530 AMPmiCAN FORESTRY 



logging. The position of the state is that a private owner should use reasonable 

 measures to dispose of refuse after cutting when its presence is a menace to 

 the surrounding country. I believe the time has passed when a private indi- 

 vidual can handle his property in such a way as to subject his neighbors to the 

 danger of great loss and the general public to serious damage. 



The great danger is that laws will be passed which are so rigid as to be 

 impractical of application. Any law touching the disposal of brush after log- 

 ging or in other ways making restrictions with reference to fire protection, 

 should be sufficiently elastic to meet the varying requirements of different forest 

 conditions. A further difficulty in such restrictive legislation is that the 

 tendency is to merely pass the legislation and not provide the proper machinery 

 for its practical application. The work of reducing inflammable debris in the 

 forests, the work of fire patrol and other measures of fire protection, must be 

 worked out through co-operation between the private owners and an organ- 

 ization of competent state foresters. The state of New Hampshire has made 

 a splendid beginning by establishing a forest organization and the private 

 owners have shown their wisdom in uniting to introduce practical methods of 

 fire protection. 



There are certain areas on steep slopes of important watersheds where 

 it is essential to protect the forest from destruction. I do not mean that no 

 cuttings whatever should be made on such areas, but such cutting as is done 

 must be of a character which will not result in public injury. In a number 

 of state legislatures bills have been introduced looking to the designation of 

 protection forests with a view to placing reasonable restrictions on the cuttings, 

 in order to prevent complete deforestation and to gtiarantee a restocking of 

 such areas as are cut over. This is a problem which is coming more and more 

 to the front as the effects of complete deforestation are felt. 



This is a problem which must be handled with the greatest wisdom. Some 

 of the proposals which have been made are not practical in their application 

 and would not secure the results desired. In working out this and other phases 

 of private forestry, I would seek first the cooperation of the timberland owners 

 themselves. If tliey are wise, they will see the importance of such co-operation, 

 as a means of forestalling restrictions. In many ca.ses they can introduce at 

 once, if they will, measures of forestry which will fully meet the requirements 

 of protection of the mountain slopes and watersheds. This is especially 

 the case when they have the active assistance of the public in fire protection 

 and in removing other obstacles which render forestry difiBcult to them. When 

 the public has done its reasonable share, if timberland owners fail to introduce 

 methods which accord with the public interest, they will have only themselves 

 to blame for enforced regulations which they may regard as unfavorable to 

 their private interests. 



I have been continuously urging the public to meet its obligations in 

 forestry. I have been urging also that private owners make a beginning in the 

 practice of forestry, even though at first it is experimental, until each owner 

 can determine how it may be worked out under the special conditions under 

 which he is working. 



I believe that ultimately there will be some public direction of the work 

 of forestry on certain classes of mountain lands, just as is now the case in 

 Europe. We are now endeavoring to handle the problem through the introduc- 

 tion of private forestry in co-operation with the states and the government. 



