What do you think?
Rate this book
Temple Big Thicket Series
Saving the Big Thicket: From Exploration to Preservation, 1685-2003 (Volume 4)
The Big Thicket of East Texas, which at one time covered over two million acres, served as a barrier to civilizations throughout most of historic times. By the late nineteenth century, however, an assault on this wilderness by settlers, railroads, and timber companies began in earnest. By the 1920s, much of the wilderness had been destroyed. Spurred on by the continued destruction of the region, the Big Thicket Association (BTA) organized in 1964 to fight for its preservation. Arguing that the Big Thicket was a unique botanical region, the BTA and their supporters convinced President Gerald Ford to authorize an 84,550-acre Big Thicket National Preserve in 1974.
Saving the Big Thicket is a classic account of the region’s history and a play-by-play narrative of the prolonged fight for the Big Thicket Preserve. It is a clearly written case study of the conflict between economics and preservation, presenting each side with objectivity and fairness. Originally written by Cozine in 1976, it has been updated with a new afterword by Pete A. Y. Gunter.
Saving the Big Thicket is a classic account of the region’s history and a play-by-play narrative of the prolonged fight for the Big Thicket Preserve. It is a clearly written case study of the conflict between economics and preservation, presenting each side with objectivity and fairness. Originally written by Cozine in 1976, it has been updated with a new afterword by Pete A. Y. Gunter.
312 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2004
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 10, 2025
This book is a valuable resource for the legislative history of the Big Thicket Nation Preserve but it has some serious drawbacks that take a lot away from it, namely, Cozine interjects opinions that aren’t exactly based on archaeological, historic, or scientific evidence.
Chapter 2 is especially egregious. First he states that there were no people in the Thicket until the late 1700s to early 1800s. There is no archaeological evidence to support this claim, and he cites no sources. This myth is rather widespread. However there are numerous pre-contact archaeological sites across the Thicket region dating back 13,000+ years. Additionally, MacRoberts and MacRoberts 2008, conclude that there is not enough archaeological survey to effectively conclude the extent to which Indigenous people lived in the region. Secondly, It is titled the “I*dian assault” which very clearly conveys a bias against the native peoples of this land. This theme continues throughout the chapter where he claims that the Akoskia “had the unsavory reputation of being cannibals” (pg 15) but doesn’t expound on that at all. Several tribes on the Texas/wider gulf coast practiced RITUAL rather than subsistence cannibalism, the latter which is not a thing. If they fell someone in battle who was fast for instance they may cook and eat a bit of the flesh or skin on their feet in hopes of taking on that feat from them.“Apparently the Bidai, like their Akokisa relatives, possessed a very low culture for one authority described the habitat of these two tribes as "a kind of ethnological sink.” And provides no context beyond that.
In all of the sections talking about the Alabama and Coushatta tribe trying to get better treatment by the Texas and Fed govs, there’s only white perspectives given. Somewhere in that process there had to been action taken by the tribes directly to get better conditions, but Cozine instead sources white folks actions.
He ends chapter 2 saying Pg 20: “The I****** assault on the the wilderness was not distructive. Their mere presence did, of course, alter the big thicket, but to no significant degree.” Then why call the chapter “The I***** assault” If there wasn’t one why call it that?
Continuing the racially suspicious theme, there is no mention of the Black experience in the Thicket until page 78, but there is little mention elsewhere. It’s merely 8 line paragraph.
Another negative takeaway is that he seems to not understand the ecology and environmental history, which I would forgive if it were not for the various amounts of literature written by botanists and the like regarding the landscape of the Thicket. For instance Cozine claims the Loblolly unit of BITH was once prairie, but other authors such as Geraldine Watson wrote in depth about how that region of the Thicket was always forested in loblolly, maple, Tupelo, etc.
