STATE WORK 



243 



Oregon are cheap and simple. They are 

 as follows and should be provided for 

 without delay. 



1. A trained state forester familiar with 

 western conditions and experienced in or- 

 ganization for the prevention of forest 

 fires. He should not be a cheap man, but 

 the best available, and chosen absolutely 

 independently of politics. He should be 

 allowed to appoint one or more assistants. 



2. A liberal appropriation for forest fire 

 patrol, with ample latitude for such co-op- 

 eration with other agencies as the state 

 forester shall find for the best interest of 

 the public, especially through the encour- 

 agement of further extension and efficiency 

 of private and county effort. 



3. Improvement and strict enforcement 

 of laws against fire, the state to exert 

 its police authority to this end. 



4. Systematic study of forest conditions 

 and needs, to afford basis of intelligent 

 action and of any further desirable legis- 

 lation. 



5. A system of general popular educa- 

 tion, with specific advice to individuals in 

 proper forest management. 



The following are equally important as 

 part of an early rational policy but per- 

 haps less urgently in need of immediate 

 action by the legislature: 



1. Dependable low taxation of deforested 

 land not more valuable for agriculture 

 which will encourage its being held and 

 protected for a future crop, the state to 

 be compensated by adequate tax upon the 

 yield. 



2. Thorough study of the subject of tax- 

 ing mature timber, with a view of secur- 

 ing the adoption of a system which will 

 result in the greatest permanent com- 

 munity good. 



3. Study on which to base the early appli- 

 cation of advanced forestry principles to 

 the management of state-owned foresc 

 lands, and the purchase of cut or burned 

 over lands better suited for state than 

 private forestry. This to furnish educa- 

 tive example as well as to maintain state 

 revenue and proper forest conditions. 



r.KS.SONS FROM OTItKR STATK.S. 



Hardly any two states have exactly the 

 same policy in fire prevention. But, bar- 

 ring, of course, those which do practi- 

 cally nothing and consequently cannot be 

 considered to have studied the subject, the 

 greatest divergence is in the manner of 

 making the work a public charge after 

 admitting that it should be one. In other 

 words, progressive states recognize that It 

 is a public function and seek to make 

 the general population share the cost, but 

 their customs of local government influ- 

 ence decision as to whether state, county 

 or township should collect and expend the 

 fands which are borne by the taxpayer 

 in either case. This is largely a question 



of constitutional power to lay burdens upon 

 local units against their will. 



Pennsylvania, which in all forestry work 

 makes the state chiefly responsible, bears 

 four-fifths the entire expense by direct 

 appropriation. The counties pay the other 

 fifth. Michigan pays one-third, Connecti- 

 cut one-fourth. The majority of eastern 

 states, however, share costs equally with 

 the town governments which exist there. 

 Vermont solves the problem by assuming 

 it should be a town charge but preventing 

 hardship upon poor towns by providing 

 that any expense in excess of five per cent 

 of the town's "grand list" shall be borne 

 by the state. In 1908 this worked out to 

 make 70 towns with small fires pay their 

 own bills, while in 20 towns, severely rav- 

 aged, the state bore two-thirds the expense, 

 of fire fighting at a cost to it of $6,000. 

 Some states, including Massachusetts and 

 Wisconsin, make the towns bear all fire ex- 

 pense except on state reserves. Maine plac- 

 es a special one and one-half mill tax on all 

 property in (not timber land alone) the 

 forest portion of the state, and the state 

 collects and spends it. As a rule eastern 

 and central states do not consider private 

 protection by the owner any more logical 

 than private fire protection in cities. To 

 put it another way, they assume the forest 

 tax payer entitled to the same protection 

 under the forest statutes that he or any 

 other citizen receives under the statutes 

 against murder, theft or arson. The ques- 

 tion is only whether state or local govern- 

 ment shall finance and provide it, by di- 

 rect appropriation or otherwise. 



Oregon conditions are different in many 

 ways. The people's interest in forest pro- 

 tection Is in no way decreased by the ex- 

 istence of larger individual holdings, for 

 the use of timber brings the same wealth 

 for distribution and its destruction equally 

 injures all industries. Indeed the puli- 

 lie's stake is greater in exactly the meas- 

 ure that forests constitute a greater pro- 

 portion of our total resources. Neverthe- 

 less, the system of production must be 

 modified to fit our constitution, our dis- 

 tribution of wealth and population and our 

 less advanced public sentiment in the 

 matter. Axiomatically, Oregon should 

 spend as much more money than Pennsyl- 

 vania, as it has more forest values to pro- 

 tect, but spend It differently. 



No project. In which the public does not 

 share, receives public support. So long 

 as forest preservation is by the lumber 

 industry alone, it is looked at as a meas- 

 ure of private profit only. Carelessness 

 and lawlessness cannot be prevented or 

 prosecuted, for public sentiment is not 

 with the property owner. But, when the 

 average citizen is made to pay something 

 to protect his own welfare, he wants re- 

 sxilts for his money, even If he does not 

 approve of paying it. He sees that de- 



