Proceedings [of the] fourth National Conservation Congress [at] Indianapolis, October 1-4, 1912

by United States. National Conservation Congress

To open land certain because of its superior value for timber, water-power development, or other purposes to be absorbed by speculators or powerful interests would not only defeat the purpose of the existing law but also constitute a breach of public trust and a betrayal of the fundamental principles of Conservation. That principle has often been misrepresented as a policy of present non-use for the sake of future generations. Its true purpose is two-fold: to prevent monopoly of public resources, and to secure their greatest use, both present and future, by scientific development. The national forests are administered with a view to securing, first, use of present resources; second, permanency of such resources; and third, greater and more valuable resources for the future.

Experience has amply proved that the elimination, under pressure, of national forest lands locally considered or alleged to be of agricultural value but in point of fact more valuable for other purposes has led to their early acquisition by timberland speculators, great lumber interests, water-power companies, livestock companies, and others who desire the lands for other ends than agriculture. In 1901 705,000 acres of heavily timbered land were thus eliminated from the Olympic National Forest. Ten years later only a little over one per cent of this land was under cultivation, while three-fourths of it was held for its timber, mainly in large holdings. Other examples might be multiplied. With a mandatory law the pressure for opening land sought under cover of the claim of agricultural value would be well-nigh irresistible in many cases. Local agitation and political influence would in the end break down all effort to maintain public control. Such piecemeal attack on the forests would be made without any opportunity for the public to know what was going on. In the end the dismemberment of the national forests would be effected.

The only safety for the maintenance of the policy which now receives and has long received the overwhelming support of public sentiment lies in a correct knowledge by the public of the actual situation with regard to agricultural lands in national forests. It must be made plain that all but an entirely insignificant part of the national forests is not susceptible of profitable cultivation. The forests occupy the most rugged and mountainous parts of the West. Topography, soil, and climate combine to make them natural forest lands, not potential farm lands. The areas which form an exception to this condition are not over four per cent. of the total; and such areas are now being sought out by the Forest Service and will, under the existing law, be made available for homestead entry as fast as they can be opened without defeating the purpose of the law itself. It is necessary that the country should understand the manner in which bona fide settlement is being brought about in the national forests, and also the motive of those who are trying to break down the system of forest Conservation under the guise of promoting settlement.

There has been during the past two or three years a steadily growing movement to turn over the national forests to the individual States. During the past session of Congress a rider to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill was offered in the Senate, providing for the grant of the national forests to the several States, together with all other public lands, including “all coal, mineral, timber, grazing, agricultural and other lands, and all water and power rights and claims, and all rights upon lands of any character whatsoever.” While the amendment was ruled out on a point of order, it received a surprisingly large amount of support.

The proposition so far as the national forests are concerned is to turn over to the individual States property owned by the Nation covering a net area of over one hundred and sixty million acres. This property has an actual measurable value of at least two billion dollars, while from the standpoint of its indirect value to the public no estimate on a money basis could possibly be made. These are public resources which should be handled in the interests of the public. Moreover, the problems involved are such that they should definitely remain in the hands of the National rather than be turned over to the State governments. The property belongs to the Nation as a whole, and every citizen has an interest in it. The Government has already made enormous grants to the individual States, but always to further specific objects of national importance. There should not be a moment’s consideration of the proposal to turn the forests over to the States unless it can be clearly shown that the interests both of the States and of the Nation are consistent with such action. In the case of the national forests, public interests both of the Nation and of the States require their continued retention and management by the National Government.

The scope of this paper does not permit a full discussion of this problem. It must suffice to mention a few cogent reasons for government ownership:

1. The property is now owned by the Nation, and should be administered from the standpoint of national as well as of local needs.

2. The problem of protection from fire and of timber production on the national forests is one of national scope and can be properly handled only by the Government; its solution is a national duty.

3. The problem of water control is no less a national duty. Nearly all of the national forests lie on headwaters of navigable rivers or interstate streams. The Government is now purchasing lands in the East on headwaters of navigable rivers because of the disastrous results to the public which are following abuse under private ownership. It certainly should not part with title to the same class of lands which it now owns in the West. Every interstate stream presents problems which can be properly handled only through the Federal Government. The Government cannot permit the citizens of one State to be damaged by the action or failure to act of citizens of another State. It is of vital importance for this reason alone that property at the headwaters of interstate streams be retained under Government administration.

4. Not only are the interests of the individual States and communities now fully protected, but in many ways far more is being done for local communities than would be possible under State ownership. In the long run, as the timber and other resources are brought into use with improving markets, the States will receive from the twenty-five per cent. of the gross receipts now allowed them and the additional ten per cent. appropriated for road improvements a larger amount than would come in from local taxes under private ownership.