AMERICAN FORESTS 



February, 1966 



A Friendly Debate Concluded 



(From page 12) 



Cooperative efforts in forest re 

 search by industry and the Forest 

 Service are numerous. An outstand 

 ing example of this is the Eddy Tree 

 Breeding Station which resulted 

 from a grant by a private industry 

 land owner. 



These examples could be expand 

 ed to a great many more, all of 

 which would be familiar to you on 

 specific mention. In the interest of 

 as brief a letter as possible, how 

 ever, let me go outside specific re 

 source relationships and talk about 

 some of the benefits that accrue 

 from industry. Obviously, these can 

 develop only if profits are being 

 made. 



In the communities where the for 

 est industry is represented, the ex 

 amples of contributions to charita 

 ble, educational and community 

 projects are legion. No one has 

 been able to tabulate the thousands 

 of hours of donated executive time 

 on community projects, united fund 

 drives, hospital and church fund- 

 ings, youth activities, and a host of 

 other community endeavors so typi 

 cal of both small town and urban 

 American life. It is interesting to 

 note that a publication from the 

 V. S. Treasury Department shows 

 that the ratio of charitable contri 

 butions to income before federal in 

 come taxes for all manufacturing 

 industries in 1961-62 averaged 1.2 

 per cent. The lumber and wood 

 products industries contributed 135 

 per cent and paper and allied prod 

 ucts contributed an additional 1.1 

 per cent. By no stretch of the imag 

 ination can these contributed bil 

 lions of dollars and millions of 

 hours of time be constituted as &quot;self- 

 interest&quot; or as efforts which are 

 made entirely in the interest of good 

 public relations. 



This leads me to a further conclu 

 sion with regard to public agency 

 and particularly Forest Service re 

 sponsibility. This, incidentally, is 

 also corroborated by my own pub 

 lic forestry experience. As a timber 

 seller the Forest Service and other 

 ptiblic agencies have a proprietary 

 responsibility to the people of the 

 United States to sell the product at 

 the highest market possible. They 

 also have a responsibility, however, 

 to local communities, regional areas, 

 and to the general economy which 



is influenced by the presence of the 

 national forests and the sale of tim 

 ber. This public responsibility is in 

 conflict to a degree with the pro 

 prietary responsibility and we in the 

 forest industries recognize this as a 

 problem. It is one, however, of 

 which Forest Service personnel and 

 other public agency people must be 

 conscious because one responsibility 

 cannot be pursued to the exclusion 

 of the other. 



Industry opposition to acquisition 

 on the basis outlined in my previous 

 letter is not in effect telling timber 

 land owners they should not sell 

 lands to the government no matter 

 how willing they are to do so. We 

 in industry do not believe that a 

 marked increase in total federal 

 oumership is in the public interest 

 of this country. We are saying to 

 forest land owners generally that 

 this is a judgment they should make 

 before they sell their timberland to 

 a federal agency. We do not object 

 to federal acquisition which is dem- 

 onstrably in the public interest, but 

 we do not believe this should be on 

 the basis of blanket authority as 

 provided in the Weeks Act. If the 

 Forest Service needs small parcels 

 of land for administrative purposes 

 these can be obtained through the 

 authority in the Administrative Act 

 of 1957. The pattern of conduct we 

 are attempting to apply to the For 

 est Service is exactly the process 

 which applies at the present time to 

 the National Park Service and the 

 Wildlife Service. It is my belief this 

 approach is constructive and when 

 the industry meets with the Secre 

 tary again it is my belief it will be 

 the approach which will be taken 

 by a substantial majority of the in 

 dustry. 



Again, let me express my appre 

 ciation for your frankness in your 

 approach. It certainly is my hope 

 that this further answer to the 

 questions you have raised will pro 

 vide you an impression of an indus 

 trial complex which in a healthy, 

 strong position is essential to the 

 proper management of national for 

 est land, one which is bound to be 

 continual controversy with the 



in 



seller of its raw material supply but 

 which has proven itself to be con 

 structive in its approach to this con 

 troversy. 



Bernie 





