Vermont Agricultural Report. 57 



The same discrimination is needful with regard to the in- 

 fluence on soil conditions and waterflow. While the removal of 

 forest growth on shifting sands becomes detrimental not only to 

 the soil itself, but also to neighboring fields, which may be cov- 

 ered up by the unstable moving sands if access is given to the 

 winds, there is no reason why the stable agricultural soils should 

 be kept wooded. Similarly while the steeper slopes with thin 

 soil, and rapid surface drainage,, would lose this thin cover by 

 washing and become useless if deforested, there is no reason 

 why the gentler slopes should fall under the same necessity of 

 keeping the forest cover. 



We see, then, that the value of this forest influence varies 

 with the conditions of each situation and in practical considera- 

 tions of a forest policy we must avoid sweeping wholesale gen- 

 eralizations and become specific as to the protective character 

 of forest cover in each case. We can therefore formulate the 

 first fundamental : 



The protective quality of a forest cover depends on locality 

 and situation^ and unless it can be definitely shown in each given 

 case that a really tangible and desirable influence exists, the pro- 

 tective argument can have no standing. 



There are very few localities where the need of absolute 

 forest preservation for the mere climatic or oth,er physical influ- 

 ence exists. These are mainly found in the higher mountain 

 regions with steep slopes where, by the nature of things, in many 

 or most cases no reason exists for denudation and the kind of 

 forest growth which suffices for protective cover, unless pre- 

 vented by fire or pasture, readily maintains itself. Besides, al- 

 most everywhere this protective forest influence can be pre- 

 served as an incident while the forest is utilized for its material; 

 merely the manner of utilization needing to be modified. 



These truths cannot be too strongly impressed upon forestry 

 reformers, for much mischief has been done in the name of 

 forest preservation by making it synonymous with non-utiliza- 

 tion, declaring trees holy and harvesting them a crime. The 

 most astounding ignorance in this respect has been exemplified 

 by your neighbor State, New York, in forbidding the cutting 

 of trees, dead or alive., on State lands and, after a demonstration 

 had been inaugurated to show that forest preservation does not 

 exclude forest use, abolishing this demonstration through 

 political trickery and by appeal to this ignorance. 



We cannot too much appreciate the service which President 

 Roosevelt has done to the forestry cause by simply accentuating 

 this fact in words which should be the motto of every forestry 

 association : "The fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetua- 



