EDITORIAL 



SHALL THE FOREST SERVICE BE ELIMINATED FROM 



ALASKA? 



np HE time has come for plain speaking about the forests 

 *- of Alaska and the efforts to remove them from the 

 jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Very Avisely about 1902, 

 the Government set aside the bulk of the dense spruce 

 and hemlock forests ithat fringe the coast and cover the 

 islands of south-eastern Alaska. These forests comprise 

 one of the largest bodies of accessible timber in our coun- 

 try. No less than seventy-five billion feet of merchanta- 

 ble timber stand in the Tongass and Chugach National 

 Forests, enough ito furnish, annually over one billion 

 feet of pulp wood and other material to our industries 

 for all time if the forests are handled under the right 

 methods of forestry. 



Under the jurisdict:ion of the Forest Service these for- 

 ests have not only served local requirements for lumber, 

 but already two large sales of timber have been made for 

 the manufacture of pulp or paper in Alaska, and there is 

 excellent promise of several additional large sales which 

 will esitablish new manufacturing enterprises. Just at the 

 time wben the Forest Service is succeeding in making 

 the forests a large factor in the building up of this fron- 

 tier region under conditions which will insure the per- 

 petuation of the forests and thereby the permanence of 

 these new industries, the proposal is made in Congress 

 to cut off the administration of the Alaskan fore&ts from 

 the Forest Service and place them in untried hands in the 

 Interior Department. This proposal is contained in the 

 New Bill, which ait the recent hearings before the Senate 

 Committee on Territories was strongly endorsed by the 

 Secretary of the Interior. 



The argument advanced in favor of the Bill is that 

 logic requires itihe consolidation of all federal land mat- 

 ters in Alaska under one DepaTrtment in order to avoid 

 duplication- In point of fact there is no real duplica- 

 tion at the present time. The Forest Service administers 

 the lands and provides for the use of the resources, and 

 it does this acceptably to the people of Alaska who are 

 directly concerned with the public undertaking. The legal 

 matters pertaining to land titles are handled by the Gen- 

 eral Land Office whose functions are primarily those 

 of land disposal and titles. The amount of this class 

 of work in the National Forests of Alaska is insignificanil 

 conjpared with the business of administering the land 

 for timber production and other uses. The two lines of 

 work are so distinct that there is no embarrassment 

 from duplication or overlapping. On the other hand, 

 nothing could be more illogical than the proposal to elimi- 

 nate the Forest Service from Alaska, for it would im- 

 mediately l>e necessary to build up in the Interior De- 

 Ifartmemt a new forest bureau which would be a dupli- 



cation of that already in the Agricultural Department. 

 There would thus be two federal Forest Services hand- 

 ling identical matters and involving the worst sort of 

 duplication of effort and unnecessary large overhead 

 costs. The change would be fraught with grave danger 

 to the public interests, for the forests vrould be taken 

 from a bureau that has carried the wiork for over fifteen 

 years, has established a competent and efficient decen- 

 tralized organization, has developed sound and workable 

 policies, and has the confidence of the country at large. 

 The forests would now be taken from this competent 

 organization and placed in the hands of a Department 

 which must build up a similar bureau to administer them. 

 Inevitably the proposed action would result in changes 

 of policy as well as in dupHcation of effort. Two gov- 

 ernment policies in forestry certainly would lead to con- 

 flict and public injury. The next step naturally would be 

 to transfer the entire Forest Service from the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture to the Interior Department. This 

 was shown in the editorial appearing in the October 

 number of American Forestry to be a step of great dan- 

 ger to the National Forest enterprise and to the wlhole 

 movement of forestry in the country. 



For nxany years efforts have been made to break down 

 the National Forests of Alaska. At one time it was the 

 frank proposal to abolish these Forests and to throw 

 open the lands to the old system which in the 19th cen- 

 tury was accompanied by so much fraud and scandal. 

 Later the profMjsal was to abolish the Chugach Forest 

 alone. Then came the proposal to have all federal mat- 

 ters in Alaska, including the National Forests, handled 

 by a politically-appointed and substantially irresponsible 

 commission- Now comes the i)roposal to eliminate the 

 Forest Service from Alaska and to place the work, which 

 is being so efficiently done, under another Department. 

 It is unnecessary to draw any inferences regarding the 

 purpose of /the present move. The fact of importance 

 is that the effect would be to lose to the public the great 

 value of the National Forest system that is operating so 

 well in the west and in Alaska itself. 



The effect of this move on the National Forest sys- 

 tem may easily be conceived. It would jeopardize the 

 whole enterprise which has been built up during the past 

 fifteen years or more and is serving in so many ways 

 the public interests. The welfare of the public, in our 

 opinion, demands that the Alaskan National Forests re- 

 main under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service in the 

 Department of AgricUhure, and we urge the vigorous 

 support of this principle on the jiart of our readers and 

 of the country at large. 