Yet Another big negative takeaway, is that he seems to contract himself when discussing the struggle between conservationists and timber companies. Pg 135 “Timber interests, depicted as villains by the preservationists in the Big Thicket struggle, were in fact ardent conservationists dedicated to the concept of multiple-use forestry. The preservationists, however, sought to preserve the wilderness not because it was good business, or even exclusively to preserve the natural environment”
The first comment properly assesses that the timber industry had no entrinsic interest in protecting habitat or ecology. They were more concerned with money.
He then writes on pg 141 “The timber industry firmly believed that they had been a positive force in saving the Texas forests from total annihilation.
Indeed, the timber firms had been among the first conservation groups in the state, and they bitterly resented being called villains, rapists, and butchers of the wilderness. The timber firms could muster impressive arguments to prove that they were concerned with saving the forest. With the aid of the Texas Forest Service, the timber industry had initiated a vigorous program of fire control which saved thousands of acres a year. Additionally, the large firms had largely repaired the damage to the forest caused by the bonanza timber operations of the 1890-1920 period. Each major company had been involved in timber research and a massive reforestation effort to ensure that the Texas forests would survive.”
Like I said, I strongly push back against this because the timber companies were more interested in protecting their own profits than they were in protecting the environment. The forests that they created/protected or Loblolly or slash short rotation plantations that were not managed by fire and do not resemble anything close to a functional ecosystem. There are still thousands of acres of plantations or barren fields that were cleared by the thicket to date. They do not support any wildlife and are a great wildfire risk.
Adding to that he seems to dislike both preservationists and preservationists alike. He writes “innocence the final bill was a victory for Charles Wilson. He had for stalled all attempts to create a 100,000 acre preserve. Although his measure did not please the rabid environmentalists or those adamantly opposed to the preserve it did satisfy the bulk of his constituency.”
He seems takes jabs at the timber conglomerates in ways suggest that he doesn’t like them, however, he then turns around and makes the same bias ladened statements that suggests that he doesn’t like the preservationists either. I really fail to see what was wrong with what anything on the side of the preservationists. They simply wanted something that intrinsically should be protected to be protected. The timber companies didn’t want to protect it at all. What is so “rabid” about wanting to protect the land? I think this probably has a lot to do with a very colonial mentality and a lack of understanding for ecology both as a whole end of the Big Thicket region.
To say something positive I appreciate that Cozine mentions how evil John Henry Kirby truly was and the impact that he as an individual had on the Big Thicket. I wish he would have spent more time flushing out how racist he was (he used the Klan as strike breakers) and flushed out the ETX timber war a bit better, but I digress. I also really enjoyed the afterword as it firstly did not have over opinionated interpretations (it wasn’t written by Cozine), and secondly, sussed out a lot of of the other convoluted legislative history that has surrounded the national preserve since it’s establishment.
in summary, I think a lot of of this book is way down by Cozine interjecting, bigoted or other bias, but it does cite a lot of useful sources, and can be used to find those sources.
Chapter 2 is especially egregious. First he states that there were no people in the Thicket until the late 1700s to early 1800s. There is no archaeological evidence to support this claim, and he cites no sources. This myth is rather widespread. However there are numerous pre-contact archaeological sites across the Thicket region dating back 13,000+ years. Additionally, MacRoberts and MacRoberts 2008, conclude that there is not enough archaeological survey to effectively conclude the extent to which Indigenous people lived in the region. Secondly, It is titled the “I*dian assault” which very clearly conveys a bias against the native peoples of this land. This theme continues throughout the chapter where he claims that the Akoskia “had the unsavory reputation of being cannibals” (pg 15) but doesn’t expound on that at all. Several tribes on the Texas/wider gulf coast practiced RITUAL rather than subsistence cannibalism, the latter which is not a thing. If they fell someone in battle who was fast for instance they may cook and eat a bit of the flesh or skin on their feet in hopes of taking on that feat from them.“Apparently the Bidai, like their Akokisa relatives, possessed a very low culture for one authority described the habitat of these two tribes as "a kind of ethnological sink.” And provides no context beyond that.
