440 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1910. 



pectation as justified by jDresent conditions would show an over- 

 sanguine optimism. Lumbermen have not yet reached a point at 

 which they are generally ready to regard their holdings of timber- 

 lands as permanent investments. The reasons for this are worth 

 considering. It is a common saying that the only lumbermen who 

 have made money in this country have made it by buying and hold- 

 ing timber. It might be thought that these men would turn naturally 

 to the idea of a permanent investment in productive timberlands. 

 Doubtless they would if the prospective profit were great enough. 

 But hitherto new investments in cheap stumpage have been open to 

 them, either in this country or in Canada, which promised much 

 better returns than money put into reproduction. 



As has already been noted, the beginnings of a demand for legis- 

 lation to compel private owners of timberlands to adopt measures 

 intended to secure the perpetuation of the forest on their holdings 

 has already appeared. Unless private owners themselves forestall 

 action by taking up forestry the pressure for legislation is certain 

 to grow rapidly. When public sentiment first began to awaken to 

 the fact that something was called for to counteract the effects of 

 destructive lumbering, it was frequently said that forest owners 

 should be required to plant a tree for every tree cut down. This 

 plan was generally supposed by its advocates to be that employed 

 in European countries where forest preservation was provided for. 

 Such a proposal is, of course, entirely impracticable, and the idea 

 that it is applied anywhere is based on misinformation. It is true 

 that forest replanting by private owners is required under certain 

 conditions in countries like France and Germany; but the object 

 of the requirement is primarily the maintenance of protective for- 

 ests, and the method is not that of planting a tree or two trees for 

 every one cut, but calls for a sufficient rejDlanting of the area cut 

 over to establish a new stand. This can be accomplished only by 

 planting a very much greater number of small trees than consti- 

 tuted the mature stand, for a complete forest cover must be secured 

 promptly and the number of young trees required for this is many 

 times greater than the number of old trees. A good mature forest 

 represents the outcome of a long period of competition, during 

 which most of those which began the race have disappeared. 



The prescription of a diameter limit may be called the second 

 stage in the evolution of a plan for enforced forest protection accom- 

 panied by use. The practical objections to this method have already 

 been indicated. The immediate objects contemplated by this plan 

 are (1) the holding of timber, which, though merchantable, is not 

 yet mature, for additional growth and a later cut, and (2) the start- 

 ing of a new crop by natural reproduction. In other words, the 

 trees left are expected to act as seed trees. The seed-tree method 



