CONCLUSIONS 335 



It must therefore be concluded that forestry is a poor investment for 

 an individual, but an exceedingly good one for the nation, because the 

 nation can take part of its revenue in indirect benefits. ^^ Under a democ- 

 racy it seems better for the State to acquire cut-over or virgin forest soils 

 rather than to try to force the private owner to practice the unprofitable 

 business of permanent forest production if he holds his forest property 

 solely for its financial returns. But while the temporary owner is realizing 

 on his investment it is certainly incumbent upon the State to require 

 that the forest be maintained in a condition that will not menace the lives 

 and property of others. But professional foresters should avoid vague 

 generalities; the time has come for details about the forest and about 

 the forest as an investment. Be frank with the private owner and tell 

 him what to expect. 



^ A water company in the United States that owns its watersheds Avould be foolhardy 

 if it did not practice forestry. Paper companies and other permanent corporations, 

 with heavy investments in machinery, must do all they can to perpetuate their timber 

 supply. But it is yet to be proved whether they would not be better off bujdng stumpage 

 from the State rather than owning all their own timber supply. Recent increases in 

 pulp stumpage may tend to confuse the issue, namely, permanent forest production, as 

 an investment. 



