Introduction
The Big Thicket was once a 3.5-million-acre forest. The fight to establish a Big Thicket National Preserve (BTNP) took 45 years to accomplish. Today, BTNP is consists of 15 units and has grown from 84,550-acres to over 113,000-acres as of 2020.
Much of the basic story about the events that led to the establishment of BTNP comes from, “Saving the Big Thicket: From Exploration to Preservation, 1685-2003”, by James J. Cozine, Jr., University of North Texas Press, 2004. Mr. Cozine did a thorough and very credible job with his book. I salute him for pulling all the information together and relaying it in a manner that was factual and interesting for the reader. I have plagiarized mercilessly my sources and I thank them for their erudition and scholarship which, if not performed, would make this effort impossible.
The story of the Sierra Club’s participation in the establishment and protection of BTNP is not well or fully documented in Cozine’s book (which had a much wider scope), or in the material that I have, or that I have seen or had conversations about. This short history will provide a view of some of what the Sierra Club did during the BTNP fight. This is not a comprehensive history about the Big Thicket and the Sierra Club but provides Sierrans and the public with a point of reference and justifiable pride about the Sierra Club’s contribution to “Saving the Big Thicket”.
The Beginning
The first person to seriously push for Big Thicket conservation was R.E. Jackson. Jackson was born in 1880 in Georgia and moved with his parents in 1886 to Jasper, Texas. He began a long career working for railroads in 1896, first as a ticket agent, and then as a conductor from 1904 to 1945 when he retired.
In 1929, Jackson decided that part of the “Thicket” should be protected because of a fear of game depletion. Jackson had a hunting lease of about 18,000 acres in 1934 which was called the Hardin County Cooperative Pasture and Game Preserve. This lease formed the basis for a hunting club but also a conservation organization. The hunting club was located in northern Hardin and southern Polk counties.
In 1933 or 1936, the date has not been accurately determined, Jackson, with others, met to organize in the interest of the Big Thicket and formed the “East Texas Big Thicket Association”. At that meeting, a member of the Texas Game, Fish, and Oyster Commission explained that standards for national parks were too rigid to include the Big Thicket but that it might qualify as a national forest, migratory bird refuge, or game preserve.
From 1936 through 1941, Jackson, along with his East Texas Big Thicket Association, sought help from the State of Texas, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Biological Survey, and National Park Service to acquire several 100,000-acres of Big Thicket. The largest proposal was for a Big Thicket National Park that would have been 435,000-acres.
This effort was stymied due to the coming of the Second World War, an increased desire for more timber production, nearby oil discoveries, the close by creation of four national forests in East Texas, the death of key supporter U.S. Senator Morris Sheppard, an East Texas Big Thicket Association that was poorly organized and focused, scattered actions on issues that were not relevant to Big Thicket protection, and a lone-wolf approach by Jackson.
From 1942, and after Jackson died in 1957, the effort to protect a part of the Big Thicket was moribund at best and had few visible supporters other than Lance Rosier, Alf Roark, Mrs. Bruce Bessie Reid, Mrs. J.L. Corrie Hooks, Joe Combs, Joe Heiser, and Louise Loomis.
The Outdoor Nature Club (ONC) protected some of the Big Thicket because the vegetation was disappearing. In the early 1950’s the ONC bought and later enlarged its’ “Little Thicket Nature Sanctuary” to about 640 acres. While this acquisition was important it was not on its own going to lead to the protection of a large portion of the Big Thicket.
The U.S. Forest Service saw an opportunity to attract people to Sam Houston National Forest and administratively designated a several thousand-acre Big Thicket Scenic Area in 1963. Later the name was changed to Big Creek Scenic Area so people would not get confused about its relationship to the BTNP that was created.
Resurrection
In 1962, Governor Price Daniel set-up a study commission for a Big Thicket State Park. The main purpose for this park would be to provide increased economic activity by tourism. Dempsie Henley, from Liberty County, helped put the study commission report together.
The commission proposed that 52,300 acres be acquired in Polk, Liberty, and Hardin Counties at 6 park sites, the origin of the so-called “string of pearls” concept. Timber companies opposed the park, Governor Daniels lost reelection, and the new Governor, John Connally, was not as supportive of the park. Although the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission recommended in 1966 that a Big Thicket State Park be created and acquired by the Texas Legislature, the State Legislature never passed a bill to do this.
The scientific importance of the Big Thicket was documented by Mr. Claude McLeod, a biology professor at Sam Houston State College. In 1967 and then again in 1972 he published an investigation that mapped the Big Thicket via use of indicator plants which delineated an Upper and Lower Thicket.
