"In many places after the timber has been cut off gullies and washes start in the old wheel ruts, log slides, etc., and these and other forms of erosion can best be prevented by leaving the brush on the ground, either laid in the incipient washes or scattered over the soil that is likely to wash. Brush burning destroys the valuable soil cover, and on the spots where the piles are burned the soil is loosened, which renders it even more liable to erosion.

"It is well known that where the forest is burned each year the soil becomes poorer and poorer, because nitrogen, the chief fertilizing ingredient of the soil, is given off in the smoke, and only the mineral elements go back to the soil in the ashes. And, what is more injurious, the humus—i. e., the decomposed vegetable matter in the top soil—is destroyed. In burning brush after logging all the fertilizing and humus-forming leaves and twigs are destroyed just when most needed, for another good crop or leaves cannot be expected for many years.

"The added cost, both to the lumberman and to the Government, is another argument against brush burning. The cost of piling brush has varied all the way from 15 cents to $1 or more per thousand, with an average or 40 or 50 cents, while the cost or burning may be from 5 cents to 25 cents per thousand, averaging about 15 cents. By abandoning the practice of brush piling this 60 cents a thousand will not be entirely saved, as is claimed by some, for the brush will still have to be lopped and disposed of in some other way, which will cost, it is estimated, at least half as much as piling and burning. But even a saving of 25 or 30 cents a thousand is a strong argument against the practice.

"Thus, from a silvicultural viewpoint, the disadvantages of brush burning far outweigh its advantages. Yet, as a general policy, it seems unwise, until other methods have proved their efficiency, to abandon brush piling and burning to any great extent at present. The fire danger is a known quality, and, though it is being reduced each year, it is still a menace. Therefore changes from the present practice should be made with caution. Brush piling and burning is certainly not advisable in all cases, and extensive experiments should be made to determine what is the best method of brush disposal for the different types and conditions.

"Brush Piling and Burning

"The cost of piling varies with the cost of labor, the methods of logging, the type, the topography, the kind of trees cut, and the time of the year it is done. A few figures will illustrate this variation. In the yellow pine type in Montana an addition to the swampers' wages of 15 cents a thousand would, it is said, enable them to pile the brush, as they have to handle it anyway. Usually, however, the piling is done by a separate crew. Much of the work is thus duplicated. In yellow pine in the Southwest, brush piling costs from 45 to 50 cents, while in Montana it can be done for 25 cents. One operator in lodgepole in Montana says it is cheaper for him to pile than not to, because he can get his skidding done so much cheaper, yet on other operations it has cost from 50 cents to $1 a thousand, depending on how thoroughly it is cleaned up. In the sugar pine type of California the cost of piling averages from 25 to 35 cents, while the cost in the Douglas fir type, in Montana and Idaho, averages about 40 cents, and in Engelmann spruce type the cost is only about 25 cents a thousand. It is certain, however, that the cost of piling will everywhere be materially reduced when the operators begin to look on piling as part of the swampers' regular work and not as an entirely separate job.

"Dry brush should never be burned during the dry season, unless absolutely necessary for the suppression of an insect invasion. Green brush in some places may be burned at any time, but as a rule it is unsafe to burn it in dry weather. The best time to burn brush is in the fall, just after the first snowfall. Then the piles are dry, and there is no danger that the fire will get beyond control. Brush may also be burned at the beginning of or during the rainy season, when the ground is damp enough to prevent the fire from spreading, and the brush dry enough to burn readily.

"The cost of brush burning varies like the cost of piling. It varies even more in the same localities, with weather conditions and methods of piling. Brush that can be burned for 10 or 15 cents a thousand at a favorable time, as just after the first snow, will cost five or ten times as much to burn in dry weather, or when the piles are very wet. Brush can be burned more easily the first fall after cutting than it can the second year, when many of the leaves have fallen off. Brush burning has been done for 13 cents a thousand in lodgepole, in the Medicine Bow National Forest, while it has cost 22 cents in similar timber in the Yellowstone, and estimates of 40 cents a thousand have been made for it in the Rockies. It is generally admitted that brush can be most economically burned by the same people who pile it. Recently several contracts have been made in which the purchaser of the timber is required to pile and burn the brush under the direction of forest officers, as has been the practice in the Minnesota forest for some time. This will lighten the total cost, and when the weather allows the brush to be burned, as logging proceeds, the cost of burning will be offset by the subsequent reduction in the cost of skidding.

"Piling Without Burning

"Brush piled properly, even though it is not burned, is a great protection to the forest. Inflammable material is removed from among the living trees, and should a fire occur it would be much easier to fight. This is especially true where reproduction is dense. Where openings are scarce piles should be made in the most open places, and may be larger than those made to be burned."

SLASH BURNING

In many regions, especially in western Oregon and Washington, logging debris is too great to make piling practicable. But except for the damper localities close to the Pacific, the danger from these immense accumulations is all the more excessive and, as we have seen elsewhere, their removal is often desirable in order to further reforestation by desirable species. Here the only course is to burn the slashing clean.

This is a dangerous process unless every safeguard is employed. Burning must be at a time in spring or fall when the slashing is dry enough but the surrounding woods are not. Spring burning is theoretically preferable, for it leaves less inflammable material during the fire season. The first fire is also easier to control then, because repeated experiments may be made, as the slashing dries, until just the right conditions exist. On the other hand, it is dangerous if there are many old stumps and logs in which fire may smoulder to make trouble later. The exponents or fall burning also argue that with care they can be ready to fire a very dry slashing safely at the beginning of a rainstorm. Spring burning seems to have the most advocates, but it is doubtful whether any rule for all localities and conditions can be given with confidence. Frequently failure at one season leads to postponement until the next.

In either case the slashing can be given the advantage of the greatest dryness with safety if it is surrounded by a cleared fire line from which to work. Firing should be against the wind and if the wind changes suddenly the opposite edge should be back fired. Previous cutting of all dead trees and snags over 25 feet high is urgently recommended. The camp crew should be held in readiness, well provided with tools, as insurance against accidental escape.

Its probable restriction of insect breeding is a point of slash burning likely to receive much future study. It is well known that most forest-injuring insects prefer dying trees to vigorous ones; also that the existence of an abnormal amount of such material tends to abnormal breeding and consequent serious attack of vigorous timber when the dead material becomes too dry to be inviting. It is by no means impossible that the supposed immunity of Douglas fir from insect injury may be largely due to the almost universal destruction by fire of logging debris which would otherwise afford ideal breeding places.

FIRE LINES

The division of mature forest into compartments separated by fire lines is seldom practicable in this country. Nevertheless slashings, deadenings and similar fire traps can very often be profitably confined by the cleaning of strips which will not only stop or retard the progress of a moderate fire but also facilitate patrol, fire fighting or back firing. On favorable ground, where some choice is offered, much may be done by falling timber inward so as to leave few tops near the uncut timber and by the location of skidroads. So far as practicable fire lines should be on the tops of ridges, for, being slower to go downhill than up, fire is more easily discouraged just as it reaches a crest. Bottoms of gulches are next in strategic value, and midslopes least.

SAFEGUARDING EQUIPMENT

The most fruitful source of fires is spark-emitting locomotives and logging engines. Much data has been collected showing that with oil at a reasonable price its use is economical from a labor-saving point of view as well as from that of safety. It reduces expense for watchmen, patrol, fuel cutting, firebox cleaning and firing. And since it is an absolute prevention, while all other measures merely seek to minimize the risk, it is probable that even where the cost of the oil more than balances these savings it will save in the long run by averting a costly fire.

