172 



Sierra Club Bulletin 



encourage forest-insurance agencies, to create national forest loan 

 banks (similar to the farm loan banks), to officially recognize re- 

 gional and national councils of lumber employers and employees, 

 and establish penalties for the enforcement of the law. Provision is 

 also made for an increase in the area of the national forests, and to 

 authorize direct manufacture and marketing of forest products there- 

 from by the Forest Service. 



The Graves-Greeley program is so named because it was origi- 

 nated by Henry S. Graves, former United States Forester, and is 

 being supported by his successor in that position, Forester W. B. 

 Greeley. Its provisions are as follows : I. Federal aid to states and 

 forest-owners in fire protection for both virgin stands and second 

 growth ; 2. A federal survey of the nation's timber resources, present 

 and future; 3. An augmented research program by the U. S. Forest 

 Service; 4. An increase in the area of the national forests; 5. Re- 

 forestation of denuded areas within the national forests. 



The first of the two fundamental differences between these plans 

 is that while the former proposes coercion of timber-owners the 

 Graves- Greeley program relies on persuasion and co-operation. In 

 the former a national commission is to determine upon certain mini- 

 mum requirements in forestry and enforce the same. In the latter 

 direct aid will be offered in fire protection alone (which is, according 

 to Greeley, seventy- five per cent of our forestry problem), and for 

 the rest the National Government will limit itself to an educational 

 campaign. This difference has been sharply emphasized, moreover, 

 by the manner in which the two plans have been advocated. While 

 Greeley has repeatedly consulted with representatives of the lumber 

 industry, the proponents of the alternative method have stated from 

 the start that education and persuasion of the lumberman have al- 

 ready been abundantly attempted in vain, and that only through 

 coercion is there any hope for progress. 



The second difference is in the question of national or state con- 

 trol. The advocates of the Pinchot plan argue that those states which 

 have little or no forest area will suffer most from forest devastation, 

 that only in national legislation will their influence be properly felt, 

 and that to the lumber industry itself fairness demands a uniformity 

 of restrictions and obligations which could not be obtained by indi- 

 vidual state laws. On the other side is emphasized the great diversity 

 of conditions between the different timber-producing regions, which 



