THE FOREST SERVICE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 166, 16 July 1931, Page 23

THE FOREST SERVICE.

It is barely three years since the Empire Forestry Conference met in New Zealand. It came here by Government invitation, it was welcomed by all parties on arrival, and the opinion was freely expressed that its counsel and advice would be of great value to the country. No doubt they would, for at the conference all parts of the Empire were represented by men of eminence in their profession with long years of experience behind them. And yet it is now proposed to flout the considered opinion of that conference. For this very question of the amalgamation of a forest service with another department was then deliberated. Delegate after delegate, from India, from Africa, from the Old Country, roundly denounced such arrangement, and in its final resolution on the basic question of forest policy the conference stated: "Experience has proved that while complete co-operation between the forestry and other branches of the public services is highly desirable, it is short-sighted economy to amalgamate forestry and agriculture in. one administrative service." The reasons for this view-point are fairly obvious, and it will suffice to name only two of the more important. In the first place, forestry is by no means a mere parttime job, that can be carried out by just anyone; it is highly specialised, and as Lord Clinton expressed it, "however good the policy outlined may be, it cannot be successfully carried out unless the members of the forestry service are fully trained and completely efficient." In the second place, continuity of objective and execution are the very essence of forestry'work, and it is of paramount-im-portance to lay down and adhere to a definite and permanent general policy. If the forest service is subordinated as a branch to any other department it becomes impossible either to obtain this essential continuity or to secure the requisite trained staff to attempt it. If forestry is to be merged with anything else, agriculture is the most logical. Both deal with the growing and management of crops, and both require knowledge of the s&me b&sic sciences. Forestry, however, involves more than the planting and harvesting of a tree crop; it requires acquaintance .with commerce and manufactures and the application of sound business principles. For its absorption by the Lands Department it is hard to find any good word. The functions of the two are almost diametrically opposite, the lands seeking to dispose of country for settlement, the forests striving to conserve it for timber supplies, water control, and scenic and recreative use; the one as it fulfils its functions will diminish in importance, the other becomes more necessary every year. At the present juncture there are many and grave problems facing the Forest Service, alike in the treatment of the remaining areas timbered with indigenous species and in the handling of the vast plantations of pxotics Their solution demands the utmost efforts of the best procurable brains; it cannot be even hoped for if the Forest Service is to become a mere section of another department whose primary interests lie far apait. The proposal is an utterly retrograde one, Ft,?l should most emphatically be reand should OWEN JONES, jected.