Talk:Forest Reserve Act of 1891

Untitled
Wow! This page really needs help! I'd do it now, but I'm far too busy. Please, someone just add a link to the document! Peace6459 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2007‎ (UTC)

Roosevelt?
Is there a source for Roosevelt passing this law? Roosevelt was elected in 1900, so it can't be during his presidency. --shadytrees (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2007‎ (UTC)
 * The law was passed in 1891 which Roosevelt used to reserve timberlands, the law was 'on the books' when he took office. Marcia Wright (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Forest Reserve Act of 1891 into General Revision Act. I believe these are the exact same laws, both passed in 1891 and being found at [https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/26/STATUTE-26-Pg1095.pdf 26 Stat. 1095-1103]. While the Forest Reserve Act article lists the Statutes-at-Large, and the General Revision Act does not, I found the same reference for the Forest Reserve Act used for the General Revision Act in Gary D. Libecap, Bureaucratic Issues and Environmental Concerns: A Review of the History of Federal Land Ownership and Management, 15 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 467 (1992). It has been difficult to find a source that lists both these names at once, but every discussion I can find on either law points to the exact same statute. It appears that "Forest Reserve Act of 1891" is usually used on topics related more to § 24 of the original statute, while General Revision Act refers to the broader law.

However, I have neither the time nor energy to manage this merger. But it seemed my duty to point out this discovery. At least if the articles are not merged, the difference needs to be made much clearer. Even the General Revision Act mentions many of the same consequences of the law (e.g. Presidential forestry reservations) as the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, so their subject matters are not so easily independent for two articles. Zkidwiki (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I have merged the content of the articles. The content was suprisingly different enough there wasn't much explicit duplication, but it's clearly the same topic Reywas92Talk 15:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)