208 Forestry Quarterly 



be supervisor and assistant forest supervisor rather than deputy. 

 The word deputy is a county term which should be dropped. 

 "Forester" has been suggested instead of Forest Supervisor, but 

 the latter seems preferable. Forest Assistant and Forest Ex- 

 aminer could be retained for lack of a better term. The names 

 Forest Ranger and Assistant Forest Ranger are good. It has 

 been suggested that the word Forest in front of Supervisor is 

 superfluous, but there are so many kinds of supervisors in this 

 country (as for example, supervisors of poor farms, supervisors 

 of counties, etc.), that the prefix Forest is absolutely necessary. 

 These titles proposed are in accordance with usage in the States ; 

 for instance, we have accepted State Forester and Assistant State 

 Forester as standard. Why can't we get away from the abnormal 

 and complex titles which have crept into the Forest Service organi- 

 zation ; there are something like 73 different titles at present ! 

 One of the chief reasons for these seems to be that whenever a 

 special man is required to do special work the Civil Service Com- 

 mission must have an examination for a position governed by 

 some new title. This does not seem reasonable. Mr. Ringland 

 favors a scheme of graduated advancement based upon service, 

 inspection, and examination for promotion. It is something like 

 that of the Public Health Service. Chief Forester, Senior 

 Forester, Junion Forester, Forester — anything is better than the 

 present titles. 



Centralized Supervisor Organization 



This idea of an even more centralized supervisor administra- 

 tion has been considered officially in District 3 (Arizona and 

 New Mexico), but, so far as is known, the Forester at Wash- 

 ington has not decided to make any drastic changes. According 

 to a letter received from the District Forester on January 4: 



"The moving reason for my recommendations is this: Mind- 

 ful of the millions needed for military defense and the loss in 

 revenue due to economic disturbances, the Forest Service can 

 look for no increase in its appropriations for sometime to come. 

 Therefore, the problem is wholly one of adapting our organization 

 to secure the greatest efficiency with money now available. In my 

 judgment, the present organization does not accomplish this. 

 Therefore, I have given a great deal of study to ascertain in 

 what way the organization can be bettered. It is not claimed 

 that there will be a decrease in costs but rather there will be a 

 decided increase in efficiency for the same money. Some day, of 



