A Brief History of Forestry. - in Europe, the United States and Other Countries

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: A Brief History of Forestry. - in Europe, the United States and Other Countries
Author: Fernow, Bernhard E.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Brief History of Forestry. - in Europe, the United States and Other Countries" ***

Transcriber’s Notes

Small capitals in the original work have been transcribed as ALL
CAPITALS; italics have been transcribed _between underscores_. A caret
represents a subscript, as in 4^o.

More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text.

A BRIEF

HISTORY OF FORESTRY.

IN EUROPE, THE UNITED STATES
AND OTHER COUNTRIES

Bernhard E. Fernow, LL.D.

Dean, Faculty of Forestry
University of Toronto

REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION

UNIVERSITY PRESS
TORONTO
AND
FORESTRY QUARTERLY,
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

_To My Friend of Many Years_

_ROSSITER W. RAYMOND_

_whose warm personal interest and enthusiastic
patriotism have from their beginnings
inspired my labors in forwarding
forestry interests in the
United States._

CONTENTS.

PAGE
PREFACE ix

INTRODUCTORY 1

THE FOREST OF THE ANCIENTS 8
1. Forest Conditions 9
2. Development of Forest Property 12
3. Forest Use 15
4. Literature 19

GERMANY 22

I. FROM EARLIEST TIMES TO END OF MIDDLE AGES 26
1. Development of Property Conditions 27
2. Forest Treatment 36

II. FIRST DEVELOPMENT OF FORESTRY METHODS (1500 TO 1800) 41
1. Development of Property Conditions 42
2. Forest Conditions 47
3. Methods of Restriction in Forest Use 49
4. Development of Forest Policy 52
5. Personnel 56
6. Development of Silviculture 57
7. Improvement of the Crop 67
8. Methods of Regulating Forest Management 68
9. Improvements in Methods of Mensuration 73
10. Methods of Lumbering and Utilization 77
11. Forest Administration 80
12. Forestry Schools 83
13. Forestry Literature 84

III. DEVELOPMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 91
1. Changes in Property Conditions 92
2. Forest Conditions 96
3. Personnel 97
4. Progress in Silviculture 102
5. Methods of Forest Organization 113
6. Forest Administration 120
7. Forest Policy 125
8. Forestry Science and Literature 131
9. Means of Advancing Forestry Science 145

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 152
1. Property Conditions 157
2. First Attempts at Forest Control 158
3. Development of Forest Policy 162
4. State Forest Administration 167
5. Progress of Forest Organization 169
6. Development of Silviculture 172
7. Education and Literature 175
HUNGARY 178

SWITZERLAND 185
1. Forest Conditions and Property Rights 188
2. Development of Forest Policy 190
3. Forestry Practice 198
4. Education and Literature 200

FRANCE 203
1. Development of Forest Property 203
2. Development of Forest Administration 213
3. Development of Modern Forest Policy 220
4. Work of Reforestation 224
5. Forestry Science and Practice 233
6. Education and Literature 241
7. Colonial Policies 248

RUSSIA AND FINLAND 253
1. Forest Conditions and Ownership 255
2. Development of Forest Policy 261
3. Education and Literature 270
4. Forestry Practice 273

FINLAND 277

THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES 285

SWEDEN 287
1. Property Conditions 290
2. Development of Forest Policy 294
3. Forest Administration and Forest Practice 301
4. Education and Literature 303

NORWAY 305

DENMARK 314

THE MEDITERRANEAN PENINSULAS 320

TURKISH AND SLAVISH TERRITORIES 321

GREECE 327
1. Forest Conditions 328
2. Development of Forest Policy 332

ITALY 335
1. Forest Conditions 336
2. Development of Forest Policy 340
3. Education and Literature 347

SPAIN 349
1. Forest Conditions 352
2. Development of Forest Policy 354

PORTUGAL 360

GREAT BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES 365
1. Forest Conditions 367
2. Development of Forest Policy 370

INDIA 380
1. Forest Conditions 383
2. Property Conditions 388
3. Development of Forest Policy 391
4. Forest Organization and Administration 396
5. Forest Treatment 400
6. Education and Literature 405

CANADA 409
1. Forest Conditions 414
2. Ownership 421
3. Administration of Timberlands 424
4. Development of Forest Policy 428
5. Education 435

NEWFOUNDLAND 437

OTHER BRITISH POSSESSIONS AND COLONIES 438

JAPAN 442
1. Forest Conditions and Ownership 442
2. Development of Forest Policy 446

KOREA 455

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 456
1. Forest Conditions 461
2. Early Forest History 466
3. Development of Forest Policy 479
4. Education and Literature 499

INSULAR POSSESSIONS 504

INDEX i

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

It has been a great surprise and also a great gratification to the
author to see the first edition of this volume exhausted within less
than two years since its appearance in complete form. The gratification
has come especially because of the opportunity thus afforded of
revision, improvement in style, and correction of the many inaccuracies
which the first edition contained, excusable only by the manner in which
(as explained in the preface of the first edition) the volume had come
into existence.

Only in a few cases has it seemed desirable to expand, since the object
of the book is not to be complete, but to give as briefly as possible an
oversight over a rather large field. The chapter on France has, however,
been entirely re-written and considerably enlarged to meet the just
criticisms of reviewers; the excellent work of Huffel, full of
historical data, which was not available when the first edition was
printed, permitting a clearer and fuller statement to be made.

As long as history is in the making, a book of this kind can hardly be
brought up to date. This should especially be kept in mind by the reader
in regard to the statistics brought in. Since these are only to serve in
general to show the magnitude of the interests involved, they may
without damage be only approximately accurate, and even of older date.

Some of the chapters have been submitted for criticism and corrections
to correspondents in the various countries to which they refer. For the
kindly assistance of these friends thanks is due from the author.

TORONTO, OCTOBER, 1911.

B. E. FERNOW.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.

This publication is the result of a series of 25 lectures which the
writer was invited to deliver before the students of forestry in Yale
University as a part of their regular course of instruction during the
session of 1904.

Circumstances made it desirable, in the absence of any existing
textbooks on the subject, to print at once, for the sake of ready
reference, the substance of the lectures while they were being
delivered.

This statement of the manner in which the book came into existence will
explain and, it is hoped, excuse the crudities of style, which has been
also hampered by the necessity of condensation.

The main object was to bring together the information, now scattered and
mostly inaccessible to English or American readers: the style has been
sacrificed to brevity; it is a book of expanded lecture notes.

In the nature of the case the book does not lay claim to any originality
except in the manner of presentation, being merely a compilation of
facts gathered mostly from other compilations, official documents and
journals.

For none of the countries discussed does a complete work on the history
of forests and forestry exist, excepting in the case of Germany, which
can boast of a number of comprehensive works on the subject. It was,
therefore, possible to treat that country more _in extenso_. Moreover,
it appeared desirable to enlarge upon the history of that country, since
it is pre-eminently in the lead in forestry matters and has passed
through all the stages of development of forest policies and forestry
practice, which, with more or less variations must be repeated in other
countries.

Especially the growth of the technical science and art of forestry,
which has been developed in Germany for a longer time and to a more
refined degree than in other countries, has been elaborated in the
chapter relating to that country.

For some of the other countries available sources of information were
quite limited. The writer believes, however, that for the purpose of
this brief statement the data collected will be found sufficient.

In order to make conditions existing in the different countries and
their causes more readily understood it appeared desirable to give very
brief historic references to their political and economic development
and also brief statements of their general physical conditions.

Present conditions of forest policy and forest administration have
sometimes been enlarged upon beyond the requirements of historical
treatment.

ITHACA, N.Y., May, 1907.

B. E. FERNOW.

INTRODUCTORY.

The value of studying the historical development of an economic subject
or of a technical art which, like forestry, relies to a large extent
upon empiricism, lies in the fact that it brings before us, in proper
perspective, accumulated experience, and enables us to analyze cause and
effect, whereby we may learn to appreciate the reasons for present
conditions and the possibilities for rational advancement.

If there be one philosophy more readily derivable than another from the
study of the history of forestry it is that history repeats itself. The
same policies and the same methods which we hear propounded to-day have
at some other time been propounded and tried elsewhere: we can study the
results, broadening our judgment and thereby avoid the mistakes of
others.

Nowhere is the record of experience and the historic method of study of
more value than in an empiric art like forestry, in which it takes
decades, a lifetime, nay a century to see the final effects of
operations.

Such study, if properly pursued, tends to free the mind from many
foolish prejudices and particularly from an unreasonable partiality for
our own country and its customs and methods merely because they are our
own, substituting the proper patriotism, which applies the best
knowledge, wherever found, to our own necessities.

Forestry is an art born of necessity, as opposed to arts of convenience
and of pleasure. Only when a reduction in the natural supplies of forest
products under the demands of civilization, necessitates a husbanding of
supplies or necessitates the application of art or skill or knowledge in
securing a reproduction, or when unfavorable conditions of soil or
climate induced by forest destruction make themselves felt does the art
of forestry make its appearance. Hence its beginnings occur in different
places at different times and its development proceeds at different
paces.

In the one country, owing to economic development, the need of an
intensive forest management and of strict forest policies may have
arrived, while in another, rough exploitation and wasteful practices are
still natural and practically unavoidable. And such differences, as we
shall see, may even exist in the different parts of the same country.

The origin and growth of the art, then, is dependent on economic and
cultural conditions, on various economic development and on elements of
environment. The development of the art can only be understood and
appreciated through the knowledge of such environment, of such other
developments as of agriculture, of industries, of means of
transportation, of civilization generally.

Hence we find, for instance, that England, located so as to be
accessible by sea from all points of the compass and with oceanic
shipping well developed, can apparently dispense with serious
consideration of the forest supply question.

Again, we find that more than a century ago fear of a timber famine
agitated not only the dense populations of many European countries, but
even the scanty population of the United States, in spite of the natural
forest wealth which is still supplying us; and not without good reason,
for at that time wood was the only fuel and rivers the only means of
transportation; hence local scarcity was to be feared and was not
unfrequently experienced when accessible forest areas had been
exploited. Railroad and canal development and the use of coal for fuel
changed this condition on both continents. Now, with improved means of
transportation by land and by sea, the questions of wood supply and of
forestry development, which at one time were of very local concern, have
become world questions, and he who proposes to discuss intelligently
forest conditions and forestry movement in one country must understand
what is going on in other countries.

As will appear from the study of the following pages, with the exception
of some parts of central Europe or of some sporadic attempts elsewhere
to regulate forest use, the development of the forestry idea belongs
essentially to the 19th century, and more especially to the second half,
when the rapid development of railroads had narrowed the world, and the
remarkable development of industries and material civilization called
for increased draft on forest resources.

Yet we are still largely ignorant as to the extent of available forest
area, not only in this country but elsewhere: we do not know whether it
be sufficient in extent and yield to furnish a continuous supply for
the needs of our civilization, or, if not, for how long a time it will
suffice. We can only make very broad statements as to questions of wood
supply, and very broad inferences from them as argument for the need of
a closer study of forest conditions and of the practice of forestry:

1. Practically, the northern temperate zone alone produces the kinds of
wood which enter most largely into our economy, namely the soft conifers
and the medium hard woods; most of the woods of the tropics are very
hard, fit primarily for ornamental use and hence less necessary.
Possibly a change in the methods of the use of wood may also change the
relative economic values, but at present the vast forests of the
tropical countries are of relatively little importance in the discussion
of wood supply for the world.

2. The productive forest area, of the temperate zone, in which the
industrial nations are located, has continuously decreased. We shall not
be far from wrong in stating this area liberally, to be at present
around 2,500 million acres,[1] namely in Europe, 800 million acres; in
Asia, 800 million acres; in North America, 900 million acres. How much
of this acreage contains available virgin timber, how much is merely
potential forest, how much growing crop, it is impossible to state.

[1] The total forest area of the world is supposed to be 3,800
million acres.

3. The civilized wood consuming population of this territory is about
500 million, hence the per capita acreage is still 5 acres. Taking the
European countries which now have to import all or part of their
consumption (excess over exports), we find that their population is
estimated at 180 million and that they use 30 cubic feet of wood per
capita, of which 12 cubic feet is log timber; or altogether they use
2,200 million cubic feet of this latter description, of which they
import in round numbers 1,000 million at a cost of about 250 million
dollars; their forest acreage of 100 million acres being insufficient to
produce, even under careful management as in Germany, more than
two-thirds of their needs. And the wood consumption in all these nations
is growing at the rate of 1½ to 2 per cent. annually.

4. The deficiency is at present supplied by the export countries,
Russia, Sweden, Norway, Austria-Hungary, Canada and United States, and
these countries themselves also increasing their consumption, are
beginning to feel the drain on their forest resources, which are for the
most part merely roughly exploited.

5. If we assume a log timber requirement by the 500 million people of
6000 million cubic feet and could secure what France annually produces,
namely a little less than 9 cubic feet of such timber per acre, the area
supposed to be under forest would amply suffice. But a large part of it
is in fact withdrawn from _useful_ production and of the balance not
more than 250 million acres at best are as yet under management for
continuous production. Hence attention to forestry is an urgent
necessity for every industrial nation.

* * * * *

The history of the forest in all forest countries shows the same periods
of development.

First hardly recognized as of value or even as personal property, the
forest appears an undesirable encumbrance of the soil, and the attitude
of the settler is of necessity inimical to the forest: the need for farm
and pasture leads to forest destruction.

The next stage is that of restriction in forest use and protection
against cattle and fire, the stage of conservative lumbering. Then come
positive efforts to secure re-growth by fostering natural regeneration
or by artificial planting: the practice of silviculture begins. Finally
a management for continuity--organizing existing forest areas for
sustained yield--forest economy is introduced.

That the time and progress of these stages of development and the
methods of their inauguration vary in different parts of the world is
readily understood from the intimate relation which, as has been pointed
out, this economic subject bears to all other economic as well as
political developments.

At the present time we find all the European nations practicing
forestry, although with a very varying degree of intensity. The greatest
and most universal development of the art is for good reasons to be
found in Germany and its nearest neighbors. Early attention to forest
conservancy was here induced by density of population, which enforces
intensity in the use of soil, and by the comparative difficulty of
securing wood supplies cheaply enough from outside. On the other hand,
such countries as the Mediterranean peninsulas by their advantageous
situation with reference to importations, with their mild climate and
less intensive industrial development, have felt this need less.

Again, the still poorly settled and originally heavily timbered
countries of the Scandinavian peninsula and the vast empire of Russia
are still heavy exploiters of forest products and are only just
beginning to feel the drain on their forest resources; while the United
States, with as much forest wealth as Russia, but with a much more
intensive industrial development, has managed to reach the stage of need
for a conservative forest policy in a shorter time.

From each of the European countries we learn something helpful towards
inaugurating such policies, and while, owing to a different historical
background and to different political and social conditions, none of
their administrative methods and measures may appeal to us, the
principles underlying them as well as those underlying their
silvicultural methods remain the same; they are applicable everywhere,
and can best be recognized and studied in the history of their
development.

THE FOREST OF THE ANCIENTS.

_Waldgeschichte des Alterthums_, by AUGUST SEIDENSTICKER, 1886, 2
vols., pp. 863, is a most painstaking compilation from original
sources of notes regarding the forest conditions and the knowledge
of trees, forests and forestry among the ancients. Contains also a
full bibliography.

_Die Waldwirthschaft der Rœmer_, by J. TRURIG, collects the
knowledge, especially of arboriculture and silviculture, possessed
by the Romans.

_Forstwissenschaftliche Leistungen der Altgriechen_, by Dr. CHLOROS,
in Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 1885, pp. 8.

_Archeologia forestale, Dell’ antica storia e giurisprudenza
forestale in Italia_, by A. DI BERENGER, 1859.

The forest was undoubtedly the earliest home of mankind, its edible
products forming its principal value. Its wild animals developed the
hunter, the chase first furnishing means of subsistence and then
exhilaration and pleasure. Next, it was the mast and, in its openings,
the pasture which gave to the forest its value for the herder, and only
last, with the development into settled communities and more highly
civilized conditions of life, did the wood product become its main
contribution toward that civilization. Finally, in the refinement of
cultural conditions in densely settled countries is added its influence
on soil, climate and water conditions.

Although there is no written history, there is little doubt that these
were the phases in the appreciation of woodlands in the earliest
development of mankind, for we find the same phases repeated in our own
times in all newly settled countries.

As agriculture develops, the need for farming ground overshadows the
usefulness of the forest in all these directions, and it is cleared
away; moreover, as population remains scanty, a wasteful use of its
stores forms the rule, until necessity arises for greater care in the
exploitation, for more rational distribution of farm and forest area,
and finally for intentional reproduction of wood as a useful crop.

Correspondingly forest conditions change from the densely forested hills
and mountain slopes during the age of the nomad and hunter to the
“enclaves” or patches of field and pasture enclosed by the forest of the
first farmers, then follows the opening up of the valleys and lowlands,
while the hill and mountain farms may return to forest, and finally,
with the increase of population and civilization in valleys and plains,
a reduction of the forest area and a decrease of forest wealth results.

1. _Forest Conditions._

While we have many isolated references to forest conditions and progress
of forest exploitation among the ancients in the writings of poets and
historians, these are generally too brief to permit us to gain a very
clear picture of the progress of forest history; except in isolated
cases, they furnish only glimpses, allowing us to fill in the rest to
some extent by guess.

That the countries occupied and known to the ancients, even Spain and
Palestine, were originally well-wooded there seems little doubt,
although in the drier regions and on the drier limestone soils, the
forest was perhaps open, as is usual under such conditions, and truly
arid, forestless regions were also found where they exist now. Although
it has been customary to point out some of the Mediterranean and
Eastern countries as having become deserts and depopulated through
deforestation, and although this is undoubtedly true for some parts, as
Mount Lebanon and Syria, generalization in this respect is dangerous.

We know, however, that by the 11th century before Christ, in Palestine,
Asia Minor and Greece, especially in the neighborhood of thriving
cities, the forest cover had vanished to a large extent and building
timber for the temples at Tyre and Sidon had to be brought long
distances from Mount Lebanon, whose wealth of cedar was also freely
drawn upon for ship timber and other structures. Although about 465 B.C.
Artaxerxes I, having recognized the pending exhaustion of this mountain
forest, had attempted to regulate the cutting of timber, the
exploitation had by 333 B.C. progressed to such an extent that
Alexander the Great found at least the south slope exhausted and almost
woodless.

The destruction by axe and fire of the celebrated forests of Sharon,
Carmel and Bashan is the theme of the prophet Isaiah writing about 590
B.C.; and the widespread devastation of large forest areas during the
Jewish wars is depicted by Josephus. In Greece, the Persian wars are on
record as causes of widespread forest destruction. Yet in other parts,
as on the island of Cyprus, which, originally densely wooded, had
rapidly lost its forest wealth during Cleopatra’s time through the
development of mining and metallurgical works, ship building and
clearing for farms, the kings seemed to have been able to protect the
remnants for a long time, so that respectable forest cover exists even
to date.

The Romans seem to have had still a surplus of ship timber at their
command in the third and second centuries before Christ, when they did
not hesitate to burn the warships of the Carthaginians (203 B.C.) and of
the Syrians (189 B.C.), although it may be that other considerations
forced these actions. Denuded hills and scarcity of building timber in
certain parts are mentioned at the end of the third century before
Christ, and that the need for conservative use of timber resources had
arrived also appears from the fact that when (167 B.C.) the Romans had
brought Macedonia under their sway, the cutting of ship timber in the
extensive forests of that country was prohibited. Although at that time
the Roman State forests were still quite extensive, it is evident that
under the system of renting these for the mast and pasture and for the
exploitation of their timber to companies of contractors, their
devastation must have progressed rapidly. Yet, on the whole, with local
exceptions, Italy remained well wooded until the Christian era.

In Spain, according to Diodorus Siculus (about 100 B.C.), the Southern
provinces were densely wooded when about 200 B.C. the Romans first took
possession; but soon after a great forest fire starting from the
Pyrenees ran over the country, exposing deposits of silver ore, which
invited a large influx of miners, the cause of reckless deforestation of
the country. The interior of this peninsula, however, was probably
always forestless or at least scantily wooded.

While through colonization, exploitation, fire and other abuse, the
useful forest area was decimated in many parts, the location of the
Mediterranean peninsular countries was such that wood supplies could be
readily secured by water from distant parts, and the _lignarii_ or wood
merchants of Italy drew their supplies even from India by way of
Alexandria; they went for Ash to Asia Minor; for Cedar to Cilicia;
Paphlagonia, Liguria and Mauritania became the great wood export
countries. It is interesting to note that a regular wood market existed
in Rome, as in Jerusalem, and at the former place firewood was sold by
the pound (75c per 200 lbs., in Cicero’s time). At the same time that
the causes of devastation were at work the forest area also increased in
some parts, recovering ground lost during wars and through the neglect
of farms by natural seeding; much less by active effort, although
planting of trees in parks, vineyards and groves was early practiced to
a limited extent.

2. _Development of Property._

As to development of forest property we have also only fragmentary
information. Nomads do not know soil as property. When they become
settled farmers the plowland, the vineyard or olive grove and orchard
are recognized as private property, but all the rest remains common
property or nobody’s in particular; and even the private property was
not at first entirely exclusive. Hence for a long time (and in some
parts even to date) the exclusive property right in forests is not fully
established. At least the right to hunt over all territory without
restriction was possessed by everybody, although an owner might prevent
undesirable hunters from entering his property if it was enclosed. The
setting aside of hunting grounds for private use came into existence
only in later Roman times. But woodland parks, planted or otherwise,
like the “paradises” of the Persian kings and the _nemora_ of the Romans
and Carthaginians were early a part of the private property of princes
and grandees from which others were excluded.

Forests formed a barrier and defense against outsiders, or a hiding
place in case of need, hence we find in early times frontier forests, or
as the Germans called them “Grenzmarken,” set aside or designated for
such purposes and withdrawn from use, and sometimes additionally
fortified by ditches and other artificial barriers. Even before the
“Grenzmarken” of the Germans the forest was used by Greeks, Romans and
still earlier among Asiatic tribes to designate the limit of peoples as
well as to serve as a bulwark against attacks from invaders.

Again, the pantheistic ideas of the ancients led to consecrating not
only trees but groves to certain gods: holy groves were frequent among
the Greeks and Romans, and also among other pagans; the Jews, however,
were enjoined to eradicate these emblems of paganism in the promised
land with axe and fire, and they did so more or less, removal and
re-establishment of holy groves varying according to the religious
sentiment of their rulers. Altogether, in Palestine the forests were
left to the free and unrestricted use of the Israelites.

Out of religious conceptions and priestly shrewdness arose church
property in farms and forests among the Indian Brahmans, the Ethiopians
and Egyptians, as also among Greeks and Romans.

It appears that the oriental kings were exclusive owners of all
unappropriated or public forests. This was certainly the case with the
princes of India and of Persia, and such ownership can be proved
definitely in many other parts, as in the case of the forests of
Lebanon, of Cyprus, and of various forest areas in Asia Minor.

That in the Greek republics the forests were mainly public property
seems to be likely; for Attica, at least, this is true without doubt.

While the first Roman kings seem to have owned royal domains, which were
distributed among the people after the expulsion of the kings, the
public property which came to the republic as a result of conquest was
in most cases at once transferred to private hands, either for
homesteads of colonists, or in recognition of services of soldiers and
other public officers, or to mollify the conquered, or by sale, or for
rent, not to mention the rights acquired by squatters. The rents were
usually farmed out to collectors (_publicani_) or to corporations formed
of these. Livy, however, mentions also State forests in which the
cutting was regulated, probably by merely reserving the ship timber.

That occasionally single cities and other smaller municipal units owned
forest properties in common seems also established.

Private forest properties connected with farm estates existed in
Ethiopia, in Arabia, among the Greeks and among the Romans at home as
well as in their colonies. Especially pasture woods (_saltus_) connected
with small and large estates (_latifundia_) into which probably most
forest areas near settlements were turned, are frequently mentioned as
in private ownership; but also other private forests existed.

The institution of servitudes or rights of user (_usus_ and
_usus-fructus_) and a considerable amount of law regarding the
conditions under which they were exercised and regarding their
extinguishment were in existence among the Romans in the first centuries
of the Christian era.

3. _Forest Use._

Restrictions in the use of woods were not entirely absent, but with the
exception of reserving ship timber in the State forests, they refer only
to special classes of forest.

In the frontier forests reserved for defensive purposes, timber cutting
was forbidden. And in the holy groves set aside by private or public
declaration no wood could be cut thereafter, being in the latter case
considered nobody’s property but sanctified and dedicated to religious
use (_res sacra_), and whoever removed any wood from them was considered
a “patricide,” except the cutting be done for purposes of improvement
(thinnings) and after a prescribed sacrifice.

