86 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



ctimstances, other measures would afford a reasonable amount of 

 protection, such as the construction of fire lines around cutting areas, 

 combined with efficient patrol. However, no admiaistrative officer 

 has any discretionary authority in determining what steps are necessary 

 to meet the ever-changing conditions. It seems fair to assimie that the 

 rigidity of the system is at least partially responsible for the general 

 complaint that is now made against the law. 



While the fire danger in some portions of eastern Canada is much 

 less than in the Adirondacks, in other portions the danger is greater, 

 and it is not believed that any general and non-elastic system of brush- 

 disposal would be advisable. On the contrary, the requirements to 

 be imposed should closely fit local conditions in every case. This can 

 best be brought about by having competent administrative officials 

 with full discretionary authority to settle each case on its own merits. 

 The exercise of discretionary administrative authority is distinctly to 

 the advantage of the operator, as well as of the land-owner, since in this 

 way the minimum rather than the maximum of requirements will be 

 imposed without sacrificing efficiency of protection. Where a rigid 

 system is imposed, the requirements must necessarily fit the extreme 

 rather than the average or the minimum case. 



In this connection, the experience of Minnesota, in changing from 

 a rigid to an elastic system of enforced brush-disposal, is of great in- 

 terest. A brief statement of this situation is included elsewhere in this 

 report.* 



See page 54 et seq. 



