controversy, even were I indifferent to personal considerations. I simply wish to make it clear that I am concerned with the most direct route to results. My main purpose in writing you is to ask why you should oppose the Forest Service program. Surely anything that we are able to accomplish in checking forest devastation under it is so much gained. Any forestry sentiment that can be developed will be an asset in our future national policy. If Federal control is the only effective remedy, the Forest Service program is at worst simply a preliminary and partial measure. Is it not worth supporting as such? You yourself have proposed that Federal control shall not be exercised within areas where forest devastation is being effectively prevented without it. Presumably this would be applicable to States who have put effective measures against devastation in practice. Does your own program not thus encourage the States who will do so to handle the problem of forest devastation themselves? If, under what the Forest Service is trying to do, but a few of the most progressive States can be colored green on the map, that much ground will be gained and under your own plan such States might continue to handle their own forest lands. Opposition to the Forest Service program thus does not appear necessary to the consistent advocacy of your own. We are in agreement as to the things to be done, but differ as to method. I want to ask, in all sincerity, whether this difference in method justifies either of us in trying to block the efforts of the other to get results which every advocate of forestry wants to see realized. Very sincerely yours, W. B. Greeley, Forester. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, I have your letter of October 6th in answer to mine of September 21st to Mr. J. Girvin Peters, and would have answered it earlier had I not been away. With much of what you say I am in full agreement. I am anxious to avoid controversy, as you are, and to see all foresters united in support of a common program. To that end I am willing to concede anything that is not vital. I agree that we should encourage local action toward forest preservation wherever it is practically possible. I agree heartily that "the real support for the prevention of forest devastation which is offered by many individuals and groups among timberland owners and forest industries should be enlisted." I am entirely at one with you as to the pressing necessity for taking action against forest fires. But these are general propositions and aside from the main issue, which is whether we are to have State control or National control of forest devastation. You misapprehend in some respects, I am afraid, the plan supported by those who, like myself, believe in National control. For example, the National plan would not "discard the State Forest organizations," but on the contrary, by giving forestry, through National action, a wider importance in each State, would quickly and effectively improve the standing and increase the powers of the State Forest Departments, so many of which are crippled today. The most direct and effective way of invigorating forestry in the States is by just such Federal participation as the National plan provides. As an advocate of National control, I do not believe that fire is in effect our whole problem, as your letter indicates, and as your speech of July 23d at Madison specifically states. I would emphatically not "say for the next 10 to 20 years, forget everything else and concentrate all our energies upon that one thing of bringing our forest fire losses down to a basis where they can be figured on more or less as a fixed hazard or a fixed liability." To prevent the devastation of what timber we have left is no less important than to save what has already been devastated from fire. Under the National plan, now approved in principle by a majority of the professional foresters of the country, the Federal Government would control the harvesting of commercial forest crops. That would involve the prevention of destructive lumbering, protection of young growth already on the ground, simple measures for securing natural reforestation, and slash disposal on the cut-over land. All this is a part of the lumbering. What is desired is neither more nor less than is now taking place with entire success upon the National Forests under your own direction. Conditions would thus be kept favorable for forest perpetuation, and the lands would be made less susceptible to fire. When the lumbering was over, Federal control would cease, and the Federal agents would move There would be no Federal organization to fight fire. on. The State, for its part, would begin where the Nation left off. It would protect against fire not only forested lands, but also cut-over lands, and lands in process of being logged. The Federal Government would see to it that cut-over lands were left in safe condition, the State would keep them safe. The division is plain and the plan workable. With increased appropriations from the Federal Government, to be used according to a specified plan, fire protection by the States would become efficient. Your letter fails "to see why the State Foresters and their staffs cannot be made as active agents as possible" to prevent forest devastation by lumbermen on private lands. I recall that, being political officials under State Administration, they have been uniformly unable to do so. Under the State control plan they would remain in precisely the same position. What I propose is that the Federal Government shall undertake what the State forest organizations never have done and, in my judgment as State Forester of Pennsylvania, never can accomplish. Your letter indicates strongly, and more than once, that I must be considered an obstructionist because I do not approve your plan. The fact is that by attaching to your excellent cooperative fire protection plan, to which there is no opposition, a provision for State control over destructive lumbering, to which the majority of