THE CLASSICAL SUSTAINED YIELD CONCEPT: CONTENT AND PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS

Robert 6. Lee, Associate Professor College of Forest Resources University of Washington, Seattle

ABSTRACT This paper explains the European origin of sustained yield and its adoption and persistence in the United States. Sustained yield has embodied multiple meanings found in society. It emerged in industrializing Germany, and not in isolated feudal communities. Its adoption and persistence in the United States coincided with unstable conditions in an industrial society. Sustained yield may have been challenged in advanced industrial society because we have devised new ways of bringing about orderly social relationships. When people define objectives and select more flexible means for achieving them, it is possible to depart from the rigid rules of balancing cut and growth.

exorcise the ghost of sustained yield that has haunted the forestry profession ever since the death of European feudal society. These challenges to sustained yield and fire suppression are symptomatic of more fundamental societal changes that are transforming the practice of forestry. This paper examines the concept of sustained yield in the context of social conditions that accompanied its European origin, its adoption and persistence in the United States, and its current crisis. Standard definitions of sustained yield present a disembodied concept. Sustained yield is more than a method for a- chieving a balance between net growth and harvest. It has acquired additional meanings that reflect the workings of particular types of societies. This paper will explore how meanings assigned to sustained yield embody a society's means for producing social order. ^ More specifically, the .spatial/temporal organization of wood production and use is viewed as an instrument for bringing order to a society. This view offers promising explanations for the origin, adoption, persistence, present status and crisis of sustained yield. The primary purpose of this paper is to introject a call for prudence into current policy discussions. I am convinced we know too little about sustained yield to evaluate its present limitations and contributions. The task of writing this paper let me to question conventional wisdom shared by fellow social scientists. My questions focus on issues fundamental to discussions at this symposium.

INTRODUCTION For the last two decades, foresters have struggled with an identity crisis unprecedented in the history of the profession. Public trust in foresters has declined, and the once infrequent political and legal challenges to forestry decisions are now routine. Incorporation of nonforestry professionals in forestry schools and land management organizations has fragmented a clear sense of central purpose. Many foresters feel disempowered and confused because their traditional practices and visionary leadership are being questioned. Fire suppression has been transformed from a moral crusade a- gainst an alien destructive force to a complex, scientifically-based practice of fire management. Now sustained'yieldthe very heart of forestryhas been seriously questioned. Foresters are told that they must call upon the modern spirit of technical rationality 1 to ^"Technical rationality" refers to the widespread practice of judging methods or activities on the basis of whether they achieve desired outcomes (See Thompson, 1967). Technical rationality is almost exclusively employed by modern foresters to evaluate their practices. According to Thompson (p.2), technical rationality can be evaluated by instrumental and

economic criteria "...the instrumental question is whether the specified actions do in fact produce the desired outcome...the economic question ...is whether the results are obtained with the least necessary expenditure of resources..."

The term social order refers to "a condition of a society of group characterized by the predominance of harmonious social relationships and a relative lack of conflict among social norms." (Theodorson and Theodorson, 1969).

2 Robsrt G. Lee

Did sustained yield originate as a method for rationing wood in the isolated, "closed economies" of feudal or mercantilist Germany, as claimed by modern forest economists? Or was sustained yield an instrument by which the German government established control over forest land following the collapse of feudal and mercantilist institutions? If sustained yield was only an economic device for rationing the harvest of wood in self-sufficient village economies, then it was indeed unsuited to the "open' economy found in the United States when it was adopted, and it is even more "irrational" today. Alternatively, if sustained yield was an instrument promoted by a central government to bring order to chaos, then its adoption and persistence in the United States could be interpreted as a rational means for attempting to stabilize forest use in a turbulent industrial society. The latter hypothesis would explain why American foresters adopted and successfully promoted sustained yield. Moreover, this hypothesis may also uncover the reason that sustained yield has been severely questioned in recent years. Modern industrial society has evolved a means of promoting order that may supersede this use of sustained yield. I have yet to find convincing evidence that will falsify either of these rival hypotheses. Tests of these hypotheses will require far more historical research than I was able to accomplish in preparing this paper. However, I have accomplished three tasks and will report upon them in the remainder of the paper- First, I have provided a more encompassing definition of sustained yield. Second, I have adopted a methodological stance appropriate for assembling historical evidence. Finally, I have assembled preliminary historical data on the origin, adoption, persistence, and present status of sustained yield. DEFINITION OF SUSTAINED YIELD "Sustained yield" is a virtual wilderness of meanings. It has readily yielded interpretations to suit the needs of a wide variety of interests. But its multifaceted character is a weakness as well as a strength. Like any tool of forest policy, it can be abused when parochial users fail to appreciate the full range of its capabilities. Yet when appreciated for its complexity, it can serve as a powerful instrument for harmonizing fragmented practices. will examine some of the meanings attributed to sustained yield to illustrate its multival- ent character. Later in the paper I will explore how these various meanings have reflected social conditions.

