PRACTICAL FORESTRY IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST PROTECTING EXISTING FORESTS AND GROWING NEW ONES, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE PUBLIC AND THAT OF THE LUMBERMAN, WITH AN OUTLINE OF TECHNICAL METHODS TEXT

This added work later is many times that necessary to safeguard the burning in the first place. In every case that fire ever escaped from clearing operations, the cause was either thoughtlessness or unwillingness to perform certain work. Because it is easier to burn a slashing than to pile and burn; or when a ground burn is desirable, because it is easier to take chances than to clear a fire line around the area and have a force of men present; because burning at a dry, dangerous time will be cleaner and thus save work after the fire; inexperience, coupled with unwillingness to take advice from the experienced--these and like reasons are responsible for the destruction of lives and property worth over and over again the sum that was saved by the attempted economy. And, although this does not save others, the person responsible also usually loses instead of gaining. Without deprecating in the least the importance of agricultural development or of lightening the useful and not easy task of the settler, it is still terribly true that the agricultural industry and the settler suffer an annual loss through the destruction of improvements, crops and stock by fires from careless clearing that is far greater financially than the saving in clearing cost which was the cause. In other words, agricultural development is retarded instead of advanced by its present careless use of fire. PLANTING FOR FUEL AND TIMBER Great as are the timber resources of the Pacific Northwest, there are extensive regions in central and eastern Oregon and Washington where timber is a scarcity, and wood for fuel and farm repair purposes for settlers and ranchers can be obtained only at heavy cost. In such situations it will be a paying investment for the farmer to set out a small plantation simply to produce his own wood for fuel, fence posts and other purposes. It is true that some time must elapse before plantations begin to be productive, but by choosing rapid-growing species and planting closely, the thinnings which will be necessary in a few years, even though the trees be small, will do for the woodpile. Trees which grow rapidly and at the same time produce good wood are, of course, preferable. If they also sprout from the stump, a little care will maintain the supply indefinitely. The choice of species for a woodlot must be governed to a great extent by the location. Many portions of the treeless areas in this region are situated at a high altitude where the climatic conditions are severe and frosts are common throughout every month of the year. In such locations only the most hardy trees will succeed. Other areas are deficient in moisture, and where this deficiency is so great as to prohibit the growing of agricultural crops by dry farming it is useless to attempt growing trees without irrigation. Probably the tree most commonly planted in treeless regions has been some species of cottonwood. Lombardy poplar and Balm of Gilead have been great favorites. Cottonwood grows rapidly and is hardy against frost, but requires a never-failing supply of water within five to twenty feet of the surface. Because of its demands for moisture it will not grow on uplands, but thrives along water courses or where there is plentiful supply of moisture below the surface. Its fuel value is not high, though the quantity of its wood production compensates for its poor quality, nor does it make good fence posts. Where quick growth is the main consideration, however, it is a good tree to plant. The varieties known as Norway and Carolina poplar are the best. Green ash and hackberry are also hardy against both cold and moisture, but of slow growth. Their wood is durable in contact with the soil, making them suitable for fence posts. Where it succeeds black locust combines many of the desirable qualities to the highest degree. It is a rapid grower, makes excellent fence posts and has high fuel value. It is not as hardy against frost as cottonwood and ash, and while it has been planted successfully in sheltered locations on high plateaus, its success where frosts occur during the summer months is problematical. A closely related species, honey locust, is more frost-hardy but less desirable in other respects, though an excellent tree nevertheless. Other fairly hardy and drought-resistant trees are osage orange and Russian mulberry. Their value for fuel and fence posts is high, but they will not succeed in the most severe situations. Box elder is hardy and has been widely planted, but it is of low fuel value and short lived. In favorable localities at low altitudes, where moisture is abundant either through natural precipitation or from irrigation, the number of species which are adapted to woodlot planting is largely increased. Black walnut, black cherry and hardy