64 BULLETIN 1294, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
is not close. In this case the piles must either be left unburned or 
be repiled, otherwise advance reproduction will be destroyed. 
5. Makin piles too large, too small, or too loose, resulting in any 
case in serious damage to advance reproduction. 
6. Failure to carry on pune progressively with logging, with the 
result that slash dries out, leaves and twigs fall off, and slash is 
incompletely cleaned up. 
The particular object of this method of slash disposal is the reduc- 
tion of hazard on cut-over areas, with the minimum damage to 
advance reproduction and seed trees. Is this object accomplished and 
to what extent ? 
At its best, as illustrated on many Government sale areas, piling 
and burning results in an excellent clean-up of the cut-over lands, 
with slight damage to reproduction. At its worst, where slash has 
been carelessly piled and burned it approximates broadcast burning 
in its effect. Studies on Government sale areas where a good job of 
piling and burning has been done show that from 6 to 17 per cent of 
the total ground area is covered by the burned slash piles, depending 
on the density of the stand and the amount of timber cut. This 
indicates conclusively that the method can be safely employed in 
reducing hazard. Cruises of such land show, moreover, that from 75 
to 90 per cent of the slash is actually consumed and that the remain- 
der is so scattered as to have no material bearing on the difficulty of 
fire suppression. To that extent the method represents a legitimate 
use of fire in forest management. Under present conditions, it is the 
maximum that can be done toward cleaning up the forest, and the 
dangers in its employment are controllable. | ; 
Does piling ee burning insure that any fire that may start can 
be suppressed within a reasonably small area ? 
The effectiveness of this measure is shown by the figures obtained 
on cut-over areas where slash has been piled and burned, showing 
that the average size of 45 subsequent fires was held to the very low 
figure of 0.4 acre, as against 9.7 acres for the average of 37 fires on 
aaieeant unburned slash areas (Table 22). The blanket protection 
afforded all these classes of land had been the same, and the conclu- 
sion is logical that piling and burning of slash is an effective means 
of reducing hazard. 
Another point to be considered is whether fires within areas where 
slash has been piled and burned do as much damage as in areas where 
the slash has not been so disposed of. Field studies of comparable 
areas indicate conclusively that while heavy loss of reproduction 
results from fires even where the slash has been piled and burned, 
seed trees ordinarily escape, and the fires burn but a small percent- 
age of the entire area. These losses, though severe, are nowhere 
near as complete or as irreparable as those resulting from slash fires. 
It may therefore be accepted that piling and burning slash is a 
beneficial use of fire and that the indirect costs or damages are not 
serious if the burning is properly and carefully done. 
The outstanding objection to piling and burning is its direct cost. 
With present wage scales, the expenditure can not beset at less than 
35 cents a thousand feet cut, and on many areas it may be as high 
as 50 cents a thousand feet. Of this cost, at least 85 per cent is 
taken up by the charge for piling, the burning usually costing only 
about 5 cents a thousand. If this cost is converted into terms of 
