{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0342848":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"995e340e-4e02-4bd6-9cdd-2333f83ae80c","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, 1950","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":"2017","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1951]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0342848\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/extent":[{"value":"Foldout Map: FOREST SURVEYS Areas Covered by Forestry Maps as at December 31st, 1950","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 3 1st\n1950\nVICTORIA, B.C.\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty\n1951 .-. '. ,;,';.-:-.'.'...'.-.\n:mm\nBeef cattle on open grass land, Nicola Valley. Victoria, B.C., March 1st, 1951.\nTo His Honour Clarence Wallace, C.B.E.,\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 the\nDepartment of Lands and Forests for the calendar year 1950.\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 1950.\nC. D. ORCHARD,\nDeputy Minister and Chief Forester. CONTENTS\nlTEM Pace\n1. Introductory 9\n2. Forest Economics 13\nForest Surveys 13\nProvincial Forests 13\nForest Research 14\nNursery Fertility Studies 14\nField Survival of Nursery Stock 15\nLand-use Survey 16\nEcological Studies 16\nForest Experiment Stations 17\nAleza Lake 17\nCowichan Lake 19\nSilvicultural Studies 20\nMensuration ., 24\nVolume Tables 24\nYield 28\n3. Reforestation .. 31\nForest Nurseries 31\nSeed Collections 31\nReconnaissance and Survey Work 31\nPlanting 31\nPreparation of Planting Areas 33\nPlantations 33\nPublications 33\n4. Parks and Recreation 35\nAdministration and Development 35\nReconnaissance and Inventory 38\nPlanning _'_ 39\nEngineering and Architectural Design 40\n5. Forest Management 43\nSustained-yield Management 45\nForest-cover Maps 46\nSilvicultural Fund 46\n6. Forest Accounts\t\n47\n7. Forest Protection 48\nWeather 48\nFires 48\nOccurrences and Causes 48\nCost of Fire-fighting 49\nDamage 49\nFire-control Planning and Research 50\nVisibility Mapping 50\nPanoramic Lookout Photography 50\nTrail and Road Traverses 50\nFire-weather Record and Investigations 51\nMiscellaneous Projects 51\nFire-suppression Crews : . 52\nAircraft 52 8 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nItem Page\n7. Forest Protection\u2014Continued\nMechanical Equipment -* 52\nAutomotive 5 3\nTankers 53\nTrailers, Tractors, and Maintainers 53\nOutboard Motors, Pumps, and Chain-saws 53\nMiscellaneous Equipment 54\nMechanical Inspection : 54\nForest Service Marine Station 54\nBuilding and Construction 55\nRoads and Trails 57\nRadio Communication 58\nSlash-disposal and Snag-falling 60\nFire-law Enforcement 60\nForest Closures 60\nCo-operation\u2014Other Agencies 61\n8. Forest-insect Investigations 62\nForest-insect Survey 62\nSpecial Studies 63\n9. Forest-disease Investigations 67\nDiseases of Mature and Overmature Trees . 67\nDiseases of Immature Forests 69\nDiseases of Nursery Stock 70\n10. Forest Ranger School 71\nExtra Courses 72\nBuilding and Grounds 72\nAcknowledgments 72\n11. Public Relations and Education 73\nPress and Radio . 73\nPublications 73\nPhotography and Motion Pictures : 74\nExhibits 75\nSigns and Posters . 76\nMiscellaneous Media 76\nCo-operation : 76\nLibrary 77\n12. Grazing 78\nIntroduction 1 78\nAdministration 78\nGeneral Conditions 78\nRange Management 80\nCo-operation 80\nRange Improvement 81\nRange Reconnaissance 81\nGrazing, Hay, and Special-use Permits 81\nMiscellaneous ; 82\n13. Personnel Directory, 1951 84\n14. Appendix\u2014Tabulated Detailed Statements to Supplement Report of Forest\nService 93 REPORT OF THE FOREST SERVICE\nDespite a late start, favourable weather in the late summer permitted a record area\nto be surveyed by standard inventory methods during the year. A total of 4,346,280\nacres was surveyed, utilizing a total personnel of eighty-seven on all parties. One new\nProvincial forest\u2014Kyuquot\u2014was created, comprising 1,865 square miles.\nA continuation of the nursery fertility studies indicated a decline in growth at all\nthree nurseries, and serious consideration must be given to a fertilizing programme.\nSurvival studies of nursery stock in the field paralleling fertilizer studies at the nurseries\nwere carried out.\nA land-use survey was conducted in the valley of the Silverhope Creek, Klesilkwa\nRiver, and Lower Skagit River. Previous site-type studies were broadened in their scope\ninto ecological studies to determine the chief plant associations of a region.\nA number of essential buildings were erected at the Aleza Lake Experiment Station,\nand the nucleus of a permanent staff established. A preliminary working-plan providing\nan annual cut of 3,500,000 F.B.M. was adopted. A similar plan for the Cowichan\nLake Experiment Station was completed.\nThe results of studies of seed production and dissemination by conifers and in the\ncontrol of seed-eating rodents were published as research notes or technical bulletins.\nA variety of volume tables was produced during the year by the mensuration section of\nthe Division.\nThe severe winter of 1949-50 reduced nursery production by approximately 20 per\ncent; frost damage to 1-0 and 2-0 stock at both Duncan and Green Timbers nurseries\nwas severe. Seed was sown for a production of 10,000,000 trees in 1942. A total of\n6,900,000 trees was planted during the year, with 6,300,000 being placed by the Forest\nService on Crown land. The remainder was planted by private companies.\nThe Douglas fir cone-crop was only fair and hemlock and Western red cedar was\npoor. However, utilizing mainly the services of teen-age boys under the supervision of\na foreman, it was possible to collect 4,600 bushels of fir-cones which should meet nursery\nrequirements for three years.\nThe first experimental autumn planting with 1\u20141 yellow pine seedlings in the East\nKootenay was completed, a total of 28,000 trees being planted.\nFifty miles of abandoned logging grade was converted to truck-trail and 4 miles of\nnew road constructed. Snag-falling on 11,440 acres was completed.\nThe major share of development efforts and funds was again expended in Mount\nSeymour and Manning Parks, with the Vancouver Island parks next in line for attention.\nAs a result, during the year the Mount Seymour Park road has been extended to the\nAdministrative site, and Pine Woods Lodge and overnight accommodation in Manning\nPark has now been completed. At the end of the year the Division had under its\njurisdiction sixty-one Provincial parks comprising over 9,000,000 acres.\nThe total cut of 4,560,000,000 feet, board-foot log-scale, for all products established\nan all-time record for forest-resource harvest and, at the same time, achieved a new peak\nin production values\u2014estimated at $468,371,000. Water-borne shipments exceeded\n1949 figures by 320,000,000 feet. Forty per cent of the volume cut was Douglas fir, and\nover one-third of the whole harvest was obtained from areas under timber sale.\nWeighted average bid for stumpage of all species was $5.19 per thousand, an\nincrease of $1.14 (28 per cent) over 1949.\nThe number of operating sawmills and shingle-mills reached a new maximum of\n1,891\u2014double the number existing in 1945.\nSix new forest management licences were completed during the year, bringing the\ntotal in effect to eight; working-plans for two others are at hand and five other applica- 10 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\ntions have been approved and reserves established pending completion of working-plans.\nThe first cutting permits issued under the forest management licences were granted during\nthe year. Four public working-circles on Provincial forests have been analysed, with\nregulation of cut to be initiated in the coming year. Working-plans have been prepared\nfor three farm-woodlot licences.\nActivity under the Silvicultural Fund occupied seven crews on forty-two different\nprojects in four of the forest districts.\nRevenue collections for the year established a new record at just less than\n$9,250,000, slightly over $1,000,000 higher than the previous record in 1949.\nThe forest-protection picture during the year can best be described as \" fortunate.\"\nA number of periods of hazard build-up occurred but generally were relieved by rains\nbefore they became critical. September, which might have proved very bad, had only\na limited number of fires due to the absence of the usual lightning-storms. Only in the\nPeace River section of the Fort George District was the fire season disastrous. In that\narea, fires, during the third week of September, burned extensive acreages but did little\ndamage to mature-timber values. Campers and smokers caused 35 per cent of the fires,\nand lightning slightly over 22 per cent. A total of 848,246 acres\u2014more than two and\none-half times the average for the past ten years\u2014was burned over. Of this total, nearly\n800,000 acres were located in the Peace River section east of the Rockies.\nPossible locations for lookouts were examined in 127 cases, and reports, complete\nwith maps, prepared for each site. Locations for eleven primary and nine secondary\nlookouts were recommended. Approximately 310 miles of existing roads and trails were\ntraversed and mapped.\nIn view of the complexity of fire-weather studies, work on this phase of fire-\nprotection has been concentrated in the Vancouver District; the number of weather\nstations recording fire-hazard factors was increased to forty-six. Results fully justify the\nextensive use of fuel-moisture sticks to determine hazard build-up.\nThirteen primary-action suppression crews were fielded, and these fought a total of\n146 fires, holding 131 of them to less than 5 acres in area. Four aeroplanes were\navailable under charter contract for detection-suppression duties. Considerable success\nhas been experienced in parachute-dropping food and equipment to Forest Service crews\nin inaccessible areas.\nThe Service was uniformly successful in the acquisition of automotive equipment,\ntankers, trailers and tractors, road-maintainers, outboards, pumps, and chain-saws.\nOperations of the Marine Station were seriously hampered during the first four months\nof the year while the plant was under reconstruction, following the fire of the previous\nyear. Despite this handicap an important volume of work was accomplished in boat\nconstruction, overhaul, and refits; in fabrication of lookout buildings, and furniture; and\nthe manufacture of pumps, fire-finders, and other special machined items. Forty-six\nmajor building projects were under way during the year, and thirty-six were completed,\ncomprising garages, warehouse and office buildings, boat-houses, and Ranger and\nAssistant Ranger headquarters.\nThe Radio Section made steady improvement in the reliability and speed of message-\nhandling; traffic during the year totalled 33,000 messages. Fifty-one new transmitting\nunits were added to the network. Experimental work was undertaken with F.M. on 150\nmegacycles and in the construction of a new-type light-weight portable transmitter-\nreceiver. By the year's end, total of all types of sets in use in the network was 448.\nIt has been possible, through the co-operation of the Forest Insect and Forest\nDiseases Investigations units of Science Service, Dominion Department of Agriculture,\nto include in this Report an outline of the activities of these two laboratories. The Forest\nService deems itself fortunate in having available for consultation and assistance the\nskilled personnel of both organizations and tenders its thanks for the co-operation\nreceived during the year. In the insect field, the spruce budworm and the bark-beetles REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 11\nat present constitute the more important hazards to forest health; ambrosia-beetle control\nin felled timber and forest-nursery insect studies were carried out. The forest-disease\ninvestigations comprised pole blight in Western white pine, progressive deterioration of\nwind-thrown spruce, decay in Western hemlock in the Northern Coast and Big Bend\nregions, Douglas fir root-rot, infection of lodgepole pine by mistletoe, and a study of\ndeterioration in looper-killed hemlock jointly with the Insect Investigations personnel.\nThe fourth class of students to attend the Ranger School completed its course in the\nspring of the year. This class was the first to take the expanded nine months' course, and\nthe advantages of the longer period of studies were demonstrated. The fifth class,\ncomprising another twenty students, commenced study in mid-September.\nPublic education through press advertisements was continued at the level of previous\nyears, but increased funds permitted doubling of the radio-broadcasting programme.\nThere was an extensive expansion in the number and variety of publications produced\nand in the photographic services provided. Three colour-and-sound motion-pictures\nwere produced for the Forest Service, and work commenced on a film for the Topographic\nSurvey Division of the Lands Service. A series of school lectures was initiated in\nco-operation with the Canadian Forestry Association.\nExhibits were placed in three major exhibitions in the Vancouver area and two rural\nfairs. Additional protection-signs for highway display were procured and distributed,\ntogether with a selection of coloured posters. Traffic in the Service library was heavier\nthan in any previous year.\nGrazing administration duties during the year were particularly heavy. Early in the\nyear a revision and consolidation of Grazing Regulations was accomplished, and fees\nplaced on a sliding scale governed by the ratio of average live-stock prices for the\nimmediately preceding year to average prices for 1939.\nDespite the severity of the weather during the winter of 1949-50, an adequate supply\nof hay reduced the losses of stock to only a little more than an average figure. Forage-\ngrowth in the spring was late, and overly dry conditions militated against good fall\nforage, but summer range conditions were excellent. The range-improvement programme\nduring the year was satisfactory. Altogether 561,472 acres of range were reconnoitred\nduring the summer.\nReports of the various phases of Forest Service work are embodied in greater detail\nin the ensuing pages, together with numerous statistical tables. 12\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nBella Coola River valley.\nNass River valley. 50\u00b0\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nDEPARTMENT of LANDS and FORESTS\nHonourable E. T. Kenney. Minister\n 3\n\n>\n<\nli (fl\no u\nIS\nX\npa\nQ\n60\n70\n80\n90\n100\n110\n120\n130\n140\n150\n160\n170\n12\n13\n20\n14\n23\n16\n25\n36\n27\n39\n70\n81\n90\n9\n17\n27\n4\n3\n5\n8\n8\n9\n10\n16\n8\n10\n12\n18\n14\n21\n18\n27\n10\n12\n24\n30\n33\n12\n14\n24\n27\n32\n37\n40\n44\n48\n53\n56\n98\n40\n2\n14\n16\n31\n36\n46\n58\n70\n81\n42\n53\n65\n78\n92\n48\n60\n53\n66\n81\n58\n72\n88\n105\n125\n63\n68\n73\n91\n111\n132\n78\n97\n118\n142\n168\n104\n110\n115\n120\n124\n55\n72\n92\n113\n140\n11\n9\n5\n6\n8\n16\n18\n78\n95\n113\n136\n85\n103\n123\n147\n18\n20\n73\n87\n103\n20\n22\n96\n114\n22\n24\n157\n24\n26\n120\n132\n145\n158\n171\n182\n195\n208\n127\n167\n11\n26\n28\n138\n152\n167\n182\n197\n210\n225\n240\n130\n197\n4\n28\n30\n158\n178\n200\n223\n174\n197\n221\n247\n273\n300\n191\n216\n208\n224\n240\n272\n305.\n340\n377\n257\n290\n326\n364\n274\n308\n347\n387\n428\n471\n552\n498\n132\n133\n135\n136\n136\n136\n227\n259\n294\n331\n367\n405\n10\n2\n2\n1\n4\n30\n32\n235\n263\n294\n325\n359\n253\n283\n32\n34\n242\n271\n299\n330\n34\n36\n317\n351\n389\n36\n38\n403\n38\n40\n416\n444\n40\n42\n330\n362\n394\n430\n424\n455\n' 497\n485\n530\n515\n563\n545\n596\n\u2022 136\n443\n1\n42\n44\n463\n44\n46\n467\n503\n539\n576\n611\n648\n46\n48\n505\n545\n585\n624\n663\n703\n48\n50\n545\n589\n732\n674\n717\n758\n50\n60\n770\n830\n890\n930\n1,010\n1,070\n60\n70\n1,030\n1,120\n1,200\n1,280\n1,360\n1,440\n70\nNo.\n1\n2\n2\n8\n11\n16\n14\n22\n11\n1 |\n1\n88\nBlock indicates extent of basic data. Data collected at Quesnel by Laboratory of Forest Pathology, Science Service, Dominion Department of Agriculture. Volume determined by sectioning logs to base of crown, top cubed as a\nparaboloid. Volume calculated for entire tree inside bark. Table prepared by alignment-chart method. Double bark\nthickness at D.B.H.=0.13 O.B. Standard deviation of individual trees \u00b1 9.8 per cent. Aggregate deviation of table,\n0.224 per cent high.\nA study has been made of Girard's form-class principle in preparing log-length\nvolume tables. The assumption is that trees having the same diameter at the top of the\nfirst log and having the same merchantable height will have similar, though not necessarily\nidentical, rates of taper in the sawlog portion above the first log, regardless of species.\nThe form-class is expressed as the relationship between the volume inside the bark at the\ntop of the first 32-foot log and the diameter outside bark at breast height. The following\nequations based on British Columbia Rule and 32-foot logs have been calculated from\nGirard's base formula:\u2014\nNumber of\n32-foot Logs\nin Tree\nTree Volume in Board-feet,\nB.C. Rule,\n32-foot Logs\n1_ : 1.5232D2\u2014 4.570D + 3\n2 , 2.0716D2\u2014 7.312D+7\nV-A 2.6772D2\u2014 9.414D+9\n3 3.1183D2\u201411.101D+10\n3V2 3.6888D2\u2014 13.102D + 12\n4 4.1607D2\u2014 14.857D+14\n4Vi 4.7235D2\u201416.832D+16\n5 5.2037D2\u201418.609D+17\n51\/2 5.7496D2\u201420.545D+19\n6 6.2462D2\u201422.356D+21 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 27\nD=D.I.B. top of first 32-foot log, merchantable top D.I.B.=60 per cent of diameter\nat top of first 32-foot log, which is approximately 40 per cent of the D.B.H., O.B. The\nabove equation can be used for any species and form-class.\nFor example: \u2014\nTree 50 inches D.B.H., AVi log, form-class 70.\n70\nD= X50\"=35\"\n100\nTree volume=4.7235(35)2\u201416.832(35)+ 16\n=5,213 board-feet, B.C. Rule.\nThe formula for the volume in cubic feet has been calculated for the merchantable\nportion of the tree above the first 32-foot log.\nVolume cubic feet=0.003732D2 L.\nD=Diameter at top of first log.\nL=Merchantable length in feet above first log.\nTaking the example above:\u2014\nD=35\", AVz logs=3Vi logs above first log\n= 112' volume above first log=.003732(35)2\n112=512 cubic feet.\nThe volume in the first log must be calculated separately to determine the merchantable volume of the tree. This will depend on the form-class and species.\nA base cubic-foot log rule was made available for scaling. It is pleasing to note that\nthe more progressive operators are leaning toward cubic feet in both their cruising and\nscaling. The mill production can be more readily estimated from cubic contents than\nBritish Columbia Log-scale. The following table shows the relationship between cubic\nfeet and board-feet British Columbia Scale and mill tally.\nAVERAGE FOR DOUGLAS FIR 16-FOOT LOGS\nBoard-feet Mill Tally\nTop (B.C. Log-scale) per\nD.I.B. per Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft.\n9 4.3 7.1\n12 5.4 6.8\n15 6.2 6.9\n18 6.5 7.0\n21 6.7 7.1\n24 7.0 7.4\nAverage mill tally, 7.1 board-feet per cubic foot.\n(Table courtesy of Dominion Forest Products Laboratory, Vancouver.)\nThe above mill tallies represent a utilization for lumber of 60 per cent of the contents\nof the logs. In some mills up to 70 per cent is utilized for lumber and the remainder for\nother purposes such as pulp, etc. The board-feet (British Columbia Scale) per cubic foot\nratio varies greatly with size of log, while the mill tally for an operation may be nearly\nconstant. For this reason, lumber production can be more accurately estimated for\na group of logs scaled in cubic feet than in board-feet. This also applies to pulp production. The cubic-foot scale is also fairest for logging contractors and logging superintendents particularly where small logs or long lengths are extracted. 28\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nYield\nThe following yield table is based on vegetative sites as described in previous Reports.\nSITE-TYPE YIELD TABLE (WELL-STOCKED DOUGLAS FIR)\n(Total volume per acre entire stand in cubic feet.)\nSite Type*\nNo. Plots\nAge\nP\nPG\nG\nGPa\nGU\n30 \t\n4,700\n7,700\n10,300\n12,500\n14,500\n16,400\n18,100\n19,700\n21,000\n22,100\n22,900\n23,400\n51\n13.4%\n4,200\n6,300\n8,200\n10,100\n11,700\n13,000\n14,000\n14,900\n15,700\n16,400\n17,000\n17,500\n58\n10.6%\n3,100\n4,900\n6,600\n8,100\n9,400\n10,400 .\n11,200\n11,800\n12,400\n12,900\n13,400\n13,800\n71\n16.0%\n2,000\n3,500\n4,700\n5,700\n6,600\n7,300\n7,800\n8,300\n8,700\n9,100\n8,400\n9,600\n57\n16.0%\n1,300\n2,300\n3,300\n4,250\n4,950\n5,400\n5,750\n6,000\n6,150\n6,250\n6,300\n6,350\n11\n8.8%\n28\n40\t\n36\n50 \t\n50\n60\t\n35\n70.\n44\n80\t\n12\n90\t\n20\n100\t\n110\t\n4\n3\n120 _\t\n6\n130\t\n8\n140 _\t\n2\n248\nAverage deviation, individual plots\t\nAverage deviation, 13.9 per cent; aggregate difference, 0.28 per cent.\n* P=rPoIystichum; PG=Polystichum-Gaultheria; G=Gaultheria; GPa=Gaultheria-Parmelia; GU=Gaultheria-\nUsnia.\nThe table is based on 248 well-stocked plots, with Douglas fir forming 70 per cent\nor more of the stand. The plots were both permanent and temporary. The data from\nthe periodic measurements of permanent plots gave the trends in volume increases.\nBeyond ninety years there are few plots, and the data must be used with discretion. No\nattempt was made to harmonize the volume curves for each site type. There was considerable overlapping of the volume data for the various sites. The average deviation of\nthe plot volumes from the curved or table volumes was 13.9 per cent, which is not significantly different from tables where the site is based on the height of dominant and\ncodominant trees and age. One method is no more accurate than the other, but where\ntrees are tall the vegetative types may be more readily determined than age and height.\nThe vegetation on cut-over areas has not to date been correlated with the vegetative types\nused in this table.\nThe volumes of stands correlated with average diameter was first used by this\nService in preparing a yield table for Douglas fir shown in the 1924 Annual Report.\nThe general principle is to eliminate the variable of height and number of trees by dividing the volume on each plot by these factors. The resulting quotient, plotted over average D.B.H. on double log-paper, gives a straight line. The data used in preparing the\nvegetative-type yield table gave the following equation:\u2014\nV D1.7153\nNXH 227.2\nV=Total volume per acre in cubic feet.\nN=Total number of trees.\nH=Height of tree of average D.B.H.\nD = Average D.B.H. of stand weighted by basal area.\nThe average deviation of individual plots from the curve expressed by the above\nformula was 3.7 per cent, which is approximately one-quarter that of the vegetative-site REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\n29\ntable or site-index tables. It is felt that where periodic predictions are based on inventories, the prediction of the yield through average diameter is a superior method.\nNHD1715\nThe base formula in its form V= is useful for cruising one-story second-\n227.2\ngrowth Douglas fir. The number of trees can be counted. The average diameter can be\nclosely approximated by counting the trees in two classes with the upper limit of the lower\nclass the estimated mean diameter. This is adjusted to get the average diameter. The\nheight of the tree of average D.B.H. is obtained by measuring trees about the average\nD.B.H. These factors applied to the base table will give the total cubic volume per acre.\nThis value may be cut for any standard of utilization by using average D.B.H. per cent\nmerchantable tables such as those given in the 1948 Annual Report.\nThe total number of trees per acre in each plot used in the Douglas fir yield table\nwas plotted over average D.B.H. on double log-paper. The average deviation in number\nof trees for individual plots from the curved values was 14.5 per cent. Although this\nvalue is high, it is less than the variation when age and site are used. Therefore, where\naverage diameter is used in short-cut methods of cruising, it would be better to count the\nnumber of trees than attempt to correlate the number with average D.B.H.\nThe height of tree of average D.B.H. and the average height of dominants and\ncodominants were determined for each plot. The average difference for stands over 40\nfeet in height was 11.4 feet and the standard deviation of the difference was 4.1 feet.\nThere was no significant decrease in difference with height. The height of tree of average\ndiameter can be readily determined from a D.B.H.-total height curve, and using the above\nadjustment the average height of dominants and codominants can be closely approximated.\nThe field party of four men worked for three months making a survey of the residual\nstands and rate of growth on the sidehill types of the Okanagan Valley. The data are\nbeing worked up. A preliminary summary of the volume logged and residual stand on\nthree areas are given below.\nTABLE OF LOGGED AND RESIDUAL STANDS IN OKANAGAN VALLEY\nSite\nIndex\nD.F.\nNumber of\nPlots\nLogged\nResidual Stand\nArea\nTotal\nVol.\n(Cu. Ft.)\nAv.\nD.B.H.\nSpecies (%)\nNumber of\nTrees\nAv.\nD.B.H.\nTotal\nVol.\n(Cu. Ft.)\nSpecies (%)\nPy\nF\nOthers\nPy\nF\nOthers\nA \t\nB \t\nC ...\nI\n109 | 39\n101 j 64\n104 | 50\nI\n1,521\n739\n728\n18.7 | 11\n25.4 1 42\n20.8 1 47\n1\n76\n58\n53\n13\n0\n0\n1,102 | 5.5 | 2,148\n883 | 4.8 1 2,275\n562 1 4.6 i 1,570\n1\n7\n18\n16\n76\n66\n74\n17\n16\n10\nA reproduction survey of the three areas was made on Mooo-acre units and these combined to form larger units.\n(T\nPER CENT QUADRATS STOCKED\nrees up to and including 3-inch D.B.H. class.)\nNumber of\nViooo-acre\nQuadrats\nPer Cent Stocked by Size of Unit in Acres\nArea\nViooo\n%oo\n%33\nV20O\nV125\nA\n784\n1,024\n624\nIS.9 ! 28.3 1 36.7\n39.3\n48.0\n49.3\n59.2\nB \t\n26.7 [ 37.3\n25.6 36.8\n46.1\n48.6\n69.5\nC -\t\n70.5\nA unit was considered to be stocked if there was one established seedling.\nThe above two tables give a picture of the stands. They are fairly well stocked, now\nhaving a volume from one and one-half to three times that removed in logging, but the 30 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\ntrees, as shown by the average diameters, are much smaller. The reproduction tends to\nestablish in groups and the added fire-protection may tend to favour Douglas fir.\nThe rate of increase in diameter in the last twenty and forty years as indicated by\nring-counts in the four Cardinal directions was tested on 180 trees in the mixed Douglas\nfir-yellow pine type of the Okanagan. The aspect was eastern and the slope 10 to 50 per\ncent. The average of the four counts on each tree is the most accurate and was used as a\nbase in determining differences. The average difference, using the average of two borings\nat right angles, was more than twice as great as when two opposite borings were used and\ntheir standard deviation of differences was 50 per cent larger. In the current study of\nincrement two borings were made on opposite sides of ten trees well distributed throughout\nthe range in diameters on each of the 153 fifth-acre plots. Statistically this is sufficient to\nmeet our standard of precision.\nAn analysis of the difference in gross merchantable cubic-foot volume of the Upper\nFraser uneven-aged spruce-balsam type when computed by 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-inch D.B.H.\nclasses has been made. The diameter-class to be used for a certain maximum sampling\nerror will depend on the number of samples making up the average. Assuming a maximum error of 1 per cent for sampling, a minimum of 13-, 26-, and 60-acre tallies for an\naverage are required when 4-, 6-, and 8-inch classes are used respectively. The averages\nhave to be corrected by the significant differences associated with the various classes.\nUnder certain conditions large diameter-classes can be used without much loss in precision, the size depending on various factors, such as range in diameters in type, number of\ntallies in type, and allowable error for sampling justified by saving in field and compilation\ncosts.\nThe errors in stock-taking may be divided into two major categories:\u2014\n(a) Sampling errors due to making a partial inventory.\n(b) Non-sampling errors due to failure to obtain accurate information about\neach sampling unit, such as area of unit, diameter and heights of trees, etc.\nThe object is to obtain a specified degree of accuracy at a minimum cost. The\nprinciple is to obtain a sample just large enough to bring the sampling error down to a\nsatisfactory level and to have sufficient controls to bring the non-sampling or human error\nto a minimum. Tallies on 71 acres in the uneven-aged spruce-balsam types of the Upper\nFraser were analysed, and tables prepared to cover range in types commonly found in\nBritish Columbia. The percentage cruise for a given precision in this type depends on\nthe area in each unit. For example, a 0.1-per-cent cruise on 30,000 acres will give the\nsame precision as a 30-per-cent cruise on 80 acres. The use of statistics as a tool in\nplanning inventories has been recognized in most softwood-producing countries of the\nworld and finally will be adopted by all in reducing costs for a required precision of the\nestimate. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 31\nREFORESTATION\nFOREST NURSERIES\nNursery production was reduced approximately 20 per cent by one of the worst\nwinters on record. Frost-damage to both the 1-0 and 2-0 stock was severe at Duncan\nand Green Timbers. Although the annual precipitation for 1950 broke all records, rainfall during the crucial growing period for seedlings was very light, and supplementary\nwatering was necessary.\nSeed-beds were sown to produce 10,000,000 trees in the spring of 1952. Experimental work on soil-fertility was continued, and details are given by the Economics\nDivision in this Report under \" Nursery Fertility Studies.\"\nAt Green Timbers, due to the small size of the 2-0 planting stock, heavy culling was\nnecessary, and only 2,384,000 trees were available for shipping to the projects. This\ncondition may be caused by the severe winters of the past two years and the late spring\ngrowth or the gradual deterioration of the soil from continual cropping. With the reduced\nproduction at this nursery it is now possible to rest the land for two years between crops,\nand this condition will be remedied by the introduction of fertilizers. Plantations adjoining the nursery were brushed out and trails sprayed with 2-4-5T Esteron 64 to control\nundergrowth, with exceptionally good results.\nAt Campbell River 3,358,500 trees were shipped to planting projects in that area,\nand 3,600,000 trees will be available for planting in the spring of 1951. White-grub\nactivity was negligible over the entire nursery-site, but it is not known if this is the result\nof using Benexane 5 or a normal cycle in the population of the grubs.\nFrom Duncan Nursery 1,335,000 trees were shipped to planting projects in the\nCowichan area. For the second year, root-pruning of 2-0 stock in August, to induce\nhardening-off before the fall frosts, was carried out with excellent results. A heavy infestation of strawberry root-weevil did considerable damage to the stock before the presence\nof the insect became apparent. However, this pest can be controlled by use of Ortho-bate\nbefore too much damage is done.\nIn the East Kootenay a few more seed-beds were sown near Elko to yellow pine and\nDouglas fir, and 50,000 seedlings were transplanted. Work was started on a new nursery-\nsite on Perry Creek near Cranbrook, and seed-beds will be sown there in 1951.\nSEED COLLECTIONS\nThe 1950 Douglas-fir cone-crop was only fair, with hemlock and Western red cedar\nbeing very poor. The price paid to collectors for Douglas-fir cones was increased to\n$1.50 per bushel, but the response to advertising for collectors was disappointing. Most\nof the cones were collected by organizing crews of teen-age boys under the supervision\nof a foreman. This method proved very successful and will be continued in the future.\nA total of 4,600 bushels of Douglas-fir cones was collected, and extractions to date indicate a yield of 2,500 pounds of seed, which will supply nursery requirements for at least\nthree years.\nRECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEY WORK\nNine separate logged-and-burned areas, comprising 20,000 acres, were examined on\nthe Coast. Only one area, of 7,500 acres, required planting, and a detailed map was\nprepared for the establishment of a planting project. In the East Kootenay region an\nadditional 20,000 acres were explored, primarily to determine suitability for planting by\nmachine.