MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A 11NIn~ STA'tES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WAS1;JlNGTON, D. c..
THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DE8TRUCTION IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN ~
By WILLlAM N. SPARHAWK, Senior .Forest Economist, arid W AHREN D. BRUSH, Forest-Examiner, Branch of Research, Forest Service , .. "'-.~
CONTEN'l'S Page Page IntroductioIL______1 Tbe problem of.ldleland__ .______67 The .original fure5ts______" Extant of idle land.______67 Exploitation of rille forests______6 Recreational use.isnot enougb....______.68 Amount of timber cut or waste INTRODUCTION Probably the expression "forest destruction "conv6YS to most people ~he idea of conversion of a forest into a more or less permanent waste, with no young growth and no prospect of my within a reason able time without c.ostlyartificial 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 misha:n.dling_ 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 producti.on of usable materials in fairly steady quantities. '3500°-29--1 1 " ""."'Y' .. "' .:" ". ., " "',.:','" i \~CHNICAL BULLETIN 92'~. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTlJRE \. If'\8. forest region is to be permanently ptoductive and the home of a :!l~ttled, prosperous population, its inaQStri~s and towns must be established on a continuous basis. They must not be mere temporary camps operating in one region fora few ;years or a few decad,es 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 other wise utilized 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 dis astrous and far-reaching disruption of the general economic and I:locial structure. The same principles that apply to an entire region alsoap~ly in a large measure to smaller economic units. A given commumty or sa,,'Iilill 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 (\f the usable material is taken off and the farmer has to purchase bL timber and firewood while he waits for a ~ew 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 fUrnllshed in abundance and f.l.t low pric:es the timber required for housing a rapidly expanding population, for putting up barns and fe~nces on .more t~an 6 million farms, f?r bG;ildin~ and equippi?g 2<>0,000 miles of railroads, and for supplyrng ~ 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 indu~try 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 eastto the Lake States, and from the Lake States to the southern pineries. It is now in the process of shifting frem. the southern pineries to the forests of the Pacific Northwest. In some regions, notably the hardwood belts. in the Eastern and Central States where the surface is level or :l'olling, most of the cut over land was promptly occupied by settlers and turned into farms and pastures. Although the forest disappeared from thH land, it gave way to a higher use, and where the physical .and economic con ditions were favorable for agriculture the result v'as 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 tJmber. ECONOMIC .ASPEW'S OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 3 The conditions that usua.lly followed in the wake of lumbering, however, were less s~tisf8.Ctory. Great expanses of land were stripped of a.ll the more desirable timber, and there remained only the defec tives andtheunfit--@Cattered trees thatwerelimby, stunted, crooked, or fungus infested, or trees of the less desirable species. Such forests will be incapable for a long time of yielding anythlng else than :firewood and So 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 slight 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 t.he demand for a.ll kinds of timber he-'s become more intense, less and less growing timber hus been left on the land by the loggers. The little left has been wiped out over 'fide areas by conflagrations, the destructiveness of which has beenintensi fied by the huge masses of logging debris. 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 localities, particularly those where conifer forests Predom inated, nlIDlerous a.ttempts to utili.ze the land for other plli""poses than timber grow~~ have ended in. .failure, and. it has lain idle or partly idle, some t>f It for 50 years, producing little or no economic good. The area of such idle landis sttladily increasing, and the area of produc ,tive forest is diminishing, while our growing pop.clation 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 bulletill was undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining how forest destruction, followed by nonutilization of the cut-over lund, affects the regiol1s concerned. M1chigan was chosen because it is one of the States in which the more serious forms of de struetion had the earliest 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): 1 The destruction of Michigan forests bas in recent years been accompanied by other results that should awaken us to the fearful economic loss their complete uestruction is bound to entail. Followingthe.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, cp,pital 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 will be under present conditions, it will mean thousands of people forced out of their regular employ ment and into competition with wage earners in other lines of business, the dis appearance from the tax roll of a large amount of taxable property, and the WIth drawal of. millions of additional capital from pr0fitable 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 panlnt!leses refer to "Literature ciWld," p. 102. .; I'Il 4 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92,U. S. DEl!T. OF AGRICULTURE been happening or may happen all over the..country. Nor ist!'3re any idea of attributing the conditions now eXisting to anyone gronp or class. Lumbermen, land and timber speculators~ settlers, railroads, and local, State, and Federal Goverments, all must share the respon sibility. Noone group alone would have caused or could have pre- vented 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. Tne accomplishment of this task will build up on the better lands a prosperous, permanent agricult1u'e, and on the rest permaneni forest mdustries. 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 hf!.ve been some untimbered o-;enings on the sand plains farther north, as well as in the swamps.Considerabie areas of muskeg which bore, and in may cases still bear, thin stands of stunte.d trees can not be classed as timber-producing land. The total nontimbered area may have been 1,250,000 acres, which would leawe approximately 35,500,000 acres with timber of economic value. . South of an irregular line across St. Clair, Lapeer, Genesee, Saginaw,. Gratiot, Montcalm, Kent, Allee-an, and Van Buren Counties (fig. 1), the forest was composed prinCIpally of hardwoods--oaks, hick(tries, maple, beech, walnut, ash, cherry, elm, basswood, and yellow pOj;uar, 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 quality (25). North of this line, and in several scattered localities south of it (51), northern white pine was the most valuable tren, 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 eJ.."'tensive 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..:t). On the better upland soils hardwoods predominated, frequentll 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. <;>. ,~~<., ,...... ,' '. ",k," •. .."," y , ~." . ~~!) ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 5 Farther north, particularly in the upper peninsula, maple; white birch, ~d 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 SOUTHERN MICHIGAN FIG. I.-MIchIgan, showing grouping of counties used In this study. The solid line divIdes the northern MichIgan groUi' of 46 counties from the37 counties of S(1uthem Michigan. The broken lines separate the 8 western and 7 eastern counties or the upper peninsLlla, and in the lower penJnsula the 10 tlDrthwestern counties. 11 northeastern, 16 centrlil, 26 southern, and 5 counties of the "thumb" The original forest may be classified approximately as follows: 2 Acres Southern hardwoods______~ .. 10,000,000 Pine, hardwoods, and hemlock ______Pine______8,500,000 10,000,000 ~orthern hardwoods______4,000,000 Timbered swamps______3,000,000 Total______3~50~OOO 1 Based largely on Report of Michigan Forestry CommissIon lor 1903-4. 6 TECHNICAL lmLLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Conservative estimates,:! on the basis of present methods of utili zation, indicate that this forest contained approximately the follow ing amounts of timber: Billions olbosrd Pine______leet190 i1e~11ock______25 Spruce, balsam, cedar, and tamarack______25 llardwoods, northern______60 IIardwoods, southern______80 380 EXPLOITATION OF THE FORESTS The Indian population was sparse and made few clearing~, 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 discoura~ed ~y the French, and later by the English traders, who feared that an mfb.ix 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 ma."rimum immediate returns. No thought was given either to perpetuating the 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 popu lation, and at the same time had made it possible to transport com modities by water from the interior to eastern markets. Shortly after wards (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. A.gricultural 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 harg.wood 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 I Based on Report 01 Michigan Forestry ('ommiEsion for l00}-4, and on a statement, Michigan Forost Fires. prepared by Filibert ltoth lor the Michigan Public Domain Commission, March, ]Jl2O. C. F. Wheeler (5/) estimated that thero was 150 IJllIion feet of white pine alone in 1835 and said that the estimate WIlS "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 W!l£l 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 Statein 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 Canel, and the Hudson River. The rapid settlement of the prairie Stab~s, beginning about this time, also involved enormous requirements for lumber.4 The iIitroduction 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 float.ed 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 com petition to appropriate and exploit free natural resources, many indi viduals 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 industrygrew 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 lUIIlber 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 37'2 and 4 feet wide. Such lumber brought as much as $28 a thousand board feet (9-j, 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.mQ,r~. than 700,000 acres was cut over in Michigan during the winter ofl~81, yielding about 5 billion board feet of lumber. No wonder that the territory near the lumber centers was 4 '.I'I!Q flrs~ raijrQsq f~om ~outhern Mlchisan reached Chicslio in 1852, 8 TECHNI(lAL BULLETIN 92, U. B. 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 (43). 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 destruc tion 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), 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 only a few years previously, stated that he no longer ke{>t such material in stock and doubted whether it could be obtained ill 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 (15). In 1896 tbere was estimated to be only 775,208 acres of pine timber left in the State, three-fourths of it in the upper peninsula (28).6 • . .~..oyfl"""" Pine lumbering flourished for about .l:-:~tirs (1855-1895) in. the lower pellinsula and about 10 years longer in the upper peninsula . • Aliowlng Cor the omission oC several tOWDllbips In the estimate, the total would be close to 830,000 acres. 'I! ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 9 DurlJlg 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 Bnd '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 ~larquette County in 1844, used some hemlock for mine ~mbers, 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 couiltry. The abundant supplies 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 traffic 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 Eteamers. This was particularly so in the region around Traverse Bay. With the decline of pine lumbering, wider markets developed for hemlock and hardwoodB, and at the same time the building of rail roads made it possible to' take out these heavier timbers, which could not be Hoated. Thus the industry was given an extension of life. A sawmill commenced cuti;ing hardwoods at East Jordan (CharlevoLx County) in 1879 (43), and at about the same time other mills began to saw the hardwoods s,t 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-k). 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 hard woods. In the upper peninsula lumbering is still tlie 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 billion board feet of saw timber, approximately 35 billion feet was cut and burned in clearing land; 73 billion feet wal:> : .. '.r ,;~d wasted during or. after lum~ering or destroyed by forest fires iiillependent of lumbenng 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 . rrECBW().&LRULL1JlT!N..92" u, $. ])~, 'OF ~GIii()tILTUR:E '" PlllpWQQd, veneer logs,iurniture and vehicle· dimension stock, a.nd the ,like: In. many.part$ of ~he State. the amount of timber destroyed by fire exceeded the amount cut. ..In; the region .triblilary to the Au Sable River, for instance, it has been estimate.d tha,t 20 billion feet of pine was burned and oruY.14 billion feet ~as cut by loggers (6). The lumber cut, by decades, wasapproXJ:qla~ly as follows: . l'erlod' .'BUllODl\ board teet Before. i830______-:_____ ~ .. ___.--C'-.:--;.--.~-'----- __ ---·-.-~ ,0.3 1831. to 1840______----______.7 1841 to 1850__ . ______..:2. 5 1851 to 1860 ______------__ 5.5 1861 to 1870 ______,._------,.-- ~6. 0 .Total to 1870~ ______., ______~ __ ~_~-25. 0 1811 to 1880 _____ ---______- __ ~------_"'-_---44. 5 1881 to 1890_._:::______54. 5. 1891 to 1900______------_----_..,-______41.0 Total 1811·fo 1900 ______140.. 0 1901 to 1910______~______23.0 1911 to 1920______~____ 12.0 1921 to 1926______4.5. Total 1901.to 1926 ______.:. 3R·5 Grand toiaL ___ ~ ______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 a.ll 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 DolllllS Year Year DolllllS 1849______2, 464, 000 1819______1859______7,303,000 1889.______52, 450, 000 l00L.______40,569,000 1SI.i9.______83, l22, 000 1914______33,873,000 31,946,000 1899______53,916, 000 1919______, 46, 044, 000" The census of 1909 did not give figures for log~g camps and saw mills separately. The combined values for loggmg camps, sawmills,. planing mills, and box fa.ctories 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 agJP:egate value at the mill, at the time of cutting, of all the sawed lumber cut from Michigari 6 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 considera.bly more than the assessed. .valueof 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 ") • Hotchkiss (18) estimates the value of lumber, shingles, and other products to the end of 1897 to have been $2,649,OotI,000. .- ECONOMIC ASPECTS o:E' FOREST DESTRUCTION 11 , ". timber products be added (logs, poles, posts, ties, shingles, staves, etc.) the total of over $3,aaO,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 Le6s than 8 per cent of the original stand, or approximately 27~ billion feet of saw timber, was left at the end of 1926.7 The upper peninsula had about 19 billion,S the northern portion of the lower peninsula ("northern lower Michigan") 2.5 billion, and southern Michigan 6 billion feet, the latter chiefly in farm wood lots.9 The present stumpage value of the remnant of timber, including cord wood, 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 fltrw.s. 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 e:-"llloitation 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 desirab!e 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 dearing away of the ~orests, although it was accompanied by un avoidable 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 M~CmGAN To southern :Michigan, which lies within the great central hard wood region of the United States, settlers came to establiAh farms and permanent homes. Where the forest was in t.heir 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 po£,sible-by burning. .As a general t,hing, 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. I, Ion. the Bureau ot Corporations estimated the total stand of saw timber In the State to be 47.6 billion leet. Itallowance is made lor ~he cut since then of about 16.5 billion foot of sawed lUD;lber, besides other products, and for a considerable loss Crow fires, the bureau's figure checks very closely with t!J~ present estimate of 'l:l.5 billion feet. No allowance has been made for growth, for there has been IIttie n,;~ growth of saw timber except In the southern counties, and It has been at least offset by cutting for Ilrewood and the IIke. S The chief timber appraiser of the board of State tax commissioners estimated, In 1021. that the total stand of saw timber In the upper peninsula was abont 22 to 23 billion feet mill scale, on the basis of com plete utilization of all standing material. In addition, there were estimated to be 10,682,000 cords of pulp wood (spruce, balsam hemlock, birch, poplar, and jack pine), and an unestimated amount, possibly 8 to 12 million cords, of otnerl small timber (pnnclpally ceder, tamarack, maple; beech, and other hardwoods). • Here and elsewhere in this study the State has been subdivided into three main regions: (1) Southern Michigan, Including the ')Quntles of the central hardwood belt, together with the southern counties of the white pine belt, 37 In 1Ill. (See fig. 1.) In general this Is predominantly bUagricultural region, all of the counties having at leest 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 nonhern counties of the lower peninsula, frequently deslguated as .. nortbern 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. • '. J . ~,:. , < c TECHNIC.AI.BULLETIN 92, u~ 'S;DEPT.OFAQRtdULTURE 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 partiar inferior in quality 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 owneI'8. CJ LESS THAN 10 ~ --, . E1.- -. 10 TO 2S ~ f2Z) 2S TO 40~ ~ 40 TO 60''' III OVER eo" FIG. 2.-Ratlo of lmproyed land in !arms to total land area in Michigan, 1920. (Based on UnitOO . 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 h.ave 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 II 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 ASPECTSiOF FOREST DESTRUCTION '13 Thirte~n of the ,37southem 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 ruralpopulation did not, th~refo!'e, indicate a serio~s reduction in the amount of land productively utilized, nOl':.in most instances did they result in any reduction in. the total productivity or prosperity of the region. ' ' TABLE l.-Changea in population oj Michigan townships, by decades, 1890 to 1920 1 1890-1900 Townshlps Townshlps Townshlps Number Increasin~ decreasing unchanged Region 01 town ship's in region Number Per eont Number Per rent Number IPer oont . ------Upper penlnsula______130 101 T1. 7 29 22.3 ....------._------Northern lower Michlgan ______'385 326 84.7 59 15.3 Southern Mlchlgan______694 279 40.2 413 59.5 2 ------ii:3 State totaL______1,209 703 58.4 501 41.4 2 0.2 1900-1910 Upper penlnsula ______142 114 80.3 19.7 Northern lower Mlchigan ______3400 253 63.2 36.S ------T ------ii:2 Southern Michlgan ______696 191 27.4 MIl 72.4 Stats totnl______1,238' ~ "SS8 45.1 679 54.8 1 0.1 1 $. 1910-1920 38. 9 ______Upper penlnsula..______144 88 61.. 1 56 79. 7 ______Northern lower Mlchlgan______, 419 85 20.3 334 Southern Mlcigan______700 192 27.4 507 72.4 1 0.2 ---r--~---+_-~--~----- State totaL.______1,263 365 28. 9 897 no 0.1 I Compiled from United States oonsus reports .• , lncludes.4 unorganized townships In Kalkaska County. a Includes 5 unorganized townshlps In Kalkaska County. Numerous villages had grown up along with the farms, many of them with small wood-working factories to manufacture the hard woods into various products for local URe or for wider distribution. As time went on many of the villages had become cities, with a large variety of ind.ustries but still for the most part dependent on near-by territory for much of their raw material. After fanning had ceased its period 0,£ expansio.n, 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 scatt,Qred rural population of the 37 counties decreased shgntly between 1910 and 1920, the population of incorporated villages and cities increased by more than 900,000. IN NORTHERN LOWER MICHIGAN North of the centra,l hardwood belt settlers scarcely penetrated until pine lunibering commenced on a large scale, and for many years afterwards agricultural settlemen,t was exceedingly s!ow. Few set , '. ~ ,.. ~", ,., .)'.' 14 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U.S•. DEPT. OF 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 .theirtimber, 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 log¢ng camps every winter for the sake of the wages, upon which they lived until their farms began t.o produce retums. Logging camps and saw mill villages required large .quantities of food and forage, however, and. under the stimulus of ready market-s and good prices for farm products considerable areas near the saw-mill towns were converted into farms. The earliest cutting north of S&.ginaw Bay was near the lake shores, and settlements were established early along tho lakes. Although the logging cmnpsgradually moved farther inlaLld after the near-by timber was cut, many of the larger mill towns T.::'mained, .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 mllin-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 becauS13 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 seWers who had become discouraged in attempt in~ 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. Thl3Y 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 C!UD.PS, 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 mmgled with the poor to provide farms for this supplement a! agri culture, 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 aDd villages would all continue to grow and prosper after the tin;l.be~ was cut. .-: ••, • ,~ "r~.>~",,, ...,., '_::: o '");. ECON'OMIC AsPECTs OF-FOREST DESmtfOTION 15 Intho$e days therfot W;t1S 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 followlng (9-n) we~e frequent: * * * is ther.enterfor cutting 2.2 billion .feet of pine, and th~refore 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. rIt. 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.] DwelliIig houses are at /!, p:-emium in our village * * * not. enough to supply the needs of the great influx of sett1ers. The deman Year Number Year Number Year Number 187L______• __ None. 1876______21 1881.______1872______1 1§77______. 24 1882______39 1873______20 1878______••___ •____ 42 1883______" 44 1874.______51 1879______65 1884______!!O 1875______16 1880______39 1885______19 7 .As recently as 1910, a .statementpublished 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 hs.s 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 ('ent, and the total population decreased by moretban 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 ahandoned after a few years, for the census of 1880 reported only 175 farms in the county, wJth all acreage of 21,536; and the largest nwuberever reported was 248 farms Jn19iO. Tbe greatest acreage in farms was 50,884 In 1920, of which 11,048 acres was Improved land. More tban 90 per cent of the .uNace of the county is now cut-over land, unutlllzed except for accidental stands of jack pine, scrub oak, and lISpen of comparatively low value. Manytbousands of acres are almost entirely bare ot tree growth at any kind. , I; 16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 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 A.u 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 increasedbythe 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 l'eported 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 popula~ tion of Au Sable city was 171, Oscoda village had given up its sepal'ate identity, and the two townships together had only 942 people. In the southwest corner of Montmorency County thevillllge of Lewiston was established shortly after 1890. In 1892 it had a saw mill 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, smd 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 1~,500 acres. of cu~over land wiHin. the three townships for colonization, and it was predicted (9-0) that this development would "make a perma nent and thriving town of Lewiston" in spite of the approaching depletion of the tinIber. 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 tu 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 Lewiston from Grayling only twice a week, and judg~ from the e~:perience of many other localities similarly situated there IS no assurance that even that service will be maintajned for long. Another lumber town, Deward, was established in 1901 in north western 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 popula tion 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 4J3, 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 hud 8 percent fewer people than were there before logging was .commenced. In 1921 all that remained of 1." ~ ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION . 