{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0339793":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"82c1105d-59da-4346-bafd-94f4ceaa1993","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative":[{"value":"REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy":[{"value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1198198","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"British Columbia. Legislative Assembly","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2016","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1947]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0339793\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":" PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nHON. E. T. KENNEY, Minister C. D. ORCHARD, Deputy Minister of Forests\nREPORT\nof\nTHE FOREST SERVICE\nYEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31st\n1946\nVICTORIA,  B.C. :\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1947.    Victoria, B.C., March 17th, 1947.\nTo His Honour Colonel C. A. Banks, C.M.G.,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour :\nHerewith I beg respectfully to submit the Annual Report of the Forest Service of\nthe Department of Lands and Forests for the calendar year 1946.\nE. T. KENNEY,\nMinister of Lands and Forests.\nThe Honourable E. T. Kenney,\nMinister of Lands and Forests, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014There is submitted herewith the Annual Report on activities of the Forest\nService during the calendar year 1946.\nC. D. ORCHARD,\nDeputy Minister and Chief Forester.  CONTENTS.\nItem. Page.\n1. Introductory     7\n2. Forest Economics     9\nAir and Forest Surveys     9\nProvincial Forests    9\nInventory of Forest Resources     9\nForest Research  10\nMensuration  10\nVolume Tables  10\nGrowth Studies ,  16\nUtilization Studies  17\nSilvicultural Studies .  18\nSouthern Coast Forest  18\nNorthern Coast Forest  21\nSoil Surveys and Research  22\nProvincial Parks  25\n3. Reforestation  27\nForest Nurseries  27\nSeed Collections  27\nReconnaissance and Survey-work  27\nPlanting  28\n4. Forest Management  29\n5. Forest Protection  31\nWeather  31\nFires  32\nOccurrences and Causes  32\nCost of Fire-fighting  32\nDamage  33\nFire-control Research and Planning  33\nPlanning  33\nPanoramic Lookout Photographs  34\nFire-weather Studies  34\nWeather-recording  34\nInvestigations  34\nFire-suppression Crews  36\nAircraft  37\nMechanical Equipment  37\nAutomotive  37\nFire-pumps and Outboard Motors  38\nMechanical Inspection  38\nForest Service Marine Station  38\nBuilding and Construction  39\nRadio  39\nSlash-disposal and Snag-falling  40\nPrevention  42\nCo-operation\u2014other Agencies  43\nFire Law Enforcement  43\n6. Forest Ranger School    44 00 6 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nItem. Page.\n7. Public Relations and Education  46\n8. Grazing  48\nGeneral Conditions  48\nMarkets and Prices  48\nLive-stock Losses  49\nRange Reconnaissance  49\nCo-operation  49\nGrazing Permits  49\nCollections  49\nRange Improvement  50\n9. Personnel Directory, December 31st, 1946  51\n10. Appendix\u2014Tabulated Detailed Statements to Supplement Report of Forest\nService  55 REPORT OF THE FOREST SERVICE.\nFree from the trammels of almost total war for the first time in six years, the\nworld, in 1946, began the long, tedious task of rebuilding the ravages of conflict and\nspeeding up the production of materials and supplies so urgently required for peacetime happiness and welfare. Like almost every other organization extant, the Forest\nService was faced with greatly increased work and responsibilities, new demands, and\nnew functions. Although the slow accretion of staff and the inadequate flow of equipment failed to keep pace with the additional work, nevertheless creditable progress\nwas made.\nTwo items of reorganization within the Service deserve special mention at this\npoint. After many years of consideration and planning, the establishment of a Forest\nRanger School became a fait accompli, with a full-time teaching staff of two and supplementary instruction provided by officers of the Service engaged in specialized pursuits, by forest entomologists and pathologists in the service of the Dominion Department of Agriculture, by a meteorologist of the Dominion Meteorological Service, and\nby a member of the St. John Ambulance Association. Sincere thanks are extended to\nthese individuals and the organizations concerned for their expert assistance. The\nfirst term opened at the Ranger School, located at Green Timbers Forestry Station, in\nJanuary, with twenty students in attendance.\nThe second major change in Departmental set-up was the establishment of the\nReforestation Division, formerly a section of the Economics Division, as a distinct and\nseparate unit, under the direction of the same technical officer who had previously\ncarried on this work.\nAlthough not ranking as a major change in the organization, there was a minor\nrearrangement made whereby the Vancouver Forest District was relieved of the supervision of the (then) Fraser River Repair-station and this responsibility placed with\nthe Victoria office of the Service, and, coincident with this change, the name of the\nplant was changed to the Forest Service Marine Station.\nThe report of the Royal Commission on Forestry was submitted to the Government\nby the sole Commissioner, the Honourable Chief Justice Gordon McG. Sloan, early in\nthe year and, as was anticipated, contained many vital and far-reaching recommendations. Although only a brief time elapsed between submission of the report and the\n1946 session of the Legislature, several amendments to the \" Forest Act\" marked the\nfirst steps in implementation of a number of the proposals advanced. During the\nsubsequent months, senior officers of the Service have been engaged in draughting\nother legislation further implementing the Commissioner's recommendations.\nLegislation enacted at the 1946 session provided for the following:\u2014\n(1.)  An increase of $350,000 in the Forest Protection Fund vote for the year.\n(2.)  The establishment of a Silvicultural Fund for ensuring perpetuation of\nthe forest yield.\n(3.)  Provision for the grading of hemlock logs.\n(4.)  Provision for rebating a portion of the royalty on fire-killed timber and\ntimber which, by virtue of its small size, has only salvable value.\n(5.) An amendment to the section of the \" Forest Act \" governing the felling\nof snags and burning of slash in the Vancouver Forest District to provide\nthat such practices need only be carried out upon specific instructions of\nthe Forest Service.\n7 00 8 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nWith the return of technically trained personnel from the armed services it has\nbeen possible to re-establish a number of silvicultural and other studies that had,\nperforce, been suspended during the previous six years, as well as to initiate some new\ninvestigations. The increased staff also permitted an acceleration of the surveying\nand mapping programme.\nThe year created a number of new highs in the Management (utilization) functions\nof the Service. Despite the time-losses resulting from industrial disputes, because of\nunusually favourable climatic conditions production in all lines was maintained at a\nhigh level and the aggregate value of production exceeded any previous figures.\nThe average stumpage price bid on timber-sales during the year was $2.39 per\nthousand as compared with $2.19 per thousand in 1945 and $1.80 per thousand in the\nten-year period 1937-46. There was a total of 1,228 mills operating, nearly double the\nten-year average of 661, and exceeding the 1945 figure of 931 by 297.\nThe total timber-scale for the Province, expressed in board-feet, was 3,193,665,132\nas compared with 3,081,235,491 in the previous year. Douglas fir again leads the\nspecies cut, with 1,235,382,842 feet; hemlock ranks second with 635,216,631 feet; and\ncedar third with 614,567,545. This represents a gain for fir and cedar over 1945, and\na slight recession for hemlock.\nA total of 2,627 timber-sales was made during the year, exceeding by over 600 sales\nthe number made in any previous year.\nHazard conditions throughout the Province were generally better than average, and\nthis condition was reflected in the reduced number of, and damage caused by, fires\ncompared to the previous year. July and August were again the months of greater\nhazard. Of the total of 1,707 fires, 81 per cent, was confined to 10 acres or less and\n51 per cent, covered less than one-quarter acre. A total of 303,395 acres was burned\nover, compared to the ten-year average (1937-46) of 330,884 acres. Of this year's\ntotal, 12,941 acres were accessible, merchantable timber, resulting in an estimated loss\nof 63,992,000 F.B.M., with stumpage valued at $57,250. The total estimate of damage\ncaused by fires ($357,984) compares most favourably with the ten-year average of\n$794,929, and only the years 1937 and 1943 show a better individual figure.\nIndustrial operations caused 21.48 per cent, of the fires, smokers 19.54 per cent.,\nbrush-burning 16.90 per cent., and lightning and campers 12.24 and 12.15 per cent,\nrespectively.\nIt was possible during the year to recommence fire-control planning after a lapse\nof four years. Eighty possible lookout-sites were examined, and essential data recorded.\nFire-weather recording was expanded, and further studies in fire-hazard measurement\ncarried out. A contract was negotiated for four aircraft for fire-detection and suppression work. Snag-felling and slash-disposal activities were satisfactory, although\nthe latter were somewhat hampered by unsuitable burning weather.\nThe vital and welcome trend towards sustained-yield management being evidenced\nby the forest industries has unhappily, from the Service standpoint, resulted in the\nloss to industry ranks of a number of able and experienced, technically trained forest\nofficers. The Service can take satisfaction, however, from the fact that these competent\ntechnicians will still be working for the continuity and welfare of our greatest renewable\nresource. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 9\nFOREST ECONOMICS.\nAs pointed out in the 1945 report, the urgent need of the Economics Division is\nfor technically trained men. During 1946 two more graduate foresters left to seek\nother employment. These men cannot be replaced immediately, and it will be from\nthree to five years before much alleviation of the present situation can be expected.\nAIR AND FOREST SURVEYS.\nUnder a new administrative arrangement all air survey operations in the Department of Lands and Forests are to be handled by the Air Survey Division of the\nSurveyor-General's Branch. The aerial photographic equipment of the Forest Service\nhas been turned over to this new organization, which has accepted the responsibility\nfor carrying out such operations as are requested. During the summer of 1946 a total\nof about 16,700 square miles was photographed for future forest surveys and the\nprinted photos submitted to the Forest Service. These photos are in the process of\nbeing plotted and preliminary forest-type maps made up for the use of the field survey\nparties.\nTwo field survey parties were in the field for the full season, and it is worthy of\nnote that there was no turnover in personnel among the student assistants. One party,\nworking from the launch \" B.C. Forester,\" continued on the West Coast of Vancouver\nIsland, working north from Tofino, where the 1945 survey stopped, to the height of land\nbetween Sydney and Muchalat Inlets. An area of 539,010 acres was examined, and\nthis, added to 674,000 acres surveyed in the region during 1945, gives a total of\n1,213,010 acres for the Clayoquot survey. Forest-cover maps for the region are being\ndraughted and estimates of the forest resources prepared but, due to insufficient\nexperienced personnel, progress is slow.\nThe second party was working on a revision of the inventory of the E. & N. Railway\nBelt and covered an area of 479,080 acres. It is planned to continue this revision in\nsucceeding years until the entire region has been re-examined and data gathered for an\ninventory to replace that made for 1936. The revised cover maps and timber estimates\nare now in the process of preparation.\nPROVINCIAL FORESTS.\nThere were no new Provincial forests created during the past year, and only very\nminor eliminations made for sale for industrial purposes. The total number of forests\nis unchanged at fifty-three, representing an area of 31,134 square miles.\nINVENTORY OF FOREST RESOURCES.\nIn the report for 1945 it was noted that, with the easing of the labour situation, it\nhad been possible to secure additional draughting assistance, with the result that the\nforest-atlas maps at the district offices at Vancouver, Kamloops, and Nelson had been\nplaced on a current revision basis. The Prince Rupert District has now been put on\na similar basis, thereby providing cover maps which indicate, at all times, the latest\nconditions relative to fire and logging. A total of 1,234 maps was revised in the course\nof the year, of which 60 were new replacements.\nInstruction in area mapping was given to the current class at the Ranger School.\nIn addition, instruction was given in the field to the Rangers, Assistant Rangers, and\nPatrolmen in fifteen ranger districts scattered throughout the Province.\nAn extensive reconnaissance of the Peace River Block was made by a combination\nof air and land travel for the purpose of revising existing cover-map information.\nA total of 6,500 square miles was examined. 00 10\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nThe Provincial Fire Atlas has been maintained, showing the location of all forest\nfires and slash burns.\nFOREST RESEARCH.\nMensuration.\nThe programme of re-examination of permanent growth-study plots was maintained, with the remeasurement of 30 plots. There is now a total of 559 yield-plots\nestablished throughout the Province.\nThe series of plots in the Queen Charlotte Islands was increased by the addition\nof 42 new plots established during the past year, to give a total of 93 plots for this\nregion.\nA study was made of the height-growth of dominant hemlock on the West Coast of\nVancouver Island, and it was found that the species in that region maintains a definite\nleader throughout its life. Height-growth continues to increase to a remarkably old\nage, as the following table indicates:\u2014\nAge.\n50_\n100_\n200_\nTotal Height\nin Feet.\n68\n126\n174\nAge.\n300___\n400___\n450___\nTotal Height\nin Feet.\n187\n193\n195\nData such as the above can be used in the preparation of site-class yield tables and\nfor correlating height at maturity with the height of dominant trees at 100 years.\nVolume Tables.\nVolume tables have been prepared for immature Sitka spruce showing both board-\nfoot and cubic-foot values.   These tables are presented in this report on pages 11 and 12.\nDuring the past year considerable effort has been expended in the preparation of\npreliminary site-class tables for the poor sites common to much of the Coastal region.\nIn the past many of these sites have been classified as scrub for inventory purposes.\nThis is a vague classification and of no assistance in yield calculations. It is anticipated that by using the new preliminary tables, use of the term \" scrub \" can be largely\neliminated. Copies of the new tables have been compiled together with those formerly\nin use and the summary for mature Douglas fir, hemlock, and cedar on pages 13, 14,\nand 15.    These tables are made up on a basis of maximum height at maturity. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 11\nVolume Table-\n-Immature Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis).\n(Volume in board-feet.)\nHtS\nTotal Height in Feet.\nat\na\"\n50.\n60.\n70.\n80.\n90.\n100.\n110.\n120.\n130.\n140.\n150.\n160.\n7\n5\n7\n9\n11\n13\n16\n4\n7\n8\n10\n15\n20\n25\n13\n21\n18\n29\n40\n50\n24\n39\n52\n66\n31\n38\n47\n72\n101\n121\n155\n146\n186\n4\n4\n5\n6\n8\n9\n49\n67\n84\n60\n83\n105\n9\n10\n29\n10\n11\n36\n128\n11\n12\n30\n44\n60\n80\n102\n128\n157\n190\n227\n270\n5\n12\n13\n51\n58\n70\n94\n108\n120\n138\n151\n174\n185\n214\n225\n260\n270\n310\n320\n370\n430\n500\n5\n2\n13\n14\n80\n14\n15\n65\n91\n122\n157\n197\n243\n300\n360\n420\n490\n570\n9\n15\n16\n72\n80\n101\n112\n123\n136\n150\n175\n195\n221\n245\n270\n275\n305\n335\n335\n400\n470\n530\n580\n550\n620\n680\n640\n710\n780\n2\n6\n3\n16\n17\n375\n410\n450\n17\n18\n165\n214\n490\n18\n19\n133\n180\n235\n295\n370\n450\n540\n630\n740\n850\n2\n19\n20\n195\n210\n225\n255\n325\n350\n400\n430\n485\n520\n560\n580\n630\n680\n690\n740\n800\n800\n870\n930\n920\n1000\n1070\n1\n1\n20\n21\n275\n21\n22\n295\n375\n460\n22\n23\n240\n320\n400\n495\n600\n730\n860\n1000\n1150\n1\n23\n24\n255\n270\n290\n305\n335\n355\n375\n395\n425\n450\n475\n500\n525\n640\n680\n720\n770\n910\n960\n1020\n1070\n1060\n1130\n1190\n1250\n1220\n1300\n1370\n1450\n2\n2\n1\n24\n25\n560\n590\n810\n25\n26\n860\n900\n26\n27\n620\n750\n27\n28\n320\n415\n530\n650\n790\n950\n1130\n1320\n1520\n28\n29\n335\n440\n560\n690\n830\n1000\n1190\n1380\n1600\n29\n30\n460\n580\n720\n870\n1050\n1240\n1450\n1680\n30\n31\n480\n610\n750\n910\n1100\n1300\n1520\n1750\n31\n32\n500\n630\n780\n950\n1150\n1360\n1590\n1830\n1\n32\n33\n520\n660\n820\n990\n1200\n1420\n1660\n1910\n33\n34\n540\n690\n850\n1030\n1240\n1470\n1720\n1990\n34\n35\n560\n710\n880\n1080\n1300\n1530\n1780\n2060\n35\nNo.\nTrees\n1\n4\n8\n16\n14\n13\n7\n2\n1\n66\nBlock indicates extent of basic data. Data collected in Queen Charlotte Islands in stands from 70 to 125 years\nof age. Stump height, 2 feet. Top D.I.B., 60 inches. Trees scaled in 32-foot log lengths with 0.60-foot trimming\nallowance and additional top section to 6-inch top diameter (inside bark). Table prepared by alignment\u2014chart\nmethod, 1946. Aggregate deviation from basic data, 0.33 per cent, low; standard error of single volume estimate,\n16.36 per cent. 00 12\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nVolume Table\u2014Immature Sitka. Spruce (Picea sitchensis).\n(Volume in cubic feet.)\nm\nCQ\nox\nTotal Height in Feet.\nox\n- co\n.2 ffi\n]\n\u00ab c\nri\"\n10.\n20.\n30.\n40. ! 50.\n1\n60.\n70.\n80.\n90.\n100. | 110.\n1\n120. 1 130.\n1\n140.\n150.\n160.\n_j _.\nP5_h\nri c\nri\"\n1\n0.028\n0.057\ni\n2\n0.107\n0.224\n0.334\n2\n3\n0.247\n0.478\n0.709\n0.930\n1.15\n3\n4\n0.420\n0.813\n1.24\n1.76\n1.21\n1.85\n2.62\n1.60\n2.45\n3.46\n1.98\n3.05\n4.30\n2.38\n2.78\n3.18\n4.85\n3.58\n5.45\n7.70\n3\n4\n4\n5\n3.65\n5.15\n4.25\n6.00\n5\n6\n6.85\n6\n7\n2.35\n3.50\n4.65\n5.79\n6.91\n8.03\n9.15\n10.3\n11.5\n2\n7\n8\n7.48\n9.35\n8.93\n11.2\n10.4\n13.0\n11.8\n14.8\n13.3\n14.8\n20.4\n22.1\n4\n4\n8\n9\n16.6\n18.5\n9\n10\n11.4\n13.7\n13.7\n15.9\n19.1\n18.1\n21.8\n20.3\n24.4\n22.5\n27.1\n24.8\n26.9\n32.4\n6\n6\n10\n11\n16.4\n29.8\n11\n12\n19.3\n22.5\n25.7\n28.9\n32.0\n35.2\n38.3\n6\n12\n13\n22.5\n26.0\n26.2\n29.9\n34.5\n33.6\n38.7\n37.3\n42.9\n41.0\n47.1\n44.6\n51.2\n3\n3\n13\n14\n30.2\n14\n15\n34.4\n39.3\n44.1\n48.9\n53.6\n58.2\n62.9\n67.7\n6\n16\n16\n38.9\n43.6\n44.5\n49.9\n50.0\n56.1\n55.5\n62.3\n60.9\n68.4\n66.2\n71.4\n76.7\n86.1\n5\n5\n16\n17\n74.4\n80.3\n17\n18\n48.6\n55.7\n62.6\n69.4\n76.1\n82.5\n89.0\n95.6\n2\n18\n19\n61.8\n69.4\n76.8\n84.1\n91.4\n98.7\n106\n3\n19\n20\n68.1\n76.4\n84.7\n92.8\n101\n109\n117\n2\n20\n21\n74.6\n81.4\n83.7\n92.9\n102\n112\n111\n122\n120\n132\n129\n142\n138\n152\n147\n162\n2\n21\n22\n91.5\n102\n22\n23\n88.5\n99.8\n111\n122\n134\n144\n155\n165\n175\n1\n23\n24\n96.0\n108\n120\n132\n144\n156\n168\n179\n190\n24\n25\n130\n141\n152\n144\n155\n157\n169\n169\n182\n195\n210\n195\n209\n225\n207\n223\n240\n3\n2\n25\n26\n182\n196\n26\n27\n167\n182\n27\n28\n163\n179\n194\n209\n225\n241\n256\n28\n29\n174\n191\n207\n224\n241\n257\n274\n29\n30\n222\n240\n258\n275\n293\n30\n31\n236\n255\n274\n293\n312\n31\n32\n252\n273\n294\n314\n335\n1\n32\n33\n266\n288\n310\n332\n354\n33\n34\n282\n305\n328\n351\n374\n34\nBasis\n3\n7\n10\n16\n14\n12\n7\n2\n1\n72\nD.B.H. total height volume table\u2014basis, 72 trees; age 70-125 years. Block indicates extent of basic data.\nTable gives approximate values for trees larger than 28 inches D.B.H. Field measurements plotted in basal area\nforms and volumes determined by planimeter method. No allowance for defect. Table prepared by converting\ndiameter, height, and volume to logarithms and solving by least squares. Formula derived V \u2014 O.OO 3(D.I.B.) 191\nH \u00b0.99 where V:_itotal volume in cubic feet, D_=diameter inside bark at breast height, and H-zitotal height of tree.\nA monograph was prepared from above formula and the D.I.B. axis regraduated to give D.O.B. using the formula\nD.O.B.=0.16-|-1.02 D.I.B. Table values read from regraduated monograph. Standard error of the estimate of\nindividual trees \u00b1 8.9 per cent.    Aggregate difference, table 0.9 per cent. low. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 13\nPreliminary Site-class Volume Table\u2014Mature Douglas Fir.\nUtilized top D.I.B.:\n=2.0+0.42 D.B.H., O.B.\nStump, 3.3 feet.\nTotal he_ght=4.5+bD\u2014cD2.\nB.C. rule:   Logs as cut.\n&=22.8+300 C.\n_>___5.70.\ne___0.0950.\nSite Index 60.\n6=6.60.\nc=0.0980.\nSite Index 80.\nb=7.50.\nc=0.101.\nSite Index 100.\n6=8.40.\nc=0.1040.\nSite Index 120.\n6---9.30.\nc=0.1070.\nSite Index 140.\n6___10.20.\nc_=0.1100.\nSite Index 160.\nTop\nD.I.B.\nw\nri\nri\n(Inches).\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\n8\n44\n20\n51\n26\n58\n30\n65\n35\n72\n40\n79\n45\n5.6\n10\n52\n40\n61\n50\n69\n60\n78\n75\n87\n85\n95\n95\n6.4\n12\n59\n70\n70\n90\n80\n110\n90\n130\n101\n150\n111\n170\n7.2\n14\n66\n110\n78\n140\n90\n118\n101\n210\n114\n250\n126\n280\n8.1\n16\n71\n150\n85\n200\n99\n260\n112\n310\n126\n370\n140\n420\n8.9\n18\n76\n190\n92\n260\n107\n350\n122\n440\n137\n530\n153\n620\n9.7\n20\n80\n230\n97\n330\n114\n450\n131\n570\n148\n700\n165\n830\n10.6\n22\n84\n280\n102\n420\n121\n570\n139\n730\n157\n880\n176\n1040\n11.4\n24\n87\n320\n106\n500\n126\n700\n146\n900\n166\n1100\n186\n1280\n12.2\n26\n88\n360\n110\n590\n131\n830\n152\n1070\n174\n1310\n195\n1540\n13.1\n28\n89\n390\n112\n680\n135\n980\n158\n1280\n181\n1560\n204\n1850\n14.0\n30\n90\n430\n114\n780\n139\n1130\n163\n1500\n187\n1830\n211\n2200\n14.8\n32\n90\n620\n115\n860\n141\n1290\n167\n1720\n193\n2150\n218\n2560\n15.6\n34\n90\n650\n115\n950\n142\n1440\n170\n1950\n197\n2420\n224\n2920\n16.5\n36\n116\n1050\n143\n1590\n172\n2160\n200\n2700\n229\n3280\n17.3\n38\n116\n1150\n143\n1760\n173\n2400\n203\n3060\n233\n3700\n18.1\n40\n116\n1250\n144\n1950\n174\n2660\n205\n3460\n236\n4120\n19.0\n42\n116\n1400\n144\n2130\n174\n2900\n206\n3760\n239\n4490\n19.8\n44\n144\n2350\n174\n3200\n206\n4130\n240\n5100\n20.6\n46\n144\n2550\n174\n3490\n206\n4510\n241\n5580\n21.5\n48\n144\n2800\n174\n3820\n206\n4960\n241\n6030\n22.3\n60\n144\n3000\n174\n4190\n206\n5380\n241\n6640\n23.1\n52\n144\n3200\n174\n4460\n206\n5740\n241\n7030\n24.0\n54\n144\n3450\n174\n4760\n206\n6150\n241\n7740\n24.8\n56\n144\n3700\n174\n5080\n206\n6600\n241\n8270\n25.6\n58\n144\n3950\n174\n5380\n206\n7000\n241\n8860\n26.5\n60\n144\n4200\n174\n5800\n206\n7480\n241\n9460\n27.3\n62\n174\n6200\n206\n8000\n241\n10000\n28.2\n64\n174\n6600\n206\n8400\n241\n10600\n29.0\n66\n174\n7000\n206\n9000\n241\n11200\n29.9\n68\n174\n7400\n206\n9600\n241\n11800\n30.7\n70\n174\n7880\n206\n10100\n241\n12570\n31.3\n72\n206\n10500\n241\n13200\n32.4\n74\n206\n11000\n241\n13900\n33.2\n76\n206\n11600\n241\n14500\n34.0\n78\n206\n12200\n241\n15300\n34.8\n80\n206\n12840\n241\n16000\n35.6\nNote.\u2014Site index based on height of dominants and codominants at 100 years. 00 14\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nPreliminary Site-class Volume Table\u2014Mature Hemlock.\nTotal height=4.5+6D\u2014cD2. 6=11.54\u201410.13c.\n\u00ab\nri\nri\n6=9.06.\ne=.245.\nSite Index 60.\n6=9.43.\nc=.208.\nSite Index 80.\n6=\nc=\nSite Ir\n9.75.\n.177.\ndex 100.\n6 = 10.01.\nc=.153.\nSite Index 120.\n6=10.19.\nc=.135.\nSite Index 140.\n6=10.33.\nc = .121.\nSite Index 160.\nTop\nD.I.B.\n(Inches).\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\n8\n61\n23\n67\n26\n71\n28\n75\n30\n77\n31\n79\n32\n6.0\n10\n71\n49\n78\n56\n84\n62\n89\n67\n93\n71\n96\n74\n6.5\n12\n78\n88\n88\n105\n96\n120\n103\n130\n107\n140\n111\n145\n7.0\n14\n84\n140\n96\n175\n106\n200\n115\n220\n121\n235\n126\n245\n7.4\n16\n87\n200\n102\n255\n115\n300\n126\n335\n133\n360\n139\n380\n7.8\n18\n88\n260\n107\n345\n123\n415\n135\n470\n144\n510\n151\n640\n8.2\n20\n88\n320\n110\n435\n129\n545\n144\n630\n154\n690\n163\n730\n8.6\n22\n88\n385\n111\n540\n133\n680\n151\n810\n163\n890\n173\n950\n9.0\n24\n88\n445\n111\n630\n136\n820\n157\n1000\n171\n1110\n183\n1200\n9.4\n26\n88\n510\n111\n720\n138\n970\n161\n1190\n178\n1340\n191\n1470\n9.8\n28\n88\n580\n111\n820\n139\n1120\n165\n1400\n184\n1600\n199\n1770\n10.2\n30\n88\n660\n111\n930\n139\n1270\n167\n1610\n189\n1880\n206\n2090\n10.6\n32\n88\n740\n111\n1050\n139\n1430\n168\n1830\n192\n2160\n211\n2430\n11.0\n34\n88\n810\n111\n1160\n139\n1590\n168\n2040\n195\n2440\n216\n2770\n11.4\n36\n88\n890\n111\n1280\n139\n1760\n168\n2260\n196\n2730\n220\n3130\n11.8\n38\n88\n980\n111\n1390\n139\n1930\n168\n2480\n197\n3020\n222\n3480\n12.2\n40\n111\n1510\n139\n2100\n168\n2700\n197\n3300\n224\n3830\n12.6\n42\n111\n1620\n139\n2260\n168\n2910\n197\n3570\n225\n4170\n13.0\n44\n111\n1740\n139\n2420\n168\n3120\n197\n3830\n225\n4500\n13.4\n46\n111\n1840\n139\n2570\n168\n3320\n197\n4090\n225\n4820\n13.8\n48\n111\n1930\n139\n2710\n168\n3530\n197\n4350\n225\n5130\n14.2\n50\n111\n2010\n139\n2850\n168\n3730\n197\n4610\n225\n5450\n14.6\nNote.\u2014Site index based on height of dominants and codominants at 100 years.\nVolumes calculated from standard western hemlock volume table based on D.B.H. and total height (Table 9,\nVolume, Yield, and Stand Tables, B.C. Forest Service, 1936). Minimum stump height, 2.0 feet for trees 24 inches;\nstump height for trees above 24 inches, same as D.B.H. Top D.I.B.=4.6 inches+0.2 D.B.H., O.B. Trees scaled in\n32.6-foot logs. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 15\nPreliminary Site-class Volume Table\u2014Mature Cedar.\nTop D.I.B. = 0.419 D.B.H., O.B.+2.18. Total height=4.5 + 6D\u2014cD2. 6= \u20143.84 + 160c.\n6=2.73.\nc=.0411.\nSite Class VI.\n6 = 3.80.\nc=.0478.\nSite Class V.\n6=4.74.\nc=.0535.\nSite Class IV.\n6=5.66.\no=.0591.\nSite Class III.\n6=6.55.\nc=.0649.\nSite Class II.\n6=7.41.\nc=.0704.\nSite Class I.\nTop\nD.I.B.\n\u00ab\nri\nri\n(Inches).\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\nTotal\nHt.\nVol.\n8\n24\n3\n32\n5\n39\n8\n46\n10\n53\n13\n59\n17\n5.5\n10\n28\n7\n38\n12\n47\n17\n55\n23\n64\n30\n72\n37\n6.4\n12\n31\n11\n43\n20\n54\n30\n64\n42\n74\n54\n83\n67\n7.2\n14\n35\n18\n48\n29\n60\n44\n72\n69\n84\n92\n94\n115\n8.0\n1.6\n38\n28\n53\n50\n67\n78\n80\n110\n93\n140\n105\n175\n8.9\n18\n40\n38\n57\n72\n73\n115\n87\n155\n101\n205\n115\n290\n9.7\n20\n43\n53\n61\n100\n78\n155\n94\n220\n109\n285\n124\n360\n10.6\n22\n45\n69\n65\n135\n83\n210\n100\n290\n117\n390\n133\n490\n11.4\n24\n47\n88\n68\n175\n88\n275\n106\n380\n124\n510\n142\n650\n12.2\n26\n48\n110\n71\n215\n92\n345\n112\n495\n131\n650\n150\n830\n13.1\n28\n49\n130\n73\n265\n95\n425\n117\n620\n137\n810\n157\n1050\n14.0\n30\n50\n150\n75\n315\n98\n510\n121\n740\n143\n1000\n164\n1280\n14.8\n32\n50\n170\n77\n370\n101\n610\n125\n890\n148\n1200\n170\n1550\n15.6\n34\n50\n190\n78\n430\n104\n720\n129\n1060\n152\n1420\n175\n1830\n16.5\n36\n50\n215\n79\n490\n106\n830\n132\n1230\n156\n1660\n180\n2150\n17.3\n38\n50\n240\n80\n560\n107\n940\n134\n1400\n160\n1920\n185\n2500\n18.1\n40\n50\n265\n80\n620\n108\n1050\n136\n1580\n163\n2190\n189\n2870\n19,0\n42\n50\n290\n80\n680\n109\n1170\n138\n1780\n165\n2470\n192\n3250\n19.8\n44\n50\n315\n80\n740\n109\n1290\n139\n1980\n167\n2750\n195\n3650\n20.6\n46\n50\n345\n80\n800\n110\n1410\n140\n2180\n.168\n3030\n197\n4030\n21.5\n48\n50\n375\n80\n870\n110\n1530\n140\n2360\n169\n3330\n198\n4400\n22.3\n50\n50\n405\n80\n950\n110\n1660\n140\n2550\n170\n3630\n199\n4830\n23.1\n52\n80\n1020\n110\n1790\n140\n2750\n170\n3910\n200\n5280\n24.0\n54\n80\n1090\n110\n1930\n140\n2960\n170\n4210\n200\n5700\n24.8\n56\n80\n1170\n110\n2060\n140\n3170\n170\n4520\n200\n6100\n25.6\n58\n80\n1250\n110\n2200\n140\n3380\n170\n4820\n200\n6500\n26.5\n60\n80\n1330\n110\n2350\n140\n3610\n170\n5130\n200\n6900\n27.3\n62\n110\n2500\n140\n3850\n170\n5450\n200\n7350\n28.2\n64\n110\n2660\n140\n4100\n170\n5800\n200\n7850\n29.0\n66\n110\n2830\n140\n4350\n170\n6150\n200\n8350\n29.9\n68\n110\n2990\n140\n4600\n170\n6550\n200\n8850\n30.7\n70\n110\n3160\n140\n4850\n170\n6900\n200\n9300\n31.3\n72\n140\n5100\n170\n7250\n200\n9800\n32.3\n74\n140\n5400\n170\n7650\n200\n10300\n33.2\n76\n140\n5650\n170\n8050\n200\n10850\n34.0\n78\n140\n5950\n170\n8450\n200\n11400\n34.9\n80\n140\n6250\n170\n8900\n200\n11950\n35.7 00 16\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nGrowth Studies.\nFor the purpose of determining the total ages of older trees when ring-counts are\nmade at known heights above the ground, an analysis was made of a number of dominant hemlock and Sitka spruce seedlings and saplings growing under average conditions\non the Queen Charlotte Islands. The resulting data are presented in the following\ntable:\u2014\nHEIGHT-GROWTH OF SPRUCE AND HEMLOCK.\nQueen Charlotte Islands.\nTotal Height (Feet).\nTotal Age.\nTotal Height (Feet).\nTotal Age.\nSpruce.\nHemlock.\nSpruce.\nHemlock.\n1\t\n2.5\n3.8\n4.9\n6.0\n6.8\n7.5\n8.2\n8.8\n9.3\n3.3\n3.8\n5.0\n6.0\n6.8\n7.7\n8.5\n9.0\n9.6\n10\t\n9.8\n10.8\n11.8\n12.7\n13.5\n14.4\n16.2\n23.2\n10.3\n2\t\n12\t\n11.5\n3\t\n14                  \t\n12.6\n4\t\n16\t\n13.7\n5\t\n18    ..                      \t\n14.7\n6\t\n20\t\n15.9\n7\t\n25\t\n18.5\n8\t\n30                   \t\n21.0\n9\t\nThe percentage volume in total cubic feet of hemlock and Douglas fir was determined in fifty-six permanent plots, with an interval averaging fourteen years between\nfirst and last examination. Plots with 80 per cent, or greater volume of either hemlock\nor Douglas fir did not show a significant change in composition. In the mixed types\nwith less than 80 per cent, of the volume being in any one species, the stand averaged\n52 per cent, hemlock, 36 per cent, fir, and 12 per cent, other species. Douglas fir in the\nlatter types increased 4 per cent, in composition per decade from thirty to fifty years,\nwith a corresponding decrease in hemlock. The relative proportion of Douglas fir on\nplots over fifty years of age showed no significant change. These findings are in contradiction to the theory frequently put forward that the proportion of Douglas fir in\nimmature mixtures increases significantly with age. Any increase in the status of\nDouglas fir is found to occur in the first fifty years of the life of the stand.\nAs a result of the periodic remeasurement of the permanent yield-plots, some of\nwhich have now been under observation for nearly twenty years, it is possible to compile some tables of average yield. These data constitute a check against preliminary\nyield tables based on temporary plots. A summary of the latest compilations is presented in the following table:\u2014\nAVERAGE YIELDS, COAST PERMANENT PLOTS.\nDouglas Fir.\nHemlock.\nHemlock-Fir.\nTotal Age.\nTotal\nCu. Ft.\n(100's).\nMerch. B.F.\nTotal\nCu. Ft.\n(100's).\nMerch. B.F.\nTotal\nCu. Ft.\n(100's).\nMerch. B.F.\nInt. y8\n(1,000's).\nB C\n(1,000's).\nInt. y8\n(1,000's).\n(1,000's).\nInt. y8\n(1,000's).\n(1,000's).\n20\t\n7.5\n21.0\n37.0\n62.0\n67.0\n82.0\n97.0\n112.0\n5\n15\n2-7\n40\n53\n65\n78\n3.5\n12.5\n22.0\n31.0\n40.0\n48.0\n54.0\n10\n34\n60\n84\n104\n122\n132\n150\n7\n23\n41\n58\n75\n90\n102\n4.5\n14.0\n24.0\n35.0\n46.0\n56.0\n65.0\n9\n30\n34\n75\n92\n108\n122\n136\n6\n20\n34\n50\n66\n79\n92\n30\t\n40\t\n13\n50\t\n60\t\n34\n45\n55\n65\n70\t\n80\t\n90\t\nThe volume is based on fifty-five plots. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 17\nUtilization Studies.\nAn analysis was made of the top diameters to which trees are cut in Coast logging\noperations to determine if the standards used in Forest Service volume tables for\nmature stands needed adjustment.\nRELATIONSHIP OF UTILIZED TOP D.I.B. TO D.B.H.\nHemlock, 1945.\nLocality.\nWest Coast,\nVancouver\nIsland.\nQueen Charlotte Islands.\nTopography\t\nNumber of trees\t\nD.B.H. range\t\nD.B.H. average\t\nTop range\t\nTop average\t\nStandard error, top diameter\t\nPer cent, variance in tops associated with diameters\nSlope\n283\n13\"-56\"\n28\"\n8\"-32\"\n16.5\"\n\u00b12.80\"\n76\nSlope\n323\n15\"-60\"\n28\"\n8\"-33\"\n16.3\"\n\u00b13.60\"\n44\nFlat\n181\n15\"-45\"\n26\"\n10\"-24\"\n13.5\"\n\u00b12.65\"\n34\nFormula.\nVolume tables:   Top D.I.B.=2.1\"+.419 D.B.H., O.B.\nWest Coast slope:   Top D.I.B.=5.0\"+.412 D.B.H., O.B.\nQueen Charlotte slope:   Top D.I.B. = 6.2\"+.325 D.B.H., O.B.\nQueen Charlotte flat:   Top D.I.B.=7.4\"+.235 D.B.H., O.B.\nHemlock.\nAverage Top D.I.B.\nD.B.H.\nWest Coast,\nVancouver\nIsland,\nSlope.\nQueen Charlotte Islands.\nTops used\nin Volume\nTables.\n*\nSlope.\nFlat.\n12                            \t\n10.0\n13.3\n17.4\n21.5\n25.6\n29.8\n10.0\n12.7\n15.9\n19.2\n22.4\n25.7\n10.0\n12.1\n14.4\n16.8\n19.1\n21.5\n7.0\n20             \t\n10.4\n30\t\n40                 \t\n14.6\n18.8\n50                           \t\n23.0\nOnly four trees in this study were cut to an 8-inch top. The tendency was to utilize\ntrees which would cut a 40-foot log to a 10-inch top. Larger trees were cut to the\nbreak in the top. The portion above the break in the larger trees is usually very limby,\nrough, and broken up into short sections, and of doubtful practical merchantability.