THE ECONOMIC Mfects of FOREST DESTRUCTION in NORTHERN MICHIGAN

R E Ç E i V E D TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 92 JANUARY, 1929

THE ECONOMIC mFECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN

BY .

WILLIAM N. SPARHAWK'' ' Senior Forest Economist

and ¿>' WARREN DfBRUSH Forest Examiner, Branch of Research, Forest Service

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1929 FOREWORD

Northern Michigan furnishes a striking example of a region in which the destructive exploitation of vast forest wealth has almost run its course. Her virgin forests, which 50 years ago seemed inexhaustible and for several decades supported prosperous industries and communities, are practically gone. On millions of acres the ravages of fire have prevented the establishment of new forests, and the land has lain idle for years, a burden to its owners and to the community. Some of the results are shown in this study. Similar results have been experienced in ma.ny other regions and may be expected wherever large areas of productive forest land are reduced to idleness. That Michigan appreciates the importance of restoring her forests to productivity is evidenced by the progress already made. Michigan has been a pioneer in developing the economic survey as a basis for planning the utilization of forest land. State forests now cover 361,000 acres, of which 120,000 acres are under organized management. The State and private expenditures for fire protection in 1927 were more than $335,000, an amount exceeded in only one of the States. Michigan recently adopted one of the most constructive of all State laws for forest taxation. Few States have equaled her accomplishment in the reforestation of denuded land. This is an encouraging start. But even more must be done if Michigan's forest leuid is to become fully productive within a reasonable time. The forests that still remain should be cut in such ways that the land will continue to produce wood. Destruction by fires must be further reduced. The replanting of denuded land should be speeded up. In short, the situation calls for united public and industrial action much broader in scope than any yet undertaken. The results of such action, through providing raw material for industries, productive employment for workers, income from the land, and contributions to public revenues, besides the many indirect advantages of forests, will benefit every citizen of the State. Similar conditions, and chances for similar benefits through the restora- tion of forests, obtain in many other portions of the United States. In its study of the situation in Michigan and of the economic consequences, the Forest Service has sought to portray, not simply what has occurred in this State, but the effects of forest depletion and of land idleness as major economic problems of the United States. R. Y. STUART, Forester, TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 92 JANUARY, 1929

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D. C.

THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN

By WILLIAM N. SPABHAWK, Senior Forest Economist, and WARREN D. BRUSH, Forest Examiner, Branch of Research, Forest Service

CONTENTS

Page Page Introduction 1 The problem of idle land - 67 The original forests 4 Extent of idle land 67 Exploitation of the forests 6 Recreational use is not enough. 68 Amount of timber cut or wasted 9 Little prospect of early agricultural utili- The remaining supply 11 zation __ ._'_ 71 Settlement of the region following lumbering- 11 Forestry impossible unless fires are In southern Michigan 11 stopped 88 In northern lower Michigan 13 A forest program for Michigan. 92 In the upper peninsula ._ 18 The State must act 94 The effects of forest destruction 19 Desirability of a State planning commis- Vanishing resources and waning industries 20 sion .-_ - - 95 Loss of employment for settlers. _ _ 29 Extension of State forests ._ 96 Loss of revenue and needed supplies from Establishment of county and municipal farm woods. 31 forests 97 Loss of near-by markets 33 Promotion of private forestry..__ 98 Reduction of railroad revenues and cur- Cost of the program 99 tailment of service 33 Coordination of forest management and High road taxes and poor highway facili- industries 100 ties _ _ 40 Productive forests will bring prosperity ¿_ 101 An increasing burden of taxation 44 Literature cited 102 Higher rates of interest 55 Appendix _ 105 Reduced per capita wealth 57 Social handicaps 58

INTRODUCTION Probably the expression '^forest destruction^' conveys to most people the idea of conversion of a forest into a more or less permanent waste, with no young growth and no prospect of any within a reasonable time without costly artificial reforestation by sowing or planting. This is by no means the only or even the most frequent form of destruction. Less spectacular, but more frequent, are the less complete forms. Even though a forest may not be entirely destroyed, its productiveness may be reduced permanently or temporarily by mishandling. Even where the land is restocked immediately after cutting, production may become intermittent, interrupted by long periods of waiting. In general terms, forest destruction may be defined as the handling of the forests of a given economic unit in such a way as to render them incapable of continuous production of usable materials in fairly steady quantities. 3596°-29 1 1 2 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S^ DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

If a forest region is to be permanently productive and the home of a settled, prosperous population, its industries and towns must be established on a continuous basis. They must not be mere temporary camps operating in one region for a few years or a few decades and then abandoned for 50 or 100 years until another crop of timber can grow. Where the timber of a whole region is cut off in a short period of time, even though the entire area not otherwise utihzed is restocked immediately with valuable species of young trees, the industries and the people depending on them must move to another region until the new crop of timber reaches maturity. Then the process may be repeated. Such intermittent industries entail great waste of raw materials, high cost of products, and disastrous and far-reaching disruption of the general economic and social structure. The same principles that apply to an entire region also apply in a large measure to smaller economic units. A given community or sawmill whose existence depends on the timber from a definite forest unit can prosper only as long as the timber lasts. When the supply ceases, even for only a few decades, the plant must cease operation or move elsewhere. Even a farm wood lot fails to fulfil its purpose if all of the usable material is taken off and the farmer has to purchase his timber and firewood while he waits for a new crop of trees to grow up. A century ago the lumber industry in the United States was local in character and secondary in importance. To-day it is one of the greatest industries in the country. Its output rivals in volume the timber production of all other countries combined. It has furnished in abundance and at low prices the timber required for housing a rapidly expanding population, for putting up barns and fences on more than 6 million farms, for building and equipping 250,000 miles of railroads, and for supplying a multitude of factories with raw material. In addition it has shipped enormous quantities of lumber, staves, and other wooden products to practically every quarter of the globe. For the most part the lumber industry has carried on a process of harvesting and manufacturing the raw materials provided by nature without cost, but has not concerned itself with the production of more raw materials to take the place of those consumed. Stripping the forests as it went, and accompanied or followed by devastating conflagrations, it progressed in successive waves from the North- east to the Lake States, and from the Lake States to the southern pineries. It is now in the process of shifting from the southern pineries to the forests of the Pacific Northwest. In some regions, notably the hardwood belts in the Eastern a,nd Central States where the surface is level or rolHng, most of the cut- over land was promptly occupied by settlers and turned into farms and pastures. Although the forest disappeared from the land, it gave way to a higher use, and where the physical and economic conditions were favorable for agriculture the result was a public benefit. In other regions, especially in the Northeast and the Southeast, the early cutting was more or less selective in nature, and destructive fires were not prevalent. There the forest came back and restocked the land with growing trees which already have produced or some day will produce crops of timber. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 3

The conditions that usually followed in the wake of lumbering, however, were less satisfactory. Great expanses of land were stripped of all the more desirable timber, and there remained only the defec- tives and the unfit—scattered trees that were limby, stunted, crooked, or fimgus infested, or trees of the less desirable species. Such forests will be incapable for a long time of yielding anything else than firewood and a few minor products. Other cut-over and burned-over land came back to forest, but to a forest composed of comparatively worth- less species. These species have a sHght value, it is true, and a value that is increasing because of the scarcity of better material; but they can never yield as good material nor even as much material of any kind as the species that once grew on the land. As time has gone on and the demand for all kinds of timber has become more intense, less and less growing timber has been left on the land by the loggers. The Httle left has been wiped out over wide areas by conflagrations, the destructiveness of which has been intensi- fied by the huge masses of logging débris. If perchance a tree or a group of young growth escaped the first fire, it was licked up sooner or later by another. In many locaHties, particularly those where conifer forests predominated, numerous attempts to utilize the land for other purposes than timber growing have ended in failure, and it has lain idle or partly idle, some of it for 50 years, producing httle or no economic good. The area of such idle land is steadily increasing, and the area of productive forest is diminishing, while our growing population and industries are being compelled to do without wood or to obtain it from more and more distant sources at constantly increasing prices. The study covered in this bulletin was undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining how forest destruction, followed by nonutihzation of the cut-over land, affects the regions concerned. Michigan was chosen because it is one of the States in which the more serious forms of destruction had the earhest start, and in which there has been more time for the effects to become evident. It affords one of the best examples of great stretches of highly productive forest converted into a huge accumulation of idle land. That the effects on the region of such conversion are fairly obvious is indicated in the words of the State tax commission {27-b): ^ The destruction of Michigan forests has in recent years been accompanied by other results that should awaken us to the fearful economic loss their complete destruction is bound to entail. Following the converting of hundreds of thousands of acres of green forests into fire-swept wastes, we have seen numerous cities and communities greatly reduced in wealth and population, industrial enterprises closed down or moved away, capital transferred to other sections where forests still remain, and the cost of everything produced from or requiring the use of forest products tremendously increased. Over other communities of our State is now hanging the menace of ruin that must follow the complete destruction of their forests, and when it is accomplished, as it inevitably wül be under present conditions, it will mean thousands of people forced out of their regular employment and into competition with wage earners in other lines of business, the disappearance from the tax roll of a large amount of taxable property, and the with- drawal of millions of additional capital from profitable employment. It is not to be supposed, however, that Michigan presents unique conditions in this respect; similar processes are going on in nearly all of the timber States. The evil results of deforestation in Michi- gan are not exceptional, but are presented as a sample of what has

1 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to "Literature cited," p. 102. 4 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICÜLTUHE been happening or may happen all over the country. Nor is there any idea of attributing the conditions now existing to any one group or class. Lumbermen, land and timber speculators, settlers, railroads, and local, State, and Federal Goverments, all must share the responsibility. No one group alone would have caused or could have prevented the destruction that has taken place. It is evident, however, that the turning point has been reached. Timberland owners and the people of the State are beginning to realize the situation that confronts them, and a start is being made in restoring to a condition of productivity some of the millions of acres now idle. This is only a beginning. A vastly broader program of private and public action will be required if the situation is to be adequately met. The accomplishment of this task will build up on the better lands a prosperous, permanent agriculture, and on the rest permanent forest industries. These will support for all time many thousands of families and will supply to the industries and people of the State a very large proportion of their needs for timber and other forest products. THE ORIGINAL FORESTS A hundred years ago practically the entire surface of what is now Michigan was covered with timber. According to one writer (53), only 23,000 acres, or less than 0.1 per cent, was open land—the so- called '^oak openings'' of Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Cass, and St. Joseph Counties. This is probably an understatement, for there are known to have been some untimbered openings on the sand plains farther north, as well as in the swamps. Considerable areas of muskeg which bore, and in may cases still bear, thin stands of stunted trees can not be classed as timber-producing land. The total nontimbered area may have been 1,250,000 acres, which would leave approximately 35,500,000 acres with timber of economic value. South of an irregular line across St. Clair, Lapeer, Genesee, Saginaw, Gratiot, Montcalm, Kent, Allegan, and Van Buren Counties (fig. 1), the forest was composed principally of hardwoods—oaks, hickories, maple, beech, walnut, ash, cherry, elm, bass wood, and yellow popli^.r, with unimportant areas of tamarack and white cedar in the swamps. Even as far north as Saginaw white oak ship timbers were cut that were 30 inches square and 40 feet long, and the other hardwoods were of correspondingly high quahty (25). North of this line, and in several scattered localities south of it (51), northern white pine was the most valuable tree, usually occur- ring in mixture with such hardwoods as maple, beech, yellow birch, elm, basswood, and white ash, but occasionally in dense, pure stands, especially on the fairly well-drained sandy soils. The trees reached large sizes, and the stands were heavy. Over extensive areas the timber cut amounted to 20,000 to 60,000 board feet to the acre, even with the low standards of utilization that prevailed 25 to 40 years ago; and single acres are said to have produced as much as 150,000 feet (16). Single pine trees sometimes scaled 5,000 to 7,000 board feet (9-1), On the better upland soils hardwoods predominated, frequently in mixture with hemlock and scattered pines; on dry, sandy soils the white pine gave way to dense, pure stands of jack pine or open stands of Norway (red) pine. ï]CONÔMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 5

Farther north, particularly in the upper peninsula, maple, white birch, and yellow birch occurred in increasing proportions among the hardwoods, while extensive swamps were occupied by black and white spruces, balsam fir, white cedar, tamarack, and a varied mixture of other species. Pines predominated on the lighter upland soils.

UPPER PENINSULA

lÄ^^^PENINSULA

SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

FIG. 1.—Michigan, showing grouping of counties used in this study. The solid line divides the northern Michigan group of 46 counties from the 37 counties of southern Michigan. The broken lines separate the 8 western and 7 eastern counties of the upper peninsula, and in the lower peninsula the 10 northwestern counties, 11 northeastern, 16 central, 26 southern, and 5 counties of the "thumb"

The original forest may be classified approximately as follows: ^ * Acres Southern hardwoods 10, 000, 000 Pine, hardwoods, and hemlock _ 8, 500, 000 Pine _ 10, 000, 000 Northern hardwoods 4, 000, 000 Timbered swamps 3, 000, 000 Total 35, 500, 000

2 Based largely on Report of Michigan Forestry Commission for.1903-4. 6 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Conservative estimates," on the basis of present methods of utilization, indicate that this forest contained approximately the following amounts of timber: Billions of board feet Pine 190 Hemlock 25 Spruce, balsam, cedar, and tamarack 25 Hardwoods, northern 60 Hardwoods, southern 80 380 EXPLOITATION OF THE FORESTS The Indian population was sparse and made few clearings, and white settlers came in very slowly during the 200 years following Nicolet^s explorations in 1634. During that period the entire region was almost exclusively given over to the fur trade, and settlement was discouraged by the French, and later by the English traders, who feared that an influx of settlers would result in unwelcome competition in their dealings with the Indians. For nearly two centuries the fur- bearing animals were the only natural resource considered to have economic value and, like the timber a few years later, these were exploited for the maximum immediate returns. No thought was given either to perpetuating thjB resource for later generations or to promoting the lasting prosperity of the region itself (20). In 1810 there were less than 5,000 persons in the Territory of Michigan, and a large proportion of those were trappers and traders. Even as late as 1830 the population of the Territory, which then included Wisconsin and part of Minnesota, was less than 32,000. Then came a sudden change. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 had given a great impetus to the westward movement of population, and at the same time had made it possible to transport com- modities by water from the interior to eastern markets. Shortly afterwards (1836) the construction of railroads began in southern Michigan, linking it with the rapidly developing States of the Ohio Valley. This part of Michigan resembles northern Ohio and Indiana in climate and topography; the soils, though varied, are in the main suitable for farming. Even inferior soils could be cultivated because of the short distances and direct routes to growing urban and industrial centers. Agricultural settlement, therefore, went forward rapidly. In 1837, when Michigan became a State, the population was 87,000; in 1840 it had passed 200,000 and in 1850 it was nearly 400,000. By 1840 settlers had spread over most of the southern hardwood belt. By that time there were small sawmills and wood-working plants scattered all over southern Michigan. The principal kinds of timber sawed for general building purposes were basswood and yellow poplar, which were light and easy to work. The demand for timber was exceedingly small in comparison with the quantity available, which made most of it not worth the cost of cutting and hauling to market. Timber cut in clearing farm land greatly exceeded local needs, and enormous quantities were burned. The first lumber shipped from the

3 Based on Report of Michigan Forestry Commission for 1903-4, and on a statement, Michigan Forest Fires, prepared by Filibert Roth for the Michiga'n Pubhc Domain Commission, March, 1920. C. F. Wheeler (51) estimated that there was 150 billion feet of white pine alone in 1835 and said that the estimate was "probably much too low." ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 7

State is reported to have been a cargo of yellow poplar sent to Chicago in 1832 {16). This was followed by considerable shipments of high- grade hardwood timber to both western and eastern markets. The first sawmill in the white pine region was set up in 1830 near Flint. The first commercial mill in the Saginaw Valley, established in 1834, sold clear pine lumber for $2.50 a thousand feet. White pine lumber was shipped to Chicago as early as 1835 (16). At that time few settlers had penetrated beyond the southern edge of the pine region, and even as late as 1850 there were fewer than 7,000 people in those portions of the State north of Saginaw Bay. Of approximately 435 sawmills in the State in 1837, only a half dozen were cutting pine (16). The first cargo of pine lumber to go to Albany, N. Y., then the leading white pine market, was shipped in 1847. That shipment marked the beginning of the development on a large scale of Michigan's lumber industry. The Eastern States had cut heavily into their accessible stands of pine. Michigan forests were ideally situated for supplying the eastern demand because of the direct water communication by way of the Lakes, the Erie Canal, and the Hudson River. The rapid settlement of the prairie States, beginning about this time, also involved enormous requirements for lumber.^ The introduction of circular saws and mills operated by steam, in place of the water-driven gang saws, made it possible to produce lumber in great volume and at low cost. The favorable topography of the pine region and the network of streams down which logs could be floated to mills along the lake shores rendered large investment in logging equipment unnecessary. With stumpage to be bought for a song or even taken without asking there ensued a wild scramble of loggers and lumbermen to skim the cream of the forests. As is usually true with similar booms involving reckless intense competition to appropriate and exploit free natural resources, many individuals amassed fortunes; but for everyone who succeeded hundreds made only a bare living or lost what they had. The story of the pine-lumber industry of Michigan is too well known to need retelling in detail. In the Saginaw Valley the industry grew like a mushroom from the small beginning in 1834. By 1854 there were 61 sawmills in the valley. In 1882 there were more than 80 mills, and the whole 20-mile stretch along the river from Saginaw to Bay City was one continuous pile of pine lumber at the close of the summer sawing season. In that year over a billion feet of lumber and 295 million shingles were shipped by water from the Saginaw River. Only the best timber was worth taking. It was not unusual to see huge piles of clear white pine plank, without a blemish, 3 to 4 inches thick and up to 33^ and 4 feet wide. Such lumber brought as much as $28 a thousand board feet (9-jj 25). The growth of the industry followed a similar course in other parts of the pine region notably in the Menominee River district of the upper peninsula, and in the Muskegon River district, where two-thirds of a billion feet of pine was sawed in 1887. To supply all this lumber vast areas of forest were required. It was estimated that more than 700,000 acres was cut over in Michigan during the winter of 1880-81, yielding about 5 billion board feet of lumber. No wonder that the territory near the lufRber centers was

4 The first railroad from goutberu Michigan reaçhe(a Chicago in 1S52, 8 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, tJ. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE soon cut out and that the loggers had to go farther and farther into the interior. At first they took the timber that could be floated down the streams. Later several lines of railroad, stimulated by extensive grants of valuable timberland, took advantage of the favorable conditions for easy construction and pushed northward into the pine region in order to swell their revenues by hauling logs and lumber. The first railroad in the world strictly for logging purposes was built in northern Michigan in 1877 (^5). All of the other roads in the region owed their origin and continued existence to the lumber industry. As the best of the pine along the streams was cut the dependence on railroads increased, and the rapid extension of the lines further speeded up the cutting of the better timber and all too often the destruction of the less valuable. The pine timber close to the lake shores and in the interior counties just north of the southern agricultural region lasted only a few years. In 1883 a shingle factory at St. Helen (Roscommon County) moved farther north because of the poor quality of timber remaining (9-c), As early as 1885 depletion of the accessible pine began to be noticed even in the northern part of the lower peninsula, it being recorded (9-g) that only 127 million feet of logs were put into the Au Sable River in the season of 1885, as compared with 230 million in 1883. At about the same time operators began cutting again over the land they had culled over once for the best timber {9-i)j and speculators took up the tax-delinquent lands (9~d) in order to strip them of the scattered trees left by the loggers. By 1896 depletion had gone so far that a writer (10) mentioned traveling 2,000 miles through 40 counties in the lumber region of the State without seeing a single acre of standing white pine in good condition. He said: The heart of the white pine country, from Manistee on the west to Saginaw on the east, [is] an almost continuous succession of abandoned lumber fields, miles upon miles of stumps as far as the eye can see, * * *. Considerable lumber of one kind and another is still being cut owing to the advance in price, bringing into market timber of poorer quality and from more remote localities: but this work is now being done more and more in a small way. The larger operators have many of them gone out of business or have shifted the scene of their operations to the forests of the Southern States or the Pacific Northwest. He also mentions the experience of Michigan Agricultural College in buying building lumber that year. A dealer, upon being asked to furnish white pine studding, joists, siding, and flooring, such as had been used for a similar building onljr a few years previously, stated that he no longer kept such material in stock and doubted whether it could be obtained in the State. Hemlock and Arkansas yellow pine were finally used, and when white pine was insisted on for a driveway all that could be obtained was knotty plank 6 inches wide cut from small trees. At that time jack pine logs only 6 inches in diameter were being shipped from the northern pine plains to the Saginaw mills (16). In 1896 there was estimated to be only 775,208 acres of pine timber left in the State, three-fourths of it in the upper peninsula (28).^ Pine lumbering flourished for about 40 years (1855-1895) in the lower peninsula^nd about 10 years longer in the upper peninsula.

« Allowing for the omission of several townships in the estimate, the total would be close to 830,000 acres. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 9

During most of that period commercial lumbering in the northern hardwood forests was of minor importance. Some of the hardwood forest had been cut and burned to clear farm land, and small amounts of the timber were used locally for such industries as the manufacture of cant-hook and peavy handles, wagons, and broomsticks. Hemlock was originally cut chiefly for its bark, the logs being left to rot in the woods. The iron industry, which began soon after the discovery of iron in Marquette County in 1844, used some hemlock for mine timbers, and large quantities of the finest hardwood for charcoal. In 1899 it was said {52): The whole country around Marquette has been entirely denuded of timber. There are apparently fine forests left standing, but they are nearly all second growth. The charcoal industry has left its mark upon the country. The abundant suppUes of birch, beech, and maple in the northern part of the lower peninsula led to the early establishment at several points of charcoal iron furnaces and gave employment to the woods- men and trafile to the railroads. Because of the cheapness and high fuel value of the hardwoods, large tracts close to the shores were cut clean to provide firewood for the lake steamers. This was particularly so in the region around Traverse Bay. With the decline of pine lumbering, wider markets developed for hemlock and hardwoods, and at the same time the building of railroads made it possible to take out these heavier timbers, which could not be fioated. Thus the industry was given an extension of Hfe. A sawmill commenced cutting hardwoods at East Jordan (Charlevoix County) in 1879 {43), and at about the same time other mills began to saw the hardwoods at other places near Traverse Bay. In 1887 some hardwood lumber was cut in Crawford County, and in 1889 several camps were operating there, cutting hardwoods for shipment to Saginaw mills {9-Tc). From that time the number of hardwood mills increased rapidly, and the railroads found in the hardwood forests sources of revenue to offset that lost with the passing of the pine. Just as with the pine, however, the hardwood forests were considered practically inexhaustible, and no thought was taken for their future. The hardwood industry of lower Michigan is now practically at an end, except for a handful of mills which have 5 to 10 years^ supply of timber, and the portables and other small mills which cut mostly for local use from the remnants of forest left in the swamps and farm wood lots. In 1923 it was reported {25) that not a single sawmill on the Saginaw was cutting pine, and only a few were working on hardwoods. In the upper peninsula lumbering is stiU the leading industry, after mining, and although three-fourths of the original stand of timber has been cut or destroyed, sufficient supplies remain to maintain the industry on a large scale for several decades.

AMOUNT OF TIMBER CUT OR WASTED Of Michigan's original stand of 380 bilHon board feet of saw timber, approximately 35 billion feet was cut and burned in clearing land; 73 billion feet was burned and wasted during or after Imnbering or destroyed by forest fires independent of lumbering operations; 204 billion feet was cut for lumber; and 40 billion feet was cut for other products, such as railroad ties, shingles, staves, ship timbers, poles, 10 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUEE pulpwood, veneer logs, furniture and vehicle dimension stock, and the like. In many parts of the State the amount of timber destroyed by fire exceeded the amount cut. In the region tributary to the Au Sable River, for instance, it has been estimated that 20 billion feet of pine was burned and only 14 billion feet was cut by loggers (6). The lumber cut, by decades, was approximately as follows: Period Billions board feet Before 1830 0. 3 1831 to 1840 . 7 1841 to 1850 2. 5 * 1851 to 1860 5. 5 1861 to 1870 16. 0 Total to 1870 25. 0 1871 to 1880 44. 5 1881 to 1890 54. 5 1891 to 1900 4L 0 Total 1871 to 1900 140. 0 1901 to 1910 23. 0 1911 to 1920 12. 0 1921 to 1926 4. 5 Total 1901 to 1926 39. 5 Grand total 204. 5 Other estimates would indicate a somewhat greater total cut, for? according to one authority (16), 211. 5 billion board feet, including lumber and all other products from saw-log trees, was cut before the end of 1897. According to the reports of the Bureau of the Census, the values of the product of logging camps and sawmills of Michigan were as follows :

Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars

1849 2,464,000 1879- 52,450,000 1904 ___. 40, 569,000 1859 7,303,000 1889 83,122,000 1914 33, 873,000 1869 31,946,000 1899 53, 916,000 1919- 46,044,000

The census of 1909 did not give figures for logging camps and sawmills separately. The combined values for logging camps, sawmills, planing mills, and box factories amounted to $61,514,000 in 1909, as compared with $57,217,000 in 1904 and $58,523,000 in 1914. An extremely conservative estimate of the aggregate value at the mill, at the time of cutting, of all the sawed lumber cut from Michigan forests is $2,500,000,000.^ This is more than three times the assessed valuation in 1922 of all the real and personal property, including the copper and iron mines, or nearly eight and one-half times the value of all the farms in the 46 northern counties. It is considerably more than the assessed value of real property in the entire State, excepting Wayne, Kent, and Genesee Counties, which include the cities of Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Flint. If the value of other

6 Hotchkiss (16) estimates the value of lumber, shingles, and other products to the end of 1897 to have been $2,649,000,000. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 11 timber products be added (logs, poles, posts, ties, shingles, staves, etc.) the total of over $3,000,000,000 will be ten times the value of all the gold that has been taken from Alaska, and more than twice the value of all the gold produced in California.

THE REMAINING SUPPLY Less than 8 per cent of the original stand, or approximately 273^ billion feet of saw timber, was left at the end of 1926.^ The upper peninsula had about 19 billion,^ the northern portion of the lower peninsula (''northern lower Michigan'0 2.5 billion, and southern Michigan 6 billion feet, the latter chiefly in farm wood lots.^ The present stumpage value of the remnant of timber, including cordwood, now standing in the 46 northern counties is not less than $250,000,000. This is more than one-third of the assessed valuation of all the property in those counties, and at least three times the assessed value of all the farms.

SETTLEMENT OF THE REGION FOLLOWING LUMBERING In less than 100 years nearly 33,000,000 acres, or 92 per cent, of the original forest has been cut or destroyed. To know whether the exploitation of this enormous natural wealth has impoverished or benefited the region, it is necessary to consider what has taken the place of the timber that is gone. From an economic point of view, utilization of the forests is altogether desirable provided it leaves the land unimpaired in productiveness. Even the destruction of a large part of the forests of a region may not be an economic evil, if the land is needed and can be utilized without any considerable delay for producing other materials of equal or greater value than could be produced by forestry. Such was the case over much of the Ohio Valley and also in parts of southern Michigan. There the clearing away of the forests, although it was accompanied by unavoidable waste of much timber, enabled the land to support a vastly more numerous population than ever could have made a living from the forests. IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN To southern Michigan, which lies within the great central hardwood region of the United States, settlers came to establish farms and permanent homes. Where the forest was in their way they cut it off, utilizing or selling such of its products as they needed, and getting rid of the rest in the easiest way possible—by burning. As a general thing, lumbering was a secondary industry, and little land was cleared of its timber until it was wanted for town sites or for

7 As of Jan. 1, 1911, the Bureau of Corporations estimated the total stand of saw timber in the State to be 47.6 billion feet. If allowance is made for the cut since then of about 16.5 billion feet of sawed lumber, besides other products, and for a considerable loss from fires, the bureau's figure checks very closely with the present estimate of 27.5 billion feet. No allowance has been made for growth, for there has been little net growth of saw timber except in the southern counties, and it has been at least oflset by cutting for firewood and the like. 8 The chief timber appraiser of the board of State tax commissioners estimated, in 1921, that the total stand of saw timber in the upper peninsula was about 22 to 23 billion feet mill scale, on the basis of complete utilization of all standing material. In addition, there were estimated to be 10,682,000 cords of pulpwood (spruce, balsam, hemlock, birch, poplar, and jack pine), and an unestimated amount, possibly 8 to 12 million cords, of other small timber (principally cedar, tamarack, maple, beech, and other hardwoods). Ö Here and elsewhere in this study the State has been subdivided into three main regions: (1) Southern Michigan, including the counties of the central hardwood belt, together with the southern counties of the white pine belt, 37 in all. (See fig. 1.) In general this is predominantly an agricultural region, all of the counties having at least 50 per cent of their land improved (except Muskegon, 33 per cent), and forestry will henceforth be mostly a matter of farm wood lots. (2) The 31 northern counties of the lower peninsula, frequently designated as "northern lower Michigan." (3) The 15 counties of the upper peninsula. In no county outside of the first region is as much as 50 per cent of the land improved. 12 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE agriculture. Remnants of the original forest still remain, and these make up a large proportion of the farm woods of the region. Although these farm woods have been culled over repeatedly for the better trees and are for the most part far inferior in quahty and quantity of timber to the original wood lots, they nevertheless have had a continuous existence as woods. They are still capable of producing every year firewood, posts, saw logs, and other timber needed by their owners.

LESS THAN 10 % 10 TO 2S % V/A 25 TO 40% 40 TO 60 % OVER 60% FIG. 2.—Ratio of improved land in farms to total land area in Michigan, 1920. (Based on United States census) Agricultural settlement reached its peak in most of the southern counties by 1880, when 8 counties had more improved farm land than they have to-day. More than 50 per cent of the area of the 37 counties (including the southern edge of the pine belt) was then classed as improved. Not much land has been improved since, except in the ''thumb'' counties (fig. 1), and in those counties where the timber was removed just a few years prior to 1880. For the region as a whole, 68.6 per cent was improved land in farms in 1910, and in 1920 the percentage had fallen to 66.8. (Fig. 2.) ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 13 Thirteen of the 37 southern counties had more people in 1880 than they have to-day. From 1890 to 1900, 60 per cent or 413 of the 694 townships decreased in population, and during each of the next two decades 72 per cent of the townships suffered decreases. (Table 1.) The people did not leave the region, however, but merely moved from the small communities to the larger towns and cities. The decreases in rural population did not, therefore, indicate a serious reduction in the amount of land productively utilized, nor in most instances did they result in any reduction in the total productivity or prosperity of the region.

TABLE 1.—Changes in population of Michigan townships, by decades, 1890 to 1920 ^

1890-1900

Townships Townships Townships Number increasing decreasing unchanged Region of townships in region Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent

Upper peninsula 130 101 77.7 29 22.3 Northern lower Michigan 2 385 326 84.7 59 15.3 Southern Michigan _ __ _ 694 279 40.2 413 59.5 2 0.3 State total 1,209 706 68.4 501 41.4 2 0.2

1900-1910

Upper peninsula—- 142 114 80.3 28 19.7 Northern lower Michigan 3 400 253 63.2 147 36.8 Southern Michigan 696 191 27.4 504 72.4 1 0.2 State total- , 1,238 558 45.1 679 54.8 1 0.1

1910-1920

Upper peninsula- 144 88 61.1 66 38.9 Northern lower Michigan __ _ 3 419 85 20.3 334 76.7 Southern Micigan 700 192 27.4 507 72.4 1 0.2 State total- 1,263 365 28.9 897 71.0 1 0.1

1 Compiled from United States census reports. 2 Includes 4 unorganized townships in Kalkaska County. 8 Includes 5 unorganized townships in Kalkaska County. Numerous villages had grown up along with the farms, many of them with small wood-working factories to manufacture the hardwoods into various products for local use or for wider distribution. As time went on many of the villages had become cities, with a large variety of industries but still for the most part dependent on near-by territory for much of their raw material. After farming had ceased its period of expansion, the towns and cities continued to grow, particularly those which had become centers of specialized industries such as the manufacture of furniture and automobiles. Whereas the scattered rural population of the 37 counties decreased slightly between 1910 and 1920, the population of incorporated villages and citieíi increased by more than 900,000.

