FORESTRY. 



EDITKl) BY DR B. E. FERNOW, 



Director of the New York School of Forestry, Cornell University, assisted by Dr. John C. Gifford of the same 



institution. 



It takes thirty yeari- to grow a tree and thirty minutes to cut it down and destroy it. 



FORESTRY AND THE NEW YORK STATE 

 CONSTITUTION. 



An attempt was made this winter in the 

 Legislature of the State of New York to 

 pass a resolution bringing before the peo- 

 ple for vote a partial repeal of Article 

 VII of the State constitution. 



It failed, undoubtedly through the strong 

 opposition of influential men represented 

 in the Association for the Protection of 

 the Adirondacks, and in the New York 

 Board of Trade, both of which bodies 

 made a short, but determined campaign 

 against the attempts to change the consti- 

 tution in this particular. 



Article VII reads : "The lands of the 

 State constituting the forest preserve 

 now fixed by law shall be forever kept as 

 wild lands. They shall not be leased, 

 sold or exchanged, or be taken by any 

 corporation, public or private, nor shall 

 the timber thereon be sold or removed or 

 destroyed." 



The resolutions on which the people were 

 to be asked to vote provided for the leas- 

 ing of camp sites, and for the sale and re- 

 moval of softwood timber, 10 inches and 

 more in diameter, and the building of roads, 

 an under Legislative control ; or, as the 

 resolution in the Assembly expresses it, 

 "the constitution shall not be construed to 

 forbid the cutting of timber according to 

 a system of scientific forestry." 



Now, since by the failure of these reso- 

 lutions the matter is again removed from 

 the arena of politics to that of academic 

 discussion, it will be possible, without 

 charge of a desire to influence legislation 

 one way or the other, to review the situa- 

 tion and try to sound the logical elements in 

 it. 



The arguments against change advanced 

 by the Board of Trade in the memorial of 

 its Committee on Forestry, are based on 

 3 propositions, namely: 



Distrust in the ability of the Forest 

 Commission and the Legislature to con- 

 trol proper cutting of timber. 



The importance of the forest cover 

 for the protection of the watershed, which 

 makes all cutting of timber undesirable. 



The impropriety of leasing camp sites 

 by which tne public at laree is kept out 

 from enjoying this public property. 



The Association for the Protection of 

 the Adirondacks, mainly composed of 

 owners of camps or game preserves in the 

 Adirondacks. or of members of clubs own- 

 ing such, add in their appeal for assistance 



us 



in staving off proceedings the following 

 arguments : 



That the restriction to 10 inches is 

 not adequate, and that removal of the 

 snruce to that diameter would impair the 

 protective function of the forest cover. 



That the culling of spruce would make 

 much debris and thereby increase the dan- 

 ger from fire. 



They also harp on the impairment of 

 water supplies and increased danger from 

 floods by denudation of the forest cover. 



Finally, and in particular, they bring for- 

 ward the argument : 



That lumbering in the Forest Preserve 

 would be a violation of good faith with 

 those who have sold to the State lands 

 adjoining their own in the expectation that 

 the constitutional prohibition of the re- 

 moval of timber will be maintained and, 

 therefore, that their own property will not 

 be jeopardized by logging operations, 

 with the attending danger from fire. 



Let us look at the situation as it- is at 

 present, and then at the arguments, separ- 

 ately, against a change. 



We are neither in sympathy with the 

 article of the constitution which prevents 

 the State from a rational use of its property, 

 excluding even its improvement by forest 

 planting or otherwise; nor with the pro- 

 posed changes which attempt to remedy 

 this anomalous condition by one sided, 

 half hearted, crude and ill advised meas- 

 ures, instead of proposing a well digested, 

 comprehensive plan for the management 

 of this important State property. 



The State now owns over i]4. million 

 acres of forest land, and it is the 

 expressed policy to add gradually to 

 it until 3 million acres, more or less, 

 shall be in the preserve. By the consti- 

 tutional provision, the people have volun- 

 tarily deprived themselves of using this 

 vast property for anything but sporting 

 purposes, and as a soil cover to protect the 

 water sunoly. Not only may none of the 

 valuable materials grown in these woods 

 be utilized, but they may not even be im- 

 proved by weeding or cleaning up ; nor, if 

 the constitution is strictly interpreted, 

 would it be permissible to plant and regain 

 for useful production to forest any waste 

 or burnt places ; for these woods are to 

 be keot as wild lands. 



Any European who is acquainted with 

 the forest management in his country, who 

 knows that every forest growth should be 

 treated like a crop, harvested and repro- 



