NATIONAL FOREST POLICIES 601 



COMMENT 



These two plans possess many excellent features, such as measures 

 for the regulation of timber cutting, the disposal of slashings, increased 

 appropriations for protection against tire, and the acquisition of forest 

 lands by the Federal Government, the States and ^lunicipalities. There 

 can be no argument as to the desirability of such measures. 



The advisability of making large Federal appropriations for forest 

 surveys might well be questioned. Is the game worth the candle? 

 The estimates of forest resources we already have appear to be ample 

 for our purposes and in most regions further surveys would be merely 

 a duplication of work already fairly well done. There is no disagree- 

 ment as to the main facts of the present forest situation, and nothing 

 would be gained if, after four or five years, we should estimate that we 

 had somewhat less or somewhat more standing timber than our present 

 figures indicate. A measure of this sort, moreover, would undoubtedly 

 be used as a plea for delay in the application of a forest program. In 

 the light of present information such an expenditure is not justified. 



Similarly, an appropriation of $1,000,000 a year for planting on the 

 National Forests is open to argument. That is a large sum to use on 

 work which, taken as a whole, has been of questionable success in the 

 past. Artificial reproduction is costly when compared to natural 

 regeneration, and the results uncertain. Is the expense warranted? 



The fatal weakness in both these plans, however, is in the adminis- 

 trative method through which results are expected. They assume that 

 the various forested States can be subsidized to pass intelligent and 

 efficient laws, laws with teeth (no other kind of laws are worth any- 

 thing) ; that, if passed, such laws will be wisely but rigidly enforced; 

 and that the treeless Middle West and the deforested East will con- 

 tentedly sit by and leave the task of perpetuating the Nation's remain- 

 ing forest resources to the legislatures of the still timbered States 

 where the lumber interests are strongest, appropriating their good 

 money toward this end. All these assumptions are fundamentally in 

 error. Forest- perpetuation is a national problem, and for its solution 

 direct national control is obviously essential. State control is neither 

 politic nor expedient, and because of its weak and vacillating character 

 would utterly fail in accomplishment. 



Both these plans, moreover, emphasize protection against fire as if 

 it were a sort of mechanical panacea for all our forest ills. We are 

 aiming to keep forest lands producing trees. Silvicidture does that, 