In all of the sections talking about the Alabama and Coushatta tribe trying to get better treatment by the Texas and Fed govs, there’s only white perspectives given. Somewhere in that process there had to been action taken by the tribes directly to get better conditions, but Cozine instead sources white folks actions.
He ends chapter 2 saying Pg 20: “The I****** assault on the the wilderness was not distructive. Their mere presence did, of course, alter the big thicket, but to no significant degree.” Then why call the chapter “The I***** assault” If there wasn’t one why call it that?
Continuing the racially suspicious theme, there is no mention of the Black experience in the Thicket until page 78, but there is little mention elsewhere. It’s merely 8 line paragraph.
Another negative takeaway is that he seems to not understand the ecology and environmental history, which I would forgive if it were not for the various amounts of literature written by botanists and the like regarding the landscape of the Thicket. For instance Cozine claims the Loblolly unit of BITH was once prairie, but other authors such as Geraldine Watson wrote in depth about how that region of the Thicket was always forested in loblolly, maple, Tupelo, etc.
Yet Another big negative takeaway, is that he seems to contract himself when discussing the struggle between conservationists and timber companies. Pg 135 “Timber interests, depicted as villains by the preservationists in the Big Thicket struggle, were in fact ardent conservationists dedicated to the concept of multiple-use forestry. The preservationists, however, sought to preserve the wilderness not because it was good business, or even exclusively to preserve the natural environment”
The first comment properly assesses that the timber industry had no entrinsic interest in protecting habitat or ecology. They were more concerned with money.
He then writes on pg 141 “The timber industry firmly believed that they had been a positive force in saving the Texas forests from total annihilation.
Indeed, the timber firms had been among the first conservation groups in the state, and they bitterly resented being called villains, rapists, and butchers of the wilderness. The timber firms could muster impressive arguments to prove that they were concerned with saving the forest. With the aid of the Texas Forest Service, the timber industry had initiated a vigorous program of fire control which saved thousands of acres a year. Additionally, the large firms had largely repaired the damage to the forest caused by the bonanza timber operations of the 1890-1920 period. Each major company had been involved in timber research and a massive reforestation effort to ensure that the Texas forests would survive.”
Like I said, I strongly push back against this because the timber companies were more interested in protecting their own profits than they were in protecting the environment. The forests that they created/protected or Loblolly or slash short rotation plantations that were not managed by fire and do not resemble anything close to a functional ecosystem. There are still thousands of acres of plantations or barren fields that were cleared by the thicket to date. They do not support any wildlife and are a great wildfire risk.
Adding to that he seems to dislike both preservationists and preservationists alike. He writes “innocence the final bill was a victory for Charles Wilson. He had for stalled all attempts to create a 100,000 acre preserve. Although his measure did not please the rabid environmentalists or those adamantly opposed to the preserve it did satisfy the bulk of his constituency.”
He seems takes jabs at the timber conglomerates in ways suggest that he doesn’t like them, however, he then turns around and makes the same bias ladened statements that suggests that he doesn’t like the preservationists either. I really fail to see what was wrong with what anything on the side of the preservationists. They simply wanted something that intrinsically should be protected to be protected. The timber companies didn’t want to protect it at all. What is so “rabid” about wanting to protect the land? I think this probably has a lot to do with a very colonial mentality and a lack of understanding for ecology both as a whole end of the Big Thicket region.
To say something positive I appreciate that Cozine mentions how evil John Henry Kirby truly was and the impact that he as an individual had on the Big Thicket. I wish he would have spent more time flushing out how racist he was (he used the Klan as strike breakers) and flushed out the ETX timber war a bit better, but I digress. I also really enjoyed the afterword as it firstly did not have over opinionated interpretations (it wasn’t written by Cozine), and secondly, sussed out a lot of of the other convoluted legislative history that has surrounded the national preserve since it’s establishment.
in summary, I think a lot of of this book is way down by Cozine interjecting, bigoted or other bias, but it does cite a lot of useful sources, and can be used to find those sources.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 of 1 review