Interview with Frank N. Graass, January 28 and 29, 1965, Sturgeon Bay and Madison, Wisconsin

EAST: This is Dennis East of the Historical Society. Today is January 28, 1965. We're here to--we're here to interview Mr. Frank Graass of Sturgeon Bay, who has been active in conservation for a number of years, and has been a State Assemblyman. And we are going to ask Mr. Graass right now if he'll give us a little bit of background information in terms of where he was born, and when he was born, and his early education, and how he first got interested in the subject of conservation.

GRAASS: I was born in Sturgeon Bay on August the 19th, 1885, and I've lived there all my life, except the many years I spent in the Wisconsin legislature in 00:01:00the office of two governors of Wisconsin. My first interest in conservation came when, after graduating from high school, I became the bookkeeper for the Albert Kalmbach fisheries, as well as the Booth fisheries at Sturgeon Bay. It was there where I saw the beginning of the depletion of the commercial fish industry. 00:02:00Later, I fought legislation through the Legislature correcting the evils that existed.

After I left the Kalmbach fisheries, I entered the forestry work, dealing in American tree seeds. I had hundreds and hundreds of agents in Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Minnesota, buying pine cones for me, which were shipped to Crivitz, Wisconsin, Roscommon, Michigan, and Sturgeon Bay, where at different 00:03:00times I operated a seed extraction plant. All my business was done with foreign countries: Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, and even some with Russia, from which I still got the money coming.

EAST: Mr. Graass, you mentioned that you were in this business of seeds, and the exporting, and selling to other countries. Could you tell us if they were just interested in American seeds, or what types of seeds they wanted?

GRAASS: Well, they were primarily interested in jack pine seed that grew in great quantities in Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and Roscommon, Michigan. 00:04:00These were all sandy territory, and they never were raised for timber. They never were turned into lumber, but mostly boxwood. While over in these foreign countries, they planted them, the seeds, like in a nursery, in rows, and cultivated. And where we--and where our jack pine wouldn't make more than a [pause] pulp stake, over there, through cultivation, they grew 60, 70 feet high. 00:05:00This continued on until World War I, and then everything dropped off. I lost plenty on the, not Titanic, [inaudible]. And also, I shipped a carload of acorns down to the Adriatic Transportation Company in the Adriatic Sea down in Italy, and I haven't heard from them today. The Germans either confiscated them for feed or they blew up the boat.

EAST: You mentioned the Titanic. You mean the Lus--Lusitania or whatever it was.

GRAASS: Yeah. I had many [inaudible].

EAST: Yeah, that was the ship that you lost [inaudible] on.

GRAASS: Now wait, that--oh, wait. After World War II, our states became 00:06:00interested in reforestation, and I supplied great quantities of white pine, Norway pine, jack pine, arborvitae balsam, spruce, to not only nurseries, but to the states themselves. Pennsylvania, and Maine, and those states were the primary purchasers.

EAST: This was after World War II, or World War I?

GRAASS: World War I.

EAST: World War I. Did you get these seeds through your own type of plantations 00:07:00as private growth, or just exactly how did you come by these?

GRAASS: No, these were picked off of public lands. I had agents in different towns, like maybe [Escanaba?], Michigan; maybe over in Sparta, Wisconsin; Crivitz, Wisconsin. And they would buy them up from the farmers, and then ship them to these different extracting plants of mine.

EAST: What was the normal selling price when you bought them?

GRAASS: The cones? I paid more for the cones than these farmers got for their pulp wood. They couldn't understand it. But you see, what they do there, the jack pine was cut mostly in the wintertime, and jack pine don't open with the 00:08:00frost like other cones do, but it takes heat to extract them. So these farmers would go out and contract for cutting boxwood with some box company, and the kids would snap off the cones and bring them in to some central place, where I had agents paying them a commission. And--

[tape break]

And then I believe I was the originator of the pine cone wreaths. After the extraction of the seed, I used to sell the open cones to these companies making wreaths. I started a Belgian up in Chicago, with about eight carloads of white 00:09:00pine cones, to start with, and that has today developed into a large business.

EAST: Were there any other companies in Wisconsin doing this type of thing?

GRAASS: Seed companies?

EAST: Yeah, this type of thing.

GRAASS: No, no--cones, or?

EAST: Seeds.

GRAASS: No, I was the biggest operator in the United States. Down in New York, there's a [inaudible] wholesale operator, hardware business, started buying up and exporting also. Our lands have been deforest. But when I started out, we used to pay about 50 cents a bushel for white pine cones, and maybe around two 00:10:00or three dollars a bushel for Norway pine cones. Then when the states started getting out their own seed, which many of them did, that price went up to as high as 12 dollars a bushel for Norway pine cones.

EAST: Yeah, there is a little definite trend upward in that respect. You mentioned that after World War I, or at the time of the outbreak of World War I, as this seed business tapered off, or was stopped entirely, then what took up your interest, what did you do after that?

GRAASS: After the seed business?

EAST: After the seed business, how did you continue in the area of conservation, or what did you do?

GRAASS: Well, I inherited and purchased a lot of land right in Los Angeles, 00:11:00which is now Hollywood. And after paying taxes on it for 24 years--I might say also, up at Saugus--I sold it and then went into the fruit growing business, both cherries and apples, and was one of the directors of the Door County Fruit Growers Cooperative.

EAST: And you were associated with them while you were in the [inaudible], of course, and then in working with them. When you--you were elected to the Assembly in 1917.

GRAASS: 1917.

EAST: And you were--were you put on a committee, a conservation committee, or exactly what was your [inaudible]?

GRAASS: I first went to the Legislature under Governor Emanuel Philipp, second term. And immediately, naturally, I became, the first thing, interested in commercial fishing [inaudible] that we had. That wasn't very good going in those days, for the simple reason that the commercial fishermen had a great influence on the legislators, and of course, the legislators were always looking for their 00:13:00votes, because the fish didn't vote. What I witnessed when I was in the bookkeeping for the fisheries company, was that the gradual--

EAST: Decline?

GRAASS: Huh?

EAST: Decline?

GRAASS: Decline of the fish industry in Green Bay waters, which perhaps were the natural spawning grounds of the trout--

EAST: Lake trout.

GRAASS: Lake trout, yeah. The legal size of trout at that time was, I think, 00:14:00eight or ten inches. They don't spawn until they are eighteen to twenty inches. The fishermen with small mesh nets, which were used for the taking of chubs, probably two and a half, two and three quarters, would set their nets out in Green Bay, and bring in tons and tons and tons of these small baby trout, sometimes in such great amounts that the box factories could hardly keep up with the manufacturing of boxes over in Menomonie, Wisconsin. These fish were shipped west, and sold as mountain trout, and the price was usually from five, six, or 00:15:00seven cents a pound. That was the beginning of the decline in Green Bay. Then the legislature used to make the laws on the--they would set the size of nets for perches, trout, whitefish, and chubs, and the closed season for trout and whitefish. In other words, the legislature would set the closed season to, say, October the 15th or 20th, whatever they thought, two years in advance.

Well, the facts are that trout and whitefish will spawn, begin spawning quicker [inaudible] we begin our first cold snaps. So sometimes they would be taking these trout off the spawning grounds, maybe weeks and weeks before they're ready to spawn. Not only that, but I have seen fishermen come in with catches of thousands of thousands of pounds of beautiful trout, all the way from six to twelve pounds, just loaded with spawn, but hard as a rock. Then not only that, 00:17:00but in whitefish, they used to, especially in Door county, fish whitefish at a, with pound nets at a depth of, oh maybe fifty, sixty feet. And that soon went into deep pound nets, ninety feet; and then to get out where the whitefish were feeding in deep water, they started what they call long pole pound nets, where the pole that held up the nets were anchored. And then the lead would go out, 00:18:00and that's another thing that we finally got rid of.

