20 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



August -jr,, i!i:;i 



TABLE II 



r.rado : Bub Is : top :Avor:i^*: 



: tlo.of :dlamo1ar 

 condition : loge: ine Ida :l«nf;tb ; TMll 



Pt. : Ft. 



:b H I T E 



: Pirate t Moonde: 



Ilct Lumber Tally 



par Cent of Each Crada 



ComrDon 



no. I : no. 



OTarrua 

 ;lunb«r tally; TIM 



ovar : to 



: Cc;la soala :euw 



:log 



?. B. U. 



produced 

 per 



hour 



Sound and Daf»ctl»i) - Plain (ind luarto 



Bound - plain and Quarter 3a.*8d 



Dafaotlva - Plain and Quart-^r Suwnd 



Soand and Dafeotlvo - 'Quarter Sb^ed 



Bound und Dofacllvf - Plb.in Sawed 



tCreen : 160 



:Shlppln(( Dry: 160 ; 



: Green 

 :Shlppln>; Ury: 



: Green 

 :Shlpplng l>Ty: 



tCreen : 



:Shlpplnj nry; 



;Greon ; 



:3hlpptnf[ Wry: 



136 

 136 : 



26 ; 



S6 ': 



PUln:luartor»4 :Pl"ln;(lTiartor«d:Ploln:au3rt«re4 

 o'a K ; ; : ■■ ■ 



Plain ttnd: 

 quartered: 



?ull 

 ..... 



14.0 

 16.7 



11.1 

 17.: 



net 



..... 



3.0: 448: 

 6.1: 448; 



7.6: 566; 

 10. 9; 566: 



49.4 



48.2 



5.0 

 6.7 



:19.6 

 :17.1 



:16.9 

 :16.1 



:22.2 

 :17.9 



14.3:- 13.2: 626: 

 17.6:. 16.3; 626: 



14.1:. 

 10.9:* 



2667 

 2477 



2146 



2069 



2086 

 2010 



3505 

 3405 



3.9 ;17.0 

 4.3 :14.9 



22.6 



21.5 



27.6 

 25.8 



10.6:* 

 6.1:. 



10.6; 336: 

 6.1: 336: 



11.1: 

 6.1: 



ufactiii-e, yarcliiig and geinn-:il cxponsos, siilitini'tcMl fi-diii tlii' reali- 

 zation per thousand for tlie same logs, gives tlio net profit. This 

 figure is important in determining the minimum sizes of logs of 

 the various qualities that it is profitable tii manufacture into lum- 

 lier, in determining the profit per thousand under different methods 

 of sawing, and in eomputiug the price tliat can be [laid for stump- 

 age or logs. 



Tlie net profit per thousand feet for any group of logs multiplied 

 by the rate of production jier hour gives the profit per hour. This 

 is important in determining the most profitable method of sawing 

 under a given set of circumstances, for example, the method of saw- 

 ing to obtain the maximum amount of quartered stock and the 

 maximum production per hour with a minimum of waste. 



(Aftirlr n-ill he coiicliiiled in Siiit. 1 issue icith section pertnininij to 

 Srasonini; nf t>(ik. — lOln'i'nic. ) 



Manufacturers Push Snell-McCormick Bill 



(Cuiitiiinifl pom inigr 17) 



(f) Thut the American w.iy of doins things. foMnwing Cuustitu- 

 tional preoodont, is by foderal, state and iuMvatc division at' lK)rh right 

 and responsibility. 



(g) That the steps to lie taken will vary Nunlly jnid with regions 

 an<l win ilevelop as they are further studii'd and as cunditions change : 

 that they, therefore, are not susceptible of exact and universal defini- 

 tion by statute. 



(h) That the way to determine thoni for each region is through 

 local conueils of interested agencies, including the industry, each 

 liringing its linowledge and necessities, seekini; such pro;iress as is 

 I'oinpatilile with conditions. 



