Debate on National Forest Lands for Recreation between 

 Christopher Granger and Bernard Orell -- AMERICAN FORESTS, 

 Jan. to Feb., 1966, issues. 



113 



Christopher Granger 

 U.S.F.S. (retired) 



A FRIENDLY DEBATE BETWEEf 



HOW MUCH LAND FOR NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION? 





THANKS to candor and &quot;know- 

 how&quot; the relations between 

 Secretary of Agriculture Free 

 man and the forest products people 

 have generally been good. Solid ac 

 complishment in what might be 

 called the mechanics of national for 

 est management as regards timber 

 production has been one result of 

 this relationship. 



Developments in 1965 revealed, 

 however, that this empathy has 

 tended to break down as regards na 

 tional forest acquisition for recrea 

 tional purposes. In an address be 

 fore the National Lumber Manufac 

 turers Association on May 3, Mr. 

 Freeman laid his opinions on the 

 line to the lumbermen when he 

 stated, &quot;The American people ex 

 pect me, and you, to do an increas 

 ingly better job of meshing natural 

 beauty and resource use.&quot; 



In spelling out his views, the 

 Secretary said, &quot;I have been sur 

 prised and disappointed by what I 

 consider short-sighted positions and 

 actions that serve neither the indus 

 try nor the national interest on the 

 part of many lumbermen where 

 public land acquisition for recrea 

 tion is concerned.&quot; In reminding 

 lumbermen that cooperation is a 

 &quot;two-way street,&quot; the Secretary said, 

 &quot;. . . Nor is it cooperation when the 

 industry takes a position of rigid 

 and undiscriminating opposition to 

 the Forest Service land acquisition 

 part of the Land and Water Conser 

 vation Fund activities. Or when the 



states to block Federal-State land 

 exchanges.&quot; 



As is always the case, the areas of 

 agreement between the Secretary 

 and the industry received scant at 

 tention from the conservation pub 

 lic but the prospect of a fight on na 

 tional forest acquisition for recrea 

 tion did. With some conservation 

 ists stating that forest industry is op 

 posed to all national forest acqui 

 sition and all land exchanges, the 

 situation as of today is murky and 

 begging for clarification. 



One well-known forester who de 

 cided to seek light on the subject 

 was Christopher M. Granger, former 

 Assistant Chief Forester in charge of 

 national forest management and the 

 man who is generally regarded as 

 having been the first national forest 

 boss to put those forests &quot;in the 

 black.&quot; As he has done on previous 

 occasions, Mr. Granger went di 

 rectly to the industry in the form 

 of a letter written on July 2 to Ber 

 nard Orell, Vice President, Weyer 

 haeuser Company, and the spokes 

 man for the industry at the Fifth 

 American Forest Congress in 1963. 

 Result has been a friendly debate be 

 tween the two men, both profes 

 sional foresters, which is presented 

 here in the interests of helping to 

 clarify a confused situation. Their 

 correspondence follows [Editor] : 



Mr. Granger s Inquiry 



Dear Bernie: 



For the second time I &quot;take pen 



tn *Yr*ss to vnn tnv 



amazement that you are taking the 

 lead in the campaign by the timber 

 industry to block all land acquisi 

 tion by the Forest Service and to 

 pressure the States to repeal their 

 consent to acquisition under the 

 Weeks Law. I was very glad to note 

 that the Secretary of Agriculture, in 

 one of the recent industry meetings, 

 frankly deplored the lack of cooper 

 ation by the industry in its &quot;rigid 

 and undiscriminating opposition&quot; 

 to acquisition by the Forest Service 

 with Land and Water Conservation 

 Fund appropriations. 



Viewing the industry attitude, 

 one would think that the Forest 

 Service is making forest land-own 

 ers sell to the Government. You 

 know very well that there is always 

 a willing seller and nobody is going 

 to sell if he intends to keep and 

 manage his land. And in the case 

 of exchange, with the States or pri 

 vate owners, there is always benefit 

 to both the parties. 



So, what your industry is doing is 

 in effect saying to public and .pri 

 vate owners alike that they must 

 hold onto their lands whether or 

 not they would like to sell or* ex 

 change them. This is an absurd po 

 sition, but it is, I am sorry to say, of 

 a pattern too long exemplified by 

 the timber industry. When is the 

 industry going to advance some 

 constructive suggestions relating to 

 the national forests apart from their 

 own self-interests? You, personally 

 took a constructive position when 



flu- mulfinlp lisp art was hpfrre 



