127 



PRA.CTICABLE FOEESTRY IN TASMANIA AND 



ELSEWHERE. 



By a. Mault. 



The immense extent of forest land in Tasmania has struck 

 every visitor to the island from the time of Abel Tasman to 

 our own day. On the visitors who came to stay as settlers, 

 this fact made an unfavourable impression, as its sik'nifica^tion 

 to them was the cost of clearing laud for cultivation. And 

 this impression has coloured and affected all that has been 

 • lone in the way of dealing with forest land in the State. 

 Trees have been regarded almost exclusively as impediments 

 to agriculture, and not as possessing any intrinsic value worth 

 consideration. Consequently every suggestion made for 

 forest conservation has been regarded with suspicion as pos- 

 sibly entailing something to be done for forestry at the ex- 

 pense of agriculture and settlement. It is time that this 

 susiDicion should be banished. There can be no doubt but 

 that agriculture is the mainstay of the country, and that 

 nothing should be allowed to hamper or obstruct it. But a 

 proper system of forestry, inste id of doing this, would really 

 benefit agriculture by improving climatic conditions. In fact 

 forestry need not enter into any competition for land with 

 agriculture. Land altogether unsuitable for agriculture is 

 very well suited for tree growing. I l^now great tracts of 

 country in France that could not be let for half-a-crown an 

 acre per annum for farming, but which yield more than thirty 

 shillings an acre under forest cultivation. There is an im- 

 mense extent of similar country in Tasmania, and some of 

 this could be better used for forestry than for anything else. 

 The rule to be followed in the appropriation of land for any 

 purpose, is to appropriate it for the purpose that will yield the 

 lai'gest return. By all means reserve for settlement, and for 

 agricultural and horticultural purposes, all the best of the 

 land ; when that has been dune there will be plenty left for 

 j)astoral purposes and forest conservation. 



VT'ith regard to forest conservation itself, there is a great 

 deal of misapprehension. To judge by the manner in which 

 it has been discussed in these rooms and elsewhere, one would 

 think that the advocates of forest conservation proposed to 

 subject the whole of the Crown woodlands in the State 

 to a regime of conservation. Such a proposal is not only 

 impracticable, but useless, as it would be sure to break down 

 unaer its own weight of responsibility and costliness. This 

 mistaken idea of what is proposed has arisen from a misun- 

 derstanding of what has taken place in other countries. It 

 is true that in France, Grermany, India, and other countries 



