FORESTRY COMPARISONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 92, 18 April 1913, Page 2

FORESTRY COMPARISONS.

HEW ZxiMAfflfc-Y. -MSW-SOUTH • . New South- vfiiles (says "the Sydney "Daily Tflcgr'a-pli';).'- is— -Jependeht upon New Zealand , lo a- veKf large extent for its- supply of cheap Roiwoods,and espociaily iii regard to kah?etatea_, wJiicji is its only available timber for butter boxes. Within a- very few years -New South Vfcales "will, however, ""bs" thrown upon her own resources ■ for soih-vooil supplies in so far as New Zealand"isconcerned. This is the conclusion' of- Mr; J& H. F. Swain, Disirift .Forester iii-charge of the North Western - Forestry—Distwet, who recently-during a--two months' tour of the Dominion, investigated ifijrestal conditions, anil studied the methods in vogue with a> view to adapting the-re-sults oi Aorap of Now Zealand's experiments in forestry to New" South Wiles conditions. Fbi? even' in regard to forestry, iviiicH is distinctly _an old world 6cieiico. Xβ iv Zealand ha.s been adventurously experimental, and in- her forest policy has fcaj«'n up a position which is absolutely- uii\iup in forestry. It involves the. utter abandpnment'bf. her lino native forests, th.9 deliberate■ extinction of her natural sources of supply, and the wining out of- such .splendid timbers as kauri and kaliilcatea, the latter being a species on -which we" &Spenff altogether £&r butter-box inaKing." Of her sometime vast indigeaoaifl.JiaiSsts Hew Zealand 13 establishing at great cost artificial forests of introduced conifers and, hardwoods; •'■'■ ■ "■

In New-South Wales we have a-.Fores-try ' Departments which is ■ jusfi three years old. 'tn New Zealand "there;-is na separate Department of Forestry, but a number o;" separate branches' whicii deal with various fores.tal matters, lit one respect. however, the forestry policy is clear cut'and'"well-denned. There are no complications involved, ntf.-sylyicul-tural problems to be solved; ho vafforeHtative matters concerned- The C4overnmci.it has thrown- the native forests overboard and relies wholly' Upon artificial planting. Wise or unwise as we may regard it, the stand- is taken that the native trees, however valuable, are too slow "rowing and. insufficiently robust in natural regeneration to compare with introduced species, and occupy the best areas of the Dominion, whilst, there are. largo areas ~ot inferior . heath lands which would best be placed under timber. Hence the forest policy of. the Government, though it encloses a tragedyj is to dispose of. tUd native forests without restrictions., involved. - hy. r.eflfc forestative-' consi-dbrivtioh's.' .The ' purr chaaer 13 free" to use the' forest: as he pleases, and when he is done with it, it is thrown open to settlement. The inevitable end is the extermination of the forestal growths which, once, clothed the Dominion from end to end, - and- of- which only 25 per cent now remain—a> mere thirty years' supply at the present rate of consumption. ' ...

The Dominion,.however, has not lost sight of its responsibility, to. future generations in respect to timber supply-, ana to make good the deforestation of tlio islands under Us present forest policy is now occupied, in planting the inferior waste lauds with and American pines and Australian-■ hardwoods. The work is. .costing" her £25,000- per annum out of her total" forest revenue of £40,000. and the sufficiency oT it may be gauged, from tfie faefc that at'" oTltsitie estimates, tbe : present planting; will : provide in fifty years'- time an: annual. ,cut of leas tW one.quartet.iil.th&fe .now. required! - It '-is--apparent'tliit to. make "ood the deficient New Zealand will be compelled to sjjerid at least £100,000 in forest planting, thereby swallowing up the whole pi her present forest revenue, plus £1)0,00.0 per. annum in' addition. In New South Wales tliP /forest revenue for 3911-1912 whs £05,000, or which only £1.000 was set apart for afforestation. Apart from salaries for the administrative stalT. viz,, about £20,000 per annum, the balance was devoted to other purposes of Government. Whether or no the forest policy of Jaew Zealand is.. the best for New Zealand, there can be no doubt that a similar stand is wholly untenable in this. State. In the first, "place, 'our -timbers represont too valuable a world mOuopolyto pernVifc of their abandonment . by the State. Moreover, they "ore generally robust _rcafforesters, and quick growers, ■■ and --Xe-w-] Zealand, United States of America, ami i South America have adopted them largely in.their' artificial forests.- We. who are; blessedr" in their possession cannot afford to. dispose of them, nor would it be a r profitable thing to do. .We do not realise the- value of- our indigenous forests," and tEeir especial advantages to us. At the samp time, although we arc doing nothing to replace them, natural regeneration is -.proceeding robitstly, and at ft quarter oMtho-cipendi.turo of -Xbw Zealand; we can produce by assisting that process of Xatuj-e'in an 'intelligent fashion, irfK second growth forests containing the strongest/and most durable hardwoods in the world, and an;anged; in well ordered,- everijiged conjiiartplents. In soffcwood3-\ve-are deficient,- and--al-though we are happy in the possession still of large forests of Cypress Pine, the only real white .arrl resistant: timber in the State, their alieniitioii. and conversion is proceeding rapuliy. and-some endeavour must be made to replace them.

Mr- Swain's conclusions with regard to his inquiries, in so fan -ai— fli'ey efi'ecf this State, ar,e of interest: Hn holds that the -Ne.w Zealand policy is certainly Hot the policy for >7ew South Wales. It would bo flying in the fa cc of Nature to adopt it. and it wcnil'd cost the State enormous sums of money unnecessarily. 3?ut he is of opinion that a; small proportion of the New Zealand, expenditure if applied to the encouragement of natural regeneration in our forests would be a most profitable proposition. At present nothing is being done,- jind the. forests are languishing for want of attention. Mr. Swain is of opinion also that we are not reaping tlie full value of jour -timbers. In Xh.v ZetUand the royalties ure merely an upset price, the timber being measured in the forests, and sold in blocks by public auction or tender. Last year, one bloc* containing 30 million feet of kauri, rinui. and white pine within an area of about 1,500 acres, was; put up to auction at an upset royalty of. £27,000. It realised £42,000, or 2/9 per hundred feet super. The -royalty rate for New South Wales hardwoods is a mere sixpence per hundred,, with 1/ Ser ivonbark, tallow-wood, and Cypress Pine, and under the present, laws wo must sell at that rate and lose the advantage, of market competition. Thus, had tho timber been sold under New South Wales conditions, the-Department would .hare. Jasfc_.iit least. £15;000. Mr. Swain is of opinion that the >Jew Zsaland system of disposal in blocks might bo adopted with '. advantage" in - New. South Wales, but- bearing in niind our reliance' itjnsrt ' natural regeneration, should be sold" with a girth..limit, and •ahjtefc to uuttjng ftstrictiOJM Aiming »tj

the reafforestation of the block and .the perpetuation and improvement , of -fhe foreets. "'.:: ..-' "..'.;; In coivrlnding, Jlr.. Swain pointed out that New Zealand; has 25 per cent 'of , forest and expects .that to be exhausted within 30 years. New South' Wales has pnly;x per cent of- forest, or less than that of any of thp more important.countries of the world oxcept Great Britain, which is-the most densely populated, and is forced.to" obtain SO, per cent of its supply of timber from other parts of the world at nn annual cost of £27,000,01)0 a year. New .Zealand spends £25,000 a year in replacing the timber cut from her bush! New South Wales, spends £1,000 in..afforestation..- New Zealand has .3 per cent of permanent forest reservation for scenic, climatic and protective purposes. New. South Wales at present has no permanent forest reservations. -