return to articles

Throughout America’s history, forests have long been a point of national pride. Early American artists depicted the forests as a direct reflection of democracy. With democracy comes political intervention, and politicians did not exempt forests from their influence. As historian Frederick Jackson Turner said, “American democracy was born of no theorist’s dream ... It came out of the American forest” (Turner). Political infighting has turned America’s forests into a battleground. Conservation policies, economic exploitation, federal management, and indigenous displacement have made forests deeply intertwined with politics. From early government regulations on timber harvesting to the establishment of national parks that displaced Native American communities, political decisions have consistently shaped the fate of the nation’s forests. The ongoing tug-of-war between economic interests and conservation efforts proves that forests have never stood apart from politics. Political decisions regarding forests have historically prioritized federal control and economic gain over indigenous sovereignty and environmental sustainability, proving that America’s forests have never been neutral ground.

An early example of the connection between forests and politics is the Menominee Forest Region in northeastern Wisconsin. Native American inhabitants originally used the land for hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild rice (Burgess 269). In 1854, following a series of federal treaties, the natives were relocated to reservations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) took control of most of the Menominee's original land, leaving them with only a fraction of their former territory. Even after their land had been reduced, the natives practiced sustainable yield management, recognizing the importance of the land. This sustainable approach, however, was short-lived. Congressional forces continuously pressured for the Menominee Forest’s timber exploitation. In 1871, the Department of the Interior authorized the cutting of dead timber. Some policymakers argued that regulating timber sales would provide the Menominee with a stable income, preventing waste and overexploitation. However, in reality, these policies placed long-term forest management in federal hands, limiting the Menominee’s ability to control their own land. This marked the beginning of an ongoing federal intervention, limiting the Menominee’s control over their own resources. By forcing the commercialization of timber, Congress not only undermined the tribe’s traditional practices but also shaped their economic future, leaving them dependent on federal policies that served external economic interests rather than their own sustainable needs. In 1876, Congress expanded this policy, allowing the timber to be sold commercially. That year, 1.5 million board feet were cut. This caused such a controversy that public backlash temporarily halted woodcutting, though not permanently. In 1889, Congress gave continuing authority for the BIA to authorize cutting on Indian reservations, and the woodcutting resumed. By the end of that year, 18 million board feet were cut, and in the following year 25 million followed (Harkin 98). Legislation was passed in 1890 allowing the Menominee to harvest 20 million board feet of timber annually, setting in motion the start of commercial logging on the reservation under sustained-yield principles. This pattern of masking economic exploitation as policy set a precedent for future federal interventions in forest management.

The federal government’s control over forests extended beyond timber logging. While the Menominee faced pressure to commercialize their land, other forests were used for conservation. These forests became known as National Parks. In 1872, the federal government established Yellowstone as America’s first national park. Yellowstone was intended not only to preserve local wildlife, including the last surviving herd of buffalo, but to act as a park for public enjoyment. The establishment of a two-million-acre national park shifted federal priority to conservation and long-term land management (Jacoby). Yellowstone became the first example of this shift, serving as a model for future government-controlled lands across the country. However, this shift toward federal conservation came at the expense of Native American communities, whose removal from Yellowstone exposed the harsh realities of government intervention.

This land which was set aside was not just used as a federal park, it was also home to many Native American tribes. These tribes had for centuries ventured into the park to take use of its natural resources. "In addition to harvesting resources, Native Americans periodically burned parts of Yellowstone to control underbrush, eliminate pests, and aid in hunting (Jacoby). During the 1870s and 1880s, federal surveyors observed these burns and reported them to their supervisors, who, misunderstanding their purpose, deemed them a dangerous force. John Wesley Powell, the director of the survey, described federal beliefs on the fires. In his 1878 report, he stated, “in the main these fires are set by Indians [,] ... the fires can, then, be very greatly curtailed by the removal of the Indians.” This viewpoint became popular among conservationists at the time and led to the mass removal of Native Americans from the park. Park officials depicted the natives as wild savages, coming into the park to hunt whenever they felt like it and setting fires recklessly. In 1880 a treaty was signed limiting the land of the Crow, Shoshone and Bannock so they would not be seen by the growing number of tourists to the park. Federal intervention did not stop with this. In 1884, Wyoming took jurisdiction over the park, allowing the Department of the Interior to gain legal authority over Yellowstone. After a corruption scandal involving park enforcers, Wyoming withdrew its jurisdiction over the park the following year. Without political oversight, park officials turned to the military for control. I In 1886, Yellowstone’s first military superintendent described the park as representing, “the visible power and force of the National Government.” Yellowstone was known as Fort Yellowstone for 32 years after the army’s intervention. Their role extended beyond legal enforcement; t The military reorganized the park into a structured bureaucracy with uniforms, armed patrols, record-keeping procedures, and solidified federal authority over national parks.

One of the major advocates for the national parks and their conservation was Theodore Roosevelt. Under his presidency, he transferred the management of the parks from control of the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture, establishing the U.S. Forest Service in 1905. To lead this, he appointed forester Gifford Pinchot (Steinberg 137). Under his management, loggers would be told went and where to cut down trees by Pinchot and his team of scientifically trained experts. Pinchot's approach to forest management treated trees as a renewable resource to be harvested sustainably, but his methods also reinforced the federal government’s authority to manage public lands and shape national economic interests. With the view that a timber shortage was inevitable in the coming years, Pinchot and his team cleared hundreds of millions of acres of dead growth trees which he saw as a waste of lumber (Steinberg 140). In the process, ecosystems which had thrived on the fires, insects, and old growth, all things Pinchot believed threatened the timber, were destroyed. Other than directing loggers where to harvest, the Forest Service’s primary focus was on the suppression of these threats, mainly forest fires. However, this proved to be misguided. Fires are essential for decomposing forest litter and recycling nutrients, and without them, tree growth slows. By preventing fires, the Forest Service allowed fuel to accumulate, increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires (Steinberg 142). The forest service would continue to focus on the production of timber for decades, it is not until after two world wars that citizen groups propose expanding the forests to include leisure.

The history of forest management in the United States demonstrates the complex and often misguided relationship between politics and the environment. From the early exploitation of Native American lands to the misguided fire suppression policies of the twentieth century, political decisions have shaped the fate of America’s forests. While conservation efforts, such as the creation of national parks and the establishment of the U.S. Forest Service aimed to protect these vital ecosystems, they also led to unintended consequences, such as the displacement of many native tribes and the accidental collapsing of ecosystems. Thorough out American history, politics have deeply entwined themselves with the nations forests due to their economic nature.

Works Cited

Turner, Frederick Jackson. “The West and American Ideals.” The Washington Historical Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 4, 1914, pp. 243–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40474083. Accessed 12 Mar. 2025.

Burgess, Darwin. "Forests of the Menominee - A Commitment to Sustainable Forestry." Petawawa National Forestry Institute, 1995, pp. 289-275.

Harkin, Duncan A. "The Significance of the Menominee Experience in the Forest History of the Great Lakes Region." The Great Lakes Forest: An Environmental and Social History, edited by Susan L. Flader, University of Minnesota Press, 1983, pp. 96-111.

Jacoby, Karl. "Nature and Nation." Crimes Against Nature : Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation, University of California Press, 2014.

Steinberg, Ted. “Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History.” New York, Oxford University Press, 2018.