184 THE NA TIONA L FOREST RESER 1 'ES 



States must therefore continue to be a great landowner, unless 

 the lands are disposed of wholesale to states or to C()r])orations. 

 The unoccupied lands are now open, furnishing free pasturage 

 to all persons who have cattle, horses, sheep, or goats, and the 

 woodlands are almost equally free to be cut and burned by set- 

 tlers. A few restrictions have been im))Osed with the intention 

 of preventing the wholesale depredations of the forests by lumber 

 companies, but these have in the main been ineffective, the great 

 companies being able to cut almost without limit. 



The question may be asked, Why should not the government 

 allow every one to take what lumber he desires, as in the case of 

 the mineral wealth, where mines, when found and operated, be- 

 come the property of the discoverers, irrespective of their value? 

 The radical difference between these two sources of wealth lies in 

 provision for the future. In the case of mining, ordinarily no 

 amount of foresight will increase the quantitA^ of mineral avail- 

 able for the next generation, but with the forests the reverse is 

 the case. It has been argued by men familiar with the subject 

 that as matters are now proceeding the timber supply in man}'- 

 localities will be entirely destroj'ed within a half generation, 

 while with a moderate exercise of prudence the supplies maj^be 

 made practicall}^ continuous, guaranteeing the perpetuity of 

 many industries. As owners of the forests, the people of the 

 United States should, from motives of prudence, see that these 

 resources are not wasted, and still more, as owners of vast tracts 

 of land dependent for utilization to a greater or less degree upon 

 the forests, should tlie}^ make niost strenuous exertions to in- 

 definitel}^ preserve the latter. 



But it may further be asked whether any special steps need 

 be taken to preserve the forests. Will not the local and indi- 

 vidual interests be sufficient to guard against waste ? Theoret- 

 ically this ma}^ be possible, but the experience of mankind in the 

 old world and in this has shown that individual and present 

 profits are as a rule placed far above public and remote interests. 

 In other words, while the farmer usually needs no interference 

 or urging in maintaining the fertilit}^- of his wheat field and 

 adopting methods that will secure the largest crop each year, he 

 does require some strong incentive to maintain forests or wood- 

 lands in which he is but a small owner and from which the crop 

 may be cut onl}^ once in a generation. An agency of longer life 

 than that of ordinary men is needed to sustain the work of forest 

 production — such an agenc3^ in short, as is the state or nation. 



