Previous   Contents   Next
Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship
Spring 2006 Supplement
DOI:10.5062/F4FX77CX

URLs in this document have been updated. Links enclosed in {curly brackets} have been changed. If a replacement link was located, the new URL was added and the link is active; if a new site could not be identified, the broken link was removed.

Forestry Education in the United States

Carol C. Green
Forest Resources Librarian
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, Washington
ccgreen@u.washington.edu

Abstract

The definition of "forestry" has been debated from the beginning of forestry programs and agencies in the United States in the late 19th century. Forestry has grown into an interdisciplinary subject incorporating many scientific disciplines: soils, wildlife, civil engineering, economics, ecology, agriculture, environmental science, and recreation as well as silviculture and utilization of timber products. U. S. schools and colleges have adjusted their forest-related curricula and organizational structures to accommodate these differences and train their students to succeed within this expanded discipline.

Examination of six long-established academic forestry programs illustrates the expansion in the definition of forestry. Program names have changed and in some cases no longer include the word "forestry." However, these program changes are rarely recognized by the general public. At the same time, many forestry collections that support these programs are hidden within larger collections. Subject-specific forestry branch libraries developed in the latter half of the 20th century are being consolidated into larger units and losing their unique identity. The hidden nature of both forestry programs and forestry collections requires continuing efforts to make them visible to both primary users and the general public, and establish their importance in addressing natural resource and environmental issues.

Introduction

Questions such as "What do we mean by forestry?" and "How should we be educating those who work in and with forests?" have long been debated (Miller and Lewis 1999; Armstrong & Kranz 1961; Hosmer 1923, 1950; Skok 1995; Sample, et al. 2000). Is forestry limited to the growing and utilization of forest trees, or does it include those related scientific disciplines such as soils, wildlife, engineering, economics, ecology, environmental science, and recreation as well? Much to the dismay of some foresters, over time forestry has expanded its scope beyond its original focus on utilization into an interdisciplinary subject discipline and profession. Few current academic faculty have degrees in forestry, but they may be sociologists, wildlife scientists or chemical engineers. This broader definition of forestry has led to changes in academic programs that are often reflected in the names of schools and programs and in their administrative structures.

A review of a few forestry-related academic programs in the United States illustrates this broader definition of forestry. The State University of New York at Syracuse, the University of California, Berkeley, Yale University, University of Minnesota, Oregon State University, Iowa State University, and the University of Washington all have forestry programs that were established early in the 20th century and were among the first group accredited by the Society of American Foresters (SAF) in 1935. All of them have gone through significant changes over the past century, but all still had some programs accredited by SAF in 2005. Their histories show the expansion of the definition of forestry from a narrow focus to a broad and interdisciplinary subject.

Six main influences affected the development of forestry education in the United States.

  1. The Morrill Act of 1863 which established state and federal Land Grant Colleges to promote the development of applied agricultural education. (Trees were considered a crop, which prompted the inclusion of forestry programs within the agriculture colleges, especially in forested regions).
  2. Concern among early conservationists about a growing timber famine due to the destruction of primary forests across the country.
  3. The need for trained employees for the forest industry and for government agencies established to counteract this destruction (such as the USDA Forest Service).
  4. Regional politics and issues regarding the use of the forests.
  5. Changes in individual college and university administrative structures in keeping with local needs.
  6. The development of professional standards for the profession, especially by the Society of American Foresters.

Not all of these influences can be examined fully in this paper, but a few of them become evident as we examine the selected academic programs.

Early History

"There has never been a time when foresters were free from doubt about themselves, their education or their mission" (Miller and Lewis 1999).

Interest in forestry in the United States developed at the end of the 19th century in response to concerns that forests were being depleted and that the country was in danger of experiencing a timber famine (Hosmer 1923). This viewpoint coincided with the emergence of the conservation movement in the U. S. Gifford Pinchot and others felt that professional management of the forests would help to stem the destruction they saw occurring. They helped to bring about the development of the U. S. Forest Service and other federal and state agencies to manage public forested lands. Trained staff (primarily men at that time) were needed for these developing forestry agencies, thus requiring the development of formalized forestry education.

