EDITORIAL 



The Growth of a Great Policy 



AMERICAN Forestry has from time 

 to time during the last few months 

 reported to its readers the changes 

 made, both by addition and subtraction, 

 in the area of the national forests. 

 These changes, as has been explained, 

 are the result of the careful studies 

 and surveys that began some time ago 

 under Mr. Pinchot and have been car- 

 ried out to their results since. 



Because of the prejudice and mis- 

 representation that has been so care- 

 fully cultivated by some elements in the 

 national forest states it needs to be 

 borne clearly in mind that the boundary 

 changes indicate no change in the na- 

 tional forest policy but carry out what 

 was a part of the plan from the begin- 

 ning — a rectification of boundaries in 

 accordance with the results of careful 

 surveys, a perfecting of a vast system. 

 Necessarily these extensive and un- 

 mapped areas in a wild and mainly 

 mountainous country had to be roughly 

 blocked out in the first instance. Later, 

 as an administrative force was devel- 

 oped, came the opportunity to carefully 

 determine the character of the country 

 and the desirability of including addi- 

 tional forest lands or watersheds, or ex- 

 cluding certain lands not so useful for 

 forestry as for other purposes. 



Thus far about half as much land 

 has been added to the national forests 

 as has been taken from them. Many 

 of the plans for the changes were made 

 prior to the change of administration 

 of the Forest Service, and these and ad- 

 ditional modifications along the same 

 line have been and are being carried 

 out by the present Forester, ]\Ir. Graves, 

 in full sympathy and accord with the 

 policy of his predecessor, Mr. Pinchot. 

 The areas involved in the changes are 

 considerable, taken by themselves, but 

 670 



very small in comparison to the whole 

 area of the forests. If we were to 

 judge from some of the complaints 

 that have come out of the West and 

 from some of the oratorical efforts of 

 certain western senators and represen- 

 tatives we might suppose that a great 

 amount of fertile agricultural land was 

 being kept from settlement and the pros- 

 perity of the West largely hampered 

 thereby. 



Frankly, we do not believe this to be 

 the case. If all of the national forests 

 were to-day thrown open to settlement 

 on the most liberal terms, we doubt if 

 many hundred actual settlers would 

 avail themselves of the opportunity. 

 The mountain sides of the Rockies, the 

 Cascades, the Olympics and the Sierras, 

 where the forests chiefly lie, are not of 

 great agricultural value, and the oppor- 

 tunity so offered would be mainly 

 availed of by large operators intent 

 upon gleaning some immediate profit 

 from the national heritage. 



Against this the whole principle of 

 est conservation is directed. The idea 

 of a national forest rests upon the great- 

 est good of the greatest number, the 

 right of all the people to share in the 

 common property of all, and the per- 

 manent need of forests, especially in 

 mountain regions, as one of the chief 

 foundations of lasting national pros- 

 perity. That these principles are sound 

 no unprejudiced student of the world's 

 economic history will deny, no real pa- 

 triot, no true American, will wish to 

 deny. The development of our na- 

 tional forest system by Hough, Fer- 

 now. Roth and Pinchot, under the wise 

 counsel of Secretaries like Noble, Hitch- 

 cock. Morton and Wilson, through the 

 administrations of Harrison, Cleveland, 

 McKinley and Roosevelt, has been in 

 the direction of laying these founda- 

 tions broad and deep. The present ad- 



