SEGREGATION OF FARM FROM FOREST LAND 637 



the great preponderance of land of low value for farming purposes, 

 would be well suited for reforestation,"' and, above all. that the criterion 

 for classification is not based upon hypothetical future contingencies, 

 but, instead, the line is drawn "behcccn soils zvhich can itiiqucstio)iably 

 be farmed zvith profit under present conditions and those concerning the 

 forming of zi'hich there is doubt." 



Here is a basic formula, wholly satisfactory to the forester and 

 hardly to be objected to by the most enthusiastic agronomist, provided, 

 of course, that the classification thus made shall be subject to revision 

 whenever occasion may arise. This, of course, is taken for granted 

 by foresters. 



The point seems to need constant reiteration, that the present dedica- 

 tion of a given area to forest in no manner implies that such land must 

 be permanently so used. Land now in orchard will often be in another 

 crop a few years later, as conditions change and as the sale value of 

 agricultural products fluctuates. Like enough the land still later goes 

 back to orchard again, just as with the shorter rotation crops. Such 

 deliberate alternation between farm and forest has long been standard 

 practice in Europe.-* 



Against this point of view only three arguments seem available : 



1. That the income from forest is so low as to remove forest produc- 

 tion from consideration in connection with "regular'" crops. Such 

 argument would seem to indicate merely a lack of information ; for 

 already, over great areas of this country, the sale value of timber pro- 

 ducts is high enough to guarantee returns quite comparable to those 

 from cultivated lands. -^ Moreover, rapid as has been the increase in 

 the value of farrn produce, it is insignificant compared with the rise in 

 value of forest products, which have often doubled or tripled within a 

 decade, and which, once established, hold their levels with fluctuations 

 only upward.-® With an economic "corner"' in timber, due to its 

 destruction two and a half times its rate of growth, there is no level in 

 sight to which the value of wood may not shortly go, save that level 

 which makes the use of wood prohibitive. Any such level will be many 

 times higher than the cost of artifical forest production. 



2. That the need for agricultural development of all lands capable of 

 producing farm crops is so great that little, if any, land can be "spared"' 

 for growing timber. Such a position would seem wholly untenable, for 



"' Fernow. ■"Economics," 1902, pp. 122, 2~'^. 



''Roth, 'Torest Valuation." 1916, Chap. X; Fernow, "Forest Economics." 1902, 



.^27; Bailey, Cycl. Am. Ag., Vol. 2, p. 312. 



""Bureau of Corporations, "Lumber Industry," Part i, 1913. Chap. V. 