With the extension of Christendom the holy trees and groves became the
property of the emperors, who sometimes substituted Christian holiness
for the pagan, and retained the restrictions which had preserved them.
Thus the cutting and selling of cypress and other trees in the holy
grove near Antioch, and of _Persea_ trees in Egypt generally (which had
been deemed holy under the Pharaos) was prohibited under penalty of five
pounds gold, unless a special permit had been obtained.

In Attica as well as in Rome the theory that the State cannot
satisfactorily carry on any business was well established. Hence, the
State forests were rented out under a system of time rent or a perpetual
license, the renters after exploiting the timber usually subletting the
culled woods merely for the pasture, except where coppice could be
profitably utilized. The officials, with titles referring to their
connection with the woods, as the Roman _saltuarii_ or the Greek
_hyloroi_ (forestguards) and _villici silvarum_, the overseers, both
grades taken from the slaves, had hardly even police functions.

_Forest management_ proper, _i.e._, regulated use for continuity, except
in coppice, seems nowhere to have been practiced by the ancients,
although _arboriculture_ in artificial plantations was well established
and occasionally even attempts at replacement in forest fashion seem to
have been made deliberately. Not only were many arboricultural practices
of to-day well known to them, but also a number of the still unsettled
controversies in this field were then already subjects of discussion.

The culling system of taking only the most desirable kinds, trees and
cuts, which until recently has characterized our American lumbering
methods was naturally the one under which the mixed forest was
utilized. Fire used in the pasture woods for the same purposes as with
us effectively prevented reproduction in these, and destroyed gradually
the remnants of old trees.

Only where for park and hunting purposes some care was bestowed upon the
woodland, was reproduction purposely attempted, as, for instance, when
in a hunting park an underwood was to be established for game cover.

The treatment of the coppice and methods of sowing and planting were
well understood in spite of the lack of natural sciences. Whatever
forestry practice existed was based merely on empirical observations and
was taught in the books on agriculture as a part of farm practice.

Silviculture was mainly developed in connection with the coppice, which
was systematically practiced for the purpose of growing vineyard stakes,
especially with chestnut (_castanetum_), oak (_quercetum_), and willow
(_salicetum_), while the _arbustum_ denoted the plantings of trees for
the support of grapes, and incidentally for the foliage used as cattle
feed, still in vogue in modern Italy.

This planting of vine supports was done with saplings of elm, poplar and
some other species; by pollarding and by a well devised system of
pruning, these were gradually prepared and maintained in proper form for
their purpose.

The coppice seems to have been systematically managed in Attica as well
as in Italy in regular fellings; the mild climate producing sprouts and
root suckers readily without requiring much care, even conifers
(cypress and fir) reproducing in this manner.

The oak coppice was managed in 7 year rotation, the chestnut in 5 year,
and the willow in 3 year rotation.

Yield and profitableness are discussed, and the practice of thinnings is
known, but only for the purpose of removing and using the dead material.

Forest protection was poorly developed: of insects little, of fungi no
knowledge existed. Hand-picking was applied against caterpillars, also
ditches into which the beetles were driven and then covered; the use of
hogs in fighting insects was also known. That goats were undesirable in
the woods had been observed. Some remarkable precocious physiological
knowledge or rather philosophy existed: it was recognized that frost
produces drought and that a remedy is to loosen the soil, aerating the
roots, to drain or water as the case might require, and to prune; but
also sap letting was prescribed. Against hail, dead owls were to be hung
up; against ants, which were deemed injurious, ashes with vinegar were
to be applied, or else an ass’s heart.

Curiosities in wood technology were rife and many contradictions among
the wood sharps existed, as in our times. Only four elements, earth,
water, fire, air, composed all bodies; the more fire in the composition
of a wood, the more readily would it decay. Spruce, being composed of
less earth and water but more fire and air, is therefore lighter than
oak which, mostly composed of earth, is therefore so durable; but the
latter warps and develops season splits because on account of its
density it cannot take up readily and resists the penetration of
moisture.

Wood impregnation, supposed to be a modern invention, was already
practiced; cedrium (cedar oil) being used as well as a tar coating or
immersion in seawater for one year, to secure greater durability.

4. _Literature._

As regards literature, we find in Greece, besides what can be learned
incidentally from the historians _Herodotus_ and _Xenophon_ and from the
natural history of Aristotle, the first work on plant history and wood
technology, if not forestry, in 18 volumes by _Theophrastus_ (390-286
B.C.), a pupil of Aristotle and Plato.

Among the Romans, besides a number of historians, at least three writers
before Christ discussed in detail agriculture and, in connection with
it, tree culture; namely, _Cato_ (234-149 B.C.) who wrote an excellent
work _De re rustica_, in 162 chapters; _Varro_ (116-26 B.C.), also _De
re rustica_, in three books; and _Vergilius Maro_ (70-19 B.C.), who in
his _Georgica_ records in six books the state of knowledge at that time.
Of the many writers on these subjects who came in the Christian era
there are also three to be mentioned, namely, _Cajus Plinius Major_
(23-79 A.D.), who in his _Historia naturalis_, in 37 books, discusses
also the technique of silviculture; _Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella_
(about 50 A.D.), with 12 books, _De re rustica_, and one book _De
arboribus_, the former being the best work of the ancients on the
subject; and _Palladius_, writing about 350 A.D., 13 books, _De re
rustica_, which in the original and in translations was read until past
the middle ages.

Only a few references which exhibit the state of knowledge on
arboricultural subjects among the Romans as shown in this literature may
be cited, some of which knowledge was also developed in Greece and found
application, more or less, throughout the Roman empire from India to
Spain.

Nursery practice was already well known to Cato, while Varro knew,
besides sowing and planting, the art of grafting and layering, and
Columella discusses in addition pruning and pollarding (which latter was
practiced for securing fuelwood), and the propriety of leaving the
pruned trees two years to recuperate before applying the knife again.

The method of wintering acorns and chestnuts in sand, working them over
every 30 days and separating the poor seed by floating in water, was
known to Columella and, indeed, he discusses nursery management with
minute detail, even the advantages of transplants and of doubly
transplanted material. The question whether to plant or to sow, the
preference of fall or spring planting with distinction for different
species and localities are matters under his consideration; and
preference of sowing oak and chestnut instead of transplanting is
pointed out and supported by good reasons.

Pliny, the Humboldt of the ancients, recognizes tolerance of different
species, the need of different treatment for different species, the
desirability of transplanting to soil and climatic conditions similar to
those to which the tree was accustomed, and of placing the trees as they
stood with reference to the sun. But, to be sure, he also has many
curious notions, as for instance his counsel to set shallow rooted
trees deeper than they stood before, his advice not to plant during
rain, or windy weather and his laying much stress on the phases of the
moon as influencing results.

* * * * *

While then the ancients were not entirely without silvicultural
knowledge, indeed possessed much more than is usually credited to them,
the need of a forest policy and of a systematic forest management in the
modern sense had not arisen in their time; the mild climate reducing the
necessity of fuelwood and the accessibility by water to sources of
supply for naval and other construction delaying the need for forest
production at home.

There is little doubt, that some of the agricultural and silvicultural
knowledge and practice of the Romans found entrance among the German
tribes who, especially the Allemanni, came into contact with the Romans
in their civilized surroundings during the fourth century.

GERMANY.

Besides a dozen or more earlier histories of forestry in Germany,
some of which date back to the beginning of the 19th century, there
are two excellent modern compilations, namely:

_Geschichte des Waldeigenthums, der Waldwirtschaft und
Forstwissenschaft in Deutschland_, by AUGUST BERNHARDT, 1872-75, 3
Vols., 1062 pp., a classic, which treats especially extensively of
political and economic questions having a bearing on the development
of forestry; and

_Handbuch der Forst- und Jagdgeschichte Deutschlands_, by ADAM
SCHWAPPACH, 1886, 2 Vols., 892 pp., which appeared as a second
edition of Bernhardt’s history, abridging the political history and
expanding the forestry part. This volume has been mainly followed in
the following presentation of the subject. In condensed form this
history is also to be found in LOREY’S _Handbuch der
Forstwissenschaft_, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 143-210.

In Schwappach’s history a full list of original sources is
enumerated. These are, for the oldest period, Roman writings, which
are unreliable; the laws of the various German tribes; the laws of
kings (_Capitularia_); the laws of villages and other territorial
districts; “Weisthümer” (judgments); inventories of properties
(especially of churches and cloisters); documents of business
transactions and chronicles. For the time after the Middle ages the
most important source is found in the Forest Ordinances of princes
and other forest owners; forest laws; police orders; business
documents, and finally special literature.

It is generally conceded that both the science and art of forestry are
most thoroughly developed and most intensively applied throughout
Germany. It must, however, not be understood that perfection has been
reached anywhere in the practical application of the art, or that the
science, which like that of medicine has been largely a growth of
empiricism, is in all parts safely based; nor are definitely settled
forest policies so entrenched, that they have become immutable. On the
contrary, there are still mismanaged and unmanaged woods to be found,
mainly those in the hands of farmers and other private owners; there are
still even in well managed forests practices pursued which are known
not to conform to theoretical ideals, and others which lack a sure
scientific foundation; and while the general policy of conservative
management and of State interest in the same is thoroughly established,
the methods of attaining the result are neither uniform throughout the
various States which form the German Federation, nor positively settled
anywhere. In other words, the history of forestry is still, even in this
most advanced country, in the stage of lively development.

For the student of forestry the history of its development in Germany is
of greatest interest not only because his art has reached here the
highest and most intensive application, but because all the phases of
development through which other countries have passed or else will
eventually have to pass are here exemplified, and many if not most of
the other countries of the world have more or less followed German
example or have been at least influenced by German precedent. There is
hardly a policy or practice that has not at some time in some part been
employed in the fatherland of forestry.

One reason for this rich historical background is the fact, that Germany
has never been a unit, that from its earliest history it was broken up
into many independent and, until modern times, only loosely associated
units, which developed differently in social, political and economic
direction. This accounts also for the great variety of conditions
existing even to-day in the 26 principalities which form the German
empire.

Politically, it may be mentioned that out of the very many independent
principalities into which the German territory had been divided,
variable in number from time to time, the 26 which had preserved their
autonomy formed in 1871 the federation of States, known as the German
Empire. Each of these has its own representative government including
the forest administration, very much like the state governments of the
United States; only the army and navy, tariff, posts, telegraphs,
criminal law and foreign policy, and a few other matters are under the
direct jurisdiction of the empire, represented in the Reichstag, the
Bundesrath, and the Emperor.

The 208,830 square miles of territory,[2] which supports a population of
about 60 million people, still contain a forest area of around 35
million acres (26% of the land area) or .61 acre per capita, which
although largely under conservative management has long ago ceased to
supply by its annual increment (somewhat over 50 cubic feet per acre)
the needs of the population; the imports during the last 50 years since
1862, when Germany began to show excess of imports over exports, having
grown in volume at the average rate of 10% to now round 380 million
cubic feet (45 million dollars) or nearly 15% of the consumption.

[2] The statistics in this book do not pretend to be more than
approximations.

The larger part of Germany, two thirds of the territory and population
is controlled by modern Prussia, with a total forest area of 20 million
acres; Bavaria comes next with one seventh of the land area and 6
million acres of forest; the five larger states of Wurttemberg, Baden,
Saxony, Mecklenburg and Hesse, occupying together another seventh of
the territory with 5 million acres of forest. The balance of the area
is divided among the other 19 states.

Fifty per cent. of Germany roughly speaking, is plains country, the
larger part in the northern and eastern territory of Prussia; 25% is
hill country, mostly in West and Middle Germany; and 25% is mountain
country, the larger portion in the southern states.

There are at best only five species of timber of high economic general
importance, the (Scotch) pine which covers large areas in the northern
sandy plain and the lighter soils in the south; the (Norway) spruce and
(Silver) fir which form forests in the southwestern and other mountain
regions and represent, in mixture with broadleaf forest, a goodly
proportion in the northeastern lowlands; the (English) oak, of which
botanically two species are recognized; and the beech. The last two are
the most important hardwoods found throughout the empire, but especially
highly developed in the west and southwest. In addition, there are half
a dozen species of minor or more local importance, but the five
mentioned form the basis of the forestry systems.

* * * * *

The history of the development of forestry in Germany may be divided
into periods variously. Bernhardt recognizes six periods; Schwappach
makes four divisions, namely, the first, from the earliest times to the
end of the Carlovingians (911), which is occupied mainly with the
development of forest property conditions; the second, to the end of the
Middle Ages (1500), during which the necessity of forest management
begins to be sporadically recognized; the third, to the end of the 18th
century, during which the foundation for the development of all branches
of forestry is laid; the fourth, the modern period, accomplishing the
complete establishment of forestry methods in all parts of Germany. For
the later historian it would be proper to recognize a fifth period from
about 1863, when, by the establishment of experiment stations, a
breaking away from the merely empiric basis to a more scientific
foundation of forestry practice was begun.

For our purposes we shall be satisfied with a division into three
periods, namely: first, to the end of the middle ages, when, with the
discoveries of America and other new countries, an enlargement of the
world’s horizon gave rise to a change of economic conditions; second, to
the end of the eighteenth century, when change of political and economic
thought altered the relation of peoples and countries; third, the modern
period, which exhibits the practical fruition of these changes.

I. FROM EARLIEST TIMES TO END OF MIDDLE AGES.

Many of the present conditions, especially those of ownership, as well
as the progress in the development both of forest policy and of forest
management, can be understood only with some knowledge of the early
history of the settlement of the country.[3]

[3] FELIX DAHN, _Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen
Völker_, 1881.

As is well known, Aryan tribes from central Asia had more than a
thousand years before Christ begun to overrun the country. These
belonged to the Keltic (Celtic) or Gaelic race which had gradually come
to occupy partly or wholly, France, Spain, northern Italy, the western
part of Germany and the British Islands. They were followed by the
_Germani_ (supposedly a Celtic word meaning neighbor or brother), also
Aryan tribes, who appeared at the Black Sea about 1000 B.C., in
Switzerland and Belgium about 100 B.C. These were followed by the
Slovenes, Slovaks, or Wends, crowding on behind, disputing and taking
possession of the lands left free by, or conquered from the Germani.
Through these migrations, by about 400 A.D., the whole of Western Europe
seems to have been fully peopled with these tribes of hunters and
herders. The mixture of the different elements of victors and vanquished
led to differentiation into three classes of people, economically and
politically speaking, namely the free, the unfree (serfs or slaves), and
the freedmen--an important distinction in the development of property
rights.

1. _Development of Property Conditions._

The German tribes who remained conquerors were composed of the different
groups of Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Bajuvarians, Burgundians, etc.,
each composed of families aggregated into communal hordes with an
elected Duke (_dux_, _Herzog_, _Graf_, _Fürst_), organized for war, each
in itself a socialistic and economic organization known as _Mark_,
owning a territory in common, the members or _Markgenossen_ forming a
republic. Outside of house, yard and garden, there was no private
property; the land surrounding the settlement, known as _Allmende_,
(commons) was owned in common, but assigned in parcels to each family
for field use, the assignment first changing from year to year, then
becoming fixed. The outlying woods, known as the _Marca_ or _Grenzwald_,
forming debatable ground with the neighboring tribes, were used in
common for hunting, pasturing, fattening of hogs by the oak mast, and
for other such purposes, rather than for the wood of which little was
needed. In return for the assignment of the fields, the free men, who
alone were fully recognized citizens of the community, had to fulfil the
duties of citizens and especially of war service.

Only gradually, by partition, immigration and uneven numerical
development, was the original Mark or differentiation into family
associations destroyed and a more heterogeneous association of neighbors
substituted. At the same time, inequality of ownership arose especially
from the fact that those who owned a larger number of slaves (the
conquered race) had the advantage in being able to clear and cultivate
more readily new and rough forest ground. Those without slaves would
seek assistance from those more favored, exchanging for rent or service
their rights to the use of land; out of this relationship a certain
vassalage and inequality of political rights developed.

Under the influence of Roman doctrine, a new aspect regarding newly
conquered territory gained recognition, by which the Dukes as
representatives of the community laid claim to all unseated or
unappropriated land; they then distributed to their followers or
donated to the newly established church portions of this land, so that
by the year 900 A.D., a complete change in property relations had been
effected. By that time the large baronial estates of private owners had
come into existence which were of such great significance in the
economic history of the Middle Ages, changing considerably the status of
the free men, and changing the free mark societies into communities
under the dominion of the barons.

The first real king, who did not, however, assume the title, was Clovis,
a Duke of the Franks, who had occupied the lower Rhine country. About
500 A.D., picking a quarrel with his neighbors, the Allemanni, he
subdued them and aggrandized himself by taking their Mark. In this way
he laid the foundation for a kingdom which he extended by conquest
mainly to the westward, but also by strategy to the eastward, the
warlike tribes of Saxons and other Germans conceding in a manner the
leadership of the Franks.

A real kingdom, however, did not arise until Charlemagne, in 772, became
the ruler, extending his government far to the East.

At times, the kingdom was divided into the western Neustria, and the
eastern Austria, and then again united, but it was only when the dynasty
of Charlemagne became extinct with the death of Louis the Child (911),
that the final separation from France was effected, and Germany became a
separate kingdom, the eastern tribes between the Rhine and Elbe choosing
their own king, Conrad, Duke of Franconia. There were then five tribes
or nations, each under its own Duke and its own laws, comprising this
new kingdom, namely the Franks, Suabians, Bavarians, Saxons on the
right, and the Lorainers on the left bank of the Rhine, while the
country East of the Elbe river was mostly occupied by Slovenians.

With Clovis began the new order of things which was signalized by the
aggrandizement of kings, dukes and barons.

In addition to the rule regarding the ownership of unseated lands there
developed, also under Roman law doctrine, the conception of seignorial
right, _i.e._, the power of the king to jurisdiction over his property.
This right, first claimed by the duke or king for himself, is then
transferred with the territory given to his friends and vassals, who
thereby secure for themselves his powers and jurisdiction, immunity from
taxes and from other duties, as well as the right to exact taxes and
services from others, the favored growing into independent knights and
barons.

* * * * *

The forest, then, originally was communal property and the feeling of
this ownership in common remains even to the present day. Indeed,
actually it remained in most cases so until the 13th century, although
the changes noted had their origin in the 7th century when the kings
began to assert their rights of princely superiority.

In these earlier ages, the main use of the forests was for the hunt, the
mast and the pasture, and since wood was relatively plentiful, forest
destruction was the rule. Those who became possessed of larger
properties through the causes mentioned tried to secure an increased
value of their possessions by colonization, in which especially the
slaves or serfs were utilized. These often became freedmen, paying rent
in product or labor, and acquiring the rights of usufruct in the
property, out of which developed the so-called _servitudes_ or _rights
of user_, the _praedium_ of the Romans, a limited right to use the
property of another.

With the development of private property there naturally also developed
the right of preventing the hunting on such lands, this being then their
main use. This exclusive right to the chase or hunt we find recognized
as a part of the property of the kings and barons in the 8th century,
when the kings forbade trespass under penalty of severe fines; the
king’s _ban_ (interdiction) of 60 shillings being imposed upon the
trespassers. Indeed, by the end of the 8th century the word _Forst_
(_voorst_--_foresta_) which until then had been used merely to denote
the king’s property was exclusively used to designate not necessarily
woodland (the latter being referred to as _silva_ or _nemus_), but any
territory in which the hunt had been reserved.

This right to reserve the chase and the fishing, that is, to establish
_banforests_ was in the 10th century extended by the kings to territory
not belonging to them, the right to the chase being according to the
Roman doctrine a regal right over any property. Under this conception
fields and pastures, woods and waters, and whole villages with their
inhabitants became “inforested” grounds. The Norman kings, imbued with a
passion for the chase, exercised this right widely, especially in
England; the forests of Dean, Epping and the New Forest being such
inforested territories, the inhabitants of which were placed under
special “forest laws,” and adjudged by special “forest courts.”

Presently the king’s right of ban was granted with the land grants to
his barons and to the clergy. Banforests also grew up through owners of
properties placing themselves and their possessions under the protection
of kings or bishops or other powerful barons and giving in exchange this
hunting right, and in various other ways. At the same time the headmen
of the Mark (_Obermärker_, _Graf_, _Waldgraf_), who from being elected
officers of the people had become officials of the king, began to
exercise, by virtue of their office, the jurisdiction of the king, and
declaring the ban for their own or their friends’ benefit, excluded the
_Märker_ from their ancient right to hunt and fish freely over the
territory of the Mark.

While in this way the freedom of the communal owners was undermined, the
institution of banforests had nevertheless its value in that it led to
forest protection, restriction in forest use and restriction in
clearing, all this, to be sure, merely for the benefit of the chase.
Special officers to guard the rights of the king, _forestarii_, chosen
from the free and freedmen, and also superior officers, _forestmasters_,
were instituted, to administer the chase and enforce the restrictions
which went with it.

Gradually, with the loss of property rights, there came also a change in
the political rights of the märker or commoners, through the large
barons interfering with self-government, assuming for themselves the
position of Obermärker, appointing the officials, and issuing strict
forest ordinances to regulate the cutting of wood; finally, the original
right which belonged to every commoner of supplying himself with wood
material, became dependent upon permission in each case, and thus his
title to ownership became doubtful.

Undoubtedly also through the influence of Roman institutions with which
the Franks under their Merovingian kings came into close contact, there
arose that social and political institution which became finally known
as the _feudal system_. By the grants of lands which the kings made out
of their estates to their kinsmen and followers with the understanding
that they would be faithful and render service to their masters, a
peculiar relationship grew up, based on land tenure, the land so granted
being called a _fief_ or _feud_, and the relationship being called
_vassality_ or _vassalage_. This vassalage denoted the personal tie
between the grantor and grantee, the lord and the vassal; the lord
having the obligation to defend the vassal, and the vassal to be a
faithful follower of his lord. Similar relationship arose from the
surrender by landowners of their estates to the church or to other
powerful barons, to be received back again as fiefs and to be held by
them as tenants in exchange for rent or service. In this way a complete
organization of society developed in which, from the king down to the
lowest landowner, all were bound together by obligation of service and
defence, both the defence and service being regulated by the nature and
extent of the fief. Finally, all kinds of property of whatever nature,
as well as official positions which would give an income, were subject
to be treated as fiefs. The obligations of the recipient were of
various nature, but finally service in army or court became the main
one, giving rise to the class of knights (_Ritter_) or barons, while the
fiefs to the small farmer gave rise to the class of peasants (_Bauern_,
this name appearing first in 1106 under Conrad II).

The fiefs of the higher class, while at first given only to the
individual, became early hereditary, and hereditary succession to
estates and offices generally became the rule. Primogeniture in the
succession to the estates did then not as in England prevail in Germany;
instead, either tenancy in common, or else equal division among the sons
was practised. As a result the very many small principalities came into
existence in the 14th and 15th centuries, these growing smaller and
smaller by subdivision. The first to institute the primogeniture rule by
law was the house of Brandenburg (in the 15th century).

In addition to the class of peasants and knights, there came into
existence a third class, the burghers, when, by the order of Conrad I in
the beginning of the 10th century, towns were built with walls and
towers for defence against the encroachments of the Huns, who endangered
the eastern frontier Mark. In order to encourage the settlement of these
towns, any slave moving to town was declared a freeman; and the cities
became free republics; gifts of land, including forest areas, were made
to the cities, and the development of industries was encouraged in every
way. These cities, favored by the kings, and, having become rich and
powerful, in the later quarrels of the kings with the lawless nobility,
gave loyal support with money and arms. In return for their loans, the
forest properties of the kings were often mortgaged to the burghers;
and, failing of redemption, were often forfeited to them. In this way
and through purchases the city forests came into existence.

Still other property conditions arose when, under Otto the Great (960),
colonization of the eastern country beyond the Elbe was pushed. In these
cases, the Mark institution was absent, although the colonists did often
become part owners in the king’s forest, or acquired parts of it as
common property, or else secured rights of user in the nearest royal
forest.

By the end of the period, due to these various developments, a great
variety of property conditions in forest areas had developed, most of
which continue to the present time, namely royal properties, which by
the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth
were in part to become state property; princely and lordly possessions
under separate jurisdiction, with or without entail, and mostly
encumbered with rights of user; allodial possessions (held independent
of rent or service); municipal possessions owned by city corporations;
communal properties, the remnants of the Mark; and farmers’ woodlots
(Bauernwald), resulting from partitions of the Mark.

All these changes from the original communal property conditions did
not, of course, take place without friction, the opposition often taking
shape in peasants’ revolts; hundreds of thousands of these being killed
in their attempts to preserve their commons, forests and waters free to
all, to re-establish their liberty to hunt, fish and cut wood, and to
abolish tithes, serfdom and duties.

