Proceedings of the sixth American Forest Congress


Material Information

Proceedings of the sixth American Forest Congress
Physical Description:
xiii, 110 p. : ; 24 cm.
American Forestry Association
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. -- Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry
American Forest Congress, 1975
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Forests and forestry -- Congresses -- United States   ( lcsh )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


General Note:
At head of title: 94th Congress, 2d session. Committee print.
Statement of Responsibility:
sponsored under the auspices of the American Forestry Association, October 6-8, 1975, in Washington, D.C. ; prepared for the Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, March 25, 1976.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025781220
oclc - 02211400
System ID:

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    Summary of the Congress
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
    Proceedings of the Sixth American Forest Congress
        Page 1
        Page 2
    The need for an American forest policy--its basic elements
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Statement of Hon. Mark O. Hatfield, before the American Forestry Association--October 6, 1975
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Statement of Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey, before the American Forestry Association--October 6, 1975
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Our Nation's forests
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Citizens holds the key to public lands decisions
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    To conserve and create
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Remarks by Russell W. Peterson, chairman, the President's Council on Environmental Quality
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Research and education
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
    Perspectives in world forestry
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Meeting needs for water, forage, and minerals
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Meeting timber production needs
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    U.S. forestry--A bicentennial redeclaration of independence
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    Resources for 300 million
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
    Forests and wildlife--inseparable natural assets
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
    Meeting recreational, park, and wilderness needs
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
    The present forest resource situation on industrial lands
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
    "Moving ahead together"
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text



Sponsored Under the Auspices of the American
Forestry Association, October 6-8, 1975,
in Washington, D.C.






MARCH 25, 1976

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington. D.C. 20402 Price $1.90
Stock Number 052-070-03298-7


94th Congress I
2d Session J

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013


Foreword I---------- ------------- I
Summary of the Congress- -----------------------------------v------Vii
Where are we?------------------------------------------------vii
Implementation ------------------------------------------------ ix
A challenge-------- ------------------------------------------- xii
Proceedings of the Sixth American Forest Congress--------------------- 1
The need for an American forest policy-its basic elements-------------- 3
National policy and goals-----------------------------------------__ 3
National policy on national lands-------------_--_------------------- 7
National policy on private lands----------------------------------- 9
Conclusion ----------------------------------------------------11
Statement of Hon. Mark 0. Hatfield, before the American Forestry Asso-
ciation-October 6, 1975------------------------------------------- 13
Statement of Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey, before the American Forestry
Association-October 7, 1975 --------------------------------------- 18
Our Nation's forests-----------------_----- ------------------------- 23
Citizens holds the key to public lands decisions-------------------------- 27
To conserve and create--- ------------------------------------------32
Remarks by Russell W. Peterson, chairman, the President's Council on
Environmental Quality-------------------------------------------- 41
Research and education--------------------------------------------- 47
Perspectives in world forestry--------- ---------------------- -------- 52
MIeeting needs for water, forage, and minerals-------------------------- 62
Water -------------------------------------------------------- 63
Forage --------------------------------------------------------64
Minerals ------------------------------------------------------66
Meeting timber production needs-------------------------------------- 69
U.S. forestry-A bicentennial redeclaration of independence-------------- 74
Before you can practice forestry, you need the funds for forest prac-
tices -------------------------------------------------------- 77
"If our environment is poor-we shall be poor"----------------------- 80
Resources for 300 million------------------------------ ------------- 81
Forests and wildlife-inseparable natural assets------------------------ 89
Meeting recreational, park, and wilderness needs------------------------ 96
The present forest resource situation on industrial lands------------ ----- 101
"Moving ahead together"-------------------------------------------- 107


[By R. Keith Arnold, Associate Dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs,
The University of Texas at Austin]

A summary of this Sixth American Forest Congress may resemble
a saLtellite weather picture on T.V. It presents the whole overview,
highlights major storms, shows cloud and clear areas; but with that
image alone, we cannot fathom the dynamics of the situation. In this
focus on the mainstream of the Congress, I will try to avoid the eddies
and minor crosscurrents. At the same time, though, we must identify
the several major issues which together form the thrust we seek.
As background for identifying major issues, we have discussed and
analyzed during this meeting:
1. A status report on forestry resources and practices;
2. A perspective of the role of forestry in the economic, environ-
mental, and social well-being of mankind;
3. A review of the political realities of natural resources
4. An agenda for the future-the planks which comprise the
AFA policy for the next decade.
No Congress summary would be complete until it reviews our prog-
ress, identifies the principal threads which must be woven together,
and provides a transition and a forward look to "now what."

Where are we at the close of this Congress? It seems to me that first
we share the enthusiasm of a century of progress and a sense of to-
getherness in setting our sights for the coming years. Secondly, we
understand the importance of our deliberations and know just how
high are the stakes. Thirdly, we will, I believe, reflect with pride on
our accomplishments.
As we look at where we are, it is important that we review the ele-
ments of our enthusiasm. We do share a genuine enthusiasm for a
century of progress of the American Forestry Association-independ-
ent, nonpolitical, truly broad-based and multidisciplinary, forward
looking, and a leader in the development of sound policies and prac-
tices for the management of the Nation's forest resources. Though not
alone in its leadership role, the AFA has paced the development of
forestry from its initial timely emphasis on tree planting through pro-
grams on fire and pest control, timber production, watershed manage-
ment, wildlife, and recreation to the current recognition of forest
amenity values as coequal functions in planning alternatives and in
management decisions.
We further share enthusiasm for what I would call the "coming of
age of forestry." Some might describe it as the second coming of con-


servation; others might prefer ecosystem management. Still others
may suggest conservation of the environment. In any event, we are
talking about the interrelationships of all natural resources, the sec-
ond broad grouping of planks in AFA's policy for the future. The
focus is on interdependence-interdependence among natural re-
sources-interdependence among economic, social, and environmental
values-interdependence between industrial and environmental inter-
est-interdependence between business and government-interdepend-
ence between national and international policies.
Interdependences stem from a few basic facts. Forests cover more
than one-third of our land area and are intimately related to major life
support processes of air, water, and soil formation. Furthermore, one
cannot attack such national or international problems as energy, trans-
portation, housing, food, and that ultimate and undefined goal, qual-
ity of life, without considering forestry policies and practices.
Forestry comes of age as these fundamental relationships are recog-
nized and become increasingly important to man's life-style, if not his
very existence on earth. All resources are in short supply from the
world-wide view. Coal, oil, and gas are most critical to us now because
they are exhaustible and not reusable. Most metals are also exhaustible
but can be reused. In contrast, forest resources provide a wide variety
of products which 'are renewable, reusable, and also biodegradable. To
assure the inexhaustibility of forests, to achieve the potential of re-
cycling, and to employ the capability of biodegradation-in effect to
maximize sustainable yield of needed renewable resources-we need
a level of investment, a level of understanding, and a level of manage-
ment far above that of today.
Forestry further comes of age with the progress of forestry science
as emphasized by the AFA policy program on research. The very na-
ture of the interdependencies, coupled with the need for increased pro-
duction, puts a high premium on knowledge of ecosystems we manage
or preserve, on new studies of economic determinants of production
and utilization systems, and on improved understanding of social needs
and values.
Another sign of the coming of age of forestry is the professionalism
required for its practice. Led by the 20,000 members of the Society of
American Foresters, a wide variety of professionals and scientists pre-
pare prescriptions for forest practices. For example, foresters join
with landscape architects, engineers, and wildlife or fishery biologists
to plan and carry out timber sales. Psychologists and sociologists par-
ticipate in campground development and simulation models which are
used to plan the protection and management of wilderness areas. For-
estry policy analyses and management tasks require a broadly-based
management expertise backed up by multidisciplinary professional
and scientific specialists.
With this review of elements of our enthusiasm for a century of
progress, let's now look at our understanding of the importance of our
deliberations at this Congress. Forests and forestry are international
concerns. AFA's emphasis on world forestry is found in its introduc-
tion to that subject. "Increasingly forests are recognized as a global
resource transcending international boundaries .. The forest is the
world's most extensive undermanaged, renewable resource. . Forest
products of all kinds are playing a strong role in international trade

. .. Forests are recognized as critical and integral elements of global
We live in a world where starvation stalks; erosion proceeds un-
abated; air, water, and soil pollution accelerate; and questions of man's
survival are raised. We live in a world where technological change has
outpaced our ability to cope with the results. In our world one billion
people live on less than $75 a year. Somehow we in forestry must relate
the hard investment and management decisions of industrialists, leg-
islators, and administrators to international population restraints,
human values, and social goals. In simplified fashion, I see three sets of
decision limits for forestry-those dealing with economic deter-
minants; those dealing with limits to biological productivity; those
dealing with irreversible changes in ecosystems and irreversible loss of
the use of genetic stocks by future generations. These limits must be
on international as well as national bases. We can and must look for
international areas of compatibility rather than of conflict.
Enthusiasm and importance are the scissors which can provide the
cutting edge of policy implementation. But pride of accomplishment
must extend beyond a completed policy statement to successful action.
If we achieve success to the end that forests with their renewable, re-
usable, and biodegradable products adequately serve worldwide social
and environmental needs, we are going to need more than more of the
same. We can no longer only "do more" but still fall short of policy
expectations that project maximum productivity. We can no longer
look ahead in ten-year increments to a Seventh American Forest Con-
gress and another chance. The preanmble to the Centennial Program
gives appropriate emphasis to the action phase. "It is imperative,
therefore, that effective programs be implemented ..."
We do need more than accelerated investment in our renewable nat-
ural resources. By "more than more" I refer to the necessity to inno-
vate and institutionalize, and at this meeting we have identified six
areas in which it is critical for innovation, institutionalization, and
investment to occur if we are to approach maximization of production
of renewable natural resources. These six areas are:
1. The need for new economic, ecologic, and social data bases
for forest policy analyses and decisions.
2. The need for an order of magnitude increase in scientific
knowledge about forestry systems.
3. The need for new professional disciplinary interactions to
match the requirements of interdependencies.
4. The need for new involvement of citizens.
5. The need for world leadership.
6. The need for continuing policy analyses.
Before we look at each of these six needs, let's consider the reasons
for the necessity for innovation and institutionalization. Their themes
have been played throughout the Congress and need only be mentioned
in summary fashion here.
Interrelatiolnsh]ips (the first of these themes).-Forestry policies
and decisions are made within the web of modern life and must be
made in the full glare of publicity, the full knowledge of secondary

and tertiary impacts, the full impact of unrestrained population
growth-in fact to be a part of the big picture.
Complexity.-Forestry policies and decisions apply to the most com-
p)lex series of ecosystems known onthe earth. Fred Smith, who formed
and managed the ecosystems programs in the International Biological
Program of the United States said it best: "Forests are the greatest
achievement of ecological evolution-the largest, most complex, most
self-perpetuating of all ecosystems. It is in forests that natural regu-
latory processes excel, producing the most stable of all ecosytems. It
is in forests that man has his best opportunity to work with nature.
Development of this opportunity is the major challenge to foresters
in an increasingly crowded and demanding world."
Diversity.-Not only provides stability to ecosystems, it describes
American forests which include some 300 ecosystems and over 100
commercial timber species. Diversity precludes generalized manage-
ment decisions.
Time.-We can no longer substitute time for knowledge and employ
trial-and-error methods. The "future is now" applies to forestry de-
cisions even though forestry must of necessity be a long-run venture.
The pace of change in economics, politics-particularly world poli-
tics-and environmental requirements has eliminated the luxury of
time we have had in the past to reach correct decisions through suc-
cessive approximations.
Future generations.-This is the most difficult theme of this meet-
ing. Exhaustible resources will be exhausted-the critical questions
are when and how much their exhaustion will be compensated by tech-
nological change. But with renewable natural resources, we can better
identify with future generations. Productivity in perpetuity is sound
as a general goal but difficult to apply. We can and must increase pro-
ductivity as dictated by physical and economic need of a growing
world population. In terms of future environment, I agree with Bru-
baker that the limits we face are: To avoid irreversible impacts on
ecosystems, irretrievable loses of genetic stocks, and irreversible dam-
age to large global systems.
With the themes of interrelationships, complexity, diversity, time,
and future generations in mind, let's turn to the first subject for inno-
vation and institutionalization-the need for new economic, ecologic,
and social data bases for forest policy analysis and decisions. The first
innovative step has already been taken in the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 which directs the Secre-
tary of Agriculture to:
". . prepare a Renewable Resources Assessment . the Assess-
ment shall be prepared not later than December 31, 1975, and shall be
updated during 1979 and each tenth year thereafter, and shall include
but not .be limited to:
(1) an analysis of present and anticipated uses, demand for,
and supply of the renewable resources of the forest, range, and
other associated land with consideration of the international
resource situation, and an emphasis of pertinent supply and de-
mand and price relationship trends;
(2) an inventory, based on information developed by the Forest
Service and other Federal agencies, of present and potential re-
newable resources, and an evaluation of opportunities for improv-
ing their yield of tangible and intangible goods and services ..

This act, through expanding the traditional forest survey from com-
mercial timber to recreation, wilderness, fish and wildlife, rangeland
grazing, and water, reaches toward economic baselines. We need simi-
lar innovative legislation to assure an adequate level of research for
ecological and social baseline establishment.
The second area is the need for an order of magnitude increase in
scientific knowledge about forestry systems. Diversity and complexity
dictate this necessity by indicating that there are no simple general
solutions to forestry problems. Full knowledge of environmental im-
pacts and effects of alternative action on related resources require
basic information that now does not exist. Research is the only hope
to invent Spurr's "complex unit to measure quality of life in integrated
economic and social terms." Of utmost and immediate importance is
to know short- and long-term ecosystem response to cultural and other
mnanagemnent operations.
The third area of innovation and institutionalization is the need
for new professional and disciplinary interactions to solve the prob-
lems of complexities and interrelationships. This is another way to
stress that the forestry policy and management decision making
process require the involvement of a wide mix of professions and
scientific disciplines.
The Society of American Foresters recognizes the importance of
diverse professionals working together and includes in its membership
scientists and professionals in fields closely allied to forestry who hold
a bachelor or higher degree in their special field and who are render-
ing or have rendered substantial service to forestry.
An example of innovative institutionalization was the creation in
1972 of the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation to facilitate
coordination and cooperation among professional societies and or-
ganizations having leadership responsibilities for renewable natural
resources. Members include: American Fisheries Society, Society of
American Foresters, Ecological Society of America, American Geo-
physical Union, The Wildlife Society, American Association for Con-
servation Information, American Water Resources Association, The
Institute of Ecology, Association of Interpretive Naturalists, Ameri-
can Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta, and Society for
Range Management. This new Foundation has already purchased a
35-acre estate near the Belt Way here in Washington so that these
and other appropriate societies can headquarter and work more
closely together.
The fourth area is the need for new involvement of citizens. The
United States, through its democratic processes, opinion polls, and
public hearings, certainly leads in the involvement of citizens in the
policy process. Informed public opinion as the key to successful policy
development and implementation is a truism. It is here though that
we in the forestry profession are reaping the harvests of past over-
simplification of a highly complex and diverse situation. For how
many decades did we publicize selection cutting and brag about the
fact that we planted a tree for each one cut. Smokey Bear for years
preached the text that "fire is bad" without distinguishing between
wildfire and the use of fire as a tool. We not only require new educa-
tional means of informing citizens on complex and diverse situations,
but there needs to be a new coupling of public opinion and policy


The fifth area, our stake in world affairs, is obvious. Since military
and economic leadership are no longer paramount, we obviously must
look for other ties to the world community of peoples. Forestry offers
a great opportunity. Since forests cover one-third of the globe, de-
veloping countries and developed countries have a clear common
interest and can meet together on mutual problems. Both sides can
learn from the other. Renewable natural resources can play a strong
role in strategic policy through world trade and the fact that renew-
able resources of cellulose can be stockpiled on the stump. Stockpiling,
in a new and broad sense, can involve new governmental and non-
governmental policies to encourage maximum, efficient production and
to determine disposition of the production to meet national and inter-
national needs. This suggests a balancing rather than regulatory role
of government.
The sixth and my last area is the need for continuing policy analysis
in response to the criteria of time and interrelationships. The accelerat-
ing momentum of change belies our ability to even describe the world
as we know it today. We must invent something beyond periodic policy
assessments. In the past they have been sufficient. In the present they
are clearly inadequate; and in the future, will be worthless. The Presi-
dent's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment recognized this
need in its recommendation for a national board or council on forest
policy. Policy formulation is a continuing, complex, and comprehen-
sive task which has been accomplished on an ad hoc basis uip to now. At
the close of this Sixth American Forest Congress, it is obvious to me
and I believe to you, that we need something more.

I would like to close this summary with a challenge to the Ameri-
can Forestry Association. I challenge it to do more of the same and
more than more of the same. In terms of the first part of the chal-
lenge, we expect no less than its continued pacing of forestry in the
United States. Its one-hundred year history documents the success of
its programs in education, policy formulation, citizen involvement, and
a public forum for meshing divergent viewpoints. In terms of more
than more, I would like to make three specific suggestions:
1. The American Forestry Association should establish a con-
tinuing forestry policy analysis form. It has the background, respect,
and ability to so do. Though there are many possible formats, one can
see a continuing forum of Federal administrators, industry leaders,
conservation group leaders, educators, and citizens with the employ-
ment of a small staff to critically assess emerging policies and review
existing ones-in large measure to serve on a continuing basis to meet
complexity, interrelationship, and time dimensions of our policy di-
lemmas. just as the periodic congresses have been able to do in the past.
The'Directors of the American Forestry Association took a first step
at their centennial session last Sunday when they proposed that Con-
gress establish a "Joint Study Committee to prepare a Policy for
American Forestry" and update forest management statutes. If Con-
gress or the Executive Branch do not act on this resolution, I believe
that AFA must. Though an AFA Task Force or Commission may not
have the clout of its recommended Joint Study Committee; it has a
track record which says that it can develop a contemporary rational


policy for American Forestry and have that policy implemented
through appropriate legislation. The Society of American Foresters
will directly support either alternative action-but action there must
In addition to the above immediate action, there are policy questions
which must be addressed on a continuing basis. Some examples are:
-What is an optimum mix of public and private capital for recrea-
tion development? What criteria should be used to help decide?
-Under which circumstances, if any, can wilderness be considered
a renewable resource? What are the consequences for treating
wilderness as renewable?
-What should be the role of Federal forests in meeting long-term
renewable resource needs? Demonstration areas? Complementary
to private lands, for providing non-market resources such as big
game and large trees? Strategic reserves for national emergencies?
-Under the multiple-use concept, what criteria should we use to de-
termine an optimum mix of resources? Efficiency, effectiveness,
and panel-of-experts opinion, public reference polls?
-At what rate should the old-growth timber on the National Forests
be liquidated? Should the non-declining even-flow policy be re-
vised? To what extent and how rapidly should expected changes
in utilization be reflected in timber management plans? What cri-
teria should be used to establish the minimum size for a National
Forest timber plan? Should private lands be included in sustained-
yield calculations?
This list of questions is neither complete nor prioritized. The fact
that they exist unanswered compels me to challenge AFA to proceed
beyond this Sixth Forest Congress and provide a continuing policy
analysis forum.
2. My second challenge is that the American Forestry Association
should establish new programs in citizen involvement. This problem
is larger than AFA and certainly not limited to forestry. Nevertheless,
it must be met head-on, and AFA through its momentum in the field
of education should seek to invent new concepts and approaches.
3. The American Forestry Association should accelerate its move
into world forestry. Its weight has been felt at recent World Forestry
Congresses, and its forestry trips to other countries headed by the late
Ken Pomeroy have opened many doors. I see the opportunity to asso-
ciate with similar organizations throughout the world and to use com-
mon concern by citizens for the productivity and well-being of forests
as a further thrust toward peace on earth.
Sam Dana's foreword for "Crusade for Conservation-The Cen-
tennial History of the American Forestry Association" provides a
closing statement for this summary and a rallying cry to the challenge
I have issued:
The Association's history offers some guides as to how it can maintain its
traditional position of leadership; but the past is only prologue to the future.
The next hundred years will present unforeseen problems and challenges which
will require new philosophies and new programs of action. May the Association
meet those challenges intelligently, courageously, and effectively.


[By Stephen H. Spurr]

It is difficult to say anything original at this moment in history about
American forest policy. Our national concern with ecology and the
environment took articulate form one hundred years ago-with spe-
cific regard to preserving our existing forests, reforesting denuded
land, and managing our forest to maximize the several goods and serv-
ices, tangible and intangible, that derive therefrom.
Here in 1976, when our national environmental concern is with air
and water pollution, the litany about land and forest conservation
is apt to seem all too familiar, even if true. Far from awakening a
crusading response in our contemporaries, the reaction we are more
likely to meet is either one of inattention or even of critical disbelief.
While we who have been personally concerned with forest conserva-
tion over the years have seen enormous strides toward forest man*-
agement for the continuous supply of timber and other products of the
forests including livestock, game animals, fish, water, and human rec-
reation, the unpleasant truth is that many of our contemporaries either
don't believe that the intentions of our forest managers are pure, or
that, even if they are, they know what they are doing. Much of the
public equates foresters with wood butchers. A surprisingly large
number are opposed to harvesting of trees at all.
It is against this social and political background that we must take
a fresh look at an American forest policy that has been evolved pain-
stakingly over a century that has the support of the great majority
of those intimately connected with forest conservation and that in-
deed has accomplished much over years past.

The term policy, however, means a great many things. I choose to
limit my interpretation of it in order to give direction to what other-
wise may prove to be a flight into generalities. Let me start, therefore,
with a definition of terms.
Policy is a multi-meaning word. Some of its definitions are provoc-
ative. I like the third part of the sixth definition in Merriam-Web-
ster's third edition: policy is "the improved grounds (as parkland)
of an estate or country house in Scotland," for example: "house stands
in about 20 acres of well-wooded policies." That's what we are talk-
ing about today; "well-wooded policies." Only our task is not to land-
scape a Scottish laird's domicile. It is rather to provide the American
people with woodlands that not only provide amenity but also the
goods and services that we and our economy need. In short, our con-
cern is with forest policy.



Forest policies, however, don't exist in a vacuum. By American
forest policies, I take it that we are referring to national policies of
the United States of America, and that we use the term in its context
of meaning "a definite course or method of action selected . from
among alternatives and in the light of given conditions to guide and
usually determine present and future decisions."
But what are our national policies? They are neither written down
nor spelled out in any single set of documents. Politicians and experts
disagree as to what they are. There is no consensus even as to what
subjects they deal with. Rather, what our United States national poli-
cies are must be inferred from acts of Congress in continuing or elim-
inating old legislation and in posting new laws, and from actions of
the President and his cabinet in interpreting and carrying their as-
signed responsibilities. We can only assume that, over a period of
time, such acts and actions reflect the will of the people. True, our
policies are set as much by omission as by commission. True, our poli-
cies will change over a period of time, sometimes rapidly but more
often slowly. True, our policies will continue to be largely unwritten
and inferred. Yet, we can divine to some extent what they are, and we
can press for what they should be.
Let me go back to the Merriam-Webster definition and remind you
that a policy calls for a "definite course . of action." This means
that we are concerned with defining principles and recommending ac-
tions that should be taken in the form of legislation by the U.S. Con-
gress or in the form of order or regulation issued by the Executive
Branch. There. are lots of things that are thought to be inherently
good, desirable, and worthwhile. Unless they should be affected by
some specific action of the Federal government, though, policy issues
are not raised. Some of us may think that large area clearcutting is
acceptable; others may condemn it as an evil. We should be concerned
only to the extent of dealing with the question of whether the Federal
government should officially intervene in the decision-making process.
Only in such a context does clearcutting on private lands become a
national policy issue. We may all agree that reforestation of under-
utilized deforested land is a desirable aim on general principles. It
is quite another matter, though, as to whether or not the Federal Gov-
ernment should offer incentives to private forest landowners to en-
courage them to plant trees, or indeed whether the government should
require that forest lands must be maintained at a given level of pro-
ductivity regardless of the economics of the individual case or of the
objectives and wishes of the private landowner. These are the specific
forest policy issues that must be treated. We all agree that logging in
hilly or mountainous country will change the water regimen and pos-
sibly affect the sediment load of streams that drain the area. The
policy issue comes as we attempt to determine at what point on the
water course and at what level of sedimentation do these matters be-
come a matter of public concern, if ever.
No matter what example we take, we come out with the same
answer. An American forest policy must be specific and must deal
with matters of national concern that merit consideration and action
by the legislative and executive branches of the United States Govern-


American forest policy must be viewed as a minor part of United
States national policy in general. What is good for the country is not
necessarily good for the forest, although I like to believe that what is
good for the forest will prove in the long run to be good for the
country. In any event, we are dealing with a small portion of what
our Federal government is or ought to be planning and doing. We
cannot disengage ourselves from the whole. U.S. policy on the im-
port and pricing of petroleum will influence the possible use of wood
as a source of energy and as a chemical feedstock. U.S. policy of log-
ging public lands will affect the cost of housing and our national bal-
ance of trade. National agricultural policies that determine the num-
bers of grass-fed beef cattle will impact on grazing policies on public
lands. Decisions that change the value of the dollar relative to foreign
currencies will similarly change the recreational habits of American
citizens and these in turn will change recreational pressures on our
public lands. The Jones Act, in prohibiting the shipment of commodi-
ties on foreign ships between U.S. ports, effectively bars Alaskan
timber products from the contiguous 48 states, but this is a small part
of the impact of this particular legislation on the American economy.
The sale of logs from the Pacific Northwest to Japan looks bad to
those who believe that old-growth forests should be maintained on the
mountain slopes of Washington, but good to those who believe that
full market access will permit the most responsible conversion from
old growth to managed second growth. In short we in forestry are
only part of the big picture and we had better take this into account
in our effort to shape a national forest policy. We can't continue to
concern ourselves only with forest policy, but as specialists in forestry
and conservation, we should participate in the formulation of related
national policies.
It seems to me that our national policies are all pretty much directed
toward two goals: one of economic well-being and the other of quality
of life. These two courses are sometimes common and often parallel.
Until recently it was often assumed that they were congruent. In-
creasing population and social pressures coupled with decreasing
food, energy and material resources have made it apparent that the
two courses are becoming increasingly divergent. Therein lie the roots
of our policy debate today.
The goal of economic well-being is well understood. It is that we
as a nation should have low unemployment, a high or at least a con-
tinual growth in Gross National Product, and a low rate of inflation.
It is that we as individuals should have incomes that increase faster
dollarwise than the rate of devaluation of the dollar. Our forests are
important in meeting these objectives in that they are our principal
source of timber for lumber and plywood for housing and paper for
communications. Plentiful wood at modest prices means moderately
priced housing and cheap newspapers. Wood in short supply at high
prices contributes significantly to shortages in housing and to overall
As Americans have become more affluent, we have increasingly
shifted our goals from the satisfaction of material wants to a con-
cern for social injustices and to the development of cultural sensi-
tivities. The goal of quality of life used to mean a chicken in every

pot. Then, it implied two cars in every garage and a color television
set in every living room. Recently, for many, it has meant leisure time
and access to open spaces to spend it. Urbanity with its ghettos, subur-
ban sprawl, transportation snafus, smoggy air, and dirty water in-
creasingly represent the antithesis of quality of life, even for those
with the two cars and the color television set. Our wildland parks
and National Forests increasingly represent the thesis of quality of
life, even for those with only a backpack and dehydrated pemmican.
Multiple use in the broad sense is eminently practicable. Forests
can be managed to grow trees for timber and simultaneously to satisfy
most hunting, hiking, and camping activities.
Both economic well-being and quality of life are desirable goals.
Both can be satisfied to a considerable extent by our public and private
forests in the largest sense. At a single place in the forest at a single
point of time, however, the two goals are incompatible. The cutting
of a single large tree supplies all-important wood to commerce but it
is no longer there to be seen and enjoyed. Indeed, what remains in the
form of logging slash is decidedly unattractive. The parallel does not
exist for other natural resources, at least for the time-being. Coal and
oil were not beautiful before harvest. Wheat and corn fields have a
certain man-formed beauty that is destroyed by harvest, but we know
that they will be there again in but a short season after harvest. Our
emotional stress is over trees. Joyce Kilmer never wrote a poem about
a coal seam. George Pope Morris never wrote:
Farmer, spare that pea
Touch not a single cow
In my youth they nourished me
And I'll protect them now.
Our national forest policies therefore must be directed to move us as
a national people toward the twin goals of economic well-being and
quality of life. Our national government has direct responsibility
for managing our public lands. Federal agencies manage the National
Forests, National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and the public domain
of the Bureau of Land Management and other public lands under
legislative direction from Congress. The public here has a direct role
in setting policy through its elected representatives and in seeing that
its policies are carried out by its public servants. Our national govern-
ment has much less to say about how private forest lands are managed.
It is a continually evolving and still unsettled issue as to what is the
appropriate concern of the public in how private land is used.
For all our forest lands, we need to define and continually to up-
date and redefine our national goals. We know pretty well what our
population will be. We have a pretty good idea of what our economic
status should be and how we'd like to see our quality of life improved.
From these bases, we should be able to set national goals for, say the
year 2000, for output from our forests by major products-water,
aesthetics, recreation and wood. Having an idea of where we'd like
to be going should help us in our efforts to move forward. The Presi-
dent's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment was one step
in this direction. The Humphrey-Rarick bill enables the Forest Serv-
ice to move forward with the goal-setting and planning process. The
policy statement proposed for adoption by this American Forest
Congress provides valuable guidance. What remains to be done is to

get down to specific goals and to develop policies that will enable us
to reach them.

