NATIVE V. FOREIGN TIMBERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 103, 4 May 1927, Page 6

NATIVE V. FOREIGN TIMBERS.

There are many passages in the writings of the late Sir David E. Hutchins on New Zealand forestry that could with advantage be collated for use as a text book in all our schools. I know of nothing written better calculated to inculcate a love of trees, and, above all, a love of the indigenous trees of our country. Sir David Hutchins was not one of those who—vide reports of a recent deputation to the Prime Minister—believe that the best thing to do with our native forests is to "cut them out." If ever there was a sound economist in forestry matters it was he; the practical commercial side wae always before him. But he believed the soundest economy lay in the fostering and regeneration of the indigenous timbers. "Strengthen, but do not destroy" was his motto. He believed in the introduction of self-spreading valuable exotic trees, but the native timbers came first in his estimation. Here is a significant passage from one of this great forester's reports on the New Zealand bush and its components: . "With some, .though not with those in possession of all the facts, there has been a general idea that the fine native forests of New Zealand were not worth preserving and could economically be replaced by plantations of exotic timbers. . . . The native forests (including kauri forests, he noted) when put in order aa cultivated forests will return £10 or more per acre per year, and permanent settlement at the rate of one family per 75 acres; and in-the meantime will give the same return and the same employment as dairying on poor soil. Such forest estates would be amongst the most valuable in the world. They would easily surpass the most valuable national forests in France and Germany—as, indeed, climatically they should." Think over that, and study Hutchins, ye planters of pinua insiguisl " —J.e.