The biggest fight in the legislature was on the small-mesh net for chubs, which they almost destroyed. The legislature was still making laws, and I can recall right now that on one bill raising the size of mesh over in the senate of the legislature, at least two or three weeks was spent on fighting on this bill, with amendment after amendment, before it was finally killed.

EAST: This is an example, you might say--this is an example, you might say, of where the legislature was trying to do something right, but they just don't have the knowledge of what to do. Could you tell us exact--not exactly, but roughly when this was happening? What date, or what year?

GRAASS: This started in 1917, when I was first with the legislature, and we never began to get any correction until this--the powers were given the Conservation Commission to regulate fish and game.

EAST: That came many years later, ten years or so later?

GRAASS: At first, [inaudible]. We used to operate fish hatcheries at Sturgeon 00:20:00Bay, Sheboygan, and up in Lake Superior. The unfortunate part at that time was that some fishermen were given permits to fish for spawn, and they just abused the privilege. This also helped do away with the trout. Then the Legislature finally did away with the fish hatcheries that, when operated properly, did a pretty good business of propagation. This was after the Commission was formed. 00:21:00Then the rules and regulations were improved, which made it worthwhile.

EAST: On this 1917 period, of which you spoke, there was in existence--there was a three-man Commission in existence, was there not at that time, made up of Moody, and Nevin, and there was another man on it.

GRAASS: Let's see--Webster.

EAST: Webster, and Nevin, and Moody. I think Webster replaced Nevin, didn't he?

GRAASS: Yeah. Then [inaudible]

[tape break]

EAST: Neither Mr. Graass nor myself can think of the third man who was originally appointed to the three-man Commission on the Governor's [inaudible] There was Moody and Nevin, and there was another man also, but we can't think of right now. We're going on now to a list of subjects here that Mr. Graass has written down, which he feels are of major importance in the field of conservation. And I'll just start out by asking you, Mr. Graass, what do you feel were some of the major achievements in the area, and who might be responsible for them?

GRAASS: Well, some may not agree with this, but I was right in on the ground floor, and could see the results of the different legislation that was passed, affecting conservation in fish, and rivers, and forests. To me, after 00:23:00experiencing what I did with the general public and the legislature, the six-man commission, which was supposed to be non-political, was the major, and probably the first major act. The second was delegating the powers of regulation to the commission, and taking it out of the hands of the legislature. The third was, I 00:24:00believe, the creation of the conservation fund. The fourth: the two-tenths of a mill tax for forestry purposes. Fifth: allowing the federal government to come in and purchase the lands for reforestation, which the state at that time could not afford, and also our state and private forests. Next, I believe that the sixth was Horicon Marsh, the restoration of Horicon Marsh. And seventh was the 00:25:00great improvements made in our commercial fish industry. Next, I believe that I would say the study of pollution in this state--the beginning of the study of pollution in this state, and appropriations to make that study. And the next would be providing for conservation education in our schools. There are many 00:26:00other minor, but important ones, such as the eradication, or the attempt to eradicate our pine blister rust in our white pine forests. And in finances, of course, the hunting and fishing licenses, and the income from rough fish. There are many more important issues that I cannot recall at this time, but one that 00:27:00comes to my mind now is the creation of our state parks and the finances to operate them.

EAST: Mr. Graass, you were talking earlier about the lake trout and how it has diminished in size, I know the subject of the lamprey eel comes in here. Could you talk to us a little bit about that?

GRAASS: Yes. I have always maintained that the lamprey eel was not the greatest or greater destroyer of our lake trout. It was the acts of the Legislature, as well as the commercial fishermen who thought there was no end to the trout, that 00:28:00really destroyed the lamprey eel. They got them down so low, that the lamprey eel took over and closed them. There always used to be enough for them to eat, there used to be enough for the fishermen, and the lamprey eel. I have heard of a lake in New York that is filled with lamprey eel, and yet they have plenty of lake trout for the simple reason that they practice conservation.

EAST: I think you were talking to me as we were eating lunch here about the bluefin, and what happened to it in our lakes, and also you were talking about 00:29:00suckers. Why don't we talk a little bit here a minute about the bluefin?

GRAASS: Well, the bluefin--the habitat of the bluefin was out to Lake Michigan. The bluefin is a quality of fish above the present herring, and just below the whitefish. A herring is dry, and when smoked, very dry. The bluefin would run one, two, three pounds, and it was a little fatter, but not so much as the whitefish. Now, I can recall when the Legislature used to make the laws, there was a commercial fisherman in the Legislature, in the Assembly, and he put in a bill reducing the size of the mesh for bluefin, with the result, that was a few 00:30:00years that the bluefin had disappeared.

EAST: Do you remember who put that bill in?

GRAASS: Yes, I do, but we won't mention any names.

EAST: Won't mention any names--

GRAASS: There are a few left yet, there are a few left, but I think you'll find them mostly in Green Bay.

EAST: Would you say the man who submitted this bill had the support of commercial fishermen behind him?

GRAASS: Oh, sure, anything that eases it up. Then the same way with the sucker. Why, you could go out into any creek or almost anywheres, and pull out suckers by the tons, almost. I remember when the fishery companies used to buy them for probably 25 to 50 cents for a hundred pounds, and cut their heads off, dress them, and salt them, and sell them South calling them bay whitefish. Another 00:31:00thing that comes to my mind now, when I was with these fish companies. The whitefish were dressed and salted in kegs. There used to be a little boat called the Nettie Dennison that would load up with salt and barrels--packages, they called them--and make the [inaudible]. When they came back, they were loaded to the gun whales with these here salted whitefish. Today, you can't hardly get any whitefish, although they are coming back today. It appears that whitefish are coming back. They get some pretty catches up in Door County at this time.

[tape break]

GRAASS: While I was in the Legislature, there was created the Great Lakes Fishery Committee. Representatives of Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ontario. I was made General Chairman of this organization, and we held many meetings in all the different sections of the country. Michigan, Minnesota, and Ontario always were for better fish laws and had better fish regulations than Wisconsin, but you could never get the Legislature to go along with them, because they listened to the selfish--some selfish commercial fishermen, rather than to members of the 00:33:00Conservation Department, who lived with this for years.

EAST: Who else from Wisconsin was on that Great Lakes Council with you, do you recall?

GRAASS: I think our present Governor Knowles was along one time. I think the greatest help we had in not only delegating powers to the Conservation Commission and commercial fishing, but also the regulatory laws, was the help given us by Dr. Van Oosten of the Great Lakes Fisheries--the Federal Fisheries Department, who was located over in Michigan.

EAST: How did he help you?

GRAASS: Well, the U.S. government had boats studying the fish regulations and the fishing conditions themself up there, and he was the one that helped us considerable. There is another thing that comes to my mind, for herring, say. In the winter time, Green Bay was frozen with ice. And, of course, the fishermen fished their herring nets under the ice. But herring nets, the mesh is smaller than perch nets. But what they finally do, was drop their nets to the bottom, where in the wintertime it seems that the fish are, the perch are more dormant 00:35:00and hang close to the bottom. And then they were getting up the perch with a smaller mesh net.

EAST: They did this under the pretext or under the guise of fishing for herring? Well, it seems to me it's a combination of--

GRAASS: [inaudible]

EAST: Pardon?

GRAASS: Shut it off.

[tape break]

GRAASS: The decline of our fishing industry might be likened to the decline of our lumber industry in Wisconsin. Everybody thought there was enough forever, and no one paid any attention to the cutting, the burning of slash, and so forth. In other words, it wasn't all violators and people that listened to 00:36:00pressure altogether, it was the lack of knowledge of all these things that today we know more about, because we're studying more.

EAST: As I was going to say before, I think it seems the decline of the fishing, as you pointed out on three accounts--the Legislature, although they didn't willfully mean to hurt the industry in any way, I don't think, I think they were trying to do the job, but they just hadn't studied enough. The commercial fisherman, who was out for profit, I mean, that's why he's in the business, he's out for all he can get. And natural causes such as the lamprey eel, which comes into predominance as the number of other fish diminish.

