Copyright, 19 8 2 Stephen Chalmus Head A KISTORY OF CONSERVATION IN TEXAS, 1860-1963 by STEPHEN CHALiMUS HEAD, B.A., M.A, A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILCSOPHY Approved Accepted May, 19 82 PREFACE Concern for the quality of the environment has become a paramount issue in American society since World War II. Accordingly, historians' interest in this topic has produced an increasing number of scholarly works. The first investigative studies of consequence commenced as a result of the New Deal policies, and scrutinized irrigation, reclamation, forestry, flood control, and the economic aspects of conservation. The 1950^ witnessed the rise to prominence of the preservationists who focused their attention on the "aesthetic-spiritual" features of conservation. Since the 196Os academicians and laymen have been analyzing a wide variety of topics relating to the environment such as wildlife, water problems, the wilderness, and most recently, ecology. Interest in this broad field has continued unabated because man faces the perpetual dilemma of attempting to maintain a harmoni- cus relationship between himself and his environment. ^ "Gcrdon B, Dodds (ed.), "Conservation & Reclamation in the Trans-Mississippi West: A Critical Bibliography," Arizona and the West, X II (Summer, 1971), 143-171. This excellent article reviews the major published works on conservation in the West. 11 As the thrust of the conservation-preservation movement has shifted with new crises and expanded environ- mental concerns, so have historical interpretations of the movement. Historians have had to view the monumental efforts to conserve natural resources in light of ever- changing social, cultural, and political patterns, environ- mental changes, demographic variations, and advances in science and technology. Consequently, these factors have created the continual need to reexamine and reevaluate the use of natural resources. Thus, historical works have proliferated, providing critical inquiry into the varying philosophies and policies of America regarding the ex- ploitation of the environment and the potential impact of conservation, or lack of it, on future generations of Americans. The historiography of the conservation movement has been amply documented in a number of historicai and 2 conservation journals. The following is a brief summary 2 See ibid.; J. Leonard Bates, "Fulfilling American Democracy; The Conserva-cion Movement, 190 7 to 19 21," Mis- sissippi Valley Historical Review, XLVI (June 1957), 29-57; Gordon B. Dodds, "The Historiography of American Conserva- tion: Past and Prospects," Pacific Northwest Quarterly, LVI (April 1965), 75-81; Thomas LeDuc, "The Historiographv of Conservation," Forest History, IX (October 1965), 23-28; Lav/rence Rakestraw, "Conservation Historiography: An Assessment," Pacific Historical Review, XLI (August 1972), 271-283. 11.1 which explores the variety of approaches found in the field, the distinctive trends evident over the years, and the salient characteristics of the written works pertain- ing to conservation history. Thereafter, an outline of the goals and objectives of this study dealing with con- servation in Texas will be presented and placed in its proper historical framework. The quality of written treatises on conservation since the turn jof the century has been inconsistent. This is explained in part by Lawrence Rakestraw, one of America's foremost conservation historians, who distinguishes between two types of conservation writers, the non-academic and the 3 academic. The former have been mostly career workers in a particular field, usually forestry, who have written from experience and professional background. Their work, accord- ing to Rakestraw, usually reflects the bias of individuals who attempt to justify either their personal actions or those of their agency. But, despite such pitfalls, these individuals have possessed a keen understanding of the technical problems associated with conservation. Unlike the academicians, non-academic writers have grasped more clearly the intricacies of particular sets of circumstances accompanying the movement to conserve natural resources. 3 Rakestraw, "Conservation Historiography,'' 271-278 IV On the other hand, Rakestraw believes academicians gener- ally have been unbiased, but they often have failed to get at the roots of the conservation movement because of their lack of familiarity with complex issues. They have placed their subject in a broader context, however, giving it more historical meaning. Rakestraw divides conservation history into a num- ber of categories: firstly, the overwhelming majority of studies has concentrated on federal conservation activities while virtually ignoring state accomplishments. Secondly, many historians have taken the "devil theory" approach in their studies; that is, they have emphasized conflict and turmoil between various individuals and groups connected with natural resources. For example, Rakestraw notes that in writings before 1960 the words "origins," "beginnings," and "history" most frequently appeared as titles of arti- cles and books. Since 1960 "controversy," "conflict," "struggle," and "battleground," have been commonplace. He also observes that in the early 1970s the word "rape" has been employed to describe man's relationship with his environment. Rakestraw writes that the v^rdict is still out on the role of frontiersmen in conservation. One school of thought holds that the early pioneers of the West opposed Eastern conservation theorists who sought orderly development V and management of resources. Other historians point to Western leadership and support for certain aspects of conservation. There is also a continuing debate regarding the negative or positive role of Indians in conservation history. Thomas LeDuc, another noted chronicler of conserva- 4 tion history,- concurs with most of Rakestraw's opinions. LeDuc also contends that American historians have failed to place their accounts into a framework sufficiently large to make them altogether meaningful. Part of this shortcoming, as Rakestraw notes, lies in the fact that historians lack the technical background to integrate fully their work with other disciplines, LeDuc asserts that, with few exceptions, conservation writers have dwelt on moral issues, or have superficially delved into political or economic issues, rather than investigating the crux of the conservation problem—the allocation of natural re- 5 sources. LeDuc's provocative essay concludes with an 4 LeDuc, "Historiography of Conservation," 23-28. c LeDuc lists the following authors and works as exceptions: Samuel Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Gonservation Movement, 1890- 1920 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959); James C. Malin, The Grassland of North America: Prolegomena to Its History with Addenda (Gloucester, Massa- chusetts: Peter Smith, 1967); and Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Plains (Boston: Ginn and Company, 19 31). VI indictment against conservation historians who have re- searched specific areas of conservation without consider- ing other related factors, thus writing in a virtual vacuum. Gordon B. Dodds, in perhaps the most useful survey of literature on conservation history, adds another dimen- sion to the field by stating that scholarly efforts thus far have failed "to examine the attitude of aesthetic man toward nature in comparison with and contrast to that of g political and economic man." Dodds suggests that conser- vation history be divided into four categories, namely economic, aesthetic, scientific, and political, in order to grasp its significance. He further delineates these areas along governmental and private lines. Dodds, too, basically agrees with the comments of Rakestraw and LeDuc regarding the failures and shortcomings of conservation historians and their works. Opinions abound concerning the origins, signifi- cance, and implications of conservation. A major group of historians interprets conservation in relation to American development as a nation in the broad sense. Leonard Bates, for example, refers to the conservation movement as the ^Dodds, "Historiography of American Conservation," 79. Vll 7 fulfillment of the inexorable march of American democracy, Bates contends that the leaders of the conservation move- ment sought to achieve economic justice and democratic handling of natural resources, and strengthened the Amer- ican fabric in their endeavors. Thomas LeDuc speculates that the conservation movement more accurately reflects the national experience^—a land of plenty characterized by wanton waste of available natural resources before the increase in population and the closing of the frontier g forced the American public to reexamine its policies. Roy Robbins' version of conservation efforts pits the 9 democratic East against monopolistic Western concerns. Encompassing all of these views is Roderick Nash, who sees the conservation movement as inextricably involved with the national identity. Nash suggests that conservation history is actually a study of the basic issues in American life such as aesthetic and spiritual development, patriot- ism, prosperity, national strength, ethical convictions. Bates, "Fulfilling American Democracy." g LeDuc, "Historiography of Conservation," 23. ^Roy Robbins, Our Landed Heritage, The Public Domain, 1776-1970 (2nd ed. , Revised; Lincoln and London: