176 Eourth Annual Report of the 



Financial Aspects. — The Preserve is at present a pleasure and 

 protective forest. Its restricted use makes it somewhat of a 

 luxury. It is difficult to compute its cost because nearly one- 

 half has been acquired through the non-payment of taxes. It is 

 fair to assume, however, that it represents an investment of ap- 

 proximately four million dollars. The interest on this amount 

 at 5 per cent, is $200,000 per year. The taxes which the State 

 pays upon this land amount to $150,000 per annum. The cost 

 of fire protection and administration is approximately $15,000 

 per year. The total carrying charge, therefore, amounts to at 

 least $365,000 per annum. None of these charges is reducible. 

 The expenditure for fire protection ought to be increased. The 

 cost of fire protection at the present time is not over one-half mill 

 per dollar of valuation. This is far below the average rate of in- 

 surance under less dangerous conditions. 



Revenue is an important matter to the State. The fact that 

 there is a direct outlay of $165,000 a year and an interest loss of 

 $200,000 are not insignificant matters to the Empire State. But 

 we must add to this the value of the wood material which is 

 going to waste through non-utilization. We have already stated 

 that the wood growth even now should approximate 240,000,000 

 ft. B. M, per year and if we allow a stumpage of $4 per M ft. 

 this means an additional loss of $960,000. 



We must again add to these large sums the amounts which 

 would be expended for labor in utilizing this growth. It has 

 been estimated that $16 for every thousand feet of lumber manu- 

 factured goes to labor. This means a loss of potential wages of 

 $3,840,000. There would be additional revenue from leasing of 

 camp sites, but this would be difficult to measure. If we assume 

 that 95 per cent, of the present occupants, or 380, would require 

 leases, and at least 500 others were taken, this would produce 

 a total of 880. If the leases averaged $25 each, this would yield 

 a gross income of $22,000. In a few years this sum would be 

 greatly increased. 



The question seems to be: Does the State desire to continue a 

 policy which causes a direct annual loss of nearly a million dol- 

 lars and an indirect loss of four times as much, or does it desire 

 to place its forest property not only on a self-supporting, but on a 

 very substantial revenue-producing basis ? 