IN NORTHERN LOWER MICHIGAN North of the central hardwood belt settlers scarcely penetrated until pine lumbering commenced on a large scale, and for many years afterwards agricultural settlement was exceedingly slow. Few set- 14 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, tJ. S. DEPT. OP AGRICULTURE tiers established themselves in northern lower Michigan except those who came to work in the forests. Lumbering was the primary industry, and forests were cut for their timber, not to clear the land on which they stood. Thousands of men from the farms of southern Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana went into the north-woods logging camps every winter for the sake of the wages, upon which they hved until their farms began to produce returns. Logging camps and sawmill villages required large quantities of food and forage, however, and under the stimulus of ready markets and good prices for farm products considerable areas near the saw-mill towns were converted into farms. The earhest cutting north of Saginaw Bay was near the lake shores, and settlements were established early along the lakes. Although the logging camps gradually moved farther inland after the near-by timber was cut, many of the larger mill towns remained, and around them the farmers became permanently established, clearing a fair proportion of the better land. The lakes moderated the climate, making it cooler in summer and warmer in winter than in the interior, hence more favorable to farming. In the interior, except for a few small mill towns that grew up along main-line railroads or at junction points, there were no permanent centers. The many small towns that sprang up all over northern lower Michigan thrived as long as the timber in their vicinity lasted, but most of them fell into decadence with the exhaustion of the timber. These were one-industry towns built for the purpose of exploiting the forest and were really only one degree above logging camps. A few of them might have been permanent, depending upon timber alone, if the forest had been reproduced immediately after cutting. The majority, however, could not have outlasted the virgin timber because the aggregate capacity of the mills was far in excess of the timber- growing capacity of the forests. The easiest land to clear and cultivate was the light, sandy, pine- plains land, which also had the advantage of being more level than most of the more fertile hardwood land. Many of the first farms were located on these plains in spite of the low fertility. It is even recorded {9-a) that settlers who had become discouraged in attempting to make farms on hardwood lands moved to the pine plains, thinking to do better there. Except for unfavorable seasons, the farmers did fairly well as long as the towns prospered. Practically all of the settlers depended directly or indirectly upon the lumber industry for their livelihood. They worked in the woods in winter and raised hay and food for the camps during the summer. The only towns in the region where they could purchase supplies or sell their products were the mill towns and outfitting centers for logging camps, and practically the only roads or railroads connecting with the outside were those built to exploit the forests. Although there was enough good land inter- mingled with the poor to provide farms for this supplemental agriculture, it was not realized that the ultimate prosperity of the region depended on keeping the major portion of the land growing timber. It was believed, rather, that farms would follow the forests, that all of the land would eventually be cultivated, and that the towns and villages would all continue to grow and prosper after the timber was cut. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTlOfí 15 In those days there was great rivalry between villages, each vying with the other in its claims as to natural advantages and prospects for the future. The local papers of the period 1870-1900 were full of enthusiam for the future of the region agriculturally, and such items as the following (9-n) were frequent: * * * is the center for cutting 2.2 billion feet of pine, and therefore looks forward to years of prosperity. According to careful estimate there is more pine tributary to * * * now than at any other point in Michigan * * * which insures the future of this place [and after the pine] an endless wealth of hardwood. * * * is bound to be a city of 5,000 inhabitants in less than five years. [It then had between 400 and 600, and in the 40 years that have elapsed since this prediction was made it has not reached 2,500 population.] Dwelling houses are at a premium in our village * * * ^ot enough to supply the needs of the great influx of settlers. The demand for labor and teams is greater than the supply. Hardly a train does not bring one or more families. Thirty families located in the county last week. Probably no section of the Union is being more rapidly settled than this and adjoining counties * * * The farming population more than doubled in the past two years. Two homesteads of 240 acres each, the first in the county to which these quotations refer, were located in 1870 (9-h). During the next 15 years, not including cancelled applications, there were taken up 408 homesteads, aggregating 51,004 acres,^^ as follows:

Year Number Year Number Year Number

1871. _ None. 1876-.. 21 1881 . ... . 39 1872 1 1877 24 1882 44 1873- 20 1878 - 42 1883 20 1874 51 1879 65 1884 19 1875- . 16 1880-" -. 39 1885 7

As recently as 1910, a statement published by a development bureau said of northeastern lower Michigan : Thousands of settlers have come during the past few years. Other thousands have bought land for investment or for future settlement. Everywhere there are new farms, new clearings, new buildings, good roads, schools, and churches. The country has passed from a lumbering to a farming community. Experience has shown that such optimism was not justified. From 1910 to 1920, the number of farms in the 11 northeastern counties decreased by 484, or 5 per cent, and the total population decreased by more than 8,000, or 9 per cent. While the timber remained the lumbermen discouraged settlement, both because they feared destruction of timber by the settlers' fires and because they wanted to avoid the increased taxes which would be required to build roads and schools and support local government. When the timber was gone, most of the incentive to agricultural settlement also disappeared, and the area under cultivation increased very slowly. It actually decreased in many localities.

10 Evidently many of these were abandoned after a few years, for the census of 1880 reported only 175 farms in the county, with an acreage of 21,536; and the largest number ever reported was 248 farms in 1910. The greatest acreage in farms was 50,884 in 1920, of which 11,048 acres was improved land. More than 90 per cent of the surface of the county is now cut-over land, unutilized except for accidental stands of jack pine, scrub oak, and aspen of comparatively low value. Many thousands of acres are almost entirely bare of tree growth of any kind. 16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, IT. B. DEPT. OF AGBICULTURE

A few instances will serve to illustrate the course of development. The townships of Au Sable and Oscoda, at the month of the Au Sable River, had 8,346 inhabitants in 1890, including 4,328 in Au Sable city, and 3,593 in Oscoda village. There were several large sawmills cutting the pine logs that were floated down the river, and a thriving trade was carried on with the numerous camps that produced the logs. During the height of the sawing season, the population was increased by the addition of several thousand transient workers. Shortly after 1890 the pine timber supply suddenly dwindled, and some of the mills closed down. By 1900 more than 5,000 people had left. In 1907, an area of 300 square miles within 25 miles of Au Sable was reported to be totally uninhabited. In 1910, Au Sable city had 648 inhabitants, and Oscoda village 864. In 1911 a conflagration burned over thousands of acres of surrounding forest and cut-over land and destroyed the greater part of both towns. While one sawmill was still running in 1920, cutting odds and ends of timber gleaned from a wide tributary region, neither place was rebuilt. In 1920 the population of Au Sable city was 171, Oscoda village had given up its separate identity, and the two townships together had only 942 people. In the southwest corner of Montmorency County the village of Lewiston was established shortly after 1890. In 1892 it had a sawmill cutting 70,000 feet of lumber a day, a lath mill, a hotel accommo- dating 75 people, a company hotel and boarding houses, several stores, and 225 inhabitants. A school building to accommodate 60 children was under construction, and a planing mill, water works, and electric light plant were projected. In 1900 the township (Albert) had 827 inhabitants. The population of Albert Township, together with the two adjoining townships to the south, was 1,146, or 334 per cent more than 10 years previously.^ In 1901 a land company bought 18,500 acres of cut-over land within the three townships for colonization, and it was predicted (9-o) that this development would ^^make a permanent and thriving town of Lewiston'' in spite of the approaching depletion of the timber. In 1910 the population of the three townships was 1,278, an increase of 12 per cent in 10 years. But between 1910 and 1920 the sawmill finished cutting. Although the town remained and a few settlers hung on, the population of Albert Township decreased 66 per cent (from 882 to 302), and the three townships together lost 51 per cent of their people, only 625 remaining. The plains which were to be the site of a thriving agricultural community are now dotted on every hand with deserted farms. A train runs into Lewis ton from Grayling only twice a week, and judging from the experience of many other localities similarly situated there is no assurance that even that service will be maintained for long. Another lumber town, Deward, was established in 1901 in northwestern Crawford County. It was estimated that the 70,000 acres of timber tributary to the town would last 25 to 30 years, plenty of time to change from a lumber town to an agricultural center. The population of Frederic Township, in which the village was located, increased from 228 in 1900 to 770 in 1910. The timber did not last as long as was expected, however, and in 1920 the population was only 413, mostly located along the main line of the Michigan Central. The rural population of the four adjoining towns had decreased 27 per cent in 10 years, so that they had 8 per cent fewer people than were there before logging was commenced. In 1921 all that remained of ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 17 De ward was a portion of the broken-down engine house and chimney of the sawmill, a few unpainted shacks, a raüroad station, a church, and a boarded-up railroad hotel. The dozen or so families that remained were mostly connected with the railroad, which still ran one train a day in and out, though the settlers were then worrying lest the service cease altogether and compel them to haul in their supplies over 12 or 15 miles of road that is almost impassable during part of the year. The railroad, which a few years before carried 80 carloads of forest products daily, in 1921 occasionally hauled as much as 2 cars of lumber at one time. There were infrequent oases of cleared land in the desert of stumps stretching away toward the horizon, but the chief topics of conversation among the people along the line were the chances for finding work in the city and p^^ jj^j the question of where to go. These are only a few out of hundreds of instances. While lumbering was in progress the population of northern lower Michi- gan increased rapidly. (Fig. 3.) From 1870 to 1910 the number of inhabitants of the 31 counties increased from 50,000 to 400,- 000. During the decade following 1890, 85 per cent of all the townships in northern lower Michigan gained in population, and during the next 10 years 63 per cent showed a gain. By 1910, however, the hardwoods, as well as the pine, FIG. 3.- -Rate of population increase in Michigan, by regions. were nearing exhaus- (Based on United States census) tion. Many localities were entirely cut out, and the people had begun to leave. Eighty per cent of the 419 townships had fewer people in 1920 than in 1910. This was not merely a removal from the rural districts into the neigh- boring cities, such as occurred in the southern part of the State from 1910 to 1920, when every one of the 29 cities of over 5,000 increased in population. In the northern counties, 6 of the 7 cities of more than 5,000 population declined during the same decade, and 3 of them had fewer people in 1920 than in 1890. (Table 2.) From 1910 to 1920 only 6 of the 31 northern counties gained, and the region as a whole lost 50,000 people, or one-eighth of its entire population. After 50 years of exploitation, during which more than 95 per cent of the surface of the 31 northern counties of the lower peninsula has 3596°—29 2 18 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, V. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE been stripped of its timber, only one-fifth of the land is farmed. In some counties only 3 per cent is under cultivation, and in none does the proportion of improved land reach one-half.

TABLE 2.—Population of principal cities in northern lower Michigaîi, 1890-1920

City 1890 1900 1910 1920

Alpcna, n,283 11, 802 12, 706 11,101 Boyne City . . _ . _ 450 912 5,218 4,284 Cadillac 4,461 5,997 8,375 9,750 Cheboygan - 6,235 6,489 6,859 5,642 Ludington-- _ - _ - _ 7,517 7,166 9,132 8,810 Maniste© - 12, 812 14,260 12,381 9,694 TrnvP.rsñ Hitv 4,353 9,407 12,115 10, 925 Total 47, 111 56,033 66, 786 60,206

IN THE UPPER PENINSULA In the upper peninsula the course of development has been similar to that in the northern part of lower Michigan, but it has not yet gone so far. Large areas of virgin forest still remain, especially in the western portion. Much of the better agricultural land has only recently been cut over or is still covered with timber, and agricultural use has not yet reached its culmination. Moreover, the mines in the western counties afford markets for crops, traffic for the railroads, and opportunities for p art-time employment which will remain after the timber is gone. That part of the upper peninsula, therefore, will probably support a considerable permanent population, and the proportion of improved land will largely increase. Only 4.4 per cent of the area of the peninsula had been improved up to 1920, and the amount of increase during the preceding 10 years was only 1.2 per cent of the total area, or only 10 to 15 per cent of the area denuded of timber during the same period. Because of a decline of lumbering in several locahties, together with a slump in mining just preceding the 1920 census, the population of the upper peninsula increased by only about 7,000, or 2 per cent, although the number of farms increased considerably. Ten of the 12 incorporated cities with 5,000 or more people in 1910 ^^ and 39 per cent of the townships had fewer people in 1920 than in 1910. Table 3 shows the changes in population of the 12 cities :

TABLE 3.—Population of principal cities in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 1890-1920

City 1890 1900 1910 1920

Eßcanaba -- 9,549 13,194 13,103 Hancock 1, 772 4,050 8,981 7,527 Houghton-: 2,062 3,359 5,113 4,466 Iron Mountain-- 8,599 9,242 9,216 8,251 Ironwood 7,745 9,705 12,821 15,739 Ishpeming 11,197 13,255 12,448 10,500 Laurium 1,159 5,643 8,537 6,696 Marquette 9,093 10,058 11,503 12, 718 Menominee 10,630 12,818 10,507 8,907 6,078 6,935 8,460 7,419 Negaunee.-.- 4,974 4,533 Norway 4,170 Sault Ste. Marie- 5,760 10,538 12,615 12,096 Total 70,903 99,322 118,369 111, 955

11 Norway is included in this number, although it had not quite 5,000 inhabitants. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 19

THE EFFECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION The present utilization of the land surface of Michigan is approximately as shown in Tables 4 and 5 and Figure 4.

TABLE 4.—Michigan land utilization, 1921 ^ [In thousands of acres—i. e., 000 omitted]

Unim- Land proved occupied land in Region Total Improved by cities, Bog and farms, Forest land area farm land villages, other other land roads, waste 2 than railroads, wood- etc. landä

Upper peninsula 10,682 466 72 864 218 9,062 Northern lower Michigan _ 10,881 2,292 122 223 650 7,594 Southern Michigan. 15,224 10,168. 491 140 1,342 3.083 State total 36, 787 12, 926 685 1,227 2,210 19, 739

1 Computed from United Staste census data and other sources, supplemented by estimates. 2 Includes open or lightly wooded muskegs incapable of producing merchantable timber unless drained, rock outcrops, beaches, and shifting sands. 3 Some of the land reported by the census as "other unimproved" land is really cut-over or burned- over forest land with little or no tree growth, which will eventually revert to forest. In these tables the estimated areas of such land have been deducted from "other unimproved" as given by the census and added to the census figures for areas of farm woodland. The area of "other unimproved" land in farms was given by the 1920 census as 2,890,440 acres.

TABLE 5.—Classification of forest land in Michigan, 1921 ^ [In thousands of acres—i. e., 000 omitted]

All forest land Classification by character of cover

Region In farm Merchant- Valuable Inferior wood- other Total able young young Not re- lands timber 2 growth growth 3 stocking Í

Upper peninsula—- 497 8,565 9,062 3,310 • 2,450 1,827 1,475 Northern lower Michigan 1,602 5,992 7,594 275 1,750 3,049 2,520 Southern Michigan __ 1, 798 1,285 3,083 525 1,400 598 560 State total 3,897 15, 842 19, 739 4,110 5,600 5,474 4,555

1 Estimates based largely on personal observation. 2 Includes old stands from which some timber has been culled, second growth large enough for saw logs, and virgin stands. Only 12 per cent is in farm woodlands. Even allowing for probable incompleteness of returns in the 1920 census, only 13 per cent of the farm-woodland area carries merchantable timber. The percentages for the three regions given are, respectively, 12, 6, and 19. 3 Mostly aspen, fire cherry, scarlet oak, jack pine, white birch, and willows. < Bare land or trees too scattering to make a merchantable stand when they reach maturity. In most parts of southern Michigan, although some land was cleared that would better have been left in timber, the destruction of the forests has been on the whole an economic benefit. The removal of the forests in most parts of northern Michigan, on the other hand, has not been followed by the utiKzation of a considerable proportion of the land, either for farming or for anything else. Comparatively few of the loggers v/ere permanent settlers; most of them came north in the winter to earn cash wages, which they either ''blew in'' at the end of the season or took south to live on while developing farms in southern Michigan, Ohio, or Indiana. The greater part of the supplies and equipment consumed in exploiting the forests was produced by farms and factories in other regions. Few of the fortunes gained from lumbering were 20 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE utilized for the benefit of the timber region itself. For the most part, they were invested in other businesses, or reinvested in stripping the timber from other States. Even the towns and cities that grew up around sawmills and w^ood-working factories were mostly only temporary centers of trade and industry, doomed to inevitable decline, if not complete extinction, with the passing of the forests which supported them. The conclusion is inevitable that the exploitation of the forest wealth of this great territory, embracing an area almost as large as the State of Indiana, has not been of lasting benefit to the region itself. On the contrary, northern Michigan has been impoverished for the benefit of other parts of the country, and its productiveness has been so impaired that not for many years to come can it support as many people and industries as were in the region 30 years ago.

VANISHING RESOURCES AND WANING INDUSTRIES The population of Michigan increased 30 per cent between 1910 and 1920, or more than twice the rate for the United States as a whole. This increase, however, does not indicate such a general state of prosperity as might be inferred, for it has been mostly concentrated in a few localities where the automobile and subsidiary industries have made phenomenal growth. The manufacture of automobiles and parts directly employed 170,000 more persons in 1919 than in 1909,^^ and 762,000 of the 858,000 population increase for the State was in the automobile centers: Wayne County (including Detroit) and the cities of Flint, Lansing, Jackson, and Pontiac. The rural population of the State decreased by 56,000, and there were 10,500 few^er farms in 1920 than 10 years before. Northern lower Michigan had 400,000 inhabitants in 1910, practically all directly or indirectly dependent on raw materials produced within the region. During the following 10 years 50,000 people moved away. The State's lumber production declined more than one-half, from 1,890 million feet in 1909 to 876 million in 1919, and the number of wage earners employed in logging camps and sawmills was reduced from 27,300 to 14,900. During the decade at least 1J^ million acres of forest land was cut over. Most of it was burned and rendered unproductive, and other large areas of timber and young growth were also destroyed by fire. As a result of steady depletion of timber, the annual lumber output of Michigan sawmills dropped from approximately 5,400 million board feet in 1889 to an average of only 750 million feet during the period 1919-1925. After holding first place as a lumber State for 30 years, Michigan in 1925 ranked fifteenth. During the 10 years ended with 1925 it produced only half as much white pine lumber as Massachusetts, which has produced pine lumber for 300 years, and which has a total productive forest area only one-sixth as large as the area of Michigan's idle pine land. Other forest industries have suffered similar declines. Nearly 1,500 people were employed in making cooperage products in 1899, and only 122 in 1919. The annual output of cedar poles has been reduced in 20 years from 350,000 to 54,000 and of cedar railroad ties from

12 Census figures for population, areas, etc., are for the even years, as 1910,1920; the figures for industries, agricultural production, etc., cover the operations for the year preceding that in which the census was taken, as 1909, 1919. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 21

6 milllion to 500,000. Only 88 million shingles were producedin 1925, as compared with 2,850 million in 1889. For many years Michigan cut a surplus of forest products far beyond her own needs and shipped large quantities of lumber, shingles, poles, posts, and other wood materials to be consumed in other States. 2.0% TOWNS,ñO/\DS,vV-- 1 RAI LR0A0S-0.7:yJ<>Yi-4^ """"^s:*-*

MEftCHANTADLE^ TIMBER ; OÊNUDEDN^ 31.0% i i Í5.0'A^S^. ^^^^^.^ ^\ ^INFERIOR / YOUNG ^^^ <\ GROWTH/ TIMBER JA }\mrJ 22.9% / •

^^r<^'^' UPPER PENINSULA

1.1%

NORTHERN LOWER MICHIGAN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN FiG. 4,—Classification of land use in the three main divisions of Michigan, 1920 During the period 1880-1890, an average of 3J^ billion board feet of lumber was taken out of the State yearly. With the growth of population and industries, local lumber requirements have increased, probably somewhat more rapidly since 1920 than during the preceding few years, while production has decreased. Since about 1912 the State's consumption has exceeded its production, and the gap between production and consumption is steadily widening. (Fig. 5.) Now, although there are still shipped to other parts of the country considerable quantities of some products, such as maple flooring and pulpwood, these exports are greatly overbalanced by large importations of other timber products from outside the State. TIMBER SUPPLIES FALL BELOW TIMBER NEEDS Michigan uses about 4}i per cent of all the lumber and sawed timber cut in the United States, about 50 per cent of the wood consumed in the hardwood chemical industry, and 4 per cent of the pulpwood. A canvass of the principal wood-consuming industries in 22 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, TJ. S. DEFT. OF AGRICULTURE 1921 showed the timber requirements for all purposes to aggregate about 2 billion board feet a year. Including fuel wood and other small material which can not be expressed in terms of board measure,

1840 !850 I860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 I9Z0 1930 FIG. 5.—Production and consumption of sawed lumber in Michigan, 1840-1923. The production for 1889 does not include custom mills; hence the cut shown for that year is somewhat less than given in Figure 10, which includes custom sawing the annual consumption is equivalent to approximately 678 million cubic feet of standing timber. The amounts used for different pur-

rACTORIES MAKING MILLION BOARD FEELT PRODUCTS WHOLLY 300 400 SOO 600 OP PARTLY OF WOOD^... BUILDING CONSTRUCT- ION. DISTILLATION WOOD- PUBLIC UTILITIES..... PULPWOOD MINES. POSTS USED ONrARMSJß COOPERAGE.. EXCELSIOR WOOD fl MUNICIPAL WORK..... WHARVES. HIGHWAY WORK.

FACTORIES MAKING MILLION CUBIC rEET PRODUCTS WHOLLY 0_ 7s 100 las OR PARTLY OF WOOa.. FUELWOOD. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. DISTILLATION WOOD... PUBLIC UTILITIES...... PULPWOOa. MINES _. POSTS USED ONF?\RMSL. LEGEND COOPERAGE. I TOTAL CONSUMPTION EXCELSIOR WOOD. [3 I GROWN IN MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL WORK.... WHARVES. HIGHWAY WORK...^ FIG. 6.—Timber consumption in Michigan, 1920, classified by kind of use. The upper graph shows the consumption of saw timber; the lower graph shows the total consumption, including smaller material poses are shown in Figure 6 and in Table 6, which also show approximately the amount of timber cut to furnish each class of product, and the proportion of each grown within the State. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 23

TABLE 6.—Consumption of forest 'products in Michigan hy kinds of u^e, 1920

Equivalent in lumber Equivalent in stand- Quantity of products if sawed from same trees ing timber Use Grown in Grown in Grown in Total Michigan Total Michigan Total Michigan

Thousand Thousand Thousand Thousand Manufactures: ^ Thousands Thousands bd.ft bd.ft. cu. ft. cu. ft. Lumber 776,675 231,468 170,092 50,691 Logs and bolts 75,272 41,931 16,485 9,183 Veneer. 2 21,845 2 3,361 2,814 433 Building: TiiiTTiher 530,604 163,450 116,202 35,796 Shingles 467,532 49,819 46,966 5,004 10,286 1,096 Lath 95,575 11,692 (3) (3) Public utilities: Lumber 39,113 12,398 8,566 2,715 Sawed ties 1,218 602 40,600 20,067 8,894 4,395 Hewed ties— 1,643 1,367 49,290 41,010 19, 716 16,404 Posts. _ 133 133 121 121 266 266 Poles. 53 27 3,146 1,603 689 351 Piling. _ 8 4 475 237 105 52 Cross arms 116 0 914 0 200 0 Pins 643 0 9 0 2 0 TVTnTiinipal "worlr: LuTnber. ..^UL 11,912 476 2,609 104 Highway work: Lumber -..-,..— 8,542 2,563 1,871 561 Posts 1. 171 154 156 141 342 308 Wharves: Sawed timbers 7,456 847 1,633 185 Piling. 51 26 3,019 1,569 663 338 Posts used on farms 11,145 10,800 10,178 9,863 22,291 21,600 Mines: Sawed timbers 39,796 23,289 8,715 5,100 Thousand Thousand cu. ft. cu. ft. Round timber 11,618 11,618 34,739 34,739 15,103 16,103 Thousand Thousand cords cords Fuel wood 1,463 1,463 138,985 138,985 Pulpwood 244 201 85,644 70,551 28,548 23,517 Cooperage . 49,511 49,511 10,843 10,843 Excelsior 23 23 8,611 8,611 2,691 2,691 Hardwood distillation— _ _ 763 763 184,595 184,595 89,271 89,271 Thousand Thousand short tons short tons Tannin extract 93 88 Total 2,029,189 907,405 677,882 429,988

1 Articles made wholly or partly of wood. Planing-mill products, sash, doors, and blinds are listed under "Building" in this table. 2 Quantity of veneer actually used was 13,402 M feet (2,062 M feet grown in Michigan). 3 As lath is generally a by-product of lumber manufacture, it is not given separately in these columns. * Most of the fuel wood is cut from small or defective trees or parts of trees that will not make sawed lumber, or is sawmill waste. Figure 7 shows the consumption of the different kinds of wood, excepting firewood which is not classified according to species. (See Table 27 in the appendix for detailed figures.) The large proportion of hardwoods is especially striking; this amounts to 46 per cent of the sawed lumber and 53 per cent of the volume of all products/not including firewood. The corresponding figures for the United States are approximately 25 and 30 per cent. Michigan's consumption of hardwoods is high because of the extensive industries, such as furniture, fiooring, and automobile manufactures, which use those species chiefly, and also because of the large consumption of maple, beech, and birch by the wood chemical industry. The consumption of timber grown in Michigan and of that brought from other States, classified according to form of product and the quantity of each class of material cut within the State, in 1920 are 24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE shown in Figure 8. The dependence of Michigan lumber consumers on outside supplies is evident, in spite of the fact that much of the lumber cut within the State is sent elsewhere. Shingles and logs and bolts for special uses also come largely from other parts of the country. The only class of which Michigan apparently produces a surplus is pulpwood. As a matter of fact, however, the paper mills consume large quantities of wood that is brought into the State in the form of pulp, so that their consumption of wood fiber is actually much greater than the amount of pulpwood produced within the State. The rapidly increasing dependence on outside supphes is shown by statistics of wood used by factories in 1910 and in 1920. (Table 7.)

HARDWOODS: MILLION CUBIC fccr MAPLE. i9//?OV. OA^. , BCCCH. fiED GUM. ELM.:. f1ICK0RY...i.. ASH. „ BA5SW00D. COTT0NW0OÛANÛ POfíLAfl.. CHESTNUT.. YELLOiV POPLAR. WAU/UT. TUPELO. _.. SYCAMOflE _ tV/LijO)A^. Butternut, OS^ cherry. OS^pecojj, 005^ locust. 003. sorr WOODS: SOUTHEñN P/NE HEMLOCK. AIOPTHERÑ P/NE. NORTHEPN WHITE CEDAR- DOUGLAS HR. SPRUCE LARCH. WESTERN PINE. Vi/ESTERN RED CEDAR... BALSAM riR. , CYPRESS. REDWOOD. SOUTflERNRED CEDAR.

rO/i£IGN WOODS: MAHOGANY.. SPANISH CEDAR Bonwooo. 02. teak X)l^ primavero. X>/j ebony jOOZj roaewooet OOt. rV£L WOOD.... O 10 go dO T ^ T so 60 70 60 SO FIG. 7.—Michigan's annual wood requirements, by kinds In 1910 about 60 per cent of the 1.25 billion board feet used came from Michigan forests, while in 1920, with approximately the same consumption, nearly 60 per cent was brought from the outside. A little more than 1 biUioh board feet of lumber for construction and industrial use was brought into the State in 1920; also about 33 million feet of logs and bolts for making handles, implements, and wheels, and large quantities of poles and fence posts. The freight cost alone on this material, from the mills where it was sawed to the place of consumption, was about $16,000,000, or nearly 30 per cent of the total cost which was $57,000,000. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOBEST DESTRUCTION 25

MILLION BOARD FElEiT L UMBER (includini 300 4Ü0 500 600 700 sawed Hmbers and

DISTILLATION WOOD. ROUND TIMBERS (intlud- in¿ posts end poles)...

PULP WOOD. _.

HEWED TIES. LOGS AND BOLTS (For vehicle stoch,handles etc.)..

COOPERA GE.

SHINGLES. VENEER AND VENEER LOGS.. .. HOG cxcELSioR wooa. 1460 MILLION CUBIC FEELT LUMBER (including 100 sa»ed timbers and sawed ties).

rUEL WOOD....

DISTILLATION WOOa^ ROUND TIMBERS (including posts and poles).

PULP WOOD.

HEWED TIES. LOGS AND BOLTS(ror vehicle stocM, handles ett.)... LEGEND COOPERAGE. TOTAL CONSUMPTION GROWN IN MICHIGAN SHINGLES. TOTAL AMOUNT CUT VENEER AND /N MICHIGAN IN /920 VENEER LOGS.

exec LSI OR WOOD. FIG. 8.—Wood required annually in Michigan, the part grown within the State, and the amounts cut within the State in 1920, classified by form of product. The upper graph represents material cut from trees capable of yielding sawed lumber; the lower graph represents all material, expressed in terms of volume of standing timber

TABLE 7.—Consumption of wood in Michigan by secondary wood-using industries^ 1910 and 1920

Quantity used Quantity grown in Michigan Industry 1910 1920 1910 1920

i,000 bd. ft. 1,000 hd. ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent ,000 bd. ft. Per cent Motor vehicles 35,022 313,090 10,038 29 76,661 24 Planing-mill products 432,526 290,090 332,035 77 203,320 70 Boxes and crates _ 232, 111 228,687 165,440 71 97, 516 43 Furniture.- , 81,477 90,431 31,614 39 18,404 20 Sash, doors, blinds, and general millwork. 84,069 44,653 33,354 40 8,194 18 Refrigerators and kitchen cabinets. _ 35,629 31,367 23,090 65 7,065 23 Musical instruments 12,274 22,302 4,451 36 5,655 25 Wooden ware and novelties 45,267 20,923 41,373 91 18,664 Handles 38,474 14,358 37, 743 98 13,283 Fixtures. _ 24,214 12,404 12,702 52 2,352 19 Chairs. _ _. 9,823 11,643 4,326 44 2,774 24 Sporting and athletic goods 7,161 8,965 6,586 92 6,683 75 Laundry appliances 13,728 8,637 6,675 49 2,948 34 Caskets and coffins —- 6,321 8,485 1,138 18 260 3 Agricultural implements--- 16,614 6,796 6,792 41 2,116 31 Nonmotor vehicles 31,227 6,758 16,785 61 6,896 87 Professional and scientific instruments 3,172 4,778 2,940 93 2,927 61 Tanks 20,696 4,688 3,675 18 72 2 Cigar boxes 1,481 4,420 14 1 0 0 Plumbers' woodwork. _ 2,405 2,345 106 4 100 4 Toys 3,715 2,264 2,853 77 682 30 Ship and boat building--- 4,480 2,082 1,364 30 760 36 Dowels - 2,232 1,939 2,156 97 1,630 84 Electrical apparatus. _ 1,010 1,379 436 43 637 39 Trunks and valises— 14,650 907 14,150 97 726 80 All others 116, 883 66, 701 29,119 26 7,758 14 Total-- 1,276,661 1,200,092 789,954 62 486,973 41 26 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, XJ. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Not only is wood being brought into Michigan in larger quantities, it is coming from greater distances. This is shown by a comparison of the kinds of wood used in factories in 1910 and in 1920. (Table 8.) During that period, the consumption of hemlock and of northern pine was reduced by three-fourths and one-half, respectively, while that of southern pine nearly doubled; 3 times as much Douglas fir was used, and 12 times as much western pine. The combined consumption of maple, birch, beech, and basswood, mostly from northern forests, decreased from 520 million to 450 million board feet, while that of red gum, hickory, and chestnut from the south increased from 48 million to 171 million feet. Figure 9 shows graphically the sources of the different kinds of lumber used by Michigan industries in 1920. The area of each circle represents the relative quantity, and the center of each circle is located approximately at the center of the general region from which the supply came.

