Too much land is cleared of young growth, merely because such clearing
is easy, which is of such low value for tilling or even pasture that
its use for these purposes does not pay as well in the long run
as would its use for growing timber, especially when the investment
of clearing is considered. The resulting expanse of charred stumps
and logs, producing little but ferns, is a small farm asset at
best. The timber it would grow may eventually be a large asset.
And the labor of clearing applied to a smaller tract of good land
is sure to bring greater returns. An illustration is furnished
by two tracts near the end of a recently completed railroad in
western Washington. Twenty years ago a settler slashed a large
area of presumably worthless sapling fir adjoining his tillable
bottom land, set fire to it, piled and burned the remaining poles,
"seeded down" a pasture, and enclosed it by an expensive cedar
rail fence. The pasture, never useful except in early spring, grew
up to ferns, and was finally abandoned. Even the fence was moved.
The settler on the next claim left his part of the same sapling
growth to grow and this year sold the timber alone for $1,000 to
a tie mill which came into the neighborhood with the railroad. The
moral of this does not apply to cutting alone, but argues equally
for preventing fire in second growth.

It is also poor economy, if mature timber exists, to cut rapidly
growing young timber for fuel because it is nearer the house or
easier to cut. The former has become stationary in production,
while the latter, if left, is earning money by growing in quantity
and quality. If young timber must be used, and the land is not
worth actually clearing for cultivation or pasture, it is usually
far better to thin out the poorest trees, thus leaving the remainder
stimulated to a more rapid growth, which will soon replace those