\nPLANTING\nFor the third successive year because of snow, projects were not able to start until\nthe latter part of March, and planting continued into the second week of May. Two fall 32\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n\u00bb-\nI\nf\nNil\nI \u2014\nDOUGLAS FIR\nTREE LOT U 2\nROOT PRUNED\n2-0 STOCK\nDUNCAN APRIL 1950 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 33\nplanting projects were carried on in areas not accessible in the early spring, but these were\nclosed a month early, on November 15th, by an 18-inch fall of snow. During the year\n6,720 acres of logged-and-burned land were reforested with 6,330,000 seedlings. One\nlogging company planted an additional 680 acres with 550,000 trees. (See page 96 of\nAppendix for statistics of planting over the last ten years.)\nExperimental planting with 1-1 yellow pine in the East Kootenay was carried on\nin the fall, when 16,000 trees were planted by machine and 12,000 with grub-hoes.\nComparative survival between these two methods and also spring planting will be\nobserved.\nPREPARATION OF PLANTING AREAS\nCrews were employed on seven different projects during the year. One new forty-\nfive-man camp was erected (all sectional buildings) and another moved by barge to the\nwest end of Great Central Lake.\nFifty miles of abandoned logging-grade was converted to truck-trails and 4 miles\nof new road were constructed. The maintenance of existing road systems is an ever-\nincreasing problem, and in an attempt to keep up with this phase of the work, a new\nroad-maintainer, complete with front-end loader, bulldozer blade, grader blade, and\nsnow-plough, was purchased.\nSnag-falling was carried on throughout the year, and 11,440 acres were completed,\nmostly in the Sayward Forest.\nPLANTATIONS\nSurvival examinations were made in the 1947 and 1949 plantations, and new plots\nestablished in the 1950 planting. Mortality in the 3-0 seedlings planted in 1947 was\n34 per cent, as compared to 20 per cent in 2-0 stock planted in 1949.\nPUBLICATIONS\nIn co-operation with the Public Relations Division the Green Timbers Forestry\nNursery Bulletin (First Edition, 1943) was revised and a second edition printed; a new\nbulletin entitled \" Collecting Seed from Forest Trees \" was published. A colour-and-\nsound movie, \" Planting Prosperity,\" depicting the nursery and planting techniques used\nin the Douglas fir region of the Lower Coast, was produced by the Public Relations\nDivision under the technical supervision of this Division. OO 34\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 35\nPARKS AND RECREATION\nPark-development in British Columbia has reached an important turning-point.\nFor almost ten years the emphasis has been on reconnaissance, inventory, and planning,\nwhile several large undertakings, such as the Mount Seymour Road and Manning Park\nprojects, have absorbed the bulk of moneys available for improvement work. Now, with\nthe Mount Seymour Road completed and the main services and buildings installed at\nManning Park, attention can be turned to phases which will directly welcome the visitor\nand give him an opportunity to stay and enjoy various park attractions.\nADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT\nThe increased staff required in the greatly expanded operations of this Division\nduring the past several years has become stabilized to some extent. New personnel have\nnow had sufficient experience to carry out their particular work with a minimum of\nsupervision. A Recreational Officer assumed duties in the Kamloops District and thereby\nlessened appreciably the problems formerly handled in Victoria.\nSince administrative headquarters and services were installed in several of the\nlarger parks, it has been possible to have the supervisory personnel therein assume more\nresponsibilities and establish their own individual administrative patterns.\nThe necessity for basic services in Mount Seymour and Manning Parks to meet the\nanticipated influx of visitors required, as in the past few years, the major share of\ndevelopment work and funds. The purchase of a compressor and a D-6 Caterpillar,\ncomplete with back-hoe, dragline, and bulldozer attachments, gave a great impetus to\nroad and trail construction, but the intended building programme had to be drastically\ncurtailed because of lack of funds.\nLittle Qualicum Falls Park.\u2014Modern restrooms were constructed and placed in\noperation for the 1950 season. A stone-and-timber picnic shelter, equipped with tables\nand a unit of four brick-lined stone stoves, was opened to the public. Pit toilets and\na water-outlet were provided at a temporary overnight camp area.\nMacMillan Park.\u2014A parking area was created at a registration point adjacent to the\n\" Big Tree \" in Cathedral Grove. Approximately 40 cords of firewood and 30,000\nF.B.M. of sawlogs were salvaged from wind-thrown trees adjacent to the highway. Four\nhundred feet of 12-foot-wide gravelled roadway was constructed to a small picnic area\nat the mouth of Cameron River. Parking space for six cars was provided. Four picnic\ntables, two fireplaces, and pit toilets for men and women were installed.\nElk Falls Park.\u2014A serious threat to valuable park property and also of concern to\nthe British Columbia Power Commission were slides occurring in several places through\nlack of proper drainage. A co-operative attack on the problem was formulated, and\na proportioning of costs established. The project was carried out in early winter and\nresulted in a deep ditch being dug to hard-pan around the periphery of the slide area.\nA large drain was placed in this ditch, and the seepage-waters collected and run down the\nbank in creosoted wooden piping.\nLangford Workshop.\u2014A planer has been installed and cupboards built for the\nstoring of tools and equipment. The drying-shed was fitted with sliding doors and wired\nfor lights. Of the eighty picnic tables made, sixty were shipped to various parks. The\npurchase of an acetylene welder made it possible to fabricate twenty steel fireplaces.\nVarious pieces of furniture, signs, and carvings were turned out to fill special requirements.\nPeace Arch Park.\u2014The popularity of the park and the extensive use of the picnic\nfacilities are shown by a registration of 13,503 persons at the summer house, 4,672 at\nthe kitchen-dining building, and 5,972 attending club and association picnics. Over\na million visitors entered Canada through the attractive landscaped grounds of the park. OO 36\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n><-:*&-\nPicnic shelter at Little Qualicum Falls Park.\n\u25a0: .: :\nIf , __i-\n\u00bb*\u00bb_-\u00ab;\nRest-rooms at Little Qualicum Falls Park. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 37\nTwelve picnic tables set on concrete slabs were placed adjacent to the kitchen-dining\nbuilding and proved very popular. Additional drainage was provided at several critical\npoints. A visual-type gasoline-pump and 500-gallon tank were installed, and the oil-\nhouse placed on a concrete slab, sided, and shaked.\nThe proposed picnic area on the old Indian reserve was carried forward by the\nclearing, burning, ploughing, grading, and seeding to grass of an area of approximately\n3 acres. The water system was extended to provide future requirements.\nMount Seymour Park.\u2014The contract let in May, 1949, for the remaining 4 miles\nof mountain road is nearing completion, with the road being officially opened by the\nHonourable E. T. Kenney on December 10th, 1950. Access by motor to the ski camp\nis now possible, and a bus turn-around has been constructed to accommodate three buses\nand a small number of cars. The service area at the base of the mountain was completed\nand a gasoline pump and tank installed.\nPreparatory clearing and grading were carried out for a ski-tow, and later two\ntemporary tows were rigged for operation. Buildings occupied by the concessionnaire\nand First Aid Ski Patrol were readied for winter use, and the headquarters building was\nfurnished.\nManning Park.\u2014As in the previous year, all of the building development was carried\nout under contract. However, the clearing, excavations, extension of light and water\nservices, and the installation of sewage-disposal systems for four motel buildings and the\nservice-station were completed by the Forest Service.\nExtensive areas fronting on Pine Woods and the personnel building were brought\nto grade, layered with topsoil and seeded to grass. Filling and grading were carried out\npreparatory to the paving of the large adjacent parking-lot.\nA ski hill, 800 feet long, behind the Ranger station was cleared and the slash completely burned. Two park-entrance signs were erected, and two fire-protection signs\nplaced in the large burn.\nThe road and trail systems were greatly expanded with the help of three teen-age\ncrews. The jeep-road to Three Brothers Mountain was extended 7.V2 miles, and an\nadditional 1,800 feet of foot-trail constructed. The Windy Joe Lookout was made\naccessible by jeep by building the final 2 miles of jeep-trail. A trail, XVz miles long,\nbranching from this road leads to Frosty Mountain and was one of the projects undertaken by the trail crews. Trail crews made valuable improvements in the vicinity of\nLightning Lakes. Four thousand feet of graded trail now allows pleasant travelling along\nLightning, Flash, and Strike Lakes. The main climb to the Skyline Trail was relocated\nto jeep-trail standards, and right-of-way slashing accomplished for 21\/i miles.\nWells Gray Park.\u2014With the erection of a new bridge over the Murtle River in 1949,\nit was possible to make a crossing this year with road-building machinery and start work\non the jeep-trail to Clearwater Lake. The first 5.3 miles of the 15.5-mile-long route was\ncompleted.\nMaintenance.\u2014The winter maintenance crew working in the parks on Vancouver\nIsland completed their varied programme by the end of April. Park attendants were\nthen placed in each park, with the exception of Goldstream Park, and the usual intensive\nmaintenance and supervision was continued throughout the tourist season. Two new\nparks, Ivy Green Park and Goldstream Park, were readied for visitor use by a thorough\ncleaning and the installation of signs, picnic tables, and fireplaces. The importance of\nthese services and the intensive maintenance required on the small park areas may be\nbetter appreciated from the following table:\u2014 OO 38 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nNumber of Registered Number of\nName of Park Visitors Campers\nLittle Qualicum Falls 16,066 279\nElk Falls 10,315 894\nEnglishman River Falls 9,558 213\nStamp Falls 5,681 195\nJohn Dean 4,700 504\nTotals 46,320 2,085\nThe above figures represent only 40 per cent of the total number of persons who actually\nvisited the parks, since a large proportion do not register. A small crew was employed\non clean-up and repair work during the 1950-51 fall and winter season.\nProblems in Peace Arch Park were aggravated by the severe winter of 1949-50\nwhich killed a number of trees and shrubs. Added to the usual maintenance of lawns and\nbeds of flowering annuals was the care of the recently installed picnic facilities.\nIn Mount Seymour the completed section of road required continual repair and\nimprovement. Buildings to house the various concessions were altered, and such facilities\nas light, water, and fuel were modernized for more efficient service.\nThe road to Dawson Falls in Wells Gray Park was further ditched and surfaced,\nand the new bridge over the Murtle River was sprayed with wood preservative and all\nmetal parts given a coat of red lead. As forest-protection projects, four trails were\ncleared and made passable for horse traffic.\nRECONNAISSANCE AND INVENTORY\nThe reconnaissance and recording of the recreational assets of this Province are\nproving to be a tremendous task which will take many years to complete. The staff\nspecializing in this work now consists of three men, assisted by the ever-increasing\nco-operation of district staffs and other Recreational Foresters in the field. Organization\nand classification of the data gathered to date have been the main objective of this past\nyear, along with an attempt at standardization of reconnaissance methods and descriptive\ndefinitions. The latter phase of this work is complicated by the fact that parks and\nrecreational values are often intangible in nature, hence difficult to define clearly.\nThe loss of one assistant and the addition of two new men required that some time\nbe spent in initiating the new members in the present organization of the section and\nfamiliarizing them with the problems. To this end, both men were on field work for\nfrom one to three months. During the same period a third man was on loan to the\nForest Economics Division for road-survey purposes. The main projects undertaken\nthis year were:\u2014\n(1) A survey and reservation of potential camp-sites on the Fraser Canyon\nHighway.\n(2) A study of problems in Hamber Park and a review of its recreational assets.\n(3) A preliminary regional study of the recreational requirements of Prince\nGeorge, Prince Rupert, and Peace River areas.\n(4) A reconnaissance of the Bowron Lakes area and its problems in relation\nto its eventual park status.\n(5) A survey of forest recreation problems at Pendleton Bay and Topley\nLanding in the Babine Forest.\nWherever possible, contact was made with the district staff, and forest-recreation problems\nwere discussed and clarified. The Strathcona Park-Forbidden Plateau report was finally\ncompleted, along with the second part of the Bowron Lakes report.\nThe inventory of timber values in Strathcona Park is in process of compilation by\nthe Surveys Section of the Forest Economics Division, which also gave valuable assistance \u25a0 \u25a0 \u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 \u25a0 \u25a0-.\n\u2014\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 39\nin cruising and preparing estimates of timber volumes within two areas under investigation\nas potential parks\u2014namely, the Mount Brenton area, and an entrance and winter sports\nunit of the Forbidden Plateau.\nSummary of Parks\n(As of December 31st, 1950)\nClass of Park Number Acreage\nA 24 296,318.680\nB 5 7,054,891.000\nC 29 4,044.445\nSpecial 3 1,656,455.000\nTotals 61\nNew Parks\nParks formed during 1950 are as follows:\u2014\n9,011,709.125\nName\nCreated\nAcreage\nClass\nVicinity\nForest\nDistrict\nCameron Lake \t\nNov. 7, 1950\nOct. 16, 1950\n733\n142\n\"A\"\n\"A\"\nCameron Lake, V.I.\nOyster River, V.I.\nVancouver.\nIncreases in Acreage\nManning Park increased from 171,500 acres to 176,080 acres.\nWells Gray Park increased from 1,164,960 acres to 1,165,005 acres.\nPLANNING\nWhile it must always be recognized that the objective of park administration is\ndevelopment enabling greater public enjoyment of recreation areas, increasing emphasis\nis being placed on the planning which must guide such development. Parks are\nbecoming recognized as the outdoor homes of people, and planners are striving to integrate\nthe various uses and areas involved with much the same nicety that the architect seeks\nin designing a home or any other building. Considerable progress has been achieved\ntoward this end during the past year. The policy is being continued of carrying out the\ngreater part of park-development in those areas most readily accessible on the Lower\nMainland, Vancouver Island, and to camp-sites and roadside areas adjacent to prominent\nhighways.\nLittle Qualicum Falls Park.\u2014The development plan at Little Qualicum Falls Park\nwas revised to provide improved accommodation for maintenance personnel and to\nsegregate overnight campers from intensively used picnic areas.\nGoldstream Park.\u2014Following the acquisition of Goldstream Park, preliminary\ninvestigations were carried out, and data regarding access, topography, cover, and use\nhave been added to the registered plan of the area.\nMiracle Beach Park.\u2014A basic development plan providing for intensive day and\novernight use of this newly acquired seaside park was produced. Ultimate facilities\nanticipated for the area include access and internal roads, parking areas, picnic sites\nand shelters, change-houses and toilets, camp-sites, and park attendant's quarters and\nservice-yard. The plan envisions early installation of a gravity water system, the haulage\nof driftwood from the beach, and the construction of some type of permeable groins to\nprotect and build up the sand beach.\nMacMillan Park.\u2014A basic development plan was prepared to allow for the public\nenjoyment of this area and to preserve and protect it from improper use. Requisite signs,\nguard-rails, pathways, and structures were designed and, in part located on the ground. OO 40 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nCameron Lake Park.\u2014Three small usable areas on the shore of Cameron Lake were\nmapped, and tentative plans for their development as picnic-sites were formulated.\nSayward Forest.\u2014Following an extensive study, a recreation plan was evolved for\nthe Sayward Forest, and recommendations were prepared to facilitate the administration\nof recreation potentials.\nPeace Arch Park.\u2014Outdoor picnic facilities were laid out in furtherance of the\nexisting over-all development plan.\nMount Seymour Park.\u2014A landscape plan for the lower Administration Building\nwas prepared, and the task of gathering data to correlate uses and facilities at the upper\nend of the road was continued. A topographic map (2-foot contours) of the upper area\nwas prepared; data on potential chair-lift locations, rope-tows and parking facilities,\nlodges, cafeterias, dormitories, and other installations were gathered; and a plan for the\nultimate development of the park is nearing completion.\nManning Park.\u2014Motel units were sited and early units of the trail system located.\nLandscape plans were prepared for Pine Woods Lodge and the service-station. Preliminary surveys and plans were completed for four picnic-and-campsite areas adjacent to\nthe Hope-Princeton Highway.\nCultus Lake.\u2014Preliminary mapping was completed. Tentative proposals have been\nprepared and a tract chosen as the.site of a Department of Agriculture (Dominion)\nInsectary. Final plans for this park must await decisions on the relocation of the\nColumbia Valley Road.\nWells Gray Park.\u2014While a firm plan for the development of this great area has not\nyet been evolved, a large amount of work toward that end was accomplished during the\npast year. The possibilities of co-ordinating the requirements of both forest protection\nand recreation use in an integrated system of jeep-trails and horse-trails were explored,\nand preliminary locations between Dawson Falls, Clearwater Lake, Mahood Lake, and\nMurtle Lake were investigated. Camp-sites and picnic areas were located in the vicinity\nof Dawson Falls, and potential Ranger station and lodge sites were chosen and mapped.\nThe first phases in the evolution of a wild-life management plan were completed.\nRanger Station Landscape Plans.\u2014To assist other divisions of the Service, the\nPlanning Section has provided, as time and opportunity permit, landscape plans for newly\nconstructed Ranger stations. Such plans were prepared for two stations during the\npast year.\nOther Parks.\u2014The Board of Park Commissioners, Nanaimo, sought assistance in\nplanning the development of Bowen Park. Necessary field work has been completed, and\na comprehensive long-term plan is being prepared as other demands upon the services of\nDivision personnel permit.\nENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN\nIn execution of the development plans for the various parks throughout the\nProvince, the Engineering Section has been concerned with the following: (1) Designs,\n(2) surveys, (3) consultation and (or) supervision on Forest Service projects, and (4)\nsupervision of contracts.\nMiracle Beach.\u2014Preliminary engineering reconnaissance only has been carried out\nin this newly acquired park area.\nForbidden Plateau.\u2014A three-man crew spent two weeks in this area making a\nreconnaissance of the Anderson Lake region where the park entrance might be located\nand running a traverse of 2 miles, to serve as a base-line for cruising purposes and as\na road location.\nElk Falls Park.\u2014Surveys were carried out and a drainage plan formulated to alleviate seepage from the John Hart Dam causing the bank to slide above the swimming-pool\narea. Further work has been done in the vicinity of Elk Falls to provide a master REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 41\ndrainage plan. This involved the design of culverts, catch-basins, and means of safe\ndisposal of waste into the river.\nMount Seymour Park.\u2014A topographical survey was completed in the area between\nthe Administration Building and the Concession Building to allow for study of parking\nfacilities and the location of the lodge. A transit traverse, 3 miles long, was completed\nthrough the cabin area to Goldie Lake and then on to the Administration Building. The\nsurvey also included the erection of two concrete monuments with calculated azimuth.\nThe contractor started work at Station 330-J-OO toward the end of June, but\nprogressed rather slowly at first due to snow at the upper levels. The following work\nwas completed:\u2014\n(1) Clearing, 13.055 acres.\n(2) Grubbing, 9.201 acres.\n( 3) Grade excavation:\u2014\n(a) Rock, 9,922 cubic yards.\n(b) O.M., 29,759 cubic yards.\n(4) Foundation excavation: \u2014\n(a) Rock, 56 cubic yards.\n(b) O.M., 331 cubic yards.\n(5) Culverts, 734 lineal feet.\n(6) Select subgrade material, 5,863 cubic yards.\n(7) Finish material, 203 cubic yards.\n(8) Haul (combined), 6,065 cubic yards.\n(9) Over-haul, 5,097 cubic yards.\nAt Mile 4 a drainage system was constructed to divert a portion of the road drainage\ninto a ditch formed by the old West Side Trail. Two 36-inch culverts were installed, one\n128 feet long.\nAt Mile 4.4 a 500-foot-long section of road, badly damaged in the storm of\nNovember, 1949, was reconstructed, entailing the removal of some 700 cubic yards of\nrock and the placing of 300 cubic yards of road gravel. From this point to Mile 5.5 all\nditches were redug and considerable gravel placed on the road.\nManning Park.\u2014Additional construction in the concession area this year necessitated\nthe supervision of two contracts and the extension of services.\nSurveys were limited to location of buildings, line and grade for water, and electrical\ntransmission-services extensions, layout and grade of driveways, parking areas, lawns, and\nsprinkler system.\nDuring the year several development projects were undertaken by Forest Service\ncrews under supervision of the Park Ranger, and for these projects the Resident Engineer\nrequisitioned materials and provided consultation as required. These works included:\u2014\n(1) Installation of four 2,000-gallon underground gasoline storage-tanks, the\nconstruction of a pump island, and the mounting of the gasoline pumps\nfor the service-station.\n(2) One thousand six hundred feet of extensions to the water and electrical\ntransmission systems to supply the service-station and four motel buildings\nerected during the year.\n(3) Grading driveways, parking areas, lawns, and other areas.\n(4) Construction of an additional grease-trap and two disposal-beds at Pine\nWoods.\n(5) Installation of an underground-sprinkler outlet system in the area around\nPine Woods.\n(6) Clearing and grading of jeep-trails to Windy Joe Mountain and those\nstarted to the Three Brothers Mountain area and Skyline Trail summit. OO 42 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nThe 1949 contracts for the construction of the Forest Service Personnel Building\nand Pine Woods were brought to completion by June 1st, and the latter officially opened\nfor business under a concessionaire.\nThe 1950 contract for four motel buildings, each containing three rental units, and\nthe sales wing of a service-station was supervised during the latter half of the year and, by\nthe year's end, work was almost completed. The electrical installation for these structures\nwas under a separate contract, but progressed along with the construction and is also near\ncompletion.\nWells Gray Park.\u2014Engineering work centred on the location and partial construction\nof a jeep-trail from Dawson Falls to Clearwater Lake.\nA party consisting of one graduate civil engineer and two engineering students spent\nthree months in the park on reconnaissance and location of 15.5 miles of jeep-trail from\nthe Murtle River Bridge to Clearwater Lake. Location is such that a maximum grade\nof IVi per cent, and a minimum radius of turn of 90 feet can be provided. A chain-and-\ncompass traverse was run over the existing 4 miles of park road, and levels taken over the\nroute. Detailed topographic maps of the Dawson Falls area and a proposed Ranger\nstation-site were prepared to a scale of 50 feet to the inch and contour interval of 5 feet.\nUnder supervision of the Park Ranger, advised by the Resident Engineer, the\napproaches to the Murtle River Bridge and 5.3 miles of the Clearwater Lake jeep-trail\nwere constructed during the year. Present grade of the bridge approach is 17 per cent,\nwhich is satisfactory for present use, but location is such that grade can be reduced to\n10 per cent.\nCultus Lake.\u2014An engineer and an assistant prepared topographic maps of five areas\non the easterly and southerly shores of the lake. These will be used in the planning\nphase of the park development.\nSilver Star Park.\u2014A party of three spent three weeks in October on the Silver Star\nPark Road project. A preliminary line was run and a rough estimate of construction\ncosts was prepared. A road, built to winter standards, 5.2 miles long, will be required\nto give access to the ski-ing area, and a total of %Vi miles at a grade of 8 per cent is\nneeded to reach the top.\nLiard River Hot Springs.\u2014A reconnaissance was carried out by one engineer with\nthe assistance of the nearest Forest Ranger to locate the best access route to these hot\nsprings, which are less than one-half mile from the Alaska Highway. They are difficult\nto reach due to a stretch of sulphurous bog created by the overflow of the springs.\nA chain-and-compass fine over the most promising route reached the large pool in \\XA\nmiles, and the smaller and hotter pool one-quarter mile farther. Levels and cross-sections\nwere taken with an Abney level to facilitate a rough estimate of cost of construction.\nTopography in the vicinity of the pools was plotted for development planning. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 43\nFOREST MANAGEMENT\nThe estimated value of all forest products for the year 1950 reached a total of\n$468,371,000. This value far exceeds all previous records and reflects the combination\nof high volume of production and inflationary values. Practically all forest products\nshared in this increase, but particularly lumber, pulp and paper, shingles, and plywood.\nThe total cut for the Province amounted to approximately 4,560,000,000 board-feet\nlog-scale, being an increase of 510,000,000 feet over 1949 and the greatest annual cut\nin our history.\nWater-borne lumber shipments exceeded those of 1949 by 320,000,000 feet.\nGreatly increased shipments to the United States and the Atlantic Coast account entirely\nfor the increase. At the same time, shipments to the United Kingdom are down from\n1949 by approximately 100,000,000 feet. Shipments to other markets remained fairly\nconstant.\nThe statistical tables in the Appendix of this Report supply details of forest-\nmanagement activities, and the following comments comprise the highlights of the data\nenumerated in the detailed tables.\nOf the total cut of 4,560,000,000 feet\u2014all products in board-feet\u2014Douglas fir\nreadily maintains its leading position in volume cut\u2014namely, approximately 1,834,000,000\nboard-feet, or 40 per cent of the total. This is in excess of the combined total of the next\ntwo species in order of volume cut\u2014namely, hemlock and cedar. The cut of these species\namounts to approximately 920,000,000 board-feet or 20 per cent and 801,000,000 board-\nfeet or 18 per cent respectively. Spruce and balsam, the next species in importance,\namount to approximately 487,000,000 board-feet or 11 per cent and 239,000,000 board-\nfeet or 5 per cent respectively. Other species in order of importance are as follows:\nLarch, lodgepole pine, yellow pine, and white pine, amounting in all to 256,000,000\nboard-feet or 5 per cent. The balance of 1 per cent is made up of deciduous species.\nAll forest districts participated in the increased cut of 510,000,000 board-feet, of\nwhich 350,000,000 originated in the Vancouver Forest District or the equivalent of an\nincrease of 12 per cent for that forest district over 1949. The Fort George Forest District\nhad the largest percentage gain\u2014namely, 22 per cent or 52,000,000 feet.\nOn the basis of origin of cut, timber sales continue to lead all other categories,\nwith approximately 1,600,000,000 feet; next follow old Crown grants, with about\n1,100,000,000 feet; timber licences are in third place, with 800,000,000 feet. All these\ncategories show a gain over 1949. Volume production in cubic feet shows a continuing\nincrease, reflecting the growing tendency toward closer utilization of lower-grade logs\nthrough relogging of salvage values principally for the manufacture of pulp. For the first\ntime in our history a scale from management licences shows up. In the future the cut\nfrom management licences will assume ever-increasing importance with each successive\nyear.\nTimber sales awarded amount to 2,591, including cash sales, being slightly higher\nthan 1949; however, the estimated value increased by approximately $3,500,000 to\n$9,153,000, reflecting the higher stumpage values which have, taken place generally\nthroughout the Province, particularly for sawlog species. Total existing sales remain at\napproximately the same level\u2014namely, 6,200. The total area under sale contract is\n1,500,000 acres, with guarantee deposits amounting to $2,800,000.\nStumpage prices bid show a wide variation for all species due to competitive bidding.\nWith the exception of balsam, stumpage prices show a higher weighted average for all\nspecies. The weighted average for all species is $5.19 per thousand, inclusive of royalty,\nan increase of $1.14 or 28 per cent over 1949.\nAs 1950 closed, the demand for Crown timber reached its highest level of the year;\nin particular, numerous applications are on hand for large individual volumes. OO 44\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nCropped eight years ago, this stem has since produced a \" limb \" tree which is ready for cutting. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 45\nThe number of operating sawmills throughout the Province reached an all-time\nhigh of 1,891, including 65 shingle-mills; conversely the number of shut-downs in both\nsaw and shingle mills was down. The fact that the number of operating sawmills in\n1950 is double those in existence in 1945 clearly indicates the expansive development\nof the lumber industry in recent years in all parts of the Province. In so doing it must\nalso indicate the rapidity of forest-capital depletion now taking place and, as a consequence, the increased urgency for immediate application of sound silvicultural practices\nand regulation.\nTotal log exports continued their downward trend, amounting to 138,000,000 feet\nin comparison with 146,000,000 and 164,000,000 feet for the years 1949 and 1948\nrespectively. Of the 138,000,000 feet exported, 125,000,000 feet or 81 per cent\noriginated on Crown grants with export privileges. The value of minor products marketed outside the Province of $5,800,000 shows an advance of $300,000 or 6 per cent,\nthe bulk going to the United States. Poles and piling constituted 68 per cent of the total\nvalue.\nOther activities included in the Forest Management Division which show increased\nactivity over 1949 are as follows: Timber sales cruised numbered 2,196, or an increase\nof 34 per cent; number of logging inspections was 16,221, or an increase of 5 per cent.\nThe frequency of inspections, however, is far below that considered necessary to maintain\nadequate supervision. This is due to the inability of an inadequate field staff to cope with\nthe increased activity generally in logging and milling operations.\nReversing the trend during 1949, the number of trespass cases reported shows\na sharp decline. The acreage cut over and volume showed a corresponding decline.\nIn consequence of the increase in total production, it may be noted that timber\nmarks issued and draughting-office work showed a very marked increase, and greatly in\nexcess of normal activities in these directions.