THK WOUK AUKAl) 229 



kept productive, comprise one-tifth of the total standing timber of the 

 country, much of this one-fifth being inaccessiljle at present; and that 

 the privately owned forests, which in general are stupidly mismanaged 

 and rendered nonproductive, comprise four-fifths of the country's 

 timber, most of which is readily accessible. What is more directly to 

 the point, it. means that only 2 per cent of the present annual cut 

 of timber in the United States is derived from publicly owned forests, 

 where forestry is practiced ; that 98 per cent of the present annual cut 

 comes from privately owned forests where logged-off lands are turning 

 to wastes or near-wastes. Whence the illusion that we are practicing 

 forestry? It is perfectly evident that we are practicing forestry on the 

 very tip of the tail of the dog. Until privately owned forest lands in 

 this country are decently treated, the nation's loss in forest wealth will 

 continue to be serious and forestry will continue to stagnate. 



On this whole question of forestry for the private owner and for- 

 estry for the Government we have recently been thinking in a rut. We 

 grant that the Government should practice forestry on its own lands 

 and agree that it is now doing so quite successfully. Then we put the 

 question, "Can the private owner of forest lands practice forestry?" 

 and the pedantic answer is, "Oh, dear, no ; he could not ati'ord to wait 

 80 or 100 years for another crop of timber which might net him 3 or 

 4 per cent on a somewhat hazardous investment. He might do so, 

 perhaps, if allowed to bring his individual interest into a lumber syndi- 

 cate of such pregnant power as to rival the Government itself ; but 

 existing conditions are indeed most discouraging."' And there we have 

 dropped the matter. 



That is muddle-headed reasoning. Quite regardless of whether for- 

 est lands may be publicly or privately owned in the future or of intri- 

 cate guesses as to future financial returns, private forest lands nozv 

 being logged must be kept productive, for otherwise they will be of no 

 value to any future owner. We have muddled our minds in the attempt 

 to discover what would happen to the private owner in case the whole 

 science and art of forestry were clapped down upon him, overlooking 

 the fact that the thing of immediate importance is to make sure that zve 

 have forests in the future. Let us see to it, first of all, that we keep 

 trees growing in order that we may have wood, and then, being assured 

 of wood, let us determine, with all necessary deliberation, wdio, ulti- 

 Aiately, should own and manage the lands upon which this wood is 

 produced. In plain words, this means that the public must compel the 

 lumberman to treat his forests decently, and that the forester, without 

 delay or quibble, must show the public how this may be done. 



