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



owners of forest land who contemplate selling their property in the 

 future fear that the sale price might be affected by the fact that the 

 land is subject to such a contract. 



Restrictions on forest practices. — The fear that classification will 

 subject the owner to harsh restrictions on the manner in which he 

 treats his land and timber is another deterrent to classification. 

 Many owners have the erroneous impression that the time and volume 

 of cutting will be controlled by an administrative board or commis- 

 sion. The larger companies who are really interested in practicing 

 good forestry usually go to the trouble of finding out just what re- 

 strictions are imposed by the law and usually discover that the prac- 

 tices provided for in their own plans of management are much more 

 intensive than those under the law. But the smaller owner as a rule 

 does not go to this trouble and may base his idea of what the law 

 provides on misinformation gathered from his neighbors. Forest 

 landowners traditionally exhibit a spirit of independence and a dis- 

 like of restraint. This may be enough to keep them from classifying 

 their lands even though the restraints in themselves would not be 

 burdensome. 



Lack of sympathy or opposition on the part of public officers. — The 

 opposition of local governing authorities may be an important factor 

 in discouraging classification under voluntary laws. Local officials 

 are usually elected by the taxpayers and naturally they want to con- 

 tinue in office. To do this they feel that they must keep property on 

 the tax rolls and must not sacrifice any source of immediate revenue. 

 Their concern is often with the present rather than with the future 

 welfare of the areas they serve. They often fail to take into account 

 the fact that the classification of forest land under a yield-tax law 

 and the good forestry expected to result from such classification 

 would increase the tax base for the future; whereas the continuance 

 of taxation under the general property tax, though yielding more 

 revenue currently, might result in poorer practices and liquidation 

 that would reduce the future tax base. Sometimes the attitude of 

 local officials is due simply to a misunderstanding of these effects. In 

 other cases, however, it is more the result of local politics. 



Local officials have many opportunities to discourage classification 

 under the yield tax. In a few States they have the responsibility of 

 accepting or rejecting applications for classification and in these situ- 

 ations their control is direct and extensive. But even though the 

 authority to pass on applications may rest with a State board or com- 

 mission the local officials, and particularly the assessor, may still set 

 up obstacles to classification. They may, if they want to keep prop- 

 erty on the tax rolls, offer the owner the assurance that the assessment 

 of the owners' forest property will remain low enough to remove any 

 advantage in classification. In effect this may provide the same en- 

 couragement to forestry that classification would. The objections to 

 this practice are that the forest landowner has only a temporary as- 

 surance of low taxes and that assessment by concession may add to the 

 inequities in the assessment of forest land. 



If the assessor is not sympathetic to classification under a yield-tax 

 law he may defeat the purpose of the law by increasing the assessment 

 on the nonforest properties of an owner who has classified his forest 

 land. This is easy to do in most States because property is normally 



