

The object is thus to break the infestation at its 

 dangerous points, and reduce the hazard to the infesta- 

 tion unit as a whole rather than to the immediate area upon 

 7,'hich operations have thus far been conducted. Larger val- 

 ues in standing timber are thus protected, evan though fur- 

 ther losses through reinfestation may be sustained on vari- 

 ous parts of the general infestation unit. 



This policy seems to be justified by the results 

 on the Klamath Forest. Here the infestation unit comprised 

 practically three distinct yearly areas, or pro jects--the 

 Craggy, Barkhouse and IIcKinney Creek Projects. The Craggy 

 and Barkhouse Projects were covered in 1912, and every in- 

 lested tree which ccmld be found was treated. It is proba- 

 ble that 80 or 90 per cent, of the trees actually infested 

 were taken out on these two areas, the rest being overlooked. 

 nothing was done on the IIcKinney Creek Project, which was 

 held as a check area. The second year there was a reinfest- 

 ation. on both the Craggy and Barkhouse areas, amounting to 

 about 40 -~er cent, of the original number of infested trees, 

 and, of course, a continuance of the infestation on the IIc- 

 Kinney Creek Project. Accordingly, the Craggy Project was 

 re-treated the second year, and all the infested trees which 

 could be found were cut, Nothing was done that year on the 

 Barkhouse and HcXinncy Creek Projects. During the third 

 year there was still some infestation on the whole unit, ap- 

 parently no worse on one portion than any other. During the 

 present year some infestation continued, but so far as gen- 

 eral observation shows there was no substantial incretise 

 over last year, The infestation is now for the most part in 

 sr~ll, unimportant trees which the Bureau of Entomology 

 would not class as dangerous from the standpoint of develop- 

 ing centers 'of infestation. This applies not only to the 

 area which w'?s treated twice, but the area which was treated 

 once and that which was not treated at all. 



This points to the conclusion that the work on the 

 Craggy -Pro ject during the second year vas not essential, at 

 least to the extent to which it was carried, in breaking up 

 the infestation; and that more good might have been done 

 toward the control of the infestation as a whole by the ex- 

 penditure of the sane money in the virgin portion of the in- 

 festation unit, during the second season, than by trying to 

 clean up the first portion which had previously been treated 

 once. The idea, therefore, that any given part of an infes- 

 tation unit can be taken in hand and cleaned up without ref- 

 erence to Lho rest oi t) it is a mistake. The purpose 

 should be to break up the infestation as a whole, end until 

 that is done infestations are likely to continue on , n ny por- 

 tions of the nror treated. 



-4- 



