MICHIGAN ROADS AND FORESTS 



11 



discussion and without adducing a single import- 

 ant fact we see the remarkable statement : "On 

 the whole, it is probable that forests have little 

 to do with the heights of floods in main tribu- 

 taries and principal streams, etc." This sentence 

 printed again in italics for emphasis, with its 

 "probable" and "little to do" is here put forth 

 as conclusive proof and evidently serves as suffi- 

 cient scientific evidence to support his main con- 

 clusions at the end of the paper. "These conclu- 

 sions No. 7-9, are the only ones which are really 

 germain to the subject; the first and most import- 

 ant reads as follows : 



A New Discovery by Mr. Moore. 



No. 7. "The run-off of our rivers is not ma- 

 terially affected by any other factor than the 

 precipitation." A brand new discovery in science! 

 We are told, practically' that it makes no differ- 

 ence whether the land is level or hilly, whether 

 the slope is steep or gentle, whether it is rough 

 or smooth, whether it is cleared or covered by 

 brush, whether it is gullied or not, all these fac- 

 tors have no "material" influence, the water runs 

 iff in just the same way. The fact that it is the 

 mountain streams which have bothered the people 

 in every part of the world by their turbulence, 

 their floods and droughts is unknown to Mr. 

 Moore. The fact that a prairie river like the 

 Ura/os Rets on a "rampage" and becomes a mud 

 torrent during a three days heavy rain while a 

 river from the forest, like the Wisconsin will 

 hardly show a rise or sign of turpitude all this 

 appears to Mr. Moore mistaken observation evi- 

 dently of the "old inhabitant" and the United 

 States Geological Survey. (Which by the way has 

 a liydrographic office which is 'the only reliable 

 scientific bureau dealing with these subjects.) 

 That this conclusion No. 7 flatly contradicts the 

 statement on page 1~> and quoted above, where he 

 admits that slope, and soil cover do have some- 

 thing to do with this run off does not bother his 

 logic. This conclusion is so extraordinary, so 

 illogical, and devoid of sense, and yet so eminently 

 well fitted to serve the purpose of the whole pa- 

 per that one is forced to believe that the con- 

 clusions were specially framed up on the as- 

 sumption that our "busy" people and legislators 

 read only conclusions. The other two conclu- 

 sions. Nos. eight and nine, assert on no particu- 

 lar proof that floods and droughts are no more 

 frequent now than formerly, though he admits on 

 page Hi : "All of these problems could be defi- 

 nitely settled beyond the possibility of argument 

 if we had accurate river gaugings from day to 

 day and year to year, etc." He evidently knows 

 that we hare nut accurate river gaugings, but in 

 spite of this is not afraid to assert that he (Mr. 

 Moore) kit mi's whether floods and droughts are 

 more or less frequent. The use of such asser- 

 tion in a scientific discussion well illustrates the 

 character of the whole paper. 



In dealing with "run-off and absorption" Mr. 

 Moore admits it "to be generally held" that for- 

 affect run-off. He prefers not to discuss this 

 matter, however, claims that plowed fields are 

 the best absorbers and then contents himself with 

 the ab<*ve quotations concerning river gaugings 

 and adds (p. 16) : "We must therefore reason 

 empirically from the best information at hand 

 dud this insufficiency of data, renders less posi- 

 tive the conclusions of all investigators, no mat- 

 ter which side of the question they may be on." 



This insufficiency of data evidently does not 

 prevent Mr. Moore from making the most ex- 

 traordinary assertions ever ventured in any dis- 

 cussion of this kind. 



In this very matter of run-off Mr. Moore fails 

 entirely to connect run-off with erosion, the gul- 

 lying or development of the innumerable drain 

 lines due to clearing of land, and aggravated by 

 plowing. 



That every furrow, every rod of gully acts as 

 a drain and hastens run-off and prevents water 

 storage, does not seem to be of importance to 

 Mr. Moore's position. Trie average citizen who 

 sees with his own eyes and not merely through 

 the reports of rain gauge-readers, and who has 

 come to the same conclusion as his neighbors and 

 thousands of observing people all over the coun- 

 try will wonder if his "reasoning empirically" is 

 not perhaps as convincing as that of Mr. Moore. 