\nThe fact that trees are cut to the break in the top accounts for the similarity in the\ntop utilization now and twenty years ago. The breakage varies with slope, as shown\nin the comparison of trees cut on the West Coast in 1945, and the lower Mainland in\n1924. The West Coast is steeper than the areas being logged on the Lower Mainland\nin 1924, which accounts for the tops being about 3 inches larger.\nThe standard error of top diameter gives an indication of the spread in the size of\ntops. For example, the spread from the average shown for each D.B.H. class will not\nbe more than \u00b11 standard error 68 per cent, of the time, \u00b12 standard error 95 per\ncent, of the time, and \u00b13 standard error 99.7 per cent, of the time. Example, on the\nWest Coast the average 30-inch tree is cut to a 17.4-inch top. In 5 per cent, of the\ntrees the range in tops will be 2 standard error=2X2.8 = 5.6 inches above or below\nthe average top, or between 11.8 inches and 22.0 inches. 00 18\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nThe study also shows that on the West Coast 76 per cent, of the variance in tops\nis associated with diameter and 24 per cent, with other factors. However, on the\nQueen Charlotte Islands less than half of the variance was associated with change in\ndiameter. This indicates the need for further studies to determine why this condition\nexists.\nAlthough the volume of logs has been decreasing at the rate of 100 board-feet per\ndecade, this decrease is mainly due to the decrease in quality of the stands and the\nutilization of smaller trees rather than closer cutting in the top of old-growth stands.\nEven in salvage operations the bulk of the material will come from the smaller trees\nin the stands rather than the rough old-growth tops.\nThis study shows that the top diameters inside bark, used in our standard tables,\nare satisfactory for cruising old-growth timber on the Coast. It also shows that tables\nbased on a uniform top would be less satisfactory for our conditions.\nSilvicultural Studies.\nSouthern Coast Forest.\nSilvicultural research in the Douglas fir types was directed towards making full\nuse of established projects by re-examination of experimental plots designed to give\ndata which will add to knowledge of seed production, natural regeneration, direct\nseeding, pruning, and thinning.\nThe Douglas fir cone crop was a failure in 1946, as was expected after an excellent\ncrop the previous year. On the Queen Charlotte Islands the crop of Sitka spruce was\nalso a failure. No crop was produced on any coniferous species in the Lower Fraser\nValley, where there has not been a good Douglas fir crop since 1941. Observations of\nseed production in the Coast Douglas fir types, based on counts of cones on plots established to study the volume of seed produced by stands of various ages, and plots which\nfollow seed production from year to year on individual trees in different age and site\nclasses, are beginning to yield objective data on size and periodicity of cone crops.\nThe following table gives this information for recent crops:\u2014\nSEED PRODUCTION FOR DOUGLAS FIR ON VANCOUVER ISLAND.\nStand Type.\nYear of Crop.\n1938.\n1939.\n1940.     1941.      1942.  1  1943.\n1944.\n1945.\n1946.\nPercentage of Trees bearing Crops.\nScattered  mature,  residual  after logging  on\n95\n76    |     26\n98\n10    j     97    j      5\n100\n0\nPercentage of Trees bearing Good Crops.\nYoung growth and mature in stands on good sites.\n45\n31\n0\n43\n0\n1\n29            2\n52\n0\nThere were three productive crops throughout the type during the nine-year period,\nan excellent crop in 1945, with two good ones close together in 1938 and 1941.\nThe conditions of site on cut-over areas change with the passage of time, and these\nchanges are being studied in relation to the rate of regeneration on typical Douglas fir\nsites. Experimental plots have been under observation on two sites of fair quality.\nA comparison of the regeneration following good to excellent seed crops in the first, REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 19\nthird, and eighth years following logging gives interesting results.    The data are as\nfollows:\u2014\u2022\nYears after Logging.\nProportion op Total.\nCone Crops.\nGermination.\nSurvival.\nOne\t\n25\n35\n40\n24\n37\n39-\n24\nThree\t\n32\nEight\t\n44\nThese results indicate that the Douglas fir sites being studied are as receptive to\nreproduction eight years after logging as at the beginning of regeneration. In fact,\nthe last crop of seed produced better results than for the previous years because of slow\ndevelopment of vegetation on these areas.\nA fair survival of Douglas fir was obtained on direct-seeded spots spaced 5 by 5 feet.\nAt ten years, when crowns were beginning to meet, it was reported (Forest Branch\nReport, 1943) that the dominant tree on spots crowded with several trees was of good\nform and taller than those on spots where only one tree survived. This apparently\nbeneficial condition had changed at 15 years of age, when the bases of crowded trees\nwere beginning to come together. In open parts of the stand these trees developed\nenough bend at the base to affect form. To check on the effect of this condition, some\nof the multiple-tree spots have been reduced to one tree. This will give a comparison\nwith the growth on crowded spots, released spots, and spots bearing a single tree\nthroughout. During the first three years of this study, mortality was 39 per cent., but\nthere was no more loss until Armillaria disease and suppression entered the stand seven\nyears later. From 10 to 15 years, the loss from these causes was 9 per cent. When\nthe trees on seed spots were 10 years old, natural regeneration surrounding the plot\nwas not conspicuous because the stocking is low, but at 15 years the natural reproduction has the appearance of being much denser than formerly. Although three to four\nyears younger, it now almost masks the seeded plot.\nIn silvicultural improvement of stands, thinning and pruning operations contribute\nto the effectiveness of each other. Thinnings are designed to increase the growth of\nwood on fewer trees, but Douglas fir will not naturally produce any appreciable quantity\nof clear wood on these favoured trees within limited rotations. To warrant the\nthinning, it becomse necessary to improve the quality of production by pruning. In\n1942 the dominant trees in a plantation on a very good site at Green Timbers Forestry\nStation were pruned to 7 feet high in a test of tool efficiency. The study of methods\nwas continued with a second pruning from 7 feet to 13 feet four years later, when the\nstand was in its seventeenth year.    Characteristics of the coniferous component of the\nStand at the tWO ages were :  At 12 Years   At 16 Years\nof Age. of Age.\nNumber of Douglas fir over 0.5 inch D.B.H.____per ac. 825 713\nTotal basal area per acre sq. ft. 31.06 41.00\nAverage D.B.H.  in. 2.6 3.2\nAverage height ft. 19.7 24.5\nLowest green branch  ft. 0.9 6.2\nLowest dead branch  ft. 0.0 0.5\nAverage height of pruned trees ft. 23.6 31.1\nDouble-cutting California or curved-type pruning-saws, the tool found most efficient\nin the first pruning, were used for the second pruning.    To determine the relative\nefficiency of two methods, the pruning was done by five workers, each using a 10-inch\n2 00 20 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nsaw on an 8-foot ladder and a 14-inch saw on an 8-foot pole. The pruning in 1942\nconfirmed the finding of previous studies that Douglas fir should not be pruned above\nhalf the height of the tree; some trees pruned when too small were lost. As previously\nreported (Forest Branch Report, 1942) the low pruning averaged 6.4 minutes per tree\n(pruning and walking between trees). Underbrush was very dense in 1942, and it\nwas found that moving from tree to tree used a large proportion of the time. At the\npresent time, hardwood trees in the undergrowth have their crowns above pruning\nheight, and the density of ground-cover has been reduced by heavy shade from the\nupper canopy. For the current pruning from 7 to 13 feet by ladder and hand-saw,\npruning and walking time averaged 5.6 minutes per tree, and saw-cleaning and resting\ntook another 0.7 minutes. The pole saws were less satisfactory for pruning in stands.\nIn this still relatively dense stand the pole saw is tiresome to use, and there is a tendency for the operator to reach around the tree for a branch, resulting in branch-stubs\nbeing left. Total time per tree was 13 per cent, more than with ladder and saw. Not\nthe least of the variables affecting pruning time are diameter of tree and texture of\nwood. This study showed that trees having branches of similar thickness vary from\nvery .soft to very hard wood which markedly decreases or increases the effort needed to\nremove the branches. A history of the rate of healing has been kept for two branches\non each of eighty trees pruned to 7 feet high. After two seasons of growth, healing\nwas complete on both sides of 9 per cent, of the trees, and one knot was completely\ncovered on 4 per cent., but one year later the respective figures were 50 and 15 per cent.\nAfter spring pruning, growth callous starts to form immediately and, after three years,\nmore than half of the wounds are totally occluded. Thereafter, continuous growth-\nrings will add clear wood on the pruned trees. The amount of healing relative to the\nsize of wound will be worked out when all wounds are completely closed. Healing is\nmost rapid on trees pruned tangential to the bole, slightly less when the collar of bark\nat the base of branches is left, and much slower when pruned with shears or axes.\nTwo methods of pruning to a height of 13 feet in one operation were tried this year.\nIt was thought that, in stands of very dense undergrowth due to incomplete crown-\ncover, climbing the trees would compare favourably with using a ladder in pruning.\nTwo acres of a plantation were pruned under these conditions, using two operators\nand marked trees. Pruning in one step with ladders was less laborious and took only\nthree-quarters of the time required for the same operation by climbing. The ladder-\nand-saw method required 7.7 minutes per tree (6.6 minutes pruning, 0.6 minutes walking from tree to tree, and 0.5 minutes resting and cleaning saws). To do the same\noperation in two steps\u2014that is, to prune through the stand to 7 feet high from the\nground and then to take the ladders through for the second step\u2014took over 40 per\ncent, more time. To make a two-stage pruning four years apart leaves a knotty core\nbelow 7 feet similar in diameter and taper to the core above this height, but it may be\ncheaper in some circumstances to delay the first pruning until it can be made in one\nstep to 13 feet on trees 4.5 inches D.B.H. at age 17 years or more for Douglas fir.\nOperations this year emphasize the effect of utilization on thinnings. Because\ncuttings in very young stands have to be left on the ground, there is a tendency to\nremove a minimum volume in thinning and cleaning. Topography is a consideration\nin the extraction of cuttings; in order to economically thin plots and compartments,\nstands must be located where there is no adverse grade to the nearest truck-road.\nCurrent thinnings from a 35-year-old stand of Douglas fir were absorbed by the export\nmarket for pit-props. All cuttings between 4% inches and 7 inches D.B.H. were peeled\nand cut to 7 feet, 6 feet, or 4% feet. A few large trees which should have been cut at\na younger age were removed and used for mine slope-timbers. A few small trees cut\nwere left on the ground. The remainder yielded 4 cords per acre, or a value of $48 per\nacre at the forest for disposal of the cuttings. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 21\nNorthern Coast Forest.\nRegeneration adjacent to Skidegate Lake, Queen Charlotte Islands, was sampled\nby the stocked-quadrat method on four lines of quadrats. On all conditions of site\ninvestigated restocking was excellent. The results on comparable burned and unburned\nareas, together with an unburned area of opposite aspect, are shown in the following\ntable:\u2014\nType.\nPercentage\nof Quadrats\nstocked in\n1946.\nPercentage Composition.\nNumber of\n.004-ac.\nQuadrats.\nSpruce.\nHemlock.\nCedar.\nAspect south\u2014\n97\n82\n87\n35\n48\n15\n53\n27\n80\n12\n25\n5\n36\nBurned 1942\t\n40\n30\nReproduction on the unburned areas resulted from numerous seed-trees left after\nlogging. Apparently, in this type, satisfactory restocking is as readily obtained on\nsouthern slopes as on northern slopes, but the unburned northern aspect induces a\ngreater proportion of hemlock reproduction in relation to spruce and cedar. Hemlock\nseems to reproduce better on unburned sites, but this difference could be due to variation in composition of the seed-supply, as well as difference in treatment of site.\nPERMANENT STUDY-PLOTS ESTABLISHED AS AT 1946.\nDescription of Project.\nNumber of Plots.\nProject.\nGroup.\nGrowth and yield studies\t\nCoast forest types\t\nSouthern Interior types -\t\nCentral Interior types\t\nSilvicultural studies\t\nOn cut-over land\u2014\nSeed dissemination from standing trees\t\nSurvival of seed trees\t\nArtificial seeding\t\nGrowth of exotic trees\t\nCompetition between broom and Douglas fir\t\nIn young stands\u2014\nThinnings\t\nPrimings _\t\nChristmas tree cuttings\t\nIn mature stands\u2014\nSelective cutting\t\nSlash-disposal methods\t\nRegional studies\t\nNatural regeneration in representative districts^\nAlberni, Vancouver Island\t\nCowichan Lake, Vancouver Island\t\nAlouette Lake, Fraser Valley\t\nSkidegate Lake, Queen Charlotte Islands\t\n405\n17\n137\n14\n4\n2\n1\n1\n7\n7\n1\n4\n6\n1,200\n600\n500\n80\n559\n47\nTotal Area of\nPlots (Acres).\n4.8\n6.0\n5.0\n0.1 00 22 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nSOIL SURVEYS AND RESEARCH.\nAs a result of some casual studies made in 1941, it was suggested that the ground\nvegetation might be used as an indicator of forest-site quality. This was developed\ninto a research programme in 1944. Progress reports have appeared in Forest Service\nreports for 1944 and 1945. Studies in the Douglas fir types were completed during\n1946, and a preliminary report on the classification of forest-site quality by the use of\nthe natural vegetation is being prepared for publication.    A brief outline follows.\nThe quality of a site is fundamentally the result of physical, chemical, and biological activity reacting with the soil and climatic environment. The biological concept of\nsite is based on the assumption that the natural vegetation, after a period of competition in which the unadaptable species perish, approaches an equilibrium with the complex of growth factors. Specific plant communities are, therefore, the result of, and\nare expressive of, the growth factors characterizing different growing-sites. This is\nthe theory of A. K. Cajander, who first developed the use of plant indicators for forest\nclassification in Finland. The studies in question constitute an attempt to adapt\nCajander's theory to Pacific North-west conditions.\nThe area of study was first confined to second-growth Douglas fir on Vancouver\nIsland and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. During the past summer the\nwork was extended (through the courtesy of the United States Forest Service) to\nwestern Washington and Oregon. This entire area is an ecological unit called the\nCoast Forest Climax Formation.\nThroughout this area there is a remarkable constancy in the composition of the\ndifferent plant communities that were found to be indicative of site quality. Five main\nplant communities or site types were recognized.\nIn spite of the observed constancy in the composition of these site types, certain\nmodifications in the composition of the plant cover were noted which corresponded with\nsmall climatic variations within the general climatic province. For this reason it has\nbeen necessary to recognize climatic subdivisions, four of which are briefly described\nas follows:\u2014\nA.\u2014Wet temperate  climate with  summer fogs.    Occurs  as  a narrow belt\nbordering the ocean-front.    Hemlock, cedar, and spruce forests general.\nB.\u2014Humid temperate climate with a moderately dry summer period.   Occurs\non south-east coast of Vancouver Island, eastern exposure of Olympic\nMountains,  and  western  exposure  of  Cascade  and  Coast  Mountains.\nDouglas fir with some cedar and hemlock general.\nC.\u2014Humid  temperate climate with  pronounced moisture deficiency during\nsummer months.    Occurs on southern tip of Vancouver Island; Tacoma-\nChehalis area, Washington;   and Willamette Valley, Oregon.    A Douglas\nfir invasion of prairie and oak groves characteristic.\nD.\u2014Sub-humid temperate climate with a short frost-free period of less than\n120 days.    Occurs at elevations above 2,000 feet and in inland shielded\nvalleys.    Douglas fir, cedar, hemlock, and some Amabilis fir general.\nIt is possible that there are two or three more subdivisions typical of the climatic\nextremes of the Coast Forest Climax Formation which have not yet been studied in\ndetail.\nBefore summarizing the composition of the five plant communities indicative of\nsite quality, a brief outline of the important features of a plant community is necessary.\nA plant community is essentially homogenous in respect to the dominant and other\nfrequently occurring plant species. The occurrence of any individual species is not\nconfined to any one plant community, but it is the combination of a number of species\nhaving respect to vigour and abundance that is characteristic. A few species are found\nto be exclusive to one community only, but their occurrence is generally sporadic. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 23\nIn the field, changes in the complex of growth or site factors tend to occur in a\nprogressive fashion, consequently corresponding changes in the vegetation will occur\nas gradual transitions. For this reason the description of a site type cannot be reduced\nto precise terms, and the recognition of site types in the field must be based on an\nappreciation of natural trends between \" pure \" types. The five main plant communities or site types are named for the most conspicuous species of the respective communities.    They are as follows:\u2014\n1. P type or Polystichum (Sword fern) site type.\n2. P G type or Polystichum-Gaultheria (Sword fern-salal) site type.\n3. G type or Gaultheria (Salal) site type.\n4. G Pa type or Gaultheria-Parmelia (Salal-\" pale green \" lichen) site type.\n5. G U type or Gaultheria-Usnia (Salal-\" bearded \" lichen) site type.\nThe following summary of the composition of these site types is based on studies\nlargely centred in Climatic Division B, the most common in the Douglas fir region.\nThe modifications of these site types when occurring in other climatic subdivisions\nwill also be discussed briefly.\n1. P type or Polystichum (Sword fern) site type.\nThis site type is characterized by a wide variety of hygrophytic plants.\nThe dominant-codominant combination consists of any two of the following:\nSword fern, May leaf, Oxalis, Vancouveria, and Wild lily of the valley.\nThree or more of the following species are always present: Elderberry,\nDevil's club, Woodrush, Lady fern, Deer fern, Maidenhair fern, Salmonberry,\nMiner's lettuce, Tiarella, Fairy bell, Twisted stalk, and False hellebore.\nMnium moss appears to indicate this site when growing on the ground\nand decayed logs.\nSalal and Oregon grape are frequently absent from this site type, and, if\npresent, they grow with a low abundance and vigour.\n2. P G type or Polystichum-Gaultheria (Sword fern-salal) site type.\nThis is an intermediate type between the first and the third. The\ndominant-codominant combination consists of Sword fern or May leaf or\nOxalis or Vancouveria and Salal or Oregon grape.\nOne or two of the hygrophytic species listed above are generally present,\nbut more than two is indicative of the P type rather than the P G type.\nOne or more of the shrubs listed in the next site type may be present,\nthough their occurrence is not general.\nThe most indicative feature is the conflict between the dominants of the\nP type and the G type for supremacy.\n3. G type or Gaultheria (Salal) site type.\nIn this site type Salal and Oregon grape form the dominant-codominant\ncombination. Sword fern, May leaf, or Oxalis are generally present but do\nnot grow with the vigour or abundance characteristic of the better sites.\nThe absence of the hygrophytic group of plants can be considered as\nevidence of this site type.\nA number of shrubs occur quite frequently. They include Waxberry,\nOcean spray, Saskatoon berry, Wild rose, and Honeysuckle.\nA characteristic of the G type is that Salal and one or more of the shrubs\nfrequently form a high shrub layer (over 4 feet tall).\nMnium moss is replaced by Dicranum moss in this site type.\nTree lichens are quite common. 00 24 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n4. G Pa type or Gaultheria-Parmelia (Salal-\" pale green \" lichen) site type.\nSalal and Oregon grape invariably form the dominant-codominant\ncombination.\nSword fern and May leaf may be present but with a very low vigour.\nThe hygrophytic plants are entirely absent.\nAny of the shrubs of the G type may be present.\nA new group of plants indicative of poor sites may be noted. They\ninclude Prince's pine, Coral root, Poque, Lupins, Kinnikinick, and several of\nthe Monotropacese family.\nThe most characteristic feature, however, is the increased abundance of\ntree lichens. The most abundant and common species is Parmelia (provisionally called \" pale green \" lichen).\n5. G U type or Gaultheria-V snea (Salal-\" bearded \" lichen) site type.\nAgain, Salal and Oregon grape invariably form the dominant-codominant\ncombination. Other plants of this site type include those mentioned under the\nG Pa type.    Prince's pine and rose occur frequently and with fair abundance.\nSome of the \" dry \" mosses, such as Racimitrium, Hypnum, Polytrichum,\nand Dicranum, are indicative of this site type.\nTree lichens are most abundant and conspicuous. Besides Parmelia or\n\" pale green \" lichen, Usnea or \" bearded \" lichen is notable.\nStudies to date in Climatic Subdivisions A, C, and D are somewhat limited. It\nappears, however, that the site types described above can be recognized in all climatic\ndivisions. There are some species though that tend to occur more frequently in one\nclimatic subdivision than another, thus modifying the general description.\nIn Climatic Subdivision A the following hygrophytic species occur frequently in\nthe P type: Bleeding heart, Swamp currant, Woodrush, Devil's club, Elderberry, Deer\nfern, and Salmonberry. Two species, Blueberry and False azalea, while not good\nindicators of site quality, seem to characterize Climatic Division A.\nClimatic Subdivision C is characterized by the absence of those species typical of\nSubdivision A. Species more common in Subdivision C than B include Brome-grass,\nSilver green, Sweet Cicely, Bedstraw, Strawberry, Wild lettuce, Waxberry, Ocean spray,\nSaskatoon berry, and Honeysuckle. A number of species are almost exclusive. They\ninclude Mahonia or tall Oregon grape, Poison oak, Sandwort, Yerba Buena, Arbutus,\nBird cherry, and oak. Grass and Silver green in some cases occur as dominants in the\nP and the P G types.    The shrubs may be found in all site types.\nIn Climatic Subdivision D the addition of the following species modify the general\ndescription: Bunchberry, Queen's cup, Mountain blueberry, Pine lily, and False box.\nTwinflower also occurs with considerable abundance.\nIn this brief summary no mention has been made of a number of species that\nappear to have no indicator value, being common to all sites. It has not been possible\nto mention a number of other characteristics, nor trends of vigour and abundance that\nare important in site identification.\nThe height and volume growth of Douglas fir associated with each of these site\ntypes is illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. It should be emphasized that these stand statistics\nhave been computed independently for each site type. The inclusion or rejection of\nany data was on the basis of the natural vegetation and not on mensurational data of\nthe stand itself. This is in contrast to the conventional method of classifying site\nquality by the height-growth of dominant and codominant trees, as illustrated by the\nBritish Columbia Forest Service and the United States Forest Service site curves shown\non the same figures. Fig. 1, Average height of dominant and codominant trees, by site types,\nfor Douglas fir.\n3D 40 50 60 70 80    \"\"        90 100 10 120 130\nAG E\nFig. 2. Average yield per acre in cubic feet, by site types, for Douglas fir.  REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. 00 25\nThere are a number of reasons for believing that this classification of site by the\nuse of the natural vegetation is an improvement over the conventional method in which\nsites are graphical abstractions derived from a purely mathematical treatment of height\ndata. The most practical advantage is that, in the field, changes in site are readily\nobserved, through changes in the ground-cover, as an area is traversed. This means\nthat sites can be accurately delineated and mapped. This is not possible when height-\ngrowth is used as a criterion of site quality, unless very numerous samples of height\nand age determinations are systematically taken over the area.\nThis study of site classification cannot be regarded as completed, for there are\nseveral other climatic regions within British Columbia where an entirely new vegetation will be found. One phase, however, is believed to be completed in that sufficient\ndata have been studied to establish the principle that plant communities do indicate\nsite quality in the Pacific North-west.\nDuring the past year a study was started relative to the identification of site types\nin recently logged and burned areas. The vegetation on these areas is greatly modified\nfrom that which was originally present under green timber. This is regarded as a\nmost important study, complementing the original study of site indicators. The results\nto date would suggest that the ground-cover does indicate site quality within a few\nyears after burning. More information is needed before a definite statement on this\nproblem is possible.\nPROVINCIAL PARKS.\nAlthough no major change in Provincial Park acreage occurred during the past\nyear, there were several additions and subtractions. Kitsumgallum Park, 25 acres in\narea and located on the shores of Kitsumgallum Lake, north of Terrace, British\nColumbia, was created a Class \"A\" park. White Rock Park, a Class \" C \" park, was\neliminated as a Provincial Park and turned over to a local park board for administration. Water-power developments at Elk Falls necessitated the elimination of 246 acres\nfrom Elk Falls Park.\nThe following table summarizes the Provincial Parks in British Columbia to\nDecember 31st, 1946:\u2014\nClassification. Number of Parks. Acres.\nClass \" A \"   17 288,681.6\nClass \" B \"   4 7,054,206.0\nClass \" C \"   27 3,994.4\nAdministered under special Park Acts  3 1,656,455.0\nTotals     51 9,003,337.0\nor 14,067.7 sq. miles.\nAs in preceding years, park funds were insufficient to undertake any large-scale\ndevelopment-work, but the usual maintenance-work and small improvements were\ncarried on in all the most important parks.\nOn Vancouver Island the most northern park, Elk Falls, was closed to the public\nbecause of the water-power construction project. However, the remaining Island\nParks\u2014Stamp Falls, Little Qualicum Falls, Englishman River Falls, and John Dean\u2014\nwere in charge of park attendants who recorded over a 10 per cent, increase in park\nvisitors from the year before. Little Qualicum Falls recorded over 4,400 visitors\nduring one summer month. Basic facilities, such as water-supply, camp-sites, and safe\nswimming-pools\u2014almost a necessity for such large numbers of people\u2014were never\nmade in the original developments nearly ten years ago and have been impossible since.\nAll the Island Parks are increasing in popularity, and to meet this influx of visitors,\na considerable programme of renovation and expansion is urgently needed. 00 26 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nPark furniture and signs were prefabricated during the winter and later placed in\nposition in the various parks. This method of construction proved to have many\nadvantages over work in the field.\nPeace Arch Park at the International Boundary near Blaine continues to give many\nthousands of visitors a very favourable and attractive welcome on their entry into\nCanada. The painting of the arch, as a joint British Columbia and State of Washington project, was the main improvement carried out this year. The establishment of\npicnic-grounds, parking area, and other necessary facilities would do much to prolong\nthe stay and add to the convenience of the many visitors.\nMount Seymour Park received considerable attention both in the attempts to have\na portion of road constructed and in general improvement-work carried on at the higher\nlevels. A special allotment provided for moneys to be used in road-construction, and\ntenders were called for a 2.3-mile section of road. No acceptable tenders were received,\nso authorization was given to the Forest Service to undertake the construction of the\nfirst section of the road. By the end of December, 1946, 2.7 miles of the original right-\nof-way had been reslashed and roughed out. An auxiliary project was the repair and\ngravelling of the present access road to the parking lot.\nThe administration building at the 3,300-foot level received light and water systems, furnace, and other necessary improvements to make it more habitable for the\nPark Ranger. The snow reached a depth of 22 feet around this building last winter and\ngave a thorough test to the rugged type of construction. A dam and diversion-ditch\nwere completed, which will now make it possible to add to the Park an area previously\nheld by the Greater Vancouver Water District. The range of the ski-jump has been\nextended by the erection of a 30-foot trestle. Considerable work was also done on the\nmain trail. Nearly a hundred applications for cabin-sites in this Park and the subsequent surveys, interviews, checking of plans, and inspection of sites occupied a great\nportion of the year's general administration programme.\nManning Park received a Park Ranger for the first time, and temporary Ranger\nheadquarters were built during the summer. In expectation of the construction of a\ncommercial resort, a survey was made and stakes set for the main unit and also for\nthe final Ranger station. Seven fires were fought within the Park, and, although the\ndamage was greatly lessened by having a Ranger on duty, the need for a more comprehensive system of fire detection and suppression was strikingly apparent. A general\nreconnaissance of the Park provided valuable information for planning lookouts, trails,\nand camp-sites.\nWells Gray Park was administered almost directly by the District Forester at\nKamloops. A Ranger was in summer residence at the Hemp Creek headquarters but,\nas most of his time was taken up on forest protection and land inspections, park\nimprovements were negligible. The need of a road to Dawson Falls to open the Park\nto approved commercial concerns and tourists was shown by the number of inquiries\nand plans presented by interested parties during the past year.\nA small amount of trail-work was done in Tweedsmuir Park by local guides in an\nendeavour to keep the many miles of trails in passable condition for trail-riding parties.\nFive areas were examined during the summer for park potentialities, and considerable map preparation has been done in the study of a proposed park to embrace the\nForbidden Plateau on Vancouver Island. New maps are also in the course of preparation for Mount Seymour and Manning Park.\nThe Garibaldi Park film was edited and released during 1946 and, together with\nthe Tweedsmuir Park film, has proven to be one of the more popular of the seventy-five\nfilms in the film library. The Mount Robson film has been edited but is not yet titled.\nA start on a sound movie of Manning Park was made during the summer and should\nbe completed in 1947. Lightning Lake, Manning Park.\nPicnic tables for Provincial Parks\n'\u00b0n' inning Pa\nCabin-building in Mount Seymour Park.  REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 27\nREFORESTATION DIVISION.\nA new division was established near the end of the year to look after the reforestation programme. Formerly this work had been carried on as a section of the Economics Division but, with increased personnel and expenditures, a new division was\ncreated to work towards the objective of twenty million trees annually.\nFOREST NURSERIES.