Three of the early pioneers of forestry education in the United States, Gifford Pinchot, Carl Schenck, and Bernhard Fernow, disagreed on how and what should be taught to educate a forester. All three were educated in Germany and, therefore, influenced by European forestry. At the Biltmore Forest School, established in 1898, Schenck favored a technical, real-world education based on the European "master-apprentice" concept, concentrating on timber management in response to industry needs. In 1898, Fernow established an academic program at Cornell, which initially lasted only until 1903 but was reinstated later, in order to respond to an anticipated need for trained forestry professionals but was "stymied by under funding, poor facilities, and just plain bad luck" (Miller and Lewis 1999). Pinchot, the only American-born of the three, championed a scientific education and training for public land management. His family eventually endowed a successful graduate program at Yale in 1900.

Over the years, debate continued concerning the merits of specialization versus a general program and of the need for standardization. SAF, established in 1900, soon became a significant player in defining just what constituted "forestry" and in defining the standards for the education of the new "forester." Conferences organized in 1910 and again in 1920 helped set curricular standards that eventually coalesced to include silviculture, protection, and utilization as the basis of a general forestry education (Skok 1995). By 1930, there were twenty-four schools with forestry programs, primarily in the newly-developed state land grant institutions, but the debate over the meaning of forestry continued.

In 1928, the National Academy of Sciences asked Henry Graves, Dean of the Yale Forestry School, to conduct a survey of forestry education. This study and a later one sponsored by SAF, published as Forest Education in 1932 (Graves and Guise 1932), were the first comprehensive looks at defining forestry and forest education. In addition to discussing the scope of the field and describing the occupations of foresters, the authors set forth the requirements for an adequate forestry education in terms of curricula, both preparatory and professional, length of study, types of degrees and the quality of schools including staffing, students, facilities (including libraries) and funding. In reviewing the prevalent educational programs they concluded that general forestry programs "...of almost all forest schools are constructed on the principles that forestry is an art based on the natural sciences, and one that deals primarily with the production, management and utilization of forests" (Graves and Guise 1932). This analysis of early programs does not mention conservation although many of the programs covered range management, lumbering, forest engineering and pulp and paper science, especially in related or graduate degree programs (Graves and Guise 1932). Graves' definition of forestry and guidelines for education of a forester continued to influence the discipline long into the 21st century.

Accreditation

As a result of the Graves study, the SAF asked H. H. Chapman to develop a classification of forestry curricula and a list of approved schools. Fourteen schools were initially approved having been evaluated on the basis of the quality of teaching and the facilities, including the library, the laboratories, the research forests, and funding, reflecting the guidelines set forth by Graves and Guise. While no specific curricula were designated, the rankings hinged on the schools' distinction in the teaching of silviculture, management, economics, and utilization. A description of the curricula of individual approved schools was outlined in the Chapman's Professional Forestry Schools Report published in 1935 (Chapman 1935).

As of result of these accreditation standards, silviculture and timber utilization came to dominate forestry education for at least thirty years, although programs often did include other regionally important subjects. Additional efforts to standardize curriculum and degree programs and define forestry took place in the early 1940's (Degrees in forestry 1940; McArdle 1942). Chapman continued to be particular dismissive of including other specializations under the definition of forestry (Chapman 1943), although he did get criticized for his narrow view (Gisborne 1943).

In 1948, SAF set minimum credits in silviculture, protection, economics and utilization to be required for accreditation. A ballot of SAF members that same year had refused to accept a liberalization of the definition of forestry. "The majority evidently regarded forestry as essentially a matter of timber management" (Dana and Johnson 1963). However, up to this time, accreditation had been conferred on schools on the basis of the qualities of the institution not on the curricula. This practice was seen as causing the "dilution of the profession" (Skok 1995) by many SAF members. In 1950, accreditation standards changed to an evaluation of the curricula rather than the school and all schools were reexamined, which caused many schools to either drop accreditation or change their programs (Skok 1995). In his review of the first fifty years of forestry education in the United States, Hosmer (1950) comments that, in spite of the established standards, in the early years many schools were influenced in their curricula planning by the United States Civil Service Examinations for foresters in the federal service. "It seems to be true that such curricular changes were instituted by the school faculties themselves in order to place their graduates in the federal services, rather than by direct requests from the services employing foresters."