Where the use of oil cannot be considered, spark arresters are essential. The argument that they prevent draft is not worth attention. It is greatly exaggerated by engineers and firemen prejudiced against innovation or too inattentive to keep their fires up properly and consequently unnecessarily dependent on occasional forced draft. The slight disadvantage involved by the modern improved arrester is not to be compared with the importance of the safety acquired.

In addition to spark arresters, which may fail or be out of order, logging engines using fuel other than oil should be provided with a constant tank or barrel supply of six to twelve barrels of water and 100 feet of hose with proper pumping attachment. With this a spark fire can be promptly soaked out beyond danger of invisible smouldering in rotten wood or duff. When conditions are dangerous, careful loggers send a man back to each donkey-setting between supper and bedtime to look for possible fires that were not seen when the crew left. Many keep a watchman on the rounds all night.

Railroad rights of way can usually be kept cleaned and burned at a cost far less than that of otherwise frequent shutdowns of the entire camp to fight fire or rebuild bridges, to say nothing of loss of timber.

PATROL

The best way to prevent fire is to prevent it. Putting out fires already started is better than letting them burn, but as the real foundation of a protective system it is about like lowering a lifeboat after the ship has struck. Only by patrol can the incipient spark or camp fire be extinguished before it becomes a forest fire that has to be fought, taking hours or days instead of minutes. One patrolman can stop 100 incipient fires easier than 100 men can stop one big fire. Fires in the forest may never be wholly averted, but patrol will prevent them from becoming "forest fires."

This is why the progressive lumberman no longer waits till forced to layoff his crew to fight, spending in a day or two a patrolman's salary for a season, shutting down his road and mill for lack of logs, and perhaps in spite of all losing several thousand dollars' worth of timber and equipment. It is also why the progressive non-operating owner no longer considers fire loss the act of God, to be reckoned as an investment risk of several per cent. The man who does not patrol his timber nowadays is like a millman who hires no watchman, has no hose or sprinkler equipment, and carries no insurance. He may escape loss, but by not making a reasonable effort to insure against it he takes a course practically unknown with other forms of property.

Modern fire patrol is systematic. Trained and organized men have definite duties. Tools, assistance and supplies are available at known points and without delay. Trails and look out stations, often supplemented by telephone lines, give the greatest efficiency with the least number of men. Above all, the system is based on the fact that results are most truly measured not by the number of fires extinguished but by the absence of fire at all. Settlers, campers and lumbermen are visited, cautioned and converted. In short, the patrolman has a certain area in which to improve public sentiment. His success in this is worth more than efficiency in fighting fires due to lack of such success. A system devoted to mere fire fighting to be adequate must grow larger as time goes on. One devoted to preventing fire may be reduced, as time makes it successful.

The cost of efficient patrol varies so directly with the risk that it is almost constant as an insurance investment. Where prevalence of fire, difficulty of handling it, etc., make the cost per acre comparatively high, there is equivalent certainty of greater loss if this sum is not spent. Where the owner is warranted in believing his risk small it costs but a trifle to provide sufficient patrol to insure against it. One to 3 cents an acre is spent in the great majority of successful patrols in ordinary seasons.

ASSOCIATE EFFORT

One of the first lessons learned from the establishment of private patrol in the West was that both efficiency and economy are obtained by co-operation between owners. Obviously if one patrolman can cover the holdings of several, it is foolish for each to hire a man. If a fire threatens several tracts, it is better to share the expense of labor hired to put it out. The same is true of building trails, buying tool supplies, etc. This has led to the forming of associations which at a minimum cost to each member accomplish the many tasks of finding suitable men, having them authorized by the State, supervising and supplying them, paying emergency expense, opening trails, etc. Each member pays his share upon the acreage he represents.

These associations offer other important advantages besides the mere cheapening of work. They are admirably adapted to modifying the cost to fit the season. Beginning in spring with an assessment to cover putting the whole territory under the essentials of supervision and patrol, they can add men just as required by the progress of dry weather and reduce again in the fall. Men can be centralized at danger points better than through individual effort. Exceedingly important is the means they afford of bringing in the non-resident owner, the small owner who is not warranted in employing anyone alone, and the non-progressive owner who would otherwise do nothing but is ashamed to stay out of a general movement.

No tract can be safely considered as an independent unit. No protection confined to it alone is as good insurance as the removal of risk from the district within which it lies. Fire is no respecter of section lines. There is always danger of unusual weather in which it may travel a long distance. It is far better to secure the maximum general safety in the locality than to have guarded tracts alternating with fire traps. Moreover attention to individual tracts does not improve surrounding conditions, and the latter may easily become so bad as to make the cost of individual patrol, as well as the risk, far overbalance any financial disadvantage at present through co-operation.

Again, the public is far more likely to take kindly to the enforcement of fire laws by an association than to the action of an individual owner against whom some prejudice may exist. Associations greatly simplify co-operation with State and Government in fire work and tend to bring about appropriations for the purpose. They enable uniform and concentrated effort to improve sentiment and legislation. This booklet and the other work done by the Western Forestry & Conservation Association was made possible by the existence of the local organizations it represents. Their independent local and State effect has been marked.

The bad fire season of 1910 was a supreme test of the associations of the Pacific Northwest. They kept the bad fires in their immense territory down to a number which can be counted on the fingers and their losses were comparatively insignificant. Yet under the weather conditions which existed the thousands of fires they extinguished would certainly otherwise have swept the country and caused a disaster probably unparalleled in American history.

REFORESTATION AS A FIRE PREVENTATIVE

However progressive the preventive policies adopted, the race between them and the increasing sources of hazard resembles that between armor plate and ordnance in the construction of battleships. While for a given population engaged in pursuits endangering the forests the risk lessens, the total activity increases at a rate which makes the smaller proportionate risk as great in actual measure. This is particularly true of the growth of slashing areas. The virgin forest becomes more and more and checkered by burned and cut-over deadenings, veritable fire-traps open to sun and wind, and, especially west of the Cascades, usually covered by inflammable debris, brush or dead ferns. Each year brings nearer the time when, unless something is done, such will constitute the majority of once forested land and the uncut timber will remain like islands in expanses of extreme danger.

Next to cultivation, which but a small percentage will receive, the safest insurance against recurring fires in these cut-over areas is a thrifty young second growth. It shades the ground, keeps out annual vegetation that furnishes fuel when dead, and will itself carry none but such furious crown-fires as would be practically unknown were there no openings for them to gain headway in. This is less true of pine, but the very best protection which can be given a tract of merchantable fir is a strip of 10 to 50-year second growth surrounding it.

Whether regarded from the owner's standpoint or that of the public, reforestation should be considered as a protective measure of extreme importance. Actual expenditure to obtain it may easily be profitable for this reason alone, for once established it will decrease the cost of patrol thereafter. Were all cut-over land in the Northwest immediately restocked, the fire hazard would be enormously reduced.



CHAPTER V

FORESTRY AND THE FARMER

CUTTING METHODS

If there is anyone for whom the practice of forestry is practical and profitable, it is the farmer who owns the timber he uses for fuel or other purposes. His supply of the most suitable material is almost always limited and in any case his method of using it is practically certain to influence his permanent labor expenses. Nevertheless, especially in well-timbered regions, cutting is apt to be with but two considerations—the quickest clearing of land or the easiest immediate fulfillment of some need for tree products—and the passage of a few years brings realization that this early thoughtlessness must be paid for at a high price.

In the first place almost all timber of a commercial species has real and increasing value. If it is young, this value is increasing doubly because of growth. Varying greatly, of course, young timber in the Pacific Northwest very often adds from 500 to 1,000 board feet to the acre annually. This annual gain is taking place even if the timber has not reached merchantable size, being like coin deposited in a toy bank which does not open until full. And this is true whether the ultimate use may be for fuel, poles, or salable material like tie or saw timber.

