Bill Ferrell Oral History Interview, May 8, 2014

Samuel Schmieding: Hello, this is Dr. Samuel Schmieding, Oregon State University College of Forestry, also with the U.S. Forest Service. We are here in Corvallis, Oregon, as part of a history project which includes oral histories. The project is focused on the H.J Andrews Experimental Forest, but we're also interviewing people involved with the College of Forestry, forestry in general, and land management issues. And this is the first interview in this series, and we are here today with William K. Ferrell, long-time professor in the OSU College of Forestry, and ecological forestry researcher. He's now retired, living here in Corvallis. We are also here with Frederick Swanson, Emeritus Scientist, retired from the U.S. Forest Service and very active with the Andrews Experimental Forest. So, I want to say hello, Bill, and how are you today?

William Ferrell: I'm doing pretty-well, thank you.

SS: Okay. Fred.

Fred Swanson: Fine.

SS: All right. So, we are going to talk on the record today about Bill's 00:01:00experiences, focused mostly on his work with the OSU College of Forestry, and especially with a lot of the people that he knew and had as students, and his work itself at the Andrews, but we're also going to range around and talk about other issues as well. Okay, so I will ask you, first of all, Bill, where were you born and raised, and what was your childhood like, especially in relationship to the natural world?

WF: Yeah, I was born in Ohio, Barberton, Ohio. That name is, the Barber family, is the basis for the Barberton. And I lived for the first couple years at least in Barberton. I was raised there.

SS: And Barberton, is that close to Akron?

WF: Yes, it's essentially a suburb of Akron, I guess, you'd say. But it has its 00:02:00own character, which is not the best, I would say. SS: Was it a kind of a rough industrial town?

WF: Yeah, it was a rough industrial town, I would say. It had a few unique qualities. It had a big pond in the middle of town, for example, and had wonderful sounds from the railroads, at least that's my take on it. The sound of a steam whistle on a railroad car engine is something I just always remember.

SS: Now, what experiences do you remember about your interactions with the natural world, any specific places or events or things that impacted you when 00:03:00you were young, that may have led you into the direction that you went to professionally and personally later in life, where you were involved with studying and teaching about nature and forestry?

WF: Well, it wasn't studying and teaching, to follow up on what we were saying previously, but where I was born. It was my grandfather and my grandmother's farm, a small farm, but it was half-farm land, half-forest, a hardwood forest. And it had some very interesting things in it in the way of animals and various other things. And I always looked forward to going there on weekends, and spend a couple days with my grandmother and grandfather in the forest that was surrounding the place.

SS: How would you describe the Akron area, both the city, but the forests and the farmland, surrounding that area?

WF: It was a heavily committed industry town, I would say. For that reason, it had a lot of smoke and whatever in the air most of the time. So, it wasn't very pleasant. If you got outside of town, that dwindled off to a small amount of smoke. I used to go hiking with some friends that belonged to a Boy Scout troop and we had a small place out in the country that was ours to do what we would. And we would go on weekends, every once in a while, we would take off, perhaps a half dozen or more of us, and walk out to the Boy Scout reservation and walk 00:05:00back the same day.

SS: Now, I read something about how you used to go on these adventures to the rich part of Akron where they had these big estates. Is that true?

WF: Yes, in the spring. I can't remember the name of it, the company. But the owners of the company, and in the spring at the time of bird migration, it was a lot of fun to go to that place, because they were very careful not to destroy the forests on their property. We would see how many birds we could identify, and it was typically 25 or 30. It was, the migration, far in excess of what would be there for the whole summer. But it was very, exceptionally pretty, as 00:06:00well as having a lot of bright birds.

SS: Do you remember any of the species from those days? WF: Oh, yeah. There were several thrushes, and they weren't sensational for their color, but they were for their voices, for lack of any better term to put on it. But there was a lot of singing going on when those birds arrived in the spring.

SS: Now, how do you think that growing up in an area with such heavy industrial pollution and environmental costs as we call them today, impacted how you looked at the natural world, humankind's potential impacts on the natural world, and 00:07:00coming out West and everything that you did after you finished your doctorate, I believe at Duke, and then to Idaho and some other places. But how do you think that initial experience affected everything that came after that?

WF: Well, it certainly opened your eyes to possibilities because for the most part, there's no heavy industrial effect here in the West. Some places, obviously, close to paper mills, for example. But it was true also in Ohio, but for the first week or so of the bird migration, why, it didn't seem to affect the population very much.

SS: Now, was there any other particular experience or event, positive or 00:08:00negative, other than just those long jaunts across Akron, something that maybe was scary or shocking or especially beautiful or exciting, like a specific event that you remember?

WF: Yeah, and it was close to my grandfather's farm. There was a lot of coal extraction going on. And it was the type where they didn't do it underground, it was all scrape off the overhead, top, the layers of the forest and layers of --

SS: What they call mountain-top mining, where they just scrape the whole thing dry?

WF: Yeah, they scraped it off, some of it. So, it was a mixture, but it was sad 00:09:00to see after it was done on the ones where they scraped it off. They didn't give a damn how they left it. The least cost was their objective.

SS: What usually happened to those, the tailings piles, the holes, from the last time you remember seeing some of those? What do you remember their disposition being?

WF: One of the worst aspects of it was the drainage from those scraped fields. The runoff was highly acidic. And it drained into the nearest stream. And it just killed off the life in that stream. All you would see would be deposits of sulphur that were left over. It was really sad to see it.

SS: Now, was there a series of streams or a stream or a river system close to Akron that would have been the downstream recipient of all these toxins?

WF: The drainage actually was south from around Akron. So, the Ohio River, a large stream, received the major part of the runoff, and it was not pretty.

SS: Quite a large difference between the pre-environmental age, before the '60s and '70s when a lot of protection laws were passed, and the era before when you saw people just did what they did, and walked away. Right?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Quite a shock, right, when you think back through all that history?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Now, how do you think the location of those formative years with some of these experiences, affected your views on science, ecology, and a career in 00:11:00forestry, and in teaching it, specifically? And how do you think that impacted how you taught these subjects and evolved as a professional?

WF: Yeah, they certainly had an influence. You know, the West has not been mangled so much in its environment as the East of the U.S. And in the case of the West, it was something that you were trying to stop before it got started, because it's hard to reverse some of these things, especially drainage from sulphur deposits. They stay around for quite a while.

SS: I recall one of my experiences that surprised me because I grew up in the post-environmental age, when I went to Colorado. Many parts of Colorado are 00:12:00well-preserved, but there's certain areas in Colorado, specifically the Central Sawatch, but the San Juans especially, where incredible damage has been done from unrestricted mining and tailings, just left to basically drain downstream into all sorts of areas. And so, there are places in the West where that was equally bad. But, yeah, it's interesting to see the contrast, though.

WF: Yeah.

SS: Now, when entering the university system, did you know what you wanted to study, and this would have been at Michigan first, and then of course, you eventually ended up at Duke. But how did that progress evolve in terms of what you wanted to be and eventually became?

WF: Well, I didn't have visions of being a forester, necessarily, I just wanted to get involved in outdoor examination of the topography, the plants and animals 00:13:00that were there, and how we were affecting it. This all fit together. And it was the way that I looked at it when I was a freshman.

SS: Do you remember, what did you take at Michigan when you first went there?

WF: I was in the forestry, they may have called it the pre-forestry program. And I don't remember distinctly any forestry courses, per se, in the first year. But we had some introduction to it by some of the old-time members of the faculty. It was a mixed bag at Michigan. They had some outstanding professors, and they had some, who frankly, were out-of-date. They were trying to tell us about what happened when they were young bucks, and that was 50 years before.

SS: Do you remember a professor named Samuel Trask Dana?

WF: Oh, yes.

SS: He was there when you were there, right?

WF: Yes, he was the dean.

SS: Yes, did you ever take a class with him?

WF: No, I didn't. I think he did offer one senior course, but I never took anything from him, although I interviewed him several times.

SS: Oh, you did?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Tell me about that?

WF: Well, I was concerned about some of the things that were going on in the forests around the university and so on. And so, I went to talk to him about it. And he was receptive, at least facially, he was receptive.

SS: You were a whippersnapper undergraduate? (Laughs)

WF: Yeah, Sam Dana was well-known all over the country, really. And so, he had a reputation to hang onto.

SS: Now, are you aware of H.J. Andrews and the fact he went to Michigan, and even taught there?

WF: Yeah. I never was introduced to him, either personally, or as a group. I never -

SS: I don't think he was there when you were there. But he did go to school there, and he actually taught once or twice, short tenures there. And he was friends with Dana.

WF: Yeah.

SS: Now, when you came out of Michigan, your degree, was it in forestry?

WF: When I came out?

