the soil of a previous stand of Norway pine. So that now we are turning to planting this area to Norway pine.

Last year we planted 3,160 acres of this land to Norway pine at an average cost of $2.94 an acre. Now, these are small areas and apparently trivial figures, and yet what does it mean? I was there two or three months ago and went over the area with the supervisor, who had been very successful in bringing about this planting, and we discussed it, and I talked with the professor of forestry at East Lansing, Mich., and saw other stands of timber there that had been planted, and as near as we are able to determine at the end of 50 years we will be able to go back there and from those 3,160 acres cut not less than an average of 20,000 board feet per acre. We do not know what that will be worth in 1974, but we are now selling Norway pine in the Minnesota National Forest at $15 a thousand. It is reasonable to suppose that it will not be worth any less 50 years from now. Senator KING. In the tree?

Mr. SHERMAN. In the tree, on the stump. Those 20,000 board feet per acre from 3,000 acres-I will throw out the 160 acres—would amount to 60,000,000 feet, and at $15 a thousand would give you $900,000. That is simply on the stump. Of that $900,000, $225,000 will go into the county treasury of Itasca County for the road and school fund; $90,000 will be available for the construction of roads; $585,000 are turned into the United States Treasury.

Well, of course this is an investment that will have cost something, and we figured out what that would come to, and taking our original investment, overhead and everything, carrying out through the 50-year period at 6 per cent, compounded, I find that the planting costs down to that period would come to $80,000. I find also that administration, fire protection, fire insurance, and so on, plus the administration of the sale would come to $80,000 more. So that at the end of the 50 years of operation, compounding it all at 6 per cent the amount paid out would be $160,000, which deducted from $585,000 leaves us as velvet at the end of the operation for the United States Treasury $425,000 as a return upon only 3,000 acres of land, and at the end of that time we still have the 3,160 acres, and we have it stocked ready to grow another crop of timber without further investment, and to continue to do so until the end of time.

Senator KING. How did you arrive at those figures of taxation and school fund payments?

Mr. SHERMAN. That is the 25 per cent fixed by law from the receipts from the stumpage. Twenty-five per cent for road and school fund of $900,000 is $225,000.

Senator KING. Do you mean by Federal statute?

Mr. SHERMAN. By Federal statute, Senator. The Federal statute. provides that 25 per cent of the gross receipts

Senator KING. From the sale?

Mr. SHERMAN. From the disposal of forest products is returned to the county from which they originated.

Senator ŎDDIE. Mr. Sherman, do you believe that if Congress allowed additional appropriations that the Bureau of Forestry could repeat that experiment in other places?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. May I simply finish my statement about this planting in Michigan? This year we are planting 4,000 acres.

Senator KING. On Government land?

Mr. SHERMAN. On Government land. The planting is very cheap. And upon Government land that was of such low value that, as I said, nobody would take it previously as a gift. We are planning to take over from the State of Michigan, from the Agricultural College, 50,000 acres adjoining at the cost of $1 an acre, which will be blocked up with this forest, and I hope planted, and the circle will go around.

Senator KING. Is that State land?

Mr. SHERMAN. It was agricultural college land; yes, Senator, State land. The planting program there on a basis of 3,000 acres a year would return annually when we get the circle once completed, a revenue of this kind. Now the State of Michigan is planting at the present time 10,000 acres a year. It is only a small part, a drop in the bucket of what that State needs, of what Wisconsin needs, and what Minnesota needs, but I have gone through the State of Michigan in a number of places, and in Wisconsin and in Minnesota, and to those communities I have preached the gospel of what a wonderful opportunity they have by the presence of these denuded lands that can be planted up and could be made to return a great profit to them.

I believe that those three States can plant their lands and by handling them properly bring them to such a point that they will practically return to the State all the revenue needed to run their public affairs without any other form of taxation.

Senator KING. Of course, those denuded lands of which you are speaking belong to private individuals in the main?

Mr. SHERMAN. In the main, although they are rapidly reverting. to the State. In the State of Michigan there are over 8,000,000 acres now in process of return to the State. The State has already had 1,500,000 returned on account of delinquent taxes.