An explicit emphasis on wood production underlies most conventional definitions of sustained yield. According to the Society of American Foresters (1958), sustained yield as applied to a policy, method, or plan of forest management, implies continuous production with the aim of achieving, at the earliest practical time, an appropriate balance between growth and harvest, either by annual or somewhat longer periods. This emphasis on wood production contains two explicit meanings. First, there is an overriding goal of achieving the "normal forest" and a set of rules for approaching that goal. The rules are generally specified by a plan that 'will provide for a longterm balance between -cut and growth. This plan provides for the purposeful scheduling of forest regeneration and harvesting in a given area of forest land, and it involves the deliberate organization of forest production and use in space and time. The U.S. Forest Service's nondeclining even-flow policy is an example of a rule-governed plan. Second, a commitment to the continuous production of wood exists. Forests managed in per- peruity are capital assets that will, if handled properly, yield returns forever. This aspect of sustained yield is particularly important because it reflects two levels of meaning. At a concrete level, it reflects the belief that forests will be renewable wood resources in the future because they have been so in the past (Behan, 1978). Most advocates for sustained yield fail to consider the need to define renewable resources as a relationship between human values and rates of resource formation (Kimmins, 1976). At a symbolic level, this commitment to continuous wood productioh may empower organizations to manage forests. I shall devote more attention to this sympolic meaning of sustained yield. The various meanings imputed to sustained yield are as important as its explicit emphasis on wood production. There is a popular caricature of sustained yield as a method for achieving "equal annual yields forever" (Behan, 1978). Such popular conceptions reflect the symbolic meaning embodied in the idea of continuous wood production. These popular definitions reveal more about social ideas than they do about the well managed forest. Specifically, they manifest the need for symbols ^ of biological and social continuity.

A symbol is "an object, material or nonmaterial, which stands for something else. For example, a flag is a symbol of the nation..." (Rose,, 1965, p. 731).

Robert G. Lee 3

My research has convinced me that sustained yield deserves careful study as a possible svabol of biological and social continuity. Although others have noted this meaning of sustained yield, none have undertaken systematic investigation. William and Jean Duerr (1975: 36) characterized sustained yield as an article of faith, noting: To fulfill our obligation to our descendents and to stabilize our communities, each generation should sustain its resources at a high level and hand them along undiminished. The sustained yield of timber is an aspect of man's most fundamental need: to sustain life itself. This powerful language tells us that sustained yield contributes to a basic sense of immortality for individuals and society. Critics of sustained yield have underestimated its symbolic significance. Like many other well-meaning students of human organization, they have concentrated on the formal, impersonal, and explicit properties of human organization and ignored the informal, personal, and implicit properties (Selznick, 1966). Anyone who works effectively in a large bureaucracy knows that the formal organizational plan is not sufficient for achieving objectives. In addition to knowledge of organizational structure and procedures, an organizational manager needs to know about personal capabilities and motivations. Formal structure provides a framework that only becomes effective when infused with a shared sense of common purpose (Selznick, 1957). Only then can the organization become a vehicle for the creative energies of the people who occupy offices. The organization becomes an instrument for people to personalize organizational projects. A blend of organizational and personal projects provides the rational basis for organized social action. Is it also the basis for sustained yield's effectiveness? The symbolic aspect of sustained yield can be understood by examining how plans for balancing cut and growth have served as social instruments. Sustained yield has provided opportunities for people, both in society and in land management organizations, to create the future"to sustain life itself." Tree planting rituals symbolize this emotive power because planting a tree contributes to the future. Foresters and citizens alike delight in Arbor Day and "Penny Pines Plantations." A wider view of human organization will provide a rational basis for examining the history of sustained yield, but before turning

to historical facts, I will briefly review the methodological approach adopted for this examination.

