were receiving Mclntire-Stennis 

 support; by 1975, the total had 

 risen to 641 (Association of State 

 College and University Forestry 

 Research Organizations 1976). 



This expansion in the permanent 

 research base also made possible 

 growth in special grants. As every 

 research administrator knows, 

 qualification for special grants and 

 contracts requires some permanent 

 minimum critical mass of research 

 talent and capability. In my 

 opinion, Mclntire-Stennis was the 

 key shot in the arm in establishing 

 this permanent minimum critical 

 mass that made the southern 

 university programs more 

 competitive in the special grants 

 arena. Here again, table 5 shows 

 rates of growth from these sources 

 well above the growth in Mclntire- 

 Stennis funding itself. 



Mclntire-Stennis also stimulated 

 the universities to greater 

 cooperation and collaboration in 

 research. In 1963, the Mclntire- 

 Stennis Institutions formed the 

 Association of State College and 

 University Forestry Research 

 Organizations (ASCUFRO) to 

 "exchange information, form 

 acceptable policies and cooperate 

 in developing and conducting 

 research in the United States 1 ' 

 (ASCUFRO 1976). This led to the 

 schools becoming represented in 

 the USDA-State agricultural 

 experiment stations' regional and 

 national research planning system 

 in partnership with the USDA 



Forest Service. The schools also 

 secured representation on research 

 policymaking committees of the 

 National Association of State 

 Universities and Land-Grant 

 Colleges. More recently 

 ASCUFRO merged with the 

 Council of Forestry School 

 Executives (made up of public and 

 private schools) to form the 

 National Association of 

 Professional Forestry Schools and 

 Colleges (NAPFSC). Thus, all 

 university forestry programs now 

 speak with one voice and are 

 represented in policymaking 

 concerning resident instruction and 

 extension and on research 

 committees of larger organizations 

 (National Association of 

 Professional Forestry Schools and 

 Colleges and USDA Cooperative 

 State Research Service 1985). 



Case Examples 



As stated earlier, I found no 

 aggregate assessments of benefits 

 to the forest resource or forest 

 industry from southern university 

 forestry and forest-products 

 research. Thus individual case 

 examples must serve as indicators. 



Examples cited previously had 

 early beginnings. Those that follow 

 are largely products of the post- 

 Mclntire-Stennis period except for 

 two of the three tree-improvement 

 cooperatives. 



Those cited include by no means 

 all programs that have had 



36 



