THE FORESTRY ISSUE IN THE LAKE STATES 



657 



better land, becoming eventually pros- 

 perous citizens. 



These facts, so abundantly proved by 

 even the most superficial investigation 

 of individual cases in any county con- 

 taining non-agricultural soil, are a 

 bitter pill to swallow for the average 

 American optimist. Ostrich-like, he 

 seeks to deny the existence of economic 

 facts by concealing his head in the sand. 

 Economists who seek to secure a proper 

 determination of the real value of lands, 

 by scientific means, for the double 

 purpose of devoting lands of true agri- 

 cultural value to farming and of with- 

 holding worthless lands from such uses, 

 are subjected to storms of abuse and 

 vituperation and branded as enemies 

 of prosperity and progress; while legis- 

 lative and private means are used to 

 discredit and misrepresent their efforts. 



This situation calls for a patient and 

 persistent effort to educate the public 

 mind to recognize the great truths 

 underlying land classification. It is the 

 most fundamental and important of all 

 efforts at true conservation of human 

 energy. Since forestry presents a log- 

 ical and profitable use for lands that are 

 worthless for agriculture, land classi- 

 fication is inevitably linked with fores- 

 try, and non-agricultural lands must be 

 placed in forest reserves under State or 

 National control. 



State forestry thus becomes the goal 

 around which the struggle rages. The 

 champions of untrammelled license bit- 

 terly attack the advocates of State 

 iorestry, accusing them of a desire to 

 lock up whole sections of good farming 

 lands in forest reserves. Such ideas are 

 absolutely foreign to the whole scheme 

 of State forestry and nowhere can 

 instances be cited where foresters have 

 advocated the use of agricultural lands 

 for State forest reserves. The differ- 

 ences arise entirely over the definition 

 of the term "agricultural" land, and 

 the methods to be used in determining 

 its classification. 



Foresters are the first to urge that 

 land classification should not be left 

 to them, but should be entrusted to soil 

 experts familiar with agricultural prac- 

 tice. Even this procedure is fought 

 by the opposition to classification. 

 It will be found on analysis that the 



owners of large blocks of cut-over 

 timberlands are opposed on general 

 principles to any investigation of the 

 character of lands in the vicinity of 

 their holdings, for fear it will increase 

 the difficulty of disposing of these lands 

 at good prices to would-be farmers. 



In Michigan the battle for land classi- 

 fication has raged for twenty years. 

 Enormous areas, totalling at one time 

 over a million acres, had reverted to 

 the State for taxes. The State Forestry 

 Board finally advocated the establish- 

 ment of a Public Domain Commission 

 which was to classify these State lands, 

 set aside for forestry all lands of non- 

 agricultural character, and sell the 

 agricultural lands direct to settlers. 

 A minimum of 200,000 acres of forest 

 reservation was made mandatory by law, 

 and the Commission reserved 235,194 

 acres, scattered in small bodies through 

 fifty-four counties, in only four of which 

 are there more than 10,000 acres of 

 forest reserves. In reserving but a frac- 

 tion more than the minimum fixed by 

 law, and in following a policy of opening 

 up and disposing of the remaining 

 750,000 acres of land which was once 

 considered too poor to be worth the 

 taxes, the Commission unquestionably 

 reflected the wishes of the population of 

 the counties affected, and acted in entire 

 good faith for what they thought was 

 the best interests of the State. But 

 statements made by ; oresters in Michi- 

 gan claim that much of this unreserved 

 land was of doubtful agricultural value, 

 and that the State has now lost a great 

 opportunity to establish at a minimum 

 of expense a system of State reserves 

 sufficient to meet the future needs of 

 the community. Apparently it may 

 take another generation of effort and 

 demonstration to awaken the Michigan 

 public to the evils of promiscuous use 

 of non-agricultural land for purposes 

 for which it is not fitted. Michigan 

 forest reserves may at some future 

 period require considerable enlargement 

 by purchase. 



Wisconsin in 1903 and 1905 withdrew 

 from sale all State lands north of 

 Township Thirty-three and constituted 

 therein a State Forest reserve. Power 

 was given the State Forester to sell and 

 exchange these lands in order to consol- 



