FORESTRY AND THE FARMER
CUTTING METHODS
If there is anyone for whom the practice of forestry is practical
and profitable, it is the farmer who owns the timber he uses for
fuel or other purposes. His supply of the most suitable material
is almost always limited and in any case his method of using it
is practically certain to influence his permanent labor expenses.
Nevertheless, especially in well-timbered regions, cutting is apt
to be with but two considerations--the quickest clearing of land or
the easiest immediate fulfillment of some need for tree products--and
the passage of a few years brings realization that this early
thoughtlessness must be paid for at a high price.
In the first place almost all timber of a commercial species has
real and increasing value. If it is young, this value is increasing
doubly because of growth. Varying greatly, of course, young timber
in the Pacific Northwest very often adds from 500 to 1,000 board
feet to the acre annually. This annual gain is taking place even
if the timber has not reached merchantable size, being like coin
deposited in a toy bank which does not open until full. And this
is true whether the ultimate use may be for fuel, poles, or salable
material like tie or saw timber.
Too much land is cleared of young growth, merely because such clearing
is easy, which is of such low value for tilling or even pasture that
its use for these purposes does not pay as well in the long run
as would its use for growing timber, especially when the investment
of clearing is considered. The resulting expanse of charred stumps
and logs, producing little but ferns, is a small farm asset at
best. The timber it would grow may eventually be a large asset.
And the labor of clearing applied to a smaller tract of good land
is sure to bring greater returns. An illustration is furnished
by two tracts near the end of a recently completed railroad in
western Washington. Twenty years ago a settler slashed a large
area of presumably worthless sapling fir adjoining his tillable
bottom land, set fire to it, piled and burned the remaining poles,
"seeded down" a pasture, and enclosed it by an expensive cedar
rail fence. The pasture, never useful except in early spring, grew
up to ferns, and was finally abandoned. Even the fence was moved.
The settler on the next claim left his part of the same sapling
growth to grow and this year sold the timber alone for $1,000 to
a tie mill which came into the neighborhood with the railroad. The
moral of this does not apply to cutting alone, but argues equally
for preventing fire in second growth.
It is also poor economy, if mature timber exists, to cut rapidly
growing young timber for fuel because it is nearer the house or
easier to cut. The former has become stationary in production,
while the latter, if left, is earning money by growing in quantity
and quality. If young timber must be used, and the land is not
worth actually clearing for cultivation or pasture, it is usually
far better to thin out the poorest trees, thus leaving the remainder
stimulated to a more rapid growth, which will soon replace those
removed, than to begin on the edge and take everything.
There is no reason why a certain poor-soiled timbered portion of
the average claim should not be considered as a permanent wood
lot, to be treated with the same interest and pride in making it
produce the greatest quantity of forest products for sale or use that
the owner accords his fields. With this point of view established
and consequent study given the subject, it will also be easier to
decide how large this portion should be. In many cases the result
will be abandonment of the idea that all forest growth is an enemy,
to be destroyed on general principles without calculating what
actual profit there is in destruction.
Another point often overlooked in the Pacific Northwest, because
of our local tendency to consider the forest only as something to
struggle against, is the exactly opposite influence of properly
placed tree growth upon sale values if the prospective buyer is
from the East or from our own cities or tree-less regions. Such
are attracted strongly by the grove-like effect of a few trees left
around the house. Their desire for this is as strongly ingrained
as the average local resident's desire for a completely free outlook
to mark his victory over unfriendly nature. The appeal a place
makes to a buyer as a pleasant home has frequently as important
an influence on his decision as its purely practical merits.
His judgment of the latter, however, is also affected by his earlier
environment. If he has lived where farming land is open, evidences
of the labor of clearing are discouraging. The untouched forest,
being totally beyond his capacity to estimate the labor its removal
entails, repels him less than stumps, logs, desolate burnings and
like detailed evidences of the work which lies before him. This
is another reason why the clearing of clearly fertile land may
be better business than the half-clearing of land perhaps best
suited for forest growth anyway. Again, not fully realizing the
plentifulness of forest products in the new locality, he may actually
overestimate the value of an attractive piece of forest land showing
evidence of the thoughtful care suggested in a preceding paragraph.
USE OF FIRE
Above all, it pays the settler in wooded regions to be careful
with fire. Properly directed and confined, fire is necessary in
clearing land. But there is no profit in allowing uncontrolled
fire to spread from the actual clearing to create a snarl of dead,
decaying and falling trees and underbrush. It is usually harder
to extend the clearing into such ground than into green timber.
This added work later is many times that necessary to safeguard
the burning in the first place.
In every case that fire ever escaped from clearing operations,
the cause was either thoughtlessness or unwillingness to perform
certain work. Because it is easier to burn a slashing than to pile
and burn; or when a ground burn is desirable, because it is easier
to take chances than to clear a fire line around the area and have
a force of men present; because burning at a dry, dangerous time
will be cleaner and thus save work after the fire; inexperience,
coupled with unwillingness to take advice from the experienced--these
and like reasons are responsible for the destruction of lives and
property worth over and over again the sum that was saved by the
attempted economy. And, although this does not save others, the
person responsible also usually loses instead of gaining.
Without deprecating in the least the importance of agricultural
development or of lightening the useful and not easy task of the
settler, it is still terribly true that the agricultural industry
and the settler suffer an annual loss through the destruction of
improvements, crops and stock by fires from careless clearing that
is far greater financially than the saving in clearing cost which
was the cause. In other words, agricultural development is retarded
instead of advanced by its present careless use of fire.
PLANTING FOR FUEL AND TIMBER
Great as are the timber resources of the Pacific Northwest, there
are extensive regions in central and eastern Oregon and Washington
where timber is a scarcity, and wood for fuel and farm repair purposes
for settlers and ranchers can be obtained only at heavy cost. In
such situations it will be a paying investment for the farmer to
set out a small plantation simply to produce his own wood for fuel,
fence posts and other purposes. It is true that some time must
elapse before plantations begin to be productive, but by choosing
rapid-growing species and planting closely, the thinnings which
will be necessary in a few years, even though the trees be small,
will do for the woodpile. Trees which grow rapidly and at the same
time produce good wood are, of course, preferable. If they also
sprout from the stump, a little care will maintain the supply
indefinitely.
