Abstract This is an adversely critical review of the "National Plan for American Forestry." Its general tenor is to condemn rather bluntly the authors for attempting to draw too definite and too specific conclusions from too incomplete and too inaccurate data. It complains also that they have made erroneous or illogical deductions from such reliable data as does exist. It warns the profession to avoid the risk of discrediting itself and the forestry movement, through giving blind and unintelligent support to doctrines and policies not based on sound interpretation of the facts. It is published here, together with a rejoinder from Mr. F. A. Silcox, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, because the opinions it expresses should preferably be considered in connection with the preceding discussion of Mr. Earle Clapp's paper, "Major Proposals of the Copeland Report." Whether, and to what extent Mr. Gaskill's opinions have merit is for the reader to decide. The responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and of the three Associate Editors who advised him to accept the article, rests with the decision that it deals with a timely subject, deals with that subject in a fashion to make it worth reading, and thirdly, meets the JOURNAL requirements as to literary standards.
Alfred Gaskill (Thu,) studied this question.