METHODOLOGICAL STANCE The study of forest history and policy requires an analytic approach because our own historical circumstances may bias the selection and interpretation of historical facts. Of course we can never transcent our cultural conditioning and historical location in order to obtain an "objective" view of the past. However, we can discipline our biases by adopting a clear theory of model, deriving hypotheses, and testing hypotheses by acceptable scientific methods (Landau, 1972). I have adopted a politically conservative sociological approach to structure my biases and guide this investigation. I draw my theory of how social institutions develop for purposes of providing orderly social life from the work of Peter Berger (Berger and Neuhaus, 1978; Berger and Luckmann, 1966). For an understanding of the relationship between social institutions and economic organization I have relied heavily upon Friedrich Hayek (1973) and Anthony Giddens (1981). Adoption of this conservative approach forces me to question the way modern standards of technical rationality are used to evaluate traditional forestry practices. Attempts to dispose of sustained yield as an "irrational" method flirts with unknown risks. Modern science has taught us to focus on avoiding Type II.Error (uncritically adhering to authoritative policy). ^ Our search for weaknesses and defects often leads us to underestimate the strengths of inherited traditions (Hayek, 1973). We question assumptions not only about sustained yield and fire suppression, but also about the family, church, government, and other institutions central to modern social life (Berger and Neuhaus, 1978). In a very narrow sense, progress is often defined as casting off archaic traditions. A far less common concern is the risk of committing Type I Error (uncritically departing from authoritative policies). We may reject sustained yield because it fails to satisfy efficiency criteria when it in fact satisfies a number of other unexamined criteria (Page, 1977). We can reduce the risk of committing a Type I Error. Adoption of a more encompassing view of human organization makes it possible to study modern resource allocation practices

See Nonet (1977) for a discussion of policy errors.

4 Robert G. Lee

and traditional practices without making a judgement as to which is best. Thus, the question is not whether sustained yield is rational or irrational. That question is a product of technical rationality and, as such, requires that goals be known in advance. I seek to identify whether sustained yield serves as an effective means for organizing human activity inrelation to forests. More specifically, I wish to determine the social conditions under which sustained yield can serve as an effective instrument to bring order to social chaos. We may never be able to state specific goals to be achieved by sustained yield, but we can attempt to understand how it provides a general organizing principle that facilitates achievement of specific goals that emerge with new forms of social organization.

HISTORY OF SUSTAINED YIELD

Origin of Sustained Yield American foresters embraced the idea that sustained yield emerged spontaneously in feudal Germany. We have presumed it served as an institution for rationing the use of scarce_ materials in small, isolated village economies to assure a continuous flow of wood materials to local residents. Numerous researchers (including myself) have attributed this idea to Heske's widely read book, German Forestry (see Behan, 1978; Drielsma, 1979; and Waggener, 1977). Other researchers have more precisely identified the mercantilist economy of the 17th and 18th centuries as the birthplace of sustained yield (Gould, 1964). Gould (1962) identifies four implicit assumptions underlying sustained yield which he (Gould, 1964) and others (Behan, 1978) have since associated with the nature of mercantilist economiesstability of demand, scarcity of land, certainty about the future, and a closed economy. Heske clearly locates the origin of the sustained yield idea in feudal Germany. In the context of discussing the increase in wood requirements brought about by a rapid increase in population, Heske (1938: 20) notes that: The diminishing timber supply and the expanding timber consumption at last led to a crisis. The fe'r of wood famine forced the regulation of timber cutting and thereby introduced sustained-yield management. The crisis was reached in the most densely populated parts of Germany between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. It was during this period that the first attempts were made to regulate

