294 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



they possess them. We make of these Things what, if we were a little 

 lower in the scale of humanity, would be called a fetish. We ascribe 

 to them almost supernatural powers. For example, not so many years 

 ago we were saying: "The Government must not exercise any super- 

 vision over railways, telephones, and other public utilities, for it would 

 be interfering with private enterprise, and that would break some eco- 

 nomic law. You must not disturb that sacred Thing, economic law, or 

 terrible consequences will result." Nowadays that idol is overturned, 

 and we witness the spectacle of a great railway system maneuvering so 

 as to fall into the governmental lap. The fact that the lap was well 

 padded with greenbacks detracts little from my point. 



There are several idols to which we as foresters bow down with 

 varying degrees of obeisance according to temperament. One of these 

 is that it is unwise, indiscreet, or undiplomatic to tell the whole truth 

 about our forest conditions. We must not proclaim too loudly that the 

 commercial forest-bearing area of Canada is much more restricted than 

 is generally believed, for it detracts in some unaccountable way from 

 our glory; it savors too much of criticism, and criticism is unpatriotic. 

 Some years ago I gave Dean Fernow's Clay Belt Report to a student 

 to read as part of a course in forest geography. Upon questioning 

 him, I soon discovered he had not read it. He said he didn't care to 

 read anything that criticised his native province. We as foresters have 

 been too much inclined to bow down before this type of mind, as ex- 

 hibited by the politician and certain portions of the public press, for- 

 getting that forestry is one of the most patriotic of professions, and 

 that the sooner the whole truth is known the more opportunity we 

 shall have to exemplify our patriotism. 



Also we must not proclaim too loudly that lumbering methods are 

 depleting large areas of our forests of commercial species beyond any 

 hope of repair without planting. It would disturb business. Would 

 such knowledge disturb any legitimate business transaction? Would 

 such knowledge disturb any present business more than the contin- 

 uance of the practice will disturb future business? 



As a profession, we acknowledge that slash disposal is necessary or 

 desirable, at least from the standpoint of fire protection, protection 

 from disease, and from the standpoint of regeneration. We acknowl- 

 edge that it is good and perhaps necessary for the continuity of forest 

 productiveness, and yet we say it cannot be done on licensed lands. We 

 say it is not fair to make the lumberman do it, for it would increase the 

 logging cost. We say it is impracticable to dispose of slash by a sepa- 