SS: Was your degree in forestry after you graduated from Michigan?

WF: Yes.

SS: And how did that transition to graduate school and eventually going to Duke? There was a war in-between somewhere, I believe, right?

WF: Yeah. When I came back, the first thing I did when I was mobile was to go up 00:16:00to Michigan, and I'd had my eye on going back to school and taking a full course of forestry. They were polite, like Sam Dana even had a few words to say to me. But it was the beginning of being serious about the matter.

SS: Now, I've already got a lot on the record about your war years, and I don't want to spend too much time there, but you spent your whole time over in Southeast Asia?

WF: Yeah.

SS: And obviously, very different than anything in the continental United States, especially, the Northwest. How did that experience, mainly focusing on the natural world, but also what you saw in the human dynamic considering you 00:17:00spent a lot of time in Calcutta, how did that affect you coming back in terms of the man, nature, natural resource triangle? Also, how did that experience affect how you saw those things as you developed intellectually, became a Ph.D. and a professor?

WF: It was really a very important part of my development, I would say, having gone through the forests of Southeast Asia. And I had an experience or two with some wildlife that taught me how to stay away from things that you didn't really understand. The things I didn't understand were the poisonous snakes in India. There was one in particular, the Krait, which is a small snake, very toxic, and tree-born, for the most part. It jumps off the tree onto somebody, if you're 00:18:00close enough. One came fairly close to me, but I didn't get him, or he didn't get me.

SS: Did you ever know anybody that was killed by any of these poisonous snakes over there?

WF: No, but it was famous, because Cleopatra was killed by a Krait.

SS: Really?

WF: So, yeah. I was quicker than Cleopatra, I guess.

SS: Very good. But you, and even quicker than Marc Antony, right? (Laughs) So, who would you say your most important mentor was during your schooling, either at Michigan or Duke, or both?

WF: Well, I guess at Michigan, it would probably be somebody, not on the 00:19:00forestry staff, but in the botany department. There was a sort of a tough-old bird at Michigan. I managed to do well in his course, but he was never one to give a grade, a high grade, unless he absolutely had to. At Duke it was Ted Coyle, Theodore Coyle, a soils man. He was, and a plant physiologist by the name of Paul Kramer, who was not in forestry, but offered something that's relevant. Coyle, unfortunately, ran into trouble, personal trouble, and ultimately died, as a result of not being able to control that problem he had. But he was the 00:20:00soils professor at Duke.

SS: What was your emphasis if you, what can you remember about your program of study? I'll really take you back. And your dissertation, how did that kind of....What do you remember about that?

WF: Well, I remember the botany department. Several of the people in it were very close to the forestry faculty and offered courses that most forestry students took. They weren't required, but they were courses that they took. There was some sadness in some of it. Coyle, who was my major professor, became an alcoholic, and ultimately succumbed to that.

SS: Yeah, that's always sad when you see a role model fall victim to the vices, 00:21:00shall we say. Self-destruction, really. What about Professor Kramer, I know that you've spoken about him a lot in the past, and tell me a little about him?

WF: Yeah, Kramer was very helpful. As a matter of fact, after I left Duke, I came out to the University of Idaho and took a position there. And Kramer was always one to call me and say, "Bill, I have an offer here from such-and-such a university for an opening in, well, something to do with plant physiology." Yeah, he said, "Would you like a recommendation?" And I think in one case, I did say yes, but in general.

SS: Is that how you ended up at Idaho [University of] as your first job?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Now, just real quick, going back to Duke, being kind of an elite private school in the South, and of course, most your career you're at a public university in the Northwest, how would you describe the culture, not just in general, but also the academic culture of a private school in contrast with a public school like Oregon State, a traditional land grant university?

WF: Well, a private school, Duke at least, has a lot of money behind them. They could do lots of things for you that, for example, Oregon State would have a hard time handling, or Idaho, for example, even more so. So, I enjoyed Duke because it was quite cosmopolitan, and I had a lot of things going on that only 00:23:00a private university probably could afford to have.

SS: What was your dissertation, Bill? Sorry, you don't have to cite the whole title because those are long, weird titles, but do you remember what the subject was?

WF: Yeah, it was about competition for survival and growth in about a half dozen species of trees. And so, it was counting, first of all, survival, and secondly, growth. And so, my master's thesis was on that.

SS: Was that based in maybe a more deciduous forest in the Appalachian area?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Okay. Now, how would you describe the dynamic between that forest, that 00:24:00ecosystem, and what you saw out here? How would you contrast Appalachia with Cascadia, shall we say?

WF: Well, or course, the seasonal variation is less back there than it is here. And that has quite an impact on survival, I would say, by a factor of two, perhaps. It was an easier proposition at Duke than it is out here because we didn't have that much variation.

SS: Now, how would you describe some of the core theories that you were taught 00:25:00in school?

WF: Which theories?

SS: Core theories about the main disciplines, things that you would remember that were paradigms of the time, that made an impact on you, and that maybe you embraced, or even later on, modified or rejected, whether it be forestry, soils, anything that you remember?

WF: Well, there were problems in the forests there. They were more diverse than the forests here, so you were less able to predict what was going to come about in forests back in North Carolina, than you are out here in the West. There are simply more species there, and consequently, they're representative of a broader 00:26:00range of climate and other things.

SS: Now, do you remember any especially profound event during your university life, rather than just a teacher, but something that happened? Maybe you were on an exchange program, on a field trip, an undergraduate project, a graduate project, a particular thing that really made an impact on you?

WF: In my personal life, it did.

SS: Yeah? Oh, how was that?

WF: Well, my wife, Louise, the mother of my children, was a student there, as well as I.

SS: Well, that's important.

WF: Yeah, it was.

SS: At Michigan, or Duke?

WF: At Duke.

SS: Okay. So, how did you meet your wife, if you don't mind me asking?

WF: Oh, let's see, I guess I spotted another girl who was attractive, and I had asked her out for a date, and she said, "Well, Bill, I'm already engaged to another man. I am sorry, I can't." But she told Louise, her sister in the sorority, and so I ended up marrying Louise.

SS: It's funny how things work out, huh? Were you in a fraternity?

WF: No.

SS: Okay. You don't seem like a frat guy, Bill. Now, what thought or term, or what thought or image did the term "forestry" illicit when you first heard it, 00:28:00and how did that dynamic evolve as you came to understand the forestry paradigms and ideals that you were taught, like as an undergraduate and a graduate? Then, how did you look at forestry as not only as your own career evolved, but society evolved?

WF: It's you feel that you have some personal responsibility, I think. And as a result of that personal responsibility, you have a requirement to be consistent to see that other people understand it better than they have in the past. And so, I didn't stop people on the street and say, "Hey, have you heard about it?"

SS: The new thing in forestry?

WF: Yeah, but I did have a few friends who didn't, who were relatively ignorant, so I could work on them.

SS: Okay. Now, how would you characterize your environmental ethic at the early 00:29:00stage in your career as a graduate student, but once you became a professor, how would you view how you looked at the natural world, and the human/nature relationship, and how did that evolve for you?

WF: Well, you learned enough about the requirements of the forest in order to have a forest that's, well, producing what you'd like; production, productivity, protection of the soil, whatever. And so, you feel that responsibility to try to make those things understood, and technology, by people and the general society.

SS: Now, when you came out here, it was shortly after World War II, in Idaho, 00:30:00and then in the 1950's, in Oregon. How would you describe forestry on the public lands especially, but private lands as well, as practiced? I mean, it was often called the "Age of the Clear-Cut," industrial forestry was rising up, but how did you see that through your young eyes? And how did that impact how you taught and did research?

WF: Well, I always have pointed that out when we were out in the field. It's far more effective if you're looking at something, and can introduce that in the discussion. And what relevance does it have to something we've been talking about, say, in class, pretty recently. So, that's to me, the thing I found useful, to get the people interested in something that has a lot of impact.

SS: Now, focused on teaching, not in general theoretically, but also your own 00:31:00experience and career, what was your understanding about the role of the professor, instructor, mentor, when entering the academy, and how did that change over the course of your career?

WF: It didn't change very much, I would say. At an early stage, I was just getting acquainted with the forest here, and it was important to do that because I'm trying to be relevant to the things that they have to deal with. And so, it became fun to start pointing out things that were new to the people there. And 00:32:00that was a nice thing to realize and carry out.

SS: Now, what do you remember about the student, the typical student? I don't know if you can say that, but the general demographic, attitude and culture of the students that came in, in the '50s, versus the '60s and '70s and beyond? What do you remember about what were they looking for in forestry or land management, versus what came later as culture and society changed very much?

WF: I would say that I am wondering if I can say something that's not exaggerated. It's all too easy to pick something up and say that that's one of 00:33:00the things but it may not be. In other words, don't pound your chest if you haven't got something to explain it. So, I don't know. It's a little bit harder to deal with that.

