376 REPORT OF THE FORESTRY COMMITTEE 



forestry possible. In fact, the lumbermen, taking the country over, come in for 

 a lot of just criticism. They have not studied the broader phases of their own 

 business as they should, and not infrequently the administrative heads have 

 allowed themselves to be hopelessly dominated by subordinates who were in a 

 rut or had only the one personal ambition or desire of maintaining a reputation 

 for a certain log output or cost basis, regardless of waste, fire, or anything else. 

 Also, in the matter of waste, possibilities have been overlooked through failure 

 to determine just what could be utilized with profit. Another neglected factor is 

 that of records, cost data, and general administrative details. If the lumbermen 

 shake oS the spell of custom and apply advanced methods adapted to their busi- 

 ness they will find that much can be done at a profit which they have thought 

 could not be done at all. When they do get out on the firing line with advanced 

 business and technical methods, private forestry will receive an impetus which will 

 develop it to the full extent of its commercial limitations. 



In nearly everything which attracts public notice there is invariably some 

 one, usually a rank outsider, who propounds a complete remedy for the problem 

 under consideration. The question of private forestry is an exception, and we 

 rarely hear any plans or theories advanced which would make possible the practice 

 of private forestry. It is quite generally recognized by those who have given the 

 most thought to the subject that neither radical nor rapid developments are to be 

 expected; that gradually, as conditions justify it, more and more private land will 

 be devoted to systematic forest crop production. There are many, however, who 

 argue that private forestry will never be commercially feasible, or, at any rate, 

 not in time to contribute materially to our wood supply at the time that we will 

 most need it. The suggestion most freely and frequently offered is not to try to 

 practice private forestry at all, but to turn the whole job over to the States and 

 the Federal Government. 



On the ground that over-production is one of the greatest retarding influences 

 on forest conservation, the suggestion has been made that the Federal Govern- 

 ment control the lumber output. Since the lumber manufacturers seem unable 

 to get together on this point voluntarily, this suggestion would perhaps solve the 

 immediate difficulty, which will never be solved in any other way. When, how- 

 ever, an attempt is made to work out the details of such control, unsurmountable 

 difficulties seem to arise. Among the first questions to arise is, what constitutes 

 over-production? And another of equal importance concerns the effect upon the 

 consumer if the output is limited. The lumber manufacture would naturally 

 expect a curtailment of production to maintain and probably increase the selling 

 price of lumber, and to this extent he would be entirely satisfied if the increase 

 was sufficient to give him the same net returns as with the smaller output and 

 the lower price. In this case, however, the consumer would have to pay the bill, 

 and such a policy would not receive public approval. Such a policy might also 

 act as a boomerang to the lumberman because the higher prices of lumber would 

 result in the increased use of substitutes and the consequent permanent reduction 

 of demand. 



Another difficulty in the way of Government control of output is to reconcile 