2. _Forest Treatment._

As stated, the German tribes which settled the country were herders and
hunters, who only gradually developed into farmers while the country was
being settled. At first, therefore, as far as the forest did not need to
give way to farm lands, its main use was in the exercise of the chase
and for pasture, and especially for the raising and fattening of hogs;
the number of hogs which could be driven into a forest serving as an
expression of the size of such a forest. Oak and beech furnishing the
mast were considered the preferable species. It is natural, therefore,
that, wood being plentiful and the common property of all, the first
regulation of forest use had reference to these, now minor benefits of
forest property, as for instance the prohibition of cutting mast trees,
which was enforced in early times. The first extensive regulation of
forest use came however, from the exercise of the royal right of the ban
and merely for the avowed purpose of protecting the chase.

Real forest management, however, did not exist, the _forestarii_
mentioned in these early times being nothing but policemen guarding the
hunting rights of the kings or other owners. The conception that wood on
the stump was of the same nature as other property and its removal theft
had not yet become established: “_quia non res possessa sed de ligno
agitur_” (wood not being a possessed thing), a conception which still
pervades the laws of modern times to some extent.

The necessity of clearing farm lands for the growing population
continued, even in the western, more densely populated sections, into
the 12th and 13th centuries. The cloisters were especially active in
colonizing and making farm land with the use of axe and fire, such
cloisters being often founded as mere land speculations. Squatters, as
with us, were a frequent class of colonists, and in eastern Prussia
continued even into the 17th and 18th centuries to appropriate forest
land without regard to property rights.

The disturbed ownership conditions, which we have traced, led also often
to wasteful slashing, especially in the western territory, while
colonization among the Slavs of the Eastern sections led to similar
results. In the 12th century, however, here and there appear the first
signs of greater necessity for regulating and restricting forest use in
the Mark forest, and for improvement in forest conditions with the
purpose of insuring wood supplies.

In that century, division of the Mark forest begins for the alleged
reason that individual ownership would lead to better management and
less devastation. In the 12th and 13th centuries also, stricter order in
the fellings and in forest use was insisted upon in many places. In the
forest ordinances of the princes and barons, which, of course, have
always reference to limited localities, we find prescriptions like the
following: The amount to be cut is to be limited to the exact needs of
each family and the proper use of the wood is to be inspected; the
timber is to be marked, must be cut in a given time and be removed at
once; only dry wood is to be used for fuel and the place and time for
gathering it is specially designated, similar to the present practice.
The best oak and beech are to be preserved (this, however, merely with
reference to the mast), and in the Alps we find already provisions to
reserve larch and pine. The charcoal industry is favored (because of
easier transportation of its product), but permitted only under special
precautions. Bark peeling and burning for potash is forbidden. The
pasture is regulated with regard to the young growth, and sheep and
goats are excluded.

Such measures are, to be sure, found only here and there where local
conditions gave rise to a fear of a timber famine; such communities may
also be found making attempts to protect themselves against reduction of
home supplies by forbidding the export of wood from their territory. An
amusing restriction of this kind is found at Altenstadt where the bakers
were forbidden to bake bread for any but the citizens of the town.

The first ordinance prohibiting for clearings is found at Lorsch in the
Rhenish country in 1165, and other ordinances with such prohibition are
on record in other parts in the 13th century. In 1237, at Salzburg,
clearings were prohibited in the interest of the salt mines, “so that
the cut forest may grow up to wood again,” and also in other parts where
mining interests made a special demand for props or charcoal the
regulation of forest use was begun early.

The difficulties of transportation in the absence of roads rendered
local supply of more importance than at present, and this accounts for
the early measures to secure more economical use while distant woods
were still plentiful but unavailable.

While in the 12th and 13th centuries a merely restrictive and
regulative, or else a let-alone policy, “allowing the wood to grow up,”
prevailed, we find in the 14th century the first beginnings of an
attempt at forest extension or recuperation.

In 1309, Henry VII ordered the reforestation of a certain stripped area
by sowing. Of the execution of this order we have no record, but the
first actually executed plantation on record is that by the city of
Nuremberg, in 1368, where several hundred acres of burned area were
sowed with pine, spruce and fir; and there is also a record that in 1449
this crop was harvested. In 1420, the city of Frankfort on the Main
followed this example, relying on the Nuremberg seed dealer, whose
correspondence is extant and who was invited to go to Frankfort for
advice how to proceed. He sowed densely in order to secure clear boles,
but expressed the opinion that the plants could not be transplanted; he
also relied on the phases of the moon for his operations.

The planting of hardwoods seems to have been begun much later; the first
reference to it coming from the cloister and city of Seligenstadt, which
agreed in 1491 to reforest annually 20 to 30 acres with oak.

Natural regeneration by coppice was in quite general practice and proved
satisfactory enough for fuelwood production. The system of coppice with
standards was also frequently practised, the standards, 20 or 30 to the
acre, being “reserved for the lord.”

In the timber forest, the unregulated selection system was continued
generally through the period, although in 1454 we find in the Harz
Mountains a transition to a seed tree management, a few seed trees or
groups of seed trees being left on the otherwise cleared area, somewhat
in the manner of the French _méthode à tire et-aire_. Toward the end of
the 15th century we find here and there a distinction made between
timber forest, where no firewood is to be cut, and “leaf forest” which
is to serve the latter purpose, and is to be treated as coppice.

Toward the end of the period we find, however, various provisions which
are unquestionably dictated by the fear of a scarcity of timber. The
discovery that pasture prevents natural regeneration led to a
prohibition of pasturing in the newly cut felling areas. In 1488, we
find already a diameter limit of 12 inches--just as is being advocated
in the United States now--as a basis for conservative exploitation, the
city of Brunswick buying stumpage, and in the contract being limited to
this diameter, and in addition obligated to leave 15 oaks or aspen per
acre for seed trees.

Attempts at regulating the use of a given forest by division into
felling areas are recorded in 1359, when the city forest of Erfurt, 286
acres, was divided into seven felling areas. It is questionable whether
this referred to a coppice with short rotation or whether a selection
forest with seven periodic areas is meant.

We see, then, that the first sporadic and, to be sure, crude beginnings
of a forest management in Germany may be traced back to the 14th and
15th centuries; but it took at least 250 to 350 years before such
management became general.

Outside of the information found scattered in forest ordinances,
instructions and prescriptions of various kinds there is no forestry
literature to be recorded from this period except one single book,
published about the year 1300, by an Italian, Petrus de Crescentiis,
which was translated into German. It was merely a scholastic compilation
on agriculture and allied subjects, mostly cribbed from old Roman
writers and without value for German conditions.

II. FIRST DEVELOPMENT OF FORESTRY METHODS.

(Period 1500 to 1800.)

The period following the middle ages marks the gradual changes from the
feudal system to the modern State organizations and to considerable
change of ownership conditions and forest treatment. Various causes
which led to an increased development of industrial life were also
instrumental in hastening the progress of forest destruction. At the
same time, during this period the germs and embryonic beginnings of
every branch of forestry, real forestry policy, forestry practice and
forestry science are to be noted. By the end of this period, preparatory
to more modern conditions, we find organized technical forest
administrations, well developed methods of silviculture and systems of
forest management.

1. _Development of Forest Property Conditions._

A number of changes in the conceptions of political relations, in
methods of life and of political economy brought further changes in
property conditions on the same lines as those prevailing in the 14th
and 15th centuries. These changes were especially influenced by the
spread of Roman law doctrine regarding the rights of the governing
classes; by the growth of the cities, favoring industrial development
and changing methods of life; by the change from barter to money
management, favored by the discovery of America, by other world
movements, and by the resulting changes in economic theory.

Through the discovery of the new world and the influx of gold and silver
that came with it gave impetus to industry and commerce of the cities;
the rapid increase of money capital increased extravagance and induced a
desire for amassing wealth, which changed modes of life, changed
policies and systems of political economy.

The fiscal policy of the many little principalities was dominated by a
desire to get a good balance of trade by fostering exports of
manufactures, but forbidding exports of raw materials like forest
products, also by forbidding imports, subsidizing industries, fixing
prices by law, and taking in general an inimical attitude towards
outsiders except in so far as they sent gold and silver into the
country.

This so-called mercantilistic system, which saw wealth not in labor and
its products but in horded gold and silver, had also full sway in
England under Cromwell, and in France under Colbert’s influence. This
fiscal policy, which was bent upon bringing cash into the country, led,
under the direction of servile officials, to oppressive measures. A
reaction naturally followed, when it was pointed out that the real
wealth of a nation lies in its natural resources and in its labor. But
this so-called physiocratic doctrine had little practical influence
except to prepare men’s minds for the reception of the teachings of Adam
Smith at the end of the period.

The doctrine of the Roman law, deified by the jurists and commentators,
undermined the national conceptions and institutions of free citizenship
and of existing property relations; courts, legislation and
administration were subject to their sway, and this influence lasted, in
spite of reactions, until the end of the 18th century. Under it the
doctrine of the _imperium_--the seignorage or superior power of the
princes (Hoheitsrecht)--was further developed into the _dominium
terrae_, i.e., superior ownership of all the land, which gives rise to
the title and the exercise of the function of “_Landesherren_,” masters
of the land, and confers the privilege of curtailing and even
discontinuing private property rights. To sustain their position in each
of the state units, a restriction of the autonomy of churches and
cloisters, of the Mark and of the vassals became needful to the princes.
This was secured by taking the first under their protection, by making
themselves Obermärkers, and by changing vassals who held office in fief
into employes (Beamte). For a time the three privileged classes of
prelates, knights and burghers, combined in the _Landstand_ or
_Landtag_, participated in some of the functions of government,
especially in raising and administering taxes, but by the second half of
the 14th century the princes had become absolute, and the doctrine of
the _Hoheitsrecht_ was firmly established.

Under this doctrine, the historic position of the Mark is perverted and
instead of being the common property of the people, it becomes the
property of the prince, on which he graciously permits the usufruct;
for, forest, pasture and water (Wald, Weide, Wasser) are _res publicae_,
hence ownerless and at the disposal of the king. Through this new
construction of relationship, as well as through the same machinations
and tricks which the princes as _Obermaerker_ or headmen of the Mark had
employed during the foregoing period in usurping power, and partly
through voluntary dissolution was the decadence of the social, economic
and political organization of the Mark gradually completed.

The original usufruct of a property held in common is explained in the
Roman sense as a _precarium_ or servitude, and from being a right of the
whole organization becomes a right of the single individual or group of
individuals. In this way the socialistic basis of the Mark is destroyed.
Through the exercise of the _Forsthoheit_, _i.e._, the superior right of
the prince over all forest property, by the _appointment_ of the
officials instead of their _election_, by issuance of ordinances, in
short, by the usurpation of the legislative and police power, the
political power of the Mark is broken and the Thirty Years’ War
completes the breakdown; the pride of the burgher and the peasant is
gone, their autonomy destroyed and their economic and political
organizations sink into mere corporations based on land tenure, which,
according to Roman doctrine come under the regulation of the State or
Prince.

The nobility move into the cities and leave the administration of their
estates to officials who are constantly pressed to furnish the means for
the extravagant life of their masters. These in turn harass and oppress
the peasantry, who finally become bondsmen, _Gutshörige_ (bound to the
glebe) and lose their independence entirely. These, briefly, are the
steps by which the changes, social and economic, progressed.

Reforms in this situation of the peasantry began first in Prussia in
1702, when bondage was abolished for all those who could purchase their
houses and farms from the gentry. As few had the means to do so, the
result was the creation of a proletariat, hitherto unknown because under
the old feudal system the lord had to feed his impoverished bondsmen
from which he was now absolved.

* * * * *

_Changes in forest property_ in particular were brought about by the
increase of princely property through the various methods of exercising
the seignorage. Especially after the Thirty Years’ War ownerless tracts
falling under this right were plentiful. In addition, wherever waste
lands grew up to wood, they were claimed by the princes:

“Wenn das Holz dem Ritter reicht an den Sporn
Hat der Bauer sein Recht verlorn.”

When wood has grown up to the spur of the knight, the peasant has lost
his right.

Some additions came from the secularization of church and cloister
property, and others by the slices which the princes as Obermärker
secured from the Mark forests by various artifices. It is these
properties, which in Prussia were turned over by the King to the State
in 1713, and by other princes, not until the 19th century.

The same means which the princes employed were used by the landed gentry
to increase their holdings especially at the expense of the Mark from
which in their capacity of Obermärker they secured portions by force or
intrigue.

The peasants’ forest property--the Mark forest--had by the 19th century
been almost entirely dismembered, part having come into the hands of the
princes and barons, part having been divided among the Märker, and part
having become corporation forest in the modern sense.

Partition had become desirable when the restrictions of use which were
ordered for the good of the forest became unendurable under the rigid
rule of appointed officials, but the expected improvement in management
which was looked for from partition and private ownership was never
realized.

After the Thirty Years’ War the free cities were impoverished and their
autonomy undermined by Roman doctrine. From free republics they became
mere corporations under the supervision of appointed officials, and
experienced decadence in political as well as material directions.
Hence, no increase in city forest took place except through division of
the Mark forest in which cities had been co-owners, and through
secularized properties of cloisters.

The worst feature, from the standpoint of forest treatment, which
resulted from these changes in property conditions and relationship, was
the growth of the pernicious servitudes or rights of user, which were
either conferred to propitiate the powerless but dangerous peasantry, or
evolved out of the feudal relations. From the 16th to the 19th centuries
these servitudes grew to such an extent that in almost every forest some
one outside of the owner had the right to use parts of it, either the
pasture, or the litter, or certain classes or sizes of wood.

These rights have proved the greatest impediment to the progress of
forestry until most recent times, and only within the last few decades
have the majority of them been extinguished by legal process or
compromise.

2. _Forest Conditions._

Under the exercise of these various rights and the uncertainty of
property conditions, the forest conditions naturally deteriorated
continuously until the end of the 18th century; the virgin woods were
culled of their wealth and then grew up to brush, as is usual in the
United States.

Every forest ordinance began with complaints regarding the increasing
forest devastation, and predicted a timber famine in view of the
increasing population, increasing industry and commerce, and hence
increased wood consumption. Especially along the water routes, which
furnished the means of transportation, the available supplies were
ruthlessly exploited. More serious enemies than the exploitation of the
timber proved the pasturing of cattle, the removal of the litter, and
above all, the fires.

Towards the end of the 16th century, ordinances against forest fires
began to be enacted; yet, as late as 1778, the necessity of keeping the
rides or fire lanes open in the forests of Eastern Prussia is justified
by the statement that “otherwise the still constantly recurring fires
could not be checked.” At another place it is stated that “not a single
acre of forest could be found in the province that had not been burnt in
former or later times,” and that “the people are still too much
accustomed to the ruthless use of fires, so that no punishment can stop
them.”

Other causes of devastation were the Thirty Years’ War, the wars of the
18th century, and the loss of interest in the forest by the peasants
after the collapse of the Mark. These had often to steal what they
needed, and their depredations were increased by the desire to revenge
themselves on the landed proprietors for the oppressions to which they
were subjected. The increase in game, which was fostered by the landed
gentry, did much damage to the young growths, and the increase in the
living expenses of the nobility who mostly abandoned country for town
had to be met by increased exploitation.

By the end of the middle ages the reduction of forest area had proceeded
so far that it was generally believed desirable to restrict the making
of clearings to exceptional necessities, except in the northeastern
parts and in the distant mountain districts.

Yet a growing population increased the need for farm land, and since
intensive use of the existing farm area was not attempted until the end
of the 18th century, the forest had to yield still further.

3. _Methods of Restriction in Forest Use._

All ordinances issued by the princes to regulate the management of their
properties contain the prescription, that permission of the _Landesherr_
is necessary for clearings, and that abandoned fields growing up to wood
are to be kept as woodland; this partly for timber needs, partly for
considerations of the chase. Still, Frederick the Great in colonizing
East Prussia, expressed himself to the effect that he cared more for men
than for wood, and enjoined his officials to colonize especially the
woods far from water, which entailed even more waste of wood than where
means of transportation allowed at least partial marketing.

Improvident clearings proceeded even under his reign on the Frische
Nehrung between Danzig and Pillau, and started the shifting sands of
that peninsula.

In the absence of all knowledge as regards the extent of existing
supplies or of the increment, and with poor means of transportation, at
least local distress was imminent.

To stave off a threatening timber scarcity, regulation in the use of
wood was attempted by the forest ordinances, even to the extent of
forbidding the hanging out of green brush to designate a drinking hall,
or the cutting of May trees,--similar to our crusade in the United
States against the use of Christmas trees. A diameter limit to which
trees might be permitted to be cut, was also frequently urged.
Regulation of forest use did not confine itself to the princely
properties alone, but, in the interest of the whole, the restrictions
were extended to all owners. These restrictions were directed either to
the practice in the exploitation of the forest or in the use of the
material. In the latter direction the attempts at reducing the
consumption of building timber are of special interest. Building
inspectors were to approve building plans and inspect buildings to see
that they were most economically constructed; that repairs were made
promptly, to avoid the necessity of more extensive ones; that new
buildings replacing old ones were not built higher than the old ones. In
Saxony, as early as 1560, it was ordered that the whole house must be
built of stone, while elsewhere, the building of stone base walls and
the use of brick roofs instead of shingles was insisted upon.

Even the number of houses in any community was restricted. Fences were
to be supplanted by hedges and ditches. Economies in charcoal burning,
in potash manufacture for glass works, and in the turpentine industry
were prescribed, and about 1600, the burning of potash for fertilizer
was forbidden entirely; but these laws proved unavailing. Even in
fuel-wood a saving was to be effected by using only the poorer woods and
windfalls, by instituting public bake ovens (still in use in
Westphalia), by improving stoves, restricting the number of bathing
rooms, etc.

The consumption of fuelwood seems to have been enormous, for we find
record of 200 cords used by one family in a year and of 1,200 cords or
more used by the Court at Weimar during the same time.

The substitution of turf and coal for firewood was ordered in some
sections in 1697 and again in 1777, but practically not until 1780 did
coal come in as a substitute. Tanbark peeling was also forbidden, or
only the use of bark of trees soon to be felled was allowed. For
cooperage only the top-dry oak; for coffins only soft-wood, or,
according to Joseph II of Austria, no wood, but black cloth was to be
used. In some parts of the country the use of oak was restricted, even
as early as 1562.

For regulating practices in the forest the restrictions often took only
the general form of forbidding devastation, without specifying what that
meant.

Then, besides establishing a diameter limit, and regulating pasture in
order to protect young growth, excluding sheep and goats entirely, an
attempt was made to secure at least orderly procedure in the fellings.
Foresters were to designate what was to be cut even for firewood.
Marking irons and hammers were employed for this purpose by the middle
of the 15th century (usually two markings, by forester and by inspector
to check). And this designation by officials extended even into the
private forest, where finally no felling was allowed without previous
permission and designation by a forester.

The use of the litter by the small farmers had grown to a large extent
in these times and it was thought desirable to stop it, but this aid to
the poor peasant was so necessary that only regulating the gathering of
it could be insisted upon.

It must be understood that all these various attempts at securing a
conservative forest use were by no means general but refer to
circumscribed territory, and much of it was only paper legislation
without securing actual practice.

4. _Development of Forest Policy._

With the beginning of the 18th century we find, besides these
prescriptions against wasteful use, and ordinances regulating the
management of the properties of the princes, definite forest policies in
some sections, having in view forest preservation and improvement of
forest conditions, and also means of providing wood at moderate prices.

Between the years 1515 and 1590, most of the German States had already
enacted ordinances which had the force of general law exercising police
functions over private forest property, although in Prussia this general
legislation did not occur until 1720. The objects in view with this
legislation were entirely of a material kind: the conservation of
resources. Besides securing the rights of the _Landesherr_ to the chase,
it was to secure a conservative use of the princely as well as private
forests, since devastation of the latter would require the former to be
drawn on extravagantly; it was to stave off a timber famine, and in
certain localities to assure particularly the mining industry of their
wood supplies. There were, however, concessions made to the privileged
and influential classes of forest owners.

By the end of the 18th century, this forest police, owing to the
uncontrolled harshness and the grafting practices of the lower
officials had become the most hated and distasteful part of the
administration.

The argument of the protective influence of forest cover did not enter
into this legislation; this argument belongs to the 19th century.

Yet reboisement of torrents had already in 1788, been recognized as a
proper public measure in German Austria, although active work in that
direction was not begun until nearly a century later.

The rise of prices during the 17th and 18th centuries had been very
considerable, doubling, trebling and even quadrupling in the first half
of the 18th century. The mercantilistic doctrines of the time led,
therefore, to attempts to keep prices low by prescribing rates for wood
and in general by restricting and regulating wood commerce.

This was done especially by interdicting sale to outsiders, forbidding
export from the small territory of the particular prince; or, at least,
giving preference to the inhabitants of the territory as purchasers and
at cheaper rates.

Owing to the small size of the very many principalities, the free
development of trade was considerably hampered by these regulations.
Sometimes also wood imports were prohibited, as for instance, in
Wurttemberg, when, in 1740, widespread windfalls had occurred which had
to be worked up and threatened to overstock the market.

Wood depots under government control were established in large cities,
and the amount of wood to be used per capita prescribed, as in
Koenigsberg (1702).

In Berlin, in 1766, a monopoly of the fuel wood market was rented to a
corporation, excluding all others except by permission of the company.
This was in 1785 supplanted by government administration of the
woodyards.

Another such monopoly was created in the “Nutzholzhandelsgesellschaft”
(Workwood sales agency) for the export trade of building materials from
Kurmark and Magdeburg, which had prior right of purchase to all timber
cut within given territory, the idea being to provide cheap material for
the industries. This, too, came into the hands of the State in 1771.

In Prussia, to prevent overcharges, the Jews were excluded from the wood
trade in 1761.

The exercise of the Forsthoheit (princely supervision), originating in
the ban forests, and favored by the mercantilistic and absolutist ideas
of the 17th and 18th centuries, gradually grew until the end of the 18th
century to such an extent that the forest owners themselves were not
allowed to cut a tree without sanction of some forest official, and
could not sell any wood without permission, even down to hop-poles,
although the large landed property owners vigorously resisted this
assumption of supervisory powers. Much discussion and argument regarding
the origin of this right to supervision was carried on by the jurists
upon the basis of Roman law doctrine, and it was proved by them to be of
ancient date. The degree, however, to which this supervision was
developed varied considerably in the different parts of the empire,
according to different economic conditions. The interference, and the
protection of forests appeared more necessary, where advanced
civilization and denser population created greater need for it. We find
therefore that the restrictive policy was much more developed in the
Southern and Western territories than in the Northern and Eastern ones,
where the development begins two centuries later.

The oldest attempts of controlling private forest property are found in
Bavaria (1516), Brunswick (1590) and Wurttemberg (1614). Here, forest
properties were placed either entirely under the supervision of the
princely forest administration, or, at least, permission for intended
fellings had to be secured. Later, these restrictions were considerably
reduced in rigor (Bavaria, 1789).

In Prussia, private forest property remained free from government
interference well into the 18th century. An edict by the Great Elector,
in 1670, merely inveighs against the devastation of forests by their
owners, but refrains from any interference; and the Forstordnung of 1720
also contains only the general injunction to the owners not to treat
their forests uneconomically. But, in 1766, Frederick the Great
instituted a rigid supervision providing punishment for fellings beyond
a special budget determined by experts. Soon after the French
revolution, however, unrestricted private ownership was re-established.

Church and cloister property had always been severely supervised,
similar to the Mark and other communal forest property, under the
direction either of specially appointed officials or the officials of
the princes. Finally, in some sections (Hesse-Kassel, 1711; Baden,
1787), the management of these communal forests was entirely undertaken
by the government.

In Prussia, by the Order of 1754, the foresters of the State were
charged with the supervision of the communal forests, in which they were
to designate the trees to be felled and the cultures to be executed; but
as there was no pay connected with this additional duty and the
districts were too large, the execution of this supervision was but
indifferently performed.

In 1749, a special city forest order placed the city forests in Prussia
under the provincial governments, requiring for their management the
employment of a forester and the inspection of his work by the
provincial forestmaster.

5. _Personnel._

Although all this supervision was probably more or less lax, the
possibility of more general and incisive influence was increasing
because the personnel to whom such supervision could be intrusted was at
last coming into existence.

The men in whose hands at the beginning of the 18th century lay the task
of developing and executing forest policies and of developing forestry
practice came from two very different classes. The work in the woods
fell naturally to the share of the huntsmen and forest guards, who by
their practical life in the woods had secured some wood lore and
developed some technical detail upon empiric basis. These so-called
_holzgerechte Jaeger_ (woodcrafty hunters) prepared for their duties by
placing themselves under the direction of an established huntsman, who
taught them what he knew about the rules of the chase, while by
questioning woodchoppers, colliers, etc., and by their own observation
the knowledge of woodcraft was acquired.