Let us examine national policies for national lands first. A number
of Federal agencies manage forested lands under legislation and regu-
lations peculiar to their individual status. Many BLM lands are simply
leased to private users. National Parks are managed to preserve and
provide access to areas of great scenic interest. The agency with the
biggest and most controversial job is, however, the Forest Service. The
simplest and most-inclusive policy governing the National Forests is
The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield of 1960 which states:
That it is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established
and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and
wildlife and fish purposes . . The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and
directed to develop and administer the renewable surface resourcse of the na-
tional forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and
services therefrom.
WVe may or may not quarrel with the Forest Service as to how this
directive is interpreted and put into effect on the ground. Few of us
would, however, disagree with the basic principle to such an extent
that we should wish to repeal or seriously amend the legislation.
What changes in our basic elements, then, are needed in American
forest, policy regarding our national public lands? Not a great deal,
perhaps, in terms of general principles, but hopefully a continual im-
provement in the details of application. Generalizing from the body
of legislation and Federal management practice. I suggest that pro-
posed new legislation in this area should be tested against the follow-
in general principles.
First, our public forest should be used for the balanced production
of goods and services for the benefit of mankind.-Just as man is only
a part of the earth ecosystem, so are the forests. They should not be
considered in isolation or be locked up from human access and use.
Forests should rather be managed for the good of mankind taking into
consideration the need for economic returns and the need to maintain
our woodlands as part of the world ecosystem. The task of balancing
tangible and intangible returns from the forest, of weighing economic
and social benefits from the forest in a single computational model,
and the decision as to how to balance the various goods and services
derived from the forest to maximize their benefit to mankind will
always be complex and difficult and will require the greatest talents
of the professional forester in their determination. Inevitably, when
different approaches to a problem indicate incompatible courses of
action, subjective judgment must prevail. Nonetheless, these are essen-
tial management activities if we are to succeed in developing and in
carrying out a satisfactory American forest policy. My own predilec-
tion is not to use the dollar as the unit of measurement, for this will
inevitably weight the decisions in terms of simple economic returns.
but rather to seek to find some inevitably more complex unit to meas-
ure quality of life in integrated economic and social terms. Only by so
doing can we develop policies and reach management decisions that.
will give appropriate weight both to material goods and also to the
intangible values and services that the forests provide.

Second, our national forests should continue to be managed as a
renewable natural resource.-This is a proposition that may not always
be economically defensible but which has in effect been established as
policy by the several actions of the agents of the people of the United
States. All seem to agree that the flow of materials and other goods
from the forest should be reasonably balanced over a more or less
clearly defined geographical area and over a moderate span of years.
We cannot know the future although the past and the present
undoubtedly provide clues to it. We must take care that we do not
construe too narrowly what we must produce to be willed to our heirs.
We cannot, for instance, know the species and the size classes of trees
that will be needed in the 21st century. We can predict with absolute
certainty, though, that man will be much more populous and con-
sequently will require substantially larger quantities of organic ma-
terial photosynthesized by trees and other primary producers. This
is why I have couched my statement in ecological rather than in
economic terms.
Becoming more specific, the concept of forests as renewable natural
resources follows logically from the basic assumption that a balanced
man-forest ecosystem must be attained and maintained. It does not
follow, however, that each and every piece of forest must be managed
to these rigid objectives. Within the overall system, there must be
constant adjustments to maintain the balance under changing
While it is desirable to develop maximum flexibility in order to
facilitate this balancing, it may well be that some forests will be over-
cut while others will be undercut in a given period of time; that some
forests will be liquidated while other forests will be withdrawn from
exploitive use; and that some forests will be used for many purposes
while others will be restricted insofar as man's involvement is
In short, I do not argue for the arbitrary enforcement of sustained
yield practices for small areas on a non-declining even-flow annual
basis. Such a rigid approach may well prove to be unnecessarily restric-
tive. I do hold that, if we are truly committed to managing the forests
as a renewable natural resource, then it is essential that we define our
units of management at some larger level of integration and our period
of planning at some reasonable span of years, and that we insist upon
a continuous high level of production of goods and services for the
defined area and span of time.
Third, a national forest policy must involve the development and
application of sound economic criteria for the management of our
public forests.-I have already indicated some of the factors that must
be considered, such as the definition of the management unit. and the
measurement of goods and services in terms of quality of life rather
than in terms of the dollar. Nevertheless, the skills and tools of the
economist must be brought to bear if we are to have a satisfactory and
adequate American forest, policy. Intensive management of our forest
resources is highly desirable from many points of view, but its practice
must inevitably be limited bv economic restraints.
Fourth. Prr'vs;on should be made for professional ma.,naqement of
forests und'r auidelines of established poliy.-It is the appropriate
role of policy bodies, both governmental offices and national associa-

tions such as the American Forestry Association, to instigate and
promulgate national forest policies. It should fall to the professional,
however, to put these policies into effect, drawing upon highly special-
ized technical skills in many fields of endeavor to introduce forest
practices that will meet the general policy considerations and yet be
practicable and effective under the specific conditions encountered. For
example, it is clearly inappropriate to have a national forest policy on
specific silvicultural practices such as clearcutting or the use of fire.
Rather the objectives of public forest management should be spelled
out, leaving the professional forester on the job the right and the re-
sponsibility of utilizing all of the tools at his disposal as long as they
are not dangerous either to mankind or to the ecosystem in which he
Fifth, the Forest Service and other major land-managing public
agencies should be provided with legal and fiscal opportunic.ties to man-
age forest lands, to improve their product ity, to harves.t t;11ber there-
fromn, and to provide other desired benefits.-In order that our public
forest lands be well managed, the responsible agencies must have the
trained professional manpower available with the funding and
authority to practice their professions.
Alternatives to present methods of computation of allowable cut
should be assayed in terms of better long-term planning for the wise use
of our public timber. Alternatives to present timber sale procedures
should be legalized and tried with the objective of providing for better
environmental protection of the logging sites at the same time that
complete and profitable utilization of the timber is encouraged. Exist-
ing forests should be adequately protected against fire, insects, disease,
and, above all, from man himself. Regular funding on a long-range
basis should be provided to ensure that lands that are planned to be
forested are indeed fully stocked with trees. Our national agencies that
managed forest lands have by and large done a good job with the re-
sources at their disposal. They should be encouraged to do a better job
in the future by being given the requisite manpower, funding, and
I take my sixth principle directly from the Report of the President's
Advisory Panel on Timber and Environment. The Federal land-ad-
ministering agencies and the Congress should accelerate their efforts to
complete the National Wilderness Preservation System as rapidly as
possible. The Federal land-managing agencies and the Congress should
develop a system of quasi-wilderness areas in the Eastern United States
in which low-intensity outdoor recreation will be possible under natural
forest, conditions. Commercial forest lands not withdrawn for wilder-
ness or other specific uses should be available for commercial timber
production among other compatible uses and should be managed in
accordance with appropriate national policies.

Most of us would, I think, subscribe to the general principle that the
less public regulation of private affairs, the better. The continuing de-
bate is over the issue of how much is "less." From examination of recent
environmental legislation, we can make some generalizations about the
principles underlying American forest policy toward private land as
it has evolved from our present body of law.


First, a word about owning land. Individuals claim ownership by a
title conferred by the government. Historically, the title conveys only
limited rights. Surface. rights are often more clearly defined than aerial
or subterranean rights. Frequently the rights are separated and held by
differing people. In Texas, one may own the surface rights, another
the mineral rights, and a third the water rights-and often the latter
two are more valuable than the first. Furthermore, what the govern-
ment giveth, the government can -take away. Expropriation, eminent
domain, and more subtle forms of action can all alienate an owner from
his land. The fact is that no one of us owns land outright and without
qualification. What the owner really has is a right to limited use of a
piece of the earth's surface and an even more limited use to the air
above it and the ground beneath it.
Our rights of private ownership are limited in two general ways.
First, and there is general recognition in the law to this, no in-
dividual owner has the right to so manage his property as to adversely
affect adjoining landowners or indeed, any other person. The body of
legislation and regulation on air pollution and water pollution speak
to this principle. In the area of land pollution, legislation is less de-
veloped. Certainly, though, we should not discharge waste that would
lower the productivity or value of a neighbor's land. It would follow
that we should not construct logging roads so carelessly that the erod-
ing sediment would seriously damage the land of the owner next
downstream. If there isn't a law against it, there should be. On the con-
structive side, land-use planning is a rapidly developing device de-
signed to protect the property values of individuals by insuring that
all lands are developed compatibly.
The second limitation is embodied in the growing concept that we
as landowners are acting as trustees for future-generations and that
we can and should be held legally responsible for so managing our
property that we turn it over to our successors in as productive a
condition as when we acquired it. The legal term for this is the right
of usufruct, meaning that we may use the land as we will but only so
far as we do not damage it or destroy it. The prime example of this
principle currently before us is the proposed federal control of surface
or strip mining. The majority of our Congress believe land reclama-
tion after such mining to be in the public interest, not because strip
mining may be a public nuisance. but because it is thought that we have
the responsibility of turning our land over to our children in good
condition. Efforts to regulate forest practices on private forest land
provide another example of this principle. High-grading a forest or
falling to regenerate it after clearcutting may affect no private individ-
ual but the owner; yet, the argument is that there is still a long-term
public interest that justifies governmental intervention.
For what it's worth, my instinct is to agree that private landholders
have an obligation to so treat their lands as to maintain its quality
and productivity, but that the level of management above that is their
choice. In other words, the public interest is sufficient that the Federal
government should make it unlawful to degrade the site, or to damage
the ecosystem beyond the point when it can recover.
To the extent that it is considered desirable from the national point-
of-view to encourage forest management on private lands, this should
be accomplished through incentives rather than through regulation.
There are many ways to approach this problem, some of them of

proven effectiveness and others that have been less than useful in the
past. The proposed Centennial program for the American Forestry
Association treats thoughtfully and wisely with the various aspects of
public assistance to landowners and processors: education and public
service, direct incentives, credit, insurance, and taxation. The Presi-
dent's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment has provided
a useful critique of past experiences as well as innovative suggestions
that deserve study and trial. There is much to be learned and incentive
to proceed.
I submit that it should be our national policy to keep substantial
areas of our commercial forest lands fully stocked, adequately pro-
tected and productive. This was thetheme of the first American Forest
Congress in 1882 and indeed was perhaps the principal tenet of the
American forestry movement during the last half of the nineteenth
century and the first quarter of the twentieth as the Clark-McNary
Act testifies. Reforestation or afforestation may not always be finan-
cially justified from the standpoint of the small landowner or from
the standpoint of economic analysis of a single isolated piece of land.
When fthie unit of management concern is considered to be the nation
as a whole, it follows that, if we are committed to managing the forests
as a renewable natural resource, then we have a national responsibility
for leaving forest lands fully stocked and productive.
By extension, this also means that it should be national forest policy
to provide incentives or to otherwise subsidize the reforestation of
those privately owned lands which from the standpoint of national
policy should be in forests but which are uneconomical to reforest
under the restraints imposed by existing conditions of private
As an educator and a research scientist, I cannot conclude without
belaboring the obvious and putting in a plug for a vigorous and
on-going program of both forest research and conservation education.
In the former realm, both mission or problem-oriented research and
basic research must be maintained. Investigations should be carried
out at all levels ranging from the basic biochemistry and biophysics
of living cells to the social and ecological considerations of human
society and of the larger ecosystem in which man lives and operates.
We must have vigorous programs studying not only the problems of
tomorrow and of the next decade but of the next century and indeed
of the indefinite future-for the latter will come far sooner than we
anticipate. A major responsibility for such a program has long been
primarily undertaken by the Forest Service. Universities and industry
also have major roles to play. Our research programs dealing with
forest problems should be continued and enhanced.
A sound program of education in forestry must operate at all levels
through specialized but non-professional training in our colleges and
universities to highly professionalized training: in forestry, affiliated
professions and in research in forest science of the highest order.
To conclude, it is not my part today to go into detail into the pro-
rosed Centennial Program for the American Forestry Association.
It is a carefully conceived, well-worded and sound proposed policy.
It has my support. It is, I believe, harmonious with the basic principles

that I have suggested must form the basis for any American forest
policy statement.
Over the past century we have made great progress in American
forestry. We have by and large closed out the era of cut-out and get-out
logging. We have generally stopped the uneconomic conversion of
forested land to submarginal farm land. We have come close to stabi-
lizing the proportion of our land surface devoted to commercial forests.
We have preserved significant parts of the forest landscape. We have
begun to increase the productive capacity of the American forests
through better management widely applied by forest industries and
public agencies.
We have done much but much remains to be done. Demands for
human use of our wild and forested lands will increase with an in-
creasing population. So will our need for timber for housing, com-
munications, and other uses. The basic resources in the form of forests
are there. The capability exists for managing them to meet a substan-
tial level of expanding future needs. Our American forest policy
should be addressed toward reaching this goal.

[By Mark 0. Hatfield, a U.S. Senator from Oregon]

One of the most frustrating aspects of a government which is too
large and too centralized is that it seems to take a serious crisis to
get it to act-and too often it merely reacts to the immediate crisis
rather than responding to and dealing with the real root problem.
The energy crisis is an example of the phenomenon. Long gasoline
lines at the neighborhood service stations were commonplace before the
government reacted-and it still has not responded. We must draw the
important distinction between a reaction and a response-a reaction
involves the "quick-fix" treatment of the symptoms, while a real re-
sponse involves a look at the underlying problems and solutions to
them. The saying that the President has one energy plan, the Congress
has 535 and the nation has none is a tragic and well-worn joke, but it
is descriptive of the present situation.
There is no question but that our energy resource problems needed
attention long ago, but there were always other pressing issues-such
as the Vietnam war, or civil rights-all important, all crises demanding
attention and getting it. And when energy became a crisis it also took
the nation's attention.
Another resource issue has been festering for years, one that all of us
here are familiar with, and I am not being facetious when I say that
here, too, we face the very real prospect of a major resource crisis.
The health of National Forest management has been at best dubi-
ous for a long, long time. Created to "furnish a continuous supply of
timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States,"
as stated by the Organic Act of 1897, and to be administered "for out-
door recreation, range, timber, watershed and wildlife and fish pur-
poses," as mandated in the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960,
we as a nation have simply failed to do the quality job of forest man-
agement we ought to be doing.
While problems have surfaced periodically-relating to timber
supply, wilderness or recreation, the reaction has been consistently
insufficient and can be summarized in two words: study it.
In March 1969, the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Af-
fairs of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency held
hearings and reported on softwood timber supply and price prob-
lems as they were affecting the housing program.
In June of 1970, the Public Land Law Review Commission
issued its report to the President and the Congress on the reten-
tion and management or disposition of federal lands, which equal
one-third of the nation's land mass.
On June 19, 1970, Robert P. Mayo, formerly director of the
Bureau of the Budget, reported for the Cabinet Committee on

Economic Policy the findings and recommendations of the White
House Task Force on Softwood Lumber and Plywood.
In March of 1973, a White House Timber Sale Task Force under
Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz was formed to study continu-
ing increases in softwood lumber and plywood prices.
In June of 1973, the National Commission on Materials Policy
issued its report on timber supply problems.
The long-awaited report by the President's Advisory Panel on
Timber and the Environment was issued last year.
All of these studies have concluded that the timber-growing po-
tential of the National Forests must be developed more fully to meet
future demands for forest products and for wilderness and recreation.
All indicate that timber yield can be increased while benefitting the
The General Accounting Office-the watchdog of the Congress-
has concluded that through stepped-up reforestation and timber stand
improvement efforts, the timber yield on the National Forests could
be increased by 94 percent per acre.
Yet, with this plethora of studies, we still see some 3.3 million acres
on the National Forests in need of reforestation. We still see what can
only be called second-rate management of the public resources.
And the fact that we are failing to deal with our demand for addi-
tional timber does not mean that we are meeting recreation or wilder-
ness needs. The Forest Service presently shows a backlog in camp-
ground maintenance and rehabilitation of over $38 million. When we
are growing less timber than we should be, each acre taken out of
production becomes more critical, so that there is often a reluctance
to designate unique, alpine areas as wilderness. All users of the Forests
lose when they are improperly managed, and this is the present case
on the National Forests.
The reason for this is not so much the fault of the Forest Service
itself as with its place in the federal bureaucracy and the general fail-
ure of that bureaucracy to understand the nature of natural resources.
The Forest Service-responsible for the stewardship of 187 million
acres of land-is located within the Department of Agriculture. And
Secretaries of Agriculture have not been noted for their knowledge
of or interest in forest ry.
This difficulty at the departmental level is exacerbated by an Office
of Management and Budget which has been deaf to the logic of invest-
ing in the public lands now for a return in future years.
In past years, when funds appropriated by a sympathetic Congress
for reforestation and other forest programs could be impounded-they
were. Even last year, with impoundment authority sharply limited by
a new law, 0MB caused a delay in the expenditure of reforestation
funds which may have cost us a year in the reforestation effort. 0MB
has had almost dictatorial control over programs it knows nothing
In addition to these institutional difficulties, the Forest Service has
been caught in the middle of a controversy which ranges from the
"cut and run" philosophies of the old timber barons to proponents of
a philosophy which ignores any sort of scientific approach to forestry.
Each side has been caught up in major battles over the use of specific
areas, losing sight of the broad policy issues. Each has viewed the other

as having the most evil of intentions, while it alone has the public
interest at heart. The result has been that there has been no clear con-
sensus to guide the Forest Service except that each group wants more-
more wilderness, more recreation, more timber.
Yet, in spite of these difficulties, there has been a large measure of
progress in the past few years. Congress has been asserting its authority
over the budget, limiting the executive's ability to impound Congres-
sionally authorized and appropriated funds. Those of us on the Ap-
propriations Committees of the Congress have been successful thus
far in putting the Forest Service on a 10 year program to eliminate
thle backlog of lands in need of reforestation. An "areas of agreement"
coalition, sponsored by AFA, has worked together-representing all
forest user groups-to propose a balanced budget for the Forest
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act-
introduced by Senator Humphrey-has been enacted. This legislation
calls for long term planning to insure the nation of an adequate
supply of forest resources in the future. Under the bill, the Adminis-
tration must also develop budget proposals to meet our long term
goals. We don't have enough experience with the Act to know just
how effective it will be, but it does offer real promise.
All of these steps, however, will be only superficial if the recent
decision of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals becomes the effec-
tive law of the land. Each of the problems I have outlined pales in
comparison with the one which is now taking form. It may be more
than just another problem, but a real crisis in resource management
and availability.
It is becoming clear that we have based entirely too many assump-
tions on what may be a very shaky foundation-the Organic Act of
1897. Enacted 78 years ago, when the practice of forestry and the state
of the public lands were very different from today, this legislation
established the management authority for the National Forests. The
Act held that "No national forest shall be established, except to
improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the pur-
pose of securing favorable conditions of water flow, and to furnish
a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens
of the United States."
Ironically, if the court's decision stands, it is this Organic Act
which will precipitate the crisis in forestry. While commonly referred
to as the Monongahela or "clearcutting" decision, its impact could
go much further than the boundaries of West Virginia's Monongahela
National Forest or the practice of clearcutting. The court held that
only "dead, physiologically matured, and large growth trees"
may be sold. All trees to be, sold must be individually marked. This
prescription limits severely the uses of many important modern silvi-
cultural practices.
At present, the decision applies to West Virginia, Virginia, North
Carolina and South Carolina. Timber sales, which were cancelled
after the decision, were resumed a few days ago, but at the rate of
only 30 million board feet for the balance of the fiscal year, as com-
pared with 285 million board feet which would have been sold during
this period. This is a reduction of nearly 90 percent.


I am not a lawyer, and cannot make judgments about the possi-
bility of an appeal, but as a layman it seems -likely that the impact
of the court's decision could spread to other areas of the nation, where
similar cases are already pending, thereby creating a far more serious
lumber shortage than any in recent history.
This sort of crisis would bring about a governmental reaction, but
not necessarily a good one. With the supply of timber from National
Forests drastically reduced for a period of time, pressures to increase
it might bring about a higher level of cutting than can be justified
by present reforestation efforts. Or the shortage could drive us to
increasing dependence upon lumber imports or the so-called substi-
tutes for lumber in housing.
These substitutes all entail very high environmental and energy
costs. Production of aluminum is tremendously energy-consumptive:
29,860 BTU's are necessary to produce one pound of aluminum. Min-
ing and the reduction wastes have large environmental impacts and
deplete finite resources. Concrete is just a step down from aluminum
in magnitude of energy consumption and also uses non-renewable
In addition to heavy power requirements, the synthesis of plastics
releases into the environment a wide variety of reagents and inter-
mediates which are foreign to natural ecosystems, often toxic and
accumulate in the environment. Ecologically, the synthetic polymers
are literally indestructible, and therefore generate important, often
poorly understood, environmental impacts.
To state a very obvious point, we can no longer afford the luxury
of extravagance in energy consumption.
Ecologically speaking, wood is clearly the most desirable material
to use to meet our housing needs. The energy utilized in growing
trees is solar-free of charge. WVith sound forest practices, there is
little strain on the environment. Wood is organic and biodegradable-
it returns to the soil as part of the natural cycle. Wood is a renewable
If the court's decision stands, we cannot be sure of how the govern-
ment will react-we can only be sure that when the housing material
shortages reach crisis proportions, the programs of the Congress and
the Administration to stimulate homebuilding will be meaningless.
Pressures from the homebuying public, from those involved in the
construction and forest products industries, will force the government
to react, but there may not be a sound response to the overall problem.
We must develop legislation now to deal with the potential prob-
lems of the Monongahela on a temporary basis, but we must realize
that it will only be for the short term and it will not be an adequate
response. Such legislation should not be prescriptive as it relates
to forestry silviculture practices-different tools must be used for
different situations.
.Guidelines developed over three years ago by the Senate Public
Lands Subcommittee are presently being utilized by the Forest Serv-
ice to insure that clearcutting is properly used-a legislative prescrip-
tion discussed by some of my colleagues might be fine for a particular
forest or a particular species, but totally inappropriate for other areas
of the country. We cannot legislate biological growth factors.

While temporary legislation can deal with the immediate problem,
we must also develop comprehensive legislation which responds to
the many serious problems we have in managing our forests. The
elements of a true response must include a financing mechanism.
In 1971, I proposed the American Forestry Act, a bill aimed at re-
forestation of both the public lands and the small, nonindustrial lands.
Field hearings were conducted in the South, the West and the North-
east. The bill aroused opposition in some quarters because it would
have utilized receipts from timber sales to finance forest manage-
ment activities. The logic of its critics was that this would provide
a built-in incentive to cut more, perhaps without the necessary steps
to protect the resource. This was not my goal-and we have safe-
guards to prevent this from happening, but there may be other alter-
natives which do not evoke this fear.
Last year, for example, the Congress enacted legislation to put the
Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest on a self-
financing basis by authorizing it to issue and sell revenue bonds and
revenues from power sold to pay off the bonds. Such a system could
be developed for the Forest Service which would allow the agency
to move ahead with a major reforestation and timber stand improve-
ment effort.
It is also time to include a new statutory land classification in the
options of forest managers. At present, in the eyes of many, we have
either multiple use lands or wilderness. Other classifications are de-
veloped on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis. The battle lines have already been
drawn around many areas which deserve protection but may not
qualify for wilderness designation and may require more in terms of
land management than is authorized under the wilderness act.
I would, therefore, propose a statutory back country designation to
include land without permanent public roads, which can be reached
primarily by trails, which possesses unique recreational values. It
would be managed for a near-primitive recreational experience. This
designation would allow some of the basic amenities desired by many of
the National Forest users including more intensive trail signing, toilets,
shelters, and water systems. Steps could be taken to deal with diseased
timber or insect infestations. Limited timber sales by helicopter, bal-
loon, or other unconventional methods. Back country could be managed
to handle the people and would relieve pressures on wilderness, which
can be damaged by overuse.
This same comprehensive legislation ought to correct some of the de-
ficiencies in present laws, including the language in the wilderness act
which permits mining.
This is the other way we could respond to the challenge posed by the
Monongahela-seizing it as an opportunity for creative action.
Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, wrote that
"The rightful use and purpose of our natural resources is to make all
the people strong and well, able and wise, well-taught, well-fed, well-
clothed, well-housed, full of knowledge and initiative, with equal
opportunity for all and special privilege for none."
If we do any less than move now to affirm these principles, we will be
inviting a forestry crisis of mammoth proportions.

