These are the words of Jack Ward Thomas, chief of the U. S. Forest Service, in an October 11 press conference at which he announced his intention to quit his post and teach at the University of Montana. We share his hope.
The Chief went on, “As time has gone by, the management of public lands has become more political. I don’t attribute that to any one administration. I think that has been an ongoing process.” He also commented that the agency’s mission was “somewhat confused.”
That’s very politely put, and gently plaintive, bespeaking the wildlife biologist he is, rather than the politically savvy, mainstream, timber-oriented chief who usually fills the position.
Charged with administering the agency in accordance with its multiple-use mandate, a chief today ends up trying to avoid being chewed up in the hard-ball politics of western politicians, beholden to mining, grazing and other extractive interests. In trying to keep these people happy, a chief inevitably runs afoul of environmentalists. These are not only battles over specific timber stands or sub-surface deposits, but idealogical battles fought by uncompromising idealogues. It is ironic that, as recreation becomes the dominant use of these public lands, the Forest Service does not (dares not?) focus on this in its efforts to plan for the future.
The Forest Service’s own documents show that in the year 2000, 75 percent of the employment and income-related effects from activities in the national forests will be derived from recreation, contrasted to 2.7 percent from timber.
John Fry, founding editor of Snow Country, wrote a powerful indictment in their Summer 1996 issue, concluding “. . .It ought to be clear that the national forests’ principal role in the 21st centry will be for recreation. . .This vision is largely absent from the minds of Forest Service upper management and of loglusting Congressmen who control the annual $2 billion to run the agency.”
In point of fact—and Fry agrees—the solutions lie less in the hands of Forest Service upper management than they do in winning the long-term battle for the soul of the agency. Traditionally, elected officials from the western states, where logging means jobs and jobs translate to votes, consider the Forest Service as their turf. The culture of the Forest Service and the typical mindset of its upper management reflect this. The battle, then, is to make administration of the Forest Service more of a populist matter—the rights of people to recreate on public lands—and less a piece of pork for the “log-lusting” Congressmen. As a practical matter, the logging jobs are less and less a factor, but logging special interest money still is.
The resignation of Chief Thomas represents an opportunity for our industry to use whatever persuasion it can muster to work for a replacement who has an understanding of this agency’s responsibilities for providing recreation. Even if we cannot roar but only peep, the peep should be a clear and articulate one, perhaps gaining in resonance through common cause with other promoters of outdoor recreation.—A SAM editorial
