48 



AMERICAN FORl'STRY 



duties. No simpler means of revenge exists than the 

 setting of fires. The fire warden should be free from this 

 handicap in an effort to build up public sentiment, espe- 

 cially in frontier communities most in need of fire pro- 

 tection. Where the duties of either office are exacting, 

 ■one man cannot possibly do justice to both. Poachers 

 would know only too well where the game warden was in 

 case a fire occurred, and the fire warden could not be 

 absent fiom his duties to attend to the arrest and trial 

 of offenders against the game laws. Cooperation between 

 fire and game wardens is practicable and desirable, but 

 the actual combination of the functions of the two wardens 

 in the same individuals has always failed, wherever tried, 

 to give the best results. The economy and efficiency of 

 <;ombining game and fire wardens exists only on paper. 



Not aU state forestry boards have an ideal organiza- 

 tion. In Indiana we have the anomalous condition of a 

 board with no power to appoint or control the forester, 

 who is a political appointee. In Wisconsin a three- 

 headed commission exists, the forester and two others of 

 equal rank and authority — -an even worse form of organi- 



zation than that existing in other states as it combines 

 the worst feature of the board idea with that of the 

 combination of departments. Boards might be apj^ointed 

 in such a way that they not only usurp executive functions, 

 but regard the forester's office as a political job. But 

 this has very seldom happened when the law requires 

 that the forester be a technically qualified man. 



Attempts rccenth' made in both New Hampshire 

 and Maryland to combine forestry with agriculture by 

 a reorganization were wisely defeated on the basis that 

 the existing form of organization was giving complete 

 satisfaction. 



Unless the people of a state, through their state forestry 

 associations or in other ways keep close watch of their 

 legislatures in the coming sessions, similar attempts may 

 succeed in states which have made an en\'iable reputation 

 for efficiency in forestry. The sophistry of the arguments 

 used to justify these dangers is not always apparent at 

 first glance. The present system of forestry boards has 

 been tested for over a decade and has shown itself to be 

 sound. It is worthy of our tmited and sincere support. 



NATIONAL PARKS VERSUS NATIONAL FORESTS 



AFTER thirty years and more of comparative neglect, 

 and haphazard management in the Interior De- 

 partment, our National Parks have finally been 

 placed by Congress under a definite administration bureau, 

 with a chief and the nucleus of a consistent policy. Up 

 to this time the parks have been the plaything of each 

 succeeding secretary, — managed as separate units, with 

 changing personnel, and no fixed plan except to provide 

 in some way by concessions to private enterprise, for the 

 accommodations demanded by the public. 



National Forests first originated in 1891, and in 1897 

 were put under a system of administration similar to that 

 now provided for the parks. The forests remained in the 

 Interior Department until 1905, when their administra- 

 tion was transferred bodily to the Department of Agri- 

 culture, in order to secure complete freedom from 

 political appointments, consistent technical and scientific 

 management, and the attainment of the purposes required 

 by law, the protection of the streams, and the renewal 

 of the forests by use. 



Following this transfer the National Forest Service 

 was rapidly established. Its nucleus and inspiration was 

 the body of young, enthusiastic men with high ideals, 

 trained to the work in the best schools the nation afforded, 

 and entering this service as a career worthy of a life work. 

 Upon the character of the service thus secured for the 

 public, has rested the success of the National Forest Ad- 

 ministration, which has carried the work on, overcoming 

 enormous obstacles, and has solved tremendous problems. 

 For the National Forester had to build up from the ground, 

 the great fabric of a business organization which is charged 

 with using wisely the resources of over 160,000,000 acres 

 of land, for the best interests of all the public. Timljcr 

 must be sold under a policy which will protect watersheds, 



preserve portions of the forest for scenery, secure repro- 

 duction of young trees, prevent fires from the slash, per- 

 mit the logger a living profit, prevent monoply of stump- 

 age, and not work an injury by underselHng private 

 stvmipage. Grazing privileges must be assigned, and fees 

 collected by a system which will protect the small farmer, 

 prevent waste of forage, secure the proper revenue, pre- 

 vent damage to watersheds and young trees, settle feuds 

 between sheep and cattle men and utilize the resources 

 to the maximum capacity. Water-powers must be leased 

 under terms which will permit development and secure 

 proper rentals, while protecting the public from the evils 

 of monopolistic private ownership. Tourists must be 

 cared for, camp sites, lake shores and streams protected, 

 trails and roads built, fires fought and a thorough system 

 of fire protection inaugurated. Tree diseases and insects 

 must be combated scientifically and efficiently. The 

 public must be dealt with, not merely from the stand- 

 point of summer visitors (of whom increasing numbers 

 make use of the National Forests each year) but, at the 

 same time, from the standpoint of the user of wood, of 

 grazing, the prospector for minerals, the trapper, the 

 small farmer and the representative of big business. There 

 is hardly a form of commercial activity nor aspect of 

 human affairs that the foresters of the National Forest 

 Service have not encountered, and successful!}- handled in 

 the 12 years since the Forest Service was established. In 

 the year 1916, an income of over $2,800,000 was secured, 

 half of which was from timber, while grazing produced 

 $1,200,000 and water-power rental yielded $100,000. 



With this enormous and well-trained body of pulilic 

 officials, and a policy consistent, elastic and successful 

 the question will be asked — why not transfer to the For- 

 est Service the management of the National Parks? Di- 



