REVIEWS 



Public Domain Commission, State of Michigan. Biennial Report 

 1914-1916. Lansing. 1917. Pp. 179. 



Consolidation of State commissions is the order of the day. The 

 Public Domain Commission of Michigan, created in 1909, composed of 

 six ex officio, unpaid members, elective State officers, has gradually 

 absorbed not only public land interests, including forest reserves, but 

 all forest interests, game, fish conservation, and immigration. 



The recital of legislative acts defining the functions of the commis- 

 sion occupies 17 pages of the report. From all appearances, Michigan, 

 after thirty years of propaganda and slow development, seems to have 

 made a start in good earnest to develop a sound and adequate State 

 forest policy, for which the preceding Forestry Commission, since 1903, 

 had laid a good foundation. 



It appears that the commission is empowered to create forest reserves 

 and had by July, 1916, including previous reservations of 40,000 acres, 

 set aside 236,460 acres of forest and non-agricultural lands in 57 par- 

 cels, and the pow'ers are broad enough to insure a general conservation 

 plan for the State, with authority to reforest, protect against fire, etc. 

 Eventually it is expected that the 600,000 acres owned by the State will 

 be in reserves, or are virtually now so held. Appropriations have 

 grown until for the years 1916 and 1917 they amounted to $220,000. 

 A detailed financial statement analyzed from various points of view 

 covers 16 pages. In this the present forest reserves appear valued a 

 little over $500,000, to which personal property, amounts collected for 

 dead and down timber, and for trespass, of altogether $118,000, are 

 added, while the total cost of expenses to 191 6 is stated as $464,000. 



To the general report of the commission there are added various con- 

 tributions from its officers. Under the title of "Encouragement to 

 reforest private lands," for which the commission furnishes seedlings, 

 a tax release act, known as woodlot exemption act, passed in 191 1, is 

 printed, and a useful compilation of tax exemption conditions in other 

 States is added, covering 20 pages. 



This legislation resembles the Pennsylvania act in that it provides 

 for private forest reserves, but it is peculiarly foolish in making 170 

 trees, original or planted, the basis of the benefit ; various other condi- 

 tions appear silviculturally unsound, such as the limitation to a cut of 

 772 