Forestry Begins to Change

In 1963, Samuel Trask Dana and Evert W. Johnson described the curricula of recently re-accredited programs (Dana and Johnson 1963). Primarily due to the accreditation policies of SAF, most forestry curricula had not changed much since 1935. Undergraduate programs focused on forest management and utilization with some expansion of subjects in schools such as the College of Forestry at the State University of New York that offered programs in pulp and paper technology and wood products in addition to the general forestry programs.

However, these descriptions probably do not truly reflect all the changes in the educational programs. Dana and Johnson include a chapter on "Education in Related Fields" indicating that other disciplines, while not always reflected in the specific curricula of the forestry school or college, were often available to students and seen as important adjuncts to a forestry education. Range management, wildlife management, watershed management, outdoor recreation, conservation, and wood technology are all discussed as related to forestry but also separate disciplines, some still developing at that time. In light of the later environmental influences in forestry education, Dana and Johnson's comment regarding conservation, defined as wise use, is instructive.

"Although schools of forestry have generally regarded forestry as dealing primarily with timber management, they have not hesitated to offer professional instruction dealing specifically with other resources either as separate curricula or as majors or options in a forestry program. This situation may be reflected in the name of the school, but more often is not." (Dana and Johnson 1963)

Influenced by growing environmental movements (DeSteiguer and Merrifield 1978) and changes in the SAF accreditation standards (Skok 1995), forestry education was expanding. Enrollments increased, programs diversified and began to change their names. Although DeSteiguer and Merrifield reported that some in the discipline felt that the "peak interest in the environment had passed" (1978), this was the beginning of changes in school programs. The peak enrollments diminished, but the interest in environmental issues remained. By 1992, in the list of SAF accredited schools, terms other than forestry dominated (Smith 1992). Terms such as forest resources, natural resources, environmental studies, environmental science, wildlife and range sciences described programs, all indicating a broader discipline than the forestry of tree utilization and forest management. However, SAF accreditation standards still affected programs; in most of these schools only certain curricula or programs were accredited, not the whole school. For example, at the University of Washington, only the park and wildland options in forest resources management and logging engineering were accredited (Smith 1992). The social science, wildlife, and paper science programs were not accredited, at least not by SAF.

In recent years, additional conferences have been held to address issues surrounding forestry professional education. Some of the same questions asked in the 1990s were initially asked in 1910. In 1991, at a symposium held to discuss the question, "Forest Resources Management in the 21st Century: Will Forestry Education Meet the Challenge?" (Forest Resources 1992), discussion centered around the changes required in forestry education to meet the requirements of 20th and 21st century forestry professionals. R. Scott Wallinger of Westvaco reiterated the need for defining what a forester is, and called for a renewed effort by the professional community to reconcile changes in the profession and develop more comprehensive educational programs to support those changes (Wallinger 1992). Jane Coulter (1992) presented a list of issues that must be addressed by forestry education:

1) global deforestation and environmental degradation, perhaps global warming;
2) loss of biological diversity;
3) changing demands for forest products;
4) wilderness preservation;
5) production and harvesting practices that maintain the environment and wildlife habitat;
6) keeping forests healthy;
7) conflicting societal demands for preservation, recreation and production (Coulter 1992).

The conclusion of the symposium was that confronting these issues would require an expanded view of forestry and forestry education.

In 1998, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation conducted a survey of forestry employers, recent graduates, and forestry educators to review the "skills and competencies" needed by graduates of forestry programs and "discover the means by which forestry programs are addressing the changing needs of the profession." The report of this survey, The Evolution of Forestry Education in the United States: Adapting to the Changing Demands of Professional Forestry, (Sample et al. 2000) includes brief descriptions of fifty-two undergraduate programs that may be compared with earlier examinations by Graves and Guise as well as Dana and Johnson. Not all these programs were SAF accredited.