Too much land is cleared of young growth, merely because such clearing is easy, which is of such low value for tilling or even pasture that its use for these purposes does not pay as well in the long run as would its use for growing timber, especially when the investment of clearing is considered. The resulting expanse of charred stumps and logs, producing little but ferns, is a small farm asset at best. The timber it would grow may eventually be a large asset. And the labor of clearing applied to a smaller tract of good land is sure to bring greater returns. An illustration is furnished by two tracts near the end of a recently completed railroad in western Washington. Twenty years ago a settler slashed a large area of presumably worthless sapling fir adjoining his tillable bottom land, set fire to it, piled and burned the remaining poles, "seeded down" a pasture, and enclosed it by an expensive cedar rail fence. The pasture, never useful except in early spring, grew up to ferns, and was finally abandoned. Even the fence was moved. The settler on the next claim left his part of the same sapling growth to grow and this year sold the timber alone for $1,000 to a tie mill which came into the neighborhood with the railroad. The moral of this does not apply to cutting alone, but argues equally for preventing fire in second growth.

It is also poor economy, if mature timber exists, to cut rapidly growing young timber for fuel because it is nearer the house or easier to cut. The former has become stationary in production, while the latter, if left, is earning money by growing in quantity and quality. If young timber must be used, and the land is not worth actually clearing for cultivation or pasture, it is usually far better to thin out the poorest trees, thus leaving the remainder stimulated to a more rapid growth, which will soon replace those removed, than to begin on the edge and take everything.

There is no reason why a certain poor-soiled timbered portion of the average claim should not be considered as a permanent wood lot, to be treated with the same interest and pride in making it produce the greatest quantity of forest products for sale or use that the owner accords his fields. With this point of view established and consequent study given the subject, it will also be easier to decide how large this portion should be. In many cases the result will be abandonment of the idea that all forest growth is an enemy, to be destroyed on general principles without calculating what actual profit there is in destruction.

Another point often overlooked in the Pacific Northwest, because of our local tendency to consider the forest only as something to struggle against, is the exactly opposite influence of properly placed tree growth upon sale values if the prospective buyer is from the East or from our own cities or tree-less regions. Such are attracted strongly by the grove-like effect of a few trees left around the house. Their desire for this is as strongly ingrained as the average local resident's desire for a completely free outlook to mark his victory over unfriendly nature. The appeal a place makes to a buyer as a pleasant home has frequently as important an influence on his decision as its purely practical merits.

His judgment of the latter, however, is also affected by his earlier environment. If he has lived where farming land is open, evidences of the labor of clearing are discouraging. The untouched forest, being totally beyond his capacity to estimate the labor its removal entails, repels him less than stumps, logs, desolate burnings and like detailed evidences of the work which lies before him. This is another reason why the clearing of clearly fertile land may be better business than the half-clearing of land perhaps best suited for forest growth anyway. Again, not fully realizing the plentifulness of forest products in the new locality, he may actually overestimate the value of an attractive piece of forest land showing evidence of the thoughtful care suggested in a preceding paragraph.

USE OF FIRE

Above all, it pays the settler in wooded regions to be careful with fire. Properly directed and confined, fire is necessary in clearing land. But there is no profit in allowing uncontrolled fire to spread from the actual clearing to create a snarl of dead, decaying and falling trees and underbrush. It is usually harder to extend the clearing into such ground than into green timber. This added work later is many times that necessary to safeguard the burning in the first place.

In every case that fire ever escaped from clearing operations, the cause was either thoughtlessness or unwillingness to perform certain work. Because it is easier to burn a slashing than to pile and burn; or when a ground burn is desirable, because it is easier to take chances than to clear a fire line around the area and have a force of men present; because burning at a dry, dangerous time will be cleaner and thus save work after the fire; inexperience, coupled with unwillingness to take advice from the experienced—these and like reasons are responsible for the destruction of lives and property worth over and over again the sum that was saved by the attempted economy. And, although this does not save others, the person responsible also usually loses instead of gaining.

Without deprecating in the least the importance of agricultural development or of lightening the useful and not easy task of the settler, it is still terribly true that the agricultural industry and the settler suffer an annual loss through the destruction of improvements, crops and stock by fires from careless clearing that is far greater financially than the saving in clearing cost which was the cause. In other words, agricultural development is retarded instead of advanced by its present careless use of fire.

PLANTING FOR FUEL AND TIMBER

Great as are the timber resources of the Pacific Northwest, there are extensive regions in central and eastern Oregon and Washington where timber is a scarcity, and wood for fuel and farm repair purposes for settlers and ranchers can be obtained only at heavy cost. In such situations it will be a paying investment for the farmer to set out a small plantation simply to produce his own wood for fuel, fence posts and other purposes. It is true that some time must elapse before plantations begin to be productive, but by choosing rapid-growing species and planting closely, the thinnings which will be necessary in a few years, even though the trees be small, will do for the woodpile. Trees which grow rapidly and at the same time produce good wood are, of course, preferable. If they also sprout from the stump, a little care will maintain the supply indefinitely.

The choice of species for a woodlot must be governed to a great extent by the location. Many portions of the treeless areas in this region are situated at a high altitude where the climatic conditions are severe and frosts are common throughout every month of the year. In such locations only the most hardy trees will succeed. Other areas are deficient in moisture, and where this deficiency is so great as to prohibit the growing of agricultural crops by dry farming it is useless to attempt growing trees without irrigation.

Probably the tree most commonly planted in treeless regions has been some species of cottonwood. Lombardy poplar and Balm of Gilead have been great favorites. Cottonwood grows rapidly and is hardy against frost, but requires a never-failing supply of water within five to twenty feet of the surface. Because of its demands for moisture it will not grow on uplands, but thrives along water courses or where there is plentiful supply of moisture below the surface. Its fuel value is not high, though the quantity of its wood production compensates for its poor quality, nor does it make good fence posts. Where quick growth is the main consideration, however, it is a good tree to plant. The varieties known as Norway and Carolina poplar are the best.

Green ash and hackberry are also hardy against both cold and moisture, but of slow growth. Their wood is durable in contact with the soil, making them suitable for fence posts. Where it succeeds black locust combines many of the desirable qualities to the highest degree. It is a rapid grower, makes excellent fence posts and has high fuel value. It is not as hardy against frost as cottonwood and ash, and while it has been planted successfully in sheltered locations on high plateaus, its success where frosts occur during the summer months is problematical. A closely related species, honey locust, is more frost-hardy but less desirable in other respects, though an excellent tree nevertheless. Other fairly hardy and drought-resistant trees are osage orange and Russian mulberry. Their value for fuel and fence posts is high, but they will not succeed in the most severe situations. Box elder is hardy and has been widely planted, but it is of low fuel value and short lived.

In favorable localities at low altitudes, where moisture is abundant either through natural precipitation or from irrigation, the number of species which are adapted to woodlot planting is largely increased. Black walnut, black cherry and hardy catalpa are probably the most valuable of these. The latter, however, is sensitive to early and late frosts.

WINDBREAKS

The planting of windbreaks and shelter belts around dwellings and fields is of prime importance to the settler in an open country. Nothing adds more to the comfort of the dweller than a belt of timber about the home to protect it from the wind. Orchards need windbreaks to save them from injury in a wind-swept country, and gardens are more successful when surrounded by trees. One of the most important functions of the windbreak, however, is the saving of soil moisture within the protected area, for it is a well established fact that evaporation takes place more rapidly when there is a movement of the atmosphere than when it is calm. It is safe to say that a windbreak is effective in preventing evaporation for a distance equal to ten to fifteen times its height.

