944 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



of Massachusetts did not consider the State Forestry 

 Department of sufficient importance to stand alone and 

 bear its own responsibility for success or failure. You 

 placed us under another department, and we have been 

 powerless to grow to the measure of our responsibilities. 

 The fault rests on your shoulders." 



These are the questions to be met in the next few 

 weeks by the great and general court of Massachusetts, 

 which is trying to reach a wise solution of her problem. 

 May we hope that they will have foresight, and place 

 the responsibility of the forestry program squarely on 

 the shoulders of a separate Forestry Department. 



IDAHO FOR MORE NATIONAL FORESTS 



ON March 3, 1907, Congress prohibited the further 

 creation of National Forests by Presidential Proc- 

 lamation in the States of Washington, Oregon, 

 Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. The late 

 Theodore Roosevelt before signing this bill used the 

 authority of which he was about to deprive himself in 

 creating extensive areas of new National Forests in the 

 six States mentioned. At the time, this action aroused 

 tremendous protest, and was looked upon as a defiance 

 of the wishes of Congress. 



That the action of the President was in advance of 

 public sentiment at the time no one will deny. In the 

 State of Idaho especially a bitter antagonism existed 

 towards the creation of National Forests, and this senti- 

 ment was actively expressed by the late Senator Heyburn. 

 In the Thunder Mountain region of central Idaho a 

 typical mining boom was under way, and out of defer- 

 ence to the wishes of the Senator and of the miners who 

 feared Government restrictions, an area of 1,100,000 

 acres was omitted from the Proclamation and remained 

 public land without National Forests, but entirely sur- 

 rounded by them. 



The period of 11 years which has elapsed has seen a 

 tremendous reversal of public sentiment in every one of 

 the above States. The Legislature of the State of Idaho 

 has for two successive sessions passed resolutions peti- 

 tioning Congress to create a National Forest out of this 

 rejected Thunder Mountain area. In the last session 

 both Houses of the Legislature passed this petition 

 unanimously, while in the previous session there was 

 but one dissenting vote in either House. 



What is the reason for this change? The answer is a 

 demonstration on the ground of the benefits of National 

 Forest Service administration compared with the evils 

 of unregulated use of public domain. The Thunder 

 Mountain region has but one-half of one per cent of 

 land fit for agriculture. Experience has abundantly 

 demonstrated that nonagricultural timbered lands in the 

 West are best regulated by National ownership and man- 

 agement under the principles adopted by the Forest 

 Service. The Legislature of Idaho backed by all of the 

 economic interests of the State now set forth in their 

 memorial to Congress : 



1. That fires range unchecked in this region and have 

 destroyed 700 million feet of timber. 



2. That the old roads built in the time of the boom 

 have gone to pieces, and that for lack of transportation, 

 and of State and local funds to develop roads, mining 

 and water power development are impossible. 



3. That wild life is being exterminated. 



4. That hordes of sheep from Oregon invade this 

 region annually, and are converting the entire area into 

 a dust heap. 



5. That no revenue whatever is being yielded by the 

 resources of the region for the benefit of the State. 



It is conspicuously true that this region whose carry- 

 ing capacity for sheep is not over 75,000 is grazed by at 

 least four times that number annually, and that local 

 stockmen and settlers have no rights whatever. The 

 indictment against the system of private initiative and 

 "laissez faire" is a heavy one. What is the cure? 



According to the Idaho Legislature, "Inclusion of said 

 area within a National Forest would eliminate the annual 

 destruction of timber by forest fire ; make it possible for 

 homestead settlers to secure titles to their lands under 

 the Forest Homestead Act ; give adequate system of 

 regulated range use, thus conserving and perpetuating the 

 forage resources for the benefit of the local residents and 

 tax payers; make it possible for the State to realize its 

 equity in the lands by relinquishing the unsurveyed school 

 lands and selecting lands elsewhere ; increase the revenue 

 of the county and State through the receipt of 35 per 

 cent of the gross receipts collected by the Forest Ser- 

 vice; enlarge the power of the State to share in the 

 benefits of the Federal Aid Road Act; and otherwise to 

 assist in opening to development and use the vast Na- 

 tional resources of the Thunder Mountain region." 



This region on account of its inaccessibility has no 

 value as a National Park. The surrounding area under 

 National Forest administration has developed rapidly and 

 the new road legislation will further stimulate this 

 process. 



The American Forestry Association has from the first 

 stood firmly on the platform that National ownership 

 and management of National Forests was fundamental 

 to the welfare of Western States, and has resisted all 

 efforts to secure support for the pernicious doctrine of 

 dispersal and cession of these National possessions to 

 the State. The State of Idaho is the latest convert to this 

 doctrine, but apparently its conversion is thorough and 

 complete. 



THE Seventh Annual Meeting of the New York State 

 - 1 - Forestry Association was a most successful one and 

 a great deal of interest was manifested in the discussion 

 of a broad and varied program. Important addresses 

 were delivered by Dean Hugh P. Baker, of the New 

 York State College of Forestry at Syracuse; Prof. 

 Ralph S. Hosmer, of the Department of Forestry at 

 Cornell, and others. 