SS: My point is; do you remember that the student of the '50s, for instance, and then, the student of the '70s, as hair got longer, people were experimenting more? I mean, how did that affect, for instance, what kind of career they wanted in forestry? Do you remember their attitudes and questions changing?

WF: Yeah, some. Some of it was perhaps not as well-advised as might have been. 00:34:00But I remember relatively soon after I arrived here, I'd take students on an overnight trip. Well, in one of the towns on the range, over on the Coast, we stopped for something or another, and the kids wanted to get sandwiches and what-not. And I said, "Okay, but don't come back here late." I gave them 20 minutes or something like that, and which was plenty of time to get what they needed, but or what they wanted. And (phone ringing) the time came --

(Break in audio)

WF: The time came when I told them they should be back at the bus, and anyone that wasn't there, was going to get left there, and they could make their own way back home.

SS: They didn't worry about that, huh?

WF: No, they didn't worry about that. But they did worry about it when it turned out I wasn't just --

SS: You weren't kidding? WF: I wasn't faking, no. So, they never again did that.

SS: Oh. You left them there?

WF: I left them there. (Laughs)

SS: Where was that, do you remember?

WF: Oh, halfway over to the Coast, in some little burg.

SS: Really?

FS: Well, you guys are going great. And I need to go pick up a kid from high school.

SS: Okay, we're continuing.

WF: Once that happens to some kids, they understand that you mean it when they say, you tell them to get back there at a certain time. And it's a little rough, but I think it's probably a good lesson.

SS: Describe the OSU College of Forestry when you arrived, and how did it evolve over the more than 30 years that you were there? And describe the evolution in any way that you see fit; curriculum, faculty composition, and even facilities?

WF: Well, the attitude was pretty well-established by the dean at the time. Oh, what the heck was his name? He was an old-time logger in some respects.

SS: Well, I've got, a history timeline of the OSU College of Forestry, but you you know what, it might be in the car. Let me put this on hold.

(Break in audio)

SS: We're back on.

WF: Yeah, McCulloch [Walter F.] was a pretty-tough, but fair-minded guy, at 00:37:00least that's my assessment of him. And it was good for the students to have some of that type of leadership in their experience. Somebody who was really, he was well-educated and well-spoken, but he could really let blast if he felt like it or if he thought it needed it. But Stoltenberg [Carl], later, was a very different person.

SS: How so?

WF: He was more research-oriented on those things. McCulloch wasn't opposed to it, but that wasn't his point, his strong point.

SS: But isn't that true about most universities in this country, the U.S., which over time became more research-oriented as the economy in the post-World War II 00:38:00era became stronger and more stable, providing the infrastructure for there to be teaching schools versus Research I universities. Even OSU was more of a teaching school at one time, and it became more of a research school, especially the last three, four decades. Correct?

WF: Right.

SS: Wouldn't you say so?

WF: Well, yeah.

SS: Yeah. Now, you were known more for your excellence in teaching, but you did research also. Looking at your work as a researcher, describe how your career in research evolved and how did your research experiences reflect back on your teaching?

WF: Well, to go to the last point, if you're going to do some things in research, you'd better be up-to-date. Otherwise, you're an old-fogey. And I did 00:39:00a pretty good job of staying up-to-date. I subscribed to a couple journals and what not. I enjoyed it, because to me, anything that reveals more about the world we're living in the better, the more you know about them. And that's the point of research.

SS: In other words, you can become educated through books in your education as you develop, and then even as you're in your career, but the context of "out there" found not just in books, enriches what you teach?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Is that what you're saying?

WF: Yeah.

SS: And cite some specific examples for you, personally, of things that you 00:40:00learned, or research that you did, or experiences you had, that impacted you to where you wanted to take it into the classroom and you said, "Wait a minute, I want to think differently about that subject or that approach, or I want to emphasize that more in my teaching of this class or that?"

WF: Well, fortunately, I was well-suited for doing that because I was interested in the science of botany and the various aspects of botany, and other physical objects as well. And so, in spreading that knowledge then to young people, who may have heard about it but probably hadn't, it got them in a mood of, well, 00:41:00there are a whole lot of things about the world I may not know about, and I'd like to know more about them, especially those that have some impact on me. And so, it's an essential part of teaching, I think, to make the students aware of new knowledge. It's important. And I did as much of that as I could.

SS: What were your main core classes that you taught? I mean, you probably taught quite a few subjects, but you probably had five or six central subjects that were your "babies"?

WF: Yeah.

SS: And what were those?

WF: The ones that had to do with botany and chemistry. And I always introduced them, even though the course title might not have brought different thoughts to 00:42:00their mind at first, they'd find out that the things I taught, chemistry and physics and things of that sort, that I could bring in and make known to them, they'd realize that the more they'd expand their knowledge, the more they can produce in what they're trying to do.

SS: And did you have a favorite class or classes?

WF: Yeah.

SS: That were like your ones you just loved to teach, whether undergraduate or graduate?

WF: Yeah, well, tree physiology was probably the one. I don't remember how many students I had in the course, but it was very relevant. The growth and the survival under extreme weather conditions, and so forth, they're all related to 00:43:00physiology of the plant, or something similar to that.

SS: And it would seem to me like that would be a really interesting subject based on your East Coast-West Coast comparative context, where you had Appalachia deciduous forests, and here, coniferous forests, where you saw two dramatically different, still temperate zone, forest ecosystems, but you would learn the physiology but also the morphology of the forest. Correct?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Which is part of physiology. WF: Yeah. Incidentally, University of Michigan, which is where I took my undergraduate work, had a summer camp up in Upper Michigan.

SS: Up above Mackinac?

WF: Yeah. And it was an eye-opener because most of the forest, I would say, 00:44:00probably 75 percent of it is conifer trees, one kind or another. Perhaps not as many as were there once had because that's the first thing they cut down. But it was exactly it.

SS: Did you learn or see the results of, because you're not that far removed from the days of the late 19th century when they would do railroad logging in the upper northern U.S.? Well, they called it the Northwest back then, but Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and they'd build the railroads into there, cut everything down, and leave.

WF: Yeah.

SS: I bet you the forests that you saw, many of them in Michigan, were the second and third growth, the remnants of what grew after that era. Would that be 00:45:00correct, or was there still some of what we'd call old-growth stuff up there?

WF: There was a little bit of old growth.

SS: Okay.

WF: Yeah, it was mostly stuff that was probably 50 years old.

SS: But I mean, there was no original forest left up there?

WF: You could usually find a little patch here and there, but that's about all.

SS: Right. That would be up north like up by Lake Superior then, probably?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Okay, and tell me about this camp a little bit more?

WF: Summer camp was an attempt to get practical things into the curriculum because you had to mark trees for cutting, and then have that criticized by the professor or his assistant. And various things like that had already been done and the question was to analyze now that it's been done, what are the things to 00:46:00get the best growth in that forest. And it was, you know, a challenge to imagine what's going to happen in the future, then projecting, as a result of projecting something. SS: What were the facilities like at the College of Forestry in Oregon State in general when you arrived? I believe Peavy Hall was being built or was just built when you arrived. Correct?

WF: Yeah.

SS: What were their lab facilities, and in general, what did they have compared to now when they've got this massive complex?

WF: Gee, I have never really thought about that enough to make a good comparison.

SS: Oh, that's okay. But I just thought it might be a valid question.

WF: Oh, sure.

SS: We can come back to it if you remember something else later on. What is your view on the relationship between the professor and his students, the ideal pedagogical relationship? How do you view that dynamic?

WF: I should always be available to answer questions. And to get the students in a discussion of, here is the answer that's usually given, but can you think of something better, for example, would be a good example of getting them to think about the things that are out there.

SS: Now, you grew up in the era when most professors just lectured. Something tells me that you modified that or that you mixed lecture with other interactive 00:48:00classroom or field exercises. Is that correct?

WF: Yeah. I particularly tried to do that on field exercises. I don't know if they still have much time spent on it, but I would take for the silviculture course, or silviculture and ecology, a trip, two per term; one to the coast, one to the east side of the mountains [Cascades]. And we had fun, you know. If there was a good brewery around, we might stop and have a nip or two.

SS: Even with your students. Huh?

WF: Uh-huh.

SS: As long as they were over 21?

WF: Yeah.

SS: I won't tell, you're retired, Bill. (Laughs)

WF: But it was more a journey to learn things than anything else.

SS: Do you remember some of the memorable field trips that you took around Oregon or wherever?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Other than the one where you left the students there to teach them a lesson.

WF: The word for that got around. It persisted.

SS: Don't mess with Ferrell. (Laughter) Be on time.