[By Hubert H. Humphrey, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota]

When the first Congress of the United States met, our Nation had
barely 3.9 million people. And the forest was viewed as a barrier to
development. Exploiting it was a challenge.
When in September 1875 the American Forestry Association was
formed in Chicago under the leadership of that outstanding physician-
conservationist, Dr. John Warder, the effects of a century of wasteful
exploitation of our forest were becoming all to clear.
Credit also should go to the American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science and to the huge cross-section of interested citizens for
alerting the American people to the need for the conservation of our
renewable resources.
I am here today as a citizen with long and deep interests in the
relation between our spiritual and economic well being and the condi-
tion of our natural and human resources.
I am a conservationist, and proud to be one.
I also am a professional policymaker-a politician if you wish-
one of 100 Senators selected by the voters to translate ideas into
national policies.
I am a politician who believes that there is an evolution of policy
just as there is for the plants and animals. I believe we must try to
improve things, while being willing to examine what is evolving.
I also believe very strongly that we should bring people and ideas
together in this evolutionary process. I am a Democrat in political
philosophy-a member of the Party that believes that an elected gov-
ernment is the peoples' way of fashioning and achieving those goals.
Today let us talk about the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re-
sources Planning Act of 1974. This Act, which I helped initiate, is
dedicated to the principle of policy evolution. It seeks to address the
situation on some 700 million acres of range and grass lands and some
700 million acres of forested lands-two-thirds of the 2.2 billion
acres in our United States.
It gives us as a nation the ways and means to shape the destiny
of our land by helping determine the way we address the issue of our
renewable resources.
The Act provides the means to assess regularly our renewable re-
sources-including soil, water, forest and range plants, animals, fish,
birds and even the insects.
It then provides the vehicle for focusing public policy decisions on
these 1.4 million acres.

What for example, should be the role of the private land owner as
well as the Federal, State and local governments ?
Another important concept imbedded in the bill is flexibility. In this
Act we recognized the inevitability of change and provided the basis
for developing improved information on which to gear policies and
We tried to create the machinery that gives us facts so that the fear
and uncertainty of change is reduced. And we sought to avoid being
caught up by events because we were not looking at what was hap-
pening around us.
In this Act we also tried to keep the range of actions within manage-
able proportions. The Act, recognizes the pivotal role the Department
of Agriculture and its Forest Service play in administering forest
and range lands, and in aiding the private sector management of
similar lands.
It is one thing to recognize that there is a governmental role, but
is quite another to be able to respond. A major challenge that we face
as a people and as a Nation is to improve our ability to come to grips
with issues.
Today, with well over 200 million people in the United States, deci-
sion making and policy formulation are far more complex than when
we had but 4 million people in our new Nation.
When the AFA was founded, I am told you had perhaps 35 mem-
b)ers. They looked at the resource situation, as they saw it, and they
hammered out a policy and a program which was a good one. Today
you have 80,000 members.
AFA is an excellent example, of how the coming together of a
group of people-who are willing to get the facts and bring them to
the attention of their fellow-citizens-helped focus on the issues and
identify the needs.
The whole system of renewable resource conservation still rests on
the foundations that this small band of pioneers helped to design.
When they began, lumbermen thought that forest management on a
scientific basis was pure folly.
Fire protection was viewed as perhaps useful for mature timber lest
it be burned up before it was cut down. The public forest-whether
Federal or State was regarded as a public picking ground. The best
thing that could happen was to get rid of the trees and convert the
land to a farm.
The range lands of the United States were the battlegrounds of the
homesteader and the cattleman. The only question was whether the sod
would be broken by the plow or by the thousands of cattle and sheep
that ranged across the grasslands.
I do not suggest that all that happened was bad, either in outcome
or in motivation. But the record is clear that the 35 original members
of your association were forward-looking. They said that if man
uses the renewable resources wisely, they will help man sustain himself
in perpetuity.
Now, 100 years later, we have a much clearer understanding of the
fundamental truth of this fact.
This past century has been one of major change. Oil and the in-
ternal combustion engine-both reliant on non-renewable resources-
have worked changes on our whole way of life.



I am sure that when the first meeting of AFA was held in 1875, a
number of your members came on a passenger train whose engine
equaled 500 horses. Some probably came via "one-horse power"-a
horse, pulling a "Democrat"-the popular two seater shay of the day.
For your meeting here today some came by 727-a jet powered by
the equivalent of about 9,000 horses. A few probably came by train
pulled by 4,000 horses, and many came by car with a 200 to 300 horse
power engine.
Our use of energy these past few decades has been as profligate as
our use of wood used to be. When your organization first assembled
in Chicago, many of the city streets were cobbled with wood paving
blocks. And the rails the trains ran on were ties of now prized and
expensive hardwood lumber.
It is clear that the energy events of the past few years are going to
change how we view and how we use the forest resources.
America's forests and rangelands are assuming new and larger
importance. We are learning to work with nature, but time is not on
our side.
We have learned that some resources are renewable. They can be
husbanded or used again and again if not abused.
We know that we have a massive job of reclamation on both forest
and range land in order to restore the vigor and quality of their
We have learned that the forest and the range have many resources
and their uses can be multiple.
And we have learned that there is a value to the quality of wildness..
In addition, we have learned to respect Nat ii re-there are ecological
interconnections that we must work with, not against.
In January, 1976, we are going to test ourselves on how to apply
what we have learned. Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act, this process already is well under way.
The Department of Agricuture now has in circulation for public
study the raw material that every interested citizen is asked to study.
In fact, the law-which provides the rules for this test-requires you
as citizens to contribute to the body of facts and to the proposals.
In January you will be asked to come forward and tell the Congress
whether or not all of the relevant facts are there and whether they are
comprehensively displayed. You will be asked in the second part of
that test either to pick what you think is the best course, with your
reasons, or to suggest other alternatives and back them up with
And further, you will be asked to help us in the Congress to select
the best course to chart for the years immediately ahead.
In this unique and comprehensive test, we in the Congress will
likewise be examined on our ability to carry out our responsibilities
under this new law.
We will be evaluating your ideas and measuring them against the
proposals of the Executive. And, you will have an opportunity to
examin ( the answers we give.
This legislation was the product of many people working together
with diverse views. I am confident that when AFA decided to support
this legislation, it did so with the understanding that it was making
a commitment for its 80,000 members to work actively and continuously
toward the improvement of our renewable resources.

This law is not a one-time thing. It provides that annually we can
adjust our sights, and that each 5 years we call substantially overhaul
our priorities and program. Every 10 years we will have a new com-
prehlen.ive resource assessment that will give us the base for significant
changes in both direct on and speed.
I certainly hope that this Act will do more than help us chart the
right courses for our renewable resources. It also should serve as a
model that can be applied to many other areas.
Last week when I spoke, to the Society of American Foresters, I dis-
cussed in some detail the West Vi.rginia timber harvesting decision
and some of its impacts.
I will not replow that ground today. However, I would like to ex-
pand a bit on w11 at I said.
I called on the membership of SAF as professional foresters to ex-
press their views and cooperate in positive and constructive reform.
And I call on you as a key citizen gm-opl to help work out this issue,
as you helped get the Resources Planning Act adopted. I hope that
your Areas of Agreement approach will help galv.,nize all con.serva-
tionists toward some cooperative solution as to how the National
Forests should be managed.
I am prepa red to help.
Shortly, I plan to re-introduce Section 201 of the original version
of the Resources Planning Act. This will give thle public and the
Executive agencies a bill on which to focus in order to decide what form
new legislation should take.
The fundamental i-sue we must face is whether forestry should be
pract iced in the courts, or in the woods.
The next issue we face is whether Congress should write tight in-
structions into law, or allow the professional resource manager the
flexible authority needed to apply the best scientific forestry practices
in a manner that assures complete respect for the environment.
My sentiments are similar to those of a former chief of the Forest
Service, who told your organization in 1935, "Forestry is a profession
that will not tolerate political dominance."
To best resolve these issues. Congress is going to need all of the help
that you can give.
In 1905 at the American Forest Congress. Teddy Roosevelt issued
marching orders for all of us here today when he said:
"You are mighty poor Americans if your care for the well-bIeing of
this country is hoping that well-being will last out your own genera-
tion. No man here or elsewhere is entitled to call himself a decent
citizen if he does not try to do his part toward seeing that our national
policies are shaped .for the advantage of our children and our children's
We have a right to be confident about the fuLture because we have
accomplished so much. We have )o right to be complacent because
thliere is so much to do.
For many years it was my good fortune to work closely with Senator
Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, both in the Congress and earlier
when he was a Secretary of Agriculture. Let me share with you a
thought, of his-a philosophy that I share.
"Con-ervation is to a democratic government by free men as the
roots of a tree are to its leaves."


On this occasion which marks your 100th anniversary, I want to
join with you in saluting that hardy band of 35 conservationists who
set us on the course of wise resource management. Now, as a group
with 80,000 members, I hope you. will swell your impact to meet the
challenges ahead.
I see no reason why we cannot be pragmatic and idealistic at the
same time. As the great American conservationist Carl Schurz said:
"Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with
your hands. But like the seafaring man on the desert of waters, you
choose them as your guides, and following them you will reach your


[By Hon. Earl L. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture]

When the first colonists to America stepped ashore they looked on
untamed forests and virgin woods choked with underbrush. There
were no well manicured farmlands or rows of neatly trimmed wooden
houses in the suburbs, or quiet communities with schools and churches.
But something equally good faced the newcomers. They looked out
on the new land and knew that here they were seeing more potential
than they had ever before witnessed. In the richness of the wilderness
the settlers saw the resources and inspiration needed to yield a new life.
They dug in and started the development work that ultimately pro-
duced the rich nation of tody; the nation that we all enjoy and too often
take for granted.
For those of us living in 1975, visiting a mountain wilderness area
can bring the same sort of feeling. We can see the open countryside
and feel a new breath of life. The beauty and the potential of un-
touched land recharges our spiritual batteries, giving us a lift we can
get in no other way.
It would be sad indeed if on some future day Americans had no such
wilderness area they could visit and get such a feeling. That's why our
forefathers established a heritage of conservation and land preserva-
tion we still carry on today. Americans have set up the National Park
Service, the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service and many
other federal and state agencies to help take care of the land. We have
also set aside over 12 million acres of Wilderness Areas-94 percent
of which are in our National Forests.
For some people, these efforts are not enough. They look to the large
acreages in the National Forests and want to stop virtually all alter-
nate uses except backpacking and nature hikes.
This attitude is as unreasonable as the one that would ruthlessly
exploit our national forestlands until every log, rock, mineral deposit,
animal, fish, hidden trail, and clear stream would be endangered. One
extreme plan is as unworkable as the other.
It is a legitimate concern to want a healthy, well-balanced environ-
ment, a place to take a physical and spiritual breather from the crowd-
ed life of the cities. But that desire has to be balanced against reality.
Against the growing need for farmlands and grazing land for grow-
ing food. Against the need to unearth more mineral resources. Against
the need to cut more timber and to turn out more wood products each
The pressures on our National Forests will increase with every pass-
ing year. They will increase as long as we want comfortable homes, out-
door recreation, maple dining room sets, walnut furniture in our living
rooms, plywood sheeting on our walls and roofs, or newsprint for our
morning paper.


The uses of forest products and forestland are manifold and ex-
panding. The need for grazing land, for example, will increase some
40 percent, in the next four decades, some of this will be found in our
National Forests. A rational policy to meet this demand as well as all
the others has to be administered. It will have to be a plan that will
perpetuate our forests as well as utilize them. Common sense must
The battle over the nation's forests and forest products is nothing
new. Some people have felt for a long time that forestlands should be
privately held. Others argue for more federal control. Some want lower
grazing fees on Federal Foretlands; others want higher fees. Some
-want to clearcut trees; others argue that it is best to take only scattered
t trees, or none at all.
Our national view of forest resources and how to best care for them
and utilize them is in a constant state of evolution-as it should be.
Changing times makes changing demands; this has always been so.
Frankly, for those first settlers, the proliferation of trees must have
seemed a mixed blessing. To clear enough land for barest- subsistence
they often had to cut away the trees. They girdled trees and stripped
the bark from them, leaving them to dry. The following year they
cut down the dead trees, grubbed out the stumps and roots, then
planted their first crops.
Some environmentalists today call that a ruthless practice. But at
that time it was a necessity of survival. In our comfortable lives of
today, living in a highly developed country, we forget that nature
guarantees no man a living, that hlie has to nmke his own way. For
the pioneers that meant clearing trees. For us today it means sensible
forest management.
When the early settlers finally pushed through the Cumberland Gap,
struggling away from the East Coast, they drifted through the rolling
lands of Ohio and onto the vastness of the Midwestern Plains. To do
so, they first had to cut their way through the trees of the Allegheny
Mountains. The timber they cut was not wasted; it was used for
bridges, split rail fences, cabins, and riverboats. The abundance of
easily available building materials did much to help develop this na-
tion. MIen with little in the way of finances, but long on muscle and
creative energy could go into the wilderness and make a new beginning.
They were no longer tied inexorably to the poverty of the past.
In 1803, when President Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark up thle Mis-
souri River into the newly acquired land of the Louisiana Purchase, he
nearly sent them to their deaths in the distant mountains of the Pa-
cific Northwest. The explorers stumbled through snow-covered stands
of pine trees for days before finally winding down the western slope
of the new nation and into the safety of a milder climate. They were
awed by the breadth of the timberlands of the west and the potential
they saw.
Today, those same mountain ranges carry the nation's largest stands
of the Western White Pine and Douglas Fir. Much of it is being re-
forested and well managed on a continuing basis. What was once an
almost insurmountable wilderness has become a valuable, renewable
resource-with little of the esthetic value damaged.
The forests of the Northwest are now used by loggers, hikers, cat-
tlemen, picnickers, miners, fishermen, and nature lovers. Some of

the land is privately owned, but most of it is federally owned and ad-
ministered by USDA's Forest Service. The multiple use of the area
is a tribute to the fact that such programs can and do work.
The same sort of progress in sensible, multiple use of forests can be
seen in many parts of the country. One of the guiding factors in de-
veloping these programs has been the American Forestry Association.
Your association has long been a leader in recognizing that forests can,
and should, provide a variety of goods and services-wood products,
outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, quality water, and just plain wil-
derness. You deserve high praise for the assistance given to USDA,
the Forest Service, and the nation, in assuring the best possible kind of
forest management. Your support of adequate research for future
forest improvements is also vital.
Public involvement and participation from groups outside govern-
ment is vital in good administration of National Forests and public
lands. Sometimes I wonder if the general public realizes what a tre-
mendous stake it has in public lands. National Forest lands contain
about 18 percent of this nation's commercial timberland, and also pro-
vide about 20 percent of the entire water supply.
Fully one-third of this Nation's lands are publicly held. That figure
usually shocks the easterner or the midwesterner, but comes as no
surprise to the residents of America's West where the vast National
Forests and grasslands stretch for seemingly endless miles.
Another not widely known fact about public land is just how much
of it falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture.
Many people think of USDA only as an agency dedicated to improving
the farmer's lot, and assuring high levels of nutrition in the nation at
reasonable prices. But we're also one of the nation's major land man-
agers. Through the Forest Service, we directly manage more than 8
percent of the surface area of the United States, about 187 million
acres. This is an area equivalent to the combined area of West Virginia,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Kentucky and North
Also, because the Forest Service directs programs in State and
private forestry, and carries out technical assistance and research ac-
tivities available to all forestland owners, its influence is extended to
about a third of the nation's land.
That's a pretty big responsibility. No organization in or out of
government has a more extensive research program covering plant
growth, soils, water, air management, and plant pathology than the
Forest Service. It is also backed up by its own, and the rest of USDA's
specialists: mineral specialists, landscape architect, archeologists, ge-
ographers, hydrologists, range specialists, wildlife experts, and land
use planners. That's about as broad a group of specialists as you are
going to find anywhere.
I would add, without equivocation, that every one of them is dedi-
cated to the job of determining how to best utilize and preserve this
nation's land resources. These men and women have grown up working
with the soil and studying the complexities of environmental relation-
ships. They are not fly-by-nighters or quick-buck artists out to make
a name for themselves or sell a new book or start a new organization.
They represent the finest technicians of scientific inquiry.


I think that with this kind of expertise, tied with the involvement
of a responsible public, we can best plan for the future use of our Na-
tional Forests. The Department is now in the process of drafting a
Consumer Representation Plan by which consumers can better par-
ticipate in such decision and policy-making processes.
Also, there is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plan-
ning Act of 1974. The purpose of it is to do exactly what we've been
talking about: to match the needs of the people with the present use
and potential future use of our natural resources. The Assessment
and Program developed for the Resources Planning Act is now in
draft form and is in the process of public review. Forest Service Chief
John McGuire will be telling you more about it.
A long-range look at the nation's renewable nature resources is es-
sential. It will allow us to look ahead and act on the basis of solid
information, rather than following the current, public tendency of
jumping from crisis to crisis-some real and some imagined.
Whatever we do, we must work to make common sense prevail, in
place of emotions. Right now USDA and the Forest Service is in the
process of determining the course to take in regard to the Monogahela
National Forest. As you know, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
recently handed down a ruling which said no trees can be harvested
for sale in the MNonogahela decision unless they are dead, mature, or of
large growth. This case has grave implications as far as the future of
flexible forest management is concerned.
However the problem is resolved, we must make certain that one
isolated case does not become the basis for dictating national policy.
Rigid, national prescriptions based on the problems of one area
seldom work well in other areas. Such rulings result only in barriers
to localized, professional judgments-which in the end would degrade
our national forest resources and threaten their future.
America's needs are changing. The day of the log cabin, orthe home-
stead for every family is gone. but the day of needing timberand
National Forests will always be with us. Our forests are a vital,
national trust and we must work to perpetuate them, assuring both
preservation and balanced utilization.

[By John R. MIeGuire, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture]

Discussing the resource situation on all Federal lands seems as formi-
dable as David tackling Goliath. And Federal land administrators
are not allowed to carry sling-shots. However, I'll do what I can under
the circumstances.
The Forest Service recently released an assessment of all the
Nation's renewable resources-and this ran almost 400 pages, with a
sizeable portion of that bulk devoted to Federal lands. In fact, some
critics even suggested that the report itself caused a national paper
shortage. So, in order to avoid the risk of using up a considerable por-
tion of the national oxygen supply, I'll hit what I consider the high-
lights of the resource situation on Federal lands.
I could tell you that the Bureau of Land Management has the most
Federal rangeland, or that National Forests contain 94 percent of
the Nation's Wilderness, or that National Parks serve as the treasure
house of the Nation's unique and spectacular natural wonders. But
these statistics tell only a small portion of the story. The true resource
situation can be determined by answering one fundamental question.
Are the Federal lands doing their share to meet the resource needs of
the American people, and if not, why not?
This question has concerned Federal land agencies more and more in
recent years. Yet no public administrator can answer it. Only the
owners of these lands-the American people-can give us an answer.
And many Americans, as individuals or in small groups, have given us
their answers. Those answers vary. Often they conflict. They range
from an outraged "hell no" to a resounding "yes." How, then, can a
Federal land manager hope to find a consensus among the Nation's
213 million people? Who will guide us in the wise use-or even sug-
gest the extravagant waste, if that's what the American people want-
of one-third of our Nation's land ? Incredible as it may seem, especially
to tlose. who live in the East, Federal lands do account for one-third of
the U.S. land base. These figures are even more astounding when only
forest and rangeland are considered. Here the Federal portion jumps
to about 46 percent, if you include the vast acreages of forestland in
SAt first glance it would seem that two agencies administer the lion's
share of this Federal land-the Bureau of Land Management with 62
percent, and the Forest Service with 25 percent. But size is not the
only indicator of importance or influence. The Park Service has
jurisdiction over only about three percent of the Federal lands-but
this is a vital three percent in terms of recreation and protection of
unique natural splendor. Likewise, the four percent administered by


the Fish and Wildlife Service is vitally important to the Nation's
wildlife resources. That agency's lead responsibility for designating
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, not to mention
its other responsibilities, marks it as a leader in wildlife resources.
I should mention that Federal influence-and Federal funds-
extend far beyond the Federal land boundaries. For instance, the
Forest Service cooperative programs for State and Private Forestry
extend to 630 million acres of land. Its research programs reach out to
influence perhaps as much as two-thirds of the United States.
The makeup of the Federal lands varies so greatly that it's difficult
to generalize on them. It's almost impossible, for instance, to compare
the National Parks to BLM grazing lands or to the multiple-use
National Forests. Federal agencies have different mandates and dif-
ferent responsibilities. But they do have one thing in common. Dur-
ing the last decade or two, all Federal land agencies have had to
initiate and respond to tremendous changes. Even the definition of
"resource" has changed in the public's mind. Traditionally, recreation
was not really considered a "resource." Today, it is. So is esthetic
beauty. Yet who can really quantify esthetic beauty, let alone tell us
how much we have, or how much we need?
All this has led to a new public awareness of all natural resources.
It has also led to a great deal of controversy. This controversy can
enhance the Federal lands, but at times it also threatens to destroy
them. An honest exchange of viewpoints is good. It initiates change
where change is needed. And Americans do care about what happens
to their lands. More and more, citizens are becoming very knowledge-
able about concepts, such as land use planning, silvjcultural methods,
and the complex interrelationships among various resources. The
public can guide Federal land managers in the direction that will best
meet changing needs and desires.
But I believe there are times when emotionalism seems stronger than
reasonableness. We are fortunate enough to have a wealth of scientific
knowledge relating to our renewable resources. Many times, the
answers to our land management questions are embodied in that
scientific knowledge which man has worked centuries to accumulate.
Yet, in the heat of emotionalism, groups intent on only one narrow
purpose may suggest solutions which are not really solutions at all,
but which contradict what we know about the land and its resources.
In some instances, I fear that we are listening to a very vocal minority
which professes to speak for the non-vocal majority.
At the opposite extreme, there are those who refer to the present
resource situation as though it were unalterable, inflexible-in short,
prescribed by the fates or by Mother Nature. This is not the case at
all. With our renewable resources, the present situation only reflects
what we have made of those resources. The present situation certainly
influences the future of those resources, but it does not mean that we
have to follow our old patterns of land management. Renewable re-
sources are not static. With planning, perception and research devel-
opment, they can be managed to meet changing needs.
We can assume that the base of Federal forestland, except Alaska,
will remain about the same as it is now. Counting all ownerships, the
amount of forestland in the U.S. may actually shrink, as more land is


needed for cities, highways, and the like. But demands on forestland
are not shrinking-they are escalating rapidly.
Congress has already recognized the importance of long-range
planning for our renewable resources. In 1974, Congress enacted the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. This re-
quires the Forest Service to make periodic assessments of all the
Nation's renewable resources, on all lands, and prepare long-ran'e
plans for Forest Service programs. Both an assessment and a program
are due by the end of this year. These documents should provide a
firm foundation on which Congress can base its budgetary decisions.
Resource programs are intrinsically long-range. Often, in the past, a
program has been started with a financial flourish, only to die the next.
year or so because its economic lifeline was cut. I am hopeful that the
Resources Planning Act will enable the Forest Service to better meet
public needs for .forests resources and that it will serve as a model
useful for other natui ral resource agencies.
In fact, the Assessment, which is still in draft form, is perhaps the
closest thing we have to a comprehensive s*iurtion statement. It deals
with all renewable resources in this country, under all ownerships. It
predicts that by the year 2020, resource demands on all U.S. lands will
increase dramatically. For instance:
-Demand for all major outdoor recreation activities will increase,
from as little as 50 percent for motorcycling to over 400 percent
for sailing.
-Timber consumption could more than double, at today's prices.
-Range forage demand will increase more than 60 percent.
-Consumptive use of water will incr.iase by more than 40 percent.
-And, pressure on wildlife and fish resources will also increase
More than ever, Congress is taking an interest in natural resources.
It has introduced numerous bills pertaining to the Forest Service and
other Federal land agencies. For instance, tlwhre are proposals for an
Organic Act for BLMI. There have also been numerous proposals for
land use planning legislation. The last Congress held 10 oversight
hearings on specific Forest Service programs and activities, as well as
requesting. two oversight briefings from the agency.
Perhaps no resource is more controlled by than wilderness.
which has to be designated by Congrtss. Nor is there any r, source
which is more surrounded by controversy. It is one of the easiest re-
source situations to quantify-we know to the acre how much desig-
nated wilderness we have. But, irc'u'ially, it is also one of the most
difficult areas in which to assess need. Today, there are a little over 12
million acres of wilderness. Ninety-four percent of this is on the
National Forests. But, there is potentially rmich more wildern,-s-. Pro-
posals are now before Congress for an additional 26 million acres,
which, if desiganted as wilderness, would more than triple the desig-
nated wilderness in this country.
Today, the courts are also taking a much more active role in resource
management decisions. For instance, earlier this year, there were 28
lawsuits pending against the Forest Service. Seventeen of these in-
volved environmental issues.
Perhaps one of the most controversial issues to reach the courts has
resulted in the Monongahela decision, which holds that the Forest


:Service was in violation of the Organic Act of 1897 in its timber har-
vesting practices on the Monongahela National Forest in West Vir-
ginia. Specifically, the Court ruled that trees in the Monongahela can-
not be harvested unless they are "dead, mature, or of large growth"
and have been individually marked for cutting. Although the Court's
decision applies only to that particular case, some groups and indi-
viduals feel that it could be extended to all the National Forests,
through a series of additional lawsuits. Since the decision involved a
strict interpretation of the Organic Act of 1897, it will probably be
up to Congress to determine whether the law, in its strictest interpreta-
tion, is adequate for today's timber resource situation.
This is part of a controversy that has been raging for many years,
over the role of Federal lands in helping meet the Nation's timber
needs. And the National Forests seem to be at the center of the storm.
National Forests contain about 18 percent of the Nation's commercial
timber lands. Other agencies, such as BLM and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, have another three percent. This does put the Forest Service in
the best Federal position to help meet the Nation's timber needs. And
the Nation's needs are growing-for timber, and for every other
natural resource. At times, however, the Forest Service has been ac-
cused of being only a timber agency, and I'd like to counter that claim.
Less than half of the 187 million acres of National Forests are classi-
fied as commercial timberland. Admittedly, timber is one of the major
outputs of the Forest Service. But so are recreation, wilderness, water,
wildlife, and rangeland. As I mentioned, National Forests contain
about 18 percent of the Nation's commercial timberland. But they also
contain over 94 percent of the Nation's Wilderness. And they provide
20 percent of the water supply for the entire Nation.
Another issue, which may become a controversy in the next several
years, involves a vast amount of land in Alaska. The Federal Govern-
ment administers 712 million acres of forest and rangeland. Of this,
48 percent is in Alaska, a State often forgotten by residents of the other
49. Most of this land is being held by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, in what might be called a "bank account." The land is not being
intensively managed now, but is waiting to be divided under the
Alaska Statehood Act. Some of the land will go to other Federal
agencies, some to the State, and some to the Alaskan natives. Congress
has until December 18, 1978, to determine the specific allocation of the
Alaska lands.
As you can well imagine, the Alaska lands represent one of the great-
est challenges in the entire resource arena. The resolution of this issue
will affect each and every American.
Right now there are nine bills before Congress proposing a wide
variety of land ownership patterns for Alaska. For instance, they pro-
pose anywhere from zero to 28 million acres of new National Forests.
The Administration's proposal embraces recommendations made by
the Secretary of Interior to create 18.8 million acres of new National
Forests. Another 64 million acres are recommended for National
Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
The Alaska issue is not a question of which agencies will get the
largest share of the Federal pie. Alaska has a great deal of land-and
that land has a tremendous diversity. Flying over the State, one sees
the Alaska Range, the Brooks Range, and other spectacular country.