Some species, because of the form of their crowns and their rapid growth, are more effective for windbreaks than others. Since more coniferous trees retain their foliage throughout the entire year, they afford protection in winter as well as in summer. Such species as western yellow, Scotch and Austrian pine grow rapidly, are hardy, and serve the purpose well. In regions of abundant moisture Douglas fir or Norway and Sitka spruce are unequaled. European larch has also been very successful in many regions, but, unlike most conifers, it sheds its leaves in winter. Where a windbreak is to consist of a single row only, it should be of a densely growing type that branches close to the ground. For low breaks of this character the Russian mulberry and Osage orange are excellent.

Trees for woodlot or windbreak planting can be purchased from commercial nurserymen or grown by the farmer. Many growers of orchard trees, particularly in the states in the middle West, do a large business in forest tree seedlings. Since the transportation charges are often high, and since most farmers can give the attention and labor necessary to raising the trees themselves without inconvenience or extra expense, it is often desirable for them to do so. The Forest Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture has issued several publications containing full directions for the establishment of nurseries, and these can be obtained from the Superintendent of Public Documents, Washington, D. C., free or at a nominal cost.[*]

[Footnote *: Reprint from Yearbook, Dept. of Agr., 1905, "How to Grow Young Trees for Forest Planting."

Bulletin No. 29, "The Forest Nursery."

Planting leaflets for almost all important forest trees.]

Planting may be done in the spring or fall, the latter being often preferable in regions where a dry season occurs early in the summer. For plantations of broadleaf species, one-year-old seedlings are best suited, while coniferous species should be two to three years old. The chief points to remember in setting out the trees are not to allow the roots, particularly of coniferous trees, to dry out; to dig the holes large enough to enable the roots to take a normal position without doubling up, and to pack the soil firmly around them. Where planting is done on open ground, it is highly advantageous to plow and harrow the soil before setting out the trees in order to preserve the moisture and kill weeds and sod.

Willows, cottonwoods and other poplars are very easily propagated from cuttings. Cuttings should be of strong, healthy wood of the previous season's growth which ripened well and did not shrivel during the winter. A good length is 8 to 12 inches, with the upper cut just above a bud. They may be made when wanted and planted with a spade, or if the ground is mellow they can be merely shoved into the soil until only one bud is above the surface and then tramped.

The spacing of the trees is a question largely of utility, with some variation for different species. In general, however, close planting is advisable in treeless regions, since an artificial forest must stand in a dense mass if it is to succeed in the struggle against native vegetation, wind, sunshine, frost and dry weather. A single tree or row unprotected by associates has a poorer chance. Cultivation is the best method of conserving soil moisture. To obtain the best results plantations should be cultivated, if possible, at least during the first few years. The less care the trees are to have, the thicker they should be set in order that they will be close enough to establish forest conditions of shade, litter and underbrush. Thinnings can then be made as they grow and need more room. The material thus obtained will provide an early supply of fuel, stakes and posts. A spacing of 4x4 feet is common, but this does not allow for cultivation. For this reason 2x8 feet is preferable. Shelter belts should be planted closely in order to give protection quickly.

COST

The cost of planting is not great. Broadleaf seedlings will cost from $1 to $6 per thousand at the nursery, coniferous plants $2.50 to $10. If grown at home the cost will be greatly reduced. The preparation of the soil by plowing and harrowing should not exceed $2 per acre, and planting from $2.50 to $5 per thousand, according to the species, the method used and the condition of the soil.



APPENDIX

TAX REFORM TO PERMIT REFORESTATION

LOSS IN IDLE LAND

It is of the very highest importance to have that part of our constantly increasing area of cut and burned over forest land which is not more valuable for agriculture put to its only useful purpose—the growing of another forest crop. If this is done it will continue to be a source of tax revenue, to employ labor and support industry, to supply our forest needs, to bring revenue into the state, and to protect our streams. Otherwise it will become a desert, non-taxable, non-productive, a fire menace, and in every way worse than a dead loss to the state in which it exists and to the country at large. In the one way it will be of use to every citizen, whatever his occupation; in the other it will be a burden upon every citizen.

The realness and directness of this problem in the Pacific Northwest is seldom realized. Our deforested areas are great and growing, but of even more peculiar significance is our unparalleled opportunity for making them quickly profitable to the community. Forest growth is more rapid and certain than elsewhere. A heavy crop may be had again in from 40 to 60 years. It will hardly be of the quality of that now being cut, but considering the shortage then to prevail should bring fully as much wealth into the state from its manufacture, the majority to be circulated as payment for supplies and labor. Since, therefore, our denuded land should in 60 years or less bring in again as much as it has already, its idleness costs us each year a sixtieth or more of that immense sum, amounting to a great many millions of dollars annually. To this loss is added the loss of tax revenue which the new crop would yield, with countless indirect injuries.

THE OWNER'S COMPULSORY ATTITUDE

For this situation our system of taxation is chiefly responsible. The owner may or may not hold the land for a time under the present system, in the hope of selling it or of tax reform, but he will seldom if ever take any steps to insure reforesting, because to do so is too likely to be at an actual loss. Whether he has made money on the original crop has no bearing; nor has his being rich or poor, resident or alien. His cut-over land presents a distinct problem to him.

In the first place, its sale value represents an investment. He may sell and reinvest the money in any business which looks inviting—perhaps in standing timber. Presumably he can get ordinary business returns, 6 per cent or more, and continue to reinvest these returns. Therefore if he leaves this money in forest land for 50 years without return, for every dollar so tied up he must get $18.42 at the end of that period if he is to make 6 per cent on the investment. And this applies not only to the present value of the land, but also to any added expense he incurs in modifying his cutting methods, or in replanting, in order to insure reforestation. If both together amount to $5 an acre, he must net $92.10 at the end of his 50 years in order to make 6 per cent.

So far no complaint can be made. But if the land is to produce a second crop it cannot be left to take care of itself, as it might were it being held for speculative purposes only. It must be protected from fire and trespass. And since the interest and principal invested will amount to so much for so long a period and be totally lost in case of destruction, the protection must be adequate, practically amounting to insurance. The annual cost will vary greatly according to locality, class of timber, and the enforcement of fire laws, but will be from 1 cent at the minimum to 15 cents at the maximum in bad seasons. If all cost of protection and administration is placed at only 5 cents annually, for the sake of illustration, this represents another investment constantly increasing and compounding, which, at the end of 50 years at 6 per cent, will amount to $14.51 an acre. Consequently, adding that to his original investment which will have become $92.10, he must net $106.61 to make his 6 per cent.

HOW TAXES ENTER THE PROBLEM

Let us now consider the influence of taxation. We have assumed the land to be valuable for forest growing only, and in calling his investment $5 an acre included some cost of insuring reforestation. Place this at $2 and leave a land value of $3, to be fully taxed at 30 mills for both state and county purposes, which is perhaps a fair average. This represents the third form of his investment, or 9 cents an acre invested annually and left unavailable for 50 years, and will amount at the end of that time, at 6 per cent, to $26.13. He has now to clear $132.74 an acre, besides being always in danger of total or partial loss from fire, and during all this time has to have the money, made in some other way, to meet all the annual payments. But no injustice appears, for he has been taxed on an equal basis with other producers. If his acre yields 20,000 feet (the maximum to expect), worth $7 a thousand, he has made his 6 per cent, the community has gained a resource, and everyone is satisfied. His land has been taxed fairly and as he now has a crop to sell he can afford to pay a tax on it also. If it is taxed at 3 per cent, or $4.20 an acre, county and state will altogether have received from him the same tax revenue they collect from other forms of property and industry of like value and profit, and received also the other benefits of forest production and of his expenditure of wages for protection.

