FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 205 
FOREST COMMUNITIES AND STATES 
Obviously the percentage position of forests in the tax base of an 
entire State or region gives no adequate picture of the important part 
which the forests may constitute of the tax base of a given small tax 
unit in a forest community. Therefore attention is directed to 
studies in representative political units in the forest regions which 
indicate the importance of forests in the local tax base in such regions. 
The methods used to determine the approximate assessed value of 
forests in these local units were generally different from those used 
for the States and the United States as a whole. ‘They were usually 
uniform within a given State and each method is indicated in the 
sources of data given in connection with each table. 
The most intensive studies were made in 3 towns of New Hamp- 
shire, 3 counties of North Carolina, 13 townships of Minnesota, 8 
towns and 1 county of Wisconsin, 6 townships of Michigan, and 1 
county of Washington. In these selected local units, detailed field 
studies were made and the assessed value of forests was determined 
from assessment rolls and field examinations. Even in these areas a 
precise determination of forest assessed value was impossible because 
of the practice, as noted at the beginning of this part, of assessing 
land by properties or parcels rather than by land types. In the 
Michigan townships only properties which were predominantly forest 
in character could be segregated, but in the other local units various 
methods were devised which probably give the assessed value of forests 
with a fair degree of accuracy. 
In the other States studied the reports of the various State tax 
commissions were relied upon. In Maine this information was sup- 
plemented by a brief field study, which made possible a fairly good 
estimate of forest assessed value in two broad divisions of the State. 
In Louisiana the tax commission data for each county were supple- 
mented by information gathered by the Forest Service, and the classi- 
fication in this State is probably quite accurate. In Wisconsin the 
tax commission classifications of ‘‘timber’”’ and ‘‘cut-over, marsh, 
and waste’”’ taken together are roughly comparable to forests, but 
these categories include some elements which are not strictly forest. 
In Mississippi the classification is fairly good, but the sum of ‘‘ timber 
and timbered lands” and ‘‘uncultivatable lands”’ probably includes 
considerable land which is not forest. In Colorado the tax com- 
mission’s category ‘‘timberlands”’ is very incomplete. In Idaho there 
is a rather complete classification. Montana’s category ‘‘timber- 
lands” is incomplete, though it probably includes most of the forests 
in that State. In Oregon and Washington the forest category includes 
some other elements, principally grazing lands. 
In order to prevent confusion the various terms employed by a 
tax commissions are not used in the tables. The term ‘‘forests” 
used in all cases and explanation is made in notes as to how ae 
category is constituted in each study. 
The place of forests in the tax base for the forest communities 
studied in Maine, New Hampshire, and North Carolina is given in 
table 71. The sources of data for this table are as follows: 
Columns 5, 6, and 7 were obtained by computation. 
Other columns: 
