This is to certify that the t h e s i s e n t it le d P r iv a t e F o r e s t Land O w n ersh ip and IvCanagement i n 31 C o u n tie s o f t h e N o r th e r n P o r t io n o f t h e Lower P e n in s u la o f liL ch ig a n presented by James G. Yoho h a s b e e n a c c e p t e d to w a r d s f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e - r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r Ph *D » d e g r e e in Datf' F eb ru a ry . 2 8 , 19^6 F o restry PRIVATE FORESTLAND OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT IN THIRTY-ONE COUNTIES OF OF THE LOWER THE NORTHERN PORTION PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN By JAMES G. YOHO A. THESIS Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in p ar ti al fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of F o r e s t r y 1956 ProQuest Number: 10008681 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10008681 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Mi 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 ABSTRACT It was found that, for purposes of studying private forestland ownership and management in a thirty-one —county a r e a of the n o r t h ­ e r n portion of the Lower P eninsula of Michigan, owners grouped into eleven g ener al c l a s s e s pations. Individual owners found to f o r m attitudes a within each of these relatively homogeneous erogeneous eleven c l a s s e s class with r e s p e c t to their same criteria. were found to constitute the l a r g e s t in the thirty-one — county one-fifth of the 4.9 million a c r e s f o r e s t l a n d in that portion of the r ecr e a t i o n a l groups, and wage Each of these co m m e r c i a l f o r e s t . They held about of privately owned commercial state. earners classes Farm ers study a r ea. single private Bu s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l men, ranked in that o r d er However, in t e r m s of the r e c r e a t i o n groups ratio after held over one-half million a c r e s of ranked highest in t e r m s volume, and also had the l a r g e s t portion of l a r g e - s i z e d volume, were combined were found to be a very h e t ­ group when analyzed by the Farm ers farm ers. class on their occu­ toward f o r e s t l a n d and t h e i r actual management of the f o r e s t . However, all private owners owner based p r i m a r i l y could be of ti mber timber. of softwood to hardwood timber and f o r e s t industries ii ranked highest. Less dents, than t h r e e - t e n t h s while n ear l y f o nr - tent h s residing m o r e than owners Some t h r e e - t e n t h s over twenty-five Outside of f a r m for of the f o r e s t 100 miles f r o m About t h r e e - f o u r t h s chase. of the f o r e s t a r e a was was owned by r e s i ­ owned by persons their property. of the f o r e s tla n d was acquired by p u r ­ of the f o r e s t had been held by p r e s e n t y ear s . use r e c r e a t i o n a l p urposes. (31 percent) most of the f o r e s t was held Speculation ranked as the third most impo r tan t objective of management, and accounted for about one- fifth of the f o r e s t a r e a . Almost one-half of the f o r e s tla n d was had n ev er h a r v e s t e d ti m b e r f r o m their land. who had h a r v e s t e d actual some timber poor cutting operations. t i m b e r had been h a r v e s t e d had been followed. f o r e s t management control who Among those owners was e x er ci se d over About one-half of the a r e a on which recently Most owners showed poor f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s who admitted they p r a ct iced poor stated that it was due to their supervise because of physical limitations r e m u ne ra tiv e owned by per s o n s or ’’inability to demands of a more a c t iv it y . 11 Several proposed and actual public policy m e a s u r e s to offer incentives to private owners iii to pr act ice designed good f o r e s t r y had little appeal. This included the Michigan f o r e s t have been in effect for proposed schemes cooperatives. ment contracts over twenty-five as l ow-cost f o r e s t On the apparently had been the l e a s t rather s er v ice to succeed. Forest effective. assistance and educational d ir ec ted toward helping private f o r e s t owners, f o r e s t r y extension appeared the mos t state It also included such other hand, proposed lo n g - t e r m f o r e s t manage­ Among all of the public the which credit and f o r e s t management appeared to have good chances benefit payments programs years. yield tax laws effective. The f a r m f o r e s t r y conservation commission, on the other hand, effective of the a s s i s t a n c e iv programs work of seemed to be examined. AC KNOW L E D G M E N T S The author wishes eral p ersons possible. T, D. Stevens, s in cer e thanks to p a r t i c u l a r l y thank Drs. Lee M. of the Department of F o r e s t r y D i r e c t o r , Lake States who made also due Dr. the grant to the Agricultural addition, the faithful cooperation of Dr. ing data f r o m the f o r e s t s incer e thanks. Mr. R. especially helpful The investigator gave stat istical would include: L. R. Grosenbaugh, States W. H e r m a n O. Hartley, James and made. M. B. Dickerman, Experiment Station study possible. Dickerman's N. Cunningham and Mr. on countless also extends his D. Baten, In staff in supply­ the aut ho r's Clarence D. Chase occasions. s in c e r e stages thanks to those who of the project. of Michigan State University; of the Southern F o r e s t F o r e s t Service; study study was survey of Michigan des erves consultation at various Dr. sev­ F o r e s t Ex periment Station, United States F o r e s t of Michigan State University which made this were to the at Michigan State under whose d irection and guidance this Grateful acknowledgment is Service, his whose cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e made this He wishes University, to express and p a r t i c u l a r l y of the Statistical Mr. These Mr. Experiment Station, United Howard Taylor and Dr. Laboratory of Iowa State College Special gratitude also spent untold hours calculations is due the w r i t e r ' s in faithful and efficient necessary to this execution of the routine study. Without the help of all of these numerous wife Helen, who persons to mention the completion of this been achieved. vi and many others too study could never have James Gibson Yoho candidate f o r the degree of Doctor of Philosophy- Final examination: Dissertation: Major February 28, 1956; 9:00 a.m.; Forestry Building. P r i v a t e F o r e s t l a n d Ownership and Management in Thirty-one Counties of the N o r t h e r n P o r t i o n of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. subject: Forestry. Biographical items: Born, September 3, 1920, Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Undergraduate studies, University of Georgia, continued 1946-47. 1939 to 1942, Graduate studies, New York State University, College of F o r e s t r y , 1947-48; Michigan State University, 1951-53, continued in absentia, 1953-56. Experienc e: Member, U.S. Army Air F o r c e , 1942- 1946; Graduate Fellow, New York State University, 1947-48; Ass is t an t P r o f e s s o r in F o r e s t r y , Stephen F. Austin State College, 1948-1951; G r a d ­ uate A s s is t an t, Michigan State University, 1951-1953; A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r of F o r e s t r y , Iowa State College, 1953-56. Member of Phi Kappa Phi, Society of Sigma Xi, Gamma Sigma Delta, Alpha Zeta, Xi Sigma Pi, Alpha Xi Sigma, Society of A m e r ­ ican F o r e s t e r s , and A mer ic an Economic Association. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Page I N T R O D U C T I O N ........................................................................................ Statement of the P r ob lem Historical .................................................. 1 B a c k g r o u n d .............................................................. 7 P u r p o s e of the Study II. ............................ 18 Application of R e s u l t s .............................................................. 20 A r e a of Study 22 ............................................................................... RELATED LITERATURE ANDPREVIOUS S T U D I E S ............................................................................................................... F o r e s t l a n d Ownership in New England 27 ................. 27 F u t u r e of P r i v a t e F o r e s t l a n d Ownership in the No r th er n Lake States .............................................. 32 Ownership and Use of F o r e s t l a n d in Two .......................................................... Subregions of California 36 Private III. 1 F o r e s t l a n d Ownership in Louisiana 40 P r i v a t e F o r e s t l a n d Ownership and Manage­ ment in Central Mississippi ............................................. 45 Older Studies in M i c h i g a n ............................. 49 Other Ownership Studies 54 ......................................... STUDY PROCEDURE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE .......................................................................... F o r e s t Survey's Method of Sampling viii 58 . . 58 CHAPTER Page The F i r s t ........................................................................... Subsample The Subsample for Field I n t e r v i e w ............................. IV. OWNERS OF 81 F o r e s t A r e a s ........................................................................................... 81 Volumes ........................................................................................... Average Size of Holding and Number of O w n e r s ....................................................................................................... V. SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT FOREST OWNERS .................................................................................. Methods of F o r e s t l a n d Acquisition F am i ly Ties to the F o r e s t l a n d .................................................. Age of F o r e s t Owners Objectives .............................................................. of F o r e s t O w n e r s h i p ................................. SOME ASPECTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT . 95 102 106 107 115 123 127 129 138 Agent in Charge of F o r e s t Management . . . . 139 Grazing 143 of F o r e s t A r e a s ......................................... F requency of F o r e s t Harvests ......................................... Administration of F o r e s t Harvests Class VII. ......................... T e n u r e ............................................. Length of F o r e s t l a n d VI. 72 ...................... Forest THE FOREST RESOURCE 62 of Cutting P r a c t i c e 145 ......................... 149 .................................................. 157 ATTITUDES OF OWNERS TOWARD FOREST MA.NA.G EMEN T ................................................................................... ix 180 CHAPTER Page O wn er s ’ Concepts of Timber VIII. ... 181 Owners’ Recognition of, and Explanation f o r , P o o r Timber M a n a g e m e n t ......................................... 189 FOREST T A X A T I O N ............................................................................... 196 The General Property The Michigan F o r e s t The F e d e r a l Income IX, X. ...................................................... 197 Yield T a x ......................................... 206 T a x .................................................................. PUBLIC FORESTRY EDUCATION AND SPECIAL FORESTRY SERVICES ......................................... 217 225 F o r e s t r y Extension Demonstration and Advice .................................................................................................................... 226 F a r m F o r e s t r y P r o g r a m of the State .............................................................. Conservation Commission 236 Soil Conservation Service F o r e s t r y P r o g r a m ..................................... 244 OTHER DEVICES TO AFFECT PRIVATE FOREST M A N A G E M E N T .................................................................. Forestry XI. Tax Management Conservation Payments Forest Cooperatives Forest Management Contracts Forest Credit ................................................ Owner of This ................................................ .................................................................... SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Findings ................ Study ........................................... .............................................. Occupation Class Comparisons x . . 250 250 260 262 266 272 272 284 CHAPTER Page Evaluation ofPolicy P r o g r a m s Suggestions f or F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h .............................................. ..................................... 289 293 A P P E N D I X E S .......................................................................................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... xi 296 333 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, Page Land and F o r e s t Economy of Michigan, the Lake States, and the United States, Compared by Major Item ....................................................................... 5 Distribution of ITO t h e r M P r i v a t e Commer cia l F o r e s t l a n d b y , Occupational Groups in Selected .................................................................. Areas of the United States 57 Results of Mail Questionnaire Sampling of Township Supervisors ................................................................................... 64 Results of Sampling Township Supervisors and Individual Owners Not Classified by S u p e r v i s o r s ............................................................................................................... 65 Commer cial F o r e s t l a n d A r e a by Owners' Occupation Class and Approximate Sampling E r r o r ........................................................................................... 71 Allocation and Accomplishment of Field Interviews by Owner Occupation Class ......................... 73 Results of Mail Questionnaire Sampling of Individual Absentee Owners Previously Classed into Occupations by Township S u p e r v i s o r s ....................................................................................................... 78 Commercial F o r e s t l a n d A r e a by Block and O wners1 Occupation Class .................................................. 84 Commercial F o r e s t l a n d A r e a by Owners' Occupation Class and Stand-Size Class . . . 86 C o mm er cia l F o r e s t A r e a by Owners' Occupation and F o r e s t Type .................................................. 88 xii TABLE 11. Page Commer cia l F o r e s t A r e a by Owners' ............................. 92 Stand-'Size Class Distribution by Distance of Owner f r o m P r o p e r t y for Selected Owner Occupation C l a s s e s ...................................................................... 94 Occupation and Distance f r o m P r o p e r t y 12. 13. Timber Class 14. 15. Volume by Owner Occupation and Kind of M a t e r i a l .................................................................. 96 Cordwood Timber Volume by Species Group and Owner Occupation Class . ..................................... 99 Saw^Log Timber Volume by Species Group and Owner Occupation Class ......................................... 101 Average Size of F o r e s t Holding and Number of Owners by Occupation Class of O w n e r ........................................................................................................................ 103 Methods by Which Owners Acquired Title to F o r e s t l a n d ........................................................................................................... 109 Methods by Which Owners Acquired Title to F o r e s t l a n d by Occupation Class .............................................. Ill 19. Length of 118 20. Length of Tenure by Occupation Class 16. 17. 18. T e n u r e ........................................... of O w n e r ................................................................................................................ 21. Age of F o r e s t 22. 23. .................................................................... 128 Objectives of M a n a g e m e n t ............................................................ 131 Objectives of Management by Occupation Class 24. Owners 120 of Owner ............................ 134 Agent in Charge of F o r e s t Management by Occupation Class of O w n e r .............................................. xiii 141 TABLE 25. Page Year of Most Recent Cutting in P r e s e n t O w n e r s h i p .................................................................................................................... 26. Own er s 1 Control of Timber 27. Control of Timber Occupation Class Cutting ....................................... Cutting by Owners' ....................................................................................... 153 Class 29. Cla ss of Cutting P r a c t i c e by Owner Occupation G r o u p ..................................... 162 C la ss of Cutting P r a c t i c e by Distance of Owner f r o m P r o p e r t y ................................................................................... 164 Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e by Agency of M a n a g e m e n t ....................................................................................................... 166 Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e for F a r m Owners by Age C l a s s ................................................................................... 168 Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e by Length of Tenure ............................ 170 Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e f o r F a r m Owners by the Number of Generations P r o p e r t y has Been in Family Ownership ............................................. 173 Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e for F a r m Owners by Expectation of Continued O w n e r s h i p ................. 175 Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e by Objective of M a n a g e m e n t ............................................................................................................... 177 37. Owner s 1 Concepts of 182 38. Owners' of Timber 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Concepts by Occupation Class ................................................................ 151 2 8. 3 0. of Cutting P r a c t i c e 146 Timber M a n a g e m e n t .................. Management ...................................................................... xiv 161 187 TABLE 39- Page Owners' Recognition of the Possi b ili ty of Improving 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Their F o r e s t Management 5 0. 51. 191 Owners' Explanation for Believing Management Could be I m p r o v e d .............................................. 193 General P r o p e r t y Taxes p e r Acre F o r e s t l a n d f o r .All Owner C la ss es 203 of ..................................... General P r o p e r t y Tax on F o r e s t l a n d by Distance of Owner f r o m P r o p e r t y .............................................. 2 05 Attitudes of Owners Toward F o r e s t Yield Tax of Owners Who Qualified for Listing 215 ................. Attitudes of Owners Toward Special F e d e r a l Income Tax. Pr ovis ions f o r Timber G r o w e r s .................. 222 F o r e s t r y Extension Record by Method Employed and Y e a r s .............................................................................. 23 0 Attitudes of Owners Toward Extension F o r e s t r y Demonstration and Advice ......................................... 233 Owners' Concepts of Timber Management According to Use Made of F o r e s t r y Extension ....................................................................................................... 235 Attitudes of Owners Activities of F a r m 49. ...................................... Toward Service Foresters ................................................. 241 Owners' Concepts of Timber Management According to Use Made of F a r m F o r e s t r y A i d ............................................................................................................................ 243 Agricultural Conservation P r o g r a m Record in the Study Area, 1950-1953 ............................................. 252 Attitudes of F a r m e r s Toward F o r e s t r y Conservation Payments .............................................................. xv 259 TABLE 52. Page Owners' Attitudes Toward Borrowing Under a System of F o r e s t Credit if Credit were Readily Available on a Lo n g - T e r m , LowCost Bas is ................................................................................................................ xv i 270 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the P r o b l e m E v e r y ap p r a i s a l over the l a s t fifty y e a r s of the f o r e s t r y has pointed out that the Americans future t i m b e r needs decisions of a heterogeneous This problem was situation in the United States satisfaction of will depend increasingly upon the group of pr iv at e f or es tla n d owners. evident at the inception of this study early in 1953 when opinion was based l a rg e ly upon the findings States F o r e s t S e r v ice1s Reap pr ai s al Report of 1946. these words a r e being written professional f o r e s t e r s , economists, and. other pers on s est economy have had the ir of the United At the time resource i n t e r e s t e d in the health of our f o r ­ eyes opened anew by the Timber Re­ source Review. In the continental United States acres of c o m m e r c i a l Timber li m i n a r y there are or productive timberland, some 484 million of which 35 8 million Edward C. Crafts, U.S. F o r e s t Service. A. s u m m a r y of the r e s o u r c e review. Chapter I, Timber r e s o u r c e review ( pr e­ review draft), 127 pp. Sept. 1 1955. z acres are privately ent owners. This varying f r o m states is 4.5 million differ­ not geographically uniform, 11 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a privately up to 99 p e r c e n t in others. not d r a s t i c a l l y different f r o m 18.8 million a c r e s privately situation, however, a low of about owned in some Michigan is owned and distributed among of c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t , owned and divided among m o r e The the national two-thirds than situation in average with of which is 174 thousand owners. At the time this is being written demographers are predict­ ing that by 1975 the population of the United States will million; these population by the year increases, 2,000, 275 million. a proportionately g r e a t e r ductivity p er worker, economists working for ce, basic by the year 2000, in t e r m s assumptions r each 212 and g r e a t e r have estimated a g r os s product of 586 billion dollars by 1975, lars Assuming 2 pro­ national and 838 to 866 billion dol­ of constant dollars. the Stanford R e s e a r c h Institute continuingly high consumption of f o r e s t products 3 has Using these estimated a despite probable I b i d . , p . 103. 2 George F. Bur k s , U.S. F o r e s t Service. A su mma r y of basic stat i s t i c s . Chapter IX, Timber Resource Review ( P r e l i m i n a r y , r e ­ view draft), Sept. 3 1955, p. 7. Stanford R e s e a r c h Institute. America's 1929-1975. Tacoma, Washington, Weyerhaeuser 1954, 404 pp. demand for wood Timber Co., June 3 price increases less which a r e economical f o r e s t expected as resource. Relying in p a r t on this vice foresees we a r e f o r c e d to rely on a work, the United States that such demands for f o r e s t reflected in i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e creased p r es su re Ser­ products can only be upon our f or e s tla n d s . Due to in­ on our total land r e s o u r c e s for other felt that total f o r e s t a r e a can not be in c re ase d. which f o r e s t production can be Forest uses, it is The only ways sustained or i n c r e a s e d is in to intensify f o r e s t management and halt destr uct iv e cutting on private lands, inasmuch as the ests sustained yield capacity of our publicly owned f o r ­ can be in c r e a s e d very little. How to bring i n c r e a s e in productivity of private forestlands to be the g r e a t e s t challenge f o r e s t r y is about this needed certainly destined must face in the next fifty years. Other forest such s t a t i s t i c s , brought to light by the continuous national survey by the United States r epor ts as Forest Service and p r e s ented in those already mentioned, have vate f o r e s tla nd is divided according it is p a r t of a f a r m ownership, other private ownership; ^Edward C, shown how our p r i ­ to size of ownership; whether wood-using industry ownership, and to some extent how these Cr a f t s , U.S. F o r e s t Service. Op. or subdivisions c i t . , p. 124. are handled. These facts tion of the f o r e s t basis, and a r e are resource all inter es tin g situation on a national, to isolate broad problem a r e a s . results of the f o r e s t owners. lands regional, o r state sufficiently detailed when rela ted to broad geographical classes capacity is and give a good d e s c r i p ­ survey As al ready indicated, the show that most of the f o r e s t productive privately owned (Table 1), belonging to many individual F u r t h e r , these data show that the bulk of these private a r e poorly managed and that the f o r e s t badly d et er io r ated . resources They also indicate that l a r g e private p r o p e r t i e s a r e generally b e t t e r handled than small pr ivat e ones. a r e problems thereon a r e All of these as s o ciat ed with our institution of private ownership of land. Before sector remedial m e a s u r e s of the f o r e s t since the problem these private f o r e s t are economy m o r e var ie s be accumulated for owners, attainment, standing of f o r e s t r y , t i m b er , marke ts ; suggested for the private mu s t be l e a r n e d about it, geographically this different a very heterogeneous educational can be economic areas. p a r t i c u l a r l y the group. of purpose residence and location of their f o r e s t holdings all of which a r e information needs As previously to stated, small individual owners, They vary in occupational p u r s uit, income level, age, place and of ownership, with refer en ce u n d er ­ to their with r e s p e c t to ti m b e r only a few of the ways owners may differ 5 TABLE 1 LAND AND FOREST ECONOMY OF MICHIGAN, THE LAKE STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES, COMPARED BY MAJOR ITEM3, Michigan Lake States United States (thousand a c r e s ) Land a r e a by ma jor cla s s e s : .......................................... Total land a r e a Total f o r e s t .............................................. C o m m e r c i a l ..................................... N o n c o m m e r c i a l ............................. Cropland in f a r m s ......................... P a s t u r e and range ......................... Other .............................................................. Commercial f o r e s tla n d by stand size c l a s s 1 ; Total c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t ................. Sawtimber stands . ......................... Pole ti m b e r s t a n d s ......................... Seedling & sapling stands . . . Nonstocked stands ............................. Commercial f o r e s tla n d in private o w n e r s h i p ............................. 36,494 19,322 18,849 473 9,061 3,084 122,711 55,201 53,272 1,929 40,680 11,881 1,903,824 647,686 484,340 163,346 411,148 693,246 151,744 5,027 14,949 18,849 2,556 5,411 7,668 3,214 53,272 6,457 16,010 20,370 10,435 484,340 178,616 169,408 12,462 31,833 358,250 94,709 41,607 (million cubic feet) Net ti mber volume growing stock in private o w n e r s h i p ............................. 7,169 16,025 3 03,666 Net annual t i mb er growth on all lands .............................................................. 433 1,180 14,211 (thousand cubic feet) Timber h a r v e s t f r o m live growing stock on all c o m m er cia l f o r e s t l a n d s .......................................................... 215,510 537,170 10,744,401 6 individually. a similar forest Each f act or nature affects resource grams, the way individual f o r e s t owners deg r ee how f o r e s t instituted through public benefit payments, f o r e s t These levels type in combination with others under a given set of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . govern in various measures of this are the situations owners will action such as credit, handle their Also, they r e a c t to c o r r e c t i v e educational p r o ­ and many oth e rs . one finds at the national and state which make private ownership of f or es tla n d a problem. of these problems stem f r o m Most our institution of private ownership of land and our complex economic affect all of the variables of and social that b e a r structure upon this which profoundly relationship of man to land. The people of Michigan as of 1950 were payments to individuals f r o m the f o r e s t m o r e than one hundred million dollars 3.7 percent of the s t a t e ’s total income, s e c to r per realizing of the year. income economy of This income was and exceeded that f r o m agri­ culture, not including manufactures based on a g r ic u ltur al products. Not all of this products income, which includes and raw ti mber values, is that f r om manufacturing f o r e s t attributable to Michigan's f o r e s t Lee M. James and James G. Yoho. Income f r o m timber products in the United States. Journal of F o r e s t r y , Feb. 1953, p. 87. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 resource. However, t h e r e is little doubt but what the income the people of Michigan r eceive f r o m the f o r e s t c r e a s e d in the long run both in actual segments of the upon in c reasing economy. economy could be in­ dollars Such a possibility and r elative to other seems to hinge directly the productivity of Michigan's privately owned f o r e s t ­ lands . Quoting again f r o m the lem is well Ti mber R e s o u r c e s s u m m a r i z e d by the following Review/ the p r o b ­ statement: Unquestionably, the h e a r t of the f o r e s t problem of the United States l i e s with the 3.4 million f a r m owners and the m i s c e l ­ laneous group of 1.1 million ' ' o t h e r " private ownerships. Al­ though they own mainly very small t r a c t s of f o r e s t land, and t h e i r principal i n t e r e s t s usually a r e not ti mb er growing, in the aggregate they control well over half of the Nation's c o m m e r ­ cial timberland and they must continue to supply a substantial portion of the raw m a t e r i a l s for f o r e s t industry. Historical Background P r i v a t e p r o p e r ty in land. previously outlined is mo s t persons our study and the problem the concept of private prop er ty in land. taken for could be otherwise, ^Edward C. to this institution of private property monplace that it is it Basic granted. It is yet, in many ways Cr afts. Op. cit., p. in land is so com­ difficult to realize that its nearly universal 128. To 8 acceptance accident. in the settlement of North A m e r i c a is almost Certainly if the development of this private institution in western ownership Europe at about the time of settlement on this continent had gone in a different d irection our p r o b lem s be a his to r i cal today might entirely different. One should r e m e m b e r that the institution of private ship in land as we know it in the United States ually over it is to be cent ur ies. ever by deliberate It is As the feudal f o r med by tenants or system ser f s to perceive. declined in Europe the were emerged as became m or e intense and those more Richard T. the s e r v ic e s rights The Macmillan Company, S, Wehrwein. 1940, p. less so. than oth e rs . to establish the feudal Ely and George entirely. per­ or Grad­ of the cultivator of the landlords rapid in some countries even some attempts services converted into money r e n t s , s u m s ’1 to extinguish the ually f r e e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p New York, Changes have been, in fact, resulting in such a gradual al ter ati on that they have been almost impossible were so s a c r e d that r e v e r e d and never a l t e r e d in the slightest degree made f r o m time to time t r a n s i tio n was today evolved g r a d ­ certainly not something action of rational men. else paid "l u mp owner­ 85. This There system in the early Land economics. 9 s ettlements in North A m e r i c a , Most of this was of of the s ever al states shortly t h e r e a f t e r . 1787 abolished the l a s t t r a c e s newly acquired f e d e r a l land. Property lands This was the which became in land tended to become transfer system that came to p r evail a p a r t of the public The of feudal influence in like al mo s t any other pr o p e r ty in the freedo m of its in inheritance.^ settlements. swept away by the Revolutionary War, and legally by the l e g i s l a t u r e s Ordinance p a r t i c u l a r l y in the F r e n c h and on all domain of the United States, and this included virtually all of continental United States aside f r o m the thir teen original colonies. Public land disposal policy. P a r t l y because ment needed revenue and partly because it became basic the new govern­ a p a r t of our national philosophy to develop a nation of f r e e h o l d e r s , tion of the public domain as rapidly as possible became f e d e r a l policy, and state policy when the acquire title to sizable acreages. states were fortunate i n t e r e s t would give us maximum production, resources, ^Ibid., p. 88. enough to Our basic philosophy was that pr ivat e pro p er ty would c r e a t e a nation of f r e e h o l d e r s our national aliena­ and, with each owner whose self- automatically conserve 1’under his own vine 10 and fig t r e e / ' wealth. 1 federal guarantee Under a certain equality in the distribution of this policy and guided by such a philosophy our government disposed of by sale, sidization 1,029 million a c r e s lutionary War. in the homesteading, of Indian lands, was government in this fashion to private Land disposal was of Michigan, excepting owners or to the state. of our f e d e r a l and the whole p r o g r a m seemed to have been prompted by the g r e a t e s t of urgency, but not always the g r e a t e s t of expediency. program was with Often, at the local land office level, poorly administered. m o s t fraudulent of means sub­ disposed of by the f e d e r a l one of the biggest jobs government f o r a long period, or 150 y e ar s following the Revo­ Virtually all of the land a r e a 23 thousand a c r e s gift, Individuals the often r e s o r t e d to the to gain control of lands being disposed of in this way. Generally the procedu r e steading, as the a r e a s f e d e r a l land office was 1 to offer a r e a s for sale or home­ when the l a t t e r pr o cedu r e finally became legal, j u s t about quickly as at once, was could be 90. As established in Detroit. and the tempo developed Ibid., p. surveyed. rapidly. early Sales as 1814 a were started 11 Public land disposal in Michigan. a s tate, but la r g e acreages mained within her b o r d e r s . domain land was Actually, the minimum p r i c e considerably more agr ic u l t u r a l p ur p o s e s , of $1.25 p e r acre. f e d e r a l land disposed of in the f i r s t years small p a r c e l s , be and evidently for r e m e m b e r e d , however, Act of 1862 there ual could p u r chase during the Harold of statehood was in It should of the Homestead sixteenth Titus. than m o s t which were l a t e r state stat es . control as in sold by the state. a r e s u l t of the Swamp within the Michigan so acquired 1785, which provided for section of each township for The land nobody wanted. Ex periment Station, states some six 1850rs. Under the Ordinance of t u r al mo s t of the act public-domain swamplands granted to the vation of every sales ability to pay. to have f a r e d b e t t e r Under this million a c r e s Likewise, a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. other than his Considerable ac r e a g e fell into were early land and mos t of it went that until the passage gaining control of f e d e r a l lands states than had was no r e s t r i c t i o n on the amount that an individ­ Michigan seems Land Grants. re­ public - Michigan became a state Virtually all of the very were made to people for for of f e d e r a l public - domain land still alienated afte r been disposed of before. In 1837 Michigan became the the reser­ support Michigan Agricul­ Special Bulletin 332, April, 1945, p. 4. of common schools, million a c r e s . this the sfate of Michigan acquired title Had Michigan not become amount would have been doubled. added close to another th r ee ship. for About four portion of this by the state as hundred thousand a c r e s later such as acr ea g e subsidies; to Grants f o r higher million additional a c r e s internal improvements a state p r i o r to over a canals, were 1848 education to state owner­ deeded to the roads, state^ and railways. A was given d irectly to pr ivat e builders some was sold to r a i s e money for i m ­ provements . The state disposed of the twelve million a c r e s acquired by these means ju s t as f a s t as it could and with no r e g a r d for usage for or size of purchas e. intended This policy proved to be very convenient the accumulation of l a r g e private holdings and the ensuing t i mber exploitation. F e d e r a l land disposal continued in Michigan during the l a t t e r half of the nineteenth century al mo s t in competition with state posal. During this ited the size prevailed, land. of individual federal in some This period r e s t r i c t i o n s offered cases, as of one type or alienations. Also, dis­ another l i m ­ restrictions to r esidence and development of the somewhat of a legal r e s t r i c t i o n to land 13 concentration by t i m b e r o p e r a t o r s . practical favorite restraint. F r a u d u le n t homesteading, f o r way in which t i m b e r quarter- or h al f- s ect ion h e r e such s c a t t e r e d p r o p e r t i e s ship lines was Timber to It did not, however, companies example, was gained control over a and t h e r e in the fines t ti mb er . were a acquired, little respect for Once o wner­ observed when logging actually began. exploitation and land speculation. 1890 was all that was The period needed to remove nearly every pine worth harvesting f r o m the upper half of Michigan's Peninsula. as Almost as f a s t the ti mber disposed of, either by sale or Land so reverting to the had been stolen, was state, usually was of a hopeful or 185 0 stick of Lower cut the land was tax delinquency. land either became the p r o p er ty This offer much Thus most of the s e t t l e r or the state. state land f r o m which the ti m b e r easily marke ted to land speculators. type of timber-denuded land was thought to have a b e t t e r r icul tu r al potential than it had originally, and hence land ag­ speculators did a flourishing bu s in es s . The land also had another value which contributed to specu­ lation. The ear l y pine logging had s c a r c e l y touched the b i r c h and maple f o r e s t s which had continued to i n c r e a s e d e p r es s io n of 1893. The ti mber in value up to the scavenger provided a ready m a r k e t 14 for land which, in many c a s e s , selling f o r "tim ber fellow, the second time. skinner" and It was "rubber usually a f o r m e r the 40" state land c o m m is s io n e r during this er a that the t e r m s were developed to d e s c r i b e the logger, who bought a t r a c t h e r e so that he might help himself to the adjoining t i m b er . along with f i r e put the finishing touches and back to the From was and there This p r a c t i c e on the t i m b er - d ep l etio n job, state again went the land. that point on the land had little appeal f o r value, but promotion and speculation continued. over land was p u r chased by hopeful f a r m e r s its timber Some of the cut­ even though by the t u r n of the century the fate of much of the land for that purpose had become failed clear. This le ss Bona fide h o m e s t e a d e r s who selected their land after on-the-ground inspection f e r ­ r e te d out the islands rather not meant to imply that a g r ic ultu r e had everywhere in the pine country. had carefully lands is of b e t te r land and were f air l y suited to conventional f a r m i n g , extensively, some localities. and seems La r g e successful. ranching was to have been modestly individual t r a c t s were On attempted successful in sold by the state for this purpose. At about the turn of the century, new m a r k e t for r es ident Michigan's recreationist. land speculators oft-sold a c r e s There appears found a in the f o r m of the non­ to have been little overoptimism 15 concerning the l a n d ’s immed i ate m a r k e t developed gradually and pression years, value f o r this purpose, but this rather down to the p r es ent. undoubtedly been the m o s t consistently, Since World War II it has mentioned. By the time f o r e s t d e s tr u ct ion had r eached a point at which little hope was the nat ura l r e g e n e r a t i o n of the m o s t valuable strong talk about s ustained-yield f o r e s t r y as Michigan's land problem. Inquiry 1 and cites de­ salable land value in n o r t h e r n Michigan. Sustained-yield f o r e s t r y is for except for could be held species, th e r e the answer to The Report of the Commission of Tax mentions the possibility of private the i n t e r e s t of the Dupont Powder Virtually nothing m a t e r i a l i z e d , however, sustained-yield f o r e s t r y , Company as evidence. in the way of deliberate p r ivate f o r e s t r y . Concern over f o r e s t r y State F o r e s t r y the state Commission in did res u lt in the establishment of the 1902, which in 1921 became p a r t of conservation department along with other cerned with land, game, f o r e s t s , and other natural agencies con­ resources. tual management of state lands for f o r e s t production became Ac­ a part Commission of Inquiry, Tax Lands and F o r e s t r y . Report of commission of inquiry, tax lands and f o r e s t r y to the Governor and Leg i s l a t u r e of the State of Michigan. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawfor Co., State P r i n t e r s , Lansing, 1908, p. 73. of t he ir program and lands Forest along with the acquisition of tax-delinquent lands co ns ider ed submarginal f o r Service other u ses. engaged in a s i m i l a r f o r e s t r y Later the F e d e r a l effort in the state. Detailed consideration of public f o r e s tla n d is beyond the scope this study, and its F irst, mention is made h e r e p r i m a r i l y for these p r o g r a m s provided a means f r o m a glutted land m a r k e t ond, area as continued over the year s of 3.8 million a c r e s ship and 2.3 million a c r e s Public programs of f o r e s t r y have study was made, These ters These res u lt ed in a p r e s e n t in national f o r e s t s in Michigan.^ and private f o r e s t o w n e r s . or lands century. The problem of in the p ro c e s s Inquiry after inquiry, some of which a r e resulted in special public p r o g r a m s private f o r e s t owners. in action. Sec­ of continued to vex the Michigan people f o r mo s t of the f i r s t half of this after the surplus of co m m e r c ia l f orestland in state owner­ unstable land ownership of f o r e s t l a n d s , reverting to f o r e s t r y , two reasons: even through d e p r e s s i o n periods. they have provided demonstrations programs of absorbing of Several of these and study mentioned in Chapter II, of many types are on taxation {Chapter VII) and education, to aid di s cussed in the chap­ special services, and 17 the f o r e s t owner (Chapters IX and X). It is possible to mention only briefly h e r e some of the work not covered elsewhere. In 1938 the Land Use Planning P r o g r a m Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Agricultural tension Service of Michigan State College, was program, for operating as through local committees, sound land use bas ed upon soil committees of the United States surveys embarked upon. made of the to have state. These local and s er ved conservation d e p a r t m e n t ^ acquisition and disposal policy at the local level. This recommendations suggested p r o p e r land use to private owners a sounding boar d for the state Ex­ This land work seems contributed a g r e a t deal toward a sane and m o r e stabilized ownership and land -u s e p attern, p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t to the attitudes of local people. County r u r a l zoning was legalized by the state of Michigan in 1935, and a s i m i l a r law legalizing township zoning became law in 1943. The law provides by ordinance county boards establish zoning d i s t r i c t s ag r i c u l t u r e , f o r e s t r y , encouraged, that the regulated, r e c r eat ion , may in which the use of land for residence, or prohibited. of s u p e r v is o r s and other Potentially this uses may be law offers a s ystem whereby the local people of Michigan can regulate f o r e s tla n d use as has been done quite frequently in Wisconsin. However, as 18 of 195 0 only two counties ordinances, within the and townships study a r e a had enacted zoning had been even l e s s active. P u r po se of the Study The purposes as or objectives of this study can be state .s i m p l y , to explore the most impor tant r elationships between pr ivat e own­ ership of f o r e s t l a n d and the condition and management of the f o r e s t resource. Es s en ti ally , it is a study of f o r e s t l a n d tenure; holding o r use of any o r all of the f o r e s t property. Because "bundle of r i g h t s ' 1 other hand, these to discover relationships c a u s e - and - ef f ect which might have task. of the f o r e s t resource, its exceedingly complex. relationships It would be f u r t h e r In other words, the objectives are which is To attempt between a few of these would complicated by the nature slow to r e a c t to changes in t r e a t ­ the need for practicability in r e s e a r c h l i m ­ of this type of study. V. Webster Johnson and Raleigh Barlowe. and policies. on called the f o r e s t on the applicability to any extensive f o r e s te d a r e a be a gigantic ment. character collectively called f or e s t l a n d owners one hand, and the variable landed r e s o u r c e the in private of the ex tremely heterogeneous of the group of individuals i.e., New York, Land problems McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1954, p. 251. 19 Stated in a m o r e are realistic to comp ar e f o r e s t owners way, the objectives with the f o r e s t of the resource. study In detail, the objectives become to: 1. Discover who a r e the f o r e s t owners. 2. Deter min e how they may be grouped into owner c l a s s e s . 3. Determine how much f o r e s tla n d is these groups 4. Determine controlled by each of and the condition of the ti mber thereon. how f o r e s t management differs between these groups. 5. Determine how f o r e s t management differs within groups with r e s p e c t to c e r t a i n m e a s u r a b l e variables to individual owners owner's or ownerships. age, length of tenure, distance f r o m p roperty, 6. Determine attitudes attributable This would include: method of land acquisition, et c et er a. of owners toward f or es tla n d and their influence on f o r e s t management. 7. Determine objectives of f o r e s t ownership and the ir rela tio n to f o r e s t management. 8. Determine forestry taxation, vice, the effectiveness and extent of use of public assistance programs to f o r e s t owners, including: extension, f a r m f o r e s t e r s , and benefit payment p r o g r a m s . soil conservation s e r ­ 20 9. Appraise the needs f o r , forestry assistance management and possible programs, cooperatives, usage of, including: suggested forest credit, and p r ivate management a g r e e ­ ments . 10. Evaluate the r e s u l t s implications of the study in t e r m s of f o r e s t policy which could lead to i n c r e a s e d t i m b e r pro d uc­ tion locally and nationally. 11. Contribute to the general fund of knowledge in f o r e s t economics to explain owner's behavior beyond financial motivation. Application of Results The application of the in the stated objectives.. r esults of this The m a j o r implication is concerning f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m s to t hese t h r e e basic Who a r e the f o r e s t ow n e r s ? forest property? efficiently a d m in is ter e d questions a r e known: It is the behavior with r e s p e c t to these ramifications thereof. (1) expected to r e a c t under slightly different conditions? the alike (2) How do they r e a c t toward their (3) How can they be of f o r e s t owners that public policy and private f o r e s t r y ventures can be m o r e wisely formulated and m o r e when the answers study has been implied From the aim of this study to discover questions and that point on it can only be hoped 21 that the realm the results of the of this social r e s e a r c h , like m o s t investigations s c i en c es, will s er v e to guide those responsibility f o r making policy decisions or in the charged with taking administra­ tive action in these m a t t e r s . N o r th er n Michigan has long been considered a land problem area, and p a r t i c u l a r l y policy m e a s u r e s a f o r e s t l a n d problem a r e a . have been enacted and put into effect in this to c o r r e c t the problem. to time by open-minded l e g i s l a t o r s necessary. Doubtlessly policy changes area Policy changes have been made f r o m will be made in the future. toward a m o r e Many f o r e s t If the when they were demonstrated as and additions res ult s of this enlightened type of f o r e s t policy, to p r o g r a m s study contribute the f o r e s t and land economy of n o r t h e r n Michigan should benefit in the long It is also believed that the r es u lt s of this Our teachings in f o r e s t this i .e . , is the that his basic motivations r e a s o n f o r his everything. Anything that purely economic the field. are A. few studies are is an "economic purely financial. Undoubtedly actions, but it fails to explain can p ar ti all y incentives of economics long have been based upon the assumption that the f o r e s t owner man"; run. study will co nt ri b ­ ute to the general fund of knowledge concerning the behavior f o r e s t owners. time explain why or how these t e m p e r e d will be a contribution to made in other sectors of the country have 22 made sizable contributions those results need to be toward the thinking along such lines, substantiated elsewhere. The ultimate application of these a.s contributing to the but results solution of the f o r e s t Michigan, and by so doing, aid in the may be thought of r e s o u r c e problem in solution of the f o r e s t problem of the United States. A r e a of Study This study was confined geographically to the north er n p o r ­ tion of the Lower Penins u la of Michigan (Figure I). It was to that p a r t of Lower Michigan north of an i r r e g u l a r from lines, Bay City to Muskegon. and thus t h e r e was counties. to as for This is many y e a r s . area. It is running This division was made along county delineated an a r e a the portion of Lower the cu t -o v e r line limited comprised of thirty-one Michigan frequently It is the land where pine reigned as king a section in which gray podzolic built up under coniferous f o r e s t cover predominate t r a s t with those brown podzolic soils f u r t h e r referred soil types in sharp con­ south which developed under the broadleaf f o r e s t s . This States area coincides with D i s t r i c t 3, Michigan, of the Lake F o r e s t Survey, p a r t of the continuous national f o r e s t survey, and conducted by the Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, United 23 CANADA UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN STRAITS MACKINAC NORTH Chorlen trim Benzie Ii Grand t Troverse Kalk G r o w f o rd con I J ■MIO CADILLAC BLOCK jB LO C K I I I | W e x f o r d ' M i s s a u k e e Roscommon) O g e m a w i 1 1 C lare ! Gladwin ! A r e n a c Lake i Osceola M anistee Mason GL AD WI N i BLOCK BALDWIN ■ i i r -------r ceana \ BLOCK I < I ! Midland M ecosta Newaygo Figure I. Michigan f o r e st Northern showing s u rv ey porti on the blocks of the location and of Lower the counties. Peni nsul a s tudy area 24 States F o r e s t Service, St. Paul, Minnesota. This p u r p o s e s , was broken down into five blocks f r o m five to nine counties Baldwin, Gladwin, Mio, each. Tip. survey (Figure I) consisting These blocks and North a r e a , for The of were named Cadillac, survey work p r o g r e s s e d generally f r o m block to block in that o r d e r . These thirty-one million a c r e s counties c o m p ri s e a total land a r e a of with about 7.5 million a c r e s c l a s s e d as fo r es tla nd . The total population of the a r e a census 394,450 p e r ma n ent res iden t s. does was not include the nonresident these numbers in c e r t a i n seasons This figure, the case with the physical cities in the a r e a , of the year. the l a r g e s t city. the only other The to u r i s t resources. cities evidence of economic activity to the upon the natural gives region, ar e Alpena, Traverse Cadillac, over state no la r g e c a r r i e d out. with populations and r e s o r t business a y e a r - a r o u n d b usiness. uniform and as There and little manufacturing is City (population 16,974) is Midland a r e swell situation in the southern p a r t of the as is 1950 of c o u r s e , who greatly The socioeconomic p a t t e r n i s ju s t about as much of a c o n t r a s t to the c o m m er cia l according to the recreationists 10.7 and ten thousand. the g r e a t e s t visible and is developing into It i s , however, almost wholly dependent resources of the region; f o r e s t l a n d , and heavy winter snows. i. e. , lakes and r i v e r s , S m a l l - s c a l e general farming 25 and s mall f o r e s t industries region. F r u i t farming such as sawmills are is imp or tant in the Grand s pr ead over Traverse Bay ar e a . Heavy industry is p r e v a l e n t only in a few s c a t t e r e d l o c alit ies . stone q u a r r i e s in the Alp en a- F o ger s dustry at Midland, the paper operations at s ev er al extent of the l a r g e widely s c a t t e r e d points and oil-drilling constitute the ma jor region as a whole is undulating to a l ­ the soils were of this in some places. soil types are Some of the most important the Roselawn, Rubicon, Grayling, Ottawa, Onaway, and Saugatuck, which occur in the sandy loam phases. jack pine, P r e s e n t l y these a r e a s oak, and aspen. confined to the heavier are soils and s t r e a m are pat ter ns sand and are generally soils not named above, while the nor th er n t a m a r a c k and spruce or bal sam confined to the m o r e poorly drained s i t e s . pr eval ent New­ stocked mostly with The n o r t h e r n hardwoods white cedar type along with some are origin. generally on the light and sandy side with s c a t t e r e d of heavy soils of the f o r e s t fir chemical i n ­ The a r e a has been subjected to repeated glaciations, Soil texture is ton, Lime­ industry group. and m o s t of the topography as well as areas the industry and Manistee, The topography of the m o s t level. City locality, the droughty due to their The most sandy texture. a r e poorly developed in most a r e a s . Drainage 26 This thirty-one — county area,though d r a s ti c a ll y southern Michigan, This is typical of m o s t of the n o r t h e r n Lake States. resemb l ance applies to the economy, the soils the topography, and gen er al appearance this Minnesota or n o r t h e r n Wisconsin. dates. ilar. of the land. study should be typical of those one might a similar different f r o m social and economic The geological h i s t o r i e s Those a r e a s and f o r e s t The cover, r e s u lt s of expect in n or ther n have all undergone development, but at slightly different of the three states ar e equally s i m ­ CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE AND PREVIOUS STUDIES There exists research literature within the field of f o r e s t generally of f o r e s t l a n d ownership. portant of these nature studies conducted in Michigan. described. study a r e some older studies of a r ela ted Because of the broad nature of this r e s t r i c t e d to the type of l i t e r a t u r e ju s t Studies having some covered in this particular intended to review h e r e the m o s t i m ­ well as study- this chapter had to be a body of recognized as being within the a r e a It is as economics rela tion to other a r e a s of work mentioned with the discussion of those subjects. Forestland Ownership in New England Scope and method of the twenty-three New England towns ^Solon L. Barraclough. England. Mimeographed Ph.D. 269 pp. F o r a b r ief s u m m a r y study. This (virtually 1 study was confined to synonymous with township) F o r e s t land ownership in New th esis, Harvard University, 1949, of this study, see: Solon Barraclough and J am es C. Rettie. The ownership of small private f o r e s t - l a n d holdings in 23 New England towns. U.S. F o r e s t Service, N o rtheast­ er n F o r e s t Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pa. , Station P a p e r No. 34, 32 pp., March, 1950. 27 28 selected as representative Actual work was ownership is ing l e s s the the d i s cu s s ed at length in the complete text. than ten a c r e s of f or e s t l a n d were ownerships towns "d i f f e r e n t f o r e s t types, different types of r u r a l excluded f rom of over five thousand a c r e s were towns for like New England. selected were considered to r e p r e ­ different kinds eco n om y .' 