[Amended in 1962 to include protecting 

 fish and wildlife] . 



The act originally provided, in a section re- 

 pealed in 1962, that the Secretary could pur- 

 chase such land as would meet the purposes 

 of the act. Although not spelled out in the 

 legislation, the "prime objective [was] . . . the 

 purchase and retirement from farming of un- 

 profitable, badly eroded, thin soiled, and ex- 

 hausted land, and the removal of the occu- 

 pants to other more promising areas where 

 they could be rehabilitated and thus taken off 

 the relief rolls. The land was to be used either 

 for growing tree crops, for recreation, for 

 wildlife refuges, or for pasturage under graz- 

 ing controls" (Gates 1968, p. 599). Although 

 the act must be viewed in the light of its de- 

 pression-years objectives, it nevertheless 

 marked a turning point in the legislative ap- 

 proach to forest land management. 



The Forest Service was guided further in 

 the direction of multiple use management 

 with the passage of the Sustained Yield Forest 

 Management Act. 40 The act provided that 

 "In order to promote the stability of forest 

 industries, of employment of communities, 

 and of taxable forest wealth, through continu- 

 ous supplies of timber; in order to provide for 

 a continuous and ample supply of forest prod- 

 ucts; and in order to secure the benefits of 

 forests in maintenance of water supply, regu- 

 lation of stream flow, prevention of soil ero- 

 sion, amelioration of climate, and preserva- 

 tion of wildlife," the Secretary was author- 

 ized to form cooperative sustained yield units 

 among state, private, and federal lands. The 

 act covered activities by both the Depart- 

 ments of Agriculture and Interior. Although 

 all of the forest products and resources are 

 mentioned in this Act, its main intention was 

 undoubtedly to provide for the regulation and 

 management of timber cutting activities. Sec- 

 tion 3 of the act authorized the movement 

 away from "usual procedures in selling such 

 timber or other forest products [if] the main- 

 tenance of a stable community or communi- 

 ties primarily dependent upon the sale of tim- 

 ber or other forest products" would thus be 

 furthered. If any priorities were established 

 by this legislation, it must be said that it was 



40 Act of March 29, 1944, 58 Stat. 132. 



in the direction of short-run monetary con- 

 siderations as opposed to long-run ecological 

 goals. 



Further evidence that the Forest Service 

 was being guided toward the formal recogni- 

 tion of multiple forest resources is given 3 

 years later in the Forest Pest Control Act of 

 June 25, 1947. 41 That act called for con- 

 certed effort to eradicate and control forest 

 pests "in order to protect and preserve forest 

 resources . . . promote the stability of forest- 

 using industries and employment associated 

 therewith, aid in fire control . . . , conserve 

 forest cover on watersheds, and protect recre- 

 ational and other values of forests." 



Although nothing in the two acts cited 

 above alters any priorities understood to be 

 established by the Act of 1897, we do find 

 here an indication that Congress viewed the 

 forests as useful for certain purposes other 

 than securing favorable conditions of water 

 flow, and a continuous supply of timber. Two 

 years later, however, in the Anderson- 

 Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Act 

 of October 11, 1949, only three resources are 

 directly mentioned; timber, forage, and water- 

 shed. 42 In the bill, designed to speed up the 

 reforestation of denuded and cutover timber 

 and range land, the primary emphasis is upon 

 renewing or improving the stability of the lo- 

 cal communities dependent upon the forest 

 for their economic wellbeing. No mention 

 whatever is made of recreation or fish and 

 wildlife management. 



Evidence of disregard for the potential uses 

 of the forest is found in the laws relating to 

 mining activities on National Forest lands. As 

 noted earlier with reference to the Transfer 

 Act of 1905, control over minerals and min- 

 ing activities remained with the Department 

 of Interior. The two basic laws that now gov- 

 ern mineral resources, the 100-year-old Min- 

 ing Law of 1872 43 and the Mineral Leasing 

 Law of 1920, 44 are widely recognized as ob- 

 solete. Under the 1872 Law, a mineral claim 



41 61 Stat. 177; 16 U.S.C. 594-1 to 594-5. 



42 63 Stat. 762; 16 U.S.C. 581 j, 581 k. 



43 Act of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91), as amended 

 and supplemented (30 U.S.C. 22-47). 



44 Act of February 25, 1920, as amended and sup- 

 plemented (30 U.S.C. 181-287). 



27 



