Editorial 



THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION 



AS WE go to press, the conservation clauses of the 

 / \ new Constitution of the State of New York have 

 ■* ^reached what promises to be their final form. 

 Efforts to materially change the old clause prohibiting 

 constructive uses of the State forest lands have failed, 

 and the State is undoubtedly committed for the next 

 twenty years to the policy of preserving her immense 

 area of 1,600,000 acres "forever as wild lands." Minor 

 changes were adopted, one legalizing the occupancy of 

 State lands by a few squatters who have continuously 

 occupied the lands since before the State obtained title: 

 one permitting the construction of a single highway of 

 si.xty miles to connect the Old Forge with the Fulton 

 Chain of Lakes ; and one which permits the Conservation 

 Commission to remove at State expense, but not to sell, 

 dead and down timber. Xot only is the cutting and sale 

 of all classes of timber prohibited, but, with the above 

 exception, no roads or trails can be built which involve 

 the destruction of green trees — and this means that no 

 highways can be built. The leasing of lands for camp 

 sites and other occupancy is prohibited. 



This means that New York is to maintain, protect, 

 replant and pay town taxes upon an area of land more 

 than half the size of the State of Connecticut for the 

 purpose of preserving a wildnerness whose sole use is 

 as a possible recreation ground for the people of the 

 State. But will the people, whose property it is and who 

 maintain it, derive the full benefit from this enormous 

 project? State parks should exist for the benefit, not 

 of the largest taxpayers, but of those to whom other 

 avenues of recreation are cut off. Theoretically, the 

 State lands are open to all. Practically, they are largely 

 inaccessible and useless, save to a few hardy spirits, 

 young men who can rough it on foot or by canoe ; or as 

 an adjunct to large private holdings and maintained at 

 State expense for the incidental benefit of those who 

 have residences and equipment in the vicinity. To be of 

 service to the public, to restore health to invalids, to 

 provide easy access for families with young children, 

 in short, to serve as the lungs of the State where those 

 who need it may find health; is this the real purpose of 

 those who fought for these amendments ? Let other 

 States beware of the example set by New York, and 

 provide, as does Pennsylvania on her million acres of 

 State forests, that roads and trails shall be constructed to 

 all parts of her domain, that campers be encouraged by 

 a system of permits and that the State lands become 

 actually and not merely in name, a real park which 

 the people can use to the fullest extent. 



Except in its remotest parts, this country has out- 

 grown the wildnerness stage of its development. Yet 

 sentiment strikes deep and we preserve vast areas where 



the trees shall be allowed to rot and fall so that the 

 chickadee may not lack a hole in which to build his 

 nest. Why is it that we cannot learn the lesson of the 

 greatest good to the greatest number? A comparatively 

 small acreage, k'cU located, and made accessible to the 

 public, will, if preserved in its natural condition, be of 

 far greater value to immensely larger numbers than the 

 entire Adirondack wilderness "kept forever as wild 

 lands." Wealthy land owners can then fence in their 

 estates if they desire and big-game hunters and other 

 worshippers of solitude may still find what they seek, 

 well within the reach of their purse. It would be in- 

 structive for the framers of New York's Constitution to 

 visit the Pennsylvania State Tuberculosis Sanitarium, 

 located on the Caledonia State Forest near Chambers- 

 burg, made accessible by a well-constructed road and 

 supported entirely by State funds for the benefit of its 

 unfortunate invalids. 



From the first, this reactionary policy of reducing the 

 State lands of New York to their lowest minimum of 

 usefulness to the public has been strengthened and made 

 possible by the fear of vandalism and the impression 

 that lumbering is a synonym of forest destruction, breeds 

 forest fires and corrupts State officials. We admit that 

 unrestricted lumbering conducted for the sole purpose 

 of removing the entire merchantable stand, does just this, 

 and that where there is anything to be obtained by it. 

 efforts would be made in the future as in the past to 

 obtain privileges dishonestly. In the light of the unfor- 

 tunate forestry experiment at Axton, where a policy of 

 clear cutting to remove old defective hardwoods was 

 pursued in order to plant conifers, the New York public 

 became deeply distrustful of "scentific" forestry, for to 

 them a slash was a slash, and clear cutting with replant- 

 ing too closely resembled clear cutting with no planting 

 at all, especially when no disposal of the slash was made. 

 It is not a matter of surprise that after nearly twenty 

 years this incident should be cited as one of the strongest 

 arguments against permitting the cutting of timber on the 

 State reserves. Foresters who urged the adaption of the 

 timber cutting clause were simply regarded as allies of 

 the lumber interests seeking to benefit themselves as well 

 as the lumbermen at the expense of the State. 



What is the truth of the matter? Every acre of State 

 land should be put to its most beneficial use, for the good 

 of the greatest number of persons. It is not a crime to 

 sell State or National timber, provided its sale does not 

 interfere with the use of the forest for recreation. This 

 is true no matter if circumstances dictate the clear cutting 

 of portions of the forest. That 90 per cent of most 

 large tracts may be lumbered without such interference 



941 



