FORESTRY AND THE PUBLIC

TIMBER MEANS PAY CHECKS

Forest wealth is community wealth. The public's interest in it is affected very little by the passage of timber lands into private ownership, for all the owner can get out of them is the stumpage value. The people get everything else. Our forests earn nothing except by being cut and shipped to the markets of the world. Of the price received for them usually much less than a fifth is received by the owner. Nearly all goes to pay for labor and supplies here at home.

Even now, when the western lumber industry is insignificant compared to what it will be soon, it brings over $125,000,000 a year into these five states. This immense revenue flows through every artery of labor, commerce and agriculture; in the open farming countries as well as in the timbered districts. It is shared alike by laborer, farmer, merchant, artisan and professional man. It is their greatest source of income, for lumber is the chief product which, being sold elsewhere, actually brings in outside money.

That it is essential to the prosperity of every citizen to have this contribution to his livelihood continue requires no argument. From the manufacturing point of view alone, our forest resources are as important to everyone of us as to the lumberman, and in many ways more so, for if they are exhausted he can move or change his business; while the dependent industries cannot. But our welfare is at stake in a dozen other ways also.

OUR INTEREST AS CONSUMERS

Every person who uses wood, whether to build, fence, burn, box his goods, or timber his mine, is directly interested in a cheap and plentiful supply of timber. Every acre burned, every cut-over acre lying idle, raises the price for him without furnishing any revenue with which to help pay it. Every acre saved from fire, every acre of young growth, lowers it for him and puts money in circulation besides.

Similarly, the cost to the consumer of most articles of every day necessity is directly affected by the connection of forest material with their production. Wood and water are almost as essential to mining as are, hence influence the price of metals. In the form of fuel, buildings, or boxes, if not as an actual constituent of the product itself, wood supply bears a like relation to almost every industry.

Every reduction of the lumber traffic which helps support our railroads, or of their supply of poles, ties and car material, tends to raise the cost of our groceries and other rail-transported commodities.

SCHOOL LANDS

Most of our western states have immense areas of forested grant lands, the sale of timber from which supports the public schools and other state institutions. Destruction of this asset is a direct blow to these institutions which can be only partially met by increased taxation.

THE FARMER HAS THE MOST AT STAKE

In the case of western agriculture, the relation to the forest is fundamental and inseparable. Enough has been said to show that because of its importance as a sustaining industry lumber manufacture is a prodigious factor in creating a market for farm products, also that the cost of all articles used by the farmer is cheapened by forest preservation. But back of this lies the all-important dependence of western agriculture upon irrigation. We must save the forests that store the waters.

Of particular significance to the farmer, too, is the tremendous importance of forests as a source of tax revenue to help support state and county government. The cost of government is growing as our population grows. Taxable property grows mainly in the cities. Elsewhere we confront the problem of diminishing timber to tax and consequent heavier and heavier burden on farm property. It will be a bad situation for the farmer if the timber is all destroyed and he has to pay all the taxes, as well as a higher price for his buildings, fences and fruit boxes. Every acre of timber burned or wasted hastens this day.

The conservation thus suggested does not mean non-use of ripe timber, but does mean protecting it from useless waste and destruction, and replacing it by reforestation when it is used.

CONDITIONS OF LIFE THE REAL ISSUE INVOLVED

Lack of space forbids recounting many other ways in which the forest question touches the average citizen. It enters into our prospects of development, our investment values and our insurance rates. Like the keystone of an arch, or the link of a chain, forests cannot be destroyed without the collapse of the entire fabric. Their preservation is not primarily a property question, but a principle of public economy, dealing with one of the elements of human existence and progress. Failure to treat it as such means harder conditions of life, a handicap of industry; not only for our children, but for us as well.

It all sums up to this: On every acre of western forest destroyed by fire, or that fails to grow where it might grow, we, the citizens of the West who are not lumbermen, bear fully eighty per cent of the direct loss and sustain serious further injury to our general safety and profit.

HOW WE THROW AWAY MILLIONS

Notwithstanding the above facts, we allow $40,000,000 which we and our families should share to vanish every year, leaving nothing more enduring than a pall of smoke from Canada to the Mexican line. The great area thus denuded uselessly, with that which produced public wealth through lumber manufacture, together having been capable of affording a community resource of $165,000,000, are abandoned to lie idle and a menace to remaining timber. It is exactly as though the owner of a 165-acre orchard should destroy forty acres wantonly and also abandon the rest, unfenced, uncultivated and uncared for.