\nThe first seed-beds at the Duncan nursery were sown in the spring and, although\ndisappointing, the 50-per-cent. germination and survival was to be expected in the\ndevelopment of a new nursery-site. Most of the loss was attributable to the excessive\nrains during the early summer and the prevalence of weeds on a new area. All land-\nclearing was completed, and the irrigation system was extended as far as supplies of\ngalvanized pipe would allow. A contract was let for the building of a workshop and\nimplement-shed, to be completed early in 1947.\nAt the Green Timbers and Campbell River nurseries, production was increased to\n7,000,000 and 6,000,000 trees respectively. This was achieved by increasing the number of seed-beds and also by increasing the density of seed broadcast per square foot\nby 20 per cent. Owing to a shortage of labour and materials, it was only with great\ndifficulty that the seed-beds were sown, and the use of student labour after school-hours\nwas necessary to complete the work.\nWeather conditions for the 1946 season were generally abnormal, with May being\nexceptionally dry, and June and July unusually wet. This wet weather was responsible\nfor excessive growth in the 2-0 stock, especially at Campbell River, and, as a result,\na considerable quantity of stock will have to be culled due to its large size.\nFurther experiments were carried out on the best fertilizer crop to use and, also,\non use of commercial weed-killers. The new 2-4-D weed-killer was tried out with great\nsuccess on practically all weeds, and especially on Canadian thistle and mare's-tail,\nwhich are among the more serious pests. When, however, experiments were carried\nout in the seed-beds, it was found that even the weakest solution, which had no effect on\nthe weeds, was fatal to the seedlings.\nA machine for the purpose of spreading the soil over the seed-beds was designed\nand constructed at Green Timbers, and tests have proved it very successful. With only\na few minor adjustments, the machine was used to spread 1,600 sacks of hardwood\nsawdust for winter mulch.\nSEED COLLECTIONS.\nNo collections were made in 1946, since the seed crop on the Lower Coast was a\ncomplete failure for all forest species but, as a result of the large collection made in\n1945, we still have on hand sufficient seed for two years' planting production.\nRECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEY-WORK.\nConsiderable reconnaissance was made of logged lands on the Lower Mainland to\ndetermine what areas may require reforestation. Of the 34,700 acres examined, only\n10 per cent, could be planted. This is attributed to the fact that areas which have\nbeen logged and burned will, if not fully restocked after five years have elapsed, have\ngrown up in deciduous growth to such an extent as to make planting of coniferous\nspecies inadvisable.\nDetailed surveys were made of areas previously examined, and maps were completed for four more planting projects with a total of 20,000 acres. 00 28\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nPLANTING.\nA slight improvement in the labour situation made it possible to carry on five\nplanting projects whereby a total of 3,670,200 trees were planted on 6,000 acres. These\nprojects were located at Jordan River; Hillcrest, near Duncan; Robertson River Valley,\nnear Cowichan Lake; Loveland Lake; and Salmon River, near Campbell River. Private companies planted 3,854,200 trees on 4,700 acres, which exceeded the total of all\nprevious plantings by industry. The complete statistics for the 1946 projects and a\nsummary of planting for the last ten years will be found on page 60 of appendix.\nNo plantations were destroyed by fire during 1946 and total losses due to fire\nremain at 621 acres.\nPlanting projects on Crown land were carried on under adverse weather and labour\nconditions. In spite of the increased wages, it was difficult to keep crews up to strength\nand, at one project, army personnel were used. This arrangement was not satisfactory\ndue to lack of interest by the men in the work and the fact that planting was not part\nof their training.\nConsiderable progress was made through the year in the preparation of planting-\nsites and the felling of snags on areas previously planted. A total of 11 miles of new\ntruck-trails were opened up and 156,120 snags were felled on 16,775 acres. Of this\ntotal acreage, 9,500 acres are suitable for planting and the remainder are areas\npreviously planted. SOIL-SPREADER  DRAWN   BY TRACTOR.  REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 29\nFOREST MANAGEMENT.\nThe estimated value of production for the year 1946 shows a material advance\nover that of the previous year, largely due to advances in unit values supplemented by\nsome one hundred million feet increase in the total cut.\nThe 1946 grand total scale expressed in board-feet was 3,194,000,000 or, roughly,\n100,000,000 feet in excess of 1945. All the forest districts show a gain with the exception of Prince Rupert.\nThe Management tables in the statistical portion of the report show details of\nproduction, the highlights of which are as follows:\u2014\nWater-borne lumber trade remains about the same as in 1945, with the United\nKingdom and the Continent taking the bulk of the shipments. It is noteworthy that,\nwith the cessation of hostilities, war-torn countries overseas show a greatly increased\nvolume of shipments. The total volume of 745,000,000 is about one-half of the 1939\nvolume.\nThe pulp and paper industry maintained production levels, but values increased\nmaterially.\nDouglas fir is still the leading species cut, with hemlock supplying about one-half\nthe fir volume and equal in volume to that of cedar; spruce is in fourth place, with\nabout one-half the volume of the cedar.\nAlienated lands, particularly Crown grants on Vancouver Island, still supply the\nmajor volume, but timber-sales from vacant Crown lands are rapidly approaching an\nequal production.    The third place is held by timber licences.\nIn the minor products, lodgepole pine pit-props shipped to the United Kingdom are\nlargely responsible for the large scale in lineal feet, totalling some 68,000,000; the\ntotal cordage shows an increase, with a slight drop in hewn ties.\nIn the case of operating areas an appreciable increase is noted in the case of\ntimber-sales and alienated land. The total number of logging inspections reached an\nall-time high but, with limited staff, the frequency of inspection was not adequate.\nTrespass cases reduced somewhat from the previous year in number and in the\namount charged.\nThe number of pre-emption inspections fell off with the decrease in this class of\nland alienation.\nWith the return of peace-time conditions and accelerated demand for land use,\nthere was considerable growth in the volume of land examination in advance of settlement. This type of work places a tremendous burden on the field staff with the added\nactivity in forest industry, with the result that the time is rapidly approaching when\nland examination will require a staff of specialized officials.\nTimber-sale cruises increased by some five hundred over the previous year, with\na corresponding advance with practically all types of forest materials involved.\nIn the matter of stumpage prices the general average price shows a slight increase\nwith accelerated demand and advance in values. At the same time the increase in all\nspecies has amounted to but 20 cents per thousand feet in comparison with the year 1945.\nThe number of active sawmills in 1946 increased by some three hundred, mainly\nof the portable or semi-portable type. This is a natural development by reason of the\nunprecedented demand for lumber and attractive sale prices.\nThe total export of logs in board-feet was slightly over that of 1945 but considerably below the average of the past years for the simple reason that local milling facilities were ample to take care of the entire log output.\nThe total value of minor products shipped from the Province show an advance of\nsome $2,000,000, attributable in a large measure to pit-prop exports to the United\nKingdom. 00 30 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nWith the acceleration in lumbering activity, the number of timber-marks issued\ngreatly exceeds that of the previous year, and other office routine was such that headquarters staff was incessantly faced with the difficulty of keeping abreast of the volume\nof work.\nForest insect survey-work was maintained in co-operation with the Federal agencies, and a creditable showing made in box collections throughout the Province.\nDirect forest revenue surpassed that of 1945, and timber-sale stumpage accounted\nfor $1,658,000 out of a total of $4,352,000. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 31\nFOREST PROTECTION.\nWEATHER.\nFrom the forest-protection standpoint and considering the Province as a whole,\nweather during the 1946 fire season was more favourable than it usually is. Usual\nperiodic hazard build-ups occurred throughout the season in all districts, notably in\nearly spring and mid-season but, generally, timely precipitation occurred, nullifying\nany exceptionally serious condition.\nIn the Vancouver Forest District rainfall was a little above average, with a dry\nMay offset by an extremely wet June and July. Although August and September\noffered only light precipitation, it occurred at opportune periods. Extreme hazard\nperiods were of short duration, permitting early control of any potentially threatening\nsituation. A distinct break in the weather early in September, followed by light fall\nrains, closed the season.\nIn the Kamloops District an almost unprecedented spring hazard developed in the\nnorthern portion of the district, accounting for many early range fires. This condition\ncontinued almost unabated throughout most of the season and, as a result, that portion\nof the district was a continuous trouble-spot for fire throughout the fire-season months.\nElsewhere in the district, weather conditions were normal, except for one series of dry\nlightning-storms which, for a seven-day period in August, swept the southern section,\nnotably the Ashnola Valley, the area east of Okanagan Lake, and a 30-mile strip along\nthe International Boundary. Heavy electric storms were also in evidence in the Columbia River area but were abortive from a fire standpoint due to opportune precipitation.\nWeather in the Nelson District was considerably more favourable than during\naverage seasons. Mean temperatures were generally lower and precipitation higher,\nwith the latter showing better distribution throughout the season. The month of July,\nas usual, was extremely dry and was the most troublesome period experienced. Fortunately, electric storms were not experienced in serious proportions until the end of that\nmonth, when a number of heavy disturbances occurred throughout the district, with\nthe conditions worst in the Creston-Cranbrook and Upper Arrow Lakes areas. Storms\nwere frequent and widespread during practically all of August, nine major storms being\nrecorded. However, these storms were usually accompanied or followed by rain, and\nresulting fires were comparatively few. The longest intervals between measurable\nprecipitation were forty-nine and forty-one days in the Boundary and East Kootenay\nareas respectively, extending from the middle of June to the end of August, and twenty-\none days in the West Kootenay between mid-July and the first part of August. High\nwinds were much less prevalent than in previous years\u2014a very appreciable factor in\nthe lighter season experienced.\nThe season in the Coastal region of the Prince Rupert Forest District, including\nQueen Charlotte Islands, opened with a moderate hazard, registering increase throughout May and the first week of June. Fortunately, weather was calm throughout this\nperiod, and hazard did not assume dangerous proportions before the weather broke.\nHeavy rains in late June and occasional heavy showers during July resulted in a light-\nhazard level, which was maintained for the balance of the season until heavy fall rains\nin early September. In the Interior portion of the district, snowfall during the winter\nmonths was considerably heavier than the previous year's, and the usual January thaw,\nwith heavy rains, did not materialize. As a result, the snow remained light and dry\nand disappeared rapidly early in the season. Hence, hazard build-up commenced early\nin the fire season, and a peak spring hazard obtained throughout most of May. Heavier-\nthan-average rainfall throughout June and July gave favourable and safe conditions\nuntil about mid-August, when a hazard period of roughly a month's duration developed. 00 32 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nCopious rains early in September closed the season.    Electric storms were rare and in\nall cases were accompanied by precipitation.\nIn the Fort George Forest District winter and early spring conditions were very\nsimilar to those in the Interior of the Prince Rupert District, with resulting spring\nhazard in April and May. General rains about the third week in May, except in the\nPeace River and Rocky Mountain Trench portion where the dry period was more\nprotracted, eased the situation. In the portion of the district tributary to the Canadian National Railway and Quesnel, rainfall in June and July was heavier than average\nand weather was variable. A period of dry weather developed in early August, and\nby the end of that month conditions were becoming serious. Rains about mid-September alleviated the situation and closed the season. It is worthy of note that, while the\nMay and September rainfall in 1946 in this district was only approximately 80 per cent,\nof the twenty-five-year average, occurrence evenly throughout the season resulted in\na season more favourable than the average.\nFIRES.\nOccurrences and Causes.\nNumber of fires occurring throughout the Province during the season was 1,707,\nwhich is within 5 of the average over the previous ten-year period. For comparison\nwith tables which have appeared in previous reports, distribution of occurrence by\nforest districts during the past decade is as follows:\u2014\nFire Occurrence\nduring Ten-year\nPeriod 1937-46, Percentage\nForest District. inclusive. of all B.C.\nVancouver   4,212 24.75\nPrince Rupert  701 4.12\nFort George  1,570 9.23\nKamloops    5,188 30.48\nNelson  5,348 31.42\nTotal      17,019\nThe small but steady increase in occurrence in the northern portion of the Province\nwas again in evidence due, in large measure, to the general opening-up of these territories. In the table of occurrence by months the serious early spring hazard which\nobtained is most marked, with something over 21 per cent, of all fires occurring during\nMay as compared to the ten-year average for that month of 11.5 per cent.\nLightning was again responsible for more fires than any other agency, with\napproximately 30 per cent, attributable to this source. As compared with the last\nseveral years, there was a notable decrease in fires attributable to railways operating,\nand it is evident that locomotive-stack fires have been drastically reduced due to use\nof improved type of coal and praiseworthy attention on the part of the companies to\nfire-prevention. Campers and travellers accounted for approximately twice as many\nfires as last season, an indication that, after the restricted recreation of war years,\nmany are again spending their holidays in forested areas. There was also a marked\nincrease in number of fires attributable to escaped brush-burning, probably due to the\nparticularly dry spring when most of this land-clearing work is carried out.\nCost of Fire-fighting.\nTable No. 52, on page 96, gives full statistics under this heading. It should be\npointed out that total cost shown therein covers only expenditure in wages, food, and\ntransportation for crews actually fighting fire and is exclusive of items of forest-   REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 33\nprotection organization overhead, such as seasonally hired personnel. Further, the\ncost shown represents only cost to the Forest Service and for the figure of total expenditure in fire-suppression for the Province, an estimated sum of $134,822 (Table No. 41)\nexpended by other agencies must be added.\nOnce again the greatest proportion of fire-fighting cost to the Forest Service,\napproximately 63 per cent., occurred in fighting lightning-caused fires. The nature of\nthis type of fire, occurring for the most part in rugged, remote areas, is such that time\nbetween detection and attack is invariably prolonged, resulting in increased costs.\nFires attributable to escaped brush-burning and campers were the two next most costly\ntypes of fires experienced, running 16 and 8 per cent, respectively of total expenditure.\nTotal cost to the Forest Service for the season was only approximately one-half of\nexpenditure in 1945. This is attributable almost entirely to the more favourable\nseason experienced, as the total number of fires was not appreciably reduced.\nDamage.\nDamage occasioned through forest fires during the year is estimated at $357,984,\nonly about 25 per cent, of the 1945 figure. Of this total, approximately $192,000\nrepresents damage to forest-cover, the remainder covering miscellaneous property such\nas forest products, buildings, and railway and logging equipment destroyed incidental\nto forest fires.\nSlightly less than half of the total damage to forest-cover again occurred in the\nFort George District and was largely made up in destroyed second-growth and mature-\ntimber values. The part of that district east of the Rockies in the Peace River area\nwas the chief trouble spot.\nKamloops Forest District was next highest from the standpoint of damage to\nforests, approximately $60,000 being the estimated value of cover destroyed in that\ndistrict. It is gratifying to note that acreage of accessible merchantable timber\ndestroyed in that district is, however, some 30 per cent, of the figure under that heading\nfor last year.\nIn the Vancouver Forest District, out of a total of 426 fires, only 34 occasioned\ndamage over $100, and of these only 14 involved damage over $1,000. Practically half\nof the total damage estimated for this district was occasioned by industrial-operation\nfires, about one-third by smokers' fires, and the remainder predominantly lightning fires.\nOnly 6 fires in the Nelson District exceeded 500 acres in extent, and only 2 of these\ncreated appreciable damage. The over-all figure of damage to forest-cover in the\nNelson District was notably low as compared to many previous seasons.\nFIRE-CONTROL RESEARCH AND PLANNING.\nPlanning.\nAfter a four-year lapse during the war years, fire-control planning was recommenced during the past season on a modest scale. Two visibility mapping crews were\nput in the field gathering information necessary for a revision of the primary lookout\nnetwork on the East Coast of Vancouver Island in the area from Victoria north to\nKelsey Bay.\nA total of eighty possible lookout-sites were examined, and full data regarding\nwater-supply, possible trail or road location, etc., recorded. Visible area was mapped\nand a panoramic set of photographs taken for each potential site.\nReports are now being prepared, and it is hoped to have some of the new sites\nmanned and in operation in the 1947 season. 00 34 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nPanoramic Lookout Photographs.\nA small amount of work was done on this project during the season, the effort being\nlimited by lack of trained personnel, suitable transport, and unfavourable photographic\nweather.\nTwo points in Kamloops, one in Prince George, and two in Prince Rupert were\ncompleted.\nThe new camera, built to our specifications by the National Research Council at\nOttawa, was used for the first time on this work and proved very satisfactory.\nFire-weather Studies.\nWeather-recording.\nDuring 1945 a fire-weather recording system was initiated to determine fire danger\nfrom measurements of humidity and fuel moisture at altitude stations. The second\nyear of experience with this method of recording hazard has substantiated the principle\nthat fire weather is a function of the presence of dry continental air, characterized by\na pronounced temperature inversion. To be effective, however, it is essential that\nstations be so located as to record extreme hazard. Stations too high or too low,\nrelative to the general surrounding terrain, will yield a milder record and thereby lead\nto underestimation during a risk period.\nFire-weather information was received by radio twice daily at Victoria and Vancouver. Humidity at four-hour intervals was taken from hygrograph records and\nplotted by individual stations on a monthly wall-chart. Fuel moisture measured at\n8 a.m. and 4 p.m. was plotted on a similar graph. The graphical method readily portrayed intensity and trend of drying as indicated by humidity and prevailing inflammability as indicated by fuel moisture. This system enables the extent of relief\ndeveloped by moderating influences to be readily appreciated.\nAn arbitrary line was drawn at 60 per cent, relative humidity and, when the trend\nwas above this line, the chart was coloured blue, while red was used when humidity fell\nbelow 60 per cent. This level was selected because wood material, exposed to a constant\nhumidity of 60 per cent., will stabilize at about 10-per-cent. moisture content, the critical\ninflammability point. The colouring scheme worked satisfactorily, the volume of blue\nindicated the extent of relief at any time, while the volume of red indicated the\ndeficiency prevailing.\nCheck-stations were again maintained in valley locations at the Cowichan Lake\nExperimental Station and the Langford Suppression Camp. These recordings confirmed previous measurements in such locations and visibly demonstrated the greater\naccuracy of ridge measurements. Attention was given to the question whether fire-\nhazard could develop in valleys while conditions on ridges were registered as moist.\nResults confirmed previous belief in this regard, provided that measuring location is\nnot too high.\nFuel-moisture sticks used during the season were for the first time dowelled\ntogether in sets of three for 60-gram units and four for 100-gram units. This was\nfound to be a very satisfactory improvement and, for the future, it is proposed that all\nsticks will be dowelled and used in 100-gram sets only. All 60-gram balances throughout the Province have been called in for conversion to 100-gram for future use.\nInvestigations.\nConsiderable advance has been made concerning the measurement of fire-hazard.\nSimilar advance has not developed in either the recognition of the responsible meteorological factors in the study of their advance and progress. Investigations towards this\nend were planned for the season, but the programme was seriously curtailed by equip- REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 35\nment and instrument shortage. However, a number of minor investigations were\nconducted, as outlined briefly in the following.\nA study to determine variation of fire-hazard with altitude was carried out in the\nLadysmith region. Previous investigation in this field had been undertaken in the\nnorthern Rocky Mountain region, where existence of thermo belt has been fairly well\ndefined. No such research had been carried out at the Coast and, with wide variation\nof topography, more adequate information was necessary in order that comparative\nhazard might be adequately appreciated. A series of complete weather-stations were\nlocated at varying elevations from the 40- to 3,500-foot level, and fuel-moisture and\ntemperature stations maintained on intermediate 2,200-foot and 3,100-foot levels.\nRecords obtained indicated that the greatest intensity of risk in this area developed\nfrom 2,000- to 3,000-foot altitude. Comparison with records of Forest Service lookouts\nthroughout the same risk period, however, indicated that the situation is not uniform,\nand while the 2,000- to 3,000-foot level is the most dangerous in the Ladysmith area,\nit is not possible to state that this level is the critical zone in other adjacent regions.\nObviously, therefore, independent investigations must be made within each zone. An\ninteresting finding in this experiment was the fact that practically no inversion\noccurred at any of the experiment-stations set up. This was apparently due to a state\nof onshore north-easterly wind movement proving again that inversions are confined\nto higher valleys which receive an indirect flow of air and wherein, during the night\nhours, calm conditions prevail.\nA number of minor studies were made bearing on the broad question of progressive\nincrease or build-up of fire danger throughout the fire season.\nThe first of these, conducted with the co-operation of the Dominion Forest Products\nLaboratory in Vancouver, was the investigation of absorption of fuel-moisture sticks\nunder varying conditions of temperature and humidity. The purpose of the study was\nto obtain some appreciation of the speed and the extent to which sticks are kept to\nchanging humidities, and it was found when sticks were at a moisture-level close to\nequilibrium with atmospheric conditions, the rate of increase approached the zero point.\nA further experiment conducted was designed to ascertain trend of fuel moisture\nin shady locations. In this study two sets of sticks were placed at both valley and\nridge locations\u2014one set in the open, the other in the shade. In every case, fuel-\nmoisture content of the shaded sticks followed a similar general trend to that of the\nsticks in the adjoining open locations. Moisture content was, however, about 3 per\ncent, higher throughout the season. A thorough study under this head was made for\nvariation of fuel moisture between sticks placed on the ground and planted 12 inches\nabove the ground. Results indicated that, during each designated period, sticks on the\nground remained consistently higher than the sticks above the ground. Differences\nbetween the two readings were greater in the morning than in the afternoon and, as\nthe season advanced, the differences between the two locations also lessened. The\nfindings indicated that the present method of exposing fuel-moisture sticks 12 inches\nabove the ground is entirely satisfactory and has rendered a suitable measurement of\ninflammability.\nAn investigation to determine comparative inflammability measurement during\nrisk periods at Northern and Southern Vancouver Island stations was also conducted\nduring the season. As northern test indicators, valley and ridge weather-recording\nstations were established in the vicinity of Port McNeill in the pulp zone and near the\nsouth end of Nimpkish Lake in the fir zone. Fuel moistures and temperatures only\nwere recorded as no hygrographs were available. Results obtained indicated a mild\nlowering occurred during hazard periods, but hazard at no time reached a dangerous\nlevel and was in sharp contrast with the established Lower Vancouver Island stations.\nComparison of the fir and pulp areas showed almost identical trend and indicated con- 00 36 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nclusively that hazard in these areas is influenced by prevailing weather.    This study is\nnot considered complete and will be carried on again next year.\nFinally, an investigation to determine loss of weight by fuel-moisture sticks when\nexposed to weather influence was carried out at three Vancouver Island stations. Seven\nsets of sticks were exposed at each of three locations\u2014Langford, Alberni, and Elk Falls\nlookouts. One set of sticks was picked up at two-week intervals at each location and\nweight-loss determined. Little variation in weight-loss was noted between different\nlocations, and loss decreased steadily until August 1st, when it appeared to taper off\nin a gradual manner. The total weight-loss throughout the season was less than 1 per\ncent, despite excessive rainfall during the period exposed. The conclusion was that it\nwas unnecessary to make any adjustment in readings to counteract weathering loss in\nfuel-moisture sticks.\nFIRE-SUPPRESSION CREWS.\nSixteen fire-suppression crews were organized and, from mid-June to mid-September,\nwere stationed in localities where fires are frequent and rapid suppression action is\npossible. Twenty crews had been planned, but the lack of suitable personnel and other\ndifficulties prevented two crews being established in each of the Vancouver and Fort\nGeorge Districts. Except for one crew of ten men, crews were composed as usual of a\nforeman, a cook, and six men, and each was a self-contained, mobile unit. Crews were\ndistributed as follows:\u2014 Number\nForest District. of Crews.        Fires fought.\nVancouver   4 25\nPrince Rupert  1 Nil\nKamloops   6 43\nNelson   5 27\nTotals   16 95\nCapable foremen and cooks were difficult to secure because of the higher wages\nand longer period of employment available in private industry, and the type of crewman\ndesired was not readily obtained. In the past, crews have been made up of high-school\nstudents and, though such crews have some advantages, the scope and term of their\nemployment is limited. It was intended this year to use as many adult crewmen as\npossible, particularly young returned servicemen, but only a limited number accepted\nand stayed at the work and, in the end, most crews were either students or a mixture\nof students and adults. The mixed crews worked well, but their period of employment\nwas still limited by the school term. This limitation is a particular disadvantage in the\nnorthern districts, where there is usually a flash hazard in May, before the crews can\nbe organized.\nThe sixteen crews fought 95 fires, compared with 132 fires fought by the sixteen\ncrews in 1945\u2014a reflection of the lower fire-hazard this year. The crew at Burns Lake,\nin the Prince Rupert District, could not be established until school closed in June and,\nas the summer hazard did not develop, it was not employed on any fires. There were\nno changes in fire-fighting equipment, except an increased use of tank-trucks, which\nseem to be an excellent part of the organization.\nDuring the time personnel were not fighting fire or standing by in hazardous\nperiods, considerable improvement-work was done on forest-protection roads, telephone\nlines, buildings, and other installations. More could be accomplished if such work was\nthe chief function of the crews and fire-fighting secondary, but the first object is fire-\nsuppression and other work must be arranged so as not to interfere. The most efficient\nbalance is hard to maintain. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 37\nThe scarcity of suitable men may be expected to right itself in time, but some\ndifficulties are perennial. It requires much time and work to organize, train, and\nsupervise crews each year. This work is done by Forest Officers in addition to their\nother duties, whereas forest districts employing several crews would seem to require\nan officer on this work alone for the fire season. When the greater proportion of\nforemen and personnel are new to the job each season, as is now the case, the work is\nnot simplified nor the efficiency greatly improved year by year. It would be desirable\nif capable foremen, at least, could be employed the year around to provide an experienced cadre for suppression-work.\nRECORD OF SUPPRESSION ACTION, 1946.\nNumber\nof Fires.\nSubsequent Spread (by Number of Fires).\nSize of Fire when attacked.\ny& Acre\nor less.\n.4 Acre\nto 1 Acre.\n1 Acre to\n5 Acres.\n5 Acres to\n50 Acres.\nOver\n50 Acres.\n54\n14\n18\n7\n2\n50\n7\n6\n1\n3\n6\n4\n1\n3\n1\n3\n2\n2\n1\n2\n3\nTotals \t\n95\n64\n13\n5\n7\n6\nAIRCRAFT.\nTenders were called early in the year, and a two-year contract was subsequently\nnegotiated with a commercial air-line company for charter flying to cover forest-\nprotection requirements. Under the contract two float planes were made available,\nbased in the Fort George District, and two twin-motor land planes for the southern\nportion of the Province, one based at Kamloops and one at Nelson. Although based\nat specific points, all aircraft were available on call in cases of special necessity in other\nforest districts. Usage was chiefly in fire-detection, but light transport work was\ncarried out to a considerable extent in the northern districts with the float planes based\nthere.    During the season approximately 336 hours of flying were completed.\nAlthough the aircraft used were fitted with radio equipment, the type of installation obtainable was such that it left much to be desired so far as consistent communication with ground stations was concerned. This detracted to a marked extent from\nimmediate reporting of fires detected. At the close of the season, tests were carried\nout with new-type equipment, and results of such tests give every indication of satisfactory communication next year. It is proposed that next season all aircraft will have\nradio equipment capable of operating on the frequency of the district to which the\naircraft is assigned and also on a common frequency for use in the event of aircraft\nbeing moved from one district to another.