37^ Forestry Quarterly. 



bum is made. To cover this loss the Forest Service will, in the 

 long run, unquestionably have to deduct the amount from its 

 stumpage prices. This amount added to the loss of stumpage 

 through trees uncut makes the cost of natural regeneration far 

 too heavy in most cases, and renders artificial regeneration the 

 inevitable method to be followed in the case of decadent old 

 stands. This is true even without consideration of the fact that 

 the trees in these stands in many cases do not produce vigorous 

 seed. At first thought it appears that all this cost of artificial 

 regeneration must be borne by Forest Service appropriations ; 

 but such is not the case. It is just as legitimate to require the 

 timber purchaser to bear the bulk of this cost as it is to require 

 him to pile brush, which also is a measure on behalf of the future 

 stand, just as' is artificial regeneration. It will, in fact, often, if 

 not usually be cheaper for the logger to perform the work of 

 artificial regeneration under the direction of Forest officers than 

 it will for him to lose the profit of cutting trees that would other- 

 wise have to be saved for seed trees. 



CUTTING POLICY. 



On account of some of the foregoing and other considerations, 

 it has sometimes been assumed that sale of timber from the 

 National Forests of this region is undesirable. The chief grounds 

 for this opinion are, or have been, (i) Because of the lack of 

 local industries such as agriculture, mining and other industries 

 using wood in their development, local cutting has been assumed 

 to be unnecessary. (2) It has been assumed that timber stored 

 up now could be utilized later. (3) Because increased stumpage 

 prices may be expected later, it has been believed that it would be 

 good financial management to hold all the timber. Other minor 

 arguments have been advanced. 



Timber has never been withheld from the market except when 

 in a limited number of cases a sale has been discouraged through 

 high stumpage prices, but the idea that withholding cutting for 

 a few years would not be opposed to good conservation has per- 

 sisted in some quarters. It is worth while, therefore, to show 

 the fallacious ground on which this idea is based. In order to 

 do this the grounds mentioned may be taken up in order as fol- 

 lows: 



