PERSONAL EQUATION IN BRUSH DISPOSAL 



517 



hardwood tops. Also they were able to fit timber, including the costs of 

 brush disposal, as low as $3.50 per thousand when the rate of pay was 

 $7 per thousand. Their average costs over an extended period were 

 barely 50 per cent in excess of the above. Other crews from the same 

 camp made good records and their average costs for the period covered 

 by the observations were but little higher than those of the French 

 Canadian crew. 



The crews from the first camp mentioned had costs of over $2 per 

 thousand for both burning and lopping and the highest costs recorded 

 were higher still. I want to emphasize that this difference was not 

 due to any difference in skill between the crews concerned, or of quality 

 or kind of timber, or of conditions under which the crews worked. The 

 difference lay in the attitude of the crews toward their work, par- 

 ticularly the brush disposal. As regards one particular crew, it was 

 observed on several days that they spent more time (man minutes) 

 in loading their team than in brush disposal and it was further observed 

 on more than one day that this crew did not cut timber enough to pay 

 their wages. The contractor who hired these men considered them his 

 best crew and laid all the extra costs to brush disposal. Just what the 

 actual costs of the different branches of the operation were he never 

 took the trouble to find out, and nothing that the observer felt free to 

 say could convince him that his methods and his guesses were not 

 correct. Right here it may be well to point out that an attitude such 

 as this contractor constantly showed toward the regulations under 

 which he had agreed to work, will always react on the crew to the 

 detriment of the work aside from brush disposal, since it undermines 

 discipline and gives the crew an alibi if they are inclined to shirk. 



The observer was on this job an extended time. He has been inti- 

 mately acquainted with this operation from its inception. With the 

 data on paper and the averages worked out, there was not nor can not 

 be any doubt as to which crew was the most efficient. Allowing that 

 each crew had an equal opportunity, as is a fact, the thing to he de- 

 termined is why one crew or set of crews was more efficient than the 

 others. The following is believed to be the reason : 



In the camp of the least efficient crews the men were paid by the 

 day and heard the requirements of the Forest Service depreciated prac- 

 tically continuously. In the other camp the men worked mostly by the 

 thousand and little was said about brush disposal. The men agreed 

 that it was a bother, possibly a good thing, but something that must 



