The Conservation Congress and National 



Forest Conservation 



IN passing the resolution on public lands, the Sixth 

 National Conservation Congress at its recent 

 Washington conference has, intentionally or 

 otherwise, placed itself on record as diametrically 

 opposed to the policy of National Forests, and in 

 favor of their dissolution. The resolution reads : 

 "The established traditional and sound policy of the 

 United States with respect to the disposition of its 

 unappropriated public lands is opposed to the mak- 

 ing of a direct revenue thereby, beyond the expense 

 incident to the surveying, classification and disposing 

 of such lands ; on the contrary, said policy is intended 

 to encourage and promote the settlement and develop- 

 ment thereof ; and any act of Congress, or any ad- 

 ministration construction thereof which is not in har- 

 mony with this policy does an injustice to the new 

 states by placing them on an unequal footing with 

 the original states, and by preventing the settlement 

 of such new states and the development of their 

 resources." 



It is needless to point out that since 1891 it has been 

 the "traditional" policy of the United States to retain 

 permanently as public domain forest lands more 

 suitable for forestry and watershed protection than 

 for agriculture or mining, and that six successive 

 presidents have set the seal of their approval upon 

 this policy by withdrawing, under proclamation, and 

 not by act of Congress, a total of 160 million acres 

 of such lands. The law of 1891 authorized "the 

 making of a direct revenue thereby" in providing 

 for the sale of timber and other resources. "Admin- 

 istration construction" of this law inaugurated the 

 custom of charging grazing fees to National Forests, 

 by which it became possible to regulate the use of 

 this resource. This construction, which the resolu- 

 tion condemns as "opposed to the traditional and 

 sound policy of the United States," was upheld by 

 a decision of the Supreme Court in two separate in- 

 stances and is as much a part of our public land 



policy as the Homestead Law itself. By stating that 

 this "policy" discourages and prevents settlement in 

 these states, the resolution conveys the impression 

 that agricultural lands are being withheld from set- 

 tlement by these reserves, while in fact, the policy of 

 the government is to list for settlement every acre of 

 true agricultural soil lying within the reserves, as 

 fast as it can be examined and classified as such. 

 "Retardation of development of resources" is equally 

 misleading. What resource is meant? Not forest 

 grazing, which is developed on more favorable terms 

 to the stockman than could be secured from states 

 or individuals ; not agriculture, for agricultural lands 

 are never retained; not mining, for mining claims 

 can be located on any public land inside or outside of 

 National Forests. Not even timber, as lumbermen 

 can buy National Forest timber on terms so liberal 

 that there is a tendency on the part of some other 

 owners of forest lands to complain of unfair compe- 

 tition in sale of National Forest stumpage. Perhaps 

 waterpower is meant, and the entire purpose of this 

 resolution is to create the thought that the Govern- 

 ment should not retain title to waterpower sites nor 

 charge anything for the use of such sites on terms 

 both fair to the public and the capital to be invested 

 for fear of blocking the development of the resource. 

 But if this is the real meaning of the resolution it 

 has not been clearly expressed. 



As it stands this resolution places the Washing- 

 ton conference of the Conservation Congress on rec- 

 ord as repudiating the National Forests and conser- 

 vation policy of six successive administrations, a 

 policy firmly rooted in the institutions of the West 

 and of the entire nation. Such action will not receive 

 the support of the public and will go far to discredit 

 the National Conservation Congress as a means of 

 expressing popular thought and public policy on 

 national conservation. 



Charles Lathrop Pack. 





?^^t] rag) prf^ 



353 