17 Deward was a portion..of the broken-down. engine house and chimney of the sawmill, a few unpainted. shacks, a railroad station, a church, and a boarded-up raiL"Oad 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 carned80 carloads of forest products daily, in 1921 occasionally hauled as much as 2 cars oflumb~r at one time. There were infrequent oases of cleared land in the desert of stumps stretching away towar<~~ the horizon, but the chief topics of conversation among the people along the line were the chances for finding ... work in the city and PER 1161 the question of where a NT to go. 341· These areonly a few out of hundreds of in- ::! 3DO \ stances. While lum- ~ \ bering was in progress :2 :1.1" \ ---- UPPER l'EI'IIN5ULII the population of ~ Z50 NORTHERN LOWER ~JCHIGAN northern lower Michi- ~ --- 50u:TH&RN MICHIQIIN \ 'I<- WI\YNE COUNTY gan increased rapidly. ~ (Fig. 3.) From 1870 ~ 1 to 1910 the number of ~ \ inhabitants of the 31 ~ \~ counties increased :{) 150 from 50,000 to 400,- OJ \ 000. During the dec- ~ ,\.. ~IZ ade following 1890, Q, I.~ 'II' 10" '" '95 .... 85 per cent of all the l: ell ...." ,'" ~ \ /i townships in northern Vol i""'-lI:-...... ~ ..-.,..... { lower Michigan gained ~ iJ.~_ ..~ so s~ ...... ~.., ~_1. inpopulation,anddur- OJ .'~ .~1:-...... ~7 . 5 ing the next 10 years g ---..""'( -'-. }a . 63 per cent showed a ~ .)!!---- k--....·::-·l! 0 ~ gain. By 1910, how 0tC"C~ ever, the hardwoods, as well as the pirie, 1860 11170 1680 1890 1900 1910 19%0 FIG. 3,-Raoo or papulation 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 t}:;,an 5,000 population declined during the same decade, and'3 of them had fewer people in 1920 than in 1890. (Table2.) 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 entirie population. After 50 years of exploitation, during which more than 95 per cent of the sUl'face of the 31 northern counties of the lowar peninsula has ',',.,.<,,": 18 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92,U. S.D.EPT~ 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.-Poplllation of principal cities in northern lower Michigan, 1890-1920 City 1890 1900 1910 1920 ------1------ ~~~acify::::::==::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Cadillac______--______•_..______._..______11,4,461 ~ 11,5,91!7 ~ ~,~~8,375 l~9,700~ Cheboygan__ •.______6,235 6,489 6,859 5, MlI Lnrungton______.______7,517 7,166 9,.132 8, 810 Manlstee______12.812 14, 260 12,381 1l,694 Trnverse City______.•_____...._.•_____ ~ 353 9,407 12,115 10,925 TlltaL_____,______1--~_4-~~----I-~--47, III 56,033 66,786 60,206 IN THE UPPER PEI1IINSULA In the upper peninsula the course of development has buen similar to that in the northern pa..--t of lower Michi~an, but it has not yet gone so far_ Large areas of virgin forest still remall, especially in the western portion. Much of the better agricultural land has only recently been cut over or is still covered with timber, and ~ricultUl'al use has not yet reached its culmination. Moreover, the mmes in the western counties afford markets for crops, traffic for the railroads, and opportunities forpart-time employmentwhlch will remain after the tim b(;r is gone. Thatpart 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 localities, together with a slump in Inining 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 farIns increased consider ably. Ten of the 12 incorporated cities with 5,000 or more people in 1910 !land 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: 'fAIlLE 3.-Populatiun of principal cities in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 1890-1920 City 1890 1900 1910 1920 ------1------ Es<:anaba______6,868 9,549 13,194 13,103 H!ln~,ock ___.._--______..-__ I, 772 ~050 8, \lSI 7,627 1:~~~tg~titiii:::=:=:=:==::==:=::=:===:::==:==::=::==::::::::::Ironwood_. ______•______! ______~7,745~ ~:;SJ9,705 '12,821~: ~i~ 15,739~ ~g~ f~~=~:_:::::==:::::=:=:=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::: It: 1~, ~ ~ ~~ 1&:l J\.1nrquette______D,093m 10:058 11, 12, 718 Menominee______•______-______10,630 12,81810,507roa 8, 1107 Negaunee______-6,078 6,935 8, 460 7,419 Norway______.~--- __ ------.------4,170 4, ur~ 14, ~ Sault ,Ste. M!lr>e______•______I~ 10,53S ~__2._0_ TotI1L ______.• __..______.__ 70,1103 99,322 118,369 111,955 11 Norway Is included in lhiS number, although It had not qulte 5,000 Inhabitants. ECONOMIC AS}'ECTS OF FOBESTDESTRUCTION 19 THE EFFECTS OF FOREST DESTnUCTION The present utilization of the,land surface of Michigan is approXi mately as shown in Tables 4 and 5 and Figure 4. TABLE 4.-Michigan land utilization, 1921 1 [In thousands of acres-i. e., Of') omitted] Land Unim· occupied proved by CIties, land in Region Total Improved Bog and farms, Forest land area farm land villages, other other land roads, waste.' 'than railroads, wood etc. land' ------10,682 466 72 864 218 9,062 U"Northern .. lower Michigan------f 10,881 2,m 122 223 650 7,594 Southern_------J Mlcbigan ______15,224 10,168- 491 140 1,342 3,083. State total______36, 787 12,926 685 1,227 2,210 E,73\! 1 1 Compnted from United Staste census data and other sources, snpplementedby estimates. 2 Includes open or lightly wooded muskegs incapable of producing mercltantable tinlber unless drained, rock outcrops, beaches, and shifting sands. . • Some of the land reported by the census as .. other unimproved" land is really cut-over or burned oyer forest land with little or no tree growth, which will eventually revert to forest. In these tables tho esti mated areas of such land haw been deducted from"other uninlproved" as given I.y the census and added to the census ligures for areas of farm woodland. The.area of"other uninlproyed" landinIarms was given by the 1920 census as 2,890,440 acres. TABLE 5.-ClassifICation of forest land in Michigan, 1ge1 1 [In thousands of acres-I. e., 000 omitted] All forest land Classillcation by character of cover Region In farm Merchant- Valuable Inferior wood- Otber Total able young young Notre lands timber' growth growth' stocking' ------Upper peninsula___ ------i 4117 8,565 9,062 3,310 2,450 1,827 1,475 Northern lower Michigan_____ • 1,602 5, \l92 7,594 275 1.750 3,049 2,520 Southern Michigan______l 1,798 1,285 3,083 525 1,400 598 560 State total______~ 15,84ll 19,739 4,110 5,600 5,474 4,555 I Estimates based largely on personal obsermtlon. 2 Includes old stands fromwhlcb some timber has been culled, second growth large enough for saW logs, and virgin stands. Only 12 per cent i3 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. • Mostly aspen, fire cherry, scarlet oak, jack pine, white birch, and willows. • Bare1and or trees too scattering to maim 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 l".:m.oval of the forests in most parts of northern M:lChigan, on the ot .her hand, has not been followed by the utilization of a. considerable proportion of the land, either for farming or for any thing else. Comparatively few of the loggers were 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 Stetes. Even the towns and cities that grew up around sawmills and wood-working factories were mostly only temporary centers of trade and industry, doomed to inevitable decline, if not complete extinction, with the pasP,ing of the forests which supported them. The conclusion is inevitable that the eA-ploi tation 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 itse1f. 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 tQ come can it support as many people and industries as were in the region 30 years ago. . VANIi3WNG RESOURCES AND WANING INDUSTRIES The population of Michigan increased 30 per cent between Hno 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 fen thlll State was in the automobile centers: Wayne County (inclU<1~ng 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 fewer farms in 1920 than 10 years before. Northern lower Michigan had 400,000 inhabitants in 1910, practicallyaU 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 172 million acres of forest land was cut over. Ivlost 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 out put of Michigan sawmills dropped from approximately 5,400 million board feet in 1889 to an avera~e of only 750 million feet during the period 1919-1925. After bf)ldmg 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-sbcth 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 {or population, areas, etc., are for the even years, as 1910,1920; the figures for Industries, agricultural prod.uctjon, etc., cover the operations for the year preceding that in which the census was taken, as 1909, 1919. ECONOMIC AsPECTs OF F(}REsTDEsm1rcTIoN21 6 milllion to 500,000. Only 88 million shingles were produced in 1925, as compared with 2,850 million in J889.., 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 otherwood materials to be consumed in other States. y .'.:.' "'/11 ~ ••, •••. 0" e & UPPER PENINSULA NORTHERN .LOWER MICHIGAN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN FIG. 4.-CIassiftcation orland.use In the three main divisions or Michig8Il, 1920 During the period 1880-1890, an average of 3M billion board feet of lumber was taken out of the State yearly. With the growth of pop ulation and industries, local lumber requirements have incre8.sea, 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 pl"(}duction, and the gap between production and consumption is- steadily widening. (Fig. 5.) Now, although there are still shipped to other parts of ihecountry consider able quantities of some products, such as maple flooring and pulP': wood, these exports are greatly overbalanced by large importations of other timber products from outside the State. TIMBER SUPPLIES FALL BELOW TUl13ER NEEDS Michigan uses about 4% per cent of all the hllrlber and sawed timber cut in the United States, about 50 per cent of the wood con sumed in the hardwood chemical industry, and 4 per cent of the pulp wood. A canvass of the principal wood-consuming industries m '0 22 TECHNICAL BULLETIN,92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRIC~TURE 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, FIG. 5.-Productlon and consUmption of sawed lumber In Michigan, 1840-1923. The riroduction 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 rA CTORIES MAKING MILLION BOARD rccr P"ODUCTS WHOLLY 0 100 200 OJOO _ 800 t100 01' PARTt..YOFWOOD-. BUlLDING CONSTRIJCr' ION DISTILLATION WOOl> PUBLIC UTILITICI!L- PUt..I"'WOOQ ,...... MINt:... f-w POSTS USt:D ON rAffA/&. C~'E:RAGr ~ £XC'E:t..SIDR WOOD_ ~ ""UNICIPAL WORIL-.~ WHARVt:S. ItfGHWAY WORK. rACTORIE:S MAlfING MILLION'IS CUl!JIC100 rccr_ PRODUCTSWHOt..LY 0 OR !"ART.LY orw';;;" FUD,WOOD..-_••• - 6U1LO/N(] CONSTHUCT1ON. DISTIt..LATIONWDaa PUlJLIC UTILITIt:~ --. PULPWOOD- MINt:~ ---.. PosTsU'SED ON #'JIIIPU<: ~ COOPCIP.~GC ~ _mrALCtIN~L£6CND Ic::::I _NIN MICHIGAN I CXCt:LS10" WDOa.-.. l MUNICIP.,~L wt7"1C...- I WHA/I'Vt:". HIG/fWAY WOlf" 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, includ· ing smaller material poses are shown in Figure 6 and in Table 6, which also show approxi mately the amount of timber cut to furnish each class of product, and the proportion of each grown within the State. I) .ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FO.REST »ESTRUCTIO~ 23 T.ABLa 6.-- n..ft_..... of --'ucts . Equlvalen~ in lUmber Equivalent in.stand -<...... if sawed from same tIIles lug timbet Grownin Total Grownm Total Grownfu ~ 'Michigan ,Michigan Thomand, , Thomond T.lomond Thomand Manu!ilcttues: t Tho.\Uo~ ThotI8andl , 1Id.!t. hd.!t, eu./l. eu.!!. Lumber~•••_•••••_•••_ •••••••••••••_. ~__••••_••• 675 231,468 170,092 50,691 Logs and bolts__ •__••__._. __••••••••_. _._•••__•__ 776,75,:112 1 41,lnl 16,485 11,183 Veneer••_••••••_._.__•••• _••••~•••__• __ ~.__._••_ . t21,84b 13,361 2,814 433 Bnllding: Lumber••••••__•••____•• __•___._.___ •__._.__••• 530,604 163,450 116,202 35, 796 Sbingies._._••___••___••• 461,532 49,819 5,00i 10,286 1,096 Lath__•••___ •••____•••____ 95, b7b 11, 692 t:}1!66 t Articles made wholly or partly of Wood. PInning-mill products, sash, doors, and blinds Ore listed under "Building" in this table.. . " . . " , • Quantity of veneerllctua11y used was 13 40',1 :J\.I feet (2,062 :J\.I feet grown in Michigan)• • As lath Is generally a by·product of lumber manufacture,. It Is not given separately in these oolnntnS. j Most. of the fuel wood Is cut from small or defective trees or parts of trees that wiJI not make sawed lumber, or Is sawmi11 waste. Figure 7 shows the consumption of the diff~tent 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 be'Cause of the extensive industries, such as furni ture, flooring, 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 TECHNICAD BULLETIN 92, U.S. DEPT. OF AGIPCULTuRE 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. Shingle~ IUHDWOODS: o 10 IOQ 110 11O MAPtz...... i1IRCif•••_ ••••••••••__ cu-...._ ...__•__._ 8lXC1f•• - - /iOR11f/!HN PlHE.... - /VOItTHDIN It'IfITEc. l.UM/J~R {lnclut/l;" 0 JOO ....dtiinber.. .. uwrd ~.)__...... _..._. DISTILLATION wooa. ROUNDTlMlJERS (Inclw. 1100 u.s P"''' -'pckot_ ~ PfJI.P WOOA._ IZOO Zf:::~,,/;r:,~~"i.T37_r", whtc4t -'aclrr.l»'Tdl3#.to).. ;. COOP&RAG&..._ ~i i::i 'SOtJ SHINGLES.•••___•- V&N&CR AlVD V&N&&R LOG"'_,. HOI) EXC£:L.SIOR WOOIa.. p HM 1....-.r I MIL.L.ION CUBIC FE(!;T LUMBER (II.e/ud/ns ioo IZS /Sl1 os MO ...... d ,..""hor•. wid .... hft~)._•••••_._.. ___ ror-L WOOD.. .. _. ., Z5D DISTILLATION wooa .~ ROC/NO TIMSrRSPncIud ina poSf:l MId po/~t;J- .. '-----0 PULP WOOQ..____ i V$ " H~W&D TI&s..._.._-.- LOGS AlVD {JGL TS(roor IIt:hiutl tJloclt.h#Itd"••,.).. I ~ '.J , CODP&RAGC,___._ c..•70TALL~G£ND CDNSI.IMPrlON .1 m , -- c:::::J GROWN IN MICIfIGlVi : BHINGLCS..._._ Ii2IIZ2I TOrAL AMOVNT Ctlr " Vt:Nt:£R AND ~ IN MICHIGAN IN ISZO J/!J4 V&NC&R LOGS.__. £XCCLeIO" WOO", ~ .FIG. 8.-Wood required annually in Michigan, the part grown within the Stllte, and the amounts cut within the Stllte In 1020, classified by form of product. The npper graph represents ma terial cut from trees capable of yielding sawed lumber, the lower graph represents all material, expressed l!:l terms of volume of standing timber TABLE 7.-Con;lu.mption of wood in Michigan by secondary wood-UBing industries, 1910 and 19£0 ' Quantity used Quantity grown In Michigan Industry 1910 1020 1010 1020 Motor vehicles______•____ t,()(}() M.lt. t,()(}() M.lt. t,()(}() M.lt. Paunt I,()(}() M.lt. Pnunt Planing-mill products______35,022 313,090 10,038 29 76,661 24 Boxes and crates______432, 526 290 090 332,035 77 203,320 70 Furnlture______232, 111 m;687 165,440 71 97,516 43 81,477 90,431 31, 614 39 18,404 20 Sa.sh doors, blinds, and general mIllwork_ 84,069 44,653 33,354 40 8,194 18 Refrigerators and kitchen cablnets______Musical Instruments______35,629 31,367 23,090 65 7,065 23 '12,274 22,302 4, 451 36 5,655 25 Woodenware and noveltles______Handles______45,267 20,923 41,373 91 18,664 39 Flxtures______38,474 14,358 37,743 98 13283 00 Cbalrs______24,214 12,404 12,702 52 2:352 19 9,823 11,643 4,326 44 2,774 24 Sporting and athletic goods______•____ Laundry appllances,______7,161 8,965 6.586 92 6,683 75 Caskets and coffins______13,728 8,637 6,675 49 2,948 34 6,321 8,485 1,138 18 260 3 AgrlcuJturallmplements______16,614 6,796 6,792 41 2,116 31 Nonmotor vehlcles______31,m 6,758 15,785 51 5,896 87 TanksProfessional______and scientific Instruments____ 3,172 4, 778 2,940 00 2,927 61 Cigar boxes______20,696 4,688 3,675 18 72 :I Plumbers' wocdwork______, _ 1,481 4,420 14 1 0 0 Toys______2,405 2,345 106 4 100 iI Ship and boat buDdIng______3,716 2,264 2,853 77 682 30 Dowels______•______4,480 2,082 1,364 30 750 36 1, 0:;9 2,232 2'lli 'ifl 1,630 84 TrunksElectrical an ~PIIl"atus------vallses___ . ______1,010 1,379 43 537 39 14, 650 907 14, 150 97 726 Allothers______116, 883 55,701 29,119 25 7,758 ~, Total______1,276,661 1,200,092 780,954 62 486, 073 41 ", 26 TECHNICAL BULt!lTI:N 92', Vi S. DEPT. OF -AGlucutTURE ~ot only is" wood befng brQught into. Michiglm in larger quantities, it is coming- £i'om greater distances. This is shOwn by a comparison of the kinds of wood used in fa<;toriesin 1910 andin 1920. (Table, 8.) During that period, the consumption" of herillock 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- time~ as Ihuc4 western pine. The combined con sumptionof maple, birQh, beech, and basswood, mostlydrom "northern forests, decreased' from 520 million" to 450 million bpard feet, while that of red gum,bickory,and chestnutfrom the south increased from 48 million to 171 millionfeet. Figure 9 shows graphicaUy the sources of the different kinds of lumber used by Michigan industri~ in 1920. The area of each circle represents the relative quantity," and the center of ~ach circle'-~locatedapproximately at the center of tlie general regIOn from which the supply came. TABLE 8.-Timber consumed by 8econdary wood-u/ring industries in MicMgan, cla88ijied by !.:inrlS of wood, 1910 and 1920 1910 11120 Klndofwood Quantity Quantity Timber grown in TJmber "grown in consnmed " Michigan consumed Michigan 1000 Per 1()()() Per 1 ()()() Per 1000 -Per Maple______M.lt. eem M. It. am M.lt. eent M. It. am Northern pine ______347,485 27.2 812, 392 9f) 313,649 26. 1 258, 691 82 Southern pine______235,031 18.4. 45 ______81,167 35 _ 107,540 9.08. 9 ______41,006 38_ Red gum______58,021 1.8 ______106, 720 7.8 ______Oak______23,404 92,977 Birch______78,250 6.1 9,745 12 75,740 6.3 6,955 9 47,495 3.7 37,810 80 70,442 Western plne ______.4 ______5.45.9 ______47,533 01_ Elm______•______5,423 65,043 Hickory______49,948 3. 9 42, 498 85 00,981 5.1 29, 980 49 Beech___ .. ______14, 669 1.2 1,235. 8 00,472 5.0 725 1 Hemlock______71,353 5.6 70,000 08 44,l!:!9 3. 7 38, 305 85 Ash______153,258. 12. 0 150,100 08 40,227 3.4 36, 122 90 Basswood______33,220 2.6 20,54.0 62 36,074 3.0 5,635 16 Chestnut. ______53,533 4._8 2 _____38, ." 979______73 _ 21,635 1.8 16,387 76 Douglas1lr______9,715 .4 ______17,904 L5L 3 ______5 (2) _ Yellow poplar______5,092 15,003 1.0 ______22,661 L8 307 1 12,294 Walnut______I 255 11 Mahogany______.. ______1,473 .5 ______10,505 _7.9 ____"______29 (2) _ 6,907 8,438 8,375 .7 4,748 57 7,506 .6 709 9 ~rt:wiio 5,021 ~ 2,330 .1 ______3 ______=?~~::::::=:::::::=:=:====::Larch ______'1,580 4,088 Western red cedar ____ .. ______Ill, (74 (I)1. 4 ______12, 579 lIS _ 2,719 .1.2 ______1,749 64_ Sycamore______2\'3 1,440 Northern white cedar______6&1 .1 48 7 1,409 .1 65 5 13alsam fir______973 .1 936 00 1,314 .1 1,244 "95 WDlow______•______748 .1 408 Jj5 775 .1 568 73 MIscellaneous______155 (I) 15 10 665 _I 26 4 1,811 .2 462 26 1,110 .1 178 16 Total______1,276,661 100 789, 954 62 1,200,092 100 486,1173 41 I I 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 ~ffici~nt l,ltili~atioI;l may redl,lge Q!, a~ lell,S~ ;r~t!lrd the i.QQ;r~M~ i!! ;r~~ EQONOMlC ASPl!)CTS (}Jl'FQREST DESTRUCTION: qliitem~ts. On'the whole, however, more woOd is ~ely tpbeneeded. If, becal,lse of scarcity' or fot any other reason, costS' become so high .that consumpti,on is' seriously,cUrtailed the State will suffer~. LQC~ .INDUSTRIES l)EP~VED OF. NEAR--B.Y 'l'UIBER BUl'PLIEB, SOme industries~. by getting their wood from distant sources,. can continue to thrive after near-by supplies are. exhausted. . These include th~ manmactures of pro.ducts for which the cost of the wood m:-ad co.nstitutes a comparatively minor share of thefina1:cost, such as moto.r vehicles and high-grade furniture. In many industries, how~ e~er, forestIIl.at.erial is a major element of cost and must be readily and cheaply obtained if operation is to co.ntinue.. In these industries factories at a great distance fro.m supplies can not competeindefio; nitely' with. thos~ situated do.se to'the fores.ts. IIi manyinstances the substantial saving in the cost of wood tobegaip,e4,bymovingnearer FIG. 9.-Sources oflumbet used In M\lcbigan; 1920 the fo.rests mo.re than off-sets the increased costo.f 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 dose down altogether. " As late as 1914 it was sta~d (53) that 91 per cent of .the manufac turing plants in 152 villages in the former pine ~ction 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 momontUm du'ling the past few years. Of. the hundreds of small factories manufactUring 'cooperage, many have disappeared as the basswoo.d, 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: ·~"7 28 TECHNICAL 'nULLETIN 92. U. S. DEPT. OF .AGRICULTURE blinds, 'and general millwork, 517 million board feet,'or 40 percent 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 fact.ories making the cheaper grades of furniture., including chairs and tables, have gone out of busmess, while others have moved to theSouth, where there .are still large hardwood supplies. The depletion of local forests has been especially hard on the numerous small factori.{ls 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 clear.est logs. Later, the growing demand for hardwood timber led to hlgher prices .and local.shortages in supplies. For the most part these small plants were without large capital, and few had .acquired sufficient reserves ·of standing timber to .keep them going for long. When the large lumber companies bought and cleared off the timber ill their vicinity,the local factories had to close down. One of the largest woodenw8J:e factories in the country was estab lished in northwestern Michigan in 1885. It was locally owned, employed about 100 mon, and formed the nuc1eusof a thriving community. About 1900, lumbermen bought up the timber in the vicinity, and in 1905 the woodenware plant had to cease operation. 'rhe sawmill employed only 25 m{ln, cut seven times as much lumber as the factory, .and was through in 13 years. Since then most of the small trees have been cutfor distillation and the cut-over land has been burned repeatedly, so that there is little prospect of timber growth sufficient to support any kind of industry within a half century 01' more. As a result of the destruction of the forest cover, the water supply of the village has become irregular and at times inac ~quate. 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 pros pered. 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 WIl.8 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 million feet in 1920. Handle factories took only 14.5 million feet in 192D-about one-third as much as in 1910. The fact that 90 percent 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 timhar 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 place.sincreased, principally as a result of the growth of the auto mobile industry. Unlike most of southem 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 mateIials, the continued decline and eventual disappear ance of local indu!,)tries seems inevitable. EVILS OF INDUSTRIAL C()NCENTRATION Aside from the loss to the region directly afIected,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 .a1s0 have to be handled by additional middlemen before being delivered to the consumers. The increased cost of transporta tion 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 standpomts, the tendency toward indus trial concentration is even more to be deplored. Itis 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 penin sula. (Fig. 10,) In the northern portion of the lower peninsula 700 camps employed 25,000 loggers in 1890, but in 1921 these had shrunk , .; ~ .,. : . -Yi ,. 30 TECHNICAL BuLLE.TIN 92, U. s. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE to 10 .campsemploying 500 men (50). Itis easy to conceive the effect. on the opportunity for winter work i.p: the loss of so great an industry. In ·general, young,vigorous men were engaged in logging-just the kind to succeed in developiI!g:a frontier • region. Whenthe in- .,. /1\ dustry went these 5 turned to the cities '. ;! or to other parts of ..... ~ the countrv instead ~f t:;4 1./ '\. ... 40 ~ staying to"clearfarms II. \(WAGE EARNERS o : out of the cut-overs. u: < l \ ~ Census figures show g 3 \ ! 30 ~ that in 1919 less than IL :- o ", ~ 100 wage earners were ~...... "'\t OJ employed by manu 0 .~ 20 z facturing industries < 10 (includ.m.r, logging LUMBe:RSAweD~~ j ~. o camps) it:' each of 13 10 t counties in the north ern part of the State. ~ Less than IJOOO were employed in each of 1e69 12179 lee9 1&" !SOli IlIL91SU 31 other counties. Of FIG. 10.-Qunntity of lumber sawed and average number of wage earners employed In logging camps and sawmlJls in Mlchlgan, these, 21 were m' the 186~1925. QunntitillS shown for 1904-11108, inclusive, and 1910- north, 6 were in those 11114, inClusive, are "reported .. cuts, and are known to be less than the aL:tual output. (Baaed on United States census and portions of south Forest Service data) ern Michigan origi nally .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-overcounties than in any other part of the State (fig. ll), and therefore ~ SKIa.:LED LABOR ~, UNSKILLED LABOR average yearly earn 7r------·------~ ings were less, in the II) majority of cases,in ~ 6~....------~~~----~ ..I the counties wi th ..I fewer jobs. In 27 of g 5r~~------~~,~~ the southern counties z the yearly wage ex ceeded $1,000, and likewise in 13 of the upper penin.sula ~ zr-"Y..I.,;-t-ti.