1 ment of r epr e s e n t a t i o n was In the of f arming a r e a s , those with known l a r g e The author and The author admitted that achieve­ difficult in a heterogeneous f o r e s t a r e a selection of the towns for study, with an insignificant f o r e s t a r e a were not considered, ownerships were those and likewise excluded. strongly defended the design of the it involved no s t r i c t probability study because sampling of the entire universe two hundred thousand f o r e s t owners in New England. he defended the absence of s tat is tic al te st s data. own­ made. The twenty-three sent completely Persons reje cted by the way selection of the twenty-three study was situation. concentrated on p r iv at e ownership, although public study, while l a r g e in effect of the private f o r e s t ownership of In like manner applied to the compiled In addition to limited time and funds, the arguments for not using a r andom-sampling p rocedure universe to sample, to m e a s u r a b l e were: lack of a homogeneous that no regional homogeneity existed with re s p e c t v a r i a b l e s , that variables affecting ownership could not 29 be a s s u m e d independent and hence inference. not valid f o r making He considered a judgment sample b e s t s tat is tic al suited for the information desir ed . In the twenty-three and a l i s t of owners piled. towns of mor e selected tax r ecor d s than ten a c r e s In addition, by inquiring of local officials, A. maJ.1 questionnaire was p e r c e n t of whom replied. each owner's product's This harvesting h is to r y , From of 5 0 was questionnaire ownership, the t e n - y e a r f o r e s t expectations. selected for per s o nal interview to substantiate In 25 cases the f o r e s t holdings sonal interviews, and to gain personal were inspected. subsample the in the mail r esults contact i m p r e s si o n s. Also, in the 50 p e r ­ 32 of whom failed to respond to the mall the question of bias 31 asked length of tenure, the original l i s t of 2,106 owners, a random questionnaire Some were listed. and future harvesting of the mail th e r e name, tax delinquency, sent to all of these owners, method of acquisition, rea s o n s for bias com­ a r e a owned, and purpose of ownership were determined. 2,106 owners holding 278,041 a c r e s naire, examined of f o r e s t l a n d was occupation, age, legal a d d r e s s , p r op er ty a s s e s s m e n t , forest were response was question­ considered. was judged p r e s e n t with r e s p e c t to i n t e r e s t in forestland, but did seem to be a bias in favor of more l i t e r a t e owners. No 30 Most of the objectives plied. of this study have al ready been i m ­ It should be s t r e s s e d that considerable was placed on consider at io n of the variables n ature which affect f o r e s t owners' however, forest to c o r r e l a t e actions. any of the variables r e s o u r c e o r the emphasis not purely in the study economic No attempt was made, observed with the physical silvicultural handling of the r e s o u r c e . action was justified on the grounds in of the la r g e sample This r equ ir ed and the advance knowledge that 25 percen t of the holdings had no management with which to c o r r e l a t e . Highlights was Some 74 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a acquired by pu r c h a s e , and 22 p er cent by inheritance. ma in d e r was were of the findings. mo r e obtained by either gift o r f o r e c l o s u r e . common among involved l a r g e r small holdings, The r e ­ Gift bequeaths while f o r e c l o s u r e s usually acreages. In the m a t t e r of length of tenure, half of the f o r e s t acr ea ge was found to have been held l e s s about th r e e years, but than twenty y e a r s , 13 percen t only 30 p er cent over thirty y e a r s . The relative importance of different occupation groups, cluding f a r m e r s several Table 2. other and f o r e s t studies in du s tr i es , reviewed in this Including all owners, owners in this ex­ study as well as for section is s u m m a r iz e d in of wood-using plants owned 31 24 p e r c e n t , busin es s farm ers groups o r p r ofessional people 12 percent of the for es tla n d, 19 per cent , r espectively. together owned over half of the forestland. size of holding was l a r g e s t for public utility groups closely followed by wood-using industries a v e r a g e - s i z e d holding was acres). Clubs holding and full-time These three The average (1,122 acr e s ) , (832 a c r e s ) . Smallest that of the l a b o r e r - c l e r i c a l group (63 and institutions had the fourth l a r g e s t a v e r a g e - s i z e d (726 a c r e s ) . In r e s p e c t to length of tenure by occupation group, wood-using ind u s tr i es likewise, had held 64 p e r c e n t of the ir f o r e s tla n d over thirty years; 98 pe r c e n t of the club and instituion acr e a g e , of the public utility a cr ea g e, and 91 percent a c r ea g e was held equally as long. owners were the l a t e - c o m e r s In t e r m s y ear s of age. of numbers This 66 p er cent of the undivided estate The l a b o r - c l e r i c a l group of in t e r m s of f o r e s t acquisition. of owners, 32 percent were over oldest age group was f air l y sixty evenly divided among the occupation groups. Fewer absentee owners were found than were 65 p e r c e n t of the owners lived in the estland was located, owners expected. Some same town in which the ir f o r ­ or in the adjacent town. r e s i d e d outside of New England. Only 8 p er cent of the 32 The t i m b e r tant r e a s o n for ownership tional purpose was forest area. t i m b e r values on the land were of 62 p er cent the m o s t important No other of the land owned. farm ers, values r e a s o n on 23 p e r c e n t of the By occupation groups r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes than 12 percent a similar analysis prior of ownerships. was made by 53 percent of the to the study, while only 44 p e r c e n t said they expected to make a h a r v e s t in the next ten y e a r s . wood-using industries ten year s and f a r m e r s had made cuts than any other occupation group, the most optimistic about the and were most important to b u s i n e s s - s p r ead about equally among all objectives in the ten y e a r s showed The l a b o r - c l e r i c a l and housewife A. h a r v e s t of f o r e s t products owners Recrea­ to be most important to wood-using industries while were the m o s t i m p o r ­ of the forestland. r ea s o n accounted for m o r e pr of es si onal and r e t i r e d people. groups given as in the preceding and the cutting prospects More same groups were in the next ten y ears. F u t u r e of P r i v a t e F o r e s t l a n d Ownership in the Northern Lake States^ Scope and method of the study. The study a r e a was limited to five counties in n or thw es ter n Wisconsin selected so as to r e p r e s e n t C. H. Stoddard, J r . F u tu r e of private f o r e s t land owner­ ship in the n o r th er n Lake States. Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, 18; 267-283, Aug. 1942. 33 the was region in its basic economic and physical the f i r s t of the ownership four d i s cu s s ed in this o w n e r s ’ attitudes chapter; rather i.e., A l i s t of owners remaining acres were re tu r n e d their Some of the best Questionnaires tions, individuals, further were use of the land, nonresidents, representing 219,772 size of attitude toward public supervision, and plans for r ecr e a t i o n a l corpora­ The corporation group was companies, the individual group was and undivided estates; subdivided into sent to the class i fi ed into three broad groups: and miscellaneous. and others; were than method of acquisition, purpose of owner­ subdivided into operating ti mber concerns, e l im ­ with le s s designed to determine: a s s i s t a n c e , i n t e r e s t in f o r e s t r y , f o r e s t Owners the tax r e c o r d s Likewise owners 492 owners sent was ownership, length of tenure, cutting. of 1,516,329 questionnaires. The questionnaire ship, estimate ownership tr en ds . compiled f r o m eliminated. 1,008 owners. in type to the f i r s t studied had a f o r e s t a r e a was It that it was designed to explore inating those with delinquent taxes. thirty-five a c r e s similar than to postulate The five counties acres. studies characteristics. real estate subdivided into local, and the miscellaneous clubs and lodges or churches. group was 34 Highlights of the f ind i ng s . Operating found to own 25 p er cen t of the f o r e s t a r e a , p ercent, local individuals All other groups held l e s s group, which included 17 percent, timber companies were other corporations and nonresidents than 7 p ercent, with the r e c r e a t i o n , holding l e s s 20 24 percent. miscellaneous than 2 percent. It was found that 71 p e r c e n t of the fores tla n d was acquired by p u r ­ chase f r o m other p r ivate owners, and 5 percen t by tax deed or inheritance. It was implied that a la r g e portion of the remaining 24 p e r c e n t was acquired by purchase f r o m the government. The analysis by length of tenure indicated 5 5 p er cen t of the land had been held over fifteen y e a r s , about 33 p e r c e n t of the land had been owned f r o m five to fifteen y e a r s , percent had been owned l e s s and the than five y e a r s . remaining 12 About t hr ee -f o u r t h s of the f or estland in co r p o r a te ownership had been held over fifteen years, area while le s s than 40 percent of the individually owned f o r e s t owned by the miscellaneous groups had been held le s s than fifteen y e a r s . Almost none of the corporate-owned land (about half of the total) was being held for purposes they were holding mostly f o r Some resale 35 pe r c e n t of the owners acreage were holding f o r of developing the t i m b er , and or ti mber-liquidation purposes. who owned a like proportion of the r e s a l e p urposes. Most of the land retained 35 by individuals was also held f or r e s a l e pu r poses, and this was the m o s t im p o r tan t purpose of ownership for both r e s i d e n t and non­ r esident owners. Nonresident owners ranked r e c r e a t i o n as second m o s t im portant objective of ownership, while ranked t i mb er and f a r m development any intention of growing ti mber grown appeared to be the second. crops. the resident owners Very few owners had The ti m b e r that was being r e s u l t of an accident as s o ciat ed with some other objective of ownership which f o r ced the c u r r e n t owner to hold the land long Some of active enough to obtain a timber h arvest. 61 p e r c e n t of the land was found to have some f o r m management p r a c t i c e d upon it. (not n e c e s s a r i l y f o r e s t management) being Most of those inactively managed p a r cel s to the nonresident individual or r e c r e a t i o n i s t group. Owners 52 per cent of the land planned to make a commercial t i mb er those holding e r s , local area 39 p e r c e n t had no intention of cutting anything. re s id e n t s , planned for and ti mber companies held th r e e - f o u r t h s ran s u r p r is in gly high (22 p e r c e n t of the owners, Some 24 p e r c e n t of the owners cut; Farm ­ of the through cooperatives 34 p e r c e n t of the did not appear to have a concept of management high enough to intelligently answer concerning it. holding cutting. I n t e r e s t in f o r e s t management a s s is ta n c e area). belonged Most owners, other than the ti mber questions company group, 36 had little income understanding of handling f o r e s t p r o p e r t i e s small percentage study a r e a was (less than 3 percent) of the ac r e a g e r e g i s t e r e d under the Wisconsin F o r e s t Crop Law, and m o s t of the owners for maximum even on a s h o r t - r u n b asis. A very in the for tax savings purposes of this land had entered their lands only. Many of those not making use of this law indicated that they had avoided it because of the entangling 11r e d t a p e Tt involved. Soil classification maps ied, and on that b a s i s forestry. These t he ir land was potentialities of the r es p on d ents ’ lands 139 thousand a c r e s same owners suited f or were were judged fit only for thought only 69 thousand a c r e s such a low-value use as f o r e s t r y . suggested by the owners optimistic about other prospective stud­ of Other indicated they were over- values of their lands. Ownership and Use of F o r e s t l a n d in Two Subregions of California^ Scope and method of the actually a continuous series study. of studies The study described h e r e is tied in with the F o r e s t Survey 1 “ “ ' Adon Poli and H. L. Baker. Ownership and use of f o r e s t land in the coast range pine subregion of California. U.S. F o r e s t Service, California. F o r e s t & Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Technical P a p e r No. 2, 64 pp., June 1953. A.lso: Adon Poli and H. L. Baker. Ownership and use of f o r e s t land in the redwood-fir subregion of California. U.S. F o r e s t 37 of California. counties; issued. to be Reports are put out as then periodically a mo r e The methodology of the work p r o g r e s s e s comprehensive study and for regional individual r e p o r t is style of r e p o r t appears standardized. The F o r e s t Survey in California p r e p a r e d base areas according to f o r e s t type, quality. Other base stand age, ownership maps density, maps volume, showing owners' were p r e p a r e d fr o m those data available f rom assessors and tax collectors. posed or otherwise Tr ansect s of the sample. apart. Ownerships Each owner's name, for mat io n gleaned f r o m the maps along with acr e a g e , and county then s u p e r i m ­ c o r r e l a t e d with the f o r e s t map. were then drawn on the base maps direction two miles and site names addresses The second map was showing in an e a s t - w e s t so intercepted became address, a part and the physical in ­ were then r ecorded on a car d a s s e s s e d value, and legal description obtained f r o m the tax r e c o r d s . All of the private f o r e s t ti m b e r operating ownerships company, timber holding were classified into company, ti mb er operating Service, California F o r e s t & Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Technical P a p e r No. 7, 76 pp., June 1954. F o r methodology, see: A.. A. Has el and Adon Poli. A new approach to f o r e s t ownership surveys. Land Economics, 25: 1-10, Feb. 1949. 38 individual, pany, t i m b e r holding individual, rang e- livestock farming r an ge- li v es to ck f arming individual, other f a r m e r s , owners, and o t h e r s . Also, all of the ownerships com­ recreational were grouped into ten s i z e - o f — owner ship c l a s s e s . A. br ief seeking questionnaire was reasons for then sent to the sample owners acquiring the land, future plans f o r the land, o w n e r ’s occupation, how the land was acquired, operating tenure arrangement, and p r e s e n t use of the f o r e s t . then entered on the individual owner's on his ownership. These answers were ca r d along with physical data No evaluation was attempted of actual man age­ ment p r a c t i c e s . Number of owners were estimated in a unique fashion by weighting each o w n e r ’s r e c o r d c ar d inversely with the probability of his being int er cepte d by the t r a n s e c t . interception was An o w n er ’s probability of determined by the north-south expanse of his owner­ ship. Compilations were made in t e r m s of total land a r e a as well as fores tla n d a r e a . Highlights of the findings. to the coast range pine The findings pointed out h e r e subregion and the distinction will be made between the redwood-fir regions unless refer subregion. the differences No 39 are extremely ings of these area, significant. This is justified because the actual f ind­ studies have li mit ed applicability to the Michigan study since physical conditions a r e Range-livestock farming and t i m b e r operating so d r a s ti call y individuals, t i mber holding companies, companies owned most of the f orestland. of the other ownership c l a s s e s held as much as forestland. classes The t i mb er owner controlled very little. were rather evenly distributed. were, on the average, recreationists, and f a r m ­ owned most of sawtimber and pole This probably land disposal policy of the timber ties 10 percent of the The l a t t e r th r ee groups the nonstocked fo r es tla n d , while young None controlled m o s t of the old s awtimber, while range-livestock owners, ers different. companies. s e v e r a l times stands reflected the f o r m e r All company p r o p e r ­ larger than those individually owned. About 70 p er cen t of the land a r e a was companies owned by persons who operated t h e ir own land, while about 8 p ercent was le a s e d out to others. Some 21 p er cen t was left idle. Between 60 and 70 p er cent of the co m mer cia l f o r e s t was or acquired by pu r ch as e, about 10 percent by inheritance, acreage and about 5 per cen t by homesteading. Resident owners area. held only 34 to 57 percent of the fores tla n d Nonresident o u t - o f - s tat e owners controlled 70 percent of the 40 old growth sawtimber area, and county r esidents controlled l e s s than 30 percent. Nonfarm ownership by occupation cl ass Table is s u m m a r i z e d in 2, On the b a s is the leading of numbers of owners, farming and ranching was single purpose of land acquisition, with p r e s e n t land use and proposed land use li s t e d as objectives f or near l y the owners. the Recr ea tio n and r esidence 50 percen t of ranked next to ranching in same type of classification. P r i v a t e F o r e s t l a n d Ownership in Louisiana Scope and method of the Folweil er and Chamberlin study. et al. a r e Inasmuch as quite the studies s i m i l a r in their by approach, A. D. Folweiler. Ownership of f o r e s t land in selected p a r ­ ishes in Louisiana and its effect on f o r e s t conservation. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1943, 307 pp. Also, based on the same study: A., D. Folweiler. Forest land ownership in Louisiana and its influence on timber production. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, Bulletin 377, 56 pp., July 1944. The same author guided another study of a very s im i l a r but more comprehensive nature in the same general region. See: H. H. Chamberlin, L. A.. Sample, and R. W. Hayes. Private f o r e s t land ownership and management in the loblolly-shortleaf type in southern A r k a n s a s , n o r th er n Louisiana, and central Mississippi. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, Bulletin 393, 46 pp., July 1945. 41 in the a r e a studied, and in other t r e a t e d together in the following respects, section. both public and private forestlands for However, actual field work was in c e r t a i n p a r i s h e s cover types: selected tomland hardwood types. certain selected Folweiler's state have been study tr e a t e d of Louisiana only. concentrated on pr ivat e ownerships so as the longleaf-slash, the the two studies to r e p r e s e n t three m a jo r f o r e s t the loblolly-sho r t l e a f , and the bot­ Chamberlin’s work was also based on re p r e s e n ta tiv e a r e a s , but was confined to one f o r e s t type, the loblolly-sho rtleaf type. In addition to the f o r e s t cover type c r i t e r i o n , Folweiler based his be selection of p a r i s h e s (synonymous with county in Louisiana) to studied upon those having a high per cen t of f orestland in private ownership, the lack of ag r ic u l t u r a l development, and a highly de­ veloped f o r e s t economy. not coincide with political study unit had to have land, private owners Chamberlin's selection of study a r e a s did subdivision boundaries, but to qualify a 100 thousand to 600 thousand a c r e s distributed among three owner c l a s s e s in the following p aragraph), of f o r e s t ­ (explained sufficient supply of standing pulpwood and sawlogs to be an economic a s s e t to the community, good m a r k e t s for ti mb er , and that the subdivisions. study unit be in not mo r e than two political F o lw e il e r included nine p a r is h es in his study area. 42 Chamberlin had five study units in his one each in Arkansas and Mississippi. In both studies the tax r e c o r d s areas and a l i s t of owners cl assi fi ed into t h r e e were compiled. classes owned both a g r i c u l t u r a l area, defined as follows: and f or estland, plant in addition to forestland. as consulted f o r the On these lists for es tla n d only, while Class III owners tions three in Louisiana and Class Class II owners Chamberlin used these F olweiler made no personal interviews way the were entire p a r i s h was Chamberlin's as follows: Class were based at the time the classified for that purpose. sampling was systematic, one-fourth of the Class I owners, 725 ownerships drawn in the sample. and the rate s III owners. Type maps Some 516 owners viewed personally, while 55 owners or were one-eighth of the involving 268,583 a c r e s these ownerships. naire. classifica­ type was determined by the II owners, and all of the Class all c l a s s e s were Forest owned or inspection of the property. data concerning individual p r o p e r t i e s examined. I owners sampling purposes. upon information obtained fr om the public officials tax r e c o r d s were owned a wood-utilization a m e ans of stratification of owners for All of F o l w e i l e r ' s owners study In all units and of f o r e s t a r e a were p r e p a r e d for all of adm i n i s t r a t o r s responded to a mail were i n t e r ­ question­ In the contact with owners, attempt was made to determine 43 the following: owner's occupation, objective toward f o r e s t r y , f o r e s t used, owner's age, length of tenure, The f o r e s t p r o p e r t i e s was cutting h is to r y , were composition, A measure of com­ developed to simplify the work, and called pine stocking index. are from more the and a syst em of sampling stand size, and condition c l a s s . Highlights is and method of land acquisition. also inspected, position and stand density was attitude extent of f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s used to classify the f o r e s tla n d according to species stand density, was of ownership, of the f indings. Chamberlin's The points study unless elaborate than F o l w e i l e r ' s study of this dissertation. of i n t e r e s t cited h e r e otherwise mentioned because it and b e a r s Findings mor e s i m i l a r i t y to by occupation class are su m m a r iz e d in Table 2. Nonindustrial ers owners constituted 99 percent of the f o r e s t own­ but owned only 65 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t ar e a . industrial lands had b e t te r stocking tection, and b e t te r and ti mber volume, b e t te r p r o ­ management than the nonindustrial lands. Those owners having a negative attitude toward f o r e s t r y mo s t frequently cited incompetence in f o r e s t r y time as the Generally the explanation f o r c a s e s , no attempt was made the ir attitudes. to improve and inability to spare In over one-fifth of the the fores tla nd because of 44 sheer lack of i n t e r e s t . that the cost was products. of all Fire Oddly, only 3 p e r c e n t of the owners felt too g r e a t in r elation to the danger and ti mber trespass return from forest ranked l e a s t important reasons f or a negative attitude toward f o r e s t r y . Many owners seemed to r e g a r d the ir f or es tla n d bank account, cutting it only 328 instances where ti mber when money was was needed. as a r e s e r v e In 76 of the sold, it was because the owner was badly in need of funds. Little c o r r e l a t i o n was found between f o r e s t productivity, m e a s u r e d by the pine stocking index , and length of tenure, of owner f r o m f o r e s t , and occupational cl a s s . of ownership, f a r m e r s with an i n t e r e s t in timber growing ranked highest in t e r m s Those owners ''existing t i mb er on the productivity index. of t i m b e r rights exploitation. whose objective of management v a l u e s 1' ranked lowest of any group Their i n t e r e s t in value was probably that Owners p r i m a r i l y in t e r e s te d in the subsurface ranked quite high on the productivity index. When management and cutting p r a ct ices dustrial large According to objective of the productivity index, while other f a r m e r s ranked r a t h e r low. was l i s t e d as distance owners owners ranked highest. were evaluated, in ­ Within the industrial groups had the b e s t management. the 45 Private F o r e s t l a n d Ownership and Management in Central Mississippi^ Scope and method of the study. study included twenty-eight counties was of The a r e a 11,750,400 a c r e s . considered uniform in physiographic, acteristics. The region was covered by this This area economic, and social c h a r ­ 58 p e r c e n t f o r es ted , contained th r e e imp o r tan t f o r e s t types and a well-developed agr ic u ltur al and f o r e s t economy. Only about 10 p e r c e n t of the f o r es tla n d in this area was publicly owned. In each county three randomly sample units of four selected, giving a total land a r e a in the a c r e s , o r 2 p er cen t of the land in the study ar e a . photographs f o r the for par cel s the names of owners owners county officials, interviewed. were in size after were obtained f r o m were and l a t e r each were sample of 200,000 On the a e r i a l sample a r e a s , ownership boundaries over two a c r e s same time, sections were t r a c e d the legal descriptions, county tax rolls. and At the c l ass ed as to occupation by talking with c o r r e c t e d on the bas is F o re s t areas for of the sample each ownership occupation class determined f r o m the a e r i a l photographs. These sample ^Lee M. J a m e s , William P. Hoffman, and Monty A. Payne. P r i v a t e f o r e s t landownership and management in central Mississippi. Mississippi A.gricultural Experiment Station, State College, Technical Bulletin 33, 38 pp., April 1951. 46 acreages were f o r e s t a c r ea g e then expanded to account for in the county, thence Numbers of owners owners in the f o u r - s e c t i o n for exclusion or in favor count sample sample unit. This ownerships. were was Absentee owners 36 owners, square c o r n e r fell point a bias included in this selected f r o m to occupation cl a s s . was variable f rom root of the number class the The to in each who could not be contacted in the field questionnaire. with only determined by thus preventing randomly stratified according but proportional to the sent a mail de­ interview. rate of sampling within owper c l a s s e s str at u m. were retained on the l i s t f r om which a sub­ subsequently drawn for previously study ar e a . gave an unambiguous Only the owners A subsample of 600 owners class as whose n o r t h e a s t e r n m o s t property (1,738 owners) were owner lists the whole owner number inclusion of an individual, of la r g e sample was totaled for in each owner-occupation class te rm ined by expanding the counting all all of the known private Mail questionnaires 10 responding, thus were sent to reducing the intended 600 sample to 5 74. When the interviews forest area was were made in the field, the owner’s app r ai sed for been made since practices. Each of these cutting 1937 by the p r e s e n t properties pr act ices (when a cut had owner) and f i r e - p r o t e c t i o n was assigned one of six ratings 47 ranging f r o m excellent to d estruct ive. protection) were The two ratings (cutting and then combined to give a comprehensive management rating. Highlights are of the findings. s u m m a r i z e d in Table 2. General p r op er ty taxes seemed to offer no c o r r ela tion of length of tenure, Nonfarm owner-occupation c l a s s e s averaged about with management p r a c t ic e s . areas did not have management than other length-of-tenure was per acre, and In t e r m s one-fourth of the f o r e s t a r e a was held over twenty-five y e a r s , but these the f o r e s t a r e a 15 cents owned by resident generally those owners significantly b e t t e r classes. owners. who lived f a r t h e r Over one-half of It was found that than fifty miles f r o m the p r o per ty had p o or er management than those living n e a r e r . Objective of ownership did offer agement practiced. own mill area) Those with miscellaneous had the proportionately highest Some cutting was prior to the study. usage and growing t i m ­ objectives share of 30 percent (12 pe r c e n t of the of destructive management. done on most f o r e s t a r e a s Owners their management than those with of ownership designated as f a r m sale. correlation with m a n ­ whose objective was to produce for did generally pr actice b e t t e r objectives ber f or Owners some in the ten years of the f orestland did some 48 cutting in 1947. The Mis s is si p p i F o r e s t H a r v e s t Act was found to have been somewhat effective in preventing O n e-third of the owners forestry free or assistance not. if f r e e , were did not c ar e thought this technical stumpage value when sold. thought a public f o r e s t r y would improve f o r e s t management very little. showed any i n t e r e s t in any type of f o r e s t owners to have it, move would not justify the cost. also found that most owners gram cutting. technical were in t e r e s t e d in hiring f o r e s t r y help at a percentage of the g ross Most owners clear i n t e r e s t e d in public and two-thirds Very few owners complete credit It was credit p ro ­ Few owners scheme, and most did not think a lack of credit a management hindrance. P r a c t i c a l l y no owners suggested that f o r estland taxes them f r o m b e t t e r f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s . that improved public f i r e Also, few owners deterred indicated protection would lead them to improve the ir f o r e s t p r a c t ic e s . Owners of 44 per cen t of the poorly managed f o r e s t their poor ti mb er management by such reasons in f o r e s t production because preference of p r e s e n t of the f uture, not need c a r e , as: explained lack of i n t e r e s t of other more important activities, high stumpage price s need to liquidate to r ais e over uncertain p rices cash, belief that woods do inability to supervise because of other demands or 49 physical limitations, comes, discouragement with long periods and because they live too f a r Older use problem a r e a . terest Over the year s situation. sented the opinions of many persons to the l e g i s latu r e the findings It is ar ea has Some of these of the w r i t e r s . or governor. of actual at t r a c t e d the in­ writings simply Some r epr e s e n te d and took the f o r m of inquiries or r e s e a r c h or fact-finding special Furthermore, treatment here is the a r e a such a complete trea tmen t was mentioned in the h i s t o r i c a l repo r ts represented surveys. impossible to review here or even mention people of repre­ the opinions Still other publications a t u r e would contribute little to this all that has embraced by this of the older l i t e r ­ manuscript beyond that which background (Chapter I). Hence, the very limited. Some studies r e po r ts this a land- who have written many m a n u scr i pts been written about the land and study. (Chapter I) that the n o r th e r n portion Peninsula has long been recognized as of many investigators dealing with the away. Studies in Michigan It was mentioned e a r l i e r of Michigan’s Lower between in ­ predated of very limited 1920. research Before the turn of the century, conducted by the staff of the 50 Michigan Agricultural College ( P r o f e s s o r W. J. Beal in p ar ti cular ) advised of the futility of attempting to p r a c t i c e a g r i c u l t u r e of the soils of n o r t h e r n Michigan. some of the monumental names F i l i b e r t Both, on many At about the t u r n of the in American f o r e s t r y (F. century B. Fernow, etc.) went on r e c o r d concerning f o r e s t r y problems in Michigan. Most notable of the old rep o r ts of Inquiry on Tax Lands and F o r e s t r y was that of the Commission made to the governor and legislature as a r e s u l t of investigations legislature which cr e a t e d the commission. called for Its by the 1907 stated purpose was set forth: A. comprehensive plan for the protection, improvement, uti liza­ tion, and settlement of the delinquent state tax lands, now owned o r that may h e r e a f t e r be acquired, and for the b e t te r and m o r e economical administration of the affairs and the business of the State connected therewith, and with other denuded waste or f o r e s t land; to the end that henceforth a consistent and com­ plete policy may be pursued in ref er en ce thereto. Included in the citizens, lumbermen, a g r ic ultu r al lands were r e po r t were the testimonies et cet e r a . The possibilities of the problem a r e a for d i s cus s ed and deemed possible. ^Commission of Inquiry. 2 Op. 2 of many leading of using the non- sustained yield f o r e s t r y Recommended tax r e f o r m s cit. It should be r e m e m b e r e d that as of 1907 there was still considerable public apprehension concerning the actual physical possibilities of growing new t r e e crops, p a r t i c u l a r l y pine, on the cut-over lands. 51 were suggested to make f o r e s t r y of i n t e r e s t were policies lands the to prevent a m o r e feasible recommendations "timber skinning" concerning enterprise. Also state land disposal and r e v e r s i o n to the state of sold to individuals. Michigan's into law a bill land economic calling for survey. the establishment of the work did not get underway until the projec t, and work moved 1921. signed survey, but actual Many agencies slowly until p r ocedures Work amounted to an inventory of all cooperated on were established. resources. The purpose of the land economic Horace Andrews, In 1917 the governor survey was an early worker on the project, well put by when he said: When a business organization gets in a bad way and goes bank­ rupt, the r e c e i v e r s usually take an inventory of its p r operty and condition in o r d e r to decide what to do with it. They a r e not so much i n t e r e s t e d in what happened, whether it was m i s m a n ­ aged, etc., as in the cold facts as to ju s t what a s s e t s it has, where they a r e and what they a r e worth. They have to have t hese facts in o r d e r to decide what to do. So they take an inventory and get the f a c t s . ^ Many of the counties of n o r t h e r Michigan were nearly bankrupt, and something had to be done. Much of the inventory consisted of making maps able detail, depicting: Horace J. Ames Forester, f o r e s t types and c l e a r e d land, Andrews. 1924, p. 39. in c o n s i d e r ­ soil types The Michigan land economic and survey. 52 the topography, intent of land ownership, linquency, and tax rate. valuation, tax d e­ In this way, by comparing the maps, r elation between the physical situation was assessed resources and the economic cor­ and social possible. Ultimately, the pr ocedure just outlined made possible recom­ mendations leading to wiser land-use policy by all concerned. Trends in land use in northern Michigan. in 1939, was intended as a f if t e e n - y e a r but not as photographs typical detailed as were survey. situation The study was before. Also, a e r i a l relied upon extensively. it was found that f o r e s t cover had a c ­ shrunk by about 2 percent over the period, i n c r e a s e d by 1 percent. than these figures made A. mapping approach was used that used fifteen years In the four counties tually counties. study, comparison with the at the time of the Michigan land economic concentrated in four This Considerably m or e while a r e a in f a r m s shifting had taken place would indicate, however, because gains tended to offset one another. and l o s s es Abandoned land had i n c r e a s e d by 3 8 per c e n t . H. J. Andrews and W. S. Bromley. Trends in land use in n o r th er n Michigan, a study of Alpena, Antrim, Ogemaw, and R o s ­ common Counties. Charles Lathrop Pack F o r e s t r y Foundation, Washington, 1942, 45 pp. 53 Soil-type maps place in land use. between f a r m were compared with changes It was found that a strong abandonment and poor but not entirely. farm for soils At the f if t e e n - y e a r it was to occur rate soils, of abandonment of the poor years would be requ ir ed to take place in land use which seemed destined eventually. Much improvement was in the fifteen- y ear fire Likewise, lands were mostly of b et t e r a s c e r t a i n e d that thirty-two the adjustments c o r r e l a t i o n existed soil types. which had r e v e r t e d f r o m f o r e s t to f a r m that had taken protection. noted in the f o r e s t cover situation period, mostly attributable to improved f o r e s t It was had taken place m o r e noted that the improvement in f o r e s t cover rapidly on the b e t te r soil types. The changes in land ownership which had taken place wildland zone were significant. Small private, c o r p o r ate ownership had all decr eased, ership had in c re ase d. ownership class owners or p ersons cations were expected f a r m state The hunt club group was to show an i n c r e a s e Objectives while large private, in the and and federal own­ the only private during the period. of ownership determinations knowing the owners in the were made by asking counties studied. Indi­ that about one-third of the wildland was being held for value. portant objective, Hunting and fishing was the accounting for nearly second most i m ­ 15 percent of the wildland. 54 Other objectives summer resort, accounted for in o r d e r mineral of the ir importance values, and ti m b e r were for values. sale pur p o s es , Timber values only 3.5 p e r c e n t of the wildland ownership objectives, and near l y all of these than twenty years; owners indicated planning horizons of le s s i . e . , t h e ir i n t e r e s t in ti m b e r was to make a h a r ­ vest during that period. Total a s s e s s e d valuation of private land had shrunk in the f if t e e n - y e a r period, but a slight i n c r e a s e was 1935 to 1939. This small i n c r e a s e was noted in the period attributed to r ecr eat ional dev elopment. Rural populations period 1920 to 1940. in all of the counties in c r e a s e d during the However, use of r u r a l land for farming that 1930 was the low point. Since the i n c r e a s e d very little, it was assumed r e s o r t development was the p r i m a r y cause. Other Ownership Studies Miscellaneous closely studies. Many studies related to the problem of this United States. Several thesis less elaborate and le s s have been made in the of these were m a s t e r ' s theses/ and were See, for example: W. C. Hopkins. Stability of f o r e s t land ownership in the United States, a study of the shifting ownership of f o r e s t lands, of the causes back of it, and the r es u lt s thereof. Un- 55 based mostly on l i b r a r y work or field work limited to a single county, In s e v e r a l land economic were more states elaborate studies survey have been made. similar Notable among ones made in Wisconsin and Cal if or n ia. * emphasis and l e s s upon the on soils entire to the Michigan These these studies studies placed r u r a l land economy of the than the Michigan study. Forestry was region an i m ­ portant p a r t of both studies. Some l i t e r a t u r e has been published on the scope and methods of f o r e s t l a n d ownership as they relate to this studies. These a r e t r e a t e d in Chapter III study. P r i v a t e f o r e s t management in the the name does not indicate it, this Tennessee Valley. 2 Although study was basically an ownership published M.F. t h e si s, Yale University, 1941, 110 pp. Also: T. R. Moberg. Tenure and use of privately owned f a r m s and f o r e s t s in Durham County, North Carolina. Unpublished M.F. thesis, Duke University, 1942, 52 pp. ^See, for example: Committee on Land Use and F o r e s t r y . Land use in Wisconsin. State Executive Office, Madison, April 1932, 155 pp. Also: David Weeks, A. E. Wieslander, H. R. Josephson, and C. L. Hill. Land utilization in the north er n S i e r r a Nevada. Giannini Foundation, Berkeley, 1943, 127 pp. 2 the Tennessee Tennessee 13 p p ., 1954. Valley Authority. Valley. Tennessee P r i v a t e f o r e s t management m Valley Authority, N o r r i s , Tenn., 56 study. The b rief r e p o r t on the findings a sampling proced ur e Within these a r e a s using of the 319 sampling 651 land owners were areas study indicated that was employed. interviewed, and their woodlands inspected. It was found that 54 percent of the a r e a was f o r e s t e d , 82 p e r c e n t of this in private ownership. poor on 52 pe r c e n t of the land, f a i r only 12 p e r c e n t of the private forestland. by a composite control, Cutting p r a c t i c e s on 36 percent, were and good on Management was rated rating of degree of planning, logging control, employment of a cutting budget, f i r e protection, tion, ti mber cutting system, ins ect and disease with control, grazing reforesta­ and i m p r ov e­ ments . Ar ea owned by occupation c l a s s e s s u m m a r i z e d in Table 2, groups f a r m e r s sional people, rated quite low. Housekeeping also (housewives), p r o f e s ­ rated low in t e r m s owned with good management. manufacturing industries usual, l a r g e r owners agement than small of As usual, wood had the bes t management. B e t t e r f o r e s t management was found on the i n c r e a s e . as is With respect to management by occupation and sawmill oper at o rs pe r c e n t of a r e a other than f a r m e r s Also, were found to be using b e t te r f o r e s t m a n ­ owners. 57 TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF "OTHER *,a PRIVATE COMMERCIAL FORESTLAND BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS IN SELECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES Occupational Group 23 New England Towns Ten­ nessee Valley Central M issis­ sippi F ou r Areas in A r k ., L a . , and M iss. North­ west Cali­ fornia (percent of f o r e s t area) B u s i n e s s and p r o ­ f e s s ion al p e o p l e . . Wage and s a l a r y e a r n e r s ......................... Housewives ................. R e t ir ed p er s o n s . . D ealers in f o r e s t l a n d ..................... Nonforest i n d u s t r i e s ..................... 36.7 35.9 48.1 51.4 68.0 14.5 26.4 15.1 18.5 23.8 (b) (b) 17.2 17.0 14.4 5.8 10.5 16.6 (b) 2.8 (b) (b) (b) 6.8 (b) (b) 5.5 5.9 10.3 100.0 Miscellaneous . . . . T o t a l ............................. 15.1 7.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.9 9.4 13.9 100.0 (acres) Size of sample 160,873 . . . Source: H. R. (c) 31,507 (c) Josephson and John R. McGuire, (c) U.S. F o r e s t Service. Ownership of f o r e s t land and ti mb er , Section D, Chapter IV, Timber R e s o u r c e s Review ( preliminary review draft), Sept. 1955, p. 39. a "O ther" denotes the exclusion of f a r m and industrial owners. L No s e p a r a t e es ti mate given. If identified, these p r o p er ti es may have been included in the miscellaneous CNot published. group. CHAPTER III STUDY PROCEDURE AND SAMPLING This in this this chapter is devoted to a discussion of the methods study commencing with the study was used in this TECHNIQUE correlated. study wer e used Michigan F o r e s t Survey, to which A. considerable portion of the raw data common to both projects. F o r e s t Survey’s Method of Sampling The Michigan f o r e s t the Lake States survey. survey is p a r t of the f o r e s t survey of region, which in turn is p a r t of the nationwide f o r e s t This inventory of the nation's f o r e s t resources was a u t ho r ­ ized by the McSweeney-McNary F o r e s t R e s e a r c h Act of 1928. has grown to be one of the mo s t important r e s e a r c h functions the United States States Lake the region, F o r e s t Service. The p r e s e n t Experiment, is the of survey in the Lake conducted by the Division of F o r e s t States F o r e s t It Economics of the second complete inventory of region. The study a r e a the Michigan f o r e s t shown in F i g u r e I is known as survey. The a r e a 58 D i s tr ic t 3 of consists of thirty-one counties, 59 which a r e f a r t h e r subdivided intQ five blocks (Figure I) for compu­ tation pu r po s es . Method of f o r e s t a r e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n .^ based upon a e r i a l photographic checking. F orest area was grid with s y s t e m a tic a lly intensity methods The f o r e s t survey was supplemented by ground determined by placing a t r a n s p a r e n t spaced dots over a e r i a l photographs of ten thousand dots p e r million a c r e s . The ratio at the of dots falling in f o r e s t to the total number of dots falling on land a r e a was then multiplied by known land a r e a totals of total f o r e s t area. Prior to yield the to this operation, however, estimate a portion of the f o r e s t and nonforest dots were ground checked and a co rrection factor applied to the dot count. Method of selecting ume. sample for condition class During the dot count on the a e r i a l photographs, dot falling in f o r e s t located a sample f o r t y - a c r e area and vol­ every tract. sixth The forty, 2 0 chains by 2 0 chains, was then adjusted to coincide with ownership lines with the *This r e f e r e n c e d dot still section is based mostly enclosed. upon. 2 Lake States Forest Ex­ p e r i m e n t Station. F o r e s t survey handbook, Lake States, 1952. U.S. F o r e s t Service, Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, St. Paul, 66 p p ., 1952. 2 This method was of Michigan, used in the north er n portions Minnesota, and Wisconsin. of the states A. different system was used 60 The for ty then became the basic forest detail. forties into initions), graphs. This and densities as size tabulated f r o m all In o r d e r (see Appendix A f o r a basis for cor r ect ing the f o r e s t a r e a data sample f o r t i e s . to d etermine average volumes p e r a c r e in the dif­ These plots On a one-fifth a c r e plot t r e e s were m e a s u r e d while plot. Plots condition c l a s s e s smaller were sample ground plots checking the forty by consulting circles. six inches in d iameter and l a r g e r trees were m e asu r ed on a one-fiftieth randomly located and allocated to different root of in that condition cl a s s . crew l e a d e r At the time of ground checked the ownership of each sample county southern portions region. were being consisted of two concentric F o r e s t ownership determinations. cu ltural were taken by approximately proportional to the square the volume per a c r e in the were ground checked by at the time the f r acti o n of sample forties ground checked. def­ they were mapped f r o m the a e r i a l photo­ stand condition c l a s s e s , field crews acre classes A. f r a c t i o n of these mapped f o r ti e s as estimating accomplished by subdividing the sample s tandard types, field men to s e r v e ferent was sampling unit for reco r d s of these and/or states county officials. Privately which is p r i m a r i l y an a g r i ­ 61 owned f o r ti e s were cl a s s i f i e d into thr ee broad ownership These were l a r g e p r iv at e (less than 5,000 a c r e s ) , for ti es (5,000 a c r e s and f a r m . were cl ass i fi ed p r i o r and l a r g e r ) , classes. small private Most of the publicly owned to this f r o m national and state f o r e s t maps. Forest gory except areas by condition c l a s s e s f o r s mall pr ivate between the total and the to small p r ivate. Sampling accuracy States was error of no mo r e than worked up separately. sum of all other Volumes cording to condition cl ass which is were residual was assigned ac­ acr ea g e. sought. The f o r e s t survey of the Lake designed to es timate total f o r e s t a r e a with a standard 1 p e r c e n t for two-thirds f o r e s t e d . a typical operation made possible m o r e greater accuracy. 700,000-acre Sampling for volume per within about 8 p er cent for s t r i v e for categories The were p r o r a t e d to ownership cl ass es designed to be within a standard e r r o r feet or each ownership ca t e ­ acre county was of 3 percent p e r billion cubic a typical county. Where local intensive work it was the policy to co­ 62 The F i r s t This portion of the with the f o r e s t study was conducted in close cooperation s urvey conducted by the United States F o r e s t S e r ­ vice, which supplied the f o r e s t with the Subsample resource data. It p r i m a r i l y deals sampling by mail of 406 township officials between August 1953 and Decemb e r 1954, inclusive. Their replies and the analyses of them f o r m e d the b a s i s f or Chapter IV. Method of s ampling. All of the ground checked sample forties designated as privately owned in the f o r e s t further ownership study a r e a , r es p ect f o r ti e s ships study. and they were to ownership. as s umed to be randomly distributed with By checking the legal descriptions of these state the sample f o r t i e s by political township. of Michigan the township supervisor maintains the township a s s e s s m e n t lands. a total of 3,046 of these in the obtained f r o m the Michigan Conservation Department it was In the visor chosen for against the public land survey descriptions for political town­ possible to s ep a r a t e estate There was survey were in his township for usually has Also, r e c or d s and places tax purposes. the valuation upon real Thus the township the most up-to-date ownership since the township is records a much s m a l l e r for super­ r ur al unit than the 63 county, it was felt that township officials county officials to know owners Extent of coverage were obtained for 406 officials (Table mine the owner's personally. and information sought. Department of State the names vis o r s would be m or e likely than and a d d r e s s e s the th i r t y - o n e —county ar ea. occupation, his to d e t e r ­ distance of total f o r e s t hold­ each owner of each sample for ty falling in that s u p e r v i s o r ' s township. A. sample of the questionnaire found in Appendix B , as well as Although s e v e r a l bits questionnaire, emphasis occupation class. Appendix A, were study. Michigan Each of these 3) was then sent mail questionnaires name and a d d r e s s , his the of all township s u p e r ­ residence f r o m the p r o p e r t y , and size of owner's ing for From These which accompanied it. of information were sought on this was placed upon determination of the owner's classes, the basic One of the basic the l e t t e r (Form 53 FL01) is to be means which are of owner assumptions defined in detail in stratification for of this study was that there is considerable homogeneity within occupation classes behavioral attitudes serves a convenient means as Altogether, township of f o r e s t owners. (Table with res pect to Also, of course, occupation of classification. 3,046 questionnaires supervisors this (Table 4) were sent to 406 3), or an average of 7.5 questionnaires 64 TABLE 3 RESULTS OF MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLING OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS Block Item Cadillac Baldwin Gladwin North Tip Mio T otal (number of township s ) Initially con­ tacted ................. 81 101 70 43 111 406 Replied afte r f i r s t contact . 45 52 35 27 46 205 Replied after second con­ tact ......................... 16 38 22 8 46 130 61 90 57 35 92 335 Total replies 3l b Block locations Percent 89; Gladwin, 81; are shown in F i g u r e I. responding by block were: Mio, 81; North Tip, Cadillac, 83; and Total, 75; 82. Baldwin, 65 TABLE 4 RESULTS OF SAMPLING TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS AND INDIVIDUAL OWNERS NOT CLASSIFIED BY SUPERVISORS Block Item Cadillac B aldwin Gladwin Mio North Tip Total (number of questionnaires) Sent to s u p e r ­ v i s o r s ................. 512 945 487 287 815 3,046 Returned bysupervisors 349 667 329 173 536 2,054 Sent to indi­ viduals . . . . 60 100 73 39 91 363 Returned by individuals 28 29 20 20 42 139 Classed for occupations 298 478 239 131 410 1 ,556 Cla ss ed for distance . . . . 289 460 230 129 403 1,511 . . 66 p er township. Some 205 s u p e r v i s o r s an additional sent. 130 responded after In aggregate, returning and 4). replied after the f i r s t as many as It was, two r e m i nd er s 82 p e r c e n t of the officials 67 p e r c e n t of the questionnaires of c o u r s e , contact; were solicited replied, sent to them (Tables as s u med that this response was 3 random with r e s p e c t to ownership. One can see f r o m did not var y greatly r es pons e rather with r e s p e c t to geographical location. of questionnaires r eturned (Table 4), the response r es ult s by direct mail and total r e s p o n s e . A. considerable pr oportion of the questionnaires township officials It was supplied the owner's apparent f r o m did not know absentee In o r d e r As bias 4) of these were a r e s u l t of the and individual as to 363 individuals (Table owners, returned by the ad d r e s s , but no occupation examining these that the local officials owners to minimize this sent directly percent This uniform. Supplementing the class. 3 that the response varied between 75 and 89 p er cent f rom block to block. Also, in t e r m s was examination of Table well as they knew local a very simple mail questionnaire was of the type just described. r e t u r n e d in an acceptable response f r o m residents. Some 38 condition. both the township officials 1,556 questionnaires (Table 4) representing 67 an equal number cupation. owners' of sample f o r ti e s By both means addresses, according 1,511 plus were cl ass i fi ed f or o wner’s o c ­ map checking of about four hundred sample f o r ti e s were cl ass i fi ed acceptably to distance of owner’s permanent residence f r o m the prope r t y . Upon final the analysis tion was examination of the of size class of ownership. it was The ver y m e a g e r , and in addition it was classi fi cati o n used was in the replies 0 to 500 a c r e inadequate. response to this ques­ realized that the size Most of the usable and volume. each sample f o r ty within owner occupation cl a s s e s forest a c r ea ge forest condition c l a s s . pational classes, and t h r e e replies fell class. Computational methods f o r f o r e s t a r e a was decided to drop From the commercial tabulated according to its previously mapped This tabulation was made by eleven occu­ th i r t e e n f o r e s t types, six f o r e s t stand density c l a s s e s , and for s t and-size each f o r e s t classes, survey block (Figure I). In this fashion the land were sample tabulated for sample 47,166 a c r e s of commercial f o r e s t ­ the t h i r t y - o n e — county study a r ea. This constituted 0.96 p e r c e n t of the total commer cial forestland es ti m a te d in the study a r e a by the f o r e s t survey. 68 In o r d e r to es ti mate f o r e s t a r e a by occupation class r a t i o - e s t i m a t o r technique as This s tatistic f o r making des cr ib ed by Cochran was found to be m o r e was the employed. efficient than simple expansion such e s t i m a t e s . The ratio es t i m a t e s were made as follows: f a r m e r - o w n e d f o r e s t acr e a g e , f o r example, the For estimating ratio was: total f a r m e r - o w n e d c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t a r e a in s a m p l e total co m m e r c i a l f or es tla n d a r e a in the sample This ratio was then applied to the total privately owned f or estland estimated f o r the study a r e a by the f o r e s t Within occupation c l a s s e s the survey. same technique was estimating f o r e s t a r e a by all variable combinations a forest condition c l a s s . aspen pole ti m b e r , the For used for which constitute example, to estimate f a r m e r - o w n e d ratio was: total f a r m e r - o w n e d aspen pole ti m b e r a r e a in sample total aspen pole ti m b e r a r e a in the sample This ratio was then applied to the total privately owned aspen pole timber area used for esti mated by the f o r e s t estimating a r e a s All of these a r e a individual f o r e s t by distance class computations survey blocks ^William G. Cochran. John Wiley and Sons, survey. 1953, p. A, s i m i l a r p r oces s of owner f r o m property. were made in o r d e r separately by to minimize geographical Sampling techniques. 129. was New York, 69 differences ma te s ber in the t i m b e r In o r d e r to make the a r e a alone over five thousand s e p a r a t e of multiplications quired at l e a s t as Volumes being stand. were many required. re­ in addition. were computed in a s i m i l a r fashion with a r e a condition cl a s s . For survey volume totals for example, ratios a par­ the ratio cited immediately above would have been multiplied by the f o r e s t for and an equal num­ Combining the r e s u l t s s e p a r a t e operations employed to p r o r a t e f o r e s t ti c u la r divisions esti­ survey volume total p rivately owned aspen pole ti m b e r in o r d e r to estimate f a r m e r - owned aspen pole t i m b e r volume. Accu r acy of sampling. This sampling p r o c e d u r e , and t h erefore to the chance that the means coincided with the t r u e means is the type of e r r o r sponsibility. figures study is based upon a involves of the samples of their some possible e r r o r of respective populations. sampling p r e s e n t e d in One check on with a known total. errors That evaluation b e a r s e r r o r s which may have been in­ study and f o r which the author must as s u me full The due drawn may not have which is d i s cussed here. Its no relationship to other types volved in this entire re­ d i s cussed here p e r t a i n to the the next chapter. the data was possible by making a comparison The f a r m e r and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r occupation 70 classes combined c o r r e s p o n d c l o s e l y inition of a f a r m owner. with the Census It th e r e f o r e follows ac r e a g e held by these two groups should agree the total f a r m f o r e s t a c r e a g e l i st ed by the th i r ty- o n e — county close. The Census Bureau land, while this These s id e r s study a r e a . study results that the ratio approximately with Census Bureau for the were 1,487,033 a c r e s farmer showed 1,475,300 a c r e s . were p a r t i c u l a r l y phenomenal when one con­ es ti m a t o r s survey. classes des cr ib ed in the previous magnitudes The of the assumptions check, s tat istical error computations for were occupa­ of this which show the probable maximum sampling 2 survey estimated f a r m - of total f o r e s t acreage by owners' r es ult s The f o rmulas determined separately. In addition to this made on the esti mates section In other words, the es timators f or the two were not applied to f o r e s t owned f o r e s t a c r e a g e tion c l a s s e s . remarkably of f a r m f o r e s t ­ were applied to the total of all private f o r e s t acreage by the f o r e s t def­ that the total f o r e s t These two figures li st ed B u r eau' s errors a r e p resented in Table 5, making these computations and the basic they involve a r e included in Appendix C. ■^U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Agricul­ t u r e , 1950. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, Vol. 1, Pt. 6, 1952. ^Derived by the Statistical L a bo r at or y , Iowa State College, Ames . 71 TABLE 5 COMMERCIAL FORESTLAND AREA BY OWNERS1 OCCUPATION CLASS AND APPROXIMATE SAMPLING ERROR F o r e s t Ar ea Owner Occupation Pe rc ent^ F o r e s t industry 1.8 -* 2.6 108,500 20.3 ..................... 4.2 -- 5.4 235,800 12.6 -- 22.5 1,04 8,3 00 5.0 9.4 427,000 8.7 14.0 -* 16.0 734,800 6.8 10.1 -- 11.7 536,200 7.6 8.3 370,600 9.6 -- 14.1 641,300 7.7 F a r m e r ...................................................... P a r t - t i m e f a r m e r ......................... Business-professional . . . . ..................................... Housewif e - w i d o w ............................. 