334 REPORT OF THE FORESTRY COMMITTEE 



the experience of others to guide it and the opportunity to demonstrate its ability 

 and desire to profit thereby. It has even yet hundreds of thousands of acres of 

 forest land; some inside the national forests, some without. It has a State 

 forestry school as good as any in the country, and so should have plenty of 

 foresters. It has many lumbermen with practical experience. Indeed, as in 

 Oregon, lumbering is its greatest industry. It even has a law providing for all 

 necessary study on which to base a policy. 



Yet thus far it has done nothing in forestry work. Unless within a short 

 period, it has never employed a trained forester, except possibly temporarily in a 

 subordinate fire-fighting capacity. It has made no studies, collected no informa- 

 tion, made no maps. It sells timber through the land board without any forestry 

 consideration. It does 'nothing to encourage restocking. Charges of improper 

 conduct in connection with sales became so insistent that they were made a 

 subject of legislative inquiry. An excellent committee on forest legislation was 

 appointed to report on' these matters. It worked hard and conscientiously and 

 recommended an excellent set of laws that would have put Washington in the 

 front rank. Its report, prepared by qualified, earnest men, was of great value, not 

 only to the State of Washington but to every one interested in the proper con- 

 servation and use of forests and logged-off lands. This report for some reason 

 was not only not presented to the legislature but was not even printed. The net 

 result was the passage of a fire-fighting measure. 



All the State has really done is to appropriate $37,500 a year for fire pre- 

 vention (its private owners spend twice this and the Federal Government eight 

 times this within its borders). In no case has a fire law or appropriation 

 originated as an administrative measure, but has been forced by the insistence 

 of citizens. Nothing herein, however, is' intended to reflect upon the head of the 

 State Forest Department, whose task is so great and whose facilities are so 

 meagre. 



The State of Washington is not the only delinquent. The State of Oregon 

 disposed of practically all its timber lands at $1.25 per acre and is now doing it= 

 best to trade the fragmentary remains of its lands, scattered throughout the 

 national forests, for a solid body of 50,000 acres of forest land which will in 

 terms be inalienable. Out of its hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of acres 

 of timber lands, the State of Oregon, within whose borders stands the greatest 

 amount of timber of any State in the Union, is now seeking 50,000 acres for a 

 State forest. 



IDAHO 



IDAHO sold what is probably the best body of white pine in the State at a very 

 low figure. Originally, the sale included the timber only, but we are advised 

 that the State finally parted with the title to the land. This State has no 

 definite timber policy and never has made an attempt to outline one. Similar 

 history could be given of Minnesota, Colorado, Wyoming, and the rest. 



This unscientific, haphazard, reckless method of handling public lands is not 

 confined to any one or two States. The cause is deep seated. The fault does 

 not lie with the public, but with the politician. It is not that progress is not 



