Large Private Holdings in the North 



257 



erties that are operated on essentially 

 a sustained-yield basis have cutting 

 standards best designated as "chopper's 

 choice." Some companies attempt to 

 apply diameter limits and a few mark 

 trees before cutting. Where only exten- 

 sive management is practiced, marking 

 of individual trees is not always essen- 

 tial particularly in areas and stands 

 that are subject to windthrow and 

 among tree species, such as aspen and 

 jack pine, that have relatively short 

 lives. Yellow birch, although subject 

 neither to windfall nor early decadence 

 in a closed forest, declines in vigor on 

 areas selectively logged. Over much of 

 northern Maine, where roads are lack- 

 ing, hardwoods are still unmerchant- 

 able. Serious losses are occurring from 

 birch dieback and beech scale. The 

 death of old trees will, however, release 

 spruce and balsam fir that will produce 

 a valuable crop. 



CASE STUDIES of a few owners will 

 be presented. Those selected are not 

 the only ones with good forestry pro- 

 grams, nor have they necessarily the 

 best programs. Some were selected be- 

 cause they have some distinctive fea- 

 ture in their program. Information has 

 been gained from published articles, 

 letters, interviews with company for- 

 esters, and conversations with other 

 persons familiar with the programs. 



The first group of examples includes 

 the individual, family, and investment 

 holdings. 



That type of large forest holdings is 

 found primarily in the unorganized 

 towns of Maine, where the remoteness 

 and lack of transportation restrict op- 

 erations to extensive, rather than inten- 

 sive, forestry. 



The Coe and Pingree estate, built up 

 in the late nineteenth century, at one 

 time included more than a million 

 acres. The founder, David Pingree, in- 

 sisted on restricted cutting of spruce to 

 trees 14 inches in diameter and larger. 

 The practice was abandoned soon after 

 the turn of the century, when pulp- 

 wood cutting came to the fore. The 

 heirs still own a large area of the land. 



Management practices today are on an 

 extensive basis, but the property con- 

 tinues to yield periodically a substan- 

 tial income to its owners. 



Gifford Pinchot and Henry S. 

 Graves, among the first Americans to 

 be trained scientifically as foresters, 

 drew up management plans in 1898 for 

 Nehasane Park and the Whitney Pre- 

 serve, two Adirondack properties that 

 were held primarily for recreation. 

 The owners, however, early became 

 interested in scientific forestry as a 

 means of making the properties self- 

 supporting. 



Careful timber estimates were made, 

 type maps were prepared, and con- 

 tracts for cutting spruce trees to a 10- 

 inch diameter limit were drawn up. 

 The white pine, considered overma- 

 ture, and cherry were cut without re- 

 strictions. Other hardwoods were not 

 merchantable. Yield studies indicated 

 that a cut of the same intensity could 

 be had again at the end of 36 years. 

 Nehasane Park was logged first in 1898 

 and 1899 and again in 1915 to 1930. 

 A third cutting is now under way. It 

 is difficult to make an accurate com- 

 parison between actual yields and an- 

 ticipated yields. In the first place, the 

 management plan as prepared by Mr. 

 Graves was not fully carried out. The 

 cutting intervals were shorter than he 

 had expected and the diameter limits 

 were lowered. Furthermore, defective 

 hardwoods were not removed and they 

 expanded following the removal of 

 merchantable trees. The volume of 

 softwood and the quality of hardwood 

 declined because of logging practices. 



Operations on the Whitney Preserve 

 have always been somewhat more con- 

 servative, and the forest is somewhat 

 better in quality. On the whole, both 

 properties have fared better than aver- 

 age Adirondack land. Gutting policies 

 have varied with markets, however, 

 and the economic requirements of the 

 owners more than they have with the 

 silvicultural requirements of the for- 

 est. Neither property can be considered 

 an ideal example of applied forest 

 management, but the properties have 



802062 49- 



-18 



