Zane Smith Oral History Interview, May 29, 2014

Samuel Schmieding: Good morning, this is Dr. Samuel J. Schmieding, Oregon State University College of Forestry, also working with the U.S. Forest Service, here in the home of Zane Smith, Springfield, Oregon. It is May 29, 2014. We are going to do an oral history interview today, which is part of a broader history project centered on the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, the LTER network, and ecological research in general. But it's also going to include a lot of focus on land management, forestry, etc., so we are going to be interviewing many different Forest Service people, including Zane here today. And how are you doing today, Zane?

Zane Smith: Very good. Thank you, Sam.

SS: I want to thank you for taking time to meet us. And this hopefully will be an enjoyable exercise as we go through the past and reflect on things. I like to start the same with everybody. Where were you born and raised? And beyond that, just give me a biographical sketch of your past.

ZS: Sure. Well, I was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1933. And to a Forest Service family. Shortly after that, we moved to Drake, Arizona, where dad was a ranger on the Prescott National Forest. I was there until about first grade. And then we moved to Harris, New Mexico, where dad was the ranger on the Cibola National Forest on the Sandia District there. I started school at Tijeras in a one-room school; one teacher, eight grades, about 12 students, mostly Mexican-American villagers. And stayed there throughout that period till about the fourth grade, when Dad was drafted, of all things. He tried to enlist. And 00:02:00he was a ranger and probably could have got a deferment, but he finally was drafted and I went to live with my grandparents, also a Forest Service family, while they were gone. My mother, Elsie, and my father, Zane, actually went to Camp Abbott, which is now Sun River, and then on up to Fort Lewis where he served out his time. And so, then at that point -

SS: And which war was that?

ZS: That was World War II.

SS: World War II, okay.

ZS: Yeah, this was about 1943.

SS: Okay.

ZS: He ended up in the Army, the Army [Corps of] Engineers. So, from that point, we got our family back together and went back to Albuquerque. I went to school 00:03:00in Albuquerque, junior high and high school, and graduated from high school in 1951. About that time, my folks moved to Montana, Great Falls, Montana, where Dad was the forest supervisor of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. I stayed and finished a year at the University of New Mexico, and worked in Arizona on the Sitgreaves National Forest for the summer, then transferred to Missoula, Montana, and graduated eventually in forestry from the University of Montana.

SS: Now, maybe thinking of specific places and experiences, what was your 00:04:00childhood like, especially in relationship to the natural world, whether it be through your family, the business, shall we say, of forestry and professional foresters, camping trips, Boy Scouts, anything like that that got you "out there," and maybe made an impression on you?

ZS: Yeah. My growing up was in a Forest Service family, with the exception of high school, that meant I was raised in the country. Pretty much a loner. I walked to grade school about a mile-and-a-half to this one-room school house. Spent all of my time roaming the mountains around there. Actually, I lived the first part of my life in elevations over 7,500 feet.

SS: Now, where exactly was that, close to the Sangre de Cristo's?

ZS: Well, no, it was the Sandia Mountains near Albuquerque, and it was the 00:05:00Prescott National Forest in Arizona.

SS: Okay, right.

ZS: So, this was all high country and pretty isolated. Didn't really have many playmates, if any. And I was pretty much independent. I wandered the mountains by myself. My mom had a police whistle, and she would ring that, if she wanted me to, well, find out where I was. And we had certain signals that, when I was supposed to come home, and this and that. We were around livestock a lot. We always had horses. In those days, the ranger [U.S. Forest Service] bought his own horses. And we had always a milk cow and raised pigs, beef now and then, and chickens and lots of chores. So, that my job was splitting kindling and doing 00:06:00chores like that.

SS: Any particular place or an experience that really impacted you? ZS: Growing up, I think the experience there at the Tijeras Ranger Station was probably the most pronounced. That's where I really began to realize I wanted to be a Forest Service ranger. And I spent a lot of time with my dad. I started skiing when I was five years old, because Dad had a ski area, La Madera at that time, in the Sandias. Every weekend, I was up with him riding in the back of a Forest Service pickup with his sheepskin coat on, and skiing. He got me started without riding the rope tow. I climbed for a year or so, and then skied down. And then he finally put me on the rope tow.

SS: Of course, that was long before Angel Fire or Taos or some other more 00:07:00sophisticated resorts in northern New Mexico were even built. Correct?

ZS: That's correct. I think La Madera probably was one of the first ones. It was at the Sandia Crest. And it's about 10,000 feet, and pretty good snow.

SS: Although my experience in Arizona says that the snow can be a little bit inconsistent in both Arizona and New Mexico, except when you get up north in the Sangre de Cristos, I believe.

ZS: Well, Arizona has big snow in Flagstaff and that part of the country, and there's nothing wrong with the snow in New Mexico from the Manzano and Sandia Mountains on north into 14,000-foot peaks in northern New Mexico. Snow was never really a problem, at least in that period of time.

SS: What kind of lessons did you learn from your father in terms of him teaching 00:08:00you or you watching him be a professional Forest Service person?

ZS: Well, I, of course, observed all the activities. There wasn't large crews in those days; the ranger, assistant ranger, and then the temporary people. So, I observed him, particularly in dealing with permits for wood, wood cutting, grazing permits, fighting fire, dealing with the recreation activities, being with him a lot around horses, this and that. But he was a typical father of those days, I would say. My mother was a little bit closer to me, and with me more. She was generous in letting me roam around. Dad did try to get me involved in certain activities that he was involved in. He would take me with him. In 00:09:00those days, the Forest Service families could ride in the Forest Service trucks and that was not a problem.

SS: It's a problem today, isn't it?

ZS: It's a problem today.

SS: Yes.

ZS: And the same thing happened with my grandfather. He was assistant forest supervisor of the Coronado [National Forest] in Tucson. I spent summers with them down there and he took me a lot of places. Dad was a stickler on chores. They gave me a BB gun when I was very young and I learned a lot about; I got a "Ph.D." in gun-handling, safety and so forth. I remember once having pointed a gun at something I didn't intend to shoot, and he took the gun away from me. I was without it for quite a while. In those days, it was a lot different than today in terms of kids growing up and understanding the outdoors, and hunting 00:10:00and that sort of thing.

SS: Since your family goes back so far with the Forest Service in that part of the country, did they happen to meet or know Aldo Leopold?

ZS: Not that I know of. My granddad started, he was in the West working for the [U.S.] Biological Survey as a government hunter and trapper. And he joined the Forest Service responding to the yellow recruitment sign that talked about requirements for a ranger, of riding and roping and packing a horse, and you know, good health and strength and so forth. At the end, it says, "Invalids need not apply." He applied and was assigned in 1917 to the Mayhill Ranger District on the Lincoln National Forest outside of Alamogordo [New Mexico]. So, that's kind of how all that started.

SS: I'm just going back to Leopold's famous writings that were based in the Gila 00:11:00National Forest, I believe, on the New Mexico side.

ZS: Right. My granddad was a ranger in three places on the Gila National Forest. One place was, as he described it, 99 miles from a box of crackers. My grandmother described it as 100 miles from the nearest loaf of bread. And it was all horses. Dad grew up on horses and was home-schooled until he went to high school, where they farmed him out at Hot Springs, New Mexico, now called Truth or Consequences.

SS: Now, you grew up late enough where your family had automobiles or trucks, right?

ZS: Yes, yes.

SS: Although you probably rode horses a lot, too, right?

ZS: Some. Usually just hiked.

SS: Okay. So, what kind of lessons do you remember them passing down, or you kind of through osmosis getting from how they viewed the land, natural 00:12:00resources, conservation, preservation, all these things that you would learn more about later in your life?

ZS: With my granddad and dad, there were pretty astute to fire. They were some of the few people in the Forest Service who realized that use of fire was important. In fact, the regional forester in New Mexico and Arizona told my granddad one time, Garvin, "If you don't get this silly notion out of your head, you'll never be a forest supervisor." Because he was an advocate of using fire, not like we do today where they just let it burn, but to use fire as a means of retaining the ecosystem. And this was in the days before logging, which were kind of a substitute for density control and so forth. So, my granddad knew Zane Grey, worked with Zane Grey quite a bit, and I have lot of correspondence 00:13:00between the two of them.

SS: Is that where your name, or the two names, came from?

ZS: Yeah, my dad was named after Zane Grey, and my granddad was raised in Kentucky, but went to dental school with Zane Grey, and they both quit and went different places. Then my folks named me Zane Grey Smith, Jr. And I went by the name of Grey, all through my time at home because Mom and Dad didn't want me to be called "Junior" or "Sonny" or some other nickname. So, I've had two names for a long time. I can always tell the generation that calls me Grey versus the one that calls me Zane.

SS: So, I must ask you, have you read Riders of the Purple Sage and some of the other famous novels by Zane Grey?

ZS: Yeah, in fact, I've read a lot of them. And I've got, I think it's about 23 00:14:00first-edition books that were given to my grandparents from Zane Grey, and they're in our library and are a part of our family.

SS: Well, you're really fortunate because, he [Zane Grey the author] had several places, but one of his cabins by the Mogollon Rim burnt to the ground during the Tonto Fire, I think they called it, or one of the big fires there by Payson below the Mogollon Rim in Arizona.

ZS: Yeah.

SS: So, his whole library in that thing was burned down.

ZS: Yeah, it was unfortunate. Zane Grey used my grandfather as a guide in the Mogollon/Tonto Rim [both names used] country, when he was a government trapper/hunter. But that's unfortunate that that burned down.

SS: Yeah, but that's a fascinating connection. We all have stories to tell. Now, how would you describe the ecosystem in New Mexico and the management at that 00:15:00time, and the condition of the forest and the range?

ZS: I think the ecosystem was in pretty-good shape with some exceptions, particularly in the area of grazing. And I know my dad was very proud of the fact that he was able to restore a lot of the grazing areas that he was responsible for on his districts. There was not very much logging. There's some, you know, pre-use wood by homesteaders and local people. But nothing in the way of large timber operations. Mainly, grazing, recreation and that sort of thing. I think the thing was custodianship and stewardship. It was the primary thing. It was not until the '50s that we really got into production of products and so forth.

SS: Well, I would anticipate that a lot of the work for your grandfather, and even your father, had to do with surveying homesteads, for instance, and water rights and things like that, because the Homestead Act was actually used more often in many parts of this country in the early 20th Century.

ZS: I think there was some of that. I don't recall that as being a major thing.

SS: Okay.

ZS: I think it was more stewardship and custodianship of the land and the vegetation and wildlife, and so forth.

SS: So, you moved to Montana in -?

ZS: 1952.

SS: Okay.

ZS: Dad was the forest supervisor of Lewis and Clark [NF] at that time. I was looking for a forestry school. I went one year to the University of New Mexico, and pretty much took an engineering curriculum, which prepared me for moving into forestry. And I enrolled at the University of Montana and I graduated there.

SS: Describe that experience in terms of the curriculum, the program of study, what you learned, and any particular mentor or book or intellectual hero, or person that you met at that early formative stage in your career, that made an especially strong impression on you?

ZS: Well, graduating in 1955, I went through a transition of old-timers. Al Spalding, well, there's two or three others, Doc Waters, Faye Clark, Mel Morrison, old-timers that were really back from an era when there was primarily custodianship, and just moving into the area of production. My major was forest 00:18:00management, which was the primary one. I think the only fault I would give the University of Montana and all forestry schools, was they were too technical. Not that you don't need technical learning, but you need to have an opportunity to broaden out a bit into the social studies so that you can deal with people. Because rangers and the Forest Service people, they don't just deal with ecosystems and trees and fire, they have to deal with people, and the whole social system. I think that that could have been improved. And the other thing that happened is that the Society of American Forester's accreditation program 00:19:00was so full, you didn't have time to do anything else. Fortunately, I joined the ROTC Air Force and that broadened me a little bit. But it took me, later years with graduate school in Cornell, to really get myself tuned into the entire educational needs I was required to have to do my job.

SS: So, you went and you worked for a while, or did you go immediately into a graduate program?

ZS: No, I went to Cornell at mid-career. I had been a ranger and I'd been a Job Corps Center Director, and several other things, and I was back in Washington, D.C. working on a detail to Vice President Humphrey's office for a period of time when he was in charge of the Youth Opportunity program. I had three cities 00:20:00assigned to me, Omaha, Nebraska, St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois, to represent in that program. After that, I went to Cornell.

SS: Tell me about Cornell?

ZS: Cornell, I was what they call a NIPA, a National Institute of Public Affairs fellow. The Forest Service sent me there, the Department of Agriculture elected me to be sent. And we pretty much designed our own curriculum. We were assigned to the Public Administration School at Cornell. I took a lot of economics, social studies, things that I didn't get in forestry school. And it was an 00:21:00immense help.

SS: And what was the master's degree, what was it called, or what was it in?

ZS: It was the National Institute of Public Affairs, as a fellow.

SS: Okay. So, now you can say you're an Ivy-leaguer, right?

ZS: I guess so. Cornell is an interesting school because it's both a state and private school. And they used to have a forestry school there, but I didn't take anything to do with botany or forestry. I took everything that was politics and that sort of thing.

SS: How would you compare Montana to New Mexico? The geography, the culture, the ecosystems, just the whole dynamic?

ZS: It's surprisingly more similar than you might think. Because New Mexico, the lowest place in New Mexico is 3,300 feet. That's the elevation of Missoula, Montana. The highest place is over 14,000 feet. That makes up the difference of 00:22:00latitude. New Mexico is into the Rocky Mountain chain, as well, and that's what goes clear up to Glacier [National Park]. So, there's a lot of similarity. Montana is, from a production standpoint in forestry, much more productive. But it's very similar country in terms of recreation and scenery and that sort of thing. Both Montana and New Mexico have a lot of grazing lands, range lands, a lot of forest, a lot of high mountains. Culturally, it's somewhat different because there's a large Mexican-American population in New Mexico, where you don't have that [in Montana], you have more Native Americans up there. A lot of Native Americans in New Mexico as well, but I think that's a little bit different.

SS: Yeah, the Latino influence is much stronger in New Mexico.

ZS: Yeah, especially, now.

