MukI \fin'e Piit-:i<nifi 



*'7 



that somo moans are adiniicd i«.i 

 Htockin^ tluMii uilli tlit> kind of tiii;- 

 bpr trees best suited for the ref^ion. 



IVaetieil Kore.stry has now ht-eti 

 conducted on profeHsioiial and ptof. 

 it-produein^f lines for a lonj? tinii' m 

 Europe; the statistics re^arditi); for- 

 est production un<ier rational in m- 

 affenient date l)ack over a century. 

 It is not suv:K*'>*<^'d. however, tiijit 

 the time has come when in America, 

 and (to bring the matter closer 

 home) in Canada, we slu uld put in- 

 to foree Kuropean methods. AVo 

 shall probably n»'ver use these iieth- 

 ods. certainly not in their entirety: 

 conditions are ditferent and so mi •- 

 thods must necessarily be dirt'ereni. 



On this continent forestry has 

 been practiced loni? enouffh to j»ive 

 us the data to show what it costs 

 and what profits it can be made to 

 pay. There is no necessity for us 

 in Canada to ffo to Europe in order 

 to s'udy forestry nu'thods; nvM li 

 more useful would be found a tour 

 of the I'nitcd States National For- 

 ests, whose methcds of management 

 are bein«; l)ascd to an ever increas- 

 ing extent on the studies carried tu 

 by the Forest Service for years past, 

 supplemented by whatever of Hur 

 opean practice has been found ser- 

 viceable under present American 

 conditions. 



•Much nu)r.' is already known (f 

 proper methods of managing Can- 

 adian forests than has ever been put 

 into practice; what is needed is tb" 

 chance to do what we know 

 ought to be done. .More money an»l 

 mor«' faith in the future an' needed. 

 The expense of organizing the ini 

 mense forest areas of our <*ountry 

 and of initiating the proper methods 

 of management on them must nec-.s- 

 sarily W great. For years the for 

 est r»«serves cannot reasonably be 

 expected to return nu)re than a 

 fraction of the money spent on them. 

 There can be no reasonable doubt 

 that they will do so eventually, and 

 tin government can afford to wjtit 



u:.ii iiiiie an no private individual 

 could. 



This fact is clear from the experi- 

 ence of all tiinea and of all contin- 

 ents that in foreatry, just as in 

 ngricullure and in everything elhe. 

 in order to get profits an investment 

 must first be made. If cut-over and 

 burnt-over areas are left to them- 

 selves they will not produce any 

 profits from wood-crops or afford any 

 protection to agriculture and 

 stream-flow. If they are given a lit- 

 tle protection they will produce a 

 small crop of inferior wood; and if 

 the nmtter be taken up in a rational 

 way as a man would take up fann- 

 ing, profits will be obtained in pro- 

 portion to the judgment exerei-eU 

 and the money expended. 



It pays and pays well, to spend 

 n:oney on the forests. The coun- 

 tries which <lcal most generous! v 

 with their forests have the hand- 

 somest returns. Saxony, as men- 

 tioned elsewhere in this iasu •, 

 spends an average of $H.46 per acre 

 on her forests every year, and gets, 

 as return for this expenditure, a 

 profit, over and above the expendi- 

 ture, of $r>..'i2 per acre. Wurtem- 

 berg. spending approximately $3.2.'» 

 per acre per year on her forest lard, 

 makes a profit of approximatoly 

 .+{*.()() per year. France, in return 

 for an expenditure of .tl.OO per acre 

 on the forest.s. obtains, over and 

 above this, a revenue of $1.72 per 

 acre. When we come to forests less 

 intensively managed, Austria, 

 spending some 72 cpnts per acre per 

 annum on her woodlands. muk'.>s 

 therefrom a net profit of 28 cents. 

 Sweden, spending one cent per a.?n' 

 on the forest.s. gets a profit of G 

 cent.s. (part of it. probably, paid out 

 of capital) while Ku.snia. with the 

 same expenditure, gets three cents 

 per acre. India spends six cents per 

 acre per year, and gets a return of 

 four cents above her expenditure. 



To mention reforestation brings 

 up in the min<ls of tnany people the 