But this is just what cannot legally be done under our present tax system. By failure to recognize that the growth produced is a crop, distinct from the land, grown at the owner's effort and expense, and returning no revenue until ripe, the law now compels the repeated annual taxation of the owner's effort to an extent very likely to amount to confiscation. It has been seen that even under the fair system outlined in the preceding paragraph, forest growing is not more than ordinarily inviting and involves considerable risk and capital. Yet it assumed only a fair annual tax on the land. Under our present system, logically carried out, here is what would happen:

The first year the tax would be the same. The second year a fiftieth of the total fifty-year crop, which we have assumed worth about $140, or $2.80, would be added to the land; therefore not $3, but $5.80, will bear the 30-mill levy, and not 9 cents, but 17 cents, actual tax will be paid. The third year the tax will be 25 cents an acre; at the twenty-fifth year it will be over $2 an acre. We have seen that even a 9-cent tax amounted to an investment of over $26 an acre in order to produce the crop. The continual increase of this according to growth would make the investment run into many hundreds of dollars if the same interest is calculated, and in any case would make reforestation financially impossible.

In actual practice, the increased valuation would probably not be made by the assessor in the manner just described. Instead of determining the rate of growth scientifically and applying it annually, he now makes an ocular reappraisement at considerable intervals. In most cases there is no increased value, for the land does not reforest but is continually reburned. Where it accidentally does reforest, he makes a rough calculation of the value of the second growth, based upon no particular system and seldom alike in different counties. But the principle remains the same and the result differs only in degree. With the most lenient valuation at 10 or 15-year intervals, the addition of material which makes growing forests so different from our stationary mature forests of today is bound, under our present system, to have confiscatory effect. The land owner, so far from being encouraged to establish and protect a new forest, is actually penalized, for he must assume that its expectation value will be taxed annually, perhaps on an exorbitant basis, as soon as it becomes apparent.

If only the value added each year, $2.80 in our illustration, were taxed annually, there would be no injustice. The tax would then, in the case cited, be 9 cents the first year and 17 cents every year thereafter. But this cannot be calculated with sufficient accuracy upon our present knowledge of forest growth and under conditions varying with every trace or acre. Our example, with its several arbitrary factors of growth, tax rate, interest rate, and future stumpage price, was merely for the purpose of illustration. Furthermore, such a solution would still be illegal under our present laws.

REQUIREMENTS REFORM MUST MEET

These facts are recognized by all students of forestry and taxation. In all countries where forests are grown the general property tax has been abandoned. Disinterested authorities of every class, approaching the subject only from the public's point of view and holding no brief for the timberland owner, unite in saying emphatically that its application to growing forests will retard or prevent forestry in our country. These authorities include statesmen like Roosevelt and our most prominent governors and senators; expert authorities on taxation generally, like state, national, and international tax conferences and professors of economics in the leading universities; forestry authorities like Graves, Pinchot and State foresters; and all the many associations and congresses devoted to such subjects.

These authorities all agree that the forest crop should not be taxed till harvested, but differ somewhat as to the degree to which the public need of reforestation warrants deferring part or all of the land tax also. This Association, after careful study of the subject, including European methods, the experiments made by several of our States, and the plans proposed by many others, believes the following objects should be sought:

1. Greater permanent revenue to state and country than is possible under the present system of destroying the taxable source.

2. Sustention of present revenue to the highest degree compatible with permanence.

3. Assurance that the owner will do his fair part to make the land productive.

4. Assurance to the owner in return that future action by the community will not confiscate all profit resulting from his effort.

5. Division of risk, so both owner and community will seek highest production and safety from fire.

6. Demonstrable justice to all concerned, rather than subsidy which, while doubtless warrantable to secure the public good, affords less precise basis of legislation at the present time.

7. Simplicity in adoption and operation.

A SUGGESTED SOLUTION

These requirements can be met by legislation, following constitutional amendment where necessary, providing that where the owner of cut or burned-over land will contract with the State to insure reforestation and protection for a specified term of years, the State shall notify the county assessor that the land is separated for taxation purposes from any forest growth thereon. The land may continue to pay a fair dependable tax, but the crop shall not be taxed until harvested. To the end that cutting of standing timber shall be conducted so as to place the land in the best condition for reforesting, uncut forest land should be subject to examination and similar contract, and the separate classification for taxation should take effect within a year after the timber is removed in compliance with the contract.

This would mean that when the owner of deforested land chiefly valuable to the community for forest production agrees to make it produce, he shall be taxed not on his effort but upon the results of his effort, and then exactly as other producers are taxed upon their results. He may pay tax upon his land, as other land owners do, upon its actual value, but without this value being enhanced for taxation purposes by reason of any crop thereon.

COMPARISON WITH PRESENT SYSTEM IN RESULTS

The community would get no less tax revenue, but presumably more, than it does under the present system. In either case the owner will really pay annually only upon the land value, not upon the growth; the only difference being that under the proposed system he would not be asked to, while under the present system either there will be no growth to tax, or, if there is, he cannot afford to pay and the land will revert. It must be borne in mind that while cut-over land is actually being held under the present system, it has seldom grown anything yet. No expense has been incurred to establish a crop, accidental growth is almost always destroyed by fire because it does not pay to protect it, and if it is not so destroyed it has not yet been accorded the expectation value which the assessor will be obliged to recognize in the early future if he really observes the present law. The inevitable tendency of the present system is continuance to pay on the land with speculative value for purposes other than forestry but abandonment of land valuable only for forestry, with destruction of the forest growth in either case, by purpose or negligence, because it means added cost of holding with no possibility of profit. Since the owner cannot be compelled to grow timber to be taxed at his net loss, no timber tax at all will be received by the community and its annual land tax will be confined to land worth holding without timber for purposes other than timber growing. Under the proposed system, the latter class would pay the same annual tax, the annual tax revenue from strictly forest land would be greater, and in addition to both would be the future yield tax upon the crop.

AN OBJECTION MET

A possible superficial criticism may be that, leaving the land out of consideration, the proposed yield tax at a personal property valuation of the crop means that but one year's tax is to be paid upon the timber. The fallacy of this, however, will be seen when it is remembered that it is a crop, having been produced from nothing by the owner, since his acquisition of the land and while he was paying taxes upon his land upon its value for productive purposes throughout the entire period just as any other crop grower loes. It is not unearned speculative increment. To tax it annually is exactly equivalent to taxing an agricultural crop 50 times during its growing period. The proposed plan does tax the annual production fully, although not until the crop is produced, for taxing its full value when grown is the same as taxing each year the increment added since the preceding year. If it is worth $150 an acre, after 50 years from seed, a 3 per cent yield tax would be $4.50. Each year since the first must have produced a fiftieth of the ultimate value, or $3, and had this been taxed at 3 per cent, or 9 cents, the same aggregate revenue of $4.50 would have resulted. To also tax annually the value of proceeding years' production, like taxing a wheat crop twice a week, is exactly the confiscatory prohibition of forest growing which we should seek to avoid.

When the essential difference of the two systems Is grasped—that the crop is distinct from the land and the latter is still fully taxed—it will be seen that but one tax upon the crop, at the rate other property pays, is all that is just and all that can possibly be paid in a competitive commercial business. The case is not analogous with our present system of taxing mature timber, in which land and timber together are assumed to constitute inseparable realty, stationary in production and increasing only speculatively in value, therefore the comparison with one year's taxation under our present system has no weight.

FROM THE OWNER'S STANDPOINT

Nor does the proposed system by any means either subsidize the forest grower or assure him a profit. It merely puts on a basis similar to that of other enterprises a business more greatly handicapped by long-deferred returns, risk of loss, uncertainty of future prices, and continued current expense without current revenue. Only escape from fire and high future stumpage prices will permit profit at best. Otherwise, since the tax is definite and not upon income, the forest grower will pay the community for the honor of providing it a resource at his own expense.

