16 CIRCULAR 8 9 9, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



In New York lands eligible for classification are those that have been 

 planted with a specified number of trees, lands upon which the major- 

 ity of the mature timber has been removed in a manner to insure a crop 

 of merchantable timber or pulpwood, or lands upon which there is an 

 immature stand sufficient to produce a crop of merchantable timber or 

 pulpwood within 30 years. In Oregon only forest land that is suitable 

 chiefly for forest crop production and on which the forest crop is not- 

 mature in merchantable quantities, is qualified for classification. The 

 Washington law provides for the classification of lands chiefly valu- 

 able for forestry if unforested or if the forest crop is not mature in 

 merchantable quantities. The Wisconsin law originally required that 

 if there was merchantable timber on the land it could not be classified 

 as forest cropland until 50 percent or more of the merchantable timber 

 had been removed. This restriction was removed by amendment in 

 1947. 



It is difficult to justify the provisions that prohibit the entry of 

 lands on which there is merchantable timber. As mentioned earlier, 

 the yield tax was first promoted actively in a period when forestry was 

 thought of in terms of planting or other restocking of land that had 

 been clear cut. A stand of merchantable timber did not fit into this 

 concept of reforestation. Presumably the merchantable timber 

 would be cut in the same way the other timber had been cut and when 

 the lands were stripped they would be eligible for classification. 

 Today the best opportunities for forestry are on lands that have a good 

 stand of growing stock. Under principles of forest management 

 lands are purposely left in this condition. 



An optional yield-tax law could do no injustice to landowners if 

 holdings that contain merchantable timber were eligible for clas- 

 sification. If there were no tax advantage in classifying the 

 lands the owners could withhold them. At the same time it would 

 be well to provide, as New Hampshire does, that if financially mature 

 timber were not cut the land should be removed from the classified list 

 and the timber placed under the general property tax. The intent of 

 the New Hampshire provision is to prevent the holding of standing 

 wood or timber indefinitely without payment of taxes. 



The change in the Wisconsin law in 1947 dropping the requirement 

 that 50 percent of the merchantable timber must be removed before 

 land is eligible for classification is a clear recognition of the desirabil- 

 ity of extending the advantages of the yield tax to forests that are being 

 managed for continuous yield rather than clear cut and planted. None 

 of the laws enacted since 1940 have excluded land with merchantable 

 timber from entry. Perhaps this marks a new trend in yield-tax 

 legislation. 



Minimum size of holding. — Six States provide specifically that 

 holdings eligible for classification must contain a minimum number 

 of acres. In Connecticut the property must contain at least 5 acres. 

 In Massachusetts any forest land which is part of a larger parcel of 

 forest and nonforest land must contain at least 10 acres. In New York 

 eligible property must contain at least 15 acres. In Minnesota prop- 

 erty containing not less than 35 acres is eligible for classification and 

 property in the nature of a woodlot containing not less than 5 nor 

 more than 40 acres may be made an auxiliary forest if it is protected 

 by the owner or a tenant living on or adjacent to it. In Missouri no 



