ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE DIRECT USERS OF THE GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
U.S. FOREST SERVICE, REGION 1, BOZEMAN, MONTANA

by Richard Thomas Marks

This report is a study of the direct users of the Gallatin
National Forest, U. S. Forest Service, Region 1, Bozeman, Montana.

It is based on the study of five major user groups: forage, timber,
water, recreation, and wildlife. A user for the purpose of this
study is defined as an individual, group, or association who had
made use of goods or services provided from the Gallatin National
Forest.

The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the population
of users, individuals, and groups under the multiple-use program of a
national forest: (Gallatin National Forest), (2) to determine the
policy of the forest administrators in meeting the use demands for
various user groups in conformance with the over-all multiple-use
policy and the Multiple-Use -- Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960,
and (3) to determine the national forest users' attitudes toward the
policies of the Forest Service in administering the Multiple-Use --
Sustained Yield Act.

The study area selected for this study is the Gallatin National
Forest, Region 1, United States Forest Service. The area includes
intermingled private, state, and other publicly owned lands. The
largest other owner of private land within the boundaries of the

Gallatin National Forest is the Northern Pacific Railroad Company.

Richard T. Marks

Forty-six detailed interviews were conducted in the summer and
fall of 1965.

The average age for persons interviewed is 45-54, and, with the
exception of the wildlife user group, the individual age groups are
in proportion to years of use on the Gallatin National Forest. The
average income for all five user groups is in the $5,000-9,999 bracket.

Only the timber and wildlife groups felt strongly that they were
not treated equitably in relation to other users. Twenty percent of
the timber group and 33 percent of the wildlife group indicate they
are not treated equitably.

The timber, recreation, and wildlife groups all felt strongly
that intermingled private land is a problem in the administering of
the multiple-use program. The forage group felt that intermingled
private ownership was not a problem, but this user group also owns
considerable land within the Gallatin National Forest boundary.

All groups except forage felt that more publicity is needed on
the multiple-use management program; for example, the 25 percent return
to the counties of gross receipts from all sources.

In some of the basic areas of knowledge the author feels the
various users should have a better understanding of administration
purposes and objectives of the Gallatin National Forest.

The preferred choice of definition of multiple-use management by
the five major user groups is this: "the management of all the various
renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American

people, as a definition of multiple-use management."

Richard T. Marks

A fair to good degree of access to the Gallatin Forest was indicated
by the five user groups. Some concern was expressed by the forage group
regarding pressures from other users and future grazing regulations.

Satisfactions and dissatisfactions with multiple-use management
program brought out strong reactions from each of the five user groups.
The forage group called for a range improvement program, better super-
vision of hunting camps, increased payment for use by other user groups.
The timber group was concerned with increasing the size and number of
recreation areas, length of time to develop a timber sale, cost and
maintenance of forest roads. Within the water user group neither the
municipalities nor the irrigation districts had a response to this
question. The dude ranch and resort group was eSpecially concerned
with the high preferences given to the logging program and poor logging
practices. Concern was expressed about the maintenance of quality in
recreation areas and the improvement of well-traveled roads.

All of the groups had praise for various facets of the multiple-
use management program, which ranged from satisfaction with clear
cutting of timber in large blocks, which results in increased grazing
for livestock and wildlife, to satisfaction with the $7.00 recreation
fee.

The image of the professional forester held by the various users
of the forest is highly variable, with the recreation and wildlife
group selecting the broadest assortment of terms.

The survey results offer adjustment Opportunities in the over-all

Forest Service policy for administrating the national forests.

Richard T. Marks
The results indicate that much can be learned in regard to the
attitudes of users of a national forest by personal interview. The
opportunity is also present for building these responses into multiple-
use management decisions correlated with the wants and desires of the

public.

A STUDY OF THE DIRECT USERS OF THE GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
U. 3. FOREST SERVICE, REGION 1, BOZEMAN, MONTANA
by

Richard Thomas Marks

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Forestry

1967

FOREWORD

This report is based on the study of five major user groups:
forage, timber, water, recreation and wildlife. A user for the
purpose Of this study is defined as an individual, group or associa-
tion who had made use of goods or services provided from the Gallatin
National Forest.

Detailed interviews were conducted in the summer and fall of
1965 to determine the nature of the attitudes and concepts held by
the many individual users and user groups in regard to multiple-use
management of a national forest.

The investigation was made possible by fellowships from the
Farm Foundation of America and Life Members of the Great Falls
Garden Clubs, Great Falls, Montana.

The Gallatin National Forest, Region One, constitutes a logical
entity because of its complexity and diversity of uses covering all

five major uses Of a national forest.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Research requires advice, guidance, and assistance from a variety
of resources. The persons, groups, and agencies named below, and
numerous others, have contributed to this project and the author takes
this opportunity to Offer his humble thanks.

The investigation was made possible by fellowships from the Farm
Foundation Of America and Life Members of the Great Falls Garden Clubs,
Great Falls, Montana. The United States Forest Service, especially
Supervisor Allan Lamb and his staff and the Rangers Of the Gallatin
National Forest, are due sincere thanks for the many hours they spent
with me in the review of the questionnaire that was used to gather the
data from the direct users of the Gallatin National Forest. Former
Supervisor Mr. George Duvandack of the Gallatin National Forest also
assisted in the early stages of the thesis develOpment; as did Mr. Earl
Welton, multiple use forester of the supervisor's office. For advice
and supervision on this project thanks are extended to Dr. Lee M. James,
chairman of my graduate committee, Michigan State University, and the
members of my graduate committee for their review and constructive
criticism. Special appreciation is due my wife, Hildegarde, for her
patience, forebearance, and encouragement throughout the study and also
to our two children, Ricky and Stephanie.

The following staff members at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
offered encouragement and advice which was extremely helpful: Dr. W. E.
Skelton, Dr. Paul Moore, Mr. P. H. DeHart, Mr. W. A. McElfresh, Dr. John

Hosner, and Mr. Donald Stumbo.

iii

Mr. Don Leubbe and Dr. Leo Knuti, both of Montana State University,
were eSpecially helpful in providing an opportunity for completing course
work and field work while on the staff at the same institution.

Others who deserve credit are my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert W.
Marks; Mr. Elmer R. Marks, former ranger on the Clarkia Ranger District,
St. Joe National Forest, Region I; Mr. Ross Williams, Dean of the School
of Forestry, University of Montana; and Dr. Frank Kaufert, Dean Of the
School of Forestry, University of Minnesota. Special thanks to Professor
Lester Bell, Michigan State University, for his interest and COOperation
in my graduate work in this area of multiple-use forestry is greatly

appreciated.

iv

Chapter

I

II

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . .

Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . .

Characteristics of User Groups . . .

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . .

Defining Multiple Use . . . . . . .

Applying Multiple Use . . . . . . .

Determining Limitations of Multiple Use . .

Recreation Versus Timber Production .

Concepts Regarding Taxation, Grazing
and Recreation . . . . . . . . .

Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Grazing Permits . . . . . . .

MULTIPLE USE OF OUR NATIONAL FORESTS . . .

Single, Multiple and Dominant Uses

The Nature and Pattern of the Various
Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timber Harvest . . . . . . . . .
Recreation . . . . . . . . . .
Watershed Utilization . . . . .
Mineral Development . . . . . .

Other Uses . . . . . . . . . . .

ll

13

13

15

18

20

22

22

24

25

28

31

33

35

35

36

36

37

37

Chapter Page

IV USER PROFII—‘E O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O Q 38
Equitability of User Treatment on Forest . . 41
Reaction to Intermingled Ownership . . . . . 43

Percent of Gross Receipts from the
Gallatin National Forest that are
Returned to the Local County Treasurer . . . 45

Understanding of Administration of

Gallatin ForeSt o o o J o o o o o o o o o o o 46
Definition of Multiple-Use Management . . . . 46
Adequacy of Access to Gallatin Forest . . . . 48

Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions with
Multiple-Use Management Program . . . . . . . 49

User's Suggestions of Needed Adjustments
in Use Of Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

User Opinion About Major Problems or

Programs Needing Attention . . . . . . . . . 53
Image of Professional Forester . . . . . . . 54
Attitude Toward $7 Recreation Fee . . . . . . 55

Attitude Toward Wildlife vs. Livestock

Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Adequacy Of Control of Motorized Vehicles . . 57
Compatibility of Other Uses with Own Use . . 59

A User Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

V CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

vi

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Interview Categories, Sample Allocation and Actual
Sample of Direct Users of the Gallatin National
Forest, 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ages of Individual Users or Owners of Firms

Using Gallatin National Forest . . . . . . . . . .
Average Number Years of Education and Years of .
Use of the Gallatin National Forest for Each

User Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Average Individual Annual Income of Respondents .
Opinions of Respondents in Relation to Degree of
Equitable Treatment in Relation to Other Users in
the Same Group of the Gallatin National Forest . .
Opinions of Respondents in Relation to User

Group Treatment in Relation to Other User Groups
of the Gallatin National Forest . . . . . . . . .
Opinions of Respondents in Relation to Effect of
Intermingled Private Land Within the Gallatin
National Forest on Administration of the
Multiple-Use Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of Payments Made to the State by the
Gallatin National Forest in Lieu of Taxes . . . .
Opinions of Respondents in Relation to Definition

of Multiple-Use Management . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

10

39

40

40

42

42

44

45

47

Table

10

ll

12

13

14

15

16

Page
Opinions of Respondents in Relation to Access
to Gallatin National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
User Group Approval of Multiple-Use Management
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5O
Opinions of the Respondents in Relation to Terms
Which Best Describe a Professional Forester Who
is Employed by the Gallatin National Forest . . . . 55
Reaction of User Groups to $7.00 Recreation Fee
for Use of Improved Campgrounds on the Gallatin
National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Respondents' Opinions as to Adjustments Needed
in Terms of Wildlife vs. Livestock Populations
on the Gallatin National Forest . . . . . . . . . . 57
Users' Attitudes Toward Sufficiency of Controls
on Use of Motorized Vehicles in the Gallatin
National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Compatibility of Interest or User Groups with

Alternative Uses of the Gallatin National Forest . . 60

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1 National Forests of the Northern Region . . . . . . 4
2 Gallatin National Forest Working Circles . . . . . 5
3 Intermingled Private Ownership Within the

Boundary of the Gallatin National Forest . . . . . 26
4 Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Management

Planning Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5 Distribution of the National Forest in the

United States and Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . 34

ix

APPENDIX

Appendix No. Page
1 Important and Significant Events in the

DevelOpment of Natural Resource Policy and

Establishment of the National Forests . . . . 75
2 Historical Sketch of the Gallatin National

Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3 COOperative Upper Gallatin Elk Herd

Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4 R-l-l31: 7665: Skier Visits Up 37 Per

Cent Last Year at 16 National Forest Ski
Areas . O O O O O O C O O C C O O C C C O C C 94
5 R-l-l34:82565: Forest Service Announces

Reclassification, Adjustment Plans For

Spanish Peaks Primitive Area . . . . . . . . 96
6 Grazing Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7 Multiple Use Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 100
8 Questionnaire for a Study of the Direct

Users of the Gallatin National Forest, U. S.

Forest Service, Region 1, Bozeman, Montana . 102
9 Recreation Visits - Annual Statistical

Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
10 Annual Grazing Statistical Report . . . . . . lll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The U. 8. Forest Service has been confronted with the problem
Of reconciling different user groups and their conflicting view-
points Since the establishment of the Forest Service in 1905.

This study is an evaluation of attitudes of the direct users
of a National Forest.

Several authors have written about the problem of single,
multiple, and dominant users of a National Forest (Ottoson, 1963).
Others have written about the Federal Lands, their use and manage-
ment (Clawson and Held, 1957). Also, the U. S. Congress enacted
the Multiple-Use -- Sustained Yield Act of 1960 which calls for
the deliberate management of our national forests for multiple-
use benefits Of the five major-use areas: timber, water, recrea-
tion, forage, and wildlife.

In light of this new legislation it is obvious that forest
resource managers will be confronted with new pressures and demands
from the various user groups for their fair share of a particular
multiple use.

Therefore, an analysis of the attitudes and concepts of the
individuals and groups that are affected by Forest Service multiple-
use management decisions, and the part these users play in the
formation of policy and land use decisions, should be important to
public land managers.

While a study of this nature spread over the entire Rocky
Mountain region would be desirable, practical considerations of

time and funds limited the study to a single National Forest.

The Gallatin National Forest takes its name from the Gallatin
River which was named by Lewis and Clark in honor of Albert Gallatin,
Secretary Of the Treasury at the time of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
In 1899 an 80,000-acre tract of land, about ten miles south of Bozeman,
Montana, county seat Of Gallatin County, was set aside at the Gallatin
Forest Reserve. In 1907, Congress changed the name to Gallatin
National Forest. In 1945, the Absaroka Forest to the East was con-
solidated with the Gallatin. The present area includes 1,700,166
acres. The area includes intermingled private, state, and other
publicly owned lands. The largest other owner Of private land within
the boundaries of the Gallatin National Forest is the Northern Pacific
Railroad Company. See Appendix 2.

The Forest Service manages the forest resources and protects them
from fire, insect damage, and disease. During the forest fire season,
the hot, late months of summer, look-out towers are manned and fire
guards are on patrol. Outbreaks of timber-killing insects and diseases
are controlled by logging and the use of insecticides. This same pro-
tection is afforded to private lands within the forest through coopera-
tive agreements with the landowners.

Twenty-five percent of the forest's gross earnings from timber
sales, grazing fees, land rentals, and water power is returned to the
State for distribution to counties having national forest land. This
money is used to help maintain public schools and roads. Another ten
per cent of gross receipts is used for construction and maintenance
of forest roads and trails. Sixty-five per cent remains in the

Federal Treasury.

The Gallatin National Forest, Region One, constitutes a logical
entity because of its complexity and diversity of uses covering all
five major multiple uses of a National Forest as documented in

appendices 9 and 10.

Objectives

What attitudes and concepts the users of a National Forest have
towards the multiple-use management program are virtually unknown
from a scientific standpoint. This study was undertaken in recogni-
tion of the need to determine quantitatively and qualitatively the
nature of the attitudes and concepts held by the many individual
users and user groups in regard to multiple-use management of a
national forest. The three specific Objectives of this study are:

1. To determine the population of users, individuals, and
groups under the multiple-use program of the Gallatin
National Forest.

2. To determine the policy of the forest administrators in
meeting the use demands for various user groups in con-
formance with the over-all multiple-use policy of the
Multiple-Use -- Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960.

3. TO determine the national forest users' attitudes toward
the policies of the Forest Service in administering the
Multiple-Use -- Sustained Yield Act and the implications
for adjustments Of this program on the Gallatin National
Forest.

Study Area
The national forest selected for this study is the Gallatin
National Forest. The Gallatin National Forest is located in the
main drainage headwaters Of the Yellowstone, Gallatin, and Shields

Rivers. The northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park con-

stitutes the southern boundary for the Gallatin National Forest

(Figures 1 and 2).

 

.-.r

   

   

“\

LVMLP

L

 

11‘

fi...‘ A I L‘}

N

.12}
VEIIowsyovm

 
 

  
   

   

      

/ A ?

N /€ ~
‘ 01-J- {) A! I g"! ’5 ‘~f .F ' in-
N ‘ v v. /.: / O

2*! M; to)” .

. , ,- I.‘;
.up {.1 [H.WA

3 ,

, .

A ,X’/"( 3".

my

_I’.«‘/(,‘l:—

 

. _. K‘
A I , .
I I

{£57'.i:

#YN

 

A
' (C‘Ta‘
/ b 5:. ""1“
4.

var-W.

 

., " .‘
1? sum" PEAKS‘SHI
”"fixylto

V1."
1 2.‘

, I
Cantu?“
c .v;

.I“:}’-
/ J‘s

   
 

    
  

 

 

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

LEGEND
. W Tons

, /
/ A
“Pig: / m
.,,/ ,,..,,/.‘..‘._,,v,,.,
[V

  

GALLA‘HN NATEONA'.
WORKING C!P.C

BEARTOOTN

  
  

  
   
 
  

FOREST
LES

IILLIIO’

PRIUITIVE

     

     
  
  
  
 
  

 

l

|
g
1
l
E

 

. , . .,....... RAILROAD: ‘
A -.'. A_- l W mean“ I
/ . ' .' { “nun IYAYIDVI .
GALLATIN\ ,‘ A 1' surnuson‘s ounce
‘\" \. -— —— vonmo cucu Iouuou-u I
W. C. .3." onxasul. '
'[LLL VIVUII 0‘ .- l- I
icALl 1
M
In“ nu.
Sun-5! an
Figure 2. Gallatin National Forest Working Circles.

Federal Treasury, according to U. S. Department of Agriculture Agricul-
tural Handbook NO. 20, revised July, 1964.

There is a wide range of recreation Opportunity in the Gallatin
National Forest. There is much Of interest for the botanist, the
rock collector, the paleontologist, the photographer, the sports
enthusiast, as well as the sight-seer. Of special interest is the
Madison River Canyon Earthquake Area near Ennis and West Yellow-
stone where the 1959 quake caused a huge slide and left other
spectacular features in the canyon. There are three primitive
areas: the Spanish Peaks, the Beartooth and the Absaroka, which
are rough, wild and unspoiled. There are dude ranches, resorts,
cabin camps, and improved campgrounds for the vacationer. For the
ski enthusiast, Bridger Ski Bowl, twenty miles north of Bozeman,
is one of the best ski areas in the country. Appendix 9 shows that
visits to Gallatin National Forest totaled 2,895,500 in 1964, con-
sisting of 1,482,700 man-days. Purposes of the visits, grouped under
14 headings, show that the vast majority of visitations were for general
enjoyment and sightseeing.

The entire area Of the Gallatin National Forest is big game
country. Here, too, is some of the finest trout fishing to be
found anywhere. The forest is the home for elk (Cervus canandensis),
western mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana),
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis), and mountain goats

(Oreamnos americanus). Brown bear (Ursus middendoriffi) and some

grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis) also make their homes in the Gallatin.

Upland game birds include the ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), and

 

the larger blue grouse (Dendragapus Obscurus); and ducks and geese

 

can be found in great numbers on Hebgen Lake.

Timber from the Gallatin benefits local residents as well as
industries many miles away. The annual harvest is planned so that
it does not exceed the growth of young timber. Lodgepole pine,
Pinus contorta, is the principal commercial species; Douglas fir,

Pseudotsuga menziesii, is second. Pulpwood, sawtimber, power poles,

 

houselogs, and fence posts and poles are the major timber products
harvested.