GRAASS: Another person who was instrumental and gave a lot of help was Lester 00:37:00Smith of Port Washington. When the Smith Brothers of Port Washington began to realize that all their grandfather's and their father's interest, which they took over and inherited, was tied up in the fisheries, then they naturally noticed it before anybody else, what was happening, and they were a great help in our fisheries laws.

EAST: You can't say generally that all commercial fishermen were not aware of the problem? I mean, there were some such as the Smiths who were helping, or trying to--

GRAASS: That's true. They just thought there was enough for everybody. That was all there was to it. They thought there was no end of it. Just like the lumber industry, we thought there was no end to it, and today the big pulp companies 00:38:00and those have got to wake up and plant.

EAST: Do you recall any specific events or incidents where somebody in the Legislature, such as yourself, might have run into some commercial fishermen and then this man's views were made known? Any amusing incidents or anything like this you could recall?

GRAASS: Well, I know of one legislator, a commercial fisherman, who was a spiritualist. And he says his success in commercial fishing was that some general in Cromwell's army used to tell him where to set his nets. He also once made the statement that you don't violate the law until you're caught.

EAST: He served in the Assembly with you, did he?

GRAASS: No no no. He was a representative at Door County.

EAST: He represented Door County.

GRAASS: He was also against inoculation for disease and everything, he had bill--stop it. [inaudible] Shut 'er off.

[tape break]

GRAASS: Another thought just comes to me, how the progress has been made in commercial fishing, just like in any other industry today. Years ago, they used to go out with sailboats and could only probably lift two or three boxes of nets. Then came the gasoline engine boats, who could travel ten times farther 00:40:00than the sailboat, and could lift probably ten times more boxes of nets. Then came the automatic lifter on the boats. That made it possible to set more nets, and so where they used to set a box or two of nets in late years, they'd set, one boat would set miles and miles of nets.

EAST: Technological changes have entered in certain respects, too, I imagine.

GRAASS: Fish cannot vote [inaudible].

[tape break]

EAST: This is Dennis East. At this time, Mr. Graass did not feel well enough to 00:41:00attend--excuse me, to continue with this interview, and therefore, we shall consider this terminated. However, he will continue at a later date, either at Madison or at his home in Sturgeon Bay, in which we will deal with the ten or eleven subjects which were listed by him earlier during the course of the interview. This is the end of the first interview, but it has taken one full side and part of another side of one tape.

[tape break]

EAST: This is Dennis East, and we're at the Lorraine Hotel. Today is Friday, January 29, 1965. We are continuing our interview with Mr. Frank Graass. And as soon as we get a little bit organized here, we'll be getting underway.

[tape break]

EAST: We're going to start now with Mr. Graass, and we're going to talk about the delegation of powers to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Graass is going to 00:42:00make a few relevant comments on this, and I'll try to interject some questions where necessary. Okay.

GRAASS: Wisconsin was one of the first states in the Union where the Legislature delegated rule-making powers to the Conservation Commission. But only after one of the biggest legislative struggles in years, and only after it was proven that the legislature which--legislative records relative to the laws on fish and game 00:43:00were not consistent, uniform, or in the best interests of statewide regulation and conservation. Every session of the legislature, the legislators introduced bills for themselves, or at the request of some individual or group of hunters or fishermen, irrespective of the merits of the bill. Every session, there were about 1,200 to 1,400 bills introduced, which better than--over--an average of over two hundred bills per session related to fish and game. It was estimated by the head of the legislative library that the cost of fish and game bills would 00:44:00run around $75,000 to $100,000, and took about 1/6 of the legislative time. Changing seasons, method of hunting and fishing, length of fish, trapping laws, most of the time relating to just the specific county. At the end of the session, the rules and regulations were so confusing that it would almost take a civil engineer or surveyor to tell you where you could hunt, and maybe a Philadelphia lawyer to tell you what the law was.

Just for example, commercial fishing, on one bill that would increase the mesh 00:45:00of nets for chubs, the State Senate spent over two weeks battling it. Every day, there was a battle on it, and the records show that, on the journal, it took about eight to ten pages in the journal to show what the record was. The bill delegated to the Conservation Commission the power to regulate, but only after hearings were held in the area where they were affected. This bill also provided that if you disagreed with the order, you could take it to the courts, and there 00:46:00it would be settled as to whether the laws were properly drawn, or in the best interest of fish and game. The regulations also had to be approved, or vetoed by the governor.

We had a precedent for the delegation of powers some years prior to that. A disease showed up in our partridge population here in the state, and partridges were dying by great numbers. The Legislature was not in session, and so the Department of Conservation had to appeal to the hunter not to hunt them. That 00:47:00was one of the things that showed that it was necessary.

The bill did not deny the Legislature from still passing laws relative to fish and game, but it has very seldom been used. Several times, legislators did introduce bills affecting our fish and game, and they were always defeated by the Legislature, as they did not want to get back to that old squabble on how big the fish hook should be, or what the size of the trout should be.

Only one bill, as I recall, ever passed the Legislature, and that bill reducing 00:48:00the size mesh for perch on the waters of Green Bay. And Governor Goodland vetoed that, and his veto was sustained. [inaudible] about the Conservation Commission making these regulations, if they should err in making the regulations, or some emergency exists whereby action is needed immediately, they can within thirty days change the law.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, were you in the legislative harness, as you indicated earlier, 00:49:00when the mill tax, or the Forest Crop Law business came about in Wisconsin?

GRAASS: Wisconsin had a great forest of timber, but very little fire protection. I think the only money they received was from the federal Weeks Law, which I think gave them about fifty thousand dollars. Every year, thousands of acres of beautiful timberlands or pulp wood lands were burned over. In, I think it was in 1925, the National Guard had to be called out to cope with the fire situation in 00:50:00northern Wisconsin. And so it was decided, insofar as the constitution prevented the State from spending taxpayers' money for reforestation or fire protection, a resolution was passed in the Legislature putting the vote up to the people of the State of Wisconsin. I believe I spoke in every county in the state relative to this constitutional amendment, that limited the maximum tax to 2/10 of a mill. There was, I think, about 68 out of the 71 counties at the election voted 00:51:00to amend the constitution. However, the constitution--the Legislature did not pass the 2/10 of a mill immediately, but they stepped it up in different percentages until the Commission had their feet on the ground, and had a lot of experience. And then they finally adopted the two-tenth of a mill. The money, of course, was to be used for reforestation, fire protection, and so forth.

The only dangerous time this two-tenths of a mill had was during the Phil La 00:52:00Follette's administration for governor. Wisconsin used to operate the state government, the university, and all its divisions of government by a mill tax. During La Follette's administration, he changed the mill tax over to an income tax, which, of course, immediately affected the two-tenths of a mill. Bill Aberg and I called on Tommy Duncan, the secretary to Governor Philip La Follette, and showed him the danger of having our forests protected by an income tax. Any one year where the income tax dropped, why perhaps, the forest money also dropped. 00:53:00And we showed Mr. Duncan that over twenty million dollars had been expended in reforestation, and if this bill went through the way it was suggested, that maybe in one week, twenty million dollars' worth of effort would be destroyed. And upon that, the amendment to the bill--the constitution to allow the two-tenths of a mill tax to be sustained. Only this last year, the amendment was placed before the people of [inaudible] Wisconsin, to increase that mill tax, 00:54:00but it was voted down. Now Wisconsin, of all states, should have passed that resolution, but I think it was a failure on the part of publicity, the press, and so forth, that they did not attempt to show the people just what it meant in our industry, our paper industry here in our state, one of the biggest industries we have here.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, you wanted to mention something about the conservation fund. I understand that the conservation fund money is segregated like the highway fund, you might say, [inaudible]. Could you give us some background on that, and then how that came to pass?

GRAASS: Every year, hunters and fishermen, and trappers, and those that enjoy 00:55:00the out-of-doors, have paid approximately perhaps $800,000 into the general fund of the State. And then when the Legislature met, the Legislature would only appropriate probably two or three hundred thousand for conservation purposes, leaving the general fund a nice profit. And many governors, of course, were in favor of that.

