Saving woods from 'woodland owners'.

editor: Two articles in the Winter 2006 issue addressed the problem of losing forestland to other uses. Five experts describe how best to convince private forest owners to value their timberland for ecosystem services. Despite what the experts may say, I feel the real reason for the loss of forestland to other uses is that people have too much money. Let's call these people Woodland Investors.

Now that Woodland Investors have extra money in their pockets, they are looking for a place in the woods to build their house. The federal tax law encourages people who sell their home to buy a more expensive piece of property or else pay a capital gains tax on the profit from selling their home. Today's buyers are buying investment property and/or recreation property, not a working forest or farm.

This phenomenon has been going on for years as cities expand, putting industrial parks and houses on agricultural and forest land.

Concerned people have suggested that conservation easements can be used to maintain the land in farm or forest use. All the conservation easement will do is postpone the conversion to a nonfarm or nonforest use for 10 or 20 years. Woodland Investors' income is high enough to outbid the traditional users of the land. Generally, income from the land would not be a high priority of the Woodland Investors.

The high cost of government both in taxes and regulations is working on the cost side, reducing the profitability of working farms and forests. As land values increase, more tax burden is shifted to farm and forest land. The forestland owner is squeezed from both sides.

One solution to keep forestland in working forests is to give forestland owners subsidies such as tax breaks or direct payments. But, why should we give Woodland Investors that buy forestland for recreation or investment a subsidy? They can afford to pay full price. Education on benefits of managing the land, yes. Subsidy, NO!

Another solution that more closely addresses the underlying problem is higher income taxes and a change of the tax law to discourage large houses and second homes. However, I believe that a major change in our institutions, land ownership, and capitalist philosophy is needed.

Timberland in turmoil will continue as Woodland Investors own more, smaller parcels of timberland. Our real challenge is to encourage Woodland Investors to practice good forestland management for all the potential benefits coming from forestland.

Frank C. Shirley

Vaughn, Washington