timber cutting and improve forest conditions; these may be designated as the first sprduts on earth of sustained-yield forest management. Heske also notes that forestry originated with the management of feudal estates to provide game for the nobility. Later in the chapter (p.29) he provides a more conventional description of sustained yield: In order to assure the distant future an unfailing, continuous timber supply for the cities, villages, and settlements ... for forest as a whole and in abl its parts had to be systematically controlled from the standpoint of sustained yield...each year only an allotted quantity of wood could be cut and the forest had to be organized with a permanent sustained yield structure. Such a system of forest management...was introduced in most of the large German State forests and in many private forests during the first half of the nineteenth century... Thus is was not until after 1800 that sustained yield was adopted as a scientifically-based method of organizing wood production (also see Gould, 1964). Earlier attempts to "regulate cutting and improve forest conditions" were not inspired by the ideal of the normal forest. The normal forest was modelled after the capitalist factory that emerged from the industrial revolutiona carefully regulated (synchronized and synchorized) wood factory (see Heske, p.36). I offer a plausible explanation for the apparent inconsistencies in Heske's historical account: the 19th century Germanic ideal of the normal forest and the sustained yield regulation necessary to maintain it may have embodied older, more enduring cultural meanings associated with forests. One does not have to search far to find that the forest was a potent symbol of the German people and their collective destiny. Canetti (1978: 173), a German social psychologist states: In no other modern country has the forest-feeling remained as alive as it has in Germany. The parallel rigidity of the upright trees and their density and nui*er fill the heart of the German with a deep and mysterious delight...army and forest transfused each other in every possible way. What to others might seem the army's dreariness and barrenness kept for the German the life and glow of the forest. He was never afraid of it; he felt protected, one amongst many others. He

Robert G. Lee 5

took the rigidity and straightness of trees for his own law. Heske (1938:180, 182) becomes similarly poetic when discussing the "Cultural Values of the Forest": German culture sprang from the forest. It is a forest culture. In holy groves the ancient Germans worshipped their gods...In old oak forests the present generation seeks to capture that reverential awe which is the foundation of morality...The cultural importance of the German forest population as a sixed pole with an instinctively sure inner compass cannot be valued highly enough in a time of general shifting of all values. An intimate connection with the soil, and such as results especially from ownership of a long lived forest with its sustained management extended through many generations, is the strongest bulwark against social chaos. Woe betide, if the forests were to be partitioned! A mass of culture and perhaps its very backbone would be destroyed. These comments capture the essential symbolic meaning of sustained yield in German culture. The life of the German people and their culture will be perpetuated by prudent forest management. The "community" to be stabilized by sus- / yield is necessarily ambiguous: as a rule, governed method of wood production, cities, villages and settlements are to be economically |stabilized; but as a symbol of social contin- 'uity, the life of the German people as a whole \must be stabilized. Thus it appears that the symbolic meanings associated with the doctrine of sustained yield originated in the forest-dewlling tribes of prefeudal Germany. . Sustained yield embodied symbols that had long been present in German culture. But the origin of sustained yield as a rule-governed method of wood production requires further documentation. I have just begun the needed historical research. Several misinterpretations of German history may have led American foresters to claim that sustained yield emerged spontaneously in rural, selfsufficient feudal or mercantilist economies. We have associated wood rationing with mercantilism and assumed that traditional village economies persisted until the 18th and 19th centuries. We have also assumed local people residing in villages of cities were advocates for sustained yield.

First, forest economists have claimed that wood rationing was a result of mercantilism (Gould, 1964; Behan, 1978), but Germany was still highly fragmented during the mercantilist era (Wallerstein, 1980). There was tremendous economic diversity and many forests near water transportation were cut for export (Feraow, 1913). This practice caused local shortages of wood. Other forests were cut for fuel or material to supply local industires. International wood trade was active in Europe as a whole (Wallerstein, 1980). Holland, a major shipbuilder, imported vast quantities of timber from the Baltic region and from Sweden. England imported timber for ship-building from the American colonies. Germany might have become more involved in international timber trade had she not been devastated by the Thirty Year's War (1618-1648). Hostile parties raided Germany's accessible forests for ship timbers and for manufacturing (Fernow, 1913). Therefore, we must look beyond mercantilism to explain the emphasis on self-sufficiency and wood rationing in 17th and 18th century Germany (Wallerstein, 1980). Destruction of forests was far more common than forest protection or management in mercantilist Germany (Fernow, 1913). A second possible misinterpretation of German history lies in the forest economist's (Behan, 1978; Gould, 1964; Waggener; 1977) claim that traditional, rural, self-sufficient German villages existed in the 18th and 19th centuries. Instead we find that the traditional rural society was disrupted on a vast scale in the 17th and 18th centuries (Wallerstein, 1980; Weber, 1958). Rural life in Germany, and common forest lands, were progressively devastated by the Thirty Years' War, the wars of the 18th century and the uncontrolled actions of peasants displaced from feudal communities (Fernow, 1913). Even before the Thirty Years' War, the feudal Institution of the commons, which protected the forest use rights of peasants, was weakened by growing State and individual property ownership. Princes usurped vast areas of common forest land causing peasants to be impoverished and displaced (Weber, 1958). Bloody peasant rebellions finally let the State to assume ownership and control of much forest land owned by the nobility (Fernow, 1913). Hence, by 1800, few traditional rural communities remained and most were dependent upon forests belonging to the State or the nobility. Third, modern foresters often assume that local people advocated sustained yield to stabilize village or city economies. American foresters may not have paid enough attention to the state foresters or large private owners who promote sustained yield wood production in the early 19th century. I can find no evidence

