Eco-Watch
2/10/94
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE THE HUMAN DIMENSION HAS PLAYED IN
SHAPING AMERICA'S FOREST AND GRASSLAND LANDSCAPES: Is There a Landscape
Archaeologist in the House?
By Doug MacCleery
In a paper featured in Ecowatch on 12/1, I sought to make the case that
failing to act (intervene in National Forest ecosystems) can exact its
price. In many areas, forest fuels continue to build up beyond levels ever
before experienced in those ecosystems -- further exacerbating forest health
and fire risk problems.
One person took issue with that view by asserting that the forest health
and fuel build-up problems occurring in eastern Oregon are the direct result
of aggressive Forest Service management actions, where "old, thick
barked trees were replaced with skinny little true firs."
The twin problems of fuel build-ups and forest health and their effects
on ecosystem sustainability are likely to be the single most significant
environmental challenge facing us under ecosystem management. It will be
challenging physically and biologically because such problems are extensive
on federal forest lands (USDA/Forest Service 1993b). It will also be challenging
intellectually because the solution may require us to rethink some strongly
held assumptions about the nature of forests prior to European contact
and the role that natural and human induced processes played in those forests.
For that reason, I'd like to explore this issue in some depth.
Expansion of true firs in eastern Oregon is an ecological response to
partial cutting silvicultural regimes, combined with reduced ecosystem
fire. Even in the absence of timber harvesting, exclusion of fire would
eventually have resulted in true fir forests replacing ponderosa pine forests,
a transition that can clearly be seen happening in similar kinds of forests
all over the West -- in Wilderness areas, in other areas that have never
been logged, and in those that have.
Today, one often hears criticism of the aggressive fire suppression
activities initiated by the Forest Service in the 1930s and later, which
are held to be responsible for the fuel buildup and forest health problems
we are now having. One hears less often that there was widespread public
support for these activities at the time. And even less often is it understood
that substantially reduced ecosystem fire had occurred in many areas by
the late 1880s or even before. It coincided with the disintegration of
the cultures of native peoples in the area, virtually all of whom actively
used fire as a major land management tool (Pyne 1982; Cronon 1985; Williams
1989; Bowden 1992; Martinez 1993; Williams 1994). Reduced burning was associated
with reduced Indian burning, with the
-2-
settlement of western valley areas, and, especially, with increased
livestock grazing, which broke up fuel continuity.
Today, many of our Wilderness areas, including the largest in the lower
48, the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, have the same sorts of ecological
changes going on as are occurring in eastern Oregon, and those changes
began in the late 1800s. And such areas are faced with the same sorts of
forest health and ecosystem sustainability implications we are struggling
with in Oregon.
Graphic evidence of the profound ecological changes that have been occurring
over the last century in Western forest landscapes can be seen by comparing
late 19th century photographs to those recently taken from the same photo
points. There is currently quite an extensive body of such repeat photography.
These photos commonly record substantial increases in the understory density
and overstory biomass volume of forest vegetation over the last century,
and a decrease in both the aspen component and in the herbaceous understory
in conifer stands (Gruell 1983). In addition, open woodlands have become
closed forests, and grasslands have become woodlands. (Note: I have prepared
an annotated bibliography of publications featuring repeat photography.
If you would like one sent to you on the DG, send a note to D.MACCLEERY:WOlC)
The reduction in fire is not just causing forests to become more dense;
many forests are also older on the average than they would have been without
this change. An example is the Flathead National Forest in Montana (where
the Bob Marshall Wilderness is located). In 1899 about 18 percent of the
forest area of the Flathead was in a mature forest condition, and 6 percent
was old-growth; but by 1990 the area of mature forest had increased to
33 percent, and the area of old-growth to 20 percent (USDA/Forest Service
1992).
Independent confirmation of the substantial changes in forest vegetation
in the West and of the loss of the aspen component comes from forest inventory
data. A recent study of forests in the Southwest, which was based on such
data, found that between 1962 and 1986, the area of aspen forest had dropped
by 46 percent. If these trends continue, in less than three decades aspen
will cease to exist as a distinct forest type in the Southwestern region
(USDA/Forest Service 1993a). This same study found that the area of the
forest type that is the beneficiary of reduced fire occurrence, the mixed
conifer type, increased by a whopping 81 percent.
