January, 1966 



AMERICAN FORESTS 



on federal lands or where an es 

 sential federal park or program 

 is involved so that a land ex 

 change would cause disruption 

 of an activity, loss of invest 

 ments, or hardship to depend 

 ent communities, then a very 

 careful approach would be re 

 quired. 



Anything that can be done to 

 speed up exchange of land 

 would help to eliminate the 

 many controversies caused by 

 the ownership pattern now in 

 existence throughout the coun 

 try. Efficiency of management 

 would be improved immeasur 

 ably with a consequent favor 

 able effect on timber supply.&quot; 

 It is obvious, therefore, that the 

 industry in general is not opposed 

 to acquisition as such and that it 

 does vigorously endorse a policy of 

 land exchange in the interests of 

 consolidation of ownerships. 



It is my hope this will clarify the 

 general position of the forest prod 

 ucts industry in matters relating to 

 land ownership patterns. If it is 

 your desire to have more detail as 

 to the positions, including direct 

 policy statements of the major as 

 sociations representing the forest in 

 dustry, I would be glad to forward 

 them to you. 



Again thanks for writing in your 

 usual frank manner and giving me 

 this opportunity to clarify the situa 

 tion. 



Bernard Or ell 



Mr. Granger s Rebuttal 



Dear Bernie: 



I do appreciate your full reply of 

 October 5 to my letter of July 2, 

 1965. However, it does not seem to 

 me to clear up the industry s posi 

 tion on acquisition by the Forest 

 Service. 



First I can t see that the Secretary 

 of Agriculture or I have &quot;been mis 

 led&quot; as to the position of the indus 

 try when we consider the statement 

 of Donald Baldwin during the hear 

 ings on the Land and Water Conser 

 vation Fund bill. Stating that he 

 spoke for Ralph Hodges. Baldwin 

 stated unequivocally. 



&quot;National forest acreage need 

 not and should not be in 

 creased. Instead attention 

 should be given to developing 

 the full potential of present na 

 tional forest acreage this in 

 cludes timber and grazing as 

 well as recreational and wildlife 

 uses.&quot; 



While Baldwin did allude to the 

 authority for land exchange and ap 

 peared to endorse it as an accept 



able substitute for purchase, he and 

 you surely know *that exchange 

 could not take care of all desirable 

 acquisitions, snch as the Sylvania 

 tract in Michigan, for example the 

 acquisition of which was strongly 

 opposed by various Michigan tim 

 ber groups. 



Then let us consider Gillett s 

 &quot;scary&quot; talk to the Fontana Village 

 Conservation Round-up in June 

 1965, as reported by the Southern 

 Lumberman of July 15, 1965. Gil- 

 - lett is quoted as saying that &quot;contin 

 ued removal from commercial use 

 of productive forest lands by the 

 federal government for outdoor rec 

 reation could spell misery for the 

 nation.&quot; Pretty strong language! 



The Secretary, in his letter to 

 Mortimer Doyle of July 7, 1965, 

 states his understanding the mem 

 bers of the forest products industry 

 (not the national association) 

 strongly supported the state legis 

 lative two-year ban on exchange in 

 Minnesota and the effort to get Ar 

 kansas to repeal or modify the 

 state s consent to acquisition under 

 the Weeks Law. Your letter could 

 be interpreted to approve these 

 local industry actions, particularly 

 with reference to state consent to 

 Weeks Law acquisitions. 



You appear to want specific con 

 gressional sanction for each specific 

 acquisition. This would be an al 

 most impossible procedure and I 

 doubt if Congress would favor it. 

 Congress now has a pretty direct 

 control on purchases through the ac 

 tions of the National Forest Preser 

 vation Commission, composed of 

 members of both houses. 



As to the question of the indus 

 try s self-interest, and your reference 

 to the Secretary s complimentary 

 remarks on industry cooperation, 

 surely you recognize the &quot;four 

 points&quot; allowable cut, timber ap 

 praisals, appeals procedure and 

 sales contract revision, as being di 

 rectly related to industry s self-in 

 terest in more advantageous na 

 tional forest timber sale policies and 

 procedures. 



-/Finally, let me reiterate the state 

 ment in my letter of July 2 that in 

 dustry opposition to acquisition is 

 in effect telling timberland owners 

 that they should not sell their lands 

 to the government no matter how 

 willing they are to do so. 



I hope that when the industry 

 meets again with the Secretary, as 

 planned, they will come forward 

 with a really constructive attitude 

 toward federal acquisition. 



Christopher M. Granger 