At the head of affairs stood the so-called _cameralists_ or chamber
officials, men who had prepared themselves by the study of philosophy,
law, diplomacy and political economy for the positions of directors of
finance and State administration. Rather ignorant of natural science,
and without practical forestry knowledge, their efforts were not always
well directed. They deserve credit, however, for having collected into
encyclopædic volumes the empiric knowledge of the practitioners or
Holzgerechten, and for having elaborated it more or less successfully.
In this work they were joined by some of the professors of cameralia and
law at the universities.

By the middle of the 18th century the hunters had so far grown in
knowledge and education as to be able to produce their knowledge in
books of their own. Quite a literature developed full of acrimonious
warfare of opinions, as is the rule where empiricism rules supreme.

Notable progress, however, came only when hunting was placed in the
background and more or less divorced from forest work.

6. _Development of Silviculture._

In addition to the restrictive measures and attempts at mere
conservative lumbering without much thought of reproduction, there were
as early as the 16th century silvicultural methods applied to secure or
foster reproduction.

Owing to differences in local conditions and difference in necessities,
this development varied greatly in various sections as to the time it
took place. The Western and Middle country practiced as early as the
16th century what in the Eastern country did not appear until the 18th
century. The forest ordinances, from which we derive our knowledge or
inferences of these conditions, prescribed, to be sure, many things that
probably were not really put into practice.

* * * * *

a. _Natural regeneration_ was at first merely _favored_, without the
adoption of any very positive measures to secure it, namely, by removing
the cut wood within the year, so as to give young growth a chance of
establishing itself, by removing the brush so as not to smother the
young growth, by keeping out cattle from the young growth (Schonung).

If the selection method of lumbering, most generally practiced without
much plan, did not produce any desirable result in reproduction, the
clear cutting which was practiced without system where charcoal
manufacturing or river driving invited to it, did even less so. In
either case, besides the defective and damaged old stubs which were left
in the logging, a poor aftergrowth of undesirable character remained, as
is the case in the American woods on so many areas.

As early as 1524 and 1529, we have record of a conscious attempt to
secure a reproduction by leaving ten to thirty seed trees per acre; but
the result was disappointing, for this practice, being applied to the
shallow-rooted spruce, produced the inevitable result, namely, the seed
trees were thrown by the winds.

This experience led to the prescription (in 1565) in the Palatinate to
leave, besides seed trees, parts of the other stand for protection
against wind damage; later, wind protection was sought by leaving
parcels standing on all four sides, giving rise to a checkerboard
progress of fellings or a _group system_ of reproduction, which by the
middle of the 18th century had developed into the regular _strip
system_, applied in Austria (1766) to fir and spruce, and in Prussia
(1764) to pine. And this marginal seeding method remained for a long
time the favorite method for the _conifers_.

To avoid long strips and distribute the fellings more conveniently, v.
Berlepsch (in Kassel) recommended (in 1760) the cutting in echelons
(curtain method, Kulissenhieb), which insured better seeding, but also
increased danger from windfalls, and was never much practiced, the
disadvantages of the method being shown up especially in the Prussian
Forest Order of 1788.

In the first half of the 18th century it was recognized that the wind
danger would be considerably reduced by making the fellings progress
from East or Northeast to West. The conception of a regular, properly
located felling series was first elaborated in the Harz mountains in
1745 by von Langen, who also accentuated the necessity of preserving a
wind mantle on exposed situations. Both of these propositions reappear
in the Prussian Order of 1780, according to which fellings are to
proceed in a breadth of twenty to thirty-five rods from East to West.

The application of a _nursetree method_ for conifers was proposed in
1787 by v. Burgsdorf (Prussia), a dark position (Dunkelschlag) and a
regeneration period of seven years being advocated.

In broadleaved forest, besides the selection forest, the natural result
of the sprouting capacity of the hardwood had led to a coppice method
which was extensively relied upon for fuel production. This was rarely,
however, a simple _coppice_, for, intentionally or unintentionally, some
seedlings or sprouts would be allowed to grow on, leading to a composite
forest and finally to a regular _coppice with standards_ (1569, etc.),
with an intentional holding over of the valuable oak and ash for
standards. Probably, however, large areas of unconsciously produced
composite forest exhibited sad pictures of branchy overwood with
suppressed underwood of poor sprouts, injured by game and cattle--a
scrubby growth, into which crept softwoods of birch and aspen. Attempts
at _pruning_ such scrub growths into shape on quite an extensive scale
are on record.

The recognition that more wood per acre could be secured by lengthening
the rotation of the coppice, which seems to have been mostly twelve
years or less, led to twenty and thirty year turns and finally to fifty,
sixty and even eighty year rotations or so-called _polewood management_
(Brunswick, 1745), also called _Hochwald_ (high forest).

A full description and working plan for such a forest to be managed in
eighty year rotation, the city forest of Mainz in the Odenwald and
Spessart mountains, dates from 1773, and this polewood forest management
became quite general after the middle of the 18th century, but in the
last half of the 19th century it was generally replaced by the true high
forest management under nursetrees, the experiences with the natural
reproduction of conifer forest having proved the advantages of this
method.

The primitive beginnings of this so-called _Femelschlag_ method
(Compartment selection or shelterwood method) are found, in 1720, in
Hesse Darmstadt, where Oberforstmeister von Minnigerode prescribed
regular fellings progressing from north to south, in which all material
down to polewood size (in selection or virgin forest) was to be removed,
excepting only a number of clean boles, one every ten to twelve paces
being left for seed and nursetrees. The good results in reproduction
stimulated owners of adjoining estates to imitate the method (1737).

The observation that in beech forest the young crop needed protection
and succeeded better when gradually freed from the shade of the seed
trees, especially on south and west aspects where drought, frost and
weeds are apt to injure it on sudden exposure, led to the elaboration of
the principle of _successive fellings_.

In the ordinance of Hanau, as early as 1736, three grades of fellings
were developed, the cutting for seed, the cutting for light, which was
to begin when the young crop was knee-high, and the removal cutting when
the crop was high.

This method spread rapidly and was further developed by the addition (in
1767) of a preparatory cutting, to secure a desirable seedbed, and by
lengthening the period of regeneration and elaborating other detail, so
that, by 1790, the principles of natural regeneration under nursetrees
for beech forest were fully developed in Western Germany.

In other parts, hardwood forest management was but little developed. The
Prussian Forest Ordinance of 1786 contented itself with forbidding the
selection method, by declaring natural regeneration, as practiced in the
pineries, not applicable; while the Austrian Ordinance of 1786
recognizes only clearing followed by planting as the general rule.

* * * * *

b. _Artificial Reforestation._ Although sporadic attempts at sowing and
planting are on record as early as the beginning of the 14th century,
extensive artificial reforestation did not begin until the middle of the
18th century, by which time planting methods were quite fully developed.

Among the hardwoods, the _oak_ was the first to receive special
attention. By the middle of the 16th century the forest ordinances gave
quite explicit instructions for planting oak in the so-called
_Hutewald_, a combination of pasture and tree growth such as is found
to-day in the bluegrass region of Kentucky; the remnants of these poor
pasture woods with their gnarly oaks have lasted into modern times.

In the forest ordinance of Brunswick (1598) orders are given to plant on
felling areas: “every full farmer shall every year at the proper time
set out ten young oaks, every half farmer five, every farm laborer
three, well taken up with roots (wildlings), and plant them in the
commons or openings at Martini (November) or Mitfasten (Easter) and
cover them with thorn brush” (to protect them against cattle).

About that time it was, indeed, incumbent on every marker to sow
annually five oaks, or plant several young seedlings for every tree cut
and to tend them a few years; and the custom existed in the low
country,--afterwards (1700) introduced by law in Saxony--to plant in
celebration of certain occurrences--a kind of _arborday_--especially to
celebrate the marriage day; in order to be married the bridegroom had to
prove that he had planted a certain number of oaks, which in Prussia
(1719) had to be six, besides six fruit trees. The existence of this
custom, now long forgotten, has given rise in the United States to the
story that this is the method by which the German forest is maintained.

The method of collecting and keeping acorns over winter was well known
in 1579, as is evidenced by the Hohenlohe Forest Ordinance, which
advised fall sowing, but, if that did not prove successful, to prepare
the ground in summer, leave it through the winter and sow in the spring.

While, in earlier times, _sowing_ seems to have had the preference, at a
later period planting was practiced, at first with wildlings, but as
early as 1603 we find mention of oak nurseries.

The Prussian Order of 1720 ordered the foresters to plant oaks in the
openings before Christmas, for which they were to be paid, if the trees
were found alive after three years. The growing and culture of oak also
interested Frederick the Great, who ordered its extension everywhere.
Very explicit and correct rules for growing and transplanting them, and
some to which we would not subscribe, were given in the books of the
18th century. Among the planting methods we find, in 1719 and again in
1776, one similar to the Manteuffel method of planting in mounds.

While oak culture was especially fostered in Northwestern Germany, the
cultivation of _conifers_ first received attention in the southwest, and
in the same manner which was inaugurated by the Nuremberg seed dealer in
1368. A new idea, introduced in the Palatine Forest Ordinance (1565) and
in the Bavarian Forest Ordinance (1568), was the prescription, to soak
the seed before use and sow mixed with sawdust or sand, bringing the
seed under with brush or iron rakes.

Carlowitz (1713) taught well the methods of collecting, extracting and
keeping the seed, and even proposed seed tests. The seedbeds were to be
made as for carrots, dense sowings to be thinned, and the thinnings
transplanted into nursery rows, the seedbeds to be covered with moss and
litter to protect them against heaving; he also discusses the question
of cost. The adaptation of plant material to different sites--conifers
where oaks are not suitable--was also understood (Bavarian Forest
Ordinance, 1683).

As long as the old method of extracting the seed in hot stoves or ovens
prevailed, conifer sowings gave but indifferent results.

In the pine forests of Prussia, during the second half of the 18th
century, the method of sowing the cones on large waste and sand barrens,
where the sun would make them release the seed, was practised, and
before Brémontier had written his celebrated _mémoire sur les dunes_,
sanddunes had been recovered with pine plantations in Germany in the
manner which is still in vogue.

The _planting_ of conifers came into practice much later, and then it
was mostly done with wildlings. Opinions differing as to the value of
sowing or planting, it was erroneously held until the 19th century that
planting was less successful and too costly in comparison with the small
harvest yield, which necessitated cheapness of operations. It was only
towards the end of the 18th century that planting of pine was resorted
to, but merely for repairing fail places in sowings and natural
regeneration, and then with a ball of earth (1779), using a hollow
spade,--a costly method. The cost of a certain plantation made in 1751
is, however, reported as less than $3.00 per M., in 1770 as low as 70
cents per M. To cheapen the operations the labor was exchanged for wood,
pasture or other materials or advantages.

In Prussia, in 1773, all recipients of free wood had to do service in
the cultures; in 1785, every farmer had to furnish a certain amount of
cones or acorns. The method, lately adopted in Russia, came into vogue
in Prussia in 1719, namely, of charging, besides the value of the wood,
a toll to be paid into the planting fund (about 7% of the value). This
method was also imitated elsewhere.

The use of the _Waldfeldbau_ (combined farm and forest culture) was also
inaugurated for the purpose of cheapening the cost of plantations (by v.
Langen in 1744) when the great movement for reforesting wastes and
openings began, the tree seed being sown with the grain either at once
or after farm use for some years.

Regular annual planting budgets (of $50--$100--$200) were inaugurated in
Brunswick by v. Langen in 1745; and in 1781, the Prussian forest
administration had attained to entirely modern planting plans and annual
planting budgets.

It was no wonder that the fear of a timber famine and the apparent
hopelessness of bringing improvement into the existing forest conditions
created anxiety and a desire to plant _rapid growers_, such as birch,
willow, aspen, alder; the planting of the White Birch became so general
in the beginning of the 18th century that a regular betulomania is
recorded corresponding to the incipient catalpomania in the United
States.

At that time, to be sure, firewood was still the main concern, and the
use of these rapid growing species had some justification. But where
birch was mixed in spruce plantations its baneful effects consisting in
whipping off the spruce tips and injuring its neighbors were soon
recognized, and much trouble was experienced in getting rid of the
unwelcome addition.

The _Robinia_, which had been brought from America in 1638, was also one
of the trees recommended in the middle of the 18th century and was much
planted until Hartig pointed out that the expectations from it were
entirely misplaced.

Of course no building material could be expected from these species,
hence the larch, also a rapid grower, was transplanted from the Alps
(1730 in Harz mountains), and its use was extended, as with us, to
conditions for which it was not adapted.

It was principally a desire for novelty and perhaps for better,
especially foreign things, that led to the planting of North American
species in parks during the first half of the 18th century. But,
although F. A. J. von Wangenheim’s very competent writings on the
American forest-flora and on the laws of naturalization (1787)
stimulated interest in that direction, the use of American species for
forest planting was not inaugurated till nearly 100 years later, with
the single exception of the White Pine (_P. strobus_), of which large
numbers were planted.

7. _Improvement of the Crop._

Thinning of stands had been practiced early in the 16th century, not for
improvement of the remaining stand so much as to secure fence material,
although in 1531 the observation was already recorded that thinning
improved and stimulated the remaining growth.

In the 17th century, opposite views, or, at least doubts as to its
usefulness were expressed in the forest orders, and sometimes thinning
was even forbidden. Even in the 18th century some of the prominent
foresters, Doebel and Beckman, were opposed to it, and although others
favored the operation, the practice of it remained limited.

In 1761, we find the first good statement of the theory of thinnings by
Berlepsch, who advised taking out the suppressed trees when the sound
poles were clear of lower and middle branches; he also accentuated the
financial argument of earlier returns and increased value of the
remainder.

About the same time, Zanthier recommended two thinnings, namely, for
conifers first in the thirtieth to fortieth year and again in the
fiftieth year, for broadleaf forest first in the forty-fifth and again
in the eightieth to ninetieth year.

In 1765, the financial gain from thinnings is figured by Oettelt, and
the possible reduction of the rotation due to thinnings is recognized by
Leubert in 1774.

Just as the thinning in polewoods arose from the need of earlier
utilization, so the weeding of young growths was done for the purpose of
getting material for withes to bind the grain, etc.

The removal of coppice shoots in oak plantings was practiced in Prussia
in 1719, and the thinning of too dense sowings was advised by Carlowitz
in 1713. Yet much later, even such an intelligent man as Oettelt
inveighed against the weeding out of the birch in spruce sowings because
“nature prefers variety, with which preference it is not good to
interfere.”

This was in opposition to v. Langen (1745), who prescribed for the first
time regular cleaning or weeding, especially the removal of the
softwoods, aspen and birch, and of coppice shoots from seedling forest.
It was also known that this weeding is best done “in the full sap,” in
order to kill the stocks.

8. _Methods of Regulating Forest Management._

Organized forest management was slower to develop than silvicultural
methods. The first attempts to bring order into the progress of fellings
took the form of dividing the whole area into a certain number of
felling areas (12, 16, 20, 30, etc.), several ordinances dating from the
middle of the 15th and 17th centuries containing prescriptions to that
effect.

It is doubtful whether the numbers of these areas indicate years of
rotation, in which case they could only have applied to coppice, or
whether they indicate periods of return in selection forest, although
the historians seem to jump to the former conclusion. The area division
practiced by v. Langen in the Harz mountains (1745), who prescribed the
division of larger districts into fifty to sixty, of smaller districts
into twenty to thirty felling areas, also leaves it doubtful, whether
the areas corresponded to an assumed rotation or to a period of return.

At first, the division was not into equal areas, for no survey existed,
and its object was simply to localize the cutting and provide orderly
progress. The subdivision was made in the mountain country by following
the topography, valleys and ridges, while in the plain the lines opened
up for purposes of the chase (to set up nets), called _Schneisen_ or
_Gestelle_ (rides), bounding square areas called _Jagen_, _Quadrat_,
_Stallung_, were used for the limitation of the felling areas. Most
commonly, however, largely due to absence of surveys, the ordered
division did not materialize, but existed only on paper.

With more exact measuring of areas, and with the conception of a
rotation or longer periods of return, it was recognized that the
inequality of the sites or soil qualities, especially in mountain
districts, produced very unequal felling budgets. To overcome this
inequality, Jacobi, in Goettingen (1741) introduced _proportional_
felling areas, making the felling areas on poor sites permanently
larger.

Similarly, v. Langen and Zanthier attempt to secure equal annual returns
without slavishly holding to the geometric division, merely making sure
that the total area be cut over in the predetermined rotation.

The first attempts to introduce a regulated management by making a
_volume_ division the basis is recorded from the Harz mountains in 1547.
This method, based on very crude estimates although upon very fair
forest description, was continued into the 18th century.

In the last half of the 18th century all these crude methods were
improved, and applied on extensive areas.

In 1785, Zanthier combined area and volume division, determining the
felling budget on each felling area by counting and estimating the trees
and calculating how many trees could be used annually under a sustained
yield management; the area division being used only as a check or means
of control.

A very considerable advance was made by Oettelt, (who surveyed and
regulated the Weimar forests in 1760) in the elaboration of details and
establishment of proper principles for regulating the felling budget.

In his forest description he introduces for the first time periodic age
classes, usually six, but of uneven length: Young growth, below twelve
years; thicket, twelve to twenty-four years; polewood, twenty-four to
forty years; clear timber, forty to fifty; medium timber, fifty to
seventy-five; mature timber, seventy-five years and over.

He divides the forest into proportional areas (which were marked by
stones in the woods), equalizing them according to age, quality,
increment, soil, exposure, so as to secure equal annual budgets; the
stands were ranged into seven or eight unequal age classes and each into
as many annual felling areas as there are years in the age class; if
some of the age classes were absent, he extended the time for cutting in
the older class until the younger had grown to the proper age and by
varying the cut from good to poor sites for stands he tried to even out
the budgets. The volume budget he determined by average increment
measurements. This method was, however, much too far advanced and
required too much mathematics to find imitators at that time.

Another method which proved also too complex for the foresters of the
time was that of v. Wedell; nevertheless, by 1790, he had by it put into
working order 800,000 acres in Silesia. He divided this area into
districts, the districts into blocks or management classes, and used an
elaborated proportional area division for determining the felling
budget. He distinguished quality of stand and quality of site, and made
four site classes. The volume of stock, he found by means of sample
areas, to which he added the increment in order to find the total volume
for harvest, when it could be determined how long with a given budget
the stands would last, or what average annual felling budget could be
taken before the next age-class would be mature.

In the North German plain, with very uniform conditions of soil and
timber, the method of equal felling areas was the most natural and most
easily applied.

Frederick the Great, who took a considerable interest in forestry
matters, ordered such an area division for the State pineries in 1740,
fixing upon different numbers of felling areas, but finally, in 1770,
deciding on a rotation of seventy years. Lack of personnel retarded
progress in this forest survey and regulation until in 1778 v. Kropff
undertook the direction. Not agreeing with his master regarding the
short rotation of seventy years, he arranged to have each district
divided into two working blocks, and by cutting alternately in these,
managed to double that rotation. His successor, Hennert, in 1788,
devised a new method by introducing allotment of a number of annual
felling areas to a period of the rotation when at least the periodic
budget could be equalized. A value or money yield equalization of the
felling budgets was also attempted.

For easier handling, the forest was divided into small compartments or
Jagen and a classification of four, still uneven, periodic age classes
(of different length for conifers and broadleaved forest), and three
site qualities were employed. The merchantable stock was ascertained by
a sample area method and the felling budget by dividing the oldest age
class by the number of years it must last until the next was ready.
Since no attempt was made to secure a proper age class gradation, the
method failed to improve conditions for the next rotation.

Some 500,000 acres were regulated according to this plan in Prussia,
probably very superficially.

In 1789, Bavaria also ordered a division into annual felling areas.

In all these methods of regulating the yield or budget, the area played
the main role, the volume being only a secondary consideration.

The first elaboration of a pure volume division was made by Beckman in
1759. He estimated stock on hand by trees and guessed more or less at
the increment, allowing 2.5, 2, and 1% for the different sites, and then
made a year to year calculation of stock for 125 years. How the felling
budget was finally determined is not known.

Two methods were simultaneously devised in Württemberg in 1783, which
form the transition to the so-called _allotment_ methods, making
periodic age classes of an equal number of years and allotting either
felling areas or volumes to each period of the rotation. Incapacity of
the officials prevented the application of the one method, while the
other, devised by Maurer, remained also only a proposition.

But, in 1788, Kregting in his Mathematical Contributions to Forestry
Science teaches a pure volume allotment method with ten year age classes
and nearly all the apparatus which was afterward developed by Hartig,
who in the next period dominated to such a large extent the development
of forestry in all its branches.

9. _Improvements in Methods of Mensuration._

In scientific direction, the mathematical disciplines were the first to
be developed; the natural sciences received attention much later.

A considerable amount of mathematical knowledge was required for this
work of forest organization. The mathematical apparatus of the foresters
even at the end of this period was rather slender, but its development
went hand in hand with the development of these methods of regulation;
and even elaborate mathematical formulæ for determining felling budgets
were not absent.

Until nearly the middle of the 18th century, surveys of exact nature
were almost unknown; only when the division into equal or proportionate
felling areas became the basis for determining the felling budgets, did
the necessity for such surveys present itself.

Plane table and compass were the instruments which came into use in the
beginning of the 18th century. But not until the latter half of that
century were extensive forest surveys and maps of various character
made, especially in Prussia under Wedell, Kropff and Hennert.

The methods of measurement of wood developed still later. Until
Oettelt’s time no method of precise determination of volumes was known,
everything being estimated by cords or by diameter breast-high and
height, or by the number of boards which a tree would make (board
feet?).

The diameter was sometimes used as a price maker, the price increasing
in direct proportion to the diameter increase. Oettelt calculated the
volume of coniferous trees as cones, and _Vierenklee_, who wrote a book
on mathematics for the use of foresters, calculated timbers with the top
removed by using the average diameter, to which Hennert added the
volume of a cone with the difference of the two diameters as a base, to
make the total tree volume.

Most measurements of standing trees were, of course, made on the
circumference, for, in the absence of calipers, the diameter could be
directly measured only on the felled tree. Doebel had already measured
the height by means of a rectangular triangle, and the first real
hypsometer with movable sights was described by Jung in 1781; and a
complete instrument, which could be used for measuring both height and
diameter at any height, similar to some more modern ones, was
constructed by Reinhold.

Determination of the real wood contents in a cord of wood and of the
volume of bark by measurement was taught by Oettelt, and the method of
immersion in water and measuring the displaced volume, by Hennert
(1782).

In 1785, Krohne first called attention to the variation of the increment
in different age classes and the need of determining the accretion for
each separately.

In 1789, Trunk taught how to determine average felling age increment,
and also the method of determining the change of diameter classes, which
is now used by the United States Forest Service: “On good soil a tree
grows one inch in three years, on medium soil in four years, on poor
soil in five years.” With this knowledge, the attainment of a given
diameter, or the change from one diameter or age class to the next could
be calculated.

Volume tables were at Trunk’s command, and Paulsen in 1787, Kregting in
1788, mention periodic yield tables; but generally speaking “ocular
taxation” or estimating was the rule, checked by experience in actual
fellings, the method of the American timber looker. Generally, of
course, only the log timber was estimated as with us, and only the very
roughest estimating or rather guessing was in vogue until near the end
of the period.

The first attempt at closer measurement was made by Beckman (1756), who
surrounded the area to be measured with twine, drove a colored wooden
peg into each tree, one color for each diameter class, when, knowing the
original number of pegs that had been taken out, the difference gave the
number of trees in each diameter class, and by multiplying the average
cubic contents of a measured sample tree in each class by the number in
the class its volume was found.

The method, often employed at present, of ascertaining by tally the
diameter classes on strips forty to fifty paces wide, the so-called
strip survey, was described by Zanthier in 1763.

These measurements were usually confined to sample areas, the use of
such being already known in 1739. The contents of the sample area, if a
special degree of accuracy was desired, were ascertained by felling the
whole and measuring.

Oettelt, of mathematical fame, was the first to publish something about
the determination of the age of trees by counting rings, although the
practice probably antedates this account. He knew of the dependence of
the ring width on the site and on the density of the stand.

It seems that long before this time the French had made the
determination of yield in a more scientific manner, Réaumur reporting in
1721 to the French Academy comparative studies of the yield of coppice
and of volumes of wood.

Oettelt, too, laid the foundation of forest financial calculations when
he ascertained the value of a forest by determining the value of an acre
of mature wood--the oldest age class--and multiplying it by half the
acreage of the whole forest, suggesting the well known expression for
the normal stock (I r/2) soon after to be developed by an obscure
Austrian tax collector.