-:,:t"-----t! -:t-t:•• ~t---c- '1--1:'.::.1--1 \"\ounties where the < C;.')mpetition of the C nB.nes kept w~es up. Iu23 counties of NORTHERN 'OUTHERN W""'tNE northern lower Mich LOWER MIC.HIGAN COUNTY igan the average MICHIG-AN FIG. Il.-Average wages In di1Ierent parts of Michlgan,1919. (Based wage was below $1,- on reports of State department of laber) 000, and it was only $963 for the 17,000 employees in the region as a whole. For the upper peninsula, where 18,000 men were employed, tho average was $1,017; ECONOMIC AB?Efm; OF FOBES'!' DESTRUCTION 31 for 36 southern CC!unties it was $1,186 for 180,000 wage earners; in Wayne County, where the automobile industrywas an important fae,. tor, the high average wage of $1,523 was paid to 256,000 employees. UlSSOF REVENUE AND.NEEDED SUPPLIES PROM FARM 'WOODS Many settlers, instead of working for wages in the logging cam:ps ,and sawmills, have supplemented their incomes by cutting .and se!J.iDg timber from their own land or other land in :the neighborhood. .ThiS has been an important source of income to new settlers in. localitil',s 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 wed or sold dur ing 1919 forest products valued at$12,649,621.The value was $7,911, «w «a: ~ 60·~-r.~------4:,~------~----~~--~ a:. ~ .J ~ 4n-~~.;~--~~____~:~__~~____ oII.. W CJ ~ Z w o a: II.! Q.. IBBO lliao 1860 19~0 16eo ,920 UPPER PENI~SULA NORTHERN LOWER SOUIHERN MICHIGAN PENINSULA !!1m IMPRoveD LAND r,!?:':r WOODLAND III1ll1lJ OTHER UNIMPROVED FIG. 12.-Ghanges.in status of farmland in .MIchigan, .1880-11120. (Based on Uniterl 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 ~eninsula 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 MichiO'an 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 Michi~an 32 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U •. S;DEP'l', OF AGRICULTURE will be denuded of timber within 20 .or 30 years if unre,strictedpastur ,) ing 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 pertion of this region, howeverJ the land. was not stripped in adv.ance of settlement but remained covered with timber until it was wanted for farming.. The settlerJ therefore, had ample local sup plies ..of wood for domestic use, besides a surplus which yielded a cash mcome. In northern Michi~an actual clearing has not gone as far as in the south. The proportion of woodland to total farm area is now increas ing, owing to the inclusion of newly cut-over land in farms and the growth of young timber on land formerly classed as "other unim prQved." In nQrthern lewer Michigan the proportion of farm area classed as woodland was reduced frQm 63 per cent in 1870 to 22 per cent in 1910. FrQm 1910 to 1920, however, it rese to 28 per cent and the area .of farm WQQds increased 343,798 acres, while the total farm area increased .only 226,581 acres. In the upper peninsula the wQedland increased frQm 36 to 40 per cent .of the total farm area between 1910 and 1920. In the nQrthern part .of the State agriculture was mQre .or less incidental until after lumbering had passed its zenith. All of the timber that CQuld be dispesed .of was cut, and mest .of the rest was destrQyed in IQgging .or by fires. The land did nQt remain timbered until it was wanted fQr farming, as in the southern counties, but was practically stripped .of merchantable material befQre it was made available to settlers. When the settlers came they fQund little stand ing timber to supply their needs fQr building material, PQsts, or even fuel, .except fQr scattered patches in the swamps. WithQut enQugh capital to buy such material, they were cQmpelled to get alQng with crude, makeshift buildings and peer fences .or nQne. The pine stumps and rOQts supplied firewood fQr many years; and in SQme IQcalities .are still the principal SQurce .of fuel and fencing, but where the stumps have been cQnsumed many farmers have nQ wQed except small birch and aspen, hardly large enQugh fer be~n peles. In many instances even the farmers whQ have timber can nQt sell it because the sawmills and WQQd-using industries have gQne, taking their railrQads with them. In prQPQrtiQn .of merchantable timber the sQuthern farms had in 1920 a decided advantage, as is shQwn in Table 9. Nearly twice as large a prQPortion .of the farm wQQdland. area had merchantable timber as in the upper peninsula, and nearly three times as large an area as in nQrthern IQwer Michigan. This cQndition is reflected in the average values .of fQrest prQducts frQm an acre .of farm wQQdland. In the IQwer peninsula the value per acre fQr the 37 sQuthern counties in 1919 was $5.58, .or .one-seventh as much as the average value .of prQducts fr(.\ffi imprQved land; fQr the 31 nQrthern CQunties it was .only $2.09 Gf .one-nineteenth .of the value .of prQducts frQm imprQved land. FQr the upper peninsula it was Qne-eleventh, .or $3.82. In 22 .of the sQuthern cQunties the average value .of fQrest prQducts exceeded $5 an acre, whereas it was less than $5 in all but 1 .of the cQunties to the nQrth, and in 11 .of the 15 in the upper peninsula. :.'." v::'-;: '~'" ~ ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION TABLE 9.-Areas of merchantable timber in farm~ood lots in 1920 1 Merchantable timber Ratfoof farms 'report - Farm log mer· RegIon Farm area woodland chantable area Total Batloto Area per timber area ol1 farm farm to total woods reporting number of farms Acra Acra Acra Perunl Acra Perunl Upper peninsula•••••••••••••••••••••• 1, 181,009 473,ZlS M,155 11.4 31.2 14.1 Northern lower Mlchlgan •••••••••_••• 4,544,286 1,282. 465 98,102 7.6 25.1 9.8 Southem Michigan••••••••••••••.•••• 13,307,666 1,461,2Il7 290,389 19.9 14.2 14.1 I CompUed rrom 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, woodfand products have seldom been the result of systematic (.'ultivation. 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 192Q-are cared for as permanent forests. Even this figure is probably too high. If theentiro farm woodland area of the State were utilized carefully, the value of farm forest products would probably be at least tripled. LOSS OF NEAll-BY MARKETS Theloss 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 enj oyed byfarmers of southern Mjchigan isindicated bythefact that 94 per cent of the area of the southern counties 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 w.ould ever have had more than a small fraction of the railroad mileage that it has to-day. Because of its. location the northern pa.rt of the lower peninsula is not on the natural line of throuO"h traffic between other regions; consequently, railroads must dependfor their traffic revenue 3596°-29-3 34 TECHNICAL BULLETIN' 92, U. B. 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, Michigan 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 to I" miles 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 fron:: 60 to 95 per cent of the freight, and indirectly nearly all of it. Even in the southern counties timber products comprised an exceedingly impor tant part of the traffic. As late as 1875 forest products constituted F' 66 per cent of the freight carried by nine southern Michigan roads, 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 rflilroads 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 lines came the need for increased traffic to support them, and many of the stronger companies gradually absorbed a large number of short-line fe.eders in the endeavor to furnish this revenue. In this way grew up most of the important lines operating in northern lower Michigan to-day. The Pere Marquette, for instance, has been built up from something like ,a hundred different railroads (17), practically all of which started as lumber roads. The Michigan Central, the Detroit & MaCkinac, the Grand Rapids & Indiana, and others are the result of similar processes. As early as 1880, the president of the Grand Ra.{>ids & Indiana (13-a), explaining large expenditures for spurs and sldings, said: Consumption of the pine- made it necessary to find new locations" and as it retreated from the road we have had to follow ,,;th our tracks. We have had to act promptly to prevent the logs being floated down the rivers and forever taken from our reach. Because of this total dependence upon the progress of lumbering the prosperity oi 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 theil' expenses. In the southern counties the rapid development of farmin~ and manufacturing soon furnished an important share of the rrulroad revenues, even though not enough to prevent a sharp decline in the traffic and in the eo,rnings of some roads when timber was exhausted (32-a). It was generally believed that reyenues would be similarly 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 settle ment 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 relied 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 policy was adopted of moving raw materials practically at cost in order to keep towns alive (13-b). Many of the short roads and branches were compelled to cease operation after the pine was cut. Beginning about 1893, the dismantling of abandoned branch lines "tas 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 established charcoal furnace at Mancelona, and the increased receipts of the land department due to the rising values of .hardwood timber. In 1895 the report (13-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 rp.gion, 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 fore$t products in its history up to that time. Yet in the following year the freight earnings of one of its sub sidiary 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 consider able body of timber adjacent to this line" (13-d). And in 1908 it was report.ed (13-e): The increased consumption of lumber is rapidly depleting the forests of north ern 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 refor estation 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 II the country along these branches has been stripped of its timber, lllld agriculture has not developed 'd 36 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT; OF AGRICULTU1Ul quickly enough to take the place ofit" (17). With the passing of the forests there was no longer sufficient business to payfor operating the railroads, and the only solution- was to take off the trains and dis mantle the roads. That is, just what has been going on, at an increasing rat..e, 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 organiza tions 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,ithe abandonment of the roads was contested by settlers and business interests along the lines, but usually to no avail, VEA~ TONS OF FREIGHT ORIGINATING ON LINES MILESOF LINE Z:'86 1"00 J ~~;~;~'497 364 1·········.::·600·:':: ... - .. .. ··1,. %,82t ~vv,. j ••• , •••• ,] 1905 992. 409 r...•...... : , ttloo...... •• ~ .•••••••••• f":' .... -..... :-f"...... o...... ; F.....,<, ...... ' ..., 1915 WhS~~A 542, ...•.••.• i.tSg :.•• ; •. ~:..: 2,886 ~:':(;//A .- -.... -._, T...... r_• .. - ...... _ f!&I .. FOREliT PRODUCTS FlO. l3.-Amount of revenue freIght originating on lines wIthin Mlchlgnn for esch mile of line operated by 8 group of four railroads serving both northern and southern portions of the lower peninsula as the owners could hardly be expected to operate at a loss indefinitely. An instance is the Kalkaska Branch of the Pere Marquette, which was built in 1897 and eT.tended some 33 miles across Kalkaska County: All this northern district * * * was heavily timbered and 8Jl immediately profitable enterprise it proved to be; but it was short-lived * * * and in a few years this road found itself running ·through a country stripped of timber and without product:.~ for traffic, with a funded debt still aliveand requiringa portion of the income, when t11!1t income was barely large enough to meet operating expenses (17). 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 (34) that portion of the line to be dismantled, giving the following reasons: Settlements and industries formerly existing * * • no longer exist; the line of track is serving no one except the farmers * * * and the inhablumts of Moorestown, a h8.mlet of about 100 population; the character of the land adja cent to this line of track * * * is described as jack-pine plains. * * * No reasonable prospect of future increese in traffic to such an extent that this p'ortion of the road. * * * will produce revenue sufficient to pay expenses. LThe remainder of the branch has since been removed.] 37 The Traverse City, Leelanau & Manistique Railroad, 24 miles long, was built in 1903 to open up the district on the west side of TraverSe Bay. In1910 it hauled 40,777 tons of freight. Infive years the. annual traffic .in forest products decreased 21,509 tons (more than 90 per cent), whil~ the increase in agricultural products was only 3,669 tons. The total traffic in 1915 amounted to only 14,886 tons. The, State ta.~ commission reported (27-b) in 1920: The * ** railroad. cost a million dollars or more, but the owners have abandoned it ane! the State is studying how it may be kept in operation for the benefit filf the people of Leelanau County. Manv similar situations could be mentionoo. . 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 :,.-:- ..,/ / it"'" / GRO SS / /' /" ~ooo /' "'- V NET .,. ---~ -- ~ ,1875 --1.6ao 16851890"'" 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 FIG. H.-EarnIngs per mile, Orand Rapids '" Indiana RaIlroad find several more or less thriving communities grew up. But the ~imber lasted only a few years, and even the sand, whicli 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 originatmg on the line, 227,566 tons were forest products. In 1915, the traffic had fOllen 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 p~rmission 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 compara"' tively little consequence. The lands adjacent to the line of the road are agri culturally 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. * * * No prospects that the conditions or voltunc of buslIless will improve. [From files of the State railroad commission.] 38 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE f'e> 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 ifit should cease to operate. One farmer, whose' haul to a shipping point would be increased from 1 mile to 6% or 11 miles (depend.iragon the condition of the roads), stated, that his property would decline at least one-half in value. The track was fhially taken up, leaving several hundred carloads of potatoes, hay, TONS ,. S,SOQ ~'" \ , \ 1\ / '\ '- / - I AL L / F R E I Ct H T V 1,000/)00 \ 1/ \/ / 1\ V ...... v II VI\ AI 1\ r-..... I 1\ I; ~ V 1\ 500,00 r--.. -_. ~ ~ F o R EST P A o 0 u C T 5 \ Jr--.. I"-, \ " o o o ... N YEAR o ell ...'" ..... ~ FlO. I5.-Frelght hauled by Detroit & MackInac Railway, 189a-.Im 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 applica tion of the Pere Marquette to abandon its road between White Cloud ECONOMIC ASP~CT8 OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 39 and Big Rapids, in Mecosta and Newaygo Counties. This line, built in 1873 t~ carry timber to the sawmills at Muskegon, had 8 much longer life than many of the lumber roads. In this case, too, thete 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 trirlfic would increase, it was shown that. the population was decreasing, and the aba.ndonment was held to be justified (4). ;Even in the upyer peninsula the same process is ~oing on. In 1921 the Wisconsm Northwestern Railroad, all the timber having • heen cut along a section of its road just across the State line in Wisconsin, sought permission to move the rails to another district in Michigan where the timber had not been cut. A considerahle 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 ise enough traffic to 'JIS!,l justify continued op ~ eration. ~9$ / These are only a epoo Q 7,Z43 few of the many in OJ V stances where de Z struction of the for o~ 6pao / ests has resulted in a: the loss of railroad c0 / senice by settlers,. OJ many of whom were ~ V already struggling ~ 3,938 under severe handi 0 I caps. Moreover, the ; process is still going ~ / on and seems likely' ~8 to continue until / many more miles of 779 road are tom up. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ F r~mhi 19q9 to ilr1924 FIG. Ifl.-RaIlroad mfIeage In MlchJgan,.186O-1924. (From United l\1lC gan s ra 0 ad States Statistical Abstracl3) mileage decreased by 559 miles, 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 IQarket. With a lar~e 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 roaas, 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 agri culture and were all as fertile as the more or less selected land now utilized, 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 agri cu~t~re alo?-e, could ha~dly produce enou~h freight traffic to sustain eXlstmg raIlroads even If 100 per cent of Its surfaee 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, approJl."imately 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 raiiroad. 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 I1f¢culture, 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 traffic, 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 re~ion 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 hl'l done most readily by growing timber on the idle lands and establishing within the region permanent industries to manufacture the products of the forest. mGB ROAD TAXES AND POOR mGBWAY FACILITJES 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 in dustries. Yet that is the character of many miles of road in north ern 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 'lildONOMid ASPEcTS OF J'ORESTDES'l'RUC1'ION41 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 sou.them Michiga.n, 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·'thah., f'hey could carry. Even now property values are so low in propor o LESS THAN I MILE r::=::t ti.SJ' 1.0 TO 1.5 MILES ~ 2.5 TO 2.0MILES 1m FIG. 17.-Miles of ruraI roads in MIchigan to each squnre mHe ofarea, 1921. ForWayne County, the milearIO .Is based on. tho area .outslde of Detroit. The mileage in ClIlhoun and Macomb Counties is probably underestimated. (Based on data complied by Bureau of Public ROIU!Si United States J)epartment of Agriculture) , . . tionto the necessary expenditures for road construction and .mainte nance that the Battlers 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 esp,ecially low) .' averages only $4.64. The rate exceeds $10 in 11 nortn43rn counties and is over $15 in 2 of them, whereas only 2 southern counties pay over $10. (Figs. 18 and 19.) The burden would be considerably ·g;:}~~f;;[~~~·~;;~~??"~'"77{~~~~~\'1~J!;~:;qri~~;~p?~~1;7~~I~~~~£~::1~S~~~!:·~j{S{)!fiTi~~;~~~~t'f.!~",j, , " '--. " ." "'~f":/-"" <.":;,:~~.~ '/':~ f ..~.. ~- \1.'" " ,~r~ater butio~;the 'fa.cii,that,ltb.e;State 'C()ntributes largelyto ]ugllway' ?,co~tr.uct;ion(8Jld:m.nnWnti.nce.' . , , ,'.,' '..', '. ,', " "",' . rn~9l9 ,the State highway depart~Iumt:paid -to the~coun.ties,under~ th~ state ·,rew~dJaw;,3.mounts :equivaIent ;to .ani8,yer~ge :of ;$lJ83 'per" $l~OOO Qf ;assessed propeitr waluefi in,northern. lower Michigan, .iL1S ,in \th~ upper pe~ula;and only ,$O~96,in ,southern Michigan. In , ", '. '. o LE:SS THAN S,2.().OOO f:':::I.2.o,ooo TO $50,000 .~, '550,'000 TO# IOO,OOO~,~~~V4?~~~~~ (90VEA#JOQ,OOO -00 OMITTED ON MAP Flo. 18.-,.AEsessed valuation for each mileofmral Toads it' :M:ichiganin11121,bycounties 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 high ways, which are allocated among ,the countiesapproxims.tely on the 'basis ,of land area. Counties with lowest rel8Jtive valuation Pl\Y the least, (5 :per cent},:a.nd the more wealthy counties the most (25 per oont). The :percentage of trunk-highway construction cost paid. by\tbe countiesin different parts ,of the State is as follows: , NU1Iiller Nrmtllq-:'· Xu1liller ,5.;0 ------:------..: '1;!i J- ---:-- '11);0 ----~r---- 2 ------12.5 7 ,--... -..;.----~ 15.<0 :3 ;2 ------. 17.5 '2" .7 -~----... :n.O :l 7 - 22..5 2 1 ----.2--- 25.0 .2 ... _-- ~ ---- :35 . In,cludingmoney raised ·pybond 'issues andthat~eived from Qth~r sources, the total eJ>.llenditures in 1921 forTO.sd ..construction TAlC PER ol,doo VALUATION o LESS 'THAN as 1;:.::;:( a 5 TO 'S10 m MORE THAN $10 Ero.ltl.-Avemge.mtes of·taxation (or l'ooda and hlghwoY'J in Michlgan, ·1ll21.by oonnties, per $1,000 valuation. (Bssed on records or State tal: commissioners.} . and maintenance averaged $14.33 for each $1,000 of assessed valua tion 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 TECBNICALBULLETIN 92, U. S.'OEPT.OF AGRICULTURE Permanent' managed forests will require a net-work of~odroads for purposes ·of administration and in order to exploit the timber methodically and efficiently. With the establishment of such forests in the region, the cost of building and. maintaining the roads would be met largely out of forest IDcome,so that settlers would have .more good. roads at less cost than now. peR 4UpOO .-sseSSED VALue LESS THAN 010 =' 0 ·w-"_· C1:'": = OlD TO '20 ~ 320 TO #30 m OVER "30 FIG. 2O.-E:rpendltures for road construction and maintenance (exclusive of city streets) in Michigan, 1921, per $1,000 of 88SeSSed "alae 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 t!L~ation of farm lands is well brought out by the following quotation (12) from the president of the Federal Land Bank at St. Paw: . ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 45 The matt-er of taxes on farm lands has now become one of the most important ., factors to be considered in connection with land ownership, land operation, ete.\Ji ~axes on farm lands used to be nominal or of minor importance in considering .'~'l 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 othen; are discouraged from taking up the vocation of farming because of high overhead. ... * * Of all things that have appeared on the horizon in the last tlIree 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 ta:Ies [professor Ely (111) states] means that values created by .hard, long, continued toll, such as we can see in the new count-ry in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, will be1I.bsorbed by ta.xation. One of the most serious results of the destruction of Michigan's forests has been the effect on public revenues and the extra burden that has been Jaid on the remaining property. In the words of the State tax commissioners (.~7-c): ' Never in the history of the State has the subject of taxation been more impor tant than at 'present. As times have changed, demands for service at public expense have increased until the burden on the tal:payer has assumed alarming proportions. Never has it been more difficult for the property owner to meet the demanus 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 generally was not asses sed at more than 50 per cent of its true cash "a:lue. In 1921 the average rate throughout the State was $28.88 on each $1,000. Assessments are ma.de at practicaUy 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 pro port.ion of its resources has been destroyed. IN THE CU~VER REGION In Michigan, as in numerous t~t.her forest States, the effect of forest destruction upon public revenuea has not been fully realized. This is chiefly because the value of the forests was not appreciated while they were standing and because the forest.s, being assessed at relatively much lower values than most other forms of property, did notcontrib ute their fair ahare of the costs of government. According to the State tax statistician (36): In the lumber regions of the State * * * there are instances almost with out 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 a.nd 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 'a.nd 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 p..ne 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 ~in pine and hardwoods. with a total stand estimated then at 1,400 million feet, and no doubt actually much great.er.. 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 I 46 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICUL'rOEE agricultural and industrial sections. Moreover, the owners of pine timber, bejng among the principal taxpayers, were not always inclined to look with favor upon attempts to stimulate settlement or. to constl"Uct 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 fn-e, 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 t,he 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 tenden(lY' 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 reduc tion 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: t .-n.....,...._LA tions have even in~ ;::n :Jri~~...... lDW%R creased in the most 3D __ .' ~""'. severely denuded ~ ..... ~.--- _ ~... coun.ties. ~ Zll ....~ c:;·~· ...•··· The valuations in 0. ~ •••••• ",;",'" • [,. ; t::-.:!:-=--~-= ..~-.-.-.- several counties were ~ 101---~~-_~___~-I reduced as the pine :: wascut,buttheywere x ~ later increased when 18:>2 1901 1010 1", 1m the assessors began to FIG. 21.-Average rates of taxation in Mlchlgan, 11l1l2-1921, by take notice of t~e regions. (Based on reports o[ State tax commissioners) hardwoods and agRlIl 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 valua tion 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 11 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 penin sula 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"'<>~~" ':t:A'7 ;.. 