Gifford Pinchot by Katelyn York

Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946)

“Conservation is the application of common sense to the common problems for the common good.”

-Gifford Pinchot

Introduction:

The genre of Nature Writer all began with Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau pioneered this genre because he wanted to express to others his passion for nature. Thoreau has had a profound influence on every Nature Writer since his time whether it be inspiration from his prose style or his concepts about humans and nature. One writer that Thoreau has had an influence on is Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot is a conservationist, unlike Thoreau who favored preservation. While their land management views differed, one thing both men shared was their passion for nature. At the core of these two different land management ideas is the love for nature. Throughout his life, Gifford Pinchot was inspired by many people in his life and taught many people about the importance of conservation, which eventually led him to the successful life that he made for himself.

Background Information:

*Childhood, Schooling, Beginning of Conservation

Gifford Pinchot was born on August 11, 1865 in Simsbury, CT. His mother, Mary, was married James Wallace Pinchot who was a wealthy merchant in the lumber industry. He grew up in a home which was known as Grey Towers; a large estate the family owned. While this industry was extremely prosperous, Gifford’s father began to regret the lumber industry because of the fact that it was so harmful to nature. He then turned every member of the family into conservationists. Gifford had his “first brush with wilderness, a brush that he would later remember as being critical to his life course” at the age of thirteen (Miller, 16). He and his family traveled to the Adirondack Mountains in New York. Here there was a “civilized wilderness, to be sure- or, rather, one that was in the process of being domesticated” (Miller, 16).

His family traveled to the Adirondack Mountains from New York City to escape from the city to be amongst the tranquility of nature. To get to this area, however, they had to “travel along new rail lines and the roadways that penetrated the woods, staying in boardinghouses and hostelries constructed to lodge summer guests, and plying the region’s many clear lakes and rushing streams in canoes and guide boats” (Miller, 17). In essence while this seemed to be an escape to the wilderness, it was far from it. Wilderness is defined as untouched by humans, which does not match the description of this vacation spot. Wilderness has different meanings to different people; many people think that going out into the middle of the woods in the backyard is wilderness. Is there such thing as “civilized wilderness,” would that not be a contradictory statement to say that wilderness can be civilized? During his time in the mountains, Gifford took many hikes and participated in many outdoor activities. This is where his love for nature and the idea of conservation came to mind. Gifford wanted nature to be a place that everyone could enjoy, just as he was doing in the mountains. Conservation is the idea of making wise use of the land and reserving it for people’s pleasure.

After developing a passion for nature over the next decade, Gifford decided that he wanted to go to school to study nature and forestry. Gifford attended Yale School of Forestry around 1900, and after he graduated he studied for a year at the French National Forestry School in France. It was while writing a term paper that Pinchot decided that he wanted to be a forester (Steen, 47). Gifford chose to go to school in France because no American schools offered degrees in forestry, which Gifford had his heart set on. “At the core of the school's curriculum was an emphasis on silviculture, the means by which foresters produced and cared for forests, which finally enabled Pinchot to unite forestry as taught in the classroom with its reality on the ground. On the other hand, he recognized forestry in America would have to be as unique and diverse as the landscape itself” (Miller, 25). After he returned to America, he began looking for a job specializing in forestry. This was harder than he thought, but he eventually landed a job as resident forester for Biltmore, which was John Vanderbilt’s estate. Pinchot thought “if landowners could see examples of good forestry practices and also see that forestry was a profitable venture, then they would voluntarily adopt approved management methods” (Steen, 48). Pinchot’s talent for forestry was soon recognized because of his unique idea of improving the forest while at the same time it was profiting the owner of the land. “This plan included identifying tree species, growth conditions, and volumes of timber per acre as well as improving tree growth through selective thinning. Pinchot's approach was the first of its kind in the United States and served as a national model (Biltmore)” (Miller, 30). “It was Pinchot’s duty to manage these lands profitably and develop a forested estate worthy of Vanderbilt’s wealth” (Steen, 48). From this land management idea, he became very successful because people realized what a brilliant idea he had. Pinchot always knew that he wanted to help nature, and he had many people who inspired him to do this.

Pinchot's Influences:

*John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, and his father

Pinchot had many influences on his life that inevitably convinced him to accomplish what he did. One of these influences was John Muir. Muir, while he was a preservationist, was one of Pinchot’s greatest influences. Pinchot and Muir worked together to “help shape public consciousness” (Smith, 1). While they did infact work together to achieve this idea of “public consciousness,” they differed in their beliefs of land management:

Gifford Pinchot embodied the conservation philosophy of Roosevelt Progressivism, tirelessly promoting the efficient management of natural resources by trained professionals for the long-term economic benefit of society. John Muir, the archetypal preservationist, found intrinsic value in nature. He sought the protection of the wilderness and resources not to serve economic ends but as a buttress against the pathologies--material and psychological--of modern society. (Smith, 1)

