Private memos from timber lobbyists in these years best reveal industry's undisguised views on multiple use. California timber executive Robert Hansen, in a 1959 letter to the Forest Service's Regional Forester in California, Charles Connaughton, said he was convinced that emphasizing "multiple use" offered "our best approach" to countering the lobbying efforts of the Sierra Club and getting more funds for national forest timber sales and roads. Perennial industry spokesman William Hagenstein (with the Industrial Forestry Association on the West Coast at the time) wrote to Alf Nelson and Ernest Kolbe, warning that a recently announced U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey of hunters and fishermen spelled "nothing but trouble" for the forest industries. He worried that the result of the survey would be "demand for less and less timber management in the national forests and more and more wildlife management, game refuges on State lands, recreational provisions, and all the other development needed for providing for the nimrods and Waltonians." With unerring foresight, Hagenstein added, "In three years take this letter out of the file and see if my forecast isn't at least partially correct." If anything, he underestimated the explosive public demand on federal land agencies to protect wildlife, wilderness, and recreational resources on public lands.41
The multiple users of the national forests began to really feel the pressure of conflicting demands during the Eisenhower era. Timber and recreation interests especially grew to perceive each other as entrenched opponents, each jockeying for position in the struggle over how the national forests would be managed. Forest Service leaders, on the other hand, genuinely believed there were enough resources for everyone, especially if Congress approved funds for intensive management. But timber and recreation lobbyists did not always share the agency's optimism, nor were they content to sit back and let the Forest Service call all the shots regarding forest management decisions. While industry lobbied heavily and successfully for maximum timber sale and road budgets, recreation interests pushed, mostly unsuccessfully, for earmarked recreation funds and wilderness zoning. Both endorsed long- range planning as a strategy for getting more of what they wanted and for helping the Forest Service to get more public and political support for its numerous programs.
Superficially, all interest groups agreed with the Forest Service that mul-