CONTROL OF PRIVATE FOREST CUTTING 



BY W. DARROW CLARK 



PROFESSOR OF FORESTRY AT THE MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE 



F)R the last two decades foresters and other advo- 

 cates of forestry have talked and written abund- 

 antly on the various arguments favoring the cutting 

 of forests in accordance with forestry principles, with a 

 view to the future crop. 



Are we not now offered the psychological time to 

 pause, take account of results, and determine whether 

 or not our past methods have been justified by these 

 results ? 



So far as I am able to observe, the amount of privately 

 owned forest land which has been cut in accordance 

 with the teachings of forestry forms a very insignificant 

 total when compared with the amount which has been 

 cut in the same old "devil may care" way. 



Although the writer does not possess the data neces- 

 sary for competent judgment as to the results obtained 

 on National Forest timber sales areas, yet he feels safe 

 in assuming that in so far as they have been cut in 

 accordance with the rules of the United States Forest 

 Service, they have at least served in the nature of 

 experimental cuttings made with a definite purpose and 

 for obtaining definite results in the future crop. As such 

 they will serve as stepping stones to better practice, 

 while the cuttings on private lands can serve only in a 

 haphazard way. 



What, we may ask, is the reason for such a situation? 

 The reason is both simple and apparent. 



In the one case, the method of cutting was directed 

 by Government experts. In the other case, the method of 

 cutting was directed by the private owner, who very 

 clearly lacks sufficient interest in the future condition of 

 his forest possessions. 



How, then, can the method of cutting on private lands 

 be improved? Is the answer, "By Government Control?" 



Certainly the current tendency is for the Government 

 to step in and direct wherever private and public inter- 

 ests conflict. 



Abstract principles affecting the rights of individuals 

 have been suspended. Corporation owned railroad prop- 

 erty has been taken over and is now being operated by 

 the Government. Manufacturing plants and their output 

 have been commandeered. The quantity of certain foods, 

 and the quantity of fuel which the individual may con- 

 sume has been limited. The amount of profits which 

 may be made, and the amount made which may be re- 



tahied has been definitely limited. Verily, even men are 

 drafted bodily and directed to do thus and so, and to go 

 here and there. All this has been done for the welfare 

 of the republic. Government direction of cutting on pri- 

 vate lands will be in the direction of this tendency. 

 Government ownership is not prerequisite. The United 

 States Forest Service logically would be the directing 

 center. The Eastern part of the country can be divided 

 into districts, irrespective of State lines, similar to the 

 western districts. A district office in charge of a dis- 

 trict chief can be established in each eastern district, 

 together with a corps of assistants. No cutting on pri- 

 vate land would be permitted until the owner had made 

 application to his district chief, and the chief in turn 

 had specified the manner in which the cutting should 

 proceed. In other words, the cutting would all be done 

 under Government control just as is done on the National 

 Forests. 



Naturally, under this regime the office of the indi- 

 vidual State Forester would become superfluous. In 

 many cases there is little doubt that he would simply be 

 taken over by the U. S. Forest Service. The State 

 Forester would thus be freed from local political con- 

 trol, and accordingly he would be very much more in- 

 dependent in carrying out his policies for the best forest 

 results. It might seem advisable in many cases to con- 

 vert the State Forester's office into a State City For- 

 ester's office to direct, shade tree and park work through- 

 out the State. But these are the details. Is not the 

 time ripe for some agitation as to the advisability of the 

 adoption of this policy? 



Let us have no misunderstanding as to what is the end 

 sought, and what is the means to that end. Better con- 

 servation and reproduction of our forest resources is 

 the end sought, and government control of all cutting is 

 merely the means by which we may possibly attain it. 

 It was never more apparent than now that the bone and 

 sinew of a nation, its recuperative power, its power to 

 come back after a devastating blow, lies largely in its 

 natural resources. Ie behooves every man, woman and 

 child of our nation to take heed of this fact. It is direct- 

 ly up to those who know what the present situation and 

 tendency is to stand by their guns and to send this idea 

 home to the people. 



WHEN YOU PLANT A MEMORIAL TREE WRITE AND TELL THE AMERICAN 

 FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. 



818 