catalpa are probably the most valuable of these. The latter, however, is sensitive to early and late frosts. WINDBREAKS The planting of windbreaks and shelter belts around dwellings and fields is of prime importance to the settler in an open country. Nothing adds more to the comfort of the dweller than a belt of timber about the home to protect it from the wind. Orchards need windbreaks to save them from injury in a wind-swept country, and gardens are more successful when surrounded by trees. One of the most important functions of the windbreak, however, is the saving of soil moisture within the protected area, for it is a well established fact that evaporation takes place more rapidly when there is a movement of the atmosphere than when it is calm. It is safe to say that a windbreak is effective in preventing evaporation for a distance equal to ten to fifteen times its height. Some species, because of the form of their crowns and their rapid growth, are more effective for windbreaks than others. Since more coniferous trees retain their foliage throughout the entire year, they afford protection in winter as well as in summer. Such species as western yellow, Scotch and Austrian pine grow rapidly, are hardy, and serve the purpose well. In regions of abundant moisture Douglas fir or Norway and Sitka spruce are unequaled. European larch has also been very successful in many regions, but, unlike most conifers, it sheds its leaves in winter. Where a windbreak is to consist of a single row only, it should be of a densely growing type that branches close to the ground. For low breaks of this character the Russian mulberry and Osage orange are excellent. Trees for woodlot or windbreak planting can be purchased from commercial nurserymen or grown by the farmer. Many growers of orchard trees, particularly in the states in the middle West, do a large business in forest tree seedlings. Since the transportation charges are often high, and since most farmers can give the attention and labor necessary to raising the trees themselves without inconvenience or extra expense, it is often desirable for them to do so. The Forest Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture has issued several publications containing full directions for the establishment of nurseries, and these can be obtained from the Superintendent of Public Documents, Washington, D. C., free or at a nominal cost.[*] [Footnote *: Reprint from Yearbook, Dept. of Agr., 1905, "How to Grow Young Trees for Forest Planting." Bulletin No. 29, "The Forest Nursery." Planting leaflets for almost all important forest trees.] Planting may be done in the spring or fall, the latter being often preferable in regions where a dry season occurs early in the summer. For plantations of broadleaf species, one-year-old seedlings are best suited, while coniferous species should be two to three years old. The chief points to remember in setting out the trees are not to allow the roots, particularly of coniferous trees, to dry out; to dig the holes large enough to enable the roots to take a normal position without doubling up, and to pack the soil firmly around them. Where planting is done on open ground, it is highly advantageous to plow and harrow the soil before setting out the trees in order to preserve the moisture and kill weeds and sod. Willows, cottonwoods and other poplars are very easily propagated from cuttings. Cuttings should be of strong, healthy wood of the previous season's growth which ripened well and did not shrivel during the winter. A good length is 8 to 12 inches, with the upper cut just above a bud. They may be made when wanted and planted with a spade, or if the ground is mellow they can be merely shoved into the soil until only one bud is above the surface and then tramped. The spacing of the trees is a question largely of utility, with some variation for different species. In general, however, close planting is advisable in treeless regions, since an artificial forest must stand in a dense mass if it is to succeed in the struggle against native vegetation, wind, sunshine, frost and dry weather. A single tree or row unprotected by associates has a poorer chance. Cultivation is the best method of conserving soil moisture. To obtain the best results plantations should be cultivated, if possible, at least during the first few years. The less care the trees are to have, the thicker they should be set in order that they will be close enough to establish forest conditions of shade, litter and underbrush. Thinnings can then be made as they grow and need more room. The material thus obtained will provide an early supply of fuel, stakes and posts. A spacing of 4x4 feet is common, but this does not allow for cultivation. For this reason 2x8 feet is preferable. Shelter belts should be planted closely in order to give protection quickly. COST The cost of planting is not great. Broadleaf seedlings will cost from $1 to $6 per thousand at the nursery, coniferous plants $2.50 to $10. If grown at home the cost will be