study. Since 1870, forest fires had 

destroyed an average of $50 million 

worth of timber per year on Federal 

lands (Steen 1976). However, researchers noted that fires had also been 

beneficial in controlling the quantity of 

fuel and reducing the amount of largescale damage. Henry Graves authorized 

a study at the Yale School of Forestry 

with California lumberman T.B. Walker 

underwriting the cost. This was one of 

the first studies that had significance 

not only for Federal lands but for 

private lands as well.

These and other studies pointed 

out the need to expand research, but 

Graves chose not to use Forest Service 

money but rather asked Congress to fund 

research directly. Graves also required 

that there was a distinction between investigative and administrative projects. 

In June 1915, Graves established the 

Branch of Research and placed Earle H. 

Clapp in charge. (Clapp would become 

Acting Chief when Silcox died of a heart 

attack in 1939, but President Roosevelt 

never appointed him Chief even though 

he served for 3 years as acting.) The role 

of research was more clearly defined, 

and the district foresters were instructed, 

through administrative channels, how 

to implement research findings. The 

Chief would settle any disputes between 

the Chief of Research and the Chief of 

Administrative Branches. According 

to Albert Potter, head of the Grazing 

and Range Section, research was the 

reason for the Forest Service being in 

the Department of Agriculture, rather 

than in the Department of the Interior, 

and stated that “were it not for research 

work conducted by the Forest Service, 

it would be merely an administrative 

organization” (Steen 1998). Clapp’s 

memoirs also clearly state that “what the 

reorganization did was to give research 

a recognition and standing in the Forest 

Service which it had never had.... It 

helped to break the subordination caused 

by the enormous, urgent, often highly 

controversial effort to bring administration of the National Forests up to speed” 

(Steen 1998: 86). To bolster the cause 

of research in 1921, Clapp authored a 

pamphlet called “Forest Experiment 

Stations” and proposed creation of 10 

additional regional experiment stations 

with several scientists and an adequate 

supporting budget to fund the research. 

While this proved premature, his vision 

was used to establish each of the stations 

later.

Chief Graves determined that there 

was not adequate research material to 

draw upon, and also that some scientists 

were too tentative in their conclusions, 

so that administrators rarely sought 

advice and information from researchers. Clapp agreed with this analysis and 

began to make the necessary changes 

to the organization and to flesh out the 

inadequate areas. In addition to more 

funding, Clapp lobbied for procedural 

changes. He requested that his position 

report directly to the Chief and that each 

of the experiment stations report to him. 

This was unpopular with the District 

Rangers who suggested that the research 

being conducted pertained to their areas 

and, therefore, should be under their 

jurisdiction. Another unpopular part of 

this legislation was that the Experiment 

Station Directors were paid at the 

same level as the District Rangers. The 

District Rangers felt this was unfair 

since they administered a much larger 

organization than did the Experiment 

Station Directors. He also called for 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 9

having Station Directors and the Director of the Forest Products Laboratory 

attend general Forest Service meetings 

so that both groups could work together 

and see the broader vision of research 

within the Forest Service.

As the importance of research 

became more apparent, the Washington, 

DC, chapter of the Society of American 

Foresters established in 1924 a Special 

Committee on Forest Research and 

named Earle Clapp as chairman. The 

industry-based National Forestry 

Program Committee also proved to be an 

ally. Clapp used these groups to promote 

the need for expanding the budget for 

research—a million dollar budget for the 

Forest Products Laboratory, a million for 

the experiment stations, a half-million to 

inventory forest resources, and a quarter 

of a million to study grazing. Ohio 

Congressman John R. McSweeney had 

introduced a bill in 1927, but Congress 

adjourned before the bill was voted on. 

Senator Charles L. McNary of Oregon 

joined McSweeney’s cause, and on May 

22, 1928, the McSweeney-McNary Act 

was passed (see further explanation 

of this act later in this chapter). This 

law, which contained material from a 

1926 report by Earle Clapp, is the basic 

authority governing Forest Service 

research. Some of the main points of 

the act provided for the Forest Survey 

to collect data on the inventory of the 

nation’s timber resources, designate 

what research could be done, set up 

guidelines to look at the interrelationships of forestry, give legal sanction 

to the Forest Products Laboratory and 

the Forest Service experiment stations 

already in place, and set up a 10-year 

financial program to fund the research. 

After 8 years Clapp finally achieved 

recognition for the importance of 

research and the budget he needed to 

consolidate all the individual sections of 

research that he had in place. The bill accomplished several other critical things: 

it provided the Branch of Research a 

broader place within the Forest Service; 

it strengthened the basis for dealing with 

other agencies such as the Entomology 

and Plant Industry Bureau; it dealt with 

non-Federal research needs; and it began 

to balance silvicultural and products 

research. One of the main parts of the 

bill provided for the Forest Survey, a 

nationwide inventory of National Forest 

lands. This law was vital to the growth 

of research because it recognized forest 

research as an integral part of forestry.

The 1910 Fire

Many historical records suggested 

that large and devastating fires had 

taken place in the Northwest including 

Idaho and Montana. In 1846 the 

Yaquina Fire in Oregon burned 450,000 

acres, and in 1853 the Nestucca Fire, on 

the Oregon coast, burned 320,000 acres 

(Cohen 1978). The difference between 

these earlier burns and the one of 1910 

was that the population of the area had 

substantially increased. In addition to 

the Native American inhabitants, the 

area had become populated with towns 

and homesteaders so that settlers and 

fire collided. As populations grew 

 Results of the 1910 fire on Wallace, Idaho.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

and the need to protect the trees for 

harvest became even more paramount, 

the need to control forest fires became 

essential. By 1908, the Milwaukee 

Railroad, being built through the Lolo 

National Forest in Montana, caused 

many fires as the workers cleared the 

timber, adding to the responsibility of 

the rangers to control these wildfires. 

Causes of fire varied and included 

natural causes and lightning strikes, but 

most often they were human caused. 

Weather conditions, lack of precipitation, thunderstorms, plus the amount 

of burnable vegetation and timber 

available, contributed to these fires.

Conditions in District One in 1910 

were ripe for devastation. According to 

reports, 1909 and 1910 had abnormally 

low amounts of precipitation, and 

temperatures for the month of April 

were the highest on record. By June 

only a half inch of rain, and by July no 

rain, had been recorded in District One. 

By August the lack of rain and the dry 

forests made for perfect fire conditions. 

A series of 1,736 fires, including the big 

one of August 20 and 21, ravaged millions of acres and killed 85 (possibly 

87) people during the summer of 1910. 

According to Elers Koch, Supervisor 

of the Lolo National Forest, the fires of 

1910 were a “complete defeat for the 

newly organized Forest Service force” 

because the fires burned 3 million acres 

in northern Idaho (Baker and others 

1993: 69).

Contributing to the problem that 

summer were primitive transportation, 

lack of communication and fire fighting 

equipment, rugged terrain that included 

more than 40 million acres within the 

district, inadequate numbers of experienced fire fighters and supervisors, 

and the lack of funds. Congress had 

created Glacier Park on May 11, 1910, 

but no money had been designated for 

fire protection for the Park. District 

Forester William Greeley, however, 

felt obligated to protect that area of the 

district and dispatched fire fighters from 

the Flathead and Blackfeet National 

Forests to the Park when fires broke 

out. Spot fires began to break out in 

many places within the region, making 

it difficult for the office in Missoula to 

keep track and provide enough workers 

to fight the blazes. Temporary help, 

including miners from Butte, Montana, 

logging crews, soldiers, ex-convicts, 

and vagrants, were hired at 25 cents an 

hour. The worst fires broke out along 

the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains 

along the border between Idaho and 

Montana at the rate of three to four 

per day. Wallace, Idaho, with its 6,000 

residents, felt the brunt of the fire as 

half the town was destroyed.

One individual, Edward Pulaski, 

working on the Coeur d’Alene District, 

became a folk hero when he saved most 

of his 43-man crew by sheltering them 

in the tunnel of the War Eagle Mine 

near Wallace as the fire raced by them. 

The fire was finally contained, aided by 

a change in weather conditions when 

the temperatures dropped and snow fell 

on the higher elevations.

The aftermath of the devastation 

of the fire was enormous. Approximately $13.5 million dollars worth 

of damage was done, 3 million acres 

of private and public lands burned 

(Cohen 1978), and 78 fire fighters, two 

residents of Wallace, one prospector, 

and three homesteaders near Priest 

River were killed. The smoke drifted 

as far away as Saskatchewan, Canada, 

Denver, Colorado, and Watertown, 

New York. The Savenac Nursery near 

Haugen, Montana, the largest forest 

nursery in the United States, was 

destroyed but later rebuilt in 1911 as 

were buildings in many of the towns 

such as Taft, Saltese, and DeBorgia in 

Montana, and Wallace, Idaho. Region 

One became the center of attention not 

only for the impact the fires had but 

also because its Forest Service personnel became the “experts” on fire. 

However, it was apparent that there 

was a need to have better information, 

equipment, and workforce. According 

to Greeley, “Congress and the Forest 

Service now realize that fire protection 

was the number one job of the Forest 

Service. We knew this before, but the 

1910 experience burned it in terms 

of sweat, labor, and human life. Protection was it—we must lick the fire 

problem” (Spencer 1956: 267). But, as 

the 1910 fires pointed out, no research 

information was available to the Forest 

Service regarding forest fires and the 

conditions that promote devastating 

fires such as these.

Transfer From Pinchot 

to Graves

By 1908, when President William 

Taft succeeded Roosevelt, Pinchot 

had become embroiled in a battle with 

newly selected Secretary of the Interior 

Richard Ballinger. Several issues, such 

as administration of forestry affairs on 

Indian reservations and the Alaskan 

coal claims, created clashes between 

the two. Taft, to prevent attacks by 

one department head on another, 

chose to dismiss Pinchot in 1910, and 

Henry Graves was chosen to succeed 

Pinchot as Chief of the Forest Service. 

To rebuild morale and to prevent 

the resurgence of the idea for State 

control of National Forests, Graves 

concentrated on the internal structure of 

the organization. To answer charges of 

fiscal waste and overexpenditures and 

to prove that the Forest Service could 

be self-sufficient, Graves began creating a timber policy. William Greeley, 

District Forester from Region One 

headquartered in Montana, indicated 

to Graves that the Forest Service could 

increase timber sales substantially 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 11

without exceeding annual growth and 

without sacrificing the intrinsic value 

of the timber. The 1910 fire in Idaho 

and Montana had created an enormous 

amount of dead timber, and the Forest 

Service administration felt that it was 

“morally obligated” to harvest the marketable timber. By 1911, Greeley was 

able to report that half a billion board 

feet of fire-killed timber from the 1910 

burn had been sold. This equaled the 

amount cut from all other National Forest lands and nearly 14 percent of all 

timber cut in the United States from all 

sources in 1911 (Steen 1976). Despite 

the extent of the 1910 fire, Greeley had 

proven himself a worthy forester and 

was promoted to Chief when Graves 

retired due to poor health.

Clarke-McNary and 

McSweeny-McNary 

Acts

In 1924, Congress passed the 

Clarke-McNary Act,, which provided 

for incentives, rather than force, to be 

Savenac Nursery 

1910, in western 

Montana near 

the Idaho border.

used to improve conditions on private 

forest lands. Fire and reforestation 

would be jointly monitored and controlled by the Federal, State, and private 

sectors. According to Samuel Dana, 

Assistant Chief of the Branch of Research under Earle Clapp, research was 

included in the original draft, but Clapp 

maintained that it would be lost in a law 

that contained so many controversial 

provisions. Clapp instead insisted that 

there be a separate law for research that 

resulted in the McSweeney-McNary 

Act.

The idea behind the ClarkeMcNary Act was that reducing risks 

would prompt landowners to adopt less 

destructive cutting practices because 

they could see the future benefits. 

Threat of fire remained high in the 

Pacific Northwest, and in 1909 the 

lumber industry formed the Western 

Forestry and Conservation Association 

headed by E.T. Alan. With the 1910 fire 

as a prime example of how devastating 

fires were, Graves had also learned 

that there was a need to have more 

trails, telephones, and patrols. The law 

also dealt with land acquisitions for 

National Forest purposes. The Weeks 

Law of 1911 had restricted purchases 

to headwaters of navigable streams, but 

now the National Forest Reservation 

Commission could recommend the 

purchase of land for timber production 

as well as protection of streamflow. It 

also authorized up to $100,000 per year 

to be used cooperatively with States to 

establish nurseries that would provide 

stock for reforestation. Congress also 

authorized money for technical advice 

to farm woodlot owners.

The Time is Ripe

By the turn into the 20th century, 

dramatic changes had shaped the course 

of the development of not only the 

Forest Service but also the use of 

natural resources in the United States. 

As the industrial revolution impacted 

the growth of the nation, the demand to 

provide adequate supplies for industries 

was apparent, and timber was among 

the leading needs. Powerful men such as 
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Roosevelt and Pinchot were guiding the 

nation toward conservation to replenish 

the supply of lumber. Their personalities, dominating and commanding, 

drove the nation’s natural resource 

policy of the day of not only conservation but also timber production.

As a result of the exploitation of 

the natural resources in the East where 

the forests had been depleted, Pinchot 

and his followers determined that the 

West would be handled far differently. 

In their opinion the Federal government 

could manage the natural resources, 

especially in the West, far better than 

private industries had done in the East. 

Natural disasters, such as the 1910 fire, 

also influenced the path that the Federal 

government would take in its policies 

and procedures. Pinchot’s forestry 

views were based on his experiences in 

Europe where most of the forests were 

under government control. He fought 

to counteract the private timber companies’ policy of cut for profit and move 

on. Congress, no doubt influenced by 

Pinchot, agreed and passed several 

pieces of legislation that backed the 

Forest Service’s method of managing 

the forests. A question that is unanswerable is how the policies and procedures 

of the Forest Service would have been 

altered if Pinchot had remained Chief.

To manage the forests well, the 

Forest Service’s leaders knew that they 

needed to collect more information 

to make better decisions. But the 

Forest Service administration quickly 

learned that they lacked the necessary 

information to make sound decisions. 

Clapp, Zon, and others emphasized that 

to aid in decisionmaking for the forests, 

research was required. Following 

examples in Germany, experimental 

forests were needed to study native 

trees and to learn from experimentation. Given the policymaker’s ideas and 

Mother Nature’s devastating events in 

the area, the time was ripe for establishing the Priest River Experiment Station. 

The viewpoints of these early Forest 

Service leaders, therefore, imprinted 

how, where, and what type of research 

would be conducted at Priest River.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 13

In the 1890s the Priest River Reserve 

covered land in Idaho and Washington 

and contained 645,120 acres. In 1897, 

John B. Leiberg, Dendrologist with 

the General Land Office, evaluated the 

topography of the Priest River Reserve 

in northern Idaho and described the 

rivers, elevations of the mountains, 

the soil, the topographical features of 

the valleys and, most important, the 

condition of the forest. In his report he 

states:

...there are but few tracts within its boundaries that do not now, or 

did not a few years ago, support a 

dense, magnificent forest...of these, 

the western white pine and tamarack (larch) form about 91 percent 

of the total...the white-pine zone is 

the predominant one in the reserve. It 

lies principally between altitudes of 

2,400 and 4,800 feet above sea level, 

and reaches its greatest development 

between elevations of 2,800 and 

3,500 feet. Its area is about eighty 

percent of the forested portion of the 

reserve, or about 480,000 acres, including such tracts as are now in a 

state of reforestation and covered 

with pure, or nearly pure, growths of 

lodgepole pine (Leiberg 1897).

This description no doubt had 

an impact on the placement of the 

Experiment Station especially due to its 

large amount of western white pine, a 

highly prized forest product. With the 

establishment of Experiment Stations 

in Arizona and Colorado, it was evident 

the Pacific Coast region, with western 

white pine as the major species, was 

another valuable site. Based on the U.S. 

Forest Service Annual Report of 1911 

(USDA Forest Service 1911), other 

reasons played a role in the 

creation of the Priest River Experiment 

Station:

1. Representation of the forest types 

located in Region One.

2. Areas suitable for reforestation 

experiments in the more important 

forest types.

3. Reasonable access to the District 

Office and to transcontinental 

routes of travel.

4. Land wholly National Forest 

ground and subject to withdrawal 

for exclusive use by the Forest 

Service.

5. Suitable building site, good water 

supply, desirable surrounding, 

and other natural conveniences as 

possible.

According to F.I. Rockwell (USDA 

Forest Service 1911), Forest Assistant 

for Region One, several sites were 

considered that were close to the main 

railway lines – the Kootenai, Kaniksu, 

Coeur d’Alene, St. Joe, and the Lolo. 

But the area near the Benton Ranger 

Station on the Kaniksu National Forest 

was chosen because it best fulfilled the 

desired conditions including the ability 

to study climatology of the area and 

the impact of weather on the various 

species. All the important forest types 

(western white pine, western larch, 

Douglas-fir, and western yellow pine) 

were found on the 720 acres set aside 

for the Station. There were also large 

flats that were covered with lodgepole 

Chapter 2: The First Years of the Priest 

River Experiment Station

Priest River Experimental 

Forest, along the Priest 

River, is 13 miles north 

of the town of Priest 

River, Idaho. The 

Benton and Canyon 

Creek drainages 

encompass the 

majority of the Forest.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

pine while a trail from the Station along 

a ridgetop led up to the alpine type 

species on the top of Bald Mountain. 

Rockwell determined that the evenaged stands of western white pine, 

western larch, Douglas-fir, and western 

yellow pine of 40 to 50 years of age 

in Benton Creek Basin would provide 

excellent opportunities for experiments 

in thinning and for the creation of 

permanent sample plots for the study of 

forest yield and growth.

Having decided upon the desirability of establishing an experiment station, it became necessary to choose 

a suitable site. According to a forest 

map of North America prepared by 

the Dendrologist, there are three distinct forest regions represented in the 

area embraced in District One. The 

“Northern Forest” of the Appalachian 

Mountains, Great Lake Basin, and 

Canada is represented by the four national forests of Michigan and Minnesota. That portion of Montana east of 

the Continental Divide, the Dakotas, 

and the southern and eastern portions 

of the Missoula, Bitterroot and Nez 

Perce Forests, comprise an important 

part of the “Rocky Mountain Forest,” 

whose important commercial species 

are limited to the lodgepole and western yellow pines, Engelmann spruce, 

and Douglas-fir. The remaining National Forests of western Montana 

and northern Idaho with their dense 

heavy stands of western white pine, 

western larch, Douglas-fir, lowland 

fir, hemlock, and cedar are essentially 

a part of the “Pacific Coast Forests.” 

Some of them contain, however, a 

more or less irregular and wide band 

of transition forest where the latter region meets the Rocky Mountain Forest. Eventually it may be desirable to 

establish an experiment station within each of these three regions. For the 

present, however, because of shortage of men and funds, it was thought 

best to concentrate our energies and 

resources at one station, that of course 

to be located in the Region One [in] 

which the need is most pressing, 

where the problems to be solved are 

most important. ...

In the Pacific Coast Forest region, 

however, no forest experiment station has yet been located. ...From a 

commercial point of view, however, 

it is much the most important, since it 

contains nearly 80 per cent of all the 

merchantable saw-timber within the 

District, while at the present time it is 

yielding approximately 70 percent of 

the total cut. ...All these reasons considered, there was no doubt of the advisability of placing the Station in the 

Pacific Coast Region One, the western white pine belt. There was more 

difficulty in deciding on the Forest. ...Practically all of the available 

sites within reach of the main railway 

lines on the most promising Forests, 

viz. The Kootenai, Kaniksu, Coeur 

d’Alene, St. Joe and Lolo, were examined or considered, and the vicinity of the Benton Ranger Station on 

the Kaniksu National Forest, was finally chosen as coming the nearest 

to fulfilling the desired conditions. 

...All in all I believe the site selected 

is as nearly ideal as could be found 

(USDA Forest Service 1911).

Not only were the forest conditions 

right for establishing the Experiment Station but the labor force, transportation, 

and communication were available in the 

nearby town of Priest River.

Priest River, Idaho

Founded in 1889, Priest River was 

established for logging and ranching by 

Henry Keiser. His daughter, Melinda, 

was the first white child born in Post 

Falls, Idaho. Originally, the settlement 

was given the name of Valencia according to the railroad maps, but when 

it was discovered that another Idaho 

town had that name, it was changed 

to Priest River. According to James 

Estes (1961) in his Early Days of Priest 

River, the name Priest River derived 

from the Catholic Priests, such as 

Father DeSmet, who worked with the 

Native Americans in the area. Father 

DeSmet, according to legend, named 

the lake Roothaan after a boyhood 

friend; however, the Native Americans 

could not say that word so they called 

it Kaniksu, which means black robe. 

As the settlement grew, the name Priest 

River was adopted.

Vicinity map. Priest River Experimental Forest in northern Idaho.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 15

The Great Northern Railroad 

was constructed in the 1890s, and the 

section in northern Idaho produced 

a demand for laborers, called gandydancers, to lay ties. These laborers, 

mostly Italians, were brought in, and 

many of them remained in Priest 

River. These workers then sent for their 

families still in Italy, and Priest River 

was nicknamed “Little Italy.” Priest 

River became the center for ties for the 

railroad, and the lumbermen were paid 

12 cents per tie (Estes 1961).

By 1900, the 50 residents in the 

town were granted the right to have 

a post office. Two ferries traveled 

between Priest River and Sandpoint, 

Idaho, and a ferry was later added 

between Priest River and Newport, 

Washington. The earliest businesses, 

not surprisingly, were lumber mills. 

Graham-Robinson Mill and the Priest 

River Company opened in 1901. In 

1903, the White Pine Lumber Company 

was added, and it produced 75,000 

to 100,000 board feet per day (Estes 

1961). Despite the lack of paved roads, 

the first cars were brought to the area 

by 1907; Dr. Arthur Drake, a dentist, 

owned the first. The cars were used 

only during the summer months and 

only when the roads were dry, and in 

the winter they were put up on blocks. 

By 1910 an auto stage (an early form 

of a bus) was operated by David Coolin 

to take passengers to and from Coolin 

on the East Side Road. During the 1910 

fire, a second auto stage was established 

to haul 12 to 15 fire fighters at a time 

from Priest River to Priest Lake. The 

operator of this stage made $1,500 in 2 

months by charging $2.50 per person, 

but because of the poor road and lack 

of power of the car, the men had to 

push the car up the hills, meaning they 

walked as much as they rode (Estes 

1961).

One of the more colorful residents 

of Priest River during these early years 

was Nell Shipman, a filmmaker who 

made silent movies. Born in Victoria, 

British Columbia, Canada, in 1892, 

she became an actress in a touring 

vaudeville company at a young age. 

Her first films, based on James Oliver 

Curwood stories, used the wilderness 

and animals. Curwood gained a shortlived reputation as an equal to Zane 

Grey and Jack London.

During the shooting of Back to 

God’s Country, Shipman met Bert 

Van Tuyle, who was the Production 

Manager for the film, and they formed 

Nell Shipman Productions in 1921. 

Between 1922 and 1924 they moved 

to upper Priest Lake (Shipman 1987). 

They lived in a log cabin, called 

Lionhead Lodge, 21 miles from the 

nearest road and 50 miles from a 

railway line, and had to use a dogsled 

and snowshoes to get out in the winter. 

She maintained a small zoo including 

Brownie the bear, coyotes, wolves, a 

cougar, eagles, and owls and used them 

in her films, and she did her own stunts. 

Shipman wrote, directed, and starred 

in two feature films, Something New in 

1921 and Grubstake in 1923. Shipman 

invited the residents of Priest River 

to see Grubstake at the local hotel in 

the Beardmore Building. By the mid1920s, silent films lost their popularity 

so she closed her Idaho production 

company and moved to California. 

Boise State University has created a 

collection of her work, which includes 

23 films.

The peak of growth for Priest 

River was in the 1920s when the 

population grew to 2,000. It was, at 

that time, the fastest growing town in 

northern Idaho. During World Ward II, 

prisoner-of-war camps were established 

in northern Idaho and northern Montana, and many of the prisoners were 

allowed to work in the timber industry 

in the area (Marilyn Cook, personal 

communication).

Getting Started

Tom Benton, a pensioner, 

established a claim in 1891 and built a 

cabin on the north end of Benton Flat. 

But when the General Land Office 

survey was completed in 1897, the 

area proved to be part of the Northern 

Pacific Railroad land. Benton and his 

daughter moved to the Big Creek area 

and established a Half-Way-House for 

travelers (Larsen 1976). According to 

Charles Wellner, research scientist and 

responsible for the Station in the 1960s, 

the history of the land arrangement for 

the Experiment Station is convoluted 

due to the interaction of the State of 

Idaho, the General Land Office, and 

the Department of Agriculture. Wellner 

states:

The major problem was that at the 

same time the Priest River Station 

was being established, officials of 

the State of Idaho and the Department of Agriculture were reaching an 

agreement to convey lands in which 

the experimental forest was located 

to the State. A large area of National Forest land east of Priest River and 

Priest Lake was to be excluded from 

the National Forest as indemnity land 

for selection by the State in lieu of 

unsurveyed school grant sections 16 

and 36 within the National Forest. It 

took 17 years to unscramble the ensuing mess! (Wellner 1976: 71).

