1262 A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



undertaken all or a large part of the public acquisition program for 

 watershed protection. 



Similarly, the general Federal responsibility to insure through land 

 ownership the stability and permanence of the timber supply for the 

 Nation as a whole is well established. 



The Federal forest acquisition program has during the past 21 years 

 gone ahead of several well-defined principles : 



1. Where States have the desire, intent, and financial ability to 

 undertake the full job of public forest acquisition, no national forests 

 have been established, even though forest land problems are present 

 that are well within the sphere of Federal land acquisition. No real 

 need for national forests is recognized under such circumstances. 



2. Where forest land problems exist, properly within the sphere of 

 Federal land ownership, and where the State has the desire, intent, 

 and financial ability to undertake a major part of the job, and is 

 willing for the Federal Government to undertake part, national 

 forests have been established. These joint programs have been 

 carried out without conflict or competition. 



3. Where problems exist, and the State is financially unable to 

 undertake the public forest acquisition job, but is willing that the 

 Nation do so, national forests have been established. Clearly, under 

 such circumstances the Federal Government must take over the bulk 

 of the public ownership job, if it is to be done at all. 



4. Where problems exist, and the State lacks the willingness or finan- 

 cial ability to undertake the job, and for one reason or another is 

 unwilling for the Federal Government to come in, no national forests 

 have been established. 



Whether or not a State embarks on a State forest program appears 

 to depend primarily on financial ability rather than on political theory 

 or desire. A number of the wealthier States have gone further and 

 have more comprehensive programs than the less wealthy States. 

 State forests starting with denuded or partly stocked lands, are 

 necessarily a net expense for many years. Regardless of the need, 

 the less wealthy States have been slow to start State forest programs. 



In several of the Western States, such as Idaho and Oregon, the 

 remaining portions of the Federal land grants to the States have been 

 placed under administration as State forests. 



In Michigan tax-delinquent lands have been consolidated into 

 State forests. 



DESIRABILITY OF STATE OWNERSHIP 



The question of the division between State and Federal ownership 

 of public forests has slowly crystallized as one principally of State 

 financial ability and intent. The part falling to the Federal Govern- 

 ment in order to protect the public interest is that part of the full job 

 which the State is unable to do, and which it is willing to let the 

 Federal Government undertake. 



A major conclusion from experience to date is that there can be no 

 true conflict between the State and Federal Governments in forest- 

 land ownership when the Federal Government comes in with State 

 sanction to handle through ownership forest lands which States are 

 unable to manage. The very processes of forest deterioration and 

 forest devastation are the basis alike of local impoverishment and 

 national concern. Therefore no question of propriety or of Federal 

 imperialism can arise, if the expansion of Federal effort in forest land 