greatly reduced. The preparation of the soil by plowing and harrowing should not exceed $2 per acre, and planting from $2.50 to $5 per thousand, according to the species, the method used and the condition of the soil. APPENDIX TAX REFORM TO PERMIT REFORESTATION LOSS IN IDLE LAND It is of the very highest importance to have that part of our constantly increasing area of cut and burned over forest land which is not more valuable for agriculture put to its only useful purpose--the growing of another forest crop. If this is done it will continue to be a source of tax revenue, to employ labor and support industry, to supply our forest needs, to bring revenue into the state, and to protect our streams. Otherwise it will become a desert, non-taxable, non-productive, a fire menace, and in every way worse than a dead loss to the state in which it exists and to the country at large. In the one way it will be of use to every citizen, whatever his occupation; in the other it will be a burden upon every citizen. The realness and directness of this problem in the Pacific Northwest is seldom realized. Our deforested areas are great and growing, but of even more peculiar significance is our unparalleled opportunity for making them quickly profitable to the community. Forest growth is more rapid and certain than elsewhere. A heavy crop may be had again in from 40 to 60 years. It will hardly be of the quality of that now being cut, but considering the shortage then to prevail should bring fully as much wealth into the state from its manufacture, the majority to be circulated as payment for supplies and labor. Since, therefore, our denuded land should in 60 years or less bring in again as much as it has already, its idleness costs us each year a sixtieth or more of that immense sum, amounting to a great many millions of dollars annually. To this loss is added the loss of tax revenue which the new crop would yield, with countless indirect injuries. THE OWNER'S COMPULSORY ATTITUDE For this situation our system of taxation is chiefly responsible. The owner may or may not hold the land for a time under the present system, in the hope of selling it or of tax reform, but he will seldom if ever take any steps to insure reforesting, because to do so is too likely to be at an actual loss. Whether he has made money on the original crop has no bearing; nor has his being rich or poor, resident or alien. His cut-over land presents a distinct problem to him. In the first place, its sale value represents an investment. He may sell and reinvest the money in any business which looks inviting--perhaps in standing timber. Presumably he can get ordinary business returns, 6 per cent or more, and continue to reinvest these returns. Therefore if he leaves this money in forest land for 50 years without return, for every dollar so tied up he must get $18.42 at the end of that period if he is to make 6 per cent on the investment. And this applies not only to the present value of the land, but also to any added expense he incurs in modifying his cutting methods, or in replanting, in order to insure reforestation. If both together amount to $5 an acre, he must net $92.10 at the end of his 50 years in order to make 6 per cent. So far no complaint can be made. But if the land is to produce a second crop it cannot be left to take care of itself, as it might were it being held for speculative purposes only. It must be protected from fire and trespass. And since the interest and principal invested will amount to so much for so long a period and be totally lost in case of destruction, the protection must be adequate, practically amounting to insurance. The annual cost will vary greatly according to locality, class of timber, and the enforcement of fire laws, but will be from 1 cent at the minimum to 15 cents at the maximum in bad seasons. If all cost of protection and administration is placed at only 5 cents annually, for the sake of illustration, this represents another investment constantly increasing and compounding, which, at the end of 50 years at 6 per cent, will amount to $14.51 an acre. Consequently, adding that to his original investment which will have become $92.10, he must net $106.61 to make his 6 per cent. HOW TAXES ENTER THE PROBLEM Let us now consider the influence of taxation. We have assumed the land to be valuable for forest growing only, and in calling his investment $5 an acre included some cost of insuring reforestation. Place this at $2 and leave a land value of $3, to be fully taxed at 30 mills for both state and county purposes, which is perhaps a fair average. This represents the third form of his investment, or 9 cents an acre invested annually and left unavailable for 50 years, and will amount at the end of that time, at 6 per cent, to $26.13. He has now to clear $132.74 an acre, besides being always in danger of total or partial loss from fire, _and during all this time has to have the money, made in some other way, to meet all the annual payments._ But no injustice appears, for he has