Today, we have some strongly held popular images of what pre-European
contact forests were like. One of these is the image of the "forest
primeval," the idea that pre-European contact forests were dominated
by a "blanket of ancient forest." This image is one of continuous,
closed-canopy, structurally complex, all-aged forests which nature maintained
for long periods in a steady-state, equilibrium balance with the environment.
We have a corollary image of a pre-Contact native peoples who lived in
the forests and on the plains, but really didn't do very much to change
either. There is overwhelming evidence that both of these images are in
need of thorough reexamination.
-3-
In Discordant Harmonies (1990), Daniel Botkin asserts that the norm
in nature is not constancy or equilibrium, but dynamic change -- that the
so-called "balance of nature" is a concept that must be reexamined.
He cites the dynamic nature of American forests due to natural disturbances
-fire, insects, wind, and disease -- and challenges assumptions about the
predominance of "climax" forests in the presettlement North American
landscape. In addition, he discusses the history of climate change and
its effect on tree species migration and distribution in North America.
He challenges the theory that predators and prey regulate each other in
some rough mutually beneficial balance, and provides a variety of other
examples of the natural chaos and "disharmonies" that inflict
nature, even absent human influence.
But humans were definitely not absent in pre-Contact American forests,
which leads to the second popular image -- that of the ecologically invisible
American Indian. There is no question that enormous areas of the forests
and grasslands we inherited (or invaded and stole, if you wish) were very
much cultural landscapes, shaped profoundly by human action.
At the time of European contact, many Indians were horticulturalists.
In the East and Southwest they were mostly farmers. Agriculture -- maize,
beans, pumpkins, squash -- provided at least half their subsistence (Smith
1989). Agriculture originated in North America about 10,000 years ago;
about the same time it had in the Middle East (Smith 1989). By 1500, tens
of millions of acres were cleared for crops. Native peoples everywhere
in North America also set fire to hundreds of millions of acres on a regular
basis to improve game habitat, facilitate travel, reduce insect pests,
remove cover for potential enemies, enhance conditions for berries, drive
game, and for other purposes.
Vast areas of the North American forest landscape in both the West and
East were, at the time of European contact, open, park-like stands shaped
by short-interval, low intensity fires, often set purposely by humans.
In New England, Indians burned the woods twice a year, in the spring and
fall. Roger Williams wrote that "this burning of the Wood to them
they count a Benefit, both for destroying of vermin, and keeping downe
the Weeds and thickets" (Cronon 1985). John Smith commented that in
the forests around Jamestown in Virginia "a man may gallop a horse
amonst these woods any waie, but where the creeks and Rivers shall hinder"
(Williams 1989). Andrew White, on an expedition along the Potomac in 1633,
observed that the forest "is not choked with an undergrowth of brambles
and bushes, but as if layed out in a manner so open, that you might freely
drive a four horse chariot in the midst of the trees" (Williams 1989).
These observations of the open nature of North American forests are typical
of those of most other early observers, both in the East and West, who
commonly spoke of the ease of riding a horse or driving a wagon under the
forest canopy and reported the practice of frequent Indian burning.
But frequent forest burning did more than reduce the undergrowth and
improve the habitat for preferred species. In many cases it created grasslands
in areas where forests otherwise would have existed. Prairies extended
into Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and western New York (Anderson
-4-
1990; Pyne 1982). In Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley -- the area between
the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Alleganies -- was one vast grass prairie.
Native Americans burned the area annually (Van Lear 1989). Anderson (1990)
writes that the eastern prairies and grasslands "would mostly have
disappeared if it had not been for the nearly annual burning of these grasslands
by the North American Indians." In the West, as well. Indian burning
also greatly extended the area of grasslands and reduced the area of forest
(Gruell 1983; Boyd 1986).