It is believed, however, that a more fortunate outcome is sufficiently promised in this region of rapid growth if we remove the single fatal handicap of uncertain confiscatory taxation.

VIEWS OF EXPERT AUTHORITIES

THEODORE ROOSEVELT: Second only in importance to good fire laws well enforced is the enactment of tax laws which will permit the perpetuation of existing forests by use.

GIFFORD PINCHOT: Land bearing forests should be taxed annually on the land value alone, and the timber crop should be taxed when cut, so private forestry may be encouraged.

NORTH AMERICAN CONSERVATION CONFERENCE, Washington, D. C.: Believing that excessive taxation on standing timber privately owned is a potent cause of forest destruction by increasing the cost of maintaining growing forests, we agree in the wisdom and justice of separating the taxation of timber land from the taxation of timber growing upon it, and adjusting both in such manner as to encourage forest conservation and forest growing.

The private owners of land unsuited to agriculture, once forested and now impoverished or denuded, should be encouraged by practical instruction, adjustment of taxation, and in other proper ways, to undertake the reforesting thereof.

GIFFORD PINCHOT, ROBERT BACON, JAMES R. GARFIELD, Commissioners representing the United States. SYDNEY FISHER, CLIFFORD SIFTON, HENRI S. BOLAND, Commissioners representing the Dominion of Canada. ROMULU ESCOBAR, MIGUEL A. DE QUEVEDO, CARLOS SELLERIER, Commissioners representing the Republic of Mexico. E. H. OUTERBRIDGE, Commissioner representing the Colony of Newfoundland.

FRED. R. FAIRCHILD, Professor of Economics, Yale University, member International Tax Conference: Probably nothing more effectually discourages investment than uncertainty as to future costs. And whatever may be said of the present system of taxation, there can be no question of its arbitrariness and uncertainty. If to all the other risks of forestry we add uncertainty as to what the taxes are going to be, we cannot blame investors for some hesitation in embarking on an enterprise which may have to pay taxes fifty years before the returns come in. And more than this; the investor cannot safely base his calculations on the continuance of the present lenient administration of the property tax. As has been shown, the tendency today is toward a stricter enforcement of the law and a heavier burden of taxation.

State constitutions stand today in the way of many plans for reform in State and local taxation. The movement toward their amendment is growing as part of the general programme of tax reform.

The real problem of forest taxation is in connection with the future of our timber lands rather than with their past. The preservation of the forests is a matter of the utmost importance. So far our forests have been exploited with little or no regard for the future. But the present methods cannot last much longer. Forestry must come some time, and its early coming is a thing greatly to be desired. And whenever we are ready to seriously undertake it we will find our present methods of taxation a severe handicap. Strictly enforced, according to the letter of the law, the annual tax on the full value of the land and standing timber is almost sure to result in excessive taxation, and the timber owner cannot count on the continuance of the present lenient enforcement of the law. Even if the tax might not be excessive, its uncertainty would be a serious obstacle to investment. We can hardly hope to see the general practice of forestry as long as the present methods of taxation continue.

To be equitable, taxation of timber lands like taxation of anything else should be based on income or earning power.

With regard to its effect on revenue, there is little to be feared from the tax on yield. Eventually, revenue will be increased by a method of taxation which does not prevent the development of forestry. Forests paying a moderate tax are better than waste lands abandoned and paying no tax at all.

The tax on yield has many decided advantages. It avoids the evils of the general property tax. It is equitable and certain. It is in harmony with the peculiarities of the business of forestry, and will be a distinct encouragement to the practice of forestry. Its adoption by the States would remove one obstacle to the perpetuation of the nation's forest resources.

NATIONAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION, appointed by the President of the United States: It is far better that forest land should pay a moderate tax permanently than that it should pay an excessive revenue temporarily and then cease to pay at all.

We tax our forests under the general property tax, a method of taxation abandoned long ago by every other great nation. In some regions of great importance for timber supply, and in individual cases in all regions, the taxation of forest lands has been excessive and has led to waste by forcing the destructive logging of mature forests, as well as through the abandonment of cut-over lands for taxes. That this has not been even more general is due to under-assessment, to lax administration of the law, but to no virtue in the law itself. Already taxes upon forest lands are being increased by the strict enforcement of the tax laws. Even where this has not yet been done, the fear that it will be done is a bar to the practice of forestry.

We should so adjust taxation that cut-over lands can be held for a second crop. We should recognize that it costs to grow timber as well as to log and saw it.

From now on the relation of taxation to the permanent usefulness of the forest will be vital. Present tax laws prevent reforestation on cut-over lands and the perpetuation of existing forests by use.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE: It is evident that the old method of taxing forest property, as well as other property, at its supposedly full value will, as the value of timber increases and is recognized, put a premium on premature and reckless cutting, and will hinder any effort to reforest cut-over lands. No business man will engage in an undertaking where the returns are so long deferred and the risks are uninsurable unless he can estimate the probable expenses and a reasonably large profit. That the forests themselves, irrespective of their ability to stand taxation, are of great value to the communities in which they are located, for water protection, lumber supply, and scenery in resort regions is undoubted.

The fundamental difficulty is that the tax should be in proportion to yield or income and not in proportion to the market value of the land and standing timber. Economists are substantially agreed that this principle is applicable to the taxation of all kinds of property with certain exceptions. Where there is a reasonably certain annual yield or income the market value is theoretically dependent upon it. A woodlot or forest, however, usually in this country has no annual yield. It is unjust to require the owner to carry the full annual burden of taxes, risk and protection in every year for the chance of a yield once in fifty years, and it is impossible for the owner to do it, for the taxes with compound interest would confiscate his entire capital.

INTERNATIONAL TAX CONFERENCE, held at Toronto: Resolved, That it is within the legitimate province of tax laws to encourage the growth of forests in order to protect watersheds and insure a future supply of timber; and legislation, or constitution amendment where necessary, is recommended for these purposes.

AMERICAN FOREST CONGRESS, Washington, D. C.: Resolved, That we earnestly commend to all state authorities... reducing the burden of taxation on lands held for forest reproduction in order that persons and corporations may be induced to put in practice the principles of forest conservation.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY: Tax assessors have differing ideas of value and their assessments vary widely. The only remedy for the forest owner is to appeal from the assessment to the county commissioners, and, if here unsuccessful, to the county court, a matter involving both time and expense and frequently more costly than the differences in taxes to be gained; but at the same time the fact is well recognized that forested land is both unequally and unfairly taxed.

H. S. GRAVES, Chief Forester for the United States: The forest areas now owned chiefly by lumber companies will cease to be devastated as soon as fires are stopped. They will not, however, be handled to any large extent with a view of future production until the taxes are placed on a fair basis.

FILIBERT ROTH, Professor of Forestry, University of Michigan, State Fire Warden of Michigan (speaking of frequent local attitude toward non-resident owner):

Though, in truth, these resident people often make their living from the tax money of the non-resident, and though the latter contributes toward every rod of road and every schoolhouse built, and other improvement, yet he is treated as if he were a wrongdoer, is taxed unmercifully, and, in addition, a trespass on his land or forest is excused and it is almost impossible in many places to get conviction.

If the State and local people had treated the owners of timber honestly and had spent a reasonable part of the taxes in giving the protection which the owner had a right to expect under the Constitution, there would still be more than half of our pinery lands covered by forest.

Forestry is no "sugar trust baby," as so many are trying to make it out. Forests can pay taxes as well as any other property. Forestry is like any other honest business, it cannot stand confiscation.

