source in the budget "pie," as shown in fig- 

 ure 12. The diagram tells only part of the 

 story, however. Since the allocations to the 

 various resources vary widely, relative changes 

 could be taking place annually without pro- 

 ducing any significant change in the size of the 

 slice. Thus, it will be necessary to look also at 

 the annual percentage increase that takes place 

 in budget requests for each of the various re- 



sources. This will indicate the changes, if any, 

 taking place in the relative priority rankings. 

 Analysis of the data suggests the following 

 general interpretation. 



The period prior to enactment of the MU- 

 SY Act showed a considerable deemphasis on 

 timber (T l ) and range (R) resources. This is in 

 contrast to what might be expected in view of 

 criticism of the agency on this score. These 



Wl LDLfFE 

 HABITAT 

 MANAGEMENT 



2.48% 



o 



RECREATION- 

 PUBLIC USE 



19.14% 



R 



RANGE 

 RESOURCE 

 MANAGEMENT; 



8.44% 



s 



SOIL AND WATER 

 MANAGEMENT 



3.65% 



TIMBER SALES 

 ADMINISTRATION AND 

 MANAGEMENT 



20.50% 



OTHER 



MINERAL CLAIMS, LEASES, 

 AND OTHER LAND USES; 

 LAND CLASSIFICATION; 

 ADJUSTMENTS AND LAND SURVEYS; 



FOREST FIRE PROTECTION; 

 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS; ETC. 



36.18% 



T. 



REFORESTATION 

 AND STAND 

 IMPROVEMENT 



9.61% 



Figure 12. — The budget allocations for National Forest protection and management, as re- 

 quested by the Forest Service; note that there is no specific allocation for environmental 

 amenities (E). Percentages are averages for the period 1955 through 1972. 



59 