In 1911, Benton and Canyon 

Creek drainages were to be included in 

lands available for the State to claim, 

but 4,270 acres were withdrawn from 

selection and excluded in a Presidential 

Proclamation of March 3, 1913. 

Although an agreement was established 

between the State and the Forest Service, the paperwork was never properly 

handled. As a result the State selected 

the lands, and it was approved by the 

Secretary of the Interior. To resolve 

the matter, the Federal government 

brought suit against the State to recover 
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

the lands, so on February 27, 1928, the 

Supreme Court decreed certain lands 

within the Priest River Experiment Station to be returned to the United States. 

Finally, on April 18, 1931, Robert Y. 

Stuart, Chief of the Forest Service, 

signed an Establishment Report 

reserving the Experiment Station a full 

20 years after it was actually created. 

Much later, other changes were made 

to the amount of land set aside. Public 

Land Order 2377 of May 11, 1961, reserved 6,368 acres for the experimental 

forest (Wellner 1976).

In August of 1911, a party 

consisting of Raphael Zon, head of the 

Forest Service’s Office of Silvics, and 

Robert Y. Stuart and F. I. Rockwell 

from the District Office visited the 

Benton Ranger Station in the Priest 

River Valley bringing in the basic 

supplies needed to establish the Priest 

River Experiment Station. In addition, 

the Chief of the Forest Service, the 

Regional Forester, and other prominent 

foresters visited and approved of the 

area. The location offered the ability 

to study climate and ecology of forest 

types. Within a half mile of each other 

were found available sites illustrating 

the entire range of conditions in the 

region from the moist northeastern 

slopes to the dry southwestern slopes 

with an intermediate type between. The 

Savenac Nursery, rebuilt after the 1910 

fire, was also available to supply seeds 

and other assistance. There were two 

main drawbacks to the area. One was 

the isolation of being 15 miles from a 

railroad, which meant mail was delivered only twice a week in the winter 

and three times a week in the summer; 

however, a railroad was anticipated 

within a few years. The other drawback 

was the expense of freighting heavy 

equipment and building supplies to the 

area. Both problems were seen as minor 

compared to the advantages.

By September 1, 1911, Zon and 

Rockwell along with William W. 

Morris, on temporary assignment from 

the Coeur d’Alene Forest, and Donald 

H. Brewster, on temporary assignment 

from the St. Joe Forest, began the preliminary work of creating the physical 

facilities. Along with 10 men, including 

“Dad” Crosby, teamster Howard 

Simpson, and Douglass MacDonald, 

the cook, they set up camp, and by 

October preliminary work had been 

completed, and the remainder of work 

was left to Brewster and MacDonald, 

who had been appointed Forest Guard 

(see appendix A). Although there were 

few residents in the area, a number of 

ranches within a short distance of the 

Station could supply fresh milk, butter, 

eggs, and vegetables. They would 

also provide labor for extra work at 

Founding party 1911. Left to right: William Greeley, Regional Forester, Tanner, David Mason, Ferdnand Silcox, James Girard, M.H. 

Wolff, Henry Graves, Chief of the Forest Service, and Mallory Stickney.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 17

busy times. The Station was already 

connected with the Kaniksu telephone 

line providing access to Priest River 

and Coolin a few miles away. A journal 

entry in Donald Brewter’s log book 

indicates that the Forest Service 

personnel were accepted by the local 

ranchers and that a “house warming in 

the Laboratory building ended at 6 a.m. 

and was attended by about fifty people. 

Every one voted it the most successful 

affair of the season” (personal journal, 

pages unknown).

Construction

To replace the tents and temporary 

structures, several buildings were built 

and other improvements were made. 

These included a trail 8 feet wide to 

connect the weather stations with the 

Laboratory, a road 12 feet wide connecting the buildings with the Ranger 

Station and stage road, and a foot path 

along the north side of the creek to the 

stage road. Several areas were cleared 

to prepare for a nursery and other buildings. A gravity water system that made 

13 gallons per minute was installed 

with a pipe about 3,200 feet up Benton 

Creek.

Along with the laboratory, an 

office building of 24 by 26 feet, a 

story and a half tall and containing five 

rooms, was built by late October. The 

office also contained a large laboratory, workbenches, filing cases, and a 

herbarium with specimen cabinets. A 

kitchen completed the first floor. During the first year, the building was used 

by Brewster for his residence, while 

Construction party 1911. Howard Simson, Raphael Zon, two unidentified men, “Dad” Crosby, standing 

by wagon, William Morris, Donald Brewster, and F.I. Rockwell.

Donald Brewster, first Director of Priest 

River Experiment Station 1911-1917.
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

MacDonald and his family occupied 

a one-room cabin (12 by 20 feet) built 

on the site. A greenhouse (12 by 18 

feet) was constructed on the southeast 

side of the laboratory so that it would 

receive the best sunlight. The Forest 

Service had also provided tools and 

equipment such as aneroid barometers, 

anemometers, photometer, camera and 

tripod, microscope, herbarium, seed 

sampling machine, and a pendulum 

clock for maintaining standard time. 

According to the Annual Report, the 

grand total for establishing the Station 

was $3,071.04 (see appendix B).

A number of experiments were 

immediately started including testing of 

climatic varieties, planting and sowing 

methods, nursery practice, introduction 

of exotics, seed production, meteorological observations, and seed testing. 

Additional work would be done in the 

nursery such as studying the extent of 

shading on different species during the 

seedling stage in nursery beds, root 

pruning to produce roots of uniform 

length and character, cultivation 

of seed and transplant beds versus 

watering, preparation of seed beds for 

the study of developing tap roots in 

favor of lateral roots, and testing the 

differences in climatic variations. Other 

studies planned were seed production, 

meteorological observations, seed 

extraction of cones, and seed testing 

from other forests in conjunction with 

the nursery in Boulder, Colorado, and 

Savenac Nursery. According to Brewster in the Annual Report for 1911, the 

opportunities for investigative work 

were overwhelming and limited only 

by the amount of work one man could 

do well. In spite of the need for the 

various kinds of research being done 

The tent in the meadow in 1911. Ronald MacDonald, the cook’s son, stands in front of the tent.

at the Station, the Forest Service failed 

to provide an adequate staff to carry on 

the research. Brewster’s journal entries 

are filled with comments about the 

lack of time to do experiments and the 

burden of paperwork.

The organization of the Priest 

River Experiment Station changed 

over the years and reflected the 

emphasis and reorganization of the 

Forest Service. The first change came 

in 1914 when the nursery and planting 

investigations were transferred to 

Savenac Nursery and to Placer Creek 

near Wallace, Idaho. Because of the 

need to restore the forests devastated by 

the 1910 fire, the emphasis was to serve 

practical needs in addition to long-term 

scientific research. By 1915, when 

the Branch of Research was created 

in Washington, DC, Graves and other 

Washington Office staff members 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 19

recognized the need for larger staffs 

at the research sites and for better 

facilities, and the need to distribute the 

results of the research more widely. 

In 1916, a section of Forest Investigations for Silviculture was established 

under the Assistant District Forester 

of District One, and Brewster was assigned this responsibility. As a result an 

agreement was reached in the Missoula 

District Office, the Washington Office, 

and reluctantly by Brewster and Zon, to 

move Brewster to Missoula and leave 

J.A. Larsen as the only technical person 

at the Station. Larsen had responsibility 

for the research program but answered 

to Missoula. A local Ranger was 

given responsibility for maintenance, 

improvement, and protection of the Station and reported to the supervisor of 

the Kaniksu National Forest. The intent 

from the beginning was to have the 

Station be a model and demonstration 

forest of intensive management. This 

was best summarized from Brewster’s 

journal entry of September 23, 1913:

Mr. Raphael Zon, Chief of Forest Investigations, from Washington, D.C. 

arrived for the annual inspection of 

the Station, coming up on the auto 

stage in the evening. He found many 

changes since he left two years ago, 

the latter part of September 1911, 

and seemed pleased with the progress that has been made. Mr. Zon 

went over all the investigative and 

improvement work, the files, and records in great detail. He also spent an 

afternoon in looking over the withdrawal up Benton Creek valley and 

came back a very enthusiastic convert to the plan of making the Priest 

River Experiment Station a miniature 

administrative unit of 4,500 acres - 

a model Forest intensively managed 

along European lines. With some ten 

million feet of merchantable timber ready to cut and large bodies of 

young timber coming to maturity, 

the unit could be made self-supporting on the basis of its annual increment and in a minimum of time. The 

timber would be immediately accessible and saleable as soon as an inexpensive permanent road system can 

be installed, with a main trunk road 

about two miles long up the valley 

from the landing on Priest River and 

sided roads up each gulch. Mr. Zon 

stayed until Sunday morning September 28 (Wellner 1976: 10).

The idea of the Station as a model 

was useful for district people as well. 

The annual Ranger Training School, 

which lasted 2 months each year, was 

held there not only for the value of the 

training but also to help build facilities 

and improve the model forest. For 

example, in 1915, the bunkhouse at the 

west end of the Station clearing was 

constructed and a woodshed/icehouse 

with a lecture room upstairs was 

built near cottage 1 where Larsen 

and his family resided. According to 

Larsen’s (1976) memoirs, the buildings, 

designed by Brewster, were considered 

“curiosities” because he wanted them to 

serve the Station after the ranger school 

was over. A water supply dam was 

built in Benton Creek, and a gravity 

water system was completed in 1912, 

improving on the original system built 

the previous year. In 1917, a lookout 

was built; three additional cottages, 

workshop, various outbuildings, and 

livestock fences were also completed. 

Cottage 1 was remodeled and had the 

distinction of being the first Forest 

Service building to have a bath tub 

(according to Julius Larsen). World 

War I, however, drastically shifted 

funding to national and world issues so 

that the Station struggled to maintain its 

meager existence. A budget of $650 per 

building imposed a constraint on the 

amount of expansion that could be done 

at the Station (Wellner 1976).

Early Research Begins

All the construction activities, 

however, took energies away from 

the research projects. Because of the 

need for more data about the Forest, 

Joseph Kitteredge, Samuel V. Fullaway, 

Claude Sutton, and F.R. Paine mapped 

and cruised the Forest during 1913 and 

1914. They evaluated 4,250 acres in the 

Benton and Canyon Creek drainages.

Brewster left for military service 

in 1917, and Larsen was responsible 

Plantation of western white pine in 1911.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

for handling all aspects of the Station. 

In 1918, research was separated from 

the National Forest administrative 

organization and put directly under the 

Branch of Research in Washington, DC. 

Larsen became Director of the Priest 

River Experiment Station and reported 

to the Branch of Research. The Station 

and all research suffered its lowest level 

of funding in 1920 when Congress 

drastically cut appropriations. Larsen 

was temporarily transferred to District 

One to work with W.C. Lowdermilk, 

and funds for Priest River were used for 

maintenance and protection only.

Charles Wellner estimated the amount of time spent on the various research 

projects from 1911 through 1920 (Wellner 1976: 16).

Line of study Responsibility % of effort

Planting Brewster, Larsen, 

 Kitchen, Wahlenberg, 

 Delavan, Rogers 45

Methods of cutting Brewster, Larsen 30

Thinning Brewster 2

Meteorological studies Larsen 8

Volume, growth, and yield Brewster, Larsen 3

Tree studies Brewster 2

Fire studies Larsen, Lowdermilk, Delavan 10

Guiding research activities during 

the war years was an investigative 

committee. Forest Service Chief 

Henry Graves, in Directive Order 41 

dated January 2, 1912, ordered the 

establishment of an Investigative Committee consisting of representatives 

of each major line of investigation, 

which included silviculture, grazing, 

and forest products. This committee, 

meeting annually except for 1917 

and 1918, reviewed, advised, and 

made recommendations to the District 

Forester, and required that investigators 

prepare written reports to justify their 

programs and progress. At the 1916 

meeting, the Committee requested that 

a study of the detection and control of 

forest fires be established, emphasizing 

the rate that fires spread, the interaction 

with weather, and site conditions. 

Larsen monitored the project by 

periodically analyzing the moisture in 

the duff, litter, and surface soil at three 

locations where climatic readings were 

taken. These and other studies with 

Lowdermilk mark the beginnings of 

fire research that later would lead to 

breakthrough discoveries.

Experimental planting area for the 

western white pine at Priest River 

Experimental Forest. Area logged 

in 1910. Photo taken in 1911.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 21

The second Station Director, Julius A. 

Larsen, joined the Forest Service and 

had been assigned to Montana shortly 

after graduating from Yale. He was 

recommended for research work at the 

Station in 1912 after working on the 

Blackfeet National Forest in Kalispell, 

Montana. In 1913, Larsen, his wife, 

and baby daughter, Margaret, traveled 

from Montana by “dead axe wagon” in 

2 feet of snow arriving April 6, 1913, 

in Priest River. They stopped over at 

the Benton Half-Way-House overnight 

and then went on to the Station the 

next morning. Due to the limited 

accommodations they shared cottage 1 

with the Brewster family until cottage 2 

was completed later in 1913.

Under the leadership of Larsen, 

the years between 1920 and 1924 

were used to offset the lean war years. 

Increased funding from Congress was 

used to expand the research program 

but was limited to the variety of studies 

that could be conducted. The Station 

also expanded its role as an educational 

site for universities in the area. During 

this time the Office of Blister Rust 

Control was established in Spokane, 

Washington, and, in contrast to the 

meager allotment of research money 

(under $20,000), the studies of western 

white pine blister rust budget was 

$54,000 (Wellner 1976). The emphasis 

on eradicating a nationwide problem 

took precedent over any other studies 

being done in the area.

The Office of Blister Rust Control 

was created to develop practical methods of eradicating Ribes from western 

white pine forests. White pine blister 

rust, a fungus, was brought to North 

America in shipments of pine seedlings 

from Europe. First identified at Geneva, 

New York, in 1906, it had spread by 

1915 throughout New England. By 

1921 it was found in various locations 

in the Pacific Northwest in plantings 

from seedlings shipped to Vancouver, 

British Columbia, Canada. Little was 

known about its development and fastpaced dispersal, and the western white 

pine forests proved to be vulnerable to 

this invasive disease.

White pine blister rust requires two 

hosts for it to survive: white pine and 

Ribes. On white pine, the fungus, traveling by spores from current bushes, 

first enters the needles and proceeds to 

grow down the limb until it reaches the 

main stem of the tree where it encircles 

the tree, killing it. This can take 30 

years or more in old trees but much less 

time in young trees. Growing on white 

pine, the fungus forms another type of 

Chapter 3: The Larsen Years 1913 to 1924

Julius A. Larsen, second Director 

1917-1921.

Cottage used by the Larsen family. Photo taken in 1923.
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

spore that, when carried by the wind, 

infects the Ribes host such as a current 

or gooseberry bush. This spore is then 

transferred from the Ribes back to the 

pine, completing the two-host process.

A campaign was developed to 

eradicate all of the wild currant and 

gooseberry bushes in the white pine 

forests of District One. This massive 

works project, however, proved ineffective, but this information came only 

from the long-term research conducted 

at the Station.

In 1926, the agency created the 

District One Investigative Committee to 

study the blister rust problem. The committee included Fred Morrell, District 

Forester, Elers Koch, Robert H. Weidman, Samuel V. Fullaway, H.R. Flint, T. 

Lommasson, D.S. Olson, W.M. Nagel, 

and W.W. White. From the Station 

Harry T. Gisborne, Melvin I. Bradner, 

Ivan T. Haig, W.G. Wahlenberg, and 

Bob Marshall were included. In an 

effort to avoid duplication of research 

efforts in the area, representatives from 

the forestry schools at the University of 

Idaho and the University of Montana 

filled out the committee. Stephen 

Wyckoff and James C. Evenden from 

the Office of Blister Rust Control 

of the Bureau of Entomology in the 

Forest Insect Station in Coeur d’Alene, 

Idaho, completed the committee. The 

University of Idaho School of Forestry 

required its faculty to spend 2 months 

each year working on research, so cooperative blister rust projects between the 

Experiment Station and the University 

of Idaho were created and continue 

today. Cooperation with the Office of 

Blister Rust Control was also done by 

exchanging field data, but Wyckoff 

urged that a specific study be started. 

Due to a lack of funds, the Station 

declined, but he arranged for funding 

from the Blister Rust Office through the 

approval of the Executive Committee of 

the Western Blister Rust Conference, an 

advisory board of lumbermen.

The Era of Bob Marshall

In the summer of 1925, Bob Marshall came to the Station as a Junior 

Forester working on silvicultural investigations. Marshall, who would later 

become a nationally known conservationist, was born in New York City, 

the son of a wealthy Jewish immigrant 

father. His father, Louis Marshall, 

completed law school at Columbia 

University and became a famous 

lawyer. Louis shared the concerns 

expressed by George Perkins Marsh 

and others who felt that the country’s 

natural resources were being destroyed. 

Marsh, through his widely influential 

1864 book Man and Nature, was one 

of the first to suggest that people were 

agents of change on the environment, 

and he raised concerns about the 

destructive impact of humans based 

upon his observations in Vermont and 

his travels in the Middle East. (He was 

also instrumental in the creation of the 

Smithsonian Institution.)

As a result of Marsh’s and others’ 

influence, Louis Marshall put his legal 

skills and prestige to work for conservation, supporting measures restricting 

lumbermen and guaranteeing a forest 

tract to be set aside as the Adirondack 

State Park in New York. He also served 

on the board of trustees of the New York 

State College of Forestry. Bob Marshall 

grew up with his father’s influence, 

and time spent at a vacation home in 

the Adirondacks instilled a sense of 

commitment to the land and a love for 

the forests. Marshall chose forestry as 

his profession and attended the College 

of Forestry at Syracuse, New York, 

graduating in 1924. He also completed 

advanced degrees from Harvard University and Johns Hopkins University. 

In 1925, he went to northern Idaho to 

work at the Station and left in 1928 to 

complete his studies at Johns Hopkins.

Residents living at the Priest River Experiment Station in August 1923, left to right: 

Mrs. Julius Larsen, W.C. Lowdermilk, Gerhard Kempff, and William 

MacCarthy.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 23

Bob Marshall’s well known 

exploits as a hiker were exemplified 

by an anecdote in a biography written 

by James M. Glover. Floyd Carlson, a 

worker on the Forest stated:

On this occasion I had driven to the 

Bitterroot National Forest in Montana at the West Fork Ranger Station. 

A number of telephone calls were 

coming in the afternoon I arrived 

there. Since the day was quiet and 

there had been no rains, I knew the 

calls could not be about forest fire or 

fire danger. I was puzzled as to why 

these calls were coming in. When my 

curiosity got the best of me I asked 

the Forest Ranger what was happening. “Oh,” he said, “these telephone 

calls are coming in from lookouts 

and other people in the forest who 

have made a wager on the time which 

Bob Marshall will be getting in from 

a 40 mile hike which he started early 

this morning. He is due here...some 

time around dark.” (Glover 1986: 67)

Most of the research being conducted during Marshall’s tenure at the 

Station centered on western white pine. 

Marshall worked on all aspects of this 

research, including methods of cutting, 

reproduction, intermediate cuttings, 

yield, reforestation, and fire. As part of 

the fire research, he traveled to remote 

lumber camps and ranger stations, 

which more than met his criterion for 

solitude. His work involved the detailed 

study of how trees grew back after 

fire or logging operations. Counting 

seedlings, collecting data on sunlight, 

soil composition, slope, logging debris, 

ground cover, and other variables 

consumed his time and research report 

writing. Not content with just scientific 

writing, Marshall also took a 

creative writing class at the University of Montana and published 

articles in journals, magazines, 

and newsletters. One of his most 

popular articles, “Contribution 

to the Life History of the Northwestern Lumberjack,” appeared 

in the Forest Service’s Northern 

District newsletter (see appendix 

E). In it he describes, with much 

humor and wit, the eating habits, 

table manners (or lack of), and 

the use of profanity by the loggers. For 

example, he reported:

...average woodchopper spends just 

35 minutes a day in food assimilation...and 33 percent of the diners 

commonly depended upon their forks 

to harpoon the staff of life...and it is 

the virility (of the lumberjack’s) adjectives and interjections which differentiates his oral activities from 

those of ordinary mortals...it transpired that an average of 136 words, 

unmentionable at church sociables, 

were enunciated every hour by the 

hardy hews of work. (Marshall 1929)

During his time at the Station, 

Marshall was under the supervision of 

Station Director Robert Weidman, who 

later became Chief of the Silvics Division then Superintendent of the Institute 

of Forest Genetics at Placerville, California. Weidman encouraged Marshall 

to gain more practical experience:

Although you are strong on the essential qualities desirable in a novice either in research or administration... you are weak in the mechanics 

of field work and field living. You are 

Bob Marshall inspecting tree seedlings 

after a fire in 1927.

Planting seedlings in the 1910 burned area.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

awkward with the tools and equipment that are necessary to a forester’s work in the woods, and you lack 

orderliness in certain aspects of field 

work.... To overcome these weaknesses you need nothing more than 

field and office experience in an organization such as the Forest Service. 

(Glover 1986: 76-80)

In the summer of 1926, Marshall 

was sent back to New York to recover 

from an acute ulcer. He wrote to Weidman asking for a leave of absence 

to pursue his doctoral degree, but 

decided instead to return to the Station 

in September 1926. But by April 1928, 

recovered from his illness, he decided 

to go to Johns Hopkins University to 

study. He spent the rest of his career in 

the Forest Service in various administrative roles. In 1937, Ferdinand Silcox, 

Chief of the Forest Service, appointed 

him Chief of the Division of Recreation 

and Lands, a post created especially 

for him. By the 1930s, Marshall and 

a small number of others called for 

the Forest Service to be more of a 

model of conservation rather than use 

oriented. His trekking experiences in 

the Selway-Bitterroot areas of Idaho 

and Montana contributed to his fierce 

love of wilderness and prompted 

him to work for setting aside certain 

areas as protected. In 1933, Marshall 

wrote in The People’s Forests that 

timberlands should be nationalized and 

placed under the control of the Federal 

government to ensure long-term use. 

Despite his efforts at lobbying from his 

Washington, DC, office, the idea failed, 

but some changes in forest regulations 

were made. Secretary of Agriculture 

Henry Wallace agreed to create wilderness areas to placate Marshall’s faction. 

Marshall managed to add 5,437,000 

acres to the government’s preserve system as wilderness with the backing of 

a group called the Wilderness Society 

in 1935. This group included Benton 

MacKaye (a naturalist who was the 

creator of the Appalachian Trail), Aldo 

Leopold (author of A Sand County 

Almanac in 1948, he was considered 

the father of wildlife ecology and 

creator of the “land ethic” philosophy), 

and Harvey Broome (a conservationist 

who, along with Marshall, MacKaye, 

and Leopold, founded the Wilderness 

Society in 1935). Marshall died in 

1939 at the age of 38, but his influence 

on forestry, wilderness, and the need 

to revamp the Forest Service’s policy 

about Western forests is unquestioned. 

The Bob Marshall Wilderness area in 

Montana, created by Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace on August 16, 

1940, is named in his honor.

Although Marshall spent only a 

short time at the Station he wrote several publications including: Life History 

of Some Western White Pine Stands on 

the Kaniksu National Forest, Volume 

Production in Forestry, The Effects 

of Fire Temperatures on Forest Seed 

in the Duff, Reproduction Following 

Fire and Logging in Northern Idaho, 

The Girdled Pine Still Lives, American 

Forests and Forest Life, and Natural 

Reproduction in the Western White 

Pine Type. A handwritten document, 

entitled “History of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Forest Experiment Station” 

was also written by him in 1928 but 

apparently never published.

The Convoluted 

Evolution

As we have seen, the early leaders 

of the Forest Service determined 

the need for experiment stations 

nationwide to reflect the various forest 

types. Following examples witnessed 

in Europe by Pinchot and Zon, the 

Stations’ purpose was for studying 

the various aspects of tree species 

and silviculture, and for applying the 

knowledge to practical application on 

the nearby forests in each area. While 

legislation such as the McSweeney-McNary act helped support the policies in 

managing the nation’s forests, the laws 

also recognized the need for funding 

and developing research programs.

During these early years, the Forest Service was going through growth 

spurts and development. However, 

with these growing pains, the Priest 

River Experiment Station suffered an 

identity crisis. With Brewster’s move to 

Missoula, the leadership responsibility 

by default shifted from the Priest River 

location to Missoula. By 1918, research 

in the field was separated from National 

Forest administration, and the Priest 

River Experiment Station reported 

directly to the Branch of Research in 

Washington, DC, with J.A. Larsen serving as Director with residence at Priest 

River. To add to the convoluted organization, in 1922 the Station headquarters 

was moved back to Missoula and it was 

called the Priest River Experiment Station, Missoula, Montana, with Robert 

H. Weidman as Director. To reflect the 

wider responsibilities of the Station, 

a name change was requested to the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Experiment 

Station, but this was not approved until 

June 1925. From 1925 until 1930 the 

Station had a variety of names including Priest River Branch Station, Priest 

River Station, and Forest Experiment 

Station, Priest River, Idaho. Finally, in 

1930 the accepted name became the 

Priest River Experimental Forest.

