16 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



December 25, 1920 



Proposed National Timberland Policies 



Evolution of Policies, Resulting in Placing of Two Dominate Programs Before 

 Congress, Is Reviewed and Programs Impartially Contrasted 



By Prof. Ralph H. Hosmer 



Department of Forestry, Cornell University 



The agitation for a yatiotud policy for tlic conservation and reproduc- 

 tion of our forest resources having reached the climacteric stage^ wherein 

 it is demanded of Congress thai it en-act into law one or the other of 

 two programs, H.utDWOOD Record feels that it is particularly fortunate 

 in heing able to present Prof. Hosmcr's paper to its readers. After giving 

 the history of the evolution of the two policies nou^ before Congress, thus 

 sketching in a background. Prof. Hosmer contrasts them in an understand- 

 ing and impartial inanner. Thi^ should greatly assist the reader in mak- 

 ing up his m^ind as to which policy he desires to support — the Pinchot com- 

 mittee policy or the Forest service policy — for, as Prof. Hosmer says, 

 those interested must now nwk-e up their minds. The two progratns are 

 about to be debated in Congress, which debate will almost certainly re- 

 sult in a 7neasure either sustaining one program or the other, or merging 

 Xhe two i7i compromise. Therefore, as said, the timberland owner and tht- 

 manufacturer of uxiod proditots must crystallize his opinion and make it 

 felt for the plan h-e thinks best. Nothing, therefore, on the subject could 

 be more apropos than a discussion of the history of the development of 

 policies, terminating in a placing of these policies side by side so that 

 one may, with a thoroughly instructed mind, select his issue. 



Prof. Hosmer's paper «■>«« read at the Fifteenth Annual Convention of 

 the Empire State Forest Products Assoei.ation, and realizing its utiusual 

 timeliness. Hardwood Record immediately asked permission to reproduce 

 it in its pages for the benefit of its readers, virtually all of whom- are 

 directly interested in the establishment of a National timberland policy 

 that tcill result in perpetuating an adequate timber supply and at the 

 same time place no repressive regulations upon the pjivate owner of 

 timber. 



A few years ago the newspapers carried many jokes as to there 

 being much conversation about conservation. Today a new term 

 is upon our lips about which also, much is being said. The ques- 

 tion is asked in the trade journals of the forest industries, "Is a 

 National timberland policy possible!" And a discussion arises 

 that uses up enough good paper to interest even the members of 

 this Association. After a few months the caption is altered to 

 read, "A National timberland policy is possible," but still the 

 discussion in regard to its goes on. What is it all about? Why 

 should there be this interest? 



The purpose of this paper is to attempt to answer that question, 

 at least in part, for the movement for a National timberland policy 

 has now reached a stage where it demands the attention of such an 

 association as this. Bills regarding it are already before the 

 Senate and will be acted on this winter. This subject is therefore 

 pertinent to this meeting, for whatever action Congress may take 

 cannot but react upon some or all of those present in this room 

 today. 



Let us first glance hastily over the history of this movement, 

 refresh our minds on what it seeks to accomplish and then anaylze 

 briefly the salient points of the legislation that is proposed. 



The history of forestry in this country is marked by a few im- 

 portant milestones. After a long period of inquiry and propaganda, 

 that became more or less definitely organized about 1875^ there 

 resulted in 1891 the act authorizing the President to establish 

 National Forests, or, as they were then called, forest reserves. In 

 1897 Congress directed the Department of the Interior to draw 

 up regulations for the management of these forests. On these two 

 basic acts rests the administration of the National Forests today. 

 In 1905 the National Forests were transferred from the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture and placed 

 in charge of the Forest Service, with the distinct stipulation that 

 they were to be used for the benefit of all the people in all the 

 many ways that forests can be made to serve the needs of man. 

 In 1911, came the Week's Law, under which the Federal Govern- 

 ment. -began the purchase of forest lands in the Eastern States 



in the Southern Appalachians and in the White Mountains of 

 New England. 



The four dates given are significant as marking long steps in 

 advance. But there are other equally important moves that da 

 not tie up to given years. When Gifford Pinchot became Federal 

 Forester in 1898, his first act was to carry forest work into th& 

 field and demonstrate what forest}^ meant in actual practice. 

 Next_, after 1905, came the administrative organization of the 

 National Forests and the difficult task of convincing a somewhat 

 hostile public in certain of the western states as to the need and 

 value of National Forests. Then followed the Conservation Move- 

 ment, which made clear that the wise use of forests, as well as of 

 waters, lands and minerals, implied safeguarding the rights of the 

 many as against the financial benefit of the few. All these steps, 

 are parts of the National forestry policy which we as a Nation 

 have now come to accept almost as a matter of course. 



But there was another step still to be taken and that is the one 

 we are today considering; the way in which the great areas of 

 privately owned timberland shall be managed so as to be of the 

 greatest value to all the people of the country in the long run. 

 I need not rehearse statistics. You all know that approximately 

 four-fifths of the merchantable forests of the country are privately 

 owned; that we are cutting at four times the rate the forests are 

 being reproduced; and that the time will soon be upon us when 

 the lumber industry will be centered in the last remaining forest 

 region of the United States, the Pacific Northwest. When the 

 original forests are gone, we must depend on second growth. No 

 adequate provision is being made now even for the proper pro- 

 tection of such future forests, let alone any effec|ive measures of 

 increasing their productiveness. The advocates of a National 

 timberland policy seek a remedy before it is too late. 

 Why a Timberland Policy is Necessary. 



Foreign sources of supply are not to be depended on. What 

 other countries might export to us could be but a temporary 

 measure of relief. North America has got to supply her own 

 needs for wood by growing her own forests. And these forests, on 

 which we must in the future depend, will be grown on what is now 

 privately owned land. The American people must have wood. It 

 is indispensable to our civilization. The crux of the whole matter 

 is, will the owners of the great areas of land that are only 

 valuable because they can grow trees, themselves meet the needs 

 of the future, or must the public be forced to take over these areas 

 and make the production of wood a strictly public affair? We 

 have come to a parting of the ways. A decision will soon be 

 reached. It, therefore, behooves every forest laud owner to know 

 the facts and decide whether he will make provision to keep his 

 land continually productive, or whether he prefers to let the people, 

 through their government, take over the management of his forest 

 lands. 



That is the situation baldly, although of course it is fraught with 

 inmimerable details that because of their importance and complex- 

 ity, sometimes tend to obscure the main issue. The problem is how 

 to adjust matters in the way that at once is fair to the present 

 owners of forest land, that will meet the needs of the American 

 2ieople for a continuous supply of wood and other forest products, 

 and that is practicable of execution, both from the standpoint.^ of 

 emonomics^ and of law. 



I am not one of those who advocate drastic measures of regula- 

 tion and control of private forest land owners by the government. 



