466 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



cost of this work would come from Government funds. The in- 

 creased costs to the operating company through proper brush disposal 

 methods, and logging under a silvicultural plan, would be added to the 

 cost of the lumber. The plan of checking costs and profits of the 

 operator does not appeal to me, as it seems to spell control of the lum- 

 ber industry. Such costs as it may be necessary to add to the price of 

 lumber can, I believe, be left to the lumberman, providing States with 

 similar conditions be grouped and the law so framed as to allow the 

 necessary latitude. Certainly to have such a matter handled by indi- 

 vidual State laws would work an unwarranted hardship. 



On lands carrying selection stands the immature growth reserved 

 would at maturity undoubtedly pay for itself. It is questionable how 

 much present loss would be entailed in such stands anyway due to the 

 increased cost of logging small material. Also most of these lands 

 should be acquired by the Federal Government by the time they reach 

 maturity, and, if so, the Government will be willing to pay for such 

 material. 



While in putting the plan over, States' rights are to be considered, I 

 believe we will never reach our goal without Government control — at 

 least not until it is too late. A number of States which are heavy users 

 of wood would have no vote in deciding on whether we want forest reg- 

 ulation or not (if handled on a State control basis). As citizens of the 

 United States they are just as vitally interested as are the citizens of the 

 States growing the timber. The timber States are largely controlled 

 politically by the lumber interests, and it would be difficult to put laws 

 in effect not satisfactory to such interests. Also political administra- 

 tion of a timber-growing plan would be extremely unsatisfactory, and 

 past experience with the enforcement of State laws does not encourage 

 one to look forward to satisfactory results. 



I feel that such Federal control measures as are necessary should be 

 considered as a temporary expediency only. I am in favor of Federal 

 acquisition just as fast as funds and conditions allow. Where States 

 and individuals desire to practice forestry, they should certainly be 

 encouraged and allowed such an opportunity, but only so long as they 

 show they are bonda fide in their intentions and qualified to do so. 



By requiring that forest lands be kept productive, we will have real 

 forest lands to take over under acquisition. It is hardly expected that 

 potential forest lands can be acquired by the Federal Government in 

 the immediate future, but rather over a period of, say, 20 years. Our 

 big job now is to have something which will be desirable to acquire 

 when the time comes. 



