646 BINGHAM, KRIEBEL, AND GREMMEN 



With the inadequacy of forest genetics-pathology-physiology funds; 

 with the successful replacement of once-favored but blister-rust- 

 eliminated white pine introductions in northern Europe by Douglas-fir, 

 other pines, spruce, etc.; with the presence of highly resistant native 

 white pines in mainland Asia; with the absence of the rust and no present 

 threat to susceptible native and exotic white pine species in Japan; and 

 with major, commercial white pine resources of the world now concentrated 

 in North America; by necessity (not by default) the problem became identi- 

 fied as North American. However, recognizing the great promise that 

 Pinus strobus and other introduced white pines held for north European 

 and to a lesser extent Asian forestry, research and forest management 

 administrators of these continents expressed general interest in utilizing 

 resistant white pines, once developed. However, with replacement of 

 rust-decimated white pines with other productive and less-troublesome 

 species, and with their limited research and management finances thus 

 channeled toward the more pest-free species, administrators were reluctant 

 to invest in further local research and testing toward securing white 

 pine blister rust resistance. 



Unfortunately, the problem of developing blister rust resistant white 

 pines for north European and Asian forestry is not one that can be solved 

 entirely in North America. Ultimately, because resistant types developed 

 in North America may be exposed to new and different races of the rust 

 fungus in Europe and Asia, the problem again takes on international 

 aspects. One might say with this possibility of rust race differences 

 the problem becomes even more difficult and costly. In so doing, how- 

 ever, he discounts progress toward lasting resistance made by the cereal 

 crop breeders, and by the horticulturists, as well as the existence of 

 balanced or endemic host :pathogen systems in many tree:rust associations. 

 He also discounts his ability to employ developed technology in securing 

 lasting resistance in his particular local environment. 



It is true that North American white pine blister rust resistance 

 programs will benefit through exposure of their resistant types to a 

 probably greater number of pathogenic races of the white pine blister 

 rust present nearer the Eurasian gene-centers of the rust. But if long- 

 range needs for restoring white pines to European and Asian forestry are 

 great enough, then forestry in these continents will also benefit by 

 development of a broad-spectrum, lasting resistance for worldwide use. 



The decision is really one of how much longer foresters can permit 

 themselves to take the short-term view on forest pest problems. Seem- 

 ingly vast resources in relatively pest-free endemic and introduced 

 species are not inexhaustible. There is no important tree species, 

 however pest-free now, that is any more immortal than the white pines. 

 All are seriously threatened; by as yet unintroduced but internationally 

 dangerous tree pests (for instance European and Asian hard pines known 

 to be highly susceptible to a variety of North American tree rusts) . Can 

 we much longer abandon key species, native or introduced, one by one? 

 Alternatively, for securing the maximum productivity of forest lands--a 

 goal which all foresters recognize as highly important in the face of a 

 growing world population — should we not be bolstering resistance in each 

 problem species so as to have replacement species at hand when the next 

 decimating pest eliminates another key species for a rotation or two? 



Facing these facts, the Committee decided that work toward inter- 

 national restoration of white pines might be technically and financially 

 difficult, but that in the long run the work of restoration should be 