The schools described range from small undergraduate institutions to large integrated universities and the colleges and departments have a variety of names and combination of names. However, only thirteen use solely the terms "forest, forestry, forest science or forest ecology" in their names. Eleven more have forestry departments or schools listed under agriculture schools or colleges. Four list forestry in combination with another name such as wildlife or natural resources. Eight list forestry departments or schools under colleges of natural resources or ecosystem science while sixteen do not use the term "forestry, forest or forest science" at all in their names, although they have forest-related degree programs. These last programs use terms related to natural resources, environment, or agriculture primarily. In contrast, of the twenty-eight accredited schools reviewed by Dana and Johnson, only three did not use a forest-related term in their name at some level. Names do not always reflect the full scope of a forest-related program, but name changes indicate attempts to reflect more interdisciplinary programs.

Case Studies

Of the twenty-one schools rated and approved by the SAF in 1935 (Chapman 1935), twelve were still listed as accredited in 2005, out of total listing of forty-eight schools (SAF Accredited Professional Forestry Degree Programs 2005). Seven schools from these lists illustrate some of the differences among forestry programs and changes over the years. Schools and programs are amazingly diverse reflecting the nature of the schools and regional interests, but these seven schools show the changes and trends toward a broader definition of forestry education, and some continuity as well. Information for these descriptions was taken primarily from Graves and Guise 1932, Chapman 1935, and Dana and Johnson 1963, and also from histories of several institutions, current institutional web sites, some non-published materials of the various institutions and from personal discussions with the forestry-related librarians at these institutions.

Table 1 lists the schools reviewed in this paper, the dates they were established, school affiliation (land grant, agriculture or independent), the current name of the forest-related program, and the date that name was established. Tables 2-8 graph the name and affiliation changes for each respective university's forestry programs.

Yale offers only a graduate program and was one of the first to include the term "environmental" in the name of the program. However, SUNY-ESF, the only independent forestry school in the country, started out with a broad mandate to cover recreation, reforestation, water protection, and propagation of animal life in the forest as well as "the science and practice of forestry in its several branches" (Chapman 1935). The Universities of Minnesota, California at Berkeley, and Iowa State eventually selected the subject "natural resources" to illustrate their broadening curricula, but have histories of mergers within their historical land grant agricultural affiliations. The University of Washington forestry college resides at a university with no agriculture program but within a geographical area intensely involved in the forest industry. The expansion of the name to "forest resources" reflected that the program incorporated more than silviculture. The college has recently renamed its curriculum environmental science and resource management to reflect the restructuring of the college and focus on its interdisciplinary programs. Pulp and paper science remains a separate program. Oregon State University, also a land grant institution within the western forest region, has never changed its designation as "forestry," although the program has moved from the status of a department to an independent college within the university and now focuses on the sustainability of forested lands.

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (Table 2) had only one name change, the 1972 addition of "environmental studies" (Yale. History. February 27, 2006). As a graduate school only, without the concern of meeting SAF accreditation standards, the school was able to focus on specialized research from the beginning and was always involved in conservation and related environmental projects. Currently, only eleven of the thirty-seven core faculty have the term "forestry" in their titles (personal communication, Carla Heister) and the mission of the school concludes with the statement "For 100 years, first as a pioneering school of forestry, Yale has marshaled the expertise of diverse disciplines in the service of responsible stewardship of the environment" (Yale. Mission. February 27, 2006).

The New York State College of Forestry (Table 5), a separate, independent state-funded college, originally focused on forest management. However, by 1917 it included forest botany, forest entomology, city forestry, and forest economics in its list of departments in order to provide a more complete program for its students. Dana and Johnson's 1962 description of the program showed that it had not changed much since Graves and Guise's review in 1935, but social science and world forestry had been added and become established programs (Armstrong & Kranz 1961; Dana and Johnson 1962). Following much the same pattern as Yale, in the early 1970s the curriculum expanded into environmental concerns as reflected by the name change in 1972 to State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF). Forest engineering became "environmental resources and forest engineering." Today the College remains strong in its mission to prepare professional foresters, but it has shifted its focus from silviculture and wood product utilization to become an interdisciplinary college of the environment (SUNY-ESF. February, 27, 2006).