Defoliating insects and bark beetles are present throughout the
timbered areas and must be kept under control. Dwarf-mistletoe,
Arceuthobium americanum, is present in almost all of the lodgepole

pine, Pinus contorta, stands.

 

The number one natural resource in the West is water; without
it, farms, ranches, industries, and towns would virtually disappear.
The water supply for the Gallatin Valley comes almost entirely from
the forest.

Another major use Of the Gallatin National Forest is grazing of
domestic livestock. Each summer large numbers of sheep and cattle
are fattened on the lush mountain range land Of the Forest. Only a
portion of the yearly growth of forage may be grazed safely each year;
the part that is left provides winter range for wild game and insures

the well-being of the range. In appendix 10, some insight is gained

into the diversity of provisions made for grazing on the Forest alone.
A system of grazing permits is used, but is complicated by the inter-
mingled private ownership.

National forests have had the longest record Of constructive land
management, and the concept Of multiple land use has been applied to
them rather fully. Operation Multiple Use is designed to produce the
most for the many; to produce recreation, wood, water, forage, and
wildlife in keeping with the potentials and limitations of the land

and the social and economic human needs.

Procedure

For the purpose of this study a user is defined as an individual,
group, or association making use of goods or services provided from
the Gallatin National Forest. Five major user groups are recognized:
forage, timber, water, recreation, and wildlife. Within these five
major user groups are sub-groups which by nature Of their use of the
Gallatin National Forest fit categorically into one of the five user
groups.

Forty-six detailed interviews with users of the Gallatin National
Forest were conducted in the summer and fall of 1965 as allocated in
Table 1.

Four questionnaires were discarded because Of the incomplete
answers. All Of these were within the forage user group. In the
water user group, the author interviewed officials of all three Of
the municipalities which Obtain their water from the Gallatin National

Forest. The author also reduced the sample of water irrigation districts

to three from the actual population of six, feeling that this size Of
sample was adequate. Two of the winter sports areas were eliminated
because one had been inoperative, and the other ski area was not
established on the Gallatin National Forest, but only adjacent to it.
Organization camps were cut back to two due to the fact that the dude
ranch and resort group had adequate sampling coverage. The campground
camper-user group was dropped completely because very few $7 recreation
stickers were sold. Those campgrounds that required the $7 permit were
actually vacant or had very little use.

In his "Problems Analysis Research in Forest Recreation," Dana
(1956), stated that "Probably the best way to get the answers is to
ask the users." This was the approach the author used, and the results
are encouraging. Only one individual refused to complete the ques-

tionnaire either personally or by mail. See Appendix 8.

Sampling Procedure

 

In view of time and limited funds available, the author decided
that 50 direct users could be interviewed. The allocation Of the
sample to user group categories was made prOportional to the square
root Of the population in each user group category, allocated according
to maximum possible binomial variance.

Selection of owners for interview was made by random numbers
drawn from a box. Each user was identified through the records of
the Gallatin National Forest and assigned a number and had an equal

change of being drawn for possible interviewing.

10

Table 1. Interview categories, sample allocation and actual
sample of Direct Users of the Gallatin National Forest, 1965

 

 

 

TOTAL SAMPLE ACTUAL
USER GROUP POPULATION ALLOCATED SAMPLE
Forage
Cattle Grazing 225 12 10
Sheep Grazing 23 3 3
Timber (Forest Products
Plants)

Sawmill 7 3
Pulpwood Producer 2 2
Treating Plant, Pole 5

& Post 2 1
House Log Producer 2 1
Water
Water-Municipality 3 3 3
Water-Irrigation District 6 3 3
Recreation
Winter Sports Center 3 1.} 3
Organization Camp 2 3
Dude Ranch 25 5 7
Resort 32 6 5
Wildlife
Hunting 6 4 7
Fishing 6 ‘_3 __

344 50 46

 

11

Characteristics of User Groups

Forage. Forage users are ranch Operators who graze either cattle
or sheep on the Gallatin National Forest under a leasing arrangement
explained in Appendix NO. 6.

Timber. This user group included sawmill owners, pulpwood
Operators, wood treating plant and house log operators who had pur-
chased wood material from the Gallatin National Forest under Forest
Service timber sale agreements and policy.

Egggr. This user group includes water municipalities and irri-
gation districts who manage reservoirs within the boundaries of the
Gallatin National Forest. The water is then distributed to the home
owner or rancher and a charge is made for the specific amount used.
Currently no fee is charged by the Forest Service for the water which
originates on the watershed either in the form of snow or rain and
eventually through run off flows to the reservoir for ultimate use.

Recreation. The recreation user group includes a winter sports

 

center, organization camps, dude ranches, and resort operators. The
fees that they pay are based on a percentage Of the profit if the
facility is constructed on national forest land, and grazing fees for
the number of horses used in the packing of guests into the back
country.

Wildlife. This user group includes both hunting and fishing
organizations. Both hunters and fishermen purchase an annual license
to harvest game and fish in Montana. The individuals in these two

categories also belong to one or more organizations for annual membership

12

fee of 2-10 dollars. As members they elect a set of Officers who carry
out the objectives of the organization and meet with Forest Service

Officials on a regular basis to discuss multiple-use programs affecting

wildlife.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

It would be impossible to present a complete review of litera-
ture on multiple use. During the past few years, nearly all issues
Of the Journal Of Forestry, American Forests, and other journals and
publications dealing with natural resources have had articles on the
theory and practice of multiple-use forestry. The most relevant
document pertaining to multiple use is the Multiple Use Act Which was

enacted by Congress in 1960.

Defining Multiple Use

A review Of literature indicates that there is considerable mis-
interpretation of the Multiple Use Act under which the Forest Service
Operates. For example, Adams (1956) declared that multiple use to a
layman has come to mean free public recreation more than anything else.
Orell (1962) had the following to say about the layman's definition Of
multiple use: "To the half informed man on the street multiple use
means only the right to hunt, fish, camp, and sightsee on forest lands."

Orell (1962) stated that the industrial forester's definition
of multiple use is "the accommodation of a maximum of other compatible
uses with a single use." He asserted that the highest single use of
commercial forest lands is growing trees for successive timber har-
vests. Shanklin (1962) declared that the multiple use policy state-
ment issues by owners of timberland along the Allagash River in Maine

shows that they have and will continue to manage their lands primarily

for production of wood fiber.

13

l4

Duhnrack (1960) believes that the U. S. Forest Service's concept
of multiple use is "the combining and fitting Of resources in a pattern
Of harmonious action, producing a sustained yield Of all multiple values
to the Optimum obtainable." Multiple-use forestry for national forests
as defined in Public Law 86-517 is quoted by Shanklin (1962): "Multiple
use means: The management Of all the various renewable surface resources
Of the national forests so that they are utilized in a combination that
will best be used for all the American people and not necessarily the
combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or greatest
unit output.” In an editorial appearing in the April, 1960, issue of
American Forests, Dana was quoted as defining multiple use as "the
management of all the resources on a given property so as to give the
maximum satisfaction to the owner." He also stated that satisfaction
can be Of social, personal, or monetary nature. The author feels that
this definition is the most appropriate.

The term "multiple use" to many of the direct users of the
Gallatin National Forest has connotations of being a new key phrase,
but according to Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson's letter of
instructions to Pinchot in 1905, when the forest reserves were trans-
ferred from the Department Of the Interior to the Department of
Agriculture, the terms water, wood, and forage were well mentioned.

"All of the resources of the new reserves are for

use, and this use must be brought about in a thoroughly

prompt and businesslike manner, under such conditions

only as will insure the permanence Of these resources.

The vital importance of forest reserves to the great
industries of the Western States will be largely

15

increased in the near future by the continued steady
increase in settlement and development. The permanence
Of the resources of the reserves is therefore indispen—
sable to continued prosperity, and the policy Of this
department for the protection and use will invariably
be guided by this fact, always bearing in mind that the
conservation use of these resources in no way conflicts
with their permanent value.

"You will see to it that the water, wood, and

forage of the reserves are conserved and wisely used

for the benefit of the home builder first of all, upon

whom depends the best permanent use of lands and re-

sources alike. The continued prosperity Of the agri-

cultural, lumbering, mining, and livestock interests is

directly dependent upon a permanent and accessible supply

of water, wood, and forage, as well as upon the present

and future use of their resources under businesslike

regulations, enforced with promptness, effectiveness,

and common sense."

Applying Multiple Use

Most authors appear to be in agreement that multiple use is a
planning concept applicable to large areas rather than to each acre
within a forest holding. VonCiriacy-Wanthrup (1938) said that multiple
use should refer to large acreages with each acre allocated to its
optimum use since the concept of multiple use does not require that
campers, fishermen, sheepherders, hunters, etc., simultaneously utilize
each acre, but does require equitable distribution of water for recrea-
tion, timber, and wildlife resources existing in an area. Connaughton
(1959) agreed that multiple use is a planning concept applicable to
large areas taking into account all the various resources and utilizing
those which return the maximum benefit.

Pearson (1940) and Greeley (1953) believe that land classification

or zoning is necessary for multiple-use land management. The primary

16

use or usage should be a basis for land classification management,

uses not interfering with the latter would be allowed. According to
Cliff (1961) ". . . multiple use management presents the most promising
solution to the problem of our shrinking forest land base and increas-
ing needs of the products of the lands."

The largest problem facing multiple use land management probably
is the measurement and assessment of value for resources such as water,
wildlife, recreation, and wilderness areas. Connaughton (1943) stated
that the benefits of watershed protection are often remote and hard to
visualize. Wagar (1964) mentioned the difficulty of measuring the
changing recreation and wildlife values. Beasley (1961) analyzed
present methods Of determining values for recreation resources con-
cluding at the present there is no perfect method.

Lammi (1951), Gregory (1955), Zivnuska (1961), and Hagenstein
and Dowdle (1962) discussed methods of multiple use land allocation
within the frame work of economic analysis. Gregory (1955) analyzed
multiple use in terms of traditional theory of "joint production."
Some authors have also discussed comparisons of multiple-use values
at various levels Of measurement: stumpage level, raw product,
consumption level, income level, and capital investment. They all
agree that Optimum allocation occurs when returns per unit in point
of time are equal for the various resources employed.

Amidon and Gould (1962) report in their study the possible impact
of recreational development on timber production in three California
national forests. This study indicates that the recreation capacity

of three forests analyzed can be increased ten times the present total,

l7

and at the same time sustained yield capacity from productive forest
land would be reduced to only 13%; thus, multiple use management policy
as applied to these 3.5 million acres of national forest land can pro-
vide about 40,000,000 visitor days of recreation plus almost 240,000,000
board feet of timber at sustained-yield capacity. The public benefits
of such joint productions seem large, even if individual acres within
each forest are devoted to a single use.

Even greater efficiency may result whenever land management
practices can be devised to use some acres for more than one product.
Cushwa (1963) said if management for multiple use takes positive
action before, not after the need arises, then it is deliberate and
carefully planned integration of various forest land uses so that
each use interferes with the other as little as possible and supple-
ments the others as much as possible.

Cushwa (1963) in his study Of forest recreation estimates and
predictions Of the North River area, George Washington National Forest,
Virginia, brings out the important point Of minimizing interference in
regard to what is the importance of seasons in planning for area use:

"We have seen that 44 per cent of the total recrea-

tional use occurred during three weeks of the openings

of the fishing and hunting seasons. During this period,

76 per cent of the hunting and 60 per cent of the fishing

use occurred. Furthermore, 35 per cent Of the camping

use occurred during these three weeks. Obviously there

will be a sharp increase in demand for camping sites and

facilities to take care of hunters, because camping is

the largest single use of the area. Facilities which

can be used until late fall or early winter should be
considered."

The
point Of
carrying
clusions:

1.

18

Determining Limitations of Multiple Use
carrying capacity for forest land in all wildlands has a
diminishing return. Wagar (1964), in his study of the

capacity of wildlands for recreation, reaches these con-

Recreational carrying capacity is not an absolute value
inherent solely on the ecology and original characteris-
tics Of each land area.

Limitation Of use at some carrying capacity is not an end
in itself but is a means to an end.

For purposes of determining recreational carrying capacity,
the Objective Of managing wildlands may be stated as the
sustained production of the highest quality recreation that
is possible at acceptable costs.

Accepting limitation of use is only one Of the costs that
can be paid for quality recreation.

Limitation of use will be appropriate only when it is an
acceptable cost for quality recreation.

In the absence of measured data, it is impossible to estimate
the effects that increased crowding of a wildland area would
have on human judgments Of the quality of recreation.

Management procedures may allow both high-quality recreation
and high rates of use if they:

a. reduce conflicts between competing uses,

b. reduce the destructiveness of people,

c. increase the durability of areas, or

d. provide increased opportunities for enjoyment.

Relationships between vegetation, visitor use, and site
factors can be described and show promise as tools for
predicting the impact of visitors on recreation areas.

Once determined, carrying capacities can be applied in a
variety of ways.

19

10. Finally, it is concluded that, while research can provide
various types of information for guidance, final definitions
of recreational carrying capacity must be of an administra-
tive nature.

Realizing that our land and all of our natural resources have

limitations, and the competition for this land is increasing each
day, we are thus faced with the situation of unhappy special interest
groups as we limit and allocate the use for the various user groups.
Although it may be easy to shift the decision making the respon-
sibility to impersonal equations based on formulas devised by research
scientists, we still must have the opportunity for human judgment when
we decide what use should be made Of our national forests. The
Northern Rocky Mountain Region and more specifically, Montana, is
an area that has been seeking a more rapid rate of economic growth
and resource use in the past few years. With the Gallatin National
Forest completely within the boundaries Of the State of Montana, the
use and the develOpment Of the resources on this national forest are
dependent upon the over-all development Of the Northern Rocky Mountain
Region, and specifically, the economic development in Montana.
Undoubtedly, some Of the greatest group pressures that the Forest
Service will witness in the region will be from the recreation users.
The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission's report, January,

1962, had these important findings to report:

1. The kinds of outdoor recreation most people take part in
today are relatively simple.

2. What people now do for recreation is not necessarily what
they want to do in the future.

3. Water is a focal point of outdoor recreation.

20

4. The recreation problem is not one of a number of acres,
but Of effective areas.

5. People want outdoor recreation close to home and for most
people home is in the fast-growing metropolitan areas.

6. As mobility continues to increase, more people will travel
farther to enjoy outstanding scenic, wildlife, and wilder-
ness areas. These places are where you find them, and they
provide outdoor experiences of memorable quality which can-
not be duplicated elsewhere.

7. There are many overlooked outdoor recreation resources
in urban areas.

No suitable management program for our nation's natural resources
soils, waters, forests, rangelands, and wildlife can succeed without
public support. Technical knowledge in recent years has constantly
been far ahead of public acceptance. This characteristic of American
conservation is epitomized by the imaginary character who is reputed
to have said "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already
made up." The importance Of good communications and good public

relations cannot be over-emphasized.

Recreation Versus Timber Production

Very few published studies have rigorously investigated the
impact of recreation on timber production. Most of the articles
published on this subject are the opinions Of their respective
authors.

Stewart (1961) in planning recreational development for the
University Of Maine Forest, a tract of 1700 acres in Stillwater,
Maine, estimated that only 5 per cent of the forest land was required
to provide recreational facilities deemed adequate to fulfill the needs

for the next twenty years.

21

Seiker (1955), Woodard (1957), and Rosecrans (1957) cited the need
for timber harvest in recreation areas. If stands are not harvested,
hazards such as fire, insects, and diseases and personal safety from
falling limbs can occur. Harvest of mature and defective trees is
essential to protect the remaining trees and people in the recreation
or surrounding area.

Woodard (1957) and Morriss (1961) discussed timber management
policies for recreation areas. Many authors have cited the need for
carefully planned logging operations on recreation areas to assure
minimum damage to area.

Pearson (1940) believed that the conflict between timber and
recreation could be solved by the education of the public. He stated
that the public must be taught a well managed selection forest is a
place of beauty.

Dermody (1965) in his study of recreationists in Yellowstone
National Park discovered some interesting attitudes Of park users,
and many of these people are users of the Gallatin National Forest.

He noted that the recreationists he questioned prefer to consider
themselves "roughing it," though their indicated preferences as to
facilities, roads, and the fencing of campgrounds were evidence to the
contrary. Dermody felt, though, that the recreation users in Yellow-
stone were satisfied with the results Of Park Service planning in
relation to concessions, roads, interpretive programs, and primary
attractions. He felt that a reservation system would meet with serious

opposition.

22

Concepts Regarding Taxation, Grazing and Recreation

Considerable amount of acreage of private land is found inter-
mingled among the federal land within the Gallatin National Forest.
American Forest Products Industry (1964) calls for an intensive study
to classify lands for their prOper long-term use and to establish a
tax base which will guarantee long-term land productivity.

A new law in Connecticut provides for another plan for taxation.
It provides for the valuation and taxation of farms, forestland and
Open space lands on the basis of actual use rather than a valuation
based on the yardstick of a possible "highest and best use." This
kind of taxation may not be the right direction because at stake is

the principle of property taxation, not merely forest taxation.

games

The controversy in regard to the Wapiti (Cervix canandensis),
or elk as it is commonly called, is one Of the never-ending items
for discussion at sportsman, livestock, and Chamber Of Commerce
meetings. Emotion runs high at these meetings and the word of the
big game biologists regarding the cause of range deterioration is
Often met with closed ears and minds. Streeter (1965) states that
the present situation is one of complex interactions of biotic,
edaphic, topographic, microclimatic, and moisture factors. The heavy
elk usage of the restricted winter range, coupled with soil texture
and topographic factors, creates a compacted soil indicated by a high

built density.

23

Detailed knowledge of the elk range is necessary for any wise
administration of this boundary area of northern Yellowstone National
Park and the adjoining Gallatin National Park. This is not to say that
worthwhile research has not been done, but the point is that a complete
integrated study which would involve the analysis of all the economic,
social, and ecological factors that are associated with the area should
be considered in one composite study.

The Forest Service has been aware Of the deteriorating condition
of the winter range not only on the Gallatin National Forest, but also
on all the lands under their jurisdiction.

Since public lands are a source of forage for animals, the
President's Materials Policy Commission (1952) asked several public
agencies to prepare estimates of potential improvements which can be
effected on these lands. These estimates also are used as a guide
for possible improvements on privately owned grazingland in the same
general areas.

