WHAT OUR NATIONAL FOREST POLICY SHOULD BE 



BY LT.-COL. W. B. GREELEY, CHIEF FORESTER, U. S. FOREST SERVICE 



1 THINK we have had enough discussion of general 

 principles of what a National Forest policy should 

 be. I think that whatever disagreement we may per- 

 sonally feel in regard to particular figures, as to par- 

 ticular states or regions, we are all convinced of the fun- 

 damental fact that something definite and tangible must 

 be done to restore the timber supply of the United 

 States. I think we all recognize that the big objective 

 of this effort must be to get growth on forest land that 

 is not in demand for other uses than the production of 

 timber. Starting from that basis, it seems to me that our 

 forestry program in the first place must fit our existing 

 forms of government ; it must fit our existing and habit- 

 ual ways of doing things ; it must fit the recognized fields 

 of jurisdiction of the different public agencies who should 

 participate and of the private individual. We cannot 

 nationalize all of the forest land in the country. At the 

 same time, the public has a very large and important 

 place in any program of reforestation; the public has, 

 I think, very definite responsibilities. There are certain 

 things that the public only can do. It is impossible to 

 bring the forest fire hazard under control without public 

 action, because you can never control forest fires without 

 a vigorous exercise of the police powers lodged in the 

 public. 



At the same time, as I see it, there is a very definite, 

 necessary place in this program for the private forest 

 owner and the private forest industry. I do not want 

 to see individual initiative eliminated. I want to see the 

 enlightened timber interest of the lumber owner and the 

 manufacturers of forest products given just as large 

 a part in this forestry program as possible. I think 

 at the same time that the forest owner must recognize 

 that he has a responsibility as well as the public; that 

 m the long run the forestry movement will increase the 

 value of his land ; that in the long run he has a responsi- 

 bility not only not to permit the condition of his property 

 to be a menace to his neighbors but not to permit the con- 

 dition of his property to be a menace to the industrial 

 welfare of his country. 



In recognizing any such responsibility as that we must 

 immediately couple with it the principle that what is 

 required of the private owner must be equitable and 

 fair in consideration of the conditions under which he 

 is operating. 



Taking these three angles then, the federal angle, the 

 State angle, the private angle it is my conception that 

 a forestry program which will be effectual, which will 

 accomplish results, must be built up on the principle of 

 co-operation in which all three of these elements par- 

 ticipate. That leads at once to one of the important 

 points, more or less fundamental, as to what the relations 

 should be between the Federal Government and the 

 States. Very strong arguments have been advanced in 

 favor of outright, positive federal control of the handling 

 of forest lands. 



Many of those arguments in principle cannot be an- 

 swered and I do not take issue with them. The question 

 as it appeals to me is the practical road, the tangible 

 accomplishment. It does not seem to me wise to adopt 

 a theory in attacking this great problem that is going to 

 lead us through 10 or 15 years of controversy, of litiga- 

 tion over the constitutionality of enterprises arising from 

 conflicting jurisdiction between the Federal Government 

 and the States. 



I feel that we will get results measured in actual terms 

 of timber growth and that is the only way that you 

 can measure results much more rapidly if we at least 

 begin on a basis of co-operation that undertakes to give 

 a fair recognition to the existing ways of doing things, 

 to the American idea of handling locally the things whicn 

 concern you locally. It is my feeling that the function 

 of the Federal Government should be a co-operative 

 one that as far as possible it should deal through the 

 State ; that it should seek to correlate action between the 

 states as far as it can in a co-operative spirit ; it should 

 set the pace ; it should give the several states real leader- 

 ship ; it should give liberal financial assistance. 



I think as a necessary correlary of this principle the 

 Federal Government working with the State through 

 the State organizations we must recognize the right 

 of the Federal Government to insist as a condition of 

 its co-operation, where it deems necessary, that certain 

 standard requirements be met by the states. That is the 

 only way in which you can make federal leadership and 

 correlation between the states effective. As it becomes 

 clear in dealing with this or that set of conditions that 

 certain standard requirements must be met, those re- 

 quirements must be made a prerequisite of federal co- 

 operation. 



Now, beginning with those general ideas, our legisla- 

 tive program in forestry, as I see it, must aim at five 

 big things. 



The first of these is to bring the forest fire under con- 

 trol. That represents 75 or 80 per cent of the whole 

 problem. I would, if necessary, say for the next 10 to 

 20 years, forget everything else and concentrate all our 

 energies upon that one thing of bringing our forest 

 fire losses down to a basis where they can be figured 

 on more or less as a fixed hazard or a fixed liability. 

 That must include all classes of forest land. It must in- 

 clude the cut over land, the land that has been denuded 

 by forest fires, the land once in timber but now cut and 

 unimproved and now being made no use of; it must in- 

 clude in my conception, every class of forest land unless 

 that land is economically in demand for some other 

 use. I think that we must do a great deal along the 

 line of studying the use of land, the practical classifica- 

 tion of land to determine the types of land which in the 

 long run we anticipate will be devoted to farm crops 

 rather than timber growth, but the actual test which I 

 would apply and I would apply it as a matter of law 







