3IO Forestry Quarterly. 



ordinate element of concern in the future crop — of silviculture — 

 in it. 



I do not deny that the heart of the lumberman may open more 

 readily to the advocate of conservative logging than to the silvi- 

 culturist, for the former promises him a better present or short- 

 time financial return, while the latter invites him to invest for 

 a long run ; but we must not expect from it much toward a 

 solution of our problem of supplying the future, which can only 

 come from an application of real silviculture. 



It is true the practice of silviculture presupposes safety of 

 property, and hence, as long as the fire danger is excessive, the 

 lack of interest in such a hazardous crop, and especially in the 

 expenditure of money in establishing it, can be easily understood. 

 In the last few years it seems, however, that the efforts in sub- 

 duing the fire fiend promise success, and hence times are better 

 for pressing the need of active efforts at crop production — the 

 practice of silviculture. 



Immediately we raise the question as to what methods of 

 silviculture we are to apply, we are in the field of controversy 

 and disagreement among the doctors. 



I hope, however, that it can not happen any more, as happened 

 only four or five years ago, that an agent of the U. S. Forest 

 Service would swear in court that the selection forest method is 

 the only applicable one in our mixed and culled forests. Nor will 

 today the sneer and scoff with which a high Forest Service official, 

 ID or 12 years ago, passed judgment on our nursery at Axton in 

 the Adirondacks as a useless splurgy performance, find an echo. 



I hope we have taught enough of the young foresters what 

 the physicians know, namely, that each case can be doctored only 

 after special diagnosis ; that there is no universal medicine ; and 

 that each medicine has its value in a particular case. 



Nevertheless, we must admit that there are at least two 

 distinct types of treatment to choose, and that there are, as 

 among physicians, the allopaths and homeopaths, two schools of 

 silviculture, which have been contending against each other for 

 nearly a century even in the home of forestry, in Germany, 

 namely, the advocates of natural regeneration against the advo- 

 cates of artificial restocking. 



And, as in medicine, the wise man smiles at the one-sided 