\nThousands of Christmas trees pass through this sorting-yard in the East Kootenay.\nSUSTAINED-YIELD MANAGEMENT\nStudy of the situation with respect to sustained-yield forestry on specific areas by\nprivate industry and the Forest Service has led to completion of six more contracts for\nforest management licences during the year. The total number now in effect is eight.\nWorking-plans are at hand for two more prospective licences, for which contracts should OO 46 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nbe executed shortly. In five other cases where the application has been approved and\na reserve established, working-plans are in various stages of preparation.\nAnalysis was completed of four public working-circles consisting of Provincial\nforests or parts of them, and regulation of cut will be initiated during the coming year.\nField work leading to complete working-plans for these and other areas is proceeding.\nIn the field of extension forestry, activity was confined to farm-woodlot licences under\nsection 19 of the \" Forest Act,\" for three of which working-plans have been prepared.\nField work in connection with other applications has been carried out. A bulletin\ndealing with these licences was prepared and published during the year. While the\nnumber of farm-woodlot licences will be limited by the relatively small areas of suitable\nCrown land in or near farming communities, they will provide working examples of what\ncan be accomplished in farm forestry and be a nucleus for extension forestry among\nfarmers in general.\nFOREST-COVER MAPS\nIn the course of the year 1,308 maps were revised, as follows: Victoria, 397; district\noffices, 430; Rangers' offices, 481. Of the above total, 113 are new replacements. New\nreplacements included 25 new forest-survey editions and the 75 maps comprising these\nwere distributed to the three offices concerned. Thirty-eight were maps replaced for wear\nand tear.\nInstruction in forest-cover mapping and the organization of maps and plans was\ngiven to ninety-seven Forest Service personnel and nineteen Land Inspectors and Land\nUtilization personnel of the Lands Service at thirty-one points throughout the Province,\nas follows: Ranger School, Green Timbers, 21; Vancouver Forest District, 30; Fort\nGeorge Forest District, 6; Kamloops Forest District, 8; Nelson Forest District, 32;\nVictoria, 19.\nAn extensive reconnaissance of the Beaverfoot River and Kootenay River watersheds within the Nelson Forest District was made to check the cover-map record.\nAn approximate area of 214 square miles was mapped and reported upon.\nSILVICULTURAL FUND\nDuring 1950, funds were made available from the Silvicultural Fund for silvicultural\nwork in all four Interior forest districts. Nelson Forest District employed two crews on\neleven projects, Kamloops Forest District employed two crews on sixteen projects, Fort\nGeorge employed two crews on ten projects, and Prince Rupert employed one crew on\nfive projects. Work performed consisted of snag-falling, piling and burning logging slash\nadjacent to public highways, reduction of slash-hazard along logging-roads by piling and\nburning, piling and burning abandoned mill-waste debris, reduction of slash-hazard by\nlopping and piling and burning accumulations of logging slash on timber-sale areas,\nconstruction of fire-guards by utilization of old logging-roads where practicable, and (or)\nnatural fire-breaks. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 47\nFOREST ACCOUNTS\nIn spite of the adverse weather conditions, which hampered operations and resulted\nin reduced collections for the first three months of 1950, another new record was set for\nrevenue collections, the total of $9,229,987.15 being an increase over the previous record\nyear of 1949 of $1,048,126.18.\nCharges against logging operations for the calendar year also increased, by\n$1,507,556.52, to a new record high of $10,163,125.26.\nThe year 1950 saw the first cutting permits issued under management licences, the\nrecord of which is shown on page 101.\nDue to the continuing increase in the volume of accounting and recording work, it\nhas been necessary to modernize some of the accounting procedures. All timber-sale,\ntimber-licence, and timber-lease records are now kept on a ready-reference card system,\nand the Scale and Royalty Accounts Receivable ledgers are now being posted by a\nmechanical posting-machine. OO 48 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nFOREST PROTECTION\nWEATHER\nAt the start the 1950 fire season was most encouraging from the fire-fighting\nstandpoint. A late, cold spring, common throughout the Province, precluded the usual\nflash-hazard. Both snow and sharp frost were experienced at several points throughout\nthe Interior on May 22nd. By the end of May the green growth had obliterated the\ndanger of flash fires. Thereafter, several periods of hazard build-up occurred which\nwere relieved generally by heavier rains than usual. September would have proved\na disastrous month in the Interior if the usual lightning-storms had developed but,\nfortunately, these were comparatively few. A comparison with fires for the past ten\nyears in Table No. 48 (see Appendix) shows that the 1,515 fires reported were only\nslightly over the average for the past ten years.\nIn the Vancouver Forest District, in spite of the general feeling that last summer\nwas the driest in many years, precipitation for the area was above the ten-year average\nduring the fire season. The periodic hazard build-ups of July and August were relieved\nby heavier rains than usual. The hazard risk continued into late September and thereby\nretarded intentional slash-burning to some extent.\nIn the Prince Rupert Forest District the fire season was comparatively light, with\nonly fifty-three fires reported, the most hazardous period being the first week, of July,\nwhen the Perow fire, disastrous to several small mills, occurred.\nIn the Fort George Forest District, west of the Rockies, no great hazard build-up\nwas experienced until June 8th. During that month the precipitation was only one-\nquarter of the average, but this condition was relieved by July 8th. September was also\nan unusually dry month in the Fort George District. East of the Rockies the fire season\nwas severe. Although May was an easier month than usual, June was more active,\nparticularly in the northern part of the area where several large fires occurred\u2014mostly in\nthe perma-frost areas where the scrub timber did not warrant major fire-fighting\nexpenditures. General rains and cooler weather than usual alleviated the situation until\nSeptember 9th. Subsequently, high winds, low humidities, and the total absence of rain\nsoon raised the fire-hazard to a high level. New fires sprang up, old dormant fires revived,\nand settlers' burning-fires got out of control, particularly between September 19th to 25th,\nwhen numerous acreages were burned. These fires burning in the outlying areas, mostly\nin scrub-timber types, plus similar fires in Alberta, caused a widespread smoke haze which\nreceived considerable publicity.\nIn the Kamloops Forest District, due to the late spring, the usual early fires of the\ncattle country were missing. June and July were generally hot and dry, with conditions\nbecoming acute in the latter half of that month. A break in the weather thereafter eased\nthe situation temporarily, but hazard conditions built up again during August and continued to September 23rd. With 531 of the total fires for the Province, the Kamloops\nDistrict had the worst fire season of our five forest districts west of the Rocky Mountains.\nDuring the fire season, weather in the Nelson Forest District was similar to that of\nKamloops, except during the month of September, when the rainfall was double that\nof Kamloops. Both districts benefited greatly by the moderate lightning activity as\ncompared with former years, which accounts for the 10-per-cent decrease in the number\nof fires from this cause compared to the past ten years, as shown in Table No. 48 (see\nAppendix).\nFIRES\nOccurrences and Causes\nThe 1,515 fires of the 1950 season, although less than the number for last year, were\nstill slightly above the ten-year average (see Table No. 48 of the Appendix). For REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 49\nmonthly fire occurrence by districts see Table No. 46. Shown below are comparative\nfigures of fire occurrence, by forest districts for the ten-year period 1941-50:\u2014\nFire Occurrence\nduring Ten-year Percentage\nForest District Period 1941-50 of All B.C.\nVancouver 3,980 27.04\nPrince Rupert 581 3.95\nFort George 1,473 10.01\nKamloops 4,400 29.89\nNelson 4,285 29.11\nTotals . 14,719 100.00\nSixty-three per cent of the total fires occurred during July and August, which are\nalways the worst two fire months, and the higher percentage of these two months\u2014\nnamely, 11 per cent\u2014is a reflection of the relatively reduced lightning-fires in September.\nThe three major causes of fire occurrence were campers and smokers, 35.8 per cent;\nlightning, 22.6 per cent; and railways, 13 per cent. For reference see Table No. 52 of\nthe Appendix. Camper and smoker fires are up 6 per cent over the ten-year average and\nlightning is down 11 per cent. Railway fires are down 6 per cent below last year and\n1 per cent below the ten-year average. In the Vancouver Forest District, last year's figure\nof 55 per cent, due to railways operating, dropped to 24 per cent this year. These\ndecreases in railway fires can be largely attributed to the more general use of diesel-\npowered locomotives.\nCost of Fire-fighting\nFor details under this heading see Tables Nos. 41 and 57 of the Appendix. The\nlatter table covers only wages, food, and transportation of fire crews and does not include\nForest Service protection overhead as detailed for the previous year in Table No. 40.\nAgain it will be noted in comparing Tables Nos. 41 and 57 that outside agencies in\nthe Vancouver Forest District spent more money on direct fire-fighting than the Forest\nService over the whole Province. On two of these industry fires, $13,343 is reported to\nhave been spent, which was approximately the total expended by the Forest Service in\nfighting fire in the Vancouver .Forest District last year. These high costs to industry are\ndue largely to the payment of prevailing wages to fire-fighters. If statutory fire-fighting\nrates of pay were raised to the same level, it is estimated that the 1950 fire-fighting cost to\nthe Forest Service would have been over $300,000 instead of $141,688.\nThe two major causes of Forest Service fire-fighting costs are campers and smokers,\n43 per cent, and lightning, 33 per cent. The former is up 15 per cent over last year, and\nit is a sad commentary that carelessness on their part caused a needless fire-fighting\nexpenditure of $63,780.\nThe total cost to the Forest Service of direct fire-fighting in 1950\u2014namely,\n$141,688\u2014is up almost 50 per cent over last year and 18.8 per cent above the average\nfor the past ten years.\nDamage\nThe total area burned in 1950 is estimated at 848,246 acres or more than two and\none-half times the average for the past ten years. Table No. 54 (see Appendix) shows\nthat the Fort George Forest District accounted for over 95 per cent of the area burned.\nIn that district over 80 per cent, or 795,500 acres, of the burned acreage was east of the\nRockies in the Peace River country and north of the 60th parallel. There three fires\naveraged over 200,000 acres in size and fifteen fires aggregated 780,400 acres, or over\n92 per cent of all the acreage burned in the Province during 1950. Table No. 54 also\nshows that, although the acreage burned was so large, the damage is estimated at less than 00 50 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nthe ten-year average. This is due to the majority of the damage occurring east of the\nRockies in the northern part of the Province. Of the 780,400 acres mentioned, only\n1,520 acres were classed as mature timber and 43,800 acres as immature timber, mostly\non low-quality sites. The balance, or 725,000 acres, was classed as non-commercial\ncover, grazing land, or non-productive.\nAs a result of these Peace River fires, it will be noted from Table No. 54 that\n78 per cent of the fire damage for the Province is attributed to the Fort George Forest\nDistrict.\nFrom Table No. 53 (see Appendix), damage to property other than forests is\nreported as $413,200, of which 80.7 per cent occurred in the Vancouver Forest District.\nMost of this damage to equipment and felled-and-bucked timber in the Vancouver Forest\nDistrict was caused by the desire of some operators to maintain log production at the\nrisk of fire occurrence in the more hazardous weather, and again some extremely costly\npayments were made for errors in judgment.\nFIRE-CONTROL PLANNING AND RESEARCH\nVisibility Mapping\nThree two-man crews were in the field this year under the over-all supervision of\na Technical Forest Assistant. As in previous years, the personnel was recruited from\nforestry students at the University of British Columbia, and work was carried out in\nthe Vancouver, Fort George, Prince Rupert, and Nelson Forest Districts. One hundred\nand twenty-seven possible lookout-sites were examined in detail, and visibility maps and\nreports completed for each. Of these, eleven primary lookouts and nine secondary\nlookouts were finally recommended as follows: Vancouver Forest District, six primary\n(five manned in 1950) and one secondary; Fort George Forest District, one primary\nand three secondary; Prince Rupert Forest District, two primary and three secondary;\nNelson Forest District, two primary and two secondary.\nThe information obtained by the crews has been compiled and bound in book form,\nand a copy of each report has been forwarded to the district concerned.\nPanoramic Lookout Photography\nDuring the past summer the experienced two-man lookout photography crew accomplished an excellent season's work. With efforts confined to the three southern forest\ndistricts, the crew was able to take full advantage of periods of locally good photographing\nweather, as the distances to be moved from point to point were comparatively short.\nIn all twenty-three lookouts were completed.\nLookouts photographed for the first time were located in forest districts as follows:\nVancouver, one; Nelson, one; and Kamloops, three. Lookouts with outdated pictures\nwere rephotographed as follows: Vancouver, six; Nelson, ten; and Kamloops, two.\nA total of 159 sets of photographs was completed. This figure includes multiple sets for\nthe lookouts done this year and reprints from old negatives for the Forest Service and\nindustry as they were required. Since 1936, 135 lookouts have been photographed and,\nof these, 34 have been retakes.\nTrail and Road Traverses\nFour traverse crews, as described in last year's Annual Report, were again fielded.\nIn all, some 310 miles of existing roads and trails were traversed, marked on the ground\nat 20-chain intervals, and plotted on maps by these crews in forest districts as follows:\nPrince Rupert, 76 miles; Fort George, 100 miles; Kamloops, 76 miles; and Nelson,\n58 miles. ,\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 51\nFire-weather Record and Investigations\nAs the study of fire weather and factors influencing fire-risk is a very complex one,\nit was thought best to concentrate on one district\u2014namely, the Vancouver Forest District\u2014for the present.\nWith this in view, the number of stations observing and recording fire-hazard factors\nwas increased to forty-six in that district. Of these, twenty-six stations radioed their\nfindings twice daily to the Vancouver and Victoria headquarters.\nThese statistics were used not only for correlation with weather forecasts in determining hazard build-up, as already described in the 1946 Forest Service Annual Report,\nbut were used by the Forest Service meteorologist for comparison of existing fire-danger\nrating systems.\nResults indicate that the extensive use of fuel-moisture sticks as one of the principal\nand simplest devices for determining hazard build-up is fully justified. During 1950,\n217 sets of hazard-sticks were distributed throughout the Forest Service and 157 sets to\noperators. The latter number represents an increase of 17 over last year.\nThe amount and rate of fuel-moisture loss was found to be directly related to the\namount of moisture present in the sticks. The noon and afternoon moisture can generally\nbe predicted from the early-morning content on rain-free days of moderate or low relative\nhumidity. On such days if the 8 a.m. moisture content is down to 9Vi per cent, sticks\nmay be expected to be above 8 per cent at noon but below 8 per cent before 8 p.m.\nIf used in this manner, however, careful check must be maintained of the weather\nforecasts, as subsequent rain, fog, or high relative humidities would reduce the hazard\nand completely alter the situation. Similarly, a strong wind later in the day would\nmaterially increase the rate of spread if an accidental fire occurred.\nInvestigations were conducted to test the relationship between solar radiation and\nfuel moisture. Results indicate that neither the hours of bright sunshine nor the intensity\nof same have any appreciable direct effect on the rate of drying of the sticks.\nSo far investigations indicate that the moisture content of the sticks is controlled\nprimarily by the moisture content of the air. In the absence of visible moisture, such as\nrain or fog, the water-vapour content of the air is indicated by relative humidity.\nTo summarize, it is felt that, in order to be adequately informed on fire risk, it is\nstill necessary to keep track of fuel-moisture content as indicated by hazard-sticks plus\nrelative humidity and weather forecasts. It is also axiomatic that observations used for\ndetermining fire-hazard must be made at the location for which the hazard is to be\ndetermined.\nMiscellaneous Projects\nThe hazardmeter, an Australian device used to replace fuel-moisture indicator sticks,\nwas made up and tested. This meter consists of a strip of hemlock bonded to a strip\nof cedar and mounted vertically. The results obtained from two months of observation\nproved it to be too erratic and inconsistent to be of practical value.\nA preliminary investigation was made to determine the effect of hanging hazard-sticks\nvertically instead of placing them in the customary horizontal position 1 foot above the\nground. The difference did not appear to be of any real significance in the measurement\nof fire-hazard. When rain occurs, horizontal sticks usually become heavier than vertical\nsticks. This is largely due to water standing on the sticks; hence more water can soak\ninto the wood. There is also more water on the stick-surface to be weighed with the wood.\nHowever, when dry weather follows the rain, the horizontal sticks dry much faster than\ndo the vertical sticks. It was found that both sets contained the same amount of moisture before the dangerous degree of dryness is reached. This would indicate that the\npresent practice of using horizontal sticks to represent haphazardly arranged forest fuels\nis justifiable. OO 52\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nFIRE-SUPPRESSION CREWS\nThirteen suppression crews were again fielded in 1950 in the Vancouver, Kamloops,\nand Nelson Forest Districts in the same locations as described in last year's Annual\nReport. In addition, a ten-man crew was located in the vicinity of Hillcrest, near Duncan\non Vancouver Island.\nAs emphasized in past Reports, these crews again proved their value as a fire-\nsuppression force, and the summary of their effectiveness is tabulated below. In addition, these crews averaged more than 35 per cent of their gross time on project work such\nas roads and trails, and the results of that work are included in the tabulation on page 57.\nRECORD OF SUPPRESSION CREW ACTION, 1950\nNumber\nof Fires\nSubsequent Spread (by Number of Fires)\nSize of Fire When Attacked\nVs Acre\nor Less\nOver\nVs Acre to\n1 Acre\nOver\n1 Acre to\n5 Acres\nOver\n5 Acres to\n50 Acres\nOver\n50 Acres\nSpot (up to '\/4 acre)\t\nOver Va acre and up to 1 acre\t\nOver 1 acre and up to 5 acres \t\nOver 5 acres and up to 50 acres ~ \t\n90\n20\n23\n6\n7\n81\n....\n8\n12\n....\n1\n7\n22\n1\n1\n5\n1\n7\nTotals\t\n146\n81 | 20\n1\n30\n7\n8\nAIRCRAFT\nFlying under the contract with Central British Columbia Airways Limited was\ncontinued during the 1950 season, and a total of 1,396 accident-free flying-hours was\nlogged. By mutual agreement, an additional radio-equipped floatplane was included for\nthe contract season, and the four aeroplanes were stationed as follows: Fort George,\nKamloops, Penticton, and Nelson.\nAll aircraft, while based at these points, were again on call in any forest district east\nof the Cascades and Coast Mountains. In addition, the Kamloops aeroplane was available to the Vancouver Forest District and the Fort George aeroplane was available to the\nPrince Rupert Forest District east of the Cascades. All aircraft were capable of carrying\nover 1,000 pounds and were again radio-equipped and fitted with dropping-hatches.\nThey were used for fire-patrol, spotting fires, and the transport of men, equipment, and\nsupplies. Considerable skill has now been developed in three forest districts in parachute-\ndropping from these aeroplanes. By using war-surplus personnel chutes, loads as heavy\nas 250 pounds have been dropped, and fragile items, such as cases of eggs, power-saws,\nradios, and fire-fighting pumps, are now parachuted to fire-fighters, when necessary,\nwithout breakage.\nTo supplement the flying contract, local aircraft were chartered to a limited degree,\nparticularly in the Prince Rupert Forest District and in the Fort George District east of\nthe Rocky Mountains.\nMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT\nThe approved complement of mechanical equipment was ordered early in the year\nand, as for the past two years, delivery was made with a minimum of delay in most\ninstances. The items purchased are as follows:\u2014 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 53\nAutomotive\nSedans 7\nCoupes 10\nCoaches 2\nSuburban carryalls 10\nStation wagons (four-wheel drive) 3\nV^-ton light deliveries (two-wheel drive) 17\n1-ton light deliveries (two-wheel drive) 12\n1-ton light deliveries (four-wheel drive) 18\nDodge power-wagons 1\n1 Vi -ton trucks 2\n2-ton trucks 1\n3-ton trucks 4\nTotal 87\nThe suburban carryalls listed above are a new type as far as the Forest Service is\nconcerned and have proved very satisfactory for specialized uses.\nTankers\nThe three tankers mentioned in last year's Report proved quite satisfactory, and one\nadditional unit was purchased this year.\nTrailers, Tractors, and Maintainers\nSix conventional two-wheel box trailers were obtained for hauling boats and general\nuse.\nOne innovation this year was the fitting-out of the road-maintainer crews with\nconventional two-wheel, 14-foot, caravan trailers to enable the operators to stay out on\nthe job in preference to coming in to some central headquarters each day. The trailers\nwere equipped with fuel-storage tanks, which keep the maintainers supplied for a week.\nFour units were purchased for this work and proved satisfactory.\nA special 28-foot cook-dining trailer was purchased for use of the Prince Rupert\nsilvicultural crew. A considerable saving was effected by utilizing a standard caravan\nshell and under-carriage, furnishing the interior to suit Forest Service needs. The unit\nwas generally quite satisfactory, although it is planned to make several structural changes\nin any future models as under-clearance was found to be insufficient for off-pavement\noperation.\nFour crawler tractors were purchased\u2014one Cletrac D.D.H. equipped with blade\nand drum for use in the Fort George District (Peace River area), one wide-gauge D-6\nCaterpillar complete with blade and a Hystaway-backhoe-dragline and crane attachment\nfor the Parks and Recreation Division, one International T.D. 9 complete with blade and\ndrum for the Prince Rupert District, and one International T.D. 18 for use of our newly\norganized access-road engineering section, with initial operation at Salmon Arm.\nFive Huber maintainers complete with attachments were obtained for use of the\nVancouver, Nelson, Fort George, and Prince Rupert Districts, and the Reforestation\nDivision.\nOutboard Motors, Pumps, and Chain-saws\nAs only a very limited number of outboard motors were needed, little difficulty was\nexperienced in obtaining eleven units in the following sizes: 5 horse-power, four;\n8 horse-power, three; 16 horse-power, two; and 22 horse-power, two.\nA total of sixty Bennett-MacDonald fire-pumps were constructed at the Forest\nService Marine Station and, in addition, forty-two medium-weight commercially manufactured units were obtained. OO 54 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nDuring the year fifty-five chain-saws were obtained, practically all of which were\nthe one-man type; of this number, four were allocated to silvicultural crews for use in\nslash-disposal and forty-four to various Ranger districts for forest-protection work.\nTwo of these units are electrically operated from a light-weight high-frequency portable\ngenerator and are especially adapted for use in clearing roads and trails.\nMiscellaneous Equipment\nFive lighting plants were purchased, one of which was for use with the electric\nchain-saws mentioned, two for use of the Public Relations and Education Division to\noperate motion-picture projectors, and two for lighting Ranger stations; all units were\nin the 600-2,000-watt 115-volt category. An additional Warsop gasoline-driven portable rock-drill was purchased for use in the Kamloops Forest District.\nMechanical Inspection\nThe Mechanical Inspectors were assigned to district and division work as outlined\nin the 1949 Report. They were able to complete the inspections of all equipment in\ntheir respective areas and spent the balance of their time supervising maintenance and\nrepair of the equipment. The allocation of Inspectors worked out very well, except for\nthe one combined Inspector covering the Fort George and Prince Rupert Forest Service\nequipment plus any vehicles of the Lands Service and the Department of Finance in\nthose areas. Distances are so great and so many units are in out-of-the-way locations\nwhere no garage facilities are available that more servicing is necessary by the Inspectors\nthan in other forest districts. Ultimately, a separate Inspector will have to be allocated\neach district for adequate supervision of maintenance in the northern part of the Province.\nFOREST SERVICE MARINE STATION\nAs reported last year, the Forest Service Marine Station was seriously damaged by\nfire and, due mainly to the slow process of getting the complicated electrical wiring\ninstalled, it was not until May 1st, 1950, that the whole plant was in full production.\nIn December, 1950, a contract was let for a fully automatic sprinkling system throughout\nthe entire plant, and this, together with the 50-foot spacing between our three main\nbuildings, has greatly reduced the fire risk at the station.\nIn the marine-repair section, with three boat-ways available, it was possible to\nreduce the backlog of repair work on the Forest Service fleet. This included twenty-\nnine complete overhauls, four major rebuilds, and sixteen minor repairs, such as painting,\netc., on launches from 20 to 84 feet in length. In new construction a variety of boats\nwas built, including two 34-foot Forest Service standard one-man boats, one 20-foot\nspecial inboard motor-boat for the Queen Charlotte Islands, and one 30-foot shallow-\ndraught lake-and-river launch for the Stuart Lake area. In addition, two pilot-houses\nand cabins were fabricated and shipped to Interior lake landing-craft, and a miscellany\nof repair work and installation on launch lighting plants and heavy-duty diesel marine\nengines was performed.\nIn the prefabricating-shop a wide variety of work was accomplished. This included\nthe prefabrication and shipping of twenty-seven knock-down section buildings 20 by 24\nfeet, sixteen knock-down lookout buildings, and a miscellaneous collection of crates,\ntool-boxes, and launch furniture, such as stools, tables, and food-lockers. In addition,\nthis year a new project was undertaken in the fabrication of certain types of office\nfurniture for Forest Service offices throughout the Province. By the end of the year,\nthirty-eight map-cabinets and thirteen draughting-table tops were built.\nIn the machine-shop section an increased overhaul programme was necessary because\nof the backlog of this work which had accumulated while the plant was being rebuilt. In\nall, 148 pumps and 47 outboard motors were received from various parts of the Province, mmmtm\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 55\nand these were overhauled, tested, and returned within the calendar year. In new construction, sixty Bennett-MacDonald portable fire-fighting pumps and their corresponding\ntool-boxes and tools were assembled and shipped. A revised model of the Bennett fire-\nfinder for lookouts (first mentioned in the 1948 Annual Report) was perfected, and 15\nunits were completed while 100 more were 20 per cent complete by the end of the year.\nIn addition, a miscellany of items used in the Forest Service were manufactured, such as\nfuel-moisture scales, straight-edges, special paper-punches, cubic-scale computers, cutaway models, and various machined items required by the prefabricating-shop or marine\nsection of the Station.\nBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION\nThe construction programme started in 1947 was again continued this year with\nexcellent results. The competition among contractors was keen, and the competitive bids\nsubmitted did much to keep our costs of buildings down to a reasonable level while our\nstandardized building plans kept the designing and engineering costs down to the bare\nminimum.\nDuring the first half of the year the increased supply of materials and price stabilization continued in the same manner as the previous six months; however, in the latter half\nof the year, world conditions deteriorated, and now the supply and price of the essentials\nare in a state of flux.\nRanger station buildings, including sectional huts, 100-Mile House. OO 56\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nStandard four-car garage, Williams Lake.\nAssistant Ranger headquarters, Arrow Park. -\u25a0.-\u25a0-^ ,-,-^<.,\u00b1\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 57\nOf the forty-six major building projects under way this year, thirty-six have been\ncompleted, as shown in tabular form below:\u2014\nMAJOR NEW BUILDING PROJECTS FOR FOREST-PROTECTION AND ADMINISTRATION\nPURPOSES, 1950\nType of Building\nConstruction\nAgency\nProgress\nto Date\nAlberni*\t\nAlberni*\t\nAlert Bay\t\nArrow Park-\nBurns Lake...\nCanim Lake .\nCreston*\t\nColumbia Crossing*^\nColumbia River*\t\nChase \t\nCowichan Lake\t\nElko* \t\nFort St. James\t\nFernie \t\nFort Fraser \t\nGrand Forks*\t\nHardy Bay \t\nHarrison Lake \u2014i\t\nHorsefly Lake\t\nInvermere \t\nKettle Valley*\u2014\nKaslo \t\nKitsumgallum\t\nLangford*.\t\nLangford*.\t\nMerritt \t\nMission City\t\nNakusp.\t\nNelson \t\n100-Mile House-\nPowell Riyer _\nPrinceton \t\nPender Harbour .\nPort Moody\t\nPenticton\t\nPort Clements \u201e_\nPrince George._\nQueen Charlotte City\u201e\nQuesnel \t\nSugar Lake \t\nTrout Lake \t\nWilliams Lake \t\nVancouver\t\nVancouver _ \t\nVictoria \t\nYahk \t\nWarehouse\t\nAlterations to office.\nRenewing float.\nAssistant Ranger headquarters -\nWarehouse \t\nBoat-house \t\nWarehouse, four-car garage\t\nAssistant Ranger headquarters _\nBoat-house (at Mile 17)_\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage _\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage -\nRanger residence _\nWarehouse \t\nFour-car garage\nAlterations to office and residence .\nFour-car garage \t\nAssistant Ranger headquarters\t\nFill for building-site \t\nBoat-house \t\nFour-car garage \t\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage .\nFour-car garage _\u2022\u2014\nBoat-house \t\nWarehouse - . \t\nAlterations to office _ _\nFour-car garage \t\nAlterations to pump-house \t\nFour-car garage -\nEnlarged warehouse and office building \t\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage .\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage .\nFour-car garage \t\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage .\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage .\nOffice and stores building, four-car garage .