If the development of any of the most important Forest Service policies is studied, it will become evident that the final solution has come only after initial failures. These failures have contributed to the final success; frequently the failures were necessary to a normal development. The administration of the six districts would have been a failure unless men had been trained in the district inspection period. The recasting of the too extravagant, broadcast sowing policy could come only after it had been proven-negatively. The proper classification of agricultural lands would not be possible today unless the act of June 11 had forced mistakes upon the inexperienced land examiners. Serious errors in administration have usually focused attention on the proper solution of important problems, and thus hastened aggressive and constructive action. Perhaps such a period is at hand for working plans. Thus far the policy has been vacillating. This was, to a certain extent, to be expected. Silvicultural plans must be closely linked with timber sale policy, and this sales policy had to be gradually developed. As a result of experience, suitable fire plans and grazing plans were developed quickly, because they were more urgently demanded in every-day administration. Judging from the really notable articles on the working-plan problem in its various phases, those most keenly interested in the final outcome believe that a crisis is at hand, and that the Forest Service must give the question more undivided attention. Thus far no very specific plan of action seems to have been outlined for the Service silvicultural plans beyond Kircher's summary of the District 3 official instructions. The articles for the most part generalize or comment on broad points in policy.

Under date of December 20, 1915, Mr. Greeley kindly furnished me with an official statement of the management work now under way. It is as follows:

"Our experience has demonstrated forcibly that these must be developed slowly and very largely by local officers on the units concerned. We are concentrating this winter (1915-1916) on the standardization of reconnaissance methods, which, of course, underlies any development of working plans. We will get out by early spring, I trust, a published manual on reconnaissance methods, as well as a separate and comprehensive Service publication on topographic work for all Service uses. We are pushing the timber reconnaissance at the rate of 1 million to 12 million acres annually. "My principal endeavor now in regard to working plans is to encourage the district officers and supervisors to prepare preliminary plans on all Forests, although largely extensive in character. The aim of these is to get the men on all the Forests thinking about the systematization of their data on resources and methods and conditions of use, so as to develop the working-plan idea in a gradual and normal way. This we hope to supplement within the next two years by the preparation of more intensive plans for two or three Forests whose use is sufficiently developed to make them desirable now. The Kaniksu National Forest, in District 1, on which Clapp started working-plan work in 1912, is one of these. Another is the Deerlodge, in Montana, where Mason started a Forest plan two or three years ago; and the third is the Whitman, in District 6, where the demand for available timber is especially strong.

"You will also be interested to know that we are going somewhat intensively into the study of water resources in relation to Forest plans and expenditures for protection. Dana now has a somewhat comprehensive study of this question in hand, in developing an inventory of the water resources of the Forests and their value. A plan prepared within the last year by District 5 for the Monterey National Forest in California goes into this question more fully and intensively than any other thing of the sort I have ever seen. We are also inaugurating, in collaboration with the counties of southern California, the Geological Survey, and the Weather Bureau, a systematic inventory of the water resources of southern California and a study of climatic conditions in relation to them, which will bear directly upon the administration of those Forests and the expenditures justified for watershed protection exclusively."

This is of wide interest to the profession. It is quite reassuring, but there is considerable doubt whether, as Mr. Greeley states ". these must be developed .. very largely by local officers.

." To

my mind, specialists, with a broad knowledge of the West, will be required before even preliminary silvicultural plans will be developed.

COMMENT ON PAST METHODS

Since it is generally agreed that the progress made in protective administration, grazing, lands, and improvement plans is quite satisfactory,

the writer will merely comment in detail on the silvicultural section of Forest Service working plans.

A number of writers have recalled that the working plans for private lands, made by the Bureau of Forestry, were generally impracticable and, consequently, were not followed. But, before pronouncing these "failures," let us consider why these plans were made. The owners wanted maps and estimates; the Bureau of Forestry wanted to advertise forestry (and secure control of the "Forest Reserves"). It seems to me that, notwithstanding faults in detail, the main objects were accomplished. My chief objection to these early plans is due to the extravagant and incorrect claims of the financial success which some of them heralded for forestry. Conservatism was lacking; the writers felt that they must show financial gain, and no doubt they believed in what they were predicting, but many of them unquestionably exaggerated future profits. All things considered, the profession must acknowledge that forestry, as a rule, is not profitable for the individual if the forest principal is properly valued. The broadest justification for forestry rests upon the indirect benefits. For this reason, I believe that the Forest Service is inconsistent in maintaining its lavish organization on the one hand and in preaching its dollar silviculture on the other. It ought to advertise more fully (and spend more time in designating) areas of forest for purely protection and recreation purposes. On how many forests are watersheds specifically reserved for city protection? How many areas have been reserved as scenic forests to become second Fontainableaus?

In response to Zon's request for opinions on the working-plan situation, notable articles have been published by Barrington Moore, Bert P. Kirkland, J. C. Kircher, D. T. Mason, and H. H. Chapman (Vol. X, Nos. 3 and 4, P. S. A. F.).

Moore's rather ambitious "Working Plans: Past History, Present Situation, and Future Development" is, to me, in some ways, disappointing. The strongest part of his article is the "Present Situation," and the weakest that alluding to "Past History" and "Future Development." This is quite natural, because only a man who has grown up with the Forest Service can realize the amount of painstaking work which the early working plans absorbed. Is it fair to disparage early private working plans? As already pointed out, they were a part of Mr. Pinchot's clearly thought-out campaign for public recognition. I feel confident that if Mr. Moore would make a careful study of the private "working plans" and woodlot reports made by the Bureau of Forestry prior to 1905, he would be amazed at the amount of good workable forestry they contained. For instance, what better method than the woodlot examinations