EDITORIAL 425 



to avert severe public losses. But thus far the Geological Survey has done 

 practicalh^ nothing to meet the plain obligation resting upon it even under its 

 own interpretation. 



It is probable that when the law was passed it was supposed that the 

 Survey had at its disposal the necessary information regarding the physi- 

 ography of these two well-known regions, and that it had experts who could 

 determine by a simple survey with sufficient correctness for all practical pur- 

 poses the questions involved in so far as the Survey is called upon to determine 

 anything. It is certainly not for the Geological Survey to say what con- 

 stitutes a navigable river, or on what rivers the watersheds should be taken. 

 The sole question is, will the protection of the watershed indicated by the 

 Secretary of Agriculture affect the navigability of the stream, assuming it to 

 be navigable? 



Yet it is possible for the controller of the treasury and the Geological 

 Survey to practically nullify an act of Congress simply by obstruction. 



IS FORESTRY PRACTICAL? 



IN AN address on practical forestry before the National Lumber Manu- 

 facturers' Association, Dr. C. A. Schenck disclaimed knowledge of the 

 exact meaning of practical forestry, even after twenty years' experience 

 as a professional forester. If so able an authority will pardon the criticism, 

 this seems to us to have been an unfortunate admission, although the turn 

 of the phrase doubtless pleased many of the lumbermen present and ingratiated 

 the speaker with a part of his audience. 



From our point of view the expressions ''practical forestry" and "theoretical 

 forestry" involve an essential fallacy. Forestry, rightly considered, is, in its 

 very nature, a practical or applied science and needs no qualifying adjective. 

 Tt is in the last analysis the application of scientific principles to the culti- 

 vation and management of trees and land. There cannot be any theoretical 

 or unpractical side to real forestry. Probably Dr. Schenck would be prompt 

 to assert this, as his mind is eminently practical. Nevertheless, his remark 

 in opening the address referred to, gav^e an opportunity for some of the 

 lumber trade journals which, notwithstanding a growing sympathy with 

 forestry, still like to find weak spots in the forester's armor. 



There may be unpractical carrying out of forestry teachings, but forestry 

 in its fundamental principles cannot be otherwise than practical ; nor are its 

 misapplications either so numerous or so harmful as the wasteful practices of 

 a very large number of lumbermen, which are unpractical even from the 

 crude standpoint of dollars and cents returned. What does it mean when 

 the claim is continually made by individual lumbermen and by lumber journals 

 that their business is conducted at a loss, that the only money made in it 

 is by speculation in timberlands? If that is true, lumbermen as a whole are 

 a most unpractical class. 



But is it true? Is it not a fact that those who are conducting their 

 business along systematic lines, who are following more or less the principles 

 of what is coming to be known as scientific business management, are making 

 profits, and that the reckless and wasteful operatoi's are losing? From the 

 standpoint of profits, then, lumbering is no more practical than forestry. It 

 all depends on how it is carried on. 



However, this tu qnoque method of debate would be extremely unprofitable 

 if it did not lead to some conclusion tending to harmonize the difference. 



The fact is simply that forestry and lumbering are entirely practical if 

 rightly handled. They have sought different ends, but these ends must be 