The choice of species for a woodlot must be governed to a great
extent by the location. Many portions of the treeless areas in this
region are situated at a high altitude where the climatic conditions
are severe and frosts are common throughout every month of the
year. In such locations only the most hardy trees will succeed.
Other areas are deficient in moisture, and where this deficiency is
so great as to prohibit the growing of agricultural crops by dry
farming it is useless to attempt growing trees without irrigation.
Probably the tree most commonly planted in treeless regions has
been some species of cottonwood. Lombardy poplar and Balm of Gilead
have been great favorites. Cottonwood grows rapidly and is hardy
against frost, but requires a never-failing supply of water within
five to twenty feet of the surface. Because of its demands for
moisture it will not grow on uplands, but thrives along water courses
or where there is plentiful supply of moisture below the surface. Its
fuel value is not high, though the quantity of its wood production
compensates for its poor quality, nor does it make good fence posts.
Where quick growth is the main consideration, however, it is a good
tree to plant. The varieties known as Norway and Carolina poplar
are the best.
Green ash and hackberry are also hardy against both cold and moisture,
but of slow growth. Their wood is durable in contact with the soil,
making them suitable for fence posts. Where it succeeds black locust
combines many of the desirable qualities to the highest degree. It
is a rapid grower, makes excellent fence posts and has high fuel
value. It is not as hardy against frost as cottonwood and ash,
and while it has been planted successfully in sheltered locations
on high plateaus, its success where frosts occur during the summer
months is problematical. A closely related species, honey locust,
is more frost-hardy but less desirable in other respects, though an
excellent tree nevertheless. Other fairly hardy and drought-resistant
trees are osage orange and Russian mulberry. Their value for fuel
and fence posts is high, but they will not succeed in the most
severe situations. Box elder is hardy and has been widely planted,
but it is of low fuel value and short lived.
In favorable localities at low altitudes, where moisture is abundant
either through natural precipitation or from irrigation, the number
of species which are adapted to woodlot planting is largely increased.
Black walnut, black cherry and hardy catalpa are probably the most
valuable of these. The latter, however, is sensitive to early and
late frosts.
WINDBREAKS
The planting of windbreaks and shelter belts around dwellings and
fields is of prime importance to the settler in an open country.
Nothing adds more to the comfort of the dweller than a belt of
timber about the home to protect it from the wind. Orchards need
windbreaks to save them from injury in a wind-swept country, and
gardens are more successful when surrounded by trees. One of the
most important functions of the windbreak, however, is the saving of
soil moisture within the protected area, for it is a well established
fact that evaporation takes place more rapidly when there is a
movement of the atmosphere than when it is calm. It is safe to
say that a windbreak is effective in preventing evaporation for
a distance equal to ten to fifteen times its height.
Some species, because of the form of their crowns and their rapid
growth, are more effective for windbreaks than others. Since more
coniferous trees retain their foliage throughout the entire year,
they afford protection in winter as well as in summer. Such species
as western yellow, Scotch and Austrian pine grow rapidly, are hardy,
and serve the purpose well. In regions of abundant moisture Douglas
fir or Norway and Sitka spruce are unequaled. European larch has also
been very successful in many regions, but, unlike most conifers,
it sheds its leaves in winter. Where a windbreak is to consist of
a single row only, it should be of a densely growing type that
branches close to the ground. For low breaks of this character
the Russian mulberry and Osage orange are excellent.
Trees for woodlot or windbreak planting can be purchased from commercial
nurserymen or grown by the farmer. Many growers of orchard trees,
particularly in the states in the middle West, do a large business
in forest tree seedlings. Since the transportation charges are
often high, and since most farmers can give the attention and labor
necessary to raising the trees themselves without inconvenience
or extra expense, it is often desirable for them to do so. The
Forest Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture has issued
several publications containing full directions for the establishment
of nurseries, and these can be obtained from the Superintendent of
Public Documents, Washington, D. C., free or at a nominal cost.[*]
[Footnote *: Reprint from Yearbook, Dept. of Agr., 1905, "How to
Grow Young Trees for Forest Planting."
Bulletin No. 29, "The Forest Nursery."
Planting leaflets for almost all important forest trees.]
Planting may be done in the spring or fall, the latter being often
preferable in regions where a dry season occurs early in the summer.
For plantations of broadleaf species, one-year-old seedlings are
best suited, while coniferous species should be two to three years
old. The chief points to remember in setting out the trees are
not to allow the roots, particularly of coniferous trees, to dry
out; to dig the holes large enough to enable the roots to take a
normal position without doubling up, and to pack the soil firmly
around them. Where planting is done on open ground, it is highly
advantageous to plow and harrow the soil before setting out the
trees in order to preserve the moisture and kill weeds and sod.
Willows, cottonwoods and other poplars are very easily propagated
from cuttings. Cuttings should be of strong, healthy wood of the
previous season's growth which ripened well and did not shrivel
during the winter. A good length is 8 to 12 inches, with the upper
cut just above a bud. They may be made when wanted and planted
with a spade, or if the ground is mellow they can be merely shoved
into the soil until only one bud is above the surface and then
tramped.
The spacing of the trees is a question largely of utility, with
some variation for different species. In general, however, close
planting is advisable in treeless regions, since an artificial
forest must stand in a dense mass if it is to succeed in the struggle
against native vegetation, wind, sunshine, frost and dry weather. A
single tree or row unprotected by associates has a poorer chance.
Cultivation is the best method of conserving soil moisture. To obtain
the best results plantations should be cultivated, if possible,
at least during the first few years. The less care the trees are
to have, the thicker they should be set in order that they will
be close enough to establish forest conditions of shade, litter
and underbrush. Thinnings can then be made as they grow and need
more room. The material thus obtained will provide an early supply
of fuel, stakes and posts. A spacing of 4x4 feet is common, but
this does not allow for cultivation. For this reason 2x8 feet is
preferable. Shelter belts should be planted closely in order to
give protection quickly.
COST
The cost of planting is not great. Broadleaf seedlings will cost
from $1 to $6 per thousand at the nursery, coniferous plants $2.50
to $10. If grown at home the cost will be greatly reduced. The
preparation of the soil by plowing and harrowing should not exceed
$2 per acre, and planting from $2.50 to $5 per thousand, according
to the species, the method used and the condition of the soil.