(i) That the government's i>ropcr luirt is to cncourngt- and bear its 

 due financial share of such a locally-deterniincd program, as one 

 beneficiary, and with impartial helpful influence : not to attempt to 

 i;oV4*rn at long range, imposing tbi- cnsi locally, with certainty of 

 resentment and conflict. 



Criticisms Answered 



With this preliminary analysis we may consider the chief criticism. 

 answering first the ('xtremists among tlie foresters : 



1. That the Snell-McCormick Jtill is a Unnbermen's measure, devised to 

 forestall eflfective pul>lic acjtion. 



The lumber industry supports but did not originate the plan, which was 

 prepared by the Forest Service, and has the approval of virtually all state 

 forest departments and o' all forestry organizations known to us. 



'2. That the truly great need is not for things that can bi- attained 

 by the Snell Hill, but for federal regulation of lumbering in the chief pro- 

 duein>; states. 



This assumption is contrary to three basic facts, as follows^ (a) that forest 

 perpetuation should be distributed so that dependence shall not be absolute on 

 the regions still uncut; (b) that while better operating practice is often desir- 

 able, the preponderating loss of forest production is due to non-protection 

 of the vast areas already cut and burned and to bad tax laws and other condi- 

 tions for which the public is more responsible than the industry; and finally 

 (c) that in the regions where the Government now has control over areas of 

 its own. its methods differ little from private methods and its results are no 

 better than those on private lands where, given fire protection, good forest 

 reproduction is also the rule and not the exception. 



H. That the indnslry's interest ;ind the public's interest ;irc iiiber.'ntly 

 eonlltcling, ht'ucc ini'lperativi' solution is impossible. 



In the past there has been both public and private indifference, due to the 

 same general causes. There is now. and will be, increasingly, both public 



and private interest due to changed conditions. We hold that this interest 

 is in fact mutual and must lead to sincere cooperation before the problem is 

 successfully and finally solved; hence that any other proposal serves only 

 to delay effective accomplishment. 



The objections raised by a minority among lnml»ermen are chiefly as 

 fcdUpws : 



Minority Lumber Objections 



1. That the Snell bill is too indefinite lacking exa<t statement of the 



practices which it seeks to attain. 



Since these practices must vary in kind and necess'ty with differing regions 

 and with changing conditiors. it is impossible and would be unwse to attempt 

 to lay them down by STATUTE. The basic theory of the Snell-McCormick, 

 Bill is that local needs will be determined by local conditions and met as far as 

 practicable — a course that cannot be defined in advance and in specific detail 

 by any agency, much less by Congress, in federal statute, 



2. That it affords the government undue power to infiucnce local pnie- 

 liie :ind. p<'rhaps. to intiuence impi"iip«'i' state legislation. 



We cannot see ground for this fear except a theoretical one which must 

 apply to any co-operative measure and also, therefore, to any of the agencies 

 involved, as well as to the Government. Indeed, it is thus applied by some 

 other opponents of thg bill who say that it places the Government's functions 

 too much under the influence of the co-operating states and lumbermen. We 

 believe that co-operation is necessary and that the way to co-operate is to do 

 it trusting in facts and fairness; not to hedge the process with so many sus- 

 picions that it wdl not work. 



Where in priutiee this has heen tried there has been little difliculty. In 

 this connection we feel that the wide endorsement of the .Snell-McCorniick 

 r.ill by government, states, industry and consumers, creates a support and 

 an obligation tending very strongly to assure fair and effective cooperation 

 ill carrying it out — an important advantage not attainable under any 

 mi'jisnre coneernin^ whi<'h tin- interests involved are divided in the begin- 

 ning. 



To the extent to which any financial burdens involved in carrying out a 

 ennstructive forest policy are for the benefit of the public, they shouhl 

 I'r borne by the public and should not be made an added burden upon 

 ibe use of the private property of the citizen. 



We then'fore urge active support of the principles expresseil by the bill. 

 We have approved Ihe Snell-M<'('ormick Bill in the belief that it will not 

 ;old any burden to the timberland <nvner for which he will not receive an 

 adetjuate benefit, and tliat it will provide an adequate and effective soln- 

 lion of the nation's forest problem. 