'rABLE IO.-Average trUCpToperty valuation per capita, by group8 ojoountie8, liin . Average Group Conntles valua tion Upper peninsula: Numbti~! DoUara Eastern______7 1,107 Wostein______~ ____ ~ ______~ ______8 1.637 LowerNortheastern peninsula:______Northwestern______11 896 Central______~ ______10. 809 Thumb______16 ,l.22tl Soutbern______Ii 1.517 26 2,002 .~;;-. ;< At the same time, owing to the sparsity of population, the per capita costs of local. government are considerabzn~gher in the north. County and. township ta.,.es in 1910 (not inclu· . those levied for city and village purposes) averaged $1.86 per .capita. in the 36 southern counties COUNTY OOLLARS C KCWC'_AW ~'OI -'Z GO.c._.c 24"1 ::>'" 'lION ..... "'ARQUCTTE '0", ,. CoIoI'I~OII ,...... !: ... HQUGfoIT.,.,. ,to. // z~ DlQII:_SOII ( IJ II'.u,o It.Z ...LLlC~ .1.. ALOe.. U~l" It:" Ot'...:,,,,,,. '"~ ...... ~"OOLt;A'Af"T ". 11'57 .... ~INAC '1140 .. < MI:NQM..NC.C ..... ,,'" DeLTA .,...... -.41~U.c.Er ...... , A"T".... m C LI:~"'''' ... -' aE.NZIC ". ~CSO"CISLC ". \I) AIIIt"...c .., " """"OT....' ...' 10.1 ! .,...... Z ..-...... c~t.volJt .' It. _s'lte .... .c.u..c...SCA It: OSC£OI"A ItJ ootwAoN ~ At.CONA Wl[.II'fOlfD AL'CHA 9 MCconA CLAR< Z C"AWro.O II: .....,..0.:"""" % C""...r.T I-'" OLADWI~ II: OTseoo 0 loseo " Z NEW"''tOU Itosco ...... o .. fliflOloAHO 0_ MONTCAL". VA-HaU"C" i .~! "'USKtOON ISAlt.LLA onAWA "'L~MNyuocoo.. IONIA LA,.cc.It Z AAGINAW HU"ON 14.5. ~ S",AwAaSCC...... i SA""''' t.,a .., aelt"lItN SA"'J~ .".". Z COU...... S'r...IO'C~ .6.S Z ,T.eL"'" ,.... GRATIOT ,... ffi GItNc.!ICC .... X 115""NCt1 IIDa .. HIC.UDAL& 1'10, L"'INCl8TON 0 CATON "'''4,.,4. II" CUHTON 17'£ CALHOUN ..,... K DOLLARS PER CAPITA o ==19/0 ===-_-UII9 FIG. 23.-T8IOO levied to support local governments In Michigan counties, 1910 and 1919. Do not Include city and village taIes or taxes tor schools, roads, and drainage taxes were particularly high in several 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 Lllce was $14.08, for Oscoda $13.59, for Roscommon $12.74, for Montmorency $10.45, for Mackinac $10.18, and for Craw " ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FORES'f DESTRUCTION 49 ford $9.66. The rate was over $5 per capita for 33 of the northern counties and for only 40f 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 resultJ 30 townships in the cut-ovcr, regiongav2 up their separate identity and merged with others between 1890 and 1920 in order to save the overhead costs.of government. TABLE H.-Rates oj taxation, changes in population, percentage oj land improved and alJerage assessed value per acre in agricultural and CuH1l1er counties in stated years contrasted I AGRICULTURAL COUNTIES Change Inpop Aver· Tax mtes per $1,000 of osseased value ulation, 1Il00-11120 Per. age cent assessed 1------:---:-----:----1---:----1 age of valueo! County Iandlm. real roved estata In· De P , per 1892 11101 1910 1919 1921 crease crease 11120 acre, 1919 ------.------Dollar. DoZW,. Doll"TI Dollar. Dollar. Per cffit Per cffit Per cffit Dollara Allegan••_ ••_••••••••_..... 12. 92 l3.98 16. 51 21.25 25.95 •••••••• 3 61 69.26 Darry••••••••••••••~...... 14.77 1~55 111.04 22.84 29.52 •••••••• 5 69 57.41 Drauch•••••••••••••••••••••• 11. 16 12. 78 15.60 2L 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. OIl 24. 52 29.95 •••••••• 7 72 8L 50 GrntioL...... 13.21 19.21 20.10 17.06 22. 37 13 •••••••• 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•.••.••••.•••••••••_.c 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 15 •••••••• 73 154. 63 Monroe...... 9.63 11.66 12. 78 21.31 28.18 13 •••••••• 74 109.72 Sanilac...••••••••••••.•••••• 23. 50 19. ()l 19.66 21.57 25.31 •••••••• 11 73 53. 02 St. Joseph. •••••••••••••••••• 11.53 15. 01 16.33 22. 24 25. ()i) 12 •••••••• 73 83.95 Tuscola...... 19.04 15.75 20.42 27.60 32.44 7 63 52.46 Van Duren...... 13.33 20. 13 21. 59 28. 18 35. 86 S 67 70. 48 Weighted average __• 12. 23 14. 28 16. 25 22.W 28. 02 2.3 70 7~49 CUT·OVER COVNTIES Alcons••.•••••••••••••••••••• 57.81 31.69 44.15 24.48 30.44 .. ------11 9.86 Antrim•••••••••••••••••••••• 22.01 24. 76 33.93 31.32 38.43 ... ------30 28 24.26 Benzie•••.••••••••••••••••••• .23.70 27.28 38.22 35.72 41.53 28 24 22.64 Charlevoix ••••••••••••••••••• 25.87 29.52 36.48 43.69 51.08 ·_··la· 25 ~47 Cheboygan•••.•••••••••••••• 30.64 36.37 32.~ 39.12 45.98 .. ---....- .. ·····io· 12 14. 96 Clare•••••••••••••••••••••••. 34.11 42. 31 30.32 31.29 37.67 ·····38· 1 18 17•. 69 Crnwford••••••••••••.••••••• 27.53 24. 2.; 24.63 29.28 31.89 ------3 9.27 Delta•••••••••.•••••••••••••• 32. 78 24.04 31.46 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.M 29.91 31.28 34 ·····20· '22 24.45 Iosco••••••••••••••••_••••••• 33.44 43.83 38.74 35.98 33.94 ------14 14. 39 Kalkaska••••••••••••.••••_. 22.54 26.15 28.56 32.34 oU.\16 ----.....-- 22 14 11.79 Lake.••••••••••••••••••••••. 30.03 34.97 39.66 44.16 52.52 ------10 10 6.84 Leelanau•••••••••••••••••••• 21.62 21.99 19.37 26.45 33.72 ······4· 14 42 27.15 Mackinac.•••••••••••••••••• 09.51 41.23 34.67 34.44 36.97 ···'·12· 3 11.23 Menomlnoo••••._ ••••••••••• 29.64 27.01 28.55 33.06 42.13 ... - .. ----- 13 21.92 Mlssllukoo•••••.••••••••_ ••• 23.11 35.68 40.82 42.38 49.63 3 21 lL05 Montmorency.•••••••••••••• 51.07 35.11 37.96 28.07 30.99 ·····U· - ..__ ...... 6 8.37 Ogemllw••••••••••••••••••••• 29.57 32.49 32.65 25.89 38.110 0 18 1~ 06 OsccolB••• _ ••••••••••••••••• 19.41 27.95 35.19 26.57 31.M ·····15· 40 30.76 Oscoda._._••••••••••••••_•.• 47.30 47.11 21.04 34.88 39.11 21 4 4.60 Otsego••••.••••••••••.••••••• 25.8G 23.23 29.92 33.40 27.85 ······2· 10 11.34 Presque Isle ••••••••••••••••• 25.80 22.36 32. 41 34.05 35.78 ·····38· -...... --- 12 13.48 Roscommon••••••••••••••••• 41.07 63.26 29.15 33.75 38.19 14 ------3 11.44 Schoolcraft•••••••••••••••••• 21.()l 38.34 48.42 34.70 35.95 27 ------2 11./ii --i- --- Weiglited average •••••• 28. 24 29.03 32. 78 34.32 40.03 ---.. --- 0.07 13 15.84 ! I Compiled from reports of board of State tax comml!lSloners and of United States census. 3596°-29-4 '.,'~ ",. 50 TECm"1CAL 'BULLiilTIN 92, U. S.DEPT. 0,1\' AGlUCULTunE It is self-evident that the greater the accumulation pf wealth and the greater the earning power represented by property values, within the State as a whole and withinits individual political subdivISions (counties, townships, and school districts), the lighter will he the burden of, taxation required to meet given expenses. Conversely, it is equally evident that the less the wealth and earning ~ower, the greater the proportion of total income that must be contributed for public purposes. 'During the.. period, 1892-1901 the reduction o LfSS THAlli 030 ~ ~ • OVER $40 ~ FlO. 24.-Average tax rotes in Michigan counties, 1921,per $1,009 valuation. (Ilased 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, althou~h 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 FOREST DESTRUCTION 51 Table 11 compares the rates of taxation for a group of southern agricultural counties which have no large cities or extensive manu facturing 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 t.he 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 ta..'i:burden on settlers in many parts of the cut-over region. The amount of ta..'i:es 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 cayital. In Antrun County, for example, although the average tax rate for the county 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 indus tries 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, ill the 20 years 1901-1920. TABLE 12.-(Jhanges in tax rates, 1905 and 1920, and decrease in population between 1900 and 1920, in 8everal town8 of Antrim County 1 TOWNS IN WHICH FOREST RESOURCES HAD BEEN DEPLETED BY 1920 Rate per $1,000 !lSSessed value Population Town decrease 1905 1920 Increase I Dollara Dollara Perunt Number Per cent Ei:ho_...... 28.80 47.58 23 '77 '13 ZT.09 45. 90 66 393 34 =::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 31.34 45.45 45 557 60 Central Lake •••••••.••••••.••••••••••••••••__ •••_••• Z7.f17 45.14 61 739 38 1Vnmcr"'_'" .•••_'" __ •••••.••••••••••••••__ ••••••• 28.44 41.76 47 334 48 Forest Ilome •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• 25.39 37.30 47 449 38 Elk Raplds_._••_. '" •..••••••••••••••_•••••••••••••• 24.77 33.49 35 1,262 62 TOWNS IN WHICH FOREST RESOURCES REMAINED IN 1920 Custer•••_••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••_:•••••• ZT.98! 34.62 24 193 27 ChestoniB••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25.66 31.85 24 '36 '7 Mancclona_••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23.35 29.37 26 298 11 Jordan•••••••••••••••••••••••••_._••_••••••••••••••• 26. 1.>1 Z7.83 3 24 5 1 I Compiled !rom county records; population !rom Unlted States censns. , Increase. In Delta County the average rate increased from $24.9i in 1904 to $43.62 in 1920, or, if the cities of Escanaba and Gladstone are omitted, from $19.09 to $36.65. The rate in one township was nearly 6 per :~~. :~~,~:~'l::~~~~";~-;."~r?~;r:'~~ - 'I.'!. 52 TECHNICAL llULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPl'. OF AGRICULTURE cent, and again the cut-over forest townships with decreasing or practically stationary population were at a' disadvantage as com pared with those which still had forest industries and increasing num bers of inhabitants. (T&,ble 13.) TABLE 13.-Changes in, tlU; rates, 1904 and 1920, and Chan,gBl$ in population between 1,900 and 1920, in several towm of Delta Cou~y 1 TOWNS I.N' WHICH FOREST RESOURCES HAD BEEN DEPLETED BY 1~ Rate per $1,000 assessed vBlne 1-----;,------;---\Popu)atfOD increaso or decrease lllOi 1~ Increase Dollfm Doll4r6 Ford Rlver_____._.__•___ ••___ ._._••••_••__ ._.__ ._._. 23. 02 Per ant Number Per ant li6.oo 145 -598 43 Brampton_.Cornell '-----.--.------______• ______•• ._.T--.---.-.-.---.---.----I;~'______••___•__ •______Baldwin••____••_____ •______• _____ •____ •______._ 23.53 1I1880nvllle____ ._••_.__• ______•••______•••_._____ • 46.76 99 +491 13 EscnnablL••____ •••__ •______-_____ • ______•__ ••••__•• TOWNS IN WHICH FOREST RESOURCES REMAINED IN 1~ '0_991 63 41 ~~fs~~~~:=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 15. 39. 1 94 21.77 ~I t=J 109 J Complied from connty records; population from United States census. • The:;e towns are combined because divisions to and changes in boundaries since 1000 make It Impossible comjW"e them Individually. Masonville lost 421 inhabitants hetween tOWllJl together gained 313. 1910 and l~, and tho other 4 Annual payment of taxes amounting to 5 to 7 per value ~ent of the total of the property would be burdensome enough ill a long-settled region with large accumulations ofreserve capital. For settlers strug gling to make farm homes out of stump land, with little or no cash capital or surplus product, and with occasional crop failur~, it is altogether discouraging. Excessive taxes, added to other handicaps, have undoubtedly kept many people from northern attemptin~ to settle in 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 Apiil, 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 .lUld 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 themore comfortable and attractive surroundings of the big towns. The farmers of northern Michigan are not alone in suffering excessive under tax burdens. The toWns and cities have beeu 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 tQ 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 in creased burden on the people who ,remain. (Table 14.) TABLE 14.-Average rates of taxation, 1915-1919, and population changes per cent, 1910-1920, in repre8entative cities of northern and 80uthern Michigan Northern ci~ies Southerncltfes Avemge PopuIa Average Popu!a City tax rate, decrease, City tax mte, Increase, 1915-1919 1910-1920 1915-1919 1910-1920 Alpena ______.voila.. Puunt DoUara19.54 Pu un!10 26.59 13 Adrlan______Au Sahlc ______44.04 74 Albion______24.10 43 Boyne Clty____• ______Alma______'IT. 67 174 Cheboygan______38.28 18 40.74 18 Ann Arbor______.::~ 22. 16 32 East Jordan ______East Tawas______39.15 3 Battle Creek______20.54 43 54.34 4 Benton Harbor______23.70 33 Escanaba______Charlotte______25.. 52 5 H arrlsan ______35.36 1 Coldwater______23.58 3 Ludington______39.86 'IT Detroit ,______22. 92 113 30.10 4 Manlstee______McBaln______31.54 22 Flint______24. 55 138 38.30 o Omnd Rapids______Ill'. 73 22 Menominee______~ ______Omer______32.29 15 Hillsdale______22. 67 9 Standlsh______41.12 28 Holland______19.62 16 34;53 4 lonia..______25.92 38 St. Ignaco!_____• ______Jackson______22. 9".! 54 Tawas city______..______42.03 13 Tmverso City ______38.04 4 West Branch ______'IT. 00 10 44.66 13 Monroe______~~~~=====:====:====:== 21.9.j~: ~ 68~ Mount Clemens______19.92 23 Muskegon______25.78 52 Owosso______24.29 30 Pontlac______'IT. 55 136 8sglnaw______Port Huron______23.5325.. 90 3823 ~~~~~::_:==:::::=::::==:=: ~:u ~ 1----1----1 Ypsilanti______26_.73_~___19 AVerage ______------1 37.67 15 Average______'23.35 49 I For Detroit the avemge 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 govemment, and the southern counties have had to pay correspondingly more. The 31 counties of northern lower Michigan, together wjtn the 8 eastern counties of the upper peninsula embrace 44.7 per cent of the land. area oJ 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 Der cent of the people, they paid only 8.6 per cent of the tux. In 1922 they paid only 7.8 per cent. In 1919, 20 cut-over counties in which pine onginally 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 AGRICULTURE 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 $1,100,00D by the taxpayers in the other 35 counties. "What would happen if each county were itself to raise by ta.'Cation the sums now received from the State for schools, insane, and high ways (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 t.ax 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 fern.1a 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 approx imately 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 sums 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 t,hese slacker acres are .. By 1891 there was estimated to be 1,800,000 acres of WlIste pine-plains land In the lower IJ(lDInSUIa a10De (9-m). ':"":~: '~-:::.", .".,., ;.~ , . :'I~ '", ",c""'''''',''''': ,',',:7 ':',: , :'i 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 cutrover land involves a burden, and if continued for a long period a heavy burden Unless the land is utilized so as t.o yield -/ a revenue. Even if the cost of the land itself has been written oft' i against t,he returns from the timber; and if all other expenses are elim inated, the owner must continu:e to pay ta.xes. Assuming that the land is assessed at $100 a forty, which is about the average for the poorest lands, and that the tax rate js $30 a thousand, whlch is slightly below the average in the jack pine counties dUll.ng the last 30 years, the annual tax per acre would be only 772 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 o"\\'11ers 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 industIies 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. Durin~ the 10 years " ending with 1905, the State spent $1,591,252 for advertising cut-over tax lands. At the tax sale heldin 1923 for delinquent 1920 taxes, the State had to bid in lands representing $673,500 of accrued unpaid " taxes, or more than one-fourth of the total amount adve1'tised (26- ; . ~,', . o .. , .... ,.. ·D···· 6.1 TO ·e,SP;R CENT m OVE~ 6.S f"ER CENT :E'IG. 25.-Averagerates of interest on farm mortgages In 'MiChigan counties,l920. (Based on United States census) Moreover, many of the clJt-overcounties had.a very high percentage of mortgaged farms, particularly in those portions of the ·region where there is small .opportunity for income from supplementary work in logging camps. More than 60 per cent of the farms in five of those counties were mortgaged, with .a maximum of 73 per cent in Gladwin County. . For short-time loans, the cut-over counties are at an evengre~ter disadvantage. In 1916 it ·was repor,ted (45) that .theaverage cost of ;J!lOON'OldIC ASPEO'l'aQll"FOREST'DES'l'RUC'I'lON • i57 such loans, . including •COniIIrisslOns' ,and ,bonus, .reacned 'as hlgh es 14,1 per cent'in 11 northeastern countieS, of. lower Michigan, 11:2 per cent ina",group of$ central ~ounties1 -10.8 per cent in a group ·of6,in .the thumb anda.1!ound Sagmaw Bay, 10.7 per cent forn cut-9ver counties on the westside, 9:8 percent f!>f 10 northwestern. counties, 8.7 percent 'for the upper peninsula, and down to '7 .3 and 7.4 ,per cent for the southernthreetien; of .counties. Theaver~e for the State was.9.2 percent, whereas for Ohio it was 7 .2 percent, for Pennsyl vania, '6;9 per cent, .and .for Massachusetts 6.5 per cent. . CJ '0 -ISO PeR,CAPITA m 451-100 fZ2J "01-150 ~ f1SH~OO !II '2.0H~50 FIo. 26.-S~vings banK deposits in Michigan, by counties, on J'anuary I, 1920. (Bosed on report or State commissioner of banking) REDUCED PER CAPITA WF.ALTH With all these economic handicaps on both farms and industries, it is not surprising that people in the cut-over region are less pros perous than those in other parts of the State. One evidence of this is the low per capita .average of savings deposits (31), 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 II 58 TECHNICAL nULLETIN.92,U~. S. DEPT_ OF AGRICULTURE resources of State and national banks in the two regions tell the same story. .For the north theaver~ was $172 per capita and for the south (except Wayne County)"lt was $312. For Wayne County, where there is naturally a concentration of hanks, it was $572. While lumbering was .at its height, the number of paupers in pro portion.to population was considerably lower than in the southern part of the State (88). With the cutting of the timber and the migra tion 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 '/5 ; costs the northern counties $1 for each $1,000 of assessed value, or more than twice as " much as inthe south. SOCIAL HANDICAPS 250 251 Not theleast of the "" causes which operate w "0 I ...... , ~9 Zl~ NORTHERN to delay permanent , j I ...... / settlement on the bet ~ ~ ter lands in northern ~ 17"> 17SA..__1_8-'l.~ Michigan are the 0'~ joe 174 1 social disadvantages. ~ 1501----+---J'-+---I----'=-'I SOUTHERN There was a time in g the history of'the .... country when pio a: j neering, with all of its :e lOO1----ir---I----+----I hardsliip$ and dis • DENOTES 1,000 PERSONS o PLAC~S OF ';000 TO !.O,OOO· + PL.ACES OF 10,000 TO'ZS,ODO' * PL.ACES- OF zs,ooo TO .50,000 e• GRANO RAPIDS ·136,000 e DETROIT· 994).000 "'POPULATION OF ADJACENT TOWNSHiPS INCLUOED. FIG. 29.-Dlstrlbutlon of population in MichIgan. 1920. (Based on Uulted States 00Iusu:I) per cent in 95 of the 332 villages was more than made up by increases m 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 OF FO~~T .DESTRUCTION 61 TABLE 15.-Changes in population oj incorporaled cities and, villages, and in outaide populatioo, between 1910 and I9~O 1 CITms Increase Decrease Com mun!· Net in· Net BegIon ties re- Com· Com· crease crease corded munl· Poople mun!· People tkll ties - - Number NUfliba Number Per unl Number Number PtT unt PtTCtfl Per cent Upper penlnsula.____._•••• 18 7 12, 11M 31.2 11 8,155 10.1 3.3 ------Northern lower MlchlltllD- 131 12 5,578 19.1 18 9,072 13.0 ------4- i Southern Mlchlgan.______•__ sM 00 827,6M 74.1 3 397 4.5 14 ...... _-- VILLAGES' Upper peninsula. ______[ 17[ 9 6,458 25.3 ____• ___ [ 5.3 Northern lower Mlchlgnn_._ 66 128[4.661 2, 933 [ 56.3127.0 M· 1,986 23.7 ______lL4 Bouthern !'UchllllU1-______I 236 140 89,351 10.6 115 5, 192 10.1 '45.2 ______ OUTSIDE' NorthernUpper penlusuJa.. lower Mlehlgnn______~_ .....______...... ______40, 394 ______..______2. 7 15. 9 Southern MlchlglW ....__ • .~_[------[------.[___ ..____.. _____._ ...______526[------[-----....______...._[- 9,966...-.. [-----...... __ [______t.... ---1.3 1 Compiled from United Btates census data. I 1 city In northern lower MlehIgnn, BOd 1 city and 1 village In .the south did not chonge. '2 Incorpomted villages gave up their organization during the decade, and there were Incorpomted during that period 6 In the upper peninsula, 5 In northern lower Mlchl!lllD, and 1 In southern Michigan • • If Hamtmmck, which Incrensed from 3.559 to ~,615, Is left out, the mcrease for 139 -:ilIages was 44,295, or 311 per oont, and the net Increase (or 235 villages was 21.2 per cent. J Including places Incorpomted In one but not .bothyears (see note 3). INADEQU.....TE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES From the Bocial standpoint, one of the most important considera tions attracting desirable settlers to a region 01' causing those already there to leave, is the favorable or unfavorable character of school facilities. Besides increasing the costs of local government and mak ing more difficult the task of maintaining necessary roads and high ways, the shrinkage of property values in northern Michigan .has ser iously handicapped the public schools. This has created a difficult problem for the districts mvolved 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 aver~e amount spf>nt in 1920 for each child enrolled in school in northern ~pwer Michigan was $42.41J 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 presumablyless competent teachers. The value o.f 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 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, u. B. l>~PT. OF AGRICULTuRE averaged only $80:30. FM 36 southern counties, not ineluding Wayne where salaries are naturally higher, the avera~ewas $97.04. (Fig. 33.) Nevertheless, the average of school taxes m the northern counties has been considerably higher in proportion to property values than in the south. Tn 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 tor individual counties in .)920. The .reason for this disparity in the relative burden is to be D INCREASE R7'::J ~ DECREASE DECREASE 1m• OECREME FlO, ·atJ.-lncrenses and dectenses in rcll'lll popuIntlon at Michigan counties between 1910 and 1920 exclusive of places having 1,000 or more population at either census. (Dosed on United States census) found in the comparative poverty of the region, i. e., the low property values upon which to levy taxes. 011 the basis of the estimated true valuation given by the State board. of equalization for 1919, the ave:r age 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 s was between $5.32 and $22.56, m 1920. Within 0. single township m 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 • D LESS THAN -40 ~ ~ 840 TO.50 IZ1 .50 TO $60 OVER 4$60 FIG. 31.-Cost per pupli otmllintainlng public schools in Mlchlgnn counties, for each pupil enrolled. during -the year ending July. 1920. (Based on reports ot 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 public land granted by the Federal Government, now includes also ta.xes on 1Jublic 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 ; ~, ~( , .' .r. 64 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U'. S. DEPT. OF AGRICU!,IrURE 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 everyone of the .31 counties of northern o 4l 50 AND LESS r:::::-:l ~ _051 TO .75 ~ .76 TO ~f100 ~ S101 TO .150 ii§!I. OVE R $150 FIG. 32.-Avernge vnlUII or schoo) property ror each' child orschoo) age In Mlchlgan counties. l~; (Dased on reports or superintendent or 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 amO\lIl~ lovied. ECONOMIC ASPEqJ;'S OF FOREf;;T DESTRUCTION 65 It hasbeen suggested that the moneys now distributed in theprimary school fund H should.be used to pay the e~enses of theSta.tegovem ment, 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 .southem part of the State, but it is objected to principally because "the more sparsely settled com munities * * * would not be able to adequately support pub~o r:::J UNOI!", -70 A MONTH 1:·:·:.~41 .70 TO • eo IZZJ $80 TO 190 ~ .90 TO .tOO 1m OVI;R .,00 FIG. 33.-Avcrnge snlru:les of publlc-school teachers In Michigan counties, for the year endlDg July, 1920 (based on reports of superintendent of public instruction) schools were it not for the aid received from the primary-school fund 11 (29). . One result of the less adequate school facilities inthe 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- II Except the Interest on money received from the l!ille of public lands, wblcl1 m1llJt be 1llJed for lIChooll! under the terms of the grant from the United Swtes. 3596°~29--5 ., 66 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRfCULTURE gan 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 populationi but considering native whites alone the percentage jnllorthern lower Miclrigan (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.) LESS THAN &5 $5 TO &7.50 $7.50 TO 610 OVER ~10 FIG. 3t.