A NATIONAL LUMBER AND FOREST POLICY 355 



the old. We have enough non-agricultural land to produce for all time 

 lumber in abundance, for ourselves and for export. But this would 

 require keeping our forests in a productive state after lumbering. We 

 are not doing that. Our forests are steadily deteriorating under cut- 

 ting and fire. No effort is made for replacement after cutting. Fire 

 protection is confined to old timber. Young growth and cut-over lands 

 are not being protected. Accidental stands following cutting and fire 

 are generally poor in quality and species, and of low prospective yield. 

 We are still drawing for the most part on original sources of supply. 

 Failing to replace these, we are steadily losing ground. We are actu- 

 ally using up our forests, just as we would use up a deposit of coal, 

 when we might have been renewing them. 



The question of forest renewal and growth is one that can no longer 

 be ignored. It is not only of interest to the public, but it is of vital 

 concern to the owners of timberlands. It may be said that reserves 

 of timber ought to be held by the public, rather than by private 

 owners. A good many assert that the growing of timber is wholly a 

 public function : that as most timberland owners have bought their 

 property to exploit their timber, not to grow trees, forestry and forest 

 growth are not matters of private concern. But the fact remains that 

 the bulk of the timber of the country is privately owned, three-fourths 

 of it. It is an important fact, also, that the bulk of the land that 

 must grow the timber of the future is privately owned. 



The transfer of the great bodies of timber from public to private 

 hands was a grave mistake of public policy. It is not possible to con- 

 ceive of a method better calculated to bring about a rapid dissipation 

 of our forests than was actually used by the Government in disposing 

 of its timberlands ; nor could a surer method have been devised to 

 bring about a condition of industrial uncertainty. The lands were 

 parcelled out as fast as possible in small lots and under conditions that 

 inevitably encouraged speculation. It was only a question of time 

 that every owner should undertake to dispose of his land or timber 

 to realize on his speculation. We now see that a different method of 

 administering the public forests should have been adopted. But the 

 action was taken and we cannot undo it, nor can we ignore the prob- 

 lems that are resulting from it. The custody of the bulk of our forest 

 resources was intrusted to private owners. The burden of carrying 

 the timber and properly caring for it was transferred from the public 

 to private hands. Whether they like it or not, the private owners hav.^ 

 the problem of the right handling of a large part of our forests actu- 

 allv on their hands. 



