» a

4

¢

@ eee" Impact of Forestry

Agriculture

——_ feesseves — ASSociations on

Publication No.1458 Forest Productivity
in the South,

bi

r

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

Sm :
= =)
a =~
ee
i
¥ a
- =
°
<
ne 7

ate

y ¢ Aha , ™

@ seerrents Impact of Forestry

V2 Agriculture

pa Service Associations on

Publication No.1458 Forest Productivity
“inthe South

in
tin
wv i

The Forest Service, in collaboration
with State forestry agencies, forestry
schools, forest industries, and other
forestry interests, has prepared a
comprehensive analysis of the timber
situation in the 12 Southern States.
This analysis is published as Forest
Resource Report 24, *“The South’s
Fourth Forest: Alternatives for the
Future.’’ The present handbook is a
supplement to that document.

**The South’s Fourth Forest’” is
available for purchase from the
National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161, in both
paperbound and microfiche.

Contents

The Dawn of the Forestry Associa-
tionsMiovements e904 e eee oe 1

1900 to the Onset of World War II 3
HE AWiariiVears aie oi oe ee 13

The End of World War II to the
RreSemtaysee. Sew ac iy tent ere rate 16

Role of Southern Forestry Associa-
flonstinstheshutuge ss... 26. 5 ae 26

eiterature:, Gitede. 32 « ,.ee antes og |

List of Major Forestry Associations 28

Impact of Forestry Associations on Productivity

of the South’s Forests
by J. Walter Myers, Jr.’

The Dawn of the Forestry
Association Movement,
1875-1900

It is difficult to pinpoint the roots and
genesis of the forestry association
movement in the United States and
the South. Immediately after the
Revolutionary War, some local and
intermittent interest was expressed in
the new Nation’s timber resources. It
was not, however, until the American
Forestry Association was formed in
1875 that any sustained effort became
a reality. The American Forestry
Association’s origins can almost
certainly be traced to Europe and the
international congresses of forest
managers held on the continent in the
1800’s. Also it is possible to trace
establishment of several Southern
State forestry associations to impetus
provided by the American Forestry
Association. Other groups, though,
seem to have been organized simply
to meet a perceived need, and
without outside influence.

Since the American Forestry
Association is the oldest organization
of its type in America, a few details
on its origins should be noted. John
Ashton Warder, of Cincinnati, OH,
its founder, attended an international
exhibition in Vienna, Austria, in 1873
as a U.S. commissioner and wrote
the official report on forests and
forestry. In it he listed the European
schools of forestry, dating back to
1813, and also the European

\J, Walter Myers, Jr., was executive vice
president of the Forest Farmers Association in
Atlanta until his retirement in 1982.

associations of ‘‘forest managers.”’
Dr. Warder had practiced medicine
until 1855, when he bought a farm
near North Bend, OH, so he could
devote more time to his avocation,
horticulture, and particularly to
pomology. Apparently, he was also
interested in forestry and forest
conservation. It seems reasonable to
believe he conceived the idea of
forming a forestry association in the
United States while attending this
1873 exhibition and writing his
report. At that time in America, there
was no single organization primarily
concerned with forest conservation.
Quotations from Warder’s report
suggest that he felt the Nation needed
such an association.

In any event, Warder subsequently
issued a call to interested
horticulturists, nurserymen, botanists,
and citizens at large to attend a
conference in Chicago on September
10, 1875, to discuss formation of an
American forestry association. The
idea was endorsed, Dr. Warder
elected president, and a constitution
adopted with the objectives of “‘the
protection of existing forests of the
country from unnecessary waste, and
the promotion of the propagation and
planting of useful trees’? (Clepper
1975).

In the decade after its founding, the
American Forestry Association
merged with a group known as the
American Forestry Congress, which
had been formed in 1882, and
merged a second time with the
Southern Forestry Congress at a
meeting in Atlanta in 1888. The latter

organization consisted of members
from Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, and South Carolina. Little
beyond that is known about it. This
merger, however, was one of the
American Forestry Association’s first
real contacts with the southern
forestry association movement.

Also in 1888, the American Forestry
Association influenced the
establishment of an apparently short-
lived forestry association in Texas. (It
was not until 1914 that a permanent
and continuing association was
formed in that State.) Ten years later,
in 1898, a North Carolina forestry
association was formed at New Bern
with the encouragement of the North
Carolina Geological Survey and State
Geologist J.A. Holmes, an early
member of the American Forestry
Association. The stated purpose of
the North Carolina association was to
encourage better forest management
in the State; however, like its
predecessor in Texas, the association
was short lived. In 1911 North
Carolina established a permanent
forestry association that has continued
to the present.

Meanwhile, the Appalachian National
Park Association, later the
Appalachian Forest Reserve
Association, was formed in 1889. Its
primary objective was to encourage
Congress to create a forest reserve in
North Carolina. Despite strong
support from State Geologist Holmes
and other influential citizens, the
movement failed; in 1905 the Reserve
Association was dissolved and its
efforts merged into those of the

American Forestry Association. The
cause was finally successful, but not
until 1911 with passage of the Weeks
law.

While the American Forestry

Association’s efforts were getting |
under way in the East, totally |
unrelated forestry association |
activities began in the upper mid- |
South. The Missouri-Arkansas |
Lumber Association, organized in
1883 by sawmill operators in those |
two States, was one the earliest |
manifestations of cooperative effort

by lumber manufacturers in the

region (Horn 1951). It was succeeded

in 1890 by the Southern Lumber

Manufacturers Association and later

the Yellow Pine Manufacturers

Association in 1906. With formation

of the Southern Pine Association in

New Orleans in 1915, these local and

regional associations were absorbed

into and succeeded by the Southern

Pine Association, now the Southern

Forest Products Association. This

group became the representative of

the southern pine lumber industry and

certain other wood-products

manufacturers in the region.

The Mississippi Valley Hardwood
Lumber Manufacturers Association
was formed in 1898. It was
concerned largely with development
of industry grading rules. After a
series of mergers, its work is now
largely incorporated in that of the
Southern Hardwood Lumber
Manufacturers Association, with
headquarters in Memphis. In 1984,
through a series of further mergers
and consolidations, this organization

became the national Hardwood
Manufacturers Association.

The Hardwood Manufacturers
Assocation provides its members with
the only industrywide statistics on
production shipments, available
inventory, and past prices. In
addition, its program includes wood
promotion and legislative liaison with
Congress. Since many of its members
are also timberland owners, the
Hardwood Manufacturers Association
maintains an active interest in forest
management and development, as did
the Southern Hardwood Lumber
Manufacturers Association. (The
latter organization was one of the
four cosponsors of the Southern
Forest Resource Analysis, which will
be discussed later.) George E. Kelly,
former executive vice president of the
Southern Hardwood Lumber
Manufacturers Association, continues
in that capacity with the Hardwood
Manufacturers Association.

The National Hardwood Lumber
Association, a separate entity also
located in Memphis, is responsible
for writing hardwood lumber rules
and ensuring that sold lumber
complies with those rules.

By 1900, the forestry association
movement had begun to make itself
felt in various other parts of the
United States but had made only a
very limited start in the South. It
would be another 10 to 15 years
before forestry and related
associations would have any
substantial impact on conservation
activities in the South.

1900 to the Onset of World
War II

From the turn of the 20th century
until the onset of the Great
Depression in the late 1920’s, the
forestry association movement gained
tremendous momentum. The result
over the Nation and in the South was
greatly increased attention to
protection and management of forest
resources.

Recognition of the importance of the
Nation’s vital natural resources,
particularly its forest resources,
seemed suddenly to come from all
sides. The Society of American
Foresters, a professional body, was
established in 1900 with headquarters
in Washington, DC, to advance the
science, technology, teaching, and
practice of professional forestry in
America. The National Lumber
Manufacturers Association (now the
National Forest Products Association)
was organized in 1902, with
headquarters also in Washington. Its
purpose was to improve the services
and advance the interests of the
lumber industry. Both the Society of
American Foresters and the National
Lumber Manufacturers Association
were destined to play major roles in
the future in formulating America’s
forestry policy.

