gained the support of many members of Congress. Legis- 

 latures in many of the important timber states have had 

 the proposition before them in recent years. The majority 

 have either felt that a particular measure was not the 

 right one, or that there was not enough support for it at 

 the time. A number of states are believed to have adopted 

 timber-cutting regulations that will produce the results 

 intended. 



Any American attempt at regulation of timber-cutting 

 is bound to be an experiment, at first. Imperfections and 

 failures should be expected until it is learned what is 

 needed and what will work in different parts of the United 

 States. A state is not to be criticized if its first attempt is 

 discovered to have weaknesses. 



A great many landowners, timbermen, county officials, 

 business leaders, agricultural workers, and foresters were 

 questioned to learn what they think about public regula- 

 tion of commercial timber-cuting in North Carolina. The 

 idea of any rules to be enforced on forest landowners was 

 dismissed, because there are over 200,000 of them in North 

 Carolina, mostly farmers, and administration of rules in- 

 volving various kinds of cutting by so many people would 

 be simply too big a job for any agency that could be em- 

 powered to handle it. Rather, some kind of supervision of 

 the cutting of trees or buying of logs by commercial ope- 

 rators was proposed. This would include sawmill men, 

 pulpwood contractors and buyers of veneer logs, crossties, 

 poles, and such commercial products as may be deemed 

 necessary. This approach seems more practicable, as there 

 are only about 3,000 of these commercial operators. 



It was not assumed that regulation was needed. Infor- 

 mation was sought from examination of woods conditions, 

 and from informed sources, as well as from the general 

 public. 



CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN REGULATION 



The majority of those interviewed were in favor of 

 "something being done about the timber cutting." From 

 records of interviews, the following examples show the 

 different kinds of opinion: 



Soil Conservation Service Technician: "There is strong 

 feeling in the county that something should be done to 

 stop mills from coming in and cutting everything on a 

 place." 



County Commissioner and portable sawmill operator: 

 "Rules about timber-cutting might be all right if they were 

 enforced fairly, but I don't approve of government inter- 

 fering with business. The woods do need to be laid off of 

 awhile." 



Deputy Sheriff and farmer; community leaders (Ques- 

 tion by consultant) "Would people in this county support 

 laws to. stop close cutting of timber?" (Answer) "Yes, 

 they would." (Question) "Sure they wouldn't yell about 

 their rights? You know, people are complaining about so 

 many regulations." (Answer) "Yes, understand that. But 

 we've got to do something about our timber." 



Tax Collector: "I don't know what should be done about 

 timber-cutting." 



Big Lumberman: "Against further regulations at this 

 time. Might be interested later when something is worked 

 out to reduce fires." (Note: This is a coastal county where 

 fires are bad.) 



Tobacco Farmer: "Need a government law to stop 

 woods being murdered by lumber and pulp companies. It's 



a sight how they cut it close an' knock down what they 

 don't cut. We need a law also to protect a feller from his 

 tenants. Always want to cut the best trees. Leave if you 

 get after them." 



Medium Lumberman: "Regulation is needed." (Further 

 conversation revealed his timber supply was being limited 

 by pulp cutting. Possibly he felt regulation would slow 

 down pulp cutting.) 



Big Lumberman: "Educate. I don't think it is right for 

 the state or federal government to tell a man which trees 

 he may cut on land that he is supposed to own." 



Veneer and Lumber Manufacturer : "We favor regula- 

 tion." 



The above are fair examples of opinions offered by 

 farmers, lumbermen, landowners, and county leaders gen- 

 erally. Asked if their counties would show enough sup- 

 port to make it worth-while to try regulation, S. C. S. 

 technicians were equally divided in opinion. In general, 

 people whose activities would be little touched by timber- 

 cutting regulations, such as farmers, businessmen, and the 

 general public as represented by town and city people 

 would favor regulations. These people believe in a general 

 way that the woods are being hacked to pieces and that 

 something should be done. Their ideas as to how timber 

 ought to be cut, however, are just as likely to be wrong as 

 right, because they don't know. Practically all of them 

 would condemn clean, heavy cuting as destructive. Yet in 

 many cases this might be good forestry. 



Lumbermen are divided on the question. Generally, the 

 portable sawmiller and the concentration yard man are 

 against restrictions. The kind of cutting regulations al- 

 most everyone thinks of would require a considerable 

 number of smaller trees to be left, and this would severely 

 curtail the operations of many portable mills. 



In discussing regulation, there was no attempt to dis- 

 cuss details as to how much would or would not be cut, 

 nor to indicate the level of publication regulation — State 

 or Federal. 



The pulp mills appear willing to accept regulation; at 

 least representatives of two large companies so indicated. 

 They stipulated that it should be state regulation; they 

 would oppose federal regulation. Pulp mills have been 

 much criticized due to heavy cutting of small pines by con- 

 tractors. One of the defense arguments is, "Why should 

 we leave merchantable trees? The landowner may turn 

 around and allow a 'peckerwood' sawmill to cut them all 

 later." Sawmills use the same argument. No one cares to 

 leave merchantable trees for the future, because it is 

 claimed that some one else will get them. 



The timber game does not have any rules or referees; 

 anything goes. If this is resulting in damage to forest pro- 

 duction, and it is feasible to do something about it, then 

 the public does seem to have a duty in the matter. Appar- 

 ently, most states are beginning to see it in that light, as 

 regulatory proposals keep coming to the legislative bodies 

 of timber states. 



REGULATION WILL NOT BE SIMPLE 



Early in the investigation, it was shown that people do 

 not relaize just how complicated a set of forest cutting 

 rules might be. Americans have a blind faith that a new 

 law will correct almost any situation. In this case, the dif- 

 ficulties to be encountered should be understood in advance, 

 so that proposals will be carefully considered. 



(35) 



