8(5 



Would protect and manage it and collect the receipts. The Government 

 would lose nothing on such deals because it would charge the states enough 

 to meet the interest payments on the bonds, and the states would thus get 

 the benefit of the Government's credit and low rates of interest. States 

 should not find such transactions a heavy financial burden, for the sale 

 of forest products and the fees for grazing and other uses should furnish 

 the money not only to pay the interest on the loans, in many cases from 

 the very beginning, but also to build up a surplus to pay off the loans. 



Before passing on the next subject I might pause here to say that some 

 persons, especially some of those who got alarmed over the proposal for 

 a program of forestry on private lands, would have the public buy all the 

 large bodies of cut-over land and would make the public practically the 

 only large forest owner. Entirely aside from the questions of whether 

 this would be good policy in the light of the experience of other nations 

 and whether our public would approve it, the plan would not be desirable 

 as meeting present needs. If what has been accomplished in public acqui- 

 sition in the past is any indication of what might be expected in the future, 

 it is perfectly apparent that to complete any reasonable program of acqui- 

 sition will require many years. 



While it is urgent that the Federal Government and the states acquire 

 public forests and properly take care of them protect them from fire, cut 

 them conservatively, reforest them, and so on, their obligation goes much 

 farther. They must, at the same time, recognize their responsibility in 

 encouraging the proper care of private forests, the area of which even after 

 the program of acquisition has been completed will at least equal the area of 

 public forests. The public has scarcely any greater obligation in forestry 

 than aiding in the protection of private forests from fire. Nor is there any 

 forest activity where co-operation between Government and state will bring 

 quicker and better results. 



Fire protection is fundamental. It is the chief means of preserving 

 timber growth to the end that forestry may be practiced and a continu- 

 ous supply of timber maintained. Adequate fire protection will undoubt- 

 edly solve a large part of our forest problem. It will save timber now 

 standing and it will promote natural regeneration on most cut-over lands 

 after lumbering. 



Already a beginning- has been made in co-operative fire protection by tne 

 Government and states though in a very inadequate way financially. Never- 

 theless, enough has been accomplished to demonstrate the practical value 

 of the co-operation, and furthermore a precedent for Federal and State 

 co-operative effort in forestry has been established by the specific terms of 

 a Federal law. This law is the well known Weeks Act which passed con- 

 gress in March, 1911. It provided for two things, the acquisition of lands 

 for National Forest purposes and co-operation with states in protection 

 from forest fires. The latter provision was an afterthought; it was an 

 experimental feature, but that it is now justified as a permanent policy of 

 the Government the results achieved are conclusive proof. 



The appropriation for co-operative fire protection for the current year 

 is one hundred thousand dollars. The law requires that the protection 

 must be limited to private and State lands OD the forested watersheds 



