Mike Moore and Bill Botti, who devoted their professional lives to Michigan forestry through the Department of Natural Resources, have authored a new book, Michigan’s State Forests: A Century of Stewardship. Published by Michigan State University Press, the book traces the history of a system that has grown from a single small state forest preserve in 1901 to 3.9 million acres of publicly-owned state forestlands. It can be ordered here: http://msupress.msu.edu/bookTemplate.php?bookID=3019.

MEC Senior Policy Advisor Dave Dempsey interviewed the authors.

Why did you decide to write this book?

Well, Dave, it’s a great story, and nobody else seemed to be working on it. The centennial year was approaching—and sailed on by—as we worked. We were with the state forest system for about a third of its existence. We knew the system, and we knew lots of the people who had helped to form it into its present configuration. Michigan’s state forests history is not well understood by most people—even some resource professionals.

Why should the reader pick it up?

It’s not every day you come across a book about a current trend that’s positive. This is a story about an idea that really worked. There are some fascinating historical characters who had a great vision for our forests. Originally, we thought the audience would be primarily those directly connected to the state forests such as employees or former employees or professional foresters and biologists. Now we think we see interest from individuals interested in the outdoors or the environment. The story tells about a government program that worked and will have appeal from that angle as well.

What lessons do you draw from the history of Michigan’s state forests?

Dreams can come true. The founders of the idea of a system of publicly-owned forests knew they were looking well into the future before the project could be declared successful. Marcus Schaaf, state forester from 1909 to 1949, predicted in 1917 that it would be 60 years before the pines then being planted would pay for themselves. That’s a long time, even for people who deal with trees, but they and their successors stuck with the program and saw it happen.

Do you think the state is respecting that heritage with enough funding and good policy? If not, what needs to be fixed?

Funding support never seems adequate when you have a big job to do. We used to compare our funding and staffing levels to those of the national forests and forest industry. We were spread mighty thin across the four million acres. Yet we took pride in that very thing—look what we could do with ingenuity and dedication! Funding has changed over the years. At first, it came mostly from the state’s General Fund, but gradually that was replaced by revenue from timber sales and other resources. Today, there is no support from the General Fund, but that’s exactly what was foreseen by the founders—the forests are now paying their way and contributing greatly to the economic stability of the northern communities.

Policy is another matter. From the Legislature, we see evidence of the erosion of the stewardship philosophy in favor of a view of the forests as simply a revenue source and a source of raw material for industry. For a number of years now, the Michigan Legislature has included a timber harvest quota in the annual budget bill for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It’s expressed in terms of acres to be treated, not dollars to be reaped, and it has not been an unreasonable amount, but it seems to us to be poor policy for the Legislature to be prescribing timber harvest in any form, regardless of the rationale.

The DNR seems to have lost some of its focus on the state forests, too. The forests have been lumped with other functions in a seemingly “catch-all” division of Forests, Minerals and Fire Management. It has been nearly ten years since a forester was in charge of this largest state forest system in the country. While the non-forester leaders have been good managers, they cannot be expected to share ownership of the vision first seen over a hundred years ago by William Beal, Charles Garfield, Filibert Roth, Marcus Schaaf and many others. A renewed focus on the forests with a forester in charge would help get things back on track. In addition, the naming of state forests has been lost in all of the reorganizing.

What thoughts do you have for the future of Michigan’s public forests?

A Michigan forest policy is needed for all classes of ownership in the state. This policy would recognize the importance of our forest resources and acknowledge their importance to the environment and the economy. It would address tax and land use policies as well. Our current statewide trend in forest use is not sustainable. We cannot expect the state forests to supply all of our recreational and economic needs. Former state forester Henry H. Webster was fond of saying, “If we don’t change our direction, we’re doomed to arrive where we’re headed!” We do need to change our direction.