APPENDIX
TAX REFORM TO PERMIT REFORESTATION
LOSS IN IDLE LAND
It is of the very highest importance to have that part of our constantly
increasing area of cut and burned over forest land which is not
more valuable for agriculture put to its only useful purpose--the
growing of another forest crop. If this is done it will continue to
be a source of tax revenue, to employ labor and support industry,
to supply our forest needs, to bring revenue into the state, and to
protect our streams. Otherwise it will become a desert, non-taxable,
non-productive, a fire menace, and in every way worse than a dead
loss to the state in which it exists and to the country at large.
In the one way it will be of use to every citizen, whatever his
occupation; in the other it will be a burden upon every citizen.
The realness and directness of this problem in the Pacific Northwest
is seldom realized. Our deforested areas are great and growing, but
of even more peculiar significance is our unparalleled opportunity
for making them quickly profitable to the community. Forest growth
is more rapid and certain than elsewhere. A heavy crop may be had
again in from 40 to 60 years. It will hardly be of the quality of
that now being cut, but considering the shortage then to prevail
should bring fully as much wealth into the state from its manufacture,
the majority to be circulated as payment for supplies and labor.
Since, therefore, our denuded land should in 60 years or less bring
in again as much as it has already, its idleness costs us each year
a sixtieth or more of that immense sum, amounting to a great many
millions of dollars annually. To this loss is added the loss of
tax revenue which the new crop would yield, with countless indirect
injuries.
THE OWNER'S COMPULSORY ATTITUDE
For this situation our system of taxation is chiefly responsible.
The owner may or may not hold the land for a time under the present
system, in the hope of selling it or of tax reform, but he will
seldom if ever take any steps to insure reforesting, because to
do so is too likely to be at an actual loss. Whether he has made
money on the original crop has no bearing; nor has his being rich
or poor, resident or alien. His cut-over land presents a distinct
problem to him.
In the first place, its sale value represents an investment. He
may sell and reinvest the money in any business which looks
inviting--perhaps in standing timber. Presumably he can get ordinary
business returns, 6 per cent or more, and continue to reinvest
these returns. Therefore if he leaves this money in forest land
for 50 years without return, for every dollar so tied up he must
get $18.42 at the end of that period if he is to make 6 per cent on
the investment. And this applies not only to the present value of
the land, but also to any added expense he incurs in modifying his
cutting methods, or in replanting, in order to insure reforestation.
If both together amount to $5 an acre, he must net $92.10 at the
end of his 50 years in order to make 6 per cent.
So far no complaint can be made. But if the land is to produce a
second crop it cannot be left to take care of itself, as it might
were it being held for speculative purposes only. It must be protected
from fire and trespass. And since the interest and principal invested
will amount to so much for so long a period and be totally lost in
case of destruction, the protection must be adequate, practically
amounting to insurance. The annual cost will vary greatly according
to locality, class of timber, and the enforcement of fire laws,
but will be from 1 cent at the minimum to 15 cents at the maximum
in bad seasons. If all cost of protection and administration is
placed at only 5 cents annually, for the sake of illustration,
this represents another investment constantly increasing and
compounding, which, at the end of 50 years at 6 per cent, will
amount to $14.51 an acre. Consequently, adding that to his original
investment which will have become $92.10, he must net $106.61 to
make his 6 per cent.
HOW TAXES ENTER THE PROBLEM
Let us now consider the influence of taxation. We have assumed the
land to be valuable for forest growing only, and in calling his
investment $5 an acre included some cost of insuring reforestation.
Place this at $2 and leave a land value of $3, to be fully taxed
at 30 mills for both state and county purposes, which is perhaps
a fair average. This represents the third form of his investment,
or 9 cents an acre invested annually and left unavailable for 50
years, and will amount at the end of that time, at 6 per cent, to
$26.13. He has now to clear $132.74 an acre, besides being always
in danger of total or partial loss from fire, _and during all this
time has to have the money, made in some other way, to meet all the
annual payments._ But no injustice appears, for he has been taxed
on an equal basis with other producers. If his acre yields 20,000
feet (the maximum to expect), worth $7 a thousand, he has made his
6 per cent, the community has gained a resource, and everyone is
satisfied. His land has been taxed fairly and as he now has a crop
to sell he can afford to pay a tax on it also. If it is taxed at 3
per cent, or $4.20 an acre, county and state will altogether have
received from him the same tax revenue they collect from other forms
of property and industry of like value and profit, and received
also the other benefits of forest production and of his expenditure
of wages for protection.
But this is just what cannot legally be done under our present
tax system. _By failure to recognize that the growth produced is
a crop, distinct from the land, grown at the owner's effort and
expense, and returning no revenue until ripe, the law now compels
the repeated annual taxation of the owner's effort to an extent very
likely to amount to confiscation._ It has been seen that even under
the fair system outlined in the preceding paragraph, forest growing
is not more than ordinarily inviting and involves considerable risk
and capital. Yet it assumed only a fair annual tax on the land.
Under our present system, logically carried out, here is what would
happen:
The first year the tax would be the same. The second year a fiftieth
of the total fifty-year crop, which we have assumed worth about
$140, or $2.80, would be added to the land; therefore not $3, but
$5.80, will bear the 30-mill levy, and not 9 cents, but 17 cents,
actual tax will be paid. The third year the tax will be 25 cents
an acre; at the twenty-fifth year it will be over $2 an acre. We
have seen that even a 9-cent tax amounted to an investment of over
$26 an acre in order to produce the crop. The continual increase
of this according to growth would make the investment run into
many hundreds of dollars if the same interest is calculated, and
in any case would make reforestation _financially impossible_.
In actual practice, the increased valuation would probably not
be made by the assessor in the manner just described. Instead of
determining the rate of growth scientifically and applying it annually,
he now makes an ocular reappraisement at considerable intervals.
