Times Observer photo by Josh Cotton The first ANF supervisor thought that it would take decades before the forest would grow to the point where it could be financially self-sustaining.

But by the turn of the 20th century, available timber had been nearly tapped out – the ANF was jokingly referred to as the “Allegheny Brush Patch” in those early days.

While that kind of over-harvesting may not have ultimately been in the best interest of the region, it actually made securing the land that is now the ANF easier – and cheaper.

“The average price of the 187,000 acres thus far approved for purchase has been $3.05 per acre, or a total of more than $570,000,” Bishop wrote.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI Inflation Calculator shows that investment resulted in nearly $10 million in purchasing power in 2023 dollars.

Times Observer file photo What was once a “Brush Patch” has been turned in a century’s time to the ANF that we know today. The ANF’s centennial is this year.

Buying 500,000 acres today, though, would certainly cost far, far more than $10 million today.

“The range of prices has been from $1.50 to $10 per acre,” Bishop said. “The price paid is fixed in accordance with the condition of the land, that is, whether or not it has been damaged by forest fires, and whether or not the land carries advanced timber growth.

“Thus far the policy has been to very largely restrict purchases to the cheaper classes of land. By so doing it is possible to more quickly extend the influence of the work over a large area and to build up a practicable and economical administrative and protective unit in the shortest length of time.”

But there were some downsides to that approach.

“Following a policy of buying first the cheap lands has resulted in the purchases being scattered quite generally throughout the forest,” Bishop wrote. “As additional purchases are made the lands are blocking in and assuming satisfactory form.”

There were other options for securing land that are always, oh, so popular – eminent domain.

Bishop said, though, that the government was only looking to buy “such lands as are offered for sale by the owners and with whom price agreement can be reached,” though he outlined how a “friendly condemnation” process would be used when there were challenges with clearing title. Even in that scenario, though, the landowner was paid.

He expected that the purchase of 500,000 to 600,000 acres would be purchased by 1935.

And given the 2023 size of the forest – 514,029 acres – he was right on the button.

The Congressionally-allocated boundary of the forest includes a higher number of acres but Bishop said it would “never be practicable or desirable” that the government own all of the land in the boundary.

“Much of it is more valuable for purposes other than timber production and can to best advantage be privately owned and managed.”

Bishop noted that there were 50,000 acres of agricultural land within the forest, two state game preserves and a municipal watershed.

“This is no necessity for government ownership of such areas,” Bishop argued.

Another area that the government didn’t look to purchase – that has presented some complicated legal challenges in the century since the ANF was founded – were the vast majority of subsurface rights (think oil and gas).

“Such rights are in no way necessary to the satisfactory working out of the national forest program and the vendors are encouraged to retain and develop them,” Bishop wrote. “The establishment of the forest and the acquisition of a large area of land is a benefit to the gas and oil industry in various ways.”

Enhanced road access in order to get to those rights was highlighted as one benefit but the major benefit that Bishop outlined is something we’re unlikely to think much of today – the greatest advantage… comes through the fact that the government affords its land a high degree of fire protection and the gas and oil industry is to a considerable degree dependent upon protection.”

The fire threat was exacerbated by the lack of “advanced timber growth,” as Bishop phrased it. “In many instances the tracts purchased had been repeatedly burned over and it will require a great many years of protection to bring them into productive status.”

Bishop then shifted into the economic argument – would the ANF pay its own way? That was complicated by the long-game that the federal government would have to play.

“In such instances it will, of course, be long before a money return on the investment can be expected, forty to seventy-five years perhaps,” he wrote. “However, in the end the investment should be a profit. Each year that the land is protected from fire brings it that much nearer the harvest and each year its value is increased through the increase in productive capacity growth which results when fire is kept out.”

The longer the harvest is delayed, he concluded, the more valuable the end products would be.

“Who can say what the stumpage value of a cord of paper pulp wood or a thousand feet of veneer logs will be in the year 2000?” he wrote. “Though the revenue which comes from the sale of timber products is of importance, it is by no means all of the picture. The industry which will result from the use of the produce will amount to much more than the value of the stumpage.”

Making the economic argument meant more than just the timber or oil and gas industries though.

“Every industry and each settler of the region should either directly or indirectly be benefited by the working out of the project,” Bishop argued. “The policy in accordance with which the administration of the Forest is guided is that ‘Each acre of land and each forest resource shall be put to the use that it is best suited to serve, having in mind the greatest good to the greatest number in the long run.’ In keeping with this policy any areas of National Forest land that are suitable for farming, for summer home sites, camp grounds, municipal watersheds, rail roads, pipe lines or transmission lines are available for such purposes.

“The Forest is open to the public for hunting, fishing, camping, touring and other forms of recreational use.” (More on recreation in a future week).

“Though the production of revenue is not the principal idea of the National Forest program, it is expected that the Forests will pay their own way,” he argued. “This is made possible by the sale of saw logs and other forest products and the leasing of areas for special uses. On the basis of the forest being self-sustaining, there will accrue as profit to the public many very great, though indirect, benefits, benefits which will in no way preclude the production of repeated crops of forest projects. It will necessarily be years before the Allegheny Forest can be self-sustaining.”