373 REPORT OF THE FORESTRY COMMITTEE 



in the Pan-handle of Idaho in 1906. Since that date the movement has spread 

 all over the Pacific Northwest and into the Lake States, New England, and 

 Canada. 



With the recognition of the principle that patrol to prevent fire was far 

 better than fighting fires already under way, the employment of patrolmen by 

 timber owners became not uncommon and, once started, these private patrols 

 increased in number and effectiveness from year to year. Timber owners soon 

 found, however, that they could often combine with each other and put on men 

 to cover a given watershed or township, and that failure to do this resulted in 

 several men going over the same ground, an unnecessary and expensive oper- 

 ation. Some few owners took advantage of the fact that other timbermen had 

 to patrol their lands in looking after their own and, by failing to do their share, 

 escaped expense. This often led to hard feeling and unpleasantness and 

 hindered the general movement. 



From individual and small joint patrols it was but a step to the larger, 

 co-operative patrols covering a State, county, or district. In many cases owners 

 adjacent to national forests found it advisable to co-operate with the Forest 

 Service, and are still doing this. The co-operative patrols, when once started, 

 proved to have many advantages over individual effort. The few owners who 

 felt that they could get better results than an association because they were more 

 directly interested, soon found that the advantages, financially and otherwise, of 

 co-opcralive paUol made it to their advantage to affiliate with a forest fire asso- 

 ciation. Some owners still maintain their own patrols, but the number is each 

 year becoming smaller. 



Co-operative patrols, which are now running successfully, have not reached 

 this point without some opposition and much annoyance. One of the hardest 

 obstacles to overcome, particularly in the Northwest, was the opposition of local 

 representatives of Eastern owners. Some of these representatives felt that part 

 of their usefulness to their principals would be done away with if the patrol 

 management was taken out of their hands. By misrepresenting the condition of 

 affairs to the owners whose ear they had, much needed acreage was for a time 

 kept from affiliating with fire patrol associations, often resulting in defeating the 

 formation of a patrol organization in a section. 



Early in fire protection work it was found that settlers, campers and pleasure- 

 seekers in the timber often resented being told by employees of timber companies 

 when they could or could not burn, or what should be done to prevent spread of 

 fire. Forest fire associations, however, which are generally recognized as public 

 good organizations and employees, have experienced little opposition of this 

 nature. They invariably have the support of the press and of other public good 

 organizations. 



The fact which perhaps appeals most strongly to timber owners is that 

 forest fires are no respecter of persons, and property lines do not stop them, and 

 hence that concerted action in protection is the only safeguard. A patrol is as 

 strong as its weakest point. It is not sufficient that part of a township or county 

 be patrolled ; it must all be looked after, or none of the property in it is safe. 