20.3 8.0 -- 6.9 12.1 Recreational g r o u p ..................... Real ..................................... 8.2 -- 9.8 441,800 9.5 Undivided e s t a t e ......................... 2.8 -- 3.8 161,700 15.7 R e t i r e d ...................................................... 3.5 -- 4.5 195,200 13.6 estate 4,901,200 Total .............................................................. cL Error of estimate of f o r e s t a r e a to one Maximum and minimum minus one standard e r r o r . of E s t i m a t e 3(perc ent) ............................. Nonforest industry Wage e a r n e r A.c res E rror range standard error. estimated at average plus or 72 The Sub sample f or F ie l d Interview This p or ti on of the study deals f o r e s t l a n d owners 1954. for in the These interviews Chapters study a r e a made during the and the analyses sample f o r field interview, occupation c l ass 1,265 sample forties had been classified This was based on the usable is The distribution of these shown in Table 6. decided upon the basis that two hundred field interviews to as the by owner selection of the field sample. of funds and time available could be taken. In o r d e r to allo­ chosen. This method, which has been r e f e r r e d " m ax im um possible binomial v a r i a n c e , 11 was intuitively so as classes r e a l i z e d that heavily replies sample among the different owner c l a s s e s , a somewhat novel approach was devised to the begin­ These were then assumed to r e p r e s e n t the population of owners f or cate this of selection of the r ecei ved f r o m the township officials just p r i o r ning of the field work. small s u mme r of them f o r med the basis At the time of the according to owner’s occupation cl ass . It was of 229 V through X. Method of s a m p l i n g . replies with the interviews to satisfy requ ir em en ts for minimum without heavy sampling of la r g e equal sampling of all c l a s s e s sampling unimportant c l a s s e s . sampling of classes. would have It was resulted in Also, it was felt that sampling 73 TABLE 6 ALLOCATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF FIELD INTERVIEWS BY OWNER OCCUPATION CLASS No. of Occupation Class Sample F orti es Sample i/N A.llocateda Actually Sampled _ . , b ..................... F o r e s t in dustry 36 - 36 20 Nonforest i n d u s tr y 65 8.06 13 7 F a r m e r .............................................. 400 20.00 32 36 P a r t - t i m e f a r m e r ................. 155 12.45 20 33 Business-professional . . 133 11.53 19 32 ............................. 157 12.53 20 26 Ho us ewif e - w i d o w ..................... 100 10.00 16 18 87 9,33 15 17 ................................. 63 7.94 13 17 Undivided e s t a t e ..................... 35 5.92 10 11 R e t i r e d .............................................. 34 5.83 10 12 T o t a l ...................................................... 1,265 103.59 204 229 Wage earner Recreational group Real es tate SL For . . . . . . . Allocated according example, allocation to the f a r m e r class was 20.00/103.59 X 164 = 32. A. 100 p e r c e n t class, to maximum possible binomial variance. sample was leaving a theoretical computed as: chosen in the f o r e s t industry 164 interviews to be allocated. 74 directly p r oportional to number of individuals in each c l a s s , which would have minimized variance of mean proportion, would have sulted in light sampling of some other In o r d e r that it was ans w er s to overcome classes. these difficulties, it was d e s i r e d to optimize estimates r a t h e r than mean proportion. s tr a t i f i e d cl ass would accomplish this; sampling postulated of variation of yes-and-no A scheme which would allo­ cate interviews proportional to the square each c l a s s re­ root of the number in i . e . , it would be optimum for with r e s p e c t to the variance or coefficient of . 1 variation. In allocating the scheme it was dustry c l a s s p icture. and the sample of 200 interviews according to this decided to interview all 36 owners in the f o r e s t in­ because of t h e ir importance in the f o r e s t ownership Thus, it became r es u l t s of this a problem of allocating allocation appear in Table 6. ward to the n e a r e s t whole number cated interviews *In other 164 interviews, in all ownership Rounding up­ resulted in a total of 204 allo­ classes. words, the optimum allocation for stratified s am­ pling would be proportional to: where See: Nj = the number in the i th s t r at u m , William G. Cochran. Op. cit., p. 35. and V = the variance. 75 It was decided also that t r a v e l limitations prohibited the sampling of any owners residing south of a line in the me tropolitan Detroit a r e a or running f r o m Pontiac through Lansing to Grand Rapids, but with the single exception of Jackson. that owners tiac, living in such cities Lansing, Grand Rapids, sent the attitudes as Flint, of urban r esident s did not m e e t these and another It was felt Saginaw, Bay City, Pon­ and Muskegon would adequately r e p r e ­ who were owners Thus in the actual draw of sample f o r ti e s owner of forestland. by random numbers c r i t e r i a the sample forty was draw made. those Likewise, if the returned if a forty was drawn whose owner had been selected for interview by a previously drawn forty, the c a r d was r e t u r n e d and another draw made. draw an equal number of alter n ate s Extent of coverage was than originally anticipated. convenience of tr a v e l Also, th e r e was industry c l a s s e s , r ect ed to another the selected by the and information sought. p r o g r e s s e d it became apparent that mor e the At the time of the Thus same system. As field work interviews could be made extra interviewees were added as w a r r anted f r o m the group of al ter n ate s. considerable m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n among the f o r e s t and many cl a s s . such owners after interview were These two p r o c e s s e s random accumulation of mo r e interviews cor­ combined resulted in than had been planned. 76 The total number thus accrued, r os e to 229. number by occupation cl ass The details be is The spread of this shown in Table 6. of the information sought by the interview can seen by examination of the questionnaire in Appendix B. Fore­ m o s t among the information determined at the time of the interview was the total f o r e s t a r e a owned by the interviewee in the study area. Also, at the made if it were same time convenient. some inspection of the woodland was Chapter VI t r e a t s this l a t t e r point in m o r e detail. The interview technique employed was tioning except f o r a few questions answer. which r equir ed a very specific Generally the attempt was to draw out the owner's feelings through conversation so as ence. to avoid d ir ec t ques­ The f o r m was to avoid filling out the f o r m in his p r e s ­ then completed after a short drive f r o m the place of the interview. Supplementing the field interview by m a i l . that a considerable number of interviews dwelling absentee owners needed on absentee mail information f r o m were made among urban it was felt that mo r e information was owners questionnaire was Despite the fact to avoid possible cr i t i c i s m . Thus a devised to obtain approximately the same a sample of such owners as had been obtained 77 through the field, interview. the l e t t e r A. sample of the questionnaire which accompanied it a r e used and included in Appendix B. Certain questions which proved comparatively i r r e l e v a n t at the time field interview were omitted f r o m this of the questionnaire in o r d e r to shorten it. A.n unbiased selection of owners was made by selecting all absentee owners according to occupation c l ass a d d r e s s was provided. 7) were sent to such owners. nonrespondents, who had been classified by the township s upervisor mailing additional to canvass by this method A. total of 163 questionnaires After one r e m i n d e r was a total of sixty- t hr ee seventeen questionnaires replies were and whose were (Table sent to all received. A.n r etur ned f o r insufficient address. Computational methods f or field interview a n a l y s i s . field interview questionnaires to facilitate mail the were coded and punched on IBM cards sorting and tabulating. The questionnaires were not put on IBM c a r d s , but their same way as the others. were handled entirely analysis However, both groups returned by was handled in of questionnaires separately. In o r d e r to analyze the owned by p e r s o n s The 229 answering response in t e r m s of f o r e s t a r e a a p a r t i c u l a r question in a cer t ain way, 78 TABLE 7 RESULTS OF MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLING OF INDIVIDUAL ABSENTEE OWNERS PREVIOUSLY CLASSED INTO OCCUPATIONS BY TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS Question' ■m 1 Block n a i re s Mailed (number) Response Number Percent C a d i l l a c ................................................................................... 19 5 26 B a l d w i n .................................................................................... 35 11 31 G l a d w i n ................................................................................... 29 9 31 M i o ................................................................................................ 29 10 34 ........................................................................... 51 28 55 63 39 North. Tip T o t a l .................................................................................... Includes insufficient or seventeen questionnaires incorrect address. I63a which were returned for 79 a s y st em of weighting individual owner inasmuch as the sampling to occupation c l a s s , this classes was devised. Also, r ate was variable f r o m occupation class is the only way comparisons across owner could be made* The weighting s y st em involved the technique d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r this cards in this ratio chapter. es timator type of The ratio es timator in case became: total f o r e s t a r e a owned in the study a r e a by the p er s o n interviewed total f o r e s t a r e a owned by persons in this occupation actually interviewed in the field This ratio was then multiplied by the total f o r e s t a r e a estimated to be owned by that p a r t i c u l a r occupation class ^ in the study ar e a . This figure became the weight for The proportionate a r e a the individual owner interviewed. response to a par t i c u l a r by summation of the weights of owners question was obtained answering a particular ques­ tion in a c e r t a i n way. The analysis in t e r m s of owner numbers was somewhat more involved. A.t the time the dot grid was used on the a e r i a l photo­ graph, its probability of locating a sample forty, and hence a sample owner f o r interview l a t e r , was directly proportional to the owner's area. estimates Thus, in o r d e r f o r e s t owners, it was to make in t e r m s of numbers n e c e s s a r y to weight individual owners' of cards 80 i n v e r s e l y with, the a r e a weight previously assigned to the cards and j u s t d e s c r i b e d in the p a r a g r a p h above. The final analyses and number of owners not made in t e r m s was in t e r m s r e p r e s e n t e d by a p a r t i c u l a r of actual a r e a made according of both f o r e s t a r e a response was or actual numbers. to proportion of owners r epr e s e n te d Father, it responding in a p a r ­ t i c u l a r way. A. considerably l e s s and ave r a g e of actual owner numbers size of f o r e s t holding by owners' was made, and ap pear s holding was sound estimate in Table 16. In this occupation cl a s s e s estimate a v e r ag e -s i zed computed by simply dividing the number of owners i n t e r ­ viewed in that occupation class by the total f o r e s t a r e a owned by such per s o n s as sized holding was deter min ed by the field interview. thence divided into the estimate of total f o r e s t area owned by a p a r t i c u l a r first subsample level. the small This average- occupation class The weakness of this as determined at the estimate stems fr o m sample on which it was based and the fact that there was a g r e a t e r probability of a la rg e owner coming into the sample than a s m al l owner. were initially This r e s u lt ed f r o m selected. could have had no mo r e p r e s e n t e d in this study. The bias the way the sample f orti es introduced in this than a negligible way, however, effect on other statistics CHAPTER IV OWNERS OF It is THE FOREST RESOURCE the purpose of this source held by p r iv at e owners is chapter in the who owns what and how much. a rather classes study a r e a . of p r iv at e f o r e s t owners. held by different This information is basic to the chapter a r e based on inventory supplied by the F o r e s t Survey. h e r e i n cor r e s p o n d with F o r e s t all private Thus the totals Survey, D istrict ownership cl a s s e s presented 3, Michigan, except for due to rounding and computational techniques. ods were Here the concern ownership tr e a t e d in subsequent chapters. The data p r e s e n t e d in this t i st ics f o r re­ This information is p r e s e n t e d as detailed inventory of the f o r e s t r e s o u r c e questions of p r iv at e fig ur es to examine the f o r e s t sta­ discrepancies Computational meth­ d e s cr ibed in the preceding chapter. F o r e s t Areas All f o r e s t a r e a data pr es en ted in this mercial forest bearing or area. to com­ C ommercial fores tla nd is defined as land capable of bearing pole-.timber or of c o m m e r c i a l study r e f e r character, and which is , 81 or is saw-timber likely to be, stands 82 commercially available.1 Most f o r e s t l a n d in Michigan is commercial. The previous f o r e s t survey cl assed as showed that le ss than 4 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a belonged in the noncommercial cl a s s . Other special t e r m s used in this chapter a r e F o r e s t a r e a by occupation c l a s s . preceding forest chapter ac r e a g e shows the defined in Appendix A. Table 5 included in the relative distribution of commercial among occupation c l a s s e s . The l a r g e s t single owner c l a s s was over one million a c r e s . The f a r m e r ur es for f a r m the census as These two cl a s s e s pointed out previously, owners and this Lake definition of f a r m the total f o r e s t acreage fig­ a r e in rema rka bly close agreement between study. States F o r e s t Experiment Station, F o r e s t types and Lake 2, June 2. o R. States classes of f a r m owners condition c l a s s e s in the Lake States. U.S. F o r e s t Service. States F o r e s t Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Report No. 1948, p . with of the privately owned combined c o r r e s p o n d with the Census Bur eau' s o wners, and, class, and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r combined accounted f o r about th r e e - t e n th s c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t a cr ea ge. the f a r m e r N. Cunningham e t a l . Region F o r e s t Report No. 1, Service. 1950, p. 6. Forest resources of the Lake USDA., Washington, F o r e s t Resource 83 F o r e s t in d u s t r i e s were found to own l e s s other group despite the n ecessit y for resource. r eas o ns Nonforest i n d us tr i es were found to own mo r e their acreage reliance than any upon the f o r e s t who hold land f or many different than twice the acr ea ge of that owned by f o r e s t i n d us tr i es . The b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l single owner c l ass class with r ec r e a t io n a l owned by r e c r e a t i o n groups was the second l a r g e s t groups third. The 13 percent may appear low to some o b s e r v e r s . However, a considerable portion of the land held by other groups, particularly groups, the wage e a r n e r s , b u s i n e s s - p r o f es s ional, and real was being held f o r r e c r eat io n al purposes. estate This is discussed at some length in the next chapter. F o rest areas of f o r e s t by occupation class a r e a held by occupation c l a ss es different portions of the study a r e a . was the l a r g e s t two remaining blocks, recreational groups owner The proportion varied considerably in This 8, which shows the distribution by block c l ass and block. is brought out in Table (Figure I). in only three The f a r m e r individual blocks. the busines s-prof essional group leads in the other. in one, In the Mio Block recreational groups held mor e than twice the f o r e s t acreage of any other The Mio Block was Of the also distinctive in that the real estate class. class was 84 TABLE 8 COMMERCIAL FORESTLAND AREA. BY BLOCK AND OWNERS' OCCUPATION CLASS Blocka Occupation Class Cadillac Baldwin Gladwin Mio North Tip (thousand a c r e s ) F o r e s t industry . . 15 16 8 47 22 Nonforest in dustry ..................... 44 58 52 24 58 F a r m e r .............................. 261 272 107 66 342 Part-tim e farm er . 111 96 53 55 112 . . . 96 104 128 111 296 129 145 84 38 140 Hous ewife-widow . . 61 100 51 62 97 Recr ea tio n group 71 47 17 262 244 Real 22 65 54 122 179 . . 14 42 40 23 43 R e t i r e d ............................. 20 49 30 32 64 844 994 624 842 1 ,597 Businessp r o f es si o n al Wage earner es tat e . . . . ................. Undivided estate Total b ............................. . See F i g u r e I f o r location of blocks . b lished may not corr es p o nd with F o r e s t Service due to rounding within occupation clas s es . Block totals s ta t i s t i c s pub- 85 the second l a r g e s t owner, and that f o r e s t industries portion of this block than any other. other hand, held the smallest share held a l a r g e r Nonforest ind u s tr i es , of their acreage on the in the Mio Bloc k. Some owner occupation c l a s s e s held a remarkably consistent portion of the f o r e s t a r e a f r o m block to block. in this r e s p e c t was the hous ewife— widow group, and to a l e s s e r tent the ex­ re tire d class. F o r e s t a r e a by occupation class acr ea ge in itself does forest P a r t i c u l a r l y notable resource on the land. class. 1 class. Forest not tell anything about the distribution of the to depict this type of story of s t a n d - s i z e and stand-size This Probably the bes t m e a s u r e short of actual timber analysis available volumes is that is pr es ented in Table 9. It is based upon the assumption that the higher the proportion of acreage in the l a r g e r This ti m b e r classes the b e t te r the inventory, and vice ver s a. is, however, not n e c e s s a r i l y an indication of poor handling by the p r e s e n t owner. An examination of Table significant differences. See definitions 9 does A. few points of t e r m s not reveal do stand out. in Appendix A. any drastically The recreational 86 TABLE 9 COMMERCIAL FORESTLAND AREA BY OWNERS’ OCCUPATION CLASS AND STAND'-SIZE CLASS Seedlings and Saplings Large Sawtimber Occupation Class Small Saw— ti m b e r Pole T imb e r Satisfactorily Stocked Poorly Stocked Non­ stocked (thousand acr es ) F o r e s t industry. 2 5 44 23 14 20 1 10 75 76 20 54 33 88 338 213 91 285 5 26 148 75 35 138 . 6 26 295 176 69 163 . . 14 21 198 107 49 147 Housewifew i d o w ................. 4 24 129 64 40 110 5 22 283 154 68 109 . . . 5 20 165 107 34 111 Undivided ................. estate 6 4 74 33 9 36 R e t i r e d ..................... 4 6 51 52 15 67 85 252 1,800 1,080 444 1,240 Nonforest ind u s tr y . . . . F a r m e r ................. P art-tim e farmer . . . . Businesspr o f es si on al Wage e a r n e r Re cr ea tion group Real Total ................. estate 87 group had a s m a l l e r portion of f o r e s t l a n d in the l a r g e - s i z e d cl ass es than any other group. Farm ers, proportion of t h e i r a c r ea g e i n quite s urprisingly, had a l a r g e r the la rge ti mber c l a ss es than any other group. On the lower was the end of the scale, the outstanding owner class r e t i r e d group, with the highest proportion of acreage nonstocked size c l a s s . Also, the p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r widow groups held a somewhat s i m i l a r but t h e ir s was l e s s Forest stand-size in the and housewifeclass distribution pronounced. a r e a by occupation class and f o r e s t type. Another v ariable which enters the f o r e s t type. defined as a f o r e s t ch a r a c te r iz e d by the p r e ­ F o r e s t type is r e s o u r c e picture is that of f o r e s t dominance of one or m o r e key species. ably conifers, are Inventories Table consisting 10 depicts Considering ownership c l a s s e s , species, not­ predominate r e p r e s e n t a valuable in­ of a la rg e portion of acreage in b r ushy or low-grade hardwood stands ventory. some traditionally the m o s t valuable, it follows that types in which such species ventory. Since this the jack, story for the study ar ea. red, and white pine types together, r e c r eat io n al See Appendix A for would r e p r e s e n t a poor in­ groups more and busines s-prof es sional complete definitions. two 88 TABLE 10 COMMERCIAL FOREST AREA BY OWNERS' OCCUFA.TION AND FOREST TYPE Forest Forest Type Industry Non­ forest Industry PartF ar mer time Farmer (thousand a c r e s ) White p i n e .............................. 1 3 7 (a) Red p i n e ................................. 0 7 8 1 Jack p i n e .................................. 13 10 8 2 Spruce-balsam fir . . . . 3 6 11 2 Black spruce ...................... 1 6 1 (a) .............................. 3 (a) 7 (a) ......................................... 4 11 45 11 16 7 299 76 34 83 42 6 9 49 19 31 89 245 136 13 49 222 117 7 5 63 21 236 1,048 427 Tamarack Cedar Northern hardwood . . . O ak................................................ Ash-elm Aspen ................................. . ...................... . . . Upland grass-brush . . . Lowland brush . . ... Total . . . a Less than 500 acres. TABLE Wage Earner Housewife or Widow 10 ( C o n t i n u e d ) Recrea* _ tional ^ Groups . _ Real E s ta te Undivided J Estate tir (thousand a c r e s ) 1 1 4 1 1 (a) Z 0 6 4 (a) 1 10 12 69 24 5 1 6 5 25 9 3 (a) 1 0 13 1 3 Z 0 0 7 0 1 (a) 29 6 9 16 8 11 79 60 58 75 22 36 81 37 114 44 24 19 27 23 14 9 14 4 152 117 212 149 45 54 120 91 89 98 30 56 28 19 21 12 6 536 371 641 442 162 11 90 people, stood out as p r op ortionately la r g e owners. Considering the red pine type alone the nonforest industry group held a very la rg e proportion. Much of this pine a c r e a g e was accounted f o r by young plantations, The ce d a r classes. type had a Although the rather remaining f i r , black s p r u c e , and t a m a r a c k , owner c l a s s e s it is uniform distribution among owner coniferous types, showed l a r g e variations difficult to draw conclusions the a c r ea g e involved was rather hold a significantly l a r g e share small. sprue e - b al sam on this basis Recreational groups did held a significantly high proportion of the a r e a in the n o r t h e r n hardwood type. type. since of the s p r u c e - b a l s a m f i r acreage. Among the hardwood types, f a r m e r s professional c l a s s among The business - held a significantly la r g e portion of the aspen Nonforest in d u s tr i e s held a proportionately small share of the lowland b r u s h type. F o r e s t a r e a s by distance of owners f r o m p r o p e r t y . of owner f r o m his p r o p e r t y he handles it, and this sequent ch ap t er s. may have a profound influence on how question is At any r a t e , to know where f o r e s t owners holdings and whether some Distance considered in more detail in sub­ it is res id e owners important for policy reasons with r e s p e c t to t h e i r f o r e s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y live f u r t h e r 91 from the ir holdings than o t h e r s . of f o r e s t a c r e a g e by owner lived f a r t h e r 11 p r e s e n t s a summarization occupation and distance f r o m holding. Examination of Table Approximately one-half Table 11 r eveals some of the f o r e s t a r e a very interesting was owned by people who than twenty-five miles f r o m t h e i r forestland. percent of the f o r e s t a r e a was one hundred mi les owned by persons distant, while l e s s points. Some living more than 29 percen t was 37 than owned by resident owners. A.s one might expect, the re c e r t ain occupation c l a s s e s from the ir f o r e s t l a n d . was and the distance those owners Most f a r m e r s and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s considerable distance f r o m estate people, wage par ti cu lar l y owners. It is somewhat surprising owned some f orestland at a c u r r e n t farming operations. e a r n e r s , b us in e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l per s ons , recreational groups were re­ Real and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y absentee Some 70 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a owned by recreational groups was owned by groups hundred miles f r o m Stand-size property. the ir resided and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s sided on o r n e a r t h e i r f o r e s t holdings. that f a r m e r s a definite relationship between Here whose owners lived m o r e than one t h e i r pr oper ty. class distribution by distance the question considered is of owners fr o m whether distant owners 92 TABLE 11 COMMERCIAL FOREST AREA BY OWNERS1 OCCUPATION AND DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY Distance fr om Occupation Cla ss On Site 1-25 Miles 26-100 Miles Property 101-200 Miles 200-up Miles (thousand a c r e s ) F o r e s t industry . 21 68 19 0 0 Nonforest i n d u s t r y .................. 21 25 16 161 13 F a r m e r .......................... 636 280 49 9 74 301 67 10 34 15 Part-time farmer . . , Business or professional . . 75 245 88 127 200 . . . 92 126 115 102 101 Housewife or widow . . . . 103 64 40 72 92 R ec r eation group . . . . 36 82 77 243 203 Real 36 82 87 124 1 13 Undivided estate . . 18 32 31 65 16 R etired 86 55 13 16 45 1,405 1,126 545 953 872 Wage e a r n e r Total estate . . . . 93 po s se ss better property. or p o o r e r timber It is not meant h e r e f o r e s t t r e a t m e n t , because owner’s handling Table rather 12 makes than owners to imply that this present and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s close to the p r o p e r t y , cause m o s t of them eliminates and also three owner c l a s s e s . exclud­ because mo s t of them lived r ecreational groups b e­ This approach confounding influence of o w n er s ’ occupation. if any p a t t e r n relating t i m b e r (Table 12) reveals size to distance class very little of owner from In the b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l and hous ewif e-widow groups distant owners owners r eflect past of the l a r g e s t c l a s s e s , excluding An examination of this table property. characterizes r e s i d e d f a r f r o m the ir property. any possible to their c u r r e n t owner. pres en tat io n f o r The selection was made on the b a s is ing f a r m e r s closer stand conditions may than that of the this living appear residing near share of the poorly to have had most of the la rg e timber, t h e ir p r o per ty in these stocked stands. served in the undivided estate those c l a s s e s of this was likewise a r e These two c l a ss es same trends r eal had a large were ob­ and the r e c r e a t i o n group c l a s s e s , but were not p r e s e n t e d in the table. noted in the while estate not p r e s e n t e d in Table and f a r m e r 12. The exact classes, reverse which 94 TABLE 12 STA.ND-SIZE CLASS DISTRIBUTION BY DISTANCE OF OWNER FROM PROPERTY FOR SELECTED OWNER OCCUPATION CLASSES Occupation All and Distance Stands Large Saw- Small Saw- ti m , ber timn ber Seedlings and Saplings .—— Non- ^ SatisfacPoorly torily c. , , Stocked Stocked b er stocked (percent of f o r e s t area) Business or professional: On site . . . . 1-25 mi. . . . 26-100 mi. . . 101-200 mi. . 201-up mi. . . Wage e a r n e r : On site . . . . 1-25 mi. . . . 26-100 mi. . . 101-200 mi. . 201-up mi. . . 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 0 (a) 0 0 4 4 2 1 4 1 5 3 100 100 100 100 5 5 2 100 2 100 100 100 0 0 9 2 1 2 44 38 45 43 36 11 4 29 26 30 9 13 40 20 14 9 12 17 25 6 7 4 14 12 31 26 31 40 2 18 (a) 14 44 19 33 35 35 20 43 26 18 35 47 43 35 6 23 20 16 25 Housewife or widow: On site . . . . 1-25 mi. . . . 26-100 mi. . . 101-200 mi. , 201-up mi. . . 100 0 4 Average 100 2 ... 8 4 5 51 30 19 6 24 4 38 24 0 8 Based on all occupation c l a s s e s 7 17 24 28 20 9 and all distance cl a s s e s . 95 In the other classes the p a t t e r n Influence by distance of o w ner s' shown in Table 12 is typical All of the f o r e s t res id en ce . of this Forest seemed to show a neutral The wage e a r n e r situation. Volumes volume data pr es en ted in this to that found in t r e e s at l e a s t of p o l e - t i m b e r pole— ti m b e r given in c o r d s , while volumes sized t r e e s trees are are e x p r e s s e d in b o ar d feet. r ef er to net me r c h a n ta b l e portions of live t r e e s , size.1 section r e f e r Volumes f o r in s a w - t i m b e r — All of the figures volume in live t r e e s . cull t r e e s , class presented In other words, cull and dead t r e e s have been omitted f r o m these inventory f i g u r e s . In the previous of the f o r e s t section much was implied about the condition r e s o u r c e with r e s p e c t to its size, with all of the data e x p r e s s e d in a r e a units. inventory is density, and type, In this section the e x p r e s s e d in actual volumes of timber p r e s e n t on land in different ownership c l a s s e s . Volumes by owner occupation class Table 13 p r e s e n t s class for the total t i m b e r volumes study a r e a . See Appendix A f o r The figures definitions and kind of m a t e r i a l . within each owner occupation are broken down into two of t e r m s . 96 TABLE TIMBER 13 VOLUME BY OWNER OCCUPATION CLASS AND KIND OF MATERIAL Occupation Class Cordwood Material 3L Saw-Log Material^ Q (thousand cords) F o r e s t in d u s tr y . . . . (million board feet) 496 73 . . 952 111 F a r m e r ...................................... 4r937 918 Part-time farm er , . . 1,889 272 Business or p r o f e s ­ sional .................................. 3,489 376 Wage e a r n e r 2,450 375 Housewife o r widow 1,635 241 Recreation group . . . 3,071 329 ......................... 2,039 258 824 125 R e t i r e d ...................................... 703 112 T o t a l .............................................. 22,485 3,190 Nonforest i ndustry Real estate ..................... Undivided es tat e 8i upper Includes net me rchantable volume of p ole -t imb e r stem of s a w - t i m b e r Includes from . . . . tr e e s and trees. net merchantable volume in live saw -t im b er trees stump to a minimum f o u r - i n c h top inside bark. °Standard F o r e s t Survey cord of 80 cubic f eet of solid wood ^Board f eet by the International Log Rule 1/4-inch kerf. 97 size c l a s s e s able f r o m of m a t e r i a l b a s ed upon the principal product the t i m b e r . Cordwood m a t e r i a l small-sized tr e e s which a r e for the tops saw-logs plus not l a r g e refers merchant­ to volumes enough to be merchantable of s a w - t i m b e r trees. This m a t e r i a l usually would be m a r k e t a b l e for pulp if it o c c u r r e d in the species. Cordwood m a t e r i a l saw-log m a t e r i a l is is m e a s u r e d in right m e a s u r e d in units of cords, while in boar d feet. It is generally con­ sidered m o r e f avor able to have a high saw-log inventory than a high cordwood volume. An examination of Table occupation c l a s s e s they did in t e r m s professional, The f a r m e r r eveal s 13 f o r that the c l a s s e s of total f o r e s t a r e a and r e c r e a t i o n groups class stands differences in volumes by (Table 5). are out in Table rank about the same way Farmers, the l e a d e r s , in that o r der . 13, This class had over one-fifth of the cordwood volume and nearly one-third of the log volume. This It is did in t e r m s that wage held a higher portion of their t i mb er volume than any other c l a s s i n t er es tin g rank exactly the same to observe of f o r e s t owners. that the owner cl a s s e s way in t e r m s of cordwood volumes. earners saw- significant fact can be stated in another way by saying that f a r m e r s in saw-log t r e e s business- of saw-log For volumes did not as they example, it can be seen ranked third and r e c r e a t i o n groups fourth in terms 98 of saw-log volumes, but that they exchanged positions when ranked by cordwood volumes. are for both c l a s s e s The f i r s t and second rankings of the sumably, com par is o n is possible f r o m ratio of saw-log m a t e r i a l the higher inventory. this ratio the b e t t e r r e c r e a t i o n groups Cordwood t i m b e r This ranked f i r s t in this volume by species com­ of total volume. group and owner occu­ 14. These detailed pres en tat io n of the cordwood volumes shown in the f i r s t column of Table examining Pre­ and b us in e s s - p r o f e s s io n a l people information is p r e s en ted in Table data r e p r e s e n t a m o r e teri on for 13 in the quality of an owner's ranked lowest despite their high rank in t e r m s pation c l a s s . Table to cordwood m a t e r i a l . As pointed out above, f a r m e r s parison, while same of m a t e r i a l . Another int er es tin g t e rm s the Table 14 is proportion of volume in softwoods 13. A. general and useful c r i ­ to assume that the higher the the b e t t e r the quality of the in­ ventory. It is interesting occupation c l a s s e s Farm ers had m o r e cl ass , but in t e r m s to note how the respective changes f r o m other-species one species group to another. hardwood volume than any other of asp en volume they were business— p r o f es si o nal c l a s s . volume of softwood pulp The species. ranking of the outranked by the r e c r e a t i o n group ranked f i r s t in 99 TABLE 14 CORDWOOD TIMBER VOLUMEa BY SPECIES GROUP AND OWNER OCCUPATION CLASS Softwoods Occupation Class Pulp b Species Hardwoods Other Species Othe r Species Aspen (thousand cords )° F o r e s t industry ............................. 83 40 129 244 ..................... 90 88 387 387 F a r m e r ...................................................... 199 345 1,240 3,153 P a r t - t i m e f a r m e r ......................... 53 97 626 1,113 . . Z33 271 1,472 1,513 ...................................... 119 156 785 1,390 . . . . . 79 78 510 968 ......................... 462 253 994 1,362 .......................................... 119 154 747 1,019 Undivided e s t a t e ............................. 70 67 244 443 R e t i r e d ...................................................... 41 54 208 400 T o t a l .............................................................. 1,548 1,603 7,342 11,992 Nonforest ind u s tr y Business or p r o f e s s i o n a l Wage e a r n e r Housewife o r widow Recreation group Real estate includes upper net merc hantabl e volume of p o le -t imb e r stem of s a w - t i m b e r trees and trees. -L Pulp species included h e r e a r e spruce, balsam f i r , jack pine* and hemlock. CStandard F o r e s t Survey cord of 80 cubic feet of solid wood. 100 In t e r m s of the ratio ume, the nonforest i ndustry ranked second. of this class stood out and the Part-tim e farm ers ratio. professional of softwood, volume to hardwood vol­ The wage classes earner, also showed up p o o r e s t on the basis housewife-widow, and bu siness- ranked quite low by this Saw-log t i m b e r volume by species class. In Table 13 a r e given in m o r e shown h e r e is same g e n e r a l used f o r 15 saw-log the s am e as criteria volumes detail. which were f i r s t in every softwood pulp species. in the l a t t e r species that used in Table Table hardwoods, cr i t e r i o n , farm er the farmer cl a s s . Table class 15 as were outranked all other The r e c r e a t i o n group class In t e r m s r e c r e a t i o n group c l a s s ranked lowest. hardwood ratios Likewise, the category used excepting that of the f o r e s t industry cl ass class 14. groups 14. species group. shown in Table The s eparation into species It can be ob s er v ed that the f a r m e r owner c l a s s e s scale of rating. group and owner occupation can be used in analyzing examination of r e c r e a t i o n group of the was ratio was the leader of softwoods to the leader. By the ranked second highest, Several other c l a s s e s same while the had softwood- which showed they did not r ate much above the 101 TABLE 15 SAW-LOG TIMBER VOLUME3- BY SPECIES GROUP AND OWNER OCCUPATION CLASS Sof twoods Occupation Glass Palp b Species Hardwoods Othe r Species (million board feet) F o r e s t in dustry Othe r Species Aspen Q ............................. 12 13 6 42 ..................... 11 21 15 64 F a r m e r ...................................................... 55 101 67 695 Part-time fa rm e r 16 19 23 214 . . 33 65 49 229 ...................................... 24 30 37 284 ................. 18 22 19 182 ......................... 57 58 37 177 .......................................... 21 52 38 147 Undivided e s t a t e ............................. 9 17 8 91 R e t i r e d ...................................................... 7 11 8 86 T o t a l .............................................................. 263 409 307 2,211 Nonforest industry Business . . . . . . . or p r o f e s s i o n a l Wage e a r n e r Housewife o r widow Recreation group Real estate Includes fr om net merchantable volume in live s aw-timber tr e e s stump to a minimum f o u r - i n c h top inside bark. Pulp species included h er e a r e sp r uce, balsam f i r , jack pine, and hemlock. CBoar d feet by the International Log Rule 1/4-inch kerf. 102 Average As Size of Holding and Number of Owners it was pointed out in the previous computational methods, the weakest portion of this has to do with the e s t i m a t e s of owners. However, chapter in discussing of average if r e a d e r s study statistically size of holding and numbers keep this in m i n d r much can be learned in a r e l a tiv e way between owner c l a s s e s from these figures. They a r e p r e s e n t e d in Table Nonforest i n d u s tr i es holding. 16. own the l a r g e s t a v e r a g e - s i z e d f o r e s t F o r e s t industries, r e c r e a t i o n groups, r eal estate people, and undivided estate holdings would all have to be considered large in t e r m s of aver age size of holding. p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s , and wage small owners in t e r m s should r e m e m b e r earners of average that average holding in the study a r e a , On the other hand, f a r m e r s , would have to be cl a s s e d as size of holding. The r e a d e r size of holding r e f e r s to total f o r e s t and the holding may not n e c e s s a r i l y be contiguous. Comparatively speaking, the r es u l t s ings ag r ee with the findings example, Barr acl ou g h on average of other f o r e s t ownership size of hold­ studies. For found in New England that the f o r e s t owner *S o lo n B a r r a c l o u g h . Op. c i t ., p . 178. 103 TABLE 16 AVERAGE SIZE OF FOREST HOLDING AND NUMBER OF OWNERS BY OCCUPATION CLASS OF OWNERa Average Size (in a c r e s ) Occupation Class F o r e s t industry .............................................. Nonforest industry ...................................... Number of Owners 1,115 97 2 0 , l 92 b 12 F a r m e r ........................................................... 112 9,360 P a r t - t i m e f a r m e r .......................................... 139 3,072 Busines s - p r o f ess ional .............................. 635 1,157 . .................................................. 67 8,003 Housewife— w i d o w .............................................. 242 1,531 .......................................... 2,016 318 .......................................................... 1,254 352 Undivided e s t a t e .............................................. 1,097 147 R e t i r e d ....................................................................... 262 745 Average ....................................................................... 1,177° Wage e a r n e r Recreation group Real estate 24,794 T o t a l ............................................................................... a Because of the way in which the F o r e s t Survey sample was drawn, it is likely that there is a bias in favor of l a r g e r owner­ ships. Hence, the numbers and averages shown in this table should be considered for comparative purposes r a t h e r than indicative of absolute quantities. The es ti mate s of average size a r e likely l a r g e , and those of n umber of owners small. -L Eliminating the one l a r g e s t ownership, this average would CEliminating the one l a r g e s t ownership, this average would be 3,765 a c r e s . be 661 a c r e s . 10 4 with the s m a l l e s t a v e r a g e - s i z e d f o r e s t holding was clerical c l ass l a r g e s t was in this (comparable the public to wage e a r n e r utility cl a s s in this the l a b o r e r study), and the (included in nonforest industry study). In t e r m s leader, of numb e rs of owners, the f a r m e r closely followed by the wage e a r n e r very few i n d u s t r i a l owners riety. Five wage e a r n e r , cl a s s . class There were of either the f o r e s t or nonforest va­ c l a s s e s —f a r m e r , part-time fa rm e r, business-professional, and housewife-widow--accounted for over the f o r e s t owners. was the But these same classes 93 p e r c e n t of accounted for l e s s than 64 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a . The p r e s e n t a t i o n in Table ranks the occupational findings classes 16 on numbers of owners also quite simi lar l y with B a r r a c l o u g h ’s in New England. The weakness bias in favor of l a r g e of the estimates owners as shown in Table compared with published s t a t i s t i c s . that t h e r e were Loc. 22,741 f a r m s of number of owners evident when The Census Bureau located in the cit. U .S . B u r e a u of th e C e n s u s . 16 is Op. cit. and the 2 estimated study a r e a which had 105 some woodland. farm ers Table 16 indicates that th e r e were only who owned f o r e s t l a n d in the thirty-one —county a r ea. This dis p ar i ty has two explanations. to be mo r e numerous p r ocedures employed f avored l a r g e owners. this bias 12,432 was than f a r m e r s . One is that f a r m s The other is that the tend sampling The explanation for t r e a t e d previously and hence is not repeated here. CHAPTER V SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT FOREST OWNERS In this chapter cerning f o r e s t owners of these f a c t o r s there are as a whole. along the lines tion of how these f a c t o r s the There is also con­ some t r ea tmen t of occupational groups. The ques­ may affect actual f o r e s t management is dealt with in the next chapter. these points i t is di s cussed some generalizations Nevertheless, by the inclusion of a s s u m e d that they may have some bearing upon relation of f o r e s t owner to f o r e s t r e s o u r ce. In the previous f o r e s t owners are, chapter it was clearly demonstrated that indeed, a heterogeneous their occupational p u r s u i t s dence. or i n t e r e s t s , group with r es p ect to and their places The c l a s s i fi cati o n s of owners mentioned in this possibly could be as divergent attitudes imp or tant as occupation class on the p a r t of f o r e s t owners. method of class i fi cati on of all owners, easily applied as The However, as a such as length convenient and occupation c l a s s . reader classifications chapter in explaining none of these, of tenure or method of acquisition, would be as of r e s i ­ is cautioned at this made in this chapter 106 point to r e m e m b e r that the were on the basis of field 107 interview, while those in the previous the much l a r g e r ship officials. chapter were on the basis of sample covered by the mail questionnaire to town­ A l s o , due to the close tie with the f o r e s t survey it was possible to get a land and t i m b e r inventory by occupation groups which was not p ossible f o r the classifications From the data p r e s e n t e d in this tr e a t e d in this chapter. chapter it may have been possible to develop i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between such variables as owner's age, method of land acquisition, length of tenure, and ob­ jectives of management. However, it was felt that such an e x e r ­ ci se, although i n t e r e s t i n g , would have added mo r e in length than pract ical value to the study. Methods It is often argued that the way in which an individual acquires land will b e a r ownership. of F o r e s t l a n d Acquisition a strong rela tio n to his Undoubtedly t h e r e is such as et c e t e r a , that its This is objective tr u e problem of me a s u r i n g so confounded with other of ownership, influence is very particularly right of considerable truth in this logic. However, method of land acquisition is variables concern over that occupational i n t e r e s t s , difficult to isolate and evaluate. in a study of f o r estland because of the effect on the f o r e s t . An analysis making 108 possible the very l a r g e s e p a r a t i o n of all of t hese variables samp l e, much l a r g e r would, require than the one used in this In Chapter II the concept of land as p r o per ty was at some length. Land is looked upon mo r e as factor in r e s o u r c e Purchase. study. discussed a commodity capable of being easily t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m owner to owner here than anywhere in the world. a in A merica Certainly, this has been an important co n servation in the United States. I n the study a r e a it was found that 85 percent of the owners who held 73 p e r c e n t of the f o restland obtained title to their land by pu r c h a s e tenure, seems to (Table 17). This, along with length of substantiate the contention that f orestland is much of a ma r k e t a b l e commodity in this p a r t of Michigan. Unfortunately, in this p r ic e wer e not determined. study, From r ea s o n for purchase reasons and purchase other information and from opin­ ions gained by conversation with f o r e s t owners said about these very and values. something can be Economic theory tells us that a rational man will p ur ch as e land and pay up to the discounted p r e s e n t worth of all future cation of this he expects f rom it. theory to explain group behavior is the fact that individuals preference returns (discount complicated by differ with r e g a r d to their r ate they demand) and the The appli­ rate of time value they place on 109 TABLE 17 METHODS BY WHICH OWNERS ACQUIRED TITLE TO FORESTLAND P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area Method of Acquisition P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners P u r c h a s e ........................................................... . . . 73 85 I n h e r i t a n c e .......................................................... . . 27 15 F o r e c l o s u r e ...................................................... . . (a) (a) G i f t ............................................................................... . . (a) (a) 100 100 T o t a l ........................................................................... 3r Less than 0.5 percent. 110 the income (i.e., benefit or satisfaction) p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e in the cas e ar e many and ca s h incomes Inspection of Table by industry owners was of forestland, 18 r eveal s the p u r c h a s e s by the t i m b e r To other in d u s tr y owners reasons are derived This is probably explained corporate busin es s es . industries Most of were motivated by timber sustained yield or liquidation expectation. the t i mber was only incidental to other such a.s to gain control of m i n e r a l Part-tim e farm ers, rights. r e c r e a t i o n groups, obtained 96 p e r c e n t or mo r e safe to say that the l a t t e r other than t i mb er since the benefits is that m o s t of the land obtained through purchase. either This infrequent. by the fact that mo s t indu s tr i es expectation values, derived f r o m land. and real of their land by purchase. estate people It seems two groups made their purchases for expectation r e t u r n s . safe to say that the values However, it seems these l a t t e r groups much influenced by the p r e s e n c e of ti mb er . are equally expecting ar e very Part-time fa r m e r s ’ acquisition of such a l a r g e portion of their holdings by purchase is likely a reflection of t he ir efforts to obtain a place of residence and a supplemental income f r o m farming. Other m e t h o d s . tion was by inheritance. The only other important method of acquisi­ Title to 27 percen t of the f or e s t a r e a by Ill TABLE 18 METHODS BY WHICH OWNERS ACQUIRED TITLE TO FORESTLAND BY OCCUPATION CLASS Method of A.cquisitio n Occupation Class Purchas e Inher­ itance Fo r e ­ closure Total Gift (percent of f o r es t area) ................. 89 11 0 0 100 . . . 99 0 1 0 100 F a r m e r .......................................... 48 52 0 0 100 Part-time f a r m e r 96 3 0 1 100 Business or p r o f e s s i o n a l ..................... 64 36 0 0 100 Wage e a r n e r 63 37 0 0 100 58 42 0 0 100 99 0 0 1 100 ............................. a Undivided estate . . . . 98 1 0 1 100 92 8 0 0 100 R e t i r e d ......................................... 85 15 0 0 100 Average ......................................... 73 27 (b) (b) 100 F o r e s t industry Nonforest industry Housewife or . . . . ......................... widow Recreation group . . . . . . Real estate a F ig u r e s deceased owner. here refer to the method of acquisition by the The undivided estate itself could not have been established by p u r ch as e, but only through inheritance. b Less ~ _ than 0.5 percent. 112 15 percent of the Foreclosure owners and gift as was obtained, through inheritance a significantly the acreage. No doubt there was small proportion of the owners some and reluctance on the p a r t of to admit acquisition had been attained by means other than purchase. Owners seemed r a t h e r tained ownership by f o r e c l o s u r e . heirs 17) methods of gaining ownership to forestland accounted f o r owners (Table reluctant to admit they had a t ­ Owners to attain full ownership always their land, and in the analysis who had bought out other claimed to have purchased such a method of acquisition was considered as being by purchase. Some have argued that inheritance represents a type of ac­ cidental land acquisition and that land thusly acquired would not be as well c a r e d f or as that purchased for hard cash. Others have ar r ived at the opposite point of view, based on the assumption that inheritance is as s o ciat ed with stable family ownership and its posed favorable influence on attitudes mental evidence exists to prove toward land. sup­ Little experi­ either of these contentions. Barraclough^ found that a lower proportion of owners who had acquired t h e ir lands by pu rchase were interested in timber produc­ tion than was the case with those who acquired theirs by inheritance. ^S o l o n B a r r a c l o u g h . Op. c i t . , p. 240. 113 His conclusion was that t i m b e r production as ship (not n e c e s s a r i l y meaning the best care) default r a t h e r 17) indicates chased f o r e s t ownership. are of owner numbers that more large ar e a s by inheritance than small a r e a s . properties was often acquired by than delib er ate action. A, compar is on of the proportions area (Table an objective of owner­ This seems to indicate that the l a r g e r stable family owner­ of f o r estland usually bought smaller parcels. F o r e s t i n d us tr i es tance except in the cases Most of such c as es were t r a n s f e r r e d The r e v e r s e is the case with p u r ­ tied in with a somewhat more ship, while p u r c h a s e r s and f o r es t acquired very little of their land by i n h e r i ­ of small family-held business enterprises. observed in the study a r e a were par t- t ime sawmill operators. Inheritance as among f a r m e r s , a method of forestland acquisition was highest and second highest among the housewife-widow group. One would expect that housewives their land by inheritance. As a m a t t e r expect the pr oportion to be la r g e r may be even l a r g e r . explained by two reasons. land bought by the family as name and thus and widows would acquire much of of fact, one might logically The fact that it is not One is that in some cases an investment is c a r r i e d in the wife s would be considered as purchased. The other reason is that land bought by the husband and held by the widow quite often 1 14 is considered by her as p u r chas ed land. was made to det er min e this, ceased husbands was The l a r g e quired The most logical proportionate inherited land. acreage of forestland f a r m e r s somewhat surprising explanation is that f ar m units, including both a g r i ­ this p a r t of Michigan. real commodity in In other words, the relatively inactive market estate causes means of f a r m ac­ and not easily explained. cultural and f o r es tla n d , were not a readily marketable for f a r m attempt and land obtained by widows f rom de­ re c o r d e d as i nheri tance is In the interviews inheritance to rank quite high as a transfer. Only about 1 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t owners of 1 percent of the forestland obtained their land by gift and f oreclosure combined {Table 17). Even considering the reluctance of owners interviewed to ad­ mit acquisition by gift or f o r e c l o s u r e as previously discussed, proportion of f o r es tla nd acquired by these means is small. The may indicate the significantly small proportion of forestland t r a n s f e r r e d by foreclosure s ev e r a l things. One indication is that holding forestland is no longer the financial burden it once was, which, of course, is just another reflection of the high level of general that prevailed in economic activity 1953 and f o r several years p r i o r to that date. Another implication is that few loans have been made on forestland, hence little possibility existed for for eclos u r e. This, indeed, has 115 been the ca s e because banking regulations p r i o r banks f r o m making loans backed by forestland. agencies have Other large lending stayed away f r o m f o r e s t loans voluntarily. acreage which was obtained by f o r e clo s ur e of default of all financial of the f o r e s tla nd by this the t r a n s f e r of all other One large came about as a result obligations of the f o r m e r the t r a n s f e r It 1953 kept federal to means owner, and hence was just incidental to assets. s e e m s quite evident that f o r eclo s ur e is not a forestland tenure problem i n the portion of Michigan covered by this In the case of r eal estate study. tr a n s f e r by gift, it is usually said to be just a m a t t e r of choice between inheritance and gift on the part of the p e r s o n making the bequeath, the choice in this matter resting between the possibility of avoiding and actual estate or inheritance taxes charitable inclinations. Length of For es tla nd Tenure Stability of land tenure has been one of the major concerns of land economists Wehrwein in the United States for many years. call instability one of the worst features American land tenure. ^Richard They deem it dangerous T. Ely and George S. Wehrwein. Ely and associated with to community life Op. c i t y> P- 207 116 and institutions, and contend it contributes the owner in the land. his land and r e a l i z e Often, to a lack of i n t er es t by the owner’s only d esire is to sell any liquidation value possible fr o m it. Since the production of m a tu r e f o r e s t t r e e t e rm enterprise, one owner is expenditures. to expect returns fr o m investments In the c as e of many types in the selling p r i c e improvements is a long­ stability of tenure over time is important if any on the land, the owner recover the ir crops in f o r e s t cultural of permanent improvements can expect these improvements to be reflected of the land even though he can seldom expect to depreciated or replacement value. Investors in f o r e s t seem to have little chance of having their recognized in the resale value of the property. expenditures It not only takes a long while to m a t u r e a t r e e , but it also takes a long while in terms of individual length of tenure for for es t of improvement m e a s u r e s ther, when the effects there to be visible evidence in the put forth on the tree crop. Fur­ of cultural work become visible in the forest, its discounted value with r e s p e c t to future timber harvests is not appreciated. Thus it ap pear s that short length of tenure may be more important in private f o r e s t ownership as ment than as a det er re nt to invest­ a contributor to f o r e s t liquidation. likely to be the situation with re g a r d This is much more to young second-growth forests like those of n o r t h e r n Michigan than to old virgin forests. 1 17 For all owner classes. In the study a r e a 30 percent of the forestland p o s s e s s e d by 12 p er cen t of the owners had been held more than twenty-five y e a r s , while 6 percent of the owners owned 2 p e r c e n t of the f o r estland l e s s Examination of these data represented m o r e seems than two years had (Table 19). to indicate that the large owners stable ownership than the small owners. Barra- 1 dough found approximately the study between number same of owners relation in his New England and f o r e s t a r e a when related to length of tenure. The analysis owners of the mail questionnaires did show some the data in Table 19. significant differences Some sent to absentee when compared with 44 percent of the absentee-owned f or es t area had been held over twenty-five y e a r s , as cent held that long by the owners contrasted to 30 p e r ­ interviewed. questioned by mail also had mo r e land held le ss than was Absentee owners than two years the case with owners personally interviewed. It is interesting number of owners to note that there is a distinct peak in the and p e r c e n t of f o r e s t a r e a columns, indicating that there was g r e a t activity in the forestland market during the period 1945. 1939 to This peak was also observed in the analysis ^Solon B a r r a c l o u g h . O p . c i t . , p. 198. 118 TABLE 19 LENGTH OF TENURE Length, of Tenure (in yea r s ) P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners One to t w o .......................................................... 2 6 Three to f o u r .................................................. 8 7 11 4 .............................................. 4 12 ...................................................... 13 31 Eleven to f i f t e e n ......................................... 12 21 ..................................... 