The Upper Thicket was dominated by Loblolly Pine, White Oak, American Beech, and Southern Magnolia and the Lower Thicket was dominated by the same species, minus American Beech, but with the addition of Swamp Chestnut Oak. Both dominant and subordinate tree species were used as indicators in 9 counties (1967) and then 11 counties (1972).
Nature provides some exceptions to McLeod’s indicators in the Big Thicket. The counties with Big Thicket vegetation mapped by McLeod were Newton, Sabine, Montgomery, Harris, San Jacinto, Polk, Liberty, Tyler, Hardin, Jasper, and Jefferson Counties.
The Fight Begins
This state activity took place from 1962 through 1965, at which time, Texas U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough announced that he would work to create a Big Thicket National Park. This was after he had worked to pass legislation that created Padre Island National Seashore and Guadalupe Mountains National Park.
It was at this time that the East Texas Big Thicket Association was resurrected on October 4, 1964 as the Big Thicket Historical Association. Later named the “Big Thicket Association”, this organization would provide the nexus to help create the BTNP over the next 10 years.
Yarborough, ever faithful to his statement, introduced Senate Bill 3929 on October 20, 1966 to establish a 75,000-acre Big Thicket National Park within Hardin, Liberty, San Jacinto, Polk, and Tyler Counties.
Yarborough reintroduced his Big Thicket bill on January 11, 1967, Senate Bill (SB) 4, and Congressman Jim Wright of Fort Worth introduced HR 11188 a bill similar to Yarborough’s proposal on June 27, 1967.
In 1967, the National Park Service (NPS) took Mcleod’s information and prepared a second “string of pearls” concept that covered 35,500-acres in nine units and was called the “Big Thicket National Monument”. Senator Yarborough’s response was that “Monuments are for dead things”, and he stated that a larger park was needed.
The “string of pearls” proposal was later expanded to include 43,000 acres in fee acquisition, 32,000 acres in easements, and an 1,335,000-acre environmental conservation zone around the entire “string of pearls” where the NPS would regulate logging and oil/gas exploration. A final version of the NPS proposal had 36,000-acres in fee acquisition, 12,000-acres in conservation easements, and a 1,400,00,000 environmental conservation zone.
In 1968, Yarborough’s 75,000-acre bill had created so much political pressure that the Texas Forestry Association came out in support of the NPS 35,500-acre “string of pearls” Big Thicket National Monument. This was the first time that members of the timber industry agreed publicly that part of the Big Thicket should be preserved.
Enter the Sierra Club
In the mid-1960s there were few hiking trails and public lands in Texas. The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club was created in 1965. Due to the lack of hiking trails, the Lone Star Chapter, as one of its first major projects, supported the construction of a hiking trail that would provide a wilderness-like experience on public land near Houston, Texas.
Sometime in 1965 or 1966, Orrin Bonney, of the Lone Star Chapter, and soon others, began to explore the idea of a 100-mile hiking trail in Sam Houston National Forest. During this same time the Big Thicket battle heated up with proposals and then bills introduced in the U.S. Congress.
On September 9, 1967, the Sierra Club Board of Directors adopted a resolution in support of the establishment of a Big Thicket National Monument. The Sierra Club Board of Directors stated, “The Sierra Club supports establishment of a Big Thicket National Monument in East Texas of no less than 100,000 acres. Among other units the Monument should preserve a portion of Village Creek and a substantial portion of the Neches River bottom. All of the units should be maintained essentially in a roadless condition.”
The Sierra Club opposed any trading or cession of national forests to create the Big Thicket National Park or Monument. As a separate proposal the Sierra Club recommended the establishment of a national wildlife refuge around Dam B using lands that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers managed, a state historical area between Beech and Theuvenins Creeks in Tyler County, and establishment of other state parks to supplement a Big Thicket National Reserve.
In the May 1968 issue of the “Sierra Club Bulletin”, now called “Sierra Magazine”, an article was published entitled, “Big Thicket: The Biological Crossroads of North America”. The article was written by Orrin Bonney, Chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. In the article, Bonney states that “The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club has studied the 35,000-acre “string of pearls” plan, and believes it is too small and too fragmented to preserve Big Thicket’s special values.”
In June 1968, the Lone Star Chapter began preparing a “Big Thicket” slide show to educate and rouse the public in support of a Big Thicket park or monument. Although not in final form by January 30, 1969, the Sierra Club’s Big Thicket slide show had been shown at least twice.