In most cases there is no increased value, for the land does not
reforest but is continually reburned. Where it accidentally does
reforest, he makes a rough calculation of the value of the second
growth, based upon no particular system and seldom alike in different
counties. But the principle remains the same and the result differs
only in degree. With the most lenient valuation at 10 or 15-year
intervals, the addition of material which makes growing forests
so different from our stationary mature forests of today is bound,
under our present system, to have confiscatory effect. The land
owner, so far from being encouraged to establish and protect a
new forest, is actually penalized, for he must assume that its
expectation value will be taxed annually, perhaps on an exorbitant
basis, as soon as it becomes apparent.
If only the value _added each year_, $2.80 in our illustration,
were taxed annually, there would be no injustice. The tax would
then, in the case cited, be 9 cents the first year and 17 cents
every year thereafter. But this cannot be calculated with sufficient
accuracy upon our present knowledge of forest growth and under
conditions varying with every trace or acre. Our example, with its
several arbitrary factors of growth, tax rate, interest rate, and
future stumpage price, was merely for the purpose of illustration.
Furthermore, such a solution would still be illegal under our present
laws.
REQUIREMENTS REFORM MUST MEET
These facts are recognized by all students of forestry and taxation.
In all countries where forests are grown the general property tax
has been abandoned. Disinterested authorities of every class,
approaching the subject only from the public's point of view and
holding no brief for the timberland owner, unite in saying emphatically
that its application to growing forests will retard or prevent
forestry in our country. These authorities include statesmen like
Roosevelt and our most prominent governors and senators; expert
authorities on taxation generally, like state, national, and
international tax conferences and professors of economics in the
leading universities; forestry authorities like Graves, Pinchot
and State foresters; and all the many associations and congresses
devoted to such subjects.
These authorities all agree that the forest crop should not be
taxed till harvested, but differ somewhat as to the degree to which
the public need of reforestation warrants deferring part or all of
the land tax also. This Association, after careful study of the
subject, including European methods, the experiments made by several
of our States, and the plans proposed by many others, believes the
following objects should be sought:
1. Greater permanent revenue to state and country than is possible
under the present system of destroying the taxable source.
2. Sustention of present revenue to the highest degree compatible
with permanence.
3. Assurance that the owner will do his fair part to make the land
productive.
4. Assurance to the owner in return that future action by the community
will not confiscate all profit resulting from his effort.
5. Division of risk, so both owner and community will seek highest
production and safety from fire.
6. Demonstrable justice to all concerned, rather than subsidy which,
while doubtless warrantable to secure the public good, affords
less precise basis of legislation at the present time.
7. Simplicity in adoption and operation.
A SUGGESTED SOLUTION
These requirements can be met by legislation, following constitutional
amendment where necessary, providing that where the owner of cut or
burned-over land will contract with the State to insure reforestation
and protection for a specified term of years, the State shall notify
the county assessor that the land is separated for taxation purposes
from any forest growth thereon. The land may continue to pay a fair
dependable tax, but the crop shall not be taxed until harvested.
To the end that cutting of standing timber shall be conducted so
as to place the land in the best condition for reforesting, uncut
forest land should be subject to examination and similar contract,
and the separate classification for taxation should take effect
within a year after the timber is removed in compliance with the
contract.
This would mean that when the owner of deforested land chiefly
valuable to the community for forest production agrees to make it
produce, he shall be taxed not on his effort but upon the results
of his effort, and then exactly as other producers are taxed upon
their results. He may pay tax upon his land, as other land owners
do, upon its actual value, but without this value being enhanced
for taxation purposes by reason of any crop thereon.
COMPARISON WITH PRESENT SYSTEM IN RESULTS
The community would get no less tax revenue, but presumably more,
than it does under the present system. In either case the owner
will really pay annually only upon the land value, not upon the
growth; the only difference being that under the proposed system
he would not be asked to, while under the present system _either
there will be no growth to tax, or, if there is, he cannot afford
to pay and the land will revert_. It must be borne in mind that
while cut-over land is actually being held under the present system,
it has seldom grown anything yet. No expense has been incurred to
establish a crop, accidental growth is almost always destroyed
by fire because it does not pay to protect it, and if it is not so
destroyed it has not yet been accorded the expectation value which
the assessor will be obliged to recognize in the early future if he
really observes the present law. The inevitable tendency of the
present system is continuance to pay on the land with speculative
value for purposes other than forestry but _abandonment of land
valuable only for forestry, with destruction of the forest growth
in either case_, by purpose or negligence, because it means added
cost of holding with no possibility of profit. Since the owner
cannot be compelled to grow timber to be taxed at his net loss,
no timber tax at all will be received by the community and its
annual land tax will be confined to land worth holding without
timber for purposes other than timber growing. Under the proposed
system, the latter class would pay the same annual tax, the annual
tax revenue from strictly forest land would be greater, and in
addition to both would be the future yield tax upon the crop.
AN OBJECTION MET
A possible superficial criticism may be that, leaving the land out
of consideration, the proposed yield tax at a personal property
valuation of the crop means that but one year's tax is to be paid
upon the timber. The fallacy of this, however, will be seen when it
is remembered that it is a crop, having been produced from nothing
by the owner, since his acquisition of the land and while he was
paying taxes upon his land upon its value for productive purposes
throughout the entire period just as any other crop grower loes.
_It is not unearned speculative increment._ To tax it annually is
exactly equivalent to taxing an agricultural crop 50 times during
its growing period. The proposed plan does tax the annual production
fully, although not until the crop is produced, for taxing its full
value when grown is the same as taxing each year the increment
added since the preceding year. If it is worth $150 an acre, after
50 years from seed, a 3 per cent yield tax would be $4.50. Each
year since the first must have produced a fiftieth of the ultimate
value, or $3, and had this been taxed at 3 per cent, or 9 cents,
the same aggregate revenue of $4.50 would have resulted. To also
tax annually the value of proceeding years' production, like taxing
a wheat crop twice a week, is exactly the confiscatory prohibition
of forest growing which we should seek to avoid.
When the essential difference of the two systems Is grasped--that
the _crop is distinct from the land and the latter is still fully
taxed_--it will be seen that but one tax upon the crop, at the
rate other property pays, is all that is just and all that can
possibly be paid in a competitive commercial business. The case is
not analogous with our present system of taxing mature timber, in
which land and timber together are assumed to constitute inseparable
realty, _stationary in production_ and increasing only speculatively
in value, therefore the comparison with one year's taxation under
our present system has no weight.
