LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

It is certain that land now considered too remote, rough and poor for agriculture will be put to that use. We know that other countries do not to any considerable extent devote land to forest that will grow food crops at all well.

      ADJUSTMENT ONLY QUESTION OF TIME

      Consequently it is safe to assume that within reasonable limits the consumer will be glad to pay the cost of growing timber when he is obliged to do so. It is also to be expected that the community will desire to maintain a resource which employs labor, pays taxes, and conserves stream flow. Therefore, the price of lumber will be governed, as the price of every staple commodity is governed, by a cost of production including reasonable profit by those engaged in the several stages of the process. That it will include the growing of new timber on a sound, profitable basis is proved by the history of other countries which have undergone the same regulation. This, after all, is the strongest argument with which to answer the skeptic who, on premises and judgment of his own, doubts the above conclusions. We need not claim greater prophetic ability, but have only to make the undeniable assertion that hindsight is better than foresight. Nothing demonstrates economic laws so irrefutably as experience.

      Less than 29 per cent of the land area of the United States is occupied by forests today, including swamps, burns and much land which will be devoted to agriculture. Germany, where great economy of material is practiced, where wooden buildings are far fewer, where, indeed, the per capita consumption is only a seventh of ours, keeps 26 per cent of her land area under the most expensive forest management and finds the profit constantly increasing. She is increasing her production and importing heavily from countries where lumber is cheap, like the United States, yet the net returns per acre from the forests of Baden rose from $2.38 in 1880 to $5.08 in 1902. This was due hugely, of course, to improvement of management. In France lands which only fifty years ago could not be sold for $4 an acre now bring an annual revenue of $3. In 1903 the town forest of Winterthur, Switzerland, brought net receipts of $11.69 an acre. These are fair examples in countries where the influence tending toward less use of wood have been working for a very long time. They show such influences do not result in refusal to pay the cost of growing all the wood that can be grown. Wood consumption in European countries is increasing at a rate of from 1–½ to 2 per cent a year. In other words, the consumers are actually willing to pay for more wood than they have found necessary, and are warranting the growers in adopting still more expensive methods to increase the output. Nor has forest growing proved to be possible only by the State or Government. In Germany 46.5 per cent of the forest area is owned privately, in Austria 61 per cent, in France 65 per cent, in Norway 70 per cent. While it is true that the European private owner has better tax and fire conditions, it must also be remembered that the value of the land on which he makes the growing crop yield a good dividend is about ten times as high as it now is in the United States.

      The prospective grower of new timber in the American West can expect equal profit here at some time. His chief concern is whether its foreshadowing influences are sufficiently strong at present. To determine this he must consider the probable attitude of the public and of the lumbermen themselves.

      WHAT IT MEANS TO THE CONSUMER

      To the consumer the principles previously outlined mean that the price of lumber will rise somewhat. Indeed, he must expect that, regardless of the production factor, for the timber owner cannot pay taxes, prevent fire, and keep his money tied up, all for a considerable period, and still sell the material as cheap as he could before these expenses accrued. It also means that if the consumer fails to recognize and concede these principles it will be at his own sacrifice. Too low prices now merely mean too high prices in the early future, for they will not permit protection, economy or reforestation. He must eventually, and not far hence, pay the total cost of production. It is urgently to his interest not to add to this by preventing production and thus permitting the owner of the timber already produced to speculate on the approaching shortage.

      The danger of this can be illustrated by a comparison. Suppose three-quarters of the apple growers of the country, either through ignorance of the principles of their industry or through shortage of money with which to pay their debts, should be forced for a considerable period to accept a price for their crop so low that after paying current bills they were obliged to neglect their orchards absolutely, without plowing, fencing or spraying. Suppose further that the public should also destroy a large portion of the orchards, as the forests are by fire, and also overtax the land so as to complete the discouragement. Clearly apples would immediately go up. A few growers would doubtless escape absolute destruction and these, as long as their orchards lasted, would demand a price overbalancing many times the saving the consumer made temporarily while he was destroying the industry. Everyone concerned would be worse off than if prices had remained just high enough to maintain an adequate supply.

      It is improbable, however, that the consumer will ever voluntarily pay more than he has to, even if it is to his ultimate advantage. The most that can be hoped is that as the public at large comes to understand the situation, it will not support him in the claim that injustice is being done by the rises he is forced to meet as conditions adjust themselves. His reluctance will retard, but not stop, the progress of good forest management.

      STATES WILL TAKE A HAND

      On the other hand, it is reasonable to suppose that the people of the timber-producing states will gradually come to see that their interest, as well as that of the lumberman, is to be furthered by placing the industry on a sound basis. Selling more lumber than they consume, they will not rejoice over low prices any more than a wheat state does over the fall of wheat because it uses some flour, but they will be equally unable to exert much stiffening influence on the price. Consequently they will probably attempt to sustain the industry by increasing production. But in this attempt they will consider immediate community advantage first, future community advantage next, and the lumberman's advantage only as it is incidental. And such measures as they endorse they are likely to enforce by law.

      We see, then, that two forces are making for the better handling of our forest resources; the economic necessity of the public and the business advantage of the owner. Both demand the maximum production. Obviously, since their aims are identical, each has to gain from earnest coöperation. Neither can succeed alone, for the owner cannot go far against hostile laws or sentiment, and the public cannot accomplish half as much by compulsion as by encouraging the owner. But the great danger to each lies in mutual distrust, which defers the establishment of effective coöperation.

      LUMBERMAN MUST SHOW GOOD FAITH

      The primary and all-important moral which all this points out to the lumberman is that his position under coming conditions will be largely what he makes it by his own attitude. With the rapidity with which he gets into a position where his voice is listened to as unselfish and authoritative on the conservation subject, will his influence on the new conditions be measured. Therefore, he must study the subject. He must be able to support good laws and oppose bad laws with facts and arguments which will stand scrutiny. Above all, he must show faith by practicing what he preaches so far as he is able. He must show conclusively the injustice of the public suspicion from which he suffers.

      Conservative forest management has three essentials: Protection, utilization and reproduction. The last particularly depends on the first. The timber owner cannot protect adequately alone. Before he can expect much public help, however, he must show his willingness to do his share, for the state will not assume the whole burden. The progressive members of the industry have shown it already, and the result is evident in the commencement of the states to help. Their help will increase in the proportion that private effort spreads.

      Presumably it will be the same with reforestation. With the fire hazard lessened there will remain the obstacle of overtaxation on property returning no income with which to meet it. The public will doubtless soon see that this is bad for the community, but will hesitate to forego present revenue in order to reap greater future revenue until convinced that the owner will actually reforest if given the chance. Even if no actual desire to take advantage is ascribed, there may be fear that he will make no active effort to start and

Скачать книгу