n *
"Che Conservative.
tion pays bettor than forest preserva
tion.
Minnesota Pictures.
Obviously , the people as a whole ,
being interested in forest preservation ,
cannot attempt to restrict individual
rights , without compensation , for the
benefit of the commonwealth.
On the threshold of the 20th century ,
it would not do to simply forbid the de
vastation of forests owned by private
individuals in the face of the fact , that
forest destruction is , from the merely
commercial standpoint , superior to for
est preservation.
If the people realize , that the main
tenance of the forests is a necessity for
their welfare , they must be willing to
spread over the entire country those
now exceptional conditions under
which conservative management of pri
vate woodlands is a eafe and remunera
tive business.
Forestry as an investment is unsafe as
long as fires cannot be prevented from
destroying the forest. True , the prime
val forest is fairly fireproof. As soon ,
however , as the removal of the mattire
timber allows the sun to roast the vege
table litter on the ground whilst at the
same time inflammable debris is increas
ed , the seedlings , saplings , poles and im
mature trees left intact by conservative
utilization of the forest are badly ex
posed to destruction by lire.
The virgin forest in America and the
well-managed , long , established forest
which you find in Germany and France ,
. The "transition-
are fairly fire-proof. -
forest , " however , which necessarily
leads from primeval conditions to those of
regulated production , is very badly en
dangered by fires. Now , during the tran
sition stage , is the time for action. Sixty
years hence the virgin forest will be re
placed by a forest allowing of regular
management , if protection is carried
through , or else will be replaced by
barrens , if protection is denied.
For the average owner of woodlands
protection from , fire during the transition
stage , at his own expense , is practically
impossible , the annual outlay being
larger than the annual yield of the
forest.
Only on very large , compact holdings
say tracts of over 100,000 acres pro
teotion from fire can bo effected at a
reasonable expense. Still this expense
added to the taxes due annually , gradu
ally grows up to a sum almost covering
the gross receipts obtainable from a
second growth in the forest.
Let us suppose , in order to clear the
situation a little better , that a lumber
man working conservatively has left in
his forest , per acre , a young audim
mature growing stock of spruce scaling
1,000 ft. b. m. per acre. After protect
ing his forest for 20 years , he will be
able to cut ( compare Pinohot , "The
Adirondack Spruce , " page 79 ff ) 2,000
feet b. m. of mature timber , worth , say
> 8 per acre. The yearly expense of pro
motion from fire was five cents , the
yearly taxes were two cents per acre
during that period of waiting. Both
outlays taken together have accrued ,
iguriug at G per cent interest , to $2.57
n the course of 20 years. Thus a not
yield of only ( $8 $2.57) ) or 48 cents per
acre is loft to reward the venture.
The owner cutting slightly and work-
ug conservatively takes great risks ,
) ecauso he leaves a large capital exposed
o destruction by fire.
The owner cutting heavily and leaving
almost no seedlings , saplings and poles
on the land , takes small risk. Still in
lis case the period of waiting for a
second out is so long , that prospective
taxes and prospective expenses consume
all hope of a remunerative outcome of
; he venture.
Where protection from fire is abso-
utely assured , a second growth of trees ,
in my opinion , cannot be prevented from
developing. Even against the wish of
ihe owner the trees will encroach upon
iho cut-over land. For thousands of
years , before the advent of fires , one
generation of trees , in the natural course
of events , has replaced the other.
Pictures Exhibiting Natural Regeneration
in Bavaria and Jack Pine in Minnesota.
Thus , if the people of this country
care to engage in a far-sighted policy ,
if the providential functions of govern
ment relative to forestry are understood ,
let them furnish laws and a salaried
staff to enforce these laws by which
forest fires are prohibited. Then only
we can expect private forestry to be
practiced , because then only private
forestry is a safe and remunerative
investment.
For the Dominion and the Provinces ,
in their capacity as f orest-owners , similar
considerations hold good. Both are in
the lucky position of owning largo and
compact tracts , 20 that the expense ol
protection , per acre of laud , is greatly
reduced. Both have the power to enact
laws suiting the task , with a view
perpetuating the forest whilst using it.
At the same time , the interest of the
commonwealth demands , that no acre of
virgin forest shall bo touched , unless
the land is fit for farming , or unless the
forest , during aud after lumbering is
fully protected from fire.
Does forestry mean "economic stag
nation ? "
It certainly does not.
Forestal Investments.
Forestry means "the proper handling
of forest investments. " Forestry in
tends to transform unproductive wood
land into a capital yielding large
revenue. The forestry investments are
cut down , on the one hand , by the re
moval of mature timber , and are
increased , on the other hand , by creating
a system of floatable streams , of fores
railroads and wagon roads. By these
means the farms and pasture grounds
possibly the mines as well scattered
throughout the forest arc made simul
taneously accessible and more valuable.
The investments are further increased
by the expense of land surveys and
stumpage surveys. Only on the basis Hv
of such surveys a plan for further busi
ness operations notably for railroad
building can bo properly draughted.
In addition , fire lanes connecting the
water-courses ( thus joining the natural
fire-breaks by artificial ones ) might bo
made , and a system of patrol-trails
might be created and hereafter main
tained , invaluable in case of fires , helpful'
in logging operations and welcome to
hunter , fisherman and health-seeker.
It should be continuously berne in
mind , that the revenue which forestry
means to draw from forestal capitals , is
not necessarily made up by returns ex
clusively obtained through sale of
timber. If it is financially advisable
with duo regard to the prospect of the
future , to use forest ground for forest
pasture , or for farms , or for the produc
tion of tan bark , or for whatever pro
duction ( rosin , pulp , cork , rubber , fruits ,
game , minerals ) you can imagine , then
true forestry means to engage in that
most promising industry , or , possibly ,
in a combination of several of them.
For the commonwealth as a forest-
owuer , a considerable share of forestal
revenue frequently consists of "pennies
saved , " which , if the old proverb is not
mistaken , are in no way the inferiors to
"pennies earned. "
If by regulating , by handling the
forestal investments properly , the mani
fold losses can be reduced , which
threaten navigation , water supply , irri
gation , agriculture , public health ,
property destructible by floods , then
every penny saved by such handling and
regulating is a penny legitimately earned
by forestry. In other words , the gross
returns from forestry practiced by the
commonwealth are not tangible goods
only ; the yield of the forest consists , tea
a large extent , of safety , of assistance ,
of insurance furnished to the people and
to their industrial vocations.
Within the forest itself , these "in
direct" blessings are scarcely ever felt.
Hence the private individual owning
forests does not care to produce them ;
the pennies saved are not saved for him.
In addition "indirect" revenue cannot
be derived from the forest in many a
case without curtailing the "direct"
monetary revenue. Private forestry ,
left to itself , cannot be expected to meet
the combined tasks.
Where the private forests form a small
percentage only of the total forest-area
of a country , no harm is done by dis
regarding them.
In the opposite case , the liberties of
the private owner must be restricted
with reference to the free disposition