In December 1968, a meeting was held in Silsbee, Texas by Ned Fritz of the Texas Committee on Natural Resources, today’s Texas Conservation Alliance, to discuss a more vigorous and aggressive Big Thicket campaign.
About 150 people attended the meeting and included U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough, U.S. Congressman Bob Eckhardt, representatives of the Texas Forestry Association (TFA), Dempsie Henley from the Big Thicket Association, Ernest Borgman of the NPS, representatives from other groups, and interested citizens.
After the NPS presented an updated “string of pearls” plan Senator Yarborough stated the proposal was “timid” and that he would introduce a new bill that would create a 100,000-acre Big Thicket park. The TFA said it supported the 35,500-acre “string of pearls” plan, and Henley said that people were trying to take control of the Big Thicket Association (BTA) and that he supported the updated NPS “string of pearls” plan.
Intensification of the Struggle
Ned Fritz put together a Big Thicket Co-ordinating Committee (BTCC) that would work to enact Yarborough’s 100,000-acre Big Thicket plan. The BTCC allowed environmental groups to have several delegates and Orrin Bonney, Chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, was elected as president.
The BTCC became a very visible and vocal entity that pushed for a large Big Thicket park while the BTA changed its constitution to limit how long a person could serve as president. The BTA became an organization of not just local people but also others who wanted a stronger push for a larger Big Thicket park.
The Sierra Club communicated with those who were opposed to a Big Thicket park or supported a much smaller park. On January 15, 1969, Mr. M.L. Rudee, Conservation Chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, contacted the TFA and questioned its’ statements on the negative economic effects that a Big Thicket park would have on the forest industry.
Mr. Rudee stated that a 35,000-acre or even a 100,000-acre park would not have a significant effect on land ownership because most land in Texas was private. The much larger impacts of the Texas Water Plan, which could flood about 3 million acres of land (much in East Texas forests), should be a greater concern.
During 1969, the Sierra Club increased its outreach and lobbying efforts. Orrin Bonney, Chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, prepared and distributed a, “Big Thicket: The Biological Crossroads of North America”, folded brochure and map.
Yarborough introduced Senate Bill (SB) 4 on January 15, 1969, for a Big Thicket National Park of at least 100,000-acres. This bill included stream corridor units to protect waterways in the Big Thicket. The bill went nowhere initially because U.S. Congressman John Dowdy of the Big Thicket area did not support Yarborough’s bill and introduced his own on October 16, 1969, for the 35,500-acre “string of pearls” plan. However, Dowdy was indicted in March 1970 for bribery and this cleared Yarborough politically to push for a hearing for his bill.
On March 18, 1970, Orrin Bonney, Chair of the BTCC, sent out a memo about a March 14, 1970 meeting between the Sierra Club and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). This meeting was about Big Thicket issues that could supplement a federal Big Thicket park like recreational facilities, camping, picnicking, and could be placed outside the environmental conservation zone.
TPWD requested that the Sierra Club answer 34 questions about Big Thicket parks. The Sierra Club submitted a detailed response to these questions. The Sierra Club felt that TPWD was mostly interested in developing parks that generate revenues.
In April 1970, June 12th and 13th was set for a public hearing on Yarborough’s bill in Beaumont by the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
Unfortunately for Yarborough, the Big Thicket, and conservationists, he lost the May 2, 1970 primary election to Lloyd Bentsen who would run against George Bush in the fall for Yarborough’s Senate seat. Yarborough said he would fight for his bill until he was no longer in office. Senator Bentsen reintroduced Yarborough’s bill after he left Congress.
The Sierra Club sent out a “Save the Big Thicket” memo to other conservationists which publicized the June 12 and 13th hearing on Yarborough’s bill. The message was: attend the hearing, write a letter to the Subcommittee, tell others about this opportunity, talk to newspaper editors and write letters to the editor, and request a 100,000 to 200,000-acre Big Thicket park.
The Sierra Club further stated that unique areas needed to be protected, wildlife areas should be protected, environmental conservation zones should control uses, rivers and streams need corridor protection, highways need corridors of natural forest, and recreational facilities should be acquired and placed outside the unique areas and the environmental conservation zone.
On June 12th, the Sierra Club testified at the Subcommittee hearing on Yarborough’s bill in Beaumont. Orrin Bonney spoke for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society. His testimony emphasized the biological diversity of Big Thicket, the lack of public lands in East Texas, and the need for recreational facilities outside the park.