American foresters are opposed, and which men of experience believe can never be passed, you are obviously endangering your own fire protection plan, as well as delaying the advancement of the general cause to which we are both devoted. In opposing that part of your plan which works for delay, I am far from obstructing the advancement of forestry-I am doing my best to bring that advancement about. Since a most important part of your general program, that part which relates to fire prevention, has no opposition, why not cut out the two or three words which carry that portion which will have far more effective opposition than mine, and let the issue of State versus National control be fought out by itself in a way worthy of the vast importance of the issue? These few words, being new legislation, will always be subject to a point of order, and there has been too much public discussion of this matter for them to escape attention and objection on the floor of Senate or House. By omitting them you will avoid endangering an item in your appropriation which otherwise we could all get heartily behind. Thus any controversy could at least be postponed, and I hope in the end entirely avoided. You ask why I should oppose the Forest Service program. Very much of it I do not oppose. But I cannot help regarding the proposal to try out control by the individual States over the Nation-wide problem of forest devastation before National control is attempted, much as I should regard a proposal to build a pipe line, if my house were on fire, before starting to put it out. The house would be burned before the pipe line was finished, and our remaining forests would be devastated before State Control had been passed, tried, had failed, and had been replaced by the effective control of the Nation. Your own figures show conclusively that we have no time to waste. I am against State control because, in my judgment, it means delay; because it would mean, if it could be enacted, ineffective control over forest devastation (your own letter admits that "There is no question as to the greater effectiveness of Federal control of private forests and forest industries as a regulatory measure.'') and because there is, in my judgment, no hope whatever of passing the necessary legislation either through Congress or through the Legislatures of the principal timber States. The effect of urging it, therefore, must necessarily be to retard the progress of forestry in America. You believe that to adopt the plan of Federal control would be simply to "mark time and get nowhere for many years." I believe it is the only plan which offers the promise not only of reasonably prompt results, but of any results at all. My arguments, however, have already been set forth at length, and so have yours. You have not been convinced by my arguments, I am unaffected by yours. The matter reduces itself to one of judgment, and I am naturally inclined to rely upon my experience of a quarter of a century of continual dealing with Congress and State legislatures, and with State and National forest administration. That experience points clearly one way. It remains for the public, through Congress, to consider and decide the matter. I am quite willing to let the issue rest as it stands. Sincerely yours, Gifford Pinchot, Commissioner of Forestry. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, as you suggest, to let the issue rest as it stands. I can not, however, leave unanswered your question as to why I do not cut from the proposed legislation the few words which make control of cutting methods a State responsibility, and let the issue of State versus National control be fought out by itself. This, of course, is proposing that I abandon the plan of the Forest Service, and thus give your alternative, National regulation of the lumber industry, a clear right-of-way. I can not abandon the course which in my judgment will accomplish the objects sought most effectively, or subscribe to a division which separates into two disconnected parts, one to be assumed by the Federal Government and one by the States, what is essentially a single task, that of keeping forest lands productive. I assume that you have no objection, to my sending copies of this correspondence to the State Forest departments and other organizations, since your first letter was given like distribution from your office. Sincerely yours, W. B. Greeley, Forester. A ation. N enthusiastic meeting of the Center County Conservation Association was held at the University Club, State College, Pa., Tuesday evening, November 23rd. A dinner was served to nearly fifty members of the county organization. Tables were arranged so that the directors, officers and members of the Standing Committees on Forestry, Fish, Game, Song Birds, Wild Flowers, Recreation and Education were seated together. Remarks were made by Ralph A. Smith, the President, Col. W. F. Reynolds, Col. Theodore Boal and Dean R. L. Watts, of State College, Vice-Presidents of the Association, and by a number of directors and members. Major R. Y. Stuart, Deputy Forestry Commis sioner of the State, was the guest of the occasion. He spoke of the present and future plans of the State Forestry Department, of the necessity of securing an appropriation of $1,000,000 from the next State Legislature for protecting the forests from fire for the next two years, and. of the plan for bonding the State for $25,000,000 for extending the State ownership of forest lands. At the business session the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association were presented and approved. Plans were discussed for completing the organization and for extending the membership. Believing that forestry is the foundation of the conservation problem in Center County, it was the sentiment of the Association that every effort should be put forth to encourage the reforestation of denuded forest lands and their protection from fire, the planting up of farm woodlots, and the planting of trees around schools and churches and along the