1048 A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



For regulation. It has been shown in the preceding pages that for 

 the public to regulate the use of private property in order to protect 

 and promote the public welfare does not involve any new or untried 

 principle. On the contrary, this policy is firmly established in the 

 legislation of this and other countries. Instead of being an unwar- 

 ranted invasion of private property rights, it is necessary for the 

 defense of private property as well as the public welfare. The 

 destructive practices of some owners make it difficult for other 

 owners, who would like to handle their forests conservatively, to do so. 



4. Against regulation. A policy of public regulation would necessi- 

 tate an army of public employees and bureaucrats whose meddlesome 

 interference would stifle private enterprise. 



For regulation. No large number of public employees would be 

 necessary. Regulation can and should be decentralized, and the 

 owners should have a share in it. Owners who follow good practices 

 would not be interfered with. There need be no attempt to dictate 

 details of management. 



5. Against regulation. Regulation would mean further Federal 

 encroachment on the authority and responsibilities of the States. 



For regulation. Regulation need not be centralized. Where only 

 State or local interests are involved, the States would naturally 

 decide upon their own policies of regulation, without interference from 

 the Federal Government. Direct Federal regulation would logically 

 be confined to cases involving national or interstate interests, where 

 these will not be protected by State or local action. Even in these 

 cases, there is no reason why Federal authorities should not cooperate 

 closely with the State authorities. If the State laws and their 

 enforcement in any State should be adequate to protect the Federal 

 interests, Federal interference would not be necessary. 



6. Against regulation. Forest owners cannot afford to adopt the 

 measures that might be required of them. 



For regulation. To the extent that restrictions consist merely of 

 prohibition of acts that will cause direct harm to others, the cost to 

 the owner of abstaining from such acts is not a legitimate consider- 

 ation. This is a long-established principle of law. Restrictions that 

 go beyond this, which will not bring an offsetting benefit to the owner, 

 would be justified only if the public bears the expense. 



7. Against regulation. The cost of regulation would add greatly 

 to the burden of the taxpayers. 



For regulation. Devastation and deterioration of our forests has 

 been exceedingly costly to taxpayers, both through the loss of indus- 

 tries and shrinkage of the tax base in forested regions and through the 

 cost of remedial measures such as flood control works and dredging of 

 silt from rivers and harbors. In comparison with these costs, the 

 cost of regulation would be ridiculously small, even when coupled 

 with greatly expanded public assistance in forest protection and 

 development. At least for the next few decades it would be cheaper 

 for the public to prevent further forest devastation by means of 

 suitable restrictions upon the acts of the owners than to acquire and 

 rehabilitate a major portion of the forest land after the forest cover 

 has been destroyed. 



8. Against regulation. Existing regulation, though mild in scope, 

 is not well enforced in most States and is not particularly effective. 