The Louisiana Sierra Club Group in New Orleans was represented by J.W. Futrell who provided comments in support of a Big Thicket National Park and made the observation that bottomland hardwood forests are vanishing in Texas and Louisiana, the people in Louisiana would benefit because they could visit a Big Thicket National Park, and the establishment of such a park could energize Louisiana citizens to save some of their own precious forests.
Senator Yarborough and Congressman Bob Eckhardt spoke first on behalf of the Big Thicket park. The timber industry testified why a 35,000-acre park would be in the best interests of people. Senator Bible, who chaired the Subcommittee, summarized the future of the bill. He said there would be discussions about the dispute over acreage, that cost would be a major factor, he would ask the NPS for an evaluation of various proposals, and then he would move as fast as possible to decide what to do.
A few days after the public hearing, George Bush, the Houston U.S. Congressman who was running against Lloyd Bentsen for Senate (who had endorsed the 100,000-acre Yarborough bill), unveiled his 150,000-acre Big Thicket park proposal. That same day Houston U.S. Congressman Bob Eckhardt introduced a 185,000-acre bill.
Unfortunately, Sierra Club and other conservationists received a shock when Orrin Bonney had heart attacks in August and September. In an October 17, 1970 memo to the BTCC, he summarized what needed to be done.
This included dealing with the September 5, 1970 “Consensus” document (which Orrin thought was “quite sound”) prepared by a group of conservationists which included Ned Fritz, Geraldine Watson, Emil and June Kindschy, and others and was sent to Lorraine Bonney, Orrin’s wife, by Fritz on September 14, 1970.
The six points of the “Consensus” document dealt with a Saratoga Unit; 9 ecological units; corridors along the Neches River, Pine Island Bayou, and Village Creek; overland trailways that connect to corridors; a total acreage of 185,000 acres; and that NPS could build roads and parking areas only where necessary for maintenance, widely separated access, and primitive campsites.
Numerous bills to protect the Big Thicket were filed in 1971. Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen introduced a bill for 100,000-acres (Yarborough’s old bill); Texas U.S. Senator John Tower introduced a bill to establish a Big Thicket national park with a single unit of 81,472 acres and recreational areas of 18,528 acres. From 1971 through 1974, 16 Big Thicket bills were introduced in the House of Representatives and from 1966 through 1974 a total of 28 bill were introduced in the U.S. Congress.
U.S. Congressman Jake Pickle, from Austin introduced a bill and U.S. Congressman Bob Eckhardt introduced a 191,000-acre bill with a so-called “wheel of green”. U.S. Congressmen Jack Brooks, Earle Cabell, and Wright Patman also introduced their own Big Thicket bills.
Meanwhile, in 1971 the BTA elected a new president, Pete Gunter with a mandate to be more aggressive for a Big Thicket park and against timber company proposals. Gunter was instrumental in gaining more publicity for Big Thicket, raised hell about timber companies and how they treated the land, and implemented a media campaign to get more statewide and nationwide attention to save the Big Thicket via newspapers, radio, and television programs.
Gunter also wrote a book in 1972, “The Big Thicket: A Challenge for Conservation”, and recorded a song, “The Last Big Thicket Blues”, to get attention for Big Thicket protection.
During this time, the NPS insisted that the Big Thicket did not meet its’ criteria for a national park and advocated for a Big Thicket Cultural Park which would have honored timber operations, oil exploration, and farming which created culture in the Big Thicket. Fishing, hunting, and oil/gas exploitation would also be allowed. Conservationists rejected the NPS’s proposal.
U.S. Congressman Bob Eckhardt attempted to modify his proposal because he was told by the Senate Subcommittee Chair that hearings would not be held until the House passed a bill. He was also told by other House members that his bill had to be no more than 100,000 acres. When this information was shared with conservationists, they were not happy.
In October 1971, Eckhardt’s aid met with the BTCC. After much heated discussion, the BTCC proposed a 100,000-acre plan which Eckhardt incorporated into his new proposal. Eckhardt then attempted to get the entire Texas Congressional Delegation to support his one bill. This was not successful.
Texas U.S. Congressman Jack Brooks and U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen supported bills, and recruited co-sponsors, that did not name specific locations, units, and acreages. Eckhardt introduced a bill, with U.S. Congressmen James Wright and John Young co-sponsoring, that was 100,000-acres and had specific locations, units, and acreages.
Do or Die
After much wrangling, the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, decided to hold a field hearing in Beaumont, Texas on June 10, 1972.