EAST: Other governors, they could use this fund for their own purposes?

GRAASS: Yes. Just like the highway fund used to be used for other purposes. Several governments even tried to collect for services rendered that were not justified. Now this came about, and I think I had more to do with this than any 00:56:00other individual. When old Bob La Follette was governor of the State of Wisconsin, he, like every governor since, was looking around for more money. More money is needed every year. And he saw down in Lake Geneva, Chicago firms putting up ice in the wintertime. These really big ice houses there that they filled in the wintertime, and then shipped it down to Chicago during the summer months via railroad. That was before we had our present refrigeration. So he put 00:57:00a tax per ton on all the ice that was cut and taken from Lake Geneva, or any other lake or stream.

A smart little boy from Chicago questioned the constitutionality of it, and he took it to the Supreme Court. And there, the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional, and I think the language was something like this: "The waters of the lakes and the streams of the State of Wisconsin belong to the people, not to the state, and therefore they cannot be taxed. However, they can be licensed, but that money must be used for the protection, the restoration, of the fish and 00:58:00game in the State of Wisconsin." Mr. Fred Zimmerman, who was then Secretary of State, and I made sort of a rough estimate or audit of what was due the conservation fund, and it ran around one million dollars. Ever since then, the law has held, and the hunter and the fisherman and the trapper know that his money can only be used for conservation purposes.

EAST: Approximately what time period was this? You were still in the Legislature at this time?

GRAASS: No, I wasn't at that time. I was with the Izaak Walton League.

EAST: You were working with the Izaak Walton League at that time. What, roughly what date would you assign to this period?

GRAASS: Well, that must have been in '27.

EAST: 1927. Okay. [inaudible] We wanted a reference date.

GRAASS: Well, I'm not sure.

EAST: [inaudible] not too much trouble. Alright.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, I understand that you something to do with the establishment of the federal forest here in Wisconsin, you worked with some men on this. Could you tell us a little bit about that, and what capacity you were serving at this time?

GRAASS: Well, I was with the Izaak Walton then. Northern Wisconsin contained hundreds of thousands of acres of cutover lands that were unfit for agricultural 01:00:00purposes, or any other purposes. The state at that time could do nothing about it, for the [inaudible] reason that the cost would be excessive. So we introduced a bill in the Legislature allowing the federal government to come over and take over these lands, providing, of course, that when the timber or pulp wood was cut, that there would be a severance tax, where the state and the local unit of government would join in and profit by it.

EAST: Do you remember when this bill was introduced?

GRAASS: This was in about 1925, I believe. It was during the Blaine--Governor 01:01:00Blaine's administration. Blaine objected to the bill and openly opposed it.

EAST: On what grounds?

GRAASS: Just general principles, I guess.

EAST: General principles.

GRAASS: They had a lot of funny principles sometimes that you can't understand. But maybe he didn't want the federal government to come in here and [inaudible]. But the State of Wisconsin couldn't handle it. Well, after a lot of jockeying and fighting, he finally agreed to one hundred thousand acres. Since then, the federal government has given fire protection up there, has planted and rebuilt all these areas of land. We have trees instead of sand dunes. And that has now 01:02:00been increased, I think, to several million acres of land. And as I said before, when the timber or the jack pine, or the pulp wood is cut, not only the local county, but the local townships gained considerable.

EAST: Do you remember some of the men in the Assembly or in the Senate that helped you with this bill, or introduced it for you, or made it known?

GRAASS: Well, no, at this time, I don't. I tell ya. I had contacts with so many of them, that you would have to be superhuman to remember them at this time.

EAST: Well, I was going to ask whether men like Aberg and George Blanchard were in favor of this sort of thing?

GRAASS: Oh, sure, sure. The old war horses, Bill Aberg, George Blanchard, and all those [inaudible]. And Senator Harry Sauthoff, who was afterwards Congressman, also was a great aid to me in all conservation measures. He now lives at Madison, I think out at some rest home.

EAST: Was there--I wanted to ask you one more thing here. Was there any particular lumber company or the lumber industry opposed to this, or were they lobbying for defeat of this bill? Do you recall?

GRAASS: No, I don't recall now, but they'd naturally would have been for it, because it meant lumber for the sawmills [inaudible].

[tape break]

EAST: This is the beginning of tape number two, anyway, just for the record. Mr. 01:04:00Graass, you were discussing the establishment of the federal forests and work with them. Do you have anything to add to, or to say in regard to the establishment of state forests here in Wisconsin?

GRAASS: Yes. Wisconsin witnessed the era when owners of forest lands could not afford to keep them intact, due to the high forest taxes, while the trees were growing or maturing. And so we had a bill introduced into the Legislature that 01:05:00created state forests under the Conservation Commission, as well as county and private forests.

EAST: Do you remember when that bill was introduced? Offhand?

GRAASS: That was around 1929, I think. I'm not sure of these dates. The laws, in a way, were similar to those of the federal forests that, when the timber or the pulp wood was cut, either by individuals or by pulp wood companies, that the state--or the county--that the state would enjoy some of the sales prices to 01:06:00reimburse them for the money they had spent. Because under our laws on state forests, the counties that placed their lands in the Forest Crop Law were allowed ten cents an acre from the general fund for the purpose of helping run their government, and another ten cents an acre with which they had to practice reforestation. The law and the idea have been most successful and most 01:07:00profitable, not only to the state, but to the local units of government. For years and years, Wisconsin's paper industry had to look to Canada for their pulp wood. It was quite expensive, and if I can recall, Canada began to put the heat on them, too, as far as taking this pulp out of Canada. And so, the paper companies out of Wisconsin began reforesting their old lands, and it has been protected from fire to such an extent that I understand today that they have 01:08:00enough growing pulp wood to run them for years and years, and it will always continue under selective cutting practices. It has been a great thing for not only the pulp paper industry, but also for the State of Wisconsin, as it meant so much in local taxes, labor, and so forth.

EAST: Do you remember--again, I ask this same question, more or less--but do you remember who some of the men were who helped you with this, or you worked with on this?

GRAASS: The same old war horses that fought for all conservation measures. As I 01:09:00recall--now, I don't recall his name, but a doctor, from the Great Lakes, St. Paul Federal Forest Department helped us draft all these laws. I don't recall his name now. Doctor someone.

EAST: I think in this period of which you're talking, George Blanchard was also a member of the, what they called the Inner Forestry Committee, and that you worked hand in hand with Aberg in that. We know that Aberg and Blanchard had a great deal to do with this, as well as yourself, and I was just trying to ask you if you knew more men that might have helped in this respect.

GRAASS: Well, over a period of years, there was a lot of blood transfusion from 01:10:00conservation-minded men in the state, outstanding men; a transfusion into the veins of the Legislature, and they gradually became conservation-minded. And year after year it became a little easier to pass good laws.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, I know you're very much interested in the subject of commercial fishing, and fish licenses, and things like this. You indicated that you would like to say a few words about fish licenses, so please do.

GRAASS: Like all ruling departments of the state, as the state became greater and the population greater, like every department, the finance, the Conservation Department, found themselves short of funds to properly operate. And so it was 01:11:00the organization that I was with had the fishing license bill introduced. The bill provided for one dollar for all individuals, over I think it was the age of 16. That was a fight, especially with the legislators, to get them to vote a dollar for every constituent of theirs who did any fishing whatsoever, and there were, of course, hundreds of thousands. Opposition came from all over the state, 01:12:00and the biggest opposition come from the Oshkosh district, which we all know is a great fishing center here in the State of Wisconsin. And the joke of it was that an organization was started there to oppose this bill, and the fee to join this organization was a dollar, the cost of the license itself.

EAST: What organization was this?

GRAASS: Well, there was a fellow by the name of Hart was the head of it. He was an Assemblyman, but I don't just recall just what the name is.