FROM THE OWNER'S STANDPOINT
Nor does the proposed system by any means either subsidize the forest
grower or assure him a profit. It merely puts on a basis similar to
that of other enterprises a business more greatly handicapped by
long-deferred returns, risk of loss, uncertainty of future prices,
and continued current expense without current revenue. Only escape
from fire and high future stumpage prices will permit profit at
best. Otherwise, since the tax is definite and not upon income,
the forest grower will pay the community for the honor of providing
it a resource at his own expense.
It is believed, however, that a more fortunate outcome is sufficiently
promised in this region of rapid growth if we remove the single
fatal handicap of uncertain confiscatory taxation.
VIEWS OF EXPERT AUTHORITIES
THEODORE ROOSEVELT: Second only in importance to good fire laws
well enforced is the enactment of tax laws which will permit the
perpetuation of existing forests by use.
GIFFORD PINCHOT: Land bearing forests should be taxed annually
on the land value alone, and the timber crop should be taxed when
cut, so private forestry may be encouraged.
NORTH AMERICAN CONSERVATION CONFERENCE, Washington, D. C.: Believing
that excessive taxation on standing timber privately owned is a potent
cause of forest destruction by increasing the cost of maintaining
growing forests, we agree in the wisdom and justice of separating
the taxation of timber land from the taxation of timber growing
upon it, and adjusting both in such manner as to encourage forest
conservation and forest growing.
The private owners of land unsuited to agriculture, once forested
and now impoverished or denuded, should be encouraged by practical
instruction, adjustment of taxation, and in other proper ways,
to undertake the reforesting thereof.
GIFFORD PINCHOT,
ROBERT BACON,
JAMES R. GARFIELD,
Commissioners representing the United States.
SYDNEY FISHER,
CLIFFORD SIFTON,
HENRI S. BOLAND,
Commissioners representing the Dominion of Canada.
ROMULU ESCOBAR,
MIGUEL A. DE QUEVEDO,
CARLOS SELLERIER,
Commissioners representing the Republic of Mexico.
E. H. OUTERBRIDGE,
Commissioner representing the Colony of Newfoundland.
FRED. R. FAIRCHILD, Professor of Economics, Yale University, member
International Tax Conference: Probably nothing more effectually
discourages investment than uncertainty as to future costs. And
whatever may be said of the present system of taxation, there can
be no question of its arbitrariness and uncertainty. If to all the
other risks of forestry we add uncertainty as to what the taxes
are going to be, we cannot blame investors for some hesitation in
embarking on an enterprise which may have to pay taxes fifty years
before the returns come in. And more than this; the investor cannot
safely base his calculations on the continuance of the present
lenient administration of the property tax. As has been shown, the
tendency today is toward a stricter enforcement of the law and a
heavier burden of taxation.
State constitutions stand today in the way of many plans for reform
in State and local taxation. The movement toward their amendment
is growing as part of the general programme of tax reform.
The real problem of forest taxation is in connection with the future
of our timber lands rather than with their past. The preservation
of the forests is a matter of the utmost importance. So far our
forests have been exploited with little or no regard for the future.
But the present methods cannot last much longer. Forestry must come
some time, and its early coming is a thing greatly to be desired.
And whenever we are ready to seriously undertake it we will find our
present methods of taxation a severe handicap. Strictly enforced,
according to the letter of the law, the annual tax on the full
value of the land and standing timber is almost sure to result
in excessive taxation, and the timber owner cannot count on the
continuance of the present lenient enforcement of the law. Even if
the tax might not be excessive, its uncertainty would be a serious
obstacle to investment. We can hardly hope to see the general practice
of forestry as long as the present methods of taxation continue.
To be equitable, taxation of timber lands like taxation of anything
else should be based on income or earning power.
With regard to its effect on revenue, there is little to be feared
from the tax on yield. Eventually, revenue will be increased by
a method of taxation which does not prevent the development of
forestry. Forests paying a moderate tax are better than waste lands
abandoned and paying no tax at all.
The tax on yield has many decided advantages. It avoids the evils
of the general property tax. It is equitable and certain. It is in
harmony with the peculiarities of the business of forestry, and
will be a distinct encouragement to the practice of forestry. Its
adoption by the States would remove one obstacle to the perpetuation
of the nation's forest resources.
NATIONAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION, appointed by the President of
the United States: It is far better that forest land should pay
a moderate tax permanently than that it should pay an excessive
revenue temporarily and then cease to pay at all.
We tax our forests under the general property tax, a method of
taxation abandoned long ago by every other great nation. In some
regions of great importance for timber supply, and in individual cases
in all regions, the taxation of forest lands has been excessive and
has led to waste by forcing the destructive logging of mature forests,
as well as through the abandonment of cut-over lands for taxes. That
this has not been even more general is due to under-assessment, to
lax administration of the law, but to no virtue in the law itself.
Already taxes upon forest lands are being increased by the strict
enforcement of the tax laws. Even where this has not yet been done,
the fear that it will be done is a bar to the practice of forestry.
We should so adjust taxation that cut-over lands can be held for
a second crop. We should recognize that it costs to grow timber
as well as to log and saw it.
From now on the relation of taxation to the permanent usefulness
of the forest will be vital. Present tax laws prevent reforestation
on cut-over lands and the perpetuation of existing forests by use.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE: It is evident that the old method of
taxing forest property, as well as other property, at its supposedly
full value will, as the value of timber increases and is recognized,
put a premium on premature and reckless cutting, and will hinder any
effort to reforest cut-over lands. No business man will engage in
an undertaking where the returns are so long deferred and the risks
are uninsurable unless he can estimate the probable expenses and a
reasonably large profit. That the forests themselves, irrespective
of their ability to stand taxation, are of great value to the
communities in which they are located, for water protection, lumber
supply, and scenery in resort regions is undoubted.
The fundamental difficulty is that the tax should be in proportion
to yield or income and not in proportion to the market value of
the land and standing timber. Economists are substantially agreed
that this principle is applicable to the taxation of all kinds
of property with certain exceptions. Where there is a reasonably
certain annual yield or income the market value is theoretically
dependent upon it. A woodlot or forest, however, usually in this
country has no annual yield. It is unjust to require the owner
to carry the full annual burden of taxes, risk and protection in
every year for the chance of a yield once in fifty years, and it
is impossible for the owner to do it, for the taxes with compound
interest would confiscate his entire capital.