\nBoat-house -\t\nWarehouse \t\nContract\t\nContract \t\nDay-labour _\nContract \t\nContract __ _\t\nDay-labour\t\nContract _ _\nDay-labour _..\t\nDay-labour\t\nContract \t\nContract\t\nContract _\t\nForest Service project\nForest Service project\nForest Service project\nContract \t\nForest Service project\nContract\t\nDay-labour\t\nContract \t\nContract\t\nForest Service project\nForest Service project\nContract\t\nContract \t\nContract\t\nContract\t\nContract\t\nPlans in preparation.\nContract\t\nOffice and stores building .\nWa r eh ouse\t\nBoat-house\t\nAssistant Ranger headquarters.\nFour-car garage\nStorage-basin at Forest Service Marine Station\t\nSprinkler system at Forest Service Marine Station .\nStorage-floor, warehouse \t\nAssistant Ranger headquarters \t\nContract\t\nContract \t\nContract\t\nContract\t\nContract\t\nLabour contract \t\nPlans in preparation.\nContract \u2014\nPlans in preparation.\nDay-labour -\nForest Service project\nContract\t\nContract\t\nContract\t\nContract \t\nForest Service project\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nWork proceeding.\nWork proceeding.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nWork proceeding.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nWork proceeding.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nWork proceeding.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\nWork proceeding.\nWork proceeding.\nCompleted.\nCompleted.\n* Denotes project started last year (see page 65 of 1949 Annual Report).\nROADS AND TRAILS\nThe road and trail programme featured for the first time in last year's Annual\nReport was continued on a similar scale in 1950. Again, the emphasis was placed on\nmaintenance rather than on new construction.\nIn the summary below the work accomplished is segregated into light, medium, and\nheavy categories, based on the difficulty encountered.\nLight\nMedium\nHeavy\nTotal\nMiles\n20.9\n193.5\nMiles\n18.3\n56.6\nMiles\n29.4\n38.3\nMiles\n68.6\n288.4\n214.4\n74.9\n67.7\n357.0\n24.0\n668.0\n16.3\n330.3\n43.8\n150.9\n84.1\n1,149.2\n692.0\n346.6\n194.7\n1 233 3 OO 58 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nRADIO COMMUNICATION\nDuring the year 1950-51 expansion in communications added fifty-one transmitting\nunits to the Forest Service network. A steady improvement in the reliability and speed\nof message-handling was reflected in the phenomenal increase in traffic handled by radio\nwhich, during 1950, totalled 33,000 messages.\nNew units added include nearly all Forest Service types, with the inclusion of F.M.\nequipment for the first time. Various types purchased were as follows:\u2014\nSPF portable trans-receiver * 31\nPAC 10-watt trans-receiver 2\nHQT-200-8 200-watt transmitter, eight channels 3\nRS-100-T 100-watt transmitter, four channels 2\nMRT-25 25-watt marine transmitter, five channels 2\nMRT-100 100-watt marine transmitter, five channels 3\nHOC 50-watt transmitter, three channels 1\nF.M. 30-watt trans-receiver 6\nF.M. 15-watt trans-receiver, mobile 3\nTotal 53\nIn the Prince Rupert Forest District, previously isolated from radio contact with\nthe other districts and Victoria, 1950 brought a marked improvement in communication,\nwith the installation of new equipment and the reorganization of the network. At headquarters a 200-watt transmitter of eight channels now connects Prince Rupert to Victoria\nthroughout the daylight hours and puts a strong signal into all parts of the district.\nA steel tower supporting a multiple aerial system provides the district headquarters for\nthe first time with an efficient outlet for its transmissions. Two Ranger stations were\nequipped with the new Forest Service development\u2014the type RS-100-T transmitter of\n100 watts which replaced the small 10-watt units found to be ineffective in that locality.\nTwo Ranger stations were also equipped with remote-control receivers.\nIn the Vancouver Forest District three more Ranger launches were brought up to\ndate with modern 100-watt five-channel marine transmitters, and Vancouver headquarters station was connected successfully to Ranger stations at Duncan and Langford by\nmeans of 150-megacycle F.M. Changes anticipated in the main transmitting and receiving equipment of the Vancouver station have not yet been carried out, but a new 200-watt\ntransmitter was constructed and is nearly ready for installation. All Assistant Ranger\nlaunches are now equipped with 25-watt transmitters, and these have proved extremely\nsuccessful.\nIn the Kamloops and Fort George Forest Districts no radical changes were made,\nalthough both districts, particularly the former, showed a marked increase in messages\nhandled.\nNelson headquarters station was brought up to standard with a 200-watt transmitter,\nand it was intended to install a new six-channel remote receiver also, but this project has\nnot yet been completed. The loss of the remote-control site and the necessity for evacuation of the area immediately forced the selection of a new site and the building of a\nnew remote-control station during the late summer. In spite of difficulties and delays,\nthis station was completed before weather conditions could stop construction, and results\nso far obtained are a great improvement over those obtained at the old site.\nIn Victoria, in addition to a continuous programme of construction work on new\nequipment, experimental work was carried out with F.M. on 150 megacycles with the\npresent very useful Victoria-Vancouver circuit as the result. Experimental work was\ndone also on the design for a new-type light-weight \" Fire Portable \" transmitter-receiver.\nThis unit has not been tested in the field, and results will not be known until another fire\nseason has passed. \u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0^\u25a0^\u25a0Ml\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 59\nThe use of F.M. for the first time during 1950 provided a small complete network\nwhich proved extremely practical and efficient in traffic-handling. At the same time,\nmuch useful information was obtained regarding the behaviour of frequencies of 150\nmegacycles and above in relation to long-distance transmission over rough terrain. In\nconsideration of the use of F.M. on a large scale to replace medium frequencies, results\nobtained so far lead us to the following conclusions:-\u2014\n(a) Distances of 100 miles or over can be achieved with a frequency above\n150 megacycles.\n(b) To cover any distance over 10 miles successfully, a relay or repeater\npoint between 800 and 1,000 feet high is absolutely essential.\n(c) Repeater points, to be practical, must have both road and power facilities\navailable, and must be below snow-level.\n(d) Mobile F.M. transmission will be successful only when a number of\nrepeater stations are in operation.\n(e) F.M. units, when carefully established as a result of experiments by a\ntechnician, definitely solve the noise-level problem and show little tendency to fade as a result of weather conditions.\n(\/) Expansion on the very high frequencies is possible, but not on a wide\nscale until power and road facilities are extended to a large number of\nsuitable high points. The other major difficulty is the high cost involved,\nwhich will confine Forest Service installations to the Vancouver Forest\nDistrict for the present, unless the Service is denied the use of medium\nfrequencies.\nNo changes in Forest Service frequencies were made by the Department of Transport\nduring the year, but six new frequencies were added, between 152 megacycles and 174\nmegacycles, for F.M. use only.\nAt the close of 1950 the number of sets in use, exclusive of those ordered but\nundelivered, is as follows:\nType Number\nMRT-100, MRT-25,\nmarine 24\nRemote receivers\u2014\nHeadquarters 6\nRanger 8\nF.M 8\nF.M. mobile 2\nType\nSPF \t\nNumber\n- 331\nPAC\n. 54\nS-25- - \t\n_ 5\n5-50\n... 2\n100-watt composite\nRS-100-T\n1\n2\nHQT-200-8 \t\n_ 5\nTotal, all types 448\nMessages handled by all forest districts during the year, exclusive of weather reports,\nunnumbered notes, and conversations, reached the following totals (the totals for 1949\nare shown also for comparison): \u2014 Number of Messages\nDistrict 1949 1950\nPrince Rupert 1,338 3,170\nFort George 2,078 2,831\nKamloops . 2,023 2,990\nManning Park 448\nVancouver 5,952 10,386\nNelson 2,211 4,308\nVictoria \u201e 5,731 9,309\nTotals . 19,333 33,442\nThe number of messages for 1950 was nearly double that for 1949, the phenomenal\nincrease being due, in part, to improved equipment and the addition of the F.M. circuit. 00 60\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nSLASH-DISPOSAL AND SNAG-FALLING\nBecause of climatic conditions, results of slash-disposal in the Vancouver Forest\nDistrict in .1950 were disappointing.\nSpring slash-burning was delayed by the late spring and the heavy snow which\nremained on many of the slash areas until after the opening of the fire season. The\nopportunities for slash-disposal in September were brief because of the protracted fall\nhazard and necessitated working the week-end of September 30th by those operators who\nsecured optimum results. Rain on October 2nd made further broadcast-burning impossible. Due to these factors 45 per cent of the 47,800 acres of slash requiring burning was\nnot done this year (for reference see Tables Nos. 44 and 45 of the Appendix).\nThe same tables show the increasing acreage of slash where spot-burning only is\nrequired\u201416,890 acres in 1950. Since only a small fraction of this acreage is actually\nburned, the true area of slash which was not required to be burned is much greater than\nthe 28,736 acres which Table No. 44 indicates.\nThroughout the year, snag-falling in the Vancouver Forest District logging operations\nremained at a high level of performance, as indicated in Table No. 42. In addition,\nprogress was made in snagging selected areas of old snags occurring in logging done prior\nto the implementation of section 113 of the \" Forest Act.\" The planning of these firebreaks was co-ordinated with the work of the Reforestation Division and the snag-free\nplanted areas. In 1950, 1,500 acres were snagged either by contract or by day-labour at\nLower Campbell Lake, Brewster Lake, Robertson River, and Rosewall, and this work was\npaid for from the accumulated assessment fund. In addition, the Reforestation Division\nsnagged 11,440 acres in 1950 in advance of planting (see the section of this Report under\n\"Reforestation\").\nThe slash and snag tables in the Appendix were increased and rearranged this year\nto give a more comprehensive picture of what happened during 1950 in this very\nimportant phase of forestry work.\nFIRE-LAW ENFORCEMENT\nIn an attempt to reduce the number of man-caused fires in 1950, information was\nlaid in forty-three cases during the year. As will be noted from Table No. 58 (see\nAppendix), only one of these cases was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence, and the\nnumber of cases brought into Court was increased by 38 per cent. Campers and smokers\ncaused 6 per cent more fires in 1950 than the previous ten-year average (see Table No.\n51), hence rigorous prosecutions for infractions will have to be continued next year.\nFOREST CLOSURES\nAgain it was unnecessary to hamper the Coast industry by invoking a general closure.\nAs in 1949, many operators voluntarily went on early-morning shift or closed \"entirely\nwhen local hazard build-ups occurred.\nRegional closures were again invoked where warranted by existing forest values and\nhazard conditions. In some cases these were enforced by closure gates and Forest Service\nattendants. In other less-frequented areas, warnings of the closures through the press,\nradio, and poster advertising sufficed.\nFOREST CLOSURES, 1950\nArea\nDistrict\nEffective\nDate\nTermination\nDate\nSayward Forest \t\nVancouver\nKamloops\nNelson\nNelson\nNelson\nNelson\nJuly 5\nJuly 7\nJuly 27\nAug. 5\nAug. 11\nSept. 22\nSept. 25\nOct 5\nHartley Creek-Sulphur Creek \t\nOct. 5\nOct 5 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 61\nCO-OPERATION\u2014OTHER AGENCIES\nThe usual excellent co-operation from honorary fire wardens must be acknowledged\nwith thanks and appreciation. In 1950 the honorary fire warden organization numbered\n837 throughout the Province. These public-spirited citizens voluntarily undertake fire-\nfighting duties in their local communities year after year, thus augmenting the Forest\nService staff and performing a most valuable function in the forest fire-suppression\norganization.\nIn addition, there were 694 fire-prevention officers appointed under authority of\nsection 123 of the \"Forest Act.\" These men are appointed at the request of their\nemployers in forest industry and have the same authority as a forest officer on the particular operation with which they are concerned.\nAcknowledgment must again be made for the excellent co-operation received from\nthe Royal Canadian Air Force and from commercial air lines and private pilots in\ndetecting and reporting fires. OO 62\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nFOREST-INSECT INVESTIGATIONS*\nFOREST-INSECT SURVEY\nThe forest-insect survey in British Columbia enjoyed the closest support and cooperation of the British Columbia Forest Service during 1950. Additional to insect\ncollections, the Forest Service field staff contributed greatly in providing special reports\non insect conditions and through the provision of travel facilities by road, water, and air.\nSurvey collections for the year totalled 6,317, of which 776 were submitted by Forest\nService personnel as follows: Vancouver District, 245; Prince Rupert District, 108;\nFort George District, 139; Kamloops District, 153; and Nelson District, 131. Of the\nmany pests investigated during the year, two are of major importance at present\u2014the\nspruce bud-worm and bark-beetles.\nWBfr\nForest-insect investigations camp occupied during 1950 at Bolean Lake-\ntor the spruce bark-beetle.\n-the study centre\nSpruce Bud-worm.\u2014An extensive outbreak of the spruce bud-worm was discovered\nnear Burns Lake in the Prince Rupert Forest District. Covering an area of some 380\nsquare miles, it is bordered on the west by a line from Burns Lake to Babine Lake,\nextending eastward about 36 miles to an apex at Helen Lake, including Augier, Pinkut,\nand Taltapin Lakes. Small infestations occur on the north side of Babine Lake opposite\nDonald Landing and on the south side near Topley. Ranger S. T. Strimbold, British\nColumbia Forest Service, Burns Lake, reported continuing infestation eastward to Fort\n* Prepared by Forest Insect Investigations, Science Service, Dominion Department of Agriculture, Victoria and\nVernon Laboratories. ' :-.-\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 63\nSt. lames as observed from the air. Complete defoliation occurred only on the under-\nstory of balsam, particularly where it occurred below an overstory of pine. General\ndefoliation on spruce and balsam was about 20 per cent. Evidence was not available to\ne'stablish whether or not this outbreak represents a one- or two-year life-cycle, since 1950\nwas the flight year for moths of both the one- and two-year-cycle bud-worm. In view\nof the spruce-balsam forest associated with this outbreak, a two-year-cycle is suggested,\nas is typical of bud-worm in British Columbia on these hosts. If such is the case, the\nseriousness of this outbreak is lessened, since severe defoliation occurs only at alternate\nyears, giving the tree an opportunity to recuperate.\nElsewhere in the Province the bud-worm was particularly active, with noticeable\ndefoliation in the Fort George District as follows: Bowron-Isaac Lake chain north-west\nto Narrow Lake, an area approximately 50 miles long by 20 miles wide; between the\nCrooked and Parsnip Valleys; headwaters of Torpy River west of Nation River.\nIn the Kamloops District localized infestations were recorded at Sock and Johnson\nLakes, Cicero Creek, Martin Creek, Monashee Summit, Silver Hills, and Bear Creek.\nIn the Nelson District there was light to medium infestation at Inonoaklin Crossing and\nat Kettle Crossing.\nThe actual damage to timber by this insect has been minor despite its activity, and\nthere is little to indicate any timber losses in the immediate future.\nBark-beetles.\u2014Bark-beetles constituted the most serious insect in the Interior forests for 1950. Extensive infestations of the mountain-pine beetle, Dendroctonus mon-\nticolai Hopk., have occurred during the past several years in the lodgepole-pine stands\nof the East Kootenays. The largest of these are in the White River valley, between\nForster and Frances Creeks, on Steamboat Mountain, and in the Windermere Creek\nvalley. The latter infestation mushroomed in the past two years and now covers the\nnorth slope of the valley for a distance of about 6 miles.\nThe mountain-pine beetle has continued to spread through the white-pine stands of\nthe Revelstoke and Shuswap Lake areas. Active infestations occur near Miles 42, 47,\nand 54 north of Revelstoke, while to the south the beetle is active on Mount Macpherson,\nat Greenslide, and near Arrowhead. In the Shuswap Lake area most of the white pine\nbetween Cape Horn and Encounter Point on the west side of Seymour Arm is now under\nattack, and other areas of infestation occur on Anstey Arm, south of Cinnemousun\nNarrows, and near Celista.\nAlthough there has been no major outbreak of the Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus\npseudotsugai Hopk., this species has been taking a steady annual toll of mature and overmature trees throughout the range of Douglas fir in the Interior of the Province.\nThe importance of the continual loss which may, in the aggregate, amount to as\nmuch as 40 per cent of the merchantable lumber on an area, has not been fully appreciated in the past. This year an appraisal has been made of an endemic infestation near\nQuesnel as a preliminary step in an investigation of the problem in relation to forest\nmanagement.\nSPECIAL STUDIES\nEngelmann Spruce Bark-beetle.\u2014An intensive study of the relationship of bark-\nbeetle increase and forest management was initiated in the spruce-balsam stands at\nBolean Lake in the Kamloops Forest District. This infestation is the first major outbreak\nin British Columbia since the disastrous outbreak in Colorado which started in 1939\nand resulted in an estimated loss of from three to four billion board-feet of Engelmann\nspruce. This project has three objectives: (1) To determine the cause of the population build-up, (2) to assess the influence of the selective-logging method in use in the\nBolean Lake area on this build-up, and (3) to study the life-history and habits of this\nspecies under the conditions of the spruce-balsam forests of the Southern Interior of\nBritish Columbia. OO 64\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nA \" brood cage \" housing infested spruce logs for studies on the spruce bark-beetle,\nBolean Lake, 1950.\nInformation on the first two points has been gathered by an intensive cruise of the\narea in question and extensive cruises of the adjacent stands to determine the nature,\nextent, and distribution of the infestations, and by the intensive examination of a 1-acre\nplot in the centre of the original infestation to determine the progressive development of\nthe population, the optimum breeding areas, and the relationship of stand treatment to\nthe build-up. In addition, reproduction plots were set up to see whether or not part of\nthe cost of a bark-beetle control project might not justifiably be charged against reforestation. The bionomics of the species are being studied by the felling of trap-trees and\nthe construction of brood-cages. With only one season's work completed, conclusions\nare indefinite as yet. There should result, however, some very definite information on\nbark-beetle population build-up as related to blow-down and slash following selective\nlogging, and the significance of resultant regeneration as developed from present logging\npractices in this forest type.\nDeterioration of Hemlock-looper-killed Timber.\u2014The mortality of timber defoliated by the hemlock looper on Vancouver Island has been traced through the study of\nsample plots established throughout heavily attacked stands. The initial defoliation,\nwhich occurred during 1945 and 1946, predisposed epidemics of secondary bark-mining\ninsects that have succeeded in killing many weakened trees. This subsequent mortality\nculminated between 1948 and 1949, when secondary insect populations reached a peak.\nFurther killing between 1949 and 1950 dropped to such a low proportion of the total\ndamage that the examination of the permanent sample plots will probably be discontinued during 1951. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 65\nJoint studies pertaining to the loss in volume and value of this dead timber were\ncontinued during the summer in co-operation with the Dominion Forest Pathology\nLaboratory and Bloedel, Stewart & Welch Limited. Insects have not been primarily\nresponsible for the loss in either volume or grade of dead Western hemlock. Instead, the\ndecay organism, Fomes pinicola (Sw.) Cke., has not only caused most of the direct loss,\nbut has been responsible for considerable loss due to breakage. The reduction in volume-\nreturn from large bodies of dead hemlock has been extensive enough to warrant the\ndiscontinuation of salvage operations in some localities.\nNew forest-insect laboratory erected at Vernon in conjunction with British Columbia Forest\nService Ranger establishment. This building will be available for occupancy about April, 1 951.\nChemical Control of Ambrosia-beetles.\u2014A field experiment designed to test the\nefficacy of several chemicals in preventing excessive \" pinworm \" damage in recently\nfelled timber was carried out at Cowichan Lake. Eight second-growth Douglas-fir logs\nwere felled and treated in July. When these were examined in October, it was found\nthat benzine hexachloride, when applied either in a fuel-oil solution or in a water emul- OO 66 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nsion, proved successful in preventing a moderate ambrosia-beetle attack. These results\nare encouraging because they indicate that the transportation cost and added fire-hazard\ninvolved in applying an oil spray may be eliminated by using benzine hexachloride in a\nwater emulsion. Further work in chemical control of these insects is projected for 1951.\nForest-nursery Insect Studies.\u2014The strawberry root-weevil assumed importance\nduring 1950 in the Duncan Nursery. At the time of planting, seedlings with roots\nattacked were found in a number of beds. Later examination revealed a light but rather\ngeneral population in the 2-0 beds. Development of larvae in these beds was kept under\nobservation and, when young adults were noted, poison-bait barriers were spread about\nthe nursery boundaries. As a result, hundreds of potential invading beetles from adjoining land were found dead amidst the bait. It is unlikely that populations of any account\nbecame established within the nursery, and protection of the 1952 crop seems to have\nbeen achieved. Similar measures may be required in 1951.\nEvidence of white grubs was found for the first time at the Duncan Nursery in 1950.\nAlthough now present, the insect so far is not important. At the Quinsam Nursery the\ninsect showed both a decline in attack and activity during 1950. This is no doubt due\nto the present crop growing upon land treated in 1949 with benzine hexachloride.\nSince soil-insects and nursery-rotations provide rather complicated interrelationships, considerable attention and study were directed to analysing mechanical requirements for chemical control. It appears that present nursery equipment can be inexpensively adapted to provide these facilities and that no interference with ordinary nursery\nprocedures seems necessary. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 67\nFOREST-DISEASE INVESTIGATIONS*\nThe activities of the forest-disease laboratory were expanded during 1950 to provide\nfor studies of extended duration in forest-disease examination and control. These developments were made possible in large part through the co-operation of the British Columbia\nForest Service by reserving selected areas of representative forest land for continuing\npathological research. Thus a 70-acre experimental forest was reserved in second-growth\nDouglas fir and Western hemlock on Vancouver Island and 140 acres were reserved in\nthe Nelson District for continuing research on the pole-blight disease of Western white\npine. In addition, 25 acres were set aside in the Fort George District to provide for an\nanalysis of the progressive deterioration of wind-thrown spruce.\nField personnel during 1950 totalled forty-five, of which twenty-one were permanent\nmembers of the forest-disease laboratory and twenty-four were student assistants and\nlabourers. The further co-operation of the Forest Service in providing six of the latter\npersonnel is hereby gratefully acknowledged.\nPublications distributed during 1950 included the following:\u2014\nBrowne, J. E.; Foster, A. T.; and Thomas, G. P.: A Preliminary Investigation\ninto the Decay Losses Sustained in Western Hemlock and Amabilis Fir\nin the Upper Kitimat Region. Dom. Lab. of For. Pathology. Mimeographed. May, 1950.\nFoster, R. E., and Craig, H. M.: Preliminary Decay Analyses of Western\nHemlock in the Big Bend Region of British Columbia. Dom. Lab. of\nFor. Pathology, Victoria. Mimeographed. March, 1950.\nThomas, G. P.: Two New Outbreaks of Phomopsis lokoya in British Columbia. Can. Jour. Res., C, 28: 477-481. October, 1950.\nDISEASES OF MATURE AND OVERMATURE FORESTS\n1. Studies of decay in mature and overmature Douglas fir were conducted in the\nNimpkish Lake area, Vancouver Island. Preliminary evaluations of the data accumulated\nin other areas of the southern coastal region over the past several years indicate that, under\nnormal conditions, heart-rot losses are of secondary importance in the utilization of this\nspecies. Over most of the region average losses from decay were found to be less than\n10 per cent. At Bella Coola and at Nanoose, however, losses in excess of \\ 5 per cent were\nrecord. Further analyses of the basic data are in progress.\n2. Investigations of decay in Western hemlock and amabilis fir were continued in\nthe Prince Rupert Forest District. A further sample of 8.25 acres was obtained in the\nLakelse and Kitsumgallum areas, bringing the total number of examinations in this region\nto 472 hemlock and 406 fir. Present results indicate that the excessive cull losses recorded\nduring 1949 do not apply over the entire region. Thus current analyses provide cull\ndeductions of approximately 45 per cent in Western hemlock and 23 per cent in fir, as\ncompared with the previous reference to 67 and 62 per cent respectively. Continuing\nanalyses are being undertaken in an effort to define the varying stand conditions and thus\nprovide a direct measure of hidden defect.\n3. The inventory examination of Western hemlock in the Big Bend region received\nfurther consideration during the past year. Plots were examined at Wigwam and between\nMiles 30 and 48 on the Columbia River north of Revelstoke. Twenty-eight plots comprising a total of 7 acres and 668 hemlock of merchantable size have now been analysed.\nPresent analyses indicate that the highly defective condition reported in 1949 extends over\nthe entire region of mature hemlock. Thus cull factors in excess of 60 per cent appear\nto be consistent within sites 80 and 100. Further sampling in younger stands and on\nbetter sites is contemplated.\n\"This section of the Report has been prepared by the Laboratory of Forest Pathology, Science Service, Dominion\nDepartment of Agriculture, Victoria, B.C. OO 68\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n4. Four acres in the spruce-balsam type were examined in the vicinity of Summit\nLake in the Fort George Forest District. Sixteen plots were felled, yielding a total of\n335 spruce and 67 amabilis fir. Additional trees were felled to provide an adequate\nTrunk symptoms of the pole-blight disease of Western white pine, showing long narrow lesions\nadjacent to the inner bark and associated pitch exudation.\nsample in the larger diameter-classes. The sample was representative of typical 200-\nyear-old spruce-balsam stands on site 100 in the region under consideration. Decay\nlosses amounted to 16 per cent in spruce and 24 per cent in balsam in board-foot measure. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 69\nButt-rots were the cause of most decay in both species and, in addition, contributed to\nexcessive wind-fall.\n5. Examinations of hemlock-looper-killed stands on Lower Vancouver Island were\ncontinued. It was found that decay and breakage losses in Western hemlock had increased\napproximately 20 per cent over the past two years, cumulative defect amounting to 31 per\ncent exclusive of normal heart-rot. The probable net recovery of hemlock, excluding\nlosses subsequent to felling, was estimated at approximately 55 per cent of the total stand\nvolume of this species.\n6. Twenty plots were established in the Crescent Spur area, Fort George District,\nto provide for the continuing analysis of deterioration in wind-thrown spruce and amabilis\nfir. A total of 1,069 trees, of which 505 were standing and 564 totally or partially\nuprooted or broken, were tagged for future study. Of this latter group, 80 per cent were\ndead, 20 per cent living. Preliminary analyses indicate that existing losses are confined\nto sap stain.\nDISEASES OF IMMATURE FORESTS\n1. Seventy acres of second-growth Douglas fir and hemlock were placed in reserve\nfor pathological studies in the Alberni region. It is intended to establish permanent\nsample plots in order to study the nature, and to follow the course, of disease in immature\nstands. Experimental thinning and related operations will be carried out for purposes of\ndisease-control.\n2. An intensive survey of the Douglas-fir root-rot caused by Poria weirii was undertaken in the coastal region. Present results indicate the existence of different strains of\nthe fungus and a varying susceptibility of Douglas fir, hemlock, and Western red cedar.\nThus cedar appears to be relatively free from this disease on the Coast, yet Douglas fir\nmay be subject to considerable loss under similar stand conditions. In the Interior, cedar\nand fir appear to be attacked with equal vigour. Further investigations will be undertaken\nto determine the silvicultural implications of these findings and the effect of thinning as\na control measure.\n3. A detailed examination of the blister-rust control programme in Wisconsin was\nundertaken during 1950. It was found that certain of the existing techniques employed\nin the isolation and testing of resistant trees may be applicable in British Columbia.\nCuttings of Eastern Ribes sp. were established in an experimental disease-garden on Lower\nVancouver Island to provide for the possible development of geographic races of the\nblister-rust organism.\n4. A meeting was held in the Arrow Lakes region for the purpose of reviewing\ncurrent investigations on the pole-blight disease of Western white pine. Twenty-seven\nAmerican and Canadian foresters and pathologists were in attendance. An examination\nof 50-year-old pine in the Shawnigan Lake area, Vancouver Island, supported previous\nindications that the distribution of pole-blight in British Columbia was confined to the\nInterior region. Surveys conducted in the vicinity of Shuswap Lake, north of Sicamous,\nextended the known distribution of the disease to this area. Permanent plots were established in the Silverton area to determine the progress of the disease and the effect of pine\nmortality on associated species. In addition, sanitation cutting was undertaken to determine the feasibility of protecting healthy pine through the elimination of infected trees.\nA total of 255 pines was removed from 8.1 acres. Eighteen permanent sample plots were\nestablished to study the subsequent progress of the disease in the remaining 210 pines.\nInoculation experiments were conducted, using the most frequently occurring organisms\nisolated from the inner bark and lesions of infected pine.\n5. An investigation of a report of heavy cankering of a 5 3-year-old stand of lodge-\npole pine in the Kelowna area, Kamloops Forest District, revealed an epidemic incidence\nof infection by two organisms. Heavy damage was caused by a rust, Cronartium stalacti-\nforme, and a canker organism believed to be Atropellis sp. Combined infection was as OO 70\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nhigh as 100 per cent in localized areas. It was evident that heavy infection occurred early\nin the life of the stand and that the present infection is not spreading appreciably. Infection in adjacent areas was not high.