518 JOURXAL OF FORESTRY 



be done anyhow. The crews from the first camp were all among the 

 high-cost crews. The crews from the second camp were all among the 

 low-cost crews. The difference between the average high cost and the 

 average low cost was considerable. It may be argued that since these 

 different sets of crews were paid in a different manner, the difference 

 in costs could be traced to this fact instead of to their different attitude 

 toward their work. This is a valid argument and doubtless had an 

 important influence on the result. However, it is desired to point out 

 that since paying by the thousand was bound to promote efficiency, the 

 crew so paid soon found out that brush could be taken care of at a 

 reasonable figure, thus removing the argument that brush disposal was 

 an imposition on the logger. Their minds thus cleared or neutralized 

 w^ere open to the reasonableness of the procedure, and the total psy- 

 chological reaction was to make the men take pride in their work and 

 to do it in a manner that would pass inspection. Moreover, there is. 

 a mass of data showing that men paid by the day have done satisfactory 

 work when convinced of its necessity, and this at a reasonable cost. 

 Also there are records to show that men paid by the thousand have 

 not worked either efficiently or satisfactorily, according to Forest 

 Service standards, when they believed that brush disposal was un- 

 warranted or could be evaded. 



One can draw his own conclusions, but if one had followed this 

 sale and these men for four years he would conclude, just as the 

 observer did, that it makes all the difference between efficiency and 

 moderate costs and inefficiency and high costs whether the men doing 

 the work of brush disposal have their hearts in the work or not. Nor 

 is this example an exaggeration of the average contractor's attitude,' 

 except in the matter of stubborness. What has been said of the 

 efficiency of the crews, of costs, of conditions, and of results is not 

 exceptional at all but matters of every day experience with forest 

 officers in charge of timber sales on the White A'lountain National 

 Forest. 



Let those who oppose brush disposal from the standpoint of high 

 costs give this matter of the personal equation a serious thought. I^et 

 those who have tried brush disposal, or think they have, ask themselves 

 whether they first condemned the idea before the men who had the 

 actual work to do and whether, aside from going at the matter with an 

 open mind, they gave their men any incentive to do the work cheaply 

 or an efficient system to work under. To the men who have met these 

 problems first hand and have secured efficient methods and low costs, 

 much of the printed matter on the subject appears hypercritical. To 

 Itmibermen, big and little, these men say "get next" and then hunt 

 brush disposal costs open minded and efficiently. The thing can '^e 

 done because it has been done. 