6 Robert G. Lee

that small villages or settlements actively sought sustained yield. Instead, control of forests rested with public and private owners. Femow (1913: 47) illustrates how the village poeple Impeded forestry progress through ...the growth of pernicious servitudes or rights of user, which were either conferred to propitiate the powerless but dangerous peasantry. . .these servitudes grew to such an extent that in almost every forest some one outside the owner had the right to use parts of it, either the pasture, or the litter, or certain classes or sizes of wood. State and private ownership of forests previously used by landless peasants must have necessitated an effective means for disciplining potentially disruptive populations. In summary, there is sufficient historical evidence to doubt the claim that sustained yield originated in closed rural economies. I find it more plausible to claim that sustained yield originated at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The emergence of the laiissez faire economy was associated with the breakdown of both mercantilism and remaining feudal institutions. Chaotic social conditions existed at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century (Wallerstein, 1980). Everyone agrees that the sustained yield as a rulegoverned method of wood production was not widely practiced until after 1800 when the free market philosophy replaced mercantilism. Therefore, it appears that sustained yield originated as an institutional device for bringing order to the use of forests at a time when liberal capitalism was the dominant economic system. Heske himself notes the tensiop that existed between the laissez faire philosophy advocated by academics and the "Back to Nature" philosophy that infused the practice of forest management. Further historical research is needed to reveal the origins of the foresters' biological orientation. I doubt that it was the influence of mercantilism. The possibility that the biological basis for sustained yield originated among scientists found in cities deserves further investigation. Adoption and Persistence of Sustained Yield in the United States The Germanic idea of sustained yield was introduced into the United States around. 1900 by Bernard Fernow and Gifford Pinchott. Social conditions in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century were turbulent. The successful growth of a market economy had

brought about substantial social and economic change. The frontier had been settled and opportunities for rapid economic advancement through acquiring property were limited. Masses of laborers migrated about the country seeking work while the traditional rural and urban communities declined. Transportation, occupational mobility, and increased personal income made it possible to leave the farm or the small town to seek opportunities in the city. Sociologists were alarmed by the masses of people who were no longer tied to neighborhood, church, family, and local community traditions (Quandt, 1970). Social scientists tried to build new mass communities by fostering mass communications. Mass political action and efforts to mobilize labor were spontaneous expressions of the need for new modes of social integration (Hays, 1969). The progressive conservation movement was also a political response to some of these changes. Vast areas of public domain were reserved for government ownership and management. A rational, scientific approach to forest management was coupled with a moral crusade to mobilize the mass citizenry in support of conservation (Hays, 1969). Sustained yield appears to have been an ideal doctrine for these circumstances. It could be used effectively to assure rural communities that they would benefit from government ownership of forests. At the same time, it could provide citizens at large with a symbol of biological and social continuity In a society that was changing at an increasing rate. The balanced, continuous management of forests provided a means for people to experience a connection between past, present and future. As in 19th century Germany, sustained yield might have served as an institutional iieans for bringing order to the use of the forest in a society undergoing rapid social and economic change. Sustained yield next.emerged as a major Issue at the end of World War I. MacKay (1919), Magnusson (1919), and Zon (1919) all expressed a concern with unstable employment of mill and woods workers. They advocated sustained yield as.a means for devoloping stable industries that would provide continuous employment for residents of small communities. Two events preceded their recommendations. Loggers and mi11- workers in the timber industry had mobilized and formed a radical union (IWW). Many of these workers identified with the Russian Revolution and openly advocated similar actions in the United States. The War had ended and there was a need for immediate reabsorption of returning soldiers into the Industrial work force. Plans were made to organize forests to produce continuous yields. These were deliberate attempts to creat conditions thought to be necessary for

