Costs of Forest Protection 25 



by physical agents. To secure safety from wind damage, for 

 instance, more expensive buildings are required than would other- 

 wise be necessary. There is a specific charge for fire protection 

 proper. Taxes paid for the support of the city fire department, 

 the city water system, paved streets which permit greater effi- 

 ciency by the fire-fighting organization, the costs of supporting a 

 telephone system, etc., all of which are useful for other purposes 

 than protection, nevertheless should be considered as parts of the 

 actual costs of protection. Such items as the costs of watchmen, 

 alarm systems or automatic sprinklers are direct charges against 

 protection. Charges for protection proper are therefore common 

 to all usual business, as well as to forests. The sum of all such 

 charges may frequently be greater, for the ordinary business, 

 than the costs of insurance. Because they are not so obvious 

 as the costs of insurance, they are often overlooked and it is 

 assumed that the forest must bear costs not borne by other forms 

 of property. 



Sometimes a very large business "carries its own insurance." 

 In such case, the phrase may be a figure of speech and no in- 

 surance of any kind may be effective, or when properly applied, 

 the phrase indicates that the business each year sets aside sums 

 directly comparable to the premiums of insurance, the sums so 

 appropriated being accumulated into a fund to provide for the 

 rebuilding or replacement necessary on account of fire losses. 

 This practice is practicable where the property holdings are well 

 scattered and no considerable proportion of the entire plant is 

 likely to be wiped out at one time. The object of such proce- 

 dure is to save the administrative costs of commercial insurance, 

 which, of course, are included in the premiums ; in efifect real 

 insurance is in force. 



Forest owners have sometimes assumed that they were ''carry- 

 ing their own insurance," but this has probably indicated only 

 that their financial affairs were in such shape that they could 

 stand the losses from fire which they anticipated might occur. 

 A factory can be rebuilt and a business re-established after a 

 fire. A forest cannot be replaced in the same sense, and there 

 would, therefore, be no object in setting aside sums correspond- 

 ing to the premiums of insurance. The calculated financial dam- 

 age suffered by an owner in case of forest fire may be reimbursed, 

 as in a judgment in a fire trespass case, but the judgment cannot 