Not only was there confusion 

regarding the name, there was also 

confusion about the lines of authority. 

At the beginning, the Station was more 

independent and worked in conjunction 

with District One. Then by World War 

I, the Investigative Committee began to 

set policy and procedure. Nevertheless, 

the Priest River Experiment Station survived even though funding fluctuated 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 25

and, during the war years, was reduced 

to virtually nothing.

Even though the researchers 

were, for the most part, Easterners, 

they seemed to settle into the community well. They viewed their work as 

researchers to be above the day-to-day 

political trials and tribulations, 

exemplified by their ability not only 

to construct the buildings but also to 

lay the foundation for answering many 

research questions and retaining their 

strong will and determination. With the 

firing of Pinchot and the diminishing 

role of his protégés who had created 

and led the Forest Service and research, 

other foresters, from other educational 

backgrounds, were now making policy 

and influenced the type of research 

being conducted at the Station. The 

Station had endured hardship and was 

ready to proceed.

The Gisborne Era 

Begins 

Harry Gisborne, who began 

working at the Station in 1921, became 

renowned for his fire research. Fire suppression had been a high priority since 

Pinchot created the Forest Service. 

But while fire research was also a high 

priority, it often took a backseat to fire 

fighting. At the Priest River Experiment Station, Larsen had started the 

work to correlate the Station’s weather 

data with fire records, especially on the 

Kaniksu National Forest. The program 

at the Station divided forest areas into 

climatic units, studied meteorological 

and climatic conditions, fire rate of 

spread under various conditions of 

weather, and described fuels and 

topography with the intent to predict 

dangerous conditions. In 1916, Earle 

H. Clapp emphasized that research 

needed to be done on forest fires. He 

provided the incentive that anyone 

who successfully worked out solutions 

would receive the highest type of 

recognition, both within and outside 

the Forest Service, and the men who 

were the leaders of fire research would 

become the most important forest 

researchers in the country.

In 1921, the Station received a 

substantial increase in funds and a new 

Director, Robert H. Weidman. Earle 

Clapp requested that Gisborne transfer 

to the Station to demonstrate his 

ability to study the fire problem in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains. Gisborne 

was appointed Forest Examiner on 

April 1, 1922, at an annual salary of 

$1,920 (Hardy 1983). Both Weidman 

and Gisborne lived in Missoula and 

traveled to Priest River to conduct their 

work.

Harry Gisborne grew up in 

Vermont and graduated from the 

University of Michigan Forestry School 

in 1917 at the height of the Progressive 

Era. Following a 2-year stint in the 

military in World War I, Gisborne 

joined the Forest Service’s Sitka spruce 

research study and spent the next few 

years working on various projects 

within the Northwest. Although he was 

offered a teaching position at Syracuse 

Ranger School in New York State, he 

preferred work in the Forest Service.

When Gisborne arrived at the 

Station, he inherited some preliminary 

work on fire research that had been 

done by Larsen and Lowdermilk, and 

also from work done by S.B. Show 

and E.I. Kotok in California. The 

1919 Annual Report even mentions 

fighting fires with gas bombs using 

“aeroplanes” and dirigibles, although it 

was written with much skepticism. The 

1920 Annual Report recommends the 

development of a lightning detector and 

a device for measuring static electricity, 

and lightning fire research was given a 

high priority that year. Because of the 

McSweeney-McNary Act, fire research 

was given more emphasis when it designated that forest experiment stations 

would carry out investigations on fire 

weather study, and research was given 

an annual appropriation of $50,000 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1933).

After reviewing the work completed and that in progress, Gisborne 

Harry T. Gisborne, circa 1930.

Robert H. Weidman, third Director 

1921-1931.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

decided that the first priority would 

be to determine what combination of 

factors indicated a major fire possibility 

requiring manpower to meet the emergency. He established three fire weather 

stations on the Kaniksu, Clearwater, 

and Nezperce Forests and began 

researching fire predictability. He found 

that temperature was an important 

variable in moisture content determinations, and that the moisture content 

of the duff was due to the constantly 

changing humidity and temperature. 

His research also found that the distribution of rainfall was more important 

than amount of rainfall in influencing 

dangerous fire conditions. Working 

closely with the Madison, Wisconsin, 

Forest Products Laboratory, he studied 

moisture content of duff, twigs, and 

down logs in relation to temperature 

and relative humidity. Moisture contents of forest floors were considered in 

relation to weather forecasts from the 

Pacific Coast via the wireless in hopes 

of predicting fire conditions a few days 

in advance. But after the first year he 

found no one single factor to measure 

or to predict inflammability.

To do more specific types of 

research, he developed specialized 

tools. In 1923, he and Matt Dunlap of 

the Madison Laboratory devised the 

“duff hygrometer,” which measured 

changes in humidity. Hygrometer data 

were gathered from the Nezperce, 

Clearwater, Lolo, Bitterroot, and Flathead Forests as well as at Priest River 

in 1925 and telegraphed to the District 

Fire Desk. Although this procedure 

was used during the 1930s, calibration 

was difficult, and the hygrometer was 

discontinued around 1940. In 1930, 

Gisborne, with Dunlap, developed the 

anemohygrograph, which was intended 

to measure fuel moisture, wind, and 

duff so that manual measuring was not 

required, but costs prevented taking this 

instrument past the experimental stage. 

Budget constraints forced Gisborne 

to come up with inexpensive weather 

instruments such as the S-shaped wind 

gauge.

The second priority Gisborne investigated was the relationship between 

lightning and fires and how to predict, 

in advance, when lightning storms 

were approaching. His study included 

the effects of lightning on soils, rocks, 

forest cover, and topography, and, if 

possible, how to control lightning. 

The project began with 1,300 storm 

reports through which he began to sift 

for topics to research. For example, 

he learned that most storms were not 

single, well-defined storms but rather 

numerous isolated storms.

In 1924 and 1925, the records 

Gisborne collected and those from 

earlier years’ compilations were put 

onto punch cards using the Hollerith 

machine in the Washington Office. 

(Punched cards were first created by 

Herman Hollerith for the 1890 census 

to tabulate results. The cards were 

read electronically by putting them 

between brass rods, and when the holes 

in the cards made the rods contact, an 

electronic response created a “count.” 

Hellerith’s Tabulating Machine 

Company was eventually taken over 

by IBM.) The results of Gisborne’s 

compilations were published in the 

Monthly Weather Review of 1926 and 

in Northwest Science in 1927. These 

reports emphasized the need to report 

lightning storms so that preparatory 

action could be taken, and the need 

for the U.S. Weather Bureau to make 

long-range forecasts.

The third priority of study dealt 

with fire weather forecasting and 

involved the U.S. Weather Bureau. 

The 1923 Annual Report mentions 

that long-range forecasts up to 10 

days based on sunspot forecasts by 

the independent meteorologist Father 

Richard of Santa Clara, California, 

were quite often correct. Gisborne was 

interested in sunspot activity based on 

11-, 22-, and 44-year cycles. His 1925 

paper, “Cyclic Fluctuations of Rainfall 

in the Northern Rocky Mountains,” 

summarized his attempts to predict 

rainfall for the months between April 

and September based on 44 years of 

precipitation records.

In 1923, the Fire Weather Warning 

Service was set by the U.S. Weather 

Bureau headquartered in San Francisco, 

California, and in 1926, Congress 

created a special appropriation to assist 

forest fire weather forecasting. Input 

came mostly from large city stations 

because no mountain weather stations 

existed. But in 1926, the first daily 

reporting of local fire weather data 

began with data telegraphed from Priest 

River to the Spokane Weather Bureau 

office. Broadcasting of regular fire 

weather forecasts and special warnings 

Harry Gisborne reading anemometer dial.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 27

were started in 1927 on radio stations 

KOUM (University of Montana), 

KHQ (Spokane), KOMO, KJR, and 

KFOA (Seattle), and KGW and KOIN 

(Portland). By 1929 a part-time meteorologist was assigned by the Weather 

Bureau to analyze the mass of data 

submitted by Forest Service observers, 

and the Weather Bureau was urged to 

finance a full-time position.

With the aid of his assistants, 

Jemison and Hayes, Gisborne was able 

to spend time observing fires by working 

as close to the front line as possible 

where he measured things such as slope, 

size, kind, amount, and arrangement of 

fuels. In 1928, he published Measuring 

Forest Fire Danger in Northern Idaho

that discussed the results of his work 

to that point. But the research required 

much more time and effort than he and 

his assistants could handle, so he turned 

to the forestry schools at the University 

of Montana and University of Idaho. At 

both schools he was given laboratory 

privileges that helped him with studies of 

forest fuel combustion, and cooperative 

studies included one by Professor E.E. 

Hubert, at the University of Idaho, 

dealing with the inflammability and heat 

retention of different moisture contents. 

By the end of the decade, methods resulting from Gisborne’s and Hubert’s work 

were being adopted in many Districts 

of the Forest Service. One of the worst 

fire seasons was in 1929, and by then the 

research had been proved and helped in 

many phases of fire control. As a result, 

District One proposed to Washington, 

DC, that research should be accelerated.

Gisborne’s work was unique in the 

Forest Service and, therefore, no Civil 

Service classification was available. 

He began at the Station as a Forest 

Examiner but was then designated 

Assistant Silviculturist, Associate Silviculturist, and finally Silviculturist at 

a salary of $4,000 by 1930. The small 

staff consisted of Gisborne, Weidman, 

Wahlenberg, Kempff, and, in 1928, 

J. B. Thompson, who transferred to the 

Station as Superintendent. However, 

Gisborne was the only one working in 

fire research.

The Depression Years

In 1933 the Copeland Report, 

officially named A National Plan for 

American Forestry, was published. 

The 1,677-page study was the result 

of U.S. Senator Royal Copeland’s 

resolution calling for extensive work 

that proved to create much labor for the 

Forest Service. In Copeland’s report, he 

outlined four main problems facing the 

Forest Service: (1) that almost all of the 

problems of American forestry have resulted from private ownership; (2) that 

within the public sector there was little 

or no management; (3) that there was 

no organized manner of solving forest 

problems between private and public 

ownership; and (4) that the problems 

Weather station, circa 1935.
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

facing the forest industry were major 

issues facing the nation (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1933).

Clapp wrote to each of the experiment station Directors indicating that 

this was an “opportunity” to restate 

American forestry in a positive fashion 

(Steen 1998). However, a decade later, 

Clapp wrote bitterly about the lack of 

strong leadership from the Chief and 

lack of interest by President Franklin 

D. Roosevelt. As a result, the resolution 

calling for Federal regulation of the 

forest industry failed to gain Congressional support. The report, however, 

created by the Forest Service was not 

completely ignored as forestry students 

often used it as a required textbook. The 

report also contained two sections on 

Forest Service Research, a history, and 

an appraisal by Clapp. The appraisal 

contained a list of accomplishments 

done by researchers and some forest 

economics such as data on lumber 

production and consumption that had 

been collected earlier in the decade.

As noted, the restricted Federal 

funding caused by World War I and 

the Depression negatively impacted 

research in a number of ways but also 

sparked ingenuity. Gisborne and others 

were forced to devise resourceful 

methods of doing research and creating 

the tools needed when dollars were 

not available. For example, to measure 

windspeed, Gisborne asked a plumber 

to make 160 of his home-grown 

devices. Because of the slight differences in the craftsmanship, George 

Jemison, an assistant, then mounted 

each of the gauges on the front of his 

car and, while his wife drove at 5 to 

15 miles per hour, he lay on the fender 

and counted the revolutions to calibrate 

each of them (Maunder 1978). Other 

experimental tools included the 

trail-sized tractor called the “Iron 

Horse,” which proved unsuccessful in 

replacing the horse, and the CordeauBickford, which was chain dynamite 

that was used to open a fire trench but 

that also had limited success. Other 

experimentation was on backpack 

radios for use in the field.

The Depression Years proved 

to be a blessing for fire research. To 

offset the effects of the Depression, 

President Roosevelt instigated many 

programs including the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC). He called 

upon the Rangers to supervise the work 

of thousands of young CCC men. To 

avoid opposition from labor, the CCC 

workers were assigned projects not 

already covered by public works relief. 

The Forest Service administered nearly 

half the projects, while the Soil Conservation Service, National Park Service, 

and other bureaus accounted for the 

remainder. By 1942, the CCC had spent 

over 6 million hours fighting fires and 

cleared thousands of acres. The Deception Creek Experimental Forest, near 

Coeur d’Alene, and the Coram Experimental Forest in Coram, Montana, were 

established in July 1933. The Vigilante 

Experimental Range and Work Center 

in Alder, Montana, was created in 1925 

(demolished in 1957, although the site 

was retained and preserved). Forests 

and rangelands provided additional 

resources for experiments and a more 

diverse variety of timber to study. For 

example, in Idaho, approximately 50 

camps a year were operated with a total 

financial obligation within the State of 

more than $82 million.

In 1933, a full 200-man CCC 

camp, F-127, was established in the 

extreme southwestern corner of the 

Forest between the county road and the 

Priest River. The 1934 Annual Report, 

written by Director Lyle Watts, noted:

The Station was particularly fortunate during 1934 in the allocation of 

Civilian Conservation Camps. One 

entire camp was allocated each to 

Priest River Experimental Forest (F127), Deception Creek Experimental 

Forest (F-137), and Coram Experimental Forest (Montana). While the 

largest single work project in each instance was the construction of utilization and protection roads, material progress was made in other ways. 

The enrollees, under the direction of 

carefully selected technicians, established thinning and stand improvement plots, treated a considerable 

Civilian Conservation Corp workers.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 29

area of old burns to reduce fire hazard, eradicated the Ribes from the 

entire area of the two white pine experimental forests, poisoned rodents, 

accomplished a number of improvements of roadside, planted trees on 

poorly stocked areas and in the arboretum, and assisted in many other 

improvement and research projects. 

From four to eight selected enrollees 

were assigned during the entire year 

for office work at the Station headquarters in Missoula. Plans call for 

full camp at Priest River, not only for 

the present summer, but for the winter of 1935-36 as well; a full camp 

at Deception during the summer and 

approximately half a camp at Coram for the winter of 1935-36. With 

this amount of CCC help assured, the 

road and trail systems on these experimental Forests will be completed in a reasonable period and a vast 

amount of other worthwhile work 

will be done. Unfortunately, the camp 

allotments for overhead, equipment 

and materials, and miscellaneous expenses have now been so greatly reduced that much otherwise logical 

work cannot be attempted. CCC assistance at Miles City (Vigilante) has 

been impossible to obtain due to the 

long distance from any established 

camp (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1934 Annual Report).

Between 1935 and 1942, Camp 

F-127, Priest River Experiment Forest, 

was a year-round camp occupied 

by Company 1235. The CCC workers—many of whom were experienced 

carpenters, masons, or had other 

construction skills—did a tremendous 

amount of work on the experimental 

forest including building improvements, 

road construction, maintenance of 

buildings and grounds, stand improvements, fire hazard reduction, blister 

rust control, tree planting, research plot 

establishment, and research assistance. 

Due to the emergency funds and the 

CCC workforce, the facilities at the 

Priest River Experimental Forest were 

completely rebuilt between 1935 and 

1938. The office/laboratory was built 

in 1936 and contains four offices on the 

first floor and four laboratory rooms on 

the second floor. The bunkhouse/mess 

hall was originally built in 1915 as a 

lecture room and woodshed and remodeled in 1934 to accommodate groups of 

people working and visiting the Station. 

The gas house was built in 1931 for 

storing fuel for cars and equipment. 

The woodshed was built in 1934 and 

was used to store the winter supply of 

firewood to heat the buildings prior to 

electric or gas heating added during the 

1970s and 1980s. There are two other 

sheds both built in 1936 and are still 

used for storage. The lodge/cottage 1 

was built in 1936 and is a story-and-ahalf wood-frame building with a full 

basement and garage. It resembles a ski 

lodge structure, hence its name. The 

building contains several bedrooms on 

each level to accommodate researchers 

and special guests. Cottage 2 was 

built in 1936 and is a story-and-a-half 

wood-frame building that has a half 

basement used as the mechanical 

room. Cottage 3 was also built in 1936 

and is a story-and-a-half wood-frame 

building with basement. Cottage 4, the 

Superintendent’s home, was built in 

1939 and is a one-story wood-frame 

building containing two bedrooms, 

kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom, and a full basement. The CCCs 

also built a dam to measure streamflow 

on Benton Creek. (Historical note: All 

the CCC buildings have been upgraded 

over the years and in 1993 were modified for handicapped access. However, 

the Camp 127 itself was used as an Iowa 

State College summer forestry camp, 

then was demolished in 1950.)

The 1936 Annual Report stated: 

“Staff members are about to realize 

a long-cherished hope in the new 

laboratory and office building that 

is now four-fifths complete. About 

three-fourths of the necessary scientific 

equipment is now installed and by 

next summer the structure will be 

completed” (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1936: 6).

Gisborne had even higher hopes 

for the research center. He requested a 

wind tunnel that could accommodate 

Lyle Watts, fourth Director 1931-1936.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

fuels of definite moisture content, at 

any desired slope, wind velocity at any 

level, and controlled temperature and 

humidity. With the collapse of funds, 

however, this wish was not fulfilled 

until 1960, almost 30 years later.

Company 594, organized in Kentucky and Ohio in 1933, was sent to the 

Forest in April 1934 as Camp F142 to 

work with the Forest Service personnel 

and to continue work started by the 

CCC men from California and Idaho. 

Their Four Corners Camp (Camp F164) 

was at Moose Creek, 15 miles from 

the town of Priest River, and contained 

approximately 200 men. According to 

a document entitled The Civilian Conservation Corps, Fort George Wright 

1938-39, they were assigned many 

projects such as clearing and burning 

brush, bridge construction across the 

West Branch of the Priest River, and 

completing the telephone line from the 

town of Priest River to Bismark Ranger 

Station.

The Annual Report for 1934 also 

noted extra funds were obtained from 

the National Industrial Recovery Act. 

Passed in June 1933, this law was 

one of several measures created by 

President Roosevelt to help the nation’s 

economic recovery. The act authorized 

$3.3 billion for the expansion of 

public works and was monitored by 

the National Recovery Administration. 

The Forest Service funds from this 

act were used to improve the 150-foot 

fire weather observation tower and 

to complete the 13 miles of power 

line from the town of Priest River to 

the Forest. Funds also allowed for 

construction of a four-room cottage, a 

shop, a five-stall garage, a gashouse, 

water system, and landscaping at the 

Deception Creek Experimental Forest. 

Because of the increase in workforce 

and funds, several additional research 

areas were proposed including Rochester Basin Experimental Range (no 

location was specified in the Annual 

Report), Vigilante Experimental Range, 

Pleasant Valley Experimental Forest 

(for research on ponderosa pine), and 

the Clearwater Experimental Forest, 

but only the Vigilante became a reality.

Several organizational changes occurred at the Forest from 1931 through 

1944. Lyle Watts became Director 

in 1931 and left in 1936 to become 

Regional Forester in Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin, and later Chief of the Forest 

Service. Stephen Wyckoff, who had 

been in charge of the Office of Blister 

Rust Control in Spokane, succeeded 

Watts as Director of the Station in 1936 

and left in 1938 to become Director of 

the Pacific Northwest Station. Melvin 

Bradner, who came to the Station in 

1931 as head of the Office of Forest 

Products, succeeded Wyckoff as Director in 1938 until his death in 1946.

In addition to the CCCs, other 

work programs such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided 

Gisborne with the workforce and funds 

he needed, although on a temporary 

basis. Using emergency program funds 

(see accompanying table), he was able 

to hire promising young scientists, 

such as F. Lloyd Hayes in 1934 and 

George Jemison, and then switch them 

to regular funds later. Hayes began 

work in 1934 as an assistant in the 

silvicultural field crew at Priest River 

then at Deception Creek. That autumn 

he began work under Gisborne in fire 

research. He also served during 1937 to 

1938 as Superintendent of Priest River 

after Thompson transferred and before 

McKeever reported. He transferred 

in 1942 to the Southeastern Station to 

work on fire research. Jemison, who 

had seen Gisborne while a University 

of Idaho student, was so impressed by 

Gisborne’s lectures at the University 

that he applied for a job in the summer 

of 1930. By 1931, he received a 

permanent position as the first full-time 

professional assistant in Gisborne’s 

fire research program. Jemison’s 

career flourished; he transferred to Appalachian Station in autumn of 1937, he 

become Director of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Experiment Station in 1950, 

Regular Emergency

Year funds funds Personnel

1932 $18,900 0 Gisborne, Hornby, Jemison

1934 $14,837 $4,630 Gisborne, Hornby, Jemison

1935 $13,501 $14,811 Gisborne, Hornby, Jemison, Hayes

1937 $13,625 $18,220 Gisborne, Hornby, Jemison, Hayes, Kachin,

 Buck, Cline, Naiman

1940 $15,000 0 Gisborne, Hayes, Lyman, McKeever, Cline,

 Naiman, Weyerman

Stephen Wyckoff, fifth Director 

1936-1939.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 31

and later became Forest Service Deputy 

Chief for Research.

The amounts of emergency funds 

that were available for Gisborne’s work 

are shown in the table on this page, 

taken from Hardy (1983). The table 

indicates that the drop in emergency 

funds eliminated the ability to operate 

at even a maintenance level by 1940. In 

a memorandum to the staff in 1933, the 

Director decreased funds by 28 percent 

and required projects be curtailed or 

temporarily discontinued. There was 

concern that the Forest would lose its 

leadership in fire research unless studies 

could be resumed. However, Gisborne’s 

salary was raised in 1935 to $4,600, 

perhaps an indication of how important 

he and his work were considered by the 

Station’s administration (Hardy 1983).

Research continued, however, 

despite the problems and the limited 

staff. Jemison and the others were given 

a number of tasks to accomplish with 

Gisborne monitoring each step. One 

of Jemison’s first duties in 1930 was to 

establish on Benton Flats the full timber 

inflammability station in addition to the 

clear-cut and half timber sites already 

in place. He cleaned and fenced the area 

and installed the instruments. He then 

took weather measurements three times 

a day and summarized the data. In 1923, 

J.A. Larsen had traveled to Europe to 

visit several experiment stations and 

reported to Gisborne that in France they 

were evaluating wood as a criterion 

of atmospheric change by observing 

how it reflected humidity. Given this 

idea, Gisborne took it further and had 

Jemison measure round wood sections, 

dowels, that became “hazard sticks,” 

which were weighed and measured at 

various times of the day. Richard E. 

McArdle (later Chief) carried out a 

parallel fuel moisture cylinder development program at the Pacific Northwest 

Forest Experiment Station (PNW) in 

Portland, Oregon. McArdle used square 

sticks instead of round, which Gisborne 

criticized because “square sticks didn’t 

occur in nature.” Although friendly, the 

dispute between McArdle and Gisborne 

prevented any effort to merge the studies. In fact, while Gisborne’s scientific 

abilities are unquestioned, his “do it 

my way” attitude made it difficult for 

coworkers to work with him. According 

to Jemison, Gisborne was “so dynamic” 

that he pushed ahead with his own ideas 

rather than accept someone else’s work 

(Maunder 1978).

Fire Research Results

In 1927 fire research had an annual 

budget of $5,000, and even though the 

McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 was 

to augment research funds, none were 

designated for Gisborne until 1931. 

Major W. Evan Kelley (who had held 

several Forest Service positions and, 

in World War I, commanded all saw 

milling, logging, and road construction 

operations in France for the military) 

became Regional Forester in 1929 and 

enthusiastically supported fire research 

and put Lloyd G. Hornby in charge of 

the fire control planning project using 

Gisborne’s data (Baker and others 

1993).

Since the 1910 fire, controlling 

and suppressing fires had been the 

Forest Service’s top priority. Because 

of the damage caused by fire, research 

gained the full support of the timber 

industry especially because States such 

as Idaho and Montana lacked the funds 

to provide adequate fire protection 

measures. Gisborne worked with Harry 

Flint, the District’s Office of Operation 

Director and close friend of Gisborne, 

to plan fire control. By 1926, Gisborne 

was able to put statistics together 

to form the beginnings of a rating 

system. With all the data collected and 

analyzed in 1930, Gisborne was able 

to produce a simple and readily usable 

pocket-sized device, the Model 1 Fire 

Danger Meter that was used in the 

1932 fire season. The meter was a little 

cardboard envelope with windows and 

two slides, A and B. Factors including 

fuel moisture (half-inch round sticks), 

wind velocity, relative humidity, and 

the number of lightning storms were 

integrated to produce six classes of fire 

danger both in terms of rate of spread 

and action needed to fight it. An article 

in the Northern Region News of July 6, 

1932, stated: “the first issue of the forest fire danger meter in early May has 

created such a demand for inflammability stations that the Experiment Station 

has utilized all the wood cylinders and 

duff hygrometers available and has not 

been able to equip all of the Stations 

for which requests have been received” 

(Hardy 1983).

Gisborne quickly created seven fire 

danger stations in Region Four (Utah, 

southern Idaho, and Nevada) and 18 

others in the 10 Western Region One 

forests, Glacier Park, and Yellowstone 

Park. By the end of 1933, 30 more 

Gisborne’s fuel moisture sticks.
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

inflammability stations were created in Region One.