\nParachuting of fire-fighting equipment and supplies was carried out successfully,\nas in past years, in the northern districts. During the season tests were also conducted\nwith a 6-foot diameter smaller chute obtained from the United States war surplus\nsupplies. It was found that these small chutes work very well with light loads, and\nthey are obtainable at considerably lower cost than chutes previously used. Orders\nhave been placed for further supplies of these chutes for the coming year.\nMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.\nAutomotive.\nAs in many other lines of endeavour, it was hoped that during the year we would\nhave been able to replace much of our old equipment, with resulting more dependable 00 38 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nand economical operation.    Unfortunately, due to labour conditions and causes beyond\nour control, this was not possible.\nIn so far as automotive equipment is concerned, between the period September,\n1945, and April, 1946, ninety vehicles were requisitioned under the then existing \"A\"\npriority rating for purchase. At the close of 1946 seventy-two of these vehicles have\nbeen delivered. This situation has meant retaining in service many old units which\nshould properly have been discarded some years ago, with resulting unreliable operation\nand high cost.\nOf the new units obtained, four 1-ton delivery-type vehicles were built up as\ntankers. Design was essentially the same as earlier tanker models, with the exception\nthat water-pumps installed were of a more modern design.\nOne D-6 crawler tractor and hydraulic bulldozer was requisitioned during the year,\nbut delivery was not received. It is anticipated we may obtain this equipment early in\nthe new fiscal year.\nFire-pumps and Outboard Motors.\nNo new pressure pumps were purchased during the year, but twenty-seven forestry-\ntype units were obtained following disbandment of the civil defence organization.\nThese units were dismantled at the Marine Station, and, by careful selection and'\npurchase of some additional new parts, sixteen complete units were distributed to the\ndistricts and placed in service.\nOutboards and their repair parts were also in short supply during the year. Out\nof twenty-eight new units of various power sizes estimated as required for the season,\nonly ten were obtainable, and five of these were purchased in used condition and reconditioned for use.\nMechanical Inspection.\nThe services of a mechanical-maintenance inspector were obtained during the\nyear as an assistant to the mechanical superintendent. This made possible, for the\nfirst time since 1939, proper inspection of all Forest Service automotive equipment,\nfire-pumps, outboards, and tractors in the field during the year. It is proposed to\nfurther supplement the inspection staff in the coming year if suitable personnel is\navailable.\nFOREST SERVICE MARINE STATION.\nAs of April, 1946, the Marine Station was set up as a separate entity under direction of a superintendent responsible to head office, Victoria. This change in jurisdiction\nwas designed to relieve the Vancouver Forest District office of considerable work\ninvolved in administration, supervision, and detail. The old name, Fraser River Repair-\nstation, was changed to Forest Service Marine Station as more in keeping with the\nactivities there and to clearly differentiate from commercial concerns operating on the\nMainland.\nLooking towards ultimate expansion of the station and taking advantage of a\nfavourable opportunity, additional water-front property, to the extent of 4 acres\nimmediately adjoining the present station, was purchased at a reasonable cost.\nSome further improvement of the old property was made in levelling, using river-\ndredged material. Lighting equipment and electrical power circuits within the station\nwere modernized and extended to take care of increased load and to bring them in line\nwith the electrical code regulations. Some small alterations were made in office accommodation to meet the changed administrative set-up.\nPurchase of shop equipment made necessary by extended activities at the station\nand difficulties incurred in shopping out work included a 300-ampere Lincoln electric\nwelder, obtained from war surplus stocks, and a DeWalt all-purpose saw. '\nroteit Setirice Matine Station J\non the   Tta5et Mlvet.\nPump-testing apparatus.  REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 39\nPersonnel of the station now totals twenty, including superintendent, foreman\nshipwright, foreman mechanic, two marine mechanics, four ships carpenters, two\npainters, three pump and outboard mechanics, one mechanic's helper, two clerks, and\nthree watchmen. Of this staff, nine are permanent appointments and the remainder\nare on a temporary basis. Temporary staff fluctuates as requirements of the work\ndemand.\nDuring the year thirty-two launches passed through the station for overhaul.\nDelivery was obtained on three marine engines requisitioned last year, and two of these\ninstallations have been completed. An additional power plant ordered during the year\nis still to be delivered.\nConstruction of one new vessel, the launch \" Cherry II.,\" was completed early in\nthe year, and the ship placed in operation in the Vancouver Forest District as an\nAssistant Ranger boat. The craft is 35 feet over-all, with 9-foot beam, powered with\na marine Diesel unit. The keel of a similar launch of the same type has recently been\nlaid, and work is going ahead as materials become available.\nWork on the pump and outboard floor of the station during the year comprised\noverhaul and rebuilding of ninety fire-fighting pump units, overhaul of thirty-nine\noutboard motors, and, in addition, construction of various pieces of equipment such as\ncompressors, alidades, etc. Due to the extreme shortage of repair parts, pump gears,\nrotors, pistons, tanks, caps, and castings were manufactured at the station.\nBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION.\nPrevailing shortages of material and labour and general high costs prevented other\nthan urgent new construction. General maintenance-work and minor new construction\nwere carried out in various forest districts as in the past.\nDuring the year tenders were called for construction of Ranger stations at Parksville and Birch Island. In the first-mentioned instance tenders were rejected on the\nbasis of excessive cost, and no bids were received for the Birch Island work. These\nprojects, with several others, are proposals for the coming year.\nPlans and specifications were drawn and adopted for standard Ranger station\nbuildings. These were of two main types, designed to meet the situation where office\nspace is required within the Forest Service establishment and for the condition where\nthe office is elsewhere and only tool- and car-storage space is required.\nDrawings and specifications were prepared for prefabricated lookout buildings, and\nthese will be fabricated at the Forest Service Marine Station. The first of these units\nshould be ready for erection early in the spring.\nRADIO.\nBy the close of 1946 the increased size of district networks made necessary some\nlong-anticipated improvements in operating methods. Three major deficiencies had to\nbe overcome: (1) The lack of permanent operator-technicians at our district headquarters stations; (2) confusion caused by too many stations on a single frequency;\nand (3) the fact that headquarters stations were located in the centres of population\nand consequently in areas of maximum man-made interference.\nThe first problem was overcome early in the year by appointment of permanent\ntechnician-operators to district headquarters at Vancouver, Kamloops, Nelson, and\nPrince George. These men are qualified technicians and take care of all overhaul and\nrepair of equipment in their individual districts. They are responsible for the handling\nof traffic on their local network and the proper co-ordinating of same on the Provincial\nnetwork.\nThe second deficiency, although not entirely overcome, was largely eliminated\nduring 1946.   Three new channels\u20143,392.5, 3,382.5, and 3,370 kilocycles\u2014were obtained 00 40 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\non a temporary continuous basis and, it is hoped, will be permanently allotted to the\nService or others awarded. Further plans in this direction include the placing of\nPrince Rupert headquarters station on its own frequency and the obtaining of an inter-\ndistrict frequency for use of headquarters stations only in the Provincial network.\nThis, it is hoped, will eventually be in the 5,000-kilocycle channel, but to date it has not\nbeen possible to secure award on this wave-length.\nSome progress was made towards the solution of the noise-level problem, but considerably more work is indicated. Development of an RCR-HQ type of four-channel\nremote receiver was completed in Victoria during the late spring. Subsequently installation was made at Nelson District headquarters station at a previously chosen site just\noutside the city. Improvement in operation of the station was so marked that no\ncomparison can be made with previous results.\nIn addition to the large four-channel remote receiver, single-frequency battery-\noperated remote receivers were also tried out at Salmo and Kettle Valley, in the Nelson\nDistrict. In both cases there was very definite improvement in operation of the station,\nbut some mechanical details were found to need improvement in this model, and this\nwill be carried out before next season.\nDuring the coming year it is proposed to install remote receivers at Kamloops,\nVancouver, and Victoria headquarters stations. Tests have already been carried out\nand sites selected for these installations.\nAlthough it was anticipated the supply situation would be relieved by the winter\nof 1946, this condition did not develop. Obtaining of repair and structural parts in\nVictoria has been more difficult than at any time since 1939. In addition, prices\nincreased considerably, and no immediate let-up is in sight for the coming year. New\nPAC units ordered last spring were not received, and there is no indication when\ndelivery may be expected.\nWe have not been able to put VHF sets to useful purpose in any general plan of\noperation. Our terrain is so rugged and the distance between stations such that sets\nof this type do not lend themselves to general usage. In addition, our operation practice is such that reliance must be placed on any of our stations to transmit in all directions for purpose of relay when conditions are difficult. There still remains, however,\nsome possibility of using this type of set from lookout to Ranger station as an adjunct\nto, and not in place of, the medium-frequency set. This may be a partial solution to\nelimination of some stations from certain main schedules, thus allowing greater length\nof time on the air for more active stations.\nFollowing are type and number of sets now in use by the Service: SPF sets, 204;\nPAC sets, 35; launch sets (50 watts), 10; launch sets (100 watts), 3; S-25 sets, 2;\nVHF sets, 2; headquarters receiver remote installations, 2; Ranger station remote\nreceivers, 2; total, all types, 260. The majority of these units are operated only during\nthe fire-season months. Operation during off-season period of the year comprises the\nProvincial headquarters stations network and individual district networks.\nWith the improvement in operation of the Provincial network, there has been a\nmarked increase in interdistrict traffic. As an indication of this increase in traffic\nhandled, Victoria station records show a total of 861 messages in 1944, 1,330 in 1945,\nand 2,558 in 1946. These figures do not include weather data and reports, which\ncomprise many hundreds of additional messages during fire-season months.\nSLASH-DISPOSAL AND SNAG-FALLING.\nSection 113a of the \" Forest Act,\" enacted in 1937 and subsequently amended from\ntime to time, was repealed in 1946 and a revised section 113a substituted. Although\nfinal objectives remain the same, the new section 113a defines more clearly the intent\nof the legislation and the general obligation of operators in meeting its requirements.\nSubsection  (4)  is probably the most outstanding revision in so far as the logging IYKti>  Ul-   HJKbbl    btKVICb. I\nKadlo  \/tan^mtttet-Aceceiiret^,      j\u00a3j\n___^^^^   .f.-v\/a''       \u201er_\na.ed a'\nType   SPF \u2014 2-watt   portable\ntransmitter-receiver,  battery-\noperated.  Weight 21 Ib. with\nportable batteries.\nType RCR . . HQ\u2014Four-channel remote-control receiver.\nType RCR . . SPF\u2014Single-\nchannel battery-operated\nremote-control receiver,\nexperimental model.  REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 41\noperator is concerned, in that it relieves him from slash-burning until such time as he\nis definitely instructed so to do by the Deputy Minister or any officer of the Forest\nService authorized by the Deputy Minister to give such instruction. The introduction\nof subsections (7) and (8), defining slash- and snag-disposal as separate obligations\nand providing for compensation accordingly, was a most desirable change and has been\nfavourably commented upon by the logging industry. Other changes made have\nassisted materially in general administration of this section of the Act.\nThe personnel of the Slash-disposal Division in the Vancouver Forest District was\nincreased by the addition of two slash-disposal officers. This work is now being carried\non by four experienced officials, and their efforts account largely for the improvement\nin slash-disposal practice.\nIn respect to total acreage burned, results achieved in slash-disposal in 1946 were\nnot up to expectations. This situation does not result from lack of interest or co-operation on the part of the logging industry but rather to uncontrollable conditions, such\nas adverse weather and labour disputes.\nIn regard to weather, the year did not present average conditions, in that occurrence of favourable burning periods, during which safe and satisfactory burning could\nbe practised, failed to materialize.\nSpring burning was washed out by a wet and cold winter condition prolonged into\nMay. This prevented conducting spring burning planned by many operations and, to\nsome extent, interfered with the planned progress of logging and fall slash-disposal.\nIn respect to spring slash-burning, it is of interest to note an increasing number of\noperators undertaking the disposal of slash in this period. This practice has merit,\nprovided operators are willing to accept the additional risk and costs involved in\nobtaining satisfactory burns.\nFall burning, while successfully conducted in some regions, must, considering the\ndistrict as a whole, be classified as unsatisfactory. Unfavourable weather occurring in\nSeptember was the chief factor causing this condition. Insufficient moisture up to\nSeptember 12th made broadcast burning prior to this date very risky, while subsequent\nto that date, particularly in the Campbell River-Courtenay and Alberni areas, drying\nperiods were not of sufficient duration to allow a really satisfactory burning condition\nto build up in slash.\nThe labour situation and voluntary operation closures during hazardous weather\nwere also contributing factors affecting slash-disposal in 1946. A loggers' strike\nextending from May 15th to June 20th interrupted the planned progress of logging and,\nas a result, many operations subsequently behind in their logging schedule were\nprevented from burning.\nHowever, very noticeable improvement in preparation for, and in the actual conduct of, slash-disposal was evident during the year. Operators were more inclined\ntowards undertaking the work of slash-disposal in line with approved practice and\ngave more consideration to the protection of residual and marginal timber values than\nin the past. \" Goop,\" an incendiary developed during the recent war, was experimented\nwith by some logging operators. The results obtained were as a general rule below\nexpectations and placed the material in a class little better than Diesel oil for the\npurpose of igniting slash or forcing or spreading fire.\nThe provisions of the new section 113a which require the falling of snags concurrently with logging were carried out in a most satisfactory manner. This new requirement has assisted materially in obtaining the desired results on small operations and\nhas also noticeably lessened the work involved in administration. At the year-end the\nmajority of operators had fulfilled their obligation 100 per cent., outstanding snag-\ndisposal being confined generally to immediately current logging.\nIn brief recapitulation a total of 57,424 acres of forest land was logged during\n1946 in the portion of the Vancouver Forest District to which section 113a applies.    Of 00 42\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nthis acreage, a total of 31,941 acres was examined and officially reported on. The\nbalance of 25,483 acres represents areas logged subsequent to September 1st and for\nslash-disposal requirements will be dealt with in 1947.\nCompensation for failure to comply with the provisions of the section 113a in\nrespect to 1945 and prior slash was levied during the year as follows:\u2014\nNumber of\nOperations.\n_____ 33\nCause.\nFailure to dispose of slash\t\nFailure to dispose of slash and fall snags  15\nFailure to fall snags  22\nTotals .\n70\nAcreage.\n4,415.95\n1,610.50\n1,748.40\n7,774.85\nDetailed statistics on all slash-disposal for the year 1946 appear in tabular form on\npages 91-93 of this report. It will be of interest to note the marked reduction in\ndamage resulting from slash-burning. This, it is believed, is partially the result of\nfavourable weather conditions and, to a greater extent, to insistence of district officers\non observance of recognized practices in actual conduct of disposal.\nPREVENTION.\nOn the Coast, in the Vancouver Forest District, no general closure was necessary\nduring the year. However, the major portion of the Sayward Forest was closed to\ntravel, except under permit, for the period July 1st to mid-September. Extensive plantations, naturally reforested areas, and major timber values in this forest warranted\nthis special precaution. Control was effected by patrolmen stationed on the highways\nat point of entrance and exit to the forest. Stopping of all cars permitted counselling\ncaution in use of fire and smoking, and also allowed distribution of a specially prepared\ncombination map of the area and pamphlet appealing for co-operation in forest\nprotection.\nIn the Nelson Forest District sixteen regional travel closures were invoked for an\naverage duration of about three weeks during the most serious hazard period. These\nclosures all covered individual watersheds where values existing warranted closure\nform of prevention.\nIn the Kamloops Forest District only one area in the Tulameen region was closed\nto travel, primarily for watershed protection.\nNo closures were invoked in the Prince Rupert or Fort George Districts.\nFollowing in tabular form is detail of all 1946 closures:\u2014\nArea.\nDistrict.\nEffective\nDate.\nDate\nsuspended.\nSayward Forest\t\nBear Creek\t\nSand Creek\t\nSheep Creek\t\nErie Creek\t\nLamb Creek\t\nUpper Kootenay River\t\nHidden Creek\t\nAnderson and Five Mile Creeks\t\nPorcupine Creek\t\nDuhamel and Upper Lemon Creeks\t\nTiger, Cambridge, Gorge, and Casino Creeks\t\nSouth Fork of Salmon River and Lost Creek\t\nBlueberry, Poupore, Sullivan, Murphy, McNally, Hanna, and\nTopping Creeks\t\nGranby River\t\nCrawford Creek\t\nSt. Mary River\t\nPend d'Oreille River\t\nVancouver.\nKamloops..\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nNelson\t\nJune 25\nJuly 2B\nAug. 2\nAug. IS\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nAug. 13\nSept. 13\nSept. 17\nSept. 4\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept.\nSept. 4\nSept. 4\nSept. 4\nSept. 4\nSept. 4 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 43\nOther prevention-work undertaken during the season throughout the Province\ngenerally included timely prevention messages by press and radio, addresses to\nservice clubs and schools, participation in local fairs by means of forest-protection\nexhibits, and posting of the usual highway and other fire-prevention signs. Routine\ninspection of operations for required fire-fighting equipment and fire safety measures\nwere carried out as usual.\nCO-OPERATION\u2014OTHER AGENCIES.\nAgain we must express appreciation and thanks for very timely and valuable\nco-operation received throughout the season from the United States Forest Service in\ndetection and patrolling of fires adjacent to the Border.\nValuable co-operation was also received throughout the year from press and radio\nin timely articles and announcements. Some business concerns made the forest-\nprotection message part of their advertising, and it is worthy of note that one sporting-\ngoods merchant in the Kamloops District, who conducts a weekly broadcast of news of\nprimary interest to sportsmen, concluded each programme with a summary of existing\nforest-fire hazard conditions and appropriate warning with respect to care with fire\nin the woods.    Co-operation of this nature is most valuable and very much appreciated.\nThe R.C.A.F. again assisted greatly in the Coastal region in providing detection\nflights, particularly in the Vancouver Forest District during hazardous fire-weather\nconditions. Pilots are keen and most co-operative, and this assistance meets a most\npressing need and is without doubt the means of considerable saving in suppression\ncosts.\nAs usual, excellent co-operation was also received from the numerous honorary fire\nwardens and fire-prevention officers active during the season in all districts. These\nmen, who voluntarily assume their duties year after year, fill a key position in the\nprotection picture in their various individual communities.\nFIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT.\nIt was necessary to lay information in thirty-nine cases during the year over the\nwhole Province. This is slightly above the ten-year average but is not considered an\nalarming situation in the light of population increase and expansion in forest industry.\nOf the total prosecutions, conviction was obtained in all but two instances. Again it\nmust be reported that the greater proportion of prosecutions involved burning without\npermit and clearly indicates that public education in regard to governing regulations\nin this connection must be concentrated upon next year. It is worthy of note that no\ncase involving contravening a forest closure was recorded during the year. 00 44 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nFOREST RANGER SCHOOL.\nFulfilling a long-felt need of the Service, a Ranger School was established in 1945\nand put into operation during the past year. The necessary staff appointments were\nmade in April, 1945, and the preliminary work of selecting a site for the school commenced shortly thereafter. Due to labour and material shortages, it was necessary to\nlocate buildings which would accommodate the school without too much remodelling,\nand it was finally decided that the former relief and Alternative Service Workers' camp\nat the Green Timbers Forestry Station could be adapted for temporary quarters, pending construction of suitable permanent buildings on the station. The work of remodelling the camp for school purposes, and preparing and arranging various courses of\nstudy, occupied the staff of two during the remainder of 1945, but the school was ready\nto open by the first week of January, 1946.\nOn January 7th, 1946, the Green Timbers Ranger School was formally opened by\nthe Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. E. T. Kenney, in a short but\nimpressive ceremony in the lecture-hall. Twenty students, selected from the Ranger\nand Assistant Ranger staffs of all five forest districts of the Province, were in attendance. Included in the group were two Rangers, ten Acting Rangers, and eight\nAssistant Rangers.\nThe first three-month term was largely devoted to forest protection and included\nlectures as follows:\u2014 Hours.\n1. Part XL of the \" Forest Act \" and Operation Manual  40\n2. Weather factors influencing fire-control and forest inflamma\nbility   13\n3. Fire occurrence, behaviour, and reports     6\n4. Public relations and fire law enforcement  24\n5. Preliminary fire organization  24\n6. Fire suppression  18\n7. Construction and maintenance of improvements  24\n8. Mechanical equipment  44\n9. Office methods and maps  18\n10. Arithmetic review, simple trigonometry, logarithms  44\n11. Calculation of traverses  10\n12. Forest pathology  9\n13. Forest entomology  12\n14. Botany   36\n15. General aspects of forestry  12\nBoth Departmental and outside assistance was obtained by the regular school staff\nin the presentation of the above-outlined courses in order to give the students the\nadvantages of instruction from specialists in the various technical subjects. In this\nconnection, grateful acknowledgment is made for the lectures on meteorology delivered\nby Mr. P. Brun of the Dominion Meteorological Service; for the course in forest\npathology given by Dr. J. E. Bier and his staff of the Division of Plant Pathology,\nDominion Department of Agriculture; and for the course in forest entomology given\nby Mr. H. Richmond and his staff of the Division of Forest Entomology, Dominion\nDepartment of Agriculture.\nDuring the spring term an evening course in first aid was arranged in co-operation\nwith the St. John Ambulance Society, which sent out an instructor one night per week\nduring the term to give instruction in this important subject. All of the students\nreceived certificates at the completion of the course.\nThe second term, or fall term, opened Monday, September 16th, and the following\nthree months were devoted to forest management, except for the completion of the REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 45\ncourse in fire suppression, continued from the spring term.    Courses of study were\nas follows:\u2014 Hours.\n1. Fire suppression (continued)      15\n2. Methods of surveying, survey instruments      82\n3. Forest mensuration (cruising, volume tables, etc.)      88\n4. Forest management, \" Forest Act,\" Management Manual  100\n5. Scaling    40\n6. Stumpage appraisals, forest valuations    47\n7. Silvics and the practice of silviculture in British Columbia     60\nAfter completion of the regular spring term a short course in meteorology, weather\nfactors influencing fire-control, forest inflammability, fire occurrence and behaviour,\npreliminary fire organization, and fire suppression was conducted in co-operation with\nthe industry. This course was open to company foremen, fire wardens, fire bosses, and\nothers nominated by the logging companies interested. This was in response to various\nrequests from the logging industry for such a course. Thirteen men, representing\nnine of the major logging companies, took advantage of the offer and attended an\neight-day session commencing April 15th. Favourable comments on the value of the\ncourse have since been received and, if there is a call for it, similar classes will be held\nin future years.\nDuring the year selection was made of a permanent school-site, approximating\n6 acres, situated in Plots 24 and 25 of the Green Timbers Forestry Station, a short\ndistance east of the Nichol Road and back of the main nursery beds. This area is on\nfairly high ground and can be made an attractive setting, as seen from the Pacific or\ntrans-continental highway, for the school buildings. The area has been cleared and\na contract has been let for the construction of gravelled access roads to all proposed\nbuilding locations, including necessary court space. This contract also includes the\ngravelling of that part of the Nichol Road giving access from the Pacific Highway,\nwhich is being opened up by the District of Surrey at our request. Work under the\ncontract was commenced in the fall but had to be suspended due to wet weather. 00 46 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nPUBLIC RELATIONS AND EDUCATION.\nNormal activities were maintained by the Division during the year under survey,\nas enumerated in detail below:\u2014\nNewspapers.\u2014Forest-protection advertisements were inserted in ten daily, thirty-\nfive weekly, and eight other publications. In so far as the daily and weekly papers were\nconcerned, the advertisements comprised a series of three designs, the copy and ideas\nfor the advertisements being the work of this Division and the art-work being done by\nthe staff of the Government Printing Bureau. Special advertisements were designed\nfor the remaining publications. The appreciation of the Division is due to the press\nfor space in many publications which was freely devoted to editorials and other items\nin aid of forest protection.\nRadio.\u2014The radio networks co-operated, as in previous years, with time devoted to\nforest-fire hazard announcements and news items. This assistance is of immense value\nand is gratefully acknowledged.\nMotion Pictures.\u2014During the year, sixty-one of the seventy-five films comprising\nthe Forest Service film library were used more extensively than ever before. Forest\nService films were shown to 371 different audiences, totalling 32,633 persons. This\nbrings our cumulative total recorded for 1945-46 to 49,180. The three most widely\ncirculated films were: \" Exploring Tweedsmuir Park,\" shown fifty-one times to 3,089\npersons; \" Land of Timber,\" shown thirty-six times to 2,583 persons; and \" Garibaldi\nPark,\" shown thirty times to 2,478 persons.\nThe largest single audience recorded during the year was 1,200 persons at the\nBay Street Armouries, Victoria, B.C., who saw \" Forest Farming,\" \" Jack Frost,\" and\n\" Snow Thrills \" on November 15th.\nForest Service Calendar.\u2014The 1947 calendar was produced during the year in the\ncustomary format. The greatest quantity ever printed was secured, but demand, as\nusual, exceeded supply.\n\" Forest and Outdoors.\"\u2014A total of 658 honorary fire wardens was appointed, and\neach one provided with a year's complimentary subscription to the Canadian forest\nconservation magazine, \" Forest and Outdoors.\" A letter of thanks for his co-operation\nand interest was forwarded to each appointee over the signature of the Minister.\nPublications and Printed Material.\u2014Two technical publications were edited during\nthe year, in assistance to the Operations and Economics Divisions respectively. A series\nof forest-protection bulletins, ten in number, was also edited on behalf of the Operations\nDivision. Printing arrangements in connection with these and a number of minor\nprojects was also undertaken. The Annual Report for 1945 was edited and printing\nsupervised.\nPublic Meetings.\u2014The staff of the Division addressed several gatherings on forestry topics and represented the Service at a number of Fish and Game Club meetings.\nIn some cases talks were supplemented by showing motion pictures from the Forest\nService film library.\nLibrary.\u2014The work of mounting index prints on individual cards was completed.\nThe acquisition of additional book-case space and an index-drawer stand enabled a\nneater arrangement of this phase of Division work. A tabular statement of library\noperations appears on page 100.\nPosters and Signs.\u2014Two new fire-protection posters were designed and printed,\nand one sample of the new style \" Scotchlite \" road-sign secured for the consideration\nof Service officers.\nExhibits.\u2014Preliminary plans for exhibits at district agricultural fairs during 1947\nwere instituted, and it is anticipated two exhibits will be available for circulation in\n1947. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 47\nStaff.\u2014An assistant to the Forester in charge was appointed in the last quarter of\nthe year.\nIt is evident, however, that the Division should have closer contact with the district\noffices, and this can best be obtained by the appointment of individuals in each district\nspecifically assigned to public relations work. 00 48 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nGRAZING.\nGENERAL CONDITIONS.\nThe generally prosperous condition of the live-stock industry over the past several\nyears continued during 1946. Prices remained steady at high levels and, on the whole,\nrange and hay-crops were good. The rancher, of course, was beset with many of the\ndifficulties common to all businesses during the current period of reconversion, as well\nas with some problems peculiar to ranching alone. A noteworthy attitude of progress\nis present among ranchers in general, and they are becoming much alive to the need for\nimprovements in their methods of production and for co-operative effort. An example\nof this is the successful representations made by the ranchers for the establishment of\na range experimental station in the vicinity of Kamloops.\nThe winter of 1945-46 was distinguished by extremely heavy snowfall throughout\nmost range areas. This condition was followed by plentiful rains over most areas\nduring May and June and occasional showers during the balance of the summer season.