EDITORIAL 



MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 



ANEW phrase has recently come into forestry lan- 

 guage. As covered by the two words "minimum 

 rciuircments," it commonly refers to the minimum of 

 protection and silvicultural practice which will assure 

 natural regeneration or perpetuation of forest growth. 



It means nuich because in the present status of forest 

 legislation and management in America, the attainment 

 of the minimum is yet the first step. In anticipation of 

 the formulating of a national forest policy sufficiently 

 satisfactory to be adopted and applied, a very wise pre- 

 liminary step is being taken by the Chief Forester in as- 

 certaining the minimum requirements of representative 

 forest regions. By such studies and through the dis- 

 cussions which naturally follow, the problem is made 

 more concrete thus giving promise that the essentials 

 which have long been obscured, with perhaps some new 

 recommendations, will become generally recognized and 

 actually applied in the woods. 



As has been frequently pointed out by American For- 

 estry and by all who have any knowledge or interest in 

 the forests, fire protection is the absolute minimum under 

 any plan or policy, since without it there can be no new 

 forests, and the old ones will always be jeopardized. All 

 other requirements are secondary, and there is a grow- 

 ing conviction that if systematic fire protection is at- 

 tained through federal and state agencies in cooperation 

 with private owners, backed by an enlightened, aggressive 

 pub'.ic opinion, which will curb the danger from careless or 

 malicious individuals, at least a good start will have been 

 made towards a new forest growth on cut-over lands. 



The several things which represent the minimum sil- 

 vicultural requirements vary widely in different regions 

 and with the character of ownership. Whether we have 

 a diameter limit of six or twelve inches, or none, or re- 

 quire top lopping or brush disposal of softwoods and 

 not of hardwoods, or neither or both, is a local problem 



to be worked out and api)iicd as such. Foresters can do 

 much to assist nature, the application of their profession 

 ranging from the reforestation of absolutely denuded 

 areas to the regulation of cutting and systematic plans 

 of management which increase both the volume of wood 

 production and its quality. The things which they could 

 do, however, cannot always be done, because of economic 

 limitations, hence the importance of local studies which 

 give a basis for specific action rather than generalization 

 and no action. In the meantime, natural reconstructive 

 agencies are on duty every minute. 



The minimum requirements in any region must be 

 known and applied before the maximuiji measures may 

 be taken. Forestry, like every other great develojmient 

 is an evolution, and while America can draw on the tech- 

 nical knowledge and experience of Europe, the growth 

 of public sentiment and the changes in the economic in- 

 fluences are almost as slow as though there was no Eu- 

 ropean background of knowledge and experience. 



Forestry progress in the United Slates during the past 

 twenty years is represented largely by fire protection and 

 education, and in these notable progress has been made. 

 On the national forests and to a much less extent on state 

 lands, there has been a beginning in actual forest manage- 

 ment, but elsewhere the movement has been largely con- 

 versation. The great saving factor is that the forests 

 have regenerated themselves over enormous areas of cut- 

 over land, and while this has been restricted and damaged 

 by fire, these new forests have a greater extent aiul value 

 than is generally recognized. We continue to forget that 

 new forests cannot be grown in a day nor by talking about 

 it, and in making plans and policie.i, it is becoming con- 

 tinually more apparent that if reasonable minimum re- 

 quirements in keeping with regional conditions are ap- 

 plied, a foundation will be established on which to build 

 and expand to meet the wood requirements of posterity. 



PROFIT IN FOREST RECREATION 



IVlO small amount of space in these columns has been 

 ' ^ devoted to telling of the recreation to be found on 

 Forest lands. The majority of the articles have dealt with 

 some problem of use rather than production. Now with 

 Congress soon to consider the budget for the coming year 

 it may be only good business to spend some time and 

 thought in summing up the amount of money we have 

 invested in recreational development in our forests, what 

 it is producing on that investment and what is needed to 

 place in our Forests at least the more urgently needed 

 recreational developments so they may more efficiently 

 produce recreation. 



It may be a new thought to consider the Forests a 

 place comparable to a plant manufacturing recreational 

 products. Maybe recreation should not be viewed as a 

 commodity. And yet it is sold in the amusement market 



every day in the year. There is a regular basic price per 

 hour that will provide one with decent recreation. And 

 those places which offer this product on the market 

 are nothing more than recreation manufacturing concerns. 

 Therefore if the Forests produce recreation comparable 

 to that found in the city markets it is logical to think 

 of the entire system of Forests as potential recreation 

 manufacturing plants. 



What are the products in Forest Recreation? They 

 are many and cannot be rightfully nor fully computed 

 on the market price basis. Yet it will be worth while to 

 compare them in a general way with the cost of what 

 is sold in marts of amusement. 



It is estimated by actual count that in 1920 more than 

 four million people visited the National Forests of our 

 country each staying approximately two and a half days. 