In January 1905, the American
Forestry Association convened a
forest congress in Washington, DC,
attended by nearly a thousand people,
making it one of the largest and most
important forestry meetings yet held
in the United States. Its purpose was
‘*to establish a broader understanding
of the forest and its relation to the
great industries depending upon it; to

advance the conservative use of forest
resources for both the present and
future needs of these industries, and
to stimulate and unite all efforts to
perpetuate the forests as a permanent
resource of the Nation’’ (Clepper
1975).

Delegates to this American Forestry
Association Congress endorsed a
resolution calling for unification of all
forest work by the Federal
Government, including administration
of national forest reserves in the
Department of Agriculture. This
action had previously been advocated
by several other groups. Just 1 month
later, on February 1, 1905, Congress
established what later became the
USDA Forest Service as the Bureau
of Forestry in the Department of
Agriculture. This was a giant step
forward for the cause of forest
conservation and management in
America.

In May 1908, President Theodore
Roosevelt called the first national
conference on natural resources, to
convene at the White House. It was
officially designated as the
Conference of Governors, and Henry
Clepper (1971), former executive vice
president of the Society of American
Foresters, notes that ‘‘Conservation
as a popular crusade can be said to
date from this 1908 meeting.”’
Delegates from the South included
Louisiana Governor Newton C.
Blanchard.

While the conference may have failed
to produce immediate and direct
results, Clepper (1971) observed that

it had notable indirect results. In his
opinion, *‘. . . it was the single
greatest stimulus to resource
preservation and management,
affecting Federal and State
governments and private interests as
well.”’

Henry E. Hardtner, subsequently
hailed as “‘the father of forestry in
the South,’’ helped organize the
Louisiana Forestry Association in
1909 and served as its first president.
Over the next two decades this |
organization became a major
supporter of Louisiana’s forestry
program and helped secure
appointment of a nonpolitical
professional, R. D. Forbes, as State
Forester in 1917. Unfortunately, after
a noteworthy start the Association
ceased to operate in the 1930’s and
was not reactivated until 1947. |

The Georgia Forestry Association
was organized in 1907 at Athens,
primarily to plan a State forestry
program and to seek establishment of
a school of forestry at the University
of Georgia. Forestry instruction was
first listed in the University catalog
of 1906-07, but the teaching staff
was limited and the resources
meager. Nevertheless, this was the
genesis of the university’s George
Foster Peabody School of Forestry.
Shortly thereafter, the association
went into a decline, only to be
reorganized at Macon in 1922. It was
successful in getting the general
assembly to establish the State
forestry department in 1925. The
Georgia Forestry Association was
also an important force in establishing

the Herty Pulp and Paper Laboratory
at Savannah in 1931. Subsequently,
the association became inactive, only
to be reorganized again in 1945. It
continues to be a strong force at
present.

In 1911 the North Carolina Forestry
Association was reactivated after the
short-lived effort of 1897, and it has
been in continuous operation since.
The association has been active in (1)
encouraging reforestation of several
million acres of the State’s idle lands,
(2) supporting better fire protection
and development of better timberland
cutting practices, and (3) supporting
and working with the State division
of forest resources, the schools of
forestry at North Carolina State and
Duke Universities, the USDA Forest
Service, and other groups concerned
with forest resources.

Also in 1911, Congress passed and
President William Howard Taft
signed the Weeks law, which the
American Forestry Association and a
number of other cooperating groups
had long advocated. This legislation
authorized national forest acquisition
in the Eastern States. But more
importantly, it encouraged the various
States to enter into cooperative forest-
fire protection agreements with the
Forest Service under authority given
the Secretary of Agriculture. This
was another giant step forward in
protecting the resource. By 1924,
when the Weeks law was amended by
the Clark-McNary Act, 29 States
were cooperating under these
provisions. Land under fire
protection, meanwhile, had jumped

from 60 million acres to 178 million
acres (24.3 million ha to 72 million
ha).

In 1914, the Texas Forestry
Association was reestablished—26
years after the first effort in 1888.
Largely through the new group’s
efforts, the Texas Forest Service was
created in 1915 as a unit of Texas A.
& M. College (now University). The
association has been very active and
effective in forestry legislation and
forest policy matters, as well as in
promotion of reforestation activities
in the State.

The following year, 1915, saw
another major development in
southern forestry with the founding of
the Southern Pine Association (now
the Southern Forest Products
Association) in New Orleans. For
many years this organization served
as the industry’s only representative
in the South engaged in forest
conservation activities. Two of its
primary purposes were publication of
official grading rules for pine and
maintenance of an inspection system.
Subsequently, these activities were
transferred to an autonomous
Southern Pine Inspection Bureau.
Even from the beginning, however,
the Southern Pine Association was in
the forefront of forest conservation
work in the South.

One of the initial acts of the Southern
Pine Association was to help organize
the first Southern Forestry
Conference, held at Asheville, NC, in
1916 under the leadership of Joseph
Hyde Pratt, director of the North

Carolina Geological Survey. Pratt
was active in organizing the South for
forest-fire protection, along with R.D.
Forbes, long-time secretary of the
Southern Forestry Conference
(Maunder 1977). At that time only 5
of the 12 Southern States had a
forestry agency established by law.
The Southern Forestry Conference
was a loose-knit organization of
leaders in the South who were
interested in developing forestry State
by State. Henry Hardtner, of
Louisiana, was chairman of the
Southern Pine Association forestry
committee and also an active
participant in the Southern Forestry
Conference. Another leader was Tom
Wallace, editor of the Louisville
Courier-Journal.

As lumber production continued to
rise in the South toward its peak in
1909, when it accounted for almost
half the Nation’s production, the vast
acreage of cut-over land left as a
result was beginning to cause major
concerns. In 1917 the Southern Pine
Association joined with the Southern
Settlement and Development
Organization, a railroad and business
group, to call a conference to explore
what could be done with this vast
cut-over area. By the 1920’s the area
included some | million devastated
acres (404,700 ha) in the coastal
plain from South Carolina to Texas,
with 156 million cut-over acres (63.1
million ha) in the South overall
(Fickle 1980). Conditions varied:
some tracts were selectively cut and
others totally denuded. In any event,
the large, mature timber was
basically gone. Almost no one saw

prospects for further timber
production. Furthermore, the South
was largely out of the mainstream of
the developing interest in forest
conservation, which was centered in
the East at that time.

In calling the Cut-Over Land
Conference in 1917, the Southern
Pine Association became the first
body to study this problem seriously.
From the conference a Cut-Over
Land Association was formed. Its
duties were to serve primarily as a
clearinghouse for information on cut-
over lands based on data from the
Southern Pine Association and State
and Federal agencies. In the context
of the times it is not surprising that
most attention was given to possible
agricultural uses for this land and
virtually none to renewed timber
production. The general public and
even the lumbermen of that day were
largely unconvinced of the economic
feasibility of regenerating timber on
the land. Much research and
educational effort remained before
reforestation could be attacked
successfully, and any large-scale
effort was to await the period
following World War II.
Nevertheless, the Southern Pine

Association and its forestry committee

should be recognized for making a
beginning in addressing this gigantic
problem. During this period, the
Southern Pine Association also
continued to be an important force in
promoting fire control, in
strengthening State forestry agencies,
and in working for effective forestry
legislation in the region.

_

In December 1920, the Association of
State Foresters (now the National
Association of State Foresters) was
formally organized at a meeting in
Harrisburg, PA. This body evolved
from earlier organizations of State
agencies formed in the East to
address mutual problems such as
regionwide attacks of white pine
blister rust. More recently, the
National Association of State
Foresters has become a highly
effective force in strengthening State
and Federal forestry relations, plus
providing the State Foresters with a
strong voice in national legislation
and policies affecting their interests.
Regional organizations, such as the
Southern Group of State Foresters,
have been formed under the auspices
of the National Association of State
Foresters and have been very
effective in addressing regional
matters such as interstate fire and
pest compacts, which provide
guidelines and policies for
cooperative assistance among States.
The impact of such agreements in the
South, as well as in other regions,
has been very substantial. They
outline procedures under which States
can provide equipment and manpower
assistance to one another across State
lines in emergency situations. This
effort has proved invaluable.