In 1934, working with the District Ranger in the Selway country 

in Idaho, Gisborne and Jemison 

set up stations at Pete King-McClendon Butte on the Lochsa and 

Selway Rivers. Based on the Fire 

Danger Meters, the area showed 

an extreme condition ripe for fire 

in early 1934. On August 10, a 

lightning storm started a dozen 

fires but, because of the warning 

from Gisborne’s meters, adequate 

workforce was available to contain 

the fires quickly. Modifications to 

the meters continued over the years, 

and by Model 6, used from 1942 

through 1953, an additional change 

was done to include a Burning Index 

Meter that rated the effect of calendar 

date along with the other factors.

Gisborne also began analyzing precipitation data based on the “November 

Precipitation Predictor,” which held 

that the severity of the fire season was 

related to the amount of precipitation 

in the previous November. Rain maps 

were made from plots of November 

precipitation in various areas, and 

the results generally supported the 

theory. For example, the McLendon 

Butte-Pete King fire site in 1932 was 

in an extremely dry area based on 

these maps. The fire consumed more 

than 250,000 acres and required 5,000 

firefighters, mostly CCC workers. For 

the next 13 years a group of prominent 

administrators in Region One (called 

the Organization of Fire Danger Raters) 

made a game of outguessing each other 

in what the following fire season would 

hold, even publishing their guesses in 

the Northern Region News. The 1931 

Annual Report describes how the 

fire-weather forecasts were becoming 

increasingly accepted and that the 

Weather Bureau began to summarize 

the records from all stations in 1930 

to provide a better forecasting of thunderstorm-producing weather patterns. 

In 1935, the Fire Weather Warning 

Service was moved to Missoula funded 

largely by Montana Senator Burton K. 

Wheeler’s bill.

Lightning strike research conducted by Gisborne caught the attention 

of K.B. McEachron who was in charge 

of the General Electric Company’s 

Pittsfield High Voltage Laboratory 

in Schenectady, New York. In 1933, 

Gisborne hired Edmund A. Evans from 

the General Electric Company’s Schenectady Laboratory to try to measure 

static electricity related to lightning. 

Jemison and Evans stretched piano wire 

antenna from the “weather tree” across 

Benton Creek to the “Crows Nest” tree 

on the ridge to the south (2,000 feet) 

and attached it to a spark gap in the office attic. During a thunderstorm, Evans 

would man the equipment and see if 

he could correlate the activity of the 

thunderstorm with the amount of spark 

he could produce from the antenna. He 

had a similar setup at Looking Glass 

Lookout. Jemison recounted how 

Gisborne would often hang on to the 

wires during a storm so that the static 

electricity would flow through his body. 

He would then excitedly display his 

hands that had flames streaming from 

each finger until they were discharged 

(Hardy 1983).

Jemison also related in his 

memoirs how Gisborne’s fire danger 

rating system was used in the northeast 

because of the 1938 New England 

hurricane (Maunder 1978). The storm 

damage created massive amounts of 

downed trees, which created a fuel hazard, and Jemison was asked to establish 

a fire danger rating system there. As a 

result of applying Gisborne’s work to 

other situations, recognition of his fire 

research work reached a wide audience 

(Maunder 1978).

In 1931, the first true Research, 

Development, and Application program 

at the Station was started when Lloyd 

G. Hornby was transferred from the 

Flathead National Forest to the Station. 

Gisborne appreciated Hornby’s abilities 

Chuck Wellner making observations on clear-cut inflammability station 1932.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 33

and noted that his work was one of 

the keystones in this kind of research. 

Hornby developed a new field of 

research, later aided by computers, 

known as “operations research.” With 

Hornby’s help, in addition to fire report 

analysis, two other studies were started: 

fuel type mapping and “seen-area” 

mapping. Fuel type mapping described 

the fuels in terms of rate of spread and 

resistance to control with four levels, 

low to extreme, used for evaluation. 

“Seen-area” mapping was done at existing lookouts and any location thought 

to be a potential lookout. This enabled 

the managers to make maximum use 

of the least amount of lookouts. In 

1936, “Fire Control Planning” in the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Region was 

published. It pulled together all the 

research that Gisborne and others had 

done to that point. Chief Silcox praised 

the publication not only for its research 

but also for the cooperative efforts 

between the Station and Region One. 

Hornby was transferred to Washington, 

DC, in 1937 to head a nationwide 

fire control planning program, but 

in August 1937, on a return visit to 

Missoula, he died of a heart attack 

while working on the Toboggan Creek 

fire in the Clearwater National Forest. 

Gisborne, perhaps in a tribute, added to 

Hornby’s principles of fire control planning, and in 1939 Gisborne published 

in the Journal of Forestry an article 

around the eight major principles. He 

emphasized that the personnel factor 

was vital and that adequate numbers 

and training were essential.

Based on these publications, the 

Forest Service in 1935 instituted the 

“10 a.m. Policy,” meaning that all 

resources would be assigned to control 

any fire on Federal land by 10 a.m. of 

following day. Gisborne, however, was 

not in favor of this policy and, in his 

“Milepost” (a Region One publication) 

article stated that:

... the policy of control by 10 a.m. 

undoubtedly rates either a milepost 

or a tombstone. If and when that policy becomes clearly recognized as a 

temporary expedient, I believe that 

it will rate a milepost. If, however, 

it has already become or ever does 

become the death knell of all previous objectives based on damage, then 

it rates a tombstone executed in the 

blackest of black granite. Fires can be 

caught small and cheaply, often more 

cheaply, without controlling them by 

10 a.m. tomorrow. If one function of 

research is to assemble and array all 

the significant facts, it seems more 

than possible that it might contribute 

something here. (Hardy 1983: 45)

In a memo to the Director 

dated March 11, 1936, Gisborne notes 

problems Hornby had in his efforts to 

put his research into use, and one of the 

most difficult was that “Hornby started 

his planning on the basis of least cost 

plus damage, but he was then forced 

to change all of his objectives to make 

them fit the control by 10 a.m., which 

was and is an uneconomic expression 

impossible to justify in low value or 

little injury types of vegetation” (Hardy 

1983: 45).

With the 10 a.m. policy came the 

need to reach the fire more quickly. 

The idea of aerial bombing became 

interesting to Gisborne. Howard R. 

Flint wrote in the Northern Region 

News in 1935 a description of how the 

first attempts were made to drop water 

on a fire. The idea was simple: load a 

plane with water, fly to the location. 

But this is where it got tricky—how 

to drop it at the right time, right place, 

and in sufficient quantities. Gisborne 

tested not only water but also foam 

retardant. While these early attempts 

were not always successful, they did 

prove getting water to a remote fire 

was workable. As early as 1917 the 

Forest Service and the Army Air Corps 

began flying fire patrols over Western 

forests, and from 1925 to 1935, those 

two agencies worked cooperatively to 

do aerial photography and fire patrols 

out of Spokane, Washington. In 1935, 

the Aerial Fire Control Experimental 

Project was set up in Washington, DC. 

The Forest Service purchased its first 

aircraft and continued the water and 

chemical bombs that Howard Flint 

had started in Region One. In 1939 the 

project was moved from Washington, 

DC, to Region Six, and bombing tests 

were discontinued, but parachutejumping experiments began instead. 

Smokejumpers, who used to fight fires 

in remote areas that were unreachable 

by other means, evolved as a result of 

these experiments.

By the late 1930s, funding had 

dramatically declined, and the emergency crews were no longer available. 

Gisborne became discouraged, and at 

times bitter, about the inability to carry 

on adequate research. By 1938, the 

Station was working on less funding 

than it had in 1934. Gisborne assumed 

leadership of the Division of Silvics 

Research in addition to fire research 

from 1942 until 1945 because neither 

adequate staffing nor funding was 

available. Cooperative work with other 

bureaus was also accomplished during 

the 1940s. For example, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service opened an office at 

the Station and was staffed by a biologist. The Division of Forest Pathology 

reestablished its office by assigning 

personnel to work on the western white 

pine pole blight problem in 1948. The 

staff of the Forest Insect Laboratory was 

increased to seven. Gisborne worked 

with Elton Bentley, John Crowe, Lou 

Whetsler, A.W. Peiffer, and Melvin 

Bradner, who served in succession as 

Resident Superintendents at the Priest 

River Experimental Forest, to maintain 

essential measurements and records 

while other fire research related work 

was dropped. During the summers of 

1939 and 1940, Chalmer K. Lyman, 
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

a recent forestry graduate, was hired 

to take measurements on 74 fires to 

determine the fuel types. The results 

were used to verify the estimates set 

up in Hornby’s fire control planning 

project. Paul Stickel was transferred 

from New England to work with Lyman 

in 1940, but to keep Stickel, a position 

in silvicultural research was sacrificed.

Because most of Gisborne’s fire 

research had been conducted in timber 

fuel types, little was known about 

the rate of fire spread in grass. At the 

request of Region Four, a cooperative 

venture with the Nezperce Forest was 

started in 1944 with a series of 10-foot 

square plots of bunch grass near the 

Riggins Ranger Station. Gisborne 

served as technical advisor, and the 

Melvin Bradner, sixth Director 1939-1946

data collected were added to Hornby’s 

rate of spread tables.

In addition to the fire research being 

conducted by Gisborne, other researchers were working on projects. During 

the 1930s, the forest survey project was 

completed in northeastern Washington 

and northern Idaho, and the Station’s 

staff compiled an economic report. The 

report indicated that the average annual 

cut of all species, except cedar poles, 

was 580 million board feet as compared 

with an allowable cut (amount of timber 

extracted from the National Forests for 

the nation’s use) of 518 million board 

feet. It also noted that western white pine 

was being cut at a much faster rate of 351 

million feet a year.

Experimental planting of ponderosa pine 1932.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 35

The War Years

The decade of the 1940s saw a 

continued pattern of research on 

reduced funds. Annual appropriations 

for the entire Forest Service research 

program averaged $105,000, about half 

the record high of the 1930s (Jemison 

1950). World War II caused a further 

reduction in funds but also a major 

emphasis shift in the research program. 

In 1942, 30 percent of regular Forest 

Service personnel entered military 

service. In 1944, only 13 technical staff 

were at the Forest, the lowest number 

since 1930, but by 1945, some return 

to normalcy occurred and new studies 

were started. It is important to note that 

during the 1940s, women began to be 

part of the staff working as clerks and 

stenographers.

The war years and postwar years 

brought an increased demand for wood 

products. Research began to focus on 

forest products, previously handled 

by the Forest Products Laboratory in 

Madison, Wisconsin. In 1945, the Forest Utilization Service was established 

to bring the results of products research 

directly to the wood users and processors in the area. Staff members from 

the Madison Laboratory participated in 

a tour of the Northern Rocky Mountain 

area to acquaint them with the region 

and to participate in a Wood Products 

Clinic in Spokane, Washington. As a 

result of the demand, 200 new sawmills 

were created in 1946 in the region, and 

the Forest Utilization Service provided 

invaluable information to this local 

industry.

Another area of research was in 

wood preservation. With the end of the 

war, emphasis was placed on improving 

the Rural Electrification Program, 

which, according to the Annual Report 

of 1944, now needed three million 

power poles annually. Researchers were 

asked to provide consulting and written 

advice to individuals interested in going 

into the business of treating fence posts 

and power poles. They also worked 

more closely with the Forest Products 

Laboratory in Madison to consolidate 

wood preservation research.

But a substantial increase in funding, beginning in 1946, also provided 

money for expanded timber and range 

research. The Station’s territory was 

subdivided into research centers, and 

the Upper Columbia Center (western 

Montana) and the Inland Empire Center 

(northeastern Washington and northern 

Idaho) were created with Charles 

Wellner as the Research Center Leader. 

A small allotment enabled a project in 

forest economics research to be started 

at the Station. In 1948 a flood control 

survey unit was established to monitor 

the headwaters of parts of the Missouri 

and Columbia Rivers.

Organizational changes began in 

1945 when the Division of Forest Protection and the Division of Silviculture 

were reestablished. Because of the 

increased timber sale activities in Region One, the accumulated backlog of 

silvicultural work on timber sales, and 

the possibility of a new postwar work 

program, the new Assistant Regional 

Forester for Timber Management, Axel 

Lindh, requested increased emphasis on 

silvicultural research. As a result, Russell K. LeBarron was transferred from 

the Lake States Experiment Station to 

become Silviculture Division Chief. In 

1946 Director Bradner died, and 

Gisborne served as Acting Director 

until a new Director, Charles L. Tebbe, 

arrived from Region Six. Charles 

Wellner returned from the Navy in 

1946 and resumed his work with 

Austin Helmers, another silviculturist. 

Additional funding allowed for silvicultural research to be done at Coram, 

the new Western Montana Work Center. 

Gisborne’s area, the Division of Forest 

Protection, added Jack S. Barrows to 

its staff. The Annual Report for 1946 

also notes that Gisborne had, in addition 

to his fire research staff, the “help of 

one temporary assistant, a girl forestry 

student” but does not state her name or 

where she attended school (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 1946: 23). In 

1946, a Division of Forest Economics 

was created to address the growing 

importance of the economic phases of 

Chapter 4: The 1940s War Years and the 

Gisborne Era

Charles Tebbe, seventh Director 

1946-1950
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

forestry and to consolidate projects. A 

vital question that needed data was the 

economic impact of blister rust on the 

forest. The Division absorbed the work 

of the Forest Survey, which was still in 

the initial phase of the inventory process. A 10-year plan for maintaining and 

finishing the survey was created. With 

the additional staff, inventory work 

was conducted in various parts of the 

Northwest including Cascade County, 

Montana, Stevens County, Washington, 

and Benewah County, Idaho.

Two areas of concern were raised 

during the late 1940s. For years, 

Gisborne’s fire research had been ahead 

of the application, but with the use of 

postwar tools such as aerial delivery of 

men and supplies, road development by 

the CCCs, and an influx of labor, administrators began to step ahead of the 

research. According to the 1946 Annual 

Report “administrators are making 

changes on the basis of judgment and 

estimates and guesses without benefit 

of research analysis. The program is 

too big, the expenditures too large, and 

the stakes too high to be safeguarded 

by such tactics” (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 1946: 24).

Another area of concern was the 

lack of research data regarding the 

effect of soil and cover disturbance 

on the quantity and quality of water. 

The Northern Rocky Mountain region 

straddles the headwaters of the two 

largest proposed river developments 

in the country, on the Missouri and the 

Columbia Rivers. Researchers, as well 

as the foresters in the area, were apprehensive about the push to cut the trees 

because there was little understanding 

of the long-term consequences.

Postwar and the 

Gisborne Era

Gisborne resumed his fire research 

with new ideas on how to adapt 

scientific developments 

created during the war, 

such as pattern forecasting 

that was developed by the 

military meteorological 

services. Because of the 

prestige of Gisborne and 

his proven fire research 

record, the National Fire 

Chief D.P. Godwin and the 

Army Air Force initiated 

tests, under Gisborne’s 

direction, using aerial bombing 

techniques in July 1947. Two P-47 

Thunderbolt fighters dropped two 165-

gallon tanks, and a B-29 Superfortress 

carried eight specially modified 165-

gallon water bombs, to demonstrate 

the possibility of aerial bursts of water 

over small hot fires. Assessing the tests 

was the Aerial Bombing Evaluation 

Board, consisting of the State Forester 

of Oregon, Regional Fire Chiefs from 

San Francisco, California, Portland, 

Oregon, and Ogden, Utah, representatives from two National Forests (not 

named), Lieutenant Colonel Keilman of 

the Air Proving Ground Command, and 

the Chief of the local Division of Fire 

Research. Their report favorably highlighted areas of fire control in which 

the aerial bombing offered promising 

possibilities. Gisborne and the others 

involved determined that the research 

phase of the project was completed 

and that it could now be turned over to 

the administrative side to work out the 

logistics and details for putting it into 

practice (Annual Report 1947).

The Priest River Experimental 

Forest facilities were recognized for 

their educational benefit, and Dean 

McDonald of Iowa State College 

brought four members of his faculty 

and about 100 students to the Forest 

for a 2-month summer school. Russell 

LeBarron, Charles Wellner, C. Alan 

Friedrich, Jack Barrows, and Gisborne 

gave lectures. Other visitors noted 

in the Annual Report were Dr. W.C. 

Lowdermilk, Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Kittredge of the University of California, 

Dr. Philip Church, the meteorological 

consultant on the Hanford, Washington, 

bomb project, and H.W. Beall of the 

Canadian Forest Service.

Long before Rachel Carson’s 

book Silent Spring in 1960, the 1947 

Annual Report briefly mentions a study 

on the effects of the pesticide DDT on 

wildlife. The study, done in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Entomology and 

Plant Quarantine and the Forest 

Service, was conducted on 400,000 

acres of Idaho forests that were treated 

with 1 pound of DDT per acre to 

control the tussock moth. According 

to the Annual Report, the results of 

the study were inconclusive; however, 

the dangers of DDT were recognized 

even at this early date. A report on the 

DDT studies in Idaho and Wyoming 

was published in Outdoor Montana, a 

sportsmen’s magazine, and a technical 

report was done for The Journal of 

Wildlife Management (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 1947).

In 1948, due to new funding, an office in the Forest Service Warehouse in 

Spokane, Washington, was opened. The 

northern Idaho silvicultural research, 

titled the Priest River Research Center, 

Harry T. Gisborne presenting to the 

University of Montana, School of 

Forestry seniors in 1941.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 37

and the Spokane Research Center, 

which included both silvicultural 

and range work, were operated from 

this site. Charles Wellner served as 

Center Leader for both. Staff at the 

Priest River Research Center included 

Marvin W. Foiles, Richard F. Watt, and 

Albert W. Peiffer (who resided at the 

Forest). Staff of the Spokane Center 

included Donald W. Lynch and Grant 

A. Harris. Responsibility for operation 

and maintenance of the Priest River 

Experimental Forest was shifted from 

the Division of Fire Research, headed 

by Gisborne, to the Center in Spokane. 

Perhaps the shift of responsibility of 

the Forest reflects not only the change 

in emphasis in research after the war 

but also a concession to Gisborne’s 

age, which in 1948 was 55 years old. 

By 1949, the Priest River Research 

Center and the Spokane Research 

Center were combined and renamed the 

Inland Empire Research Center. The 

change was in name only since Wellner 

had managed the two divisions as one 

since the beginning. Gisborne added 

to his fire research a project involving 

the possibilities of seeding clouds with 

dry-ice to make rain and stop lightning. 

He worked with Dr. Vincent Schaefer, 

research chemist who originated the 

dry-ice method of cloud seeding, at the 

General Electric Research Laboratory 

in Schenectady, New York. Schaefer 

spent 3 weeks at the Forest, but due to 

unseasonable weather conditions, no 

seeding was accomplished. The work 

in lightning prevention demonstrated 

the superiority of the Cyclone Arrester 

over the Master-Mechanic Front End 

and also showed a substantial reduction in railroad fires not only in the 

Northwest but also in other parts of the 

country—another demonstration that 

the fire research was impacting a far 

wider area.

An interesting historical aside from 

this era can be found in Schaefer’s 

memoirs, written in 1976, in which he 

noted that he enjoyed his time at the 

Station and felt that Gisborne’s research 

was critical to not only fire research 

but also to the study of meteorology. 

Schaefer also recounts a story that depicts Gisborne’s personality. The Forest 

Service provided Gisborne with a car, 

but a black one. Gisborne, impatient 

with administrators who failed to know 

how the hot Idaho sun would be on a 

black car, went to a hardware store, 

purchased a can of white enamel paint, 

and spray painted the car white (Hardy 

1983).

The 1949 Annual Report noted 

that the emphasis was changing from 

collecting fire information to providing 

methods and techniques of planning 

adequate fire control at the least possible cost. By 1948, Gisborne and his 

staff had collected data on two National 

Parks, seven Indian reservations, seven 

fire protection associations, and three 

State forestry departments. As a result, 

the researchers could analyze the fire 

load for Region One and the fire control 

requirements for 53 million acres of 

forest and range lands. They were also 

able to analyze the effectiveness of 

lookouts based on the detection time 

and percent of fires covered. Included 

in the results were:

• 54 percent of the fires were 

discovered by lookouts at a cost 

of about $1,000 per fire (1940s 

dollars).

• 18 percent of the fires had an initial 

attack time of over 6 hours.

G. Lloyd Hayes presenting 

to the University of 

Montana, School of 

Forestry seniors in 1941.

Bert Naiman presenting to the University of Montana, 

School of Forestry seniors in 1941.
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

• During 1931 through 1939 the 

average fire was 3.5 miles from the 

nearest road.

• During 1940 through 1945 the 

average had been reduced to 2.5 

miles (an indication of how many 

new roads had been created).

• The average fire required 62 manhours in the fir-larch type and 230 

man-hours in the cedar-hemlock 

type.

• 5 percent of fires reached Class C 

(100 acres) or larger, and 9 percent 

on cutover lands reached these 

sizes.

The emphasis now shifted to 

studying fire fuels and their effect on 

fire fighting schemes. Several thousand 

selected fires were used to determine 

the rate of spread by timber type and 

fuel type. This type of study proved to 

be significant in the years to come.

Three other significant projects 

were completed during 1949. The 

Flood Control Surveys Division 

was also established to study snow 

accumulation and melt and was 

headed by Austin Helmers. Helmers 

and DeWilton C. Smith moved to the 

Forest from Spokane and established a 

network of weather stations and snow 

courses to take advantage of the winter 

conditions. The Office of Forest Pathology, which studied pole blight disease 

of western white pine, also shared the 

facilities at the Forest. The pole blight 

project continued to be a cooperative 

project with the University of Idaho 

faculty that included D.S. Welch, T.S. 

Buchanan, F.D. Johnson, and Hubert 

Bynum. Other cooperative work 

continued, including the blister rust 

project headed by Richard T. Bingham, 

who became internationally known as a 

forest geneticist, retiring in 1974. Other 

visitors to the forest included Albert 

W. Slipp of University of Idaho and 

Rexford Daubenmire of Washington 

State University. The collaboration 

with Daubenmire was likely the first 

with Washington State University, 

due largely to the connection with the 

Spokane facility. Rexford Daubenmire 

and his wife, Evelyn, began studies 

of habitat typing of plants and forests 

that became the basis for a number of 

research projects. Professor Emeritus of 

botany at Washington State University, 

Rexford Daubenmire died in 1995. 

He was one of the nation’s foremost 

authorities on plant ecology, and his 

classification of forest and grassland 

vegetation in the Pacific Northwest 

became a standard measurement tool 

for government agencies and the timber 

industry of the West.

Other research projects were being 

added to the workload during this time. 

Deception Creek Experimental Forest 

near Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, created in 

1933, was being used more because of 

the additional postwar staffing. In 1948, 

more than 100,000 board feet of western white pine were sold at a stumpage 

price of $28 per 1,000 feet because they 

were heavily infested with beetles.

Another new project involved 

Christmas tree silvicultural practices. 

The Christmas tree industry in western 

Montana supplied one-seventh of 

the nation’s trees and brought approximately $1 million annually to 

the State, which prompted a need for 

management of these trees. Three kinds 

of Christmas tree experiments were 

created in the Eureka and Kalispell, 

Montana, production areas, and the 

Station entered into a cooperative 

program with Dr. Thomas Childs, pathologist with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, 

Soils and Agricultural Engineering. 

The report issued by the researchers 

tried to explain methods for combating 

extensive damage to the needles of 

the Douglas-fir Christmas trees in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 1949) . 

Such projects indicated the growing 

importance of Priest River research 

to both the Forest Service and the 

timber industry, especially within the 

Northwestern United States.

In 1949, the Spokane Research 

Center planned to establish an 

experimental forest to demonstrate 

cutting practices on a larger scale than 

on sample plots available at the Priest 

River Experimental Forest. The intent 

was to find suitable privately owned 

land so that the results would be more 

useful to private landowners than if the 

plots were on National Forest land.

The End of the 

Gisborne Era

On August 5, 1949, the Mann 

Gulch Fire on the Helena National 

Forest in Montana trapped 16 firefighters, and within a short time, 11 men 

were burned to death, and two others 

died the next day from their injuries. 

While Gisborne did not go to the Mann 

Gulch Fire, he stood by at the Forest 

monitoring cloud conditions in case 

they developed enough for seeding. 

By 1949 his supervisors restricted his 

personal participation in any arduous 

adventures because of his heart condition and physical problems, but his 

interest was piqued by the abnormal 

behavior of this particular fire. In Young 

Men and Fire, a book about the fire by 

Norman Maclean, author of A River 

Runs Through It, Maclean describes 

how the fire was called a “blowup” by 

the fire fighting crew. Maclean writes 

that it was a “deadly explosion of flame 

and wind rarely encountered and little 

understood at the time” (Maclean 1992, 

jacket blurb). After the fire, Gisborne 

interviewed those who survived and 

tried to piece together the evidence 

about the weather conditions, wind 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 39

velocities, and other items of 

importance. Based on this circumstantial evidence he then presented 

a theory about the behavior of the 

fire. Other Forest Service scientists 

such as Jack Barrows and Charles 

(Mike) Hardy in Missoula suggested 

that extraordinary effects produced 

the extraordinary causes such as a 

thunderhead. This theory suggested that 

as the thunderhead passed, its cool air 

mingled with the hot rising air from 

the ground, which also prevented rain 

from reaching the ground. This weight 

sat on the top of the fire, created spot 

fires, and the gusts of wind fanned the 

spot fires into the main fire, creating 

one massive fire. However, none of the 

survivors mentioned a thunderstorm. 

