THE PEESENT SITUATION IN FOEESTKY 103 



returns. But there is seldom any idea of holding a considerable portion of the 

 land for the production of new crops of timber. 



The problem of the permanence of use of land for forestry' is fundamental. 

 The average owner does not make investments in forestry on lands which he 

 does not expect to hold for this jmrpose, or which will not have an increased 

 value for sale later on by reason of his investment. Wherever there is a 

 measure of permanence in ownership of forest land, forestry becomes a practical 

 business proposition. Forestry requires a consistent policy of use on account 

 of the length of time needed to ])roduce a crop of trees. Land subject to 

 speculative holding does not attract investments in forestry, because the 

 element of stability of policy in use for forest production is lacking. 



It is estimated that our private forests comj)rise some 350,000,000 to 

 400,000,000 acres. About (me-half this area is in small holdings, much of it 

 comprising woodlots attached to farms. The farm woodlot presents very 

 favorable conditions for forestry. A good woodlot is a great asset to any 

 farm. Ordinarily the area devoted to the woodlot is not suited to agriculture 

 and will be left to tree growth. It is just as much to the advantage of the 

 farmer to maintain the productiveness of his woodlot as the productiveness 

 of his fields, not only for his own benefit as long as he owns the property, 

 but because of the enhanced sale value of the farm. Public education and 

 demonstration of the practice of forestry will go far to meet the woodlot 

 situation. 



There are also some large lumber companies which are organized on a 

 basis of permanence, which expect to hold their lands for successive cuttings 

 rather than to strip them and then either dispose of them or allow them to 

 revert to the State for taxes. For such large owners forestry is a necessity. 



We have therefore the very small owner and the very large owner in the 

 best position to practice forestry. The reasons are the same in both cases, 

 namely, that there is a permanent tenure of the land. 



The problem most diificult of solution and in which the least progress is 

 being made concerns the holding of the average lumber company. We may 

 assume that a small portion of this land will be absorbed by the Government 

 and the states as public forests. A portion also will be found after cutting 

 to be chiefly valuable for agriculture and will be used for that purpose. Such 

 areas may in the present discussion be left out of consideration. 



The first necessary step is to remove the two greatest obstacles in the 

 way of private forestry — namely, risk from fire and an unfair system of taxing 

 growing timber. This can only be accomplished by the action of the public 

 through State agencies. This action will in itself encourage the holding of 

 land for timber production. 



The public will, however, not be satisfied with a mere encouragement of 

 forestry, if it makes investments in fire protection and concessions in taxation. 

 It will very properly demand that the private owners do their part not only in 

 XJreventing dangerous slashings in their operations and also in continuing 

 good productive ccmditions on those lands not suited to agriculture. 



Already several states have introduced the principle that the slashings 

 after lumbering shall be so disposed of as not to be a menace from fire. It is 