The prolific numbers of white-tailed deer wild turkeys, ruffed grouse,
and other species common to forest edges and openings that were reported
by early observers indicates a forest in which natural or human-induced
disturbances were common. Even bison, normally associated with the western
prairies, were common east of the Mississippi. In the early 1600s, bison
were found in the South and as far east as Massachusetts -- indicating
numerous openings and prairies with abundant grass and forbs that, in this
humid forest region, could only have been created by human activities (Williams
1989).
Indian use of fire as a management tool changed in profound ways the
entire ecology of the forest and the plant and animal communities associated
with it. Burning extended the range of forest types that flourish under
a frequent fire regime, such as pines and oaks. Much of the extensive southern
longleaf pine forest that greeted European settlers in the South was an
anthropogenic landscape created over hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years
of native burning (Pyne 1882). Absent human-set fires, much of this area
would likely have been a dense hardwood forest. In the West, burning greatly
increased the area of aspen forests, and created vast areas of open ponderosa
pine forests (Gruell 1983).
The wildlife communities that characterized these cultural landscapes,
such as the red-cockaded woodpecker/gopher tortoise community in the South,
were in large measure products of thousands of years of human intervention.
And it will take continued human intervention to maintain them.
Some of the coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere were
shaped profoundly by long interval, stand replacing fires which created
a mosaic of forest stands of various ages and conditions. A BLM study estimated
that in 1850 only about 40 percent of the forests of the Coast Range of
Oregon were more than 200 years old, generally considered the minimum age
for old-growth. The rest were in younger ages resulting from stand replacing
events, mostly fire (Teensma 1991). This study hypothesized that "human-caused
fires dominated the fire occurrence pattern of the Coast Range, both before
and after European settlement." There was no "blanket of old-growth,"
even in the coastal PNW.
But even in coastal PNW forests, low intensity ground fires set by humans,
were much more common than is often realized, particularly in southern
Oregon (Boyd 1986; Martinez 1993; Williams 1994). Such fires led to the
creation of open prairie ecosystems, glades, and savannas, many of which
have, or are now, rapidly disappearing, due to encroachment by Douglas
fir (Johannessen 1970).
-5-
In fire-prone ecosystems in the West, Indian burning created an element
of ecosystem stability that would not have existed without it. Frequent,
low intensity, human-caused fires substantially reduced the numbers and
area of less frequent, but high intensity, stand replacing holocausts that
otherwise would have occurred (Thomas 1993).
Across North America, as Indian burning stopped, the change in forest
ecology was rapid -- prairies became woodlands, savannas became dense forests,
and open forests were invaded by dense undergrowth (Thompson 1970; Johannessen
1970; Williams 1989).
There is an extensive and growing body of literature documenting the
profound role that humans played in pre-Contact landscapes. One of the
latest is the September 1992 issue of the Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, "The America's Before and After 1492: Current
Geographical Research," (223 pp.), which is entirely devoted to essays
on this subject. AAG's address is 1710 16th St., N.W., Wash., D.C. 20009;
tel.(202)234-1450.
Dr. Gerald Williams, Region 6 sociologist and historian, has compiled
an extensive bibliography of over 150 individual references on the American
Indian use of fire in ecosystems. It is on DG and Gerry has indicated his
willingness to send it to those who send him a note (J.WILLIAMS:R06A).
So we have this paradox: The fuel build-ups now rapidly going on in
the West are the result of human intervention in the form of fire control;
but the open, park-like stands encountered by Euro-American settlers, which
many of us perceive as the "natural" forest, were themselves,
to a significant extent, a product of human intervention, as well.
The question as to what is the "natural" condition of American
forests is a problematic one which we have been struggling with under EM.
Are the dense forests resulting from a century of reduced ecosystem fire
less "natural" than the more open, yet still anthropogenic, forests
they are replacing? Are "natural" forests only those in which
humans have played no significant role? Under that definition, there would
have been few natural forests, even in 1500 -- for humans have occupied
and influenced America's forests since the time these forests migrated
northward behind the retreating continental glaciers more than 8000 years
ago.