-A\"crnge rale of taxation for puhlic schools in Michigan countIes, per $1,000 truo properly \'111110 t'OUectcd by school districts during the year cndilJg July, 1920, CBased ou reports of superintendent of public Instruction) Even the poorest distrids try t.o Jllaintain elementary schools, but those with only asca.ttered population to drfl,\v front 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 (80), the ratio of lligh-school enrollment in 1920 to total number of childron between 5 and 19 ycars old was appro)..imat.oly 1 to 15 for southom IVIichigan, 1 to 23 for the upper peninsula,. and 1 to 29 for ECONOMIC ASPECTS cii :FOREST DESTRUCTION 67 the northern part of the lower peninsula. In other words, a child in the c~t-over region has about hali, as much chance to attend high school as one in other parts of the State. THE PROBLEM OF IDLE LAND EXTENT OF m(;E LAND Of the land area of southern 'Michigan, only 7.6 per centis denuded or poorly stocked forest land.. Innorthcrnlower Michigan, on the other o LESS THAN S~OOO ~ S3,oOO TO s4fJOO ~ S4pOO TO JS~OOO mOVER 65.000 FIG, 35.-Tnxable resources behind each child of school age in Michigan COllDties, 1919. (BBBOd on reports oC State tax commlssloners and superintendent oC public instruction) hand, 51.2 per cent is idle or almost idle land, either not restocking with 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 million aN'cs of idle :lnd partly idle Jand, together with the 10 million acres now in mature or growing forest which sooner oj' Jater will be cut oyer, 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 Ilone that do not use it 68 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE. ~ectly or indire~tly) a!1dto every individual or corporate ta!-"paycr In the State. ItIS unthinkable that so great an area was destmedto be merely a storehouse for the original crop of timber, to be emptied once and then uLterJy 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 r.est 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. 3Il.-Re1aUon between amounts received by counties from tbe primnry-school fund and State tnJ: assoosed against the CQuntie8, 1922. For the shaded countie8 receipts from tbe State prlmnry school fund in 1922 were greater than the State tax assoosed against those countie8 RECREATIONAL USEIS 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 line, 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 populat.ad region to the south. Gasoline and service ECONOMld .ASPEcTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 69 . stations appear to constitute the -principal commercial activity of many of the sIUall villages alon~ the principal highways. ~ummer hotels and camps, gun clubs; fishing clubs, and health resorts 1ll great variety are scattered throughout the region and in 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. Since logging began the wild turkey has become extinct in Michigan; the removal of the forests which kept the stre~ms shaded and cool o o.s PfR CENT ""0 U!M I~':':':":I 0.6 TO 1-0 nil C£"T _ t.f TO.'UJ peR CeNT m ~ve~ 2.J) PER (£..T FIa. 37."...TIlitemcy among the native white population ot Michigan cotmtles,l920. (B8.'l8d 011 United f;tBtes census) has been followed by the disappearance of the grayling; the destruc tion of cover by logging and fire, together with the unrestricted shoot ing of earlier years, hilS reduced the number of deer far below what it was 40 years ago, when as many as 70,000 were killed in a single year (25); millions of partridge and grouse have been destroyed by the devastating conflagrations which periodically have swept manypor tions of the State. Still, in 1924, approximately 350,000 fishing and hunting licenses were sold (33-a) and the annual income to the State '...... /". "'\r "" " "", " .' TlUCHMlC,AL l3ULLE1'.tN92,tT. ·S. DJfi>'1\ .OF.:AGru~ treasUry from this SOUl"ce is ;now.';;,around$500;000. 'The ,fur tradet ' which was the only important ind,ustry for almost:200 years, still has an, annual value to Michigan of more ihan$1;OOO;000 (7), and fur farming is increasing. ~,' ." , 'rheState and private .agencies spend a large,l;llllou,nt of money and effort every year to .develop the recreatiollal res'ourcesand 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 tbis 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 ofconserv.o.tioD, 'in its report for 1921 ~ PI!RCENTAGe OF A!.!. .• PERCENTAMI IlI"NATIVE 22 tat d· W .OVER 'TEN 'tEARS OI.Q· WHITE:! OVER TeN yeARS '01.0 , 's e '. \. . Statistical records have 6r-~~------~------' proven that stock and 1.910 sheep raidng on some of those landa [the cut-over landofnorthernMichigan] r~-¥b--~=_------~~A--~ haa beenalmostimpos 'z sible owing to the sey:edty w· .ofthe winters and the ne o31---f-:3----m------IQ:t---; cessity of fU!'nishing food to such animals during ~~-~---~~--~---~~-~ that period. II. 11--~~ Inthehope of finding a way to utilize such land, "without any ~r-~w---~------, great assistance from 192.0 mankind," the,depart r 4·~~~------~~~ ment undertook to in troducea herd of rein ~31-~~---~------~t---; o deer. ~2~~~--~---,Nr---~~--4 It seems frurlyob 11/ vious that any fOrIn of Q.11-~t- utjJjzation requiring little numan assistance will never' give em- UPPfR N~~~'1f~N SOUTHERN WAVr-JE nloyment to man,y PEI)IIN:lUI.A MICHIGAN MICHIGAN CO~T'f .t" 1 ...... , peop e nor serve to FIG. as.-Dliteracy InllrtnllLPal,regioos of. MIChIgan, 1910 and 1920. 'build Un.a consl·derable (BlISad on Umted States census) 1:' permanent population and extensive industries. Recreational development .and the produc tion 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 a"{travagance 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 perpet uating green forests on the millions of acres now covered with stumps and sweet fern or scrubby trees, and providing security against the recu!1:ence of devastating fires, will multiply manyfold the recreational value of the region. · .' ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 71 LIT.TLEPROSPECTOF EARLY AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION Experience has shown that a~cultural 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 yea.rs, 27 n,er cent of the land is still unimproved, !IDd ,th~ percent~e of lIDproved land apparently has about reached Its Jumt. Even ill the rich agricultural States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois approxi mately 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 thRn in a region lilce 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 public 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 debris 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 con ditions will not permit of successful farming on all of the land that is physically capable of cultivation. Nor do th6Y 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 f!1I'lll 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 prod uct of glaciation, and consequently the soils 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, wher~ 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 J 72 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE them profitable to the farmer." And 0. report of the United States. DepartmeIlG of Agriculture (44) stated: The sll.lldy jack.,pine plains * * * have long been an agricultural problem. Farmers have generally failed to utake a living on them. After building a house and barn, clearing up II. 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 faruter or to encourage him to stay longer. More people have lefttheselands dur ing 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 }line lands in Michigan, and that.8 to 9 million acres of cut-over pin.e land generally of II. light sandy soil * * * require specially careful handling to make theut productive of farm croI'B * * *. The better grades of jack pine soil are * * * generally quite deficient in humus and nitrogen. This lack of humus Il.lld nitrogen is one of the flmdamental reasons for the low productiveness of the jack;'pine plains. Tne swamps, which are numerous and extensive, mostly require large e)."pendltures for drainage before they can 0e cultivated, and even then the underlying soil in many instances is sand, no better than the sa.nd 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, Bnd rock knobs: Upper Typeo[soU penin· sula ------1------Sands and grnvels______Swamps.______18 37 23 Rock knobs______24 13 7 7 o o 1 1 Three-110urths 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 clinlate. Only a relatively small pro~ portion 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 a~culture almost impossible on the lower-grade lands and exceedingly diffic,.uteven on the best lands in many localities. SHORT-SIGHTED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND POLICIES In southern Michigan, the better land was generally cleared first, and as cities and industries grew up the increasing demands for agri cultural products made it possible to utilize even relatively inferior soils. 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 ta."Xes 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 t.o land companies j or else they let it revert to the State for nonpayment of ta."l:es. 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-ta."l: land, to say nothing of the 6 million acres delinquent 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 1() per cent of the area of nine counties was so held and 27 per cent of one (Oscoda). Although it l!/llS assumed that the acquisition of this land by private owners would re:;ult in its settlement, such did not prove to be the case. Less i:h o.n 5 per cent of it was sold to actual settlers, and only a small p~t(~e:iltage of the homesteaders really intended to settle per manently. In the words of the commission appointed in 1907 to study the State's land policy (80): The homestead law * * * has not led to homesteads 'out has generally been used to secure timber or land and timber for speculatio,fl. The laws under which tax homesteads have been sold have contributed to the actual settlement of the eut-over lands but very little. [The l3.w allowing sales and homesteadingl 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 ~urpOs(\ of stripping off the timber which had been left at the first cuttlllg. During this period also wide use was made of what was known as the lirubber forty": that is, the timber cutter, making little or no pretense at permanent settlement, extended his operations from his original ~1:0 acres over all the land in sight regardless of its owner ship. Such activities, together with frequent fires, effectively destroyed all possibility of the natural second crop of pine which other wise would htl.ve followed lumbering. The land s~peculators were less interested in developing permanent settlements than in the profits to be derived from selling cheap land at the price of good. Indeed, comp1aints were made that they kept bona fide settlers out by asking high prices (80). 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 0f the region. It was Teported 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. OF AGRICULTURE •.. \ I of it 'five times. ~ven as late as 1921,ne~ro families from Chiel1J5o were being induced to colonize sand plains ill one of northerncounties (22). According to the commission of inquiry (30): Many poor people have been enticed into attempting to make homes on land unfit fpr their purpose. These people were poor and not above the average in knowleClge of and skillin agriculture, and so lacked both the means and the ability to create homes and family-supporting farms out ofJight, thin lands. Capitaland skill sometimes can do this, of course, but these peopfe were without either. The ~H DOT REPRESENTS #500,000. FlO. 39.-':Totw vnlucsof Michigan crops. dairyand poultry products. honey. wax, and wool. inlDlY. Each dot represents $500,000. (Based on United States census) necessary result was failure--a disaster to the man who madc the attempt, and anything but profitable to the neighborhood in which he seUled or to the State at large. SLOW RATE OF AGRI.CULTURAL EXPANSION The relative unimportance of agricultural production in the north ern portions of Michigan is evident from Fjgures 39, 40, and 41. In a group of 12 nort1:'"':tsterncounties '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 .ASP:!ilCTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 75 This is the net result. of 50 years of agricult.ural'settlement. At least 31750 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 iMWS 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 tJlO $10 TO $20 OVER 4*,0 :FIG. 40.-Vlllues of crops, poultry lind dairy products, honey, war, IUld wool in Michigan counties, 19111, per ncre of hmd surfaoo, cxcluding cities, villages, roads, and raUways. (Based chIefly on Unit.\ld States census) which has an area of 108 square miles. The course of .agricultural "dcyelopment in thesc counties is shown in Table 16. The number of farms has begun to decline, but the improved area per farm is increas ing. If the rate of increase in improved area dur.ing 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 BULf,;;;ilTIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICUlJrURE , TABLE 16.-Number 01 farms and area oJ improved land in a groupo! 1!B cotmtie3 .. i7~ northeastern Michigan by decades, 1880-1920 1 • I Average Year Farms Portion of total land:O~ed arm improved area per farm 1880______--_____ •.______••____ •______•______Numbu Aau Per am Aau 18llO__•___ ._.______•__••__._••____._._.__•___• ___•____ ••.•_._ 2,415 69,035 1.5 28,6 4,650 144,105 a2 3L 7 1Il00•••_.___ ••__••______••__•__• __•••__._._••___ ••_.___._.___ 7,'OW 250,1011 Ii.8 32.9 11110••__••--.-__ •_____•__ •••_____••__••_•••_•••___• _____••_._•• 10,980 447,815 9.9 40.8 ~1120.-- ••--.------•••-.-.--.---.--••--••--••--•••--.--.-_••••__ _ 10,110 557.466 12.3 62.1 1 Complied from trn1ted states lleIlS1lS 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· fACtf tor REPRESENTS 2poo CATTLE FlO. 41.-Cattle on Michigan farms, IIl20 Each dot represents 2,000 head. (1385oed on United States census) . unoccupied by merchantable timber or valuableloung ~rowth, only 4: per cent of the area of these four counties ha been unproved up ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCT,lON 77 to 1920, and out of 2,150 square miles available, only about llsquare mile a year is being added to the improved area. TABLE 17.-Rate oj agricultural e;!;pansion in four counties oj northern Ml;;higan, 1910-1920 I( : rY ! I Approx! Average Total land mate unim· are~ Im County PIllVed area proved area WlIl\\'la1ly in 1910 1 Ull~~:I920 Crawrord__• _____• ___ •••_.____••______• ___•______• ___ ••______••_ Acre3368,000 .Acre3 354, 000 35 ,Roscommon ______.______344,320 334, 000 147 Oscoda______•___••____• __ .______368,610 351, ()()()' ,154 Montmorency___._.____ ••_••___._._.__._••.•____•••___._•••_•••__ 359,040 MO,OOO ,530 1------1·------1------Total___••_••_._.__••.•_••_.___••______•__• ___•.•_••.___ .__ 1,440,000 1,379,000 ,1158 ------~------~----~----~ 1 Excluding towns, roads, etc. 1 Decrease. 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 thelast 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 t.o utilize this land fully. TABLE 18.-Number oj Jarms and area oj improved land in a group of 13 counties oj 1lorthwestern J.[ichigan by decades, 1880-1920 I Percentage Average Year Area o( total Improved Farms improved land area area per Improved Carin Number Acra Per emt Acru 1880•••___••••_•••_____ ._._.___ •••_____••••___ •••__•••_ 10,070 289,456 7.0 28.7 1890._...... __ ._••••_•••___ ._._••_.____ ••..••_••_.•_•. 13,831 4iS, 444 lL6 34.6 1900_ •••_•.____•••••••.••••••.•••••••••••_.___ •••••••••• 19,141 ;i6,336 18. 8 40.6 1910••••__ ••_••_•.•••••••••••_•••_••'" •••••••_••••_••_. 22, 349 1, O4tl, 634 25.1: 46.8 1920••••••••._•••••••••••._•••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 19,607 1,111,450 26.8 56.7 I Compiled (rom 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 durin~ the pine-lumbering period, and considerable areas of fairly good land are just becoming available for farminD'. As a result, many new farms are being started and considerabfe 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. 'rhis 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- • i;" ,>.0",", - .~'. ""-->'1 ~<".'''~:~•. ~"~-;~ ,;; 78 TECHNICAL ;BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICUL'l'URE productive and about one..;third is covered with merchantable timber. To utilize the entire area at the present raro of would clearing require not less than 800 years. . TABLE 19.-N·umber of farms and area of improved l!lnd in the upper peninsula, by decades. 1880-1920 1 Average Farms Portion or total land Improved Area Improved' area per fram 188IL______Numb" Aera Per etnl Aerts' • 1890______985 39,929 1900______0.4 40.5 .______2,637 101,511 1.0 38.S 1010______6,I02 220,446 1920______2.1 36.1 _ 8;994 340,602 3.2 37.9 12,317 465,446 4.4 37.8 1 Compiled from United Stutes censw dam. TABLE 20.-lmproved land in farms in the t!;lrce main d'ivision8 of Micltigan, by decades, 1860-1920, and to\i<;,Zland ar!ia 1 Northern Year Upper Southern pcmusula lower 1vIir.higan Michigan 1800______Aeru 7,IJ3O .Aera17,366 Aera3,451,000 1870______1880______.______13,801 108, 336 39,929 500,739 4,974.802 1890______7,756.194 l!)()(L ____ -______101,511 863,625 8,900,214 1910_. ______220,446 I, 456, 8.)() 10,121.974 ,______340,66'2 2, 051,821 1920______10,439,655 465, .146 2,29'l, 531 10,167, M4 Totnllaud nrcn______~------·I------+------10,682,240 10,881,280 15,2'23,680 1 Compiled Crom United States census dutu. In spite of the efforts of development bureaus, land railroads, companies, and public agencies to stimulate settlement, only a small . part of the available land in northern Michigan was brought use into durin~ the 60 years from 1860. to 1920. (Table 20 and fig. 42.) It seems Improbable, therefore, t4~;;the bulk of the land now idle in nortbern Michigan will be wanted for farming for many years. There will be ample time to grow at least one crop of timber of it. on most EXISTING FARMS LARGELY UNPEUDEVELOPED .Agriculture is not yet on a self-sustaining basis in either northern lower Michigan or the upper peninsula. Nluch of the latter re.gion is still in the pioneer stage, and many new farms are being created. 'rhe average cultivated area is only hill that of southern Michigan farms. It has been estimated that fully nine-tenths of the settlers eke out their income eithel' 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 woods poor, the furnish the only source of income. If a~riculture is to be a permanent industry in northern Michigan, tne farmers already theta 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 needfl for more improved land to cOIllplete tIie farms ~lready established, rather than more farms, is often overlooked in estimating possible increases of population in the cut-ovel' country. Even in the lon~er-settled southern counties, with good road and railroad connectIOns, near-by markets, lower ta.'{es, 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 ill 1870, the 1lllproved acreage increased to 71 8t.lres in 1920 in the southern hard wood belt; from 37 to 80 acres in tIle thumb, and fl'om 33 to 59 acres in the southem part of the pine l'egion. OOr-----r-----~----~----,_----_r----~ 701---+---~--+-"""'~+---zcm-""::::~~ 5 THUMD COUNTlel 2660UTHeRN alUNT\U 3jT1~~J~Df~~~ OO~----+----,~--~-+~--~r-----T-----~ ...,uJ « ~~I---+-+-~I---+~--~-----+--~~ 0:: ::I IF) o z UlCI!NTRAL :5 40 COUNTIES ,, ~ o " 10 NORTKw~5Te~.. ", COUNTIES I- ZZ.7 31 COUNTies 01' ~ 20 t----t--J'---I--~7+----t___:r__t_:=_;r,..c!=_t ~;~:~~:omf\ 1900 1910 19Z0 FIo. 42.-lmproved land In farms jn diffcrent parts DC Michigan, 1800-1920. (Based on United States census) In most parts of the State, theiincreases.' 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 I;>f 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 numbers of farms by groups of counties between 1910 and 1920 1 Increase in number Decrease In numho!r Number oC!arms oC farms Re&1on oC counties t---..---t---,...:!----. Number Per cent Number Per cent ------1------ :i~;'~iriliII'~==.-~J~i~~~::;1:=' Total stata•••__••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••_. •••••••••• •••••••••• 10,513 6 J Compiled Crom United States census data. TABLE 22.-Chanues in areas of different classes offarm land, by groups ofcounties, between 1910 and 1920 1 Otherunlm· Improved land WoodlAnd proved land Totallll1l8 Region . Increase Decrease Increase Decr'l8Se Increase Decrease Increase Decrease ------\---,---\---1---+---(---11--- Acru AcrU Acru Acru Acru ~cru Aau Aau Upper peninsula...... 124,844 •••_•••_. 141,561 •__•••• 920 ••••••••• 261; 325 ••••••••• Eastern••••••••••_...... 63,165 ••••_... 37,963 ••••••••••_...... 11,482 89,646 ••••••••• Western_._•••_••••••_... 61,6i9 .'.'•••_. Im,59S ._.__••• 12, 40'2 • ___ •__•• Iii, 6i9 ••••_ ••• Northern lower l\.l1chlgan.__• 240,710 ••___••_. 343,79S ••••___._ ._•••__•• 357,11'0 226,681 •••••_ •• Northeast•••••••••_•••_. 71,634 ._••••__• 183,7S! ••'_.'._. _.__•••_. 160,760 !H,658 ••••••••• Northwest. ____••_._•••_ T.I,658 _. __•••• 33,451 •••••••_. ___ ••••__ 68,348 38, 761 ••••••••• :North central••_••••_.... !m,~18 •••_c_._. 126,563 ••__• __ ._ ._••••_._ 12:l,819 93,162 •_____._ Southern Mlchlgan___ •__._•• ______272, III ____ ._••• 19;;,913 66,46.'; ._•.••••• _._____•• 401,559 South central.___•••••__ • 59, m ._._._...... ,.'__ 27, azr b--•.--.- 12, 757 19,69S •____• __ Thumb___•___ ••_••____•• 37,98! .---.-.-- ..-.--.-- 40, 81<:, 1...._____ 17,793 --••---.- 20,621 South_._••••••••_._._••••••••__._. 36!1,872 ...... 127,779 97,015 •••••••_••••••_.. 400, 636 State...... 93,443 ._._..... 289,446 ••••••••• ...... 290,542 92, 347 '.'."'" 1 J Compiled Crom United Stares census data. Figure 44 shows by counties the average jmproved area per farm in 1920, As a rule, the size of farm tends tQ vary directly as the dis tance from markets and, inversely as the fertility of t.Jte 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 e:\.-perts who are familiar with the region, moiit 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 (24) 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), were the following: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST 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. * * * Hmv large the farm should be * * * will depend much on the famer's resources. The average farm * * * with 50.2 tillable acres produces a fam ily income of $533 * * * but if family labor and interest are deducted, the farmer has op.ly $47 left to pay him for his Ylmr's work. [His labor is not inclu<;led .:. 300 :~, 2.60 :~ ': " zoO y '.. fi3 =UNIMrf\OVfD " . ~ = IMPROVED " 1.40 .' " .- " " ., 2.20 " :.: . .:. ';~ , 200 " ", " .' .' '" 160 :. :: .' " , .: " 160 '",: .-'. ,'J------,.------I .Y> '. l w ::. " :'; ~J------~ " ... ,'J---~------~ a: 140 :: " . 0 :: ~ .' ~: " ::. «120 .' .. " ":. .~... i.~--,------~------~ " :." :. " " " ...~ ,'I--~ 100 .', ~ ,', .' " ~ " ,; " " '. .. ,! .' ',' .' :~I--.~ 60 " .. :- .' " . " " ,. " ~~=~!: • :!. ': ...... : " ,~- 60 " " .;; " ';" ,. :: ".; ' ' ..' . " " -;.-':, ~ " '.' ' - '. 40 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 ~ ~ ~ %: ~ ~ V; ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ., ., 0 ., ., ~ g 0 N g ga.o 2 .~ ~ ~ ~ !L'" ~ ; ~ ~'" ~~~~~e UPPER PENINSUL.A 'NORTtieRN LOWER PENII!SULA .sOUTtlEI\N MICHIGAI!t FlO, 43,-Changcs jn average Improved and total areas per farm, 1800-1920, (Based on UnIted States census) in the family labor.] Thc group having a tillable area between 80.1 and 100 acres, with an avera,ge 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 tIlC farmer gets $195 for his Jabor, he and his family together'get $467, and if free from debt the family has $939 income to live on.] For the north ern cui;..over district a farm with 50 acres of ricr, land under cultivation usually produces a good living for a family of average size, and * * * 90 acres of rich land undcr cultivation is a fair foundation for business success. 3596°-29--6 TECHNICAL .BULLETIN 92, U.:~. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE . CJ LESS THAN SOACRES ~ ~ so TO .~5 ACRES Wda 65 TO 80 ACRE~ 8m OVE" eo ACRES FIa.44.-Averogo area or Improved land per rarm In Michigan In 1920, by counties. (BasedOD 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. Itis plain that the north-country farmers are not gaining from their farms anything like 'the return received by those farther south. In no CQunty of the upper peninsula did the TABLE 23.-Average nllmber of ,cattle, 8heep, and hog8 per farm, 1890 and 1920 Total Reglon Year Cattle Sheep Swine animal units ------UPpm' penlllSuIa_.______•______-----'----- lROO 5.5 1.0 1.6 6.0 Northern lower Mlchlgan ______1920 7.8 2.5 1.8 8.5 1890 5.4 2.5 2.8 6.3 BouthemMlcb1gan______1920 7.6 3.8 2.0 8.7 1890 6.2 16.2 7.3 10.0 1920 8.2 - 7,2 6.1 10.6 In computing animal units, sheep lind swine were converted Into equlvlllents In cattle by BSSUming 7 sheep or [; hogs equlvnlent to one cow. (~, p. SII.) Including horses nnd mules, the totallllimben. or anlmnl units per (arm 1n 1920 were 10.6 ror the upper peninsula; 11.5 tor northern lower Mlchlgan, and 13.9 tor soothern Michigan. . EOONOMIC ASPEOTS OF FOREST DESTRUOTION 83: average total value in 1919 reach $2,000 a farm, and it exceeded $2,400 CJ r.::::::t ~ $ZPOO TO $3,000 mm OVER' 03,000 FIG. 45.