After the War 
When World War II came to 
a close, the Southern States 
began to rebuild their staffs 
and programs. Many 
advances had been made 
during the war: fire protection 
was extended to previously 
unprotected areas, the public 
was more widely educated 
against woods burning and 
carelessness with fire, 
fire-control equipment was 
improved, and better 
communications systems 
were developed. But there 
were still millions of acres of - 
unprotected lands and 
substantial acreages of 
timberland harvested during 
the war without any efforts at 
regeneration. Some farmland 
was abandoned during the 
war, but as agriculture 
mechanized, many more 
small, steep, eroded fields 
were abandoned because 
they did not lend themselves 
to mechanized operations. 
The wartime realization of 
the value of the forests and 
their importance to the States’ 
economies stimulated State 
legislatures to continue to 
strengthen the protection, 
management, and 
reforestation efforts. Funding 
problems were dealt with in 
various ways. Alabama 
established a forest products 
severance tax in late 1945 
54 
with 80 percent of the income 
devoted to fire protection. In 
1946, that added $222,729 
to the State budget, with 
some increases in Federal 
matching above that and a 
State forestry operating 
budget of about $600,000. 
By 1948, the operating 
budget was up to $1 million, 
and the tax was providing 
over $400,000 (Thomas 
1948). Similarly, in 1948 
Virginia added a forest 
products tax to generate 
$100,000 for the 2-year 
legislative cycle and promised 
that it would be matched by 
the legislature (Hobart and 
others 1982 unpubl.). 
States implemented surveys 
of their forest situation and 
provided information to 
industry leaders, politicians, 
and the public describing 
recent changes in the State’s 
forests and the programs 
needed to provid >rotection, 
reforestation, and 
management of the resource 
for the benefit of the State. 
Every State in the S< uth 
responded in the postwar 
years with increases in 
funding and support for 
forestry programs. But while 
the increases were 
significant, there was uneven 
treatment of programs, 
—— 
