This is a historical study of the intersection of political economy with natural resources management, as played out on the national forests between 1945-1991. Specifically, it focuses on two core national forest management policies; sustained yield and multiple use. These two policy directives represent an attempt by the public and elected officials to apply principles of sustainable development to publicly-owned forest lands, and to ensure that a wide variety of both market and nonmarket forest values are preserved for the benefit of present and future generations. Interest groups, the Forest Service, and policy makers have conceived of sustained yield and multiple use in different and evolving ways over the years. This study explores how these principles have been variously defined and either implemented or thwarted. After World War Two, with escalating demands on national forest resources, the U.S. Forest Service turned to "intensive management" as a technological method of enhancing natural forest productivity and mitigating the environmental effects of increased use. But the agency's optimistic vision of efficient, sustained production of forest commodities through technical mastery over nature has met overwhelming fiscal, environmental, technical, and political obstacles. Nevertheless, agency leaders, industry advocates, and politicians have consistently promulgated an optimistic faith that intensive applications of labor, capital, and technology can maximize and harmonize multiple uses, rehabilitate damaged resources, and sustain high levels of outputs in perpetuity--despite repeated failures to achieve balanced multiple use management and to manage grazing and timber extraction at sustainable levels. The conspiracy of optimism ideologically justifies continued unsustainably high levels of resource extraction. Changing public values since the 1960s and the popularization of ecology have initiated a growing skepticism toward the premises of intensive management. At the same time, field level forest managers have grown frustrated with top-down imposition of resource production quotas and the lack of adequate political, fiscal, and organizational support for sound forest management. As the last old growth forests fall to the chainsaw, and as the federal subsidies required to access these remote timber stands on the national forests escalate, public controversy deepens. In this decade of the national forest centennial a revolt of conscience has erupted among grassroots Forest Service personnel, and a strong challenge from the environmental community has gained momentum. Another major period of policy evaluation and revision appears to be taking place. Whether the conspiracy of optimism can continue to sustain the old status quo is questionable.

There are two prevailing views today about our forests and natural resources. Both views are considered the "right" view, each position comprising a set of values by which we make decisions and choices about using our natural resources. The "dominant world view," is anthropocentric and agriculturally based, with a strong belief that we can "fix" environmental problems through the use of technology. The key result of this view is a belief in the efficiency of economic expansion and its continued growth. The second view maintains we are part of nature, not masters of it, and that we have developed an arrogant attitude toward nature, believing we have the right to do as we wish regardless of the consequences. The result of this view is a belief in the interconnectedness of all life, thus all life has rights. This work argues that the "dominant" worldview shaped the policies of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Consistent with this worldview, the USFS management. paradigm was to provide the greatest return, a commodity-driven focus. However, when public values changed towards a more ecocentric view, the USFS should have reevaluated its method of doing business. Instead, it remained entrenched in its management objective- timber production. After the courts enjoined the USFS against cutting in the Pacific Northwest, aftet struggling with confrontational environmentalists and increased activism within the agency, the USFS attempted to re-write its management paradigm. However even though the policy sounds eco-friendly, the USFS is still mandated by Congress, and forced by appropriations approved by Congress, to cut trees. Different ideologies are accommodated only when they do not conflict with economics. Thus, in spite of changing values, it is still business as usual.