1. Lowi, Theodore J., “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (1964): 688Google Scholar specifically, 677–715 generally. James Wilson also offers a policy typology of sorts, but it is a typology of agencies rather than policy, i.e., it is geared to explaining how particular agencies function, rather than how particular policy regimes function. See Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books, 1989), 72–89Google Scholar.

2. Hurst, James Willard, Law and the Conditions of Freedom in the Nineteenth-Century United States (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964), 3–32Google Scholar.

3. Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism, 2d ed. (New York: Norton, 1979), 3–63Google Scholar.

4. Peffer, E. Louise, The Closing of the Public Domain: Disposal and Reservation Policies, 1900–50 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1951), 39–41Google Scholar.

5. Dana, Samuel T., Forest and Range Policy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), 315–16Google Scholar; Graf, William L., Wilderness Preservation and the Sagebrush Rebellions (Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1990), 165–70Google Scholar, 225–32.

6. Graf 1990, pp. 225–32; “An Exchange on Privatization,” Journal of Contemporary Studies 7(2) (1984); Short, C. Brant, Ronald Reagan and the Public Lands: America's Conservation Debate, 1979–1984 (College Station, TX: Texas A&M Press, 1989), 10–25Google Scholar, 81–99.

7. Alston, Richard M., The Individual and the Public Interest: Political Ideology and National Forest Policy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983), 119–40Google Scholar; Behan, R.W. “Forestry and the End of Innocence,” American Forests (05 1975): 16–19+Google Scholar.

8. Pinchot, Gifford, Breaking New Ground (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1947), 261Google Scholar. For more on Pinchot's utilitarianism, see Hays, Samuel P., Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920 (New York: Atheneum, 1975 [1959]), 41–42Google Scholar; Twight, Ben W., Organizational Values and Political Power: The Forest Service Versus the Olympic National Park (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983), 7Google Scholar.

9. McArdle, as quoted in Clary, David A., Timber and the Forest Service (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 169Google Scholar.

10. Clepper, Henry, Professional Forestry in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, 1971), 127Google Scholar specifically, 2–3, 123–34 generally; Twight 1983, pp. 15–22.

11. Thoreau as quoted in Nash, Roderick, Wilderness and the American Mind, 3d ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 84Google Scholar; Nash 1982, pp. 96–121.

12. Nash 1982, pp. 122–40. See also Fox, Stephen, The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Runte, Alfred, National Parks: The American Experience, 2d ed. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

13. Nash 1982, pp. 182–209.

14. Allin, Craig, The Politics of Wilderness Preservation (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), 102–42Google Scholar; Nash 1982, pp. 220–26.

15. Placer mining is done primarily in and along river and stream beds. Miners sought to recover gold or silver that had been eroded from larger deposits. Early California mining was almost exclusively placer mining. Quartz, or lode, mining is based on removing minerals from hard rock. Usually, miners discover a surface lode and then tunnel to follow the lode underground to recover minerals. After placer mines were played out, the more capital-intensive quartz mines became more important.

16. Mason as quoted in Leshy, John D., The Mining Law: A Study in Perpetual Motion (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, 1987), 13Google Scholar.

17. Hershiser, Beulah, “The Influence of Nevada on the National Mining Legislation of 1866,” Nevada Historical Society, Third Biennial Report (1911–1912), 132–35Google Scholar; Libecap, Gary D., The Evolution of Private Mineral Rights: Nevada's Comstock Lode (New York: Arno Press, 1978a), 190–91Google Scholar; Paul, Rodman W., Mining Frontiers of the Far West, 1848–1880 (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963), 22–23Google Scholar; Umbeck, John R., A Theory of Property Rights with Application to the California Gold Rush (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1981a), 4–5Google Scholar, 73.

18. Umbeck 1981a, pp. 79–87.

19. Ellison, Joseph, “The Mineral Land Question in California, 1848–1866,” in Carstensen, Vernon, ed., The Public Lands (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963 [1926]), 72–77Google Scholar; Hershiser 1911–1912, pp. 135–41; Shinn, Charles H., “Land Laws of Mining Districts,” in Johns Hopkins University Series in Historical and Political Science, 2nd Series (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1884), 583–84Google Scholar; Swenson, Robert W., “Legal Aspects of Mineral Resources Exploitation,” in Gates, Paul W., History of Public Land Law Development (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968), 712–13Google Scholar.

20. Hurst 1964, p. 7 specifically, pp. 3–32 generally.

21. The Army had operated a lead leasing program in the Midwest in the 1820s and 1830s that was judged unsuccessful. See Mayer, Carl J. and Riley, George A., Public Domain, Private Dominion: A History of Public Mineral Policy in America (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1985), 20–37Google Scholar; Swenson 1968, pp. 702–6.

