CONTINUOUS FOREST PRODUCTION 39 



in its purchases of forest land which events have proved cannot be eco- 

 nomically operated privately, should specifically recognize that the 

 owner who has kept his lands in producing condition is entitled to full 

 compensation therefor. Yet it is a question whether this has ever 

 been fully recognized either by the Federal government or the States in 

 purchases of forest land. Is it not a fact that young growth has been 

 considered so much "velvet" in these purchases and the owners not 

 compensated therefor ? 



In taking over the Biltmore tract, did the previous owners receive 

 any adequate compensation from the government for keeping the 

 forest in producing condition? Yet the tract is immensely more 

 valuable as an investment by reason of past practice of forestry. It 

 will yield a far larger immediate income than it otherwise would have 

 done. 



It may be said that even now the price of stumpage is high enough 

 so that if a forest investment fails in a region of rapid forest growth, 

 we should look to faults of physical organization of the forest, of business 

 organization, and of failure to operate this factory of nature as a continu- 

 ous producer, for the reasons for failure rather than to lay it on the 

 weather, taxation, etc. The forest is, indeed, a more efficient factory 

 than the man-made kind, because properly operated it is not a depreci- 

 able asset. On the contrary, intelligent use of this factory continually 

 improves its capacity. European forests, which today show a larger 

 wood product per acre than at any time in their past history, constitute 

 ample proof of the foregoing statement. Moreover, forestry sufficient 

 to maintain fair production need not be expensive. The forest has 

 maintained itself remarkably even with man as a constant enemy. 

 With man as a friend even though somewhat inactive, it will do wonders. 



If a forest policy had been adopted instead of a timber mine policy 

 fifty years ago in Michigan, just as much timber as has been taken 

 from her forests in that time could have been taken and just about as 

 fast but today these forests woiild be yielding nearly as great a cut of 

 white pine as in the past. Their capital value would have been greater 

 than at the beginning and far greater than the present value of some 

 of the western forests, in which the wrecking value of those Michigan 

 forests has been put. Instead of these values we have large areas of 

 the State lying desert. Shall we make the same mistake in the South 

 and the Pacific Northwest? Can a State or Nation become great by 

 transforming its lands into deserts? 



There is a persistent fallacy that forestry cannot be profitably 



