1046 A NATIONAL PLAN FOB AMERICAN FORESTRY 



deal more than any system of regulation likely to be proposed. More- 

 over, the enforcement of fire laws and restrictions on denudation of 

 forest cover, even when coupled with such contributions toward 

 protection and management as the public should equitably make, is 

 bound to cost less, at least during the next few decades, than public 

 purchase and management of the entire forest area. 



In the case of forests, the fear of bureaucratic control may be 

 attributed in part to the vagueness which has enshrouded most of 

 the discussion of the subject. With some degree of justification, 

 many have assumed that a public agency would be empowered to 

 specify in detail how an owner may manage his land and cut his 

 timber, and would be given a free hand to try out all sorts of silvi- 

 cultural fads at the owner's expense. If this were to be the case, 

 there would be good reason to shudder at the extension of bureau- 

 cracy. Silviculture is not an exact science, and it is impossible to 

 standardize methods of handling forests under the great diversity 

 of conditions which exist. No public agency (or private, for that 

 matter) is wise enough to dictate the specific methods to be fol- 

 lowed by forest owners. Such dictation is neither necessary nor 

 desirable. All of the regulation that is necessary to protect the 

 public interests can be accomplished without it. As a general 

 thing, it should be necessary to interfere with an owner's manage- 

 ment of his forest only when his practices are prejudicial to the 

 public interests. 



Where the proposals for public regulation have been definite 

 and obviously reasonable, there has been less opposition. For 

 example, there is little opposition now to restrictions on the use of 

 fire during danger seasons, or on the careless use of fire in general. 

 Such requirements are incorporated in the laws of most States, 

 and have the backing of a considerable body of public opinion. 



Likewise, there is not much opposition in principle to requiring 

 such disposal of logging slash as may be necessary to obviate undue 

 hazard to neighboring property. There is more opposition in 

 practice, however. Slash disposal may be costly. Operators are 

 not anxious to spend any more than is absolutely necessary to reduce 

 the fire hazard, since from the individual point of view this appears 

 to be an unproductive outlay. Naturally, it is feared that the 

 public agencies responsible for enforcing the requirements may 

 insist on more intensive and costly measures than are really neces- 

 sary. There is some ground for this feeling, because the underlying 

 principles and the technique are not yet thoroughly understood, 

 even by foresters. Many States have enacted laws dealing with 

 the disposal of slash, and the necessity of adequate slash disposal 

 is fairly well recognized in most forest regions, but there is still 

 difference of opinion as to what the requirements should consist of 

 and how they should be determined. 



PUBLIC INDIFFERENCE 



The opposition of persons who would be subject to regulation 

 is passively supported by the indifference of the general public, 

 which has not realized that mistreatment of forest lands has any 

 particular effect on its own interests. These two factors combined 

 constitute the greatest practical difficulty confronting a policy of 



