RESEARCH AXD FOREST MAXAGEMEXT ,V.)1 



In an audience like this I assume there are several who will not 

 agree with my position, namely, that we will have forest exploitation 

 and not management so long as it is possible to buy stumpage for less 

 than the cost of growing it, and second, that the two solutions I have 

 proposed are the only ways in which to bring about the practice of 

 forestry. 



I will admit of a third solution, namely, for the Government to take 

 over our forests and to manage them. 



We cannot blame the men who have invested their money in forests 

 for cutting them down as they are now doing, however much we may 

 deplore this condition. They are forced to do so under pressure of 

 economic struggle for existence. If they are to be blamed the public 

 is equally guilty. So far as the Government taking over the forests 

 is concerned, I believe such action would be contrary to our theory of 

 Government, which is to encourage individual initiative and to guar- 

 antee freedom of action. Besides, why should not the Government 

 take over our coal mines and oil resources which are even more vital 

 to our welfare than our forest resources? When coal and oil are 

 consumed they are gone forever. Forests can be reproduced. I 

 question, therefore, whether Government ownership is a practical 

 solution at least in our generation. 



We will now consider the second proposal, since it is this proposal 

 which is the main subject of this paper. This proposal is that we 

 should create such a demand for the products of the forest that the 

 price received for them will more than equal the cost of producing 

 them. I think you will agree with me in part, in that, if this could be 

 done, it would pay to grow trees, and if it would pay to grow trees, 

 forest management will be readily accepted. Furthermore, a program 

 of this kind would meet with little criticism since it is not radical, it 

 does not encourage forest devastation, and it does not bring up the 

 debatable question of Government ownership. Perhaps the most valid 

 criticism against it is that it is not "practical" and is academic. 



I believe such criticism is not strictly fair, because the problem is a 

 most difficult one and has never been seriously attacked. Further- 

 more, it. can not be solved by research alone. Research must have 

 the support, morally and financially, of those able to give it moral and 

 financial supj)()rt. Right here lies a real difficulty which accounts for 

 so much failure and discouragement. There are very few men of 

 means who are sufficiently interested in forest research to want to give 

 it their financial aid. Lumbermen prefer to let the Government do it. 



