Some county workers of the U. S. Soil Conservation 

 Service, who do forestry work with landowners, seemed to 

 understand the complications, as most foresters do who 

 "stay in the woods." Thinking of this, one forester said, 

 "When foresters move out of the woods to town, the an- 

 swers are much simpler and more easily arrived at." Said 

 one Soil Conservation worker near the coast, "Regulation 

 might be desirable, but how can anything workable be de- 

 veloped here? There are so many different conditions. The 

 rules would be full of loopholes." 



In the woods, there often are situations where the need- 

 ed measures would be hard to fit into general rules. It is 

 somewhat discouraging to note that many people seem to 

 overlook this feature. 



The Southeastern Section of the Society of American 

 Foresters appointed a committee to draft a set of cutting 

 practice rules that would be a desirable minimum. The U. 

 S. Forest Service has an outline also, somewhat similar. 

 The average timber operator would not be able to inter- 

 pret either of them and thereby guide his cutting to meet 

 the standards. The rules are not unduly complicated, but 

 there are too many conditions to be covered. The Society 

 Committee stresses the fact that the rules are necessarily 

 somewhat flexible and would be held up as a guide only 

 where a forester or forestry-trained man was not in 

 charge of the cutting. If the practices were under direction 

 of a forester, the regulatory body would then pass on his 

 system to see if it met the objectives of the law. 



It is believed that these cutting rules would make it nec- 

 essary for a forester to oversee all cuttings. They apply to 

 both pines and hardwoods. They specify, for example, that 

 certain desirable hardwoods should not be cut if under 17 

 inches at the stump; that good pine should not be cut if 

 under 15 inches at the stump, unless numerous; that 

 smaller pines should be left to the number of 80 per acre; 

 and so on, with various conditions stated under which dif- 

 ferent specifications would apply, including clear-cutting. 



The fact that these proposed rules envisage a forestry- 

 trained individual planning and checking on commercial 

 timber harvesting, should enable the objectives of a regu- 

 latory act to be met in any timber condition in a sensible 

 manner. How to make available, or in other ways obtain 

 the technical guidance that would be necessary is a matter 

 concerning which few suggestions have been made to date. 

 No doubt this could be worked out if enough support could 

 be obtained for the plan. 



Let no one suppose that timbermen are universally op- 

 posed to a thorough-going set-up, such as the one proposed. 

 One lumber man said, "Each county should have its own 

 forester, paid % by the state and % by the county. After 

 the public is educated, give him a whip hand. 'Any timber 

 sold in ■ county, not in accordance with county forest- 

 er's recommendation, should be subject to special tax of 5 

 per cent of the sales price." Another said, "Although we 

 are snowed under by government regulations, we would 



be glad to comply with any laws enacted for the purpose of 

 conserving and improving our timber resources." 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



The data obtained indicate that pine restocking is being 

 damaged by cutting, and that it is desirable to consider 

 regulatory action. 



The discussion of the relative values of pine and hard- 

 wood growth in the section on Management explains the 

 importance of using every feasible means to maintain pine 

 in our forests. The section headed "Degree of Satisfactory 

 Stocking" presents data showing the unmistakeable trend 

 toward hardwoods on former pine lands. 



Almost all timbermen think of regulation as a set of 

 rules with considerably more complications and prohibi- 

 tions than those believed necessary to reserve pine seed 

 sources. There were a number of opinions given as indicat- 

 ing that seed tree regulation might be widely acceptable. 

 It would be argued that merely leaving seed trees will not 

 insure pine reproduction. That is true in many cases. But, 

 at least, a source of seed will be preserved so that the 

 owner will have something with which to work. 



Seed trees would be a great benefit in Coastal forest 

 areas where frequent fires kill back the hardwoods. As it 

 is, with fires killing the hardwoods, and pine seed sources 

 being removed, such areas are doomed. 



The data does not indicate urgent need now for rules 

 applying to hardwood cutting. Hardwood sawtimber is not 

 decreasing, and cordwood-size material is increasing. 



If a regulatory plan which put a forestry-trained person 

 on the ground to plan or to approve cuttings could be 

 adopted, that would take care of the situation described. 

 However, in the event the more complete plan cannot be 

 put into practice, it is felt that seed tree legislation might 

 'well be considered by itself. 



This point should be stressed. No legislation is likely to 

 have success in the United States unless a majority of 

 those to be affected support it. Nothing can be accomp- 

 lished unless enough sawmill and pulp men will themselves 

 put their influence behind a plan. 



TAX SITUATION ON FOREST LAND 



It has been stated by some individuals and companies 

 that the high tax rate on forest land is one of the draw- 

 backs to their practice of forestry. They state that it is 

 better for some one else to own the land, and grow the 

 timber. The company will buy the logs. 



Just what is the situation in North Carolina? In the 

 first place, timber is classed as real estate in the eyes of 

 the lawyers and tax assessors. Timber cannot intelligently 

 be classified as real estate unless corn, potatoes, cotton, 

 and tobacco are also included. Timber is a crop. It pro- 

 duces material annually that is added to the crop of the 

 year before, the sum of the annual crops being harvested 

 when conditions warrant. To the tax assessor the land 

 should be the assessable feature, not the timber. 



Table 24 



Region 



Tax 

 Rate 



% Real 

 Value 



Timberland 



Cut-over 

 Timberland 



Waste 

 Land 



Agricultural 

 Land 





$1.30 



62 



$15.00 



$ 7.00 



$ 4.00 



$48.00 





95 



66 



28.00 



13.00 



7.00 



34.00 





1.50 



62 



25.00 



6.00 



3.00 



50.00 



(36) 



