598 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



Ilirsch) expects to net 4 per cent on his investment, but anticipates that 

 part of his remuneration will be "in the enjoyment of improving an 

 impoverished stand by scientific technique." Monsieur Hirsch is the 

 exceptional private owner and must be something of an idealist. The 

 due de Penthieve (of the Orleans family) insisted that forest manage- 

 ment should not interfere with the shooting on his domains at Arc- 

 En-Barrois. According to the local forest officer this penalized the 

 financial returns because of resulting damage by game to young stands 

 under regeneration. The investment netted about 2^^ per cent. When 

 the private owner is permanently practicing forest production he must 

 have other benefits to eke out the money returns. Otherwise his forest 

 is usually not a paying investment (judged by current rates), unless 

 there is an unusual speculative value added by increases in stumpage 

 values. How often does the forester invest his own money in a forest 

 property with the sole aim of a profitable investment? There will be 

 an increasing area under public ownership — this is right and logical. 



With public forests the viewpoint is somewhat altered. Financial 

 returns count, to be sure, but frequently the chief aim is protection of 

 the soil and water resources, or enjoyment for the public. But it is 

 dangerous to ignore returns altogether. There are forests in the 

 Alps and Pyrenees that are purely protective zones against erosion 

 and avalanches. They are frankly managed with this in view. The 

 forest of Fontainbleau, near Paris, is managed for enjoyment and the 

 veteran trees are preserved for artistic reasons when it must be evi- 

 dent they have passed their maximum mean annual growth and are 

 decreasing in quality. But even such forests yield net returns under 

 European markets. W'ho would suggest that the Angeles or Cleve- 

 land Forests in southern California, near San Bernardino and San 

 Diego, be abandoned simply because they showed no net dollar re- 

 turns? Their watershed value, let alone recreation, more than justifies 

 the annual net deficit of about $0.03 per acre. Our western market 

 conditions are poor compared with Europe. In public forests the 

 indirect returns may be more important for the future of a locality than 

 the direct returns in money. Yet is it not unquestionably a dangerous 

 policy to neglect legitimate income that can be secured with proper 

 rates on natural resources ? Should income be neglected entirely even 

 on National Parks? The public forests of every one of the great 

 Powers yield handsome net returns. 



Fernow tells us in his Economics of Forestry that Saxon forests 

 netted $1.63 per acre per year in 1850, $2.45 in 1870, and $5.17 in 



