A NATIONAL PLAN FOE AMERICAN FORESTRY 1111 



BEST LANDS PRIVATELY APPRAISED AND TAXED RESIDUAL 

 LANDS PROTECTED BY STATES 



As a part of the process of comparison, the reporting officers were 

 asked to make the best possible estimate of the potential taxability of 

 national-forest land and the tax return which might be expected if the 

 national forests were abolished and the lands made freely available for 

 appropriation under the applicable public land laws. Decision as to 

 whether lands of certain types would or would not be appropriated 

 was to be based upon the capacity of the land for profitable production 

 and its adaptability to private use and management, with due regard 

 to actual conditions and results within comparable areas open to 

 private ownership. Probable assessed valuations and probable tax 

 returns were based upon the assessments and tax payments of similar 

 privately owned lands within the region. In this process it was 

 assumed that national-forest lands comparable in character to unre- 

 served public lands which, though freely open to entry, remain unap- 

 propriated would not be taken up even though the national forests 

 did not exist; consequently lands of this type were eliminated from 

 the calculation of potential taxability as were also lands of types or 

 conditions which, where privately owned within the same region, were 

 being allowed to revert to the county for delinquent taxes. 



The degree to which lands now reserved for national-forest purposes 

 would be appropriated if opened to entry is difficult of approximation. 

 One perplexing question is afforded by the lands chiefly valuable for 

 grazing purposes. Under open-range conditions, stock growers as a gen- 

 eral rule acquire title only to the key lands such as meadows, springs, 

 stream borders, or other strategic points, which so fully control the use 

 of all commingled lands that the holder of the key lands has practically 

 exclusive use without ownership or tax payment. It is impossible ac- 

 curately to determine how far this practice would prevail if the national 

 forests did not exist. If it were general, the States or counties would 

 derive no tax from the major part of the grazing lands, whereas at 

 present they receive 25 percent of all grazing receipts therefrom. 



Another debatable point is the extent to which private owners 

 would appropriate and continue to pay taxes upon lands supporting 

 inferior stands of timber. The national forests contain large areas 

 supporting what is designated as " protective forest " for which no 

 economic demand is probable for many years to come. Grounds 

 exist for honest doubt as to the degree to which this class of timbered 

 land would pass to private ownership if subject to appropriation. 



The assumption that owners of timbered lands generally would con- 

 tinue to pay heavy taxes until cutting becomes economically feasible 

 or after the timber is removed is in large measure controverted by the 

 rapidity with which much cut-over and some timbered land with no 

 considerable value for other purposes, such as farming, grazing, etc., 

 is being allowed to revert for taxes in many regions. Growth, yield, 

 and cost studies by the Forest Service indicate that the less productive 

 types of forest land cannot, with current or probable stumpage 

 values, pay appreciable net returns over interest, taxes, and other 

 carrying charges, at the present rate of capital investment, taxation, 

 and protection cost. Attempts to realize an immediate contribution 

 to local governmental costs by taxes disproportionate to income would 

 tend to force much land into a condition of unproductivity. A 



168342 33 vol. 2 5 



