724 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



SILVICULTURE, PROTECTION, AND EXTENSION 



The report of the Forestry Subcommittee of 



British the British Reconstruction Committee is for the 



Afforestation most part unfavorably reviewed in a longer dis- 



Proposals cussion by Elwes and in a brief contribution by 



Maw. 



The latter, who is on record with pessimistic views regarding the 

 financial aspects of forestry and forest planting, accentuates the risk in 

 any scheme proposed, but he hedges by declaring that "if the facts are 

 faced fearlessly, afforestation will benefit in the long run." 



Taking the five conifers with which it is proposed to plant up 1^4 

 million acres, namely, Douglas fir, larch, Sitka spruce, Norway spruce, 

 and Scotch pine, the latter as representing probably the average, accord- 

 ing to the committee, in the 8oth year, figuring with 4 per cent, the 

 thinnings will have accumulated to around $400 and the final crop 

 amounts to $440. This represents an annual rent of $1.53. Now, the 

 annual outgo is figured at $1.50, leaving the 3 cents as yearly revenue 

 to pay soil rent and planting cost, with interest, which is figured at an 

 annuity of 67 cents, when the land costs $40 per acre planted, and the 

 cost per cubic foot comes to 65 cents. The final total "accumulated loss 

 of capital at the 80th year will be $1,170 per acre"' ! 



As the government will neither want to spend money on purchase of 

 land nor pay rent before revenue comes in, the author suggests "as an 

 inducement to land-owners to forego an annual payment of rent to 

 accumulate at 4 per cent compound interest for so long as the land- 

 owner wishes, and that any rent so accumulating should be free of all 

 income tax and also of death duties. Such an arrangement would 

 operate as an endowment assurance policy and would, I think, be very 

 popular with land-owners." 



According to Elwes, the committee states the average cost of land at 

 $15, the cost of planting $22.50, the administration $1, and roads con- 

 struction and maintenance at 50 cents. Land at such price would be 

 "the most barren sandy heaths of some parts of the southern counties 

 or such high-lying and windswept wastes," etc., "the cheapest land, 

 usually the least profitable to plant." The cost of planting is by the 

 author placed at $40 to $50. 



The report proposes two methods of assisting private and municipal 

 afforestation, namely, proceeds-sharing, or copartnership, in which "the 

 State would provide the cost of planting and general supervision and 

 would lay down the working plan ; the land-owner would provide the 



