84 AMERICAN FORESTRY 



every case. Fortunately, the interests of the individual and the community 

 roughly coincide in the case of agriculture, and, since sound methods pay 

 best in the long run, they will be adopted sooner or later. The public inter- 

 ests in progressive farming are not cared for by laws regulating the opera- 

 tions of the farmer, but by laws for the support of experiment stations, and 

 providing methods for the dissemination of progressive ideas, and the educa- 

 tion of farmers' sons in modern farming methods. 



Financially, the owner of timber land is in the same position as the 

 farmer. Timber may be necessary to the public, almost as necessary as food 

 crops, but the grower of timber crops must make it pay. The public has no 

 more right to demand that land owners raise timber crops if they cannot 

 do so without losing money than it would have to insist upon farmers or man- 

 ufacturers conducting their business in the face of certain financial loss or 

 ruin. In the case of the timber land owner, risks of an especially pronounced 

 nature must be incurred if he is to cut a second crop of timber from his 

 lands. All his expenses are practically sunk in his young timber, and can 

 not be realized on until it is big enough to cut. This period even for rapidly 

 growing species is seldom less than forty years. To cut sooner would sacri- 

 fice a certain large value for a very small immediate value. Since not only 

 is the investment sunk but the use of the money is lost for the period, there 

 being no income, the expense increases at compound interest for the entire 

 period and would equal the accumulation of a similar sum deposited in a 

 savings bank and not touched for an equal period of years. 



An owner cannot practice forestry without incurring expense, and this 

 comes principally at the start. It costs something to leave timber standing 

 when logging a tract, since not only is the timber not realized on, but the 

 logging operation costs nearly as much without as with the timber not taken. 

 It costs something to burn brush, lop tops, build fire lines and protect the 

 property from fire. Taxes will have to be paid for forty years on the prop- 

 erty, on a valuation and rate largely determined by local officials who are 

 apt to discriminate against non-resident timber land owners, and these taxes 

 will accumulate at compound interest against the investment, until the timber 

 is big enough to cut. The property produces no revenue from which to pay 

 them until the timber can be sold. During this period there is a constant 

 risk of fire, which in some districts amounts to a certainty that young timber 

 will be destroyed. Old timber with its thick bark may escape damage and if 

 killed can be cut and used, but the young stands are worth nothing now and 

 are easily ruined even by light fires. 



Under these conditions would it be constitutional to require land owners 

 to grow timber for the benefit of the public and assume all the risks? It is 

 clear that the growing of timber crops by private persons may be encouraged 

 but not forced by law, for it would be doubtful if the state could guarantee 

 freedom from financial ruin which is a prerequisite to such a requirement. 

 The duty of the state is to strengthen her system of fire protection so as to 

 reduce the now almost prohibitive risk to a reasonable one, and to reform her 

 tax laws so that the forest crop is taxed, if at all, only when it is harvested, 

 and not every year during its growth. Progressive states are already accom- 

 plishing great things in the improvement of fire protection, but so far no 

 state has given the land owner any encouragement whatever on the subject 

 of taxation, and the present .system if accomjianied by increase in valuation 

 of timber lands, which seems probable, might absolutely prevent private citi- 

 zens from growing timber profitably. In addition to these beneficial meas- 

 ures, states can and do, through the office of state forester, and the establish- 

 ment of demonstration forests and in other ways, encourage and educate the 

 individual to grow timber. Can they force him to do it? 