INTERNATIONAL TAX CONFERENCE, held at Toronto: _Resolved_, That
it is within the legitimate province of tax laws to encourage the
growth of forests in order to protect watersheds and insure a future
supply of timber; and legislation, or constitution amendment where
necessary, is recommended for these purposes.
AMERICAN FOREST CONGRESS, Washington, D. C.: _Resolved_, That we
earnestly commend to all state authorities... reducing the burden
of taxation on lands held for forest reproduction in order that
persons and corporations may be induced to put in practice the
principles of forest conservation.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY: Tax assessors have differing
ideas of value and their assessments vary widely. The only remedy
for the forest owner is to appeal from the assessment to the county
commissioners, and, if here unsuccessful, to the county court, a
matter involving both time and expense and frequently more costly
than the differences in taxes to be gained; _but at the same time_
the fact is well recognized that forested land is both unequally
and unfairly taxed.
H. S. GRAVES, Chief Forester for the United States: The forest areas
now owned chiefly by lumber companies will cease to be devastated
as soon as fires are stopped. They will not, however, be handled
to any large extent with a view of future production until the
taxes are placed on a fair basis.
FILIBERT ROTH, Professor of Forestry, University of Michigan, State
Fire Warden of Michigan (speaking of frequent local attitude toward
non-resident owner):
Though, in truth, these resident people often make their living
from the tax money of the non-resident, and though the latter
contributes toward every rod of road and every schoolhouse built,
and other improvement, yet he is treated as if he were a wrongdoer,
is taxed unmercifully, and, in addition, a trespass on his land
or forest is excused and it is almost impossible in many places
to get conviction.
If the State and local people had treated the owners of timber
honestly and had spent a reasonable part of the taxes in giving
the protection which the owner had a right to expect under the
Constitution, there would still be more than half of our pinery
lands covered by forest.
Forestry is no "sugar trust baby," as so many are trying to make it
out. Forests can pay taxes as well as any other property. Forestry
is like any other honest business, it cannot stand confiscation.
Suppose you have a twenty-acre lot of sugar beets and the assessor
would hang around until the beets are ripe and then figure: "The
land is good; I assess it at $75 per acre, and the crop is worth
$75 more, so that this property will stand at $150." What would
you say? But the assessor who assesses the timber as part of the
real estate and assesses the same crop of timber year after year
does precisely this thing. He assesses land and crop for the owner
of a woodlot and forest, while for all other farmers he assesses
only the land.
Let the State pass a few simple laws; provide for the protection
of forest property as we provide for other property; prevent
confiscation under the guise of taxation; stop forcing its poor
tax lands on the market, and go ahead with a good example on its
own lands, and instead of holding them in a waste land condition
protect them and grow timber.
A. T. HADLEY, President Yale University: We have it in our power
to make intelligent forestry by individuals more profitable. The
margin between business that succeeds and business that fails is
a narrow one, and by just covering that margin by _differences
in tax laws_, by differences in protective laws, by laws for the
prevention of fires, we can make profitable an industry which the
public needs, but which today is unprofitable.
JAMES O. DAVIDSON, Governor of Wisconsin: It is to be hoped that
laws will be passed encouraging owners to cut timber conservatively
under forestry regulations, rather than oblige them to cut as quickly
as possible to escape the injustice of taxation.
PROFESSOR F. G. MILLER, University of Washington: Next to fire the
most serious handicap to the progress of forestry is our unjust
method of forest taxation. Laying as we do a yearly tax on both
the growing crop and the land, the burden of taxation makes the
holding of land for a second crop prohibitive as far as the private
owner is concerned.
The farmer pays a yearly tax on his land, and a tax on his crop
each time he harvests one. This is usually annually. However, if
through drought, insect invasion or other misfortune he loses his
crop, he is not called upon to pay a tax upon it.
SENATOR REED SMOOT, of Utah, Chairman Section of Forests, National
Conservation Commission: One of the urgent tasks before the States
is the immediate passage of tax laws which will enable the private
owner to protect and keep productive under forest those lands suitable
only for forest growth. In our discussion in committee meeting
there was a question raised by a member present as to this
recommendation, claiming that it would encourage great monopolies
in securing larger holdings of timber, if an annual tax was not
required on the timber itself. I have studied this question in
foreign lands, particularly in Germany and Switzerland, and I find
that the result has been exactly the opposite. It is a short-sighted
policy which invites, through excessive taxation, the destruction of
the only crop which steep mountain lands will produce profitably.
Taxes on forest land should be levied on the crop when cut, not
on the basis of a general property tax--that unsound method of
taxation long abandoned by every other great nation.
GOVERNOR NEWTON C. BLANCHARD, of Louisiana: Under the present tax
laws of many of the States large assessments are put on timber
lands, and this is forcing timber holders--the owners of the
sawmills--to cut off that timber too rapidly. At least it is having
much effect that way. Give them the encouragement to hold back
and not force their product upon the markets, and then exempt,
by a system of wise tax laws, cut-over lands devoted to purposes
of reforestation.
MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY: The present method is to assess
woodlands under the general property tax, making the assessment
high where the timber is valuable and placing it low where the
timber has been cut off. There is in the operation of this system
a tendency to cut off the timber before it reaches maturity to
avoid the high rate of taxation. A premium is placed on forest
destruction and a penalty on forest conservation.
The growth of timber is slow and under present stumpage prices
and rates of taxation there are comparatively few cases where the
sale value of the crop equals the cost of growing it, if a fair
rental for the land is considered. It is true that most of the
forests are on lands that could not be used for anything else,
but it is not fair to expect the landowner to produce timber which
is a public necessity, the use of which is only less universal than
food crops, at a financial sacrifice. Increasing prices and better
forest management are relieving the situation to some extent, but
the most effective, as well as the most equitable way, is through
a change or modification of present tax laws.
PROFESSOR EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University: The general
property tax as actually administered is beyond all doubt one of
the worst taxes known in the civilized world. Because of its attempt
to tax intangible as well as tangible things, it sins against the
cardinal rules of uniformity, of equality, and of universality
of taxation.
