over-mature and tend rather to decrease than increase in volume. They 

 average 40,000 to 50,000 feet B. M. per acre. The cost of holding a 

 stand of this nature of 40,000 feet volume on Quality I soil would be as 

 follows, figuring 3 per cent interest, a present value of $1.00 per M., 

 $10.00 per acre for soil value and 20c per acre for protection and ad- 

 ministration. 



Soil rent=10.00xl.03 (i 1 )=$10.00x4.892=$48.92. 



Future value of timber at compound interest for 60 years 

 =$40.00x1. 03 (10 =40x5.892=$235.68. 



Protection and administration cost 20c per acre for 60 years 

 =.20(1.08" 1)=$32.61 

 .03 



Total cost of holding per M.=$317.21-j-40=$7.93 per M. 



Comparing this cost with $3.36, the cost of producing timber on the 

 liberal estimates shown in Tabel IV it will be more than twice as expensive 

 for the federal government to secure future timber supply by holding 

 mature timber now worth $1.00 or more per M. than it would be to cut 

 off such timber and reforest so as to raise a new crop during the 60 years. 

 It is, of course, freely admitted that the value of the old timber per M. 

 feet would be greater than that of the young, but in no such proportion 

 as indicated above. The cutting of old forests and the growth of the 

 young on the ground thus vacated will also result in the area furnishing 

 within the 60 years over twice as much volume of timber for use of the 

 people. Seemingly this should be the chief consideration. 



It is argued, of course, that the government does not intend to hold 

 the old timber so long, and that by cutting in 20 to 30 years the govern- 

 ment can make great profits by holding. This is too great a question to treat 

 in detail here, but there seems to be no difficulty in demonstrating that 

 this is poor financial policy. However, it is not necessary to resort to finan- 

 cial arguments to show that the policy of holding mature and over-mature 

 timber is bad from the public standpoint, because in a great measure it 

 defeats one of the principal objects of the National Forests, viz., to fur- 

 nish a large volume of timber for use by consumers. This is defeated be- 

 cause the soil functions only for the -storage of old timber, not for the 

 growth of new. Proper forest management requires, however, that the 

 old stand be removed gradually and replaced by new. Where the federal 

 government does cut timber, effort is made to see that the ground is re- 

 forested. 



With the state, the argument for immediate cutting of mature timber 

 within reasonable limits is still stronger, because the interest rate is some- 

 what higher. The cost of holding mature timber, involving a large initial 

 investment as compared with growing new timber is, therefore, still higher. 

 The state's policy fails when it comes to growing the new timber, however. 

 Nothing is as yet being done in this direction, so that land when cut over 

 is not even functioning for storage of timber. The two policies may 

 thus be contrasted, the state's being inadequate in the direction of growing 

 timber after cutting, and the federal government in the direction of a 

 reasonable amount of cutting so as to permit growth of new timber. 



