Bisbee daily review., 1908-05-17
SAM IS
 NOT THE FIRST
 IN FORESTRY
Nearly All Foreign Countries Have Been in Habit of Con- serving Their Timber Sup plies for Generations.

Many people in this country thinl 1 that forestry had never been tried | until the Government began to prac tice it upon the National Forests. Yet | forestry is practised by every civil
 ized country in the world except Chi na and Turkey. It gets results which
 can be got in no other way, and which are necessary to the general welfare What forestry has done abroad is the strongest proof of what it cap~dc complish here. The remarkSs1e sue cess of forest managemeEt1n the civ ilized countries of Edrope and Asia is the most forsi6le argument which can be brought in support of wise for est use>n the United States.
 Tne more advanced and progressive countries arrive first and go farthest in forestry, as they do in other things. Indeed, We might almost take forestry as a yard stick with which to measure the height of civilization. On the one hand, the nations which follow forestry most widely and systematic ally would be found to be the most en- frightened nations. On the other hand when We applied our yardstick to such countries as are without forestry, We could say with a good deal of as surance, by this test aloner Here is a backward nation"
 The countries of Europe and Asia, taken together, have passed through all the stages of forest history and applied all the known principles oi forestry. They are rich in forest ex- perience. The lessons of forestry were brought home to them by haro knocks. Their forest systems were built up gradually as the result of hardship. They did not first spin fine theories and then apply those theories by main force. On the con trary, they began by facing disagree able facts. Every step of the way. to- ward wise forest use, the world over, has been made at the sharp spur of want, suffering, or loss. As a result, the science of forestry is one of the most practical and most directly use ful of all the sciences. It is a serl- ous work, undertaken as a measure oI relief, and continued as a safeguard against future calamity.
 The United States, then, in attacking the problem of how best to use its great forest resources, is not in the po- sition of a pioneer in the field. It has the experience of all other countries to go upon. There is no need for years of experiment with untried theo- ries. The forest principles which hundreds of years of actual practice have proved right are at it's command. The ony question is, How should these be modified or extended to best meet American conditions? In the manage ment of the National Forests the Gov ernmen is not working in the dark. Nor is it slavishly copying European countries. It is putting into prac- tice, in America, and for Americans, principles tried and found correct, which will insure to ali the people alike the fullest and best use of all forest resources.
 Take the case of Germany. Starting with forests which were in as bad shape as many of our own which have been recklessly cut over, it raised the average yield of wood per acre from twenty cubic feet in 1880 to sixty-fiye cubic feet in 1904. During the same period of time it trebled the propor- tion of saw timber got from the aver age cut, which means, in other words, that through the practice of forestry the timberlands of Germany are o, three times better quality today than when no system was used
 In France forestry has decreased the danger from floods, which threaten to destroy vast areas Of fertile farms, and in doing so has added many mil lions of dollars to the national wealth in new forests. It has removed the danger from sand dunes and in their a many millions of dollars. Applied to the State forests, which are small in comparison with the National Forests of this country, it causes them to yield each year a net revenue of more than S4,7O0, 900, though the sum fpeut rl each acre for manag aplcut is cYer one hundred times greater :han that spent on the forests of the United States.
 France and Germany togetIer have a population. of 100,C09 900 in I-uDd numbers, against our probable S5.G00. 900, and State forests of l4.5jG, 900 acres against our 160G00.00 acres of National Forests but France and Ger many spend on their forests $11. .U0O,- 900 a year. and get from then in net returns $30,000,000 a year, while the United States spent on the National Forests last year S1,400.000 and se- cured a net return of less than S12O,- GOO.
 In Switzerland, where every foot of agricultural land is of the greatest value, forestry has made it possible for the people to farm all land fit for crops, and so has assisted the country to support larger population, and one that is more prosperous, than would be the case if the valleys were subjected to destructive floods. It is in Switzerland also, in the Sihlwald, that forestry demonstrates beyond contradiction how great a yield in wood and money it may bring about if applied consistently for a number of years.
 Russia, Sweden, Austria Hungary. and Canada are making good the wood deficit of large part of the world. Sweden cuts much more wood (106,- 000, 900 cubic feetl than she produces; Russia. in spite of her enormous for est resources, has probably entered the same road; and England, the lead ing importer of wood, must count more and more on anade. But the United States consumes every year from