146 ALASKA 



scant population and the limited area of soil free enough from 

 stones. A dense population, of course, forces the cultivation of 

 even the steepest and rockiest soils but there is only one town with 

 a population of over 10,000 people and not more than a half 

 dozen with 1000 or more people. Taking the territory as a 

 whole there is only one inhabitant to every nine square miles. 

 Hence, even in the neighborhood of the larger towns, tillage land 

 does not bring a high price. An additional reason is, of course, 

 the climate which sets very definite limitations on the variety of 

 crops. These three factors, the small amount of level, stone-free 

 soil, the limited demand, and the rigorous climate have kept the 

 price of agricultural land low even in southwestern Alaska and 

 in the central part of the territory they are even more restrictive. 

 It is only in the vicinity of the larger towns that more than $20 

 an acre may be obtained for stump land to be used for tillage. 



The use of cutover land for grazing Ukewise offers no adequate 

 market for the great bulk of timberland. Grazing never can 

 become an important industry because there is not the chance to 

 produce feed to carry the stock thru the long winters. This 

 holds true in spite of the fact that horses have been known to 

 winter in the interior without shelter. They pawed thru the 

 light snow and subsisted on the dried grass, but this was mere 

 existence. 



For the production of timber the lands have a low valuation 

 because even in the southwestern portion growth is relatively 

 slow. In the interior the yields are so meagre that only very low 

 returns can be expected from land devoted to timber production. 

 In fact only the best of the coast forests will show land values of 

 $5 or better for timber production and yet this is the highest use 

 to which large portions of Alaska can be devoted. In fact the 

 burden of proof should always be upon the other possible uses. 

 In other words, while the returns from timber production per se 

 are low they are much greater than from tillage or grazing in 

 practically every case. In addition the indirect returns of the 

 forest, its stream protective value especially where water powers 

 are concerned and its aesthetic value should always be con- 

 sidered. 



