Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1914-03-13
Friday, March 10, 1914.
Editor Eagle River Review

appearing in the Milwaukee Sentinel
by Mr.. Anderson of ManitoWoc ana
ourlState Forester, Mr.. E. M. Grill
fifth. only hoped they would con-
tinue along the line inaugurated.
We of the north hoped to beneht
thereby to the extent of learning the
eventual plan of the forestry faddists.
To get some real live figures as 1t
were showing the estimated costs
and returns from the great large Tor
est reserve which Mr.. Griffith propos-
es to create up here and wipe the
greater portion of five of the SOW
reign counties of the state off the ag-
ricuItural map. The papers OF our
section have been insisting that the
forestry people give some facts and
figures We had about concluded
that they would not do SO, but now
we have some and would like more.
Here is what we have to date:
The Mafinette EagIe-Star Editorial.
The report of Henry S. Graves,
Chief Forester of the United States,
shows that the national forests are
already paying for the cost OF opera
z ting them and considerable more.
Last year 81, 500 600 worth of lumber
was sold from the reserves while 70,
COG, 600 head of livestock were graZed
In portions OF the reserve fitted Tor
that purpose. The forest reserves OF
the United States are not lying Idle
and useless.
The Amigo Journal commenting
January 5th.
The Appleton Post in commenting
on the above brings out the point
very clearly that the Journal has al
IA lnk unH0fl
will be more profitable to the north
sern counties in the state affected by
the forest reserve policy than ii the
bands were utilized for agricultural
purposes. If it can be shown that
such is not the case, then it would be
folly to carry out the plan, but they
have not vet been forthcoming. Tie
comment of the POST follows:
sit seems to the Posi- that what is
true of the national forest reserves
might as easily be true Of the WlScon-
sin forest reserve. 1t seems significant
that the only opposition to the Wis
consin forest reserve project comes
from the territory Immediately con-
figiouS TO the proposed reserve ltseli.
where the cities and towns seem to
feel that their interests Will be better
served by ,deVOting the proposed l0I-
est reserve territory to agriculture.
Neglecting all other considerations
except lust this one. he POST is by
no means nnconyinced that the afore-
said towns and cities eventually would
not make more money out OF 1T from a
forest reserve than from an agrlcul-
tural district. The summer visitors
and hunters going to the woods and
resorts Of northern Maine annually
leave $4,000, 600 there, and northern
New York benefits in The same way
only to lesser amount. The business
of towns and cities adjacent to the
Wisconsin reserve IA supplying the
needs of such visitors would ultimate
Nv come to be very great indeed and
might easily be bigger than what
would come to them from a cores
bonding farming community
srhe only reason that is diScernIble in
what is quoted from the foregoing ed
itorials, is based upon the statement
of Forester Graves that 81, 100000
were received last year for the sale OF
timber, and that 20,000,U0O head OF
live stock graZed on the open portions
of the reserve. The statement did not
contain the fact that IL cost approx
mately 100000 TO Iun that depart
ment. Now, as to the value OF forage,
what has that to do with forestry, and
what evidence is there that this open
,,auntry would not bring greater re-
fnrrs il no. tied TO The forestry de-
partment?
Inns is gre return for the whole for
eStry area of l75,000,00 acres. 10 IS
practically nothing per acre-less than
three cents.
But the repo. OF 1913 shows the
cost of administration was S5,OO0,OCo
and the receipts ICr boIL timber ana
forage was about S2,uO0,GOO.
lit is easy to see hat years may be
picked out to MAXI a showing OF some
kind, especially when all the material
facts are not stated, ana TINS IS the
lolicy oi the forestry peopse but IL Is
another thing TO cover ptIlCQ ~
years showing anhGai expenditures
aud returnS-anu his S " hat lie! VIII
not do.
Another point all. mpteu III Tie ed
itorial reierrcu 10 IS 10 nsahe IL appear
that by INDUCING ina MLoltsale iol
eStr, scheme Mutlu Nsslll lncleaSt
the income from simmer tourists
What is there 20 ieau 10 ANY such COLI
cluSioni 1t was MOI iCreStry III any
Ofthe states Mentioned by The lost
that cauStS LtCple 20 80 There III Tie
Summer-they Went lhele because OF.
the lakes ana other conditions chat
are as consistent with private aS With
state ON nersh.l. Ia IL IS utsireu by
the forestry la00islS thoJ lht STATE ~
into the SUMMER resort DuSineSs MLy
cont Tie, put IT that way. hen THY
would be stating iacL anu lllaL ie
<hat tire tax-Laa els want Facts ant
not fateite, or eISlUil=
The TACT IS, til. tlleie is not an III
stance III the world where forestry has
paid, and bat is the reason why Tie
forestry iaGuists refuse To use imam
Hlal tsurtS
Tie Whole proposition in nutshell
is just This. IN the south anu vest,
tllfe ale stNelat hlnured million ac-
T, S OF ntl -agllculjulal / has whtrt
.