AN AUSTRALIAN STUDY OF AMERICAN FORESTRY. lol 
The “ United States of America Forest Manual” now sets forth— 
“Intensive methods like the management of timber, so as to secure a 
sustained yield, should not. be attempted until required by the demands upon 
the forest, or other conditions affecting the use of its resources.” 
In harmony with this policy, the following instructions were issued by 
District No. 3 for the guidance of its officers :— 
“The first step in the management of the National Forests 
under existing policy is to sell the overmature timber that is deterior- 
ating and to develop a net revenue. Yield regulation must be 
secondary to the silvicultural requirements and a market. It is 
clearly valueless to impose a local limitation of cut which is unprac- 
tical because of the necessity of a larga annual cut to justify 
commercial logging. At least until the overmature timber is removed, 
therefore, the policy of an annual (rigid) sustained yield will not be 
applied.” 
This surely is evidence of the reaction against European ideals. 
The Standard Outline, which was an attempt to stimulate and guide 
the development of working plans, was designed in the hope that forest super- 
visors during the winter months, would assemble under it, all the data available 
for their forests. But the outline was so complete as to appear too formidable 
to deal with. Only a few enthusiasts grappled with it. Not every supervisor 
was capable of undertaking the task. ? 
A very recent development of this situation is a proposal by D. T. 
Mason, formerly assistant district forester in District No. 1 and now Professor 
of Forestry at the University of California, for “a regional silvicultural plan.” 
I had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the author of the 
proposal. He contends that the working plan for any one forest covers 
general principles and practices applicable to all those in the same silvi- 
cultural region. He regards as cumbersome under these circumstances, the 
preparation of separate plans for similar forests, and not good policy, because 
all supervisors are not silvicultural specialists. 
An immense amount of duplication work in involved, and he advocates, 
therefore, the preparation of “timber plans, not for forests, but for forest 
regions.” 
“The idea is to include in one full report for each silvicultural district, 
all the material dealing with the silvics, silviculture, and utilisation which, 
under the Standard Outline was to have been included in the plan for each 
forest.” 
For instance, under Australian conditions, there would be a “ regional 
silvicultural plan” for the cypress pine type, another for the hoop pine type, 
another for the eastern hardwood type, another for the Jarrah type, and so on. 
Mr. Mason suggests that the preparation of such plans should be allotted 
to specialists. 
Simplification of the U.S.A. working plan was proceeding, and with it the 
realisation that in establishing a pioneering forestry system,. conservative 
timber-getting. and regenerative measures were the first needs. 
But still further simplification is proceeding as instanced by the proposal 
for a simple annual plan based upon and really a corollary of the regional 
plan. It is actually an annual report upon the work of each forest, affording 
