Marion Clawson is concerned here not so much with what forest policy should be, but more with the criteria by which it should be determined. He lists such questions as how much land to devote to forests, how much timber to harvest and the best means of harvesting it, and the compatibility or incompatibility of forest uses (wilderness, recreational sites, wildlife refuges, watersheds, wood production), as the issues to be dealt with in formulating forest policy. To approach an optimal solution, Clawson proposes five areas ...
Read More
Marion Clawson is concerned here not so much with what forest policy should be, but more with the criteria by which it should be determined. He lists such questions as how much land to devote to forests, how much timber to harvest and the best means of harvesting it, and the compatibility or incompatibility of forest uses (wilderness, recreational sites, wildlife refuges, watersheds, wood production), as the issues to be dealt with in formulating forest policy. To approach an optimal solution, Clawson proposes five areas for analysis: the physical and biological feasibility of any policy; the economic efficiency; whether costs and benefits are distributed equitably among forest users; whether it is socially or culturally acceptable; and finally, whether it has administrative practicality. Supporting a moderate position, Clawson points out that clearcutting of forests, long anathema to the environmentalist, will sometimes result in healthier and more attractive new growth than some of the selective cutting procedures that have been more socially acceptable. At the same time, he warns, the national Forest Service and the forest industry cannot afford to ignore the environmentalist's concerns.
Read Less