Formation of the Florida Forestry
Association in 1923 offers tangible
evidence of how efforts of the
Southern Pine Association and other
supporters of the Southern Forestry
Conference paid off. Two men from
Florida, William L’Engle and S.
Bryan Jennings, attended a Southern

Forestry Conference meeting in
Montgomery, AL, in early 1923,
where they met R. D. Forbes,
Southern Forestry Conference
secretary and by that time director of
the Forest Service’s Southern Forest
Experiment Station. He urged them to
form a State forestry association to
alert the people of Florida and the
legislature to the need for protecting
and developing the great natural
resource that lay in the vast forest
acreage then covering two-thirds of
their State. As a result, L’Engle and
Jennings called a meeting in
Jacksonville on March 1, 1923,
where the Florida Forestry
Association was organized. It was
formally chartered in 1926.

A year later the Florida Forestry
Association played a lead role in
securing legislation to create the State
Board of Forestry, which then
organized the Florida Forest Service.
In 1935, the Association spearheaded
legislative activity that resulted in
establishment of the University of
Florida’s school of forestry. Working
with the school in 1953, the
Association assisted in creation of a
cooperative tree improvement
program with strong industry support,
one of the first research projects of
this type in the South (Weddell
1960).

One reason the Florida Forestry
Association was formed in 1923 was
‘‘to prepare effective testimony
before a U.S. Congressional
Committee investigating the necessity
for conserving the forests of the
Southeast.’’ The report of this joint

committee subsequently recommended
passage of the Clarke-McNary Act of
1924 and was an important factor in
its enactment. This was a major
milestone: real progress in State
forestry in the South began with the
passage of this legislation. It
authorized funds that enable the
Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate
with the States in forest-fire control,
reforestation and improved
management of private stands, and
nursery production of forest
seedlings. Under the Clarke-—McNary
programs, Federal funding and
participation were more directly
effective than under the Weeks law.
National Forest land acquisition was
also liberalized so that it was no
longer limited to headwaters of
navigable streams. The American
Forestry Association, along with the
Florida Forestry Association and
others, strongly supported passage of
this key legislation.

Shortly thereafter, in 1927, the
American Forestry Association
undertook a very ambitious program
to educate rural people in the South
away from a deeply ingrained
tradition of burning the woods each
year. Woods burning had been the
custom for many years for a variety
of reasons—some perhaps valid and
others without foundation—and that
added to the forest-fire problem. The
American Forestry Association
undertook this 3-year program with
$260,000 worth of cooperative
funding from State forestry agencies,
various citizens’ organizations, and
private individuals. It specifically
targeted the States of Florida,

Georgia, Mississippi, and South
Carolina and sought to reduce forest
fires and losses in this hotspot of the |
Nation. (Between 1917 and 1926, 80
percent of all reported forest fires
occurred in the South.)

This Southern Forestry Educational
Project, as it was named, was
manned by a team of “‘Dixie
Crusaders,’ traveling in fleets of
trucks, who gave talks and showed
movies on fire prevention to rural
backwoods groups at schools and
churches in hamlets throughout the
area. The American Forestry
Association staff even wrote,
produced, and acted in their own
movies when suitable ones were not
available. W.C. McCormick was the
project leader, and Erle Kauffman,
later editor of American Forests
magazine, developed the movie
scenarios. An estimated 3 million
adults and children viewed the
movies, and 2 million posters,
leaflets, and bulletins were distributed
(Clepper 1975).

State Foresters, suck as Fred Merrill
of Mississippi and H.A. Smith of
South Carolina, and other key
forestry leaders proclaimed the
project a huge success and one that
would have lasting effects on the fire
problem. In this project, the
American Forestry Association
worked cooperatively with the Forest
Service and State forestry agencies
and associations.

Almost 30 years later, in 1956, the
American Forestry Association
cooperated with virtually the same

organizations plus industry, trade
associations, and conservation groups
to sponsor a Southern Forest Fire
Prevention Conference in New
Orleans. Again the aim was to
stimulate greater action for forest-fire
prevention and protection. The
conference was highly successful and
resulted in increased appropriations
and better law enforcement in many
Southern States.

In 1928, another monumental forestry
bill, the McSweeney—McNary Forest
Research Act, was passed with strong
support from the American Forestry
Association and a number of other
national organizations. This bill
provided for a comprehensive 10-year
research program by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, including
range management and timber survey
as well as forestry. The Act set in
motion the 1930 Forest Service
timber survey, which pointed out the
great reproductive potential of the
southern forests and was responsible
in no small measure for the pulp and
paper industry’s migration to the
area. Within 15 years after the start
of the survey, 30 plants with an
investment of $200 million were in
operation in the Deep South
(Eldredge 1947).

In the midst of the Great Depression,
the American Pulpwood Association
was formed in 1934 by
representatives of the pulp and paper
industry. Headquarters, orginally in
New York City, were moved to
Washington, DC, in the mid-1970’s.
Much of the association’s early work
centered on investigations and reports

of national legislation affecting the
industry, including wage and hour
provisions and stream pollution. In
later years it has concentrated more
on development of pulpwood
production projections, evaluation of
different types of harvesting
equipment, safety, training of
harvesting equipment operators, and
better logging procedures. In this
regard the American Pulpwood
Association has put out several
valuable equipment and training
publications in recent years. The
association currently maintains
southern offices at Jackson, MS, and
North Charleston, SC; and much of
its work exerts a strong impact on
forest productivity in the South,
which currently produces almost two-
thirds of industry’s wood
requirements.

One of the oldest segments of the
forest industry organized a southern
association in 1935, when the
American Turpentine Farmers
Association Cooperative was
established in Valdosta, GA. Judge
Harley Langdale, Sr., a prominent
landowner and large gum turpentine
operator, was one of the leaders in
founding the group and served for
many years as its president. The
American Turpentine Farmers
Association has long administered the
Commodity Credit Corporation’s
turpentine farmers’ loan program,
cooperated closely with the Federal
Government in the Naval Stores
Conservation Program, and worked to
secure technical assistance for
operators from various forestry
agencies. It strongly supports forest

research related to production of gum
naval stores and development of new
products from them.

During this period, the conservation
movement began to take root in
Mississippi, resulting in the formation
of the Mississippi Forestry
Chemurgic Association in 1938.
Former State Senator Frank B.
Pittman was named association
executive, and headquarters were
located in Jackson. This was to
become a highly effective
organization of individuals and
companies interested in development
of the State’s forest and related
resources. While in the legislature,
Frank Pittman had served as secretary
of a joint committee to study forestry
conditions of the State. This
committee held numerous hearings all
over Mississippi seeking proposals on
legislative remedies to the State’s
forestry problems. When the
committee finally filed its report in
1940, it recommended 12 bills, most
of which were enacted and have
subsequently aided greatly in
strengthening Mississippi's forestry
program.

As the pulp and paper industry
expanded rapidly in the South in the
1930’s, it became apparent that a
highly visible education and
conservation program should be
undertaken. Industry leaders felt that
the alternative would be a strict
program of government regulation of
their woods operations. The result
was formation of Southern Pulpwood
Conservation Association.

10

The initiative for forming this
regional association came from
certain southern members of
American Pulpwood Association,
including C.O. Brown, International
Paper Company; Charles Luke, West
Virginia Pulp and Paper Company
(now Westvaco Corporation); Walter
J. Damtoft, Champion Paper & Fibre
Company (now Champion
International Corporation); and James
Allen, Union Bag and Paper
Company (now Union Camp
Corporation).

After a series of meetings with other
key leaders from industry and the
State and Federal Government
beginning in 1937, the Southern
Pulpwood Conservation Association
was formed in February 1939, with
headquarters in Atlanta. Frank
Heyward, Jr., former Georgia State
Forester, was named first general
manager.

The formation of this association,
with its aim toward a constructive
forestry program, was widely hailed.
The association directed its work
primarily toward helping the
individual grow wood on his or her
land through a program of
information, demonstration, and
assistance. One of the first actions of
the association was to proclaim a
statement of minimum cutting
standards. This was a voluntary guide
for landowners and wood operators to
help assure future growing stock on
the land. The results, while far from
perfect, proved quite satisfactory in
encouraging better management
practices.

The Southern Pulpwood Conservation
Association’s program of direct
assistance to individual timberland
owners was largely handled by using
company conservation foresters.
Starting with only a handful of
pioneers in this field in 1940, the
program grew to include 126
conservation foresters in 1953, or 17
percent of the 753 foresters employed
by the industry at that time (Earle ca.
1954). Over the years this program
provided assistance to thousands of
individuals owning millions of acres,
with tremendous impact on forest
management in the South. Needless
to say, it greatly enhanced the image
of the pulp and paper industry in the
region.

