A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 65 



certainly be counted on to give larger and more positive results than 

 the combination of private ownership and public aid. 



Theoretically, regulation should be effective in a much shorter 

 tune than large-scale public acquisition, the other major possibility 

 remaining at our disposal. 



Regulation promises substantial benefits to the owners themselves 

 as well as to the public. 



It should help to perpetuate the American philosophy of private 

 property notwithstanding some curtailment in the right to utilize 

 this property. 



Of importance when taxation is such a serious burden, regulation, 

 in at least its initial expenditures and discounting future direct returns, 

 should cost the public somewhat less than public ownership. 



But public regulation has limitations also which should be taken 

 into account. 



Since both Federal legislation and that of a large number of States 

 would be required and might be strongly opposed, considerable time 

 would probably be required to obtain the legislation alone. The 

 additional time necessary to make regulation effective on the ground 

 might give little or no advantage in time over public ownership. 



The twilight zone between Federal and State effort might and 

 probably would result in complications and weakness. 



The opposition and financial weakness of private owners and the 

 ease of defeating the enforcement of requirements on the ground might 

 and probably would offer serious difficulties. 



It would be impossible to regulate an owner who would not retain 

 ownership, and this class might include much of the land most needing 

 betterment. 



The danger that the owners might gain control over the regulation 

 machinery locally and nationally and use it in a way detrimental to 

 the public interest cannot be entirely overlooked. 



The best legal justification for regulation is perhaps for the protec- 

 tion of watersheds and for the prevention of forest devastation. 

 Neither alone will build up forest capital or growing stock to keep 

 forest lands fully productive and therefore fully meet national timber 

 requirements. 



Furthermore, the difficulty of obtaining legislation and of satisfac- 

 torily enforcing it might make it doubtful whether either watershed 

 protection or the prevention of forest devastation could be fully 

 secured for sometime to come. 



The fact that regulation has largely failed in many of the States 

 with even moderate statutory requirements, which are almost uni- 

 versally accepted as necessary, raises a question as to whether a 

 Nation-wide extension would succeed. 



If the principle of public aid on requirements intended largely or 

 solely to benefit others is fully met, the cost to the public might fall 

 so little below that of public acquisition that purchase would be prefer- 

 able. Except for taxes, however, the public would under regulation 

 get only the indirect and intangible returns and not the direct receipts 

 which could be obtained from publicly owned lands. 



All things considered, however, public regulation is one of the two 

 possibilities which offer any real promise of meeting the major ob- 

 jectives set up. 