Even the first forest finance calculations with the use of compound
interest, and a comparison of the profitableness of the different
methods of management, are to be recorded as made by Zanthier in 1764,
bringing the beginning of forestal statics into this period.

10. _Methods of Lumbering and Utilization._

At the beginning of this period, rough exploitation was still mainly in
vogue, only parts of trees being used, just as in the United States now.
Here and there, attempts were made toward more conservative use; for
instance, at Brunswick in 1547, the use of log timber for fuel was
discouraged; in Saxony, as early as 1560, the brushwood was utilized for
fuel. High stumps were a usual feature in spite of the threats of
punishment of the forest ordinances, as in Bavaria (1531). The axe was
the only instrument used until the end of the 18th century for felling
as well as cutting into lengths; not until 1775, do we find an allusion
to the use of the saw, when the forest ordinance of Weimar ordered that
the saw-cut should be made for three-fourths of the tree’s diameter and
the axe be used to finish (!) the last quarter. Not until the 18th
century was the fuel-wood split in the woods, and it was near the end of
the period before it was set up in mixed cords (round and split) after
the splitting had been introduced. The measurement was, until about that
time, made merely in loads, the cord being of later introduction.

The value of low stumps and of the use of the saw was recognized in
Austria in 1786. To show how variously and locally the need of
conservative use of wood developed, we may cite the fact that in the
Harz, about 1750, trees were dug with their roots as now in some of the
pineries of the Mark Brandenburg, in order to utilize more of the
body-wood and the root-wood. In 1757 we find stump-pulling machines
described.

In measurement of standing trees the circumference at breast-height was
measured with a chain, and for the body-wood when felled the mean
diameter was employed.

As regards the felling time, specific advice is found in many forest
ordinances which recommend mostly winter felling, stating the proper
beginning and end of the season by the phases of the moon, the rule
being that all white wood, for example conifers, beech and aspen should
be felled on the increase or waxing of the moon; oak, at the waning; but
coppice, because it is desired to secure a new growth, at the waxing
moon. Prescription was also made sometimes regarding the time by which
the removal of the wood from the felling area was to be finished (May to
June).

Means of transportation were poor up to the end of the period; snow, as
in the United States, was in the Northern country the main reliance for
moving the wood. River driving, both with, and without rafts was well
organized; various systems of log-slides were developed to a
considerable extent; in one place even an iron pipe, 900 feet in length,
is reported to have been used in such capacity.

Originally, the consumer cut his own wood, but in the middle of the 17th
century special wood-choppers appear to have been employed, for, in
1650, mention is made in Saxony of men, who, under oath to secure honest
service, were organized for the exploitation of the different classes of
wood. A system of jobbers came into existence about this time, something
like the logging bosses in the United States (Holzmeister) who were
responsible for the execution of the logging job. The organization of
wood-choppers went so far that, in 1718, we find in the Harz mountains
mention of an Accident Insurance and Mutual Charity Association among
them.

The sale of wood was at first carried on in the house; later it became
customary to indicate in the forest the trees to be cut or the area from
which they should be cut by the purchaser, and finally they were felled
by the employes of the owner. For a long time, persisting into the 18th
century, the sale was by area, and this method developed the necessity
of surveying; at the same time, however, sales by the tree and by wood
measure occurred, but only in the 18th century did the present method of
selling wood by measure after felling come into existence. In Prussia,
the buyer had to take the risk of felling, and pay, even if the tree
proved to be rotten, or broke in the felling. The forest owner seems to
have had the whip hand in determining the price one-sidedly, revising,
i.e., increasing the toll in longer or shorter intervals. But, in 1713,
we find mention of wood-auctions, or at least similar methods of getting
the best prices. Finally, special market days for making sales and for
designating of wood were instituted; on these days also, all offences
against the forest laws were adjudged.

11. _Forest Administration._

The administration of the different forest properties which the princes
had aggregated in the course of time was at first a part of the general
administration of the princely property. The requirements in the woods
being merely to look after utilization and protection, illiterate
underlings (_Forstknechte_) were sufficient to carry out the police
functions, generally under a _Forstmeister_, or _Oberforstmeister_, who
from time to time would make an inspection tour. Later on, when a more
intensive forest management had come into existence, it became customary
to call in experienced foresters from outside to make inspections and
give advice.

A much more elaborate organization of service is, however, reported in
the mining districts of the Harz mountains, in 1547, with the Director
of Mines (_Berghauptman_) at the head, and different grades of
officials under him, who were called together periodically for reports
and discussions.

Until the middle of the 18th century all those employed in the forest
service, at least those in the superior positions, had also duties in
connection with the chase, the head official of the hunt being also the
head of the forest service; and hunting had usually superior claims to
forestry. The men were supposed to be masters of the two branches, i.e.,
to be familiar with the technique of the hunt and of forestry
(_Hirschgerecht_ and _Holzgerecht_). The higher positions were usually
reserved to the nobility until (during the 18th century) the Cameralists
came into control of the administration; and with them, under the
mercantilistic teachings, the apparatus of officials also increased.

These men usually possessed wide, but not deep knowledge of matters
bearing upon their charges. In Prussia, in 1740, the forest service was
at least in part combined with the military service, Frederick the Great
instituting the corps of riding couriers for the carrying of dispatches
who were selected from the forest service, an institution which persists
up to date in the corps of _Feldjaeger_, while the sons of foresters
were enlisted in a troop known as _Fussjaeger_ (_chasseurs_). A new era
dates from the middle of the 18th century when the connection with the
hunt, the military organization, and the preferred position of the
nobility, were at least in part abrogated, and a more technical
organization was attempted. The cause for this change was the increase
of wood prices, which made a more technical management desirable, and
also a decrease in the passion for the hunt. Still, although the forests
in Bavaria were declared, in 1780 to 1790, to be of more importance than
the hunt, and the two services were distinctly separated, the head of
the hunt still ranked above the head of the forest service.

In Prussia, the professional men became early independent and
influential, and by 1770, an organization had been perfected which
excelled in thoroughness and simplicity. The salaries of the foresters
consisted originally mainly in a free house, use of land and pasture
rights, their uniform, and incidental emoluments, such as a toll for the
designation of timber etc. Later, when everywhere else a regular money
management had been introduced, the absence of a cash income and general
poverty forced the foresters to steal and extort; and the bad reputation
established in the last part of the 18th century, as well as the bad
practice, persisted until the 19th century. The lower grades in the
service were exceedingly ignorant, and their social position,
consequently, very low. Their main business was, indeed, simple, and
consisted in the booking of the cut, issuing permits for the removal and
the sale of wood, and looking after police functions in the woods. Yet,
by 1781, we find regular planting plans submitted in the Prussian
administration, and, in 1787, felling plans are on record.

The administration of justice against offenders in the forests was until
the end of the 18th century in charge of the head foresters, and only
then was transferred to law officers. Theft of wood, as in olden days,
was considered as a smaller offense than other thefts, except if it was
cut wood. In the beginning of the period, the judge had wide latitude as
to amount of the fine to be imposed, but in the 17th century more
precise fines were fixed, and in the 18th century, a revision of the
fines brought them into proportion with the value of the stolen wood; a
choice of punishments by fines, imprisonment or labor in the woods was
then also instituted.

12. _Forestry Education._

The course of education for the foresters until the middle of the 18th
century was a simple one and mainly directed to learning the
manipulations of the chase, training of dogs, tending of horses, setting
of nets, shooting, etc. Two or three years’ life with a practical hunter
were followed by journeying and working for different employers,
woodlore being picked up by the way from those that knew.

When in the 18th century the need for better woods knowledge became
pressing, the few really good forest managers were sought out by the
young men who wished to secure this knowledge. In this way, a number of
so-called “master-schools” came into existence, each depending on one
man. Such a school was that of v. Zanthier in Wernigerode, later
transferred to Ilsenburg, started in 1763 and ending with his death in
1778. Theoretical teaching and opportunity for practical demonstration
here was such that even students from the Berlin school and men in
actual employment attended the courses.

The two great masters and fathers of modern forestry, Hartig and Cotta,
each instituted such master-schools, the former in 1789, and the latter
in 1785. Cotta’s school was afterwards transferred to Tharandt and
became a State institution.

The interest of the State in forestry education found first expression
in Prussia in a course of lectures in botany, later also in forest
economy, given to the forest officials by _Gleditsch_, professor of
botany at the University of Berlin (1770), to which was added a
practicum at Tegel under Burgsdorf, who finally became the head of this
mixed State school, and continued in this position until at his death,
in 1802, the school was discontinued.

In imitation of this move by Prussia, a military planting school was
instituted by Württemberg at Solitude in 1770. The most noteworthy
feature of this school, which under various changes lasted less than 25
years, was the course of lectures by Stahl, mentioned before.

Besides this higher school, a lower grade school was started in 1783,
but its career was even briefer, not more than ten years.

Bavaria organized a forest school at Munich in 1790 with a four years’
course, and at least three years’ study at this school was required of
those seeking employment in the State service; but without having ever
flourished, this school, too, collapsed by 1803.

13. _Forestry Literature._

The oldest forestry literature of this period is contained in the many
forest ordinances, which allow us to judge from their prescriptions as
to the conditions of the practice in the woods and as to the gradual
accumulation of empiric knowledge. Of a forestry science one could
hardly speak until an attempt had been made to organize the knowledge
thus empirically acquired into a systematic presentation, and this was
not done until the middle or last half of the 18th century.

The first attempts at a literary presentation of the empiric knowledge
are found in the encyclopædic volumes of the so-called “Hausväter”
(household fathers--domestic economists), who treated in a most diffuse
manner of agriculture in all its aspects, including silviculture.

A number of these tomes appeared during the 17th century; the best and
most influential being published at the very beginning of that century
(1595-1609), written by a preacher from Silesia, _Johann Colerus_, and
entitled _Oeconomia ruralis et domestica, worin das ampt aller braven
Hausväter und Hausmütter begriffen_.

Colerus relied upon home experience and not, as Petrus de Crescentiis in
his earlier work, _Praedium rusticum_ (translated from the French, in
1592), had done, upon the scholastic expositions of the Italians. He was
rewarded by the popularity of his work which went through thirteen
editions and became very widely known.

Somewhat earlier, a jurist, _Noë Meurer_, wrote a book on forest law and
hunting (second edition, 1576), which on this field remained long an
authority, and gives insight into the condition of forest use at the
time.

But the first independent work on forestry, divorced from the hunt and
farming, did not appear until 1713, _Sylvicultura œconomica_, written
by the Saxon director of mines, _Hans Carl v. Carlowitz_.

This book, while containing quaint and amusing ideas, gives many correct
rules for silvicultural methods, especially as regards planting and
sowing, but the subject of forest management or organization is entirely
neglected.

At about the same time (1710) a forest official, _v. Göchhausen_,
published _Notabilia venatoris_, which, however, contained little more
than a description of the species of trees and methods of their
utilization.

About the middle of the 18th century great activity began in the
literary field. This was carried on by two distinct classes of writers,
namely, the empiricists and the cameralists. The former--the
_holzgerechte Jäger_--were the “practical” men of the woods who proved
in many directions most unpractical, and exhibited in their writings,
outside of the record of their limited experience, the crassest
ignorance. The cameralists were educated in law and political economy
and, while lacking practical contact with the woodswork, tried to sift
and systematize the knowledge of the empiricists, and to secure for it a
tangible basis.

Some five or six of the empiricists deserve notice as writers; the first
and most noted of them was _Doebel_ (_Heinrich Wilhelm_) whose book,
_Jägerpraktica_ (hunters’ practice), published in 1746, remained an
authority until modern times for the part referring to the chase. The
author was pre-eminently a hunter, who worked in various capacities in
Saxony, a self-taught man with very little knowledge of natural history.
Being familiar mainly with broadleaf forest he condemned planting and
thinning, but described quite well for his time the methods of survey,
subdivision, estimating and measuring, and the methods of selection
forest and coppice with standards. His ignorance is characterized by his
reference to the “sulphurous and nitric elements of the soil” as cause
of spontaneous forest fires.

Opinionated and one-sided, like many so-called practical men, he came
into polemic controversies with other practitioners, not less
opinionated, among them _J. G. Beckmann_, who worked in another part of
Saxony, where, having to deal with coniferous woods, he had gathered
different experiences from those of Doebel. Although he was himself
poorly educated, especially in natural sciences, he complained of the
ignorance of the foresters, and in his book (_Anweisung zu einer
pfleglichen Forstwirthschaft_, 1759), used for the first time the word
_Forstwissenschaft_ (forest science), and insisted upon the necessity of
studying nature.

He may be credited with having really advanced forest organization by
devising the first good volume division method, and silviculture by
advocating the method of clearing followed by sowing.

The first practical forester with a university education was _J. J.
Büchting_, who worked in the Harz mountains. His main interest lay in
the direction of survey, division and orderly utilization. He did not,
however, make any striking advance, except that he gave equal standing
to both planting and sowing.

The two most eminent practitioners of the period, however, active during
the middle of the century, were _Johann Georg von Langen_ and his
pupil, _Hans Dietrich von Zanthier_, both of noble family, and better
educated than most of their contemporaries, and both engaged in the
organization and management of Harz mountain forests, namely, those of
the Duke of Brunswick and of the Count of Stolberg-Wernigerode.

The former, without occupying himself directly with literary work, laid
down in his expert reports and in his working plans many instructions
which form the basis for orderly management and silviculture far ahead
of the times. Zanthier, writing considerably (especially _Kurzer
systematischer Grundriss der praktischen Forstwissenschaft_, 1764), is
also notable as the founder of the first forestry school (at
Wernigerode), 1763.

Another of this class of better educated practitioners, and co-worker
with the former two, was _von Lassberg_, who in 1764-1777 organized the
Saxon forests.

An interesting incident in the life of the last three men is their
journey to Denmark and Norway, whither they were called to organize the
management of the forests connected with the mines.

Another prominent forest manager of the last half of the century, whose
literary work is to be found only in various excellent official
instructions, among which is one for the teaching of foresters, was the
head of the Hessian forest service, a nobleman, _v. Berlepsch_.

Of the cameralists who helped to make forestry literature, six or seven
deserve mention. These, men of education and polyhistors, were either at
the head of affairs, or else professors at universities, where they
included forestry as one of the branches of political economy.

The credit of the first really systematic presentation of forestry
principles and rules, as developed at the time, belongs to _Wilhelm
Gottfried von Moser_, a pupil of von Langen, who served in various
principalities, and finally with the Prince of Taxis. In his _Principles
of Forest Economy_, published in 1757, which for the first time brought
out the economic importance of the subject, he discusses in two volumes
divided into nine chapters the different branches of forestry.

A mining engineer, _J. A. Cramer_, came next with a very notable book,
“_Anleitung zum Forstwesen_” (1766), which, although not as
comprehensive as Moser’s, treats the subject of silviculture very well.

Equal in arrogance and opinionated self-satisfaction to any of the
empiricists with whom he frequently crossed swords, was the Brunswick
councillor, _von Brocke_, who, as an amateur, practising forestry on his
own estate, developed the characteristic trait of the empiricists,
namely, a profound belief in his own infallibility. He produced, besides
many polemic writings, in which he charged the whole class of foresters
with ignorance, laziness and dishonesty, a magnum opus in four volumes,
entitled “_True bases of the physical and experimental general science
of forestry_,” which is an olla podrida of small value.

Less original, but more fair and well informed, a typical representative
of the cameralists, was _J. F. Stahl_, finally head of the forest
administration of Württemberg, and at the same time lecturer on
mathematics, natural history and forestry at the forest school of
Solitude (Stuttgart). Although an amateur in the field of forestry, he
was a good teacher and left many valuable and wise prescriptions evolved
during his administration.

He compiled in four volumes a dictionary of forest, fish and game
practice (_Onomatologia forestalis-piscatoria-venatoria_, 1772-1781) and
founded the first forestry journal.

Since 1770, forestry courses had been given for the cameralists at most
of the German universities, and many of the professors prepared
textbooks for the purpose. At least three of these professors deserve
mention, Beckman, Jung and Trunk.

The first, _J. Beckman_, professor of political economy at Göttingen,
one of the most noted cameralists, was author of a work in forty-five
volumes on the _Principles of German Agriculture_ (1769), in which he
devotes sixty-one pages to forestry, giving a complete system of
forestry, with extracts from all known forestry writings.

_J. H. Jung_, who gave a special course on forestry at the Kameralschule
of Lautern, published a textbook in 1781 in which forest botany was well
treated.

_J. J. Trunk_, who was Oberforstmeister in Austria, as well as professor
at Freiburg, was the most prominent of the three, and wrote a
comprehensive work full of practical sense (_Neues vollständiges
Forstlehrbuch oder systematische Grundsätze des Forstrechtes, der
Forstpolizei und Forstökonomie, nebst Anhang von ausländischen
Holzarten, von Torf und Steinkohlen_, 1789).

* * * * *

While at first the ephemeral writings, especially the polemic ones of
the empiricists, found room in literary and cameralistic magazines, the
need of a professional journal first found expression in 1763, in
Stahl’s _Allgemeines ökonomisches Forstmagazin_, which ran into twelve
volumes, and contains many articles important to the history of
forestry, and is especially rich in its references to foreign
literature.

Two continuations of the magazine under different editorships were of
less value. But von Moser’s _Forstarchiv_, running from 1788 to 1807
with its thirty volumes, is an authority and a historical source of the
first rank.

A very characteristic literature of the last half of the 18th century
consisted in _forest calendars_ in which advice as to monthly and
seasonal procedures in the forest were given, Beckman and Zanthier being
among the authors.

III. DEVELOPMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

The last hundred years or so has seen in Germany the development of
fully established forest policies and the complete organization of
stable forest administrations, based upon thorough and careful
recognition of the principles of forest management and intensive
application of silvicultural methods.

1. _Changes in Property Conditions._

The change in forest treatment from that prevailing during the previous
period was mainly due to the change in property conditions, and
especially to the establishment of _state forests_. This change was
largely the result of the revolutionary movements at the beginning of
the new century which brought about changes in state organizations. In
Prussia, the princely forest property had been declared state domain in
1713, but elsewhere, the public domain had been considered the property
of the princes in their capacity as head of the country, as _domanium_,
outside of their personal private property (Chatullgüter). The income
from this _domanium_ was in part liable to be applied to the expenses of
the court and of the administration of the realm, to some extent
alleviating the burdens of taxation. This property arose from a variety
of relations which have been discussed at length in the foregoing
chapters. It was derived mainly from feudal properties, fiefs of
vassalage and fiefs of official position, secularized church property
and other forfeited property, division of mark forests, and from
allodial possessions of the family. Gradually, by agreement with the
landed estates, it was understood that this property could not be
disposed of or dissipated by the prince, and was inherited by the eldest
son together with the princely dignity, being an attribute of his
position in the state. In the reconstruction period of 1806 to 1815,
during and after the Napoleonic wars, many of the small princes lost
their seigniorage (Landeshoheit _ipso jure_), and with the loss of the
princely dignity, the obligation of carrying the expense of court and
administration naturally falling away, these properties became in most
cases purely individual property of the former princes.

Not, however, until the revolutionary movements of 1848 and even later,
was this divorce of the state idea from that of the person of the prince
everywhere accomplished, nor was it carried through without many
bickerings and quarrels between the princes and the representatives of
the people, who claimed this _domanium_ for the state. In the larger
states, all this domanial property was finally declared state lands,
while in the smaller principalities a partition of the land between the
princes and the state took place, or else a relation was established by
which a part of the revenue resulting from the state lands was secured
to the princes.

An increase of the State’s property came also during the first decade of
the century through the abolishment of cloisters and secularization of
church property generally, the lands of both Protestant and Catholic
church institutions being taken by the State.

Curiously enough, at the same time that the idea of state forest was
being realized, the changes in economic thought which brought the
principle of individualism to the fore gave rise to a movement to sell
the state properties. This movement was inspired by French doctrines,
whose influence was at the time very strong, by the teachings of Adam
Smith who held that the state is not fit to conduct business, and by
the hope that in private ownership an improvement in forest conditions
would be more readily realized. These ideas by themselves would,
probably, not have led to the adoption of a policy of sale if it had not
been for the need for cash which, as a result of the French wars, was
felt everywhere during the first years of the decade. The sale of this
property seemed to provide a ready means for States to secure funds.

In Prussia, after the collapse of 1806, this measure was widely
discussed, and eventually, in 1810 to 1813, repeatedly instructions for
the sale of state forest property were issued. There were to be excluded
from such sales only large complexes of forest, those on the sea coast,
sand dunes and river fronts, where the protection of the forest cover
was needed, and those which it was desirable to maintain for the use of
important industrial establishments. Only the accession of Hartig
(1811), as chief of the forest administration which was a branch of the
Treasury department, prevented the execution of this dismemberment. It
was due to him that the difference in character between farm and forest
property began to be recognized. Although, after 1820, sales of forest
property took place, they were never a fiscal measure, but were made
either for the purpose of rounding off existing state forest property or
paying off servitudes, or else in order to turn over agricultural soil
to farm use. At present everywhere in Germany state properties are on
the increase.

The property conditions of the _communal forests_ naturally changed also
with the political changes of the 19th century, when existing
communities were made part of the large political machine and changed
from economic and social to modern political municipalities. The
ownership conditions, however, were not simplified, but as before,
remained extremely varied.

Of the Mark forest but a very small portion remains to-day. The majority
of it had been finally divided among the Märker in the first decade of
the century, and the few remaining parts became independent of the
political organization and now exist merely in the form of appurtenances
to certain farm property known as _Genossenwald_ (association forests).
In addition to the variety of communal ownerships existing in the
preceding period, some new communal properties originated from the
granting of land in the settlement and dissolution of servitudes,
whereby an undivided property (_Interessentenwald_) in which sometimes
even the state retains an interest, came into existence.

The municipal property of the cities had become either the property of
the entire community or of that part which constituted the real
citizenship, or at least of a certain class of citizens of the
municipality.

The incumbrances which had grown up with regard to forest property under
the name of _servitudes_ and which so much retarded the development of
better forest management continued into this period, and although
through the influences of the French revolution a desire had been
stimulated to get rid of all curtailments of property, some have
persisted to this day. Indeed, for a time an increase of these
servitudes took place, due to the carelessness of forest officials in
keeping unjustified use of the forest in check, when ancient usage of
these rights of user was claimed and new servitudes were established.

In Bavaria, it became at last necessary (1852) to positively forbid the
further establishment of new servitudes or rights of user. Laws having
in view the dissolution or buying out of these rights were issued in
Bavaria in 1805, and in Prussia in 1821, giving the right to forest
owners whose properties were so encumbered, to call for a division of
interests; but as at first the only way to settlement was by exchange
for definite parcels of forest property, the progress in the abolishment
of these rights was slow, until money exchange was permitted (as in
Saxony, 1832). At the present time, the state forest administrations
have mostly got rid of these servitudes, or at least have progressed so
far in their regulation that they are now rarely impediments to forest
management. These peaceable adjustments of the rights of user constitute
the last act of freeing property socially and economically.

2. _Forest Conditions._

In spite of the sporadic efforts which had been made to bring about the
recuperation of forest areas during the 18th century, the conditions of
the forest at the beginning of the new century were most pitiable; the
division of the Mark, by which the peasants became individual owners,
profited little, and led to devastation rather than to improving the
condition of the property. In addition, export trade in wood had become
brisk, and the financial depression, a result of the French wars, led to
increased exploitations, which, with the improvement in means of
transportation, progressed to the more distant forest areas, and
enlarged the waste area. Especially in the more densely populated parts
of the country, the deforested area widened, and large wastes with poor
young growth increased in all directions, in the same manner as now in
the United States. The alarmists had good cause for renewing their
cries, and, around the year 1800, a considerable literature sprung up on
the subject of the threatened timber famine.

It is interesting to note that at that time the Catalpa played a role,
at least on paper, as it does in our own day, being recommended as the
only means of staving off the timber famine. A renewed _betulomania_
spread widely over the country. In North Germany especially, great
efforts were made to replant the denuded areas and to change the coppice
areas, fit only for firewood, to coniferous species, pine, etc., by
which eventually a great change in the forest type from the original
mixed forest to the pure forest was effected.

3. _Personnel._

The great change which led to improved conditions, during the first half
of the century, was pre-eminently due to the knowledge and intelligence
of a group of men, six in number, competent foresters, who combined the
high grade education of the Cameralists with the practitioners’
knowledge: Hartig, Cotta, Hundeshagen, Koenig, Pfeil and Heyer. These
men built, to be sure, on the shoulders of their precursors of the
century in which they were born, but, being placed in authoritative
positions, found better opportunities for putting their teachings into
practice.

