CONN'I'XTICI'T's forkst procram 119 



drain on Connecticut capital will be increasingly great as the source of 

 the raw product becomes more distant. Without local timber a great 

 many forest industries must liquidate or move near their raw supplies. 

 (d) According to Bryant 86 per cent of Connecticut's forest land could 

 produce annually 375 million feet of lumber or enouc/li to supply pres- 

 ent needs. 



There is another factor which must not be overlooked. At present 

 there is a concentration of poj)ulation in the towns. During periods of 

 depression this results in having a large idle ])Oj)idalion. How much 

 better it would be to hai'e part of this working population lii'iiif/ in the 

 eouiifry distriets as pernntnent forest aiid forest industrv workers. 

 Kngland had in mind just such an advantage when she nnflertook her 

 project of reforestation. 



v\ From the silvical standpoint the loss through the chestnut bligh<: 

 has been serious because in the past ties, posts and poles, and rough 

 construction material came largely from local forests. As in Europe, 

 cordwood (usually cut from coppice) is already grown to excess. 

 Therefore much of the coppice area must eventually produce timber. 

 Such an investment requires public ownership. For the verv reason 

 that large areas are in small private woodlots, public purchase and 

 management will be a difficult undertaking and should be largely con- 

 fmed to forest areas as contrasted with woodlot areas. 



3. The private forest owner has three main grievance'^ at present. 

 (a) uncertain and burdensome taxation, (b) inadequate fire protection, 

 (c) lack of technical assistance. It is likely, however, that under (c) 

 the demand for even free assistance would be nominal. Such technical 

 assistance to be effective must be educational, and largely demonstrated 

 in the forests. In France for example the woodlot owner sees proper 

 technique demonstrated on nearby communal and state forests. 



A questionnaire sent out by the Committee on Co-operation gave 

 rather discouraging results. There seemed to be little inclination to 

 turn lands over for technical treatment. The owners wanted to retain 

 their own initiative of control and management. The committee sug- 

 gested a number of possibilities : a paid secretary to organize the forest 

 propaganda, co-operation of farm bureaus with forest owners, long 

 term public management of private forests or a benevolent semi-public 

 agency to take over private timberlands and manage them in the in- 

 terest of the owners. 



