seldom if ever take any steps to insure reforesting, because to
do so is too likely to be at an actual loss. Whether he has made
money on the original crop has no bearing; nor has his being rich
or poor, resident or alien. His cut-over land presents a distinct
problem to him.

In the first place, its sale value represents an investment. He
may sell and reinvest the money in any business which looks
inviting--perhaps in standing timber. Presumably he can get ordinary
business returns, 6 per cent or more, and continue to reinvest
these returns. Therefore if he leaves this money in forest land
for 50 years without return, for every dollar so tied up he must
get $18.42 at the end of that period if he is to make 6 per cent on
the investment. And this applies not only to the present value of
the land, but also to any added expense he incurs in modifying his
cutting methods, or in replanting, in order to insure reforestation.
If both together amount to $5 an acre, he must net $92.10 at the
end of his 50 years in order to make 6 per cent.

So far no complaint can be made. But if the land is to produce a
second crop it cannot be left to take care of itself, as it might
were it being held for speculative purposes only. It must be protected
from fire and trespass. And since the interest and principal invested
will amount to so much for so long a period and be totally lost in
case of destruction, the protection must be adequate, practically
amounting to insurance. The annual cost will vary greatly according
to locality, class of timber, and the enforcement of fire laws,
but will be from 1 cent at the minimum to 15 cents at the maximum
in bad seasons. If all cost of protection and administration is
placed at only 5 cents annually, for the sake of illustration,