prove wildlife habitat. Still another may be a 

 'timber beast' and view all other activities as 

 distractions from his main job of growing 

 trees" (Hall 1963, p. 284). 



In the absence of congressional direction, 

 other than funding, to establish priorities 

 among the various resources, the local deci- 

 sionmaker has usually set those priorities. 

 Prior to recent changes in management prac- 

 tice, the District Ranger, who as a rule knew 

 the special characteristics of his particular 

 area better than anyone else, was seen as the 

 "key man in multiple use management." 

 Guided by his staff (with the aid and direc- 

 tion of the Forest Supervisor and the Region- 

 al Director and their staffs), the District Rang- 

 er sought to develop a multiple use plan that 

 would give consideration to all of the re- 

 sources and uses of the forest under his con- 

 trol (Hall 1963). 



Great reliance was placed on the sound 

 judgment, the "savvy," and the professional 

 competence of the District Ranger. The multi- 

 ple use concept, as it was being practiced, 

 served mainly to emphasize that all of the 

 various possible conflicts and alternatives 

 should be considered by the decisionmaker 

 faced with complex situations. There was no 

 guarantee, however, that the various priorities 

 implicit in a particular situation would be rec- 

 ognized as such. 



Partly as a result of recent studies, prompt- 

 ed by public criticism of management prac- 

 tices on certain National Forests, broad 

 changes are being made. Some studies have 

 pointed out a lack of direction that leads to 

 priority setting in a narrow framework unre- 

 lated to an overriding goal. The findings of 

 the Task Force investigating management pri- 

 orities on the Bitterroot National Forest are 

 of special interest: 



Multiple use planning on the Bitterroot Nation- 

 al Forest has not advanced far enough to pro- 

 vide the firm management direction necessary 

 to insure quality land management and, at the 

 same time, to provide all segments of the public 

 with a clear picture of long-range objectives. 



Multiple use planning is not an instant process. 

 Good plans are evolved over time and must be 

 viewed as dynamic working tools that must be 

 improved constantly as needs and circum- 

 stances change. The principal single fault this 

 Task Force finds ... is that multiple use plan- 



ning is not far enough advanced. Many of the 

 questions that have been raised by the public 

 may be boiled down into one simple overall 

 question: How does the National Forest plan to 

 fit everything together so the various resource 

 needs can be met without impairing other uses 

 and values? The "how" has yet to be adequate- 

 ly demonstrated in multiple use plans. Effective 

 land management requires precise mapping and 

 specific management prescriptions for land 

 units within which the management objectives, 

 or the planned mix of uses, are reasonably ho- 

 mogeneous. It requires in some cases that oper- 

 ational restrictions be placed on resource uses 

 and activities to prevent damage to other re- 

 sources. All of this must be done in such a man- 

 ner that all segments of the public can contrib- 

 ute to the development of objectives. Once 

 the objectives are nailed down, there can be 

 complete continuity and consistency of action 

 on the part of the administrators and under- 

 standing on the part of the public. 



The multiple use plans on the Bitterroot Na- 

 tional Forest do indicate a tone or direction 

 for management; if this tone could be 

 transmitted to the day-to-day activities, the 

 quality of management on the ground would be 

 improved greatly. However, the plans contain 

 too few specific coordinating decisions. Because 

 the organization is spread so thin, some impor- 

 tant and long-term land management decisions 

 have been made by some of the least experi- 

 enced personnel, without the important overall 

 controls a complete multiple use plan provides, 

 and without adequate supervisory guidance. In 

 instances, the results have been disappointing. 

 (USDA Forest Service 1970, p. 10, 11; em- 

 phasis added.) 



The "simple overall question" put forth in 

 the second paragraph comes very close to im- 

 plying the FOREST goal. A directive from the 

 Regional Forester in 1971 called upon the 

 Forest Supervisor of the Bitterroot National 

 Forest to drastically alter his management 

 plans to reflect the findings of the Task 

 Force. 



A strong element in criticism of subjective 

 decisionmaking has been the charge that pro- 

 duction goals hold priority over quality of en- 

 vironment. Some of the problems pointed out 

 in recent studies of forest management may in 

 fact be attributable to such an attitude. In 

 some of the Wyoming Forests, for example, 

 when areas that had been included in earlier 

 allowable cut calculations were later found to 

 be unloggable, there was no attempt to rectify 

 the miscalculations. Rather, the "cut was con- 

 centrated in the area that could be logged" 

 (USDA Forest Service 1971, p. 8). In another 

 instance, however, a study team called for just 



49 