Programs in forestry at the University of Minnesota, Iowa State University and the University of California at Berkeley (Tables 3, 4, and 7), all established within land grant agricultural colleges, have similar histories. All three programs developed as departments within the agriculture schools and gradually merged with other departments and schools to become part of a College of Natural Resources. Minnesota's program, originally a standard forest utilization program, was folded into the College of Natural Resources in 1988 with the addition of fisheries and wildlife programs and a major in natural resources and environmental studies. In 2006, with additional programs such as urban forestry and recreation, the college is merging with the College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences to become the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences. The Department of Bio-based Products (formerly Wood and Paper Science) will join with Biological and Agricultural Engineering to form a new department (personal communication, Philip Herold, March 21, 2006). These and other mergers within the Colleges continue the trend toward program consolidations and mergers that are prevalent throughout forestry education. Forestry is still a major focus of the college, but it is only one of several natural resource related departments (CNR Minnesota. February 27, 2006).

Iowa State University's forestry program, a department within the College of Agriculture, merged in 2002 with the Department of Animal Ecology to form the Department of Natural Resources, Ecology and Management. The program had always been strong in fisheries, wildlife management and conservation as a heritage from its agricultural roots, but the merger added an interdisciplinary element to the program by integrating various environmental and conservation programs (Iowa February 7, 2006). "NREM's disciplinary focus is broad in scope, ranging from individual organisms to landscapes, from natural to managed ecosystems, from wilderness to agricultural and urban systems, from local to international environments, and from resource preservation to utilization" (Vision Statement February 27, 2006).

The forestry program at the University of California has undergone even more extensive mergers than Minnesota or Iowa. By 1993, the College of Natural Resources offered a truly integrative and interdisciplinary program. Dana and Johnson's review in 1962 had revealed a traditional Department of Forestry. "Conservation" was added to the name in 1968. The College of Natural Resources, established in 1974 as a result of a merger with the College of Agricultural Sciences reflected the increasing interest in conservation and incorporated range management, wildlife and fisheries, and pest and soil management as well as forestry and wood science (Teeguarden and Zivnuska 1991). Mergers continued after 1993. The current college also includes programs in nutritional science and toxicology, and plant and microbial biology as well as agricultural and resource economics. A pattern of repeated program consolidations brought all aspects of natural and life sciences into one interdisciplinary program (California April 3, 2006).

The University of Washington has no agriculture program, but is located in a region heavily influenced by extensive public forests and private forest industries. Classes in forestry were taught early in the school's history and the College of Forestry was established in 1907 as an independent unit within the University (Table 6). The name change to the College of Forest Resources came about early in 1962 in order to reflect the addition of pulp and paper and wood science programs. A wide number of options developed over the years in social science, wildlife science, conservation, recreation and other programs, but the name of the college did not change. Much debate has taken place over the last twenty-five years concerning the mission of the college and how it should be structured. A decision to consolidate the many programs as well as advice from industry and government employers regarding skills needed by graduates brought about changes in the college structure to reflect the increasing focus on the environment and sustainable use of forests. In 2006, two majors continue, environmental science and resource management includes pathways in ecology and conservation, wildlife ecology and conservation, urban horticulture and forestry, urban ecology, restoration ecology, and sustainable forest management. Pulp and paper science remains a separate major accredited by ABET (Washington. March 6, 2006). The name of the college has not changed, but the program no longer has a formal wood science program, and the SAF accredited program has been moved to a fifth year Masters of Forest Resources.

