A significant portion of the projected reduction 
in forest growth rates can be attributed to mortality 
caused by insects and diseases. Pest-caused loss- 
es have been widespread for some time and will 
continue unless changes occur in forest- manage- 
ment attitudes and emphases. These losses should 
be factored into the planning process under a con- 
tinuation of the "damage control" approach. If one 
believes that a change in forest pest management 
is needed and desired, then the focus shifts to con- 
sidering possible changes. 
A more aggressive pest-management stance 
through better loss and cost data, to illustrate the 
pros and cons of pest-management alternatives, is 
needed. Initiatives to establish or enhance assis- 
tance and protection programs must have as a re- 
quirement the cooperators' obligation to provide ac- 
Curate pest impact and status information. 
Improved pest management is needed if pro- 
duction of timber and other wood fiber is a goal. 
Given the limited land base on which trees can be 
grown, the limited productivity potential of some of 
the forest land included in that base, and the areas 
legislatively or otherwise withdrawn from forest pro- 
duction, obtaining increases from forestry requires 
producing more wood per acre. It is equally appar- 
ent that reducing losses from pests must be part of 
the strategy. 
Responsibility for achieving these mutually 
agreed-upon objectives depends on where the po- 
tential benefits will accrue. The Federal, State, and 
private sectors share in the rewards of any initiative 
to reduce pest-caused impacts to forest production. 
However, assigning a responsibility commensurate 
with the benefits each receives is more difficult be- 
cause the benefits are interpreted differently by 
each sector. 
History provides a generous list of examples of 
how the leadership responsibility in pest manage- 
ment has been fulfilled by the Federal Government 
in the past. These examples are not germane today 
because previous Federal initiatives had a multitude 
of objectives, some of which were achieved while 
many were not. Government efforts to reduce pest- 
caused losses in wood fiber were among the less 
successful. Pest management was erroneously ap- 
proached as an independent action instead of be- 
ing integrated into forest-management planning 
and practices. Pest-management programs reacted 
to crises; little emphasis was directed toward avoid- 
ing crises. Forest pest management should empha- 
size prevention, not suppression, but both activities 
are expensive. Unfortunately, pest-management 
funding is more responsive to requests for emer- 
gency help on visible problems than to requests for 
the investment capital needed to avoid those prob- 
lems. The relative efficiencies of these two ap- 
proaches are not factored into current decisionmak- 
ing. 
Pest management should be included with oth- 
er forest resource-management activities. Pest- 
management funds should be targeted to the more 
productive lands and protection of the more valu- 
able resources. This strategy does not automatical- 
ly ensure that the timber resource will receive first 
priority because of multiple-use considerations, but 
if pest-caused losses to timber resources are to be 
reduced, timber must be identified as a primary fo- 
cus of the program. 
It is obvious where stronger emphasis on pest 
management should take place--on the productive 
lands. Because every major forest pest situation has 
its own constituency, focusing on the most produc- 
tive land will require negotiation between the forces 
who want to address the long-term outlook and 
those concerned with handling current outbreaks 
only. Pest-management resources will continue to 
be dissipated unless the public can be brought toa 
level of greater understanding about what pest con- 
trol can achieve. 
Conclusions 
The purpose of this conference is to discuss 
options or alternative policies and programs for fu- 
ture forest protection of the South's "fourth forest." It 
is important that future programs provide a clear 
and accurate view of (1) the probable losses to 
landowners and the general public from the occur- 
rences of insects, disease, and fire; and (2) all the 
alternative means of coping with those losses. Fu- 
ture programs must provide for the integration of 
protection programs into planning for the manage- 
ment of forest land. Successful programs will pro- 
vide economically efficient protection, commensu- 
rate with the values of the forest and the probability 
of losses, using the most efficient mix of prevention 
and suppression programs. The collective effi- 
ciency of protection through preplanned, coordinat- 
ed action of the private sector and local, State, and 
Federal Governments needs to be continued and 
enhanced. 
Fire-protection programs need to provide tech- 
nology and the dissemination of technological infor- 
59 
