To date no law has been enacted in this region to 
adjust the property tax by removing the excess bur- 
den (in comparison with that of an ordinary income 
tax) which it imposes on deferred-yield forest prop- 
erties. ‘The proof of this excess burden and precise 
definition of deferred yield have been given in a 
previous publication (4) of the Forest Service. In 
1935, an adaptation of the deferred timber tax, one 
of the Forest Service proposals to this end, was con- 
sidered by a committee of the Oregon Legislature, 
but no legislation resulted. 
In the meantime, however, laws were enacted 
(Oregon in 1929, Washington in 1931) withdraw- 
ing cut-over lands suitable for reforestation and not 
containing timber in merchantable quantities from 
the ordinary operation of the property-tax system. 
Lands classified under these laws pay an annual 
tax on the land (at specific amounts in Oregon and 
based on fixed assessments in Washington) and a 
yield tax on the timber products when cut. The 
purpose was to encourage holding and protecting 
cut-over and other forest lands suitable chiefly 
for growing forests and not containing timber in 
merchantable quantities at the time of classifica- 
tion. The specific tax was originally uniformly 5 
cents throughout Oregon but was subsequently 
reduced to 4 cents east of the Cascades. It is not 
yet clear how large a portion of the merchantable 
stand may be left in selective cuttings without 
making the residual property ineligible for classi- 
fication under these laws. So far only insignifi- 
cant amounts of yield tax have been collected. 
In spite of certain inherent disadvantages (4), 
these laws have been beneficial in tending to main- 
tain private ownership of cut-over lands and the 
cooperative fire-protection system. It is too early 
to pass judgment on their effectiveness in attaining 
their other objectives. 
TAX-REVERTED LANDS 
Unquestionably improved administration of the 
laws relating to assessment of property and collec- 
tion of taxes would tend to prevent tax forfeituure. 
It would not entirely prevent such forfeiture in this 
region, however, because some of the cut-over land 
is so devoid of income possibilities that no one is 
likely to hold it and accept the responsibilities of 
private ownership no matter how light the carrying 
charges. 
Tax-delinquent lands in Oregon and Washington 
revert to the county rather than to the State. No 
adequate plans for the management or other dispo- 
sition of these lands have been adopted in Oregon. 
In Washington, county-owned lands may be deeded 
to the State for State forests. A portion of the 
county lands have been transferred to the State 
and are under management. Local opposition to 
the transfer of tax-forfeited lands to the State has 
been voiced in parts of Oregon and Washington. 
Among the reasons given for this opposition are 
the following: (1) The lands should be restored 
promptly to the property-tax rolls and local govern- 
ment is in the best position to do this; (2) surrender 
of this land would be a surrender of home rule; 
(3) the tax equities of local governments in these 
lands would be lost or impaired; and (4) any 
profits in excess of the tax equities derivable from 
prompt sale after county acquisition should go to 
Transfer of these lands to 
State ownership may become more acceptable 
locally when it is realized that (1) some of the land 
local governments. 
is unsuited to private ownership; (2) the State is in 
better position than local governments to classify, 
dispose of, and manage such.lands; (3) legal pro- 
vision can be made for settling the tax equities of 
local governments and for subsequent contributions 
in lieu of taxes on lands dedicated to public owner- 
ship and use; (4) usually, sale of these lands for 
immediate profit is followed by early removal of 
liquidable assets and the land again reverts for 
unpaid taxes; (5) in general, the amounts recov- 
erable from the State settlement of tax 
equities exceed the potential profits from such 
sales as could be made by the counties in short 
in 
order. 
RISK OF LOSS OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT 
The chances of loss by fire have in the past 
loomed large to the average owner of forest land 
in this region. In the section on depletion, it 
was stated that trees killed directly by fire and not 
salvaged composed but a small percentage of the 
annual depletion of saw-timber volume in the 
region during the 5-year period 1926-30, averag 
ing about 179 million feet a year on lands other 
than national forest of which nearly all was pri- 
vately owned; and that with the more mobile 
logging equipment now available much of this 