Robert G. Lee 7

the growth of rural communities. Dissatisfied workers and soldiers returning from war were thereby expected to find stable homes. The beginning of the 20th century was also characterized by an abundance of inexpensive timber on the West Coast. The timber industry had migrated west after reducing the forests of the Lake States and the industry was highly comr- etitive (Loehr, 1952). Overproduction resulted from a large number of investments in mills and logging camps (Kirkland, 1917). Anti-trust laws prevented companies from entering into agreements to regulate production or to prevent new firms from moving to the Northwest. Devastating price instability resulted. David T. Mason actively promoted sustained yield throughout the west (Loehr, 1952). By 1930, sustained yield was gaining acceptance in industry as a method for voluntarily limiting production (Drielsma, 1979). Many companies adopted sustained yield long before they had begun to consider reforesting lands (Loehr, 1952). This action suggests that sustained yield served as an institutional means for bringing order to relationships between companies that had been engaged in mutually destructive competition. They found legal means for collectively withholding wood from the market. However, sustained yield also embodied other meanings. The Great Depression stimulated an interest in sustained yield. The nation had fallen into economic chaos. People were dispirited. They lost much for which they had worked and millions of unemployed citizens lost hope in the future and felt adrift in their society. Those of us who did not live through the de- ression find it difficult to identify with the personal and social gravity of that crisis. The government Instituted the Civilian Conservation Corps to put men to work in the public forests. People recovered their sense of purpose by building roads, trails, and recreational facilities, and by fighting fires and planting trees. Caring for forests brought order to economic chaos. The public management of forests came to symbolize personal and social continuity. Sustained yield also emerged as a public issue in the context of proposals for federal regulation of private forest land. Economic collapse had rejuvenated concern that unregulated private exploitation of forests was socially destructive. Some parts of forest industry argued for the adoption of cooperative sustained yield plans where public and private lands were adjacent or intermingled (Drielsma, 1979). Both public and private agents sought to stabilize small communities, thereby enhancing the economic position of both labor and industry.

Proposals for cooperative management plans finally culminated in the passage of the Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944. The timing of this legislation is significant. World War II was coming to an end and the government became concerned about the resettlement of returning soldiers. Sustained yield was again used as an instrument for bringing order to communities and forest regions. The symbolism of social continuity overshadowed the concept of cooperative land management. The U.S. Forest Service established only one cooperative sustained yield unit (with the Simpson Logging Company at Shelton, Washington). Government and timber industry proposals for other cooperative units were successfully opposed by small local operators and labor groups. Drielsma (1979) observed, that "This opposition by the very people the foresters were supposedly trying to help must have caused some rethinking within the profession1.' Sustained yield did not re- emerge as a public issue until the late 1960's. The emergence of the modern environmental movement stimulated public concern with forest management. The U.S. Forest Service had accelerated timber harvesting, and vast areas of commercial forest lands were being roaded and brought under active management. Timber harvesting on national forests and other public lands was severely criticized. Clearcutting and perceived overharvesting became major issues. The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1964 had mandated a general policy os sustained yield. The U.S. Forest Service implemented the requirement for sustained yield in the form of specific rules and issued the nondeclining even-flow policy. They designed timber harvest scheduling models to operationalize this approach for achieving a "normal forest." In summary, local communities, have usually not promoted sustained yield. Instead, the forestry profession, government and industry have advocated sustained yield as a means for creating stable communities, economic conditions, or employment. Most recently, interest groups concerned with the loss of old growth forests have promoted this concept. Sustained yield has affectively embodied a wide variety of meanings.

