all possible uses and resources simultan- 

 eously. Both Acts cited above point out that 

 some land will be used for "less than all of 

 the resources." Designation of a wilderness 

 area, for example, does not necessarily vio- 

 late the multiple use philosophy. Such use 

 may not provide the greatest dollar return, 

 but when the whole scale of values is con- 

 sidered it is presumed to provide the great- 

 est overall benefit for that particular site. 

 However, highly restrictive use areas will 

 occupy a small percentage of the total acre- 

 age of public wildlands. Most of the public 

 land will be utilized, to varying degrees, for 

 a wide array of uses, as dictated by capacity, 

 demand, and prudence. 



Multiple use management of the land may 

 be accomplished by any one of the following 

 three options, or by any combination of the 

 three: (1) concurrent and continuous use 

 of the several resources obtainable on a given 

 land unit; (2) alternating or rotational use 

 of the various resources or resource com- 

 binations on the unit, so that multiple use is 

 achieved on a time basis; or (3) geographical 

 separation of uses or use combinations so 

 that multiple use is accomplished across a 

 mosaic of units. All of these are legitimate 

 multiple use practices and should be applied 

 in the most suitable combination on lands 

 under public administration. It is significant 

 that in all three options noted above we are 

 dealing with areas of land. Public Law 86- 

 517 states: 



In the administration of the national for- 

 ests due consideration shall be given to the 

 relative values of the various resources in 

 particulai- areas, (italics added) 



A similar statement appears in P.L. 88-607. 

 Delineation of relatively homogeneous units 

 of land with respect to physical characteris- 

 tics and use potential is helpful both in in- 

 ventorying and in managing the land re- 

 sources. Units vary in size, and combina- 

 tions and degrees of use vary between units. 

 Size of the units depends primarily on the 

 degree of heterogeneity of the landscape. 



From the public's point of view, regard- 

 less of the area in question, multiple use 

 management must become involved in a 

 somewhat broader set of parameters than 



the private investor is usually concerned 

 with. Whereas the private investor makes de- 

 cisions based upon the profit motive, a na- 

 tion interested in preserving benefits for 

 future generations may have to make in- 

 vestments and provide safeguards beyond 

 the dictates of limited business economics. 

 The western range industry illustrates the 

 point. Early stockmen maximized direct, 

 short-run returns, and, as a result, contribut- 

 ed to the eventual deterioration of other re- 

 source values as well as to the decline of the 

 range industry itself. Multiple use is the 

 antithesis of this. It provides a plan with 

 vision, a plan that accommodates the full 

 spectrum of today's needs and at the same 

 time provides for tomorrow's requirements, 

 a plan which will keep short-range objectives 

 and short-sighted evaluations from sweeping 

 away opportunities for the future. 



Both P.L. 86-517 and P.L. 88-607 make it 

 clear that the application of multiple use 

 principles requires "harmonious and coordin- 

 ated management of the various resources, 

 each with the other, without impairment 

 of the productivity of the land . . . . " 



The multiple use philosophy is deeply 

 rooted in two axioms. One is that renewable 

 resources belong to all the people (not to 

 selected groups of users) and to all genera- 

 tions. The other is that resources represent 

 capital — just as real as the capital invested 

 in man-made structures. Wise use of this 

 capital generates economic growth and so- 

 cial benefits; unwise use will result at the 

 same time in some drain on the social econ- 

 omy. Consequently, we must be careful to 

 avoid excessive use or mismanagement for 

 current gain, which would lower the produc- 

 tive capacity of the resource base and unduly 

 handicap future generations. Ciriacy-Wan- 

 trup' urges maintaining a "safe minimum 

 standard of conservation," by refraining 

 from using the resources to the point that 

 would make it "uneconomical to halt and re- 

 verse depletion." While the problem of de- 

 fining what is economical is still open, the 



'Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. Resource conservation: 

 economics and policies, p. 253. 395 pp.. Rev. Ed. 

 Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 1963. 



3 



