Abstract
During the Shelterbelt Project of the 1930s, foresters trained and instilled with Progressive-era values confronted an uncooperative public and nature on the Great Plains. Foresters assumed planting trees in shelterbelts was primarily a scientific and technical task. However, they quickly compromised technical guidelines in the face of bureaucratic pressure and local desire. Foresters assumed compromise undermined technical success, but this was too simple an explanation. In some cases, such as the overuse of cottonwood, public pressure undermined long-term success, but in other cases, such as the narrowing of belt width, public pressure improved long-term prospects. Public unwillingness to engage in drawn-out and uncertain solutions and a bureaucratic refusal to open up the planning process consistently undermined the overall success of the project. Conservation planning in a democratic state is inherently multifaceted: political and social realities demand equal billing with technical ones, and natural and scientific uncertainties require that conservation planning be a process, rather than an immediate solution.
