A NATIONAL PLAN FOE AMERICAN FORESTRY 87 



It is important to recognize, too, that a situation resulting from a 

 long and complex history, and one affecting adversely local com- 

 munities, local business, regions, State governments, and the Nation 

 as a whole, besides the landowner himself, is not likely to be readily 

 cured by a mere alleviation of the landowners' difficulties. It is not 

 so easy as that. 



REEXAMINATION OF NEED FOR FORESTRY IS ESSENTIAL 



In pointing out the difficult and discouraging features of the current 

 situation, there is no intent to belittle the real progress that has been 

 made in private, State, and national forestry. A great deal has been 

 accomplished. But that the solution has not kept up with the growth 

 of the forest problem is evident from the very fact that so many 

 agencies and individuals, public and private, are discussing the need 

 for additional action. If American forest affairs were generally in 

 healthy and satisfactory shape, there would be little discussion of 

 them. 



The difficulties and complexities of the task, and the conflicts 

 between the evident needs of the situation and the present financial 

 ability of the several agencies concerned, are not mentioned for the 

 purpose of adding to the discouragement and pessimism with which 

 various phases of the problem are viewed by different groups. These 

 things are simply a real part of the situation. Still less is there 

 ground for a facile optimism, which would dispose of the difficulties 

 and needs by ignoring them. 



Nothing less than a realistic recognition and reexamination of all 

 the facts can serve a useful purpose. In the reexamination, neither 

 pessimism nor optimism has a place. It may be found that not all 

 the forest land is needed, and that forestry is not justified everywhere. 

 But it does not follow from this that the area now handled under 

 forestry practices is all that is required, or all on which the expendi- 

 tures for forestry will be justified in the long run. 



Were it not for the questions regarding the worthwhileness of the 

 whole forest-conservation movement, then it would be appropriate 

 to examine at once the present status of forestry, and to consider 

 what additional programs may be needed. But the questions and 

 the problems do exist. Clearly they require public understanding 

 and public action for their solution. Whether the action takes the 

 form of public assistance to private owners, public regulation of private 

 owners, or public ownership in lieu of private owners, or all of these 

 steps, is not the first question. It is rather, Is forestry justified? 

 or, alternately, Does the Nation need forestry on the bulk or all of 

 the forest lands? or Can the Nation afford not to have forestry 

 generally applied? 



These are not abstract questions to be debated on theoretical 

 grounds. They are simply another way of asking, What is to be done 

 with the 600 million or more acres of forest land of the Nation (one 

 third of its total area) unless it is used for forestry? Has it any other 

 profitable use? Can the Nation tolerate idleness of any considerable 

 portion of this huge area? Which is better, productive land or idle 

 land? 



The Forest Service has no wish to base its recommendations 

 regarding future action on beliefs that are of questionable validity. 



168342 33 vol. 1 7 