The Forest Service estimates that the carrying capacity of the
national forest range lands can be raised before 1975 from its present
7.7 million to 10 million animal-unit-months--a little more than a 30
per cent increase. Present carrying capacity is likely to decline,
however, from 7.7 to 6 million animal-unit-months unless, according
to the Forest Service, although range management could be intensified
by improvements costing 51 million dollars. To raise the carrying
capacity to the projected 10 million animal-unit-months will require

in addition a reseeding program on 4 million acres at a cost of 40

24

million dollars. The combined total costs of improving Forest Service

lands thus would be 90 million dollars.

Federal Grazing_Permits

 

Degn (1965) in his "Evaluation of Federal Grazing Permits on

Montana Cattle Ranches,"

summarized his results as following:

"All net returns comparisons indicated greater permit
values to smaller ranch Operators than to large ranch
operators. Nearer to Optimum input factor balance gained
through the possession and use of federal grazing permits
of the small ranches in the privileged ranch category is the
probable explanation for the high permit values of these
categories. Additional grazing land, through federal grazing
permits, apparently gave the ranchers in the small size
category Of the privileged ranch study, advantages over the
comparable size group in the non-privileged study through
better land use and nearer to optimum ranch organization.
This greater difference between net returns of the small
size categories of the two studies resulted in high permit
values. To exemplify, ranchers dependent upon small irrigated
pasture acreages for their feed supply might well be expected
to raise output Of livestock disproportionately with the
addition Of small amounts of dry range (federal grazing per-
mits) to relieve the grazing load on the irrigated pasture.

”The larger size groups of the non-privileged ranch

study on the other hand were apparently more readily able

to achieve good input balance without the aid of federal

grazing permits. This resulted in smaller differences

between the net returns Of the two studies and therefore

smaller AUM permit values."
In addition, Degn stated that policy makers should be cognizant Of
several components Of permit value such as: the portion needed for
risk of tenure in federal land use, the portion that has already been
capitalized into the value of the rancher's base prOperty, and the

portion that is brought about by a nearer to Optimum input balance

due to the use of the federal land.

CHAPTER III

MULTIPLE-USE OF OUR NATIONAL FORESTS

The peculiar nature and character of the Gallatin National Forest
and other federally Owned lands, the fact that they have been available
for the use of private individuals and groups but not used by govern-
ment enterprise as such, has resulted in a pattern of use compatible
with private land ownership. Each form of land ownership in the United
States has stimulated and benefited the other. However, it would be
misleading to say that major management problems have not emerged as a
result of the mixed pattern since this study of direct users of the
Gallatin National Forest indicates many areas of conflict.

The user Of the federal lands is often a user and an owner of
private lands, and his use of the one must be closely related to his
use of the other such as is the case with livestock Operations in the
West. The fact, too, that federal land units are variously interspersed
with private land units has Often presented problems for the federal
land administrator; this is the case of alternately owned section
(640 acres) of land in the Gallatin National Forest (Figure 3).

Up until 1900, use Of the federal land was Often without specific
legal authority. Until the national forests were brought under con-
structive administration following the Act of 1897, little or no legal
authority existed by which the federal lands could be used or their pro-
ducts harvested. There was authority for land disposal, although this
was Often unsuited to the types of land and the uses desired, but

authority to use the federal land itself was lacking.

25

26

 

 

 

l ,
Figure 3.--Intermingled private ownership within the boundary Of the
Gallatin National Forest is Often referred to as checkerboard owner-
ship. This section Of the Gallatin National Forest illustrates this
point which is typical of many of the national forests. Shading in-
dicates Forest Service ownership.

27

While the federal government had never provided specific legal
authority for many Of the uses, neither had it made a serious attempt
to stop them. This is true of the grazing of livestock on federal land,
especially in the early days of public land use. In other cases, as in
the building Of roads across public land, the law was vague and constuted
an open invitation to the public to avail itself of the federal land with-
out specific authorization. In still other cases, as in the extensive
cutting of timber in trespass, especially in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, the federal government made sporadic and generally ineffectual
attempts to stop or curb the trespass. The General Land Office tried
repeatedly and with great courage to stop trespass; but the Congress and
the people generally were either indifferent or positively encouraged it.
Congress was unwilling to provide funds to enforce policy or legal means
whereby lumbermen could get land or timber cutting rights suited to their
needs.
Uses Of the federal land by private individuals have been classified
broadly as follows into four groupings (Clawson & Held, 1957):
1. Uses yielding commodities or services of direct commercial
value to the user. These include chiefly:
a) timber harvest;
b) mineral production, including oil and gas, coal and
other leasable minerals, as well as metals;
c) forage harvest by domestic livestock;
d) occupancy for various business purposes, such as

resort hotels, service stations and many others.

28

2. Uses yielding directly consumable services and satisfac-
tions to the user, on the site. Because Of custom,
history, or for other reasons, many of these are available
free of charge or for nominal charges. These include:
a) recreation uses by individuals, in all aspects,
including vacation residence:
b) scenic uses;
c) wildlife, for enjoyment or for hunting and fishing.
3. Uses yielding commodities and services that are primarily
consumed off the site, and for the most part non-commercial.
The chief use here is as watershed; the water may be valuable,
but the watershed use generally does not yield direct revenue
to the landowner.
4. Miscellaneous uses of all kinds, of which rights of way,
for many purposes, are perhaps the most important.
Timber from federal land is sold on a competitive bid basis,
with the contract awarded to the highest bidder. In many cases the
resource or the use is available to the first comer, with a price
more or less at the market value. Mining claims can be staked by the

first person, and obtained after meeting the requirements of the law.

Single, Multiple and Dominant Uses
Actually, "single” and "multiple" uses represent the extremes of
a continuum Of methods of use and administration. There is virtually
no land, not even national parks, with only a single use; all land upon

which precipitation falls is watershed, all land except the most extreme

 

‘ fi"

29

desert has some wildlife, nearly all land has some recreation and scenic
value, and most land has some forage or tree growth that can be harvested.
Even if the latter uses were excluded, as from most national parks,
watershed, wildlife, and recreational values remain. This situation
applies also to privately owned land. However selfishly the lumberman

or rancher might manage his land in his own interest, some of its water-
shed and wildlife values remain, though perhaps in greatly diminished
importance.

The basic principle of Forest Service multiple-use management is
the conscious management of the land to the end that it can provide
several uses at the same time. The process is not haphazard; it is
deliberate, as illustrated in figure 4. But no matter how seriously
multiple-use is sought in public land administration, there must be
some scale Of preferences for choice among uses in those situations
where full use for one purpose interferes with full use of another.
There may be situations in which the best management for watershed
purposes is also the best management for wildlife, or when the best
management for timber production and harvest is also the best manage-
ment for watershed, and so on. When this is true, there is clearly no
need for a scale of preferences among uses. But in the most usual case
full enjoyment of one use means some reduction of another. Then the
question arises: Which use, or which degree of one use, should be

sacrificed to another use or to some degree Of another use?

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O
I

ulu‘.

_ ,.,.
-h~-K

A... u~ . r- . ‘ x g 3 ¢ ' "‘ e I .‘5- ’ - n
p ‘\ \ . '\ ,, . l! ~\ :7- q 8 -_ f ‘ E . I
. 3 1. , .—’: =1. 1 -\.~ C -”. .1: n k\ '. ‘ E“. : 3.- '.' -'-.' 1" I ‘ \.'l .' 1" l ' h "' !\ !\\' I) r: r: ‘f' E:- x
L.) .i L..L.. UQK- l”H\LJ \lki'UI-"lai‘W' AIL— U ‘U’JHIP‘KJLCOiL—l
'. w. I
- e
; I.‘~" —- ‘ ~ ' «rd {5‘ h "o »' K ' "a- .
" i .t_ “ . ~' ! . '5 ' "-° ‘
' I ‘. ’ r' .
54 ...J “u A... \J i i w L.- i
‘ ,-
’ '"F, . ’ ’ - . “H . n . ' ,. . ,.
£- ; m: '21."; - $981 gum , .531... far/Jl/ 5102’05232, Ark/)0 :
_.__ . _’
x ‘. ..“ 3“ 4 r» . 5 r.“ f- x c. r- !“ a 1 A t a“ ’~ ‘.
. ‘ " w". “ :‘7 "~ . ' ' ." -‘ ' 0'" '
: L..o"'-';'J»I ..' Vutlm. ‘J,‘.~J JU'..«U».-b ‘(
; 7:1 - — _- xvi: 1:: .-
L ‘ U
" v ' '><o¢m-'§Jb~-_ .. _...... ...l . ‘— \.--..A..---~u ,
'."‘» A‘:;;r~.-,—r'~;n-1' {5,}, ‘..‘ r~o— ..;-,\-,‘,.
, - , ~—. \ . . . ’ .- K "
My”. D\.-D'l\t'i; . II\ ' ‘ ' 1‘\._\.)C_l"‘\f\\ufi
_, _ , _ .. m .- - \. 0...} .."--.
' - c-cdx; I. v. l“"|‘_'l‘ ”(71's " ' H‘ILJ'W‘JI) -
‘. V’ h..-....... I..4-m\.u»_-A~A...ra-_. n. “Elana-mm...-
2'. ~ I." - .‘i’l‘a 1'” r‘ A
poor. ' \ ‘I' "' \ . .I “ ‘N “I:
: .« ~‘. .' L..I l I U3 \ | L..\J I
’I"- '_-‘ .‘lw» ‘ I
:1 ‘- A : ‘ .‘- ‘- .. ~ _- A. -‘ ". .— . .“ ~ l-s * P .
l 5",'1/\_A_ i‘:' -.L") ht. E"\.~‘Jn‘1 ‘4LJ :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'm‘. y'au—um:o-no—u‘ “I-.—Vl~ A w.“ . I M “fin ”~01 ‘ *.* ”man-‘5..- M. 'w
l r ' = . I q .
- ‘ . - .‘ '. I! ! ' ‘ I f l
I ‘ A . I t
i . ? . 2 . g B i l g l I
' ‘= 7‘ ,- ' ‘-v' r ‘I s '. 1 ,-* v ' .. .-.. ' m‘, 'I' “ . " '. ‘v' "v ' v
' d , \L-‘ " In: _. ‘_;\ f‘.’ M’ '.,:i «'4 ' " .. "' I..';: | .1. i." f Ql‘.."\_.' f 1 1'5" ‘\ .I 2' . "', I. I. :-,.[.',..; u I. e
. ,I, . .. , , . . .
' i . ‘ is f '4 3.2 1; F! . .'., (,s‘w-‘t’v ' 24:7 5
' . 1' ‘ ' 1 j 1' \
' ‘ ,1 . . , .. . . ,.. .. .4 _
x r 1 ,s MIE 11.31: ,I g Hue l z‘.-’-nl‘f - )
n I . V C I I I
L'.*~-. _‘,,«~ . ._‘- . . E "w . 2 . ... I. .2. ‘1 , . P —,'- ,.,..’p
. 45.. "out: v'l L.) ‘\‘1'E-.p a" v m» 5 ELK) I» ,'(',* n \Hu‘;n a: . T.§v.;.cn'-(__3 ? '3: .. '1)
L‘I‘;\,1 [D
f L' If Q‘L
‘h\
‘r'élv"."‘3l " .'C--" ,‘wwmx/(VQ
.um... H.‘ , I ‘ , .. 1 .__-- ,.»\x"_.‘ ‘ w ,
in: JI...‘ 5- L.»— \a'\.' .- l—‘t ‘- --\ 5..-. \—"\J g
6
. _:|.'_' .‘.r‘ In. 1“ y~ .— T‘ '-)’>. y’\)'r‘ “.1("'F\I"“
'. "~ "’ \)‘— " ‘U~.“r ML Udr. ‘ W ' p‘th‘LJLh 'LI‘OJEH",1
v'
_ L --...- , , . ,. , - A...” ,
. AD'I AT .‘f‘a-n ' .f. 'T ~.,'-l/-’ m. ‘."l"
. ‘ . \ \ » l 1 ,
5' 'W" "'\':-"‘—"‘ 'di'L-V IHKJL".’LL \JVC FLAI‘Q
L_
I!
K.’
a? f-_9' x x t 1‘“
[WA ~ ‘ ;,\y ' 1. " mm
' 1 bib-‘1‘ v I I. Y \I
' 'L' l,."" " 'r-‘I’ ‘x, y. 1" "I.:“." i
z .‘u . L: g. M..... , ’.-.I'-- .n, u. f
I m u n..'u-’ \ ‘ w”- "w ' Wu“- “““ ~ . A r
5 ' . t i i '- § '
o : ; E g u a l I
‘ '. fr. ‘_- . 4 ‘ , -'..- ‘4.\,-. 3 '- ., >r~v . I :7 "\
VSTCJ - a ”.11 I P.,;.", 1’4 ¢ lu‘ufi. "L'flINTu, 1 a ‘.|i)_'.| d 5 J "I.”
t g 7 _. ( E I U" . ..
, ‘7 > 2, ~ w. .' " ': vvv p~ . r , - -r,v»--‘;;\ :3 A): [VD*~I\«'I¢ '
L41,” \,‘.,‘ PLIHLMJK v ” J ' ‘ III‘L..L"‘O;~1.I in: P’Tu' v. LN L II!‘|'r-VVL‘S“'.I
, ‘ I-IVr' ..
MIMI“. ”-HIII-hl inhi
\ 3’
..'.
- u.-
T‘. (A ’. 5 n 9: g l I“ ,t.‘ . Cx
, v. '. ,; I I I _ W
: ink/l c\21\ ( Lfiib-J !
l L
: .. , ,. .~. .-.'. E
- i\ I I A - .._ .‘ " II - ‘
1 L L ‘ ’
. ’)I’-:."~," - ~. ‘g ' "'\"\ .‘ .' '.-'- ’
x rh_3\.!‘fuf“'oluflb H ,Hou OHYVJI z
' .
‘ "4 ‘:-“' u! .. "H \'-‘
B. -' firl"\'t',l ’n o.'< f .Hl‘ ! “- i
i. .
-r-~r‘.'/~
FLLUI-T'NCK
"I! y n ,L
-a l _
A firm. 2 r1. 4‘- x'wx HQ 4.
L‘M L*| I .‘ ' 1 r‘ ‘(IJ,'. ‘ I ' ”nu-m; ' .1
a u . \J . I \ \ VI . :7. v ; ,
1 I ‘ .‘
,7 I l
, ""-f'f"- "my 1 u' . P It, \ .. i
" 111'le nun J .. _-‘:v: ' I'I- 1
l ‘H F’-":‘ ‘ 4‘, "‘ «,1 - a - ' ; “'prr‘ "
' CCHIHnLIO'PLrtm.IL'UAN’ “mutuzma ;
~ I
‘ "f" -r. n ‘ - \ ‘i‘v‘ . —.
': lUnL; ALLUJIHE) 1
h ‘ .
. “
1 1‘
_ ', -, ,
z : c ' --'
3 —- 1' LII-ZN "- .— . i - ._ ‘a'T' I“ _ " -‘
'_ In 4-1 by: g - Pvu'L-L ' .
‘ 4 \ v
, I , "‘, Hw‘ 'vv'I'V“-"'f‘ ‘
. ’- . u
. ...- . 'i ‘ :f‘Tex“ l>| '- f,‘ | ' A'V'I " A! - '\ 4\. ..-Ju.u.uA--4-n-o. ,’ g A 1‘ 1" I‘ '- 1' l 1 ’\ C “anal“‘h-M
L r. . vim/l1 L.L._L,r 111.1 * ‘~ i . HngrJlHN'R/e 'i
I . 5
L. i L J

Figure 4.

 

 

Multiple-use and

sustained

’J 5 ;‘.c.r.v""" *9 53' (."Au
FU’P‘I 1.. ‘1.
‘40‘.

yield management planning diagram.

31

The Nature and Pattern of the Various Uses

In some cases a use of federal land may be spread more or less
evenly over the entire area of land allotted to it such as a grazing
lease or a cabin site; in other cases a use may be highly concentrated
in certain well-adapted areas. Where use is concentrated, as with
swimming beach areas or a ski develOpment, special problems of adminis-
tration and management are involved.

The watershed use of land applies more or less equally to all the
land in a federal land management unit; as with the rain and snow which
falls on all the land, though not equally or uniformly. But land on
which precipitation is relatively great is, from one vieWpoint, usually
important as a watershed area.

Erosion hazard also varies on the Gallatin National Forest. Some
areas have a greater erosion potential than others. From this viewPOint,
areas with high erosion potential are important watershed lands and call
for intensive management. In some areas the balance between vegetation
and other forces holding soil in place is so precarious, as against the
rainfall and other forces leading to soil movement, that relatively
slight changes in land management methods and practices may lead to
seriously accelerated erosion. Therefore, the need for long range
planning or "the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run"
becomes increasingly critical.

Certain wildlife tend to govern their own movements--especially is
this true with elk (Cervus canandensis , on the Gallatin National Forest
and Yellowstone National Park. 'Man can influence their distribution in

various ways, but always within some limits. Animals and birds will go

32

where food and water and shelter adapted to their needs are to be found,
and where disturbances from man and predators are at a minimum. Yet,
their use of federal lands tends to be a widely dispersed one.

The grazing Of livestock under lease arrangement is also more or
less prOportionately distributed, in relation to available forage, over
the entire area allotted to this use. This so-called free run of the
national forest is being changed by the installation of fences and the
placing of the range into definite pastures.

Forestry, in the sense of positive management of land to produce
forest products, may be practiced over relatively large areas. Fire
control and disease and insect control, for instance, are necessary
for the entire area. On the other hand, the timber harvest from such
lands is likely to be concentrated on a definite rotation system based
on a given timber management plan.

Recreational use Of most federal lands is highly concentrated in
develOped areas. Most people actually use only very small areas in the
sense that they walk over them, camp upon them, and hunt or fish on them.
Usually the larger areas are seen only from a distance or they serve as
buffer strips to give value to intensively used areas. There are a few
people who use the larger areas, but this generally involves hiking or
riding horseback for considerable distances, and the great bulk of
visitors do not want to do this. Yellowstone National Park, according
to national park administrators, was visited by 2,000,000 people in
1965 but only two per cent of the land area was utilized by 98 per cent
of these visitors, and 98 per cent of land area was utilized by the

remaining two per cent.