The first two mentioned were older than the rest, and are usually
described as the “fathers of modern forestry.” Born about a year apart,
both educated at universities, they excelled in both scientific and
practical directions.

_Georg Ludwig Hartig_ (1764-1837), studied at the University of Giessen
and, after having served in various functions in various parts of
Southern Germany, became, in 1811, head of the Prussian forest
administration. He was equally eminent as a practical man and organizer,
as a writer, and as a teacher. In literary direction his work lay not so
much in developing new ideas as in formulating clearly the known ones,
as evidenced in his celebrated “General Rules” in silviculture.

Not less than thirty separate publications attest his assiduity. Among
them stands pre-eminent “_Anweisung zur Holzzucht für Foerster_” (1791;
8th edition, 1818). As a teacher he began his work by establishing a
masterschool (1789-1791) at Hungen, transferred to Stuttgart in 1807;
and afterwards, as head of the Prussian forest administration, he
lectured at the University of Berlin, continuing his lectures there,
even after the forestry school at Eberswalde had been established, until
his death.

He may be considered as having established on a firm basis the forest
administration of Prussia; and many of the things he instituted still
prevail. In organizing the service, he introduced fixed salaries, he
relieved the foresters from financial responsibilities, transferring all
handling of money to a separate set of officials, whereby the temptation
to fraudulent practice of graft was removed, and he issued instructions
for the different grades of foresters; and every part of this work was
all his own. In regulating the forest area of the state he developed the
volume allotment method, which, however, proved too cumbersome to be
readily applied to large areas. Toward the end of his life, his work was
not entirely successful, and he lost prestige in his later years.

_Heinrich von Cotta_ (1763-1844) studied at the University of Jena, and
afterwards practiced in Thuringia, where he established a master school
at Zillbach (1795). In 1811, he was called to Saxony, as director of
forest surveys, whither he also transferred his school, at Tharandt,
which in 1816 was made a state institution and is still flourishing. In
that year he was made the director of the Bureau of Forest Management.
Like Hartig, he was eminent in the three directions of practical,
literary, and educational work, but he excelled Hartig in originality,
developing new principles and thought. Being a good plant-physiologist
and observer of nature, he developed new ideas in silviculture,
especially with reference to methods of thinning, and his “_Anweisung
zum Waldbau_,” written in the simplest, clearest and most forceful
manner, forms a classic worthy of study to this day. In the field of
forest management he became the inventor of the area allotment method
and the originator of the highly developed Saxon forest management. As
a teacher he excelled in clearness, exposition, wealth of ideas and
geniality.

Of an entirely different stamp was the third of the great masters,
_Johann Christian Hundeshagen_ (1783-1834), who having studied in
Heidelberg, became after some years of practice, professor of forestry
at Tuebingen, in 1817, and at Giessen, 1825. He was a representative of
the theoretical or philosophical side of forestry, being highly
cultivated and imbued with the spirit of science. His bent was to
systematize the knowledge in existence and extend it by means of exact
experiments. In forest organization, he invented the well known formula
method or “rational method” of regulating felling budgets and became
also one of the founders of Forest Statics (1826) which he called “the
doctrine of measuring forestal forces,” being thus the forerunner of
modern scientific forestry.

The fourth of the group, _Gottlob König_ (1776-1849), was a practitioner
without a university education, who had enjoyed the teaching and
influence of Cotta whom he succeeded in Eisenach as the head of the
ducal forest administration. He also founded here a private forest
school, which, in 1830, became a state institution, and is still in
existence. König became noted by his contributions to the scientific,
especially the mathematical side of forestry, developing forest
mensuration and statics. In this latter branch he was the forerunner of
Pressler and of the modern school of finance. In his “_Anleitung zur
Holztaxation_” (1813) he gives a complete account of forest mensuration
and in the part devoted to forest valuation he develops the first soil
rent formula and the methods of determining the cost value of stands.
His “Forest Mathematics” (1835) in which he introduces factors of form
and many other new ideas was an original contribution to science.

Very different in character from these four leaders was the aggressive,
sharp-witted _Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil_ (1783-1859), who, without
a university education, and in spite of his poor knowledge of
mathematics and natural history, advanced himself by native wit and
genius. After a brief period of employment in private service, in the
province of Silesia, he accepted the position of professor of forestry
at the Berlin University, in 1821, in connection with Hartig, with whom,
however, he was at sword’s point. It was at his instigation, with the
assistance of von Humboldt, that the school was transferred, in 1830, to
Eberswalde, Pfeil becoming its director.

While Hartig was a generalizer, Pfeil was an individualizer, free from
dogma, and most suggestive; a free lance and a fighter. Critical in the
extreme and prolific in his literary work, he domineered the forestry
literature of the day by means of his _Kritische Blaetter_, a journal of
much import and merit.

The youngest of the group, _Karl Heyer_ (1797-1856), a thoroughly
educated man, combined the professorial position in the University of
Giessen (1835) with practical management of a forest district, but in
1834 abandoned the latter in order to devote himself entirely to
literary work. He was one of the clearest and most systematic
expounders, and both his _Waldbau_ (silviculture, 1854) and his
_Waldertragsregelung_ (forest organization, 1841) are classics. The
last, fifth edition of the Waldbau, appearing in 1906 in two volumes,
has been brought up to date by Professor Hess. He devised one of the
most rational methods of forest organization, and, imbued with the
necessity of basing forest management on exact scientific inquiry,
instead of on empiricism alone, he formulated instructions for forest
static investigations, a subject which his son, Gustav Heyer, elaborated
into a science.

4. _Progress in Silviculture._

_Natural regeneration_ continued to be the favorite method well into
this period, and, for a long time, selection forest and coppice were all
that was known in practice until Hartig and Cotta forced recognition of
the shelterwood system.

The only way in which a transition from the generally practiced,
unregulated selection forest to an intensive management was possible,
with the ignorant personnel of underforesters, was to formulate into an
easily intelligible prescription the necessary rules, allowing the least
play to individual judgment. This was done by Hartig when he formulated
his eight “General Rules” (1808) which coincided also closely with the
teachings of Cotta. Since these rules represent in brief and most
definitely the status of silvicultural knowledge on natural regeneration
at the time, it may be desirable to translate them _verbatim_.

(1) “Every forest tree which is expected to propagate itself by natural
regeneration must be old enough to bear good seed.

(2) “Every district or stand which is to be replaced by a thoroughly
perfect stand by means of natural regeneration, must be brought into
such position (density) that the soil may everywhere receive sufficient
seeding.

(3) “Each compartment must be kept in such condition (density) that it
cannot, before the seeding takes place, grow up to grass and weeds.

(4) “With species whose seed loses its power of germination through
frost, as is the case with the oak and beech, the compartments must be
given such a position (density) that the foliage which after the fall of
seed covers and protects the same cannot be carried away by wind.

(5) “All stands must be given such density that the germinating plants
in the same, as long as they are still tender, find sufficient
protection from their mother trees against heat of the sun and against
cold.

(6) “So soon as the young stand resulting from natural regeneration does
not any longer require this motherly protection, it must gradually,
through the careful removal of the mother trees, be accustomed to the
weather, and finally must be entirely brought into the open position.

(7) “All the young growths, whether secured by natural or artificial
seeding, must be freed from the accompanying less useful species and
from weeds, if these in spite of all precaution threaten the better
kinds.

(8) “From every young forest until it is full grown, the suppressed wood
must be removed from time to time, so that the trees which are ahead or
dominate may grow the better; the upper perfect crown cover, however,
must not be interrupted until it is the intention to grow a new forest
again in the place of the old one.”

Since these rules are applicable only in beech forests, much mischief
and misconception resulted from their generalization; pure, even-aged
high forests became the ideal, and the mixed forest, which was
originally the most widespread condition, vanished to a large extent.
This was especially unfortunate in Northern and Northeastern pine
forests.

A reaction against Hartig’s generalization began about 1830, under the
lead of Pfeil. He had at first agreed with Hartig, and then with equal
narrowness advocated for many years a clear cutting system with
artificial reforestation. Finally, however, he was not afraid to
acknowledge that his early generalizations in this respect were a
mistake, and that different conditions required different treatment.

In the development of the shelterwood system there was at first, under
the lead of Hartig, a tendency to open up rather sharply, taking out
about three-fourths of the existing stand, but gradually he became
convinced that this was too much, and finally reduced the first removal
to only about one-third of the stand. This was the origin of his
nickname of _Dunkelman_. In spite of the fact that it was claimed that
Cotta took the opposite view (for which he was called _Lichtman_), he,
too, grew to favor a dark position, and, as he progressed, leaned more
and more towards more careful opening up. Hartig originally recognized
only three different fellings: the cutting for seed; the cutting for
light; and the removal cutting. By and by, a second cut was made during
the seed year, and the number of fellings to secure gradual removal were
increased, so that, by 1801, this system seems to have been pretty
nearly perfected to its modern conditions. The best exposition of this
_Femelschlagbetrieb_ (shelterwood system), as then developed, is to be
found in Karl Heyer’s Handbook, 1854.

The method was unfortunately extended by Burgsdorf (1787) to the
Northern pineries with a seventy year period of rotation. Within ten
years, however, he recognized its inappropriateness, and modified it by
instructions to leave only six to twelve seed trees per acre. His
successor, Kropff, reduced the number of seed trees to four or five,
which were to be removed within two or three years. In spite of the
development of this more rational method, the practitioners under
Hartig’s approval, held mainly to a dark position even for pine, much in
the manner of a selection forest, which produced a poor growth of
oppressed seedlings, retarding for a long time the development of the
pineries.

In spruce or fir, either a pure selection forest or a strip system was
employed. Attempts at a shelterwood system were made, but experience
with the wind danger soon taught the lesson that this was not a proper
method with shallow-rooted species. Even Hartig preferred for spruce
clearing and planting, and this is still the most favored method with
that species. For the deep-rooted and shade-enduring fir the shelterwood
method with a long regeneration period was thoroughly established in
the Black Forest, and in Württemberg by 1818.

Natural regeneration being the main method of reproduction until the
beginning of the 19th century, _artificial_ means, as is evident from
the forest ordinances of Prussia and Bavaria (1812 and 1814), were
usually applied only to repair fail-places, or to plant up wastes. In
this artificial reforestation, with the exception of the planting of oak
in pastures, sowing was almost entirely resorted to because it could be
done cheaper and easier, but as the sowings were mostly made on
unprepared soil and with very large amounts of seed (30 to 60 pounds per
acre, now only 7 to 10 pounds), the results were not satisfactory,
either because the seed did not find favorable conditions for
germinating, or when germinated the stand was too dense.

Planting, if done at all, was done only with wildlings dug from the
woods, and usually, following the practice of the planting of oak in
pastures, with saplings: the plant material was too large for success.
Nurseries, except for oak, were not known, even to Cotta in 1817; and
Heyer, having to plant up several thousand acres, still relied on
wildlings, two to three years old, which he took up with a ball of earth
by means of his “hole spade,” a circular spade re-invented by him and
much praised by others. Hartig, in 1833, still advised the use of four
to five year old pine wildlings, root-pruned, but, eventually, having
met with poor success, for which he was much discredited, came to the
conclusion that un-pruned two-year-old plants were preferable.

The credit of having radically changed these practices belongs to Pfeil,
who, entirely reversing his position, advocated for pine forest a system
of clearing followed by sowing, or by planting of wildlings with a ball
of earth. Then, suggesting that possibly planting without this
precaution could be attempted, and pointing out the necessity of
securing a satisfactory root system, he recommended, about 1830, the use
of one-year-old seedlings grown in carefully prepared seed beds. While
for securing these, he relied upon the simple preparation of the soil by
spading, _Biermans_ added the use of a fertilizer in the shape of the
ashes of burned sod. The method of growing pine seedlings and planting
them when one to three years old was further developed by _Butlar_
(1845), who introduced the practice of dense sowing in the seed beds. He
also invented an ingenious planting iron or dibble, a half cone of iron,
which was thrown by the planter with great precision, first to make a
hole and then to close it. This was improved by the addition of a long
handle into the superior, well-known and much used _Wartenberg_ planting
dibble. At the same time (1840), _Manteuffel_ devised the method known
by his name of planting in mounds, which is especially applicable on wet
soils.

It was not until 1840 that transplanting of yearling pines with naked
roots became general. The widespread application of this latter system
resulted in abandoning to a large extent mixed growth, and led to the
establishment of pure pine forests, introducing thereby most intensively
all the dangers incident to a clearing system and pure forest which are
avoided by the mixed forest, namely, insects, frost and drought.

A practice of planting spruce in bunches, originally twelve to twenty
plants in a bunch, had been in existence since 1780. This practice
increased until 1850, and is still in use in the Harz mountains and in
eastern Prussia, although the bunches have been reduced so as to contain
only from three to five plants, the object of the bunching being to make
sure that one or the other of the plants should live. Much discussion as
to the merits of this method took place between the old masters, Cotta
favoring the small bunches upon the basis of a successful plantation of
his own, Hartig and Pfeil opposing it, but finally weakening. Since
1850, however, the practice of setting out single plants has become more
general.

A reaction from the indiscriminate application of the shelterwood method
to the hardwoods and of the clearing method to the pine set in during
the last quarter of the 19th century under the lead of Burkhardt and
Gayer. These advocated return to mixed forest and to natural
regeneration with long periods, approaching a selection forest. Gayer
especially, professor of silviculture at Munich, became the foremost
apostle of this school. Yet even to this day, the principles of
silvicultural treatment under the many different conditions remain
unsettled. On the whole however, with the financial question assiduously
brought forward, the clearing system has made most progress, and the
selection system has nearly vanished, being replaced by the group method
and the shelterwood system.

A number of special forms of silvicultural management applicable under
special conditions have been locally developed, without, however,
gaining much ground and being mainly of historical value. Among these
may be mentioned _Seebach’s Modified Beech Forest_, which consists in
opening up a beech stand so as to secure regeneration, merely to form a
soil cover, leaving enough of the old stand on the ground to close up in
thirty or forty years. By this treatment the large increment due to open
position is secured without endangering the soil. Similarly the
_Storied_ or _Two-aged High forest_, was applied to the management of
oak forest in mixture with beech. In a few localities also, on limited
areas, a combination of forest and farming (_Waldfeldbau_) has been
continued and elaborated, besides the more general use of coppice and
coppice with standards.

According to the statistics for 1900 the following distribution of the
acreage under different silvicultural methods prevailed throughout the
empire:

Deciduous Coniferous
Per cent. Per cent.
Total Forest 32.5 67.5
High Forest 18.4 60.1
Selection Forest 2.3 7.4
Coppice 6.8 --
Coppice with standards 5. --

Coniferous forest, of which 68% is pine and 30% spruce, prevails in
Eastern and Middle Germany, deciduous forest, of which 20% is oak, the
balance principally beech, in the West and South.

Coppice and coppice with standards are mostly in private hands as well
as the coniferous selection forest, the State forests being almost
entirely high forest, i.e., seed forest, other than under selection
method.

_Methods of Improving the Crop._ The credit of having first
systematically formulated the practice of thinnings under the name of
_Durchforstung_ (for the first thinning), _Durchplenterung_ (for the
later thinnings), belongs to Hartig, although the practice of such
thinnings had been known and applied here and there before his time. He
confined himself mainly to the removal of the undesirable species, dead
and dying, suppressed and damaged trees, being especially emphatic in
his advice not to interrupt the crown cover. Excepting the early weeding
or improvement cuttings, these thinnings were not to begin until the
fiftieth to seventieth year in the broadleaved forest, but in conifers
in the twentieth to thirtieth year.

The first attempt to explain on a biological basis the process and
effect of thinning was made by Späth in a special contribution (1802).
Cotta, in his Silviculture, although at first agreeing with Hartig,
later in his third edition (1821) changes his mind, and improves both
upon the biological explanation of Späth and the practice of Hartig,
pointing out that the latter came too late with his assistance, that the
struggle between the individuals should be anticipated, and the thinning
repeated as soon as the branches begin to die; but he also recognizes
the practical difficulty of the application of this cultural measure on
account of the expense. Curiously enough, he recommends severer
thinnings for fuel-wood production than for timber forests.

Pfeil accentuates the necessity of treating different sites and species
differently in the practice of thinnings. Hundeshagen accentuates the
financial result and the fact that the culmination of the average yield
is secured earlier by frequent thinnings. Heyer formulates the “golden
rule:” “Early, often, moderate,” but insists that first thinning should
not be made until the cost of the operation can be covered by the sale
of the material. Propositions to base the philosophy and the results of
thinning on experimental grounds rather than on mere opinion were made
as early as 1825 to 1828, and again from 1839 to 1846, at various
meetings of forestry associations, until, in 1860, Brunswick and Saxony
inaugurated the first more extensive experiments in thinnings. The two
representatives of forest finance, Koenig and Pressler, pointed out, in
1842 to 1859, the great significance of thinnings in a finance
management as one of the most important silvicultural operations for
securing the highest yield.

In spite of the advanced development of the theory of thinning, the
practice has largely lagged behind, because of the impracticability of
introducing intensive management. Only lately, owing to improvement in
prices and the possibility of marketing the inferior material profitably
enough to justify the expenditure, has it become possible to secure more
generally the advantages of the cultural effect. Within the last thirty
or forty years, great activity has been developed among the experiment
stations in securing a true basis for the practice of thinning.

New ideas were introduced through French influence and by others
independently in the latter part of the eighties, when the distinction
between the final harvest crop (Fr. élite, le haut) and the nurse crop
(le bas) was introduced.[4]

[4] The conception of such subdivision and the English nomenclature
was independently first employed by the writer in his Report for
1887, as Chief of Forestry Division, when discussing planting plans
for the prairies.

The physiological reasons for the practice of thinning upon experimental
basis, were advanced by the botanists Goeppert and R. Hartig, and among
foresters, the names of Kraft, Lorey, Haug, Borggreve, Wagener, and
others are intimately connected with the very active discussion of the
subject lately going on in the magazines. Thinnings have become such an
important part of the income of forest administrations (25 to 40% of the
total yield) that the prominence given to the subject is well justified,
and a more modern conception of the advantages of thinnings and
especially of severer thinnings is gaining ground.

The proposition, now much ventilated, of severe opening up near the end
of the rotation, in order to secure an accelerated increment
(_Lichtungshiebe_) is, however, much older; Hossfeld, in 1824, and Jäger
in 1850, advocated this measure for financial reasons, while Koenig and
Pressler anticipated the development of an individual tree management by
pruning, and differentiation of final harvest and nurse crop, a method
which is working itself out at the present time.

5. _Methods of Forest Organization._

As stated before, to Hartig and Cotta belongs the credit of having
applied systematically on a large scale methods of forest organization
for sustained yield; Hartig having been active in Prussia since 1811,
and Cotta beginning to organize the Saxon forests in the same year. The
method employed by Hartig, the so-called volume allotment, had been
already formulated and its foundation laid by Kregting and others
(although Hartig seems to have claimed the invention). But it was
reserved to Hartig to build up this method in its detail, and to
formulate clearly and precisely its application, as well as to improve
the practice of forest survey, calculation of increment, and the making
of yield tables. His method involved a survey, a subdivision, a
construction of yield tables and the formulation of working plans, in
which the principle according to which the forest was to be managed
during the whole rotation was laid down for each district. The rotation
was determined, divided into periods, finally of twenty years, and the
periodic volume yield represented by all stands was distributed through
all the periods of the rotation in such a manner as to make the periodic
felling budgets approximately equal; or, since the tendency to increased
wood consumption was recognized, an increase of the felling budget
toward the end of the rotation was considered desirable.

Cotta based his system of forest organization upon a method described by
a Bavarian, Schilcher (1796); it relied primarily upon area rather than
volume division. This method was later on (1817), called by him
_Flaechenfachwerk_ (area allotment). It divides the rotation into
periods and allots areas for each periodic felling budget. But before
this time, in 1804, Cotta had himself formulated a method of his own,
which combined the area and volume method, the volume being the main
basis and the area being merely used as a check. While Hartig
dogmatically and persistently carried out his difficult scheme, Cotta
was open-minded enough to improve his method of regulation, and by 1820,
in his _Anweisung zur Forst-Einrichtung und -Abschaetzung_, he comes to
his final position of basing the sustained yield entirely on the area
allotment, using the estimate of volume simply to secure an
approximately uniform felling budget. He laid particular stress on
orderly procedure in the subdivision and progress of the fellings. He
did not prepare an elaborate working plan binding for the entire
rotation, but merely prescribed the principles of the general
management, and, after 1816, he confined the formulating of felling and
planting plans only to the next decade.

A similar method, making a closer combination of volume and area
allotment, now known as the combined allotment, in which the area forms
the main basis for distributing the felling budgets, was prescribed by
Klipstein in 1833. This, also, confines the working plan to the first
period of the rotation and for this period alone makes a rather careful
statement of the expected volume budget; a new budget is then to be
determined at the beginning of the next period. This idea of confining
the budget determination to a comparatively short period is now
generally accepted, the future receiving only summary consideration.

These methods of organization were the ones generally applied in
practice, and are still with some modifications in practical use. About
1820, however, new theories were advanced which led to the formulation
of methods based upon the idea of the _normal forest_. The conception of
a normal forest, with a normal stock, distributed in normal age classes,
so as to insure a sustained yield management, was evolved, in 1788, by
an obscure anonymous official in the Tax-collector’s office of Austria,
designed for assessing woods managed for sustained yield. This fertile
idea, which is still the basis of forest organization in Austria, and
explains better than any other method the principles involved in forest
organization, did not find entrance into forestry literature in all its
detail until 1811 when André compared this so-called _Cameraltaxe_ with
Hartig’s method of regulation. We find, however, that, simultaneously
with the Austrian invention of this method, Paulsen (1787) proposed to
determine the felling budget as a relation between normal stock and
normal yield, and in his yield tables (the first of the kind, 1795), he
gives the proportion of increment to normal stock in percentic relation,
so that the felling budget may be either expressed as a fraction of the
stock or as a per cent.; in beech forests, for instance, he determines
the felling budget as 3.3% on best sites, 2.5% on medium, and 1.8% on
poor sites.

Probably stimulated by André’s description, _Huber_ (1812) developed a
method and formula which may be considered the foundation of the later
development by Carl Heyer (Felling budget = I + ((Sa - Sn)/e)).

Based upon the normal forest idea, a number of methods were elaborated
which, because of their employing a mathematical formula for the
determination of the felling budget, are known as _formula methods_;
they are, indeed modified rational volume divisions.

Hundeshagen has the merit of having first clearly explained the basis of
these methods, and himself developed a formula, of the correctness of
which he was so convinced as to designate his method as “the rational”
one. Two other formulæ were brought into the world by Koenig
(1838-1851), but the credit of the most complete elaboration both of the
principles of the normal forest idea and of its practical application
belongs to Carl Heyer. The principles of his method are briefly: First
determine upon the period of regulation during which the abnormal forest
is to be brought nearer to normal conditions; the length of this period
to be determined with due regard to the financial requirements or
ability of the owner and to the conditions of the forest. The actual
stock on hand is then determined and the total increment, based on the
average increment at felling age of each stand, which will take place
during this period, is added. Deducting from this total what has been
calculated as the proper normal stock requisite for a sustained yield
management, the balance is available for felling budgets which may be
utilized in annual or periodic instalments during the period of
regulation. A working plan is provided which takes care of securing an
orderly progress of fellings and proper location of age classes, to be
revised every ten years.

Although this is undoubtedly the most rational method yet devised, it
has remained largely unused, and is found in somewhat modified
application only in Austria and Baden.

An entirely new principle in the theory of forest organization was
introduced, when the aim of forest management was formulated to be the
highest soil rent. According to this requirement the proper harvest time
of any stand, or even of any tree, was to be determined by the so-called
index per cent., that is, a calculation which determines whether a stand
or a tree is still producing at a proper predetermined rate, or is
declining. The advocates of this principle were especially _Pressler_
(professor of mathematics at Tharandt, 1840 to 1843) and _G. Heyer_, son
of Carl Heyer, who based his method on his father’s formula, merely
introducing values for volumes. _Judeich_, director of the Tharandt
school, also developed in the sixties a method, based upon financial
theory, which is to attain the highest rate per cent. on the capital
invested in forest production. On the basis of survey and subdivision of
working blocks composing a felling series, and with a rotation
determined by financial calculations with interest accounts, he makes a
periodic area division for determining the felling budget in general,
and in addition employs the index per cent., as explained, for
determining in each allotted stand the more exact time for its harvest.

