Public Pressures and Value, Federal Policy Changes, and Future Timber Supply

Abstract

Not too many years ago one of our forestry schools was considering dropping its course in forest policy. At that time the school curriculum was heavy in the biological sciences and in quantitative methods. The course in forest policy was one of those chore courses that no one on the faculty was much interested in. As a result, forest policy was taught as a dry history course with little analysis and virtually no discussion of current problems and future trends. I felt at that time, as I do now, that the study of forest policy is essential to the professional development of all foresters. The professional forester needs to understand that public values and pressures will dictate what future forest practices will be prohibited or encouraged. Only then will he be fully responsive to public desires. Before proceeding much farther it might be useful for me to define what I am talking about. In my mind policy is the framework of principles upon which day-to-day decisions are based. There are three different sources of policy. The first is cultural, being formed in the traditions of a society. We take these for granted, and it is only when we look at other cultures and the ways they regard their forests that we can appreciate the cultural roots of some of our own attitudes. The forestry profession also has its traditions brought to this country from Europe when the profession was being developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's. These traditions continue to have a considerable impact on the way timber is managed, especially on publicly owned lands. Cultural factors are subject to change but only when there is a significant effort with leadership to inform the public about the consequences of continuing the old ways and the benefits of the new ways. The first wave of conservation is a case in point. The frontier spirit had many Americans believing that they could always find more timber over the next hill. They felt, therefore, that there was no need to replant harvested areas or to prevent forest fires. It was only when the last hill had been crossed and the dim prospect of future wood shortage was realized that some thought leaders were able to summon public pressure to do something about it. In the space of a relatively few years public values had changed. New public pressures led to the reversal of many of the land laws which earlier had fostered destructive exploitation of forest lands. Whereas earlier forests were places for hostile Indians to hide and to be cleared for agriculture, the new ethic, which continues strong to this day, regarded timber as a resource to be nurtured. Many people seem to have carried the new ethic to an extreme by regarding tree cutting as sinful. Accepting that, it follows that those who cut trees, therefore, are evil. Here we see the phenomenon of the persistent custom in a society where the reason for the custom-in this case, timber supply-has been forgotten. The second source of policy is the legislative source. Policies from this source are more explicit than those from tradition, although their development is limited by what cultural values will permit. In American forestry they include laws affecting federal lands, such as the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act of 1960, and laws, such as the Cooperative Forest Management Act, which indicate something of how the public would like private forest lands to be managed. There has been no significant change in federal forest policies from the legislative source since the Wilderness Act of 1964. While new legislation has been enacted, it has not set new directions in policy. This does not mean that the Congress has neglected examination of forestry issues. The proposed Timber Supply Act of 1969 enjoyed much discussion and support before it failed to reach floor debate in February 1970. JOHN MUENCH, JR. is a forest economist with the National Forest Products Association, Washington, D.C.