matter of minimizing the handicaps—of making 
private forestry more attractive, and helping private 
owners see and make the most of their opportuni- 
ties. It also involves protecting the heavy invest- 
ments which the public should shoulder in helping 
to spread good private forestry. 
Some of the more obvious needs such as better 
forest protection, more technical assistance in for- 
estry, and the like, are implicit in the difficulties 
confronting private owners—especially those re- 
lating to small properties. But there are several 
other things that affect ownership and management 
of private forests: 
First, there is need for adequate financing. For- 
estry is a long-time enterprise. It involves long- 
term investments—not merely the capital for year- 
to-year operation but that required to build up a 
satisfactory growing stock. 
The problem of waiting—of financial forbearance 
—is no small one. For example, the lumber com- 
pany with high-interest-rate loans on mature forest 
may have to choose between liquidation or default. 
The timber operator who gets capital at high cost 
from the buyers of his product may find himself 
forced into exploitive practices. The private tim- 
ber owner, especially the small one, usually must 
put his need for current income ahead of long-run 
considerations. To all these, waiting is expensive 
—often too expensive to afford. 
The problem of financing private forests also in- 
cludes making needed adjustments—enlarging tim- 
ber holdings to economical operating size; planting, 
stand improvement, and other measures; revamp- 
ing of road or mill layout; and the like. All this 
calls for financing at reasonable cost. The chief 
need is low-interest-rate credit for periods ranging 
up to 40 or even 60 years while growing stock is 
being built up. Some loans are needed to finance 
operations or improvements that will pay off more 
quickly. 
Forest owners and operators generally lack sources 
of satisfactory credit—long-term or intermediate— 
adapted to their special needs. ‘Today, when spe- 
cialized credit facilities for farming and for industry 
have been developed to a high state of efficiency by 
both public and private agencies, forestry is the 
outstanding category where credit needs remain 
neglected. 
Second, there is need for forest insurance. Risks 
from fire, insects, disease, and other destructive 
agents are not only reducible but also insurable. 
Forest insurance is well established in several Euro- 
Forests and National Prosperity ‘ 
pean countries. But in this country, although com- 
mercial companies have given considerable atten- 
tion to the possibilities and have written some 
policies at high rates, forest insurance has been slow 
to catch on. Studies in the Pacific Northwest and 
the Northeast 48 indicate that commercial insurance 
is practicable at reasonable rates if it avoids poor 
risks and is based on good protection, reasonably 
good forest practices, and broad coverage. 
Third, property taxes have long been regarded 
as a major obstacle to private forestry. Annual 
taxes, to be sure, may encourage premature cutting 
or abandonment of young or cut-over forests. Fur; 
thermore, the fact that taxes are considered an 
obstacle tends to make them so. 
However, the effect of property taxes as a deter- 
rent to forestry has generally been exaggerated. 
Management of farm woods, for example, is little 
affected because they are seldom taxed separately 
from the rest of the farm and the costs chargeable 
to them are rarely segregated. Less than half the 
private land is likely to be influenced in its man- 
agement by property taxes, and only a fraction of 
this probably is appreciably affected. 
An important factor in the tax burden is poor 
administration. Inequities in assessment as_be- 
tween forest and other land, as well as unpredicta- 
ble fluctuations in the tax, create special burdens 
on forest owners. High costs of local government 
complicate the problem, especially where forests 
are the main tax base and depletion is widespread. 
Some of these burdens are being lightened. 
Many States are giving increasing help to local gov- 
ernments in making more uniform and equitable 
assessments. Some States are assuming the support 
of roads, schools, and other services formerly borne 
by counties and districts, and some have limited 
the local tax rates by statute. Between 1932 and 
1941, costs of State and local government rose from 
8.5 to 12.8 billion dollars, but property taxes re- 
mained at about 4.5 billion dollars. Meanwhile 
tax delinquency, a sensitive barometer, has fallen 
to a long-time low. 
Even so, forest taxation remains much in the 
public eye as indicated by the continuing stream of 
legislation. As of 1946 twenty-six States had special 
forest-tax laws on the books. Mostly this is ex- 
48 SHEPARD, H. B. FOREST FIRE INSURANCE IN .THE PACIFIC 
coasT sTaTEs. U.S. Dept. Agri. Tech. Bul. 551, 168 pp., illus. 
1937. 
FOREST FIRE INSURANCE IN THE NORTHEASTERN STATES. 
U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 651, 46 pp., illus. 1939. 
of 