The focus of this time appeared to be the debate between conservation and preservation, but it was in fact the recognition of these two men for trying to help people to to realize that there is a problem with land use. They strived to teach people that without these concepts being recognized, there will not be much nature left for our future generations. This brings back the point that while their opinions and values of how land should be used differed, they both believed that something action needs to be taken to help save nature. Neither one of their opinions were correct, it came down to how one thought land should be used: should it remain untouched by humans or should it be “used wisely” and enjoyed by humans? Pinchot and Muir left this choice up to the people, but stressed how important it was that some action be taken in order for there to be nature in the future. These two concepts were mainly pitched to the middle and upper classes because they were the ones who had access to an excessive amount of resources due to their levels of wealth. They both pitched their ideas to the public in different ways:

Muir pitched his public voice to resonate with middle class sentimentalism, extolling the virtues of America's wild places from the heart of the wilderness itself. He adopted the timbre and slightly eccentric discursive style of the prophet, a mystical leader alternately forecasting doom and salvation--yet almost always he aimed his message at the individual reader, not a group. Pinchot, on the other hand, was intent on building an institution, a "church of conservation." He was concerned not with the spiritual renewal of the individual but with the salvation of the nation, and his crusade was for the common good, organized and directed by experts, the high priests of the forest service. (Smith, 1)

While these men had two completely different opinions of land management, they got their points across in different ways to reach different audiences. Pinchot took the clever approach into the debate by “exploiting the insecurities of the reading public,” which he thought would help him win a majority of people’s support (Smith, 1).

Pinchot’s father, James, had a huge influence on Gifford’s life and what he made of his life. James Pinchot was in the lumber industry, an industry that basically destroyed woodlands. After many years, James started to realize the damage that he was causing the environment and encouraged Gifford to help fix the damage he had caused. “It was actually his father who was the 'father of conservation', having encouraged his son to become one of the nation’s first foresters” (Miller, 16). Gifford grew up on the wealthier side where he experienced how people take resources for granted and are wasteful. Through realizing this wasting of resources, he wanted to turn things around and educate people that what the way they are living is harming the environment. His father had chosen to do the same thing. He had realized that his lumber business was harming nature, and quickly acted to try and reverse this damage by educating his family on the importance of conservation. Gifford felt the passion that his father had for nature, and decided that he wanted to spread the knowledge of conservation with as many people as he possibly could. One cannot forget the pioneer of Nature Writing, who has inspired every Nature Writer since his time, Henry David Thoreau.

Henry David Thoreau was one of the first Nature Writers in the United States. Thoreau was a preservationist as well as Muir, but again Thoreau was so passionate about nature that this passion allowed for all of these Nature Writers to be categorized together. Pinchot was one of the first conservationists in the US and taught many people about this idea of conservationism. Nothing was more important to Pinchot than teaching people the importance of land use and treatment of that land. A main connection between the two Nature Writers was John Muir. Muir had the same beliefs as Thoreau in that preservation was the way to save nature. On the other hand, Pinchot, who worked closely with Muir for many years, believed the greatest good for the greatest number of people over the long run. By Pinchot having people in his life to inspire him, it helped him to become the great environmental figure that he was.

Pinchot's Accomplishments:

*Governor of P.A, 1st Chief of U.S. Forest Service , Nature Writer, Conservationist

Pinchot had many accomplishments throughout his life. Pinchot was the first Chief of the United States Forest Service. He was also elected Governor of Pennsylvania from 1923 to 1927 then again from 1931 to 1935. While he was Governor, he started to intertwine politics with nature. He started to educate people about the importance of conservation, which before then no one had cared about. He was also known for his conservation ethic which basically stated that people needed to focus on the health of the natural world, for example the forests, fisheries, habitats and biological diversity of nature. Pinchot's accomplishments did not end there, he continued to write numerous books about conservationism.

He wrote many books including The Fight for Conservation, The Conservation Diaries of Gifford Pinchot, Breaking New Ground and many more. Pinchot was very passionate about helping to educate people about the importance of conservation. He had many environmentalists who were against this idea, for example John Muir. John Muir worked closely with Pinchot, but their environmental views sometimes separated them. Muir believed in preservation, that if it has not been touched by man it should remain that way, while Pinchot believed in “the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long run” (Robertson, 245). While the two had different beliefs of how land should be used, Pinchot “actually had a great deal in common with the man he is usually posed against, arch-preservationist John Muir” (Robertson, 245). Pinchot had hoped that by working together with Muir, that preservation would help save the environment where conservation failed. Their main goal was to work together despite their differences in beliefs, and try to educate as many people as possible about this land management problem also getting them to make changes in their life to benefit the future generations.

One interesting point that Pinchot brings up in The Fight for Conservation, Pinchot’s most famous book, is when he questions if “we should conserve those resources, and in our turn transmit them, still unexhausted, to our descendant” (Pinchot, 3). Here is he questioning whether we should conserve the resources that our forefathers founded in America so they can be passed on to future generations. Without conserving these resources, he continues, the future generations will “have to pay the price of misery, degradation, and failure for the progress and prosperity of our day” (Pinchot, 4). Pinchot expresses much concern for the future generations because he is one of the few people who realize how much of our resources we use, and how many of those resources could possibly be exhausted and would not exist for future generations. Americans do not look at the long-term effects of using up all of our resources; they only see the short-term effects and what is happening now. He claimed “the US has already crossed the verge of timber famine so severe that its blighting effects will be felt in ever household” (Aldrich, 319).