TABLE 8.—Timber consumed hy secondary wood-using industries in Michiganj classified hy kinds of wood, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Timber Quantity Timber Quantity grown in consumed grown in consumed Michigan Michigan

1,000 Per 1,000 Per 1,000 Per 1,000 Per U. ft. cent U. ft. cent hd. ft. cent hd. ft. cent Maple 347,485 27.2 312,392 90 313,649 26.1 258,691 82 Northern pine _ 235,031 18.4 81,167 35 107, 540 9.0 41,006 38 Southern pine. 58,021 4.5 106, 720 8.9 Bed gum 23,404 1.8 92,977 7.8 Oak 78,250 6.1 9,745 75, 740 6.3 6,955 Birch._ .._ _ 47,495 3.7 37,810 70,442 5.9 47,633 Western pine. 6,423 .4 65,043 5.4 Elm-.- 49,948 3.9 42,498 60,981 5.1 29,980 49 Hickory 14,669 1.2 1,235 60,472 5.0 725 1 Beech 71,353 5.6 70,000 44,829 3.7 38,305 85 Hemlock 153,258 12.0 150,160 40,227 3.4 36,122 90 Ash 33,220 2.6 20,540 36,074 3.0 5,635 16 Basswood 53,533 4.2 38,979 21,635 1.8 16,387 76 Chestnut 9,715 .8 17,904 1.5 5 0) Douglas fir 5,092 .4 15,303 1.3 Yellow poplar 22,661 1.8 307 12,294 1.0 Walnut 1,473 .1 255 10, 505 .9 29 (2) Mahogany 6,907 .5 8,438 .7 Spruce 8,375 .7 4,748 7,506 .6 709 Cottonwood--- 12,476 1.0 5,670 6,782 .6 1,061 16 Cypress 11,870 .9 6,490 .5 Tupelo gum 2,330 .2 5,021 .4 Redwood 1,580 .1 4,088 .3 Larch 18,474 1.4 12,579 68 2,719 .2 1,749 64 Western red cedar 243 0) 1,440 .1 Sycamore 688 .1 48 1,409 .1 65 5 Northern white cedar . 973 .1 936 1,314 .1 1,244 95 Balsam fir 748 .1 408 775 .1 568 73 Willow 155 (0 15 665 .1 26 4 Miscellaneous 1,811 .2 462 1,110 .1 178 16

Total - - 1,276,661 100 789,954 62 1,200,092 100 486,973

1 Less than 0.05 per cent. 2 Less than 0.5 per cent. If Michigan's population continues to increase, and if her farms and her factories keep pace with this growth so that her rural communities and cities are permanently prosperous, her wood requirements will almost inevitably increase. For some purposes, such as fuel, less wood may be needed, and for others substitute materials or more efficient utilization may reduce or at least retard the increase in re- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 27 i quirements. On the whole, however, more wood is likely to be needed. If, because of scarcity or for any other reason, costs become so high that consumption is seriously curtailed the State will suffer.

LOCAL INDUSTRIES DEPRIVED OF NEAR-BY TIMBER SUPPLIES Some industries, by getting their wood from distant sources, can continue to thrive after near-by supplies are exhausted. These include the manufactures of products for which the cost of the wood used constitutes a comparatively minor share of the final cost, such as motor vehicles and high-grade furniture. In many industries, however, forest material is a major element of cost and must be readily and cheaply obtained if operation is to continue. In these industries factories at a great distance from supplies can not compete indefinitely with those situated close to the forests. In many instances the substantial saving in the cost of wood to be gained by moving nearer

FIG. 9.—Sources of lumber used in Michigan, 1920 the forests more than off-sets the increased cost of other materials and of labor, or the higher cost of distributing the finished product. When local supplies are gone most factories sooner or later move away or close down altogether. As late as 1914 it was stated (53) that 91 per cent of the manufacturing plants in 152 villages in the former pine s'ection of Michigan used wood or other forest products for their principal raw material. The decline of the local wood-using industries, under way long before 1914, has gained in momentum during the past few years. Of the hundreds of small factories manufacturing cooperage, many have disappeared as the basswood, elm, and ash timber has been cut out. The wood pulp and the hardwood-distillation plants have been compelled to reach out to great distances for their wood, and are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain. Veneer factories used 33 million board feet of logs in 1911, and only 9 million feet in 1921. For the manufacture of planing-mill products, including sash, doors. 28 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OP AGBICULTURE blinds, and general millwork, 517 million board feet, or 40 per cent of all the lumber used by factories, was consumed in 1910; in 1920 those products required only 335 million feet, or 28 per cent of the total. Many factories making the cheaper grades of furniture, including chairs and tables, have gone out of business, while others have moved to the South, where there are still large hardwood supplies. The depletion of local forests has been especially hard on the numerous small factories making turned goods, handles, wooden dishes, pails, kitchen utensils, and woodenware of various sorts. Among the first to utilize the northern hardwoods, they took in the beginning only the largest and clearest logs. Later, the growing demand for hardwood timber led to higher prices and local shortages in supplies. For the most part these small plants were without large capital, and few had acquired sufíicient reserves of standing timber to keep them going for long. When the large lumber companies bought and cleared off the timber in their vicinity, the local factories had to close down. One of the largest woodenware factories in the country was established in northwestern Michigan in 1885. It was locally owned, employed about 100 men, and formed the nucleus of a thriving community. About 1900, lumbermen bought up the timber in the vicinity, and in 1905 the woodenware plant had to cease operation. The sawmill emploj^ed only 25 men, cut seven times as much lumber as the factory, and was through in 13 years. Since then m.ost of the small trees have been cut for distillation and the cut-over land has been burned repeatedly, so that there is little prospect of timber growth sufficient to support anjr kind of industry within a half century or more. As a result of the destruction of the forest cover, the water supply of the village has become irregular and at times inadequate. The population is now less than half what it was in 1900, and property values have declined to an even greater extent. Thirty years ago another village in the same section had large handle and cooperage factories and a sawmill. Work was plentiful, the streets were crowded on Saturday nights, and tradesmen prospered. Now the timber is gone, the people are scattered, and business is poor. Near by was another village with a handle factory employing 50 or 60 men. When the timber was cut the factory closed, and the village became practically deserted. These are typical of a large number of small communities which grew up around wood-using plants in northern Michigan. In 1910, 12 factories were making wooden dishes, pails, and tubs, and consumed more than 40 million board feet of timber. In 1920, although 4 new factories had been established, only 1 of the former 12 was operating, and the 5 together used only 15 million feet of timber. Makers of all kinds of woodenware and novelties combined used 45 million board feet in 1910, but only 21 milKon feet in 1920. Handle factories took only 14.5 million feet in 1920—about one-third as much as in 1910. The fact that 90 per cent or more of the timber for both handles and woodenware was grown within the State shows the extent to which those industries depend on local forests. That the small local industries are the ones to suffer most from forest depletion is shown by the fact that timber consumption by Michigan factories in towns of less than 2,500 population decreased one-half between 1910 and 1920; while consumption in the larger ECONOMIC) ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION" 29 places increased, principally as a result of the growth of the automobile industry. Unlike most of southern Michigan, the greater part of northern Michigan is off from direct routes of transportation. It does not have the advantage of near-by markets which would justify bringing in raw materials from outside. Unless the region itself can be made to produce raw materials, the continued decline and eventual disappearance of local industries seems inevitable.

EVILS OF INDUSTBIAL CONCENTRATION

Aside from the loss to the region directly affected, concentration in a few large urban centers of local industries formerly widely distributed has disadvantages of wide significance. It results in a greater sepa- ration between sources of materials and places of manufacture, and between the factories and the ultimate consumers. This increases the dependence upon railroads and other systems of transportation. Instead of going directly from the producers to the factories, the raw materials must usually pass through several hands. The manufactured products also have to be handled by additional middlemen before being delivered to the consumers. The increased cost of transportation and distribution may be partially offset by reductions in cost of manufacture, but in many instances the tendency is for the producers to get less for the materials which they furnish, and for the consumers to pay relatively more for the finished products. From the social and political standpoints, the tendency toward industrial concentration is even more to be deplored. It is not necessary to discuss here the unwholesome social aspects of the decadence of rural life, accompanied by crowding of the population into large cities. The political dangers are perhaps not so generally appreciated. With widely distributed local industries there is close personal contact between proprietors and employees, and between producers, factories, and consumers. With industry concentrated in large plants in a few cities, an increasing share of the product is absorbed by carriers and distributing agencies, a gap develops between workmen and employ- ers, and there is a tendency for producers of raw materials, carriers, manufacturers, distributors, and consumers to find themselves working at cross purposes. The resulting discontent and misunderstanding, coupled with the concentration of voting population in the cities, are potential sources of political injustice and of real danger to American institutions. LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR SETTLERS Destruction of the forests and the consequent passing of the forest industries have severely handicapped the settlement of northern Mich- igan in several ways. The most immediate hindrance has been the lack of opportunity for new settlers to earn a living during the first few years before their farms become self-supporting. A few years ago the employment offered by the lumber industry and the market afforded for the timber cut in clearing land for crops were held out as special inducements to settlers (18), In 1889 the average number of persons engaged in the logging and sawmill industry was 46,600; in 1919 it was only 16,000, and most of those were in the upper peninsula. (Fig. 10.) In the northern portion of the lower peninsula 700 camps employed 25,000 loggers in 1890, but in 1921 these had shrunk 30 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, XT. S. BEPT. OF AGRICULTUBE to 10 camps employing 500 men (50). It is easy to conceive the effect on the opportunity for winter work in the loss of so great an industry. In general, young, vigorous men were engaged in logging—just the kind to succeed in developing a frontier region. When the in- / dustry went these 50 turned to the cities or to other parts of the country instead of / K ! staying to clear farms / / \*-WAGE EARNERS out of the cut-overs. / / Census figures sho w I 30 that in 1919 less than / k. \. 100 wage earners were / ••' employed by manu- ,..-••*** >R 20 facturing industries LC JM8ER SA WEDi^y ) (including logging camps) in each of 13 counties in the north- V- ern part of the State. Less than 1,000 were employed in each of 1869 1919 1925 31 other counties. Of FIG. 10.—Quantity of lumber sawed and average number of wage earners employed in logging camps and sawmills in Michigan, these, 21 were in the 1869-1925. Quantities shown for 1904-1908, inclusive, and 1910- 1914, inclusive, are "reported" cuts, and are known to be less north, 6 were in those than the actual output. (Based on United States census and portions of south- Forest Service data) ern Michigan originally covered with pine forest, and only 4 were southern agricultural counties. The average wages of both skilled and unskilled labor were in that year considerably lower in the cut-over counties than in any other part of the State (fig. j^ r^ 11), and therefore SKILLED LABOR l2S UNSKILLED LABOR average yearly earnings were less, in the 6Z3 majority of cases, in < -i the counties with -J 5.21 o fewer jobs. In 27 of Û the southern counties 4.49 ß-fit 390 the yearly wage ex- 3.62 ceeded $1,000, and < 3.22 likewise in 13 of the 5 upper peninsula counties where the < competition of the Q mines kept wages up. In 23 counties of fUPPER NORTHERNi. SOUTHERN WAYNE northern lower Mich- PENINSULA LOWER MICHIGAN COUNTf igan the average MlCHKyAN FIG. 11.—Average wages in different parts of Michigan, I1919. (Based wage was below $1,- on reports of State department of labor) 000, and it was only for the 17,000 employees in the region as a whole. For the upper peninsula, where 18,000 men were employed, the average was $1,017; ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 31 for 36 southern counties it was $1,186 for 180,000 wage earners; in Wayne County, where the automobile industry was an important factor, the high average wage of $1,523 was paid to 256,000 employees.

LOSS OF REVENUE AND NEEDED SUPPLIES FROM FARM WOODS Many settlers, instead of working for wages in the logging camps and sawmills, have supplemented their incomes by cutting and selling timber from their own land or other land in the neighborhood. This has been an important source of income to new settlers in localities where merchantable timber still remained on the land at the time of settlement, and where local wood-using industries afforded a profitable market for the timber. The 1920 census reported 72,001 Michigan farms used or sold during 1919 forest products valued at $12,649,621. The value was $7,911,-

I880 1320 1Ô60 1920 1680 1920 UPPER PENINSULA NORTHERN. LOWER SOUTHERN MICHIGAM PENINSULA

1^23 iMPHOVaD L^ND V'.--A WOODLAND IIHÍII1IJ OTM£ñ UNIMPROVED FIG. 12.—Changes in status of farmland in Michigan, 1880-1920. (Based on United States census) 901 for 1909 and $5,944,511 for 1879. The values per farm were highest in the regions where new farms were being cleared, averaging $298 for each farm reporting in the upper peninsula and $217 in the northeastern portion of lower Michigan. They were lowest in the pine region in the central counties ($130 to $140) and somewhat higher ($175) in the southern hardwood belt. In southern Michigan the area of farm woodlands is being steadily reduced, partly by deliberate clearing for cultivation and partly as a result of excessive pasturing. (Fig. 12.) Many thousands of acres are practically nonproductive storage grounds for old timber, because grazing animals for many years have prevented young growth from starting. When the old trees are cut or die there will be no others to take their place. Probably half of the wood lots of southern Michigan 32 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE will be denuded of timber within 20 or 30 years if unrestricted pasturing continues. From nearly 40 per cent of the farm area in 1870 the proportion of woodland decreased to 11 per cent by 1920. In the hardwood portion of this region, however, the land was not stripped in advance of settlement but remained covered with timber until it was wanted for farming. The settler, therefore, had ample local supplies of wood for domestic use, besides a surplus which yielded a cash income. In northern Michigan actual clearing has not gone as far as in the south. The proportion of woodland to total farm area is now increasing, owing to the inclusion of newly cut-over land in farms and the growth of young timber on land formerly classed as ^^ other unimproved.'' In northern lower Michigan the proportion of farm area classed as woodland was reduced from 63 per cent in 1870 to 22 per cent in 1910. From 1910 to 1920, however, it rose to 28 per cent and the area of farm woods increased 343,798 acres, while the total farm area increased only 226,581 acres. In the upper peninsula the woodland increased from 36 to 40 per cent of the total farm area between 1910 and 1920. In the northern part of the State agriculture was more or less incidental until after lumbering had passed its zenith. All of the timber that could be disposed of was cut, and most of the rest was destroyed in logging or by fires. The land did not remain timbered until it was wanted for farming, as in the southern counties, but was practically stripped of merchantable material before it was made available to settlers. When the settlers came they found little standing timber to supply their needs for building material, posts, or even fuel, except for scattered patches in the swamps. Without enough capital to buy such material, they were compelled to get along with crude, makeshift buildings and poor fences or none. The pine stumps and roots supphed firewood for many years, and in some localities are still the principal source of fuel and fencing, but where the stumps have been consumed many farmers have no wood except small birch and aspen, hardly large enough for bean poles. In many instances even the farmers who have timber can not sell it because the sawmills and wood-using industries have gone, taking their railroads with them. In proportion of merchantable timber the southern farms had in 1920 a decided advantage, as is shown in Table 9. Nearly twice as large a proportion of the farm woodland area had merchantable timber as in the upper peninsula, and nearly three times as large an area as in northern lower Michigan. This condition is reflected in the average values of forest products from an acre of farm woodland. In the lower peninsula the value per acre for the 37 southern counties in 1919 was $5.58, or one-seventh as much as the average value of products from improved land; for the 31 northern counties it was only $2.09 or one-nineteenth of the value of products from improved land. For the upper peninsula it was one-eleventh, or $3.82. In 22 of the southern counties the average value of forest products exceeded $5 an acre, whereas it was less than $5 in all but 1 of the counties to the north, and in 11 of the 15 in the upper peninsula. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 33

TABLE 9.—Areas of merchantable timber in farm wood lots in 1920 ^

Merchantable timber Ratio of farms report- Farm ing mer- Region Farm area woodland chantable area Total Ratio to Area per timber area all farm farm to total woods reporting number of farms

Acres Acres Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Upper peninsula - 1,181,009 473,238 54,156 11.4 31.2 14.1 Northern lower Michigan 4,544,286 1,282,465 98,102 7.6 25.1 9.8 Southern Michigan 13,307,666 1,461,297 290,389 19.9 14.2 14.1

1 Compiled from United States census data. Evidently, removal of the forest has resulted in a serious reduction in farm income from the kind of crop that is least affected by seasonal weather conditions and that would afford the most dependable income during the early stages of settlement. Besides the loss of income resulting from the destruction of the forests, there is an even greater loss from improper handling of those that remain. Unlike the products of improved land, woodland products have seldom been the result of systematic cultivation. It has been estimated {49) that not more than 1,000,000 acres of farm wood lots—less than one-third of the total area in 1920—are cared for as permanent forests. Even this figure is probably too high. If the entire farm woodland area of the State were utilized carefully, the value of farm forest produces would probably be at least tripled.

LOSS OF NEAR-BY MARKETS The loss of market for farm crops, through the emigration of a large part of the nonagricultural population that was engaged in lumbering or that grew up around the wood-working factories in the villages and cities, is a serious matter. It is especially hard on the many more or less scattered settlers whose surplus production is so small, or whose transportation facilities are so poor, that shipping to distant markets is not feasible. In Leelanau County, for example, it was reported to have cost 70 cents a bushel in 1921 to carry to Chicago potatoes for which the growers were paid 25 cents, although their farms were fairly close to a railroad. The marked advantage in this respect enjoyed by farmers of southern Michigan is indicated by the fact that 94 per cent of the area of the southern coimties is within 40 miles of cities of over 25,000 population, while only 7 per cent of the rest of the State is so situated.

REDUCTION OF RAILROAD REVENUES AND CURTAILMENT OF SERVICE From the beginning railroad development in Michigan has been intimately connected with exploitation of the forests. Without the timber, it is extremely doubtful whether northern Michigan wx3uld ever have had more than a small fraction of the railroad mileage that it has to-day. Because of its location the northern part of the lower peninsula is not on the natural line of through traffic between other regions; consequently, railroads must depend for their traffic revenue 3596°—29 3 34 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE almost entirely upon freight originating locally or materials brought in from the outside to be consumed by the local population and industries. Immediately after attaining statehood, Alichigan undertook to build three lines of railroad in the southern part of the State, and by 1846 owned and operated 222 miles. These roads had wooden rails and it was not deemed safe to run trains on them at more than 10 mñes an hour or to run at all after dark. Although the State soon gave up the railroad business, private interests continued to project and build new lines, especially after Congress adopted the policy of granting large areas of public lands to stimulate such construction. Several lines were gradually extended into the pine district. Costs of construction were financed largely by selling the lands and timber received from the Government, and income was almost entirely from hauling lumber, logs, and other forest products. Practically all of the roads north of the three southern tiers of counties were built to tap rich timber supplies, which directly furnished from 60 to 95 per cent of the freight, and indirectly nearly all of it. Even in the southern counties timber products comprised an exceedingly important part of the traffic. As late as 1875 forest products constituted 66 per cent of the freight carried by nine southern Michigan roa/is, whose lines were practically all within the State and comprised about half of the State's mileage; only 13 per cent was agricultural products (32-a). As the nearer pine forests were cut, the railroads followed the retreating edge of the timber farther and farther toward the north and toward the interior, building one branch after another to open up new bodies of timber. With increasing length of fines came the need for increased traffic to support them, and many of the stronger companies gradually absorbed a large number of short-fine feeders in the endeavor to furnish this revenue. In this way grew up most of the important fines operating in northern lower Michigan to-day. The Pere Marquette, for instance, has been built up from something fike a hundred different railroads (17)j practically all of which started as lumber roads. The Michigan Central, the Detroit & Mackinac, the Grand Kapids & Indiana, and others are the result of similar processes. As early as 1880, the president of the Grand Rapids & Indiana {13-a), explaining large expenditures for spurs and sidings, said: Consumption of the pine made it necessary to find new locations, and as it retreated from the road we have had to follow with our tracks. We have had to act promptly to prevent the logs being ñoated down the rivers and forever taken from our reach. Because of this total dependence upon the progress of lumbering the prosperity of the railroads necessarily fluctuated with that of the lumber industry. Whenever industrial depression halted building operations over the country, the lumber industry was the first to feel the effect; production was curtailed, and the revenues of the railroads fell far below their expenses. In the southern counties the rapid development of farnüng and manufacturing soon furnished an important share of the railroad revenues, even though not enough to prevent a sharp decline in the traffic and in the earnings of some roads when timber was exhausted {32-a), It was generally believed that revenues would be similarly ECONOMIC ASPECTO GE FOREST DESTRUCTION 35 maintained in the north as soon as the forests were removed. The land-grant railroads tried to sell their lands to settlers and to build up industries. Many settlers did.come in, relying on the railways to furnish permanent means of communication and of transportation so that they could market their crops, as they relied on the lumber industry to furnish employment and local markets. But settlement proceeded too slowly to furnish enough business to take the place of the pine timber, and in the late eighties and early nineties many of the roads found themselves in a critical financial position. Most of them had rehed on the one commodity which was fast ebbing away (17). Desperate efforts were made to develop traffic by stimulating settlement and the establishment of industries. In some cases the poHcy was adopted of moving raw materials practically at cost in order to keep towns ahve (13-b). Many of the short roads and branches were compelled to cease operation after the pine was cut. Beginning about 1893, the dismanthng of abandoned branch lines was frequently reported (13-f). By 1896, 11 incorporated forest roads had exhausted the timber in their vicinity and had ceased to exist (32-b). Fortunately for the railroads, and also for the settlers who had located along their lines, the value of hardwood timber began to be appreciated in some sections soon after 1880, and fairly generally before 1900. Being too heavy to float, it furnished a large volume of traffic to the railroads. The report of the Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad for 1882 mentioned the revenue from a newly estabhshed charcoal furnace at Mancelona, and the increased receipts of the land department due to the rising values of hardwood timber. In 1895 the report (IS-c) stated: The disappearance of the large bodies of pine timber in northern Michigan, tributary to your road, which for many years past furnished the chief source of revenue, can fortunately be replaced by utilizing the products of the extensive and valuable hardwood forests of this region, the demand for which is growing. Again, in 1898, special mention was made of the increased business and large freight earnings resulting from the growing demand for hardwood timber, and in 1905 the road reported the greatest tonnage of forest products in its history up to that time. Yet in the following year the freight earnings of one of its subsidiary lines decreased 17.6 per cent, ^^principally due to the fact that forests products, which constitute 43.7 per cent of the total tonnage, decreased 24.4 per cent, due to complete removal of the last considerable body of timber adjacent to this line'' (13-d). And in 1908 it was reported (13-e) : The increased consumption of lumber is rapidly depleting the forests of northern Michigan, and it is estimated that the timber will be practically exhausted in from 25 to 30 years and a large yearly tonnage lost to the railroads. They are therefore interested in seeing a practical and comprehensive plan for the reforestation of exhausted timberlands * * * thereby producing a continued source of revenue that would be of great benefit to the transportation interests. Nothing was done to check the depletion, and the forest-products tonnage continued to dwindle on all the lower-peninsula roads. (Figs. 13, 14, and 15.) Those with a large proportion of branch mileage were especially hard hit, because ^Hhe country along these branches has been stripped of its timber, and agriculture has not developed 36 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, TJ. S. DEPT. OF AGEICULTUBE quickly enough to take the place of if {17), With the passing of the forests there was no longer sufficient business to pay for operating the railroads, and the only solution wa3 to take off the trains and dismantle the roads. That is just what has been going on, at an increasing rate, during the last 15 years. The State commissioner of railroads reported {32-c) in 1917: Industrial spurs and branches show a considerable abandonment of lines, mostly incident to exhaustion of the forest resources served by these branches. In the following year: The year 1918 * * * is notable for the railroad mileage abandoned. Sev- eral of the smaller lines in the State have for several years been operated at a loss or at a very small net return. These losses * * * led different organizations to suspend service and undertake to dismantle their roads, notwithstanding that in some cases the laws of the State might not permit such a course. In most instances,/the abandonment of the roads was contested by settlers and business interests along the lines, but usually to no avail,

VEAR TONS OF FREIGHT ORIGINATING ON LINES MILES OF LINE

1695 172 V.335-.*- 2^88

■ '.. ...I 1900 364 2Ô21

1905 " 409 {y;:i^66'^y']?^;'j^^ 2iB86 Vr^^

In 1914 only 3,363 tons of freight originated along the 14-mile stretch at the south end of the line, and only 99 tons were brought in. In 1915 the State railroad commission permitted (5^) that portion of the hne to be dismantled, giving the following reasons: Settlements and industries formerly existing * * * ^o longer exist; the line of track is serving no one except the farmers * * * and the inhabitants of Moorestown, a hamlet of about 100 population; the character of the land adjacent to this line of track * * * jg described as jack-pine plains. * * * No reasonable prospect of future increase in traffic to such an extent that this portion of the road * * * ^in produce revenue sufficient to pay expenses. [The remainder of the branch has since been removed.] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOÄEST bESTRÜCTiON 37 The Traverse City, Leelanau & Manistique Eailroad, 24 miles long, was built in 1903 to open up the district on the west side of Traverse Bay. In 1910 it hauled 40,777 tons of freight. In five years the annual traffic in forest products decreased 21,509 tons (more than 90 per cent), while the increase in agricultural products was only 3,669 tons. The total traffic in 1915 amounted to only 14,886 tons. The State tax commission reported {27-b) in 1920: The * * * railroad cost a million dollars or more, but the owners have abandoned it and the State is studying how it may be kept in operation for the benefit of the people of Leelanau County. Many similar situations could be mentioned. Another road in the northwestern part of the lower peninsula was the Manistee East & West (originally the Manistee & Grand Rapids) which operated about 77 miles of line in Manistee, Mason, Lake, and Osceola Counties. Although it was built primarily as a lumber road, settlement was encouraged, numerous farmers located along the line,

DOLLARS 10,000

5,000

1875 1880 1885 1Ö90 1895 1900 1905 1910' 1915 FIG. 14.—Earnings per mile, Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad and several more or less thriving communities grew up. But the timber lasted only a few years, and even the sand, which was hauled in large quantities after timber traffic declined, was said in 1918 to be nearly exhausted. In 1900, of the total of 231,676 tons of freight originating on the line, 227,566 tons were forest products. In 1915, the traffic had fallen to 165,897 tons, mostly sand, for forest products amounted to only 37,295 tons and agricultural products to 10,267 tons. Under these conditions it was impossible to continue operation. The road was put in the hands of receivers, and the owners sought permission to tear up the rails, saying: The timber along the line of the road has been almost entirely cut, and the revenues from this source have grown much smaller and are now of comparatively little consequence. The lands adjacent to the line of the road are agriculturally poor and comparatively unproductive, the quantities of grain, hay, ¡and other agricultural products to be drawn over the railway being insufficient to make the road sustaining. * * * ^Q prospects that the conditions or volume of business will improve. [From files of the State railroad commission.] 38 TECHNICAL BULLETIN" 92, U. S. DEPT. OP AGEICULTURE

Many of the communities and individual settlers along the line protested against its abandonment, showing that they had located there and made considerable investments because of the railroad, and would suffer great losses if it should cease to operate. One farmer, whose haul to a shipping point would be increased from 1 mile to 63^ or 11 miles (depending on the condition of the roads), stated that his property would decline at least one-half in value. The track was finally taken up, leaving several hundred carloads of potatoes, hay,

TONS

iL,500,p00 l\

\ /\ 1 \ \ h \/

A L F R E 1 C\ H ^ r \ ; 1 1,000,000 7 / \, \ / / J / 1 A 1 / /\ j ^ <> \ Y/ "Tl h N _J \ 500,000 1'^ J ::-'/ FC ) R t S T ? R 0 D IJ C 1 ■ 5 \ -y^— \ /^ s / ^1. \ N

to O YEAR G^ O © G%

FIG. 15.—Freight hauled by Detroit & Mackinac Railway, 1895-1920 grain, wood, and other products stranded along the line, and leaving many square miles of country without railroad service. In 1920 the population of the two townships in which is located the village of Luther (one of the principal points served by the road), dropped to about half the 1890 population. The village itself had only 396 inhabitants, as compared with 837 in 1900. In 1922 the Interstate Commerce Commission granted an application of the Pere Marquette to abandon its road between White Cloud ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 39 and Big Rapids, in Mecosta and Newaygo Counties. This line, built in 1873 to carry timber to the sawmills at Muskegon, had a much longer life than many of the lumber roads. In this case, too, there was considerable protest from people whose homes and property were located on the line, but although they claimed that the region was in a state of transition from timber to agriculture and that traffic would increase, it was shown that the population was decreasing, and the abandonment was held to be justified (^). Even in the upper peninsula the same process is going on. In 1921 the Wisconsin Northwestern Railroad, all the timber having been cut along a section of its road just across the State fine in Wisconsin, sought permission to move the rails to another district in Michigan where the timber had not been cut. A considerable number of farmers along the right of way, who anticipated heavy losses if deprived of railroad service, attempted to block the move but were unsuccessful because they could not prom- 1D,ÜOO ise enough traffic to justify continued op- '■°1'* bo<>oo5o¿¿;

eration. 0,195^ 6.5 oo These are only a 8,000 Í Q 7,243i ^ few of the many in- lU stances where de- 2 struction of the for- O ests has resulted in c: '^ O the loss of railroad Û service by settlers, lU many of whom were 3,938 already struggling a. under severe handi- O V) caps. Moreover, the hi process is still going i 2p00 on and seems likely \638 to continue until ^ many more miles of ^79 road are torn up. 1860 1870 1880 1890 19O0 1910 1920 1924 From 1909 to 1924 FIG. 16.—Railroad mileage in Michigan, 1860-1924. (From united Michigan's railroad States Statistical Abstracts) mileage decreased by 559 nules, or more thanin any other State. (Fig. 16.) This decrease was practically all in the northern part of the State, where farmers must depend largely upon railroads to carry their products to market. With a large part of the land not producing, the possibility of more adequate railroad facilities in the cut-over regions appears to be exceedingly remote. There is now 1 mile of line to approximately 6,000 acres of surface in the upper peninsula, a mile to 5,900 acres in northern lower Michigan, and a mile to 3,000 acres in southern Michigan. If the land could be completely utilized for agriculture, about 950 of every 1,000 acres would be improved land (50 acres being deducted for roads, streams, farmsteads, and villages, but no allowance being made for swamps, unimproved pasture, or wood lots). In an average year, crops are harvested from about 70 per cent of the improved land. As the local population would require at least 10 per cent of the total production, the crops from only about 600 acres in each 1,000 would be left to furnish freight for the rail- 40 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

roads. Statistics (8) show that the average yield per acre of the kinds of crops raised in the region is about 1 ton in the central and northern parts of lower Michigan. The maximum possible quantity of freight, if the whole region could be completely utilized for agriculture and were all as fertile as the more or less selected land now utihzed, would be only about 3,600 tons for each mile of existing road. For fairly typical Michigan railroads (not including those carrying large quantities of ores) the revenue freight originating on the lines averaged from 3,000 to 3,500 tons in 1915, and a road carrying only 2,300 tons lost $360 a mile. It is fairly evident that northern Michigan, depending on agriculture alone, could hardly produce enough freight traffic to sustain existing railroads even if 100,per cent of its surface could be settled and improved. Moreover, the existing mileage would be altogether inadequate if the whole territory were settled. In the southern part of the State more than 90 per cent of the land is less than 5 miles from a railroad. In the northern part of the lower peninsula, on the other hand, approximately 6,200 square miles, or 37 per cent of the whole area, and in the upper peninsula about 6,500 square miles, or 39 per cent of the area, is more than 5 miles (in an air line) from a railroad. In the cut-over regions at least 2,000 square miles which is now more than 5 miles away was within that distance at some time during the past 15 or 20 years. Only one-fifth of the land in northern lower Michigan is now devoted to agriculture, and only one-twentieth in the upper peninsula. There is no prospect that anywhere near all of it will ever be farmed. While the principal upper-peninsula railroads can rely on a considerable volume of through traffi.c, and the mining industry also insures them a large amount of business, those in the northern portion of lower Michigan have neither of those sources of revenue. If that region is to have permanent, reasonably adequate railroad facilities, it must afford the railroads a much larger volume of revenue-producing freight than can be supplied by the land that is likely to be devoted to agriculture. This can be done most readily by growing timber on the idle lands and establishing within the region permanent industries to manufacture the products of the forest.

