further views on the, report 239 



March 3, 1930. 

 Mr. Austin Gary, 



U. S. Forest Service, 

 Washington, D. C. 

 Dear Mr. Gary: 



1 am glad to discuss the points brought up in your letter of Feb- 

 ruary 37. 



In regard to the first point : My signing of the Pinchot Committee 

 report is most consistent in my judgment with my belief in the success- 

 of private forestry and in individual initiative in general. It is quite 

 evident that individual initiative without some interference by govern- 

 mental agency is destroying both the private forest resources and 

 itself. Government action sufficient to preserve these resources will 

 preserve the largest amount of individual initiative that can be pre- 

 served. Everybody, I think, recognizes that individual initiative will 

 not do everything these days, and that there are many limitations on 

 It. If we go over to Government forestry entirely, as many desire, it 

 will be destroyed entirely in that field. If through legislation follow- 

 ing examples of all Central and Western Europe, so far as adapted to 

 our condition, we preserve private forestry as an industry, we have 

 done all we can for individual initiative in this field, in my judgment. 

 I would further call your attention to paragraph D on page 33 of the 

 Report of the Pinchot Committee which specifically provides for the 

 withdrawal of Government supervision wherever individual initiative 

 or voluntary co-operation proves capable of taking entire charge of 

 the forest. 



Second : I have been aware all the time that the computation made 

 in the report of the Pinchot Committee on growing stock is not the 

 same as I have used in the past. I did not make that computation and, 

 personally, I think it is a little high, but not enough difference between 

 us for me to quarrel over a detail. Since they use 3 per cent as the 

 rate of production of growing stock they are figuring on a 100-year 

 rotation, while I figured on a 70-year average rotation, which gives 

 nearer 3 per cent as a rate of growth. Of course, as you pointed out 

 previously in a reply to my article, the data for this computation is 

 none too complete, especially as regards the volume of young stock, 

 and can not be made with absolute exactness. The evidence seems 

 ample to me, however, that we already have a deficit in our growing 

 stock, although I agree with you that the Pinchot Committee report 

 estimate is a trifle high. 



