WHY MASSACHUSETTS NEEDS MORE STATE FORESTS. 



1. Idle land fit only for timber growing is an economic outlaw. Like a sneak 

 thief it appears in the community while the people are asleep to the economic 

 consequences which accompany it. It takes from the public till tax money collected 

 from other forms of property and gives nothing in return. It demands money for 

 protection against fire, insects and fungi, not because of its own value but because 

 it harbors menaces to other property. It is a highwayman of the first order be- 

 cause its existence forces the public to spend millions of dollars to build roads over 

 and around it toward which expense it contributes nothing. One-fifth of the 

 land in Massachusetts is in the outlaw class. 



2. Most of this land is located in towns that have been going steadily back- 

 ward and no agency other than the State can reclaim it. Forty per cent of our 

 towns have fewer people than they had 50 years ago. 



3. Over 80 per cent of our lumber is imported and hundreds of millions of 

 feet are brought from the Pacific Coast annually. The freight alone on this 

 lumlber costs more per thousand feet than it would cost to grow good timber 

 here at home on our now idle land. How long would a manufacturing corporation 

 exist that allowed one-third of its plant to stand idle, while it bought its product 

 at twice the cost of manufacture in its own plant? One-third of our forest land, 

 about 1,000,000 acres, is idle and yet we continue to pay other people millions of 

 dollars for our lumber. 



4. The cost of lumber is one of the chief causes of high rents in Massachusetts. 

 It alone has added about 25 per cent to the cost of building dwellings, in the past 

 12 years, and unlike the cost of other materials, there is no hope of relief until 

 we grow more timber at home for our local needs. 



5. The abandoned farm and the abandoned mill site, all too common in Massa- 

 chusetts, are found in the same localities. State forests will in time furnish em- 

 ployment to thousands of men, especially to farmers, and they will produce the 

 raw materials to re-establish small wood-using industries in the outlying towns. 



6. State Forests encourage towns and individuals to practice forestry. Since 

 the State Forest Act was passed in 1920 over 60 municipalities have established 

 forests averaging about 100 acres. They have appropriated about $1000 each, on 

 the average, and together they have planted 1,000,000 trees. Hundreds of acres 

 are planted each year by individuals. THE PEOPLE WANT MORE FORESTS. 



7. But how about the taxes? This program calls for less than a half of one 

 per cent of the State Budget, and the industries in the State dependent on wood 

 pay well over two per cent of the taxes, employ over 50,000 people and represent 

 an investment of over $50,000,000. Surely we should do something to sustain and 

 perpetuate these industries. England's tax burden makes ours appear as a trifle, 

 yet she is spending millions of pounds for reforestation. 



8. The State Forest is not an expenditure, it is an investment. It is an in- 

 vestment with every precedent a success. European nations, our Federal gov- 

 ernment, most of the States, and many municipalities are acquiring land for timber 

 production. We must have timber whether or not the production of it shows a 

 profit, and since the individual is not producing timber on sufficient scale to meet 

 our needs, the public must do so. 



9. The purchases already made have justified the public confidence in this 

 work. We are not launching on an indefinite program because the land that 

 can be economically purchased for State Forests is definitely limited. With 

 a purchasing organization of experienced men in the Department of Conser- 

 vation it would be poor economy to stop the work now, only to have to rebuild 

 the organization to complete the task sometime in the future. Why not finish the 

 job while we are at it? 



10. The foregoing are only a few reasons why Massachusetts should extend 

 its State Forests. We have not mentioned recreation, water protection for domestic 

 use and for power, bird and game refuges, enhancement of local real estate values, 

 preservation of beautiful areas or educational facilities. Viewed from any angle 

 the forest bears a close relation to human existence and happiness. 



Let us have more State Forests. 



Dec, 1925. 



Harris A. Reynolds, Secretary. 



