CHAPTER VI

IN

FORESTS AND FORESTRY

N the preceding chapters of this book we have attempted, in a necessarily faint outline, to describe the character of the American forest in the various sections of our continent; the part it plays in the economic and social life of the nation; its history, as determined by the forces of nature and modified by the activity of man. The last-named feature forms a natural transition to the second part of the subject-matter of this volume, American forestry.

To the great mass of the American public the word forestry conveys but an indistinct meaning. Not rarely it is said that forestry is something new in this country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the word that is comparatively new, but the thing itself is as old as human life on this continent. With the same truth could it be said that agriculture is something new in this country because agricultural colleges and experiment stations are but a generation old, as to say that forestry is new because only within the last few years has it been systematically and scientifically treated in the United States.

For let it be understood as

clearly as the EngForestry is not, as natural history of

lish language can express it: many imagine, the science or woodlands; nor is it the art of planting trees; nor that of preserving woodlands. It embraces all

these things, or at least special phases of them are required in its practice. But it is made up of many things besides. Nor should it be forgotten that forestry as such is not a matter for poets, artists, or sentimentalists, nor even for lovers of sport with rod and gun. There is no reason why the forester should not be a lover of the beauty of woodland scenery. Very often he is, but not by virtue of his being a forester, but because he is a man of wide and liberal culture and with strong esthetic sensibilities.

If forestry is not all this, what under the sun is it, the impatient reader will be ready to cry. It is simply the art of managing forests and utilizing them for the benefit of their owners. As soon as a human being begins to take for his use the manifold natural sources of wealth contained in the primeval woods, he practises the art of forestry. The mountain farmer who uses the uncleared portion of his land as a pasture for his lean cows and a rooting ground for his razor-back hogs, is practising a rude sort of forestry; the lumber king who sends out his crews to fell the white pine and convert it into boards and beams, is a forester on a large scale; the turpentine manufacturer of North Carolina, the maple-sugar boiler

of Vermont, both are engaged in forestry. Even the rich man who fences off a tract of woodland for a game preserve is a forester. In no country of the world has forestry in one form or another played so important a part as in the United States and Canada.

If forestry is nothing more than that, then why all this hue and cry, this agitation by word and pen, this petitioning of legislatures and spending of money which has been going on all over the country for the last twenty years or more? The answer is that forestry in this country need not be introduced, but its methods must be reformed. In the rapid changes of conditions which the development of our country has brought about, prevailing methods of forestry have become antiquated. What was once the most advantageous way of utilizing woodlands has become wasteful and in the end ruinous to us as a nation, and often to the individual land-owner. Therefore the persons who have realized these changed conditions are anxious to disseminate among the people a better knowledge of the facts and principles concerning the best treatment of forest property, and wherever necessary to cause the passage of laws designed to further this end.

If forestry is nothing more than the utilization of forests, it necessarily follows that improved methods cannot be inimical to the interests of forest owners. That is the best method of forestry which is to the greatest advantage of the

proprietor of the wood. Almost self-evident as this appears, the contrary opinion was formerly very common among timber-land holders, lumbermen and others. It still lingers here and there. To some extent the promoters of reform have themselves been at fault for this odd circumstance; for they have sometimes laid such exclusive stress on the preservation of forests that outsiders could easily be led to think that they wanted all lumbering operations to stop.

Such a misunderstanding cannot last long in an intelligent community, and is rapidly disappearing from the public mind. In its place another delusion sometimes takes hold of well meaning people. That is an idea that what is needed consists in a transplantation to this country of the forestry system flourishing in some foreign countries, and particularly in Germany. Such a step,

if it were possible, would be foolish. Conditions in this and European countries differ so much that what is practicable in one country is often out of the question in another. What we can learn from Germany and other countries with highly developed forestry is, not their methods and systems, but the principles on which they are based, for those principles are determined by the universal laws of nature and human society.

It being understood that forestry is the art of utilizing forests for the advantage of their owners, we will make a great step towards a clear comprehension of the subject by considering what that

advantage may be. I now have in mind the case of private ownership, for where forest lands are owned by the public, certain considerations come into play which must modify the conclusions. Clearly a man may have a diversity of objects in view when he becomes the owner of woodland. The most numerous class of forest owners in this country are farmers who keep a portion of their homestead under timber. Forests of this kind are rarely over a hundred acres in extent, and usually much smaller. Their obvious use is supplementary to agriculture. They supply fire-wood and fencing material, pasturage to the farm cattle; occasionally some logs are sold to produce an incidental cash revenue. In such cases the dominant principle of treatment should be to maintain the forest permanently in as good condition as possible for the use it is put to, with as little outlay of money and labor as will accomplish that end. Ordinarily it would not pay to manage it with a view to large or continuous pecuniary returns.

On the other hand, a person may own large tracts of timber-land from which he may desire a revenue. The land represents a large amount of invested capital, and good business principles demand that the investment should yield a reasonable interest. In such cases a variety of different systems of treatment would be indicated, according to the circumstances of each case. If the proprietor finds that his capital will be most productive if he takes from the land the greatest possible amount of timber