Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526028
label
Public Affairs Luncheon, National Forest Products Association, Washington, DC, May 9, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526028
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Public Affairs Luncheon, National Forest Products Association, Washington, DC, May 9, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Parks
Real property
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526028
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-05-31
month
5
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-05-01
month
5
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
a8c3ffc8407d1569
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D22, folder "Public Affairs Luncheon, National
Forest Products Association, Washington, DC, May 9, 1967" of the Ford Congressional
Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Distribution: All except for Senate Galleries -- Forestry Assoc. made copies for
themselves.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Release in PM's of
Tuesday, May 9, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., House Minority Leader, at
Public Affairs Luncheon, National Forest Products Association,
May 9, Statler-Hilton Hotel, Washington, D. C.
It was Shakespeare who said, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness,
and some have greatness thrust upon them."
We here could achieve greatness if we were able to formulate--instanter--a
national public land use policy fully adequate for our times.
Certainly the need for such a policy is being thrust upon us. The need is
here and we must grapple with and meet it as best we can. It is without doubt
one of the great problems of our day.
I do not think anything we say here or any single enactment by Congress will
automatically meet the need for an all-encompassing land use policy. But we can
build on what we already have--we can make legislative history, as it were--and
I believe from those efforts an improved land use policy will emerge.
First of all, we must discard the idea that the conflict between private and
public land use cannot be resolved for the greatest good of the greatest number.
It does not proceed with logic that private use of the land must be com-
pletely eliminated if the public is to be accommodated on a tract which clearly
needs special protection and preservation for posterity. Neither does it
necessarily follow that privately-owned lands sought for the public domain must
be completely eliminated as a resource productive of wealth and jobs.
What is necessary is that men of good will work together to reconcile
opposing viewpoints and to formulate mutually satisfactory agreements which
benefit both public and private interests. The conflict is between aesthetics
and economics, but it is not an irreconciable dispute between reasonable men of
good will.
I share fully the concern of the Department of Interior that more of our land
be set aside and developed so that the harrassed city-dweller may bathe his
senses in the sweet sights and sounds of nature. But I also feel keenly that we
should not wipe out communities or industries in the name of the public good.
That, I feel, would be most misguided--and unnecessary.
My position as regards a national land use policy is summed up in the
(more)
Digitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
Republican State of the Union Message of last January 19: "We applaud efforts to
create more parks and seashores and will give special emphasis to the preservation
of jobs and community stability."
I see Rep, Don Clausen's proposal for a "string-of-pearls" National Redwoods
Park and Seashore in California as a concrete example of the kind of reasoned and
reasonable land use policy I am espousing.
Mr. Clausen is a dedicated conservationist. But he also is acutely aware
that the Administration's plan for a National Redwoods Park would--in the words
of Interior Secretary Stewart Udall--put a principal lumber company out of
business, cause 235 men to lose their jobs, and deprive California's Del Norte
County of $252,000 in real estate taxes.
It seems to me there is a better way to handle this situation than to throw
hundreds of men out of work and provide adjustment payments to Del Norte County
and its local government bodies to offset the impact of federal land acquisition
for the proposed national park.
The answer, I think, lies in wise application of the multiple-use concept
for both public and private lands. This is really nothing new. The U. S.
Forest Service has developed forest management techniques to the point where it
is indeed possible to carry out Gifford Pinchot's mandate of "the greatest good
for the greatest number."
Certainly we must consider carefully Mr. Clausen's warning that "neither
tourism nor recreation development can ever substantially replace the annual
payrolls of $80 million, $18 million spent for services and supplies each year,
and the more than $6 million in property taxes now paid every year by the forest
industry in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties (of California) alone."
Mr. Clausen calls instead--and I applaud and endorse his efforts--for a
park by partnership, a new approach that encompasses the objectives of a
national park while serving the broader needs of the public.
A pattern similar to the plan advanced by Mr. Clausen has already been
extablished by the Congress in my own state of Michigan.
The Congress last year established a new national park--the Pictured Rocks
National Seashore in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan--which is a perfect example
of how the clash between public and private interests in land use can be dissolved
in harmonious agreement. In that case, arrangements were made both for harvesting
of timber on a sustained yield basis in perpetuity on company-owned land sold to
the federal government for the park, and for future swapping of privately-owned
(more)
-3-
and federally-owned land on a straight-swap or cash-plus basis.
Our discussion of a coherent national land policy will go far beyond the
Pictured Rocks Seashore in Michigan and a National Redwoods Park in California,
of course.
We may well get into Sen. Karl Mundt's proposals for reversing the
population flow from the cities-where 70 per cent of our people sit huddled
on one per cent of our land--to our rural areas, many of them economically
depressed.