(Break in audio)

SS: So, tell me about the beginning of your career after Montana. You graduated with a degree in forest management?

ZS: I did.

SS: And tell me about your first postings. Take us through those first several years or postings.

ZS: Yeah. I had worked on the Coeur d'Alene National Forest for two or three summers during school.

SS: That's in Idaho.

ZS: In Idaho, right. When I graduated, I took the Civil Service exam. And I got two offers, one in California in fire, and the other one in Oregon in forest management. I took the one in Oregon, and went to with my bride Betty, we headed from Missoula, Montana, to Union Creek, Oregon. And I was on the Union Creek 00:24:00District, which is just outside of Crater Lake on the west side. Huge timber.

SS: So, is that the Umpqua or the Rogue? [National Forests]

ZS: That's the Rogue, the Rogue River. I served there until I was commissioned at graduation into the Air Force. And I served there until I was called into the Air Force and went to Texas, went through pilot training, and became a pilot instructor. But then I came back to the Rogue River and was assigned to the Butte Falls District, which is still in the Cascades. Worked typically in timber management and fire, and stayed there, and then, I also was in charge of the Rogue River's fire replanting for all the districts. In about 1958 or '59, I was 00:25:00transferred to the Malheur National Forest in John Day [Oregon], where I became assistant to the timber staff there under a veteran timber management person. I was there for 13 months, and then sent to Klamath Falls on the then newly-created Winema National Forest on the Klamath [Indian] Reservation. When I was there, I was assistant ranger there for the Klamath District, and I sort of had overall responsibilities for everything just like a ranger would, only I was the assistant. We were there five months, and then I was transferred with a promotion to Okanagan, Washington, where I replaced Don Caron, who got in 00:26:00trouble there, as he was a John Bircher and was really involved in promoting that, and he had a choice of either stopping that or quitting. He quit. And I was fortunate to have inherited his job with a promotion.

SS: And which forest was that out of Okanagan?

ZS: It's the Okanagan Forest.

SS: It is the Okanagan, okay.

ZS: I was assigned as the Conconully District Ranger, which bordered Canada, a very nice district that had timber management, range, recreation, wilderness, that whole bit. I stayed there for four years. About that time, the Office of Economic Opportunity, one of Johnson's [President] programs, they came up with the Job Corps program with Sargent Shiver as the head. The idea was to begin a 00:27:00series of Job Corps centers for youth 16 to 21 that were unemployed and needed education, etc. So, Sargent Shriver interviewed the first round of Center Director candidates, and I was approved and assigned to the Cispus Job Corps Center, which is on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest outside of Randall, Washington, between the summit there and Chehalis Neck, that country.

SS: You were just north of Mount St. Helens?

ZS: Right. Actually, the Cispus Job Corps Center was 12 miles south of Randall, almost in the center of the triangle of Mount Rainer, Mount St. Helens, and 00:28:00Mount Adams. And this was a 225-man corps, it was all men, a center with half-time devoted to education, and the other half to work programs. We had a staff of 52 people that ranged from my deputy for programs who was a district ranger...... (Break in audio)

SS: You're down at Cispus, okay.

ZS: Again, we had a staff of 51 people that included cooks and complete residential living for these 225 young men. Half education, half work, as far as their time went. And that lasted, an interesting thing, too, and you may want to 00:29:00delete this but when we started that camp, we built it from scratch. And before they were actually -

(Break in audio)

SS: Okay, back on the record.

ZS: The real reward of that is that we were able to work with people like Boeing and other companies and get these kids jobs. But one thing is, I was going to mention that maybe is not good for the record, I don't know, but when we built that Job Corps Center, it was on the Randall District of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

SS: And that's just south of the Packwood District, correct?

ZS: Well, it's a little bit west and south.

SS: Okay.

ZS: So, anyway, we were just getting ready to bring our new corpsmen in and the 00:30:00majority were blacks or Mexican-Americans, mostly blacks. There wasn't a black person anywhere near Randall, Washington. And the community was really worried about that.

SS: And this was still in the kind of the last vestiges of Jim Crow-type of mentality, even though we were in the Northwest, and that was less of a problem. But I'm trying to tie what you're saying into that?

ZS: Yeah, still particularly in some of these smaller, rural communities, there was a concern about that. And there were no black people around. Well, the dilemma we faced here as a staff, we had all the staff together, and we had all the facilities there, and the first corpsmen were going to be coming in. And this Job Corps Center was on the Niggerhead Road, and there was a big Forest Service sign, Niggerhead Road.

SS: Which is typical, though, of place names. In the Southwest and Utah where I 00:31:00did a lot of research, they had a place called Nigger Bill Canyon, which of course, they changed to Negro Bill Canyon, later, because, and I'm sure you're going to give me some version of that type of issue.

ZS: Yeah, well, the other thing was that the camp was also on the confluence of the Cispus River and Niggerhead Creek, overlooked by Niggerhead Rock, this huge towering rock. So, we had all these things, and they were all signed. And we talked about that at great length by the staff, and what to do about that. Because we didn't want to confront the community particularly, because they were anti-us there to begin with. So, we finally decided, we'll just let it alone, and as the corpsmen came in, the partner orientation would be to try to explain this thing, how all this developed. And we didn't have any trouble with the corpsmen. They just, you know, sort of ignored it. I guess they were used to that.

SS: Well, at that time, they had to ignore it because the Civil Rights Movement hadn't really gone through its full, you know, evolutions.

ZS: Yeah, but by the time we finished, or not finished, but in time, probably about four or five months, these corpsmen had won over the Randall community. And the community came to us and said, "We think it's time to change those names." So, we did. And it worked out perfectly.

SS: So, is now called?

ZS: I forget what we called it [Tower Rock].

SS: So, they took any reference away from the ethnicity or the race?

ZS: Yeah, it wouldn't be "Negro Creek" or anything like that, because Niggerhead had a different connotation.

SS: Well, yeah, I know.

ZS: But anyway, that's certainly a starting point.

SS: No, but that's an interesting story, and those type of place-naming dynamics have happened all across the United States, as the culture has changed.

ZS: Yeah, Squaw Creek and all these names are slowly being changed. Well, after about a year, I was reassigned to the Washington office, Chief's Office in Washington, D.C., as part of the Job Corps staff there, and dealt primarily with the work programs in Job Corps, and I traveled around the country and did that. During that period, I was at the end of it, assigned to Vice President Humphrey's office, as I mentioned before. Then I was selected for the Cornell education program, and completed that, and when I finished with Cornell, I was assigned to the Sierra National Forest in California out of Fresno, as the 00:34:00assistant forest supervisor. Within about four months, the supervisor retired and I replaced him as the forest supervisor of the Sierra, and that was kind of planned in that way. I was selected. This was before the days when you had to apply for jobs. I never applied for a single job in the Forest Service.

SS: Well, back in the early days, and we're going to talk more about the esprit de corps of the Forest Service, which you obviously would know more than even a lot of other Forest Service people I've met because of your multigenerational lineage. But back then, in the quasi-military model of the Forest Service, you moved station to station to station to station, your career very much followed that particular mode of how you went around. Because you had how many stations your first 12-15 years there?

ZS: Well, I didn't count them up, but a lot, yeah.

SS: A lot.

ZS: Yeah, and I know this, too, my wife, and wives have a lot of credit in supporting us, obviously.

SS: Now, did this work for you and the family? I mean, this must have been hard, as it's always a challenge for people going from one remote place to another?

ZS: Yeah, and Betty had never lived anywhere except Chinook, Montana, on the ranches. And she joined me, and this is her 32nd house that she's put together for us, 32nd house in 60 years of marriage. And we've lived in this house 12 years, so there's a bunch of them.

SS: This is a world record for you guys.

ZS: Yeah. So, anyway, the Sierra National Forest was my first opportunity to be a forest supervisor. And it's a nice forest.

SS: And what year exactly was this?

ZS: That was 1968.

SS: So, this was right on the cusp of what was becoming the environmental era, both in terms of laws that were passed, and cultures changing as well?

ZS: That's right. On the Sierra, we experienced Earth Day in April of that year.

SS: 1970.

ZS: '70, yeah. And we really kind of turned that forest around in terms of trying to catch up with the rest of society. It's never been an easy job for the Forest Service to change that fast, but I think in some instances we did a pretty good job. In 1970, I was promoted to forest supervisor of the Willamette National Forest here. And that was when French Pete was going and all these controversies were going. The forest supervisor I replaced, retired, but he was paranoid. He thought these environmentalists were going to kill him and all kinds of things were happening there. Well, as it turned out, I was able to come 00:37:00in here and meet with him, and we really developed a very positive relationship with the environmental community here without alienating the timber companies. In fact, in those days, there was a kind of a courtesy and understanding among the various positions. It didn't get nasty like we are now, where people are protesting and burning up Forest Service offices and that kind of thing.

SS: That was before the Earth First! type of aggressive tactics?

ZS: Exactly. That was probably starting about then, but people like Dick Noyes and a whole bunch of other people, Sandy Tepfer, they were just real solid people, but really environmentalists, our environmentalists of the day. We got along just fine with them. But in this forest, it was by far the largest timber-producing forest in the whole system.

SS: The Willamette?

ZS: Willamette. We scaled two years in a row over a billion board-feet of timber, including those that were dead. And that really was even at that time, I began to realize, we were probably not going to be able to sustain that. In fact, this was the first time I saw a satellite picture in the winter time, and saw all those white spots.

SS: Where the clear-cuts had happened?

ZS: Clear-cuts had happened. Then I knew we were in a position where we had to change things. And French Pete was a big deal, but going from the Willamette National Forest, I was then promoted to the Senior Executive Corps in the government, to Director of Recreation and Wilderness Cultural Values Trails, so 00:39:00all that whole business, in Washington, D.C. I told the Chief, "I'm going to get whiplash here, going from the biggest timber forest to recreation wilderness, all in one crack." But I had the chance to deal with the so-called RARE I, Roadless Area Review, of the sector the first time around here, and then went back to Washington, D.C. as the Director of Recreation.

SS: Now, when did RARE I happen?

ZS: That happened in about mid-'70s.

SS: That was before the 1976 Act [National Forest Management Act], correct? Or was it after?

ZS: It was before.

SS: That was before, yeah.

ZS: Yeah, a little before.

SS: Because it was in response to the Wilderness Act [RARE I].

ZS: Yeah.

SS: More or less.

ZS: Well, we were trying to figure out how to round out the wilderness system. And RARE I was a Forest Service initiated effort to see what was left and how much of that should go into wilderness and how much should be released to other kinds of uses.

SS: Also how to merge with existing primitive areas, which was a Forest Service wilderness designation [primitive] long before the Wilderness Act?

ZS: Yeah, like the Gila, for example [In New Mexico].

SS: Yes, exactly.

ZS: Anyway, back in Washington, I was staff director for recreation and all that business. That's where we finally ended up doing RARE II. RARE II was under my responsibility at that time. Rupe Cutler was the Assistant Secretary for the Forest Service and SES, and he came across a fellow named George Davis, who was then the Director of the Wilderness Society. He brought George over to the 00:41:00Forest Service on my staff to help run and develop the RARE II program, and it was a good program. It failed in some respects, but it did daylight in a very good way what was left and what should be considered wilderness. It's still being dealt with. But it is somewhat maligned, because people didn't get exactly what they wanted on either side.

SS: But isn't that they're supposed to say, when, you know you did a job if you angered both sides of the debate?

ZS: Yeah, I don't like that philosophy, but it happened.

SS: You understand. You found a middle ground, is the meaning of it.

ZS: Yeah, and sometimes the middle ground is not the right place to be. Sometimes, you need to take a more positive position. But sometimes there's some middle ground. We're such a polarized country now, and everything is polarized. We need to come back towards the middle with, you know, opposite views, but not 00:42:00way-out there. I always refer to Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen, how they managed to fight it out on the Senate floor.

SS: Then go out for a drink afterwards?

ZS: Go out for a beer afterwards, after they settled it. You know, and that doesn't happen anymore. It's just a complete nasty situation. And the Forest Service is being harmed by that greatly, in my view, as I look back.

SS: Talking about from the Washington and even state level political, or are you talking about broader cultural dynamics?

ZS: Well, both.

SS: Both, okay.

ZS: So, anyway, at the end of my tour there, I was reassigned, still in the Senior Executive Program to the Regional Forester in San Francisco, that's our Region 5, which constitutes the 17 national forests in California, plus -- (clock chimes).

SS: Off the record for a minute.

(Break in audio)

ZS: Where were we here?

SS: You were talking about San Francisco, your multiple responsibilities?

ZS: Yeah. So, we moved to San Francisco, and which covered California, Hawaii and Micronesia, and a huge budget, and about 12,000 people on the employment list. A great staff, and plenty of money, and it kind of went down from there in terms of austerity and difficulty.

SS: Because budgets started being slashed during the Reagan years, right?

ZS: That's right.

SS: Yes.

ZS: Well, in California, a big job was in fire, a huge fire situation. We were 00:44:00cutting at one point, almost two billion board-feet of timber a year. We had all these, a big recreation program and so forth, and then the austerity program began to hit and this really affected us a lot. We had to do some things about it. So, a couple of things I tried to do. One, was to convince the Chief [Forest Service] that we needed to reduce the size of these regional offices. Organizationally, there's a chief in the regional office and the supervisor's office, and then the district rangers. We kept stealing from the district ranger, and to some extent the forest supervisor, to maintain the chief's office at each level, and the regional office of its level. Our regional office, when I got there, had 1,000 people in that office.

SS: A regional office?

ZS: A regional office.

SS: Wow.

ZS: In the region, we had 12,000 employees. Now, this included temporary people.

SS: You're talking about the Southwest Region, right?

ZS: Well, it's the Pacific Southwest.

SS: Pacific Southwest, that's what I meant.

ZS: Yeah, Region 5.

SS: PNW, then there's the Pacific Southwest [PSW], right.

ZS: Yeah. PNW's research.

SS: Right, I meant Region 6, actually.

ZS: Yeah, Region 6, yeah.

SS: I get them confused sometimes.