9 4 11 3 30 12 10 0 100 Five to six ...................................................... Seven to eight Nine to ten Sixteen to twenty Twenty-one to twenty-five Twenty-six and up Total . . . ................................. 119 of the mail q uestionnaires, but o c c u r r e d more 1945. Again, it is sharply about 1944 to significant to note that Barraclough's work in New England noted a peak of forestland acquisition during the same period. This is probably due to a lack of other investment activity during the war y e a r s purposes. and the d e s ir e to obtain land for Also, it is likely the r e s ult of the movement f r o m r u r a l lands to the cities nback- t o -t h e- jo b11 which was a r esult of in­ creased economic activity associated with the war. such an exodus f r o m industrial to r u r a l a r e a s the d epr es s io n that land was underprivileged." It is sometimes recreational There had been during the depths of called 1'the heritage of the doubtful if much of this peak could be ex­ plained by the anticipation of high land values following World War II. It certainly can not be explained by a land acquisition policy on the part of any private corporation or large individual owner. By occupation c l a s s e s . A. study of Table 20, which shows length of tenure by occupation cl a s s , The f o r e s t industry group has reveals some interesting points. held about three-fifths of its land less than six y e a r s , while the nonforest industry group has held 96 p e r ­ cent of t h e ir f o r e s t holdings 1 Loc. cit. over twenty-five years. This would 120 TABLE LENGTH OF 20 TENURE BY OCCUPATION CLASS OF OWNER Length of Tenure in Years Occupation Class Total 1-6 7-15 16-25 2 6 - up (percent of f o r e s t area) 59 14 17 10 100 . . . . 0 3 1 96 100 F a r m e r .............................................. 23 26 19 32 100 P a r t - t i m e f a r m e r ................. 19 54 24 3 100 Business or p r o f e s s i o n a l ......................... 14 35 12 39 100 ............................. 28 33 21 18 100 16 46 28 10 100 23 12 21 44 100 33 26 28 13 100 1 7 (a) 92 100 15 33 43 9 100 F o r e s t industry ..................... Nonforest industry Wage e a r n e r Housewife or widow Recreation group Real estate . . . . . . ..................... Undivided estate . . . R e t i r e d ............................................. 3L L es s than 0.5 percent. 121 seem to indicate the f o r e s t industry group has been expanding its holdings in the a r e a recently. A. mo r e detailed analysis of the questionnaires showed that m o s t of this peak of land acquisition could be attributed to the pulp company group, but a simi lar peak was noted in the lu m b er company group. At this juncture it should be mentioned that the industry holdings usually r e p r e s e n t c o r p o r ate ownership and thus have d r a s ­ tically different institutional problems tenure than one finds corporations in this matter with individual ownership. of length of Theoretically can live f o r e v e r and thus can have longer planning horizons than individuals. A. l a r g e - s c a l e industry acquisition p r o ­ gram could mean improved f o r e s t management on an increasingly la r g e r ar e a . Among the nonindustrial groups, f a r m e r s , business-professional people, r e c r e a t i o n groups, all held mo r e years. The r e t i r e d people, and undivided estates have than one-half of their forestland for more than fifteen r e c r e a t i o n group, with 23 percent of its forestland held less than six y e a r s and 44 p e r c e n t over twenty-five y ears, indicates two distinct periods pattern was of acquisition activity by this shown by an analysis by r ecr eat ion al groups. group. A similar of the mail questionnaires returned A g r e a t deal of la rg e acreage was acquired by hunting clubs during the twenties when la rg e tracts could be had 122 for payment of the from the delinquent taxes, o r l e s s , if purchased directly state. In the wage between r e s u l t s earner group there of the absentee those interviewed in the field. was a significant difference owners who replied by mail and The former had held only 17 p e r ­ cent of t h e ir f o r e s t l a n d over fifteen y e a r s , while those wage earners personally interviewed had held 39 percent of their forestland over fifteen y e a r s . There was a s i m i l a r cont rast between the same two groups within the b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l class. Large purchases since World War II by urban dwellers f rom la r g e distant cities for reational purposes is p a r t of the explanation for this ever, a sizable s h ar e but le s s situation. How­ of the la r g e proportion of land in the business- professional and wage e a r n e r groups seven years rec­ (Table 20) held for more than than fifteen years seems to be the residual holdings of those involved in the r u r a l - t o - u r b a n movement which took place as economic activity i n c r e a s e d just p r i o r to World War II and during the early year s of the war. *Analysis of the mail questionnaires showed similar results, with 57 pe r c e n t of the b u s in e s s - p r o fe ss io n a l forestland and 46 p e r ­ cent of the w a g e - e a r n e r —owned forestland having been held from seven to ten y e a r s . 123 Close to one-half of all f or estland owned by the housewife- widow group had been held f r o m seven to fifteen y e a r s . may be as s o ciat ed with the average life This peak expectancy of wives over husbands . The l a r g e pr oportion of undivided estate holdings having been in that group for m o r e than twenty-five years It would seem to indicate that estates after the death of the f o r m e r are is difficult to explain. either quickly settled owner or a settlement can not be reached at all during the life of the direct heirs. F ami ly Land economists vation pr act ices Ties to the F orestland who have studied obstacles on private lands ownership an important factor. section on length of tenure. to good conser­ usually consider instability of This was just pointed out under the It was not discussed, however, how instability of ownership within the family f rom generation to genera­ tion may affect o w n e r s ’ attitudes toward forestland. In A m e r i c a th e r e has been little concern over maintaining a parcel of land intact f r o m generation to generation. countries of w e s t e r n Europe measures In some were developed to keep land P a r t i c u l a r l y , this was the case in Germany, which has been noted for h e r good f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s . England, noted for poor 124 units in the family f r o m one generation to the next. that has been used frequently is called 1' p r i m o g e n i t u r e / ' as s u r e d that the prop er ty would go to the eldest tem was that called These and f o r e s t , son. which usually Another s y s ­ ’’e n t ail, 11 which made it possible for an owner to designate the line of inheritance for future. One system systems, several generations into the coupled with a very high r espect for land seem to have resulted in an entirely different attitude toward f o r es tla n d than has prevailed in this country. Under stable family ownership as observed in western Europe it seemed that a son who knew a f a r m woodland would one day be his took considerable i n t e r e s t in caring for it. Likewise, the father, who r ealized the land had been his f a t h e r ’s before him and would be his son’s afte r him, was prone to take g r eat pride in his far m wood­ land. This has, where it has been practiced, resulted in a lowering of the individual o w n e r ’s rate of time preference and has his planning horizon beyond his Neither United States. own span of life. entail nor primogeniture a r e legal processes However, developed the in the it is known that some forestland has been in one family ownership f o r more forestry, extended system system on to the Amer ic an than one generation, and it is of f r e e Colonies. transfer and later passed the 125 also known some owners intend that it will remain with the family still another generation. In this study questions were asked family property owners to determine how long the forestland had been held by that p a r ti cu ­ la r family. The analysis of this question in te rm s of the number of generations the p r o p e r t y had been in that family’s ownership p r io r to the p r e s e n t is p r e s e n t e d in the following tabulation: Number of Generations P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area P e r cen t of F o r e s t Owners 0 59 85 1 32 13 2 9 2 100 100 Total These data cl e a r l y indicate that stability of tenure of f o r e s t ­ land from generation to generation was the exception in the area. study The data also indicate that stability of ownership in this fashion was g r e a t e r in l a r g e ownerships than in small ones. As was pointed out in an e a r l i e r individual's section of this c h a pt er r an decisions with r e s p e c t to investments or improvements in land a r e based la rge ly upon his expectation of the future. If he has no hope of r e t u r n f r o m an investment in conservation during his life expectancy, chances are he will not make the investment. 126 However, if he could f o r e s e e that his son might realize the returns the investment would be mo r e likely to be made. Owners of f or e s t l a n d which was ownership were asked for considered as being in family an expression of their expectations or plans of retaining the f o r e s t l a n d in their family ownership another g en er a­ tion. The analysis of that question is presented in the following tabulation: P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Ar ea Per cen t of F o r e s t Owners Expect to continue ownership another g e n e r a t i o n ..................................... 30 53 Do not expect to con­ tinue ownership another g e n e r a t i o n ..................................... 70 47 T o t a l ...................................................... 100 100 A. sur pr is ingly la r g e number of owners (53 percent owning 30 percent of the forestland) indicated that they expected to pass their forestland ownership to another generation in their family. Small owners had these plans m o r e often than large owners. The com p ar is on of owners* history would seem plans for expectations to indicate that owners continuing family ownership o r materialize. Since l a r g e owners had le s s with the inheritance now have more definite such plans seldom actually expectation of continued 127 ownership but a b e t t e r r e c o r d of attainment on that score, seem that the intentions optimistic and those of many of the of la r g e owners small owners more it would were overly realistic. Age of F o r e s t Owners Students of the the opinion that as economics an owner's d e c r ea ses he becomes l e s s ments. of conservation a r e generally of age inc re a s e s and his life expectancy in t e r e s t e d in making long-term invest­ The p r e s e n c e of this type of feeling has been noted among older land owners in o th e r studies. Also, it that under the Amer ic an economic and social ownership of landed p r o p er ty is his f orties. should be recalled system outright seldom achieved until a man reaches The combination of this attitude and this institution seems to c r e a t e a climate that is quite unsatisfactory from the standpoint of promoting l o n g - t e r m land enterprises like forestry. In this study individual owners interviewed were asked their age or t h e i r age was advisable. estimated when a direct question did not seem The analysis of the results of this question is presented in Table 21. Examination of Table 21 their f o r ti es reveals that more owners were in than any other te n - y e a r age bracket. However, o w n e r s over fifty owned the g r e a t e s t proportion of forestland. This is as 128 TABLE 21 AGE OF FOREST OWNERS Ag e of Owne r Under t h i r t y .................................................. P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area Per cen t of F o r e s t Owners 11 3 7 23 Forty-one to f i f t y ................................. 26 35 Fifty-one to s i x t y ................................. 27 18 Over 29 21 1 00 100 Thirty-one to f o r t y ............................. . . Total s i x t y ...................................................... 129 one nmght expect, with age. tracts since generally one's Older owners on the These average economic position improves could be expected to afford to own la r g e r than younger owners. results are quite comparable with those obtained by Barraclough1 in New England, with the exception that he found the acreage peak as well as group in their fifties. that f o r the number of owners fell in Barraclough compared owner's the age by occu­ pation grouping and found that the only group with the majority of owners and the a c r e a g e they held to be over the r e t i r e d group. sixty years of age was Ivfcxst of the acreage held by housewives also was held by women past sixty year s of age. The peak of all other groups with r e s p e c t to acreage and numbers fell in the fifty to fifty-nine year age b r acket. The influence age may have on management is discussed in the following chapter. Objectives of F o r e s t Ownership In o r d e r to understand f o r e s t owners take toward t h e ir f o r e s t holdings objectives of management or Solon B a r r a c lo u g h . it is n eces s ar y to consider their ownership. Op. and the attitudes they c i t . , p. In an ear l i e r 186. chapter it 130 was pointed out that owners of management; have the same jectives i . e . , that all owners in a given occupation did not reasons for of management a r e In this var ie d with respect to their objectives owning forestland. explored in more In this detail. section f u r t h e r and more detailed consideration is given to the f o r c e s forest owners. beyond pure economic incentives It could be argued that this rather than economic analysis. requires psychologic and as It might be considerable is of the opinion that f or e s tr y might gain much f r o m a psychological type study. used h e r e , however, is which motivate Admittedly, there is truth in thi s argument and the w r iter type surveys section ob­ along the lines The approach used in consumer preference such definitely belongs in the ar ea of economics. stated that the major hypothesis that f orestland as a p r o d u c e r ' s of this section is good has been superseded by f o r e s t ­ land as a c o n s u m e r ' s good, or that forestland has become a pr o ­ ducer's good held f o r its yield of c er t ain intangibles. Most observers would admit that to a c e r t a i n extent this hypothesis is true; i.e., that for a c e r t a i n portion of f orestland and f o r e s t owners it is true. Examination of these portions is the objective of this Objectives indicates that over of all owner c l a s s e s . section. An examination of Table 22 o ne-thi rd of the f o r e s t owners (owning nearly 131 TABLE 22 OBJECTIVES OF MANAGEMENT Objectives P e r c e n t of of Management F o r e s t Area F a r m usage; including home use, timber s a l e , and p a s t u r e ................. P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners 31 37 s a l e ......................... 4 4 Production f o r o w ner ls woodusing plant .......................................................... 2 (a) 18 4 Sale of ma tur e t i m b e r ................................. 7 (a) Sale of mi n e r a l o r mi n e r a l rights ...................................................................... (a) (a) 3 6 ......................... 19 39 ...................................................................... 8 9 OtherC .............................................................................. 8 1 100 100 Growing t i m b e r f o r Investment o r speculation Clear for a g r i c u l t u r e Recreation o r Inactive b ................. ................................. residence T o t a l .................................................................. a Less than 0.5 percent. ^Inactive is used to indicate management without a specific purpose sufficiently well defined to place in a particular category. COther is used to indicate objective not li s t e d some miscellaneous but specific s eparately above. 132 one-third of the f o r e s t ) were holding their timberlands for f a r m - u s e purposes. The analysis owners, however, of the mail questionnaire sent to absentee revealed that only 4 percent of the f o r e s t area they owned was held f o r f a r m - u s e purposes. This disparity is attributable la r g e l y to the f act that there were no f a r m e r s part-time f a r m e r s among the More f o r e s t owners respondents or to the mail questionnaire. (39 percent) were interested in their forest p r o p e r t y f o r r e c r eat io n al o r any other These owners, however, accounted for less r eason. residence purposes one-fifth of the total f o r e s t a r e a . than for The absentee owners than responding to the mail questionnaire indicated that they were holding over half of their f o r e s t a r e a for Investment or given as the recreational purposes. speculation as reason for an objective of management was ownership of the third la r g e s t ar ea of the forestland classified according to objective of management. analysis of the mail questionnaire revealed that absentee The owners were holding almost an identical portion (18 percent) of their land for the same purpose. A. comparison of the two columns in Table 22 indicates that forest p r op er ti es average to be p urposes. held for f a r m smaller use and recreation tended on the than those held for investment or speculation 133 F ew o b s e r v e r s should be s u r p r i s e d by the high rank of f a r m use as an objective of ownership. held for recreational Recreation is or r esidence The high proportion of forestland purposes is mo r e significant. not only an im portant objective in itself, but probably also accounts f or a large deliberate attempt was shar e made forestland was being held f o r of the speculation in forestland. in the study to determine the speculation purposes. No reasons However, it is safe to a s s u m e that well over half of the land held for speculation was being held i n anticipation of its future value. Objectives by occupation c l a s s e s . recreational A comparison of objectives of management o r ownership within occupation groups an indicator of how s ati sf ac tor y a simple sification is in explaining owners' examination of Table 23 will persion of objectives ample, may serve as system of occupation c l a s ­ objectives of management. An reveal that there is not a gr eat d i s ­ in some of the occupation cl a s s e s . For ex­ 95 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a owned by real estate people was being held f o r speculative p urposes, by the r e c r e a t i o n groups purposes. was being held for Most other occupation groups objectives. wage e a r n e r It is logical group, and all of the land owned r ecr eat ional or exhibited l e s s residence uniformity of that the b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l group, the and the housewife-widow group would have quite a d i s p e r s i o n of objectives of ownership. 134 T A B L E 23 OBJECTIVES OF MANAGEMENT BY OCCUPATION CLASS OF OWNER Objective of Management Forest Industry Non­ forest PartFar mer Industry time Farmer (percent of forest area) Farm usage, including: home use, timber sale, and p a s t u r e ...................................... 0 0 89 62 Growing timber for sale . . 6 0 0 6 Production for owner's wood^using p l a n t ........................... 75 0 0 0 Investment or speculation. . 8 0 0 9 Sale of mature timber . . . . 3 0 0 0 Sale of mineral or mineral rights .............................. 0 5 0 0 Clear for agriculture . . . . 0 0 11 8 Recreation o r residence . . a Inactive .............................................. _ b .................................................. Others 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 6 94 0 0 T o t a l ......................................................... 100 100 100 100 Inactive is used to indicate management without a specific purpose sufficiently well defined to place in a particular category. b Other is used to indicate some miscellaneous but specific objective not listed separately above. 135 TABLE Busines s or P r o ­ fessional Wage Earner 23 (Continued) Hoasewife or Recreational Widow G roups R eal Estate Undi­ vided Estate R etir ed (pe rc ent of f o r e s t a r e a ) 13 22 15 0 0 2 11 12 13 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 17 0 95 91 37 34 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 26 1 100 0 0 3 5 26 21 0 0 1 49 5 4 23 0 0 6 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 136 It Is significant that mo r e f o r es tla n d within the b u s i n e s s - professional group and the hous ewife-widow group was being held for sale of m a t u r e ti m b e r than f o r any other purpose. words r the value of the t i m b e r return f r o m it most important It is (not in t e r m s reason for on the land in t e r m s of some of sustained yield f o r e s t r y ) these groups In other expected was the owning forestland. somewhat s u r p r i s i n g when one r ecalls the high rank of the r e c r e a t i o n objective of management that this was the leading ob­ jective i n only one occupation group even though about one-fourth of the f o r e s t l a n d owned by wage people was held for e a r n e r s and busines s - pr o fe ss io n a l r e c r e a t i o n purposes. It is also significant that almost one-tenth of the f o r e s t l a n d in each individual owner occupa­ tion group with the exception of f a r m e r s was being held f o r specu­ lation or investment. It is to be expected that f a r m usage would rank as est ownership objective among f a r m e r s that production f o r owner's among the f o r e s t in d u s t r i e s . the high­ and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s and wood-using plant would rank highest The la rg e proportion of a r e a cent) li st ed under other objectives (94 p e r ­ within the nonforest industry groups is being held la rg e ly f or watershed protection purposes by public utility companies. 137 The bro ad implications be well of objectives s u m m a r i z e d by quoting f r o m of f o r e s t ownership can Barraclough^ as follows: The h e a r t of the problem of managing the land in small f o r e s t holdings at optimum intensity is not m e r e l y the applica­ tion of inputs of la b o r and capital to this land so as to maxi­ mize net financial r e t u r n s . F o r if the owners hold this land f o r other values b e s id es the production of f o r e s t products, then any rational p r o c e s s of maximization must take these other values into consideration. Unless we a r e to indulge in value judgements of a m o s t obvious type, then, speaking as econo­ m i s t s , we have no right to maintain that some theoretical social welfare function that we a r e pr esumably seeking to maximize will be b e s t s e r v e d by maximizing the net productivity of f o r e s t products f r o m this land if it means the s acrifice of other values by the p r e s e n t owners without adequate compensation; and it may be that the intangible values of ownership a r e such that adequate compensation to the p r e s e n t owners for sacrificing them would be beyond all r ea s o n f rom a social point of view. In other words, Barr acl o ug h is saying that p r e s e n t private f o r e s t owners may be maximizing their by the production of values of f o r e s t products. satisfaction of owning forestland other than those expected f r o m the And f u r t h e r , f o r es t products f r o m these lands that to maximize production of within the framew or k of private ownership of land with equality and justice for all, pensation may be sale re q u ir e d f o r private owners from such la rg e society as com­ to render any change in objective of management virtually impossible. ^Ibid., p. 231. CHAPTER VI SOME ASPECTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT This chapter t r e a t s agement and cons id er s of ownership. several different aspects of f o r e s t m a n ­ how they may be influenced by c er t ain f actors In the previous chapter s everal broad c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f o r e s t ownership were discu s s ed , but not directly handling of the f o r e s t . and s ev e r a l In t h i s chapter many of those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s additional ones their f o r e s t stands. related to the are r elated to how owners actually t r e a t The basis f o r mo s t of these valuations was an on-the-ground inspection of the way f o r e s t s had been harvested. In an e a r l i e r section (Chapter IV) some light was question by observing ti m b e r volumes types held by different c l a s s e s and acreages of owners. shed on this of various f o r e s t Here the approach em­ ployed goes beyond inventory comparisons because timber inventories do not ref lec t what is ventory alone has previous In­ the disadvantage of being mo r e of a reflection of o w n e r s 1 management than p r e s e n t o w n er s 1 actions. f o r e s t management owners actually being done now with the property. can be b e t t e r exert over operations Present evaluated by considering the control associat ed with the handling of the f o r ­ est. 138 139 The analysis p r e s e n t e d in this chapter assumption that good f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s is predicated upon the constitute those which will tend to maximize the production of t i mb er crops in the long run. As previously d i s c u s s e d , however, maximization of timber products' income and maximi zati on of net satisfaction f r o m owning f orestland ar e not n e c e s s a r i l y coincident. Agent in Charge of F o r e s t Management In land management evaluations it is the owner will do a b e t t e r job handling his usually considered that own land than anyone else, and that a tenant (particulary in agriculture) will do the poor­ est management job. management; This is not n e c e s s a r i l y the case in f o r e s t in f a c t , the co n t ra ry may be true. Often forestland cared f or by a m a n a g e r , p a r t i c u l a r y if the manager is a professional forester, receives b e t t e r t r e a t m e n t than it would fr o m the owner. In the study a r e a it was found that 80 percent of the f o r e s t a r ea was handled directly by the f o r e s t owners, a g e r s , and only 1 p er cen t by t e n a n t s . In many cases proportion o v e r s e e n directly by the owners sionally by them. Many of the owners 19 percent by man­ this large was visited only occa­ who attempted to look, after their own f o r e s t l a n d lived too f a r f r o m the property to effectively a d m i n i s t e r i t despite t he ir good intentions. 140 No effort was for es t a r e a in charge made to s ep a r a t e f u r t h e r of a m a n ag er aged by a pr of essi onal f o r e s t e r . that a very s mall p a r t was the to determine that portion m a n ­ It seems safe to a s s u m e , however, in charge of professional f o r e s t e r s , most of this being accounted f o r by a few la r g e often the nonprofessional f o r e s t managers whose job was 19 percent of were ownerships. resident c a r e t a k e r s to s u pervise the holdings in general. The small portion of f o r e s t a r e a than owners i ndi cates that this controlled by tenants resided on f o r e s t t r a c t s , lands on t h e ir f a r m s . and f a r m The (1 percent). considered their often often had sizable wood­ sum of such f o r e s t a r e a s would likely 24 as However, only a small f racti on of the tenancy situations included t i m b e r ure tenants ob­ Tenants 1 p e r c e n t of total f o r e s t a r e a shown in Table tenant-controlled. rather ar r a n g e m e n t offers no serious stacle to good f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s in n o r th er n Michigan. exceed the Very rights, thus accounting for this low f ig­ This may be taken as woodlands some evidence that owners to be valuable enough to retain their control f o r themselves. In Table 24, agent in charge of f o r e s t management is pared f o r different owner occupation c l a s s e s . that f o r e s t p r o p e r t y owned by individuals These data indicate such as f a r m e r s , e a r n e r s , housewife— widows, and r e t i r e d p e r s on s com­ wage was usually handled 141 TABLE 24 AGENT IN CHARGE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT BY OCCUPATION CLASS OF OWNER Agent in Charge of F o r e s t Management Occupation Class Owner Manager Total Tenant (percent of f o r e s t area) . . . . 100 0 0 100 Pulp company . . . . . . . 0 100 0 100 P a r t - t i m e sawmill .............................. operator 100 0 0 100 Other f o r e s t i n d u s tr y 100 0 0 100 . . . 4 94 2 100 F a r m e r .......................................... 100 0 0 100 Part-time fa rm e r 100 0 0 100 Business or p r o f e s s i o n a l ..................... 64 36 0 100 Wage e a r n e r 94 1 5 100 99 1 0 100 Recreation groups . . . . 55 45 0 100 Real estate .............................. 95 5 0 100 Undivided e s t a t e ................. 9 91 0 100 R e t i r e d .......................................... 86 14 0 100 Average 80 19 Lumber company Nonforest ind us tr y . . . . ......................... Housewife or widow . . 100 1 42 directly by them. Corp o r ate or group owners such as pulp com­ panies, nonforest i n d u s t r i e s , and r e c r e a t i o n groups gate manager ial responsibility. The b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r e s t holdings group, This group with 36 percent of their controlled by a manager owner group to delegate sibility. such a la rg e could be taken as enlightened i n the ways was the only individual shar e of managerial it could mean that this respon­ an indication that m e m b e r s of business administration, their own inability to give t h e i r f or es tla n d proper course, quite often dele­ was ca r e . of this realized Also, of the only individual owner class able to afford such a luxury. The l um b er company, p a r t - t i m e sawmill o p e r a t o r , other f o rest industry, and d e a l e r in f o r e s t products their lands owner-managed company management situation. of the owner. with actual with all of stand in sharp contrast with the pulp This attributable to size of ownership as i nt er es ts groups situation is probably as much to anything associated with the Pulp company ownerships tend to be la r g e , company ownership divided among many stockholders, thus making an employee manager industry groups a r e made a necessity. The other f o r e s t up of small ownerships a physical handicap for management by owners, which do not offer particularly since 143 their day-to-day job often, takes them to some f orestlands n e a r their prope r t y . The 5 p e r c e n t of f o r e s t l a n d whose management was by the wage e a r n e r group to tenants r e p r e s e n t e d about thr ee-f our t hs of all of the f o r e s t management turned over to tenants. in the field, this seems to indicate two things: of sheer neglect by these owners; family r elative as delegated first, As observed a high degree and second, the need to keep some a happy tenant. Grazing of F o r e s t Areas Some light can be area are managed f o r the f o r e s t a r e a is shed on how well the f o r e s t s gr azed. The types which have found grazing evaluations as well as have p e r s i s t e n t l y expressed in this sec­ studies in s im i l a r f o r e s t and ti mber production to be competi­ which can not be profitable combined. personnel and other public formation, study t i m b e r production by considering how much of tion a r e based upon the findings of s everal tive e n t e r p r i s e s of the d is s e m i n a to r s p r ivate f o r e s t r y Extension of technical f o r e s t r y in­ consultants in the recommended that the two en t e r p r i s e s region, (forestry and grazing) never be combined on the same ar ea. In this study it was found that 55 percent of the f o r e s t a r e a had no grazing by domestic livestock whatsoever, that 13 percent 144 of the a r e a balance was totally and r a t h e r (32 percent) consistently gr azed, while the of the f o r e s t l a n d was grazed only a portion of their holdings owned by p ersons who or gr azed their woods only intermittently. These data would seem to indicate that f o r e s t g r a z ­ ing was not as serious a problem in the region as it was often thought to be. A. striking co n t r a s t was noted between the r esults j u s t cited above and the r es u l t s of the questionnaire which was owners same analysis applied to the mail sent to the absentee owner group. responding by mail indicated that 90 percent of their f o r e s t 10 percent holdings had positively no grazing, while the remaining was only p a r t i a l l y g razed. groups of owners no f a r m e r s is Most of the disparity between the two due to the fact that the l a t t e r group contained or p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s . Naturally, the two f a r m e r would be more guilty of grazing than all other groups were usually the only groups to own any livestock. an explanation for the opinion among groups that grazing is a s er ious This also offers extension personnel problem. Bureau of the C e n s u s . Op . cl ass es since they and s i m i lar The extent of this prob- lem was brought out also by the Census of Agriculture, ^U.S. Those cit. 1 which 145 reported, that 926,696 a c r e s , acreage in the study a r e a , or 62 p e r c e n t of the f a r m woodland was p a s t u r e d in F r e q u e n c y of F o r e s t It is often argued by f o r e s t important r e a s o n s for crops by pr iv at e 1949.1 Harvests economists that one of the most a lack of i n t e r e s t in the production of f o r e s t owners is due to the fact that they seldom obtain an income f r o m the h a r v e s t of f o r e s t products. direct question was asked f o r e s t owners In this study no as to the income they had received by selling t i m b e r because it was felt that an income type question would only serve felt that this obstacle to antagonize the interviewees. could be overcome and a s i m i lar It was objective accomplished by asking owners when the most recent commercial timber cut had been made in their ownership. response to this Only cuts analysis, The analysis of the question is pr e s e n t e d in Table 25. considered as since harvestings The Census c o m m er cia l were included in this of this type a r e the only ones which B u r e a u ’s definition of a grazed woodland did not coincide sufficiently with the one employed in this study to establish a reliable check. The Census Bureau reco r d ed actual f o r e s t acreage pastured on each f a r m . In this study if any part of an owner’s f o r ­ est was g r a z e d his partially g r azed , total f o r e s t a c r ea g e was li st ed as grazed or whichever he indicated. 1 46 TABLE YEAR OF MOST REGENT 25 CUTTING IN PRESENT OWNERSHIP Most Recent Cutting No cutting in this to ownership .............................................................. 1940 P e r c e n t of Fo r e s t Area 47 Cutting prior Cutting during the per io d 1 9 4 0 - 4 4 .................................................. 3 Cutting during the p e r i o d 1 9 4 5 - 4 9 .................................................. 2 Cutting during the period 195 0 - 5 4 .................................................. 48 T o t a l ................................................................................................................................ a Less than 0.5 percent. (a) 100 1 47 r e p r e s e n t ca s h income things as fence posts to the owner. are Small home— use cuts for important to the f a r m e r such groups, but their inclusion would have given a false picture to the total situation,, hence they were omitted. It is significant that owners had made no c o m m e r c i a l t i m b e r of 47 per cen t of the f o r e s t a r e a cut during their ownership. ollection of the findings on length of tenure (Table that half of the f o r e s t a r e a had been held for 19) which showed sixteen years only s e r v e s to make the above 47 percent appear more The indication that owners made some co m m e r c i a l or m o r e significant. of 48 percent of the forestland had cut during the 195 0 to somewhat of a f alse picture of the situation. 48 percent figure is Rec­ 195 4 period may give A large share of the attributable to the inclusion of the total f o r e s t acreage of sev er al la r g e owners a fracti o n of t he ir f or estland. who made commercial cuts on only Even making allowances for this of distortion, the l a r g e proportion of f o r e s t a r e a in ownerships some cutting has s ev er al implications. surge in cutting activity in the most type with One explanation for the recent f i v e - y e a r period is due to a bettering of the marketing situation as larly for explanation is that owners who aspen pulpwood. Another a whole, p a r t i c u ­ only recently acquired the ir land have done considerable largely as a means of defraying at l e a s t p a r t cutting, of the purchase price 148 of the prop er ty . This philosophy of making the t i mber help pay the purchase p r i c e is It is particularly ext r a o r d i n a r y from absentee owners shown in Table 25. evident among that the analysis Among this group, It is At p r es en t timber price s group; value of the f o r e s t as its worth as a consum­ r e m a r k e d when being interviewed that they positively would not consider making a timber risk of damaging the beauty of the f orest. who refused to consider a t i m b e r sale were sale because of the Several real to the conclusion that the aesthetic does, indeed, have a cash value. owners who staunchly ar e any r e t u r n they could get from sale which might, in fact, impair Many owners and at of the f o r e s t other in t e r e s t s i . e . , the aesthetic a c o n s u m e r ’s good usually outweighs which leads 47 percent of to consider f o r e s t owners in current physical productivity levels e r ’s good. of 50 percent of the One group has little i n t e r e s t in the f o r e s t as a p r o d u c e r of ti m b e r . a timber owners with those a cut in the l a s t f i v e - y e a r period. separately. paramount with this res ult s cut, while owners of convenient f o r analysis these two groups owners. of the mail questionnaires showed almost identical a r ea had made no c o m m e r c i a l the a r e a had made speculative estate people, value of the f o r e s t It was noted, however, refused to consider a timber sons with adequate incomes f rom of this group other sources. that many sale were p e r ­ 149 The other ber sales group of f o r e s t owners who had made and who also tended to make frequent sales recent ti m ­ were much more optimistic. Invariably, these frequent s e l l e r s , aside fr o m the few l a r g e owners r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r belong to the low er - in com e in this section, appeared to category, or they were persons to snowball a shoestring into a fortune. trying These were all people who could not r e s i s t the temptation of a quick cash return. The above analysis, though convenient, may r e p r e s e n t an oversimplification of the situation. Certainly, the relatively inactive timber m a r k e t in the n o r t h e r n portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula has offered little inducement for many owners and hence th e r e only 8 per cen t of the privately owned f o r e s t a r e a classifiable ously was not an adequate forest industries sales, may not have been a true t e s t of their attitudes. In the study a r e a was in stands to make timber as saw ti m b e r (see r e s o u r c e base for Table 9). This obvi­ supporting the type of which would compete f o r private timber actively enough to tempt all owners. Administration of F o r e s t Harvests Aside f r o m on-the-ground visits which is v e r y difficult in the case to recently cut-over of absentee way of evaluating actual management is areas, owners, the next bes t to consider the way in which 150 owners super v is e harvests and apply f o r e s t r y associated with good t i m b e r of evaluation is sales used, however, p rocedure. techniques commonly When such a method c a r e must be taken that the owner does not r e a l iz e the objective of the questioning; otherwise he may attempt to m i s l e a d the interviewer in o r d e r to hide a re c o r d of poor management. In addition to visiting actual the method d e s c r i b e d above was tions of this cutting operations employed in this when possible, study. The p o r ­ section which follow describe these methods and the findings thereof. Supervision. As shown in Table 26, a very small portion (12 percent) of the f o r e s t a r e a was in the ownership of persons who employed a professional f o r e s t e r to supervise the cutting. the other hand, owners claimed that cutting by themselves In this or of about thr e e - f o u r t h s on their their of the f o r e s t a r e a p r operty had been supervised either repres en ta tiv e. study no attempt was made to establish the c o r r e l a ­ tion between type of supervision and actual cutting pr actice. a c o r r ela tio n, however, has demonstrated in other ^Lee M clt., p. 16. James, On Such been assumed in this discussion and studies. Wm. P. The assumption is that the Hoffman, and Monty A. Payne, QPj_ 151 TABLE 26 OWNERS 1 CONTROL OF TIMBER CUTTING P e r c e n t of « a F o r e s t Area Control E x e r c i s e d . . . . 12 Cutting s u p e r v is ed by owner or his r ep r es enta tive^ . ................................................................................... 74 Trees m a r k e d fjor cutting .............................................................. 14 . .............................................................. 27 Cutting s u p er vis ed by professional f o r e s t e r Diameter l i m i t specified Merchantable t r e e s left standing 3L P e r c e n t of f o r e s t a r e a c .......................................... e x p r es s ed in t e r m s . 29 of total private f o r e s t a r e a on which, some cutting under p r e s e n t ownership was reported. ■L Includes sional f o r e s t e r the 12 p e r c e n t which was supervised by a prof es ­ representative. ° Classified according to intention of owner, on the ground or not. whether executed 152 higher the degree of super v is io n the higher the o r d e r of timber management. The analysis owners of the mail questionnaires f r o m the absentee not interviewed answers to these sentee owners showed a s im i l a r trend with r e s p e c t to the two questions on supervision. who answered these questions However, by mail indicated a little higher portion of the ir land had received the types vision indicated above than was personally. with access the case with persons This disparity between the owners two different means of s u p e r ­ interviewed interviewed by the may have been due to the ability of per s o n s to the en tire questionnaire anticipate the objectives The analysis the ab­ (the mail respondents) to of the questions. of the questions on supervision according to the occupation of the owner is p r e s e n t e d in Table 27. of this table indicates The f i r s t column that m o s t of the f o r e s t a r e a where cutting was supervised by a pr of essi onal was accounted for by the industry groups. Most of the 36 p e r c e n t of f o r e s t a r e a professionally vised and owned by the f o r e s t a few large owners, industry group was mostly pulp company owners. attained by the nonforest industry group is caliber of management p r a c t i c e d by a very super­ accounted for by The good record also due to the high small number of f i r m s . Those f i r m s in the nonforest industry group who did have professional 153 TABLE 27 CONTROL OF TIMBER CUTTING BY OWNERS1 OCCUPATION CLASS Control Cutting by a Prof ess ional Cutting Super­ vised by Owner o r His R ep re- Forester sentative Supervis ed Occupation Class Exer ci s ed Trees Marked for Cutting Mer­ chant­ able Trees Left Stand­ ing k Diameter Limit Specified a (percent of f o r e s t ar ea) ° F o re s t Industry. . Nonfo r e s t industry ................. F a r m e r ......................... Part-time farm er ................. Business or professional . . 82 43 54 100 0 100 87 100 0 100 0 57 0 44 9 2 26 3 13 58 47 . . . 0 80 70 w i d o w ..................... Recreation group . Real estate . . . . Undivided estate . 3 84 3 11 0 0 0 55 50 2 0 0 8 Wage e a r n e r Housewife or R e t i r e d ......................... a includes forester 42 36 that which was 1 9 0 — — 74 0 0 0 98 36 25 17 - 0 9 supervised by a professional representative. ■L Classified according to intention of owner, whether executed on the ground or not. CP e r c e n t of f o r e s t a r e a exp r e s s e d in te r m s of the total f o r e s t a r e a within occupation c l a s s e s on which some cutting under p r esent ownership was reported. 1 54 foresters in t h e i r commercial employment claimed that they had never made a ti m b e r cutting during t h e ir period of ownership. The r e c r e a t i o n group was the only other occupation class making use of prof es si o nal f o r e s t e r s 1 s e r v i c e s extent. The a c r e a g e c l a s s e d in this category was generally in la r g e ownerships, and professional ments to any appreciable with organized f i r m s services were secured by working a g r e e ­ of consulting f o r e s t e r s . The high p r op o r ti on of a r e a owned by f a r m e r s cutting s u pervision was due mainly to f a r m e r s being and hence able to pers o n all y oversee most of the their property. which received r esident owners In like fashion 44 p e r c e n t of p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r - o w n e d f o r e s t a r e a and the 70 p e r c e n t of w a g e - e a r n e r —owned f o r e s t a r e a of cutting supervision is the r e s u l t of personal Business-professional recreation groups, and r e a l receiving some supervision. people, the housewife-widow group, estate people frequently hired the s e r ­ vices of a c a r e t a k e r to s u per v is e cutting f r o m the ir property. effort was made to t r y to evaluate this type of s ervice. some of it was the owners their No Undoubtedly, of high quality, but much of it was not as good as thought it to be. when owners sort were quizzed as r e p r es en ta tiv e It is interesting to note that frequently to the professional qualifications they became rather of indignant and expressed the 155 belief that t h e i r nonprofessional r e p r e s e n t a t i v e was just as qualified, as any p r of es si o nal f o r e s t e r . Undivided es tat es and r e t i r e d people were seeing that cutting on the ir f o r e s t a r e a s extremely lax in had any type of supervision whatsoever. Other restrictions on cutting. times placed on co m m e r c ia l insure ti mber Two other s o me­ oper at ors by the owners to some b a r e minimum application of good f o r e s t pract ices by the marking of t r e e s f o r cutting or diameter l i m it on t r e e s to be cut. the be cut when they sold timber. was held by owners diameter limit. Table 2 6 indicates who marked t r e e s 14 to Only 27 percent of the forestland This l a t t e r means to insure It might be added that c a r e r e p r e s e n t s just about the least some minimum f o r e s t practices. was taken in asking this sure that the di a m e t e r l i m i t was the owner's economic limit The analysis that only who went to the trouble to specify a minimum effort an owner can make than a minimum are specification of a minimum percent of the f o r e s t l a n d was held by owners owners r es tr ic tion s question to make specification r ath e r set by the logger. of the mail questionnaires f rom the absentee concerning the questions on marking a minimum d i a m e t e r l i m i t yielded results t r ee s for almost cutting and exactly opposite 156 those p r e s e n t e d in Table 26. No explanation can be offered f or this disparity beyond the possibility that these owners, having full access to all of the questions, could have anticipated their objective and hence gave misleading a n s w e r s . Examination of Table 27, in which is presented the analysis by occupation c l a s s e s specifications, r e v eal s of the questions on t r e e marking and diameter that there is the occupation groups when these answers obtained on supervision. minimum d ia m e t e r not much change in the r esults are rank of compared with those With re g a r d to the setting of specifications, however, business-professional people, wage e a r n e r s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s showing. these groups somewhat concerned about minimum conservation practices can be taken as made a much improved are This of undivided estates but they have n either the time, means, nor knowledge to put into p r a c t i c e any other type of r es triction. cate a r a t h e r high degree of shrewdness Indication of minimum Table 26 will concern. reveal that the owners an indication that It seems on the p a r t of these groups. Further examination of of 71 percent of the f o r e s t area had no intention of leaving any merchantable t r e e s after c o m m er cia l ti m b e r cuts. revealed in Table 26, and seems to indi­ This is whatsoever the most discouraging thing to indicate either utter dis r e g a r d 157 by owners toward f o r e s t conservation a n d / o r an a r e a of ignorance with r e s p e c t to good and bad f o r e s t r y . Table 27 shows that reational groups, r e t i r e d people, and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s real estate people, were par ti c u l a r l y guilty of having this low r e g a r d f o r f o r e s t conservation. to get a valid analysis of this question for business -prof e s s i o n a l , and undivided estate The f a r m e r , p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r , showed up well i n the m a t t e r It was not possible the nonforest industry, groups. and f o r e s t industry groups of supervision, but sank low in their attitude toward leaving a few merchantable trees. This seems to reveal that such owners were often the culprits themselves least an a c c e s s o r y after rec­ the fact. These c l a s s e s or at of owners f r e ­ quently handled t h e i r own cutting, and were often unable to r e s i s t cutting any t r e e that would yield them a cash pulp company owners a s i m i lar analysis toward leaving were return. When large removed f rom the f o r e s t industry group showed a negligible i n t e r e s t by f o r e s t industries any merchantable t r e e s . Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e Earlier of actual it was pointed out how the on-the-ground inspection cutting operations was the most satisfactory method of 158 evaluating an owner's management p r a c t i c e s . the only valid m e a s u r e J a m e s 1 claims it is of c u r r e n t t i mber management, (2 Unfortunatly, in this study, financial and time limitations p r e ­ vented the visiting of a l a r g e number of cutting a r e a s . pointed out, l e s s than half of the a r e a included in the owned by p e r s o n s l a st five y e a r s . As previously sample was who had sponsored a commercial timber cut in the Also, in the field this was not known until the owner was interviewed, and this frequently took place many miles from the f o rest. These obstacles on actual cutting served to reduce the number of observations results to a small sample, and r eaders should keep this point in mind when drawing conclusions f rom the data presented in this section. Method of classifying cutting. sible to visit and inspect the r es u l t s five-year p eriod a method of ocular cutting which had taken place as poor. This Lee the same as M. Op . 2 c i t . , p. where it was pos­ of cutting made in the preceding estimation was used to classify to whether it was method was James. In the cases good, f a i r , or previously employed by James Z 258. Lee M. J a m e s . F o r e s t cutting p r a c t i c e s in Michigan. Mich­ igan Agricultural Experiment Station, Eas t Lansing, Technical Bulle­ tin 23 8 , June 1953, p. 31. 159 to evaluate cutting p r a c t i c e s in Michigan, from him concisely d e s c r i b e s Glass of cutting and. the following quotation the method: refers to the silvicultural effectiveness l°gging* The gener al principle is to judge whether the cutting (together with silvicultural m e a s u r e s accompnaying it) will i m ­ prove the stand, maintain it, or cause deterioration. The em­ phasis is nyt on the stand that is left, but on the anticipated changes in stocking, quality and species composition of the grow­ ing stock (including established reproduction) in the 10 years following cutting. The c r i t i c a l point in the range of cutting practice is taken to be that at which a stand, if adequately protected f rom f i r e and grazing is b a r e l y maintained in stocking, quality, and species composition. Cutting which meets at l e a s t this stand­ a r d is c l a s s e d as f a i r , but as a minimum, the stand must show p r o m i s e of attaining at l e a s t 5 0 percent of full stocking. Cutting which falls below this s tandard is classified as poor. It p r o m ­ is e s a decline in either stocking, quality, or species composi­ tion, or it will not r e s u l t in 5 0 percent of full stocking. Cutting which will do b e t t e r than this standard is classified as good. As a minimum r e q u i r e m e n t for good cutting, the stand must show p r o m i s e of attaining at l e a s t two-thirds of full stocking. It might be added that under species like aspen may such a system clear-cutting r ate as in n or ther n hardwood stands good cutting, while the same scheme employed here would meet with the unqualified approval of all f o r e s t e r s s e v e r a l f o r e s t types of the study area. is believed that ag r e e m e n t among f o r e s t e r s the discriminations Under this system would rate poor. It is not suggested that the qualitative applied to the of some would be as it was However, it sufficient for made herein. s y s t e m of rating cutting p r a c t i c e s , sixty-four dif ferent p r o p e r t i e s which had had some cutting in the preceding five 160 years were inspected. a r ea of 169*421 a c r e s . within the same cuttings the These sixty-four p r op er ti es included a total When s e v e r a l different a r e a s ownership, had been cut only one a r e a was inspected. on the s a m e ownership, it was Other assumed, would not change rating as signed the entire property. C l a s s of cutting for all o w n e r s . of cutting p r a c t i c e v ar ie d for Table 28 shows how class all ownership c l ass es combined. Some three-fifths of the f o r e s t owners, holding 46 percent of the f o r e s t ar ea, were found to be practicing poor cutting on their lands. Only 15 percent of the owners, with 23 percen t of the forestland, were found to be employing f o r e s t cutting pract ices which would rate as good. This forestry; depicts, also, what has namely, that l a r g e f o r e s t owners higher type of cutting than small many exceptions average it seems Class the class come to be an old story in owners. can be found to this to hold f o r all generally pr actice Individually, of course, generalization, but on the regions of the United States. of cutting by owner occupation group. Table 29 of cutting p r a c t i c e by broad occupation groups. size of the sample it was for all occupation c l a s s e s . a not possible to p r e s e n t cutting N everthel ess, the data are shows Due to the class data revealing. 161 TABLE 28 CLASS OF CUTTING PRACTICE Class P e r c e n t of of Cutting P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners F o r e s t Area Good 23 15 Fair . 31 25 Poor . 46 60 Total . 100 100 The data c l e a r l y indicate that f a r m e r s farmers) were the big problem (including p a r t - t i m e a r e a despite all of the educational work which has been concentrated on this group. groups were doing much b e t t e r than f a r m e r s . The industry In t e r m s of f o r e s t ar ea, the industry group was found to be doing far b et ter than the other two groups The due to the influence of a few large owners. ,To t h e r 1r group used in Table 29 includes trial and n o nf ar mer owner c l a s s e s . all nonindus­ Grouped in this way, the 162 TABLE 29 CLASS OF CUTTING PRACTICE BY OWNER OCCUPATION GROUP Clas s of Cuttinga Occupation Group Total Good Fair Poor P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners b ...................................................... 17 73 10 100 ...................................................... 10 16 74 100 ~ , d Others .............................................................. 28 36 36 100 Industries Farm ers° P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area Industries ...................................................... 90 1 9 100 Farm ers0 ...................................................... 10 46 44 100 ^ , d Others .............................................................. 12 30 58 100 cL Based on the inspection of sixty-four different p r o perties where a c o m m e r c i a l cutting had been made within the l a s t five years. The g r o s s f o r e s t ac r e a g e of these properties was 169»421 a c r e s , including one pr o p e r ty g r e a t e r than 100,000 a c r e s . Includes f o r e s t and nonforest industries. CIncludes f a r m e r s Includes all other and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s . owner occupation cl a s s e s . 163 indication is that these other private cutting job done on their data before grouping occupation c l a s s e s owners land than f a r m e r s . were having a better Examination of the revealed quite a wide dispersion among the as used in other portions of that shown as poor of this Most cutting was due to the inclusion of the housewife-widow and r e t i r e d occupation cl a s s e s . indicated as study. using good cutting Most of those resulted f r o m inclusion of the b u s in e s s - p r o fe ss io n a l and wage e a r n e r occupation classes. These r es u l t s generally agree with other studies in which there has been an effort to appraise cutting practices or manage­ ment p r a c t i c e s by o w n e r ’s o c c u p a t i o n / Class of cutting by distance of owner from pr op erty. fluence which distance practice is classes, of owner’s residence may have upon cutting shown in Table and a r e th e re fo r e occupation c l a s s e s . The in­ 30. These data contain several ownership subjected to the confounding influence of This effect has been reduced somewhat by eliminat­ ing two owner c l a s s e s which were generally resident or generally absen­ tee owners. However, sample size did not make it possible to analyze this question for one occupation class alone. cit., p. This situation is particularly Lee M. J a m e s , Wm . P. Hoffman, and Monty A. Payne. 