1 hour Ago
AS A lifelong tree farmer (I bought my first woodlot in 1956 at the age of 11), it has been with great interest reading the recent spate of articles and letters to the editor regarding forest-carbon contracts. These contracts have been characterized as tax “loopholes” or conspiracies by West Coast environmental groups to control New Hampshire timberlands, and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if House Bill 123 were to pass, it would be the third tax I pay on my timber and with all the forest carbon programs, timberland ownership does not transfer to West Coast environmental organizations.
As a forest landowner who owns 2,400 acres in New Hampshire and has freely shared our land for more than 68 years with the State of New Hampshire and the general public, I strongly believe in private property rights. I view forest carbon contracts the same as negotiating a private contract to sell standing timber, timber rights (where it is cut later), an easement, or a right of way. Although HB 123 does not prohibit me from entering into a private forest-carbon contract, it does create a new tax that would tax my timber twice (an income tax at the time forest-carbon credits are sold and later when the timber is harvested).
I view this as double taxation. The third tax I pay is the federal income taxes I pay on the income derived from selling the carbon or timber. I have had a number of carbon companies contact me over the last three years and, so far, I have declined to sign up because it doesn’t work for my family.
Our forest management plans were set up to practice sustainable forestry, which we have been doing for years, and selling our forest products in the local and regional markets. Although we would have had to make some modifications to my management plans (because forest-carbon credit projects still require forest inventories and forest management planning, which includes some timber harvesting and wildlife habitat work), my family and I are just not ready to commit to a forest-carbon program. But I also see forest-carbon programs as a tool in a timberland owner’s toolbox to help enable them to cost effectively own land and to not have to parcel it up and sell it off for non-forest uses.
As an active tree farmer who attends a lot of meetings, I speak to hundreds of timberland owners each year. The message I hear from all of them is the same, “It is getting too expensive to hold onto the family tree farm and the pressures to develop it are growing.” This is where a forest-carbon program can come in handy.
Simply, the revenue for a forest-carbon project can enable one to keep their land undeveloped while sharing it with the public. As a private forest landowner, I am proud of the sustainable forestry we do on our property and our support of the state’s tourism and outdoor recreation industry. But owning land costs money and I just cannot support a new tax.
(I already pay local property taxes, timber taxes when I harvest timber, and federal income taxes.) Before you jump to the conclusion that forest-carbon programs are tax “loopholes,” or these programs are a West Coast environmental conspiracy to control New Hampshire timberland, get the facts. A great place to find them is at the American Tree Farm Program’s Family Forest Carbon website.
If House Bill 123 were to pass, the Granite State would be adding an income tax on timber that is under a carbon credit program, which will be run by the local selectmen for the town in which the timber is grown. This is not a good idea..