33

Actual mineral development of federal lands is also likely to be
highly localized. Mineral occurrence is usually confined to specific
areas and in many situations the surface use of land for mineral pro-
duction is quite small, even when the value of the minerals is great.
In other situations, however, mineral use may be destructive to surface
values. For example, placer mining for gold, by use of dredges, com-
pletely destroys the surface values for many years and often indefinitely.
To some extent the surface of the land may be restored after such
destructive mining by application Of suitable techniques. With pre-
planning, the restoration job is made easier and less costly.

The relationships of uses of federal land are brought into sharper
focus when we consider these uses as they apply to a specific type Of
federal land. The national forests have enjoyed the longest record of
applied land management, and the concept of multiple land use has been
applied to them rather extensively for a recorded period of time. They
contain a wide variety of physical conditions; in addition, pressures

of nearby populations accentuate public need.

Grazing
Grazing of domestic livestock is one Of the several uses of our
national forests. Of the total area of 161 million acres in national
forests (excluding Alaska), 62 million acres are used for grazing.
Twenty-five million acres of these grazed lands also grow commercially
valuable timber; figure 5 illustrates the distribution of the National

Forests.

34

 

 

 
 

\‘

i
‘.

{ft

. .
"0'41"“

 
  

D
It'llifll

 
 

IAISAS

     

0KLA”°UA

 

 

Figure 5.--Distribution of the National Forest in the United States
and Puerto Rico containing nearly 181 million acres and lie within
or across the borders Of 39 states.

35

Wildlife

The Forest Service has always been concerned with wildlife values
which they seek to protect and develop. In many states Forest Service
employees serve as local game wardens with power to arrest violators.
Wildlife numbers on national forests have increased greatly in the last
30-40 years, as they have also on other types Of land and especially
private land. The population Of some game animals, deer in particular,
is greater today than it was thirty or forty years ago, and in many
areas is in excess Of the available winter feed supply. This is one
Of the critical items in big game management. While many game species
have not adapted so well to land settlement, the primary reason for the
large increase in deer in recent years has been the protection from over-
hunting and predators. Logging and other uses of land have Often in-

creased the feed for some game animals.

Timber Harvest

Timber harvest from national forests was small in the early years
Of Forest Service administration, but it rose gradually and steadily.
In 1910, only about 0.5 billion board feet of timber were removed from
the national forests annually. At that time most national forest timber
was relatively far from the population centers and there was little
demand for it. An ample supply of Old-growth timber existed in private
Ownership, generally in more accessible locations, and Often Of higher

quality, so that timber owners had little incentive to bid for national

forest timber.

36

Recreation

The national forests, because of their variety of physical features,
have come to be one of the prime recreational attractions of the nation,
and their use for this purpose is certain to grow greater with the years
to come (Brockman, 1959).

The volume of recreation provided by an area is not easily measured.
The usual measurement technique is to count the number of persons who
use an area and the length of time they use it, but this makes nO allowance
for differences in the quality Of the recreational services obtainable.
Most people derive greater enjoyment from one type of recreation than
from another, and from one area than another for the same type of recrea-
tion. There might even be general agreement among large numbers Of
people that one area is superior to another for a particular type Of
recreation. But there are very few quantitative and accepted measure-
ments by which the value of different recreation types and areas may be
judged or rated. The output of recreation, therefore, is usually
measured in terms of numbers of people and lengths of time, with no
allowance for quality or value per unit of time. New and better survey
techniques are being devised and evaluative research is bringing out

information on recreation use that heretofore was impossible to obtain.

Watershed Utilization
One of the several purposes recognized by the Congress in authoriz-
ing national forests was protection of watersheds. Some people believe
that, at least in large areas, this is their most important use and that

it will become even more important as time goes on. National forests

37

often lie in high mountain country where total precipitation is greater

and where the winter snows become the source Of summer water supply.

Mineral Development
Usually the national forests have been open to development of
minerals under the mining laws and the mineral leasing laws. In the
early days of the West, considerable mining activity took place upon
lands now within national forests. However, since valuable mineral
deposits nearly always passed into private ownership, relatively little
actual mineral production has taken place on national forests, except

in isolated cases.

Other Uses
In addition to the major uses outlined above, the land in national
forests is used also for relatively minor purposes Of which right-Of-way
for private roads, electric power lines, and irrigation canals are per-
haps the most important. Other minor uses, such as leasing for resort,
summer home, and commercial and industrial sites are some of the
miscellaneous uses that are currently not being encouraged by national

forest administration.

CHAPTER IV

USER PROFILE

From an analysis of the Gallatin National Forest user interview
schedules, data were compiled pertaining to age, educational background,
years of use, income level, and attitudinal response Of direct users
toward multiple-use policy and administration Of the Gallatin National
Forest. The data are discussed first on the user group level, then are
related to each other in a discussion of the user as an individual.

From Table 2, it may be seen that the timber and forage user groups
included the youngest members within their ranks, with the recreation
and wildlife groups pulling the average user age to 45-54.

Water users had by far the highest number Of years of consecutive
contact (Table 3). The fact that the wildlife group also averaged a
relatively large number Of years of continual use appears to support
the idea that those economic enterprises (this would exclude recrea-
tionists) which serve the broadest segments Of the public have the
longest histories Of continuous use. There is also an increase in
educational levels attained as compared to consecutive years of use.

The latter progression includes the recreation users, who may be said

to include representatives Of the general public 13 their own ranks.

 

38

39

Table 2. Ages of Individual Users or Owners of Firms Using
Gallatin National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Catggory
% of Total

 

 

Age Sample 2] Forage Timber Water 2] Recreation Wildlife
(Years) Number of Respondents (percent)
Under 25 4.35 40
25-34 5.00 10 20
35-44 23.10 30 40 33 10
45-54 34.30 40 33 80
55-64 18.00 20 33 10
65 & over 00.00
TOTAL 84.75 100 100 100 100

Average Age 45-54

 

g/

Total does not equal 100% because water category is not
included.

E/Includes only Officers of water municipalities and irrigation

districts.

All groups had relatively high formal educations (Table 3), with
wildlife and recreation users the best educated. It is interesting to
note that the relatively high number of years of formal education were
compatible with even the most years Of continuous use.

User incomes (Table 4) averaged in low levels by today's standards,

despite the educational levels attained.

40

Table 3. Average Number Years of Education and Years of Use

Of the Gallatin National Forest for Each User Group

 

Average number years
of formal education
of respondents

User group

Consecutive years
Of personal and
institutional use

 

Forage 2 11.5 22.8
Timber- 12 d/ 16.3
Water - ---- —' 52

RecreatiorcilE 14.7 22.5
Wildlife - 16.3 34.4

 

E/Individual operators

E-Water municipalities and irrigation districts
- Organizations

— Not applicable

Table 4. Average Individual Annual Income of Respondents

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

% of Total

 

 

Annual income Sample 3/ Forage Timberh/ WaterE/ Recreation Wildlife
Number of Respondents (percent)

Under $2500 3.05 20

2500-4999 31.10 20 50 60

5000-9999 27.20 20 20 50 2O

l0,000-l4,999 8.50 30

15,000-19,999 2.82 10

20,000-over 7.83 20 20

TOTAL 80.50 100 40 100 100

Average Income $5,000-9,999

 

fl/Does not include water category; therefore, total does not
equal 100%.

b/ . .

E No response on three questionnaires

- Not applicable

41

Wildlife and recreation users, generally the Oldest and best
educated users, are the two groups most affected in the short run by
the use or misuse of the forest resource by the others. Here is where
the balance pivots--the balance between the resource in its more or
less natural state (esthetic appeal and wildlife habitat) and the
environmental alterations brought about by the timber, forage, and
water groups. The effect of the hunter and fisherman upon the forest
is normally secondary to that Of the latter groups.

If the Sportsman's organizations considered in this study enjoy
a healthy relationship with multiple-use administrators, it can be
hoped that they will generate a like feeling among non-members who
also come to the Gallatin National Forest as sportsmen. The conflict
of special interests which begins to emerge in the tables of attitudinal
responses clearly shows that no matter what the multiple-use adminis-

tration does, some groups will not be satisfied.

EQUITABILITY OF USER TREATMENT ON FOREST

Only the timber and wildlife groups felt strongly that they were
not being treated equitably in relation to other users of the same user
groups of the Gallatin National Forest. Twenty percent Of the timber
group and 33 percent of the wildlife group indicate they were not treated
equitably (Table 5). More than 90 percent of the total sample indicated
a favorable response to this question of equitability of user treatment
as compared to less than 10 percent who indicated an unfavorable reaction.

In relation to other user groups, the wildlife group also felt that
they were not being treated equitably in relation to other user groups

of the Gallatin National Forest, while the timber group gave a medium

42

to high response to this question. The recreation group responded
medium to low to the question on equitable treatment (Table 6).
Table 5. Opinions Of Respondents in Relation to Degree of

Equitable Treatment in Relation to Other Users in
the Same Group of the Gallatin National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Category
% of Total
Reaction Sample Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife

(Percent of User Group)

 

Favorable 90.5 100 80 100 93 67
Unfavorable 9.5 20 7 33
TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

Table 6. Opinions of Respondents in Relation to User Group
Treatment in Relation to Other User Groups of the
Gallatin National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

Equality of % of Total

 

 

Treatment Sample Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife
(Percent of User Group)

Very High 0.0

High 24.6 10 80 100

Medium 37.4 80 20 20 40

Low 38.0 10 8O 60

Very Low 0.0

TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

In Table 6, it is apparent that the recreation and wildlife groups
are allied in stands Opposite to the timber and water groups regarding
opinion of the equity of treatment in relation to other groups, with the

recreation users expressing the lower Of the two Opinions, percentage wise.

43

It is important to note that the extractors of timber, water, and
forage can be regulated in numbers, as can the wildlife groups, more
readily than the recreation group, which is governed largely by game
laws based on sound biological practices. The tables show no influx
of young members into recreation organizations, yet here is where new

pressures on multiple-use administrators are most likely to originate.

REACTION TO INTERMINGLED OWNERSHIP

Since much of the land within the boundaries of Gallatin National
Forest is privately owned, the question was asked: "DO you feel that
the intermingled private land within the Gallatin National Forest is
a hindrance to the Forest Service in administering the multiple-use
program?" Only one group, forage, felt that this intermingled private
ownership was not a problem (Table 7). The forage user group response
was expected, since the group owns considerable land within the Gallatin
National Forest boundary and leases land from the largest private land
owner, which is the Northern Pacific Railroad Company (Table 7).

The timber, recreation, and wildlife groups all felt strongly
that intermingled private land is a problem. A description of inter-

mingled ownership is illustrated in Figure 3.

44

 

 

 

OCH OCH ooH OCH OCH o.ooH A<HOH

mm mm no em ooH m.om manmuo>mwas

as mm mm ow m.mq OHnmuo>mm
nasopw pom: mo unmouomv

omwawawz coaumouoom woumz HOQEHH meuom OHmEmm cowumuumwcwav<

HOOOH mo N

 

mmmwOOOU mmD-mHmwuH:z

soap uummmm

 

Emwwoum OmDaOHOHuHOZ Osu mo nofiumuu
-mwaw8v< no ummuom Hmcowumz :Humaamu Onu cwnuwz pawn Oum>wum
OOHwOHEHOuaH mo uoomwm Ou :Owumaom aw mucmpcoamom mo maowafimo

.5 Essay

45

PERCENT OF GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST THAT
ARE RETURNED TO THE LOCAL COUNTY TREASURER

 

This study indicates several areas of multiple-use such as timber
harvest program, range improvement, and watershed management that may
need more explanation to the forest users--especially the information
dealing with the 25 percent return to the counties of the net receipts
of the National Forest from timber sales, grazing fees, etc. (Table 8).
Information such as this related the results of multiple-use management
to the user in terms of benefits he will obtain the most directly; i.e.,
a contribution to the local tax base can be translated into better roads
and schools as provided by Federal law at less cost to the taxpayer.

In the case of the Gallatin National Forest, this is a significant

amount of $37,295.75, in the 1965 fiscal report of the Regional Forester,
Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, for the six counties within the forest
boundaries Of the Gallatin National Forest. Table 8 indicates the level

Of knowledge of this information by the direct users.

Table 8. Knowledge of Payments Made to the State by the Gallatin
National Forest in Lieu Of Taxes

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

User's Estimates

Of % of Forest % of
Receipts Paid to Total
Local Government Sample Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife

(Percent of Users)

5
20 25

Less than 25 O 6
25 6 0
26-50 0 0
51-75 0.0
76-100 0 0

3 4

Don't Know 9 . 100 80 95 100 75

 

TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

46

UNDERSTANDING OF ADMINISTRATION OF GALLATIN FOREST

The understanding of administration purposes and Objectives of the
Gallatin National Forest, as the user interprets the total program,
doesn't correlate with the responses to other questions, where they were
more vocal. As shown in Table 9, in answer to the question: "How well
do you understand the purposes and objectives of the administration of
the Gallatin National Forest?", five groups came out to a medium rank
on the five-point scale pertaining to understanding the purposes and
Objectives of the Gallatin National Forest administration. In some of
the basic areas of knowledge as indicated by this study, the author
feels the various users Should have a better understanding on which to
base their Opinions and would indicate a ranking below medium for all
five groups. A better understanding might make users' Opinions more
compatible with a multiple-use management program because an understand-
ing of the long-range goals would make the users more receptive to the

multiple-use concept. See Appendix 7.

DEFINITION OF MULTIPLE-USE MANAGEMENT

 

When asked to pick one of five definitions Of multiple-use manage-
ment, at least one individual in all five major user groups selected
the definition that indicated the management of all the various renewable
surface resources Of the national forests so that they are utilized in
the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.
Choice number three, restrictive use, found more favor and was selected
by 84 percent of the forage user group, and 21 percent of the recreation

user group (Table 9).

47

More than 60 percent favored restrictive use and management in
combination, which indicates a receptive attitude toward the means
rather than the ends of a multiple-use program. No one Offered any
additional definitions Of their own when asked. The term "greatest
good" received only 20 percent. "Zoning" and "systematic blending"
both were selected by fewer than 10 percent of the respondents.

Table 9. Opinions of Respondents in Relation to Definition
Of Multiple-Use Management

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

 

% of

Multiple-Use Total
Concgpt Sample Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife
Number of Respondents (percent)

Zoning 2] b/ 9.1 21 15
Systematic Blendgng- 9.7 8 40 15
Restrictive Use - d 31.2 84 21
Management in gombination - 30.0 8 80 20 36 31
Greatest Good - 20.0 20 20 22 39
Your Own Definition - 0.0
TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

E/Zoning for highest and best use

F Systematic blending and balancing of five multiple-uses

- Restrictive Use

- The management of all the various renewable surface resources
Of the national forests so that they are utilized in the com-
bination that will best meet the needs of the American people

-/Greatest good to the greatest number in the long run

— Your own definition*

*
NO one Offered any additional definitions Of their own when asked.

48

ADEQUACY OF ACCESS TO GALLATIN FOREST

User group attitudes about the specific area or areas on the
Gallatin National Forest which the users were having difficulty Obtain-
ing access to varied from group to group, based on their use of the
Gallatin National Forest. The forage group was concerned about the
future grazing regulations and the pressures from other users. The
timber group was concerned about the intermingled private land, timber
access roads, and with specific drainages containing commercial timber.
The water group gave no response to this question, while the recreation
group was concerned with those areas adjacent to dude ranches or non-
resident posted ownership. Finally, the wildlife groups seem to be well
satisfied with the total Gallatin National Forest access situation.
Area access was provided to the north in the Spanish Peaks area while
the interviewing was in progress, and several pe0ple expressed satis-
faction with this aspect Of the multiple-use program of the Forest
Service. One individual commented that the Forest Service is persis-
tent in Obtaining rights-of-way and this benefits all future users of
the National Forest (Table 10). This response may indicate that pro-

blems of access apply to some degree to all groups.

49

Table 10. Opinions of Respondents in Relation to Access to
Gallatin National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

Degree of % of Total
Access Sample Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife

 

Number of Respondents (percent)

 

Excellent 0.0

Good 71.2 60 40 100 80 70
Fair 23.5 30 50 20 20
Poor 4.3 10 10
Very Poor 1.0 10

TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

SATISFACTIONS AND DISSATISFACTIONS WITH MULTIPLE-USE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

In relation to dislikes or dissatisfactions with the multiple-use
management program (Table 11), the following reactions from the forage
group were noted: a desire for range improvement, a feeling of in-
adequate payment Of use by other user groups, and a desire for better
supervision of hunting camps. In comments to the author, they also felt
generally that too much publicity would have a detrimental effect on
wilderness areas, and that the multiple-use concept is exploited to get
user groups fighting among themselves, an Opinion not shared by the
author.

The timber group was concerned with increasing the size and number
of recreation areas, length of time to develop a timber sale, and the
cost and maintenance of forest roads. Also, they felt concern with
livestock numbers and the application and intensity of management of

the multiple-use program.

50

Table 11. User Group Approval Of Multiple-Use Management Program

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

% Of Total a/
Reaction Sample Forage Timber Water - Recreation Wildlife

 

Number of Respondents (percent)

 

Very High 0.0

High 28.0 30 10 100 10 20
Medium 51.0 60 70 50 60
Low 17.8 10 20 30 20
Very Low 3.2 10

TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

-/Water munic1palities and Irrigation districts

Within the water user group neither the municipalities nor irrigation
districts had a response concerning degree of satisfaction except to say
the Forest Service is doing a good job.

Except for the winter sports center and organization camps, the
recreation user group was quite vocal on the question of dislikes and
dissatisfactions. The dude ranch and resort group was especially con-
cerned with the high preferences given to the logging program and low
quality logging practices. They felt that sheep and cattle need attention
with regard to the detrimental effect in alpine areas. Mechanized vehicles,
in their opinion, should be restricted from foot and horse trails. Ques-
tions were raised by several respondents in regard to administration lag
with the present and future multiple-use programs of the forest. Respon-
dents within recreation group stated that preference should be given to

quality recreation areas and the improvement Of well-traveled roads.

51

Wildlife organizations were concerned with the siltation effect on
streams. This group also felt that the Forest Service uses the various
groups as a testing ground for too many of their decisions. Wildlife
organization leaders disagreed as to whether big game or livestock
created the overgrazing problem. Other users brought out the point
that grazing of domestic stock has priority, but all damage is blamed
on the elk. According to one respondent, big game have only 35 square
miles for grazing while livestock have 435 square miles. Thus, there
is a need for a clearer picture in the minds of wildlife organizations
regarding amount Of available range for both livestock and wildlife.