The Wilderness Society sent out a fact sheet before the hearing which listed the BTCC proposals which included: not less than 100,000-acres; include all 8 major plant communities; include Jack Gore Baygall and Deserter’s Island; provide for environmental corridors for drainage and streamway protection; include major waterways Neches River, Village Creek, Turkey Creek Big Sandy Creek, Menard Creek, Pine Island Bayou, and Little Pine Island Bayou; interconnection of all corridors and special areas by foot and boat routes; provide permanent house owners with the option of a lifetime residence; choose the 100,000-acres within the 300,000-acre proposal by the BTCC with no restriction on any acreage above 100,000-acres; and no trading of national forest lands to private ownership unless located outside the proposed 100,000-acre proposal.
The hearing testimony on June 10th was similar to what was heard at the hearing held on June 12 and 13th in 1970. One feature that was different was the testimony of the “Save Our Homes and Land Committee”. This group was made up of individuals who owned homes within the area where Eckhardt’s bill was proposed.
The NPS sent out a letter in February 1972 which stated, “Property you now occupy is located within the boundaries of an area under study for inclusion in the National Parks System.” Residents thought the letter was an offer to buy their property and that the government was going to seize their homes.
Even though a second letter was sent by the NPS in April which apologized for the misunderstanding, homeowners along Village and Turkey Creeks opposed their inclusion in any park bill even after the BTA stated that it favored that the bill contain a guarantee that residents have the right to live in the park for the rest of their lives.
At the hearing Dr. Paul Feeney and Dr. Thomas Eisner from Cornell University supported the Eckhardt bill. These two scientists had formed the “Ad Hoc Committee to Save the Big Thicket”, with nearly 1,000 members, most biologists.
Feeney and Eisner testified that they had conducted research in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South American and believed that the Big Thicket’s biological diversity was unrivaled anywhere in the “temperature region of the Northern Hemisphere”.
After the hearing, U.S. Senator Wayne Aspinall, the Interior Committee’s Chair, said that a Washington hearing would be scheduled after the Committee received the NPS’s recommendations on the Brooks and Eckhardt bills.
The NPS did not provide recommendations during the summer and Eckhardt began pressing both the Interior Committee and the NPS to act on his bill. NPS said it could not give firm recommendations until the Texas Delegation reached agreement on what areas were to be included. The U.S. Senate had decided it would not act on a Big Thicket bill until the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill. Thus the 92nd Congress expired without further action on a Big Thicket bill.
In January 1973, a new blizzard of Big Thicket bills was introduced. Eckhardt reintroduced his 100,000-acre bill and changed its designation from a national park to a natural biological reserve which values scientific significance more than recreation and was less expensive to develop.
January 26, 1973, a memo from Emil O. Kindschy, who had taken over as BTCC Chair from the ailing Orrin Bonney, was sent out which presented a compromise that both the BTCC and Texas Forestry Association could present to the Texas U.S. Congressional Delegation as a unified alternative.
This compromise alternative was the result of a meeting on January 22, 1973 with representatives from the Texas Forest Service, U.S. Forest Service, NPS, Texas Forestry Association, Kindschy from the Sierra Club, and Howard Peacock from the BTA.
The Last Push
U.S. Congressman, “Timber Charlie” Wilson (he had worked for Temple Industries, a timber company, before his election), had been elected to the John Dowdy seat, and people waited on him to introduce his bill.
On June 5, 1972, a memo from Linda M. Billings, Sierra Club Assistant Washington Representative, provided an update on the Big Thicket to Emil Kindschy, Orrin and Lorraine Bonney, Pete Gunter, and Ned Fritz. Billings stated that, “The mood I get from the House and Senate is much more conservative and iffy, and there’s a good chance that if legislation is passed it will not be until 1974 … Wilson seems to be saying that if we want early consideration then we will have to compromise and agree to his bill (which will be the same as Interior’s recommendations, as I now understand it) of 75,000 acres.”
On June 13, 1973, Charlie Wilson introduced his bill. The Big Thicket area was almost entirely within his district and while not a great supporter of the Big Thicket he did want to reach a compromise so he could focus on other issues. Wilson had refused to endorse any bill. He proved to be a moderate and announced that his legislation would preserve from 69,000 to 100,000-acres of the Big Thicket.
Wilson met with Kirby Lumber Company, Southwest Pine Lumber Company (Eastex subsidiary), and Temple Industries in January 1973 where they agreed they could accept a 100,000-acre park. When Wilson met with NPS they refused to endorse a 100,000-acre park and were thinking about recommending a 70,000 to 75,000-acre biological reserve.
