The policy of reclaiming, through forestry methods, lands unfit for 

 agriculture, has been in vogue in older countries for a considerable time. 



In Europe we find all of the leading nations reclaiming waste land by 

 forestry methods. In Prussia during the decade of 1891-1900, 170,000 

 acres of waste lands were added to the state forest lands at the average 

 cost of $10.00 per acre. In France, under the reboisement act of 1882, the 

 state has spent in purchases of worn-out lands, in works to check torrents 

 and in reforesting nearly $20,000,000. 



Japan, which has a definite forest policy, has during the last 25 years 

 reforested 200,000 acres at an average cost of a little less than $9.00 per 

 acre. 



In the United States activity in reforesting is worthy of notice. Several 

 states are buying back waste lands for forestry purposes. 



The State of New York has for several years been buying b.ick waste 

 lands and replanting. In 1908, $30,000.00 was available for nursery work 

 and replanting. In this work the low cost of $6.00 per acre for plants and 

 planting is said to have been attained. 



The State of Wisconsin has adopted a definite forest policy, and is 

 segregating its non-agricultural lands at the headwaters of the Wisconsin 

 River. During 1908, 33,880 acres of cut over forest lands were purchased 

 at a cost of $98,590.00. 



As a testimony of a private corporation's faith in reforesting a good 

 example may be cited in the operations of the Pennsylvania Railroad. This 

 corporation jemploys trained foresters and has adopted a definite forest 

 policy 'in regard to its waste lands. 



In 1907, the total number of trees set out was 315,000. In 1903 about 

 448,000 seedlings were planted. The latter plantations were made at a 

 cost of $12.00 per acre, using purchased plants. By the use of plants from 

 their own nurseries, which have been established, it is expected to lov\er 

 the cost to about $8.00 per acre. 



This problem is not wholly in the experimental stage and we hava 

 abundant proof of the practicability of reforestation. 



The policy of segregating and placing under forest management, the 

 large bodies of waste land, in the southern part of the Province, is safe from 

 a purely financial consideration. There are, however, other economic rea- 

 sons for adopting this policy. 



The story of agricultural settlement, in these regions, with its struggles 

 to wrest a living from the soil, and the final abandonment of farms, would 

 call forth facts which alone would prove a strong argument in favour of 

 removing people from such conditions. 



These districts under attempted agricultural management, cannot pro- 

 perly support social organizations such as schools and churches. The state 

 cannot afford to allow citizens to live and develop under the enforced con- 

 ditions existing in many of these waste areas. 



It is very important that the private land owner be urged and educated 

 to feel the necessity of protecting existing woodlands, and replanting waste 

 areas. This branch of work can be greatly assisted by demonstrating for- 

 estry methods on these larger areas. The influence which this policy must 

 eventually exert may be realized by noticing the representative way in 

 which these proposed forest reserves are situated throughout southern 

 Ontario. Government forest nurseries situated at certain of these points 

 will be able to supply planting material to owners anxious to replant waste 

 land. 



The policy of putting these lands under forest management has many 

 arguments in its favour. It will pay as a financial investment, assist in 

 insuring a wood sur>Dlv, protect the headwaters of streams, provide breed- 

 ing ground for wild <?ame, provide obiect lessons in forestry and prevent 

 citizens from developing Tinder conditions which can only end in failure. 