WF: Yeah. But I didn't go into a beer joint with the guys. But I didn't say anything to them about going into it, but I told them not to get drunk. They pretty well followed that.

SS: Well, you never want to get too out of control in front of the guy that's writing your grades. (Laughs) But any specific field trips or places that you went?

WF: One, since people lived pretty-well off the vegetation around here, I had one trip that was over to the Coast, the coastal forest, and the other one was over on the other side of the mountains, on the east side. In both cases, they were good and we had fun. And it was as much as that as anything, I thought it was a good chance to get acquainted with each other and warmed up.

SS: Now, did you ever take your students up to the Andrews?

WF: In later years, I did, when the results of the experiments started to become evident.

SS: After it was just a regular experimental forest and it started to become a 00:51:00true ecological research site? Is that when? [1970s and afterwards.]

WF: Yeah.

SS: Okay. Now, you are held in high regard by your former students. What are some of your best memories of interactions, especially with what you might call, your "shining star" students. And of course, I'm thinking about Jerry Franklin, but other people, who you want to mention about some of the people that really emerged from your tutelage, and in general, from the OSU College of Forestry who went on to do great things? And obviously, it is an inspiration to any teacher, like a parent that has a child that goes out and conquers the world. I mean, you're proud? Tell me about that.

WF: Well, I learn about some cases. It's not easy to find out what the person did if you don't have somebody to provide you with some information. And not all 00:52:00the information is available. But often, if they feel that they're doing well, they'll come back to see me and tell me about how happy they are, what they're doing and so on. And so, a lot of it is just that way. It's hard to put a finger on any others.

SS: So, tell me about some of your student that really went on and did things? I mentioned Jerry's name. You want to talk about Jerry?

WF: Yeah, Jerry's --

SS: He's talking about Jerry Franklin, by the way, for the record.

WF: Pardon?

SS: Jerry Forest Franklin. You knew that was his middle name, didn't you?

WF: No, I didn't.

SS: His middle name initial, F, is for Forest. You didn't know that?

WF: No.

SS: It is, anyway.

WF: Well, Jerry and I kept in touch as personal friends, as well as colleagues. 00:53:00And so, we have some of the same, I don't whether I should say, "weaknesses," well, things that we're interested in. We're both interested in miniature railroads.

SS: Oh, really?

WF: Yeah, toy railroads, you know.

SS: HO scale, the little kind?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Oh, okay.

WF: He and I don't know whether you've met. Oh, what, the heck? I'm embarrassed, one of my students, who's got a Ph.D. and has a toy railroad. SS: Oh, really?

WF: Yeah.

SS: I had one when I was small, too. I never became an enthusiast, but I see the attraction.

WF: Yeah, well, he is. He was on the faculty, too.

SS: Here?

WF: At Oregon State, yeah.

SS: Not Mark Harmon?

WF: No, no.

SS: I know you know him, that's why I brought up the name. But tell me more about Jerry and you watching his career unfold, from, obviously, a successful Forest Service scientist who got his doctorate during that whole career. Then he went on to really-high profile research and academics, but also politics, because of his role in New Forestry, for instance, and old growth.

WF: Yeah. You know, whatever he chose to do, I would encourage him because he had the ability to carry it out, whatever it was. Whether it was going to work or not is another thing, but you can't find out unless you try it. At least 00:55:00there are some things you can obviously write-off, but others, you don't know until it's been tried.

SS: What do you think about his cone studies? [Cone crop/seed monitoring.]

WF: Cone studies?

SS: Where he studies cones, and he does cone [and seeds] counts. And he still has sites all over the Northwest. Did you know that?

WF: I guess I've heard about it, but I never thought about it more.

SS: Yeah, he has an engine that never stops. That's my impression of him just from reading his research record, which I'm doing a lot of work with now.

WF: Yeah, he's always finding something to do.

SS: And the other thing you both have in common now is you're both senior citizens. (Laughter) I had to throw that in for a joke on the record. Sorry. WF: Oh, sure.

SS: Now, how have your views about the ethical responsibilities of the scientist 00:56:00or professor changed since you came into a professional career? And even today, reflecting twenty years or so after you retired, how do you view the ethical responsibilities of the scientist, the researcher, and the instructor, in terms of teaching people how to take care of the planet?

WF: And the citizen, you know, besides the things that you mentioned. I think, that I don't know that one is more important than others, but they all need to be accommodated, I guess you'd say, in some way, in your work.

SS: Now we're going to go to the Andrews. When did you first hear about the H.J. 00:57:00Andrews Experimental Forest, and at that time, what did you know about experimental forests and long-term research?

WF: Well, I knew a reasonable amount about long-term research. And just an obvious need, among other things. Some of it more critical than others, but it's just part of curiosity, I think, is always a practicality. So, there's a funny incident that happened after I was no longer with the university, but it came 00:58:00up. It was with a woman, a graduate student, who was a rather odd person. She came to me because there wasn't anybody else at the moment, I guess, that had time for her. But she had some research that she wanted to elaborate on and get her degree, a Ph.D. She had a master's degree. I don't know whether it was in forestry or not. But at any rate, she was an odd person. I felt sorry for her because she obviously was bright, and she had accomplished some things that were 00:59:00a little hard to believe. For example, she ran for mayor of the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SS: What was her political persuasion?

WF: She was liberal. I think she was a Democrat. But of all things, she had gotten, what I can I call it? Support.

SS: Fellowship or grant?

WF: No. Political support.

SS: Oh, okay.

WF: In the newspaper.

SS: Oh, an endorsement?

WF: Yeah, from one of the Milwaukee papers. And it wasn't a pokey, little one, either, it was a major paper. SS: Well, the Milwaukee Sentinel Post, I think, is 01:00:00the major paper there, I think. There might have been two back in the day.

WF: So, I sort of took her under my wing because nobody else had, and I was popular.

SS: Do you remember her name?

WF: Pardon?

SS: What was her name?

WF: Oh, God. You know, I'd have to look it up.

SS: That's okay, but anyway, the story?

WF: She took me out to show me what she'd done. And it was all reasonable, measuring successful regenerations in areas that had been opened up, and to different degrees and so on, which is one thing. And there were other things, which I don't recall, specifically. But they weren't innovations of any particular kind, but they were means of getting at something that she was interested in. And usually, it was something to do with regeneration of the forest.

SS: It was graduate level work though, right?

WF: Yeah. And so, she did quite well on writing her thesis. She came rushing to me one day; it was on a weekend. She was hoping to finish-up the work on that weekend. It was sprung on me, you know, I didn't know she was in that much of a hurry. But Janie, my wife and I, were going out that particular night. It was on a weekend, a Saturday. And I said, "Well, I'll look at it this weekend, but I can't guarantee that I can get it back to you on Monday." Well, she took this as a rebuff. I should have said, "Gee, whiz!" you know, she expected a very enthusiastic reception. And I should have sensed that, but didn't. It came about 01:02:00then, that she just all but left, and nobody knows where the hell she is yet. That was three or four years ago.

SS: Just gone, huh?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Wow. Nobody ever tried to figure that one out?

WF: Yeah, at least I'm pretty sure no one ever heard of her again.

SS: Wow. There's mysteries in every part of the world, huh? Just like the Malaysian jet airliner that's out in the Indian Ocean somewhere. Huh?

WF: Yeah, I guess they still haven't found it, have they?

SS: Now, you stated that you knew about long-term research before the Andrews. Were there some places back east that you recall, earlier examples of experimental forests, research natural areas, or even a private forest, that maybe was used for such a reason that were examples of the bigger versions of 01:03:00these that you would see out west?

WF: Yeah. Sure, Duke had various forests like that they had set aside to observe over a period of time.

SS: How far is Durham from the actual Appalachian foothills?

WF: Probably 50 miles, something like that.

SS: The mountains are pretty-big in North Carolina when you get to the Appalachians, aren't they?

WF: Oh, yeah.

SS: And it's the biggest part of the Appalachians, I believe, which is there in North Carolina. Mount Mitchell, I think, is the highest point in the whole Appalachian chain.

WF: Incidentally, just as an aside, when I was a graduate student, I decided to take a geology course. And it was a fairly general geology course on vegetation 01:04:00and decay and so forth. And so, I was in it with graduate students from several fields. And I kept some track of the people during the course. There was only about 10 people. And --

SS: Who's that?

WF: My son, Stephen.

SS: That's who I thought it looked like.

Stephen WF: Would you mind some company?

WF: Hi.

(Break in audio)

SS: We're back on. Bill's son, Steve, just joined us. And so, he will be sitting in while Bill continues to go on. So, he was telling us about a story as him as a graduate student taking a geology class at Duke. Go on, Bill.

