I would like to point out the advantages of the military type of organization whcre utilizcd in Wildlifc Law Enforcement Agencies, and even as Ido so, would like to stress the importance of such agencies in allowing their agents, conservation officers, rangers or whatever title is given the "old gamc warden" in your respective states; a certain latitude, independence of action, and freedom from top levcl, official direction and command as far as practicable. We must realize, and keep in the forefront of our minds, that the working wildlife agent, the enforcement officer in the field, is our primary contact with the sportsman, hunter, fisherman, man who pays the bills, there in the field. The Wildlife Agent is in effect our Public Relations man for the department. He answers more inquiries about our activities, seasons, reasons for doing, than any other person or persons in the department. He is speaking as a rule, to his neighbors, relatives, friends and acquaintances and commands more respect and trust in his area than all the information and education men that we could employ for years to come! In the normal evolvement of Wildlife Enforcement Divisions in the various State Agencies, those who had not already operated for some time in the military type of organizational manner soon came to the same conclusion arrived at by all enforcement agencies in time. The chain of command must exist if we are to avoid the common mistakes of conflicting orders, parallel assignments to reach the same conclusions, investigations conducted thru the same agency and the participants in different Districts unknowingly using man hours that could be expended on different complaints and violations. The chain of command must exist if we are to be constantly informed of thc disposition of men and equipment, or know how to obtain this information by contacting a subordinate so informed, and thus minimize the effort of supervisors to effect quicker communication and use of material, men, boats and vehicles.