PROFESSOR ALFRED AKERMAN, Georgia University: One reason why it
(the general property tax) is so outrageous in practice is that
it is wrong in theory. The mere possession of property may or may
not be an index to the ability of the owner to pay tax. It all
depends on whether the property brings income.
ALLEN HOLLIS, Secretary Society for Protection of New Hampshire
Forests: Taxation today, in my opinion, is the greatest menace
to forest preservation.
One principle is absolutely sound--we all know it, and what we
have to do is to make everybody else know it--and that is, that
the annual taxation on a crop which is constantly increasing in
value each year means confiscation of that property.
It is submitted here that no single factor bears so definitely
upon the future of our forests as this constitutional requirement
of equality in taxation. As a business proposition, no one can
afford to hold woodlands and pay annually 2 per cent upon their
actual value, increased each year by growth and advancing prices,
during the fifty to one hundred years necessary for maturing the
crop.
CHARLES LATHROP PACK, Director American Forestry Association: While
the nation and the State are working to devise ways and means of
conserving our forest resources, we are at the same time, in a
real sense, taxing our timber to death.
Our present tax laws prevent reforestation on cut-over lands and
the perpetuation of existing forests by proper use and economic
cutting.
STATE OF MICHIGAN FORESTRY COMMISSION (extracts from report to
governor): The system of taxation should be modified so as to stimulate
timber production instead of repressing it.
There is no logical, moral or political reason why a crop of growing
trees should be included in the assessment, in addition to the
actual value of the land, that does not apply with equal force and
reason to farm lands which are continuously cropped with grains,
root crops or hay. The uncertainty of realizing upon a tree crop is
very much like the uncertainty of a given farm's producing its crop
in full. The only difference is that the forest crop is subjected
to the vicissitudes and chances of a long series of years, while
the farm crops are subject only to the vicissitudes of about one
year. Many of the crops are only subject to the accidents of five
or six months.
In the present stage of forestry in this country, what is most
imperatively required is such a treatment of the subject of taxation
of forested lands as will induce private owners to retain their
forests until ripe to the harvest and to reforest denuded lands.
This would apply to those having lands suitable for such purpose,
or others who might purchase lands suitable therefor, who, under the
present diverse, and oftentimes inequitable, practice of assessments,
cannot be induced to make investments of that character.
REPORT OF SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS, EX-GOVERNOR
FRANK W. ROLLINS, President: The law of New Hampshire requires
that all property shall be taxed equally, according to its value,
a law constantly and necessarily violated by assessors of forest
property throughout the State. Its strict application even for a
short period would go far to rid the State of its standing timber.
The reason for this is that timber is a growing crop--the only crop
taxed more than once, and if taxed annually at its full value the
cost to the owner of holding the property would be so excessive as to
require its hasty disposal. Assessors everywhere feel instinctively
the inherent injustice of taxing a growing crop at a high annual
rate, and violate the law and their oaths of office with impunity.
The result is there are as many systems of forest taxation in the
State as there are assessors, and glaring inequalities exist, not
only between neighboring towns, but also in some instances between
different parts of the same town.
The unequally high rate placed upon the timber of non-residents
is wholly iniquitous.
NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE GRANGE, Committee on Agriculture: Many of the
towns in our State invite the misuse of forests by overtaxation.
This should be guarded against. By reasonable thrift we can produce
a constant wood and timber supply beyond our own need, and with it
conserve the usefulness of our streams for water supply, navigation
and power, and at the same time increase the value of our farms.
E. M. GRIFFITH, State Forester of Wisconsin: The present method
of taxing timberlands is hostile to the forestry interests of the
State, as a single timber crop is taxed heavily and repeatedly,
and the owners are forced by our present laws to cut their mature
timber in order to escape inequitable taxation, to sacrifice their
young growth, and to disregard conservative methods of forest
management.
Taxes are unfortunately a very valid reason in many sections of
the State for not practicing forestry. Many town assessors seem
to feel that they must tax the timberland owner, especially the
non-resident owner, as heavily as possible, and naturally in
self-defense the owner is forced to cut his timber and so reduce
the taxes to a reasonable amount. Then, when it is too late, the
towns find that they have "killed the goose that laid the golden
egg." However, the loss of the taxes on the timber is but a drop in
the bucket compared to the irreparable damage to many communities
from losing the industries which depended upon the forests for
their raw material. To appreciate this one only needs to visit
towns in which the sawmills have shut down on account of lack of
timber.
Of late years the end of the timber has been largely hastened on
account of the excessive taxes placed upon it. The whole system
of forest taxation in this country is wrong, for it puts a premium
on forest destruction.
RALPH C. HAWLEY, Instructor in Forestry, Yale University: A system
of taxation which discriminates against timber, one of the chief
natural resources of the commonwealth, is to be condemned.
KENTUCKY STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPORT: When a rise in the
valuation of other than forest property becomes necessary because
of the greater development of the resources of the region, the
valuation of forest property should be increased with great caution
in order that the forest lands may be held to advantage for the
production of future timber crops. A timber crop is marketed only
after the young growing timber has been held for a long term of
years, during which time the forest has been yielding only a very
slight revenue, if any, to the owner. If the valuation of the forest
or its rates of taxation goes beyond a comparatively low limit, the
holding of forest land for a second crop of timber is impracticable
or nearly prohibitive. This condition has prevailed in many other
States where now the problem of taxation is a difficult one to
solve.
ALFRED GASKILL, State Forester for New Jersey: The present practices
favor and encourage the untimely or wasteful use of standing forests,
discourage the propagation of others, and tend to hasten the time
when the country shall be forced to face a wood famine.
It would be impossible to apply the European system here with anything
like the exactness that attaches to it in the old countries, because
we have not the means of knowing the true worth of forest soil or
of forest crops, but the principle is applicable anywhere. Even
in the hands of non-expert assessors it gives a fairer basis of
valuation than our present method, and in the long run will insure
larger returns.
J. E. FROST, Tax Commissioner of Washington: The State's system
of taxation is obsolete, and only 13 civilized communities in the
world have such an out-of-date system. The State is confined by
the constitution to property tax, well known as a primitive system,
utterly incapable of coping with modern business. It can be remedied
only by recognizing the different classes of taxable property.