According to Maclean, the “obstacle 

theory,” created by Clive Countryman 

and Howard E. Graham in the 1950s, 

supported Gisborne’s theory. In this 

theory the wind hits objects such as the 

rocky promontory of a ridge, causing 

the wind to shear and spin, catching 

the fire and carrying it along, causing 

more spot fires farther away (Maclean 

1992). Gisborne, however, never had 

the chance to follow either theory to its 

conclusion.

Gisborne, no doubt anxious to see 

the results of the fire first-hand, was 

asked to investigate. On November 

9, 1949, he went to the site, traveling 

by Jeep to the location to lessen the 

stress on his frail physical condition, 

and accompanied by Robert Jansson, 

Ranger of the Helena National Forest’s 

Canyon Ferry District and a survivor 

of the fire. Jansson realized that, at 

the point where they left the Jeep and 

started to walk, Gisborne’s physical 

condition would turn the half-hour hike 

into a 2-hour trip. As they slowly made 

their way, Jansson, who wrote a report 

of the events, noted that Gisborne 

said “all his theories on the fire were 

blasted” (Maclean 1992: 135-139). 

They discovered a fire whirl that had 

gone on a line to the top of the ridge, 

and Gisborne wanted to map it. Seeing 

that Gisborne showed signs of distress 

from the walking, Jansson convinced 

the stubborn Gisborne to stop so that 

they could return to the gulch the next 

day to evaluate what they had found. 

Gisborne, though excited about the 

potential of a new theory, reluctantly 

agreed. But about a half-mile from their 

truck, Gisborne suddenly had a fatal 

heart attack.

Jansson created a map and wrote a 

report, “Statement to Accompany Form 

CA2 in the Case of the Death of Harry 

T. Gisborne,” which covered the events 

and the conversations of the day (Maclean 1992). On top of the devastating 

fire, the Mann Gulch now claimed the 

prime fire researcher of the day.

The loss of Gisborne was noted 

by his alma mater, the University of 

Michigan, which eulogized him in 

the 1950 yearbook. The University of 

Idaho Forestry School’s publication, 

The Idaho Forester, dedicated its 

annual to Gisborne for his work and 

for his service to the college. Charles 

L. Tebbe, Gisborne’s supervisor as the 

Director of the Rocky Mountain Experiment Station, found in Gisborne’s 

personal papers a picture of the Mission 

Range, north of Missoula, Montana, 

that had been taken from the west side 

of the valley and that showed a profile 

of a reclining man. In Gisborne’s writing were instructions that he wanted his 

ashes dropped “right in the old man’s 

eye” (Hardy 1983: 87). To honor his 

wishes, Tebbe, Clayton Crocker, and 

Forest Service pilot Floyd Bowman did 

just that on May 26, 1950. Years later, 

when Gisborne’s wife, Alice, passed 

away, her ashes were spread on the 

same site.

To further honor Gisborne, the 

U.S. Board of Geographic Names in 

1949 gave permission to name a peak, 

Harry Gisborne and his wife, Alice.

unofficially called Looking Glass 

Mountain, located 4 miles east of the 

Forest’s headquarters, as Gisborne 

Mountain. On July 8, 1951, the 

mountain was dedicated in a ceremony 

attended by many including his widow, 

Alice, and A.A. Brown, Chief of Fire 

Research in the Washington, DC, office. A plaque was placed at the summit 

of the mountain with the inscription:

Harry T. Gisborne

1893—1949

Inspiring, Enthusiastic, Far-Seeing

Pioneer in Forest Fire Research

In 1947, Secretary of Agriculture 

Clinton P. Anderson awarded the 

Superior Service Award to Gisborne in 

recognition for his 25 years of achievements. He was the first Region One, 

Northern Rocky Mountain Research 

Station employee to receive that honor.
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

In August 1999, Forest Service 

Chief Mike Dombeck and Montana 

Governor Marc Racicot hosted a 

ceremony in recognition of the 50th

anniversary of the Mann Gulch Fire. 

Robert Sallee, the only living 

survivor of the fire, unveiled a Forest 

Service bronze plaque that depicted a 

smokejumper’s jacket and helmet; the 

plaque was placed at the Merriweather 

picnic area. In his remarks, Sallee 

recognized Gisborne as the 14th victim 

of the fire:

And this commemoration is likewise 

an opportunity to honor the memory of other men whose lives were 

touched by the fire in Mann Gulch, 

men who have since passed on. Men 

like Forest Service fire researcher 

Harry T. Gisborne, the little-known 

14th victim of the Mann Gulch Fire 

who, in November 1949, while doing research on the Mann Gulch Fire, 

died of a heart attack in nearby Rescue Gulch (Smokejumpers Web site 

2000).

The Gisborne Legacy

During Gisborne’s 28-year long 

career, he produced 111 publications. 

His work influenced fire fighting 

techniques, the understanding of conditions that promoted fires, and the study 

and use of climatology throughout the 

United States. His research papers were 

donated to the University of Montana 

in the 1960s. Among the legacies 

Gisborne left was the creation of the 

Fire Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. 

His work with brothers Robert and 

Dick Johnson, owners of Johnson Flying Service, paved the way for the use 

of airplanes in fighting forest fires and 

led to the creation of the Smokejumpers 

and HotShot crews. The tools he 

created or perfected to study weather, 

such as the anemometer, continued 

to be used and became the standard 

across the nation. The Burning Index 

Meter, used throughout North America, 

resulted from his experimentation that 

came from learning how many minutes 

it would take for a Bull Durham 

cigarette to burn up 100 acres if tossed 

into a bed of duff on the forest floor.

Gisborne exemplified the perfect 

researcher – curious, determined, 

physically able, and highly knowledgeable. His personal drive enabled him 

to accomplish unique and far-reaching 

research. However, he was also 

abrasive, egotistical, arrogant, and eccentric, making work and relationships 

difficult for his coworkers. As noted, 

he sarcastically dismissed Richard 

McArdle’s early work with hazard 

sticks because they were square not 

round. The question arises: had he 

cooperated with McArdle, could the 

research have progressed further or 

faster? He overshadowed his peers, 

and though he shied away from public 

recognition, he paradoxically reveled in 

the prestige he garnered over the years. 

His reputation for being outspoken 

was well known. For example, he 

complained about Federal employees 

taking coffee breaks and told his crew 

that they would not “gang up for a coffee period.” He also wrote to Montana 

Senator Mike Mansfield complaining 

about Federal employees getting 30 

days of paid vacation. In a 1948 note, 

he indicated that employees should not 

be motivated by pay or position but by 

their accomplishments (Hardy 1983).

Fire research became his whole 

life, and he had little patience for those 

who did not appreciate his work or 

ideas. While Director of the Station, he 

influenced the type of research conducted and attempted to focus more time 

and energy into his studies than to the 

other research work being done. Yet, 

he oversaw the greatest growth of the 

Station during his years and guaranteed 

the Station’s continued existence when 

funding was erratic at best. He also set 

the tone for cooperative work between 

government and private agencies, such 

as his work with the General Electric 

company.

With the end of the Gisborne era, 

other researchers stepped forward to 

build on the foundation that Gisborne 

had created and took research in new 

directions. Among the fields of study 

were genetics, watershed, and forest 

management. The Forest Service was 

also forced to change its focus after 

World War II. It was no longer the caretaker of the nation’s forests but from 

the 1950s forward was instead required 

to be the major provider of timber.

Looking Glass Lookout, circa 1940. 

Renamed Gisborne Lookout in 1949 

and dedicated as such in 1951.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 41

By the 1950s, the postwar era of peace 

and prosperity was allowing the Station 

to expand the number of technical 

and support staff to 30. The Inland 

Empire Research Center in Spokane 

had six staff, and the Upper Columbia 

Research Center had five. In addition 

to the Priest River Experimental Forest, 

four field locations were maintained by 

the Station: Deception Creek in Idaho, 

Coram in Montana, Northern Plains in 

Miles City, Montana, and Vigilante in 

Alder, Montana.

To promote the benefit of research, 

in 1952 the Secretary of Agriculture established the Forest Research Advisory 

Committee. The committee included 

academics, State representatives, and 

forest industry leaders. Because the 

postwar era funding was being questioned, it was felt that demonstrating 

the importance of a Federal program, in 

addition to State and private programs, 

would offset the cries for cutting the 

funding. The committee toured research 

facilities annually to witness firsthand 

the studies being conducted. In 1953, 

Jemison and the Forest scientists hosted 

the meeting and presented examples 

of the research being conducted. (In 

1970, the Committee was disbanded by 

the Secretary of Agriculture because it 

was viewed as an agent to lobby for increased appropriations from Congress, 

a violation of law.)

In 1956, the Department of 

Agriculture established the Committee 

on Research Evaluation (CORE) 

to identify research areas for either 

curtailment or expansion, and new 

areas that required attention. CORE’s 

draft report was circulated to State 

agricultural experiment stations and 

forestry schools. Assistant Chief Harper 

observed that forestry deans were 

included for the first time in research 

planning discussions between the 

Department and land grant schools, and 

he recognized that there was a major 

need to increase research being done 

by universities. University of Maine’s 

Forestry Dean, Albert Nutting, was 

active in the review process, so it was 

not surprising that Congressman Clifford McIntire from Maine requested 

a forestry cooperative research bill. 

By 1962, the McIntire-Stennis Bill 

became law. The act allowed for more 

interactions between the Forest Service 

and the nation’s forestry schools at land 

grant universities. This is evidenced by 

the kinds of visitors listed in the 1957 

guest book, a record kept each year for 

visitors to sign when they arrived at the 

Forest:

February 9: University of Montana 

dendrology class

May 7—8: Pole Blight Investigations 

Steering Committee

May 25—26: Washington State College 

ecology class

June 18: Priest River Girl Scouts

June 25—27: Project Skyfire School

July 19: Forestry School Deans tour

July—every Thursday—Boy Scouts of 

America, Camp Cowles

September 9: Logging slash review for 

R-2 and Rocky Mountain Station

September 16: Turkish Foresters

September 27: Western white pine 

Management School

In 1957, the Forest was also visited 

by then Secretary of Agriculture Ezra 

Taft Benson. He and his family lived 

in the lodge during their 6-week summer stay while the Secretary became 

familiar with Forest Service research 

programs first hand. One of the 

projects he observed was with Charles 

Tebbe, which involved spraying in the 

Madison River country to kill larvae in 

the timber.

With the surprise launch of the 

Russian spacecraft Sputnik in 1958, 

Congress was suddenly highly motivated to provide additional funds to 

support science and research. Although 

forestry research was on the fringe, it 

had funding benefits. The era of the 

1950s through the 1970s is considered 

by some as the “Golden Age” for Forest 

Service research programs due to the 

laboratory and equipment enhancements and increased staffing.

Organization

Changes in leadership came again 

as George Jemison replaced Charles 

Tebbe as Station Director in 1950. 

Jemison had grown with the Station as 

he developed from a young assistant 

to Gisborne to assuming the role of 

Director. He served until 1953 when 

he was named Director of the Forest 

and Range Experiment Station in 

Berkeley, California. As the number 

of staff increased, the workload was 

distributed among the many men 

associated with the Station. Austin 

Helmers, a silviculturist, was in charge 

of the Forest; Marvin Foiles, a recent 

master’s graduate of the University of 

Disciplinary Research 

1950 to 1975

Chapter 5:
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Idaho, was responsible for Deception 

Creek; Anthony Squillance was in 

charge of Coram Experimental Forest; 

Laurence Short was in charge of the 

Northern Great Plains in Miles City; 

and Anthony Evanko was in charge of 

the Vigilante Experiment Range.

Once again, the Forest underwent 

a name change in 1954. With the 

consolidation of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain and the Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Stations, the 

name was changed to the Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 

with the headquarters in Ogden, Utah. 

Dr. Reed Bailey served as Director 

of the Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station after the 

consolidation. With the consolidation, 

new territory was acquired, including 

northwestern South Dakota, eastern 

Washington, and a small section of 

eastern California. This additional area 

meant that the scientists were now 

responsible for conducting research 

within these new boundaries. Jemison 

noted in his memoirs that this consolidation was “almost disastrous”:

I was called to Washington to explain 

to Mike Mansfield, the senior senator from Montana, why it was necessary to abolish the Station in his 

home state. I innocently went into 

his office one afternoon to rationalize 

the proposed move, only to find that 

someone had tipped him off as to the 

purpose of my visit. Boy! Was he lying in wait for me. I never took such 

a dressing-down in my life as that 

from Senator Mansfield. But, after 

he got that off his chest, he gave me 

a chance to explain the reasons; we 

went ahead with the consolidation, 

and everything was fine. I think it 

was just a case of mishandling an attempt to change an organization. Obviously, Mansfield should have been 

brought into the discussion much earlier since this concerned his constituency and his district. It was a good 

move at the time, although now the 

program in Missoula is many times 

the size of the one we abolished back 

in 1953 (Maunder 1978: 205).

In 1963, the Forest headquarters in 

Spokane was moved to Moscow, Idaho, 

when the office on the edge of the 

University of Idaho campus was completed. The new laboratory provided 

facilities that the scientists had not had 

before and also enhanced the cooperation between the University of Idaho, 

Washington State University, and the 

Forest Service. While the proximity to 

the two universities was a welcomed 

addition, the distance of driving 4 hours 

to the Forest from Moscow was not.

The responsibility for the Forest 

also transferred to the Moscow 

Laboratory. Glenn H. Deitschman, 

Project Leader of the western white 

pine silviculture project at the Moscow 

Laboratory, was given the responsibility for the day-to-day management 

of the Forest from 1961 to 1973. 

The person responsible for the forest 

was assigned the title of Scientistin-Charge, a title that required more 

responsibility, more work hours, and 

no extra monetary compensation. In 

1973, Dr. Albert Stage became leader 

of the combined silviculture-forest 

measurements project, and he delegated 

responsibility for the Forest to Marvin 

Foiles, a silviculturist, who shouldered 

the duties until 1976 when he gradually 

shifted them to Dr. Russell Graham, 

also a silviculturist.

In addition to the budget concerns 

and maintenance of facilities, the Scientist-in-Charge became responsible for 

coordinating research, educational and 

training sessions, tours, and other activities on the Forest. New experiments 

had to be monitored so that they did 

not overlap on sites, did not interfere 

with ongoing experiments, and summer 

labor for working on the projects had 

to be budgeted and arranged. Because 

the responsibility for overseeing the 

Forest was now in Moscow, it was even 

more critical that the resident Superintendent handle the day-to-day work 

but without research responsibilities. 

Duties of the Superintendent included 

George M. Jemison, eighth Director 

1950-1953

Reed W. Bailey, ninth Director 

1954-1961
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 43

minor maintenance of the buildings, 

monitoring and collecting the weather 

data, snow removal on trails and roads 

on the forest and when necessary from 

building rooftops, contact for visitors 

to the Forest, preparing for tours and 

other public events, aiding researchers 

in their projects, and writing the annual 

reports. In January 1965, Calvin L. 

Carpenter transferred from the National 

Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, 

Montana, to assume the role of Superintendent of the Forest. Carpenter, his 

wife, and family moved into cottage 

4, which became the Superintendent’s 

residence.

After decades of use, the Forest 

headquarters needed significant maintenance work, but the yearly budget did 

not provide adequate funding. Because 

Bonner County, in which the Forest 

is located, was listed as economically 

distressed by the Federal government at 

that time, the Forest received $60,000 

of Accelerated Public Works funds in 

1962 and $30,000 additional monies 

in 1963 (Wellner 1976). These funds 

were used to improve the office, roads, 

sewage system, and research facilities. 

In addition to the maintenance work, an 

A-frame was added to the nursery, and 

an additional bunkhouse and shed were 

constructed in 1966.

Savenac Nursery, established in 

Haugen, Montana, in 1909, had been 

used by the Station for obtaining stock 

and for distributing tested tree seedlings 

since the establishment of the Station. 

In 1969, activities of the nursery 

were transferred to Coeur d’Alene, 

Idaho, and renamed the Coeur d’Alene 

Nursery. The nursery continues to be 

used as a distribution point for seeds 

and seedlings resulting from successful 

research projects. These seeds and 

seedlings are dispersed not only for use 

on Federal lands but also for State and 

private industry.

Research Emphases

Fire

After Gisborne’s death, Gisborne’s 

assistant, Jack Barrows, headed fire 

research. In 1951, the Station, the 

Weather Bureau and Region One joined 

forces to establish a joint project to 

inspect fire danger stations, maintain 

and repair fire weather instruments, 

train fire danger station operators, and 

plan relocation of some stations. The 

Northern Rocky Mountain burning 

index meter, which evaluated fuel 

moisture, was enhanced so that it was 

more reliable in nonnormal years. 

Because there was a lack of funding 

to maintain fire lookout stations, the 

need for better detection methods was 

critical.

In 1952, a field laboratory for 

logging slash research was established 

at the Forest in cooperation with 

the University of Idaho, Idaho State 

Forestry Department, the Priest Lake 

Timber Protective Association, Potlatch 

Forests, the Region One smokejumpers, 

the U.S. Weather Bureau, and the 

California Forest and Range Experiment Station. Over 150 slash plots were 

established where inflammability could 

be measured for various tree species as 

well as amounts of fuel in controlled 

burning tests.

A direct result of the work started 

by Gisborne, and continued by Barrows 

and others, was the creation of the 

Aerial Fire Depot. Regional Forester 

Percy Hanson directed the construction 

of the Aerial Fire Depot at the Missoula 

Airport to provide a headquarters for 

the control of forest fires through the 

use of airplanes and smokejumpers. 

Supplies to maintain 5,000 firefighters 

in the field for 48 hours were stored as 

well as helicopters and aircraft for use 

in reconnaissance, smokejumping, and 

transport as well as large quantities of 

fire-retardant chemicals (Baker and 

The 1963 dedication of the Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory.
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

others 1993). A training camp for the 

smokejumpers was also established at 

Camp Menard west of Missoula. Red 

Skies Over Montana, filmed in 1952, 

used these facilities and depicted the 

work done by smokejumpers. In 1954, 

a crowd of approximately 30,000 

was on hand to see President Dwight 

Eisenhower officially dedicate the 

depot (Cohen 1983).

Another outgrowth of the fire 

research was the Intermountain Fire 

Sciences Laboratory located near 

the depot. The Laboratory had two 

functions: fire research for the special 

problems of the forests and ranges of 

the Inland West, and basic fire research 

that could have application in any 

region. In 1954 when the Intermountain 

Fire Sciences Laboratory was created, 

the Forest was used extensively in 

a study called Project Skyfire. This 

project concentrated on lightning 

fire research throughout the Western 

United States and tested the possibility 

of reducing the severity of lightning 

fires through cloud modification. The 

Munitalp Foundation, one of the main 

backers of Project Skyfire, funded 

construction of the mobile atmospheric 

research laboratory and also provided 

technical assistance. Dr. Vincent 

Schaefer, a pioneer in this research 

with Gisborne, was now the Director 

of Research and Codirector of Project 

Skyfire. Other agencies involved were 

The Boeing Airplane Company, which 

provided high-altitude photography 

of clouds and lightning storms, the 

University of Washington, which 

assisted with meteorological work, and 

the University of Idaho, which constructed a cloud chamber for studies of 

atmospheric nuclei. Initially, the project 

used the Forest as a field base until 

1955 when Missoula became the base 

of operations. This research resulted 

in a model to predict fire behavior, and 

by the 1960s, the 10 a.m. fire policy 

for Federal agencies was abolished. 

Gisborne would have approved of both.

During 1952, a program was initiated at four Northern Rocky Mountain 

fire lookouts to use time-lapse motion 

pictures of lightning storms and other 

cloud conditions associated with the behavior of lightning fires. Several hours 

of cloud action was condensed into a 

few minutes of film time allowing the 

researchers to watch the development 

of storms and match them against 

lightning fires.

When Alaska became the 49th State 

in 1959, fire research analysis was 

required to study the newly acquired 

forested lands. Barrows and other 

members of the fire research staff were 

sent to Alaska to gather data. Prolonged 

daylight during the fire season, weather 

conditions, and the topography of the 

Alaskan interior all contributed to the 

unique difficulties involved in studying 

and applying fire research.

Watershed

Weather data collected over the 

years at the Forest and streamflow 

records aided a new area of study on 

snow accumulation and melting rates. 

Watershed studies were necessary 

because of the loss of timber and 

vegetation, the damage to stream channels, loss of topsoil, and the damage to 

recreational areas.

The Division of Flood Control 

Surveys was established as part of the 

Station in 1948 after a devastating flood 

on the Columbia River. Austin Helmers 

moved to Priest River and created a 

network of weather stations at various 

altitudes and snow courses and, over 

the next 4 years, accumulated valuable 

data. Helmers had a cooperative 

program with the University of Idaho 

Engineering Experiment Station to test 

and collect information using precipitation gauges on Gisborne Mountain. By 

1952, however, the studies suddenly 

ended as funds for the flood control 

surveys were curtailed. Data from the 

Forest studies were later analyzed and 

reported by Paul Packer, watershed 

scientist at the Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory in Logan, Utah. Helmers 

was reassigned to a project headed by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 

Waterways Experiment Station at 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. Helmers and 

several others, including Ray Boyd 

who joined the project in 1953, used 

several sites on the Forest to test soil 

infiltration. Boyd finished the project 

in 1954 when Helmers was transferred 

to Washington, DC. An erosion study 

was conducted at the site of the Mann 

Gulch Fire to study the erosion caused 

by flooding, and the results were 

reported in Research Note 102 entitled 

Forest Fire—Thunderstorm, Knockout 

Combination for Watersheds (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 1955).

By 1966, Harold Haupt joined the 

Station to lead the watershed program. 

Assisted by Bud Jeffers, a resident 

technician, they conducted a cooperative program with Washington State 

University and the University of Idaho. 

Pilot tests of effects of road building 

and cutting on streamflow based on 

results found on studies conducted on 

the Forest provided baseline information for further studies.

The streamflow records collected 

since 1938 on Benton Creek and the 

1948 through 1952 snow studies by 

Helmer provided a start for intensive 

studies of Benton Creek to understand 

the hydrology of densely forested 

watersheds. Using a network of stations 

to study climate, soil, snow, streamflow, 

and sediment, the Benton Creek Model 

Watershed was established. By 1968, 

this network, consisting of 14 stations, 

provided a database for understanding 

the hydrology of Benton Creek and also 

served as a framework for special cooperative studies. For example, in 1972, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 45

a University of Idaho graduate student, 

Gordon Snyder, developed mathematical models to study chemical processes 

in undisturbed streams in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. Many sites on the 

Benton Creek watershed were used to 

develop his model. In 1974, a three-way 

cooperative study between the Station, 

the University of Idaho, and the Dow 

Corning Corporation was conducted 

to determine the effectiveness and side 

effects of a silicone emulsion as an 

antitranspirant to increase water yield. 

A 60-acre section of trees on Benton 

Creek was sprayed, and streamflow was 

compared with an unsprayed drainage. 

Biological effects of the material 

on vegetation, water quality, small 

mammal populations, and aquatic and 

terrestrial insects were monitored, and 

the results showed negligible effect 

on the flora and fauna and a moderate 

increase in water yield (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1974). By 1975 the 

watershed research was reduced at the 

Forest and moved to Horse Creek on the 

Nez Perce National Forest.

Other studies by Station scientists 

in Missoula included a major project to 

prepare comprehensive problem analyses for both the Inland Empire and 

the Upper Columbia areas. After the 

Inland Empire Research Center was 

terminated in 1953, the Station took 

on the responsibility of projects related 

to western white pine. This study, the 

Comprehensive Agricultural Program 

Report, was continued throughout the 

1950s.

Forest Insects

The Intermountain West’s forests 

were suffering from a variety of insect 

infestations. Dr. Malcolm Furniss, 

entomologist, was Project Leader of 

the Forest Insects Research Work Unit, 

which studied lodgepole needle miner, 

Pandora moth, sawflies, mountain pine 

beetle, Englemann spruce beetle, and 

Douglas-fir beetle. Furniss transferred 

from Missoula to Moscow and conducted the insect research at the Forest. 

Another entomologist in the work unit, 

Robert Denton, conducted research on 

larch casebearer where he investigated 

insecticides to control this defoliating 

insect and also tested the use of 

parasites on both western larch and 

European larch, an exotic planted in the 

early years. As a result of this research, 

the larch casebearer was brought under 

control through the use of parasites. Dr. 

Richard Schmitz studied the occurrence 

of mountain pine beetles in mid-aged 

stands on the Forest. His research led 

to a better understanding of what tree 

characteristics promote infestations.

Forest Diseases

In the 1940s, another major killer 

of western white pine was identified. 

Pole blight, a name coined by researcher Russell K. LeBarron, was killing 

trees within the 40 to 100 year age 

classes. The acreage of western white 

pine pole blight in the United States 

stood between 90,000 to 95,000 acres 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1954). 

