SEGREGATION OF FARM FROM FOREST LAND 645 



generated largely out of sentimental rather than business considera- 

 tions. Of late years we have been in the trough following that wave. 

 Xow a new crest is in the making, this time to be generated out of 

 economic factors. "The timber-holding function" of the lumber in- 

 dustry, for the first time, is really under consideration. No one can 

 well doubt what the new census, if adequate, will show. The "sinister 

 land concentration" promises soon to recognize that it is tired of hang- 

 ing on and afraid to let go. 



Within the next few years it seems very certain that we shall formu- 

 late new policies with respect to idle lands, and that these policies will 

 conform to the doctrine of highest use. 



But that is a generality ; this business now requires particularity. It 

 is time that foresters revise their mild request to be permitted to work 

 such remnants of "absolute" forest land as may some time be be- 

 queathed to them by dead and dying agriculture. It is time, indeed, to 

 send "absolute forest land" to limbo. The forester can and will utilize 

 to good advantage the. offal of the agronomist, but there is no more 

 sense in foresting jack-pine sands or mountain tops while a hundred 

 million acres or so of decent land lie fire-swept and barren, generation 

 after generation, than there is in permitting thousands and thousands 

 of misguided innocents to be beguiled into an agricultural suicide in 

 order that a landlord may collect his unearned increment. 



It is time that we formulated the principles of land use and discussed 

 the procedure of land classification. Only one general principle would 

 seem basic : 



It does not pay to xvork land which it docs not pay ta zvork ; and 

 conversely. 



The segregation of farm from forest lands will be well accomplished 

 by answering, for each type or parcel, the following questions : 



1. Is it being profitably farmed now? 



2. Is it a reasonable presumption that it will be profitably farmed 

 within the period required for a forest rotation on the site? If that 

 presumption is not reasonable, that area belongs in forest and should 

 stay in forest until that land can undoubtedly be farmed at a profit. 

 Any opposite contention must seemingly hold that non-productive land 

 is better employed than when productive. 



Such a classification would be adequate for the forester and for he 

 agronomist as well. The mere drawing in upon a map of such clas es 

 would give such striking results that action upon the matter woi.ld 

 hardly be long deferred. It is unlikely that a group of fair-minded 



