996 . A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



governments have not hesitated to exert rather strict control over 

 certain phases of the use of private farm property in emergencies when 

 such action was necessary to protect the interests of the public. 

 Examples of such governmental interference in this country are the 

 campaigns against foot and mouth disease, bovine tuberculosis, cattle 

 tick, corn borer, and Mediterranean fruit fly; the requirement in 

 some wheat-growing States that barberries be eradicated; the pro- 

 hibitions in several States against planting currants and gooseberries 

 near white pine forests and against growing red cedars near apple 

 orchards (Virginia) ; the requirement in many States that livestock 

 be kept under fence; and the obligation of property owners to clean 

 up noxious weeds so as to prevent their spread to neighboring land. 



In the past, the economic factors and conditions governing the 

 production of agricultural crops have been such that the owners had 

 an incentive to utilize their land generally in the public interest. The 

 present alarming situation with respect to erosion in certain portions 

 of the United States demonstrates that it has not always been so 

 utilized. In recent years the economic situation of agriculture has 

 changed until there is some reason to believe that individual self- 

 interest alone, at least in the present stage of enlightenment, is no 

 longer adequate to safeguard the public interests in the utilization of 

 farm land. 



Recognizing this, governments have endeavored to promote the 

 voluntary adoption of improved methods through research, education, 

 demonstration, and other forms of assistance. Much has been accom- 

 plished in this way, but uncoordinated action by individuals does not 

 seem to be enough. The need for some degree of public or quasi- 

 public control over agricultural production or marketing is coming 

 to be recognized in many countries. Russia has her 5-year plan and 

 State farms; Italy has her "battle of the w r heat"; we have our Fed- 

 eral Farm Board, to say nothing of the laws proposed to restrict cotton 

 production in several States. A number of countries prohibit or re- 

 strict the agricultural use of land that is liable to become seriously 

 eroded and thus cause damage to other property or to the public 

 interests. 



MINERALS 



The development of mineral resources also has generally been left 

 to private initiative in most countries, except for restrictions designed 

 to safeguard the workers. An important exception in this country 

 is the Federal law restricting hydraulic mining in California in the 

 interest of navigation. (U.S. Stat.L., vol. 27, p. 507.) Mining being 

 strictly an extractive enterprise and highly speculative, rapidity of 

 turnover has been encouraged and great waste of the resources has 

 resulted. Many of the mineral industries have now reached a point 

 where they themselves recognize the need for some form of group 

 control, either by the public or through group cooperation of one kind 

 or another, in order to regulate output and conserve the resource. 

 Examples in the United States are the coal, petroleum, and copper 

 industries. 



WILD LIFE 



The individual States, and the Federal Government in the case of 

 migratory birds, have retained control over the exploitation of wild 

 animal life, even though most of it breeds and lives on privately owned 