HIGH ROAD TAXES AND POOR HIGHWAY FACILITIES With the abandonment and dismantling of the railroads, a good highway system becomes even more essential for the settlers, who must depend on wagons and motor trucks to bring in their supplies and ship out their produce. Mere scratches winding among the stumps across the sand plains will not suffice either for motor shipment of farm products or to attract the tourists who have been the salvation of many communities left stranded by the passing of the forest industries. Yet that is the character of many miles of road in north- em Michigan. Even so, the total mileage is far under that of the southern part of the State. In none of the 31 northern counties of lower Michigan are there 2 miles, and 8 have less than 1 mile of public road to the square mile of surface; of the 37 southern counties, 24 have more than 2 miles, and 11 others have nearly 2 miles to the section. (Fig. 17.) In the upper peninsula as a whole there was in 1921 but 1 mile of road to every 2 square miles of land, while in southern ECONOMIC ASPECTO Of FOREST^ DESTRUCTION 41 Michigan there were 4 miles for the same area. To provide northern lower Michigan with a network of roads equivalent in density to those of southern Michigan, it would be necessary to build more than 12,000 miles of new road; the upper peninsula would require almost 25,000 miles. That would entail a burden on the northern counties greater than they could carry. Even now property values are so low in propor-

LESS THAN I MILE

to TO 1,5 MILES

tS TO 2.0MILES

OVERa.O MILES

^ÍÍO^I;^!ÍÍI®^-?^K"'*^Í roads in Michigan to each square mile of area, 1921. For Wayne County, rnnSÄ nrnifhf"^ ,?^^^^ area outside of Detroit. The mileage in Calhoun and Macomb UnitedITÄ StatesI. ^.P'^T^^^^^. Department underestimated. of Agriculture) (Based on data compiled^ byj' Bureau of Public^ ^^^^^^ Roads,xvuaua, tion to the necessary expenditures for road construction and maintenance that the settlers have to pay road taxes averaging $8.02 for each $1,000 worth of property, whereas the rate in southern Michigan (not including Wayne County, where the rate for rural roads is especially low) averages only $4.64. The rate exceeds $10 in 11 northern counties and is over $15 in 2 of them, whereas only 2 southern counties pay over $10. (Figs. 18 and 19.) The burden would be considerably 42 TECHNlCAli BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE greater but for the fact that the State contributes largely to highway construction and maintenance. In 1919 the State highway department paid to the counties, under the State reward law, amounts equivalent to an average of $1.83 per 41,000 of assessed property values in northern lower Michigan, $1.15 in the upper peninsula, and only $0.96 in southern Michigan. In

LESS THAN 1^20,000

^Z0,000 T0*50,000

^ »50,000 TO #100,000

OVER #100,000 -00 OMITTED ON MAP FIG. 18.—Assessed valuation for each mile of rural roads in Michigan in 1921, by counties addition, the State pays 75 to 95 per cent of the construction cost, and 50 to 90 per cent of the maintenance cost of the trunk-line highways, which are allocated among the counties approximately on the basis of land area. Counties with lowest relative valuation pay the least (5 per cent), and the more wealthy counties the most (25 per cent). The percentage of trunk-highway construction cost paid by the counties in different parts of the State is as follows: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOEEST DESTRUCTION 43

Northern Percent- Upper lower Southern age paid ^ peninsula Michigan Michigan counties counties counties 1 Number Number Number 5.0 7.5 1 10.0 1 2 12.5 4 7 15.0 3 2 17.5 2 7 20.0 1 7 22.5 2 1 2 25.0 2 35

Including money raised by bond issues and that received from other sources, the total expenditures in 1921 for road construction

<5^

FIG. 19.—Average rates of taxation for roads and highways in Michigan, 1921, by counties, per $1,000 valuation. (Based on records of State tax commissioners.) and maintenance averaged $14.33 for each $1,000 of assessed valuation in southern Michigan (not including Wayne County), $16.88 in the upper peninsula, and $22.85 in northern lower Michigan. In 11 northern counties it exceeded $30. (Fig. 20.) 44 TECHNICAL BTTLLETIN 92, Ü. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Permanent managed forests will require a net-work of good roads for purposes of administration and in order to exploit the timber methodically and eíñciently. With the establishment of such forests in the region, the cost of building and maintaining the roads would be met largely out of forest income, so that settlers would have more good roads at less cost than now.

PER 4tlpOO /ASSESSED VALUE LESS THAN #10

^10 TO #ao

^ 8^20 TO #30

OVER #30 FIG. 20.—Expenditures for road construction and maintenance (exclusive of city streets) in Michigan, 1921, per $1,000 of assessed value

AN INCREASING BURDEN OF TAXATION Road taxes are not the only form of taxation that bears more heavily on the settlers in the north. Because a very large proportion of the land is producing no revenue to help in defraying the cost of local government and other public functions, including schools and roads, the burden on the small proportion that is productive is unduly severe, in spite of very considerable contributions from the more prosperous sections of the State. The serious situation with regard to taxation of farm lands is well brought out by the following quotation (12) from the president of the Federal Land Bank at St. Paul: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 45

The matter of taxes on farm lands has now become one of the most important factors to be considered in connection with land ownership, land operation, etc. Taxes on farm lands used to be nominal or of minor importance in considering the overhead charges of land operation. Today taxes are of major importance. * * * Farmers are losing their margin of profit on account of high taxes, others are losing their homes, and still others are discouraged from taking up the vocation of farming because of high overhead. * * * Qf all things that have appeared on the horizon in the last three or four years that seem to be depressing and suppressing and discouraging, nothing * * * is so fearful as this specter of ever-increasing taxation on the farm homes. The present movement of taxes [Professor Ely {12) states] means that values created by hard, long, continued toil, such as we can see in the new country in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, will be absorbed by taxation. One of the most serious results of the destruction of Michigan's forests has been the effect on pubKc revenues and the extra burden that has been laid on the remaining property. In the words of the State tax commissionei-s {27-c) : Never in the history of the State has the subject of taxation been more important than at present. As times have changed, demands for service at public expense have increased until the burden on the taxpayer has assumed alarming proportions. Never has it been more difficult for the property owner to meet the demands made upon him, and especially is this true of the owner of the modest home and the farm. Twenty years ago the average rate of taxation, on all property subject to taxation under the laws of the State, was $16.55 on each $1,000 of assessed valuation, and at that time property generallv was not assessed at more than 50 per cent of its true cash value. In 1921 the average rate throughout the State was $28.88 on each $1,000. Assessments are made at practically the actual value of the property, and values are at least double what they were in 1902. This statement applies to the State as a whole; for the cut-over region the burden is even more oppressive, because so large a proportion of its resources has been destroyed.

IN THE CUT-OVER REGION In Michigan, as in numerous other forest States, the effect of forest destruction upon public revenues has not been fully realized. This is chiefly because the value of the forests was not appreciated while they were standing and because the forests, being assessed at relatively much lower values than most other forms of property, did not contribute their fair share of the costs of government. According to the State tax statistician (36): In the lumber regions of the State * * * there are instances almost without number where large amounts of property were not assessed. In fact, the history of all the lumbering counties of this State is a continual story of fraud and evasion of taxation. In 1902 the tax commission reported (27-a) : The lumber industry of the State is small and the quantity and value of lumber and timber now subject to assessment is meager compared with conditions existing only a few years ago; * * * it is well known that in the years gone by pine timberlands of our State and the pine lumber industry did not bear their share of taxes. One of the largest owners in the pine region paid taxes in 1887 amounting to less than $12,000 on 130,000 acres of virgin pine and hardwoods, with a total stand estimated then at 1,400 million feet, and no doubt actually much greater. This was less than 10 cents an acre, or less than 1 cent a thousand board feet. Because of the underassessment the rates of taxation in proportion to assessed value were much higher in the timber region than in the 46 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE agricultural and industrial sections. Moreover, the owners of pine *^ timber, being among the principal taxpayers, were not always inclined to look with favor upon attempts to stimulate settlement or to construct permanent roads, schools, and other public buildings. The expenditures had to be made sooner or later, however. As time passed and a large portion of the timber values melted away before the ax and fire, and as the forest industries declined in importance, the property that remained was placed under a much heavier burden of tax than was required in the southern part of the State. (Fig. 21.) Only when exhaustion of the resource was threatened were the remaining forests made to carry their share of the burden. Now bare stump land of the poorest quality is assessed at higher rates per acre than the best pine forests a few decades ago. This tendency, together with the comparatively recent policy of assessing all property at approximately its actual value, and with the general rise in the level of all values expressed in money, has obscured the real reduction in property values that resulted in many counties when the forests were cut. Their removal did not reduce the assessment rolls by an amount commensurate with the actual decrease in wealth and ability to pay. The assessed valua- UPPER PENINSUU tions have even in- NORTHERN LOWER creased in the most SOUTHERN MKHIGAM 'h WAYNE COUNTY severely denuded counties. The valuations in several counties were reduced as the pine was cut, but they were later increased when the assessors began to FIG. 21.—Average rates of taxation in Michigan, 1892-1921, by take notice of the regions, (Based on reports of State tax commissioners) hardwoods and again when values were put on a 100 per cent basis. Between 1890 and 1902 the assessed values of 12 counties decreased more than $7,100,000, or 24 per cent of their total valuation in 1890. Eleven of them were pine counties. The valuation of the State as a whole increased 58 per cent in the same period. From 1901 to 1910 the valuation of the State increased 30 per cent, while that of 2 pine counties in the lower peninsula and 1 in the upper peninsula decreased; in 11 others in the region where lumbering had been most active it increased less than 10 per cent. From 1901 to 1922, the valuation for the whole State increased 322 per cent (or 204 per cent if Wayne County be omitted). Yet during this time the increase in 5 northwestern counties in the lower peninsula was only 76 per cent. Only 6 other counties failed at least to double in value during the 21 years. In 1922 the average ''true value'' per capita, as determined by the State board of equalization, was $1,765 for the State, ranging from $540 in Missaukee County to $3,259 in Keweenaw County. It was less than $1,200 in 30 of the 31 northern counties of the lower peninsula but exceeded $1,200 in 35 of the 37 southern counties and in 10 of the 15 upper peninsula counties. Figure 22 and Table 10 show clearly that the cut-over counties are much poorer, even in proportion to their scanty population, than the other parts of the State. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 47

TABLE 10.—Average true property valuation per capitaj by groups of counties, 1922

Average Group Counties valuation

Upper peninsula: Number Dollars Eastern 7 1 107 Western 8 1,637 Lower peninsula: Northeastern. __ 11 896 Northwestern __ __ 10 809 Central 16 1,226 Thumb 6 1 517 Southern _ _ . 26 ¿002 At the same time, owing to the sparsity of population, the per capita costs of local government are considerably higher in the north. County and township taxes in 1910 (not including those levied for city and village purposes) averaged $1.86 per capita in the 36 southern counties

COUNTY DOLLARS ipoo ^00 3p00 'KEVVEEMAW 3259 GoecBic 2431 ¿050 nU)[L', MARQUETTE 1643 2U> ONTONAGON I44Ô HOUGHTON 1206 ¿$ DICKfNSON 1173 IBARAGA 1)50 £LZ jLUCE I5fi2 ALGER 1327 C.Û CHIPPEWA 1266 SCHOOLCRAFT l?57 MACKINAC 1140 MENOMINEC 1029 3*^ I DELTA ei9 /V1IS5AUKEE 540 LAKE, 56i ANTRIM 717 < LEELANAU 729 _4 BENZlf 732 PRESOtie iS\.t 73 4 ARENAC 70Í Z GRANOTRAVERSE 003 CHEBOySAN 607 2 MONTMORENCY 610 lU CHARLEVOIX 832 a MANISTEE 6JS KALKASKA 840 a OSCEOLA 65a (ij OGEMAW 661 ALCONA 668 o WEXFORO 884 .j ALPENA S02 eo6 CLARE 922 z CftAwrORD 936 û: OCEANA 939 MASON 952 A EMMET 963 V- 1000 OTSEQO lOOS Ü lOSCO 1093 7. NEWAYGO IMO ROSCOMMON 1117 MIDLAND 1 125 [OSCOOA 1455 fBAY tisa MONTCALM 1179 VAN BUREN I303 MUSKESON t32l ISABELLA 1320 OTTAWA 1354 ALLCGAN 1377 TUSCOLA t37ô IONIA 1413 LAPEER 1436 SASINAW 1441 < HURON 1451, I!) SHIAWASSEE I40d BARRY 1513- I BERRIEN Ü 15 79 SAN 1 LAC 15 86 ¿ CAS 5 15S6 < STJOSEPM 1629 7. 3T. CLAIR 1633 (T GRATIOT 1666 GENESEE 1668 I BRANCH 1699 HILLS DALE 1706 D _IVING3T0N (734 EATON 1745 CLINTON 1752 :ALHOUN 1753

(not including Wayne), and $2.71 in the 31 northern counties of the lower peninsula. In 1919 the amounts were $3.92 and $5.21, respectively. In the upper peninsula the rates were $3.82 in 1910 and $6.72 in 1919, and in Wayne County they were only $0.90 and $2.24. The

DOLLARS PER CAPITA •DOLLARS 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 15 16 \7 18 /'ALGER 5z LUCC MACK I MAC It MCNOMINCC CHIPPEWA — u SCHOOLCRAFT vOELTA Sä ^'BARAGA Û.Z ONTOhiAGON IRON KEVVEENAW GOGEBIC DICKINSON MARQUETTE V HOUGHTON P'OSCODA ROSCOMMON MONTMORENCY CRAWFORD MISSAUKEE GLADWIN LAKE BENZIE CLARE KALKASKA lOSCO CHARLEVOIX CHEBOYGAN OGEMAW AL.CONA VLEELANAU /^OTSEGO OSCEOLA MAN ISTEE ANTRIM MIDLAND N EWAYGO ALPENA WEXFORO EMMET OCEANA ARENAC PRESQUE ISLE M ECOSTA GRAND TRAVERSE V.MASON fMACOMS OAKLAND SAN Í LAC VAN BURCN CLINTON ISABELLA GRATIOT INGHAM _^ MONTCALM JACKSON ST.J03EPH SHIAWASSEE KALAMAZÔO WASHTENAW CASS MONROE ^ LENAWCt BARRY GENESEE TUSCOLA ÖTTAVVA ALLEGAN BAY CALHOUH LA PEER IONIA LIVINGSTON KENT MILLSDALE.. BRANCH MUSKE60N EATON STCLAIR 5AGINAW BE.RRIEN HURON WAYNE.

FIG. 23.—Taxes levied to support local governments in Michigan counties, 1910 and 1919. Do not include city and village taxes or taxes for schools, roads, and drainage taxes were particularly high in severp^l of the more completely denuded and thinly settled counties. For instance, Alger County was assessed in 1919 at an average rate of $18.29 per capita for local governmental costs, the rate for Luce was $14.08, lor Oscoda $13.59, for Roscommon $12.74, for Montmorency $10.45, for Mackinac $10.18, and for Craw- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 49 ford $9.66. The rate was over $5 per capita for 33 of the northern counties and for only 4 of the 37 southern counties. (Fig. 23.) In many individual townships dwindling property values and population have caused the costs of local government to rise so high that they could no longer be met. As a result, 30 townships in the cut-over region gave up their separate identity and merged with others between 1890 and 1920 in order to save the overhead costs of government.

TABLE 11.—Rates of taxation, changes in population, percentage of land improved, and average assessed value per acre in agricultural and cut-over counties in stated years contrasted ^ AGRICULTURAL COUNTIES

Change in pop- Aver- Tax rates per $1,000 of assessed value ulation, age 1900-1920 Per- assessed cent- value of age of County land im- real estate proved, per 1892 1901 1910 1919 1921 In- De- 1920 crease crease acre, 1919

Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Per cent Per cent Per cent Dollars Allegan.. __ 12.92 13.98 16.51 21.25 25.95 3 61 69.26 Barry.. 14.77 15.55 16.04 22.84 29.52 5 69 57.41 Branch _ 11.16 12.78 15.60 21.44 25.72 14 72 77.60 Cass 8.66 14."05 17.73 22.26 30.49 2 70 65.76 Clinton 10.80 12.76 13.38 22.82 28.72 8 75 79.26 Eaton ._ _ 16.47 13.54 16.09 24.52 29.95 7 72 81.50 Gratiot. - 13.21 19.21 20.10 17.96 22.37 Is 68 119.09 Hillsdale 8.61 13.08 14.95 21.67 27.04 6" 74 79.68 Huron.. 15.57 15.77 16.32 24.25 25.85 4 70 59.51 Ionia 13.42 14.81 17.93 24.44 30.10 4 72 80.93 Lapeer 11.67 13.86 15.08 20.24 23.73 7 68 66.21 Livingston 8.16 11.03 13.77 26.72 35.94 11 64 50.95 Macomb 8.55 10.91 13.02 20.43 29.66 73 154.63 Monroe 9.63 11.66 12.78 21.31 28.18 13 74 109.72 Sanilac 23.50 19.04 19.66 21.57 25.31 ii" 73 53.02 St. Joseph 11.53 15.01 16.33 22.24 25.00 Í2" 73 83.95 Tuscola 19.04 15.75 20.42 27.60 32.44 7~ 63 52.46 Van Buren __ 13.33 20.13 21.59 28.18 35.86 8 67 70.48

Weighted average 12.23 14.28 16.25 22.50 28.02 2.3 70 75.49

CUT-OVER COUNTIES

Alcona ... _ _ 57.81 3L69 44.15 24.48 30.44 4 11 9.86 Antrim 22.01 24.76 33.93 3L32 38.43 3Ö" 28 24.26 Benzie , 23.70 27.28 38.22 35.72 4L 53 28 24 22.64 Charle voix ._ 25.87 29.52 36.48 43.69 5L08 13 25 35 47 Cheboygan 30.64 36.37 32.33 39.12 45.98 iô" 12 14.96 Clare. ._. _ 34.11 42.31 30.32 3L29 37.57 1 18 17.69 Crawford 27.53 24. 25 24.63 29.28 3L89 38" 3 9 27 Delta __ 32.78 24.04 3L46 37.21 47.08 29 7 20.81 Dickinson.. 22.61 24.00 34.86 43.32 50.08 9 3 21.88 Gladwin 31.92 32.49 36.54 29.91 3L28 34 22 24.45 losco _ 33.44 43.83 38.74 35.98 33.94 2Ö" 14 14.39 Kalkaska 22.54 26.15 28.56 32.34 4L 06 22 14 11.79 Lake 30.03 34.97 39.66 44.16 52.52 10 10 6.84 Leelanau 21.62 2L99 19. 37 26.45 33.72 14 42 27.15 Mackinac.^ _ 69.51 4L 23 34.67 34.44 36.97 ' 4" 3 IL 23 Menominee 29.64 27.01 28.56 33.06 42.13 12" 13 21.92 Missaukee 23.11 35.68 40.82 42.38 49.63 3 21 IL 05 Montmorency 51.07 35.11 37.96 28.07 30.99 26" 6 8.37 Ogemaw 29.57 32.49 32.65 25.89 38.90 0 18 15.96 Osceola 19.41 27.95 35.19 26.57 3L64 iö' 40 30.76 Oscoda 47.30 47.11 2L04 34.88 39.11 2Í" 4 4.60 Otsego __ 25.86 23.23 29.92 33.40 27.85 ö" 10 11.34 Presque Isle _._ 25.80 22.36 32.41 34.05 35.78 38" 12 13.48 Roscommon 4L 07 63.26 29.15 33.75 38.19 14 3 6.44 Schoolcraft 2L04 38.34 48.42 34.70 35.95 27 2 IL 64

Weighted average 28.24 29.03 32.78 34.32 40.03 0.07 13 15.84

1 Compiled from reports of board of State tax commissioners and of United States census. 3596°—29 4 50 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

It is self-evident that the greater the accumulation of wealth and the greater the earning power represented by property values within the State as a whole and within its individual political subdivisions (counties, townships, and school districts), the lighter will be the l3urden of taxation required to meet given expenses. Conversely, it is equally evident that the less the wealth and earning power, the greater the proportion of total income that must be contributed for pubhc purposes. During the period 1892-1901 the reduction

FIG. 24.—Average tax rates in Michigan counties, 1921, per $1,000 valuation. (Based on records of State tax commissioners) in assessed valuation following cutting of the pine led to an increase in the tax rate averaging 27 per cent for 10 northern counties, although for the State as a whole the increase was only 9 per cent. In spite of the much higher valuations of recent years, the rates of taxation have continued to mount in all parts of the State. In the cut-over districts, however, the rates have maintained a level considerably above that for southern Michigan, even when the rapidly growing industrial centers are excluded. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOKEST .DESTRUCTION 51 Table 11 compares the rates of taxation for a group of southern agricultural counties which have no large cities or extensive manufacturing industries with the rates for a group of northern counties which are now mostly cut over and also have neither large cities nor industries. In 1921 the average tax rates were between $35 and $40 a thousand in 8 and over $40 in 6 of the 31 counties in northern lower Michigan. Of the 15 upper peninsula counties 4 had rates of between $35 and $40 and 7 of over $40. In southern Michigan, on the other hand, only 3 of the 37 counties were taxed* at more than $35 a thousand. (Fig. 24.) Nor do the average rates for entire counties tell the whole story of the tax burden on settlers in many parts of the cut-over region. The amount of taxes paid varies for individual townships and even for school districts within the township, so that where the average for a whole county is $50 or over, some portions of the county probably pay as high as $60 to $70 or even more—equivalent to 6 or 7 per cent of their capital. In Antrim County, for example, although the average tax rate for the coimty increased from $23.73 in 1905 to no more than $35.85 in 1920, the rates in four townships were over $45 in the latter year. Table 12 shows that the highest rates, as well as the greatest increases, were in towns whose timber was cut by 1920 and whose forest industries had largely gone and their population decreased to a serious extent. Most of the hardwood timber in those towns was cut during the period 1891-1920. The towns which still had considerable timber or important forest industries enjoyed much lower rates.. The total population of the county decreased more than 5,000, or 30 per cent, in the 20 years 1901-1920.

TABLE 12.—Changes in tax rates, 1905 and 1920, and decrease in population between 1900 and 1920, in several towns of Antrim County ^

TOWNS IN WHICH FOREST RESOURCES HAD BEEN DEPLETED BY 1920

Rate per $1,000 assessed value Town Population decrease 1905 1920 Increase

Dollars Dollars Per cent Number Per cent Echo 38.80 47.58 23 2 77 2 ]3 Kearney 27.69 45.90 66 393 34 Helena 31.34 45.45 45 557 60 Central Lake 27.97 45.14 61 739 38 Warner.- _ _ 28.44 41.76 47 334 48 Forest Home 25.39 37.30 47 449 38 Elk Rapids.. 24.77 33.49 35 1,262 62

TOWNS IN WHICH FOREST RESOURCES REMAINED IN 1920

Custer.. .__ _ 27.98 34.62 24 193 37 Cbestonia 25.66 31.85 24 2 36 2 7 Mancelona.. 23.35 29.37 26 298 11 Jordan _ 26.91 27.83 3 24 5

1 Compiled from county records; population from United States census. 2 Increase. In Delta County the average rate increased from $24.91 in 1904 to $43.62 in 1920, or, if the cities of Escanaba and Gladstone are omitted, from $19.09 to $36.65. The rate in one township was nearly 6 per 52 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE cent, and again the cut-over forest townships with decreasing or practically stationary population were at a disadvantage as compared with those which still had forest industries and increasing numbers of inhabitants. (Table 13.)

TABLE 13.—Changes in tax rates, 1904 o,nd 1920, and changes in population between 1900 and 1920, in several towns of Delta County ^ TOWNS IN WHICH FOREST RESOURCES HAD BEEN DEPLETED BY 1920

Rate per $1,000 assessed value Population increase Town or decrease 1904 1920 Increase

Dollars Dollars Per cent Number Per cent Ford River 23.02 56.50 145 -598 43 Cornell ^ Brampton ___ Baldwin.- • 23.53 46.76 99 +491 13 Masonville Escanaba.-

TOWNS IN WHICH FOREST RESOURCES REMAINED IN 1920

Bark River.. 27.99 39. 63 +436 41 Wells 15.94 21.77 +903 109

1 Compiled from county records; population from United States census. 2 These towns are combined because divisions and changes in boundaries since 1900 make it impossible to compare them individually. Masonville lost 421 inhabitants between 1910 and 1920, and the other 4 towns together gained 313. Annual payment of taxes amounting to 5 to 7 per cent of the total value of the property would be burdensome enough in a long-settled region with large accumulations of reserve capital. For settlers struggling to make farm homes out of stump land, with little or no cash capital or surplus product, and with occasional crop failures, it is altogether discouraging. Excessive taxes, added to other handicaps, have undoubtedly kept many people from attempting to settle in northern Michigan, and have also caused many who did attempt it to give up and leave the region. In one county alone 294 farms, covering more than 15,000 acres and assessed at over $260,000, were abandoned between April, 1916, and August, 1919. During the same period nearly 6,200 acres of merchantable timber was cut, and its value was wiped off the rolls (35). As farms are abandoned and the population moves away, the tax burdens on those remaining tend to increase. In some instances taxes on pine-plains farms more than tripled in eight years. Under present condition, settlers who dare to paint their buildings and make their homes look attractive or prosperous are penalized by having their taxes raised. The only way to keep taxes down is to continue to live in tar-paper shacks or log cabins, with unpainted barns and decrepit fences. This is all that may be expected in many of the poor-land sections until the owners or their children give up in disgust and leave for the more comfortable and attractive surroundings of the big towns. The farmers of northern Michigan are not alone in suffering under excessive tax burdens. The towns and cities have been affected as well, particularly those which during their most prosperous days assumed obligations or constructed improvements which they find ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 53 hard to keep up as population shrinks and property values decline. Comparison of the rates of taxation in some of these cities and in representative cities of southern Michigan shows the resulting increased burden on the people who remain. (Table 14.)

