There exists today a tremendous need for coor- 
dination between game, nongame, and forestry 
programs at the State and Federal level. There is 
little Coordination between the various programs 
designed to provide technical and/or financial as- 
sistance to private landowners. Most States provide 
numerous programs where private landowners can 
receive technical assistance in resource manage- 
ment. For example, a landowner in South Carolina 
can obtain assistance from my department, the 
South Carolina Commission of Forestry, the Land 
Resources Department, the USDA Soil Conserva- 
tion Service and Cooperative Extension Service, 
and even some industrial landowners. Yet there is 
little if any coordination among these agencies. To 
ensure that private landowners are presented with 
all management alternatives, coordinated technical 
assistance programs must be developed. Programs 
dedicated to managing land for one-resource out- 
put often fail to inform a landowner that manage- 
ment alternatives exist that can integrate several 
objectives. Once intensive timber management pro- 
grams are implemented, it is difficult to incorporate 
meaningful wildlife management. 
The Forest Service should take a leadership 
role through its State and Private Forestry programs 
in coordinating an integrated approach to forest 
management in the South. Likewise, it is imperative 
that we recognize the fact that public lands must 
continue to play a special role in protecting unique 
habitats across the region. Environmental assess- 
ments and impacts on public lands should take into 
consideration the habitats existing on adjacent 
lands. The public and private sectors must be en- 
couraged to work together to meet wildlife and fish 
objectives in addition to timber objectives. 
To assess any resource plan effectively, an eco- 
nomic analysis must compare total program bene- 
fits to total program costs. The Forest Service 
should develop realistic values for noncommodity 
resources such as wildlife and fisheries, for use in all 
planning processes and assessments. Until these 
values are developed, economic analyses will be 
biased toward commodity resources such as tim- 
ber. With the increased complexity of forest man- 
agement, demands for better accounting have 
grown, and the cost-benefit relationships have be- 
come more difficult to evaluate. Some resources, 
like wildlife, are difficult to price and assign realistic 
monetary values. As such, their true economic value 
is often inadequately considered. The result is that 
the wildlife resource does not receive equal consid- 
eration with other resource interests. 
Noncommodity resources, such as _ hunting, 
recreation, and bird watching, must be quantified 
and valued to project a true economic assessment. 
This information is generally not available now but 
must be developed before we can adequately as- 
sess the South's fourth forest. | recommend that the 
Forest Service initiate studies to determine these 
noncommodity values. The South Carolina Wildlife 
and Marine Reosurces Department, the Southeast- 
ern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and 
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies have already volunteered to assist the 
Forest Service in this endeavor. 
The benefits that nonindustrial private forest 
lands provide to people are obviously much greater 
than just the income generated from the sale of 
timber. Wildlife is now producing substantial income 
for landowners with leasable properties. Hunting, 
fishing, and other wildlife-related activities are pri- 
mary reasons why many nonindustrial private forest 
landowners buy and manage forest land in the 
South. Investments in wildlife habitat improvement 
projects on nonindustrial private forest lands should 
be encouraged. Existing programs such as the 
Conservation Reserve Program allow for wildlife im- 
provements, with up to 50 percent of the cost pro- 
vided through the program. Efforts must be directed 
to nonindustrial private forest landowners so that 
they are aware of programs such as this. 
For nonindustrial private forest landowners to 
substantially increase their investment in timber or 
wildlife, they must understand the economic alter- 
natives and benefits available to them. There must 
be research and educational programs coordinated 
with technical and financial assistance. Without ed- 
ucational programs that reach these landowners 
and their managers and consultants, adequate tim- 
ber and wildlife programs will not become estab- 
lished. Nonindustrial private forest landowners and 
managers will not be interested in regenerating 
more pine on their lands to benefit the timber indus- 
try, nor will they enhance wildlife habitat unless 
there is benefit--either economic or esthetic. The 
impetus to intensify management, for both timber 
and wildlife, will come about only through appropri- 
ate incentives, educational programs, or the 
landowners personal land ethic and commitment 
for wise stewardship. 
131 
