1906 



FORESTRY AND IRRIGATION 



121 



have been for years 3 cents to 40 

 cents per acre, without reference to 

 changes in its condition or value, "y 

 Forty cents is not unreasonable for 

 an acre of forest containing 20,000 

 feet of white pine, since it represents 

 a rate of but 4 mills if the stumpage 

 is worth $5 per thousand, but of 

 course no owner would pay it after the 

 timber had been logged unless he 

 could reasonably expect to sell the 

 land for farming. As a matter of 

 fact, 37 per cent of the area of the 

 State, once forested, consists of land 

 too poor to be farmed, and may be 

 bought for 25 to 50 cents per acre.j 



The forest commissioner of Penn- 

 sylvania writes that on one of the 

 few pieces of virgin forest still stand- 

 ing in the State, containing a little 

 less than 1,000 acres, the annual tax 

 is $2.83 per acre. If the whole tract 

 average 20,000 feet per acre of white 

 pine worth $10 a thousand on the 

 stump both estimates are high the 

 tax is 1.4 per cent of the value, or, 

 counting the assessed value at two- 

 thirds the sale value, as is the common 

 rule, the yearly tax is over 2 per cent, 

 and the owner assumes all the risk 

 of loss by fire and depredation. 



The same authority states that de- 

 nuded lands are commonly assessed at 

 50 cents to $1.25 per acre, and that the 

 usual levies amount to 25 to 30 mills. 

 This means a yearly tax of i}4 to 3^ 

 cents per acre. If the soil is capable 

 of agriculture the burden is not great, 

 hut much of it is absolute forest land, 

 and the owners often prefer to sur- 

 render it rather than pay the tax. 

 The State forest reserve commission 

 has bought at tax sales over 23,000 

 acres of such land for the accrued 

 taxes and costs. In some cases these 

 have been as low as 2^ cents per 

 acre, though the average is somewhat 

 higher. The commissioner instances 

 one case where several parcels contain- 

 ing over 7,000 acres were bought in 

 for a fraction over 8 cents per acre. 



These figures are suggestive. They 

 prove the passing of the forest in a 

 State whose name indicates its original 

 character, not entirely by the hand of 

 the lumberman, but largely through 

 the operation of its laws. They prove 

 that a county as a landowner is poorer 

 than as the recipient of even small tax 

 on that land. They prove that there 

 is much land unfit for agriculture 

 which presumably will bear forest, 

 since it already has done so. They 

 prove that the State which has bought 

 a forest reserve now amounting to 

 700,000 acres, and is still buying, and 

 which has made man}- worthy efforts 

 to advance the cause of forestry, has 

 still failed to secure the co-operation 

 of private owners to any great extent 

 because it persists in taxing their 

 lands, especially their cut-over lands, 

 at a rate that is unreasonable. 



In Xorth Carolina conditions are 

 not much different. The common 

 levy is 1 per cent on a 60 per cent 

 valuation, or 6 mills on the estimated 

 value. Where this value is justly 

 assessed, there can be no reasonable 

 complaint, but there is much guessing, 

 and in one county it is reported that 

 land partly lumbered or cut over as 

 the forester advises, is taxed 25 per 

 cent higher than virgin forest, on the 

 ground that it is improved land. In 

 other words, a penalty is imposed on 

 conservative lumbering ! 



On the Pacific Coast a similar situ- 

 ation is found. The actual value of 

 the great standing forests is undeter- 

 mined and steadily growing, so that 

 there is probably little overtaxing of 

 virgin timber, but the burden on cut- 

 over land is so great that large areas 

 are relinquished every year. Some of 

 this land may be taken up by settlers, 

 but the rule is that when the counties 

 become the enforced owners it remains 

 unproductive, uncared for, and during 

 the dry season a constant source of 

 dangerous fires. A study of this ques- 

 tion made in the State of Washington 



f B. E. Fernow, Economics of Forestry, p. 252, 1900. 



t Bulletin 16, Division of Forestry, Table II and p. 54, 1899. 



