FORESTS AND FORESTRY

Hokitika Guardian, 26 September 1923, Page 2

FORESTS AND FORESTRY

FURTHER NOTES ON THE DIRECTOR’S REPORT. No. IN. “Wist ye’ ’tis the King’s Forest 1 Nay ! tremble not, yon wailing cry is hut. inetliinks, the soughing of the wind amongst the pines.” In Chapter 3 “The State Forests” are discussed. The desirability of unity of control of State-owned Forests is stressed by the Service, and it is urged that “there are still many thousands of acres of densely timbered lands which should lie dedicated to forestry.” Just what is implied by “dedicated to forestry” is somewhat, doubtful; hut '.t conveys the impression that a sacrifice to some Deity is contemplated ! It is claimed hv the Service that “one authority” should control the national forests; hut whatever the present Service may he able to accomplish in the matter of afforestation or re-afforesta-tion, it has shown its utter inability to deal with our matured forests in any manner superior to that in which other Departments have dealt with them. It does not follow that the maker or producer of anything is, for that reason, the one best able to use it. We have always contended, for instance, that the Forest Srevice should give more attention to the growing of forests. 'I he methods of working State I orost areas are in no respect different to those pursued in other sawmill areas ; except that State methods are, invariably less economical.

In dealing with the subject of Nntitc owned forests, the Report says that “Such land is fast being sold to private speculators, to he exploited, etc.” It is amusing how the term “exploited” is applied to the private operator, whereas the same operation by the Service is dignified hv the name of “a progressive sales policy!” “The National Inventory of Forest Resources” is, we would imagine, a step in the right direction. It is also gratifying to learn that “the field staff and draftsmen have worked splendidly.” hut some concrete evidence on this point- would he more satisfying. Under the heading “Finance” the Report harps on the matter of increased revenue—equal to 111 per cent, over that of the previous year, which, by the way. is of course derived from an increased “exploitation” or sale, ol forest capital—equal to 12J per cent, during the above respective "periods. Note the contrast in attitude between the “private speculator” and the “State Speculator.” The table of “Annual Forest Service Expenditure” is a very bald statement. The denominations “A.” to “H.” give no indication as to whether tho several amounts are reproductive or not. This question can best, he dealt with though, when considering the “Statement of Accounts.” The “Graphic Expose” of expenditure, although enabling one to readily grasp tile varying proportions of the sums involved, fails to convey any u.-e----ftil information, because the terms “General Afforestation" and General Development” are unintelligible, for instance, under “Forest Demarcation etc.” the Report speaks of “development of timber sales policy. Bi icily. ibis means selling timber; and the question arises as to whether this operation comes under the item “General Afforestation” or “General Development.” It is very doubtful il any of those for whose benefit the Report is compiled, will glean any useful information of a positive character from this part of the Report. The report lacks clearness m many aspects when a close analysis is attempted. The reader was asked above to note the contrast between the “private speculator” and the “State speculator.” Fundamentally, all business or trade mav he called exploitation, out there is no stigma in using capital for the furthering of trade or industry. Yet the report would fain imply that, as its reference under Native-owned forests shows. The Forest Service is evidently endeavouring to cloud the whole subject, in order to obscure its want of action in regard to legitimate forestry—the growing of forests afforestation and reafforestation —hut of this in