Where good forestry is practiced the land usually offers a satisfactory esthetic experience to the visitor most of the time. Good forestry consists of limiting the cutting of timber to that which can be removed annually in perpetuity. It consists of growing timber on long rotations, generally from 100 to 200 years depending upon the species and the quality of the soil, but in any case allowing trees to reach biological maturity before they are cut.

It consists of practicing a selection system of management where this is consistent with the services of the species involved and this is usually the case. Where this is not so it consists of making the openings as small as possible, preferably not exceeding in diameter about half the height of the surrounding timber.

Finally, it consists of taking infinite precaution to protect the soil, our all-important basic resources. This is immediately applicable to virgin forest, but must be regarded as a long-range goal where extensive areas of forest commence with plantations as in the South. This is multiple-use forestry when applied to commercial timberland. But this is not the way our National forests are being managed today. In the last few years-largely in the postwar era-the Forest Service has been under severe pressure from industry to increase the allowable cut, as I already mentioned. Also they are operating under firm instructions from the Secretary of Agriculture to get out the allowable cut, beginning I believe with Secretary Freeman in 1961. There is strict supervision to see to it that they do get it out every year, or at least that they sell it. The result is that they have been rationalizing away the principles of good forestry. They are grossly overcutting the accessible high quality timber and are attempting to justify it on the strength of growth estimates of marginal timber in high elevations and on unstable soils. They are apparently attempting to practice flat land forestry, which may be quite suitable under conditions that prevail in the South, to our steep and frequently fragile western forests.

This seems to be an appropriate place to ask, will intensification of forestry on the West coast depress prices of southern pine? After struggling for 45 years to establish a stable forest industry in the South, do we want to undercut ourselves with this measure?

We made a mistake during the early part of this century by permitting agricultural development of marginal lands in the Southwest, particularly Oklahoma and Arkansas. The results were disastrous as you recall.

I believe today the Forest Service is making a similar mistake by opening up marginal timber to logging, particularly in the Rocky Mountains and the high elevations of the Far West.

I would like to give you examples from all over the West. However, I shall limit myself to one in order to prove my point without taxing your patience. In the ponderosa pine region, the Forest Service seems to be practicing either one of two principles in selling timber now. Where there is advance reproduction, generally consisting of seedlings and saplings, they practice what is called overstory removal. That consists of selling everything of merchantable size. Where there is not satisfactory advance reproduction, they clearcut, terrace, and plant. I am attaching two photographs taken recently in the Bitteroot National Forest. The first picture shows an area of ponderosa pine which

has been under a selection system of management since the days of Gifford Pinchot. I am giving you a glossy print.

Senator JORDAN. May I keep this for the record?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, that is for making a plate for the record. (The photograph is as follows:)

Where good forestry is practiced the land offers a satisfactory esthetic experience to the visitor most of the time. Under such forestry, depicted in this picture, other values such as recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and watersheds are protected. This type of forestry was practiced until recently when the Forest Service began to yield to pressure from industry. Scene shows area of Bitteroot National Forest logged about 1950. Photo by Gordon Robinson, September, 1969.

Mr. ROBINSON. It was difficult to convince the young lady in the foreground that this land had ever been logged. We had to point out stumps to her.

You will observe that there are trees of all ages present and the land is fully stocked. The bulk of the growth in this forest is in large trees and consists of high quality and highly valuable material. The forest continues to serve all its multiple uses of timber production, recreation, watershed and wildlife habitat.

The second picture taken just around the bend from the former one shows where the Forest Service clear cut, terraced the land and planted. This operation was completed about 1966.

(The photograph is as follows:)

Senator JORDAN. May I ask a question at this point.

What did they do with the small timber? Does that go to the pulpwood manufacturers?

Mr. ROBINSON. I am not certain where that went, but there are plants using very small timber in that vicinity, and this is about 60

This picture illustrates an attempt to maximize the production of wood through intensified forestry, as proposed by the Forest Service. Many subtleties of good forestry are ignored; values for recreation, wildlife, watershed and fisheries are greatly impaired. This terraced area was logged in Montana's Bitteroot National Forest in 1966. Photo by Gordon Robinson, September, 1969.

miles south of Missoula, and this is a large pulpmill in Missoula and I presume the small material went to the pulpmill. But I saw large truckloads heavily loaded with very small logs going to a plant making studs there near Missoula.

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, so I assume they are using it pretty thoroughly. One need not be a forester to recognize the singleness of purpose with which this land is being managed. I challenged one of the Federal foresters on this particular enterprise and he tells me it improves the hunting. I am sure he is correct-we saw deer standing like statues trying to look like logging debris. They had no other defense. Many thousands of acres of steep sandy soil has been given this treatment on the national forests in the last few years. Such intensified forestry is unacceptable to the American people.

I noticed in Ed Cliff's statement this morning that in the Rocky Mountains they propose to provide this treatment on 1,169,000 acres. Senator JORDAN. Which treatment are you speaking of?

Mr. ROBINSON. The treatment that you see in that second photograph.

Senator JORDAN. Where they cleared it all off and replanted it? Mr. ROBINSON. Right.