Parts of these scenic mountain ranges are worthy of National Park
designation, and it would be inappropriate not to preserve their beauty.
But there are many other areas in Alaska which are ideal for multiple
use. The diversity of Alaska's land is so great that it can easily acconm-
modate several Federal land systems.
This is an issue of national magnitude, since all Americans are own-
ers of the Federal lands, wherever they may be. Yet few people in the
other 49 States recognize Alaska as a national issue in land use plan-
ning. This recognition must come quickly if Americans really waint to
voice their opinions on this issue. The outcome of the Alaska lands
issue could radically change the resource situation on Federal lands.
I've mentioned some of the major issues concerning the resource situ-
ation on Federal lands. I don't expect you to remember the statistics
I've quoted. But, do remember one thing. The resource situation on
Federal lands is not static, not inflexible. It can be changed and molded
to fit future needs through sound principles of land management. But
only the American people, through direct involvement and through
their elected representatives, can point the direction for change.
Those of us who manage Federal lands are here to serve you, as mem-
bers of the American public. Do not forget to remind us of this from
time to time.
But, likewise, try to remember that there are 213 million Americans
to serve. And many of those 213 million are demanding drastically
different options on the same, relatively limited land base.
Earlier I said that the .fundamental question is, "Are the Federal
lands doing their share to meet the resource needs of the American
people, and if not, why not?" Only you, as American citizens, can
anwer that question


[By Hon. Russell E. Train, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency]

Not long after I received Bill Towell's invitation to speak at this
luncheon, I was sitting at home reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's
fine new book on Benjamin Franklin (written just before her death)
when I happened across this passage describing what Franklin saw
as he journeyed up the Hudson in 1754:
Westward stretched the forest, endless, primeval, reaching on and on. No one
in the sloop would have ventured to call the forest beautiful. Rather, it was
"solemn, interminable, barbaric, harsh"; none meets the adjectives often. Trees
were man's enemy and must be felled. Until they were gone there could be
neither crops nor fruit; no safety, no ease, no civilization.
And for well over a century in the new land, the air, I suspect, of-
fered to the human ear few sweeter sounds than the chop of an ax
and the crash of a falling tree. For as the trees fell, man flourished;
as the forest receded, civilization advanced.
So, at least, it seemed until, in 1875, a few farsighted citizens de-
cided that, by the time it's a hundred years old, even a country as rich
as we are ought to know better than to assume it could go on forever
burning the resource candle at both ends. They saw that our vast
forests had already been dangerously decimated and that, if we con-
tinued simply to "cut and run," we would sooner or later run out of
room to run and forests to cut. They understood that, if we were to
achieve enduring growth in this country, we must learn to conserve as
we create-we must, indeed, learn that what we conserve is no small
part of the life and world we create for ourselves and for those who
will follow us. As we celebrate our Bicentennial, mindful both of our
magnificent heritage from the past and the challenges of the future,
we might well take as our theme--"To Conserve and to Create."
We celebrate Earth Day in April, and say that it all started five
years ago. But I think that, in a very real sense, it is Earth Day that
we celebrate here today, and that-if we must put an exact date on
it-it began one hundred years ago, on the day when a small group
of concerned citizens founded the American Forestry Association. If
it took a hundred years for that first formal conservation effort to
take firm root throughout the length and breadth of our society-as
it now has in the form of the environmental effort-that should come
as no surprise to you, who are accustomed to such long waits between
planting and harvesting. You can take great pride in all you have
done to make possible the strong environmental progress we have made
over the past several years.
It seems a lot longer than ten years ago when I first addressed an
annual meeting of this Association in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It


was your 90th Annual Meeting held jointly with the National Council
of State Garden Clubs. I had just become president of The Conserva-
tion Foundation, and Bill Touell had only recently joined the For-
estry Association. We met to consider ways of taking advantage of
what I called the "truly extraordinary opportunity for constructive
conservation accomplishment" that had been created by such events
as President Johnson's Message on Natural Beauty, the White House
Conference on Natural Beauty chaired by Laurance Rockefeller and,
particularly the inspired effort that Lady Bird Johnson had set in
motion to encourage citizens themselves to play an active and effective
role in building a healthy environment.
We have, as you well know, taken good advantage of that oppor-
tunity in the decade since. At all levels of government, and through-
out our society, we have made excellent progress toward developing
a strong institutional base for effective environmental management.
I cannot think of another instance in which this or any other society
has moved more rapidly or comprehensively to come to grips with
such a complex set of problems.
Although our major environmental laws have been on the books
for only a relatively short period of time, we are already seeing very
real improvements in the quality of our air and waters. Since 1970,
for example, we have cut sulphur dioxide levels by some 25%, and
fine particulate levels by about 15%. Many of our rivers and lakes,
especially the Great Lakes, are perceptibly cleaner. We still have a
long way to go, but we have made genuine progress that will help
make our lives healthier and more enjoyable.
I have repeatedly stressed my, view that EPA's success in carrying
out the Clean Air and Water and other laws will be determined, not
so much by our zest in issuing regulations or by our zeal in enforcing
them-though these are important, particularly the latter-but by
our willingness to work together with (and I stress those words) the
citizens of this country, not simply after the fact, but in the very for-
mulation of our regulations, guidelines and plans-by our willingness
to make the people affected by our decisions and regulations a full
partner in the process by which we arrive at those decisions and reg-
ulations. In no respect is this need to get the people affected by what
we do involved in what we do more urgent or important than in our
effort to reduce water pollution from nonpoint sources. By its very
nature, this effort will require active and effective cooperation between
everybody concerned-between the newer environmental interests and
the century-old natural resource conservation movement, between
EPA and the State regulatory agencies and the forest and agricultural
land management agencies and private industry.
It is to assure precisely that kind of cooperation between the forest
management, conservation, and environmental communities that EPA
has joined with the Forest Service and your Association in holding
seven forest practices and water quality workshops throughout the
country. As I have suggested, we share common concerns and we stand
on common ground. Good water pollution prevention practices are
also good soil and water conservation practices. And I am determined
that we take full advantage of your expertise and experience in devel-
oping approaches to nonpoint source control in'the Nation's forests
that enable us to achieve our objectives under the law at least cost and


greatest benefit. I want to pay special tribute to your president, Voit
Gilmore, for the job he did as Chairman of the first workshop in
Atlanta, and to the Association for putting the workshop together.
I think we all learned a good deal from that workshop, and I look
forward to the results of the rest of the workshops over the coming
I know of your concern over the court order earlier this year re-
quiring us to apply the permit approach to water pollution sources
that we had exempted from the permit requirements of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System. By February 10, 1976, we
are required by that court order to propose regulations to cover point
sources in silviculture. Before the court decision, as you know, we had
regarded all silviculture sources of water pollution as nonpoint. Let
me say, to begin with, that we have asked the Department of Justice
to appeal the decision. In the meantime, we are holding a series of
"town hall" meetings across the country to seek the advice of the
citizens and groups most affected and informed on the questions
We seek to learn, not only how we might best carry out the court
order if, as it turns out, we must do so, but whether there are specific
changes we might want to recommend in the Water Act that would
help us in dealing with this issue. My view is that it simply makes.
no sense to take the federal regulatory permit approach to many of the
sources of water pollution-especially those in agriculture and silvi-
culture-that the court order would require us to take. By their very
nature, they are best dealt with primarily at the State and local level
as part of an overall, integrated approach to such sources based upon
best management practices. Later this month we will be holding "town
hall" meetings in Denver and Portland that concern themselves with
the implications of the court decision for silviculture. I hope you will'
take advantage of them to give us your best help and advice.
When I addressed your Association ten years ago, I stressed the fact
that, in asserting the need to make "conservation values" and "ecolog-
ical principles" an integral and ordinary part of the way we make
decisions and do our business, that did not mean that they "should
become the overriding determinants of policy." "What we should aim
for," I suggested, "is to make such values a respected part of the
decision-making process, to have them weighed in the balance along-
with economic and other criteria. At the present time," I went on to
say, "they are largely overlooked so that alternatives supported by
ecological standards are simply not made available to decision-
makers." I also stated my view that: "When conservation values mean
added costs, we should acknowledge this frankly, estimate the costs
as accurately as possible, and provide the public and decision-makers
with the facts necessary to making intelligent choices among the avail-
able alternatives."
We have, in the years since, accomplished much on both fronts.
Environmental concerns are being taken into account, with increasing
frequency and effectiveness, throughout our society. And EPA has
consistently demonstrated its determination to do whatever it reason-
ably and responsibly can to minimize the adverse impacts of its regu-
lations-on particular industries as on particular cities, on the nation's
economy as on the nation's energy or food supply.


Late this summer, one of the most respected of the national survey
organizations, Opinion Research Corporation, sent to its management
clients an in-depth survey and analysis of "public attitudes toward
environmental tradeoffs." Its results represent, I think, an accurate
and instructive reflection of the public's commitment to environmental
protection and progress and its feelings on some of the tradeoffs in-
volved in achieving it. Let me cite just some of its results and
-Given a choice, six people in ten say that they believe it is more
important to pay the costs involved in protecting the environ-
ment than to keep prices and taxes down and run the risk of more
-Nearly nine out of ten say that we are paying now for the pollu-
tion that we have caused for many years.
-Nine out of ten say they believe that, if we don't start cleaning up
the environment now, it will cost us more money in the long run.
-During the past year, a majority of the public have said that they
believe it is likely the U.S. will run out of its supply of clean air
(64r) and pure water (54%) within the next 50 years.
-Clean air and pure water topped a list of 11 resources the public
was asked to rate in terms of those the U.S. is most likely to run
out of in that period-including oil, natural gas, coal. fish, copper,
aluminum, meat, wheat, and iron. This ranking, moreover, was
made almost a year after the Arab oil embargo and subsequent
energy shortage.
One last item: in the detailed results of the survey, public responses
to specific propositions are broken down by various categories such as
sex, age. education, family income. There is one category called "Envi-
ronmental Activists," which is broken down by regions of the country.
In response to the statement-"Cleaning up the environment is im-
portant, but it should be balanced with the need to keep people work-
ing"-95 percent of the "Environmental Activists" in every region
agreed, almost precisely the same percentage that agreed in every
other category and in the public as a whole. Most environmentalists,
in other words, are willing to seek a reasonable balance between envi-
ronmental protection and other vital human needs.
What all of this adds up to is, I think, two things: First, that the
environmental movement and the pollution control effort is going
strong and here to stay. And second, important and vital as that effort
is. it's not all there is. We need clean air and water. But we also need
jobs and profits, we need industry and houses, we need food and
factories, we need energy and minerals, we need products and ma-
chines. And I am determined that we at EPA do everything we can
to meet our responsibilities in ways that won't put people out of busi-
ness or out of work and that won't impose excessive and unreasonable
I regard the need to minimize the social and economic impacts of
EPA's efforts as one of the Agency's most important responsibilities.
EPA has. in fact. been preparing economic analyses on its standards
and regulations years before the President's requirements for inflation-
ary impact statements. By the time our standards and regulations
reach final form, they have received-and they reflect-the scrutiny of
other Federal agencies, industry, environmental groups, and the gen-



eral public. While I caimot claim the process is perfect-as no process
is perfect-it is the most open and rigorous process of economic impact
analysis performed by any agency of the Federal government. And we
will do all we can to continue to improve that process.
I must, at the same time, make it clear that when I talk of "balanc-
ing" environmental and other concerns I do not mean-as some others
do-that we should permit the sacrifice of essential environmental
values and public health needs for short-term energy and economic
gains. We cannot forget when we talk about "balance" and "tradeoffs"
that environmental concerns are nowhere near taken into account as
amply and effectively as they should be. The "environment" is a rela-
tively new concern, and we have barely begun to achieve the full
inclusion of environmental costs and benefits in the Nation's balance
sheets. Because environment is a new concern and-at least in the ex-
plicit sense-a new cost, it runs the risk, everytime a new crisis comes
along, of falling prey to the "last hired, first fired" principle.
Now, having said that, let us be perfectly clear that the costs of
meeting environmental regulations are not new costs at all. They have
been there all the time. When a power plant spews out uncontrolled
sulfur oxides, the costs are real in terms of increased respiratory dis-
ease, medical bills, even increased mortality. It is society as a whole
that is bearing those costs. When we require the power plant to clean
up its pollution, to install and operate flue gas desulfurization tech-
nology, we are simply shifting the cost from society as a whole to the
plant and its customers. Thus, the question is not "should we pay
these costs?" because we are already paying them. The only real ques-
tion is who should be paying them. Moreover, it usually turns out that
the cost of cleaning up pollution at the source is a good deal cheaper
than the costs of adverse health effects and other damage otherwise
borne by society as a whole.
There are still some who refuse to believe that the American people
are deadly serious in their demand for environmental progress and
protection and cling to the hope that somehow there will come along a
crisis so compelling that they can employ it to deceive the American
people into believing that environmentalists are to blame and that the
answer is an environmental retreat of one sort or another. There are
still some who seek to hold environmentalists responsible for every
ill wind that blows.
For example, I have recently read several newspaper editorials
which directly suggest that EPA and its 1972 ban on DDT bear major
responsibility for the current outbreak of encephalitis-that we en-
vironmentalists are somehow to blame for the tragic deaths from this
disease. One of these papers, the Dallas Time Herald is due credit for
its honesty in subsequently stating: "The editorial condemning the
EPA for banning DDT was based on information which later proved
incorrect. We regret the error." The facts have not, however, deterred
som6 members of Congress from making the same baseless charge on
the floor of the House of Representatives or, indeed, the Secretary of
Agriculture himself from spreading the same story on repeated occa-
sions. What are the facts of the matter? First, DDT had largely been
abandoned for mosquito control in the U.S. before 1972 ban on DDT
because mosquitos had become DDT-resistant. Second, EPA's 1972
DDT ban specifically excluded public health uses from the ban. Indeed,

EPA has in recent months given permission for such use on several
occasions (for example, on rabid bats) where requested by responsible
health officials. We can act rapidly in such cases. Third, at least ten
products are registered and available for use against adult mosquitos,
particularly malathion, and a good many more are registered for use
against mosquito larvae. Against adult mosquitos, malathion is the
product preferred by health agencies because of its superior knock-
down power. Fourth, not a single health agency in the nation has
requested the use of DDT in combatting encephalitis. Those are the
It strikes me that there is far too much paranoia and suspicion, far
too much of a "we're the good guys and you're the bad guys" attitude,
far too much defending of turf and displaying of muscle, far too much
of a tendency to see every difference in perspective e and point of view as
a "do-or-die" issue-far too much of this sort of high-decibel, surface
noise surrounding the effort to carry on a constructive conversation
about how best to get on with the job of incorporating environmental
concerns into the day-to-day business of this country. There is, I
think, far too much of an inclination, in dealing with the very difficult
judgments involved in so many environmental decisions, for too many
people to behave as if everything were being acted out against some
absolute and immutable sky, as if the issues and the outcomes were
always "either-or" and "all-or-nothing," forever and for keeps. I must
say that environmentalists themselves can be just as susceptible to
this kind of thing as anybody else.
Let me say here that most of the easy problems have long since been
dealt with. What we have before us now and for the long term are
highly complex issues whose resolution will seldom please everyone
and all too often will probably please no one. But I must admit to some
weariness with the constant flow of inflated charge and countercharge.
If a decision does not go as far as our environmental friends would
like, it is immediately characterized as a "sellout," patently made under
political pressure. If the decision goes against industry, it can only
because EPA gave in to environmental bias and emotionalism-or so
I read. If we develop preliminary data on a new problem, such as a
suspect chemical in drinking water, and postpone calling an instant
press conference on the subject until at least the scientific data has
been reviewed, we are obviously conducting a "coverup," hiding the
facts from the public. If, on the other hand, we do try to provide such
informiat ion, we are, of course, being unscientific and indulging in scare
Now, I am not so naive as to believe that somehow the competition
for media attention will go away or that we will all become immune to
the lure of a headline or of a 30-second spot on the evening news. And
I know that EPA itself is not entirely innocent in these matters. But
let us at least try to deal with the issues on their merits (of course,
running the risk in so doing that the media may ignore us) and let us
try to accept as a working hypothesis until the evidence builds up, to
the contrary that the other fellow, whoever he may be-industrialist,
farmer, forester, worker, environmentalists, or even bureaucrat-
while perh aps wrong in any given case is operating in good faith, try-
ing to deal with complex issues objectively, calling the facts as he sees
them as best he can, and not engaging in a conspiracy against the


public interest. A conspiratorial view of the world is romantic and
often attention-getting but it is often destructive, particularly of the
very institutions we really need to promote the public interest.
I hope that we environmentalists can rally together to fight for the
real essentials because 'these are under serious attack from many
quarters today. Just last Friday, the House of Representatives nar-
rowly defeated by just 8 votes (175 to 167) an effort to give the Secre-
tary of Agriculture veto authority over EPA's pesticide regulatory
authority, an authority given EPA in 1970 to protect public health
and the environment. The ostensible purpose of the amendment is to,
insure balance to our regulatory program. In my mind that would give
us about as much balance as you would get by putting the coyote in
charge of the sheep pen. This issue may well come up again in the
House later this week, and we need your help now!
Recently, the New York Times, which has over the years been a
major and an effective force for environmental progress, carried on its
Sunday front page a story whose two-column headline screamed:
"Conservationists Assail EPA Rules Cutback." From the virulence
of the headline, you might have assumed that EPA had just granted
a ten-year delay in meeting clean air standards to the steel industry or
to power plants. Actually, if we went on to read the story, you would
have discovered that I had put in motion within EPA an effort to
reduce unnecessary regulations and to make more understandable those
regulations we do publish. The story then went on to say that some
environmentalists (who turned out to be two) regarded the EPA effort
to try to simplify and streamline its regulations as a signal that-and
I quote-"-the Ford Administration has abandoned the national com-
mitment for clean air and water." Well, let me say this: There may be
efforts in some parts of the Administration, in the Congress, in in-
dustry, and in the public to pull back on environmental programs but
my effort to reduce and simplify our regulations and our paperwork
has absolutely nothing to do with those efforts. The truth is that, far
from abandoning our effort to clean up air and water pollution, we
are simply doing what any good bureaucracy should be doing-espe-
cially one in the pollution control business-and tha,.t is to try, as best
we can, to clear up some of the paper pollution that we have generated
a great, deal of over the past few years. I realize that we cannot make
everybody happy. The paper industry, for one, will be upset. But I
suspect that, all the citizens and groups- environmentalists included-
all the industries, all the local and state governments-everybody, in
fact, with the possible exception of the legal community-will be
delighted to discover that we -are making a very serious effort to put
some order and economy and efficiency into the vast volume of regula-
tions that we issue. In all of this effort, there is not the slightest sug-
gestion that we fail to carry out our statutory responsibilities or relax
our environmental efforts.
The latest figures I was able to obtain show that as of July 1, 1974-
well over a year ago--2EPA's share of the Code of Federal Requlations
added up to some 2000 pages, was almost 31,. inches thick and weighed
more than 5 pounds. I am sure it has grown considerably since then. I
think it is high time we went on a diet--not. by cutting down on essen-
tials, or in any sense abandoning or impairing our effort to carry out
our environmental laws-buc by trying to write our regulations in

*clear and concise English, by trying to cut down unnecessary over-
lapping and duplication and, in general, by doing all we could to
reduce red tape and get rid of gobbledygook. If we can succeed in do-
ing that, then I think we will be performing no small service to any
and all who are required to read or comply with our regulations. I do
.not believe our success will be measured by the quantity and com-
plexity of the regulations we issue; it will be measured by how clean
'the air and water become. And I want to be absolutely sure that our
regulations help speed and smooth the way to making them clean.
"Best Management Practices," like some other things, must begin at
I am not in the slightest bit apologetic about this effort. EPA has
'been slow in some areas in getting out needed regulations and by reduc-
ing the nonessentials we should be able to put more resources to work
on real priority needs. By and large, given the fantastic demands put
upon the agency by Congress and given our limited resources, I believe
EPA has done an extraordinary job in the regulatory field, and I am
proud of the dedicated men and women who have made this possible.
I have travelled all over the country in the past weeks, and I have
talked with individuals and groups of all kinds. Everywhere I find
strong support for environmental programs but everywhere I find also
a growing impatience and resentment at interference by the Federal
government. Only last week, I visited a state environmental protection
agency official who told me that he had had to pull a number of his
limited staff out of field enforcement and monitoring to put them to
work dealing with EPA reports and forms. If that is true, you can be
sure there are going to be some changes made. I am setting up a task
force, with state agency representation, to see where we can reduce
and simplify EPA forms and reports.
At the same time, while I am committed to a continued strong
leadership role for the Federal government in environmental matters
as contemplated by our statutes, I am also firmly committed to delega-
tion of authority to State and local governments wherever this can be
done. It is essential that they have the resources that will enable them
to exercise these responsibilities effectively. To summarize, therefore,
you can say I am committed in principle to giving as much responsi-
bility as possible to those levels of government which are closest to the
people and to streamlining and making more fully responsive those
responsibilities which must continue to be exercised at the Federal
I have sii rested that we stand on common ground and share a
common goal: the efficient use and protection of our land, water and all
of our natural resources. Indeed, the wise use and protection of these
resources during the rest of this century is the underlying and over-
riding concern of this meeting and this Congress. It is, in my judg-
ment, the needless and heedless waste of our natural resources that
lies at the root of our energy, our economic and our environmental
problems. These are simply symptoms of the fact that, in one way or
another, we are living beyond our means.
The energy crisis, material shortages, and world agricultural short-
aes all demonstrate that we as a society have not been aware of the
factors and forces that affect the availability of resources until we
are facing imminent crises. Thus, we have begun a "crash" research


and development program on energy sources and are just coming to
grips with the inflationary impacts of material shortages. The next
decade will be crucial in determining our ability to feed the world's
population. We desperately need an institution to analyze the factors
and forces that affect the availability of resources and to set forth
strategic alternatives that will be necessary to avert problems of this
magnitude in the future. That institution should be able, as well, to
assess not simply the availability of resources-not simply their sup-
ply-but the various uses of those resources as well as their environ-
mental and other impacts.
When I first spoke to this Association ten years ago, I proposed the
creation of a President's Council of Ecological Advisers. Five years
later, under a different name, such a Council was established. I would
today recommend the creation of a similar institution responsible for
evaluating long-term trends in resource use and availability both in the
United States and throughout the world, and for assessing alternatives
in the use of scarce materials and in the development of new techniques
or materials to extend their use. Indeed, perhaps the current Council
on Environmental Quality should be reconstructed into something like
a Council on Environment and Natural Resources, which would deal
with the whole broad spectrum of critical issues involving the avail-
ability and use of our natural resources.
As you have long understood, the really critical issues before this
country are not the immediate and isolated ones, but the interrelated
and long-range ones-indeed, the day-to-day "crises" that seem to
capture all our attention and consume all our energies are, for the'most
part, simply manifestations of far deeper problems that we never seem
to get around to ackliowledging, much less addressing. Our economic
health and growth, our patterns of settlement and physical develop-
ment, our social stability and strength-these both determine and de-
pend upon a vast and intricate system of material, energy and environ-
mental resources. Under these conditions, we cannot hope to come to
grips with the issues before us unless we strenZthen our ability to assess
problems and programs, not simply in isolation, but in relation to each
other; not simply over the short term, but over the longer span of 10,
20 or 30 years.
John Kennedy often told the story of a great French Marshall-I
always conveniently forget his name because I can never remember
how to pronounce it-who once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The
gardener objected that the tree was slow-growing and would not reach
maturity for a hundred years. The Marshall replied, "In that case,
there is no time to lose. Plant it this afternoon."
In terms of the critical issues before this country-the longer-range.
interrelated issues that I have described-the afternoon is already
upon us.
We need to start planting-now.


