sources, such as fire protection, insect and dis- 
ease control, and erosion control. Suck work 
might be compared with the protection afforded 
private homes at public expense by a municipal 
fire department. Protection measures at public 
expense are generally considered justified. Fire 
protection, for instance, safeguards resources 
of value to the individual owner, but these re- 
sources also are of importance to the com- 
munity. The whole community suffers when 
fire runs rampant. And fire is no respecter of 
property lines. A fire may get into an individual 
owner’s woods through no fault of his own. 
But in addition to protection work there is 
need, too, for restoration and improvement 
work on many private lands, that is, work of a 
capital investment nature, such as reforestation 
and timber stand improvement, if these lands 
are to be transferred from the debit to the asset 
side of the national ledger. 
Improvement work on private lands—plant- 
ing trees, for instance—would mean enhancing 
the value of an individual owner’s property at 
public expense—but the increased values would 
likewise benefit the community. That is, they 
would benefit the community if the owner main- 
tained those values permanently. 
The question arises, however, whether any 
expenditure of public funds for zmprovement 
work on private land (as differentiated from 
protection work) would be justified without some 
guarantee that the results of the work would not 
be lost by subsequent failure of the owner to 
keep the land in productive condition. The 
benefits of a reforestation project, for instance, 
would be nullified if the resulting young timber 
stand was later ruined by premature or destruc- 
tive cutting. The owner might cash in as soon 
as possible on values created at public expense 
without any consideration of the public interest. 
Public regulation of timber cutting, designed 
to prevent wasteful and destructive practices, 
would be one way of assuring the permanence 
of forest improvement work on private lands. 
A regulatory plan has been proposed by the 
Department of Agriculture which would require 
that cutting be done according to methods that 
safeguard future timber growth.’ 
Some forest areas have been so depleted that 
they are no longer likely to be attractive to pri- 
vate enterprise. Many such lands are chronically 
tax delinquent. In such cases, public owner- 
ship has been suggested as a solution. Public 
purchase of substantial acreages of such lands 
with a view to restoring them to economic 
usefulness might well be a part of the postwar 
forestry program. Their administration as na- 
tional, State, or community forests would give 
assurance that the cycle of devastation would not 
be repeated. 
1 This question of public regulation of timber cutting is such a 
broad aad important one that it might well be a subject of separate 
study and discussion. A discussion outline on the problems of public 
regulation of forest practices, DS-26, Let’s Talk About Timber Sup- 
plies, is available from the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 
BENEFITS OF POSTWAR FOREST 
WORK 
Forest protection and improvement work has 
certain special advantages in an employment 
program. Projects can be quickly organized 
and got under way. The work can use both 
skilled workers (such as truck, tractor, and bull- 
dozer operators) and large numbers of unskilled 
men. Projects handled from camps can help re- 
lieve problems of the homeless worker, and 
many types of forest work also are particularly 
adapted to full- or part-time employment of local 
residents in rural areas. Where need for rural 
employment and supplementary farm income is 
greatest, a large volume of potential forest work 
is generally available. 
Undoubtedly many a boy will come back from 
the war with his outlook on life askew or his 
nerves on trigger edge. Healthful outdoor work 
in the forest might be the best possible means of 
once more getting a grip on himself. 
The work does not compete with any estab- 
lished industry. Rebuilding and improving our 
forest resources, in fact, will greatly enlarge the 
field for private enterprise. New opportunities 
for business activity will be opened up, and new 
sources of national income developed. Can you 
think of any more useful and constructive work 
than helping to make the one-third of our coun- 
try which is forest land furnish a permanent 
abundance of products and services for the wel- 
fare of our citizens? 
POSTWAR PLANS 
Dealing with a crop that takes years to grow, 
foresters have a habit of long-range thinking. 
Those who have the responsibility for adminis- 
tering our national and State forests have long- 
time plans for their improvement and develop- 
ment. Some private-forest owners likewise have 
plans for postwar improvement of their timber 
holdings. As a matter of national policy, how- 
ever, the question of whether we shall take 
aggressive action on a Nation-wide scale to 
build up our forest resources, or whether we shall 
let them continue on the down grade, is for the 
public to decide—especially if expenditure of 
public funds (i. e., taxpayers’ money) is involved. 