While these men pleaded for a strict finance calculation, such as is
properly applied to any business making financial results the main
issue, the defenders of the old regime, which sought the object of
forest management mainly in highest material or value production,
advanced as their financial program the attainment of the highest forest
rent as opposed to the highest soil rent. They neglected and derided the
complicated interest calculations which have to take into consideration
uncertain future developments, and were satisfied with producing a
satisfactory balance, a surplus of income over expenses, no matter what
interest rate on the capital involved in soil and forest growth that
might represent.

At the present time these financial propositions are still mainly under
heated discussion.

In actual practice, the various state forest administrations, with the
exception of the Saxon one, continue to rely upon the older methods in
regulating the management of their forest properties without reference
to financial theories. This is largely due to momentum of the practical
existence and application of these methods in earlier times and the
difficulty and impracticability of a change. Just now, however, several
of the State administrations are preparing to radically revise their
working plans.

In Prussia, the instructions for working plans of 1819 formulated by
Hartig were improved upon by his successor, Oberlandforstmeister _von
Reuss_ (1836), and these instructions formed the basis of the work of
forest regulation until the end of the 19th century. It is a periodic
area allotment with only a summary check by volume. The working plan is
only to secure a rational location and gradation of age classes; the
calculations of yields and specific rules of management are lately
confined to the first period and are revised every six years.

In Saxony, Cotta’s area method was systematically developed, and, as the
larger part of Saxon forests is coniferous, mainly spruce, the proper
location of age classes forms a special consideration for the progress
of fellings. The determination of volume and increment was left to
summary estimates, and the area division became entirely superior. The
original idea of Cotta that orderly procedure in the management is of
more importance than the actual determination and equalization of yield
still pervades the Saxon practice. Since 1860, an attempt has been made
to calculate the rotation and determine the felling budget on the
principle of the soil rent, at least as a corrective of the annual
budget, and in general to lean towards Judeich’s stand management.

In Bavaria, after various changes, a complete allotment method of area
and volume had come into vogue, in 1819; but, at the present writing
(1911) an entirely new and modern re-organization has been begun, in
which most modern ideas and especially much freedom of movement, even to
deviation from the principle of sustained yield, is allowed.

In Württemberg, where, in 1818 to 1822, a pure volume allotment had been
introduced, in 1862 to 1863 the combined allotment method was begun, the
felling budget being determined in a general way for the next two or
three periods, and more precisely for the first decade, without
attempting more than approximate equality.

In 1898, new instructions were issued, which abandon the allotment
method and restrict the yield regulation to designating felling areas
for the first period.

In Baden, where the forest organization began in 1836 upon the basis of
volume allotment, a change was made in 1849 to an area allotment,
simplifying to a greater extent than anywhere else the calculation of
the yield; finally, Heyer’s method was adopted entirely in 1869.

It appears then that the schematic allotment methods found the most
general application in the earlier time of the period, being favored
probably on account of their simplicity in application. The improvement
in their present application over the original methods as designed by
Hartig and Cotta, is that now they require no volume calculation for any
long future, but are satisfied with making a sufficiently accurate
calculation and provision for the proper felling budget for the present.

6. _Forest Administration._

About the middle of the 18th century the recognition of the importance
of forestry led to a severance of the forest and hunting interests, and
it became the practice to place the direction of the former into the
hands of some more or less competent man--a state forester--usually
under the fiscal branch or treasury department of the general
administration. Fully organized forest administrations, in the modern
sense, however, could hardly be said to have existed before the end of
the Napoleonic wars (1815) which had undoubtedly retarded the peaceful
development of this as well as of other reforms.

The present organization of the large Prussian forest department in its
present form dates from 1820, when Hartig instituted the division into
provincial administrations, and differentiated them into directive,
inspection and executive services. The direction of the provincial
management was placed in the hands of an Oberforstmeister, with the
assistance of a number of Forstmeister, who acted mainly as inspectors,
each having his inspection district consisting of a number of ranges.
The ranges (100,000 to 125,000 acres) were placed in charge of
Oberförster or Revierförster, who with the assistance of several
underforesters (Förster) conducted the practical work. At first only
indifferently educated, these latter were allowed little latitude, but
with improvement in their education they became by degrees more and more
independent agents.

This tri-partite system of directing, inspecting and executive officers,
after various changes in titles and functions, finally became
practically established in all the larger German states; in some rather
lately, as for instance, in Bavaria, not until 1885, and in Württemberg
in 1887.

With this more stable organization, the character and the status of the
personnel changed greatly: the prior right of the nobility to the higher
positions, which had lasted in some States until 1848, and the practice
of making connection with military service a basis for appointment were
abolished, and, instead of Cameralists, educated foresters came
everywhere to the head of affairs. The lower service, which had been
recruited from hunters and lackeys, and which was noted for its low
social, moral and pecuniary status, was improved in all directions. The
change from incidentals in the way of fees, and natural instead of money
emolument for the lower grade foresters, (which had been the rule, and
still play a role even to date), to definite salaries, and the salutary
change of methods in transacting business, which Hartig introduced,
became general. With the development and improvement of forestry
schools, the requirement of a higher technical education for positions
in State service could be enforced. Yet only within the last twenty-five
or thirty years, has the ranking position of forest officers been made
adequate and equalized with that of other public officials of equal
responsibility, and still later have their salaries been made adequate
to modern requirement.

The central administration now lies in the hands of technical men
(_Oberlandforstmeister_) with a council of technical deputies
(_Landforstmeister_) all of whom have passed through all the stages of
employment from that of district managers up. This central office or
“division of forestry” is either attached to the department of
agriculture, or to that of finance, and has entire charge of the
questions of personnel, direction of forest schools, of the forest
policy of the administration, and the approval of all working plans,
acting in all things pertaining to the forest service as a court of last
resort. The working plans are made and revised by special commissioners
in each case, or, as in Saxony, under the direction of a special
bureau, with the assistance of the district manager. Upon the basis of
the general working plan prepared by these commissions, an annual plan
is elaborated by the district managers with consultation and approval of
the provincial and central administration. These plans contain a
detailed statement of all the work to be done through the year, the cost
of each item, and the receipts expected from each source. This annual
working plan requires approval by the provincial administration, which
is constituted as a deliberative council, consisting of a number of
Forstmeister with an Oberforstmeister as presiding officer. The titles
of these officers, to be sure, and the details of procedure vary
somewhat in different states, but the system as a whole is more or less
alike.

The district manager or Oberförster, now often called _Forstmeister_,
has grown in importance and freedom of position, although his district
has grown smaller (mostly not over 25,000 acres), and, being one of the
best educated men in the country district, he usually holds the highest
social position, although his emoluments are still moderate. He holds
many offices of an honorary character, as for instance that of justice
of the peace, and the position of states’ attorney or public prosecutor
in all cases of infraction of the forest laws. These forest laws are
still largely local, _i.e._, State laws, although the criminal code of
the empire has somewhat unified practice.

Curiously enough, wood on the stump is still not considered property in
the same sense as other things, so far as theft is concerned; the
stealing of growing timber is not even called theft, the word used in
the laws being _Frevel_ (tort), and, like other infractions against
forest laws, it is punished by a money fine, more or less in proportion
to the value of the stolen material or the damage suffered. This money
fine may be transmuted into imprisonment or forest labor, but corporal
punishment, which still prevailed in the first decades of the century,
has been abolished. Wood stealing was very general and rampant during
the beginning of the century, but improvement in the condition of the
country population and in the number and personnel of the forest
officers since 1850 has now reduced it to a minimum.

Formerly, and until 1848, the administrators and even the forest owners
acted at the same time as prosecutor, judge and executioner, and only in
1879, was this condition everywhere and entirely changed, and
infractions against forest laws adjudged by regular courts of law,
holding meetings at stated times for the prosecution of such
infractions.

Nevertheless, the court proceedings in forest matters still vary from
the usual court practice, providing a simpler, cheaper and more ready
disposal of testimony and witnesses, and quicker retribution, which is
largely rendered possible through having every forest officer under oath
as a sheriff, and his statement, and perhaps the confiscated tools
employed in the theft, being accepted as _prima facie_ evidence of the
infraction.

The social position of the underforesters and the forest protective
service has also been improved until all charges of incompetency and
immorality, which were not undeserved even until past the middle of the
nineteenth century, have become reversed; the forest service being
morally on as high a plane as all the departments of German
administrations.

7. _Forest Policy._

During the first half of the century the old conception of
_Forsthoheit_--superior right of the princes to supervise and interfere
with private property--changed into the more modern conception of the
police function of the state, and, by 1850, after the revolutionary
period, the seignorage of the princes had passed away. The issue of
forest ordinances (the last in 1840) was replaced by the enactment of
forest laws which, since the establishment of representative government,
has become a function of legislatures.

The tendency to restrict the exercise of private property rights had
been assailed by the theories of _Laissez faire_ and the teachings of
Adam Smith, and, as a consequence, all the restrictive mandates of the
older forest ordinances had been weakened and had more of less fallen
into disuse. Especially the attempts to influence prices and markets had
nearly if not entirely vanished during the first decade. Only for the
state forest, it was still thought desirable to predetermine wood
prices, or at least keep rates low, because wood was a necessary
material for the industries. This theory prevailed until, perhaps under
the lead of Hundeshagen (see above), the propriety of securing the
highest soil rent was recognized as the proper aim, when the practice of
selling wood at auction in order to secure the best prices became the
rule.

The regulations regarding export and import between the different
States, which had been enacted under the mercantilistic teachings of the
last century (see page 52), and the many tariffs which impeded a free
exchange of commodities, lasted for a long while into the 19th century,
and were not all abolished until 1865, when under the lead of Prussia,
the North German Federation instituted the _Zollverein_ (Tariff
alliance) which abolished not only all tariffs between the States of the
Federation, but also tariffs on wood products against the outside world.
Import duties were, however, again established in 1879, and the policy
of protecting the established organized forest management against
competition by importations from exploiting countries has been again and
again recognized as proper in the revision of tariff rates and railroad
freight rates on the government railroads.

During the first decades of the century, the supply question was
uppermost, and although such men as Pfeil (1816) laughed at the idea of
a wood famine, there was good reason, prior to the development of
railroads, of coal fields, of iron and steel manufactures, etc., for
discussing with apprehension the area and condition of supply and the
extent of the consumption. Nevertheless, the attitude of the state
toward private property was much more influenced by the economic
theories then prevalent, which taught the ideas of private liberty to
which the French Revolution had given such forcible expression.

With the change of municipal communities from mere associations with
common material interest into units or parts of political or state
machines, also independence in the management of their property was
secured, and many of the old restrictions which had circumscribed this
right fell away. Curiously enough, during the French domination under
Napoleon, the new masters, forgetting the spirit of the revolutionary
period, introduced the prescriptions of the old French ordinance of 1669
which restricted the use of communal property to the extent of excluding
the owners entirely from the management of their property, and placed it
under government officers. After the French withdrew, this method, of
course, collapsed, although it probably had an influence on the final
shaping of forest policies in these respects. Altogether, there was such
variety of historic development in the different parts of Germany that
it is not to be wondered at that one finds a great variety of policies
still prevailing not only in different States but in different
localities of the same State.

At the present time three different principles in the relations of the
state to the corporation forests may be recognized, namely, entire
freedom, excepting so far as general police laws apply, which is the
case with most of the corporation forests in Prussia (law of 1876);
special supervision of the technical management under approved officials
with proper education, which is the case in Saxony, most of Bavaria, the
Prussian provinces of Westphalia, Rhineland and Saxony, and in some of
the smaller states; or lastly, the absolute administration by the state,
which prevails in Baden, parts of Bavaria, provinces Hesse-Nassau, and
Hanover. The tendency, however, in modern times appears to be toward a
more strict interpretation of the obligation of the state to prevent
mismanagement of the communal property.

Private forest property, which during the preceding century had been
largely under restrictions, first under the application of the hunting
right, and then under the fear of a wood famine, became in the first
decades of the century under the influences already mentioned, almost
entirely free, all former policies being reversed; indeed Prussia, in
1811, issued an edict insuring absolutely unrestricted rights to forest
owners, permitting partition and conversion of forest properties, and
even denying in such cases the right of interference on the part of
possessors of rights of user.

This policy of freedom was also applied, although less radically, in
Bavaria, except as to smaller owners. The result was, to a large extent,
the increase of exploitation and forest devastation, creating wastes and
setting shifting sand and sanddunes in motion. The reaction, which set
in against this unrestricted use of forest property, resulted in Prussia
not in renewal of restrictive measures, but in the enactment of
promotive ones. The law of 1875 sought improvement by encouraging small
owners to unite their properties under one management; but the
expectations which were founded on this ameliorative policy seem so far
not to have been realized.

This promotive policy has especially since 1899 found expression in the
institution in many provinces of information bureaus, which give
technical advice, make working plans, secure plant material and give
other assistance to woodland owners.

A new relation, however, of a conservative character arose by the
establishment of the entail, i.e., a contract made by the head of the
family with the government under which the latter assumes the obligation
of forever preventing the heirs from disposing of, diminishing, or
mismanaging their property. As a result of this arrangement, many of the
larger private forest properties are forced to a conservative
management, not as a direct influence of the law, but as a matter of
agreement. The condition of state supervision of private and communal
forest property at present prevailing is expressed in the following
statement of divisions by property classes of forest areas of Germany,
which shows that at least 63.9% are under conservative management:

Total Forest 34,769,794 acres.
Crown forest 1.8%
State forest 31.9%
Corporation forest 16.1%
Institute forest 1.5%
Association forest 2.2%
Private forest (10.4% entail) 46.5%

Until the beginning of the present century, the protective function of
the forest had played no role in the arguments for state interference,
but just about the beginning of the century cries were heard from France
that, owing to the reckless devastation of the Vosges and Jura Alps by
cutting, by fires and over-grazing, brooks had become torrents, and the
valleys were inundated and covered by the debris and silt of the
torrents. A new aspect of the results of forest devastation began to be
recognized, which found excellent expression in a memoir by _Moreau de
Jonnès_ (Brussels, 1825), on the question “What changes does denudation
effect on the physical condition of the country.” This being translated
into German by Wiedenmann, was widely spread, being interestingly
written, although not well founded on facts of natural history and
physical laws. Nevertheless, sufficient experience as regards the effect
of denudation in mountainous countries had also accumulated in southwest
Germany and in the Austrian Alps, and the necessity of protective
legislation was recognized. This necessity first found practical
expression in the Bavarian law of 1852, in Prussia in 1875, and in
Württemberg in 1879. But a really proper basis for formulating a policy
or argument for protective legislation outside of the mountainous
country is still absent, although for a number of years attempts have
been made to secure such basis.

8. _Forestry Science and Literature._[5]

[5] The necessarily brief statements which are made under this
heading presuppose knowledge of the technical details to which they
refer. In this short history it was possible only to sketch rapidly
the development of the science in terms familiar to the professional
man.

The habit of writing encyclopædic volumes, which the Cameralists and
learned hunters had inaugurated in the preceding century, continued into
the new one, and we find _Hartig_, _Cotta_, _Pfeil_ and _Hundeshagen_
each writing such encyclopædias. _Carl Heyer_ began one in separate
volumes, but completed only two of them. Even an encyclopædic work in
monographs by several authors was undertaken as early as 1819 by _J. M.
Bechstein_, who with his successors brought out fourteen volumes,
covering the ground pretty fully. While in the earlier stages the meager
amount of knowledge made it possible to compress the whole into small
compass, the more modern encyclopædias of _Lorey_, _Fürst_ and
_Dombrowski_ arose from the opposite consideration, namely, the need of
giving a comprehensive survey of the large mass of accumulated
knowledge.

Since 1820, monographic writings, however, became more and more the
practice. Among the volumes which treat certain branches of forestry
monographically, the works of the masters of silviculture, _Cotta_,
_Hartig_ and _Heyer_, based on their experiences in west and middle
Germany, and of _Pfeil_, referring more particularly to North German
conditions, were followed by the South German writers, _Gwinner_ (1834),
and _Stumpf_ (1849). In 1855, _H. Burkhardt_ introduced in his classic
_Säen und Pflanzen_ a new method of treatment, namely, by species, and
after 1850, when the development of general silviculture had been
accomplished, such treatment by species became frequent. Of more modern
works on general silviculture elaborating the attempts at reform of old
practices those of _Gayer_ (1880), _Wagener_ (1884), _Borggreve_ (1885),
_Ney_ (1885), all writing in the same decade, are to be especially
mentioned. In this connection should be also noticed _Fürst’s_ valuable
collective work on nursery practice (_Pflanzenzucht im Walde_, 1882).

At present the magazine literature furnishes ample opportunity to
discuss the development of methods in all directions. The text books at
present appearing seem to be justified by or intended mainly for the
needs of the teacher and rarely for the practitioner. Such a text book
is that by _Weise_. But the latest contributions to silvicultural
literature by _Wagner_ (1907), and _Mayr_ (1909) are works of a new
order, utilizing broader ecological knowledge.

Other branches than silviculture were similarly first treated in
comprehensive volumes and then in monographic writings on special
subjects of the branch. The literature on _forest utilization_ covering
the whole field, was enriched especially by _Pfeil_, _Koenig_, _Gayer_,
and _Fürst_. The first investigation into the physical and technical
properties of wood was conducted by _G. L. Hartig_ himself, followed by
_Theodor Hartig_, and the subject has been most broadly treated by _H.
Noerdlinger_ (1860). In later years, _Schwappach’s_ investigations
deserve special mention.

The question of means of _transportation_ gradually became also a
subject capable of monographic treatment and a series of books came out
on locating and building forest roads. _Braun_ issued such a book in
1855 for the plains country, and _Kaiser_ (1873) for the mountains, also
_Mühlhausen_ (1876), who had been commissioned to locate a perfect road
system over the demonstration forest at the forest academy of Muenden.
Only within the last quarter of the century were railroads introduced
into the economy of forest management. The first comprehensive book on
the subject of logging railroads was issued by _Foerster_ (1885), and a
later one by _Runnebaum_. _Stoetzer_ (1903) furnished in his compact
style the latest discussion on the subject of roads and railroads.

A very comprehensive literature on the value of _forest litter_ was
brought into existence by the established usage of small farmers of
supplying their lack of straw for bedding and manure by substituting the
litter raked from the forest. Hartig and Hundeshagen were active in the
discussion of this subject as well as almost every other forester, the
discussion being, however, mainly based on opinions. But, after 1860,
the subject became so important both to the poor farming population and
to the forest, which was being robbed of its natural fertilizer, that a
more definite basis for regulating its use was established by analysis
and by experiments at the experimental stations.

With the inauguration of the various methods of forest organization
described before, there naturally went hand in hand the development of
_methods of measurement_. Better forest surveys developed rapidly, the
transit generally replacing the compass and plane table. At this period
the necessity for books teaching the important methods of land survey
was met by _Baur_ (1858) and by _Krafft_ (1865). This subject does no
longer occupy a place in forestry literature, the knowledge of it being
taken for granted.

On the other hand the subject of _forest mensuration_ which formerly was
generally treated in connection with forest organization has developed
into a branch by itself, and has been very considerably developed in its
methods and instruments, making a tolerably accurate measurement of
forest growth possible, although many unsolved problems are still under
investigation. Still, late into the century it was customary to measure
only circumferences of trees, by means of a chain or band, although an
instrument for measuring diameters is mentioned by Cotta, in 1804, and
by Hartig, in 1808. _Schœner_ and _Richter_ are in 1813 mentioned as
inventors of the first “universal forest measure” or caliper. The
improvement of calipers to their modern efficiency has been carried on
since 1840 by _Carl_ and _Gustav Heyer_ and by many others until now
self-recording calipers by (_Reuss_, _Wimmenauer_, etc.) have become
practical instruments. For measuring the _heights_ of trees, _Hossfeld_
had already a satisfactory instrument in 1800; a very large number of
improvements in great variety followed, with _Faustmann’s_ mirror
hypsometer probably in the lead. As a special development for measuring
diameters at varying heights _Pressler’s_ instrument should be
mentioned, and a very complicated but extremely accurate one constructed
by _Breymann_.

Various formulas for the computation of the contents of felled trees had
already been developed by _Oettelt_ and others in the eighteenth century
and a formula by _Huber_, using the average area multiplied by length
was definitely introduced in the Prussian practice in 1817. The names of
_Smalian_, _Hossfeld_, _Pressler_ and others are connected with
improvements in these directions.

The idea of _form factors_ and their use was first developed by _Huber_,
who made three tree classes according to the length of crowns, measured
the diameters six feet above ground, and used reduction factors of .75,
.66, .50 for the three classes. But the first formula for determining
form factors is credited to _Hossfeld_ (1812). _Hundeshagen_ and
_Koenig_ also occupied themselves with elaborating form factors.
_Smalian_ (1837) introduced the conception of the _normal_ or true form
factor relating it to the area at one-twentieth of the height. An
entirely new idea has lately been introduced by _Schiffel_, an Austrian
German, under the name of form quotient, placing two measured diameters
in relation.

_Volume tables_ giving the volumes of trees of varying diameters and
height were already in use to some extent in the 18th century; _Cotta_
gives such for beech in 1804, and, in 1817, furnished a new set of
so-called normal tables which were, however, based upon the assumption
of a conical form of the tree. _Koenig_ perfected volume tables by
introducing further classification into five growth classes (1813),
published volume tables for beech and other species, and, in 1840,
published volume tables not for single trees but for entire stands per
acre classified by species, height and density; using the so-called
space number which he had developed in 1835 to denote the density. It is
interesting to note that these tables, which he called _Allgemeine
Waldschætzungstafeln_, were made for the Imperial Russian Society for
the Advancement of Forestry.

In 1840 and succeeding years, the Bavarian government issued a
comprehensive series of measurements and a large number of form factors,
which were used in constructing volume tables; these were found to be so
well made and so generally applicable that they were used in all parts
of Germany and, translated into meter measurement by _Behm_ (1872), are
still generally in use, although new ones based upon further
measurements have been furnished by _Lorey_ and _Kuntze_.

For arriving at the _volume of stands_, estimating was relied upon long
into the nineteenth century, although _Hossfeld_, in 1812, introduced
measuring, and the use of the formula AHF, in which A was the measured
total cross-section area of the stand, H and F the height and form
factors, the latter being at that time still estimated. He first made
form classes for the same heights, but, in 1823, simplified the method
by assuming an average form factor for the whole stand. Even in 1830,
_Kœnig_ still estimated the form factor, although he introduced the
measurement of the cross-section area and determined the height
indirectly as an average of measurements of several height classes, but
_Huber_ (1824) knew how to measure both the average height and form
factor by means of an arithmetic sample tree. This method found entrance
into the practice and held sway until about 1860, when the well-known
improvements by _Draudt_ and _Urich_ supplanted it. These last mentioned
methods have become generally used in the practice, while other methods,
like R. Hartig’s and Pressler’s, have remained mainly theoretical.

The study of the increment and the making of yield tables which had been
inaugurated toward the end of the last century, by _Oettelt_, _Paulsen_,
_Hartig_, and others, was just at the end of that century placed upon a
new basis through _Späth_ (1797), who constructed the first growth
curves by plotting the cubic contents of trees of different ages, and
through _Seutter_ (1799) by introducing stem analysis, on which he based
his yield tables.

On the shoulders of these, _Hossfeld_ (1823) built, when he conceived
the idea of using sample plots for continued observation of the progress
of increment, and he also taught the method of interpolation with
limited measurements, laying the basis for quite elaborate formulæ. But
the first _normal_ yield tables, based on the average trees of an index
stand, were published by _Huber_ (1824) and, in the same year, by
_Hundeshagen_. From that time on, yield tables were constructed by many
others, but only since the Experiment stations undertook to direct their
construction is the hope justified of securing this most invaluable tool
of forest management in reliable and sufficiently detailed form. Even
the newest tables are, however, still deficient, especially in the
direction of detailed information regarding the division into
assortments. The yield tables of _Baur_, _Kuntze_, _Weise_, _Lorey_, and
others are now superseded by those of _Schwappach_ for pine and spruce,
and of _Schuberg_ for fir.

As a result of the many yield tables which gradually accumulated, the
laws of growth in general became more and more cleared up and finally
permitted their formulation as undertaken by _R. Weber_
(_Forsteinrichtung_, 1891).

The idea of using the percentic relations for stating the increment, and
of estimating the future growth upon the basis of past performance for
single trees was known even to _Hartig_ (1795) and _Cotta_ (1804) who
published increment per cent. tables. The methods of making the
measurements of increment on standing trees were especially elaborated
by _Koenig_, _Karl_, _Edward_ and _Gustav Heyer_, _Schneider_ (his
formula, 1853), _Jaeger_, _Borggreve_, and especially by _Pressler_
(1860) who opened new points of view and increased the means of studying
increment by causing the construction of the well-known increment borer,
and in other ways.

