\stfuction to animal life, loss in revenues derived from the patronage 

 of sportsmen, and loss in revenues that might be derived from tourist 

 traffic and resorters were the country saved from fire and made more 

 attractive. More specifically, in the application of dollars to the 

 problem, he says, supervisors should continue as fire wardens, on 

 definite yearly pay, as stated in the table above. He would have a fire 

 warden for each county and 30 wardens in the fire area, instead of the 

 10 district wardens, as now. He would pay them about what the 

 district wardens are getting now. 



He would have the state warden at Lansing empowered to employ 

 at least 500 patrolmen, or rangers, which is the meaning of "special 

 wardens" in the table. These would be men selected, so far as pos- 

 sible, among the local populations and would serve when called out. 

 More fire towers and phones and some fire lines to break up the most 

 dangerous bodies of slash are also comtemplated in the program. 

 There are now three fire towers standing in the vast area of the fire 

 country, and two or three more ready to go up, according to informa- 

 tion furnished at the state warden's office. There are no fire lines 

 whatever on this vast territory outside the state forests. 



RESTOCK WITH TREES. 



A proposal to spend $550,000 a year for forest protection, outside 

 the 650 H 00 acres of the public domain, the most of which the State 

 Forester will protect at a separate cost, will appeal to some Michigan 

 citizens as too much, to some others as none too much, depending on 

 the point of view. The point of view of some who think the figure 

 looks large may shift a little with further consideration of what the 

 financial returns are for protection investment. It is always to be 

 borne in mind that the proposition is to take a first step necessary 

 to reclamation of the idle lands by restocking them with trees: 

 Propagation of forests by assistance to nature is not conceivable 

 without protection. All authorities, state and national, have said that 

 many times. 



P, S. Lovejoy, co-laborer with Prof. Roth, in the -University of 

 Michigan forestry department, whose comprehensive article led this 

 series, has written of "Timber Values as Affected by Fire Hazard." 

 He speaks only of one of the elements of value to be reckoned on when 

 waste lands are made to grow forests. That is merchantable timber. 



FIRES IRREPARABLE. 



"A burned factory," he points out, "can be rebuilt; a burned forest 

 cannot be replaced" meaning, not without great lapse of time. Hence 

 forest fires do what is relatively irreparable damage. Hence it must 

 rationally be expected that forest protection will cost more in propor- 

 tion to assessed valuation at any given date than will fire insurance 

 on a building or a business. 



Forest insurance cannot be purchased in this country. 



Insurance c'harges buy indemnification for losses and replacement 

 of burned property. As has been explained, the system won't apply 

 where there can be no replacement of the burned property or at least 

 the insurance companies take that view. The argument is, therefore, 

 that it must be expected that forest protection will cost more than 

 insurance. Protection must be raised to the highest possible point of 

 efficiency to avoid irrecoverable losses. 



It will not strike the average reader that to put $550,000 a year 

 into protection instead of less than $100,000 in t'he effort to cut down an 

 annual loss in timber, second growth and land values easily approximat- 



30 



