P^^&quot;^WH^^^^W 



HOW MUCH LAND FOR NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION? 



A FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCLUDED 



U\ST month, this magazine car 

 ried an exchange of corre 

 spondence between Christopher 

 Granger, former Assistant Chief 

 Forester, U.S.F.S., and Bernard 

 Orell, Vice President, Weyerhaeuser 

 Company, on the subject of acquisi 

 tion of land by the Forest Service 

 under the terms of the recently- 

 passed Land and Water Conserva 

 tion Fund Act. 



Citing Secretary of Agriculture 

 Freeman s remarks before NLMA 

 members last May, Mr. Granger 

 asked Mr. Orell to comment on 

 charges that the timber industry was 

 blocking all land acquisition by the 

 Forest Service and was pressuring 

 the States to repeal their consent to 

 such acquisition under the Weeks 

 Law. 



Mr. Orell responded that the in 

 dustry feels there should be no ex 

 pansion of federal land holdings, 

 which already comprise more than 

 one-third of the total land area of 

 the country, unless it is clearly shown 

 to be in the national interest and, as 

 such, receives prior Congressional 

 approval. The NLMA feels the best 

 way for the government to acquire 

 needed lands, or to consolidate inter 

 mingled holdings, is through ex 

 change. On the subject of the Weeks 

 Law, Mr. Orell said he did not think 

 the industry was &quot;pressuring&quot; any 

 body, but he did think it was only 

 reasonable for the States to recon 

 sider whether legislation passed in 

 1911 for the purpose of watershed 

 protection and timber production 

 should now be used for a different 

 purpose that of acquiring recrea 

 tional lands, particularly in areas 

 where this might have an adverse 

 effect on the local economy. 



Mr. Granger s final letter pointed 

 out that exchanges could not take 

 care of all desirable acquisitions, but 

 even if they could, he cited instances 

 where the lumber industry appeared 

 to be opposing such exchanges. Mr. 

 Granger reiterated a statement made 

 in his first letter that the industry 

 was not taking a constructive atti 

 tude in general, but was merely act- 



12 



ing in its own self-interest. To which 

 Mr. Orell now makes his concluding 

 comment. [Editor] 



Dear Chris: 



Thank you for your letter of No 

 vember 14, 1965, in reply to mine of 

 October 5 regarding the forest in 

 dustries position on acquisition of 

 land by federal agencies. 



Perhaps it would be well worth 

 while, however, to pursue somewhat 

 further the question of whether or 

 not the industry approaches the For 

 est Service with constructive sugges 

 tions relating to the national forests 

 that are not tied directly with their 

 own self-interests. 



As you can certainly appreciate, 

 the question of industry s self-inter 

 est versus the national or public 

 interest, often is a very fine line 

 indeed. You would agree that it is 

 in the national interest and, there 

 fore, in the public interest, that the 

 segments of the forest industry de 

 pendent on the national forests for 

 their raw material supply be in a 

 healthy, viable, profitable position. 

 This carries with it management re 

 sponsibility for a tight, efficient, 

 well-run operation, but it also places 

 upon the public agency the responsi 

 bility of absolute efficiency in mak 

 ing available a raw material supply 

 in reasonable quantity at prices on 

 which an efficient operation can 

 realize a reasonable return. In short, 

 the segment of the forest industry 

 about which we are talking is a tim 

 ber buyer and the Forest Service is 

 the timber seller. In the buyer- 

 seller relationship there is bound to 

 be controversy, which can be good 

 or bad depending on the circum 

 stances. It does not seem to me to 

 be fair to accuse the industry of 

 &quot;self -interest&quot; when involved in ne 

 gotiation over buyer-seller relation 

 ship details. 



When these discussions are car 

 ried out freely with consideration 

 for the other s point of view the re 

 sults are bound to be constructive 

 and to the advantage of both par 

 ties. The facts on which decisions 



are made are sounder and the un 

 derstanding of problems clearer. 



It is this to which the Secretary 

 was referring in his presentation to 

 the National Forest Products Asso 

 ciation a year ago this spring and to 

 my mind makes the industry con 

 structive in its approach. 



This matter of profitability is 

 something that few people who have 

 devoted their lives to dedicated gov 

 ernmental service fully appreciate. 

 All too many of these think of the 

 terms &quot;profit&quot; and &quot;self-interest&quot; as 

 being synonymous. When anyone 

 categorizes the industrial complex 

 of America, of which the forest in 

 dustries are a part, as being oper 

 ated totally from the standpoint of 

 &quot;self-interest&quot; a terrible error of 

 judgment is being made. It is from 

 the profits which are made by com 

 panies, large and small, that many 

 constructive public benefits develop. 



Relating these strictly to those of 

 relationships between the Forest 

 Service and the forest industries, 

 perhaps one of the best examples is 

 that of forest fire control. In the 

 early 1900 s when the U. S. Forest 

 Service had little money and fewer 

 men to patrol the vast federal acre 

 ages in the West, it was the private 

 industry and private associations 

 which brought home to the public 

 the importance of protecting the 

 forest resources from fire. Protect 

 ing their own lands may have been 

 self-interest, but in doing so they 

 certainly helped protect the public 

 lands as well. Even in these modern 

 times, in any potential conflagration 

 situation, it is the forest industries 

 who provide the back-up of neces 

 sary manpower and equipment at 

 considerable financial sacrifice to 

 handle these situations for the fed 

 eral and state protective agencies. 



Through the yfars cooperative 

 programs such as Keep Green have 

 certainly benefited the people of 

 the entire country as well as the in 

 dustry and forest land owners who 

 foot the major part of the bill. 

 (Turn to page 58) 



AMERICAN FORESTS 