The ecological effects of reduced burning depend on the nature of the
forest. In warm, dry forest ecosystems which historically were characterized
by frequent, low-intensity fires, elimination of burning rapidly leads
to the development of a dense, multi-storied forest structure -- subject
to increasing mortality from drought, other forest health problems, and
stand-replacing conflagrations, which seldom occurred in the past (USDA/Forest
Service 1993b). As compared to warm, dry, short-interval fire adapted ecosystems,
the ecology of cooler, moister forests has perhaps been less affected by
the reduction in fire, at least over the short term. Many cool, moist forest
ecosystems were historically subject to infrequent, stand-replacing fires.
But even in these forests, reduction in historic fire has had the effect
of creating forests with stands that are older
-6-
on-the-average than historically -- and so are subject to increased
insect epidemics and larger and more intense stand-replacing conflagrations
than typically would have occurred in the past. Of course, there are many
gradations between warm/dry and cool/moist forest ecosystems.
Today's older and more "densified" forests function much differently
ecologically than they did a century ago. In some forests a type conversion
is going on from fire resistant species to fire susceptible ones. Due to
both forest density and to the kinds of tree and other plant species that
are emerging to replace the existing forest overstory, they will be forests
which are decidedly more unstable than the ones they are replacing, i.e.
more susceptible to insects, disease, drought. and catastrophic fire. When
fires do occur in such forests (as they inevitably will), they will be
intense, stand replacing, soil damaging fires, beyond that which would
have been typical in pre-European forests.
Whether the forests of 1800 were more "natural" than the forests
of today is a philosophical question for which there is no definitive answer.
But one thing is clear: If we don't like the kind of forests we see developing,
we are going to have to do more than just watch -- we will need to do something
to change the direction in which things are going.
Ecosystem management is using the concept of "range of natural
variation" to deal with this situation. It is clear that many of today's
forests are considerably outside the range of natural variation, now often
called the "range of historic variation" to recognize the influence
of native peoples.
But the task of bringing these forests back within this historic range
(or any range that is likely to be considered desirable) is a daunting
one, to say the least. Doing so will require reintroducing natural and
prescribed fire. But because of past fuel buildups, as well as smoke management
guidelines, in many cases it will also necessitate mechanical treatment
in advance of introduction of fire. And dealing with existing smoke management
guidelines will be a major challenge, as well, even with pretreatment.
A paper addressing these problems was prepared last year by the Fire and
Aviation Staff in the Washington Office (USDA/Forest Service 1993b).
But the biggest barrier is not operational in nature. To corrupt a passage
from Julius Caesar: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our
selves, but in our images." The image of the forest
primeval is so powerful that it causes some otherwise well-informed people,
in the interest of maintaining forests in their "natural" condition,
to propose systems of inviolate preserves, where human intervention is
prohibited. We see such proposals, even in fire-prone forest ecosystems,
where such an approach has virtually no chance of sustaining over the long-term
(or even over the mid-term) the values and purposes for which those reserves
are established. In most fire-prone forest ecosystems, human action will
be essential to have any chance of maintaining them, and their associated
plant and animal communities, in a pre-European ("natural") condition.
-7-
Indeed, in the face of the profound ecological changes now occurring
in many forests, human action is likely to be necessary to achieve over
the long term whatever "desired future condition" is likely to
come out of forest planning.
In The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the America's in 1492
(1992), W.M. Denevan writes that:
The myth persists that in 1492 the America's were a sparsely populated
wilderness, "a world of barely perceptible human disturbance."
There is substantial evidence, however, that the Native American landscape
of the early sixteenth century was a humanized landscape almost everywhere.
Populations were large. Forest composition had been modified, grasslands
had been created, wildlife disrupted, and erosion was severe in places.
Earthworks, roads, fields, and settlements were ubiquitous.
So why, in the light of all this evidence, do we continue to cling to
the image of the forest primeval? This is an interesting topic in itself,
which has been explored over the years by a number of scholars (Thompson
1970; Pyne 1982; Williams 1989; Anderson 1990). While many have written
on the subject, there was a particularly insightful essay on this subject
by M.J. Bowden (1992).
Bowden writes that popular images are created and perpetuated because
they serve the ends of particular groups and opinion leaders. The image
of the pristine forest has endured for 300 years or more because it has
been useful to a variety of opinion leaders -- from the Pilgrim Fathers
of 17th century New England to the modern environmental movement.
