AMERICAN FORESTS 









January, 1966 



A Friendly Debate 



(From page 31) 



The industry feels that the same 

 public scrutiny to acquisition for 

 recreation under this Act should be 

 attendant in the case of the national 

 forests as is the case with the Na- 

 National Park System. This is the 

 only issue involved And it seems to 

 me to make considerable sense that 

 Forest Service leadership should be 

 required to demonstrate to the 

 Congress national interest in the 

 major acquisitions they are recom 

 mending such as the two million 

 acre addition to the Ozark National 

 Forest in Arkansas. 



As you perhaps know, the indus 

 try sought an amendment to the 

 Land and Water Conservation 

 Fund Act to permit the utilization 

 of the federal portion of the Fund 

 for development purposes and to re 

 quire positive Congressional ap 

 proval for recreation acquisition 

 utilizing moneys from the Fund. 

 This amendment would not have 

 abrogated the basic purpose of the 

 Weeks Act, which still could be uti 

 lized for acquisition for any pur 

 pose with appropriated funds. Since 

 this amendment lost by the slim 

 margin of a tie vote in the House, 

 the industry is now following its 

 only other recourse, which is to ob 

 tain review of the state enabling 

 acts in light of current conditions 

 50 years after the Weeks Act was 

 passed. Surely you would not deny 

 the industry recourse to this ex 

 pression in our democratic system. 

 Surely also you would not question 

 my own motivation or that of in 

 dustry executives and professional 

 foresters in feeling that the effort 

 that is being made is &quot;not in their 

 own selfish interest&quot; but in the long- 

 term national interest in which total 

 land ownership patterns will play 

 so important a role. 



With regard to the industry ap 

 proach to land exchange, where the 

 impression has been sained that 

 there is general opposition to such 

 processes is a mystery to me. Noth 

 ing could be further from fact. One 

 of the avenues private forest owner 

 ship companies in the West are at 

 tempting to follow to eliminate the 

 horrendous problem of intermin 

 gled ownership is that of exchange. 

 A fairly recent example is the ex 

 change between our company and 

 the Gifford Pinchot National Forest 

 in the vicinity of Mt. St. Helens and. 

 as I am sure you know, there are a 

 number of proposed exchanges in 



process at the present time between 

 every major land owning company 

 and the national forest system. 



The Western Forest Industries 

 Association does have a specific pol 

 icy opposing land exchanges for rea 

 sons that are not at all clear to me. 

 They have recently opposed an ex 

 change between the Northern Pa 

 cific Railway and the Forest Service 

 on the grounds that the exchange 

 would decrease materially the an 

 nual allowable cut of timber, this 

 despite the fact that considerably 

 less than 2,000 acres of land are in 

 volved, some of which has a high rec 

 reational value involving shoreline 

 acreages of beautiful Spirit Lake at 

 the base of Mt. St. Helens. 



A possible source of the Secre 

 tary s misinformation on the indus 

 try attitude toward exchanges may 

 have been the legislation recently 

 enacted by the Minnesota State Leg 

 islature. It is my understanding 

 that, in response to the Secretary s 

 action increasing the size of the 

 &quot;no-cut&quot; zone within the Boundary 

 Waters Canoe Area, the state legisla 

 ture enacted legislation calling for a 

 two-year moratorium on exchange 

 of federal and state lands within the 

 Superior National Forest. I believe 

 that this legislation was passed to 

 assure adequate review, of the im 

 pact that the Secretary s action 

 would have on the area s resources 

 and economy. This appears to be 

 the action of a state legislature to 

 maintain a grip on the state s 

 economy. 



Perhaps the best way I can sum 

 this up is to quote to you a section 

 of my presentation to the American 

 Forest Congress, October 30, 1963: 

 &quot;The forest industries oppose vig 

 orously any general acquisition 

 program on the part of federal 

 agencies regardless of sources 

 of funds except by Act of Con 

 gress through legislation relat 

 ing to specific areas. These must 

 be clearly in the national inter 

 est. It is not believed to be in 

 the national interest to . mate 

 rially increase the total, land 

 holdings of governmental agen 

 cies. Exchange is the most re 

 alistic and economically feasi 

 ble means by which this vexing 

 problem can be solved. 



Exchanges or sales should 

 have appropriate safeguards 

 with due consideration for all 

 values. In areas where an es 

 tablished industry is dependent 



