specific legislation focusing primarily on reforesta- 
tion. Enactment of a stringent statute similar to that 
of Massachusetts or Oregon is not viewed as a 
necessary or acceptable alternative by most profes- 
sional foresters and landowners in the South. For 
this and other reasons, such legislation would not 
be politically feasible in most Southern States. 
The adoption of more-specific legislation aimed 
primarily at reforestation has been quite successful 
in Virginia. This experience could have favorable 
implications for similar legislation in other Southern 
States. In addition to significantly improving the pro- 
ductivity of existing pine sites, Virginia's law has also 
had a favorable impact on increasing pine acreage. 
Funds from the State's forestry cost-share program 
are made available only to owners of forest land 
where pine-type stocking is not sufficient to require 
compliance with the Seed Tree Law. Therefore, 
more funds are made available for the conversion of 
suitable hardwood sites to pine. 
Although the forestry community in Virginia is 
highly supportive of the Seed Tree Law, the prevail- 
ing attitude in most of the remainder of the South 
would likely preclude the enactment of similar 
statutes in other Southern States. The willingness of 
landowners in Virginia to concede some private 
property rights to ensure long-term timber re- 
sources has not been demonstrated elsewhere in 
the South. 
It appears that the most feasible alternative to 
enhance timber productivity would be the expan- 
sion of the voluntary programs to include site- 
preparation and regeneration guidelines for a wide 
range of site characteristics. Currently, only a few 
Southern States have developed reforestation 
BMP's, most of which are specific to hardwood re- 
generation. The inclusion of such guidelines could 
be quite effective provided they are actively promot- 
ed by State forestry agencies and forest industry. 
References Cited 
Agee, James L. 1975. 
A suggested State forest practices act: one im- 
plementing mechanism for improving water 
quality on forest lands. Journal of Forestry. 
73(1): 40-41. 
Bosselman, Fred; Callies, D.; Banta, J. 1973. 
The taking issue. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office. 320 p. 
98 
Brown, M.J. 1986. 
Forest statistics for Virginia, 1986. Resour. Bull. 
SE-87. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agri- 
culture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Ex- 
periment Station. 66 p. 
Cubbage, Frederick W.; Siegel, W.C. 1985. 
The law regulating private forest practices. 
Journal of Forestry. 83(9): 538-545. 
Cubbage, Frederick W.; Ellefson, Paul V. 1980. 
State forest practice laws: a major policy force 
unique to the natural resources community. 
Natural Resources Lawyer. 13(2): 421-468. 
Georgia Forestry Commission. 1981. 
Recommended Best Management Practices for 
forestry in Georgia. Macon, GA: Georgia 
Forestry Commission. 24 p. 
Goetzl, Alberto; Siegel, W.C. 1980. 
Water quality laws in Southern States: how they 
affect forestry. Southern Journal of Applied 
Forestry. 4(1): 2-11. 
Graff, J.; Kaiser, H.F. 1986. 
Area foresters and Virginia Seed Tree Law ef- 
fectiveness. Southern Journal of Applied 
Forestry. 10(1): 42-44. 
Hewlett, J.D.; Thompson, W.P.; Brightwell, N. 1979. 
Erosion control on forest land in Georgia. 
Athens, GA: University of Georgia and U.S. De- 
partment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Serv- 
ice. 25 p. 
Huffman, James L. 1978. 
A history of forest policy in the United States. 
Environmental Law. 8(2): 239-280. 
Kawashima, Yasuhide; Tone, Ruth. 1983. 
Environmental policy in early America, a study 
of colonial statutes. Journal of Forest History. 
24(4): 168-179. 
Knight, H.A.; McClure, J.P. 1978. 
Virginia's timber, 1977. Resour. Bull. SE-44. 
Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experi- 
ment Station. 53 p. 
