COMMENTS ON KNEIPP'S PAPER, "THE TECHNICAL FOR- 

 ESTER IN NATIONAL FOREST ADMINISTRATION" 



[The subject touched upon by Kneipp is of the most vital importance 

 to the Forest Service and to the profession. The Editors hope that 

 its discussion, therefore, will not end with Tourney's and Spring's com- 

 ments, but will be followed by contributions from many others. We 

 want particularly to hear from the non-technical and technical men 

 themselves now in active forest work. — Ed.] 



By J. W. Tourney — 



If Kneipp wished to write an article to show the superiority of the 

 non-technical forester over the technical one, it seems to me he should 

 have gathered statistics. He states that the relative proportion of 

 technical men to non-technical has decreased during the past ten years 

 rather than increased. Would it not be an easy matter to follow out 

 the record of technical men and compare it with the record of non- 

 technical men ? 



We all know that when first employed an experienced axman or 

 sheep herder, even without brains, is likely to be more useful than a 

 man without woods training, no matter how much technical instruction 

 he has had. Even in districts which in the past have been inimical to 

 technical men, I have found the contempt has, to a large measure, 

 ceased and the persons in command have come to realize that their past 

 attitude was a mistake. The districts which have for years held tech- 

 nically trained men in more regard than eleswhere in the Service, in 

 my judgment, can point to the quality of the work as superior to that 

 elsewhere in the Service. Kneipp is at the head of a district in which 

 timber forests are relatively insignificant and where grazing dominates. 

 Probably in his district, more than anywhere else in the Service, the 

 need of men with technical training in the care and management of 

 woods is less urgent ; but even in this district, if the administration fails 

 to grasp the point of view, fails to see the importance of organizing the 

 district primarily to protect, improve, and extend the little forest that 

 they now have, it seems to me they have no purpose of existence within 

 a forest service, in the truest sense. What if grazing does dominate tiie 

 district economically? This should not act as a fog to hide the real 

 purposes for which the forest reserves in District 4 were created, 

 namclv. to protect and improve the forests. 



163 



