028 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



It is this assumption or conviction, I think, which today stands as the 

 principal obstruction to the development of forestry in America. 



Between 1850 and 1895 the main effort of "conservationists" was to 

 retain in public hands the remaining public timbered lands. This being 

 very largely successful, the period 1895 to 1905 saw a contest over the 

 administration of the "Forest Reserves" which eventuated in the crea- 

 tion of the National Forests. Since then, as noted by Dr. Fernow,- 

 progress has been slow, puttering, and unsatisfactory, especially as 

 respects State and private development. This condition prevails in 

 spite of an extraordinary accumulation of data and a very wide pub- 

 licity of its portent. Obviously, something has blocked the progress 

 which seemed assured. This block is, of course, temporary, but it 

 would be well for foresters to consider the situation in detail. It is my 

 feeling that foresters themselves are, in no small degree, contributing to 

 the impasse, and that the present offers chances not available in the 

 past and which may shortly become less available. 



American foresters have always been too modest in their claims for 

 economic jurisdiction over lands. It is seventeen years since Fernow^ 

 remarked : "In the well-ordered State, the soils most fit for agriculture 

 should be devoted to systematic food production; but just so should 

 non-agricultural soils, the absolute forest soils, be devoted to the sys- 

 tematic production of wood crops." It is ten years since Zon observed :* 

 "It would be a short-sighted policy to withhold agricultural lands for 

 growing timber. The fundamental principle upon which a wise national 

 land policy should rest is that every acre of land should be put to the 

 use under which it will bring the highest returns." 



Many later discussions from the Forest Service are in similar vein, 

 none being extreme enough to appear in the least provocative and all, 

 doubtless, expressing the sentiment of American foresters. 



Dana,^ for instance, suggests that "many areas in every region can be 

 classified at once as either agricultural (including grazing) or forest 

 lands. Many others will have to be classified as intermediate, . 

 or suitable for either purpose, as local conditions and the economic 

 development of the region make one or the other most profitable. . . . 

 A great deal of land that may properly be devoted to forest production 

 today, in all probability, can be used more profitably for agriculture 

 fifty years hence." 



' JouRNAi. OF Forestry, January, 1917. 

 ^ "Economics," 1902, p. 243. 

 * Forest Service Circular 159, 1909. 

 ' U. S. D. A. Bulletin 638, 1918. 