TABLE 14.—Average rates of taxation, 1915-1919, and population changes per cent, 1910-1920, in representative cities of northern and southern Michigan

Northern cities Southern cities

Average Popula- Average Popula- City tax rate, decrease, City tax rate, increase, 1915-1919 1910-1920 1915-1919 1910-1920

Dollars Per cent Dollars Per cent Al pena 26.59 13 Adrian. _ 19.54 10 Au Sable 44.04 74 Albion 24.10 43 Boyne City 38.28 18 Alma - 27.57 174 Cheboygan 40.74 18 Ann Arbor 22.16 32 East Jordan 39.16 3 Battle Creek 20.54 43 East Ta was . 54.34 4 Benton Harbor 23.70 33 Escanaba 35.36 1 Charlotte 25.52 5 Harrison _ _ 39.86 27 Coldwater. __ _ 23.58 3 Ludington 30.10 4 Detroit 1 . ___ - 22.92 113 Manistee 31.54 22 Flint 24.55 138 McBain 38.30 0 Grand Rapids 18. 73 22 Menominee 32.29 15 Hillsdale 22.67 9 Omer __ _ 41.12 28 Holland 19. 62 16 Standish 34.53 4 Ionia 25.92 38 St. Ignace ______42.03 13 Jackson 22.92 54 Tawas City 38.04 4 Kalamazoo. _ 20. 53 23 Traverse City 27.00 10 Lansing 27.16 84 West Branch 44.66 13 Monroe 21.94 68 Mount Clemens __ 19.02 23 Muskegon 25.78 52 Owosso 24.29 30 Pontiac 27.55 136 Port Huron 23.53 38 Saginaw 25.90 23 St. Joseph 22.01 22 Sturgis 21.94 65 Ypsilanti __ _ 26.73 19

Average 37.67 15 Average-__ 23.35 49

1 For Detroit the average is for 1915 and 1917-1919.

IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE Although the impoverishment of northern Michigan bears most severely on the settlers within the region, it has also added appreci- ably to the burden of other parts of the State. During the last 25 years the cut-over counties have contributed a steadily diminishing share of the costs of the State government, and the southern counties have had to pay correspondingly more. The 31 counties of northern lower Michigan, together with the 8 eastern counties of the upper peninsula embrace 44,7 per cent of the land area of the State. In 1901 they had 19.9 per cent of the population and paid 11.9 per cent of the tax; in 1919 with 13.2 ner cent of the people, they paid only 8.6 per cent of the tax. In 1922 they paid only 7.8 per cent. In 1919, 20 cut-over counties in which pine originally predominated paid a State tax of $617,000, equivalent to $3.34 on each $1,000 of property. In the same year they received $1,050,000 from the State for schools, highways, and support of the insane, or $1.70 for every dollar they paid. Twenty-eight counties in the four southern tiers paid $13,164,000 State tax, at the average rate of $3.91 per $1,000, and got in return only $7,093,000, or $0.54 on the dollar. For the above purposes, 48 counties drew more from the State treasury than 54 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGKICULTURE the amounts of State tax assessed against them. Excepting 5 mining counties of the upper peninsula, these included all of the counties north of the south end of Saginaw Bay, and only 4 of the 34 counties to the south. In effect, not only did 48 counties contribute nothing toward the cost of the State government, but they were even sub- sidized to the extent of more than $1,100,000 by the taxpayers in the other 35 counties. What would happen if each county were itself to raise by taxation the sums now received from the State for schools, insane, and highways (not including those built by the State itself) and were to pay only its pro rata share of the reduced State tax that would be necessary after relieving the State of those contributions? If 1919 is taken as a basis, every county in the upper peninsula except 2 mining counties, every county of northern lower Michigan, every one of the 5 thumb counties, and 18 of the remaining 32 would have to pay higher taxes, the increases ranging from $0.20 to $9.80 per $1,000 of assessed value. The average increase for northern lower Michigan would be $3.50, for the eastern part of the upper peninsula $3.05, for the thumb $1.40, for the western part of the upper peninsula $0.50, and for southern Michigan, except Wayne County and the thumb counties, $0.17. Wayne County would reduce its tax rate by $1.25 per $1,000, saving its taxpayers more than $2,000,000 a year, and the other 15 counties could save from $0.05 to $1.15 a thousand, or about $500,000 all together. LOSS OF TAXABLE WEALTH Millions of acres of cut-over land in northern Michigan have been lying idle for 30 to 50 years, covered with scrub oak, scattered jack pine, and sweet fem.^^ Since 1880 the loss in forest growth on this" idle land has been equivalent to one year's growth on at least 300,000,- 000 acres. Even if an average annual increment as low as 200 board feet to the acre and $10 a thousand feet for stumpage is assumed, this means a total loss of $600,000,000 in stumpage value alone, or approximately one and one-half times as much as the combined values of all the timber now standing and all the farms in the northern part of the State. Instead of thus adding to the wealth of the State and contribut- ing its share toward the support of State and local governments, this land has produced nothing of value even to offset the taxes assessed against it. Where the taxes have been paid, the payment has been made with money obtained from other sources. Although payment of taxes on millions of acres has been evaded by allowing the land to revert to the State, the simis lost thereby have had to be made up by increasing the taxes of those owners who did pay. In either case the productive land and industries have had to carry a much heavier burden than if all the land had contributed in proportion to its capacity. The average annual tax has seldom been less than 7 to 10 cents an acre for bare land, and has usually been much more. Even if interest is left out of the calculation, taxes for the support of local and State governments, amounting to at least 20 million dollars, have been charged against the idle and partly idle lands since they were cut over. If interest is included, the amounts by which these slacker acres are

13 By 1891 there was estimated to be 1,800,000 acres of waste pine-plains land in the lower peninsula alone ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 55 indebted to the rest of the State will mount into sums more than sufficient to reforest the whole 10 million acres. Moreover, as far as can be seen now, the productive portions of the State will have to continue their contribution for many years to come. Merely to own cut-over land involves a burden, and if continued for a long period a heavy burden unless the land is utilized so as to yield a revenue. Even if the cost of the land itself has been written off against the returns from the timber, and if all other expenses are eliminated, the owner must continue to pay taxes. Assiuning that the land is assessed at $100 a forty, which is about the average for the poorest lands, and that the tax rate is $30 a thousand, which is slightly below the average in the jack pine counties during the last 30 years, the annual tax per acre would be only 73^ cents. If paid for 20 years, however, and if compound interest is computed at 4 per cent, taxes alone will amount to $2.23; if paid for 40 years, to $7.13; and if paid for 80 years, to $41.34. If the taxes are compounded at 6 per cent, they will amount to $2.76, $11.61, and $131, respectively. Whether this burden is carried by private owners or shifted to the public through tax default, it still exists and must be met sooner or later out of income from other lands and from industries which obtain their raw materials from other lands. In fact, although the individual may gain by relinquishing his land, the cost to the taxpayer as a whole is actually greater than the amount of upaid taxes. The tax still has to be raised from some source, and in addition there is the expense of advertising and conducting tax sales. During the 10 years ending with 1905, the State spent $1,591,252 for advertising cut-over tax lands. At the tax sale held in 1923 for delinquent 1920 taxes, the State had to bid in lands representing $673,500 of accrued unpaid taxes, or more than one-fourth of the total amount advertised (26-a), It is not practicable to ascertain the present total valuation of forest land in the State. From various data that are available, however, it may be estimated that the 1,475,000 acres of denuded land and the 1,827,540 acres of poorly stocked cut-over land in the upper peninsula are assessed at not over, and probably at somewhat under $18,000,000. The 2,520,000 acres of denuded and the 3,048,980 acres of poorly stocked land in the northern lower peninsula are probably valued at less than $30,000,000. These figures are exclusive of the land classed as nontimbered swamp and waste, and of the unimproved nonforest land on farms. If these cut-over lands can be satisfactorily restocked with valuable kinds of trees and managed as a permanently productive resource, they will be worth at least $150,- 000,000 in the upper peninsula and $250,000,000 in the lower peninsula, even on the basis of present assessments of merchantable timber. This would add 30 per cent to the assessed valuation of the upper peninsula and more than 70 per cent to that of the northern lower peninsula, even if no allowance is made for the large increases due to the existence of manufacturing plants, greater population and trade, and other values which would be attracted by a permanent forest industry. fflGHER RATES OF INTEREST In a newly developing region where values are not stable nor success assured, where settlers are handicapped by lack of local markets, inadequate transportation facilities, and heavy taxes, and 56 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, Ü. S. DEPT. OF AGRICLTUURE where the risks, consequently, are great, it would be expected that * interest rates on the money farmers have to borrow would be higher than in old established farming communities. The census report on farm mortgages shows that this was the case in Michigan in 1920. In the southern counties rates were from 5.4 to 6.1 per cent averaging about 5.8 per cent; in the thumb, 6 to 6.3 per cent; in the central group, 5.8 to 6.7 per cent; in the northern counties of the lower peninsula 6.1 to 6.6 per cent, averaging 6.4 ; and in the upper peninsula, 5.6 to 6.6 per cent, averaging 6.1. (Fig. 25.)

<3^

6.0 PER CENT AND LESS

6.1 TO 6.5 PER CENT

OVER 6.5 PER CENT

FIG. 25.-~Average rates of interest on farm mortgages in Michigan counties, 1920. (Based on United States census) Moreover, many of the cut-over counties had a very high percentage of mortgaged farms, particularly in those portions of the region where there is small opportunity for income from supplementary work in logging camps. More than 60 per cent of the farms in five of those counties were mortgaged, with a maximum of 73 per cent in Gladwin County. For short-time loans, the cut-over counties are at an even greater disadvantage. In 1916 it was reported (45) that the average cost of ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 57 such loans, including commissions and bonus, reached as high as 14.1 per cent in 11 northeastern counties of lower Michigan, 11.2 per cent in a group of 8 central counties, 10.8 per cent in a group of 6 in the thumb and around Saginaw Bay, 10.7 per cent for 5 cut-over counties on the west side, 9.8 per cent for 10 northwestern counties, 8.7 per cent for the upper peninsula, and down to 7.3 and 7.4 per cent for the southern three tiers of counties. The average for the State was 9.2 per cent, whereas for Ohio it was 7.2 per cent, for Pennsyl- vania, 6.9 per cent, and for Massachusetts 6.5 per cent.

€^

czi o -«5Ô PCRCAPfTA El 4í5ri-100

Y7A «tOI-150 WÄ «151-200

^^ $Z01-250

FIG. 26.—Savings bank deposits in Michigan, by counties, on January 1, 1920. (Based on report of State commissioner of banking)

REDUCED PER CAPITA WEALTH With all these economic handicaps on both farms and industries, it is not surprising that people in the cut-over region are less prosperous than those in other parts of the State. One evidence of this is the low per capita average of savings deposits (51), which at the end of 1920 amounted to $80 for northern lower Michigan. For southern Michigan the average was $165 per capita. (Fig. 26.) The total 58 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE resources of State and national banks in the two regions tell the same story. For the north the average was $172 per capita and for the south (except Wayne County) it was $312. For Wayne County, where there is naturally a concentration of banks, it was $572, While lumbering was at its height, the number of paupers in proportion to population was considerably lower than in the southern part of the State (38). With the cutting of the timber and the migration of many of the more effective elements of the population, the ratio of paupers rose in the north until in 1920 it was 40 per cent greater than in the south. (Fig. 27.) The maintenance of paupers costs the northern counties $1 for each $1,000 of assessed value, or more than twice as much as in the south.

SOCIAL HANDICAPS

250 ^51 Not the least of the causes which operate

NORTHERN to delay permanent settlement on the bet- CL 200 *x^ O 7 ter lands in northern 18^ X75c Michigan are the C AJZ social disadvantages. SOUTHERN 150 There was a time in the history of the country when pio- neering, with all of its n hardships and dis- ^91 comforts, held out < promise of unusual ^7 reward or at least of 50 appreciable improvement in economic status for large numbers of people. Prob- 1830 1890 1900 1910 1920 ably 99 out of 100 FIG. 27.—Paupers in the 31 northern and the 36 southern counties of the pioneer settlers of lower Michigan (Wayne County not included), 1880 and 1920. (Based on reports of superintendents of the poor) who pushed back our western and northern frontiers deprived themselves and their famihes of the advantages and comforts of established communities, not from any particular love of frontier life or from an altruistic desire to build up the West and feed the Nation, but because of the prospect of ultimately bettering their social and financial condition. Now such sacrifice is no longer necessary. There are millions of acres of unutilized lands in the settled portions of the country that have near-by markets, and adequate road and railroad connections, and that are close to towns with their social and educational advantages. Moreover, the opportunities in many other lines than agriculture are almost limitless as compared with those 40 or 50 years ago. Now that it promises no special reward over what can be gained without the hardship, the monotonous and lonely life in small out- of-the-way communities or on isolated farms makes little appeal to the young, ambitious men who would be most likely to succeed, and still less does it appeal to their families. It would probably be ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP FOREST DESTRUCTION 59 difficult to prove that the character of hfe in these communities, with its hardships and worries and lack of diversion, may have such a depressing effect as to lead to insanity. Yet, it is a significant fact that expenditures {26-b) in State hospitals for insane patients from the northern part of the State are much higher, in proportion to either population or assessed values, than for those from southern Michigan. (Fig. 28.) The economic handicaps on farming in many parts of the cut- over region are bad enough, but the deciding factor in causing settlers to give up is often their desire for the advantages which are to be had only in thickly settled districts or within easy reach of cities. Such, for instance, are congenial neighbors, stores stocked with fairly complete lines of up-to-date goods, hbraries, amusements and social intercourse, hospitals, and medical and other professional services. ii-, 100 (Ü - ISOLATION z ^ < ■ Figure 29 shows Í 80 o I ■ the distribution of - Z o Í Michigan's popula- " r tion in 1920. Of 700 o z Qí • UJ - S < < -ÏÏy. separate townships in (L 3 0 -S X ■ ^ 40 o «0 1 southern Michigan z Z z z i i i z < only 30, or about 4 (U z di a QL 0. UJ X i per cent, had fewer ^20 IT -lüj o hi r ce 1- than 600 inhabitants, 0. tu Qí fe Û. O i Q. o Û. ó and 440 had more 3 z 8 D z than 1,000. In north- :I m- COMPARED WITH COMPAREO WITH ern lower Michigan POPULATION ASSESSED VALUES 243, or 58 per cent of ^j3 REIMBURSED BY COUNTIES the 419 townships, tiiiia AND IMDIVIOUALS FIG. 28.—Expenditures by the State for support of insane patients had less than 600 in- from different regions of Michigan, as compared with the popu- habitants, and only lation and assessed valuations of the respective regions, 1920. 54 had more than (Based on reports of auditor general) 1,000. In this region 100 townships had less than 300 population whereas only 16 in the upper peninsula and 3 in southern Michigan had so few. Outside of cities and incorporated villages, in 1920 there were approximately 19 persons to the square mile in the upper peninsula, 15 in northern lower Michigan, and 37 in southern Michigan. In a group of 16 northeastern counties, with a total area of 9,229 square miles, there were in 1920 only 17 places with more than 500 inhabitants, and 12 of those had less than 2,000. Ten years previously there were 24 places with more than 500 people. In the lower peninsula there were only 7 cities with more than 5,000 inhabitants in the 17,000 square miles north of Bay City, and there were only 5 in the 7,900 square miles of the 7 eastern counties of the upper peninsula. The largest of the 12 cities had a population of 13,000. It does not appear likely that this situation will improve unless the land of the region is again made productive. With the decline of lumbering and the depletion of raw material, the principal reason for the existence of many villages has gone, for the people themselves soon follow the departing industries. From 1910 to 1920, as shown in Table 15, the cities and villages in the northern part of the lower 60 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGEICÜLTUBE peninsula lost, respectively, more than 4 per cent and 11 per ceïit of their population. The population outside of incorporated cities and villages decreased by about 16 per cent, making the^'total loss for the region 50,000 people, or 12 per cent of the numbe^r there in 1910. In southern Michigan the loss of a little more than 1 per cent in population outside of incorporated places and the average decline of 10

• DENOTES ipOO PERSONS • PLACES OF 5000 TO 10,000

•^ PLACES OF 10,000 TO'25,000 j^ PLACES OF 25,000 TO 50,000 ^ PLACES OF 50,000 TO 100,000

Q GRAJ^JO RAPIDS -138.000

fíi DETROIT - 994-,000 /

^POPULATION OF ADJACENT TOWNSHIPS INCLUDED. FIG. 29.—Distribution of population in Michigan, 1920. (Based on United States census) per cent in 95 of the 332 villages was more than made up by increases in other cities and villages. The region as a whole gained 255,000 people outside of Wayne County, and 646,000 in that county. (Fig. 30.) The population of the upper peninsula was practically stationary, increasing in some places and decreasing in others, with a net increase of only 7,000, or 2 per cent. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP FOREST DESTRUCTION 61

TABLE 15.—Changes in population of incorporated cities and villages, and in outside population, between 1910 awd 1920 ^

CITIES

Increase Decrease Com- muni- Eegion Net in- Net de- ties re- Com- Com- crease crease corded muni- People muni- People ties ties

Number Number Number Per cent Number Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Upper peninsula » 18 7 12,954 31.2 11 10.1 3.3 Northern lower Michigan 2 31 12 5,578 19.1 18 9,672 13.6 4.1 Southern Michigan _. 264 60 827,655 74.7 3 397 4.5

VILLAGES 3

Upper peninsula 17 8 4,661 66.3 9 6,458 25.3 5.3 Northern lower Michigan 66 12 2,933 27.0 54 7,986 23.7 11.4 Southern Michigan _ _ 2 236 140 89,351 70.6 95 5,792 10.1 "*'45.'2~

OUTSIDE «

Upper peninsula. __ _. 4,526 2.7 Northern lower Michigan 40, 394 15.9 Southern Michigan 9,966 1.3

1 Compiled from United States census data. 21 city in northern lower Michigan, and 1 city and 1 village in the south did not change. 3 2 incorporated villages gave up their organization during the decade, and there were incorporated during that period 6 in the upper peninsula, 5 in northern lower Michigan, and 7 in southern Michigan. * If Hamtramck, which increased from 3,559 to 48,615, is left out, the increase for 139 villages was 44,295, or 36 per cent, and the net increase for 235 villages was 21.2 per cent. 5 Including places incorporated in one but not both years (see note 3).

INADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES From the social standpoint^ one of the most important considera- tions attracting desirable settlers to a region or causing those already there to leave, is the favorable or unfavorable character of school facilities. Besides increasing the costs of local government and making more difficult the task of maintaining necessary roads and highways, the shrinkage of property values in northern Michigan has seriously handicapped the public schools. This has created a difficult problem for the districts involved as well as for the whole State. The rising costs of maintaining the educational system have tended to bear more and more heavily on the school districts. The local school taxes assessed in 1920 amounted to almost $45,000,000, or 32 per cent of the whole amount raised in the State by the general property tax. In 1910 the amount was only $8,500,000, or 24 per cent of the total tax. Many of the cut-over counties, already burdened with exorbi- tant taxes, have been unable to keep up with the pace set by the rest of the State and have gradually fallen behind. The average amount spent in 1920 for each child enrolled in school in northern lower Michigan was $42.41, or 26 per cent less than the $57.26 average for southern Michigan. (Fig. 31.) The result is reflected in poorer buildings and equipment and in lower-paid and presumably less competent teachers. The value of school property for each child of school age in 1920 was $68 in the north and $109 in the south. (Fig. 32.) In 5 northern counties the average monthly salary paid in 1920 was less than $70, whereas for the whole group it 62 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DÈPT. OF AGRICULTXTBE averaged only $80.30. For 36 southern counties, not including Wayne where salaries are naturally higher, the average was $97.04. (Fig. 33.) Nevertheless, the average of school taxes in the northern counties has been considerably higher in proportion to property values than in the south. In 1910 the average rate of school tax in the north was $6.90 a thousand, and in the south $4.23. In 1921 the rates were $10.80 and $7.80. Figure 34 shows the rates for individual counties in 1920. The reason for this disparity in the relative burden is to be

FIG 30 —Increases and decreases in roral population of Michigan counties between 1910 and 1920 exclusive of places having 1,000 or more population at either census. (Based on United States found in the comparative poverty of the region, i. e., the low property values upon which to levy taxes. On the basis of the estimated true valuation given by the State board of equalization for 1919, the average property value back of each child of school age in the State was $5,266. In four counties of northern lower Michigan the average was below $2,000, and for the region as a whole it was but $2,576. For southern Michigan the average was $5,664. (Fig. 35.) The difference would be even more striking if comparisons were made between indi- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 63 vidual school districts, for the above figures are broad averages. The rates of taxation actually vary widely between individual districts within the same township. In Antrim County, for instance, the range of average school tax for townships was between $5.32 and $22.56 in 1920. Within a single township in Isabella County, the rate varied between $0.66 and $17.85 for individual school districts (37), The schools in the north would have fallen much farther behind had they not been partially supported by the more prosperous parts

I I LESS THAN *40 »40 TO #50 ^3 ^50 TO #60 OVER #60

FIG. 31.—Cost per pupil of maintaining public schools in Michigan counties, for each pupil enrolled, during the year ending July, 1920. (Based on reports of superintendent of public instruction) of the State through the medium of the primary-school fund. This fund, which originally consisted of the interest moneys received from the sale of pubhc land granted by the Federal Government, now includes also taxes on public utilities, such as railroads, telegraph, telephone, and express companies, which are taxed directly by the State instead of locally. The fund annually apportioned among the school districts of the State has steadily increased, reaching nearly $12,000,000 in 1922. The apportionment is based upon the number 64 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE of children of school age and bears no relation to the relative property values of the school districts or their contribution to the support of State and local governments. In 1919, and again in 1920, northern lower Michigan received from this fund 40 per cent as much as was raised by local taxation for school purposes, while the upper peninsula and southern Michigan got only about one-fourth as much as they raised by taxation. In 1916 every one of the 31 counties of northern

^ 50 AND LESS

«51 TO «75

#76 TO «100

«101 TO «150

OVER «150

FIG. 32.—Average value of school property for each child of school age in Michigan counties, 1920. (Based on reports of superintendent of public instruction) lower Michigan received more from the school fund than it paid in State tax; in 1918, 29 got more than they paid; and in 1922 all got more. In the latter year the 31 counties received from the school fund 60 per cent, or $509,000 more than they paid in State tax. (Fig. 36.) This does not take into account the fact that not all of the State tax assessed is actually received by the State. For the northern counties the average amount of tax defaulted has been about 10 per cent of the amount levied. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOKEST DESTRUCTION 65 It has been suggested that the moneys now distributed in the primary school fund ^^ should be used to pay the expenses of the State government, leaving the districts to support their own schools, and thus practically doing away with the direct State tax on property. This would lighten the tax burden in the southern part of the State, but it is objected to principally because 'Hhe more sparsely settled communities * * * ^ould not be able to adequately support public

I 1 UNDER «70 A MONTH

070 TO «60

4560 TO ftôO

«90 TO »100

OVER «100

FIG. 33.—Average salaries of public-school teachers in Michigan counties, for the year ending July, 1920 (based on reports of superintendent of public instruction)

schools were it not for the aid received from the primary-school fund'' {29), One result of the less adequate school facilities in the poorer northern counties is seen in the statistics dealing with illiteracy, compiled by the United States census. Illiteracy among native whites over 10 years old exceeded 1 per cent in 20 counties of northern lower Michi-

1* Except the interest on money received from the sale of public lands, which must be used for schools under the terms of the grant from the United States. 3596°—29 5 66 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

gall and 0.5 per cent in 9 others. It exceeded 1 per cent in only 5 of the southern counties, and in 16 it was 0.5 per cent or less. (Fig. 37.) In percentage of illiteracy among the total population, the upper peninsula and Wayne County are highest because of the large foreign-born population; but considering native whites alone the percentage in northern lower Michigan (1.3 per cent) is almost double that for southern Michigan (0.7 per cent) and four times that for Wayne County (0.3 per cent). (Fig. 38.)

CZ] LESS THAN ^5 »5 TO ^7.50 ^7.50T0*10 OVER mo

FIG. 34.—Average rate of taxation for public schools in Michig^an counties, per $1,000 true property value collected by school districts during the year ending July, 1920. (Based on reports of superintendent of public instruction)

Even the poorest districts try to maintain elementary schools, but those with only a scattered population to draw from can not afford high schools, and many children in the cut-over region are deprived of the opportunity to get a high-school education. On the basis of statistics reported by the superintendent of public instruction (S9), the ratio of high-school enrollment in 1920 to total number of children between 5 and 19 years old was approximately 1 to 15 for southern Michigan, 1 to 23 for the upper peninsula, and 1 to 29 for ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 67 the northern part of the lower peninsula. In other words, a child in the cut-over region has about half as much chance to attend high school as one in other parts of the State.

THE PROBLEM OF IDLE LAND EXTENT OF IDLE LAND Of the land area of southern Michigan, only 7.6 per cent is denuded or poorly stocked forest land. In northern lower Michigan, on the other a^

CZJ LESS THAN ô^OOO

^3,000 TO ä4J000 «4,000 TO Ö5,000 OVER 0 5,000

FIG. 35.—Taxable resources behind each child of school age in Michigan counties, 1919. (Based on reports of State tax commissioners and superintendent of public instruction) hand, 51.2 per cent is idle or almost idle land, either not restocking wdth timber or bearing inferior stands of low potential value. In the upper peninsula, 30.9 per cent of the land is in a similar condition. What to do with the 10 milhon acres of idle and partly idle land, together with the 10 milhon acres now in mature or growing forest wMch sooner or later will be cut over, is the biggest problem now before the people of Michigan. The solution is of direct concern to every person and industry using wood (and there are none that do not use it 68 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE direct^ or indirectly) and to every individual or corporate taxpayer in the State. It is unthinkable that so great an area was destined to be merely a storehouse for the original crop of timber, to be emptied once and then utterly abandoned, even for the one or two centuries that nature unaided would require to replenish it with new timber. Southern Michigan can not afford to support the rest of the State as an unproductive wilderness and at the same time depend upon distant States to supply her needs for raw forest products.

FIG. 36.—Relation between amounts received by counties from the primary-school fund and State tax assessed against the counties, 1922. For the shaded counties receipts from the State primary school fund in 1922 were greater than the State tax assessed against those counties

RECREATIONAL USE IS NOT ENOUGH Practically the only utilization of many parts of the cut-over country since it was logged over has been for recreational purposes— camping, hunting, fishing, and trapping. With its 2,000 miles of shore fine, its 5,000 or more sparkling lakes, its hundreds of crystal streams, and its delightful summer climate, northern Michigan has come to be a favorite recreation ground for multitudes of people from the densely populated region to the south. Gasoline and service ÎËCONOMIC ASPECTS OF iÊ^OREST BÈSTRUCÎION 69

Stations appear to constitute the principal commercial activity of many of the small villages along the principal highways. Summer hotels and camps, gun clubs, fishing clubs, and health resorts m great variety are scattered throughout the region and m many instances furnish almost the only source of income to the local population, as well as a major portion of the tax revenue which supports the local government. . . A/T- i.- Since logging began the wild turkey has become extinct m Michigan ; the removal of the forests which kept the streams shaded and cool

as PCR CENT AND LÉ55

1> ••♦••• M 0.6 TO iO FeR CENT

U To Zo peRceNT

OVER ZXi Pea CENT

FIG. 37.—Illiteracy among the native white population of Michigan counties, 1920. (Based on United States census) has been followed by the disappearance of the grayling; the destruction of cover by logging and fire, together with the unrestncted shoot- ing of earUer years, has reduced the number of deer far below what it was 40 years ago, when as manv as 70,000 were killed in a single year (^5); millions of partridge and grouse have been destroyed by the devastating conflagrations which periodically have swept many portions of the State. Still, in 1924, approximately 350,000 fishing and hunting licenses were sold (ßS-a) and the annual income to the State 70 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

treasury from this source is now around $500,000. The fur trade, which was the only important industry for almost 200 years, still has an annual value to Michigan of more than $1,000,000 (7), and fur farming is increasing. The State and private agencies spend a large amount of money and effort every year to develop the recreational resources and to restock the State, expecially in the north, with fish and game. There even seems to be an idea that the ultimate utilization of the greater part of the region lies in this direction, and that stocking the streams with trout and the stump, lands with pheasants and reindeer will com- pensate for the loss of the forests. The department of conservation, in its report for 1921- fr\ PERCENTAGE OF ALL ■§ PERCENTAGE OF NATIVE OO Qfflfpfl * ^ OVER TEN YEARS OLQ ■ WHITES OVER TEN YEARS OLD ^^^ Duaucci. Statistical records have proven that stock and sheep raising on some of those lands [the cut-over land of northern Michigan] has been almost impossible owing to the severity of the winters and the ne- cessity of furnishing food to such animals during that period. In the hope of finding a way to utilize such land, '^without any great assistance from 1920 mankind,^' the depart- 4 ment undertook to in- troduce a herd of rein- o deer. It seems fairly obvious that any form of utihzation requiring little human assistance will never give em- hittd NORTHERN UPPER LOWER SOUTHERN WAYNE ployment to many PENíNSULA MICHIGAN MICHIGAN COUNTY people nor serve to PIG. 38.—Illiteracy in principal regions of Michigan, 1910 and 1920. (Based on United States census) build up a considerable permanent population and extensive industries. Recreational development and the production of game and fish are of great importance from both an economic and a social standpoint, but they are not enough. To devote 30,000 square miles of potentially productive land exclusively to such use means only a partial utilization of its possibilities, and is a greater extravagance than Michigan or the rest of the country can afford, in the face of the urgent need for timber. And there need be no conflict between recreational use and intensive utilization for timber production. Systematic forest management, creating and perpetuating green forests on the millions of acres now covered with stumps and sweet fern or scrubby trees, and providing security against the recurrence of devastating fires, will multiply manyfold the recreational value of the region. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 71

LITTLE PROSPECT OF EARLY AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION Experience has shown that agricultural utilization of all or nearly all of the land in northern Michigan is extremely unlikely within many decades or even centuries, if ever. In the hardwood belt of southern Michigan, where settlement has been going on for a hundred years, 27 per cent of the land is still unimproved, and the percentage of improved land apparently has about reached its limit. Even in the rich agricultural States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois approximately 25 per cent of the land is unimproved and the improved area decreased nearly 1,700,000 acres in the 10 years between 1910 and 1920. Yet in these regions, which have excellent transportation facilities and local markets formed by their large industrial popu- lations, it is much more likely that the poorer soils can be farmed successfully than in a region like northern Michigan, which lacks the local markets, has less adequate transportation facilities, and has a considerably shorter growing season except close to the Lakes. Much of the pubhc apathy that has permitted the present state of affairs to obtain is the result of a widely held theory that all land not too rough can and will be used for agriculture and that no land should be used for growing forests that can possibly be used for farming. Because of this theory the stripping of all the timber from whole sections and townships, or the wholesale burning of thousands of acres of cut-over land that often enough was already stocked with young pine, has never greatly troubled any considerable proportion of the people. Although the damage to merchantable timber and to existing farms and villages was deplored, even the most widespread conflagrations, such as those of 1871 and 1881 in the thumb counties, were considered beneficial. They burned up débris and young timber, and thus made it easier to clear the land. Even to-day, in a few instances, local agricultural leaders who should know better are looking forward with considerable satisfaction to the day when all the timber will be gone. They say that the settlers then will devote all of their time to farming and prosperity will come to the region. People do not yet fully realize that in many regions economic conditions will not permit of successful farming on all of the land that is physically capable of cultivation. Nor do they realize that in regions like northern Michigan, or northern New England, or the Appalachian Mountains, agriculture can not prosper permanently even on the better soils if a large part of the land is idle. In many regions where climate, topography, or soil render a considerable proportion of the land unfit for profitable cultivation the production of farm crops and timber crops must go hand in hand.

MUCH OF THE LAND UNSUITED TO AGRICULTURE The surface of practically the entire State of Michigan is the product of glaciation, and consequently the soifs are extremely irregular in distribution, with a wide range of fertility. It is rather generally recognized now that the light sands and gravels of the glacial outwash plains are not first-class agricultural soils. This is especially true in the north, where the ice sheet persisted for thousands of years after it retreated from southern Michigan. An official State publication (18) in 1893, discussing the pine-plains lands not yet used for farming, said: ^'It is doubtful if at present there is any known way of making 72 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUEE them profitable to the farmer/' And a report of the United States ♦ Department of Agriculture (44) stated : The sandy jack-pme plains * . * * have long been an agricultural problem. Farmers have generally failed to make a living on them. After building a house and barn, clearing up a patch of ground and cropping it for two or three years, the land has been abandoned. The crops raised were not sufficient to support the farmer or to encourage him to stay longer. More people have left these lands during the past 30 years than are now living on them. The same authority stated further that there are possibly 2,000,000 acres of jack pine lands in Michigan, and that 8 to 9 million acres of cut-over pine land generally of a light sandy soil * * * require specially careful handling to make them productive of farm crops * * *^ The better grades of jack pine soil are * * * generally quite deficient in humus and nitrogen. This lack of humus and nitrogen is one of the fundamental reasons for the low productiveness of the jack;pine plains. The swamps, which are numerous and extensive, mostly require large expenditures for drainage before they can be cultivated, and even then the underlying soil in many instances is sand, no better than the sand plains as soon as the surface is burned off. An extensive survey (21 ) of the surface geology shows for the three major divisions of the State approximately the following percentages of light sands and gravels, swamps, and rock knobs:

North- Upper ern South- Type of soil penin- lower ern sula Michigan Michigan

Sands and gravels 23 Swamps 7 Rock knobs 0

Three-fourths of the whole area of some northern counties is either sand plain or swamp. But not all of the land is poor in northern Michigan; there are, indeed, large areas of exceedingly fertile soil, capable of yielding heavy crops of the kinds adapted to the climate. Only a relatively small proportion of this land is now cultivated. It is evident that there must be other reasons for the nonutilization of much of the region. Two things are chiefly responsible. The unwise public and private land policies that have prevailed during the last 75 years have thrown large amounts of the poorer land on the market and have led to destruction of the forests. The destruction of the forests has made successful agriculture almost impossible on the lower-grade lands and exceedingly difficult even on the best lands in many localities.