-Avernge value per fnrm of all crops, Including dairy and poultry products,Honey, wax, and wool but nol meat and livestock in Michigan counties, 1919. (Based on United States census) ern counties. Figure 45 shows for each cotmty the average gross values of the crops produced (sold or consumed), without deduction for cost of production. Th9Y do not include values of meat or livesto-ck, which are" not reported by the census. The statistics of stock on lamIs, however, indicGte that the northorn counties ill this respect are also considerably behind the south.IS (T~ble23.) " It Is Interesting to note that ie spite ot efforts to develop------grazing on the cut-over lands, the southern fnrmerR still bdve considerably more of all classes of stock, even though the numbers otswine, and partfcu larly of sheep, OIl southern farms hnve decreased to a very great a~tent during the last 30 years. To offset ·11 decrease of 1,308,000 sheep in southern l\{ichlgnn sint'e 1800, the Increase in the northern part of t!le State amounted to onl)1 117,000, while tho nllmher of swino increased 66,000 in the north and fell off 86,000 In the south. '1'he northern'lO counties guinoli 2['",000 rottie, nntllhe sOllthern 37 gained 28.'i,OOOduring the period. 84 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. 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 aver-age 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 uumber 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 MichigllJl 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 centur:v, 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 cuirover dist..-ricts, and many of them have cle.aredabout all the contiguous land tha.t 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 north. Mljch 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 reg~ou. Many of the farms in uorthern 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 dwellings largely tar-paper shacks of one or two rooms or even log cab;i,'; chinked with clny. Such conditions are perhaps to be ,expected in it frontier settlement, but hardly in the homes of a per manent, prosperous, fI.gricultural community. Outside of the villages a painted house is unusual. A count of over 1,000 ia:rms, taken at random in about 20cmrnties of northern Michigan in 1921, showed nearly 200 farms practically without barns. Many of theo€l were in districts which depend principally on dairying where, if anywhere, adequate b.uildings ior the stock are essential. j 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 gun, where the average value fell below $2,000 in only 1 county. In VI ashtenaw and Oakland C01mties it was close to $4,000. TABLE 24.-Yal1les oj Michigan Jarms by regions, 1920 1 T ,Jue orland 'Value o{buildings TotnI {arm values Region Total Per ncr.! TotnI Per [arm TotnI Per'farm ------1·------ ---I----I--~ 1,000 1,000 1,000 Dollars r·,,!Zars Eollan DoZZar& Doilars Dollar8 Upper peninsula______34,160 28.92 19,106 1,551 69,226 5,620 Northern lower Michigan ______,__ 114, 5'0 25. 20 o.~, 7'0 1,557 227,012 5,547 Southern Michignu ______. ,______758,459 58.14 382,044 2, 748 1,395,908 10,017 Wayns County__ • ______-=52,~01::o-1,/-_10_8._41_ _-:-.1::;1'",,723:-::- 3,030 71,189 18, 452 Stnte______059,187 ______1 477,600 ====: 1, 763, 335 ====: 1 Compiled from United States census data. 'ECONOMIC AsPECTS OF lrORESTDES'l'RUCTION 85 . . .. - ~; ·SUPPLEMENT.A:RYINCOME NEEDED c As has been shown, .agI"eat many of the farms innorthern Michigan 'arefar from being self",suPJlorting.Onlythose settlers with a consider;;' ableaccurimlation oicapital or outside income .canpossibly keep going until their farms are fully productive. Landc1earingis.,costly and time-consuming. .The following quotation (46) shows thesitutr"; tion.as it existed in 1914; With the ,rises in costs that havetaken place since. then, it is just as applicable. to presenWayconditions: 0 LESS THAN $?S ...... D !$Z5 TO .uSa ~ ~50 TO 1f75 (iii OYER ~75 FIG. 46.-Average per acre v!llue.offarm land In Michigan connties, 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 trying one * *. *. At the present time yery little logged-off ll! hOri that would make desir able 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 ,,'::'t.tJecl agricultural sections of the United States. Oompetent authorities ea';'klate that .the average farm oncut-over lands of northern Michigan does not produce a SU1'plus o'a;er its own 86 TECHNICAL B1JLL1i!nN.92J U:. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE .needs, i. e., a cash income, until five years after the first settlement. ,DUring the first fElW years, therefore, the settlers must eitherdive 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 su:fficient·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 log~gcamps. Most of the more recent settlers fO D LESS THAN ffi,SOO .'. ',. tz:zI... ' -1500, TO 4;1,999 I7.ZI -1PZp OO TO fi;Zf99 ~ "'2.,500 TO ~2,999 ~ $3POO AND OVER FIG. 47.-Average value oC buildings per farm 1n Michigan counties,102O. (Based on United States r ~nsus) 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 ~-ill be replaced eventually by reasonably attractive and comfortable farm homes. In other localities where industries are lacking, per inanent .agricultural settlement appears most unlikely. In some ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 87 , 10calities in the pine plains the average rate of turn.over 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 infiu.x 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 r-9main, and the fields are all more or less grown up to jack pine. Abandoned farms are a frequent sight tbroughout 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 DI;)rthern lower :Michigan wereaban doned or consolidated with otherc', 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 e::\-pansion of urban areas and the conversion of farms to other us9s (Table 25), comparatively little of the land that was dropped from farms in the south was abandoned. TABLE 25.-Number of farms in the th7',ee main division8 of Michigan, by decades, 1860-.1920 1 \1 UPI!ill' Northern UpJ?Ilr Northern Year pen tn- lower Southern \ Year pentn- lower Southern sula Michigan 1I1iciJigan , sula Michigan Michigan ------1860 ______II)(XL ______1870 ______189 1,25 61,675 ]910 ______il;102 37,341 159,818 259 5,654 \l2,87:J 6,994 44,452 153,514 188(L ______1920 ______18\XL______16, 9~6 l:>~, 057 12, 317 40,924 l4,3,206 2, 637\1851 25,68':; 144,022 I DBSed on United States census. The loss to northern Michigan is even more serious than appear!'! from the decreases in number of' farms and in total population. The task of transformin~ a cut-ovel' 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 t.o 21 per cent in the upper peninsula. In southem 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 TECIDHCAL BULLETIN 92, U. S, V.EFT. OF AGRICULTUR8 1\ 88 . ., ..:.' ., . "'t" -' 'r~ ~ any other p~rt of the Sta~(Figs. 49 and~O),a.direct .contras.t to the . condition while lUJnbe~g was in progress. This migration ·Of Y0l,illg . people.tothe cities ,and the resultingabnonnally large prorortion oj ,old people .and young childten remaining is a condition which is COIn. monin many';Of the long-settled ruralcomml,lnities of the N ortheas~m States. .Neither there nor in Michigan does it hold out the prospect of .anygreat4lxpanaionof agriculture to utilize the lands now idle.. . The futu(fe of th~ cut-over region, then, is likely, to depend upon the choice t.\atis made between two policies. Onealtemative is to utilize a.larg~part of the land for growing timber on a continuously productive basis; the other is to keep on stripping the region of its 1::·::.1 1900 .~ 192.0 z o ~ 251-----;...~------~------~----~~-----~ ..J i( ~ 2.011------1' ..J« I ~ II o I Z w U 0: UJ n.. UPPI:I\ rcOl\-rtiGflN SOUTHl!flN WA'tl'f1i FORESTRY IMPossmLE UNLESS FJR&S 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 .oyer many thousands of acres, greatly aggravated the seriousness of the lires. .As long ago as 1856, diaries mention the dense smoke from burning swamps in the Saginaw Valley (40). To clear ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION ~89; \r, f, -' ,~ their land as quickly and cheaply as pos~ble, j;,b,esettl~~reBo:tted to", the use of fire and made no effort to confine it. "l'he luro:bermen were' . np IUOre careful unless their camps were enda.hgered.,~ As a result, during, the summer the lumber region w~ almost ah:rays dotted with fires running from settlers' clealings into the dry slashings, killing the smalItrees that. might have seeded up the cut-over land; and gradually eating their way into the green timber. , .';: 6 ' c:J LESS T.MAN 35 % r:::-:::1 ~ 35" TO 39 Yo FA 40 ~ AN o OYER FIG. 40.-PtJpulation between 18 and 44 years of age in Michigan counties,1920. (Basad on United States census) The experience of Crawford County is typical of what was going on all over northern Michigan. Lur'nbering began in the re~on around Grayling in the late seventies, and the county was orgamzed during the winter of 1878-79. In the third issue (May 14, 1879) of the local newsp.aper (9) appears t~e .followin~ i~em:. "Fire is raging in the woods nottn. and west of Grayling. " SImilar Items appeared at frequent intervals during practically every year thereafter, report ing the destruction of settlers' .homes and fences J logging camps, logs, and standing timber, or the killing 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, practical1y every acre of northern NIichigan has been bUl"ned 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.16 During particularly dry or windy periods Ili§J UNDER 18 • 18T04~ IWilI OVER 44 these comparatively ~r------' s'·,all slow-burning z o fires would run to I gether and become < ..J great confiagratious, ::> destroying thousands II.. o of acres of timber and IL frequently the build .J ings and stock of the < t settlel'S. The fall of o I- 1871 was especially .... dry, and fires were un o usually destr'uctive t throughout the Great Z Lakes region. In III U Michigan, conflagra It tions destroyed the III city of Holland, half II.. ID of Manistee, and large areas of valuable tim ber in the Traverse o Bay district; in the NORTHERN lowER UPPER $OUTl1ERN WAVNE PEN.N,sULA PENINsuLA MICHIGAN COUNTY Thumb two-thirds of the timber on a thou FiG. ro.-Distribution of age groups in different parts of Michigan in 1920. (Based on United States census) ~nd square lniles was destroyed, together with a dozen towns and hundreds of farms and small settlements, and severo] lives were lost. But this did not teach a lesson, and in 1881 the same region was again visited by a devastating conflagra tion, "again resulting from settlers' burnlJ1g 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 (9-(]', 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 anlOunt 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 I. ROTH, F. ADDRESS REf'ORE TnE mCllIGAN FOIIESTRY ASSOCIATION, 1919, (Manuscript) -- mClIIOAN FOIIEST ~'mItH, STATEMENT PIIEP.\ltEO YOII PUBLIC DOMAIN COlHUSSION, 1920. (Mf!.IIu, script) ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 91 160,000 acres WIlS reported as burned in the western part of the upper peninsular with a loss of five human lives 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 earth(lUakes and hurricanes. It was not realized that the settlers and lumbennen 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 damuge. On the day that the thumb fue of 1881 started, it is said that there was not a square mile in the re~ion on which fire was not burning (9-a). An ordinary fire in a slashmg was generally regarded us more or less beneficial because it made land clearing easier. Probably not one person in it 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 fues--so-called "brush fires" so long as they did not get into the merchantable timber. The following (1), 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 heen burned over within three or four weeks; that hundreds of settlers' farms and per haps their homes have been burned, and that great suffering and loss have been caused; but, having admitted that much, it mu.y be safely denied that up to the present time any serlO us 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 yeurs (,go, in telling of a trip north from Bay City, a. ·writer (9-e) described the l'egion as a most God-forsaken v.ilderness * * * harren wastes * * * ravages of lumbermen and fires * * * dreary, uninviting stretches of country * * * the greater portion unfit for eultivation. During the years which have elapsed since that was written, a second crop of merchantable pine could and would have grown up on those "culi-over and brush lands" had it not been for the general attitude of indifference toward fues. 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 lumber men were .killed by fire or cut by the "timber-skinners/' Natural reseeding of pine was thus made unpos::lible, except in the few local ities 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 pennanent 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 par tially 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 AGRICULTUnEl of little or no value. White .and Norway pines and the valuable hard woods and hemlock are almost entirely eliminated after bllrning is repeated two or three times, with the result that the land is finally given over W Jnore or less scrubby stands of inferior species or is left without tree growth of any kind. It does not t1,ppear to be generalll 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 sevel'at farms. By that time control was difficult, and approximately a whole township of land was burned over, A large part of the area was fairly well stocked with 5 to 30 year old stands of white and Norway pines, hemlock, spruce, balsam, maple, birch, and other species j 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 Goyemment during the 20 years preceding. The State's efforts in fire protection have been considerably enlarged during the last few years, and no doubt will continue to gain in ef fertiveness as the organization gains experience. There is still room for further expansioll of the State's activity in this direction, and even more for the acuye 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 area,s 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 thCl'c is little prospect for early utili 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 exceed ingly slowly and o.n 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 neeessary 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 willl'esult. It also has ample precedent in the State's e}..-penditures for schools and roads. Within the last few years the people of Michi gan authorized a $50,000,000 State bond issue for the construc tion of roads. In 1921 alone the State spent $20,000,000 for the con struction and maintenance of highways. This does not include the r.illount spent by counties, tOWllS, and cities, In the same year the State spent for roads und schools in the cut-over counties in the lower 'ECONOMIC" AsPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 93 peninsula and the eastern part of the· upper penin!?u1a more than $5,000,000 in excess of the amount of State tax collected ill those cQunties. This money, althou~h it has been well invested in m~king the State a better place to live 1111 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 eco nomic. and social standpoints, but all, or most of it, will ultimately be .returned with interest. !,; .r, 0 0 TO 25 PER CENT .... ~ 0'".... ~6 TO 50 PEA CENT ~ 51 TO 75 PER CENT ~ 76 FlO. 51.-R!ltlo 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 reforesta tion of. denuded land, the organizati THE STATE MUST ACT The ownership of tho 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 o''lIlership; 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 distribu tion of ownership 18 is as follows: Type of ownership Acres Pcr 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 countics ______"'______3,500 0.0 1----1·_·- '1'otal public land______898, i60 4.5 Farm woodlands (including denuded) ..______3,897,400 19.8 Commercial tracts (including denllded lond), also areas in private game preserves, etc______14,943,140 75.7 '1'otal 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 11 'l.'he attitude that wus adopted [or many YCllrs by some of the lllrgesL owners is expressed in the fonow Ing statement (48): "We do not believe in forest munagenwllt. )Ve do 110t believe tllnt lhe growing of trees for a future supply of logs is commercially practicable, because lumhermen have nol been engaged in It," II Ownership of national-forest land is as of June 30, 1026. Stall) land suhJect to disposal Is given as reported by the State department oC conservation, June 30, 102·1. 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 tho.ugh it i~ fairly certain that fo.restry will be profitable o.n these lands in the lo.ng run, the perio.d that must elapse befo.re returns can be eJ..-P8cted is a. big obstacle to the investment o.f private capital. The Federal Go.vernment is refo.resting several tho.usand acres every year in no.rthern Michigan. It is also. assisting the State to pro vide fire pro.tectio.n fo.r the other lands in the regio.n, in addition to pro tecting the natio.nal-fo.rest land. Federal oVlnership, on July 1, 1928, embraced 209,172 acres in three units-Qne in the upper peninsula and two in the northeastern portion of the lo.wer peninsula.19 These units are moreo.r less bro.ken up by tracts o.f private land making t,he net area owned by the UnitedStates o.nly 178,885 acres. In the interest of more effective and econo.rnical adm.inistration, it is desirable that each o.f these units be conso.lidated and somewhat enlarged. It is also possible that as more funds are made available by Con~ress one or two. other national forest units may be established wlthin the State. 1Yithin the next 10 to 20 years there may be approxi mately a million acres of national forest in northern NIichigan. If the rest of the idle land is to be made productive, the State must do the work itself o.r lend its credit at such low rates that ot.hers can carry the investment until returns begin. The State's pro.gram should include: (1) A system of State forests; (2) promotion of fo.restry on the part o.f lo.cal 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 consideratio.n 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 soma sort of State TIlral-planning co.mmissio.n to work out the details of necessary legislation and lo.cal application. Such a commission would perform, fo.r the State, functions somewhat similar to thosa of the city-planning commissions found in so.me cities. After considering all the available data bearing on the pre sent and prospectivo utilization of the resources of the various sections of the State, including the land, the commission wo.uld, so far as practicable, prepare plans o.r suggestio.ns for the orderly coordinated development of tho.se resources. Its duties would be chiefly to advise and guide the legislativa and executiva departments of the State in matters o.f policy with respect to such matters as land-settlement pro.jects, drainage enterprises, location of high ways, locatio.n, extent, and character of forestry undertakings, and promotion of manufacturing and other industries in specific localities and in general. It would also advise other public o.r private organiza tions of individuals in o.rder that their undertakings might be in accord with the general plan o.f development. It would no.t exercise udministratiye functions such us those now performed by the depart ments of agriculture and conservatio.n. The commission sho.uld consist of ex-officio representatives of the various legislative and executive departments, especially those dealing with forestry, agriculture, industries, highways, and other rural deyelop ment, ItS well as nonofficial experts in various phases of rural life. 11 The tw\> lower units ~oD~titutc. by pro<:lumation of July 30, 11l2S. the Duron National Forest; the northernmost, of 35,563 acres gross, is known as tho Marquette purchaso unit. "?) .... ~! 96 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. S. DEPT. OF .AGRICULTURE Through its land economic smvey 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 con clusion 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 addi tion to what it aheady O,\VllS 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 3Yz million acres of State forest which, together with the land that may be acquired by the Federal Government and by local governmental units, will prob ably include most of the land tha,t is not likely to be used by private owners. The State should acquire principally, although not exclus ively, the poorer class of land, both because it is desirable to remove' that land from the speculutive market und becuuse the State is better able to undertake forestry on pOOl' land than are individuals or com mercial 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 pmposes 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 l1illds by private owners, and the agricultmal and resort lands are the princi pal 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 throl1ghout the northern counties, with at least one unit in each county except those having a considerable area of national forest. Their location should be gov erned 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 [( 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 vie,,, of the public interest at stake there can be little question us to the right of the State to take land by con demna(;ion proceedings in case the owners aTe willing neither to sell at a fair price nor to utilize it productively. The price to be paid either under voluntary agreement or 'Under condemnation proceedings sho~ld be extremely low for the sort of lund embraced in the purchase program. ECONOMIC ASPEC'I'S OF FOREST DES'mUCTION 97 The entire 3% million acres should be acquired within 30 years, or at an average rate of 80,000 to 100,000 acres a ;vear. The approxi mate location of practicaUy all the State-forest umts 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 localities to the neglect of others. 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 plant ing 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 indus tries as soon as possible; and (3) fl. 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 nee<1 thinning and improvement cutting immediately or within a few yearsr 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, e},:pecially those whose prosperity depends largely upon forest, industries, should be encouraged and assisted to acquire and develop pE.blic 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 manage ment of municipal and county forests under a sufficient degree of State supervision to insure their protection and wis6 use would no doubt encourage public-spirited individuals and associations to donate forests t) many towns and counties Or to sell them au 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 Stateforests. Innorthern Michigan, there should ultimately be at least 100,000 acres of county and muni cipal forest and in southern Michigan, where there will be no national or State forests, J;here should be perhaps 300,000 acres. PROMOTION OF PRIVATE FORESTRY Allowing for some clearing and for the acquisHion of 4 to 5 million acreH by municipalities, counties, and the State and Federal Govern ments, there ,vill still remEl.in at least 10 million acres of forest land in private ownership in northern Michigan and 3 million acres, mostly III 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 industrie~; 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 become~ 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 pl'otection and proper methods of cutting, most of this land can be kept continuously productive without planting. The public clearly 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 fu'e 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 2°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 officials. It should not be granted for pUl'chase of land or for the cost of merely holding the land, but only for expenditures such as planting, construction of fire lines, etc., which will 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 obtain\cd if such land is handled by State officers. This will be particularly true for land of nonresidenf owners. State management can be accomplished in either of two ways without the State actually ae 10 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. :.. ,.... J ECONOMIC ASP~CTS ,OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 99 quiring the land. By one method the State would lease the land, pay .all the costs, including ta..