City "Foresters" and Municipal Forests.
PROF. E. G. CHENEY, UNIVERSITY FARM, ST. PAUL.
Several cities in the state have appointed "city foresters." This is a step in the right direction, if it is a precursor to the establishment of municipal forests for these men to manage; otherwise it is a misnomer and can only be misleading to the people. The city governments, in an endeavor to create a complete park organization, have so far adopted this title from European practice without much regard to the duties of the officer. A forester handles trees in mass formations,—sometimes for timber production, sometimes for the protection of water-sheds, sometimes for aesthetic effect or park purposes,—but always in the mass.
The handling of shade trees such as we have in our city streets is the work of an arborist. The planting of large ornamental trees, the pruning of the individual for formal effect, the filling of cavities and the bracing of weak parts, are no part of a forester's work; nor do they necessarily fall within his knowledge. An expert should undoubtedly be in charge of the work, but an expert arborist, not a forester. The title is, therefore, when combined with the present duties, unfortunate, because it gives the people—still struggling with a hazy conception of forestry—a wrong idea of the true character of the real forester's work.
Two very obvious ways of avoiding the difficulty present themselves,—either to change the title or to change the duties. The former would probably be much easier of accomplishment, but the latter is without question the course which the city ought to pursue. Since the cities have adopted the title of "city forester," and so obtained a more complete park organization on paper, why not make the improvement real by adopting the rest of the European practice and creating city forests for these new officers to handle? That would indeed be a real improvement, and one without which any city park system is lamentably lame.
Nearly every large city has some large park within in limits kept in a more or less natural condition as a recreation ground for its people, thus recognizing its influence for health and social betterment. How much it would increase this influence if there were a considerable tract of forest within easy reach of the city! How much better approach it would make to the city than the unsightly waste places so often encountered! How much better setting it would make for the suburban residence sections!
Such a municipal forest is not a Utopian dream, but a practical thing well within the reach of almost any city. The law passed by the last legislature makes it possible for a city to purchase land for such a purpose either within or without the city limits. The activities of the present park boards show that money can be obtained to carry out such plans. The establishment of the forests would be less expensive than is generally imagined. The amount of money expended on the Gateway Park in Minneapolis would buy hundreds of acres of city land within fifteen miles of the city. With the aid of a municipal nursery, such as every park system should have, this land could be planted up at a total expense, for stock and labor, of six to eight dollars per acre. The cost of maintenance would be limited to the patrol of the tract to prevent fire and trespass. Of course, there might be no money revenue from the forest for many years, but in a comparatively short time it would begin to fulfill its purpose as a park, and once the timber is mature, there would be a continuous net annual income of from five to ten dollars per acre. Suppose that the city had 10,000 acres of such forest paying a net annual revenue—in addition to its full services as a park—of from $50,000 to $100,000 toward the maintenance of the other city parks, and it must be remembered that for every dollar of net revenue the forest would pay an additional dollar or more in wages to swell the coffers of the city;—certainly that would be something very much better than anything that the city has at present.
St. Paul, with the bottom lands and cliffs on either side of the river between Hastings and Minneapolis, could make a beautiful and profitable park of what now threatens to develop into a monumental waste. Duluth could make a forest which would be unsurpassed in beauty and usefulness by any in the world out of the brushy, unoccupied, rock-bound hills as far west as Thompson. Mankato has a glorious chance for the same work along the Minnesota valley. Virginia and Hibbing could do nothing better than make such use of the rocky, mine-scarred hills in their vicinity.
And so opportunity might be cited for almost any city in the state. For the municipal forest need not be confined to the big cities. In fact, in some respects the smaller city has an advantage over the larger place. Suitable land can usually be obtained near the city at a much more reasonable price and the revenue obtained bear a much larger ratio to the total expenses of the town. There are some small towns in Germany where the entire running expenses are paid by the revenues of the town forest, and one or two where the forest not only pays all of the taxes but also pays a cash pension to a number of the older inhabitants.
Certainly our towns, looking forward to an endless and progressive existence, cannot afford to neglect this opportunity to develop a useful park, to provide a source of cheap wood and lumber for future generations and a substantial revenue for the city.
Expert advice need not be employed until the size and revenue of the forest warrants it, for the State Forest Service stands ready to help—by the selection of land, the formulation of plans, and consultation—any city that is wise enough to take advantage of this law.
The "city forester" can then be a forester indeed, and one of the good points of the European city government will have been adopted in fact as well as in name.