Suppose you have a twenty-acre lot of sugar beets and the assessor would hang around until the beets are ripe and then figure: "The land is good; I assess it at $75 per acre, and the crop is worth $75 more, so that this property will stand at $150." What would you say? But the assessor who assesses the timber as part of the real estate and assesses the same crop of timber year after year does precisely this thing. He assesses land and crop for the owner of a woodlot and forest, while for all other farmers he assesses only the land.

Let the State pass a few simple laws; provide for the protection of forest property as we provide for other property; prevent confiscation under the guise of taxation; stop forcing its poor tax lands on the market, and go ahead with a good example on its own lands, and instead of holding them in a waste land condition protect them and grow timber.

A. T. HADLEY, President Yale University: We have it in our power to make intelligent forestry by individuals more profitable. The margin between business that succeeds and business that fails is a narrow one, and by just covering that margin by differences in tax laws, by differences in protective laws, by laws for the prevention of fires, we can make profitable an industry which the public needs, but which today is unprofitable.

JAMES O. DAVIDSON, Governor of Wisconsin: It is to be hoped that laws will be passed encouraging owners to cut timber conservatively under forestry regulations, rather than oblige them to cut as quickly as possible to escape the injustice of taxation.

PROFESSOR F. G. MILLER, University of Washington: Next to fire the most serious handicap to the progress of forestry is our unjust method of forest taxation. Laying as we do a yearly tax on both the growing crop and the land, the burden of taxation makes the holding of land for a second crop prohibitive as far as the private owner is concerned.

The farmer pays a yearly tax on his land, and a tax on his crop each time he harvests one. This is usually annually. However, if through drought, insect invasion or other misfortune he loses his crop, he is not called upon to pay a tax upon it.

SENATOR REED SMOOT, of Utah, Chairman Section of Forests, National Conservation Commission: One of the urgent tasks before the States is the immediate passage of tax laws which will enable the private owner to protect and keep productive under forest those lands suitable only for forest growth. In our discussion in committee meeting there was a question raised by a member present as to this recommendation, claiming that it would encourage great monopolies in securing larger holdings of timber, if an annual tax was not required on the timber itself. I have studied this question in foreign lands, particularly in Germany and Switzerland, and I find that the result has been exactly the opposite. It is a short-sighted policy which invites, through excessive taxation, the destruction of the only crop which steep mountain lands will produce profitably. Taxes on forest land should be levied on the crop when cut, not on the basis of a general property tax—that unsound method of taxation long abandoned by every other great nation.

GOVERNOR NEWTON C. BLANCHARD, of Louisiana: Under the present tax laws of many of the States large assessments are put on timber lands, and this is forcing timber holders—the owners of the sawmills—to cut off that timber too rapidly. At least it is having much effect that way. Give them the encouragement to hold back and not force their product upon the markets, and then exempt, by a system of wise tax laws, cut-over lands devoted to purposes of reforestation.

MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY: The present method is to assess woodlands under the general property tax, making the assessment high where the timber is valuable and placing it low where the timber has been cut off. There is in the operation of this system a tendency to cut off the timber before it reaches maturity to avoid the high rate of taxation. A premium is placed on forest destruction and a penalty on forest conservation.

The growth of timber is slow and under present stumpage prices and rates of taxation there are comparatively few cases where the sale value of the crop equals the cost of growing it, if a fair rental for the land is considered. It is true that most of the forests are on lands that could not be used for anything else, but it is not fair to expect the landowner to produce timber which is a public necessity, the use of which is only less universal than food crops, at a financial sacrifice. Increasing prices and better forest management are relieving the situation to some extent, but the most effective, as well as the most equitable way, is through a change or modification of present tax laws.

PROFESSOR EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University: The general property tax as actually administered is beyond all doubt one of the worst taxes known in the civilized world. Because of its attempt to tax intangible as well as tangible things, it sins against the cardinal rules of uniformity, of equality, and of universality of taxation.

PROFESSOR ALFRED AKERMAN, Georgia University: One reason why it (the general property tax) is so outrageous in practice is that it is wrong in theory. The mere possession of property may or may not be an index to the ability of the owner to pay tax. It all depends on whether the property brings income.

ALLEN HOLLIS, Secretary Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests: Taxation today, in my opinion, is the greatest menace to forest preservation.

One principle is absolutely sound—we all know it, and what we have to do is to make everybody else know it—and that is, that the annual taxation on a crop which is constantly increasing in value each year means confiscation of that property.

It is submitted here that no single factor bears so definitely upon the future of our forests as this constitutional requirement of equality in taxation. As a business proposition, no one can afford to hold woodlands and pay annually 2 per cent upon their actual value, increased each year by growth and advancing prices, during the fifty to one hundred years necessary for maturing the crop.

CHARLES LATHROP PACK, Director American Forestry Association: While the nation and the State are working to devise ways and means of conserving our forest resources, we are at the same time, in a real sense, taxing our timber to death.

Our present tax laws prevent reforestation on cut-over lands and the perpetuation of existing forests by proper use and economic cutting.

STATE OF MICHIGAN FORESTRY COMMISSION (extracts from report to governor): The system of taxation should be modified so as to stimulate timber production instead of repressing it.

There is no logical, moral or political reason why a crop of growing trees should be included in the assessment, in addition to the actual value of the land, that does not apply with equal force and reason to farm lands which are continuously cropped with grains, root crops or hay. The uncertainty of realizing upon a tree crop is very much like the uncertainty of a given farm's producing its crop in full. The only difference is that the forest crop is subjected to the vicissitudes and chances of a long series of years, while the farm crops are subject only to the vicissitudes of about one year. Many of the crops are only subject to the accidents of five or six months.

In the present stage of forestry in this country, what is most imperatively required is such a treatment of the subject of taxation of forested lands as will induce private owners to retain their forests until ripe to the harvest and to reforest denuded lands. This would apply to those having lands suitable for such purpose, or others who might purchase lands suitable therefor, who, under the present diverse, and oftentimes inequitable, practice of assessments, cannot be induced to make investments of that character.

REPORT OF SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS, EX-GOVERNOR FRANK W. ROLLINS, President: The law of New Hampshire requires that all property shall be taxed equally, according to its value, a law constantly and necessarily violated by assessors of forest property throughout the State. Its strict application even for a short period would go far to rid the State of its standing timber. The reason for this is that timber is a growing crop—the only crop taxed more than once, and if taxed annually at its full value the cost to the owner of holding the property would be so excessive as to require its hasty disposal. Assessors everywhere feel instinctively the inherent injustice of taxing a growing crop at a high annual rate, and violate the law and their oaths of office with impunity. The result is there are as many systems of forest taxation in the State as there are assessors, and glaring inequalities exist, not only between neighboring towns, but also in some instances between different parts of the same town.

The unequally high rate placed upon the timber of non-residents is wholly iniquitous.

NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE GRANGE, Committee on Agriculture: Many of the towns in our State invite the misuse of forests by overtaxation. This should be guarded against. By reasonable thrift we can produce a constant wood and timber supply beyond our own need, and with it conserve the usefulness of our streams for water supply, navigation and power, and at the same time increase the value of our farms.

E. M. GRIFFITH, State Forester of Wisconsin: The present method of taxing timberlands is hostile to the forestry interests of the State, as a single timber crop is taxed heavily and repeatedly, and the owners are forced by our present laws to cut their mature timber in order to escape inequitable taxation, to sacrifice their young growth, and to disregard conservative methods of forest management.

Taxes are unfortunately a very valid reason in many sections of the State for not practicing forestry. Many town assessors seem to feel that they must tax the timberland owner, especially the non-resident owner, as heavily as possible, and naturally in self-defense the owner is forced to cut his timber and so reduce the taxes to a reasonable amount. Then, when it is too late, the towns find that they have "killed the goose that laid the golden egg." However, the loss of the taxes on the timber is but a drop in the bucket compared to the irreparable damage to many communities from losing the industries which depended upon the forests for their raw material. To appreciate this one only needs to visit towns in which the sawmills have shut down on account of lack of timber.