Way back in 450 B.C., Artaxerxes I, King of Persia, tried to restrict
cutting of the legendary cedars of Lebanon. My modest researchli does
not indicate whether Artaxerxes succeeded in this endeavor, but at
]east it proves that governmental regulation of the forest industry has
a long history.
It has also, I was surprised to learn, a somewhat violent one. In
1772, the residents of Weare, New Hampshire, rioted when an officer
of the King attempted to confiscate 270 pine logs reserved to provide
masts for His Majesty's ships; on that occasion, two armed regiments
had to be dispatched to enforce the law. By 1853, we had managed to
change our government-but not our intense feelings about forests.
In that year, an official from the Land Office in Washington barely
escaped lynching when he tried to repossess some timber that had
been cut from government-owned land around Manistee, Michigan.
The government's answer, again, was force: armed sailors from the
U.S.S. Miclzigan had to be landed to restore order. And earlier this
year, following a state court ruling that restricted the cutting of red-
wood trees, Governor Brown of California was decapitated in effigy.
Decapitation in effigy is, to be sure, a vast improvement over an
actual lynching. Nevertheless, as a government official preparing to
talk about a resource that has stimulated so much controversy in the
past, I must confess to a certain tingling sensation around my neck-
particularly when it is clear that we are building to more confronta-
tion about timber in the near future.
Between 1942 and 1972, the U.S. demand for wood and wood prod-
ucts increased by 65 percent. According to the U.S. Forest Service,
that demand will double again by the year 2000. At present, annual
growth of timber in the U.S. exceeds cutting-but that surplus con-
dition won't last long. Within two decades or so, projected demand
for forest products will outrun annual harvest, both on privately
owned timber land and on the publicly owned lands managed by the
Forest Service.
That day of reckoning is being hastened by the rapid cutting of
old-growth timber on privately owned lands in the West. This makes
short-term economic sense from a corporate standpoint, no doubt;
stockholders in a private lumber corporation might support this rapid
But as a stockholder in a public lumber trust-the 92 million acres
of our National Forests-the rapid harvest of old-growth trees on
private lands gives me considerable anxiety. Inevitably, industry will
reach the point when their old-growth stands have been completely
cut, and the new stands have yet to achieve maturity. Lumber pro-


ductivity will fall off sharply, there will be a mounting gap between
supply and demand, and industry will have to come after our lands-
the forests that you and I and 213 million other Americans own in
joint partnership. Heavy pressure will be placed on Congress and the
Administration to increase the allowable cut on Forest Service lands.
Indeed, there are already signs of this mounting pressure. As you
know, the Panel on Timber and the Environment recommended, in its
1973 report to the President, that average cutting on four western
forests be boosted 39 percent. Industry sources also urge-as reflected
in the "Green Paper" advertisements currently being sponsored by the
American Forest Institute-that productivity on Federal lands be
increased through intensive, high-yield forestry.
On their face, these proposals seem quite plausible. The Forest
Service admits that the land under its management produces 50 per-
cent less wood fiber per acre than industry-owned lands. Timber is a
commercially valuable natural resource, and in a time of economic
slump, it would seem desirable to boost productivity in every way we
can. It's relatively easy to place a monetary value on wood and wood
products, to total employment figures for the industry, and to point
out, in short, the enormous economic value that forestry contributes
to the nation. On the other hand, it's extremely difficult to place a
dollar-figure on such other forest values as recreation, protection of
wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
Thus, the private timber industry will have several powerful argl-
ments to present to Congress, the Administration, and the public
when it urges an increase in allowable cut. Those who support the
conservative harvest policies now followed by the Forest Service will
undoubtedly be criticized as Utopian visionaries; increasing produc-
tivity and harvest on the Forest lands, by contrast, will be seen as the
hbard-headed, no-nonsense, practical thing to do.
My remarks today will tend toward the Utopian, visionary point
of view. What I want to argue, however, is that a conservative attitude
toward our use of the public forests is the hard-headed, no-nonsense,
practical course to take.
Let me begin by pointing out that there are excellent reasons for
the comparatively low productivity of Forest Service lands. The in-
dustry owns more productive lands, their stands are younger and
more vigorous, and the intensive forestry practices used by industry
produce wood faster. These practices include growing stands of trees
all of the same age; artificial planting-generally of one species, thus
establishing a monoculture; control of competing vegetation by fire,
chemical, and other means; use of chemicals such as pesticides and
fertilizers; the breeding of new genetic strains of "super" trees; and
proper thinning as the stand matures.
The Forest Service also employs these practices, but generally to
a lesser extent. The principal reason is that timber production is only
one of the uses mandated for the public forests by law. In 1970, the
Public Land Law Review Commission tried to alter this concept of
"multiple-use" by recommending that some public lands should be
"classified for timber production as the dominant use." Environ-
mnientalists protested this recommendation, and the Forest Service has
never adopted it.
Yet the conservative, multiple-use policies of the Forest Service,
could be changed by law. It would be well, therefore, to consider the


possible impact that a switch to intensive, high-yield management
might have on our public forests.
You know what the common objections to high-yield forestry are.
First among them is its tendency to favor monoculture: to promote
extensive stands of single species of trees, of the same age. A basic
principle of ecology is that diverse ecosystems are much more resistant
to attack than ecosystems in which genetic variety has been cut to a
minimum. Sometimes, nature itself develops nearly pure stands of
single tree species without man's intervention-especially after fires;
no matter how the monoculture is created, however, its susceptibility
to disaster is heightened.
Modern agriculture depends on monoculture: our farmers grow
fields of wheat or of corn or of sugar-beets, rather than simply toler-
ating whatever smorgasbord of crops nature sees fit to provide. But
farmers learned that some hybrid strains, bred to provide man with
the greatest amount of food, have gained that productivity at the
expense of some self-protection. In 1970, 15 percent of the corn crop
was lost when a high-yielding variety widely adopted in the southern
states, proved unusually susceptible to leaf blight. The high-yielding
varieties of Green Revolution wheat, remarkable as they are, have a
high potential for widespread loss, owning to their genetic uniformity.
Silviculture, I realize, is not strictly analogous to the annual cul-
ture that characterizes most food-farming, and I do not mean to push
a false parallel. The point I wish to make, rather, is this: an agricul-
ture as varied and productive as that of the United States can weather
a single year's crop failure. Agronomists can diagnose the difficulty
fast, and-usually-supply a quick remedy. And consumers can eat
cheap potatoes for a season instead of high-priced bread. But if for-
esters make a mistake with their crop, even the swiftest diagnosis
may not repair the damage. If blight or a pest or a defect shows up
when a stand of trees is 20 years old, we will be paying for that error
for 20 years.
There are some suggestions that high-yield forestry is flirting with
that kind of long-term, hard-to-reverse, error. Maximizing growth
of the Douglas-fir in a single forest, for example, requires suppression
of the alder. Yet the alder fixes nitrogen, creating fertilizer with the
aid of the sun, and passes it through the soil to the Douglas-fir, which
cannot nourish itself in this fashion. In addition, the alder-it is
widely believed-suppresses root-rot, to which the Douglas-fir is par-
ticularly susceptible when it is 20 or 25 years old. Indications are, in
sum, that the alder and the Douglas-fir are not entirely competitors,.
but partners.
Intensive, high-yield forestry need not, I realize, eliminate all
other uses of forests. Progressive timber companies manage their
own lands for multiple use, proving that high timber productivity is
not necessarily incompatible with protection of watersheds and wild-
life habitat, grazing, and recreational use. Nevertheless, multiple-use
of any finite land system ultimately involves trade-offs: at some point,
an increase in timber harvest must be purchased at the expense of one
or more other values. And some practices necessary to accelerated
management will compel tradeoffs that we may not anticipate.
For example, mature or dead trees, and logs, are essential for some
forms of forest wildlife. Fully 40 percent of forest bird species nest


in cavities in dead trees and logs. Snags in national forests in Cali-
fornia are used by 30 species of birds, 20 species of mammals, and
thousands of other organisms, many of which are primary food for
higher forms of wildlife. If timber production were to dictate the re-
moval of dead trees and snags on a large scale, species of birds and
other forms of wildlife that require mature forests might be reduced
to relic populations.
In addition, accelerated management frequently calls for the exten-
sive use of herbicides, to control competing plants and thus stimulate
the growth of young trees. But the use of herbicides also short-cuts
the successional stages of a forest-the series of modifications that
occurs naturally after forest-land has been cleared. Each stage in
this natural succession is accompanied by changes in soil condition, by
a different set of plants, and by different species of wildlife that feed
on the plants. Probably 80 percent of wildlife in eastern and western
forests-including deer-are successional; they cannot exist in dense
forests whose floors have been swept clean of understory by chemicals.
These are some of the impacts that we can anticipate from intensive,
high-yield forestry. But if there is a single lesson from ecology that
every citizen of the modern world should learn, it is that not all im-
pacts can be anticipated. The earth has its own decision-making proc-
ess-its own stubborn, sometimes mysterious and often nasty way of
responding to man's hopeful interventions. History gives us a right to
take pride in the astounding ability of the human species to manipu-
late our environment for our own benefit. But ecology warns us to
maintain a certain caution about the limits of human expertise, and
the brevity of man's experience on this planet. When we talk about
intensive, high-yield forestry, we are talking about a quite novel, still
experimental intervention in an ecosystem that has been evolving for
millions of years. Despite the achievement that high-yield forestry
represents, it is well to exercise caution before extending it to the
public lands-for we have paid again and again a price for the mis-
placed certitude of experts.
Experts in civil engineering built the Aswan Dam; they lmknew about
concrete and irrigation and the number of kilowatts that could be
generated by a turbine-blade with a certain pressure from the Nile
River behind it. But they didn't know about the water hyacinth and
the aquatic snail and the blood-fluke, or what happens when an annual,
turbulent flood is suddenly tamed to a quiet, smooth-flowing river.
In consequence, millions of Egyptian farmers are infected with a de-
bilitating disease called schistosomiasis. Experts built the St. Law-
rence Seaway, which permitted ocean traffic to enter the Great Lakes
from Atlantic ports; they knew about the costs of transportation, the
expense of shifting a cargo from a ship to a train to a truck, the prob-
lems of designing canal locks that would permit an ocean-going vessel
to enter the Lakes.
But they didn't know about the sea lamprey, which can swim better
than any freighter, and which entered the Lakes along with the ships,
destroying a fishing industry. Experts in chemistry developed phos-
phate detergents that enabled American women to wash washes whiter
than white--but they didn't think about the capacity of municipal
sewage systems to break down these new bubbles, and so., for a while,
our waters were frothing at the mouth with an indigestible threat to
our health.


Each of these examples reminds humans that our earth has its own
response to our ingenuities, and that the best-laid plans of our experts
have oft gone astray. I think the work that has been done in the de-
velopment of high-yield forestry is admirable-but I also believe that
we have not yet had sufficiently extensive experience with it to ade-
quately appraise all the risks it entails. Prudent risk is the name of the
game in free enterprise, and industry is entitled to take those risks on
its own lands. But the public lands are a public trust, and we are not
entitled to gamble them on a promising but unproved technology.
Does that mean nothing should be done to ease the projected short-
age of wood?
No. I think several steps can be taken. The Forest Service itself
recognizes that it can improve timber-management, on its own lands,
without going to monocultures or adopting timber production as the
dominant use. In response to the Forest and Rangel.nd Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Forest Service has published a
draft of alternate plans for the use and development of these resources
out to the year 2020; this program should provide the best basis we
have ever had for sound, public forest management. In addition, the
Forest Service has begun testing a more liberal cutting policy on the
Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington State. The crucial ele-
ment in this decision was a long-term commitment of funds necessary
to guarantee an accelerated program of reproduction and intensive
timber culture. If this test proves successful, other national forests in
the Pacific Northwest are likely to follow suit.
Better resource-use is another possibility, and the Forest Service is
working on that. For example, its research arm-in cooperation with
HUD and the American Plywood Association-has developed a new
construction material made of the ground-up particles from the inner
part of a log; this process has the potential of doubling the usable wood
products derived from a tree. Another Forest Service project, the Saw-
mill Improvement Program, has documented increases in production of
11 percent through improved sawing and milling techniques.
Finally, we should find out about those legendary four million citi-
zens whose woodlots compose 59 percent of our forested land but ac-
count for only 30 percent of the wood fiber. How many of their lots are
large enough to merit commercial management? How many of those
-owners are interested in commercial production? We simply do not
know enough about these four million to make sensible proposal re-
garding timber production on their land-but that land is undoubtedly
the sleeping giant of the timber industry. One private firm, of which I
am aware, has initiated a program to help interested private owners
make their holdings more productive. In return for its help, the com-
pany obtains the right to buy the timber at competitive prices.
Hence there are many ways of increasing timber production with-
out increasing the allowable cut on public lands, or risking them on a
high-yield management that concentrates on only one forest resource.
We should not allow a projected wood shortage to panic us into re-
versing conservative policies on the forests that belong to all of us.
The Centennial of the Americanii Forestry Association is in itself a
reminder of the long public interest in forests, and an occasion for
remembering how difficult it was for us to rescue some part of our
national forest inheritance in the days when industry had no interest
in replanting the lands it had cleared. But your centennial is also an


opportunity to look forward. A century from now, your successors will
look back and render a judgment on the quality of the stewardship your
policies reflect.
You look back with pride at the work of your own predecessors, who
did so much to protect our forests in days when even the Government
was wasteful with them. I hope, in the coming conflict over supply and
demand, you will continue to support a policy of long-term conserva-
tion, and reject the counsels of short-term convenience. We can and
should learn to manage our public lands for greater productivity-but
we should not squander them, and we have no right to gamble them,
for they are a trust we owe to the future.


[By Dr. Edward E. Palmer, President, State University of New York, College
of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y.]

It has often been said that most of the maladies of civilization, con-
temporary or older, have been due to one or a combination of two
principal circumstances. One of these is the false classification of people
into races, nationalities, religions, or some other exclusive classifica-
tion. The other is the false classification of knowledge into rigid cate-
gories that become exclusive and impervious. While higher education
in America has reacted positively to the breakdown in the classification
of people through affirmative action, ecumenism, equal opportunity,
senior citizen, and minority programs, we still have a long way to go
in consummating such a breakdown or, paradoxically, we have fallen
into such deeply rooted bad habits, that the breakdown of one set of
"people" categories often leads to the construction of others that are
equally false. A process of debate will continue for some time in the
application of the idea of equality until we are, perhaps, able to de-
termine more scientifically who are really unequal, who are inferior,
and who are superior. False theories about inferiority and superiority
continue to be tempting to most people, for each of us suffers from some
slight or stronger aristocratic strain in his psyche.
The other circumstance, perhaps even more painful and costly, is the
insistence upon rigid classifications of knowledge. Without elaborating
upon the history of such systems of classifications, suffice it to say that.
in our efforts to resolve some of the principal public problems of the
day, our failures are largely due to negligence in relating one area of
knowledge to another.
In recent years, our awareness of the pressures of environmental
problems has quickened. We have become increasingly cognizant of
the degeneration of our surroundings, of the loss of aesthetic quality
in our vistas, of the inevitable limits on our environmental resources,
and the irreversibility of some of our actions when we throw the
natural process of our universe into disorder. Indeed, efforts to in-
crease such awareness permeate our entire educational system.
Recognizing with increasing intensity the relationship of our en-
vironment to our own welfare, we have devised excellent new goals-
the proper management of resources that are renewable, conservation
of those that are not; the control and reduction of pollution; and
compensation for disaster, both natural and man-made. But because
we have seen the universe primarily as compounded of chunks and
pieces, and because we are impatient beings, we have demanded quick
solutions to what we have seen as separate environmental problems.
The effects of such narrow approaches to understanding of the bio-
sphere, and of impatient attempts even with new technologies to solve


discrete environmental problems via short-term remedies, have not
met with unqualified success. The very solution to a specific problem in
one aspect of the environment has often meant the creation of another
even more acute problem somewhere else.
Ironically enough, the theories of knowledge and the claimed
structure and the relationship of science, technology, and ideology,.
which made possible man's earlier triumphs, now contribute to our
contemporary frustration. Having segregated people, separated
"types" of knowledge, and segmented the physical universe in order
to explore, understand, and control more easily, we now find that our
intervening disciplinary walls impede rather than enhance the prog-
ress of our understanding of the environment as a whole. And the
disparate role of areas of knowledge devised to deliver benefits-
originally undertaken in a desire for the benefits of social and
political hierarchy, of divided labor, and the efficiency of specializa-
tion-now seriously hamper man's contemporary efforts to understand
and cope effectively with his environment as a whole.
The environment in which we live is not an assortment of discrete
objects and events, but a vast seamless web, a single entity, an inte-
grated system of interacting synergistic phenomena. Though many
great thinkers have presumed an orderly universe and attempted to'
build blueprints of civilization on such an assumption, only now
are we beginning to develop the very special understanding and tech-
nology necessary to deal with the mutuality of environmental
To muster these critical capabilities, we need a new discipline that is
also seamless in its design. The application of the new discipline will
not be possible without the training of scientists in comprehending
the ecological harmony, rhythm, and synthesis in the environment,
though they may focus action on more specialized aspects of problem
solution. The most promising recent approach to the overall problem
has been of demand for a new "environmental science" which would
conceive of the environment and its problems on a systems' basis. Such
an approach would envision the cosmos as a synthesis, as a series of
interrelating systems-air, land, water, all forms of life-and seek to
understand them as aspects of a coherent whole.
We thus propose the education and training of a new kind of dis-
ciple. His understandings will be based on the systems' approach to
environmental science. He will also be conversant with the broad
range of technologies necessary to deliver that science to those at-
tempting to modify the environment. And, he will be familiar with
the behavioral, economic, political, and legal considerations involved
in forming value judgments and decisions about the nature and con-
ditions of that delivery.
Oddly enough, some people are still uncomfortable with both the
term and the concept of environmental science. It may, therefore, bp
desirable to review the genesis of the current environmental concern
in order to provide perspective, and to appreciate how environmental
science should be perceived by the varying constituencies of research
and education.
The current environmental thrust is a composite of three main his-
torical developments. These are Environmental and Pollution Control
to protect the public health; Conservation of Natural Resources to pre-
serve the natural resources base; and Expansionist Pressure and Tech-


nological Development which have stressed both environmental and
pollutional control, and conservation efforts, and have introduced new
requirements in environmental design.
Environmental and pollution controls have clear and precise origins.
Modern public health programs date from 1876 when Louis Pasteur
demonstrated the role bacteria play in fermentation and disease. The
conclusions became institutionalized in public health programs in the
first and second decades of the twentieth century. Efforts focused on
water supply, pollution control, vector control, food sanitation, solid
waste management, and toxic materials. Colleges and universities
played major roles in research and education in providing a firm tech-
nological base for effective action. As time advanced, programs in
noise control, air pollution, housing, radiological health, and pesti-
cides emerged.
A major focus of all of such programs was the impact on man, as
measured by morbidity and mortality statistics. There was no par-
ticular emphasis on the impact on resource supply and quality. As
time progressed, a more comprehensive approach developed, with a
major thrust in the form of regulatory programs.
The conservation drive dates from the establishment of Yellow-
stone National Park in 1872, followed by the establishment of Na-
tional Forests and other conservation efforts. These were also insti-
tutionalized in programs in the first two decades of the twentieth
century. The establishment of the principle colleges of forestry was a
direct result of that conservation movement. Interest matured into
programs covering all renewable natural resources, water, soils, trees
and forests, and fish and wildlife, based on proper management and
use. The focus shifted to the resources; but the programs were mainly
administrative and managerial, not regulatory.
Although somewhat separate from renewable natural resources, the
discovery and effective development and maintenance of adequate re-
serves of nonrenewable natural resources of oil, coal, and minerals was
part of the developing picture. Again, colleges and universities played
major roles in advancing these efforts. The conservation effort divided
into two major segments; the management-and-use group, and the
preservation-and-nonuse group. The two segments of citizenry have
been at loggerheads almost continuously.
Both conservationist and environmental control programs were
stressed by expressionist pressure and technological development since
their inception. However, these stresses reached full flower in the post
World War II era, and continue to this day.
SThere was tremendous growth in population, coupled with a st rong
urbanizing trend. In addition, economic prosperity increased spend-
able income and leisure time. This resulted in accelerated land devel-
opment for residential, commercial, and industrial use; in exponen-
tial increases in automobiles, snowmobiles, motor boats; and in over-
whelming pressure on recreational facilities. A vast new network of
environmental services, water supply, sewerage drainage, and solid
waste disposal systems were required. An expanded new highway
system wars put under construction; airports were expanded; water
resources development accelerated. The consumption of all iia:ural
resources rose dramatically, requiring new development on a continu-
ous basis. Energy demands skyrocketed!


On the technical side was the wholesale use of new persistent pesti-
cides, increasing use of artificial fertilizers, the replacement of soap
by detergents, the development of nuclear energy, atmospheric bomb
testing, medical, industrial, and research use of radioactive isotopes,
the advent of the jet plane, the growth of the plastics industry, the
use of one-way packaging, and the general growth and development
of industry to meet expanding consumer demands.
The end result was environmental deterioration, air pollution, water
pollution, rise in environmentally related diseases, destruction of re-
sources, hit-and-miss development, mountains of solid waste, intoler-
able noise, imperviousness to aesthetic considerations, loss of unique
natural areas, loss of valuable agricultural land, destruction of fish and
wildlife, accelerated entrophication of waters, and spoilage of recre-
ation and wilderness areas by overuse.
The combination of all these elements overwhelmed the old line
governmental agencies and programs, and brought increasing demands
for better scientific information, improved technology, better man-
agement, and regulation to cope with growth, consumption and tech-
The responses were new programs and reorganization at the federal,
state, and local levels of government. At the federal level the Environ-
mental Protection Agency was created, putting all environmental con-
trol programs into a single agency. A number of new laws were en-
acted to provide environmental impact assessment; water, air, and
noise pollution controls; water resources planning; coastal zone man-
agement; multiple forest use; wild and scenic rivers designation ; and
proposed land-use planning.
States either led the way or followed suit. Some states took a num-
ber of actions, including the creation of new programs in water pollu-
tion, air pollution, solid waste, fish and wildlife, water supply, scenic
and wild rivers, outdoor recreation, radiological control, unique area
land acquisition, regional land-use control, local environmental man-
agement councils and commissions, and environmental impact analy-
sis. A few states also consolidated environmental programs-including
pollution control, resource management, and emerging growth and
technological development programs-into a single department or
agency of the state.
Local levels of government have followed suit with new programs
and reorganization. International concerns, and in some instances
global concerns, have been institutionalized through scientific coopera-
tion, treaties, and agreements.
The separate development of environmental and pollution control,
natural resource management, and control of emerging technology and
expansion, that is, growth and consumption, have all now merged into
a single unified continuum. It must be recognized that all of these
things are, in fact, inseperable and should be amalgamated within en-
vironmental science. Although this concept is beginning to be accepted,
it is not reflected in policy and programs and institutional arrange-
ments. Rather it is conflict and competition that are rife in the area
of environmental management.
The development of scientific understanding and control tech-
nolo"y has lagged far behind the eientific and technological develop-
menit that hlias generated many of the environmental problems facing

us. Policies are unclear and sometimes contradictory. Institutional
arrangements make management and control difficult. A balance be-
tween public well-being, resource use, institutional interests, pollution
control, economic concerns, and life style is difficult to achieve. Politi-
cal, social, legal, economic, and technical issues must be formulated
and resolved. This means that in addition to achievement of technical
knowledge and competence, there is the challenge posed by political,
social, legal, and economic aspects, which also requires a high degree
of competence if we are to move to rational policy development and
program implementation.
All of this is the framework that encompassed environmental sci-
ence. Putting things in perspective, it has meant that the varying
constituencies of educational institutions, existing and potential, must
view environmental science as encompassing natural resource preser-
vation and management, environmental pollution control, and the
major technical and social growth issues. It is a tall order for any
college or university to respond to adequately. However, the challenge
can and must come.
The role of natural and social scientists in and beyond the colleges
and universities is vital to the effort to advance scientific and techno-
logical knowledge of environmental science, and to assist in develop-
ing sound policy and programs through education and research. The
proud record of our predecessors has attested to this and challenges
us to emulate their fine work in a concerted fashion.
It seems to me as clear as anything can be that this country has
to change its ways relative to our environment. These changes must
include governmental policy, educational training and research, and
economic and commercial consideration. Our nation has failed to
formulate consensus policies in the resolution of almost any of its
major physical problems. Thus, incongruencies abound. Here we are,
a nation that has just completed the construction of the most elabo-
rate and finest national highway system in the world, just at the time
we run out of gas. It is a nation that has built the finest network of
air transport with state-of-the-art equipment, and airports that are
nothing short of magnificent, all just at the time we are running out
of oil. And in our efforts to postpone or resolve the energy crisis, we
are shifting emphasis to coal as a source of energy, just at the time,
of course, that we have let the railroad beds and railroad equipment
that haul it become obsolete, and have allowed our rail transport sys-
tem to become completely bankrupt.
Our major shortcoming is the inability to integrate the skills and
the superb scientific knowledge that we possess, whether in the pro-
fessional specialty of forestry, in professional specialities of medicine,
of business management, of government, or almost anything one can
name. "Coordination" has been read out of our lexicon, and "co-
operation" has come to mean "one-way street." We must return to
those fine concepts and learn better, in our society, how to wed the
efforts and the skills of industry, government, and education into a
much more cooperative system, or this nation is likely to waste its
fabulous resources, and like a meteor, have one brief brilliant moment
in the sky of time, and then pass into decline and outer darkness.



[By K. F. S. King, Assistant Director-General, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations]

The world has changed rapidly and significantly over the last three
decades or so, indeed ever since the end of the Second World War.
There has been, in this relatively short period, an unprecedented in-
crease in the world's population. There has been developed an entirely
new concern for human development and economic growth. There
have been significant and pervasive advances in science and in tech-
nology. There has grown to be a predilection, some might say an
obsession, with the environment.
Mir. Chairman, the world has always had to accommodate, or has
had to resolve, to reconcile, conflicting emotions, conflicting objec-
tives, conflicting ideals. These conflicts must exist, and will continue
to exist, so long as man is allowed freedom of thought, freedom of
choice, ard fi-e&dom of action. Indeed, it might be argued that man-
kind's progress upon this earth depends upon peaceful conflict, upon
thfe cbah of views, upon the resolution of differences of opinion.
I venture to suggest, however, that at no time in the world's history
has there been so intense a mixture of idealism and materialism, of
nationalism and internationalism, of conservatism and liberalism, of
hope and despair. These antithetic forces are to be found within na-
tions. within groups which have in the past been noted for their uni-
formity of thought, within strata of societies which traditionally
possessed common aims, common objectives; common desires.
I mention these internal problems, and I emphasize the changing
circumstances we have experienced over the last thirty years, for one
important reason. I wish to stress that although I am to discuss with
you, today, the subject of "perspectives in world forestry", it cannot
be considered in a vacuum. It cannot be examined in isolation. Today,
the burning questions of forestry must be analysed within a global,
inter-disciplinary context. "World forestry" cannot be regarded
merely from a narrow, sectoral point of view. It must be looked at
against a background of the international demand for forest products
and the world's capacity to supply the wood raw material; it must be
looked at within the context of general land-use policies, plans, and
practices; it must be looked at with a full appreciation of existing
and future patterns of world trade; it must be looked at with a knowl-
edge of the scientific and technological advances which are being
made, and which will probably be made, not only in the forestry
and forest industries sector, but in all relevant aspects of economic
activity. The gamut of economic, social, political, scientific and tech-
nological considerations must be taken into account.

