FOREST LANDS FOB THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS. 85 



Hence the complete divorcement of forestry from any connection with river 

 regulation so far, at least, as its effect upon the cost of such regulation is con- 

 cerned will be a distinct and positive gain to the latter. 



In the second place, forestry will be left to work out its own salvation without 

 any reference to the rivers. Will not its cause be promoted by this divorce- 

 ment? At first thought it may seem that thereby one great argument for for- 

 estry is lost ; but no argument can be of value in the long run that is not based 

 upon truth, and the disappointment that is certain to result in the fulfill- 

 ment of these hopes will do more harm than good. Forestry does not need any 

 such support. It stands on a basis of its own, too broad and too sure to require 

 any extraneous aid. What is this basis? The reply may be given in the beau- 

 tifully appropriate phrase that occurs in the act of Congress creating the first of 

 our national parks, " the benefit and enjoyment of the people." In the matter 

 of benefits, forests are necessary, because they produce the most important 

 material of construction known to man ; even iron can not be excepted. From 

 the lead pencil to the mast of a ship, from the infant's top to spacious temples 

 and palaces, it enters into nearly every requirement of human existence. A 

 large portion of the structures for human habitation are built of it. The land 

 transportation of the world is closely dependent upon it, for if it were not for 

 the railroad tie scarcely a car could run. It is only when one stops to think a 

 little upon the unlimited adaptability of wood to human needs that its trans- 

 cendant importance is borne in upon him. 



In the matter of enjoyment, no other work of nature has done more for the 

 uplifting and ennobling of the mind than these " first temples " of God. It 

 requires no argument to enforce this assertion, particularly with him who has 

 been reared in close companionship with the woods. Sad, indeed, will be the 

 day, if it ever comes, when the people are deprived of this source of healthful 

 pleasure for which no adequate substitute can ever be found. 



And yet this supremely important resource in human happiness is strictly 

 limited, and the visible supply is fast disappearing. Statistics fix the date, 

 almost as confidently as an astronomer predicts an eclipse, when the doomsday 

 of its 'final disappearance will come unless something is done to prevent. Most 

 fortunately this material, unlike copper or iron or stone, is a vegetable product 

 capable of self-renewal, and the supply can be kept up forever. This is what 

 gives it extreme importance to forestry. It requires no dubious support from 

 any other source. It fully justifies the splendid work that the Forestry Service 

 is doing and demonstrates the wisdom of the farsighted men who are laying the 

 foundation of our future national forests. 



Let us now inquire if it will not be to the advantage of this great work to be 

 absolutely independent of any connection with waterway development. Will it 

 not be better in every way for forestry if it is promoted solely on the basis of 

 producing trees for human use and enjoyment, and not at all for any supposed 

 influence upon flow of streams? Is it really a wise move, so far as forestry is 

 concerned, to single out the rugged and inaccessible mountains as localities 

 where our future supply of timber must come from? The availability of for- 

 ests to human needs depends very largely upon the situation in which they 

 grow. Few people understand the exceeding importance of this matter. The 

 converting of a forest tree into form for use involves two distinct processes, the 

 conversion of the tree into lumber or other product and its transportation to the 

 place of consumption. The cost of logging operations is immensely increased by 

 the roughness of the ground. In our western forests, for example, it requires a 

 higher grade of skill, commanding higher wages, to " lay " a tree on a steep hill- 

 side than on even ground. The losses from breakage in falling are much higher, 

 and the difficulty and expense of getting the logs out much greater. In fa'ct, the 

 increase of cost runs all the way from $1 to $10 per 1,000, depending upon the 

 situation. Engineering News stated the case very forcibly in regard to the 

 Appalachian forests (though it did not have this particular thought in mind) 

 when it said, in a recent issue, that " the cutting off of forests on the remote 

 mountain slopes has only become possible with the high price of lumber that has 

 prevailed for ten years past." This increase of cost represents the perpetual 

 tax that the public must pay for timber from these regions as compared with 

 that from the lowlands. And a great deal of it can never be gotten out at all. 

 The poet's " gem of purest ray serene " was not more lost to human needs than 

 are tens of thousands of noble trees in the rugged fastnesses of our mountains, 

 east and west. Benefit? To convert them into lumber will cost more than they 

 are worth. Enjoyment? Only the solitary hunter or mountaineer ever sees 

 them. These are not the places to rear up forests for the good of the people. 



