(USD A Forest Service 1971, p. 69). The 

 study team reports: 



Resource inventories were lacking on all four 

 Forests when extensive logging was begun. At 

 that time, the best information was the Timber 

 Resource Inventory, but because equivalent 

 data were not available about other resources 

 the Timber Resource Inventory was easily mis- 

 interpreted. Although it provided the factual 

 base for calculating the allowable cut, in the 

 absence of data about other important values 

 the calculations did not fully take into account 

 the needs of wildlife and fisheries, recreation, 

 and scenic quality. 



There is no intent to imply that timber is 

 alone in being given special consideration by 

 virtue of its more refined data base. The op- 

 posite may be true. Within the agency there 

 has often been a tendency to suggest that a 

 project is desirable because of its "unquantifi- 

 able" or "unknown" benefits, as indicated by 

 unreliable or incomplete data. Supporters of 

 wilderness area classification are especially 

 prone to this practice. The justification of one 

 resource by reference to benefits to another 

 may be similarly based on unreliable data, as 

 when Service personnel suggest that a certain 

 timber cutting practice or timber sale will "do 

 wonders" for the wildlife habitat. Perhaps it 

 may, but perhaps is not enough. 



Knowledge and information are not "free" 

 goods. Research and data gathering bears a 

 cost, both in money and in the man-hours and 

 other resources utilized in the research effort. 

 There is no suggestion here that a dollar spent 

 in one type of research is equal in results to a 

 dollar spent on some other type of research. 

 But the present allocation of research funds, 

 stressing as it does the gathering of informa- 

 tion on timber, does not appear on the sur- 

 face to be in compliance with the intent of 

 the legislation. This in turn reflects the con- 

 gressional budget appropriations and cannot 

 be divorced from a public priority-setting 

 mechanism. Although the enabling legislation 

 does not set research priorities, funding legis- 

 lation does, as a later discussion will show. 



Lack of data is not always the problem, as 

 anyone who has attended agency meetings 

 knows. "We have so much data we simply 

 don't know what to do with it," was a com- 

 ment made at one meeting attended during 

 this study. Such a statement can only mean 



that too little thought has been given to the 

 purposes behind the collection of certain 

 types of data. The evidence suggests that 

 some data collection activities have become 

 burdens rather than benefits. 



It is possible to identify implicit priorities, 

 therefore, with reference not only to the par- 

 ticular resources being studied, but also to the 

 techniques employed in getting at the infor- 

 mation gathered. The Forest Survey Manual 

 supplies very specific direction on how to 

 measure tree and stand volumes. What it fails 

 to do, however, is to place the timber inven- 

 tory in any reasonable ecological setting. A re- 

 cent study emphasizes "the need for resource 

 inventory work that will describe and update 

 timber and other resources in relation to the 

 land, land-use status, and other factors that 

 affect forest development and use. Timber 

 and other resource inventories must be coor- 

 dinated and related to land characteristics and 

 other current factors that are significant in 

 multiple use management ..." (Wikstrom and 

 Hutchison 1971, p. ii). 



Any timber inventory must provide the 

 necessary data to allow determination, for 

 example, of whether the stand is on a stable 

 land base, or whether it is part of a migration 

 route for elk or deer. Is it an important nest- 

 ing area for bird or game populations? What is 

 its future value as a recreation site? In other 

 words, how does it fit into the social and eco- 

 logical systems? What is its functional rela- 

 tionship to the other resources of the FOR- 

 EST? Only when this question is answered 

 can it be said that all resources are given equal 

 consideration. 



Subjective Decisionmaking 



The need for coordinated resource inven- 

 tories points up the fact that the alternatives 

 open to the land manager have complex rami- 

 fications. These complexities, apparently, 

 have led to a tendency in the Forest Service 

 to give the local forest administrator broad 

 discretionary authority, and subjective factors 

 have thus entered the decisionmaking process. 

 It is possible and natural that "one ranger 

 may be 'recreation conscious' and view each 

 plot of land as a possible campsite. Another 

 may be fascinated by opportunities to im- 



48 