In expressing the reaction pertaining to satisfactions with the
multiple-use management program of the Gallatin National Forest, four
user groups were less vocal, and, as stated previously, water users
said nothing.

The forage group was pleased with the logging operation phase of
multiple-use management because more grazing became available for their
livestock, especially in the block cutting of large areas of over-mature
lodgepole pine. The sheep grazing respondents were satisfied with the
multiple-use policy because it provides an Opportunity for all users of
the forest to employ the same area in some degree. The timber group was
generally content.

Within the recreation user group the dude ranch operators were the
most responsive and were generally satisfied with the Forest Service
cooperation and zoning of uses. They recognized other uses Of the
national forest and felt that the Forest Service is qualified to run

their business without outside interference.

52

The wildlife group was pleased with the $7.00 recreation fee
(Table 13) and the Opening up of new areas previously controlled by
politically powerful groups such as livestock.

Most groups except recreation agreed with the multiple-use
program. It is understandable that recreation would be most hampered
by the actions of the other four. Even though answers of the recrea-
tion groups are not in complete agreement, the majority thought that
the multiple-use program should receive more publicity. A few Of the

respondents had a wait-and-see attitude on the multiple use program.

USERS' SUGGESTIONS OF NEEDED ADJUSTMENTS IN USE OF FOREST

Several suggestions were obtained from users about possible adjust-
ments in the multiple-use management program on the Gallatin National
Forest.

Suggestions from the forage group were expanded timber sale
program, broader fee schedule to include all users of the national
forest, and better grazing without reduction of livestock number.
Timber group members requests adjustment of road building specifica-
tions with fewer restrictions. They also want more staff on multiple-
use planning. This timber user group also believe that elk are worth
$500.00 per animal, and elk give more efficient return than livestock.

The water group suggested road maintenance of the Main Boulder
road for easier access and restriction of motorized vehicles to certain
watershed areas.

The recreation user group asked for more realistic multiple-use
management and fewer access roads to the back country. One user even

suggested the eventual elimination of cattle and sheep grazing. They

53

also prOposed more modern methods of range improvement, such as fertiliz-
ing and reseeding damaged areas. According to several respondents,
quality recreation should be stressed and measured instead of quantity

of such numbers of recreation users.

The wildlife user group wants more access roads and more intensi-
fied control of the watershed along with more attention to the recrea-
tion potential. They disagreed with the Upper Gallatin Elk Herd
Management Plan of the Forest Service, National Park Service, and
Montana State Fish and Game Department (Appendix No. 3). The plan
calls for inter-agency cooperation in maintaining a balance between
elk and soil and water resources. If hunter harvest does not keep
the herd at suitable level, some animals are to be live-trapped and
transported elsewhere. In the latter case, the removal Of live-
trapped animals would reduce the highest possible hunter kill, and
consequently, the highest possible economic return for the wildlife

users.

USER OPINION ABOUT MAJOR PROBLEMS OR PROGRAMS NEEDING ATTENTION
In stating which Of the major problems or programs should receive
more attention on the Gallatin National Forest, the forage user group
felt that a land exchange for the purpose Of making a solid block of
national forest land would be desirable for more efficient management.
They suggested the grazing land should be fenced in order to develop
a pasture rotation system of the national forest, which would provide

an opportunity for rest-rotation and natural reseeding to take place.

54

The timber user group was especially concerned with road construc-
tion and maintenance, while the water user group thought that camp-
grounds needed improvement and better access roads.

The recreation user group was interested in trail maintenance, a
need for additional access roads, garbage facilities and restrictions
on vehicle travel. They were also concerned with the amount of money
the Forest Service spends in relation to accomplishments.

The wildlife group considered the problem of access across private
land worthy of attention, as well as better lOOp trail system to elimi-
nate the need of backtracking on the same trail. Additional campgrounds
on public land would improve relations with private landowners. They
suggested more research on logging and grazing practices because of the

need for quality water.

IMAGE OF PROFESSIONAL FORESTER

Users of the Gallatin National Forest drew several images of the
professional forester from seven alternatives offered in the question-
naire (Table 12). The timber user group described the professional
forester as a timber management specialist. The water user group
selected forest protection specialist. The wildlife group selected
all descriptive terms except the land-use planner. Recreationists
selected four of the terms which signifies a broader image than the
water and timber user groups. The forage group selected three terms:
multiple-use land manager, timber manager, and watershed manager. Each
user group tended to define the professional forester in terms of its

own special interest.

55

Table 12. Opinions of the Respondents in Relation to Terms
Which Best Describe a Professional Forester Who
is Employed by the Gallatin National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

 

% of
Total
Term Sample 2' Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife
Number of Respondents (percent)
Multiple-Use
Land Manager 30.02 33 15 33
Timber Manager 11.00 8 100 23 8
Recreation Manager 1.20 8
Watershed Manager 4.40 8 14
Livestock Manager 3.83 8 8
Land-Use Planner 7.50 23
Forest Protection
Specialist 16.85 100 25

 

fl/Some respondents didn't react to as many choices as others, thus
the total doesn't equal 100%.

ATTITUDE TOWARD $7 RECREATION FEE

 

Responses indicate that because of the availability Of many free
recreational areas, the $7.00 recreation fee didn't go over with
tremendous success. Therefore, discarding the campground camper user
group due to the small purchase Of the $7.00 "Recreation Sticker" was
necessary.

The $7 sticker entitles the holder and all other occupants of a
private, non-commercial auto to enter any Forest Service campground,
the National Parks, or other designated areas where fees are required.
The Recreation sticker will be required in most developed recreation

areas of the National Forests until after Labor Day.

56

There is no charge for hiking, riding, hunting, fishing, or other
recreational uses of National Forests outside of designated charge
areas.

The author Observed that the campgrounds that were referred to as
"Recreation Sticker Campgrounds" were actually vacant during the time
of his field interview schedule, August through October, 1965. Only
the wildlife user group was definitely in favor of the $7.00 recreation
sticker (Table 13). According to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the
anticipated national revenue, which was approximately $35 million, only
approximately $5 million was realized.

Table 13. Reaction Of User Groups to $7.00 Recreation Fee

for Use of Improved Campgrounds on the Gallatin
National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

% Of Total
Reaction Sample Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife

 

(Percent of User Groups)

 

In Favor 44.0 39 40 50 33 71
Opposed 35.0 39 20 50 33 29
Undecided 21.0 22 40 33

TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

ATTITUDE TOWARD WILDLIFE VS. LIVESTOCK NUMBER
In regard to wildlife vs. livestock numbers on the Gallatin
National Forest, it was significant that 83 percent of the forage
group wanted to leave both the same, while the wildlife group favored
an increase in number of wildlife, and a decrease in number Of live-

stock. The other three user groups--timber, water, and recreation--

57

split their selection three ways: to increase the number of wildlife,
leave both the same, and to decrease the number of livestock. Evidently,
all but forage wanted an increase in numbers of wildlife (Table 14).

Appendix No. 3 explains in detail the degree of cooperation between
the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Montana Fish & Game
Department in balancing wildlife use with available range and forage.

Half Of the respondents favored increasing wildlife as the adjust-
ment needed in terms of wildlife vs. livestock populations, with one-
third supporting a "leave as is" philosophy. Examination Of the com-
position of the figures in the "% of Total Sample" column again points
to attitudes colored by special interest.

Table 14. Respondents' Opinions as to Adjustments Needed in

Terms of Wildlife vs. Livestock Populations on the
Gallatin National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

 

 

% Of
Adjustment Total
Suggested Sample Forage Timber Water Recreation Wildlife

Number of Respondents (percent)

Increase Wildlife 50.04 40 50 29 39
Decrease Wildlife 2.00 8 8
Leave As Is 30.50 83 40 25 36 8
Increase Livestock 1.26 8
Decrease Livestock 16.20 20 25 36 46
TOTAL 100.00 100 100 100 100 100

 

ADEQUACY OF CONTROL OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES
All groups except wildlife were concerned with the need for controls

on use Of motorized vehicles on the Gallatin National Forest (Table 15).

58

In accordance with the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, public
use of motorized equipment such as trail scooters, chain saws, generating
plants, power drills, or any other machine powered by a self-contained
engine or motor is prohibited in the Wilderness and Primitive Areas in
Northern Region National Forests.

The forage group felt that controls should be placed on all motorized
vehicles on the Gallatin National Forest to the point of closing Off some
areas. The problem of littering was brought out and a lot of the blame
was placed on the recreationist using motorized vehicles in the forest.
This destructive type also apparently destroys information signs, leaves
gates Open, and fires unattended.

The timber group commented on the need for more two-wheel vehicles
restrictions. They also wanted timber access roads to the Taylor Peaks
and Spanish Peaks areas. The timber group also felt that right—Of-way
restrictions on both federal and private lands hindered road building.

The water group agreed with the forage group in restricting
motorized vehicles to designated trails and roads. The water group
also felt that Off-trail travel damaged large meadows and grassland
areas.

The recreation group was much more vocal than the forage, timber,
and water groups. They believed silting resulting from erosion created
by motorized vehicles and legal authority should be brought into effect

to control motorized vehicles.

59

Table 15. Users' Attitudes Toward Sufficiency of Controls on Use
of Motorized Vehicles in the Gallatin National Forest

 

Multiple-Use Category

 

 

 

Attitude

Toward % of

Present Total a/

Controls Sample Forage Timber Water ~' Recreation Wildlife
(Percent of User Group)

Sufficient 65.5 36 60 8O 71 100

Insufficient 34.5 64 40 20 29

TOTAL 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

 

a . . . . . . . . .
—/Water munic1palities and irrigation districts

COMPATABILITY OF OTHER USES WITH OWN USE

The following data are concerned with the compatability of interest
or user groups with the primary use Of the Gallatin National Forest.
Again, this compatability, both within and between user groups, more
clearly brings vested interests into focus.

The forage user group (Table 16) was compatible with those users
that Offered the least competition, such as the water-irrigation
district, pulpwood logger, water-municipality and winter sports center.
One respondent indicated compatibility with all other users except dude
ranch and resort Operators.

The timber user group felt that they were compatible with most
other users except those in the recreation and wildlife user category.
One respondent made the following comment in regard to compatibility,

"they are all (compatible) if they pay their own way."

6O

 

ON//,ON Om ON mm mm mm OOH OH OH OH OH O ON OOHOONHOOOHO OOHHOHO
ON ON//,OO ON mm OO mm OOH OH OH OH OH O OH OOHOONHOOOHO OOHOOOO
OO OO OO/x OO O O mm OOH ON ON ON ON O O Huommm
ON ON OO ON//.O O mm OOH ON ON ON ON O ON Hausa OOOO
OOH OOH OO OO OO //OO mm OOH ON ON ON ON O OH OeOO OOHOONHOOONO
OOH OOH OO OO OO OO /,mm OOH ON ON ON ON mm OH NOOOOO muuoam HmuaHz
ON ON O Om mm mm OO //OOH OO OO OO OO OO OO HOHHHOHO OOHOONHHHH-HOHO3
ON ON O OH mm mm mm OOH OO OO OO OO O ON NOHHOOHOHO52-HOOO3
ON ON O OO O O mm OOH//OO.//OO OO OO O OH mon OOOOO
O O O O O O mm OO OO OO.//OO OO O Om OOOHH NOHOOOHN
O O ON O O O mm OOH Om Om Om/x OO O Om NOOOOH OooaaHOH
O O O O O O mm OOH OOH OOH OOH ,OOHx/mm Om HHHEOOO
O O OO Om O O mm OOH OO OO OO OO mm,. ON OOHNOHO OOOHO
OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OO OO OO OO OOH, OOH OOHNOHO OHHOOO

Ammb s30 numz muNHHnHHOOEoo wamumompOH mmoBOH>HOusH mo unmouomv

 

q

I. asouu HOOD

Ho umwuoucH

uoIqequESIQ SqusIg

uoinezruefilo BurgunH

310393

qouau apnq

dmeg uoiqeziuegio

JBJUBD SJlOdS IBJUIM
131113

uOIJOSIIJI-xanem

KnitediorunN-Janam

$801 asnoH

queja Suiieaxl

198801 poodena

llImMBS

Suizeis daaqs

BuIzelg 313393

 

umouom Hmcowumz
:HumHHmU O£u mo mom: o>mumcuOuH< saws mmsouu now: No ummumucH mo zuNHHnHOOQEOU .oH OHOOH

61

Table 15 illustrates that the water user group sees all other users
compatible with their primary use Of the Gallatin National Forest with
the exception of wood-treating plants.

The recreation user group was very responsive when asked about
compatibility, as indicated in Table 16. The recreationists were
negative to those users who harvested a crop or product from the
Gallatin National Forest, such as the forage and timber users.

The hunting and fishing organizations, which come under the wild-
life user category, also were negative to those users which harvested
a crop or product from the Gallatin National Forest. Only three groups,
cattle, sheep, and water, showed some compatibility within. All other

groups had varying degrees Of internal dissention.

A USER PROFILE

 

From averages indicated in the tables, a profile of the average
user begins to take shape: he is a high school graduate, probably
with some college education. He has a lower income than one might
expect for his educational level. He has had about 29 years Of con-
tinuous use of the Gallatin National Forest to reinforce his attitudes.
He is:

virtually ignorant of payments made by the forest to local
governments in lieu of taxes

favorable toward restrictive use and management in combination
as definitions of multiple use management

of the opinion (with reservations) that access is "good,"
but not "excellent"

confused about just how he would define a professional
forester (by the forester's activities)

62

not favorably inclined toward the $7.00 recreation fee imposed
for use of improved campgrounds

in favor of increasing or at least maintaining present wild-
life populations

cognizant Of the need for controls on the use Of motorized
vehicles

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

This study of direct users of the Gallatin National Forest deals
basically with attitudes and specifically with expressed attitudes
recorded in the interviews. Each individual is born into a group,
his family, and remains a member Of groups throughout his life.
During the interview it became apparent that a person sometimes can
be contradictory and inconsistent because he belongs to different
groups or organizations with dissimilar standards and values. This
is well illustrated in Table 16, where it was shown that members
within the same group felt there was incompatibility among alternate
uses.

Thus, an analysis of the composite picture of user groups toward
multiple use of a national forest involves an analysis of cultural,
biological and physical factors, and is desperately needed in the form
Of an integrated interdisciplinary study (Moser, 1958). The present
study examines respondents relative to special user groups. Further
research could point out other common ties which influence national
forest users' attitudes.

The author hopes that this study can point the way to further
research into more of the specific attitudes of users toward multiple-
use management, but the data presented already establish some of the
special interests which will dictate the trend. The author believes

that knowledge Of user age, education, and years Of continuous use may

63

64

prove of value in the establishing of just what course a multiple-use
administration should take in pointing out to users the relative
advantages of its program. The study provides a base for establishing
a user profile. The user groups cannot be ignored entirely in favor

of the "average user," however. Compromises dictated by the importance
to society of each group's activities are sure to arise. The mere
knowledge of how its decisions will affect each user group's thinking
can aid a forest administration in presenting its case to those users.

Multiple-use management of the Gallatin National Forest requires
consideration of a probable increase in use correlating with our popula-
tion increase, per capita income, more leisure time, and better transpor-
tation. The combined effect of these factors has led to an increase in
outdoor recreation of about 10 percent per year nationally, and that
is only one of several increasing uses of national forests. All uses
of a national forest are controllable in a degree by management decision,
but attitudes toward these decisions of the general public are reflected
in the interpretation of these policies.

The first objective of this study, to determine the population of
users of the Gallatin National Forest, was attained through a study of
Forest Service records (Appendices 9 & 10). Tabulations of recreation
sites and areas visited, numbers of visits, and activities (both
economic and recreational) were divided by special interests into five
major groups: Forage, Timber, Water, Recreation, and Wildlife, and
fifteen sub-groups (Table 1, page 8).

Next, this study attempted to determine the policy of the forest

administrators in meeting the demands for various user groups in con-

formance with the overall multiple-use policy. The Forest Service

65

defines multiple use as ”the management of all the various renewable
surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized

in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American
people . . ." Implementation of multiple use is documented in several
publications, the most significant for the Gallatin National Forest

being the Forest Service Handbook 2121 4R1, Multiple-Use Management

Guide for Northern Region, USDA.

 

The Region I publication provides a policy statement adequate for
the professional forester for what it calls "use in arriving at sound

decisions."

Since the respondents in the present study showed attitudes
and concepts which were invariably influenced by vested interest, it
appears that the administration of the Gallatin National Forest faces
deeply ingrained, biased user attitudes when it attempts to present

the reasons behind the "sound decisions" as detailed in its official
policy statements.

The Forest Service's Multiple-Use Policy is spelled out in layman's
language through news releases (Appendices 4 & 5) by the Regional
Forester and also through individual contact at the Ranger District
level (i.e., field days, tours, meetings with user group associations,
etc.). Areas of ignorance among the users, as shown in the study tables
and in the following discussion, indicated a possible breakdown in
communication.

In reviewing the various programs and news releases from the
Division of Information and Education, Region One, Missoula, Montana,
the author feels that the users of the Gallatin National Forest are not

being sufficiently informed by these methods alone. This is not to say

66

that the information programs are poorly done, or that they are in-
adequate in themselves. The author believes, however, that since the
users generally retained their biases toward the program, personal
contact might be increased to good advantage.

The final objective of the study was to determine the attitudes
of the national forest users toward the policies of the forest adminis-
trators in providing for a specific group use and in providing for these
uses. This study indicates that the users who are directly involved in
the managed removal of forage and timber resources, and in recreation,
tend to have the highest incomes, the least education, and the fewest
numbers of consecutive years of use. Thus, as far as the divergency
of interests permits, trends which may be of value to a multiple-use
administration begin to emerge, at least in a delineation of the probable
educational and economic levels of the public involved in each use
category.

In surveying the attitudes of the users of the Gallatin National
Forest, much was learned from the personal interview questionnaire used
in this study. The problem of user competition comes into the picture
mainly through demand for the use of the national forest from the follow-
ing user groups -- water, recreation, and wildlife versus forage and
timber. Forage and timber have traditionally paid for a given use
based on carrying capacity and timber volume. Water, recreation and
wildlife users have not adequately paid for value received through
consumptive use. If accepted by users the new $7.00 Recreation Sticker

will undoubtedly balance out some of this disparity. If and when the

67

Forest Service will charge for water produced on the national forest
watersheds remains to be seen, but water is a product of the Gallatin
National Forest and could be priced.