I merely draw your attention to the necessity for a catholic ap-
proach to our subject. I hope that you will understand that I cannot,
in the time at my disposal, adequately cover the desired range. I shall
attempt to pose the main issues, to point to the strengths and weak-
nesses of our'current approaches, to suggest fields of endeavour on
which we might concentrate in the future, and to paint a picture,
sketch the outlines, of what I consider world forestry would look like
at the end of this century.
Since the end of the last World War' the world's population las
grown by about 60 percent. As a result, there have been, almost liter-
ally, fantastic increases in the demand for food, for fuel, and for
industrial wood and wood products. Unfortunately, tropical food sup-
plies have, in general, failed to keep pace with or to outstrip popula-
tion growth. In addition, because of the growing exposure of tropical
communities to a money economy, arable land formerly devoted to*
food crops has been transferred to the seemingly more lucrative pur-
suit of the raising of perennial cash crops. However, productivity
from the areas remaining to the food producers has often not in-
creased enough to compensate for this loss of land. The result is,
in so far as the developing countries are concerned, a combination of*
diminishing arable land and increasing population, which leads in-
evitably to human suffering.
In order to provide more and more land for food production, some
tropical forests are indiscriminately razed to the ground. This is un-
fortun.nte not only because wood supplies are being thoughtl-:sly
reduced, but. also because in many cases the soil protection and water
regulatory roles of the forests are diminished. When it is remembered
that the placing of more land under agriculture frequently leads to
increased demands for water, and more particularly for controlled
supplies of water, this ravaging of the forests takes on an additional
dimension of horror.
Side by side with the increased rate of population growth has been
a sustained expansion (except for the last year or two) of the world's
economic activities. This is extremely significant for the forestry and
forest industries sector. Even before the price of fuel was so drastically
increased, the developing countries consumed vast amounts of fuel-
wood. Indeed, by volume, this was the largest single entity of forest
products utilized in these countries. Today, the bulk of the people in
the poorer countries must rely, and in the foreseeable future must con-
tinue to rely. on wood as the main, if not the sole, source of energy for
cooking and heating.
In addition to this growth in demand for a traditional wood product,
there is a growing consumption, in the developing countries, of wood
for use in the round, for sawn-wood, for wood-based panel products
and for pa per.
Moreover, the developing countries have come to understand the
significant role which the forests, forestry and forest industries can
play in the attack on economic underdevelopment. They now know
that the sector can help them to save and earn foreign exchange; that
it has high forward and backward linkage indices, and that therefore,
This analysis of the effects of the changing world circumstances on forestry relies
almost entirely on King, K. F. S. (1972) A Summary of the Revised FAO Study on Forr.qt
Policy, Law and Adm4nistration. Seventh World Forestry Congress, Buenos Aires, 1972.


the expansion of forestry and forest industries can act as a stimulating
force for many other economic activities; that the practice of forestry
and the establishment of forest industries can create significant em-
ployment opportunities, particularly in the depressed, often neglected,
rural areas; and that there is certainly some type of forest industries
suitable for establishment in almost any developing country.
We have therefore a situation, in the development economies, in
which a resource-the forests-which is known to be capable of
assisting greatly in economic development, is very frequently
destroyed. It is destroyed to provide land for shifting or for perma-
niient agriculture. It is destroyed to provide land for the production of
food. without which many of the world's inhabitants would die or
live a life of permanent under-nourishment. This, I submit, is one of
the main problems of development in the developing world. This ap-
parent conflict in the demand for land by the agriculturists, on the one
hand, and by the foresters, on the other. This sacrifice of a develop-
mental resource, of an industrial base, of an ecosystem which reduces
the incidence of erosion, regulates water supplies, and tempers the
micro-climate, for food which is the very basis of life, which provides
the sustenance for man to work and for him to enjoy a modicum of
physical and spiritual well-being.
In the developed regions per capital incomes have increased by more
than 100 percent since 1945. This has led, not only to changing patterns
of wood consumption, but also to a greater pressure on the forests for
their services, for their non-wood values.
In the developed world, the demand for the less sophisticated types
of wood products has declined. However, the increase in consumption
of wood-based panels and of pulp and paper has been more than
compensatory. Over all, it has been estimated that by 1985 world
demand for wood for industrial processing would be more than twice
as high as it was as recently as 1970, and that most of the additional
volume will be consumed in the developed countries. (These calcu-
lations were made before the onslaught of the energy crisis.)
At this moment, the effect of the higher price of energy on the future
consumption of wood and wood products in the developed countries
cannot be accurately judged. This much can be said, however. It ap-
pears to be reasonably certain that wood products can be. and will be,
more competitive with those substitutes for wood and wood products
which utilise petroleum as the raw material base, and which appeared,
say, five years ago, to be capable of absorbing a significant proportion
of the wood market. It can also be said that if the levels of economic
activity in the industrialized world are to be maintained (and there are
already signs that they will be), the demand for wood and wood
products will be sustained. Indeed, our work in the international
agencies of the United Nations suggests that demand for wood will in-
crease in the developed countries. The pressures on the forests of the
developed world, for wood, will therefore be even greater than they
have been in the past.
One consequence, in developed economies, of their rapid economic
growth has been a growing awareness, by the general public, of the
services which forests offer, and of the polluting effects of forest
indu tries on the environment.
Rising incomes, better infrastructional facilities, improved mobility,
more leisure time, and the severe emotional and mental stresses of


industrial societies have combined to create not only an interest in the
non-wood values of the forests, but also to increase demands for their
recreative use. In addition, the effluent which emanates from pulp and
paper mills, the pollution of the atmosphere which sometimes results
from the conversion of wood and wood products, the debris and waste
which frequently accumulate from wood harvesting and wood conver-
sion, and the impact of factories on the scenic beauty of the country-
side, are all now fiercely condemned. As a result, in almost all of the
developed countries, legislation has been enacted to control pollution,
to conserve the aesthetic values of the forests, to zone the siting of
factories, to prevent or control the felling of trees in certain areas,
and so on.
There is little need to discuss the legislation in detail. In recent
years, in the United States alone, the spate and range of conservation
legislation has been remarkable. They are all certainly familiar to
you, and a few examples will suffice; the Multiple Use-Sustained
Yield Act of 1960, P.L. 86-517; the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat.
890) ; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-90; and
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, P.L. 93-205.
Almost all restrict the maximisation of the production of wood from
specific types of forests. All can, in the long run, affect, the establish-
ment and expansion of forest industries, the absorption of labour, the
level of profits, the general growth of the economy, and the traditional
systems of practising forestry.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, as most people in this audience will know, at
the end of August, this year, the United States Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals in Richmond. Virginia, ruled that trees in one of the
National Forests in West Virginia cannot be harvested unless they are
"dead, mature or of large growth", and unless they have been individu-
ally marked for cutting. As a result, the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture stated that it would not offer any more National Forest timber for
sale in nine National Forests in Virginia, West Virginia, North
Carolina and South Carolina until it decides its next step.
Therefore, it seems obvious that the problem of forest land-use in
the developed countries is similar, in effect, to that of the developing
world. In both cases, it seems inevitable that there will be a significant
shrinkage, a significant reduction of the productive forest estate. In the
developing countries efforts must be made to meet the iust and rational
demands of the agriculturist as well as the forester. In the developed
countries means must be found of accommodating the just and
rational demands of the conservationist, the environmentalist, as well
as the production forester and the forest industrialist.
It used to be strongly argued (and there is still some validity in
the argument for some places and for some types of combination) that
multiple-use forestry 1 is the answer to the conflicting demands for
forest land. It is now recognized, however, that although it is possible
to optiinise the production of various packages" of forest goods and
services, the maximisation of all the individual, single, goods and
services which emanate from a forest cannot be attained. There has to
be a trade-off. Use priorities have to be established. In the multiple-use
package there has to be a dominant use.
'The conscious and deliberate use of forest land for the concurrent production of more
than one good or services. Gregory, G. R. (1955). Forest Science 1 (1).


Moreover, in many countries, the consumers are demanding, and the
legislators are supporting their demands, that more forests be reserved
for single-use, non-wood forestry, usually for recreation, amenity,
aesthetics. Indeed, these demands are not confined to the developed
countries. In some parts of Latin America. for example, this is already
a discernible trend. It is also not confined to recreation forestry. In
the Guatope National Park. near Caracas in Venezuela, and in the
Cantareira State Park near Sao Paulo in Brazil, the forests are man-
aged solely for their water supplies.
Therefore. I repeat that if the non-wood services of the forests are to
be supplied to the populace of the various countries, and if the need
for more agricultural produce is to be met, then production forests
will have to be confined to a smaller area than they now occupy. It fol-
lows from this, that if the increasing demands for wood and wood
products are also to be fulfilled, there must be increased wood and
wood fibre productivity. There must be more efficient wood harvesting
and conversion methods, and a more rational utilisation of the forests
and the wood resources which flow from them.
You will forgive me, I hope, if I say that the practice of forestry and
forest industries in both the developed and developing countries is,
in general, inefficient, though at varying levels of inefficiency. (This is
also true of tropical agriculture, but this topic need not detain us here.)
Let. us consider first, briefly the condition of forestry in the develop-
ing, tropical countries. We do not know exactly what species are in
the moist tropical high forests, what quantities, what distribution
what growth rates. We do not know how the forests, as a whole, or the
individual species in various types of forests, would react to different
types of silvicultural and management systems. We do not know
how best to regenerate naturally those species for which there is com-
mercial demand. We do not know the utilisable qualities of many of
those species we are aware exist in the forests. We cannot say with
confidence whether mixed tropical hardwoods, from any region in the
world, can be converted into pulp for paper. We do not know the
effect of forest plantations on tropical soils, and whether those soils
are capable of sustaining more than one rotation. We are certainly not
utilising the best seed sources for tropical plantations, the best
Our harvesting methods are primitive, costly and wasteful. So also
are the systems we employ to convert the wood into primary products.
In many countries, species that are known to be marketable, and
that are in great supply, are either not utilised, or are burnt as weeds,
because, for example, the silica content of the wood is high.
This list of the woes of tropical forestry is not exhaustive. How-
ever, it illustrates not merely our lack of knowledge, but our failure
even to adapt what knowledge is available to the prevailing
The position with regard to forestry in developed countries varies
only in degree. When I allege that forestry in the developed world
is inefficient, I mean the allegation to be understood in relation to the
advances made in comparable fields. Accordingly, rather than list
the deficiencies that are inherent in the practice of forestry in the
developed countries, examples will be given of the possibilities for
research and for improving practices, in order to increase forest


yields. Much of what will be said, in this regard, will be applicable
to both the developed and the developing countries.
Although much work has been done on tree improvement in recent
years, more emphasis needs to be placed on the breeding of genotypes
that will be suitable for growth on difficult sites. In addition, there is
a considerable lack of knowledge, throughout the profession, concern-
ing the predictable interactions of site, genotype and cultural treat-
ment, and their combined effect on yield.
Another area of allied research which might prove profitable, is
related to the possibility of breeding for different characteristics at
different developmental stages of the crop. If I may be permitted to
give tropical examples to illustrate a general point. A phenotype like
Maesepsis eminii, which possesses a high ratio of crown diameter to
bole diameter, might be bred and utilised for rapid weed suppression
and site domination during the early stages of the crop. This species
may then be gradually replaced by a phenotype such as Eucalyptus
grandis which possesses a low ratio of crown diameter to bole di-
amineter, and thus will give a higher yield per unit area, and utilise the
site more efficiently.
More research should also be pursued on the vegetative propagation
of those species that are now normally propagated by seed. The point
is easily appreciated if the advantages enjoyed by poplars in the easy
rooting of cuttings are compared with the disadvantages of seed
orchards. Indeed, there appears to be an inverse correlation between
the seed production of individual genotypes and their potential for
producing high quantities and high qualities of wood. The cheap
and easy use of cuttings in establishing plantations would enable
foresters to eschew the compromise between seed production and wood
production, and use exclusively sterile elites.
We have not yet begun to examine the full potential of forest fertili-
sation, and the results of the influence of the faster growth which is
attendant on fertilisation on spacing, and tending practices. The same
is true of our knowledge of the optimum combination of cultural tech-
niques in the nursery. In the last twenty years we have not succeeded
(if the practice of forestry is taken as a whole and isolated examples
ignored) in significantly reducing the period spent by seedlings in the
nursery, and of improving, again significantly, the survival and early
growth of plants in the field. We have not taken full advantage of the
use of auxins, for example, as a means of increasing the efficiency of
seedling production, although much progress has been made by the
horticulturists, in this area. The application of greenhouse techniques
to forest seedling production has also not been seriously and fully
Although in the temperate countries the problems of seed storage
may not be of great importance, they are of particular significance in
the moist tropics. Because there is no winter, and in some cases no real
dry season, there is no dormancy. As a consequence, the period of seed
viability is short. Can dormancy be induced artificially? This question
is of more than academic interest. The fact that the seeds of many
tropical species have short periods of viability, imposes severe limi-
tations on the use of such species as exotics, even though, like the Arau-
carias, they may possess a high production potential.


Our work c an all aspects of improving wood productivity in the
developed countries has been too diffuse. It is not the problems have not
been appreciated. It is not even that the methodologies and techniques
for solving tliem are unknown. It is that the approach has been hap-
hazard and unplanned. Our activity in these areas of forest production
has been extensive and desultory. Foresters in developing countries
practise forestry as the early tribes gathered their food-as a nomadic,
selective, slow, nit-picking exercise. Foresters in developed countries
practise forestry as the very early agriculturists must have done just
after they had ceased to be wanderers and hunters, as they must have
operated in the early days of the domestication of crops and animals.
What I have said about wood production can be applied also to wood
harvesting and wood conversion. In the developed countries, on aver-
age, about 40 per ceit of the wood available in a cut-over forest remains
unutilised. In the developing countries the proportion wasted is even
higher. Much has been written about this. The subject is well docu-
mented. The technology and practises to reduce waste are known. The
time is not too far distant, as I hope that I have demonstrated, when
the knowledge which exists must be applied. The implementation of
the environmental laws, and the pressures on the forests from other
land-users, will permit nothing less. The conservation will force the
production foresters and the forest industries experts to be as efficient
as they are capable.
One last group of research activities, that is relevant to our times,
is worthy of our consideration. Let us first consider the forests as a
source of chemicals, polymers and liquid fuels, as a source of those
supplies now obtainable mainly from fossils. It is said by some that we
are at the beginning of the end of the petroleum era. Be that as it may,
it is my conviction that the time is ripe for us to re-evaluate the possi-
bilities of producing chemicals or even oils from wood residues. Re-
search in this field was interrupted after the Second World War be-
cause it was difficult to compete with the petrochemical industry.
However, the situation is now somewhat changed, and a great number
of chemicals, now manufactured by the petro-chemical industry, might
with profit be produced from wood through further development of
the existing technology. The generation of energy from wood residues,
either as such, or after pyrolysis to produce liquid fuel, is another
Other prospects exist in the utilisation of waste liquors from the
pulp industry, especially from acid or neutral processes, for the manu-
facture of marketable products such as protein, lignosulphonic acids
and glues for the particle board and plywood industries. Indeed, some
of this is now being done, but on a small scale. Efforts should be made
for the conversion of these small-scale operations to large-scale
A few commercial plants for the utilisation of part of the carbo-
hydrates in wood residues for the manufacture of wood sugar (xlitol)
or furfural are in production. A further development could be the
utilisation of the residue of these processes (which amounts to about
70 per cent of the wood material) to manufacture phenols and liquid
In the exploitation of the forest, the foliage. is, almost always, coin-
pletely neglected. However, the experimental evidence available sug-

gests that the leaves of forest trees may be converted into high-quality
animal fodder, and to a wide range of chemicals with a potential use
in medicine and in the cosmetic industry.
If I may be permitted to turn to another aspect of potential devel-
opment in the use of wood. For a long time now, we have to some
extent altered and improved the natural properties of wood-for
example, in the plywood, fibreboard and particle board industries.
Over the years, these generic types of products have been diversified
to such an extent, that the boundaries of the various types of panels
have become blurred, and the old definitions no longer fit the new
realities. The predominant tendency, nowadays, is to produce ma-
terials with properties that are engineered to pre-determined end-use
requirements. Indeed, the first boards with oriented particles have
already entered the market. We seem to be at the beginning of a long
road which teems with exciting possibilities. The engineering of wood
now implies a synthesis of various wood components (particles, fibres,
fibre bundles, strands, flakes) and non-wood components (plastics,
metals, minerals) to produce entirely new types of product. The num-
ber of possibilities for new product combinations may be of the order
of 3,000. If research and developmental activities are concentrated, and
if our approach is truly innovative, a myriad of new products could
be developed to meet the specifications we, or our customers, have
established. Each such product would result in the saving of wood
raw material.
An old, but still interesting, possibility is the production of board
materials and mouldings from wood particles without glue additives.
The main feature of such a process would, of course, be the activation
of the lignin of broad-leaved wood particles in a sealed space. The
lignin so activated would be used as a bonding material. It is reported
that a new fibreboard mill using the dry method of production, with-
out the addition of synthetic bonding materials, is in the final stages
of construction in Czechoslovakia. In addition, research on a small
scale is being conducted throughout the world. The research covers
various aspects of different processes that are based on lignin
Another long-standing problem of mechanical wood industries,
namely, the reduction of residues, has been considerably alleviated by
the development of residue-based technologies and products. Never-
theless, research aimed at reducing the residues of the mechanical
wood conversion industries should be stepped up. The further refine-
ment of our work on the Laser cutting of wood materials, the chemical
modification of wood properties through, for example, the use of
propylene oxide, butylen oxide, and epichlorohydrin, and the re-
cycling of forest materials retrieved from urban waste, should be
Mr. Chairman, these are but a few of the areas of research which
appear to me to offer opportunities for increasing the biological pro-
ductivity of our forests, for increasing the volume of the wood which
we extract from those forests, and for utilising that wood in a most
efficient way.
You will recall the central thesis of this paper. In the future, in
both the developed and the developing countries, the pressures on
forest land will be so great, that the areas to be devoted to productive


forestry will be reduced. The allocation of land to productive forestry,
indeed to any form of land-use, should, of course, be based on land
capacity surveys, and on an assessment of the social, economic and
political effects of other competing uses. It is reasonable to assume,
however, and no matter how rational the approach, the productive
forest estate will diminish. In order to meet the growing demand for
wood and wood products, we must therefore increase our productivity.
We can do this, but much effort in research and development will have.
to be made.
It is, I think, inevitable that most of this research will be carried
out in the developed countries, in which are to be found the knowl-
edge, the facilities and the capital for such work. Much of the work
done in the developed countries can possibly be transferred to the
developing world. It is likely, however, that because of differing
physical and socio-economic conditions, much of it, in the form in
which it was conceived and executed, cannot be transposed willy-nilly.
If the developed countries wish to help the developing countries in
these matters (and I would suggest that in forestry and forest indus-
tries there is an inherent inter-dependence), then the form of aid
should be in the methodologies to be applied in research and develop-
ment, in the approach to problem solving which has been so well devel-
oped in the United States, for example. Where technology per se is
to be transferred, it should be adapted to the physical and social
conditions of the recipient country.
If these things are done, I see in perspective, at the end of this
century and in the early years of the twenty-first century, a pattern
of forest deployment in the developed countries in which forest areas,
particularly (but not exclusively) around the cities or within easy
access of them, are set aside for single-use recreational forestry. Other
areas, more remote, of the wilderness type will provide similar serv-
ices. Yet others will be utilised for conservation, for their protective
and recreational functions, e.g. areas on steep slopes. The greatly
reduced productive forest areas will be mainly plantations and will
be surrounded by landscaped, irremovable forests to maintain the
scenic beauty, and to hide the scars of forest exploitation.
Within these productive forest activity will be intense, and yields
will be achieved that bear no comparison with those obtained today.
The industries based on these productive forests will be more varied
in type, very much less wasteful, very much more efficient.
In the developing countries, the pressure for more environmental
forestry will have just begun. More forests will be set aside specifically
for the control of erosion and for the regulation of water supplies.
Those soils now under forests. which are capable of sustaining agri-
cultural crops will be permanently dedicated to food production, and
tlie forests now covering them will have been removed. In areas of
intense population pressure, but where the forest soils are not in-
herently fertile, the system of agri-sylviculture, in which forest
plantations are inter-cropped with food crops for short periods, will
be practised. As in the developed countries, the productive forest area
will be reduced, but more will be extracted from those areas than is
now being taken out of the existing, all pervasive tropical forests.
Forest plantations will be the predominant formation in productive
forestry. Considerably more wood will be processed in these countries,


but the range and intensity of forest industrial activities will be con-
siderably smaller than those in the developed countries.
I could not resist some crystal gazing. But the reason for looking
into the future was not merely to engage in the futuristic pastimes
that have become so much a part of the modern world. The reason
was to convey to you my conviction that there is no real conflict
between environmental and production forestry, no real clash of in-
terests between agriculture and forestry. All can be accommodated, if
we apply ourselves to the solution of the problems which now face us.
We must understand that many aspects of land-use are comple-
mentary and not in antagonism. We must understand that there are
many mansions in the firmament.

[By George R. Bagley, President, National Association of Conservation Districts]

Although water, forage, and minerals are certainly three of the
basic natural resources of the nation, you do not ordinarily see them
put together as the combined subject matter of a single paper. They
have distinctive characteristics. Forage is a renewable resource. Min-
erals are non-renewable. And the supply of water is replenished an-
nually in fairly consistent amounts, primarily by rains and snow.
Nevertheless. there are some common ties that provide good reason
for grouping the three resources on this particular occasion.
First, of course, they are all affected in major ways by the manage-
ment of forests and their associated rangelands. The arithmetic of
land use bears out the point. Forests occupy some 754 million acres, or
approximately one-third of the 2.3 billion acres of land in the United
States. The policies guiding the management of such a large seg-
ment of the nation's land are certain to have a profound effect on water
supplies, forage quality, and mineral production.
Second. there can be no doubt about the need for water, forage, -and
minerals. Every responsible study of recent years has pointed to the
increasing requirements of the next quarter-century-and beyond.
Third, we are not yet moving in any deliberate way, as a nation, to
meet the oncoming needs.
Fourth. we are being crippled in our ability to prepare for the future
by a widespread distortion of values; a lengthening shelf of new laws
accompanied by excessive regulations; and the concentration of a
majority of our population in urban centers where the people are pre-
occupied with urban problems such as housing, transportation, and
To enlarge a bit on the previous point. I believe too many Americans
have forgotten-or were never taught to realize-that natural re-
sources are the original source of all our wealth. The commodities from
our lands and waters, and the materials extracted from them, are the
foundation on which all the rest of our service-oriented economy is
built. When we neglect this foundation, or downgrade it, we eventually
invite the most serious kind of trouble.
Further, since I have had the daring to put in a good word for re-
source. development, production, and the wealth that can be derived
from it. I want to emphasize another fact of the real world.
As Americans. we cherish our freedom above all else. We cherish our
Bill 0f Rights. Yet there can be no freedom, political or otherwise, with-
out economic independence. A family without a job. without income,
without the money to buy food, clothing, and shelter, is not a free
family. It is a dependent family-a family obligated either to charity
or tlhe state.


In some cases, of course, this cannot be avoided because, most un-
fortunately, there are always those among our neighbors who are
blind, or ill, or otherwise incapacitated.
But my feeling is that most Americans want a job, want to earn a
living on the merit of their own work and capabilities, and have the
feeling of freedom that is possible only with a reasonable measure of
economic security.
Directly or indirectly, jobs and economic security for the families
of America depend on the production from natural resources. Unless
we are producing corn and copper, lumber and beef, and all the other
commodities and materials essential to a growing society, there is
nothing to transport, process, manufacture, and sell. There is no com-
merce or industry. There is no wealth-no money-to pay for doctors
or musicians, schools, pro football, or leisurely trips into the
The point of my disgression is to express my concern about the trend
in recent years to shift the emphasis in forest management away from
timber, mineral, and livestock production. More and more attention
is being given to recreation. More and more public forest land is being
withdrawn from timber, mineral, and grazing use and reserved for
wilderness, parks, and scenic areas.
There appear to be increasing commitments to single-purpose rec-
reational uses and a retreat from former policies that stressed multiple
uses and sustained yields.
It is not my purpose to minimize the importance of recreation to
the American people, or to suggest that the public and private forest
lands of the nation cannot accommodate a substantial expansion of
recreational uses. Such an expansion is both practical and desirable.
But recreation and production are not always mutually exclusive, and
it is my hope that we can arrive at a forest policy that achieves a
rational balance of these sometimes conflicting uses.
More intensive management of forests and their associated range-
lands is clearly one of the essentials in meeting our oncoming needs,
not only for timber and recreation, but for water, forage, and minerals.
These latter needs are of very substantial proportions. It is incon-
ceivable, in my view, that the United States can meet them without
major contributions possible through intensive management of the
forests and rangelands.
The facts and prospects pertaining to water are familiar, I am sure,
to everyone here. Our annual replenishment of water by precipitation
is fairly constant at about 30 inches as a nationwide average. This is
not a particularly meaningful figure, however, because the distribution
of rain and snow is so uneven. Many areas of the West get an average
of about ten inches a year, while other localities receive up to 100
Moreover, we don't get to use all the precipitation that falls. Nearly
a third of it is lost through evaporation. Somewhat more than another
third is transpired back into the atmosphere through our crops and
forests. The other nine inches, says USDA's Economic Research
Service, is natural runoff and is considered the renewable supply each
year. It amounts to about 1.2 trillion gallons a day which accumulates
in our lakes, streams, and rivers.


In addition, we have groundwater reserves equal to about 30 years
of runoff, but this is also unevenly distributed throughout the country
and in some sections is being severely depleted by heavy pumping.
What about the future? In its 1968 National Water Assessment, the
U.S. WVater Resources Council projected that withdrawals from the
annual renewable supply would rise to 37 percent by 1980 and to 67
percent in the year 2000. Back in 1965 they were estimated at 22
Withdrawal uses, says ERS, "include water for public supplies,
irrigation, rural use, self-supplied industrial use, and water power."
Consumptive uses of water are also expected to rise. These are the
uses which include water discharged into the atmosphere or used by
growing plants, in food processing, or incidental to an industrial
Since the First National Water Assessment, the water outlook has
been altered considerably by two new national programs: (1) the
effort to move the U.S. closer to self-sufficiency in energy, and (2) the
drive to clean up pollution, including a reduction in the annual sedi-
ment load, from America's waters.
President Ford has set out a goals program for the coming decade
which includes the construction of 200 major nuclear plants, 250
major new coal mines, 150 major coal-fired plants, 30 major new oil
refineries, and 20 major new synthetic fuel plants. Needless to say,
the production of energy requires very large amounts of water.
All along the line, the requirements ahead for water appear'to be
rising. The situation means that all of us, as a nation, and in every
walk of life, will find it necessary to give more attention to the sup-
plies, quality, re-use, distribution, and the timing of the distribution of
water-wherever we are.
One of the avenues to additional water yield and availability is in
the improved management of forests and associated rangelands. I am
not a forester, but it occurs to me immediately that this could result
in greater insoak for groundwater recharge, as well as a reduction in
wasteful and destructive flash runoff of storm waters. Greater atten-
tion to insect and disease control as well as more effective fire preven-
tion would help. As I understand the possibilities, manipulation of
the forest canopy and eradication of water-loving plants of low eco-
nomic value would also make contributions. Another important value
of more intensive management would be greater protection of
reservoirs against destructive silting.
As in the case of water, there are a variety of reasons to expect a
substantial rise in the national need for forage in the years immedi-
ately ahead. Also as in the case of water, I believe American forest
policy should be framed to help accommodate this increased need.
It is pertinent here to quote rather extensively from the work of Dr.
Harlow J. Hodgson, Principal Agronomist for the Cooperation State
Research Service, and widely regarded as an outstanding authority
in the field of forage.
In an address during the annual meeting of the Society for Range
Management last year, Dr. Hodgson said:


"Numerous projections have been made regarding future increases
in red meat consumption in the United States. These average around
2 pounds per capital per year until 1985, a total of about 24 pounds per
capital above 1972 levels. A few projections call for much higher
levels . Nearly all this increase is expected to be beef. Whether
these projections are realized will depend mostly upon the supply of
slaughter animals, the most important factor in determining price.
Retail price will be the most important factor in determining de-
mand .. "
Later, in the same address, Dr. Hodgson declared:
"It is instructive to translate projected per capital demand for beef
into cattle numbers and total forage demand. Each 1 pound per capital
increase in consumption requires about 400,000 cows to provide the
slaughter animals for 210,000,000 pounds of beef... These cows and
their calves require the forage from about 2 million acres of forage
producing land, assuming a national average of 5 acres per cow/calf
"To provide 24 pounds of additional beef per capital by 1985, 9.6 mil-
lion more beef cows will be needed. Furthermore, an expected 10 per-
cent increase in population by 1985 adds another 4 to 5 million cows for
a total of about 14 million. This amounts to an increase of about 30
percent over present numbers. Using our average of 5 acres per cow/
calf unit, the equivalent of 70 million acres of forage producing land
will be required to feed this number of cows and calves. Or we could
increase productivity by 50 percent on some 140 million acres. This is
a fairly sizeable task."
In an article in Science Review in 1968, Dr. Hodgson underscored
the critical importance of forage in the production of beef cattle.
He said:
"Only about one-fourth of the beef cattle in the country in any one
year are in feedlots and are consuming high-grain rations. About
three-fourths are breeding animals, calves, etc., which receive about 92
percent of their feed units from forage. This ratio probably will de-
crease only slightly over time and could reverse with higher price feed
grains. Therefore, for every additional animal in the feedlot we need
about three more in breeding herds, etc.... Two things are clear. We
will need vastly increased outputs of forage production in the next
two decades. The greatest portion of this forage will be fed to beef
"Rangelands in top condition," Dr. Hodgson continued, "can sup-
port the greatest number of grazing animals consistent with resource
conservation. The more animals that can be maintained on the land,
the less is the problem of disposing of animal wastes. ... If animals
could be kept on range or other grazing land for even one extra month,
our waste disposal problems would be substantially reduced.
Aside from the increased forage needs for beef production, as set
forth by Dr. Hodgson, there are additional reasons why greater at-
tention to forage will be vital in the years ahead. Whether we are
thinking of grasslands in the East or rangelands in the West, im-
proved cover and better management of these lands is going to be
important in terms of watershed protection, recreation, wildlife habi-


tat, and the reduction of the sediment load flowing into our lakes,
streams, and rivers.
These forage lands are enormously valuable to our society, our en-
vironment, and our economy. They deserve better treatment than
they have been getting. While they have not been altogether neglected
in the past, neither have they received the kind of sustained attention
their present and potential contributions warrant.
As a general statement, referring to the state of forage lands as a
whole, it would probably not be far wrong to say they have played
second fiddle to croplands and to forests.
Insofar as these forage lands are associated with forests and with
forest policy, they should be regarded as a major element in policy
projections for the future.
There would be a sizeable body of public support for such an up-
grading of attention to forage. I am thinking, for example, of my
own organization, the National Association of Conservation Districts.
I am thinking of the American National Cattlemen's Association, the
several dairy organizations, the Society for Range Management, and
the major farm organizations. I should think the consumers of the
country, and their organizations, would applaud forage improvement
that would lead to more stable supplies and better prices for the animal
products coming from the nation's pastures and ranges.
There is a large array of treatments, technologies and management
practices that are waiting to be applied. There are improved plant
varieties that can be used to increase both the number of animals that
can be grazed and the meat output per animal. There are grazing sys-
tems, developed by careful research. There are a host of management
practices, such as brush and noxious weed control, water development,
seeding, water spreading, timber thinning, fertilization, and insect
and disease control.
The catalogue of constructive actions is large, if we would only
choose to make greater use of it. The task of upgrading 665 million
acres of pasture and rangeland is huge, but over a period of time it can
only be reflected in gains for America, in terms of jobs, land use, health,
production, pollution abatement, wildlife, water supply, and the beauty
of the American countryside.