A June 13, 1973 memo from Linda Billings, the Sierra Club lobbyist, stated:
“Rep. Wilson was quite adamant … that his bill of 75,000 and nothing larger should be the bill which passes. I think that he has said this to all of you … so you know that his fears are mainly political. That is, he won’t get re-elected if a larger park passes … He put it in the terms of either that figure or no legislation at all. He was unwilling to make any effort to try to move the legislation along at this point in time because neither Eckhardt nor Steelman will agree to compromise. And he is fearful that once the matter gets going in committee he will lose … He also made another curious statement that virtually no one in his district supported the park or perhaps he meant the 100,000-acre park. He believes that he has done more than could be reasonably expected in pushing for a 75,000-acre park which will include all of the Neches. He mentioned that his proposal has been praised by park advocates such as yourselves. So, the meeting was less than productive, and I’m not too sure at this point how to evaluate his ultimatum.”
Wilson’s bill was for 75,000-acres in 8 units and two stream corridors: Big Sandy, Turkey Creek, Hickory Creek, Lance Rosier, Beech Creek, Beaumont, Neches Bottom, Jack Gore Baygall, a corridor along the Neches River from Dam B to Beaumont, and a corridor along Little Pine Island Bayou that stretched from the Beaumont to the Lance Rosier Units.
Residents whose homes were within the reserve could live there until their death or the death of their spouse. Wilson left Village Creek out to meet the objections of the Save Our Home and Lands Committee. Hunting and fishing were allowed and the federal government would pay the full amount of property taxes lost for 20 years.
Hearings were set for July 16th and 17th, 1973 in Washington. At this time Republican U.S. Congressman Alan Steelmen, from Fort Worth, introduced an 100,000-acre Big Thicket National Biological Reserve bill that had a “legislative taking” requirement (land is immediately transferred to the government with payment to owners implemented as Congress appropriates funds) to prevent “spite cutting” by the timber owners.
Then the NPS on July 14th, just before the hearings, sent the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee a letter saying that the biological reserve should only be 68,000-acres with the removal of 7,000-acres of stream corridors due to cost.
At the hearings, Wilson testified that the Neches River corridor must be retained. He opposed a Village Creek corridor and said, “there is more hostility to that inclusion than anything else in the bill”.
Conservationists supported a 100,000-acre bill and retention of the Village Creek Corridor Unit which contained 2 of the 8 ecosystems that would otherwise be excluded from a Big Thicket reserve. The timber industry testified in favor of Wilson’s bill and several said they would maintain a voluntary moratorium on timber cutting in proposed units.
The Subcommittee announced when it adjourned that no serious consideration of a Big Thicket bill would occur until after August 1973 and the congressional recess. It was at this time that Pete Gunter, now BTCC president, contacted Eckhardt and urged him to compromise with Wilson. He was concerned that if a Big Thicket bill did not pass in the 93rd Congress that it never would.
The NPS prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Big Thicket National Reserve legislation and the Sierra Club responded to that document on September 28, 1973.
Orrin Bonney, Vice President, Sierra Club, pointed out that the NPS’s preferred alternative of 68,000-acres was inferior to the 100,000-acre proposal with corridors. Bonney documented that the NPS’s statement that water and hydrology is very important for the Big Thicket National Reserve is best done and most ecologically sound via the 100,000-acre alternative. This would be important since this was the first biological reserve that the NPS would manage.
October 4, 1973, Eckhardt and Wilson had a joint news conference and stated they had reached a compromise for an 84,000-acre biological reserve with 7 units and the stream corridors. The Loblolly Unit had been deleted and Village Creek was not included in the compromise.
Emil Kindschy submitted a statement, because he had been requested to by Eckhardt and Wilson, that he supported the compromise personally. The compromise by Eckhardt and Wilson was a surprise to the Sierra Club and its’ Executive Committee took the following position:
“The Sierra Club does not wish to take any position on this compromise proposal until such time as the House Interior Subcommittee has completed markup of the Big Thicket legislation. We understand that this markup will occur within the next two weeks.”
“The Sierra Club continues in its desire to preserve as much of the Big Thicket as is politically feasible. We do not at this time oppose the compromise.”
“We are anxiously awaiting the results of the Committee’s action. Please advise if you think a further action on our part would be desirable at this time.”
Both U.S. Senators Tower and Bentsen praised the compromise. But U.S. Congressman Steelman was upset that he was not consulted by Wilson and Eckhardt. Steelman attempted to amend the bill to include 12,000 acres on Village Creek. This failed and the Subcommittee endorsed the compromise and sent it to the Houston Interior Committee.
