48 



Yet if we are to grow forests on private lands, the "risk" of confiscatory 

 taxation must be met or else it will continue to be cited as an obstacle 

 which prevents the contemplation of forestry by land owners, much as 

 they might desire to practice it. 



Is the present system of taxation an obstacle to the production of timber 

 on forest lands? Or is this conception a convenient myth, to color a failure 

 to put these lands to a use in which the owners have no interests or are 

 deterred by other, quite different, factors? The main reason why lands 

 are not devoted to growing trees are, that Americans as a class do not un- 

 derstand the business of forestry, its practice, its economic advantages or 

 its necessity as a measure of general property and public economy, and 

 having in the main, destroyed the forest capital by a mistaken policy of 

 clean cutting, are loth to undertake the restoration of the business by the 

 time consuming process of tree planting and growth so many obstacles 

 look big to them, and taxation becomes a serious stumbling block. 



Is the general property tax a burden sufficient to prevent or discourage 

 the undertaking of growing crops of timber? This is a very different prob- 

 lem from that presented by the annual tax on timber which is already 

 mature and fit to cut. Annual taxes on standing mature timber tend to 

 force cutting. But mature timber ought to be cut if held for long periods, 

 it represents an economic waste. The community is deprived of the use of 

 wood, incurs a loss of wages, industries dependent on wood suffer, and a 

 form of capital which represents taxable wealth escapes its just burden 

 of taxation. This is especially true, since virgin timber has usually cost the 

 owner nothing in the way of expense for production it is not an artificially 

 grown crop the only expense is fire protection which is a form of insur- 

 ance similar to that placed on any property, and taxes. The investment 

 of capital in mature timber is often for speculative purposes, with no 

 thought of engaging in forest production. It is true that large timber op- 

 erators often find it necessary in order to insure a supply of raw material, 

 to acquire a twenty year supply of timber, the taxes on which may prove 

 a large item of expense. When this supply is so great as to require fifty 

 years to remove it, the holding can be considered largely as purely specu- 

 lative, and not needed for the conduct of a normal operation, and it is not 

 good policy to relieve speculators of a just burden of taxation in order that 

 they may realize expected profits from which the community gains no 

 advantage. The tendency of taxation to force the cutting of timber is not 

 in itself the evil to be met this problem should have been solved in quite 

 another way; namely, by retaining the ownership of these large timber 

 reserves in public hands as was done with the national forests. 



Another reason for taxing timber is that the growth in virgin timber 

 is negligible, being offset by decay and other natural losses, so that the 

 productive capacity of the land is not put to its proper use but is stagnant. 



A final reason for continuing to tax mature timber is the loss in public 

 revenues which would result from exempting such property from taxation, 

 and which would tend to defeat any effort to bring about such an exemption. 



The arguments of owners of standing timber; namely, that taxation 

 would prevent their utilizing the land after cutting to produce new crops 

 of timber is not an argument for relief from proper or equitable taxation 

 of timber already grown. 



