430 Forestry Quarterly. 



ness. The Government could well afford to sacrifice a part of 

 its immediate revenue for the sake of getting continous future 

 returns. That sort of monopoly which hurts the ordinary citi- 

 zen could be prevented. We can not use the timber and range 

 in a thoughtless or prodigal manner without working a serious 

 injury to the water supply. If the water supply suffers, loss 

 will come to the interests dependent upon irrigation and navi- 

 gation. Regardless as to whether the present profits of lumber- 

 ing are large or small, the essential point is that we should keep 

 the land producing timber without cessation. 



The future man of weight in the Forest Service will be the 

 Supervisor. Within twenty years the Supervisor will be the 

 Forester with an administrative unit of from 50,000 to 350,000 

 acres yielding from $3 to $12 per acre per year. The Ranger 

 will have his hands full with a district of from 5,000 to 10,000 

 acres. Through study and scientific practice, we shall increase 

 the supporting capacity of the Forests to double what they are 

 at present. The land troubles will be over, because forest, agri- 

 cultural and mineral lands will have permanently settled them- 

 selves into their proper classes and uses. The Supervisor will 

 make 100,000,000- foot sales with no more concern than he now 

 makes a $50 sale of fence posts. This will be made possible 

 by the complete working scheme that will be in effect for all 

 timber tracts. 



It is the object of this meeting to count big in a step forward. 

 Here are a few of the questions before us : 



Why has so much lumber been destroyed by fire? 



Can we get and hold an even more effective Ranger force? 



Why are we not selling more timber? 



Why are we still in doubt whether we shall get a satisfactory 

 crop of trees on the cut-over land ? 



Are we permitting sheep and cattle to graze on forest land to 

 the detriment of forest growth? 



Do we practice what we preach in regard to preservatives? 

 Why not? 



Do we use and distribute our annual appropriation to the best 

 advantage from an ordinary business standpoint, considering the 

 actual value of conservation of each particular Forest? How 

 can we determine this question? 



This meeting is your meeting. If you return to your Forests 