22. Greever, William S., The Bonanza West: The Story of Western Mining Rushes, 1848–1900 (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 82–130Google Scholar; Libecap 1978a; Libecap, Gary D., “Economic Variables and the Development of the Law: The Case of Western Mineral Rights,” Journal of Economic History 38 (1978b): 338–47Google Scholar; Libecap, , “Government Support of Private Claims to Public Minerals: Western Mineral Rights,” Business History Review 53 (1979): 364–85Google Scholar; Shinn 1884, pp. 555, 585–88.

In general, the mining codes in these districts throughout the West were modeled on the California codes. Western state and territorial governments supported these codes, which predated the existence of these governmental entities. For instance, the 1851 Civil Practice Act in California stated that the mining codes would be respected and legally binding in the California courts. The Nevada legislature and courts also acted to support the mining codes in that state. See Ellison 1963, pp. 77–80, 82; Greever 1963, pp. 82–83; Libecap 1978a, pp. 52–154; Paul 1963, pp. 169, 171; Swenson 1968, p. 712.

23. Ellison 1963, pp. 82–85; Hershiser 1911–1912, pp. 146–48, 152–54; Libecap 1978a, pp. 193–202; Libecap 1978b, p. 360; Mayer and Riley 1985, pp. 47–49; Swenson 1968, pp. 713–17.

24. 14 Stat. 251; 30 U.S.C. Sections 21–54; Ellison 1963, pp. 85–87; Greever 1963, p. 107; Hershiser 1911–1912, pp. 162–63; Libecap 1979, p. 372; Mayer and Riley, pp. 49–53; Swenson 1968, pp. 717–19.

25. 16 Stat. 217; 17 Stat. 91, codified in 30 U.S.C. Sections 21–54 (see Leshy 1987, pp. 17–23 for a contemporary discussion of the act); Mayer and Riley 1985, p. 54; Swenson 1968, pp. 721–23.

26. See Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. In 1864 proposals were made in both the House and the Senate, and by the secretary of the interior, to create a mining bureau, a mining department, and a geological and mineralogical survey. None of these proposals was adopted (Hershiser 1911–1912, p. 152).

28. Smith as quoted in Mayer and Riley 1985, pp. 183, 74; Dupree, A. Hunter, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985 [1957]), 195–214Google Scholar, 280–83.

29. Hays 1975, pp. 82–87; Mayer and Riley 1985, pp. 114–40; Swenson 1968, pp. 724–30.

30. Hays 1975, pp. 88–90; Mayer and Riley 1985, pp. 155–95; Swenson 1968, pp. 725, 730–45.

31. Allin 1982, pp. 102–42; Baker, Richard A., “The Conservation Congress of Anderson and Aspinall, 1963–64,” Journal of Forest History 29 (1985): 104–19Google Scholar; Leshy 1987, pp. 229–42.

32. Although oil and gas exploration and development were also allowed to continue in wilderness areas for nineteen years, this exemption was not as strong as that for hardrock minerals. Oil and gas development required government permits, which could be, and in almost every case have been, denied. Hardrock mineral exploration and claiming could proceed, and did, without prior approval.

As was the case with economic liberalism in the 1860s, the success of the idea of preservationism can be traced to its relationship to the dominant general idea about policy in the 1960s: the support of a more activist government.

33. Leshy 1987, pp. 342–46; Smith, Duane A., Mining America: The Industry and the Environment, 1800–1980 (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1987)Google Scholar.

Interestingly, George Julian, a chief congressional opponent of the 1866 Mining Law, wrote in 1883, the “misfortune of this legislation is heightened by the probability of its continuance; for it is not easy to uproot a body of laws once accepted by a people, however mischievous their character. … [this] wretched travesty [of a law may be] permanently engrafted upon half a continent” (as quoted in Leshy 1987, p. 361). Thus far, Julian has been right, though the privilege of economic liberalism has become suspect.

34. Dana, Samuel T. and Fairfax, Sally K., Forest and Range Policy, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980), 41–43Google Scholar, 50–51.

35. 26 Stat. 1095; 16 U.S.C. Section 471 (repealed); Dana and Fairfax 1980, pp. 55–58; Pinchot 1947, pp. 108–10; Yard, Robert S., Our Federal Lands (New York: Scribner's, 1928), 108–11Google Scholar.

36. 30 Stat. 11, 34; 16 U.S.C. Section 475; Dana and Fairfax 1980, pp. 58–62, 91–92; Pinchot 1947, pp. 113–19; Yard 1928, pp. 111–12.

37. Hays 1975, p. 3.

38. Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York; Hill and Wang, 1967), 160Google Scholar, 193 specifically, 145–95 generally. Hays concurs in this interpretation of the period as one involving the search for increased order (1975, pp. 261–76).

