FEDERAL FOREST POLICY 



By the Sub-Committee on Federal Forest Policy. 



Chairman, Jos. N. Teal, Portland, Ore. 



Hon. a. F. Lever, Lexington, S. C. E. G. Griggs, Tacoma, Wash. 



Hon. Robt. P. Bass, Peterboro, N. H. F. E. Olmsted, Boston, Mass. 



SYNOPSIS 



THE Sub-committee on Federal Forest Policy considers in the first section 

 the Needed Legislation in National Forestry. It is pointed out that Con- 

 gress has already recognized the essential principles in the administration 

 of public forest lands. The present needs are for an extension of these principles 

 and the necessary executive authority to put them into practice. One of the 

 urgent needs is more liberal appropriations for preventing the destruction of the 

 national forests by fire, by the construction of roads, trails, telephone lines and 

 other improvements. 



Another measure which has materially reduced the fire damage is Federal 

 appropriations for cooperation with the States, and the continuation of such 

 appropriations is urged. 



Outside of the national forests are considerable areas suitable only for 

 timber production, and legislation which would put these lands under competent 

 administration is advocated. 



Authority under which the Forest Service may grant term permits for the 

 occupancy of land for special uses, legislation permitting cooperation with cities 

 and towns in the sanitary protection of municipal watersheds within national 

 forests, and the extension of the fire protective service on the national forests 

 to include national parks are additional legislative measures advocated. 



Section 2, on National vs. State control of public forests, outlines the ad- 

 vantages of Federal control of public forests, and points out the fallacy of the 

 arguments for State administration. That the forest laws are constitutional and 

 that the authority exercised by the Department of Agriculture is legal, are proved 

 by references to decisions of the Supreme Court. The criticisms made are usually 

 not of the law but of its administration and the prejudices existing are not 

 substantiated by the facts. 



The ability of the States to act as administrators of public forest lands is 

 open to serious doubt on the record of past performances. As yet there have 

 appeared absolutely no concrete suggestions of a proposed State policy. 



Enormous areas of land have been granted to all the public land States 

 and it is an indisputable truth that not one of these States has appreciated the 

 heritage bestowed or shown ability to protect it. The chief purpose has seemed 

 to get rid of the public land at any price, with the result that Sate control has 

 rapidly been substituted for private ownership and exploitation, at inadequate 

 return to the State. 



