Editorial 



THE WOODLOT AND THE SMITH-LEVER BILL 



SINCE 1862 the national government has made 

 annual appropriations for the encouragement of 

 agricultural experiment stations. In 1890 these 

 amounts were increased and the scope of the work 

 extended. The policy underlying these appropriations 

 has been the uplifting of the entire practice of agriculture 

 through the dissemination of useful and practical informa- 

 tion among the farmers. 



In the course of fifty-three years of trial the problem 

 as to how to reach the farmer most effectually has at 

 last been solved. Not by issuing bulletins crammed with 

 useful facts — though these have their place — not even 

 by public addresses at farmers' institutes — though the 

 personal contact thus secured did far more than the 

 written word — have the best results been obtained, but by 

 the method of personal work with the individual on his 

 own farm — by local demonstration of the methods 

 advocated. 



In 1911: Congress sanctioned this final step, by passing 

 the Smith-Lever bill. The funds provided are forth- 

 coming whenever state legislatures, colleges, local authori- 

 ties, associations or individuals in a state first contribute 

 an equal amount. The money must be used solely for 

 instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture 

 and home economics to persons not attending schools or 

 colleges. Only 5 per cent can be spent for publications. 



Starting with $480,000, or $10,000 for each state, the 

 fund available increases annually, by half a million dol- 

 lars until, inclusive of the original sum, it reaches a total 

 of $1,590,000 per year. The surplus above $10,000 is 

 to be proportioned between states on the basis of the 

 rural population, as determined by the last census. 



To forestry, this legislation presents a tremendous 

 opportunity and a great responsibility, Under the terms 

 of the law, subjects relating to agriculture may be dealt 

 with, and under this head comes the farmer's woodlot. 

 The value of the woodlot to the farmer is expressed in 

 many ways. It furnishes fuel, at the same time provid- 

 ing employment for labor in the winter or slack season. 

 This enables the retention of help the year round. Fence 

 posts and other local supplies are produced, or the bet- 

 ter class of logs sold profitably to woodworking indus- 

 tries. The grove affords protection, acting as a wind- 

 break, reducing evaporation and giving shelter to stock 

 in adjoining fields. 



The presence of a woodlot adds to the desirability and 

 sale value of the farm and this advantage increases in 

 regions otherwise treeless. It makes life more worth 

 living to own even a small tract of woodland from which 

 grazing is excluded, and which soon becomes the home 

 of many wild plants, flowers and birds. 



No matter how rich the soil, it will pay every farmer 

 to devote a portion of his acres to a woodlot ; and when, 

 for any reason, he possesses waste land — either the 

 steep banks of streams, or ravines, or rocky patches, he 

 should think twice before condemning these areas to a 

 policy of denudation and grazing. 



The aggregate amount of waste land owned as portions 

 of farm units is enormous. Scattered as it is in small 

 tracts, it will never be possible for either state or nation 

 to own and manage these true forest areas, for the cost 

 of administration would be prohibitive. The farm owner 

 is the man to do it. The time and attention required 

 fits in with the economy of the farm unit. This means 

 efficiency. Every land owner owes it as a duty, not only 

 tc himself, but to the community to make his acres pro- 

 ductive — yet through lack of interest or incentive he too 

 often neglects altogether the potentialities of his forest 

 land, permitting it to burn over or to seed up with tree 

 weeds of little value even for fuel. 



If the plan of personal demonstration and persuasion 

 is applied to the problem of the farmer's woodlot the 

 same beneficial results ivill follozv as have already been 

 secured by the county agents operating under the Smith- 

 Lever appropriatioiis. But this work should be done 

 directly by trained foresters. The agricultural agent, 

 engrossed in his subject, can be expected at most to give 

 the woodlot problem his sympathetic appreciation, but 

 should not be required to add technical forestry to his 

 attributes. 



The state experimental stations, or the state legis- 

 latures, should promptly appropriate funds sufficient in 

 each state to employ at least one technical forester next 

 year in addition to the present state organization such 

 as it may be. This forester, working under the direction 

 of the proper authority, to be determined for the indi- 

 vidual state, should devote his entire time to woodlot 

 forestry, along the same lines as are now pursued by 

 the agricultural agents. If the work is started in this 

 manner, it will become permanent. Forestry should ulti- 

 mately claim from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the 

 Smith-Lever funds, which would provide for an ultimate 

 annual expenditure per state of from $10,000 to $20,000 

 plus an equal amount by the state. In populous states 

 this amount is proportionately increased. 



It is squarely up to the existing State Forestry Depart- 

 ments, and state agricultural experiment stations to take 

 the initiative in securing th^se state and federal funds and 

 placing upon a firm basis the entire movement for better 

 and more efficient management of the farmer's woodlot. 



51, 



