Forests & People -

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

The public often accepts that private companies logging their own lands can set their own policies and practices.  That seems to be in our economic DNA, never mind that it may abuse the forest.  Public forests are a different story, people have a stake in public forests and they want a say in how they are taken care of.   After World War II, increased demand for wood put pressure on the National Forests to increase timber harvesting dramatically.  At the same time there was a rising demand for outdoor recreation and wilderness.  Automobiles were getting more reliable, roads to get to the forests and mountains were improving and military surplus four-wheel-drive jeeps that could go off-road became available.  People wanted forest areas dedicated to camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, motorbiking, skiing, snowmobiling and other outdoor recreation.  It was becoming evident that there was not enough forest land for every interest group to have it all their way.  Conflict over management of National Forests was coming from every direction.  

When conflicts go national and involve a public asset, like the National Forests, it becomes Congress’ job to deal with it, usually by passing a law.  “What do we want from our National Forests?” had become a national issue.   The Forest Service began to urge Congress to give the agency a clear mandate for managing the National Forest. To get a mandate, the Forest Service drafted a proposed bill and lobbied Congress to pass it.  The growing public concern pushed Congress to passed the draft bill and call it the “Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960.”  It says, the National Forests “shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed and wildlife and fish purposes.”  The Act emphasizes sustained yield of these products (Paul W. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development, pg 631).  This was what the Forest Service wanted, a statement of what the National Forests should produce written in law. This is a big deal.  It is significant that outdoor recreation was listed first among the products from the forests, but all the products are important and should receive appropriate management considering the forest conditions and opportunities.  All these “crops” were required to be managed to sustain their production into the future.

This law is important to the Forest Service because it kept the authority to manage the National Forests with the Forest Service.

I Want M!ne !

In the history of the world there has probably never been more discussion, controversy and acrimony over forests than in the 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s in America.  The arguments were emotional and intense, the economies of the lumber industry, grazing industry and other commercial forest users were at stake on one hand and preserving the forests and all that goes with forests was at stake on the other side.  There wasn’t much veracity in the extreme arguments from either side, the positions were so hard set there was little room in the middle for reasonable discussion.   A very serious side effect is, good science has been lost, or compromised, as a part of the decision making in the heated economic, political and legal arguments.   The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act turned out to be not specific enough to give strong management direction.  Environmentalists, Wilderness advocates, recreationists , the timber industry, grazing industry and anyone else having any financial or emotional interest in forests were using their influences with Congress and the public to demand what they wanted from the National Forests.   Arguments were, too often, reduced to one-line sound-bites for public consumption, natural resource issues are far too complex for that.  The tools were lobbying for new laws, control over Forest Service budgets and legal challenges to forest policies, management and projects. The Forest Service was being whip-lashed from every direction and good science was too complex to have a place in the policy making.

Earlier, leaders in American forest thinking had come from the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, Arthur Carhart, Bob Marshall had forward looking visions of the value of forests and how they could be managed to meet people’s needs in the present and in the future.  They thought, they wrote, they spoke, they worked, they led, they communicated with the public and and they formed sound direction for our nation’s forests.   After the World War II, it seems there was little leadership from the Forest Servicer or other government agencies concerning our forests.  Politics, new laws, annual budgets, lawsuits and judges’ actions became the way of making forest decisions and policy.  Science was being left out of the discussion, it was lost in the minutia of litigation details and the Forest Service was too compromised to get forest science into the decision-making arena.

Congress was lobbied by conflicting forest interest groups to pass laws favoring the lobbyists particular interest.  Congress responded, as it often does, by passing laws the lobbyists wanted.  Many of these laws are short sighted, short purposed, and conflict with previous laws and direction.  But Congress always has an out for laws that are conflicting or become a problem because they were passed for political purposes.  When it comes time to develop the budget, Congress simply doesn’t allocate money to implement the law they previously passed.  That makes it become the agencies’ problem.  If the lobbying group that wanted the law complains that nothing is being done on the ground, the congressperson  can, and does, blame the agency.   Not a shining example of leadership.

The universities and the Society of American Foresters have had little appetite for entering the public fray.  They continue publishing new science findings, but seldom speak up for science having a voice in managing forest resources.