146 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



White Mountains. This measure re- 

 ceives the unanimous support of the 

 Eastern States, and no plea of economy 

 should suffice to interrupt this work. 

 Congress is asked to continue the anntial 

 appropriation of $2,000,000 until 1920, 

 and the constituents of Congressmen 

 within these States must make plain 

 their hearty approval of this enterprise. 



Meanwhile, forestry legislation in 

 several States demands attention. The 

 most serious aspect of vState forestry 

 today is the need for the establishment 

 of a strong and efficient State forest 

 service similar in character to that of 

 the National Government, and based on 

 merit and training. Several States, 

 notably Minnesota, have secured this 

 result by giving the control of the work 

 to a non-partisan board whose sole 

 responsibility is forestry. In other 

 States, the State work been the cat's- 

 paw of party politics, and in some by a 

 short-sighted policy of pretended econ- 

 omy, this work has iDcen combined 

 with the administration of the fish and 

 game laws, with the conservation of 

 minerals and even with the problem of 

 waterpower. The public is led to 

 believe that this consolidation is satis- 

 factory where tried. We speak with 

 full knowledge of the facts in stating 

 that it is decidedly unsatisfactory. 

 There is a limit to the capacity of a 

 board, and the administration of forestry 

 laws is all that can be properly attended 

 to by one commission. When to this 

 duty is added the control of the game 

 warden system, and other functions, 

 forestry suffers proportionately. 



Facts speak for themselves. Under 

 the consolidated Forestry, Fish and 

 Game Commission of New York but 

 one out of the entire list of commis- 

 sioners ever gave any special attention 

 to forestry — and New York stands 

 today where she was twenty 3^ears ago, 

 prohibiting cutting of timber on forest 

 lands of the State. Under the more 

 recent consolidation by which water- 

 powers were added to the duties of the 

 Conservation Commission, even the 

 time-honored policy of purchasing lands 

 has been allowed to lapse, solely through 

 loss of initiation in the Commission. 

 The State is now struggling to secure the 



non-political reorganization of this de- 

 partment which must precede any 

 attempt at the practice of forestry by 

 constitutional amendment. 



As a result of the creation of a Public 

 Domain Commission in Michigan com- 

 bining the functions of a board of 

 Forestry with that of Immigration, 

 and Public Lands, the Commission 

 suffered a marked loss of initiation in 

 forestry. 



Louisiana, under a Conservation Com- 

 mission which combines fish and game 

 protection with forestry, has failed to 

 even make a beginning in the creation 

 of a State forest service, and is expend- 

 ing almost her entire appropriation on 

 fish, game and minerals. Oregon, former- 

 ly under this form of organization, has 

 taken her forest fire service out of the 

 hands of the Fish and Game Commission 

 in order to get results. New England 

 is a unit in support of separate forest 

 organizations. New Jersey, Maryland, 

 Ohio, and the Western States of 

 Montana, Idaho, Washington and Cali- 

 fornia believe in separate forestry 

 boards. And in this list of States are 

 included practically all which have laid 

 the foundations of a sound State policy 

 by the employment of foresters on a 

 permanent basis. 



On this evidence we claim that meas- 

 ures looking to the consolidation of 

 other State departments with forestry 

 are bad. The Legislature of Wisconsin 

 is now considering such a measure. For 

 a decade the forestry affairs of the State 

 have been managed by a non-partisan 

 board. It is now proposed to supersede 

 this board by one appointed by the 

 Governor, which shall combine public 

 lands, and fish and game with forestry. 

 One advocate of this plan cites Michigan 

 and New York as examples, and claims 

 that the measure is in line with a 

 general tendency. If passed, it can 

 have but one result — the definite relega- 

 tion of the forestry work of the State to 

 a subordinate position, similar to the 

 conditions prevailing in Michigan, New 

 York and Louisiana. 



Alabama, after eight years of trial of 

 this combined forest, fish and game 

 commission, and a complete dearth of 

 results, is this year considering the 