\nThe only exceptions to these favourable conditions were in the Chilcotin area and in the\nQuesnel district. As a result, stock came out of the feed-yards in the spring in fair\nshape, considering the long feeding period, and, once on the range, all classes picked up\nrapidly in flesh and came in this past fall in excellent condition. Sheep came off the\nalpine ranges in good shape. Except on non-irrigated land around Williams Lake and\nin the Chilcotin, hay-crops were fair to good. Haying conditions were excellent from\na weather standpoint, and high-quality feed was put up.\nRanchers report that, in the main, the labour situation is somewhat easier than it\nhas been for several years. The quality continues poor, as experienced help is hard to\nget. Sheepmen report that it is all but impossible to get men, experienced or otherwise,\nto act as herders.\nAfter being at plague proportions for several years, the grasshoppers did not cause\nany considerable damage during 1946. This is probably due to a parasite which is\nafflicting the hoppers. Extensive oiling and poisoning was also carried out in certain\nareas.\nIn some parts of the Interior the encroachment of certain undesirable weeds on\nthe range has become noticeable\u2014so much so that in some districts they have practically\nexcluded all grasses.\nMARKETS AND PRICES.\nWith cattle prices remaining steady at high levels, good returns were assured to\nlive-stock producers. Due to diversion of Prairie beef to Eastern markets the Vancouver market was able to absorb the usual heavy offerings of stock in October and\nNovember without prices being depressed to any extent. The successful efforts of the\nB.C. Live-stock Producers' Co-operative Association to spread offerings of grass-finished\nbeef over as long a period as possible also acted as a stabilizing influence. Some 53,497\nhead of cattle and 33,976 sheep and lambs were shipped in 1946. The 1946 wool-clip\nran to 277,339 lb., a slight decrease from the 1945 figure. Prices for good steers in\nVancouver ran from a low of $11.87 in January to $12.73 in July for an average of\n$12.25, an increase of 63 cents per hundredweight over 1945. Lamb prices averaged\n$13.31 per hundredweight, an increase of 70 cents over 1945. Wool prices remained\nsteady at an average of about 26% cents per pound.\nThere were seven major live-stock sales during 1946. At Quesnel the annual sale\ntotalled 1,306 head, or double the number sold in 1945. The Twenty-eighth Annual\nProvincial Bull Sale, held at Kamloops, sold 129 bulls, the top price for a Hereford bull\nbeing $3,000. The Interior Stockmen's Association sale broke all records, 1,147 cattle\nbeing sold.    The annual ram sale held at Kamloops disposed of 79 rams, and the annual REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 49\nCariboo bull sale and fat-stock show and sale held in Kamloops in December grossed\n$39,254, as compared with $34,930 in 1945. At this sale the boys' and girls' entries\naccounted for 44 per cent, of all sales. At Elko, in the East Kootenay, the annual sale\nwas held by the Waldo Stock Breeders' Association.\nLIVE-STOCK LOSSES.\nAs might be expected in a good grass-year, losses from poisonous weeds were\nrelatively light. Depredations by wolves and bears are reported to have increased very\nconsiderably again this year. In the Cariboo District the situation is particularly\nserious, and in the Okanagan bears are reported to be responsible for numerous killings\non the range. Coyotes are also very numerous and caused severe losses in lambs.\nRanchers and farmers are appealing through the B.C. Federation of Agriculture for\nhigher bounties on all predators. There have been no severe losses due to animal\ndiseases during the year.\nRANGE RECONNAISSANCE.\nDetailed information of topographical features, grass types, improvements, water,\nand forest-cover must be secured in the field by examination and plotted on base maps\nto permit of satisfactory range plans being set up. During 1946 we were able to\nincrease our staff of technically trained men having the qualifications necessary to\nundertake such studies. Two intensive surveys were undertaken, covering a total of\n407,680 acres. In the Clinton area some 338,880 acres were covered between the\nCariboo Highway and the Fraser River, and 68,800 acres in the Anarchist Mountain\narea were also mapped. In addition to the value of the above surveys in dealing with\nthe immediate problems existing in the range areas concerned, they will form a valuable\nbasis for future administration. Such reconnaissance information is essential to the\nsound management of Crown ranges. A large percentage of the current problems\narising in range administration could have been avoided if proper information had been\navailable earlier.\nFurther reconnaissance projects are planned for 1947, and it is proposed to carry\nout this work as funds will allow until all our range areas are mapped.\nCO-OPERATION.\nLive-stock Associations continued to increase in number throughout the Province,\nand reflect the desire of the ranching industry to co-operate for their mutual benefit\nand in order to be able to deal as a unit with other industries and the Government.\nThey are encouraged in order to give the Department a close contact with men using\nthe range and to ensure a consensus of opinion on matters affecting all range-users.\nWhen incorporated, such associations are given official recognition and a voice in range\nmanagement. In the Kamloops District sixty-one association meetings were held, fifty-\nfour of which were attended by Forest Officers.\nGRAZING PERMITS.\nThe number of grazing permits issued continues to increase, as more individuals\nfind it necessary and desirable to make use of Crown ranges. The tabulation on page\n100 shows the volume of business for 1946 and the past ten years.\nCOLLECTIONS.\nGrazing fees are billed in the spring when the permit is issued, and accounts are\nsent out at that time. These accounts are paid as the rancher has the funds and is\nable to make payment.    The fact that our outstanding arrears have been shrinking 00 50\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nmaterially over the past few years reflects the fact that permittees have more money,\nand accounts are paid more promptly.\nRANGE IMPROVEMENT.\nScarcity of labour and materials again made it impossible to complete any large\nnumber of the many necessary improvements planned. These will be carried forward\nto 1947, and as much work accomplished along this line as conditions will allow. The\nmost successful wild-horse disposal programme ever carried out in the Province took\nplace during 1946. A total of 1,027 horses was shot, of which 306 were stallions and\n658 mares. In addition, a considerable number of horses was rounded up and sold,\nboth wild horses on Crown ranges and private stock running at large. This wild-horse\ndisposal programme has made range available for some 5,000 head of cattle. This is\na very important achievement in districts where range is at a premium. The programme is continuing throughout the winter of 1946-47 in both the Cariboo and the\nEast Kootenay Districts, and it is expected that after this year the depredations of\nwild horses will have been materially reduced.\nThe disposal of wild horses and the construction of necessary improvements to\nthe range, as well as proportionate cost of range reconnaissance, are paid from the\nRange Improvement Fund. This fund is set up through statutory contribution of\none-third of all grazing fees collected. A statement of the status of the fund is found\non page 88. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 51\nPERSONNEL DIRECTORY, DECEMBER 31ST, 1946.\nVictoria Office.\nC. D. Orchard Chief Forester Victoria.\nR. C. St. Clair Assistant Chief Forester  Victoria.\nE. W. Bassett Forester\u2014Operations Victoria.\nR. R. Douglas Assistant Forester Victoria.\nJ. R. Johnston Assistant Forester Victoria.\nJ. H. Blake Marine and Structural Engineer Victoria.\nW. C. Spouse Mechanical Superintendent Victoria.\nG. A. Playf air Chief Radio Engineer Victoria.\nH. E. Ferguson Radio Engineer Victoria.\nE. B. Prowd Forester\u2014Management Victoria.\nG. M. Abernethy Assistant Forester Victoria.\nW. S. Hepher Assistant Forester Victoria.\nF. S. McKinnon Forester\u2014Economics Victoria.\nJ. L. Alexander Forester Victoria.\nD. M. Carey Assistant Forester Victoria.\nA. E. Collins Assistant Forester Victoria.\nE. H. Garman Assistant Forester Victoria.\nW. Hall Assistant Forester Victoria.\nJ. W. Ker Assistant Forester Victoria.\nC. P. Lyons Assistant Forester. Victoria.\nH. M. Pogue Assistant Forester Victoria.\nR. H. Spilsbury Assistant Forester Victoria.\nR. C. Telford Assistant Forester Victoria.\nA. Gordon Technical Forest Assistant Victoria.\nA. C. Kinnear Technical Forest Assistant Victoria.\nD. Macdougall Technical Forest Assistant Victoria.\nG. Silburn Technical Forest Assistant Victoria.\nD. M. Trew Technical Forest Assistant Victoria.\nR. H. Boyd Acting Forest Ranger Victoria.\nH. G. McWilliams Forester\u2014Reforestation Victoria.\nA. H. Bamford Assistant Forester Victoria.\nE. G. Whiting Supervisor Victoria.\nT. Wells Superintendent, Green Timbers Nursery__ New Westminster.\nW. Turner Superintendent, Campbell River Nursery_ Campbell River.\nJ. R. Long Superintendent, Duncan Nursery Duncan.\nEric Druce Forester\u2014Public Relations Victoria.\nD. R. Monk Technical Forest Assistant Victoria.\nR. D. Greggor Forester\u2014Ranger School New Westminster.\nJ. A. Pedley Assistant Forester New Westminster.\nJ. G. MacDonald Superintendent,  Forest  Service  Marine\nStation Vancouver.\nS. W. Barclay Royalty Inspector Victoria.\nH. H. Smith Chief Accountant Victoria.\nR. G. Gilchrist Chief Draughtsman Victoria.\nDistricts.\nVancouver.\nC. J. Haddon District Forester\t\nK. C. McCannel Assistant District Forester\t\nC. L. Armstrong Assistant Forester\t\nG. R. W. Nixon Assistant Forester\t\nD. B. Taylor Assistant Forester\t\nW. Byers Supervisor of Scalers\t\nA. C. Heard Assistant Supervisor of Scalers _\nA. H. Waddington Fire Inspector (Slash)\t\nJ. McNeil Fire Inspector\t\nR. Murray Supervisor..\n4\n-Vancouver.\n-Vancouver.\n..Vancouver.\n-Vancouver.\nVancouver.\n.Vancouver.\n..Vancouver.\n..Vancouver.\n-Vancouver.\n-Vancouver. 00 52\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nVancouver\u2014Continued.\nC. F. Holmes Supervisor (Slash) Vancouver.\nG. G. Armytage Forest Ranger North Vancouver.\nK. M. Bell Forest Ranger Pender Harbour.\nW. Black Forest Ranger \u2014Powell River.\nE. T. Calvert Forest Ranger Mission.\nL. C. Chamberlin Forest Ranger Thurston Bay.\nE. W. Cowie Forest Ranger Nanaimo.\nC. S. Frampton Forest Ranger Lake Cowichan.\nS. C. Frost Forest Ranger Squamish.\nR. J. Glassford Forest Ranger Qualicum.\nJ. P. Greenhouse Forest Ranger Langford.\nA. C. C. Langstroth Forest Ranger Alert Bay.\nR. Little Forest Ranger Harrison Hot Springs.\nJ. A. Mahood _Forest Ranger Chilliwack.\nS. Silke Forest Ranger Courtenay.\nH. Stevenson Forest Ranger Alberni.\nP. E. Sweatman Forest Ranger Duncan.\nT. J. W. Underwood Forest Ranger Campbell River.\nC. M. Yingling Forest Ranger Lund.\nR. W. Aylett Acting Forest Ranger Sechelt.\nW. E. Jansen Acting Forest Ranger Port Hardy.\nJ. H. Robinson Acting Forest Ranger Thurston Bay.\nE. P. Fox Chief Clerk Vancouver.\nPrince Rupert.\nDistrict Forester\nPrince Rupert.\n-Assistant District Forester Prince Rupert.\n. E. Mathieson\t\nJ. S. Stokes\t\nM. O. Kullander Assistant Forester  \u2014 Prince Rupert.\nS. G. Cooper Forest Ranger Terrace.\nC. L. Gibson Forest Ranger Smithers.\nI. Martin Forest Ranger Prince Rupert.\nJ. B. Scott Forest Ranger Masset.\nL. G. Taft Forest Ranger Southbank.\nH. W. Campbell Acting Forest Ranger Ocean Falls.\nW. H. Campbell Acting Forest Ranger Hazelton.\nS. T. Strimbold Acting Forest Ranger Burns Lake.\nA. M. Davies Chief Clerk Prince Rupert.\nR. G. McKee\t\nL. F. SwannelL\nA. H. Dixon\t\nW. G. Henning\t\nA. H. McCabe\t\nW. N. Campbell\t\nG. A. Forbes\t\nJ. S. Macalister\t\nL. A. Willington\u2014\t\nC. L. French\t\nI. B. Johnson\t\nA. J. Kirk Acting Forest Ranger\nW. V. McCabe .Acting Forest Ranger\nA. V. O'Meara Acting Forest Ranger\nR. B. Carter Chief Clerk\t\nFort George.\nDistrict Forester Prince George.\nAssistant District Forester Prince George.\nAssistant Forester Prince George.\nFire Inspector Prince George.\nActing Supervisor of Scalers Prince George.\n_Forest Ranger\u2014\n-Forest Ranger\u2014\nForest Ranger ....\n.Forest Ranger \u2014\n-Acting Forest Ranger..\n-Acting Forest Ranger_.\nPrince George.\nPrince George.\nMcBride.\nPenny.\nFort St. John.\n_Pouce Coupe.\nFort Fraser.\nGiscome.\n-Vanderhoof.\n.Prince George. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 53\nA. E. Parlow\u2014\nH. B. Forse .\nKamloops.\n.District Forester\t\nL. B. B. Boutton....\nI. T. Cameron\t\nH. K. DeBeck\t\nJ. E. Milroy\t\nW. C. Pendray\t\nE. W. Robinson_\t\nC. B. W. Rogers\u2014\nW. P. MacDonald\n..Assistant District Forester..\n..Assistant Forester\t\n..Assistant Forester\t\n.Assistant Forester\t\n..Assistant Forester\t\n..Assistant Forester\t\n..Assistant Forester\t\n..Assistant Forester\t\n.Fire Inspector.\n.Kamloops.\n-Kamloops.\n-Kamloops.\n..Kamloops.\nKamloops.\nKamloops.\nKamloops.\nKamloops.\nKamloops.\nKamloops.\nE. A. Charlesworth Supervisor of Scalers Kamloops.\nJ. Boydell Forest Ranger Salmon Arm.\nR. B. W. Eden Forest Ranger Kelowna.\nH. A. Ferguson Forest Ranger Chase.\nJ. M. Fraser Forest Ranger Merritt.\nC. D. S. Haddon Forest Ranger Revelstoke.\nJ. W. Hayhurst..\nM. A. Johnson...\n.Forest Ranger Vernon.\n.Forest Ranger\t\n..Forest Ranger\t\n\u2014Forest Ranger\t\nJ. W. McCluskey\t\nC. Perrin\t\nC. E. Robertson Forest Ranger\nW. W. Stevens Forest Ranger\nJ. H. Templeman Forest Ranger Enderby.\nC. Williams Forest Ranger Kamloops\nBlue River.\nVernon.\nPenticton.\nClinton.\nKamloops.\nW. P. Cowan\nJ. H. Dearing-\n_.Acting Forest Ranger_.\n.Acting Forest Ranger..\nT. L. Gibbs Acting Forest Ranger..\nR. C. Hewlett Acting Forest Ranger\nH. G. Mayson Acting Forest Ranger_\nF. H. Nelson Acting Forest Ranger..\nJ. A. Sim  Acting Forest Ranger..\nH. J. Parker Chief Clerk\t\nNelson.\n-District Forester\t\n-Assistant District Forester..\n-Assistant Forester\t\n. E. Marling\t\nM. W. Gormely\t\nC. D. Grove-White\nL. S. Hope Assistant Forester.\nG. W. Minns Assistant Forester.\nW. C. Phillips Assistant Forester.\nD. H. Ross\u2014-\nP. Young\t\nT. W. Brewer..\nG. T. Schupe...\n.Fire Inspector.\n.Fire Inspector.\n_Supervisor_.\nJ. H. A. Applewhaite..\nH. T. Barbour\t\nL. A. Chase\t\nH. J. Coles\t\nR. Damstrom\t\nW. D. Haggart\t\nJ. H. Holmberg\t\nJ. L. Johnson\t\nJ. F. Killough\t\nC. J. McGuire\t\nH. C. Nichols\t\nG. C. Palethorpe\t\nG. T. Robinson\t\nR. 0. Christie\t\nH. L. Couling\t\nS. S. Simpson\t\n..Supervisor of Scalers..\n-Forest Ranger\t\n-Forest Ranger\t\n-Forest Ranger\t\n.Forest Ranger\t\n..Forest Ranger\t\n-Forest Ranger\t\n.Forest Ranger\t\n.Forest Ranger\t\n..Forest Ranger.\t\n.Forest Ranger.\u2014\n.Forest Ranger\t\n.Forest Ranger\t\n.Forest Ranger\t\nActing Forest Ranger..\n_ Acting Forest Ranger..\n. Chief Clerk\t\n_ Clearwater.\n.Princeton.\n.Alexis Creek.\n-Birch Island.\n.Barriere.\n.Williams Lake.\n-Sicamous.\n..Kamloops.\n-Nelson.\n.Nelson.\n-Nelson.\n-Nelson.\n..Nelson.\n.Nelson.\n.Nelson.\n..Nelson.\n..Nelson.\n_ Nelson.\nCreston.\n-Cranbrook.\nNew Denver.\nGolden.\nFernie.\nEdgewood.\nGrand Forks.\nInvermere.\nKettle Valley.\n.Canal Flats.\nRossland.\n-Nelson.\n..Kaslo.\n.Arrowhead.\n-Nakusp.\n-Nelson.  APPENDIX  REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 57\nTABULATED DETAILED STATEMENTS TO SUPPLEMENT\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE.\nCONTENTS.\nGeneral.\nTable No. Pack.\n1. Distribution of Personnel, 1946  59\nReforestation.\n2. Summary of Planting during the Years 1937-46  60\nForest Management.\n3. Estimated Value of Production, including Loading and Freight within the\nProvince  61\n4. Paper Production (in Tons)  61\n5. Water-borne Lumber Trade (in M.B.M.)  62\n6. Total Amount of Timber scaled in British Columbia during the Years 1945-46 \u2022\n(in F.B.M.)  63\n7. Species cut, all Products (in F.B.M.)  64\n8. Total Scale (in F.B.M.) segregated, showing Land Status, all Products, 1946.\u2014 65\n9. Timber scaled in British Columbia in 1946 (by Months and Districts)  66\n10. Logging Inspection, 1946  68\n11. Trespasses, 1946  69\n12. Pre-emption Inspection, 1946  69\n13. Areas examined for Miscellaneous Purposes of the \" Land Act,\" 1946  70\n14. Classification of Areas examined, 1946  70\n15. Areas cruised for Timber-sales, 1946  71\n16. Timber-sale Record, 1946  71\n17. Timber-sales awarded by Districts, 1946  72\n18. Average Stumpage Prices as bid per M.B.F. Log-scale, by Species and Forest\nDistricts, on Saw-timber cruised on Timber-sales in 1946  73\n19. Average Stumpage Prices received per M.B.F. Log-scale, by Species and Forest\nDistricts, on Saw-timber scaled from Timber-sales in 1946  74\n20. Timber cut from Timber-sales during 1946  75\n21. Saw and Shingle Mills of the Province, 1946  76\n22. Export of Logs (in F.B.M.), 1946  77\n23. Shipments of Poles, Piling, Mine-props, Fence-posts, Railway-ties, etc., 1946.\u2014 78\n24. Summary for Province, 1946  79\n25. Timber-marks issued  79\n26. Forest Service Draughting Office, 1946  80\n27. Forest Insect Survey, 1946  80\nForest Finance.\n28. Crown-granted Timber Lands paying Forest Protection Tax   81\n29. Extent and Assessed Value of Timber Land by Assessment Districts  81\n30. Average Assessed Values of Crown-granted Timber Lands paying Forest Pro\ntection Tax, as compiled from Taxation Records  82\n31. Forest Revenue  83 00 58 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nTable No. Page.\n32. Amounts charged against Logging Operations, 1946  84\n33. Amounts charged against Logging Operations, Fiscal Year 1945-46  85\n34. Forest Revenue, Fiscal Year 1945-46  86\n35. Forest Expenditure, Fiscal Year 1945-46  87\n36. Scaling Fund  87\n37. Forest Reserve Account  88\n38. Grazing Range Improvement Fund  88\n39. Standing of Forest Protection Fund, March 31st, 1946  89\n40. Forest Protection Expenditure for Twelve Months ended March 31st, 1946\u2014By\nthe Forest Service  90\n41. Forest Protection  Expenditure  for  Twelve  Months  ended  December 31st,\n1946\u2014Reported Approximate Expenditure by Other Agencies  91\nForest Protection.\n42. Summary of Acreage logged, 1946, and dealt with under Section 113A  91\n43. Summary of 1946 Operations, Vancouver Forest District  92\n44. Summary Chart A\u2014Intentional Slash-burn  93\n45. Recapitulation Slash-disposal, 1934-46  93\n46. Fire Occurrences by Months, 1946  93\n47. Number and Causes of Forest Fires, 1946  94\n48. Number and Causes of Forest Fires for the Last Ten Years  94\n49. Fires classified by Size and Damage, 1946  94\n50. Damage to Property other than Forests, 1946  95\n51. Damage to Forest-cover caused by Forest Fires, 1946  95\n52. Fire Causes, Forest Service Cost, and Total Damage, 1946  96\n53. Comparison of Damage caused by Forest Fires in Last Ten Years  97\n54. Fires classified by Forest District, Place of Origin, and Cost per Fire of\nFire-fighting, 1946  97\n55. Prosecutions, 1946  98\n56. Burning Permits, 1946  99\nPublic Relations.\n57. Forest Service Library  100\nGrazing.\n58. Grazing Permits issued  100\n59. Grazing Fees billed and collected  100 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 59\n(i)\nDistribution of Personnel, 1946.\nPersonnel.\nForest District.\nVancouver.\nPrince\nRupert.\nFort\nGeorge.\nKamloops.\nNelson.\nVictoria.\nTotal.\nPermanent.\nChief   Forester,   Assistant   Chief   Forester,   and\nDivision  Foresters\t\nDistrict Foresters and Assistant District Foresters....\nForesters and Assistant Foresters\t\nSupervisor of Rangers and Fire Inspectors\t\nRangers\t\nSupervisor of Scalers and Assistants\t\nScalers\t\nInspectors, Royalty and Export\t\nMechanical\u2014Radio and Engineering Supervisor\t\nSurveys and Research Assistant\t\nNursery Superintendents\t\nNursery, reforestation, and parks\t\nDraughtsmen\t\nClerks, stenographers, and messengers\t\nSuperintendents    and    foremen \u2014 Forest    Service\nMarine Station\t\nMechanics, carpenters, and technicians\t\nLaunch crewmen\t\nMiscellaneous\t\nPermanent\t\nTemporary permanent\t\nTotal, permanent personnel\t\nSeasonal.\nAssistant Rangers\t\nPatrolmen\t\nLookout-men\t\nDispatchers and radio operators\t\nFire-suppression crewmen\t\nCruisers and compass-men\t\nMiscellaneous\t\nTotal, seasonal personnel\t\nTotal, all personnel\t\n4\n22\n2\n34\n1\n1*\n37\n7*\n108\n17*\n28\n16\n15\n16\n42\n129\n21\n5*\n10\n10\n2\n7\n1\n20\n1*\n9\n1*\n10\n1*\n25\n1*\n44\n4*\n13\n8\n12\n26\n25\n17\n13\n48\n2\n5\n2\n15\n1\n1*\n13\n1*\n39\n2*\n35\n12\n29\n16\n40\n138\n16\n1\n1*\n4\n5\n8*\n3\n15*\n6\n4*\n50\n10*\n105\n39*\n160\n10\n33\n8\n74\n1*\n5\n34\n1*\n2\n1*\n4\n5\n8*\n3\n15*\n12\n6*\n128\n22*\n3\n10\n1\n12*\n2\n2*\n112\n71\n\u25a082\n53\n138\n16\n42\n514\nTotal number of positions, \" permanent \" and \" temporary permanent,\" occupied December 31st, 1946, was 410.\n* Continuously employed but no voted salary for the purpose. 00 60\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\ntz_\n<\nH\nrH\nw\nH\nE-<\nco\n<\n\u00ab\no\n\u00a7\ni\u2014i\nH\n|Zi\n<;\nCM\nO\n(h\nK\n<l\ns\ns\nCQ\nooo\nOOOO\nto   O   CO   c\no\nu\nt-   IO   CM\nrH    00    CM    C-\nt-  m m if\nCO\nO    CD    O\n(M   CM   CD   OS\nfc-  if   M\n^   Oj   L-   ^\nrH    rH             r-\n-#\n<\nO    rH    O\nrH    fc-    O    T-H\nH\nto\n3\nrH             i-H\ni-H\nrH\nIO\nE-i\nGfl\nt-H    ^    tO\nCM   i-\n(M    Oi\nCQ    CO   IO    Tt\no\nt-   Tl\nTf    Cv\n9 *\nCO    O    CO\ni-H    CC\ntc\nt-\nIO    CM    CO\nrH    CO    t-    CO\nO    rH             0C\nto\nC-    iH    fc-\nOl    tO   00    i-H\n\"*\n[H^-\nTf\nEH\np\nZ\no o o\no  c\nO    O\nO\no\nS J\n01\nfc-   O   rH\n(M    Cs\nCv\n00\nO\nCvl\nrH    i-H\niH    l-\nCM\n& 4\n__ s\n_. _i\n< <\nt-   Tj.    Tf\nTf   IT\n0.\n*-r\nCO\nIO\nm ri\n0)   w\neg\nO0\n&&\n__\nH*\nOh\nE-i\n1\no\no   C\no o\no o    : c\no\nSi\nf-t\n(M\no  eo io io\nio cm    : if\nt-\neo\nt-\nrH    IO\n.-i    : c\\\ntH\nrH\nCO\n\u00a3\n<!\nB\no\n5.\nW\n\"H P!\nlO   iO   o   o\no \u00a9    ; c\nIO   CM      i   if\no\no\nB\nr-l\nCM\n<_.\nfrx\nEH\nOOO\no\nO    O\no   <=\n:  cr\nCO\ng\n0)\nu\nO    IO    TF\no\nO    IO\ntp c\n:  tc\nto\neo\nrH    C\n: &\u25a0\nc-\n2\nt-   <M   Ol\niO\nIO    rH\nrH   r-\nCM\n\u25a0<\n0.\n<\nTf    i-H\n00\nS\no\nO\nw\n<\n\u2022SI\ncn ri\ncp co\nMOO\nOl\nc\no\nTf    C\n: oc\nCO\nTf     ffl     O\nCO\nCl   tc\n:  cv\nCM\nCO   o   to\nIO\ni\u2014i\n00\nH o\nS\ntr*X\nEH\nZ\no   .\no   o o\no  o\no\no\no <__:\n: c\nCJ\nu\n\u2022M-\nOf\nOf\neo\nCO   t-\nO    CO    fc-\ne\ntr\nTF      U\nOZ\nO    iH    rH\nc\nCM\nOl\n: tc\nCM\n<\nCD           Oi\nO   fc\"\ne\nt-\nmZ\nhj*\nta\nST!\n:  t:\nCv]\nCi] \u00ab\nr-\nto\n0)   CO\nHI   3\nfc-  tD   o\nr-\nt;\nin\nrH     tC\nfc\nl\u00a3\ntc\nCO\n:  o-\nt-\nHx\n00\n&H\nO\nc:\ne\ne\no\nCO   o\nCO    C\nCO\nCD\nU\nr-\neo\n*\nt-\n&\ntc\nTf\nto\n<$\nz\nB\n\u00a7\n1\nCT;\nO\n~rf\nec\nCC\nCD    tC\nIO    Cvl\n\u00a9\n\u00a3\nco ri\non\n<N\nin\nr-\nto\ncm ec\nCl    If.\no\nm\noj 3\n> o\nIO\nt-\nEH\ni\nu\nri\nX\n:   3\no\n-w\n-2\nri\no\nEH\nto  io   -_.fi\no= oc\n\u2014\nt1\nTl\n*\u25a0*\neo  eo REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 61\nH\n__)\nfc\nl-H\n>\no\nM\nPh\nw\n3\nEh\nEh\nw\no\nw\n03\nfe\nfi\nfc\n<.\nfc\nl-H\no\n<.\no\no\nfc\nHH\nQ\nP\n\u25baJ\nO\nfc\nfc\no\nH\nO\no\nfi\no\nOS\nPh\nfc\no\nfc\np\n<!\n!>\na\ns\n1\u20141\nH\n09\nH\nOCDrHOlOOCOClCvl\nO    O    00    Cl    IO    o\n1   fc-\nlit\ne jco\nIO    If\n-\u2022lOTFOOfc-TflO\no  o  o\n1     fc-     O     T\nf      CO\nlOCMOtDiHOi-Hi-HO\nO    O    rH    IO    fc-    CI\ns   o\nTf    Cl    CO   CD    O    CM    ti\n)   IO   o\nO    O    Cv]    rH    CO    O\nS      CO\nWHHOXNrilf\nOl\nS     00\nt-TfCOCllOrHTfCMCO\nCO    Tf    CO\nrH\n01\nCJ > oi\nCM    IO    Cl    Tl\nCM   CM   CM\nrH    rH    CM*\nto\nH<\u2122\nto    CM\nrH\nAO-\nCM    IO    tD    rH\nO   CM   00   Cl\nC\u2014J    O    O    fc-   CD    1-\nS   o\nO   IO   O   Ol\nO    tD    00    rH\nO   O   00   00   IO   o\ni    fc-\nIO    IO    IO    Tf\nO    fc-    Tf    IO\nO   O   Cvl   tr-   O   T\n.    eo\nto'\nCl\neo  o to oc\nO    IO    fc-   CO\nO    O    Cl    tD    Cvl    o\n1      rH\nT-H      O      Tf      00     j.\nO    CO    Cl    CM    w\nCM    Cvl    Tf    fc-\nO     O     T.\no   C\ni      t-\nrH    rH    CO    Tf\nfc-   t:\nTf     i-\nfc--\"   tH    Ovf   CO*\nOl   iO   CM\ni-h i-h eg\nco\nCO    Tf    rH\nt-\n60-\n\u00bb\nO  o  o  o\nOOOO\nO   O   O   O   o   c\no\nOOOO\nOOOO\no o o o o c\n>   o\nOOOO\nOOOO\no  o  o o o c\no\nid\nTf    CM   Tf   in\nO    tO    rH    t-\nO\"   CD    CD    IO    rH    T\nIO\nTf\nOl\nTf      00     Tf      IO     \u201e\nCvl   tr-   io   00  \"\nO    00    CM    O\nO    O    CD    CM    fc-    If\n)     iO\n\u00a9    Cl    CO    IO\nIO    IO    t-\n<M\nCD\ni-H\nco  co* o* ir-*\ntO    Cv]    CV]\nt-H    i-H    i-H\nfc-\"\nt-    CO    i-H\n\u00bb\ni-H\n\u00ab\u25a0\nOOOO\nOOOO\nO    O    O    \u00a9    O    C\nO\nOOOO\nOOOO\nO    O    \u00a9    O    O    C\nCD\nOOOO\nOOOO\nO   O   O   O   O   C\nO\nT*\nTf\n0>\nIO    i-H    tO    00\nc\n00    CO   Tf\nO    O    IO    IO    CD    CT\nTf    CO    O    CM   *\nO   CO   c\na\no o  to  eo eo c\nrH\n\u00a9   cr\nTt\nto  io o\nCv]\nto\nrH    O*   O*   tr-*\nto   CM   CO\nrH    rH    Cvf\nto\"\nCO    CO    rH\nTf\nSO\nrH\nSO\nOOOO\no c\nc\nO    O    O    O    O    C\nO\no o c\no\no c\nes\nO    O    O    O    O    c__\nO\no o \u00a9_ o\nO    G\nc\no o o o o c\no\nCO\nO*   t-\"  Cvf  fc-*\nfc- If\noc\nO    O    IO    CD    t-    C\nTf\nTf\nCl\nCv]    Ol    CO    Ol   *\nIO    IO    CO    CD   w\nCO    \u00ab\nCC\nO    O    IO    i-t    CM    IT\neo\nTf\no.\n00     Tt\nIO\nCM   r-\n\u25a0*\nrH\nCD    IO    00    \u25a0*}\nCM    Tt\nCM    rH    rH\noo\"\ntO   CM\nSO\n<\u00bb\nOOOO\no c\n<=\nO    O    O    O    O    C\no\nOOOO\no o\nO    C\nc\nc.\nO   C\no\nOOOO\no cr\no\nO    C\nC3\nO   O   c\no\nCM\nO    t>    of   Ir-\"\nto   if\nO    O    CO    Cv\nCM    CC\no\nIO    IO    CM    Cl    \u201e\ni-H    Tf    CO    CO   *\nfc-   tc\nCv\nO    O    r-\nCO    If\nCM\nOl\nIO   r-\nCN\nlO   IO   tc\nc-\nrH\nt-* t-* Cvf id\nC-f   Cv\nIM   r-\nCs\n'\nTf\nCD   CM   l-\nCM\nee-\nrH\n6*\nOOOO\nc\n<r\n<___\nO   C\nc\n\u00a9\no\nO\nO   C_\no e\nc:\nc\no\no  o\nc\ncs\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\no o o o\nc\no\nC\nCP   \u00a9\nc\nc\no\n\u00a9\n,_J\nto\" co\" O   fc\"\nCO   CM\nTf\n\u00a9* c\nCv\nt-   CO\no\nOl    Cv\nI\u00a3\ne\n_\u25a0\nCv\n(N\ncr\no c\nfc-\nCM\nIO   t-   If\nt- \"\nfc-    IT\nc\\\no  ir\nCV\nOl\nTJ\nt- i-\nTt\nCV]     T-\n* r\nOl\nto   CM   i-\nee-\n60\nc\nc\nG\nc\ncr\nc\nc\nc\no c\nC\nc\no\no\nc\n\u00a9\nc\nc\ne\no o\no\no c\nC\nc\no\no\nct\n<=\nc\ne\nc\nc\n\u00a9\nC\no   \u00a9\nc\nc\no\n\u00a9\n__;\nTf\nc\nCT\nc\nC\nCT\nOC\no c\ncc\nTf\"\nTf\nCl\nfc-   Cv\nt-\nTf\nIC\nC\nw\no   c:\not\nfc-\no\nIT\ncr\ncc\nt-\nfc\"\nfc- ec\nCN\ntD     Tf\ntc\n00\nrH\nir\nir\n6\nc\\\ncr\n*  T\nr-\nrH*   ,-\ne\nof\no\n60-\n60\nc\nc\no\nc\nc\n\u00a9\ne\no  c\no\nc\ne\no\no\nc\n<=\n<___\no\no\nes\n___=   c\nc\no\nIZ\no\nc\nc\nc\no\nc\n\u00a9\no\n\u00a9\no e\nC\nc\nc\n\u00a9\nOl'\ncr\nc\nC\"\ntr\nCC\nIO\no\no  c\nCvl\nr-\nc-\ntc\nV\nee\nu-\ntc\no  c\n_.r-\nT\nCM\nOl\no-\nir\nc\nfc-\nli.\nIO      Tf\noc\nCM\nIT\ncc\nc\nrH*    r-\nec\noo\"\nCO\n60-\nSO\nbo\na\nta\n?\nrg\no\no\na\n+\na\n0\nb\nc\n\u00a3\n17\nC\nfi\n'e\nr\u00bb>\nX\nP\nt\ntf\nD\n\u00ab\n0\nCO\n0\nO\nffi\nC\nE\nc\nc\np\n*\nc\n1\n0\n5\nPh\ni\ni\n\u25a0*_\u2022\nS\no\nE\np.\n%\n1\np\ni\na\nfi\nr-\n\u2022c\n\u00a3\npj\nJh\nC\na\nc\noj\nb\n53\n>\nri\n>\na\nP\na\n1\ni\n1\nt-\n-2\np\ns\n2\ng\nc\nc\nK\n0\nc\np\nc\nJ\nJ\n%\n'ri\n|\n0     1=1\n*   ri\nE   cr\nC\n0\n\\\ntf.\nti\n1\nD\nE\nEH\nE\n\u00a3\nc\nc\nc\n1\n<\nI\n2\n+\nI\ni\nc\n\u00a3\nc\nc\nC\nTd\nfl!\nc\n0\n_L\nrt\n^\np.\na\nCC\ne\np-\n'f\na\nf\n<!\ny-:\nK\nP-\nc_\nc\nfc\no\nH\nO\nP\nQ\nO\nM\nOh\n\u00ab\nH\nPh\n<!\nPh\nU4\nc ico\ncu >a\u00bb\nH<JrH\nci eo\nfc-    CD\nCM    CM\ntH    CD*\nTf     CO\nCM\ntD\nTf\nOl\nrH\nrH   CO\nCvi   eo\nOS   oo\noi\" eg\"\nIO   CO\nCM\nid\nTf\nCl\ni-H\nrH   rH\nt-   Ol\nto   CO\nCO* o\"\nIO    00\nCM\nTf\n^f\nOl\nrH\nCD   CO\nOl   CO\nCO   \u00a9\nCD\"    Tf\"\nCO    fc-\nCM\nCO\nTf\nOl\nrH\nto  CO\nOl   CM\nCO   o\ni-H    CO\nrH    CO\nCM\nCM\nTf\nOl\nOl   IO\nIO    i-H\nIO   Cl\nCM*   Tf*\nIO  t-\nCv]\nTf\nOl\nCO    CO\n00    IO\ntr-   Tf\nIO   IO\ntr-  tr-\nCM\no\nTf\nCl\nTf    OO\ntf    CM\nCv]   CO*\nCD   CO\nCM\nu\n0\nO\nh\nPh\nH-\n\u00a3\nT\np\nI\na\nBC\nt-\n1\ns\nI\nc\n>\no\nSh\nPh\na;\nSh\n<U\nP.\nC3\nft   Sh\u00b0\ncS\nO    0)\nTJ    H--\na)\nSh    bO\nh5.S\nO     Sh\na!   3\na oj\n13   S.\nA?   Sh\nft\n<H  &\nO     +H\n60   \"H\na \u00b0\nO   h_j\n*\u25a0 s\nT\u00bb \u00b0\ni-H rrj\nO     cl)\n\"> &\nrH ft\nCO 2\no  m\nSh\na cu\n.2 \u00a3\n\u2022\u25a0t. _,\n-a a\nT_S O\nC3   H--\n\u00a3 c_\n\"^1\nas\"\nto 00 62\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nPh-\nfc\nQ\n<!\n0-\n_H\nM\nfc\n\u00ab\np\nfc\n\u00a7\nPS\no\nBJ\nH\nH\n<!\n00     Tf      O     Tf     CO     Tf      C\n_Mt>IOtO00C-Cvlt-00C\nrH    CC\nt-    CD    i\u20141    CC\nt-\ncm   eo  if\nfc-oococit\u2014  ciinc\n1-HOClrHfc-TfCOTfCOrH               C\n00\ntr-   O  Tt\nO  co  Oi   io  Tf   co  ti\nTfot-Tfio        locneoco\noc\nT*\nI    JH fc-\nd 0\u00bbeo\nCJ >o\nEH^r-\"\nrH    Tf    fc-    O    Tf    If\nIO    rH    Tf\ni-H    CD    rH    IO    rH             CM             CM\nOl\n00\nCv]           lO   IO\niO\nCO\nOl\nOl    CM    Tt\nCv]\nOQOrH-OTfCMIOCvllOt-OCl\nt-\n: c\nIO\nCD    Ol    Cl    CO\nCOCOCDOOOCOtOrHOOClCvlCVl\n00\n: c\nl-H\nCO\nCM    00    t-    CD\nOllOi-HOlOCOIOOOi-HCOTfCM\neo\n: cc\nCvl\ntV\nOl\nfc-    IO    rH    CO\n00   IO\nCM   rH   CO   CO   lO   Ol                   CO\nfc-\n1 *\nIO\nCO\nrH    IO\nl-H    Cl\n-^f\n\u25a0\u00ab\nfc-\nHJ-\nH>\nO    fc-\nCl\nCO    CM    rH    t-\nCM    O    Tf    rH    CO\nOl\nCO\nCM\nO    CO\nCM\nt-    CO   IO   CO\ni-H    fc-\nTf     Tf\nO\n: c\nCO\nid\nCO    CD\nCM\nTf     fc-\nlO\nTf      CO\nCM    CM\nCO\n! c\n\u00a9_\nCO    IO\nIO    CD\nof\nO    <M\ni-H    EM\nCv]\ni ^\nfc\"\nCO\nCl     Tf\nTf\n\u25a0   IO\nfc-\nCM   O\nfc-     Tf     O\nO    \u00a9\n00\n: v\nC0\nCO    IO\ni-H    tH    IO\nTf      IO\nt-\n00\n: oc\n\u00a9\nCO    rH\nCM\nCM    CO\nw_.\niO\n: c\nt-\nTf\nOl\nid\" co*\n00    Tf*\n-J\u2014\nCO*  IO*\nrH\n! &\n00*\nIO\neo\n\u25a0    CO\nt-\nH\u2014\n+-\nCM\nBC\nfc-     Tf\nrH    CO   O    CVI\nfc-\n: c\nCl\nIO\no*\nTf     CM\n\u00a9    OC\nCO   O\nco\n: ic\nIO\nCO\nTf\nT.\nCO    Cl\nCO\nCl     Tf\nCvl\n: c\\\n00\nTf\n\u00bbo\"\na\nCO     Tf\"\nCO*\nCO*   i-H*\nio\"\nTf\nIO    Cvl\nCO\n\u2022    CD\ntr\nH\u2014\nci a\nTf\nCM   00   CC\nCO\nco o  cr\nCD\n: cr\nee\nrH    a\nTf\nO     fc-     Tt\n00    tO    Cvl\nTf\n: cvi\no\ncvi\n00    i-\n0\nOl   00   oc\nCO\nCO    O    Cvl\ni-H\nTf\nTf\neo cv\nTf\nco* cf\nto\nTf     IO\nid\"\nCO    CM\nCv]\n1    Tf\nlO\n4\u2014\n-i-\nTf     f\nI\u2014\ntr\nrH   CM   Cv\nss\nCD   Tf    IO\n00\n: cr\nIO\nrH    r-\nc\nCC\nto Tf  a\n00\nIO   t-   tr-\n: t-\nCO\ni-H\nCO    If\n\u00a9\ncc\nCO    rH    Cv\neo\no  o c-\n: w\n\u00a9^\nTf\nOl\nl-H\nof CV\ncc\nc\nCl    OO\"   CV\n\" s\u00a3\noi   HI   C-\nCD*\nTf\nCM\nt-    CD\nCO\neo\nt-\n+-\n\u2022i-\nt-     Tl\nta\nt-\nIO    Tt\nco  o-\nCO\nOl   fc-   >c\nCO\nO   00\nCO\nfc-\nOl oc\nc\nTt\neo c\nO    cr\nCN.\no   CO\nCM\nCM    CO\nCO\n: cvi\ni-H\nt- If\nfc-\nec\noo if\nfc-    r-\nt>\nCO    l-H\nCO\nrH   Ol\nto\n: cc\ncn\nOl\nCM   cv\n1\u2014\ncc\nTf\n\u00a9\nIO   t-\nt-\nTf\"\nfc-\"\nfc-\nfc-\n00\nt>\n1-1\nIO\n0.\nCM\nH\u2014\n-t-\nTf      Cv\no\nIC\nco ec\nO   if\nCO    (M\n00    CO    Tf\nCOCOOCMOCOCOlO\neo cv.\nCvl\nce\nfc-\ni\u2014i c\nCM    Cv\neo   cc\nCM    Cvl    Cvl\ncm   c-  i-h   cn  en  ai o>\no\nCO\nlO    r-\nta\nfc-\ni\u20141   tc\nrH     CN\nfc-   co\nCO   io   o\nco   ci   cm   if)   0   o   tr-\nTf\no\nOl\nTf     lf\nIO\nCD   Tf\n\u00a9   fc-\neo*\nfr.\ni-H    CM\nrH    rH                      CO    i-H\nCl\nTf\ni-H\nec\nto\nOl\nCO\nCv]\nIO   if\nto\nt-\nTf    H\nTf      Tf-\nSS 2\nT)\nIO    i-H\nIO    00\nCO    CO    CM    CO    rH\n: cc\nIO\nto   G\nTf\nif\nCl   CO\ni-h   tr\nCO    00\noc\nTf     t-\nrH    CD\nio  oo  eo  fc-  Tf\n: cvi\nCl\nCO\nTf a\nO-\nTr\nrH   CO\nee   i\u2014\n\u00a9 \u00a3,\ntc\nfc-     CV]\nCO     Tf\nCD    CO    CO\n: cv]\nCO\n\u00a9\ni-H    fc-\n03\nee\nOl   rH\n**    i-H\nCO    IO    (M\nIO   IO\nco\" CO*\nOJ\n\u2022>*\nTf\nTf\niO\nCl\n~\nfc-\nO   If\nCM\nIf\nt-    Tf\nIO   r-\neo eo\nfc-     Tf     00\noicoci-oeocieocc\nfc-\nO    i-\ncr:\nCC\nt-    CC\nrH   0C\nCO    Tf\noc\nO     Tf\nt-fc-Cvlfc-COtOCvliH\n: Tt\nfc-\nt^\nTf     Tf\nto\ncc\nCO   cr\no  fc-\nOi   tr-\nTt\nOl    t-\nCM    IO             CO    00    CO    O    rH\n: cvi\neo\nCO\nOl\nCO   IT\nc\nt-\nO    0C\nCl    CO\nt>\nc\nCO   Tf                      CM    rH   rH\nt-*\nIO\ni-H\nTf\neo tt\nTf\nO\no\nrH\ntc\nrH\n1-1\n*\nrt\"\n+-\nEl\n2 \"\u00bb\np\nri   c_\n|i\n\u2022y_\n0\n0\na\nH-\n0\na\n'I\na\n#ti\n3\nri\nu\n\"-P\n(\n\u00a3\n\"\u25a03 fi\nri\n0\nc\nv_\nC   ri\ne\nX\nS\nc.;\nc\na\n<\n-13\nco\nCJ\nQ\nn\n-a\np\nri\n\u00a3\nc\nH-l\nffi\nW_\n_H-\n\u25a0o ._\n01 -0\nn\n0\nri\n(2\n0\na\n+j\n0\nC\nt\/_\n<\nu\n+J\n0\nQJ\n0\nri\nof\n0\n0\na\nTJ\nQJ\n*\ni eg\na\n:   ta\n:    ci\ny\n\u00a3\nEO\nP\n<\nX\n0\nri\n\"ri\n5\nN\n1\n-A\n_.\nT\n<\nX\n\u25a0iH\n0\n0\nB\nc\nX\no\nP\nri\n0\nccj\nH\nb\n0\n5\nCL\n'c\nj\n\u25a0-\n*r\n<\nX\n-p\n0\nc\no:\nr\n&\nB\nccj\n\u2022S\nTJ\n0\nC\n+\na\n4-\nXJ,\ntj\nCL\n+\n'W\np\na\nGE\nffi\n.H\n0\n0\nX\nPh\nCl\nD\na\nCO\nCU\nis\no\nTJ\n0\na\n\u00ab_\n'P\na\nH-\n1\nhJ\nP\n>\nfc.