39. Fox 1985, pp. 121, 129.

40. 33 Stat. 628; 16 U.S.C. Section 472; Dana and Fairfax 1980, pp. 80–81; Hays 1975, pp. 38–45; Pinchot 1947, pp. 198–201, 254–56; Steen, Harold K., The U.S. Forest Service: A History (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1976), 60–61Google Scholar, 71–72.

41. United States Department of Agriculture, Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture: 1900 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), 103; United States Department of Agriculture, Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture: 1906 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907), 642. For more on Forest Service autonomy at this time, see Klyza, Christopher McGrory, “A Window of Autonomy: State Autonomy and the Forest Service in the Early 1900s,” Polity 25 (1992): 173–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. By relative autonomy, I mean that the Forest Service's actions were constrained by societal and legal factors but that it still had significant discretion within these constraints. Prior to this period, societal and legal factors were weak constraints on the agency's actions.

43. Dana 1956, pp. 179–224.

44. Dana 1956, pp. 208–18.

45. Dana 1956, p. 314.

46. Dana and Fairfax 1980, pp. 108–11, 132; Nash 1982, pp. 182–209.

47. McArdle as quoted in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 1957, Wilderness Preservation System Hearings, 85th Congress, 1st Session, p. 11; Allin 1982, pp. 102–42; Nash 1982, pp. 220–27; U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 1962, Wilderness Preservation System Hearings, 87th Congress, 2d Session, p. 1694.

48. On clear-cutting, see Clary 1986, pp. 180–94.

49. “Agency Weighing Sale of 3.2% of Forest System,” New York Times, March 16, 1983, p. 16; Executive Order 12,348 (1982); Journal of Contemporary Studies 1984 (2); “6 Million Acres of U.S. Forest Eyed for Sale,” Washington Post, March 16, 1983, p. A8; Stroup, Richard L. and Baden, John A., Natural Resources: Bureaucratic Myths and Environmental Management (San Francisco: Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, 1983)Google Scholar; Truluck, Phillip N., ed., Private Rights and Public Lands (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 1983)Google Scholar.

50. Dennen, R. Taylor, “Cattlemen's Associations and Property Rights in Land in the American West,” Explorations in Economic History 13 (1976): 423–36Google Scholar; Foss, Phillip O., Politics and Grass (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960), 30–35Google Scholar; Hays 1975, pp. 50–52; Peffer 1951, pp. 22–26; Scott, Valerie W., “The Range Cattle Industry: Its Effect on Western Land Law,” Montana Law Review 28 (1967): 155–83Google Scholar.

51. Dana 1956, pp. 115–16, 146–47; Hays 1975, pp. 44, 55–60, 253–54; Peffer 1951, pp. 72–77. On grazing on the national forests, see Rowley, William D., U.S. Forest Service Grazing and Rangelands: A History (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

Interestingly, debate over the public lands helped to define the powers of the nascent administrative state. For instance, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Gratiot (1840) upheld Congress's power to lease (lands for lead mining) as well as sell public lands, thereby establishing a foundation for all future public lands management; United States v. Grimaud (1911) and Light v. United States (1911) legitimized the discretionary use of executive power (regarding the Forest Service's authority to collect grazing fees for the use of national forest lands without a specific act from Congress authorizing it to do so). The congressional debate over the Weeks Act (1911) is also important. (Did the federal government have the constitutional authority to purchase lands for national forests? See United States v. Griffin [1932].)

52. Dana 1956, p. 156; Foss 1960, p. 42; Hays 1975, pp. 60–65; Peffer 1951, pp. 27–30, 72–98.

53. Lowi 1979, pp. 22, 69; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Random House, 1966), 69Google Scholar, 343 specifically, pp. 200–11 on the Taylor Grazing Act. Although Lowi does not mention grazing in his book, it seems to illustrate his thesis ideally.

54. Foss 1960, p. 47; Peffer 1951, pp. 190–93, 198–99; Voigt, William, Public Grazing Lands (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1976), 246–48Google Scholar.

55. Stout, Joe A., “Cattlemen, Conservationists, and the Taylor Grazing Act,” New Mexico Historical Review 45 (1970): 311–21Google Scholar.

56. Peffer 1951, pp. 216–20; Stout 1970, pp. 321–28.

57. Dana and Fairfax 1980, pp. 160–61; Foss 1960, pp. 51–53, 57–58; Gates, Paul W., History of Public Land Law Development (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968), 612Google Scholar; Peffer 1951, pp. 216–20.