ZS: So, I proposed to Max Peterson, the chief at that time, that we restructure the regional office and make it a chief's representative to head a small group of people that helped make sure that direction coming down would fit and be monitored in the region. I said, "We've got 1,000 people now, I'd like to go to 100, and I'm going to put all those surplus people back on the ranger districts in the forest." Max said, "Well, it's worth a try." But the staff directors and 00:46:00others in Washington, D.C. just went berserk. There's no way, and Max said, "We can't do it now." So, we didn't. So, we were cutting about two billion board-feet of timber a year, and that was well beyond what we could stand. It was a little bit like the Willamette, as there's other values that were more important than the timber production. And California was that in spades. So, I began working with the forest supervisors and we were told by the Chief and others, don't accept any targets beyond what you can produce. Well, that was just verbiage because every time we tried to reduce the harvest, we got torpedoed.

SS: Was this because of political pressure or industry pressure, or a combination of both?

ZS: Combination of both, plus feelings of a lot of older Forest Service people.

SS: That was still the mission.

ZS: Yeah, the mission.

SS: The definition of multiple-use for them was weighted more toward the utilitarian economic production aspect. Correct?

ZS: Yes, that's right, that's right. You're dealing with all that stuff and it wasn't working out very well. So, the forest supervisors and I agreed that we just couldn't continue the level of production of timber. Then, I met with the timber industry, which I did frequently at their meetings, and I announced to them that I felt they had ought to get ready for a reduction in production to about 1.5 billion instead of two. Well, I did that on a Thursday, I announced that to them. And Monday, the next Monday, the chief called me and said, "The 00:48:00Secretary of Agriculture's coming out to your region, he does not want you present. He's meeting with the industry." And within a week, I was in effect removed from my position.

SS: And this was in what year?

ZS: That was in nineteen-eighty, about 1988.

SS: So, it was the end of the Reagan years?

ZS: Yeah, was it Reagan, or I'm not sure who was President?

SS: Well, or Bush. But I mean, the '80s were a much more conservative interpretation of land use, at least from the top down, and in terms of whatever administration was directing.

ZS: Yeah, well, being in the Senior Executive Corps, I had no recourse. I had to accept that. I accepted that when I went into it, and they didn't have to have a cause. They could just remove you from those positions, and they were usually 00:49:00pretty kind. They would offer you a similar job somewhere else. But the Secretary was so convinced that he said, "We need a change in Region 5." That was because of that comment I made, and Sierra Pacific kind of led the gang, and they got me.

SS: That's a timber company.

ZS: A timber company, a big one, in California. So, I was offered the regional forester position in Denver. And I said, "I have to decline that because my elderly parents can't even visit us at that elevation." They both had heart problems. So, Dale Robertson was the Chief and he said, "Well, you can come to Washington and be Associate Deputy Chief." I'd been to Washington twice already, 00:50:00and I wasn't about to do that again, and I was 54 years old, and with 34 years' service. So I elected to retire. I asked him to give me about four or five months more, so I was the right age.

SS: Thirty-five years, right?

ZS: Yeah, and we developed what we call the "Recreation Initiative." We had a real-good look at recreation service-wide, and then I retired. I retired early when we came up here. I've never felt bad about that because I knew exactly what was going to happen, and I think I did the right thing. Kind of like Jack Ward Thomas, I'm proud of having been fired for that reason. And I've been on the other side of it, too, where I was promoting more timber and this and that, and 00:51:00I'd just accept those things that I can't do anything about. But, you know, I still hold to my principles. And I think, some of the chiefs have not really adhered to that like Jack Ward Thomas has. The Forest Service is having a lot of trouble, and some of it is contrary to our mission and even the basic tenets of the Forest Service. I just feel like we're in a lot of trouble in that respect. It's not easy to be chief of the Forest Service, and particularly, when you have an administration that is practically in his pocket all the time, or her pocket.

SS: Well, I think for the first, I guess you'd say, 50 to even 60 or 70 years maybe, the Forest Service hierarchy was more determined by, well, it was more of a meritocracy. You had people that rose to the top more based on abilities and 00:52:00what they're doing. And I think in the last 30 years, reflecting the increasing polarization of the culture and politics, positions have become more political appointees, more patronage-oriented, would you agree with that?

ZS: Oh, I agree with that. And I think the members of Congress, both Senate and House, have less understanding of the rural situation and natural resources. They're dealing with these huge populations on the East and West Coasts. That's the way politics is. And you know, Oregon might just as well give up voting, because everything's decided before we're voting. I don't know what you do about something like that, except for education, somehow educating the urban population and the members of Congress that represent them, how important it is 00:53:00to provide stewardship and use our natural resources in a positive way. Right now, we are letting things get away from us without any kind of management. We're putting out, still putting out fires, and they're huge fires now. But we don't have any timber program to kind of mitigate that. And we've got bugs coming in and we've got big fires, and we're losing the national forests. If you go through almost any place where there's adjacent lands, either private or reservation lands, you don't need a sign that tells you when you're in the national forest. There's a huge difference already.

SS: And how would you describe that difference?

ZS: Well, I'll take Arizona, for example. I was just down there not too long ago. And going through the Indian reservation where the stands were healthy, 00:54:00there was no increased density that was going to cause problems. And you cross that line and you see lighter fuels all the way up to the crowns, and complete density, bugs, the whole thing.

SS: Now, I take it maybe you're speaking of the Apache reservations [White Mountain and San Carlos] and the Apache-Sitgreaves and Coconino [National Forests] interfaces in that big area there?

ZS: Yeah, all that big area there. I mean, it's very big. And you see it here, too. You see private lands and Indian lands that are managed and producing, and healthy, healthy ecosystems. Move into the national forest and, you know, you've got a different situation.

SS: Now, let's go back to the beginning, when you started your Forest Service career and you started hopping around to all these places, because you changed stations so many times, and not only stations, but you changed eco-regions.

ZS: Sure.

SS: In other words, you went basically over all of the West, giving you pretty much the whole spectrum. How did that affect your view on forest management? That diverse experience, kind of the circular movement around the West, if you will?

ZS: Well, I think it was based on the Forest Service premise that that kind of thing was necessary to become a good field manager, for example. And I think it was useful in that respect. On the other hand, I think we failed to recognize some of the technical people in the Forest Service, like a silviculturist, or an archaeologist. In order for them to get any grade, they either have to move or 00:56:00go into a line position, and that's not very good. So a district ranger, for example, might be a Grade 12 or a 13, a GS-13. And a silviculturist might be a Grade 9, and they are a Grade 9, whether he's an apprentice, or a journeyman, or a master - it doesn't matter.

SS: So, it's hard for them to move up while being that type?

ZS: They have to move away to do that.

SS: To a managerial track of some kind.

ZS: Well, managerial or to a higher level in the silviculture classification. And that's really not very good. It denies these specialists recognition for salary and grade and so forth. It doesn't bother me at all, if the ranger's a 13, a silviculturist could be a 13, too. A silviculturist has its own job, and the ranger has his leadership job. And I think we need to move more towards that 00:57:00than we have in the past. I've always felt badly about that. It's been hard with the Civil Service rigidity in promoting people like that. The line manager has to be a higher grade. Well, the line manager has a totally different job. And this is just kind of a curious thing.

SS: Now, let's take your first 20 years. This was from the time in the 1950's when the culture was much different. Industrial forestry was starting to become more central. And then 20 years later, post-Earth Day, post-NEPA, this whole really seismic shift in many respects, it happened. You want to characterize how you observed that as you were moving around?

ZS: Well, I think it was something that so many of us didn't realize what was happening. And I think we've all been guilty of wishing we were back where, you know, the way we did it before.

SS: Everybody waxes for the good-old days.

ZS: And that's not good. I mean, I think our traditional values should not change. Traditional values are important. But traditional methods have to be changed to meet these values, particularly in the context of social priorities. And I always felt that, you know, whatever the people want us to do on these forests is what we should do, as long as it doesn't damage the health and well-being of the natural resources. We shouldn't worry about that, that's such a political issue. And our job is to make sure we're within the framework of good ecosystem management.

SS: And that term [ecosystem] had not really hadn't entered the picture back then. What was the role of science that first 20 years? And of course, and I'm speaking about before you came to the Willamette, and we're going to talk more about the Andrews [H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest], science and its applications, as we get further along here. But what was the role of science, and later on, you'd have the explosion of what some people call the "ologists" into these specialty positions. But that first 20 years, it was a little different, or it was starting to change at the end?

ZS: Well, I think foresters and the education they had at that time, they were pretty well-rounded, but they didn't encounter all these demands that intensified the recognition of archaeology, or watersheds or soils, that sort of 01:00:00thing. We weren't doing things that were going to disrupt that, and that was a period of time when it didn't matter. But during that period you've talked about regarding the "ologists," we started bringing in these experts. And then some of our leaders, rangers and forest supervisors, were unable to meld them into an interdisciplinary team with the traditional values in mind. They wanted to keep going back to the traditional methods, which wasn't going to work very well. And the "ologists" became sort of outliers. And some district rangers did a good job, some just ignored them, and thought they were just a pain in the neck, you know.

SS: Pointy-headed specialists. Right?

ZS: Yeah. And it's just a matter of everybody keeping their eye on what the mission is and where we want to be. And then everybody, you know, forging together to get there, all going in the same direction instead of going all 01:01:00different ways. Because when they start going different ways, it's hard to pull them back into your objective over here. And of course, we went through a whole lot of kinds of organizational development with training and ideas and so forth, and we got some good things done that way. But it doesn't always work. It varies a lot by geographic area and individuals, the rangers, etc.

SS: Describe some of the most important legislation that affected how foresters did their job and impacted what you did, and the 1960 Forest Act, Wilderness Act, obviously in '64, NEPA, '69-'70, and then the 1976 Forest Act, those are the ones that come to mind. But do you want to describe how you would any of those particular acts and how they affected what you guys did in the Forest Service, but you specifically?

ZS: Sure. Well, the Wilderness Act is pretty straight and clear. I don't think you can do much about accusing of not being able to deal with it. The other acts are good. It's resulted in some undue planning that just continues on and on and on and on. But I think more important, would be some of these other acts like the Clean Water Act, and some of these other things that began to, they almost are akin to the "ologists" or they start driving some of these basic overall acts, or undermining them to such a degree that you can't accomplish the 01:03:00Multiple-Use Act or whatever. NEPA is, I think, okay. But NEPA can get off on tangents as well. We probably have too many acts. We need to go back to the "use book theory" and find out, what is the mission and how can we best get there given what the people want within the constraints of the resource itself. And I don't really have too much of opinion about any one particular act, except that they kind of get at cross purposes from time-to-time.

SS: Now, you mentioned earlier the French Pete controversy, which was going on when you came to the Willamette, right? It started before, way back.

ZS: It did, yeah.

SS: Do you want to describe that whole tussle and how it was resolved?

ZS: Well, you're right, the previous forest supervisor [Willamette] was trying 01:04:00to hold the line for timber harvest and business as usual in that place. And he didn't feel like it was wilderness. It was a lower elevation, we had a lot of wilderness already in the Willamette, and his position was no more wilderness, basically. That just flew in the face of the environmentalists, who really wanted to save that [French Pete]. They had some good reasons, too, because it was a lower elevation, it was untouched, beautiful country, and it was pretty much contiguous to the Three Sisters. I think that stimulated the whole controversy. When I came, I tried to mitigate that a bit by backing off of the planned timber harvest, and making it more acceptable, you might say, but that just went on and on and on. And we just could never quite get there. And finally, it was designated wilderness.

SS: How many acres did they add to the Three Sisters? [Wilderness]

ZS: Oh, seems to me it was about 17,000 acres. I may be off on that. I don't know.

SS: But it's basically up in the Olallie, French Pete, that whole area up there?

ZS: Right, and it's a pretty nice, self-contained drainage. And like you say, pretty much contiguous to the Three Sisters.

SS: I recall when I was a youth growing up in Eugene, hearing about French Pete, even from my arch-conservative Boy Scout Scoutmaster. By today's standards, he's a tea partier. But he was all in favor of the wilderness. It was strange bedfellows, you know, when it's your favorite place or one of your favorite places. But I remember hearing that, but I had no sophistication or background in it, so I learned about it only later on.

ZS: One thing we did do; the environmentalists were really concerned about the 01:06:00way we were building the roads and destroying trails. We had these five-year action plans for timber sales, and we'd project them by hand. And we could see that it was just going to be one controversy right after another. Each one would be fought on its own. So, we instigated what we called, "Sales and Trails Breakfasts." We had the industry and environmentalists meet with us in Albany, kind of a neutral place. And we had these breakfasts and we went through the entire five-year action plan and adjusted it. The environmentalists were happy and the timber industry was happy. But those are the kind of negotiations that kind of help bring people together. Nobody got everything they wanted, but they got enough to make it work well. The other thing we did was with the environmentalists, just to get a little better relationship with them, Betty and 01:07:00I hosted what we called the "Almaden Associates." And we invited all these arch-environmentalists to our house in west Eugene at that time.

SS: And this was in the '80s?

ZS: This was in the '70s.

SS: '70s, okay.

ZS: Mid-'70s. And I had bottle of Almaden Chablis or whatever it was, and we just came together and had a little wine and discussion, and you know, it was remarkable what we were able to do.

SS: Now, back then, what were the groups that were active?

ZS: Sierra Club.

SS: Mostly the Sierra Club?

ZS: Mostly, the Sierra Club, yeah. All these people, I think, were members of the Sierra Club.

SS: Wasn't there also an Oregon Natural Resources Council at that time?

ZS: You know, I don't recall.

SS: Which I think became the father of the Oregon Wild, I think.

ZS: Yeah, yeah. They may have been around, but weren't prominent here. I think Sierra Club is pretty much it, and Wilderness Society, to some extent. But a lot of these people were the same ones. So, we'd catch them all at one time, and a 01:08:00lot of them were University of Oregon professors. Dick Noyes was a professor, Sandy Tepfer, and several others. But they were good and reasonable people. And when we gave them a chance to function in that more collaborative way, they were willing to give a bit.