\n0\n*S\n*\nhi\na\nI\nffi\n*\n4\nc\n0\nri\nA\n*\n>\n0\n\u00a3\nfi\nQJ\nu\n*\n0\nJ]\nM\n*\n>\n+s\nt-H\n\u00bb\nTJ\n0\nri\n>.\nI\n0\n2;\n: 1.\n':   0\n!  p\ni 0\ndi\nX   oj\nri   u\nft p\n1\nc\nn\nR  S\nP I\n.S   5\nCJ\nX> & REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 63\nTotal Amount of Timber scaled in British Columbia during the Years 1945-46\n(6) (IN F.B.M.).\nForest District.\n1945.\n1946.\nGain.\nLoss.\nNet Gain.\n2,292,502,255\n190,476,922\n2,394,825,986\n124,855,987\n102,323,731\n65,620,935\nTotals, Coast\t\n2,482,979,177\n2,519,681,973\n54,115,835\n145,480,381\n178,895,616\n219,764,482\n62,580,526\n184,613,649\n201,613,808\n225,175,176\n8,464,691\n39,133,268\n22,718,192\n5,410,694\n598,256,314\n673,983,159\n75,726,845\n3,081,235,491\n3,193,665,132\n178,050,576\n65,620,935\n112,429,641 00 64                            DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nto  t-\nCO\n\u00a9   \u00a9   CO   \u00a9\nCD\nCM\n00  oc\nE-\nCvl    Tf    o    t-\nIO\nCO\nCl   o\nai\nlO   CO   00   i-H\no_\nIO*  -C\nrH\nO*   CO*   CO*   IO*\nCO\nIO\n3\nCM   Vf\nCO\n00    i-H    i-H    fc-\n00\nCD\n00   oc\nto\n10    CO    tO    rH\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n5\nTf*    TJ\n\u00a9\"\nCvf   Tf    ,H*   IO\nCO\neo*\nH\nCl    Cv\nT-H\ntO    00    O    Cv]\nt-\nCl\neo   t-\nIO\nrH    Cv]    Cv]\n\u00a9\nt-h^\nCvf\nCM*\nco\"\nto  cc\nCv]\n\u00a9    IO   Cv]    \u00a9\neo         io\nJl\nt- a\nt-\ntO    t-H    t-    Cv]\nt-\n\u25a0rf\nfc-_   C\u00a3\nOl  t-\nTf\nt~\"\nIO    00    t-    i-H\nt-\"   CD    CM\"  rH\nCV]\nCO*\nfc;\nIO\nII\n\u00a9    \u00ab\nfc-\nTf    t\u00a9    CD    CO\no\n00\nO   i-\nrH^\nfc- \u00ab\u00bb ea t-\nCD\nTf_\nCO*   r-\nt>\"\nrH    Cvf\nlO\nCM*\n*\"H\nfc-   c\nt-  cv]  oi  t-\nlO\nCM\n\"\nCM   C\nCv]\nTf    rH    CO    fc-\nt-\n\u00a9\nCO   c\nIO\nCl    00    Cl    Tf\nrH\nt-\nti\nCO   C\no\"\nIO   Cvf O   O*\n\u00a9\no*\neo  t-\nCO   00   IO   Ol\n\u00a9\nt-\neo*\neo\nCO\nCM           CO\nt-\nTf\n1-1\n^\n'H\n: i-h eo\nTf\nTf\nIO    i-H\n\u00a9\nto\n43\nCl   CD\nIQ\nto\n\u00a3\n__-\" \u00bbo\"\n00\neo*\nri\nr3\nIO   CO\nO    fc-\n00\n00\n!H*   Tf*\nio\"\nIO\n1    Cvl    CD\n00\n00\nCft   if\nTf\nTf\nCU\n00   CV\ntH\nrH    C\nIO\nio\nt-\n00*   i-\nCl\nCl\nP.\nCl    CV\nrH\n>.\nTf\nIO\nIO\nO\nCvf\nCvf\nCM*\nCvl\nCvl\n:    : \u00a9 oo\nTf\nto\nn\nto\n\u00a9\nCO   o\n\u00a9\nIO\nCO\nOO\nCl   CD\nIO\nTf\n\u2022\nCO*\nCO\no\" o\"\nrH\no\"\n&\nCO\neo\nCO    Ol\nCvl\nCO\n\u00a9 _>\nrH    Cvf\n00\nco\"\n00\neo*\n'    CM     rH\nCO\neo\nfc-\nt-\n:    : co io\nCO\n\u00a9\nfe\nOJ     .\nt_ *\nCM\nCvl\nO    Cvl\neo\nCO\nCO\n00\nTf      O\n<tf\ncq\n[S(H\nCl   o\nOl\ng\nCO\nIO\nIO\nTf      O\nTf\no\nCM\n00*\nCM\n00\n00   c-\nCM*  iO\nIO\nCO*\nCO\nto\nCM\nIO   CN\nfc-\nIO   \u00a9   CM   i-H\nCO\nIO\nEh\nCM   IC\nt-\ntr-  co   rH   iO\n\u00a9\no\nS\nri\nTf    CC\nO\nCO    !_-    CO    CM\nto\nfc-\n\u25a0     .                                                                    P\nrH*    CT\nfc-    CD    CO*   Ol\nCO\nfc-\"\neo   ic\"\n\u00a9\n00    rH    IO    Tf\n\u00a9\nCl\nQ\n73\neo  t\nt-\n\u00a9   to   OO   CM\nCO\nIO\nO\no*   T-\n,___r\nrH*   CO\"            rH\nCD\nCO\ntt\nPh\niO   i-\nCO\nto\n1-1\nrH\n^\nCvl    CM\nTf\nIO    CO    CO    \u00a9\nfc-\n^\nJ\nOl   r-\n\u00a9\nO    \u00a9    CV]    CO\nCv]\neo\nJ\nt- c\noo\n\u00a9   Tf    Tf    Cl\n00\nto\n\u20225\no\nCv]   CN\nTf\nto          cf io\nCO\n1\nCO   r-\nOl\nio          tM   eo\nCM\nrH   CC\nc-\n\u00a9           O   CO\n\u25a0Tf\nCM\nH\nX\nIO    t\u2014\nCD\nCD               rH     rH\n00\n\u00abi\nP\n00   cr\nlO\nrH\nCD\n1-1\n1-1\nCO\nCD\nu\n: cc\nCO\n\u00a9    rH    O    \u00a9\nto\nCV]\no_\nOf\nCO\nt-    i-(    tO    rH\nCO\no\n6.\ni> _, .!\nrH    lrj   CO   Cvl\nIO\nfc-\n.f38\nc\nOl\nTf      CO*    l-H      O*\nTf\nco\"\no\nCl\nCM   Tf   O   \u00a9\neo\nCO\nh\nJ\u00bbfc\nrH\nCO  o  o  o\n\u00a9\n\"-^\nPh\nIO*   rH   rH    CO\neo*\nTf\nrH    Tf    rH\nt-\nfc-\nto  cc\nTf\nCM    CO    t-    fc-\nCv]\nco\nio   c:\nto\nTf    Tf     CO    O\n\u00a9\nCM\nCJ\no\nE\nto O\nCO\nO   Cv]   Ol   CO\nIO\nTf\nCO    IO\nCO*\ntr-* O* Tf   oi\nIO*\nCD    IT\nCv]\neo  oo  cvi   i-h\nco\n00\nft\n00   i-H\n\u00a9\nCl   CO   tr-   CO\nCO\nOl    t-\nfc-\nrH    fc-    tr-   IO\nCO\no\nCO    IO\nCl\nCO    rH    rH    CM\nrH\n\u00a9\nOl\nCM\nIO    CC\n00\nCO   Cv]   CO   Tf\nfc-\nIO\nCM    CC\nIO\nto eo io co\n00\nTf\nh\nO    OC\n00\nfc-   \u00a9   CM   fc-\n\u00a9\nIO\nri\nCvf   O\"\nco   of tr-* co\nIO*\nt-\"\nTJ\nCv]    Tt-\nt-\nO    Tf    rH    CM\n\u00a9\nto\nffi\nCO   IO\nrH    CO    t-   CM\neo\nIO\nu\nTf*    fc-\nCvf\n\u00a9\"   Cvf   Cvf   rH*\n(M*\nTf*\n(M   tH\nTf\nCM    Tf\nt-\nIO\nIO\nto\nfc-    IO\nCvl\nCO   O   CM   O\no\nCM\n\u00a9   Cv]\nCO\nIO    T_f    CO    CO\nTf\n00   <_*\no\n\u00a9    rH    rH    CO\n00_\nCO\nrH\nio  tr\neo*\nCO*   IO*   IO*   IO\nCl\nCM*\nee   rH\no\nCO    fc-    CO    CO\nt-\nCO\ns\nfc- tc\nTf\nio cm  fc- eo\nCl\neo\nTf      IO\no*\nCO   o\"   IO*\nTf*\nio*\niO\n\u00a9\nrH     O    IO\nfc-\nCO\nO\no\nrH\nH\nM-\nrH*\nrH*\nrH*\nCO\nTf\nu         &\nH-i\n.2\nd\n5\n-+J\n\"S          to\"\ni\nCoas\nert...\nInte\ntotal\n4-1\n*     2\nED              \u00a3    Ofl\nof          tr)\na)   3\n\u2014t                    P       J-j        CO\nh-i        ri\nE\ng    8\nS           ri     \u00b0    \u00bb\n\u2014v\n0\nft\n0               DU     O     C             r\u00b0            rh\nH        u u ^   o       EH      O\nK\nPrin\nFort\nKam\nNels REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 65\nTotal Scale (in F.B.M.) segregated, showing Land Status,\n(*) all Products.\nForest District.\nTotals,\n1946.\nVancouver.\nPrince\nRupert,\nCoast.\nPrince\nRupert,\nInterior.\nFort\nGeorge.\nKamloops.\nNelson.\n563,862,187\n147,066,961\n190,426,292\n31,614,858\n42,555,595\n29,462\n23,741,297\n384,068,163\n3,427,394\n16,873,212\n835,022,894\n93,426,066\n20,538,844\n42,172,761\n12,950,960\n631,458\n1\n5.836.832         5.601.788\n14,464,299\n3,092,499\n132,857\n603,347,524\n10,571,316\n160,730,776\n190,559,149\n36,790,554\n5,175,696\n3,604,177\n483,953\n20,367,189\n56,520,519\n15,298,942\n644,614\n1,238\n1,900,647\n5,362,426\n2,545,626\n46,159,772\n513,415\n72,708\n51,216,652\n1,709,997\n123,337,618\n5,336,627\n133,686,237\n51,227,818\n133,594,739\n882,423,928\n18,726,336\n52,361,622\nPre-emptions,  S.R., and\n1,085,885\n19,352,183\n233,609\n106,500\n3,896,764\n21,593,022\n4,272,470\n16,470,105\n5,009,804\n15,190,576\n19,450,134\n10,133,258\n1,310,109\n27,995,516\n14,099,882\n14,923,892\nCrown grants\u2014\nTo 1887\t\n853,037,955\n128,711,047\n62,934,253\n106,140,983\n1887-1906\t\n272,514\n3,845,761\n5,455,548\n1906-1914\t\n1914 to date\t\nTotals\t\n2,394,825,986\n124,855,987\n62,580,526\n184,613,649\n201,613,808\n225,175,176\n3,193,665,132\nTimber from lands in the former Dominion Government Railway Belt which has passed over to the jurisdiction\nof this Province is included under the various land status headings shown above.\nOnly timber from Indian reserves and other lands still under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Government is\nshown under the heading \" Dominion Lands.\" 00 66\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n___Q <u\n0   HO\n_HOfH\no a\u00bb*H\nEHMEh\n\u00a9\nIO\nIO\nCO\n00\nfc-\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nTf\nto\n(M\nIO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nCD\n00\nto\nt-\no\nt-\n\u00a9    :\n\u00a9    :\nCvl\nCO\nCO\nio\nCO\no\nCvl\neo\nCvi\nT*\n\u00a9\nCM\nt-\nTf\n3 i\n\u00a9\nCO\nOl\nrH\no\no\n\u25a0Tf\nCO\nOl\nN\nfc-\nTf\nIO\n(M\n\u00a9\nCO\n>f\neo\nrH\nN\n\u00a9\n1-1\ni-H\n\"H\n1-1\nrH\nrH\n03\nH\nO\nl-H\nB.\nH\nra\nz\nCQ\nK\nH\no\na\nr*\nP5\nto\n03\ns\nJ\nO\no\nw\no_\ni\u2014i\nH\ni\u2014i\nOS\nM\na\nw\nj\nCQ\n0.\nH\nCQ\nS\nall!\no c cy\nEHjfc\nt~\neo\nCv]\nIO\nfc-\nOJ\ncm\"\nIO\nCM\n\u00a9\n00\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nto\nTf\nIO\nCft\n\u00a9*\n\u00a9\nIO\nCO*\n\u00a9\nCM\nCS\n\u00a9\nCv]\n>**\nCD\nTf\n\u00a9\nCvf.\nCO\n\u00a9\nTf\no\nrH\nIO\no\nCM\nIO\n: co\n: io\n: ^i\n: t-*\n: o\ni **.\nj    00*\nCD\nIO\nto\nod\no\n00\nIO*\n\u25a0as\nfc-\n\u00a9\no\nfc-\nTf\nCO\n\u00a9\nl-(\nCM\nTf\no\neo\n\u00a9\nIO\n\u00a9\nCO\no\nt>\nTf\nTf\nl-H\n\u00a9\nCM\nt-\nco\nIO\nCO\n(M\nTf\n00\nCv]\nCv]\nIO\nt-\n<M\nCO*\neo\nTf\nTf\n\u00a9\nt-\nco\nCO\nt-\nlo\nto\nIO\nCvi\n00\nIO\n00^\nTf\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\"\neo\nCO\n.     Cl CO Tf\ni Tf m co\nIO o t-\n>   O O CD*\n\u00a9    CO    \u00a9    rH\nrH    fc-   CO   rH\nCM    \u00a9    Tf   ia\nIO   Tf   fc-   CO\nCO    IO    Cl    00\nIO   fc-   IO   CO\nrH    CM    Cvl    Ol\nTf CM fc- Tf\nOl O Cl \u00a9\nCl fc- 00 to\nod t-* cd cm\n00 C- O CO\nTf CD rH CM\n00   CO\noi eo CM to\n\u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9\no  oo  to  Cl\nCl    CD    fc-    Cl\nO   \"\u2022*    fc-    Cv]\no  to Tf eo\nfc-   IO IO   00\nCO    CO \u00a9    rH\nt-T Tf* cd cd\nrH IO \u00a9 fc-\nO t- fc- Cl\nt-   CO   O   fc-\n\u00a9    CV]    Tf    Tf\nCO    CO    C-    CD\nfc-    \u00a9    IO    Tf\n0 CM   io   IO\n01 fc-    i-H    t-\nO      \u00a9     Tf      CO\nTf    Tf    Tf    Tf\nO   t-   N   Cl\nIO   Tf   00   CM\n\u00a9 \u00a9 eo Tf\nto ci oo eo\nOO   \u00a9   CO   Cv]\niH    CO    Cv]    O\nt-   \u00a9             i-H\nCO   >o\nfc-    CO    CO    IO\nCl   CM           rH\nCO   IO\ncd io cvi  eo\nTf    Tf\nCO    00\nOJ   CO   rH   CO\n00  t-\n00   00\nOl   rH\nCO\nTf\n\u00a9    l-H\nCv]\nTf CM CM CO\nrH eo CO fc-\niH   IO   CM   t-\nO   rH   <M   Tf\nIO \u00a9 io \u00a9\nIO \u00a9    \u00a9 \u00a9\nCO t-   Tf CO\nt-* Ol\" IO\nCl   CO    CO   Tf\no eo  \u00a9 co\nrH    \u00a9    fc-    CV]\n\u00a9   \u00a9   fc-   Cvl\n00    rH    Tf    Cvl\n00   CM   \u00a9   O\n\u00a9     \u00a9     00     Tf\nrH    Ol    t-    tO\n\u00a9   \u00a9   Cl   Cv]\n\u00a9 IO   Cvl\nrH rH    tO\nCO \u00a9_ (M\nt> Cv]\nTf CM\neo co\nD-U \u00bbh\nof. O\n.\" 3-p\nrHQ\u00bb   (3\n.Sqc.\nIh   H O\ntugo\nCM   (M   O   \u00a9\nfc-  \u00a9   OO  IO\noi co eo \u00a9\nrH tO   tO 00\nCO Ol   t- Tf\n_o \u00a9 \u00a9\nCM cd rH\nTf o eo eo\nTf    CO    CO    rH\nio  io  w  CO\n\u00a9 t- CM   Cvl\nCO CO Cvl    Cvl\nCvl CO rH    \u00a9\ned io t-\nCD IO\ntO rH\nCM    Tf    Tf    fc-\n(M   O   IO   Cl\nCO   CO   Tf   f\no oo  co  eo\nCO    fc-    CO    \u00a9\nCvl    O rH\nCv]    rH    rH   \u00a9\n00    \u00a9    i-H    \u00a9\nCM    fc-    M    O\nIO fc o\nOl to o\n\u00a9   00   CM\n00\neo\nTf\nIO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nCO\neo\nto\nto\n\u00a9\nIO*\noo\n\u25a0Tf\nIO\nCO*\nIO\nfc-\nco\nIO\nCO\nCl\nCM\nCv\u00bb\nOl\nO    Cl    CM\neo Tf co\nCO    LO    rH\nIO   Tf    i-H\n\u00a9   Tf    O    Tf\n:    rH    CO IO\n\u25a0 \u00a9    Ol CO\n\u25a0 \u00a9   \u00a9 00\no\" eg* to\nfc-   IO   o\n\u00a9    IO    rH\nCO   CO    CM\n<?>\nr\u00bb\nto\n00\no\nfc-\non\n\u25a0\/\u25a0\ne\u00bb\nTf\nOJ\nir>\nOC\no\nX)\n00\nTf\nTf\nCD\nC_J>\nIO\nrH\n\u00a9\no\nCM\nIO\nrH\niO\neo\nO]\nTf   CO   CO   IO\nfc-   \u00a9   Cv]   O\n\u00a9   fc-   Ol   Ol\npq\n-rl \u2022\u2022=\u2022     4_> -*->\n<*H HJ    \u00abH   ^J    *H\nS    rS\n.   _*_;   \u25a0  ed ,\nfc 3   5  J_   o fc S    u J3\n\u25a0 \u25a0a\n.3   B   _i\na\nM   \u00ab\n^   S 2\nra\nfc 3\nO   J    3\nO   _C     CJ\nfc\n<M \u25a0*-\u2022    <M\nx m\n\"3\nCU\nDO\nc\n[*\nrQ     ffl\n\"3\nso\nis\nSs\n2 ra\n3 fc'\n0\nu\nJ3\n\u00ab     fc\n0\nJ\nu   fc\n*-   \u00abh  ___  \u00abM\n__ .s \u2022 ^ .\ns= 5 CO   \u00ab\n.5   O    ->   3\nS 3\n& .h \" 2 a.\n6\nA\n3 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.                                    00 67\n: co\nfc-\n: \u00a9\n: ci     :\n:     : Tf\n: fc-\n: Tf\n!   00\n:  o\n; Tf\n0O\nCD\n: *\u00b0     i\nI \"\"\n: cvi\"\ncd\n\u00a9*\n. cd    :\ned\n: \u00a9\nCO\nfc\n.   CM       .\no\n'    IO\n::co::::co::::os::::t-::\n:     : t-           :\n00\n00\nTf\n. \u00a9\nto\n: t-\n:  fc\n:  \u00a9_\n: cm\nco\"\n; cd\n\u00a9\n; cd\ni od\nrH\nIO\n'    H        \"        '\n: \u00a9          :          : t-\nCM\nIO\n\u00a9    :    :\nIO\n: Tf\nfc\neo\ni-H\n\u00a9\n: os\nl-H\n0\u00bb\n\u00a9\no\"\n: co*\ncd\ned\n\u00a9*\n\u00a9\n:  fc\nIO\no\nTf\n! \u00b0\u00b0\nCv]\n\u00a9^\n\u00a9\"\n: t-*\nTf\"\nfc*\nod\n: \u00a9\nc-\n;    :    : io\n:    : Tf\n:    : Tf\nfc\nlO\nOl\no\nCO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nIO\nt-\nfc-*\ncd\nIO\nIO*\nid\nCO\nIO\ni-H\n00\nfc\nCO\n\u00a9\nCvl\nci\nrH*\ntr-\"\nod\nco\"\nTf\nCO\n\u00a9\noo\no\n\u00a9\nCO\nCM\nCvl\nCv]\nCl\ncd\ncvicii-HO     : ca *ef cs  fc-     :  to oo  to io     : rH o rH io     :\nrH    O    rH    CO        I\nIO   Cv]    CO   Tf\nCO   Tf   Cvl   CM\nfc   CM   CO   th\ncm o \u00a9 co     :\nIO   IO   Cv]   CO\ntO    O    t-    rH\nCO   CO   Tf   o\nfc     fc     Tf     Tf\nos Tf  oi co     :\nto   \u00a9   O   OS\nCM   IO   IO   \u00a9\nio   eo  \u00a9 Tf\n00    LO    CM    Tf\nO    rH    rH    rH        !\nTf    CD    Ol    rH\nfc-    CM             rH\nOl    CO             rH\nO    CM\nTf    CO             rH        I\nCO    fc    IO    CM\nCO    Tf\ncm   eo\nOl   CM\nN ci              ;\ntO    CM             i-H\nIO*   rH\no\" cd\nO*   rH*\nCO    rH                          !\nrH    CO\nCM\nCv]\ntO    rH\nrH\nTfrHCoco     :oo\u00a9fc-io     : Tf  io e\u00bb io     :  t- oo os rH     ;\nco os Tf  o     :\nCO    rH    CO    IO\ni-H    CO    O    Ol\nCV]     Tf     Tf     tO\nCD    O    Ol    Ol\nCO   CO   o   CO\no  eo io co\nIO    \u00a9    CO    Cvl\nTf    rH-  CO    00\nio io fc          :\nCD     fc    fc-    iH\nto   to   Tf   o\nCS    O    rH    CO\nO    CM    Cvl    rH\nCv]    Tf    rH                 1\no* t-* cd cd\nTf    IO             i-H\nCl    IO\nco  cvi                :\nco  os co c-\nrH    Cvl\nrH    CO\nCM    CO\nCD    rH                          \u2022\nCl     Tf\nrH   rH\nTf\nci d               :\nfc    IO\nCvl\nTf    rH\nrH\ntocviTfTf     ;eorHcoco     : co co \u00a9 to     so h h     :     :\nio cm ^f Tf    :\ntO     Tf      CO     Tf\nTf    CD    O    00\nCvl    rH    O    CO\nfc   CM   \u00a9\nCM   Ci   Tf   io\neo lo co Tf\nIO   CO   CO   OJ\nio o co eo\nCO    rH    O\nrH    CO    O    CM\nCvl\"   rH*   rH*   O]\nO*  IO*\nCD*  IN   rH    rH\nTf*   O\"   Tf\"\nrH    CO    TJ*   OS*\nfc-    CO             i-H\nO    O\nCO   O             Tf\nCl    CO\nIO    IO    rH   Tf\nCS    Cvl\neo oi\nCM    \u00a9\nCO    IO\ntO    00             rH\nCO*   ***\ncd ed\n\u00a9*\nrH    rH\nto* oo\"\nTf     l-H\nrH\ni-h\u00a9cs\u00a9     :oocv]qo     riocvioJoo\nCO   rH    Tf    CD        I\nCO    CO    00    \u00a9\nIO    O    Cl    Tf\nfc   rH   00   o\nIO   O   CS   Cl\nfc   Cl    CO    fc\nIO   CO    CO    Tf\nrH    IO    Cvl    Tf\nrH    OS             CO\nOS   CO           O\no oi io cs    :\nCl    fc-    CD    tO\nO   \u00a9           CO\nCO    rH             Cv]\nTf   CO           CM\ncv]  \u00a9        os     :\ni-H    CO    Cvl    IO\nOS    Tf             rH\nIO   CM           CM\no  io                :\nTf    CO             CO\neo cm\nCO   rH\nIO    rH\nio co                :\nCl    CO             rH\n\"#\n\u00ab*\nTf\"\nTf                   i\nto   IO\nTf\noo     :     :     .     :i-hiooi     :     :  to o cm     \u2022     ;o     :           :     :\no  fc  oi     :     :\nCv]\ncs   to   IO\nCvl    O    CO\n\u00a9\nLO    \u00a9   CO\nTf\no  to\nCS    \u00a9\nCO\nrH    00    IO\nto\"\nco\"\noi\" cd\ncd\nfc\"   fc\"\nfc\nto\nCO\n\u00a9\nCM   00\n00\nLO\nCO\n00\nCO\nIO*\no*\nto\nCl*\nTf\"\nCM\nCM\nrH\ntoooeooo     : h co o. v     :t-\u00a9o_o     : co io cm fc     :\nCvl    Cl    rH    Cvl\nt-  co  eo  \u00a9\nCD    Cvl    O    CO\nrH    fc    Cl    Oi\ncvi  t-h oo co     :\n\u00a9    CM    fc-    Cl\n\u00a9   CM   Tf   o\nTf    fc    rH    Ol\nTf    CO    CS    Cl\ncm   ci   io   t-     :\nrH     IO     CM    CO\nCl    t-    CD    CO\nTf    CD    Tf    CM\nTf    rH    CO\nco o io  i-h     :\n\u00a9    CM    _o    CO\nCO    CO\nCO    CO\nCO    Tf\nfc- eo                :\nCD   Tf    Tf    CM\ncs  o\nrH    rH\no co                :\nTf    Ol\nO*   Cvf\n00    rH\nIO    rH\n\u00a9                      :\nl>    tH*\nCO\nCO\nO\nio                           !\nCO    i-H\nCv]\nCv]\nCO\nCM\nCM\nCO\nio\"\nCO\n\u00a9\ncn                             m                             to                             co                               to\n4-      .2 __      -J      .2 __      J      .2 __      *S      .2 __        *J      _g J\nB.M.\nealf\nrds\nwn t\nbic f\nB.M.\nealf\nrds\nwn t\nbic f\nB.M.\nealf\nrds\nwn t\nbic f\nB.M.\n;ealf\nrds\nwn t\nbic f\nB.M.\nlealf\nrds\nwn t\nbic f\neo\"\nCl\n&;=\u00a7\n0\nC\nX\nti\nfc\np\no\nX\nti\nt\nt<J\nO\nC\nCJ\nti\nc\nfc\n.5\no\nc\n01\nX\nP\nCJ\nfc_S\ntH\na\nCJ\n>>\no\nt\nV\nX\n3\nCO\nII\nw\nfc\na\n\"3\no\ntH\ntH\nu\n,__,\nCJ QJ        '        '\n..........\na\nSeptemh\nOctober\nNovemb\nDeeembt\nTotals f\nH-l\no\n5 00 68\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(10)\nLogging Inspection, 1946.\nType of Tenure operated.\nForest District.\nTimber-\nsales.\nHand-\nloggers'\nLicences.\nLeases,\nLicences,\nCrown Grants,\nand\nPre-emptions.\nTotals.\nNo. of\nInspections.\n877\n513\n552\n921\n764\n1\n5\n1,311\n142\n105\n618\n845\n2,189\n660\n657\n1,539\n1,609\n4,307\n2,312\n882\n3,236\n2,237\nTotals, 1946\t\n3,627\n6\n3,021\n6,654\n12,974\nTotals, 1945\t\n3,492\n9\n2,852\n6,353\n11,901\nTotals, 1944\t\n3,373\n4\n2,540\n5,917\n11,648\nTotals, 1943\t\n3,259\n11\n2,519\n5,789\n12,110\nTotals, 1942\t\n3,086\n18\n2,569\n5,673\n13,753\nTotals, 1941\t\n3,207\n18\n2,833\n6,058\n11,438\nTotals, 1940\t\n2,864\n12\n2,272\n5,148\n10,968\nTotals, 1939\t\n2,770\n10\n2,068\n4,848\n11,295\nTotals, 1938\t\n2,674\n23\n1,804\n4,501\n10,828\nTotals, 1937\t\n2,404\n46\n1,932\n4,382\n11,507\n3,075\n16\n2,441\n5,532\n11,842 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 69\n(ii)\nTrespasses, 1946.\n5P\nOJ\na\no\nO\nd\nu\n>\no\n4-      .\nax.\na _,\nm 35\nc_ h\n8 2\nQuantity cut.\nbo\njjj\n3\nv   .\nrH    \u00ab\n\u00abM  h\nO   r)\n.   N\n_?'s\nSO!\n13\nV\nt_>\nForest District.\nm\n4_\nQJ\nQJ\nfc\nQJ\nOJ\nfc\nQJ\ns\n3\nT3\no\nO\nQJ\nc_\n|   _\n09  _3\n...   QJ\nIH   QJ\n_a _.\nOEh\nm\nIH  CJ\nvx\nra\no\nPh\nC.\n_c\nHJ\nB\n3\no\ns\nT\n52\n21\n26\n47\n80\n193\n37\n430\n487\n1,421\n2,832,177\n567,384\n867,456\n744,398\n2,072,928\n73,266\n79,213\n1,118,758\n99,770\n389,567\n245\n680\n173\n221\n150\n2,790\n110\n199\n41,377\n3\n5\n$10,453.01\n1,755.52\n1,900\n4,593.53\n783\n9,166\n3,618.98\n34,097\n7,109.59\nTotals, 1946\t\n226\n2,568\n7,084,343\n1,760,574\n1,469\n2,900\n10,148\n41,377\n35,997\n8\n$27,530.63\nTotals, 1945\t\n267\n3,313\n24,322,556\n516,960\n1,910\n9,902\n2,438\n10\n$37,877.12\nTotals, 1944\t\n210\n2,467\n12,317,066\n179,219\n3,369\n4,231\n3,781\n5\n$29,193.16\nTotals, 1943\t\n167\n3,058\n9,744,957\n129,409\n6,873\n552\n7,923\n7\n$23,725.29\nTotals, 1942\t\n180\n1,159\n4,413,906\n365,861\n4,757\n490\n1,512\n15\n$14,391.61\nTotals, 1941\t\n236\n1,788\n7,627,990\n526,391\n2,887\n1,365\n4,150\n17\n$24,253.10\nTotals, 1940\t\n194\n877\n5,206,829\n94,444\n1,573\n4,279\n9,854\n13\n$14,088.24\nTotals, 1939\t\n209*\n571\n6,905,268\n94,818\n3,147\n5,206\n46,729\n26\n$17,725.00\nTotals, 1938\t\n149\n816\n4,309,030\n203,195\n3,014\n1,185\n7,530\n10\n$9,653.86\nTotals, 1937\t\n156\n1,147\n8,239,813\n143,860\n1,607\n2,132\n35,017\n7\n$17,439.52\nTen-year average, 1937-46\t\n199\n1,776\n9,017,176\n401,473\n3,061\n3,224\n12,908\n12\n$21,587.75\n* Christmas-tree cutting largely responsible for increase.\n(12)\nPre-emption Inspection, 1946.\nForest District.\nVancouver \t\nPrince Rupert __\nFort George \t\nKamloops \t\nNelson  \t\nTotals\nNumber\nEXAMINED.\n1946.\nTen-year\nAverage,\n1937-46.\n58\n200\n36\n121\n91\n351\n145\n486\n48\n110\n378\n1,268 00 70\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(is)\nAreas examined for Miscellaneous Purposes of the\n\" Land Act,\" 1946.\nForest District.\nApplications for\nHay and Grazing\nLeases.\nApplications for\nPre-emption\nRecords.\nApplications to\nPurchase.\nMiscellaneous.\nTotals.\nNo.\n3\n1\n8\n54\n9\nAcres.\n435\n160\n1,065\n22,705\n3,356\nNo.\n9\n3\n11\n18\n3\nAcres.\n616 ,\n360 '\n1,544\n2,374\n702\nNo.\n183\n32\n48\n111\n92\nAcres.\n13,321\n4,913\n4,543\n8.156\n10,728\nNo.\n138\n14\n4\n16\n1\nAcres.\n699\n911\n103\n674\nNo.\n333\n50\n71\n199\n105\nAcres.\n15,071\nPrince Rupert\t\nFort George\t\nKamloops\t\n6,344\n7,255\n33,909\n14,786\nTotals\t\n75\n27,721\n44\n5,598\n466\n41,661\n173\n2,387\n758\n77,365\n(li)\nClassification of Areas examined, 1946.\nForest District.\nTotal Area.\nAgricultural\nLand.\nNon-agricultural Land.\nMerchantable\nTimber Land.\nEstimated\nTimber on\nMerchantable\nTimber Land.\nAcres.\n15,071\n6,344\n7,255\n33,909\n14,786\nAcres.\n3,180\n1,303\n2,618\n2,589\n1,609\nAcres.\n11,891\n5,041\n4,637\n31,320\n13,177\nAcres.\n1,253\n478\n430\n434\n408\nM.B.M.\n20,593\n10,158\n4,345\n4,855\n3,046\nTotals\t\n77,365\n11,299\n66,066\n3,003\n42,997 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 71\n(15)\nAreas cruised for Timber-sales, 1946.\nForest District.\nNumber\ncruised.\nAcreage.\nSaw-\ntimber\n(M.B.M.).\nPit Props,\nPoles, and\nPiles\n(Lineal Ft.).\nShingle-\nbolts and\nCordwood\n(Cords).\nRailway-\nties\n(No.).\nCar Stakes\nand Posts\n(No.).\n577\n321\n349\n485\n327\n87,414\n45,916\n55,445\n103,289\n70,523\n510,390\n126,706\n149,403\n249,519\n194,698\n698,893\n3,933,533\n8,891,415\n12,841,723\n14,395,205\n18,431\n13,324\n9,961\n34,051\n14,311\n10,400\n55,998\n91,009\n37,250\n22,235\n559,300\n18,900\n107,396\n2,033,110\nTotals, 1946\t\n2,059\n362,587\n1,230,716\n40,760,769\n90,078\n216,892\n2,718,706\nTotals, 1945\t\n1,488\n261,150\n948,673\n48,743,325\n95,774\n301,276\n1,802,468\nTotals, 1944\t\n1,476\n334,729\n1,205,308\n8,166,829\n137,737\n483,363\n1,345,439\nTotals, 1943\t\n1,771\n590,953\n907,768\n10,720,729\n259,741\n454,767\n816,544\nTotals, 1942\t\n1,469\n305,222\n794,676\n8,562,739\n100,232\n381,106\n743,500\nTotals, 1941\t\n1,611\n321,220\n689,595\n15,794,246\n126,463\n199,174\n263,480\nTotals, 1940\t\n1,620\n300,480\n572,562\n11,309,288\n72,157\n314,644\n512,042\nTotals, 1939\t\n1,324\n212,594\n470,660\n5,016,945\n68,078\n339,866\n261,100\nTotals, 1938\t\n1,486\n325,403\n482,680\n5,747,765\n126,329\n804,240\n169,900\nTotals, 1937\t\n1,471\n278,386\n633,216\n9,658,000\n140,820\n753,408\n160,450\nTen-year average, 1937-46\n1,578\n329,272\n793,585\n16,448,064\n121,741\n424,874\n879,363\n(16)\nTimber-sale Record, 1946.\nDistrict.\nSales\nmade.\nSales\nclosed.\nTotal\nSales\nexisting.\nTotal Area\nunder Sale\n(Acres).\nArea paying\nForest Protection Tax\n(Acres).\nTotal\n10-per-cent.\nDeposit.\n629\n347\n319\n541\n351\n355\n245\n191\n381\n292\n1,325\n1,002\n655\n1,533\n1,025\n339,296\n235,615\n164,949\n369,475\n308,519\n163,313\n120,310\n60,820\n220,201\n170,243\n$451,703.33\n179,067.62\n93,942.81\n183,143.43\n159,797.55\nKamloops\t\n2,187\n440\n1,464\n5,540\n1,417,854\n734,887\n$1,067,654.74\nTotal\t\n2,627 00 72\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n.__>\n05\nH\no\np.\nH\nOT\nM\nQ\nW\nQ\n\u00ab\nHi\n<!\nOT\nW\nOT\nI\ncd\nH\nCO\nS\n13    .\ns a>\nH-> \u00a3\n|3\nTf    rH\nCM   C\nCO   Tf\nio \u00abs\nIO   tJ\nto  TJ\nOl   fc-\nCO   Tf\nCM*\n*9-\nOS\nCO\nIO\n\u00ab\nIC\nex;\nCO\nIO\nTf\nfc-\nco\noc\ncc\ncc\nCC\nt)\no\nIO\nc-\nc\ns\nCD\nCO\nCO\nTf\nCD\nCO\no\nIO\nOl\nCO\nt-\nco\nIO\nt-\nTf\nCO\n\u00a93-\nTf\n00\nCM\nIO\nOl\nCl\"\nt-\n00\ncm\"\n\u00ab\u00a9\u25a0\no\nCM\nCO\nIO\nOl\nTf\nCO\no\nCO\nCO\no\nCM\nIO\nOl\"\neo\nCO\ncm\"\n&3-\nCl\nt-\nOl\nCD\nTf\nIO\nCl\n\u00ab\u25a0\neo\nco\nCO\no\ncT\nOl\nIO\n\u00ab<0-\nt-\nlO\nCO\nCM\nCO\neo\nCM\n\u00ab\u00ab-\nCO\nIO\n00\noo\neo*\no\nCM\nVi\no\nCM\nIO\nc-\nt-\nCM\nIO\nCM\nTf\nt-\nlO*\no\nTf\ncm\"\neo-\ndl-3\no <y 2\no\no\no\nIO\nCM\no\nCM\nCO\nCM\nt-\nt-*\nTf\nCO\nCM\nt-\nCM*\nfc-\no\nCM*\n\u00abH    i      \u2022\nQ Cl w\nfcMa\no\no\no\no\no\no\no\no\no\no\nO o oj\n\u00a3 S'3\no\no\no\nl-H\no\no\no\nTf\nCl\nNo. of\nBlasting-\nsticks.\no\no\no^\no\"\nCO\no\no\no\no*\nIO\no\no\no\no*\nIO\no y v\nSoS\no\no\no\nIO*\no\nIO\neo\no\nIO\nCO\nIO\no\nIO\nTf\neg*\no\nCM\nCO\no\nfc-\nOl\nCO\no\nCM\nTf\nTf\"\no\no\nCO\nIO\no\nIO\nIO\no\no\nCM\nt-*\n\u00b0 a 2.\n6 \u00b0 ~\n^!W ft\no\no\nCO\no\no\nCO\no\no\nIO\ncm\"\no\no\no^\n\u00a9\nCM\no\no\nIO\nCM\no\no\no\nCM\no\no\nIO\nco\"\nNo. of\nChristmas\nTrees.\no\nIO\nTf\nos\"\nrH\nCM\nIO\nCO\nOl\nfc-*\nCM\nla\nCO\no\nt-*\nOl\n\u00abM\no ^\nO  rf   O  IO  O\nO    CO    CO    CM    Ol\nO   CO   O   rH   CM\nt-* co ti* eo eo\nOO   N   O   \"*\nrH\n00\neo\nCO\nCO\nCM\nCM\nTf\nCM\nIO\nIO\nCM\ni-H\nc-\nlO\n00\neo\nIO\nCM\nCO*\nCO\neo\nIO\no\nCl\nOl\nCl\nCM\nOl\nIO\noo\"\nOl\nCO\nCO\nCl\no\nCO\nCO\nCO\no*\nb-\neo\nOl\neo\nCO\nCO\nCM\nCM\nTf\"\nTf\nCO\nCD\nfc-\nOS\nO\nt-\nco\n*h ,_\n=>\u25a0\u00a7\nIO    CO    Ol    rH    rH\nrH   ta   O   IO   Ol\nfc    H    CO   M    \u25a0*\nCO   CO   IO   Ol   CM\nCM           rH           CO\nCM\nCM\nCO\nt-\n00\nrH\nCM\nCM\nCD\nfc-\n00\nIO\no\neo\nCl\nt-\nco\nTf\nCM\nCM\nCO\no\no\ni-H\nCM\nCM\nTf\neo\no\nIO\n00\nIO\no\nl-H\n00\nt-\nt-\nTf\no\nCO\nIO\nCO\no\nCM\nrH\nCO\nTf\ni-H\neg\nCM\nCO\nCM\nrH\n\u00abH     \u25a0\nOJ3\n_; m\nfcp.\nO   io   O   CO   IO\nO    rH    CO    CO    CO\nf   IM    t    CD    \u25a0>#\nTh oo t- co io\nCM           IO   CD   CM\nTh   CM   CM\nCM*\nCO\nTf\nTf\nCM\nCO\nCl\nCM*\nt-\nIO\nCM\nCO\nCM\nCO\noo\nc-\nlO\nCO\nCD\nrH\nfc-\nCM\n00\nCO\nTf\nOl\nIO\nTf\n\u2022 eo\neo\nTf\nfc-\nIO\nrH\no\nOl\nCO\nCO\nOl\no\nOl\nt-\nTf\nTf\no\nCO\nOl\nOl\nTf\n00\no\nCl\nOl\nCM\nO\nIO\nCl\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\nTf\nIO\no\nCl\no\n_: bo-*-*\nfJ __!    .\nJ.3 C\nCh    5\nIO    Ol    O    CD   Tf\nCM    CO    CO   CO    Cl\nCO    t-    CM    Tf    CS\nO   CO   Ol   O*  rH\nO   CO   CO   N   CO\nIO    CM    fc-   O    OS\nTf    Cl    Tf    CO\nl-H    rH    i-H\nTf\no\nCO\nCO\nTf\nIO\nIO\nCM\nOl\nc-^\nIO\nTf\nCO\nOl\nCO\no\nCO\neo\nCO\nCO\nCD\nCO\nCD\no\nIO*\nt-\n00\no\n00\nIO\nIO\nTf\nTf\nOl\nTf\nTf\nCO\nCO\nt-\nTf\nl-H\nTf\nt-\nIO\nCO\nfc-\no\no\nrH\no\nCO\nt-H\nCO\nOl\nTf\nCO\nCO\n\u25a0>*\nTf\nCO\nCl\nIO\neo\nt-\no>\nTf\nCO\nCO\nc\u00bb\no\noo\no\nCO\nCO\no\nt-\nrH\n_s\n0_\nOOOOO\nO    O    O    CO    o\nOOOOO\nl>   Tf\"   O   CO    rH\nCO   Tf   IO   Tf   fc-\noi co co eo ci\nCO    CO    t-    t-   rH\nO     Tf     Tf      IO     O\nCO   rH   rH   rH   CM\no\no\no^\n00\nTf\nCl\nCM\nCO\nCM\nrH\no\no\no\nTf\nrH\nto\nOl\nTf\nOl\no\no\no\nt-\"\n00\nc-\nIO\nIO\n00\no\no\no\no\"\nCO\nIO\n00\n00\n00\no\no\no\nOl\nIO\no\no\no\nCM\nCO\nCM\nCO\no\no\no\nCO\nOl\n00\nco\"\nTf\nto\no\no\no\ncd\"\nt-\nt-\nCM\nTf\no\no\no\nt-\"\nT*\nc-\nTf\nO\ne>\nCO\nCO\ncn\nf\nO\nIO\nTf\no\no\no\nCD\nCM\nOl\n00\nrH\nfc-\nal\ntt\nc.\n<u\n_.\no\nIO   Tf   Ol   oo   Cl\nO   IO   O   CM   O\nTf    O    CM    rH    rH\nCl\" Tf*  CM*  O   fc-*\nTf   io   OO   IO   o\nIO\no\nIO\neo\"\nTf\nTf\no\nOl\nrH\no*\nCO\nCO\ncg\nCO\nIO\nTf\nCO\nrH\nCO\nOl\nTf\"\nOl\nCO\nC0\nOl\ni-H\nCO\nCO\nCO\nfc-\nOl\n*\nCM*\nCO\nCO\nOl\nIO\nCD\n<\u25a0#\neo\n00\nto\nCl\nIO\nIO\nCO\nTf\nCM\nTf*\nfc-\nCM\nCO\n00\nen\n00\nfc-\nCM\nCM\no\nTf\nCD*\nTf\nCO\n0 g\nrH    i-H    CM    Cl    Tf\nIO   IO   00   t-   fc-\nco  co eo Tf  t-\nt-\nCO\nCO\nCM\n00\nOl\nCO\n1   *\nCO             CO\nOl             rH\nCO          o\nrH*          CM\no\nt-\nCO\nIO\n00\nTf\nCO\nt-\no\nCM\nIO\no\nIO\nOS\nTf\nTf\nrH\nrH\nCM\n00\nH->\nO\niH\nco\n5\nm\nV\ntH\no\nfa\n0\nf\nc\nt\np\nri\n>\nH-\ns-\na\nc\ne\n?\nE\ne\np.\np\nc\n0\n1\na\nb\nt-\nc\na\nt\niE\n}\nEC\np\nc\nc\n\u00a3\na\nu\ncc\nT;\nff\nD\nB\nH-\nc\nEH\nIC\nt:\nff\na\ne\nc\nh\nTt\nTl\nc\nEC\nG\nE-\nc\nD\nB\nH-\nc\n\u25a0rf\no*\na\noj\nHJ\no\nCT\na\n-i_3\n0\nH\nc\ncr\nCE\ne\nff\nCC\na\nD\nB\nt\ncc\nec\n09\nrH\n0\nri\nHJ\n0\nH\nCT\na\nrH\nM\nd\n\u25a0\u00a3\n0\nH\ncT\n50\nat\niH\no\n>\nri (\u00a3\nS3\nQJ    fc-\n>* eo\nCD\n\u00a3H REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 73\nH\nca\no\nCO\nH\no\nPS\nH\nCO\nEh\nta\nH\nOS\no\nQ\n2    .\n<! <x>\nT\u00bb\nra oj\nw \u00a7\nPh    M\n\u00ab_   Ol\n6 EH\no\nPQ    OT\nPh\nO\nHH\nP.\nco\n<\nOT\nw\no\nh-H\nPS\nPh\nh\no\n<!\nPh\ns\np\nH\n72\nH\nO\n<.\nPS\nw\n>\n!H\nIO\nO\nIO   IO\no\no\nrH\nQJ\nCM   IO   IO   Tf   00   IO\nOJ\n<y ft\n\"rH     &S\nIO    rH    CO    CM    CM    CN\nQ) ft\nPh fl\n1        1        1        1        1        1\no  o   o  o   IO  o\nPh  fl\nio o o o  eg o\nri\nO    i\u20141    i-H    r-l    rH    l\u2014\nri\n<\nto\nM\n\u00bb\ni\nPh\nqj\nCO    CO   CO    OO    O    00\no\nec\nCO\nu\nQJ\nCJ   tH      \u2022\n?fts\nPh\nto   O   CO   CO   os   cc\nCT\no-\no\n3\n|W\nt-   CM   Tf   IO   IO   fc-\ni-H    i-H    i-H    l-H    i-H    i-H\nt-\nIO\nCv\nA.\nCO\nIO    CD    CO    CM    CM    Tt\nCM    rH    rH    CM    CM    C-\nec\no\n1-\no\n00\nrH\nPQ\n6*\n,V_-               \u00ab=r              (f\n40-\n\u20ac\u00a9\u2022\u00a9&\u00bb\nCO   CM   fc-   IO   CM   CM\nTf\n00\nc\n-^\ni-H    rH    Tf    00    fc-   CC\nTf\nff-\nTf\nfa\nCO    Ol    CO    CO   Tf    IO\neg\no\n-*\nfa\nCM    IO    CO    Ol    CS    U\nIC\ncc\nrH\nTf    Tf    00    00    CO    CD\nCO\nff\nIO\nCM   00   IO   t-   OS   C\ncc\nIO\np.\nTf    CO\no\neo\nCQ\nTf    fc-\"  Tf    CO    i-H    O\nTf\nCC\ncT\ns\nIO\nCD\nIC\nTl\ns\nCO    IO    CO    CD    O    O-\nIf\n1\u2014\nt-\nC\"\nCD                   rH   CM   r-\nCs\nCT\nrH\nr-\neo\"\n!H\nooo\nIO   o\nrH\no o  o io o  o-\nQJ\nIO    IO    IO\neg co\nQJ\no    O    OS    IO    O    O\"\nCD  ft\nCD    tH    i-H\ncm  eo\nHi ft\nTf   CM   Tf   CM   CO   i-\nX P <th\n1        1        1\nOOO\no  o\n\"sC ooS\n1     1     1     1     1     1\nO   O    IO   O   O    IT\nPh 5\nIO   Q   O\no \u00a9\nPh fl\nIO   O   CM   O   O   0C\nri\nO   H    H\nrH    i-h\nm\nri\nri  ri   ri  H   H   r\no\nPh1\nee-\nn\nP5\n\u00bb\ncu\nCJ --    \u2022\nJ- ftfi\nPh\nm\no\nco   eo   cs\n00    O\nOC\nc-\na-\nlis\nPh m\ni-H    CM    CM    CD    i-H    fc-\nCM\nCC\nTf\n\u00a7\nfc-   CM   CO\nTf    fc-\nCC\nI\/\nc<\nCO\nTf    CO   Ol    Ol   CM   C-\nCT\ncr\nCD\n-\u00bb\nrH    l-H\n\u00ab\n0\n&\n\u2022  :  s\nCM    rH    rH    rH    rH    r-\ni-H             i-H             i-H\n6\u00a9-          69-          \u00ab>\n^\ni-h eo Tf\nCM   CM\nCN\nIO\ncr\n0\nIO   O   CO   CM   t-   IT\nCN\nee\n01\nPl.\n00   Tf   ci\neo t-\nOJ\nr-\nOC\nfe\nCO    CO   O    O    rH    O*\nIf\noc\nt-\nio t- fc-\n00  cs:\no\nIO\ncc\nco co cs oi o t\nC-\nc\nfc\u00bb\nP3\ntt>*  CM*  CO*\nTf\n1\u2014\ncc\n<T\nW\nCO           CM   O   CO   C\nec\nIO\nTf\"\nrf\nIO   rH\neg\nc\n10\nc\nrH    rH\ncc\nCs]\nCO\nrH\nO-\nI-\no\nS\nrH\n(H\nO   O   IO   IO   IO   O\nM\n:           :     \u2022 o o\nQJ\n00   IO    fc-    CM    fc-    t-\nCD\nO    IT\nQJ  ft\nco eo Tf  i> Tf oc\n<b ft\nCO    If\n'2 SoS\n!     1     1     1     1     1\no o io o  io o\n\"Sh  COS\n1        1\nO    If\n*g\nIO    O    CM   O    CM    fc-\n^g\nIO    Cs\nrH    rH    rH    rH    rH    i-\ni-H   r-\nPS\n\u00ab-\nK\ntf\n\u00ab>\nu\nP\n<1\nU   IH\u00ab\nCS   O    00    OS    rH    IO\nc\nCC\nff\n<\nCJ    rH        \u2022\nPh\n:           :     : t- cc\nch\nCv\nCO\niH   t-   Cl   CO   eg   OS\nC\noc\n00   i-\nl-H             1-\nS\nCM    rH    rH    CM    CO    CM\nCS\no.\nt-\nt-H    Cv\nCM             CM             i-H\naa\ntt\nV\nif\nV\nk                       s-'\n\u25a0 ee-\n60            W-            \u00ab0\nM\nIO   Tf   IO   O   Tf   CO\nTl\nc\ntt\ns\n'     T*     C\nTf                  O                  CO\nfa\nIO   fc-   CM   IO   lO   Tf\nc\ncc\nt>\n.     1\nfa\neg cr\nIO           CO           CM\n00    rH    rH    OS    rH    r-\ncc\nT|\nO    tt\nCO           rH           CO\nP.\nO    CD    rH    rH    00*   CO\nir\nce\nm\nOS     TJ\nCO           CO           OS\na\ni-H   CM    Tf    CO    rH    rH\nTf\ncr\ncc\na\nc\nTf                  Tf                  Tf\nrH\nCs\nr-\nIT\neo\nrH\nIO   O   IO\no o\nrH\no     :           : o c\nQJ\nfc-   IO   t-\nO    rH\nQJ\nCM\nO    U\"\n0) ft\nCD    CM    rH\nCO     TJ\na\nQJ    ft\nCO\nOCJ   I-\ntH   Mr?\n1        1        1\nO    IO    O\ni    l\nO   o\nM\n'iH  OcS\n1\no\n1\nIO   c\nIO   fc-   o\no o\nPh\n^S\no\nt- fc-\nO       '    rH\n5:\no\nCM\nw\nPS\nso-               ;\nPS\nw>    :    :    :\n_]\n3\n(_\u25a0\n\u2022-\u00a3__!\n\u00a3 ft\"\nPh\neg co i-h\nl-H     Tf\ncr\nCC\nir\nin\nZ\nQJ\n\u2022|sa\nIO\nO     Tl\nCs\ncc\nCS\ni\nO   fc-   IO\nCO    CO\noc\nt-\nOS\noo  a\noc\nr-\n00\nCO    rH    rH\n60-\nrH    <N\ncs\nCv\nCN\nCM\n6\u00a9\nCM   Cv\nCs\nV\nCs\nrH\n^            60\nCl   OS   Tf        ;    \u2022#   O\ntc\nr-\nOC\n__\noo           :     : io r-\nTJ\nTt\nTf\nfa\nCSS    Tf    Ol\nCM    CD\ncs\nlf\nC^\n_.\n&;\no\nCO   c\nt.-\nCs\nCO\ncnb-tr^\nCO      Tf\nCs\n_3\nIO    r-\nCs\nTf\nCQ\nCD*  00   CM\nCM*  r-\ncs\nCs\nc\nr*\nK\n^4\"\nO*   IT\n\u00ab\nO\nS\nTf\nrH\nfc-\nIT\nT]\nS\nCO\nc\n1-\nCM\n*H\nc\nCM\n\u25a0_\u25a0\nO   O           IO   o   o\nJh\no     :     :     : o c\n<u\nfc-    IO             IO   o    IC\nOJ\no\no  ir\nqj P.\nco  oi  o  co  cd   io\nQ)   ft\nCD\ntl f\nPh C\n1     i    io    1     1     1\nO    IO       \u25a0    IO    O    IO\nO   N   H   N   O   P\n_s\u00bby\n_. _0<i\nPh B\n1\no\n\u00a9\n1\no c\nIO    If\na!\nEC\nO\nc_\nrH   rH             rH    rH   r-\n__\nz\nc.\nCM   Cf\nPS\nSO\nPS\n613-    .    .    :\nw .