ABUSES LED TO LEGISLATION 221 



is wasting something commendable in itself but they bind the 

 future administrations of our Government to a policy which may not be 

 wise at that time. Suppose the timber were required for local use by 

 small isolated communities whose development was not foreseen when 

 the long-term sale was made. The lumber company could not store the 

 timber until needed. It must be exported where the demand for a 

 large output is keen. It would be better to develop Government or 

 private transportation as a separate business and then sell to small mills 

 for short periods. The details of long-term sales have been wisely worked 

 out but the broad-gauge policy is at fault. Would the present Forest 

 Service administrator willingly sell the Kaibab Forest to one company 

 to secure development? I believe not, because the sentiment has changed 

 within the past year. How do large sales affect regulation? It means 

 that to justify the very large cut, required for big sales, which removes 

 one-half to two-thirds or more of the stand, the working groups are ex- 

 tended to take in as much growing stock as is needed to yield the annual 

 cut of the large sale. Under such conditions the real regulation for the 

 benefit of the future local community may be impossible. There must be 

 smaller working groups, smaller sales, and permanent road and railroad 

 transportation, because the long-term sales such as have been sanctioned 

 by the Secretary of Agriculture are merely compromises between destruc- 

 tive lumbering and forestry. There is no need to make such compro- 

 mises, and these sales should be abandoned. The intensive, energetic, 

 and serious campaign for real regulation, which began in the fall of 1919 

 on all National Forests, based on silviculture, local economic require- 

 ments, and yield should result in excellent management plans needed 

 but not yet in effect. 



Abuses Led to Legislation. Anyone who doubts the folly of the 

 present forest destruction in the United States, by the private owner 

 who treats his forest as a mine instead of an annual crop, should read 

 and study the forest history of overcutting in France. The campaigns 

 against the use of forest capital for income did not always succeed; it 

 took a national need for timber to make regulation possible and to stop 

 abuse and overcutting. It was a succession of ups and downs for forest 

 conservation, and much of the overcutting was in royal forests under 

 trained foresters. The great conservationist Colbert showed clearly by 

 his appointment of a special forest commission that he did not trust 

 the foresters in charge because he had found that the tendency had been 

 to overcut. Let us examine a few instances of the early vicissitudes of 

 forest control. In 1596 an attempt was made to prescribe the amount 

 of timber to be sold annually in royal forests. The plan was never 

 followed and in 1612 was formally suppressed. In 1614 new restrictive 

 rules were made especially for the Normandy forests but abuse and 