15. Also: Tennessee Valley Authority. Op. c i t ., p. 5. Op. 16 4 TABLE CLASS OF 30 CUTTING PRACTICE BY DISTANCE OF OWNER FROM PROPERTY3- Class of Cutting Distance f r o m P r o p e r t y in Miles To tal Good Fair Poor (perc ent of fo re st area) 25 68 7 100 6 15 79 100 Twenty-six to one hundred . . . . 0 2 98 100 One hundred and up 0 53 47 100 On s i t e .................................................................. One to twenty-five includes tries ................................. ............................. all occupation c l a ss es and f a r m e r s . excepting nonforest indus­ 165 acute because v er y few cut - o v e r to owners areas inspected which belonged who lived m o r e than twenty-five miles fr om the property. From cutting class inspection of Table 3 0, one can conclude some trend in due to distance If one is of owner f r o m property. willing to discount i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , there does good cutting a s s o c i a t e d with more Forest economists practiced poor f o r e s t little were research distant owners. have long contended that absentee owners management. Howeverf there has been very evidence to support this Mississippi that owners appear to be a lack of claim. J a m e s 1 found in who lived f a r t h e r than fifty miles from the property had generally po o r e r management than those living closer. The Tennessee managers 2 study indicated r esident owners were better f o r e s t than nonresident owners. Class of cutting by agent in charge of management. the implications of owner ver s us management a r r a n g e m e n t s In this section the have to actual cit., p. relationships cutting p r a c t i c e s Tennessee related to f o r e s t were d i s cussed e a r l i e r in this ^Lee M. J a m e s , Wm. 27. 2 manager as P. Some of chapter. these agents of management may are explored. Hoffman, V alley Authority. Op . and Monty A. Payne. c i t . r p. 10. Op. 166 TABLE 31 CLASS OF CUTTING PRACTICE BY AGENCY OF MANAGEMENT Class of Catting ■ ■ ■ —— — — — --- Agent, in Charge Good Fair Total Poor (percent of f o r e s t area) ......................................................... Owner Manager 18 32 50 100 40 31 29 100 Table 31 shows how cutting pr act ices found to be r elated to the agent in charge of management. significant relations brought out a r e ers generally had p o o r e r agers in the study a r e a were cutting p r a c t i c e s . that p r op er ti es managed by own­ cutting p r a c t i c e s who generally had m o r e a r e a than those handled by man under t h e i r control with good Much of the poor owner-managed forestland is attributable to that owned and managed by f a r m e r s farmers. The most or p a r t - t i m e The l a r g e percentage of m a n a g er - o per ated f o r e s t a r e a with good cutting p r a c t i c e s is due to a few l a r g e ownerships managed by professional f o r e s t e r s o r competent r esident managers. 167 Class of cutting p r a c t i c e by age of ow n er . chapter r age of owner vation was as discussed. owner’s age. r elated to the 32 this in this study f o r the f a r m e r farmer owners founding in this tices occupation class. This method has effects of mixing in the f o r t y - on either side of this relationship is are related to shown as it was found The separation of case was possible because of the size of the advantage of eliminating the con­ all owner occupation classes Examination of Table p ractices economic theory of c o n s e r ­ Here actual cutting pr actices In Table the sample. In the preceding 32 shows a definite peak of good cutting to fif t y -y e ar point. together. age bracket, with a tapering off The la rge share of poor cutting p r a c ­ shown in the old e r b r a ck et s may be explained partially by the contended i n c r e a s e in a p e r s o n ’s rate of time preference with age (previously discussed). age c l a s s e s are less Another partial well explanation is that the older enlightened (particularly among f a r m e r s ) and m o r e bound by the traditional ways of timber cutting than younger owners . class The la r g e share of poor under forty years of age cutting pr act ices found in the f a r m e r seems likely to be the the relatively poor income position of these owners. gross income rank of young owners reflection of Although the may be high, they ar e frequently 168 TABLE CLASS OF 32 CUTTING PRACTICE FOR FARM OWNERS BY AGE CLASS Class Age Class in Years of Cutting P r a c t i c e Good Fair Total Poor (percent of f o r e s t a r e a ) Under f o r t y .................................................. 0 0 100 100 Forty-one to f i f t y ................................. 22 51 27 100 Fifty-one to s i x t y ................................. 0 35 65 100 25 0 75 100 Over s i x t y ...................................................... 169 heavily obligated with debt, their f o r e s t growing When c l a s s analyzed f or and hence may be induced to liquidate stock. of cutting p r act ice according to age of owner was all individual owner occupation c l a ss es combined, an almost identical p a t t e r n to that pr es ented in Table 32 was Class of cutting p r a ct ice by length of t e n u r e . opinion of m o s t p e r s on s in r e s o u r c e It has been the conservation work that as length of tenure i n c r e a s e d so did the owner's This was revealed. concern for his resource. d i s c u s s e d at some length in the preceding chapter under length of tenure. unfortunate that As was pointed out at that time, it is somewhat such a belief has gained almost ubiquitus acceptance without r e s e a r c h verification. The influence which length of tenure may have on class cutting p r a c t i c e F r o m this land l e s s and l e s s as determined by this table it can be than seven y e a r s land that was other length of tenure that this and is were seen that owners who have held their owned mor e land that was poorly cut groupings. However, the sixteen to twenty- group stands out as an exception to this difficult to explain. i r r e g u l a r i t y is cutting p r a c t i c e s shown in Table 33. well cut than was the general case with the five y ear length of tenure generalization, study is of due to the small evaluated. It is entirely possible size of the sample on which 170 TABLE 33 CLASS OF CUTTING PRACTICE BY LENGTH OF TENURE Class of Cutting Length of Tenure in Years 1 O t cLi Good Fair Poo r (percent of f o r e s t area) 9 42 49 10 0 ...................................... 35 30 35 1 00 Sixteen to t w e n t y - f i v e ..................... 2 42 56 1 00 36 27 37 100 One to s i x ...................................................... Seven to fifteen Twenty-six and up ............................. 171 Due to the size of the sample, it was not possible to get a reliable c o m p ar is on within a p a r t i c u l a r occupation as to the possible influence of length of tenure. It is doubtful, however, if any signifi­ cant difference could have been observed within occupation groups had the in his sample size p e r m i t t e d Mississippi such an analysis. J ames * reported study that there was no relation between manage­ ment and length of tenure r either for all owners or f o r par ti cu lar occupation c l a s s e s . Assuming that significantly p o or er management was discov­ ered in the l e s s than seven y ear length of tenure group, it is very doubtful if it could be supposed as There a r e many f a c t o r s to a poorer a cause and effect relationship. common to new owners which could contribute c a l ib er of management among these owners, for ple the financial pinch new owners frequently proportion of speculative owners in the exam­ experience, the high short length of tenure cl a s s e s , et cetera. Class of cutting p r a c t i c e by number of generations property has been in family ownership. In the preceding chapter there was a rather lengthy discussion concerning the possible Lee M. cit., p. 27. J a m e s , W m . P. effects on Hoffman, and Monty A. Payne. Op 172 conservation by the length of time a property had. been in family ownership. exhibited the Here in cutting p r a c t i c e and generations family ownership. tion cl a s s relationships between the pr operty had been retained in The pr e s e n t a t i o n here is for the f a r m e r alone. the possible Table 34 a r e occupa­ The r e a s o n for this approach was to eliminate confounding influence of other i n t e r e s t s , et cetera, associated with the different occupation c l ass es . Table 34 shows a definite tend exactly inverse of that which was anticipated. The a r e a owned by no generations p r io r to the p r e s ­ ent ownership had the b e s t cutting while that which had been in the family two o r more generations had been very poorly cut. same comparison for all owner c l ass es presented) taken together showed an identical trend, with a very The (no table s imilar pr o p o r ­ tional distribution. The picture gained f rom the field work was not one of well- car ed- f or pr o p e r ty as s o ciat ed with long family ownership; it was owners completely opposite this anticipation. seemed to fall into two groups. obtained f r o m it. ers) was their f o r e s t The other made up of those Long-time family One group consisted of those just hanging on and practicing typical which included milking rather, subsistence agriculture r e s o u r c e for all that could be group (and this would not include f a r m ­ (mostly wage e a r n e r s ) who had gone off 173 TABLE 34 CLASS OF CUTTING PRACTICE FOR FARM OWNERS BY THE NUMBER OF GENERATIONS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN FAMILY OWNERSHIP Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e Number of Generations Good Fair Total Poor (percent of f o r e s t a r e a None One Two 21 58 21 1 00 20 75 1 00 0 100 100 1 74 to live and work el sew h er e and were family lands. The attitudes still hanging on to the old of these owners toward their land hold- ings seemed to a l t e r n a t e between sufficient sentimentality to cause them, to r eta in the land and almost b it te r r esentment over any ex­ penses involved with the ownership on the other hand. between these two groups in both of these p r a c t i c e s were the p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s Sandwiched who shared and beliefs. It can only be concluded that the expression ’’land, the h e r i ­ tage of the u n d er p r iv i leg ed , 11 though coined during the great d e p r e s ­ sion, may still s e r v e as a large an im portant explanation for the actions segment of the f o r e s tla n d owners ticularly those Class ownership. of in n o rthern Michigan, p a r ­ ' ’p r o b l e m ' 1 f o r e s tla nd owners. of cutting p r actice by expectation of continued family Again the analysis here developed in the preceding chapter. those owners who anticipated the ir tr e a t s f u r t h e r a concept f i r s t The implication made was that sons after them might be inclined to at l e a s t to some day own the land r e f r a i n from destructive cutting p r a c t i c e s . Table 35 p r e s e n t s tion f a r m e r s had for cutting p r a c t i c e s . the relationship found between the expecta­ continued family ownership and on-the-ground The analysis in Table 35 was made for the 175 TABLE 35 CLASS OF CUTTING PRACTICE FOR FARM OWNERS BY EXPECTATION OF CONTINUED OWNERSHIP Class of Cutting P r a c t i c e Expectation Good Fair Total Poor (percent of f o r e s t area) Do not expect to continue ownership .............................................. Expect to continue ownership f a r m e r owner c l ass . . . 0 0 100 100 14 37 49 100 alone in o r d e r to avoid possible confounding influences a s s o c i a t e d with different occupation cla s s e s . indicate quite cl e a r l y that f a r m e r s their family had p r a c t i c e d b e t t e r future plans for owner c l a s s e s t h e ir p r o p e r t i e s . The data expecting to r eta in ownership in cutting than those who had no such The analysis for all noncorporate combined showed a very s i m i lar trend. The ameliorating influence on poor cutting p r a c t i c e s achieved by extending the owner1s planning horizon beyond his own period life expectancy ap pear s to conform with economic theory. If it had 176 been possible to c o r r e l a t e cutting p r a c t ic e s income f o r the p r e s e n t owner and f o r seems likely that the Class same d ir e c t with anticipated future subsequent family owners relationship would have been found. of cutting pr a c t i c e according to objective of management. In the preceding chapter objective of ownership was trea ted in a gen­ eral and somewhat theoretical fashion for all owners tion c l a s s e s . in t e r m s The approach h e r e of actual p e r f o r m a n c e 36 p r e s e n t s the is and for occupa­ to examine objective of ownership in handling the f o r e s t resource. (Table 36) pretty well conform with expectations and findings f r om of the country. Objectives associated with industrial ownership duction f o r "other" These would include: is pro­ The good showing attributable mostly to public who were holding f o r watershed protection purposes. showing of owners speculation, studies in other par ts owner1s wood-using plant and " o t h e r . " of the objective l i s t e d as The poor similar the b e s t cutting p r a c t i c e s . utility owners Table summation of these findings. The findings p r e s e n t e d h e r e have by f a r it clearing f or expected. I b i d ., p . 2 8 . whose objectives were investment or ag r i c u l t u r e , and '' i n a c t i v e 11 is as would be 177 TABLE 36 CLASS OF CUTTING PRACTICE BY OBJECTIVE OF MANAGEMENT Class of Cutting Objective of Management Total Good Fair Poor (percent of f o r e s t area) F a r m usage: any combination of home us e, t i m b e r sale, and p a s t u r e .................................................. 10 47 43 100 Growing t i m b e r f o r s a l e ..................... 8 24 68 100 70 11 19 100 s p e c u l a t i o n ................. 2 15 83 100 Sale of m a t u r e t i m b e r ............................. 0 71 29 100 0 0 0 0 12 88 100 ..................... 4 54 42 100 I n a c t i v e ^ .................................................................. 0 0 100 100 Other° . ....................................................................... 98 0 2 100 Production f o r owner*s woodusing p l a n t ......................................... Investment o r Sale of m i n e r a l o r m i n e r a l rights .................................................................. Clear f o r a g r i c u l t u r e Recreation or ............................. residence a No interviewees (a) made cut in l a s t five years having this objective of management. kInactive is purpose used to indicate management without a specific sufficiently well defined to place in a p ar ti cu lar ° O t h e r is used to indicate category. some miscellaneous but specific objective not l i s t e d s e p ar ate ly above. 178 The la r g e portion of poor were growing t i m b e r f o r explanation s eem s to be cutting by owners sale may requ ir e some whose objectives elaboration. r e q u ir ed because of possible confusion be­ tween growing t i m b e r f o r sale and sustained-yield f o r e s tr y . conceived in this study, growing timber for mean that it was not being grown f o r liquidation purposes. stand that t r e e s grow is cutting influences The a simple As sale did not necessarily To under­ concept, but to understand how subsequent stand development and the f u r t h e r i m ­ plications of sustained yield is a world ap ar t in the level of under­ standing. The poor cutting on the la r g e portion (43 percent) of land being held f o r f a r m - u s a g e purposes throughout this farmers study. conforms with the findings Most of this land is farmer-owned and have consistently exhibited themselves as a problem a r e a in fore st conservation. Many o b s e r v e r s will be s u r p r i s e d by the lack, of a better showing on the p a r t of those residence pu r p os es . owners holding for The indication seems recreational or to be that other i n t e r ­ ests definitely rate d above that of timber production with these own­ ers. Many p e r s o n s having this that they were objective of ownership frankly stated i n t e r e s t e d in no f o r e s t p r a ct ice which might in the slightest adv er s ely affect the game population. Also, one or two 179 cases were noted where mischievous ti mber oper at o rs could be blamed f o r inciting owners into a belief of incompatability between good f o r e s t r y and good game management. CHAPTER VII ATTITUDES OF OWNERS TOWARD FOREST In the preceding chapter some m e a s u r e s MANAGEMENT of f o r e s t manage­ ment were postulated, and in tu r n employed to evaluate actual management p r a c t i c e s . Also, the relations of many ch ar ac ter is tic s of forest ownership to f o r e s t management were In this owners as is shifted to attitudes of an explanation for poor timber management. high degree actuality. much as sho r t chapter the emphasis examined. of poor f o r e s t management has been accepted as The p roblem now is a separate entity. to t r ea d . an to examine the f o r e s t owner pretty This twilight zone between economics should dare Here a analysis goes as f a r into the and psychology as an economist No doubt many of the answers lie beyond this limit; n e v e r t h e l e s s , it seems that there for f or est economics by going as f a r is much to be gained as possible. It should be pointed out that an inherent limitation of the evaluations of f o r e s t owners required for this type of an examina­ tion is that it may become more ability to classify o w ner s' themselves. of a test of the interviewer's attitudes than a measure of the attitudes Certainly no two interviewers 180 working independently 181 would be able to come same owners. up with exactly the Fortunately, by the same per s on. Thus of the situation within the in this the same evaluations of the study all interviewing was done res ult s should be a valid comparison study a r e a , although not an absolute m e a s ­ ure of it. Owners' Concepts of Timber In o r d e r to evaluate owners' Management concepts of management, con­ cepts were grouped into seven general categories and arranged in a p r o g r e s s i o n of ascending o r d e r . idea" to "high, ranged from continuing yield of t i mber p r o du cts , " found listed in Table 37. sons being interviewed. owner's These concepts Direct questions Instead, were attempt was "no and will be not asked the p e r ­ made to draw out the thoughts in conversation and then rate him on this p r e ­ arranged scale. This rating was ratings on cutting p r a c t i c e s , For et c et er a. all owner c l a s s e s reveal that l e s s than entirely independent of the owner's combined. Inspection of Table 37 will 1 percent of the f o r e s t owners, who held 5 percent of the f o r e s t a r e a , rated at the top of this 6 percent of the f o r e s t owners, scale. Also, who held 5 percent of the forest area, had al mo s t no concept of f o r e s t management. In t e r m s of 182 TABLE OWNERS' Concepts CONCEPTS OF TIMBER MANAGEMENT P e r c e n t of of Management F o r e s t Area ........................................................................... No idea 37 P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners 5 6 34 72 20 10 17 8 .................................................. 16 4 Fire protection and light cutting, economically desir ab l e both in the p r e s e n t and long run . . . 3 (a-) .............................................................. 5 (a) T o t a l ................................................................................... 100 100 F ir e protection o r and/or reforestation refraining f r o m Light catting and other catting . meas­ ures for public good, at some p er s o n a l s a c r if i ce . . . Light cuttin and other m e a s ­ ures economically d esirable in the long run, but not at p r e s e n t .................................................................. Light cutting, economically desirable both in the p r e s e n t and long run High, continuing yield of ti mber products cl Less „ _ . than. 0.5 percent. 183 forest a r e a or f o r e s t owners, scale would f o r m the distribution of owners on this a skewed bell shape if plotted. Co mp a r is o n between the two columns small owners owners. This rate d lower conforms with r e s p e c t to size In his identical in their with all of the other findings of this study of ownership. rating the l a r g e s t p r op o r ti on s at study James ^ used an almost concept of management. in t e r m s of f o r e s t a r e a only, rating was concept of management than large M is s is si pp i ownership scale for in Table 37 shows that His analysis, showed an inverted bell either end of the scale. shape, with Much of the high at tr ib u te d to a few la r g e ownerships, with small owners accounting for much of the a r e a rated under a low concept of man­ agement. Michigan f o r e s t owners t e rm s of f i r e tended to think of f o r e s t r y largely in protection, planting, cent of the owners, and little timber 34 percent of the area). This cutting (72 p e r ­ seems to be the result of the demonstration effects of the most common type of forestry Michigan owners seemed to think in t e r m s crops according ^Ibid., p. have been able to observe. of thinnings or harvesting mature f o rest to a cyclical plan or cutting budget. 23. Few owners 1 84 This would s eem planted f o r e s t s is to indicate that the demonstration value of quite high. It is logical that Michigan f o r e s t owners would think of f o r e s t r y la rgely in t e r m s inasmuch as hdichigan, with over 760 thousand a c r e s forest p la n ta ti o n s , is interesting themselves of f o r e s t plantings leads the nation in this phase of f o r e s t r y . to note that many interviewees as f o r e s t owners on their lands. of commercial did not even recognize when they had no coniferous plantings On the other hand, age of coniferous plantings It owners who had a small a c r e ­ took g r e a t pride in them and usually placed m o r e value on a few a c r e s of this kind of land than several times that amount of native hardwood forestland. As Michigan's f o r e s t plantations to yield income f r o m approach maturity and begin thinnings, demonstrations type of f o r e s t r y will become Michigan f o r e s t owners common. As this of a more advanced situation evolves, a r e likely to develop a higher concept of forest management. In o r d e r to aid in the evaluation of f o r e s t owner s’ attitudes toward f o r e s t management a question was asked concerning their attitude about f o r e s t f i r e . Answers a scale of four which ranged f r o m George F . Burks. Op. to this question were 1'strongly opposed1' to cit . , p. 33. rated on in favor 185 of f o r e s t f i r e s . Analysis than other questions pressed of this asked. About th r ee -f ou r t hs strong opposition to f i r e , classed as mildly opposed ferent to, or in favor question proved, more with the other No owners of, f o r e s t f i r e s . significant of the owners ex­ one-fourth being were found who were indif­ This is about the same reaction J a m e s 1 obtained to a s i m i l a r question in Mississippi, where f o r e s t burning i s experiences a serious and annual burning problem. Based on personal r e c o r d s , the author is of the opin­ ion, however, that Michigan f o r e s t owners are in their con cer n f or f o r e s t f i r e s in the South. than is the case with f o r e s t owners One Michigan owner of about six hundred a cr es forestland, on being interviewed, well when he much more genuine of s ummarized owner opinion quite said, I ’ve l e a r n e d my l e s s o n on f i r e . Two years ago I had a small b r u s h burning f i r e get away f rom me and burn over most of a forty of good young t i m b er . I not only lost the young t r e e s but was a s s e s s e d the cost of fighting the f ir e by the Conservation D e p ar tm en t. It would appear that both education and law enforcement have been very effective i n Michigan in developing a strong owner opposition to f o r e s t f i r e s . hee c i t . , p. 22. M. James, Wm. P. Hoffman, and Monty A. Payne. 0£_ 186 By occupation c l a s s e s . of f o r e s t management for all information p u r p o s e s , classes of f o r e s t o w n e r s ’ concepts of owners In Table 38 o w n er s 1 concepts This p r e s e n t a t i o n brings which through s e v e r a l old story. The industry outrank any other agement. of n e c e s s a r y to relate these concepts been analyzed by occupation group in t e r m s groups was interesting for but in o r d e r to have meaning in t e r m s possible f o r e s t policy it was owner groups. The rating of management have of f o r e s t area. out some points chapters to about occupation have grown to be a r ather groups, both f o r e s t r y and nonforestry, occupation class in their concept of f or es t man­ Again, the analysis by s eparate industries in the table) indicated a few la rge owners (not presented were responsible for the good showing. The two f a r m e r and r e t i r e d per s o n s c l a s s e s , wage e a r n e r s , hold their seem to indicate that the of these groups the groups was undivided estates, customary low ranking. s i mi lar l y poor f o r e s t management due in la r g e p a r t to ignorance. with p a r t i c u l a r l y mostly of t r e e planting Somewhat m o r e This would strong feelings record These were that f o r e s tr y consisted and f ire protection. encouraging is the relatively good showing attained by the busines s - pr o f es s io n a l, housewife-widow, and r e c ­ reation group c l a s s e s . The high rank attained by the business- 187 T A B L E 38 OWNERS' CONCEPTS OF TIMBER MANAGEMENT BY OCCUPATION CLASS Concepts of Management Occupation Class No Idea Fire Protec­ tion and/or Ref raining from Cutting Light Cutting and Other Measures for Public Good at Some Per­ sonal Sacrifice (percent of forest area) 0 15 10 Nonforest industry 2 4 0 F a r m e r ........................... 4 44 31 21 32 19 Business or professional . . 0 18 20 Wage earner 4 67 3 Housewife or widow 3 30 27 Recreation groups . . 0 0 17 11 37 23 0 92 7 3 46 33 Forest industry .... Part-time farmer Real estate . . ................... .... Undivided estate . R e t i r e d .................................. 188 TABLE 38 (Continued) Concepts of Management Light Cutting and Other Measures Eco- F ire ProtecLight Cutting, tion and Light Economically Cutting Econ-. t -v nomically De- D esirable both nomically De, . , . sirable in the in the P r e s e n t sirable both Long Run, but and Long Run in the P r e s e n t Not at P r e s e n t and Long Run High Con. , , tmuing Yield „ of Timber Products Total (percent of f o r e s t area) 42 100 1 84 100 14 0 100 0 1 00 19 13 18 8 8 54 0 0 10 0 12 14 0 0 1 00 0 40 0 0 100 61 13 9 0 1 00 24 0 5 0 100 0 1 0 0 100 14 4 0 0 100 189 professional people is in line with expectations for well enlightened c l a s s . ist groups The since they were professional people. same might be this comparatively supposed for recreation- usually composed largely of business Somewhat more surprising was or the relatively good showing of the housewife-widow class. Comparison between the concepts of management presented here by occupation c l a s s e s when rated on actual and the performance cutting p r a c t i c e s of the same cl ass es should reveal whether a more enlightened concept of management insures better p ractices. Apparently this was cutting not the case because the housewife- widow class had a r e c o r d of poor f o r e s t pr act ices but a rather high concept of f o r e s t management. been practicing concepts The other cl ass es appeared to have a type of cutting in rather close alignment with their of management. Owners' Attention is relative to f o r e s t Recognition of, and Explanation for, P oo r Timber Management directed in this owners' attitudes. section to two important questions First: Do owners realize that there is a physical possibility of improving their f o r e s t management? Second: If they think it can be improved, take action to improve it ? why are they hesitant to 190 Recognition of possibility of improving f o r e s t management. The r eactions of f o r e s t owners are p r e s e n t e d in Table 39. to the f i r s t question mentioned above It can be s ummar ized by saying that over two-fifths of the owners of about an equal portion of the f o r e s t ­ land realized that it would be physically possible for prove their f o r e s t management. numbers tion. of f o r e s t owners The absentee mail quite differently. Little disparity is noted between and portion of f o r e s t area on this ques­ respondents Owners them to i m ­ to the same question answered of 98 p er cent of the forestland (of those replying to the question) indicated that they believed their manage­ ment could be improved. One important implication of these ers practicing their poor cutting was or only f a i r cutting did not even realize that capable of improvement. when one cons id er s that owners res ult s is that many own­ This evident of 77 percent of the forestland (Table 28) were found to be practicing only f a i r while owners appears or poor cutting, of only 44 p e r c e n t of the forestland (Table 39) recog­ nized the possibility that the ir f o r e s t management could be improved. Absentee owners on the b a s i s of ans w er s who answered by mail and who appeared, to questions tices, to have had b e t t e r p r a c t i c e s concerning management p r a c ­ also recognized a g r e a t e r chance 191 TABLE 39 OWNERS’ RECOGNITION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVING THEIR FOREST MANAGEMENT P e r c e n t of O w n e r s ’ Recognition F o r e s t Area No o p i n i o n ...................................................... P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners 2 1 Do not believe they could i m p r o v e .......................................................... 54 56 Think they could improve 44 43 100 10 0 Total . . . . 192 for improving t h e i r f o r e s t management. study, found about the same relationship; the best management also improving it. owners J a m e s , 1 in his i.e., could profit f r o m that those practicing recognized the g r e a t e s t opportunity for One can conclude that there controlling Mississippi is a large number of a sizable f o r e s t acreage in the study a r e a who a minimum exposure to f o r e s t r y old adage that ignorance breeds education. The complacency has been demonstrated again. Reasons f o r believing management could be improved. der to a s c e r t a i n some comings, In o r ­ explanation from owners for their own s h or t­ those who admitted their management could be improved were asked why they did not do bet ter . more than half of the owners, one-half of the fores tla nd actually p r a c t i c e d poor whose holdings Because it is cut reason, cutting but refused to admit it. 40). 1Ibid., p. 24. presented here, This is and should reader. often impossible for a l i s t of likely interview (Table comprised more than (ref er back to Table 39), many of whom definitely a limitation of the analysis be kept in mind by the This approach excluded F irst reasons owners to offer a clear- was p r e p a r e d in advance of the and second choices were checked at the 193 TABLE 40 OWNERS’ EXPLANATION FOR BELIEVING MANAGEMENT COULD BE IMPROVED O w n e r s ’ Explanations P e r c e n t of ^ F o r e s t Area Lack of i n t e r e s t in t i mb er p r o d u c t i o n ..................................... 7 P r e s e n t high p r i c e s p r e f e r r e d to uncertain prices of the future ................................................................................................... 0 Immediate need of liquidating timber f or cash Belief that woods . . . . (b) do not need c a r e ............................................. 2 Inability to sup er vis e b ecause of physical l i m i t a ­ remunerative activity . 29 Long periods between i n c o m e s ......................................................... 2 tions o r demands Area too f a r of m o r e away f o r constant s u p e r v i s i o n .................... 14 Expected r e t u r n s of management do not justify the n e c e s s a r y costs .......................................................................... Inability to get c o n t r a c t o r (b) to cut f o r e s t con- s e r v a t i v e l y ........................................................................................................... Pr operty too small to bother with 5 ............................................ 1 Unfulfilled hope to cl e a r f o r e s t f o r pasture or other land use .............................................................................................. Uncertainty of ownership in undivided e s t a t e ................ Don’t know or no c l e a r Other 1 e x p l a n a t i o n ......................................... 11 .......................................................................................... T o t a l .................................................................................................................................... ain the derivation of p er cent ages, f i r s t choices twice as much weight as Less second choices. than 0.5 percent. 1® 1°° were given 194 time of the interview in accordance with those which seemed to offer the bes t explanation. choices were The esting. When the results given twice as r es u l t s of this much weight as second choices. analysis presented in Table 40 a r e i n t e r ­ The most significant thing is nearly t h r e e - t e n t h s were analyzed, f i r s t that owners of the f o r e s t a r e a representing stated ’’inability to supervise because of physical limit ati o n or demands activity ’ 1 as admission of poor management. The same the analysis rating the same greater r e a s o n for emphasis their of a more applied to the mail questionnaires remunerative resulted in explanation as most important and placed even upon it. The second most important reason listed by those interviewed in p e r s o n was away to bother with.’’ This ’’because the a r e a was too f ar would seem to indicate bright prospects for f o r e s t management consultants. Mail as their second mo s t important management. mail respondents picked lack of i n t e r e s t in timber production replies No other answers reason for seemed to stand out among the because of the ir magnitude. The second r eas o n li st ed in Table it was offered by no owner to the mail admitting poor timber questionnaire. and p r e s e n t income was 40 is outstanding because interviewed and by no owner Apparently, no handicap. replying concern over timber prices The reason listed third in 195 Table 40 stands out in the same fashion, and the ply to its lack of importance. These timber for immediate agement. In regions cash was where acre, this a major ap­ who have to liquidate cause f o r poor f or es t man­ control stumpage worth several hundred dollars per his Mississippi study J ames* found that this p r e s s u r e to liquidate was important. In a region where aspen pulpwood stumpage was bringing one to two dollars per a c r e it was difficult for per is economists ever-present pressure owners rema rk s reactions by f o r e s t owners may be somewhat disappointing to many f o r e s t long cherished the belief that the same no doubt an imporant reason. In cord and running but a few cords owners to be much concerned over quick income p o s s i b il iti es, p a r t i c u l a r l y when taxes were costing only a few cents p er acre. Of course, with either improved m a r k e t p r ice s tunities for recognizing held by per s on s seems or a decline in earning oppor­ owners. The fact that over spondents this situation could change one-third of the a r e a owned by mail a chance to improve expressing significant. a lack of in t e r e s t in timber production a c o n s u m e r ’s good. difficult to appeal to by ordinary f o r e s t r y *Ibid. , p. 25. their management was It can be taken as f u r th er portance of f o r e s t l a n d as re­ evidence of the i m ­ This group will be educational methods. CHAPTER F OR EST Y in TAXATION Taxation has been a m a jo r concern of f o r e s t economists f or many y e a r s . Many studies have been made and many theories advanced concerning the influence of all types of taxes upon the handling of the f o r e s t resource. tion to taxation in r e s o u r c e The reasons for all this atten­ conservation under the institution of private p r o p e r t y in the United States quoting f r o m Ciriacy-Wantrup can be well summarized by as follows: Like the other derived property institutions, the tax system has highly significant but unintended, unrecognized, and socially undesirable effects upon conservation decisions of pr ivat e planning agents. In this sense taxation is frequently an important obstacle for conservation policy. On the other hand, the tax system can be employed easily and effectively as a tool of conservation policy. In the b rief tion of the space that can be devoted h e r e to the p r e s e n t a ­ subject of f o r e s t taxation, an exhaustive tr eatment was not possible. It has been n e c e s s a r y to t r ea t much of the background 1 S. V. Ci riacy-Wantrup. Resource conservation, economics and policies. Berkel ey, University of California P r e s s , 1952, p. 168. 19 6 197 information on taxation, quite stead. upon the phases of taxation investigated in this Almost all f o r m s of taxation ar e upon f o r e s t conservation. treated: superficially and. to place emphasis in­ study. capable of having a bearing Here, however, only three forms are the gener al p r o p e r t y tax, the f o r e s t yield tax, and the federal income tax. Also important but not considered here ar e death taxes. The General P r o p e r t y F o r e m o s t of all f o r m s upon the p r a c t i c e property tax. it has of taxation in its apparent influence of f o r e s t r y by private land owners is It is reached its Tax the general one of the oldest forms of taxation known, but g r e a t e s t development in modern times in the United States. The general pro p er ty tax is an ad valorem tax levied upon wealth and usually collected annually. immobile p r o p e r ty it is simply, base the and its tax applies read estate r ate . and r ate usually tax. Base is called the real property or, The two p a r t s of the tax ar e its the value of the property to which the is the percent the value collected as As it applies to land and the tax. (usually expressed in mills) of 1 98 Since uniform rates within political provinces specified by law, the value placed on property is This valuation p r o c e s s is terms ar e usually- quite important. usually r e f e r r e d to as as s e s s m e n t. In of economic theory this value is usually thought of as being in line with the discounted p r e s e n t worth of future net incomes which the p r o p e r t y is expected to yield. Effect upon f o r e s t conser vati o n . There seems to be little doubt that the ad v al o re m property tax levied annually against forestland has had a deleterious owners of f o r e s tla n d s f o r mari zes this effect upon the retention by private sustained yield f o r e s t r y . Greeley* sum­ effect as follows: b;yW '' A. yearly tax (On standing timber accumulates the longer it is held b efore cutting. In many cases the accumulating tax n b u r d e n n is a negligible p a r t of the inc re ase d value of the stumpage f r o m economic causes, railroad building, or whatnot. If stumpage values a r e stationary or declining or the owner is s hort of capital, mounting ad valorem taxes may induce him to sell o r cut his t i mb er o r , as often happened in the days of speculation in cheap public stumpage, to quit paying taxes and forfeit his land to the county. A. la r g e proportion of the public timberlands acquired in the n cu t -out - and- move- on" period of A m e r i c a n f o r e s t r y were ’’dropped” for taxes after logging be­ cause t h e ir owners could see no future r eturns from holding them. The yearly p r o per ty tax thus had its part in the in s ta ­ bility of f o r e s t ownership during the ’’f ree t i m b e r ’ 1 period, but it was only one of many f act o rs . Often its upsetting influence William B. Greeley. Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953, p. F o r e s t policy. 215. New York, McGraw- 199 was heightened, by the increasing a s s e s s m e n t s placed on uncut t i m b e r in o r d e r to obtain needed county revenue f rom a dimin­ ishing tax b a s e or to take while the taking was possible. From the standpoint of economic theory, property taxes encouraged f o r e s t depletion. If one assumes to be in line with the p r e s e n t value of assets; value of f uture incomes, on profits expected for all future years one paid The The net result of this in r eal world conformity with this on alternative f o r m s the discounted each time it is paid. f o r es tr y then would be the depletion of f o r e s t on f o r e s t them tax burden will tend to try to shift these p r o f i t s toward the p r es en t. upon tax r a te s i.e., the annual property tax becomes rational man acting to minimize his In the annual general capital by overcutting. theory depends largely capital and forestland relative to tax rates of investment opportunity for the liquidated capital. F o r e s t p r o p erty taxation in Michigan. The history of f o r e s t ­ land taxation in Michigan was p ar tially covered in Chapter I, and hence will be t r e a t e d very briefly here to avoid repetition. Gen­ erally, f o r e s t development o r depletion in Michigan as affected by the annual p r o p e r t y tax has conformed with the citation above from Greeley. During the e r a of timber Michigan local governmental depletion (peak 1860 to 1890) in serv ices were developed to provide for 200 the population which had as s o ciat ed itself with the lumbering omy. Many times these governmental costs econ­ exceeded actual need because the development of a sound and flourishing agricultural economy was expected to follow logging. Once this governmental machinery was launched it seemed politically and administratively impossible to c on t ra ct it. Likewise, the realities impossibility were difficult for local inhabitants of agricultural and people of the state to accept. The net r e s u l t of this governmental needs f o r base situation was expanding or uniform revenue with a steadily contracting tax (including production potential) from which it could be ex­ tracted. F a i r c h i l d and associates* taxes f o r the reported that annual forestland section of Michigan covered by this from an aver ag e of 27 cents per The pace of tax f o r f eit u re study had increased a c r e in 1900 to $1.06 in 1925. which was high even before the turn of the century continued to i n c r e a s e par al lel with the inc re ase s tax rates with culmination being reached about 1933 when the consti­ tutional amendment was p a s s ed limiting property tax rates percent States. (15 mills) of a s s e s s e d valuation. in to 1.5 F o r c e d by this law and *Fred R. F a i r c h i l d et a l . F o r e s t taxation in the United U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, Miscellaneous Publication 218, 1935, p. 249. 20 1 commensurate with the t rend of the times heavy reliance upon the gen er al prop er ty tax to other means of financing. state Nelson Michigan shifted from found that 83 percent of Michigan's local and revenue was derived f r o m p r operty taxes about 40 p e r c e n t was trend has sources derived f r o m the same in 1 9 0 0 , while only sources in 1935. This continued until at p r e s e n t the importance of other tax dwarfs the general property levy. These basic changes in the tax system have brought about a lessening of the burden on forestland. increased economic health of the As a result of this and the state and nation following World War II, there has been comparatively little tax delinquency on f o r e s t ­ land. Findings of the p r e s e n t study. This p a r t of the study was concerned with the annual general property tax as it influenced f o r ­ est ownership and f o r e s t management. Basic to this consideration was the need to determine the actual present tax on forestland. order to accomplish this, f o r e s t owners what taxes 1 Alf when interviewed were asked they were paying on forestland. Z. Nelson. In This question was F o r e s t land taxation in Michigan. asked Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, Mimeographed, 1940, p . 5. 202 owners if they owned a p a r c e l of f or estland which was a s s e s s e d and taxed sep ar ate ly f r o m land having any improvements was found to be possible in most cas es . The results on it. This ar e presented in Table 41. An examination of Table 41 reveals land is taxed between 10 and 14 cents per percent of the f or e s t l a n d was taxed at le ss that mo s t of the f o r e s t ­ acre. Significantly, 89 than 25 cents per acre. This would seem to indicate that the annual general property tax is hardly a burcLen on f o r e s t owners. much of any con cer n over Very few owners expressed their property taxes. Very li ttle d i s p e r s i o n in tax rate was noted from county to county, but a valid geographical comparison was not possible due to the size of the sample. However, equalization^ is ca r r i e d out rather efficiently throughout Michigan and consequently not much geographi­ cal disper s io n was expected. A. d irect question was not asked owners of a sustained-yield f o r e s t r y concerning how much obstacle annual property taxes offered. However, in the d i scussion accompanying the interview almost no Equalization cials refers to the process adjust a s s e s s e d valuation so as whereby to insure state tax offi­ uniformity among local political units. Where the tax rate expressed in mills can vary only f r o m 0 to 15 mills as is the case in Michigan asses sed valuation is the m o s t important determinant of per acre tax rate. 203 TABLE 41 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES PER ACRE OF FORESTLAND FOR ALL OWNER CLASSES r_ pi i , l a x in Cents None to nine per * Acre ........................................................................................................... Ten to f ou r teen ...................................................................................... P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area 8 35 Fifteen to n i n e t e e n .................................................................................. 24 Twenty to t w e n t y - f o u r .......................................................................... 22 Twenty-five to t w e n t y - n i n e ................................................................. 3 Thirty to t h i r t y - f o u r .................................................................................. 1 Thirty-five to f o r t y - f o u r ................................................................. 1 Forty-five 3 to f o r t y - n i n e ..................................................................... Fifty and u p ............................................................................................................... Total 3 10 0 204 such objections were voiced by the owners. Also, because of the sample size it was not possible to c o r r e l a t e tax r ates. In his Mis s is si pp i study James tern of relationship between tax rate At 1953 p er acre tax r a te s cutting pr act ices found no definite pat­ and management decisions. in Michigan it is also doubtful if any appreciable influence on management practices Inasmuch as with existed. a considerable portion of the forestland of northern Michigan is owned by per s o ns living some distance from their holdings (Chapter III), the i n t e r e s t they take in their f o rest management can have a. profound influence on the future f o r e s t r y situation. It also follows taxes toward absentee land among this group. that high and particularly discriminatory owners would result in a large turnover of This, along with the recognized and p r e ­ viously d i s c u s s e d tendency for high taxes could contribute to p o o r e r rather to discourage conservation, than b etter f o r e s t pract ices. In o r d e r to shed some light on this question, Table 42 ana­ lyzes annual p r o p e r t y tax rate in cents per acr e according to dis­ tance of owner f r o m p r o p er ty . The data presented indicate tendency toward higher f o r e s t taxes for Lee M Op. ci t., p. 33. James, William P. absentee owners some than for Hoffman, and Monty A. Payne. 205 TABLE 42 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ON FORESTLAND BY DISTANCE OF OWNER FROM PROPERTY Tax in Distance f r om P r o p e r t y in Miles Cents p e r Acre On Site 1-25 26-100 101-200 201-up (percent of f o r e s t area) 0 to 9 .............................. 9 14 1 o 0 0 10 to 14 17 34 85 32 15 to 19 23 21 11 43 33 20 to 24 47 10 (a) 25 44 25 to 29 3 2 3 0 19 30 to 34 0 2 0 0 0 35 to 44 1 1 0 0 0 45 to 50 0 8 0 0 0 ................. (a) 8 0 0 4 T o t a l ................................. 100 100 100 100 100 50 and up a Le s s than 0.5 percent. 206 those living close at hand. violate the t r e n d On-site owners, whose taxes somewhat, may have slightly higher ations on t he ir f o r e s t holdings to f a r m units. This findings of a r a t h e r Virginia. does not agree with the exhaustive tax study made by Besley Besley found that f a r m at an average a s s e s s e d valu­ due to the proximity of the timberland supposition, however, age rate of 2.5 cents per appear to in W^est woodlands were taxed at an aver— a c r e , while nonfarm f o r e s t s r ate of 20.5 cents p e r were taxed acre. The Michigan F o r e s t Yield Tax Michigan has yield tax, and since cific purposes had on its 1925 a commercial a r e to provide some tax for f o r e s t owners and thereby It is the objective of this of these laws statute books and owners' 1911 a woodlot yield tax law whose spe­ relief from the annual property encourage sustained yield for es tr y. section to consider the extent of the usage attitudes toward them. Theory and purpose of the yield tax. the disadvantages since E a r l i e r in this chapter of the annual property tax on forestland were i Lowell Besley. Taxation of f o r e s t lands in West Virginia. West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Morgantown, Bulletin 333, November 1948, p. 28. 207 discussed. In o r d e r to avoid these disadvantages many schemes of special taxation wer e devised, f o r e m o s t among them the f o r e s t yield tax. There are states are about as many versions of the yield tax as with yield tax laws. these s chemes is there Basically the purpose of most of to cancel the ad valorem annual gefieral property tax on standing t i m b e r and to substitute for it a tax on the timber when it is h a r v es ted . The general property levy on the land alone may be continued at some nominal and fixed fee or under conven­ tional a s s e s s m e n t and rate; or the tax on the timber vest may also be in lieu of any tax on the land. the timber h a r v e s t , sold or h a r v e s te d , yield at h a r ­ When levied on the yield tax may be ad valorem on the product or it may be imposed on physical units of produc­ tion. In theory the yield tax is its effects on conservation; shift their production, rate of taxation on other encouraged to enter f o r e s tr y . ^About fifteen states have some i . e . , private owners ar e not induced to either toward the p r es ent or However, depending on the may be f o r ced out or 2 generally considered neutral in have yield laws. V. Ciriacy-W antrup. Op. c i t . , p. r e s o u r c e s , users There Several other special f o r m of taxation for timberlands. are optional. S. toward the future. 186. ar e also states Most laws 208 some other may make exceptions to the neutrality of the tax. some f o r e s t thinning p r a ct ices reduce future growth potential. For example, it uneconomical and thereby Also, when levied on a per basis it may encourage the leaving of i nferi or t r e e s unit at the time of harvest and thereby contribute to the d eterioration of the f o r e s t through s uccessive rotations. These ar e disadvantages, however, that can be c o r r e c t e d by enactment of a yield tax law which con­ tains special pr ovisions to compensate for such theoretical weak- nesses. From the standpoint of administrative efficiency yield taxes are a s u p er io r f o r m of taxation because they are lect and a s s e s s m e n t is yield taxes are accu r a te. economical to col­ Compared with net-revenue taxes, i n f e r i o r because they do not take into consideration ability to pay. ^ H istory and t e r m s of the Michigan yield tax. forest yield tax exists in two f o r m s . Z One is known as the woodlot yield tax, the other the co m m e r c ia l f o r e s t yield tax. 1 The Michigan The f o r m e r hoc . cit. 2 This section is based largely upon: Warner Deitz. A. study in Michigan f o r e s t land taxation. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Michigan State College, 1954, 57 pp. was designed p r i m a r i l y latter as as an aid to l a r g e r f o r e s t r y aside f r o m an aid to f a r m owners i n t e r e s t e d in sustained yield all other objectives. The contributing f a c t o r s the Initial in this woodland owners, the in hlichiganTs history which led to enactment of the yield tax laws were discussed e a r l i e r chap t er , and also in a previous essential and immedi ate the laws were: reasons f o r (Chapter I). of local government. on forestlands were high The property tax was com­ pletely out of line with the productive value of forestlands. tax delinquency r a t e due to the two reasons a high r a t e of r e v e r s i o n of forestlands Woodlot yield tax. The enactment common to both of General p r o p e r t y taxes due to high costs chapter A. high above was resulting in to state overship. Before the turn of the century some lumbermen spoke out against the property tax on forestland and proposed tax r e f o r m s for amounting to a type of yield tax. Pressure reform gradually i n c r e a s e d and resulted in a f a r m woodlot yield tax passing the l e g i s l a t u r e in 1903 but which failed to become law because the governor vetoed it. In 1911 the F o s t e r Act, a f a r m woodlot yield tax bill, did become law. The F o s t e r Act failed to a t t r a c t but one listing, and was supe seded in 1917 by the Woodlot Act, which closely resembled the initial 210 act except for granting home use cuts. This more effective than its involving seventy-two mo r e l i b e r t y to the f a r m e r act is to make tax-free still in f o rce today, but has proved little predecessor. As of 1939 only 2,538 acres s e p a r a t e p r op er ti es had been listed. Under the woodlot yield tax listed woodlands ar e not more than one dollar p e r a c r e . general p r o per ty tax r ate The regular ad valorem annual then applies to the a s s e s s e d valuation. When the t i m b e r i s h a r v e s t e d a yield tax is of 5 p e r c e n t of the strict listing to f o r e s t s over under the woodlot yield tax r e ­ which are a p a r t of certain types of f a r m 160 a c r e s in size of which at l e a s t one-half is improved and Stocking must be of a species approved by the State Board of Agriculture. Planted ar e a s must contain at 1 , 2 0 0 t r e e s p e r a c r e , while open ar e a s in natural stands must be planted to t r e e s tails rate The land li s t e d must be not over one-fourth of a tract not devoted to agr ic ultu r e. least imposed at the stumpage value. ^ Qualification r equir ements units. a s s e s s e d at ar e with a minimum spacing of six feet. Other de­ spelled out in the law. ^Division of F o r e s t Economics, F o r e s t Service, USDA. forest tax law digest of 1945. 79 pp., Dec. 1945. State F o r e s t Service, USDA, Washington, 2 11 Commercial fo rest yield t a x . In 1922 a strong movement got underway which sought f o r e s t tax reform f or l a r g e r owners in­ tere st ed m sustained yield f o r e s t r y . other i n d u s t r i a l i s t s , and f o r e s t e r s . Involved were lumbermen, This effort was largely sible for the p a s s a g e of a yield tax bill the following year the legis latur e but which the governor vetoed. continued, respon­ (1 9 2 3 ) by Efforts, however, and the C ommercial F o r e s t Reserve Act, better known as the P e a r s o n Act, became law in 1925. The C o m m er cia l F o r e s t Reserve tract a l a r g e l i s t e d acreage. acres Act also has failed to at­ As of 1950 there were only 114,407 of c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t r e s e r v e listings cumulative listings state. have mounted consistently except for 1940 when sharp drops listings in the were noted. However, 1935 and These sudden drops in total may have been due to the upswing in stumpage prices those y e ar s and the consequent d e s ir e for advantage of the in listings situation and liquidate. has been As of Since 195 0 a sharp increase 81 percent of the listings ind u s tr i al owners. vealed that only some owners to take reported. 1951 some by three la rge in were controlled Listings by counties for 1948 r e ­ 7 , 7 6 0 a c r e s were listed in the thirty-one counties included in the a r e a encompassed by this study. 212 Under the C o m m er cia l F o r e s t tax of 5 cents p e r forest products gross are acre rep la ces the general property tax. h a r v e s t e d they a r e taxed at value if the p r o p e r t y has For properties Reserve Act an annual property classified less When 10 percent of their been classified nine years or longer. than nine years is graduated according to length of time In o r d e r to qualify f o r listing the rate is l e s s , and registered. 