Editorial 



THE FLAW IN INDIANA'S STATE FORESTRY ORGANIZATION 



INDIANA has had a State Forestry Board for fourteen 

 years, and a secretary, who by the terms of the law is 

 supposed to be " one who shall have special knowledge 

 of the theory and art of forest preservation and of 

 timber culture." The State has during this period appro- 

 priated an average of $8000 per year for forestry work. 

 To-day, those who have the forestry work of the State 

 closest at heart are disappointed and dissatisfied at the re- 

 sults. In adjoining states, under the guidance of trained 

 men, and under plans similar to those contemplated for 

 Indiana, great areas of state forest reserves have been 

 created, state-wide fire protection systems organized, and, 

 more to the point, immense progress has been made in 

 educating farm owners in the proper care of their wood- 

 lots and in selection of profitable trees to plant. Demon- 

 stration woodlots have been established, lectures given, 

 and bulletins issued. The people of these states are not 

 forced to content themselves with enthusiasm and senti- 

 ment they are guided to the practical application of 

 their impulses by the efficiency of their state foresters. 



In Indiana the contrast is sharply evident. As a 

 result of fourteen years' effort on the part of the State 

 Board, which has at all times given conscientious and un- 

 selfish service, the State has 2000 acres in Clark County, 

 on which some hardwood plantations have been estab- 

 lished, but the educational and publicity work which is 

 the foundation of true state forestry is totally disorganized, 

 inefficient and conspicuous chiefly by its absence. This 

 Board, by the very terms of the law constituted as a non- 

 political body and containing representatives of the faculty 

 of Purdue University, the wholesale and retail lumbermen, 

 and the agricultural interests of the State, has year by 

 year endeavored to fulfil its obligations to the people 

 of the State, only to confess its efforts nullified and 

 barren of results. 



What is the trouble? It lies in the law itself, which 

 gives the Board no control whatever over its executive 

 officer, the secretary, upon whom rests the duty of carry- 

 ing out the purposes of the work. In practically every 

 other state similarly organized the Forestry Board ap- 

 points its own state forester, who serves the Board but is 

 not himself a member. Other states whose laws prescribe 

 the employment of a technically trained forester have 

 actually employed one, and even when this qualification 

 has not been indicated by law, the state forestry boards 

 have insisted on securing foresters whose ability has been 

 demonstrated by performance. Such foresters are now 

 serving boards in the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, 

 ( Connecticut, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia! 

 Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, California, and 

 elsewhere. Indiana, on the contrary, is the only State 



in this entire nation which has first created a Board of 

 Forestry and then stripped it of all control over its exec- 

 utive officer. In this State the governor appoints the 

 secretary or forester, and the latter is a member of 

 the Board itself. The Indiana law, passed in 1903, de- 

 manded of its secretary a special knowledge of the theory 

 and art of forest preservation and timber culture. Even 

 at that time men with the proper training were not lack- 

 ing from whom to choose. But the first appointee was 

 a school teacher to whom the governor owed a political 

 debt. This secretary remained in office till 1909 and 

 accomplished the purchase of the state forest reserve and 

 its improvement by roads and buildings. Trees were 

 planted, but upon his retirement no records of these 

 plantations could be found, and thus much of the benefit 

 of the work was lost to the public. 



In 1909 Governor Marshall made an honest endeavor 

 to secure a capable man. His appointee, while not a 

 forester, and lacking fundamental knowledge of soils, 

 tree culture, and woodlot management, yet had a knowl- 

 edge of botany and a true scientific interest in forestry. 

 He secured very complete records of plantations and gave 

 to the State practically all that it has ever received of 

 value from the expenditure of the annual appropriations 

 for maintenance. But in 1912, against the protests of 

 the Board of Forestry, who had in him secured a man who 

 was trying to do something, this secretary was removed 

 on the suspicion that he was of the wrong political faith, 

 and a tried and true member of the dominant party was 

 given the office as a plum. During the four years in 

 which he has held office the present secretary has made no 

 pretense either of knowing anything about state forestry 

 or of endeavoring to conduct the work of state forester. 

 Correspondence requesting information on forest planting 

 or woodlot management remains unanswered, the state 

 reserve is left to a caretaker, and the Forestry Board 

 finds itself in an impossible situation. 



To allow such a condition to continue would be a con- 

 fession that Indiana must fail where her sister states have 

 succeeded. One change alone is needed the Board should 

 appoint and employ its own secretary and forester and 

 must be limited in its choice to men who have received an 

 educational training which fits them for the position. There 

 would be no disposition on the part of a State Forestry 

 Board properly constituted, as is that of Indiana, to 

 employ a man who would render their entire work futile 

 and barren of results. This change should be secured in 

 the coming session of the Indiana Legislature. Nothing 

 else is needed to place Indiana on a par with other states 

 and to justify the further continuance of the forestry 

 work of the State. Without this reform the entire system 

 may well be abolished. 



495 