In dealing with "effect of forests on floods in 



France," Mr. Moore deliberately quotes certain 

 authors by extract and is guilty of misleading 

 statements concerning the views of prominent en- 

 gineers, as is indicated by Prof. Swain. He also 

 neglects the main feature of this topic. He does 

 not know or is unwilling to tell that European 

 countries generally have accepted the principle 

 of the "protective forest," meaning thereby that 

 forest in certain situations protect the soil and 

 regulate water distribution and therefore deserve 

 special treatment in law. 



In France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc., 

 any piece of woods on steep ground or otherwise 

 peculiarly located may be declared "protective 

 forest." This action on the part of these govern- 

 ments was not haphazard, it came after full con- 

 sideration in which the best of European author- 

 ities had a hand. Europe, as a people and Eu- 

 rope as a government believes in this forest in- 

 fluence ; and has legislated accordingly and is 

 willing to spend money- and effort on the 

 strength of this conviction. 



Weak on Erosion Facts. 



Just as Mr. Moore neglects to discuss run-off 

 in its true relations to forest so he deals with 

 erosion as if it were a subject of no considera- 

 tion. How observing Mr. Moore is on this point 

 is well illustrated by the following on page 24: 

 "In level countries it makes but little difference 

 in this particular whether the ground is waste, 

 cultivated or densely forested." We have here 

 a veiled revival of the old worn out "low grad- 

 ient" argument which used to tell us, for in- 

 tance, in the Great Lakes countries erosion 

 could not be serious. And yet right here in 

 Michigan, Indiana and Ohio we have hardly a 

 section of our rolling clay and loam lands where 

 the farmer is not troubled by erosion. On thous- 

 ands of acres it requires every year extra plow- 

 ing to fill up gullies and on thousands of acres 

 more the gullies have become so deep and nu- 

 merous as to ruin the land for agricultural pur- 

 poses. On every line of railway out of Washing- 

 ton, D. C., Mr. Moore could see hundreds of 

 gullies which have come there since the clearing 

 of the land. How much more serious in moun- 

 tain countries ! That every bit of this erosion 

 is injurious, that thousands of tons of fertile 

 soil wash from the land even where no distinct 

 gullies have as yet been formed, and that every 

 rod of gully affects run-off and thus affects water 

 storage, flood and drought, all this is not merely 

 common observation but is capable of experimen- 

 tal proof such as was given by Wollny long ago. 

 But Mr. Moore finds it cheaper and more effect- 

 ive to resurrect the "agricultural use" argument 

 and puts in italics the following: "for the time 

 is come to clear up the land, seed to wheat, corn, 

 grass and fruits millions of acres that now lie 

 idle under brush or forest." The same evasion, 

 the same substitution of politicaj bosh for argu- 

 ment. 



A similar unmeaning argument is put forth in 

 the "ratio of forested area, or mountain water- 

 shed to the total watershed." Here the funda- 

 mental argument may be stated thus ; Because 

 only 10% of the entire watershed of the Ohio 

 river is mountain country and subject to flood 

 and erosion therefore the Ohio floods are prac- 

 tically unaffected by what happens in these moun- 

 tains, and by inference, that there is no need 

 bothering about this unimportant 10%. The ar- 

 gument is a typical one, and is about as sound as 

 if some one wanted to say that, because the peo- 

 ple of New Orleans form only about one-third 

 per cent of all the people of the United States, 

 it is entirely unnecessary and unwarranted for 

 the federal government to concern itself with the 

 floods or any other conditions affecting the people 

 of that city. That these mountains cover in 

 themselves millions of acres of land, contain 

 thousands of people, that their streams affect 

 millions of people more, that the floods pouring 

 out of these mountains endanger life and prop- 

 erty every year, and that every regulation we can 



[ive to these waters is of the greatest import- 

 ance, all of these things are carefully hidden by 

 a lot of argument about moonshine. How exact 



Line of Reasoning is Faulty. 

