A NATIONAL POLICY FOR FORESTERS 751 



leave a tree or two per acre for seed. We want our forests so handled 

 that we will obtain from them a sustained annual yield. Let us not 

 give forth figures of 10 cents per acre as the cost of forestry, but tell 

 the people that if forestry is to practiced that we will need a dollar an 

 acre per year for 35 years, and, further, that there will be little or no 

 income in that time. If the nation decrees that this is too much to 

 spend — well, it can't be helped. The nation is in a hole for timber, 

 and to climb out requires a great and costly effort. What if we are 

 called impractical dreamers? Fernow and Roth and Sargent and 

 others were called "denudatics" a few years ago, and were scolded by 

 the press for telling the truth as they saw it. Now everybody knows 

 that they spoke with wisdom. Let us, too, have the courage of our 

 convictions as we see them. We at least can follow dur ideals. 



It is not for us to argue as to whether or not a certain "forty" might 

 perhaps be used to grow pine instead of squirrel-proof hazelnuts. With 

 us it is simply an open-and-shut case of needing enough land to supply 

 the nation with timber. 



We should not quarrel with the lumbermen over the practice of for- 

 estry; let them quarrel with us if there is any quarreling to be done. 

 To argue the point is to admit that there is an argument. But from 

 the forester's point of view there is no argument — the facts are too cer- 

 tain. 



It is not for us to question whether or not forestry pays. We know 

 that the nation needs timber, and must have it, whether the crop pays 

 7 per cent or 2 per cent of no per cent on the investment. England has 

 just discovered this. Continental Europe has known for a century that' 

 it does not pay to be without timber. Now we are fast learning, and 

 the experiences which teach us our lessons will be more costly each 

 year. Just recently a farmer in southern Michigan was offered $2,500 

 for the ten white oak trees that the timber buyer could see from where- 

 he stood. At that rate, it were better for the nation to invest in forests, 

 and have no returns, for if it does not some other will, and they will] 

 demand not 7 per cent but probably very much more on their invest- 

 ments. 



As citizens and users of lumber it is our task to call to the attention 

 of folks the calamitous position we are in for wood supplies, and we 

 should urge upon our legislators the need for direct-action legislation. 



As foresters, however, our attitude toward the public should be that 

 of the ""an who knows what should be done and who is willing to do 

 it if called upon. We never should admit that mere talk and forest 

 devastation with promises are .going to raise timber. Good forestry — 

 and the very best is none too good — great efforts started i immediately 

 and continued for a century or more — that is the policy for foresters of 

 the United States. 



