Canadian Forestry Journal, August, ipi6 



659 



tario takes no such precau- 

 tions, although representations to 

 that effect have been energetically 

 made to the Government year after 

 3'ear. The settler is allowed to burn 

 precisely as carelessness or ignor- 

 ance may dictate and annual holo- 

 causts will remain possible until 

 that "liberl^'" is sensibly curtailed. 



The settlers going into Northern 

 Ontario have a perfect right to de- 

 mand that their lives and property 

 shall be guarded by the Govern- 

 ment to the best of its power. The 

 recent fires doubtless helped to 

 clear some land for agriculture, but 

 for every acre so assisted, probably 

 four or five acres of non-agricul- 

 tural tree-growing land were af- 

 fected disastrously. Certainly the 

 danger of future fires has increased, 

 as the areas of fire-killed timber 

 widen, so that in a year or two, a 

 mass of windfallen debris will pre- 

 sent a perfect target for fresh con- 

 flagrations. If forest protection was 

 needed early in 1916, to prevent the 

 tragedy that has now occurred, it 

 will be needed vastly more to offset 

 a recurrence on a far worse scale 

 in years to come. 



If evidence were needed that the 

 forest protection syst-^m of Ontario 

 requires a far-reachi:.^ and deter- 

 mined overhauling, that evidence 

 will be found in a perusal of the 1915 

 report of the Ontar»o Department 

 of Lands, Forests, and Mines. Both 

 by what the report states and by 

 what it neglects to state, may be 

 judged the wisdom of the Canadian 

 Forestry Association's eft'orts to 

 cause a re-organization of the On- 

 tario ranger service, aud place forest 

 guarding among the creditable per- 

 formances of the provincial govern- 

 ment. 



Two or three facts stand forth 

 clearly : Neither the Ontario Gov- 

 ernment, the wood-u.s->ng industries, 

 nor the general public have more 

 than a remote knowledge of the an- 

 nual losses from forest fires. Only 

 in ]:iatches of the forested area, most- 



!}■ along the railways, is any con- 

 sistent effort made to more than 

 note the number of fires, i he cnar- 

 acter of the timber destroyed, its 

 acreage, etc., are immeasurably the 

 most important features and under 

 the present system are not reported 

 on by the rangers and supervisors in 

 anything even approacning an ade- 

 quate way. 



Why This Difference? 



The Ontario limit holders are pay- 

 ing for their fire ranging consider- 

 ably more than twice as much per 

 acre as the limit borders included 

 in the St. Maurice or Lower Ottawa 

 Protective Associations of Quebec, 

 although the protection afforded the 

 latter is superior. 



It is a well-established fact that 

 railways, taken as a whole, are no 

 longer the main source of timber 

 losses throughout the Dominion. 

 This is, to a very large extent, di- 

 rectly due to the incrv^ased efficiency 

 of the railway fire protective organi- 

 zation, working under the regula- 

 tions of the Railway Commission. 

 These regulations impose stringent 

 requirements in the direction of fire 

 protective appliances on locomo- 

 tives, control of right-ot-way clear- 

 ing operations, patrol of forest sec- 

 tions, action by all regular railway 

 emplovees in reporting and extin- 

 guishing fires, etc. As a result of all 

 this, both the number of fires caused 

 bv locomotives and employees and 

 the amount of property destroyed is 

 decreasing rapidly. 



Having regard to these facts, note 

 the representations of the Ontario 

 Department of Lands and Forests, 

 which should be an accurate and 

 complete mirror of forest losses and 

 their causes during the year under 

 consideration, 1915. 



Out of a total of 430 fires of all 

 kinds, reported to trie Department 

 by its own patrolmen and rangers 

 in 1915. 317 fires were reported by 

 rangers patrolling just two railways 



