THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 121 



National Conservation Commission, appointed by the President 

 of the United States: It is far better that forest land should pay a 

 moderate tax permanently than that it should pay an excessive revenue 

 temporarily and then cease to pay at all. 



We tax our forests under the general property tax, a method of 

 taxation abandoned long ago by every other great nation. In some 

 regions of great importance for timber supply, and in individual cases 

 in all regions, the taxation of forest lands Las been excessive and 

 has led to waste by forcing the destructive logging of mature forests, 

 as well as through the abandonment of cut-over lands for taxes. That 

 this has not been even more general is due to under-assessment, to lax 

 administration of the law, but to no virtue in the law itself. Already 

 taxes upon forest lands are being increased by the strict enforcement 

 of the tax laws. Even where this has not yet been done, the fear that 

 it will be done is a bar to the practice of forestry. 



We should so adjust taxation that cut-over lands can be held for a 

 second crop. We should recognize that it costs to grow timber as well 

 as to log and saw it. 



From now on the relation of taxation to the permanent usefulness 

 of the forest will be vital. Present tax laws prevent reforestation on 

 cut-over lands and the perpetuation of existing forests by use. 



United States Forest Service: It is evident that the old method 

 of taxing forest property, as well as other property, at its supposedly 

 full value will, as the value of timber increases and is recognized, 

 put a premium on premature and reckless cutting, and will hinder 

 any effort to reforest cut-over lands. No business man will engage 

 in an undertaking where the returns are so long deferred and the risks 

 are uninsurable unless he can estimate the probable expenses and a 

 reasonably large profit. That the forests themselves, irrespective of 

 their ability to stand taxation, are of great value to the communities 

 in which they are located, for water protection, lumber supply, and 

 scenery in resort regions is undoubted. 



The fundamental difficulty is that the tax should be in proportion 

 to yield or income and not in proportion to the market value of the 

 land and standing timber. Economists are substantially agreed that 

 this principle is applicable to the taxation of all kinds of property 

 with certain exceptions. Where there is a reasonably certain annual 

 yield or income the market value is theoretically dependent upon it. 

 A woodlot or forest, however, usually in this country has no annual 

 yield. It is unjust to require the owner to carry the full annual 

 burden of taxes, risk and protection in every year for the chance of 

 a yield once in fifty years, and it is impossible for the owner to do 

 it, for the taxes with compound interest would confiscate his entire 

 capital. 