been taxed on an equal basis with other producers. If his acre yields 20,000 feet (the maximum to expect), worth $7 a thousand, he has made his 6 per cent, the community has gained a resource, and everyone is satisfied. His land has been taxed fairly and as he now has a crop to sell he can afford to pay a tax on it also. If it is taxed at 3 per cent, or $4.20 an acre, county and state will altogether have received from him the same tax revenue they collect from other forms of property and industry of like value and profit, and received also the other benefits of forest production and of his expenditure of wages for protection. But this is just what cannot legally be done under our present tax system. _By failure to recognize that the growth produced is a crop, distinct from the land, grown at the owner's effort and expense, and returning no revenue until ripe, the law now compels the repeated annual taxation of the owner's effort to an extent very likely to amount to confiscation._ It has been seen that even under the fair system outlined in the preceding paragraph, forest growing is not more than ordinarily inviting and involves considerable risk and capital. Yet it assumed only a fair annual tax on the land. Under our present system, logically carried out, here is what would happen: The first year the tax would be the same. The second year a fiftieth of the total fifty-year crop, which we have assumed worth about $140, or $2.80, would be added to the land; therefore not $3, but $5.80, will bear the 30-mill levy, and not 9 cents, but 17 cents, actual tax will be paid. The third year the tax will be 25 cents an acre; at the twenty-fifth year it will be over $2 an acre. We have seen that even a 9-cent tax amounted to an investment of over $26 an acre in order to produce the crop. The continual increase of this according to growth would make the investment run into many hundreds of dollars if the same interest is calculated, and in any case would make reforestation _financially impossible_. In actual practice, the increased valuation would probably not be made by the assessor in the manner just described. Instead of determining the rate of growth scientifically and applying it annually, he now makes an ocular reappraisement at considerable intervals. In most cases there is no increased value, for the land does not reforest but is continually reburned. Where it accidentally does reforest, he makes a rough calculation of the value of the second growth, based upon no particular system and seldom alike in different counties. But the principle remains the same and the result differs only in degree. With the most lenient valuation at 10 or 15-year intervals, the addition of material which makes growing forests so different from our stationary mature forests of today is bound, under our present system, to have confiscatory effect. The land owner, so far from being encouraged to establish and protect a new forest, is actually penalized, for he must assume that its expectation value will be taxed annually, perhaps on an exorbitant basis, as soon as it becomes apparent. If only the value _added each year_, $2.80 in our illustration, were taxed annually, there would be no injustice. The tax would then, in the case cited, be 9 cents the first year and 17 cents every year thereafter. But this cannot be calculated with sufficient accuracy upon our present knowledge of forest growth and under conditions varying with every trace or acre. Our example, with its several arbitrary factors of growth, tax rate, interest rate, and future stumpage price, was merely for the purpose of illustration. Furthermore, such a solution would still be illegal under our present laws. REQUIREMENTS REFORM MUST MEET These facts are recognized by all students of forestry and taxation. In all countries where forests are grown the general property tax has been abandoned. Disinterested authorities of every class, approaching the subject only from the public's point of view and holding no brief for the timberland owner, unite in saying emphatically that its application to growing forests will retard or prevent forestry in our country. These authorities include statesmen like Roosevelt and our most prominent governors and senators; expert authorities on taxation generally, like state, national, and international tax conferences and professors of economics in the leading universities; forestry authorities like Graves, Pinchot and State foresters; and all the many associations and congresses devoted to such subjects. These authorities all agree that the forest crop should not be taxed till harvested, but differ somewhat as to the degree to which the public need of reforestation warrants deferring part or all of the land tax also. This Association, after careful study of the subject, including European methods, the experiments made by several of our States, and the plans proposed by many others, believes the following objects should be sought: 1. Greater permanent revenue to state and country than is possible