1941: Forestry

Wartime Conditions.

In 1940 the European war cast its lengthening shadow upon the normal forest economy of America. The forest products of Scandinavia. Finland and Russia ceased to reach markets elsewhere in the world, and the pyramiding domestic and foreign demands on Canadian and United States woodlands were making themselves felt as 1941 began. During the past twelve months war needs became paramount, and in a review of forestry in 1941, with war setting the tempo, normal developments seem incidental, if not incongruous.

In a statement sent to its members on Dec. 1, 1941, the American Forestry Association tersely outlined the situation as follows: (1) Our defense effort has increased the drain upon our forests by 25 to 30 per cent over pre-war years; (2) in Europe the conflict is depleting forests and creating a shortage that will be measurable only by the duration of the war; (3) post-war needs for wood for reconstruction may well create pressure for forest products that will seriously deplete America's forest resources unless it is wisely dealt with; (4) post-war employment problems, involving the shift of 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 workers from war-time to peace-time pursuits may be partially solved by utilizing some of this labor for maintenance of productive forest lands, especially if intelligent planning is undertaken now.

With reference to the current drain upon our forests, the effects are increasingly evident. New uses for wood, starting with the commercial manufacture of rayon in 1921 and increasing each year as ingenuity extends the list of synthetic materials derived from wood, materially enhance the demands for forest products in a nation at war. For ordinary military use the National Defense Council estimates a need for 1,500 board feet of lumber per soldier — 3,000,000,000 feet for an army of 2,000,000 men. This amount would suffice for 150,000 ordinary houses. To meet its military needs Germany doubled its own forest-cutting as early as 1939, and it has virtually stripped Czechoslovakia and Poland. In the treaties which it imposed on Rumania and the other Balkan countries conquered in 1941, ruthless demands are made upon the forest resources.

Under these conditions it is not surprising that prices of lumber have risen sharply, especially under the stimulus of government war bids. And even the hurricane timber, stored in the lakes of New England and supposedly ample to last the Northeastern states until 1944, has practically disappeared during the past few months. Production of lumber has gone up rapidly, too rapidly to appraise its relation to natural growth; but the imperative need to conserve the forests as a war measure is too obvious for further comment.

Forest Fires.

During 1941 forest fires took on a new significance. There were 195,427 fires in 1940 as compared with 213,000 in 1939; and the acreage burned was 26,000,000 in comparison with 31,500,000 for the preceding year. As usual, about 88 per cent of the loss was incurred on privately owned lands for which no organized protection was provided. In April 1941, man and nature greatly strengthened the case for organized protection: A prolonged drought was followed by 7,000 fires in six Eastern states, and fire damage to property was especially severe in Massachusetts. Marshfield provided an object lesson when $1,200,000 worth of taxable property went up in flames because an economizing town government provided no protection against the fire hazard. The neighboring town of Duxbury used its fire-fighting equipment to good advantage and suffered minor losses. Central California was hard hit in November by fires of probable incendiary origin.

Ordinarily these fire losses would have been regarded with equanimity. They were not abnormal, although the April fires in the East were coincident with abnormal drought conditions. But they prompted thoughts of the damage which might be done by incendiarism either by saboteurs or by bombers; and in May and the months following, the commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the Massachusetts Committee on Public Safety, started to give serious thought to forest fire protection as a civilian defense measure. By December all the New England states were acutely conscious of this special hazard, and steps to meet it are being taken as rapidly as shortage of apparatus and limitations of manufacturing facilities will permit. In September John Clark Hunt painted the dangers in lurid language as they may affect California, Oregon and Washington (American Forests), and the outbreak of war has spurred those states which may be victims of incendiary bombing and of sabotage to prepare for the dry months in 1942. Whether or not incendiarism proves to be a serious war risk in America's forests, preparations to combat it are bound to be of lasting benefit. It seems probable that fire losses will be decreased: and as a practical example, the Congress in October appropriated $1,100,000 for emergency forest fire control around critical defense areas. Of this amount. $1,000,000 will be allotted to localities in the West Coast states, only $100,000 to East Coast districts.

The normal progress of forestry likewise called for additional protection against fire: On March 24, the Joint Congressional Committee on Forestry, which was appointed in 1938, reported to Congress, and among its recommendations it urged that annual appropriations for protection be increased from $2,500,000 to $10,000,000. Appropriate legislation was quietly introduced in Congress. Further, the use of radio and of airplanes as means of spotting fires and of directing fire-fighting was extended. Even the parachute has been effectively employed to get 'smoke-chasers' on the scene of action promptly, especially in localities where ground equipment can not readily be brought in. Obviously forest-fire fighting is being modernized, and the war is providing both stimulus and technique which will undoubtedly have lasting value.

Policies and Problems.

The usual run of forestry events seems tame in comparison with the war issues which have been briefly discussed. March marked the fiftieth anniversary of our national forest policy, which stems from a sentence in an Act passed by Congress in 1891 to repeal the Timber Culture Act. It enabled the President to 'set apart and reserve in any state or territory having public lands bearing forests' any part of such lands as forest reservations. A few months later the first forest reserve was created in Wyoming, in what is now the Teton National Forest and Teton National Park. Since March 3, 1891, 160 national forests containing 176,600,000 acres have been created in 42 states and two territories.

Also in March the Joint Congressional Committee on Forestry concluded three years of study and deliberation on forestry policy and problems. The report was an anti-climactic compromise which pleased no one, save in its recommendations of more fire protection at Federal expense. It advocated a forest economy properly integrated with farm and range economies, primarily to increase rural employment and income. No new methods of implementing forestry policies were proposed; it was merely urged that several existing laws be extended. Shortly after the report was submitted, a 'Forest Practices Act' was introduced into both houses of Congress, proposing a measure of Federal control for privately owned forest lands by monetary grants to states which institute forest practices that conform with Federal standards.

It may be questioned whether such a mild proposal will meet the needs of the war economy which has descended upon the country during the past few weeks. It can merely be hoped that any emergency measure which may be enacted will embody as many sound principles of conservation as are consonant with a strenuous war effort.