The user group with the most education (excluding water), wildlife
(16.3 years) had the longest record of consecutive years of use (34.4
years). Water users had 52 years of contact. The other groups, forage,
timber, and recreation, had considerably shorter histories of forest
use: 22.8, 16.3, and 22.5 years. Educational levels ranged from 11.5
years to 14.7 years in the three groups. Average user age 45-54 might
indicate need for an information program aimed at an audience beyond
high school and college age.

The incomes of the respondents did not range upwards in prOportion
to their educations, contrary to what one might reasonably expect.

Some measure of user attitude is also necessary in tailoring the
multiple-use programs to the Gallatin National Forest. Twenty percent
and thirty-three percent of the timber and wildlife groups, respectively,
felt that they were not being treated equitably with other users in the
same groups. At best this might imply a breakdown in communication
between administrators and users in these areas. At worst, there is
always the possibility that their opinions are correct.

Opinions of respondents concerning equitability of treatment in
relation to other groups were placed on a scale ranging from "very
high" to "very low." Here, the recreation and wildlife users were on
the offensive, perhaps because their season of activity is much shorter,

and restrictions have a more telling effect on their incomes. About

68

90% of the total respondents felt treatment within their respective
groups was equitable. This point to an overall group solidarity which
could only serve to reinforce existing attitudinal bias.

The multiple-use administration in the Gallatin National Forest
is faced with a "checker-board" pattern of intermingled private land
within the forest boundary. Here, the forage groups favored the
existing situation, because they do not face the same problems of
access which confront other users because they own land either in or
adjacent to the Gallatin National Forest.

A survey of respondents' knowledge of payments made to the state
by the Gallatin National Forest in lieu of taxes showed a lack of
adequate information in this area. If the benefits accrued by the
state can be equated with their effect on the individual in a more
tangible form, such as in better schools and roads, the payment system
might receive the understanding of the users. This might be accom-
plished in part by information couched in terms of services received
by the public from the payments.

There was little knowledge of the $7.00 recreation use fee, which
also points up a need for a better information and education program.

Opinions of the respondents regarding a definition of multiple-use
management were solicited by a question phrased in terms of five
pOpularly-accepted definitions of this type of management, plus a pro-
vision for the respondent to supply his own definition. Less than 1/3
of the forage group defined multiple-use management as restrictive use,
hence relatively few realized the complexity of grazing regulations

compatible to sound range management. The livestock man's contact with

69

multiple-use management centers around regulations concerned with water-
shed protection and movement of animals on a short-term basis. Thus,
the restrictions of his use are more intensive, and are in his opinion
the most logical definition of multiple-use management.

The timber group selected management in combination. This seems
to show its concern with timber harvest regulations, which are designed
to protect other resources dependent on an adequate forest stand.

These include erosion control, fire control, and watershed protection.

The water user, being concerned with municipalities and the public
as consumers, favors the "greatest good" definition. Recreation users
(i.e., sportsmen's groups) are mostly non-residents of the immediate
area interested in preservation of all the natural aspects of the
forest, and also selected the "greatest good" definition. Again, the
wildlife users closely followed the choice of the recreation users,
since their interests are similar. Descriptions of a professional
forester followed the same biased trend based on the user's interest
group.

There was more uniformity in degree of approval of multiple use than
in the definitions of it. All users except those in the water group
(who held a high opinion of multiple-use) were in the mid-range in the
reaction scale. This exception can be explained by the fact that water
users believe that the first resource to suffer from the mismanagement

of a forest is water.

70

All users samples were completely satisfied with the access situa-
tion. This merits further study, because of the seemingly conflicting
attitudes of the forage group toward intermingled private ownership.

Land ownership consolidation, as brought out in the questionnaire
used in this study, should receive maximum support by both public and
private owners. This consolidation of this checker-board ownership will
provide for more adequate develOpment of the land resources in the
Gallatin National Forest.

The survey results indicate that there is some opportunity for
adjustment in the overall Forest Service policy for administrating the
national forests. Although it is easier to arrive at decisions
through the use of manuals, equations, and administrative policies,
the more time-consuming methods of social action processes better
incorporate public attitude.

Respondents did point out that they felt some adjustment of policy
was necessary. The adjustments prOposed were invariably biased toward
each respondent's activity group. The author felt that the respondents
showed their most emphatic reactions to the questions dealing with the
multiple-use program.

The remaining specific problems dealt with (adjustments of wildlife
and livestock populations, and adequacy of control of motorized vehicles)
merely underscored the need for a compromise in management to at least
attempt to meet the needs of the special interest groups. This is
further complicated by the fact that some groups could not reach agree-
ment within their own ranks (Table 15), on adjustments needed in terms

of wildlife vs. livestock pOpulations.

71

This study, the author believes, exposes the need for an indepth
study into the make-up and power structure of the various user groups
and publics that the U. S. Forest Service must deal with in the adminis-
tration of the national forests. The results clearly indicate much can
be learned in regard to the attitudes of users of a national forest by
a personal interview.

Most of us are convinced that multiple-use is a good management
philOSOphy, but perhaps more thought should be given to application of
multiple-use to the resource. The phiIOSOphy itself is of little value
unless it is implemented. The public must be encouraged to express its
needs, and then the administration must determine which of these needs
will best satisfy a public divided by its special interests. If those
needs call for access roads, campgrounds, cabins, boat launching ramps,
the public must be advised that adequate facilities plus a staff trained
in a variety of disciplines cost money.

When human desires exceed the availability of the resource, those
desires should be channeled to another interest that has a less detri-
mental effect on future resources. For example, motorized vehicles
may be excluded and travel restricted to foot or horse in an area that
may erode easily.

The first step in any management practice is to define the goals.
If the "greatest good to the greatest number" concept is modified to
cross user group boundaries by considering attitudes, education, and
the other aspects included in this and previous studies, and hopefully,
in subsequent studies, the author believes the multiple-use management

task will be made easier.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, K. A. Multiple Use on Private Lands. Am. For. 62(8):14-15,
58-59. 1956.

American Forest Products Industry. Forest Land Use - Everybody's
Concern, Proceedings. Washington, D. C. 1964.

Amidon, E. and E. M. Gould. The Possible Impact of Recreation Develop-
ment on Timber Production in Three California National Forests.
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. U. S.
Forest Service, Berkeley, California. Technical Paper No. 68.

21 p. 1962.

Beasley, R. I. Some Considerations for Optimizing Public Forest
Recreational DevelOpment and Value. J. For. 59:644-650. 1961.

Brockman, Frank C. Recreation Use of Wild Lands. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc. 1959.

Clawson, Marion and Burnell Held. The Federal Lands Their Use and
Management. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns H0pkins Press. 1957.

Cliff, Edward P. The Role of Forest Recreation in Forest Land
Management. J. For. 59:491-492. 1961.

Connaughton, Charles A. Yield of Water as an Element in Multiple Use
of Wildlands. J. For. 41:803-807. 1943.

. What is Multiple Use? Am. For. 65(7):30-31. 1959.

 

Cushwa, Charles Terry. DevelOpment of a Method for Measuring Dis-
persed Recreation Use of Forest Land. Thesis. Department of
Forestry and Wildlife. Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Blacksburg, Virginia. June, 1963.

Dana, Samuel T. Forest & Range Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc. 1956.

Editorial. American Forestry Journal. April, 1960.

 

Degn, Arne. Evaluation of Federal Grazing Permits on Montana Cattle
Ranches. Ph. D. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman,
Montana. August, 1965.

Dermody, Jerry. A Study of Recreationists Opinions, Attitudes and
Satisfaction in Yellowstone National Park. Montana State Univer-

sity, Bozeman, Montana. 1965.

Duhnrack, A. R. A Ranger's Job in Multiple Use Management. Proc.
Soc. Am. For. 1960:132.

72

73

Greeley, W. B. Forest Policy. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1953.

Gregory, C. Robinson. An Economic Approach to Multiple Use. For.
SCi. 1:6-130 19550

Hagenstein, P. and B. Dowdle. A Theoretical Model for Examining
Forest Land Use Alternatives. J. For. 60187-191. 1962.

Hamilton, James M. From Wilderness to Statehood. Portland: Binfords
& Mort Publishers. 1957.

Lammi, J. 0. Uses of Economic Principles in Wildland Management.
J. For. 49:501-502. 1951.

Morriss, D. J. Timber Production on Recreation Areas. J. For.
59:878-881. 1961.

Moser, C. A. Survey Methods in Social Investigation. Toronto,
Canada: William Heinemann Ltd. 1958.

Orell, Bernard L. Application and Opportunities for Multiple-Use
Forestry in Large Privately Owned Forests. Proc. Fifth World
Forestry Congress, Vol., 1962:181-186.

Ottoson, H. W. Land Use Policy & Problems in the United States.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. 1963.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recreation
for America. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office. 1962.

Pearson, G. A. Forest Land Use. J. For. 38:261-270. 1940.

Rosecrans, W. S. Logging in Recreation Areas. Am. For. 63(5):20-22,
56-57. 1957.

Seiker, John. Management of Timber Stands on Recreation Areas.
Proc. Soc. Am. For. 1955:106-109.

Shanklin, John. Multiple Use of Land and Water Areas. U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. ORRRC Study
Report 17. 41 p. 1962.

Stewart, Bruce. M.S. Thesis. Recreational develOpment for the
University of Maine Forest. University of Maine, Orono, Maine.
1961.

Streeter, Robert Glen. Environmental Factors Affecting Vegetational
Patterns in the Daly Basin of Northwestern Yellowstone National
Park, Montana. Thesis. Department of Forestry and Wildlife,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia. June, 1965.

74

U. S. Department of Agriculture. The Principal Laws Relating to the
Establishment & Administration of the National Forests and Other
Forest Service Activities. Agriculture Handbook No. 20. 1964.

. Forest Service Handbook. Multiple Use Management
Guide for the Northern Region. 1963.

 

. U. S. ForeSt Service. Forest Service Manual 2234.
May, 1965.

 

U. S. Government. President's Materials Policy Commission. Resources
for Freedom. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
June, 1952.

VonCiriacy, Wantrup S. Economic Aspects of Land Conservation. Reprint
from Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. No. 2. Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
1938.

Wager, J. Alan. Carrying Capacity of Wildlands for Recreation.
Forest Service Monograph 7. 1964.

Woodard, H. R. Forest Management Versus Recreation Management.

Zivnuska, John A. The Multiple Problems of Use. J. For. 59:55-561.
1961.

Appendix 1

IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCE POLICY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS

The listing of important events in the development of federal
policies relating to natural resources is an impressive list. Dana,
in his book "Forest and Range Policy" (1956), lists 576 important
events from 1609 to 1956.

The list of events has grown from 1956 and now includes the
Multiple-Use -- Sustained Yield Management Act of 1960 and many
other Public Laws, United States Supreme Court decisions and
international agreements.

Following is a digest of the important pieces of legislation
relating to the establishment and administration of the National

Forests and related Forest Service activities.

75

THE PRINCIPAL LAWS RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS AND TO

OTHER FOREST SERVICE ACTIVITIES ll

I. Creation by Executive action.

Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1103; 16 U.S.C. 471) (Creative Act)

 

That the President of the United States may, from time to time,
set apart and reserve, in any State or Territory having public land
bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part
covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or
not, as public reservations, and the President shall, by public pro-
clamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the
limits thereof.

Act of June 4,71897 (30 Stat. 34, 36; 16 U.S.C. 473)

 

The President of the United States is hereby authorized and
empowered to revoke, modify, or suspend any and all such Executive
orders and proclamations, or any part thereof, from time to time as
he shall deem best for the public interest. * * * The President is
hereby authorized at any time to modify any Executive order that has
been or may hereafter be made establishing any forest reserve, and
by such modification may reduce the area or change the boundary lines
of such reserve, or may vacate altogether any order creating such
reserve.

Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 655; 16 U.S.C. 471 (b) and 505)

The President, in his discretion, is hereby authorized to estab-
lish as national forests, or parts thereof, any lands within the
boundaries of Government reservations, other than national parks,
reservations for phosphates and other mineral deposits or water-power
purposes, national monuments, and Indian reservations, which in the
opinion of the Secretary of the department now administering the area
and the Secretary of Agriculture are suitable for the production of
timber, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture under such
rules and regulations and in accordance with such general plans as
may be jointly approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and the

 

l, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 20,

Washington, D. C. Revised July, 1964.

76

II.

III.

77

Secretary formerly administering the area, for the use and occupation
of such lands and for the sale of products therefrom. That where such
national forest is established on land previously reserved for the
Army, or Navy for purposes of national defense the land shall remain
subject to the unhampered use of the Department of the Army or Navy
Department for said purposes, and nothing in this section shall be
construed to relinquish the authority over such lands for purposes

of national defense now vested in the Department for which the lands
were formerly reserved.

Restriction on additions to national forests by Executive action.

Act of March 4,41907 (34 Stat. 1271); August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 497);
June 15, 1926 (44 Stat. 745); 16 U.S.C. 471, 471a.

 

Hereafter no national forest shall be created, nor shall any
additions be made to one heretofore created within the limits of the
States of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado,
Wyoming, Arizona, or New Mexico, except by the Act of Congress.

Additions to national forest lands in Montana by Executive action.

Act of July 20, 1939 (53 Stat. 1071; 16 U.S.C. 471-b)

 

The President of the United States is authorized, in his dis-
cretion, to add to existing national forests, or to include within
new national forests, by proclamation of Executive order, any un-
appropriated public lands of the United States situated in the State
of Montana which, in his Opinion, are chiefly valuable for the pro-
duction of timber or the protection of watersheds: Provided, that
the inclusion of such lands within a national forest shall be subject
to any claim, entry, or appropriation under the public land laws then
valid and subsisting and thereafter legally maintained.

Purpose of national forests
Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35; 16 U.S.C. 475) (Organic Act)

No public forest reservation shall be established, except to
improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the
purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to
furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities
of citizens of the United States.

IV.

78

Forest reserves designated national forests
Act of March 4, 1907 (35 Stat. 1269)

The forest reserves shall be known hereafter as national
forests.

TRANSFER ACT OF 1905
Act of February 1, 1905 (35 Stat. 628; 16 U.S.C. 472, 524, 554)

Sec. 1. The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall,
from and after the passage of this Act, execute or cause to be
executed all laws affecting public lands heretofore, or hereafter
reserved under the provisions of section twenty-four of the Act
entitled "An Act to Repeal the Timber-Culture Laws, and For Other
Purposes," approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-one,
and Acts supplemental to and amendatory thereof, after such lands
have been so reserved, excepting such laws as affect the surveying,
prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, relinquishing,
reconveying, certifying, or patenting of any such lands.

Sec. 3. Forest supervisors and rangers shall be selected, when
practicable, from qualified citizens of the States or Territories in
which the national forests respectively, are situated.

Sec. 4. Rights of way for the construction of maintenance of
dams, reservoirs, water plants, ditches, flumes, pipes, tunnels, and
canals, within and across the national forests of the United States,
are hereby granted to citizens and corporations of the United States
for municipal or mining purposes, and for the purposes of the milling
and reduction of ores, during the period of their beneficial use,
under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary
of the Interior, and subject to the laws of the State or Territory
in which said reserves are respectively situated.

NOTE--The following is quoted from a letter sent to the Chief
of the Forest Service by Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson
on February 1, 1905, the date of the above Transfer Act was
approved by the President.

"In the administration of the forest reserves it must clearly
be bourne in mind that all is to be devoted to its most produc-
tive use for the permanent good of the whole pe0p1e and not for
the temporary benefit of individuals or companies. All must be
brought about in a thoroughly prompt and businesslike manner,
under such restrictions only as will insure the permanence of
these resources."

79

"The vital importance of forest reserves to the great indus-
tries of the western states will be largely increased in the
near future, by the continued steady advance in settlement and
development. The permanence of the resources of the reserves
is therefore indispensable to continued prosperity, and the
policy of this Department for their protection and use will
invariably be guided by this fact, always bearing in mind that
the conservation use of these resources in no way conflicts
with their permanent value."

"You will see to it that the water, wood and forage of the
reserves are conserved and wisely used for the benefit of the
home-builder first of all; upon whom depends the best permanent
use of the lands and resources alike. The continued prosperity
of the agricultural, lumbering, mining and livestock interests
is directly dependent upon a permanent and accessible supply of
water, wood, and forage, as well as upon the present and future
use of these resources under businesslike regulations, enforced
with promptness, effectiveness and common sense. In the manage-
ment of each reserve local questions will be decided upon local
grounds; the dominant industry will be considered first, but with
as little restriction to minor industries as may be possible;
sudden changes in industrial conditions will be avoided by
gradual adjustment after due notice; and where conflicting
interests must be reconciled, the question will always be
decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the great-
est number in the long run."

MULTIPLE-USE -- SUSTAINED YIELD ACT

 

Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531)

 

Sec. 1. It is the policy of the Congress that the national
forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor
recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish pur-
poses. The purpose of this Act is declared to be supplemental to,
but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests
were established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 475).
Nothing herein shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or
responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and
fish on the national forests. Nothing herein shall be construed so
as to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources of
national forests lands or to affect the use or administration of
Federal lands not within national forests.

80

Sec. 2. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed
to develOp and administer the renewable surface resources of the
national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several
products and services obtained therefrom. In the administration of
the national forests due consideration shall be given to the relative
values of the various resources in particular areas. The establish-
ment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the
purposes and provisions of this Act.

Sec. 3. In the effectuation of this Act the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with interested State and
local governmental agencies and others in the development and

management of the national forests.

Sec. 4. As used in this Act, the following terms shall have
the following meanings:

a. "Multiple Use" means the management of all the various
renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the
American pe0ple; making the most judicious use of the land for some
or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough
to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to
conform to changing needs and conditions that some land will be used
for less than all of the resources and harmonious and coordinated
management of the various resources, each with the other, without
impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being
given to the relative values of the various resources, and not
necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest
dollar return or the greatest unit output.

b. "Sustained yield of the several products and services:"
means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level
annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources
of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of
the land.

Appendix 2

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST

History reveals a sequence of events and one of the most signi-
ficant events for the Northwest was the decision by President Jefferson
to send Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to explore the unknown North-
west. This exploration was known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition and
passed through the area in south central Montana that is known today as
the Gallatin National Forest. Lewis and Clark in their journey west
decided to discontinue the name Missouri at the marriage of the three
rivers near the present site of Three Forks, Montana, and designate the
west fork as the Jefferson for the President, the middle fork as the
Madison for the Secretary of State, and the east fork as the Gallatin
for the Secretary of the Treasury.

