If a man proposes to build a factory or railroad in a community
the inhabitants usually encourage him. They do not refuse him fire
protection in the first place and then, if his plant burns down,
threaten to burn it again and keep up full taxation on the vacant
land. They offer every fair inducement to get the industry and keep
it flourishing. They expect it to pay its just share of taxation,
but want it to continue to do so as long as possible.

TAX NEW CROP WHEN HARVESTED

It has been shown that the first obstacle to reforestation of private
land can be removed only by supporting a fire patrol and creating
public sentiment which will reduce the number of fires. The second
is even more wholly in the hands of the people, for by the system
of taxation they impose they decide _whether it shall continue an
earning power and a tax source forever or be abandoned to become
a desert_; non-producing, non-taxable, and a menace to stream-flow.
Whether its owner has made money on the original crop has no bearing
on the result, nor has his being rich or poor, resident or alien.
Cutover land presents a distinct problem to him. He will and should
pay a full tax on its earning power, which will be demonstrated
when he successfully brings another crop to maturity. But he cannot
carry an investment for fifty years or more without return, with a
risk of total loss by fire up to the last moment, at a cost which
would bring him better profit in some other business.

These facts are recognized by all students of forestry. The following
authorities hold no brief for the lumberman. They approached the
subject solely from the side of the people: