for which the National Forests were es- 

 tablished as set forth in the Act of June 

 ! 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 475) 



The Secretary of Agriculture is author- 

 ized and directed to develop and admin- 

 ister the renewable surface resources of 

 the National Forest for multiple use and 

 sustained yield of the several products 

 and services obtained therefrom. In the 

 administration of the National Forests 

 due consideration shall be given to the 

 relative values of the various resources in 

 particular areas. The establishment and 

 maintenance of areas of wilderness are 

 consistent with the purposes and provi- 

 sions of this Act . . . 



As used in this Act, the following terms 

 shall have the following meanings: 



(a) "Multiple Use" means the manage- 

 ment of all the various renewable surface 

 resources of the National Forests so that 

 they are utilized in the combination that 

 will best meet the needs of the American 

 people; making the most judicious use of 

 the land for some or all of these re- 

 sources or related services over areas 

 large enough to provide sufficient lati- 

 tude for periodic adjustments in use to 

 conform to changing needs and condi- 

 tions; that some land will be used for less 

 than all of the resources, each with the 

 other, without impairment of the pro- 

 ductivity of the land with consideration 

 being given to the relative values of the 

 various resources, and not necessarily the 

 combination of uses that will give the 

 greatest dollar return or the greatest unit 

 output. 



(b) "Sustained yield of the several prod- 

 ucts and services" means the achieve- 

 ment and maintenance in perpetuity of a 

 high-level annual or regular periodic out- 

 put of the various renewable resources of 

 the National Forests without impairment 

 of the productivity of the land (emphasis 

 added). 



Although much has been written on the 

 political maneuverings behind the passage of 



this piece of legislation, only a few of the 

 preliminaries will be dealt with here. 48 



Strong pressures had been building up 

 throughout the nation, acting in apparently 

 different directions, but all exerted in behalf 

 of single-purpose, priority uses of the forests 

 or forest segments. Recollecting the events of 

 10 years earlier, R. E. McArdle (Chief of the 

 Forest Service in 1960) states: 



To further complicate the situation I faced dur- 

 ing my early years as Chief came more frequent 

 questions as to our legislative charter for allow- 

 ing some uses of the National Forests, specif- 

 ically grazing, wildlife management, and recre- 

 ation. The best legal advice I could get was that 

 although specific enactments comparable to 

 those for timber and water might be lacking, 

 there was adequate evidence, these experts be- 

 lieved, to defeat any court challenge that might 

 be raised. Nevertheless, the lack of clearcut, 

 specific authority caused us some concern. 49 



McArdle's statement simply echoes the 

 findings in the legislative review provided thus 

 far. There still exists the problem of priority 

 among the recognized and sanctioned uses of 

 the various forest products and services. The 

 original draft legislation of the MU-SY Act 

 sent to Congress did not include the provision 

 earlier alluded to that nothing in the bill was 

 to be in derogation of the 1897 statute. If, as 

 some have argued, priorities of resource man- 

 agement were established in the 1897 Act, 

 then by the inclusion of the reference to the 

 1897 Act, the MU-SY Act simply specified 

 the uses and resources that would have to be 

 considered subordinate uses. 



The inclusion of that reference was the di- 

 rect result of actions taken by the National 

 Lumber Manufacturers' Association, specif- 

 ically at the request of Mr. Nolan, general 

 counsel of Weyerhauser. In reporting on the 

 reaction of the Forest Service representatives 

 to the hearings on this point, Edward Crafts 

 reports: 



Our position in rebuttal was that the 1897 Act 

 did not precisely say . . . that the primary pur- 

 poses of the National Forests were timber and 

 .water ... If you read the 1897 Act carefully, 



48 See McCloskey (1961), p. 50-56; Crafts (1970); 

 and McArdle (1970). 



49 McArdle (1970), p. 59. The "experts" proved 

 correct, as indicated by the court findings in 

 McMichael v. United States, discussed above. 



29 



