World War II marked a change in the U.S. Forest Service culture. In the early part of the century, most of the timber harvested in the United States came from private forests. After the war, private forests had been depleted and the timber industry turned to the national forests as a source of lumber to build housing for returning GIs and their families. The Forest Service was more than willing to meet the demand. In the 1950s, timber production on national forest land went from 3.5 billion board feet to 9.3 billion board feet per year. The agency that employed 4,000 1938 grew to 18,000 by 1955.

Forest Service Historian Jerry Williams says that though there were employees who didn’t agree with policy, he doubts there were classic cases of whistleblowing during the 1950s. More typically, “old-school” rangers dedicated to conservation and protection of the forest found themselves out of step and were replaced by foresters eager to tackle the challenge of getting the cut out. Before the war, foresters “were very much in the protective mode of management,” Williams says. “The new management after the war was development-oriented.”

This culture of productivity didn’t completely ignore environmental concerns. Damage from the sudden and rapid rise of road building and timber harvesting may not have gotten much national attention, but local residents noticed the effect on the forests surrounding their homes and were not at all hesitant to speak up about it.

Paul Hirt, author of A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests Since World War Two says that the Forest Service didn’t ignore complaints from locals or the hunting and fishing communities who were concerned about the destruction of wildlife habitat. In fact, he says, they welcomed discussion.

“This was brand new, this was exciting,” Hirt says. “The Forest Service people were really happy about this sudden boom in their visibility, their contributions to local economies, but they were also worried. They could see that all kinds of problems were arising as a result.”

These problems weren’t easy to address, even with the agency’s recognition that the increase in timber production was contrary to their core mission of sustainability and protecting the resources for future productivity.

One big item beyond the agency’s control was the congressional budget. According to Hirt, Congress was on board with money for road construction and timber sale administration, but the agency rarely got the funds it requested for resource protection line items like soil erosion control, forestation and road maintenance. “The Forest Service could build roads, but they couldn’t maintain them,” he says.

Despite the good intentions of individuals and widespread recognition of the problems caused by clear-cutting, the leaders of the agency maintained an optimism that matched the mood of the times.

Many of the foresters hired after the war attended forestry school through the GI Bill. They were professionally trained in silviculture and mentally trained in the war to win battles, Williams says. Their can-do mentality worked in tandem with a faith in the resiliency of nature. The Forest Service personnel who were promoted to leadership positions were those who maintained a belief that the problems they were creating were solvable in the future. They were also the ones who had the most invested in maintaining the status quo.

The 1960 passage of the Multiple UseÐSustained Yield Act, which made an attempt to balance timber and recreation needs, marked the beginning of the end of the years of optimism. The ongoing struggle to balance lumber production and land preservation was just beginning.