\nfc-   CO    O    CM    CD    CO\n\\r\n\u00ab\nEg\nPh\nPh\"\nco     :     :     :  Tf  r-\nc\nt-\nCM\n_>   ^H_J\n\u00a3 ft\nOl    Ol    IO    O    Cl    O\nCM    rH    rH    CM    rH    O\nif\nc^\nc\\\no\ni-\n|\n00\nTf\neo  c\nid w\nIC\nTt\nCO*\n&\nPh\n\u00ab\u00a9\nv\n>-      &\n>\u25a0       v\n\u25ba        3\n\u00ab\u00ab\u2022\u25a0\u25a0*\nV\n>\u25a0                 V\nr              \u00ab&\no\n1=1\n ___-\nr*\nO   eo  rH  i-h  os  eo\n_>\noc\n\u00ab\nt-\nO     T]\nr-\nc\nCM\nfa\nH    CD    IO    rH    CD    OC\nK\nTi\nCC\nfa\nco\nt-     fc\nIf\nOl\nCO    O             rH    00    O\ntt\nTl\nc\nIO\n00   c\nIf\nCs\ne\u00bb\ncd\nt-*  CO*            O   O*  C-\nIO                      CM    CO    CC\ntt\nTl\nCC\nli\nCs\nfc-\ncd\nCO\nco* a\nOC\ni-\n00\nrH\na\nCM                           rH\nTJ\ne\ne-\n*\nS\nCC\nCO\nTf\n^-_,\nt\n^--_,\nt-\nSh\n(\no;\niH\nCO\n,-s      O\no\n-\u2014    O\nCS\nHH\nto   H\nt\n-t-i\n-r>   '___\n_c\nrH\n_\u00ab-)\nri  |\n'P\nT\n'\n_CJ\n\">\n-o\n'IC\n\u00b0  c\nc\ntc\n'\u00a3\n6^\nc\n^O\nHJ\nr\n\"^\nHJ\nr-\nP-\ns'\nQ\nP-\n0\nQJ\nfi\nHp      -P\nfi\n<\nr-\nP\n1*\nP\nHJ    HJ\n(-\nq\nrH\nft\nHO\n0)\nrH\nf.\na\nIH    iH\nQJ    OJ     .\n3    3    s\n\u2022\ni\nc\n_\nt-\n1\nsU\nin\nt-\na\n(h     Jh\nQJ     0)     -\nft ft 5\ni\nc\nq-\na\n3\ncp\nIH\nri\nCJ\no\nl-H\n> OS Ph    O   &\n1 8 S o A %\n(\n1\n%\n.\n0\n>  Oh  Ph    9    P\ng m \"   cd   c\n5  S   S O  c\nu     CJ     CJ            i\u2014\n!S\nc\n?\n_5\n<\ns\nH\nb 3 .S t 11\nri   l  l   o  d .<\ns-5 -S \"8 E\nri     Sh     Sh     O     Cv\n\"a\n>\n0-\nPh  &\nA    r*\nz\n>\nrl\nP-\ntS\n\\*\nrZ 00 74\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nPS\nm\na\nr?\no\nOS?\nEh\nO\nt-H\nPS\nH\nCO\nEh\nOl\nH\nPS\nO\no\nZ\n\"< \u00ab.\nCO   \"*\nH  O\no ^\nPh    i-i\nCO   05\nCQ\nH\nh_l\n<\nO\nCO\nJ a\n. o\nG-h    BS\n\u00bb I\nos d\np ra\na\nH\n>\nH\nU\nH\nPS\nOT\nH\nO\nl-H\nPS\nPh\nw\n...\n<\nPh\na\nD\nH\nGG\nfa)\nO\nPS\nfa)\n>\nsa\nSi\nw ft\nt-\neo\nCD\nCO\nc.\nCsl\nIO\n\"tJ*\ni\nTf\nTf\nCO   CM   t-   CO\nrH\no>\noi\nrH    CM    rH    rH\nCM\noi\no\nEd\nGO\nm-\nse\nm\nfa\nCM\neo\nO    O    CS    CO\nO\nes\nfc-\nCO\nOl    IO    OS    CS\n00\n__\nCO\nIC\nTf\nCM    CM    CO    t-\nCsl\neo\nOS\nOl    IO    O    IO\ncm\"\no\"\na\nfc-\nfc-\nCO   O   OS   O\nOl\nOS\nco\nrH             rH\nt-\nCO\nsa\nCO\nCM\nTf     rH    O     O\nlO\nCO\n\u00a31\n00\nTf\n00    CO    CO    CO\nOS\nCO\nii\nSB\nO   ^\nV^CQ\nC.\nr-\nrH    rH    i-i    rH\n^\nrH\n69\n\u2022ft-\n69-\nfa\nCO\nfc-\nIO   t-   fc-   O\nTf\neo\nTf\nO   Tf    CS    00\nCO\nOS\nCP\nrH\nIO\nCO    CO    Ol    rH\nrH\nIO\na\ned\nJO*   CO             rH\nIO\nCO\n^\nrH\n__^\nsa\nw p.\nCM    IO\n00\nCO\nM\nu s\nr1S\nEh\nas fc-\nS9-\nfc-\nIO\n69-\nfa\no t-\nt-\nfc-\nCO    IO\n00\n00\ncq\nIO   00\nCO\no\na\nOS   o*\no*\nOS\nTf\nIO\nTf\na\nsa\ncc\nO    CO\nCl\nCD\nzS\ngrH\nCO\nCM\n69-\nl-H    O\neg  cs\no\nCM\n\u00a99-\nO\nesj\n60-\n__:!\nfa\nfc-\n00   00\nCO\nOS\nN\ncs  c-\nTf\nCQ\n00    CO\nCO\nO\n>H\na\nrH*   Tf\nCO*\ni-H\nOl\nc_\nsa\n\"JH    _H\nPh \u00a3\nw ft\ncc\nCO   CM\nCS\nt-\ng\ncree\nIO    Cs'\ncd Tf\nOl\neo\ncd\nfa\n69-\nCO-\n69-\n__\nH\nfa\nrH    CM\nTf\noc\nOS    IO\nCM\nCO\nP.\na\nCs]\nTf      fc-\ni-H    Cs\nTf\nCD\nCO\nCO*\nsa\nTJ\nC\"\nIO   O   00   CM\nIO\nTf\nCC\nCs\n*-f   CO   CM   lO\nIO\nTf\nS\nH\na\nH\n\u00ab\nrH    rH    rH    i-\ni-H\n69-\nce\n60\nfa\nCf\nCO    CO    CO    CC\nIO\nTf\nt-\ncr\nIO   CO   o   oc\n00\nrH\np.\nCC\nIf\nO    rH    CO    CO\no\nCO\nTt\nTt\nrH*    CM*\n00\na\nC\\\neo\nCM\nsa\nfc-           c\nfc\"\nCO    CO\nCO\nIO\nM\nCO             Cv\nl-H\nCO    If\nIO\nTf\n_H    _H\nw ft\nrH\ni-i    r-\ni-H\no\no\nce\n60-\nSO\n__\ns\nfa\noc\nio     : iq i-h\nQ\nco\nE_\nT\nO\nTf\nfc-    CC\ncs\nCO\ns\nm\nt-\nCO\nCO   cc\nIO\nt-\nc\nIO\nt-\n00\n00\na\nOC\ns\nOl\nsa\nCM           fc\nTf    GO    CM    CC\nOl\nCM\nlO         u\nfc-    CO    OS    C\no\nrH\nw p.\neg         i-\nI-H    CM    i-H    CN\ncm'\neg\n69-\n&3-\n60-\n13\nP\nCM           Cs\nCO    Cl    CO    Cvl\ni-H\n0.\nfa\nOS           cc\nIO     fc-    rH    i\u2014\n00\ncyj\nCO\neo         t-\nrH    Tf    t-    CO\nCO\nCO\ncc\nCs\nCD    H   CO    Tf\nTf\"\nCD*\na\no-\nCM    Ol    rH    r-\nCO\nCO\ni-H\n8 a\no        c\nCl    O   \u00bb    t>\nTf\n_.\n*fH  H\nD_ <U\n\"   ft\nO             If\nCO   O   Tf   c.\nt-\nIO\ncd        r-\nl-H    rH    rH    l\u2014\noi\nCM\nPS\n69-\n\u00abo-\nCO-\nfa\nCM           fc-\nO    fc-    rH    t-\nTf\nCM\nu\ni-(             If\nIO    CO    Tf    C\"\nCO\nCM\nCQ\nfc-             If\nlO             CM    l\u2014\nCM\nO           Cv\nrH    CC\nt-\na\nO           i-\nCM\ncs\n\u00a33\nsa\nIO          oc\nCO   CO   Tf   c-\no\nH\nco         ir\nlO    fc-    CO    CC\neo\nCM\nfc\n*H   C_\nCM             i-\nCM\nCM\nCO\ni\n69-\n\u00ab\u00a9-\nee-\nfa\nt-             tt\n584\n7,951\n50,848\n27.566\nCM\neg\nfc-         C\nCM\nt-\n0\no\no\nCQ\nfc-             i-\nt-\"\nOS\nTf\"\nTf\na\nIO\nTf\n'\"\"'\nCM\nCM\naj\nCJ\n*j\nC\n_j\n>\nCQ\n'\nH\nJ\nHJ\nCU\nIH\nOJ  y\no\nu\nPh\nCD\nU\nP\nbo\ncc   \u25a0\n3\n>_\nJ.\na\n3 1\nft   g   bO\n- p .y sh v\nOJ\nt\nc\nt\n4,   j\n\u00ab fe S |\nHJ\nc\niO\nCl\n3H\ne\n..ESt. 11\na\nE.\nL.              o     KS   .1\n>\nPh\nPh\nu\nfa\n7. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 75\nc__>\nTf\na.\no\nr?\nI-H\nPS\np\no\nco\n\u00ab!\nCO\nI\nPS\nfa\nP.\ns\ns\no\nPS\nfa\nEH\np\nO\nPS\nfa\nCQ\ns\n\u25a0bj\nCO \u00ab\nCO\nCS\nCO\nCO\nfc-\nCO\nCM\nfc-\nl>\nTf\nTf\nCl\n5\nc\no;\nCN\neo\nCO\ntrie\nO\nO\no\nCC\n=__!\nHI*\no\no\nO\no\n*\no\no\nCl\n__ .\n\u2022Sj_\n$1\ne.4-     \u25a0\nrH   [fl\nCQ\nIO\nt-\nCD\nIO*\nt-\nIO\nt-\nco\nIO*\nfc-\nIO\nCM\ned\nCO\no\no\no\nCM\nm\n1\nCO\nCO\no\n>   CJ\n^H   \u00ab\nm\n00   O\ni-H    O\nTf     Tf\nTf\no o\no o\nCO    rH\n00\nCM\nIO*\ncs\nTf\n<N\nCM\nOl\nCO\nOl\nIO\nO\nCM\nos\no\nIO\n00\nCM*\nTf\nCl\nfc-\n00\nCD\nQJ\nA!\nCO\nCO\nOS\nCM\nCO\no\n00\n\u00b0\u00b0-\ncd*\nCO\neo\n\u2022a\nC i    .\nin;\nKBft\nTf\nfc\"\nCS_\n00*\no\no\no\nIO*\nTf\nt-\na>\nCO\nCO\nCO\nOl\nIO\nIO\nTf\nCM\nOl\nCO\nCM\nTf\nCO\nO*\nIO\nCM\nIO\nCO\neo\nto\nOS\nIO\nfc-\no\ncm\"\no\no\no^\nIO\n00\nIO\n\u25a02 3 \"J\n\u25a0Si*\nOl\nCM\neg*\n00    i-H   Tf\nCO    Tf    CO\nO    fc-   CO\nrH    CO    t-\nCM\nCM\nfc-\nTf\nCM\nCM\neo\nOS\no\nIO\nTf\no\n00\nCO\nCO\nt-\nCM\nTf\nCO\neo\nIO\nCM\nCM\nCO\nCO\nCO\nOl\nOl\nIO\ni-H\nCM\nCM\no\nIO\nCl\n<M\nCM\nCO\nCO\nCS\nCO\nTf\nIO\neo\nod\nIO\nm\nco\nO\nPh\n00     Tf     Tf      CO     Tf\n00   Tf    i-H    O   l-H\nTf    fc-    CO    fc-   CO\nO    CD    IO    CO   Tf\nCM             i-H    CO    rH\nl-H    rH   Tf\n00\nCD\no\nCO\nOl\nCO\ni-H\nOS\nIO\nCO\nCO\niO\nCM\nCO\nIO\ni-H\nTf\nCO\nTf\nOl\nIO\nCO\nCM\nCO\nTf\no\nCO\nCO\nCO\nOl\nCO\no\nOl\nIO\nCM\nt-\nIO\nTf\nIO\nCM\nCO\no\nCO\nIO\nOS\nIO\nCO\nt-*\nCS\n00\ncs\no\nCO\nCO\nCO    CS    rH    CO   CM\nCM    CO    CM    Tf   CO\nO    Tf    O    t>   CO\nCM* O*   fc-\"  CO* 00*\nrH    O    CO    IO\nCD\nCS\nIO\nCO\nOl\nCO\nCO\nCO\nTf\nCM\nCO\nCO\nIO*\nCO\nTf\no\nTf\nl-H\nCO\nCO\nCM\nCO\nIO\nOS\noi*\nCO\nIO\nCO\nCO\nTf\nCM\nCO\n00\nOl\nTf\"\nt-\nCM\nrH\nCD\nIO\nCO\nTf\nCO\nTf\nCO\nod\nCD\neo\n00\nTf\nCM\nCO\nCO\nfc-\nTf\"\no\nTf\nM\n13\nM\nO\nO\nOO   rH    O    CO    0C\nCS    OS    t-    CO    If\nO    CM    CO    00    fc-\nrH    rH    Tf    O    tJ\nTf     CO    Tf     CO     i-\nCO    rH    CO    Cl    If\ni-H                      CM\no\nIO\nCO\nCM\nCD\nIO\nCl\nfc-\n00\nCM\no\nOS\nTf\nTf\nfc-\no\n00\no\nOl\nfc-\nCM\nCD\nCO\nCO\no\nCO\n00\nOS\nCO\nCO\nTf\nIO\n00\nTf\nOl\nOl\nTf\nOl\nOl\nCM\nTf\nCO\nCM\nIO\nCM\nCO\no\nIO\neg\nCO\nO\nfc-\nO\nTf\neo\nfc-\nIO\nos\no\n00\nOl\nOl\nTf\nTf\no\nCO\no\nCO\nIO\nH-i\nQJ\nOJ\nfa\nOJ\nB\n3\nIO   fc*   IO   CD   t-\nt-    o    CM    i-H    OS\nO    OJ    Cl    rH    CM\ncm  eo  fc-  co   fc-\nfc-   oo   fc-   io   co\nTf    CS     CS    Tf     Cl      \u2022\neo  co  co o\no\nCM\nIO\nTf\nIO\n00\nIO\nCO\nCD\no\nIO\nCO\nCM\nCO\nCO\n10\nCO\nc-\nTf\nIO\nCO\n00\nt-\ni-H\no\n00\n00\nCO\nl-H\nO\nIO\nOS\nCO\nOl\nt-\nTf\nCO\n00\n00\nfc-\n00\nCM\nCM\nCO\nCM\n00\nIO\nCO\nIO\nCS\nCO\nCO\nfc-\no\no\nCO\nCM\nCM\nOO\nCM\n00\nIO\nCO\no\nCO\n00\nCS\nOl\nfc-\nOl\nCO\no\n\u2022s\nCU\n\u00abH\n13\nh\nri\no\nM\nTf    OO    CO    O    CO\nto   i-h   CM   t-   CO\nTf    O    Cl    CS    fc-\ni-H   00   O   fc-   Tf\nCO     CO    rH    CM    O\nO    i-H    fc-    CD    CO\nCM    IO    CO    CM    IO\nfc-    rH    l\u20141    OS    Cl\nCO    t-H    rH\noo\nCO\nCD\nCM\nOl\ntr\nCO\nOS\ni-H\nIO\nCD\nO\nCD\nOl\nCD\nOl\nTf\nt-\ncs\nTf\nCO\nTf\nCO\nTf\nt-\no\nCD\nCO\nCO\nCM\nIO\nTf\nCM\no\niH\nCO\nCO\nOl\nOS\nTf\nCl\noo\nIO\nIO\nOl\nen\nTf\nTf\ntr-\nIO\nCO\nOl\nCO\nt-\nTf\n00\n00\nCM\nOl\ncs\nCO\nCO\neo\nTf\nIO\nTf\n00\nOS\nTf\nCO\n__-\nCO\nCM\nCO\nCM\nCO\nTf\noo\nCO\nCO\nIO\nIO\nt-\nco\nCM\nTf\nCM\nIO\nHJ\n'E\n5\nr\na\n<\nr\ne\n>\nt\na\n6\n*\nj\np\n.\nj^-\nt\n.   c\n.   &\n0\n.     0\n_\nJ (\n:\nIt\n1\n*\nee\ne\nIf\n1\n4\nc\nE-\n'\nIC\nTl\nCT\ni\nE-\nTl\nTl\nCT\nc\n{\n_\u25a0\n'\nT\no\nv\n<\n4\nc\n&\u25a0\n'\nCs\nTl\na\na\nt\nc\nt-\n'\nTl\ne\ntl\n\\\nc\nE-\n'\nc\nTl\ne\nc\/\n(\n4\nc\n'\nCT\nO\"\no-\nu\n1\nc\n'\nOC\nex\nc\nu\nfl\nH-\nc\nE-\n'\nfc-\ne'er\na\n1\nE-\n'\nCD\nTf\n1\nfc-\nCO\nOl\nrH\nCJ*\ntt,\na\nu\nQJ\n>\ncd\niH\nI\na\nEh 00 76\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nSaw and Shingle Mills of the Province, 1946.\nOperating.\nShut Down.\nForest District.\nSawmills.\nShingle-mills.\nSawmills.\nShingle-mills.\nNo.\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nM.B.M.\nNo.\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nShingles, M.\nNo.\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nM.B.M.\nNo.\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nShingles, M.\n339\n149\n210\n321\n209\n7,715\n1,085\n2,097\n2,000\n2,359\n53\n1\n2\n3\n8,573\n5\n20\n6\n55\n17\n17\n209\n67\n250\n94\n121\n2\n1\n2\n3\n125\n5\n28\n50\n35\nTotals, 1946\t\n1,228\n15,256\n59\n8,656\n115\n741\n8\n165\nTotals, 1945\t\n931\n13,590\n51\n7,054\n137\n808\n7\n150\nTotals, 1944\t\n807\n14,974\n51\n6,695\n110\n702\n16\n581\nTotals, 1943\t\n614\n13,623\n54\n7,411\n120\n646\n19\n829\nTotals, 1942\t\n551\n13,197\n70\n8,874\n149\n1,206\n11\n135\nTotals, 1941\t\n557\n13,820\n76\n8,835\n129\n1,083\n5\n63\nTotals, 1940\t\n542\n12,691\n77\n8,585\n141\n1,432\n18\n307\nTotals, 1939\t\n461\n11,698\n84\n7,926\n147\n1,907\n24\n537\nTotals, 193S\t\n481\n12,159\n88\n8,184\n126\n1,406\n19\n315\nTotals, 1937\t\n434\n11,042\n80\n9,124\n131\n1,685\n16\n402\nTen-year average,\n1937-46\t\n661 _\n13,205\n69\n8,134\n130\n1,162\n14\n348 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 77\nExport of Logs (in F.B.M.), 1946.\nSpecies.\nGrade No. 1.\nGrade No. 2.\nGrade No. 3.\nUngraded.\nTotals.\n29,533\n6,798,548\n5,250,162\n11,914,274\n6,688\n7,422,510\n19,179,900\n1,552,457\n72,000\n12,702,205\n37,892,722\n1,559,145\n72,000\n28,446,805\n5,452,121\n28,446,805\n5,452,121\n13,994\n971\n291,286\n13,126\n24,492\n53,358\n1,317\n2,129\n329,772\n67,455\n1,317\n9,529\n11,658\nTotals, 1946\t\n6,843,046\n17,485,065\n28,308,163\n33,898,926\n86,535,200*\nTotals, 1945\t\n3,852,321\n20,696,800\n24,903,105\n32,624,170\n82,076,396\nTotals, 1944\t\n6,724,297\n29,051,958\n33,851,519\n32,027,805\n101,655,579\nTotals, 1943\t\n2,809,744\n17,720,743\n28,863,804\n29,261,754\n78,656,045\nTotals, 1942\t\n2,639,167\n18,960,886\n27,618,347\n106,793,550\n156,011,950\nTotals, 1941\t\n8,549,320\n63,485,278\n43,165,973\n191,879,335\n307,079,906\nTotals, 1940\t\n4,697,188\n37,567,582\n24,865,886\n150,396,702\n217,527,358\nTotals, 1939\t\n6,383,398\n111,155,799\n66,870,882\n128,323,383\n312,733,462\nTotals, 1938\t\n4,386,370\n98,637,490\n74,650,653\n81,998,569\n259,673,082\nTotals, 1937\t\n4,924,298\n114,991,217\n66,611,218\n83,947,361\n270,474,094\nTen-year average, 1937-46\t\n5,180,915\n52,975,282\n41,970,955\n87,115,155\n187,242,307\n* Of this total, 82,008,715 F.B.M. were exported\nF.B.M. were exported under permit from other areas.\nfrom Crown grants carrying the export privilege;   4,526,485 00 78\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nShipments of Poles, Piling, Mine-props, Fence-posts,\nRailway-ties, etc., 1946.\n(23)\nQuantity\nexported.\nApproximate\nValue, F.O.B.\nWhere markevted.\nForest District.\nUnited\nStates.\nCanada.\nOther\nCountries.\nVancouver\u2014\n lin. ft.\n2,197,638\n1,836,591\n463\n681,880\n19,910\n901,702\n439\n102,842\n1,507,385\n$549,418.00\n459,148.00\n5,788.00\n20,456.00\n3,982.00\n31,144.00\n7,458.00\n15,426.00\n198,555.00\n1,304,422\n1,565,953\n463\n681,880\n13,653\n893,216\n262,348\nPiles \t\n lin. ft.\n8,290\n posts\nlin. ft.\n6,257\n901,702\nMine-props   \t\n cords\n lin. ft.\n ties\n lin. ft.\n lin. ft.\n439\n102,842\n211,705\nPrince Rupert\u2014\nHewn railway-ties \t\n1,295,680\n4,678\n3,710,323\n370,964\n2,003\n113,139\n24,909\n16\n5,219\n7,788,645\n92,231\n2,716\n28,390\n7,021,987\n884,864\n4,549,536\n45,379\n5,947\n27,977\n24\n255,000\n97,364\n1,138,800\n21,919\n1,170.00\n74,206.00\n51,783.08\n20,030.00\n92,980.60\n430,433.57\n64.00\n2,609.50\n1,164,371.35\n87,619.45\n63,830.55\n2,839.00\n326,452.57\n154,557.85\n682,430.00\n7,261.00\n44,603.00\n335,724.00\n180.00\n1,275.00\n92,496.00\n378,119.00\n383,583.00\n4,678\n3,710,323\nFort George\u2014\nPoles \t\n12,355\n173\n358,609\n1,830\n113,139\nHewn railway-ties \t\n ties\n24,909\n16\n5,219\n4,380,960\nKamloops\u2014\n lin. ft.\n ties\n lin. ft.\n3,407,685\n92,231\n2,696\n28,390\n143,668\nHewn railway-ties \t\n20\nStubs  \t\n lin. ft.\n6,878,319\n884,864\n3,132,488\n4,631\nNelson\u2014\nPoles \t\n lin. ft.\n lin. ft.\n1,417,048\n40,748\n5,947\n8,656\n24\n97,364\nPiles \t\n19,321\n lin. ft.\n ties\n255,000\n1,039,150\n99,650\n21,919\nTotal value, 1946\t\n$5,689,985.52\nTotal value. 1945  \t\n$3,502,002.00 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 79\n(Hi\nSummary for Province, 1946.\nProduct.\nVolume.\nValue.\nPer Cent, of\nTotal Value.\n lin. ft.\n18,296,138\n302,734\n40\n463\n24,588\n32,696\n11,634,012\n31,295\n28,390\n255,000\n681,880\n2,131,725\n21,919\n$3,112,958.43\n273,096.05\n244.00\n5,788.00\n5,152.00\n419,584.55\n431,802.57\n482,494.57\n2,839.00\n1,275.00\n20,456.00\n550,712.35\n383,583.00\n54.71\n4.80\n0.01\n0.10\n0.09\n7.37\n lin. ft.\n7.59\n8.48\nStubs\t\n lin. ft.\n0.05\nSticks and stakes\t\n lin. ft.\n0.02\n0.36\n9.68\n6.74\nTotals\t\n$5,689,985.52\n100.00\n(25)\nTimber-marks issued.\n1940.\n1941.\n1942.\n1943.\n1944.\n1945.\n1946.\n272\n101\n99\n275\n58\n1\n16\n13\n1,724\n4\n3\n2\n20\n211\n85\n101\n282\n64\n1\n16\n5\n1,853\n11\n6\n2\n17\n160\n85\n92\n250\n79\n2\n9\n4\n1,709\n19\n6\n2\n1\n190\n98\n104\n283\n72\n2\n5\n11\n2,017\n9\n5\n1\n4\n280\n89\n81\n234\n51\n1\n9\n10\n1,893\n8\n6\n1\n1\n329\n115\n106\n337\n53\n2\n3\n16\n1,898\n6\n15\nCrown grants, 1887-1906\t\nCrown grants, 1906-1914\t\nPre-emptions   under   sections   28\nIndian reserves ,\n15\n2,637\n35\nPulp leases\t\nPulp licences\t\n2\nTotals\t\n2,588\n315\n2,654\n307\n2,418\n224\n2,801\n237\n2,664\n251\n2,882\n327\n4,248\n486\nTransfers and changes of marks 00 80\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(26)\nForest Service Draughting Office, 1946.\nNumber of Drawings prepared or Tracings made.\nNumber of Blue-prints\nor Ditto-prints made\nfrom Draughting Office\nDrawings.\nTimber-\nsales.\nTimber-\nmarks.\nExamination\nSketches.\nMiscellaneous\nMatters.\nConstructional\nWorks, etc.\nTotals.\nBlueprints.\nDitto-\nprints.\nTotals.\n83\n53\n68\n42\n60\n44\n45\n71\n39\n28\ni33\n38\n132\n135\n156\n217\n200\n191\n192\n133\n191\n146\n113\n125\n52\n60\n68\n95\n117\n118\n120\n61\n110\n89\n83\n55\n190\n59\n20\n18\n18\n8\n18\n68\n18\n32\n38\n38\n3\n8\n6\n4\n2\n1\n3\n11\n3\n5\n2\n460\n315\n318\n376\n397\n362\n378\n344\n358\n298\n272\n258\n514\n565\n935\n883\n957\n845\n914\n721\n825\n782\n656\n516\n1,065\n465\n670\n445\n620\n345\n360\n770\n525\n570\n710\n755\n1,579\n1,030\nMarch\t\n1,605\n1,328\n1,577\nJune\t\nJuly\t\n1,190\n1,274\n1,491\nSeptember\t\n1,350\n1,352\n1,366\n1,271\nNovember\t\nToMs, 1946\t\nTotals, 1945\t\nTotals, 1944\t\nTotals, 1943\t\nTotals, 1942\t\nTotals, 1941\t\nTotals, 1940\t\nTotals, 1939\t\nTotals, 1938\t\nTotals, 1937\t\n604\n569\n442\n356\n329\n247\n224\n231\n268\n258\n1,931\n1,193\n889\n937\n868\n1,087\n1,151\n943\n1,023\n1,202\n1,028\n693\n459\n396\n359\n468\n434\n408\n340\n394\n525\n684\n544\n293\n111\n150\n282\n269\n316\n436\n48\n75\n46\n93\n73\n70\n*\n*\n*\n*\n4,136\n3,214\n2,380\n2,075\n1,740\n2,022\n2,091\n1,851\n1,947\n2,290\n9,113\n6,495\n4,159\n4,009\nt\nt\nt\nt\nf\nt\n7,300\n6,701\n4,983\n3,448\nt\nt\nt\nt\nt\nf\n16,413\n13,196\n9,142\n7,457\nt\nt\nt\nt\nt\nt\nTotals for ten-\n3,528\n11,224\n4,979\n3,610\n405\n23,746\n23,776\n22,432\n46,208\nAverage for ten-\n353\n1,122\n498\n361\n68J\n2,375\n5,944|\n1\n\"\u2022\u00bb\u00bb-\u00bb\n* Prior to 1941, Constructional Works,\nt Average for six-year period only.\netc., included in Miscellaneous Matters,    t No record kept prior to 1943.\n\u00a7 Average for four-year period only.\n(27)\nForest Insect Survey, 1946.\nForest District.\nVancouver \t\nPrince Rupert\nFort George ____\nKamloops\t\nNelson \t\nInsect-box\nCollections\nmade.\n- 234\n- 115\n- 73\n__    93\n- 78\nNegative\nReports.\n17\n4\n7\n7\n2\nTotals\n593\n37 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\n00 81\n(28)\nCrown-granted Timber Lands paying Forest Protection Tax.\nYear. Area (Acres).\n1921  845,111\n1922  887,980\n1923  883,344\n1924  654,668\n1925  654,016\n1926  688,372\n1927  690,438\n1928  671,131\n1929 :  644,011\n1930  629,156\n1931  602,086\n1932  552,007\n1933  567,731\n1934  557,481\n1935  535,918\n1936  515,924\n1937  743,109\n1938  754,348\n1939  719,112\n1940  549,250\n1941.\n1942.\n1943.\n1944.\n1945_\n1946.\n543,632\n527,995\n543,044\n571,308\n591,082\n601,148\nAverage Assessed\nValue per Acre of\nTimber Land.\n$10.33\n11.99\n11.62\n15.22\n40.61\n39.77\n39.01\n38.62\n38.41\n44.74\n43.77\n43.73\n41.18\n37.25\n37.13\n36.61\n23.32*\n23.05\n22.73\n27.70f\n26.99\n26.34\n25.15\n25.28\n26.32\n26.64t\n* From 1937 forest protection tax has been charged on areas assessed as timber land in their entirety, in\naccordance with section 119 of the \" Forest Act ** and section 33 of the \" Taxation Act\"; previously the levy was\non the timbered portion only.\nt Approximately 155,000 acres assessed as timber land reverted to the Crown in 1939.\n% That is, 169,456 acres logged-off land at $2 per acre, and 431,692 acres timber at $36.31 per acre.\n(29)\nExtent and Assessed Value of Timber Land by Assessment Districts.\nAssessment District.\nAcreage,\n1946.\nIncrease or\nDecrease over\n1945.\nAverage\nValue\nper Acre.\nChange in\nAssessed Value\nsince 1945.\n79,624\n122,730\n101,457\n12,969\n328\n315\n145,451\n2,637\n160\n1,233\n21,164\n33,203\n39,744\n40,133\n\u2014254\n+ 2,901\n+2,745\n*\n*\n*\n+ 4,986\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n\u2014 1,280\n+968\n$35.27\n27.12\n33.43\n5.05\n13.50\n10.37\n29.93\n5.83\n4.15\n15.71\n17.17\n10.57\n2.60\n30.00\n+ $0.81\n+4.64\n\u2014 6.78\nFort Steele\t\n\u2014 .20\n\u2014 3.79\nKettle River\t\n*\nNanaimo\t\nNelson\t\nOmineca\t\nPrince George\t\n+ .42\n*\n*\n+ .56\n\u2014 .01\n*\nSlocan\t\n+ .04\n+2.70\nTotals         \t\n601,148\n+ 10,066\n$26.64\n* No change. 00 82\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n<\nEh\nZ\n\u00a9\nO\nw\nH\nO\ns\nW\nH\n03\nO\ng\nOh\nm\n\u00ab\n<\ncd\nW\nM\nS\no\nw\nE-h\no\nIS\no\n03\no\no\noa\nH\n\u25baJ\n<\nS>\nO\nh\na_\na_\nCQ\no\n<!\n0.\nW\n>\nC SR V *h\nS   ^  M   o\ntn*_3.___ h\nBJ8\nT3   +\u00bb    *H\nS  5 OJ    .\nigAs3\ncj s io 2\n_.\u00ab^\u00ab.\n< o\n<DT_!   m\nBill\nW\u2014_   H   l,\n<>tn<J\n134J u\no> c. <y .\n<:>.\n_.  QJ_a\u201e\n\u00ab   t_ L_i   ra\nioooooeOTfO]Tfocoooco\n_003Mr-i(Mi-OCO-M_N\u00bbOTfCO\nc\u00aboocoo6o6o.o.o-o.-^i>t\"\no  o  os  Tf  eo\nOJ    IO    CM    O    Tf    au    i\u2014.    .31    tp\nrHCOOOCOTfCOCOTflO\nio  eo  cm  oi  oi co\n_\u2014.   in   \u25a0\u00bb\u2666<   ir.   f.   CO\nCO  oj\nCie-OrHTfeooeoNoocOTfOJ\nlooO-oococ-coD--OTf<^_l\u00bb-,\nTfcocq-MrHt-t-eoco-O-OiO\noj\nCD\nTf\nCO\nto\n00\nCO\nIO\nIO\nOl\nIO\no\nCO\nCS\n00\no\nCO\n00\nr-\nOJ\nIO\no\n\u00a9J\nOS\nIO\no\no\nco\nCO\nl-H\no\nCD\n_M\nTf\n00\nCO\nCO\nCO\no.\nb-\no\nI_-\no\nco\nt-OHOWHCOfflOCOCflO\noicoTfcoooicaoi-oo.co'o\n-OTft-cocoTfiOrHcOTfeoOJ\nco*_^co-0_^co\"io\"-0-o\"co'ir-^cD\ncococO-r-cOTfTfcocococoTf\nN    N   W    N   N\nt-COCOOO(MC\\|CO(NlOCDCO\u00bb0\nWVtDOMlOHt-OHMN\nIDMIOWOCCOONCCIO'-1\nCS\n(M\nTf\nTf\nOS\nCO\n09\nCO\nfc-\nOJ\nCD\nCO\nIO\nIO\ncs\no\nOl\no\nCO\nCM\nTf\nCD\nCD\neo\nTf\n00\n00\nT\u20141\no\nTf\nOS\ntr\neo\nIO\nN\nt-\ncs\nCO\nCM\nCM\nTf\no\nt-\nCO\no\no\nCO\nTf\nfc-\nCD\nCO\nCD\nTf\nCD\n00\nee\nto\niO\nTf\nTf\nco\nCO\nN\nCO\nT*\nIO\nOOacOGOTfOSOOCOCDOOt-CD\nt-OOOSlOOSrH-OOOSt-COlO\nioiocDOOt-TfTfeooscooio_\nW   N   M   \u25a0**  CO   CO* IO   N   IC   K5   t-' ^\nCO_OCDTfCOCOCOCMCNTfi_oeO\neocococococococococococo\nCD-Ht-__-COOt-OCOasCNCNt\nCOCOTflOrHOOlCOOlCOOOCD\nos   io   O   as   i-h   i\u2014i   eo   tp   cm   oo   eo  eo_\nCD(M01COeOr-ITj\"t-oiTfOsC^\n-OeOCOCOlOCOCOOST\u2014ICOTfOl\nrHY-HrHrHrHi-Hi-HrHCNOJCVlCJ\nlOOdCOCOOlCDrHTfcOTf-^frH\noioianocc'JMHfflon\nCOOO-OOOOJTflOOOCOT-.__OCO\nMCOOCOOCO-OMOOCOIO\ni-tCOrHt-COCOCCOC-JOSCDOS\nCOlO>OrHTf(MrHCOOOOS\non\nCO\nCO\nCl\n<M\nCO\n(M\n<M\nOJ\n|T.\nIO\nr-\nCO\nCD\n00\n00\nDO\nc-\nCQ\nCD\nCM\nIO\nCO\nO-\nco\nCC\n00\nTf\nIO\no\nIO\neo\nTftOCOCOrHOCO-OTfOOtMCO\n-OOOT-HCMT-H-OCOOSTfOCO'^\nCOrHTfCOi-HOJCDOSOCOO'-'\n(O    tO   \u00bb\"  \u00abD    O)    Cl    M   t-* -M   H   H   H\nc-eoeoiOrHTfTfeviTft-os0\nt-t-t-t-t-lO-O-O-OlOloCD\n-OCO__-OOCSOrHOJCOTf_Oi_\ncocococotroTfTtiTfTf-^f._fx_f\nt.O-fflO.O.O.00.0.0-010- REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 83\nT_l\ntH   CO\ncc, 01\nQJ rH\nlOSCDt-CDTft-oOlMCMOJrHMOlOOJ\nrH    rH    Tf    IO    Tf    CO\nfc- Tf Tf \\a o\nCOTfCMTfCDC-IOOCM\nfc-   CM   CO   OS\nrH   Tf   rH   CD   OS   Tf\nCD eo\"  OJ\nt-H\no\no\nCO\nTf\n(N\nos\no\nCO\n\u00bbD\nCO\nr-\ne\nCJ!\nf0\nin\nr-\nCM\n\u25a0rH\neo\nCvl\no\no\nTf\neo\no\nCO\n00\no\nCO\nIO\no\nTf\no\nt-\nCM\nTf\nTf\nIQ\nCO\nTf\n1\u2014\nCO\nr^\nnn\no\nCO\nCM\no\nr^\n,-4\nt~\no\nTf\n:y;\n(N\n\u25a0CO\nIO\n\u25a0rl*\n(\u25a0>\nffl\nTf\nr-\nCD\nCO\n.I>\nOJ\nIO\nCO\nCM\nrH\nCM\nCO\nCM\n00\nIO\nCM\nTf\nCN\nCM\neo\nrH\n00\nno\nH\nnn\n,_,\nec\nCM\nCO\n0-1\nT*\non\no\nIO\neo\nCM\nEM\nt-H\nTf\n00\nIQ\nW\n\"\nCM\nCO\nO OJ\n+>T(I\nCO CS\nOlOCOwCMTfi-HOOCvlt-TfTf^firjC-COOOCO-OrHCvJ\nrHOrHCvJTfOSCOiOQOiat-OOCSC-t-rHt-t-t-t'-t-O\nfc-COrHlTjCO COlOOOCOOCOfc-OO OJCOOJOrH CO\nlOCOOCDOCOCNrH OS Cr   CO* O*\nO CO\nS=3\nCSOt-OlOeOCOCOCSOlOIOlOTf OMIO CM CO OJ 00 rH to\nTfoCOOrHiOlXOCOTfOOOOt-OOSOSTfOeOCOCO\nOOCv_Ot-0SC01--_fC0-_0Ot^t-1r-.-0Cvio\n-_-OTfioaiCOeOcO-0-OCvlTfO-_-COOCvlOO-OTfeD_0\nIO    tC    N    CN   CO TfrHOJt-O CSOeOrHCOOCO rH\nTfrHTf t- CO   tfil   IO   CM    IO* N    IO\nO rH\nCO\nCO\nCM\nCO\nH\np\nz\nm\n>\nW\nO\n,J-rH\nH-S     -.\no CO\nOl    00    IO    CO   Tf   Tf\nCM    CO   CO   CO    CM   00\nCM    t-    C-    CvJ    rH\neoco-oeo-Ooseoiocvi\nCMCOfc-IOCMcOfc-Tft-'\nTf   oi   CM 00   IO   t-\nosiocvioeooicocOTfcot-\nH   O    H    ID    N Tf    OS    O   OJ    OS\nJO    <N    CC    rH    CO COi-HOt-OS\nChO.t-HC.OlO\nCD   00   CM   IO   CO   O   CO\nCO   O   IO OJ   Tf\nO CO\nIO Cl\nCO    CO\nO eo\n-P^f\n03 OS\nOTfOrHCOCv)t-CO_Ot-\nfc-   O   CS   O  Tf   t-   .\neo   eo   CN   CO\nIO   N   CO O\nCO   Tf    Tf rH\n00    OJ    IO    CM    CD\nrHlO-OCMClOOCOOOrHCM\ne0O00Tft>000JrHC0rH\nrHTfOS C-   IO    00 i-HTf\ni     >,  tH\ni -k cu\nS..S I s\n~C\n9 (A\nC5^CJ\u201e.2\n\u00bb   5   QJ   C  5   3   >\n.        r.     ft    CU    +1     tH    'O\nCD     OJ     flj     0     CU\n,\u00a3    ^    r3      Ph     OJ\nI.     h    I.    b.\n\u25a0\u00b0   \"rj   **\n.2   e* -\u00a7\nEHMfH\nD    QJ    g    C\nO   _n   .2   X\nS ft c\nB I 3\n* p 5\nft H-S CC)\n\u00ab \" I     -\neg a v   (A  cu\n3 c \u00a3\n_> QJ 3\n3 ^ -Q -r-\n3 I S h?\nJ (h 43 \"H\n: 1 S \u00ab\n; 4- . n\nO\nS\ns s\nS S\nH 13\nS 13  \u00ab  S 13  g .2\nEh 10 01 Eh to H ta\nH\nJ 9 H\nK   S   S   m .S\n3 A   d   a S\na; A   &   u u\n0 H m E-i 0 00 84\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nto\nT?\nOS\nfc\no\nH\na\nH\nPh\nO\nO\nfc\nHH\nO\nO\no\nrl\nH\nfc\nI\u2014I\n<!\nO\n<:\no\nc\n03\n<!\nW\nw\nH\nfc\nCS\nO\n<!\nI\u2014\nea\nO0\nCD\nTf\nCO\nrH\n00\nCM\no\nco\nM\nco\nOl\ntr-\nc-  oi  oo  C-  co\nCD\nt-\nlO\no\nCO\nCO\no\nTf\nCO\nIO\n00   co   o   >o  oo\nO\nTf\nOS\nCO\nc-\no\nOS\nCM\nco\nrH     CM    I-H     CO     i-H\nCO\nrH\nt-\neo\nCM\no\nCM\no\nCv\n\u00bbo\ncc]\nCO    t\u2014    CO    O    CO\nt-\nCO\n00\n\u00bbH\nH\nCO\nCM\nTf\nOJ\n1-1\nIO\nO\nCM    CO    CO    CM    CD\nfc-\niO\no\nTf\neo\n>o\nCM\nIO\nH\nrH    00    Cr-   rH    rH\nCs\nCO\nOS\nCO\nco\n00\nIO\nTf\nOJ\n00\nt-     CO     Tf     Tf     Tf\nCO\nOO\neo\nCM\nCM\niO\nrH\nCO\nCO\nc-\nCvl\nCM\nTf\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\n<N\nCN\nCM\nCO\n69-\n69\n60\neo\n60\n&9\n69\n69\ntt\n69\n69\n69-\nbo o>\nrH    CM    O    OJ    Tf\ncs\no\nTf\nTf\nlO\nCO\nTf\nCM\no\nOS\nt-\nrn  OC.C  rn\nOS   O    IO    CO    rH\n00\nCD\nTf\nCV\nC<\nr-\no\n00\nCO\nOl\n00\n\u25a03.H\n-H  to\n\u25a0^ u 3j\najHtw\nC-^    Tf    00    CO    Tf\nt_\nt~\nCO\n00\nTf\n00\no\no\neo\n00\ncd\nTf    IO    O    tH    CO\nCO\nCM\nCM\nia\n00\nt-\nCM\nCM\nIO\no\n00\nCS    C^   00    CM    OS\nCO   Tf   oi\"  CO   c-\nCO\nOS\nCO\nCD\nCO\noo\nIO\nCD\nTf\nc\nCD\ntr-\na\nTf\nTf\nCO\nCO    rH             CM    rH\ncs\nt-\nOS\n00\nfc-\neo\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\ntt-\ncVB\n60\nm\n69\n69\n69\n69\n69-          69\ntt      tt\nCO    OS    rH    CO    rH\no\n00\nta\nrH\nCJ\nCO\ntr\n00\no\nCM\nCO\noi\nO    CO    Cvl    rH    Cf\nOS\ncs\nta\nCO\no\nI\"\nio\no\nCD\nCi\nCO\nbe\nH    ri    t-     IO    CC\nr-\n00\ntt\nCO\nCO\neo\nC<\nc-\nCO\nCO\ncd\nrH    rH    00    Tf    O\"\nK9\nOS\nCO\nCO\nc-\nOJ\nO\no\nCO\nft\nIO    t-    t-    Tf    EO\nrH\noo\nCO\nCO\nrH\nTf\nCJ\nCO\ns\nB\n-OH\n02\nIO   O   OS   >o   CO\nIO\nt-\nIO\nOJ\nCS\nCO\nTf\nTf\nCO\nCM\nCM\nCM    O    t\u2014    CM    CM\nIO\nt-\nOS\n00\nTf\nTt\nCO\no\nCO\nIO\nCS   0J   OJ   OJ   (N\n00\nl\u00a3\nCO\nc\nOS\nCO\nCr-\nCC\nIO\nlO\no\nce\n,_\n,H\n,_(\n60\n69\nco\n69-          69\n69\n\u00ab\n\u00bb\n\u00a93\n69\n69-\no   as      :      :\nOS\nCO\nCO\nCO\ntr\nO\no\nCO\nTf\nCO\nlO\n60\n'X s\nCO   fc-\nc\nCO\nOl\nCO\nio\nOl\nIN\nTf\nTf\ntT.\ned  t-\nTf\n00\no\nin\nr-\nIO\nec\nCO\nIO\n7,\nrH    Tf\ncc\noo\n0C\nCD\n\u00ab\nCO\nCC\ntr\nCD\nOJ\nrH    CS\no\no\ncc\nc\nt-\nTf\nTf\nCO\nio\nCO\nTf\np\nfn\nCJrH\nCQ\nt-    OS\ntr-\nIC\nCO\na\nCv\nt-\nIO\nCr-\no\ntH\n\u00ab\n0J\nB\nCvl\nTf\nTf\nC<!\nCV\nCO\nrH\n\u00ab-\nrH\nrH\nrH\nrH\nrH          '\nu\n69\"\n69\n&s\nm\n60\n69-          tt-          tt-          69-          69-          tt\ng\n3\n.   oi\nho cu\nO   IO\n00\no\nTf\nOT\nO\n00\nTf\n00\nTf\nOO\n3\nCv]    CD\nCC\nec\ncc\nfc-\noc\nTf\no\nOC\nCT\ncn\nCO\nt\u00bb\nB 2\nTf      C-j\no\na\nOS\nTf\nC\nTf\nCD\n0\nr-\nCO\nS3 8\nco   eo\noc\nCJ\ncc\nTf\nCM\nCM\noc\nCl\no ft\nrH    CO\nrH   CM\nt-\nc-\no\nc\nc\nCC\ncn\nCl\nCO\n00\nc\ncc\no\nOC\nTl\nCC\nCO\nlO*\nTf\nTf\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\no\"\nCv]\nCM\nco\n69\n&\n6?\n6*\nw\n60-     |    69-          69-          69-     |    tt          69-          60-\nH\nbo\nO\nTf\nTf\nOJ\nlO\no\n3\n3\nP to\n00\nTf\nCv\nIO\ncs\no\nTf\nCv\nCC\nCC\nTf\nCM\n\u00a3\n\u00ab.<\"\neo\nCS\nTf\nec\no\nCM\nCO\non\nCM\nCO\nIO\ncc\nIO\nOJ\nCvJ    '\nH\nto\n69\n69\n6?\n&c\nw\nm\n69-\ni\nIs\nlO   O   O   O   C\ntc\nt-\nfc-\nCJ\ntr-\nec\nTt\ntc\nTf\nty\nTf\nt-   IO   CO   IO   OC\ncc\nt-\nt-\nt-\ncv\nCC\ntr-\ntr\nc\nO\nCr-^    tH    rH   Tf    TJ\no-\nco\no\nt-\noc\niO\no-\ni\nO\"\nCO\n>\no\n0\nTf    CM    CO    CO    Tt\nt-\nCvl\nIT\nt-\noc\ncr\ncc\nte\nt~\no\nIO    rH             CM    Cv\n1\u2014\nIO\nTt\ne>\nC\nIO\nOJ\nCC\nCM\n6C\nCO\n69\nTt\n\u00ab\n69\n69\n69\n69\nr*\nH\n6*\nv.\nm\n6-J\ntf.\ntt\n_, co\n,_,\nrH    O    IT\nl>\ncc\n<y\nCC\nCO\nOC\nC\nCO\nIC\nTt\nCO\nis\nS ft\nCl\n00    O    C\ntr-\nIT\nTJ\nC\niO\nt-\n.W\nOC\ntr-\nTf\nCO\nOJ    IO    C\nIT\nw\nCC\nc-\na\nt-\nCD\n00\nCM    CO    r-\nc\noc\nIC\nCO\noc\nc\nCM\ncc\nc-\nCS\nTf                   p.\ncc\nC\"\nt>\nCC\nCO\nTf\nTt\nOC\nec\nec\nCD\n4\nCf\nM\ntf\n69\n6=\n6=\n<M\n6^\ntf\n69-\nH\n69-\n\u00a3\nco \u00ab3\nto  bD\nO   CS   Tf   o   OC\nr-\ne\nOJ\nOC\nTt\nc\nir\nIC\n00\nOS    CM    OS    Cv]    Tl\nCC\nt-\nCv]\no-\nCE\nOC\nCv]\nc\nCO\nccj pj\nfc-    CJ    CO    Tf    CT\nc\nc^\nt-\nC\n01\nTf\nTt\n10\na-\ncc\nfc-\na a\nCM   CO    CO    OS    O\ntr\nTt\nCC\noc\nCM\nTf\nIC\nTf\ncr\ncs\nl) \u00a3\ntr-    rH    OS    CO    OC\nc=\nCT\ncc\nt-\nTl\nTt\n\"*\nCC\no\n\"*\nH  s\n-H HJ\nCM\nCD    CO    Tf    Tf    t-\nOO\nTj\nec\nc~\no\nIf\ncc\ncc\nCl\nCO\nic\nIP\nCv]\nCvJ\nCO\n6*\na\ntf\nCf\n69\n\"\n6^\n6=\n\u00a3\ntf=\n60\nCO  t-\nrH   t-\ncr\nif\ncr\no\nc\nTf\nCv]\ntr\ncc\nt-\nTf     CD\nCO    r-\noc\ncr\ncr\nCM\no-\nc-\nCr-\nTJ\neo\nt-   rH\n00    Cv\nC\ncc\noc\nc\nIC\nCv]\nc-\nO\ncr\noc\nM\nCv]    CD\nCO    C-\nCv\noc\ncc\noc\nCv]\nCC\nTt\na\nC\nt-\nOS\nTf      Tf\ncs  c\nOC\ncr\nCC\no\nT-\nt-\n0\no-\nTt\no_\nta  t-h\nCO     TJ\nIT\no\nc\nt-\no\ntr\ntr\nc\nt:\noi\"\ntt\ntf\nir\nc\ncc\nee\nfc-\nCC\nTf\ntf\n\u00ab\ntf\n6=\ntf\ntf\ni-          6=\ntf\n\u25ba           60\ntf\nCS   rH   eg   fc-   cc\nl\u00a3\ncc\ntr-\nt-\nOC\nO\"\nCS\ntr\nO\"\nT-\nrH\nCM   CO   rH   cs   a\nir\nCv\nCv\nCs\nr-\nO\"\na\nt-\ncc\ncr\nCO\nrA\nt-   IO   Tf   Tf   r-\n0*\nt-\nc\nb-\nt-\nCM\nCT\nc\ntr\nC\nTf\nrH    00    CM    Tf    r-\noc\n\u00bbf\nT\nCv.\ncc\na-\nTl\ncr\nee\n'   '    TJ\nCD\n13\nC-   CO    CO    t-    If\nr-\nc-\nc\nIT\nc\nLC\nTt\ntr\nIO\n>>\nCO    O     CO     Tf     r-\nCv\nlf\na\nc\ntc\nCC\nTj\nTJ\nX\nee\nt-\no\nth io c- ta cc\nCC\nIT\nit\ncc\nt-\nCC\nc\no-\nTt\nc\nlO\nti\nIO    rH    rH    i-H    i-\nI\"\nc\na\ntx\nc\nO\"\nt-\nIC\nO\"\nOl\n\u00a9\u2022\nI-\nCs\ncv\nr-\nI-\nw\n6*\n^          6*\n\u00ab\n\u00ab\n6=\n&\ntf\n6=\n6^\ntf\n69-\nCJ\ncd\nTf\n1\nt-\nco\nOS\noT\n60\n\u25a02\ncd\nCO\ncc\nIT\nT)\no-\nCM\nr-\nc\nC\ncr\nt-\n5j\n>\n0\nTJ\nT\nTl\nTi\nTt\nTi\nTt\ncr\nOS\nc\n0\nC\nc\nc\nc\nc\nc\nCT\na\nc\/\nc\nCf\na-\nI\nc\n(\/\ncr\na\nH\ncc)\n!\n> cS  o  ft\n3            0)     o\no  g O  o  E\nS   .fi    fi      fir?\nt\nn\nCi\na\na\nK\na\nn\ncc\ncc\n4-\n-4-\n-4-\n+-\n4-\na\nC\nc\n\"c\nC\nC\nC\nc\nt\nC\nc\nCJ\nE-\n&\u25a0\ntr\nir\nE-\nc-\ntr\nE-\nE-\nE-\nH\noi    lj    o    cd    o\n>\np.\nrt\nu\nz REPORT\nOF\nFOREST\nSERVICE,\n1946.\n00 85\nO   IO   Tf   O   IC\nTf\n00\n00\nCM\nlO\nCvl\nCJ\nCM   CV]   IO   00   t-\nIO\nCM\neo\nTf\ntr\nO\no\nc\noc\nTf   Tf   r-J   CO   ec\nd\nTf\ned\nCO\nio\nrH\nc\nOC\n0\n\u20223\n-4->\nCD   O   CS   Tf   c-\nO\nCS\nOS\nIO\nCO\n0J\nTJ\no\nO   O   O   Tf   c\nCO\nCO\neo\nCO\n00\nIO\nIC\nIQ\no\nC-    00    CM    00    Tf\nO\nIO\n00\nt\"-\"\nOJ\nIO\nOJ\nIC\nH\nIO   CO   CO   t\u2014   cc\nTf\nCD\ncs\nIO\nCO\ncr-\nIC\nt-\nCO     Tf      Tf      CO     Tf\no\nCO\nTf\no\nIO\nCv]\nOC\nCO\nCvl\nCM\nTf\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCM\nOJ\nCC\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69\n69\n69\n69-          69^                   tf\nk bt 0)\nn bl!.\u00a3 \u00ab\n00   rH   CM   OS   i-\nco\nOS\nt-\nCD\nOJ\ntc\ncc\nTt\nCl   CO   00   OS   IC\nT-i\n00\n\u2022H\nTf\nIO\no\nTJ\nCV\nPHUrg-TJ\nCM   CO   lO   Tf   ic\nCO\n00\nCO\nl>\nI>\nCvi\nCC\nCO   CO   O   Tf   i-\no\n00\nCO\nCO\nM\nCM\nCvl\n00   CM   OS   CO   Tt\nCO\nO\no\nCl\nc\nC\nCC\nCO    OJ*  CO    00    IC.\no\"\nCO\nCvf\nio\"\nio\"\nTf\nr-\n00\ncr\nCM    rH             rH    rH\nCO\nt-\nOS\nt-\nCD\nIO\nco\nCO\nCO\n69-\n69\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-          69\n69\nCD   CS   CO   IO   Tf\nCM\nCM\nTf\nCD\nCO\nO\nt-\n.\nOl\nol\nTf      t-     Tf     Tf      IO\nfc\"\nCO\nTf\nTf\nOl\no\nr-\nIO\nbfl\nTf   00   o   cs   t-\nO\nco\nd\nCO\nt-\nCO\nOS\nCv\nt-\na\nTf      O      CO     CO     Tf\nO\nOS\n00\n00\nos\nTf\nec\nCS\no\nft\nt-    CO    Tf    rH    0C\nIO\nCO\nCD\nTf\neo\nIO\nOC\nW\ns\n1\nOS   io\"  CO   IO*   CO\nrH\nIO*\nid\nOS*\noo\"\nTJ\nCC\nCv\nCD    OS    CO    rH    Tt\n00\nCM\nIO\nLO\nt-\nCM\nIO\nCO\no\nC-    rH    CM    OJ    Cvl\nCD\nTf\nOS\n00\nfc-\nce\nIO\no\nCD\nCO\n69\ntJ\n,_?\n69-\n69-\n69-\n65            60\n1\nin\n05\n69\n69-\n69-\n69\no t-\ntr-\neo\nCO\nlO\nO\nCJ\nTt\nIO\nT]\nto\n3 \u00bb\nrH    OS\nO\nIO\nTf\nIO\nt-\nCO\n\u2022r)\nTf\nTf       C-^\nCM\nTf\nTf\nCO\nd\nCD\nIC\nCM\nt-\nrH\na\nCS    OJ\nCM\nCM\nOl\nTf\nCO\nCO\nCC\nCO\nCM\nts\nCO    00\nIO\nCO\nCO\nt-\nfc-\nta\nCO\nCM\nCD\nTf\nTf\no\nfc-\n00\n00\n<\nCM\nCvJ\nCM           CM\nTf\nTf\nTj\nCV\nrH\nw\no\nfc\n69\n69-\n69-\n69-            SO\n69-\n69-\n69-          69\ntf.\nrH\ntJi 0)\noi oo     :     :\nC-\nIO\n^\nIO\nTf\nO\nCO\nTf\n00\nA\n\u25a0<\nt-    00\neo\ntr-\nCO\nCO\nCO\nOl\no\nCr-\neo\n<\nO\no\nfl 2\nd   t^\nCO\nCO\nCO\nl>\nod\nt-^\nc\nOC\nIC\nCO\na fl\nlO\nCS\nIO\nOS\nec\n00\nd \u00a3\nrH   CM\nCO\nTf\ncr\nIO\ntr-\nt>\nt-\no\nc\nfc\nS ft\nci\"\nCS\nier\nTjT\nfc-\"\nio\"\n\u00ab\n00\nCD\nCO    rH\nTf\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCO\nCC\nCvl\nCO\nH\ntt\n69-\n65\n69\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-          69\n69\nbo\nCO\nO\nt-\nCC\nOS\nCO\nCD\nCvl\noc\neo\nL-\n5\ns <8\n^\nd\ncs\nt>\nt-\nCV\nO\no\ndr<y\nCO\nCM\nto\nCO\nK\u20141\nCQ\nCJrH\nCM\nTf\nTJ\nIC\nCM\nEh\nfH\nCO\nCO\n69-\n69-\n69\n69\n69\n<\ng\n.   to\nbfl 0)\nrj   CO\n\u2022x fl\nsS\nIO    t-   O    Tf    C\neo\nCO\n00\nCO\nCD\nlO\n0C\nCS\nPh\nfc\nCv]    Cvl    O    00    O\nIO\nTf\nCl\nCO\nO\ntr\ner\nfc-\nO\nPS\nI\no\nCO    O    CO    C-^   tJ\nCO\ned\nid\noj\ned\nio\nTl\nCC\nir.\nOl    rH    CD    CO    IC\nIO\nCO\nt-\nOS\nio\no\nc\nec\noc\nTf    rH             CM    rH\no\no\nco\nCO\nt-\nCO\nec\nOJ\nTf\nCJ\n69-\nrH\nTf\nco\"\n69-\n69-\n69\n69\nfc\ntt\n69-\n60\n69-\n69\n3\n3\n-. w\nO    O    rH    O    CC\ntr\nCO\nCD\neo\n00\nO\nCC\nCO\nfc-\nv oi\n*H   \u00ab\nP fl\nIS\nIO    O    CO    O    CM\nio\ntr\nTf\nio\nOJ\nCC\nCM\n\u00a9\nCM    O    CO    O    CC\nCM\nee\n^H\nCO\n,_]\nO\ntr-\nCC\nco\nrl\nCO    rH    CO    Tf     1-\n00\ntr-\nCO\nTf\nCM\nCO\nOC\nc\no\nCO                                r-\nO\n00\nCO\nCO\nTf\nt>\nCO\ntt\n&9\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69\n69\n65\ntf.