SS: It's interesting, when you put people in the same room in these conversational formats, and throw a little alcohol in probably as a perk, it's amazing how people who will lob grenades at each other, verbal grenades, when in different scenarios, will at least be able to converse?

ZS: Yeah.

SS: Often.

ZS: I think so.

SS: And that's true. Now, you said that when you came to the Willamette, it was the number one producing national forest in the whole system. How long did it 01:09:00take you to realize that what was going on was not sustainable, and how did you perceive that this needed to be changed or amended or scaled back?

ZS: Yeah. Well, the first thing that caught my eye, as I said before, was the satellite picture of the forest with all those round white spots, clear-cuts. I knew we couldn't sustain that. And we were pretty much aware that more and more, there was going to be a priority on non-timber values. And that just led on. Then we had RARE I, and we had RARE II.

SS: But there were very entrenched political and economic interests that had certain expectations, so how do you deal with that?

ZS: Yeah, we dealt with it like these "Sales and Trails Breakfasts," and my 01:10:00"Almaden Associates," and we tried to find common ground. We were probably still behind the curve, because it still happened and when I got down to California, it was when I finally lost my job because of that.

SS: Right.

ZS: Because we couldn't keep up with it.

SS: Exactly.

ZS: You know, it just probably lopped over too far the other side now. Now, we have no capability of milling or logging. And we're destroying forests in Malaysia and Indonesia and all those places, at their expense, and ours are just sitting here idling.

SS: How would you describe the Forest Service and the relations with local communities, early in your career? Well, this first 20 years, I mean, when things were different?

ZS: Yeah. Early in my career and certainly during my dad's and granddad's 01:11:00career, the Forest Service was part of the community. If you look at it today, you'll find that most of the rangers don't even live in the community any more, they live in Eugene and commute to Oakridge. Yeah, Oakridge. So, there's a loss there. Also, the consolidation of ranger districts. The three major ranger districts on the Willamette, Oakridge, Lowell, and the Rigdon, huge districts. Big timber programs. Each one of them had a timber program bigger than most forests in the system. We combined all three of those into one ranger district. And you know, the ranger becomes remote. And he was even remote, lived in 01:12:00Eugene, and still does. So, we've lost that community tie. It used to be it was easy because we were all out there working with the people and knew the people. And the wives and families were integrated into the community. So, that's not the case anymore. It's quite a lot different.

SS: I mean, some of the McKenzie District people live up the McKenzie, and I think even the Detroit District or Sweet Home District, they live sort of up there, right?

ZS: Right. Part of them live in, I don't know where the ranger lives now, and probably still in Detroit, and probably Sweet Home, but a lot of the staff live other places, Lebanon, or wherever it is. And McKenzie, there's a lot of people who live in Eugene in the McKenzie. And I think Terry Baker, ranger at the 01:13:00McKenzie District was a good one, a top guy. He's a black guy, and he's just a sweetheart. And I think he lives up there. And you know, he was named "Person of the Year" or something by the McKenzie people, not the Forest Service, but the community up there. And so, it's still possible.

SS: Now, that really wasn't going to be one of my central questions, but I will bring it up. The gender, racial and ethnic makeup of the Forest Service was very Caucasian when you came in.

ZS: And male.

SS: And male. And how did that change over the time that you were in the Forest Service?

ZS: Well, you may be aware of the Consent Decree that was issued in California. The Pacific Southwest Research Station was taken to court because they felt that 01:14:00the scientists were, you know, basically men, and the negotiations to resolve that issue, the Forest Service signed a Consent Decree that embraced Region 5 and the National Forest System as well. And boy, I tell you, that was something else. The Consent Decree, there was a monitor and the court oversight, and we had to make progress in getting more women in the pipeline and in proper positions.

SS: But it was mainly targeted at women, correct? ZS: That was women, yeah.

SS: Yeah.

ZS: Now, we've always had a fairly strong Civil Rights program, but without a Consent Decree, that I'm aware of. And it's somewhat difficult, because the black community, principally urban, has no interest in forestry.

SS: They have the same problem in the National Park Service, to some degree.

ZS: Right, I think any rural type or natural resource agency probably has 01:15:00trouble with this. But women are a little bit stronger, I think, in making progress. A lot of women are wildlife biologists, for example, and they're rising right up in these agencies. The Forest Service Consent Decree did its job. I mean, we've had, two or three chiefs that have been women. And as you look at the Forest Service now, probably almost half, well, probably not half, a lot of them, are forest supervisors. There's been several regional foresters. Some of them are good and some of them are not good. And we've had some real issues where women have not had the experience, or the seasoning, I guess, to be top line leaders. They kind of want to make all the decisions themselves, instead of, being a leader, and allowing people to function independent towards that mission, but they have to make the decision.

SS: That's always been one of the questions that the skeptics question about the whole Affirmative Action type of dynamic, where, even though they don't want to call it a quota system, it kind of is. And you sometimes may put people in a position that, based on pure meritocracy, and abilities that might not be quite there.

ZS: Right.

SS: To fulfill a broader social mission, shall we say.

ZS: And I think that that's happened, certainly.

SS: So, in terms of science, what role did science have when you first started, and how did that change by the time you got to the Willamette, and then I'm going to ask you specifically about research stations like the Andrews, or any 01:17:00other experiment stations, Wind River, there's ones all over, Fort Valley, Arizona. You've been exposed to some of them, more or less. But just tell me about the role of science when you started, how that evolved, and then I'm going to ask you specific questions about the H.J. Andrews.

ZS: Yeah, okay. Well, I think reaching clear back into my granddad's time, research in the National Forest System had some collaboration, and a lot of friendships that promoted collaboration and exchange of information. I can remember specific people that my grandparents, my granddad, relied on. The same thing happened with my dad. I think he was quite aware of those folks. I think 01:18:00there's been a somewhat of a drift away from that, and not so much with the Andrews, but just kind of generally. And research got off on one side, and the National Forest System on the other side.

In my own career, I've really valued research because it tends to give us some answers towards adjusting National Forest methods that are more consistent with social values that occur. I'll reserve the Andrews for something later. But as a regional forester, I was very close to the Director of the Pacific Southwest Research Station. We skied together, we hiked together, we collaborated 01:19:00together. I called on him and his people to help us with issues that we didn't seem to understand and know just quite what to do. Like on the Six Rivers [National Forest], where you've got that very unstable country where the mountains are rising and the streams are cutting into the soil.

SS: Talking about northern California, right?

ZS: Yeah, and kind of like the Siuslaw [National Forest]. The Siuslaw has got some of the same issues. I think there's been a fairly-good relationship in the reliance, but it varies by individuals. And I think you have to finally realize that the only way to get the job done is to call on science. I've never had any trouble with that. Some people do. And some scientists are, there's a few scientists that are really strong on herbicides, and that's kind of against the social medium, too.

SS: Well, yeah, you know, that some of the real groundbreaking science in terms of herbicides happened at the PNW Station. I mean, some of the early research on DDT and all the different chemicals, you know, that they were just taken for granted. They used to put them everywhere in the forest, when you started, right?

ZS: Yeah. Oh, I can remember on the Okanagan, standing there with a flag and getting sprayed with DDT. You know, I'm still alive, but.....

SS: Yeah, but if some animal had eaten you, you would have gone into the food chain and poisoned the food chain. (Laughs)

ZS: Yeah.

SS: No, the attitude was very different. Do you ever remember reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring?

ZS: I did, yes. SS: And did that make an impact on you?

ZS: Yeah, I appreciated it. Yeah, DDT.

SS: It was the early '60s. I mean, well, DDT and all the other chemicals.

ZS: And the eagles, that's what saved our eagles.

SS: Yeah, exactly. The highest animals on the food chain were the most susceptible, because it would concentrate up the trophic levels.

ZS: Sand Almanac.

SS: Sand County Almanac.

ZS: Sand County Almanac, I read that about a once a year.

SS: Aldo Leopold, yeah.

ZS: And you know, there's good advice there.

SS: Yeah, and I was referring to whether your grandfather or your father knew Aldo Leopold, or met him?

ZS: I don't know if he did, or not.

SS: Yeah, I mean.

ZS: Bob Marshall, he did.

SS: Oh, they met Bob Marshall? Really? [Co-founder, Wilderness Society]

ZS: Yeah.

SS: And he had a rather short life.

ZS: He did.

SS: Yeah, and tell me about their interactions with Bob Marshall?

ZS: You know, I just know that they were.

SS: Just know that they met, okay, right. Now, there is theoretical science, often called basic science, and there is applied science. Now, how would you 01:22:00define these categories, and in regards to research sites like the Andrews and other experimental forests or research stations, what responsibilities do you think scientists have in applying their research towards something practical or useable?

ZS: Well, I think that's really important. You have to have the pure science to build up to these levels. The Andrews is a good example of it for watersheds, and the rotting tree thing [log decomposition], and these kinds of things. When I was here, I really appreciated the Andrews because we were having trouble figuring out how to handle roadsides, for example, up the McKenzie, and how best to manage that. Jerry Franklin and the others over there, I forget the OSU counterpart to Jerry at that time.

SS: In the '70s?

ZS: Yeah, '70s. And they, you know, they sat down with us.

SS: Dick Waring, probably, right, Richard Waring?

ZS: I don't remember that name, but anyway, they sat down with us, went out in the field with us, and said, "You know, you need to be doing something in these roadsides or you're going to lose them." We were just protecting them, not doing anything in there, and they really helped a lot on that. And Jerry Franklin, he gets a lot of guff from some people, but he's pretty practical, too. He's not against logging, he really understands the ecosystem and what makes it function, and he's just smart enough to know what we can do to enhance that. So, we called on him a lot. And the same way with herbicides.

SS: Give me some specific examples that you remember about Jerry Franklin's involvement?

ZS: Well, the roadside thing was really bugging us. He spent time with us out there on the ground. Since then, I've had a chance to deal with him on issues in South America and various other places. In fact, developing for OPIC [Overseas Private Investment Company] an environmental guide, Jerry helped us a lot. He was up in [Univ. of] Washington as a professor by that time. But those are the kind of things that could really help.

SS: Do you want to describe what OPIC is? It's not OPEC, the oil cartel.

ZS: No.

SS: Want to just spell that out for the record?

ZS: Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which is a U.S. government agency, that provides political risk insurance and loans for private investment overseas. And they don't do that unless there's an environmentally acceptable plan to do that.

SS: Before we interviewed, you told me about that you went down to Chile or Patagonia with Jerry. Do you want to tell me a little about that trip?

ZS: Well, that was a case where the Weyerhaeuser Company had a projected project in Tierra del Fuego, mostly on the Argentine side, but not entirely, some on the Chile side, too. And before they could get political risk insurance and grants from the government overseas, they had to have an environmental assessment by OPIC, and I was their contractor for that. Jerry and I just happened to go down together. And that was very positive because I could bounce things off of him as a scientist, and he could bounce things off of me as more of a manager.

SS: What was your impressions of the land management dynamics in your brief experience down there? The Chileans and the Argentines that you dealt with, and just what you saw on the land?

ZS: I think it was pretty good. In Argentina, particularly, and then to some extent Chile, they tried to cut the forest down and have agriculture, grazing, and that sort of thing. So, that was their choice. I mean, they didn't make any bones about that. But then later, as the livestock industry sort of declined, then they wanted to restore these lands. And then they also looked at these lands as a timber resource that could be added to the economy. So, I really can't fault either one of them for destroying things. They didn't destroy much of anything.

SS: Well, but if you know U.S. history, you know that what really led to the Forest Service and the whole conservation ethos in this country and institutions was the horrible forest practices of the 19th century, especially in the upper Midwest.

ZS: Yeah, sure.

SS: Where you had railroad tracks being built in, you know, basically dead-end railroads. You cut everything down and leave.

ZS: Leave, right.

SS: You know, a lot of that complete flattening of forests is what eventually would lead to conservation philosophy discussions and, Pinchot [Gifford] and Graves [Henry], and the Forest Service, and Fernow [Bernard], actually, is the guy I was looking for. Graves was after Pinchot, but that's true. Back to the Andrews. Tell me more about the science that you saw going on there, and how you feel that it impacts forest management. ZS: Yeah. Well, you know, I think the 01:28:00three watersheds [1-3], for example, it was excellent where you clear-cut one, the whole thing, you had kind of patch-cutting in another one, and nothing in the other. You had three, these were small watersheds. You're probably familiar with those.

SS: Right.

ZS: We relied on a lot of stuff that came off of that, and we just didn't understand it. I hope that we've changed things a bit. We certainly didn't make giant clear-cuts like in one watershed, yet we had just the control over here with nothing happening, to measure what was happening in the roads and scattered timber harvest. So, that was the main thing going on when I was here. And except for the incidental stuff and herbicides and helping with the roadsides and that sort of thing. Later, since I retired, I use the Andrews regularly. I take 01:29:00Russian visitors up there. The people from ELAW, I take up there to show them what's happening in science.

SS: So, you work with Bern Johnson and ELAW then?

ZS: Yeah, sure do. In fact, we, Betty and I both escort people up in that country and agenda.

SS: So, anyway, the blinking means hold [recorder]. Thank you for noticing that. That's why I'm always looking at the recording device.

(Break in audio)

SS: Now, do you want to continue, we've talked about theoretical science and basic science, and we took a short break there. You want to go any more on that point?

ZS: I don't think so. I have a great respect for science. I don't feel like I'm a scientist, even though I had a lot of technical forestry. But I know there's people that are working on this and developing new information. And we need 01:30:00that. We've got a lot of things in our future here, warming of the world and this and that, and what the effects are. So, I think we need all the science we can get.

SS: Now, we talked about Jerry Franklin shortly before the break. And of course, he's often one of the main people in what they often call "New Forestry," which is a variety of practices and theories and methods to change the way business is done going forward. What's your opinion of New Forestry and what you think it is and how you've seen it has evolved, good and bad?

ZS: Well, I'm a great admirer of Jerry Franklin. And I endorse his notion of handling timber harvest the way he does. In fact, I've tried to promote that 01:31:00with OPIC and convince others that that's the way to go. So, he's one of my favorite people. Despite, you know, he and Norm, what's his name?