1 under the Commercial F o r e s t Reserve Act the p r o p e r t y mu s t include no natural resource other than f o r e s t and no portion of the property may be used for agricul­ tural, m i n e r a l , graizing, industri al, r ecreational, or r e s o r t purposes. The owner m u s t also dec l a r e his intention to develop a commercial forest and must not r e s t r i c t public hunting or fishing upon it. land has The to be capable of growing commercial ti mb er , but must not be overstocked with m a t u r e timber. Stocking of timber on the land must be sufficient to show pr o m i s e of developing a commercial at maturity. Other mo r e tinued qualification Findings restr ic tio n s for ^Loc. cit. are stand detailed specifications for listing and con­ spelled out in the law. on qualification for the yield tax l a w s . F r om the qualification under the Michigan yield tax laws 213 described b riefl y above it is obvious that not all of the privately owned co m m e r c ia l f o r e s t l a n d in the state would qualify according to pr esent usage. !Much of it could qualify if the owners were willing to institute use descriptions to set a p a r t land which already meets timber changes or in some cases r ear r a n g e legal the minimum stand r e q u i r e m e n t s . As a p a r t of this study at the time of t h e , interview, effort was made to a s c e r t a i n what portion of the commercial forestland in private ownership would qualify under one or the other of the yield tax laws without res or ting to shifts in usage. The findings indicated that only 58 p er cen t of the privately owned forestland in the study a r e a qualified under p r es en t usage for Over one-half of the f o r e s t a r e a qualified for tax, while only yield tax listing. the commercial yield 6 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a qualified for the woodlot yield tax. Under provisions of the commercial yield tax law it is not surprising that only 52 pe r c e n t of the f o r e s t ar ea qualified when one considers purposes the l a r g e portion of land held for which would disqualify it. of the la r g e ac r e a g e held f o r f a r m forestland qualified f o r recreational and other It is mor e significant in view use that only the woodlot yield tax. 6 percent of the The 9 percent of 214 forest a r e a indicated by the sample undoubtedly high and the r e s u l t of sampling O w n e r s 1 attitudes interview, error. toward yield tax l a w s . At the time of the questions were also asked to tr y to shed some light on why m o r e owners law. as listed under the yield tax is did not l i s t t h e ir property under the yield tax The findings on this question ar e presented in Table Because of the size of the 43. sample it was impossible to distinguish between the two yield tax laws in Table 43. Probably the m o s t significant thing brought out by this ques­ tioning was that owners of 72 percent of the f o r e s t a r e a had never heard of e i th e r of the yield tax laws. Owners of a quarter of the forestland had h e a r d of the yield tax, were qualified for it, but had never registered. r e g is t er was warrant the About r e g i s t e r was tax benefit. Their main expressed reason for that they did not think restrictions refusal to their gain from the tax would that would be placed upon them. one-fourth of the land owned by those refusing to owned by p ersons who doubted they would gain any This conforms with the findings of an investigation of 1 the Wisconsin f o r e s t yield tax law as reported by Wehrwein and Barlowe. 1George S. Wehrwein and Raleigh Barlowe. The f o r e s t crop law and private f o r e s t taxation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conservation Department, Madison, Bulletin 519, Jan. 1945, p. 31. 215 TABLE 43 ATTITUDES OF OWNERS TOWARD FOREST YIELD TAX OF OWNERS WHO QUALIFIED FOR LISTING O w n e r s ’ Attitudes P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area Owners who did not know of yield tax law: Showed no i n t e r e s t ...................................................................... 32 Showed i n t e r e s t i n t a x benefits, but did not indicate management p r a c t i c e s would be ......................................... influenced Showed i n t e r e s t in possible tax benefits, and indicated management would be influenced 37 3 ... Owners who knew of yield tax law, qualified, but never r e g i s t e r e d : Did not think they would q u a l i f y ................... (a) Believed r e s t r i c t i o n s outweighed possible tax b e n e f i t s ..................................................................... 11 Did not believe they would gain tax benefits 6 ... Did not r e g i s t e r because they objected to special privilege taxation on p r i n c i p l e . 8 Owners who had r e g i s t e r e d f orestland under yield tax law: Did not believe t h e i r management had been influenced ............................................................................. Believed their management had been influenced Total ^ . 0 100 216 Also, it conforms with Deitz's* findings tion of the Michigan f o r e s t yield tax. tax did not always would be afford owners effected only under reporting on an investiga­ Deitz found that the yield a tax saving, but that a savings cer t a i n conditions. The situations under which the owner would save at p r e s e n t annual general property tax levels w er e, namely, when he had owned the property a long while before cutting, or when stumpage p r ice s were low. In addition to these r e a s o n s f o r not taking advantage of the yield tax, owners interviewed for this it would be p oo r public some large study expressed the belief that locally relations for them to use any type of tax advantage. It would seem that at the 195 3 level of the general property tax insufficient tax inducement was offered to cause many owners to go to the trouble r equired to l i s t their property for the yield tax. However, as long as the law remains assurance to concerned owners on the statute books it is an that high general property taxes not become a s e r i o u s burden on t h e ir f o r e s t ownership. appears that m o r e Also, it advantage would be taken of the yield tax laws if they were b e t t e r known. Many owners, however, would never be interested in the p r e s e n t yield tax law because their major 1 Warner will Deitz. O p . c i t ., p. 53. 217 objectives of ownership and use of the pr operty prohibit its being listed. The F e d e r a l Income Tax In theory the income tax does not have the depleting influence on f o r e s t capital that the general property tax has because the in­ come tax incidence is on c u r r e n t income, not future income, which was shown to be the cas e with the general property tax. of the income tax may be to make the f o r e s t The effect suffer, not from over­ cutting, but f r o m undercutting, because of the owner's belief that all of the proceeds for es tr y is may be taxed away. Since pres en t- d ay private suffering m o r e f r o m over cutting than undercutting this influence of the income tax may not appear as a hindrance. ever, to the extent that this among either p r e s e n t owners can be detrimental How­ attitude discourages f o r e s t investment or prospective owners the income tax to f o r e s t r y . Virtually no r e s e a r c h has been done heretofore among f o r es t owners concerning the possible influence of the income tax on their forest p r a c t i c e s . The yield tax and general property taxes on the other hand a r e old i s s u e s in f o r e s t r y . Since World War II, p articu­ larly, income taxes have dwarfed the importance of the general property tax with r e s p e c t to the total tax bill of nearly all individual 218 This, coupled with c e r t a i n to income f r o m t i m b e r , makes quite im p er ati v e to f o r e s t The entire tax law, special income tax provisions pertaining some investigation of the economics. c o ncer n of this even though s e v e r a l had income tax laws as of subject section is with the f ed er al income s t a t e s , of which Michigan was not one, 1954. Explanation of the f e d e r a l income tax l a w . It is impossible here to delve into a lengthy explanation of the entire federal income tax s t r u c t u r e . J u s t the high points of the laws as they affect f o r e s t r y will be di scussed. The f e d e r a l income tax law provides f o r a levy on net in­ come or net gain at a p r o g r e s s i v e law apply to co r p o r a te rate. Separate versions and individual owners. The most important provision of the income tax law with res pect to its the various the application are ways in which net gain or net income a r e most impor tant provisions 1943 t i m b e r affecting f o r e s t r y capital gains The advantages ar e namely these: amendment. of the ar e those defined. The embodied in 1 embodied in this law for the f orestland owner He can usually report receipts from sales of ^Known as Section 117-K of the Internal Revenue Code or also the Bailey amendment. Since revision of the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 s i m i l a r provisions ar e now embodied in Section 631. 219 timber and t i m b e r products income. as a capital gain Also, he may deduct an allowance f o r vestment in the t i m b e r which is thereby reducing able income. net income depletion of his in ­ subtr act ed f r o m The advantage gross of reporting income as that the tax rate one-half that applying to ordinar y income. income, that applying to some b r a c k e t s capital gains which applies is Moreover, the maximum rate which applies to capital gains income is 26 p ercent, whereas of ordinary income may be as high 90 p e r c e n t o r m o r e . P r i o r to 1943 it was possible f o r owners to r e p o r t that income as capital gains. this privilege to those owners vided they a s s e s s e d harvesting gain. Both before gain; selling own stumpage p r o ­ stumpage before stumpage only as the capital not per mi tted to r e p o r t logging it had to be handled as ordinary income. 1943 and since it has been n e c e s s a r y for have p o s s e s s e d the t i m b e r for income-producing stumpage 1943 amendment extended a f a i r m a r k e t p rice to the and re p o r te d the gain on the a capital The who h a r v e s t their In other words, the owner was profit as at l e a s t the owner to six months p r i o r to the sale. The other m a jo r the than or dinary (as defined by the law) and hence tax­ rather than o r d i n a r y income is as rather tax advantage f o r e s t owners gained through 1943 amendment was in the way the allowance for depletion was 220 computed. In es s e n c e it p e r m i t t e d owners (i.e., depreciation of a natural ment in the standing t i m b e r have been appreciating r es o u r c e ) the same 1 against their capital inv e st­ even though the ti mber may actually in value. It has been said that the _ two grounds. to charge off depletion 1943 amendment was justified on It would p e r m i t those who h a r v es ted Uieir own timber capital gains would make p r iv at e t r e a t m e n t as those who sold stumpage and sustained yield f o r e s t r y investment more a t t r a c ­ tive to p r iv at e owners. O wners 1 knowledge evidence exists as and use of the f e d e r a l l a w . to how effective the 1943 amendment has been in accomplishing the objectives li st ed immediately above. to the testimony of the F o r e s t Industries uation and Taxation, 2 Almost no According Committee on Timber Val- almost all of the accomplishments of private f o r e s t r y in the l a s t ten y e a r s could be t r a c e d to this legislation. ^E. T. Williams, M. B. Dickerman, and R. W. Marquis, U.S. F o r e s t Service. Financial and economic f act o rs . Section E, Chap­ t e r IV, Timber r e s o u r c e review (preliminary review draft), Sept. 1955, p. 3. F o r e s t Industries Committee on Timber Valuation. State­ ment in opposition to changes in the capital gains treatment accorded income f r o m the cutting or disposal of ti mb er under sections 631 and 272 of H.R . 8300. Cong r e s s . Before the Senate Finance Committee, 82nd 221 They s t r e s s e d that much i n d us tr i al f o r e s t r y p r o g r e s s placing reliance It upon the s eems was incited by same type of tax t r e a t m e n t in the future. logical that f o r e s t indu s tr i es with paid legal advice would take full advantage of any tax br eak afforded them. pertinent question, it would seem, in general. all owners How much advantage have they gained f r o m the amendment? privileges would be to consider A. more Also: How did they 1943 react to ordinary capital gains which have long been available to s e l l e r s In o r d e r to throw some light on these of stumpage? questions, f o r e s t owners in the study a r e a were quizzed when interviewed concerning their acquaintance with these income tax reporting possibilities. findings a r e p r e s e n t e d in Table The m o s t The 44. significant thing brought out was that owners of 83 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a did not even know that income f r om the sale of t i m b e r stumpage could be r eported as Respondents to the mail questionnaire to absentee other hand, indicated a b e t t e r capital gains. owners, on the realization of this opportunity. This is likely due to a high percentage of business-prof es sional people and a complete Owners absence of f a r m e r s of l e s s in this group of owners. than 3 percent of the f o r e s t a r e a knew about these tax reporting p r i v i l e g e s , yet failed to take advantage of them when they made a ti m b e r sale, while owners of 15 percent of the 222 TABLE 44 ATTITUDES OF OWNERS TOWARD SPECIAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX PROVISIONS FOR TIMBER GROWERS O w n e r s ’ Attitudes P e r c e n t of F o r e s t A r ea Owners who did not know of special tax provisions: 34 Showed no i n t e r e s t ................................................................................... Showed i n t e r e s t in tax benefits, but did not indicate management p r a c t i c e s would be influenced ................................................................................................... 48 Showed i n t e r e s t in possible tax benefits, and indicated management would beinfluenced . . . 1 Owners who knew of special tax provisions but never used them: Did not know how to make tax calculations „. . , Efforts to use them outweighed possible tax b e n e f i t s ............................................................................... 1 (a) . Believed they would not gain tax b e n e f i t Objected to special taxation on principle Owners who had made use of special 1 0 . . . . . . tax p r o v is ion s ; Believed management had not been influenced Believed the ir . management had been influenced Believed t h e ir ownership could not have been r eta in ed without this tax aid ......................................... T o t a l .................................................................................................................................... 3r Less than 0.5 percent. . 11 . 4 (a) 223 for es t a r e a had actually taken advantage of the law. 15 pe r c e n t of f o r e s t ties, area mostly in du s t r i a l . was accounted f o r by a few large p r o p e r ­ Among the owners 5 percent of the f o r e s t a r e a was of the law, but over responding by mail, 35 p e r c e n t was owned by p e r s o n s who knew that 27 p e r c e n t of the a r e a not list among the mail It seems respondents significant was owned who did not think they would gain a tax benefit, t i m b e r sale income owners w er e not f a r of them were only owned by people who had made use about the law yet did not take advantage of it. by per s o n s .Much of this as capital gains income. Probably these wrong in reaching this conclusion, small owners and t h e ir ti mber so did since most sales brought small returns. Very few owners among all of those interviewed indicated their management had been much influenced by these tax savings when they had taken advantage of such savings as However, it is of nearly one-third of the a r e a probably significant that owners owned by p er s o n s the law permitted. taking advantage of the law did admit that their management had been influenced. Owners of almost one-half of the a r e a possible tax savings provisions the m o r e showed i n t e r e s t in even though they had never heard of any of the of these laws before. Most of these owners enlightened occupation cl a s s e s of owners. belonged to This would seem 224 to indicate that h e r e may be a v e r y f e r t i l e field in t e r m s of f o r e s t r y educational activitie s . The lack, of i n t e r e s t on the p a r t of many owners seemed to be due m o s t l y to the r e a l i z a t i o n that their p r o s pects for getting much income f r o m t h e i r ti mb er was rather remote; ei ther because they did not intend to sell any t i m b e r o r because they doubted a physical or m a r k e t a b l e yield of timber would be forthcoming during the ir p e r io d of t e n u r e . The very f act that la r g e and well-informed owners were quick to defend these tax privileges and invariably took advantage of them s e e m s to indicate that a definite tax savings is effected by the law in the case cation h e r e is provided. of this c l ass of owners. The i m p l i ­ not that a d i r e c t incentive toward b e t t e r f o r e s t r y is However, this possible tax saving seems to indicate some encouragement toward f orestland acquisition by the l a r g e r f o r e s t in d u s t r i e s which, coupled with the b e t t e r than average ma n­ agement r e c o r d of this group, could be construed as beneficial influence upon f o r e s t management. an indirect CHAPTER IX PUBLIC FORESTRY EDUCATION AND SPECIAL FORESTRY SERVICES Several special governmental p r o g r a m s purpose of f o s t e r i n g b e t t e r f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s directed toward f o r e s t l a n d owners. by s e v e r a l different agencies with the exp r es s ed on private lands These p r o g r a m s usually a r e are administered designed to accomplish their objectives through a demonstration type of education o r tech­ nical o n - the- gr ound a s s i s t a n c e . These methods have been t r i e d and proven in agriculture where they have been so successful that they a r e world. less In f o r e s t r y well proven. be looked upon as the As same methods a matter the envy of the a r e being t r i ed but they are of fact these f o r e s t r y methods a g r e a t A m e r i c a n experiment. might They r e p r e s e n t an attempt to solve the f o r e s t r y problem of the United States by some means short of governmental Very li ttle ness r e s e a r c h has been done to evaluate the effective­ of these p r o g r a m s study as regulation of private f o r e s t r y . at the g r a s s r e p o r t e d in this uation in a somewhat chapter roots. The findings of the r e p r e s e n t an effort toward eval­ superficial way. 225 226 ’l One study in the e a s t e r n United States by Cope publicly sponsored f o r e s t owner-education p r o g r a m s not getting at the fundamental problems te r m continuity. did find that were generally due to t he ir lack of long­ The Soil Conservation Service P r o g r a m was the one found to be accomplishing the most. In his Stoddard grams 2 study of f o r e s t f arming in Wisconsin and Arkansas, concluded that the public to p r i v a t e owners that the public p r o g r a m s marketing work. His had been most effective in harvesting and that they had been too general 1’follow-up 11 effort by individual owners. Extension Service as it is known today came into being with the passage all He found Extension Demonstration and Advice The Cooperative to that time surface. action on the ground, or lacked continuity of f o r e s t Fo restry s cratched the conclusion was to bring about specific to a s s u r e had only educational and a s s is tan ce p r o ­ of the Smith-Lever Act in 1914. extension work was c a r r i e d by the states. Prior Prior *J. A. Cope. F a r m f o r e s t r y in the e as te rn United States. Charles Lathrop Pack F o r e s t r y Foundation, Washington, 43 pp., 1943. 2 Charles H. Stoddard. F o r e s t f arming and r u r al employment, a study of two a r e a s in n o r t h e r n Wisconsin and southwestern Arkan­ sas. C h ar l es Lathrop Pack F o r e s t r y Foundation, Washington, 29 pp., 1949. 227 to 1914 only two s t a t e s , Michigan and New York, included f o r e s t r y in their extension p r o g r a m s , Law, o r in 1924, r 1 forestry. six stat es The r e c o r d of After ten years of the Smith-Lever had active f o r e s t r y pro jec ts in f a r m extension f o r e s t r y activities f o r showed that a total of 1,719 adult demonstrations 1924 and 218 junior demonstrations were held in the United States. The f o r e s t r y extension p r o g r a m is handled about in the same way, and often jointly with the ag r icultural in m o s t s ta t e s . The land g rant colleges extension p r o g r a m usually administer p r ogr am through a system of county r epr es entatives sible for all phases of the p r o g r a m in their county. perts f r o m the colleges tives fields to conduct or are in this p ar t i c u l a r states in f o r e s t r y the Clar k-McNar y Act of 1924 and as of the act provided f o r ^Charles Technical subject m a tte r extension. extension was authorized by amended in 1949. educational a s s is ta n c e A,. Gillett. Federal p a r ­ to owners Aids to f a r m f o r e s t r y . Section 5 of f a r m s A talk presented at the annual meeting of the Society of A m er ic an F o r e s t e r s , apolis, Minn., Dec. ex­ specialized questions. Scope and adm in is tr at io n of f o r e s t r y ticipation with the respon­ called upon by these county r e p r e s e n t a ­ special meetings to answer who a r e the 17, 1947, p. 2, Minne­ 228 "i n establishing, renewing, protecting belts, windbreaks, and other utilizing and marketing s helt er valuable f o r e s t growth, and in harvesting, the products to the p r o g r a m in extension f o r e s t r y employed s i x t y - t h r e e and managing wood lots, t h e r e o f . 1,1 This gave impetus so that by State Extension F o r e s t e r s 1 9 4 7 , f o r t y - s i x states under Section 5 of this law. The f e d e r a l funds which only partially gram a r e tur n ed over to the agency in the ministering the p r o g r a m . pay f or the state p r o ­ state charged with ad­ These usually a r e used to employ one or mo r e f o r e s t r y extension s pecialists. In 1953, about ninety ex­ tension f o r e s t e r s re p o r te d work in 2,709 counties and at a cost of about $600,000, of which 57 p e r c e n t was paid by the states, 43 p e r ­ cent by the f e d e r a l government. The methods many and varied, employed in the extension f o r e s t r y pr o gr am ar e and include s tr at ion s , meetings such things and conferences, and the use of visual as: farm and other informational m a t e r i a l s . *W. K. F orestry Williams. demon­ workshops, field days and tour s, the mo s t im portant method the extension f o r e s t e r s demonstrations. v isits, demonstrations F arm forestry Probably use is that of have been conducted on extension, what it is and how it works. Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash­ ington, Agricu lt ur e Information Bulletin Ho, 107, Nov. 1953, p. 2. 229 more than twenty different phases mater ial s of f o r e s t r y . such as b ulletins, motion p i c t u r e s , The use of visual et c e t e r a , ar e also important. During the two y ear s and 1953, the Cooperative College activities immediately p r i o r to this study, 195 2 Extension Service of Michigan State engaged in eleven different types of technical f o r e s t r y within the a r e a encompassed by this cluded f o r e s t t r e e planting, shelterbelt plantings, Ch r is tm as study. These i n ­ t r e e planting, windbreak and sugar bush management, woodland manage­ ment, 4-H Club and school f o r e s t s , ti mber estimating and marketing, use of home grown l u m b e r , p r e s e r v a t i v e tr e a t m e n t of wood, f a r m and home planning, and s t r e e t and shade tr e e employed by f o r e s t r y a r e listed in Table 45. the work done by the f o r e s t r y the study a r e a f or the year s This r e c o r d does The methods extension personnel in disseminating informa­ tion in these technical fields s u m m a r izes work. This extension specialists 1952 and 1953, and is in self-explanatory. not include, of cou r s e, help which was mail to owners in the table also given by study ar ea. F r o m the files of L e s t e r E. Bell, Extension Specialist in F o r e s t r y , Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University. 230 TABLE 45 FORESTRY EXTENSION RECORD BY METHOD EMPLOYED AND YEARS Method Employed in Study Area Extension man days Number of f a r m s p e n t ...................................................................... v i s it s 1952 1953 83 90 123 136 8 9 198 330 63 109 41 53 3,587 1,130 39 43 1,663 2,620 Meetings of extension committee or project and local l e a d e r s : Number of m e e t i n g s ........................ Attendance ................................................................................................... Demonstrations visited Meetings at demonstrations: Number of m e e t i n g s A ttendance Other meetings Number held in relation to projects: of meetings A ttendance 231 O w n e r s 1 acquaintance The data p r e s e n t e d in this and in some Since cases with., and. use of, f o r e s t r y extension. section a r e based on the field interview, supplemented by the mail replies. extension work at the local level is handled by the county a g r i c u l t u r a l agent (now called county extension d irector), owners 1 acquaintance with him is indicative of the use they have made of extension help in general. the owners holding 25 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a did not know their county agent a t l e a s t by name. a r ea had previously r equested Owners had with the f o r e s t r y r e s t r i c t e d than their extension in general . This of 45 percent of the f o r e s t some aid f r o m him. The acquaintance owners gram was m o r e It was found that 40 percent of extension p r o ­ acquaintance with agricultural is brought out in the following figures on o w n e r s ’ use and knowledge of f o r e s t r y extension aid and advice: P e r c e n t of F orest Area P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners 51 82 33 13 Did not know f o r e s t r y extension aid was a v a i l a b l e .............................................. Knew of availability of extension f o r e s t r y aid but . . . . n ev er applied f or it Had made use of f o r e s t r y extension a i d ................................. T otal . _JL^. 100 100 232 If an owner had. wr itt en to the state it was advice or a bulletin c o n s ider ed as having made use of extension as s istance. It is more college for indeed significant that 82 percen t of the owners holding than one-half of the f o r e s t l a n d had never h ear d of f o r e s t r y extension. When one co nsiders than ninety man days p er in the a r e a , it is year remarkable this, however, in view of the less spent by f o r e s t r y that extension specialists 18 per cen t of the owners holding about one-half the f o r e s t l a n d knew about such assistance. Owners replying to the mail qu esti onnair e, surprisingly, indi­ cated that they w er e m o r e f a m i l i a r with the f o r e s t r y gram and that they had made b e t t e r use of the of the f o r e s t a r e a was This is answers, the mail respondents All of the findings among the mail re­ deliberately gave misleading one is fo r c e d to conclude that this informed group. (42 percent difficult to explain, particularly in view of the fact that there were no f a r m e r s Unless service owned by such persons) than those owners interviewed in the field. spondents. extension p r o ­ of this repres en te d a better study do point in that direction. In Table questions of this 46 a r e p r e s en ted the findings asked owners table r eveals concerning f o r e s t r y several of some more detailed extension. outstanding points. of the f o r e s t a r e a knew about f o r e s t r y Examination Owners aid but never of 17 percent used it because 233 TABLE 46 ATTITUDES OF OWNERS TOWARD EXTENSION FORESTRY DEMONSTRATION AND ADVICE P e r c e n t of Owners* Attitudes F o r e s t Area Owners who did not know such aid was available: Showed no i n t e r e s t ...................................................... Showed slight i n t e r e s t Showed strong interest . 24 .................................................................. 23 ...................................................................... 4 Owners who knew of availability of advice but never used it: F e l t it too difficult to o b t a i n ..................................................... Did not think anything Planned to ask f o r could be such advice gained f r o m it in the future 9 . . 17 ... 3 Considered extension valuable but employed or had technical ability t h e m s e l v e s ............................. Considered extension valuable but used S.C.S or f a rm f o re s te r Owners advice ............................................. who had made use of such extension aid: Doubted technical Believed advice soundness of a d v i c e ............. 0 sound but not p r a c t i c a l .......... 1 Believed advice good but could not afford to follow it ....................................................................................................... 3 Had followed advice but considered it unsound . . 0 Had followed advice and were uncertain of its s o u n d n e s s ........................................................................................... Had followed advice and considered it sound . . . T o t a l ..................................................................................................................... aLess than 0.5 percent. 12 100 234 they did not think anything could be gained f r o m it. Informal nota­ tions made in the field would seem to indicate that this was made up of some r a t h e r poorly informed owners. 9 percent of f o r e s t l a n d owned by p ersons One of the mos t on their of the owners who had made use of This co n s ider ed in connection with the high proportion of (82 percent) would seem people time. extension help followed it and considered it sound. latter figure owners people who significant things brought out, it would ap­ pear, is that al m o s t four-fifths forestry Most of the who f elt it too difficult to obtain extension aid could be attributed to business had other heavy demands 17 percent who had never hear d of f o r e s t r y to indicate extension is quite effective among those r eached by it and that considerably more plished if m o r e personnel Almost all owners and funds extension, could be accom­ were available. who replied to the mail questionnaire indicating that they had used extension f o r e s t r y advice indicated that they considered the advice sound. Another possible indication of the extension activities cepts is brought out in of f o r e s t management ar e pation in f o r e s t r y that t h e r e is extension. effectiveness Table of f o r e s t r y 47, where owners 1 con­ compared with the owner's Only casual examination will a very decided trend toward a higher particishow concept of 235 TABLE 47 OWNERS1 CONCEPTS OF TIMBER MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO USE MADE OF FORESTRY EXTENSION Use Made of Extension Concept of Management Did Not Know of Forest Extension Knew About but Never Used F o r e s t Extension Had Made Use of Forestry Extension (percent of f o r e s t area) 7 0 6 46 29 7 Light cutting and other m e a s ­ ures for public good, at some p er s o n a l s a c r i f i c e . * 23 22 7 Light cutting and other m e a s ­ ures economically d e s i r a b l e in the long run, but not at p r e s e n t ...................................................... 14 24 10 8 23 31 2 2 6 0 0 32 100 100 100 No idea ............................................................... F i r e protection, o r r e f o r e s t a ­ tion a n d / o r refraining f r o m c u t t i n g .......................................... Light cutting economically de­ s i r a b l e both in the p r e s e n t and long run ..................................... F i r e protection and light cutting, economicall d e s ir ^ able both in the p r e s e n t and long run ...................................... High, continuing yield of t i m b e r p r o d u c t s ............................. Total 236 management among owners who had. made use of extension. tainly , it can not be implied that this is ship. a cause and effect Most of the tr e n d is likely attributable degree of enlightenment among owners to seek Cer­ r elation­ to a generally higher who a r e enough concerned such aid. Farm F o r e s t r y P r o g r a m of the State Conservation Commission One of the m o s t important of the g r a s s - r o o t s f o r e s t r y p r o ­ grams offering technical on-the-ground a s s is tance for f o r e s t owners is that offered under the Cooperative F o r e s t Management Act of 1950, Public Law 729 of the federal and state 8 l s t Congress. cooperation as How it is provided and how it is the subject of this This of furnishing this service. accepted by forestland owners is section. act culminated many years tion which would provide The Clark-McNary Act of adequately for of effort to perfect l e g i s l a ­ this type of public 1924 set the precedent f o r eral cooperation in f o r e s t r y . f o r e s t r y was a means This law provides for assistance. state and f ed­ This type of governmental activity in enlarged upon with the passage in 1937 of the N o r r i s - Doxey A.ct which provided for actual on-the — ground technical a s s i s ­ tance in f o r e s t r y f o r f a r m e r s . 237 The N o r r i s - D o x e y Act made provision f o r public a s s is ta n c e in tr ee planting, f a r m f o r e s t r y extension work, f a r m f o r e s t r y search, in f o r e s t m a n a g e m e n t / and s e r v i c e assistance r e s t r i c t e d to f a r m e r s work under this demonstrations. selected f o r and actually began in 1940. act was Also, were Work was Most of the early concentrated on a few intensively operated a few cooperating woodland owners detailed r ecord-keeping. of these p r o j e c t s re­ During the war were years mos t converted to marketing a s s is tan ce thence a f t e r the war to management a s s is ta n c e projects efforts, entirely. Scope and admin is tr at io n of the f a r m f o r e s tr y program. Cooperative F o r e s t Management Act became repealed the N o r ri s -D o xey Act as management a s s i s t a n c e vested in the of feder al funds officials stipulated, but its the beginning. to the employed in the serv ices No have Control and administration of states f r o m under the act is and those It extended f o r e s t to all private forestland s upervisors. not been extended to l a r g e owners. the act was effective in 1951 and of that date. limit as to size of ownership was The Disbursement state f o r e s t e r s states or equivalent under the act ar e state "^Division of Cooperative F o r e s t Management, F o r e s t Service. Administrative p r o c e d u r e s f o r cooperative f o r e s t management act of 1950. Forest Service, USDA, Washington, July 1951, p. 4. 238 employees. The f o r e s t e r s providing the actual on-the-ground " s e r v i c e f o r e s t e r s .11 are called Michigan cooperates in this p r o g r a m , and as ployed eight s e r v i c e f o r e s t e r s . in the state covered by this ers upon request. tr icts in the respecti ve em­ In the portion of the of the state con­ all of the functions of service f o r e s t ­ The m a j o r duties a s s i s t a n t s , however, were in t h e i r state. study the d i s t r i c t f o r e s t e r s servation co m m i s s i o n p e r f o r m of 1951 These were, however, all located southern far mi n g portion of the forests service of these f o r e s t e r s and their those of administrating the state-owned districts. There were study a r e a known as Districts p r o g r a m , although r e f e r r e d to here as eleven such d i s ­ 11 through 21. This the f a r m f o r e s t r y program, is available to all f o r e s t owners. As implied above, no f e d e r a l funds were used to support private f o r e s t r y a s s i s t a n c e work done by the d i s t r i c t f o r e s t e r s the study a r e a . In this the average in 1953 . 1 a r e a the ten d i s t r i c t f o r e s t e r s in spent on 8. 8 p e r c e n t of t h e ir time on private f o r e s t r y activities In two d i s t r i c t s the f o r e s t e r s their time on private f o r e s t r y , 1F r o m the files in six d i s t r i c t s of the F o r e s t r y servation, State of Michigan, spent over 27 percent of Lansing. le ss than 5 percent. Division, Department of Con­ 239 O w n e r s 1 acquaintance with, and use program. In this study in o r d e r type of a s s i s t a n c e questions to provide an evaluation of this to f o r e s t owners concerning it. of, the f a r m f o r e s t r y those interviewed were ashed The r e s u l t s of these f i r s t questions con­ cerning the f a r m f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m were as follows: P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners 83 97 ity of such aid, qualified, but n e v e r a p p l i e d ..................... 8 2 Had made use of such a id 9 Did not know such aid was a v a i l a b l e ........................ Knew about the availabil­ 100 T otal It is ___1_ 100 outstanding that 97 p er cen t of the f o r e s t owners repre­ senting 83 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a did not know they could obtain such help. A. c o m p ar is o n of the f o r e s t a r e a and f o r e s t owner col­ umns indicates that the small owners made l e s s use of the pr o g r am and were l e s s f a m i l i a r with it than la r g e owners. Owners responding strikingly higher use and acquaintance with the program. tently through this that as to the mail questionnaire indicated a study this group of f o r e s t owners has a whole they wer e a mo r e is difficult to explain in any other enlightened group. way. Consis­ indicated Their response 240 Table program. 48 Indicates in m o r e One of the mos t is that few owners detail how owners felt about the significant things depicted in this among those who did not know about the program were strongly i n t e r e s t e d on hearing indicate that owners about it. This would seem to of a very high proportion of Michigan’s f o r e s t ­ land were not i n t e r e s t e d in sound technical f o r e s t r y advice when provided without charge. l e a r n why owners table were No for mal so disinterested; even attempt was made to however, it appeared f rom their voluntary testimony that they just did not want any type of governmental participation. It should be noted, however, that a valid evaluation of own­ e r s ’ d i s t i n t e r e s t in this is very difficult. or any other A person's respect to a public p r o g r a m The f a r m f o r e s t r y next chapter a r e program relatively new public service opinion may change considerably with after each additional contact with it. and others t r ea ted l a t e r in this comparatively new and hence r e a d e r s and the should keep this point in mind. Of those who knew of the p r o g r am in f a r m f o r e s t r y never applied f o r aid under it, yet almost none thought it too difficult to obtain. Separately is considering those who had obtained the advice, it significant that owners r epresenting about six-tenths of the f o r e s t 24 1 TABLE 48 ATTITUDES OF OWNERS TOWARD SERVICE ACTIVITIES OF FARM FORESTERS Owners' Attitudes P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area Owners who did not know such s er v i c e was available: Showed no i n t e r e s t ........................................................................................... Showed slight i n t e r e s t ....................................................................... Showed strong i n t e r e s t ................................................. Owners who knew such s er v ice qualified, but n e v e r applied: was 22 48 13 av ailabler F elt it too difficult to obtain on-the-ground aid . . . Did not f e e l anything could be gained f r o m it ... . Expected to apply f o r aid in the f u t u r e ................................. (a) 3 3 Considered the aid valuable but had technical competence o r employees with technical com­ petence ................................................................................................................... Considered aid valuable but had applied f o r aid fr om extension f o r e s t e r or S.C.S. f a r m planner . Owners who had made use of ser vice offered by far m f o r e s t e r s : Doubted technical soundness of the advice, hence did not follow i t ................................................................................ Believed advice technically sound but did not believe it p r a c t i c a l ....................................................................... Believed advice good but could not afford to 1 1 0 6 follow it ............................................................................................................... P r e v io us ly used such aid, but considered the (^) r e s u l t s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ............................................................... P r e v io u s ly used such aid, but was uncertain it was s a t i s f a c t o r y ........................................................................ Previou s ly used such aid, and considered it 0 s a t i s f a c t o r y ............................................................................................ ^ T o t a l ............................................................................................................................................ dLes s than 0.5 percent. 1 100 242 area e x p r e s s e d a belief that the advice given was impractical. would seem to indicate technical f o r e s t e r s average f o r e s t needs owner. study in f o r e s t owner The that the conventional approach employed by to be a l t e r e d to meet the needs of the Stoddard 1 so aptly points out, a basic As education is badly needed in this res p o ns e f r o m the owners same questions shown in feeling among this group. a d r astically different Over one-half of the forestland owned indicating that they had used this s e r v i c e pr eviously and considered it satisfactory. degree of enlightenment ap pears Table 49 compares as owners' on owners concepts of timber ser vice as of the p r o g r a m . extension f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m , there is of the p r o g r a m . cause-and-effect As in the case of the a definite trend toward a who had availed Again, it can not be concluded as relationship, but it is degree of f o r e s t r y understanding Charles H. Stoddard. est owner education. Journal management a m e a s u r e of the higher concept of management among those owners themselves Again, their the only answer. use of the f a r m f o r e s t r y effectiveness country. interviewed by mail on the Table 48 indicates by this group was owned by per s on s with their This a surely indicative of a higher among those who avail themselves Needed: A r e s e a r c h p r o g r am in f o r ­ of F o r e s t r y , 48: 339-341, May 1950. 243 TABLE 49 OWNERS1 CONCEPTS OF TIMBER MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO USE MADE OF FARM FORESTRY AID Use Made of F a r m F o r e s t r y Aid Did Not Concept of Management Know F a r m Forestry Aid was Available Knew About Farm Forestry Aid but Never U s ed It Had Made Use of Aid Offered by Farm Foresters (percent of f o r e s t area) 6 0 6 39 14 4 21 48 (a) able in the long run, but not at p r e s e n t ................................. 20 21 1 Light cutting, economically d es ir ab l e both in the p r e s e n t and long r u n ................. 11 11 87 3 6 0 t i m b e r p r o d u c t s ............................. 0 0 2 T o t a l ....................................................................... 100 100 100 No idea ............................................................................................................................................................. F i r e p r o tec tio n o r r e f o r e s t a ­ tion a n d / o r refraining f r o m c u t t i n g .......................................... Light cutting and other m e a s ­ ures f o r public good, at some p e r s o n a l s a c r i f i c e . . Light cutting and other m e a s ­ ures economically" desir-* F i r e pr o tec tio n and light cutting, economically de­ sir abl e both in the p r e s e n t and long r u n ...................................... High, continuing yield of — IV r . . . J 1L.L— - I . - 'f -P aLess ' ---- l — i------ J . ■»■ \ 1. - 1 ■■■!> 1. fc lift lm than 0.5 percent. 244 of such opportunities such things. seeks this than among those who a r e The well -i nf or med individual totally ignorant of is generally the one who type of advice in the f i r s t place but in so doing is very likely to continue to develop his knowledge. Soil Conservation Service F o r e s t r y P r o g r a m The Soil Conservation Service Department of Agriculture the p r e s i d e n t p r opos ed that was state as legal units established in 1935. each of the states pass lation which would p e r m i t the districts as a permanent agency of the Soon afterward enabling l e g i s ­ establishment of soil conservation of government. Ten year s established such legislation all other after the f i r s t states had followed the example. The powers siderably f r o m districts granted the state to state. * the power to tax. soil conservation dis tr i cts For the s e v e r a l states. local boards V machinery is the d i s t r i c t s ar e grant also quite administered in The usual f o r m of administration is through which in tu r n a r e with authority over example, only two states Administrative different with r e s p e c t to the ways vary con­ such things controlled by a state committee as state appropriations to the d istricts. W e b s te r Joh n so n and P a le ig h B a r lo w e . Op. c i t . , p. 337. 245 The Soil Conservation Service has cooperating with the d i s t r i c t s and to a s s i s t land occupiers lishing c o ns er v ati on m e a s u r e s on t h e i r lands. an important place in such activities. pants who go along with plans encouraged to: manage woodlands tr ee s on land b e s t in estab­ Woodlands a r e Those land owners given and occu­ proposed for them by the Soil Con­ servation Service a r e known as are been assigned the job of ' fcooperators . 11 The cooperators (1) p r o t e c t woodland f r o m f i r e and grazing; conservatively and cut ti mber annually; (2) (3) plant suited f o r woodland.* Scope and ad m inis tr at ion of the Michigan soil conservation districts. The Michigan Soil Conservation District Law was passed in 1937, and l a t e r amended. The expressed policy of the act was stated as follows: It is hereby d eclared to be the policy of the Legislature to p r o ­ vide f o r the conservation of the soil and soil r e s o u r c e s of this state, and f o r the control and prevention of soil erosion, and thereby to p r e s e r v e natural r e s o u r c e s , control floods, prevent i m p air me n t of dams and r e s e r v o i r s , a s s i s t in maintaining the navigability of r i v e r s and h a r b o r s , p r e s e r v e wildlife, protect the tax b a s e , pr o tec t public lands, and protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of this State.^ ^Charles 2 A . Gillett. I b id . , p. 4. State Soil Conservation Committee. Michigan soil conser­ vation d i s t r i c t s in action, 1951-1952-1953. A. Report of the State Soil Conservation Committee, E a s t Lansing, 1954 {pp. unnumbered). 246 During the fifteen y e ar s following passage Of the Michigan Act seventy soil c o n s e r v ati on d i s t r i c t s five of the state's and 85 p e r c e n t of the p a r t of the state's in 1954. Crawford, P r a c t i c a l l y all of the state have organized d i s t r i c t s , covered by this study (see were without organized soil conservation d is ­ The counties Oceana, without d i s tr i c ts Oscoda, and Roscommon. were: Alcona, Arenac, One county in the study area, Gladwin, was j u s t organized into a d i s t r i c t in 1953. counties were sixty- cropland is included in organized d is ­ In the thi r ty - o ne —county a r e a Figure I) six counties tricts established embracing eighty- thr ee counties. counties in the a g r i c u l t u r a l t r i cts . were organized in 1950 or counties in the study a r e a a r e since. Altogether, seventeen either without organized distr i cts or were organized a f te r the end of World War II. half of the a c r ea ge in the Five other study a r e a has Thus over one- scar cel y felt the impact of the Soil Conservation Service p r o g r a m at the time this study was made. F o r the state as a whole, however, the Soil Service f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m has been quite an active one. planting has been one of the most active p ar ts Through acres Conservation Forest of the program. 1 952 they were responsible for cooperators planting 62,683 of land to t r e e s . Sixteen of the dis t r i c t s ies in 1952, and they turned out over three had their own n u r s e r ­ and one-half million t r e e s 247 that y e a r . Most of the planting abandoned fiel ds. effort went into the Some a c r e a g e refor es tat ion of (892 a c r e s ) was planted to f a r m windbreaks. Another imp o r tan t phase assisting c o o p er at or s existing woodlands. state as of the f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m dealt with to institute improved management practices As of the end of 1952, cooperators a whole had brought 73,275 a c r e s over on the of woodland under this program. O w n e r s 1 acquaintance with, and use of, the Soil Conservation Service f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m . effectiveness farmers In o r d e r to make some m e asur e of the of the Soil Conservation Service's f o r e s t r y p r og r am, in the study a r e a were quizzed concerning their to the p r o g r a m . reactions Even though the Soil Conservation Service program is not n e c e s s a r i l y li mit ed by law to f a r m e r s 1 lands, to date m o s t of the work has been concentrated on this The emphasis group. of the p r o g r a m has been on an all-inclusive f a r m la nd-use plan in which the woodland generally has place. its This plan is usually based on the capabilities an important of the soil with susceptibility to er osion considered as having the major limiting role. Land considered as being too susceptible to erosion even for g r a s s l a n d use is usually f o r e s t usually has a recommended for f o r e s t use only. residual role in the f a r m land-use plan. Thus the 248 This study indicated f a r m e r s who owned one-half of the total f o rest a r e a owned by f a r m e r s had become cooperators. all had a Soil Conservation Service These f a r m e r s farm plan wr itt en f o r them at one time period of tenure. ators f o r one Soil Conservation Service o r another during their Some of t h e se, however, had ceased to be cooper­ r e a s o n or interviewing f a r m e r s another. on this It is interesting to note that when question it was very difficult for them to distinguish what type of help they had received. nized the va-rious government p r o g r a m s by name. Soil Conservation Service cooperators were quizzed as Very few recog­ who owned forestland to what they thought about the importance of their woodland in the ge n e r a l f a r m plan. The attitudes determined f rom this question were as follows: P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Ar ea Did not consider woodland to have a sig­ nificant place in f a r m plan ......................................... 32 Considered woodland to have a minor place in f a r m p l a n ..................................... 61 Considered woodland to have an i m p o r ­ tant place in f a r m p l a n ......................................... T o t a l ............................................................................................... ^ This included all counties, ganized d i s t r i c t s . 100 some of which were not in or 249 In considering t he se findings it should be was a very difficult evaluation to make. were the owners r e m e m b e r e d this Oftentimes of b e t t e r than average f a r m s , cooperators and frequently, on such f a r m s , the woodland did have a minor place. Gooperators who had adopted some f o r e s t r y pr act ice as a result of recommendations made in the f a r m plan were asked to name the adopted p r a c t i c e . Only two p r a c t i c e s , f o r e s t plantations and windbreak plantings, wer e so named, with plantations accounting for about nine— tenths of the cases ance. and windbreak plantings the b a l ­ Significantly, no cooperators named improvement cuttings in existing woodlands as having been adopted as In view of the w i despread need f o r a r e s ult of the plan. such a f o r e s t r y m e a s u r e , one is fo r c e d to conclude that such a recommendation has had little appeal to f a r m e r s and needs to be given special f o r e s t r y promotional p r o g r a m . emphasis m any CHAPTER X OTHER DEVICES TO AFF E C T PRIVATE FOREST MANAGEMENT As the title of this bilities are chapter indicates, s everal different po s s i — co n s ider ed h e r e which may offer f o r e s t owners ducement to adopt b e t t e r f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s . benefit p a y m ents , is discussed h e r e a p r e s e n t reality. some in­ The f i r s t of these, Some of the other schemes exist in a m o r e limited extent. F o r e s t r y Conservation Payments Beginning in 1936 Congress building p r a c t i c e s the Agricultural and soil- authorized a p r og r am of soil and water-conserving pract ices Conservation P r o g r a m . As the act was called interpreted by the S e c r e t a r y of Agriculture its p r i m a r y objective became p r o ­ tection of the p u b l i c ^ i n t e r e s t in the nation*s soil and water re­ sources. Implementation of the p r o g r a m as Congress has been by meauis of subsidies paid to individual f a r m e r s for instituting c e r t a i n approved p r a c t i c e s . take the f o r m of c o s t - s h a r i n g with the f a r m From in it. authorized by the These payments were to owner. the beginning of the p r o g r a m f o r e s t r y has had a p a r t F orestry's s h a r e has, however, been comparatively 250 small, 251 accounting for last ten y e a r s . less 1 p e r c e n t of the payments made over the than 1 G e n e r a l points on the f o r e s t r y conservation p r o g r a m . the p r o g r a m the approved f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s for whole a r e t r e e planting, t i mb er fencing, and maintaining s h elt er b elt s. ever, the p r a c t i c e s m u s t be approved by the State Production M a r ­ In 1953 payments to the n a t i o n s amounted to about one m o s t of which was paid f or t r e e planting on some eighty thousand a c r e s . The same year over $41,000 were paid for t r ee planting on n ear l y four thousand a c r e s area (Table a Within individual stat es, how­ f a r m e r s f o r approved f o r e s t r y p r a ct ices 2 the country as stand improvement work including keting A d m in i s t r a ti o n Committee. million d o l l a r s , Under of land in the study 50). In the United States no f o r m of subsidization for f o r e s t r y on private lands has been employed to the extent it has been in w ester n Europe o r Japan. In those f o r es t ownership p a t ter n s sections of the world having to ours of government, subsidization f or *M. B. Dickerman. 2L o c . c i t . Op. simi lar and comparable democratic forms the f o r e s t owner is c i t . , p. 4. common pr act ice. 252 TABLE 50 AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM RECORD IN THE STUDY AREA, 1950-1953a Yea r Activity 1950 1951 1952 1953 Tree planting: Number of counties participating*5 ..................... 27 29 30 29 Number of f a r m s p a r t i c i p a t i n g ......................... 1,091 1,357 1,632 1,109 2,974 5,257 5,243 3,987 $8.83 $26,262 $8.84 $46,489 $9.31 $48,832 $10.31 $41,111 (c) (c) 8 4 15 14 Number of a c r e s on which payment was made .............................................. Average c r e d i t p e r a c r e allowed for activity* . . Total amount p a i d ................. Fencing woodlands: Number of counties p a r t i c i p a t i n g ......................... Number of f a r m s p a r t i c i p a t i n g ......................... Number of rods on which payment was l,051d m a d e .............................................. Average c r e d i t p e r rod allowed f o r activity . . $0.40 $420 Total amount p a i d ................. aF ro m 964 $0.75 $723 the Michigan Office of the Agricultural Conservation P r o g r a m s , P r oducti on Marketing Administration, Lansing. ^Does not include counties where money was available but where none was spent. To have included such counties would have added one county in 1952 and 1953, three in 1950, and two in 1951. °No funds until were allocated f o r fencing by the State Committee 1952. Gave protection to 188 a c r e s * in 1952. 253 Often in such countries along with a s t r i c t payments the subsidization p r o g r a m is regula tor y p r o g r a m made to r e i m b u r s e Under owners will benefit both the over private f o r e s t r y country emphasis has been on t r y ­ to undertake voluntarily a practice owners with owners f o r p r act ices forced upon them. the p r o g r a m in this ing to encourage c a r r i e d out and society in the long run. which The pay­ ment is justified on the grounds that it is the publicTs share of the cost of the p r o j e c t in r elation to the benefits society will receive f rom it. Scope and admin is tr at io n of the f o r e s t r y conservation p r o g r a m . It is impossible h e r e to go into a long history of how f o r e s t r y bene­ fit payments have been handled in this was f i r s t undertaken in the a long story, 1930’s. Such a discussion would make and it belongs in the field of f o r e s t administration rather than f o r e s t economics. It will be the objective h er e to simply point out briefly how the p r e s e n t Each y ear the zations and obtains for the state. country since the program system works. state committee meets their feelings Those that ar e on conservation practices This organi­ needed accepted by that committee ar e f o r ­ warded to Washington to the Agricultural Service. with state f a r m group then meets Conservation P r o g r a m with Soil Conservation Service and 254 Forest Service pers o n nel who work out f r o m these proved national p r a c t i c e s and maximum which payment might be made. submits the p r o g r a m practices f o r mittee sets the to the rate s of assistance for The S ecret ary of Agriculture then state committee, which selects state f r o m the f e d er al list. maximum payment Also, the r a te s for pr a c t i c e s with detailed specifications on how the p r a c t ic e At both the state suggestions ap­ approved state com­ it approves along should be performed. and f e d e r a l level the approved practices are weighed in r ela tio n to the probable total funds that will be available for the coming y e a r . F in al approval of p r a c t i c e s the Agricultural and maximum Conservation P r o g r a m rate s Committees are set by in the counties. Generally, they s e le c t the approved practices from those outlined by the stat e committee in accordance with local needs. the county committees lating their However, do have considerable latitude in even f o r m u ­ own p r a c t i c e s The United States and r ates Forest of payment. Service is responsible for the tech­ nical phases of the f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s finally approved by the county committee. This approved p r a c t i c e s includes at the as s i s t a n c e in developing state and county level as specifications f o r well as checking 255 on compliance with practices the project is by the f a r m e r . done The p r o g r a m in the study a r e a . the A.C.P. f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m years 1950 through 1953. at the county level. These has been in the study a r e a for the F o r the y ear s 1950 and respectively, in the tions, the In 1952 and 1953 wood­ were li st ed as numbers 1953 handbook. was included in number tices for 1951 t r e e plant­ added as an approved p r a c t i c e in a few counties. two p r a c t i c e s practice in Table on Table 5 0 shows how active ing was the only approved f o r e s t p r actice. land fencing was Actual work 50. The r a t e s as windbreaks of credit approved for these p r a c ­ $1.00 p e r one hundred for t r e e s in windbreaks. at the r a t e of 75 cents Planting t r e e s 20, and hence is not listed as a s eparate state were $1.50 f or t r e e s 2 20 and 21, p er ing the plantings f r o m f i r e rod. in planta­ Fencing cr ed i t was approved Further and grazing, specifications on p r o tec t­ et c et er a, were spelled out in d e t a i l . 