FIFTH NATI0NAI< CONSERVATION CONGRESS 113 



in some other business and succeed in it, to produce revenue with which to carry 

 his timber, which is not demanded of other forms of business; or that he must 

 cut his timber, whether or not this is desirable from any standpoint, as soon as 

 the tax burden becomes excessive. Above all, it means the destruction of the 

 forest, instead of the perpetuation of the forest, by use. 



Consequently, in countries that have considered the subject thoroughly, some 

 formof what is called yield tax has been adopted as far as the forest crop itself 

 IS concerned. The land itself may or may not be taxed annually, according as 

 there is neede4 for fixed regular revenue from this source. Most frequently, if 

 land chiefly useful for forest growing is taxed at all annually, it is taxed 

 upon its value for this purpose, as wheat land is valued by its earning capacity 

 for producing wheat, but in this valuation no consideration is given the particular 

 forest crop upon it. The crop is a thing apart, which may be increased by growth, 

 decreased by. cutting, or destroyed by fire or insects without attaining any taxable 

 value. By taxing its yield only, both community and owner are stimulated to 

 bring about the greatest production, the best protection, and the fullest utilization. 

 Under such a. system the time and manner of cutting mature timber are fitted 

 to economic needs upon a parallel with the handling of any other commodity, 

 and the fostering and protection of new growth is not discouraged. The ten- 

 dency is to perpetuate a needed resource, a population-supporting industry, and 

 a source of tax revenue on lands otherwise likely to become non-tax-producing. 



The substitution of such a system, or a modified approach to it, for the 

 general property tax has been the chief aim of American forest tax reformers. 

 Recent legislation in Pennsylvania, Connecticut and other States indicates that 

 the beginning has been made. But while encouraging in showing that the public 

 can be taught the necessity of action, the few successes already attained by no 

 means aiiford a completely satisfactory precedent. The greater the relative im- 

 portance of forests and forest industry in any State, the more serious are the 

 problems of adjusting new revenue systems to the needs now largely met by the 

 annual taxation of such sources of revenue. A measure acceptable in a State 

 like Massachusetts, where forest taxes are a trifling part of total local and State 

 revenues, might be fiscally impossible in a State like Oregon where they are the 

 chief reliance. A law applicable even in a forest State where the effect in each 

 county would be similar, might not work where some counties are cutting fast, 

 some have not begun, and some are cut over or treeless. Again we have a tre- 

 mendous practical, if not theoretical, difference in the problems of mature timber 

 being held for speculation and those of reforestation on denuded lands. Conse- 

 quently there is much need for analysis of these several situations separately, 

 grouping conclusions to prevent misapplication and their further discussion in 

 this report will be so classified under two main heads. Taxing New Forest Crops 

 and Taxing Mature Forests, each sub-divided under Eastern conditions and 

 Western conditions. 



