emption and yield-tax legislation of the optional 
variety 49 which has proved largely ineffective. In 
no State is more than 8 percent of the private com- 
mercial forest land classified under such laws, and 
in more than half less than 1 percent. Only two 
States, Ohio and Washington, have differential or 
deferred forest taxation °° of the type recommended 
by the Forest Service more than 10 years ago.*? 
That Federal and State income taxes seriously 
hamper good forest practice is doubtful because 
they do not reach the great mass of owners, nor 
those who are making no net income. Indeed, the 
high tax rates of recent years may have encouraged 
concerns with high income to spend more for for- 
estry. State and Federal estate taxes occasionally 
have some adverse influence, but most forest prop- 
erties, including those of corporations, are not sub- 
ject to them and few are subject to upper-bracket 
rates. 
Public Interest in Private Forests Should 
Be Safeguarded 
To keep all forest land reasonably productive, 
there is need for some public restraints upon cutting 
and other practices on lands in private ownership. 
The public should set up common-sense rules that 
will prevent clear-cutting without provision for 
restocking, stop unnecessary destruction of young 
growth, and require reasonable safeguards with 
respect to fire, grazing, and logging. 
This is an essential step to assure sound private 
forestry. Owners, large and small, have a vital 
stake in the kind of forestry practiced on each 
other’s land since “‘cut-out-and-get-out” practices 
have a direct bearing on the stability and strength 
of local markets which are so advantageous to 
profitable private forestry. Indeed, good cutting 
practices, such as are already being attained on 
many private holdings, are in the long run one 
of the best guarantees of vigor and permanence of 
“Provides for exclusion of immature timber from the 
property-tax base or for substitution of a severance tax; 
optional in. the sense that the taxpayer takes the initiative 
in enrolling his timber under provisions of the law, but is 
not required to do so. 
In differential taxation, a flat percentage reduction is ap- 
plied to the assessed value or tax rate of forest lands. In 
deferred taxation, the tax bill is postponed (and usually 
accumulates at interest). 
51 FALL, R. C. THE FOREST-TAX PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION 
SUMMARIZED. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 358, 17 pp. 1935. Pp. 
14-17. 
. action. 
industries and communities, as well as of the for- 
estry enterprises that sustain them. 
Basically, the need for regulation stems from 
the large responsibility to safeguard forest values 
in the interests of society as a whole. The authority 
of government to impose reasonable restrictions on 
personal and property rights of individuals to pre- 
vent injury to the public welfare is a widely ac- 
cepted principle of law. This is reflected by a 
large and growing body of regulatory laws—Federal, 
State, and local—of which there are many common- 
place examples: Speed laws, zoning ordinances, 
sanitation and building codes; and regulations 
affecting such broad fields as commerce, transporta- 
tion, public health, and conservation and use of 
national resources. The public, to whom private 
forestry looks increasingly for financial aid and 
other services, needs some minimum guarantee, 
such as regulation affords, that forest lands will be 
kept productive and that its large investment will 
be protected. 
Regulation of private forest practices has in re- 
cent years won considerable acceptance in principle, 
although there is also much opposition to it and 
much controversy about whether it should be State 
or Federal. Nowhere as yet, in this country, is it 
on a satisfactory basis. Some 14 States now have 
regulatory laws on their books, 3 of them enacted 
prior to 1925 and 10 in or since 1940. Since 1940, 
unsuccessful efforts have been made in 10 other 
States to pass regulatory laws.. 
Some of the laws specify definite rules of prac- 
tice: usually that seed trees be kept or that the 
cutting be limited by diameter. A majority place 
responsibility on a single State agency, which is a 
requisite of good administration. Less than half, 
however, provide for the needed advice and assis- 
tance to forest owners and operators. Only a few 
are believed to provide adequately for enforcement. 
In most, the silvicultural standards require little 
or no improvement in the prevalent cutting prac- 
tices. In some States the law is to all intents and 
purposes a dead letter. 
There are many obstacles to getting effective regu- 
lation; Nation-wide, based solely on State-by-State 
Progress would be exceedingly slow. Some 
States might not act at all. And results doubtless 
would be spotty. They would probably vary from 
very little in some States to a good job in some 
financially strong States with good laws and effec- 
tivé enforcenient: Regulation probably would be 
poorest in extensively forested States where it ought 
98 Miscellaneous Publication 668, U. 8. Department of Agriculture 