1Michigan P.M.A.. Committee. Agricultural Conservation P r o g r a m , Michigan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, A.C.P. Handbook for 1953, Aug. 1952, p. 12. Ibid., p. 20. 256 Credit p e r from the of t r e e s acre aver ag e s shown in Table planted per within counties. in the cas e of plantings acre For of $7.75 p e r acre in Arenac acre in Otsego spent, and the number of a c r e s of f a r m s planted also varied considerably participating in 1952, leads spent. County to a low participating, total amount within the f o u r - y e a r period. County, with $6,770.00 a c r e for planting County. Variation in the number total amount in the approved rates example, in 1953 cr ed i t per a high of $15.00 p e r farms 50, depending upon the number and variations varied f rom by counties varied considerably Mason County, with 186 in that category. Grand Tr a v e r s e spent in 1952, was the leader in t e r m s This amount went for planting 677 a c r e s , of which was the l a r g e s t ac r e a g e planted by any one county for a parti cular year. Benzie and Oceana counties ranked high in t e r m s of acreage planted. In some counties they were not spent. this where funds were available for tr ee planting Roscommon County was particularly lax in r e s p e c t by paying only $10.00 for planting one acr e f o u r - y e a r p er io d even though funds were 1 The high was $20.00 p e r rate for acre for available during the every year. any county during the f o u r - y e a r period Crawford County in 1952. was $4.50 f o r Alpena County in 1951. The low rate 257 Findings tudes of f a r m of the p r e s e n t owners interviewed w er e In o r d e r to evaluate the a t ti­ toward f o r e s t r y conservation p r a c t i c e s , those asked a few basic acquaintance with the p r o g r a m . those counties study. where payments questions concerning their The r esults of this questioning in had been available were as follows: P e r c e n t of P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area F o r e s t Owners have q u a l i f i e d ) ............................. 59 90 Knew about the av ailabil­ ity of such payments, qualified, but never a p ­ plied ...................................................... . 4 3 Knew about availability of such payments, quali­ fied, and had applied for p a y m e n t s .............................................. 37 7 100 100 Did not know about the availability of such pay­ ments (may o r may not T otal The high degree of unawareness aid among f a r m e r s received other is about the availability of such r a t h e r astounding. types of A.C.P. benefits Many f a r m e r s who had did not know of their avail­ ability f o r f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s . The fact that most of the owners about the benefit payments that such payments were who qualified and knew had applied for some incentive. them is an indication Again the indication is 258 that la r g e f a r m f o r e s t such opportunities owners were quicker to take advantage of than s m a l l e r f o r e s t owners. Table^ 51 gives tudes toward f o r e s t r y a more detailed breakdown on f a r m e r s 1 a t t i ­ conservation payments. indication that, of the f a r m e r s Outstanding is the who had applied for benefits, owners of about one-half of the f o r e s t a r e a would not have undertaken the practice without this reluctance help. When one considers on the p a r t of owners independence the incentive that there is some to admit any lack of financial effect of benefit payments becomes more significant. It is also fied but never e x t r a o r d i n a r y that all of those f a r m e r s applied followed this action because they did not think the possible r e m un e ra tio n warr an ted the trouble. Among those f a r m e r s ments f or f o r e s t r y who had never heard of A.C.P. pay­ very few indicated enough i n t e r e s t to say that they might undertake scheme. who quali­ Presumably, some f o r e s t pract ice these owners under such a cost-sharing might have been in terested to the extent of indulging in planting or fencing work they would not have undertaken without payments. A. much l a r g e r nearly a fourth of the total f a r m f o r e s t acreage, showed i n t e r e s t in obtaining payments f o r planting or fencing activities considered doing in any case. group, owning they would have Among this l a t t e r group, A.C.P. 259 TABLE 51 ATTITUDES OF FARMERS TOWARD FORESTRY CONSERVATION PAYMENTS F a r m e r s 1 Attitudes P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area F a r m e r s who did not know of availability of payments: Showed no i n t e r e s t ................................................................................... 32 Showed i n t e r e s t but did not indicate p r a c t i c e s would be i n f l u e n c e d .......................................................................... 23 Showed i n t e r e s t and indicated p r a c t i c e s would be i n f l u e n c e d ........................................................................................... 4 Farmers who knew about the availability of payments, qualified, but never applied: Did not think they would q u a l i f y ............................................. 0 Did not know how to make application for p a y m e n t s ....................................................................................................... 0 Believed trouble of application outweighed possible money benefit Farm ers .................................................... who had applied f o r payments: Stated p r a c t i c e s would not have been under­ taken without p a y m e n t s ............................................................. Stated p r a c t i c e s regardless Total 4 18 would have been undertaken of p a y m e n t .................................................................. 19 100 260 payments seemingly were not l a r g e adoption of p r a c t i c e s enough in themselves eligible f o r payment, but in considering the adoption of such p r a c t i c e s on t h e ir own m e r i t s , been i n t e r e s t e d in accepting payments Forest F o r e s t cooperatives owners similar Cooperatives designed to a s s i s t private forestland to ours. Scandinavian countries. In this few isolated However, examples. that cooperatives they would have if available. have been popular in many countries for es t ownership to tempt This having a system of is p articularly true in the country we have only a relatively many f o r e s t e r s offer g r e a t hope for cling to the belief solving our f o r e s t problem. Again it is not possible to delve deeply into the question of for es t cooperatives. parti cu lar l y ples, Much has concerning such as the Report number been written on f o r e s t those which have served as cooperatives, working Otsego Cooperative in Cooperstown, exam­ New York. 6 f r o m the R eappraisal Report explored the general picture of f o r e s t ^James cooperatives C. Rettie in the United States. and F r a n k A. Ineson. 2 Otsego f o r e s t prod­ ucts cooperative association, an evaluation. F o r e s t Service, U.S. Department of A g r iculture, Washington, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. ? R. 17, N. 42 pp., September Cunningham, in the United States. Situation, Report 6, U.S. F o r e s t U.S. F o r e s t 18 pp., 1950. 1947. Service. Service, F o r e s t cooperatives Reappraisal of the F o r e s t The ba s i c idea of cooperatives The idea of cooperatives society. their stud types one might say is B a s i c a l l y , the idea is r e s o u r c e s , imp r ov e t h e i r as of cooperative s . old as that of human that sever al persons can, by pooling economic position through a whole range of activit ies . There are many types of f o r e s t cooperatives. lists five types of cooperatives Cunningham I in f o r e s t r y , only one of which had much c o n c e r n with the type of f o r e s t management practiced by owner m e m b e r s . Actually, according to Cunningham 2 the r ecord of f o r e s t cooperatives in the United States indicates they have en­ couraged poor f o r e s t r y pr a c t i c e s probably more often than they have good f o r e s t r y . The most popular and successful f o r e s t cooperatives United States have been of the marketing type. in the Few have attempted to offer much in the way of a management s ervice along with m a r ­ keting or other activities. However, according to Cunningham's classification this type of cooperative was the only one which at­ tempted to encourage m e m b e r s tices . *Ibid.r p. 2. to follow desirable f o r e s t r y p r a c ­ 262 The An Sable F o r e s t Products Association of E as t was the only active f o r e s t cooperative in the study ar ea. a marketing type Tawas It was cooperative organized specifically to market timber products f or m e m b e r p r o d u c e r s . Findings of the p r e s e n t study. in f o r e s t cooperatives them. In o r d e r depends The success of any venture on the attitude of f o r e s t owners toward to m e a s u r e o w n e r s ’ feelings along these lines at the time of the interview, they were asked if they would be willing to join other owners in the hire a f o r e s t e r to jointly manage their f o r e s t properties dle the marketing the owners same a r e a in a cooperative which would of t i m b e r produced thereon. of 98 pe r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a and to han­ Some 99 percent of stated flatly that they would not be in t e r e s t e d . As discouraging that cooperatives initial stages. as this may require sound, it should be considerable promotional They then become their Forest 1J a m e s solving the f o r e s t r y C. R e t t i e effort in the own a d v e r t i s e r s . Management Contracts The f o r e s t management contract innovation f o r remembered repr es en ts a relatively new problem on small private proper ti es . and F r a n k A. Ineson. Op . c i t . , p. 42. 2 63 Some examples long as can be found in the South which have existed for as ten y e a r s . tried. Only one In other sections of the country the idea is less example of this type was noted in the study area. The idea behind management c o n t r a c t s . contracts bas ica lly tives; involve many of the i . e . , that they objective is same principles r e p r e s e n t a pooled type of effort. to overcome the diseconomies agement of small f o r e s t p r o p e r t i e s erties F o r e s t management as coopera­ Their main associated with the man­ by grouping several small prop­ t og e ther under one management and thus make possible the establishment of a sustained-yield working unit. Generally, projects f o r es t management several of this type a r e initiated by private consultants who enter into an agreement with small f o r e s t l a n d owners The management service ing ser vice which enables to manage their lands for them. as generally conceived includes owners a market­ to obtain better price s for their timber than would be possible for them selling individually. a p a r t of the management service includes Also, the handling of the tim- berland. Many different a r r an g em en ts p arti cu lar l y under with r e s p e c t to the costs such a plan a r e possible, and payments. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s F o r e s t r y Division has done considerable work m 264 trying to p r o mo t e good f o r e s t r y on pr ivate lands by means of a man agement con t r a c t . They s u m m a r i z e the r eq uirements of a good con- tr a c t as follows:* From 1. the land owner' s standpoint: The c o n t r a c t m u s t provide for t i m b e r stand improvement, r estocking, and steadily increasing production capacity at no out-of-pocket expense to the owner. 2. The owner m u s t be i n s u r ed against liquidation of his f o r e s t capital through overcutting. 3. The owner m u s t have an option to cancel the reasonable notice without undue sacrifice. From the f o r e s t m a n a g e r ' s contract on standpoint: 1. He m u s t have a reasonably f r e e hand in developing and managing the woodland as a sound and profitable long - t er m business enterprise. 2. In addition to compensation for operating the timberland, he m u s t also be a s s u r e d of an i n t e r e s t in the in c re a s e d and improved stand resulting f r o m the application of his manage­ ment skills. The contract must provide for valuation of his i n t e r e s t and equitable compensation. It is entirely possible that a r r ang em ents will prove m o r e successful operatives because on the Amer ic an scene than f o r e s t such a r r a n g e m e n t s our generally accepted institutions Findings along these lines of the p r e s e n t seem to tie in c l o se r with of business study. co­ The this type will depend upon how readily it is and private property. success of a venture of accepted by forestland Tennessee Valley Authority. A. lo n g - t e r m f o r e s t manage­ ment contract. Tennessee Valley Authority, N o r ri s , Tenn., Feb. 19 55, p. 2. 265 owners. their In o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e this, interviewed owners were asked r e a c t i o n to such a plan. Owners of a f o r e s t e r practices value. were asked t h e i r attitude toward using the serv ices to manage t h e i r f o r e s t pro p er ty under good f o r e s t r y at a cost not to exceed 20 The results P e r c e n t of F o re s t Area P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Owners ................. 70 96 .......................................... 30 4 100 10.0 T o tal The same question analyzed f r o m the mail questionnaire owners of 86 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a were The f act that owners i n t e r e s t in such a plan is might m e e t with a f a i r an indication that this degree of initial used for hunting p u r p o s e s . lived too f a r f r o m were showed that not interested. of t h r e e - t e n t h s of the f o r e s t Many of the i n t e r e s t e d per s o ns success expressed type of en t e r p r i s e in the study a r e a . owners of l a r g e acr eages Frequently, too, they were persons who the land to handle it effectively themselves. I n t e r e s t in f o r e s t management contracts re sp e c t to occupation c l a s s e s . in t e r e s t . stumpage w er e as follows: Not i n t e r e s t e d Interested p e r c e n t of the g r os s F arm ers also differed with generally When the above analysis was performed, showed a lack of omitting both 266 farm er classes, a r e a owned by p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d i n c r e a s e d to 38 percent. Compa r is on of o w n e r s ’ attitudes the attitudes toward this displayed toward cooperatives seems question with to lend evidence to the w r i t e r ’s opinion that the management contract scheme blends better with A m e r i c a n institutions. Forest Forest Credit c r e d i t has long been advocated by f o r e s t as a me a n s of reducing the p r e s s u r e f o r f o r e s t owners their t i m b e r capital in times Dickerman, and Marquis^ of p er s o nal financial economists to liquidate stress. Williams, state: If t i m b e r is to be grown in adequate supply for future needs, and if the quality of f o r e s t products is to be improved, timber g r o w e r s m u s t have a c c e s s to adequate ris k capital and credit. The concept of f o r e s t forest cr edi t has One r e a s o n for this has been due to the long re q u ir e d for f o r e s t rate of i n t e r e s t generally *E. T. Op. cit.y p . 8. Though long been advocated, it has been slow in becoming a reality in f o r e s t r y . production period credit and p r e s e n t p r o g r a m s . Williams, crops in relation to the high expected on commer cia l loans. M. B. Dickerman, Under and R. W. Marquis. 267 such c i r c u m s t a n c e s interest costs would nullify any possibility of growing t i m b e r profitably on borrowed capital. Another important r eas o n f o r has been due to a lagging c r e d i t p r o g r a m in f o r e s t r y the high r i s k involved and the lack of an insurance p r o g r a m for minimizing it. As means mentioned above, generally f o r e s t r y of avoiding f o r c e d liquidation. the effect could be that the c r e d i t Ciriacy-Wantrup^ s y st em may discourage (i.e., owners seen as It is possible, however, exactly opposite. instability of tenure c r e d i t is conservation: realizing a that points out first, through they were unable to pay back a loan might liquidate their f o r e s t capital before foreclosure); and secondly, through fixed i n t e r e s t and amortization payments owners (i.e., might be f o r c e d to liquidate f o r e s t capital to meet these fixed charges). Forest until cr ed i t, even on a s h o r t - t e r m b a s i s , was hampered recently by national banking laws banks f r o m lending on unimproved In 1953, Congress real which prohibited national estate, timberland included. amended the law so that loans up to ten years with p r e s c r i b e d a m o rt izat io n a r e now legal. *S. V. C ir ia c y -Wantrup. Op. c i t . , p. 162. 268 Some p r o g r e s s achieved. terms F e d e r a l land banks up to f o r t y y e a r s . outstanding was Jones toward, l o n g - t e r m low— rate c r e d i t has been have made some ti m b e r loans with As of 1955 the total amount of such loans r e p o r t e d at over six million d o l l a r s . 1 Act of 1937 also authorized the F a r m to lend f a r m e r s The Bankhead- Security Administration money at low rate s f o r windbreaks, woodland i m ­ provement, and t r e e f a r m s . Not a g r e a t deal has been loaned under this act. Findings of the p r e s e n t study. forest credit are im p or tant f or two p a r t i c u l a r unless f o r e s t owners reasons. were willing to use f o r e s t no help even if it wer e available. cost government c r e d i t is pressure F o r e s t o w n er s ’ opinions on cr edit it would be of The other is that, assuming low- needed, f o r e s t owners could exert the needed to make it a reality. At the time of the interview f o r e s t owners they had ever given previous Owners One is that were asked if thought to l o w - r ate f o r e s t credit. of only 6 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a said they had; the bal­ ance said they had not. 1E. Op. c i t . r p. T. Williams, M. B. Dickerman, and R . W. 8. Marquis. 269 Owners were also asked if they would be willing to borrow money on t h e i r f o r e s t l a n d in o r d e r to improve it if such cr edi t were available and if it could be without the owner answers to this s e c u r e d by the ti mber risking any other question ap pears the mail questionnaire p e r f o r m e d assets. alone; The analysis in Table 52. i.e., of the The analysis of s eparately yielded about the same results. O w n e r s 1 g e n e r a l lack of i n t e r e s t in f o r e s t c r e d i t is evident f r o m examination of ers p o s s e ss in g However, the f act that own­ 96 p e r c e n t of the f or es tla n d had given no previous thought to f o r e s t owners Table 52. quite c r e d i t tended to guarantee the lack of enthusiasm e x p r e s s e d toward borrowing on forestland. It is in t e r e s tin g i n t e r e s t in f o r e s t to note that l a r g e owners c r e d i t than small owners. showed more Although in the study a r e a this higher degree of i n t e r e s t by l a r g e attributed to the response of la rg e f o r e s t industry owners, it should be mentioned that p resumably they a r e owners can not be the group most likely to be motivated by the availability of f o r e s t credit. No f o r m a l owners ever, were it was effort was made in this study to determine why so completely d i s i n t e r e s t e d in f o r e s t credit. How­ noted that m o s t owners thought lo w - r ate f o r e s t cr e d i t 270 TABLE 52 OWNERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BORROWING UNDER A SYSTEM OF FOREST CREDIT IF CREDIT WERE READILY AVAILABLE ON A. LONG-TERM, LOW-COST BASIS P e r c e n t of P e r c e n t of F o r e s t Area F o r e s t Owners . .......................................... 80 93 ...................................... 16 7 Strongly i n t e r e s t e d ................................. 4 (a) T o t a l ........................................................................... 100 100 O w ner s ’ Attitudes Not i n t e r e s t e d Mildly i n t e r e s t e d a Less than 0.5 percent. 271 sounded like a good idea. Many interviewees a general d i s t a s t e f o r borrowing were quick to express on general principles. CHAPTER XI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This thesis has explored what appear to be the mo s t i m p o r ­ tant relationships between p r ivat e ownership of f or es tla n d and the management of the f o r e s t resource. t e r to s u m m a r i z e and i n t e r r e l a t e to evaluate policy approaches out f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h that It is the objective of this chap­ the important findings of the study, touched upon by the study, and to point s e e m s to be needed. Findings of This Study^ This section attempts significant findings of the to su m m a r iz e study. r a t h e r briefly the most F o r the convenience of the r e a d e r the o r d e r of s u m m a r i z a t i o n closely follows that of the complete text. This discussion begins with the findings is made h e r e of Chapter IV. to s u m m a r i z e the methods study, inasmuch as Ch ap t er III already *A.ll s tatements in this employed in making the represents a digestion of section concerning f o r e s t a r e a to pr iv at ely owned c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t ac r e a g e in the unless o th e rw is e No attempt specified. 272 refer study a r e a 273 those techniques terial f u r t h e r Owners and it was felt that any effort to reduce this m a ­ would probably only of the f o r e s t ser v e to confuse the r e a d e r . resource. For purposes of studying private f o r e s t l a n d ownership in the n o r t h e r n portion of Michigan's Lower P e n i n s u l a it was found convenient to group owners cupation c l a s s e s , classes were: eleven finally being retained as into oc­ significant. These f o r e s t indu s tr y , nonforest industry, f a r m e r , p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r , b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l , wage e a r n e r , housewife-widow, reational group, Of the real e s t a t e , undivided es tat e, and r etired. 7.5 million a c r e s one— county study a r e a , of commercial f o r e s t in the thirty- 4.9 million a c r e s Among the eleven owner classes the f a r m and held over one million a c r e s , or combined owned three^tenths The b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l owner cl a s s . percent Recreational of the c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t . class was the la r g e s t , Farm ers and p a r t - t i m e of the total. class groups were privately owned. slightly over one-fifth of the total privately owned co m m e r c ia l f o r e s t . farmers rec­ was the second l a r g e s t ranked third, At the lower single and owned about end of the 13 ranking was the f o r e s t industry group, with about 2 p er cen t of the privately owned co m m e r c ia l f o r e s t ranked f o r e s t i nd u s tr i es area. The nonforest industry group out­ b e t t e r than two to one. 274 The p r o p o r ti o n of f o r e s t a r e a held by occupation cl a s s e s fered f r o m sector vey blocks (Figure I), f a r m e r s people in one, to s e c t o r in the and r e c r e a t i o n a l In t e r m s study a r e a . led in three, Among the five groups in the other. s m a l l e s t proportion and f a r m e r s l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r f o r e s t acr eage in la r g e Retired people held a l a r g e r sur­ b u s i n e s s - pr o fe ss io n a l of c o m m e r c i a l f o r e s t acreage by stan d- s ize r e c r e a t i o n groups had the dif­ proportion of their cl a s s , had the saw-timber stands. acreage in poorly stocked stands than any o ther group. Business-professional people and r ecreational groups out as proportionately l a r g e f o r e s t type. owners of the a r e a in the coniferous The b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l large proportion of the aspen type, proportion of t he ir a c r ea g e stood class held a significantly while f a r m e r s held a higher in the northern hardwood type than any other group. Much of the f o r e s t was held by absentee owners. percent of the privately owned commer cia l f o r e s t study a r e a was held by r e s i d e n t owners. forest owned by p ersons away. was Real estate people, Only 29 acreage in the Some 37 percent of the living f u r t h e r than one hundred miles wage e a r n e r s , business- p r o fe ss io na l 275 p er s ons , and p a r t i c u l a r l y r e c r e a t i o n groups absentee o w ner s, while f a r m e r s were usually The d istribution of t i m b e r volumes occupation c l a s s e s additional points was were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y resident owners. among the sever al owner s i m i l a r to that for f o r e s t a r e a s . stood out, however. Farm ers A, few had a higher p r o ­ portion of the volume they owned in saw-log m a t e r i a l than any other owner class, while the other c l a s s e s on that p a r t i c u l a r s c o r e . ranked r athe r Most of the f a r m e r - o w n e d however, was in hardwoods equally saw-log volume, other than aspen. R e cr ea tio n groups held a higher proportion of softwood sawlog and cordwood volume than any other owner class. Bu s i n e s s - professional people held the highest proportion of the total volume in aspen. In t e r m s of average size of f o r e s t holding, nonforest industries f a r outranked any o t h e r c l a s s . real estate people, F o r e s t ind u s tr i es , and undivided estates all r e c r e a t i o n groups, ranked above the av­ erage with r e s p e c t to size of f o r e s t holding, while the two f a r m e r groups and wage e a r n e r s ranked low. Some b a ckground information about f o r e s t o w n e r s . t h r e e -f o ur t h s of the f o r e s t l a n d in the p r e s e n t owners through pur chas e. About study a r e a was p r o cu r ed by Idost of the balance had been 276 obtained through inhe ri tance . Purchase f o r e s t acquisition by all owner c l a s s e s slightly over on e— half of t h e i r s was the leading method of except f a r m e r s , by inheritance. gift were found to be insignificant means property. Large f o re s t properties who acquired Foreclosure and of t r a n s f e r r i n g f o r e s t were t r a n s f e r r e d by inheritance more often than small p r o p e r t i e s . Ownership of f or e s t l a n d in the study a r e a was found to be r ather stable. Some 30 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t had been held over twenty-five y e a r s , three-fourths over nine y e a r s . Definite peaks could be noticed in the history of land acquisition activity that appeared a s s o ciat ed with the business cycle. Length of te n u re analyzed by occupation groups striking differences. than any other comers. Nonforest industries group. Forest industries showed some had held their land longer were comparative l a t e ­ Recreational groups had acquired m o s t of their holdings during two distinct periods. Stability of te nu re of family-held forestland was found to be the exception in the study ar ea. About t h r e e — fifths not been held by the family p r i o r to the p r e s e n t few family owners of the land had generation. Also, expected to r etain the f o r e s t in family ownership an additional generation. 277 h lost of the forestland. (82 percent) past f o r t y y e a r s of age. of a l a r g e r a ver ag e In t e r m s was owned by p ersons Also, older owners held f o r e s t p r o p er ti es size than younger owners. of objective of f o r e s t ownership, much of the f o r e s t (31 percent) was held f o r f a r m for r e c r e a t i o n or r e s id en ce usage. Another 37 percent was held and investment o r speculation. Other objectives of ownership fail ed to rank v e r y high. Sale of m a t u r e timber ranked highest as an objective of own­ ership i n the b u s i n e s s — prof essional and house wife-widow groups. Recreation a s an objective of ownership occupation c l a s s . Other objectives were about equally distributed among owner c l a s s e s logically expect; ranked f i r s t in only one e.g., or else they were grouped as one would farm ers were holding mainly for farm u s ag e. Some a s p e cts of f o r e s t management. In the study a r e a it was found that 80 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a was handled directly by the f o r e s t owners, by tenants. gerial 19 pe r c e n t by m a n a g e r s , and only 1 percent I ndustrial owners r esponsibil iti es usually delegated their f o r e s t mana­ to m a n a g e r s . About f o u r — tenths of the r e c ­ reation group and b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r e s t holdings were handled by m a n a g e r s . 278 Less than one— half of the forestland, was found, to be grazed by domestic livestock. klost of this was accounted for by the f a r m e r g roups. Owners cial ti mber of n ear l y one— half of the f o r e s t had made no c o m m e r ­ cut during the ir tenure of ownership, indicating little r eturn was being obtained f r o m the f o r e s t hand, close to one-half res ou r ce. On the other of the f o r e s t a r e a was owned by persons who had sold some t i m b e r during the l a s t five years. V er y li ttle of the f o r e s t were made was a re a from which commercial h arvests super v is ed by a professional f o r e s t e r . owners holding n ear l y th r e e - f o u r t h s However, of the f o r e s t a r e a claimed that cutting on t h e i r lands had been supervised either by themselves their Nonforest industry owners had the best representative. with r e s p e c t to control of cutting, while wage Recreation group owners h ir ed the services foresters mo r e frequently than any c l a s s of the f o r e s t the basis area, r eco r d e a r n e r s had about the poorest. Some t h r ee -f i f th s or of professional, except industrial owners. of the f o r e s t owners, holding 46 percent were practicing poor cutting on their lands. of bro ad occupational groups, f a r m e r s On and p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s were found to have p r a c t i c e d the poor est cutting, and industry owners the best. 279 Absentee owners appeared, to have had p o o r e r tices on t h e i r land than r e s id en t owners. by managers apparently had b e t t e r dled by the owners Also, p r o p er ti es cutting pr act ices handled than those han­ thems elv es . Cutting p r a c t i c e s age of the owner. cutting p r a c ­ also Owners appeared to vary with r es p e c t to the in the forty to fifty year age bracket appeared to have b een practicing the b e s t cutting. No conclusive c o r r e l a t i o n was tenure and cutting p r a c t i c e . same f amily one o r m o r e cutting p r a c t i c e s ent owner. observed between length of Properties which had been in the generations did, however, have p o o r e r than those acquired during the tenure of the p r e s ­ Also, owners expecting to bequeath ownership to their direct h e i r ap pear ed to have been practicing better cutting than those without such plans. Observations jective of ownership on class of cutting pr actice according to ob­ r evealed that owners with objectives usually associated with f arming had poor management, while those whose objectives were a s s o c i a t e d with industrial ownership had good man­ agement. Attitudes owners were of owners toward f o r e s t management. rate d according to their When f o r es t concept of management, le ss 280 than 1 p e r c e n t of them, who held. 5 p er cen t of the f o r e s t a r e a , at the top of the scale. was owned by p e r s o n s ment. hlost owners rated About an equal portion of the f o r e s t a r e a who had almost no concept of f o r e s t manage­ tended to think of f o r e s t r y largely in t e r m s of f i r e pr otection and refraining f r o m cutting. In ranking owner occupation c l a s s e s cept of ma nagement , the two f a r m e r es ta t e s , and r e t i r e d p e r s o n s were according to their con­ c l a s s e s , wage e a r n e r s , undivided at the bottom of the scale. busin es s — profess-ional, housewife-widow, and r ecreational The c l a ss es ranked r a t h e r high. Over two— fifths of the owners of about an equal portion of the f o r e s t l a n d r e a l i z e d that it would be physically possible for to improve t h e i r f o r e s t management. reason these owners could be tions stated as or demands By f a r them the most important gave f o r thinking their management was poor "inability to supervise because of physical li m i t a ­ of a m o r e r emunerative activity." commonly believed to account f o r poor management, diate need of liquidating ti m b e r for c a s h , " Some reasons such as "im m e­ ranked very low as an explanation f o r poor management. Forest taxation. Most of the f or estland in the study a r e a was being taxed at between 10 and 14 cents per acre. Nearly 281 nine-tenths acre. of the f o r e s t l a n d was There seeme d to be have higher p e r acre forest taxed at le s s than 25 cents some tendency for absentee taxes per owners to than resident owners. Investigation relative to the qualification of p r o per ti es for the Michigan f o r e s t yield tax showed that only 58 percent of the f o r e s t ­ land m e a s u r e d up to minimum Little f o r e s t a c r e a g e standards p r e s c r i b e d by the law. was found to qualify for the woodlot yield tax. Most of the land that qualified met the standards f o r the commercial yield tax. Few properties the yield tax. were Also, owners encountered that were r e g i s t e r e d under holding 72 p er cent of the f o r e s t a r e a had n e v e r h e a r d of the yield tax. Very few of the owners inter­ viewed indicated much i n t e r e s t in taking advantage of the yield tax. Most of those who did show an i n t e r e s t in the law did not indicate that t h e i r management would be influenced by it. Questions asked owners concerning provisions in the federal income tax law which r ela ted to f o r e s t r y indicated that very few owners even r e a l i z e d that ti m b e r capital gains. owners. There sale income could be reported as Isiost of those who did know about this law were large was little indication that this f o r e s t management. tax law had influenced 282 Public f o r e s t r y education and special f o r e s t r y estry extension activities About f o u r — fifths holding over one-half of the f o r e s t ­ land had n e v e r h e a r d about the availability of f o r e s t r y quite highly. who had used f o r e s t r y a higher Owners who had used f o r e s t r y mission in the activities study a r e a were le s s tension s e r v i c e s . exten­ doubted if they could profit extension appeared to have of the State Conservation Com­ well known than f o r e s t r y not acquainted with the program. significantly l a r g e portion of those owners their rated it ex­ Some 9 7 per cen t of the owners holding 83 p e r ­ cent of the f o r e s t a r e a were tical. extension advice concept of f o r e s t management than other owners. The f a r m f o r e s t r y forestry extension. Most of the owners who had heard of f o r e s t r y sion, but had not taken advantage of it, from it. F or­ were not well known by forestland owners. of the owners Most of the owners servic e s . A who had secured f a r m a s s i s t a n c e indicated that they believed the advice i m p r a c ­ Those owners who knew about the p r o g r a m rated higher in concept of management than those le s s f am i l i a r with the s e r ­ vice . The Soil Conservation Service f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m among f a r m ­ ers was found to be f air l y well known. Farm ers half of the total f o r e s t a r e a owned by f a r m e r s who owned one- had become S.C.S. 283 cooperators. Very few of these c o o p e r a t o r s , however, the woodland to have a ma jo r place Other devices benefit payments in the f a r m plan. to affect private f o r e s t management. planting made in 1953 amounted to over of the f a r m owners These payments f o r tree $41 thousand. owners However, holding th ree-fifths of the f a r m f o r e s t a r e a had n e v e r he a r d of the p r o g r a m . the f a r m Forestry have been available f o r t r e e planting and fencing activities in the study a r e a f o r s ever al ye a r s . nine-tenths considered, N e v er th el es s, among who had applied f o r payments f o r f o r e s t r y work, owners of about one— half of the f o r e s t a r e a indicated they would not have undertaken the p r a c t i c e without this help. Among the s e v e r a l other devices f o r e s t r y , f o r e s t management action f r o m f o r e s t owners. gested to owners contracts designed to aid private got the most favorable re­ Response to none of the p r o g r am s could be considered as sug­ enthusiastic, however. Some 4 percen t of the owners holding t h r e e - t e n t h s of the f o r e s t a r e a indi­ cated an i n t e r e s t in f o r e s t management contracts. of the owners Only 1 percent of 2 p e r c e n t of the f o r e s t a r e a appeared int er es ted in a possible f o r e s t holding four - f if ths cooperative. Also, 93 percent of the owners of the f o r e s t indicated they were not i n t er es ted in a l o w - c o s t f o r e s t credit scheme. However, few owners had done 284 any previous thinking about plans have accounted f o r of this nature, much of the lack of enthusiasm. Owner Occupation Class In addition to the items and in the text, and. hence this may s e v e r a l points Comparisons already mentioned in the summary with r e s p e c t to owner cl asses to be brought out inasmuch as they transcend the several subject a r e a considerations employed in the I nd u s tr ial owner c l a s s e s . to r es o u r c e they owned. study. a r e a in t e r m s heterogeneous of these owners to move into as r e s o u r ces sustained-yield f o r e s t p r o g r a m s . good showing made by this group is was seen thef o r e s t class was whose owners those in any other class. appeared to have had the large owner had in the of Aside fr o m one la r g e owner, this composed of a mixed group of small f o r e s t industries were fully as separate The f o r e s t industry class be r a t h e r insignificant in the study need or Very few inclinations Most of the relatively attributable to the influence one sample. The nonforest industry class represented several types of in d u s tr i e s , many of whom had little or no in t e r e s t in f o r e s t man­ agement. One industry with a genuine i n t e r e s t in f o r e s t r y for watershed p u r p o s e s dominated this class in the sample and accounted 285 for most of the high ranking class with ample financial spend on f o r e s t r y the l a r g e s t This was The f a r m e r class was On mo s t of the ratings with r ath e r employed in this were found s c a t t e r e d over the entire class r e tu r n s . shown to be composed of many small owners uniformity o b s e r v e d within this a which some were willing to without p r e s s u r e for immediate classes. single c l a s s divergent attitudes. farmers resources measures F a r m e r owner attained by the group. scale. study, Most of the regarding attitudes and actions toward the f o r e s t appeared to have been associated with either the f a r m e r ’s age o r his income position. own t i m b e r cutting than any other Farmers did m o r e of their occupation group, and they were the ta r g e t s f o r m o r e of the governmental ass is tan ce programs any o ther single cl a s s . P art-tim e farm ers plained above. r es embl ed f a r m e r s in most However, they differed from f a r m e r s they had income f r o m prime than sources i n t e r e s t in the f a r m other than farming. was as respects ex­ mainly in that Also, often their a place of residence. Their f a r m units often contained a much s m a l l e r portion of tilled land than full­ time f a r m e r s . other p u r s u i t s programs. Generally, p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s to co ncern themselves This was not a well were too busy with with government assistance enlightened class of owners. 286 Other owner the most classes. The b u s i n e s s - p r o f e s s i o n a l enlightened, one in this study. a group with very uniform attitudes in attitudes within this their distance f r o m anything else. class In many r e s p e c t s toward the f o r e s t . was this was Differences group seemed to be associated more with the p r o p e r t y and method of acquisition than Generally they were quite eager to l e a r n more the f o r e s t and appeared willing to invest moderate amounts f o rest providing they were Wage e a r n e r s were about in their convinced it could be a paying investment. s i m i l a r to p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s outlook toward the f o r e s t and the ir economic position. in t h e ir This group was l e a s t uniform with r e s p e c t to the r e a s o n s they had acquired ownership of the land. good, but other Often their intentions toward the f o r e s t were demands accomplishments rather on t h e i r time ownership. made resembled the r e t i r e d owner class very inactive in the ir When the se owners usually involuntary. r e s o u r ces small. The housewife-widow group in that they were and financial exercise of the rights did pr act ice good f o r e s t r y of it was They had little in the way of plans for their forests. Re c r e a tio n groups jectives of ownership business-professional were usually la rge owners, and their ob­ r e s e m b l e d those had by many m e mb er s cl a s s . Members of this class were of the strongly 287 against devastating f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s , but their organization str uct ure often made it difficult for grams. Group m e m b e r s them to initiate f o r e s t r y production p r o­ were usually either wage e a r n e r s or businessmen. The r e a l estate class was one based p r i m a r i l y of ownership which tended to place the owner into this business class. This separate group differed within itself mainly in the haste individual m e m b e r s exhibited f o r disposing of their holdings. The group had li ttle in common with the other c l a s s e s here. upon objective T h e i r actions, however, were employed strongly influenced by the way they anticipated the views of prospective customers. The undivided estate cl a s s classes excepting the r e a l usually l e s s real estate estate had little in common with other class. Estate adminis tr at or s were concerned about future owners than was the case with dealers. relate to this Attitudes cl a s s . toward the f o r e s t were Mainly, it was a class difficult to of property in a state of transition. R e t i r e d f o r e s t owners members had attitudes occupation c l a s s . constituted a very mixed group whose that tended to fit with those of their f o r m e r In many the housewife-widow cl ass r es p e c ts the class in their actions as a whole resembled toward the f o rest. ally t h e i r f o r e s t action p r o g r a m s , if any, were the Gener ­ result of default. 288 Policies ferences classes differences. co ns ider ed m view of the differences ized e a r l i e r in this chapter trea t their forest, themselves. When the dif­ in t e r m s of how the c e r t a i n policy changes already peated h e r e and points since they were ch apter separate owner seem to suggest classes of f o r e s t management, section of emphasized in the text. were seen to have a r ath e r poor record and also p o s s e s s e d relatively low concepts of f o r e s t r y despite the fact that m o r e public educational ass is tance has This effort and been expended on them than any other class difficulty may be the fault of f a r m e r s to m o r e If the l a t t e r several fo re s try Differences c l a ss es the case, enlightened owner c l a s s e s plishments. of the If the f o r m e r is and suggestions programs in average differences in t e r m s is due designed a shift in p r e s e n t p r o gr am s could r e s ult in g r e a t e r is the case, of own­ themselves or to confusion at the g r a s s - r o o t s level among the p r o g r am s to help them. differ of ownership have not been r e ­ s u mma r ized in the f i r s t and p a r t i c u l a r l y The f a r m e r ers. summar­ The ways in which the individual owner cl a s s e s as to cutting p r a c t i c e s this class outlined above with r e s p e c t to the various occupational are classes implied by owner an administrative accom­ consolidation called for. size of f o r e s t holding among occupation in owner class concepts of management imply of the accomplishments of policy pr o g r ams per 289 dollar of funds expended. If public policy is more concerned about the welfare of f o r e s t r y than f o r e s t owners, mo r e might be accom­ plished by concentrating public p r o g r a m s owners, f o r on business— prof essional example. Evaluation of Policy P r o g r a m s P olicy p r o g r a m s were d i s cussed in Chapters VIII through Xr and included such things as taxation, education, special as s is tance, benefit payments, management cont ra cts , This section attemp t s cooperatives, and credit. to evaluate those pr o gr ams possible changes in policy which were with res pect to suggested by the findings of this study. F o r e s t taxation. property taxes The study indicated that the annual general offered no p a r t i c u l a r obstacles to f o r e s t ownership. Due to the f if t een - mil l tax limitation and efficient equalization, little dispersion was: noted in tax r a te s p er ac r e . It did appear, however, that th e r e may have been some tax discrimination against absentee owners, which suggests that this point ought to be considered by tax equalization officials. F o r e s t yield taxes ment toward the p r a c t i c e appeared to be offering little encourage­ of b e t t e r f o r e s t r y in the study ar e a , mainly 290 due to p r e s e n t low p r o p e r t y tax r a t e s . that i n t e r e s t in yield taxes Indications in the state as recently due to land acquisition activities dustries. This are to p e r f o r m study has a r e , however, a whole has i n creased of some large f o r e s t In­ shown that if Michigan's yield tax laws the functions for which they were originally de­ signed some legal changes to qualify under the law. to the woodlot yield tax. a r e needed to enable more properties This is p arti cularl y true with respect Both the woodlot yield tax law and the commercial yield tax law appeared to be poorly administered; ever, co nsider at ion of those problems thesis. N e v e r t h e l e s s , this study has how­ lies beyond the scope of this shown that few land owners knew about Michigan's f o r e s t yield tax and that some improvement along these lines of owner education is needed. F e d e r a l income tax provisions which apply to the reporting of income f r o m owners. ti mber sales also Some educational work among f o r e s t owners this law also appears to be needed. of the law which existed when the to draw conclusions as definite tax savings small benefit were poorly understood by f o r e s t owners to its relative to A.t the level of understanding study was made, it was difficult effect on f o r e s t owners. Although a r e possible under this law, it appeared that with infrequent incomes from timber did not stand to enough to become very much concerned about it. 291 Pdblic f o r e s t r y estry extension, education and, special f o r e s t r y although, half of the f o r e s t a r e a , means unknown to owners a very For­ holding more than one- appeared to have been quite effective as a of educating f o r e s t forestry services. owners. In t e r m s of the expenditure on education within the study a r e a it also appeared to have been efficient p r o g r a m . The findings to suggest that m o r e funds beyond the scope of this of this study certainly a r e justified f o r this program. study to suggest how f a r seem It is such expansion should be pushed o r how it could best be effected administratively. It would seem that ations expansion should be gradual, and periodic should be made relative to in c r e a s e s evalu­ in the effectiveness of the p r o g r a m . The f a r m f o r e s t r y p r o g r a m of the State Conservation Commis­ sion is sion. a r elatively new p r o g r a m in comparison with f o r e s t r y Also, the f o r e s t e r s responsible for carrying in the study a r e a had other important duties these reas o n s it is stated the advice assigned to them. For realized the service was However, the high portion of f o r e s t owners who given them was One is f o r c e d to conclude that the used should be out the p r ogr am difficult to conclude the pr o gr am to be ineffective despite the fact that few f o r e s t owners available to them. exten­ impractical can not be ignored. recommendations which are being studied and possibly tempered to better fit the private 292 f o rest owner. entirely f r o m It m a y well be that the pr o g r a m the f o r e s t r y The Soil have been quite work on state lands. Conservation S er vice' s f o r e s t r y pr o g r a m appeared to effective in that it reached a high portion of the forestland held by f a r m e r s . recommendations should be divorced However, it appears that the pr ogr am have not been well balanced in that they have placed too much emphasis on t r e e planting. The pr og r am should be studied in an effort to determine whether o r not the total a c ­ complishments of the p r o g r a m would be affected by shifting some emphasis f r o m t r e e planting to ti m b e r Other devices to affect private f o r e s t management. f o r e s t r y co ns er vati on payments in f o r e s t policy b ecause it is in A m e r i c a n f o r e s t r y even though it is the only subsidy program r e s t r i c t e d to f a r m e r s . On study, one must conclude that the effective in promoting f o r e s t planting in particular. Also, the f act that a l m o s t all of the funds allocated for were used each year leads what a considerable this work to the conclusion that m o r e funds be effectively used in the pr ogr am. of owners The p r o g r a m is of parti cu lar interest virtually the b a s i s of the findings of this p r o gr am was stand improvement work. There could seems little doubt but expansion of the p rogram to additional classes would r e s u l t in additional accomplishments without in­ creasing p e r unit costs. 293 idea of a f o r e s t management and marketing cooperative had so li ttl e appeal to f o r e s t owners that one must conclude the promotion of the idea would be futile in the study area. the history of f o r e s t cooperatives These f a c t o r s suggest that of f o r e s t cooperatives Forest in the United States is not bright. regardless t h e ir Likewise, chances of the soundness of success of the idea ar e quite dim. management contracts had sufficient appeal, par ti cu­ larly among l a r g e r owners, to allow one to conclude that their chances of s u c c e s s p r act ices . were quite bright as a promoter of good f o r e s t r y The m o s t appealing thing about this type of scheme was its conformity with conventional American business F o r e s t o w ner s' schemes in the were r eactions toward suggested f o r e s t r y credit conclusively negative among the types of owners found study a r e a . schemes procedures. This would have little owners, and hence evidence appears to suggest f o r e s t chance of success among credit small individual should be directed toward large f o r e s t industry owners . Suggestions Forest answers ownership about the f o r F u r t h e r Research studies economics of this type can not lead to definite of f o r e s t production. should be looked upon as a n e c e s s a r y preli mina r y Rather, they step to further 294 effective r e s e a r c h into the given a r e a . economics of f o r e s t management in a Such studies provide the n e c e s s a r y factual background about f o r e s t ownership before any action pr o g r ams taken. Also, economic they provide a good means f o r ga-uging the f o r es t r e s e a r c h needs of a locality. tant of such local and general sees them a r e can be under­ A, few of the most i m p o r ­ r e s e a r c h needs as the author now mentioned below. The mo s t need s eems to call for a fundamental type of study concerning the motivations of private f o r e s t owners. Forest econo­ mists in the p a s t have t r i e d to explain owner actions in te r m s the theory of the behavior economics of industr i al of the f i r m . of This may explain the owners, but with the pr es en t means the economist has f o r measur i ng the intangible values of the f o r e s t , economic theory is li mit ed in explaining the actions of most f o r e s t owners. This is p a r t i c u l a r l y true for nonfarm owners. the case of f a r m e r s whose actions can be explained fairly well in agricultural production by economic theory, f o r e s t r y an exceptional enterprise. study of o w n e r s 1 attitudes The author believes appears to be that a psychological and behavior might make the contribution needed to fill this void. ^ Solon B a r r a c lo u g h . Even in Op, c i t . , p. 261. 295 Some of the situation as by ignorance of f o r e s t owners forest. Even if f o r e s t r y described above can be explained as to the productive potential of the education were 100 percent efficient with present knowledge the owner would not be informed as he would like to be. Forest economics is parti cular l y deficient with r espect to input-output data on f o r e s t production. can be a n s w e r e d by a s h o r t - r u n answered unless p r o p e r l y Thus f a r , few studies r e s e a r c h project. designed lon g - t er m It will never be studies ar e instituted. of the proper design have been launched. Assuming that the results of both phases tioned above will be forthcoming, m o r e concerning f o r e s t owner education. f i r s t is This is not something that of r e s e a r c h men­ r e s e a r c h will be needed It seems that what is needed an evaluation of our pres en t position on the marginal and m a rgi n al cost curves. The same type of information is needed for benefit payment p r o g r a m s . of the p r e s e n t status The wr iter has the feeling that, of such p r o g r a m s , marginal i n c re ase s penditure would r e s u l t in increasing marginal Many other r e s e a r c h possibilities However, none of the others ar e results (i.e., as in ex­ returns). suggested by this study. appear to rank near those listed above, either fundamentally o r generally. r ath e r high. revenue Locally, some others might rank APPENDIXES 296 A P P E N D I X A. Definition of Terms in This 297 Employed Study 298 C ommer cial F o r e s t Forest type. A. f o r e s t Types* stand c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the predominance of one o r m o r e key specie s, which make up 50 percent or more the sawlog volume in sawtimber stands; of the cordwood vol­ ume m pole t i m b e r stands; o r of the number of tr e e s in seedling and sapling stands. White pine t y p e . A stand in which pine white pine the m o s t common. species predominate, with Red pine t ype. A, stand in which pine species predominate with red (Norway) pine the m o s t common. Jack pine t y p e . A, stand in which pine species ja ck pine the m o s t common. predominate, with Spruce-Balsam f i r ty p e . A mixed hardwood-coniferous white spruce and b al sam f i r the key species. stand, with Black spruce t y p e . A. stand in which swamp conifers predominate, with black spruce the most common. Tamarack type. A stand in which swamp conifers predominate, with ta m a r a c k the m o s t common. Cedar type. A. stand in which swamp conifers predominate, with cedar the m o s t common. Northern hardwood type. A stand in which northern-hardwood species (sugar and red maple, yellow birch and basswood) predominate. Oak type. A, stand in which the oak and hickory species predom­ inate . * Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, F o r e s t types and conditions c l a s s e s in the Lake States. U.S. F o r e s t Service. Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Report No. 2, June, 1948. 7 pp. 299 A3,*1".g1.