~es, and retain all the profits, if any. In this case the owner would be sure of a regular annual net returnl 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 ta.."I(es and a fixed charge to the State based on the cost of management. The owner would receive the re-venue in a"l(cess 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 adjust.ing 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 acquisi tion of additional land or through reforestation of nonproductive land already owned.. Reforestation or the acquisition and protection of land bearing immature timber will require a smaller initial invest ment 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 neJ\.1; page) aims to show approximately what it might cost to carry out a program snch as that outlined above. Under this plan the expenditure by the State would be about $1,050,000 in the first year, incre.asing to $2,100,000 in. the tenth year. After that there would be a gradual increase to a ma.."I(imum 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 issu(~s. While there may be some justification, also, for financing most l,·f 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 sh~uld be completed at the end of the thirtieth year, the issuance of bonds would prac" tically cease. About the fortieth year income from the forests and repayments by private borrowers should practically cover the cur rent {lxpenses, 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 expend itures authorized for several years in advance-at least 10 years if possible. It should also be provided that the une~:pended balance for any year be available for the same purposes until spent. 100 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U.. S.D;EPl'. OF AGRICULTURE T.£BLE 26.:-Approzimale annual cost .of State forest Program TO BE FINANCED BY ISSUANO:Z ORBONDS Fifth Tenth Twenti- Thirtieth .. -~- ~I year year et.llyear year Purchase of land 1______.______$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $WO,OOO Planting and nurseries • ______~_ 75,,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Administration, State forests 1______55,000 120,000 200,000 330,000 420,000' Ple.nting stock for towns, etc.'______10,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 PJe.nting stock for private owners ,______10,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Loe.ns to private owners ,______150,000 270,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 TotaL______.______r_----I------,I----~·I------·r_----500,000 940,000 1,050,000 1,180,000 1,270,000 TO BE FINANCED THROUGH TAXATION '-State-wide fire protection , ______$465,000 $460,000 $450,000 Administration of State iorests • ______$450,000 $45G, 000 Genere.J overhee.d ______40,000 80,000 130,000 220,000 280,000 10;000 15,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Technlce.J advice to owners______Interests on bonds , ______10,000 10,000 10,roo 10,000 10,000 25,000 185,000 435,lJOO 715,000 700,000 Tote.1______550,000 750,000 1,050,000 1,425,000 1,475,000 TotrJ e.nnue.J cost ______1,050,000 1,600,000 2, 100,000 2, 605,000 2,745,000 I A.ssumIng tbat t"1i',,~hlrd to one-halC cl the annue.1 Ql3<,lte. of le.nd ce.n be obte.!ned throngh tax defanlt or othe~. Probai}~ more can thus be obte.1ned at ~t. • Increasing $75,000 e.nnualJy through the foUrth year. 1 Cost oC administration, protection, e.nct' uuprovbIll8nt of State fot:"3ts divided approximately in 60-40 ratio between capital investment and cur'tilnt expense. Costs increase with area oC State foreSts. • Increasing $5,000 each in the third, fourth, e.nd fifth years. • Incree.sing $30,000 annue.1ly to $300,000 in the sixth year. • Tote.! cost approximately $500,000 a year, less contribution of the U. S. Government. "Cost of:,protec tlon should decrease !loS the forests are put under managen:;ent. . ,,. , -,7 Less Interest payments by borrowers and incom!1 CrOll! State forests, and assuming that th6'!u!1 amount ",.'bonds authorized is issued each year. . -', COORDINATION OF FOREST MANAGl!;~T AND INDUSTRIF,s No matter how carefully he mavf;:;liow" a definite plan, it will not- suffice a timberland owner, whether private individual, corpora tion, or public entity, to undertake forestry independent of all other owners. For the forests to be of the highest service to their owners and to the public a considerable de@:ee of cooperation and coordina tion in their managemen.t and utilization is imperative. This in turn will necessitate something in. the nature of regional working plans, which should. take in,to considera.tion the economic and. other differ ences affecting the participation of the various classes ~f owners. The plans should cover such points as organization of pl"lotection; development and maintenance of transportation systems~ whether highways, railroads, or streams; establishment, qf subsidiary indus tries to utilize fore$t by-products, possibly from,! a large number of holdings; organization of marketing arrangementsi and careful plan. nin~ and coordination ofresearch on aU phases of forest production and utilization. Even the coordination of sibicUltural man/tgement would be highly desirable to the end that each economic uillt within the regif'n may produce continuously a supply of timber with re!1Sonably steady proportions of the species and SlZeEi 'that are needed. The advantages from the standpoint of permanent local forest industries and communities are obvious. ECONOMIC ASPE.CTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 101 Each of the State alld national forest units should eventually produce enough timber to keep one or more fair-sized industries m continuous operation. It should be the polic;y to build. up per· manent communities in the vicinity of each umt,.~ based upon the utilization of both public 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 tb,e timber should be manu· factured into its final form locally. Around the sawmill or other principal plant in each center there shouIa be various minor industries to utilize the by-products or to manufacture further the main product. Such communities would constitute nuclei around which considerable Re,oricultural development could take place on the better soils and, because of their diversity of interests, would be more attractive places to live in than one-p}ant 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 merchantBble timber as yet, these forests have em ployed from 200 to 300 different individuals each year. Excepting a few year-long employees, these people work on the forests only I?art 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 evenl:.ually become less important, thinnings, improvement cut ting, and venous other operations will have to be carried on, and finally when the stage of regular annua.l cutting is reached, there will be employment for many men in harvesting and utilizing the timber. European fores~s, 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 la~er 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 seconQ.ary wood using industries. In the northeastern part of the United States log ging camps and sawmills employ one man for approximately every 60,000 board feet of lumber produced. With 8·U annual growth under intlansive 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 sup port some 450,000 persons directly, besides numerous people engaged ill variuus trades and. professions who would be supported indirectly. An incren.se 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 established settlers but would make possible the agricultural utilization of prac ticallr all of the best land, and might add 150,000 or more to the farm popUlation of the State. Nor would this be aU. As soon as continuous -VI '. , 102 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, U. B. DEPT, OF AGRICULTTJRE . adequatesuppJies of raw material were assured, numerous ing.ustries 'using wood and other forest products would spring up 8.II:JV~r the northern part of the State and would employ many thousltnds of men and women. Unlike the earlier forest industries they.pright'develop more slowly, but they would be permanent, and around them would grow up many permanent towns and villages. All told, it may be con servatively estimated 21 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 FIRB HAZARD IN RELATION TO TIMBER INVESTMEl)rrs. Amer. Lumberman No. 1739: 36. (2) 1908. BRUSH FIRES IN MICHIGAN. Amer. Lumberman No. 1744: 32. (3) 1911. DE!,STRUCTIVE 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 INVES'!'M})NTS IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN. REPORT OF lOINT CONFERENCE ON CONSERVATION AND DEVELOP MENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OF MICHIGAN. lUNE 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 AGRICUL'rURE. HISTORICAL BACH;GROUND. Mich. D~pt. 4gr. Bul. 13, 20 p., illus. (8) CHURCH, V. H. . 1921. CROP REPORT FOR MICHIGAN. ANNUAL i.mMMARY, 1920. 27 p. Lansing, Mich. (9) CRAWFORD AVALANCHE (GRAYLING): (3.) September 15, 1881; (b) December 22, 1881, and March 12, 1882; (c) May 31, 1883; (d) January 3, 1884; (e) M!1.l'ch 13; 1884; (f) March 27;1884; (g) April 23, 1885; (h) September 2, 1886; (i) December 23, 1886; en January 13, 1887; (k),February 7 1889; (1) April 4, 1889; (m) April 16, 1891;. (n) various dates from 1879 to 1882; (0) May 9, 1901. (10) CROZIER, A. A. 1897. MICHIGAN FORESTS OF TO-DAY. Mich. Bur. Labor and Indus. Statjs. I Ann. Rpt. 14: 342-343. DETROIT NEWS, October 2, 1921. ELY, R. T. 1924. TAXATION OF FARM LANDS. AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE TRI-STATE DEVEI,OPMENT CONGRESS, DUL.UTH, 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 COlllMISSION. 1923. THIRD ANNUAL. REPORT, 1922. 38 p. London. (15) HTh~A.~ • 1898. THE PINE INDUSTRY IN lIIICHIGAN. Mich. Polito 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. 11 In the Department uf 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 l'EREMARQUETTE RAILROAD COMl'ANY. 259 p. Lansing, Mich. (18) JOCHIM, J. W. 1893. MICHIGAN AND ,ITS llESOURCES. 287 p., illus. Lansing;'-Mich. (U) JOHnsoN, B. A. 1924. TEUTONIC FOUESTRY. Lumber World Rev. 47(9): 51-69. (20) JOHNSON, I. A. 1919. THE MICHIGAN FUR TRADE. 201 p. Lahsing, Mich. (21) LEVERETT, F. 1917. SURFACE GEOLOGY AND AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS OF MICHIGAN. Mich. Geol. and Bi,ol. Survey Pub. 25, 223 p., illus. (22) LUDINGTON DAILY NEWS, Oc~dber 9, 1921. (23) MACDoWELL, J. C., and W Ai:S;FlR, W., B. 1916. FARMING oN THE CUT-OVER LANDS OF MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, AND MINNESOTA. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bu!. 425, 24 p., illus. (24) MENDUM, S. W. 1923. COST OF MILK l'RODUCTION ON FORTY-EIGHT WISCONSIN FARMS. U. S. Dept. Agr. ;Sul. 1144, 22 p. (25) MERSHON, W. B. 1923. UECOLLECTIONS OF M1;" FIFTY YEARS HUNTING AND FISHING. 259 p., illus. Boston. (26) MICHIGAN. AUDITOR GENERAL. 1917-1923. ANNUAL REl'ORTS: (n.) For 1917,1919, and 1923; (b) for 1920. (27) MICHIGAN BOARD OF STATE TAX COMMISSIONERS AND STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS. " 1902-1922. REPORTS: (a) Report, 1902; (b) Eleventh report, 1919-20; (c) Twelfth report, 1921-22. (28) MICHIGAN BUREAU 01, LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL STATISTICS. 1897. FOURTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT, FOR THE YEAll 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 INQUIRYt TAX LA.'lTDS AND FORESTRY. 1908. REPORT, 1908. 146 p. Lansing, Mich. (31) MICHIGAN. COMMISSIONER OF THE BANKING DEPARTMENT. 1920. REroRT, 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) l\-lICHIGAN. DEPARTMElIo"T OF CONSERVATION. 1923-1925. BIENNIAL REPORT FOR 1921-1922. 358 p., mus., 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 ASSOCIA'l'ION. 1920. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON COMPARATIVE TAXABILITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 1920. (38) MICHIGAN. SUl'ERINTENn:ENTS OF THE POOR. ABSTRACTS OF ANNUAL REPORTS. (39) MICHIGAN. SUl'ERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. 1920. 84th ANNUAr. REPORT, 1920. (40) MILLS, J. C. 1918. HISTORY OF SAGINAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN. 2 V., illus. Saginaw, Mich. (41) ORTEGEL, R. 1922. DIE FORSTWIRTSCHAPT. 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. TECHNICP.BULLETIN 92; U.'S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE ", (44) SlUTH, C. B. 1908. CLOVER FARMING ON THE SANDY JACK-PINE LANDS OF THE NOR'l'a. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bul. 323, 24 p., illus.,',) (45)THol\lPSON" C. W. . 'I 1916. FACTORS AFFECTING INTEREST RATES AND OTHER CHARGES ON SHoBlr- TIME FARM LOANS. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 409, 12 p. ,J (46) THOl\lPSON, H. AND STRAIT, E. D. 1914. COST AND METHODS OF CLEARING LAND IN THE LAKE STATES. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 91, 25 p., iiIus. (47) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 1922. FOURTEEN.TH CENSUS. VOL. o. AGRICULTURE, p. 918-919. (On Michigan farms.) (48) UNITED STATES SENATE. 1923. HEARINGS BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON REFORESTATION, 1923. Pert 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. Forestry 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. :c 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, INDUSTRYAL, AND SECTIONAL GEOGRAPHY OF MICmGAN. Kalamazoo, Mich. .'~ -·:.;"-~r _,r:. .,;"' :~,.. .. '1,- APPENDIX In the following tables the wood requirements of Michigan are shown in detail, on the basis of the consumption in 1920. Eo!, the principal industries, the amounts consumed in 1910 and in 1920 are compared. TABLE 27.-Wood required annually in Michigan, cla88ified by kinds of wOO [In thollSallds-L e., 000 omitted] 'Round Distil tim· lation; ,.,. wed hers in- pilip, Kindotwood All Lmn- ~~ Shin· Veneer .ne eluding and forms her bolts gles ties posts excel and lIior poll:S wood ------1------__+___1__-1___'1--__(-__ Southern plne___ ,, ______64,844Gu. ft. 63,Gu. no ft. ______Gu. ft. ______Gu. ft: Gu. 42ft. Gu.934 ft. Gu. ft.98 ______(Ju. ft. au. jt._ Douglas fir______22, 339 22, 255 ______8! _.______---I_--I---!---'I-- TotaL______87,183 86,025 ______42 934 182 ______Hemlock______49,906135,314 18 _~______3, 524 Larch______15, 318 3, 409 62 ______2, 802 2,838 8,212 6,472 1,917 ------656 'l'otaL.______~~ --80-~I-__-_-__-_-__·1-6-,-326-l·---I----- 9,310 10,129 656 Northern pine______28, m 24,002 382 ______10 ______Western plne______13,469 13,469 ______3,075 924 384_ TotaL______42, 246 37,471 382 ______10 ______3, 075 924 384 Northern white cedar______~==,F=~'F=~iF=~f=====F==~F~~===F=== 24, M4 1,163 186 1,096 ______6,115 16, 084 ______Western red cedar ______iO,292 876 ______9,100 126 ______100 ______OYllress______1,816 1,752 16 ______48 ______Redwood______. ______Southern red cedar_____ ~ •__ 1, ~~~ __ ~:~::_ ======----2iii- ======TotaL______36, 714 5, 543 202 ~ 126 6, 115 16, 442 ______F=~,~~,F=~~==f.=====F===F===F===F==== SB~~:;-fir--_-_--_-__--_-_- __--_-_-_- __ -_-_-_-_ 16,5,459 2,1, 189183 ------60__ ------______---______------______1,016 13,4, 622254 ------ 265 1----1---1 TotaL______21,724 17,276 Beech_W;g~~==:======::==:=:===: ______1~:m25, 938 10,~~103 ~:~1,606 TotaL______1-1-6lI-,-937-I---~--+·--·I---If---~--+-89-,-29-1 --s;mg F===~=='F===iF===f=====F===f===F===F=== Elm______16, 157 13, 137 307 55 129 1,088 1, ill Hickory------13,244 7,189 6,055. ------1-- _-_-_-_-_-_"'_'_" -__-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_--__------1-;; Pecan______Ash______8, 2895 7,446 5 ______827 .>. ____"_ Locust______~______3 3 ______~ ______I---!'--r- --- TotaL______37,698 I 27,780 7,189 ______56 129 1,088 ______~ ~, ===='f====F===9'====~===F====- 1 In this table, woods that have similar properties and are more "r less interchangeable for many pllr poses are grouped together. Tho.. 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 ligures are given in terms of the volume of standing timber that ·must.be cut to fnn.1isn the products required. 105 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 92, tJ. 5. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 27.-Wood required annually in Michigan, classified by kinds of wood and forms of product-Continued Round Distil· tim· latlon, bersln· pulp, Kind of wood All Lum· ~f Shin· Veneer Hewed eluding and Cooper- ~orms ber bolts gles ties posts excel· age aud sior poles wood ------11---1,------ au. ft. au. ft. au. ft. au. ft. au. ft. Ott. ft. au. ft. au. ft. au. It. Oak••••••••••••••••_••__ ••• 32, 814 25,616 66 _.___ .__ III 5,031 1,439 •••••__ • 51 Chestnut•.•••_•• _._ ••___ ._. 4,415 4,383 •._.__ ._ ••____ •• 32 ••_.__., ______••______•___ Tots1..____•••______37,229 29,999 ----00==r--m »,031 I, 439 ~----si 1 Red gum_ ••__ ••_nn_._.n. 20,444 19, 719 •• n __ u 725 uu_._. __ 000000 •••__ ._••_.un_ Tupelo•••_.______._._._.__ • 1,533 1,033 ~__ •__ ••_ ••_.__ •• _•.___ •______TotaL______.______---_._------0---1---1-,--1---21,977 21,252 ______725 ______• ____• _____•____• Basswood____•••__._.__,____ ==6,004 5,174 694 ____ ••__ 151 ___ •__.______268 = m Cottonwood______5, 076 ~. 518 109 ______2, 449 ______Yellow poplar______3, 032 :J, 28S 256 ______332 ______166 ______Willow______146 145 1 ______ Tota1.______---.";,'------'14,818 10,125 1,660 ______483 ______------2, 873 277 Walnnt___ .______2, 454 2, 267 ______~ 187 ~ ______ ~=~::::::::::::::::::: I, 83~ I, 6~ :::::::: :::::::: ____ :~~_ :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: 0 Total______.______------1------:--4,346 3,943 ______403 ______- _ Sycamoro______~ 473 11 ______9 ______~ Butternut______54 54 ______\ Total______547 527 11 ______._____ 9 ______Spanish cedar______======r-===='p=====r======r-===='P=====I=====84 58 ______•. ______26 ______Boxwood______21 ______21 ______Teak______14, 14 ______•______Primavera______13 13 ______~:e~OO(C:::::::::::::::: ~ ______~_ i :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: Tota1.______---1----1------1----1--135 86 23 ______26 ______ Fuel woodTotal, 2 ______all specles______._ 541,778138, 986 319,927______16,485 10, 286 2, 814 20,741 40,189 120,493 10,843 _ ------1------1---11---- Orand total.______600,764 319,927 16, 485 10,286 2,814 20,741 40,189 120,493 10,843 2 It Is not practicable to estimate the amounts or different kinds of wood used ror 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 vehic~ in Michigan, 1910land 1920 1910 1920 Klndofwood Quantity Grown in Mieb- Quantity Grown In MiCh· used !gan used I \gaD l,OOObd.ft. l,ooobd.ft. Per um l,ooolid.ft. l,OOObd.ft. Perum Maple______•__•____•••••____ .__ 4, 394 1,693 39 65,339 ;18, 397 59 lIIckory______•____ •••__.______6,465 25 (I) 59,222 402 1 mIn______•__•• ___.______3, 085 2, 187 71 42, 550 16, 011 38 lIedOaL gum------.-.------______"______•___.______615788 -----·-4-79------6-1- 33,82434,043 -.-.------1,655 -•••--.5 BlrCh______•______•__ .______3, 996 2, 612 65 28,033 16, 718 60 Mh______•••_____ .______6, 998 1,616 23 16,757 898 5 Southern plne.______• ___ ._.______222 - ____••____ ------ 10. 559 -'-'-1-,-1-3'2-- --.---;;:; Beam"______• ______.____ 50 50 100 4, 270 .o. Yellt'W poplar.______6, 049 ______." 3,712 ______._ Cottonwood______40 ••______3,446 _____• __•______•___ Chestnut.______~ 1 (J) 3,050 ____•____•______Walnut.______••______•______.____ 197 75 2, 680 -'--'--7-0-1------3-;; Northern plne____•_____._.______.____ 546 546 100 2, 196 " Basswood______.______252 167 66 1,127 725 64 Western red m..w______. _____ •__._._••______.. "_"_" 960 ••_._.••_••••_._••_ Douglas fir_••••••_••••••_••••___•••••••_ • ••••______• ___• ___•••••••_.__ • 717 ••••__••••••••___-'. Western plne._._._._•._._•••_•••_.___••• Ii • _____ ••___ • _____ •• 291 ._••_•••______••__ _ Tupelo••••••_••••••••••_____•_____ •____••••- •••••-••••-.--•••••- •••••••• 100 "---"'22- -•• ---~ ~~:any::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Bycamore••___••••_._••••_••__•••••_•••••••• _•••_____:: ...... •______~...... ______~~_ ~51 ...... ••__ ._•••_•••••••••. Cypress•••••••••_•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••_••••••••••_.... •••••••• 24 •••••••••••,•••••••• l'ecan..••••••••••__••••••_••••_••_••••••••••••••_••••••_••••_•••• "."_" 22 ••••_. __ ._. __ ••••_. g=::~~~~:::~:~~~~~~~~~~::::~:~::l 35, ~ .•-.~~:. ---.~=. :::~;~~: ::::;~~~: ::::::;~ t The 1920 consumption Inclndes 1,901 M board feet In the form of veneer (western red cedar 600 M, bass wood 525 M, gum 401 M, birch 176 M, yellow poplar 150 M, walnut 25 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 600 M, and bllBSWood 100M). • Less than 0.5 per cent. ~'" ~ ~. ,. "'~".... " +, ...... -,' '108 TlJ~CALBULLETlN \')2, u:,. S. DEPT. OFAGRIC'PLTURE TABLE 29.-":Wood conaumed in the. manv/acture oj planinp-mill products in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 K1ndotwood Grown in Mich· Quantity Grown in Mich. igan used! igan l,()(}(Jbd./t. l,()(}(Jbd./t. Per cent l,()(}(Jbd./t. l,()(}(Jbd./t. 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 _____ •_____ Douglas~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: tlr______._.______~t 325~ ______!!:~______~_ 1~6, 294~ __ • ______~~_ • ______~ _ Western plne______._.______• 253 _.____ • ______••__ • 6,875 ______._.___•____ _ 'Oypress_••___ ._••_._____ ._••_••••___ ._.___ 4, 354 • __• ______••_____ • 1, 351 ___ • ___ •••••___ • __ _ Basswood__ ._.____ ._•••__ •••_.______._.. 13,181 9,028 68 1,326 1,291 97 Elm.__ ••••_••• _._._••••___ •__ ._.____••__ . 1,268 1,242 98 721 721 100 f~;eO(KC~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4, ~ 3,851 87 310 51 Yellow poplar______.... __ .._____ .... ______2, 980 ------97------3 =400 ------..- Ash_._•••____ • __ ...••_.____• __ •••___._____ 1,168 1,!27 96 321 ·------32i- -'---iiiii Northern whlte cedar. __ •__ ._•.••____ •___ • 101 101 100 250 250 100 Walnut._____ • __._••__ • ____ ••___ •______• 13 9 70 221 ______• ___ ._.__ Larch___• ______.•••____ ••__ .:••_._~_. ___ • 4,450 4, 450 100 210 :ono' 100 Ohestnut.___••.__ ._••_._.__ ._.__ •____• __ • 204 ______._._. ___ ••___ 199 _.____._.___•____._ Western red cedar____ •___ ._._.•_. ___••___ • ______•••_ ••______•______.___ 101 __ • __••••_. _••_.___ f~:nt?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3~ ---'--'325- ----ioey ______~_ ::::::::::: :::::::: Oottonwood. ____• __ • ______._••••_..... 85 45 53 _•••_.,._._ ••_._.__ ••••___ ._._ Butternut•••____.•__ ••.•_____•..•_••_•••._ 50 50 100 ••_.__ ••••__._••____•• _____••_ Tupelo..••___•.__••.__ . __ ••__•••__•••••_.. 30 _._____••_____••_.___•••__••_••_••_._._••••_~:. __ Circassian walnut______•______•• 28 Box elder. ___•__ •______.______25 ------25-8 ----iiiii-100 :::::::::::______:::::::::::•___ •___••• ::::::::___ •__ . 5 100 ___ •___ •______•• _._••___ Blackfli~;;~::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: cherry__ ••______.______(') ~ (') 100 _._._.______•__ ••______••••_. I------~------·r_----I------~------~--- TotaL ___ •______•___ .••_.__ .____ 432, 526 332, 035 77 290,090 203,320 70 I The 1920 consumtlon includes 280 M feet ot logs and bolte (sonthern pine 200 M, northern pine 5OM. spruce 10 M, sud maple1 beech, birch, and basswood Ii M each) • • Less than 1,000 bo8ra feet. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 109 TABLE 30.-Wood consumed in the manufacture oj oozes and:CTates in Michigan; 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Klndofwood Quantity Grown in Mich· Quantity IGrown in M!ch~ used igan used I jgan l,{)(]()bd./t. l,{)(]()bd./t. Per C/ffit l,{)(]()bd./t. l,{)(]()bd./t. Per cent Northern pine••,...... 66,li84 31,605 47 61,376 29,109 47 Southern pine...... 10,124 ••••.••••.• •••.•••• 59,060 "'.'."'•••••••••_ Western pine...... 100 ••••••••••• •••••••• 19,451 ••__••••••••••••••• lIemlock...... 29,023 26,431 91 18,145 17,!!33 98 Elm...... ~~~:~::==::::=::=:====:=:===:::::=::=:: 15,245~;m 13,097~;fi~ 86~ ti:~9,445 ~&=7,350 78i~ 13asswood...... 19,140 12,641 66 9,273 7,115 77 Red gum...... ii,OO5 ••••••••••• .••••.•• 3,179 •••••••••..•••••••• Larch...... 4, GOO 4,650 100 2,342 1, ~ 62 tl~:~======::::::=:::::=:::=::==:: ·····a~~r ..... ~~. ·····H· t::i Oak...... 698 660 95 1,395 Yellow poplar...... 342 2 1 1,389 Cottonwood...... 6, 443 5,528 86 1,304 '··"'·942' """72 BBisam tIr...... 418 83 20 775 568 73 Northern white cedar.•.•••••..•..•••.•••. ••••••••••• ••••••••••• •••••••• 500 500 100 Cypress...... •••••••••.• ...... •••••••• 302 ••___••••••••__ ••_ Sycamore._••..•••.••••..•••••_...... 3 3 100 165 65 ~39 ChestnuL...... 340 ...... •••••.•• 15 ".""'••' •••••_•• ~=c;'iiii;uC::::::::::::::::::::::::::: m··..·····a· ""·'2' :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: };:nJli~:~~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1~ •..·····50· ·..·100· ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: Cherry...... 40 1';fountain ash...... 5 ..-..••..•5" '·--100' ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: Bla.ck wlllow_.•••••.••_. __ ••.••.•.•••••.. 5 5 100 ••_...._" ...... ______.• Ailanthus...•...•...... _...... 5 5 100 ______• __ •••.__...... _ Mahogany...... 1 ...... ••....•.••..•.•.•.•.•... TotaL.•.••••.•••••••••.••..••.•.~.. 232, III 165,440 71 228,687 97,516 43 1 The 1920 conmmptlon includes 2,679 M board feet in the fonn of veneer (gum 1,350 M, maple 360,M, beech 281 M, elm 2M M, southern pine 2OO~f, birch 164 M,northernpine 5OM, basswood 19M, oak 1M), and 9,173 M feet of logs and bolts (maple 1,779 .M, northern pine 1,726 M, beech 1,]93 M, elm 1,129 M, hssswood 853 M, birch 701 M, white cedar 500 M, yellow poplar 458 M, cottonwood 342 M, ash 314 M, larch 281 M, balsam IIr 2i5 1\1, hemlock 80 1\1, sycamore 50 M, and oak 32 M). ., .cr' T_.\1.1LE 31.-:':Wood conSY,med in. tM ma.tr:ujact1irC' oj j1J:fnitu.T6 i1i ¥ic1iigan; l~lq, and 1920 " "~; """ 1910 . Kind" or wood Quantity "Qrown In Mich· Quantity Grown ill Mich· nsedlgan used 1 Igan " "" :> l,OOObtl.ft. 1,OOObd.ft. Perctm l,OOObrl.ft. l,OOObtl:ft, PtTcent Red gum•••••••__ ••_••_ •••••••~ ••••_..... 6,876 •••.•••••••••__ •••• 32; 699 •••••,.