The College of Forestry at Oregon State University is the only program of this group that has retained its name even as the program has moved from a school to an independent college within the land grant university. The college specializes in offering a professional education in forest engineering, wood products, forest science, forest genetics, forest health, and sustainable forest practices. Environmental concerns are incorporated within the programs. According to the Dean, the research mission of the college is to conduct "problem-solving research that provides knowledge for the integrated management of forest resources for multiple values and products that meet society's needs, with special attention to social and economic benefits" (Oregon. March 6, 2006). This research most certainly transfers to the teaching programs.

Forestry Libraries

Good libraries have always been a important attribute of forestry education. Graves and Guise (1932) advocated that every forestry school needs a good library for the benefit of both students and faculty. They specifically complimented Yale, California, Syracuse, Michigan, Cornell and Minnesota as having good forestry collections and adequate funding for materials, and noted that Washington had a fair collection. They generally favored a library housed with the forestry department as they felt that undergraduates were more likely to use it. Regardless of where the collection was kept, it should support the program of the school. "The literature pertaining to forestry is so large that all schools cannot hope to be equally strong in all subjects. It is better for each school to endeavor to enrich its library in those lines in which school is preeminent in teaching and research" (Graves and Guise 1932). This comment holds true in 2006 as well.

Chapman (1935) also listed a good library as high on the list of requirements for a good education, and library holdings influenced the final ranking of approved schools. He included a short description of the libraries of approved schools as part of his analysis. Yale University Library was regarded as a prime example of a good library with a full-time librarian and adequate funding and space.

Dana and Johnson (1963) did not specifically describe the library support for the programs they reviewed, but generally felt that the libraries were not adequate. They mentioned the lack of full-time librarians, inadequate funding for materials, little foreign literature (German literature was seen by many as particularly important), and the need for better quarters. They also noted that "Improvement in the quality of forestry education, particularly at the graduate level, depends heavily on the strengthening of forestry libraries."

All of these universities currently have strong forest-related collections whether in a branch library, as part of a large agriculture library, or consolidated into a life sciences collection. Collections grew, staffing improved, and funding increased during the last quarter of the 20th century. However, the interdisciplinary nature of forestry, requiring a broad range of information materials, coupled with changing trends within libraries, prompted especially by the ability to serve users remotely (Hiller 2004), have brought change to the specialized forestry libraries.

In 2006, there are very few separate academic forestry libraries in the U. S. Those that are distinct such as the Forestry Library at Minnesota, the Moon Library at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and the Henry S. Graves Memorial Library at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences are rare. Many forestry collections originated in agricultural programs and have always been housed in large central university or science libraries. With the opportunities for remote services and less need for branch libraries, coupled with recurring budget problems, universities are moving away from the branch concept. Several former branch libraries have been merged into larger units in the past ten years. The Forestry Library at the University of California, Berkeley merged into the Marian Koshland Biosciences and Natural Resources Library in 1995 along with the Entomology Library and the paleontology portion of the Earth Sciences Library collection. Much of the Forest Products Library collection followed in 2005. The Forest Resources Library at the University of Washington merged with the Natural Sciences Library in 2004. Even the U. S. Forest Service has consolidated its libraries, reducing the number of libraries to four from an original total of nine in the 1980s (personal communication, Julie Blankenburg).

Conclusion

Although the definition of forestry has not changed over the years, the thoughts about what should be included in a forester's education have changed. Programs have become more inclusive of environmental issues related to biological diversity, sustainability, effects of human interactions with the forests as well as knowledge of human social systems. The need for a five year professional program has long been advocated to give students a broad liberal arts and social science background in addition to the technical expertise they need. Options for more interdisciplinary programs have multiplied. Fewer programs focus primarily on the tree and its use although those that do specialize in forest engineering and timber utilization have branched out to include more sustainable and productive methods. However, the image of the forester sometimes remains that of a man in red suspenders and hob-nailed boots, cutting down old-growth forests at random.

Many forestry librarians fear that the merging of forestry collections into larger natural resource and environmental units may have resulted in making materials difficult to locate. This hidden aspect requires greater education to insure that students and the general public are aware that forestry studies address environmental and resource issues. The collections are not identified as strong in forest-related information. Consolidated libraries allow interrelated materials to be available to students and faculties in one location, but often place them at a distance from the academic departments making access more inconvenient. The adoption of online services helps to mitigate this inconvenience but requires new resources and methods on the part of librarians to effectively promote library services.

