EDITORIAL 



THE PERIL OF COMBINATIONS 



THERE is a marked tendency in many states to 

 revise or reorganize their state governments in an 

 effort to secure greater efficiency and economy. 

 This takes the form of consolidations of various depart- 

 ments into a single commission, and of substituting a 

 single executive head for the board composed of several 

 persons. It so happens that state forestry is nearly always 

 affected by these proposed changes; and many state 

 forestry organizations which have existed for years and 

 built up creditable records for good work have faced, and 

 will continue to meet efforts to bring about fundamental 

 changes in their status, suggested by either newly elected 

 executives with ambitious plans of reform, or by economy 

 and efficiency commissions seeking new and apparently 

 simpler machinery of government. The persistence with 

 which these suggestions recur is based on a real desire 

 for better government, but the effort, as applied to forestry, 

 bids fair to defeat the very ends which it seeks to attain. 



Forestry has sought and attained the same form of 

 organization in many states as is used by educational 

 institutions, and for the reason that the demands of the 

 work for a trained forester have led to the creation of 

 the office as a distinct position, requiring educational and 

 technical training. In securing this very real executive, 

 the benefits of the board idea have also been retained by 

 providing, as in the case of university regents, that the 

 Board shall appoint the forester, pass on his expenses, 

 and have the general oversight and veto on his policies 

 and personnel. 



Under this plan, state foresters of real ability have 

 been secured and have been retained for a series of years 

 without the office becoming a political plum to be fought 

 over at each election. Unless this system continues, it 

 will be impossible to get results in forestry. Trees do not 

 grow to maturity within the two-year terms accorded 

 most of our governors. 



The great point that needs emphasis is that the system 

 of forestry boards, who appoint the state forester, has 

 been entirely free from the weaknesses which have brought 

 other boards into disfavor, and has shown by its results 

 that it is an ideal form of organization. Then why should 

 we seek to destroy this advantage, and are we fully awake 

 to what we are doing? 



It is claimed by some that the elimination of several 

 boards, and the substitution of a single department, will 

 cut down expenses. We can speak only for boards of 

 forestry. These boards are not salaried. The persons 

 serving on them give their time and interest to the work 

 and under the right form of organization this is not too 

 much of a burden. No saving is effected by dispensing 

 with these services. 



The service of the executive will be required, as before, 

 and the superimposing of some higher official over the 



forester cannot possibly increase the latter's efficiency, 

 and can result in economy only by cutting down his" 

 salary, or forcing him to work for less which means a 

 less able man to fill the place. The salary of the central 

 executive is an additional expense, and is often consider- 

 able. The expense for clerical labor is not reduced, 

 unless the work itself is curtailed. The forester, being 

 himself an able executive, is capable of organizing and has 

 already secured the best results from the force under his 

 control, and the efficiency of this unit will not be increased 

 by combining it with others. 



Instead of improving the work, combinations of dif- 

 ferent bureaus under a single executive head infallibly 

 tend to hamper forestry and retard its progress. The 

 forester, on whose knowledge, interest and ability the 

 entire work must rest, finds himself controlled by a supe- 

 rior whose interest is of necessity divided between the 

 several lines of work for which he is accountable. Since 

 it is almost impossible to find a person whose technical 

 knowledge covers more than one line, the chief in all 

 probability knows nothing of forestry, and is interested 

 largely in fish and game, or agriculture. If he is indifferent, 

 there is no appeal. Paralysis of initiative follows, and 

 the forester becomes discouraged and either sinks to the 

 position of a routine clerk, or resigns, to be replaced by 

 some less able and enterprising man. 



In some instances, these combinations are proposed 

 as a means of obtaining political control of forestry work 

 which has, by the merits of the system of state forestry 

 boards, been kept free from the grasp of the spoilsman. 

 Economy and efficiency in such cases form a convenient 

 cloak to cover the real aim in view; which is to secure 

 control of the office and of the field force, for political 

 purposes. There can be no other object in deliberately 

 upsetting an organization which is now giving complete 

 satisfaction. A reform which seeks to tear down rather 

 than build up, and which imposes changes of doubtful 

 value on an organization already satisfactory to the pub- 

 lic which it serves, should be viewed with suspicion. 

 One of the most plausible arguments used to secure 

 such combinations is that of avoiding the duplication of 

 field agents. This applies especially to states which 

 maintain a force of forest fire wardens, and an additional 

 force of game wardens. The economy experts at once 

 draw the conclusion that those two functions can be 

 combined in the same person. Practical considerations 

 point to just the opposite conclusion. In cities, it would 

 be about as sensible to combine the jobs of fireman and 

 policeman, as it would be to force the forest fire warden 

 to assume the full responsibility for game protection. 

 The time has not yet come when these two officials should 

 be identified in the minds of the public. The game war- 

 den must inevitably make enemies in the course of his 



47 



