EDITORnThomas FlemingnMANAGING EDITORnKatherine DaltonnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSnChilton Williamson, Jr.nASSISTANT EDITORnTheodore PappasnART DIRECTORnAnna Mycek-WodeckinCONTRIBUTING EDITORSnJohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.J.nBrown, Samuel Francis, GeorgenGarrett, Russell Kirk, E. ChristiannKopff, Clyde WilsonnCORRESPONDING EDITORSnJanet Scott Barlow, Odie Faulk,nJane Greer, John Shelton Reed,nGary VasilashnEDITORIAL SECRETARYnLeann DobbsnPUBLISHERnAllan C. CarlsonnASSOCIATE PUBLISHERnMichael WardernPUBLICATION DIRECTORnGuy C. ReffettnCOMPOSITION MANAGERnAnita FedoranCIRCULATION MANAGERnRochelle FranknA publication of The Rockford Institute.nEditorial and Advertising Offices: 934 NorthnMain Street, Rockford, IL 6II03.nEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.nAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.nSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800, MountnMorris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-435-0715, innIllinois 1-800-892-0753.nFor information on advertising in Chronicles,nplease call Cathy Corson at (815) 964-5811.nU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by EasternnNews Distributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,nSandusky, OH 44870.nCopyright © 1990 by The Rockford Institute.nAll rights reserved.nChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishednmonthly for $24 per year by The RockfordnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, ILn61103-7061.nSecond-class postage paid at Rockford, IL andnadditional mailing offices.nPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tonChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, ILn61054.nThe views expressed in Chronicles are thenauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect thenviews of The Rockford Institute or of itsndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot benreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressednstamped envelope.nChroniclesn* M t G A Z I N t OF AMEIICAN C U L I U Mn4/CHRONICLESnVol. 14, No. 11 November 1990nPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnOn ‘Sylvan Socialism’nA retired USFS forester, I read JohnnBaden’s article (August 1990) with anmixed bag of reactions. To tell the truth,nI thought it could have been written bynthe Sierra Club or Wilderness Society,nthose self-appointed guardians of nongrowth.nLet me support his view, however,nthat the USFS has tended to overemphasizenthe timber cut and resultingnbudget increases. It is (or was when Inwas a district ranger) true that budgetsnand promotions were heavily geared tonthe volume of timber cut. It is also truenthe USFS has strayed from its old ethicnof some thirty or more years ago, innregard to its immense growth in personnelnand budgets. Having said that, therenare some points to be made in favor ofncertain elements of USFS policy. Fornone thing, until recent years, the USFSnwas run primarily by foresters and oldlinennonprofessionals, real mainstays.nAny forester knows the ideal forestrynsituation is to have roads prebuilt, innplace, where access for management fornmultiple uses (wildlife, recreation, powernline maintenance, timber, etc.) isnneeded. In many cases, road costs arennot amortized the first time around butnpaid back by succeeding timber sales ornother cost reductions stemming fromnroad access. Those familiar withnGerman forests, where roads have beennin place for generations, realize hownbeneficial this is to the environment innthe long run. Much ado is made bynBaden about below-cost timber sales;nhowever, much of this is due to initialnroad costs, which are permanent fixturesnto be amortized over decades.nGerman foresters view with puzzlementnwhy “cost-benefit” and cost discountingnis such a vogue here. No onencan realistically guess monetary benefitsnfifty to one hundred-plus years fromnnow in forestry. This short-term view isnone of the things wrong with America.nIt is true foresters should refrain fromnattempting to produce timber on poornsites, and should stick to the better ones.nHere, Baden is in agreement with for­nnnesters, but then he goes on to state thatnthe better timberiand on National Forestsnshould be auctioned off to privateninterests. This would dismember thenNational Forest system. If he thinksnprivate forest management is necessarilynbetter, I can show him where most ofnthe bad management really is, right herenin River City.nFinally, he buys into the disinformationnperpetrated by the Wilderness Societynregarding the Tongass NationalnForest, where I live and spent a largenpart of my career. There is always ankernel of truth in any argument, but asnwe know, liars can figure and figuresncan lie. Another way to look at it is thenjobs and money generated by the pulpnindustry here, far exceeding costs by thenUSFS, generating revenue for the IRSnand society. If one is totally againstnsubsidies, we could look at the nationalnparks, our highway program, the postalnsubsidies, or agriculture, which paidnfarmers an $800 million add-on inn1988 to sell wheat to Russia. And so on.nThe USFS is merely one ant in thencolony.nOn ‘La Pasionarianof the Beltway’n— Hank JrlaysnSitka, AlaskanTo one unfamiliar with the Ms.nNoonan phenomenon and controversynand book it would appear from yourncolumns (Opinions, June 1990), that:n1) she is really a liberal who masqueradednas a conservative to get the job; 2)nshe simply hired out her eloquence andnhad no personal stance; or 3) she believednwhat she wrote, but felt no sensenof loyalty to the man who provided hernwith a no doubt considerable salary andnthe opportunity to make a good reputationnand a good book deal.nIf either of the first two is correct,nthen the contention that she shaped thengreat void that was Reagan into presentablenform would seem to go by thenboard, since she obviously took then