 Mr. Moore's data are is clearly shown by the fol- 

 lowing on page 34 : "According to our line of 



reasoning which we believe to be fair and con- 

 servative it is shown that the average discharge 

 of the Ohio river is not greater as the result of 

 deforestation, etc." It is this line of reasoning 

 which we are asked to accept for facts and then 

 we are bluntly told in the conclusions that floods 

 are not more numerous, etc. 



The entire paper is a jumble, it deals with a 

 lot of irrelevant stuff crudely and poorly put to- 

 gether. It is full of fallacy and contradiction, 

 and is an insult to the thinking and observing 

 people of our country. But it is even more ; we 

 have here an official of the United States De- 

 partment of Agriculture going out of his way to 

 oppose a most important piece of constructive 

 and useful legislation, exerting himself to oppose 

 the express wishes of millions of people, of doz- 

 ens of prominent associations, of several state 

 governments. And why all this? Is it because 

 the law is a dangerous one, one that is likely to 

 harm any person or any district? No, it is a 

 simple effort at keeping a few million acres cov- 

 ered with woods to prevent the same millions of 

 acres from becoming waste land. Then why does 

 Mr. Moore exert himself? Are the reasons for 

 this law so untrue in fact? Are there exact sci- 

 entific data to prove them untrue? Evidently not, 

 for if this "report" is any criterion it is evident 

 that the belief of the people of the whole civil- 

 ized world is based on observation, good sense 

 and experience, all of which seem sadly lacking 

 in Mr. Moore's paper. 



Then why does Mr. Moore do this? Is there 

 an appropriation for the weather bureau depend- 

 ing on this paper? 



LARGE TREE PLANTING. 



Mr. Gibson, of Detroit. 



No subject possesses the interest for the 

 home builder that centers around the plant- 

 ing and nurture of large shade trees. Not 

 even the pleasures to be derived from the 

 cultivation and arrangement of shrubbery and 

 smaller growing things give the satisfaction 

 one takes in having large, finely developed 

 trees surrounding his home. The architec- 

 tural beauties of the house itself can often be 

 realized only when there is a setting of large 

 trees. The opportunities offered to the home 

 builder who is enabled to place his house on 

 an ample-sized lot in the midst of large trees 

 are wonderful for the accomplishment of nat- 

 ural results. The tall house may be shortened 

 in appearance, the low house elevated, or trees 

 of various varieties and shapes may 'be used 

 to heighten the effect aimed to be secured 

 by some particular type of house. 



There has been an awakening of public 

 interest to the necessity of encouraging the 

 planting of trees, and especially large trees, 

 that is most encouraging. While, however, 

 people are beginning to realize what may be 

 accomplished in this matter, yet indifference 

 has been shown to the preservation of trees, 

 and it is only within the last ( few years that 

 this subject has been allowed its proper im- 

 portance. The ravages of tree-destroying in- 

 sects have been so widespread and grievous 

 that throughout the country legislation has 

 been enacted, with appropriations of money, 

 to combat these enemies of vegetation. As 

 in many other things that vitally affect the 

 health and comfort of the people, the steps 

 taken to preserve trees have been faltering 

 and inefficient. The state and federal govern- 

 It is an indication of the lack of interest 

 people and are accomplishing a great deal 

 in this way through societies. 



It is a remarkable thing that probably not 

 one person in twenty can name even the half 

 dozen most common varieties of trees. Fre- 

 quently a man is heard to refer to a white 

 birch as a poplar, and very few indeed know 

 even the rugged oak, monarch of the timber 

 tree?. To even a less extent do people in- 

 struct themselves in the proper planting- of 

 trees as to variety and location. Frequently 

 the plan of planting shrubbery and trees is 

 left to the landscape architect, and it is not 

 uncommon in find nearly every tree and shrub 

 on the grounds tagged to indicate its name. 