\n6. An examination of lodgepole-pine stands in the Cariboo District indicated severe\ninfection by the mistletoe, Arceuthobium americanum, from Clinton through to Williams\nLake. It appears that this parasite has been active for a number of years and that many\nof the'infected trees will eventually be killed or will fail to reach merchantable size within\nan economic rotation.\nSevere infection of the lodgepole-pine mistletoe, Arceuthobium americanum, north of Clinton.\n7. The first authentic record of Douglas-fir mistletoe, Arceuthobium douglassii, in\nBritish Columbia was obtained in the vicinity of Keremeos. Heavy infections were noted\nin restricted localities on mature trees and on reproduction. Further records of the disease were obtained at Westbank, Kelowna, and in the Kootenay District from Gray Creek\nto Sirdar.\nDISEASES OF NURSERY STOCK\nPostponement of the research programme of nursery disease was necessitated through\nthe temporary transfer of personnel to the University of Michigan. Continuing research\nis being conducted at this latter location with equipment and facilities not at present available in British Columbia. A general survey of conditions at Duncan, Quinsam, and Green\nTimbers Nurseries indicates, however, that mortality losses through disease were at a\nminimum during 1950. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 71\nFOREST RANGER SCHOOL\nDue to the introduction in 1949 of a three-term course spread over one and a half\nyears, the fourth class to attend the Ranger School took its third and final term between\nJanuary 5th and April 6th, 1950. This term was devoted to the following subjects:\u2014\nNumber\nof Hours\n1. Forest Management 110\n(a) Review of the \" Forest Act.\"\n(b) Management Policies and Procedures.\n2. Grazing Management 40\n(a) \" Grazing Act,\" \"Animals Act,\" etc.\n(b) Administration of Crown Range.\n3. Log-scaling, Theory and Practice 90\n4. Stumpage Appraisals 25\n5. Silviculture (Silvics and Application in British Columbia)\u2014. 80\n6. Forest Pathology (Tree-diseases in British Columbia) 16\n7. Botany (Identification of British Columbia Trees and Woods) 35\n8. Forest Inventory Mapping 30\n9. General Review, \" Operation \" Subjects 30\nField-trips, Miscellaneous 44\n500\nIt is not possible to accurately assess the value of the extra three months' training\nto the graduates in terms of increased proficiency, but some advantages are clear. With\nyounger and less-experienced candidates to draw from, basic instruction in fundamentals\nrequires more attention, as a substitute for the knowledge which it was assumed former\nclasses had gained from experience. The instructional staff has increased time for this\nfurther elaboration of each subject as required. The students themselves are under less\npressure and can be expected to retain more of the knowledge imparted. Finally, with\nthe course spread over three terms, it is possible to spend more time on reviews and\ncorrecting weaknesses which show up in the summer interval when the students are\nengaged in putting their newly acquired knowledge and skills to use.\nThe fifth, or 1950-51, class reported to the School on September 18th and immediately commenced the three months' course of study outlined below. There are twenty-one\nstudents in the class with representation from all forest districts, as shown in Table No. 60\nof the Appendix. These men will continue their studies during 1951 after a three weeks'\nbreak for Christmas and statutory holiday leaves.\nFirst-term Curriculum, September 18th to December 19th, 1950\nOperation Number\nof Hours\n1. Fire Law and General Operation Procedure 70\n2. Preliminary Fire Organization 60\n3. Construction Techniques 50\n4. Office Methods 20\n5. Public Speaking 30\n 230 OO 72 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nGeneral\n1. Mathematics Review 20\n2. Surveying (Part 1) 150\n3. Forest Inventory Mapping 30\n4a. Elementary Botany 40\n 240\nTests and Miscellaneous : 30\n500\nEXTRA COURSES\nA special one-week course was given to lookout-men appointed to the Vancouver\nForest District. This followed the spring term and is the third course of this nature given\nat the School.\nIn addition to the necessary training in the detection and reporting of forest fires,\ninstruction in the use and maintenance of weather-recording instruments was stressed.\nA noticeable point in respect to this short course is that, although the men are for\nthe most part definitely inexperienced (the majority are still at university or fresh from\nhigh school), reports again indicate that their work during the season has been quite\nsatisfactory. While this may well be due to the type of men the Service has been fortunate\nenough to obtain, there is, nevertheless, much for a \" green \" man to learn before he can\nfulfil his duties adequately on the lookout. Perhaps due to the type of man required and\nthe nature of the work, there appears to be a large turnover in this position. With new\nmen coming to the job each year, the course covers an important field.\nBUILDING AND GROUNDS\nA number of improvements to the buildings were made by the staff during the\nsummer recess. A considerable amount of repainting was found necessary and was\naccomplished.\nA new building, 16 by 14 feet, was erected by the staff to accommodate material and\nequipment used in the maintenance of the grounds. In addition, a small frost-proof\nbuilding was put up to house two Bickle-Seagrave pumps, adjoining the 16,000-gallon\nwater-reservoir constructed last year. The two pumps supply water under adequate\npressure for fire-fighting emergencies to two stand-pipes installed at strategic locations\nwith respect to the School buildings.\nPaving of the entrance-road from the gate on the Nichol Road to the driveways\nleading to the main buildings was completed. The road leading to the garage was given\na flush-coat and fine gravel finish.\nLandscaping and planting proceeded throughout the summer; the grounds now\ncompare very favourably with any similar institution. Lawn curbing (cement), where\nrequired to protect flower beds, and lawn edging have been constructed, and the whole is\nnow well on the way to finished grounds.\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nThe School again wishes to acknowledge with thanks the assistance received from\nthe undermentioned organizations, whose aid materially added to the efficacy of the\ncourses: The Division of Plant Pathology, Dominion Department of Agriculture (Forest\nPathology); the Division of Entomology, Dominion Department of Agriculture (Forest\nEntomology); ex-Provincial Police (Law Enforcement); St. John Ambulance Society\n(First Aid); the University of British Columbia for its co-operation and accommodation\nat its Loon Lake camp in the Haney Forest (where the School carried out survey and\nforest mensuration exercises); B.C. Forest Products Limited, Youbou, for transportation in connection with field work in the Nitinat Valley; and to the Victoria Lumber\nCompany for transportation and assistance in slash-disposal and logging-inspection field\nwork. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 73\nPUBLIC RELATIONS AND EDUCATION\nIncreasing volume and diversity in all phases of the Division's work during the year\nstressed the need for expansion in staff, equipment, and working-space. It is particularly desirable that an additional technician be secured for the Photographic Section if\nthe present volume and quality of work is to be maintained. Additional working-space\nand improved facilities in the form of a proper darkroom, projection-room, general\nworkroom, and storage-space for publications, exhibits, and the photographic library are\nurgently required.\nPRESS AND RADIO\nThe Division produced a series of six forest-protection advertisements, each of\nwhich appeared, during the five-month fire season, in ten daily and seventy-four weekly\nnewspapers. In addition, the series, in part or \"in whole, also appeared in eighteen periodicals and trade journals. This coverage represented a modest increase over the previous year of three weekly newspapers and three periodicals. The layout, copy, and\nscheduling of this series was the work of the Division, while the artwork was produced\nby the Government Printing Bureau. The issuing of insertion instructions to the various\npublications was handled through an agency.\nPre-fire-season advertisements, three in number, were placed in the daily and\nweekly press prior to the fire season. These advertisements appeared in seven daily and\nthirty-five weekly newspapers in the Vancouver Forest District and in two weeklies in\nthe Peace River Block, Fort George Forest District. Copy for these advertisements was\nthe product of the Division, and insertion instructions were issued directly to the publications concerned.\nIn addition to these two series of forest-protection advertisements, twenty-four\nspecial layouts with copy were prepared for a like number of publications reaching a\nwide cross-section of the population.\nThe Division prepared and released, through the Legislative Press Gallery, a number of special items of interest concerning the activities of the Service.\nThe forest-protection and educational radio campaign was doubled over that of the\nprevious year, which enabled the broadcasting of fifty-two fifteen-second flash announcements over each of the eighteen radio stations operating in the Province. Copy for these\nbroadcasts was produced by the Division, and the scheduling of the standard portion of\nthe series was handled directly with the stations. Fire-hazard messages were scheduled\nby district offices. Special messages were prepared and beamed to particular areas in\nresponse to requests received from district offices.\nThe Division is again indebted to both press and radio for their generous support\nin space and time in assisting our protection and educational programmes, and extend\nthanks for this invaluable co-operation.\nPUBLICATIONS\nThe Annual Report of the Service for the calendar year 1949 was edited and distributed by mailing-list and, in response to subsequent requests, to a greater number of\ninterested persons than ever before. Three technical articles, by members of the\nResearch Section of the Forest Economics Division, were edited by the Division and\npublished as Technical Publications T. 33 and T. 34, and Research Note No. 17. The\ntwo technical publications were first published as contributions to the Forestry Chronicle,\nthe Service subsequently purchasing and distributing reprints. Assistance was given to\nother divisions of the Service in the production of one Forest Resources Bulletin (No. 4)\nand three popular bulletins. In addition, the Division compiled and issued the first of a\nseries of illustrated booklets, designed especially for school distribution, entitled \" Illustrated Forest Activities.\" OO 74 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nThe increasing interest in and demand for literature of all classes on forestry was\ndemonstrated by the fact that three publications went into their second printing after\nonly one or two years of distribution, and two older ones were also reprinted. In addition, arrangements were completed to reprint 40,000 copies of the children's booklet\n\"How the Fir Forest Was Saved\"; the first edition was distributed to some 35,000\nschool-children during the spring of the year. The film catalogue was also revised and\nreprinted.\nThe Division designed and distributed the 1951 Forest Service calendar, and\nproduced twelve personnel news-letters, one personnel directory, and two lists of\npublications.\nTwo special-event souvenir folders were printed to commemorate the opening of\nPine Woods Lodge, Manning Park, and the Mount Seymour Park Road. One hundred\nthousand cards urging car-riders to use the ash-trays were printed and distributed to\ndrivers being examined for licences, through the co-operation of the Motor-vehicle\nBranch.\nPHOTOGRAPHY AND MOTION PICTURES\nDuring the year the following photographic prints were supplied to other divisions\nof the Service, outside publications, students, and other interested parties requesting this\nService:\u2014 Description Number\nEnlargements.\u2014\n8 by 10 inches 1,403\n5 by 7 inches 145\nJumbo prints . 125\nMagna prints 612\n4 by 5 inches 141\n2,426\nContact prints 1,020\nTotal prints 3,446\nIn addition to these, contact index prints were made of the 893 new negatives\nentered in the Division files. This volume of work entailed much overtime effort and, in\norder to maintain the quality and quantity of photographic work in the future, the acquisition of an assistant to the photographer, and the construction of proper darkroom\nfacilities are vital.\nA large volume of photographic work on new buildings, launches, logging methods,\ntypes and stands, and research projects was completed on behalf of other divisions of\nthe Service.\nFire and weather charts of the Operation Division, which have been stored for reference in their original large bulky form, are in the process of being photographed and\nreduced to 11- by 14-inch size for filing purposes. At the end of the year 75 per cent\nof the charts of the Vancouver Forest District had been photographed. The remaining\ncharts will be photographed as time permits.\nThree colour-and-sound motion-picture films were completed during the year.\nThese films dealt with forest protection (\"Havoc,\" 500 feet), reforestation (\"Planting\nProsperity,\" 800 feet), and the forest industries (\" Timber-r-r,\" 800 feet), and have\nproven worth-while additions to the Division library. All but the final sounding has\nbeen completed on a film on the Christmas-tree industry (\" Santa's Foresters,\" 800 feet).\nAt the request of the Topographic Survey Division, Lands Service, the Division\nphotographer accompanied a survey party into Northern British Columbia in the vicinity\nof Bowser Lake. This resulted in the production of a colour film of 1,200 feet entitled\n\" Flying Surveyors,\" which was ready for sounding and final editing by the end of the\nyear. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 75\nThe photographer continued to obtain footage in colour for producing educational\nfilms on water power and erosion, the activities of the Forest Service, care and protection\nof fire-fighting equipment, a special project for the Economics Division (Research)\nrecording in continuous motion the growth of a fir-cone from the bud stage, and proper\nrange management. In this connection a total of some 3,200 feet of film was recorded\non these subjects.\nIn carrying out his work during the year, the photographer travelled 12,500 miles\nby car, 1,800 miles by commercial air lines, 2,200 miles by boat, and 130 miles by helicopter, for a total of 16,300 miles.\nFilm Library\nWith the removal of six obsolete subjects which were felt to be detrimental to the\nstanding of the library, and the addition of nine new sound films, seven of which were\nin colour, the motion-picture library ended the calendar year with a stock of seventy-\neight subjects.\nAs in the past, a considerable number of films dealing with forestry and allied\nsciences, and produced by outside commercial agencies, were previewed by members of\nthe Division with a view to purchase. The standard of such educational films is being\nconstantly improved, thus making it possible to purchase several suitable subjects for the\nlibrary.\nThe trend on the part of the public away from silent films continued to be evident\nduring the year, with circulation on silent subjects below that of the previous year.\nHowever, the addition of the new up-to-date productions toward the end of the year\nsaved the library from losing many of its contacts, although the number of individual\nfilms loaned was off 2 per cent from the previous year and 10 per cent in the last two\nyears.\nThe number of loans was up to 416, an increase of 19 over the previous year, an\nindication that the actual use of the library is not falling off. The number of showings\nwas up to a record high of 1,880, an increase of 375 showings over the previous year.\nThis increase was primarily accounted for by the showings given on the school-lecture\ntour.\nThe total audience for the year reached a new record of 165,372 persons, of whom\n26,988 were adults, 95,102 children, and 43,282 not classified. Of the 95,102 children\nviewing the films, 39,633 were reached by the two members of the Division's school-\nlecture tour team. This brings the cumulative total audience for the years 1945 to 1950,\ninclusive, to 494,597, with an average audience of 84 persons.\nA total of 163 showings to 15,300 persons was given by headquarters and district\npersonnel of the Service. The Fort George Forest District again registered the largest\naudience of any district with a total of 4,884, while Nelson led in the number of individual showings with 33.\nThe most widely seen of the educational films were \" Adventures of Junior Raindrop \" (shown 132 times to 12,905 persons), \"Garibaldi Park\" (62 times to 10,460\npersons), and \" Tweedsmuir Park \" (76 times to 9,029 persons).\nCertain American universities continued to utilize the services of our film library,\nand the office of the United States Forest Service at Columbus, Ohio, borrowed films\nfor the first time.\nDuring the year the Division's motion-picture projection equipment was borrowed\nforty-two times by members of other divisions. The two slide projectors were borrowed\na total of twenty-seven times. A tabular statement of the stock and circulation of the\nfilm library appears on page 132 of the Report.\nEXHIBITS\nThe Division concentrated its efforts on three large exhibitions instead of the several\nsmall fall fairs, as had been the policy in the past. In co-operation with the Canadian OO 76 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nForestry Association (British Columbia Branch) a large commercially built display was\nentered in the North Vancouver Exhibition and later in the Pacific National Exhibition\nin Vancouver and the Modern Home Exhibition at New Westminster. At these locations\nthe display caused interest and favourable comment. Due to the Division's lack of\nstorage-space, the exhibit has been left with the Canadian Forestry Association pending\nfurther use. The portable fire-detection display was pressed into service for its third\nyear; this time at the Comox Agricultural and Industrial Fall Fair, Courtenay. A special\nsmall display featuring a selection of Forest Service pumps and technical equipment of\ninterest to the public was arranged for the View Royal Community Fair near Victoria.\nIn all cases where exhibits were shown, a member of the Division was in attendance.\nSIGNS AND POSTERS\nDue to lack of the necessary working-space, it was not possible for members of the\nstaff to continue with the construction of the large forest-protection Scotchlite highway-\nsigns. Therefore, an order was placed with a commercial company to make up a total\nof twenty-five of these signs, using the material previously assembled for that purpose by\nthe Division. This work was completed satisfactorily late in the summer, and five signs\nwere shipped to each district. Each forest district now has ten of these large reflecting-\nsigns for use during the fire season on the main routes of travel within their boundaries.\nSpecial forest-protection highway-signs were designed by the Division for erection\non the Hope-Princeton Highway at the entrance to Manning Park. These signs were\nmost successful and caused favourable comment on the part of the travelling public and\nin the press.\nThe production of standardized directional signs was impossible during the year\nbecause of lack of working-space. In December the Forest Service Marine Station indicated that it was able to initiate the construction of fifty of the Ranger-station signs.\nBy the end of the year, sufficient material had been ordered by the Division and delivered\nto the Marine Station to permit a start to be made on these signs.\nDuring the year the Division designed and distributed eight new coloured forest-\nand range-protection posters of various sizes and shapes. A stock in eleven poster\ndesigns is now available for display during the fire season.\nMISCELLANEOUS MEDIA\nAn oval-shaped coloured decalcomania transfer with a forest-protection message\nand design was produced by the Division for use on automobile windshields during fire\nseasons. Ten thousand copies were secured from a commercial company for distribution\nprior to the 1951 fire season.\nFor the first time the Division utilized the publicity medium of the smaller independent motion-picture theatres throughout the Province with a forest-protection stere-\nopticon slide. This slide was shown on alternate nights during the months of June, July,\nand August in fourteen theatres to an estimated audience of some 60,000 persons. The\nslide was an original design produced by the Division.\nCO-OPERATION\nDuring the months of July and August the Division arranged for an educational\ntour through certain Forest Service installations for members of the junior forest-warden\nmovement encamped at Port Atkinson, Burrard Inlet. Altogether, some 200 junior\nwardens were conducted through the Green Timbers Nursery, Ranger School, Forest\nService Marine Station, and Forest Service Radio Station XL442, Vancouver. Four\ntours were made, each with approximately fifty wardens in attendance. The forester in\ncharge of the division or his assistant supervised each of the tours and spoke to the group\non each occasion. The willing co-operation on the part of the four installations visited REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 77\nis deeply appreciated by the Division and accounted in no small measure for the success\nof the project.\nA total of 837 honorary fire wardens was appointed by the districts during the year.\nTo each appointee went a letter of appreciation over the Minister's signature and a year's\nsubscription to the conservation magazine \" Forest and Outdoors.\"\nThe Division co-operated closely with the Parks and Recreation Division in making\narrangements for and organizing two special events during the year\u2014the opening of Pine\nWoods Lodge, Manning Park, and Mount Seymour Park Road.\nAnother special project was carried out in conjunction with the Reforestation Division and the Vancouver Forest District when members of the press were taken on an\nextensive tour of the planting areas on Vancouver Island. This resulted in many fine\nfactually sound articles in the press on the reforestation and forest-protection activities of\nthe Service.\nFrequent aid in material, suggestions, and assistance in editing manuscripts was\nrendered a number of individuals preparing forestry or forest-industry articles for\npublication.\nShortly after the public-school term commenced in the fall, the Division, with the\nendorsation of the Department of Education and the co-operation of the Canadian Forestry Association (British Columbia Branch), launched a motion picture-lecture tour\nthrough the elementary, junior high, and superior schools of the Province. The Division\nput two lecturers in the field, and the Canadian Forestry Association one. By the year's\nend all schools in these classes on Vancouver Island, and some schools on the Southern\nMainland Coast, had been visited by one of the two lecturers operating in the Vancouver\nForest District. The second Forest Service lecturer toured the Kamloops Forest District\nand had made good progress by the year's end.\nDuring the initial three-month period, from approximately October 15th to December\n15th, 148 lectures were given by the three lecturers and a total school attendance of\n17,706 was recorded. In addition, some 30 special showings (other than to schoolchildren) were presented to audiences totalling 1,655.\nThe talks and films have aroused widespread interest amongst both teachers and\nstudents in the problems of forest management and conservation. The films shown have\nalso stimulated requests for further visual aids, while the inquiries for pamphlets have\nalmost exhausted the available supply.\nIn order to embark on this worth-while project, it was necessary for the Division to\nadd two lecturers to its personnel. One of these, a senior Ranger of long service, was\ntransferred to the Division on a permanent basis, while the other lecturer was added from\noutside the Service on a temporary basis.\nManuscripts for a series of \" Conservation Topics \" for distribution to the schools,\nas follow-ups to the lectures, were at hand and in the process of editing by the end of the\nyear. The Division is indebted to members of the Economics Division (Research), the\nParks and Recreation Division, and the Forest Insect and Forest \"Diseases Investigation\nServices, Dominion Department of Agriculture, for preparing the originals of these\nmanuscripts.\nLIBRARY\nThe library continued to operate at a high level of activity, with a very noticeable\nincrease in the number of requests for loans and information on a wide variety of forestry\nand allied subjects. A large number of special publications covering a broad field of\nactivities was ordered for members of the Service.\nOwing primarily to lack of space, the library is not yet able to provide completely the\nservice for which it was designed. The ever-increasing number of photographic file-\ncabinets and Kodachrome-slide files continues to tax the limited facilities available. The\nalmost constant traffic through the library in connection with photographic matters,\nunfortunately, makes it impossible to maintain an atmosphere conducive to reading or\nserious study. 00 78 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nGRAZING\n1 INTRODUCTION\nThe grass-land and forest ranges of this Province are a valuable resource which, if\nproperly managed, can continue to make large annual contributions to the Provincial\neconomy in perpetuity. They will supply forage for live stock, serve as important\nrecreational areas, and be suitable as a home for game without any reduction in their\nvalue as watershed areas. If mismanaged and allowed to deteriorate, returns in the form\nof meat and wool will diminish and other values will be damaged.\nA very large percentage of the range land in this Province remains as Crown land,\nand the live-stock industry is largely dependent on the Crown range for summer forage.\nThe allocation and preservation of this range is the responsibility of the Forest Service\nand, through close co-operation with and by the stockmen, continued progress toward\nimproved range-management practices was made during 1950.\nADMINISTRATION\nIn view of the necessity of maintaining the closest possible contact with the ranching\nindustry, grazing administration is decentralized to the fullest extent practical. The bulk\nof administrative work is carried out under the direction of the District Forester concerned.\nSpecialized personnel are employed to handle this phase of forest administration at the\ndistrict-office level, and a fair share of the time of the Ranger staff is also devoted to range\nadministration.\nDuring 1950 the volume of routine administrative work was particularly heavy. This\nwas due to numerous factors, including more intensive range management, an increase in\ngrazing fees, and an intensified range-improvement programme. Numerous changes in\nranch ownership, resulting in the necessity of reallocating grazing privileges, meant additional work. Land applications, which must be checked carefully to determine their effect\non the use of Crown range, were numerous. A considerable amount of effort was also\nexpended in improving and clarifying grazing-permit area descriptions.\nEarly in the year the Grazing Regulations were revised and consolidated. The only\ninnovation of importance concerned grazing fees, which were placed on a sliding scale.\nThe fees which had been in effect since 1919 are now used as base fees and are related to\naverage live-stock prices for 1939. The actual fees charged each year are in the same\nratio to the base fees as average prices for the immediately preceding year are to average\nprices for 1939. On this basis, grazing fees charged in 1950 were 16 cents per head per\nmonth for cattle, 20 cents per head per month for horses, and 3XA cents per head per\nmonth for sheep.\nGENERAL CONDITIONS\nThe winter of 1949-50 was extremely cold, a condition detrimental to live stock.\nHowever, in most areas there was an adequate supply of hay, and over-all losses were\nnot much above average. In a few cases, where inadequate hay was provided or where\nstockmen had relied too greatly on winter range, losses were severe. On the average,\nstock were in somewhat poorer condition than desirable when turned out on the range.\nThe advent of spring weather was late and, throughout the range area, forage growth\nwas very slow. Turnout on the spring ranges was delayed as long as possible, but in\nmany areas it became necessary to allow grazing before the range was properly ready for\nuse. With the exception of the East Kootenay Valley and the easterly portion of the\nBoundary country, subsequent summer heat and dry conditions prevented a good\nrecovery on the grass-land ranges. The volume of fall forage was, therefore, below\naverage and, even in the East Kootenay Valley, late summer drought had a detrimental\neffect. . -.\u25a0 - -'-\u25a0 \u25a0\u25a0\u25a0r = ~^.\".\n\u25a0 '\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 79\nBaled hay for winter feed, Thompson River valley.\n; .; ; \\ :; ; :\n::' ' \u2022 :.'.'. .\nAssociation of summer range, spring-fall range, and agricultural land for winter feed. OO 80 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nAlthough growth started late, summer range conditions were excellent. The\nadequate moisture reserves, resulting from heavy winter snow and previous wet years,\ncombined with the hot weather to produce large quantities of good-quality forage on the\nforest ranges. Alpine range conditions were also good. Stock came off the summer\nrange in better condition than average.\nOwing to the generally poor condition of the fall ranges and a sharp cold spell\naccompanied by snow in the early part of November, winter feeding commenced earlier\nthan usual in many areas. However, the cold weather did not persist and, as the 1950\nhay-harvest was good both as to quantity and quality throughout most of the range\ncountry, it is expected that stock will come through the winter in good condition.\nGrasshoppers were not a particularly damaging factor to the range this year,\nalthough there are some indications that the grasshopper cycle is again on the up-swing.\nMaterials and equipment were in good supply during 1950 and. for the first time\nsince 1941, an adequate supply of good-quality barbed wire was obtained for use in our\nrange-improvement programme. Although the ranch and range labour situation has\nimproved somewhat, costs are up very considerably and the turnover of labour is still\nabnormally large. In spite of high ranch wages, labourers are attracted by the amenities\nof the town. As stock-handling requires considerable skill and experience, and as time\nis required for a rider to become familiar with an extensive range, a stable labour force\nis essential to good range management.\n! RANGE MANAGEMENT\nProper management is necessary to obtain maximum forage returns and at the same\ntime prevent deterioration of the range resource. Range depletion has occurred in some\nareas, due partly to a lack of knowledge and partly to economic forces over which the\nstockman had no control. A particular effort is now being made to bring about an\nimprovement on these depleted ranges. The principal malpractices to be remedied are\ntoo early turnout, overstocking, and poor stock distribution. Time is required to overcome these without unduly disrupting the industry. Considerable progress was made\nduring 1950, with the co-operation of the range-users concerned. Further progress can\nbe expected as the stockmen become aware of the benefits deriving therefrom.\nDuring the year, emphasis was placed on developing improved management plans\nfor ranges recently covered by range surveys. Implementation of these plans was\ncommenced and will continue progressively.\nSeveral alpine ranges which were formerly grazed by sheep are now being used by\ncattle, as the ranches concerned have converted to the latter class of stock. In spite of\nweeds comprising a high percentage of the forage, the cattle, particularly cows and\ncalves, have done surprisingly well. Cattlemen are now showing a marked interest in the\nuse of alpine ranges.