FIFTH NATIONAIv CONSERVATION CONGRESS 335 



being made, for it is. It is not that people are not awakening to the true value 

 of the timber land and their interest in it, for they are. But at this time there is 

 absolutely no justification from any standpoint for abandoning an efficient, well- 

 organized and intelligently directed control of this public asset and turning it 

 over to the States with any idea or hope ©f any result other than the wiping out 

 of the public forests and their passing into the hands of a few great land owners. 

 In the interest of the States themselves this should be prevented, and their wisest 

 friends are those who stand firmly and unflinchingly against such a policy. But 

 there are other reasons as cogent if not more convincing that State control would 

 be a fatal mistake. 



DANGERS OF SEPARATE POLICIES 



A SSUMING as we must, that the vast majority of the people favor retaining 

 / \ public ownership of the forests and assuming that the respective States 

 ^ *^ desire to do their full duty by them, we are at once confronted with 

 difficulties that are almost insuperable under separate control. For, generally 

 speaking, there is no local policy, let alone a uniform one in the treatment of the 

 problem. Bearing in mind that many of the problems to be met are interstate 

 in character, we may have as many conflicting plans and policies as there are 

 States. There is scarcely another industry that demands such uniformity of 

 policy in matters which affect its permanent foundation as does the lumber 

 industry. 



The potential value of public forests as a reserve supply, as a balance wheel 

 in controlling prices, cannot be overestimated. Their value as conservators of 

 water supply and water run-off is incalculable. As furnishing grazing grounds 

 for live stock, thus directly affecting the supply and price of meat they are impor- 

 tant. Indeed their preservation enters into the daily life of all the people and is 

 confined to no single State. Starting, therefore, with the fact that the problems 

 are national, that the forests are national and their maintenance affects all the 

 people, it is startling, if not appalling, to consider the situation that would follow 

 the splitting up of this national asset into independent units with conflicting local 

 policies, each operated without sense of responsibility to the other. 



The efforts of one State which might adopt a sound, far-sighted policy with 

 regard to the forest industry, seeking to perpetuate the general business pros- 

 perity dependent thereon in a heavily forested State, would have its policy 

 jeopardized and possibly negatived by a sister State whose policy or lack of 

 policy might be entirely different. The effect of forest destruction in one State 

 might affect the source of water supply used in another State so as to absolutely 

 destroy the value of its property. These possibilities are not imaginary. Many 

 ■of the arguments advanced for State control, in so far as they suggest any policy, 

 would lead to just such results. 



In discussion presenting the theory of State control, every fault of present 

 administration is exaggerated and benefits are rarely referred to. Seldom, if 

 ■ever, is there any reference to the expense the State must incur if it is to own 

 .•and control the forests. Nothing is said of the work, or cost thereof, in the 



