960 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



equal area. Again, the fact that forest protection is an effective method 

 of preventing erosion in certain regions, as among steep mountains, 

 does not prove that it is vi^orth its cost for this purpose in other regions. 

 Determination as to whether projects of land purchase will render ap- 

 preciable benefits to stream conditions, whether these benefits are worth 

 the cost, and whether the perpetuation of the forest cover either by 

 public ownership or in any other way, is the most effective method of 

 gaining the results desired, is requisite for the establishment of public 

 policies that will endure. 



(3) Timber Production 



The ownership of forest lands for timber production is best exem- 

 plified by the large reserves in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, secured 

 by the reservation of tax-title and other lands already owned by the 

 States and by the purchase of extensive tracts at low cost. 



To discuss the general proposition of State ownership of forest lands 

 for timber production, let us consider, first, areas already owned by the 

 States. It seems axiomatic that cut-over lands of the type of those in 

 New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which reverted to public 

 ownership for non-payment of taxes as soon as the virgin growth was 

 removed, thus becoming public charges as soon as exploited, should 

 never have been allowed to pass from public ownership. Individual 

 ownership has proven eminently uneconomical and even destructive of 

 the permanent productivity of lands which can be operated only at long 

 intervals. The private owner of land which can be operated only once 

 in a lifetime feels no personal interest in methods intended to maintain 

 permanent productiveness. If a second cut of timber cannot be ex- 

 pected during his lifetime, it is immaterial to him whether or not the 

 land is reduced to a waste by fires or other destructive agencies at any 

 time after he has removed the virgin stand. On the other hand, the 

 possibility of efficient administration for permanent utilization of lands 

 of this kind under public ownership has now been well demonstrated. 

 It is demonstrated by the record of efficiency earned by the Federal 

 Forest Service in the administration of the National Forests — a record 

 which bears testimony to the ability of an American governmental 

 bureau, working under proper laws and in spite of governmental com- 

 plexity of procedure and political opposition, to administer large areas 

 of public forest land. It is also demonstrated by the administration of 

 the Dominion and Provincial forest lands of Canada, which were re- 

 tained in public ownership to far greater extent than in the United 

 States. The two principal reasons, by the way, which contributed to 



