458 
It is very obvious from this résumé of conditions that unless the own- 
ers of existing wood lets attack the problem in an intelligent way the time 
is not far removed when practically all of the material used in our wood 
manufacturing plants will have to be shipped in from other states. 
The conclusion to be drawn from the statements in the above para- 
graphs are all but obvious. Practically all of our forests are in private 
hands and it is very evident that the timber problem in Indiana is to be 
solved by private forestry. The obstacles to private forestry are summar- 
ized by Treadweli Cleveland, Jr..° as five risk, ill-devised taxation and 
cheap stumpage. The first two of these he suggests are “artificial obsta- 
cles’ which may be removed by suitable state legislation. Concerning the 
third, Mr. Cleveland says: “Cheap stumpage is the chief material obsta- 
cle to the wide extension of private forestry. Forestry involves an in- 
vestment in growing timber. If the investment is to show a satisfactory 
profit, the product must not sell too cheap. As long as the product sells 
cheap, expenditures will uot be made to produce it, and the lumberman 
will continue to be the nomad and the speculator which past conditions 
have inevitably made him. In erder to hold out inducements to private 
enterprise, forestry must offer a reasonable margin of profit above the 
cost of growing the timber. 
‘This obstacle to forestry is being steadily removed by the depletion 
of the virgin forests and the consequent rise in stumpage prices. Already 
the scarcity of supplies has resulted in a number of cases in the holding 
of tracts for more than a single crop.” 
It is evident that if the timber supply of the state be maintained there 
must be cooperation between the state and private owners. Just what 
form state laws for the encouragement of forestry should take is not 
perfectly clear. It is evident, however, that legislation should develop out 
of state conditions and until the resources of cooperation have been ex- 
hausted, definite legislation should not be enacted. An examination of 
State laws encouraging forestry shows that they may be grouped under 
two general heads. First, those which seek to stimulate tree planting by 
bounties or tax exemptions; second, those establishing Forest Commis- 
sions and, in late years, State Foresters charged with duties suggested by 
the conditions in the state creating these offices. ‘The laws under the first 
group have been, almost without exception, ineffective and in very many 
3 Status of Forestry in the United States. Forest Service Circular 167, pp. 25-24. 
