A NATIONAL LUMBER A^TD FOREST POLICY. 7 



vately owned, three-fourths of it. It is an important fact also that 

 the bulk of the land that must grow the timber of the future is 

 privately owned. 



The transfer of the great bodies of timber from public to private 

 hands was a grave mistake of public policy. It is not possible to 

 conceive of a method better calculated to bring about a rapid dissi- 

 pation of our forests than was actually used by the Government in 

 disposing of its timberlands, nor could a surer method have been 

 devised to bring about a condition of industrial uncertainty. The 

 lands were parceled out as fast as possible in small lots and under 

 conditions that inevitably encouraged speculation. It was only a 

 question of time that every owner should undertake to dispose of his 

 land or timber to realize on his speculation. We now see that a 

 different method of administering the public forests should have been 

 adopted. But the action was taken and we can not undo it, nor can 

 we ignore the problems that are resulting from it. The custody of 

 the bulk of our forest resources Vas intrusted to private owners. 

 The burden of carrying the timber and properly caring for it was 

 transferred from the public to private hands. Whether they like it 

 or not, the private owners have the problem of the right handling 

 of a large part of our forests actually on their hands. 



AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION. 



On the other hand, the public lias a very essential interest in the 

 question of keeping the lands in a producing condition so as to 

 render a maximum of service, in supporting industries and local 

 communities, and in serving to support through tax levies public 

 enterprises of various kinds. Even though the public has surren- \ 

 dered its direct ownership of the timberlancls, it can not afford to < 

 permit them to be handled in a way to be injurious to the welfare of ( 

 the community. The various benefits required of forests, from their 

 products, support of industry, etc., can be obtained only in part 

 from the existing public forests. They are not extensive enough or 

 widely enough distributed to meet more than a part of the public 

 needs. We must continue to rely in considerable part on private 

 lands, both for present supplies and for growing timber for the 

 future. 



We have, then, a perplexing dilemma. On the one hand the public 

 is deeply concerned that the private forests be handled in a way to 

 provide for forest renewal and growth. We have, 011 the other hand, 

 the timber owners struggling under a responsibility that has never 

 been fully sensed or accepted. The result is that while considerations 

 of public interests demand that something be done, nothing sub- 

 stantial is actually being accomplished. It appears to me that the 

 situation is an impossible one, that can net long continue. Both the 