WF: Yeah. We had a trip into the Smokies [Great Smokies of North Carolina/Tennessee], and back again, of course. And one of those guys was a graduate student in the geology department. Of course, that was a geology 01:05:00course, and perhaps I was the only non-geologist, I don't know. But anyhow, he was a nice guy, and he and I got into several conversations on this trip. Well, time went by. We graduated. I don't know, it must have been 25 years later, I get a letter from this guy. Well, he had gone to Southern California on the faculty and had worked his way up, and he was president of the University of Southern California.

SS: Really? Of USC?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Wow, that's quite a rise.

WF: Yeah. I could see him doing that because he was a pretty-smooth operator. And he could probably talk his way into things that others couldn't. And that's 01:06:00a good --

SS: Ability.

WF: Ability, yeah, to have. I knew you could provide me with the word.

SS: The ability to grease the administrative skids to the top. Okay. Now, let's go back to the Andrews. We just started to, we talked mostly about his early career and his transition, and about his education and his teaching at Oregon State. But now, we're talking more about the Andrews, and some of these other issues [providing context to Steve]. Now, what was your first impressions of the region around the Andrews, the McKenzie River Valley, and the watershed above the Blue River Reservoir, which is the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest?

WF: I was always impressed with the Andrews. But in the early days, I didn't see 01:07:00anything of earth-shaking quality coming out of the research that was going on there. It was pretty old-fashioned silviculture, period. At least, that was my impression.

SS: Yeah, in the early years, they were mostly concerned with how watersheds would react to clear-cutting, strip-cutting, you know, soil compaction issues, erosion issues, and regeneration. But in the "old-school" kind of sense. Is that what you're talking about mostly? WF: Yeah.

SS: And so, I'm talking about the area, too, not just the science. What do you 01:08:00remember about that forest, that area, that watershed, the Lookout Creek watershed, which is about 16,000 hectares. It's that kind of a little triangle. What do you remember about the place?

WF: It was a place that I always looked forward to going to, because there were larger groups of trees with different sorts of silvicultural work on them and so on. So, it allowed you to make comparisons even though they might not have done that on purpose.

SS: Now, you got here at OSU in the '50s; 1956, right?

WF: Uh-huh.

SS: '56 or '57? When was the first time you went up to the Andrews, do you remember what year, more or less, it might have been?

WF: Gosh, it probably would have been within three or four years of arriving here.

SS: Now, Jerry Franklin was already a young Forest Service scientist working up there, I think, starting in '57. Did you meet him then before he was even a student of yours?

WF: Well, I knew him, of course, he was my student.

SS: Okay.

WF: As a matter-of-fact, I helped him under several conditions. The Forest Service was not too happy with getting Jerry at first. He was a guy that did things without perhaps checking with the old geezers, to see that he was doing something correctly as they looked at it. So, I had him as a student, and of course, I did everything I could to support him. Things came up and people were 01:10:00castigating him for doing this or doing that, or something else, because he was different. And I kept sort of nudging him, telling him that it's a good kind of difference. He's a good person to put in your staff.

SS: I was told that even today when he goes out into the forest, he gets up the morning and he yodels or sings to the trees.

WF: He does what?

SS: He sings to the trees. WF: Oh. (Laughs)

SS: No, he's just so in love with that, that thing that he does, that he embraces the whole thing in a very unique way. Now, what project or projects that you worked on with Jerry or anybody else in later years up at the Andrews Forest, what are some of the things that you remember doing there?

WF: Not much. I may have given some people advice, given them advice, if they asked for it, but I didn't ever really have a big commitment to something there.

SS: But you did do projects or worked with people up there. Correct?

WF: Occasionally.

SS: Yeah, do you remember what those were?

WF: No, I don't. It was more just in passing. Somebody would ask, "What do you think about this?"

SS: Now, what do you remember about the evolution of that place in terms of its infrastructure? Because when it first started, there was a road, and that was it. There were trailers down at Blue River, and now it's got a big campus and 01:12:00it's a first-class research facility. How would you describe the evolution of that place?

WF: I think that they did what was needed. It was very much justified putting in the effort and money into it that they did. So, there's a lot that came out of it, I think, that some of it is new, and some of it is simply fortifications of something that was done otherwise.

SS: What do you believe, and this is not just at the Andrews, but any similar long-term based research site where you have a longitudinal study of a place and its ecosystems and its species and reference stands and streams. What is the role in science, in your opinion, for that kind of place? What does it do? When 01:13:00you have stability and a known entity that you can study over this enormous amount of time, what is the importance of that?

WF: It's very important really because most research is set up to do a few things with variations in the environment. But you can't really replicate or copy the things that go on in the natural forest. So, it's important to do these things with the natural forest and the complications that go with it.

SS: Now, when you first started your teaching career, we talked briefly about the lecture mode was how a lot of teachers would teach. That has changed over time, more or less, depending on professors and schools and cultures. The other 01:14:00thing, a parallel, was in forestry or even over at Oregon State, and the Forest Service, the Forest Sciences Lab, in how some people thought you could do everything in the laboratory at one time. And of course, taking a point on what you just said, the ecosystem science people would say, "Well, the laboratory work is important, but if you don't go out here, it doesn't mean nearly as much."

WF: Right.

SS: It's a chemical reaction independent of the ecosystem and the biosphere. Would you characterize it that way?

WF: Yeah, that's a fair way to put it. It's complicated in actuality, it's bound to be. So, you can't take one simple property of something and assume that it's 01:15:00going to tell you a whole lot about the system. The system's got a lot of things going on. And it's not easy to set up an experiment, or if you do, maybe you won't believe the experiment, or somebody else may not believe it.

SS: Now, you know Mark Harmon. Correct?

WF: Yeah.

SS: How did you meet Mark, what were some of the interactions you had, was he also one of your students, by the way?

WF: No.

SS: No.

WF: I don't know who was his major prof. But he and I were on good terms, good friends.

SS: Now, his project, the log decomposition project, is the epitome of the long-term ecological research project, with a 200-year horizon.

WF: Oh. (Laughing)

SS: If you didn't know that, Steve. But you know that now. And so, what do you think about that kind of study that will out-live Mark and his children and grandchildren, and who knows what will be of Oregon State and Corvallis and everything by then. What do you think of when somebody has a project, they look out at that long of a horizon, that it's going to go on long past their career?

WF: It takes a lot of guts by the researcher. But Mark's, he's a good, solid guy. I think what he's doing is well-needed.

SS: And his work in carbon cycles, which is related to that, it's also very important.

WF: Yeah.

(Break in audio)

Steve Ferrell: You did one [study] about how much carbon is actually in old 01:17:00growth, versus new growth. I mean, you were part of it. There were two, three other guys with you that you wrote that paper on. Do you remember who that was, when you did that study with?

WF: I think it was Mark. But I'm not sure.

SS: Yeah, chime in, Steve. That was Steve Ferrell, by the way, so we took a break for a minute.

SF: Yeah, I can't remember who the other person was, but I'm pretty sure it was Mark Harmon. I don't remember who the other person was.

SS: Oh, that's his main thing, the study of the carbon cycle, but obviously, the decomp thing is the specific thing he's really known for, his legacy, but he's done other things too, in science. That's what he's known for.

SF: Again, it was his research that Reagan did the whole old growth is bad for the environment, or something like that.

SS: Reagan actually said, "Once you've seen one tree, you've seen 'em all."

SF: Well, he said that also. But there was actually a research paper where they 01:18:00were talking about old-growth timber and saying that you're actually better off with new growth. But that ignores some of the realities, because if you get new trees, then they're sucking in more timber, I mean, not timber, more carbon, out of the air.

SS: Right, correct.

SF: And so, the old growth is actually bad because it's not taking so much carbon out of the air, ignoring the fact that there's all that carbon that's in that old growth. That if you cut it down, then it starts going back up into the atmosphere.

SS: Right.

SF: So, but anyway. Sorry.

SS: Number one, when did you first hear the term old growth?

WF: Oh, I guess when I first came here [to Oregon]. I don't believe I was, we were using that [term] when I was in northern Michigan, for example.

SS: Well, it's been used for 50-60 years, maybe longer, but it did not have the cultural or scientific connotation that it had later.

WF: Yeah.

SS: It's been used, but it didn't mean the same thing that we know of it today. But when you first heard it, it was purely a descriptive thing, correct, or it didn't have a political overtone to it. Right?

WF: No.

SS: What do you remember about Jerry, his science in old growth, and describing why it was important, part of what he eventually developed into the New Forestry? Also, how do you see old growth and its legitimate role?

WF: Well, I think, you know, it's if nothing else, it's a part of our past that 01:20:00we long to see. So, people talking about old growth, what the hell is it, you know? There ought to be some remnants of that left, if nothing else for, I think, biological reasons. And social reasons, I guess, too.

