A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 1041 



OPTIONAL REGULATION THROUGH ASSOCIATIONS 



One other form of control which has been proposed recently is con- 

 trol through organizations of forest industries or forest owners. From 

 the standpoint of the public, there can be no legitimate objection to 

 voluntary association or combination of owners and/or operators for 

 the purpose of bringing about desirable ends which they cannot 

 accomplish independently. Such objectives, for instance, might be 

 protection against fire or insect epidemics, or adoption of sustained 

 yield management in a unit where holdings are comparatively small 

 or intermingled or for other reasons not capable of management as 

 independent units. The laws of some countries seek to promote the 

 formation of associations for these purposes, particularly among the 

 owners of small and medium-sized tracts. In this country several 

 States provide for associations for protection against fires and insects. 



In order for such combinations to accomplish their purpose, it might 

 be necessary to provide some way by which owners who will not con- 

 form voluntarily to the policies of the group would be compelled to do 

 so. Whether a State can legally, or would if it could, grant authority 

 to associations or combinations of individuals to compel action by 

 other individuals is doubtful. It is not likely that the State would 

 either delegate its police powers to private individuals or associations, 

 or sanction enforcement through "unfair" methods of competition. 

 It must follow, then, if there is to be any compulsion of unwilling 

 owners, that it will have to be exercised by public agencies. It is 

 fairly certain that such authority will not be exercised unless to 

 enforce policies which are clearly in the public interest those making 

 for the stability of industries, communities, employment, and public 

 revenues; for the conservation of natural or human resources; or to 

 protect the interests of consumers. 



There is no doubt that the Federal Government has the authority 

 to enforce compliance with a program for organized fire protection, or 

 even for the regulation of cutting, where preservation of the forest is 

 necessary for purposes of national defense, to prevent damage to lands 

 or other property of the Federal Government, to maintain the naviga- 

 bility of streams and harbors, or to prevent damage to persons or 

 property beyond the borders of the State. Tho authority of the 

 States, at least, undoubtedly goes further than this. It might be 

 feasible for State law to provide that when most of the owners per- 

 haps two thirds or three fourths, in consultation with a suitable public 

 agency agree upon certain practices as desirable or necessary to safe- 

 guard or promote the public interest, the remaining owners may be 

 required to fall in line, at least to the extent that they do not obstruct 

 the program of the group. If such a policy should be adopted, it 

 would also be necessary to provide that where owners refuse or are 

 unable to conform with the prescribed program their land may 

 be expropriated, either permanently or temporarily, after due 

 compensation. 



PRACTICES WHICH MIGHT PROPERLY BE SUBJECT TO 

 MANDATORY REGULATION 



Obviously, the simplest way to insure the correction of harmful 

 practices would be for the public to acquire all of the forest which 

 affects the public interest. But even if the public should embark on 