SHORT-SIGHTED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND POLICIES In southern Michigan, me better land was generally cleared first, and as cities and industries grew up the increasing demands for agricultural products made it possible to utilize even relatively inferior sous. In the north, on the other hand, farming waited on lumbering to clear the land, except in a few localities. The pine, which was cut first, stood mostly on the less desirable land, while the hardwoods on the better soils remained uncut for lack of a market; consequently the poorer lands were the first to be extensively available for settle- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 73 ment. The timber owners were inclined to discourage the coming of settlers as long as they had large amounts of timber upon which heavy- taxes might be levied. As soon as the bulk of the timber was removed they disposed of much of the pine-plains land, which had cost them practically nothing, selling it at nominal prices to settlers, or, more often, in large tracts to land companies; or else they let it revert to the State for nonpayment of taxes. Hundreds of thousands of acres of pine plains came into possession of the State by tax default, but under the policy of returning the land to private ownership as soon as possible, a large proportion of it was resold or granted free to homesteaders. From April, 1902, to Decem- ber, 1907, the State sold 950,000 acres of tax land, and deeded 245,000 acres to homesteaders. For all of this the State received an average of 89 cents an acre ($1.08 for the land sold), although investigation showed that the timber on the land was alone worth five times the price paid. At the end of 1907 the State owned 1,113,000 acres of delinquent-tax land, to say nothing of the 6 million acres dehnquent for less than five years and not yet owned. Of the area to which the State held title, practically all was in the northern cut-over districts; more than 10 per cent of the area of nine counties was so held and 27 per cent of one (Oscoda). Although it was assumed that the acquisition of this land by private owners would result in its settlement, such did not prove to be the case. Less than 5 per cent of it was sold to actual settlers, and only a small percentage of the homesteaders really intended to settle permanently. In the words of the commission appointed in 1907 to study the State's land policy (SO) : The homestead law * * * has not led to homesteads but has generally been used to secure timber or land and timber for speculation. The laws under which tax homesteads have been sold have contributed to the actual settlement of the cut-over lands but very little. [The law allowing sales and homesteading] is operating to the devastation of great areas and to the rapid destruction of the capacity of the cut-over lands of the north to reforest naturally without artificial aid. , Instead of being acquired by actual settlers the bulk of the land fell into the hands of speculators or "timber skinners," as those came to be called who homesteaded or bought tracts of cut-over land for the purpose of stripping off the timber which had been left at the first cutting. During this period also wide use was made of what was known as the "rubber forty"; that is, the timber cutter, making little or no pretense at permanent settlement, extended his operations from his original 40 acres over all the land in sight regardless of its ownership. Such activities, together with frequent fires, effectively destroyed all possibility of the natural second crop of pine which otherwise would have followed lumbering. The land speculators were less interested in developing permanent settlements than in the profits to be derived from selling cheap land at the price of good. Indeed, complaints were made that they kept bona fide settlers out by asking high prices (30). If the same piece of land could be abandoned, bought at tax sale, and resold repeatedly, so much the better. Therefore, they bought the cheapest and consequently the poorest land and sold it for many times its value to city people and others ignorant of farming or of the region. It was reported in 1907 that in a township in northern Roscommon County nearly all of the land had been homesteaded twice, and some 74 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. Oï^ AGRICULTURE

of it five times. Even as late as 1921, negro families from Chicago were being induced to colonize sand plains in one of northern counties (22). According to the commission of inquiry (80): Many poor people have been enticed into attempting to make homes on land unfit for their purpose. These people were poor and not above the average in knowledge of and skill in agriculture, and so lacked both the means and the ability to create homes and family-supporting farms out of light, thin lands. Capital and skill sometimes can do this, of course, but these people were without either. The

ÇACH DOT REPRESENTS #500,000

FIG. 39—Total values of Michigan crops, dairy and poultry products, honev, wax, and wool, in 1919. Each dot represents $500,000. (Based on United States census) necessary result was failure—a disaster to the man who made the attempt, and anything but profitable to the neighborhood in which he settled or to the State at large. SLOW KATE OF AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION The relative unimportance of agricultural production in the northern portions of Michigan is evident from Figures 39, 40, and 41. In a group of 12 northeastern counties where pine plains is the pre- dominant forest type, 871 square miles, or less than one-eighth of the total area of 7;060 square mileS; was classed as improved land in 1920. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 75

This is the net result of 50 years of agricultural settlement. At least 3,750 square miles are either denuded or restocking with an inferior forest stand of little value, and most of it has been in this condition for at least 35 years. In one township lumbering was finished by 1903, and settlers turned from woods work to their farms for a living (5). Only a few of them were able to make a living by farming alone, for in 1920 there were but 290 inhabitants in the entire township,

LESS THAN «10

#10 TO «20 atîo 2mo aT.30 27.30 36.60^ 34.0 OVER «20

FIG. 40.—Values of crops, poultry and dairy products, honey, wax, and wool in Michigan counties, 1919, per acre of land surface, excluding cities, villages, roads, and railways. (Based chiefly on United States census) which has an area of 108 square miles. The course of agricultural development in these counties is shown in Table 16. The number of farms has begun to decline, but the improved area per farm is increasing. If the rate of increase in improved area during the last decade could be maintained and if all the land were capable of improvement, the whole area of these counties would be under cultivation in a little over 360 years. 76 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGEICULTURE

TABLE 16.—Number of farms and area of iînproved land in a group of 12 counties in northeastern Michigan by decades, 1880-1920 ^

Average of im- . Year Farms Portion of total land proved' area improved area per farm

Number Acres Per cent Acres 1880___ 2,415 69,035 1.5 28 6 1890. 4,550 144,105 3.2 31 7 1900._ 7,897 260,108 5.8 32 9 1910 _ 10,980 447,875 9.9 40 8 1920 10, 710 557,466 12.3 52 1

' Compiled from United States census data. In some of the counties, however, settlement is even slower, as Table 17 indicates. Although at least 80 per cent of the land is

EACH DOT REPRESENTS 2pOO CATTLE

FIG. 41.—Cattle on Michigan farms, 1920 Each dot represents 2,000 head. (Based on United States census) unoccupied by merchantable timber or valuable young growth, only 4 per cent of the area of these four counties had been improved up ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP FOREST DESTRUCTION 77 to 1920, and out of 2,150 square miles available, only about 1 square mile a year is being added to the improved area.

TABLE 17.—Rate of agricultural expansion in Jour counties of northern Michigan^ 1910-1920

Approxi- Average mate unim- area im- Total land proved County area proved area in 1910 1 annually 1910-1920

Acres Acres Acres Crawford _ « ______368,000 354,000 35 Roscommon 344, 320 334,000 147 Oscoda _ 368, 640 351,000 254 Montmorency 359,040 340,000 530

Total - - -.- 1,440,000 1, 379,000 658

1 Excluding towns, roads, etc. The record of agricultural development in the so-called fruit belt of the northwestern counties is given in Table 18. The decline in number of farms during the last decade, the small increase in improved land, and the marked increase in area per farm are significant. There is evidently a tendency to combine holdings, probably because the smaller farms can not be operated at a profit. Of the total area of 4,140,000 acres, more than 2,900,000 acres is still unimproved, and only a small part of it bears timber. At the rate of settlement during the last decade, it would take 450 years to utilize this land fully.

TABLE 18.—Number of farms and area of improved land in a group of 13 counties of northwestern Michigan hy decades, 1880-1920 ^

Percentage Average Area of total improved Year Farms improved land area area per improved farm

Number Acres Per cent Acres 1880 10,070 289, 456. 7.0 28.7 1890 ___ 13, 831 478, 444 11.6 34.6 1900 - _____ 19,141 776, 336 18.8 40.6 1910 22, 349 1,046, 634 25.3 46.8 1920 _ _ __ _.. .. ___ 19, 607 1, 111, 450 26.8 56.7

1 Compiled from united States census data. In the upper peninsula the copper and iron mines have given rise to longer-lived communities, and the lumber industry is still important. Moreover, much of the timber now being cut is on land of better quality than that cleared during the pine-lumbering period, and considerable areas of fairly good land are just becoming available for farming. As a result, many new farms are being started and considerable expansion is likely during the next few decades. Table 19 shows that while the number of farms is increasing fairly steadily, the average area of improved land per farm is not increasing. This is because the establishment of new units with few cleared acres offsets any increase in improved acreage on the older farms. There still remains in the upper peninsula an aggregate of more than 10 million acres of unimproved land, of which more than one-third is non- 78 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE productive and about one-third is covered with merchantable • timber. To utihze the entire area at the present rate of clearing would require not less than 800 years.

TABLE 19.—Number of farms and area of improved land in the upper peninsula, hy decades, 1880-1920 i

Average Portion of total land improved Year Farms area improved area per fram

Number Acres Per cent Acres 1880 - - 985 39,929 0.4 40.5 1890_ _ ,- 2,637 101, 511 1.0 38.5 1900 - - 6,102 220,446 2.1 36.1 1910- _ 8,994 340,602 3.2 37.9 1920 12, 317 465,446 4.4 37.8

1 Compiled from United States census data.

TABLE 20.—Improved land in farms in the three main divisions of Michigan, hy decadesj 1860-1920, and total land area ^

Upper Northern Southern Year lower peninsula Michigan Michigan

Acres Acres Acres 1860 7,930 17,366 3,451,000 1870 13,801 108,336 4,974,802 1880 - _ - - 39,929 500, 739 7, 756,194 1890 101, 511 863, 625 8, 900, 214 1900 - - . 220,446 1,456, 830 10,121, 974 1910 340, 602 2,051,821 10,439,655 1920 465,446 2, 292, 531 10,167, 544 Total land area _ __- 10, 682, 240 10,881,280 15, 223, 680

1 Compiled from United States census data. In spite of the efforts of development bureaus, land companies, railroads, and public agencies to stimulate settlement, only a small part of the available land in northern Michigan was brought into use during the 60 years from 1860 to 1920. (Table 20 and fig. 42.) It seems improbable, therefore, that the bulk of the land now idle in northern Michigan will be wanted for farming for many years. There will be ample time to grow at least one crop of timber on most of it. EXISTING FARMS LARGELY UNDERDEVELOPED Agriculture is not yet on a self-sustaining basis in either northern lower Michigan or the upper peninsula. Much of the latter region is still in the pioneer stage, and many new farms are being created. The average cultivated area is only half that of southern Michigan farms. It has been estimated that fully nine-tenths of the settlers eke out their income either by working in the lumber camps or mines during part of the year, or by cutting and selling pulp wood, posts, poles, and railroad ties. In many years when crops are poor, the woods furnish the only source of income. If agriculture is to be a permanent industry in northern Michigan, the farmers already there should be able to make a living before efforts are made to attract any considerable number of new settlers. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 79 The need for more improved land to complete the farms already established, rather than more farms, is often overlooked in estimating possible increases of population in the cut-over country. Even in the longer-settled southern counties, with good road and railroad connections, near-by markets, lower taxes, and other advantages, there is a persistent tendency to increase the area of improved land per farm unit. (Fig. 43.) From an average of 56 acres in 1870, the improved acreage increased to 71 acres in 1920 in the southern hardwood belt; from 37 to 80 acres in the thumb, and from 33 to 59 acres in the southern part of the pine region.

5 THUMB COUNTIES 26 SOUTHERN coufsmes 37 SOUTHERN COÜM- TiSô COMBINED

16 CENTRAL COUNTIES

10 NORTHVVeSTERN COUNTIES 31 COUNTIES OF NORTHERN LOWER PENINSULA

11 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES

^PPEñ PENINSULA

1860 18Ô0 FIG. 42.—Improved land in farms in different parts of Michigan, 1860-1920. (Based on United States census) In most parts of the State, the|increases in improved area from 1910 to 1920 were due chiefly to the addition of cleared land to existing farms, rather than to new settlement. The only important excep- tions are those parts of the upper peninsula where considerable tracts of good land only recently were made available by the cutting of the virgin forests, and where lumbering and mining afford local markets and opportunities for supplementary employment. (Tables 21 and 22.) 80 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 21.—Changes in numhers of farms by groups of counties between 1910 and 1920^

Increase in number Decrease in number Number of farms of farms Region of counties Number Per cent Number Per cent

Upper peninsula— 3,323 37 Eastern. _ ___ 7 902 16 Western _ 8 2,421 72 Northern lower Michigan 3,528 8 Northeast 11 484 5 Northwest __ 10 1,620 11 North central __ 10 1,424 7 Southern Michigan 10, 308 7 South central 6 1,235 5 Thumb . 5 1,819 8 South.. 26 7,254 7 Total State.._ „. 10, 513 5

1 Compiled from United States census data.

TABLE 22.—Changes in areas of different classes of farm landj hy groups of counties^ between 1910 and 1920 ^

Other unim- Improved land Woodland proved land Tota area Region

Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Upper peninsula 124,844 141, 561 920 267,325 Eastern 63,165 37,963 ii, 482 89, 646 Western.- 61,679 103, 598 12,402 177, 679 Northern lower Michigan 240, 710 343, 798 l57,~927" 226, 581 Northeast 71, 634 183, 784 160, 760 94, 658 Northwest 73, 658 33,451 68, 348 38, 761 North central 95,418 126, 563 128, 819 93,162 Southern Michigan 272, 111 195.913 66,465 401,559 South central 59, 777 27, 322 12, 757 19, 698 Thumb - 37,934 40, 812 17, 793 20, 621 South 369, 872 127, 779 97,015 400, 636

State 93,443 289,446 290, 542 92, 347

1 Compiled from United States census data. Figure 44 shows by counties the average improved area per farm in 1920. As a rule, the size of farm tends to vary directly as the distance from markets and inversely as the fertility of the soil and favor- ableness of the climate. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that if 70 to 80 acres of improved land is required for a farm unit in southern Michigan, at least an equal area will be necessary to put the farms of the northern part of the State on a stable basis. This assumption is confirmed by the opinions of agricultural experts w^ho are familiar with the region, most of whom agree that a self-supporting farm unit in northern Michigan should have at least 80 to 90 acres improved, or even more on the poorer lands. A study of dairy farming in Wis- consin {2Ji) showed that a self-sustaining farm with 20 cows requires on the average about 100 acres in forage crops and 40 acres in pasture. Among the conclusions resulting from a study of farming in this region, made a few years ago (23)y were the following: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP FOKEST DESTRUCTION 81

The rapid enlargement of the cultivated area on each farm, when it can be done economically, is the first and most important agricultural problem in this district, and the one that has the widest and most general application. * * * How large the farm should be * * * will depend much on the famer's resources. The average farm * * * with 50.2 tillable acres produces a family income of $533 * * * j^^t if family labor and interest are deducted, the farmer has only $47 left to pay him for his year's work. [His labor is not included

2 2 2 2 UPPCa PENINSULA 'NOaTHERN LOWER PENINSULA SOUTHEñlM MICHÍUAW FIG. 43.—Changes in average improved and total areas per farm, 1860-1920. (Based on United States census)

in the family labor.] The group having a tillable area between 80.1 and 100 acres, with an average of 88.9 acres * * * is the first group of farms in the series that has large enough area under cultivation to produce satisfactory average incomes. [Here the farmer gets $195 for his labor, he and his family together get $467, and if free from debt the family has $939 income to live on.] For the northern cut-over district a farm with 50 acres of rich land under cultivation usually produces a good living for a family of average size, and * * * 90 acres of rich land under cultivation is a fair foundation for business success. 3596°—29 6 82 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

LtSS THAN 50 ACRES

SO TO 65 ACRE5

65 TO 80 ACRES

OVER ÔO ACRES

FIG. 44.—Average area of improved land per farm in Michigan in 1920, by counties. (Based on United States census) The values of farm products given by the census (crops, dairy and poultry products, honey and wax, and wool) point also to the need for larger acreage per farm. It is plain that the north-country farmers are not gaining from their farms anything like the return received by those farther south. In no county of the upper peninsula did the

TABLE 23.—Average number of cattle, sheep, and hogs per farm, 1890 and 1920

Total Region Year Cattle Sheep Swine animal units

Upper peninsula 1890 5.5 1.0 1.6 6 0 1920 7.8 2.5 1.8 8.5 Northern lower Michigan 1890 5.4 2.5 2.8 6 3 1920 7.6 3.8 2.9 8.7 Southern Michigan. _ 1890 6.2 16.2 7.3 10 0 1920 8.2 7.2 6.7 10.6

In computing animal units, sheep and swine were converted into equivalents in cattle by assuming 7 sheep or 5 hogs equivalent to one cow. U2, p. S21.) Including horses and mules, the total numbers of animal units per farm in 1920 were 10.6 for the upper peninsula; 11.o for northern lower Michigan, and 13.9 for southern Michigan. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 83 average total value in 1919 reach $2,000 a farm, and it exceeded $2,400 in only 4 of the 31 northern counties of the lower peninsula, while of the 37 southern counties in only 4 did the total average less than $2,400. In Keweenaw County the average production was worth $1,053, and in Roscommon County $1,034, in contrast with an average of $3,570 for Washtenaw County. The average for the entire upper peninsula was $1,569 and for northern lower Michigan $2,125, or 55 and 75 per cent, respectively, of the $2,832 average for the south-

LESS THAN ^2,000

«2,000 TO #3p0O

OVER #3000

FIG. 45.—Average value per farm of all crops, including dairy and poultry products, honey, wax, and wool but not meat and livestock in Michigan counties, 1919. (Based on United States census) ern counties. Figure 45 shows for each county the average gross values of the crops produced (sold or consumed), without deduction for cost of production. They do not include values of meat or livestock, which are not reported by the census. The statistics of stock on farms, however, indicate that the northern counties in this respect are also considerably behind the south.^^ (Table 23.) " It is interesting to note that in spite of efforts to develop grazing on the cut-over lands, the southern farmers still have considerably more of all classes of stock, even though the numbers of swine, and particularly of sheep, on southern farms have decreased to a very great extent during the last 30 years. To offset a decrease of 1,308,000 sheep in southern Michigan since 1890, the increase in the northern part of the State amounted to only 117,000, while the number of swine increased 66,000 in the north and fell off 86,000 in the south. The northern 46 counties gained 255,000 cattle, and the southern 37 gained 285,000 during the period. 84 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, V. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE It is evident that as lumbering wanes, and the farmers are obliged to depend more and more upon farming, they will have to increase very materially the average area under cultivation if they are to continue in the business. This can be done by clearing more land or by consolidating existing units and reducing the number of farms. If the present number of units remains, it will be necessary to add 500,000 acres of improved land in the upper peninsula and 950,000 acres in northern lower Michigan just to bring them up to the 70-to- 90-acre farms of the better developed southern counties. This is more land than has been cleared in the whole State during the last quarter century, and for the upper peninsula it would mean more than doubling the present improved area. But as it is, settlers have already cleared the better lands in the cut-over districts, and many of them have cleared about all the contiguous land that the topography and soils will permit. In many places the surface is so broken or the good soils are so spotted in distribution that it is phys- cally impossible for a settler to increase his area of cultivable land except by acquiring that of some other settler. An increase in improved acreage is by no means all that is needed to insure the future of farming in the notth. Much labor and money must also be expended to provide more adequate farm buildings and other equipment, and to build more attractive farm homes, or the more desirable elements of the next generation will gradually pull up stakes and leave the region. Many of the farms in northern Michigan are still in the frontier stage, with lands only partially cleared, fences lacking or temporary makeshifts, barns usually crude and inadequate and rarely painted, and dwelhngs largely tar-paper shacks of one or two rooms or even log cabins chinked with clay. Such conditions are perhaps to be expected in a frontier settlement, but hardly in the homes of a permanent, prosperous, agricultural community. Outside of the villages a painted house is unusual. A count of over 1,000 farms, taken at random in about 20 counties of northern Michigan in 1921, showed nearly 200 farms practically without barns. Many of these were in districts which depend principal^ on dairying where, if anywhere, adequate buildings for the stock are essential. "The census of 1920 showed the average values of farm land and buildings in all northern Michigan to be only about half the average for the southern part of the State. (Table 24 and Figs. 46 and 47.) The average value of buildings was only $1,037 per farm in Roscommon County, and reached $2,000 in only 1 of the 46 northern counties. This compares very unfavorably with conditions in southern Michi- gan, where the average value fell below $2,000 in only 1 county. In Washtenaw and Oakland Counties it was close to $4,000.

TABLE 24.—Values of Michigan farms hy regions, 1920 ^

Value of land Value of buildings Total farm values Region Total Per acre Total Per farm Total Per farm

1,000 1,000 1,000 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Upper peninsula 34,160 28.92 19,106 1,551 69,226 5,620 Northern lower Michigan. 114, 527 25.20 63, 727 1, 557 227, 012 5,547 Southern Michigan 758, 459 58.14 382, 944 2,748 1, 395, 908 10, 017 Wayne County 52,041 198. 41 11, 723 3,039 71,189 18,452 State _ 959,187 477, 500 1, 763,335

1 Compiled from United States census data. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP FOKEST DESTRUCTION 85

SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME NEEDED As has been shown, a great many of the farms in northern Michigan are far from being self-supporting. Only those settlers with a considerable accumulation of capital or outside income can possibly keep going until their farms are fully productive. Land clearing is costly and time-consumins:. The following quotation {46) shows the situation as it existed in 1914, With the rises in costs that have taken place since then, it is just as appHcable to present-day conditions:

FIG. 46.—Average per acre value of farm land in Michigan counties, 1920. (Based on United States census) The settler with little capital and without experience who expects to make a farm out of a tract of logged-off land will find his problem a most trymg one * * *. At the present time very little logged-off land that would make desirable farm land can be bought for less than $15 to $25. The cost of clearing varies from $20 to $90, making the cost cleared $35 to $115, averaging^ about $65. When the cost of other necessary improvements is added to this, it makes the ultimate cost of an improved farm higher than the price of equally as good a farm in many of the older, well settled agricultural sections of the United States. Competent authorities estimate that the average farm on cut-over lands of northern Michigan does not produce a surplus over its own 86 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

needs, i. e., a cash income, until five years after the first settlement. During the first few years, therefore, the settlers must either live partly on savings or borrowed money or earn part of their living by doing other work, especially in the woods or mines. Many of the earlier settlers on the pine plains brought sufficient capital to last for several years, and built good houses. Few of them however stayed more than 10 years, and those who did earned additional money by working in the logging camps. Most of the more recent settlers

I I LESS THAN «1^500

#X500 TO «1^9 9 9 ZZ2.Y^ 229Ô #20OO TO ^2499 ^2120:2823 C^8Ô5/ ;:3l02 ^2500 TO ^2999 ,,,. ^^.mw/w^. ^3,000 AND OVER J^2u

FIG. 47.—Average value of buildings per farm in Michigan counties, 1920. (Based on United States census) lack capital; else they would probably have used it to acquire developed and going farms more favorably situated. In localities where other industries afford an opportunity to earn cash income during part of the year, the area of cleared land is being increased, and there is a prospect that the present tar-paper shacks will be replaced eventually by reasonably attractive and comfortable farm homes. In other localities where industries are lacking, permanent agricultural settlement appears most unlikely. In some ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOEEST DESTRUCTION 87 localities in the pine plains the average rate of turnover in farm ownership is said to be two to three years, as settlers seldom stay- longer. In such localities the reforestation of cut-over land and the establishment of permanent forest industries would be of inestimable assistance in developing a permanent agriculture.

DECREASING NUMBER OF FARMERS Many of the farms in the pine-plains region are submarginal and intermittent in character, worked for a few years, abandoned, then perhaps taken up again when economic conditions improve for a short period or when new settlers can be induced to buy. The cumulative effect of all the economic and social handicaps has been not only to retard the influx of new settlers but to cause those already in the region to leave. The reversion of farms to wild land and eventually to forest has been going on for a generation on the pine plains. In one township where once were 36 farms none remain, and the fields are all more or less grown up to jack pine. Abandoned farms are a frequent sight throughout all parts of the cut-over region. There were reported to be 322 deserted farms in one county alone in 1921. From 1910 to 1920 more than 3,500 farms in northern lower Michigan were abandoned or consolidated with others, and their owners nearly all left the region. Though there was a greater decrease in number of farms in southern Michigan, due partly to consolidation and partly to the expansion of urban areas and the conversion of farms to other uses (Table 25), comparatively little of the land that was dropped from farms in the south was abandoned.

TABLE 25.—Number of farms in the three main divisions of Michiganj by decades, 1860-19W 1

Upper Northern Upper Northern Southern penin- Southern Year penin- lower Michigan Year lower Michigan sula Michigan sula Michigan

1860 189 525 61, 675 1900 6,102 37,341 159,818 1870 259 5, 654 92, 873 1910 8,994 44,452 153, 514 1880 985 16, 966 136, 057 1920 12,317 40,924 143,206 1890 2,637 25, 685 144, 022

1 Based on United States census. The loss to northern Michigan is even more serious than appears from the decreases in number of farms and in total population. The task of transforming a cut-over wilderness into productive farms or forests, or building towns and cities, is slow, hard work, which is not likely to be undertaken on a large scale by children or old folks. Yet it is the people at the most active ages, those between 18 and 44, who have been leaving in the largest numbers. From 1900 to 1920 the proportion of males between those ages decreased from 21.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent of the population in northern lower Michigan and decreased from 27.7 per cent to 21 per cent in the upper peninsula. In southern Michigan the proportion remained practically stationary, except in Wayne County, where it rose from 21.5 per cent to 30 per cent. (Fig. 48.) Persons of this age group comprised a smaller part of the total population in the cut-over region than in 88 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE any other part of the State (Figs. 49 and 50), a direct contrast to the condition while lumbering was in progress. This migration of young people to the cities and the resulting abnormally large proportion of old people and young children remaining is a condition which is com- mon in many of the long-settled rural communities of the Northeastern States. Neither there nor in Michigan does it hold out the prospect of any great expansion of agriculture to utilize the lands now idle. The future of the cut-over region, then, is likely to depend upon the choice that is made between two policies. One alternative is to utilize a large part of the land for growing timber on a continuously productive basis; the other is to keep on stripping the region of its

1900 isao

vpp^n NOnTHSnN SOUTHEfJN WAYN6 PONIlMßüLA MICHIG/^H COUNTY PSNíNSUtA FIG. 48.—Changes in proportion of males 18 to 44 years old, from 1900 to 1920. (Based on United States census) natural wealth as long as any wealth remains, and then let it revert to wilderness. In that case, to be sure, it will be frequented during a few months of the year by health and recreation seekers and tourists, but its value even in these respects will be much less than if the land were also utilized to support permanent towns and industries.

FORESTRY IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS FIRES ARE STOPPED Michigan's 10 million acres of idle or partly idle cut-over land is the direct result of fire. Quantities of dry logging slash, accumulated simultaneously over many thousands of acres, greatly aggravated the seriousness of the fires. As long ago as 1856, diaries mention the dense smoke from burning swamps in the Saginaw Valley (^0). To clear ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 89 their land as quickly and cheaply as possible, the settlers resorted to the use of fire and made no effort to confine it. The lumbermen were no more careful unless their camps were endangered. As a result, during the summer the lumber region was almost always dotted with fires running from settlers' clearings into the dry slashings, killing the small trees that might have seeded up the cut-over land, and gradually eating their way into the green timber.

I I LESS THAN 35 %

3 5- TO 39 ^o

4-0 ?< AND OVER

FIG. 49.—Population between 18 and 44 years of age in Michigan counties, 1920. (Based on United States census) The experience of Crawford County is typical of what was going on all over northern Michigan. Lumbering began in the region around Grayling in the late seventies, and the county was organized during the winter of 1878-79. In the third issue (May 14, 1879) of the local newspaper {9) appears the following item: ^^Fire is raging in the woods north and west of Grayling.'^ Similar itemxS appeared at frequent intervals during practically every year thereafter, reporting the destruction of settlers' homes and fences, logging camps, logs, and standing timber^ or the kilhng of extensive areas of timber that 90 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

had to be logged without delay in order to salvage it. Except for the land actually cleared and cultivated, and some of the swamps which escaped burning, practically every acre of northern Micliigan has been burned over repeatedly during the last 60 years. It has been estimated that the uplands burn over on the average every 6 to 10 years and that more than half of the sand plains have been burned at least four times since they were cut-over,^^ During particularly dry or windy periods UNDER 18 18T0 44r OVER 44: these comparatively small slow-burning Z : O fires would run together and become ■ great conflagrations, destroying thousands 0. 1 of acres of timber and O 0. frequently the build- 40 ^ _ ^ m I J '.:* ings and stock of the < 1 I settlers. The fall of o 1871 was especially 1 M dry, and fires were un- o 1 usually destructive L '1 throughout the Great Z Lakes region. In \— m Ü Michigan, conflagrations destroyed the UJ •;.* city of Holland, half 0. 10 of Manistee, and large areas of valuable tim- 1 ber in the Traverse Bay district; in the NORTHERN LOWER 1 UPPER i WAYNE SOUTHERN PENíNSULA Thumb two-thirds of 1 PENINSULA MICHIGAN COUNTY the timber on a thou- FIG. 50.—Distribution of age groups in different parts of Michigan in 1920. (Based on United States census) sand square miles was destroyed, together with a dozen towns and hundreds of farms and small settlements, and several lives were lost. But this did not teach a lesson, and in 1881 the same region was again visited by a devastating conflagration, again resulting from settlers' burning brush. That fire covered some 500,000 acres in 70 townships, destroyed property valued at $2,500,000 to $3,000,000, not counting the timber destroyed, and killed 138 people (P-a, 9-b, 11). In 1894 there were disastrous fires in nearly every timber county of the State. In 1908 a fire burned Metz, in Presque Isle County, with a loss of 20 lives and property worth $2,500,000. More than 2,369,000 acres were burned over in the entire State that year {2). In 1911, fires originating on the cut-over lands destroyed the towns of Au Sable and Oscoda which then had more than 1,800 inhabitants, causing a $3,400,000 loss and killing several people, while at the same time extensive fires did a vast amount of damage farther north, in the vicinity of Alpena {3, 33). In 1919, approximately a million acres was burned, with great damage to standing timber; and even as late as 1923 some

w ROTH, F. ADDRESS BEFORE THE MICHIGAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, 1919. (Manuscript) MICHIGAN FOREST FIRES. STATEMENT PREPARED FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN COMMISSION, 1920. (MaUU- script) ECONOMIC ASÏ'ÈCTS OF Ï^ÔHEST DESTRUCTION 91

160,000 acres was reported as burned in the western part of the upper peninsula, with a loss of five human Hves and a large quantity of timber. These big fires, to be sure, caused considerable excitement, but were regarded by most people as unavoidable visitations of Providence, like earthquakes and hurricanes. It was not realized that the settlers and lumbermen were themselves to blame or that the conflagrations invariably developed from small blazes that need not have started at all or that usually could have been extinguished at the start without doing appreciable damage. On the day that the thumb fire of 1881 started, it is said that there was not a square mile in the region on which fire was not burning (P-a). An ordinary fire in a slashing was generally regarded as more or less beneficial because it made land clearing easier. Probably not one person in a thousand felt concerned at seeing such fires, and seldom was any attempt made to stop them unless buildings or fences were threatened. Even the timberland owners paid little attention to slashing fires—so-called ''brush fires^'— so long as they did not get into the merchantable timber. The following (i), written less than a month before the Metz fire, which caused an admitted loss of over $2,000,000 to the lumber industry alone, is fairly typical of the attitude of many persons a few years ago: It must be admitted that a large extent of territory, in the aggregate, has been burned over within three or four weeks; that hundreds of settlers' farms and perhaps their homes have been burned, and that great suffering and loss have been caused; but, having admitted that much, it may be safely denied that up to the present time any serious loss has been caused to lumber properties. The fires have thus far been almost entirely confined to cut-over lands and brush lands. Forty-five years ago, in telling of a trip north from Bay City, a writer {9-e) described the region as a most God-forsaken wilderness * * * barren wastes * * * ravages of lumbermen and fires * * * dreary, uninviting stretches of country * * * the greater portion unfit for cultivation. During the years which have elapsed since that was written, a second crop of merchantable pine could and would have grown up on those ''cut-over and brush lands'' had it not been for the general attitude of indifference toward fires. Pine seedlings did restock most of the land after lumbering, only to be consumed by later fires. At the same time any seed trees that might have been left by the lumbermen were killed by fire or cut by the ''timber-skinners.'' Natural reseeding of pine was thus made impossible, except in the few localities that escaped burning; and as lumbering progressed the areas of "barren wilderness" increased. If the land now idle and also that which still remains to be cut over is to do its share toward supporting a permanent population and industries, it must not be burned. Cut-over "brush" land must be protected just as much as merchantable timber. Several million acres of such land, including large areas in the pine plains, are at least partially stocked with small trees that sooner or later will make a forest if they are allowed to grow up. They are not, in most cases, old enough to withstand even light burning. The comparatively inferior jack pine and aspen seed early and abundantly. The oaks and some other hardwood species reproduce by sprouting, but when repeatedly killed back by subsequent fires tend to develop short, crooked boles 92 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUKÊ of little or no value. White and Norway pines and the valuable hardwoods and hemlock are almost entirely eliminated after burning is repeated two or three times, with the result that the land is finally given over to more or less scrubby stands of inferior species or is left without tree growth of any Idnd. It does not appear to be generally understood yet that all merchantable timber must start as small trees or ^^brush/' and the idea is still prevalent that burning of brush land does more good than harm. In Schoolcraft County, for instance, as recently as May, 1921, a fire got away from a man clearing land and spread to the cut-over lands in the vicinity. Little or no attention was paid to it until August, when the advent of dry windy weather caused it to spread more rapidly and to threaten several farms. By that time control was difficult, and approximately a whole township of land was burned over. A large part of the area v/as fairly well stocked with 5 to 30 year old stands of white and Norway pines, hemlock, spruce, balsam, maple, birch, and other species; yet the official report of the fire put no value on this growth and estimated the damage at only $17,000, the value of the merchantable timber destroyed. As a matter of fact, the young growth that was killed covered a larger area and was worth a great deal more than all the forest plantations made in Michigan by the combined efforts of private individuals, the State, and the National Government during the 20 years preceding. T/ie State's efforts in fire protection have been considerably enlarged during the last few years, and no doubt will continue to gain in ef- fectiveness as the organization gains experience. There is still room for further expansion of the State's activity in this direction, and even more for the active cooperation of forest owners and the general public. A FOREST PROGRAM FOR MICHIGAN In the preceding pages has been traced the process by which great areas of productive, timber-bearing land have been transformed into barely productive or utterly idle wastes. It has been shown that these huge areas of idle land constitute not only a tremendous handicap to the future development of the region within which they lie but also a heavy burden upon the rest of the State. The facts that have been brought out indicate that there is httle prospect for early utifi- zation of the major portion of this land, unless for timber growing. It is also clear, from the experience of the last 50 years and from the present condition of much of the land, that without constructive public action utilization for timber growing will come about exceedingly slowly and on an entirely inadequate scale. On some of the land the forests will have to be restored by public agencies; for the rest, it will be necessary for the public to cooperate in making timber growing attractive to private enterprise. Such action will be fully justified by the great public benefits that will result. It also has ample precedent in the State's expenditures for schools and roads. Within the last few years the people of Michi- gan authorized a $50,000,000 State bond issue for the construction of roads. In 1921 alone the State spent $20,000,000 for the construction and maintenance of highways. This does not include the amount spent by counties, towns, and cities. In the same year the State spent for roads and schools in the cut-over counties in the lower ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOKBST DESTRUCTION 93 peninsula and the eastern part of the upper peninsula more than $5,000,000 in excess of the amount of State tax collected in those counties. This money, although it has been well invested in making the State a better place to live in, will never come back directly to the State treasury. But money invested in building up forests on idle lands will not only yield enormous indirect returns from the economic and social standpoints, but all, or most of it, will ultimately be returned with interest.

o TO 25 PER CENT

ae TO 50 PER CENT

51 TO 75 PER CENT

76 TO 100 PER CENT

FIG. 51.~Ilatio of forest land in Michigan to total land area, by counties, 1920

Michigan is to be congratulated on the notable progress that has already been made in the establishment of State forests, the reforestation of denuded land, the organization of fire protection for public and private forests, and the economic classification of land in the cut-over region. Great as this progress has been, however, the situation can be adequately met only by pushing forward on a much- enlarged scale. The total area of land in Michigan that is available for timber production is 19,700,000 acres. (See Tables 4 and 5 and fig. 51.) 94 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

No doubt considerable land in the upper peninsula and smaller areas in northern lower Michigan will eventually be cleared and devoted to farming. On the other hand, much of the poorer land now farmed is likely to revert to forest, and much of the swamp land now classed as waste may be partially drained so that it will produce merchantable timber. Although it is impossible, of course, to foretell how much land may ultimately be utihzed for other purposes, the existing conditions and the course of development during the last 15 or 20 years seem to justify the assumption that the forest land will not be reduced by more than 1,000,000 acres within the next 50 years. Yet, except for farm woodlands, considerably under 10 per cent of the potential forest land is now definitely devoted to continuous timber production. The other 90-odd per cent, as well as the bulk of farm woodland, consists of land bearing old-growth forest, of land on which new growth has succeeded in establishing itself in spite of the many handicaps and without any effort or even intention on the part of the owners,^^ or of idle or practically idle cut-over land. It is not the purpose of this study to formulate detailed plans for restoring the forests and forest industries to this region. Details must be worked out locally by the proper authorities within the State and by the people of the communities most directly concerned. It seems desirable, however, to suggest some of the major features of a program for public action.

