No. 4.] REPORT OF STATE FORESTER. 301 



the University of Minnesota, Department of Forestry. Professor Green 

 was particularly anxious that the government be called upon to enact a 

 law whereby each State should have a definite appropriation yearly for 

 carrying on forestry work. The idea was carried as far as presenting the 

 matter before Congress, H. R. 9219, known as the Davis forestry bill. 

 The bill called for an appropriation of $5,000 by the national government, 

 on condition that each State appropriate a like sum. Professor Green 

 said, "When we think of the enormous value of the forest output of this 

 country, the amount requested to educate young men to be competent 

 to take care of this forest wealth seems trivial indeed. I do not wish to 

 see all the agricultural colleges attempting to turn out professional fores- 

 ters, and such would not be the effect of these proposed expenditures; but 

 the result would be that in a short time we would have a surplus of young 

 men well trained in the basic principles of forestry, through whose efforts 

 the forest sentiment of to-day would crystallize into a permanent and 

 helpful thing." 



Do we realize that this plan carried out would mean an expenditure of 

 only $250,000 a year from the national government, and as well furnish 

 an incentive for the States to take advantage of the assistance? This 

 would result in placing the work on a progressive foundation at once. 



For some reason we did not take to the idea enthusiastically. There 

 is no legitimate reason even now for not using our present governmental 

 funds for this work, but this might cause necessary adjustment and 

 financial complication. Consequently we have been prone to let well 

 enough alone. 



One thing is certain, we are losing valuable time in not having a more 

 definite and well-defined policy of development for forestry throughout 

 the nation. While here and there our most progressive States are doing 

 something in forestry work which example is worthy, and is gradually 

 being followed by others, nevertheless, we are one people, and a funda- 

 mental industry so important to the nation's welfare should enlist all 

 educational leaders of rural economics in its behalf. 



Economically the forest crop of the future must play a very important 

 part. Those of you who have not had time to study it may be interested 

 in knowing its importance to even a small State like Massachusetts. We 

 have in Massachusetts approximately 5,400,000 acres of land, and of this 

 acreage three-fifths, or practically 3,000.000 acres are unadapted to tillage 

 or general agriculture. These lands, however, under management can all 

 be devoted to forestry. Upon a single acre of such land we have demon- 

 strated, from a thorough study of the white pine, that we can grow 40,000 

 feet board measure in fifty years, or an average of 800 feet per year. As 

 stumpage is worth from $6 to $12 a thousand at the present time, this 

 would mean an average annual income of from $4.80 to $9.60. Were it 

 possible to practice modern forestry management, therefore, over our 

 entire 3,000,000 acres of forest lands in Massachusetts, it would mean an 

 annual income of from $14,400,000 to $28,800,000. These figures may 

 seem very startling at first, but I offer them for your deliberate con- 