The setting for the exploration and settlement of the Northwest
is very well described in Hamilton's book "From Wilderness to State-
hood" (1957).

"The most powerful forces which molded the Americans into
a nation were, first the addition, at frequent intervals, of
large areas of undeveloped land to the public domain, and,
secondly, the migratory habit of the people. Between the close
of the Revolution and the Mexican War -- a period of sixty-five
years -- the purchase, conquest, annexation, and discovery, the
Republic acquired title to a continental area reaching from the
Atlantic to the Pacific and extending from the Great Lakes to
the Gulf of Mexico. The migratory habit of the American people
had its origin in the restless, virile Englishmen who crossed
the sea in their search of freedom from religious oppression
and economic distress. These pioneers established the first
frontier and founded democratic government with freedom of
worship, the right of assembly, and free speech. They were
courageous and independent and had a high sense of right and
justice.

81

82

"There was always a frontier, because of the successive
additions of land, and there were always men and women ready

to face dangers and endure hardships. As soon as independence

was won, the grandest march in the history of civilization

began, and it continued until a continent was occupied and a

nation of people different from those of any other land had

been created out of immigrants and their descendants."

And thus the stage was set by the Lewis and Clark Expedition for
settlement to take place along with the establishment of national
forests by the Congress of the United States.

The Gallatin National Forest is best described in terms of three
working circles: Big Timber, Gallatin, and Yellowstone.

Having lived in this area for over ten years (1954-65), I observed
much of the area first hand and also visited with many of the early

settlers. Much of the following information is drawn from these per-

sonal visits by the author.

The Historygand Supporting Data for the Yellowstone Working Circle

White men first entered this area with the Lewis and Clark Expedi-
tion of 1806. As this area was rich in game and fur-bearing animals,
many of the fur trappers roamed the country, but very few records were
kept.

With the discovery of gold in and around Virginia City, Montana,
many miners crossed this area. Some of these weary travelers, resting
and prospecting along the way, led to the discovery of gold at Emigrant
Gulch. This strike was rich enough to induce settling of Yellowstone

City at the mouth of Emigrant Gulch in 1864.

83

In the year 1865, a sawmill was established by John J. Tomlinson
near Hunter Hot Springs. History indicates that the lumber was used
in mining and for construction of boats for use of miners returning
East.

Prior to 1883, mining and cattle raising, with agriculture to
support them, were the main industries with the small communities
having a local sawmill for their own use.

The railroad came in 1883, bringing with them various industries
and many optimistic settlers. Lumbering, however, with its vast
potentials, was bypassed because of distance to market and high
production costs. The industry continued on a small scale, supplying
a continuous local demand.

The close of World War II brought an accelerating demand for
lumber products. At this time a pole-treating plant was built in
Bozeman, thus creating another outlet for utilizing the forest resource.

In 1951, Corcoran Pulpwood Company moved into this working circle,
initiating clear-cutting by blocks. This company's Operation on
national forest land was active through 1959, but the distance from
market and high production costs caused it to taper off in recent
years.

A lumber mill, utilizing the techniques of edge-gluing narrow
width boards and using small-diameter logs that compose a large per-
centage of the timber stands, was constructed in Livingston by Downer
Lumber Company in 1954. This mill's rated capacity was 80,000 board

feet per eight-hour day; but in 1961, this mill was closed down and

84

the equipment sold. The year 1955 saw two new sawmills built in
Livingston with a daily output of 20,000 board feet each. Then in
1957, two more sawmills were constructed with outputs of 35,000 and
20,000 board feet per day. The recent investments in the lumbering
industry within the working circle have not had time to completely
stabilize; however, the outlook for the development of the timber
resources of this working circle are very good at the present time.

The challenge of high production and manufacturing costs due
to size of timber are being overcome by increased demand for the

product, new products, and more efficient manufacturing methods.

The History and SupportingiData for the Gallatin Working Circle

 

Due to drainage and topography, the Gallatin Working Circle has
been divided into two areas: the Gallatin Valley and the Madison
Basin or Hebgen area.

Since the establishment of the first sawmill in the valley, the
timber and logging industry has played an important part in the
economic development of the Gallatin Valley.

Through the early period of settlement and prior to forest
management practices or controls, the forested areas were a source
of free stumpage for the young and thriving timber industry.

The first commercial cuttings were in 1864, adjacent to a water
power sawmill near Spring Hill on the west slopes of the Bridgers.

Later, in 1870, a water-powered saw and shingle mill was estab-

lished on Little Bear Creek southeast of Gallatin Gateway.

85

During the 1870's the first steam-powered mill was introduced
into the valley. Three such mills were operated by the soldiers
from Fort Ellis. These were located in the Bridger Canyon. Another
water-powered mill was established near the mouth Of Hyalite Canyon
in 1878. The logs to supply this mill were cut in History Rock
drainage and driven down Hyalite Creek or "Middle Creek." Cutting
was also done in Gallatin Canyon, and the logs were floated down the
river into a water-powered mill located at "Tie Town" near what is
now Gallatin Gateway.

The first extensive timber Operation was started in 1883 to
provide ties for the Northern Pacific Railroad as it was built across
the valley and westward. The ties were cut in the Gallatin Canyon
drainage and floated down to "Tie Town."

Around 1900 two important changes came to the timber industry
in the Gallatin Valley: One was the establishment of the Forest
Reserve; the other was the establishment of an industry that shipped
forest products out of the valley. The first timber sold by the
Forest Reserve was from a sale for 268,000 board feet located on
Wildhorse Creek in Hyalite Canyon.

In 1902, Mr. Walter Cooper began a large-scale lumber and tie
operation. The products of this operation were shipped for the use
Of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad. Part of the timber
was cut in Bear Canyon and was transported in railhead down a 9.6 mile

wooden flume. Other timber was cut mainly in West Fork, Beaver Creek,

86

and Taylor Fork in the Upper Gallatin. This timber was moved down the
river on "high water" drives to Central Park. Much of this cutting
was done on Northern Pacific and other private lands.

COOper's Operation reached its peak in 1905 when 10,450,000
board feet of ties and lumber were produced. A strike at "high
water time" in 1906 crippled the Gallatin operations and caused them
to fold up in 1907. He continued to operate on a small scale in Bear
Canyon until 1913.

The timber industry continued on a small scale, mostly supplying
a continued local demand, until 1945 when the Idaho Pole Company
established a pole-treating plant at Bozeman. Also, the Corcoran
Pulpwood Company became interested in the lodgepole timber in and
around the Gallatin Valley. The first two poles sales were in
Buckskin Creek and Face Draw units of Hyalite Canyon and totaled
48,000 poles. The first pulpwood sale to Corcoran Pulpwood Company
was in the Hyalite area also and for 56,700 cords of lodgepole pine.

Operations of these two companies increased through 1956 when
the pulpwood Operations tapered Off and ceased as far as the Gallatin
area was concerned. The Operations of the pole company have con-
tinued uninterrupted to this date. The establishment of a modern,
high-production, electric-powered, lumber mill at Belgrade in 1954
by the Yellowstone Pine Company provided an increased and continuing
demand for timber. The production of Yellowstone Pine in 1955 was
11,000,000 board feet and increased to 13,500,000 board feet in 1957.
This mill promises to contribute considerably to the stability of

the forest products industry of the Gallatin Valley.

87

The early history of the Hebgen area is not too well known.
Timber products were used by the early settlers in this area in the
form of house logs, fuelwood, and other building materials. A tie-
cutting operation began in 1921 and continued through 1935. During
this time it is estimated that about 2,000,000 ties were cut and
removed by the Globe Timber Company.

The Montana and Idaho Lumber Company operated in the Hebgen
area intermittently from 1936 to 1954. This company produced logs,
power poles, and miscellaneous products. Its Operations were
generally small and did not contribute too much to the economy of
the area. One estimate is that the total cut for the entire period
of operations was about 16,500,000 board feet. The company is not
now operating in the Hebgen area, although it is still in Operation
in Rexburg, Idaho.

Another important phase in the utilization of timber in the
Hebgen area began in 1950 when Charles J. Erickson and Son began a
pulpwood operation. The pulpwood is shipped via Union Pacific
Railway to Thilmany Pulp and Paper Company in Wisconsin. Cutting
has taken place mostly in areas previously cut over for ties. It
has permitted economical cleanup through clear cutting and the
establishment of a new stand on these areas. The pulp-cutting
operation was seriously reduced in 1957 and only about 73,000

cords of material have been removed as of 1964.

88

The History and Supporting Data for the Big Timber Working Circle

White men first entered this area with the Lewis and Clark expedi-
tion of 1806. As this area was rich in game and fur-bearing animals,
many fur trappers roamed about.

With the discovery of gold in the Yellowstone Valley in the early
1860's interest in the mineral deposits in this area was aroused. Gold
was discovered in the Boulder River drainage in 1870. The resulting
gold rush and population increase created a demand for agricultural
and livestock products. Homesteads were filed, and the first permanent
cattle herds were established in 1882. In 1883, the first bands of
sheep arrived in the area.

To satisfy the demands for mining timbers and structural materials,
sawmills were established in the Boulder River, Deer Greeks, and Crazy
Mountain areas around 1890.

The lumbering industry continued to supply the local demand
until the close of World War 11. At this time, the demand for stumpage
to meet expanding mill capacity in the Livingston area created greater
interest in the timber resources of Sweet Grass County and the Big
Timber Working Circle. However, due to lack of access to Government
timber, the increased cutting was confined mostly to private timber

with only a slight increase in cutting on public lands.

Appendix 3

1.

COOPERATIVE UPPER GALLATIN ELK HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Inter-Agency Memorandum)

APPLICABLE POLICIES 0F COOPERATING AGENCIES

U. S. Forest Service:

The National Forest Wildlife Management Objective is to manage

habitat so that wildlife populations, including non-game species,

will be maintained at a level consistent with the requirements
for other services of the land and in accordance with the Forest

Service Multiple Use Policy.

a. TO this end the Forest Service will COOperate with the
Montana Fish and Game Department and the National Park
Service in wildlife management studies and practices.

b. Maintain and develop suitable habitat for wildlife by coor-
dination with the management of other National Forest resources.

c. Retain and improve the high recreational values of National
Forests by employing natural rather than artificial management
procedures.

d. Encourage proper utilization of the wildlife resources on a
sustained-yield basis under state laws and regulations.

Yellowstone National Park:

It is the responsibility of the National Park Service in the

administration of National Park areas to attain an Optimum rela-

tionship between plants and animals for the mutual benefit of
both so that a maximum variety can exist without detriment to

the whole complex community of plants and animals.

89

90

3. Montana Fish and Game Commission:

 

To produce and maintain a maximum breeding stock of big game on
all suitable lands of Montana, public and private, in harmony
with other uses of such lands, and consistent with the available
forage supply, and to utilize, through public hunting, the avail-

able crOp of big game produced annually by this breeding stock.

COOPERATIVE UPPER GALLATIN ELK HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

OBJECTIVES:

 

To manage all elk in the upper Gallatin so as to maintain a balance
between elk and available natural food supplies by improving and
maintaining the basic soil and plant resources in the upper Gallatin
watershed.

PROGRAM:

1. Continue and intensify studies for evaluating conditions and
trends of soils, vegetation, and game populations by applicable
methods.

II. The goal of elk management in the upper Gallatin is to maintain
a wintering population of approximately 1,000 elk until forage

surveys indicate this number should be changed.

The annual elk harvest quota, in order to maintain this goal,

will be determined in the following manner: A winter or spring
aerial count will be made to determine the number of elk in the
winter herd. The cow:calf ratio and sex structure of the herd

will be used to determine the annual increment. The winter count,

III.

91

plus the annual increment, will be used to determine the size of

the fall elk herd. The number of elk determined by this method

to be in excess of 1,000 will be removed by hunting.

Hunting seasons to accomplish the elk harvest will be established

as follows:

1.

An elk season that will close early in November will be held.
Twenty-four hour checking stations will be used to determine
the number of elk harvested during this season.

If the harvest during the regular season as described in No. 1
has not been sufficient to reduce the herd to 1,000 the season
will be reopened when surveys indicate sufficient elk have
migrated from the Park to accomplish the stated goal through
harvest.

The reOpened season will be managed by the issuance of permits
used to control the number of hunters during any period of
reOpening.

Twenty-four hour checking stations will be operated during

the permit season in order to determine the extent of the

kill and to insure compliance with the stated goal of 1,000

elk in the base herd.

To cooperate fully with the U. S. Forage Service and the Montana

Fish and Game Department in the management of all elk in the upper

Gallatin, management procedures by the Park Service will be con-

ducted within the Gallatin area Of Yellowstone National Park.

92

1. If the results obtained by hunter harvest have not attained
the annual objective of maintaining the herd at an acceptable
level, the National Park Service will live trap elk to fill

any requests for restocking of elk by transplant.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT :

Memorandum of agreement, made by and between the Montana State Fish

and Game Commission; the Regional Forest, Northern Region, U. S.

Forest Service; and the Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park,

U. S. National Park Service,

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the objective and program of the Cooperative Upper Gallatin

Elk Management Plan are compatible with the spirit and purposes of

all parties to this agreement,

NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that:

1.

All parties to this agreement will take necessary actions within
the areas of their responsibilities to accomplish the objectives
and to implement the program of the Cooperative Upper Gallatin
Elk Management Plan.

It will be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Montana
Fish and Game Commission to call an annual joint meeting of the
three COOperating agencies. This meeting will be called in the
spring of each year, preferably during the month of May. The
purpose of this meeting will be to review current progress, to
exchange and disseminate information, to coordinate activities,

prepare work plans and to determine necessary herd harvest.

93

3. Amendments to this COOperative Upper Gallatin Elk Herd Management

Plan may be prOposed by either party, and shall become effective

upon approval by all parties.

4. This agreement shall become effective as soon as signed by the

parties hereto and shall continue in force until July 1, 1968.

July 1, 1965

August 3, 1965

 

August 17, 1965

U. S. FOREST SERVICE

By: Neal M. Rahm (Signed)
Regional Forester

U. 3. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

By: John S. McLaughlin (Signed)

Superintendent Yellowstone
National Park

 

MONTANA FISH & GAME COMMISSION

By: W. E. Staves (Signed)
Chairman

Appendix 4

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
R-l-131: 7665
Regional Office, Forest Service
Missoula, Montana

Skier Visits Up 37% Last Year

At 16 National Forest Ski Areas

 

MISSOULA---Sixteen National Forest winter sports areas last year
recorded a total of 259,131 skier visits, Neal M. Rahm, northern
region forester, reported today.

This all-time record high represents a 37% increase over the
188,881 skier visits the previous year to the winter sports areas
in Northern Region National Forests.

Rahm says the increase in skiing activity in this area compares
with a National 15% to 20% annual increase. "While 1964-65 was a
good year in this area," Rahm said, "this is not the primary explana-
tion for the sharp increase."

"This increase reflects the growing popularity of skiing and the
improved facilities at the winter sports areas in Northern Region
National Forests."

Recreational visits to Northern Region National Forests for
winter sports have increased more than five-fold over the 45,000
visits recorded in 1951.

Most of the winter sports areas in the Northern Region have
been developed in cooperation with local ski clubs, civic groups,

and county and state governments. Through this COOperation, roads,

94

95

slopes, tows, and shelters have been constructed and are maintained
for winter sports use. Some skiing areas have become so popular
that extensive expansion has been financed entirely from private
capital. The trend is toward commercial development financed by
private capital and government loans.

"From all indications," Rahm said, "there will be more than
300,000 skier visits to the 16 Northern Regional National Forest

winter sports areas this winter."

Appendix 5

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
R-l-l34: 82565
Regional Office, Forest Service
Missoula, Montana

Forest Service Announces

Reclassification, Adjustment Plans

 

For Spanish Peaks Primitive Area

 

MISSOULA---The Forest Service has announced a proposal to adjust
the boundaries of the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area and reclassify the
area as a Wilderness under the provisions of the Wilderness Act of
September 3, 1964, Neal M. Rahm, northern regional forester, announced
here today.

The 49,800-acre Spanish Peaks Primitive Area is approximately 25
miles southwest of Bozeman, Montana, in the Gallatin National Forest.
The Primitive Area was established in 1932 by the Secretary of Agri-
culture.

The U. S. Geological Survey and U. S. Bureau Of Mines are now
conducting geological and mineral studies of the Primitive Area, as
required under the Wilderness Act. When these studies are completed,
the Forest Service will announce the time and place of public hearings
on the proposal.

Rahm said that tentative plans call for the Forest Service to
make formal notice of the prOposal in the spring of 1966. "The pri-
mary purpose of this informal, advance notice is to give all interested

parties an opportunity to make on-the-ground studies of the area and

96

97

the proposed boundary modifications during the summer and fall of
1965," Rahm explained.

An information folder on the proposed reclassification and pro-
posed boundary adjustments is available from the Gallatin National
Forest headquarters in Bozeman, Montana, and the Forest Service's
northern region headquarters in Missoula. This folder contains a

map of the Primitive Area, showing the prOposed boundary adjustments

~‘I.'-I.."""- ai- I

for the Wilderness.

'09:...“ "I

The net result of the proposed boundary changes would increase

 

the area by 4,208 acres.

”The prOposed boundary changes are the result of several years
of intensive study of the Primitive Area and the contiguous lands,"
Rahm said.

"Except for a few trails and temporary campsites, there is no
evidence of man's activities. This is an outstanding area of superb
mountain scenery, and subalpine vegetation. The full recreational
potential can be realized under wilderness management. It is needed
to round out the outdoor recreation opportunities in this important
Montana recreation region. This area would make its greatest contri-
bution to the local community and the Nation as a Wilderness," Rahm

explained.

 

 

 

Appendix 6
GRAZING FEES

Source - Forest Service Manual, 2234, May 1965.

2234.01 - Authority. The authority for fees, payments and refunds

is Secretary's regulation G-5 (36 C.F.R. 231.5):

2234.1 - Derivation

2234.11 - 1931 Base Fees for National Forests. The 1931 base fees

for grazing on the National Forest were derived from a study of the
rentals paid to private persons, corporations, states, Indian reser-
vations, and other Government agencies for use of comparable grazing
lands. This study covered a period of years and areas sufficiently
large to ensure fair comparison. Allowance was made for cases showing
abnormal competition or involving considerations other than use of the
forage. Base fees per head per month thus derived averaged 14.5 cents
for cattle and 4.5 cents for sheep.