Bowden writes that:
The grand invented tradition of American nature as a whole is the pristine
wilderness, a succession of imagined environments which have been conceived
as far more difficult for settlers to conquer than they were in reality
.... The ignoble savage, non-agricultural and barely human, was invented
to justify dispossession... and to prove that the Indian had no part in
transforming America from Wilderness to Garden.
Two hundred years later, a reaction to U.S. industrialization fostered
a "back to nature" movement which continues today. Writers like
James Fenmore Cooper, Henry David Thoreau, and Longfellow, as well as artists,
such as George Catlin and the "Hudson River School" landscape
artists, sought to glorify pre-Contact America and its inhabitants (Nash
1967; Denevan 1992).
The concept of an interventionist indigenous people had no place in
the image of The Forest Primeval that this movement sought to portray.
Therefore, the invented image of the ecologically invisible Indian was
perpetuated. Bowden writes that this movement sought to portray:
-8-
Indians who lived, so the tradition goes, in harmony with nature, making
no irremediable changes in the environment, and handing over to Europeans
a virgin land. Whether denigrated as ignoble savages or idealized as native
Americans living in perfect equilibrium and harmony with the environment,
the Indians are given no credit for opening up the Eastern Woodlands, for
creating much of America's grassland, and for transforming hardwoods to
piney woods with their "woods-burning habit."
The tradition of the ecologically invisible Indian has been maintained
by popular writers over the years. In his best-selling book, Conquest
of Paradise (1990), Kirpatrick Sale is only the latest popular writer
to perpetuate the idea that Indians left the American landscape virtually
unchanged.
But there is more to this story than just American myth-making. There
was one significant factor not mentioned by Bowden which affected European
perceptions as to the low ecological influence of native peoples. That
was the devastating effects of Old World diseases. By the early 1500s,
such diseases were introduced on both coasts, as well as the interior.
Dobyns (1983) estimates that native populations collapsed from perhaps
18 millions in 1500 to less than 1 million in 1800, when the first waves
of European expansion finally moved west of the Appalachians.
In 1500, significant portions of the Midwest, Southeast and Atlantic
coastal areas were home to highly structured, agricultural societies having
high population densities and landscapes which were heavily cleared for
cropland (Dobyns 1983; Denevan 1992). In the Midwest and Southeast, these
people constructed extensive earthworks, mounds, large earthen pyramids,
temples, and extensive areas of ridged agricultural fields (Doolittle 1992).
They had a hierarchical social structure similar to that of the Aztecs
and Incas.
While we will never know fully the extent of forest clearing by these
people, some indication can be gained from the writings of a Spanish chronicler
on the 1539-43 de Soto expedition. For four years, de Soto and his men
pillaged, plundered, and inadvertently spread diseases from Florida north
across the Appalachians, west to the Mississippi, thence down to the Gulf
of Mexico (Thomas 1993). Of Indian agricultural fields in Florida, he wrote
that they:
marched on through some great fields of corn, beans, and squash and
other vegetables which had been sown on both sides of the road and were
spread out as far as the eye could see across two leagues of plain (Doolittle
1992).
Dobyns (1983) has estimated that this single field covered about 16
square miles. These were no small family garden plots!
The first waves of native depopulation from smallpox occurred shortly
after 1500, even before de Soto, and were followed by successive waves
as new diseases were introduced and took their horrible toll. This holocaust,
which encompassed all of the Americas, took place largely out of sight
of Europeans. By 1800, native populations were a shadow of their former
-9-
numbers, and their social structure had been substantially disrupted
(Dobyns 1983; Cronon 1985; Thomas 1993). Landscapes cleared for agriculture
had 2-3 centuries to reforest before the first waves of permanent European/American
emigrants poured through the Appalachian "gaps" to find landscapes
that were more "pristine" than they had been in more than a thousand
years (Denevan 1992).
But even at the much reduced population levels of the early 1800s, native
peoples continued to have a substantial influence on the forest through
repeated burning, which created and maintained huge areas as permanent
prairies and oak and pine savannas.
