36 cipxulae 899, r. >. department oe agriculture 



owner to restore forest conditions, removal of tree growth, and use of 

 such land for other purposes in violation of any regulations of the 

 commissi .. is sufficient ground for cancellation of the classification. 



New Ha n - : ' . . — There are no practices required in the law. A 

 part of the yield tax is abated if the owner, at the' time of harvest, 

 complies with cutting rules established or approved by district boards 

 approved by the State forester. 



; } York. — The forest may be thinned with the approval of the 

 Conservation Department. Whenever classified forest land is foimd 

 to contain on the average 40 M board feet of merchantable softwoods 

 per acre or 20 M board feet of merchantable hardwoods per acre, the 



ner may reduce the volume of the timber below this average as di- 

 rected by" the conservation department and continue his classified 

 status. The forest must be cut according to the principles of prac- 

 tical forest management and the land must continue to be managed 

 as prescribed by the forestry division. 



0: i Washington. — The commission may. upon the basis of 



facts submitted to it by the Board of Forestry, declassify any lands 

 ai in its judgment such lands are not being used to accomplish 

 tl purposes of the act or when in its judgment such change in classi- 

 fication is in the public ii:tere=r. Forest requirements are no r i - 

 restrictive than those under the forest practices acts of these States. 



Wi , — No person shall cut any merchantable wood products 



on any forest croplands until 30 days after the owner has filed with 

 the Conservation Commission a notice of intention to cut. specifying 

 the descriptions and estimating the amount of wood products to be 

 removed and the volume to be left as growing stock. The commission, 

 after examination of the land specified, may limit the amount of 

 forest products to be removed in order that adequate growing stock 

 may be left to furnish recurring forest crops. Cutting in excess of 

 i " limitation results in a doubling of the yield tax. 



The difficulty of measuring the su ;ess of yield-tax laws in stimu- 

 lating improved forest practices h is already been mentioned. It is 

 even more difficult to determine what effect the specific provisions 

 relating to forest practices may have had. The area of forest land 

 classified under the yield-tax laws has been used as an inadequate 

 sure of the success of the laws. This measure is even less adequate 

 - lered in relation to specific forestry provisions, for these 

 provisions have probably tended to reduce rather than increase the 

 acreage classified under voluntary laws. Even though the forestry 

 required under most of the laws is not intensive or burdensome to the 

 landowner, the presence of any restraint has probably kept many 

 from classifying their holdings. A misunderstanding of the provi- 

 is has kept others out. Although there are exceptions to this 

 generalization, the level of forestry required on classified lands is 

 often no higher, and frequently much lower, than the level that would 

 have been practiced by the owners if there had been no requirements 

 in the law. 



There is a growing belief that the opportunity to practice forestry 

 a= provided through yield-tax legislation is much more effective than 

 specific forestry requirements in the law. This opportunity does not 

 necessarily come from tax concessions or reductions for which the 

 owner may rightfully be asked to comply with special requirements, 