Another accomplishment that Pinchot is well known for is being the first Chief of the United States Forest Service. The Forest Service is an agency that is part of the US Department of Agriculture that manages the nations forests and grasslands. Their job is the prolong the health and productivity of the forests and grasslands so they can meet the needs of generations to come. Pinchot, being a conservationist, was perfect for the job. He was selected as the chief of the Forest Service and was allowed significant freedom in the administration of the Forest Service by President Roosevelt. Roosevelt and Pinchot worked together for a number of years, eventually “giving the name “conservation” to the movement for the preservation and wise use of all natural resources” (http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/ppet/pinchot/page1.asp). While working together, Roosevelt and Pinchot looked at the ways in which people were using “resources for private profit and unless scientific management of resources was required, America would fail to meet its future needs” (http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/ppet/pinchot/page1.asp). By the 1920s Pinchot’s campaign for wiser land use had a large audience because he had brought this matter into politics. Pinchot states in his book The Fight for Conservation that:

The single object of the public land system of the United States, as President Roosevelt repeatedly declared, is the making and maintenance of prosperous homes. That object cannot be achieved unless such of the public lands as are suitable for the settlement are conserved for the actual home-maker. Such lands should pass from the possession of the Government directly and only into the hands of the settler who lives on the land. Of all forms of conservation there is none more important than that of holding the public lands for the actual home-maker (Pinchot, 12).

This statement raises the concern that not enough land is being set aside for homes, but is instead being used for other things that are not as essential as homes. Pinchot continues arguing that the laws “have been deflected from their beneficent original purpose of home-making” (Pinchot, 12). Pinchot and Roosevelt believed that land should be used wisely, and it should be used in ways that benefit humans, for example conserving land so that more houses can be built. There was a major issue with this theory and the facts of this land management situation however. Pinchot argues that “few passions of the human mind are stronger than land hunger, and the large holder clings to his land until circumstances make it actually impossible for him to hold it any longer. Large holdings result in sheep or cattle ranges, in huge ranches… and not in homes” (Pinchot, 13). Here he is referring to how large amounts of land are used more for nature’s use than for humans use. Pinchot uses farms as an example of how large land areas are not used for humans but are set aside for animals. While these animals might be used for human’s sake, food and what not, the fact is that this land could be used to build homes instead of being used for nature.

End of Pinchot's Life:

Pinchot was a man who fought for what he believed in: conservation of land. Starting at an early age, he was introduced to land management issues and knew that he wanted to do something to help nature. Through his political moves and doing what he could to inspire people to help the environment, he succeeded in education people of this issue of land management. Pinchot's passion for nature continued when he married and had a son whom he raised to treat nature with respect. His family's estate "Grey Towers" to the United States Forest Service by Pinchot's son in 1941, where it is now used as a museum. Every son that has been born into this family is named Gifford to carry on the legacy of their ancestor's passion for nature. Pinchot has had many National Forests and Preserves named after him because of all that he accomplished during his life. Gifford Pinchot was an extremely dedicated conservationist and strongly believed in making a difference in the world. Even from childhood, Pinchot was surrounded by conservation and aspired to educate people about conservation. Sadly Pinchot died in 1946 of leukemia, but his legacy lives on in his children and in the hearts of many people who witnessed his passion for nature.

Pictures and Links about Gifford Pinchot:

http://www.pinchotpartners.org/images/JonMoscinskiGoatRocks_000.jpg

This is one of the many magnificent views from Gifford Pinchot National Park in Vancouver, Washington.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/history/hist_images/hist_giffordpinchot2.gif

http://www.deltacollege.org/emp/wswanson/etudes/Unit444b.htm

This is a picture of Pinchot and Roosevelt, who worked together and were very close friends. They are standing on deck of steamer Mississippi, during tour of Inland Waterways Commission.

http://www.fs.fed.us/na/gt/local-links/historical-info/mansion.shtml

This is a link to view Grey Towers, the former home of the Pinchot Family.

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/

This is a link to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest website.

Works Cited

Aldrich, Mark. “From Forest Conservation to Market Preservation: Invention and Diffusion of Wood-Preserving Technology.” Technology and Culture 47.2. (2006) 311-340.

Miller, Char. Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism. Washington, DC: Island Pres/ Shearwater Books, 2001.

Pinchot, Gifford. The Conservation Diaries of Gifford Pinchot. Forest History Society. Durham, NC: 2001.

Pinchot, Gifford. The Fight for Conservation. New York: Doubleday Pres, 1911.

Robertson, Thomas. “ ‘Questions of Seeing’: Images and the Culture of Environmental Reform.” Natural visions: The Power of Images in American Environmental Reform. Chicago: U of

C P (2005) 239- 247.

Smith, Michael B. “The Value of a Tree: Public Debates of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot.” The Historian 60.4. (1998) 257-278.

Steen, Harold K. The U.S. Forest Service. Seattle: U of WA P, 1976.

http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/ppet/pinchot/page1.asp