\n69\nH\n03\nfc\nma\nto cu\nTf    CO    CO    00    CO\nTf\nO\nIO\n00\nCO\noc\n<\nto bO\nri OS\nft ft\nCD   CO   CO   O   oc\no\nCD\nCM\n00\nfc-\nIC\nIC\nt-\nO\nt> d  t> t-^ cc\ncd\nCO\ncvi\nCM\nd\ncm\nCC\nec\n<\ntr-   o   O   O   ec\nCO\nCS\nIO\nt-\nIO\nTf\nec\n00    rH    rH    IO    O\nCO\nfc-\n\u2022H.\nt>\nOl\nTf\nIC\nec\ntr-\nQ\n_^ a\nCvf   Tf    CM    CO    i-\nCO\nO\nCM\nCvf\nTf\nt-\n<T\n^rS\nco                        \u2022\u2014\nto\nTf\nCM\nCM\nW\nCO\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69^\n69-\n69-\n69-\nV\n69\n<\nt-    O\nOS   c\neo\nco\nIO\nIO\nOS\nCv]\nt-\nCM\nCN\nTf     O\nt-  oc\no\nCl\nCO\nTf\nO\nTf\nO\nT-\nl>\no\nri\nCO   rH\ncd ec\ncm\nid\nid\noS\nd\nid\noc\nc-\nCO    CM\no\nCM\nCVI\n00\ncs\ncr\nc\nCv]\nrH    CO\nCM    CC\nIO\nTf\nOl\nOS\nOS\nT*\nIC\nTf    CM\nCM    (M\nrH\nCO\nIO\nOJ\nTf\nTf\nTf\no\nw\n69\ntt\nIO\nCS\n00\nt-\ncc\nIC\nz\np\no\nB\n<!\n69-\ntt\n69-\n69-\n69\nM\n69\n69\nrH    t-    O    IO    t\u2014\nTf\nto\ncs\nTf\nC0\nTf\nT*\nC\nO    00    CD    CD    ec\nCr-\nCD\nCO\ni-H\nCO\nCS\nec\nCC\nTf\n&\"\nIO    O    O    CO    C\nCS\nO\n00\nCO\nt-\nc-\nCC\nCVI\nHJ\nCvl    00    t-    CD    Tf\n00\nCO\nCM\nCM\ntr-\ncs\nIC\n\"3\nco c- Tf  eo C\nIO\nCO\nt>\nCD\nTf\n00\nO\nfc-\n>\u00bb\nrH    rH    OS*   IO    r-\ncs\"\n\u00bbo\"\n!M\nOS\nCO\no\"\ncr\ncc\no\no\neO    rH    ITJ    CO    CC\nCv]\nCO\nIO\nCO\noc\ncc\nCC\ntf\nCO    OJ    rH    rH    r-\no\nCS\nCS\n00\nCO\noc\nIT\nc\nCvl\nCM\nCM\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-\n69-\n\u00ab\n\u25a0           tf\n5\nOS\nCO\n1\n00\nCO\nOS\nrH\n0\nbe\nCJ\nri\neo         if\nTf                  \u00ab\nCSt             rH             <Z\na\nt\n\"B\nTf                  T\nTf                  T\nTf                  Tf                  T\nCT\nco\n1\nIO                  T\nCO           CV\nrH             O             C\nO\nri  cc\n3\nTf               T\nTf                  TJ\nTf                  Tf                  rf\nK\ntH    T:\n9 \u00b0\nCi        cr\nOS          c\nOS             Cl             C\ncr\nr\n1\nrH             rH             rH             rH             rH             rH             r-\nto             W            CO            to            W            CO            0\na\n<30\n1 go j\n1\ni\nri         ri         ri         ri         ri         ri         o\n-r>             HJ             4->             +3             H->             HJ             H-\no       o       o       o       o       o       c\nEh        H        Eh        H        ch        Eh        b\n\"c\nE-\nH\n<so\nri    rH     0     o\n2\n\u25a0\n> Qh Ph U\nz 00 86\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(\u00bb)                           Forest Revenue, Fiscal Year 1945-46.\n10-year Average.\nTimber-licence rentals   $401,609.33 $456,232.00\nTimber-licence transfer fees   1,675.00 1,272.00\nTimber-licence penalty fees  10,453.79 19,837.00\nHand-loggers' licence fees   150.00 415.00\nTimber-lease rentals   52,985.66 54,655.00\nTimber-lease penalty fees and interest 16.22 279.00\nTimber-sale rentals   58,910.22 36,129.00\nTimber-sale stumpage   1,658,457.21 893,083.00\nTimber-sale cruising   17,742.23 12,544.00\nTimber-sale advertising   4,066.75 2,257.00\nTimber royalty   2,023,237.70 1,962,495.00\nTimber tax   7,875.71 42,789.00\nScaling fees (not Scaling Fund)       279.00\nScaling expenses (not Scaling Fund)_ 1,141.45 1,017.00\nTrespass stumpage   47,323.99 22,731.00\nScalers' examination fees   70.00 358.00\nExchange   60.59 141.00\nSeizure expenses   1,051.48 743.00\nGeneral miscellaneous   11,757.87 5,917.00\nTimber-berth rentals, bonus, and fees . 21,723.41 22,975.00\nInterest on timber-berth rentals  38.83 183.00\nTransfer fees on timber berths  230.00 89.00\nGrazing fees and interest  31,601.70 26,923.00\n$4,352,179.14 $3,563,343.00\nTaxation from Crown-granted timber\nlands   244,980.89 238,223.00\nTotals   $4,597,160.03 $3,801,566.00 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 87\n(S5)\nForest Expenditure, Fiscal Year 1945-46.\nForest District.\nSalaries.\nWar Service,\nTemporary\nAssistance.\nTemporary\nAssistance.\nExpenses.\nTotal.\n$73,790.13\n25,465.81\n32,378.40\n41,947.43\n44,683.62\n104,234.19\n$11,209.16\n5,277.83\n2,356.00\n14,695.19\n2,224.51\n24,145.60\n$56,429.71\n28,715.52\n25,284.79\n23,020.15\n19,526.37\n40,521.11\n$141,429.00\n$225.00\n182.26\n59,684.16\n60,201.45\n79,662.77\nNelson\t\n72.58\n436.25\n66,507.08\n169,337.15\nTotals\t\n$322,499.58\n$59,908.29\n$916.09\n$193,497.65\n$576,821.61\n4,000.00\n15,363.68\n12,986.91\n166,732.29\n27,772.02\n4,345.68\nGrazing range improvemer\nts*\t\n9,734.23\n650,000.00\n102,612.00\n$1,570,368.42\n* Contributions from Treasury to special funds detailed elsewhere.\nN.B.\u2014The above figures do not include amounts paid as cost-of-living bonus, totalling $56,583.85, made up as\nfollows:\u2014\nSalaries  $27,368.65\nTemporary assistance  125.57\nWar service, temporary assistance       6,269.11\nExpense       5,879.67\nReconnaissance       1,521.90\nForest research       1,214.43\nReforestation     11,512.01\nProvincial Parks       2,692.51\n$56,583.85\n(16)\nScaling Fund.\nBalance, April 1st, 1945 (debit)\nCollections, fiscal year 1945-46 _\nExpenditures, fiscal year 1945-46\nBalance, March 31st, 1946 (debit)\nBalance, April 1st, 1946 (debit) \t\nCollections, nine months, April-December, 1946\n$42,185.93\n166,328.98\n$124,143.05\n205,764.04\n$81,620.99\n$81,620.99\n166,581.71\n$84,960.72\nExpenditures, nine months, April-December, 1946     166,351.61\nBalance, December 31st, 1946 (debit)\n$81,390.89 00 88 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(*h Forest Reserve Account.\nBalance brought forward, April 1st, 1945  $335,609.80\nAmount received from Treasury, April 1st, 1945 (under\nsubsection (2), section 32, \" Forest Act\")      102,612.00\n$438,221.80\nMoneys received under subsection (4), section 32, \" Forest Act\"    \t\nExpenditures, fiscal year 1945-46      51,354.48\nBalance, March 31st, 1946 (credit)   $386,867.32\nAmount received from Treasury, April 1st, 1946 (under\nsubsection (2), section 32, \" Forest Act \")     111,604.71\n$498,472.03\nExpenditures, nine months to December 31st, 1946      88,720.16\nBalance, December 31st, 1946 (credit)   $409,751.87\n(>s> Grazing Range Improvement Fund.\nBalance, April 1st, 1945 (credit)   $29,769.83\nGovernment contribution (section 14, \"Grazing Act\")      9,734.23\nOther collections  9.00\nExpenditures, April 1st, 1945, to March 31st, 1946\nBalance, March 31st, 1946 (credit) \t\n$39,513.06\n7,702.09\n$31,810.97\nGovernment contribution (section 14, \"Grazing Act\")     10,533.90\nOther collections   10.00\n$42,354.87\nExpenditures, April 1st, 1946, to December 31st, 1946      6,082.95\nBalance, December 31st, 1946 (credit)   $36,271.92 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946. OO 89\n(S9) Standing of Forest Protection Fund, March 31st, 1946.\nBalance (deficit), April 1st, 1945     $205,661.80\nExpenditure  $1,072,537.23\nLess refunds          17,450.41\n    1,055,086.82\n$1,260,748.62\n(See detailed summary of net expenditure on page\n90.)\nGovernment contribution   $650,000.00\nCollections, tax     249,229.50\nCollections, slash and snags  $16,417.90\nLess refunds       9,089.37\n        7,328.53\n      906,558.03\nBalance (deficit), March 31st, 1946     $354,190.59 00 90\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\nto\nCi\n<c\no\nw\np\n55\nH\nCQ\n\u00ab\n55\no\nH CO\nEh\nM\nO\nta\nPS\nP\nH\nHH\nQ\n55\nH\nOh\nX!\n55\no\nr-t\no\nw\nH\no\nBS\nPh\nCQ\nH\n\u00ab\nO\nCO    ffl   N   1\nev]   tr-     CM\nffl    N    \u25a0*    t)i    IO    H      00\nCD   CO   ffi   W   O.\nrH      tO\n13\nt- d m m cr o>   oo\no  eo  co  co  io  cm    o\n0\nCD    rH    O    CD    tr-    CO      IO\nCD   \u25a0*   CM   CP   r)\nrH      IO\nCM\nrH    i-H    eo    rH      O\ntt\ntt\nH    M    H    M   IO    M      CD\n_!, to\ntr-   co   t>   00   tr-   CM     irs\ncu P\nco to to  to  tr-  ta    to\nCJ   O\nta    tr-    **    CD    CM    rH      00\n^   CO   P!   O   t-   O     -*\nta\ncvf co  tjT \\a    rH\ntt\nCM     \u25a0\u00ab*\ntt-\nbo    ja\nCM     CM\n\u00a9      O\n5 c \u00ab\nid \u00ab cn\nco    eo\n\u00a9    \u00a9\n~          CU\nCvf     CM*\nPh      tf\ntt     tt\nffl\nc\nffl\nH-i\niO\nc\nIO\nci\nta\nc\nid\ncr\n\u25a0*\no\nCD\nIC\nrH\ng\nCM\neo\"\n<j\ntt\nse\n4  .\n>  co\nta    rH    \u2022*#    CO    CM    Cf\nen\ntr-   \u00a9  Oj  rH   \u2022*&  Cv\nCO\nC\nO   1C5   ff\np-\nc\nCO\nS B\nCO   CO   cc\nCv\n\u2022*\nft CD\nt- co o t)\n^\nO\nIO\nM\n\u00ab&\n0\n' cr\ntt\nlO   CO  ffl  t-   tf\nCO\nO   r-\nta cvi ^\nIO\nto\ncu\nCC    CO   CU    M   ff\n-*\nCM   ta   CO   00   -\u00ab3\n00\nfa\n\u2022\"#    rH    00    O    C\nIO\nO    CM    O    TT    CO\nCO*\nCD\nco  o-\ncr\nCM\n\u20ac^\nCO\ntt\n0\n\u00ab   g\ncs    .2\nCd-H\nO   CO   N   (C   [\u25a0\nc-\ntr-\nH\ng\nIO   tt   T   M   O   O\nCM   Cl   Os   rH   \u00a9   C\ntr-\nCD\nH\n0>   C   CO\nCO   CO    ^    R\no\no\n-*\nI\n40    5    *H\nC   H  QJ\n'3     ft\n1 \u00b0\n\u25a0\u25a0# co eo \"d\nio   ff\n\u00a9\n&\nIO   IO   N<   C-   t-   -d\nta\nB\ncy\nta\nth cvj cr\nta\ntt\na\nZ\ndj\nC\na\nc\ncc\nff\nCv\nIO\n3\ncc\ntc\noc\nIC\nto\nCO\na\nCv\n\u2022**\na\nic\nec\n\u00a9\nJ\nX\nff\nic\nec\nCM\nI-\n-tf\n8\ncj\ng\nP\n\"^\nIC\noc\nCN\nr-\n\u00a9\nCM\nM\ncc\nIC\nec\nT(\nIO\nH\n<\u00bb\nCv\n69-\n>>\nM\ncS\nC\ncn\nCF\nc\nec\nc\nK\nc\nc-\nCM\nec\nc\nC-\nCO\nh\nff\no-\nc\\\n\"<*\nCM\nfc-\nffl\n2\nO\nCC\nL\"\n0C\na\nIC\nIO\na\nft\nir\nCN\n\u25a0<*\nIC\n\u00ab\no-\n\u00a9\np-i\n8\ntr-   r-\nr>\nc\nCv\nto\nOJ\nOC\nCM   V\nCC\nfc-\nt-\nW\nH\ntt\nCM\nCV3-\na\n2;\n-<\nH->\nFJ\ntr-   C\n\u25a0^\n\"^\nc\nOC\n\u00a9\n0\nC-\nt-\nc\nfc\"\nt-\nj\n3\n53\nB\nOC\nc\ncc\nIC\nOC\nCO\n09\ntc\nfc-\nc\nc\nBC\n-*\ns\nff\nIC\nt*\nIC\ncr\nCM\n\u00a9\nC\nCP\nc\nCM\nCM\nt>\ns\nIS\n(M\nec\nec\n^\n00\nPh\n&e-\ntt\n+i\nCJ\nLi\nCO\ns\n-frit.\na\nD\nc\na\n+3\nt\n\u00a3\nS\no\na\nP\ns\nBC\nEH\nP\nP\ntf\nP\n0\nC\n0\na\ntJ\nz\nc\n\"t\ns\nHO\n1\nc\nB\n$\nt\n(Q\n'%\n0\ns\n~\u20ac\nt>\nrU\nfc\nW\n%\n> REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 91\nan\nReported Approximate Expenditure for Twelve Months ended\nDecember 31st, 1946, by Other Agencies.\nExpenditures.\nForest District.\nPatrols and\nFire-\nprevention.\nTools and\nEquipment.\nFires.\nImprovements.\nTotal.\n$130,144.00\n5S8.00\n$115,254.00\n1,250.00\n$115,857.62\n1,291.27\n3,520.81\n6,139.14\n8,013.00\n$2,910.00\n600.00\n$364,165.62\n3,699.27\n3,520.81\n6,139.14\n35,938.00\nNelson\t\n2,275.00\n23,250.00\n2,400.00\nTotals\t\n$132,977.00\n$139,754.00\n$134,821.84\n$5,910.00\n$413,462.84\n$71,829.00\n$83,634.00\n$128,795.00\n$4,025.00\n$288,283.00\n(w*   Summary of Acreage logged, 1946, and dealt with under Section 113a.\nAcres.      Acres.\nTotal area logged, Vancouver Forest District      58,502\nTotal area logged in hazard area, Vancouver Forest\nDistrict      57,424\n1946 slash covered by hazard reports  31,941\n1946 slash logged after September 1st and carried over\nto 1947 (including 1,793 acres on which snag-\nfalling only is required)  25,483\n1946 slash covered by hazard reports-\n1946 slash burned intentionally\t\n1946 slash burned accidentally\t\n57,424\n31,941\n1946 slash on which no burning was requested-\n1946 slash on which additional time for burning has\nbeen granted \t\n1946 slash awaiting decision re compensation or additional time for disposal\t\n1946 slash on which compensation has been assessed\t\n15,474\n. 1,467\n7,028\n308\n7,664\nNil\n31,941 00 92 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(**> Summary of 1946 Operations, Vancouver Forest District.\nTotal operations, hazard area, Vancouver Forest District      1,120\nNumber of intentional slash-burns     338\nNumber of operations on which slash was disposed of\nby lopping and scattering or land-clearing         5\nNumber  of  operations  on  which  slash  accidentally\nburned        28\nNumber of operations not required to burn     273\nNumber of operations given further time for slash-\ndisposal          6\nNumber of operations not considered necessary to deal\nwith under section 113a     212\nNumber of operations on which compensation has been\nassessed       Nil\nNumber of operations pending decision re assessment\nor further time for slash-disposal      137\nNumber of operations inactive in 1946       98\nNumber of operations snag-falling area only       28\nNumber of operations not advanced to a point requiring slash-disposal          6\n1,131*    1,120\n* Difference noted above is accounted for by some operations disposing of slash by both\naccidental and intentional means and some conducting both spring and fall slash-burns.\nSummary of Slash-hazard being carried for Disposal in 1947.\nAcres.\nSlash accumulated prior to 1946     5,661\nSlash accumulated in 1946 (exclusive of 1,793 acres on which\nsnag-falling only requirement)  31,662\nTotal slash at January 1st, 1947  37,323 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 93\nan Summary Chart A\u2014Intentional Slash-burn.\nOperations conducting slash-burn\t\nAcres slash-burned in 1946\u2014\nCreated prior to 1944\t\nCreated 1944 \t\nCreated 1945\t\nCreated 1946\t\n401\n1,058\n8,565\n15,474\n338\nTotal.\nAcres of forest-cover burned .\nTotal acres of area burned\t\nNet damage to forest-cover ....\nNet damage to property on operations and cut products...\nCost of slash-disposal\u2014\nOperators \t\nForest Service\t\nAcreage hazard abated, 1946\t\nCost to operator based on stand of 40 M. per acre\nCost to operator per acre\t\nTotal damage\t\n25,498\n258\n25,756\n$1,467.00\n$4,343.00\n$41,447.00\nNil\n25,498\n$0.04 per M.\n$1.62\n$5,810.00*\n* Of this total, $4,262 damage occurred on one operation due to high winds at time of burn.\nan\nRecapitulation Slash-disposal, 1934-46.\nYear.\n1934.\n1935..\n1936..\n1937..\n1938..\n1939..\n1940..\n1941..\n1942..\n1943-\n1944..\n1945-\n1946..\nAcres of Slash Burned.\nAccidentally. Intentionally.\n4,927\n15,935\n11,783\n13,239\n1,340\n7,691\n3,015\n27,516\n35,071\n50,033\n1,930\n51,603\n2,265\n33,034\n3,385\n5,524\n4,504\n80,226\n2,046\n40,013\n5,121\n27,278\n3,897\n46,467\n2,174\n25,498\nU6)\nFire Occurrences by Months, 1946.\nForest District.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nTotal.\nPer\nCent.\n1\n8\n13\n9\n4\n110\n35\n68\n112\n35\n19\n6\n12\n20\n29\n105\n1\n22\n161\n164\n146\n13\n30\n219\n214\n42\n4\n11\n80\n7\n3\n4\n426\n67\n156\n605\n453\n24.96\n3.92\n9.14\n35.44\n26.54\nTotals\t\n35\n360\n86\n453\n622\n144\n7\n1,707\n100.00\n2.05\n21.09\n5.04\n26.54\n36.44\n8.43\n0.41\n100.00\n58\n196\n188\n575\n476\n200\n9\n1,702\n3.41\n11.52\n11.05\n33.78\n27.96\n11.75\n0.53\n100.00 00 94\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(47)\nNumber and Causes of Forest Fires, 1946.\nForest District.\nti\n3\n'|3\n.\u00bb\nA\nto\n3\na\nE\noi\n\"> s\n$ a\nn o\n03\nSh\nOJ\nM\n0\nB\nta\nt\u00ab i\n\u2022Si?\nEl \u2022\no 03 bC\n03 -P   H\n3 O 03\nt, C 0J\nm\u2014 \u00ab\n5    S\n13 oj m\noo Ph O\n3     D\n0JT3  OJ\nPS 033\nsi\nIS\n1\nV\n.2\ns\n0\nc\n01\nOJ\n03   W\n3 g\nSo\nB a\nrt >\n\"oj o\ng 3\n03\n03\n3\n03\nu\ns\nr\nO\nc\nA!\n3\n1\n3\n\u00b0s\n4^  3_  OJ\nfe-gg\nPhHOh\n83\n2\n24\n185\n221\n38\n15\n58\n136\n16\n76\n4\n2\n37\n112\n117\n10\n21\n105\n73\n22\n13\n29\n48\n5\n10\n3\n2\n1\n28\n5\n2\n3\n2\n1\n2\n3\n2\n47\n16\n10\n66\n20\n3\n1\n5\n20\n3\n426\n67\n156\n605\n453\n24.96\n3.92\nFort George\t\n9.14\n35.44\nNelson\t\n26.54\nTotals\t\n515\n263\n231\n326\n117\n16\n38\n10\n159\n32\n1,707\n100.00\n30.17\n15.41\n13.53\n19.10\n6.85\n0.94\n2.22\n0.59\n9.31\n1.88\n100.00\n604\n236\n170\n327\n88\n11\n42\n35\n159\n30\n1,702\nPer cent\t\n35.49\n13.86\n9.99\n19.21\n5.17\n0.64\n2.48\n2.06\n9.34\n1.76\n100.00\na*;\nNumber and Causes of Forest Fires for the Last Ten Years.\nCauses.\n1946.\n1945.\n1944.\n1943.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\nTotal.\n515\n263\n231\n326\n117\n16\n38\n10\n159\n32\n541\n183\n426\n356\n69\n5\n32\n32\n155\n39\n408\n203\n329\n342\n51\n10\n51\n13\n210\n50\n256\n157\n218\n304\n58\n8\n20\n7\n136\n23\n704\n158\n114\n220\n30\n31\n38\n5\n90\n24\n871\n142\n73\n184\n81\n4\n33\n20\n134\n19\n1,265\n236\n90\n400\n74\n5\n41\n38\n171\n18\n515\n305\n77\n374\n111\n11\n32\n88\n175\n16\n703\n442\n72\n524\n180\n4\n77\n121\n238\n51\n263\n269\n74\n242\n107\n14\n55\n20\n124\n25\n6,041\nCampers\t\n2,358\n1,702\n3,272\nBrush-burning (not railway-clearing)\t\nRoad and power- and telephone-line con-\n878\n108\n417\nIncendiarism\t\n354\n1,592\n297\nTotals\t\n1,707\n1,838\n1,667\n1,185\n1,414\n1,561\n2,338\n1,704\n2,412\n1,193\n17,019\n(49)\nFires classified by Size and Damage, 1946.\nForest District.\nTotal Fires.\nS\n3\nfc\nUnder % Acre.\no.s\nhJO\nO  03\nVi to 10 Acres.\nOver 10 to 500\nAcres.\n\"(3  \u2122\n\u25a0SJ\nHT\nE-iO\nC B\ne a\nO OD\nO  03\ntj  *\nl   ^\nfefc\nCnfe\nO.S\nS B\nOver 500 Acres\nin Extent.\no.s\nc c\ncj...\nO  03\n,. 9\n0J.\u00ab\nOn fen\nDamage.\nVancouver\t\nPrince Rupert\t\nFort George\t\nKamloops\t\nNelson\t\nTotals\t\nPer cent\t\nTen-year average, 1937-46\nPer cent\t\n426\n67\n156\n605\n453\n24.96\n3.92\n9.14\n35.44\n26.54\n249\n27\n59\n247\n292\n58.45\n40.30\n37.82\n40.83\n64.46\n28.49\n3.09\n6.75\n28.26\n33.41\n134\n20\n193\n117\n1,707\n100.00\n874\n100.00\n512\n31.46\n29.85\n30.77\n31.90\n25.83\n26.17\n3.91\n9.38\n37.69\n22.85\n100.00\n40\n16\n34\n132\n38\n23.88\n21.79\n21.82\n8.39\n15.38\n6.15\n13.08\n50.77\n14.62\n260\n100.00\n0.70\n5.97\n9.62\n5.45\n1.32\n4.92\n6.56\n24.59\n54.09\n9.84\n392\n59\n125\n543\n427\n100.00\n1,546\n14\n2\n11\n4\n100.00\n51.20\n3.58\n90.57\n7.15\n1,702\n884\n1,563\n47\n51.94\n30.73\n14.86\n2.47\n91.83\n5.41 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 95\n(SO)\nDamage to Property other than Forests, 1946.*\nForest District.\nForest\nProducts in\nProcess of\nManufacture.\nBuildings.\nRailway\nand\nLogging\nEquipment.\nMiscellaneous.\nTotal.\nPer Cent,\nof Total.\nVancouver\t\n$50,809.00\n1,700.00\n1,447.00\n805.93\n956.20\n$500.00\n400.00\n6,210.00\n1,655.00\n625.00\n$77,489.00\n$13,185.00\n$141,983.00\n2,100.00\n13,042.00\n4,367.43\n4,822.20\n85.37\n1.26\n4,000.00\n12.00\n1,385.00\n1,894.50\n3,241.00\n7.84\nKamloops\t\n2.63\n2.90\nTotals\t\n$55,718.13\n$9,390.00\n$81,501.00\n$19,705.50\n$166,314.63\n100.00\n33.50\n5.64\n49.01\n11.85\n100.00\n$100,399.00\n$32,253.00\n$89,611.00\n$31,467.00\n$253,730.00\n39.57\n12.71\n35.32\n12.40\n100.00\n* Does not include intentional slash-burns.    For this item see page 93.\n<51>        Damage to Forest-cover caused by Forest Fires, 1946\u2014Part I.*\nAccessible\nMerchantable Timber.\nInaccessible\nMerchantable\nTimber.\nImmature\nTimber.\nForest District.\na\ntH\na\"\nfcS\nOJ\n\"3 \u00a7\"8\no og\nSalvable\nVolume of\nTimber\nkilled.\nOJ\nU\np.\n+; h \u00ab\nZoiA\npi\nOJ\nH\n<-v\n03 33\nfeS\nTotal\nVolume\nkilled.\nOJ*\nta\ncd\ns\nCCJ\np\n03 33\nHJ\n6 .3\n03  03\nOS  3\n3,  03\nAcres.\n1,072\n4,093\n4,771\n2,126\n879\nM.B.M.\n3,276\n26,765\n24,184\n4,969\n4,798\nM.B.M.\n1,168\n13,147\n1,213\n139\n483\n$\n5,102\n3,486\n37,437\n5,455\n5,770\nAcres.\n162\n4,676\n50\n312\n560\nM.B.M.\n390\n$\n214\n1,169\n12\n2,377\n140\nAcres.\n1,627\n2,466\n8,364\n18,165\n2,423\n$\n16,516\n1,185\n150\n2,347\n2,240\n14,385\n26,642\n5,343\n12,941\n63,992\n16,150\n57,250\n5,760\n5,127\n3,912\n33,045\n64,071\n4.27\n92.58\n25.24\n29.87\n1.90\n7.42\n2.04\n10.89\n3S.43\n59,963\n57,334\n194,140\n* Does not include intentional slash-burns.    For this item see page 93.\n(s1)       Damage to Forest-cover caused by Forest Fires, 1946\u2014Part II.*\nNot satisfactorily\nrestocked.\nNoncommercial\nC0V33K.\nGrazing or\nPasture\nLand.\nNonproductive\nSites.\nGrand Totals.\nDistrict.\n-6\nOJ\nV, c\noj *.\nto 3\n60,0\nA 3\n\u2022a   -e\nbo     3\ntots u\n\u00b0 3 3\nA 03JO\nT3\noj    -a\nC        03\nS^  CD\n3 O U\n\u00ab 3.2\nOJ\nbo\n03\ns\n03\n0\n-6\n03 3\n03\n631\nCO\ns\noi\nn\nS c\n0J\nbo\ncd\nn\n03\nP\nT3\n_. *\nco C3\n03\n60\n03\ns\n03\nP\n03\nCJ\nu\n<\n+j\nA\n3\ncd\n3\na\n03\nbo\nCO\nB\n03\nQ\nAcres.\n2,320\n96\n102\n429\n245\nAcres.\n605\n100\n151\n4\nAcres.\n505\n2,508\n42,225\n6,061\n1,769\n1\n$    | Acres.\n9751    1.564\n$\n416\n746\n12,698\n18,339\n707\nAcres.\n24\n288\n33,876\n18,832\n167\n$\n1\n15\n1,694\n4,527\n127\nAcres.\n2,691\n13,012\n21,651\n2,950\n3,333\n$\n634\n3,253\n5,413\n720\n2,428\nAcres.\n10,570\n30,139\n161,931\n89,073\n11,682\nM.B.M.\n3,666\n26,765\n24,334\n7,316\n7,038\n$\n23,858\n651\n10,674\n1,842\n576\n3,000\n50,792\n40,047\n2,302\n10,505\n82,313\n59,902\nKelson\t\n15,091\nTotals\t\n3,192\n860\n53,068\n14,718\n97,705\n32,906\n53,187\n6,364\n43,637\n12,448\n303,395\n69,119\n191,669\n1.05\n0.29\n17.49\n7.68\n32.20\n17.17\n17.53\n3.32\n14.38\n6.49\n100.00\n100.00\n100.00\nTen-year average, 1937-46.\n19,288\n1,352\n330,884\n210,983\n541,198\n* Does not include intentional slash-burns.    For this item see page ! 00 96\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(52)          fire causes, Forest Service Cost,\nand Total Damage, 1946.*\nCauses.\nNo.\nPer Cent.\nCost.\nPer\nCent.\nDamage.\nPer Cent.\n515\n263\n231\n326\n117\n16\n38\n10\n159\n32\n30.17\n15.41\n13.53\n19.10\n6.85\n0.94\n2.22\n0.59\n9.31\n1.88\n$98,115.49\n12,461.08\n462.74\n24,860.41\n4,301.08\n62.71\n7.96\n0.29\n15.89\n2.75\n$43,827.49\n43,485.00\n4,238.66\n69,976.16\n60,495.66\n5,137.25\n76,894.74\n25,489.70\n23,974.22\n4,464.75\n12.24\n12.15\n1.18\n19.54\n16.90\nRoad and power- and telephone-line con-\n1.44\n3,024.00\n5,548.28\n7,105.50\n572.73\n1.96\n3.54\n4.54\n0.36\n21.48\n7.12\n6.70\n1.25\n1,707\n100.00\n$156,451.31\n100.00\n$357,983.63\n100.00\n* Does not include intentional slash-burns.    For this item see page 93. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1946.\nOO 97\nm\n2\n<:\nH\na\n<\nrl\nE-i\nco\nW\no\n(H\nCQ\nQ\nH\ntn\nP\n<:\no\n^\n<\n<:\nfi\nPh\nO\no\nCQ\n3\u20141\nw\nPh\no\no\ncn\nTH\nIO   \u00a9\n-*t<\nio\n\u00a9\nrH   -tf   O   CN\nCO  c\n00\nO    OO    J)    C\nt- oo  cn  cn\nrH    tr-\ncn\ng*\nCO io  tc\n-tf    If;\nrH\n\u00ab\u25a0\ntt\neo co co ta\n\"*   O\n-tf\nrH   CO   CM   10\nCO    CO\ntr\nIQ   rH\nee-\ncn to\nIO\nrH    rH   \u00ab*    \u00ab\n\u25a0\u25a0\u00ab tc\n00\nif   CO   IO   >o\n\u00a9\nIO   ITJ\nrH    -rf    O\n-iO   tr\neo\nrH\n!>\u00a9\u2022\u00ab*\nio to\nCM\ne*3-\ntt\n00   to\n\u25a0**\n\u00a9 to ta tc\nrH   c\nCM\na\ntr~  -^   Xr-  rH\n\u00a9   tr\nio   t-\nCM\ncn t-\ntr-\n\u00ab*\u25a0\ntt\nOD  M   w   N\ntr-  cn\nto\nCO  \u00a9  IO   o\nio cn\n-tf\nCM   O   CM   t-\n-<j< cm\n-tf    CM\n(M   CO\n-IO\niO   OO   tD    rH\nO    CO\nCO\nCO   IO\nod\noo *c\n-tf\ntt\ntt\ntr-   Os\nto\nCO   tc\ncn\nCp   -*tf\n\u00a9\n,_i\nio tr\nCO\nee-\ntt\nrH   tD\ntr*\n00   -tf    rH   r-\nco a\nCM\nCO\nrH    CO    tO   tr-\ncn\nrH\ntt\ntt\n\u00a9   IO\nta\nto  \u25a0*$   tr- \u00ab\n-tf\n\u00a9   rH   \u00a9   CT\n00   -tf\nCM\n-tf <=\nTtf     CS\neo-\nt- to\nCO\nCO   r-\nCO   M   IO   C\nlO    IO\nCM   C\n\u00a9   Ifl\nCO    IO   r-\n69-\ntt\ncn io\n-*\nto\nt-   CO    rH    r\ncn\n-tf\nrH    CC\n,tr-\nOS\nO   (B   r\nen tc\ntt\nr~.\n\\^\nCQ\ns\nu\n60\nS\nfi\nE-j\n\u25a0o -\nP\n0\ntH\nP\nSS\n\u2022g \u00bb-\n0\nO   4-\na\nC\nt-\n<X\n<t-\nc\nt*\na\nd (acres),\nmber desti\n0\n\u25a0fl\no\n1\nCJ\n1\ntr)\n38*1\n=  3  C -\n3 5 .S    3\n-  n -a  -\n0   0\n4-3    HJ\nB\ntc  b\n1 g s \u00a3\nri    ri\nE-\n<\nra <\n0\ne\nCO\ncn\ne\n-A\nI\u2014I\nH\nw\na\nS\nI\ns\n\u00ab\no\npj\nw\nCh\nCO\no\nU\nn\nI\u2014I\nC\n3\u20141\ntf\no\nfa\no\n<:\nP4\no\nM\nH\nCQ\nW\ntf\no\n\u00ab\nO\nw\no\nCQ\nW\nM\nM\nCO\n0\nz\nB\nS\n8\ng\nz\no\n\u00bb\nEh\nw\nO\no\n\u25a0aji^ -tad\nCO\nCO\nCO\n\u00a9\n-tf\n\u2022ojt^ J3d 000'0T$\no^ 000*9$ z^o 1*\u00b00\nrt\n1-1\n-*\nto\niO\nCO\nd\n\u00a9\nIO\nCO\n\u00a9\n\u2022aaij jod 000*2$\no^ OOO'XS -t^AO ^soq\nrH   CM   CO   Cn   CM\nrH                              CM\nto\nt>\nCM\nCM\n\u2022oat^ JDd\n000'X$ o* 001$ ^oo\nrH   tO   CO   CO   \"tf\n\u25a0*           CO   CO   -tf\n\u00a9\n00\no\nr-l\nlO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nt>\ncn\n00X$ UB^ SS9I *so0\nio   -^   \u00a9   IO  CO\neo  CM  tr-  cm  \u00a9\nrH                  CM   rH\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nt>\nCO\nCM\no\n-tf\nCM\ntno j, jo -;u30 jad\n\u00a9   00   \u00a9    \u00a9    rH\nrH   00   \u00a9    tO   \"*\nrH   rH   tO   tr-   id\nrH                     rH    rH\n\u00a9\nCM\nto\nIb;ox jo -^U30 ja,i\n^   CO   t-   CM   tO\n00  t-  to  \u00a9  \u00a9\n-h!  ir-1  to  \u00a9  cd\n.3tf   ^f   CO   \">*   lO\n\u25a0jaqum^;\nrH   CM   -tf   CM    CO\n\u00a9   CO   \u00a9   \u00a9   to\nrH            rH   CO   CM\n\u00a9\nGO\n\u00a9\nCM\nIO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\ntree\nIO\n13 H\nS3 03\nffi O\n3   tH\nZ o\nS\u00a3\nx \u00a3\n-oouiAOJj ui saai^\nI^oj, jo -;uao jej\nst-   IO   -tf    IO    CO\nt-   \u00a9   \u00a9   t-   rH\nCO   CM   CO   t^   rH\nrH                     rH   rH\n\u25a0PIJhJSTQ UI S3JT^\nIBIOX JO -^UOO J3d\n55.16\n52.24\n33.33\n50.08\n41.94\nuaquin^\nlO   IO   CM   CO   \u00a9\nCO   CO   lO   \u00a9   \u00a9\nCM                  CO   rH\n0C\nCO\n00\ntr\n\u00a9\nCO\nto\nB\nC3\n>\nra\nH   \u25a0\ntn H\nBJ O\noo\nEm\nEh\nO\n\u2022(s-iBnoa) aai^\nq.sog jad ajn^\n-ipuadxg a3BJ3Ay\nrH   00   tr-   \u25a0\u25a0#   00\n00   iO   to   CM   t-\n\u00a9   CO   t-   CM   IO\n-sj>   CO   to   CM   CO\nrH   rH   rH   CO\n\u00a9\nCO\nIO\ntr-\nee\ntr-\n^uao jaj\n6.08\n2.73\n11.15\n23.60\n56.44\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u2022sjBnoa\n9,514.53\n4,274.52\n17,437.43\n36,915.09\n88,309.74\n*\nCO\nT-i\nIO\n\u25a0\u25a0#\n\u00a9\nO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\no\n\u00a9\nCO\n\u00a9\n\u2022punj; uopoanioaj\nnjsajo^ o^ Sui^nqiJ^uoo\nq.ou spuBq uo p9^Bui3tJ0\n-tf   IT-   CO   CM   CO\nIT-   -tf   \"tf    \u00a9   rH\nCM                     rH   rH\nCM\n00\nIO\n\u00a9\nto\no\nCN\n\u00a9\nCO\nto\neo\n*pun^ uorp3^oj<j rjsajo^ o^\nSui^nqij^uoo spue^j puB spu^q\nUMOao ^.uboba uo pa^BuiSuo\nN   \u00a9   CO   CO   trio   CM   th   \u00a9   CO\nrH            rH   IO   CO\nIO\nCM\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nid\n\u00a9\nCM\n00\no\ntrio\nCO\n\u00a9\n*S3JI J IB^OX\nCO   Ir-   CO   IO   CO\nCM   \u00a9   IQ   \u00a9   IO\n-tf            rH    \u00a9   ^\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nCM\no\ntr-\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nu\n\"E\nHJ\nco\ns\nto\nCJ\nS\n0\nPh\nt-\n1\n>\nC\nt\nC\noi\n>\n4.\nt-\nC.\n1\n3.\nP-\n|\nt\nc\n0\nD\ni\nc\n1\n0\nu\n!\n>\u2022    :\n1\n1\no\nH\nc\nCJ\n.JH\nV\nCm\n\u00a9\n1\nt~\nCO\n\u00a9\nu\nri\ns-\n0)\n>\na\nH\nri\nip\n\u00ab\nEH\nc\n<\nc\n%\na\n\u25a0\n4\n\u00ab3 .a\n\u00a3 fl\nCM\n00\nT3\nPi\nt\n0)\nra\n*\nCD\nIQ\n-O\ng\n5\nFh\n1>\n0\n5\nCQ\n_c\nu\nS\nfi)\nH\nfi \u00abi\nA   03\n\u00bb s\n03    O\ntj *i J=\njo  u 3\nCQ  io    p,\nj3 .3    w\nq  cs  o\n*\u25a0  ft \u00ab\nIS*\nO   O __\nO    O     03\n.on 00 98\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(55)\nProsecutions, 1946.\nT3\n'js&\nG\n_o\n\u00b0-4->\nri\nS\nEh\nO\n\u00abfH\n3\na\nH\ncu\nPh\n-p\ng\n%\nM\n'\u00a3\n3\nM\n3\nCd\n\"o\nIS\nQj'3\n*- CJ)\n\"5 '+J\nfc ol\nCQ\nCJ\n\u00a3\nU\nO\nA\n0\nO\nbfl\nfi\n1\n'5\nW    k'r.\n<C\nrl 'Jh\n03   l3\n\u25a0\u00a7\"5\ngcc\n3. (jj\n8 &\nC.S\n1g\nFines.\nd\nCJ\na\n03\nCJ\nS\nCU\nC\n03\nCQ\n\u2022O\n03\n>\nU\n03\nCQ\n03\nCJ\n3\n03\ng\nCQ\n-r)\n03\n13\n3\n03\nft\n03\n3\nCQ\ni\nCO\nCO\n1\nCO\n03\nCO\ncd\nCJ\nForest District.\n3h*\n0\nJO\ns\n1\n\u25a0p*\n3\n3\no\ns\na\nCO\nU\n\u25a033\nJ3\n-*\u00bb\n\"E\nCQ\n0\nS3\nQ\n7\n9\n8\n7\n8\n7\n7\n5\n3\n6\n2\n1\n3\n3\n2\n5\n5\n4\n3\n7\n$125.00\n225.00\n100.00\n75.00\n204.25\n1\n2\n4\n4\n1\n1\n2\nTotals\t\n39\n28\n2\n1\n8\n24\n$729.25\n1\n12\n2\n36\n25\n$594.28 REPORT OF FOREST\nSERVICE\n, 1946.\n00 99\n|\nCO   \u00a9   00   CO   rH\nIO\n\u00a9\nCO\n\u00a9\n*){OU9(rJI rno\n6      *H\nCM\n\u00a9\nH\n\u00a9\n-q^iAi .}as saai^\nz\nO\no\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nW\nrH\nrH\nt- o c- ^ w\nCO\n\u00a9\nCM\nO\n3\ng\n\u2022[oa;uoo\n6 a rt\nlO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\no\npadttssa saai^\n15\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nco\nm \u00a9 co \u00a9 \u00a9 cm\n\u00a9\no\n\u2022>*\n\u00a9\nz\n0)   t-H   \u00a9   tr-   CM   oo\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nt>\n\u00a9\n\u25a0<\n\u25a0aaAo pauanq B3.iv\nJH   \u00a9   CM   \u00a9   to   \u00a9\n\u00a9\nO*\niO\n\u00a9\ntt\n5   rH    rH   tr-'   CO   -tf*\n<3   CM\ntr-\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nO\nco\nrH\n-tf\nH\n-tf   rH   \u00a9   CM   IO\n,_,\nO\nCM\n\u00a9\nNo.\n4,56\n57\n1,20\n1,17\n1,31\nCO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n-panssi s^tuijad;\nCO\nd\nCO\n\u00a9\noo\"\n\u00a9\nH\n1-1\nI   rH\nrH\no\nrH\n\u00a9\n\u2022^juijafj %no\nci\n\u00a9\nIO\no\n-\\{%IA\\ ^as saji^\nz\n-tf\nIO\n<\no\no\n\u00a9\nCM   CM\nCO\nCO\n\u00a9\n00\n\u2022loa^uoo\n6\n\"-1\nIO\n\u00a9\npad-eosa sajtj[\n&\n-tf\nCM\n\u00a9\nPh\nm \u00a9  CM CO  tr-  \u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nt.\ng\n(U   CO            rH   \u00a9   rH\nCO\n\u00a9\nCO\nCO\n\u2022jaAO paujnq so-iy\nfH   \u00a9             CO\n3\u00ab      \u201e\u2022\n\u25a0^\n\u00a9\ne\u00bb\n\u25a0fl\nS\nCJ\nco\"\nrH\neo  b- co  \u00a9  t-\n\u00a9\nIO\n-tf\nCM\n^ tr-         eo  cm\n\u2022<*\n00\n\u00a9\nCN\n\u2022panssi s^iuiaad;\n1       N\nCO\neg\n\u00bb\n'njiuija j ino\nd\n-H^ia\\ q.as sa-n^\nfc\n>H\n<      .\n\u2022Si\"\n-tf    r-t\nIO\nCO\nto\noc\n\u2022ioa^uoo\nd\n-tf\n\u00a9\nCO\n^\npad^osa saji j[\nfc\nen\n\u00a9\nrH\ntfi\ng^\nCQ\nCO\n00\n\u00a9\nCJ\n^\nCM\nQJ\n\"tf\n\u25a0fl\"\nc\nCQ\nH\nCJ\n\u25a0J3AO pau-mq Bajy\ntH\no\nd\n\u00a9^\nCM\nCO   CO   CO   CM   -tf\nIO\nCO\nH\nCC\nq   rH    rH                     tO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nCN\ntf\nH\n\u2022panssi s^iuiaa^j\nfc\nrH\nCJ\nfc\n\u2022^itujad _j.no\n6\nEfi\n-q^iAi ^as sajijj\n%\nfc\ntf\n4\nrH\nH\nOO\nOO\n\u00a9\n\u25baJ\nci\n-[o^uoo\n6\n00\nCT\nM\nZ\n3\nQ\no\npad-sosa so.iij\n%\nrH\nrH\nm  co  t-  oo  cm\no\nCO\nCO\nC\nQJ   \u00a9    t-H   to   \u00a9\n\u00a9\n00\n<M\ng\nE\n\u25a0joao pau-mq Baay\nIh   t-H           to   CM\n\u00a9\n\u25a0\"*\n\"\u00abf\nte\n\u25a03 S             !\nto\nIO\nCM\ntc\n5\nO   N   M   (fi       :\n,_,\n,;_\n,_,\ncr\n^\nO   CM   -tf    rH   -tf        ;\nr-l\ncc\no\n\u2022panssi s^iuuaj\n\"\n-*\n\u25a0^f\nIT\nCO   o  co  CO\n\u25a0\u25a0*\n\u00a9\nlr-\nr\n\u2022^iiuaatj ino\n6           rf\nCM\n\u00a9\n1-1\n3\ns\n-q^iA\\ njas sojt^\n\u2022A                ;\nCO\n\u00a9\nCT\ntr-  eo   -tf   CM   io\n-*\n\u00a9\nCM\n-S\no\n\u2022[oj^uoo\n6 H\nCO\n\u2022H\nl>\nu  .\n\"2\na\npadBosa sajij;\nfc\n\u00a9\nCjC\n(\/j    CO    -*tf    O    rH    \u00a9\nCO\n\u00a9\nCO\nCv\nOJ   00    00    \u00a9    IO    CM\nCM\n\u00a9\ncj:\n%\n\u25a0jaAo paujnq is3j.*y\nIH   CO   rH    \u00a9    CO    \u00a9\n5j   CM*   rH    IO*   CO   -tf\n-v\nlt;\n1-H^\nl>\n5\nt>\n-jH\nt>\nCf\n3\nCO    \u00a9   \u00a9   -tf   -tf\nIO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\ncr\no\nNo.\n4,25\n50\n86\n1,10\n1,24\nCO\na\n\u2022panssi s^im-ia^\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nt-_\nc:\nt-\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nCT\n.2\noi\"    i\nbo    :\nri     i\ntH\n*E\nV     :\nHJ\n>\nco\n5\nIS\ns\no\nfa\nt\nc\n:   h\n:   QJ   c\nJ   &  1\nj   P   i\nD\ni    ti\nI     \u25a0\nto\nB\nCD\nri    I\nt   <\u00b0\nm \"-?   +\n\u2122      1         !\n|>i   5\nr*i   CO       r\n\u2014s\nCO\ngtf g \u00a7  :\ng g\u00bbJ g\nTota\nPer.\nTen-\n19\nCC3\ns .a t a A\nco   E   O   CO   03\n> fi, Pq M i? 00 100\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS.\n(57)\nForest Service Library.\nClassification.\nItems received and catalogued.\nUp to 1944.\n1945.\n1946.\nTotal.\n365\n3,317\n926\n13\n80\n61\n12\n126\n79\n390\n3,523\n1,066\n4,608\n154\n217\n4,979\n48\n1,294\n51\n1,523\n32,464\n35,281\n(58)\nGrazing Permits issued.\nDistrict.\nNo. of\nPermits\nissued.\nNumber\n)F Stock under Permit.\nCattle.\nHorses.\nSheep.\n1,043\n299\n37\n95.015\n8,954\n2.304\n3,917\n958\n160\n29.133\n2,042\n99\nTotals, 1946\t\n1,379\n1,378\n1,320\n1,221\n1,130\n1,064\n8S1\n790\n738\n807\n1,071\n106,273\n109,201\n101,606\n93,497\n84,788\n77,774\n74,404\n69,447\n72,774\n75,123\n86,489\n5,035\n5,064\n4,862\n4,844\n4,797\n4,180\n3,958\n2,758\n2,248\n2,328\n4,007\n31,274\nTotals, 1945\t\n39,235\nTotals, 1944\t\n40,858\nTotals, 1943\t\n39,921\n36,962\nTotals, 1942\t\nTotals, 1941\t\n39,552\nTotals, 1940\t\n37,132\nTotals, 1939\t\n38,357\nTotals, 1938\t\n37,060\nTotals, 1937\t\n42,185\n38,254\n(59)\nGrazing Fees billed and collected.\nYear.\nFees billed.\nFees\ncollected.\nOutstanding.\n1939\t\n$21,348.41\n23,338.28\n23,781.19\n25,116.02\n24,680.37\n28,554.02\n30,066.34\n80,120.38\n$22,027.05\n38,146.48\n29,348.22\n30,802.33\n31,148.36\n31,000.34\n31,465.23\n31,412.24\n$42,012.10\n27,203.90\n21,636.87\n15.950.56\n1940 .'.\t\n1941\t\n1942\t\n1943\t\n1944\t\n7,036.25\n5,637.36\n4,345.50\n1945\t\n1946\t\nVICTORIA,   B.C. :\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1947.\n1,305-447-2485  ","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Legislative proceedings","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"J110.L5 S7","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"1947_V02_17_OO1_OO100","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0339793","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"Victoria, BC : Government Printer","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FOREST HON. E. T. KENNEY, Minister, C. D. ORCHARD, Deputy Minister of Forests REPORT OF THE FOREST SERVICE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31ST 1946","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}