On November 13th, Steelman proposed amendments to the bill and was successful in getting the 550-acre Loblolly Unit reinstated. November 15th, Wilson and the entire Texas delegation as cosponsors introduced HR 11546, “A Bill to Establish a Big Thicket National Preserve”. The name was changed because the NPS thought it was more descriptive. There was no agreed upon NPS definition for a preserve at that time. November 29, 1973, the Interior Committee issued a favorable report on the bill and on December 3, 1973 the U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill and sent it to the U.S. Senate.
The BTA endorsed the compromise bill but the BTCC continued to push for a 100,000-acre bill. The BTCC asked Senators Bentsen and Tower to add the Village Creek Unit to the Senate bill.
Wilson was angered by the BTCC’s actions and stated, “If they raise it one acre, and particularly if they try to put in the Village Creek corridors, I’ll oppose it to the very last drop of blood.” Wilson now threatened to kill the bill if any additional acreage was added. Wilson’s credibility with his constituents was at stake.
On December 18, 1973, a memo was sent by Linda Billings to Sierra Club leaders about “Big Thicket National Preserve, Senate action”. The memo said that the staff of Senator Bible was opposed to “legislative taking”; did not think it was appropriate that Land and Water Conservation Fund money should be used (regular appropriations should be used instead); and did not like allowing hunting in the Big Thicket because it is inconsistent with the primary purpose of a biological preserve and departs from the 1916 Parks Act that governs general management of parks.
A December 28, 1973 letter from W. Lloyd Tupling, Washington Representative, Sierra Club, to Senator Alan Bible, Chair of the Subcommittee, supports the House bill but wanted additional acreage added. This additional acreage should be added along streams and rivers and include the Sandylands-Ponds Unit so that all plant communities are fully represented and protected. The Senate should pass the 100,000-acre bill that Senators Bentsen and Tower support quickly.
Success
The Senate took up Wilson’s bill and Bentsen and Tower’s bills on February 5 and 6th, 1974. Wilson testified in support of his bill and continued to threaten to kill it if Village Creek was added. The NPS supported its 68,000-acre proposal and the Texas Forestry Association supported Wilson’s bill.
Pete Gunter supported the 100,000-acre bills with Village Creek even though he had helped produce the compromise bill. He did so because of the ecological uniqueness of Village Creek.
In an April 18, 1974 memo, Linda Billings, Washington Representative of the Sierra Club, reported to Sierra Club leaders that Senate Park and Recreation Subcommittee staff preferred the 1916 National Park Act original concept; do not like “legislative taking” but prefer homeowners have some leeway about living on their property; Village Creek is being considered but Menard Creek and Pine Island Bayou have problems with development; stream corridors need to be wide enough to provide protection and recreation; and Eastex timber company may donate lands for the Sandy Lands-Ponds Unit.
Bentsen and Tower proposed a compromise bill that dropped 5,459-acres of corridors but added a 14,000-acre Village Creek Unit. A May 16th Interior Committee markup of the Wilson bill added a 15,450-acre Village Creek Unit so the total acres would be 100,000 and removed the “legislative taking” language. On May 23rd, the Interior Committee reported the measure to the Senate and on May 30th the Senate passed the bill as amended.
Since the Senate and House bills were different a House-Senate conference committee should have been appointed with the House initiating formation of the committee. But the conference committee never convened. Things were delayed due to the Nixon impeachment in the summer of 1974, the Senate was waiting to deal with other environment legislation, and Wilson’s opposition.
After August 1974, when Nixon resigned, Peter Gunter called both Eckhardt and Bentsen and urged them to accept Wilson’s figure on acreage. The House Interior Committee redrafted Wilson’s bill and dropped the “legislative taking” provision and adopted the 84,550-acre figure. On September 24, 1974, the House approved the bill and sent the bill to the Senate.
Oh, Sweet Victory!
Bentsen and Tower agreed to the compromise and the Senate passed the bill on October 1, 1974. President Gerald Ford signed the bill to establish the Big Thicket National Preserve on October 11, 1974.
The bill established 8 units and 4 stream corridors on 84,550-acres; offered homeowners within the BTNP the ability to live in his/her house 25 years or until death or the death of spouse, whichever occurred last; hunting, fishing, and trapping could be permitted; oil/gas exploitation could occur in units as long as it did not endanger the integrity of the BTNP; land was to be purchased within 6 years; the costs were not to exceed $63.8 million; and no federal funds would offset the loss of tax revenue once the land was purchased.
Land acquisition took much longer than 6 years and the cost was much higher than estimated but eventually all land was acquired. “Spite cutting” took place in some units before money could be appropriated to buy Preserve land. Many acres had to undergo “friendly condemnation” because the title for who owned the land was not clear.
