FIFTH NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS 105 



DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON STATE FOREST 



POLICY 



MR. J. G. PETERS, of Washington, D.C. : Mr. Chairman, I cannot find 

 any reference in Mr. Cox's report to the question of assisting forest 

 work in the States, separate from other lines of work. Perhaps it is 

 noted in the report, but I would like to have a word from Mr. Cox about that 

 phase as it has come up within the last couple of years, and it is a very important 

 point, really a very important point. 



Mr. W. T. Cox, of Minnesota: That subject was covered in our draft of 

 the law, but that has not been printed as yet, in full, and I will say briefly that 

 it was the feeling of the committee that forestry should be kept entirely separate, 

 even from such related subjects, in a sense, as game and fish preservation. 



Mr. Peters : Do you remember the reasons you gave for keeping it separate ? 



Mr. Cox : No ; I do not ; no, there are so many of them. 



The Chairman : I think that is a very important question in State organization, 

 and I think if Mr. Cox will express the feeling of himself and the committee on 

 that point, it will be very enlightening. I have no doubt that every time the ques- 

 tion of State organization is brought up, the question comes up as to whether it 

 should be separate from game and fish preservation, or not. 



Mr. Cox : In my own State of Minnesota, we have a young State forest ser- 

 vice, and we have all the work we can possibly do along legitimate forestry lines ; 

 furthermore, the work of game protection in the back districts, where we feel 

 that our forest work is most important, is not in good favor. A game warden is 

 not looked upon with favor in most any of the wild parts of the State, and if our 

 rangers were related to the game and fish work, that is, if they were deputized as 

 game wardens, they would find it very much to their disadvantage in doing our 

 own work and they would be handicapped in every conceivable way. We have 

 found that to be true because we have tried it, and, as I say, there is plenty of work 

 for a force of forest field officers to do in their own particular line. Politics come 

 in there, too, because the game and fish commission is political in Minnesota, while 

 the forest service is not political. 



Mr. Ferris J. Meigs, of New York : Mr. Chairman, referring briefly to that 

 proposed New York State law, I might say that it embodies, to a certain extent, 

 features that were outlined by Mr. Cox. However, it is not a compulsory State 

 , control or supervision, but aims at an optional State control or supervision, op- 

 tional with the timber land owner and provides that if the lumberman or the 

 timber land owner is good and comes in under the law, then he has certain privi- 

 leges. In other words, the law proposes to pay him for being good, and among 

 the privileges is exemption from taxation on the growing crop, and also refores- 

 tation of his denuded or barren lands at the expense of the State, which is repaid 

 at the time the timber is removed. That, in brief, is the provision. I do not 

 know that you want to hear my opinion as to the constitutionality of the State 

 passing laws to control lumber on private lands ; that is a matter for the lawyers ; 

 however, I do not think it is fair for a State to control lumber on private lands ■ 

 without compensation to the owner unless the commission that has charge of it 

 for the State is absolutely non-political and non-partisan, and also that they are 

 experts and know what they are talking about. If you realize that the owner of 

 private timber lands is playing a long term game, his policy must not be one of 

 one or two years, but one of forty or fifty years, and he cannot be made subject 

 to changing commission or changing rules or changing points of view. The tim- 

 ber land owner must have some continuity in the plan of handling, he must carry 

 out his work and therefore he must not be subjected to a change in commission 

 which might change the rules. If he is paid the cost, he may be subjected to a 