Before World War II, Charles Wellner 

had conducted cooperative studies 

on the disease with the University of 

Idaho and, after returning from the war, 

resumed this work.

When the Division of Forest 

Pathology was transferred to the Forest 

Service in 1954, and headquartered 

at the Forest, Charles Leaphart and 

Donald Graham were added to the 

study. Leaphart worked with Dr. Albert 

Stage in a dendrochronology study to 

evaluate the relation of pole blight to 

climatic conditions.

Studies of the pole blight disease 

were completed by the late 1970s. 

Results from the several-decades research showed that drought had created 

conditions that stressed the western 

white pine trees. Using the climatic 

records kept by the Forest since 1911, 

the scientists were able to pinpoint the 

variables, especially the lack of rainfall, 

that had caused the disease.

Other disease research projects 

being conducted included black shoestring root disease, dwarf mistletoe, 

Indian paint fungus, and redbelt 

fungus. In 1961, Dr. Edward Wicker 

established a field plot in the nursery to 

study dwarf mistletoe. Dr. Alexander 

H. Smith, University of Michigan, also 

used the Forest for intensive studies 

of the fungi of northern Idaho, another 

indication of how important the Forest 

was to nationwide research.

By the 1950s all attempts at 

controlling the blister rust disease were 

proving unsatisfactory. Despite the 

eradication effort on Ribes, rust infection was exceeding tolerable levels. 

Blister rust canker
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Scientists were changing their line 

of thought to studying microclimatic 

conditions that might be promoting 

the spread of the pine-infecting spores. 

As a result, a meteorologist with the 

Weather Bureau, Merle G. Lloyd, was 

transferred to the Inland Empire Research Center in 1956 to help with the 

research. He studied thermal structure 

of the atmosphere, wind movements, 

and simulated spore movements, and 

by 1960 he had determined that climate 

was an important factor: blister rust is 

spread when even a gentle air current 

transports spores from a single point 

during moist periods, and the shortlived sporidia form in autumn when 

the humidity is high (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 1959). Perhaps because 

climate cannot be controlled, more 

emphasis would be placed on Richard 

Bingham’s genetic work to finally 

resolve the question of how to create 

disease-resistant stock.

Tree Genetics

While early work on tree genetics 

was done at the Institute of Forest 

Genetics at the California Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, some 

aspects of the program were done at the 

Forest for investigating blister rust resistance in western white pine. Among 

the accomplishments listed in the 

Annual Report for 1950, Jemison listed 

the increased role of forest genetics:

Anthony Squillance of the Station 

worked in cooperation with the Division of Blister Rust Control, headed 

by Richard Bingham, in cross pollinating fifty native western white pine 

trees that appeared to be highly resistant or immune to blister rust. A staff 

person was sent to the Institute of 

Forest Genetics at the California Forest and Range Experiment Station to 

receive instruction in artificial pollination of coniferous trees. A regional forest genetics steering committee, 

composed of representatives from 

universities, agricultural experiment 

stations and Federal agencies was 

created (Jemison 1950: 49).

This genetics work with the Office 

of Blister Rust Control resulted in 

western white pines resistant to blister 

rust. When the Blister Rust Control 

was transferred to the Forest Service, 

Bingham became part of the Region 

One staff but had his office in Spokane 

at the Research Center. In 1958, Region 

One and the Station cooperated with the 

University of Idaho to build a genetics 

center for the rust resistance program 

on the campus, and Bingham moved to 

Moscow. The Forest Sciences Laboratory, completed in 1963, was built 

adjacent to this genetics center. The 

Forest played an important role in the 

western white pine genetics program. 

In the mid-1950s, some of the earliest 

plantings of rust resistant western white 

pine were planted by Bingham and his 

crew on a slope near the headquarters 

of the Forest. This planting, containing 

genetically improved rust resistant 

trees, was to determine if these trees 

had normal growth and form characteristics. The results of these vigor 

quality (VQ) plots showed that western 

white pines exhibiting rust resistant 

characteristics had excellent form and 

growth, validating the techniques being 

used by Bingham. By 1975, after 25 

years of research done by Bingham 

and other researchers, two generations 

of resistant trees were developed and 

planted throughout the Northwest, thus 

protecting the forests from devastation 

by this disease.

Building on Bingham’s work, this 

line of genetic research was continued 

by Dr. Ray Hoff, Dr. Gerald Rehfeldt, 

Dr. Raphael Steinhoff, Dr. Geral McDonald, Pat Wells, Duke Coffen, and 

Duane Andrews. The Forest nursery became the site for continued studies and 

refinement on rust resistance in western 

white pine. From seed collections 

from the western white pine region, 

seedlings were tested to determine what 

level of resistance existed in the trees 

throughout the region.

In the 1970s, new studies were conducted on blister rust resistant western 

white pine. These pines, with various 

resistant attributes, were outplanted 

in the lower part of Canyon Creek and 

became the primary gene bank for 

resistant trees. From these trees, seeds 

and cuttings have been used in tree improvement programs and seed orchards 

throughout the Western United States 

and Canada. The Forest proved to be an 

invaluable resource for the creation and 

maintenance of this resistant tree stock, 

which continues today.

Another genetic test proved invaluable by showing the importance of 

using local seed sources for reforestation. Brewster and McDonald planted 

ponderosa pines from 22 sources from 

throughout the West on the Forest in 

1911 and 1912. The sources ranged 

from California to the Black Hills of 

South Dakota. By the 1950s and into 

the 1970s, it was evident that trees 

that had their origins on the Kaniksu 

National Forest survived and grew 

better than the nonlocal tree species. 

This kind of information was essential 

for proper reforestation. This is an 

example of how long-term investigations are required for natural resource 

research, and how the Forest, through 

the monitoring of these trees for 60 

years, provided scientific data to aid 

land managers.

Despite the conclusion that local 

seed sources are more successful than 

nonlocal sources, the ponderosa pine 

plantings of 1911 did show that trees 

from different sources can be adapted 

to their new sites. Because reforestation 

is conducted throughout the United 

States after timber harvesting, wildfires, 

and other disturbances, information 

was needed on the adaptability of 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 47

seeds to specific sites. Dr. Rehfeldt 

began studies on Douglas-fir using the 

nursery and other sites on the Forest. 

He collected seeds from throughout 

the Western United States and planted 

them in a common garden. From his 

evaluation of these plantings, seed 

zones were developed and the extent 

of their boundaries was determined. 

These seed zones helped managers to 

select the appropriate seed sources for 

reforestation.

Timber Management and 

Silviculture

Permanent plots for measuring tree 

growth had been continuously used 

since they were established in 1911. 

These plots were located in various 

aged stands and some were treated 

with different cuttings and others 

were left untreated. At 5- and 10-year 

intervals these plots were measured, 

taking into account the regeneration of 

new trees and mortality due to insects, 

weather, and disease. Irvine T. Haig, 

who started at the Forest in 1923, used 

these plots and others to establish tables 

describing how western white pine 

forests develop. These tables showed 

the number of trees, sizes, and volumes 

through the life of a stand until age 

160. These tables were the fundamental 

growth and yield prediction method 

when establishing forest management 

plans for National Forests throughout 

the Northern Rocky Mountains.

While these tables were beneficial 

for forest planning, they lacked adaptability to different sites and different 

management scenarios. In the 1960s, 

Dr. Albert Stage initiated the use of 

computers to predict the growth of 

trees, which ultimately replaced the 

yield tables. This developed into the 

Northern Idaho Prognosis for Stand 

Development Model (Stage 1973), a 

computer analysis tool that gives 

scientists and managers a way to 

predict how stands would look in the 

future based on different attributes such 

as mortality rates, climate, insect infestations, and other variables. Because 

computers were in their infancy, so was 

the Prognosis Model, but the results 

proved promising (Johnson 1997).

During the 1960s various timber 

harvests on the Forest tested a range 

of silvicultural systems including 

large clearcuts at the head of Benton 

Creek and lower Benton Creek. These 

cuttings not only were used to evaluate 

regeneration of conifers but also 

showed the impact of harvesting on the 

watershed studies conducted by Harold 

Haupt. The lower Benton Creek cuts 

were broadcast burned in August 1967 

during one of the worst fire seasons in 

recent years. The information gathered 

after these fires provided valuable examples of how burn intensities impact 

both the soil and vegetation. Dr. Peter 

Stickney, from the Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory in Missoula, established 

permanent vegetation transects in the 

south- and north-facing clearcuts. 

These transects continue to be 

monitored yearly. Stickney’s studies described the revegetation after wildfires 

and showed what range of vegetation 

develops after different intensities of 

fires. Like the sample plots, these data 

became invaluable for use in computer 

models to predict vegetation development after disturbances. Additional 

cuttings in lower Benton Creek were 

completed, releasing young stands of 

trees created by the Highlanding Fire of 

1934. These stands were subsequently 

thinned to create conditions for timber 

management research. Included in these 

silviculture studies were fertilization, 

different stand spacings, seed tree, shelterwood, and group selection cuttings. 

All of these areas and cuttings provided 

future research projects.

The Era of Success But 

Uncertainty

During the 1950s, 1960s, and 

1970s, Forest Service research expanded dramatically due to the return of 

labor and Congressional funding in the 

postwar era. The Fire Sciences Laboratory, the Missoula Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, the Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory, and many others were 

added to the Northern/Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Stations. 

Staff was increased, programs were 

added, scientists were enthusiastic, and 

money flowed.

With the passage of the MultipleUse Act of 1960, not only were the 

National Forests being used for timber 

harvesting, they were now expected to 

be used for recreation, range, watershed 

management, and wildlife. The Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, headquartered in Ogden, Utah, 

rather than Missoula, struggled to 

keep up with the demand for research. 

Research had been ahead of need, but 

now the demand was ahead of research.

Based on a Washington Office 

general inspection by George Jemison 

and Thomas McLintock in 1960, the 

Station was changed into functional or 

disciplinary research projects. Under 

Gisborne, the Station had focused 

mostly on fire research, but now there 

were several research work units, each 

with a strong leader. In contrast to the 

old military style of command with one 

leader and one center, there were now 

separate projects, each with a leader 

who expected a fair share of the pie 

and was willing to fight for funding and 

recognition.

With the change from experimental 

forests to laboratories, by the 1960s a 

serious question was raised as to the 

future need for the Priest River Experimental Forest (Wellner 1976). One 
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

suggestion was that the Priest River 

Experimental Forest, like the Bernice 

and the Piquette Forests, should be 

disbanded and returned to the Kaniksu 

National Forest or to make it a summer 

facility only. But in 1961, Station Director Reed Bailey determined that the 

Forest was essential to the program of 

the Station and would be kept, and all 

buildings would be retained (Wellner 

1976).

One of the side effects of the 

disciplinary research was that funding 

for the Forest was now dependent upon 

the individual research project units 

rather than having one lump sum from 

the Station. Disagreements resulted 

over the share that each unit would 

contribute, the priorities of that money, 

and how the funds were spent. This 

included maintenance of the buildings 

and operating expenses (gas, heat, and 

lights). A result of how extreme this 

bickering became was that some high 

profile research was moved off the 

Forest to National Forest administered 

lands (Dr. Russell Graham, personal 

communication). Sometimes the best 

characteristics of a researcher—determination and self-confidence 

especially—prevented the scientists 

from working together as a cohesive 

team. Nevertheless, the research 

produced during this time continued to 

be high quality, plentiful, and widely 

used to address forest management 

problems for the National Forests, the 

States, and private industry. However, 

funding problems continued to plague 

the Forest.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 49

Beginning in the 1960s, environmental 

issues came to the public’s attention 

with the publication of Rachel Carson’s 

Silent Spring. Protests arose against 

the spraying of pesticides in general 

but especially on National Forest 

lands. Other forestry practices such 

as clearcutting and replanting to an 

even-age, single-type forest also drew 

fire from environmentalists. Congress 

responded to the public’s increased 

awareness by allocating millions of 

dollars to intensify the investigations 

on DDT and other biological issues.

By the end of the decade, a major 

controversy was raised on the Bitterroot 

National Forest, which not only became 

an issue for Region One but also 

nationwide. Because of the increased 

demand for timber during World War 

II, the increased postwar demand, and 

the increased access to forests by the 

public, the interaction between the public and forest policies on public lands 

came to a crisis. The need to build up 

the annual cut allowed under sustained 

yield management required the Forest 

Service to intensify forest management. 

In 1969, Joseph F. Pechanec, Director 

of the Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station (1962—1971) in 

Ogden, Utah, and Regional Forester 

Neil Rahm, Missoula, Montana, questioned how these management practices 

were being applied and called for a 

special Forest Service task force to 

review the forestry management practices in the Bitterroot National Forest. 

Three of the committee members who 

served were from the Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 

and included Charles Wellner. Montana 

Senator Mike Mansfield also requested 

an external review by the University 

of Montana Forestry School. A few 

months later, a committee headed by 

Dr. Arnold Bolle, Dean of the University of Montana Forestry School, issued 

its report, which added fuel to the 

fire. Repercussions of the Bolle report 

caused changes to management policies 

and philosophy not only in Region One 

but also across the Forest Service.

However, a positive side effect 

of these environmental issues was an 

increase in Forest Service research 

dollars. By the time Jemison retired 

in 1969, the total research budget had 

jumped from $15 million to $40.7 million (Steen 1998). Congress recognized 

that alternative methods of management needed to be researched and 

developed to help land managers avoid 

controversial clashes with the public 

over management of public lands.

In 1972, Region One prepared a 

response to the Bolle report and to the 

Montana Congressional delegation, 

who were reviewing the Bolle report, 

New Forestry 1975 to 

Present

Chapter 6:

Joseph F. Pechanec, tenth Director 

1962-1971.

Bitterroot terraces around 1982.
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

to show how research being done by 

the Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station was significant to 

aid Montana’s forests. The response 

was also done to justify the need for 

expanded research. In the document, 

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station scientist Charles A. 

(Mike) Hardy reminded the Montana 

Congressional delegation how much 

valuable Station research had been accomplished that had proven essential to 

forestry practices not only in Montana 

but the Northwest (Baker and others 

1993). During this time the Station 

was under the leadership of Robert W. 

Harris (1971—1974). Because of the 

need to develop new management techniques, a revised philosophy—often 

called New Forestry—emerged that 

called for management practices that 

addressed long-term soil productivity, 

quantified forest health, and observed 

changes in photosynthetic rates and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels caused 

by elevation and climatic differences. 

The research on the Forest became 

even more significant.

Organization

In 1974, Roger Bay became Director of the Station. The mensuration and 

silviculture projects were combined 

in 1973 and led by Dr. Albert Stage, 

and the responsibility for the Forest 

was transferred from Deitschman to 

Marvin Foiles to Dr. Russell Graham. 

In 1980, the consolidation of the 

mensuration and silviculture projects 

was discontinued, and silviculture was 

made an independent project led by 

Acting Project Leader Marvin Foiles. 

With Foiles’ retirement in 1981, the 

silviculture project worked directly for 

the Assistant Station Director, Thad 

Harrington, with rotating Acting Project Leaders of Dr. Dennis Ferguson, 

Jonalea Tonn, and Dr. Russell Graham. 

In 1982, Dr. Alan Harvey returned to 

Moscow, Idaho, from Missoula to lead 

the Forest Pathology Research Work 

Unit. In 1983, the forest pathology and 

silviculture projects were combined 

with Dr. Harvey as Project Leader. In 

1988, the silviculturists were moved 

from the pathology project and 

combined with genetics, forming a new 

work unit headed by Dr. Ray Hoff.

In 1992, with the upcoming election 

as an incentive, Agriculture Secretary 

Edward Madigan asked all agency 

heads, including the Forest Service, to 

evaluate their operations and to find 

ways to streamline and cut costs. Forest 

Service Chief Dale Robertson proposed 

merging the Intermountain Station 

(headquarters in Ogden, Utah) with the 

Rocky Mountain Station (headquarters 

in Fort Collins, Colorado). Before the 

merger could be completed, however, 

the Clinton Administration replaced the 

Bush Administration. Vice President 

Gore requested that agencies develop 

plans for restructuring and, until those 

plans were finalized, the merger was 

postponed. However, in 1997, the 

Clinton Administration agreed that the 

reorganization was cost effective and 

more efficient. As a result, the Moscow 

Laboratory and Priest River Experimental Forest became part of the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station (RMRS) 

under Station Director Dr. Denver 

Burns. RMRS currently administers 14 

experimental forests, ranges, and watersheds within a 14-State territory and 

has 400 scientists, administrators, and 

support staff. Dr. Marcia Patton-Mallory 

became Station Director in 2002.

Administration and 

Maintenance

By the 1970s, the Forest had 

acquired several buildings including 

cottages 2, 3 and 4, the office, and the 

bunkhouse/mess hall. Vic Hager, Maintenance Engineer from the Moscow 

Laboratory, was in charge of all maintenance and new projects done to the 

facilities at the Forest. An amphitheater, 

designed by the Panhandle National 

Robert Harris, eleventh Director 

1971-1974.

Roger Bay, twelfth Director 1974-1983.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 51

Forests landscape architect, with 

seating capacity for 200 people, was installed near the north end of the office. 

The lodge (cottage 1) was remodeled to 

include basement sleeping quarters, a 

bathroom with showers, and a laundry 

room. The bunkhouse/mess hall was 

modified to accommodate safety issues 

such as adding a fire escape.

In 1971, the Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station began 

sponsoring the Youth Conservation 

Corp (YCC), a Federal program 

for promoting social awareness of 

environmental issues to youth (Baker 

and others 1993). Young adults, ages 15 

through 18 years, from the area spent 8 

weeks during the summer at the Forest 

to “earn-work-learn.” They focused 

on conservation-related projects and 

forest ecology to teach them about 

environmental issues. The YCC crew, 

led by camp director Robert Weisel, 

a teacher from Moscow High School, 

and several other staff members were 

responsible for the work as well as the 

recreational program for the young 

people. Because of this program, many 

additional research projects were initiated and maintained as well as projects 

for the Priest Lake Ranger District and 

the Idaho Fish and Game Department.

The YCC crew helped create a new 

trail in the 982-acre Lower Canyon 

Creek area, which was created as a 

natural area in 1937. This area was set 

aside as an untouched ecosystem so that 

various habitat types would be available 

for monitoring and comparison long 

before Congress mandated by law that 

the Forest Service find and set aside 

areas not only on experimental forests 

but on all National Forest lands. Charles 

Wellner maintained the importance of 

this area because it displayed a variety 

of stands, primarily western hemlock, 

western redcedar, subalpine fir, western 

white pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch, ponderosa pine, Englemann 

spruce, and whitebark pine, which are 

key species to the Pacific Northwest 

habitat types. The importance of a 

natural area on experimental forests is 

that it can be used as a comparison to 

areas that have been treated.

Monies were budgeted during the 

1980s to upgrade the laboratory, shop, 

and other buildings. The conference 

room in the laboratory was renovated, 

insulation was added to the cottages, 

and new plumbing was installed in cottages 3 and 4. An A-frame sleeping/lab 

building located near the Gisborne lookout was moved to 

the compound and nicknamed 

the Gisborne Hilton. In 1986, 

the bunkhouse/mess hall, 

originally built in 1915 and 

1916 as a lecture room and 

woodshed and reconstructed 

in 1934 by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, was 

upgraded by adding electric 

baseboard heating. Not only 

did this change provide less 

maintenance, it also provided 

more space in the rooms to 

accommodate the larger numbers of participants at various 

meetings and workshops 

being held at the Forest. New 

equipment was also acquired 

including two snowmobiles and a John 

Deere diesel tractor for tilling planting 

sites and snow plowing.

In 1984, Cal Carpenter retired 

after 19 years as Superintendent of the 

Forest. His replacement, Chuck Hepner, 

had worked at the Moscow Laboratory 

since 1976 when he transferred from the 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Ohio. 

Hepner left in 1987, and Mel Morton 

replaced him for 2 years. During the 

transition to a permanent replacement, 

Cal Carpenter returned from retirement 

to reprise his role as Superintendent. Dr. 

Russell Graham also began delegating 

routine supervision of the Forest and 

budgetary work to Dr. Terrie Jain.

In 1990, Robert Denner replaced 

Chuck Hepner as Superintendent and 

Marina Frederick joined him as an 

assistant. Like Bob Marshall, Denner 

came from New York and was drawn to 

forestry and the Northwest. He moved 

west to fight fires and completed his 

degree at Washington State University.

In addition to the routine maintenance of the buildings and grounds, 

Office building, October 2000. (Author 

photo).

Bob Denner, current Superintendent.
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

the office at the Forest was upgraded 

to enhance the computer capabilities 

for the Superintendent. Routine 

maintenance, however, only covers the 

cosmetic needs of the buildings, and 

more long-term preservation is needed. 

The Department of the Interior has 

established guidelines for rehabilitating 

historic buildings—guidelines that are 

critical for retaining the integrity of the 

structures but make it more difficult 

to make basic repairs and modernize. 

The guidelines define in detail how to 

repair and replace brick, stone, roofs, 

windows, porches, and mechanical 

systems on historic structures. In 

1993, Scientist-in-Charge Dr. Russell 

Graham and Dr. Terrie Jain wrote a 

proposal to apply for recognition for 

the Forest for the National Historic 

Register, which was created under the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 to preserve and protect historic 

buildings on Federal lands. Cort Sims, 

U.S. Forest Service archaeologist from 

the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 

visited the Forest in October 1993 to 

evaluate the buildings and to collect 

data related to the historic significance 

of the site. In 1994, the Station headquarters was added to the Register.

In 1995, Dr. Russell Graham and 

Dr. Terrie Jain submitted a proposal 

to the Idaho Heritage Trust 

to obtain a grant to help 

preserve the historical value 

and to retain the original 

structure of the buildings 

when renovation is needed as 

the buildings deteriorate. The 

Trust had been created with 

goals similar to the National 

Historic Register. While the 

Trust agreed that the Forest 

was important historically to 

the State of Idaho, unfortunately the Trust’s resources 

were inadequate to provide 

the $10,000 grant that was 

requested but did provide 

$3,000 for minor upgrades. 

However, the Forest became 

eligible for future proposals.

Because of the increased usage of 

the Forest for workshops, seminars, 

and training, under the leadership of 

Drs. Richard Krebill, Keith Evans, and 

Dean Knighton (Acting Station Directors 1992—1993), a new conference 

facility was approved and completed 

in 1999. The conference building, attached to the bunkhouse/mess hall, can 

accommodate 50 participants. It was 

constructed to blend in with the other 

buildings and to retain the historic 

look.

Anniversaries

By 1976, the Station had completed 

65 years of research. To recognize the 

anniversary, a weeklong celebration 

was planned and a committee, chaired 

by Charles Leaphart from the Moscow 

Laboratory, was created to arrange for 

the programs and workshops. On August 

11, a public celebration was held at 

the Forest attended by local residents, 

forestry officials, current researchers, 

and many people with close associations 

Keith Evans, Richard Krebill, Dean Knighton, Acting 

Directors 1993.

Conference building and 

mess hall.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 53

Chuck Wellner, Assistant Director 

1961-1972.

with the Station. Special guests that day 

included Dr. Roger Bay, who was then 

Director of the Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station in Ogden; 

Charles Wellner, retired Assistant 

Director; George Jemison, C. L. Tebbe, 

and Joseph Pechanec, former Station 

Directors; Dr. Julius Larsen, who was 

99 years old, traveled from his home 

in Nebraska along with his daughter, 

Margaret Larsen Blumenschein. Larsen 

recounted his days at the Forest, and his 

daughter talked about her childhood 

memories of living at the Forest. (Larsen 

died a few months after the anniversary 

celebration.) Current researchers presented examples of the ongoing work, 

and members of the regional Society of 

American Foresters hosted field trips to 

review various sites within the Forest. 

Local coverage of the event appeared in 

the Priest River Times and the Sandpoint 

Daily Bee, and stories ran in various 

Forest Service publications. Wellner 

also authored a history of the Forest, 

Frontiers of Forestry Researc—Priest 

River Experimental Forest 1911—1976, 

for the occasion. The 75th anniversary 

was marked in 1986 with a 1-day commemoration on August 13. Station 

Director Larry Lassen (1983—1992), 

Associate Chief of the Forest Service 

Dale Robertson, and Society of American Foresters President Warren Doolittle 

were among the special guests. Charles 

Wellner was recognized for his work 

at the Forest, and current researchers 

presented examples of their work.

Research Emphases

Genetics

Because forest management 

had emphasized timber harvesting 

over the years, the primary species 

for research had been western white 

pine and Douglas-fir. But because of 

the New Forestry philosophy, which 

brought changes to management within 

National Forests, other species, such 

as grand fir, Washo pine, western 

larch, subalpine fir, whitebark pine, 

lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce, 

were now being studied. The need for 

understanding forest ecology and the 

interrelationships between and among 

the tree species was also being recognized. As the early researchers had 

done, seeds from the Western United 

States were planted in the nursery to be 

used for genetic trials. To accommodate 

the growth of this research, the nursery 

was expanded, fences were installed 

to prevent invasion by deer and small 

rodents, and an irrigation system was 

added so that the environment could 

be controlled. Many of the supplies 

came from the old Savenac Nursery 

when it was closed and replaced by the 

Coeur d’Alene Nursery. Thousands of 

seedlings were grown in containers at 

the Moscow Laboratory greenhouses 

and transplanted to sites on the Forest 

including the Weidman Arboretum 

(named for former Station Director 

Robert Weidman), near the old CCC 

camp, and high elevation sites near 

Gisborne Mountain. These various 

locations were used to assess stressful 

conditions such as a shorter growing 

period and colder temperatures.

