146 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



the hazard is soon reduced to normal. Another argument for not 

 burning in the cedar and spruce types is that the soil being largely 

 organic is damaged if not completely destroyed by any fire severe 

 enough to materially reduce the fire hazard. 



Much good has been accomplished by the Minnesota slash disposal 

 law, but the results secured have undeniably fallen far short of what 

 is to be desired in this direction. The reasons for this are : 



(0) Failure of the law to recognize the public interest in the pro- 

 tection of second growth, its purpose being solely the protection of 

 life and property. 



(b) Lack of fvmds and organization for its enforcement. Three 

 things, however, have been demonstrated, namely : 



(1) That in the Lake States at least a compulsory slash disposal 

 law is not only necessary and desirable but practicable. 



(2) That its administration, however, must be flexible, as no hard 

 and fast rule can be laid down ; and 



(3) That adequate funds and a trained personnel must be provided 

 for its enforcement. 



There are those who do not believe that hardwood slash disposal 

 is desirable and silviculturally they may be right. Considering the 

 extreme fire hazard created in the Lake States by hardwood slash, 

 however, and the practicability and effectiveness of slash disposal by 

 piling and burning as demonstrated in Wisconsin, it would appear to 

 be desirable as a choice of evils at least until adequate protection by 

 some other means is provided. 



The above observations and conclusions are not the result of any 

 special or exhaustive study and so are not necessarily conclusive. They 

 are offered, however, as of general interest and as possibly throwing 

 some light on the perplexing subject of slash disposal. 