Henry J. Malsberger succeeded Frank
Heyward, Jr., as general manager in
1945 and served in that position until
the Southern Pulpwood Conservation
Association was merged with the
southern office of the American
Forest Institute in 1968. The new
group is known as the Southern
Forest Institute, with headquarters
remaining in Atlanta.

In 1941 another regional forestry
association, the Forest Farmers
Association, was formed with
headquarters in Valdosta, GA. Its
founder, W.M. Oettmeier, of Fargo,
GA, conceived it as a unique group
of southern private, individual
timberland owners banded together to
provide themselves a greater voice in
matters, local and national, affecting
their interests. Later, companies and
larger members were accepted, but
this has remained primarily a

nonindustrial association, always with
the smaller members in the majority.
Through the years the Forest Farmers
Association has provided an important
forum for bringing together the small
owner, forest industry, the forestry
profession, and government to
consider key forestry issues and
actions. As a result, its well-thought-
out and balanced views have made it
a particularly strong force in
legislative and governmental matters.

Its monthly Forest Farmer magazine
and biannual *‘Manual’’ are highly
respected publications, edited
primarily as how-to-do-it publications
for private timberland owners. The
highly regarded *‘Manual’’ has been
adopted as a supplemental text for
preforestry and farm forestry courses
by over a dozen southern colleges
and universities.

In addition, the Forest Farmers
Association has been very progressive
in planning for the South’s forestry
future. It has continued to be highly
effective, working with various
members of Congress, including
Representative Jamie Whitten, of
Mississippi, and former Senators
Herman Talmadge and Richard
Russell, of Georgia, in expanding
forestry programs, particularly
research, protection, management,
and more equitable taxation. It was
also one of the original cosponsors
with the Southern Pine Association
(now the Southern Forest Products
Association) of the Southern Forest
Resource Analysis project in 1966,
which resulted in The South’s Third
Forest report.

11

Wayne Miller, a former
newspaperman, was first association
executive secretary, serving from
1941 until his death in 1945. Paul W.
Schoen followed from 1945 to 1951,
when J. Walter Myers, Jr., assumed
the position. Myers stayed in office
until he retired in 1982 as executive
vice president. B. Jack Warren is the
current association executive.

What was to become the American
Tree Farm System started in 1941,
when a 120,000-acre (48,563-ha)
tract in Washington State, owned by
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, was
designated Tree Farm No. 1. Later
that year the National Lumber
Manufacturers Association (now the
National Forest Products Association)
resolved to establish a voluntary,
nationwide tree-farm system to be
administered by a subsidiary,
American Forest Products Industries,
Inc. (now the American Forest
Council). The primary goal of this
industry-sponsored program is to
encourage timber production for the
future, principally by recognizing
good management of privately owned
timberland.

The tree farm program came south in
1942 with the first dedication service
at Brewton, AL, on April 4. In
attendance were such notables as
Governor Frank M. Dixon and
prominent local lumbermen, including
W.T. Neal and Earl M. McGowin.
The concept debuted with strong
support from editor Stanley F. Horn
of the Southern Lumberman magazine
and from the National Lumber
Manufacturers Association. That same

12

month, the Arkansas Forestry
Commission sponsored a program,
and that State’s first tree farm was
certified on June 6 (Lewis 1981).

Initially, recognition as a tree farm
was conferred on large company
holdings where scientific forest
management was being practiced. It
proved an excellent public relations
program and served to demonstrate
the forest industry’s ability to
regulate itself effectively. This
movement—initiated at a time when
Federal regulation of private
timberlands was being widely
advocated—proved a valuable tool in
blunting the effort.

Over the years since its inception, the
tree farm program has been expanded
to all 50 States. Moreover, the
program now includes large areas of
nonindustrial lands in recognition of
the importance of their proper
management to the Nation’s timber
production. The impact of the tree
farm program on timber production in
the South has been substantial,
although difficult to measure. As of
1985, there were approximately
50,000 certified tree farms
nationwide, totalling 86 million acres
(34.8 million ha), with 55 percent on
nonindustrial tracts of less than 100
acres (40 ha). In the 12 Southern
States, there were 30,351 tree farms
in 1985, totalling 50,318,262 acres
(20.3 million ha), with 95 percent of
the nonindustrial acreage in tracts of
more than 100 acres.

Participants in the program receive
valuable educational information on

forest-management techniques,
including protection from fire and
pests, as well as the prestige afforded
by the certificate and prominently
displayed tree farm sign. Currently,
the tree farm program in the South is
cosponsored by the State forestry
associations, together with forest
industry and State tree farm
committees.

The War Years

At the onset of World War I,
association activities in the South, and
to a certain extent nationally, went
into a period of near dormancy with
certain important exceptions. In
response to a serious tax
development, aggravated by the war
and the increased demand for timber,
lumber interests together with pulp
and paper representatives established
the Forest Industries Committee on
Timber Valuation and Taxation
(FICTVT) in 1942. These owners felt
that taxes on timber owned and
harvested by themselves were both
discriminatory and confiscatory.

In 1944, with encouragement and
support from the National Lumber
Manufacturers Association, Forest
Farmers Association, and other
concerned groups, Congress amended
the Internal Revenue Code to extend
capital gains treatment to profits
earned by timber owners and
operators. Prior to enactment of the
amendment, then Section 117(k),
owners selling standing timber
outright or in a lump sum sale could
treat their profit as capital gain.
However, owners harvesting their
timber themselves or selling it little
by little over a period of years not
only were taxed at higher rates but
also were subject to wartime excess
profit taxes in the case of a
corporation. The result: owners were
encouraged to liquidate their timber,
and efforts toward long-term
scientific forest management were
strongly discouraged. The 1944
amendment changed the law so that
the increased value of timber held for
6 months or more would be treated

13

as a capital gain, rather than ordinary
income, for the tax year in which it
was cut or sold.

Although it is difficult to measure the
impact of this change, it is generally
felt by forestry authorities to have
encouraged partial cutting and
sustained-yield management and
discouraged indiscriminate
clearcutting. This is true in the
South, as well as in the rest of the
United States.

Charles W. Briggs, of Minneapolis, a
prominent timber tax attorney,
participated in drafting the
amendment and served for many
years as chairman of FICTVT.
William K. Condrell is the present
FICTVT general counsel.

While initially established as a
committee, the Forest Industries
Committee on Timber Valuation and
Taxation has become for all intents
and purposes an association, with
large and small participating members
in all parts of the United States. In
addition, it has expanded its activities
to include all phases of taxation
affecting timberland owners—in such
areas as estate, inheritance, State ad
valorem, etc.—as well as retention of
the important timber capital gains
provisions. Headquarters are in
Washington, DC.

During the remainder of the World
War II years, forestry associations in
the South and nationwide devoted the
bulk of their energies toward
expanded production of lumber, pulp
and paper, and other timber products
to bolster the war effort.

14

One State association, however, was
formed during this period: Virginia
Forests, Inc., in 1943, with
headquarters at Richmond. Its stated
purpose was “‘to protect, preserve
and rehabilitate the forests in this
commonwealth for the benefit of this
generation and the generations to
come.’’ One of its first activities was
to work for statewide fire protection,
which goal was finally achieved in
1945.

The association also successfully
supported enactment of a timber
severance tax to provide funds for the
State’s Division of Forestry. Over the
years, the work of Virginia Forests,
Inc., has included sponsorship of an
aggressive educational program aimed
at school children, vocational
agriculture students, landowners,
forest industry, and the public at
large. It has sponsored a very
effective bookcover program aimed at
school children, and it has
inaugurated an active, statewide
‘plant more trees’’ project.

William C. Cooper was the
association’s executive director from
its establishment until his retirement,
when he was succeeded by Charles

F. Finley, Jr. In recent years Virginia
Forests, Inc., has taken an
increasingly active role in State and
national legislative affairs affecting
forestry and forest owners.