In addition to Dr. Rehfeldt and 

Dr. Hoff, many people were involved 

in this research including Dr. Geral 

McDonald, Pat Wells, Duke Coffen, 

Duane Andrews, Mel Morton, Dennis 

Joyce, and Bruce Young. To accomplish 

the fine measurements needed, the 

scientists and the support staff looked 

at a wide variety of attributes, such 

as time of bud burst, needle length, 

needle color, and growth rates. The 

Annual Reports for these years refer 

to the unique characteristics of those 

involved in this work. Bruce Young, 

for example, traveled with a Julia Child 

cookbook and prepared many sumptuous dinners in the lodge. Dr. Rehfeldt 

was an enthusiastic jogger and is 

credited with running the 8 miles to the 

Larry Lassen, thirtheenth Director 

1983-1992.
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

top of Gisborne Mountain (5,900 feet) 

in one and three-quarters hours (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 1978, 1989).

The genetic research, led by Dr. 

Rehfeldt, eventually showed that some 

species, Douglas-fir and lodgepole, for 

example, are genetically specialized 

and, therefore, adapted to only specific 

sites or environments. Even minor 

changes in elevations or latitudes 

could cause poor growth or death 

from weather conditions. In contrast, 

western white pine is a generalist and 

adaptable. There is little difference in 

genetic characteristics of these seeds or 

trees in the Puget Sound area and those 

growing in northern Idaho.

Dr. Ray Hoff, geneticist, studied 

the relationship between insects and 

diseases and their tree hosts. As a 

result, his work showed that different 

genetic sources are resistant or adapted 

to fend off diseases—not only blister 

rust, but also gall rust or insects such 

as shoot bores. An example of how his 

research was applied was the creation 

of a gene bank for slow canker growth, 

a resistance mechanism found in a 

small number of trees near Elk River, 

Idaho. Located in the nursery at the 

Forest, these trees will preserve this 

unique gene trait.

This plantation provides research 

material for other researchers, such as 

Donna Decker Robertson who joined 

the Silviculture Genetics Research 

Work Unit in Moscow with the retirement of Dr. Hoff. Her work, with the 

help of Marcus Van Warwell, also a 

new member of that work unit, focuses 

on whitebark pine and uses plantings 

in the nursery to look at rust resistance 

mechanisms in this species. This tree is 

critical at high elevation sites throughout the Western United States, and its 

seeds are a primary food source for the 

threatened grizzly bear. Not only was 

all this genetic research used for practical application but it also provided the 

framework for basic research for the 

future, including cooperative work 

with Region One previously led by Dr. 

George Howe and now headed by Dr. 

Mary Frances Mahalovich.

Forest Health

An important part of New Forestry, 

or ecosystem management, is forest 

health, which considers the effects 

of management practices on forest 

productivity, observing changes in 

disturbances such as catastrophic insect 

and disease epidemics, extreme wildfire 

seasons, and the role forests play in 

global warming. “Forest health” is the 

term applied to all the factors affecting 

forests including air quality, climate 

changes, disease, and insects. Recent 

Forest Service research projects, such 

as the Columbia Basin Assessment, 

have been applied to large landscapes 

and take into consideration all biological 

Pat Wells and Terrie Jain working in nursery.

Counting mycorhizae 1983. Bev Cornwall, Marilyn Wolosiewicz, Mark 

Holden from Michigan Technology University, Houghton, Michigan.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 55

and human variables impacting that 

site. Continued research is needed to 

understand water and soil relationships, 

insects and disease, wildlife, and water 

quality.

Starting in the mid-1970s, longterm research began looking at the role 

organic materials play in forests. This 

research involved Dr. Alan Harvey, 

from the Forestry Sciences Laboratory 

in Missoula; Dr. Martin Jurgensen, 

Professor at Michigan Technology 

University, Houghton, Michigan; 

and Dr. Mike Larsen from the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Madison, 

Wisconsin. This work monitored the 

effects of timber harvesting, different 

levels of wood utilization, and different 

intensities of fire on soil quality. During 

the summers, many graduate students 

from Michigan Technology University 

were involved in the work, taking soil 

samples with large heavy slide hammers that drove 4-inch well casings into 

the forest floor. Samples were removed 

and the soil layers were analyzed. The 

roots found in these samples were also 

removed, and the microscopic fungal 

root tips were counted on thousands of 

cores. This research not only provided 

basic information on relationships 

regarding soil organic matter and 

how it affects soil nutrition, and soil 

water-holding capacity, but it also led 

to recommendations for managing 

course woody debris (downed and dead 

material 3 inches or larger in diameter) 

throughout the Rocky Mountains.

In the 1980s, Dr. Russell Graham, 

Jonalea Tonn, and Dr. Debbie PageDumroese joined this research effort 

called the Great North Idaho Bedding 

Experiment. The team planted western 

white pine and Douglas-fir seedlings 

in soils with various levels of organic 

matter near the Weidman Arboretum 

and mid-way up a slope in Canyon 

Creek. With the help of the Michigan 

Technology students who spent many 

long hours analyzing the samples, these 

studies showed the importance of soil 

properties, especially organic matter, on 

the formation of root systems, on nutrition, and on seedling growth. Among 

results were recommendations of soil 

disturbances that maintain soil productivity yet provide conditions conducive 

to good tree growth. This information 

continues to be applied throughout the 

Northern Rocky Mountains for site 

preparations for establishing trees after 

natural disturbances such as wildfires 

and timber harvests. By the 1990s Terrie Jain joined this Organics Team and 

helped develop course woody debris 

recommendations for specific habitat 

types (ecological classification system 

used to describe forest settings based 

on plants species) located from Mexico 

to the Canadian border.

With Dr. Harvey and Dr. Larsen’s 

retirement, Dr. Graham, Dr. Terrie Jain, 

and Dr. Jessie Michaels from the Forest 

Products Laboratory are continuing this 

work and investigating different methods of treating large amounts of fuels 

that exist as a forest health problem in 

the Rocky Mountains. Methods being 

tested on the Forest include inoculating 

course woody debris with fungi, 

breaking up forest floor residues into 

large chunks, and residue burning. One 

goal is that some of these methods will 

prove useful in addressing the urban 

interface issue (building of residences 

in or near forest settings) of protecting 

buildings from wildfires.

The Forest is one site of a longterm national study looking at the 

impact of organic matter removal and 

soil compaction on tree growth. Along 

Priest River Experimental Forest nursery.

Deborah Page-Dumroese.
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

the Priest River on the west side of the 

Forest both western white pine and 

Douglas-fir were planted following 

guidelines created by the national 

study. Dr. Debbie Page-Dumroese, a 

soil scientist at the Moscow Laboratory, 

is leading this effort for the Station.

Another aspect of forest health is 

the presence of diseases that weaken 

and kill trees. Often forest diseases and 

successional changes work together to 

create conditions ripe for wildfires. Dr. 

Geral McDonald, forest pathologist 

from the Moscow Laboratory, has described different kinds of root diseases 

and the conditions in which they can 

become epidemic. In his work he has 

sampled organisms in various types of 

stands on the Forest and used this information to show how different types 

and mixes of tree species and locations 

are related to disease levels. Using this 

information, stand treatments can be 

designed that minimize the impact that 

diseases have on forests.

Insect infestations, another serious problem for forest health, have 

been part of the ongoing research on 

the Forest since the early years. Dr. 

Furniss, entomologist at the Moscow 

Laboratory, and Dr. Garrell Long from 

Washington State University have 

continued the long-term research on 

larch casebearer. Dr. Long looked at 

several aspects of the interactions of the 

parasites and weather and the impact 

on larch casebearer populations. In addition to Dr. Long, Dr. Jim Moore and 

Dr. Karl Stoszek from the University 

of Idaho used this information to determine the impact this insect has on cone 

production of western larch. Some of 

the trees used for sampling were from 

areas that Harry Gisborne clear cut for 

some of his fire research.

As a result of an invitation by 

Dr. Malcolm Furniss, a cooperative 

agreement with Dr. Douglas Ferguson, 

Lead Scientist of the Department of 

Agriculture’s Lepidoptera Research 

Section, was developed in 1981. Dr. 

Ferguson spent 4 weeks at the Forest 

collecting a variety of insects for 

further research. This work was the first 

compilation of research on moths and 

resulted in a catalog of all the species 

that occur in the Rocky Mountains.

To answer some of these forest 

health issues, the long-term weather 

records, collected since 1911, have 

proven invaluable. These records, 

along with the streamflow records 

on Benton Creek, supplied baseline 

data on weather, and these records 

are now available on the Internet 

(http//www.snow.og.uidaho.edu) for 

use by other Federal agencies in global 

warming and forest health studies.

Forest Structures and Processes

An important component of the 

Forest is to provide effective conditions 

for research. Building on the treatments 

that Gisborne, Wellner, Deitschman, 

and other silviculturists created, Graham developed, on Observatory Point 

in the Canyon Creek drainage, several 

different stand structures—the spacing, 

mixture of large and small trees, and 

different tree heights. These stands 

ranged from small openings to selection harvests, shelterwood harvests, 

and a small clear cut (12 acres). These 

were used to show how forests could be 

managed to meet the objectives of New 

Forestry or ecosystem management. 

The stand structures that maintain high 

forest cover provided wildlife habitat, 

protected watersheds, and minimized 

soil erosion, yet provided some forest 

products. These forest conditions also 

showed the drawbacks of maintaining 

these conditions, which often perpetuated many forest insects and diseases.

The shelterwood areas at Observatory Point provided an excellent 

opportunity to show how fire affects 

the moist forests of the Northern Rocky 

Mountains. In cooperation with Dr. 

Kevin Ryan and Dr. Jim Brown from 

the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in 

Missoula, different burns were completed during fall and spring. Each fire 

promoted different forest communities 

to grow, ranging from ones dominated 

by western larch to those dominated 

by more shrub species such as buck 

brush. Cooperating with the Organics 

Team, the effect these fires had on soils 

was also studied. From this research, 

recommendations could be made for 

Prescribed fire on the Priest River Experimental Forest.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 57

Graham’s Folly.

applying fires that maintained the forest 

floor organic matter, yet reduced the 

fuels and fire hazards and promoted 

desired forest communities.

The Forest contains some of 

the most productive ponderosa pine 

growing sites in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains. These sites were maintained historically by frequent (every 

40 years) surface fires but, because of 

fire exclusion promoted by Gisborne’s 

research, fires were suppressed and the 

pine stands were overgrown by Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western redcedar. 

In cooperation with Dr. Steve Arno and 

Mick Harrington from the Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, different 

stand densities of ponderosa pine were 

created through timber harvest, and 

different fire intensities were applied 

both in the spring and fall to determine 

their effectiveness in preparing sites 

for ponderosa pine regeneration. These 

same sites were used by Dr. Geral 

McDonald to show the impact these 

same treatments had on the presence of 

root disease.

The impact that forest fires have 

on the soil and water resources is 

critical to forest health. Working with 

Dr. Charles Luce, formerly from the 

engineering project in Moscow and 

now associated with the Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory in Boise, Idaho, 

three paired watersheds are being 

monitored for streamflow and sediment 

production. After sufficient baseline 

data are collected from watersheds 

in Canyon Creek and Benton Creek, 

one subwatershed of each pair will 

be treated with a timber harvest and 

a prescribed fire. One of the planned 

treatments is to simulate a wildfire, 

which will entail killing the overstory 

trees without felling them and treating 

the forest floor with a prescribed fire. 

Other treatments planned include a 

timber harvest removing a portion of 

the stands. This line of research will 

provide information regarding the impact wildfires have on watersheds and 

help in designing mitigating measures. 

The Organics Team will evaluate how 

these treatments affect organic matter 

and nutrients on the forest floor.

Not all fires on the Forest, 

however, worked as planned. In 

1979, in the lower portion of Benton 

Creek, a small, 5-acre clear-cut was 

ignited on June 1 by Dr. Graham, Fire 

Management Office, Larry White from 

the Priest Lake Ranger District of the 

Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and 

two summer students. Then 5 days later 

the fire erupted and consumed another 

3 acres of the area along Benton Creek 

bordering the clear cut. Vic Hager, Cal 

Carpenter, and Lyle Cooper, along with 

personnel from the Priest Lake Ranger 

District, attacked the fire and put it out. 

This area, dubbed “Graham’s Folly,” 

now supports a second generation of 

rust resistant white pine stands adjacent 

to the first generation of rust resistant 

white pines (the VQ plots) planted by 

Richard Bingham in the 1950s.

Modeling

One of the many tools available to 

researchers for studying forest health 

is the Prognosis Model, created in the 

1960s and now known as the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS). It provides 

users with an easy-to-use computer 

program where variables (management 

actions such as thinning, fertilization, 

and cut cycle) are entered, and output 

provides the user with one or more possible results. Forest managers no longer 

have to wait years for forest stands to 

grow to see details such as mortality 

rates, number of new trees, and growth 

rates. The options provided by the 

FVS can guide scientists into a more 

exacting direction of research before 

implementing them on the Forest. Since 

its inception, FVS has been upgraded 

and can now project the development 

of forest stands throughout the United 

States and Canada. The long-term 

records of tree growth located on the 

Forest, and measured every 5 to 10 

years, continue to provide many validation tests for FVS. This model was 

broadened to include insect and disease 

information and linked to other models 

looking at fire effects and behavior and 

soil erosion developed by scientists 

within the Station.

Technology Transfer

Because of the various short- and 

long-term studies conducted over the 

years, the Forest has been a superb site 

for the exchange of information on a 

one-to-one basis as well as with large 

groups regionally and from across the 

nation. In 1980, an extensive training 

session was held in cooperation with 

Washington State University for 

members of the Continuing Education 

in Forest Ecology and Silviculture 

(CEFES). This training session was 

attended by silviculturists from 

throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains and continued the tradition of the 

Forest as an educational asset.

The Forest also hosted a large 

group of educators from various 

colleges and universities nationwide 

including Orono, Maine, Nacagdoches, 

Texas, and Lexington, Kentucky. This 

group observed examples of forest 

research that highlighted western white 
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

pine blister rust work and genetic 

studies growing in the nursery. In 1981, 

the Forest hosted the Fairchild AFB 

Survival Unit and the CEFES Refresher 

III. Some 27 students and 16 instructors 

participated in the 2-week course. During the 1980s, many foresters from the 

Peoples Republic of China toured the 

United States, and in 1985, a delegation 

of five foresters and two interpreters 

spent time at the Forest reviewing 

current research projects and discussing 

research work being conducted in their 

country.

End of a Millennium 

and Beginning of the 

Next

By 1999, the age of uncertainty 

was replaced by the age of stability. 

Once more the Forest was the center 

of a wide variety of research programs. 

Many of the administrative problems 

that had developed during the 1950s 

and 1960s were resolved. To establish a 

more stable funding practice and to reduce the infighting among the projects, 

a three-tiered funding approach was 

established. First, a corporate responsibility was assigned to the Forest. As 

a corporate facility the Station had a 

responsibility to maintain the buildings 

minimally. A second tier charge was 

for prime users of the Forest and its 

facilities. This was determined by 

a historical use pattern established 

year after year. Projects that routinely 

used the Forest and the facilities were 

charged accordingly. The third tier was 

applied to secondary users. A basic cost 

of staying at the Forest in the lodge 

or one of the other guesthouses was 

established. Visitors from other parts 

of the Station, faculty/students from 

a university, or other guests would 

pay a nominal fee to cover the cost of 

housekeeping and routine maintenance. 

Groups hosting meetings would pay 

rent for the conference facilities. This 

three-tiered approach would pay for the 

Superintendent’s salary and assistant 

and all operating costs of the Forest. 

This system proved to work so well 

that after the consolidation, the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station applied 

this to the other experimental forests at 

Frasier and Manitou, Colorado.

The deterioration of the buildings, 

which are almost 100 years old, became 

a major concern. Most of the researchers who spend a large amount of time at 

the Forest develop a close attachment 

and a feeling that the Forest is their second home. This emotional tie has both 

positive and negative aspects. While 

the researchers take pride in maintaining the quality of the buildings, they 

often disagree with proposed upgrades 

and enhancements. The Scientist-inCharge, Dr. Graham, has attempted to 

maintain the historic appearance of the 

buildings yet modernize them to meet 

the needs of the various users. Having 

the buildings on the Historic Register 

and recognized by the State of Idaho as 

having historic significance will enable 

Dr. Graham to maintain the buildings 

long into the future.

Just as in the past, some of 

the most difficult conflicts are not 

about political issues or funding, but 

are interpersonal disputes between 

researchers. As noted, some conflicts 

have occasionally been so severe that 

Terrie Jain taking soil samples.

Denver Burns, fourteenth Director 

1993-2001.

Marcia Patton-Mallory, fifteenth Director 

2001-present.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004.59

they have changed research directions 

or prevented cooperative work that 

might have enhanced the progress of 

the research. Research is a personal 

endeavor, and each project takes on 

the personality of those involved. 

However, the Forest also has a tradition 

of bringing together people from differ-

ent agencies and different disciplines to 

exchange ideas not only in a workshop 

or a classroom but also in informal 

settings. Perhaps more has been gained 

from conversations where people are 

preparing meals together in the lodge 

than at any other time.

Research work has progressed to 

the point that it is shared across work 

units more than in the past. Because 

of the themes of New Forestry and 

Ecosystem Management, there is more 

of a recognition that all research must 

blend together. Each work unit has its 

main focus for research, but interdisci-

plinary attempts are being made to link 

research projects.

Another sign of the times is that 

there are many women researchers 

who are joining the ranks and working 

on projects at the Forest. The Moscow 

Laboratory, for example, includes 

Jonalea Tonn, Dr. Debbie Page-Dum-

roese, Dr. Melinda Moeur, Dr. Mary 

Frances Mahalovich, and Dr. Terrie 

Jain. And currently heading the entire 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

as previously mentioned, is Marcia 

Patton-Mallory.

During this era, there is a history 

of continuity with Superintendent Cal 

Carpenter and now Bob Denner. Dr. 

Graham has administered the Forest 

since 1976 and has gradually delegated 

work to Dr. Terrie Jain. As the centen-

nial anniversary approaches in 2011, 

the importance of the Forest and its 

facilities has been guaranteed and 

seems ready for the future.
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Forestry research scientists aspire to be 

among those contributing significantly 

to the body of knowledge to solve 

major problems afflicting forests. Trees, 

because of their long reproductive 

cycle, make more difficult subjects 

for investigative work compared to 

annual crop studies. But because they 

are a critical part of the ecosystems 

of the West providing habitat for 

wildlife species, recreational use, 

and materials for the nation’s wood 

products industry, the Forest Service 

has dedicated substantial time and 

energy to research. Researchers over 

the years have learned through trial and 

error how to consider all possibilities 

and to learn from false starts. Results 

of research work have been affected 

by state-of-the-art technology, and the 

scientists have contributed to not only 

the knowledge but also the equipment 

used. Research conducted at the 

Priest River Experimental Forest has 

produced results that have not only 

benefited local forests but have been 

applied to sites worldwide. Success, 

however, comes gradually as witnessed 

by the 25 years of blister rust studies 

that produced disease-resistant trees.

Over the last few decades, the 

public has criticized the Forest Service 

for its management techniques. As 

the keepers of the nation’s forests, 

the Forest Service has been expected 

to know exactly what is required not 

only to harvest the timber but also 

to provide for the public’s need for 

recreation and to protect wilderness 

areas, fisheries, and wildlife. In other 

words, to be all things to all people. But 

politics, State and local concerns, and 

battles between environmentalists and 

those who think the priority should be 

employment, regardless of the effect on 

the environment, have contributed to 

the problems facing the Forest Service. 

In Pinchot’s era, he made the rules for 

the National Forests and told Congress 

what was needed to carry them out. 

Now, the Chief of the Forest Service is 

a political appointee and answers to the 

Presidential Administration, as well as 

Congress and the public.

Because the Forest Service is part 

of the Department of Agriculture, trees 

are therefore considered by many to be 

a crop (timber) whose basic purpose is 

to be harvested. The allowable cut, the 

amount of timber required by law to 

be extracted from the National Forests, 

has been increased over the years. By 

the 1950s, to meet the known and the 

anticipated postwar building boom, 

Congress raised the allowable cut from 

3.5 billion board feet to 9.3 billion 

board feet (Hirt 1994). Determining 

what defined “merchantable” became 

an issue especially for Chief Richard 

McArdle when timber lobbyists 

demanded that the agency modify the 

Forest Service’s timber inventory to 

include some tree species that had previously been considered unmarketable. 

In McArdle’s words: “There was never 

a week that I wasn’t being beat upon 

to raise the amount of timber which 

could be cut.... In brief, they wanted 

the allowable cut figure to be based on 

everything. This led to misunderstandings because the timber they wanted 

to cut was the best timber and only the 

best” (Hirt 1994, pp 133). This was the 

same cut-and-run problem that Pinchot 

faced when the Forest Service was 

created. The private loggers wanted to 

use only what was profitable and to cut 

the timber as quickly and as cheaply as 

possible without consideration for the 

future.

By the 1960s, “multiple use” 

became the rallying cry, and the public 

pushed for wider use of the forests. 

The Izaak Walton League and the Wilderness Society (Bob Marshall being a 

founding member) called for other uses 

of the forests that included wildlife and 

recreation. The Forest Service’s District 

Rangers were suddenly called upon 

to be experts on watershed, fisheries, 

and recreational uses as well as timber 

management. Chief McArdle actively 

sought to modify the legislation being 

written to include wording about 

sustained yield—meaning that the 

forests would be managed to reproduce 

a supply for the future to replace what 

was harvested each year. However, it 

should be noted that “multiple use” applies to people while “sustained yield” 

applies to the resources, so it was like 

comparing apples and oranges. The 

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 

(MUSY) was passed in 1960 but with 

mixed opinions.

Another issue that the Forest 

Service was dealing with was the 

amount of new lands that had been 

added to the Federal bank account. 

As a side effect of the Week’s Act and 

the Clark-McNary Act, many acres 

were either acquired through purchase, 

donation, or exchange. Many of these 

acres were “abused” and required 

reforestation, but the staffing levels of 

the Forest Service prohibited it from 

handling this function. The allocation 

for reforestation was removed during 

World War II when funds were directed 

to the war effort. Following the war, 

Montana’s U.S. Senate delegation, Lee 

Metcalf and Mike Mansfield, raised the 

Chapter 7: Conclusion
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 61

issue of reforestation, citing examples 

from the forests within their State. The 

Forest Service requested $1.3 million 

for reforestation, but Congress reduced 

the appropriation to $290,000 (Hirt 

1994). As a result of underfunding by 

Congress during the 1960s, emphasis 

was placed once again on timber sales. 

While the rhetoric was on multiple use, 

the reality was that harvesting was the 

number 1 priority.

In response to the pressure to “get 

the cut out,” the Forest Service often 

employed its own severe methods of 

logging, such as clearcutting. In the 

1970s in the Bitterroot National Forest 

and the Monongahela National Forest 

in West Virginia, the Forest Service 

came under attack by the public for 

such management practices. The internal evaluation completed by the Forest 

Service acknowledged many agency 

mistakes and called for immediate 

action to change these policies and to 

restore the public confidence and trust. 

Clearcutting was defended, but Forest 

Service officials stressed that it should 

be used only in specific conditions 

and not as the main silvicultural tool. 

They also noted that external issues 

aggravated the situation because of the 

Federal law emphasizing timber sales 

and the lack of funding by Congress 

for workforce. This internal evaluation 

was not the only report produced. The 

Bolle Report, completed by the Dean 

of the Forestry School at the University 

of Montana, was even harsher in its 

assessment of the situation on the 

Bitterroot National Forest. While the 

Forest Service did modify its clearcutting polices and considered all the 

recommendations that the Bolle Report 

suggested, the President’s Advisory 

Panel on Timber and the Environment 

(PAPTE) came to different conclusions. 

It called for more old-growth harvests 

and, to increase cutting, called on the 

Forest Service to review and revise 

policies for allowable cut determinations (Hirt 1994). As a result, the 

harvesting of old-growth timber and 

the emphasis on timber sales continued 

throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

By the 1990s, endangered species, 

such as the spotted owl, added to 

the controversy and the problems 

surrounding timber harvesting. Within 

the Forest Service, Forest Supervisors, 

such as John Mumma from Region 

One, called for lower harvest levels 

so that environmental laws could be 

met and sustainable yield could be 

achieved. Other Supervisors wrote to 

Chief Dale Robertson that they could 

not meet the timber sale goal that the 

Bush Administration required. Due to 

political pressure on Chief Robertson, 

he asked Mumma to take a new assignment in Washington, DC, but instead, 

Mumma resigned.