SS: So, were you ever more of a utilitarian forester who became something else, or do you think that you were more, shall we say, ecologically minded, from the start?

WF: Yeah, I was.

SS: Would you say that's true?

WF: Yeah.

SS: So, when you came out here. I mentioned this early on before you got here, Steve, about when you came out here, industrial forestry in the Northwest was 01:21:00really going after World War II. Were you [Bill] ever bothered by the harsh utilitarianism that often justified blading it all down, and then maybe regenerating it, or not, but did that bother you, just that kind of cold kind of mathematical look at nature?

WF: Yeah. I was sympathetic with the view that that was, repetition of clear-cut and walk away, well, take something with you, but -

SS: But did that bother you when you heard people talking that way, and even a lot of the people I think in the [OSU] college of forestry, it was a very "get out the cut," utilitarian type of forestry being taught.

WF: Yeah.

SS: When you first got there, correct?

WF: Right.

SS: And were you a voice in the wilderness, or did you kind of play the game and then, eventually, as you became a more senior faculty, start saying something what more akin to what we called ecosystem management, or did you start saying your piece right away?

WF: I was very receptive of the idea that we needed to take a biological look at what the hell we're doing. It wasn't really very smart to go around cutting everything down, and not worrying about what was going to happen later.

SF: When you first came to Oregon State, mainly what you were teaching were things like marking trees that need to be cut down, and figuring out how much wood there was per acre that could be cut down. That sort of thing, right? I've heard you tell me that that's what you were doing when you first came to Oregon 01:23:00State, right?

WF: So, yeah.

SF: Yeah. So, you started doing other stuff, was that because that's what you wanted to do, or did someone at Oregon State say it would be more interesting to start looking at the ecology rather than just how many boards we can cut out of an acre?

WF: No, it wasn't any pressure at all. It was just me looking at it.

SF: You just decided that's what you wanted to do?

WF: Yeah. What should be done.

SS: And do you think that you were progressive much more than most faculty when you first got there, and as time went by, more like-minded people came into the OSU faculty, reflecting the broader culture change?

WF: Yeah. The older they are, obviously, the more ancient they are in their beliefs. And maybe there's an exception here or there, but that's the common 01:24:00thing. And I didn't bother arguing with people about anything. I just went my own way.

SS: But weren't there some pretty vibrant debates within the college of forestry about the direction of what we're teaching? In other words, you have a college where a lot of Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific and other money [from "industry"] is pouring in there, and then, of course, as culture changes in the '60s and '70s, you also have this kind of what we call the post-modern revolution toward progressive ecological thinking at the same time, along side the "old guard" and the old donations? Didn't that create a tension that, I guess you'd say, the culture wars of the post-'60s era, were played out in the college of forestry. Correct?

WF: I never really heard any arguments, violent arguments about it. Some of the 01:25:00people here, old-timers, were pretty ancient in their beliefs.

SS: How would you describe those beliefs and how they taught their classes?

WF: The central thing usually with them, was that economics is the primary thing you should consider. And that depends on economics and how much, is there net after you've gotten all the things done. They weren't so considerate about the people that made the investment, but very concerned about the people doing the cutting. And that's pretty short-sighted.

SS: But you would even argue, I would assume, that even from an economic perspective, that it's short-sighted. Because long-term sustainability is not 01:26:00just economic, I mean, it is also ecological.

WF: Yeah.

SS: So, yeah, I understand. And I'm getting into my views, and I should get away from that. So, how do you believe we can improve education in relation to natural resource stewardship?

WF: By being sure that their prior education deals with fundamental biology and the things that go with it.

SS: And how many years has it been since you've been retired, Bill?

SF: Let's see, you retired in, well, it depends upon what you mean by retired.

SS: Well, you kept teaching still after you weren't full-time faculty. Correct?

WF: Uh-huh. SS: That's what most people do.

SF: He stopped being a full-time professor at Oregon State in '81, '82, I think? But then, you kept teaching, at Northern Arizona, among other places, and he did teach classes.

SS: You taught down in Flagstaff?

WF: Uh-huh.

SS: You moved to Flagstaff?

WF: I forget how I got there, but I took a sabbatical leave.

SS: Probably by car. (Laughs) Sorry, that was a joke, sorry, guys. Okay, now, how did you get to NAU? I went there once, I was there.

WF: Yeah.

SF: There was a professor, who went on sabbatical, and you took his place. That was the first time you went down there. And then they just decided you were such 01:28:00a wonderful guy, and you kept going.

WF: (Laughs) Yeah, right. Let's see, you went to school as a freshman, to college as a freshman, while we were there.

SF: I was at University of Oregon as a freshman. And you were still a professor at Oregon State at that time. That was '78-'79. And then when I went to New Mexico, it was when you went to Northern Arizona, and that would have been '81-82, somewhere around there.

SS: How interesting, because NAU is well-known for its forestry school. And I also lived in Flagstaff twice. And so, how would you compare that experience? Obviously, you weren't central faculty with a long history, but you went to a 01:29:00very different ecosystem, and I'm sure a different ecosystem than for most faculty, if you want to use that analogy. How different was NAU from what you remember?

WF: It wasn't all that different, I wouldn't say. I had arguments with them at times. Wally, oh, I can't recall his last name, a professor there. He and I were friends at first, and then we started to have battles about what was the proper way to do something or the other.

SF: You mean, talking about ecology and forestry sort of stuff, or who should get Room 206 at noon?

WF: No, it was the first.

SF: He wasn't a believer in the ecology sort of stuff?

WF: Well, yes, he was. They had different problems, of course. It's a fire environment down there. And when one gets going, it was hard to stop.

SS: What do you remember about the ecosystem and the forests of the high Southwest compared to here? I mean, Flagstaff is a kind of a high point in Arizona. Well, it is the high point because of the nearby San Francisco Peaks. And you're on the edge of the largest ponderosa pine forest in the world. Do you remember that?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Do you remember doing any projects out there?

WF: No, never. I was planning to get something going and that never quite came 01:31:00off. I was concerned about the loss of nutrients in the fires, usually followed by a heavy rainstorm, and that washes out a lot of the nutrients.

SS: Well, the climactic fire regime in the Southwest is completely different than here where you have a late summer/fall fire season, where there, the bad fire season is late spring when it's hot, but before the monsoons, which is what you're talking about. So, you get these huge conflagrations, especially in the high areas, or the high chaparral, and even the ponderosa pines. And then shortly after is the monsoon season, which would be what you're talking about concerned with the nutrients. Correct?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Do you want a drink of water or something? This is stealing some words from 01:32:00another interview of yours. You say that you want to introduce rationality and good ideas, and for forestry and natural resource management, to not be just focused on custom and practice. I mean, you said that, so do you want to tell me what you meant by that?

WF: Yeah, you want to repeat the last part of it there again?

SS: That you wanted to introduce rationality and good ideas into forestry and natural resource management, so people wouldn't be focused just on custom, tradition and practice.

WF: That is true, in some places more than others. For example, in the Northwest, they've been doing the same thing in the same way since year one, it 01:33:00seemed to me. It's changed now some, but the old logger approach to things is still problem in a lot of the Northwest. They're good at knocking trees down and hauling them off, but they're not particularly good at seeing what the implications are in some places where that's a bad move.

SS: Where do you think clear-cutting is appropriate, and where do you think it's not appropriate?

WF: Well, it's the more moisture that you have, why the more you can get away 01:34:00with clear-cutting. But the drier it gets, of course, then, the other direction is bad news if you use clear-cutting. It dries out the surface and increases the threat of fire, which could wipe you out. And there's no reason why they should do it that way, except it's probably the cheapest thing to do, but not when you factor in the loss of seedlings that you're going to have and the things that you have to do to compensate.

SS: So, what kind of selective cutting do you find appropriate? A few different models, for instance?

WF: For areas where you're growing pure stands or essentially pure stands, it's 01:35:00not the thing to do at all, I don't think. If you have a mixed stand, well, that's something else.

SS: What happens when an area becomes too mono-cultural? In other words, tree farms, so to speak.

WF: Any kind of a disease that they get or insect infestation, can go through it like wildfire, potentially. So, you're always taking a heavy risk when you do that.

SS: Now, I believe at your first professional job at University of Idaho, you did some research on the western white pine. Do you want to tell me about, there were two diseases in particular, that you studied? And maybe what were some of 01:36:00the other things that you see affecting the forests here since you got to Oregon?

WF: Yeah. The thing in Idaho with those forests, there's a problem that the thing they'd sprayed and had done various things to, but because the fungus thrives under that condition. But the question is: Is the cost of the spraying of an insecticide or a fungicide worth it or not? And it depends, I think, on the terms of the quality of the site. If it's a very high-quality site, a 01:37:00forester would say, Site Class 1, that might sway the thing toward spraying the area and doing other things.

