30 BULLETIN 1496, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
procedure may be adopted. Where the cut-over area is effectively 
protected against fire it is not absolutely essential that all the slash 
should be burned, provided that it is disposed of at certain places. 
This simplified procedure, however, may be adopted only on condi- 
tion that there is effective fire protection. 
No method of slash disposal will make the forest fireproof, but 
slash disposal does help to make fire protection easier and clears the 
ground of unnecessary débris that hampers natural regrowth. On 
the other hand, effective fire protection of the timber tract is abso- 
lutely essential to make the expenditure of money for slash disposal 
a sound investment. 
The Lake States, with the exception of Minnesota, do not have 
provisions such as exist in most of the Northeastern States for the 
disposal of slash as a public nuisance. The development throughout 
the entire northern region of highways traversed by literally hun- 
dreds of thousands of tourists, is creating a public demand that 
the forests along the highways should not be cut, slashed, and 
burned carelessly and the beauty of the highways destroyed. Some 
law for slash disposal along highways may, therefore, be demanded 
for aesthetic reasons alone, and a law to this effect was, indeed, 
passed in Michigan in 1927. It is desirable in the interests of private 
timber owners, as well as the public, that there should be general 
laws for slash disposal in all the States similar to that now in effect 
in Minnesota. Such laws, however, should not specify, except pos- 
sibly for the forests along highways, the exact manner in which the 
slash should be disposed of, since this will vary with the character of 
the forest, the organization of the forest services, and the ability of 
the forest organization to enforce the degree of protection required. 
Some form of slash disposal by all timber operators makes every- 
body’s timber safer. If some do and some do not, those who do 
dispose of their slash are still at the mercy of their neighbors who 
leave fire traps. 
LOGGING PRACTICE 
CUTTING TO A DIAMETER LIMIT 
At present saw logs are cut to a top diameter of about 6 inches in 
softwoods and 7 inches in hardwoods. This means cutting pine to 
about 8 or 9 inches in diameter breast high and hardwood trees to 
10 or 12 inches. Studies of the comparative costs of cutting small 
and large logs show that to cut small trees for logs costs decidedly 
more than to cut larger trees. In one hardwood operation the cost 
of logging 8-inch maple logs from stump to mill pond was $21.14 a 
thousand feet gross Scribner scale, whereas for 24-inch logs the cost 
was only $8.64. The cost of logging the 8-inch timber was 145 per 
cent per thousand feet more than the cost for the 24-inch logs. The 
cost of logging trees 12 inches in diameter breast high was $16.13 a 
thousand feet, or 61 per cent greater than the logging cost of $10.03 
for trees 25 inches in diameter. The milling costs of smaller logs 
were proportionally higher and the amount of upper grades lower 
for small logs than for large logs. The conclusion reached on the 
basis of these studies—and this is also confirmed by the experience 
of old loggers—was that trees below 13 or 14 inches in diameter are 
