The Delta independent., 1890-11-11
Forestry Policy for the Rocky
Mountain states.


U. s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, !
FORESTRY DIrIsoN,
WAsHINGToN, D, C., October l4th, $780,
Colorado Springs. Colo,
DEAR SIR-YUur REQUEST to express
briefly my views in regard to a'-forest policy
for the Rocky Mountain states in the i'm
mediate or near iature," has been received.
Ny views are very simple and deci,led.
] start on the basis that the forests situated
on the mountains, not on agricultural soil,
are Of paramount importance to these states
both for their material and for their influence
upon soil aud water flow, especially for the
latter reason, and that the treatment of the
forest cover affects interests far distant from
the forest itself
Ny second premise is that over large
part Of the Rocky mountain region reforesta-
tien isvery slow to taSe, if the original
growth is irratiUnully treated. My, it can
be and'in parts has been made impossible
by clearing, subsequent burning and w,sh-
ing of the soil.
Ny third premise is that private interest,
especially In newly settled countries, is con.
ceried only in satifyinx present needs with
out much thought or care for future emergen-
cies. BESIDES the influence of clearing a
mountain side INSERTS Itself often SO gradual.
ly, that in the absence of Immediately notice.
fbie consequences f3r the agricultural inter
ssts IN the valley, arguments to influence
the action Of the private individual in the
treatment OF the forest ure useless but re.
N nirpt . ho &c sl,u
snunity. And ii restriction OF private owner.
ship rights appear necessary for one reason
Dr another, it will always be found difficult
sHd obnoxious to exercise such restriction.
Hence. draw the conclusion, ownership by
the community is the one rational forest
policy, wherever the above described con.
Litions exist.
rhs next question is that of designating
the part Of the community which should be
the owner of the mountain forests. 1t
might be the county, the individual state,
the general government.
It may be argued that the community
making up the county has necessarily the
nost inimi'iate interest in the preservation
favorable conditions and can best guard its
own interests. Yet there are often conflicts
ef interests arising which can be better ad-
jnsted under state ownership, and before a
well settled county administration exists
state ownership would be prferalle.
Eut sven state ownership. while perhaps
desirable at a later stage of development,
would not be expedient now. and owner.
ship BY the general government for the
present is preferable.
Ny reasons for this preference are:
First-The general government does own
the lands, and the difficulties and compllca-
tions attendant upon wholesale transfer of
the property eau as we'll be avoided. If
such transfer were to be effected it would
necessitate almost u revolutionary change
of the existing land policy of the govern.
ment, which at least at present seems
neither necessary nor advisable.
Second-The states with scanty po,ula.
ton a. yet, and with all parts of their econ.
pmy still to build up, had better not
burden themselves with this additional duty
Of !nre~t conservation except far us they
can aid In il without cost to them.
Other political considerations, which
need not he elaborated here, lead to the
saS'e conclusions. 20 that sltog-,h the ex.
pediency Of retaining the public timber
lands in the hands of the geneaal govern
ment for the present is conceded by the un-
biased students of the question, provided that
the general government will do what is
necessary to preserve aid keep in perna.
nent forest condition this property.
To do this, above all things, it is necessary
N .arl.
ber product to those who need it, to protect
against fire and trespass, and to so regulate
the cutting that reproduction is assured
At present the government forces the peo-
pie of the region to treslass upon its tiu,ber
lands by not allowing them to obtain the
needed naterial in legal manner; nor does
the government employ adequate means to
protect its property against loss by FIRE, and
thus its possessions become inenacing dan.
ger 70 I'll aJjoiners.
Two things are required to change these
conditions, iameiy, a well organized forest
administration, fully equipped, such as is
provided in the hi introduced in the Forty.
ninth congress by s. v. White; aud secondly
Proper laws enacted by tile states, under
which not only the efforts of the general
government could be seconded, but which
will enable the general government to pro.
tect its property.
For with the creation Of sovereign states
the United States has abandoned its juris.
dction and cannot enact or enfarce criminal
legislation on its own property in those
tatss; it takes, in regard to its landed prop.
srty IN the states exactly the salne position
~ any private owner and can, therefore, pro.
tect IL only under the laws Of the state.
~. then, the Rocky mountain states pro-
pose 70 do anything in the interest Of forest
presrvation, there are three ways open to
them, Immediately or IN the nese future
First-To bring NIL their influence to besr
upon the general government. u force it TO
proper care and rational management Of its
own timber property.
Secondly. to pass such Legislation as will
enable the owners Of timber lands-anL the
United States as such owners-to protect
thsir property efficiently against ere aud
thsft.
Thindly, TO delegate to responsible aud
well Pad oficer the duty Of assisting in the
- <xs,s ~ st.a Il. r.. a.