Shortly after President Clinton 

was elected, the Administration, in an 

attempt to address the problems related 

to National Forest management, held a 

conference in Portland, Oregon. However, one conference could not resolve 

decades of problems. Postconference 

policy only confused the issues more. 

As the 21st century begins, the controversies continue, and there has been no 

real solution to the allowable cut issue. 

Paul Hirt, author of A Conspiracy of 

Optimism, points out that the Forest Service is a “pawn in a chess game presided 

over by special interest groups and their 

political allies” (Hirt 1994: 295).

The question is, how can these 

problems be fixed? Some might feel 

that the problems are beyond repair, 

but I disagree. The main problems are 

related to forest management, and the 

way to determine how best to deal with 

these problems is with more research. 

The Priest River Experimental Forest 

has made significant contributions to 

resolving issues that have developed 

Scientist-in-Charge of Priest River Experimental Forest Russell T. Graham 1976 to 

publication date (2004).
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

over the years, but the potential for 

more groundbreaking discoveries 

and problemsolving in the future is 

apparent. As the recent fires in several other Western States (years 2000 

through 2003) point out, fire research, 

which started at Priest River, plays a 

critical role today. Forestry is a young 

profession, and the learning process 

continues. Resources are being depleted 

at alarming rates due to urbanization 

and population increases, so conservation of resources for future generations 

becomes even more critical.

According to the current 

Scientist-in-Charge, Dr. Russell 

Graham, research is progressing toward 

landscape ecology (Graham, personal 

communication 2000). This type of 

research looks at all the interconnected 

pieces such as watershed, wildlife 

habitat, and biological diversity, and 

Priest River Experimental Forest 

continues to offer the perfect laboratory 

for studying these ecosystems. He also 

emphasizes that the goal of research at 

the Forest is to stay one step ahead of 

the need. Because the public is more 

keenly aware of how the Forest Service 

administers the National Forests, 

researchers are working toward finding 

better management tools for the land 

managers. The Forest Service offers 

the public various opportunities for its 

opinion, and research tools can help 

the land managers demonstrate how to 

best maintain the quality and quantity 

of timber, keep watersheds clean, and 

maintain wildlife and fisheries to 

promote forest health.

In 2003, the Forest was added as a 

participant to the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program/National Trends 

Network. This network, composed of 

more than 200 sites across the nation, 

is a cooperative effort among many 

groups, including State agricultural 

experiment stations, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. The purpose of this venture 

is to collect data for analyzing long-term 

trends on the chemistry of precipitation, 

namely acid rain (a term to describe 

acidic particles that are collected from 

earth surfaces, such as from factories, 

and then fall back to earth through rain).

Another important part that 

Graham stresses is technology transfer 

in various forms such as publications, 

written or electronic, conferences, 

workshops, and tours on site to show 

the current status of research projects. 

The knowledge gained from years 

Sign at entrance to Priest River 

Experimental Forest approximately 

2000. (Author photo)

of research is of no benefit unless it 

is distributed to those who make the 

decisions. Currently some 500 archival 

libraries at colleges and universities 

worldwide receive copies of all Forest 

Service research publications, amounting to some 300 to 500 individual 

titles yearly. In addition, hundreds of 

thousands of copies of publications 

are sent to individual requesters and to 

mail lists that include private citizens, 

industry, organizations, other Federal 

agencies, universities, State or other 

governmental agencies, and foreign 

audiences, and each USDA Forest 

Service Research Station in the nation 

maintains extensive Web sites containing published information. Although 

many private companies have their 

own research departments, they often 

look toward work being done by the 

Forest Service researchers to help solve 

problems on their lands too.

Under the leadership of the 

Directors, Scientists-in-Charge, and the 

Superintendents, the Forest has been 

well maintained over the years. Now 

that it has been added to the historic 

registry, its significance, not only as a 

Federal structure but also to the State of 

Idaho, is assured.

As Julius Larsen noted in 1944 

to Harry Gisborne, research has an 

important role in all forestry:

You who shall carry this important 

work forward, I salute and wish good 

speed. It is always satisfying to know 

that we are doing something which 

contributes in a substantial way to the 

happiness of our people and the wellbeing of our glorious nation. (Larsen 

1976: 28)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 63

According to the first Annual Report (U.S. Department of Agriculture) for 1911, the following are the 

personnel involved in the establishment and maintenance of the Experiment Station. Additional and 

subsequent biographical material is included.

Donald R. Brewster—Director of the Station from 1911 until 1917. Brewster reported to the 

Assistant District Forester (in charge of silviculture) in Missoula with technical guidance from 

the Office of Silvics in Washington, DC. Brewster began the tradition of writing annual reports. 

His notes provided historical information and insight into the creation of the Station, and his journal includes names of visitors to the Station.

Julius V. Hoffman—Technical Assistant from 1912 to 1913 when he left for the Wind River Forest 

Experiment Station in Washington.

Julius A. Larsen—Second Director of the Station from 1917 until 1922. He held two degrees from 

Yale’s Forestry School and left to become a Professor at Iowa State University. His journal 

includes names of visitors to the Station.

Ernest C. Rogers—Field Assistant in 1913 and from the Minnesota Forest School. He transferred to 

Savenac Nursery in 1914 to conduct planting studies. He resigned from the Forest Service in 1917 

to begin graduate studies at Johns Hopkins University and later died in Washington, DC.

W. C. Lowdermilk—Held the position of Liaison Officer in Missoula, Montana, a contact man 

between research and timber sales administration. He was an Oxford graduate, and his main 

responsibility was to interpret research results so that the land managers could put them into practical use.

F. I. Rockwell—In charge of silvics in District One. Although not assigned to the Station directly, he 

was a member of the original group that selected the site of the Research Station.

W. G. Wahlenberg—Worked at Savenac Nursery in 1920 in the Office of Planting.

Appendix A: Personnel Who Established the Priest River 

 Experimental Station
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Appendix B: Initial Costs of Establishing the Priest River 

 Experimental Station

Item Cost (1911 dollars)

Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $646.00

Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $168.37

Cabin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $89.39

Clearing for laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $78.65

Clearing for trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $102.27

Nursery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $74.81

Road to Benton Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $91.75

Water supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $584.20

Electrical line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $28.01

Equipment purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $134.37

Establishing camp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $42.86

Survey and mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.63

Preparing experimental areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $220.87

Climatic varieties experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $73.01

Planting and sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.96

Seed production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $89.36

Introduction of exotic tree species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.78

Meteorological observation station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $28.17

Nursery Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.53

Seed Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.05

Seed Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.00

Misc. improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $157.00

Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $293.20

Maintenance and Sundays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $125.52

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,071.04
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 65

Appendix C: Directors, Superintendents, Scientists-in-Charge of 

 the Priest River Experimental Forest

Directors

Donald Brewster 1911 to 1917

Julius A. Larsen 1917 to 1921

Robert H. Weidman 1921 to 1931

Lyle Watts 1931 to 1936

Stephen Wyckoff 1936 to 1939

Melvin Bradner 1939 to 1946

Harry T. Gisborne 1946 (Acting following the death of Bradner)

Charles Tebbe 1946 to 1950

George M. Jemison 1950 to 1953

Reed W. Bailey 1954 to 1961

Joseph F. Pechanec 1962 to 1971

Robert Harris 1971 to 1974

Roger Bay 1974 to 1983

Larry Lassen 1983 to 1992

Richard Krebill 1993 (Acting)

Keith Evans1993 (Acting)

Dean Knighton1993 (Acting)

Denver Burns 1993 to 2001

Marcia Patton-Mallory 2001 to publication date (2004)

Superintendents

John B. Thompson 1928 to 1937

G. Lloyd Hayes 1937 to 1938

Donald G. McKeever 1938 to 1941

Elton E. Bentley 1941 to 1942 (winter)

John D. Crowe 1942 to 1944

L. H. Whetsler 1944 to 1945

A. W. Peiffer 1945 to 1948

Austin E. Helmers 1948 to 1953

J. H. Dieterich 1953 to 1954

Albert R. Stage 1954 to 1956

J. W. Hanover 1956 to 1958

R. W. Mutch 1958 to 1958 (3 months)

W. Mueggler 1958 to 1959 (2 months)

Edward F. Wicker 1959 to 1959 (4 months)

R. W. Mutch 1959 to 1960

Stan Carpenter 1960 to 1961

Robert Doty 1961 (2 months)

Robert Pfister 1961 to 1962

Robert Doty 1962 (2 months)

Phil Gustafson 1962 to 1963

Robert Pfister 1962 to 1963
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Bill Shambo 1963 (5 months)

Stan Carpenter 1963 to 1964 (5 months)

Robert Doty 1963 (5 months)

Dave Crukovich 1964 to 1965

Calvin Carpenter 1965 to 1984

Chuck Hepner 1984 to 1987

Mel Morton 1987 to 1989

Cal Carpenter 1989 to 1990 (returned from retirement)

Robert Denner 1990 to publication date (2004)

Scientists-in-Charge

Glenn H. Deitschman Silviculture 1963 to 1973

Marvin W. Foiles Silviculture 1973 to 1976

Russell T. Graham Silviculture 1976 publication date (2004)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 67

Appendix D: Forest Service Chiefs, with Extended Biographies 

 of Those Who Directly Impacted the Priest River Experimental 

 Station

Gifford Pinchot, 1905 to 1910

When the Forest Service was created in 1905 by Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot was appointed the first 

Chief. When he began, he requested that his title be changed from Chief to Forester as there were many Chiefs 

in Washington, but only one Forester. The Forester title remained in effect until 1935 when the title Chief 

was readopted. Pinchot’s contributions to forestry and research are many: fostering conservation values and 

changing the nation’s attitude that the forests were inexhaustible, creating the first public forestry school at 

Yale with his own funds, and creating a Federal agency to manage the national forests. Pinchot was well aware 

of the need to focus energy toward research, and the two original experimental stations, Fort Valley, Arizona 

and Manitou, Colorado, were established. Pinchot visited the Priest River Experiment Station and Deception 

Creek in 1937.

Henry S. Graves, 1910 to 1920

Selected to replace Pinchot after the Ballinger controversy, Graves was a Yale forestry graduate and a close 

friend of Pinchot. Prior to assuming the job as Chief, Graves was the Dean of the Forestry School at Yale and 

one of the original seven members of the Society of American Foresters. Graves maintained the Forest Service 

under difficult times during World War I when funding was limited and many of the Forest Service employees 

were called to military service. During his tenure, the Forest Products Laboratory was established in Madison, 

Wisconsin, and the Priest River Experimental Station was established in 1911. Graves was among the members 

of the founding party to establish the Priest River Experiment Station and was a frequent visitor over the years.

William B. Greeley, 1920 to 1928

William B. Greeley was born in New York in 1879 and graduated from the University of California in 1901 

and from the Yale Forestry School in 1904. He joined the Bureau of Forestry after graduation and was quickly 

promoted to Assistant Chief in charge of silviculture in the Washington, DC, office. By 1908 he was appointed 

the first Regional Forester for District One (later renamed Region One) headquartered in Missoula, Montana, 

and included the Priest River Experimental Station. He was in charge of the firefighting efforts during the 

devastating fire of 1910, and because of his experience and background, was a natural choice for Chief after 

Graves resigned. During his administration the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 became law; the Act extended 

Federal authority to purchase forest lands and to enter into agreements with various States to help protect State 

and private forests from wildfire. Greeley had disagreed with Pinchot’s belief in the mercenary character of the 

average lumberman, and when he resigned as Chief, he became the head of a private timber company.

Robert Y. Stuart, 1928 to 1933

Also a Yale graduate, Robert Stuart was instrumental in getting the Forest Service prepared to deal with 

the critical crises caused by the crash of the stock market in 1929. As a result of the depression, the CCCs 

were formed, and under Stuart’s direction, they were used by the Forest Service for a variety of projects 

including building additional structures at Priest River Experimental Forest. During his term, the McSweeneyMcNary Act of 1928, promoting forest research, was passed. Stuart requested that the Forest Service 

complete the National Plan for American Forestry, also called the Copeland Report, that detailed projects 

needing completion in the National Forests. During his tenure as Chief of the Forest Service, he signed an 

Establishment Report in 1931 reserving the Priest River Experiment Station a full 20 years after it was actually 

created.
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Ferdinand A. Silcox, 1933 to 1939

Born in 1882 in Georgia, Silcox graduated from the College of Charleston, South Carolina, in 1903 and 

completed a master’s degree in forestry at Yale Forestry School in 1905. After serving in the forestry 

engineering branch of the U.S. Army, he worked in the private sector for 11 years as a director of industrial 

relations. Silcox served as Ranger on the Leadville National Forest in Colorado, and in 1908 he was appointed 

Assistant District Forester for Region One. During the 1910 fire, he helped organize the firefighters throughout 

Region One. When Greeley was appointed Chief, Silcox became District Forester in 1911.

After the death of Stuart, Silcox took over and led the Forest Service through some of the most difficult 

times. He helped coordinate the CCCs and the Works Projects Administration (WPA) functions in the National 

Forests. Silcox was among the Washington men who came to Priest River in 1911 to evaluate the site for the 

Priest River Experimental Station. Silcox was supportive of the research being conducted at the Station and 

was especially interested in Gisborne’s fire research work. In 1936, a document was published pulling together 

all the research that Gisborne and others had done to that point. Chief Silcox praised the publication not only 

for its research but also for the cooperative efforts between the Station and Region One.

Earle Hart Clapp, 1939 to 1943

Earle Clapp was the first Chief of the Forest Service to serve his entire career with the agency primarily in 

research. Although he was not formally appointed Chief, serving with the official title of Acting Chief from 

December 1939 to January 1943, he was in actual practice the Chief during that 3 years.

Clapp was born on a farm near Rochester, New York, on October 15, 1877. He credited his dentist with 

getting him thinking about a forestry career. In 1901, Clapp entered the new Forestry School at Cornell 

University, which closed in 1903 after wealthy neighboring landowners vigorously objected to Dean Bernhard 

Fernow’s clearcutting on the school’s Adirondak Forest. The Cornell diaspora resulted in Clapp’s transfer to 

the University of Michigan where he graduated in 1905, a few months after the Forest Service was created. He 

went to work for the new agency, first on timber sales in Wyoming and Montana, then in Washington, DC, and 

then as the first Assistant Southwestern District (Regional) Forester in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He spent 

the next 4 years as a roving Forest Inspector out of the Washington, DC, office.

In 1915, Chief Henry Graves created the Division of Research to give research greater independence and 

stature and placed Clapp in charge as Assistant Chief. During the next 20 years Clapp guided the research 

effort and established most of the Service’s research facilities. As a member of the Society of American Foresters, Clapp as chairman helped write a report in 1926 that outlined the existing forestry issues and proposed a 

program of research to find solutions. This report led to the passage of the McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, 

which authorized a system of Forest Service regional experiment stations.

In a 1928 talk, Clapp noted the potential value of a forest belt in the Great Plains. Thus he, along with 

Fernow, Raphael Zon, Charles E. Bessey, J. Sterling Morton, and Carlos Bates, can be credited among the 

early backers of the idea for the Prairie States Forestry Project (Shelterbelt) of the 1930s.

Clapp consistently pressed for accurate timber statistics. His compilation of such data resulted in the first 

comprehensive survey of the nation’s timber supply. In 1933 he directed the publication of A National Plan for 

American Forestry (Copeland Report 1933), which updated the timber survey and contained many proposals for 

dealing with forestry problems during the Great Depression, including a big expansion of the National Forests.

In 1935 Clapp reluctantly left his research program to become Associate Chief. When Ferdinand Silcox 

died in office on December 20, 1939, Secretary Henry A. Wallace appointed Clapp Acting Chief. Clapp 

maintained the Forest Service during World War II despite the reduction of employees due to military service. 

But his tenure was punctuated by a spirited controversy over proposed Federal regulation of private timber 

cutting, which he had strongly supported since the issue resurfaced in the early 1930s, and by an all-out 

struggle with the Secretary of Interior, Harold Ickes. Clapp fought to prevent the transfer of the Forest Service 

to a new Department of Natural Resources, which Ickes would head. President Franklin Roosevelt supported 

the proposed reorganization, and when Congressional opposition blocked the transfer, he blamed Clapp and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 69

the Forest Service and reportedly denied Clapp the title of Chief. He even wanted to fire him, but Secretary 

Wallace stood by Clapp. In later years Clapp believed that the hostilities created by the transfer controversy 

had prevented Roosevelt from working for comprehensive conservation legislation. Roosevelt also refused 

Clapp’s suggestion to use his war powers to regulate the timber industry. When Lyle Watts was appointed 

Chief in January 1943, Clapp stayed on for 2 years more as Associate Chief until his retirement. He died in 

Washington, DC, on July 1, 1970, in his 93rd year.

Lyle F. Watts, 1943 to 1952

Lyle Watts was born in 1890 and graduated from the Iowa State College School of Forestry earning both 

a bachelors and masters degree. Entering the Forest Service in 1913, he worked in various positions in the 

Rockies. He became Director of the Priest River Experimental Station in 1931 and left in 1936 to become 

Regional Forester in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and later became Regional Forester in Portland, Oregon. In 

1943 he was appointed Chief of the Forest Service during the turbulent World War II years. He served as a 

member of the Technical Committee on Forestry and Primary Forest Products of the United Nations Interim 

Commission on Food and Agriculture in 1944 and 1945. Although concerned with the Forest Service’s role 

during the war, he was also concerned with its role after the war. He encouraged the hiring of war veterans 

who had completed their education after the war and used these additional employees to develop the road 

systems of the National Forests and to begin the sustained yield management practices of the day.

Richard E. McArdle, 1952 to 1962

McArdle began his career in research as a silviculturist for the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station in Portland, Oregon. McArdle and Gisborne carried on a friendly dispute over an aspect of 

fire research, and, although amicable, the dispute between them prevented any effort to merge the studies. In 

1934 he served as Dean of the University of Idaho’s School of Forestry so was well aware of the cooperative 

work being done between forestry schools and the Forest Service. He also served as Director of the newly 

established Forest and Range Experiment Station at Fort Collins, Colorado, and also the Appalachian Station 

in Asheville, North Carolina. Becoming Chief in 1952, McArdle was the first to hold a Ph.D. degree and to 

have been a published researcher. As a result of his research background, he pushed for long-range plans 

on the National Forests and in the research branch. McArdle was instrumental in upgrading Forest Service 

personnel, hiring new specialists to begin intensive management, and increasing the professionalism of 

employees. He also improved relations with the timber industry by backing away from earlier proposals to 

regulate timber harvesting practices on private lands. During his tenure the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 

of 1960 was passed, which established policy for the broad development and administration of the national 

forests in the public interest.

Edward Cliff, 1962 to 1972

John R. McGuire, 1972 to 1979

R. Max Peterson, 1979 to 1987

F. Dale Robertson, 1987 to 1993

Jack Ward Thomas, 1993 to 1996

Michael P. Dombeck, 1996 to 2001

Dale Bosworth, 2001 to publication date (2004)
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 

Appendix E: Popular Article by Bob Marshall

Contribution to the Life History of the Northwestern Lumberjack

By Robert Marshall

Social Forces Vol. VIII, No. 2, 1929

“For it is the nature of man, the extreme prejudice of knowledge, to delight in the spacious liberty of generalities, 

and not in the enclosures of particularity.” Frances Bacon.

If the social sciences are ever to justify such a dignified appellation they will have to submit to the same 

quantitative treatment which the more advanced physical sciences have long recognized as prerequisite. 

For entirely too long a time we have been in the habit of recounting individual conduct by a broad barrage 

of meaningless approximations instead of utilizing the specific methods of biometry. From the Malay 

Archipelago to the Court of St. James, we derive our knowledge of the deportment and colloquy of humanity 

not from the exact data of systematic investigation, but from the ambiguous generalities of superficial 

impression. Historically it is impossible to draw representative pictures of past demeanor from such 

misleading evidence. Coevally the situation is only improved within the narrow orbit of personal acquaintance. 

Otherwise we still found our conception of the mores of the majority of mankind on the casual basis of 

shallow and often prejudiced assertion.

The more unusual or picturesque the mores are, the more essential it is that we forsake this almost universal subjective approach and adopt the modern scientific manner, because extraordinary customs are the ones 

most likely to be grossly exaggerated when reported in words, so that merely the oddest features are retained. 

Consequently the picture which is handed down to posterity is a crude caricature entirely devoid of honesty. 

The only way to overcome this deplorable result is to record the customs in a concise, objective fashion.

Perhaps no body of Americans have ever been described more picturesquely and less definitely than the 

lumberjacks. This is partly because of the great romance naturally inherent in the woodsman’s dangerous 

and severe profession, and partly because his habitat is so remote from that of the average citizen. Few 

qualities are less conducive to accuracy than romance and remoteness, and thus there have been woven about 

the lumberjack a great many fabulous fancies which have gone very well as poetry, but have scarcely even 

approximated the truth. To remedy this defect in our comprehension of a unique participant in the American 

civilization I have undertaken a quantitative study destined to chronicle certain of the more outstanding social 

peculiarities of the Northwestern lumberjack. The traits which I have chosen for mathematical analysis are:

The lumberjack’s speed in eating;

His table manners;

The subjects of his conversation;

His use of profane and libidinous language.

These attributes will be discussed in the ensuing section in a strictly statistical manner, which will give 

them not only a precise present meaning, but will render them capable of comparison with future narrations of 

similar characteristics.

With the consideration of a lumberjack’s eating arises the obvious question is: how fast? To provide an 

answer I have timed three or four hundred men in nine north Idaho camps during 144 meals (Table 1).

Table 1. Time allotted to eating by northern Idaho lumberjacks.

Number of minutes eating

Meal Fastest Slowest Mean

Breakfast 6 15 10

Lunch 7 16 12

Supper 8 17 13

Total 21 48 35 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-129. 2004. 71

Not only the first bolter and the last Fletcherizer were clocked, but also the average man, say the twentieth 

fellow to leave the table out of forty. As a result the mean figures in Table 1 were obtained.

Translated from arithmetic to prose, this table implies that the average woodchopper spends just 35 

minutes a day in food assimilation. Furthermore, there is in each camp a fastest man or group of men who 

waste but 21 minutes diurnally in the mad dash for sustenance. On the other hand there is generally some 

incorrigible laggard who requires as much as a quarter of an hour for the mastication of every mean.

It was only possible to gather data bearing on a few of those numerous specific habits of eating which an 

arbitrary society has established as table manners. Based on an actual analysis of 100 samples it was found 

that 12 per cent of the eaters were two tool men; that is, employed both knife and fork to lift the food onto the 

oral cavity. As regards bread spearing, 33 percent of the diners commonly depended upon their forks to harpoon the staff of life. Those banal euphoniums, please, preceded 93 per cent of all the requests for the passage 

of sustenance. In the imbibition of soup the average auditory range to the nearest even unit was 9 feet.

Since conversation is the principal absorber of the lumberjack’s leisure, one naturally wonders to what 

fields he devotes his interlocutory abilities. As a silent listener, watch in hand, to 1800 minutes of confabulation during the summers of 1927 and 1928, I have obtained the figures shown in Table 2 on subject matter.

Table 2. Conversations of northern Idaho lumberjacks.

Subject Under Discussion Percent of time

Pornographic stories, experienced and theories . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Personal adventures in which narrator is hero . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Outrages of capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Prohibition, bootlegging and jags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Acrimonious remarks about bosses and employers . . . . . . . . . . 5

Wildlife, excluding human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Agricultural methods and failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Tunney-Dempsey and Dempsey-Sharkey boxing battles . . . . . . . . 3

Scientific dissertations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Personal adventures in which narrator is not hero . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Employment and unemployment prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Charles Lindberg and aeronautics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Forest fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Religious discussions, more profane than spiritual . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Automobiles, particularly Fords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Reform economic schemes to supersede capitalism . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sarcastic evaluations of the late war to end war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The meteorological outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sears and Roebuck vrs. Montgomery Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The good old days of golden past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Food and culinary art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sickness and quacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

President Coolidge, with mordant comments on pseudo-cowboys . . 1

Mr. Hoover and Mr. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A local murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Sacco-Vaanzetti case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

But after all, it is not the subject matter which is most typical of the logger’s conversation. It is the virility 

of his adjectives and interjections which differentiates his oral activities from those ordinary mortals. To 

derive an exact measure of this vocal distinction, ten conversations were closely heeded for 15 minutes each. 

All profane and lascivious utterances, assumed to be taboo in chaste circles, were tallied. From this record it 

transpired that an average of 136 words, unmentionable at church socials, were enunciated every quarter hour 

by the hardy hewers of wood. Divided by subject matter the profane words overwhelmingly in the majority, 

for they constituted 96 of the 136 maledictions. Of the remaining 40 mephitic sounds enunciated every quarter 

hour, 31 were of sexual import and 9 were excretory in nature. Unfortunately various heritages from Anthony 

Comstock’s activities make it impossible to mention individually those profanations and obscenities.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination 

in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, Room 326 W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, protection, 

and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to 

meet the needs of the National Forest managers, Federal and 

State agencies, public and private organizations, academic 

institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving 

ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource 

inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest 

engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish 

habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted 

cooperatively, and applications may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper