244 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



larger individual operations, or to groups of operations. Authority 

 should be placed where it belongs, right on the ground. 



STATE FOREST FORCES 



Under the Forest Service plan for State control the State Forester 

 would be the sole executive officer. Under the national plan of control, 

 one of the problems to be solved is how the various State forest forces 

 might best work with the National Government. To many this appears 

 as a serious stumbling block ; to the Committee it appeared as a problem 

 which would, before long, settle itself. It would be futile to draw 

 up any general plan suited to all States, for the forest laws and organ- 

 izations of no two States are the same. It would doubtless prove 

 advisable to consider each State separately, making such arrange- 

 ments with each as would best fit the local conditions. The history, 

 aims, and desires of each State forest organization should receive the 

 most careful consideration. 



Protection against fire is a problem of first importance. Under the 

 plan for State control, as now proposed, both silvicultural measures on 

 lands being logged, and measures for fire protection not only on lands 

 being logged but also on cut-over and virgin timberlands, would be 

 in charge of the State Forester, who would work under State laws. 

 There would be no division of authority as between silvicultural 

 measures and protection against fire, and the latter could be regarded 

 as a part of silviculture itself. 



It is argued that under the Committee's plan for national control 

 there would be a break in administration. Federal officers having 

 charge of silvicultural measures on lands being logged, State officers 

 supervising fire protection both on lands being logged and on all other 

 logged and virgin timberlands. Conflict in plans and administration 

 would result, it is claimed. 



Suppose we get down to brass tacks on this matter. The plan for 

 State control does not contemplate giving the States a free hand, by 

 any means. The States are to be subsidized by the National Govern- 

 ment, the latter contributing to the costs of preventing devastation. In 

 return, the States would be compelled to conform to certain standards, 

 both in the measures to be used and in the efficiency with which they 

 are applied. That calls for constant inspection and supervision by 

 the Federal Government, and the withdrawal of the subsidy in case 

 a State fails to live up to the Federal standards. It is proposed to 