Forest resource librarians in the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) are also concerned that forestry libraries, information services, and collections are hidden. As noted above many academic forest-related collections are included in larger libraries, and the trend is for smaller subject-focused branch libraries to be merged into larger science units for a variety of budgetary and service-related reasons. Government agency forestry libraries have disappeared or been consolidated as well. To counteract the hidden nature of these collections, IUFRO, 6.03.00, Information Services and Knowledge Organization, has developed a {database of information centers and services} in order to make these hidden or unpublicized collections and services more visible. This effort is in its infancy as yet. Time will tell whether or not it can be sustained. Forest-related subject librarians and information professionals have a large task ahead to call attention to their collections and to promote application of the forest- related literature to environmental and natural resources issues and problems.

1 Graves also lobbied for a five year professional degree, since in his view four years was not enough time to adequately train a professional forester. This concern has reappeared numerous times in subsequent discussions of educational requirements and is still a prominent issue. The College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington has recently moved its professional degree to a fifth year non-thesis Masters of Forest Resources (Forest Management) degree. The SAF made a site visit in April 2006 for an accreditation review of this new program (Personal Communication, Dean B. Bruce Bare).

Acknowledgments

My thanks to colleagues in forestry and natural resource libraries for providing information, advice, and support: Norma Kobzina, Marian Koshland Bioscience and Natural Resources Library, University of California, Berkeley; Jean Albrecht (retired) and Phillip Herold, Forestry Library, University of Minnesota; Bonnie Avery, Valley Library, Oregon State University, Carla Heister, Henry S. Graves Memorial Library, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies; Elizabeth Elkins, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Julie Blankenburg, Library, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory; Carol Ayer, U. S. Forest Service Information Services. Also my thanks to Cecilia Paul, Communications Director, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, for her review of the paper and for her valuable suggestions.

Tables

References

Armstrong, G. R. and Kranz, M. W. (ed). 1961. Forestry College: Essays on the Growth and Development of New York State's College of Forestry 1911-1961. Commemoration of the Colleges' Fiftieth Anniversary. Syracuse, New York: Alumni Association, State University College of Forestry at Syracuse University.

Casamajor, P. 1965. Forestry Education at the University of California: The First Fifty Years. Berkeley, California: California Alumni Foresters.

Chapman, H.H. 1935. Professional Forestry Schools Report, giving the comparative status of those institutions that offered instruction in Professional Forestry for the School Year 1934-1935. Washington, D. C.: Society of American Foresters.

________. 1943. Report of the Committee on Accrediting Schools of Forestry. Journal of Forestry 41: 225-9

Coulter, K. J. 1992. A Quantum Commitment to Quality Education. In: Forest Resource Management in the 21st Century: Will Forestry Education Meet the Challenge? Proceedings of the October 30-November 2, 1991 National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, Society of American Foresters Forest Resources Education Symposium. Bethesda Maryland: Society of American Foresters. pp. 3-11.

Dana, S. T.and Johnson, E.W. 1963. Forestry Education in America Today and Tomorrow. Washington D. C.: Society of American Foresters.

Degrees in Forestry: Final Report of the Committee on Degrees in Forestry, Division of Education, Society of American Foresters. 1940. Journal of Forestry 38:781-9.

DeSteiguer J. E. and Merryfield, R.G. 1979. The Impact of the Environmental Era on Forestry Education in North America. Unasylva 31(123): 21-5.

Forest Resource Management in the 21st Century: Will Forestry Education Meet the Challenge? 1992. Proceedings of the October 30-November 2, 1991 National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, Society of American Foresters Forest Resources Education Symposium. Bethesda, Maryland: Society of American Foresters.

Garratt, G.A. 1960. Six Decades of Growth. In: American Forestry: Six Decades of Growth. (ed. by H. Clepper and A.B. Meyer.) Washington, D.C.: Society of American Foresters. pp. 1-23.