The one waste is as unnecessary as the other. Our Pacific coast forests owe their unparalleled productiveness to a peculiarly fortunate combination of climate and rapid growing species unknown elsewhere. Nowhere else is forest reproduction so swift and certain. Nowhere can it be secured with so little effort and expense. A little forethought in cutting methods and protection of the cut-over area from recurring fires, and an early second crop is assured. Saw timber can be grown in forty to seventy-five years; ties, mine timber and piles in less.

HOW WE MIGHT MAKE IMMENSE PROFIT INSTEAD.

It is reasonable to suppose that, although the quality may be inferior to that of the old forest removed now, timber scarcity will make a second cut in sixty years equally profitable per acre. Therefore, if the area denuded annually at present were encouraged to reforest and protected, it should at the end of that period again yield $165,000,000 to the community. Each year's growth at present would be worth a sixtieth of that sum, or $2,750,000. If given any chance to do so, the area deforested in only ten years would actually earn the people of our five western forest states $27,500,000 a year.

Almost nothing is being done to make it do so. As the result of the same popular neglect, this annual loss of nearly twenty-eight millions of dollars is added to that of forty millions caused by destruction of merchantable timber by fire, and the injury to tax revenue, water supply and countless dependent industries still remain to be reckoned. And to this sacrifice of wealth we add that of scores of human lives, incredible suffering, and the wiping out of homes and villages by forest fires.

PLAIN WORDS FOR OUR PRESENT POLICY

Let us draw a parallel: If riot or invasion should sweep our Pacific coast states, killing unprotected settlers, plundering banks and treasuries of $40,000,000 of the people's savings and business capital, and by destroying the producing power of commercial enterprise reduce the community's income by twenty-eight millions more, the catastrophe would startle the world.

If this stupendous disaster should threaten to recur the following year and every year thereafter indefinitely, annually taking $67,000,000 from the earnings of the people, diminishing their invested wealth and paralyzing their industries, the situation would be unbearable. It would dominate the minds of men, women and children. All else would be forgotten in their preparation for defense.

Forest fire destruction is a danger in every way as real and immediate as riot or invasion, equally measurable in losses to us today and more far reaching in effect upon future prosperity. Although less sensational, it demands no less prompt action.

THE ACTION WE MUST TAKE

The foregoing facts prove that our present forest policy is unprofitable to the state and its citizens. What, then, is the remedy?

At first thought it may seem that the responsibility for this lies with the man who controls the land, the timber owner and lumberman. He does have his part to play, which is discussed elsewhere in this booklet. But he will not, indeed cannot, do so until the rest of us play ours. The community must not only coÖperate, but in some directions must act first, because from the beginning the lumberman is governed by many conditions which are fixed by the people. It is for the people to make these conditions reasonably favorable so that he will have neither excuse nor incentive for failing to conform to them.

In this coÖperation the people should not be expected to grant privileges which are not for their own advantage also. Nor should they hesitate to coÖperate if it is to their advantage, merely because it is also a help to the lumberman. It is natural that the public should disincline to assume any further burden to enrich the timber owner. Were this the sale object of forest protection it would be fair to leave it to him. But it is the height of bad economy to obstruct or refuse to help him in handling forest resources to our best advantage. Whether he gains or loses is merely incidental to us, but whether we gain or lose is of very great importance.

FIRST STEP IS TO STOP FOREST FIRES

Obviously reduction of the forest fire hazard is the most urgent problem. Not only is fire the greatest destroyer of existing forests, but it also discourages investment in reforestation. The public has a right to expect the lumberman to adopt every safeguard against it in his operations. Nevertheless, the first step to encourage him in this is to reduce the appalling carelessness with fire in which the people of the West are the worst offenders in the world today.

Forest fires are almost always unnecessary. They usually result from a neglect of consideration for injury and distress to others which is not shown by the American people in any other connection. The traveler or resident in forest regions simply fails to realize that his own welfare and that of countless others requires the same precaution not to let fire escape, and the same activity in extinguishing fires he discovers, that are accorded as a matter of course in cities and towns. In reality they are more important. A San Francisco can burn down and it is soon replaced. Insurance and capital come to the rescue, labor is employed, and business is resumed. But when the forest burns, industry dies and labor is driven away empty handed. It is a big price to pay for neglecting the slight effort required to prevent it.

