Game Administration 239 



with the university rather than with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. In 

 short, there is as yet no more co-ordination between game and forestry under 

 type 2 than occurs in the "game warden" type of organization. 



In practice the fundamental weakness seems to be that State departments of 

 agriculture are unstable. Their outlook is accordingly more political than tech- 

 nical. 



The third type of organization may be called the "natural resources" type. 

 In it the inorganic (as well as the organic) resources of the State are placed, with 

 respect to their conservation, under a single jurisdiction. Indiana is the only State 

 in the north central region which employs this form, although it is becoming 

 more or less common elsewhere. In Indiana, mineral resources and water power 

 are included with game, fish, forestry, parks, and agricultural entomology as 

 bureaus of the conservation department. The overhead in the Indiana organiza- 

 tion follows the commission-director type to be later described, and hence is com- 

 paratively stable. 



The "natural resources" type of organization frequently includes the promo- 

 tion of tourist business, the promotion of mineral developments, and other func- 

 tions bordering on those of a State chamber of commerce. From the writer's 

 standpoint, there is a fundamental incompatability between game management 

 and such promotional functions, and likewise between the administration of re- 

 newable organic resources and non-renewable mineral resources. 



Nevertheless, the very comprehensiveness of the "natural resources" type 

 has in itself a certain merit. In Indiana it has effected a greater co-ordination be- 

 tween game and forestry, for instance, than that usually prevailing in other 

 States. 



Fourthly, we have the "commission-director" type found in Michigan and 

 Wisconsin. In this type the governor appoints a group of unpaid commissioners. 

 By reason of their overlapping or "staggered" terms, no one governor ordinarily 

 has the opportunity to appoint the whole commission. The commission supplies 

 continuity and exercises regulatory powers. It in turn appoints a director of con- 

 servation, who is the chief executive, and who appoints various bureau chiefs in 

 charge of the various conservation activities. In Wisconsin these bureaus include 

 only organic resources such as game, fish, forestry, and parks, but in Michigan a 

 State geological survey is included. To this extent Michigan verges toward the 

 "natural resources" type. 



The "commission-director" type of organization, as developed in Michigan 

 and Wisconsin, closely approximates the "corporation" type in industry. The 

 commission corresponds to the board of directors, and the director of conserva- 

 tion corresponds to the general manager. 



Theoretically the "commission-director" type is freer of fundamental de- 

 fects than any other type found in the north central region. It of course goes 

 without saying that no form of organization assures an able administration of 

 conservation affairs by reason of the form as such. 