*1? t Y P e * A s tand on overflow or poorly drained land, in which bott om- land hardwood species, such as ash, elm, and a s s o c i ­ ated w et— land hardwoods predominate. Aspen t y p e . A. stand in which a mixture of trembling aspen, b a l s a m poplar dominate. or large-tooth (Balm of Gilead), and paper birch p r e ­ Upland g r a s s - b r u s h t y p e . Upland g r a s s , weed, or brush a r e a in the f o r e s t (not p r a i r i e ) l e s s than 10 percent stocked with c o m m e r ­ cial t r e e species. Lowland b r u s h t y p e . Lowland b r us h on potentially commercial f o r e s t ­ land, l e s s than 10 p er cent stocked with commercial tree species. Stand-Size Classes^ Saw-timber s t a n d s . Stands of timber l a r g e enough and in sufficient quantity f o r sawlog operations according to regional practice. They m u s t have at l e a s t 1,500 board feet, International 174inch rule (1,300 Scribner Decimal C.), net merchantable vol­ ume p e r a c r e in saw-timber t r e e s . Saw-timber trees of softwood species a r e 9.0 inches or l a r g e r d.b.h., and of hardwood species (including aspen), 11.00 inches and la r g e r d.b.h., containing at l e a s t one merchantable 8-foot log. Large s a w -t im b er stands. Stands of saw-timber having mor e than 5 0 p e r c e n t of net board-foot volume in large saw-timber trees, Small i.e., 15.0 inches and l a r g e r d.b.h. saw-timber stands. Stands of saw-timber having half or more of t h e ir net board-foot volume in t r e e s less than 15.0 inches d.b.h. Pole t i m b e r s t a n d s . Stands made up principally of trees from 5 to 9 inches d.b.h. (5 to 11 in the case of hardwoods) which are Loc. cit. 300 at l e a s t 10 p e r c e n t stocked. They mu s t have a volume of at l e a s t th r e e cords p e r a c r e of sound merchantable timber, with half of it in po le -s i ze t r e e s . Seedling and sapling stands. Stands made up principally of seed- lings (1 foot high to 0.9 inches d.b.h. with at least 200 stems p e r acr e ) and saplings (1.0 inch d.b.h. to minimum for poleii^aiber size and occupying at l e a s t 10 percent of the growing space) and lacking sufficient merchantable volume to qualify as pole t i m b e r o r saw timber. Nonstocked s t a n d s . Stands with less than 10 percent of full density. They a r e synonymous with the upland g r a s s - b r u s h type or lowland b r u s h type stands. Owner Occupation Classes Lumber company. An individual or company engaged in the manu­ f a c t u r e of sawn lu m b er fr o m logs as a full-time pursuit. It excludes bu s in e s s e s engaged in the r e s ale of lumber only. Pulp or paper company. A, company engaged in the manufacture of wood pulp o r wood pulp and paper products from raw wood material in the round form. P a r t - t i m e sawmill operator. An individual business or company devot­ ing only a portion of its res o u r c e s and management to the manufacture of sawn lumber from logs. The remainder of its effort may be engaged in any type of business or occu­ pation. The p a r t - t i m e activity that fits this category takes p r eced e n t over any other classification possibility. Other f o r e s t industry. ucts other A firm engaged in the manufacture of prod­ than wood pulp or lumber f rom round wood m a ­ terial . Dealer in f o r e s t products. A person or f i r m engaged in the buying and selling of raw timber products in the round f o r m, such as pulpwood, etc. 301 Nonforest i n d u s t r y . An industrial owner {not nec e s s a r il y a manu­ f a c t u r e r ) not using wood as a basic raw m a t er ial , such as a power etc. company, a gas or oil company, a mining company, Farm er. A. p e r s o n engaged in farming as his major occupation. He m u s t devote at l e a s t three -f o ur t h s of his working time to far mi ng . Part-time f a r m e r . A. p e r s o n who f a r m s as a sideline to other p u r ­ suits devoting l e s s than t h r e e — fourths of his working time to f a r m i n g. The p a r t - t i m e activity that fits this category takes pr e c e d e n t over any other activity excepting that of the p a r t time sawmill operator. Business o r p r o f e s s i o n a l . A p e r s o n engaged in ordinary business o r a m e m b e r of a recognized profession. In addition, it in­ cludes county merc h an ts and political office holders. Wage e a r n e r . Includes any type of worker not classifiable under one of the above-listed c l a s s e s . Generally, this includes n o n s a l a r i e d pers o ns and cler ical employees. Housewife or widow. A. woman not classifiable under any of the other occupations listed. Recreational group. A. club or organization holding the land purely f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes such as hunting, fishing, r e c r e a ­ tional Real camp, etc. estate. A p e r s o n or company i n t er es ted in land for speculative purposes such as for the mi n e r a l value or for developing and s elling. Undivided estate. Refers vidual h e i r Retired. Persons b u s ines s to co-ownership by the h ei rs or an indi- of an unsettled estate in land. no longer gainfully employed or activities because of their age. engaged in A PPEN D IX B Questionnaires Used and Accompanying L e t ter s 302 303 L e t t e r and Mail Questionnaire to Township Supervisors MICHIGAN STATE EAST DEPARTMENT COLLEGE LANSING o f fo restry T ear S ir: The P e p a rtin e n t of F o r e s t r y a t M ichigan S t a te C o lle g e i s malting a s tu d y o f f o r e s t la n d o w n e rsh ip i n th e n o r th e r n p a r t o f M ic h ig a n ! s lo w er p e n in s u la * We a r e a tte m p tin g to f i n d o u t how much f o r e s t la n d i s h e ld hy d i f f e r e n t g ro u p s o f p e o p le and som eth in g a b o u t th e p ro b lem s of f o r e s t management th e s e owners e n c o u n te r* Our s tu d y i s b a s e d on i m p a r t i a l sam pling* We have s e l e c t e d a number o f ^ 0 - a c r e VLocks th ro u g h o u t th e r e g io n e n t i r e l y by c h a n c e . S e v e ra l o f th e s e b l o c k s , whose l o c a t i o n s a r e d e s c r ib e d on th e e n c lo s e d s h e e t s , o c c u r i n y o u r to w n s h ip . We would a p p r e c i a t e i t v e ry much i f you would w r i t e i n th e name a n d a d d re s s o f th e owner o f th e p r o p e r ty and check,, t o th e b e s t o f y o u r know ledge, th e a p p r o p r i a te o c c u p a tio n group and s i z e o f h o ld in g w hich a p p ly t o th e owner* I f t h e r e i s more th a n one owner in a ii-O-acre sam ple b lo c k , i t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t t o make e n t r i e s f o r th e l a r g e s t owner on th e f r o n t s id e o f th e r e c o r d s h e e t and e n t r i e s f o r th e second l a r g e s t owner on th e r e v e r s e s id e of th e s h e e t* O th e r ow ners o f la n d i n th e b lo c k sh o u ld be d is re g a rd e d * A t a l a t e r d a te we p l a n to c o n ta c t some o f th e owners l i s t e d f o r in f o r m a tio n on th e p ro b lem s of f o r e s t la n d management. The s tu fy i s aim ed a t g e n e r a l c o n c lu s io n s . Ho o th e r u se o f in d iv i d u a l names o r r e c o r d s w i l l be made* I f you w i l l make th e few e n t r i e s needed on th e e n c lo s e d re c o rd s h e e ts and r e t u r n them to u s i n th e b u s in e s s r e p ly en v elo p e p ro v id e d , we s h a l l be v e ry g r a t e f u l . Your c o o p e r a tio n w i l l h e lp us make a v e ry w o rth w h ile s tu d y a t lo w p u b lic c o s t* Very t r u l y y o u rs, T. P . S te v e n s , Head P e p a rtm e n t o f F o r e s t r y E nc. 304 305 Ownership Record Form 53 FLO 1 (Revised) Land Description: S u b d i v i s i o n ___________ Name and a d d r e s s Section T R of l a r g e s t owner or person paying taxes in the 4 0 - a c r e block d e s cr ib ed above: (Use back side of sheet for second l a r g e s t owner if mor e than one owner occurs in the 4 0 - a c r e block.) Name Mailing a d d r e s s I. II. Total amount of land held by the owner within the State of Michigan. (Check the size class you think applies to the owner. Check Unknown if you have no basis for estimate.) 1. 0 to 499 a c r e s 4. 50,000 a c r e s 2. 5 00 to 4,999 a c r e s 5. Unknown 3. 5,000 to 49,999 a c r e s Occupation of owner r ecorded on this sheet: and up (Check one of the following.) 1. Lumber company. 2. Pulp o r paper 3. P a r t - t i m e sawmill operator. An individual who devotes only p a r t of his time each year to the sawmill business. 4. Other f o r e s t industry. A wood-using f i r m producing products other than lumber or pulp. Example: veneer, box board, company. wood c h e m i c a l s . 306 5. • 7. Nonforest industry. Power company, mining company, gas or oil company, etc. F irm er, A. p e r s o n who devotes at le ast 3/4 of his time to f a r m i n g. Part-tim e farm er. A. p e r s o n who f a r m s as a sideline to other p u r s u i t s , devoting less than 3/4 of his time to farming. Professional storekeeper, 9. or businessman. Doctor, lawyer, m i n i s t e r , r e s o r t operator, filling station owner, etc. Wage e a r n e r . 10. Housewife o r widow. A. woman not classifiable under any of the o th e r occupations listed. 11. Recreational group. A, p erson or club holding the land purely f o r recr eat ion al purposes such as hunting, fishing, winter 12. Real sports. estate business. A. per s o n or f i r m holding land for r e s a l e value. 13a. Undivided estate. 13b. R e t ir ed (check f o r m e r occupation if known). 13c. Other_________ (write in occupation if none of the occupations listed applies to owner). Distance the owner lives f r o m the land described above: (Check one.) la. Owner lives on the property (not neces s ar il y on the same forty). lb. Owner lives within 25 miles of the property but not onit. 2. Owner lives farther than 25miles f r o m the property. 307 Ownership Record Form 53 FLO 1 (Revised) Land Description: Subdivision _____________________ _________ Section T R Name and a d d r e s s of second l a r g e s t owner if more than one owner o ccu r s in the 40 - a c r e block: Name ________________________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address I. II. ________________________________________________________________________ Total amount of land held by the owner within the State of Michigan. (Check the size class you think applies to the owner. Check tJnknown if you have no basis for estimate.) 1. 0 to 499 a c r e s __________ ____ 2. 500 to 4,999 a c r e s 3. 5,000 to 49,999 a c r e s Occupation of owner _____ 4. 50,000 ac r e s and up 5. Unknown recorded on this sheet: (Check one of the following.) 1. L u m b e r company. 2. Pulp o r paper 3. P a r t - t i m e sawmill operator. An individual who devotes only p a r t of his time each year to the sawmill business. 4 Other f o r e s t industry. A wood-using f i r m producing products other than lumber or pulp. Example: veneer, ’ company. box board, wood chemicals. 5. Nonforest industry. Power company, mining company, gas etc. or oil company, 308 Farm er. A p e r s o n who devotes to f a r m i n g . 7. Part-tim e farmer. o th e r p u r s u i t s , farm ing. 8. Professional storekeeper, 9. Wage at le ast 3/4 of his time A. p e r s o n who f a r m s as a sideline to devoting l e s s than 3/4 of his time to or businessman. Doctor, lawyer, min is ter , r e s o r t operator, filling station owner, etc. earner. 10. Housewife o r widow. A woman not classifiable under any of the other occupations listed. 11. R ecreational group. A. p er s o n or club holding the land p u r e l y f o r r ecreat ional purposes such as hunting, fishing, winter s p o r t s . 12. Real estate business. resale A, person or f i r m holding land for value. 13a, Undivided estate. 13b. R e t i r e d (check f o r m e r occupation if known). 13c. Other (write in occupation if none of the occupations listed applies to owner). Distance the owner lives from the land described above: (Check one.) la. Owner lives on the property (not neces s ar il y on the same within 25 miles of the property but not on it. forty). lb. Owner lives 2. Owner lives f a r t h e r than 25 miles from the property. 309 Letter and Mail Questionnaire to Individual Owners Not Classified by Township Supervisors MICHIGAN STATE EAST COLLEGE LANSING departm ent o f f o r e s t r y D e ar L andow ner: The D ep artm en t o f F o r e s t r y h e re a t M ichigan S ta te C o lle g e i s i&aking a s tu d y o f f o r e s t la n d o v n e rs h ip th e n o r th e r n c o u n tie s o f t h e Lower P e n in s u la o f M ic h ig a n , T h is i s b e in g done by c o n ta c tin g sam ple lan d o w n ers whose names were drawn a t random from th e ta x r e c o r d s i n t h e s e c o u n ti e s . T h at i s how we g o t your name. I n t h i s s tu d y we a r e i n t e r e s t e d o n ly in g e n e r a l c o n c lu s io n s su ch a s th e amount o f la n d h e ld b y p e rs o n s o f d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a tio n s , th e a v e ra g e s i z e o f h o ld in g , e t c . A ll i n d iv i d u a l in fo rm a tio n o b ta in e d w i l l be h e ld i n s t r i c t e s t c o n fid e n c e . We would l i k e v e ry much t o have you h e lp us w ith t h i s s tu d y by a n sw e rin g th e q u e s tio n s a t th e b o tto m o f t h i s l e t t e r . A f te r you have done t h a t p le a s e r e t u r n th e l e t t e r t o us in th e envelope p ro v id e d w hich r e q u i r e s no p o s ta g e . Thank you v e r y much f o r your c o o p e r a tio n . V ery t r u l y y o u rs, T . D. S te v e n s , Head D epartm ent o f F o r e s tr y * * * What i s y o u r p r e s e n t o c c u p a tio n o r b u s in e s s ? ............................... Is your p u rp o se o f o w nership f o r : .............r e c r e a t i o n , ____ r e s a l e , (P le ase w r ite i n ) ? _____________________ -. o th e r How much lArtri o f a l l ty p e s do you own in th e e n t i r e n o r th e r n p a r t of th e Lower P e n in su la o f M ichigan w hich would l i e a p p ro x im a te ly n o rth o f a l i n e from Muskegon to Bay C ity e x c lu d in g Bay and I s a b e l l a c o u n tie s b u t in c lu d in g Oceana, Newaygo, M ecosta and M idland c o u n tie s ? ------- --- ------------ a c r e s . A ppro x im ately how f a r i s i t from your p la c e o f re s id e n c e t o any p a r c e l o f such lan d in your o w n ership? ........ ...... ......... ....... m ile s . 310 311 Questionnaire Used for Field Interviews 312 Cla ssified F o r e s t l a n d Ownership Questionnaire Observations on F o r e s t Ownership in Michigan County _________________________________ D a te _ _________________ Survey Unit __________________________ R eco r d er Owne r A ddr ess Owner No. ____________________________ Land Description: Total land a r e a owned in State ______________________ acres F orest area owned in State acres F orest area, size of holdings: (1) (2) [ ] 0-499 [ ] 500-4,999 (3) (4) [ ] 5,000-49,999 [ ] 50,000 and up G en er al influences: 1. Length of tenure: (1) [ ] 1-2 (2) (3) 2. [ ] 3-4 [ ] 5-6 Inheritance Owner occupation: (total f o r e s t acreage in property) (years in p r e s e n t ownership) (4) [ ] 7-8 (7) [ ] 16-20 (5) (6) status (Code)_________ [ ] 9-10 [ ] 11-15 of ownership: (8) (9) [ ] 21-25 [ ] 26 and up (applies only to individual or family ownership) a. P r i o r to p r e s e n t ownership the property has been in the family: b. 3. [ ] No generations [ ] One generation [ ] Two generations Expect p r operty to r emain in pr e s e n t family ownership one or m o r e generations: [ ] yes [ ] no Method by which owner acquired title to land: (1) [ ] P u r c h a s e (3) [ ] F o r e c l o s u r e (2) [ ] I nheritance (4) [ ] Gift 313 Distance of owner f r o m f o r e s t : (1) (a) (b) 5. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) [ [ [ [ ] P r o d u c ti o n f o r owner's wood-using plant ] Investment o r speculation ] Sale of m a t u r e ti mber ] Sale of m i n e r a l o r mi n e r a l rights (7) (8) [ [ ] Clear for agriculture ] Re c r e a tio n o r residence [ 1 Inactive [ ] Other (specify) _________________________________________ Age c l a s s of owner in years: (1) [ ] Under 30 (4) (2) (3) [] 31-40 [ ] 41-50 (2) (3) (5) (6) [ ] [ ] Tenant Is f o r e s t a r e a grazed: 3. Was cutting [ ] Entirely cutting: Was cutting under forester? 2. Unknown [ ] Owne r [ ] Manager Owner1s control of ti mber 1. [ ]51-60 [ ] Above 60 Owner o r agent in charge of farm-woodland management: (1) 8. (miles) [ ] 26-100 [ ] 101-200 [ ] 201 and up [ ] F a r m usage: Any combination of home use, ti m b e r s ale, and pasture [ ] Growing ti m b e r f o r sale (9) (10) 7. (2) (3) (4) Objective of management: (1) 6. 25 o r l e s s [ ] On site [ ] 1-25 [ ] Yes [ ] P ar t i a l l y [ ] None (most recent cutting) Year _________ supervision of a professional or a local [ ] No supervised by owner or a nonforester sentat ive? [ ] Yes Were t r e e s m a r k e d f or cutting? repre­ [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No 314 Was a minimum If y e s r what? D.b.h.: Stump; 5. Attitude cutting d ia m e t e r specified? [ ] Yes Softwood Softwood [ ] No Hardwood Hardwood Does the owner p r of es s having intended to leave any m e r ­ chantable t r e e s standing? [ ] Yes [ ] No of owner toward t i m b e r management; 1. What is o w n e r ’s ex pr e s s e d (1) [ ] Strongly opposed (2) [ ]Mildly opposed 2. What is o w n e r ’s concept (1) [ ] No idea (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) attitude toward f o r e s t f ires: (3) [ ] Indifferent (4) [ ] In favor of f o r e s t f i r e s of timber management? [ ] F i r e protec tio n or r eforestation a n d / o r refraining f r om c utting [ ] Light cutting and other m e a s u r e s for public good, at some personal s acrifice [ ] Light cutting and other m e a s u r e s economically de­ sir ab l e in the long run, but not at pr es en t [ ] Light cutting, economically desirable both in the p r e s e n t and long run [ ] F i r e protection and light cutting, economically de­ sir abl e both in the p r e s e n t and long run [ ] High, continuing yield of timber products Does owner recognize the possibility that his timber ment could be improved? [ ] Yes manage [ ] No If owner what is ]] (1) (2) (3) (4) ] says his t i m b e r management is not satisfactory, his explanation? (two choices) Lack of i n t e r e s t in timber production P r e s e n t high p r i c e s p r e f e r r e d to uncertain prices of future Immediate need of liquidating timber for cash Belief that woods do not need care Inability to supervise because of physical limitations or demands of more remunerative activity (5) ] ] ]] (6) (7) ]] Long periods between incomes ] Ar ea too f a r away f o r constant supervision i 315 (8) [ ] Expected r e t u r n s n e c e s s a r y costs (9) [ ] Inability to get con t r a c to r to cut his f o r e s t conservativ ely (10) [ ] Property (11) [ ] Unfulfilled hope to c l e a r f o r e s t for pasture land use (12) [ ] Uncertainty of ownership in undivided estate [ ] Don’t know or no cl ear explanation [ ] Other (13) (14) Class of management do not justify the of cutting p r a c t i c e [ ] Good too small to bother with 1. (only two checks for items 1 3) Owner’s qualification and regis t ra tio n under Michigan yield tax laws: (1) [ ] Qualifies but has 2. other (most recent cutting in l a s t 5 years): [ ] Fair [ ] Poor Attitude of owner toward taxation: through or not r egi s t e r e d under commercial (2) f o r e s t yield tax [ ] Qualifies and has (3) yield tax [ ] Qualifies but has (4) tax [ ] Qualifies and has (5) [ ] Does not qualify f o r yield tax r eg is t e r e d under commercial f o r e s t not r e g i s t e r e d under woodlot yield r e g i s t e r e d under woodlot yield tax Owner’s attitude toward yield tax If he does not know of existence of applicable law, but qual­ ifies for registration: (1) [ ] Shows no i n t e r e s t (2) [ ] Shows i n t e r e s t in possible tax benefits, but does indicate management would be influenced (3) [ ] Shows i n t e r e s t in possible tax benefits, m a n a g e m e n t would be influenced If he knows about existence and indicates of law, qualifies, but has not r egist er ed: (4) (5) [ ] Does not [ ] Does not not think he would qualify know how to go about registration 316 (6) (7) [ ] Believes r e s t r i c t i o n s outweigh possible tax benefits [ ] Does not believe he would gain tax benefits (8) [ ] Objects If he has 3. to special privilege taxation on principle registered: (9) (10) [ ] Believes [ ] Believes his management has not been influenced his management has been influenced (11) [ ] Does not believe ownership could be this tax aid retained without Owner's attitude toward special federal income tax provisions f o r ti m b e r p r o d u c e r s (capital gains and depletion allowances) If he does not know of existence of law: (1) [ ] Shows no i n t e r e s t ( 2) [ ] Shows i n t e r e s t in possible tax benefits, but does not indicate management would be influenced [ ] Sho ws i n t e r e s t in tax benefits, and indicates manage­ ment would be influenced (3) If he knows about existence of law, but has not made use of it: (4) (5) [ ] Does not know how to go about tax calculations [ ] Believes effort to use special provisions outweigh (6) (7) possible tax benefits [ ] Does not believe he wouldgain tax benefits [ ] Objects to special privilege taxation on principle If he has made (8) (9) (10) [ ] Believes his management has not been influenced [ ] Believes his management has been influenced [ ] Does not believe ownership could be retained without this 4. use of law: tax aid General property tax on forestland (1) Amount of annual tax ____ cents per a c r e ( 2) If tax were lowered, would owner be stimulated to improve management? (Check all measu r es affected.) (a) [ ] By intensifying the cultural woods me asur es used in 317 (b) [ ] By stepping up of planting rate (c) [ ] By acquisition of new holdings f o r timber ag ement Attitude of owner toward aid f r o m county agr icultural man- agent: 1. Does owner know the county agr icultur al agent, at l e a s t by name? [ ] Yes [ ] No 2. Has owner requested any aid o r advice of county agricultural agent? [ ] Yes [ ] No Attitude of owner 1. toward extension f o r e s t r y demonstration and advice: If owner did not know such aid was available: (1) [ ] Shows no i n t e r e s t (2.) [ ] Shows slight i n t e r e s t (3) [ ] Shows strong i n t e r e s t 2. If owner knows about availability of such aid, qualifies, but has not applied: (1) [ ] F e e l s it is too difficult to obtain such advice (2) [ ] Does no t f eel anything can be gained from it (3) [ ] Expects to ask for advice or attend demonstrations in future (4) [ ] Considers extension valuable, but has technical competence or employees with technical competence (5) [ ] Conside rs extension valuable, but has applied for aid fr o m f a r m f o r e s t e r or S.C.S. f a r m planner 3. If owner has made use of extension aid: [ ] Doubts technical soundness of advice; (i) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) hence does not follow it t ] Believes advice technically sound, but does not b e ­ lieve it is p r a c t ic a l [ ] Believes advice is good, but cannot afford (financially) to follow it t ] Has followed advice, but considers results unsatis­ factory [ ] Has followed advice, but is undertain if it is s a t i s ­ f actory Has followed advice, and considers it satisfactory [ ] 318 Attitude of owner 1. 2. service activities of f a r m f o r e s t e r s : If owner did not know such aid was (1) [ ] Shows no i n t e r e s t (2) [ ] Shows slight i n t e r e s t (3) [ ] Shows strong i n t e r e s t available: If owner knows about availability of such aid, has not applied: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 3. toward qualifies, but [ ] F e e l s it too difficult to obtain on-the— ground aid [ ] Does not feel anything can be gained f rom it [ ] Expects to ask f o r aid in future [ ] Considers such aid valuable, but has technical com­ petence or employees with technical competence [ ] Considers such aid valuable, but has applied for aid f r o m extension f o r e s t e r or S.C.S. f a r m planner If owner has made use of aid offered by f a r m f o r e s t e r : (1) [ ] Doubts technical soundness of advice; hence does not follow it (2) [ ] Believes advice technically sound, but does not be­ lieve i t p r a c t ic a l (3) [ ] Believes advice is good, but cannot afford (financially) (4) (5) (6) to follow [ ] Has used [ ] Has used [ ] Has used it aid, but considers results unsatisfactory aid, but is undertain if it is satisfactory aid, and considers it satisfactory Attitude of owner toward f o r e s t r y farm ers conservation payments (applies to only): 1. Is owner's p r operty located in a county where f o r e s t r y s e r v ati o n payments a r e available? [ ] Yes [ ] No 2. Owner's qualification and application for payments only where (1) (2) (3) conservation payments a r e available): [ ] Does not qualify [ ] Qualifies, but has not applied [ ] Qualifies and has applied for payments con­ (applies 319 If owner qualifies f o r f o r e s t r y his p r a c t i c e s which qualify: (1) (2) [ ] P la n a ta io n [ ] Windbreak (3) (4) conservation payments, [ ] Timber stand improvement [ ] Fencing woodland Owner* s attitude toward payments vation payments a r e available): If he does (in counties (1) [ ] Shows no i n t e r e s t (2) [ ] Shows i n t e r e s t in possible payments, but does not (3) indicate p r a c t ic e s would be influenced [ ] Shows i n t e r e s t in possible payments and indicates p r a c t i c e s would be influenced (6) (7) If he has (8) (9) Owner's applied: [ ] States p r a c t i c e s would not have been undertaken without payments [ ] States p r a c t i c e s would have been undertaken r e ­ gar dle ss of payments attitude toward payments vation payments (3) qualifies, but has [ 1 Does not think he would qualify [ 1 Does not know how to go about applying f o r payments Believes troubl e of application outweighs possible [ ] money benefits [ ] Objects to conservation payments on principle (4) (5) (1) (2) where c o n s e r ­ not know of availability of paymens: If he knows about availability of payments, not applied: 5, check (in counties where co n s e r ­ ar e not available): [ ] Shows no i n t e r e s t [ ] Shows i n t e r e s t in possible payments, but does not indicate p r a c t i c e s would be influenced [ ] Shows i n t e r e s t in possible payments and indicates p r a ct ices would be influenced 320 Attitude of owner toward S.C.S. f o r e s t r y on ly ): aids 1. Is own er ' s [ ] Yes 2. Owner's qualification and application for (1) [ ] Does not qualify 3. 4. pr o p e r ty located in the [ ] No (applies (2) [ ] Quali fi esr but has not (3) [ ] Qualifies and has S.C.S. to f a r m e r s district: S.C.S. far m plan: applied b ecorae a cooperator Owner's attitude toward woodland if he has become a S.C.S. o p er at or: (1) [ ] Does not consider woodland to have a significant place in f a r m plan (2) [ ] Considers p lan (3) [ ] Considers woodland to have f a r m plan woodland to have a minor place in f a r m an important place in If owner has become an S.C.S. cooperator, check f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s which were adopted as res u lt of recommendations of f a r m plan: (1) [ ] Plantation (2) [ ] Windbreak (3) [ ] Timber stand (4) improvement [ ] Fencing woodland Attitude of owner toward mor e intensive f o r e s t r y aids (applies to small private holdings): 1. Would owner be i n t e r e s t e d in using the services of a f o r ­ e s t e r to manage his f o r e s t property under good f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s at a cost not to exceed 20% of the gross stumpage value: 2. [ ] Yes [ ] No Would owner be in t e r e s t e d in joining other owners in same a r e a in a cooperative which would hire a f o r e s t e r to jointly manage their f o r e s t p r o p e r t i e s ? [ ] Yes [ ] No 321 Attitude of owner toward f o r e s t 1. Has owner given any previous thought to use of readily available, l o n g - t e r m , l ow-cost f o r e s t c r e d i t ? [ ] Y es 2. 3. credit: [ ] No W o u l d owner be i n t e r e s t e d in borrowing if f o r e s t c r e d i t was re a d i l y available on a l o n g - t e r m , low-cost basis ? (1) [ ] Hot i n t e r e s t e d (2) [ ] Mildly i n t e r e s t e d (3) [ ] Strongly i n t e r e s t e d If i n t e r e s t e d , f o r what purposes would owner wish to bo r r o w ? (1) [ ] To obtain new logging a n d / o r milling equipment for m o r e profitable operations (2) [ ] To obtain new logging a n d / o r milling equipment to step up r ate of liquidation or merchantable timber (3) [ ] To improve road system or f i r e protection for in­ tensifying of f o r e s t management (4) [ ] To p ur chase new f o r e s t holdings for sustained-yield operations (5) [ ] To under take long-range cultural me a s u r e s (planting, cleanings, improvement cuttings) whose money bene­ (6) fits will be postponed to future [ ] To c l e a r land and convert to improved p asture or cropland. (7) [ ] Other G e n e r a l Rem ar ks: (specify) ____________________ 322 L e t t e r and Mall Questionnaire to Individual Absentee Owners Occupations by Previously Classed into Township Supervisors MICHIGAN STATE EAST COLLEGE LANSING fHNT OV P O U S T K Y D e a r L andow ner: The D e p a rtm e n t o f F o r e s t r y h e re a t M ich ig an S t a t e C o lle g e i s m aking a s t u d y o f f o r e s t la n d o v n e rs h ip i n th e n o r th e r n c o u n tie s o f t h e Lower P e n in s u la o f M ichigan* T h is i s b e in g done b y c o n ta c t i n g sam p le la n d o w n e rs whose names w ere draw n a t random fro m th e t a x r e c o r d s i n t h e s e c o u n t i e s • T h a t i s how we g o t y o u r name* D u rin g t h e p a s t simmer we v i s i t e d and t a l k e d w ith many o f th e ow ners i n t h i s sam ple g ro u p . S in c e su ch p e r s o n a l v i s i t s a r e v e ry c o s t l y we a r e s e e k in g t o c o n t a c t th e m a j o r i t y o f ow ners b y m a il. We hope you w i l l b e I n t e r e s t e d i n c o m p le tin g th e e n c lo s e d q u e s tio n n a ir e an d w i l l r e t u r n i t t o u s a t y o u r e a r l i e s t c o n v en ien c e i n th e e n c lo s e d e n v e lo p e . T h is i s q u i t e im p o rta n t b e c a u se y our a n sw e rs w i l l be c o n s id e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f s c o r e s o f o t h e r o w n ers. T h is s tu d y i s n o t aim ed a t a n y p e r s o n 's p r i v a t e a f f a i r s . I n d i v i d u a l in f o r m a tio n o b ta in e d i n t h i s s tu d y w i l l n o t be d i s c lo s e d f o r a n y p u r p o s e . We a r e I n t e r e s t e d o n ly i n g e n e r a l c o n c lu s io n s su ch a s t h e am ount o f la n d h e ld b y p e rs o n s o f d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a tio n s , th e a v e ra g e s i z e o f h o l d in g , th e m ost im p o rta n t o b j e c t i v e s o f f o r e s t lan d o w n er s h i p , e t c . We a r e i n t e r e s t e d a l s o i n w hat h a s In flu e n c e d you r e g a r d i n g th e h a n d lin g o f t h i s la n d and i f you a re t a k in g a d v an tag e o f g o v e rn m e n ta l h e lp t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e . We a r e n o t a s k in g you t o s ig n th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o we hope you w i l l f e e l f r e e t o e x p re s s y our f r a n k o p in io n s • We w ish t o rem ind you t h a t th e c o lle g e o f f e r s a d v ic e o r a s s i s t a n c e w ith many w oodland management p ro b le m s. When s e e k in g su ch h e lp w r i t e t o th e " E x te n s io n F o r e s t e r ” a t t h i s a d d r e s s . Or, i f you sh o u ld have a n y q u e s tio n s i n mind a t p r e s e n t , J u s t e n c lo s e y o u r l e t t e r w ith th e q u e s t io n n a ir e when you r e t u r n i t . Thank you v e r y much f o r y o u r c o o p e r a tio n . V ery t r u l y y o u rs , T„ D. S te v e n s , Head D epartm ent o f F o r e s t r y "IT IS F OR US THE LIVING ... T O BE D E D I C A T E D HERE TO THE UNFINISHED WORK .. 324 Questionnaire Number What is A.. 1. your occupation? How much land, do you own in the entire n or th e r n p a r t of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan which would lie approxi­ mately north of a line f r o m Muskegon to Bay City excluding Bay and Isab ell a counties but including Oceana, Newaygo, Mecosta and Midland counties? acres. 2. About how much of this land is wild land (that i s , which is not cultivated or improved p a s tu r e) ? land acres. 3. How long has this land been in your ownership or e r s h ip of the p e r s o n you r e p r e s e n t ? years. the own­ 4. Was this land held in your family before you acquired i t ? ________ (yes o r no) s jc B. >;« Check one of the following which you believe most nearly fits your objective of owning this wild land. (1) Home use production of timber; such as for fuelwood, p a s t u r e , sale of a little timber now and then, or cutting (2) posts o r logs for your own use. Specifically f or growing timber which will be sold when (3) you think it ready for harvest. As a source of ti mber for your wood-using plant. (4) (5) F o r investment or speculation. In o r d e r to p r ocur e the timber which you sold or plan (6) (7) (8a) to s e l l . In o r d e r to gain control of the mineral rights. To be cl ear ed for agricultural purposes. F o r r e c r eat io n al purposes such as for a place f o r hunting or fishing, or a summer home. (8b) (9) As a place of residence. No p a r t i c u l a r objective in view except simply holding the land and paying the taxes. (10) Is If none of these here* any of this seem to fit, write in your purpose wild land p a s t u r e d at p r e s e n t ? indicating the degree of pasturing, Partially, None 1* such as P l e a s e answer by Entirely, Has any t i m b e r cutting been done on your land since you a cqui red ownership? (yes or no) (If you ans wer ed yes to the question just above please a n s w er the remaining questions in this section; if your answer was no, p r oceed to Section E.) 2. What was the l a s t year of ti m b e r cutting on your land if any has been done during your ownership? 3. Was a p r of essi onal f o r e s t e r in charge of this cutting? (yes o r no) 4. Was the actual cutting overseen by you or a representative of yours ? 5. Were the t r e e s which were cut selected and marked by you o r some p e r s o n acting for you before the cutting began? (yes 6. or no) Did you r e s t r i c t this cutter by telling him to cut no t r e e s under a c e r t a i n d i a m e t e r ? (yes or no). If the answer is yes, what was the diameter specified and for what species was 7. (yes or no) it so designated? _______ Diameter, Did you plan to have all merchantable tr e e s Species cut? _____ (yes o r no) 8. Do you think th e re is (yes 9. or n o ) Do you think there will have any timber of value on your land? is any chance of developing it so that it some value in the future? _______ (yes or no) 326 E. If you would like to do m o r e in the way of developing the timber on this land but you have not done s o r please indicate why you have not by picking a f i r s t and second choice among the follow­ ing: (1) (2) Have no i n t e r e s t in growing timber. F e a r future p r i c e s may drop. (3) Had to sell t i mb er (4) (5a) (5b) ofman. Don't like long waits between harvests Consider the woods too f a r away. (8) Don't believe future in vestment now, (9) F e a r to p e r m i t t i mb er cutters in the woods because probable damage they might do. (12) 1. Think woods do b e t t e r without the help Not physically able to take c a r e of it. Find other work too pr es s in g on time. (6) (7) (10) (11) F. to obtain cash of timber. r etu r n s fr o m the woods justify any of Think the wooded a r e a is too small to bother with. Plan, o r did plan, to c l e a r the land for pasture or c rops. Not sure of future ownership because the land is s o m e ­ what legally involved. Did you know that f o r e s t owners could rep o r t income from the sale of ti m b e r stumpage held more than six months as a ’’capital gain” on their feder al income tax and thus r e ­ duce the tax on that p a r t of their income by about one-half the regula r amount ? (If your answer to this (yes or no) question is yes, please answer the next two questions.) 2. Have you ever taken advantage of this (yes or 3. special law? _______ no) If you knew about this privilege but did not take advantage of it when you could have done so - why didn’t you? Have you ever obtained any advice regarding the handling of these wooded a r e a s by: writing to the college, reading bul­ l e t i n s , o r attending f o r e s t r y demonstration meetings? _____ (yes o r no) Did you know such f r e e aid was available? (yes or no) 3. If you have obtained any such aid, would you rate it s a t i s ­ f a c t o r y o r un s a t i s f a c t o r y ? 4. Why did you never n ever used i t ? 5. Do you think you might make use of this type of help in the future? (yes or no) seek such aid if you knew about it, s[e yet jjc 1. Have you ever obtained any on-the-ground aid or advice in the handling of your woodland f r o m the f o r e s t e r s with the State Conservation Commission? (yes or no) 2. Did you know such an on-the-ground service was available to f o r e s t owners without cost? _______ (yes or no) 3. 4. If you have obtained such aid, would you rate it as satis­ f a c t o r y or ____________ unsatisfactory? If you knew such a service to be available but never made use of it - why not? _______________________________________________________ * * * Do you think you would be int er es ted in using the services of a pr ivat e f o r e s t r y consultant to manage your property under good f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s which guard against over-cutting if he would charge you only a small percentage (10%-20%) of whatever income he might obtain for you f r o m this property through timber s a l e s ? (yes or no) Would you be in t e r e s te d in borrowing money at a very low rate of i n t e r e s t for the purpose of improving your f o r e s t land by such things as planting, removing undesirable t r e e s , etc.., if such cr edit were available and if could be secured by only the timber values on the land? _______ (yes or no) APPENDIX C Statistical Formulas for This Study 328 Derived 329 Statistical P r o c e d u r e s and Basic Assumptions Involved in Calculation of Sampling E r r o r This forest section r e f e r s to the a r e a by occupation c l a s s e s in making those esti mates In o r d e r to a r r i v e estimates and the of total commercial sampling errors involved (Table 5). at the r esults shown in Table 5, it was n e c e s s a r y to assume: 1. That total privately owned commercial forestland a r e a for each block as maximum estimated by the F o r e s t Service had a sampling deviation. error This was of ±1,5 percen t at one standard considered safe since preliminary calculations by the F o r e s t Service indicated the maximum error under these circumstances was le ss than 1.2 p e r ­ cent. 2. That the estimate of total commercial forestland a r e a by the F o r e s t er s hip Service study. (X) was made independent of this own­ This was not exactly true was actually derived from the other. Service since one sample Use of the F o r e s t e s ti mate was justifiable because it was by f a r the m o s t accu r a te estimate available. 330 3, That each f o r ty bility. into the sample with equal p r o b a ­ Actually, the probability of this equivalent to: forest came area total f o r e s t a r e a of i th forty of all f o r t i e s in the sample. made in this sumption. All / total estimates study were made involving the above a s ­ To have made the estimates have multiplied the Further, event was otherwise would required computing work several fold. when the two methods were tested in estimating f o r e s t a r e a f o r one occupation class for one block, results 4. the obtained were almost identical. That the total number of forties possessing (N) in i th-s tr at u m some commercial forestland could be e s t i ­ mated by dividing the F o r e s t Service estimate of total co m m er cia l privately owned f o r e s t a r e a in i th - s tr at u m (i.e. block) by the estimate of the average commercial f o r e s t a r e a per forty in that the l a t t e r stratum. The estimate of quantity was made from the sample. choice was available for No other estimating the total number f o r e s t e d forties. The f ormulas V (Y ) 2[Rh used for making the calculations v(Xh ) * Xh2 V(Rh ) + V(Rh > V (Xh)] were as follows: 33 1 wh ere: 1 V (V 2 h v 2 v i V v 11 x2 h and: and: ' v £2 7 hi + K h 2 ^ hi * 2Rh i i 7hi Xhi A R h • xh R *h Individually the symbols used had the following meanings: A N = es ti mate of the number of f o r ti e s p r ivat e some c om mer cia l f o rest, i = the n = the number x^ possessing subsc r ip t specifying of f o r ti es in the = the total f o r e s t acreage characteristic a forty. sample. in i th forty possessing the x. y^ = the f o r e s t a c r ea ge in i th forty possessing the ch a r a c ­ te r i s t i c y. X = an es timate of the total f o r e s t acreage in the population of N f o r t i e s possessing ch a r a c te r is ti c Y = an es timate po ssessing n y = 2 y* i-i n x = S i-X xf 1 of the total x. f o r e s t acreage amongN forties a cer t a i n ch ar a c t e r i s t i c y. 3 32 R = the ratio estimator — x h = the s u bsc r ip t denoting the stratum (blocks 1, 2, 5). V = a pr ef ix denoting the variance of an estimate. 3, 4, or BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, WTlliam H. Taxation and the American economy, an economic, legal, and administrative a n a l y s i s . P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1951. 59 8 pp. A n d r e w s , Horace F o reste r. Andrews, H. J . , J. The Michigan land economic 12: 36-42. 1924. and W. S. Bromley. Trends New York. survey. Ames in land use in n o r t h e r n Michigan, a study of Alpena, Antrim, Ogemaw, and Roscommon Counties. Charles Lathrop Pack F o r e s t r y Founda­ tion, Washington. 1942. 45 pp. B a r r acl ou g h, S. L. F o r e s t land ownership in New England. Mimeo­ graphed Ph.D. the s i s , Harvard University. 1949. 269 pp. Barracl ou g h, Solon, and James C. Rettie. The ownership of small p r i v a t e f o r e s t - l a n d holdings in 23 New England towns. U.S. F o r e s t Service, N ortheastern F o r e s t Experiment Station, Upper Darby, P a . , Station P a p e r No. 34, 32 pp. March, 1950. B e l c h e r , R. C. Absentee-owned f or e s ts Q Pulp and Paper of Canada. 52(5): 151-152, 155, April, 1951. Besley, F. W. F o r e s t land ownership and jurisdiction. F orestry. Besley, 127-132. Feb., Journal of 1938. Lowell. Taxation of f o r e s t lands in West Virginia. West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Morgantown, Bul­ letin 333, Black, 36: Magazine 39 pp. Nov., 1948. J. D. The r u r a l economy of I^ew England: a regional Cambridge, Harvard University P r e s s , 1950. 796 pp. study. B u r k s , George F . , U.S. F o r e s t Service. A summary of basic s t a ­ tistics. Chapter IX, Timber Resource Review (preliminary review draft), 116 pp., Sept., 333 1955. 334 Chamberlin, H. H. , L. A.. Sample, and. R. W. Hayes, Private forest land ownership and management in the loblolly-shortleaf type in sou th er n A r k a n s a s , n o r t h e r n Louisiana, and central M i s s i s ­ sippi. Louisiana A g ricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, Bulletin 393, 46 pp. July, 1945. Cir i acy- Wan t ru p , policies. 395 pp. S. Y. Resource Berkeley, conservation, and University of California P r e s s , Cochran, William G. Sampling techniques. and Sons, 1953. 330 pp. C omm is s io n of Inquiry, economics 1952. NewYork, John Tax Lands and F o r e s t r y . Wiley Report of the com­ m i s s i o n of inquiry, tax lands and f o r e s t r y to the Governor and L e g i s l a t u r e of the State of Michigan. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., State P r i n t e r s , Lansing. 146 pp. 19 08. Committee an Land Use and F o r e s t r y . State Executive Office, Madison. Cope, J. A. Journal of For­ J. A. F a r m f o r e s t r y in e a s t e r n United States. Charles Lathrop P ack F o r e s t r y Foundation, Washington, 43 pp. 1943. estry. Cope, Cr a f t s , F a r m woodland owners' Land use in Wisconsin. April, 1932. 155 pp. 39: 192-196. Feb., cooperatives. 1940. Edward C., U.S. F o r e s t Service. A. summary of the timber r e s o u r c e review. Chapter I, Timber r esource review (pre­ li m in a r y review draft), 127 pp. Sept., 1955. Cunningham, R. N., U.S. F o r e s t Service. F o r e s t cooperatives in the United States. U.S. F o r e s t Service Reappraisal of the F o r e s t Situation, Report 6, 18 pp. 1947. Cunningham, R. N.. et a l . F o r e s t r es ources of the Lake States R e­ gion. F o r e s t Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, F o r e s t Resource Report No. Deitz 1, 5V pp. 1950. Warner. A study in Michigan f o r e s t land taxation. lished M.S. thesis, Michigan State College. 1954. Unpub­ 57 pp. 33 5 D e li sl e, R. Small and medium privately owned woodlands in the P r o v i n c e of Quebec. Dec., 1947. DeVries, Wade. Forestry Chronicle. 23 297-302. C o r r e l a t i o n of physical and economic factors as shown by the Michigan Land Economic Survey. Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics. 4: 295-3 00. Aug.., 192 8 Dickerman, M. B. The cooperative association as a wartime aid to the small p r oducer of f o r e s t products. U.S. F o r e s t Ser­ vice, Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, St. Paul, Economic Note 18, 49 pp. July, 1942. Dickerman, M. B. P r e s e n t indications of future trends in Michigan f o r e s t in d u s t r i e s . Michigan Academy of Science, Arts Letters. P a p e r s 30: 193-201. 1944, pub. 1945. and Dickerman, M. B., U.S. F o r e s t Service. F o r e s t r y assistance p r o ­ grams. Section F , Chapter IV, Timber r e s o u r c e review (pr eli min a ry review draft), 13 pp. Sept., 1955. Division of Cooperative F o r e s t Management, F o r e s t Service. Ad­ m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o cedures for cooperative f o r e s t management act of 1950. F o r e s t Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, 24 pp. July, 1951. Division of F o r e s t Economics, F o r e s t Service, U.S.D.A. State f o r e s t tax law digest of 1945. F o r e s t Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, Donery, J. A,. Forests, 79 pp. Dec., Michigan f o r e s t s 51: 218-221. 1945. - a great May, resource. American 1945. D r e s s el, Karl. Woodlot taxation in Michigan. Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan A gr icult u r al Experiment Station. 9: 44-47. Nov., 1926. D u e r r , W. A, The small, l o w - income landholding; a problem in f o r e s t conservation. Iowa State College Journal of Science. 22: 349-361. July, 1948. 336 D u e r r , William A.., and Henry J. Vaux, Editors, economics of f o r e s t r y . Washington, F o r e s t r y Foundation, 1953. 475 pp. Ellis, Howard, Raleigh Barlowe and E. B. Research in the Charles Lathrop Pack Hill. Inheritance of f a r m p r o p e r t y in Michigan. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Sta­ tion, E a s t Eansing. Special Bulletin 388, 30 pp. Dec., 1953. Ely, Ric h ar d York, Evans, T., and George S. Wehrwein. Land Economics. The Macmillan Company. 1940. 512 pp. M. Nonresident ownership: evil or scapegoat? R eview. 1(2): 15-20. July/Aug., 1938. New Land Policy F a i r c h i l d , F r e d R . r et a l . F o r e s t taxation in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, Miscellaneous Publi­ cation 218, 681 pp. 1935. F o l w e i l e r , A.. D. Ownership of f o r e s t land in selected p arishes in Louisiana and its effect on f o r e s t conservation. Unpublished Ph.D. t h e si s, University of Wisconsin. 1943. 307 pp. F o l w e i l e r , A. D. F o r e s t land ownership in Louisiana and its influ­ ence on ti m b e r production. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, Bulletin 377, 56 pp. July, 1944. F o l w e i l e r , A. D., and Vaux, H. J. P r i v a t e f o r e s t land ownership and management in the loblolly shortleaf type of Louisiana. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 42: 783-790. Nov., 1944. F o r e s t Industries Committee on Timber Valuation. Statement m op­ position to changes in the capital gains treatment accorded i n ­ come f r o m the cutting or disposal of timber under sections 631 and 272 of H.R . 8300. Before the Senate Finance Com­ mittee, Gaines, E. 82nd Congress. M. The f o r e s t cr edit p r ogr am in the South. Forestry. G i l l e t t , C h ar l es A. of F o r e s t r y . 43: 580-584. Aug., 99-103. of 1945. The cooperative approach in f or e s t r y . 37: Journal Feb . , 1939. Journal 337 Gillett, Charles A. Aids to f a r m f o r e s t r y . A talk presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American F o r e s t e r s , apolis, Minn., 17 pp. mimeographed. Dec. 17, 1947. Gilmour, J. D. F o r e s t ownership and taxation. 26: 207-212. Sept., 1950, G reeley, William B. F o r e s t policy. Company, Inc., 1953. 276 pp. H a m m a r , C. H . , and Mussman, forest 1940. r estoration. Minne­ F o r e s t r y chronicle. New York, McGraw-Hill A . H. Book I n t er es t and credit costs Journal of F o r e s t r y . 38: 37-43. in Jan., Hasel, A.. A., and A.don Poli. A new approach to f o r e s t ownership surveys. Land Economics. 25: 1-10. Feb., 1949. Hawes, A., F . Long t e r m ownership of f o r e s t s Woodlands. 15(1): 10-11. Mar., 1950. desirable. Connecticut H e r b e r t , Paul A. Some phases of county planning in Michigan. Jour nal of F o r e s t r y . 37: 743-747. Sept., 1939. Hopkins, W. C. Stability of f o r e s t land ownership in the United States, a study of the shifting ownership of f o r e s t lands, of the causes back of it, and the results thereof. Unpublished M.F. t h e si s, Yale University. 1941. 110 pp. Houseman, E a r l E. Design of samples for surveys. Economics Res ear ch. 1: 3-10. Jan., 1949. James, Lee M. Determining f o r e s t land ownership and its relation­ ship to ti mber management. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 48: 2 572 60. James, Agricultural April, 1950. Lee M. F o r e s t cutting practices in Michigan. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Technical Bulletin 238, 32 pp. June, 1953. J a m e s , Lee M., Wm. P. Hoffman, and Monty A. Payne. Private f o r e s t landownership and management in central Mississippi. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, State College, Technical Bulletin 33, 38 pp. April, 1951, 338 James, Lee M., and J am es G. Yoho. in the United States. 1953. Journal Income from of F o r e s t r y . ~ " timber products 51. 83-87. Feb., Johnson, V. Webster. Land economics r e s e a r c h . Journal of Land and Public Utility Econ o mics . 25: 155-l64~ May, 1949. Johnson, V. Webster, and Raleigh Barlowe. Land problems and policies. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1954. 422 pp. J osephson, H. R., and John R. McGuire, U.S. F o r e s t Service. Owner­ ship of f o r e s t land and ti mber , Section D, Chapter IV, Timber r e s o u r c e review (preliminary review draft), 60 pp. Sept., 1955. K agis, I. F o r e s t r y ownership and f o r e s t r y practice. Chronicle. 26: 213-220. Sept., 1950. Forestry Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station. F o r e s t types and condition c l a s s e s in the Lake States. U.S. F o r e s t Service. Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, St. Paul, Miscellaneous Report No. 2, 7 pp. June, 1948. Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station. F o r e s t Survey handbook, Lake States, 1952. U.S. F o r e s t Service. Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, St. Paul, 66 pp. 1952. L a r s o n , E. vH. Tables f or technical w r i t e r s . U.S. F o r e s t Service, N o r t h e a s t e r n F o r e s t Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pa., Station P a y e r No. 3, 47 pp. May, 1947. Leavitt, K. The challenge of land ownership. 55(9): Mayne, 6-9. American F o r e s t s . Sept., 1949. H. W. Land ownership in sixteen nor thea st er n Minnesota counties. U.S. F o r e s t Service, Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, McArdle, R. E. Journal St. Paul, Tech. Note 282, 2 pp. Technical of F o r e s t r y . Oct., 1947. as sistance for private f o r e s t owners. 45: 36-39. Jan., 1947. 339 McClellan, J. C. practices. Michigan P .M.A. The capital gains tax and its Forest fa rm e r. 6(4): 4-5. Committee. Agricultural application to f o r e s t Jan., 1947. conservation p r o g r am, Michigan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, A.C.P. Handbook for 1953, 21 pp. A.ug,, 1952. Michigan State Soil Conservation Committee. Iviichigan soil conser­ vation d i s t r i c t s in action; 1951 — 1952— 1953. Michigan State Soil Conservation Committee, Lansing. 22 pp. 1954. Mill er , L o r e n B. Local finance and procedure. Detroit Bureau of Governmental Res ear ch , Detroit, Michigan Local Government S e r i e s , 97 pp. Sept., 1933. Moberg, T. R. Tenure and use of privately owned f a r m e r s and f o r e s t s in Durham County, North Carolina. Unpublished M.F. t h e s i s , Duke University. 1942. 52 pp. Mulholland, F . D. F o r e s t policy-ownership and administration. F o r e s t r y Chronicle. 16: 99-106. Mar., 1940. Neff, A.. W. P r i v a t e a s s is tance to private Forestry. 48: 355. Aug., 1950. en terprise. Journal of Nelson, Alf. Z. F o r e s t land taxation in Michigan. F o r e s t Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, Mimeographed, 46 p p . 1940. P e r c i v a l , W. C. Cooperative woodland management and marketing an essential p a r t of a complete land-use program. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 40: 944-947. Dec., 1942. P o ll , Adon. Conducting a survey of ownership of f o r e s t land in California. Agricultural Economics R e s e a r c h . 4: 8-12. 1952. Poli, Adon, and H. L. Baker. Ownership and use of f o r e s t land in the coast range pine subregion of California. U.S. F o r e s t Service, California F o r e s t and Range Experiment Station, B e r k e l e y r Technical P a p e r No. 2, 64 pp. June, 1953. 340 P o l l , Adon, and H, L . Baker. Ownership and use of f o r e s t land in the redwood - Douglas-fir subregion of California. U.S. F o r e s t Service, California F o r e s t and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Technical P a p e r No. 7, 76 pp. June, 1954. P r e s t o n , John F. F a r m f o r e s t r y as influenced by the soil conserva­ tion p r o g r a m . Journal of F o r e s t r y . 39: 91-94. Feb., 1941. Ramsdell, W. F . Township government and the exploitation of t i m b e r and wild land r e s o u r c e s in nor th er n Michigan. Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, Detroit, Michigan Local Government Series, 49 pp. Jan., 1933. R amsey, G. R. Cooperative woodland management and marketing in s o u t h e a s t e r n Iowa. Ames F o r e s t e r . 28: 47-52. 1940. Renne, Roland R. Land economics. 1947. 736 pp. New York, Harper and B r o t h e r s , Rettie, J a m e s C., and F r a n k A. Ineson. Otsego f o r e s t products cooperative association of Cooperstown, New York, an evalu­ ation. F o r e s t Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash­ ington, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 17, 42 pp. Sept., 1950. Salter, L. A., Transition in the Northern Lake States. Land and Public Utility Economics. 18: 92-96. Journal of Feb., 1942. S alt er , L. A. A. c r i t i c a l review of r e s e a r c h in land economics. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota P r e s s , 1948. 258 pp. Shepard, H. B. Internal Revenue Code amended to permit gains t r e a t m e n t of income f r o m f or es t pr o perties. of F o r e s t r y . Smith, W. A. Sept., Loans 42: 375-376. on t r e e f a r m s . 1944. Forest F a r m e r . 6(12): 1947. Smith, W. A., and Brown, H. L. Forest May, capital Journal Farm er. 6(11): Financing the f o r e s t property. 3, 6. Aug., 1947. 1-2. 341 Social Science R e s e a r c h Council. land ownership. 93 pp. 1939. Social Science R es ear ch Council. Stanford R e s e a r c h Institute. Tacoma, 404 pp. A survey of r e s e a r c h in f o r e s t America's New York. demand for wood 1929-1975. Washington,. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., June, 1954. State Soil Conservation Committee. Michigan soil conservation d i s ­ t r i c t s in action, 1951-1952-1953. A. Report of the State Soil Conservation Committee, East Lansing, 1954. (pp. unnumbered.) Stoddard, C. H . , J r . F u tu r e of private f o r e s t land ownership in the n o r t h e r n Lake States. Journal of Land and Public Utility Ec o n o m i c s . 18: 267-283. Aug., 1942. Stoddard, C. H., J r . Some aspects of land tenure as related to f o r ­ es tr y. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 41: 141-142. Feb., 1943. Stoddard, C. H . , J r . Classification of f o r e s t land enterprise. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 41: 142-143. Feb., 1943. Stoddard, C. H., J r . Needed: a r e s e a r c h program in f o r e s t owner education. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 48; 339-341. May, 1950. Sturgeon, E. E. A. study of private unplatted lands, f o r m er l y Stateowned, in Cheboygan County, Michigan. Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and L e t t e r s . P a p e r s 34(1): 73-78. 1948, pub. 1950. Tennessee Valley Authority. P r i v a t e f o r e s t management in the Tennessee Valley. Tennessee Valley Authority, N o r r i s , Tenn. 13 pp. 1954. Tennessee Valley Authority. A long-term f o r e s t management con­ tr a c t . Tennessee Valley Authority, N o r r i s , Tenn., 13 pp. Feb ., Titus, 1955. Harold. The land nobody wanted. Michigan Agricultural Ex­ p e r i m e n t Station, E a s t Lansing, Special Bulletin 332, 43 pp. Ap r i l , 1945. 342 Trenk, Frederick B. Restoring north er n f o r e s t s . Wisconsin Agri­ c ultural Extension Service, Madison, Circular Sept., 1941. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1950. P t . 6. United States U.S. Government Printing 1952. Census 321, 16 pp. of Agriculture, Office, Washington, Vol. 1, U.S. F o r e s t Service, Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station. Re­ vised f o r e s t s tat istics for the Lake States. U.S. F o r e s t Service, Lake States F o r e s t Experiment Station, Station P ap er 1, 27 pp. Sept., 1946. Weeks, David, A. E. Wieslander, H. R. Josephson, and C. L. Hill. Land utilization in the nor ther n S i e r r a Nevada. Giannini Foundation, Berkeley. 1943. 127 pp. Wehrwein, George S., and Raleigh Barlowe. The foregt crop law and p r ivate f o r e s t taxation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conser­ vation Department, Madison, Bulletin 519r 83 pp. Jan., 1945. White, Henry G. F o r e s t ownership r e s e a r c h in historical perspective. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 48: 261-263. April, 1950. Wi lli ams, Ellis T. The small timber owner and his federal income tax. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, Agricul­ t u r a l Handbook No. 52, 55 pp. Feb., 1953. Williams, E. T., M. B. Dickerman, and R. W. Marquis, U.S. F o r e s t Service. Financial and economic fact o rs . Section E, Chapter IV, Ti mb er r e s o u r c e review (preliminary review draft), 11 pp. Sept., 1955. Williams, W. K. F a r m f o r e s t r y extension, what it is and how it works. Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 107, 14 pp. Nov., 1953. Wohlenberg, E. T. F. F o r e s t depletion: F e d e r a l tax allowance for selective logging. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 38: 113-118. Feb., 1940. 343 Wolfanger, Louis A. Land f a r m types; a method of quantitative and graphic analysis and classification. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, E as t Lansing, Bulletin 175, 24 pp. Feb., 1941. Woods, Woods, John B. Forest Sept., 1935. J. B. credits. F o r ty year s Forestry. 39: Journal of F o r e s t r y . of private f o r e s t ownership. 106-110. F eb. , 33: 818-819. Journal of 1941. Wyckoff, Stephen N. A. p r o g r a m of education and cooperation. Journal of F o r e s t r y . 38: 92-94. Feb., 1940. J