In early 1944 the American Forestry
Association, anticipating the end of
World War II, undertook a 3-year
national survey to determine the
effects of the war on the Nation’s

forest resources as a contribution to for the major regions of the United

postwar reconstruction. The survey States. Meanwhile, the issue of
was underwritten for $250,000 by Federal regulation gradually
private contributors with cooperative diminished as timber growing on a
services from the States. The long-term basis became more
American Forestry Association’s profitable (Clepper 1975).

objective was to obtain factual data
on which national and State policies
relating to forest management could
be formulated. Montgomery A.
Payne, Ed. R. Linn, and Arthur M.
Emmerling worked as consultants in
gathering most of the data for the
South. A summary of the findings
was published in the September 1946
issue of American Forests magazine.

That fall, an American forest
congress was held in Washington,
DC, to consider the report’s findings
and recommendations developed by
an American Forestry Association
committee on dealing with principal
forest and conservation problems of
postwar reconstruction.
Unfortunately, general agreement
could not be reached on the issue of
government regulation of timberlands
and forest practices, one of the most
controversial of the day.

Nevertheless, the American Forestry
Association went on to publish its
comprehensive recommendations in
‘‘A Program for American
Forestry,’’ which became a charter
for action by the originating
organization and other conservation
groups. The American Forestry
Association’s initiative also influenced
publication by the Forest Service of a
1948 report, “‘Forests and National
Prosperity,’’ which set forth
recommendations on cutting standards

The End of World War II to
the Present

With the end of World War II the
forestry association movement in the
South accelerated into high gear once
again. The dormant Georgia Forestry
Association was reorganized in 1945,
the Louisiana Forestry Association
was revived in 1947, the Arkansas
Wood Products Association was
formed in 1947, and the Alabama

Forest Products Association, in 1949.

The Arkansas and Alabama groups
were later redesignated as forestry
associations and their membership
broadened. All of these bodies were
created, primarily, to advance the
cause of forestry in their respective
States. Each directed at least a
portion of its efforts toward
strengthening its State forestry
agency. Another important goal was
to provide members with a united
voice in local and national affairs
affecting their interests as timber
growers and producers of wood
products, a major industry in every
Southern State.

Meanwhile, other Southern State
forestry associations were being
revitalized with the return of war
veterans and the general beefing up
of forestry activities. The Southern
Pulpwood Conservation Association
resumed its conservation activities,
with Henry J. Malsberger, former
Florida State Forester, taking the
general manager’s job in 1945. By
1948, programs of the Southern
Pulpwood Conference Association
had regained their former impetus,
and conservation foresters in the
South employed by member
companies had increased from 12 in
1946 to 126 in 1953 (Malsberger

16

1955 unpubl.) The work of these
company representatives, plus that of
the Southern Pulpwood Conference
Association’s field staff, was to have
a major impact on forestry education
and adoption of better management
practices in the region over the next
several decades. In addition, the
Southern Pulpwood Conservation
Association resumed publication of its
very informative magazine, The Unit,
and produced numerous excellent
forestry educational movies. One of
these movies captured a top award at
the sixth World Forestry Congress in
Madrid, Spain, in 1966.

In 1961, a large group of Southern
Pulpwood Conservation Association
company members, together with
several nonmember companies,
established the Southern Forest
Disease and Insect Research Council.
In 1967, the similar Hardwood
Forestry Research Committee was
formed. Both groups were funded
independently by the participating
companies but were administered by
the Southern Pulpwood Conservation
Association.

The primary purpose of these two
bodies was to foster broader research
and encourage the training of
additional scientists in the fields of
forest entomology and pathology and
southern-hardwood management for
possible employment by private
industry.

Goals of the two groups were
implemented principally through
programs of competitive grants and
fellowships to southern universities.

Approximately $270,000 was
expended by the Southern Forest
Disease and Insect Research Council
and $85,000 by the Hardwood
Forestry Research Committee, for a
total of $355,000. The hardwood
committee was disbanded in 1972 and
the disease and insect group in 1977.
Companies participating in these two
programs felt they were successful
and justified the expenditures.

By 1946, W.M. Oettmeier, founder
and first president of the Forest
Farmers Association, had returned
from military service and resumed the
presidency of that organization.
Shortly thereafter, Paul W. Schoen,
former chief of forest management
for the Texas Forest Service, was
named executive secretary. The
Forest Farmers Association quickly
undertook an effort to strengthen
Federal forest research activities in
the South. Among the results was
establishment of local research
centers over the region.

Programs at these local research
centers were designed to address
local needs in topics such as genetics
and tree improvement, regeneration
of southern pines, the feasibility of
combining timber and cattle
production, etc. This was only the
beginning of Forest Farmers
Association efforts that later played
an important role in establishment of
the Forest Service’s Southern Forest
Genetics Institute at Gulfport, MS;
the Forest Fire and Seed Testing
Laboratories at Macon, GA; and
major insect and disease activities and
forest-management and forest-

utilization programs at Alexandria,
LA. Much of the South’s subsequent
increased timber production can be
related to these research efforts and
the resultant scientific breakthroughs.

The executive secretary of the Forest
Farmers Association, Paul Schoen,
originated and edited the Forest
Farmer Manual, which has continued
to be published and has come to be
accepted as a layman’s guidebook to
forestry in practice. He and Walter
Myers, who followed him as the
association’s executive officer and
editor in 1951, also expanded Forest
Farmer magazine, begun by the first
executive, Wayne Miller. It is a
widely read and highly respected
publication for the nonprofessional
timber grower in the South, and a
major force in forestry education.

The Forest Farmers Association was
also destined to play a major role as
one of the original cosponsors (with
the Southern Pine Association) of the
Southern Forest Resource Analysis.
This study is best known for the
resulting report, The South’s Third
Forest. Further details on this and the
Forest Farmers Association’s role in
national legislative activities will be
covered later.

In 1948, the Association of
Consulting Foresters was founded by
professionals in this specialized field.
This is a national organization
founded to ‘“‘provide and maintain
high standards of performance”’ by
its members. The Association of
Consulting Foresters has numerous
State chapters and is particularly

7

strong in the South, which is quite
understandable since the region has
such a heavy concentration of private
timberland owners.

The Association of Consulting
Foresters has strict membership
standards, including a professional
forestry degree, substantial practical
experience, and participation in a
continuing education program.
Edward Stuart, Jr., of Yorktown,
VA, himself a consulting forester,
served for many years as executive
director until the association’s
headquarters was moved to
Washington, DC, and he was
succeeded by Arthur F. Ennis.

The Association of Consulting
Foresters provides its members with
an effective voice in national and
local affairs, and it has been a strong
advocate of State licensing of
professional foresters. With over 200
consulting foresters practicing in the
Southern States in 1985, and with
many of them members of this
organization, the Association of
Consulting Foresters has become a
strong positive force for increasing
timber production in the region.

In assessing the impact of forestry
associations on productivity of
southern forests, an important
perspective can be gained by looking
at where the region stood as the
Nation emerged from World War II.
Much of the prewar initiative had
languished during the conflict and
was only now being resumed.

In 1948, some 82 percent of the
Nation’s forest wildfires occurred in

18

the 12 Southern States. Of the area’s
almost 200 million forested acres (81
million ha) needing fire protection,
only 63 percent received it. In 1948
just two Southern States, South
Carolina and Virginia, boasted
statewide fire protection. Even more
significant, however, fire-protection
and -control expenditures in 1950
averaged only 47 percent of basic
minimum requirements, even on the
protected acres, Southwide. Progress
in protecting the region’s forests was
being made, but at midcentury there
remained a long way to go (Myers
1950).

It is also interesting to note the
breakdown of harvests and drains
from the southern forest, as reported
by the Forest Service for 1947:

Percent
Lumber 45
Fuelwood 18
Hewed crossties 3
Pulpwood 11
Fence posts ]
Other uses by people 10

Destructive mortality
(Fire, insects, disease,
etc.) 12

Most of the forestry and related trade
associations formed nationwide and in
the South were initially established to
address the broad issues of
conservation, forest development, and
trade promotion, or merely to
encourage establishment of a State
forestry agency. As the movement
matured in the post-World War II
era, the aims of these groups became
more sophisticated and selective.