SS: Now, since you came into your professional life, we've come from the pre-Silent Spring era, Rachel Carson's famous book, to everything that came afterwards. And that applies for all the herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, etc. that we used to indiscriminately put on the land. How do you remember the mindset and what people were doing in those early days, and then, how that changed? Obviously, we're 50 years after that, but the big change started to happen in the '60s and '70s. What do you remember about that?

WF: I think people became aware of the possibility that the spraying that they were doing is a worse outcome than anything else they could do. They're killing 01:38:00things that they shouldn't kill. Because you can't control if they spray that much. Pretty toxic stuff.

SS: Remember when they discovered about DDT?

WF: Uh-huh.

SS: Remember how that used to be poured on everything, and then all of a sudden, they discovered how it accumulated in the food chain, all the way up to whatever the high trophic levels, I think it was falcons and eagles and stuff like that, and bats, especially, was one of them.

SF: One of your co-professors used to drink the stuff.

WF: How's that?

SF: One of your co-professors used to drink the stuff!

WF: Which stuff?

SF: The DDT. Do you remember that, Mike? Mike Newton?

SS: Is he the professor that used to spray that stuff on his body and brag about it?

SF: He drank it. At a news conference. Do you remember that?

SS: Is he still alive?

SF: Oh, yeah, oh, yeah.

SS: Does he glow in the dark? (Laughs) I'm sorry.

SF: You don't remember that story?

WF: No.

SF: Yeah, he had a news conference. It was in the newspaper.

WF: I thought he drank some herbicides.

SF: Well, I have to admit, I can't remember which one it was he drank. But you do remember him drinking the stuff. Right?

WF: Yeah.

SF: And thinking maybe possibly that's one thing for him to do, but he is having children. Maybe not such a great idea for his children?

(Break in audio)

SS: We're back on now, and Steve is going to ask a question of his father.

SF: Do you know how the Andrews Forest got selected as this is the place to create, and what was of interest there such that they did that? Was it just the 01:40:00opportunity, they just had the availability of the land, or -?

WF: I think they had enough variety in it. And they felt that, well, the variety would be the thing, as much of the range as they could get in a small area.

SF: For being able to study it scientifically, they wanted a variety of ecologies?

WF: Yeah.

SF: And forest types, also?

WF: Yeah, probably. That isn't the real thing, the points of interest are usually not some broad subject, but rather the detail part of the thing. And we need variety to do that.

SF: And do you know who were the ones who set that up, that they would get the Andrews Forest, and that would be what it would be used for?

WF: I don't know. I remember reading something about it, but I'm not sure where I read it. The fellow that knew most about that forest, unfortunately, died. Oh, hell, what's his name, was his name? A very nice guy. Retired from the Forest Service and from research.

SS: Jack Rothacher?

WF: No.

SS: Ted Dyrness?

WF: No.

SS: Dick Fredriksen?

WF: Huh-uh.

SS: Jim Sedell?

WF: Huh-uh.

SS: I'm running out of names.

WF: Oh, gosh.

SS: Those are people that have passed, I believe, that's why I was coming up with the list. I'm not sure, but.

WF: They had a house right beside the cemetery up on --

SF: Up on Country Club Hill?

WF: Where we lived.

SF: Oh, right by the entrance to the cemetery? I can't think of their names, either, sorry.

WF: He was a very nice guy. He ended up drowning in the ocean. They'd go on a trip to the South Pacific with some friends. [Roy Silen - see below]

SF: Oh, what was his name? I can't remember.

SS: But, was he an Andrews' scientist or a Forest Service guy?

WF: Yeah, it was Ted Dyrness.

SS: Oh, well, Dyrness was, lived till fairly recently. Rothacher passed many years ago. Roy Silen was the first scientist. Is that the guy?

WF: That's the guy.

SS: Okay. Roy Silen was the first scientist/manager that worked, really was at the Andrews. And then he got married to some woman here in Corvallis. And he came back and didn't want to be in the field anymore, so he had like the first few years of the forest as Blue River Experimental Forest, and then, after 1951, became the H.J. Andrews in honor of the passing of Andrews in a car crash. And Silen, but he was only here, there till '54 or '55, I think. Was that the guy you're thinking about?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Yeah, it looks like Silen, S-I-L-E-N, but it's Silen, as he pronounced it.

WF: I think you went to school with his daughter.

SF: No, that was Kathy. Yeah, I remember.

WF: Okay. Roy had successive bad luck. His wife was killed in a car crash where 01:44:00she was the driver. She was apparently yacking to people in the back seat, went right through the stop sign, and bam! And later, Roy was swimming in the Pacific with some friends in the South Pacific. They flew over and spent some time on this island. And he went off to swim, and all at once he disappeared.

SS: Wow. Did they ever find him?

WF: Oh, yeah.

SS: But to say, this is kind of a dark moment in the interview here, but he was up at the Andrews in 1996 doing a group interview as part of the original set of 01:45:00interviews which we are now following up on 18 years later. He found out via radio that his wife had been killed when he was up on Carpenter Mountain, or somewhere out in the Andrews. I guess it was an end-of-the-day interview that became a very tearful, emotional experience, obviously for Roy, but everybody else, who were tremendously impacted. I've talked to Fred [Swanson] about it, but it's a very sad story. But so, he actually passed away in the South Pacific? I never heard that.

WF: He was out there swimming and with, oh, I guess, a half a dozen other guys. And then suddenly they noticed he wasn't there. And he somehow went out, 01:46:00whatever happened, I'm not sure.

SS: Wow.

WF: He just drowned.

SS: How strange. Now, speaking of other old alumni from the Andrews, did you know any of those folks, like Jack Rothacher. Did you know Jack?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Do you want to tell me anything you remember about Jack?

WF: I didn't have that much contact with him. I knew him but -

SS: Yeah, he was a field guy. He lived out there in Blue River and even South Umpqua, for many, many years. He was one of the main field guys for a long time. Now, did you know Dick Fredriksen?

WF: Oh, yeah.

SS: Anything about Dick you want to relate or stories or worked with him, or what you knew about what he did?

WF: Gosh, the name is very familiar, but I don't know that much about what he was doing.

SS: Now, how about Ted Dyrness?

WF: Yeah.

SS: You must have known him pretty-well, because he and Jerry, you know, did all that work on vegetation and wrote the book, still the seminal book on Northwest 01:47:00vegetation. But what about, did you know Ted pretty-well?

WF: Tim?

SS: Ted Dyrness, did you know him pretty-well?

WF: Yeah.

SS: Want to tell me about him?

WF: Personally, he was a very friendly, outgoing guy. And he always impressed me as being knowledgeable. But I don't know specifically about things he was doing.

SS: Now, you told me early in the interview, that at first, you didn't think there was much exceptional going on at the Andrews in terms of the science, it was pretty-standard stuff. Now, what do you think are the important scientific discoveries that you know about that came out of the Andrews, especially in the LTER era, in which it's become a famous ecological research site, globally. And what do you know about some of the areas that have been important and that the 01:48:00Andrews have been a part of?

WF: I can't lay my finger on them, probably just off-hand.

SS: That's okay. That's all right. OSU and the Forest Service co-administration of the Andrews today can be held up as a model for effective inter-institutional management and science. What do you know or remember about the evolution of the Andrews and its place in relation to the OSU/Forest Service relationship in terms of science going forward?

WF: Not that much. Not too much.

SS: Now, as an OSU professor and researcher, what was your experience working with the Forest Service?

WF: They were very cooperative. And I was as cooperative as I could be. And it 01:49:00was also because I knew the researchers personally, and had a high respect for them. There was Jerry, of course, and the fellow that drowned, that I was mentioning.

SS: Roy [Silen].

WF: Roy, yeah, he was, he did good research.

SF: You used to take your classes down to the Andrews Forest. Do you remember what it was that you were, what particular things you were, interest for your classes down there?

WF: Yeah, they had a watershed that, in turn, had a barrier down at the bottom. You might call it a dam. It was a small stream, so not a huge thing, but they 01:50:00were there to measure the water flows. And in a pond behind the dam, a small dam, there was a study of water insects.

SS: This is in what part of the Andrews?

WF: Lower down.

SS: On Lookout Creek then?

WF: Yeah. Way down at the bottom.

SS: Now, do you remember the trailers that they had up there at one time?

WF: Oh, to live in?

SS: Yeah. They used to call it the "ghetto in the meadow?" (Laughter)

WF: Yeah, they replaced that with legitimate housing.

SS: It took them a long time, though. WF: Yeah.

SS: Did you ever hear about the time when the guy taking the shower, because the 01:51:00floor was rotted, the shower fell through the floor of the trailer?

