2l6 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



is unwilling to tell that European coun- 

 tries generally have accepted the princi- 

 ple of the "protective forest," meaning 

 thereby that forests in certain situations 

 protect the soil and regulate water dis- 

 tribution and therefore deserve special 

 treatment in law. 



In France, Germany, Austria, Switz- 

 erland, etc., any piece of woods on steep 

 ground or otherwise peculiarly located 

 may be declared "protective forest." 

 This action on the part of these govern- 

 ments was not haphazard, it came after 

 full consideration in which the best of 

 European authorities had a hand. Eu- 

 rope as a people, and Europe as a gov- 

 ernment, believes in this forest influ- 

 ence ; and has legislated accordingly 

 and is willing to spend money and effort 

 on the strength of this conviction. 



Just as Mr. Moore neglects to dis- 

 cuss run-off in its true relations to 

 forest so he deals with erosion as if it 

 were a subject of no consideration. 

 How observing Mr. Moore is on this 

 point is well illustrated by the following 

 on page 24: "In level countries it make^ 

 but little difference in this particular 

 whether the ground is waste, cultivated, 

 or densely forested, etc." We have 

 here a veiled revival of the old, worn 

 out "low gradient" argument which 

 used to tell us that for instance, in the 

 great lake countries erosion could not 

 be serious, x^nd yet right here in Mich- 

 igan, Indiana and Ohio we have hardly 

 a section of our rolling clay and loam 

 lands where the farmer is not troubled 

 by erosion. On thousands of acres it 

 requires every year extra plowing to fill 

 up gullies, and on thousands of acres 

 more the gullies have become so deep 

 and numerous as to ruin the land for 

 agricultural purposes. On every line 

 of railway out of Washington, D. C, 

 Mr. Moore could see hundreds of gul- 

 lies which have come there since the 

 clearing of the land. How much more 

 serious in mountain countries ! That 

 every bit of this erosion is injurious. 

 that thousands of tons of fertile soil 

 wash from the land even where no dis- 

 tinct gullies have as yet been formed, and 

 that every rod of gully affects run-off 

 and thus affects water storage, flood and 



drought, all this is not merely common 

 observation but is capable of experimen- 

 tal proof such as was given by WoUny 

 long ago. But Mr. Moore finds it 

 cheaper and more effective to resurrect 

 the "agricultural use" argument and 

 puts in italics the following: "for the 

 time is come — clear up the land, seed 

 to wheat, corn, grass and fruits mil- 

 lions of acres that now lie idle under 

 brush or forest." 



The same evasion, the same substitu- 

 tion of political bosh for argument. 



A similar unmeaning argument is put 

 forth in the "ratio of forested area, or 

 mountain watershed to the total water- 

 shed." Here the fundamental argument 

 may be stated thus : Because only ten 

 per cent of the entire watershed of 

 the Ohio River is mountain country 

 and subject to flood and erosion, there- 

 fore the Ohio floods are practically un- 

 affected by what happens in these moun- 

 tains, and, by inference, there is no need 

 bothering about this unimportant ten 

 per cent. The argument is a typical 

 one, and is about as sound as if some 

 one were to say that, because the peo- 

 ple of New Orleans form only about one- 

 third of one per cent of all the people 

 of the United States it is entirely un- 

 necessary and unwarranted for the 

 federal government to concern itself 

 with the floods or any other conditions 

 aff'ecting the people of that city. That 

 these mountains cover in themselves 

 millions of acres of land, contain thou- 

 sands of people, that their streams affect 

 millions of people more, that the floods 

 pouring out of these mountains endan- 

 ger life and property every year, and 

 that every regulation we can give to 

 these waters is of the greatest import- 

 ance, all these things are carefully hid- 

 den by a lot of argument about moon- 

 shine. How exact Mr. Moore's data 

 are is clearly shown by the following on 

 page 34 : "Accordino^ to our line of reas- 

 oning which we believe to be fair and 

 conservative it is slwicn that the aver- 

 age discharge of the Ohio River is not 

 greater as the result of deforestation, 

 etc." It is the line of reasoning which 

 we are asked to accept for facts and 

 then we are bluntly told in the conclu- 



