There appears to be little or no question as to the desirability and essentiality of the forest survey. At the completion of its own forest resource appraisal, the American Forestry Association drew up a 30-point program for American forestry. One of the points in that program is: Continuation of the forest survey by the United States Forest Service; and aggressive action by individual States to intensify the survey within their boundaries. In support of that item, the program states: "Fundamental to a satisfactory determination of the progress of a Nation-wide forestry program is currently reliable information on forest inventory growth, drain, and related data. Such data are also necessary for determining the best use of forest lands and the proper location of forest industries." Accordingly, the American Forestry Association urges the favorable consideration by the committee of H. R. 2001, to amend section 9 of the act of May 22, 1928, as amended, authorizing and directing a national survey of forest resources and its early enactment into law. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, FEBRUARY 8, 1949 Whereas the American Forestry Association has adopted a 30-point program for American forestry, which emphasizes education, fire control, reforestation, and improved methods of cutting and utilization through Federal-State cooperation with the private owners of forest lands and processors of forest products; and Whereas the extension directors and State foresters have concurred as to their respective fields of activities and responsibilities and have agreed upon specific amendments to the Clarke-McNary law, with one exception; and Wheras the proposed amendments to sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and new section 10 of the said Clarke-McNary law are basically in accord with the policy and program of the American Forestry Association: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the American Forestry Association favors the enactment into law of these amendments, with the exception that Federal allotments of funds to States be made on the established principle of requiring full matching of funds by the respective States; and be it further Resolved, That the association authorizes and directs the executive director to have the association represented at the joint meetings of the Association of State Foresters, extension directors, and other agencies concerned in the conferences, hearings, and deliberations on the above amendments; also to attend the hearings, on these amendments before Congress. TEXAS FOREST SERVICE, AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS, Mr. PAUL W. SCHOEN, As the public official of the State of Texas, representing the State's interests in forestry matters, I should like to endorse the contents of the Granger bill. Through the Clarke-McNary law, the Federal Government has consistently contributed less toward forest-fire protection than has the State and individuals jointly. In the period 1944-48, the most that the Federal Government spent in Texas for forest-fire protection was 45 percent of the total protection cost; the least was in 1944 and 1948; it was 37 percent. Section 1 of the Granger bill would authorize more Federal funds for forest-fire protection to be spent cooperatively for this purpose through State organizations. There has been a tremendous increase in the demand for forest tree seedlings for reforestation purposes. The production facilities for meeting the demand would be greatly aided if section 4 of the 1924 act were amended so that the Federal Government would participate to a greater degree. This is covered in section 2 of the Granger bill. To protect forest land from fire is only part of the job. A corollary activity is to develop an interest, by the landowners, in continuous timber production. Investigations have shown that there is a tremendous forest land area in the deep South disconnected from farming or industrial units. With leadership and a limited amount of technical guidance, the described lands, now producing at only one-third of their capacity, could contribute substantially toward increased timber production. Section 4 of the Granger bill would assist the several States to reach many private owners. The job requires individual contacts; it cannot be done DEAR PAUL: I understand that you will appear before the congressional committees hearing testimony on H. R. 2296 and H. R. 2001. I hardly feel that it is necessary for me to tell you how interested we are in the passage of these bills and to urge you to do everything possible to bring about this passage. I am sending a copy of this letter to Congressman Frank Boykin, of Alabama, and to Congressman Robert Sikes, of Florida. Sincerely yours, ALBERT ERNEST. THE CITIZENS & SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK, Mr. PAUL W. SCHOEN, Valdosta, Ga. DEAR MR. SCHOEN: This is in regard to H. R. 2296-fire protection, planting, extension forestry, and farm forestry and H. R. 2001-forest survey. With the prospect of acreage controls on cotton next year and with acreage