Editorial 



THE FAILURE OF LOUISIANA'S FORESTRY POLICY AND ITS REMEDY 



LOUISIANA was the first of the southern States 

 to enact a forest fire law, and has at all times 

 shown more public interest in forestry than any 

 other southern State. For many years the State Forestry 

 Association has held successful annual meetings. Fores- 

 try measures have been proposed from time to time and 

 the State has a law levying a tax on the timber cut by 

 lumbermen which brings in many thousand dollars an- 

 nually. It was the original belief and intention of those 

 who advocated this measure that the sum thus raised, or 

 its equivalent, should be spent in furthering the forestry 

 interests of the State, and in this way derive from the 

 destruction of the forests the means for at least partial 

 restoration of this great natural resource. 



That the forest wealth of the State, and the industries 

 dependent upon it, are doomed to disappear under present 

 methods need not be emphasized — it is only too apparent. 

 In spite of the enormous reproductive power of the com- 

 mercial pines which form such a large percentage of 

 Louisiana's output, nearly all of the second growth 

 timber occurs, not on cutover pine lands, but on farm 

 land turned out or abandoned, most of it in the period 

 shortly after the Civil War. Everywhere fires destroy 

 the young pines as rapidly as they spring up, due to the 

 large amount of grass and weeds on such lands, and 

 incessant burning. Under present policies, Louisiana's 

 forests are doomed. 



Let it not be urged that forest destruction is a blessing 

 in disguise, opening up lands to agriculture and increas- 

 ing the population and wealth of the State. The most 

 prosperous States are whose with a diversity of indus- 

 tries, and the most desirable economic condition for a 

 community to attain is a true balance between agricul- 

 ture and forestrv, in which each farm has its woodlot, 

 each town and county its public forest areas, with larger 

 tracts in poorer or hillier sections in State or national 

 ownership. The utter neglect of the immense potential 

 ^•alue of lands for timber production — a value shown 

 throughout the South by the pay rolls of the lumber com- 

 panies — would be inexcusable folly. 



Yet in spite of the urgency of the case, and the inter- 

 est so widely shown, what has the State of Louisiana 

 actually done for forestry? Practically nothing. This 

 condition demands an explanation, and we find it, 

 strangely enough, in the very spirit of progressiveness 

 which unfortunately led the State into the adoption of 

 a form of State organization fundamentally defective. 

 In 1910 Louisiana responded to the then new, and widely 

 heralded expansion of the forestry movement to include 

 the conservation of all forms of natural resources, and 

 created a State Conservation Commission, which not only 

 superseded the old Fish and Came Commission, but 



304 



undertook to administer the mineral resources, and the 

 forestry laws of the State as well. For revenue, they had 

 the income from fishing and hunting licenses, and from 

 the timber tax. They had permission by law to appoint 

 a state forester, but Louisiana is without a state forester 

 today. 



Universal experience in state forestry in this country 

 has shown that the amount of progress which a State 

 makes is gauged bv the educational efforts it puts forth 

 in forestry, and that trained or educated foresters are 

 the only effective agents for conducting this propaganda. 

 A second powerful reason for employing a technical 

 forester of experience is found in the need for a proper 

 solution of the many problems arising in state forestry — 

 problems of taxation and legislation, problems of fire 

 protection, and of securing natural reproduction. These 

 must be worked out on the ground by men trained to ob- 

 serve, broad-minded and constructive in their mental 

 processes. 



Whv has not the Conservation Commission of 

 Louisiana provided the State with a forester, when for 

 six years they not only ha\-e had it in their power to do so, 

 but have been repeatedly urged to this course by the 

 Forestry Association and others? As late as April 1, 

 lOlti, the Commission, through its chairman, made the 

 statement that they had decided that the appointment of 

 a forester was necessary, but unfortunately the funds of 

 the department were at such a low ebb that they were 

 un.able to finance it until later in the year. And this is 

 the last of a number of similar verbal assurances extend- 

 ing over several years. 



To come back to our first statement, it is not the inten- 

 tions of the Commission which are the cause of the 

 trouble — the form ni the organization itself is wrong. The 

 reason why out of all the funds at the disposal of the 

 Commission, no money can be found for forestry, is that 

 such a commission, wherever found, invariably places fish 

 and game protection, minerals, waterpowers and what not, 

 ahead of forestry in their consideration. This is natural 

 and logical. Fish and game appeal directly to more 

 people, being in an immediate revenue in licenses, and 

 are good politics. Forestry looks to the future, requires 

 idealism and present self-sacrifice. There is nothing in 

 forestry for the politician, nor can he ever hope to de- 

 liver the goods. Therefore, he fights shy of it. A mixed 

 commission means the death knell of forestry, unless it 

 is already so strongly intrenched that it is able to survive 

 the blighting tendencies of such supervision or neglect. 



There can be no hope of real progress in Louisiana 

 forestry until the State has divorced its forestry work 

 from the present Conservation Commission, and placed 

 it in the hands of a nonpolitical State forestry board. 