Fairly good fire laws are on our statute books. Presumably they were intended to prevent fires. Yet almost every forest community sees fire after fire set through ignorance, carelessness or purpose, and so far from punishing the offenders accords them every privilege of business and society. In cities, however insignificant the damage, arson leads to the penitentiary. A forest fire may destroy millions and the cause not even be investigated. If, aggravated by a particularly inexcusable case of malice or carelessness, some property holder (seldom the people) secures an arrest, acquittal is practically certain because the community considers the matter none of its business. Then the value of the fire law is at an end in that region. Certainly we cannot expect the timber owner to protect our forest interests until we ourselves respect and at least attempt to enforce our forest laws.

PATROL SERVICE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL

But necessary as is better public sentiment, we must also have practical machinery for enforcing the laws and for stopping the fires that do start. Just as a city is safeguarded best by an organized fire department, so the forest can be protected effectively only by trained men who know the work. And the man who prevents the most fires is the man who is looking for them, not the man who goes after the fire is under way.

Theodore Roosevelt says: "I hold as first among the tasks before the states and the nation in their respective shares in forest conservation the organization of efficient fire patrols and the enactment of good fire laws on the part of the states."

The National Conservation Commission reports: "Each state within whose boundaries forest fires are working grave injury, and that means every forest state, must face the fact squarely that to keep down forest fires needs not merely a law upon the statute books, but an effective force of men actually on the ground to patrol against fire."

We all know that few disastrous fires start under conditions which prevent their control. Usually they spring from some of the many small, apparently innocent fires which burn unnoticed until wind and hot weather fan them into action. It is far cheaper to put them out in the incipient stage than to fight them later, perhaps unsuccessfully until after great damage has been done. And if fighting is necessary, it is of the highest importance to have it led by competent, experienced men. Moments count, and bad judgment is expensive.

Most western states already have laws regulating the use of fire for clearing during the dry season. To accomplish this with safety and without hardship requires fire wardens to issue permits and help with the burning if necessary.

Public knowledge that there is someone to enforce the law tends to restrain the dangerous class. Still more useful is the service of fire wardens in agitating the fire question and keeping before forest residents the advantage of their coÖperation.

CO-OPERATION WITH PRIVATE OWNERS DESIRABLE

In fire patrol, especially, the state and the lumberman must work together. It is reasonable that the timber owner should contribute to the protection of his property. He also has peculiar facilities for getting the work done well and cheaply. As a rule he is willing to do his part. In 1910 the Washington Forest Fire Association and other timber owners in that state paid out $300,000 for patrol and other fire work. The Coeur d'Alene, Clearwater, Potlatch and Pend d'Oreille Timber Protective associations spent over $200,000 in Idaho. Oregon timbermen spent approximately $130,000. Figures are not available for Montana and California, but probably the same proportion holds.

Thorough support by the state is necessary to make private work effective. The men employed must have official authority to enforce the law. The dangerous element does not respect a movement which nominally represents only the property owner. The people in general do not aid it as much as they do one in which they also share. Therefore, it is necessary to have state facilities for coÖperating in the organization, authorization and supervision of all forest patrols.

LIBERAL APPROPRIATION A GOOD INVESTMENT

But to stop here is like attempting to protect a city from fire merely by giving its factory owners the right to maintain watchmen. We want to provide for the greatest possible advantage to the people through the timber owner's desire to protect his own property, but any forest policy which ends with this is hopelessly weak. We cannot afford to leave any matter of public welfare wholly to the wisdom and philanthropy of private enterprise. If we expect our paramount interest in forest and water resources to be looked out for properly, we must pay for it just as we do for all other protection we get through organized government. Nor should we forget that the timber owner helps us again in this, for he pays taxes as well as the cost of his private patrol.

There are also many regions where timber values do not warrant patrol, but where the safety of other property, and of life, demand both patrol and fire fighting. Here the state owes its citizens protection. Moreover, one of the weakest points in our present system everywhere is lack of police authority to apprehend violators of the fire laws. The private warden cannot successfully arrest or prosecute offenders, and everybody knows it. Most fires start through violation of law. To prevent them the law must be respected, and to accomplish this there must be state officers who can and will apprehend offenders without fear or favor.

Any western state can well afford to spend $100,000 a year for a forest fire service which will prevent a loss of fifty times that sum. The cost is imperceptible by the citizen, his benefit immediate. Forest protection is the cheapest form of prosperity insurance a timbered state can buy.