EAST: It was a local Oshkosh [inaudible]?

GRAASS: Yes, a local district. It was a long battle, but we finally passed it, 01:13:00only to have Governor Kohler veto it. He was told that it would be political ruin for him, and he vetoed the bill. I recall very well the language says that, "they're going to charge one dollar for to go fishing, irrespective of the number of times that you fished." I met him in the Lorraine Hotel right after the veto, and I says, "Governor, have I got a rebate coming from my cost of my bathtub back in Sturgeon Bay?" I had installed a Kohler bathtub. And fortunately we have two bathrooms, one upstairs and one downstairs, and I usually used the 01:14:00one downstairs, which is not a Kohler. Now the upstairs one I says, "Can I get a credit for the number of times that I didn't use it?" And he laughed.

Well, we didn't quit there, but the next year, we put in a bill that just applied to rod and reel, and I think that was under La Follette. And he signed the bill because he was told, not by us, but by some of his friends, that only the rich use the rod and reel, and therefore there would be no political repercussion. In later years, we amended the bill to one dollar for fishing 01:15:00license for all cane poles, and so forth and so on. Incidentally my son, who was nine years old at that time, purchased the first fishing license in Wisconsin and somewheres in the records, there is a picture of him, little, barefooted with his cane pole, with his fish pole and with his fish basket.

Then later came another license: the sportsman license. That was proposed by Haskell Noyes of Milwaukee, who afterwards became one of the members of the 01:16:00Conservation Commission. It provided that any individual, as long as he paid the price cost of all licenses, regardless of what they are, could pay in more. In other words, if the combined license fees in Wisconsin amounted to fifteen dollars, he could pay--or ten dollars, he could pay the ten dollars, it could pay twenty-five or fifty. And I understand some good sportsmen even went as paying a hundred dollars for a sportsman license, and yet he probably only did some fishing or hunting.

EAST: I wanted to ask you one thing here. That first fishing bill, under Kohler that was introduced in 1929, he vetoed it. And I think according to what Mr. Aberg said at one time during a tape, you, and George Blanchard, and Mr. Aberg 01:17:00met, that night after you got defeated, didn't you? Here at the hotel, at the Park Hotel, and talked over how the results came out.

GRAASS: No.

EAST: I was wondering, I was wondering, wasn't there a decision made at that time, since they got defeated on the fishing license, to introduce the mill tax in 1939? I mean, 1931?

GRAASS: I don't recall that part of it. But I think maybe what Mr. Aberg referred to is when Governor Blaine vetoed the forestry bill, and in his veto message, he says he wasn't going to let any sportsman organization place a tax 01:18:00on the farmers of Wisconsin. It was that night that I remember that Mr. Aberg, and George Blanchard, and I met and drafted up a sort of a skeleton speech for Senator Blanchard to make before the state Senate. No effort to override the veto, but in order to inform not only the Senators, but the state at large, how important it was. And Mr. Blanchard extemporaneously got up before that Senate and spoke for over an hour, and every Senator just listened attentively and 01:19:00never left his seat during the whole speech. That's my recollection.

EAST: Wasn't there a man with the State Journal, a newspaperman, who had written several editorials about Kohler that if he signed that fish bill, fishing license bill, that it would be political suicide?

GRAASS: Oh, yes, his secretary, who formerly was the head of a telephone utility up in northern Wisconsin, who formerly served with me in the Legislature.

EAST: Who was that?

GRAASS: Just a minute. I told him that it was political suicide. You asked me who it was. I didn't know. This is what comes back to an old man. His name was Bill Smith.

EAST: Bill Smith. Yeah.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, I know you also worked on the project for the restoration of 01:20:00Horicon Marsh. There had been a great deal of talk about this restoration during the 1920s, and in 1925, I believe, this bill for the restoration, whatever it was, reached the Legislature in '25. I think you were with the Izaak Walton League at that time, and you weren't in the assembly, but would you like to say a few words about the Horicon Marsh, as soon as we get a little bit organized?

GRAASS: The restoration of Horicon Marsh and the dam was a great achievement, not only for the State of Wisconsin, but the nation at large. It also was a great legislative battle and victory. Horicon Marsh is nothing--was nothing but 01:21:00the navigable Rock River that had been drained. And all the land was bought up by Chicago speculators, who hoped to sell it to the farmers for muck land and vegetation. And they retained a high pressure Madison lawyer to look after their interests. They were well-organized, and had the farmers all around Horicon Marsh opposed to the idea, telling them they were going to lose their lands, or that the state was going to flood it, or that their adjacent lands would be 01:22:00swampy and mucky. You can easily realize what that meant, not only to the farmers, but the influence that they had on the legislators from that district. To make a long, long story short--

EAST: Make it as long as you want.

GRAASS: No, my [inaudible] facilities are very poor. I still have the old two-wheel brakes, not the modern four. But anyhow, this sums it up. Curly Radke of Horicon was the fighting powerhouse behind the restoration of Horicon Marsh, and Bill Aberg was the brains for legal procedure. There were overzealous 01:23:00members of the Legislature that wanted to push the bill through this way, and flood the lands immediately. But it was Bill Aberg who kept their feet on the ground and their head on their shoulders, and says, "Boys, this has got to go through the Public Service Commission." They had got to determine what the damage would be, and so forth and so on. And that was, in short, the history of Horicon Marsh, and I think everybody sees the results. Even the farmers today, way back, miles away, can get eight dollars a day from a guy who hides behind 01:24:00three or four bales of hay to get his goose. And not only that, but with--and that was my argument--that the restoration of Horicon Marsh would mean that you had a water reservation there. During the dry season of the year, it would hold up the water levels, the table levels in surrounding farm lands. That has proven today. Turn it off.

EAST: Wasn't William Mauthe the chairman of the Conservation Commission at that time? Mauthe?

GRAASS: I just don't recall.

EAST: Well, okay. Wasn't there somewhat of a debate over raising or lowering the 01:25:00water levels? A whole thing, it was a whole thing. These private interests--

GRAASS: [inaudible] in the Legislature, by the name of William Markham in the Legislature, and he got so overzealous and so enthused, that the Legislature gave the money to build a dam at Horicon before they even owned the land, or had the right to flood it.

EAST: That was Spencer Markham, wasn't it? I think that was his name. Spencer [inaudible], he lived over there in that area now.

GRAASS: Turn it off.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, we'll go on to another topic here. There has been much discussion and debate over the merits, or demerits you might say, of the one buck law as applied to deer hunting in the state, and I know you're quite interested and were active in that. Could you give us your rendition, or your version of this and what you feel was done and how it was done?

GRAASS: Well, northern Wisconsin was in a desolate condition. Great thousands of acres of land were cut over, and only brush was left there. And every year, as I explained in the forest crop law, great forest fires roared over northern Wisconsin, destroying vegetation, deer feed, and depleting the soil. The feed that sustained deer--not only that, but other animals as well--the deer herd 01:27:00became so depleted that it was recognized that something had to be done. At that time, you could shoot both the male and the female deer. And so the one buck law was introduced to provide that only bucks could be shot, not deer. And I'm telling you of all the asinine arguments against that that ever existed, we heard it with the one-buck law. Some great authority, who was nothing more than 01:28:00a barber shop biologist, claimed that the deer mated, and if you kill the bucks, that the does would go dry. Then on the other hand, someone told about the deer would be so thick that they'd eat the doors off your barns. I spoke all over the state on the one-buck law. And I'm telling you I never had such an experience of authority in all my life. A farmer would get up and say, "I hunted for thirty, thirty-five years, and these are the facts." Then the other fellow would jump up and say, "I've hunted for forty years, you don't know what you're talking about, these are the facts." They all predicated their decision on what their 01:29:00individual experience had to be in hunting. Well, we passed the one buck law, and it has proved and proven so successful and popular that today, when we have an excess of deer in northern Wisconsin, you can't repeal it. Only the Legislature can repeal it. And so when you go to repeal it, then the cry comes from the nature-lovers, and from the women, and from the resort area, that we want these deer to attract the tourists.

