86 AMERICAN FORESTRY 



or impossible, danger of erosion increases rapidly and the forest becomes in- 

 dispensable to soil protection and water control. Because of this, the indirect 

 influences of forests are of economic importance chiefly in mountainous re- 

 gions, but in such regions they are paramount. In level districts it is quite 

 possible to control the flow of streams far more successfully by large storage 

 reservoirs and dams than by forest cover, and such a system is at present in 

 force in Minnesota on the headwaters of the Mississippi. 



The national government has never attempted to regulate private forestry 

 since the citizens of a state are subject in such matters to state jurisdiction. 

 To a state that is determined to legislate on this subject, certain lines of 

 action are open. 



The first step is to classify lands. Whatever may be the basis decided on 

 as giving constitutional justification for regulation, this basis must apply to 

 specific classes of land and the distinction must be such that no injustice is 

 done the owner. The broadest and most necessary distinction is between 

 agricultural and forest lands. Any law which forbids the clearing of timber 

 from land agricultural in character would be against the best interests of the 

 state. An owner cannot be forced to retain his timber land as such if it 

 would be possible to use it for a more productive purpose. Consequently, no 

 law can ever be passed which will successfully regulate the cutting of forests 

 on land that could be used for agriculture. And any law designed to apply 

 only to non-agricultural land must carry with it some provision for the de- 

 termination of the character of the land, before the land can be successfully 

 brought under the operation of such a law. Rough approximations might be 

 used, such as the inclusion of all lands above a certain height or contour, in 

 mountain districts, or lands exceeding, say ten per cent of slope. But the 

 legal right to enforce regulation of cutting will usually be contestable until 

 each tract of land is examined by legal authority and definitely classified as 

 coming within the operation of the law. To pass a law requiring some general 

 limitation on the removal of timber, such as a diameter limit, without 

 providing at the same time for the classification and listing of the lands 

 affected would be useless and the law a dead letter. 



Since the justification for regulation lies in the evils resulting from 

 forest desti-uction, the object sought by such legislation should be to insure 

 the perpetuation of the forest, without confiscation or unnecessary interrup- 

 tion of the legitimate profits of the owners. If this is impossible, the state 

 may have recourse to condemnation or purchase of such lands, whereby the 

 owner is compensated, and the state can then carry out any policy unhamp- 

 ered. But, granting that the state has no right to insist that the owner 

 abstain from cutting his mature timber, unless it purchase his property, the 

 object of the state must evidently be to secure protection of the immature 

 timber and provision for reproduction of stands. Right here is where the 

 chief danger of popular legislation on this subject arises. The temptation to 

 enforce a principle by means of a specific method is strong and often regarded 

 as necessary. Small trees are usually young trees; a diameter limit would 

 prevent the cutting of small trees and would therefore preserve the young 

 trees. Thus the forest would be preserved. This quack remedy, for it is noth- 

 iuf else, is comparable to the suggested legislation prescribing the amount of 

 fertilizer to be annually applied to agricultural lands, or the rotation of crops 

 to be followed. It might work on some kinds of forests or parts of a forest. 

 Elsewhere it might amount to confiscation, or prevent the very object it was 

 intended to secure. Even in spruce forests which happen to be of a character 

 which would permit of such an operation in some places without serious 

 consequences, a general application of a definite diameter limit would not be 

 possible. In 'all forests of pure spruce the species is subject to windfall. The 