The best that can be said about our mineral position right now is
that it is a supreme headache. We are nowhere near self-sufficient in a
number of the most critical metals. We import 98 percent of the cobalt
we use, 91 percent of the chromium, 88 percent of the aluminum ores
and metal, 86 percent of the platinum and tin, and 82 percent of the
mercury. We are also heavy importers of asbestos, nickel, gold, silver,
and zinc.
Fbr many years, the United States was the world's leading producer
of steel, which is often considered a key commodity in measuring a
nation's productive capacity. Last year we dropped behind Russia in
steel production and barely managed to stay ahead of Japan.
Data from the U.S. Bureau of Mines show that in 1950 the U.S. pro-
duced 47 percent of the world's steel. Last year we produced 19 per-
cent. In 1950 we produced 44 percent of the world's aluminum. By last
year our output amounted to 35 percent of the world total.


Meanwhile, mineral consumption throughout the world is increasing
more rapidly than in the United States, and experts are quick to point
out that this is accentuating the competition for raw materials in the
world markets.
The ore bodies of the earth are non-renewable. In other words,
exhaustible. When we-the United States and the rest of the world-
have consumed them to a point where supplies no longer meet the
needs, then we are in trouble. Substitutes are not always readily avail-
able. Professor Charles Park, Dean of Mineral Sciences at Stanford
University, points out that nothing now known can take the place of
steel where strength is needed, as in skyscrapers, dams, or in the high-
temperature alloys of a jet engine. Nothing now known will substitute
for cobalt in the manufacture ofthe strong permanent magnets needed
in all modern communications systems, lie says, and no other metal
will remain liquid like mercury.
In 1970 Congress passed the Mining and Mineral Policy Act de-
signed to bring about the orderly development of the nation's mineral
resources by private industry. Some mining experts, however, believe
the Act is facing too many handicaps to be effective.
Dr. Thomas Falkie, Director of the Interior Department's Bureau
for cobalt in the manufacture of the strong permanent magnets needed
investment capital. He cites "unrealistic environmental regulation, the
withdrawal of land to mineral entry under such laws as the Wilderness
Act, and the increasing involvement of Federal, State and local gov-
ernments with private enterprises" as stumbling blocks to the improve-
ment of our mineral position.
The mining industry is frequently represented as one of the chief
villians in ravishing the American landscape. Yet the National Com-
mission on Materials Policy reported in 1973 that the criticism may
have been excessive. "Total land disturbed in the entire history of the
Nation by all types of mining including coal. oil, gas, stone, sand, and
gravel, cement rock, and metal and nonmetallic ores has been less than
0.3 percent," the Commission stated, and added that "one-third of that
area has been reclaimed or restored by nature."
Our needs for minerals are obviously enormous and increasing. The
world supplies of many of them are decreasing and rising in cost. They
are non-renewable. For some of the critical minerals there are no
known substitutes. As a general rule, mining is a localized enterprise,
not prone to affect extensive areas of the landscape. In recent years,
furthermore, state and federal governments have seen fit to forestall
mining activities that appeared to threaten the environment.
Under the circumstances, do we want a National Forest policy that
hamstrings mineral exploration and inhibits 'production? More and
more western land, where geologists say we have our best chances for
finding new minerals deposits, are being declared off-limits to mineral
prospectors and developers.
When the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed it created 9.1 million
acres of Wilderness areas. That total has since been enlarged to 31
million acres, largely in the western states and Alaska.
As a people and as a nation, we need metals and other minerals as
well as timber, forage, and recreation. I, for one, believe forest manage-
ment policy should recognize that fact.



In conclusion, based on the experience of viable conservation and
development movements such as conservation districts, I believe
America can meet its future needs for water, forage, and minerals by
applying sound conservation and development principles. Our big
task is to muster purposeful public support for this approach.


[By Charles W. Bingham, Senior Vice President, Weyerhaeuser Company]

During this century we have seen three major crises of public con-
fidence in American forestry. Each has resulted in significant shifts
in the direction of American forest management.
Today, we are in a fourth period of major concern. I believe this,
too, presents an opportunity for a major turning point in the practice
of forestry-if we can understand the dimensions of the opportunity,
and have the will to translate it into action.
Nationwide concerns over forestry that began building in the late
1880s have dominated debate throughout this century. The major con-
cerns for the last 75 years or more have been future timber supply,
and timber harvest practices.
In 1911, those concerns led to passage of the Weeks Act.
In 1924, the culmination of another round of debate was the Clarke-
McNary Act.
Then, in 1938, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a
Congressional study of the nation's forestlands. A Congressional Joint
Committee on Forestry responded in a report issued in 1941. Two in-
direct results of that Committee's efforts stand out during the early
40s. One was amendment of the Internal Revenue Code. Capital gains
treatment was given to timber converted in the owner's mills, as well
as timber sold to third parties. For the first time, federal tax policy
recognized the long-term nature of forestry investments. The other
major result, which came from the forest industry and thousands of
smaller landowners, was the founding of the American tree farm
The tree farm system began with a 130,000-acre tract of land in
Grays Harbor County, Washington. About half of the tract was
owned by Weyerhaeuser Timber Company. In June of 1941, the tract
was formally and publicly dedicated to growing trees, and given the
name Clemons Tree Farm.
The tree farm idea came at exactly the right time to excite the imagi-
nation of state foresters, forestry committees and private landowners.
In only four years, there were 938 certified tree farms, covering more
than 11 million acres.
Today, there are more than 31,000 tree farms with some 76 million
acres, in all 50 states.
The primary emphasis of the first tree farm effort at Clemons was
fire prevention. Parts of the Clemons tract had burned many times
since logging had begun there in the 1880s. Much of the land had not
gone beyond the first forest succession stage of wild grasses, brush
and small hardwood trees.


Nearly half of the Clemons tract was unstocked or poorly stocked
as a result of repeated burning. Thus, for successful tree farming,
fire prevention was a significant economic requirement.
A major objective at Clemons was a city-like ability to put water
directly on any acre in the tree farm, swiftly. That objective was
niet in 1941.
With fire control underway, the foresters could try out additional
tree farming techliniques such as:
Logging methods geared to providing suitable conditions for
Artificial seeding to assure reforestation.
Hand-planting was tried in some small, experimental areas.
Efforts were made to protect the young trees from animal dam-
And a forestry research unit was set up to study fire control,
tree growth and yields, and pest control.
The early concepts and techniques tried at Clemons were reflected
in principles of the nationwide tree farm system. The system was man-
aged on a state-by-state basis until the early 1950s. In 1954, certifica-
tion principles were codified nationally by American Forest Products
Industries, known today as the American Forest Institute, or AFI.
Three major criteria were developed:
The first was forest protection from fire, insects, disease and destruc-
tive grazing.
The second was permanent dedication of the land to growing and
harvesting tree crops.
And the third called for cutting practices that would improve the
growth of the timber stand.
With minor modifications, these. are the same criteria used to certify
tree farms today. Yet, over the past 35 years, our ability to grow trees
as a crop has increased dramatically.
Let's look briefly at how the forest management techniques have
changed on Weyerhaeuser's lands in the original Clemons boundary.
(Today, the ownership totals 89,000 acres.)
With the ability to control fire came the ability to use it as a tool in
logging cleanup. A helicopter techniques for directing flame onto slash
significantly reduced-the cost of disposal, and increased the number of
acres that can be burned during our severely limited slash disposal
season. The helicopters also work in controlling the flame spread.
Today at Clemons, natural regeneration is a thing of the past. By
hand-planting within a year after harvest, we can get a five-to-seven-
year jump on nature in starting a new forest growth cycle.
The seedlings are grown in nurseries-Weyerhaeuser has nine nurs-
eries, which carry 270 million seedlings in inventory.
Over the last 35 years, we've emphasized logging techniques that in-
crease wood utilization, protect the soil, and help prepare the harvest
site for reforestation.
What I have been describing are basic elements of the tree farming
system that Weyerhaeuser calls High Yield Forestry. In the ways I've
mentioned, High Yield Forestry is a logical extension of original tree
farming practices. But there's a good deal more-from the laboratory
to the harvest.

The research effort is the key. Today, we have more than 75 scientists
in many disciplines working full time on forest management. Thirty-
eight of them have doctorates in their fields.
Thus High Yield Forestry can and does begin with detailed, sci-
entific knowledge about forest soils. We have prepared extensive sur-
veys of soil characteristics on each acre of our ownership. By knowing
the productivity of the soil, we can target our forest management to-
w a rd fulfilling the soil's true growth potential.
Brush control is extremely important. The helicopter techniques of
the late 40s now are a regular part of our forest management.
Thinning and fertilization are also elements of intensive forest man-
agement at Clemons. Today, at about stand age 15, we plan to thin
out weaker trees precommercially. After we have thinned, the stronger
trees have room to grow. The thinnings are left to return to the soil.
At about age 25, and every five years thereafter, we can take out the
thinnings that are usable size-at least for pulping, and most often
for dimension lumber as well.
When we do commercial thinning, we also plan to apply fertilizer
to the stand. The fertilizer increases tree growth helping stands reach
harvestable size more quickly.
The most advanced technique we are trying operationally today is
planting genetically improved seedlings. At our seed orchards, we
graft branches from fast-growing, well-formed trees onto sturdy root
stock. When the grafts bear seed, we collect it to grow seedlings. These
are planted in the field at the same elevation and soil type as the parent
At Clemons, we have just about worked our way through the old-
growth, and have a high proportion of vigorous young stands. Ninety
percent of the acreage is stocked with timber, most of it at good to
excellent levels.
Let's pause for a moment and take stock of where we are. We've
briefly discussed three major crises of public concern about the nation's
forests. We've seen how the debate of the 1930s led private forestry to
increase the productivity of its timber holdings through tree farming.
And now, we face this century's fourth crisis of confidence in Amer-
ican forestry. The concerns are more complex, but they add up to much
the same issues as in 1911, 1924, and 1941. They include protection of
forest soils, air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and timber sup-
ply for current and future generations.
Five major studies in the early 1970s addressed these issues:
The Public Land Law Review Commission.
The Seaton Commission.
The National Commission on Materials Policy.
The U.S. Forest Service's Outlook for Timber.
And the report, Five Years of Effort on the Third Forest.
This year three additional reports have been published.
The Forest Service study of Pacific Coast timber supply.
The Wolf/Library of Congress Report.
And perhaps the most thorough study in recent years, the Wash-
ington State Department of Natural Resources study.
All these reports recognize the importance of economics to forestry.
That is, world markets which guarantee a realistic return on the capi-

tal invested in tree farming. Today, these markets do exist, and can be
expected to grow over the next several decades. The Forest Service pre-
dicts that annual demand on the U.S. wood supply will rise 58 percent
by the year 2000.
Worldwide, the FAO predicts a doubling of wood demand by the end
of the century. U.S. forests and mills are among the most productive,
and the best situated geographically, for filling that world demand.
But markets are of no value to the tree farmer unless they are accessi-
ble. Our laws and regulations must permit wood and fiber producers to
seek out and fill world markets, if there is to be significant investment
in forestry.
As Marion Clawson of Resources for the Future points out, "In the
long run growth cannot exceed harvest, especially for trees. . If no
trees are harvested, net growth is or will become zero." And I would
add, if there are no markets, there is no reason to maintain the nation's
productive forest potential.
Assuming, though, that world markets will be accessible during the
latter part of this century, let's consider how American's commercial
foresters-especially its tree farmers-might go about further en-
hancing the productivity of their lands.
First, I believe industrial tree farms must continue to take the lead
in research, capital investment, and forest management intensity-as
they have done during the past 35 years of tree farming.
Today, the industrial forest sector, with only 13% of America's com-
mercial forest acreage, supplies 29% of the nation's wood supply.
One reason is simply size of individual ownership. The average size
on non-industrial tree farms is about 75-100 acres. Obviously, they
cannot take advantage of the economies of scale available on industrial
management blocks that are often thousands of acres in size.
The industry is also a direct user of its own raw materials, to a large
degree. It can obtain efficiencies and values that the owner of a 40-acre
woodlot cannot achieve.
The same can be said at the other end of the manufacturing process.
The forest products industry goes directly to the consumer market,
and can seek out the highest return for each product. The tree farmer,
of course, does have markets for his intermediate products, logs and
The fourth characteristic of industry's leadership is access to capital.
Whether directly from cash income, or indirectly through borrowed
funds, industry is in a better position than the small private land-
owner to generate the money for forestry investments.
But with all that said-with the limitations of the private land-
owner recognized and understood-I believe this:
If American forestry is to meet the challenges before it, the highest
standards of industrial forest management must become the target
goals for all tree farmers-and the tree farm system must begin now
to recognize that need.
Let me illustrate what I mean by "highest industrial standards," as
practiced on state and industrial lands in the West, and on millions of
commercial acres in the South. Earlier, I described in broad terms the
current forestry approach to the Glemons Tree Farm. Now I'd like to
demonstrate the impact of that approach compared to less intensive
management levels.


For example, the annual sustainable harvest from our 89,000 acres
in the original Clemons Tree Farm-with stocking levels as they were
in 1941, natural regeneration, and a 90-year rotation-would give us
119,000 cunits per year.
If we plant each acre for full stocking, but still permit only natural
growth, and maintain a 90-year rotation schedule, our tree farm will
produce 203,000 cunits per year.
But if we employ all the management practices we know today-
planting, precommercial thinning, commercial thinning and fertiliza-
tion-our 89,000-acre tree farm will produce 305,000 cunits per year,
on a 50-year rotation! This is an increase of 156% over 1941 levels,
and it will be further increased through genetically selected seedlings.
What I'm talking about represents the highest current standards
for industrial tree farming. Obviously, such management intensity
cannot be translated into specific standards for all tree farms. Differ-
ent geographies, species and soil characteristics combine into differ-
ent forestry potentials. And for the smaller landowner especially, local
market conditions and personal financial status directly affect what
hlie can afford to do in forest management.
But I do believe that eventually, most tree farming will trend to-
ward a much higher level of forestry effort than today's. The growth
in world markets, and the increasing value of wood, will lead to higher
log and timber markets for the tree farmer, and will pull the dedicated
landowner in the direction of more intensive management levels.
That will happen eventually-but hearing what the public is saying
today, and recognizing the time required for any change to occur in
forestry, I do not believe "eventually" is soon enough.
We must begin now to strengthen the American trooee farm system
into a source of added support for the change in forest management
that the forest industry has already begun to make. Today, the formal
objective of the tree farm system speaks only of managementt prac-
tices that will produce more and better forest products and services."
Surely in 1976-the nation's bicentennial year-we need to adopt
a new objective for America's tree farms. It should set forth the aim of
maximizing forest growth, based on the biological and economic po-
tential of each tree farm!, under a range of management intesities.
In short, it should be an objective that rededicates tree farm ing to
America's future needs.
Today, the criteria for tree farm certification are not appreciably
different from those of the 1940s. I believe that to those criteria, we
should add target goals for stand establishment and survival, for
growth enhancement, and for maximum utilization of all harvested
wood. And finally, I believe the management structure of the tree farm
system must be strengthened to assist tree farmers in exceeding the
criteria, and reaching for the target goals.
What I am proposing, I believe, is not a wrenching change. By their
entry into the system, tree farmers have shown that they are com-
mitted to managing their forest lands productively.
As we move toward the improved management levels I have de-
scribed on an increasing percentage of private lands, we can avoid
a fifth confrontation with the spectre of timber famine around the
turn of the century.

[By Robert L. Herbst, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural

Mr. President, Dr. Turner, distinguished delegates and guests to this
100th annual meeting of the American Forestry Association ..
We are gathered here for the Centennial sessions of this great or-
ganization on the eve of a Bicentennial observance for our United
From an historical perspective, we are a people that have known
wars-from devastating world confrontations to a divisive internal
struggle. We have known depression, recession and searing drought.
But as a nation we have never been more preoccupied, more totally
traumatized, than by current events which have brought us into con-
frontation with the all-encompassing energy dilemma.
Indeed, in our mode of living, in our life styles, we have permitted
ourselves to become so totally dependent, such captives of a single
energy source and the inter-related global web of supply, pricing and
demand that our very self-reliance-our basic convictions that we are
masters of our destiny-have been shaken and called into serious
In a real sense, our great traditions of Independence have been
threatened by our dependence.
This Petroleum Syndrome-this specter-jeopardizes our capacity
to heat our homes, to fuel and maintain our industries, to sustain our
mobility and insure our national security.
And how could this come to be? How could a nation which has
demonstrated the awesome ability to explore the far reaches of outer
space, to expose and harness the infinite secrets of the atom, to master
complex computer technology-how could we have arrived at this
seeming impasse where government, industry and citizen seem para-
lyzed by a crippling reliance on a resource which is non-renewable,
which is finite and which may well be exhausted-at least from the
standpoint of mass consumption-within the life-spans of today's
Could it be that we are guilty of allowing ourselves to become cap-
tives of a national, in fact international orgy of single-minded con-
sumption at any cost? How else could we have been subjected to a
conspiracy of control and price fixing which, after all, could well be
within the proper bounds of long-term self-interest by those that
have-versus those that do not?
Can it be that we have made a mockery of the words of our own
countrymen . That we quote, but we do not listen . That we
memorize, but we do not heed? Listen to what they have said:


Henry David Thoreau: "The fate . of the country does not de-
pend on what kind of paper you drop into the ballot box, but on what
kind of man you drop from your chamber into the street every
morning . .
Shades of a Nation shaken and Watergate redefined!
And Aldo Leopold admonished that "A thing is right when it tends
to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise . ."
,And what of Leopold's warning that we must, at any cost, embrace
a national land ethic? Leopold is gone-but does that land ethic live?
Is there not a real hazard that, in our compulsive rush to identify
and develop new petroleum sources, to utilize our coal and our oil
shale, to produce synthetic fuels, we shall pay too severe an ecological
price . in water depletion . in enormous soil devastation . .
in the creation of boom-towns with all of the adverse social, scenic and
esthetic consequences?
Gifford Pinchot defined it so: "Conservation is the wise use of the
earth and its resources!"
At this moment in time, what is our commitment to Pinchot's wise
use principle-of our forest resources, our lands and waters and min-
eral reserves. Is it a commitment to wisdom, or to the panic of ex-
pediency and exploitation of our resource heritage at any price?
I do not consider these remarks unrelated to our concerns as forest
resource managers. On the contrary. I introduce them to underscore
my great feeling of urgency that we must re-commit, yes, re-dedicate
ourselves to conservation principles. We must not, repeat not, sur-
render to the panic of short-term profit considerations; to'shotgun
solutions at the expense of long-term conservation ethics and the
future of this nation. You have children. I have children. We owe
them a legacy-not a heritage lost to a few years of expediency.
And what is the record written by America's forest industries?
I believe you will agree that we have known a bit of controversy. I
believe you will also agree that the American Forest Industries have
been the most sensitive-the most responsive of any American indus-
try to qualitative and quantitative environmental concerns: in con-
servation practices, in setting aside wilderness areas, in multiple use
advocacy for recreationists, for wildlife, for hunters and fishermen.
At times, it would appear that our forest industries have gone too
far in consideration of world wood fiber needs for tomorrow-espe-
cially in the area of diminishing commercial forest acreages. At times,
we may have been too accommodating.
In this regard, I am reminded of the story of the young man who
landed a job as a clerk for a local Super Market. On his first day at
work, he was approached by a rather impatient, seedy looking
"Young man," said the customer, "I would like a HALF a head of
lettuce .
"Sorry, Sir," our clerk replied. "I can't sell you half a head of
"You can-and you will," said the demanding customer. "I'm a
bachelor. I can't use a whole head of lettuce. It will just spoil and
stink up my refrigerator."


"Well, Sir, I'll have to ask the boss," the youngster replied. And he
headed for the front office, not knowing the customer was hot on his
"Hey, Boss." the clerk said, "some knucklehead is trying to buy a
half head of lettuce."-and the words were scarcely out when he
spotted the customer at his elbow, and quickly added:
"This gentleman wants the other half!"
Well, as you can imagine, the boss was impressed. "You know, son,"
hlie said, "you're pretty quick-witted. In fact, I'm going to recommend
you for our manager's school up there in Peyton, Minnesota."
"Oh my gosh," the young clerk responded. "Don't send me to Peyton.
The only things that place ever produced are hockey players and
"Hold on, Fella," the Boss said sternly: "My wife happens to have
been born and raised in Peyton!"
"You don't say!" said the kid. "Which team did she play for?"
Yes, sometimes management can be too accommodating.
The foundation of my personal conservation career is rooted in
forestry. From the major emphasis in my education, to field work, to
administrative areas, forestry dominated the formative years of my
As Commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources,
I am now preoccupied by the administration of several disciplines.
But I have never lost sight of my basic conviction: that our forests
have a potential that is still untapped.
Historically, in Minnesota and nationally, we have gone through a
period of timber surplusses, to timber scarcity, to today's temporary
phase of wood fiber abundance. We have come full cycle-and in a
matter of less than a quarter century, we shall know another cycle of
want-want for the forests that we are not planting today.
The word "renewable" has become so commonplace, so over-worked,
that we have all but lost sight of its implications and challenges. But
it is a fact that not only is the living tree an inexhaustible resource,
but a plant which still holds vast secrets. Inherent in our forests is the
promise of providing for this nation real answers to that aforemen-
tioned single-energy source dilemma-if we will but apply our Ameri-
can genius to the research, the technology, the funding, the pooling of
expertise necessary to capitalize on that latent promise.
On the national scene, the picture looks like this:
One-third of the United States is forested. Translated: Our total
land area is 2.3 billion acres; 754 million acres are forested.
Of our 754 million forested acres, approximately two-thirds, or 500
million acres may be classified as commercial forest land. The remain-
ing one-third, or 254 million acres, is non-commercial forest land; that
is, land which is either incapable or unavailable for growing trees for
Now let's take a clinical look at that commercial forest acreage.
Our 500 million commercial forest acres fall into three major
ownership categories: public, industrial-and "other private"
Largest single owner of these lands: the Federal government,
with 21% of the total acreage. And remember this: national for-
ests embrace 46% of the nation's total softwood growing stock.


Another six percent of total commercial acreages belongs to state
and municipal governments.
60% of the total commercial acreage-in the second, or non-
governmental ownership category, belongs to some 41/ million
non-industrial private owners: farmers, rangers, absentee land-
lords and others. The average timber holding in this non-indus-
trial classification is 70 acres.
The final, or third ownership category, is industrial forests. 13%
of our total forests acreage is in that classification.
That is the summary picture of fiber ownership in the United
States today.
Permit me at this juncture to examine with you our state forest
ownership picture in the United States.
We have a total of 18,393,000 acres of forest resources owned
by our state governments. Some of these forests grow on rela-
tively flat terrain; others on hilly, or even precipitous lands.
Some grow in temperate and even hot climates-others in rather
brisk climates, such as we enjoy in good old Minnesota. Species
and growth rates vary accordingly.
Of the total of 18.3 million acres of state forests on the national
scene, this is the regional breakdown:
-In 11 eastern states, we have 3,661,000 acres in state ownership.
-In 12 midwestern states; 7.792,000 acres.
-In 14 southern states; 896,000 acres.
-In 13 western states; 6,044,000 acres.
We also have, in nation-wide context, an estimated 51,767,000 acres
of land classified as "idle, open land needing reforestation"-and I
hasten to add that some of our wildlife managers would be delighted
to debate that terminology.
That, in a walnut shell, is our state forest ownership picture. But
lot us return for a moment to that 60% commercial acreage ownership
category-the one which involves some 300 million acres of so-called
non-industrial lands. It is a category which is mind-boggling in its
implications, not only because some 41./ million Americans own this
land-but because this land has great commercial potential.
To distill that arresting figure a bit more, I shall point a finger right
at my home state of Minnesota, where 7 million acres of potentially
productive forest lands are owned by no less than 150,000 citizens!
The implications of wise forest management practices applied to
these lands would mnke any respectable forester salivate. But I have
a ready response for the grandstand managers who chide the seeming
vacuum in expertise for these acreages.
I do not say this by way of apology. Nor do I consider the remark
out of context when it is related to my preface. I consider it just one
example of the need to reorder this nation's system of priorities. I find
it fascinating to engage in conjecture over the enormous amount of
energy required to produce steel and aluminum for construction pur-
poses-as opposed to the relatively insignificant amount of energy
required to produce wood products for identical purposes.