\nCO-OPERATION\nThere are now forty-four active live-stock associations in the Province. Three new\nassociations were formed during the year and one was disbanded owing to changed\nconditions and a lack of interest. One hundred and twelve meetings were reported, of\nwhich ninety-two were attended by forest officers. The associations continued to be\nof valuable assistance in all phases of range administration.\nDuring the year several trial range-improvement projects were carried out in\nco-operation with the Dominion Range Experiment Station. Excellent response was\nalso received from the Station in connection with plant identification and technical\nproblems which were referred to it for study and advice. Several range inspections were\ncarried out in company with Game Department officials to study game-livestock relationships. Close co-operation with the Live Stock Branch of the Department of Agriculture REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 81\ncontinued throughout the year in connection with the bull-control and disease-free areas\nbeing established in the range country. Close contact with the various Indian Agents\nwas maintained with reference to the use of Crown range by Indians.\nRANGE IMPROVEMENT\nWith increased funds and more material available, the range-improvement programme was stepped up in 1950, with the following projects being completed: Stock-\nbridges, 2; cattle-guards, 8; drift-fences, 16; experimental plots, 4; holding-grounds\n(repaired), 5; mudhole fences, 2; range seedings, 2; stock-trails, 7; water-developments,\n3; weed-control measures, 1. In addition, stockmen were authorized to construct, at\ntheir own expense, the following secondary improvements: Breeding pastures, 1; corrals,\n1; drift-fences, 2; grazing enclosures, 1.\nFurther action was taken to keep the ranges clear of wild and useless horses. On\nthe recommendation of associations and stockmen, fifty horse-roundup permits and\nfifty-two horse-shooting licences were issued. Seventy-nine horses were rounded up and\nshipped for slaughter and 674 were shot.\nThe range seedings carried out to date have been on a pilot basis only, owing to the\nhigh cost of seed and a lack of information as to the best methods of seeding. However,\non the basis of experience gained, it is felt more of this work should be undertaken.\nIn anticipation of an increase in activity along this line, a quantity of crested wheat-grass\nseed was obtained late in the year when prices were the most favourable in years. Also\na plot 22 acres in extent in the vicinity of Kamloops was seeded to crested wheat-grass,\nfrom which seed may be harvested in the event of a recurring shortage of this seed.\nThe experimental plots listed above were established to study the effect of fire on\nrange, the response of depleted range to complete protection, response of dry grass-land\nrange to fertilizer applications, and the adaptability of various grass species for use on\ndry range in the Grand Forks area.\nThe weed-control measure listed is a continuation of the goatweed project commenced in 1949. It is now evident that complete eradication of this pest from the range\narea is impractical. Efforts in 1950 were directed toward reducing the spread of the\nweed. Weed-patches isolated from the main areas of infestation and along roads or in\nother strategic locations were treated. In all, a net area of 80 acres was treated.\nEarly in the year a meeting between forest officers and a committee of the British\nColumbia Beef Cattle Growers' Association was held to discuss range improvements\ngenerally and in particular the type of projects which should be given preference in the\nutilization of any additional funds available as a result of the increase in grazing fees.\nRANGE RECONNAISSANCE\nThe range-reconnaissance programme was reduced somewhat in 1950, with the\nfollowing areas being covered: \u2014 Acres\nNicola Stock Range (Maka Creek unit) 51,680\nAshcroft Stock Range (north-west portion) 417,792\nGrand Forks-Greenwood Riding Stock Ranges 92,000\n561,472\nIn addition, eleven range examinations were carried out, in the course of which old\nrange-surveys were checked and, where necessary, the maps revised or extended.\nGRAZING, HAY, AND SPECIAL-USE PERMITS\nGrazing permits issued in 1950 were approximately the same in number as in 1949.\nThe number of stock covered was down somewhat owing to continued heavy sales OO 82\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nresulting from high prices. The tabulation on page 133 shows the volume of business\nfor 1950 and the past ten years.\nGrazing fees billed and collected in 1950 were much higher than in previous years,\nand are shown in the tabulation on page 133. The marked increase in fees was due to\nthe revision of the grazing regulations referred to earlier.\nTwenty-three special-use permits authorizing the fencing of pastures for special\npurposes in Provincial forests were issued in 1950.\nOne hundred and sixty-two hay-cutting permits authorizing the cutting of 1,942 tons\nof hay and 84 tons of rushes on Crown range were issued. This is a considerable decrease\nfrom 1949.\nMISCELLANEOUS\nLive-stock Losses\nLosses of stock on the range appeared to be somewhat heavier this year. Poisonous\nweeds continued to be a problem, with timber milk-vetch being particularly bad. Owing\nto the dry summer, water-levels in lakes dropped lower than for several years, and reports\nof mired animals were more frequent. Losses to predatory animals were reported less\nthan during the last few years. Highway traffic is responsible for an increasing number\nof stock-losses. Some animals are reported to have died from gunshot wounds during\nthe hunting season.\nLoading sheep, Elko. 11.11. . L...-L.\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 83\nMarkets and Prices\nDemand still far exceeds the supply of meat and wool on the markets available to\nBritish Columbia stockmen. As a result, prices advanced as much as 40 per cent during\nthe year. Shipments of cattle were about the same as in 1949, with sheep and lambs\nbeing up about 10 per cent. There were six major range-livestock shows and sales\nin 1950.\nProsecutions\nNo prosecutions were instituted in 1950 under the \" Grazing Act \" and regulations.\nAs usual, a number of acts of trespass took place, but in all instances the stockmen\nconcerned complied with our written instructions to rectify the situation.\nPlant Collections\nPlant identification is essential as a basis for range management. To aid in this,\ncollections of mounted specimens of the important range plants are being built up in the\ndistrict offices. This work continued during 1950 and, in addition, the Grazing Division\nsupplied the Ranger School with the nucleus of a grazing herbarium for use in connection\nwith the course in grazing. OO 84 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nPERSONNEL DIRECTORY, 1951\nVICTORIA OFFICE\nC. D. Orchard Deputy Minister and Chief Forester Victoria.\nR. C. St. Clair Assistant Chief Forester.\nC. Cooper Forest Counsel.\nR. G. McKee .Forester i\/c Operation Division Victoria.\nP. Young Assistant Forester.\nA. H. Dixon Assistant Forester.\nD. W. Perrie Meteorologist.\nP. H. Bodman Forester-in-training.\nR. T. Flanagan Forester-in-training.\nE. A. Moyes Forester-in-training.\nW. C. Spouse Mechanical Superintendent.\nA. B. Crowe Assistant Mechanical Superintendent.\nJ. H. Taylor Superintendent of Construction.\nG. A. Playfair Radio Superintendent.\nH. E. Ferguson Assistant Radio Superintendent.\nR. L. Fielder Technical Forest Assistant (Fire Research).\nL. Lucas Technical Forest Assistant (Fire Research).\nA. Stringer Chief Clerk.\nF. S. McKinnon Forester i\/c Management Division Victoria.\nS. E. Marling Forester.\nG. M. Abernethy Assistant Forester.\nJ. S. Stokes Assistant Forester.\nA. E. Collins Assistant Forester (Forest-cover Maps).\nW. G. Hughes Assistant Forester (Management Licences).\nD. M. Carey Assistant Forester (Public Working-circles).\nD. M. Trew_1 Assistant Forester (Farm-woodlot Licences).\nF. F. Slaney Engineer.\nR. G. Gilchrist Chief Draughtsman.\nE. H. Henshall Chief Clerk.\nA. Chisholm Chief Clerk (Timber-sale Administration).\nH. Casilio Senior Clerk (Timber-sale Contracts).\nH. G. McWilliams Forester i\/c Reforestation Division Victoria.\nA. H. Bamford Assistant Forester.\nE. G. Whiting Assistant Forester.\nW. D. Grainger Forester-in-training.\nT. Wells Nursery Superintendent (New Westminster).\nJ. R. Long Nursery Superintendent (Duncan).\nW. Turner Nursery Superintendent (Campbell River).\nN. G. Wharf Clerk.\nE. G. Oldham Forester i\/c Parks and Recreation Division.. Victoria.\nC. P. Lyons Assistant Forester.\nL. Brooks Forester-in-training.\nR. H. Ahrens Forester-in-training.\nR. Lowrey Forester-in-training.\nW. E. Rolls Forester-in-training.\nG. F. Macnab Forester-in-training.\nD. ,L. Macmurchie Technical Forest Assistant.\nN. M. F. Pope Technical Forest Assistant.\nG. A. Wood Technical Forest Assistant (Geographer).\nR. Y. Edwards Assistant Biologist.\nE. A. McGowan Engineer-in-training.\nC. J. Velay Engineer-in-training.\nJ. M. Bailey Engineer-in-training.\nR. Stewart Architectural Draughtsman.\nS. E. Park Senior Clerk (Administration).\nE. Charlton Senior Clerk (Accounts). REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 85\nVICTORIA OFFICE\u2014Continued\nE. Druce Forester i\/c Public Relations and Education Division Victoria.\nD. R. Monk Public Relations Officer (Administration).\nP. W. H. G. Johnson Public Relations Officer (Photography).\nW. N. Campbell Technical Forest Assistant\nMiss I. Chisholm Forest Service Library.\nR. H. Spilsbury Forester i\/c Research Division Victoria.\nE. H. Garman Assistant Forester (Silviculture).\nA. R. Fraser Assistant Forester (Mensuration).\nL. A. deGrace Assistant Forester (Aleza Lake Experimental Station).\nA. L. Orr-Ewing Assistant Forester (Silviculture).\nG. C. Warrack Assistant Forester (Silviculture).\nH. C. Joergensen.\u2014 Assistant Forester.\nJ. M. Finnis Forester-in-training.\nR. L. Schmidt Forester-in-training.\nM. B. Clark Forester-in-training.\nT. P. Decie Forester-in-training.\nH. A. W. Knight Agrologist-in-training.\nE. A. Roberts Foreman (Cowichan Lake Experimental Station).\nH. M. Pogue Forester i\/c Forest Surveys and Inventory Division ... Victoria.\nG. Silburn : Assistant Forester.\nH. N. Cliff Assistant Forester.\nG. W. Allison Assistant Forester.\nW. Bradshaw \u2014\u201e.Forester-in-training.\nR. Breadon Forester-in-training.\nC. J. Calder Forester-in-training.\nR. Darnall Forester-in-training.\nD. M. Fligg Forester-in-training.\nB. Ford Forester-in-training.\nJ. H. Frey Forester-in-training.\nC. J. Highsted Forester-in-training.\nR. C. Jones Forester-in-training.\nE. H. Lyons Forester-in-training.\nE. G. Vaughan Forester-in-training.\nW. Young Forester-in-training.\nC. J. T. Rhodes Supervising Draughtsman.\nD. Macdougall Technical Forest Assistant.\nW. C. Pendray Forest Agrologist i\/c Grazing Division Victoria.\nW. V. Hicks Inspector, Forest Accounts Victoria.\nD. I. MacLeod Assistant Inspector.\nW. C. Higgins Chief Accountant.\nA. E. Rhodes Assistant Accountant.\nJ. R. L. Conn Clerk, Expenditures.\nE. Clough Overrun Investigator.\nR. D. Greggor Forester i\/c Ranger School New Westminster.\nJ. A. Pedley Assistant Forester.\nG. L. Levy Clerk.\nJ. G. MacDonald Superintendent, Forest Service Marine Station... Vancouver.\nVANCOUVER FOREST DISTRICT\nE. W. Bassett District Forester Vancouver.\nD. B. Taylor Assistant District Forester.\nD. H. Ross Assistant Forester (Operation).\nJ. A. K. Reid Assistant Forester (Management).\nC. F. Holmes Assistant Forester (Slash-disposal Officer).\nC. E. Bennett Assistant Forester.\nG. R. Johnston Forester-in-training.\nW. B. Gayle Forester-in-training.\nF. S. Williams Forester-in-training. OO 86\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nVANCOUVER FOREST DISTRICT\u2014Continued\nT. R. Hubbard Forester-in-training.\nJ. McNeill Supervisor.\nR. H. Morrison Supervisor.\nC. S. Frampton Supervisor.\nP. R. Neil Technical Forest Assistant.\nH. H. Hill _ .....Mechanical Inspector.\nC. L. Armstrong Supervisor of Scalers.\nA. C. Heard Assistant Supervisor of Scalers.\nH. A. D. Munn Assistant Supervisor of Scalers.\nJ. A. Fetherstonhaugh Inspector of Licensed Scalers.\nJ. H. Templeman .Inspector of Licensed Scalers.\nE. P. Fox..... Chief Clerk.\nG. Birkenhead Supervising Draughtsman.\nF. Goertzen Radio Technician.\nR.D. No.\n1. H. Stevenson Ranger Chilliwack.\n2. J. H. Robinson... __ Ranger Mission.\n3. G. G. Armytage Ranger .North Vancouver.\n4. S. C. Frost \u2014Ranger Squamish.\n5. L. C. Chamberlin Ranger Sechelt.\n6. D. H. Owenr... Ranger Madeira Park.\n7. W. Black... Ranger Powell River.\n8. R. W. Aylett Ranger Lund.\n9. A. F. W. Ginnever Ranger Thurston Bay.\n10. K. A. McKenzie -Ranger Thurston Bay.\n11. W. P. Rawlins.. Ranger Alert Bay.\n12. R. W. Jones \u2014Ranger Port Hardy.\n13. C. D. S. Haddon Ranger Campbell River.\n14. S. Silke \u201e Ranger Courtenay.\n15. W. E. Jansen.. Ranger Nanaimo.\n16. P. Sweatman Ranger Duncan.\n17. J. P. Greenhouse ..Ranger Langford.\n18. F. Tannock Ranger Alberni.\n19. C. J. Wagner Ranger Zeballos.\n20. H. Barker Ranger Cowichan Lake.\n21. R. Little Ranger Harrison Lake.\n. 22. R. J. Glassford ...Ranger Parksville.\n23. M. H. Mudge Ranger Alert Bay.\nPRINCE RUPERT FOREST DISTRICT\nM. W. Gormely District Forester Prince Rupert.\nM. O. Kullander Assistant District Forester.\nJ. P. MacDonald \u2014Assistant Forester (Operation).\nL. B. B. Boulton... Assistant Forester (Silviculture).\nJ. B. Bruce Assistant Forester (Management).\nR. W. Corregan Forester-in-training (Management).\nD. R. Selkirk Forester-in-training (Management).\nJ. R. Gilmour Forester-in-training (Silviculture).\nW. H. Hepper Recreational Officer.\nJ. B. Scott Inspector of Licensed Scalers.\nS. G. Cooper Inspector of Licensed Scalers Terrace.\nH. L. Couling Supervisor.\nC. Dahlie Technical Forest Assistant (Crew Supervisor) Smithers.\nC. V. Smith ......Chief Clerk.\nJ. W. Eastwood Assistant Chief Clerk.\nI. Martin Senior Draughtsman.\nR.D. No.\n1. C. L. Gibson Ranger . Burns Lake.\n1. R. L. Brooks Ranger Burns Lake.\n2. L. G. Taft Ranger Hazelton.\n3. D. R. Smith. .....Ranger Terrace. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 87\nPRINCE RUPERT FOREST DISTRICT\u2014 Continued\nR.D. No.\n3. W. H. Campbell Acting Ranger Terrace.\n4\/7. S. T. Strimbold Ranger Prince Rupert.\n4. R. G. Benson Ranger Atlin.\n5\/6. H. B. Hammer Ranger \u2014 Queen Charlotte City.\n8. H. G. Bancroft Forester-in-training Ocean Falls.\n9. W. A. Antilla Ranger Southbank.\n9. P. J. Piche Ranger Southbank.\n10. J. A. Willan Ranger Smithers.\n11. J. F. Munro Ranger ..Houston.\n12. A. A. Antilla Ranger Pendleton Bay.\n13. J. Mould Ranger Kitwanga.\nFORT GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT\nL. F. Swannell District Forester Prince George.\nW. G. Henning Assistant District Forester.\nE. W. Robinson Assistant Forester (Management).\nF. Hollinger Mechanical Inspector.\nI. R. Burrows Forester-in-training (Management).\nG. M. Shires Forester-in-training (Operation).\nD. R. Glew Forester-in-training (Silviculture).\nF. H. Nelson Supervisor.\nL. A. Willington Fire Inspector.\nA. H. McCabe Inspector of Licensed Scalers.\nR. B. Carter Chief Clerk.\nR.D. No.\n1. J. S. Macalister Ranger McBride.\n2. R. Mackenzie Acting Ranger Penny.\n3. A. F. Specht... Ranger \u2014Prince George (S.E.).\n4. C. L. French Ranger Prince George (N.).\n5. A. V. O'Meara Ranger .. Fort St. James.\n6. G. G. Jones Ranger Quesnel (E.).\n7. H. T. Barbour Ranger ..Pouce Coupe.\n8. M. F. Painter Ranger.. . Aleza Lake.\n9. N. Threatful Ranger Vanderhoof.\n10. J. Woolsey Ranger '. Fort St. John.\nII. R. I. Patterson Ranger Fort Fraser.\n12. R. B. Angly Ranger Fort McLeod.\n13. G. E. Meents Ranger Quesnel (W.).\n14. W. H. Mulholland Forester-in-training Prince George (W.).\nKAMLOOPS FOREST DISTRICT\nA. E. Parlow District Forester Kamloops.\nW. C. Phillips Assistant District Forester.\nW. W. Stevens Assistant Forester (Management).\nJ. R. Johnston Assistant Forester (Operation).\nJ. C. Payne Assistant Forester (Management).\nC. D. Grove-White Assistant Forester (Silviculture).\nN. A. McRae Forester-in-training (Management).\nM. L. Kerr Forester-in-training (Management).\nL. W. Lehrle Forester-in-training (Silviculture).\nT. R. Broadland Recreational Officer.\nH. K. DeBeck Assistant Forest Agrologist.\nM. T. Wallace Assistant Forest Agrologist.\nA. Paulsen Assistant Forest Agrologist.\nR. O. Pringle Assistant Forest Agrologist.\nB. E. Neighbor Forester-in-training (Grazing).\nA. L.Kirk Fire Inspector.\nH. S. Noakes . Fire Inspector.\nJ. H. Smythe Mechanical Inspector.\nE. A. Charlesworth Inspector of Licensed Scalers. OO 88 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nKAMLOOPS FOREST DISTRICT\u2014Continued\nC. Williams Inspector of Licensed Scalers.\nW. P. Cowan Technical Forest Assistant.\nC. R. Downing Technical Forest Assistant.\nC. H. Huffman Technical Forest Assistant.\nG. F. Bodman Technical Forest Assistant.\nE. A. Bowers.\u2014 Radio Technician.\nH. J. Parker Chief Clerk.\nR.D. No.\n1. M. A. Johnson Ranger ..Vernon.\n2. H. W. Campbell Ranger ..Birch Island.\n3. D. P. Fraser Ranger Barriere.\n4. H. A. Ferguson... Ranger Kamloops.\n5. H. G. Mayson Ranger ...Chase.\n6. J. Boydell Ranger Salmon Arm.\n7. LA. Sim Ranger Sicamous.\n8. E. L. Scott Ranger Revelstoke.\n9. J. W. Hayhurst Ranger Vernon.\n10. C. Perrin Ranger Penticton.\n11. J. H. Dearing Ranger Princeton.\n12. C. E. Robertson Ranger Clinton.\n13. K. N. Petersen .....Ranger .. Williams Lake.\n14. T. L. Gibbs Ranger _ Alexis Creek.\n15. R. B. W. Eden Ranger Kelowna.\n16. L. E. Cook Ranger Wells Gray Park.\n17. R. C. Hewlett Ranger Merritt.\n18. A. C. Schutz.\u2014 Forester-in-training Blue River.\n19. H. C. Hewlett Ranger :. .-. Enderby.\n20. R. H. Boyd... Ranger Manning Park.\n21. O. Paquette Ranger 100-Mile House.\nNELSON FOREST DISTRICT\nH. B. Forse District Forester Nelson.\nI. T. Cameron Assistant District Forester.\nL. S. Hope Forester (Silviculture).\nW. E. Young... Assistant Forester (Management).\nJ. E. Milroy ..Assistant Forest Agrologist.\nE. Knight Forester-in-training.\nJ. G. Hall Forester-in-training.\nW. G. Bishop Forester-in-training.\nE. R. Smith Forest Agrologist-in-training.\nR. G. Gill Technical Forest Assistant.\nJ. H. A. Applewhaite Technical Forest Assistant.\nG. Lepsoe Technical Forest Assistant.\nR. H. Baker Mechanical Inspector.\nG. T. Robinson Inspector of Licensed Scalers.\nJ. H. Holmberg Supervisor.\nI. B. Johnson Supervisor.\nL. A. Chase Supervisor.\nR. O. Christie Supervisor.\nG. C. Palethorpe Supervisor.\nJ. C. I. Rogers Supervising Draughtsman.\nL. S. Ott Radio Technician.\nS. S. Simpson Chief Clerk.\nR.D. No.\n1. C. R. Tippie Ranger Invermere.\n2. R. A. Damstrom Ranger Fernie.\n3. H. J. Coles Ranger Golden.\n4. F. R. Hill Ranger Cranbrook.\n5. A. I. Ross Ranger Creston.\n6. J. L. Humphrey Ranger Kaslo.\n7. A. J. Larsen Acting Ranger : Lardo. REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 89\nNELSON FOREST DISTRICT\u2014Continued\nR.D. No.\n8. L. M. Quance Ranger... Nelson.\n9. R. E. Robinson Ranger New Denver.\n10. H. R. Wood Ranger Nakusp.\n11. J. F. Killough Ranger Rossland.\n12. E. W. Reid .-Ranger j Grand Forks.\n12. M. G. Isenor... \u2014Ranger Grand Forks.\n13. L. E. Stilwell Ranger Kettle Valley.\n13. J. E. Connolly Ranger '. Kettle Valley.\n14. C. J. McGuire Ranger Canal Flats.\n15. J. B. Gierl \u2014Ranger Arrowhead.\n16. W. D. Haggart Ranger .Edgewood.\n17. F. G. Hesketh. Ranger. Elko. APPENDIX REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 93\nTABULATED DETAILED STATEMENTS TO SUPPLEMENT\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE\nCONTENTS\nTable No. GENERAL Page\n1. Distribution of Personnel, 1950 -\u2014 95\nReforestation\n2. Summary of Planting during the Years 1941-50 96\nForest Management\n3. Estimated Value of Production, Including Loading and Freight within the\nProvince 97\n4. Paper Production (in Tons) 97\n5. Water-borne Lumber Trade (in M B.M.) 98\n6. Total Amount of Timber Scaled in British Columbia during the Years 1949-50\n(in F.B.M.) 99\n7. Species Cut, All Products (inF.BJVI.), 1950 100\n8. Total Scale (in F.B.M.) Segregated, Showing Land Status, All Products, 1950._ 101\n9. Timber Scaled in British Columbia in 1950 (by Months and Districts) 102\n10. Logging Inspection, 1950 104\ni;. Trespasses, 1950 104\n12. Pre-emption Inspection, 1950 : 105\n13. Areas Examined for Miscellaneous Purposes of the \" Land Act \" 1950 105\n14. Classification of Areas Examined, 1950 105\n15. Areas Cruised for Timber Sales, 1950 106\n16. Timber-sale Record, 1950 106\n17. Timber Sales Awarded by Districts, 1950 107\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 1950 108\n19. Average Stumpage Prices Received per M B.F. Log-scale, by Species and Forest\nDistricts, on Saw-timber Scaled from Timber Sales in 1950 109\n20. Timber Cut from Timber Sales during 1950 110\n21. Saw and Shingle Mills of the Province, 1950 111\n22. Export of Logs (in F.B.M.), 1950 111\n23. Shipments of Poles, Piling, Mine-props, Fence-posts, Railway-ties, etc., 1950\u2014 112\n24. Summary for Province, 1950 112\n25. Timber Marks Issued 113\n26. Forest Service Draughting Office, 1950 113\nForest Finance\n27. Crown-granted Timber Lands Paying Forest Protection Tax 114\n28. Acreage of Timber Land by Assessment Districts 114\n29. Acreage of Crown-granted Timber Lands Paying Forest Protection Tax as\nCompiled from Taxation Records 114\n30. Forest Revenue 115\n31. Amounts Charged against Logging Operations, 1950 116\n32. Amounts Charged against Logging Operations, Fiscal Year 1949-50: 117 OO 94 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nTable No. Page\n33. Forest Revenue, Fiscal Year 1949-50 118\n34. Forest Expenditure, Fiscal Year 1949-50 119\n35. Scaling Fund : 119\n36. Silviculture Fund 120\n37. Forest Reserve Account 120\n38. Grazing Range Improvement Fund 120\n39. Forest Protection Fund 121\n40. Forest Protection Expenditure for Twelve Months Ended March 31st, 1950\u2014\nby the Forest Service 122\n41. Reported Approximate Expenditure in Forest Protection Expenditure by Other\nAgencies, 1950 123\nForest Protection\n42. Summary of Snag-falling, 1950, Vancouver Forest District 123\n43. Summary of Logging Slash Created, 1950, Vancouver Forest District 123\n44. Acreage Analysis of Slash-disposal Required, 1950, Vancouver Forest District _ 124\n45. Analysis of Progress in Slash-disposal, 1950, Vancouver Forest District 124\n46. Summary of Operations, 1950, Vancouver Forest District 125\n47. Summary of Slash-burn Damage and Costs, 1950, Vancouver Forest District... 125\n48. Recapitulation of Slash-disposal, 1934-50 . 126\n49. Fire Occurrences by Months, 1950 126\n50. Number and Causes of Forest Fires, 1950 126\n51. Number and Causes of Forest Fires for the Last Ten Years 127\n52. Fires Classified by Size and Damage, 1950 127\n53. Damage to Property Other than Forests, 1950 127\n54. Damage to Forest-cover Caused by Forest Fires, 1950 128\n55. Fire Causes, Area Burned, Forest Service Cost, and Total Damage, 1950 128\n56. Comparison of Damage Caused by Forest Fires in Last Ten Years 129\n57. Fires Classified by Forest District, Place of Origin, and Cost per Fire of Fire-\nfighting, 1950 129\n58. Prosecutions, 1950 130\n59. Burning Permits, 1950 131\nRanger School\n60. Enrolment at Ranger School 132\nPublic Relations\n61. Motion-picture Library 132\n62. Forest Service Library . 132\nGrazing\n63. Grazing Permits Issued 133\n64. Grazing Fees Billed and Collected 133 (I)\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nDistribution of Personnel, 1950\nOO 95\nPersonnel\nForest District\nVancouver\nPrince\nRupert\nFort\nGeorge\nKamloops\nNelson\nVictoria\nTotal\nContinuously Employed\nChief Forester, Assistant Chief Forester, and Division\nForesters \t\nDistrict Foresters and Assistant District Foresters..\nForesters and Assistant Foresters\t\nAgrologists and Assistants. \t\nForesters-in-training-\nSupervisor of Rangers and Fire Inspectors .\nRangers \t\nSupervisor of Scalers and Assistants\t\nScalers, Official- \t\nScalers, Licensed-\nInspectors, Royalty and Export \t\nMechanical\u2014Radio and Engineering Supervisors\t\nTechnical Forest and Public Relations Assistants \t\nNursery, Reforestation, Parks, and Research Assistants\nNursery Superintendents \t\nDraughtsmen... \t\nClerks, Stenographers, and Messengers \t\nSuperintendent and Foreman, Forest Service Marine\nStation _ \t\nMechanics, Carpenters, and Technicians _ \t\nLaunch Crewmen \t\nAssistant and Acting Rangers.\nDispatchers..\nCruisers and Compass-men\t\nTruck and Tractor Operators...\nForemen\t\nMiscellaneous \t\nTotal, continuous personnel.\nSeasonally Employed\nAssistant and Acting Rangers .\nPatrol-men \t\nLookout-men\t\nDispatchers and Radio Operators\t\nFire-suppression Crewmen \t\nReforestation\u2014Shag-fallers, Planters, etc. .\nCruisers and Compass-men \t\nTruck and Tractor Operators. \t\nStudent Assistants \t\nSilvicultural Crewmen _\t\nForemen \t\nMiscellaneous .\u2014\nTotal, seasonal personnel .\nTotal, all personnel\t\n2\n5\n3\n3\n24\n5\n68\n1\n3\n1\n4\n62\n3\n12\n27\n16\n3\n3\n1\n246\n16\n7\n30\n4\n45\n110\n356\n12\n1\n2\n16\n14\n6\n2\n2\n4\n1\n15\n1\n63\n6\n3\n10\n3\n3\n9\n1\n10\n45\n108\n2\n13\n14\n2\n1\n60\n14\n16\n3\n1\n11\n69\n129\n2\n4\n4\n5\n1\n26\n2\n4\n19\n31\n9\n2\n1\n4\n121\n11\n15\n25\n7\n45\n1\n9\n6\n10\n6\n7\n142\n263\n2\n2\n2\n3\n4\n21\n1\n3\n17\n25\n31\n1\n27\n94\n17\n13\n34\n10\n32\n1\n8\n11\n10\n7\n2\n145\n239\n15\n16\n3\n18\n91\n4\n27\n16\n6\n30\n308\n450\n6\n81\n7\n106\n654\n962\n9\n10\n47\n7\n45\n9\n99\n10\n68\n1\n4\n20\n24\n16\n3\n33\n218\n4\n30\n12\n111\n43\n6\n19\n8\n36\n892\n64\n46\n115\n24\n122\n450\n8\n29\n106\n37\n27\n137\n1,165\n2,057 OO 96\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\no\nm\nI\nT\u2014t\nON\n^H\nUi\nPi\n<\nw\n>h\nw\nX\nH\nO\nz\n2\np\nQ\nO\nZ\nH\nz\n<\no\nS\nt\/3\noqooooooooc\n3 o\ng\ndinosd>^ri'- QorNr\n-i cs\no\n<\nOiONO\\OOONrN*Or\noo\ntr-t~-00r-rtrf,^Ovr-C\nN VO\nhO\\NtOHO>-i^Of\n1 o\ni\u2014i i-i i-i rH rH\no\\\n*3\n.sf\n\\D \"TJ H O H Tt (O N H N T\n^ fN\nr>r>rSTtrHfo'o,\\r^TtcN'-\n\u25a0\" d\nis\nMHinr-mo\u00bbo\\oMrtT\nccmmawNwrnoh^\nt \"'t\nIh O\nscoo&cnt*-y-iC~Osso Tt;Tt Tt in f>i o\nOrnocTrvdoorn'oirNCSOi\n\\ o\n3 as\n\u00a73 tn\nv- O\nNN-r, rHvHrn c\ni t-\nm\n^\n\u00a9 !\nc\nq q q q c\n5 O\n<8\nO* !\n(N d rn ,\nc\ntn\n3\nE\n\u20225 |\n'coo\nq in m q c\ns q\n\na> S2\nmmor-inmOin\nso c\nrH\nm oo Tt \u25a0rt oo o^ \u00ab \u00abn\nTt tr\nrH\n\u00a3\nB o\nth\" rn r-T\no\"\nH\nqqqqqqqqqqc\no\nc\no\nu\nOin'o'ddo'inTtooodc\no\no\nr\u2014 rsvDaoOoor-OOooi\/-\nlOr^inrnO^iH ihooo^hc\nTt\nOs\n<\nvo* oo' o\" Tt so os **\u25a0\nH\nr-'ar^vdddcowitnf-C\nin\n\u00a3 2\nvor-rNvor-voomr-vOT\n(N\nM Tt r- T$ \\\u00a9 rH rH^ U^ VO fN f\nvo* r-^\" e*C m\" cn i> go vd\" oo\" r\no\nrn\nHiC\nVD\nH\nVi\nq o\nq q q q r-\nl>\nn t> C\nvd\nCJ\n<\nc- cn r-\nrn\n3\ntr\n\\o\na\no\n1\n\"y\n(A\nPh\nC^3\ntn Tt\nO Tt tn rn c\nt-\nX\nin tn\noc (N t-\nod\nW\nS3\n1- o\nvO (S C\nvc\nfN\nH\n4)\nri\n\u25a0a\nX\na\no\nt\nc\ni\ni\nr\nri\n>\nH\n>\no\nE\nC\no\nH\nO CN\nx t\u2014 vo in Tt en\n(S rH\n>\n>n Tt\nstTtTtTtTtTtTtTf\ncu\nG> Os\n?\\OsOsOsOsO\\OsOs\nJr\na REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 97\nw\nu\nz\n>\no\nPh\na\nX\nH\nz\nS\n\u00bb\nO\n3\nQ\nz\n<\nO\nZ\n3\n<\no\no\nz\n3\n5\n\u25baj\no\nz\nz\no\nHH\nH\nU\nD\nQ\nO\nPh\nft\nO\nft\nD\n0\nH\nft\n<\nw\n*~\n44\nmTtvoTr r- cn Ttvo o\nNO m M in\na \u00a9O\nvoovoTt moo onon o\nvo oo r- tN m\n1-1 t- Tt Cn COVO rH rH O\nin Tt cn t> \u00a9v\n>>d_i-\n00 O O* 00 fN vo* so SO in\nr* oo* m* vo\" rn\nVD rH rn On # cn oo oo h r-\nr- O o fN oo\nG \u00a9Tt\nONinONrH Oin TfTt On\nrt tJ rn cn\nH<-\nCi SO SO SD SO cn Ci rH\nm Tt rH rH\nrn rn\"\n^>\nTt en oo r- Oh onoo o\nO r- m vo Ooo TtO O\nVD Tt QO On in\nCN\nrH 00 fN Tf CN\nTt\nminoNO ovo fNcn o\nvo_ r- rn m on\no\nTtONcN-t-- Of- ONrH o\nm rH rH fff CO*\nOs\noo cn o m # m cn oooo m\nCN Tt Tt OO rH\nr-\ncnr^inorj^ {Nh i-h cn fN\nr^ r^ r- in cn\ncn\" co* r\" cn vo\" m\" r\" tN\nrn in oo\"\no r- cn fN\nvo\nm\nTt\n\u00bb\n1 \u00ab\u25a0\nOrHooo oo\\ or- o\nO Ov O in O\nOn\nrHTtTtVO or- O (N o\nO vd O vo in\nTt\nVD \nVO* 00\" VO* m\" rn\" Tt\" fN CN*\nrn'Tr\"\nOVOr. CN\nm\ntN\nm\nW\n69-\nOOOO OO oo o\noooo oo oo o\no o o o o\no\no o o o o\no\noooo oo oo o\nq o_ o^ q q,\n\u00a9\n00\nTt\nOS\nONONTtON 000 rHrH O\noo \u00bbn On o m\"\nvo*\nco co on cn # m in r- r- o\non m cn r- cn\nCO\n(NONOrH TtrH NOVO OO\nin Tt Tt\nr-\nO\\minV0 CN Tt rH rH\nrH VO*\nm\nrn t- fN fN\nCN\nVD\ntfl-\n\u00ab\u25a0\n(N0OVO0O OO OO O\nO (N O fN O\noo\ncNr-Tto oo oo o\no r- rn m o\n00\nCN VO 0> VD OO OO O\no^ vo^ vo^ vo_ o^\nm\nr-\nTt\nOs\nrn m in O Om OO o\no cn cn m o\nCO*\nvo Tt cn m # m cn ooo o\nO ^ rn on in\n00\nr-\u00abVOTf CO CN fN In VD\nCN cn cN\ntN\nin r- en o o m cn rn\ntN\nm m fN rH CN\nCO\nfN\n\u00ab5-\ntfr\ntNinvOrH OfN oo ov o\nO O r- VO rH\nO\nOinOON ovo oo ^ o\nO co co m cN\nf-\nm m m Tt Or- Ttm o\nq CN t-; o_ Tt\nco\nVD\nTf\nOs\nmovooo O in r-cc o\nO* On\" VO* tN tN*\nnOTtco* (NM Tt r- o\nO Tt O On\nr-\nOoooncN hh voTt r-\ntt rn Tt -h\nTt\nr- rn cn oo ONin cn rn\nr-TcN*\nm\"\nCO Tt rH\nr-\nw\n&\noooo oo oo o\no o o o o\no\noooo oo oo o\no o o o o\no\noooo oo oo o\no o o o o\no\nTt\nON\nTt fN Tt m OVO rH r- O\nO VD m rH Tt\n\" Tt 00 Tt m \u00ab\u25a0 O 0O CNO O\nO vo cn r- m\nfN r- in co OOn vo \u00bbn \u00abn\nin r> cN\nvO\n00 cn O* r- VD CN CN* rn\nrtrt\nr-\nr- cn rn\nTt\n\u00bb\noe-\nOOOO OO oo o\no o o o o\no\nOOOO OO oo o\no o o o o\no\n\u00a9 o_ \u00a9 q q q o^ q o\nq q o^ o^ o^\nq\nTt\nTt\nas\n\u00abn h vo oo d oo* m* Tt\" o\"\no\" in\" in\" vo\" d\nON ON O rH # O 00 OOO O\nO vd m cn On\nTtcnocN \u2014o mTt vo\n\u2022n O^ CN\nVD^\nrHOOr- VDCN m rH\nrHof\nvo\"\nCO m rH\nTt\n\u00ab-\ntft\nO O O o\nOOOO\no o o o\nO o o o o\no\no o o o\no o o o o\no\nOOOO\no o o o\no^ o q o o\no_\nm\nTT\nOS\no r- cn t\u2014\nr\u2014 m co o\no'itTvoVo'\nTf\"\nCN On m On #\n00 GO vo O\no m rn cn in\nm\nin tn m vo\ncn Tt cn oo\nTt m CN rH\nTf\nvo *n oo Tt-\nCN Tt CN\nvO CN\n*\u00ab-\n\u00ab\u25a0\nOOOO\nO O O O\no o o o o\no\nOOOO\nO O O O\no o o o o\no\nOOOO\nO O O O\no o o o o\no^\na\nTf\nON\no r- cn r-\nVO m rH o\nO 00 fN (N O\no\"\nm in cn on #\nr- vo cn o\nO rn vo m\nCN\nHTTOOfO\nm rn cn m\n\u00abn VO rH rH\nr-\nr- r- cn m\nfN tN fN\nrn\"cN*\nTt\"\nVO CN rH\n(N\n\u00bb\ntfr\nOOOO ! O OO O\noooo\nO\nOOOO\no o o o\noooo\no\nOOOO\no o o o\no^ o^ o^ p\no\nTt\nas\nvo m o r-\nm fN Tt O\no\" cn* r-* vo\"\no\"\non cn m O #\u2022\nfN tN O O\no rn r-\nfN\ninrmr\nr- *n cn o\n\u2022n fN rH\nOV\nTt\" r~\" rn\" Tt\"\nrH rH CN\nrH\"Tt\"\nOv*\nVD fN rn\n\u00ab-\nw-\n! T3\nco a\nTJ s!SJ\na ri\no\nH-> H_, O\n3 to aj\n0h W\n.5 o,\n_ o\n113\nj- fl \"cj\nCJ\n3\nIh\n\u25a0a\n^\n^ B\n3 ? u\n0 rr\nO\n\u00a3\nV\n\u00a3\n3\n0>\nC\n\u00ab\n0\n\u20220\ns\nc\n4\nH\nr.\n0\nc\nc\nc\nQ\nT3\nc\n0\n>\n\u2014 CJ\nri Ch\nO 8 8\nco T3 5!\nO l-i -\nr-J 0 \u2022\"\nOhU\n>\nri\ni\na\nft.\ni\nH\nAdditional val\nby the wood\nLaths and othe\nty\nt\ns\nX\n0\nu\np\na\nc\nc\nX\n0\n0\nc\ni\nu\na\nOf\nc\nI\nX\nX\nU\nft\nCI\nJO\na\nci\nc\n\u00bb\na\nU\nR\no\nH\no\nH\nZ\no\nH\nU\nD\nQ\nO\nOh\npc\nW\n<\nOh\nu Oflin\n^2rH\nCN VO\na S3\"\n(U i>ON\nh<:-\nCN\nm\nON\nOO On\ncn\nOn\nm On\nOn\noo m\nr> oo\nm\nTt vo\nVO Tt\nt- On\nrN r-\ncn\nOn in\noo cn\nm\nOn\nOn fN\nfN\nin\nON\nm o\ntN\n|\nOn rn\nVO O\nVD Tt\nCN\nVD VO\nVO o\ncN\nTt\nON\ntN Tt\n\u2022n r-\nCN\noo m\nm in\nCN\n3\n\u25a0a\nPh\ntr\n%\na,\nri\nc\na\nQJ\nu\n1\nZ\n0 OO 98\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nrt \"\u00b0\ng Down\nc \u00ab\u00bb\naj >o\\\nm\nz\n<\nPS\nH\nft\ncq\nS\n0\nw\nZ\nrt\nO\nft\ni\nrt\nft\nft\nTtinminONinovocnTtminr-ooooorHinTtvor-o\nfN o O r- rNrHinNOrnooinrHcnvDTtm Onooongo\nOhms COONONrNONTtOTtOVO vo hh r-\nvotnr-r-vocNcNrHrHfNTtrHovTtooin\ncncNcNoooomvncNmrHininoomin\nOn w) fN \u00a9 vorHvooorHvor- voon\nO oo\" cn r- cn* on\" cN vo* cn* co* r-* r- oo\"\nOn Tt oo m rn\nr\u2014 On On m\nrH Tt O CN\nOn in r- Tt\ncn cn Tt oo\ncN o tn -h\nm r- cn m\nMrr vq_ vo_ P* CN 00\ninrHCNOrHfjCr-TtrHCn r-T\nTt O rH rH rH rH\ntn rn rn\nin Tt oo On\nTt On m cn\nOn CN CN On\nvo oo vo O\nr- vo oo on\nm r- Tt cn\ninTtr-vorHooomrHcn\nTtooONcnOrNmmONO\nTtmTtvoONmONTtfNtN\nm r-\noo\n! m\n00 Tf\nvo\n00\nt-\nO\nm (N On vo\nrH VO rH CN\nm m in Tt\nTtvominmTtoor-rHO\nOmooor-moo moo\ncorH^r^cN Oven ^t,1-'\nTtoCoo\" oo* vo\" oo\"\nTt VD rn CN\nON CN Tt CN\nvd on on m\nCN oo t- vo\nooorHtnTtcNmrNmr-ooN\nVOOOVOOOOmVOrHOOONCNCN\nc?\\ in h o>q m ici \u00bb h m Tt (N\noc tn rN* rn\" vo* cn* in\" on* vo\"\nrH OV rH rH rH\nor-\nON\n! m rN rn r-\nfN O Tf rn rn\nfN\noo \u00abn\nvo\n| On Tt\nCN O\nm m\nm rH\nr- Tt o\nrn rn m\nm tN\no o\nTt m\noo\"m\"\nCO\nt\u2014\nCN\noo !