STATE WORK 



245 



fires mean property destruction also, the 

 private cost is now borne by those whose 

 losses make them least able to bear it. 



Here we arrive at a distinction between 

 patrol and fire fighting, and it is in this 

 that most eastern systems are weak. They 

 tend to provide for fire fighting or foi- 

 prevention, and consequently cost more 

 than they need to, with less actual pro- 

 tection. The ideal is to assist patrol, as 

 well as fighting, in equal proportion of the 

 cost, and this can scarcely be done without 

 close co-operation between state and owner 

 without a districting system determined 

 chiefly by owners. Prevention, not fire 

 fighting, is the end to be sought. It de- 

 pends, In cost and efficiency, upon local 

 hazard and ownership. 



Any state falls into a greater or less 

 number of districts demanding different 

 measure and method of patrol best deter- 

 mined by those interested therein. The 

 owner of the majority of the forest property 

 in each should have chief voice in fix- 

 ing the cost and method essential, all 

 owners within this district should bear 

 equal proportionate burden, and the 

 state's proportion should bear the same re- 

 lation to the acreage cost that it does in 

 any other district. Like division should 

 be possible for cost of fire fighting labor 

 additional to patrol. 



The most practicable solution of these 

 many problems, at least at present, seems 

 to be to modify the present Idaho dis- 

 trict system so as to escape its regulation 

 of state expenditure solely by state owner- 

 ship, which is not adequate in Oregon. 

 Wherever the owners in a suitable dis- 

 trict will make concerted effort, the state 

 should agree to bear a certain proportion 

 of the cost provided there is a responsibe 

 local organization to carry out the protec- 

 tive policy decided upon. In localities 

 where the owners refuse or neglect to main- 

 tain such organization, independently em- 

 ployed wardens should be appointed upon 

 request, but without compensation by the 

 state, as at present. In such localities, 

 also, the state forester should be em- 

 powered to take any additional steps de- 

 manded by the public welfare in emer- 

 gency, and perhaps to recover a fair part 



of the cost from the owners of the land 

 concerned. 



To sum up, although the state's inter- 

 est and financial responsibility is great, 

 it can accomplish most not by building 

 up an immense fire organization of its 

 own, inviting political interference and at 

 best requiring complicated and expensive 

 supervision, but by encouraging and aid- 

 ing local action by those whose own inter- 

 est insures the maximum efficiency with 

 the least state machinerj'. Where it can- 

 not obtain this relief, and only there, it 

 should take charge of the situation it- 

 self. If this system is followed, the ex- 

 penditure of the state fire funds will be 

 to best advantage, and the state's own 

 forest service will be left fairly free to 

 devote itself to other branches of forestry 

 work, such as reforestation, public edu- 

 cation, and making the many investiga- 

 tions badly needed before a permanent 

 policy can be developed. Otherwise the 

 state forester's entire time is occupied by 

 fire work, which can do no better than 

 others, and he has no opportunity to do 

 the things which he alone can do. 



Pennsylvania spends $180,000 a year for 

 forestry and fire protection. New York $118,- 

 000, Maine $64,000, and the other eastern 

 and middle western forest states follow 

 in line. Michigan expects to treble its 

 present annual appropriation of $19,000 this 

 year. Minnesota appropriates $21,000 and 

 the towns bear the rest. Washington ex- 

 pects greatly to increase its present an- 

 nual allowance of $23,000. Idaho shares 

 on a pro rata basis, amounting to about 

 $15,000 last year and double that this 

 year. It is unnecessary to prolong the re- 

 view further than to say that down even 

 to little New Jersey, with $13,500 a year, 

 other states have left Oregon at the fool 

 of the list in preservation of forest wealth 

 and industries. None of them, having be- 

 gun the work, abandons it. Their people 

 endorse further progress by each legis- 

 lature. Shall Oregon, with most at stake, 

 remain the only laggard, inexcusably in- 

 different to the life and property of its 

 citizens, and hazard worse disasters than 

 those of 1910. 