•••••••"•••_ Maple•••••••••••••••••••••••••__•__ ••••• 13,275 11,701 88 9,779 0,324 M Oak.••__ •••••.••~ ••.•••••••••••- •••- •••__ • "31,103 3, 027 10 9,673 1,502 " 10 Blrch_c·_·_"'••• ••_••_•••••_··._·•••_••_.. 5,260 2, 914 55 8, 304 4, M9 52 Mahogany_ •••• _._••.•••..••••_••• _••• _.. 5, 024" '--'-'-'1'4" ""'l'a-- 7, 075 --••--.~ ••••••-•••-" Walnut•••_ ••••.•."•• _.••.• _••__ •• _•••. _._ 111 6, 236 28 (1) Hooch._•••___•••••.•••.•••.••.•__ •••_••__ • 6, 159 6,159 100 4,382 3;707 85 ~=~~~~...... -... ~.- ....-..... ~ ~ '-"'ij'Ma- ""'84' ~ :~~ ·····i;9Si· """78 Elm••"•.• ::::.~:::=::::=::::::::::=:::::::: 2, 077 I;917 95 l,29If 1,130 87 " Yellow poplar••.•••••••••.•••.• _.•.••••_.. 1,586 87 6 1,193 ••••••••_••••••••__ ~~~:~~~~::::::::::=:::=:=:=:::==:~=: ...... ~~. :=::::=:=:: :::::::: l'T~ ...... """" Northern pine ••••••.•_._...... 467 4571 98 435 ·······355· ·····-82 Cottonwood••.•••_•.•.•••.••••••.'...... 24 • 4" 15 310 30 10 t£~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=:~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ 1 m::::::::~: ::::::~ 8yCil!Ilore•••••_••••••••_...... 400 40 10 183 ...... __ • ~;::~~l~~e:.::::::::=::::::::::::::::::: """"00' ::::::::::: :::::::: 1:Jg ::::::::::: :::::::: Douglas 1Ir••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• ••.•••••-••••••••••c...... - 30 """'--3' """2i t.~tetnredooii;ii-::=:::::::::::::::::::::: ..... ::~~...... ~:~~~.... _.~_ 1~ Cherry_._ •• _•••••..•••.•••.•• _...... 10 10 100 6 "'--"-'j" "-'-'i7 Clrcassian walnut .•_•.•••.••_••••••••••__• 182 •••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••____ •___ •••_____ persimmon••••••_...... 10 ...... _ •••, •••_•••••••••••••• """" 8at!nwOBIl...... 8 ...... Ebony...... (J) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Rosowood.•••..:•••••••.•••••_••_...... (') ...... _...... _•••••_ ••••••••••••••• Total••~ •••..••_____••••.••••__ .••. 81,4771 31,614, 39 90,431 18,404 20 t The 1920 coDSUIDptlon"inoludes 4,713"1\1: board root .ill the (onn of veneer (gum: 1,280 M; birch 897M, yellowpopla. 772 M, walnut 772 M, mahogany 637 M, chestnut 100 M, o,ak 93 M,.basswood 81 M, maple 23 M, ash 6 M, and eIm 2 M)• • Less than 0.5 per cent. S Less than 1,000 board feet. (: " . (I .~ ECO~Q:MJ;C ASPECTS OF FOREST DEST.ll.UPTlON 111, " consumea in the manujact1tTe oj sash, .dOOTS, blinds,. and "en-, eral millwOrk in, Michiga'fl" 191Q and 1920 1910 1920 Kind or wood Quantity Grown in Mich· Quantity Grown In Mloh u:;ed igan used I .Igan .....------·------I------I-----.----·I------I-----,~,--· J,(}(J()bd,ft. l,ooobd,ft. Per wit 1,ooobrl.jt. 1,ooobd.ft. Per c..ont Northern, pine•••• ______·___ 28,548 9,386 33 13,635 4,824 '35 Vi.estern plne______..____• _____ .______5,065 _____ •______• 13,523 ." ______•____••_••• .~:~~~~:~~;======:=::::::::::::::::::::: 1~: r~ -----4;i~- -"-'i~- ~ m·--'·2;k~- --"-'I~ Hemlock__ • ______• ______.__ 8,550 8,550 100 1,218 • 403 33 Spruce_.______------.------935 210 22 1,039 DouglllS fir __-______140 _._. __ .______853 ____ •••_____41 ._.~_."(') lIo.sswood______--______•______-_____ 198 183 92 144 100 13 Red gum______346 ___._.______•••___ 628 ____ • ______•__ _ Cypress______._.______3,982 ______••• ___ 001 •• ______" ______._ lUrch___ • ____ ••_____ • _____ ..______2,267 2,068 91 479 300 63 Chestuut.. ______••___ ._ 56 ______•___ • __._____ 377 •__._••__ • ___••• . . Ye!Marcle- ow ••poplar_. ------.---.------.---______--._ 7,6012, goo 7,59844 1001 118133 ___• ______104 ._.-78__ _ Redwood..______• ______...____ 220 ______._ ____ '48 ______••_. Elm_"______.______19 19 iiiO- 26 26 --ioo Larch______.______200 200 100 26 26 100 Ash______•• ______c______.______7li 75 100 19 14 74 Walnut~~~~n~~-~-:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ___.______• ______.______1J30 :::::::::::______.____ ::::~:::______10t~ .------(3)"·--...... ··-···-5-..... Cottonwoud ______._ 30 2 7 (') •_____ ••__• __ ••••__ , Northeru white cedar______120 120 100 ______••-.- ._.----.• --- _____•__ 1I1aok cherryc ______.______60 ______• ___ •___ •___ •___•__ • __ _ Teak______Ii __ ••______HlckoryButternut~______.______------5 5 --jiiO-100 :::::::::::____ • ______:::::::::::•___._.____ :::::::: c____.- Balsam fir ______...__ .______5 ______Totol ______•______84,060 33,3M 40 44,653 '8,193 18 I The 1920 consumption includes 70 M board feet in the Corm or 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). I Less than 0.5 per cent. , Less than 1,000 board feet. 112 TE~'JJNICALBULLETIN92,U.S. DEPT~''o:F AGRICULTURE 'l'AB:fuu33.-WoOd cOns,¥med in the mat,'ufadure of refrigerators 'a,t;d kitchen cabi 'nets in Michigan, 1910 and' 1920 1910 1920 'I \\ :Kind ot wood Quantiw Grown In Mich- Quantity Grown in Mich used igan ~ 1 19an 1,000 M.[t. 1,000 M.lt. Per etnt 1,000 M.lt.l,OOO M.[t. Pa ct:nI. Ash______9,683' 5,566 57 14, 568 1,897 13 , Elm ______------8, 24a 6, 743 82 3, 352 1,977 59 H!lmlock.~:;p~~;:====:======:=______~______::=:::::4,415 ======:==4,415 ======,100 t,i!~1,393 :::::::~:1,273, ::::::i~91. m;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cottonwood~ ____ ----~______• ~,m605 ------:-______-:,--::-______tm325 ------:-______------~_ Chestnut______,______8 ______268 ______ Maple______~______4,272 4,257 100 264 264 100 ~~~~~:=::==:==:===:=:==:==:=:==:==Radwood______c------i~- ::::::::~:~______::::i~:______~194 :::::::~:______:::::i~_ ,Northern white,cedar______65 ______ Westemred cedar______~______64 ______ Sycamore______r~_~~~=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~10 ______26~' 1~ :::::::::::.'_.. ______::::::::::: ::::::::.,_____ Total 35,,629 23,000 65 31,367 7,065 23 1 The 1920 consumption Includes 520, M hoard teet In the torm of veneer (gum 310 M, oak 150 M, and maple 60 M), and 160 M teet ot logs and ':> TABLE 34.-Wood consumed in the manufacture of musical instruments in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 K1ndotwood Quantity Grown In Mich- Quantity Grown In Mich tised igan used 1 igan' 1,000 bd.ll. 1,000 M.II. PtT ernt 1,000 M.II. 1,000 II. PtT .tIlt Chestnut______3, 351 ______7,360 ______M: _ Maple______1,348 1,3:?3 99 2, 599 I, U2 67 Beech______YeIlow poplar______.'______2, 6105 ______5 ______100 2, 544526 ______2, 544 100 _ RedOak______gum------.. ------595193 ------33--7------5-7-,- 1,3572,032 ------______- .. ------_ iai:~ii======:::::::::====:===::::=:=Douglas tlr_:______Mi132 :::::::~:______:::::~:______I, m415 :::::::~~~:______::::::~~ _ BasswOOd______1 1,031 973 94 3011 175 58 Elm______1,180 1,095 93 277 275 ,99 Walnut______317 29 9 146 ______Western pine______93 ______105 ______~:g~~~:::~=:==:::=::::::::=:=:::::::::: ------7ii~·------:r -----"5" 19)1 ::::::::::: ::::::: ~~~tlr.irniiIil~~.:-:==:=:::::::=:::::=:::::::: 36~ ------iS7------iii" ______~_ Hemlock______215 200 93 ______::::=:::::: ::::::::_ Black cherry_---_------40 40 100 ______Rosewood______~______10 ______,------. Spanish cedar______1 ______Total______,,' ______12, 274 4,451 36 22, 302 0;655 25 I The 1920ronsumption includ,es i,347 Mboard teet In the form of veneer (yellow poplar 661 M, mahogany 308 M, oak 203 M, maple 113 M, gum 40 M, walnut 21 M, birch 1 M). ]f":':"\':"~ j ;~i {:' ECO~OMIC ASPEC'IS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 113 ,TAlILE 35.-Wood"consJ'.,med in the manufacture of woodenware and -novelties in ,} , Michigan, 1910 and 1920 ,',, 1910 1920 Kindof~ood Grown In Mich Quantity Grown ill Mich used igan used 1 Igan 1,000 bd. /1. J,000 00. ft. Per unl 1,000 bd. /1. J,000 bd. ft. Per call Maple______26,842 26, 842 100 14,730 U,i30 100 Blrch______437 437 100 1,823 1;823 __ .100 Booch______,______, 5,836 5,836 100 1,005 1,005 100 Southern: nine__---______.------i25 ______480 ______Nortl.:em plne ______~ ______~______3, !lSI 1,933 50 470 20 '" ~W:w~oiC_-::::=::=::::=:=::::=::::::: ------i59------5i------32- ~ ------30------9 Basswood..______5,863 5, 663 97 287 287 100 ID~~~::=::::::=:::::::::::=::::::::: ,~~ ------27------T Ash______HI' 126 89 101m ------.------1------i ----u--- Elm______386 196 51 100 50 50 Douglas flr______75 ______~~~~£o~grteeedar::::=::::::::::::::: ------iiOO------200- ----ioii- ~ ----~-3O- --·--ioo ft~rr;;_£::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ------"4" ------4- ----ioii- ~ ------20------ioo h":~~~_~~_~~~.._:.-.._:_=::::::::::::::::::: ------iii" ------56------00- 1~ ------ii------ioo' ~rahogany ___.------______32 ______7 ______•______'Vrunut_____.------______3 ~______6 ______Boxwooo_<______(') (') 100 :,j ¥~~~t~~~~~~::::::::i::::::::::::::::: 1~ ------2- ----iiio- ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: BalsllDlllr ------1--_(_.)__1-__(._)_'I-_I09-01-f---""~_---2C---'--9--23--l!---1-8,-::~- ===-8--9 T9~aL______45,267. 41,3i3 UU1 1 Tje 1920 consumption Includes 16,228 M feet of logs and bolta (maple 13,799 Af, blrch 1,701 M, beech SiS M,_ basswood 100 M, cottonwood 30 M, and northero plne 20 M)_ I Less than 1,000 hoard feet. TABLE 3G.-Wood consumed in !he manufacture of handles in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Kind of wood Quantity Grown In Mlch- Quantity Grown in Mich used igan used 1 Igan l,OOObd./t. l;ooobd./t. Pere..-nt l,ooobd./t. l,(}(j()bd./t. Puctnt lIIaplo______23, 483 23, 483 100 7,915 7,915 100 Birch__ "______1,600 1,000 100 2, 043 2, 043 100 Beech______5,146 5,146 100 1,651 1,651 100 Ash______:______4,891 4, 790 98 1,472 972 66 Hickory______5!i8 408 68 633 158 25 Elm______1,122 1,122 100 312 312 100 Basswood______316 316 100 102 102 100 ~:t~::___~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~ ------i28- ----ioo- 1~ ------62------ioo Hemlock______500 500 100 59 59 100 Cottonwood______3 3 100 Northem plne______3"~3 100 ~~f:!riiwhite-cedar::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: i i ~gg l~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ______~_____ ~~_ ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: Totm______38,474 37, ;43 98 14, 358 13, 283 93 1 The 1920 C(lnsumption includes 7,360 M feet onoga and bolta (maple 2,840 M, ash 1,4M M, beech 1,200 M, birch 1,000 M, hickory 533 M, elm 275 M, and oak 58 M). 3596°-29--8 ,', 114 TECHNICAL. BULLETIN92,U.S; l)EPT>OF AGRICULTURE . . ~ 0 'I, TABLE 37.-Wood con8Um~ in the ma;;~oture of jixtureain Michigan, 1910aQo ~~ ! 1910 1920 KIna' of nood Quantity Grown 'In Mich Quantity Grown In Mloh used igan used 1 Igan l,(}(}(Jbd./l. l,(}(}(Jbd./l. Per cent l,(}(}(Jbd./t. l,(}(}(Jbd;/t. Per cenl :ned gum______. 1,130 ~ ______. 3, 254 ______~ _____ ·OWL______7,199 219 3' 2,682 133 5 Blrch____ ------~~______2,123 783 37 2,009 1,049 62 Beech______" 718 718 100 I) 1, 275 '640 50· Basswood______.______1,093 719 66 657 \\4Z1 65 ' Yellow poplar______108 10 9 644 _____ ~ ______Chestnut.______440 10 2 008 ______Willow______~ __ .______150 ______461 ______:::::=:::i: ~ii;!:~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Southern pinc______------~r273 ______::::i~:l m65 ~~~~~~.~~~______~~~~~~~~_ Elm_____.______2, Ii96 2, 3,40, 90 66 . 61 91 Cottonwood..______.______20 ______40 ______Cherry______30 ------7-3------88--- 38 20 53 ' Northern plne______83 27 27 100 l~~~::===:===:::==:==::::::::::::==:= 7, ~ 7, ~~ 1~ ______~______~______~~ Hcmlock______~______250' 250 100 ______~' . Total______24, 214 12, 702 52 2,352 19 1 The 1920 consumption includes 211 M board (ootln the form of veneer (oak 11 M, birch 9 M, ell!:! 6 M.' and mahbgany 3 M). TABLE 38.-Wood c~8umed in the manufacture of chair8 in Michigan, 1910 and , 1920 ' 1910 1920 Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich- Quantity IGrown In Mlch used 19sn used 1 Igan l,(}(}(J bd. ft. l,(}(}(J bd. fl. Per cent l,(}(}(J bd. fl. l,(}(}(J bd. ft. Per cent RedOak:.______gtlIIL------4,211255 ------475 ------11 2,4, 299467 ------183------7 Maple______1,028 1,028 100 2, 211 2, 063 93 Birch______1,000 915 92 1, 622 107 7 ~J:;~::::::::::~:::::::::::'::::::::: _____~:~_ :::::~~~~~ :::::~: ; ------ZiS------92 ~~stiiiiC::::=:~:::~::::::::::::=::::: 1, ~ ______~:______~_ 1~ ------i3ii------iOij N th I 45 ------45------iiiO Ash..______~=a~:;~=::::::=:::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::6IiO ::::::::::100 ::::::::15 ______1~ ------ii------ioo_ Total ______9,823 4,326 44 11,643 2, 774 1 The 1920 consumption Includes I,Soa M board feet in the form at VCDeer (birch 1,284 M, walnut 7 M. gum 6 M, mahogany 5 M, oak and maple 1 M each). ' il ifI i' ii ECONOWC ASPECTS OF FOREST DESTRUCTION 115 . TABLE 3~.,.-Wood ~7I8'Umeclliin the man:uJactureoJ sporting and. athletic goods in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Kln,d of wood, Quantity Grown in Mich· Quantity Grown in Mich used Igan used 1 19an· 1,(}(}()bd./t. 1,()()I) bd.lt. Ptr te1lt l,ooobd./t.I,(}(}()lId.lt. Pi/: cent MIlPcIe------,.------,3,O8'l ~ 831 92 6, OSI 6, OSI 100 ~h:~~~::t::::::~::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: ~ ::::::::::: :::::= ". Northern white cedar______; ______-~--- 30 30 100/. 3.'iO 350 100 Walnut______------______1"- 131 ------1--10------1-00.- EIm______3, 116 3,116 100 110 Dlrch______171 171. 100 lea ' 100 100 ~::.~~~:::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::: ------215 ::::::::::::::::::: Hlckory..______240 200 83 :&31 ------31------ioo Basswood______30 30 100 11 11 100 Red cedar______10 ______..•______.~~;'~l~~II-~~:l~~~I----~J~'~l 1The 19'20 consumption includes 40 M board Ceet in the Corm of veneer (lIlllhognny 25 l\f and wnlnut.l5. M), and 4,38\n',r Ceet of logs and bolts (maple 4,000 M, white cedar 350 M, ebouy, rosewood, etc~, 10 M). TABLE 40.-Wood consumed in the manufacture oj laundry appliances in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mlch- Quantity Grown in Mlch used 19an used 19an 1-:' ----~------I----I----~--~------·-~,.--- 1,(}(}() lid. ft. ·1,(}(}() bd. ft. Ptr C/ll\.! J,(}(}() lid. It. 1,(}()() lid. It; Ptr cent Tupelo______1,500 ______!!, 000 ______Beech______._____ 1,236 1,236 100 1,720 1,720 100 Cypress______• 1,053 ______1,362 ______nemlllCk..______1,300 1,300 100 1,045 1,045 100 Douga!s~~~~~¥~a~::::::=:::::::::::::=::: fir______:::::::::::______:::::::::::______::::::::______I, ~2[.0 :::::::::______::::.:: _ Spruce______2, 000 ______250 ______Cottonwood..______2,000 ______.__ 222 ------91------100 ~~!~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3, ~ 3':m fl: :f 62 11 Northern pine______45 5 11, 'Birch______11 11 100 Basswood______620 1211 19 8 8 100 6, Totol ______.______13,728 675 -----r------·r------I,-----49 S, 637 2,948 34 1,\. r~. ? ' " , . (7 TECHNICAL;BULLEn:N 92, u. B~ DEPT. O:FAGlUCULTURE . . TABLE 41.--cWodd consumed in the manufactu;;e of caskets a1!:d. ClijJinsin Michigan,;' 1910 and 1920 .. . , ").:::. 1910 1920 Kind.of wjlOd QUfilltity Grown'ln Mich· Qulmtity Grown In MIch Used igan ., used l Igan . "l,(}(}(Jbd./t. l,WObd./t. Percent 1,()(}(}bd./t. l,(}(}(Jbd.j!. Percent ChestnQt••__•______•______~ ___•__ • 1,801 ••______••___ • __ • 2,158' 5 ~ (2) Western, plne ___••______•___••_. ____ •__•__• ___ ._.___ ._ ••• ______• 1,904 ___•___ •__ ••______ ~~wiio(i::::::::::::=:=:::::::::=:::==:== 5re ------. ------I, ~b 89 fi8 Northern plne ___ •___ •__ •______._ 1,650 ------503------30- 743 -·------81" ·----·ii Red gum..___ ._.____•_____•______~.___ 400 ______.______1199 •__ ._.____ • ______ Cypress~_••______•______•______. _ 35 ______400 ______Southern plne ___ ••__ •______• 605 ______.___ 275 •••_____ ._••______'- B8SSwood ___ ._ •• _._. _____ ~ ______.______~25 485 92 163 85 &2 'ValilnL_._____ ._••• ___ •______.______150 __ • ______••______..Mahogany_____ •______.------250 ______65 ______Douglas,fir______51 _. ______Yellow lloplar__ •______.______250 ______30 ______Western red cedar____ .______165 ______.__ 10 ______ __:=_-_--_-:_=_=__=:_:_=_=_-_-=_=_-_. 100 IlJg :=::::=::::- ::::======::: ~~ycee-d-:ar::_:_=_-_-:_-_~=_-_·:_:ss.vd -_-:_~:_=.:_:_~ 2050 .. ____ ..______i~ :._ Total" ______•______._ 6,321 1,138 18 '8,485 260 3 I The 1920 cOnsumption Includ1lS 75 M board feet In the form of veneer (walnut 50 M and mahogany 25M). 2 Less than 0.5 per cent. TABLE 42.-Wood consumed in the manufacture of agricu!tu!'al implements in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Kind of wood Quantity Grown in Mich· Quantity Grown In Mich· used igan used I Igan t,(}(}(J bd./t. l,(}(}(J bd./t. Percent l,(}(}(Jbd./t. 1,(}(}(Jbd./t. Per cent Maple••_. _____•• _._._._ ••• _._. ___ •___.___ 1,486 1,196 80 1,3711 809 59 Onk.___ ._.___ ••_••__•.._____ ••_._____.____ 190 407 52 1,038 205 2S ·Northern plne._._ •••••••••••____ ._.____ ._. 2, 100 1,893 00 764 100 13 Southern plne_._ •• _. ___ ••__ ••______• 1,531 ····---64-·-1------;'9-· 689 ·------38--6------6-5 Ba.'lSwood__ •____ ••____•• _._. ___ •_____.____ 816 592 Cottonwood.__._._.__••__ ._._.______485 20 4 510 M 11 Western. plnc ___•_____•___ ._••______•___••_____ •••__ •___ ••_. 408 •___ •__ •____• ______Elm..••_.______•___••_._•••__ •______• 1,128 I, 06S 95 300 240 80 Yellow 'poplar_. ______._ ••• __ ._._...... 4,261 •______• __ •••_.... 270 • ______._.__ Red gum.______•____ ••••_._._••__•___ • 875 ___ • ______••• 2M _._._.______Hickory______234 48 21 177 78 44 ~!~~i:::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~! ----T1~------~- t~ ------00------52 BlrchBeech.______.______20918 ______15976 ______2573 ------73- 25 -----ioo100 ChestnuL______40 40 100 ______•______•______Total _____•• ______16,614 6,792 41 6,796 2,116 31 o 1 The 1920 consumption Includes 515 M fcet of logs and bolts (oak 205 M, cottonwood 125 M, cypress 75 M, maple !i5 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 mait:lifacture of nonmotor vehicleS in Michigan • . 1910 ~nd 1920 . 1910 1920 KInd of wood Grown in Mlch Quantity Grown in Mich ~~!an used I 19an . 1,()()() bd. II. 1,()()() bd. II. Per ctnt 1,000 bd. II. '1,()()() bd. It. Per ctnt Maple______7,716 7,000 92 5,016 .4, 701 94. BeeCh______1,184 1,184 100 677,.' 577 100: Oak______4, 025 1,075 Zl 404 199 49 EIm______4, 728 4,181 88 280 220m Hemlock______oo_____ 10 10 100 124 100 81 I;'~~:::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::: ------949------837------88- 1~ ~------3ii------.1 Hickory______6, 466 382 6 79 6 8 Northern plne______70 65·{\3 52 52 100· Yellow~~;l~~~~===::::=:::::=::=:::::::::: poplar ______7------:~-800 ::::::::~:64 ::::i~:8 ~g 5 :::::::::i:______:::::i~, _ Red gum______1,435 ______5 ______ ~~~~~_-_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2, ~ ------780------86- ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: '~~~~~~:-Blne beech______::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "______~5 ------26- 5 ----100-100 :::::::::::______::::::::::: ::::::::_ Mahogany______4 ______cypress______(2) ______TotaL ______1------1-----1 31,2Zl 15,785 51 6, 758 5,896 57' I The 1920 consumption Includes 6 M board (eet in the (orm o( veneer (gum 5 M and maple 1 M), and. 10 M feet of logs and holts (oak 6 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 Mlch- Quantity Grown in Mlch used Igan used I 19an I,OOObd.lt. t,OOObd./l. Percem 1,()()()bd./I. 1,()()()bd./l. Perctnt. Basswood______90 90 100 2, 175 2, 175 100· Maple______,.___ 2, 700 2, 700 100 1,900 700 31 Hlckory______252 120 48 205 50 24 Cottonwood______152 2 1 ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: !~E~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Beech______:::::::i~:30 ------30- ----100- ______~~ _ I-----.~-----~---~-----~------~ TotaL______3, 172 2, 940 93 4, 778 ; 9Zl 61 .. I The 1920 consumption includes 2,203 M feet of logs and holts (basswood 2,000 M, hickory 105 M, box-. wood 96 M, and cottol\wood 2 M). ~~HNICAL BULLETIN :t)~~ ,U.S~ D:EP'l'. OFAGlUCJrLTt:rRE ' T~~IiE45.-;-Wooil CfmsJ'71ied in the mp,nU/acture of {anksin Mwhig,o.n, 1910 aniJ.1920 . " '" " .-.' ,) . , 1910. " . j_'--__;:--1_920__~~-_ o IDndo(wood , ,.' . Quantity Grown In Mich· t' Quantity Grown In Mich· used !g811 used 19an ~~ill~f~f:~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~_f~~I~~,,,.t( [~ill~~~', Lw:ch'-______8,560 '2;6IlIi 31 '.' 105 ------65------62 Northern plne______~~ ______.___ 2;405 . 850 34 ,J 7 7 100 Westel"Ii red cedar ______~______100 ______~:,------_____ ~~~ .Hemlock______• ___.,. 100 100 100 _____.______~~_::::::~=:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ . ~ 13& ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: TotaL.,______'-______20,696 3,675 18 4,688 72 2 TABLE 46.-Wood consumed in the manufacture of cigar boz.es in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Kind of wli?d ' Quantity 'Grown In Mlch-. Qiillntlty Grown in Mich· \\". used Igan used I Igan \1 TQtaJ---C~------1,481 14 4,420 o I The 1920 consumption Inclndes 125 M hoard 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 Xfudofwood Qusntlty Grown In Mlch- Quantity drown in Mich. used Igan used igan I,OOOM.ft. I,oooM./t. Per cem 1,OOOM.ft. I,OOOM.ft. Per cent OSL______.---_------2, 001 ______--- 970 ______Blrch______128 66, 52 760 100 13· ~g~Fn~t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 18~ ::::::::::: :::::::: 5~ ::::::::::: :::::::: ------40- ----iOii- ______BlackN~g~~~fue::=::::::::::::::::::::::: cherry______10~ ______:'!_ ::::::::::: ::::::::_ ToiaL ______2,405 106 4 2;345 100 4 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FOREST :QESTRUCTION 119 TAlILE 48.-::;:-Wood cQnsumed in the manufacture of toys, in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920· K1ndoCwood Quantity Grown in Mieh- Quantity Grown In Mioh; used igan used _~an 1,000 M.lt. 1,000 M.lt. Per Ctnt t,OOO M.jt. t,OOO bd.lt. Per (!tnt ':13eech______1,671 1,671 100 550 475 86 l3lrch ______..______~ ______~______17 17 100 415 25 6 Walnut.______.______300' ______". ,j~~~:::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::Cottonwood_____•______------885--'______------584-______-----66-______140~f ------8;1______------43_ Sprnoo~.!iw-Oiid:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::______" ______~ ,'______2~ ______19'1 19:60 ------30-______------38 _ ~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ------ioo------ioo- ----ioo- ~~ ------46- ----ioo ~~~~~nJi~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: fs ::::::::::: :::::::: Douglas fIr______------20' ------1-9------1-00-- Oalt______85 52 61 19 Northern plno______126 126 100 1 1 100 Total______3,715. 2,853 77 2,264 682 30 TABLE 49.-Wood consumed in ship and boat b'uilding in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Klndofwood Grown in Mich QUantity Grown In Mich igan used igan Oak______"______l,ooobd.jt1,386 . l,OOObd./t.360 Percent26 t,OOObd./i.' 776 l,OOOM./t.464 Percent.60 CyprctlS______916 ______260 ______~o~~::'n~iiie:::::::~::::::::::::::::::::: ~~g ::::::::::: :::::::: ~ ------Northern pino______157 132 84 171 ------152------059 Northern whIte cedar______522 485 93 119 113 95 Teak..______64 ______~ft~~:~r:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ::::::::::: :::::::: ',' ~ ------"6" ------i4 'W~:jire(frediii:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ ~_ ~ Walnut ______~______15 :::::::::::______:::::::: _ f~~1:!J~~_~:::==:=::::::::=:=::::::::: :::::::::~: :::::::::~: ::::i~: ii ::::::::~: :::::i~ Ash______38 28 74 5 3 60 Sassafras______2 ______Lignum vitae______1 1.______Tamarack______6 6 100 1 ______Birch______295 2i0 92 ______EIm______62 62 100 ______Gum______52 ______~ ____ _ Redwood ______,,__ 60 ______Cottonwood______10 Maple ______5 ------5- ----ioo- ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: Hemlock______3 3 100 ______13eech______(I) 100 ______Total ______1----/----/ 4,480 1,364 30 2,082 750 36 1 Less than 1,000 board feet. l~OTECBNICAL 'BULLETIN 92, u. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTtrnE TABLE 50.-Wood c01!sumed in the manufacture, oj dowels i~ Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Klndofwbod Grown In Mich Grown In Mlch, Igan 19an EIm______" '______1,000 bd.150 It. 1,000 lid.75 II. Per ant50 1,000 bd.835 II. 1,000 bd.526 jt Per cml63 Beech__ \.-.----~----_----~------1,000 1,000 100 528 528 100 Maple_k____ ~______580 " 580, 100 316 316 100 Birch______Ou______500 ______'500 ______100 2Ii82 2Ii8 2 100 IDckory______2 ______Total______2,232 2, 155 97 1,9~ 1,630 I I The 1920 consumption includes 1,000 M feet of logs and bolts (beech 500 M, maple 250 M, IlUd birch 250M). TABLE 51.-Wood consumed in the manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatull, in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 Kind olwood QUllUtlty Grown in, Mich- QUIlD'tity GroWn in Mich used IgllD used igllD • 1,OOObd.[t. 1,OOObd.lt. Percent 1,OOObd.[t. 1,OOObd.ll. Percent Elm______400 400 100 iOO 500 71 Oak.______~____ 514 ______.___ 590 ______Maple______28 25 89 31 31 100 ~~I~~E_~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::: iIJ ::::::::::: :::::::: ~ri~~_~:.~:~::::::::::::=:::::::::::::: ~ 1~ l~ ------ij------ioo Red @lID------______J ______6 ______Basswood______3 3 100 ______Mahogany______3 ______ToW______1,010 436 43 1,379 39 ~.\ TABLE 52.-Wood consumed in the manufacture of trunks and valisC8 in Michigan, 1910 and 1920 1910 1920 KInd of wood Quantity Grown In Mich- Quanm'Y Grown lD Mich used IgllD used I igllll l,OOObd.ll. 1,OOObd.ll. Per ani l,OOObd.ll. j'OOObd'ltiper emf Hemlock______Basswood______7,0001,843 7,0001,343 10073 ______907 726 80_ Maple______5, 000 5,000 100 ______Beech______500 500 100 ______•______ EIm__ ~______307 307 100 ______• ______ ToW______14, 650 14,150 97 907 726 80 J The 1920 consumption includes 94 M board feet of basswood in the form of veneer. o <; \ 1\ .. l I .. .. ! 1 1 •