COMMENTS ON KNEIPP'S PAPER 561 



cialist qualified to contribute to the fundamental aim of all forest man- 

 agement — that of creating and maintaining permanent forest commu- 

 nities. The charge is merited to too great a degree that the technically 

 trained forester has been content to be satisfied with conservative lum- 

 bering rather than aggressively fighting for sustained yield as a funda- 

 mental of forest management. 



Where there is a district with a "few picayunish sales and little or 

 no timber," obviously no one would argue that a technical forester is 

 needed as an executive over such a ranger district. Simple instructions 

 as to how to silviculturally manage the few trees would be all that is 

 necessary. Many such districts occur, especially in those regions in 

 which grazing is predominant. There will be, in my opinion, many 

 such cases throughout the National P'orests, and men of more limited 

 training can be effectively used. There will be many non-technically 

 trained men possessing the qualities of character outlined who will 

 achieve responsible positions, which is as it should be. It is contended, 

 though, that the proper management of the National Forests of the 

 country can only be accomplished under the directive leadership of men 

 thoroughly trained in the theory and best practices of forestry. 



The whole argument is one which might have been written a genera- 

 tion or two ago. The more or less implied discounting of the need of 

 technicians and the failure to recognize that the real reason in most cases 

 for not getting the right kind of technical men is due to conditions 

 within the Service is what I definitely want to take issue with. The 

 doctrine is dangerous. The need is urgent that high-grade technical 

 personnel be secured by the Forest Service if it is to maintain its leader- 

 ship and not succumb to that deadly, subtly inertia so characteristic of 

 many governmental institutions. 



By Hiif/o U'iukcnwcrdcr — 



The article of District Forester Kneipp in the February issue of the 

 JouRX.\r. (Vol. XVI, 1918. p. 155) and comments by Professors 

 Toumey and Spring prompt a broad discussion of a question that is 

 of the most vital importance to the Forest Service, the profession at 

 large, and the forest schools. Kncipp's paper covers but one of a 

 number of important phases of education in forestry. While I quite 

 agree with some of his general observations and feel that there is room 

 for a good deal of discussion concerning our methods of forestry edu- 

 cation. Kneipp certainly got off the track in his general conclusi(Mis. 

 I lis rliicf coutcntii 111, that tlu- noii-tcchniral man is superior to the tech- 

 nical one. i^ based upon four tiUHl.iinent.il errors, as follows: 