controls already in effect on peanuts and tobacco, with present high inflation, with lack of dollars by foreign countries, and with the poor long-term price outlook on row crops in our section of the country, our bank is much worried about the future. We believe there are three steps which our farmers must take to insure a healthy financial status in the future-(1) increase efficiency of row crop production, (2) utilize more effectively the woodland area on every farm, and (3) increase pasture efficiency for livestock consumption. Of the three points mentioned, the one which can be done most easily and the one which will pay off most effectively is No. 2, a better use of our woodland resources. A farmer told me the other day that pine trees had saved more farms than any other single item in periods of bad times. They are just like a good bank account. To me it seems imperative that our farmers be encouraged by the Federal Government to make better use of their forest resources. I therefore urge that H. R. 2296 be passed for the mutual benefit of all. It is always wise to know where you are going and, therefore, I urge the passage of H. R. 2001, which pertains to the forest survey. Will you please have this letter presented at the hearings on both bills? Sincerely yours, GEORGE V. GAINES, Director of Farm Development. STATEMENT BY HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 2001, FEBRUARY 16, 1949 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the committee in allowing me to appear before it on behalf of a sound national forestry program. My statement will not be long, as I wish to conserve the committee's time. The bill now before the committee is H. R. 2001 which I introduced on January 31. I wish to explain this bill and the reasons for my strong support of it, because it may not be as well understood by some members of the committee as are certain of the other forestry items also being considered. H. R. 2001 has been included as section 5 of a number of other bills dealing with forestry introduced by several of my distinguished colleagues-H. R. 1903, by Mr. Grant, of Alabama; H. R. 1960, by Mr. Engle of California; and H. R. 2223, by Mr. Wheeler, of Georgia. The bill has bipartisan support as evidenced by the introduction, only last week, of S. 979 by Senator Thye which is practically identical with H. R. 2001. This bill would amend section 9 of the act of May 22, 1928, commonly known as the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act. The McSweeney-McNary Act, as many know, is oftentimes referred to as the charter for forest research in this country. In my opinion, as much good has been accomplished under the McSweeney-McNary Act as in any other piece of forestry legislation. Section 9 of the act of May 22 provides for a national survey of forest resources. This is a far-reaching piece of basic legislation. It is not a survey in the sense of an engineer making a one-time survey of a piece of property. On the contrary, it is a continuing appraisal of our timber supply in relation to timber needs and forms the basis for many of the forest policies pursued by industry executives and public officials. Witnesses from the Forest Service can give you details about how the work is carried on, exactly what types of information are obtained, and what progress has been made; but I should like to emphasize certain basic facts which those Members of Congress responsible for steering forestry legislation should always have in mind. First, there is a world shortage of timber products. Second, the United States originally was and still is a wealthy timber Nation, but it has always and still is depleting its timber resource faster than it is growing. Third, timber is the only basic resource that is renewable. We need not mine it; as we do coal, we can grow it-provided we know how much we have, where it is, its condition, and what our future needs will be. The forest survey answers those questions. There is pressure all over the country to speed up this survey and to intensify it so the estimates of timber volume and cutting will be reliable for relatively small areas. My own State of Florida is being resurveyed this year after a lapse of some 15 years. The Governor, the State board of forestry, and the State forester are so anxious to find out what has happened to Florida's timber since the last survey was made that they are contributing between $30,000 to $40,000 to speed up and intensify the Florida survey. This is typical of what is happening in other States. California and New York are outstanding examples. In California, the State has spent about $180,000 in the last 2 years to intensify the survey on non-Federal lands. New York has transferred over $90,000 to the Forest Service for aerial photography of forested lands a necessary preliminary step. South Carolina, recently resurveyed, helped to the extent of $16,000. Michigan and Minnesota, now being surveyed, have added to the Federal funds available roughly $60,000 and $120,000 apiece. Pennsylvania, so I am told, has under consideration a $100,000 program to