\nm ]\n-h m o fN\nO co m o\noo On\nrn Ov Tf\nm tN\nr-\nm\nfN\nON On Tt\n! CN CO vo co\nm o Ov vo\nrH On Tt\n! O r- Tt vo\nCO VO fN Tt\nVO O CN rH\n! VO O VO\nTt m\nvo fN\nTt t- rH m\nrH ,-h ON VO\nvo m o vo\nrHCNcNcn : vo Tf in co\nvoTtovoo imr-r-oo\n00 rn cN cn ! O O On\no S\nv. Q rt\nM rt\nn\nri\n.2 ri\u00a7\nhO<\nIS*\no \u00ab\n Tf VD 00\nr-\no\nr- co\nVO\nm m\nOn\nvo on Tt r-\n00\nCO\nOn CN\nCN\no\nm m\nO\nTt CN^ ON CN\n0\\\no\noo m\nTf\nH\nTt rH\nVD\nTf\" rn\" in\" CN\nm\no\n00\nOn\nrH VO\nr-\ncn cn m co\noo\nvo\nCn rH\nTt\nth rn m CN\n\u00a9_\nrn\nen\"\n**\nTf\"\nm rN\nr-\n! O 00 On\nr\u00bb\nTf\n0 o\nO CN\n(N\nm \u00a9 rH\nr-\nO\nTt rH\nm\nOn On m\ncn\nON\nC O\n5*\nrH \u00a9\ncn tN fN\nOv\no\nm Tt\nOn\nrH rH r-\nOn\nOn\nCN \u00a9\nCN\nm rH CN\n00\nCN CN\nTt\n*\"\u25a0\n**\nVO\nf- Ti\n00\no vo Tf cn\nm\n,_,\n1 Cfl\nm Tf\nOn\nm cn cn rn\nm\nm\ni \u25a0\n\u2022a-o\nen vo\nOn\nTt tN 0\\ \u00a9^\nvo^\nvo\nM\nr\"t-\"\nTt\"\nOn\" oo\" Tf\" O*\nCN\nr-\nm cN\nVD\nm Tt m vo\nCN\noo\nSO\n\u00ab\nCN fN\nVO\nCN\noo\"\nco\"\nON\n\u00a9 cn\nm\nm\nr-\nr-\nfN O\nfN\nCN\nVO\nvo\n.a\nOv\u00a9\nOn\nOn\n00\noc^\no\nm\"rH\nTf\"\nTf\nVD\nvo\"\nri\nm r-\no\nO\nr- Tt\nCN\nCN\nOn fN\nfN\nfN\ni i-H 0O\nO\nO\n! ! 1 ^\n1-1\ncu\nLO\nm \u00a9\nm\nm i\nm\n00\nCO\nTt On\nrn\nON\nOn\ntN\n1\n00 rH\nOn\no\no\no\nu\nHfNl\nvo\"\nvo\"\nT>\nvo\"\n>- 1\n*\nVD\nVO\n! Tt On\nm\nOn\nV)\no\u00a7\nVD\nVO\noo r-\nVO\nCN\n2 \u00b0\nON\ncn\nrn\nvo_vo\nm\nr>\nT-H\n2\nh a\nm\"\nm\"\nvo'vo\"\nco\"\nTJ \u2022\u00a7\ncjj U\n\"1 7\n><\nOn\nOn\nr- o\nq oo\nfNTf\"\nm i-h\nCO\nCO\nVO~\nTf\nr-\no\\\nvo\"\nTf\nCO VO\nTf\nrH Tt\nm\nOn\nm\nm\nOn CO\n00\nOS CO\nr-\nm\n^\nm\nPQ\n3 CN\nr-\"\n\u00a9_\nco\"\nr-*Tt\no\nfN\no\"\nO o\nvd'\nvo*\nfe\no\no\nCN rH\nTf\nm\nc a\ntn\nm\n\u00a3*\n*\"i\nri,\nCN VO^\noo\nOv\n^i ^\nZ\nCN\nfN\n1 O rn\nrn\nm\"\n\u25a0s^- a\nCN\nCN\nCN\nTt\n^^\n^^ cu\nrH VO\nr-\nr-wm Tf\n,_,\n00\n^\n^\nH\nO\ncn cn\nvo\nt- rH o ON\nOn\nr-\nr-\ng\ncn cn\nVD\ntN q M cn^\nTt\n_ * HH\n00\nC0\nCQ -6\nri\nm O\nm\no* vo* co\" cn\"\nr-\"\nm\nr-\nr-\nco\nrH m\nVD\no m oo fN\nVO\nm\n' Ih\nm\nm\nD\n\"ri\nTf_CO\nCN\ntN Tt m o\\\nTt\n&h \u00a7\nCN\nCN\nQ\nPQ\nt-\"oo\"\nvo\"\nCN\nm rn cN r-T\nrn\nON*\nm\nW\n1-1\nO\nrt\nCN\nCN\nCN\nm\nPh\nm m\n00\nO rH\nCN\nO\n\"\u00a7 JJ\nOn CO\nr-\nM\nOO O\n00\nTt\nr- cn\nTf\nm\ncn O\nTt\nu\nCO CN\nO^\no^\nr^vo\nT>\nt>r>\nTt\nft\nO\nt-\"o\"\nCO*\nOn\"\nfN Ov\"\nON*\nin r-T\nr^\"\nft\ni\n\u25a0* 5\noo\nr-\ncn co\n\u00a9\noo\n^ a\nCN oo\n\u00a9\n<\nCN \u00a9\nfN\nrn\noo oo\ncn\nm rn\no\\\nffi\nm\"r-\"\ntN*\no\"\nCN Tt*\noo\"\no*\nr-\"\nt>\nm m\nOn\nCN\nCN\nGO\noo\nOn\nO 3\nVJ -\n: vo\nVD\nOn vo O V0\nrt\nr-\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nu\nr-\nt\u2014\nTf VD NO O\nm\nfN\nCN\n\u00a9\nO\nm vo vo Tf\nCN\ncn\n*J J.\nCN\nCN\nC\/3\nft\nTJO-S\nO ftOn\nM\no\"\no\"\nin vo* vd\" oc*\nrH Tf oo O\n0\\ Tt_ in oo\nr-\"\nr-\nvo\n00\nS ft\nO\ncn r- m vo\no\"\no\"\nCN CN\nvo\nVD\nft\n<-> b\nft\nVi\nR 2\nTt r-\nrt\nrn cn m ON\nm\nVO\nrH CO\nOn\n\u00bbh m\nr-\nCN tn rH Tf\nCO\nU a\nOn rn\n\u00a9\nCU\nr- Tt\nr- On cn vo\nvo\nt-;\nCN l>\np\no\n3\n\u00a9Tt\"\nm\"\nrim\" oo\"m\"\nfN\nr-*\nO\nTf CO*\ncn\nm On\nTf\nTt on cn r-\nTt\nCO\nCN\nft\nrn rn\nin\ncn On m Tf\ncn\noo\nCU\n09\nrn ON\no\nr\u2014 m r- r-\nvo\nvo\nm Tf\no\nr- rH Tt Tt\n00\na\n0\nr1\nfN m\nTf\nu\nvo O\nVD\n00 CO CN Tt\nCN\noo\nTt rH\nm\nrH VO CN m\nTt\nOn\nTt\nTt\nTt Tt\noo\nh o\\ r> Tt\ntN\nO\nTt\nTf\nri\nco m\nrn\" CN* m\" VO*\nTt\nvo\no\no\"\n*o\nO VD\nr~\ncn r- rn on\n00\nvo\nvo\nCD\nvo m\nci en ^f ov\ntN\n0\nm m\n00* CN rn\" r-\"\nO\nOn m\ncn\ncn cn\nt-\n\u00a9\nvo\nC-\nCO\nOO vo\nTt\nTt 00 rH Tf\nr-\n^\nO\n\u00a9\nVO On\nVD\nTt oo cn on\nfN\nOv\nON\nOn CN\nfN\ncn Tt r- \u2014\ni>\nO\nCO\nOO\nH\n00 vo\nm\nON* rn\" o\" rn\"\nfN\nCO\nTt\nTt\nm rH\nm\nm m On vd\nTf\nOn\nm\ncn\nfe\nvo *r>\nm\" oo*\nr-\nTt\nTt\"\nCO\nTt\n73,4\n204,5\n71,9\nO\n\u00a9*\nm\ncn\nTt\"\nm\n00\n*H\nrH\n\u00bb\u25a0?\nIh\nO !\nty\nri w\nS i\n*C\ntot\n\u00a3 o\n3\nCD tU fD\nlH ft CO ft P* '\nco T3\nIh\n<3\n)H\no\ncouve\nce Ru\nTotal\nce Ru\nGeor\niloops\nTotal\nGrani\nCU\n>\n\u00a71\nri\nr-s\nPm i a a a t\\ tt z\na a\nri *C 'H o ri Ir\nri cu\n1 >\nP\n4\nB\nB\nu\nz\n>\nZ REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 101\nTotal Scale (in F.B.M.) Segregated, Showing Land Status,\n\n! On\n! CO\n: m\nTt\nO*\nO\nr-\n00\nCN\nO\n\u00a9\no\\ j\nOv\" j\n1 fN\n: 0\n! CN\n; Tt\"\n; Tt\n! On^\ni CN\nO\nO\nCO*\nvo\ncn\n! ON\n\\ Os\ni \u00b0\\\n\\ CN\n! CO\n! Tf\ni cn\n! VD^\n1 cn\ni 0-\n00\nr-\n00\nCN\nm\nm\nO\nCN\nCN\nOn\"\n00\n00\n00\nCO\nCO\nCN\nOA\nHPh\ni m\nI m\ni \u00b0,.\n; m*\n! O\nON\nm\nTt\nm\"\nr-\n! On\n! On\n; m\n1 O\n! CN\n! m\nO\nen\nTt\nTt\"\nr-\nCN\n: cn\n: vo\n: on\nis\nTt\nOn\nr-\nTf\nTt\nO\n00\nVO\n0\nr-\nOn\nOn\nvo\ncn\nr-\nm\nm\nr-\nr-\n00\nCN\nrn\nTt\nTf\nPQ\n\u25baJ\nO\nO\na\nHH\nH\ns\nffl\ns\nQ\nW\nHH\nU\ntV3\nPf\nPh1\nw\n2\no o\nr- cn Tt\n: m on tN\n, 0\"rH\"\nm O rH\nO vo m\nr- o cn\nTt o m\nrH ON rH\nm rH VD\nON CN O\nm m -\u2014\nm r- vo\nm m 00\nr- m On\nCO tN Tf\n00 CN h\nOn cn vo\nt-H 00 VO\nO tn 00\nCOhh\nCN CN^ CN\nVO* CN Tf\ncn 00 O\nTt m \u2014\u2022\nfN VD Tf\nTt m r-\nm r- vo\nr- On m\nCO VO On\nrH VO rH\nfN fN OV\nrn rn m\nTf 00 vo\nm Tt m\ncn m r\u2014\nvo cn tN\nTt VD Tt\nm m cn\nr- \u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9 m cn\n: vo vo m\nOn O CN\n! On Tt tN\nm vo vo\nfN On O\nCN 00 O\nO rn rn\nOn fN O\nm tN 0\nO fN On\nm O rH\n00 r- vo\nKtSS\nEm\nTt m o\nr- cn t\u2014\nTf rH m\nOn 00 m\ncn eN cn\nrn rn Tt\n\u00a9 fN \u00a9\nTf on rN\nCN CN r-\nm 00 Tt\nTf VO O\nON rH CN\nS fi 55\nc 3 \u00b0\no\n0 :\nTt\nVO\nm r-\nO\nm 00\nTf\nOn !\n0 m\nr-\nOn\nCN !\nm\n00 1\n\u00abn\nt>\nvo\nOn !\nVO rH\nOn\nOn\nvo\nCN\nOO\nCN !\nON\nCN\nm\"\nr-\nvo\"\np\nCN\nCN\nCN\nCN\nrH m O VD\nO cn O Tt\nm \u00a9 cN 00\nTf On Tt tN\n00 m O m\nm Tt \u00a9^ vo\nco\"m co\" cn\nrN r- vp\nVD rH Tt\nt> On rn on On\nm on r- rn m\nm m ov oc m\nOn\" O\" -h\" Tf\" rn\"\nTf fN O\n00 cn 00\nvo o r- fN tN\n00 m r- m m\n\u00a9 Tf On m \u00a9\nTt cn Tt m r-\nO VD \u00a9 rH rH\nrn ov rn r> vo\nm\" ov vd Tt\" r-T\nr- o m\nrH Tf O\nI I\n!8 Si\n.8.8\n\"flj 4>\n12.21.3\n\u00a3 \u00a3 S <\nCJ\n'-4-\na\nJ\n1\n= ffl P .3 O u J H 3 .2 O u Ji\n< s I\nit s\nn 3 .5 o\n(JhOhIO\nc\noj 1\nSi\n3\nai 3 \u00a7 C 5 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 103\n1 rH\nTt\nOn\nrt\n! fN\n00\n\u00a3\n! VD\n00\ncn\n; o\nm\nm\nj ^\nO\nm\nVD\nm\nr-\nVD\nr-\ni w\ntN\nCN\ncn\nCN\nm\nCN\nrr\nr- i\nm\nen\nTt\nTt\ni m ! I J\nOn\nTf\nfN\ng\nTt\nTt\ni Tt Tf r-\nr- O On\n! O On cn\n! On OO O\nI oo O cn\n! VO VD O\n! in cn o\nm cn m\nI oo cn cn\n. r-* CN* rn\"\n: co vo vo\n! Tt m m\n: m oo m\nvo cn m\nm oo cn\nco cn tN\nI Tt Tt VD\n! Tf 00 rH\nCN rH xf-\n\u2014 o Tf VO On\nr- Tf VC On CN\nrH rt Tt rH V0\n; oo oo m\n\u25a0 VD rH r~\n! oo m r~\non m m oo o\nO On CN m O\nt-; C~r VO^ fN h\nr- m r- cn CN\nTt o r-\nm rH oo\nI o tN r-\nTf r- r-\n: cn vd oo\nI VO oo CN\nrH Tf r-\no Tf r-\n: m Q\ni r- \u00a9\n' CN Tf\nm\noo vd m vd vo\nOn m On 00 m\nh ov t- ov m\nTt co\"o\"Tt r-\nm m cn cn rn\n\u25a0 CO\nvO\ni rn cN r-\n! Tt TH O\n! vo m cn\n1 CN ON m\nO VO O\noo cn tN\nrn : m on Tf\noo i cn o tN\nrH ! ON rH CN\nCN fN\ncn On\nON Tt\nVO\nr-\nVO\ntN\nVO\nt>\nrt\noo on m\nm Tt oo\nTf rH vo\ncn !\nr>\nCN !\nOn\n1 en i 1\nvo :\nO 1\n\u25a0 r- in\noo\nfN\nm\nCN\nfN\nvo\"\nfN\nVD\nCN\nr- ON Ov VD O\nOn m Tt Tt O\nm cn r- Tf rn\nCN* O* On\" Tt\nTf oo oo\nr\u00bb en m\nCN\nTt tN rH O\nOn On cn CN\nrn cn *-\"\u201e CJ,\ncn o\" hh m\non r- o\nas m t\u2014\nrH r- o vo\ncn o o m\nfN vo cn m\no\" r-\" \u00ab-< vo\"\nCN m VD\nTf Tf oo\ncn cn m m\nr-\n851\n986\n,323\nKt4\u00a7^\nvo m On\nrH TT\noo\no\ncn\no\ncn\nON rH Tf CN -H\nCN CN VD rn rn\nH Tt H in O^\nV0* m* VD* tN* On\"\nvd r-t on in\ncn rn tN\nr- rn* oo*\nis.\nV, |\nQJ I\n5 !!\n<\noj ~ it\n.Sou\nhJUK\ngpo'-g\naj\no5\nvi I ! \"S aj\n.<+-,^ I C QJ ._\u25a0 ^ _\ng|\u00a35\u00ab;\u00abllll\u00ab\u00a7|! .\njus2f,ujui;gii,u\u00bbjua8ii.ujua shujuk\no z o H\nc xj S .4 \u00ab \u25a0 OO 104\n(10)\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nLogging Inspection, 1950\nType of Tenure Operated\nForest District\nTimber\nSales\nHand-\nloggers'\nLicences\nLeases,\nLicences,\nCrown Grants,\nand\nPre-emptions\nTotals\nNumber of\nInspections\n1,195\n1,122\n736\n1,392\n744\n1\n5\n1,252\n465\n70\n1,149\n876\n2,448\n1,592\n806\n2,541\n1,620\n6,404\nPrince Rupert \t\n2,989\n1,539\n2,473\n2,816\nTotals, 1950 \t\n5,189\n6\n3,812\n9,007\n16,221\nTotals, 1949\t\n6,405\n7\n4,440\n10,852\n15,483\nTotals, 1948\t\n4,847\n5\n3,982\n8,834\n15,432\nTotals, 1947 .\t\n4,428\n5\n3,190\n7,623\n13,876\nTotals, 1946 .\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 \u2014 \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\nTen-year average, 1941-50... _\t\n4,091\n9\n3,176\n7,249\n13,484\n(11)\nTrespasses, 1950\nQJ\nQ\n\u00a3\ni\n3\nZ\n6\n38\nQua\nitity Cu\nOJ\n3\nu_. QJ\no\ncn\"\n\u00a9\no\no\nCN\nTt\ntn\n8\n00\nT?\nrn\nCO\nm\nvo\"\ncn\nVO\nvo\nCN\nt~^\nCN\np\ntN\nj\n|\ni\n6 qj o\nZM\u00bb\n\u2022III\n! 1 i\n!\n' 1\n|\n\u00a9\n8\n8\n\u00a9^\no\"\n|\n|\ni\n1\nj\n1\n\u00a9\n8\n8\n\u00b0.Si3\n\u00ab\n\u00a9\u201e\no\no\no\no\"\nVD\nO\no\no\n\u00a9\"\nm\n\u00a9 !\n8 |\nO\nO\no\no\nr-\no\n\"n\no\ncn\"\no\n\u00a9\n00\n\u00a9\nm\ntn\nm\"\n\u00a9\nin\nTf\nCN\no\nCN\nVO\no\nr-\n\u00b0\\\ncn\"\n\u00a9\nfN\nTt\nTt\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nen\nm\"\n**H , .\nZWa\no\n8\ntn\n\u00a9\no\nvo\no\no\nCN\no\no\no^\no\"\ntN\n8\nIft\nfN\nNo. of\nChristmas\nTrees\n\u00a9\nO\ncn\no\no\ntn\n\u00abH\n0 \u00ab\n. OJ\nZH\nm r~ \u00a9 o o\ntN Tt \u00a9 r- m\nO m cn ih >n\nCN m\" tN m\" os\n00 Tf\nfN\nOn\nTt\"\nTf\n8\ncn\no\"\no\ntN\ntn\nift\nm\"\ncn\nCN\nm\noo\nvd\"\ntn\nCN\n00\ncn\nvo\"\nVO\nCN\ncs\nTt\nCN\nin\nm\nCN\nt-\noo\nen\nm\nCN\nvo\"\ncn\ncn\nIft\no\no\\\nOs\nOn\nfN\nco\"\nOn\nOO\nm\nm*\nm\nCN\n- IH\no o\nZU\ncn m m oo m\nr- m m vo m\nCN rH rH f- Tf\noT cn* m\" in go\"\nm\n00\nen\nm\nOn\nOn\nIft\nm\"\nVD\nvo\nr-\nm\nTt\"\nvo\nfN\nCN\ncn\nr>\noo\nCN\nCS\nvo\"\n00\nin\no\ncn\"\nOv\ncn\nTt\ntN\nCN\nCO\no\"\nO\nCN\nCN\nTt\nen\"\no\nr-\nvo\nTt\nOn\"\nCO\n0j2\nd o\nZ*\n\u00a9 o o \u00a9 vo\no m vo o vo\nco r> in o\\ ON\ncn cn in in m\"\nrn m vo m\nTt cs\nvo\nr-\no\\\ncn\nOn\no\no\nr>\nVD\nCN\nVO\"\nVO\nOv\n(N\nCO\nTf\nON\nCN\ncn\n\"n\"\nTt\nfN\noo\n\u00b0l\ntN\nt-.\nm\"\nCN\ncn\nCN\ncn\noo\n(-;\nm\"\nvo\nVD_\nr-\n(N\n00^\ncn\"\nTt\nOv\n\u2022ft\nTt\ncn\nvo\"\nTt\nm\n\u00a9\nOn\"\ncn\nvo\nvo\nOn\nm\nm\"\nOn\nen\n\u20220 ^\nt\/i'~\\ .\nvzC fl\nPh C\nm tn o vo rn\nm Tt rn r- fN\nNO n\ntN\nVD\nTf\noo\"\nOn\nCN\no\"\nVO\nr-\nO\nfN\nm\no^\ncn\"\nCN\nTt\nm\nin\"\n00\nr-\"\nCN\nTt\no\ncn\nVD\nTf\nm\"\nm\ntN\nCTN\nm\"\nTt\n\u00bbo\nOv\"\ncn\nO\nrn\nvo\"\nVO\nCO\nvo\"\ncn\nVD\nP\nm\"\nr-\nco\n\u00a9\"\n00\nm\n5\"\nTt\nTt\ncn\"\nvo\nc-\nTt\"\nift\nt\u2014\ncn\nTt\"\nm\n\u00a9\ntN\nIh\nBit\nCO\nO o o o o\nO o O o O\np in \u00a9 O O^\nin\" oCcn r-cn\"\nrH cn vo vo 00\ncn oo On_ vo cn\noo\" m\" vd\" oo\" oo\"\nHinvocsm\nC~ rn rn m CN\n\u00a9\no\nm\nvo\"\nVD\nco\"\nfN\nVD\nO\n8\nm\"\nm\noo\"\ncn\nCN\no\no\n\u00a9\nm\"\nVD\nTf\nfN\noo\n\u00a9\no\no\no\"\nOS\noo\nOn\"\nVO\nTf\n\u00a9\n8\noo\"\nTt\nOv\nCN\nVO\nCN\no\no\no\nTt\"\nVD\nOs\nTf\nOn\no\no\n\u00a9_\nt--\"\n00\nm\"\n\u2022n\n00\n1\no\"\nCO\nm\nto\noo\n00\nO\no\n\u00a9m\nON\nIft\nm\nt-\no\no\n\u00a9\ntN\ncn\"\nfN\nVO\no\nm\nr-,\nvo\"\nCO\nOn\"\nTt\nW\nOD\nrt\nO\nIh\nO\n<\ncn Tt oo cn ov\nvo cn cn rn oo\nCN rn 0\\ CN VD^\no t-^ t- m\" cn\"\nOV Tt VD VD \u00a9\nr-\nen\nCN\nCN\nC~\ntn\nm\"\nr-\ncn\n00\nOn\no*\nTt\nTt\nOO\nr-\ncn\nm\n\u00a9\nm\ncn\"\nTt\nTt\n\u00a9\nOn\n\u00a9\"\ncn\ncn\nfN\ncn\nm\"\nTt\ncn\n^1\noo\nON\nTt\"\nOn\ncn\ntn\nON\nm\nto\ntn\nON\n0\\\ncn\"\nVO\nen\nen\nOs\ncn\no\"\nCO\ncn\n^8\nd rt\n\n\nCD\nC3h_.\n8\nm \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9\nCN \u00a9 t> m o\n\nOJ^\nf-TT Oof- VDOV\nOn\nTf en m en Tt On\nvo\nOv \u00a9 co en \u00a9 m\nm\n? QJ\ncn en en en en fN\nri\njrj\n? \u00bbJ\nm Tt cn Tt m Tt\n\u00abri\nPh&\nV*\n \n\u00a9^ CO ih VO_ VC^ CN^\nIft\nm\n\"t ^ 'I **t \u00b0V \"**i.\nTt\nm\n\u00a9 m en ov\"r-oo\nt? en tN ov m vo\nTt\nen\" c T vo\" vo\" Tt en\nr*1\nCN\nS\nt>\nOn\nS\nC* ri CN CN rH\n*i\ntU\nDO\nh\nPit.\nQJ QJ\nd tn tn\nm t> \u00a9\nO\nm\nBO\n\u00ab u\nQJ QJ\n\u00a9 o \u00a9 in \u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9 \u00a9 m ci in rn\nI\nCO VD Tf\"\n2 \"o. e\n\u00a9 CN \u00a9\nOn Tt vd r- O Ov\n\u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 in \u00a9 \u00a9\nm m on cn \u00a9 m\nj\nOJ p.\nm\nCO\n*fj\ntu\nS 3,\no\n1\nI\n'h\nPH\nri ri en\n*-\"\nJH\nPh\nci ci ci ci ci ri\n1\nQJ1^\nCN o vo ! co m\nCN\nP.\nva\nss\ncn oo m o -rt rn\ncn\nTt en m\nTt ON\nTt\nIh\nVO rH CO \u00a9 VO rH\n\u00a9\nPh p.\nen en\" cn\nen ri\nen\nPh p.\nTt en en Tt\" Tt Tt\nTt\n0\nPh'\nx r- rn i en oo\nt>\nPh\nc- oo ov m m >ft\nON\ntN rn cn\n\u00a9 en_cn\nen oo\nOv\noo o r> oo rn \u00a9\nr-\nm\nco m\n\u00a9\nA\nvo^ vo c^ tN \u00a9^ ea\nt* \u00a9 in\nenen\nt-T\nin rH ON m\" rH\nTf\nS\nt> rH rH\n1-1\nCN\na\nen th\nVO\nU\nCC\nIs\nSt\nQJ JJ\n\u00a9 m \u00a9 o \u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9 t> in tN m \u00a9\nu\nto\n| |\no \u00a9\nm \u00a9\nI> ON VO CO rH Tt\nIS\n\u2022*\u2022 Ih\nd ri\n\u00a9 m m m m \u00a9\n^\nm o\nQ P.\nm tN tN tN r- vo\nCJ\nri\nIh\nS ft\nj\nI\u2014 tn\n'G\nCN CN tn tN tN rn'\n\"iH\nri rH\nO\nPh\nW\nri\nPh\n64\no\nE\n5\nri\nH\nu1^\nOn \u00a9 CO r- CO On\nr-\n! 1 1 ! tN Ift\nIft\no.\nm Tt On Tt in \u00a9\nTt\n! CO Tt\nCO\nCO\n\"C QJ\nen Tt cn Tt m m\nTt\n^^\nTJ Ih\nrt U\nP^ ft\n! m Tt\nTt\nPh p.\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u00ab\u25a0\nrfl\no\nIh\nri\nr4\n''\u25a0'to-\n\u00ab\u25a0\nPh\nO, rH m O O rH\nTt\nfc\n1 1 r-l Ift\nVO\nrH 00 Tt CN t\u2014 ON\nCN\n: : rn r*\nen\nm\ntN CO CN On CO VD^\nCO\nffl\nPlw.\nO\noC\u00a9\"vo\"oo\"o oo\nTt\n! n Tt\nl>\ns\nrH VO rH m tN\nCN\nVO\ncn\na\ni |\" *\u00ab\nr-\nQJ\n3 \u2014\n\u00a9 \u00a9 in\nm o t>\n\u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9 en\no\n00\nIs\nQJ QJ\n8\n88\nn JJ\n*-* ri tn\nm m m\nvd On\nm \u00a9\n.s\nPh\n8\nrH CO\ntt\nO Ph\nCN Cj CN\nCN 1ft\nQ p,\ntN CO\ncn ri en\nCN rH*\nS\n*M\nTf\nrn cn\nH\nrt\n*o\nu\nu\nPh\n\u00bb\no\nPh\nt\u00ab-\n\"2\n^ QJ\ncn t\u2014 t\u2014 ! Tt VO\ncn\n*QJ\nd\nQJ^\n'CS\n\u00a9 t 1 ! CO OO\nCN\nvo i> t>\nvo cn tn\n00 \u00a9\ncn\" cn\nCN\nvd\no\nTt\n: 1 CS Ov\n! vd vd\nT?\nvd\nPh\u00a3\n\u00ab\u25a0\nto\nJ:\nP^P.\n\u00ab\u25a0\u25a0''.\n\u00ab\u00a7\u2022\nPH\nin oo vo ! en vo\nrn\nPh\nvo i r- vo\nOn\nCN O CN ! Tt OO\nrn \u00a9 cn^ t*t*\noo\n! : rs oo\ntN\nm\nTt\nP5 '\n! es cj\nen\noo\" vo\" en\" ! ri\" rn\"\ni i en vo\"\nOS\nS\nVD j rH\nON\ns\ni N\ntN\ntu\nDO\npin\nQJ QJ\no \u00a9 m o \u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9 \u00a9 t- Os o \u00a9\nu\n00\nh\nru \n1 Si\ntU\nrt\n'3)\na\n0\nQjHO,\nVO CN t- vo VO CN\ncn\n8S\nOn ! 1 ! ON OV\nIft\nOn ift m CN cn cn\ncn\nci 1 i \"*. P.\nC-\n\u2022pfc\nr\u00bb rn tn Tt Tt Tt\nvd\nXI\n!F8\nOO* ! i i O OV\nOv\nQ\np\n: ri cu i\n>\nn\n(3\n\u00a7s\no\nIh\nPh\n5\nO\nP-.\nIh\nM\nin\nH Ih .\nO\nco\n! Ih Ih !\nO\ntU\nOOO\ncU\ni tu w tu\n*4H\nIh\nn & a oo _.\nIh O. P. oo\nO\ntD 3 a rn Vi\n> 3 3 o &\nC P5 W tu o\n5ouO2S\nO O O 'JJ P_\n*\u00ab\n0\ncu 1 rj Ih to\n> 3 3 O ft\ng Ph Ph id o\nO U (U 0 9 E\nO tJ O w *fl C\nri\nO\nH\nH\n1\n>\n.5.5 *\n(H Ih C\nPh Ph \u00a3\nfl\nEl\n*3\nz\nc\na\n>\nc\nT\nP-\nt\n|\ntt\n6\nz REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 109\nat\ns\non\nz\no\nco\"\nH\ny\nH\non\nQ\nH\nco\nw\nos\nO\nHH\nQ\nz\n< o\n<\" !C\nW ON\n3^\nW Z\nPh I-1\non M\nron\no H\ncq\nps\npj\nPh\nQ\n>\n3\ncj\npa\n0*\nco\npj\no\n2\nw\no\n<\nPh\nD\nt-\non\nw\no\n<\nPS\n\u00ab\n>\n<\ncu\nOC\nvo cn Cf\no\ncn\nON\nVi\nO\n\u2022jh tu\"S\nJ? ft^\nm t> r^ Tt r-; rn\nTt ri cn en en\" Tf\nTf\n\"o\nQJ\na\nCO\nPh\n\u00ab\u25a0\nV>\nr- on vd Tt oo oo\nCN\nfa\nTt cn cn m tN cn\nCN\nvo Tt tN cn t\u2014 oo\nfN\nPQ\n<\ncn Tf cn cn en rn\nS\ncn r- on vo rn r-\nTf\nC- tN tN rn\nIft\n.2\n'tj\n\nvq\ncn en\ncn\nrrt\nCJ\ntu\n' ' ' ' &e-\n\u00ab-\nrA .\nPh\n:\n: oo o\n! Tt ON\noo\nen\nP5\n1 On m\nift\nS\ni en\"m\"\n1 rH vo\nOn\"\nr-\ntU\nC\nQJ\nm\ni en oo\nr-\n-rH w5\nPh \"\u2022\nON\nj cn cn\nCN\n\u00a3\nTf\ni m m*\nin\nto- ' ' '\nw\n&\no\nPh\nm\ni Tt m\nTf\nON\n! cn r-\n\u00a9\ncu\nPC)\n! oo r-\nC;\nr*\n2\n! Tt VD\n*\"\"'\nfN\ns.\n00\n1 Tf VD\ntn\ntU\n.5\nCJ tH.,\n^ ft*5\nCO\nVD\nCO oo\nr-\" co\"\n\u00a9\nCO\nPh\nu\nPh\ntfl- ' ' '\n\u00ab\u25a0\nni\nVD\n! CO OO\n(N\n2\nm\n: tN vo\nm\n\u00a3\npp\n00\n1 ON O\n00\ns\nTf\"\n1 m\"oo\"\noc\"\nrH\ntU\noo i\u2014 r- Tt on h\nin\nCJ tH,_,\nPhR\nCO O Tt o oo ri\nON\nE\na\nVi\nri\nri en\" cn* cn ri en\nri\nW-\n6^\nPh\n\u25a0h m en r- o r-\nen\nffl\nVO 0 \u00a9 Tf t\u2014 On\n\u00a9\nm\nen On On f-- ^\" ,\u2014'\n35\nS\noo m Tt rt tN i-t\nTt\nvo\n*\" .\nr- o cn\nON fN\n\u00a9\n.*\noo cn en\nri ri cn\"\nri en\nCO\nri\nCJ\nO\ntfr '\nV*\n\"5\npei\nen t\u2014 en ! cN \u00a9\nm\nOJ\n\u00a9 00 rH\nCN CN\nTt\nX\nm\n*\"i f\"i ^\nON^rH\nr\u2014 m\" m\n2\nr- tN\n1\"~l\nrJ\nri\nOO Tt ON rH Tt t\u2014\n^_,\nm On t~; cn o r-\ncn ci en Tt' Tt Tt\nTt\na\n3\nIH\nft\nCO\nw\nte-\nfn Tf CN VD rH Ift\nw\nPh'\nf- 1\u2014 hh on rn ON\nVD\nO cn fN VO CN r-\nen\n\u00ab'\nCN rn ift on On VO\nTf\n2\nrn tN vD co cn tN\nm\nen\ntU\ntN 00 ON rH CO ON\noo\nvor-OTft-iH\nen\nTt ri Tf ri ri cn\nTf\nIh\nw-\ntfl-\nri\n\u25a0a\na>\nPh\noo o cn rn cn cN\nC~\n\nON\npi\ncn en cn rn cn\nm\"\nS\n\u00a9 m cn Tf\ncn rH\ncn\nOhh\ntu\nlH o\nIh Ih\nO fl\nS.2\nrl> CJ tU\n\u25a0~-\\ -fl\nw C\nIh ft P. 00\nw ^\nIh *h\nS3 5SS.\ng K PS cu o !\no \na\na\nft\nu\nZ OO 110\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\no\nm\nON\no\nz\n5\nD\nco\npa\nhJ\n<\nVi\nPS\npa\npa\ng\no\nPS\nPh\nH\n0\nPS\npa\nco\ng ^_,\nON\n.\na\n3*\nM\nr\nc\nP\" 1\nr-\nr-\nrH\n\u25a0si\nt\u2014\n, - ,\nt-\nr-\nc\nt-\nt-\nvc\nIT\nr-\n.2.2\nvd\"\n:\nvc\nc\nVC\ncom\nm\nON\n!\na\nr-\nTj\nCC\nfN\n,\nCO\na\nc\nc\no\ne*-\nc\n,28\nCO\nC\nct\nec\ns\no\nvc\nc-\n\u25a0S g\nS3\u00bb\n\u00a9\nC\nr-\nV\nc\ntr\nNC\n00\noc\nVC\noc\nTf\nrj\nc\nif\nc\ni\nTt\nTl\nc\nTJ\nc\nis \u00ab\n053\n1\n1\nc\nc\nE\nj: o\no*\no o\n3 \"7?\n<*\n1\n: \u00a9\nc\nc\nV\nIT\ntr\n!\nill\nPh\"\"1 on\ni\nO\n\u00a9_\nc\nc\ni\nr-\nVC\nc\nCN\nr\nc-\nir\nvc\n*\"\u25a0\nr-\nt-\nrr\nec\nJ3\n3\nr-\nfC\nCO\n\u00a9 \u00a9 o o\nc\nc\ntr\nc\n\u00ab\na\nO\nO\nc\nr-\nOS\n{A\nm ift\nO tn\nif\ntr\nt-\nTf\nOC\nr-\ntN\nIf\nwn\ncn ift\nCi CN\nc\nVC\nct\nc\nr\nC-\nCT\nON\na\nTt\nc\na\nc\ntr\nif\nC\n\u00bbf\nt>\nc-\nto CO\nO !\nc\ntr\nV\nvc\nC\n\u00a9\nc\nCN\nr\nON\nOC\no\\\na\nt-\na\nIf-\noc\nVC\nr-\nce\nre\ncn\nc\nif\ne*-\nVC\nvo\nVC\nr-\nC\nec\nr-\n\u00a9\nc\nVC\nrJ\nVC\nTJ\nvc\nT*\nCN\nift\nin\nCN\nA K\nTf\nTt\ntN\nr-\nc*-\nr-\nON\nCI\nTt\nen\nr-\nON\nC QJ\nOn\na\nc\nrr\no-\nIf\ncn\nc\nTt\nX a\nfn\"\ncr\noc\nTt\nIf\nCT\nc\nNO\nCN\n\u00a9*\n'\nri\nVC\nec-\ntn\nCT\n\u25a0\nm\n,\n\u00a9\n00\noc\no\nTl\no\nc\nec\nC\nr-\ncn\nOC\nt>\n.2 !3 \u00ab3\nu a qj\nIft\nON\nTl\no\nTt\nCC\no\nr-\nift\nvc\nift\nON\nC\nVC\nct\nO\n?\nc\nTf\nc-\nr-t\nCT\nen\nen\nT]\nt-\nr-\nCC\nTj\nm\noc\neN\nCT\nvo\nr-\nt-\nCT\ntr\nC\nc\nr-\nNC\nTJ\nn\nif\n\u00a9\n*\u25a0'\n*\"\nTJ\nc\nTJ\nec\nec\nen\nen\nTf O \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9\nTt O oo \u00a9 \u00a9\nTj\nTf\ns\no-\noc\nr-\nec\nTj\nC\nCO\nCO\nVC\nVC\no>\nvc\nen\nvc\ncn\nrH Ift tN VO^ CN\nt\u00bb\nCC\nr-\nr-\nc\nr\n1-\nCN\nec\nCN\nto\nO\nPh\ncn *-h on oo On\nr-\nec\nc\nVC\nm\nVC\nTf\nri\nrH CO 00\nc\nir\nO\nt:\nCf\nec\nCT\nVO\nr-\nen vo\ntr\nTf\nVC\nec\nCC\n\\r\nTt\nCC\n*\"\n\nvo cn r- m vo\no-\nc\nS\nCC\ntt\"\nC\noc\nOn\nOC\nvo\n\u00a3\nrH VO Tf fN o\ntf\nr-\nr-\ne<\nin\nCC\nOn\"\nTt\nVO t> tN rH\ntr-\nr.\n5n\nC>\nCC\noc\noo\nr-\ntN\nc-\nc\nrr\nc\nTf\nTf\ncs\nrn\nCC\ncn\n\u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 o\n\u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9\nc\nc\nS\nCJ\nc\nOn\n\u25a0^\nrJ\n00\nV\n\u00a9\nto\no\nc\nVC\nm\nr-\nc-\nvc\noc\n\u00a9\nIh\no\n0\nTt\" ift VD C* CO\nc\noc\nfN\ntr\nc*\"\ncx\n\u00a9\nec\nvrj\n\u00a9 VO VO CN On\nVD\nTt\n\u00a9\nVC\nc\nfN\noc\nON\nTf\nCO\nC- oo en cn on\nc-\nr-\nTf\nc\n\u00a9\nfc\nOO\nCT\n\u00a9\ncn rn in on cn\nT}\nc\n^\nr\nvc\nOs\nCT\nC\nen\nCT\n\u00a9\nCJ\nen\nTt\nTt\nm\nTt\nc-\nOC\nTt\nTf\nift\nrooroo\nO\nVC\nen\nri\nC\n8\n (3 o ft\n\u2022s\nJ\n\u00ab\nco\ntf\nCC\n\u00ab\n\u00ab\nto\nco a\nCU rH\n>.Tt\ni On\n88211 2\nrt C Q 05 QJ\no\nO\nC\no\no\no\n0\no c\nfl rH\neg\nH\nH\nH\nH\nH\nH\nH\nH H\nH\n>\nPh\nPh\nw\n% m\u2014i\u2014\n(21)\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nSaw and Shingle Mills of the Province, 1950\nOO ill\nOperating\nShut Down\nSawmills\nShingle-mills\nSawmills\nShingle-mills\nForest District\nNumber\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nMB.M.\nNumber\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nShingles, M\nNumber\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nMB.M.\nNumber\nEstimated\nEight-hour\nDaily\nCapacity,\nShingles, M\nVancouver _\t\nPrince Rupert _\t\n426\n267\n447\n411\n275\n8,529\n1,393\n3,672\n2,734\n2,815\n61\n2\n2\n8,574\n30\n32\n59\n20\n85\n18\n52\n268\n158\n554\n109\n373\n3\n8\n84\nFort George\t\nKamloops \t\nNelson\t\n94\nTotals, 1950. \t\n1,826\n19,143\n65\n8,636\n234\n1,462\n11\n178\nTotals, 1949 \t\n1,671\n19,082\n61\n7,708\n314\n2,373\n17\n513\nTotals, 1948\t\n1,671\n18,570\n68\n8,464\n179\n840\n11\n360\nTotals, 1947\t\n1,634\n17,546\n73\n8,609\n143\n754\n6\n100\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\nTen-year average,\n1941-50\t\n1,149\n15,879\n63\n8,094\n162\n1,062\n4\n308\n(22)\nExport of Logs (in F.B.M.), 1950\nSpecies\nGrade No. 1\nGrade No. 2\nGrade No. 3\nUngraded\nTotal\nFir \t\n2,743,510\n4,491,421\n1,421,868\n4,278,477\n7,274,389\n27,031\n9,996,015\n9,608\n38,934\n841\n6,657,266\n5,092,677\n103,645\n76,062,703\n52,801\n61,870\n13,679,253\n16,858,487\n130,676\n87,480,591\n19,210,615\n62,409\n103,400\nSpruce .... .\n19,210,615\n2,596\n157\n121\nTotals, 1950 \t\n8,659,552\n21,625,295\n88,031,088\n19,210,615\n137,526,550*\nTotals, 1949 \t\n6,392,228\n21,382,979\n103,550,707\n14,228,041\n145,553,955*\nTotals, 1948 \t\n9,380,092\n31,127,805\n106,739,296\n16,367,096\n163,614,289\nTotals, 1947 . \t\n7,156,095\n21,100,803\n52,368,152\n7,552,386\n88,177,436\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\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\n6,300,586\n26,263,762\n53,740,014\n48,384,368\n134,688,730\n* Of this total, 124,806,149 F.B.M. were exported from Crown grants carrying the export privilege; 12,720,401 F.B.M.\nwere exported under permit from other areas. OO 112\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n(23)\nShipments of Poles, Piling, Mine-props, Fence-posts,\nRailway-ties, etc., 1950\nForest District and Product\nQuantity\nExported\nApproximate\nValue,\nF.O.B.\nWhere Marketed\nUnited\nStates\nCanada\nUnited\nKingdom\nOther\nCountries\nVancouver\u2014\nPoles.._ lin. ft.\nPiles- \u2014lin. ft.\nSticks and stakes lin. ft.\nFence-posts pieces\nCedar shakes pieces\nChristmas trees pieces\nPulp-wood _ cords\nPrince Rupert\u2014\nPoles and piling lin. ft.\nHewn ties pieces\nPosts _ cords\nNelson\u2014\nPoles lin. ft.\nPiling. lin. ft.\nOrchard-props _ _ lin. ft.\nMine-props . cords\nPosts .cords\nCordwood cords\nHewn ties. pieces\nChristmas trees pieces\nFort George-\nPoles _ \u2014lin. ft.\nPosts cords\nTies pieces\nKamloops\u2014\nPoles and piling lin. ft.\nMine-timbers lin. ft.\nStubs lin. ft.\nPosts - cords\nTies pieces\nChristmas trees pieces\nTotal value, 1950..\nTotal value, 1949..\n4,437,187\n434,779\n457,200\n46,903\n9,089,949\n84,558\n37,266\n1,812,940\n71,055\n38\n3,355,759\n30,688\n476,000\n3,714\n10,651\n16\n17,356\n777,336\n413,446\n1,761\n68,870\n6,085,640\n102,275\n1,000\n4,260\n47,883\n643,168\n$976,181.14\n95,651.38\n16,002.00\n11,725.75\n181,800.00\n29,595.30\n689,421.00\n398,846.80\n78,160.50\n874.00\n738,266.98\n6,751.36\n5,950.00\n55,710.00\n244,973.00\n156.00\n19,091.60\n272,067.60\n90,951.52\n39,468.00\n75,757.00\n1,338,840.80\n21,477.75\n100.00\n97,980.00\n52,671.30\n225,108.80\n3,136,191\n58,399\n457,200\n2,275\n8,875,429\n84,558\n37,266\n789,295\n2,223,400\n476,000\n2,722\n730,870\n383,211\n3,347,205\n1,000\n1,798\n565,254\n$5,763,579.58\n$5,503,004.37\n1,296,093\n371,880\n44,628\n13,500\n1,023,645\n71,055\n38\n1,132,359\n30,688\n3,714\n7,929\n16\n15,356\n46,466\n30,235\n1,761\n68,870\n2,738,435\n102,275\n4,260\n46,085\n77,914\n4,903\n4,500\n201,020\n(24)\nSummary for Province, 1950\nProduct\nVolume\nValue\nPer Cent of\nTotal Value\n lin. ft.\n16,570,409\n- 102,275\n$3,645,489.98\n21,477.75\n63.3000\nMine-timbers \t\n lin. ft.\n0.3710\nStubs\t\n ..lin. ft.\n1,000\n100.00\n0.0015\n lin. ft.\n476,000\n457,200\n5,950.00\n16,002.00\n0.0100\nSticks and stakes\t\n lin. ft.\n0.2800\nPulp-wood \u2014\t\n cords\n37,266\n689,421.00\n12.0000\nMine-props...\t\n cords\n3,714\n55,710.00\n0.9650\nCordwood \t\n cords\n16\n156.00\n0.0025\nFence-posts \t\n. cords\n16,665\n383,295.00\n6.6500\nFence-posts \u2014\t\n pieces\n46,903\n11,725.75\n0.2200\nCedar shakes \u2014\t\n pieces\n9,089,949\n181,800.00\n3.2000\nHewn ties -\t\n pieces\n205,164\n225,680.40\n3.9000\n1,505,062\n526,771.70\n9.1000\n$5,763,579.58\n100.0000 (25)\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nTimber Marks Issued\nOO 113\nOld Crown grants \t\nCrown grants, 1887-1906\t\nCrown grants, 1906-1914\t\nSection 55, \" Forest Act \" \t\nStumpage reservations \t\nPre-emptions under sections 28\nand 29, \" Land Act \"\t\nTimber berths \t\nIndian reserves \t\nTimber sales \t\nHand-loggers __\t\nSpecial marks \t\nPulp leases \t\nPulp licences _\nTotals _\t\nTransfers and changes of marks .\n1941\n211\n85\n101\n282\n64\n16\n5\n1,853\n11\n6\n2\n17\n1942\n2,654\n307\n160\n85\n92\n250\n79\n2\n9\n4\n1,709\n19\n6\n2\n1\n2,418\n224\n1943\n190\n98\n104\n283\n72\n2\n5\n11\n2,017\n9\n5\n1\n4\n2,801\n237\n1944\n1945\n280 | 329\n89 115\n81 | 106\n234 337\n51 53\n1\n9\n10\n1,893\n8\n6\n1\n1\n2,664\n251\n2,882\n327\n1946\n631\n200\n176\n473\n70\n15\n2,637\n35\n4,248\n486\n1947\n738\n191\n176\n489\n75\n9\n18\n2,469\n4,206\n655\n1948\n791\n156\n150\n439\n82\n5\n4\n20\n2,612\n40\n2\n4,301\n745\n1949\n548\n128\n97\n352\n60\n7\n18\n2,525\n3,763\n550\n1950\n549\n169\n165\n505\n69\n32\n2,591\n27\n4\n4\nTen-year\nAverage,\n1941-50\n4,134\n752\n443\n132\n125\n364\n67\n15\n2,221\n5\n19\n1\n3\n3,408\n454\n(26)\nForest Service Draughting Office, 1950\nMonth\nNumber of Drawings Pre\npared 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.\nTotal\nBlueprints\nDitto-\nprints\nTotal\nJanuary\t\nFebruary \t\n54\n37\n42\n40\n77\n68\n67\n79\n67\n103\n83\n111\n89\n72\n183\n109\n255\n217\n195\n151\n204\n211\n156\n208\n65\n46\n103\n69\n98\n118\n119\n95\n57\n126\n99\n113\n30\n32\n29\n26\n57\n96\n158\n59\n86\n69\n84\n79\n253\n6\n3\n6\n21\n21\n31\n8\n14\n6\n4\n5\n491\n193\n360\n250\n508\n520\n570\n391\n428\n515\n426\n516\n740\n957\n1,073\n1,089\n949\n1,388\n1,864\n1,242\n1,004\n1,166\n1,061\n1,226\n1,092\n717\n875\n886\n1,530\n1,510\n1,442\n1,337\n1,050\n2,085\n1,820\n2,255\n1,832\n1,674\n1,948\n1,975\n2,479\n2,898\n3,306\n2,579\n2,054\n3,251\n2,881\n3,481\nApril\t\nMay _\nJune... \t\nJuly \t\nAugust \t\nSeptember .\nDecember . \t\nTotals, 1950 \t\n828\n2,050\n1,108\n805\n378\n5,168\n13,759\n16,599\n30,358\nTotals, 1949\t\n514\n1,547\n988\n353\n80\n3,482\n10,184\n10,344\n20,528\nTotals, 1948\t\n681\n2,300\n1,247\n241\n58\n4,327\n13,625\n12,959\n26,401\nTotals, 1947 -\n500\n2,223\n1,238\n290\n55\n4,306\n12,026\n9,844\n21,870\nTotals, 1946\t\n604\n1,931\n1,028\n525\n48\n4,136\n9,113\n7,300\n16,413\nTotals 1945 \t\n569\n1,193\n693\n684\n75\n3,214\n6,495\n6,701\n13,196\nTotals, 1944\t\n442\n889\n459\n544\n46\n2,380\n4,159\n4,983\n9,142\nTotals, 1943 \u2014\n356\n937\n396\n293\n93\n2,075\n4,009\n3,448\n7,457\nTotals, 1942\n329\n868\n359\n111\n73\n1,740\n*\n*\n*\nI\nTotals, 1941\t\n247\n1,087\n468\n150\n70\n2,022\n*\n*\n*\nTotals for ten-year\nperiod \t\n5,070\n15,025\n7,984\n3,996\n976\n32,850\n73,370\n72,178\n145,365\nAverage for ten-year\nperiod\u2014 \t\n507\n1,503\n798\n400\n98\n3,285\n9,171f\nI\n9,022t 18,171t\nI\n* No record kept prior to 1943. t Average for eight-year period only. OO 114\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n(27)\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 690,43 8\n1928 671,131\n1929 644,011\n1930 629,156\n1931 602,086\n1932 552,007\n1933 567,731\n1934 557,481\n1935 535,918\nYear Area (Acres)\n1936 . 515,924\n1937 743,109\n1938 754,348\n1939 719,112\n1940 549,250\n1941 543,632\n1942 527,995\n1943 543,044\n1944 571,308\n1945 591,082\n1946 601,148\n1947 596,900\n1948 571,439\n1949 597,790\n1950 . 631,967\n(28)\nAcreage of Timber Land by Assessment Districts\nAcres\nAlberni 95,704\nComox 139,720\nCowichan 108,285\nFort Steele 8,830\nGulf Islands 240\nKettle River 315\nNanaimo 135,162\nNelson 1,997\nAcres\nOmineca 160\nPrince George 1,193\nPrince Rupert 21,272\nRevelstoke 33,179\nSlocan 35,608\nVancouver 74\nVictoria 50,228\nAcreage of Crown-granted Timber Lands Paying Forest Protection\n<29> Tax as Compiled from Taxation Records\nYear\nAcreage\nAssessed as\nTimber\nLand\nCoast\nInterior\nLogged\nTimber\nLogged\nTimber\n1936 .. \t\n766,186\n766,413\n756,328\n719,111\n549,250\n543,633\n527,995\n543,044\n571,308\n591,082\n601,148\n556,900\n571.439\n597,790\n631,967\nAcres\n92,892\n96,598\n106,833\n89,209\n103,486\n105,541\n112,834\n125,313\n134,194\n142,504\n146,331\n153,072\n158,120\n172,024\n207,308\nAcres\n352,582\n363,693\n344,858\n338,794\n338,419\n335,468\n322,306\n325,996\n345,378\n357,037\n364,556\n354,207\n326,738\n340,200\n378,985\nAcres\n152,846\n153,566\n157,508\n153,032\n24,852\n26,016\n20,072\n20,205\n20,816\n21,536\n23,125\n26,591\n25,485\n30,625\n8,635\nAcres\n167,866\n1937 - \t\n1938 _\t\n152,556\n147,129\n1939 \u2014 .. - \t\n138,075\n1\u00ab40\n82,493\n1941 - \u2014 - -\n76,608\n1942 \t\n72,781\n1943 - -\t\n1944 - \t\n1945 - \u2014\n71,529\n70,920\n70,005\n1946 -- -\t\n67,136\n1947 \u2014 -\n63,030\n1948 \t\n61,096\n1949 \t\n54,941\n1950 \t\n37,039 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 115\nTtooNOOrimvomvooooCTOt\u2014r\u2014\u00a9rnmfNm\nenoc\u00bbmvoCTooTtencnONOrHiftcnenvoCTmCTON\nONrH'cntNCTOrNTtoNOON^odooooTtaNriodvo\nr1cnmCTfNVDVDr-enrH0OfNCTVDrHrHrH\u00a9TtCTCN\nTtCT\u00a9rHvD cnCTcnvoOfNiftcnrHooiftCT Tf\nwvd\n,r-Tt\nIS\nO -\n2cn\n'\u25a0^\u25a0Sr^^^Nr-vomr-mr-ocnvor-ocnOTt\n)ON\u00a9Tfr-;>^OVDrlaoOcnOONOvDOr-OCN\nNr-~mCTOwNOrHr-^r-*r-m'mrJCTodcnodrHCN\n)mr>r-vooorH|\u2014CTcnvDOcoTfr-oocNrHcnrH\n{cn \u00a9 oo rNmtNvqr-^TtCT r-moo rHTf\nrn\" Tf \u00a9\" rn\"\nrn cn en\n\u2022grH\n\u00bb=Hcn\nH2\n^h a\\ ^ ** \\o vj no\\\nW\nz\nw\n>\nHi\nH\nW\no\no -\nSen\nHg\n>\u00abSco\nHi\nenOVDOOOfNenovOOfNcn\nON\u00a9vo\u00a9r>mmtNrHONCTO\nr^iftmOmcnooNcntNoo'od\nrH\u00bbnrH\u00a9mencoCTcnmr-oo\nVD CO_CT rH ON_ rHVOtNVO\u00a9m\nTtrHrT ct m\"rH\"oo\"r-\"\"ocN\noo Tf on ct cn CT\ntn rH rH\nTt en\nr- co vo en m vo On\nt-^ rH rH rH cn VO rH\noo* vd \u00a9 cn -rt m vd\nt- CN Tf Tt rH cn \u00a9\nC- HO *H\nvo\"o\" C-^\nCN tN n\nCNOVDO-HOOTfOOCTOtNOO\n\"ftOCTOOCNt\u2014OONVDTfr-1\nrHOONmmCT'coTtoovDVDTt\nCT00-Ht--CNr-\u00a9OCO\u00a9TtCN\nmcncnrH\u00a9^ co rH on Tt O Tt\nOnes o vD'otTCTTrn'oNcn\"\nm On tN fN O\nCO\nCN\no\nCT\n\u00a9 O Tf\ncn tn cN\nTf\nTf\nr-\n\u00a9\ncn\n\u00a9\nTf\nTt\nCO\nr-\nr-l\nTf\nO\nTt\nCN\nm\n\u2014\nTf\nCN\nO\nri\nCO\ntN\nr\u2014\n\u00a9\n>r.\nCT ND\nIft\nCj\nen\nvo en\nt-\nVD\nr-\ncn\nCO\nIft\n\u00a9\nO\nCT Tf\nr-\nVP\n,_)\nvn\nr-\nen\ncn\ncn vo vo Tt\nON\nTt\nOn r- Tf\nTt\nCT \u00a9 t\u2014 m Tt en oo\nri rn on r- oo m\nri t\u2014 r- cn tn\nd v vi Q\n5 .\nw t_\u00bb rt s\n4H 3J \u00b0 Si\nrt rt rt 0\nW to Bl h\ni\/i rt rt\n111\no. s rt\n: a .a\nfl \u00a3\nfH tJ\no X\n N C fl\n. \u201e x \"3 g \u25a0-\nwhMWwOh\no\nH\na \u00a7 K\nrH SO \u2014I\na cj ct OO 116\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nOCNrHmCO NO Tf tn OO Tt VO rH, CO\na\n\u00a9\n5\nov m m i> m\nCN\nC-;\n00\nVD\nNO\nt-;\nm\n\u00a9\nen\nNO\ncn co en rn en\nm*\nod\nd\nri\n\u00a9\nr-*\nTt\"\nOn\nen\nt>\nON\ncn m oo m \u00a9\ntN\nVO\n\ntn\nco\nr\\\n*\"i\ncn\nVD\no\nm* oo\" vo\" Tt\" r-\nen\nm\"\nfN\no\nt-\"\nm\no\nTt\nvo\"\nOn\"\nH\nt\u2014 m O On CN\nNO\nm\n\u00a9\ns\nCT\ncn\nOn\nen\nen\noo\ncn\nCT OO r\u00bb rH on\nVD\nvo\nm\nCO\nND\nCN\nCN\nm\nvo\nIft rH rH\n\u00a9\nCO\nCO\nr-\nTf\nen\ncn\ncn\nrn\nen\nif)\nw-\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u00ab\u25a0\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\nO O rH rH\ntN\nCT\no\n1\nrH t-; Cn t--\nCO\nfN\nOn\n\"3 \u00ab*o\ncn tN o* ri\nod\nri\n\u00a9\ni\n52c\n\u25a0Pll\nen Tf en Tt\nTf\n\u00a9\nNO\ni\nn-h vq^ \u25a0<* r-^\nCT\n55\nVD^\nUh\ns5cfi\n(#1 r-T vo* r-\"\nTf\"\nod\"\nTt\nCO\nCO Tt CT VO\non r-\nSO\nrj m\nTf\nWNihh\nVO Tf\ncn\nTf\nVi | Vi\n09-\n\"3 op\nts\nCT\nen\nOJ\nrt Ih j3\nift vo en m en\nvo\n\u2022\ncn\nVO\n1 \u00abri\nrH m rH Ift VO\nVD\nCN\nON\n! jj *^\nVi-\nO.U o\n00* r-* fN Tf fN\nfN Tf 00 Tt On\nTt\"\n>\nn\nlis\n(N\nCO\nfN en tN^ rH rH\nCN r-<\n\"1\ncn\nOO\nVD\nfN\n\\o\nCO\nVi\nVi\n&9-\nco ct CT cn m\ns\nTt\nCT\nrH\nCT\no\nTt\nTf\nm\nCO\nVD\n. ^\nCO rH rH Ift CN.\ncs\nOO\n00\n00\nvq\nTt\nCN\nfN\nr-t\ncn\nco'Jfj .8\n*3 G \u00a3* bo**-* cfl\n<3'K ScS\u00bb\nTf* \u00a9 Tf cn\" en\nvd\nri\nri\nOn\nt>\nr-\"\nvd\nod\nTf\nCO\nvd\nco r- oo rn cn\noo\nTf\nif)\nCO\nfN\nfN\nm\nCO\nr-\nm\nTt \nCO\nVO\nOn\nON\nIft\ntn\n\u00a9\n00\no\n\u00a9 CO VO Tf rH\nri\nod\n\u00a9\nTf'\nrH\ncd\nVD\nNO\nen\nND\nen\nu~>\nrt\nt\u2014 CO rH Tf fN\nTt\nCT\nTf\nm\nCT\nTt\nVD\nNO\no\nri.