Forest Policy For The Future

A search for consensus on future forest policies would seem to be worthwhile. By consensus I mean not perfect agreement on figures or statements, but rather a shared understanding of what the issues are, the pros and cons of the solutions proposed, and the directions in which to go. With this kind of consensus the chances of reaching workable solutions—frequently they will be compromises—will be greatly increased.

There are a number of issues on which such a consensus would be helpful. One of the most difficult of these is how much forest land should be allocated for timber production and how much should be kept as wilderness. Marion Clawson's matrix shows these two uses to be completely incompatible. Furthermore, it shows preservation of wilderness to be incompatible with recreational opportunities. Both of these incompatibilities, especially the latter, require a purist concept of wilderness.

My view is that wilderness does provide opportunity for certain kinds of recreation, including backpacking, limited trail riding, nature study and photography, fishing, and even hunting for food supply. The problem is how to limit these activities so that the essential wild characteristics are preserved. The day of the absolutely trackless, unpenetrated wilderness is over. Like all other land, wilderness henceforth must be planned and managed.

In the so-called quasi-wilderness, predominantly in the East and South, carefully prescribed cutting of timber may be considered, for example, as a means toward more rapid establishment of the kind of forest thought to represent sustainable wilderness or toward reestablishment of beaver and other indigenous animals.

Wilderness preservationists justifiably fear that anything more minimum recreational use of wilderness, and any tree cutting at all, will open the door to heavy intrusion and destroy the fragile ecosystems that are an important aesthetic component of the wilderness experience. Much of the difficulty is due to a lack of confidence and trust between the antagonists. This antagonism goes back to the Hetch Hetchy controversy in California and earlier. It will not be dispelled easily. Each side has tended to portray the other as villainous, as destroyers of important values. Breaking out of this frustrating and paralyzing situation will require compromise and understanding.

I think that in dealing with the issue of wilderness versus timber production and outdoor recreation, we are slowly moving in the right direction. Wilderness and semi-wilderness areas are being legislatively recognized, and should be designated according to suitable criteria and then managed so as to maintain desired standards. Kinds and degrees of use must be specified. No use in the strict sense is either unrealistic or a misnomer. Ideally, wilderness areas should be graded across a spectrum according to natural characteristics and intensity of use for approved purposes. The spread would extend from the Brooks Range in northern Alaska to a once or twice cutover Appalachian forest.

We are all nominally for conservation and environmental protection. The question is how much conservation and environmental protection; when, where, and at what cost? Personally I want lots of it and I believe Americans want lots of it. As a matter of insurance against future risks, we in this country can afford a lot. If the people of the United States can put 5.8 percent, and rising, of their own wages and salaries into old age security, with this matched by government contribution, surely they should also be willing to put half that or so into old age security for their land, water, and air—the planetary resources on which they depend utterly.

The actual funds to do this could be channeled through private or governmental programs, or both. The basic point is that the job has to be done one way or the other. My preference is for the private route, where possible, by large use of emission charges and user fees. I see much merit in pricing privately sold products and services so as to include fully the costs of protecting the environment. When this can't sensibly be done, then regulations, penalties, and taxes are available for doing the job the bureaucratic way.

At present, neither private nor public forests are being conserved and protected on a truly long-range basis, with enough flexibility built into policies to permit response to new knowledge on conservation methods and public preferences. It should be possible to find consensus not only on long-term conservation but also on the scale of funding required to reach agreed-on objectives. The costs of an adequate program of environmental improvement do not appear to be unbearable. Two to 2.5 percent annually of the gross national product ($24 to $30 billion a year this year), about twice what is now being spent, would enable progress to be made.

It is all too easy for professional foresters, industry leaders, and environmentalists to become so caught up in their own work that they forget, except in a general way, that the other people in the country see the forests and forest policy from a different perspective. If it is to reflect a national consensus, forest policy in the future must also take into account the need for reasonably priced housing, cheap and attractive paper products, the effect of changes on local economic structures, and a variety of similar concerns that reflect the interests of the general population.