SS: Norm Johnson.

ZS: Norm Johnson and Jerry, they get a lot of criticism, but I think they have a lot to offer, too. Jerry, in my view, has been very flexible in trying to keep timber harvest available, of course, in all kinds of circumstances. And his sense of leaving a certain number of trees and certain cover for wildlife and all those things combined are quite good, I think.

SS: You're talking specifically about some of his older ideas, but also ones that he's now trying to apply along with Norm Johnson in the planning for the O&C lands. Right?

ZS: Sure.

SS: All right.

(Break in audio)

SS: Regarding the science question, we asked it from the other side from the science perspective. Now, what are the responsibilities of the land managers as they relate to important scientific findings, even if they could result in difficult management challenges and political problems?

ZS: Well, part of it's education within the organization and in the public that you serve. You know, our motto is "caring for the land and serving the people." If we know something that promotes caring for the land that is unacceptable in immediate terms for the people, we're similarly going to have educate the people, so that we know. I think we should stand up for that. I don't have any examples, but I don't think we should ignore it because we'll be sorry later.

SS: Cite some specific examples if you can remember, where you had to implement something based on science or something new that flew in the face of something, Forest Service practice, industry expectations, local communities, that may have been politically difficult?

ZS: Well, I think probably the thing that comes to my mind is timber harvest in areas that shouldn't be harvested, but yet, were designated in planning as part of the allowable sell. Therefore, you've got a dilemma. If you're not going to do anything in that, you're overcutting the rest of it. And that's what happened on the Willamette. SS: In other words, you concentrate in other areas to make up for what you're not doing somewhere else?

ZS: Yeah, but you haven't gone back and changed your capacity or your capability to do that kind of harvest. I remember one area on the Rogue River [National Forest], Union Creek District, where Dick Worthington and I had to go through 01:34:00Crater Lake National Park and down to the boundary, and walk into an area that was high elevation Shasta Fir, and we laid out clear-cuts in there. And they're still there after 50 years. Not 50 years, but 35-40 years, they're still not reforested.

SS: They never went and planted?

ZS: Well, they planted it, but it didn't -

SS: It just didn't take, huh?

ZS: It wouldn't take, no. I think there's things like that where you know you really shouldn't be doing it, and so you don't. And then you're stuck with having to transfer that production quota into an area that is not capable of adding that much to it. A lot of that's happened. And politically, it's just like the Secretary of Agriculture who relieved me of my duties, he didn't care. He didn't worry about that. He just listened to the industry.

SS: And what were you basing your decision on, just your collective experience of 25 years, 30 years before, or science, for just a gut feeling?

ZS: Well, it's probably all of those things. But I got a lot of feedback from forest supervisors and district rangers that they just can't continue that. And I guess that probably caused me to, gave me more ammunition than anything else, despite what I might think. If your whole crew, and understand, I had 17 forest supervisors and a whole bunch of rangers, and they were all saying, we can't do this. And they know the land a lot better than I do.

SS: Now, how would you describe your environmental ethic when you started your career? And then over the next 30-plus years, how it evolved, and even what it is today?

ZS: I'd say my environmental awareness was pretty low when I graduated from forestry school. I knew how to manage timber and forest and all these things, grazing, but I just proceeded based on what was happening then. After Earth Day all these kind of things began to change or altered my feelings about that, and I think the Forest Service is always a little bit behind. It usually is, when society changes, where you're not quite ready to change yourself. Traditional methods, instead of mission. I probably have more environmental concern today than I ever did. And I'm not anti-production by any means, but I'd be much more careful and concerned about things, and probably seeking more scientific information or proof or whatever. And when in doubt, don't do it. That's kind of my philosophy.

SS: When you first started seeing environmental activism, at first it kind of came from the Sierra Club and a couple other organizations, then it became more pluralistic, and it's changed very much in the last 40 years, where it's incredibly strident and litigious today. Want to describe how you've seen that change from its, maybe early days, when some long-haired bearded guy in the '60s, I'm using a stereotype, showed up and said something, versus as things evolved, Earth Day and afterwards?

ZS: Yeah, well, I think you've described it pretty well.

SS: Very well.

ZS: Yeah, when I was supervisor on the Sierra National Forest, I joined the Sierra Club. Because I really endorsed the basic principle. And I didn't agree 01:38:00with everything they did, but there's hardly any organization that I would agree with every aspect of it. And if anything, I'd like to be able to change some thoughts. Well, when I came to the Willamette, I kind of dropped my membership because it was too volatile.

SS: And this was, these were in the years leading up to what was often called the Forest Wars?

ZS: I suppose, I'm not familiar with that.

SS: '70s and '80s. I mean, the years leading up to the Dwyer injunction on the spotted owls, and then the planning going up to the Northwest Forest Plan.

ZS: Right.

SS: But I mean, this was kind of the ground being prepared for that.

ZS: Sure. You know, I think we learned as we went, but we were a little bit behind the mainstream of society. And it's hard to change old ways.

SS: Was it usually the scientists that were more into the changing because they 01:39:00were doing certain studies of wildlife or plants, and the administrators were still locked into the old logistics and continuum of how the Forest Service had done business, or do you think, was there a tension there?

ZS: I never felt any tension. But I think a lot of that exchange and sharing was done by the scientists and the wildlife biologists, or the scientists and the soil scientists and the silviculturists. And you know, one of my classmates became the regional silviculturist in this region. And he was good, he had good contacts. And I encouraged that thing. In fact, he was our silviculturist here when I was on the Willamette.

SS: And who was that?

ZS: Ralph Jaszkowski. And he developed, I had encouraged him to make sure that we had all the scientific information that we could, and he was going to be more 01:40:00the judge of whether it was going to work for us or not. Because who am I to say anything about silviculture? I'm a forester, but you know, I did that in the 1950's. And since then, I did work mostly just as a ranger or something like that.

SS: Now, I'm going to give you a long-range question I was going to ask at the end, but it's on my mind, so I'll ask you now. You have been involved with the Forest Service with your family, back to the beginning, basically.

ZS: A hundred years.

SS: How would you describe the esprit de corps of the Forest Service? And what it was, what positives that has done for the Forest Service, both internally and in its image, but also how that's evolved over time?

ZS: Yeah.

SS: Or even as some people would say, has declined, the old esprit de corps?

ZS: I think the esprit de corps has declined. There's no question about that, although I'm just amazed at how competent and willing and professional the people are, especially in ranger districts and forests. They know what to do. And they're still out there working their heads off, despite all the difficulties and the lack of budget, and the dissatisfaction by urban people and politicians and so forth. In my time and earlier, I knew all the elected officials very well and had a lot of consultation. That's not happening any more. In fact, some administrations don't want forest supervisors and regional foresters talking to members of Congress. They've come out with that direction. Well, they still do, but it's all "under cover." So, I think the esprit de corps 01:42:00has gone down, but it's surprising how resilient people are. They're still trying to do their job, working extra time and doing good.

SS: And how would you describe the old-school esprit de corps, the stuff you saw from your father and your grandfather? And then, even how that was still there when you became active in the Forest Service?

ZS: Yeah, they thought the Forest Service was the greatest thing. We always referred to ourselves as the Marine Corps of the Civilian Service. Great, high pride. And you wore the uniform, the badge, and there's all kinds of things that are happening now. The Secretary of Agriculture tried to take our pine tree badge away from us. He said, "No more of that. You're Department of Agriculture, you're not Forest Service." Boy, the retirees just went berserk on that. And he had to back off it. But everybody I talked to back there says, "Well, you know, 01:43:00you won that little battle, but they're going to get even with you." They took the shield off the pickups, or the green color off the pickups. Now, they're all white.

SS: Some of them have green stripes like the law enforcement ones and stuff like that. The fire, wildland fire, the different designations, right.

ZS: Yeah, those are identified. But the rest of the people drive around in white vehicles with very little identification.

SS: And that's for, what do you, how do you interpret that?

ZS: Well, I interpret it as a kind of a decline in the ability to project an image, and be proud.

SS: So, you liked that old green?

ZS: I didn't care what green it was. It used to be dark forest green.

SS: That's right. When did they change to that kind of, whatever it, what was the name of that green, was there a name for it?

ZS: Well, it was a two-tone there for a while. The white tops and a kind of pale green. That lasted for a while until they just discontinued everything. I think 01:44:00there's a lot of resentment on that. And a lot of feeling, even among the present employees as, you know, why can't we be proud of ourselves here? Again, we fly the flag. And it's hard for them to do it now because these administrations, not just this one, but all of them have kind of declined in that respect.

SS: And there's also the last, especially 20-25 years, there's been so much anti-government rhetoric and kind of a belief in government being the problem, that the respect for responsible civil servants, whether they're at the Post Office or wherever, has declined.

ZS: Yeah. I don't see that affecting the Forest Service as much as a lot of other agencies like IRS and Justice and this and that. I think the Forest Service still has a fairly-good image in that respect.

SS: How did you like to deal with the public when you were involved in a debate, and the whole public involvement thing post-NEPA came on during the last 18 years of your career. How would you characterize how you dealt with that, your learning curve during that time, and how you liked to operate with the public, whether it be in a one-on-one or a group public hearing type of environment?

ZS: I think, first of all, you listen and don't interrupt. Just listen, make sure you understand, give them all the opportunity if they want to unload on you or whatever. And usually after the unloading process, then you can start discussing it. In my career, I met with large groups and with individuals; I met 01:46:00with everybody. You know, I always had a great staff. I didn't have to go making all the decisions or doing all the work. I could talk to a lot of people. I considered that my most important thing. Every time I went back to Washington, which was at least once or twice a month for various meetings, I always stopped in and see our congressmen, talked to them, get their feelings about things, make sure they understood why certain things were done and certain things were not done. And they could handle part of that problem. But my office was open, and I took on everybody. But mainly I listened, and then tried to give feedback on what we could possibly do. And I never had any real problems in that respect.

SS: You never had a really-explosive public hearing that you were a part of?

ZS: No, not really. I remember as forest supervisor to the Willamette, we were 01:47:00on Pearl, 13th and --, 11th and Pearl, is the building there. It's where our offices were. This was when French Pete was going, and here comes Jim Weaver, marching with all these environmentalists. And they were yelling at me up in the window, "Hey, Zane, come on down, come on down." You know, I had a good relationship with these people, even during those periods. And so, they were going to have a big rally in the mall downtown. And I went down there. I joined them and I observed it. And they had a guy named Zeke something, and he was a logger, with a hickory shirt and stagged-off black pants and cork coots, and he had a chainsaw. And he was up there with the environmentalists.

SS: He was wearing corks in town?

ZS: Yeah, right.

SS: So, you could hear him, click, click, click, click, right?

ZS: Yeah, so, and I forget the young man's name, who is now a lawyer, but anyway, he was introducing everybody. And he says, "Now we're going to play a little game." He says, "All you people out there standing, you're trees. And you're standing there proud and be the forest." And he says, "What do you think, Zeke?" And old Zeke looks around and he, vroom, vroom! And then he starts his chainsaw out there and he goes, bzzzz! And everybody fell down. (Laughs) Well, you know, it was more good-hearted, but it made a point.

SS: Somewhat of a publicity stunt. Yes.

ZS: Well, yes, let them do that. And you know, I was there, and I still talked to them. But I never had anybody that just refused to deal with me.

SS: Tell me about some of your important mentors, role models, friends, colleagues, in the Forest Service that you have not talked about, since we've been mainly talking about general stations and dynamics and management issues. But tell me about some of the people in your Forest Service life and career?

ZS: Yeah, I think particularly during my generation and in the past, my dad and grandfather, we did have strong mentors. As I said before, I never applied for a job in the Forest Service. When there was opening, I didn't apply, I was always selected by whoever it was that selected those things. Annually, we'd have performance ratings and we'd talk about where we wanted to go and what we might 01:50:00do better, or what we were doing very well, but I never had to apply for a job. I was always selected. And I know I had some strong mentors. Vern Hamre, who was my boss back in Washington, D.C. He was a strong mentor. Jack Deinema, who was a regional forester in San Francisco at one time, a strong mentor. Several people I know and some I probably didn't know, were strong mentors. And my dad was a mentor to quite a few of my contemporaries that I know, and I've visited with them about that, too.

SS: Are you Zane Jr., by the way?

ZS: Yeah, correct.

SS: Okay.

ZS: And my granddad mentored certain people. So, I think there was a strong mentoring system. I think when we, somewhere in the '70s and '80s, that probably 01:51:00began to decline a bit because everything was so structured in terms of filling vacancies and promotions. If you didn't apply, you weren't considered. Now, that didn't mean that a ranger or a forest supervisor might say, "You know, Joe, why don't you apply for that? I think you'd be great." But they had to apply. There's also more and more families were unwilling to move. Wives had jobs.

SS: So, the old dynamic of the military model of -- ZS: It began to decline.

SS: The model of many stations in so many years; that started to decline?

ZS: Yeah. And now you've got people not clustered into compounds, ranger stations are kind of scattered around, and they don't get together as much anymore. So, there's been a decline on that. And you can't fix that really, you 01:52:00just have to deal with it and manage it. But it's different. And I certainly had a lot of mentors. And without those mentors, I would not have gotten where I was, because I was a district ranger an unbelievably short time, and a forest supervisor an unbelievably short time, and a regional forester, which hardly anybody ever gets there.

SS: So, how would you describe the reason of how you went up the ladder fairly-quick?

ZS: Well, I think, for one thing, I understood the Forest Service. And knew how to make the best of it. I was willing to move and Betty, my wife, she learned to move, and has, many, many times. So, we always hated to leave in some ways, but I never turned down a promotion, or a reassignment because I knew that was important to do.

SS: Of course, it was probably more difficult on your children.

ZS: Our son probably went to the same school, maybe two years at a time, never went again. Our daughter is a little more stable. But Tim, he went to Kennedy Middle School here one year, and two years to Churchill [both in Eugene], and then, he went to Washington, D.C. two years there. Those are pretty-tough moves. He didn't have any trouble with it.

SS: Especially in adolescence, when you're coming of age and, you know, who am I going to go to a prom with, that kind of thing?