In 1951, the Keep Tennessee Green
Association was formed, with the
encouragement of the Tennessee
Conservation League, an affiliate of
the National Wildlife Federation.
Impetus for its formation was a
disastrous fire season in east
Tennessee and the urgent need for
greater State fire protection.
Founding fathers included Louis
Williams, Chattanooga businessman
and prominent conservationist, and
Tracy City weekly newspaper
publisher Herman E. Baggenstoss.
The latter also created the Keep
Tennessee Green-affliated Tennessee
Forest Festival, now in its 35th year.

Keep Tennessee Green’s principal
role was to promote forestry
education, to increase recognition of
the present and potential value of the
State’s forest resources, and to work
for statewide fire protection. Its
activities included publication of a
magazine and staging of the annual
forest festival. In 1970, Keep
Tennessee Green’s efforts became
more formal when it was reorganized
as the Tennessee Forestry
Association, with headquarters in
Nashville and employment of a full-
time paid executive secretary.

For the record, there was a feeble
and short-lived effort to establish a
Tennessee Forest Association in
1901, and in 1941 a Tennessee
Timber Growers Association was
formed which preceded creation of
the Keep Tennessee Green
Association. The Timber Growers’
principal goal was to increase
appropriations for the division of

forestry and to strengthen fire
protection (Williams 1971).

Since 1970, the Tennessee Forestry
Association has been very active in
national and State forestry policy
issues. In 1984 it led a successful
effort to place the former State
division of forestry under a newly
created, seven-person forestry
commission, which includes at least
three professional foresters, and with
members serving 5-year staggered
terms. The commission is expected to
strengthen the State’s forestry
program greatly.

Recognizing that North Carolina’s
hardwood forests and the industries
they support are the backbone of the
State’s wood-using businesses, the
North Carolina Forestry Association
in 1953 created a Furniture, Plywood
and Veneer Council. By 1963 it had
grown to such an extent that it was
incorporated as a separate entity, the
Hardwood Research Council.
Objectives of the council, which now
numbers well over 100 members, are
to promote research and education on
hardwood species, including their
regeneration, management, and
utilization. Its headquarters were
originally in Statesboro, and Howard
J. Doyle was the first council
forester. Upon Doyle’s retirement,
headquarters were moved to
Asheville. Robert L. Scheer is the
current executive director. While the
furniture industry continues to
provide the organization’s major
support, its membership base has
been greatly broadened and now
includes a wide variety of groups and

19

individuals, nationwide. The council’s
work continues to have important
impact on increased productivity,
particularly of the South’s hardwood
forests.

In 1954 the Southeastern Pine
Marketing Institute was formed in
Savannah, GA, primarily to give
smaller, independent lumbermen a
greater voice in local and national
matters affecting their interests.
William C. Hammerle, former State
Forester of South Carolina and
Georgia, was its first executive
secretary. In 1961, this institute and
several other groups with similar
objectives were merged into the
newly formed Southeastern Lumber
Manufacturers Association, with
headquarters in Atlanta. John C.
Milliner, a former railroad official,
has been the organization’s executive
vice president since its inception.
Recently, the Southeastern Lumber
Manufacturers Association has been
very active in seeking more equitable
arrangements for marketing Canadian
lumber in the United States and the
South in direct competition with
lumber produced by its members.

During the 1950’s, the wildfire
problem and resulting heavy losses
continued to plague the South. The
fact that over one-third of these fires
were incendiary, deliberately set,
only served to underline the
complexity of the problem. In 1956
the American Forestry Association, in
cooperation with 10 other State,
regional, and national associations,
responded to the challenge by calling
a Southern Forest Fire Prevention

20

Conference in New Orleans on April
13-14.

From 1950 to 1956, only one
additional Southern State had
approved statewide fire protection:
Alabama. Almost a quarter of the
southern forest needing protection
was still unprotected, and funding on
average over the South was only two-
thirds of estimated basic minimum
requirements. The New Orleans
conference served to focus attention
on the region’s great need for better
fire protection and the lack of
acceptable progress. Moreover, it
underscored the major cause of
wildfires in the South—incendiarism.

Over 1,000 delegates attended the

conference. Most of them were from

the South; however, 25 States as well

as Canada were represented. The

delegates included representatives |
from agriculture, banking, business
and industry, education, the press,
Federal and State forestry agencies,
State legislatures and law enforcement
agencies, and the judiciary and the
courts. The New Orleans meeting
was a huge success and underscored
the need for better law enforcement
as a necessary tool in fighting
incendiarism, especially when the
preferred approach of education has
failed. Fire’s cost in jobs, payrolls,
and raw materials was just too great
to be tolerated. The conference sent a
resounding message that was well
received by top officials at the State,
county, and community levels. It
helped crystallize public opinion and
stimulate action as never before
(Clepper 1975).

A measure of the impact of the 1956
conference and followup activities by
involved associations is that by 1963,
the proportion of forest lands in the
South unprotected against fire had
shrunk from 24 percent to 13
percent. Meanwhile, total State and
Federal funding for fire protection
had gone up 60 percent in 8 years,
from $14,101,526 in 1955 to
$22,557,401 in 1963, with 83 percent
of the increase coming from the
States. During this same period, area
burned on State and private lands had
dropped by almost 600,000 acres
(243,000 ha), or 25 percent. It is
reasonable to assume that the roles of
the various associations in
encouraging greater forestry
education, increased funding, and
stricter law enforcement were the
major factors in lessening the effects
of fire in the South (Forest Farmers
Association 1956, Forest Farmer
1964).

In 1958, the Lumber Manufacturers’
Association of Virginia was formed
by individuals, firms, and
corporations seeking to create a better
understanding of the importance of
the lumber industry in the State. It
encourages and promotes all phases
of securing and maintaining the
State’s timber and log supply, as well
as more profitable production and
distribution of native lumber. The
association provides a unified voice to
influence governmental programs and
legislation on such issues as forest
estate taxes, reforestation tax credits,
herbicide restrictions, oak log
exporting, and funding for Virginia’s
program to reforest cut-over

timberlands. It also disseminates
information to its members on
markets, machinery, methods, and
laws. Among its more important
projects are a biennial east coast
sawmill and iogging equipment
exposition, cosponsored by the
extension division of Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State
University, and a continuing
education program featuring a
hardwood lumber grading short
course. The Lumber Manufacturers’
Association of Virginia is
headquartered at Sandston, VA, and
J.R. Bush is its executive director.

As the southern forests continued to
regain their productivity, a number of
individuals and groups pondered why
this was occurring, what were the
key factors involved, and how the
trend could be encouraged and
fostered. No one seemed able to put
a handle on a suitable approach to
such an investigation until Harry E.
Murphy, a prominent Birmingham,
AL, consulting forester, wrote to J.
Walter Myers, Jr., then executive
vice president of the Forest Farmers
Association, outlining an idea. In a
letter dated November 13, 1965,
Murphy wrote,

It seems to me that someone

. should do a study or
review of what are the
reasons that brought about
this great resource
development—abundance of
timber, growth, etc.—it just
did not occur.

] think we should reflect on
what are the things or

Zl

actions, etc., that have
given us this great
progress—it’s more than just
one action—but what were
they, which were the most
effective. Was it fire
control, education, markets,
monetary support? How
much federal contribution
helped to increase the
resource? Was it laws or
form of taxes or just
population pressures.

Now what interests me so
much in this question is that
a logical answer would
indicate the road we should
take in the years ahead to
continue this progress. . .

In a chance meeting with George W.
Stanley, a vice president of Kirby
Lumber Company, and A.D.
Folweiler, then Texas State Forester,
Myers mentioned the idea to them.
Both felt it merited further
consideration. Stanley, who was
chairman of the Southern Pine
Association’s forestry committee,
discussed the idea with that group,
who offered to put up $15,000
toward the project if the Forest
Farmers Association would do
likewise. The association’s board
approved and provided its matching
share with help from the pulp and
paper industry and several forestry-
related companies. From there the
project was off and running with
strong staff support from Southern
Pine Association’s executive vice
president Stanley P. Deas, his
successor, William R. Ganser, and
the Forest Farmers Association.

22

A working committee met in Atlanta
in 1967. The name “‘Southern Forest
Resource Analysis’’ was adopted, and
Philip R. Wheeler, a prominent
consultant, was employed as project
leader. The working committee and a
subsequently selected advisory
committee read like Who’s Who in
southern forestry. Five other
nationally known consultants were
selected to work with project leader
Wheeler. They were James G. Yoho,
Zebulon W. White, Leon A.
Hargreaves, Jr., Joseph F. Kaylor,
and William R. Sizemore. The
Southern Hardwood Lumber
Manufacturers Association and the
American Plywood Association joined
in supporting the project.

