Western Public Lands and National Forests 



By Herm.vn H. Ch.\pman 

 Professor of Forestry, Yale University 



THE policy of National Forest reservations will con- lands are in public ownership to-day because they have not 



tinue to be attacked as long as there exist persons sufficient value for any purpose to justify private persons 



whose fundamental creed is the doctrine of un- in acquiring title to them. Being valueless, they could 



regulated private exploitation of our remaining resources, produce no revenue in taxes were they to pass to private 



One of the most plausible arguments advanced by these ownership, for individuals would not retain them. The 



propagandists is that of the paralysis of state develop- character of these lands is either waterless, non-irrigable 



ment through the retention by Uncle Sam of an im- desert, or barren rocky tablelands, crags and bluffs. f 



mense proportion of the total area of these Western 

 States, upon which of course no state taxes can be 

 levied, and which, it is claimed, rest with oppressive blight 

 upon these struggling communities, preventing all natu- 

 ral growth and development. Tables of areas have 

 been quoted showing as high as 92 per cent of the area 

 of a state, retained by a grasping government, with no 

 relief in sight. 



When half truths are quoted and impressions created 

 by reliance upon the unfamiliarity of the reader with local 

 conditions, it is necessary to let in the light. 



Figures are now available to show not only the areas 

 in public ownership, but the status of these lands, and 

 their character.* 



These statistics are best expressed in terms of per cents 

 of the total area of each state. The States shown in the 

 table below are the eleven western public land States con- 

 taining National Forests and lying west of the plains. 



The first 

 fact shown by 

 this table is 

 that two-thirds 

 (65.5 per cent) 

 of all the na- 

 tional lands in 

 these States 

 are not re- 

 served or re- 

 tained, but are 

 open to entry 

 and acquisi- 

 tion, subject to 

 all the pulilic 

 land la w s , 

 homestead, 

 desert land, or 

 other statutes 

 and therefore 

 have no bear- 

 i n g whatever 

 upon the dis- 

 cussion. These 



Yet these areas, unexplained, have furnished the back- 

 bone of the statistics cited. 



There are reservations of land in these States for sev- 

 eral purposes, but the only policy affecting large areas 

 forming an appreciable per cent of the state, is that of 

 National P'orests. The total per cent actually reserved, 

 shown in column three, is seen, in column four, to consist 

 almost wholly of National Forest lands. There can be no 

 doubt that these misquoted and unexplained statistics are 

 aimed directly at the policy of National Forest reserva- 

 tions, and this fact is usually frankly admitted. 



The National Forest areas equal 17.8 per cent of the 

 total surface of these eleven States. Is this area too large, 

 and is its retention a drawback or an advantage to the 

 people of the States affected? 



\\'e must first consider the fact that all the mountain 

 ranges of the West are included in these forests. There 

 is some possibility of using desert land bv irrigation. 

 Mountain ranges are worthless except as a reservoir for 



s n o w . \'ast 

 areas are tree- 

 less rocks. It 

 would be diffi- 

 cult to say what 

 portion of 

 these National 

 Forests is 

 worthless for 

 any other pur- 

 pose than 

 watersheds, but 

 it could easily 

 equal one-half 

 of their total 

 area. 



How about 

 the other half? 

 This consti- 

 tutes the na- 

 tional timber- 

 lands, and in- 

 cludes all the 

 more inaccessi- 



*Senate Document 316, Part 2, Table 1, Sixty-third Congress. 



fFor location and character of these unreserved and unappropriated public lands, see Circular 420, Department of Interior, 

 July, 1915. OU) 