2234.12 - Base Livestock Prices. The periods, 1921 to 1930 in the
case Of cattle and 1920 to 1932 in the case of sheep, were selected

as fairly reflecting representative and complete price cycles for

each industry. Therefore, the average prices received by producers

in the 11 Western States during these periods were established as the
base prices for use in determining the relationship between current
grazing fees and current livestock prices. Base livestock prices

thus derived were $6.62 per 100 pounds for cattle and $9.15 for sheep.
2234.13 - Adjustment with Annual Fluctuations in Livestock Prices.
Current fees will bear approximately the same ratio to the 1931 base
fees that livestock prices received by producers for the year pre-
ceding bear to the base livestock prices. The 1931 base fees will

be adjusted annually to ensure this ratio except that no adjustment
will be made where application Of the formula affects the monthly
base fee by less than 0.5 cent for cattle or 0.25 cent for sheep.-*

 

 

*-Each year in January the Washington Office will obtain from the
Consumer and Marketing Service the average livestock prices of the
preceding year. These will represent the average prices per 100
pounds paid producers in the Western States for beef cattle (exclu-
sive of calves) and lambs. These prices will then be used to calcu-
late the percentages to be applied for the current year to the
established 1931 base fees, as follows:

1. Average price received for beef cattle for the period 1921 -
1930 was 6.62 cents per pound.

2. Average 1931 base fee was 14.5 cents per head per month.

3. Average price per pound received for beef cattle in the 11
Western States in 1941 was 8.64 cents.

98

99

4. The 1941 market price of 8.64 cents in 130 percent of the
base livestock price Of 6.62 cents.

5. Then the 1942 average fee per head per month would be 130
percent of the 1931 base fee of 14.5 cents, or 18.85 cents, which,
when rounded off to the nearest cent, would be 19 cents.

Applicable percentages will be furnished the Regional Foresters
not later than January of each year.

Appendix 7

MULTIPLE USE TERMINOLOGY

Glossary

Action Plans - The final phase of resource or activity management
planning. This contains the prescription or details needed to
achieve coordination of uses established for the area in the
Multiple Use Management Guide and Ranger District Multiple Use
layout plan that is ready for sale and/or contract. Project
plans of all descriptions are included in this category.

Action Programs - Doing the job on the ground through force account
projects, sales, contracts, other contractual work, leases, permits,
agreements, and others. These programs must carry out the approved
coordination of uses for that particular area of land.

AU - The abbreviation AU means animal units or animal unit equiva-
lents. It is based on one mature cow; other classes of livestock
are commonly converted to AU's for comparative purposes.

AUM - The abbreviation AUM means one animal unit month and has
reference to the grazing requirements of one animal unit (as
described above) for one month.

Coordinating Instructions - Statements developed in the Forest
Service Manual designed as suggestions to integrate management of
a resource, use, or activity with one or more other resources,
uses, or activities. Coordinating instructions provide general
guidelines and Offer Opportunities for coordination of uses in
applicable management situations.

Management Decision - A statement in a Ranger District Multiple

Use Plan of the necessary coordination on a specific area needed
to carry out relevant coordinating requirements in order to meet
pre-established management direction.

 

Management Direction - A concise statement of Objectives applying

 

to the management zone or management unit. Management direction
is the direct result of balancing demand (people's needs) for
resources against the capability Of the land under management.

Management Unit - Where management zones are established, a manage-

 

ment unit is an area within the zone identified by a localized
situation for which particular and specific management decisions
are required. Management units do not overlap nor do they cross.

100

10.

ll.

l2.

13.

14.

101

Multiple Use Plan - A document, usually pertaining to a Ranger
District, consisting of written and graphic sections that set
forth management decision based on coordinating requirement and
the areas to which they apply.

Planning Area - An administrative area, usually a Ranger District,
selected for development of a Multiple Use Plan; also, a Region or
subdivision of a Region selected for development of a Multiple Use
Management Guide.

 

Regional Multiple Use Management Guide - A document developed for
a broad planning area. A guide consists primarily of statements
concerning present and future needs of the people, comparable
ability of the land to produce resource benefits to meet such
needs, an analysis of the management situation involved in meeting
in knowledge of future trends, and finally, statements of manage-
ment Objectives (direction) and the broad coordinating require-
ments necessary to secure attainment of such objectives.

Resource and Activity Inventory - A compilation of basic data and
information collected through survey for individual resources and
activities or uses. This data is used for multiple use planning
purposes and constitutes the basic information necessary for
resource and activity management planning.

Resource or Activity Management Plan - A plan developed within the
established coordination requirements (as spelled out in Multiple
Use Management Guides and Ranger District Multiple Use Plans) for
the individual resource or activity. Resource and activity manage-
ment plans are not governed by inventories but utilize data derived
from inventories. Resource and activity management plans are gov-
erned by Regional guides and District Multiple Use plans. Inventory
data provides a base and reference point from which departures can
be made in resource plans in order to meet the coordination require-
ments established in Multiple Use Plans.

Special Zone - A subdivision of a planning area as designated for
special purposes by the Secretary, Chief, or Regional Forester.
Management direction in Special Zones is established by specific
regulations or legal authority. Examples of Special Zones are:
Primitive, wild, and woodland areas; resource areas; natural areas,
and so forth. Management Zones do not apply in Special Zones.
Management units (or management situations) may be delineated as
needed for planning consideration of uses.

Appendix 8

QUESTIONNAIRE

For

A STUDY OF THE DIRECT USERS

 

OF THE GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST

 

U. 3. FOREST SERVICE,7REGION 1, BOZEMAN, MONTANA

 

By
Richard T. Marks
Graduate Student, Ph.D. Candidate
Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

Major Professor
Dr. Lee M. James
Acting Chairman, Department of Forestry
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

102

103

QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE STUDY OF DIRECT USERS OF
THE GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
REGION ONE, BOZEMAN, MONTANA

 

 

 

 

Name of user Date
Address Recorder
User No.

 

User classification

(1) ( ) cattle grazing ( 9) ( ) winter sports center
(2) ( ) sheep grazing (10) ( ) organization camp
(3) ( ) sawmill (11) ( ) dude ranch

(4) ( ) Pulpwood logger (12) ( ) resort

(5) ( ) treating plant (13) ( ) campground camper
(6) ( ) house logs (l4) ( ) hunting organization
(7) ( ) water-municipality (15) ( ) fishing organization
(8) ( ) water-irrigation district

Description of Individual User or Owner of Firm
(1) Indicate your age by checking appropriate Space below

Under 25 years 35-44 years 55-64 years
25-34 years 45-54 years 65 and over

(2) What was your approximate gross annual income before taxes and
payroll deductions in 1964?

Check ( ) the appropriate income category below.
( ) Less than $2,500 per year ( ) $10,000 to $14,999 per year
( ) $2,500 to $4,999 per year ( ) $15,000 to $19,999 per year
( ) $5,000 to $9,999 per year ( ) $20,000 and over per year

(3) Indicate your sex. Male Female

(4) Circle the highest year of school you have completed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20
(Grade School) (High School) (University (Graduate)
or

Trade School)

(5) Number of employees. (Average, 1964)

 

6.

7.

104

(6) How long have you been a direct user of the Gallatin National
Forest?

Years ______ Months ______ Days
Description of Corporate or Group Users
(1) Indicate age of organization by checking appropriate space below.
_____ Under 5 years _____ 10-14 years ______20-24 years
5-9 years ______15-19 years ______25 and over

(2) What was your organization's annual income before taxes and
payroll deductions in 1964?

Check ( ) the appropriate income category below.
Under $10,000 per year ) $ 50,000 to $ 99,999 per year

(
$10,000 to $19,999 per year ( ) $100,000 to $199,999 per year
$20,000 to $49,999 per year ( ) Over $200,000 per year

AAA

(3) Number of employees (average, 1964)

 

(4) Number of members or customers (average, 1964)

 

(5) How long has your organization been a direct user of the Gallatin
National Forest?

Years ‘_____ Months ______Days
Attitudes
(1) What is your definition of multiple-use management?
Select one:

Zoning for highest and best use

Systematic blending and balancing of 5 multiple-uses
Restrictive use

The management of all the various renewable surface resources
of the national forests so that they are utilized in the com-
bination that will best meet the needs of the American peOple.
Greatest good to the greatest number in the long run.
Your own definition

 

105

(2) For your use do you have adequate access to the Gallatin National
Forest?

1 2 3 4 5

/ / / / / / / / / /

Poor Average Good

 

 

If Np, answer question (3). If Yes, proceed to question 8.

(3) What specific area or areas on the Gallatin National Forest
are you having difficulty getting access to?

 

(Indicate area on map of Gallatin National Forest)

8. Is the Forest Service reasonable and sympathetic in their dealings
with your interests?

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
/ / / / / / / / / /
Low Medium Highly sympathetic

9. Do you feel that your user group is paying an adequate fee for use
Of the Gallatin National Forest?

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
/ / / / / / / / / /
Low Adequate Excessive
10. Are you paying too much? NO Yes

If so, how much in excess?

 

11. Do you feel that other user groups pay an equitable fee for use of
the Gallatin National Forest?

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
/ / / / / / / / / /
Low Adequate Excessive

Which groups do not pay an equitable fee for use of the Gallatin
National Forest?

 

 

106

 

 

12. Which of the following interest or user groups are compatible with
your primary use of the Gallatin National Forest?
(Check appropriate blocks)
(1) ( ) cattle grazing ( 9) ( ) winter sports center
(2) ( ) sheep grazing (10) ( ) organization camp
(3) ( ) sawmill (11) ( ) dude ranch
(4) ( ) pulpwood (12) ( ) resort
(5) ( ) treating plant (13) ( ) campground camper
(6) ( ) house logs (l4) ( ) hunting organization
(7) ( ) water-municipality (15) ( ) fishing organization
(8) ( ) water-irrigation district
13. Which of the following interest or user groups are not compatible
with your primary use of the Gallatin National Forest?
(Check apprOpriate blocks)
(1) ( ) cattle grazing ( 9) ( ) winter sports center
(2) ( ) sheep grazing (10) ( ) organization camp
(3) ( ) sawmill (ll) ( ) dude ranch
(4) ( ) pulpwood logger (12) ( ) resort
(5) ( ) treating plant (13) ( ) campground camper
(6) ( ) house logs (14) ( ) hunting organization
(7) ( ) water-municipality (15) ( ) fishing organization
(8) ( ) water-irrigation district
14. Are you in favor of the multiple-use management program of the
Gallatin National Forest?
1 2 3 5
/ / / / / / / / /
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
15. Are you being treated equitably in relation to other users in the

16.

same group of the Gallatin National Forest?

If N9, explain.

Yes NO.

 

 

of the Gallatin National Forest?

 

 

Is your user group treated equitably in relation to other user groups

/ /
Very High

 

107

17. What are your dislikes or dissatisfactions with the multiple-use
management program on the Gallatin National Forest?

List in order given:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18. What are your satisfactions with the multiple-use management program
of the Gallatin National Forest?

List in order given:

 

 

 

 

 

19. What adjustments do you think the Forest Service should make in the
multiple-use management program on the Gallatin National Forest?

 

 

20. Do you feel that the intermingled private land within the Gallatin
National Forest is a hindrance to the Forest Service in administer-
ing the multiple-use program? Yes No. If Ygs,
answer question 21.

 

21. In which way is it a hindrance?

 

 

108

22. Do you think the multiple-use management program for the Gallatin
National Forest should receive more publicity through local community
meetings, press, radio, TV, field days, and tours?

l 2 3 4 5

// / // // //

Less Adequate More

\

 

 

23. What are the major problems or programs that should receive more
attention on the Gallatin National Forest? Example: More access
roads, improved campgrounds, etc.

(Rank by importance)

 

 

 

 

 

24. How well do you understand the purposes and Objectives of the
administration of the Gallatin National Forest?

1 2 3 4 5

// / // / //
Low Medium High

\
\

 

 

25. What percent of the net receipts from the Gallatin National Forest
are returned to the local county treasurer?

 

 

 

 

26. What terms best describe a professional forester who is employed by
the Gallatin National Forest?

Multiple-use land manager Livestock manager

Timber manager Land-use planner

27.

28.

29.

 

109

Recreation manager Forest protection
specialist
Watershed manager

 

 

 

 

Are you in favor of the $7.00 "Recreation Fee" for use of improved
campgrounds on the Gallatin National Forest?

No

Undecided

Yes

 

In terms of wildlife vs. livestock numbers on the Gallatin National
Forest, do you feel that there should be any adjustments made?

Increase number of wildlife Increase number of livestock
Decrease number of wildlife Decrease number of livestock
Leave both the same

Are there sufficient controls in the Gallatin National Forest on use
of Motorized vehicles?

Yes No

 

If not, what controls are needed?

 

 

Appendix 9

USDA-Forest Service

RECREATION VISITS - ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORT

FILE REFERENCE
1380 (2300)
CALENDAR YEAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1964
B. STATE C. REGION D. FOREST E. DISTRICT
Montana One Gallatin All
USERS OF RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
RECREATION Number Number of Average length
ITEM SITES AND AREAS of visits man-days of visit
sill_, (2) (3) (4) (5)
l. Campgrounds 139,300 186,500 1-1/4
2. Picnic Sites 97,400 45,100 1/2
sub-Tetal 236,700 231,600 1-1i2
3. Winter Spgrts Sites 31,000 23,100 3/4
4a. Organization Camps not
owned by,Forest Service 7,700 41,000 5-1/4
4b. Organization Camps owned
by Forest Service
5a. Hotels or Resorts owned
by Forest Service
5b. Hotels or Resorts not
owned by Forest Service 6,800 33,700 5
6. Recreation Residences 22,700 124,600 5-1/2
7. Wilderness Areas 2,600 12,600 4-3/4
8. Other Forest Areas 2,588,000 1,016,100 1/2
GRAND TOTAL (Sub-total and +
items 3-8 inc1,) 2,895,500 1,482,700 1/2

 

PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VISITS BY USERS
No. visits (Z)

Primary purpose (6)

OF RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Primary purpose,(6) No. visits (7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Camping,, 138,000 h. Canoeing 82,900
b. Picknicking 192,000 i. Organization Camping
4a + 4b 7,700
c. Swimming, 14,700 j. Wilderness Travel 1,000
d. Winter Sports 31,000 k. General Enjoyment &
Sightseeing, 1,731,400
e. Hunting Big Game 1. Gathering Forest
Sub-Total Products for Pleasure 17,500
58,100
Small Game m. Scientific Study and
Sub-Total Hobbies 23,500
18,600 76,700
f. Fishing,, 486,000 n. Other activities 28,400
g. Hiking and Riding 64,700 TOTAL (Items a-n), 2,895,500
DATE SIGNATURE TITLE

December 30, 1964

Earl H. Welton

110

Acting Forest Supervisor

Appendix 10

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service
Annual Grazing Statistical Report

Region One

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Montana Calendar Year 1964 Forest ll-Gallatin
Cattle and Horses Sheep and Goats
Animal Animal
Item Livestock Months Livestock Months
LIL (2) (3) (4)
1. Estimated Grazing Capac-
ity Net Usable N.F. Land 9,800 28,500 29,500 57,500
2. Permitted to Graze 9,777 27,569 23,594 45,732
A. Under Paid Permit 8,947 27,051 23,594 45,732
B. Under Exempt Provision 830 518 --- ---
C. Other Paid Permit --- --- --- ---
3. Authorized Nonuse 190 579 4,123 1,853
4. Actually Grazed 9,682 26,828 22,514 38,831
A. Under Paid Permit 8,827 26,235 22,514 38,831
B. Under Exempt Provision 830 518 --- ---
C. Under Trespass 25 75 --- ---
D. Other Paid Permit --- --- --- --—
5. Estimated Grazing Capac—
ity Waived Private Land 3,362 11,536 7,674 16,303
6. Permitted Under Private
Land Permit 3,362 11,536 7,674 16,303
7. Actually Grazed Under
Private Land Permit 3,271 11,022 7,380 14,413
8. Permitted Under Crossing
Permit --- XXXXXX --- XXXXXX
Item Unit C&H S86 Swine Total
9. Paid Permits No. 227 23 --- 250
10. Exempt Owners No. XXX XXX XXX ---
11. Private Land Permits No. 69 8 --- 77
12. Crossing Permits No. --- --- --- ---
13. Losses LS 153 752 --- XXX
A. Poisonous Plants LS 31 97 --- XXX
B. Predatory Animals LS 12 252 --- XXX
C. Other LS 110 403 --- XXX
Item Acres
14. Net Usable N.F. 924,525
A. Open for Grazing 589,450
B. Closed 335,075
15. Waived Private Land 203,282

 

Approved Alan J. Lamb

Title Forest Supervisor

 

111

Date 12/31/64

 

VITA

Richard T. Marks was born in Kingston, Minnesota, on January 12,
1928, to Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Marks. Currently Marks is Project
Leader in Forestry, Wildlife and Outdoor Recreation for the Cooperative
Extension Service at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Extension Forester from 1957-65 at Montana State University, Bozeman,
Marks received his B.S. in forestry from the University of Montana,
Missoula, in 1953, with pre-forestry work at the University of Minnesota.
He received his master's degree from Montana State University, Bozeman,
in 1961. Other experience includes employment as District State Forester,
Montana State Forestry Department; Anaconda Forest Products, Bonner,
Montana, and Fetscher Logging Company, Missoula, Montana.

Marks is a graduate of Litchfield High School, Litchfield, Minnesota.

He is married to the former Hildegarde Ullereng of Duluth, Minnesota.
They are the parents of two children, Stephanie, 12, and Ricky, 8.

In college he was a member of Xi Sigma Pi, honorary forestry frater-
nity, and Alpha Zeta, honorary agricultural fraternity. Presently, he
is a member of the Society of American Foresters, the American Forestry
Association, the Society of Sigma Xi and the National Honorary Extension
Fraternity, Epsilon Sigma Phi.

At Montana State University, he was also assistant coordinator for
the Ecuador Peace Corps Training Program.

He served as editor of the newsletter for the Northern Rocky Mountain
Section, and also Chairman of this Section, Society of American Foresters,

and as executive secretary of the Montana State Christmas Tree Association.

He served with the United States Marine Corps and in the occupation

of China for 18 months.