Current Challenge to Sustained Yield Forest economists have raised penetrating questions about sustained yield. The Forest Service has recently been convinced that a departure from nondeclining even-flow policy may be a more rational approach to managing national forests with substantial reserves of old growth timber. The national Forest Management Act of 1976 authorized sucy "departures." Why has sus-

8 Robert G. Lee

tained yield been successfully challenged after persisting for almost a century? Many explanations are possible, bat X believe that the emergence of an advanced-industrial society brought fundamental changes. The idea of an advanced-industrial society was first presented by Daniel Bell (1973). The economy had shifted from an emphasis on extraction to services over the last 70 years; manufacturing has remained relatively constant. A service economy is led by professional and technical workers. Bell (1973: 14) notes that this makes "theoretical knowledge..the source of innovation and of policy formation for the society." Intellectual experts, such as forest economists, use modern systems technology "to define rational action and to identify the means of achieving it" (Bell 1973: 30). Management by objectives is a product of an advanced-industrial society. It permits people to loosen their commitment to particular rules so that they may flexibly pursue objectives designed to fit a complex and turbulent world (Swanson, 1980). The participation of employees and citizens in the management of organizations is one facet of management by objectives. Employees or citizens define purposes and select the means for achieving objectives. Situation ethics replaces rigid rule- governed behavior (Swanson, 1980). People judge right and wrong conduct in terms of ultimate objectives, not in terms of inherited norms. The emergence of this kind of advancedindustrual society helps to explain changes in fire suppression as well as sustained yield. Adhering to rigid rules becomes less important than achieving overall objectives. All fires need not be extinguished by 10am and the harvest does not always have to be balanced with net annual increment. However, the price of this new flexibility may be a costly system of participatory management. New policies may only be legitimate if employees and affected citizens share in their construction and im- plementation. Management by objectives, participation, and situation ethics manifest a new means of ordering society. Rigid rules governing wood production may be unnecessary, particularly in a society where inter-regional trade and communication is routine.

CONCLUSIONS Sustained yield is not a ghost, but foresters may be haunted by the chimera of the stable rural community thought to be prepetuated by sustained yield. Modern foresters generally associate sustained yield with the objective of stabilizing small communities. The logic of technical rationality demands an explicit goal. Thus the dominant policy question has been: Has sustained yield in fact produced economic stability in small rural communities? This question presumes the presence of rural communities which may not have existed as isolated, self- sufficient entities. Therefore, my interpretation of sustained yield history has led me to ask instead: Has sustained yield served as an instrument for bringing order to the use of forests in a rapidly industrializing society? This question frees us from a view of sustained yield as a means to a known end, including a means to community stability. It permits us to view sustained yield as a social instrument embodying a variety of purposes which do not always state specified goals. Preliminary research into the origin, adoption and persistence of sustained yield has suggested some of its purposes in industrializing Germany and the United States. The use of sustained yield as a means for bringing order to forest use in a turbulent society possibly explains its origin, adoption, and persistence. Does the emergence of an advanced industrial society mean that sustained yield will finally pass away? Of course not. What has been questioned about sustained yield is its rigid rules for regulating the production of wood. The assumption that trees are always renewable resources has also been questioned; not all natural forests in the United States may justify investment in long-term timber management. The facet of sustained yield that has survived is its capability for embodying the meanings of biological and social continuity. A commitment to creating' the future is universally accepted; only the means are questioned. Even the most dedicated freemarket economists have been heard to refer to "economic sustained yield" in which the workings of the market system will provide wood for the future. Let me conclude with a few words on the problem of implementing a "departure" from sustained yield. In the case of the U.S. Forest Service, departures may indeed by possible but they will not be achieved simply by providing justifications for their economic rationality. Instead, they may be achieved through a planning process that incorporates agency specialists and concerned citizens. This task will involve time consuming participation by internal disciplinary

I prefere the term advanced-industrial to Bell's post-industrial, since Inrinst-T-t ai manufacturing continued to provide the same relative proportion of employment and income.

