Less than 29 per cent of the land area of the United States is
occupied by forests today, including swamps, burns and much land
which will be devoted to agriculture. Germany, where great economy
of material is practiced, where wooden buildings are far fewer,
where, indeed, the per capita consumption is only a seventh of
ours, keeps _26 per cent_ of her land area under the most expensive
forest management _and finds the profit constantly increasing_. She
is increasing her production and importing heavily from countries
where lumber is cheap, like the United States, yet the net returns
per acre from the forests of Baden rose from $2.38 in 1880 to $5.08
in 1902. This was due hugely, of course, to improvement of management.
In France lands which only fifty years ago could not be sold for
$4 an acre now bring an annual revenue of $3. In 1903 the town
forest of Winterthur, Switzerland, brought net receipts of $11.69
an acre. These are fair examples in countries where the influence
tending toward less use of wood have been working for a very long
time. They show such influences do not result in refusal to pay the
cost of growing all the wood that can be grown. Wood consumption
in European countries is increasing at a rate of from 1-1/2 to 2 per
cent a year. In other words, the consumers are actually willing to
pay for more wood than they have found necessary, and are warranting
the growers in adopting still more expensive methods to increase
the output. Nor has forest growing proved to be possible only by
the State or Government. In Germany 46.5 per cent of the forest
area is owned privately, in Austria 61 per cent, in France 65 per
cent, in Norway 70 per cent. While it is true that the European
private owner has better tax and fire conditions, it must also
be remembered that the value of the land on which he makes the
growing crop yield a good dividend is about ten times as high as