DISCUSSION : FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 535 
leaves from a lawn! He did not mean quite that, but simply that mr. chitten- 
logs and tree tops and dried underbrush will no longer be allowed to °°" 
accumulate. He would appeal to Mr. Pinchot himself if this is not 
a correct statement of the case. 
In the forest primeval a large proportion of the mould that covers 
the ground comes directly from the decay of fallen timber. The accu- 
mulation from this source in the forests of the Pacific Coast is enor- 
mous. In the Yellowstone forests it is the main source, for the accu- 
mulation of leaves and the growth of a mould from the ground itself 
are very small. It would be interesting if Mr. Pinchot had stated 
positively whether it is a part of the forestry policy to allow this accu- 
mulation to go on. Certainly it is not the practice in foreign coun- 
tries, judging from all descriptions that the writer has seen. Of 
course, in our new forest reserves of virgin timber, original conditions 
will continue for a long while, but they will gradually change as cut- 
ting goes on and fresh accumulations of débris are prevented. 
From the broad standpoint of forest preservation, it would seem 
to be exceedingly unwise to let accumulations of dead timber and 
brush continue. It is the débris of the forest that makes fires so im- 
possible to control, and the control or prevention of such fires is a 
matter of more vital moment than any beneficial effect of the débris - 
upon the forest itself or upon stream flow can be. 
In the light of Mr. Pinchot’s definition of the word “waste,” the 
writer’s remarks upon that subject may indeed seem not quite to the 
point. This is another example of change of standpoint in reply to 
criticism. If waste means simply a loss of opportunity to continue an 
existing forest, then indeed there has been much waste, and there will 
be much more. And it is a kind of waste that the writer deplores as 
much as any one else. He would be very glad if every acre of our 
woodland, both primeval and cut-over, were under public control. 
But this was not the matter to which the writer referred at all, 
and no one who has read the current literature upon this subject would 
gather any such idea from it. The constantly reiterated lament is 
that our forests have been and are being “wantonly” destroyed, “ruth- 
lessly” wasted, “looted” for selfish purposes, and the like. It was to 
this feature alone that the writer’s remarks were directed. Those who 
ery “waste” rarely consider what they are talking about, or the cir- 
cumstances attending the alleged destruction. What is waste to-day 
was not waste at all forty years ago. When “logging bees” were com- 
mon in New York or Pennsylvania, maple trees, for example, were 
often an encumbrance to the ground; to-day they are of great value 
for flooring, piano work, ete. When the pine forests of Michigan 
were entered, the price of timber was so low that only the best trees 
could be cut. Now everything that will make a 2 by 4 is utilized for 
boards, and all other parts of the tree are saved and worked up into 
