66 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



(2) Effect on the Future Forest 



(a) Existing and future reproduction 

 (6) Soil 



(3) Effect on the Remaining Old Forest 



(4) Effect on Cost of the Operation. 



(1) Effect as to Fire Danger 

 It is maintained by opponents of the law that lopping increases 

 the fire danger instead of diminishing it, at least for the first few 

 years ; and that a fire in lopped tops burns harder and faster, and is 

 harder to fight, than is a fire in unlopped tops. It was even seriously 

 maintained by some that unlopped tops will decay more quickly than 

 lopped ones, since brush in the air is more fully exposed to the 

 elranents than it is on the ground. 



(i-a) Fire Prevention 



The point as to relative rapidity of decay is fundamental, as far 

 as the question of fire prevention and control is concerned. The 

 whole theory of laws or regulations providing for the lopping of tops 

 is that the debris will thereby be brought into closer contact with 

 frhe soil, thus facilitating decay and concentrating into a much shorter 

 period of time the existence of that part of the fire danger due to 

 the slash. 



Beyond this is the crucial point as to whether more material is, as a 

 matter of fact, brought into contact with the ground by lopping than 

 by not lopping. Some of the opponents of the law take the adverse 

 position on this point, even though they may admit that brush will rot 

 quicker on the ground than in the air. Unquestionably if this position 

 can be sustained, the additional expense involved in observance of the 

 present top-lopping law is not justified, and it should either be repealed 

 or so modified as to make it really effective. 



Rapidity of Decay. — With regard to relative rapidity of decay, all 

 observation as weU as all theory sustains the contention that brush 

 will rot more quickly on the ground thail in the air. It follows that 

 in so far as lopping tends to bring the debris into contact with the s6il, 

 either scattered over the surface, or in piles resting on the ground, 

 decay wUl be more rapid than if the tops are left unlopped and are 

 supported off the ground by the lower branches. It is also equally 

 true that the expense incurred in lopping tops may be in large or small 

 part wasted through allowing the brush to remain supported off the 

 ground by stones, stumps, or logs. This frequently happens when the 