In April 1969—2 years after its
inception—the analysis was completed
and The South’s Third Forest report
was published. Its findings and
recommendations were widely
discussed and quoted in the press and
at professional forestry meetings and
congressional hearings. The report
was frequently referred to during
1969 House Ways and Means
Committee hearings on timber capital
gains. Shortly thereafter, the entire
report was read into the record of the
congressional hearings on the
National Timber Supply Act of 1969.

The next month, in May 1969, a
Southern Forest Resource Council
was created by the four sponsoring
organizations to work for
implementation of the report’s
recommendations. Since then, this
report has provided a blueprint for
increasing productivity of the

southern forests in the 1970’s and
1980’s. The concept of a national
forestry incentives program was
greatly encouraged as a result of the
report. Subsequent passage of the
1973 Federal Forestry Incentives Act
resulted in over a million acres of
timberland in the South being
replanted or timber-stand-improved.
Likewise, the revival of the pulp and
paper industry’s conservation forester
program, now including vastly
expanded landowner assistance
programs, was stimulated by the
report. The South’s Third Forest also
helped encourage amendments
providing more equitable treatment of
timberlands in the Federal Tax Code
in regard to inheritance and estate
taxes. It also fostered adoption of
reforestation tax credit legislation,
which has resulted in substantially
more regeneration activity in the
South.

Between 1974 and 1980, the Forest
Industries Council, made up of a
large number of the major national
and regional forestry industry
associations, completed a 25-State
forest productivity study. In several
ways this was similar to the Third
Forest analysis but covered additional
regions and was more State-intensive.
Private industry, alone, contributed
nearly $400,000 to this project. Its
primary goal was to describe the
condition of the forest resource,
assess current levels of management,
and identify potentials for future
investment. Eleven Southern States—
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—
were among those studied.

The principal question addressed was
whether the current rate of investment
in forest productivity should be
increased or decreased or remain
unchanged. After the studies were
completed, the National Forest
Products Association used the data
from them, along with the Forest
Service’s Resources Planning Act
(RPA) supply-demand projections, to
study the question. Following careful
analysis, the forest industry developed
a national longrun softwood timber
goal with the aim of managing
America’s commercial forest land to
(1) minimize real consumer cost
impacts through an adequate domestic
supply, and (2) build the potential for
an international net trade surplus of
forest products.

The study provided immensely
valuable information on the resource
and identified two major trends.
First, it called for a substantial
increase in harvests from the National
Forests over the following 20 years,
with accompanying investments as
necessary. Second, it concluded that
private lands would be increasingly
relied on for timber, especially after
the turn of the century. To achieve
these two industry proposals would
require an estimated investment rate
of 83 percent of the investment
Opportunities on private ownerships
as identified by the Forest
Productivity project. This investment
rate was viewed simply as a target, to
be revised and refined in the years
ahead.

23

Certain actions have subsequently
been taken toward achieving these
goals, primarily through the National
Forest Products Association’s private
woodlands program, and specific
State-level industry—association
action. In 1982, the National Forest
Products Association initiated a
program of providing 3-year
matching grants to State forestry
associations to help support hiring of
a full-time private woodland
coordinator, or otherwise take direct
actions to improve forest
productivity. Alabama and South
Carolina are two Southern States
participating in the program, and the
National Forest Products Association
has committed over $180,000
nationwide to date to this matching
program with local forest industry.
The Louisiana Forestry Association’s
Third Forest program, likewise,
represents a private sector—association
response to the need for increased
forest productivity and has served as
a model for the National Forest
Products Association’s private
woodlands program, although not
officially a part of it.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of
the Southern Forest Resource
Analysis and the Third Forest report
was the opportunity it provided for
representatives of all segments of the
southern forest industry and their
various associations to work in
coordination for the first time in
meeting the challenges affecting their
future.

Shortly after the Southern Forest
Resource Analysis was launched, the

South Carolina Forestry Association
was established in 1968, with
headquarters in Columbia. Robert
Scott was the first and, to date, the
only executive vice president. The
next year, 1969, the Southern
Pulpwood Conservation Association
merged with the southern office of
the American Forest Institute (now
the American Forest Council) to form
the Southern Forest Institute (now the
American Forest Council—South),
with headquarters in Atlanta. George
E. Kelly was named its chief
executive, as well as a vice president
of the American Forest Institute. He
was succeeeded by Benton H. Box,
who served until James M.
Montgomery, the current executive
vice president, took over. The
Southern Forest Council—South
conducts important educational
programs, principal of which is
administration of the national tree
farm program in the region, under
the guidance of Donald W. Smith,
director of forest resources.

Starting in the 1970’s, southern
associations have provided important
input in the development of
regulations implementing the Clean
Water and Clean Air Acts and their
amendments. These groups have
played an important role in
persuading the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Army Corps
of Engineers, and Congress that the
voluntary Best Management Practices
(BMP) approach, under State
Supervision, is far superior in
implementing the Clean Water Act to
the originally advocated compulsory
State forest practices act proposals,

especially for the South. Meanwhile,
input from various southern
associations has also been helpful in
developing Clean Air Act regulations
permitting continuation of much-
needed prescribed burning under
carefully supervised conditions.

In 1978, most national and Sothern
State forestry associations had
stongly supported enactment of the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Act, Renewable Resources
Extension Act, and the Forest and
Reangeland Renewable Resources
Research Act. While these were all
Federal and therefore national
measures, they were clearly going
to exert major impact on the

South and its forest productivity.
These groups had also responded
similarly in supporting the 1974
Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act and the 1976
National Forest Management Act
(LeMaster 1984).

Beginning with Virginia in 1970,
State forestry associations have
played a major role in establishing
State forestry incentives programs,
which are enhancing reforestation and
forest improvement practices through
various cost-share arrangements.
Mississippi and Louisiana inaugurated
programs in 1974, North Carolina in
1977, Texas in 1980, Florida in
1981, and South Carolina in 1982.
All of the preceding programs
involve State as well as private
funding, except for those in Florida,
Louisiana and Texas, which are
financed wholly by industry. The
Florida program, however, is
administered by the State division of
forestry, whereas the Louisiana and
Texas programs are directed through
the State forestry association’s
offices. Indications are that other
Southern States may undertake similar
programs in the future.

25

Role of Southern Forestry
Associations in the Future

Southern forestry associations have
always been in the forefront of the
region’s forestry and conservation
activities. When someone sets out to
do something about issues involving
forestry and conservation, the
associations have provided the focal
point around which concerned citizens
and organizations could rally.

As the South and the Nation move
into the 21st century, it is logical to
assume that associations will continue
in this role. The challenges will be
different, often requiring more
sophisticated actions, and calling for
greater coordination of effort among
groups sharing common concerns.

The State associations will almost
certainly become stronger and more
active as the timber economy
continues to expand in the South.
Furthermore, forestry issues will
increasingly be State issues. The
Federal cooperative role seems
destined to diminish, particularly in
such areas as forest protection,
forestry incentives programs, and
landowner assistance, thrusting
greater responsibility on State
agencies and State forestry
associations. This trend has already
started, and the States have indicated
that they can respond to the
challenge, given adequate time.

On national issues, several attempts
have been made to provide more
effective means for the Southern State
associations to coordinate their efforts
where they share a common interest.
This could include such matters as
capital gains treatment for timber,

26

retention of a reasonable level of
Federal cooperative participation in
forest protection, and much-needed
input on Clean Water and Air
legislation and regulations. Currently,
no vehicle exists to present a true,
Southwide consensus on such
important national issues, except the
Forest Farmers Association and the
Southern Pine Association.

Attempts have been made to create a
Southern Forest Council to serve as
such a vehicle, but a suitable
approach remains to be discovered.
The South is such a vital timber-
producing area that acceptable means
must be found to make its unified
voice heard more clearly in
Washington. This is one of the
principal challenges to the southern
associations and one they should be
capable of meeting. They have served
the region well in the past, and there
is every reason to believe they will
continue to do so, even more
effectively, in the future.

Literature Cited

Clepper, Henry. 1975. Crusade for
conservation. American Forests. 81(10):
1-113.

