i i'^ JOURNAL OF i*()Rl-:STRV 



extent that it can be made a business project, but the way of approach 

 is clearly not that of direct attack on their motives or ability. No 

 magic can be worked "in the woods," and it is only those outside who 

 wear rose-tinted glasses. There will be more foresters in the woods 

 if those outside adjust their ideas to active woods conditions. 



We clearly need a comprehensive forest policy, and the professional 

 millennium will be near if we can "agree among ourselves as to what 

 should be done and how to do it. " It's worth trying, and co-operation, 

 as m-ged, is essential to the ends desired. But just what it is we must 

 fight for and create is not so clear. What has happened that we must 

 start something? 



And what is it that we have been afraid of, and just what opjjosi- 

 tion now "cries for facts"? If it is opposition to mandatory political 

 action, it is a case of fighting shadows, for there is no authority nor 

 legislation for applying any such policy. If any one should, it would 

 be a real fight which would set forestry back indefinitely. But why 

 introduce such a pugnacious attitude into a situation which calls for 

 harmony and co-operation? Mr. Graves, in outlining his ideas for a 

 national forest policy, has touched on Government control of private 

 cutting, but in a way which invites co-operation and encourages helpful 

 discussion. The private timberland owners, whose holdings are repre- 

 sented as the key to the situation, are not up in arms and are not 

 likely to be as long as sanity prevails. 



The resentment, implied if not expressed, in the "Plea for .\sser- 

 tion" and other recent articles by Mr. Olmsted seems to be toward 

 the failure of the private owners to keep their land productive. If Mr. 

 ( )lmsted, or any other radical forest policy advocate, had his capital 

 invested in timber in any given region, or was responsible as trustee 

 for funds so invested, would he do any different than the owners he 

 criticises? Or would he in the past have kept his lands producing 

 forest crops at the cost of dissipating his capital or making it unpro- 

 ductive? The economics of the case do not respond to theory, as 

 various "working plans" have fully proven, and those without financial 

 interest in the forests find it easy to criticise those who own timber. 



A plea for mental adjustment seems timely. Most foresters have 

 achieved this, to their own benefit and to that of the profession. If it 

 can be made universal, the attainment of the desired ends will be 

 hastened. The technical question of research data, its compilation and 

 use. is a detail. The big thing is to work together through co-ordina- 

 tion of the profession and co-operation with the industry. Intolerance 

 and innuendo will never formulate policies nor bring about their appli- 

 cation. 