Or we might discuss the work of the Public Land Review Commission. That
group's recommendations may well produce a coalescing of ideas essential to the
formulation of a national land policy.
Meantime it seems clear that our guidelines should be those of multiple use
of public and private lands, and a reasoned and reasonable approach to conflicts
between private and public interests.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Release in PM's of
Tuesday, May 9, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., House Minority Leader, at
Public Affairs Luncheon, National Forest Products Association,
May 9, Statler-Hilton Hotel, Washington, D. C.
It was Shakespeare who said, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness,
and some have greatness thrust upon them."
We heve could achieve greatness if we were able to formulate--instanter--a
national public land use policy fully adequate for our times.
Certainly the need for such a policy is being thrust upon us. The need is
here and we must grapple with and meet it as best we can. It is without doubt
one of the great problems of our day.
I do not think anything we say here or any single enactment by Congress will
automatically meet the need for an all-encompassing land use policy. But we can
build on what we already have--we can make legislative history, as it were--and
I believe from those efforts an improved land use policy will emerge.
First of all, we must discard the idea that the conflict between private and
public land use cannot be resolved for the greatest good of the greatest number.
It does not proceed with logic that private use of the land must be com-
pletely eliminated if the public is to be accommodated on a tract which clearly
needs special protection and preservation for posterity. Neither does it
necessarily follow that privately-owned lands sought for the public domain must
be completely eliminated as a resource productive of wealth and jobs.
What is necessary is that men of good will work together to reconcile
opposing viewpoints and to formulate mutually satisfactory agreements which
benefit both public and private interests. The conflict is between aesthetics
and economics, but it is not an irreconciable dispute between reasonable men of
good will.
I share fully the concern of the Department of Interior that more of our land
be set aside and developed so that the harrassed city-dweller may bathe his
senses in the sweet sights and sounds of nature. But I also feel keenly that we
should not wipe out communities or industries in the name of the public good.
That, I feel, would be most misguided--and unnecessary.
My position as regards a national land use policy is summed up in the
(more)
-2-
Republican State of the Union Message of last January 19: "We applaud efforts to
create more parks and seashores and will give special emphasis to the preservation
of jobs and community stability."
I see Rep, Don Clausen's proposal for a "string-of-pearls" National Redwoods
Park and Seashore in California as a concrete example of the kind of reasoned and
reasonable land use policy I am espousing.
Mr. Clausen is a dedicated conservationist. But he also is acutely aware
that the Administration's plan for a National Redwoods Park would--in the words
of Interior Secretary Stewart Udall--put a principal lumber company out of
business, cause 235 men to lose their jobs, and deprive California's Del Norte
County of $252,000 in real estate taxes.
It seems to me there is a better way to handle this situation than to throw
hundreds of men out of work and provide adjustment payments to Del Norte County
and its local government bodies to offset the impact of federal land acquisition
for the proposed national park.
The answer, I think, lies in wise application of the multiple-use concept
for both public and private lands. This is really nothing new. The U. S.
Forest Service has developed forest management techniques to the point where it
is indeed possible to carry out Gifford Pinchot's mandate of "the greatest good
for the greatest number."
Certainly we must consider carefully Mr. Clausen's warning that "neither
tourism nor recreation development can ever substantially replace the annual
payrolls of $80 million, $18 million spent for services and supplies each year,
and the more than $6 million in property taxes now paid every year by the forest
industry in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties (of California) alone."
Mr. Clausen calls instead--and I applaud and endorse his efforts--for a
park by partnership, a new approach that encompasses the objectives of a
national park while serving the broader needs of the public.
A pattern similar to the plan advanced by Mr. Clausen has already been
extablished by the Congress in my own state of Michigan.
The Congress last year established a new national park--the Pictured Rocks
National Seashore in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan--which is a perfect example
of how the clash between public and private interests in land use can be dissolved
in harmonious agreement. In that case, arrangements were made both for harvesting
of timber on a sustained yield basis in perpetuity on company-owned land sold to
the federal government for the park, and for future swapping of privately-owned
(more)
-3-
and federally-owned land on a straight-swap or cash-plus basis.
Our discussion of a coherent national land policy will go far beyond the
Pictured Rocks Seashore in Michigan and a National Redwoods Park in California,
of course.
We may well get into Sen. Karl Mundt's proposals for reversing the
population flow from the cities-where 70 per cent of our people sit huddled
on one per cent of our land--to our rural areas, many of them economically
depressed.
Or we might discuss the work of the Public Land Review Commission. That
group's recommendations may well produce a coalescing of ideas essential to the
formulation of a national land policy.
Meantime it seems clear that our guidelines should be those of multiple use
of public and private lands, and a reasoned and reasonable approach to conflicts
between private and public interests.
###