Canadian Forestry Journal, June. igi6. 



585 



Using Up Ontario's Capital 



(Toronto Globe. June 2, IQ16.) 

 Some time ago Sir Clifford Sifton, 

 whose opinions are especially valu- 

 able because of the information at 

 his command as head of the Con- 

 servation Commission , estimated 

 that at the present rate of cutting 

 and burning the forests of Ontario 

 would cease to exist in thirty years. 

 The spruce required for paoermak- 

 ing will, it is hoped, reproduce itself 

 indefinitely under the care of the 

 owners of pulp mills, who will guard 

 their raw material with jealous care, 

 but the white pine areas will be of no 

 value to the people of the Province 

 until reafforested, or, if the land is 

 suitable for tillage, cleared and oc- 

 cupied by settlers. 



In permitting the extinction of 

 her forests, Ontario is living upon 

 her capital. They might be so man- 

 aged as to yield an annual crop of 

 timber in perpetuity by the cutting 

 of mature trees and the leaving of 

 the immature until their full growth 

 is reached. In continental Europe 

 the harvest of the forests is one of 

 the most important sources of 

 wealth, supplying, as it does, the 

 raw material for industries largely 

 located in the forest areas. Ontario 

 has something like two thousand in- 

 dustries that depend on the standing 

 forests of the Province for their raw 

 material. Many of them would 

 cease to exist were they compelled 

 to draw their supplies from the 

 Southern States or the forests of the 

 Pacific slope. Manufacturers who 

 use oak and other hardwood lumber 

 in their business have even now to 

 obtain the bulk of their lumber 

 abroad, although at one time the 

 southwestern area of the Province 

 was covered with a magnificent 

 growth of hardwood. 



The Canadian Forestry Associa- 

 tion has been trying to convince On- 

 tario that the policy of using up the 



forest capital of the Province is bad 

 business, but has not succeeded in 

 the degree hoped for. Ontario's sys- 

 tem of forest protection is far less 

 eft'ective than that of either Quebec 

 or British Columbia, the two other 

 great timber producing Provinces. 

 In Quebec settlers are not permitted 

 to clear land by the use of fire with- 

 out first obtaining a permit to do so 

 from a qualified ranger. This obvi- 

 ates largely the ever-present risk of 

 settlers' fires being set out on ex- 

 cessively dry or windy days, and 

 also insures that the heaps of slash 

 shall be kept in the centre of the 

 clearing. Quebec is also awake in 

 its efforts to make incendiarism in 

 forest areas punishable to the same 

 degree as fires in a town or village. 

 Under Quebec laws several scores of 

 prosecutions of settlers who caused 

 forest fires last year were under- 

 taken. In many cases fines were 

 imposed, and in some instances 

 reckless offenders were sent to pri- 

 son. British Columbia's contribu- 

 tion to forest conservation is a mod- 

 ern and energetic forest protective 

 service. The rangers have alreadv 

 greatly lessened the risk of whole'- 

 sale losses from forest fires. The 

 men of the forest service do much 

 to educate the local residents in the 

 use of safety devices. They build 

 trails and lookout towers, construct 

 safe camp fireplaces for hunters, 

 fishermen and campers, and are ever 

 on the watch against the careless- 

 ness of the inexperienced settler. 



Ontario requires the reorganiza- 

 tion of the fire-ranging service so 

 that adequate supervision and in- 

 spection shall be secured. An ap- 

 plication of the Quebec permit sys- 

 tem to the clearing of land is need- 

 ed also. The regulation works no 

 hardship to the settler and insures 

 the advice and supervision of the 

 ranger when clearing fires are con- 