\nCN VO^ VD m^ Tt\nm\nVO\nTt\nr\\\n00\nNO\n00\nTt\n\u00a9\nON\nB\nt-\" NO\" \u00a9 rn\" v\"\nND\nVO\nm\nr-\nm*\ncN\nOn\"\nCN\nl\u2014t\nON 00 VD \u00a9 rH\nvo\nTf\nr-\nen\nm\nr-\nCT\n00\nTt\nTt\nr-\nTf Tt 00 00 VD\n\n\u00a9\nO\nTf 0CJ !\nrj\nen\nNO\n00\n\u00a9\nen\ncn\nvq\nift\nCT\nt-\nPi\nC-\" l> !\nm*\nift\n\u00abH\nri\nTt\"\nCO\nd\nm*\nrH\nrH\n\u00a9\nto\ntii\nHH\nen \u00a9 I\nTf\nr-\nVO\nVD\noo\nCO\nvo\nen\nTt\nfl\ntn vo_ !\nrH\"m* 1\nON\nvo\"\n\u00a9\nm\"\nCT\nm\"\nvo\u201e\nCO\n\u00a9^\nr-\"\n\u00a9.,\nm\"\n00\nco\"\ntN\noo\"\nCN\nTt\nvq^\nON\nW\np\nVO rH\nr-\nON\no\n\u00a9\nND\nfN\nCN\ntN\nTt\n\u00a9\nU-\ncn\ncn\nCN\ncn\nen\nfN\nH.\no\nfl\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u25a0tt-\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u00ab\u25a0\nt\u00ab-\n\u00ab*\n\u00ab\u25a0\nVi\nVi\nV5-\nVi\nTf VO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nn\nen\nm\noo\n\u00a9\nTf\nCT\nCT\nr-\nCfl\nr- m\nen\nNO\nON\nCT\n00\nVO\ncn\nr>\nCO\nTt\ncn\no\n\"ri\n3\non m*\nift\nod\nvd\nrH\nND\nd\nON\nON\n5\nON\ncn\n.o\nfl\nTt \u00a9\n\u00bbft\noo\nTt\nNO\nCT\nCO\nfN\nVD\nIft\nz\nco\nu\nrHTt\nift\nm\nOO\nen\nr^\nCN\n\u00a9\nen\nCT^\nen\n\u00a9\nri<\nr-\"en\"\no\"\nTt\nco\"\nen\nen\"\no\"\n\u00a9*\nen\"\nNO*\nco\"\nt*-\"\no\nx\nON\no\nON\nr-\nvo\nTt\nTf\nTf\nen\nen\nen\nm\no\no\nW\nvi\nVi\ntfi-\nCfl-\n\u00ab\u25a0\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVr\nVi\ntO-\n\u00ab\u25a0\nm \u00a9 \u00bbft \u00a9 oo\noo\n\"vo\"\"\nen\nvo\nm\nr-\nt- 1 cN\nr- 1 vo\nCN\nJ\n1 w\noo mi Tt en Tf\nift\nTt\nrH\nTt\nCO\nr>\nr- t-\nH tN\nTt\nfl W) oj\ng c.S c\nogSa\n0 \u00ab\u00a3\nrn* od en* cn m\nrH\nen\"\nt-*\nl>\nOn\nen\n\u00a9 Tf\nt-\" od\nd\nco\nZ\nHH\nCT rH VO Tf Ift\nr- m n Tt oo\n\u00bb cs*\nr-\nTt\nen\nr-\nCN\nm\nr-\noo\no\n00\nTf\"\n0\\\nTt\"\nTt\nen*\nfN\n\"\nift\nTf\nTt\ntN\nen*\n\u00a9_\nm\nGO-\nCO\nfN*\nVi\n&a\ntfl\n\u00ab\u25a0\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nvi\nVi\n<\n<\n\u00a9 \u00a9 rH \u00a9 f-\nrH \u00a9 CO 00 Tf\n00\nen\nNO\nTt\nr- i vo\n\"cn\nNO\nse\nGO\nVO\nt\u00bb\nrH\nI>\nen\nCO\ni>\nIft\nTt\nCT\nIft\nrH\nen\nu cn\nVD* On \u00a9 I-\" On\ncn\nod\nrH\nr*\nm\"\nTt\nm\nen\nrH\nrH\nt-^\nQ\nN \nfN\nON\nVO\n1\nu-i\n\u00a9\nen\nr^\nON\nON\nTt\nt^\nIII\nTt\nen\nIft\n\u00a9\nTt\n\u00b01\nTt\nvq\nNO\nOO\nTt\nCN\nTt\n\u00ab\nco\nen\nrn\"\noo\"\nTt\nno\"\nOn\"\nCS\nIft*\nH\nZ\nH\u00ab\nCN\nift\nTt\nm\nen\nCS\nen\n1\ni\nft9-\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u00ab\u25a0\nVi\nVi\ntfi-\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\nCS co\nIf) Tt\nON\nrH\nCN\nvo\nen\nm\nrH\nOv\n\u00a9\nCT\ntS\no\na\nen m\n00 CO\nm\nIft\ncn\n\u00a9\nON\nCO\nen\nOn\nCN\nen\nCN\nr\" r-^\ncd vd\nTt\nCT\nt- Tt\nOn\nvd\nod\nen\"\n\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u00ab\u25a0\n\u20acf>\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nCT Tt Ift Ift rH\nTt\nNO\nCT\n\u00a9\nm\nNO\nx>\nt-\nCO\nCT\nCO\nvo ct m r> r-;\nVO\nCT\n\u00a9\nvq\nm\ntN\na\nci\nrH\nCT\n>,\nen\" VD en* CN vo\nen Tt vo m vo\nen\"\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nCO\nen\"\nr\"\n\u00a9\nr-*\nr\"\nri\nTt\nvo\nr-\nVO\nr-\nCO\nm\nTf\ntN\nVO\nOn\nTt\n73\nH Tt CT_ Tt C-^\nr-\nx>\n\u00a9\nCT\nt-\n\u00a9\nm\nen\n>1\nr- Ttcncn cn\nCN\nr-\nt>\nTf\ntN\nm\nCT\n\u00a9\nm\nCO\nCS\n0\n\u00a9 tN vo Tt \u00a9\n3\nt>\nen\nOO\n'O\nif>\nm\nNO\nr-\nVO\nTt\nrt\nON tN rH rH\nm\nCT\n\u00b0i.\nCT_\nCO\n\u00b0i.\ncn\ntn\nCN\nfN\nen\nCN\nCS\na\nci\nVi\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\n&\u25a0*\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\nVi\nVi\nu\n*G\n1\n\u00a9\nm\nX\nTt\nCT\n4*\n00\nrt\nQ\n\u00a9'\nOv\nCO\nr-^\nvd\ng.\nTf\nen\nCN\n,_\n1)\nm\nTt Tt\nTf Tf\nTt\nTt\nTf\nTt\nTt\nCT\nCT On\nCT On\nCT\nOn\nCT\nON\nCT\nc.\no\nrt\n\u2022\u25a0e\nw\nc\ni go \u201e\nCO\nvi vi vi vi tn vi\nv. m\n\u00ab \"\n4\n>\npt\no c\ni\n-3\nrt rt ri ci os rt\nri \"c3\ni \u00a3\n\u00a3\n^ 0 H-\n\u2014 a\nO\n0 O 0 o o o o\nO O O a\n\u2022*4\nu a.\nHHHHHHHHHHH\n*\n*o\nC C\nt R -S\nrt T\no ri to\n>0h fct\n\u00a9\nrH\nTt ri On d r-\"\n\u00a9 l> fN Tt CT\nTt\nrH\n*0\nr\"\n\u00a9\nTt\nNO\nen\"\nm*\nr-\"\nC-*\nTt\nr-\ncs\nrl\n\u00a9\nCT\nCT\nift\ncn\nfS\nve\na\nr- fN O CN CT\nfN\nTt\n\u00a9\np\nVD\ncn\nvq\n00\noo\nm\nvo\no\nOO \u00a9 CT O CN\nts\nOn\ncn\"\n\u00a9\nm\nod*\nr-\nCN*\nm*\ncn*\nH\noo Tt r- en en\nr-\nTt\nCT\nTt\nVD\nCT\nif)\ntn\ns\ncn t> r> on co\n\u00bbft\nVO\nCO\nCT\n\u00a9\nVO\nTt\n\u00a9_\nift\ntN\nm\nCO\nOO\nVO\nTf\nTt\"\nen\ncn\nen\"\nen\nen\"\n1ft*\nVi\nto-\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nto-\nVi\n6\u00bb\n! oo \u00a9 m in\nCO\nTt\n1\ni\n! vq cn o ts.\nrH\n\u00a9\ntn\nIs!\n> 3 ri\n| VO CO Tf on\nod\nIft\n\u00a9\ni en CT r- CT\nO\n\u00a9\nvo\nV\nCN CO VD CT^\noo\n>ft\nCN\nPh\niri-^Pn\nj r\u2014 Tt\"en\"vD\ncs\ncn\n\no\nO\nTt\nTt\nTt rH \u00a9 ift OV\no\nIft\n\u00a9\nVi\nVi\nri. B S\ne tn.3\n3~<\u00a3\nr- od Ov\" en* vd\n\u00a9 \u00a9 o r- t\u2014\nm\"\nri\nr-\nr-\nen\n00\nen rH VO \u00a9\nVi ^\nrf\nt>\nen\nCO\nso\nvt\nVi\nr- r- oo o rn\ncn\ncn\nm\ng\n,_,\ncn\nON\nr-\nVO\nCN\no\nRentals,\nCruising,\nAdvertising,\nTransfer\nFees\nCT tn t\u2014 h oo\nes\noo\nt-;\nV*\nCO\nTt\nIft\n\u00a9\n00\n\u00a9 od vd od m\n\u00a9\nm\"\nrH\n\u00a9\nVD\nod\nd\nr\"\nr-\"\nri\nen*\nrH rH Tf t- CN\nCO\n\u00a9\nTt\nCT\no\nCO\nen\ncn\nTt\nTt\n0*-*>\nVi\n\u00bb\nvy\nto-\noo ct m r- rn\nift \u00a9 \u00a9 oo ct\no\n00\ncn\nr-\nrs\ncs\nTf\nVO\ncn\no\nTt\no\nIft\nr-\nOv\nvq\nt-;\nt-;\nen\nTt\nTt\nOn\nCN\nCO\nr\u00ab \u00a9 cn vd t-*\nON\nTf\nod\nOv\nd\ntn\nO\nen\nr-\nen\nCO\nrt\nco tn so >n ~rt\nCT\n00\ncn\nm\no\nCT\n00\noo\nON\nTf\nm\nri<\nO \u00a9 cn CT cN\nNO\nfN\nr-\ncs\nift\nNO\nvo\nTt\nvo\nNO\ni\ns\n\u00a9 oo oo oo m\n\u00a9\nTt\nen\nCT\nr-\nm\"\nOn\"\n00\nvo\"\noo CT cn CT en\n\u2022ft\nVO\ncs\nCT\noo\nCN\nIft\nm\nr-\nCN\nTt\noc^ en m ift if>\nCT\nin\nOv\nvq\nTf\nOn\n00\nr-\nCO\ncn\"\nTf\nTt\nen\"\nrH*\nVi\nVi\nVi\nri\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nt\u00ab-\nVi\nVi\nto-\nVi\nrH Tf\nm\ncn\ns\nCT\nS\nvO\nVO\nm\no\nCN\nt>\nt> vq\nen\nr-\nCO\nm\nTt\n\"1\nr-\nen\nvq\nrH VO\ncd\n\u00a9\ncd\nt\nri\nTt Tf\ncn\nd\nvd\nm*\nOJ\nQJ\nCS CT\nTt\nen\n\u00a9\nts\nts\nCT\nTf\nCO\noo\nCT\nTJ\nen r-\n*\u25a0*\nen\nTf\nVO\nf).\nr>\nt^\nIft\nrH\nVO\nen\nA\ncn Tt\"\nCO\nvo\"\n\u00a9\"\no\"\nen\nvo\"\nt>\ncn\ncs\"\nTt\"\nvo\"\nr- rH\noo\n00\nCS\nCT\nts\nCS\ntN\nTt\nTt\nOO\nCS\ncs\nCS\nen\nto\n1\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\n6*\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVO CO\nTf\nTt\nvo\nrH\nr-\ntn\nrH\ntn\nTf\n\u00a9\nr-\nCfl\nU\nrH CO\n\u00a9\nTf\nt-;\nCO\nvq\nr^\ncn\nvq\nen\nOv\nVO\nli\nIft\" On\nm\"\nON\ncn\n\u00a9\nod\nvd\nCO\nt-\"\nCO\n|>\nTt\"\nu\nC\nTt Tf\nCT\nIft\nr-\nift\nCT\nift\nCT\nr-\nCO\nCO\nOJ\nO rH\nIft\n\u00a9\nen\nen\nTt\nl-^\nm\nr^\nr>\nVD_\nri.\nW\nVO VO\ncs\nVD\n\u00a9\nTt\nCT\n\u00a9\"\nm\"\nTt\"\nr>\nift\"\nCO\nOn\nr-\nt-\nTt\nTt\nTt\nen\nen\ntn\nen\nm\nVi\nVi\nv>\nvt\nVi\nVi\nto-\nto\n\u00ab\u25a0\nw-\nVi\nto\nvo \u00a9 O O CO\nTt\nCT\nrH\nCO\nVD\nVO\nco\noo\nVD\ntn\nrn\n3rn-\nnt\ning\nnses\nco m m rn rn\nIft\nVD\n\u00a9\nin\nIft\nTt\nOv\nvq\n\u00a9\nr-\nen\nod VD vd d On\ntn'\nIf)\nm\"\nod\nvd\nvi\nri\nvd\nift\nS\nift o cn r- oo\nIf)\n00\nCT\nVD\n\u2022ft\ncn\nr\u00bb\nON\nm\no\nGov.\nme\nSeal\nExpe\n*-H_ CT Tf cn Tf\ncn\nTt\nvq\ncsj\n\u00a9_\n\u00a9\nvq^\nen\nr-\nen\nin\nm tsT\nm\"\ncn\nri\nts\"\nTt\"\ncn\"\n\u00ab-\nto-\ntN\nVi\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\nw-\n\u00ab\u25a0\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\nto-\n\u00ab\u25a0\nto\nm \u00a9 \u00a9 cn vo\nTf O O 00 o\nTt\nm\no\nm\nr>\ncn\nvo\nvo\nCO\n\u00a9\nTf\nHH Vi\nen\nr-\nIft\nrH\nin\nr>\nTt\nift\ncs\n\u00a9\nri cd en\" od \u00a9\nri\nTt\n\u00a9\nm*\nri\nod\nen\n\u00a9\nOv*\nSS\nrH rH VO rH fS\nen\ncs\nVD\nCN\n00\nr>\nvo\nTt\ncs\nVD\nCO\nTt cs ts\nCT\nr-\ntN\nTt\no\n00\nen\nen\nTt\nTf\nr-\n'SB\nVi\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\nrH\n,_\"\n^~\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nto\nVi\nVi\nto\n\u25a0 j\nI\noo\n\u00a9\nTf\nrH\n\u00a9\nif)\n00\nen\nTf\nt*> i\nS33\u00ab\n1 !\nOv\nOO\n\u00a9\nvq\nCN\nCO\nr-\nes\ni i\nm\"\nON\n\u00a9\ncd\nri\nri\n\u00a9\nri\nrH\ni ;\nCT\nvo\nvo\nOn\nm\nt-\nm\nOV\n! i\nvq\nes^\nCO\nt>\n*\"i\nr-;\nOV\nTf\n*i\n! 1\nts\ntn\nVO*\n\u00a9\"\nCN\nri\nTf\nCO\n! 1\nCT\nCO\nIft\nTf\nCS\nfN\ntn\n1\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nIft \u00a9\nCT Tt\nOO\nm\nr-\nOO\nVO\nVO\nm\nm\ns\ntN\nCT\nCO CO\nIft CO\n\u00a9\ncn\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\no\nCT\ncn\nTt\nTt\nt^\nM\n\u00a3\nss\nTt\" en\ncs\nd\nvd\nri\n>ft\nm\nCT*\n\u00a9\nIft\n00\ncn m\nCT\ntN\nift\nr-\n\u00a9\ncs\nCN\nCO\nCT\nvo\ncn rH\nm co\n(*\u25a0\nt-^\nTt\nift\nr^\nTt\nOv\nOv\nON\nTf Tt\nif) en\nc-\nr^\nri\nOO\nCO*\nm\"\nri\nTt\nON\ncn\nTf\ncn\nCN\nvt\nift\nCT\n00\ncn\nVi\nVi\nVi\nSO\nto-\nVi\n\u00abo-\nVi\nto\nVi\nVi\nrH [\u2014 00 CT CT\nTt\nr-\n3\nIft\nTf\nVO\nOn\nTt\nCO\nTt\nTt\nr-^ Tt \u00a9 oo rn\nt>\n\u00a9\nTt\nOn\nt-;\nvo\nen\nm\nOn\nOn\n73\nTt CO r-* rH r>\nen*\nt>\nTf\nri\nOn\n\u00a9\nod\nrH*\nen\nr>\nVD\nt\u2014 CT Tt CT en\nTt\nr-\nCO\ntN\nCO\ncn\ncs\nCS\nt-\nCT\nr-\nVO CT O Tf VO\n00\nCN\nen\nIft\noo\nr^\nVO\nTt\nCO\nr-\nI\nift 00 tN VD n\nIft\nCN\n2;\nCT\nIf)\ncs*\nOv\"\no\"\no\"\no\"\nTt rH NO Tf fN\nCT\nen\nen\n\u00a9\nfN\ncn\nm\nen\nr-\nts\nCT fN rn rH\nTt\n\u00a9\nCT\nm\n\u00a9\nCT\nON\nCO\nen\nen\nCN\nen\nCS\ntN\nfN\nCN\nCN\nri\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nVi\nto-\nVi\nV3-\nVi\nVi\nVi\n1\ni\n0\n+\u25a0\u00bb\nrH\n2\nTt\nON\ntj\nCO\nn\n\u00a9 o\noc\nr\u2014 vo m\nTt\nec\n(N\nrH\nrt\n5 i\nT\n7 7 1\nT\n1\nt I\nIh\n(3\nCT OC\nt- vo m t\nen o\nrH \u00a9\n>\nTt Tt\nTf Tf Tf T\nTt TJ\nTt Tf\nsc\n+->\nCT O\nCT CT CT CT\nCT CT\na) ej\nt-\nft \u00a3? \u00bb\ntnen t\/j r\/Ttncnw co vi ui\n\u00a52\nfL\nrt in i\/\n>, ^\nSP5 u c\nO \n5\nH\nflOOOOOOOOOO\nVi\n*u\n>\nD-\nft\nHH\n2\no\n>o\nI\nON\nTT\nON\ni\u2014(\na\n<\nUi\n<\nU\nco\n\u00a3\nCO\nZ\nO\nH\nHi\nes\nw\nPh\no\no\nz\n3\n5\no\nhJ\nH\nco\nz\nHH\n<\n<\nQ\nW\no\no\nco\nH\nz\n8\n< 00 118 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n<33> Forest Revenue, Fiscal Year 1949-50\nTen-year Average\nTimber-licence rentals $381,549.18 $401,524.81\nTimber-licence transfer fees 580.00 1,883.50\nTimber-licence penalty fees 2,667.11 8,987.46\nHand-loggers' licence fees 100.00 205.00\nTimber-lease rentals 49,345.35 51,032.22\nTimber-lease penalty fees and\ninterest 18.53 80.74\nTimber-sale rentals 95,617.36 60,322.60\nTimber-sale stumpage 5,047,235.22 2,137,036,09\nTimber-sale cruising 30,897.29 21,358.47\nTimber-sale advertising 5,399.20 4,114.98\nTimber royalty 2,596,583.85 2,321,387.23\nTimber tax 47,603.93 32,479.02\nScaling fees (not Scaling Fund).\u2014 114.14\nScaling expenses (not Scaling\nFund) 3,810.92 502.87\nTrespass stumpage* 31,810.48\nScalers' examination feesf 389.00\n1 Exchange 111.81 108.35\ni Seizure expenses 846.44 784.48\nGeneral miscellaneous 25,246.92 12,944.23\nTimber-berth rentals, bonus, and\nfees 16,926.02 20,973.20\nInterest on timber-berth rentals 11.71 58.74\nTransfer fees on timber berths _____ 96.45 132.69\nGrazing fees and interest 26,849.90 30,346.85\n$8,331,497.19 $5,138,627.15\nTaxation from Crown-granted\ntimber lands 445,632.68 269,502.45\nTotals $8,777,129.87 $5,408,129.60\n* Trespass penalties now included in timber-sale stumpage.\nt Scalers' examination fees now included in general miscellaneous. (34)\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nForest Expenditure, Fiscal Year 1949-50\nOO 119\nForest District\nSalaries\nExpenses\nTotal\n$33,824.37\n62,005.73\n25,562.00\n20,040.52\n28,613.71\n32,470.28\n214,504.66\n$33,824.37\n$195,410.01\n98,592.93\n90,046.76\n166,737.39\n153,962.78\n349,731.95\n257,415.74\n124,154.93\n110,087.28\n195,351.10\n186,433.06\n564,236.61\n$1,054,481.82\n$417,021.27\n$1,471,503.09\n4,000.00\n87,092.68\n29,715.55\n365,553.17\n43,772.30\n462,516.50\n50,973.48\n4,033.80\n13,424.95\n2,000,000.00\n230,251.70\n$4,762,837.62\nContributions from Treasury to special funds detailed elsewhere.\n<35> Scaling Fund\nBalance, April 1st, 1949 (debit) $75,624.14\nCollections, fiscal year 1949-50 378,241.52\nExpenditures, fiscal year 1949-50..\n$302,617.38\n397,087.93\nBalance, March 31st, 1950 (debit)__.,. $94,470.55\nCollections, nine months, April to December, 1950 413,375.16\n$318,904.61\nExpenditures, nine months, April to December, 1950 __ 334,734.15\nBalance, December 31st, 1950 (debit) $15,829.54 OO 120 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n(36) Silviculture Fund\nBalance forward, April 1st, 1949 $364,982.33\nCollections, fiscal year 1949-50 521,661.06\n$886,643.39\nExpenditures, fiscal year 1949-50 166,000.96\nBalance, March 31st, 1950 $720,642.43\nBalance, April 1st, 1950 $720,642.43\nCollections, nine months to December 31st, 1950___ 533,180.75\n$1,253,823.18\nExpenditures, nine months to December 31st, 1950 _ 176,634.05\nBalance, December 31st, 1950 (credit) ____ $1,077,189.13\n137> Forest Reserve Account\nCredit balance brought forward, April 1st, 1949 $561,677.22\nAmount received from Treasury, March 31st, 1950\n(under subsection (2), section 32, \"Forest Act \") 230,251.70\nMoneys received under subsection (4), section 32,\n\" Forest Act \" \t\n$791,928.92\nExpenditures, April 1st, 1949, to March 31st, 1950___ 199,490.18\nCredit balance, March 31st, 1950 $592,438.74\nExpenditures, nine months to December 31st, 1950 235,354.71\nBalance, December 31st, 1950 (credit) $357,084.03\n<38> Grazing Range Improvement Fund\nBalance, April 1st, 1949 (credit) $27,626.91\nGovernment contribution (section 14, \" Grazing Act \") 14,659.15\nOther collections 98.50\n$42,384.56\nExpenditures, April 1st, 1949, to March 31st, 1950 15,638.85\nBalance, March 31st, 1950 (credit) $26,745.71\nGovernment contribution (section 14, \" Grazing Act \") 13,424.95\nOther collections \t\n$40,170.66\nExpenditures, April 1st, 1950, to December 31st, 1950 20,328.70\nBalance, December 31st, 1950 (credit) $19,841.96 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 121\n(39) Forest Protection Fund\nBalance, April 1st, 1949 $563,083.44\nExpenditure $1,904,957.61\nLess refunds 32,593.68\n1,872,363.93\n$1,309,280.49\n(See detailed summary of net expenditure\non page 122.)\nGovernment contribution $2,000,000.00\nCollections, tax 321,771.98\nCollections, slash and\nsnags $35,412.83\nLess refunds 15,957.11\n 19,455.72\n2,341,227.70\nBalance, March 31st, 1950 $1,031,947.21\nBalance, April 1st, 1950 $1,031,947.21\nExpenditure, nine months, April to\nDecember, 1950 $1,537,724.09\nRepayable to votes (approximately) 418,795.43\nCollection, tax $223,291.30\nCollections, miscellaneous 15,966.53\nRefunds of expenditure 20,533.38\nGovernment contribution 1,500,000.00\n1,956,519.52\n$924,572.31\n 1,759,791.21\nEstimated balance, December 31st, 1950 $835,218.90 OO 122\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\no\nH\nCO\na\no\n<\no\nw\no\nz\nw\na.\nSS\nH M\nZ U\n\u00b0 S\nw Cfl\n> .\nw\nH\nSJ\no\n(I,\nw\nPS\nD\nH\n5\nz\nw\na.\nx\nW\nz\no\nH\nu\nw\nH\nO\nI\nH\nco\nW\no\nft\nT*\nm\nCT\nVD\nm\nr_i\nen\ntn\nrn rn oo en m m cn\nON\nTt in rH Tt\" d d C*\ncn\nt- fS t- CT fS 00 CT\nvo\nrt\nCT ct rn ts CT en vo\nen\no\nH\nvo vo vo en Tt m oo\nCN\nm Tt ts rn r- vo co\nr-\nrH cn rH fS en Tf r-\n00\nVi\nVi\nct \u00a9 n vo oo r- Tt\nSO\n\u2022 cn\nTt t-; t~-, Tt C\"; VO rH\nCT\n\u2022si\nNO rn' f> Tt NO 00 ON\nTt\no R\nr\u2014 no \u00a9 t\u2014 ts r- t\u2014\nO\n10 QJ\nrH rH CS fS m 00 Tt\nc\\\nL3 c\nm r- en m oo vo r-\nVi\nTt\nVi\na u\nTt\ncs\nTt\nts\n... rt m\nTf\nvn\n00^\nTt\ntn\nCO\nH V\no\"\n\u00a9\"\nPh PC\nw\nVi\no.\nm cs\nX) '\nm\noo en\nvo\nSO.\nrt s c\nCD D*2\nr-\nd Tt\nTt o\n\u00a9 CS\nri\n3\nEPh\nVi\nri\" no\"\nas\nVi\n1\nrH O tS Tf NO\nen\n\u00a9 cs m r- rn\nvo\nrt\n\u00a9 Tt vd en \u00a9\nTt\nIh\nt- O CT O m\nCS\nrH VO 00^ en rH\n<\nrn\" r\u2014\" CN rn\" rH\nTf\nVi rH fS fS CS\nVi\nVO NO CT m rH rH\nCO\nVD tS r- 00 rH SO\nso\na ci ri r- r- ri\nd\n__\u00ab>\nOO rH 00 rH m rH\nm\nrH cn m Tf tn *-\"\n\u00b0\\\nvo en *0 On\" oo rH\nTt\nOO CS rH rH VO CT\n\u00a9\nVi\ntn\nVi\nct r- vo r- ct\n00\nOn t- h VO vo\ncs\nrH \u00a9 \u00a9 rH ON\nTt\nvd vo Tt cs m\nTt\nen m m vo m\nVD\nt\nVO CT VO rH\nTf\nr-n rn cn cn\nCT\nVi\nVi\np\n\u00ab .2\noo en r- m cs ct O\n00\nr- Tt Tt vq i> Tt r-^\nrH\nC\ni\nm r-^ cn ri \u2022\u2014 Tt ri\nod\n\u00bbcg\n-. rt OJ\n\u2022S a\nrt q\nCT r- fS VO On O cn\n00\ncs r- ct cs m cs o\n\u00a9 Tt oo oo r-\" o\" rn\no_\nm vo r- cn Tt vo cs \u25a0\nCT\n'3\nO\"\nW\n\u2022a\nVi\ncs\nVi\nCT oo r- cn vd tn r-l\n\u00a9\n\u00a7\nm cs vo rn m o o\ncn\nrt\nrn\" oj --- rJ cs d cn\nen\nCfl\ns\nNO CS O 00 On r. CO\nso\n*s\nis\nrH rH Tf CT tn V0^ H\nOD\no\nt-\" no O nd vd\" en en\nen\nH\nrn m CS en Tf [\u2014 cs\ncs\nrt\nIh\no\na\nE\n t\u2014 vo\n00\nu\nO m ri rn cn or. m\nVD\nm o cs ct t- o r-\nCN\nC\nu\n&\nih rn cn m Tt \u00ab-<\u25a0 r^\n^ cs Tf io oo\" oo\" Tf\nO\nTf\"\ntS Tf VO rH m rH\no\nm\nn\nd\nrt\n1 O Tf CS o I- vo\nON\nc\nts cs m vd rn Tt\n^-1\ns\na>\n\u25a0 tn* 00 rH on* ov\" cs\nTt\nra\na\nI oo ts cs cn oo cs\nOO\na\n; O oo vo O cn i\u2014\nVD\n\u25a0 \u00a3\n\"rt\n00\nt- CT CT Tf vo O\nr-\nm th rn cn cn CT\nm\na>\n\u00abe\ncs\nPh\n&^\na\no\nrt\nco\na)\no\n3\n(fl\nrt\n2\ns\n*J IL\nV\nCJ\nC 61\ni\nJr. rt '___ \"C rt Q) .2\nJi\n>\nP-\nP-\nt-\nz\n> REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 123\n(41)\nReported Approximate Expenditure in Forest Protection\nby Other Agencies, 1950\nExpenditures\nForest District\nPatrols and\nFire-\nprevention\nTools and\nEquipment\nFires\nImprovements\nTotal\n$184,132.00\n,5,949.00\n$171,764.00\n10,155.00\n$162,901.00\n2,658.08\n16,473.40\n4,426.40\n9,028.01\n$23,421.00\n$542,218.00\n18,762.08\n16,473.40\n4,426.40\n42,183.94\n6,430.00\n15,389.00\n11,336.93\n$196,511.00\n$197,308.00\n$195,486.89\n$34,757.93\n$624,063.82\nTen-year average, 1941-50\n$90,420.06\n$131,507.42\n$163,226.71\n$10,510.44\n$395,664.63\n<42> Summary of Snag-falling, 1950, Vancouver Forest District\nAcres\nTotal area logged, 1950 75,503\nLogged in snag-exempted zone* 702\nLogged on small exempted operations* 1,904\n 2,606\nAssessed for non-compliance, less 185 acres\nsubsequently felled 692\n 3,298\nBalance logged acres snagged, 1950 72,205\n* Exemption granted under subsection (3), section 113, \" Forest Act.\"\nSummary of Logging Slash Created, 1950, \"Vancouver\n<43) Forest District\nAcres\nTotal area logged, 1950 75,503\nArea covered by full hazard reports 52,402\nCovered by snag reports but exempted from slash-\ndisposal* 795\nCovered by acreage reports only (exempted from\nslash and snag disposal) * 2,606\n55,803\nSlash created too late to be dealt with in 1950 . 19,700\n* Exemption granted under subsection (3), section 113, \" Forest Act.\" OO 124 DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\nAcreage Analysis of Slash-disposal Required, 1950,\n<44> Vancouver Forest District\nAcres of Slash Total\nPrior to 1950 1950 Acres\nBroadcast-burning 14,395 16,522 30,917\nSpot-burning 6,347 10,545 16,892\nTotals 20,742 27,067 47,809\n1950 reports not recommending slash-disposal 25,335\n1950 slash examined for snags but exempt from slash-disposal 795\n1950 slash in zone completely exempted 702\n1950 slash on very small operations exempted without\nspecial examination 1,904\n 2,606\nTotal area of slash dealt with, 1950 76,545\nNote.\u2014Above table does not include the estimated 19,700 acres (see Table No. 43) created too late to be dealt\nwith in 1950.\nAnalysis of Progress in Slash-disposal, 1950, Vancouver\n(4S> . Forest District\nAcres\nTotal disposal required (see Table No. 44) 47,809\nAcres of Slash Total\nType of Disposal Prior to 1950 1950 Acres\nSpring broadcast-burning _ 346 121 467\nFall broadcast-burning 8,809 9,159 17,968\nSpot-burning 3,370 3,234 6,604\nTotal burning completed 12,525 12,514 25,039\nBurned by accidental fires 1,700 1,700\nLopping, scattering, land-\nclearing, etc. 350 350\nTotals 12,525 14,564 27,089\nBalance reported slash not yet abated 20,720\nSlash created prior to 1950\u2014acres assessed 4,010\nSlash created 1950\u2014acres assessed 107\n 4,117\nRemainder waiting final disposition, 1951 16,603\nPlus slash created too late to be dealt with,\n1950 19,700\nTotal area of slash carried over to 1951 for disposition 36,303 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 125\n<46> Summary of Operations, 1950, Vancouver Forest District\nTotal operations, Vancouver Forest District 1,434\nIntentional slash-burns 185\nOperations on which slash was disposed of by lopping,\nscattering, land-clearing, etc. 37\nOperations on which slash was accidentally burned 54\nOperations not required to burn 691\nOperations given further time for disposal 14\nOperations granted total exemption under subsection (3),\nsection 113, \" Forest Act \" 277\nOperations where compensation assessed or security\ndeposit posted 12\nOperations in snag-falling only area 55\nOperations pending decision re assessment or further time\nfor disposal 109\n 1,434\nNote.\u2014All inactive operations omitted from Table No. 46.\nSummary of Slash-burn Damage and Costs, 1950,\n<47) Vancouver Forest District\nTotal acres of forest-cover burned in slash fires, 1950 823\nNet damage to forest-cover $6,606.00\nNet damage to cut products 62,610.00\nNet damage to equipment and property 40,063.00\nTotal damage $109,279.00\nCost of Slash-burning as Reported by Operators\nTotal Cost Acres Cost per M B.M.*\n(a) Spring broadcast-burning __ $1,550.00 467 8c.\n(b) Fall broadcast-burning _ 40,402.00 17,965 5V..C.\n(c) Spot-burning 12,060.00 6,604 6c.\n* (a) and (&) Based on volume of 40 M B.M. per acre; (c) based on volume of 30 M B.M. per acre. OO 126\nDEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS\n(48)\nRecapitulation Slash-disposal, 1934-50.\nYear\nAcres of Slash Burned\nAccidentally Intentionally\n1934 4,927\n1935 11,783\n1936 1,340\n1937 3,015\n1938 35,071\n1939 1,930\n1940 2,265\n1941 3,385\n1942 4,504\n1943 2,046\n1944 5,121\n1945 3,897\n1946 2,174\n1947 2,663\n1948 2,215\n1949 1,468\n1950 1,700\n15,935\n13,239\n7,691\n27,516\n50,033\n51,603\n33,034\n5,524\n80,226\n40,013\n27,278\n46,467\n25,498\n34,414\n30,652\n53,543\n25,389\n(49)\nFire Occurrences by Months, 1950\nForest District\nMarch\nApril\nMay\nJune\nJuly\nAugust\nSeptember\nOctober\nTotal\nPer\nCent\nVancouver _\n3\n4\n2\n4\n3\n45\n7\n13\n56\n42\n83\n23\n61\n99\n51\n126\n7\n38\n141\n126\n65\n8\n16\n82\n76\n69\n3\n32\n145\n77\n2\n1\n4\n1\n390\n53\n165\n531\n376\n25.74\n3.50\n10.89\nKamloops \t\n35.05\n24.82\nTotals\t\n3\n13\n163\n317\n438\n247\n326\n8\n1,515\n100.00\n0.20\n0.86\n10.76\n20.92\n28.91\n16.30\n21.52\n0.53\n100.00\nTen-year average, 1941-50\n3\n48\n188\n170\n491\n397\n167\n8\n1,472\n\t\n0.20\n3.26\n12.77\n11.55\n33.36\n26.97\n11.35\n0.54\n100.00\n(50)\nNumber and Causes of Forest Fires, 1950\nForest District\ng\n'S\nsi\noo\n3\nu\nOJ\na\ne\nSS\nu\nS OJ\nsS D.\n\u00abo\nVi\nw\nM\nO\nB\nCO\nIs\n11\nEg 3\nI a\nss i O\nO its\nIII\n.HO\nlis\nPa MS\n.2 o\n-^ oj\nSo\nS\n.5\nc\n0J\nCJ\nC\nu\nV- Vi\nss a\n93\nVi\nU\n1\nu\no\nc\n\u00a3\na\n0\nH\nn\n'S Vi\nO oj\nSi \u00abJ\nQJ O u\nPL. Ho,\n23\n11\n40\n121\n147\n33\n14\n41\n130\n33\n93\n4\n6\n55\n39\n108\n97\n10\n80\n86\n15\n2\n23\n17\n20\n3\n18\n2\n2\n54\n7\n12\n14\n^\n3\n1\n1\n2\n55\n7\n12\n97\n25\n3\n3\n14\n15\n390\n53\n165\n531\n376\n25.74\n3.50\n10.89\nKamloops \t\nNelson \t\n35.05\n24.82\n342\n251\n197\n291\n77\n25\n94\n7\n196\n35\n1,515\n100.00\n22.57\n16.57\n13.00\n19.21\n5.08\n1.65\n6.21\n0.46\n12.94\n2.31\n100.00\nTen-year average, 1941-50 \u2014.\n472\n187\n229\n269\n63\n13\n49\n13\n145\n32\n1,472\n\t\n32.07\n12.70\n15.56\n18.28\n4.28 1 0.88\n3.33\n0.88\n9.85\n2.17\n100.00 ^\u2014\n(51)\nREPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950 OO 127\nNumber and Causes of Forest Fires for the Last Ten Years\nCauses\n1950\n1949\n1948\n1947\n1946\n1945\n1944\n1943\n1942\n1941\nTotal\n342\n251\n197\n291\n77\n25\n94\n7\n196\n35\n487\n215\n325\n281\n60\n20\n87\n13\n169\n44\n266\n105\n113\n140\n39\n5\n45\n5\n58\n23\n326\n193\n270\n245\n51\n8\n53\n13\n144\n29\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\n216\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\n4,716\n1,870\n2,294\n2,689\n633\nCampers _\t\nSmokers \t\nRoad and power- and telephone-line construction\t\n132\n491\n125\nMiscellaneous (known causes) \t\nUnknown causes\t\n1,451\n318\nTotals _\t\n1,515\n1,701\n799\n1,332\n1,707\n1,838\n1,667\n1,185\n1,414\n1,561\n14,719\n(52)\nFires Classified by\nSize and Damage, 1950\nTotal Fires\nUnder Vi Acre\n!4 to 10 Acres\nOver 10 to 500\nAcres\nOver 500 Acres\nin Extent\nDamage\nVi\n\u2014 V,\nl_\nVi\nO B\no.\u00a7\noo\no.a\n,\u00b0U\no.y\nou\no.y\noo\nForest District\nnf\nHJ_\nH \u00ab\nHi!\n<\u2014i Vi\nH\u2122\nHj3\nU-l VI\nH\u201e\nhS\nH\u201e\no\no\n?.\u00a3\nI-.Q\n?.z\n\"Q\n2-3\nu,a\n?.\u00a3\n\u00b0s\n\u00b0H\no\n6\u00bbg\n\u00a9\no\nOJ\n1\n3\nS.S\nO V,\nOJ\n.EJ\na\n3\nS.S\no\u00ab\nH 8\noj-B\n0 Vi\n^\u00a3\nQ-3\nu\nss\ng\n3\nS.S\nO Vi\nSS.il\nI.S\nO CO\nkS\ntu .3\nQJ\nSs\nS\n3\nS.S\n0 V,\nLhJJ\n1J.11\nS.S\nU oj\nL,!\nOJ\nss\n6\n3\nS.S\n0 v\nS.S\nU V,\nu v\nu\n0J\n\u2022o\nB\nOJ\"\ngg\nSt.\nM\n0J\n>\nz\np Damage to Forest-cover Caused by Forest Fires, 1950\u2014Part I*\nAccessible Merchantable Timber\nInaccessible Merchantable\nTimber\nImmature Timber\nForest District\neg\nOJ\n1-1\n<\u25a0_!\n^ QJ\nZS-j\n-l-o\n\"H S\no OS\nH>__\nSalvable\nVolume of\nTimber\nKilled\nCJ\noc\nss\nO.\n__ E \u00ab\nlis\nSS\nOJ\nH\n\u2022rf-a\nu:B\nZW\nOJ\n-St.\nn 3 u\nO OSS\nOJ\noo\nSS\nB\nSS\na\nOJ\ntH\n\nAcres\n264\n512\n2,150\n2,144\n134\nmb.m.\n3,139\n1,060\n9,892\n1,336\n8\nMB.M.\n1,020\n508\n5,933\n344\n$\n7,385\n616\n14,990\n3,752\n1,300\nAcres\n26\nMB.M.\n520\n6\n1,921\n$\nAcres\n972\n122\n53,761\n5,091\n1,038\n$\n7,091\n22\n6,437\n726\n6\n281\n122,974\nKamloops , _\t\n6,228\n3,082\nTotals ..\n5,204\n15,435\n7,805\n28,043\n313\n2,447\n6,459\n60,984\n140,101\nPer cent \t\n0.61\n86.32\n50.57\n7.80\n0.04\n13.68\n1.80\n7.19\n38.98\nTen-year average, 1941-50\n22,139\n119,794\n18,214\n173,164\n1,567\n5,767\n5,391\n50,489\n148,573\n6.55\n95.41\n15.20\n44.63\n0.47\n4.59\n1.39\n14.94\n38.30\n* Does not include intentional slash-burns. (For this item see page 125.)\n<54> Damage to Forest-cover Caused by Forest Fires, 1950\u2014Part II*\nNot Satisfactorily\nRestocked\nNoncommercial\nCover\nGrazing or\nPasture\nLand\nNonproductive\nSites\nGrand Totals\nDistrict\n0J\n0J 3\noo 5\nM-S\n\u00b0s\n\u25baJ.D\n13 -U\noj oj\nOD B\n0_.r) i-\n\u00b0 B 3\ntl am\n\u2022O -S3\nas S3\nE 00\n3 \u00b0 O\npqZ>-l\n<_\n00\nss\ns\nQ\nOJ\nS3 B\nas ;-\nii 3\nOJ\n00\nSS\na\n\u2022a\nw\nss fi\n_) 3\no\nOB\nre\nB\nss\na\n\u2022a\nOJ\nss C\naj -\u25a0\n<\u00ab\naj\nDO\nCJ\ns\nss\na\nrt\nss\n<\nc\nSS\n3\na\nOJ\noo\nss\nB\na\nVancouver \u2014\nPrince Rupert \t\nAcres\n1,683\n696\n2,290\n486\n67\nAcres\n787\n25\n1\n296\n5\nAcres\n80\n13,132\n2,920\n2,187\n81\n$\n721\n36,490\n6,893\n2,795\n1,790\nAcres\n505\n35\n456,618\n2,334\n18\n$\n216\n109\n114,174\n738\n4\nAcres\n41\n6\n263,015\n4,428\n16\n$\nn\n13,151\n222\n1\nAcres\n252\n13\n28,275\n690\n763\n$\n69\n3\n7,068\n169\n190\nAcres\n4,610\n14,541\n809,036\n17,937\n2,122\nMB.M.\n3,659\n1,060\n9,898\n3,257\n8\n$\n15,493\n37,944\n279,272\n20,341\nNelson \u2014\n6,367\nTotals \t\n5,222\n1,114\n18,400\n48,689\n459,510\n115,241\n267,506\n13,385\n29,993\n7,499\n848,246\n17,882\n359,417\nPer cent\t\n0.61\n0.13\n2.17\n13.55\n54.17\n32.06\n31.54\n3.72\n3.54\n2.09\n100.00\n100.00\n100.00\nTen-year average,\n1941-50 .-\t\n4,700\n2,613\n24,474\n14,183\n111,660\n30,111\n53,979\n3,235\n66,342\n13,314\n337,963\n125,561\n387,971\n1.39\n0.77\n7.24\n3.66\n33.04\n7.76\n15.97\n0.83\n19.63\n3.43\n100.00\n100.00\n100.00\n* Does not include intentional slash-burns. (For this item see page 125.)\n(55)\nFire Causes, Area Burned, Forest Service Cost,\nand Total Damage, 1950\nCauses\nNumber\nPer\nCent\nAcres\nPer\nCent\nCost\nPer\nCent\nDamage\nPer\nCent\n342\n251\n197\n291\n77\n25\n94\n7\n196\n35\n22.57\n16.57\n13.00\n19.21\n5.08\n1.65\n6.21\n0.46\n12.94\n2.31\n36,851\n527,277\n800\n5,307\n231,976\n128\n1,504\n883\n43,061\n459\n4.34\n62.16\n0.09\n0.63\n27.35\n0.02\n0.18\n0.10\n5.08\n0.05\n$46,211.89\n36,245.56\n971.56\n27,535.69\n6,917.93\n230.75\n6,407.62\n3,172.24\n6,696.51\n7,298.79\n32.62\n25.58\n0.69\n19.43\n4.88\n0.16\n4.52\n2.24\n4.73\n5.15\n$85,097.41\n203,171.63\n5,938.73\n227,623.86\n51,054.01\n467.00\n154,222.94\n3,712.67\n33,373.23\n7,950.05\n11 01\nCampers \t\n26.30\n0 77\n29 46\nBrush-burning (not railway-clearing)\nRoad and power- and telephone-line\n6.61\n0 06\n19 96\nIncendiarism \t\nMiscellaneous (known causes)\t\nUnknown causes\t\n0.48\n4.32\n1.03\nTotals\t\n1,515\n100.00\n848,246\n100.00\n$141,688.54\n100.00\n$772,611.53\n100 00 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE, 1950\nOO 129\nco\nPS\n<\nW\nz\nw\nH\nH\nco\n<\nco\nW\n0-i\nH\nco\nw\no\npq\n0\nW\nco\n<\nu\nw\no\n<\nP\nb\u00bb\nO\nz\no\ncn\n<;\no.\nS\no\nU\n\\r,\nm\noo\n-.\nin\nrH tN rH m\nrH OO 0.\nrt c \u00ab\nC~ sp VDh\nt- rH\n00\nrn r- m oo\n00\ntn (N rn\noo vo\nTf\nVi\ntf>\nvo oo tn ts\nO O\no\nVI 00 VO rH\nO rn\nm\nm\nVi\n\u00ab\u25a0\nts\nas\nr*\u00ab 00 Tt\nos r~-\nVO\n? 2\n00 Tt\nm\nVi\nVi\nin tN ts Os\n00 rt rH rH\nm o\\\nrH CO SO C~\nOs\nrH Tt m\nrn Os\nts\nVO vo\ncn\ntfl-\ntS\nC -n\n\"n\nvo TJ- r- rn\n00 Tf\ncs\nVO rH o o\\\nm\nas\nr-yD oo O\nO 0\\ rH\nVD\nVi\nt\/3-\nm\nm\noo oo mo\nm tn\nfS o\ncn tn rn\nO m\nTf\nVi\nVi\nOs m\nOffl rH \u00bbr>\n\\0 rH\n00\nr- tn rH rH\nvo tn\nOv\nOs\nO VD rH\nON vo\nm\n\u00ab\u25a0\n69-\ntS \u00abn t\u2014 vo\nr- r-\nTf\nm vo \u00abrt\nrn t- \u00a9 oo\nTt r-\nfS\nOv\nTf rH\nVO T*\no\nVi fS\nm\nOv vo in oo\nfS rH\nrn\nOs tn vo r-\nOs C~\nt^ cn CS vo\nr- fS\nTf\nOv\nr- ^t\n,_r\nCO oo\nr-\nts CS\nin\nVi\nVi\nHOV t- 00\nOs 00\nc~\nTt TI\nas\no\\\nrH (Tl t- rH\nCS VO\nOs\nm cs\ntn\nm\nVi\ntn vo cS tn\nr- Tf\nrH OS\ntn a oo oo\nTf r-\nvo\nOs\nrn oo r- r-\nOv m\nfS\nin rn\nr\u00ab\nVi\nVi\ns\nT3\nOIj\n0]\n>.\na\nTl\n\u25a0a\n^\no\ns\nft\n\u25a0o\nm\n0\nfl\no\ntH\n' Vi\n.8\n4_\na w\n\u25a0\nC\n5 s\nrt r\n5 x\nd\nX\nF\nQJ -w\nB ~\n% C\nu c\n3 h\n3 M~~ a, oj\n\u2022Msi \u00ab...\nc\n\u00ab \u00a3 c ^ 2 \u00a3 \u00a3\nI-\n<\nw\n<\nL\n0\no\nIX,\no\nw\n05\nI\u2014I\nPi\nW\nOh\nH\nCO\nO\nu\nQ\nZ\n<\nO\nu.\no\nw\no\n<\nt-i\n(h\nH\nO\n2\no\n>>\npq\nQ\nw\nCO\nco\n<\nu\ntn\nw\n9J[iJ J-i\nooo'oi$\nJ3AO 1SOQ\n_j[j[ J3d\n000'0I$ \u00b0\u00bb OOO'SS\nJ3AO 1SOO\n-JI.T J_d\n000'_$\u00b0J000'I$\nj_ao ISO;}\n-jij J3d000'l$\n\u00b0\u00bb 001$ 1S03\n3IIJJ3d00t$\nUEin SS-I JS03\n__UIAOJ,\u00a3 UT S-JIJ\nIEJOJ, JO JU-3 J3J\njoujsirj ur sail j\nlE}OX JO )U3Q J_d\nj-qiun>i\n60 3\nB 0\na*\nOJ o\nSO\n[-H\n3DUTAOJJ UI S3JJJ\nIBJOX JO JIK-O J3cJ\nprjjsya ui sajij\nFio'x jo ;uao J3J\nJ3qujnjsi\n(sjBnoa) 3JH\njso3 isd aim\n-ypuadxg a3Ej9AV\n1U30 J3J\nSJEUOQ\npung uoipsjojj\nJS3JO.J o; 3ui3nqTnuo3\nlOM SpUB^ UO p3}BU[3TJO\npun,j uoTpajoJtj\n1S3 jo j oj. guijnqTJjuoQ\nSpUBq pUB SpU'BT UMOJ3\n!UB3By\\ UO p3}BUl3TJO\nS9JIJ piOX\n' VO Tf fS Tf\nTf oo -\u2014 r-~ oo\n00 rn so oo in\nrH fS\nO VO fS 00 Tf\nin fS 0\\ Tf vo\nrH tS fS\nO r* m rn cs\nTf fN t- 00 rH\nfS tS rH\nm oo oo r- ts\nts m in o rn\nrn cn cn CS rH\nVO rH m oo oo\nO ov O m Tf\noo r-^ O^ Tf vo\n00 OOm rH os\nrn rn tn cs\nin m ov tn m\nO cs cs m m\nrH rn Tf rn\nO m m \u2014 \\o\nOn m so m r-\ncn Hinm\ni-\nVi\na\no\nn,\nr~J\nrN\nfN\nVJ\nor,\n1\u2014\nTf\nr*\nOn\nVC\no\np\ntj-\no\n\"^\nO i-\nU 3\nW _0J\n*h S\n\u00ab5\n\"S ra\n>d.\nfc ft\nu y - ^\n0 0 \u00ab O fl) \na u.s\n3b\u00a3\nill\nf-i\u00ab-l\nB\nO\n.g'-S\nrt aj\nCO\n\u25a03 t-t\nrt o,\nA \u00ab\u00ab\n?J Ih E\nI Hi\ni-.C-._-'\ncn\nflj\ntH\nft\n(H\no\nft\nflj\nPS.\no\n00\n5\nrt\nft\nrt\na\n'ci\na\n'ci\nis\no cs\n\u00abl\n^ ss\n3 P\nft?\nFines\no\nrt\nO\n.g\nCJ\nCJ\n3\n0J\na\n0J\nW\n\u2022a\naj\n>\nH\nOJ\n60\nu\n1\nB\nOJ\nCO\n\u2022o\nOJ\n\u2022a\nB\nO\na\n3\nCO\n\u25a0a\nQJ\nEg\nVi\nVi\ns\nCfl\nQJ\nco\nrt\nU\nForest District\nu\nOJ\nSS\nB\n3\nZ\na\n1\nB\n<\nIS\nrt\nIh\n\u2022a\nCfl\noj\nCfl\nrt\n0\n14\n3\n6\n18\n2\n5\n2\n2\n7\n1\n4\n3\n11\n4\ni\nl\n1\n1\n14\n2\n4\n12\n1\n$400 00\n50.00\n100.00\n333.20\n25.00\n~3\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\nTotals\n43\n17\n18\n6\n1\n1\n33\n$908.20\n3\n6\n1\n31\n\u2014\n\u2014\n21\n$608.85\n1\n7\n1\n1 REPORT OF FOREST SERVICE,\n1950\nOO 131\nu-i cn vo th\ntn\n8\nts\n8\njiuiasj\no\nTH\nTH\njnomiM jag ssjijI\nz\n\u00a9\no\nS\nCQ\n^\n*\"*\nvo tn in\n^\n8\nm\n\u00a9\n\"rt\nI0_)U03\nd\nTf\nTt\n\u00a9\no\np3dU3sg S3It>J\nZ\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nH\n*\"*\n\u25a0^\nwhwihOi*\nT*\n\u00a9\nr-\n\u00a9\nrt\naj -h o o fc- r-\n00\nO\no\n\u2022h\n_3ao p-umg E3_v\nJh \"t Ov_ iO \u00a9 CS\no\nvob\n\u00a9\no\n\npsnssj S1IIUJ3J\n\u2022\"'\n\u00a3?\nrt\nHH\no\nJIUI-3,1\nd\n}nOU,}IA\\ J3g S3J!iI\nz\ni\nTH Sf.\n\u00a9\nm\nm\nr*\no\n_eo\nI0JJU03\nd\n*\"*\nCN\nTt\n*\"!\n5\npsdrasg ssjig\nz\n\u00abn\nS\na.\nrt\nT-H\nto 1 ! tn tS\ntn\nOs\no\ncs\nfl> ! ! ts 1\nts\n\u00abn\nOv\n00\nCO\nH\nrt\nPC\neo\nc\njsao psujng E3jy\nIh\nO\n<\n| cn\ncn\n\u00a9\ncn\n\u00a9\nS\nSO fS ts ts O\ns\n\u00a9\nVO\nOv\n3\na\nq rH (S CS Tt\n\u00a9\nCO\n\u00a9\npsnssi sjiuijsj\n\"\nPh\no\nz\nrH rH |\ncs\ncn\nw\ncn\nJIUIISJ\n6\ncn\ncn\n\u00a3\nttioifHM )3g S3JJ j\nZ\ncn\n00\nz\nCfl\nVi\n8\nrH rH 00 1 !\n\u00a9\ncn\n\u00a9\n\nri\nOs\n