FORESTRY is essentially a public problem. The history 

 of other countries bears this out, and the United States 

 is no exception. 



The area of absolute or permanent forest land in the 

 United States that is, land which will grow trees but is 

 unsuited to agriculture is probably 450,000,000 acres. 



Private owners will not practice forestry generally until 

 the shortage of timber has forced its price up to the cost of 

 actually growing the trees. What is to be done in the mean- 

 time? The supply on the national forests already under con- 

 servative management will relieve the situation to a certain 

 extent, but the states must do their part by supplementing 

 the work of the federal government. 



The public should eventually own most of our large forest 

 areas. Private owners will gradually come to practice for- 

 estry and can be counted upon in time to do their share in 

 supplementing the work of the states and federal government. 

 But public forests on a large scale are now necessary to 

 bridge the gap. 



Already we have evidences of public regulation in the com- 

 pulsory private patrol law of Oregon and the various slash 

 disposal measures, especially those of New York, Minnesota, 

 Washington, and Oregon. 



These older states furnish very striking examples of a mis- 

 taken land policy, which it is not too late for the newer ones 

 to heed. I cannot urge too strongly that the states set aside 

 all the public forest land now in their possession as state 

 forests. 



Briefly summarized, the advantages to be gained from pub- 

 lic ownership of the forests are: A continuous timber sup- 

 ply; the protection of water resources; a stable administra- 

 tive policy; a stable lumber industry and steady employment 

 of labor; the educational effect of demonstrating proper for- 

 estry methods; public recreation grounds; game and bird 

 refuges; and a constant source of revenue to the state. 



20 