ZS: Yeah, well, I think, all the moves really helped him. Now, he's the District Manager for BLM in Las Vegas, for all of southern Nevada.

SS: Really?

ZS: Yeah, and he just handled the Bodie thing.

SS: What happened at Bodie? [Thought he meant old mining town in eastern California.] This is off the subject, but I'd be interested, tell me?

ZS: Mr. Bodie?

SS: Oh, no, you're talking about Bundy [Cliven]. ZS: Bundy, Bundy, yes.

SS: The reason is, Bodie's the famous ghost town. Anyway, I was confused. What happened in "Bodie," as I was just there?

ZS: Excuse me. Yes, Bundy. And Tim's handled that very well, too.

SS: How did he deal with that?

ZS: First of all, that was a 20-year-old problem, and he'd just been down there for a year, and the secretary [of Interior] handed it to him to solve, get it done, so he did. And he began to gather up all the cows and do the thing he was supposed to do. And that's when Mr. Bodie --

SS: Bundy.

ZS: Bundy.

SS: Cliven Bundy.

ZS: Mr. Bundy gathered up his horses. And the BLM and the Forest -- , or the BLM and the Park Service, had 100 armed law enforcement people there to protect the wranglers and make sure everything worked. They had a kind of headquarters there with trailers.

SS: But Bundy had a bunch of militia guys there, too?

ZS: Yeah, 200. Two hundred, and a lot of them had AK-47's. And they lined women and children up in front of them and pointed the guns at the BLM and Park Service. Tim called the whole thing off.

SS: It wasn't worth the chance, the risk.

ZS: But he said, "Don't take a shot at anything, because it would be a massacre." And so, what he did was, he called on the Metro Police [Las Vegas] and the Las Vegas Sheriff's Office, and they brought their SWAT teams in, and 01:56:00escorted the BLM and Park Service off. And then it was turned over. Fortunately, the Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, she turned it over to the Attorney General [U.S], and the Attorney General got the U.S. Marshals and the FBI in, just for, they'll arrest Bundy.

SS: Did they finally arrest him?

ZS: No, I don't think it's done yet, but that's their intent is to arrest him and put him in jail.

SS: Okay.

ZS: I think when you get into a real confrontation and you have to stand your ground, if it's a law, but if somebody is not happy with a law, you could take somebody like Mr. Bundy and the Nevada situation. I have some sympathy for the fact that Nevada is 87 percent publicly owned. But taking the law, or going 01:57:00against the law, is not the way to handle it. Somehow, there needs to be some legislation or some legal way to resolve that issue, if it should be resolved.

SS: But it really has to do with education. Because if most people realized that the actual market price of grazing land, for instance, and the fees that they pay, and this even goes back to the early Forest Service days that your grandpa and your father dealt with, when there was early resistance to any management whatsoever, the market prices would be much more.

ZS: Yes.

SS: But people, they have, I think, a distorted view of "John Wayne" independence and mythology, as I call it, and what really is true on the ground, versus what their views of things are.

ZS: Well, it's been said that grazing fees are so low, and they are low. However, nobody ever recognizes that the ranchers under the permits are required to document certain improvements.

SS: Usually water and throughways.

ZS: And water and fences and total management of those areas. So, you might say that in the private sector, you might get $10 per cow or calf a month, on the public lands, you get $1.35 or something like that per cow or calf-month. But there's a lot of other requirements that are contributing to the welfare of the land.

SS: Did you ever have any less publicized versions of that in the many different issues that you dealt with out there, whether it had to do with a squatter on a mining claim, illegal grazing, illegal timber cutting; did you have any instances like that in all your years?

ZS: We had instances of trespass, people stealing timber, Christmas trees, keeping too many cows on a permit. But we dealt with them in the regular manner.

SS: And how would you describe the regular manner?

ZS: Well, the regular manner was to get our law enforcement people involved and then take them to court, and we had pretty good relationships with all the magistrates in our areas. They'd fine the people or put them in jail. And if it was really serious, then it got into the big-time in jail, those sort of things. And then, we have sent people to jail, particularly on timber trespass where it was, you know, purposeful.

SS: For instance, give me a for-example?

ZS: Well, I think in almost every assignment I had, there was examples of it. I don't remember names of the people.

SS: That isn't important, but how would you describe what would happen in a typical situation?

ZS: Well, there might be a private/public boundary. And they do their private land, and then, they'd cut into the national forest and think they'd get away with it, or they just simply --

SS: And then they'd feign ignorance after-the-fact?

ZS: Yeah, after-the-fact, and then we'd have to prove it. And then people stealing Christmas trees, you know, by taking 300-400 Christmas trees.

SS: Oh, not just one for the family living room.

ZS: We give them permits on that, but so that people don't have to worry about that. But yeah, I think there's been a lot of trespass and illegal stuff, and there's people who start fires. We've got a good law enforcement group that works with us as part of district ranger's teams and they go out there and figure those things out. And then they cooperate with the Sheriff's office, too. The Sisk Act back in the '60s allows the Forest Service to cooperate with sheriff's departments, giving them money and they help us with law enforcement. 02:01:00And we don't have exclusive jurisdiction of the national forests, the sheriff and us share that, unlike the Park Service.

SS: The state police, they also can be involved, if you're asked in, right?

ZS: Yeah, right. They're not real anxious to do this because they're short of budget, too, so, but the sheriffs are good cooperators.

SS: And they also had the search and rescue people and the abilities to go out into areas like that more than most.

ZS: Yes, absolutely.

SS: And the infrastructure in specific areas for doing such things.

ZS: Search and rescues are done by volunteers.

SS: But they're usually coordinated through sheriff departments, generally.

ZS: Yeah, sheriff's departments organize it.

SS: Right, right. Did you have a favorite station or job?

ZS: District Ranger on the Okanagan National Forest.

SS: Why?

ZS: My wife liked that, too. It's just Okanagan is such a great town. It was a nice forest. It was, district ranger is the best job in the Forest Service, at least at that time it was, and I think it still probably is. You're the leader, but you're still close to the ground. And you're on horseback a lot. You're out in the field a lot. You've got, you're usually, at least in our time, you were part of a community, and well-respected. So, both Betty and I feel that Okanagan was the best. And at that time, that was the longest we've ever stayed in one place, four years.

SS: And that was in the early '60s, right?

ZS: That was in, yeah, '61 through, up to '65. So that was the best. But they were all good. Two tours in Washington, D.C., as long as I felt I wasn't going to have to stay there forever, it was fun.

SS: Now, do you still have friends in some of these remote postings?

ZS: Yeah, we do. We do.

SS: So, when you travel, you often say, "Hello, from long ago."

ZS: Yeah, right. Well, we get to Okanagan once in a while, and our next-door neighbor, Margaret Shallow, she ran the men's clothing store there and we visited her in the retirement home. There's just all kinds of places like that. And of course, the Forest Service during our era was pretty tight-knit and we've got friends all over the United States. So, they're disappearing, though. It's really-difficult for us to see our people go.

SS: Yeah. Now, I'd say the number one Gifford Pinchot-ism and paradigm of the Forest Service is multiple-use, and its partner, sustained-yield.

ZS: Well, yeah. SS: And maybe you want to add one?

ZS: Well, his long-term motto was, in the long term --

SS: "Greatest good for the greatest number."

ZS: Greatest good, yeah.

SS: But I mean, but that's the over-arching utilitarianism.

ZS: Yeah, right.

SS: That he placed those specifics, the multiple-use, sustained-yield, within. How have you seen those change? How did you understand that when you started and how do you understand it now in retirement?

ZS: Well, I think it's still the greatest good for the greatest number in the long-run, which is, I think, still a valid one. How you apply that is something else. And now, what is the greatest good? And what is the long run? But it would 02:05:00be good if we could get members of Congress and others in these groups that are interested in the Forest Service to endorse that, and test their position that way. And the Forest Service should test itself that way, too. You know, I think it's still there, but I think it gets lost in the urbanization of this country.

SS: Yeah, I think the urban/rural bifurcation of demographics and culture is part of some of the things that you are discussing in other ways about the separation, the lack of connections that you used to have before. I think that's just a broad dynamic that affects everything.

ZS: I think so.

SS: Now, taking the multiple-use concept, greatest good for greatest number, overseas. You've done some work overseas, mostly at the end of your career but also some related things in retirement, correct? You want to describe how you see that extending beyond the confines of the U.S.?

ZS: Right. Well, I think most of my overseas work had to do with either sustainable development planning, or environmental assessments on how to protect the ecosystem and viability of the land and resource. I spent quite a bit of time with Ecologically Sustainable Development, Inc., working with Russians, Mongolians, and Chinese on sustainable development plans as advisors to their 02:07:00scientists and managers, and deciding what would be best for them in terms of land allocations to commercial harvest or watershed forest, or grazing or settlement development, that kind of thing, fisheries and wildlife, wilderness, all the way to World Heritage sites. That, I think, was really-important. And it extended this notion of the greatest good. You've got to decide what your priorities are. You can't impose them on the Russians or anybody else. They've got to understand what is it that's important to them, as long as it doesn't, well, you know, violate the integrity of the ecosystems and your natural resources, and you can help them. So, I did a lot of that. I did about 12 years' worth of that. We planned the entire Lake Baikal Basin, which is an area the size of California and Oregon combined.

SS: Well, and Lake Baikal, of course, is the deepest lake in the world.

ZS: The deepest lake and it holds more water than all the Great Lakes in the United States together.

SS: Well, it's almost 6,000 feet deep.

ZS: Well, yeah, it's over a mile deep. And fresh water seals, and endemic fish, and you know, it's one of the clearest lakes in the world.

SS: So, there hasn't been any serious pollution that's gone on in the area that's damaged the watershed and the lake itself?

ZS: It hasn't really made a huge difference. Now, there's been polluters. There's a pulp mill right on it. And they go dumping their stuff right into it. But the solution to pollution is dilution, you know.

SS: That's a big lake.

ZS: That's a big lake, so you can go a long time without anything happening there. But half of that was in Mongolia and half of it was in Russia. So, that 02:09:00was one project. We also did the Ussuri in China and the far east of Russia. And then we did the Altai Republic, the entire republic, which is a republic of Russia, on the very southwest part of Siberia. So, all of that was going on in terms of planning. Then environmental assessments with OPIC and others, just to make sure that things were done right without damaging the resource. We made some real progress on that. Well, that's some of the examples overseas, too, with the American Forest, we had a project called Trees for Tigers, and the Siberian Tiger was endangered.

SS: The white tiger, right?

ZS: It's not white. It's just a regular black-and-white stripe.

SS: Oh, I'm thinking of the white snow leopard.

ZS: Snow leopard. SS: Okay, my confusion.

ZS: Yeah, we had snow leopards in southern Siberia and in Mongolia, but the Siberian Tiger is the biggest tiger of the five species. And there's only about 500 of them left. Their habitat was being swallowed up. Other people were dealing with poaching and that sort of thing, but we dealt with the habitat. And worked with the Forest Service of the Primorski Kray, and Kray is kind of like a state, and the Amur Oblast, which is another thing for state. And planted Korean Pine which was native to that area, and provided a mast for the prey, for the 02:11:00tigers. And we spent, we had a huge grant from Exxon-Mobil, a "tiger in your tank" guy, you know. They were interested in it until a terrorist attack and we lost our funding. But we did a lot of work there. And did some work in Indonesia with the mangrove. This is American Forest stuff now. Those were all important things. Another thing I did with American Forest was I led a People-To-People visit to China. This is the Eisenhower People-To-People program. And we had about 20 foresters that went over there and we did a lot of visitation with the science sections of China [government], and then, their management sections. So, all those things were kind of important and sort of edge up to dealing with whole idea of the greatest good, etc., etc.

SS: What do you see as the greatest challenges for some of these, let's say, a typical developing country? You know, and Indonesia being one of the most geographically disparate countries, if not the most disparate in the word because of how many hundreds of islands it has. What are their challenges in terms of applying sustainable practices with the population pressures and the dispersed government authorities and infrastructure?

ZS: Trying to hold the line against countries that export their resources, including the United States. See, when we tie up our timber resources, they go someplace. So, that plus China and Japan, whose resources are very limited and offer economic incentives for those countries to exploit their natural 02:13:00resources. And that's a huge problem. Brazil has had some issues there, and South America, in various places. And there's too much incentive to improve the welfare and economics of the people in the short run, rather than the long run, you know, reserving those terribly important ecosystems, particularly, the jungles of the temperate tropical forest.

SS: When was the first time you heard the term ecology?

ZS: Ecology?

SS: To the best of your recollection?

ZS: I think I probably heard it in school in the '50s, but where it became a real tangible thing that we dealt with, probably in the '60s, somewhere in there. SS: What did the term mean to you then, and what does it mean now?

ZS: Ecology was just the understanding of nature, of natural resources, combinations of forest, grass, birds, everything, the ecology. It's not a term I use a whole lot. It still kind of means the same thing to me.

SS: Did you see that term or those kind of things make some of the old-school people bristle or become uncomfortable, thinking it was, one of those "green" words?

ZS: There probably was some of that because the environmentalists were using that term more, but I think most people understood what it was about. How they dealt with it in terms of living with the ecological systems, was quite different, probably.

SS: Now, how did you view ecosystem science when you first heard about what it was, whether through the Andrews or somewhere else, and how do you view it today? And of course, you've told me you've had many more interactions with the Andrews in your retirement, and I'm going to want you to talk about some of those, too. But start with just the definitional aspect of it, what ecosystems science meant to you when you first heard and understood what it was, and how you see it today?

ZS: Well, I think always that ecosystems indicated a subset of definitions about how you draw circles around them. We used it in RARE II, trying to get 02:16:00representation of all ecosystems into the wilderness system as a kind of a given comparing with the outside. You can define that in any way you want. You can measure landscapes and cultivation with vegetation.

SS: Your house and yard are an ecosystem, for example.

ZS: Yeah, right.

SS: Right.

ZS: So, you know, I don't think too much about that. And I think I understand that is probably applied in different ways in different circumstances, like the house or the yard, compared to the landscapes in northern Arizona, something like that.