58. 48 Stat. 1269; 43 U.S.C. Section 315 et seq.; Calef, Wesley, Private Grating and Public Lands: Studies in the Local Management of the Taylor Grazing Act (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 52–57Google Scholar; Dana 1956, pp. 259–62; Foss 1960, pp. 59–60; Gates 1968, p. 611; Peffer 1951, pp. 221–24; Voigt 1976, pp. 250–52.

59. Carpenter as quoted in Hendricks, Rickey L., “Farrington R. Carpenter: New Deal Cowboy,” Midwest Review, 2nd Series 5 (1983): 30Google Scholar; Foss 1960, pp. 78–84; Gates 1968, pp. 614–15; Voigt 1976, pp. 253–62.

60. Carpenter as quoted in Foss 1960, p. 119; Foss 1960, pp. 135–36 particularly, pp. 86, 127–36, 202 generally; McConnell 1966, p. 209.

61. Calef 1960, pp. 59, 262; Dana and Fairfax 1980, p. 163; Foss 1960, pp. 84, 89, 92–97, 131, 200–2; Hendricks 1983; Klemme, Marvin, Home Rule on the Range: Early Days of the Grazing Service (New York: Vantage Press, 1984), 177–85Google Scholar; McConnell 1966, p. 207; Peffer 1951, pp. 227–31; Penny, J. Russell and Clawson, Marion, “Administration of Grazing Districts,” in Carstensen, Vernon, ed., The Public Lands (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), 461–78Google Scholar.

62. Chapman, H.H., “Reorganization and the Forest Service,” Journal of Forestry 35 (1937): 427–34Google Scholar; Dana and Fairfax 1980, p. 164; Gates 1968, pp. 615–17; Moe, Terry M., “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” in Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E., eds., Can the Government Govern? (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1989)Google Scholar; Peffer 1951, pp. 232–42, 330–31; Polenberg, Richard, “Conservation and Reorganization: The Forest Service Lobby, 1937–1938,” Agricultural History 39 (1965): 230–39Google Scholar.

63. Dana and Fairfax 1980, pp. 182–83; Gates 1968, pp. 617–22; Peffer 1951, pp. 247–78.

64. Schwartz, Eleanor R., “A Capsule Examination of the Legislative History of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,” Arizona Law Review 21 (1979): 285–300Google Scholar; Senzel, Irving, “Genesis of a Law, Part I,” American Forests 01 (1978a): 30–32Google Scholar. Senzel, , “Genesis of a Law, Part 2,” American Forests 02 (1978b): 32–39Google Scholar.

65. Graf 1990, pp. 225–32; Libecap, Gary D., Locking Up the Range (San Francisco: Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, 1981); Short 1989, pp. 10–25Google Scholar.

66. Davis, Joseph A., “Cattlemen vs. Environmentalists: Congress Tries for Compromise on Disputed Grazing Fee Issue,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 43 (1985): 1676–78Google Scholar; Stanfield, Rochelle L., “Cowboys and Conservationists in Range War Over Grazing Fees on Public Lands,” National Journal 17 (1985): 1623–25Google Scholar.

67. Clarke, Jeanne Nienaber and McCool, Daniel, Staking Out the Terrain: Power Differentials among Natural Resource Management Agencies (Albany: SUNY Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Culhane, Paul J., Public Lands Politics: Interest Group Influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, 1981)Google Scholar. It is also interesting to note that neither study of natural resources management dealt with minerals policy.

68. Devall, Bill and Sessions, George, Deep Ecology: Living As If Nature Mattered (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985)Google Scholar; Nash, Roderick F., The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 189–97Google Scholar. For more on Earth First! generally, see Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (New York: Harmony Books, 1991)Google Scholar; Manes, Christopher, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Un-making of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown, 1990)Google Scholar; Scarce, Rik, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement (Chicago: Noble, 1990)Google Scholar. For more on Earth First!, wilderness, and grazing, see Foreman, Dave and Wolke, Howie, The Big Outside: A Descriptive Inven-tory of the Big Wilderness Areas of the U.S. (Tucson, AZ: Ned Ludd Books, 1989)Google Scholar; Jacobs, Lynn, Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching (Tucson, AZ: Lynn Jacobs, 1991)Google Scholar; Wolke, Howie, Wilderness on the Rocks (Tucson, AZ: Ned Ludd Books, 1991)Google Scholar.

69. Egan, Timothy, “The (Bruised) Emperor of the Outdoors,” New York Times Magazine, 08 1, 1993, pp. 21–23+Google Scholar; Krauss, Clifford, “Clinton Planning to Increase Fees on Grazing Lands,” New York Times, 08 10, 1993, p. A1Google Scholar; Schneider, Keith, “Senate Hands Clinton Setback on Grazing Fee,” New York Times, 09 16, 1993, p. A21Google Scholar.