142 JOURNAL OF FORp:STRY 



ging operation, precaution against fire, and often special provisions, 

 sucli as the lopping of tops, cutting of weed trees, and the like. One 

 of the provisions of the contract is an arbitration clause which obviates 

 expensive litigation in case of disagreement, and at the same time acts 

 as a strong deterrent in holding the operator to strict accountability. 



The owner of the timber equipped with this information is fully pre- 

 pared to deal with timber buyers and to close the bargain. The sale is 

 made between the owner and the timber buyer, the forester only acting 

 in an advisory capacity. 



INSPECTION OF OPERATION 



The farmer can closely follow the cutting operation, and, with the 

 trees for cutting so plainly marked, there should be little difificulty in 

 detecting violations of the contract. It is often helpful, however, to 

 have the forester make one or more inspections during the progress of 

 the operation. The moral efifect is good, both on the farmer and the 

 timber operator, in the one case to see that he gets a square deal and 

 fully appreciates the importance of protecting his woodland, and in the 

 other showing the operator that the State is interested in seeing the 

 ])lan fully carried out and that the owner is being backed up. 



COST 



The owner pays the travel expenses of the preliminary examination 

 and the travel and subsistence expenses plus $3 per day for the forester 

 while engaged in the field-work incident to the marking and estimating. 

 In some cases where the farmer is unable to furnish the help for the 

 field-work, it is furnished by the forester at actual cost. The State 

 bears all ex])enses of the ofifice work and salary of the forester, the $3 

 per day paid by the owmer representing a part paym^it. Under this 

 arrangement the owner of the woodland pays about half of the total 

 expense and the State half, making it a co-operative undertaking. The 

 owner is receiving expert assistance at nominal cost, while the State is 

 securing practical results in forest management, and each operation 

 serves as an object lesson in the community, calculated to demonstrate 

 applied forestry in a most practical way. 



It is better to make a charge for this work, even though the State 

 may be perfectly able to pay it, and be recompensed by thus promoting 

 the practice of forestry. Of course, the terms of co-operation here 

 suggested can be easily changed to meet different conditions in other 