Robert G. Lee 9

experts and external interest groups who understand how the multiple resource values at stake may be affected. A departure may be possible only if participants are convinced that a departure will enhance or at least not diminish the future value of non-timber resources. Planning for departures also impacts the forestry profession and its public reputation. Foresters have adquired public respect largely because of their unequivocal commitment to providing resources for future generations. We have seen how sustained yield has symbolized that commitment. Sustained yield has provided a means for citizens at large to identify with the purposes of forestry. Yet, the acquisition of more sophisticated technology has caused foresters to lose touch with the purposes to be served. At the root of the forester's identity crisis is a scientific technician without a clear sense of social purpose. Small wonder foresters feel disempowered and confused. The challenge of sustained yield continues to provide foresters with the opportunity to embody future-referring values in forestry techniques. Sustained yield is particularly well suited for a continuing commitment to biological and social continuity. An advanced industrial society provides the means for rediscovering the commitment. LITERATURE CITED Behan, Richard W. 1978. Political popularity and conceptual nonsense: the strange case of sustained yield forestry. Environmental Law 8(2):209-342. Bell, Daniel. 1973. The coming of postindustrial society. 507 p. Basic Books, New York. Berger, Peter L. and Richard J. Neuhaus. 1977. To empower people: the role of mediating structures in public policy. 45 p. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D. C. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality. 219 p. Anchor Books, New York. Canetti, Elias. 1978. Crowds and power. 495 p. The Seabury Press, New York. Drielsma, J. H. 1979. Sustained yield and community stability: a history of ideas in American forestry. 42 p. Unpublished Manuscript. Duerr, William A. and Jean B. Duerr. 1975. The role of faith in forest resource management, p. 30-41. In F. Rumsey and W. A. Duerr, eds., Social sciences in forestry: a book of readings. 408 p. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, London, Toronto.

Fernow, Bernard E. 1913. History of forestry. 306 p. University Press, Toronto and American Forestry Association, Washington, D.C. Giddens, Anthony. 1981. A contemporary critique of historical materialism. 294 p. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Gould, Ernest M., Jr. 1964. The Future of forests in society. Forestry Chronicle 40 (4):431-444. Gould, Ernest M., Jr. 1962. Forestry and recreation. 17 p. Harvard Forest Papers, No. 6, Harvard Forest, Petersham, Massachusetts. Hayek, Friedrich, A. 1973. Law, legislation, and liberty, volume I, rules and order. 184 p. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hays, Samuel P. 1969. Conservation and the gospel of efficiency: the progressive conservation movement, 1890-1920. 297p. Antheneum, New York. Heske, Franz. 1938. German forestry. 342 p. Yale University Press, New Haven. Kimmins, J. P. 1973. The renewability of natural resources. Journal of Forestry 71(5):290-292. Kirkland, Burt P. 1917. Continuous forest production of privately owned timberlands as a solution of the economic difficulties of the lumber industry. Journal of Forestry 15(l):1564. Landau, Martin. 1972. Political theory and political science. 244 p. Macmillan Co., New York. Loehr, Rodney C. 1952. Forests for the future the diaries of David T. Mason. 283 p. The Forests Products History Foundation, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. MacKaye, 1919. Employment and natural resources. 145 p. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Washington D.C. Magnusson, Leifur. 1919. Disposition of the public lands in the United States with particular reference to wage- earning labor. 30 p. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C. Nonet, Philipe. 1977. Organizations as legal systems. 46 p. Unpublished Manuscript, Berkeley, California. Page, Talbot. 1977. Conservation and economic efficiency. 266 p. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Rose, Arnold M. 1965. Sociology: the study of human relations. 736 p. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

10t Robert G. Lee

Quandt, Jean B. 1970. From the small town to the great community. 260 p. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Selznick, Philip. 1966. TVA and the grass roots. 274 p. Harper and Row, New York. Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leadership in administration. 162 p. Harper and Row, New York, Evanston, and London. Society of American Foresters. 1958. Forest terminology. 97 p. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C. Swanson, Guy E. 1980. A basis of authority and identity in post-industrial society, p. 190-217. _In R. Robertson and B. Holzner, eds., Identity and authority: explorations in the theory of society. 318 p. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Theodorson George A. and Achilles G. Theodorson. 1969. Modern dictionary of sociology. 469p. Thomas W. Crowell, New York.

Thompson, James D. 1967. Organization in action. 192 p. McGraw-Hill, New York. Waggener, Thomas R. 1977. Community stability as a forest management objective. Journal of Forestry 75 (11) :710-714. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1980. The modern world system II: mercantilism and the consolidation of the European worldeconomy, 1600-1750. 370 p. Academic Press, New York. Weber, Max. 1958. Capitalism and rural society in Germany, p. 363-385. In H. H, Gerth and C. Wright Mills, eds., From Max Weber: essays in sociology. 490 p. Oxford University Press, New York. Zon, Raphael. 1919. Reconstruction and natural resources. Journal of Political Economy 27 (April):280-299.