Of late years the end of the timber has been largely hastened on account of the excessive taxes placed upon it. The whole system of forest taxation in this country is wrong, for it puts a premium on forest destruction.

RALPH C. HAWLEY, Instructor in Forestry, Yale University: A system of taxation which discriminates against timber, one of the chief natural resources of the commonwealth, is to be condemned.

KENTUCKY STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPORT: When a rise in the valuation of other than forest property becomes necessary because of the greater development of the resources of the region, the valuation of forest property should be increased with great caution in order that the forest lands may be held to advantage for the production of future timber crops. A timber crop is marketed only after the young growing timber has been held for a long term of years, during which time the forest has been yielding only a very slight revenue, if any, to the owner. If the valuation of the forest or its rates of taxation goes beyond a comparatively low limit, the holding of forest land for a second crop of timber is impracticable or nearly prohibitive. This condition has prevailed in many other States where now the problem of taxation is a difficult one to solve.

ALFRED GASKILL, State Forester for New Jersey: The present practices favor and encourage the untimely or wasteful use of standing forests, discourage the propagation of others, and tend to hasten the time when the country shall be forced to face a wood famine.

It would be impossible to apply the European system here with anything like the exactness that attaches to it in the old countries, because we have not the means of knowing the true worth of forest soil or of forest crops, but the principle is applicable anywhere. Even in the hands of non-expert assessors it gives a fairer basis of valuation than our present method, and in the long run will insure larger returns.

J. E. FROST, Tax Commissioner of Washington: The State's system of taxation is obsolete, and only 13 civilized communities in the world have such an out-of-date system. The State is confined by the constitution to property tax, well known as a primitive system, utterly incapable of coping with modern business. It can be remedied only by recognizing the different classes of taxable property.

DR. FRANCIS L. MCVEY, University President and Tax Expert: Under the old plan of valuing annually the property it was difficult to secure an appraisement that was satisfactory to anybody and, what was more, as the years went by the local governments found their assessed values decreasing and the burden of government materially increasing with the decline in amount of standing timber. The annual taxation of the land upon which the timber stands meets this difficulty, while the taxation of the product at the time of harvesting provides a plan that is fair both to the local government and to the owner of timber.

COLORADO CONSERVATION COMMISSION: Resolved, That it is the sense of the Colorado Conservation Commission that the governor and legislators should submit to the people at as early a date as possible an amendment to the constitution, exempting from taxation lands devoted solely to the growth and culture of new timber, and if such amendment is adopted, the same to be followed by suitable legislation.

OREGON STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION: Constitutional amendment and legislation should be invoked to permit a low fixed tax on cut-over land during the period of no return to the owner, the State to be compensated by a tax on the crop when cut. Obviously this inducement should be offered only to those holders of cut-over land who will reciprocate by furthering the object sought. The result of such a system would be not only perpetuation of the forest and its attendant industries and payroll, but also a far greater tax return than the present one of encouraging potential forest land to become worthless and non-taxable.

LEGISLATURE OF MINNESOTA: "Sec. 17 a. Laws may be enacted exempting lands from taxation for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the planting, cultivation and protection of useful forest trees thereon." This is the text of an act amending the Minnesota constitution passed by the legislature.

WASHINGTON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Walla, Walla: Whereas, The question of holding cut-over forest land for a second crop is of paramount importance to the State, and

Whereas, This is made impossible on the part of private owners by our present method of forest taxation, whereby the owner is obliged to pay an annual tax on the land as well as an annually repeated tax on the same growing crop, therefore be it

Resolved, That this convention favors such remedial legislation as will encourage reforestation of privately owned lands, and be it further

Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention that as applied to reforestation such remedial legislation can be secured by a plan which will levy an annual tax on the land and an income tax on the forest crop only when the crop is harvested.

FIRST NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS, Seattle: Resolved, That we urge the adoption of a system of taxation under which woodlands will pay a moderate annual land tax and the timber will be taxed only when cut.



THE WESTERN FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

The Western Forestry and Conservation Association has no individual membership, but consists of and represents all organized agencies for forest protection in the States of Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California. Following is Article IV of its constitution:

"Any association formed for the purpose of organized effort in the protection of forests from fire and for the reforestation and conservation of the forest resources of the States represented shall be eligible for membership. Any organization admitted to membership shall be entitled to two votes in the meetings of this Association. The chief forest officer of each of the five States embraced, and of each district of the United States Forest Service embraced, shall be honorary members."

The allied organizations are at present fifteen in number: The Oregon Forest Fire, Oregon Conservation, North Willamette Forest Fire, Coos County Fire Patrol, Northwest Oregon Forest Fire, Klamath Lake Counties Forest Fire, Polk-Yamhill Forest Fire, Lincoln-Benton Forest Fire, North Idaho Forestry, Washington Forest Fire, Washington Conservation, Inland Forest Fire, Potlatch Timber Protective, Clearwater Timber Protective, Pend d'Oreille Timber Protective, Coeur d'Alene Timber Protective and Northern Montana Forestry Association.

The purpose of the Western Forestry & Conservation Association is to promote forest fire prevention, conservative forest management, reforesting of cut-over lands not more valuable for agriculture, improvement in taxation systems, preservation of stream flow, and all other things comprehended by forest conservation.

Its meetings enable representatives of the allied associations and of State and government to exchange ideas and devise ways and means for carrying on these movements in harmony along practical and effective lines. It also affords means of collecting and distributing information from these several sources.

It believes in the use of every legitimate means of publicity and education to interest lumbermen, legislators and public, not only in paving the way for future advance, but also in such actual, workable, conservation measures as can be put into practice immediately.

To this end, believing action speaks louder than words, it practices what it preaches. While fully recognizing the great value and necessity of associations devoted entirely to propaganda, it sees also a need of reducing theory to a sound business basis. Either as associations or through their members the forest protective associations it represents spent about $700,000 in 1910 for patrol and fire fighting to protect the forests of the West. They safeguarded millions of acres of timber, put out many thousand fires, and saved forest resources worth billions of dollars to the community. As a result of their effort the losses in Idaho, Washington and Oregon were kept down to about a quarter of 1 per cent of the privately-owned timber in these States, and this notwithstanding that it was one of the worst fire years in American history.

While they unite in the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, and levy a special assessment to support its work, the local organizations are wholly independent in their actual forest fire work. Their systems vary slightly, but the majority follow the general plan outlined on pages 100-103 of this booklet.

One of the primary objects and ambitions of the Association is to extend this effort until all the timber owners in the five States do their part and every acre of private forest land is brought under a highly trained and organized service. If the States themselves lend aid and backing this can be made the most efficient fire service in existence, as the most magnificent body of standing timber in the world deserves.

The Association also employs a trained forester to assist its members who control timber to install and maintain improved methods of protection, cutting and reforestation. In this way it not only helps those who will to really accomplish the end in view, but by publishing such material as is contained in this booklet makes the experiments serve as object lessons to others.

Perhaps the most unique function of the Association is to furnish the only common meeting ground and clearing house for the many public and private agencies for forest protection. At its meetings Federal and State officials, representatives of public conservation associations and timber owners join on equal footing, without controversy over rights or authority, in discussing practical details of how to accomplish the best results together under conditions as they exist. Every man present is there because he wants to do his part, with his own hands or money, to preserve the forests of the West. He knows what he is talking about and the others are glad to hear him. The result is a mutual understanding and cooeperation along practical lines which is of immense benefit to the public whose welfare depends largely upon these agencies that really control its forest resources.

THE END