SS: Now, what was the first experimental forest or research natural area that you remember being exposed to? Was it the Andrews or were there other ones as you went around the West in your career?

ZS: I can't think of the real sequence of it. But almost everywhere I've been, there's been research. It wouldn't necessarily be a whole experimental forest like the Andrews, but watersheds. For example, there's a lot of watershed stuff I've experienced in the state of Washington. Even in Washington, D.C. and traveling through the New England area, New Hampshire and Vermont.

SS: There's Hubbard Brook up there.

ZS: Yeah, and I knew even growing up, I knew about research stations.

SS: There's the Wind River up, of course, up in Washington. Did you ever go there when you were stationed in Gifford Pinchot [National Forest]?

ZS: Well, I was at Cispus Job Corps then, so I didn't do much outside of that. 02:18:00But I'd been to Wind River before. And I've been to a lot of them, I guess. And, you know, my colleagues in the Forest Service as a regional forester were the station directors. I got to know them as well, as I knew other regional foresters, and we had a lot of interaction with them. So, I don't have a lot of memory of those instances, but it's been a part of my life. You know, my grandfather was a good friend of research people, and I even knew them, and I was aware of research. And not so much experimental forests and such, but various things that happened.

SS: Now, you got to know Jerry Franklin later in your career. Correct?

ZS: I had met him here in the '70s.

SS: Yeah, '70s. So, you must have been exposed to the Andrews, personally.

ZS: Oh, yeah.

SS: Tell me about how you remember the first time you went there?

ZS: Well, I'm sure it was the first year I was here on the Willamette National Forest, though the Blue River Ranger District, which at that time, had a coordinator/liaison with the station and the forest. And I was up there several times.

SS: What do you remember about your impressions of the place? The infrastructure, the science, the projects, or the lack of infrastructure?

ZS: Yeah. I never had any problem with infrastructure. I mean, that was their business. And all I was --

SS: I mean, just what you remembered about it. I'm not saying --

ZS: Yeah. I was more concerned about information that I could get, advice and counsel I could get. And I got all I wanted.

SS: And what do you remember the really, the most important things that you got out of that place when you first went here?

ZS: Well, the important thing was realizing there was a source of information and advice. And I used that quite a bit. But I didn't get involved in their projects. I observed some of them, like the rotting log thing and the watershed work they did, and I got very familiar with that.

SS: What was your impression of the; actually, it's called the Long-Term Log Decomposition Experiment?

ZS: Oh, I thought it was a fascinating, 200-year thing.

SS: Right, and Mark Harmon was actually a grad student of Jerry Franklin.

ZS: Was he?

SS: That's kind of become his baby [Harmon].

ZS: Yeah.

SS: But what was your impression when you first heard 200 years? I mean, what 02:21:00was your impression about that time-span, which you might say redefines scientific studies and what an era would be?

ZS: I think I was probably a little bit awed by that, and never heard anything quite like that. But I had no problem with it. I thought it was a great idea. And the other things that they did up in the canopies, all of those things, were good. Mainly, if I had anything I wanted advice on, that's where I went, at first.

SS: And of course, you had at that time, the lead guy was Jerry Franklin.

ZS: Yeah. But I also dealt directly with the station director.

SS: Art McKee? [H.J. Andrews E.F. Site Director]

ZS: Well --

SS: Oh, you're talking about the PNW Station director?

ZS: Yeah, right. Art McKee, I knew.

SS: Yeah, my fault.

ZS: But I think it was Bob Buckman [PNW Station Director] was there at one time up there. But we dealt with all these people. And it wasn't always just the Andrews, but it was any place that was into research.

SS: Now, the log decomp experiment is obviously one that flew in the face of previous beliefs about dead stuff in forests. How did you look at dead material or dying material in forests when you first came in, and did you start to change your mind before you heard about that study, or was that really revolutionary for you when they explained what they were doing?

ZS: I think it reinforced the idea that decaying wood is good for the ecosystem. Because before that, earlier in my career, when we had a timber sale, we just gathered all the slash or broadcast burned it, and cleaned it up. I think we 02:23:00changed a lot and that was revealing that it's good to, it took a long time for that thing to catch on, because they were still broadcast burning clear into the '70s. (Clock chimes) And piling and burning.

SS: Basically, the nutrients and all that carbon and what have you, just would go up.

ZS: And you know, it's habitat for critters and there's all kinds of reasons why you don't want to just clean things, strip it, you know, clean it up.

SS: What were some of the other people that you met up there that you recall?

ZS: You know --

SS: Or people that you still, or people that you know now, too?

ZS: Yeah, well, Fred Swanson.

SS: Talk to me about Fred, because although he's now technically retired, he's not really retired. He continues to take a very active role in shepherding the whole Andrews program, which is including humanities and social sciences and a variety of things, as well as the legacy issues which he's partly responsible for, including this project. Tell me about Fred?

ZS: Well, I thought Fred was a very approachable and available person. You could talk to him any time. He was particularly expert in explaining things in terms that a non-scientist could understand, and he was willing to present things in a manner that would help you with what you were concerned about, how you might go about things. He's just a great guy. It's been a long time since I've really 02:25:00dealt with any of that stuff, and he was one of my favorites. I had pretty much constant contact with him, not every day, but there's never a time you were neglected by him when you'd have an issue.

SS: Any other people at the Andrews over the years, the streams people, for instance, Stan Gregory or - ?

ZS: Stan Gregory, I know him. I know lot of those guys, although I can't remember their names, but I knew who they are. But the whole crew there was fine.

SS: Now, you have been up there quite a bit since you retired?

ZS: I was up there about a week ago.

SS: Describe the evolution of the place? And I mean, you said the infrastructure wasn't a problem when you were younger, because actually there wasn't any, really, to speak of, and now what you see up there. How do you feel that change and that evolution?

ZS: Well, the facility and the headquarters is completely different. It's great. All those apartments and the laboratory and the classrooms, and you know, even a USGS mudslide thing [measure debris flows]. I took Betty up there again, I guess, last weekend. We spent a whole day in the McKenzie, went up to Lookout Creek and hiked up a trail there.

SS: You go up the "Old Growth Trail"? [Andrews Forest]

ZS: No, I didn't go up there. But Betty's got so much arthritis and knee problems, I can't do much of that. But anyway, any time I get Russians or Chinese or, whoever, in here, to take them up for ELAW. I've had Panamanians, I've had Europeans, all kinds of people, and I always take them up there. And the staff there's very accommodating, but if they're not available if it's on a 02:27:00weekend or something, I just take them up there myself. And they are just astounded. It's a great place.

SS: What astounds them?

ZS: Well, first of all, just to get into some of those old-growth stands, and see a facility like that. And I forget the gal's name that took us through all those apartments and everything, but I was just amazed. We used to have just trailers and broken-down buildings up there, when I was there.

SS: You know, the name for it in the old days, don't you?

ZS: No.

SS: The "Ghetto in the Meadow."

ZS: (Laughs) I've heard that.

SS: That's how they described it for many years.

ZS: Yeah.

SS: And there were infamous incidents of rodents, and the one time, and I can't remember who it was, when some scientist, the shower basically went through the floor of the trailer. He was okay, but still.

ZS: Yeah, yeah. That's really great to see that. I'm very proud of it for the Forest Service and the university [OSU]. And you know, the relationship between OSU and the Forest Service is excellent there.

SS: Yeah, that's one of the capstone questions to ask is, the inter-institutional cooperation between OSU and the U.S. Forest Service has been central to the success of the Andrews. And why do you think that happened there like that, because that is not always the case that this happens?

ZS: It's not the case, but the Andrews is sort of a special place, even among all experimental forests. OSU has got a forestry school and it's agriculture-oriented, and the station has a presence there, the Forest Service station. The National Forest here, Willamette's got involved, and we have a 02:29:00coordinator [liaison] that works with them. So, I think it's sort of a unique situation. And I don't know why it isn't more common, and maybe there's just not those commonalities in terms of presence.

SS: So, what's your knowledge of the LTER system?

ZS: I don't even know what LTER stands for.

SS: Okay, it's Long-Term Ecological Research.

ZS: Yeah, I don't know much about that. I saw that in your write-up here.

SS: Yeah, there's 27 of them in North America, the Arctic and Antarctica.

ZS: Okay.

SS: And so, but that's what it is. Anyway, tell me a little more about what your experiences with the Andrews have been in retirement and things that you've seen go on up there?

ZS: Well, I think it's mainly taking international people up there and other people that are interested in forestry and not familiar with this area. I go up there with almost any guest and visitor. And I try to let them know I'm coming. But if, you know, I'm not asking for any help. Because most of these people, just knowing it's there and it happens is about two-thirds of it. And they're not going to come away with a lot scientific questions, although some of the foreigners do. So, that's about the bulk of it. I enjoy going up there myself and just wandering around.

SS: Okay, you were going to tell me some things about some items on your list that you wanted to address?

ZS: Well, after retirement, besides 25 years with the American Forest as a 02:31:00volunteer and all the things that we did, the Trees for Tigers, and Mangroves, and Indonesia, just representing them in the Northwest. And then the Ecologically Sustainable Development, I spent about 12 years with them. I spent all that time in Russia, Mongolia, and China, and South America. Then in Oregon, I was appointed to the Recreation Trails Advisory Council. I spent about three or four years there, just a council that dealt with the allocation of funds for trails, recreation trails. And then, I was appointed to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. I spent about three years there. And they, basically, take 02:32:00all these grant monies that come from the federal level and some other places, to improve watersheds and protect them. And then nine years with that commission.

SS: The Wildlife Commission?

ZS: The Fish and Wildlife Commission, yeah. I signed up for a four-year term and ended up with nine years. And those are good experiences because I learned a lot, plus I think they needed somebody that would, was helpful with the public lands. And we really got the Forest Service and the BLM and Park Service working with the state of Oregon in those instances.

SS: A question related to that. Going back to your beginnings and fast-forwarding all the way up to the present, just a kind of a synopsis statement. How would you characterize the evolution of the relationship between 02:33:00public agencies, BLM, Forest Service, Park Service, being the big three, during your tenure, even adding in state agencies, and how you've seen that evolve?

ZS: I tell you, as ranger and forest supervisor and regional forester, my partners were the directors of the Park Service at that level, Fish and Wildlife folks at the state level, and the BLM where we were bordering each other. I really considered them partners in public land management. So, I had a lot of dealings with them. I was with the Federal Executive Board in San Francisco, which brought all the federal agencies together. I had excellent relationships 02:34:00with the Yellowstone, not Yellowstone, but Yosemite National Park and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National parks, because the Sierra [National Forest] was right between the two. In fact, we helped Yosemite remove some timber that needed removing in an out-of-the way place when it wasn't very popular to be cutting timber in the national parks. But the park superintendent wanted that to happen.

SS: Was it a fire hazard issue, or a disease issue?

ZS: A disease issue. So, we stopped that. That's just some things I've done afterwards. And I've been retired for a long time, about 35 years.

SS: No, 25, 26.

ZS: '89.

SS: 28, 27?

ZS: Yeah, something like that.

SS: Something like that.

ZS: I think I retired in early '89.

SS: Twenty-five years.

ZS: Yeah, 25 years.

SS: Now, going back to thinking about your father and your grandfather, the turf wars between Interior and Agriculture were at times pretty strong over who was going to run the show in what areas. Do you ever remember them describing the "other agencies" in any one way or another?

ZS: No, I think. At least my family had a good partnership with the local people, at whatever level they were. But you know, it came and went by administration about moving the Forest Service to Interior. And I've always been opposed to that because I thought there was some value in having two departments running so much of this land instead of just one. If one went bad, the other one was probably going to be all right. I'm having second thoughts about that now, 02:36:00because this administration and some of the past ones here, recent ones, Agriculture is not just real happy with the Forest Service in my view, or they're not unhappy, but they don't see it as kind of their mission. So, it may be that Interior's an appropriate place for them. You know, there was talk, about combining the BLM and the Forest Service. That could happen, but then you've got such a giant agency that I think maybe it's better to split them up. SS: And also, there's ecological differences. I mean, the BLM does have forest lands.

ZS: Only in Oregon, really.

SS: What?

ZS: Only in Oregon, really.

SS: I mean, however you define forests. I mean, but they, there is some semblance, I mean, it used to be called the Grazing Service.

ZS: Yeah.

SS: So, there's some semblance of that to more or less, ecosystem types or biomes.

ZS: It make sense.

SS: So, there is a difference there. And of course, you know that one of the original reasons why you wouldn't have wanted to combine them was the General Land Office, which was in Interior way back when. This is right in the formative years, the glory years, the foundational years. The Land Office had a pretty rotten reputation for corruption and graft. And so, the nobility of the Forest Service and its mission, and what it wanted to do and how it viewed itself, and still views itself, would have had a hard time going back against that historical cross-current, I think. That would be a tough one for even a lot of old-school forestry people to go even today, 100-plus years later. Now, you were going to say something else about what you've been doing or done in Oregon at this level?

ZS: Just that those were good experiences and I think I was able to contribute to the collaboration between the Forest Service and BLM and the state. They weren't talking to each other all that much, and kind of running independent things. But, you know, especially on the national forests, the state and the Forest Service have a tremendous partnership there with the state regulating the Fish and Wildlife, and the Forest Service managing the habitat. You can't live without one.

SS: Right.

ZS: I just mentioned that because I spent a lot of time on that, and it was a good experience.

SS: And were some of the specific issues or political problems or things that you dealt with and completed or succeeded at when you were there? ZS: Well, we 02:39:00developed a plan for wolf reintroduction to Oregon. It's a big deal. And it's been interesting to watch that. It's working. The cougar population has exploded.

SS: What's your opinion of, and this is an unrelated issue, but I needed to ask you this. The recent cougar euthanization that happened in the Hendricks Park area here in Eugene?

ZS: Yeah, well, I think it had to be done.

SS: You think so?

ZS: Yeah, sure. You know, if you want cougars running around town, that's one thing.

SS: You don't think they're able to be transplanted somewhere else or -?

ZS: Well, the problem is we've got an overpopulation statewide.

SS: Right, okay.

