86 AN AUSTRALIAN STUDY OF AMERICAN FORESTRY. 
The tract must be shown to have “some real agricultural value.” 
An isolated area is not assured of permanent use for agriculture unless 
large enough to constitute a practical farm unit, but the same area adjoining 
other agricultural land would be certain to become part of a permanent 
practical farm unit. 
The acreage necessary to constitute a living area is set forth— 
“One hundred and sixty acres—or the maximum—at high 
altitudes where hay and hardy vegetables are the chief products; 40 
to 60 acres of irrigable land at lower altitudes where the leading crops 
are grain and forage, with some fruit and vegetables ; 20 to 40 acres 
in the Southern States where the leading crops are semi-tropical fruits 
and vegetables with some grain and forage.” 
It is added— 
“Owing to the necessity of keeping some stock on each farm 
to consume wastes, to perform work, to furnish meats, dairy and 
poultry products, and also to furnish fertiliser, it is doubtful whether 
any farm as a rule should be smaller than 20 acres.” 
If a given tract of land is found to be of greater permanent value for 
agriculture than for forestry, the land is to be made available, otherwise not. 
The question of accessibility to market in regard to agriculture, or inaccessi- 
bility in regard to forestry is not to be taken into consideration. 
Heavily timbered lands are not to be thrown open under any conditions. 
Unfortunate experience has demonstrated repeatedly that to do so is to 
retard agricultural development rather than hasten it. The timber value 
invites speculation and crowds out the farmer. The homesteader invariably 
sells to some lumber company as soon as he gets his patent. 
“Jn 1901, under an enthusiastic demand to throw a portion of the 
Olympic National Forest open to settlement, and which demand was said to 
be in behalf of bond fide settlers, 705,000 acres of lands were released. It was 
urged at the time that business was suffering; that the entire section in 
which this forest is situated was at a standstill; that development was 
retarded; that actual settlers were desirous of taking up lands and making 
homes thereon, and that if something were not done, chaos would result. 
In ten years 625,000 acres of this land are in the hands of private owners 
who are holding it for its timber.” (Fifth National Conservation Congress 
Report, 1913.) 
Much the same thing has taken place in Australia. 
Again, if the land is of such size and character that ultimately the public 
interests are best served by its being under cultivation rather than under 
forest, the timber is sold under clear-cutting conditions and the land is made 
available after exploitation has taken place. 
Which is much the same idea as that of the New South Wales temporary 
“timber reserves ” save that in the Jatter case administration is divided with 
the Lands Department. 
“On the other hand, there may occur here and there, patches of land 
under heavy timber which are cultivable, but which are so intimately an 
integral part of the forest that they cannot be segregated without destroying, 
from an administrative standpoint, a forest unit. A certain advantage 1s 
gained from a forest standpoint, by a limited amount of settlement in or 
