FOREST MANAGEMENT. 327 



covered with second growth forests: What sense can there be, conse- 

 quently, in investments tending to produce still more second growth? 



It is obvious that the chances of first growth to be remunerative are, 

 generally speaking, very good. This first growth does not increase in 

 volume, the death rate of timber offsetting the birth rate; its increase in 

 value, however, is certain; heavy logs are getting scarce, — and they alone 

 furnish lumber commanding the highest price; the degree to which the 

 trees are utilized without waste increases from year to year; the difficulties 

 of transportation are declining continuously. Is it to be wondered at, 

 then, that many investors — and notably all lumbermen — are eager to 

 invest in first growth whilst utterly unwilling to stake their money on 

 second growth? 



The question might be asked: Why are the owners reluctant to 

 practice " conservative lumbering," a modus of logging which tends to 

 secure the maximum sum total formed of net present returns and pro- 

 spective values left? To take an illustration from the South: Why does 

 the owner insist on cutting every pine making a log of over six inches at 

 the small end? Why does he refuse to leave all trees having a diameter 

 under twenty inches and yielding over seven per cent, of latent annual 

 interest ? 



The explanation lies in the following points: 



1. Xo seer can actually foretell the latent annual interest which trees 

 of various diameters will yield in the immediate and in the more distant 

 future. The forest dividend consists largely of price increment; the price 

 increment of big trees is (veneer business!) particularly good. There is 

 little financial advantage in the utilization of big trees (if they are sound), 

 as long as an annual price increment of ten per cent, and more can be counted 

 upon. A big tree having a stumpage value of Si 2 per 1,000 feet b. m. is 

 not mature, per sc. The fine poplars, oaks and chestnuts of the South- 

 land must be considered immature, since their value is absolutely sure to 

 increase at an annual rate of over ten per cent. 



The assumption of the principle is wrong, it seems, that conservative 

 lumbering should leave the smaller trees and remove the big trees; or that 

 maturity can be determined by diameter limits. 



The owner of woodlands (and the forester) can only venture a forecast, 



