that growth subject to taxation for more than 

 the one year in which it occurred. 



The tax on a merchantable stand of timber, 

 just before cutting, will have been collected 

 during each year of the life of the stand if 

 annual growth (productivity) is the basis for 

 evaluation; there should be no tax liability 

 against the accumulated growth at the time 

 of harvest. This protection for the timber 

 grower encourages him to practice good forest 

 management by realizing the maximum yield 

 from the site and by carrying the timber crop 

 through to economic maturity. 



On the contrary, assessing (and taxing) 

 timber land or land plus timber based on a 

 current market value, year after year, can lead 

 only to premature cutting and liquidation of 

 the timber-growing enterprise. This taxing 

 procedure is entirely inconsistent with the 

 principles of sound forest management. Those 

 who manage their lands, and thus have better 

 stands of timber, are taxed at a higher rate 

 than those who do not manage or who mis- 

 manage their stands and have poor quality and 

 a small quantity of timber. A stagnated stand 

 of timber with little or no growth may be 

 taxed at a high rate because the timber stand- 

 ing is old growth timber, whereas a good 

 highly productive site may be taxed at a low 

 rate because of poor stands resulting from 

 uncontrolled fire, poor cutting practices, or 

 other acts of poor management. 



The current classification of timber as realty 

 creates assessment problems that are difficult 

 to resolve if the law is strictly followed. The 

 very nature of a constantly changing biological 

 entity, such as a stand of timber means that 

 each year there is a change in value created 

 by growth, mortality, or harvesting operations. 

 Thus the requirement that the timber be as- 

 sessed places heavy burdens on this system 

 to meet the ideals of effective administration 

 and cost of assessment compared to revenue 

 received. 



The answer to this is to have valuation based 

 on productivity. This is not a new concept ex- 

 cept as applied to woodlands. Agricultural 

 land is classed as excellent, good, fair, poor, 

 etc., and this classification is based on nothing 

 more than the productive capacity of the land. 

 An acre of good cotton land is one that will 

 produce one and one-half or more bales of cot- 

 ton per year. A poor acre will produce less 

 and is taxed accordingly. Urban property has 

 long been taxed relative to its ability to earn 

 income. Location and improvements are fac- 

 tors affecting urban real estate valuations, and 



these are direct measurements of income pro- 

 ducing capacity. It is not unreasonable or il- 

 logical that timberlands should be valued and 

 taxed on the same basis — their productive ca- 

 pacity. 



The use of productive capacity as the basis 

 for assessment of forest land would encourage 

 good management. The person with the best 

 class land would have to pay the top tax rate 

 and would thus be encouraged to manage his 

 land in order to get the greatest income from 

 it, if for no other reason than to pay the taxes. 



An assessment on productive capacity would 

 greatly simplify and increase effectiveness of 

 administration of the property tax. All forest 

 land in the state would be classified into one 

 of a number of productive capability classes 

 based on factors such as site index and quality. 

 Once the classification is made, frequent re- 

 visions would not be necessary because the pro- 

 ductive capacity changes very little in the 

 absence of drastic external factors, such as 

 severe erosion, water inundation, or mechan- 

 ical changes. 



There are a number of ways to measure the 

 productive capacity of forest land. The most 

 accurate method is actual measurement of the 

 growth of a stand of trees under ideal condi- 

 tions, i.e., good stocking and stand composition. 

 But this also is the most time consuming and 

 difficult method. 



One of the most reliable and widely used 

 means of measuring productive capacity of 

 forest land is by the use of site index. Site 

 index is defined as an expression of forest site 

 quality based on the height of the dominant 

 stand at an arbitrarily chosen age. The age of 

 50 years is commonly used in the South. From 

 established curves, site index may be estimated 

 for a stand of trees of any age. 



The reason site index is so widely accepted 

 as a measurement of productive capacity is 

 that the height of a tree is, except in very 

 rare circumstances, determined primarily by 

 the characteristics of the site. It is not affected 

 by environmental factors other than site qual- 

 ity, whereas diameter is affected by factors 

 such as stand composition, density, silvicul- 

 tural practices, etc. 



Extensive research in the field of soil-site 

 index relationships has indicated that there is 

 a close relationship between kind of soil and 

 site index. Site index varies for a given soil 

 mapping unit by species because some species 

 are better adapted to certain soils than to other 

 soils. 



The U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil 



27 