REFORESTATION

Although it does not pay to burn up our forests, it does pay to use them. The faster we can replace them with new ones, the quicker this profit can be made with safety. Forest land is community capital. To let it lie idle is as wasteful as destruction. And we must also remember that the day is coming when our forested streams must do a hundred times their present duty, and when the lumber consumer's question may not be "What must I pay for a board?" but "Can I get a board at all?" We must have new forests coming as the old ones go.

The Federal Government is practicing forestry in the lands controlled by the Forest Service. Why should the states not do the same thing with their school and tax deed lands? Intelligent care of timbered school land, selling the timber only under regulations which will insure reforestation, would realize as much today and in the long run pay a thousand per cent in dividends for the education of our children and our children's children.

Further than this, there should be legislation to permit the state to solidify its forest lands by exchange, when advisable, and to authorize the purchase of cut-over lands. The eventual profit in this is certain to be great, and nothing will do more to interest the public and private owners in reforestation. It is the history or all countries that forests are peculiarly profitable state property, especially when, as is the case with us, it can be acquired cheaply. It is a sound and well-proved policy that it is well for the state to own lands which are not adapted for permanent individual development. Forest lands constitute the ideal class, not only because the state is in the best position to keep up their usefulness to the community, but also because they will earn perpetual revenue far greater than they could bring through taxation. They will pay back the cost and interest, become increasingly valuable, and still pay dividends.

It is even more important that reforestation be secured on private lands, because their area is greater than that owned by state and government. With the encouragement which could be given the owner without any undeserved concession, conditions would warrant him in securing it. We have reached that stage in our development. The exhaustion of timber in the country at large, the increase of consumption, and our peculiar natural advantages, have combined to promise adequate financial return. And the lumberman does not want to go out of business unless he has to.

OBSTACLES TO PRIVATE EFFORT

To insure a second crop the lumberman has to lose more or less money when he cuts the first. His methods must be more expensive and he must forego present profits on trees he leaves. If he plants, the outlay is considerable. But let us suppose he is willing to do all this, not because he is a philanthropist but because he wants more trees to run his mill some day.

It is a comparatively simple matter to get his second crop started. American forestry has solved this problem fairly well. It is also easy to calculate in most cases, beginning with the sale value of cut-over land, using safe estimate of the next yield and the time required to mature it, and setting a conservative future stumpage value, that growing timber ought to be a profitable investment. If that were all, we could leave the lumberman alone and count on him to perpetuate our forests because it will pay him to do so.

But the whole calculation, consequently the public's interest as well as his, is upset by two factors—the danger that his investment will burn up and the practical certainty that taxes will eat up all profit before the harvest. If he figures on fire protection at his own expense against the hazard as it now exists, and the tax burden on cut-over land which is indicated at present, his engagement in forest growing will be negligible from the point of view of public welfare. In some cases he may hold the land awhile, in few can he afford to protect it, in still fewer is he justified in actually doing anything to insure reforestation.

If a man proposes to build a factory or railroad in a community the inhabitants usually encourage him. They do not refuse him fire protection in the first place and then, if his plant burns down, threaten to burn it again and keep up full taxation on the vacant land. They offer every fair inducement to get the industry and keep it flourishing. They expect it to pay its just share of taxation, but want it to continue to do so as long as possible.

TAX NEW CROP WHEN HARVESTED

It has been shown that the first obstacle to reforestation of private land can be removed only by supporting a fire patrol and creating public sentiment which will reduce the number of fires. The second is even more wholly in the hands of the people, for by the system of taxation they impose they decide whether it shall continue an earning power and a tax source forever or be abandoned to become a desert; non-producing, non-taxable, and a menace to stream-flow. Whether its owner has made money on the original crop has no bearing on the result, nor has his being rich or poor, resident or alien. Cutover land presents a distinct problem to him. He will and should pay a full tax on its earning power, which will be demonstrated when he successfully brings another crop to maturity. But he cannot carry an investment for fifty years or more without return, with a risk of total loss by fire up to the last moment, at a cost which would bring him better profit in some other business.

These facts are recognized by all students of forestry. The following authorities hold no brief for the lumberman. They approached the subject solely from the side of the people:

Theodore Roosevelt: "Second only to good fire laws is the enactment of tax laws which will permit the perpetuation of existing forests by use."

