A NATIONAL PLAN FOB AMERICAN FORESTRY 1047 



public regulation. Until they can be in a large measure overcome 

 it will be difficult to get adequate regulatory laws adopted, or to 

 enforce the laws that may be adopted. 



CONTROVERSY OVER JURISDICTION 



Another thing which has confused the issue is the controversy 

 as to whether control should be exercised by the Federal Govern- 

 ment or by the States. This is a very important problem when it 

 comes to the application of public control. It is discussed in the 

 section of this report which deals with The National Programs and 

 the Responsibility for Them. It should not be allowed to obscure 

 the fundamental question, namely, whether an\ public agency 

 should exercise any control over the use of private forests. 



SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS AGAINST AND FOR PUBLIC REGULA- 

 TION IN THE UNITED STATES 



Various arguments have been or may be advanced in opposition 

 to a policy of public regulation. The principal ones, together with 

 the corresponding arguments in favor of regulation, are briefly as 

 follows : 



1. Against regulation. Regulation is not necessary, because we 

 shall not need forests in the future. This argument is based pri- 

 marily on misgivings as to future timber requirements. 



For regulation. Other sections of this report have shown that 

 the maintenance of forests is of great public concern, not only to 

 supply useful and essential raw materials, but also because of the 

 other, frequently more important, public values of forests. The con- 

 servation of forests is an established public policy in nearly all civil- 

 ized countries. In the United States this policy is recognized both 

 by the Federal Government and by the States through legislation 

 and large expenditures of public funds for maintenance of public 

 forests, for protection of privately owned forests against fire and'other 

 damage, for encouragement of forest planting by private owners, and 

 for forest research, education, and extension work. It is also recog- 

 nized through special forest taxation legislation in many States. 



2. Against regulation. Regulation is not necessary, because private 

 owners, in pursuing their individual self-interest, can be depended on 

 to handle their forests in such a manner as to serve the public interest. 

 That this has not generally been the case in the past was because the 

 public put obstacles in their way, or did not do its share in removing 

 existing obstacles. 



For regulation. The public welfare has suffered, and is still suffer- 

 ing, great and well-nigh irreparable injury as a result of the destruc- 

 tion and deterioration of forests under a policy of unrestricted freedom 

 of private action. Even if the public should do all that it legitimately 

 could in helping forest owners, there would be no assurance that every 

 owner would handle his forest in the public interest. Regulation 

 would impose restrictions only on those who proposed to act contrary 

 to the public interest. 



3. Against regulation. For the public to interfere in the manage- 

 ment of privately owned forests would be a radical invasion of the 

 rights of private property, contrary to our traditional policy. 



168342 33 vol. 1 67 