Gisborne, H. T. 1943. Is the Society Broad Enough? (Letter to the Editor). Journal of Forestry (41):543.

Graves, H.S. and Guise, C.H. 1932. Forest Education. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hosmer, R.S. 1923. The Progress of Education in Forestry in the United States. Empire Forestry Journal 2 (1):83-106.

________. 1950. Education in Professional Forestry. In: Fifty Years of Forestry in the U.S.A. (ed. by R.K. Winters) pp. 299-315. Washington, D.C.: Society of American Foresters.

Iowa State University. Natural Resources Ecology and Management. [Online]. Available: {http://www.nrem.iastate.edu/about_us.htm} [May 18, 2006].

________. Vision Statement. [Online]. Available: {http://www.nrem.iastate.edu/about_us/vision.htm} [May 18, 2006].

McArdle, R. E. 1942. What is Forestry? Journal of Forestry 40 (2):193-6.

McDonald, P. and Lassoe, J. (ed.). 1996. The Literature of Forestry and Agroforestry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Miller, C. & Lewis, J.G. 1999. A Contested Past: Forestry Education in the United States, 1898-1998. Journal of Forestry 97(9):38-43.

Oregon State University. College of Forestry. [Online]. Available: {http://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/} [May 18, 2006].

Proceedings. Society of American Forester's Meeting. December 16-18, 1948. Statler Hotel Boston Massachusetts. In: First General Session The Golden Anniversary of Professional Forestry Education in America. 1898-1948. Washington, D. C.: Society of American Foresters. pp. 329-67.

SAF-Accredited Professional Forestry Degree Programs. 2005. [Online]. Available: {http://www.safnet.org/education/Handout_2010-AllAccr030910.pdf} [May 18, 2006].

Sample, V.A, et al. 2000. The Evolution of Forestry Education in the United States: Adapting to the Changing Demands of Professional Forestry. Washington, D.C.: Pinchot Institute for Conservation.

Skok. R.A. 1995. Forestry Education in the United States. In: The Literature of Forestry and Agroforestry 1996. (ed. by P. McDonald & J. Lassoie.) Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press. pp. 168-197.

Smith, P. G. (compiler). 1992. Curriculum Accreditation & Recognition: An updated listing of forestry programs meeting SAF criteria. Journal of Forestry 90 (3):23-6.

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Vision 2020. [Online]. Available: www.esf.edu/vision2020/vision2020.pdf [May 18, 2006].

Teeguarden, D. E. and Zivnuska, J. A. (ed.). 1991. Shaping Forestry's Future: 75 years of Forestry Education at the University of California, 1914-1989. Berkeley, California: California Alumni Foresters.

University of California, Berkeley. College of Natural Resources. [Online]. Available: http://cnr.berkeley.edu/site/index.php [May 18 2006].

University of Minnesota. College of Natural Resources. [Online]. Available: {http://www.cfans.umn.edu/} [May 18, 2006].

University of Washington. College of Forest Resources. [Online]. Available: {http://www.cfr.washington.edu/academicPrograms/undergrad/index.shtml#majors} [May 18, 2006].

Wallinger, R. S. 1992. Creating and Educating a 21st Century Forest Resources Profession. In: Forest Resource Management in the 21st Century: Will Forestry Education Meet the Challenge? Proceedings of the October 30-November 2, 1991 National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, Society of American Foresters Forest Resources Education Symposium. pp. 30-38. Bethesda, Maryland: Society of American Foresters.

Winters, R. K. (ed.). 1950. Fifty Years of Forestry in the U.S.A. Washington, D. C.: Society of American Foresters.

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. The History of Yale's environment school. [Online]. Available: {http://environment.yale.edu/about/History-of-the-School/} [May 18, 2006].

________. About the School. Mission and History. [Online]. Available: {http://environment.yale.edu/about/Mission-of-the-School/} May 18, 2006].


Previous   Contents   Next

W3C 4.0 
Checked!