48 



Mr. Vento. If I just might interrupt you, I understand — I did 

 read the testimony — I understand the fact that they cannot honor 

 the contract. It is bound by other factors 



Mr. Mayr. Right. 



Mr. Vento. [continuing] — like court injunctions and other factors 

 beyond their control, is that correct? 



Mr. Mayr. That is correct. 



Mr. Vento. So it is sort of beating a dead horse here in terms 

 of the fact that — but they then say that because they are admit- 

 ting, in other words, they can suggest that they are taking on the 

 burden of having have not gone through the process or NEPA cor- 

 rectly, that they then take on the burden of not delivering the tim- 

 ber to you as per se the contract. In other words, they are admit- 

 ting that. You are just saying that it is a matter of what the nego- 

 tiated amounts might be in terms of not harvest or whatever the 

 damages are that occurred. 



Mr. Mayr. Yes, and it has been that delay of over — on one timber 

 sale, it is a delay of five years, and in normal commercial contracts, 

 if we had a contract with a private company, we would never be 

 allowed to delay performance for five years, and that is where we 

 have suffered from, is that delay. 



Mr. Vento. I understand that there are adjustments that have 

 to be made in terms of the economy, in terms of its reconciliation. 

 I just think it ought to be understood that, from my perspective, 

 yes, the Forest Service is up front in terms of not doing this, but 

 they also have the obligation under court order and under a whole 

 series of other laws that needed to be followed in terms of bringing 

 this issue — I mean, all of it has to be considered in the context. It 

 is not a question of competence, but it is a question of nonperform- 

 ance from your aspect. Before we begin to render judgments on 

 them, I think we ought to look at what responsibilities that they 

 have that have been placed upon them. 



I also. Madam Chair, I would note that the suggestion about, ob- 

 viously, the amount of harvest that has gone on or has not gone 

 on, I think I would just note for the record, it is my understanding 

 that, in fact, there have been salvage contracts put out in which 

 there have not been bids in some parts of the country. So the whole 

 issue of whether or not you do salvage or not, I would just ask my 

 colleagues to consider the fact that sometimes these salvage sales 

 are not very attractive in terms of their profitability and the con- 

 sequence of that is that those types of sales are not bid upon, so 

 they go by the wayside. You can make them more attractive by 

 putting in more profitable types of harvest of trees, but that is not 

 necessarily where you want to go in terms of trying to deal with 

 the management of a forest. 



So it is the reason that salvage, even though there is a consider- 

 able amount of salvage that could be out there that is on roaded 

 lands and other areas, it is not always a very attractive purchase. 

 It is not a very attractive business for those that might be doing 

 it. 



We know what is more desirable, the large volume old growth 

 type of trees in the Northwest or in other areas where you have 

 different types of timber which would be more attractive, but it 

 does not always match the needs of how a land manager might 