WF: No.

SS: (Laughs) That and a few other stories, are the classics of the "ghetto in the meadow." Fortunately, I don't think he was injured, but there were rats and mice, and it's a far cry from what you see up there now, which is quite a palace in a relative sense. Okay, I think we're almost done. Now, going back to your time in Southeast Asia, and what you saw. You looked at aerial photography and that was your main job, analyzing that? But also, seeing the jungles and the whole thing. Go into some specifics about what you thought being exposed to, 01:52:00that completely different world gave you for everything that came after it, at Duke, at Oregon State, and everything, whether it be in science or just as a person living in a developed country.

WF: It was a radical change, for sure. But we didn't live really in the communities we were stationed at.

SS: Right.

WF: Because we didn't have that close relationships with the native people, which was sad. You know, there were good people and bad people in those societies, just there are in ours. And about the only exception, we decided, there was a small group of us, about six, decided that we should learn some of 01:53:00the multiple languages. There are, I say, plural languages, because there are about three of equal in that area, about three equal in importance. There were different backgrounds. And we took lessons from them for about, oh, I don't know, three weeks maybe.

SS: Was this in Burma or Calcutta?

WF: In Calcutta.

SS: And that would have been Bengali?

WF: Yeah.

SS: The language.

WF: But unfortunately, it didn't really satisfy the needs because you never knew who you were talking to. They're all mixed up, physically-speaking.

SS: In other words, the dialect could have been mixed with whatever? Correct?

WF: There's Hindi, and, oh, what the hell was the one for the Muslims, who were, there are surprising number of Muslims in the Calcutta area at that time. They started to move out about the time we were leaving there.

SS: Well, after independence, but before the division.

WF: Yeah, as a matter of fact, they had bloody battles with the native people in the country who were, they should be speaking Hindi, if they were from that area, but there were a lot of them who were Muslims. So, we took lessons, but it didn't really pan out that well because you never knew who you were talking to.

SS: Did you go out into the jungle too much when you were in Burma or anywhere down there? I mean, did you have a chance to really experience that ecology, that aesthetic, that geography?

WF: Yeah. We were up in northern Burma, close to China. And a friend of mine was stationed up in the hills. His job was to look for airplanes, Japanese airplanes, and report them. If there was more than, let's say, two or three, why, that was a potential for a raid. And so, he would put it on the air, that 01:56:00is, he had a small transmitter, all the way back in Burma. And he was not in Burma, but over in Assam, the province of Assam.

SS: Do you remember how the natives and the jungle managed their forest or do you remember anything about that?

WF: No, never did. They didn't seem to have much interest in managing.

SS: They were more interested in staying alive, right? During the war. If you were going to reflect back on your life and career, what would be, what would you like people to remember you for?

WF: Having good children.

SS: Politically correct.

SF: Okay, ignoring my presence.

SS: Politically correct answer. Steve is not really here, this is a hologram.

WF: Yes, there are three of them. And he's only one.

SF: But the important one, of course. WF: Yeah.

SS: Politics are all local. But really, that's obviously very important. But other than having a good family, how would you like people to remember you? I mean, your teaching legacy is one reason people love you for what and how you taught them. I mean, your former students speak glowingly of you. How does that make you feel in terms of that legacy?

WF: Well, a very good feeling about it. Yeah, I'm glad it wasn't just a feeling out of professional things, but personal things.

SS: Obviously, we talked about Jerry Franklin, but how many of your former students have kept in touch with you over the years? I mean, you don't know a number, but - ?

WF: Not that many.

SS: No?

WF: They're very happy to see me when I happen to show up but, you know, they don't go out of their way.

SS: Now, is there anything else that you would like to say during this interview that we haven't addressed? Any of the stories that, you know, you already went over some of your interesting stories like the grad student that disappeared and you never found out what happened, that one. Anybody else, anything else?

WF: Oh, it was kind of weird. We were out in the Cascades, and in a vehicle or 01:59:00it was a bus. And we got off the bus, and I said, "I'd like you to go out there and write a description of the forest. And tell me what you saw in the way of regeneration," and so on. And, "Come back here in a half-hour." So, one of the guys, as it turned out later, most of them went out for a half-mile or something, and then came back. Well, he took off and went for about three miles, which brought him out on a road, which looked like the road we come up on, to him, but it wasn't like it at all. But at any rate, he thought he'd found the road we came on. So, he walked down the road and walked down the road, and walked down the road, and couldn't find us. And he managed then to hitch-hike 02:00:00from a car, and by good luck, the car came and turned onto the road we were on, where we were parked. And so, he found his way back. And fortunately, we hadn't spent too much time trying to find him, but it was kind of touch-and-go.

SS: That was an interesting story.

SF: I think one of the main things, that in speaking to my father's former students, what they appreciated about him was two things. One is that there were, it wasn't just a discussion of him broadcasting to them, but that it was a discussion between everybody. And that I think was pretty rare in the days when you first started teaching, in a much more of the lecturer sort of mode by most professors.

SS: Yeah, we talked about that early, before you got here, I talked about how you seemed like you were probably not just a "lecture-at-the-students" kind of teacher?

SF: I remember that when I was a kid, walking into his classes a couple times because he was going to give me a ride home, and everybody was talking. And I remember being impressed by that, as opposed to what happened in my classrooms. And the other thing was that beyond just talking in the classroom, you took kids, your students, out, and you went and you looked at the stuff. You went out into the woods and you showed them what you were talking about. And I think that that was also different from what a lot of professors were doing. You wanted them to see what, what it was you were discussing, and to be able to identify it themselves.

WF: Yeah.

SF: And I don't think other professors were doing that back then.

WF: And we had more transportation maybe then.

SS: Why did you love teaching?

WF: I always liked to get people thinking straight about things that they may 02:02:00have known about before, but misunderstood. But I can remember my enthusiasm about first finding some things, and so it was a privilege to be able to tell the other people about it, and illustrate it by things you see in the field. For example, it didn't always work that way, by the way. We were off on a drive, and I said, "Oh, hey, look, there's some balsam fir." And the student sitting next to me said, we were on a first-name basis, "Bill, that isn't balsam fir." (Laughs) It's a fir, but it was not balsam fir. It looked like balsam fir, so I 02:03:00assumed it was, but he was right, I was wrong.

SS: Did you like being corrected by your students? (Laughs)

WF: Yeah. Well, so it goes.

SS: What is your favorite place in Oregon? Or what are some of your favorite places in Oregon, or the Northwest?

WF: I was going to say, it's more than one, certainly. One would certainly be on the coast. I can always remember you guys piddling around at the coast, looking for some mussels or whatever.

SS: The tide pools?

WF: Yeah.

SF: Yeah, the gardens over there, something, gardens, what are they called over there? It's kind of toast nowadays.

SS: Kind of like Seal Rock, and places like that, or -?

SF: Yeah, it's something like Undersea Gardens, but that's not right.

SS: Oh, yeah, it used to be called the Undersea Gardens.

SF: Except that all the things that were there when I was a kid are, it's pretty much dead. There used to be all kinds of --

WF: Yeah, they were supposed to police the place, and prevent the kids from running off with all the mussels and other animals.

SF: And probably some pollution must be getting in there for it to, or it might be climate change has impacted it.

SS: Oh, yeah, it's impacting everywhere. Even though it's not happening.

SF: Yes.

SS: Okay. What other places, the coast? What's your favorite place in the Cascades, you got a favorite place or places?

WF: Yeah, we used to do hiking in the Cascades.

SS: Where'd you go?

WF: Oh, the easiest, most accessible places. Take the main highway across and 02:05:00when you get up to the crest, there's a trail that goes north-south, and we have been on that trail a number of times. [Pacific Crest Trail].

SS: The Santiam or McKenzie?

WF: Santiam.

SS: Okay. So that's up by Washington, Three-Fingered Jack, or the Three Sisters or -

SF: Yes.

SS: The whole "schmeer." [Whole group of peaks in central Cascades].

WF: Yeah.

SF: Maybe once in a while, there'd be a new wilderness place would be created and we'd go wandering off to go check out the wilderness place that someone had created.

WF: Our old friends, the --

SF: Irgen-Moellers [Helge]

WF: No, they, and also the --

SF: Leaches. [Charles]

WF: Leaches. But the Leaches, seniors, their mother and father, have both died in the last year or so, so it's the end of that.

SS: So, were you the same with your kids that you were with your students about teaching life experiences? (Laughs)

SF: Didn't ever lose any of us. A few students once in a while, but -

WF: Yeah.

SS: I'd say we're about finished. So, I would like to thank you, Bill, you Steve, and Fred, who left, for taking part in this afternoon session which I think was very productive. And we'll just go, Thank you, thank you.

WF: Yeah.