Editorial 



LOUISIANA FORESTRY AND THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 



AN important hearing was held on June 14 before the 

 /-A committee on Natural Resources of the Louisiana 

 Legislature on the Hughes forestry bill, which 

 proposed to establish a department of forestry independ- 

 ent of the State Conservation Commission and patterned 

 after the forestry law of Texas, under which a technical 

 state forester is appointed by the regents of the state 

 university. The bill was opposed by the Conservation 

 Commission and reported unfavorably, but the hearing 

 served to focus the attention of the State on the fact 

 that up to this time no forestry has been attempted by the 

 Conservation Commission, notwithstanding their respon- 

 sibility and authority given them under existing laws to 

 undertake this work. 



The claim was made by the Commission, and with some 

 justice, that no funds have been available for forestry, 

 since the revenue from the state products tax on timber 

 and minerals went into the treasury and was not a part 

 of their income. The Commission's revenue available for 

 expenditures in the fiscal year 1914-15 was $87,275.02, 

 and in 1915-16, $87,706.18. Its expenditures were re- 

 spectively $121,324.30 and $97,174.67. When the idea 

 of consolidating the forestry work of this State with fish 

 and game, minerals, and other resources was adopted, 

 the Commission was given discretionary power in the pro- 

 portioning of its income to meet expenditures. Fish and 

 game, marine fisheries and other work were already es- 

 tablished. Forestry was new and unfamiliar. The 

 inevitable result of this system was the absorption of 

 the entire fund by the more urgent and better organized 

 work and the total neglect of forestry. The technical 

 forester needed to start the work was not appointed, 

 for lack of funds to pay him, and lacking all real incen- 

 tive for true constructive forestry the Commission did 

 not even urge the specific appropriation of funds for this 

 purpose an alternative at all times available to them. 

 Meanwhile the State was receiving, outside of the revenue 

 of the commission, the income from the products tax 

 on timber and minerals, which brought in $113,992.50 for 

 1913, $115,496.14 -for 1914, and $92,554.67 for 1915. This 

 tax, paid largely by lumbermen, the State now proposed 

 to double purely as a revenue measure. It was brought 

 out at the hearing that when this products tax was im- 

 posed the understandings and intention of its advocates 

 was that the State would expend upon forestry a sum 

 at least the partial equivalent of the tax. This the State 

 had failed to do. 



While the committee did not accept the proposed sep- 

 aration of the forestry department from fish and game 

 protection and decided in favor of retaining the consoli- 

 dation, they did admit the justice of the demand for 

 specific appropriation of funds for forestry, and an 

 amendment was drafted to the timber tax bill, pro- 

 viding that 25 per cent of the revenue from timber alone 

 shall be devoted to forestry. If this measure passes, the 

 Conservation Commission will be enabled to organize a 

 forestry department and will have approximately $20,000 

 per year for this purpose. 



Effective work in state forestry at present can be 

 conducted on an even smaller appropriation, provided 

 the work is centered in an able, well trained forester 

 whose position is not subject to the changes and uncer- 

 tainties which are ordinarily the lot of the appointees 

 of a commission organized as a part of the regular ma- 

 chinery for state government. The word "politics" as 

 applied to this situation does not signify either corrup- 

 tion or deliberate neglect and inefficiency. It may be 

 confined in its meaning to the recognized practice of con- 

 sidering offices of an appointive character as due by 

 right to the party in power and to be filled by their 

 adherents. The pressure of such obligations upon the 

 heads of departments is enormous. The plea is that 

 just as good "Republicans," "Democrats" or "Progres- 

 sives," as the case may be, can be found, therefore the 

 old incumbent must step out. 



This principle will not work in state forestry. State 

 forestry organization must be continuously in the hands 

 and under the direction of a man capable' of following 

 up the policies inaugurated through many years to a 

 successful conclusion. If his job depends, not on his 

 efficiency, but on the accident of political elections, the 

 state will not secure men of the highest ability nor get 

 real forestry work done. 



It remains to be seen whether the proposed organiza- 

 tion of the forestry department and its continuance un- 

 der the Conservation Commission will accomplish this 

 result. In the interest of forestry in Louisiana we sin- 

 cerely hope that the passage of the proposed measure 

 may be followed by the selection of a state forester of 

 real ability and his retention indefinitely. Initial errors, 

 both in organization and personnel, take years to over- 

 come. The right start means everything to the work of 

 a state. 



435 