Well, I think Aldo Leopold furnished the best information on the one buck law, 01:30:00when he brought out the fact that when he was Conservation Commissioner in New Mexico, they found out that their whitetail deer, like ours, were dying off and they couldn't find the reason. But, like everything else in scientific research, they found out that in previous years, a fire had swept through part of New Mexico all along the great river basin where elders grew. It was found that the deer needed those elder buds, together with their other food, for a balanced diet to keep them from starving. And they were starving to death.

EAST: Leopold was a great one for research along this line.

GRAASS: Oh, he was tops.

[tape break]

EAST: Start over. Say it again.

GRAASS: I often wrote articles on different conservation subjects, and they were always published a little magazine, a little Wisconsin magazine. And I wrote one back in 1934, that pertained, that we didn't need a closed season in Wisconsin on species of deer, female deer, and gave the reasons thereof. That was in 1931. 01:32:00And today, that prophecy of mine has proven true.

It's the same way that I wrote an article in this little Wisconsin magazine relative to, "Less Time Between Bites," in favor of the fishing license. I kind of stole the title from President Hoover. He always wrote on fishing, you know, and "less time between bites." I kind of stole his title, but I brought up the matter, and the Izaak Walton League printed thousands of copies of that, and spread them all over the State of Wisconsin.

EAST: You had some--

GRAASS: It was called The Wisconsin Magazine. A little fellow by the name of Hardy Steeholm edited it.

EAST: And you have copies of some of these articles you've written in your papers here at the Historical Society, don't you? Yes, fine.

[tape break]

EAST: I think you said a few words earlier about state parks, but--you did yesterday, I think. But would you care to make a few more comments on the establishment of state parks, and your part with this?

GRAASS: Well, I had very little to do about the creation of most of the state parks in Wisconsin, but I always was for them. And I recall that probably I was 01:34:00quite instrumental in two of them. The first one was when I was in the Legislature, and we purchased Copper Falls. Another park, and a beautiful park that I had an interest in, and probably was more responsible than anyone, was Potawatomi Park in Door County.

The ground in Potawatomi Park belonged to the federal government. And years ago, 01:35:00perhaps before I was born, the government always felt that that would be a great place for a fort, in case we got into a war with Canada or something like that. And so the L, the straight stretch of land lying on the shores of Sturgeon Bay. The federal government had a stone quarry in there for many years in parts of it, where they quarried stone to use in their breakwaters. When Congressman Schneider of Green Bay was in congress, I proposed to him--no, no, cut it. Cut 01:36:00it out.

EAST: Okay.

[tape break]

GRAASS: Disregard that last comment for the time being. At one time, the Great Lakes Station--

[tape break]

GRAASS: Quite a number of years ago, the government proposed a plan to locate the Great Lakes Naval Station on this land. And it was all set to go ahead with it, when a group of Chicago businessmen got busy and had it transferred down to 01:37:00where it is presently located, leaving it still in the hands of the government. I contacted Congressman Schneider of Green Bay, who represented our district. And he introduced, and I help get it through, a bill through Congress selling it to the State of Wisconsin for a state park. The bill passed, and it was before the President of the United States to sign. Well, he didn't want to sign it if the state didn't buy it. So one day, I was called out of Rotary Club by Chairman 01:38:00Mauthe of the Conservation Department. And he says, "Frank, we have a telegram here from the President of the United States, saying that the bill is before him, but he didn't want to sign it unless you were willing to buy it."

EAST: Who was president then?

GRAASS: I think it was Wilson. Mr. Mauthe said, "What do you think of it?" "Well," I said, "Mr. Mauthe," "What do you think of it?" he said, "We don't know anything about it." And I go, "Well, Mr. Mauthe, if you can buy it from the federal government at the price they're asking"--

EAST: What was the price?

GRAASS: I'll give it to you in a minute.

EAST: Okay.

GRAASS: I'm telling you that there was perhaps twenty-five to fifty thousand dollars' worth of timberlands on it, and not only that: if you get it and the 01:39:00Legislature lets you resell it, I can almost assure you that eventually, you'll reap a half a million dollars or more from the sale of it, because ideally located on the shores of Sturgeon Bay, with a grand view all over the surrounding country. The Conservation Commission bought it. There were twelve hundred acres, I think, they purchased it for $1.25 an acre. It is one of the most beautiful parks and used extensively at this time. The purchase price was around $1600.

The only other direct contact I had relative to parks was finances. I was then a 01:40:00member of the Legislature, and on the Legislative Council. The Legislature was always reluctant to appropriate general fund money for the purpose of state parks, and we could never get anywheres. So that came up before the Legislative Council, and Senator Porter was chairman. And I asked to be excused for a few moments, and I went in the legislative library and had a bill drafted up, appropriating five hundred thousand dollars from the general fund to the Conservation Department for state parks, but only to be used for sanitation and 01:41:00shelter. And I also provided in the bill that the appropriation should be non-lapsable, that they didn't have to spend it all in a few months by contract and so on. But by making it non-lapsable, their own employees during the winter months and so forth could be kept at work. The bill passed both houses of the Legislature with a small amendment. I think there was a provision made for the creation of another little lake down in Iowa County. But with that money, the 01:42:00state was able to do considerable work in the sanitary conditions that existed in all our state parks.

EAST: Do you remember when that bill passed, roughly? Do you recall, right offhand?

GRAASS: Don't ask me for dates. I don't remember when I was born.

EAST: Okay. You mentioned when you started talking about state parks, you mentioned the fact that you had helped in the establishment of two, and the first one you mentioned was Copper Falls. Could you tell us a little bit about that story?

GRAASS: [inaudible] All I know is that the presentation to the Legislature was most favorable, and naturally I went along with those things.

At this time, I might state that I had given a considerable number of years to 01:43:00the Conservation Department and regulations and so forth. There is only one time that I opposed something that was of great importance to the Conservation Commission, and that was the bill to charge a park stamp for the entering of the park. I was not opposed to the stamp, because I knew they needed it. But the part that I opposed was that you paid fifty cents or two dollars just for the purpose of entering the park. Now, all park roads are built out of highway 01:44:00funds, the gasoline tax. I couldn't think it was justifiable to charge people to ride over roads that they had paid for. I had no objections to the stamp, if it affected those entering the park and using the facilities of the park: picnic grounds, camping grounds, bathing and so forth. Well, evidently, there was some justification for my opposition, because I note today that they do not charge for just driving through the park.

EAST: That's right.

GRAASS: That's parks.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, you've covered a lot of time and effort here on behalf of conservation; you've been quite active in the movement. Are there any general topics or subjects that you feel are important that you haven't covered that you would like to say a few words on?

GRAASS: Well, that is a big question, a sixty-four thousand dollar question to recall any. But I can recall that while I was in the Legislature, the pine blister rust that affected the white pine in Wisconsin appeared along the Mississippi River, and the Department had no funds at that time to combat it. I 01:46:00introduced a bill in the Legislature giving appropriation to stamp it out along the Mississippi River. Of course, you know that the pine blister rust is caused by some sort of a beetle that lights on a wild gooseberry bush, and then goes to the pine and back to the gooseberry bush. Well, I put in the appropriations and I never had so much ridicule on the floor of the Legislature as that had.

EAST: In what way was this--

GRAASS: Well, there was an old fellow in there from up at Menominee County, who 01:47:00looked and did live on the [inaudible]. He pictured that if this bill went through, that some professor from the University of Wisconsin would have a soapbox sitting alongside of a gooseberry bush with a magnifying glass, and when the beetle come from the pine down to the gooseberry bush, he would swat it and kill it. Well, as I say, the Legislature wasn't so conservation-minded, but I think I did finally get it through, in the amount of about $15,000.