If language is a looking glass into a people's culture and images, then
today's common usage of the term "presettlement" to refer to
pre-European settlement, reflects either an ignorance of history or a cultural
arrogance -- perhaps some of both. We have the power to change that.
As we move into EM, it will be particularly important in the next round
of national forest planning for us to seek to more fully understand the
role that humans have played in the landscapes we oversee. Perhaps we need
a cadre of "landscape archaeologists" to help us. I don't know
whether such a discipline even exists. Archaeologists have traditionally
looked at sites, rather than landscapes. We must devote more attention
to understanding how humans, both indigenous peoples and Euro/Americans,
have shaped our forest and grassland landscapes. Maybe the proper discipline
is that of a landscape anthropologist or geographer.
Lately there has been a lot of discussion about "ecosystem restoration,"
for example, of the forests of eastern Oregon. It is not always clear from
that discussion what people mean by it, e.g. what condition will those
ecosystems be restored to? That is not a trivial question. Will we seek
to bring them back to pre-World War II conditions, before logging really
got going? To conditions pre-fire control? To pre-Euro/American settler
conditions? If to pre-Euro/American settler conditions, should it be before
or after the holocaust of Old World diseases decimated native peoples?
It's really not an option to go back to conditions as they were before
there were people here in North America, because it might be tough to get
the continental glaciers to come back.
Just asking these questions will require us to seek a better understanding
of the human dimension in our natural landscapes. Seeking that better understanding
has the potential to both unify and integrate currently conflicting views
as to where we are, how we got there, and where we should be heading. All
human history has a natural context. We shape the land and the land shapes
us. What binds us together is a relationship with the land that is in many
ways common for all peoples. This has been true for millennia, even here
in North America, where there exists "a pre-European cultural landscape,
one that represented trial and error as well as the accomplishment of countless
human generations. It is upon this imprint that the more familiar Euro-American
landscape was grafted, rather than created anew" (Butzer 1990).
-10-
There is something comforting in this knowledge. The Indian legacy lives
on today in our forest and grassland landscapes, if only we have the eyes
to see it. It lives on in other ways as well -- in the art, culture, and
genes of many of our citizens; which enriches us all. This legacy lives
on also in our own bodies that are sustained by the myriad of plants originally
domesticated here in North America. Mostly they were domesticated by women.
Today, 60 percent of U.S. crop production, on a value basis, comes from
crops originally domesticated by native Americans (Fedkiw 1989). And these
plants also sustain countless millions in other lands.
We should seek to understand these things, for they are part of the
human experience. We are linked as human communities to the human communities
that went before us, and to those which will follow. These communities
left their own marks upon the land. We are linked to the land just as they
were for our own sustenance and spiritual renewal. A better understanding
of these linkages can both enrich us personally and help us become better
stewards of the earth.
The subject of this paper is of more than academic interest. All societies
view nature through the lens of their culture and mythology. We are no
different. Humans have made their homes in and influenced American forests
from the time there were forests. Yet a cultural blind spot causes us to
retain a powerful popular mythology that essentially denies peoples' influence
on these forests until the time of European settlement. We also cling to
the idea of a stable and static nature, seeking to achieve balance. Daniel
Botkin's thesis is that if we are interested in a certain future occurring
we will need to plan for it and manage it within the context of science,
rather than popular images about what we think nature should be. I certainly
agree.
History demonstrates that both nature and human culture are dynamic.
Culture and tradition can and do change in response to an evolving understanding
of nature, and of our role in it. Because of this, we should seek to understand
the basis for our traditional images of nature and be willing to modify
them when they are not supported by the evidence.
We must not lose the environmental impulse. We must seek to be good
stewards of the earth. But if we ignore how both human intervention and
natural events have shaped the forests of today, we are liable to make
some big mistakes. In our desire to "save" the forest, and its
associated plant and animal communities, to conform to a particular image
(while at the same time we restrict the tools available to achieve that
objective), we may be setting up for ourselves a goal that is impossible
to achieve.
