26 X. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 318 



In Table 11 the attitude of woodland owners toward the establishment 

 of a cooperative is summarized. This table also shows the attitude of 

 owners who have accessible tracts and equipment for working in the 

 woods. The data indicate that a large proportion of the woodland con- 

 taining merchantable timber is in the hands of persons favorable to a co- 

 operative. Another fair-sized portion is controlled by those indifferent, 

 and only a small amount is in the hands of persons definitely antagonis- 

 tic to cooperation. About one-fourth of those favorable to a cooper- 

 ative are equipped for woods work. 



During recent years there has been considerable discussion of coop- 

 eration in the field of forestry.^ However, cooperatives in this field are 

 few in number and of relatively recent organization. The two which 

 have been most prominently discussed in this part of the country are 

 at Groveton, New Hampshire, and Cooperstowoi, New York.^ Both 

 of them are financed by federal loans, but in most of their other fea- 

 tures they differ greatly from one another. The Groveton cooperative 

 operates mainly as a bargaining agency, its principal product being 

 pulpwood though in the last year sawlogs have gained in importance. 

 The Cooperstown cooperative is an operating cooperative, and has in- 

 vested large sums in the building of a plant for sawing and converting 

 logs into finished lumber. 



This study suggests that the greatest opportunties for rewards from a 

 cooperative lie in the following fields: 



First, supplying to its members market information and selling their 

 products to the best advantage. 



Second, in selling through a central agency those products which on in- 

 dividual farms occur in quantities too small to interest a buyer. 



Third, and perhaps this might be included under number one, is that 

 of bargaining advantage through cooperative effort. A distinction can be 

 made, however, between bargaining advantage and opportunity for ob- 

 taining higher prices from better knowledge of markets. These are two 

 distinct fields of cooperative effort. It seems likely that the benefit ac- 

 cming from good information regarding markets would in the long nm 

 considerably outweigh that which might be obtained from any bargaining 

 advantages a cooperative in Carroll county might have. 



A fourth opportunity for a cooperative would be in the field of wood- 

 land management, where owners of small tracts might obtain advice 

 which they would be unable to afford as individuals. 



A fifth opportunity would be in the field of processing. While it is 

 not practicable for most owners, as individuals, to attempt processing 

 and marketing their products as lumber, a cooperative representing the 

 entire group could conceivably do it to advantage. It is possible that 



'Published material includes: 



Aaltonen, F., Herr, C. S. and Bariaclough, K. E., The Cooperative Marketing of Forest 

 Products, Journal of Forestry 36:203. 1938. 



Behre, C. Edward and Lockard, C. R.. Centralized Management and Utilization Adapted 

 to Farm Woodlands in the Northeast, Fel)rn:iry. 1937. 



Hawes, A. F., Cooperative Marketing of Woodland Products, United States Department of 

 Agriculture, Farmers' Bulletin 1100. 1920. 



Hicks, W. T., Economic Aspects of Cooperative Marketing of Forest Products, Journal of 

 Forestry, v. 37, p. 392, 1939. 



Moore, B., The Development of Cooperative Timber Marketing and Forestry in Great Brit- 

 ain, Journal of Forestry, v. 35, p. 439, 1937. 



Murphy, F. T., Cooperative Timber Marketing, Journal of Forestry, v. 35, p. 448, 1937. 

 'Aaltonen, et al. opus cif. 



Behre, et al. opus cit. 



