136 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
TABLE 46.—Assessment ratios based on appraisals, of selected descriptions by 
predominant cover, 1926, selected towns, Wisconsin 1 
a a a 
Tim- | Cut- | Cleared Tim- | Cut- | Cleared 
Town ber over land Town ber over land 
Per- Per- 
cent | Percent| Percent cent | Percent| Percent 
Athelstaneesaee_ 2 eet (2) 99 29 || Little Rice. ____2 2-2 (2) 81 32 
Bartelmes ee Seis eas 62 140 44 || Morse (nonmineral part) - 83 97 79 
Bayview esc ee ae (2) 124 80") Maurny 22 4 teak Pees coe (3) 161 67 
Henrietta csee ar oe (2) 116 63: || Three Lakes: 222-4 4. 64 71 56 
BOD Bae eee ela eee eee 23 40 17 
| 
1 Source of data: Refer to table 25. 
? Areas under 500 acres are not considered sufficient samples to warrant computing assessment ratios. 
3’ Timber was not appraised in Murry. 
NEW HAMPSHIRE 
In the New Hampshire towns selected for special study, it was 
impossible to make any sharp distinction between cut-over and tim- 
bered forest lands, as all of the forests in that region are of second 
growth of different ages and sizes. It was also difficult to distinguish 
between forest and farm land because assessments are based on the 
entire property as a unit, and as a rule the properties in these towns 
contain both forest and farm land. However, the properties are 
segregated into forest, farm, and other, according to the use by which 
each is characterized. Forest property is subdivided into “forests, 
farm’’, which are forests owned by farm owners (1. e., owners of farms 
which are located in the same town), and “‘forests, commercial ’’, which 
are those not so owned. Farm property may include considerable 
forest land, and in exceptional cases the forest use may be more 
important economically than the agricultural use. Other property 
includes land and improvements used for commercial, residential, and 
resort purposes, but land only in the case of gasoline stations and mill 
properties. These classes were also divided into resident and non- 
resident owned, depending on whether the owner was domiciled within 
the town or outside. 
There is no evidence of material inequality between forest and 
farm property in the towns of Fremont and Richmond, considering 
each class as a whole, since the differences indicated in table 47 are 
not large enough to be significant. In Loudon, on the other hand, 
forest property is relatively overassessed. Considering property 
owned by residents separately from that owned by nonresidents, 
it is only in Loudon that forest property has a higher assessment ratio 
than farm property in both resident and nonresident groups. In 
Fremont and Richmond, forest property, compared with farm, is over- 
assessed in the resident groups and underassessed in the nonresident. 
The reason for the relative underassessment of nonresident-owned 
forests in these towns is probably the fact that they are generally more 
remote from the well-settled parts of the towns than the resident- 
owned forests, and therefore the development of value by growth 
after cutting is less likely to be noticed by the assessors. A com- 
parison of appraised values per acre, which may be made from the 
data in table 26, suggests that the general tendency to regressive 
assessment may also have something to do with the relatively high 
assessment of resident-owned forests in Fremont and may be the 
principal reason for the relatively low assessment of nonresident 
farms in all three towns. 