Clepper, Henry. 1971. Professional fore-
stry in the United States. Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins Press. 337 p.

Earle, T.W. 1954. Southern Pulpwood
Conservation Association at work for
fifteen years. The Unit. No volume
number of year indicated; circa 1954. 14

p-

Eldredge, I.F. 1947. The 4 forests and
the future of the South. Washington, DC:
C.L. Pack Foundation.

Fickle, James E. 1980. The conservation
struggle. In: The new South and the new
competition. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press: 241-286.

Forest Farmer. 1964. 23(7). (12th
Manual ed.)

Forest Farmers Association. 1956. Forest
Farmer Manual. 4th ed. Atlanta, GA:
Forest Farmers Association.

Horn, Stanley F. 1951. This fascinating
lumber business. 2d ed. Indianapolis and
New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company. 313

p.

LeMaster, Dennis C. 1984. Decade of
change: the remaking of Forest Service
statutory authority during the 1970's.
Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood
Press. 290 p.

Lewis, Richard. 1981. Tree farming: a
voluntary conservation program. Journal
of Forest History. July: 166-169.

Maunder, Elwood R. 1977. Voices from
the South, recollections of four foresters;
interviews with Inman F. Eldredge,
Elwood L. Demmon, Walter J. Damtoft,
and Clinton H. Coulter. Santa Cruz, CA:
Forest History Society. 252 p.

Myers, J. Walter, Jr. 1950. Opportuni-
ties unlimited: the story of our southern
forests. Chicago: Illinois Central Railroad.
74 p.

Weddell, Justin R. 1960. The Florida
Forestry Association: a brief historical
sketch. Forest Farmer. 29(6): 18-19.

Williams, Louis V. 1971. Tennessee's
conservation revolution. Maryville, TN:
Brazos Press. 496 p.

Literature Cited—Unpublished

Malsberger, H.J. 1955. The development
of public understanding of the pulp and
paper industry in the South. Unpubl. ms.
presented to annual meeting, Appalachian
Section, Society of American Foresters,
Columbia, SC, January 21-22, 1955. 11

p-

Asnpuy
Asnpuy
Ayysnpu]
SIOUMO PUP]IOQUIT
Asnpuy
Aasnpuy

SIDSIIOJ [RUOISSIJOId
Asnpu]
SIDSHO4 WLS
‘Oo ‘sJoyorRasal ‘ssouMOpUR] ‘ASNpuy
Asnpuy
dnois
slouMOpuUR] pur ATjsnpuy
Alsnpuy
SID|SIIOJ SUNTNSUOD [BUOISSIJOId
Asnpuy
sudZznig

VI ‘suezjIO MON
VO ‘Ruepy

VD “yled ISo1O
VO ‘Rluepy

ON ‘Iulog YsIHq
VD ‘RIsOp[eA

CW ‘“epseyieg
Od ‘uo suryse A
Od ‘uo suryse A

ON “oTtAoysy

NL ‘stydwrayy

Od ‘uo suryse AA
Oq ‘uo suryse A

CW “epseyied
Oq ‘uo uryse A
Od ‘uosuryse A

ayyoid diyssaquiayy

siouenbperay
JUISII

S16
6961
IS6l
[vol
Lc6l
Stol

0061
C061
OC6l
t96I
p86

Cr61
peol
8r6l
1v6l
SL8I

MAMNsSuy syonpoig 1sa04 UsJIyINOS

eANINSUT JS910,J UIDYyINOS

UOHRIOOSSY SIOINJORJNURY, JoquIN’] Usa}sekayINoS
UONPRIOOSSY SIOULIP 1S9104

UOHROOSSY SIOINORJNURY, POOMPIeH, uBTYyoRleddy
uonRIoossy SIOUe sUNUadIN |, URdLIOWYy

[BuoIsday

S19]SAIOJ UBdLIOUTY JO AJIIOOS
UONRIDOSSY SJONPOId JSWOF [RUOHRN
SIDSIIOY RIS JO UONRIOOSSY [BUONRN
z[louNOD YoiRasay POOMpIeH
;UONRIDOSSY SIOINORJNUR|Y POOMPIeH
uoHnexXe], pure uoneNyeA JOQUIT
UO JdIIUIWOD sSaLsnpuy IsW04
uOnPRIOOSsy poomdyng uPoLoWwy
S19)SIO4 SUN[NSUOD JO UONRIOOSSY
AN Nsu] JsaO4 uURMIIWY
uonedossy AsSalO4 URSLIOWY

jeuoneN

popuno,

UONPBIOOSSY

suonenossy Ai1jsa104 10feyy JO IsV]

28

“pl6| ul siseq JuoUPUUJOd & UO pozIURdIODI PUB JOUNJaP dWUIBdAQ ‘YINOS dy) UT JsAy A[Qissod ‘gggy] UL paziURBIO A[[PUIBIIO,

‘POAJOAD UONRIDOSSY AIIS9I0O4 JdSsoUUd |,

yuasoid oy} YOIYM WOI ‘| CH] Ul poyst|qeiIsa sem UONRIOOSSY UddID sassouUd], d3dy OY] " [OG] Ul POUOJ SEM UOTBIDOSSY 1S9IO,J IISSOUUD], JOQUIDUI-dUIU POAT]-JIOYS VW

“LI6] d0uls AJUO snonuNnUODS ‘paAl] WOYS SPM QKQI Ul WOJJo JOpIeW,
‘LpO| Ul poziuRB1OII ‘S.OEG] Ul JOUNJOP dtURd9q ‘GOH] Ul poztuRBIO AT]PUIZIIQ,

‘“$pH] DUIS SNONUNUOS puke ZZH] Ul paziURBIODI {/OGH] Ul pozlURdIO ISIT4<

‘OZH| [HUN UONeZIURsIO WYOIdUOU Se posdJIeYS JOU INQ ¢ZH] Ul poziuRsIO,

“NINSUY ISO URITIOUTY JO IdJO YOuRIG puR (G6EG]) UONRIDOSSY UONRAIISUOD POOMA]Ng UJOYINOS JO JIBIOW YA,

E96] Ul [loUNOD YoIRIsSaY POOMpIeH se payesOdOoUT “EGH] Ul UONRIOOSsy AINSdIO{ BUI[OIRD YWON Iu) JO [loUNOD J99UDA puR pooMmAl, ‘IINIUIN se poziuesIO;

Aisnpul pue
Adjsnpul pur
Aisnpul pue
Aasnpul pue
Asnpul pue
Aisnpul pue
ANsnpul pure

Alsnpul pue
Aasnpul pue
Aisnpul pue
Aasnpul pur
Asnpul pur

sudZNID
sudZznIg
SUIZIND
SudZNID
SUdZNID
SUdZNID
sudZNID
Aasnpu]
sudZNID
SUdZNID
SUdZNID
SudZNID
sudZzD

VA ‘puowyory
XL “upyny

NL “OqAysen
OS “eIquinjod
MO ‘Mog usyo1g
ON ‘ysro[ey

SIN ‘uosyore

VA ‘uo\spues
VT eupuexaly
VO “wueny

Td ‘oosseyeyye
UV “YON sy]
Tv ‘Alawos}u0p

tr6l
rI6l
OL6I
8961
IL6l
1161
8c6l
8S6l
Lv6l
Sr6l
9C6l
Lv6l
66!

"8681 0} YORG BuNep sdnois sOssad9poid puke uOTRIDOSsy sJOINjORJNURY JOQUIN] POOMPIeH UOYINOS JO YIMOITINO,

uonRIoossy ASO, PIUISITA
suonRIoOssy AI)SIIO4 SPXd]
guolRIoossy AIjSd10O4 daSsouUd |
uoneldoossy ANsao4 BUljoIRD YINOS
uoneoossy Asoo, PWOYRTYO
juonRIoossy AsO. PUTTOIRD YON
uoneioossy Aijsaio, IddississijQ
PIUISIIA JO UONRIOOSSY ,SJOINJORJNURYA JOquIN’]
guonRIoossy AISdJO4 PUPISINO’'T
uonRIDossy ASo104 PIdI0IDH
puoneoossy ASO. BPO
uoneoossy AljSo10, SesueyIY
uoneioossy Aso, eulegr|y

IBIS