TE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 
Committee on Profoessional Standard 
..o...ittee-- ..n       ...... .106 Wildlife Conservation Bldg. 
                                       Univ. of Missouri, Columbla, Moo 
                                       December 12, 198.* 
 
To Committee members.- Edainstero, Krrington, Hubba, King, Le&lds, 
     RMtoddard- Taylor, (Bennitt).        CC:. Allen, Cahalane. 
 
Gentlemen: - 
     Enclosed herewith are two copies of Leopold's latest---and,I hope, 
last---revision of the statement of standards;   it supersedes the draft

sent to you on October 14; since then further suggestions have been re- 
ceived from members of the Coeittee. 
 
     If you approve of this statement for presentation to the Society at

Detroit, will you please signify this in writing?    I hope that all of 
our more important differences of opinion have been ironed out, and that

en receipt of your approval I can then go ahead and mimeograph enough 
copies for the members of the Society.    Since I expect to be away from

December 22 to January 2 inclusive, it would help if I might hear from 
you b  December 2     then I can leave the job to our secretary. 
     This is the fifth draftj you have seen all the others and have con-

 tributed to them.   In my opinion this statement represents a valuable 
 service to the Society and to the prof-asion, perhaps the most valuable

 of the year. 
     The preliminary letter---whioh is for the members of the Society and

 not for publication in the Journal---is intended to show our members that

 this statement was not hastily drawn up, but represents a good many month.'

 work.   It shows also some of the considerations that we kept in mind in

 the course of the discussion. 
 
 Civil Service standards.   No report from the subcommittee (Edrinster and

 )ever, this is not urgent, and in any ease we should probably 
 not plan to present anything on this subject to the Detroit meeting of 
 the Society. 
 
 Publication standards.   Errington's paper on this subject has been 
 heartily approved by Stoddard, Leopold, Taylor, Cahalane, Edminster, and

 Beanitt; nearly everyone recommends publication in the Journal.    Assum-

 ing that Errington approves his own stuff, this is six of the nine members

 of the Committoev-enough, it seems to me, to warrant our asking Errington

 to edit his MS finally and send it in to MeAtee for publication in either

 the first or the second issue after the Detroit meeting. 
      I say "the first or the second* because I don' think anything
ought 
 to interfere with the publication of our statement on professional and 
 academic standards as soon as possible.   This ought to go through as 
 soon as it is approved by the Society, and perhaps the Editor would not

 have room in a single issue for two such papers. 
      Unless a majority of the Committee disagree, we need not ask for the

 Society's specific approval of Errington's paper, and we can send it in

 ---if the author wishes---with the endorsement of our Committee.   The 
 Society ought to approve the statement of professional standards---first,

 because this is one of the jobs for which our Committee was established,

 second, because it is a good deal more far-reaching in its implications.