72 



Sierra Club Bulletin. 



Danger to ... There has been during the past two or three 



THE National years a steadily growing movement to turn over the 

 Forest Policy. national forests to the individual States. . . . Pubhc 

 interests, both of the Nation and of the States require 

 their continued retention and management by the National Government. 

 ... It must suffice to mention a few cogent reasons for Government 

 ownership : 



1. The property is now owned by the Nation, and should be admin- 

 istered from the standpoint of national as well as of local needs. 



2. The problem of protection from fire and of timber production on 

 the national forests is one of national scope and can be properly handled 

 only by the Government ; its solution is a national duty. 



3. The problem on water control is no less a national duty. Nearly 

 all of the national forests lie on headwaters of navigable rivers or 

 interstate streams. . . . 



4. Not only are the interests of the individual States and communities 

 now fully protected, but in many ways far more is being done for local 

 communities than would be possible under State ownership. In the 

 long run, as the timber and other resources are brought into use with 

 improving markets, the States will receive from the 25 per cent of the 

 gross receipts now allowed them and the additional 10 per cent appro- 

 priated for road improvements a larger amount than would come in from 

 local taxes under private ownership. 



5. The States are not as well prepared, financially or otherwise, to 

 handle the national forests as is the Federal Government. If the forests 

 were owned by the States and handled in the real interests of the public, 

 there would be substantially the same system of administration as to-day, 

 at a greater aggregate cost for supervision by a considerable number of 

 independent State staffs of technical men. The financial burden would be 

 far too great for the individual States to assume. The result would be 

 either poor administration and lack of protection, or a sacrifice of the 

 public interests in order to secure revenue to meet the financial needs. 



6. The successful application of forestry demands a stable adminis- 

 trative policy for long periods. This can be secured far better under 

 national than under State control. 



7. A much higher standard of constructive and technical efficiency 

 is possible under national than under State administration. 



8. As largely undeveloped property, the forests need heavy invest- 

 ments of capital for their improvement. Their full productiveness can 

 be secured in no other way. The Government is now investing yearly 

 in the forests a considerable part of the appropriation made for them. 

 Even if the States did not seek to make them sources of immediate 

 revenue, at whatever sacrifice to their future possibilities, they would be 

 reluctant to expend much for their development. 



9. The States both lack the civil-service system and standards of the 

 National Government and are exposed to greater danger of being 



