()02 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



A little study of this document shows that it is very liberal. Provis- 

 ion is made for retaining within the Forests timber land, reproduction, 

 brush land, and open land capable of being forested, with the proviso 

 that it shall not be chiefly valuable for agriculture, and with the further 

 proviso that the non-timbered land shall be important for watershed 

 protection or else shall be held only to maintain a practicable boundary. 

 In other words, the agreement gives ample leeway for adjusting the 

 Forest boundaries according to the evident intent of Congress, so as to 

 include land chiefly valuable for the production of timber and the pro- 

 tection of watersheds. If the agreement had governed the original 

 establishment of the Forest boundaries, or could be applied at present 

 to possible additions without an act of Congress in the restricted States, 

 instead of merely to eliminations, the situation would be much better. 



Consider w^hat has been done. The National Forests of District Two 

 (Rocky Mountain District) have come to their present form and area 

 through a long series of proclamations, beginning in 1891 and extend- 

 ing to the present time. They were laid out hurriedly, under pressure, 

 and doubtless without any such well-defined policy as that of the Secre- 

 taries' agreement. Some of the work was done well, some atrociously. 

 In general the plan was, properly, to make the boundaries inclusive 

 rather than exact. However, large areas of either potential or actual 

 forest land were left out, and some which might probably be so classi- 

 fied have since been eliminated. Having secured the withdrawal of the 

 Forests, we began to prune them, cutting ofi^ agricultural land, grazing 

 land, and with them some forest land. The Service was a young 

 organization; it lacked perspective. It was hard to secure uniformity 

 in the handling of eliminations, and much of the work was done at the 

 instance of interested people and agitators. Consequently, although the 

 boundary policy has tended to crystallize, particularly since the Secre- 

 taries' agreement, I think it is by no means mistake-proof as yet. 



As originally laid out, the Forests included along their borders some 

 land of small forest value and of real agricultural value. Gradually 

 settlement has moved up the slopes, and the Forest boundary has 

 receded before it in repeated eliminations. The limit of this movement 

 has about been reached. Land classification and the natural evolution 

 of Rocky Mountain farming have combined to determine pretty defi- 

 nitely what land can be farmed and where the upper limit of the settle- 

 ments will be. Sometimes these iuv^ade the present boundaries, and the 

 alienations cut up the Forest lands and destroy their continuity. Thus 

 is raised, the question how far the Service should go in eliminating sec- 



