HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 291 



price were put below the prevailing market price, it would only tend 

 to increase the demoralization which has existed in the lumber industry 

 much of the time during the past ten years. 



It is not certain that the government revenues could be greatly 

 increased by reducing the price, even if that were possible. In those 

 districts where the amount of government timber is not large enough 

 to affect the market greatly, no great increase in sales could be 

 expected, no matter what the price, and in regions where the govern- 

 ment timber is an important factor in the market, reduction in price 

 would simply compel private owners to reduce too, and thus leave the 

 amount of government sales somewhat the same as before. It is stated 

 that the reason why the government has not sold .more is not that the 

 price is too high, but rather that it is impossible to dispose of inac- 

 cessible blocks of timber at any price. Much of the government timber 

 is comparatively inaccessible, and large investments are necessary to 

 its development on any considerable scale. 



Even from the point of view of the consumer, very little is to be 

 said for a reduction in the government price of stumpage. Unless the 

 amount of such timber is so great as to have an important influence 

 on the market, it is likely that if the government lowered its price the 

 fortunate purchasers of this cheap stumpage would nevertheless sell 

 their product at the regular market price, and pocket the profits 

 accruing. Under any circumstances, it is of course the long-run inter- 

 ests of consumers rather than their mere immediate interests which 

 should be considered.^® 



It might be possible for the Forest Service to increase its revenues 

 somewhat by charging for the timber which it has for many years 

 been giving away free to settlers ; but the amount of timber thus given 

 away has not been very great — 120,000,000 feet in 1916 — and even 

 if it were a very considerable item, it is not certain that it would be 

 just or expedient to charge settlers for it. 



As already stated, the Forest Service .should increase the grazing 

 fees. The rates allowed in the past have hardly been fair to all con- 

 cerned. Not only has the government been meeting an annual deficit 



"i^^ Report, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 423; 1912, 491; 1916, 157 et seq.: Report, Forester, 

 1914, 9, 10. See also "Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry," 

 by W. B. Greeley; Dept. of Agr., Office of Sec, Report 114. 



