114 JOURNAL f)F FOKlvSTRV 



National control. Moreover, State legislation can unquestionably be 

 made to apply to problems connected with the ownership and use of 

 land when the same form of control by a National agency is of very 

 doubtful legality. 



It is, to say the least, regrettable that a report which purports to 

 offer an adequate solution for a great problem should place its great- 

 est emphasis upon measures whose value is highly debatable. Leaving 

 entirely aside the many controversial questions that are immediately 

 aroused through proposals to compel the private owner to practice 

 forestry whether or no, there are numerous important steps of im- 

 mediate practicability that can be undertaken with the unanimous ap- 

 proval of foresters, timberland owners, and the public. 



First, and foremost, is fire prevention on a much larger scale than 

 has yet been attempted? This is a problem both National and State. 

 and unless fires are better controlled than they have been there is little 

 use in talking about silviculture operations of any character. 



Second, there should be set up on the part of both the National and 

 State Governments a permanent policy of purchasing cutover lands of 

 the right character and suitably located for additions to, or creation 

 of, public forests. 



Third, no forest planting program yet under way will within a hun- 

 dred years be sufficient for the restocking of the barren land which is 

 fit only for timber growing. Why not increase this program? 



Fourth, no plan for permanent forest supply can be either adequate 

 or properly executed in the absence of a general timber survey and 

 land classification. 



Finally, there are many private owners who are willing to help 

 maintain the timber supply if they are given fair taxation and assist- 

 ance in fire prevention and forest management. Why not help them? 

 No fair-minded man can object to making certain definite requirements 

 of every forest owner in case he is to receive benefits from the public, 

 but it is neither fair nor just to single the forest owner out for com- 

 pulsion as to how he shall handle his land when the owner of every 

 other kind of land is permitted to use it or abuse it as he sees fit. 



My own belief — many times stated before — is that to grow the bulk 

 of the older and larger-sized timber, public ownership of the land — 

 National or State — with private cutting under proper silvicultural 

 regulations is the most feasible solution of the problem. I do not over- 

 look the fact that for certain species and sizes of timber used for 

 particular purposes, forestry is now possible for the private owner and 



