388 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
seeking classification under an optional law, both by the feeling that 
his neighbors will disapprove and by the fear that the assessor will 
discover or pretend to discover that his other property is undervalued. 
The prevailing underassessment of all property makes it easy for the 
assessor to offset any tax advantage on forest property by an increase 
in assessment of other property of the same taxpayer, although there 
is no evidence that this is actually done except in rare cases. This 
handicap may be lessened by an active effort on the part of the State 
forestry department to promote a favorable public attitude toward 
those who take advantage of the law and by strict control of the re- 
sulting adjustments made by the assessor. However, if the special 
forest-tax law does not concede more than justice requires, the imme- 
diate tax advantage may not be sufficient to overcome even a slight 
hesitation on the part of an owner. 
Many of the optional laws have been drawn up with so many pro- 
visions to safeguard the public interest that the taxpayer is likely to 
feel that any advantage which he might gain through the law is out- 
weighed by the obligations assumed and the dangers of arbitrary and 
oppressive administration of regulatory provisions by the State au- 
thorities. For example, the Alabama law provides that on classified 
lands timber may be cut, turpentined, or otherwise utilized only in 
accordance with the rules of the forestry commission. In Michigan 
the owner of properties classified as ‘‘commercial forest reserves”’ 
must obtain permission from the department of conservation to cut 
merchantable forest products, and he 1s not allowed to exercise exclu- 
sive hunting and fishing privileges on the classified land. A forest 
property classified under the New York law must be cut according 
to the principles of practical forest management as directed by the 
conservation department. In Pennsylvania a classified forest prop- 
erty is subject to the provision that, when the trees become ‘‘suitable 
for merchantable forest products”, the department of forests and 
waters shall at the request of the owner or on its own motion designate 
the kind and number of trees most suitable to be cut, if in its judg- 
ment there be any, and these shall be removed in accordance with its 
instructions. Provisions such as these may be entirely justified in 
view of the tax concessions with which they are joined, but they 
undoubtedly deter many owners from applying for classification under 
optional laws. 
Most of these laws offer tax relief only or chiefly to immature tim- 
ber, which in many instances escapes the attention of the assessor 
and consequently needs no relief from the property tax under existing 
conditions. Especially where ownerships are generally small the 
saving from classification in dollars and cents seems insignificant, 
even if the percentage saved is substantial. These conditions are 
illustrated in Massachusetts, where there is a special forest-tax law 
that is unusually free from burdensome administrative provisions. 
The taxation of immature stands is at present moderate in that State, 
partly because of low assessments and partly because tax rates on 
rural real estate are generally moderate, and therefore there is little 
inducement to an owner to seek any change. 
It is to be noted that in many States, after the effort necessary to 
secure passage of the law, it has been given little further publicity, 
so that a large number of forest landowners do not even know that 
such a law is in effect, while others are ignorant or misinformed as 
to its provisions. 
