SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. 13 



Washington represents the newest type. Its lumber camp product exceeds 

 that of its woodlots in the ratio of 11 to 1. Michigan has an intermediate 

 position, having a proportion of about 2.8 to 1. New York has the balance 

 turned the other way, and in the proportion of 1 to 1.8, and Connecticut, where 

 lumbering as a business has become verj' much reduced, has the proportion of 

 1 to 2.6 in favor of the woodlots. 



It is only fair to add, however, that the product of the woodlot is used 

 largely, though by no means wholly, in an unmanufactured or slightly 

 manufactured form (cordwood, railway ties, posts, etc.), while the product 

 of the lumber camps is in a much larger degree the raw material for a vast 

 series of manufactures. It is also worthy of note in this connection that the 

 farmer is usually his own logger. This work is done at a time of year when 

 there is little else to do, and in many cases the entire amount received for the 

 product may be regarded as clear gain to be credited to the Avoodlot. The 

 lumberman on the other hand, must build his camps, purchase his horses, 

 camp supplies, tools, etc., and especially employ labor, the cost of all which 

 must be deducted from the sale value of his product in determining his profit. 

 The census returns show the value of the stumpage of the cut of $174,000,000 

 worth of product by the lumbermen during the census year to have been 

 $58,177,000. It is not improbable that the farmers' cut of $110,000,000 

 represents as large a real stumpage value. 



The value of the woodlot as a national asset can hardly be overestimated, 

 and it should in future, with improved methods of management, ever con- 

 tribute an increasing amount of material for general consumption. In several 

 respects it has distinct advantages over the timber tract. Among these may 

 be mentioned its nearness to the points of consumption, together with the 

 practicability of an intensity of management that can hardly be hoped for on 

 the larger areas, and which is only in part offset by the cheapness of the wild 

 land. 



The value of the woodlot as a source of fuel has recently been brought 

 very prominently to the notice of the public generally by realization that it is 

 the only buffer that stands between the people and the higher prices 

 which the coal combine may ask the moment they have the field to themselves. 

 The people have also a fresh recollection of the fact that the woodlot is the 

 only thing that stands between them and actual suffering by cold in the event 

 of a coal strike. The cities and villages are more interested in this matter 

 than the farmers themselves, for if a farmer has only a small supply of wood, 

 he will naturally provide for the comfort of his own family before he offers 

 any for sale. A consideration of this should lead the urban population 

 to heartily support a moderate and equitable tax rate for the farmers' wood- 

 lots. 



This article, however, is intended to refer especially to the woodlot con- 

 ditions as I have found them in Michigan. It is perhaps hardly necessary to 

 say that these conditions are exceedingly unsatisfactory. A very few farmers, 

 indeed, have made any real effort to improve this portion of their farms, and 

 those who have done so have in many cases made very serious mistakes. 

 Such mistakes were inevitable, for the farmers have not had access to informa- 

 tion regarding correct methods of handling woodlands. The necessity itself 

 for better methods is a comparatively recent development. The average 

 Michigan farmer of today well remembers when the trees were regarded as the 

 natural enemies of the tiller of the soil, and their removal was the farmers' 

 greatest labor. The change in the times has come without bringing the 

 knowledge necessary to meet the changed conditions. It is a most unfortu- 