fly the entire State in preparation for the forest survey. Expenditures of this sort by States and private industry are the best evidence that I know of as to the practicality and importance of this continuing appraisal of our timber supply. H. R. 2001 would provide for a maximum authorization of $1,500,000 per year to resurvey areas previously covered. The amount now authorized for this purpose is $250,000 per year which was first provided in 1944. This looks like a big increase. The committee hearings in 1944 show that the Forest Service, at that time, preferred that no authorization ceiling be placed on the resurvey work. However, the committee insisted that some ceiling be established, although this is the only section of the McSweeney-McNary Act that has a limiting authorization. The Forest Service was told, in effect, at those last hearings to suggest a ceiling almost overnight. Possibly there was lack of foresight at that time as to how intensive a survey would be needed and as to how much operating costs would increase. Also, only half the country was then in need of resurveys. In H. R. 2001, I have attempted to look sufficiently far ahead so that Congress will not again have to revise these authorizations a few years hence. It will not be until the survey has been completed once throughout the country that the appropriation for resurveys will need to equal the recommended authorization of $1,500,000. But, we might as well place the authorization now at the level that will ultimately be needed. The Forest Service tells me that the costs of resurveys are approximately 21⁄2 cents per acre. I believe it also recommends that on the average the country should be reinventoried about once per decade. That is not often enough in my State and elsewhere in the South where the southern pine grows so rapidly and where there is heavy utilization. But even accepting the 10-year cycle, it will ultimately be necessary to cover about 62 million acres each year. At the estimated per-acre cost of 2.5 cents, this amounts to roughly $1,500,000. A large part of the Rocky Mountain States, the Northeast, and the Midwest has never been covered. H. R. 2001 proposes to raise the authorization to survey these new areas from $6,500,000 to $11,000,000. I understand that it costs slightly more to do the job the first time than to come back on resurveys. Applying a per-acre cost of 2.9 cents per acre to the remaining acreage and adding this to the amount already appropriated for initial survey brings the total authorization needed to somewhat over $11,000,000. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I have not spoken in too much detail, but I wished to explain how important this legislation is in my opinion and how I arrived at the proposed revisions in authorization. I am sure you and other members of the committee will give this their most sympathetic consideration. Mr. PAUL W. SCHOEN, FORT MCCOY, FLA., February 22, 1949. Executive Secretary, Forest Farmers Association Cooperative, Valdosta, Ga. DEAR MR. SCHOEN: Please do all possible in favor of the two bills on forestry, H. R. 2296 and H. R. 2201. We own 12,000 acres of forest lands, and have been practicing fire protection since 1936, but from time to time we have had some very damaging and destructive forest fires. We hold certificate No. 7 as certified forest farmers in our State. Hon. PAUL W. SCHOEN, MARION TURPENTINE Co., By RUFUS SMITH, President. JACKSONVILLE 2, FLA., February 21, 1949. Care of Hotel Raleigh, Pennsylvania Avenue at Twelfth Street NW., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I heartily endorse H. R. 2296. The development and protection of our forests is a matter of true national significance. The rate of depletion of our forests is very alarming, and unless they are given more protection and greater interest is taken, the future condition will be deplorable. The small amount spent for this tiem will bring very large returns in the future. I am strongly in favor of the bill, and trust that the committee will report it favorably. Yours very truly, M. H. MOYER. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Mr. PAUL W. SCHOEN, STATE HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, Executive Secretary, Care of Hotel Raleigh, Pennsylvania Avenue at Twelfth DEAR MR. SCHOEN: I am most happy to be able to take this method of assuring you of my support for bills H. R. 2296 and H. R. 2001. Our forests are being depleted at a rapid rate. Quite a bit of the destruction, I believe, arises from ignorance and carelessness, and any program which tends to counteract this will be, I think, well worth while. Thanking you, I am, Yours very truly, J. L. PHILLIPS, STATEMENT OF HON. SCHUYLer O. Bland, VIRGINIA, FEBRUARY 1949 Mr. Chairman and members, in Virginia we are most fortunate in having a fine forestry organization. Within the last decade we have extended its services in protection and timberland management to cover the entire State. Our forestry work needs intensification, however, in all of its phases. Virginia's forest resources have had great importance