64 



Ostensibly, Congressman Han^urg justifies the buyout of more lands than are 

 needed in order to preserve ttie Headwaters fbrest on ttie grounds that placing the additional 

 lands in the national forest is needed in order to prevent Pacific Lumber Company from 

 'overharvesting* timber on these lands. This argument is much nrare revealing about the 

 true environmenta) agenda of the current administration than is pemaps intended. If that 

 argument can be made for Pacific Lumber ( and I reject such a suggestion) then it would 

 presumably apply with equal force to all private timbertand ownership. The environmental 

 movement has become a stalking horse for the installation of soviet-etyle central planning 

 under the guise of 'industrial policy.* Similar appeals are of course the dominant theme in 

 the emerging debate over the socialtzation of the medical services industry. Sometimes I 

 fear that the American people are going to have to learn the hard way that it is easy to walk 

 into the socialist swanrp, but not so easy to find the way out again after it becomes obvraus 

 (which it surely will) that it doesnt work. 



The argument that those lands over and above the 3000 acres of the headwaters 

 grove and the 1500 acre buffer around it would be nxinaged responsibly by the U. S. Forest 

 Service under the multiple use concept is patently false. Multiple use on the national forests 

 has gone beyond being a mere joke to become a cruel hoax. The natronal forest system has 

 beconne little nxjre than a museum of dead and dying timber all the while that the same 

 people who succeeded in kx:king it up complain about the absence of low-cost housing for 

 the rising homeless population. But the multiple-use promise is not new either. When RNP 

 was expanded promises were made to increase the harvest of timber off the Six Rivers 

 National Forest for a p«riod of fifteen yaare in order to mitigate some of the job losses, but 

 key Congressmen were careful not to codity their oral promises. Instead, they nwrely 

 required the Forest Service to STUDY the feasibility of doing so. The required study was 

 duly performed, knovim as, 'Timber Harvest Scheduling Study: Six Rivers h4ational Forest." It 

 v^s prepared in accordance with Section 102.(C} of Public Law 95-250. the act expanding 

 the Redwood Natwnal Parte. But once the study was done the harvest was reduced rather 



7 