Senator KING. And are those States contemplating a rather wholesale effort to reforest those lands which have come back to them because of the nonpayment of taxes?

Mr. SHERMAN. Unfortunately not. Michigan is doing the best of the three. They are endeavoring to bring their program up to 10,000 acres a year, which, with probably 20,000,000 acres needing replanting, does not make a mark upon it.

The point that I wish to make is that reforestation upon lands well suited for timber production is, from a public standpoint, a wise and sound financial investment.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe, Mr. Sherman, that with sufficient appropriations it would be practical to carry the policy of reforestation in the Pacific coast and intermountain States much farther than it is being carried now?

Mr. SHERMAN. Unquestionably, where the land in the present generation has had upon it a stand of commercial timber that can be repeated. How far it can be extended upon our brush areas is a question which can only be determined by careful experimentation, and that is why we have so strongly urged in the past appropriation for forest experimentation in the Pacific Northwest, which we now have, and in the State of California, which we hope to get.

Mr. BOWDEN. Mr. Sherman, do you advocate a general policy of reforestation by artificial means in the national forests, or do you advocate a policy of reforestation by natural means or by regrowth?

Mr. SHERMAN. You can not limit your policy to any one of them. For instance, in the Michigan area that I spoke of, if we limited it to fire protection we would never get a forest. There we had an absolutely denuded area, and it had to be artificially replanted. In the national forests where we are cutting timber, by proper cutting and following it with fire protection planting is not necessary. We get our reforestation through the method of controlling deforestation.

Mr. BOWDEN. That condition would apply to most of the lands in the national forests?

Mr. SHERMAN. That condition applies to most of the lands in the national forests, although there are many blank spaces to be filled up, and in many places our forests can be tremendously increased in value by a little planting. In some cases with additional funds we would do what a forester calls "sweetening the stand." That is, where it is low-value species that we are cutting off, we would plant a certain percentage of trees that produce a better quality of timber. Senator KING. Mr. Sherman, are there many trees now being cut by these paper-manufacturing companies?

Mr. SHERMAN. Oh, yes; a great deal.

Senator KING. That is small trees, before they are grown?
Mr. SHERMAN. A great deal.

Senator KING. Do you think that their action, or that this effort to secure paper pulp is injurious, generally speaking, to the growth of the timber of the United States which is so badly needed?

Mr. SHERMAN. I would not charge the pulp and paper industry with being inimical to the broad forest interests of the Nation, because the area that they cut over is very small, and the total amount of our timber consumed by the pulp and paper industry is a relatively small proportion of it. The area that they do cut they cut very clean, so that it is pretty badly denuded, and it takes a good while for a forest to come back. Upon the other hand, their utilization is very complete, and there is no waste. And the pulp forest can be handled very well on a short period of rotation.

Senator KING. My information was that many of the younger forests, if I my use that expression, were being destroyed for pulp

purposes.

Mr. SHERMAN. Many young trees are being destroyed for pulp. They use it down to a very small diameter, and cut young trees, and eventually I hope that the industry will reach a stage somewhat similar to some of the older countries where the pulp wood is obtained as a by-product from lumbering operations, or, in other words, where lumbering operations and pulp-wood operations are carried on together. The larger logs going into boards and higher products, and what would otherwise be refuse in a sawmill going into high-grade products of pulp paper.

Senator KING. One other question and I am through. Did not your department explain its views pretty thoroughly upon the question of reforestation and cognate questions before the committee with which Senator Harrison and Senator McNary were connected? Mr. SHERMAN. Yes; a very thorough statement.

Senator KING. So that the views of your department in regard to the necessity of reforestation and the steps to be taken can be found in those hearings?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, indeed.

Senator ODDIE. We thank you, Mr. Sherman.

The next question to be discussed is "Agricultural use of public lands," and the two men who were to present observations on that question are not here now so we will go on to the question of Recreational use of national forests." Mr. Lloyd P. Austin, I believe, has something to say to us.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD P. AUSTIN, PRESIDENT OF THE RESORT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST, PASADENA, CALIF.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Austin, will you please give you name, your address, and your position to the reporter.