highways, and that all the various activities of the Association be encouraged. The following resolutions were adopted: That small tributary streams emptying into larger fishing streams, and the headwaters of all fishing streams be closed to fishing in order that they may become the breeding grounds of brook trout. That the present law permitting the catching of brook trout below 6 inches in length be repealed and that the principle of the former law which limited the catching of brook trout to fish 6 inches in length and over be endorsed. That a license fee of $1.00 be placed on all fishermen above 16 years of age in order that the State Department of Fisheries may have funds needed for the extension of its work and for carrying out the provisions of the law. That the Association heartily endorse the forestry policy of the State Forestry Department, and lend every effort to the securing of an ap-、 propriation of money from the next Legislature that will adequately protect our forests from destruction by fire; and that the plan to bond the State for $25,000,000 for the extension of State ownership of forest land be also endorsed. At a conference held at Melbourne of the Premiers of all the States of Australia it was decided that an area of 24,500,000 acres be set aside as a permanent national forest for Australia; also that an Australian School of Forestry be established in New South Wales. The cost of maintaining the school is to be borne by the States and the Commonwealth. Center County's Forest Fire Loss for Spring of 1920. C ENTER County experienced the worst fire season in a great many years last Spring, when out of a total of 575,000 acres of timberland, there were 35,893 acres burned over, or 6 1/2 per cent. of the total area. Putting the damage to timber, soil, watersheds, wild life, etc., at the low price of $10.00 per acre, would make a total loss to the county of $358,930.00, or a loss to each of the 44,304 citizens of the county, of more than $8.00. Statement of the causes, damage, acreage, etc., follows: Text Book of Pastoral and Agricultural Botany.— John W. Harshberger, Ph.D. Small 8vo., 294 pages. Bound in flexible cloth. Illustrated. P. Blakiston's Son & Co., 1012 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. Dr. Harshberger in this book takes up the study of injurious and useful plants of country and farm, and epitomizes 25 years of laboratory and research work. Particular attention is given to the flowering plants with casual mention of the flowerless forms. The stock-killing and poisonous plants are first considered with the medical applications. The study of the forage plants (grasses and legumes) of the weeds and of seedtesting are presented in the final chapters. The chapters end with laboratory exercises and methods of utilizing the illustrative material. It is a handbook which will appeal to the student of plant life, particularly those who as agriculturists, stock raisers and veterinarians wish to know something concerning the botany of the economic plants of interest to them in their agricultural, pastoral, or or professional work. Only plants proven to be injurious or useful are treated, those of doubtful position having been omitted. It is a descriptive textbook, a field guide and laboratory manual, and general reference book. It points out the useful plants to cultivate and the dangerous ones to destroy; the effect of poisonous plants when eaten, active principles in the plant; susceptibility of various animals; remedies to employ; distribution of plants; attitude assumed, etc. The volume contains 121 illustrations, showing the various plants, flowers, seeds, and the effect of certain plant poisoning in animals, attitude assumed, etc. Forestry and Farm Income.-By Wilbur R. Mat ton, Farmers' Bulletin 1117, United States Department of Agriculture. This Bulletin sets forth the real importance and financial possibilities of the farm woodlot, which the author chooses to call the "home forest" and the "farm forest.' The extent of forest land on the farms of the United States is not generally known. There are 190,000,000 acres of forest land on the farms of our country, of which 178,000,000 acres occur east of the great plains. This area comprises onethird of the total forest land in the United States and is eight times as great as the entire area of France. The total value of the products derived from the farm forests of this country during 1919 is estimated at $400,000,000. Fuelwood alone comprised almost 103,000,000 cords of which more than 77,000,000 cords were used right on the farms. Only five farm crops-corn, wheat, oats, rye and cotton-have a greater value than the fuelwood crop. The author makes a worthy appeal to the owners and managers of woodlots, and by means of well selected examples and helpful suggestions shows how woodlands may be made permanently profitable. He recommends the improvement of existing woodlands by proper handling, good cutting methods, better methods of marketing, and satisfactory provisions for a continuous forest crop. This Bulletin, which is well illustrated and distributed free of charge, should be in the hands of every farm woodlot owner. It is full of helpful information and sound advice, and will help bring about a better handling of farm forests and a more profitable disposal of their products. J. S. I. "TH HE object of the Pennsylvania Forestry Association shall be to secure and maintain a due proportion of forest area throughout the State; to disseminate information concerning the growth, protection and utilization of forests; to show the great evil resulting from forest tribution of the available water supplies, the destruction, in the decrease and unequal disimpoverishment of soil, the injury to vari oas industries, and the change in the climate; to secure the enactment by the legislature of such laws, and the enforcement of the same, as shall tend to increase and preserve the forests of the State." Will not our members help by securing additional members? The Annual Dues are $3.00. |