230 JOURNAL OF Forestry 



It is sometimes argued that we do not need to concern ourselves about 

 the forests of the future, because the forests we now have will last us 

 for 50 or 100 years, or even longer ; that it is futile to worry about the 

 matter, so long as we have wood. Of course, it is possible to estimate 

 the length of time our present supply of timber will hold out, assuming 

 certain fixed domestic and foreign demands (demands, incidentally, 

 which are by no means fixed). This question has no direct bearing on 

 the problem we are now discussing — that of keeping forest lands pro- 

 ductive. Let us suppose, for example, that under certain estimated 

 demands our present forests will last us for a hundred years. That is 

 no reason at all why we should allow cut-over lands to become wastes 

 or near-wastes. In the first place, it takes a hundred years, let us say, 

 for a seedling to grow into a respectable tree, fit for the saw. The trees 

 we are now cutting are, on the average, much older. The time to start 

 our new forests, therefore, is now — not a hundred years from now — for 

 otherwise we should have a long period during which we should be 

 without adequate supplies of timber. In the second place, those who 

 argue that no present action is necessary overlook one of the most vital 

 facts in the whole forest problem, namely, that the destruction of for- 

 ests in any one locality, district, or region has a distinctly adverse in- 

 fluence on the prosperity of the country as a whole. The forest problem 

 is essentially a local problem. 



For example, it is absurd to argue that after the white pine of the 

 Lake States has disappeared the country will be as prosperous as ever, 

 because of the enormous amovuits of Douglas fir to be had from the 

 Pacific coast ; and that after the Pacific coast stands have been used up 

 we shall jog along as comfortably as ever, because we shall be able to tap 

 the extensive forests of Siberia. Such short-sighted reasoning overlooks 

 entirely the fact that the destruction of forests in the Lake States means 

 an immense industrial loss for that region, and hence for the country 

 as a whole. It means the wiping out of wealth, production, and employ- 

 ment over extensive areas good for nothing but the growing of trees. 

 It should be borne in mind, also, that the accessibility of a timber 

 supply — that is, the ease with which it can be brought to market — ^is 

 of vast importance from the economic standpoint. Would not the 

 Middle West and the East be immensely better ofif with an adequate 

 supply of white pine at their very doors rather than to be dependent 

 on some substitute from the Pacific coast or Siberia? The evils of 

 costly transportation have recently been vividly illustrated. The im- 

 portance of determining precisely how long our present supplies of 

 timber mav last has been grossly exaggerated. We know ]ierfectly well 