While it took 45 years to accomplish, BTNP protection was a high point for conservationists and environmentalists in Texas and showed what could be done if the community and local advocates worked together.
In recent years, some of those who opposed BTNP establishment have decided that it was a good thing that some of the woods they love and grew-up in are protected. This is in reaction to the forest disappearing due to the development of pine plantations and residential areas. BTNP is a forest reality that people can touch. It’s a real-life symbol of the forest that fed and molded Southeastern Texas culture and residents. Thank God, there is a Big Thicket National Preserve that we can visit, enjoy, and pass onto our kith and kin. Amen!
References
1) “R.E. Jackson and the Early Big Thicket Conservation Movement, 1929-1957”, Pete A.Y. Gunter, East Texas Historical Journal, Volume 37, Issue 2, 1999.
2) “Saving the Big Thicket: From Exploration to Preservation, 1685-2003”, James J. Cozine, Jr., University of North Texas Press, 2004.
3) “R.E. Jackson and Early Big Thicket Conservation: Setting the Stage”, Pete A.Y. Gunter, Big Thicket Association, 1997.
4) “Creation of Big Thicket National Preserve”, National Park Service, https://nps.gov/bith/learn/historyculture/creation-of-big-thicket-national-preserve.htm, February 4, 2021.
5) “Defining the Big Thicket: Prelude to Preservation”, James Cozine, East Texas Historical Journal, Volume 31, Issue 2, 1993.
6) “Big Thicket”, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2015, color brochure.
7) “Big Thicket: The Biological Crossroads of North America”, Sierra Club Bulletin, Orrin H. Bonney, May 1968
8) “Big Thicket – Land of Mystery, Folklore, and Tall Tales”, draft magazine article, Orrin H. Bonney, date unknown, probably between 1967 and 1968.
9) January 30, 1969, Letter from Orrin H. Bonney, Chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, to Jeff Ingram about the Sierra Club Big Thicket slide show.
10) January 15, 1969, Letter from M.L. Rudee, Conservation Chair, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, to E.R. Wagoner, Executive Vice President, Texas Forestry Association.
11) “Big Thicket: The Biological Crossroads of North America”, Orrin H. Bonney, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, folded brochure with map, June 1969.
12) “Save the Big Thicket”, Orrin Bonney, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, 1970.
13) March 17, 1970, Letter from Orrin Bonney, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club to Jim Watts, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
14) March 18, 1970, Memo to Big Thicket Coordinating Committee from Chair Orrin H. Bonney.
15) June 12, 1970, Statement of J.W. Futrell for Louisiana Sierra Club, on proposed Big Thicket National Park.
16) June 12, 1970, Statement of Orrin H. Bonney for Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society, on proposed Big Thicket National Park.
17) September 14, 1970, Letter from Ned Fritz Chair, Texas Committee on Natural Resources to Lorraine Bonney.
18) September 5, 1970, “Consensus on the Big Thicket”, Ned Fritz, Texas Committee on Natural Resources.
19) October 17, 1970, Memo from Orrin H. Bonney, Chair, Big Thicket Coordinating Committee.
20) “Texas Hearings Announced for Big Thicket Area”, The Wilderness Society, 1972.
21) January 26, 1973, Memo from Emil O. Kindschy, Chair, BTCC about “Compromise on the Big Thicket National Area”.
22) June 5, 1973, Memo from Linda M. Billings, Associate Washington Representative, Sierra Club, about “Big Thicket”.
23) June 13, 1973, Memo from Linda M. Billings, Associate Washington Representative, Sierra Club, about “Big Thicket”.
24) September 28, 1973, Letter from Orrin H. Bonney, Sierra Club, about Big Thicket National Reserve EIS, to National Park Service
25) October 4, 1973, Letter from Emil O. Kindschy, about Big Thicket Biological Reserve compromise proposal, to U.S. Congressman Abraham Kazen.
26) December 18, 1973, Memo from Linda M. Billings, Associate Washington Representative, Sierra Club, about “Big Thicket National Preserve, Senate action”, to Sierra Club leaders.
27) December 28, 1973, Letter from W. Lloyd Tupling, Washington Representative, Sierra Club, to Senator Alan Bible, Chair, Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, about Big Thicket National Preserve House bill.
28) April 18, 1974, Memo from Linda M. Billings, Washington Representative, Sierra Club, about “Big Thicket legislation in the Senate, to Sierra Club leaders.
Photo by Brandt Mannchen.