654 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



be established on land that is not 

 wooded at the time. 



The commonest form of tax conces- 

 sion consists of a complete exemption 

 from taxation on both land and trees 

 for a definite period of time, ranging 

 from five to thirty-five years. The ex- 

 emption begins either immediately after 

 the land has been planted or set aside 

 for the growth of trees, or after a cer- 

 tain period, measured either in years or 

 in the growth of the trees. In other 

 States the concession is by means of a 

 rebate of part of the taxes for a cer- 

 tain number of years, as in New Hamp- 

 shire, or by means of a bounty of so 

 many dollars per acre to be deducted 

 annually from the taxes on the land, as 

 in North Dakota and Wisconsin. Us- 

 ually the owner is required to manage 

 the forest in accordance with regula- 

 tions specified in the statute or under 

 the direction of some State officer or 

 board. 



Only two States depart materially 

 from this general plan. These are the 

 States of New York and Michigan, 

 whose legislation, enacted in 1912 and 

 1911 respectively, will be considered in 

 more detail below. 



Four States, Illinois, Kansas, Minne- 

 sota, and Wyoming, undertake to en- 

 courage the growth of trees by ofi^ering 

 bounties. Since these bounties, how- 

 ever, have no relation to taxation, I 

 have not included them in this dis- 

 cussion. Likewise I refrain from dis- 

 cussing the laws of Massachusetts and 

 Vermont, which provide for the offer- 

 ing of annual jjrizes to encourage the 

 planting and cultivation of trees ; these 

 prizes also have nothing to do with 

 taxation. 



The general type of forest tax legis- 

 lation which has been followed by our 

 States until very recently has failed to 

 produce any appreciable results. Of 

 this fact there cannot be the slightest 

 question. It is important to determine 

 the causes of this failure. In the fir.^t 

 place the laws contain many technic-il 

 defects. The common limitation to 

 plantations, or even to land other than 

 woodland, largely defeats the purpose 

 of the laws at the outset. The regula- 

 tions regarding planting, thinning, etc., 



are often faulty from the point of view 

 of scientific forestry. Often the num- 

 ber of trees required to the acre is too 

 large. The list of species designated is 

 not always well chosen. 



A more serious defect is the injustice 

 to the locality where the exempted for- 

 est happens to be located. The only 

 justification for a concession to the for- 

 est owner is the resulting advantage to 

 the State as a whole. Yet the particular 

 town or county where the land is located 

 is called upon to bear the whole or the 

 principal part of the burden of a dimin- 

 ished revenue. This tends, first, to lead 

 certain assessors to try to get even by 

 adding enough to the assessment of 

 some other property of the timber 

 owner to make up for the reduced taxes 

 on his forest lands. In the second place 

 it prevents many owners from taking 

 advantage of the law, since they dislike 

 to arouse the hostility of their neigh- 

 bors or of the local authorities by an ap- 

 parent attempt to get out of paying 

 their share of local taxes. 



Another vital reason for failure is 

 that the actual financial consideration 

 is not ordinarily very great after all. 

 The exemption is limited to a fairly 

 short period, after which land and trees 

 are again subject to the general prop- 

 erty tax. The abatement comes, of 

 course, at the time when the trees are 

 small, and the taxes would not be very 

 heavy anyway. 



Finally the whole principle on which 

 these laws are based is, in the writer's 

 opinion, a false one. The idea has been 

 to give some concession, some special 

 favor. This is not what is needed. 

 There is no sound reason why the owner 

 of forest lands should not pay his just 

 share of taxation. And if forestry is 

 going to be profitable at all, it can well 

 afford to pay its just share. What is 

 needed is simple justice, and nothing 

 more. The general property tax acts as 

 an obstacle to forestry, for reasons 

 which cannot be entered into here. 

 What we want is a new system, which 

 shall avoid the evils of the general prop- 

 erty tax by a change in method, but 

 which shall still call upon the forest 

 owner to bear his full share of the bur- 

 den of supporting government. 



