PRIVATE FOREST LANDS UNDER FOREST MANAGEMENT 495 



Some of the advantages of this leasing system would be: 



(a) The initial cost would be much less than in the case of purchase 

 of the forests by the public, while the subsequent costs would be the 

 same; for the annual interest on the purchase price would have to be 

 included in computing costs. 



(b) There could be no objection, on the part of those opposed to 

 Government ownership, to public operation of necessary natural re- 

 sources which private owners persistently fail to operate. Since the 

 public would be concerned rather with growing timber than with manu- 

 facturing it into lumber, the lumber industry would not be interfered 

 with except to the extent of being assured of continuous supplies of 

 timber, which it is certain not to have under present conditions. 



(c) Private owners of forest lands would get a sure and regular 

 return from their investments, while under present conditions most of 

 them get no return whatever. Their investments would have a nego- 

 tiable value, based on the rentals from them, and transfers of owner- 

 ship without afTecting the use of the lands would be entirely practicable. 



(d) The public would secure all the benefits of public ownership of 

 the resources, including control of management, cutting, prices if nec- 

 essary, and could safeguard other public interests, such as protection 

 of watersheds and public rcreation areas. 



(e) Complications which would necessarily attend public co-opera- 

 tion with private owners or public control of private forestry business, 

 due to conflicts between public and private interests, would be avoided. 



It is not the intention of the writer to argue that either public acqui- 

 sition of forest lands or their compulsory management by present 

 owners in order to protect public interests have no place in our forest 

 policy. Indeed, it is believed that both courses should be followed as 

 far as may be practicable. It possibly may be desirable that the greater 

 part of our forest area should ultimately be owned by the public, but 

 it does not seem likely that the public can acquire the whole area needed 

 in time to insure the safety of our forest resources for the next few 

 generations. Until the public can acquire the lands, measures should 

 undoubtedly be taken to prevent their devastation. It will not. how- 

 ever, be either practicable or just to the owners to compel them to 

 practice intensive forestry, with all its attendant risks, in order to insure 

 the future welfare of the public, unless the public is willing to go a long 

 way toward guaranteeing that they shall not be the losers. It is be- 

 lieved that some system similar to the leasing system proposed affords 

 a practicable means by which the public — meaning either State or Fed- 

 eral Government — can give such guarantees to the private owners and 



