1116 



A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



over and above the costs of their own constructive management 

 obviously has certain inherent limitations. 



After all lands attractive to private initiative had been appropriated 

 there would still remain large acreages in public ownership, subject 

 to progressive increase as private initiative exploited its lands and 

 allowed them to revert to public ownership through tax delinquency. 

 In some instances these residual lands would form large compact 

 areas susceptible of economical protection and management ; in others 

 they would be widely interspersed among private lands and difficult 

 either of protection or management. Collectively they would con- 

 stitute a public obligation of large proportions. In the circumstances 

 under discussion, this obligation logically would rest upon the State. 



Under adequate management these lands normally should produce 

 some revenues, but these would be far below the average returns 

 derivable from the entire national-forest acreage. Generally their 

 productivity would be of the lowest and their utilization most difficult 

 and expensive. Frequently their use would be so completely control- 

 led by intermingled private lands that there could be no competition, 

 hence no need of compensation for their use. In approximating the 

 probable revenues from such lands, consideration must be given to 

 their economic value and the difficulties attendant upon their use. 

 No fixed rule or principle would be generally applicable. The con- 

 clusions necessarily must be based upon individual judgment and 

 knowledge but unavoidably must be arbitrary. 



In the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South 

 Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Maine, New Hamp- 

 shire, and Pennsylvania, all national-forest lands were classed as 

 susceptible to private ownership and used in computing the possible 

 tax return, leaving no residue for which to compute a possible income. 

 In the other States the proportions and income-producing possibilities 

 of the residual lands varied markedly because of the wide differences 

 in the proportions of the lands that theoretically could be privately 

 owned and the kind, quantity, and distribution of those which would 

 remain in public ownership. Residual lands primarily valuable for 

 grazing use might continue to yield relatively high revenues while 

 lands valuable only for the inferior stands of timber thereon would 

 yield little or nothing in the way of cash returns. By the processes 

 indicated and on the basis of average annual returns under national- 

 forest management from 1923 to 1927, the probable returns per acre 

 per annum from the residual lands were worked out as follows : 



Cents 



California 2 



Oregon 2 



Washington 1. 5 



Arizona 1 



Colorado 1. 4 



Nevada 2 



New Mexico 1 



Utah 2 



Idaho 1. 5 



It is a logical assumption that if all the most productive and valuable 

 lands were privately appropriated the justifiable expenditure per acre 

 of public funds upon the remaining lands necessarily would be much 

 lower than the average expenditures made in the fiscal years 1923-27. 

 On the other hand, the lands remaining in public ownership would 



Cents 



Montana 1 



Wyoming 2 



South Dakota 5 



Nebraska 5. 4 



Michigan . 5 



Minnesota 1. 5 



Arkansas 3 



Oklahoma.. _ 5 