ZS: When they eliminated dogs from hunting, the cougar population exploded. And nobody wants more cougars now. They're moving into areas that they've never been before. So, you know, if you move that cougar into Grant County or Harney County or wherever it is.

SS: It's going to cause other problems?

ZS: Yeah, you're just going to cause other problems, it just increases that whole business. And once these cougars get accustomed to habitation and people, it's hard to undo it.

SS: Yeah, there was a time when we were hiking around Spencer's Butte about six months ago early in the morning, and we heard something. That's all I'll say. We walked quickly. Usually, they don't attack people, but still.

ZS: If you, runners, see, cougars are just like big cats. They like to run after things and catch them.

SS: Catch them.

ZS: And runners in California have been killed by cougars. I don't think any in Oregon have. But people running out in the woods, and the tail starts to switch, and away they go.

SS: It means they're excited. ZS: Yeah, right.

SS: Okay, let's go to something that really happened after you retired, but 02:41:00you've watched and you know all the people, many of the people in the Forest Service that, starting with the spotted owl injunction, and then the Northwest Forest Plan, and everything that's happened since then. How do you view that whole dynamic of coming up, we have an injunction over an endangered species, a very controversial thing that literally locks down a lot of areas from active forestry. And then you have the Forest Plan, which evolved over a two-three-year period of time, and became what it is. How do you view that whole thing and how successful or not successful the Northwest Forest Plan has been?

ZS: Well, I think it could have been successful, but it was not permitted to be implemented, and therefore, not much is happening. There's too many ways that 02:42:00you can stop anything you don't like. And the strategy of some of these extreme groups is to just keep suing the Forest Service and the BLM, and the courts are just stacked full, they can't get to it for three or four years, and so everything stops. There's no point in even trying. If we had stuck with the Northwest Forest Plan and given it a chance, I think it would have worked all right. I didn't have any particular problem with it. I think Jack Ward Thomas and those guys did a pretty good job.

SS: What are the strengths of the actual plan?

ZS: Well, I don't know that I can say what they are. At least, it established a reasonable concern for the endangered species, in that case, the spotted owl, and it still allowed for timber harvest. But now, the whole thing is just, it's not being implemented.

SS: So, you mentioned about wolves, an introduced species, and probably the most controversial, certainly amongst rural ranching-type communities. But other endangered species, obviously, indicator species like the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, others, what do you feel about the Endangered Species Act, what it was intended to, and what is it actually doing?

ZS: I think that's related to what I mentioned before. We've got these statutes for the Forest Service mission, and so forth, and those are all good. The Multiple Use Act, the Wilderness Act, all those things, those combined, work reasonably well. There's some trade-offs, but the Forest Service and the public could understand that. But then NEPA comes along, and it gives them a lever to stop. There's people that don't want to cut down a tree anywhere. There's other 02:44:00people that don't want to stop fires anywhere. Those kind of things interfere with the implementation of the basic statutes. And therefore, I think the Endangered Species Act has given a lever to a lot of people that just simply don't want any kind of activity. And it can be the spotted owl, but it could also be frogs and lizards and butterflies, you know, lots of things. And that's sort of an irresponsible way to get your way. And it gets so much litigation that it just stops the world. And that's what happened here.

SS: So, you knew David Brower?

ZS: I did know him and I respected him, and I felt that he was very determined 02:45:00with what he was going to do, but he would listen to you and he had some good humor. I remember in Russia, one time, he said, well, the Forest Service is, something about reducing its clear-cutting, that "just selects a melon, then clear-cuts it instead of," he said something kind of like that. And I was always able to talk to him. And in Russia, he was a good advisor on how to deal with some of the issues there in terms of preservation and the utility of logging and so forth.

SS: What do you remember about the condition of the forests around Lake Baikal?

ZS: Oh, they're in good shape.

SS: Really?

ZS: Yeah. In Russia, everything was targeted from Moscow.

SS: Now, is this still in the Soviet era, or are you in the post-Soviet era?

ZS: Well, I was in the post-Soviet era. In fact, we went over there in 1992, and the Soviet Union had just collapsed.

SS: Right, one year before, exactly.

ZS: And all the decision-making then went to the regions. They were used to having targets established by Moscow. And so, if you had a timber target, you had to get that out, and the only way to do that really was to go along the railroads and the infrastructure that was there and clear-cut or whatever you had to do. So, the rest of the country, which was 99 percent, was untouched. There's no roads, just a huge, the Siberian forest, the Taiga, is about the size of the continental United States. And for the most part, at least, it's untouched. So, you're starting from scratch there.

SS: Did they ship their logs to market via the Tran-Siberian Railroad or did those, were they usually processed locally?

ZS: Both. There were big sawmills in Ulan-Ude and Yakutsk and Chita, and all those places that we worked in. But they also went on railroad too, to the coast. I suspect some of them were exported to China and Japan, etc., particularly out of Vladivostok or Hvarska. But there are lots of sawmills throughout Russia, and some of them were getting pretty sophisticated. They were using Finnish equipment and doing a pretty good job.

SS: What do you think about the evolution of the logging/timber/wood products industry in this country? Going back to the days when you started industrial 02:48:00forestry, and all of its evolutions to the present, what have you seen? And how local communities, mills, big, small and medium, have adapted, and the whole system?

ZS: Well, I think that we had a very viable timber history in the West, at least. Big mills, sophisticated mills, pulp mills, logging systems. All those things were there, but gradually as the ability of timber, particularly on the public lands, declined, those mills went out of business. And now, and you can see it all over Oregon, there's just a miniscule amount of capability left if we ever got back into business. There's not very many loggers left. There's not very many sawmills left. You've got a few. You've got Rosboro, and Roseburg, and a few others, and Weyerhaeuser.

SS: Seneca?

ZS: And Seneca. Those are primarily dependent on private properties, which is fine, and they're doing a reasonably good job. But people like Bohemia, and those folks, they went out of business. Even the pulp mill up in Albany, you see, they tore that thing down. They're salvaging it for scrap.

SS: The one right on I-5, right?

ZS: The highway, right. And so, I think if we ever got back in the business, we would be sort of rebuilding our industry here and its capability.

SS: If you were going to idealize a future of responsible forestry, 50 years down the road, what would you like to see happen if you had your ability to plan without all the problems?

ZS: Yeah, well, I think if we could eliminate all the litigation and agree on some level of production, I could envision that we'd be in good shape. In 50 years from now, we'd be back in business. We'd be taking advantage of the world's most productive forest in the Pacific Northwest, and relieve some of the pressure on the tropical forests, and places like Indonesia, Malaysia, where we're just stripping those forests, and in South America.

SS: Do you think that any of the local environmental groups even see the big picture when you're talking about carbon sequestration and global trade-off dynamics? ZS: I think they're pretty much fixed on trying to stop what they feel has been exploitation that was very destructive. I don't blame them for that. I think that eventually we've got to stop this idea that we can't cut any tree 02:51:00down. But, they've figured that out how to do that. The problem is that we still use wood, and hopefully we'll continue, because we don't want to see steel and aluminum be the primary construction materials. That's not good.

SS: What's the biggest danger to our national forests today? And maybe even using a couple examples here in the Willamette.

ZS: Well, I think it's the lack of stewardship that is caused by, you know, we did keep fire out for a long time and, but we substituted logging and thinning and that sort of thing, to keep the ecosystems healthy. And they're not healthy now. They're overgrown, and there's bugs and then there's fires, and we're losing, I don't think the environmentalists understand this, that they're actually destroying the national forests. Now, we don't want to go back to where 02:52:00we were, a clear-cut and burn kind of thing. But we need to take advantage of the productivity in these forests in a balanced form so that there's recreation and scenery and watersheds; all those concerns accommodated, but allow for some harvest. And this idea of saying, anything over 80 years-old is old growth, is probably ridiculous. The Forest Service was using a 120 to 200-year rotation, which was pretty generous, I thought, that it kept things alive. So, I don't know, I guess it's hard to say.

SS: What do you call old growth? I mean, it was a term that you heard back in the '50s when you were first coming in, but the cultural context has changed dramatically.

ZS: It has, yeah. I don't consider 80-year pole timber old-growth.

SS: 150 or more, probably, 200?

ZS: Well, maybe 200 years. And preserve things so that we have some 200-year-old 02:53:00trees, or even older. There's nothing wrong with 400-year-old trees. But you need to plan ahead, because if we just sit there and let them die, or be burned up or killed by bugs, that's not going to help then.

SS: Do you think fire or disease are the biggest threats to the Cascades, Willamette, or the whole Cascade Range?

ZS: Well, probably fire is because of the situation we've created. I mean, if these forests could be just let alone, and then somehow it didn't have bug infestations and fire, there would be no problem. I mean, you wouldn't be destroying the land. But some of these lands like Santiam Pass, it's going to be 100-150 years before some of those areas are reforested. SS: Are you talking about the B&B burn?

ZS: Yeah, because, not all of it was burned that hard, but a lot of it was.

SS: It was 100 and how many, 200,000 acres?

ZS: It was a big one, yeah.

SS: It was a seriously hot fire, too.

ZS: Oh, yeah. And the resources available to fight that fire were diverted to saving, you know, habitations down there in Sisters and up the Metolius.

SS: Exactly.

ZS: And they just let the fire go. So, there's a lot of things that have to be done. First of all, we shouldn't allow people to build in these kind of places. And then if they do build, where it's possible, they should try to fireproof those things.

SS: In other words, build, but lessen the fuel load close to your house?

ZS: Yeah, right.

SS: Have a fire break of some kind.

ZS: Yeah, sure.

SS: Right.

ZS: And not even build in some places.

SS: And have a metal roof, so when you have the really-hot fires and you're basically getting bombed by the fire from five miles away.

ZS: Exactly. And a little bit like that Oso landslide in Washington, you know. We all knew that was a landslide area. Why did we let people build there? And now, we're going probably have them rebuild, help them with that.

SS: Yeah, I know. That was poor zoning, probably a little dishonest real estate sales pitches along the way, I would guess.

ZS: We're doing that with a lot of forest lands in the Colorado Front Range [Rockies] near Denver. We let people build all over that country, it's just burning up, and we're losing a lot of houses. When a fire starts, you've got to protect the houses, and let the fire go. We're getting these huge fires now. This summer may be a good picture of how things are going gunnysack.

SS: Now, there are likely some things we haven't discussed. Now, can you think of anything that we haven't covered that you'd like to bring up?

ZS: No, I can't think of anything left.

SS: Okay, I'll bring up a couple more capstone questions here then. What do you think could be improved within the U.S. Forest Service?

ZS: Well, I think part of it relates to the Department of Agriculture's leadership. And we've been kind of stretched one way or the other, administration by administration. I think, somehow, we need to come back to the mission, the statute that created the Forest Service, and not get bogged down and just get paralyzed. So, I think that would be the best thing that could 02:57:00happen to the Forest Service. Somehow, give us our lead, hold us accountable, and probably educate both the Congress and the urban population that what we can do is improve our performance in managing the national forest.

SS: Now, you're retired and you're living here in Oregon. What makes Oregon special? Culturally, politically, environmentally, geographically?

ZS: Well, it's a beautiful state to begin with. Very pleasant to moderate climate for the most part. We're halfway between the ocean and the Cascade crest. I can ski in the morning and be at the coast that evening. I like the general feeling of Oregonians. It's changing, I think. It's becoming a little polarized between east and west, and I don't like that.

SS: You're talking about eastern Oregon?

ZS: Eastern Oregon and western Oregon. But that's common in Montana and a lot of other places, as well.

SS: There's a lot like there's the college towns of Bozeman and Missoula, and everybody else, right? Is that one way of looking at it?

ZS: I think there's some political things happening in Oregon that I don't like to see, again, it's kind of polarized. I think we're up to where our population is big enough we don't need too many more people. I think the Willamette Valley from here to Portland is running the rest of the state without listening too much. And I appreciate the fact that Grant County and Harney counties over there are just so frustrated, they come up with wild ideas about no U.N., and this and 02:59:00that. It's because they don't feel like they're being listened to. So, I think we could improve that, but on balance, you know, we still like Oregon. I'd just as soon as be in Montana, but I think Oregon is easier for us in my old age.

SS: It's easier on your bones in the winter time, right?

ZS: Yeah. (Laughs)

SS: Last question. How do you view land management and the public lands as an essential mission within the U.S. context, and why is it important to get that right?

ZS: Well, first of all, I'd say that our public land system is the envy of the world. There's nothing quite like it. We've got a very large segment of our 03:00:00country is in public lands, various agencies. We've got several agencies, some are very specialized, some are not so specialized. But I think, again, we need to go back to the organic acts and the enabling acts that created these agencies, Fish and Wildlife, Park Service, BLM, whatever it might be, and really allow those agencies to achieve those missions. I think they all integrate very well. And it's a good blend of things that are important to us. And just by sheer amount of acreage, it's a huge chunk of our country. It's a little imbalanced because you've got a lot in the East that never became specially 03:01:00protected lands. We have a good wilderness system. And it's not quite complete yet, but I think it's on the way. We need to protect that wilderness in the sense of what the statute says. We get a little bit careless about allowing things that diminish it. We don't want to be the lowest common denominator here. We need the Fish and Wildlife Service to be open to fish-wildlife preservation and science and so forth, and the Park Service, recreation and preservation, Forest Service, multiple-use and scientific efforts, and help to the state forests. So, that's kind of a rambling answer, but I think it's all there, if we could just get back to our business, and hopefully, that'll happen.

SS: Related question. I fibbed, one more. How do you define the term conservation today, and how did you define it in 1955 when you started your Forest Service career?

ZS: Well, in 1955, conservation was a more universal term that most people could agree with. Conservation today means different things to different people. To some, it means preservation. Others, it means sustainable development. Others, it means, you know, use it today and maybe it'll come back tomorrow, that kind of thing. My notion of conservation hasn't really changed too much as far as I'm concerned, but I think to the public, it has changed quite a little bit.

SS: Well, I'd like to thank you for a wonderful time talking about your life and this project, and history and science and the Forest Service. Thank you very much, Zane.

ZS: Sam, thank you for chiming in once in a while.

SS: All right.