FORESTS AND FORESTRY

Hokitika Guardian, 22 September 1923, Page 2

FORESTS AND FORESTRY

FURTHER NOTES ON THE DIRECTOR’S REPORT. NO. VIII. “The Lndv doth protest too much, methinks.” —“Hamlet.” Chapter 2 of the Forestry Report deals with “The State Forest Service.” The most noticeable feature is the fulsome flattery which the Service hands out to itself—the necessity for so doing is obvious. The “loyal and genuine co-operation among all members of the Forest Service” is probbaly prompted by the same instinct of self-preser-vation which leads wolves to hunt in packs.

There is throughout the report too much' “flag-wagging,” to much bigdrum. If tho Service possesses such an abundance of efficiency, and such a keen recognition of the need for eeon- , oinv, what a pity it does not let a little of it trickle out! What other departmental reports indulge in such selfadvertisement? They arc generally so intent on recording something done that any reference to tho departmental officers is entirely omitted. “By their fruits shall vc know them.” Alas! tho forest Ix-ars “nothing hut leaves.” Tho Service believes in advertising, hut fails to see that the best advertisement: is ‘-to deliver the goods.” There is too much window-dressing—-like a small haberdasher’s shop—everything in the shop window, and dummy stocks on the shelves. The diagram which “illustrates the internal organisation of the Service” seems to have done service on previous occasions. It is losing colour by exposure, and it might well give place to something more attractive. It is like an illustration of the mountain in labour; and the resultant mouse is of microscopic size. Tho claim that is made in tlio report, of “greater efficiency in timber cruising and estimation,” is scarcely justified. unless estimates, made by forest officers, where the results have varied in respect to the same area as 3 to 1, means greater efficiency. The claim that “things are working more smoothly and harmoniously” is not justified by facts. “There is a rift within the lute,” and considerable discord prevails. The public has generally expressed its opinion respecting tho need of a sound Forest Policy; hut the report is off the track in claiming that the methods by which the Service are carrying out its policy are “inspiring public confidence.” The very reverse is the ease, and the sooner the Service realises tlvs the so ner may wo expect results.

The appointment of three New Zealanders (who have graduated in forestry, and who have been added to the technical staff) during the year is to ho comm nded—always supposing they arc put to constructive work. The amount of publicity drawn to the Forest Service by these articles, and the appearance of other comment in the metropolitan newspapers, indicates the awakening of the public conscience to the true state of affairs. The fact is all 100 plain that the Forest Service on its present lines of organisation, is too expensive for the results attained. There is much goiug and coming of Forestry officers, hut in tangible results on practical lines as suggested above, the goods, are not being delivered, anil rile tax-payer, tho rate-payer, and the community generally has to pay for this expensive, not to say extravagant. Department. Former Departments have had a muhsroom growth, soon to disappear, because of the expense involved in relation to tlio money value return. The Forest Service, as a separate Department, is only doing at a much enhanced cost what before was done through the medium of another Department and tho expense is just the crux of the position for the overburdened taxpayers of New Zealand to take into very serious consideration when judging the merits of the Forest Service as a separate Department.