since colonial days. One of the most remarkable features of our forest resource is that it is a living thing which can be maintained and restored. Unlike oil, coal, iron, and many other resources, timber can be replaced. The location of the first permanent settlement at Jamestown, Va., in 1607 was influenced largely by England's need for ship timber. Since that time, we have produced worlds of lumber. In 1909, our lumber cut reached its peak. At first, we were cutting old or virgin growth, which Nature had provided in generous amounts. That is all gone; now we know that if we want timber, we have to grow it. I believe we can grow the timber we need, provided we help the small landowners. In Virginia, for example, we have 15,000,000 acres of forest land. The best of it and the bulk of it-over 90 percent-is privately owned. Almost 12,000,000 acres of this great forest wealth is in approximately 174,000 small ownerships. We must, therefore, reach these many small owners and convince them that good management is profitable for them and is essential to the Nation. We must provide adequate fire protection, abundant low-cost planting stock, forestry education, and technical management service in the woods of the individual small owner. The best way to do this is through cooperation between the private landowner, the Federal and State Governments. Since 1924 we have had one of the finest laws for such programs. I am referring to the Clarke-McNary Act of June 7, 1924. I understand that my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Sikes of Florida and Mr. Granger of Utah, along with several others in Congress, have introduced bills advocating the extension of the benefits of the Clarke-McNary Act to all woodland owners. I heartily endorse such a step. I know this committee is concerned with the fact that almost 100,000,000 acres of privately owned woodlands are still without any form of fire protection. I am not proud of this but progress is being made and this Congress is in position to make greater gains. We are proud in Virginia that 5 years ago we succeeded in establishing fire protection on a State-wide basis on all of our woodlands. All counties are now protected except Arlington which is considered too residential to need it. Although our forests suffered over 1,600 forest fires in 1947, the average burn per fire was held to 14 acres as compared with an average fire of 42 acres in size preceding the period when State-wide coverage was established. During the last fiscal year, Virginia's share of the total protection costs was 54 percent as against the Federal Government's 46 percent. In our State we intend to carry the full share of the State's responsibility in this most worthwhile Federal cooperative endeavor. I am not so proud of our progress in tree planting. Our future job is enormous. There are 520,000 acres which should be planted to trees. And 490,000 of these acres belong to private owners, 95 percent of whom are farmers. Under the Federal-State cooperative program we have been selling young tree seedlings to farmers at from $3 to $5 per thousand. I heartily endorse the provisions to increase the authorization for section 4 of the Clarke-McNary Act because it will enable not only Virginia but 42 other States in our Nation to embark on a realistic tree-planting program. There is a public responsibility in restoring our forests. The private landowners, the State, and the Federal Government all work together and one must not shirk its share of the responsibility. At the rate we are planting in Virginia at the present time, it will take 775 years to accomplish the treeplanting job at hand. I need say little more to this distinguished committee on this matter because we all realize that Virginia's welfare and progress is indicative of that being made in other parts of the Nation. The tree-planting program must be stepped up many times over its present accomplishment. I am favorable to the provisions in the bills introduced by Mr. Sikes, Mr. Granger, and the others to provide adequate authorization for extending and carrying useful forestry information to our woodland owners through the forestry extension organization at the land-grant colleges. I understand that the Federal contribution to this work at present is far, far under an equitable amount. We all know of the work of the farm foresters in getting better forest management on our individual woodlands. These men get into the woods and work with the individual landowners. This type of direct in-the-woods assistance has been warmly received by both mill operators and timber owners in my State. I believe that I am correct in recalling that several Virginia mill operators appeared before this distinguished committee last year and indicated that the work of the farm forester was not only beneficial to the woodland owners but that they could feel assured that continuous crops of timber which such service provides was the basis for a lasting business over the years. We now have 10 farm foresters in Virginia. More are needed. For each Federal dollar spent last year in this |