Again, if you will indulge me, I shall turn to my home State where
forestry represents Minnesota's third largest industry. The economic
implication of a viable forest industry to Minnesota is obvious-more
so than in our neighboring states where large basic industries generate
dollar returns.
Thus, in relative terms, the fact that we do have sizeable acreages of
non-productive Junk Forests in the private lands category is particu-
larly frustrating. If we must provide this nation with twice as much
wood by the year 2000 as we are now producing-and three separate
national studies tell us so-we must find a means to make these small
holdings produce up to their capacity. And that applies to Michigan,
Maine, Minnesota-wherever those 4.5 million owners averaging 70
acres each are located.
In Minnesota, to help solve the dilemma, we are utilizing the federal
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service cooperative pro-
gram. The federal government provides incentive payments for the
landowner, our state foresters provide technical service. This program
pays for a part of the cost of tree planting, site preparation, timber
stand improvement-as well as offering free technical advice. Ex-
pense to the owner: 25% of the total cost involved. It is no cure-all,
but it is a beginning.
I cite Minnesota's approaches, and problems, because in microcosm
they are symbolic of Forestry's challenges in many states. I find incred-
ulous-let alone depressing-the fact that Minnesota last year alone
put to the plow over 800,000 acres in our agricultural region-acres
which were formerly grass and forest lands. We are experiencing,
according to our own observations and those of the Soil Conservation
Service, enormous erosion problems and soil loss. The pattern is re-
peated in state after state throughout the Midwest. Wood lots, wind-
breaks, protective grass lands are being destroyed.
It would seem that we have learned nothing from the chapters of
the 1930's; that the Lesson of the Dust Bowl has been lost-that we
are determined to repeat the same tragic mistakes at the expense of our
land because of our blind refusal to recognize the wisdom of conser-
vation practices.
What matters if we feed the world, if in the process we lose our land,
let alone our conservation souls?
On the national front, Minnesota included, forest practices have been
on the defensive-from land use practices, to land use designation;
from clear cutting to cutting period. Witness the letters I have received
from little and large children alike, admonishing me for permitting
the cutting of Christmas trees!
Some of the vocal ones are irrational. But some of our environ-
mental voices have forced us to look at ourselves, to re-examine our
policies and practices with end results which have been beneficial to
In Minnesota we are fortunate to have 3 million acres of state forests,
and an additional 16 million acres of public and private forests.
In providing recreational outlets and wildlife habitat, our forests
have complimented our tourist industries. In providing watershed pro-
tection, our forests have made enormous contributions to our liquid
assets-the quality and purity of our lakes and streams, and to net re-
turns from these waters.
Our commercial forest acreage, again, reflects a national pattern.
We dropped from 14,378,600 acres in 1960, to 13,547,900 commercial


acres in 1972-a loss of 831,000 acres to other uses. Of the acres lost,
292,000 went from forest production into single-purpose recreational
Last year, Minnesota harvested 1.5 million cords of pulpwood; 180
million board feet of sawtimber; 300,000 plus cords of miscellaneous
fuelwood poles. The value of this Minnesota timber after primary
processing is over one-half billion dollars-a most formidable contribu-
tion to our economy.
We share a common concern with sister states regarding the Fed-
eral Water Quality Act of 1971, and the implications of this regula-
tion where forest management activities are concerned. To date, Min-
nesota d(loes not have a Forest Practices Act. But we have created a
Timber Law Committee representing industry, counties, state, uni-
versity and professional interests. We have developed a model for a
Forest Practices Act, based primarily on Oregon law. We do not be-
lieve in reinventing the wheel, when another state's example makes
good sense.
But still, as Viking Coach Bud Grant would say after losing a close
one, "we've got to return to the basics on the practice field." In state
after state, where our state and non-industrial lands are concerned,
we encounter areas of benign neglect of fundamentals.
Here, as I hear them and as I view them, are the basic challenges
we must meet if we are to put our forestry house in order-and what-
ever your interest area, may I suggest that if the wooden shoe fits,
wear it.
Inventory Urgency.-N-o respectable business can function without
this elementary must: an inventory of what it has-and where. Yet,
at this moment in Bicentennial time, we blushingly confess that we
do not have that inventory. Yes, the federal government has the re-
sponsibility to get a forest inventory in all states, in all categories. But
the federal government does not have the funding necessary to bring
this inventory down to county level-within a time framework which
will not leave great credibility gaps. This inventory should also iden-
tify private, lands and, yes, marginal farm lands suitable for forestry-
let alone those 41/2 million owners of 70 acre average parcels in the non-
industrial category. This Top Priority prerequisite requires the active
support for everyone-from the private sector to the public, in acquir-
ing the funding to get the job done.
Inten.s-ive Management.-We need to view our forest crop-the
species we plant-as we look at a portfolio of personal stock. We buy
some stocks as good short term investments; others as long term. And
we sell off our marginal stocks and concentrate on the proven Blue
Chips. So it must be in our forest practices.
Competitive Efficiency.-We must accelerate our efforts to make our
products competitive; intensify our efforts to advance our recycling
technology-including the difficult challenge of separating household
refuse. We must continue our programs to utilize fiber from all areas
in the most economic and efficient way. And this charge applies to the
operation of mills and plants.
Com.mmnun'cations and Education.-In a cooperative way, involving
the public and private sector, we must intensify our communications
and education efforts-for how else do we reach 41/2 million owners
of small land parcels which could, in great part, be converted from
junk forests to productive, profitable lands. We must identify, and


reach these citizens. And we must strive to promote government pol-
icies-especially in the area of tax incentives-which will stimulate
industry and private owners alike to invest in the multiple values
inherent in the living forest.
Research.-Here again, we must pool our resources to promote basic
research which will provide more products-and more alternatives than
our crippling alliance to that single-energy source. A ton of municipal
waste, which contains a high percentage of paper, has about half the
BTU value of a ton of coal. This can and will become a more signifi-
cant energy source. In 1940, we did not dream of an aircraft without
a propeller. We did not dream of an American actually setting foot on
the moon. Nor did we dream in those days of chippers; of machines
which would produce papermaking fiber from branches, stumps, roots,
tops and even leaves of trees. We did not conceive of super-trees with
high yield characteristics. We must redouble our efforts to unlock the
secrets of the forest-and the promise it holds.
Free Ma.rket.-All of us are aware of events and circumstances which
present grave threats to our free society-unemployment, energy prob-
lems, huge deficits, the financial plight of major cities, soaring interest
rates, intense competition for capital.
We must and we can make our free markets function as they should.
The laws of supply and demand must be allowed to operate in a man-
ner which permits wholesome, unencumbered competition-and pric-
ing of products at levels which promote expansion. Only in this way
can the forest industries avail themselves of the technological advances
in plants and equipment which are the backbone of a free economy.
Above all, we do not want it to be said that we turned deaf ears
to the words of our conservation greats. Their principles, their major
message is, if anything, clearer today than it was yesterday:

We have the history, the rich traditions, the demonstrated capacity
of our forest industries to make this land prosper-to make most sig-
nificant contributions to our future. This Bicentennial period is a most
appropriate time to renew our dedication to making this a have-not
a have not nation!
I thank you for the privilege of sharing these thoughts with you....


[By Chliarles J. Hitch, President, Resources for the Future, Inc.]

Dr. Turner, Senator Hatfield, Chief McGuire, Commissioner Herbst.
Mr. Nonnemacher, and delegates to this centennial congress: you have
my warmest congratulations on this most important of institutional
birthdays, and my deep appreciation for all that you and your prede-
cessors have accomplished over these one hunderd years. What today
is a full-fledged movement had its beginnings in John Aston Warder
and the American Forestry Association. In an almost literal sense you
have invented conservation and been its stewards for a century, and
all of us are in your debt.
So I should be honored in any event to be here with you on this spe-
cial occasion, but as it happens I am particularly pleased to do so, for
there are strong and warm ties between the American Forestry Associ-
ation and Resources for the Future. Our former President, Joseph
Fisher, is a member of your Board of Directors, and our Vice Pesident,
Marion Clawson, has given you writings, help, advice, and a good deal
of warm affection. I may be new to RFF and an unknown quantity
to you of AFA, but I am part of a substantial tradition of friendly
cooperation between our organizations and I am delighted to be here.
The old Washington hands among you will be familiar with the
big clock that used to hang in the main lobby of the Commerce De-
partment. Unlike most clocks, this one did not have chronology as its
major purpose, but rather a simplified demography: as the minutes
and hours ticked away, the clock totaled the additions and subtractions
of births and deaths, immigration and emigration, and indicate at a
glance the current total population of the United States.
Well, the clock exhibit isn't there anymore: like so much else in this
constructing, renovating, subway-building capital, it has been packed
off for repair and refurbishing so it will be in good shape for the Bi-
centennial. Population growth continues anyway, however. According
to that master clock-watcher, the Bureau of the Census, one new baby
is born every ten seconds in this country. When all the factors are to-
taled, there is one more Anmerican every 21 seconds: one more mouth to
feed, to clothe, to heat, cool, and fuel. Over 4,000 more people every
day, nearly 30,000 every week. When the population clock goes back on
the Commerce Department wall, it will point to about 215 million of
us. By any reckoning, that is a big number.
Numbers, however, are relative, and the surprising significance of
the population number is its relative smallness. The total is not nearly
so large as it might have been, and projections based on it and its con-


tributory rates are much more conservative than would have been sup-
posed only brief years ago.
When I was appointed President of the University of California
in the fall of 1967, one of our biggest concerns-perhaps the major set
of problems-was the demand of mushrooming growth. Each fall saw
an avalanche of freshmen: we had doubled in size in a decade and there
was no end in sight. Like Alice in Wonderland, we had to run-and
swifty-just to stay in the same place.
Of course, there was an end, and it came sooner and more suddenly
than anyone thought possible. The 1970 census figures told the story,
and by now its features are commonplace: sharply lower birth rates,
a marked decline in future growth projections, a reverse image of the
bursting-at-the-seams campus, Colleges and universities across the
country long since have stopped bolting the doors against the expected
flood. Recruiting has become a refound art.
My assignment today is to assay our chances of providing resources
for 300 million. What are the time'frames involved? Well, if the total
fertility rate of the 1960's had continued-an average 2.5 children per
woman for the decade-we would be a nation of 300 million just about
at the turn of the century. That figure would leap to 350 million at the
year 2020 and, since a rate of 2.5 would guarantee growth indefinitely,
exponentially higher figures as the population base increased. I want to
emphasize that this kind of numbers game is meaningless, for far too
many factors are involved to permit a mechanical extrapolation, but
the 2.5 rate applied to today's base would result in a U.S. population
of 2 billion by the year 2200. I can assure you that that figure would
result in a resource squeeze of gargantuan proportions.
All that is fantasy, however, not only because of likely future
changes which would alter such a self-defeating trend, but also in
light of present data. In fact, the 2.5 fertility rate no longer prevails,
as my academic colleagues and I found out when we examined the
1970 census results. Indeed, the rate, dropping steadily throughout
the sixties, approached the 2.1 replacement level and actually passed
it on the down side. In 1972 and 1973, the rate was such that-if it
continued-zero population growth was a prospective reality for the
mid-21st century, not simply an ultimate goal. For this country-and
I emphasize that-for this country, the population bomb had been
defused and a new, curiously contradictory concept was being talked
about-negative growth.
There is some feeling that we already may have bottomed out in the
case of declining fertility rates. The most recent indication 1-though
admittedly tentative for the country as a whole-is that the rate is
nudging upward again. I do not expect that it will go too high, how-
ever. Indeed, I think that we in the developed countries may have
passed a very significant turning point in human history, a point of
permanent deflection of population growth rates. Of course, some-
thing in the future-perhaps a source of unlimited energy, or another
revolutionary change in family attitudes-might turn things around
again, but for as far as I can see, growth rates for the United States
are going to be constrained by a powerful combination of socioeco-
nomic factors, most particularly including a changed view of women
1 Sklar, June, and Beth Berkov, "The American Birth Rate: Evidence of a Coming
Rise." Science, Aug. 29, 1975, pp. 693ff.


and their role in the home and in the work force, and an awareness
of the pivotal part played by population size in the consumption of re-
sources. The picture in the rest of the world is much different-tragi-
cally different for some underdeveloped and overpopulated areas-but
in the United States, we probably can look forward to slower popula-
tion growth, tapering off in the middle of the next century to a sta-
bility affected more by immigration rates than birth rates.
So I am willing to crawl at least part way out on a limb and say
that, give or take a fluctuation now and then, this country has shifted
from an average of three children per family to two, and that this
shift translates to a total population of 300 million somewhere around
the year 2020. Forty-five years, an additional 85 million people,
growth by 40 percent in population, and an economy probably over
three times larger2 than today's: can we handle this ?. Will we in fact
have the resources for 300 million?
Most of us at Resources for the Future believe the answer is yes,
that the resources can be made available, in the year 2020 and probably
indefinitely. We realize that there is more news value in predicting the
depletion of phosphorus in X years, or the exhaustion of continental
coal reserves within a lifetime, or a fight for sleeping space by a wall-
to-wall population, but we have resigned ourselves to the lack of head-
lines. Certainly there will be difficult resources problems-the short-
and middle-range situation is especially intractable-but our research
does not lead us to predictions of gloom and disaster. The resources
are there, and they can be made available if we are willing to pay their
true social cost.
Resources for the Future traces its intellectual heritage to the
President's Materials Policy Commission of the early 1950's, estab-
lished to evaluate the availability of natural resources for national
needs. Its chairman was William S. Paley, chairman of the board of
CBS and later to be chairman of the board of Resources for the
Future. The Paley Commission demonstrated that absolute depletion
is highly unlikely, and that in any case the elasticity of supply guar-
antees no sudden exhaustion, as long as additional costs are paid. We
live in a finite world and many things will be necessary if we are to
take a different approach or to come to different conclusions. We
live in a finite world and many things will be necessary if we are to
husband its resources-research and development at home and abroad,
materials substitution, stockpiling, recycling, and changes in consump-
tion habits among them-but as our name implies, we believe there
will indeed be resources for the future, for the year 2020 and beyond.
Let's look at two major areas.
Perhaps the most basic question to be asked about the future is, can
we feed ourselves if there are 85 million more of us? When you con-
sider how much food we currently are exporting, the answer is ob-
vious. But there is no need to cut off exports. On the contrary, they
probably can be increased, while the use of fertilizers and pesticides
can be decreased, if genetic improvement can be continued and sufficient
new land is brought into production. This will be expensive, for it will
2 Ridker, Ronald G., editor, Volume III of Commission Research Reports, "Population,
Resources, and theEnvironment," p. 21. Commission on Populatioon Growth and the
American Future, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972.
67-054-76- 7


be poorer quality land, but. it can be done without prohibitive price
hikes. There are many uncertainties and trade-offs involved: for ex-
ample, future populations can be higher or lower, restrictions on the
use of fertilizers and pesticides can be strengthened or relaxed,, and
land under cultivation may be contracted or expanded. There may be
research breakthroughs, such as in the biological fixation of nitrogen.
Future agricultural scenarios are almost limitless, but one fact is
clear: the United States can feed 300 million Americans at current
levels of consumption and still be a major agricultural exporter.
But what if our population growth is much greater than we expect,
or what if we decide to shoulder a heavier portion of the world food
burden? Then agricultural research and development will have to pro-
duce a second-generation green revolution, this time in the developed
countries as well. Perhaps the few commercial experiments with hydro-
ponic farming can be expanded by some orders of magnitude. Or con-
sider the possibility of a completely self-containedl photosynthetic "fac-
tory." 3 But if at some time we should have manipulted every factor of
supply and still fall short, there are demand inputs to the equation
which have a significant potential yield.
I refer to the heavy-some would say inordinately heavy-consump-
tion of animal protein in this country. Especially in the case of feed-
lot beef, this involves a significant foodstuffs loss as several pounds of
grain-vegetable protein-are converted to a single pound of animal
protein. The recognition of this protein gap has given rise to some in-
creased meatlessness, especially among young people, and vegetarian
and quasi-vegetarian diets are finding their way into the popular
media. As far as I know, this movement-if it can be called that-has
not perceptibly affected national averages, but it may be a harbinger of
trends in the future.
If so, it can come none too soon for many critics of U.S. levels of
consumption. The following passages are from a report produced under
the auspices of the Club of Rome.4
The reduction of population growth and changes in the consumption pattern
are the two most powerful instruments for bringing about an appropriate balance
between food production and food requirements in the long run. For countries of
South Asia, for example, the slowing down of population growth is more im-
portant whereas for the affluent countries, changes in the consumption pattern
are much more relevant.
Many nutritionists are of the opinion that in developed countries per capital
consumption of meat very often exceeds the amount needed for a healthy diet.
Excessive consumption absorbs part of the grains required by the poor for a
minimum diet. For these reasons, taxes on meat consumption or on grains fed to
cattle might benefit all concerned.
I would not give the meat and population questions anywhere near
equal weight. The primary problem is the present inability of many
poor countries to feed themselves, and agricultural demand obviously
is much more closely linked to population levels in those countries
than to consumption patterns here. Still, the United States is not an
island-politically, culturally, or in any other way-and it is in-
struct ive to us to know that this criticism exists and that there is some
basis for it. We may never have to reduce drastically our consumption,
3 See p. 182, To Live on Earth, by Sterling Brubaker, for a fascinating glimpse of such
a "factory." The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Inc.,
Baltimore. 1972.
4 Reviewing the International Order: Interim Report. Project RIO, Rotterdam, 1975.
Annex 4, pp. 1 and 2.


of meat-in any case that contingency would seem to be some decades
ahead-but it is quite true that more protein could be produced on
fewer acres. To that extent, there is both figurative and literal fat in
our agricultural system.
If only because they are so much in the news, most of us would put
the problems of energy number two on the worry list for the future. If
we have imminent shortages now, if not an actual crisis, what are we
going to do 45 years hence with a 40 percent greater population? Let
me try to put the situation into perspective.
Despite the historical hoopla surrounding the Bicentennial, we are
'a young nation perhaps most noteworthy for our cultural diversity.
Yet some distinctively American proverbs have developed: "You don't
get something for nothing"; "You only really enjoy something if you
have worked hard to get it"; "There is no such thing as a free lunch !"
All these homespun aphorisms to the conti ra ry, however, we have acted
for three-quarters of a century or more exactly as if fossil fuels were
free, a gift horse whose teeth nobody ever bothered to inspect. The
stuff was taken out of !the ground as if it were inexhaustible, as if
there were no tomorrow, and its costs were hidden, distorted, and
cheapened. We were not paying the full bill of fare. Now all at once
our lavish growth, coupled with a drop in domestic oil and gas pro-
duction and assisted by a push from the OPEC countries, have brought
us fully aware that we are living beyond our energy means; we know
now that there are limits, and they seem too close for comfort. Not for
several decades, if then, will there be any free lunch where energy is
But to say that energy will cost more is not the same thing as saying
that we are in imminent danger of running out. Its sources may change
and it will cost more-because production costs are higher, because
associated environmental costs are beginning to be paid, because of
international political and trade consideration-but it won't disap-
pear, at least not soon and certainly not suddenly. Even without tech-
nological breakthroughs, world fossil fuel reserves (including po-
tential as well as proved) appear adequate for at least the next half
century. This reckoning appears to be true even leaving out oil reserves
in shale and tar sands, and uranium and thorium. Beyond these possi-
bilities, if man learns to harness nuclear fusion--a reasonable possibil-
ity within the next 50 to 100 years-the limits of worldwide industrial
expansion will be set by factors other than availability of energy.5
So there is no last great brown-out just around the corner, as long
as the true costs of extracting energy are recognized and paid. Yet
there are substantial short- and middle-range energy problems, as we
all are aware, involving the sort of thing a democratic society finds
most difficult to resolve: how to allocate supplies during shortages, how
to assure that all segments of the population pay and benefit equally,
how to protect the environment while increasing production while not
interfering unduly with personal and corporate freedom. The energy
situation is all thorns-no matter where and how you try to pick it
up you will feel some pain-but it is not so much a problem of physical
resources as it is of people in society. It is a social problem, an institu-
5 Ridker, op. cit., p. 24.


tional problem, a legal, political, and economic problem, and it will re-
quire our best efforts if we are to make it through to the time when
solar and fusion power may make the whole thing an unhappy memory.
Or perhaps we'll remember this period as the good old days, for
higher prices and both real and perceived shortages will have some
good effects as well as poor. I expect, for instance, that we will become
much wiser custodians of our energy resources, more efficient and
cleaner in their use and more conserving of their supply. Researchers
and technologists will turn to the field with rekindled interest and
vigor-and funding-and new inventions are a definite possibility.
And necessity may well mother some social inventions as well: people
tend not to act until a crisis is upon them, but once it is-and 1 think
energy does have crisis implications to many-then social logjams are
broken and new roads can be taken. I do expect that the energy situa-
tion will produce some constructive political approaches, in this coun-
try and internationally.
I don't mean to sound like a Pollyanna. I think there are good and
hopeful signs for the longer-range future, but the immediate picture
offers little to cheer about and I certainly do not mean to imply other-
wise. We are in a period of transition and there won't be anything
easy about it. Yet we are not without tools to affect the immediate
future. In a new book6 released only last week, Joel Darmstadter of
RFF points out that growth rates of energy consumption can be
reduced significantly without major changes in lifestyles or standards
of living. In a carefully-drawn estimate of the effects of conservation
in the New York Region, he concludes that such measures as better
building insulation-especially in older buildings-and a shift to
smaller cars can reduce the level of energy consumption by 10-12
precent under what would be expected without conservation. At
best this would shift the 1985 level to 1990 or so-postponing the
problem, not solving it-but it does provide a kind of breathing space,
an easing of pressure which will permit more research and
The industrial process offers another fruitful target for conserva-
tion efforts. Glenn Seaborg, my colleague from the University of
California, has noted that "Recycled steel requires 75 percent less
energy than steel made from iron ore; 70 percent less energy is used
in recycling paper than in using virgin pulp; 12 times as much
energy is needed to produce primary aluminum as to recover alu-
minum scrap." 7 If only because we have been so profligate in the past,
conservation, including recycling, offers substantial short-term re-
sults. There is slack in the system-I don't think anyone really knows
the full extent of it-and it can and will be taken up.
Still another possibility is materials substitution, the use of a
renewable resource, or a more efficient one or a more durable one,
in place of one which is finite or wasteful of energy. In this, as you
are well aware, forest resources will have an enhanced role, for wood
is renewable, biodegradable, and energy-efficient in production, all
qualities which will become ever more important. This shift will
6 Darmstadter, Joel, Conserving Energy: Prospects and Opportunities in the New York
Region. The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., Baltimore,
7 Seaborg, Glenn T., "The Prospective Change In Life Style Signaled by the Energy
Crunch." Public Administration Review, July/August 1975, p. 334.


have its share of controversy, as you can imagine, but I think it can
be managed with due regard for all the interests involved.
There is only so much that can be addressed in a talk like this. I
have not, for example, chosen to explore the portentous issues pre-
sented by nuclear fission power, despite the fact that the electric utility
industry clearly intends to rely increasing on this source,8 and de-
spite the serious misgivings of many knowledgeable people about it.
For example, Allen Kneese, formerly, director of RFF's Quality of
the Environment program, his written of the deeply ethical nature
of the decision on nuclear fission power.
If so unforgiving a technology as large-scale nuclear fission energy production
is adopted, it will impose a burden of continuous monitoring and sophisticated
management of a dangerous material, essentially forever. The penalty of not
bearing this burden may be unparalleled disaster. This irreversible burden would
be imposed even if nuclear fission were to be used only for a few decades, a
mere instant in the pertinent time scales.
One speaks of two hundred thousand years. Only a little more than one-
hundredth of that time span has passed since the Parthenon was built. We
know of no government whose life was more than an instant by comparison with
the half-life of plutonium.9
Have we really thought through all the alternatives? Do the known
benefits outweigh the unfathomable costs? Can we presume to mort-
gage indefinitely the future of the planet? And if we decide the risks
are too great, can we prevail on others to come to the same conclusion?
The French? The Soviets? The Indians? The dimensions of the prob-
lems are enormous, and I can no more than hint at them today. Their
solution, if any, awaits much concentrated research and the most prob-
ing and inclusive public and scientific debate.
I also intend to detour around other potential energy sources, such
as solar and geothermal-which may have only marginal relevance
to whether we can provide for a population of 300 million-and, for
reasons of time, such natural resources as water, air, the nonfuel
minerals, and the oceans. About these I want to say only that none of
our studies indicates that doomsday is near: the resources are there,
for more than 300 million Americans and for the probable addi-
tional billions of the world population. Despite the hue and cry, there
really is not much of an argument about this. Even the relatively dour
prophets of the Club of Rome state in its latest report that "neither
food, nor energy, nor mineral resources appear from a technological
viewpoint to be seriously critical for the next 25 years." 10 The Club
points out, however, that from a socio-political viewpoint, many areas
already are critical, and I cannot but agree. The worldwide production
of food is sufficient, for example, but its production in some regions
and its distribution are anything but. Famines do occur, and they may
become more frequent and severe as world population pressures mount.
Again the issues are not so much resources problems as human
This is ironic, for with the important exception of nuclear energy,
most of the problems of natural resources differ only in degree from
8 See, for example, p. 11 and throughout of the executive summary of "Economic Growth
In the Future." Edison Electric Institute, New York, 1975.
9 Kneese, Allen V., "The Faustian Bargain." Resources, September 1973, Resources for
the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Draft of the Third Report to the Club of Rome. Quoted by John A. Harris, IV, and
Berrien Moore, III, in "Feasibility Study: Establishment of a U.S.A. Chapter of the Club
of Rome," August 1975, p. 5.


those people have confronted since the human race gathered round
the campfires of prehistory: how is wealth-however construed-to
be generated and divided? How is society-any society-to be orga-
nized so that its members are substained and nourished ? When a deci-
sion is made-political, social, economic-who gains and who loses?
In some ways, the knowledge that absolute depletion of resources is
a manageable threat is comforting, for we cannot reverse the irreversi-
ble and the lack of one or more vital resources might indeed herald
disaster. On the other hand, if people have been unable for thousands
of years to work out a more nearly ideal arrangement for living to-
gether, what bleak promise can there be in the recognition that most of
our problems are social?
The answer is that conditions have changed: to past generations, en-
ergy was cheap, forests were limitless, water inexhaustible, the air and
the oceans infinite reservoirs. I am an economist and not an anthro-
pologist, but to me, the explanation for human pre-eminence on this
planet-the case for speech and the opposable thumb notwithstand-
ing-is our flexibility, our adaptability to vastly different climates,
diets, and conditions of life. The fact of limits to the misuse of re-
sources was perhaps slow to sink in, but sink in it has. and we have
passed a historical milestone. Perceived conditions have changed, and
we have changed in response.
Do you hear people say anymore that bigger is better? In Detroit
building bigger and less efficient cars, or are we being blitzed by the
media with EPA mileage figures, with mini-Fords and Chevrolets,
even mini-Cadill a cs? Do communities continue to measure progress
in terms of population growth, or do we see instead signs from Fair-
fax, Virginia, to Petaluma, California, that enough is enough, or per-
haps to much'? I think growth for growth's sake is a dead idea, and I
cannot foresee any circumstances in the future which will revive it.
We do have to concern ourselves with natural resources-some are
finite, others can be irreparably damaged, and most will become in-
creasingly expensive-but I am convinced we will have enough if we
are wise stewards. But even if we were to be assured all the resources
we need in perpetuity, we still would be left with human nature as a
pivotal factor. Who we are, to what degree we can fashion true com-
munity, how we can more harmoniously live in this closed system
called earth: these are the important and enduring questions, and
knowledge and trained intelligence are the tools for their solution.
Fortunately, there are no limits to the growth of knowledge, to the
development of this distinctly human source of capital, and in its
infinite expansion we invest all our hopes and dreams for the future.