EAST: Do you remember how this was to be eradicated? I mean, how were they going to try to--

GRAASS: By trying to eradicate the wild gooseberry bush. In fact, the government did come in here, the federal government came in here with men and did a lot of 01:48:00eradication. But that was vital to white pine industry in Wisconsin, and it's vital yet--

EAST: Oh yeah.

GRAASS: --because the white pine are subjected to that in all states. And that's why most states are laying off of white pine, and are going into red pine--Norway pine and so forth.

EAST: Do you remember how much money was appropriated for this?

GRAASS: Well, I got $15,000 at that time. That was just the ante, I guess.

EAST: I mean, a great deal more money was needed for the--

GRAASS: Well, then there were many other pieces of legislation that I was connected with. All were battles, because it all took money. Pollution was 01:49:00getting its hold in Wisconsin, like it is all over the nation today. It was getting serious, and so I think was one of the first ones that supported an appropriation for the study of our polluted waters by the Board of Health. Of course, today that has increased by leaps and bounds, and it is one of Wisconsin's greatest problems today, not only in health, but the tourist business and everything else. That was one of them. Another one that I was interested in was the appropriation to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, to start the education of conservation in our public schools. Then--

EAST: I wanted to ask you something on that. Something that always comes to my mind is: do you feel that the programs that we now have in our school is adequate, the legislation we have for teaching conservation, or do we need to make further steps on this? Would you care to comment?

GRAASS: No, I don't. We have so improved in our conservation progress today that it isn't as serious as it used to be, but still, it is very, very important. And I think that the pulp wood companies, and Trees for Tomorrow, and all those that are taking these young people up to northern Wisconsin gives them firsthand 01:51:00information and education.

Then, oh, we had hundreds of other projects. I also was interested in game farms. And in fact, I was the one the proposed the first pheasant raising farm in Wisconsin, and it was established up in the Peninsula State Park in my own county. But it was found that we were too far north, and that they didn't start laying their eggs as early as they did in central Wisconsin, and it was finally moved. I was also interested in game shooting preserves, realizing that if 01:52:00private individuals could set up shooting preserves, that would take the pressure off of our public shooting. And that has been most successful. I remember the legislature was adjourning, and we had passed a bill, I think it was by Senator Rollins, and Governor La Follette rushed up there to grab all the bills that had passed that he was in favor of. And he had a whole armful of them. Senator Rollins and I pushed this game preserve shooting law in it, and he took it down and signed it. [pause] Shut it off.

[tape break]

GRAASS: [inaudible]

EAST: Mr. Graass, we know that you, for a long time, were Secretary to the Wisconsin Division of the Izaak Walton League, both while you were in the Assembly and out of the Assembly. And this is where most of your conservation activities focused. Could you say something about where the original ideas and impetus for conservation, where do you think they came from, and what the accomplishments were, and your relation--and their relation with the Izaak Walton League? And your connection with the Izaak Walton League, and these activities?

GRAASS: Well, back in 1921 or '22, I think it was, down in Chicago, a group of citizens organized the Izaak Walton League of America. Will Dilg, a great 01:54:00conservationist, was one of the founders, likewise Dr. Preston Bradley of the People's Church in Chicago, and many other outstanding big businessmen who recognized that something had to be done in the United States to save and restore our natural resources. In 1924, I believe it was, the Izaak Walton 01:55:00League was established in Wisconsin. My brother, Judge Henry Graass, was the first state president, and at a Janesville convention, the convention had a committee appointed to work out a program of work in the legislature relating to 01:56:00conservation. I was at that convention, and having had considerable legislative experience, I was requested to accept the job of representing the League at Madison. We did that, and had a most successful season the first year. I think of all our legislative programs, only one was defeated.

The next year, we had a greater program to place before the Legislature. And I 01:57:00was elected, selected as state Secretary. When we first started in Wisconsin, hundreds and hundreds of chapters were organized all over the state, because you could always find good joiners. However, due for the lack of programs and issues, they died out one by one. As Secretary, I recognized that, and began the 01:58:00reorganization of these chapters, as well as new ones. I also recognized that to be successful, you have to have issues. You had to have a program. You had to have something to shoot at. And so the first thing I did was to get out a statement that went to all the present chapters, setting forth what I thought 01:59:00was absolutely necessary to bring success. I listed the legislative program that I wanted to enumerate at this time, and practically everything has passed. But I told the League that we must begin an unceasing, aggressive, educational campaign to the end that the objects of the League may be understood and attained: attained not only for our day and generation alone, as much as we of 02:00:00today need it, but undertake it for those countless future generations who are yet unborn, and coming down the mighty tide of time. I told them that politicians and political parties are only concerned, concerned with politics, and office-getting and office-holding, and we could get no constructive or lasting help. The League, to succeed, must try to awaken the hearts and the consciences of our people, and give a statewide expression to the voice of protest.

At that time, I listed such things as the removal of the Conservation Commission 02:01:00from politics; the legislative amendment of the Mississippi Bottom Act; extensive development of our black bass beds in the Mississippi River; a better system of fire protection; establishment of game and bird farms throughout the state; establishment of wildlife refuges; public shooting grounds; more fish hatcheries; a thorough examination of our lakes and streams; secure federal forests as well as state forests; and to divide the state into zones; and having laws passed that are for the best interest of each particular zone. I also called to their attention, from my experience in the Legislature, that we had to 02:02:00do something about delegating the powers, delegating regulatory powers, to the Conservation Commission. Well, things went over with a bang. And I reorganized most all of our chapters, I added hundreds of new ones, and I spoke throughout the state day and night, and finally ended up with a membership of 12,000 members in the Wisconsin division. [pause] Shut it off.

[tape break]

GRAASS: The appeal was most effective, and I even received recognition from the national organization that I had done my best work in restoring chapters in Wisconsin.

Our problem in Wisconsin with the Izaak Walton League was that we had the interest of the whole state at large, and no particular county or district. At the same time, local Rod and Gun Clubs and conservation clubs, who only charged a dollar, converted their efforts to local problems alone. The Izaak Walton 02:04:00League was interested in all the counties, and the membership was about three dollars, of which two dollars went to Chicago and one remained in the local chapter, of which the state received ten or twenty cents. Well, the Rod and Gun Clubs, it was tough compos--

EAST: Competition.

GRAASS: Competition for the reason that they kept all their money. Well, of course, financially, the state division was always broke. I was supposed to be remunerated, but never did, and in my long fights staying down in the 02:05:00Legislature, my expenses ran up as high as eight thousand dollars. And one night at the Madison Club before our Board of Directors, I cancelled the debt. Then I think it was Charlie Broughton, editor of the Sheboygan Press, who says, "This can't go on." So the plan that I should go on a salary basis and get so much a year is expenses. Well, that was just before the Depression, and all over the state, men volunteered a hundred dollars a year, fifty dollars, twenty-five dollars. Many of them took out a hundred dollar life memberships and all this 02:06:00and that, but the Depression hit, and a lot of those who promised a hundred dollars didn't have enough to buy a pound of bologna sausage. And so again, financially, I was in the lurch. However, that didn't deter me from keeping on for the simple reason that fortunately, I could take care of myself.

I believe that the Wisconsin division of the Izaak Walton League was the most influential and effective in the passage, in the education and the passage of all the basic conservation laws in Wisconsin. The Conservation Commission, the 02:07:00conservation fund, the powers of the Department, federal forests, state forests: they had a marked effect. And having all these little chapters around the state, I could bring pressure on the Legislature to put them in line. And I would get on thin ice down in Madison, and I would wire or write to all my chapters around the state, senior Senators, senior Assemblymen, with the result that, they all look for votes, and they listened attentively. Another thing that I used to do at the end of the session, I used to get out roll calls, with the names, with 02:08:00the names and numbers of all the bills, and what they did, and how their Senator and Assemblymen voted for or against, or if he [inaudible] duck the roll call not to be put on record. In fact, in 1931, I got out a roll call on thirty major important legislative bills that were either in favor or against the bills. We were successful in--

[tape break]

GRAASS: In other words, I was always very particular that we did not oppose or approve of legislation that was doubtful. We always depended on what research showed us, what men with experience had learned, and I don't think we ever made a mistake in conservation support in legislation. Shut it off.

