A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 1215 



may be argued, theoretically at least, that foresters might be detailed 

 for extension work in that field either by the State or by the Federal 

 Government, at nominal cost or no cost to the owner. 



Arguments in favor of this proposal are that it is in accord with 

 similar advice and assistance given to farmers regarding production 

 of agricultural crops, livestock, etc., and to other industries 

 regarding their particular lines of production. Probably the chief 

 reason why the case has not been pushed much farther along has been 

 merely the present lack of active interest in growing forests. The 

 American people have only hi recent years begun to appreciate that 

 trees are a crop subject to arts of management and marketing similar 

 to those of successful agriculture. Even after the word " forestry" 

 had become firmly established in our vocabularly, it was popularly 

 thought to mean only the preservation of existing forests or the plant- 

 ing of new forests. Its primary meaning is not yet commonly grasped , 

 namely, the management of forest land so as to provide for both the 

 harvesting of forest crops and the perpetuation of the forest by natural 

 processes. Improvement of silvicultural, manufacturing, and mar- 

 keting practices in short, improved management is a most urgent 

 need. Forest lands in permanent private ownership should be synon- 

 ymous with forest lands that pay their way. Because we have little 

 background of experience in forest management, information as to 

 the best practice is far less general than in the growing of farm crops, 

 and a far-reaching scheme of aid is greatly needed if forest lands are 

 to be made economically productive and self-supporting. 



Against the proposal for more Federal aid in the form of forestry 

 extension there has been offered the general argument that forest 

 landowners should pay for such services, and objections have been 

 heard from consulting foresters that public assistance at less than cost 

 would mean unfair competition. The answer to these questions must 

 hinge on the magnitude of the public interest at stake, and on whether 

 individual owners can afford to pay for the services. 



That the public is interested in keeping forest lands productive is 

 a truth that might be endlessly reiterated. It is also true that a large 

 percentage of the country's forest land is now so badly depleted of 

 merchantable stands and good growing stock that its owners are 

 unwilling to make even moderate investments in its management. It 

 is not believed that the majority of forest owners, particularly of 

 small tracts, can afford to pay adequate fees for the advice needed for 

 management of their lands. As forest management develops, through 

 public intervention or otherwise, and where exhaustive examinations 

 are required or large tracts are involved, there is the distinct possi- 

 bility that the practice of the consulting forester will tend to increase; 

 but in the meantime there is a great need that should be met bv the 

 less intensive and lower-priced services that the public only is in 

 position to furnish. 



Extension work consists, of course, of making known to those in 

 position to use it the results of research and experience. The Federal 

 Government may proceed to carry the results of its work into woods 

 practice either directly or with the help of State extension personnel, 

 including State foresters, or, preferably, by both methods. Certainly, 

 it seems that State organizations directly responsible under existing 

 law for taxation systems, fire control, and other matters affecting the 

 growth and utilization of forests should properly engage in the exten- 



