COMMENTS ON KNEIPP'S PAPER 673 



vision of a few men and is maintained today by men of the same stamp. 

 Those of us who have seen the wonderful and inspiring work of the 

 French foresters well know what steady progress toward an ideal can 

 do. Idealism and vision have made it possible for France to supply 

 the armies of the Allies with indispensable wood products — products 

 not slashed out of virgin forests, but from man-made forests grown 

 through the painstaking efforts of generations of forward-looking men. 

 This monumental work would never have been accomplished had the 

 French Forest Service personnel been made up of men who merely 

 saw the day's task. The technical foresters, rangers, and lumbermen 

 alike of the A. E. F. will march home with a new conception, for they 

 have seen the results of practical idealism. 



Just a word as to the social aspects of this problem of personnel. 

 If, as Kneipp states, the percentage of technically trained men is de- 

 creasing in the Service, it suggests a study of ways and means to make 

 the conditions of employment more attractive rather than to lower our 

 standards. Here is food for discussion ! 



By R. IV. Ayres 



The articles by Mr. Kneipp and Professors Toumey and Spring in 

 the February number of the Journal oe Forestry are of great interest 

 to me, as, no doubt, they have proved to many other forest-school 

 graduates in the Forest Service. These same questions have caused me 

 considerable thought, because I have been a forest assistant and for 

 ten years have had charge of a National Forest, and have seen four 

 new forest assistants come and go while I have been a supervisor. My 

 experience is limited to one Forest and my knowledge to District 5, 

 but I am taking the opportunity to express my views on this subject 

 in the hope that they may be of some value in solving the problem. 



What is the matter with the forest-school graduate? That is — in 

 effect — what Mr. Kneipp asks in his article, altliough he speaks of 

 them as "technical" men, which is hardly correct, as we have men from 

 technical schools in the organization who were not educated to be 

 foresters. Furthermore, it seems that Kneipp confines his question to 

 forest-school men on the National Forests only, and is not concerned 

 with the careers of those who have gone into State or private work or 

 who are in the district or Washington offices. I believe Kneipp is 

 right, allowing for certain conditions in his district, and cannot see that 

 the professors have answered him satisfactorily. But it is better for 

 them to see that they cannot evade the question, and must face it 

 squarely ; otherwise the future of the forest schools, as far as the 