[tape break]

GRAASS: You know, legislators are always good fellows, and sometimes the facts 02:10:00have been misrepresented to them, and oftentimes they will admit that they just don't know what it's all about. Our great trouble was that, most of the time, they got their information, education, and recommendations coming from what I used to call "barber shop biologists": those men who thought the law ought to be gained from their own personal experience. A lot of funny things happened. I 02:11:00recall one time the women of Wisconsin put in a bill to protect the blue heron. Well, in commercial fishing, we have a herring, and the Senator from Douglas County came up to me, "Frank," he says, "this blue heron, is that a game fish or a rough fish?" Many times I would ask, "What is this Jewish organization that you represent, the Izaak Walton League?" [pause] Just a minute.

[tape break]

GRAASS: Our greatest problem, and the problem of the present Conservation Commission, is the lack of understanding and education of the general public relating to conservation problems. They listen too much to the general public rather than listening to those men who have made a study of wildlife, and who have done considerable research. Like everything else, education is a thing that will perpetuate our conservation program in Wisconsin. As I often said, our 02:13:00problem is that fish and game can't vote.

EAST: [laugh] Yeah, that's right.

GRAASS: Turn it off.

[tape break]

EAST: Mr. Graass, we know that the Izaak Walton League, when you were affiliated with them around 1927, and at the time the Conservation Act was passed, which set up the present six-man commission. I'd like to ask you a few questions about these, if I might. I believe that Governor Fred Zimmerman was a man who worked closely with the Izaak Walton League in certain respects on conservation and 02:14:00that he was Governor at the time the original appointments were made, the first six appointments were made to the Commission. I was going to ask you, what was the attitude towards the, I mean, by Izaak Walton League toward these appointment of these men? Did they feel that the choices were good, or just exactly what was their attitude? Do you remember that for me?

GRAASS: Well, let me start out this way. The idea of a six-man commission originated after the experience we had with former Governors, with a former Governor, and those who were administrating the conservation program in 02:15:00Wisconsin. I won't go into it in detail, but it was pathetic the way things were handled. At that time, a good friend of mine from my section of the country was head of the Conservation department.

EAST: Who was that?

GRAASS: Elmer Hall. We recognized that something had to be done, and we made a thorough study of it in all respects, the constitutionality of all of that. And we also consulted Governor Pinchot of Pennsylvania, who was a great conservation 02:16:00governor. We even brought him in to Madison to make a talk to the legislature on conservation. And we finally ended up that we thought that it should be a six-man commission, appointed by the governor, non-political in scope, but that they should be divided from different sections of the state, so that both sections would be represented. And so that's why a line was drawn across from Stevens Point, dividing the north and the south. The battle was a tough one in the legislature, because there was so much politics connected with it, but what 02:17:00finally won was the history and record of the past.

So, how was it to be appointed? We had different ideas. Some wanted it elected. Some wanted it this and that. And we finally decided it should be appointed by the Governor, with the approval of the Senate. Well, who should be on the commission? A young fellow by the name of Hardy Steholm, who edited the Wisconsin Magazine and one of the Governors' secretary, talked with me one day, and I suggested to him, "Why don't the Governor call for nominations for this 02:18:00office, coming from such organizations as, we'll say the Izaak Walton league, the Rod and Gun Clubs, labor organizations, women's organizations, civic organizations such as Lions and Kiwanis and so forth and so on, agriculture, and the tourist business?" And it took root, and it was promised, but no one was ever appointed on that commission from the list that was submitted, except one 02:19:00man coming from labor.

EAST: Was it, it was originally a list of twenty people or so, wasn't it? Submitted--

GRAASS: Well, I don't remember how many it was--

EAST: Submitted to Governor Zimmerman.

GRAASS: But it was an outstanding number.

EAST: And didn't he promise more or less repeatedly during his time, speeches and things like this, that he would make, commit appointments from this list submitted to him, and he didn't?

GRAASS: No.

EAST: Do you remember who these original appointments were?

GRAASS: No, I don't.

EAST: Was the Izaak Walton League in favor of the appointments he made? Would you say that?

GRAASS: No.

EAST: No.

GRAASS: No.

EAST: In other words, he had--

GRAASS: A lot of them were political, and men who had no background or experience in conservation measures. I think that a lot of them were appointed 02:20:00with the understanding that he would select the Director, which he did, which proved a joke. I think the one outstanding appointment on that Commission was William Mauthe of Fond du Lac, a casket manufacturer. He didn't know a carp from a herring, but he had the business experience that he applied to the department, that I think proved the greatest success of all.

EAST: You might say that the original act was designed, or the purpose of it was to get conservation out of politics. But during this first selection of the commission, this really didn't come about, there was [inaudible]

GRAASS: Well, we had suggestions on elected by the people, but immediately that brought it into politics, and brought it into individual territories would always be for some guy that was just for what they wanted, see? And that went by. But over the period of years, we have had some good Commissioners. I always think , I think today of what William Mauthe meant to the Conservation Commission from a business administration. I also cannot help but mention Bill Aberg. Bill Aberg has an analytical mind, and he could get right to the bottom 02:22:00of all our problems: fish, game, forestry, what have you, and he knew the law. Another one was Haskell Noyes, whose heart and soul was interested in conservation, and his greatest contribution was the amount of money that he spent in promoting ideas in conservation. I think even today there is a fund there, where a gold watch is given to the outstanding conservation warden in Wisconsin. Then there was Aldo Leopold, on knowledge of fish and game and forest 02:23:00could not be surpassed. The legislature sometimes wouldn't listen to him, but today all over the world, Aldo Leopold is recognized as a great authority. Then they had another man by the name of Dahlberg, who was a nurseryman, and he contributed. Of late years, I think Guido Rahr has been a great commissioner. A very big and busy businessman, but he gave not only his time, but he gave his money. He set up trust funds for study in work and research, and has done a 02:24:00tremendous job. Just the other day, I noticed that Governor Knowles has reappointed him.

We, generally speaking, we have had, after we got started, pretty good representation on the Conservation Commission. Of course, we have also built up the department with research men, men who have had the experience and has made study of our conservation problems. And that has helped the Commission tremendously, especially in forestry and fish culture. But all in all, Wisconsin 02:25:00has done a pretty good job. After our Commission was created, state after state has followed in our footsteps.

EAST: There is no doubt that there are problems or difficulties with the type of Commission we presently have. It is still political in nature to a certain degree, but it's much more effective than it was in the early 1900s. And I haven't studied that much, but I don't think that there's any other form that you could have other than a six-man Commission like this.

GRAASS: No, we had a fellow from Germany by the name of Kotzmeier that wanted every county to have their own Conservation Commission, and also their own Conservation Director. Oh, we had all kinds of ideas from these "barber shop biologists."

EAST: Kotzmeier, where was he from? Do you remember?

GRAASS: In Milwaukee. [laugh]

EAST: Well, I'd like to thank you at this time for taking your time to talk with us today and yesterday.

GRAASS: Well, the only apology I need, this has been extemporaneously. I am pretty close to eighty years of age, and I was in so much of this that I can't begin to remember dates and years, no matter that I can remember all the girls that I used to go with when I was a young fellow.

EAST: Well, I think you've given us some good information here.

GRAASS: Getting back--[inaudible]--getting back to the present Commission and 02:27:00little controversial problems.

EAST: Yeah.

GRAASS: You're bound to have that in corporations and everything. We even have it in our churches today.

EAST: Oh yeah.

GRAASS: Where you'll have groups differ with another group as to what should be.

EAST: Well, I think you've given us some good information here, and I want to listen to these tapes later on, of course, and perhaps sometime when I'm up in Sturgeon Bay, we could get together and I could ask you a few more questions, if you'd be agreeable to that.