THE STATE MUST ACT The ownership of the forest land in Michigan is approximately as given in the tabulation below. According to these figures, 95 per cent of the forest land is in private ownership; but this percentage can not be taken as an indicator of relative responsibility for under- taking the burden of improvement. Owing to the condition in which the greater part of the forest land has been left after logging, and to the resulting economic situation, the lead in working out a forestry program must be taken by public agencies. The distribution of ownership ^^ is as follows :

Type of ownership Acres Per cent

National forests 126, 760 0 6 State forests, parks, and other reservations (not all organized) 405,500 2.1 State land subject to disposal _ 363,000 1 8 Municipalities and counties 3,500 0 0 Total public land 898, 760 4 5 Farm woodlands (including denuded) _ 3,897,400 19 8 Commercial tracts (including denuded land), also areas in private game preserves, etc _ 14,943,140 75 7 Total private land 18,840, 540 95 5

It should be recognized at the outset that the reforestation of a very large portion of the denuded land is not likely to come about

17 The attitude that was adopted for many years by some of the largest owners is expressed in the following statement (48): "We do not believe in forest management. We do not believe that the growing of trees for a future supply of logs is commercially practicable, because lumbermen have not been engaged in »8 Ownership of national-forest land is as of June 30, 1926. State land subject to disposal is given as reported by the State department of conservation, June 30, 1924. Considerable land has reverted to the State since that date. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 95 through private initiative for many years, if ever. Even though it is fairly certain that forestry will be profitable on these lands in the long run, the period that must elapse before returns can be expected is a big obstacle to the investment of private capital. The Federal Government is reforesting several thousand acres every year in northern Michigan. It is also assisting the State to provide fire protection for the other lands in the region, in addition to pro- tecting the national-forest land. Federal ownership, on July 1, 1928, embraced 209,172 acres in three units—one in the upper peninsula and two in the northeastern portion of the lower peninsula.^^ These units are more or less broken up by tracts of private land making the net area owned by the United States only 178,885 acres. In the interest of more effective and economical administration, it is desirable that each of these units be consolidated and somewhat enlarged. It is also possible that as more funds are made available by Congress one or two other national forest units may be established within the State. Within the next 10 to 20 years there may be approximately a million acres of national forest in northern Michigan. If the rest of the idle land is to be made productive, the State must do the work itself or lend its credit at such low rates that others can carry the investment until returns begin. The State's program should include: (1) A system of State forests; (2) promotion of forestry on the part of local public bodies (counties, towns, and cities) ; (3) encouragement and assistance to private owners.

DESIRABILITY OF A STATE PLANNING COMMISSION A concrete program must take into consideration many factors of practical politics. Moreover its application must be governed by many local economic and physical factors. The first step might be to set up some sort of State rural-planning commission to work out the details of necessary legislation and local appHcation. Such a commission would perform, for the State, functions somewhat similar to those of the city-planning commissions found in some cities. After considering all the available data bearing on the present and prospective utilization of the resources otl the various sections of the State, including the land, the commission would, so far as practicable, prepare plans or suggestions for the orderly coordinated development of those resources. Its duties would be chiefly to advise and guide the legislative and executive departments of the State in matters of policy with respect to such matters as land-settlement projects, drainage enterprises, location of highways, location, extent, and character of forestry undertakings, and promotion of manufacturing and other industries in specific locaHties and in general. It would also advise other public or private organizations of individuals in order that their undertakings might be in accord with the general plan of development. It would not exercise administrative functions such as those now performed by the departments of agriculture and conservation. The commission should consist of ex-officio representatives of the various legislative and executive departments, especially those dealing with forestry, agriculture, industries, highways, and other rural development, as v/ell as nonofficial experts in various phases of rural life.

^9 The two lower units constitute, by proclamation of July 30, 1928, the Huron National Forest; the northernmost, of 35,563 acres gross, is known as the Marquette purchase unit. 96 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Through its land economic survey the State has made an excellent start toward collecting the basic information requisite for planning the orderly utilization of portions of the cut-over region. It seems highly desirable that the survey should be pushed to an early conclusion and that permanent provision should be made for such revi- sions or resurveys as may be necessary from time to time.

EXTENSION OF STATE FORESTS It is impossible to determine at the outset just what proportion of Michigan's forest land should ultimately be in public ownership. Considering the character and condition of the land, however, it is suggested that the State should aim to acquire sufficient land in addition to what it already owns to bring its holdings to approximately 25 or 30 per cent of the area now classed as cut-over in the northern part of the State. This will make a total of some SJ^ million acres of State forest which, together with the land that may be acquired by the Federal Government and by local governmental units, will probably include most of the land that is not likely to be used by private owners. The State should acquire principally, although not exclusively, the poorer class of land, both because it is desirable to remove that land from the speculative market and because the State is better able to undertake forestry on poor land than are individuals or commercial organizations. Land of undoubtedly high agricultural value in large enough bodies to make settlement practicable should not be acquired. Most lands of present or potential value for resort purposes should also be left in private ownership. These will include strips possibly a quarter to half a mile wide along the principal lakes and larger streams. Forest cover is likely to be maintained on such lands by private owners, and the agricultural and resort lands are the principal sources of tax revenue for the local governments. Of course, it is desirable that some resort land be in public ownership. In the interest of efficient administration the State forests should be blocked out in fairly compact units, usually of not less than 20,000 acres each. They should be well distributed throughout the northern counties, with at least one unit in each county except those having a considerable area of national forest. Their location should be governed largely by the distribution of denuded land and by the presence of settlers and local industries. In general, the aim at first should be to help maintain existing farms and villages rather than to induce new settlement. In the poor-land localities additions to the State's holdings are constantly being made as a result of default in payment of taxes, and a thorough economic classification of the land will probably hasten this process, so that a large increase may be looked for in the area of State forest land. All land suitable for forestry that reverts to the State for nonpayment of taxes should be retained. ^ Other land needed to block up State forests may be acquired by gift or by purchase. In view of the public interest at stake there can be little question as to the right of the State to take land by condemnation proceedings in case the owners are willing neither to sell at a fair price nor to utilize it productive^. The price to be paid either under voluntary agreement or under condemnation proceedings should be extremely low for the sort of land embraced in the purchase program. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 97

The entire 33^ million acres should be acquired within 30 years, or at an average rate of 80,000 to 100,000 acres a year. The approximate location of practically all the State-forest units should be decided at the start, and acquisition of land in all of them should begin at once. This will avoid concentration on a few locahties to the neglect of others. , i Each forest will be a center for a unit of the state-wide fire-pro- tective organization which should cover all forest lands regardless of ownership. Probably about half of the area acquired (say, 1.5 million acres) will need artificial reforestation. All of this should be planted at the end of 30 years or at the average rate of about 60,000 acres a year after nursery production is brought up to the required point.. Local nurseries should be established in several parts of the region so» that planting work may be widely distributed—at least 1,000 acres; a year in each county. The advantages of thus distributing the planting are as follows: (1) Employment afforded to the local population over as much of the region as possible; (2) having all the forest units at the stage where they will yield revenue and material for local industries as soon as possible; and (3) a proper distribution of age-classes in each unit. It is desirable, also, to extend the planting program for each unit over a sufficient period so that upon its completion there will be other forest work for the settlers. In that way it will be possible to avoid an interruption in employment which might threaten the stability of the local communities. In most instances a portion of the land that is acquired will be more or less stocked with young trees such as jack pine and aspen, besides some of the more valuable species. These stands will need thinning and improvement cutting immediately or within a few years, and this, together with the construction and maintenance of roads and fire lines, will afford additional employment. The yield from thinnings of these stands and of plantations should increase steadily to at least 500,000 cords a year at the end of 30 years. By the end of 60 years there should be large and continuous yields of cordwood and saw timber from the young and mature stands.

ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL FORESTS Counties and towns, expecially those whose prosperity depends largely upon forest industries, should be encouraged and assisted to acquire and develop public forests. Local governments should own forests, not only for recreation or for protection of municipal water supplies, but also for growing timber to supply local industries and as a source of public revenue. Such forests should ordinarily be in units of at least 1,500 to 2,000 acres. As few towns, at least in the cut-over region, are in a position to wait 30 years or more for a'return, it will seldom be advisable for them to acquire large areas of denuded land. It is preferable that the bulk of the land should bear growing timber which will yield early returns. A State law providing for the establishment and management of municipal and county forests under a sufficient degree of State supervision to insure their protection and wise use would no doubt encourage public-spirited individuals and associations to donate forests to many towns and counties or to sell them at very low prices. The State can also help in some cases by donating tax lands that are 3596^—29 7 98 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE suitably located and by furnishing free planting stock for lands that need planting. The State should furnish fire protection and technical advice, and could even take over the actual management of the forests where they are adj acent or close to State forests. In northern Michigan, there should ultimately be at least 100,000 acres of county and municipal forest and in southern Michigan, where there will be no national or State forests, there should be perhaps 300,000 acres.

PROMOTION OP PRIVATE FORESTRY Allowing for some clearing and for the acquisition of 4 to 5 million acres by municipalities, counties, and the State and Federal Govern- ments, there will still remain at least 10 million acres of forest land in private ownership in northern Michigan and 3 million acres, mostly in farm woods, in the southern portion of the State. The area of farm woodland may be considerably reduced in the northern part of the State, while in the south there may be a slight decrease. The commercial tracts fall into two general classes: Those owned by lumber companies or others whose object is or was to cut timber for sale, and those owned by industries which require wood as a raw material for manufacture. It is likely that owners of the first class will tend to relinquish their holdings after the timber is cut, while those of the second class will tend to increase theirs as timber becomes scarce and high priced. A large part of the 13 million acres that will probably remain in private ownership now bears merchantable or young timber. With adequate fire protection and proper methods of cutting, most of this land can be kept continuously productive without planting. The public clearl}^ has the right to require and should require that it be kept productive; but at the same time the public should be ready to go a long way in assisting private owners both to reforest idle lands and to manage conservatively the lands bearing timber. The State should provide adequate fire protection for all forest lands, with provision for such cooperation by the owners as may be equitable. Planting stock should be made available at a low price for restocking bare land. The State should provide technical advice and instruction for owners in methods of handling their forests. It should also provide long-term credit at low interest rates ^°to enable owners to put their lands on a continuously productive basis. Such credit should be advanced only for specific expenditures, to be approv- ed by State ofíicials. It should not be granted for purchase of land or for the cost of merely holding the land, but only for expenditures such as planting, construction of fire lines, etc., which wül tend to make the land productive. The management of all forests on which credits are advanced should be subject to strict State control as long as the loans are outstanding, and such other safeguards should be provided as may be necessary in the public interest. In many instances the State should go even further. Much of the private land will lie within or adjacent to State forests, and results most satisfactory to the owner and to the State can be obtained if such land is handled by State ofiicers. This will be particularly true for land^ of nonresident owners. State management can be accomplished in either of two ways without the State actually ac-

20 It might be desirable either to waive interest entirely until the lands begin to yield an income, or to provide for deferred payment of interest without compounding. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 99 quiring the land. By one method the State would lease the land, pay all the costs, including taxes, and retain all the profits, if any. In this case the owner would be sure of a regular annual net return, which is more than he can count on now. The other way would be for the State to manage the forest under contract with the owner, who would pay the local taxes and a fixed charge to the State based on the cost of management. The owner would receive the revenue in excess of these amounts. Such an arrangement would probably be more attractive to owners with considerable amounts of timber large enough to cut. Industrial concerns which own or can acquire fairly large reserves of merchantable timber should consider carefully the possibility of adjusting their timber consumption so as to make their operations continuous. In some instances, a moderate reduction of output, coupled with better forestry practice, will be a practicable means of preventing early scrapping of costly plants. Other operations may be enabled to continue indefinitely on the present scale through acquisition of additional land or through reforestation of nonproductive land already owned. Keforestation or the acquisition and protection of land bearing immature timber will require a smaller initial investment and lower carrying costs than the purchase and holding for future cutting of an equivalent quantity of mature timber.

COST OF THE PROGRAM Table 26 (see next page) aims to show approximately what it might cost to carry out a program such as that outlined above. Under this plan the expenditure by the State would be about $1,050,000 in the first year, increasing to $2,100,000 in the tenth year. After that there would be a gradual increase to a maximum of about $2,750,000 in the thirtieth year. That is about one-sixth of the sum now paid annually by Michigan consumers for freight on imported forest products. The expenditures which are in the nature of capital investment can properly be financed through bond issues. While there may be some justification, also, for financing most of the other expenditures in the same way, it would seem preferable to meet current costs of fire protection, administration, and interest on bonds through taxation. If the program of acquisition and planting should be completed at the end of the thirtieth year, the issuance of bonds would practically cease. About the fortieth year income from the forests and repayments by private borrowers should practically cover the current expenses, including interest charges on the outstanding bonds. About the fiftieth year it would probably be possible to begin to retire the bonds at approximately the same rate at which they were issued. Because of the time required to establish nurseries and to grow planting stock the program should be definitely adopted and expenditures authorized for several years in advance—at least 10 years if possible. It should also be provided that the unexpended balance for any year be available for the same purposes until spent. 100 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 26,—Approximate annual cost of State forest program

TO BE FINxiNCED BY ISSUANCE OF BONDS

Purpose of expenditure First Fifth Tenth Twenti- Thirtieth year year year eth year year

Purchase of land 1 „. $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Planting and nurseries 2 75,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Administration, State forests ^ __ 55,000 120,000 200,000 330,000 420, 000 Planting stock for towns, etc.'' 10, 000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25, 000 Planting stock for private owners ^ 10, 000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25, 000 Loans to private owners 5__ 150, 000 270, 000 300, 000 300,000 300,000 Total- 500, 000 . 940,000 1,050,000 1,180,000 1, 270,000

TO BE FINANCED THROUGH TAXATION

State-wide fire protection 6 _ _ $465,000 $460,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Administration of State forests 3_ 40,000 80,000 130,000 220,000 280,000 General overhead 10,000 15,000 25,000 30.000 35,000 Technical advice to owners 10, 000 10,000 10, 000 10,000 10,000 Interests on bonds ^ ___ 25,000 185,000 435, 000 715,000 700,000 Total-, 550,000 750,000 1,050,000 1,425,000 1,475,000 Total annual cost ______1,050, 000 1, 690,000 2,100,000 2,605,000 2,745,000

1 Assuming that one-third to one-half of the annual quota of land can be obtained through tax default or otherwise. Probably more can thus be obtained at first. 2 Increasing $75,000 annually through the fourth year. 3 Cost of administration, protection, and improvement of State forests divided approximately in 60-40 ratio between capital investment and current expense. Costs increase with area of State forests. * Increasing $5,000 each in the third, fourth, and fifth years. 8 Increasing $30,000 annually to $300,000 in the sixth year. 6 Total cost approximately $500,000 a year, less contribution of the U. S. Government. Cost of protection should decrease as the forests are put under management. 7 Less interest payments by borrowers and income from State forests, and assuming that the full amount of bonds authorized is issued each year.

COORDINATION OF FOREST MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIES No matter how carefully he may follow a definite plan, it will not suffice a timberland owner, whether private individual, corpora- tion, or public entity, to undertake forestry independent of all other owners. For the forests to be of the highest service to their owners and to the public a considerable degree of cooperation and coordination in their management and utilization is imperative. This in turn will necessitate something in the nature of regional working plans, which should take into consideration the economic and other differ- ences affecting the participation of the various classes of owners. The plans should cover such points as organization of protection; development and maintenance of transportation systems, whether highways, railroads, or streams; estabhshment of subsidiary industries to utihze forest by-products, possibly from a large number of holdings; organization of marketing arrangements; and careful planning and coordination of research on all phases of forest production and utihzation. Even the coordination of silvicultural management would be highly desirable to the end that each economic unit within the region may produce continuously a supply of timber with reasonably steady proportions of the species and sizes that are needed. The advantages from the standpoint of permanent local forest industries and communities are obvious. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 101

Each of the State and national forest units should eventually produce enough timber to keep one or more fair-sized industries in continuous operation. It should be the pohcy to build up permanent communities in the vicinity of each unit, based upon the utihzation of both pubhc and private forests. It will not be enough merely to saw out the rough lumber and ship it out of the region for further manufacture. As far as possible the timber should be manufactured into its final form locally. Around the sawmill or other principal plant in each center there should be various minor industries to utihze the by-products or to manufacture further the main product. Such communities would constitute nuclei around which considerable agricultural development could take place on the better soils and, because of their diversity of interests, would be more attractive places to five in than one-plant sawmill towns.

PRODUCTIVE FORESTS WILL BRING PROSPERITY The existing State forests afford a slight indication of the effect that productive utilization of the forest land will have on the local communities. With less than 120,000 acres under management and none producing merchantable timber as yet, these forests have employed from 200 to 300 different individuals each year. Excepting a few year-long employees, these people work on the forests only part of the time and on their farms during the rest of the year. It is said that practically all of the settlers in the immediate vicinity of several State forests would have to give up farming were it not for their cash income from forest work. As the forests grow older they will give more work to a considerably larger number. Even though planting may eventually become less important, thinnings, improvement cutting, and various other operations will have to be carried on, and finally when the stage of regular annual cutting is reached, there will be employment for many men in harvesting and utilizing the timber. European forests, with no heavier average yields than can be obtained in Michigan, furnish employment at the rate of one man to about 150 acres throughout the year and actually employ a larger number because much of the work is seasonal (14, 19, 41), This includes only foresters and forest laborers; several times as many persons are employed by the various primary and secondary wood- using industries. In the northeastern part of the United States logging camps and sawmills employ one man for approximately every 60,000 board feet of lumber produced. With an annual growth under intensive forestry of 60 cubic feet or 300 board feet to the acre, which is a conservative estimate for Michigan, there would be a year's work for one man, not including the foresters, on every 200 acres. The forest land of Michigan could give employment to at least 100,000 men (or more, on a part-time basis) and, counting their families, could support some 450,000 persons directly, besides numerous people engaged in various trades and professions who would be supported indirectly. An increase of 450,000 in the permanent population of the region would afford local markets for the surplus crops from close to 3,000,000 acres of land, and would not only bring prosperity to the estabhshed settlers but would make possible the agricultural utilization of practically all of the best land, and might add 150,000 or more to the farm population of the State. Nor would this be all. As soon as continuous 102 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

adequate supplies of raw material were assured, numerous industries using wood and other forest products would spring up all over the northern part of the State and would employ many thousands of men and women. Unlike the earlier forest industries they might develop more slowly, but they would be permanent, and around them would grow up many permanent towns and villages. All told, it may be conservatively estimated ^^ that, with complete utilization, the forest land of Michigan would directly or indirectly support at least an additional million people.

LITERATURE CITED (1) ANONYMOUS. ' 1908. THE FIRE HAZARD IN RELATION TO TIMBER INVESTMENTS. AMER. Lumberman No. 1739: 36. (2) 1908. BRUSH FIRES IN MICHIGAN. Amer. Lumberman No. 1744: 32. (3) 1911. DESTRUCTIVE MICHIGAN FIRES. Amer. Lumberman No. 1887: 34; 1888: 37; 1891: 28. (4) 1922. TO ABANDON RAILROAD LINE IN MICHIGAN. Amer. Lumberman No. 2453: 41. (5) BARNES, O. F. 1913. THE FUTURE OF LAND INVESTMENTS IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN, REPORT OF JOINT CONFERENCE ON CONSERVATION AND DEVELOP- MENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OF MICHIGAN. JUNE 12, 1912. Lansing, Mich. (6) CAMERON, G. M. 1923. ''BIG DAN," A TALE OF THE AU SABLE. Lumber World Rev. 45(12) : 33-36. (7) CHASE, L. A. 1922. MICHIGAN AGRICULTURE. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. Mich. Dept. Agr. Bui. 13, 20 p., illus. (8) CHURCH, V. H. 1921. CROP REPORT FOR MICHIGAN. ANNUAL SUMMARY, 1920. 27 p. Lansing, Mich. (9) CRAWFORD AVALANCHE (GRAYLING) : (a) September 15, 1881; (b) December 22, 1881, and March 12, 1882: (c) May 31, 1883; (d) January 3, 1884; (e) March 13, 1884; (f) March 27,-1884; (g) April 23, 1885; (h) September 2, 1886; (i) December 23, 1886; (j) January 13, 1887; (k) February 7 1889; (1)' April 4, 1889; (m) April 16, 1891; (n) various dates from 1879 to 1882; (o) May 9, 1901. (10) CROZIER, A. A. 1897. MICHIGAN FORESTS OF TO-DAY. Mich. Bur. Labor and Indus. Statis. Ann. Rpt. 14: 342-343. (11) DETROIT NEWS, October 2, 1921. (12) ELY, R. T. 1924. TAXATION OF FARM LANDS. AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE TRI-STATE DEVELOPMENT CONGRESS, DULUTH, JANUARY 24, 1924. 28 p. St. Paul. (13) GRAND RAPIDS AND INDIANA RAILROAD. 1880-1908. ANNUAL REPORT: (a) For the year ending June 30, 1880; (b) 1893; (c) 1895; (d) 1896; (e) 1908; (f) various years. (14) GREAT BRITAIN. FORESTRY COMMISSION. 1923. THIRD ANNUAL REPORT, 1922. 38 p. Loudou. (15) HILL, A. J. 1898. THE PINE INDUSTRY IN MICHIGAN. Mich. Polit. Sci. AsSOC. Pubs. V. 3, no. 4, 17 p. (16) HOTCHKISS, G. W. 1898. HISTORY OF THE LUMBER AND FOREST INDUSTRY OF THE NORTH- WEST. 754 p. Chicago.

21 In the Department of Landes, in France, a little less than 1,300,000 acres of forest in one way or another supports the greater part of the 300,000 population. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 103

(17) IVEY, P. W. 1919. THE PERE MARQUETTE RAILROAD COMPANY. 259 D. Lansing, Mich. (18) JOCHIM, J. W. 1893. MICHIGAN AND ITS RESOURCES. 287 p., illus. Lansing, Mich. (19) JOHNSON, B. A. 1924. TEUTONIC FORESTRY. Lumber World Rev. 47(9): 51-69. (20) JOHNSON, I. A. 1919. THE MICHIGAN FUR TRADE. 201 p. Lansing, Mich. (21) LEVERETT, F. 1917. SURFACE GEOLOGY AND AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS OF MICHIGAN. Mich. Geol. and Biol. Survey Pub. 25, 223 p., illus. (22) LuDiNGTON DAILY NEWS, October 9, 1921. (23) MACDOWELL, J. C, and WALKER, W. B. 1916. FARMING ON THE CUT-OVER LANDS OF MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, AND MINNESOTA. U. S. Dcpt. Agp. Bul. 425, 24 p., illus. (24) MENDUM, S. W. 1923. COST OF MILK PRODUCTION ON FORTY-EIGHT WISCONSIN FARMS. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1144, 22 p. (25) MERSHON, W. B. 1923. RECOLLECTIONS OF MY FIFTY YEARS HUNTING AND FISHING. 259 p., illus. Boston. (26) MICHIGAN. AUDITOR GENERAL. 1917-1923. ANNUAL REPORTS: (a) For 1917, 1919, and 1923; (b) for 1920. (27) MICHIGAN BOARD OF STATE TAX COMMISSIONERS AND STATE BOARD OP

1902-1922.* REPORTS: (a) Report, 1902; (b) Eleventh report, 1919-20; (c) Twelfth report, 1921-22. (28) MICHIGAN BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL STATISTICS. 1897. FOURTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT, FOR THE YEAR ENDING FEBRUARY 1, 1897. 436 p. (29) MICHIGAN COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO TAXATION. 1923. REPORT, DECEMBER 14, 1922. 62 p. Lansing, Mich. (30) MICHIGAN. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 1908. REPORT, 1908. 146 p. Lansing, Mich. (31) MICHIGAN. COMMISSIONER OF THE BANKING DEPARTMENT. 1920. REPORT, Dec. 31, 1920. (32) MICHIGAN COMMISSIONER OF RAILROADS. 1875-1918. REPORTS, (a) Annual report for 1875; (b) Annual report for 1896; (c) Annual reports for 1917 and 1918. (33) MICHIGAN. DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. 1923-1925. BIENNIAL REPORT FOR 1921-1922. 358 p., illus., Lansing, 1923; (a) Biennial report for 1923-1924. 307 p., illus. Lansing, 1925. (34) MICHIGAN RAILROAD COMMISSION. 1915. ORDERS AND OPINIONS, JULY 28, 1915. (35) MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. 1919. PROCEEDINGS, 1919. (36) MICHIGAN STATE TAX STATISTICIAN. 1896. REPORT, 1896. (37) MICHIGAN STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. 1920. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON COMPARATIVE TAXABILITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 1920. (38) MICHIGAN. SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE POOR. ABSTRACTS OF ANNUAL REPORTS. (39) MICHIGAN. SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. 1920. 84th ANNUAL REPORT, 1920. (40) MILLS, J. C. 1918. HISTORY OF SAGINAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN. 2 v., illus. Saginaw, Mich. (41) ORTEGEL, R. 1922. DIE FORSTWIRTSCHAFT. 77 p. Neudamm (Prussia). (42) PIPER, C. V., AND OTHERS. 1924. OUR FORAGE RESOURCES. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1923: 311- 414, illus. (43) POWERS, P. F. 1912. HISTORY OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN. 2 v., illus. Chicago. 104 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

(44) SMITH, C. B. 1908. CLOVER FARMING ON THE SANDY JACK-PINE LANDS OF THE NORTH. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bui. 323, 24 p., illus. (45) THOMPSON, C. W. 1916. FACTORS AFFECTING INTEREST RATES AND OTHER CHARGES ON SHORT- TIME FARM LOANS. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 409, 12 p. (46) THOMPSON, H. AND STRAIT, E. D. 1914. COST AND METHODS OF CLEARING LAND IN THE LAKE STATES. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 91, 25 p., illus. (47) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 1922. FOURTEENTH CENSUS. VOL. 5. AGRICULTURE, P. 918-919. (ON Michigan farms.) (48) UNITED STATES SENATE. 1923. HEARINGS BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON REFORESTATION, 1923. Part 4, p. 571-574. (49) WATSON, R. 1923. FOREST CONSERVATION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MICHIGAN. Mich. Forestry Assoc. 64 p., illus. Ann Arbor. (50) 1923. FOREST DEVASTATION IN MICHIGAN. Jour. Forestrv 21: 425-451. (51) WHEELER, C. F. 1898. A SKETCH OF THE ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE PINE IN THE LOWER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 162: 4^6, illus. (52. WHITE, P. 1899. A BRIEF ATTEMPT AT THE HISTORY OF THE MINING INDUSTRY OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN. Mich. Polit. Sci. Assoc. Pubs. V. 3, no. 6, 19 p. (53) WOOD, L. H. 1914. PHYSICAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND SECTIONAL GEOGRAPHY OF MICHIGAN, Kalamazoo, Mich. APPENDIX In the following tables the wood requirements of Michigan are shown in detail, on the basis of the consumption in 1920. For the principal industries, the amounts consumed in 1910 and in 1920 are compared.