DR. FRANCIS L. MCVEY, University President and Tax Expert: Under
the old plan of valuing annually the property it was difficult to
secure an appraisement that was satisfactory to anybody and, what was
more, as the years went by the local governments found their assessed
values decreasing and the burden of government materially increasing
with the decline in amount of standing timber. The annual taxation
of the land upon which the timber stands meets this difficulty,
while the taxation of the product at the time of harvesting provides
a plan that is fair both to the local government and to the owner
of timber.
COLORADO CONSERVATION COMMISSION: _Resolved_, That it is the sense
of the Colorado Conservation Commission that the governor and
legislators should submit to the people at as early a date as possible
an amendment to the constitution, exempting from taxation lands
devoted solely to the growth and culture of new timber, and if
such amendment is adopted, the same to be followed by suitable
legislation.
OREGON STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION: Constitutional amendment
and legislation should be invoked to permit a low fixed tax on
cut-over land during the period of no return to the owner, the
State to be compensated by a tax on the crop when cut. Obviously
this inducement should be offered only to those holders of cut-over
land who will reciprocate by furthering the object sought. The
result of such a system would be not only perpetuation of the forest
and its attendant industries and payroll, but also a far greater
tax return than the present one of encouraging potential forest
land to become worthless and non-taxable.
LEGISLATURE OF MINNESOTA: "Sec. 17 a. Laws may be enacted exempting
lands from taxation for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the
planting, cultivation and protection of useful forest trees thereon."
This is the text of an act amending the Minnesota constitution
passed by the legislature.
WASHINGTON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Walla, Walla: _Whereas_, The
question of holding cut-over forest land for a second crop is of
paramount importance to the State, and
_Whereas_, This is made impossible on the part of private owners
by our present method of forest taxation, whereby the owner is
obliged to pay an annual tax on the land as well as an annually
repeated tax on the same growing crop, therefore be it
_Resolved_, That this convention favors such remedial legislation
as will encourage reforestation of privately owned lands, and be
it further
_Resolved_, That it is the sense of this convention that as applied
to reforestation such remedial legislation can be secured by a
plan which will levy an annual tax on the land and an income tax
on the forest crop only when the crop is harvested.
FIRST NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS, Seattle: Resolved, That we
urge the adoption of a system of taxation under which woodlands
will pay a moderate annual land tax and the timber will be taxed
only when cut.
THE WESTERN FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
The Western Forestry and Conservation Association has no individual
membership, but consists of and represents all organized agencies
for forest protection in the States of Montana, Idaho, Washington,
Oregon and California. Following is Article IV of its constitution:
"Any association formed for the purpose of organized effort in
the protection of forests from fire and for the reforestation and
conservation of the forest resources of the States represented
shall be eligible for membership. Any organization admitted to
membership shall be entitled to two votes in the meetings of this
Association. The chief forest officer of each of the five States
embraced, and of each district of the United States Forest Service
embraced, shall be honorary members."
The allied organizations are at present fifteen in number: The
Oregon Forest Fire, Oregon Conservation, North Willamette Forest
Fire, Coos County Fire Patrol, Northwest Oregon Forest Fire, Klamath
Lake Counties Forest Fire, Polk-Yamhill Forest Fire, Lincoln-Benton
Forest Fire, North Idaho Forestry, Washington Forest Fire, Washington
Conservation, Inland Forest Fire, Potlatch Timber Protective, Clearwater
Timber Protective, Pend d'Oreille Timber Protective, Coeur d'Alene
Timber Protective and Northern Montana Forestry Association.
The purpose of the Western Forestry & Conservation Association is
to promote forest fire prevention, conservative forest management,
reforesting of cut-over lands not more valuable for agriculture,
improvement in taxation systems, preservation of stream flow, and
all other things comprehended by forest conservation.
Its meetings enable representatives of the allied associations
and of State and government to exchange ideas and devise ways and
means for carrying on these movements in harmony along practical
and effective lines. It also affords means of collecting and
distributing information from these several sources.
It believes in the use of every legitimate means of publicity and
education to interest lumbermen, legislators and public, not only in
paving the way for future advance, but also in such actual, workable,
conservation measures as can be put into practice immediately.
To this end, believing action speaks louder than words, it practices
what it preaches. While fully recognizing the great value and necessity
of associations devoted entirely to propaganda, it sees also a need
of reducing theory to a sound business basis. Either as associations
or through their members the forest protective associations it
represents spent about $700,000 in 1910 for patrol and fire fighting
to protect the forests of the West. They safeguarded millions of
acres of timber, put out many thousand fires, and saved forest
resources worth billions of dollars to the community. As a result
of their effort the losses in Idaho, Washington and Oregon were
kept down to about a quarter of 1 per cent of the privately-owned
timber in these States, and this notwithstanding that it was one
of the worst fire years in American history.
While they unite in the Western Forestry and Conservation Association,
and levy a special assessment to support its work, the local
organizations are wholly independent in their actual forest fire
work. Their systems vary slightly, but the majority follow the
general plan outlined on pages 100-103 of this booklet.
One of the primary objects and ambitions of the Association is to
extend this effort until all the timber owners in the five States
do their part and every acre of private forest land is brought under
a highly trained and organized service. If the States themselves
lend aid and backing this can be made the most efficient fire service
in existence, as the most magnificent body of standing timber in
the world deserves.
The Association also employs a trained forester to assist its members
who control timber to install and maintain improved methods of
protection, cutting and reforestation. In this way it not only
helps those who will to really accomplish the end in view, but
by publishing such material as is contained in this booklet makes
the experiments serve as object lessons to others.
Perhaps the most unique function of the Association is to furnish
the only common meeting ground and clearing house for the many
public and private agencies for forest protection. At its meetings
Federal and State officials, representatives of public conservation
associations and timber owners join on equal footing, without
controversy over rights or authority, in discussing practical details
of how to accomplish the best results together under conditions
as they exist. Every man present is there because he wants to do
his part, with his own hands or money, to preserve the forests of
the West. He knows what he is talking about and the others are glad
to hear him. The result is a mutual understanding and coöperation
along practical lines which is of immense benefit to the public whose
welfare depends largely upon these agencies that really control
its forest resources.