Source Notes
Title:
Forestry, Public Pressures, and Economic Development.
Summary:
In a December of 2001 article entitled “Forestry, Public Pressures, and Economic Development”, author Perry R. Hagestein discusses the lack of clear objectives on forest policy, and the conflict between development goals and environmental goals on the economic utilization of forests.
Utilizing our forests: Conflicts between development and conservationism.
Academic.
Ebsco online article.
Published by Blackwell Publishing on December 13, 2001.
Author:
Perry R. Hagestein
Program Organizer: Hans M. Gregersen of the University of Minnesota.
Discussion by Raleigh Barlowe of Michigan State University.
Location:
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.janus.uoregon.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=2&sid=9ebfd620-99a4-41a4-833e-7556719fe63b%40sessionmgr9
Accessed:
February 29, 2009.
Support:
1905 letter to the head of the Forest Service.
1905 Secretary of Agriculture.
Gifford Pinchot, the Chief Foresters during 1905.
Samuel Hays, author of Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency.
Ralph Marquis, author of Economics of Private Forestry.
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960.
The Public Land Review Commission.
1968 study prepared by the Forest Service.
Department of Agriculture.
University of Montana committee composed of faculty.
President of the Sierra Club.
K. William Kapp, author of the Social Costs of Private Enterprise.
Sources in this document provide a historical context to intent, prospects, and implementation of the National Forest policy pre-Roosevelt era. In a 1905 letter to the head of the Forestry Service, the Secretary of Agriculture noted that “all the resources of the forest reserves are for use….and that the water, wood, and forage of the reserves (should be) conserved and wisely used for the benefit of the homebuilder first of all.” Gifford Pinchot, the Chief Foresters during 1905, stressed his intent to use national forests for commercial use. In review of 1897 Appropriations Act, Pinchot noted that national forests were open to mining, and wrote “excellent.” Samuel Hays, the author of Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, states “Pinchot opposition to preservationists and his support of grazing interests did not arise merely from his search for political backing of the transfer.” Pinchot felt that his major problem was to restrain the influence of those that wanted to preserve the forests. At every opportunity he stressed the “utilitarian value of forests.” To continue, Hays states that “the conflict between recreation and commercial use Pinchot found to be extremely hazardous to resolve, but he firmly argued the commercial use of the public lands should precede their use for recreation.” In appraisal of the status of private forestry programs, Ralph Marquis, author of Economics of Private Forestry, writes “the forest industry at the present time is under going a great change. It is not until the virgin stand of timber face exhaustion, not until the remaining stands are absorbed in private ownership or the government reserves, not until the forests are far removed from consuming centers that economic forces permit the practice of forestry on a profitable basis.” In response to the need for outdoor recreation to be considered as an appropriate use of the public forest lands, Congress passed the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960. The act states that “consideration be given to the relative value of the various resources, and not necessarily to the combinations of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. The Public Land and Review Commission “obtained estimates of expenditures on timber management activities of the forest service by the major regions of the country.” The commission allocated the distribution of funds to major regions around the country. The Public Land and Review Commission asked the question “To what extent should timber management, timber disposal, and investment in timber production on the public lands be guided wholly or largely by economic consideration?” The Department of Agriculture responded, saying “we do not believe that the maximization of returns on investment of timber is wholly compatible with the purposes for which the National Forest was created. In this sense, economic considerations may encounter an immediate and basic conflict with longstanding conservation principles of multiple use and sustained yield.” In discussion of clear cutting practices, faculty at the University of Montana created a report that focused on the economic or environmental in decision making. The report highlights that “very little has been said about the economic aspect of the practice” and that the “only way to justify the practice is to ignore the economic analysis as a tool of decision making.” The president of the Sierra Club, with respect to the report by The Public Land Review Commission, states that the basic premises of the report are wrong. William Kapp argues that “economic theory still is inadequate for dealing with environmental and social costs of public policy.”
Audience and Agenda:
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing develops, publishes, and sells products in print and electronic media for educational, professional, scientific, technical, medical, and consumer markets worldwide. Wiley.com, the company’s large online site, attracts over 2.7 million U.S monthly people. The site is popular among slightly more female than male more educated group.
Usefulness:
This source provides me with a historical context to the debate over the use and benefits of national forests. The document chronologically tells the story of two arguments. Originally, national forests were seen purely for their economic value, i.e. mining, logging, and drilling. A shift in this ideology came about in the 1960s with the passing of Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act. Politicians and citizens began to see forests management in a more holistic manner, realizing that forests could provide recreation, population growth, and increased revenue on local and federal levels. This document articulates the history of these progressions.
March 13, 2009 at 9:11 am |
[...] resources that might otherwise create jobs when extracted and generate income when exported”( Forestry, Public Pressures, and Economic Development.). Secondly, the Land and Water Conservation Act, an act which designates funds for acquisition of [...]