Senator JORDAN. And terraced?

Mr. ROBINSON. Reforestation it says here in the Rocky Mountains. Senator JORDAN. If they do not do a mighty good job of terracing you will lose all your topsoil and it will run down in your rivers and valleys.

Mr. ROBINSON. That is not multiple use of it, sir, and there is a law that requires the Forest Service to practice multiple use.

Now I want to call your attention to the Douglas Fir Supply Study which was distributed by the regional foresters from Portland and San Francisco under cover of a letter dated June 25, 1969.

Senator JORDAN. This will be carried along with the record but not made a part of the record.

Mr. ROBINSON. Oh, yes. You can get all of the copies of that you wish.

Senator JORDAN. This costs too much a page to put a magazine in, you know.

Mr. ROBINSON. Oh, yes, certainly. I am only introducing it here so that you will know of it for identification.

Senator JORDAN. We will have it.

Mr. ROBINSON. On page 14 of that bulletin there is an illustration entitled figure 5. This figure shows that under current rotation at a low level of management the annual saw timber production will drop about one-third to its sustained yield capacity at the end of the 10th decade.

They clear-cut this so that the volume of timber that would be cut annually in the second rotation is that which has grown since. Therefore, that is the sustained yield capacity and that is shown to be only two-thirds of what they propose, what they are cutting now, and they want to intensify that by increasing the cut.

This is a candid admission that the forest is already being cut at 50-percent in excess of sustained yield capacity. Inspection of that publication will show that every alternative reported by the Forest Service in this study will result in a drastic reduction in the production at the end of the first cutting cycle.

But other alternatives were studied, including five lengths of rotation. It would be valuable for us to know the multiple use values of all the alternative studied, particularly that of even-flow sustained yield, if indeed that was one of the alternatives.

I call your attention also to the illustration on page 6 entitled "Multiple Use." Please note the logging truck zooming along a straight road engineered to get logs to the mill at least cost, while a fisherman stands on rip rap along a stream, and a beautiful meadow is cut off from its natural outlet by the logging road. The very use of this and other pictures in that publication demonstrates an alarming lack of sensitivity.

The Douglas fir supply study draws no conclusions but according to the letter of transmittal:

The study shows intensive management will increase yield and growth substantially with present rotation with only minimum impact on other resources. The regional Foresters state:

We heartily endorse this course of action as an initial effort to increase timber production. We plan to implement this program on every working circle as the means to do so are made available.

Clearly, gentlemen, the means should not be made available, for the American people are becoming increasingly alarmed at the declining quality of our environment and do not want such intensified forestry. Rather the service should be liberated from any pressure from the

Secretary of Agriculture to get out the allowable cut and admonished to return to sustained yield, as former Chief Lyle Watts said.

In conclusion, I submit that passage of this or any similar bill setting up the Forest Service with huge funds to draw on for intensification of forestry will undermine the Forest Service in two ways:

(a) It will subject them, or expose them is perhaps a better word, to even further pressure from industry to ignore the multiple uses of the national forests other than rapid liquidation of fine old growth timber, to be followed by ultimate mass production of low quality wood for industry at a greatly reduced rate of production.

(b) Set in motion a Frankenstein, not unlike the notorious freeway construction program which is financed out of gasoline taxes earmarked solely for that purpose.

We recommend the following:

1. Immediate establishment of a high-level commission which will have a mandate to fully investigate the present management of both public and private timberlands, and to make whatever recommendations are necessary to encourage the practice of good forestry on both private and public lands. By good forestry I mean sustained yield on long rotations making the widest possible use of the selection system of management, and protection of all our wild land resources, including preservation of ample wilderness areas representative of all the lands of which the national forests were formed.

2. Legislation to restrict all log exports unless it is determined that timber to go abroad is surplus to domestic needs.

3. Federal programs to expand and encourage the use of wood substitutes.

4. Consideration of rationing and price control if the lumber and plywood supply situation get out of hand.

5. Legislation to require that existing timber sale contracts not be extended by the Forest Service beyond their original termination dates, and that no new contracts be for greater than a 3-year period. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Mr. ROBINSON. There are two supplementary statements which I intended to include with this, but did not intend to read but which I have not had the time to prepare. I would appreciate it

Senator JORDAN. You may present them later on.

Mr. ROBINSON. To be included in the record?

Senator JORDAN. Yes, sir, and we will include them right along with your other statement, and we will keep the hearing open until next Monday for any other statements.

Mr. ROBINSON. Very good.

(The supplementary statements of Mr. Robinson are as follows:)

WHATEVER BECAME OF "TREE FARMS"?

A major conservation battle is shaping up over management of our national forests. This is of critical importance to conservationists because upon the outcome may depend most of our hopes and plans for rounding out our national park system and establishing wilderness areas. Briefly, industry, having largely exhausted its own timber resources, is saying the major cause of crisis in the cities is inadequate housing; that our need is for low cost housing, and that requires wood. The private forests are exhausted, threatening to cause many mills to go out of business on the west coast, and most of the remaining timber is in the national forests. To make matters worse, lumber and plywood prices