DISCUSSION: FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW , 465 
Colonel Chittenden has been unfortunate in the case of Fig. 2, Mr. Pinchot. 
Plate XL, which, he says, “shows one of the best examples of this 
class of timbered land; * * * and no large amount of soil erosion 
has resulted.” 
A perfectly flat place is chosen as an example, on which no erosion 
will be expected; but on the only slope shown in the photograph, the 
edge of a ditch, erosion is actually taking place. 
Similarly, he says: 
“In the forest areas of the East, the growth that follows tree- 
cutting, consisting not only of new trees, but of briars and small brush 
of every description, accumulates very rapidly, and forms a more 
effective mat against erosion than the original forest itself, and is 
equally effective in storing water.” 
The mistake is a fundamental one, every woodsman knows or should 
know, and it can be checked by anyone who will take the trouble to 
compare the quality of the forest floor in the two kinds of forest. 
Colonel Chittenden goes on to say: “Certainly, the ground in a 
forest under culture, with the débris raked up, is more easily eroded 
than that of a slashing or second-growth area, or even good meadow 
or pasture.” 
Where Colonel Chittenden could have gathered the idea that in any 
cultivated forest whatsoever, and least of all in the United States, it is 
the habit to rake up the débris, the speaker is unable to say. But it 
must be said, with regret, that the statement shows so complete and 
thorough a misunderstanding of the most elementary foundations of 
forestry as to invalidate at once in the mind of any man acquainted 
with the forest, the author’s observations or conclusions on all matters 
relating to the practical management of the forest, or its results. 
It is unnecessary to dwell on the statement that it is not forest 
destruction, but agriculture, which has the effect of causing soil 
erosion. Whether one destroys the forest to cultivate the soil, or culti- 
vates the soil after the forest is destroyed, makes no difference. In 
either case, the forest is gone, and its cover has been removed. But the 
effect of any good cultivation is directly the opposite to Colonel 
Chittenden’s contention, as is shown in the case of the Red River. 
The author suggests that we cease devoting the mountain slopes 
to forests, and take up their cultivation on the lowlands. The failure 
to conceive the elementary principle in all forestry and in all use of the 
land, that each part of the soil must be put to the use in which it 
will contribute most to the National welfare, makes this phase of the 
question peculiarly difficult to discuss. 
As well might it be said that it would be an excellent thing to 
devote the west side of Fifth Avenue to the growth of lima beans, 
because their transportation from that place to the consumer in New 
York City would be so much more convenient and so much cheaper 
than if they were grown on Long Island. But the west side of Fifth 
