A PROGRAM OF FOREST CONSER\ATl()N 369 



first the reclamation of waste lands. An excellent example of work 

 of this character on a small scale is that done by Tennessee, where 

 the forestry department co-operates with the owner to the extent of 

 supplying the young trees at cost, supervising the planting, and keeping 

 in touch with the work done through such inspections as might seem 

 necessary. On the other hand, a State might merely supply the plant- 

 ing stock, either at cost or without charge except that of transporta- 

 tion. It would seem, however, that the best results may be looked 

 for from a plan similar to that of Tennessee, by means of which the 

 State would insure the success of the work by having its experts do 

 it. 



Working plans for the management of forest lands would also be 

 included in any policy of co-operation. 



These and other co-operative activities are going to require large 

 expenditures if we are to get anywhere in forest conservation, bear- 

 ing in mind that practically all of the forest land in the South is in 

 private ownership. The question is to adopt the fairest and most 

 practicable method of financing them. Until the growing of a forest 

 crop becomes profitable it would seem that the private owner can- 

 not be looked to to make the necessary expenditure to keep waste 

 lands productive. Under present economic conditions it is difficult 

 to see how else to secure the funds, in large part at least, than from 

 public agencies such as the State, the county, the town, and the 

 Federal Government. The private owner should, of course, be 

 expected to share the cost. He should be enabled to obtain the 

 money under easy terms through credit unions such as those recently 

 organized in North Carolina, the Farm Loan Bank, and the like. It 

 might be found necessary to enact legislation requiring him to con- 

 tribute. A step in this direction has been made by Louisiana, which 

 imposes a so-called severance tax on every thousand feet of timber 

 cut in the State, which goes, in part, for the support of the forestry 

 department. Special taxes of this character might be imposed from 

 time to time, but it is probable that the State and the Federal Govern- 

 ment will be the chief contributors for years to come. And why not? 

 Both spend enormous sums keeping agricultural lands productive and 

 securing improved methods of agriculture. Why not give forest lands 

 and forestry relatively the same attention? 



Either some co-operative plan will have to be worked out or regu- 

 lations will be imposed, if the waste lands are to be kept productive. 

 Such regulations might include for the higher mountains, at the head- 

 waters of important streams, the designation of certain areas as pro- 



