Since hemlock is so frequently associated with Douglas fir, the
principles governing its reproduction and its relative promise as a
second crop have necessarily been largely covered in the preceding
discussion of fir. The following remarks are merely additional.

We have seen that the perpetuation of hemlock is advisable only
where fir reproduction is difficult to obtain or will be at too
great a sacrifice of valuable existing hemlock. The first of these
conditions is confined chiefly to pure hemlock stands and to coast
regions where the fir is often too old to seed well. The second
may exist on the coast or in certain moist interior regions where
there is a heavy hemlock undergrowth. In either case natural hemlock
reproduction will be counted upon, both because it is practically
certain to occur and because if it were not certain and artificial
aid were necessary, we would abandon hemlock entirely and devote
our efforts to fir. In short, discussion of hemlock as a second
crop need not include systematic attempts to seed the ground but
may be confined to protection of what we have to begin with.

In a straight hemlock proposition, the protection question may
differ considerably from that involved by deciding between fir
and hemlock. In the latter case, because of the assistance of fire
to fir, the growth already on the ground must have considerable
value to warrant foregoing the several advantages of slash burning.
In the former, slash burning has no object except to reduce future
risk. The inference is that a much less promising stock of young
growth is worth protecting.

While this is true, there is danger of overestimating its value,
especially if care is not taken in logging. It has been remarked