National Conservation Commission: "Present tax laws prevent reforestation of cut-over land and the perpetuation of existing forests by use. An annual tax upon the land itself, exclusive of the timber, and a tax upon the timber when cut is well adapted to actual conditions of forest investment and is practicable and certain. It would insure a permanent revenue from the forest in the aggregate far greater than is now collected, and yet be less burdensome upon the state and upon the owner. It is better from every side that forest land should yield a moderate tax permanently than that it should yield an excessive revenue temporarily, and then cease to yield at all."

H. S. Graves, Chief Forester for the U. S.: "Private owners do not practice forestry for one or more of three reasons: 1. The risk of fire. 2. Burdensome taxation. 3. Low prices of products."

Professor Fairchild, tax expert, Yale University: "Forestry must come some time, and its early coming is a thing greatly to be desired. We can hardly hope to see the general practice of forestry as long as the present methods of taxation continue. With regard to its effect on revenue, there is little to be feared from the tax on yield. It is equitable and certain. If a tax at once equitable and dependable is guaranteed, the business of forestry will not need to ask special favors."

CRYING NEED FOR DEFINITE STATE POLICY

To accomplish these reforms will take law-making and law-enforcing. However well we study existing conditions and legislate upon the premises they furnish, success depends upon competent application of the laws and their improvement as conditions change. It is a bitter reproof to us of the West that Eastern states, with forest and water resources insignificant compared to ours, have gone so much farther in securing the services of trained men to study these questions and to guard both private and public interests. The very first step should be to get competent trained state foresters who will devise wise measures, protect us from unwise ones, and educate lumbermen and public alike to the common need of action. We pay cheerfully for every other kind of public service, for geologists, veterinarians, insurance commissioners, barber examiners, and what not. But the two things we must have—wood and water—we leave pretty much to take care of themselves, and they aren't doing it and never will.

The essentials of a wise state forest policy, based not on theory but on successful experience elsewhere, are as cheap as they are simple. Where tried they have never been abandoned. If they pay elsewhere, can we afford not to try? Following is the framework of a code demanded by the situation in every Western state. Some already approach it, but none goes far enough:

ESSENTIALS OF EFFECTIVE STATE FOREST CODE

1. A State Board of Forestry selected with the single view of insuring the most competent expert judgment on the matters with which it deals. In other words, the board should not be political, but appointment by the Governor should be restricted to responsible representatives nominated by the interests most familiar with forest management, such as state forest schools, lumbermen's associations, forest fire associations, conservation associations and the resident Federal forest service.

2. A trained state forester, wholly independent of politics. Executive ability and practical forest knowledge should be considered essential, also scientific training. He should have one or more assistants of his own appointing.

3. A liberally supported forest fire service, in which the state forester has ample latitude in coÖperation, financial and otherwise, with all other agencies in the same work.

4. A systematic study of forest conditions to afford basis of both intelligent administration and desirable further legislation.

5. A system for active general popular education, with specific advice to individuals in proper forest management.

6. Application of forestry principles to the management of state-owned forest lands and the purchase of cut or burned over land better suited for state than for private forestry. This is to furnish educative examples of conservative management as well as to maintain state revenue and proper forest conditions.

7. Improvement and strict enforcement of laws against fire and trespass, with penalty for neglect to enforce them by any officer who is paid to do so.

8. Encouragement of reforestation by assessing deforested land annually on land value only, deferring taxation of forest growth until its cutting furnishes income with which to meet the tax.

9. Thorough study of the subject of taxing standing timber, to the end of securing a system which, by insuring a fair revenue without enforcing bad forest management, will result in the greatest community good.

DO IT NOW

You, the average citizen of the West, are responsible for the present situation and for its remedy. Merely to agree that it is unfortunate, and virtuously to condemn firebugs, careless lumbermen and indifferent legislators, does not relieve you of the responsibility. Neither will it protect you from the consequences. On the other hand, the firebug will not fire if he knows it will not be tolerated. The lumberman will adopt protective methods if you encourage him. The legislator is glad to help in any way his constituents suggest. They are all only waiting for a word from you, whose welfare is really at stake and from whom the word should come.

If any other principle of public safety—say suppression of fraud, burglary or murder—was being so generally ignored, what would you do? Would you not look up the laws of the state and find a way of letting everyone connected with their enforcement know that you expected them to be enforced? If you found laws or appropriations inadequate, would you not see to it that every representative in the legislature knew his constituents demanded improvement?

The legislator or public official is anxious to comply with the people's wishes, but he must know what the people want. It is essential to let him know that you want a progressive and liberally supported state policy that will save our immense forest wealth from needless destruction.