TABLE 27.—Wood required annually in Michigan, classified by kinds of wood and forms of product ^

[In thousands—i. e., 000 omitted]

Round Distil- tim- lation, All Lum- Logs Shin- bers in- pulp, Kind of wood and Veneer Hewed cluding Cooper- forms ber gles ties and bolts posts excel- age and sior poles wood

Cu.ft. Cu.ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu.fU Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Southern pine 64,844 63,770 42 '"■à Douglas fir 22,339 22,255 84 Total 87,183 86,025 42 934 182

Hemlock 49,906 35,314 18 3,524 2,838 8,212 Larch 15,318 3,409 62 2,802 6,472 1,917 656 Total 65,224 38,723 80 6,326 9,310 10,129 656 Northern pine 28,777 24,002 382 10 3,075 924 384 Western pine ____ 13,469 13,469 Total - -__ 42,246 37,471 382 10 3,075 924 384 Northern white cedar 24,644 1,163 186 1,096 6,115 16,084 Western red cedar 10,292 876 9,190 """Í26" 100 Cypress 1,816 1,752 ie" 48 Redwood 1,752 1,752 Southern red cedar 210 210 Total__ 38,714 5,543 202 10, 286 126 6,115 16,442 Spruce 16,459 2,189 1,016 13, 254 Balsam fir 5,265 1,183 60 4,022 Total 21, 724 3,372 60 1,016 17,276 Maple. 110,885 29,802 5,853 117 550 3,172 66,103 5,288 Birch. _ 33,114 16,302 799 624 275 904 13,085 1,125 Beech 25,938 8,977 760 59 872 3,561 10,103 1,606

Total 169,937 55, 081 7,412 800 1,697 7,637 89,291 8,019

Elm.___ 16,157 13,137 307 55 129 1,088 1,441 Hickory.. 13,244 7,189 6,055 Ash....^. 8,289 7,446 827 1 15 Pecan _ 5 5 Locust 3 3

Total 37,698 27,780 7,189 56 129 1,088 1,456

1 In this table, woods that have similar properties and are more or less interchangeable for many purposes are grouped together. The State's requirements could be met, for instance, with less southern pine if more Douglas fir were obtained in place of it, or vice versa. The figures are given in terms of the volume of standing timber that must be cut to furnish the products required. 105 106 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 27.—JVood required annually in Michigan^ classified by kinds of wood and forms of product—Continued

Round Distil- tim- lation, Logs bers in- pulp, All Lum- Shin- Hewed cluding Cooper- Kind of wood and gles Veneer and forms ber bolts ties posts excel- age and sior poles wood

Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft, Oak 32,814 25,616 66 Ill 5,631 1,439 51 Chestnut 4,415 4,383 32 Total 37, 229 29,999 66 143 5,531 1,439 51 Red glTm 20,444 19, 719 725 Tupelo -- 1,533 1,533 Total 21,977 21, 252 725 Basswood 6,564 5,174 694 151 268 277 Cottonwood 5,076 2,518 109 2,449 Yellow poplar 3,032 2,288 256 332 156 Willow 146 145 1 Total- 14,818 10,125 1,060 483 2,873 277

Walnut 2,454 2,267 187 Mahogany _ 1,839 1,623 216 Cherry. _ 53 53

Total- 4,346 3,943 403 Sycamore 493 473 11 9 Butternut 54 54

Total 547 527 11 9 Spanish cedar 84 58 26 Boxwood _ 21 --- 21 Teak 14 Primavera. _ 13 13 Ebony - _ 2 1 1 Rosewood 1 1 Total 135 86 23 26 Total, all species 541,778 319,927 16,485 10,286 2,814 20,741 40,189 120,493 10,843 Fuel wood 2 138,986 Grand total 3 680,764 319,927 16,485 10, 286 2,814 20, 741 40,189 120,493 10,843

2 It is not practicable to estimate the amounts of different kinds of wood used for fuel. » Some of these totals are slightly larger than those in Table 6, because 1920 consumption of some items was less than normal requirements. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 107

TABLE 28.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of motor vehicles in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920 Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

UOœhd.ft. l,000hd.ft Per cent UOOOhd.ft. UOOOhd.ft. Per cent Maple 4,394 1,693 39 65,339 38,397 59 Hickory _ _ 6,465 25 59,222 402 1 Elm._ 3,085 2,187 42,550 16,011 38 Red gum 615 34,043 Oak _ 788 479 61 33,824 1,655 5 Birch. 3,996 2,612 66 28,033 16,718 60 Ash 6,998 1,616 23 16,757 898 5 Southern pine 222 10,559 Beech 50 50 100 4,270 1,132 27 Yellow poplar... . 6,049 3,712 Cottonwood 40 3,446 Chestnut 580 i (2) 3,050 Walnut 262 197 76 2,680 Northern pine 546 646 100 2,196 701 32 Basswood. 252 167 66 1,127 725 64 Western red cedar _ 960 Douglas flr._ 717 Western pine. _ _ _ _ 6 291 Tupelo 100 Spruce. 60 50 100 62 22 35 Mahogany 203 55 Sycamore __ 51 Cypress... 24 Pecan. _ .. _ 22 Hemlock— 415 415 100 Circassian walnut 7 Total - 35,022 10,038 29 313,090 76,661 24

1 The 1920 consumption includes 1,901 M board feet in the form of veneer (western red cedar 600 M, basswood 525 M, gum 401 M, birch 175 M, yellow poplar 150 M, walnut 26 M, mahogany 25 M), and 31,600 M feet of logs and bolts (hickory 27,000 M, ash 2,000 M, maple 2,000 M, yellow poplar 500 M, and basswood 100 M). 2 Less than 0.5 per cent. 108 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 29.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of planing-mill products in Michiganj 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

UOOOU.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent UOOOU.ft. UOOOhd.ft. Per cent Maple.- _ _ 185,745 156,654 84 178,482 160,344 90 Southern pine _ 23,085 22,162 Hemlock—. 101,271 100,771 99 18,127 15,377 85 Oak 9,267 1,811 20 14,843 1,532 10 Northern pine__ _ 53, 772 30,330 56 10,891 5,280 48 Beech 11, 253 10,853 96 10,165 9,665 95 Birch _ 14,431 11,253 78 9,635 8,019 83 ■Red gum _„„^ _ 286 7,278 Douglas fir 325 6,294 Western pine _ 253 5,875 Cypress 4,354 1,351 Basswood 13,181 9,028 68 1,326 1,291 97 Elm 1,268 1,242 98 721 721 100 Spruce 4,426 3,851 87 602 310 51 Redwood 40 583 Yellow poplar _ _ . _ 2,980 97 3 400 Ash 1,168 1,127 96 321 321 100 Northern white cedar 101 101 100 250 250 100 Walnut 13 9 70 221 Larch _ ... 4,450 4,450 100 210 210 100 Chestnut. . 204 199 Western red cedar 101 Mahogany . 97 53 Balsam fir. . 325 325 100 Cottonwood . 85 45 53 Butternut _ 50 50 100 Tupelo 30 Circassian walnut. _ _ 28 Box elder 25 25 iöo Sycamore _ _. 8 8 100 Hickory.. 5 5 100 Black cherry. (2) (2) 100 Total 432,526 332,035 77 290,090 203, 320 70

1 The 1920 consumtion includes 280 M feet of logs and bolts (southern pine 200 M, northern pine 50 M, spruce 10 M, and maple, beech, birch, and basswood 5 M each). 2 Less than 1,000 board feet. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 109

TABLE 30.—Wood consumed in the manufacture oj boxes and crates in Michigan^ 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

UOOOhd.ft. l,00OU.fL Per cent l,000hd.ft. UOOOhd.ft. Per cent Northern pine - _ _ 66,584 31,605 47 61,376 29,109 47 Southern pine 10,124 59,060 Western pine _ 100 19,451 Hemlock 29,023 26,431 91 18,145 17,833 98 Birch • - -. 11,933 11,070 93 11,881 10,301 87 Maple- 29, 218 28,815 99 11,934 10,396 87 Beech - __ 28, 514 27, 614 97 11,229 10,299 92 Elm - 15,245 13,097 86 9,445 7,350 78 Basswood 19,140 12, 641 66 9,273 7,115 77 Red giiTTi 5,005 3,179 Larch 4,650 4,650 iöö 2,342 1,443 62 Douglas fir _. _ . 2,124 Ash . - - - _ - . 3,039 2,540 84 1,965 1,323 67 Spruce 733 633 86 1,438 169 12 Oak - - _ 698 660 95 1,395 103 7 Yellow poplar _ 342 2 1 1,389 Cottonwood - _ _- 6,443 5,628 86 1,304 942 72 Balsam fir .- 418 83 20 775 568 73 Northern white cedar 500 500 100 Cypress. __ __ 302 Sycamore 3 3 100 165 65 39 Chestnut _ _ 340 15 Tupelo 200 Black walnut- . ._ 153 3 2 Yellow buckeye 100 Hackberry _ 50 50 100 Cherry-. 40 Mountain ash 5 5 100 Black willow 5 5 100 Ailanthus 5 5 100 Mahogany. - 1 Total 232, 111 165,440 71 228,687 97, 516 43

1 The 1920 consumption includes 2,679 M board feet in the form of veneer (gum 1,350 M, maple 360 M, beech 281 M, elm 254 M, southern pine 200 M, birch 164 M, northern pine 50 M, basswood 19 M, oak 1M), and 9,173 M feet of logs and bolts (maple 1,779 M, northern pine 1,726 M, beech 1,193 M, elm 1,129 M, basswood 853 M, birch 701 M, white cedar 500 M, yellow poplar 458 M, cottonwood 342 M, ash 314 M, larch 281 M, balsam fir 275 M, hemlock 80 M, sycamore 50 M, and oak 32 M). lio TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 31.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of furniture in Michigan^ 1910 and 1920

V 1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

1,000 bd. ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent 1,000 bd. ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent Red gum 6,876 32,699 Maple.- 13,275 11, 701 88 9,779 5,324 54 Oak 31,103 3,027 10 9,673 1,502 16 Birch 5,260 2,914 55 8,304 4,349 52 Mahogany 5,024 7,075 Walnut 111 14 13 6,236 28 Beech . 6,159 6,159 100 4,382 3,707 85 Chestnut 2,737 3,570 Basswood 4,208 3,553 84 2,495 1,951 78 Elm 2,077 1,977 95 1,296 1,130 87 Yellow poplar 1,586 87 5 1,193 Southern pine . 40 1,092 Redwood 528 Northern pine 467 457 98 435 355 82 Cottonwood . 24 4 15 310 30 10 Spruce 299 Tupelo 260 Butternut 205 Willow _ . 201 24 12 Sycamore 400 4Ö 10 183 Western pine 100 Primavera _ _ _ 60 60 Douglas fir 30 Ash 1,860 1,671 90 14 3 li Western red cedar. 6 Cherry _ 10 10 100 6 1 17 Circassian walnut 182 Persimmon ._ 10 Satinwood 8 Ebony (3) Rosewood ___ (3)

Total 81,477 31,614 39 90,431 18,404 20

1 The 1920 consumption includes 4,713 M board feet in the form of veneer (gum 1,280 M, birch 897 M, yellow poplar 772 M, walnut 772 M, mahogany 637 M, chestnut 150 M, oak 93 M, basswood 81 M, maple 23 M, ash 6 M, and elm 2 M). 2 Less than 0.5 per cent. 3 Less than 1,000 board feet. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOEEST DESTRUCTION 111

TABLE S2.-^Wood consumed in the manufacture of sash, doors, blinds, and general millwork in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

l,000bd.ft. 1,000 hd. ft. Per cent l,000hd.ft. 1,000 hd. ft. Per cent Northern pine ___ 28,548 9,386 33 13,635 4,824 35 Western pine 5,065 13,523 Southern pine ______10, 514 6,972 Beech . .. 4,729 4,729 100 2,676 2,126 79 Oak 7,172 160 2 1,486 266 18 Hemlock 8,550 8,550 100 1,218 403 33 Spruce _ - 935 210 22 1,039 4 (2) Douglas fir ._. 140 853 Bass wood 198 183 92 744 100 13 Red gum . 346 628 Cypress 3,982 607 Birch 2,267 2,068 91 479 300 63 Chestnut 56 377 Maple - -- 7,601 7,598 100 133 104 78 Yellow poplar ._ _ __ ._ 2,999 44 1 118 Redwood _ _ 220 48 Elm 19 19 100 26 26 100 Larch 200 200 100 26 26 100 Ash 75 75 100 19 14 74 Western cedar ._. 5 19 Mahogany ._. __ . .__ 188 17 Walnut - 30 10 0 5 Cottonwood_ _ .__ _ __ 30 2 7 (3) Northern white cedar . 120 120 100 Black cherry-_. . _ _ _ _ 60 Teak 5 Butternut.__ . 5 5 100 Hickory _ _ _ _ 5 5 100 Balsam fir 5

Total 84,069 33, 354 40 44, 653 8,193 18

1 The 1920 consumption includes 70 M board feet in the form of veneer (gum 20 M, birch 20M, oak 15 M, basswood 8 M, yellow poplar 5 M, others 2 M), and 5 M feet of logs and bolts (northern pine). 2 Less than 0.5 per cent. 3 Less than 1,000 board feet. 112 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 33.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of refrigerators and kitchen cabinets in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantify Grown in Mich- used igan used i igan

l,OOOU.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent IßOOhd.ft. UOOOhd.ft. Per cent Ash 9,683 5,566 57 14,568 1,897 13 Elm 8,243 6,743 82 3,352 1,977 59 Southern pine 550 2,459 Douglas fir 1,981 Spruce. 1,549 200 13 Hemlock 4,415 4,415 100 1,393 1,273 91 Oak 3,281 150 5 1,288 58 5 Basswood __ 991 973 98 1,161 596 51 Red gum _. . _ 2,335 1,050 Birch..- 791 641 81 732 600 82 Cottonwood 605 325 Chestnut 8 268 Maple -- 4,272 4,257 100 264 264 100 Cypress 248 Yellow poplar iöö 206 Beech 27 27 iöö 200 200 100 Redwood 194 Northern white cedar " 65 Western red cedar .__ _ _. 64 White pine _ 262 262 100 Larch _ _ 56 56 100 Sycamore _ 10

Total 35,629 23,090 65 31, 367 7,065 23

1 The 1920 consumption includes 520 M board feet in the form of veneer (gum 310 M, oak 150 M, and maple 60 M), and 160 M feet of logs and bolts (yellow poplar).

TABLE 34.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of musical instruments in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

IßOOhd.ft. IßOOhd.ft. Per cent IßOOhd.ft. IßOOhd.ft. Per cent Chestnut .. _ ._ -__ 3,351 7,360 Maple 1,348 1,333 99 2,599 1,742 67 Beech .__ 5 5 100 2,544 2,544 100 Yellow poplar . 2,610 2,526 Red gum 193 2,032 Oak - - 595 337 57 1,357 Birch 283 248 88 1,169 919 79 Spruce.. - -_ 145 922 Mahogany 278 426 Douglas fir 132 415 Basswood 1,031 973 94 300 175 58 Elm .-- 1,180 1,095 93 277 275 99 Walnut 317 29 9 146 Western pine 93 105 Redwood _ _. .. 100 Ash 79 4 5 20 Ebony 1 4 Northern pine. 367 187 51 Hemlock 215 200 93 Black cherry 40 40 100 Rosewood— _. 10 Spanish cedar 1 Total 12, 274 4, 451 36 22, 302 5,655 25

1 The 1920 consumption includes 1,347 M board feet in the form of veneer (yellow poplar 661 M, mahogany 508 M, oak 203 M, maple 113 M, gum 40 M, walnut 21 M, birch 1 M). ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 113

TABLE 35.—TVood consumed in the manufacture of woodenware and novelties in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

IfiOOhd.ft. IfiOOhd.ft. Per cent IfiOOhd.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent Maple _- 26,842 26,842 100 14, 730 14, 730 100 Birch-__ 437 437 100 1,823 1,823 100 Beech.-. 5,836 5,836 100 1,665 1,665 100 Southern pine 725 480 Northern pine.. 3,851 1,933 50 470 20 4 Spruce. 400 Cottonwood .__ 159 51 32 330 30 9 Basswood __. . 5,863 5,663 97 287 287 100 Red gum ... _ .__ __ _ 303 174 Hickory.. 387 27 7 125 Ash 141 126 89 101 i 1 Elm ._ 386 196 51 100 50 50 Douglas fir. 75 Yellow poplar. _ 62 Northern white cedar __. 200 200 100 30 30 100 Cherry.... __ __ 20 Hemlock.. 4 4 100 20 20 100 Western red cedar 10 Oak 81 56 69 8 8 100 Mahogany._ _. _ _ __ 32 7 Walnut 3 6 Boxwood _ ___ (?) (2) iö5 Circassian walnut ___ 15 Tamarack _ _. 2 2 100 Balsam ñr , (?) 100 Total. 45, 267 41, 373 91 20,923 18, 664 89

Î The 1920 consumption includes 16,228 M feet of logs and bolts (maple 13,799 M, birch 1,701 M, beech 578 M, basswood 100 M, cottonwood 30 M, and northern pine 20 M). 2 Less than 1,000 board feet.

TABLE 36.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of handles in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

1,000 bd. ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent Maple _ 23,483 23,483 100 7,915 7,915 100 Birch 1,600 1,600 100 2,043 2,043 100 Beech 5,146 5,146 100 1,651 1,661 100 Ash ._ 4,891 4,790 98 1,472 972 66 Hickorv.^ 598 408 68 633 158 25 Elm..'-.^' . 1,122 1,122 100 312 312 100 Basswt'- 316 316 100 102 102 100 Redgu* 390 100 Oak 4 128 128 100 62 62 100 Hemlock. .* 500 500 100 59 59 100 Cottonwood-- . 3 3 100 Northern pine .- 3 3 100 Spruce 2 2 100 Northern white cedar.__ ... 1 1 100 Black cherry 25Ö 250 100 Apple 50

Total 38,474 37, 743 98 14, 358 13,283 93

1 The 1920 consumption includes 7,360 M feet of logs and bolts (maple 2,840 M, ash 1,454 M, beech 1,200 M, birch 1,000 M, hickory 533 M, elm 275 M, and oak 58 M). 3596°—29 8 114 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUKE

TABLE 37.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of fixtures in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

l,OOOU.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent Red gum 1,130 3,254 Oak 7,199 219 3 2,682 133 5 Birch 2,123 783 37 2,009 1,049 52 Beech. 718 718 100 1,275 640 50 Basswood 1,093 719 66 657 427 65 Yellow poplar 108 10 9 644 Chestnut 440 10 2 608 Willow 150 461 Western pine 280 Mahogany 235 185 Cypress 73 110 Walnut 1 1 100 108 Southern pine _ 273 65 __. Elm 2,596 2,340 90 56 91 Cottonwood _ 20 40 Cherry 30 38 20 53 Northern pine _ 83 73 88 27 27 100 Maple __ -- -- 7,367 7,367 100 5 5 100 Ash 325 212 65 Hemlock __ __ _ 250 250 100 Total 24, 214 12,702 52 12.404 2.352 19 1 1 The 1920 consumption includes 29 M board feet in the form of veneer (oak 11 M, birch 9 M, elm 6 M, and mahogany 3 M).

TABLE 38.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of chairs in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

l,000bd.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent 255 4,299 Oak - 4,211 475 11 2,467 183 7 Maple -- 1,028 1,028 100 2,211 2,063 93 Birch 1,000 915 92 1,622 107 7 377 323 Beech 1,260 1,251 99 258 238 92 Walnut 187 Elm --- 1,020 557 55 130 130 100 Ohpstmit 22 83 Nnrthprn Dine 45 45 100 10 8 100 100 15 Ash 650 XIF Total 9,823 4,326 44 11,643 #m 24

1 The 1920 consumption includes 1,303 M board feet in the form of veneer (birch 1,284 M, walnut 7 M, gum 5 M, mahogany 5 M, oak and maple 1 M each). ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOEEST DESTRUCTION 115

TABLE 39.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of sporting and athletic goods in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

UOOObd.ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent l,000bd.ft. 1,000 bd.fi. Per cent Maple _ _ 3,087 2,837 92 6,081 6,081 100 Yellow poplar 875 Spruce _ 700 Southern pine 440 Northern white cedar 30 30 100 350 350 100 Walnut 131 Elm 3,116 3,116 100 110 110 100 Birch _ _ _ __ 171 171 100 100 100 100 Mahogany. 66 Oak 215 60 Hickory __ 240 200 83 31 31 100 Basswood ______30 30 100 11 11 100 Red cedar 10 Ebony 2 Rosewood-, 2 Cocobola 1 Moral ___ 1 Padouk._ 1 Purpleheart 1 Satinwood 1 Veneyra 1 Ash. 262 202 77 Total 7,161 6,586 92 8,965 6,683 75

1 The 1920 consumption includes 40 M board feet in the form of veneer (mahogany 25 M and walnut 15 M), and 4,360 M feet of logs and bolts (maple 4,000 M, white cedar 350 M, ebony, rosewood, etc., 10 M).

TABLE 40.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of laundry appliances in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used igan

1,000 bd. ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent Tupelo 1,500 2,000 Beech. _ .. 1,236 1,236 100 1,720 1,720 100 Cypress . 1,053 1,362 Hemlock 1,300 1,300 100 1,045 1,045 100 Sycamore 1,000 Southern pine 290 Western red cedar. 250 Dougals fir 250 Spruce . 2,000 250 Cottonwood 2,000 222 Maple... 3,064 3,064 100 97 97 100 Elm 955 955 100 87 62 71 Northern pine 45 5 11 Birch 11 11 100 Bass wood - _ 620 120 19 8 8 100 Total 13, 728 6,675 49 8,637 2,948 34 116 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, TJ. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 41.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of caskets and coffins in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

1,000 hd. ft. l,000hd.ft. Per cent 1,000 bd. ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent Chestnut _ - 1,801 2,158 5 ^ (2) Western pine 1,904 Oak 520 1,167 89 8 Redwood 10 770 Northern pine _ __ 1,650 503 30 743 81 11 Red gum 400 599 Cypress 35 400 605 • 275 Basswood 525 485 92 163 85 52 Walnut 150 Mahogany 250 65 Douglas fir _ 51 Yellow Donlar 250 30 105 10 Birch 100 100 100 Maple 50 50 100 Red cedar 20

Total - 6,321 1,138 18 8,485 ■ 260 3

1 The 1920 consumption includes 75 M board feet in the form of veneer (walnut 50 M and mahogany 25 M). 2 Less than 0.5 per cent.

TABLE 42.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of agricultural implements in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan • used 1 igan

1,000 bd. ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent 1,000 bd. ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent Maple - 1,486 1,196 80 1,379 809 59 Oak 790 407 52 1,038 295 28 Northern pine 2,100 1,893 90 764 100 13 Southern pine 1,531 689 Basswood 816 641 79 592 386 65 Cotton wood 485 20 4 510 54 11 Western pine 408 Elm 1,128 1,068 95 300 240 80 Yellow poplar 4,261 270 Red gum 875 254 Hickory 234 48 21 177 78 44 Cypress 216 125 Ash 2.199 Í,Í64 53 108 56 52 TTfimlock 226 156 69 84 Beech _ 209 159 76 73 73 100 Birch 18 25 25 100 Chestnut 40 40 100

Total - 16,614 6,792 41 6,796 2,116 31

1 The 1920 consumption includes 515 M feet of logs and bolts (oak 205 M, cottonwood 125 M, cypress 75 M, maple 55 M, yellow poplar 30 M, basswood 15 M, hickory 5 M, and ash 5 M). ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 117

TABLE 43.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of nonmotor vehicles in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

l,000U.ft. UOOOM.ft. Per cent UOOOhd.ft. UOOOM.ft. Per cent Maple 7,716 7,090 92 5,016 4,701 94 Beech 1,184 1,184 100 577 577 100 Oak 4,025 1,075 27 404 199 49 Elm. .. 4,728 4,181 88 280 220 79 Hemlock 10 10 100 124 100 81 Tupelo 100 Ash 949 837 88 88 36 41 Hickory., 6,466 382 6 79 6 8 Northern pine.- _ 70 65 93 52 52 100 Southern pine 214 13 Douglas fir 10 Birch 86 86 iöö 5 5 100 Yellow poplar _ 800 64 8 5 Ke

1 The 1920 consumption includes 6 M board feet in the form of veneer (gum 5 M and maple 1 M), and 10 M feet of logs and bolts (oak 5 M, ash 3 M, and hickory 2 M.) 2 Less than 1,000 board feet.

TABLE 44.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of professional and scientific instruments in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

1,000 bd. ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent 1,000 bd. ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent Basswood 90 90 100 2,175 2,175 100 Maple _ _ 2,700 2,700 100 1,900 700 37 Hickory. 252 120 48 205 50 24 Cottonwood __ 152 2 1 Yellow poplar 150 Red gum 100 Boxwood 100 96 Beech 30 30 100

Total 3,172 2,940 93 4,778 2,927 61

1 The 1920 consumption includes 2,203 M feet of logs and bolts (basswood 2,000 M, hickory 105 M, boxwood 96 M, and cottonwood 2 M). 118 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTUEE

TABLE 45.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of tanks in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used igan

l,000hd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent Douglas fir 4,020 1,950 Redwood 1,250 1,025 Southern pine ______3,110 950 Cypress 1, 031 501 Spruce. - 150 Larch 8,560 2,665 31 105 65 62 Northern pine. _ . __ 2,465 850 34 7 7 100 Western red cedar 100 Hemlock .__ .__ 100 100 100 Maple 35 35 100 Beech _ _ __ 25 25 100 Total 20, 696 3,675 18 4,688 72 2

TABLE 46.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of cigar boxes in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent Tupelo 600 2,336 Red gum _ 60 1,028 Yellow poplar 240 654 Spanish cedar__ _ __ 507 389 Basswood 13 13 100 15 Sycamore.- ._ ___ 60 Cottonwood ..__-- _ -. _ . 1 1 100 Total 1,481 14 1 4,420 0 0

1 The 1920 consumption includes 125 M board feet of Spanish cedar used in the form of veneer.

TABLE 47.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of plumbers^ woodwork in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used igan

UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent Oak 2,001 970 Birch 128 66 52 760 100 13 Red gum 181 570 Chestnut _ . 3 25 Mahogany ... 42 20 Northern pine . . 40 40 100 Black cherry. 10

Total 2,405 106 4 2,345 100 4 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 119

TABLE 48.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of toys in Michigan^ 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used igan

l,000hd.ft. l,000hd.ft. Per cent l,000bd.ft. l,000hd.ft. Per cent Beech 1,671 1,671 100 550 475 86 Birch 17 17 100 415 25 6 Walnut 300 Tupelo 225 Elm 885 584 66 201 86 43 Cottonwood 140 Ash 28 28 100 100 Basswood 797 269 34 80 30 38 Spruce. ______60 Bed gum _ _ 55 Maple _ _ _ _ 106 106 100 46 46 100 Southern pine 27 Western pine 25 Douglas fir 20 Oak 85 52 61 19 19 100 Northern pine 126 126 100 1 1 100 Total 3,715 2,853 77 2,264 682 30

TABLE 49.—Wood consumed in ship and boat building in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used igan

1,000 bd. ft. UOOObd.ft. Per cent l,000bd.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent Oak 1,386 360 26 776 464 60 Cypress 916 260 Douglas fir ______475 260 Southern pine 269 229 Northern pine 157 132 84 171 152 89 Northern white cedar 522 485 93 119 113 95 Teak 64 Mahogany ______75 54 Butternut 1 20 42 6 14 Spruce _ _ 82 4 5 22 Western red cedar 38 20 Walnut 15 Yellow popular . _ 15 Western pine 14 Basswood 9 9 100 12 12 100 Ash 38 28 74 5 3 60 Sassafras- ____ 2 Lignum vitae 1 Tamarack _ 6 6 100 1 Birch _ 295 270 92 Elm _ 62 62 100 Gum _ 52 Redwood __ 60 Cottonwood 10 Maple 5 5 100 Hemlock._ 3 3 100 Beech _ 0) 100 Total _ _ 4,480 1,364 30 2,082 750 36

1 Less than 1,000 board feet. 120 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, XJ. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 50.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of dowels in Michigan, 19.10 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan usedi igan

UOOOU.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent 1,000 bd.fi. l,000bd.ft. Per cent Elm _ -- 150 75 50 835 526 63 Beech 1,000 1,000 100 528 528 100 Maple 580 580 100 316 316 100 Birch. _. 500 500 100 258 258 100 Oak 2 2 100 Hickory 2 Total 2,232 2,155 97 1,939 1,630 84

1 The 1920 consumption includes 1,000 M feet of logs and bolts (beech 500 M, maple 250 M, and birch 250 M).

TABLE 51.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus in Michigan, 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used igan

l,000bd.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent l,000bd.ft. 1,000 bd. ft. Per cent Elm - - __ 400 400 100 700 500 71 Oak 514 590 Maple 28 25 89 31 31 100 Southern pine 20 Walnut 13 Yellow poplar ■ " 3" 3 100 13 Birch _ 59 5 8 6 6 100 Ked gum 6 Basswood __ _ 3 3 100 Mahogany 3 Total 1,010 436 43 1,379 537 39

TABLE 52.—Wood consumed in the manufacture of trunks and valises in Michigan^ 1910 and 1920

1910 1920

Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich- used igan used 1 igan

l,000bd.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent UOOObd.ft. l,000bd.ft. Per cent Basswood- _ 1,843 1,343 73 907 726 80 Hemlock- 7,000 7,000 100 Maple 5,000 5,000 100 * Beech 500 500 100 Elm __ 307 307 100

Total _ 14,650 14,150 97 907 726 80

» The 1920 consumption includes 94 M board feet of basswood in the form of veneer. O ORGANIZATION OP THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE ; January 2, 1929

Secretary of Agriculture W. M. JARDINE. Assistant Secretary R. W. DUNLAP. Director of Scieritific Work A. F. WOODS. Director of Regulatory Work WALTER G. CAMPBELL. Director of Extension C. W. WARBURTON. Director of Personnel and Business Admin- istration W. W. STOCKBERGEB. Director of Information M.S. EISENHOWER, Solicitor - R. W. WILLIAMS. Weather Bureau CHARLES F. MARVIN, Chief. Bureau of Animal Industry JOHN R. MOHLER, Chief, Bureau of Dairy Industry ; O.E. REED, Chief. Bureau qf Plant Industry WILLIAM A. TAYLOR, Chief, Forest Service R. Y. STUART, Chief. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils H. G. KNIGHT, Chief, Bureau of Entomology C. L. MARLATT. Chief. Bureau of Biological Survey PAUL G. REDINGTON, Chief. Bureau of Public Roads THOMAS H. MACDONALD, Chief. Bureau of Agricultural Economics NILS A. OLSEN, Chief. Bureau of Home Economics LOUISE STANLEY, Chief. Plant Quarantine and Control Administration C. L. M ARLATT. Chief. Grain Futures Administration J. W. T. DUVEL, Chief. Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration.. WALTER G. CAMPBELL, Director of Regulatory Work, in charge. Office of Experiment Stations E. W. ALLEN, Chief. Office of Cooperative Extension Work C. B. SMITH, Chief, Library. « CLARIBEL R. BARNBTT, Librarian.

This bulletin is a contribution from

Forest Service R. Y. STUART, Chiefs Branch of Research EARLE H . CLAPP, A ssistant Forester, in charge. Office of Forest Economics R. E. MARSH, in charge.

ADDITIONAL COPIES Oï THIS PUBUCATION MAY BE PROCUEED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 25 CENTS PEB OOPy