Mr. AUSTIN. Lloyd P. Austin; Pasadena, Calif.; president of the Resort Owners' Association of the Angeles National Forest.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that for a general consideration of the recreational use of our national forests it would be much more profitable for all of us to listen to Mr. Sherman, whom we have just heard. After reading his recently published report on outdoor recreation in the national forests I should want to confine my remarks largely to that, except that I conclude that the material of that report will already be avaliable for your consideration.

In a few minutes the most that I can hope to do is to bring some special considerations, perhaps, of the peculiar needs of recreation in our national forests in southern California to your attention. We, of course, have been hearing throughout these hearings of the urgency of the protection of our forest cover, the urgency of two great commodities-water and trees.

When we think of vacation we think of leaving our home problems; but when we consider recreation in the large we find ourselves at once bumped up against all of these other problems. When you think of vacation and where you would like to go to be re-created I think you have two pictures before you-first of all the picture of water, and then the picture of trees. Without forests and without water the whole charm of outdoor recreation is taken away. We have come to a day as a Nation when outdoor recreation, I should say, is more urgently needed than ever before in human history, for two or three reasons.

First, I believe we have settled up all our untamed land. The automobile, with its string of tin cans, has gone almost everywhere except into the mountain fastnesses, and is rapidly finding those. We have speeded up as never before. So that more people are closer to the breaking point in all of our business life than ever before. And as an antidote to our urban civilization, to our high speed civilization, there is nothing left of pure nature where the nerves can be restored again, where people can again find quiet and live the simple life, there is nothing in the large left in southern California; at any rate, except our national forests.

Anything that we can tame and sell we tame and sell, and we have left still just a little quiet. So with problems of recreation more

acute than ever before in southern California, in a region where out of doors we have no quiet places except in the mountains, here of all places the problem of recreation in our national forests becomes. paramount.

We have four great national forests here that seem to me are almost unique in America in their capacity for serving a needy public: We have our Santa Barbara, our Angeles, our San Bernardino, and our Cleveland National Forests. They are just at the gate of over two and a half millions of people. And the wonderful thing about them is that they are open 12 months in the year almost to the tops of the highest peaks, and those highest peaks, mind you, in the nearer range are over 10,000 feet, as high as the peaks in the Glacier National Park, and up in the San Bernardino Mountains we have Old Greyback, 11,485 feet high, higher than the celebrated Mount Hood in Oregon. We have right here in these national forests, open 12 months in the year, some of the most inviting playgrounds of anywhere on earth, and they are right here at the door of two and a half millions of people.

To get an idea of their value we have two or three questions to ask. Where would we go if we did not have them? We can stay in town. We can go to the movies. We can go to the beaches, lined with artificial recreation amusement concessions, or we can get into the automobile and travel. How many people do that? And that has its value of seeing the world. But travel is not rest merely. So that we have in these four great national forests here the greatest resource for rest, for recreation of the kind that man through all of his history has learned to avail himself of; we have the greatest opportunity for rest at low cost of any people in the country.

So then the consideration of the importance of our problem of recreation on the national forests is most urgent for southern California. And there is no danger, I take it, that any voices will be raised against the extension of that, unless on one ground. We have heard through these hearings of the urgency of water protection, and of the fire menace. Now, as I have already said, the interests of recreation are identical with those of water conservation, if you can just work them, because the moment that you have destroyed the beauty of the forest the ground is absolutely gone as a recreation ground. So that when your people are properly educated the most of them can know that each of them is a guardian of the forest.

One of the first things that I want to say, then, is that we most thoroughly commend the present policy of the Forest Service, as we understand it, especially as announced in the concluding 10 paragraphs of this report by the associate forester, Mr. Sherman. There are some 10 recommendations from the Forest Service in regard to the extent of the public use of the forest that we would thoroughly indorse.

As I said, the only question I suppose that can be raised in regard to the free use of the forest is the question of fire prevention, and the present provisions of the Forest Service seem to us decidedly right in intent, and it is only a question of adequate means for their extension. We would most strongly urge the present regulations prohibiting smoking on all mountain roads and trails. Limiting the