242 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



lature and has not the means of collect- 

 ing information to make these effective. 

 Its appropriation in only $250 a year. 

 This insignificant sum is Oregon's total 

 contribution, as a state, to the cause of 

 forest preservation. It is the least appro- 

 priated by any state in the Union that has 

 any forest system at all. 



The statute referred to (Chapter 131, 

 Session Laws of 1907) has three excellent 

 features. In the principle of a non-po- 

 litical Board of Forestry, composed mainly 

 of representatives of agencies, competent 

 to deal with forest matters, it follows the 

 example of most progressive states. By 

 enabling the authorization of voluntary 

 fire wardens to control the use of fire in 

 the dry season, it provides the only safe- 

 guard practicable without actual state aid. 

 Its regulative and punitive sections, or 

 "fire laws," are well drawn as far as they 

 do. On the other hand, It is only frame- 

 work, lacking the life to make it really 

 effective. It provides for no educational 

 work to create the necessary public un- 

 dertaking of the subject, no means of in- 

 vestigating forest conditions, no means 

 of enforcing the fire laws, no machinery 

 for actual forest protection, and above all, 

 no head to develop and execute any State 

 forest policy. In effect it amounts to giv- 

 ing in legal language the state's gracious 

 permission to its forests to take care of 

 themselves. This authority is of consider- 

 able use, for without it still less would 

 be accomplished, but it is only the first 

 step toward meeting a situation In which 

 the state's welfare is vitally concerned and 

 in which the state is primarily and un- 

 aviodably responsible. 



That the state's present policy, or rather 

 lack of policy, is hopelessly inadequate 

 may be seen in the following counts: 



1. There is no one to enforce the fire 

 laws. Every other law to protect life 

 and property has its provided officers. The 

 fire laws do not lend themselves well to the 

 ordinary established machinery, but are 

 not for that reason any less entitled to 

 respect. There is no moral or economic 

 difference between firing a forest and fir- 

 ing a city, yet to violate one excites hor- 

 ror and leads to the pentitentiary, while 

 conviction, or even prosecution, for the 

 other is almost unknown. If detection is 

 more difficult, there is all the more rea- 

 son tor providing for it. This is a police 

 function and only the state can exercise 

 it. The employee of an individual or cor- 

 poration can patrol or fight fire, but he can- 

 not successfully exert police power or prose- 

 cute. At present violation of the fire laws 

 is the rule. The violator cannot be ex- 

 pected to take in earnest a law which 

 the state itself does not recognize. 'With 

 the laws enforced, few fires would start. 



2. There is no means of stopping fires 

 that do start. Forest protection is left 

 absolutely to the enterprise, judgment and 



financial responsibility of anyone or no 

 one. To the extent that he believes it pays 

 him to do so and where he believes it 

 pays him to do so, the forest owner will 

 do his part. But this is exactly like not 

 policing a city in the hope that some 

 individual will be willing and able to do 

 it to our satisfaction. And the result 

 corresponds. Those who can least afford 

 to lose receive least protection. 



3. There is no means of helping the pro- 

 gressive timber owners to secure the co- 

 operation of their unprogressive brothers. 

 Probably the greatest retarder of efficient 

 private organization which would other- 

 wise reduce the need of state financial 

 aid to the minimum is the failure of the 

 unrepresentative minority owners to bear 

 their share. 



4. There is no one to educate the public 

 in the need of forest preservation. So 

 long as this work is left to private effort 

 it is not only uncertain in quantity and per- 

 sistence, but accomplishes the minimum re- 

 sult because suspected of selfish motive. 

 By not recognizing this need, the state 

 in effect declares it non-existent and ad- 

 \ocates forest waste. 



5. There is no one to study and promul- 

 gate improved methods of protection, man- 

 agement and reforestation. Even the Inter- 

 est in forestry, which is growing, without 

 propaganda is unable to get the technical 

 information and assistance necessary to 

 secure actual practice. 



6. There is no progress toward a solu 

 tion of the forest taxation problem, espe- 

 cially as regards cut-over lands, without 

 which there will be continual dissatisfac- 

 tion on all sides and small progress toward 

 reforestation. 



7. Above all, there is no agency with 

 facilities and technical competence to de- 

 velop, to say nothing of executing, a ra- 

 tional far-seeing forest policy for the state 

 which needs this more than any in the 

 Union. 



To sum up, although Oregon is trying 

 to bring about wise use of its fish, its 

 game, and its agricultural resources, and 

 spends money to this end. It absolutely 

 neglects its most vulnerable resource — its 

 forests. 



WHAT IS NEEDED AT ONCE. 



On the Other hand, it needs no theory 

 to outline a remedy. We have only to 

 look at experience elsewhere. Where there 

 is an adequate fire service the losses are 

 reduced by a hundred times its cost and 

 few fires are set. Where there is someone to 

 study and report conditions, the laws are 

 constantly improved. Where good laws 

 are strictly but intelligently enforced, the 

 people respect and endorse them. Where 

 the lumberman can get competent advice 

 and encouragement, he is quick to see that 

 both protection and reforestation are profit- 

 able. The essentials of such a policy for 



