, TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 69 



of the counties. That tabulation shows that the State's holdings in 

 Oscoda county are 27% of the area of that county; in Montmorency 

 county, 21% ; in Alcona county and in Crawford county, including the 

 State reserves, 18% ; in Roscommon county, including the State re- 

 serves, and in Iosco county, 16%; in Alpena county, 14%; in Kalkaska 

 county, 12% ; in Ogemaw county, 11% ; and that there is less than 10% 

 in every other county in the State. In the Upper Peninsula, Luce has 

 8% ; Chippewa, 4% ; Schoolcraft, Delta and Baraga, 4% each, and the 

 other counties less. 



As I understand your previous answer, if all the State's holdings were 

 devoted to forest reserves, there would not be an excessive quantity in 

 any of these counties, but the balance between agriculture and forestry 

 would be duly preserved. Is that true? 



A. Yes; that is true as to totals, but as much of the land held by 

 the State is in isolated parcels it would not be practicable from the 

 administrative standpoint. 



Q. Mr. Rose, does any reason occur to you why the State's holdings 

 of land forfeited for taxes, except the isolated parcels you refer to, 

 should not be held by the State and devoted to use as forestry reserves? 



A. Under present conditions, or conditions as they exist, large areas 

 are annually burned over with no adequate protection for the timber, 

 and it is far better to dispose of the lands and reap some benefit from 

 the timber than to allow it to be destroyed by fire. On much of the 

 land that is sold by the State, the timber standing upon the land has 

 already been destroyed by fire. 



Q. If the State should take measures for adequate fire protection, 

 that reason would be removed? 



A. Absolutely. 



Q. Is it not the most important phase of the question, this of fire 

 protection ? 



A. Absolutely, the most important phase. 



Q. You further state that in taking this land for forest reserves, the 

 State should provide the required fire protection? 



A. Solve the question of fire protection and you have largely solved 

 the question of forestry protection. With the fire problem solved and 

 the question of taxation on State reserves suitably arranged for the 

 protection of the people living in the poor parts of the State where the 

 lands are located, there is absolutely no reason why the whole should 

 not be kept, but outside of the areas properly protected, the present 

 policy of disposing of the lands is preferable. 



Q. Should the State, in your judgment, pay a tax or something in 

 lieu of a tax upon its holdings of forestry lands? 



A. Not as the lands are now situated in isolated pieces and scattered 

 over a large territory. I think under the present conditions we should 

 concentrate the forestry holdings in such counties as we can adequately 

 protect from fire, and then arrange for compensating the people with 

 some sort of a mutual arrangement for taxation. My own personal 

 opinion has been that a suitable amount of Jand should be set aside in 

 each county and designated as a forestry reserve. Those lands should 

 be contiguous as far as possible. 



Q. If the Forestry Commission or whatever authority may perma- 



