prrate; forest lands under forest management 493 



it practicable for owners to be content with a lower rate of return from 

 forestry, but they w'ould not guarantee that the owner would receive 

 any return at all, or that he might not lose his entire capital from any 

 of the various causes enumerated above. 



(r) Guaranteed future prices for stumpage or lumber. Such a 

 measure w'ould remove one element of uncertainty only and does not 

 appear either practicable or desirable. 



(/) Associations of forest owners to co-operate in the management 

 of their forests and in the disposal of products. In the case of small 

 owners, the object of such combination would be primarily to form 

 forest units of sufficient size for economical and efficient management, 

 and even to make possible an annual instead of a periodic return to 

 individual owners. In the case of large owners, the purpose of com- 

 bination would be rather to control the supply of timber, regulate cut- 

 ting, and maintain prices. Each of these plans would make forestry 

 more attractive to individual owners of the respective classes con- 

 cerned, yet neither one covers the entire ground. Moreover, there is a 

 considerable element of danger in such a combination of large owners. 

 This danger, common to all schemes which would give a controlling 

 part of any natural resource to private monopoly, threatens the inter- 

 ests of small owners as well as of the public, in that the public interests 

 in the forests may be subordinated to private profits and that con- 

 sumers may be injured through restriction of output and maintenance 

 of artificially high prices. 



A third plan may be suggested, by which the practice of forestry on 

 lands now in private ownership may be made entirely practicable and 

 which will avoid to a large extent the objections to the other two plans. 

 In brief, this scheme is the retention of private ownership with public 

 operation, for which there is a precedent, although not exactly parallel, 

 in the present operation of our railroads. The public would not buy 

 the private forest lands under such a plan, but would lease them at a 

 fixed annual rental and would use them as it saw fit for the growing of 

 timber. Private owners would thereby be guaranteed a regular and 

 sure return on the investment and would be relieved of any risk what- 

 soever, all of which would be assumed by the public. The public would 

 take any profit or loss resulting from the practice of forestry, would 

 carry all of the risks incidental to the business, and would receive the 

 benefits which accrue from the presence of forests and from the cer- 

 tainty of domestic timber supplies in the future. 



While the details of such a leasing system have not been worked out, 

 a few points may be suggested : 