Anderson, R.C. 1990. The historic role of fire in the North American grassland. In Fire in North American tallgrass prairies, ed.
S.L.Collins and L.L.Wallace, pp.8-18. Norman. University of Oklahoma
Press.
Botkin, D. 1990. Discordant harmonies: a new ecology for the twenty-first
century. Oxford University Press. New York.
Bowden, M.J. 1992. The invention of tradition. Journal of Historical
Geography, Vol.18, No.1, PP-3-26.
Boyd, R. 1986. Strategies of Indian burning in the Willamette Valley.
Canadian Journal of Anthropology, No. 5.
Butzer, K.W. 1990. The Indian legacy in the American Landscape. In The Making of the American Landscape, ed. Micheal P. Conzen, pp. 27-50.
Boston. Unwin Hyman.
Cronon, W. 1985. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology
of New England. Hill and Wang. New York, N.Y.
Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in
1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 82, No.
3.
Dobyns, H.F. 1983. Their number become thinned: Native American population
dynamics in eastern North America. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Doolittle, W.E. 1992. Agriculture in North America at the time of contact:
A reassessment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol.
82, No. 3.
Fedkiw, J. 1989. The evolving use and management of the nation's forests,
grasslands, croplands, and related resources, USDA-Forest Service, General
Technical Report RM-175, September 1989.
Gruell, G.E. 1983. Fire and vegetative trends in the northern Rockies:
interpretations from 1871-1982 photographs. Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-158, USDA/Forest Service.
Ogden, Utah, December 1983.
Johannsssen, C.J., W.A. Millet, & S. McWilliams. 1970. The vegetation
of the Willamette Valley. Annals of the American Association of Geographers,
No.61.
MacCleery, D. 1993. Repeat photography for assessing ecosystem change:
A partial listing of references. USDA/Forest Service. Washington, DC. (Unpublished
but available on DG - D.MACCLEERY:WOlC).
Martinez, D. 1993. Back to the future: Ecological restoration, the historical
forest, and traditional Indian stewardship. Presented to "A
-12-
Watershed Perspective on Native Plants" Conference, 2/26/93, Olympia,
WA. American Indian Cultural Center, Talent, OR. (Also available on
DG-D.MACCLEERY:WOlC).
Nash, R. 1967. Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT. Yale
University Press.
Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cultural history of wildland and
rural fire. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.
Sale, K. 1990. The conquest of paradise: Christopher Columbus and the
Columbian legacy. New York. Alfred A. Knopf.
Smith, B.D. 1989. Origins of agriculture in eastern North America.
Science, 246(1989) pp. 1566-71.
Teensma, P.D., J.T. Rienstra, & M.A. Yeiter. 1991. Preliminary reconstruction
and analysis of change in forest stand age classes of the Oregon Coast
Range from 1850 to 1940. Technical Note OR-9. USDI/Bureau of Land Management.
Portland, OR. 10/91.
Thomas, D.H. et al. 1993. The Native Americans: An illustrated history.
Turner Publishing Inc. Atlanta, GA.
Thompson, D.Q. & R.H. Smith. 1970. The forest primeval in the Northeast
-- a great myth? Proceedings of the Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology
Conference. 10(1970) pp.255-65.
USDA/Forest Service, 1992. LRMP Supplemental Monitoring Report, 6/92.
Figure 8. Flathead National Forest. Northern Region. Missoula, MT.
USDA/Forest Service, 1993a. Changing conditions in Southwestern forests and implications on land stewardship. Southwestern Region.
Albuquerque, NM.
USDA/Forest Service, 1993b. Fire related considerations and strategies
in support of Ecosystem Management. Fire and Aviation Management, Washington
Office. Washington, D.C.
Van Lear, D.H. & T.A. Waldrop. 1989. History, uses and effects of
fire in the Appalachians. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA-Forest
Service, General Technical Report SE-54.
Williams, J. 1994 (Draft). References on the American Indian use of
fire in ecosystems. USDA/Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland,
OR. (Unpublished, but available on DG -- J.WILLIAMS:RO6A).
Williams, M. 1989. Americans and their forests: an historical geography.
Cambridge University Press. New York.
2/9/93