STATE OWNERSHIP OF FORESTS 195 



This might be a light income tax which falling only on private persons or 

 corporations with incomes exceeding $5,000 would not be opposed by the mass 

 of the people; or a small tax of, say 2 cents per thousand feet on all lumber 

 manufactured. A tax of this nature applied only to concerns sawing half a 

 million feet or over would not be heavy (|10 on 500,000 feet), and, as it is pri- 

 marily for the ultimate benefit of lumbermen, should not be opposed by them. 

 Many lumbermen would thereby be able to dispose of cut over lands which are 

 now only a source of taxes. To be sure a tax of this amount would hardly 

 afford 150,000 either in Vermont or New Hampshire, but it might supplement 

 what the legislature was willing to spend from other sources. 



It must be remembered that all this expenditure is in the form of an 

 investment for the state; one which should bear good interest it is safe to 

 estimate from four per cent to six per cent. 



The question in the management of these state tracts will come up as to 

 whether it is best to manage them for the greatest possible profit (which 

 would dictate a short rotation) or whether other features should be given im- 

 portance. In my opinion a part of the area at least should be devoted to rais- 

 ing large dimension timber, such as those required for large telegraph poles, 

 derrick sticks, bridge timbers, etc. This would require a longer rotation, 

 probably 100-150 years, but the industries of the state would be greatly bene- 

 fited by' being able to rely upon a permanent supply of such materials. For 

 similar reasons some slow growing trees, such as hickory and white oak 

 should be fostered by the state in regions where they are adapted, even though 

 they cannot be recommended for private planting. 



PROTECTIVE FORESTS 



In the above I have discussed state forests for educational purposes, for 

 raising of timber and have not touched upon the protective use of forests. I 

 believe this latter side is over emphasized and that forests are principally 

 valuable for the raising of timber and the support of the industries dependent 

 on them. Of course it is hardly possible to acquire 100,000 acres of forest any- 

 where in New England without its having a material effect upon the springs 

 and brooks of the region. How much this would affect any large river is prob- 

 ably simply a question of the proportion of the forest area to the entire water- 

 shed of the river. 



So, too, these forests acquired for these other reasons must add greatly 

 to the beauty of the country and tend to make it a popular resort. 



There are, however, in every state certain areas which should be acquired 

 for protective purposes even if not from the standpoint of revenue. All steep 

 mountain slopes in danger of being denuded should be owned by the state as 

 clear cutting on such sites is disastrous to the soil and water supply held by it. 

 So, too, there are areas of shifting sand which should be checked by forest 

 planting that would not be profitable and is, therefore, a proper state duty. 



In regions like northern New England and New York where scenery is 

 such an important feature, many particularly beautiful forests should be 

 saved from destruction by state acquisition. This is not sentiment on the 

 part of the state but simply a matter of good far sighted policy. 



In all these lines for which we have advocated state forests, it is to be 

 noted that while the state will surely benefit from such a policy, the com- 

 munities in which the forests are located will benefit still more. Many men 

 will be employed in road building, forest planting, cutting and hauling and 

 a population maintained larger than is at present found in many of these 

 back regions. Local industries long since dead will be revived and maintained 

 on a permanent supply of lumber not again to be abandoned as when forests 



