A NATIONAL FOREST POLICY 



AMERICAN FORESTRY MAGAZINE HEREWITH PUBLISHES SOME MORE OPINIONS REGARDING THE NEED OF A NATIONAL 

 FOREST POLICY AND THE KIND OF A FOREST POLICY PROPOSED BY UNITED STATES FORESTER HENRY S. GRAVES. COL. 

 GRAVES' OUTLINE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUCH A POLICY WAS PRINTED IN THE AUGUST ISSUE OF THE MAGAZINE 

 AND A FURTHER OUTLINE IS PUBLISHED HEREWITH. FORESTERS, LUMBERMEN AND TIMBERLAND OWNERS THROUGHOUT 

 THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN INVITED BY THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON THIS 

 VITALLY IMPORTANT SUBJECT.— EDITOR. 



FOREST ECONOMICS 



BY H. H. CHAPMAN 



EX-CHIEF OF SILVICULTURE, DISTRICT 3, U. S. FOREST SERVICE, AND DIRECTOR 

 AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION 



lyro well informed student of forestry denies the fun- 

 ■'■ * damental principles of economics in determining for- 

 est policies. A forester who confines himself to the con- 

 templation of methods of raising trees and ignores the 

 reasons for producing them is about on a par with a fore- 

 man whose only knowledge of a business is that of the 

 process of manufacture compared with the business 

 manager whose responsibility it is to make the business a 

 success by supplying demand through the co-ordination 

 of the processes of production, transportation and 

 marketing. 



As the Secretary-Manager of the National Lumber 

 Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Compton states the fol- 

 lowing fourteen points which, shorn of quality verbiage, 

 stand forth as the platform on which his discussion is 

 based : 



1. Cheap and plentiful timber and low prices for lumber are 

 not necessarily any benefit to the public. 



2. Destruction of the original forests of the United States 

 without provision for forest renewal is not necessarily a national 

 misfortune. 



3. The fact that forests are being destroyed faster than they 

 are being replaced by growth does not of itself signify public loss. 



4. The virtual disappearance of our best timber trees is not 

 necessarily detrimental to public welfare. 



5. It is not even probable that the lands better suited fur 

 growing .rees than for growing anything else should be so used. 



The disappearance of forest industries because of exhaus- 

 tion of timber supplies is neither a local nor a national mis- 

 fortune. 



7. The original timber in the United States should be treated 

 as a mine and not a crop, and no effort made to renew it. 



8. The loss of employment for labor caused by vanishing 

 forest industries is not an evil. 



9. The idleness of cut-over lands is an evidence that the main- 

 tenance of permanent forests upon them is poor public economy. 



10. The idleness of cut-over lands is also a proof that it is 

 poor private economy to grow forests on them. 



11. There is no obligation whatever resting on the owner of 

 forest lands to use them to grow timber. 



12. While admitting that the owner of property should not 

 use it to do damage to other property, we deny that he must 

 so use it as to benefit others. 



13. If the public wants more forestry than enlightened self- 

 interest dictates, the public must pay for it. 



14. Although the maintenance in idleness of cut-over land is 

 justified, yet we admit that these lands should be protected from 

 fire and in spite of the foregoing thirteen points, we believe that 

 this measure is necessary in order that timber may be grown on 

 such lands. 



By comparing tin- above version of the fourteen points 



with the original statement by Mr. Compton, it will he 



seen that the wording has been slightly changed SO that the 



writer lays himself open to the charge of misinterpreting 



these points. ( >n the contrary, it is in an endeavor to 



clarify them and state their exact meaning that the points 

 have been so restated. 



From Colonial times the basic, economic conditions 

 surrounding our national forest resources have been such 

 that over 80 per cent of our forests have passed into 

 private ownership. What has been the result of this 

 policy? The fourteen points are an answer. The eco- 

 nomic conditions surrounding the lumber industry as it 

 has been conducted in this country are such that the 

 National Lumber Manufacturers' Association voices 

 through Mr. Compton the basic belief of this industry, 

 to the effect that the production of timber as a business 

 for private capital has been impossible in the past and 

 will practically remain so in the future. Further, that 

 forest lands now in private ownership must largely, if not 

 wholly, remain unproductive of timber. This platform 

 is justified by a series of economic tenets which, stated 

 baldly, are a most remarkable sub-version of what every 

 other civilized nation in the world considers sound eco- 

 nomic policy. 



In an effort to justify the stand taken by the business 

 interests engaged in lumbering ; namely, that under no 

 conceivable circumstances should the industry be required 

 to take an active interest in the renewal of its raw 

 materials, this economist endeavors to prove that there 

 are practically no public interests which would indicate 

 the necessity for forestry on cut-over lands. Having 

 thus undermined the very foundation of forestry ; namely, 

 the need for it as a matter of public economics, it then 

 becomes much simpler to drive home the point that if the 

 public is so foolish as to demand forestry, they must in 

 all reason pay the entire cost of the bill. 



What is the matter with these fourteen points ? 



1. Xo one has ever claimed that the perpetuation of virgin 

 forests is a wise use of public resources. Growth in the virgin 

 forest is nil. Only by a proper removal of the over-mature timber 

 can the actual increment on any area of forest land be brought 

 into the plus column permanently, but unless the virgin stand is 

 cut in such a manner as to secure natural reproduction, or unless 

 this cut-over area is planted, the growth on the cut-over lands 

 is also nil. 



Cheap and abundant supplies of fundamental necessities of life 

 cannot be considered as a public calamity nor is there any possi- 

 ble danger that an abundance of second growth timber will in 

 any way interfere with the production of any other form of 

 public wealth. 



2. Classification of land was originally proposed by foresters. 

 It is the interests who own cut-over forest lands who are most 

 active in opposing this fundamental economic need. The use 

 of agricultural land for agriculture is an axiom. The use of 



1473 