The most modern text-book which treats fully of all modern methods of
forest mensuration giving also their history is that of _Udo Müller_
(_Lehrbuch der Holzmesskunde_, 1899), superseding such other good ones,
as those of _Baur_ (1860-1882), _Kuntze_ (1873), _Schwappach_ (short
handbook, last edition 1903).

* * * * *

The many sales of forest property which took place at the beginning of
this period naturally stimulated the elaboration of methods of _forest
valuation_. Even the soil rent theory finds its basis at the very
beginning (1799) in a published letter by two otherwise unknown
foresters (_Bein_ and _Eyber_), who proposed to determine the value of a
forest by discounting the value of the net yield with a limited compound
interest calculation to the 120th year. This idea was elaborated, in
1805, by _Nœrdlinger_ and _Hossfeld_ into the modern conception of
expectancy values, and the now familiar discount calculations were
inaugurated by them. _Cotta_ and _Hartig_ participated also in the
elaboration of methods of forest valuation; Cotta writing his manual in
1804, recognizes the propriety of compound interest calculations, while
Hartig, 1812, still uses only simple interest, and exhibits in his book
as well as in his instructions for practice in the Prussian state
forests rather mixed notions on the subject.

Altogether, even in the earlier part of the period, there arose
considerable difference of opinion and warm discussions, in which all
the prominent foresters took part, as to the use of interest rates and
methods of calculation. But this warfare broke into a red hot flame when
_Faustmann_ (1849) with much mathematical apparatus developed his
formula for the soil expectancy value, and when _Pressler_ and _G.
Heyer_ transferred the discussion into statical fields, making the
question of the financial rotation the issue. Then the advocates of the
soil rent and of the forest rent theories ranged themselves in opposite
camps. This war of opinions, although abated in fervor, still continues,
and the issue is by no means settled.

The discussion of what should be considered the proper felling age or
rotation naturally occupied the minds of foresters from early times; a
maximum volume production being originally the main aim. As early as
1799, _Seutter_ had recognized the fact that the culmination of volume
production had been obtained when the average accretion had culminated.
_Hartig_, in 1808, made the distinction of a physical, an economic and a
mercantilistic, i.e., financial felling age, and _Pfeil_, considerably
ahead of his time, is the first to call (1820) for a rotation based on
maximum soil rent. As, however, he had so often done, he changed his
mind, and while he first advocated even for the state a management for
the highest interest on the soil capital involved, he later rejected
such money management. About the same time _Hundeshagen_ clearly pointed
out the propriety and proper method of basing the rotation on profit
calculations, but it was reserved for a man not a forester to stir up
the modern strife for the proper financial basis, namely _Pressler_, a
professor of mathematics at Tharandt, who became a sharp critic of
existing forest management, and developed to the extreme the net yield
theories.

It was then that the danger of a shortening of the existing rotations,
due to the apparent truth that long rotations were unprofitable, called
for a division into the two camps alluded to; _G. Heyer_, _Judeich_ and
_Lehr_, elaborated especially the mathematical methods of the soil rent
theory, _Krafft_ and _Wagener_ came to the assistance of Pressler, while
_Burkhardt_, _Bose_, _Baur_, _Borggreve_, _Dankelmann_, _Fischbach_ and
others, pleaded for a different policy for the state at least, namely,
the forest rent with the established rotations.

* * * * *

As in the previous period, the mathematical subjects, namely, forest
measurement and forest valuation, were more systematically developed
than the _natural history_ basis of forestry practice; the slower
progress of the latter being caused by the greater difficulties of
studying natural history and of utilizing direct observation.

In _botanical_ direction, descriptive forest botany was first developed,
and several good books were published by _Walther_, _Borkhausen_,
_Bechstein_, _Reum_, the latter (1814), of high value, and also by
_Behlen_, _Gwinner_ and _Hartig_.

In the direction of plant physiology, _Cotta_, early and creditably,
attempted (1806) to explain the movement and function of sap, but
remained unnoticed. _Mayer’s_ (1805-1808) essay on the influence of the
natural forces on the growth and nutrition of trees, contains
interesting physiological explanations for advanced silvicultural
practice. But these sporadic attempts to secure a biological basis were
soon forgotten. Not until _Theodor Hartig_ (1848) published his Anatomy
and Physiology of Woody Plants was the necessity for exact investigation
of forest biology as a basis for silvicultural practice fully
recognized. With the development of general biological botany or
ecology, a new era for silviculture seems to have arrived. Perhaps in
this connection there should be mentioned as one of the earlier
important contributions of much moment, _G. Heyer’s_ _Verhalten der
Bäume gegen Licht und Schatten_ (1856) in which the theory of influence
of light and shade on forest development was elaborated.

Among those who placed the study of pathology of forest trees on a
scientific basis should be mentioned first _Willkomm_ (1876), followed
by _R. Hartig_.

In _zoölogy_, the early writers began with a description of the biology
of game animals. Next, interest in forest insects became natural, and,
in 1818, _Bechstein_ in his Encyclopædia devoted one volume (by
_Scharfenberg_) to the natural history of obnoxious forest insects.
Toward the middle of the century, with the planting of large areas with
single species, insect pests increased, hence the interest in the life
histories of the pests grew and gave rise to the celebrated work by
_Ratzeburg_, “_Die Waldbverderber und Ihre Feinde_” (1841). A number of
similar hand-books on insects and on other zoölogical subjects followed;
the latest, a most complete work on insects, being still based on
Ratzeburg’s work, is that of _Judeich and Nitzsche_, in two volumes
(1895). Of course, the general works on forest protection always
included chapters on forest entomology. The first of these text-books on
forest protection was published by _Laurop_ (1811), and others by
_Bechstein_, _Pfeil_, _Kauschinger_ and recently by _Hess_ (1896), and
_Fürst_ (1889).

* * * * *

_Knowledge of the soil_ was but poorly developed in the encyclopædic
works of the earlier part of the period.

Not till Liebig’s epochmaking investigations was a scientific basis
secured for the subject. Then became possible the improvements in the
contents of such works as _Grebe_ (1886), _Senft_ (1888), and of _Gustav
Heyer_, whose volume (_Lehrbuch der Forstlichen Bodenkunde und
Klimatologie_, 1856), well records the state of knowledge at that time.
But only since then has this field been worked with more scientific
thoroughness by _Ebermayer_, _Schrœder_, _Weber_, _Wollny_, and by
_Ramann_, whose volume on _Bodenkunde_ (1893) may be still considered
the standard of the present day (newest edition, 1910).

The question of the climatic significance of forests is one which first
became recognized as capable of solution by scientific means when the
movement for forest experiment stations began to take shape and the
systematic collecting of observed data was attempted. Most of the
problems are still unsolved.

* * * * *

With the aspects of _political economy_ in reference to forest policy
the foresters had occupied themselves but little, leaving the shaping of
public opinion to the Cameralists, whose influence lasted long into the
century. These produced a good deal of literature in the early years of
the century when the question of retaining or selling state forests was
under discussion, and, under the influence of the teachings of Adam
Smith, their opinion was mostly favorably to sale. Only gradually was
the propriety of state forests recognized by them, till finally the
leading economists, Rau, Roscher and Wagner, took a decided stand in
favor of this view.

The foresters naturally were for retention of the existing State
properties, but one-sided mercantilistic views regarding their
administration persisted with them till modern times.

_Wedekind_, as early as 1821, advocated the theory which is now becoming
a practice, that the state should not only retain, but increase its
present forest property by purchase of all absolute forest soil for the
purpose of reforestation. The erratic and radical Pfeil alone was found
with the Cameralists on the opposite side in 1816, but, by 1834, he had
entirely gone over to the side of the advocates of state forest,
declaring anyone who opposed them fit for the lunatic asylum.

Division of opinions existed also regarding the supervision by the state
of private and communal forests. The political economists were inclined
to reduce, the foresters to increase supervision, excepting again Pfeil
in his earlier writings: he modified his views later by recognizing
supervision as a necessary evil. Cotta, who was inclined to favor free
use of forest property sought to meet the objections to such free use by
increasing the state property.

The main incentive urged by the earlier advocates of state supervision
was the fear of a timber famine. This argument vanished, however, with
the development of railroads, and was then supplanted by the argument of
the protective functions of the forest, a classification into supply
forests and protective forests suggesting differences of treatment.
Nevertheless, the belief that absolute freedom of property rights in the
forest is not in harmony with good political economy--a belief correct
because of the long time element involved--still largely prevails. The
difficulty, however, of supervising private ownership, and the
advantages of state ownership find definite expression in the policy
which Prussia especially is now following, in acquiring gradually the
mismanaged private woodlands and impoverished farm areas for
reforestation, making annual appropriations to this end. Many other
states also are beginning to see the propriety of this movement.

On the whole the systematic study of the economics of forestry has been
rather neglected by foresters, although the subject was discussed by
early writers, _Meyer_, _Laurop_, _Pfeil_, and in modern times by _R.
Weber_, _Lehr_ and _Schwappach_ (“Forstpolitik,” 1894). The latest
comprehensive volume on this subject comes from _Endres_ (1905).

9. _Means of Advancing Forestry Science._

During the century, the means of increasing knowledge in forestry
matters have grown in all directions; schools, associations, journals
and prolific literature attesting the complete establishment of the
profession and practice.

* * * * *

The master schools which began to take shape at the end of the last
century, and a number of which were found in the beginning of the
century as private institutions, were usually either of short duration
or were changed into state institutions: they became either “middle
schools” for the lower service, or else academies. For the higher
education, the chairs of forestry at the universities continued to do
service, as at Heidelberg, Giessen, Leipzig, Berlin, etc., but, as these
were mostly occupied by Cameralists (although Hartig in 1811 filled a
chair at Berlin), and were intended for the benefit of such rather than
of professional foresters, the education of the latter was somewhat
neglected. Most of the existing institutions had their beginnings in
private schools. Both these and the state schools passed through many
changes. The first high class forest academy was established at Berlin
directly by the State, in 1821, in connection with the university. Here,
Pfeil was the only professor of forestry subjects, the other subjects
being taught by other university professors. The fact that in the
absence of railroads a demonstration forest was not easily accessible,
and perhaps the friction between Pfeil and Hartig brought about a
transfer to Neustadt-Eberswalde, in 1830, with two professors till
1851, when a third professor was added (now 16 with 8 assistants!). At
the same time the lectures at Berlin were continued by Hartig, until
1837.

In Saxony, Cotta’s private school became a state institution in 1816,
the forest academy of Tharandt, with six teachers (now 13), and later,
in 1830, an agricultural school was added to it.

In Bavaria, a private school was begun in 1807 at Aschaffenburg. It was
made a state institution, divided into a higher and lower school, in
1819, but was closed in 1832 on account of interior troubles and
inefficiency. It was re-opened and re-organized in 1844 with four
teachers, and was intended to prepare for the lower grades of the
service. Meanwhile the lectures at the University of Munich,
supplementing this lower school, were to serve for the education of the
higher grades. A reorganization took place in 1878, when a special
faculty for forestry was established at Munich, with Gustav Heyer as
head professor. This was done after much discussion, which is still
going on throughout the empire, as to the question whether education in
forestry was best obtained at a university or at a special academy. The
present tendency is toward the former solution of the question since
railroad development has removed the main objection, namely, the
difficulty of reaching a demonstration forest. Nevertheless, Prussia
retains its two forest academies Eberswalde and Münden (since 1868) for
the education of its forest officials, the other state academies being
at Tharandt and Eisenach, while chairs of forestry are found at the
universities of Tübingen (since 1817), Giessen (since 1831), and
Munich, and for Baden at the polytechnicum in Karlsruhe (1832). For the
lower grades of forest officials there are also schools established by
the various governments (3 in Prussia, 5 in Bavaria).

In 1910, the school at Aschaffenburg was discontinued and the entire
education of foresters for Bavaria left to the University.

* * * * *

Although as early as 1820, Hundeshagen had insisted upon the necessity
of exact investigation to form a basis for improved forest management
and especially for forest statics, and, although, in 1848, Carl Heyer
elaborated the first instruction for such investigations which he
expected to carry on with the aid of practitioners, the apathy of the
latter and the troublesome times prior to 1850 retarded this powerful
means of advancing forestry. During the decade from 1860 to 1870,
however, the movement for the formation of experiment stations took
shape, the first set being instituted in Saxony, 1862, by establishing
nine stations for the purpose of securing forest meteorological data;
the next in Prussia, in 1865, to solve the problems of the removal of
litter; and in Bavaria (1866), also for the study of forest meteorology
(Ebermayer), and of the problem of thinnings. But not until Baur, 1868,
had pointed out more elaborately the necessity of systematic
investigations, and a plan for such had been elaborated by a committee
instituted by the German Foresters Association was a system of
experimentation as organized in modern times secured (1872). The various
states established independently such experiment stations, but at the
same time a voluntary association of these stations was formed for the
purpose of co-ordinating and planning the work to be done.

* * * * *

Forestry associations instituted merely for the purpose of propaganda,
were apparently not organized. The first association of professional
foresters appears to have been formed as the result of Bechstein’s
conception, who proposed in connection with his school (1795 at Gotha,
1800 at Dreissigacker) the formation of an academy of noted foresters.
As a result, the _Societät der Forst- und Jagdkunde_ was formed, in
which all the noted foresters joined with much enthusiasm, and, in 1801,
a membership of 81 regular and 61 honorary members was attained. At the
same time the official organ _Diana_ was founded (1797), in which the
essays of the members were to be printed; after having passed four
censors. Two sessions were to be held annually. This much too elaborate
plan for the then rather undeveloped education and deficient means of
transportation defeated to some extent the great object. By 1812, it was
thought necessary to divide the academy at least into a northern and
southern section, and for the latter an additional journal, edited by
Laurop, was instituted. The interest, however, decreased continually,
and by 1843, at Bechstein’s death, the academy was abandoned.

At the same time, there had sprung up a number of local associations in
the modern sense. The first, in 1820, composed of the foresters and
agriculturists of Nassau; the next, in 1839, of the foresters of Baden,
and, by 1860, nine such local societies of foresters were in existence,
and they have since increased rapidly until now some thirty may be
counted. The desire to bring these local associations into relation to
each other led to the first Forestry Congress in 1837 (Congress der Land
und Forstwirthe), meeting at Dresden. At that time, and in the
congresses following, the agriculturists played a leading part, so that,
in 1839, the South German foresters separated, and peripatetic
congresses were held every one or two years. In 1869, a general
organization was determined upon, and, in 1872, the first general German
Congress of Foresters met, holding yearly meetings thereafter. A rival
association having been organized in 1897, two years later an
amalgamation of the two was effected in the _Deutscher Forstverein_ (now
over 2000 members). The most striking feature of this forceful means of
advancing forestry is the institution of the _Forstwirtschaftsrat_
(1890), a permanent committee of about 50 members, which is to look
after the political and economic interests of forestry, forming a
semi-official national council.

There also exists an international association of forest experiment
stations.

* * * * *

In the _magazine_ literature, the Cameralists dominated until the
eighteenth century. The first journal edited by a forester was
_Reitter’s_ “_Journal für Forst- und Jagdwesen_” which ran from 1790 to
1797. During the first part of the century many others were started,
especially after 1820, usually failing soon for lack of support. Hartig
himself participated in this literature with five volumes (until 1807)
of the _Journal des Forst-, Jagd- und Fischereiwesens_ and later (1816
to 1820) with the semi-official journal _Forst- und Jagdarchiv_. Pfeil’s
_Kritische Blätter_ were continued by him from 1823 to 1859, when
Nördlinger had the editorship till 1870. An irregular publication of
much note was Burkhardt’s “_Aus dem Walde_” (1865-1881).

Some of the journals founded in earlier times have continued, with
changes in title and editorships, to the present day. Of these, it is
proper to mention as the oldest, “_Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung_”,
founded by v. Behlen, 1825, later conducted by G. Heyer;
“_Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt_” (1828); “_Zeitschrift für
Forst- und Jagdwesen_” founded in 1869 by Dankelmann; “_Forstliche
Blätter_” founded 1861 by Grunert, continued by Borggreve until 1890.
The _Tharandter Forstliche Jahrbücher_ were begun in 1842,
and the _Mündener Forstliche Hefte_ in 1892. In 1893, the
_Forstlich-naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift_ was established to
discuss mainly the biological basis of forestry (changed in 1903 to
_Naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Land- und Forstwesen_).

For the lower grades there has been published, since 1872, _Zeitschrift
der deutschen Forstbeamten_. Several lumber trade journals also discuss
forestry matters. A weekly journal, _Silva_ was begun in 1908.

To assist in keeping track of the historic and scientific development of
the art, an annual summary of magazine literature is being published.
The first effort in this direction was made in 1876 by Bernhardt’s
_Chronik des deutschen Forstwesens_, which was continued for several
years, but is now supplanted by _Jahresbericht über die Leistungen und
Fortschritte der Forstwirthschaft_ (since 1880).

Besides this more scientific magazine literature, “_Pocket Books_” and
“_Calendars_” have been published from early times, the regular annual
appearance of the latter, giving detailed statistics, personalia, tables
useful in the practice, etc., dates from 1851.

* * * * *

With the accomplishment of the unity of the empire in 1871, with the
establishment of the Experiment Stations and their association in 1872,
and with the organization of the Society of German Foresters, which
dates from the same year, a new and most active era in the development
of forestry science may be recognized, the tendency of which is to lift
the art out of the shackles of empiricism, and place it on a more
scientific basis.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

_Zur Forstgeschichte Oesterreichs_, by BINDER VON KREIGELSTEIN, in
Verhandlungen der K. K. Landwirthschaftsgesellschaft, 1836.

_Geschichte der Oesterreichischen Land- und Forstwirtschaft und
ihrer Industrieen_, 1848-1898. 5 vols., 1902, parts referring to
forestry, vols. 4 and 5, by Dr. von Guttenberg and 15 others; a
unique and most comprehensive work, magnificently published as a
jubilee of the semi-centennial of the coronation of Emperor Franz
Joseph.

_Die Forste der Staats- und Fondsgüter_, by KARL SCHINDLER, 1885 and
1889, 2 vols., pp. 487 and 742, contains in greatest detail with
historical data a description of the State and Funds forests and
their management.

_Jahrbuch der Staats- und Fondsgüter-verwaltung_, 9 vols., by L.
DIMITZ, 1897-1904 cont.

_Urkundensammlung zur Geschichte der ungarischen Forstwirthschaft_
by ALBERT V. BEDÖ, 1896, in Magyar.

_Die Wirthschaftlichen und Kommerziellen Beschreibungen der Wälder
des Ungarischen Staates_, _by_ A. v. BEDÖ, 2d edition, 1896, 4
vols., 2242 pp., 4^o, published as a jubilee of the ten-centennial
existence of Hungary. First volume contains the general description,
third volume the details of government forests. A magnificent work
describing in detail the forests and forest management of Hungary.
This is briefed by the same author in a chapter in “_The Millennium
of Hungary and its People_, by JEKELFALUSSY, 1897.”

Germany’s neighbor to the south-east, and until 1866 a member of the
German Empire or Federation, largely settled by Germans and hence swayed
by German thought, developed forestry methods on much the same lines as
the mother country. Yet there are differences to be found, due to
difference in economic development, and there is for the United States
perhaps more to be learned from Austria in the matter of introducing
forestry methods, especially as lately practiced in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
than from any other country, for economic conditions are in several
respects alike.

The interest in the forest history of Austria lies especially in the
fact that private forest property in large holdings is predominant, and
that large areas are still untouched or just opened to exploitation, so
that Austria is still in the list of export countries, although in some
parts intensive management has been long in existence.

In the main, although movements for reform in forest use date back to
the middle ages, the condition of forestry in Austria was past the
middle of the 19th century still most deplorable, and in a stage of
development which most of the German States had passed long before; but
in the last 50 years such progress has been made that both science and
practice stand nearly if not quite on the same level with those of their
German neighbors.

If Germany exhibits in its different parts a great variety of
development, political and economic, Austria, although long under one
family of rulers (since 1526), exhibits a still greater variety due to
racial, natural, and historical differences within its own borders. It
is, indeed, an extraordinary and singular country, without an equal of
its kind (except perhaps Turkey) in that it is not a national, but a
dynastic power, composed of unrelated states or lands, with people
speaking different languages, mixed races widely different in character.
These were gradually aggregated under one head or ruling family, the
Hapsburgs, who as Archdukes of Austria occupied the elective position of
German Emperors for several generations, and after the collapse of the
Empire, in 1806, retained the title and called themselves Emperors of
Austria.

The Kingdom of Hungary alone (which was joined to the Hapsburg dominions
by election of its people in 1526, and under new relations in 1867),
with at least 50% Hungarians, is a national unit with a national
language (Magyar), while all other parts have in their composition
preponderatingly Slavish population, although German elements have the
ascendancy more or less everywhere.

Not less than 10 different languages are spoken among the forty odd
million people, of whom the Germans comprise about one-quarter, the
Hungarians one-third, the balance being Slavs.

Originally, this section of the country was occupied by Germans with the
German institution of the Mark, but, when the Slavish and Magyar tribes
pressed in from the East, it became the meeting ground of the three
races, and during the first 1,000 years after Christ the “East Mark”
formed the bulwark of the German empire against the eastern invaders,
who, were, in succession, the Slavs, the Huns, the Turks.

With the unexpected election of Rudolph of Hapsburg, a little known
prince of small possessions, to the dignity of German Emperor, in 1272,
the foundation of the Austrian Empire was laid. The Archduchy of Austria
he secured by conquest in 1282, and around this nucleus all the other
territories were from time to time, aggregated by the Hapsburgs through
marriage, conquest, or treaty. At one time their rule extended over
Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia.

The abdication of Francis II, in the year 1806, prepared the separation
from Germany, although Austrian influence persisted in Germany until
1866 when, by the crushing defeat suffered at the hands of Prussia, its
place and voice was permanently excluded from German councils. By
arrangement with Hungary, the new dual empire of Austria-Hungary came
into existence, and gave a new national life and new policies to the
coalition which is to amalgamate these south-eastern territories into a
homogeneous nation.

By the treaty of Berlin in 1878, this territory of 241,942 square miles
with over 45 million people was further increased by the addition of the
Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina with 1,250,000 inhabitants
and 23,262 square miles, first merely placed under Austria’s suzerainty
and administration, in 1908 incorporated as an integral part.

* * * * *

It is natural that, corresponding to this great diversity of
ethnological elements and historical development, we should find a great
variety of forest conditions and uneven development of forestry. While
in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia the most intensive management has long
been practiced, in the Carpathians of Galicia and in Hungary rough
exploitation is still the rule, and in other parts large untouched
forest areas still await development.

* * * * *

We can distinguish at least seven regions thus differently developed:
the Northwest with Bohemia, Moravia and the remaining part of Silesia,
settled the longest, and the longest under forest management; the
Northeast, Galicia with the Carpathian Mountains, still largely either
exploited or untouched; the Danube lands or Austria proper, with the
Vienna forest and the forests connected with the saltworks in Upper
Austria and Styria, under some management since the 12th and 16th
centuries respectively; the Alp territory, including Tyrol and Salzburg,
parts of Styria, Karinthia and Krain, much devastated long ago, and
offering all the problems of the reboisement work of France; the Coast
lands along the Adriatic with Dalmatia, Istria and Trieste, which, from
ancient times under Venetian rule, bring with them the inheritance of a
mismanaged limestone country, creating the problems of the “Karst”
reforestation which has baffled the economist and forester until the
present time; the two new provinces east of this region, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, whose rich forest areas have only lately begun to be
treated under modern conservative ideas; and finally Hungary with a
great variety of conditions in itself.

The large forest per cent. (a little over 24,000,000 acres or over 32%
of the land area) is due to the mountainous character of the country,
the Alps occupying a large area on the west and southwest, the
Carpathians stretching for 600 miles on the northeast, various mountain
ranges encircling Bohemia, the Sudetes forming part of the northern
frontier, and the Wiener Wald and other lower ranges being distributed
over the empire and bounding the fertile valleys of the Danube and its
tributaries. At least 20 per cent. is unproductive.

The climate in the northern portion of Austria is similar to that of
southern Germany; in the southern portions to that of Italy, while
Hungary partakes of the characteristics of a continental plains climate
with low rainfall and extreme temperature ranges.

In addition to the tree species found in Germany there are of economic
value four species of pine (_Pinus austriaca_, _cembra_, _pinea_,
_halepensis_), two oaks (_Quercus ilex_ and _suber_), and the chestnut
(_Castanea vesca_). Conifer forest is prevailing in Austria (with 82%),
deciduous forest in Hungary, mostly beech and oak (with 75%); 27% being
oak in pure stands.

The following pages refer to Austria proper, Hungarian conditions being
treated separately further on.

The value of the total raw product exported from the Austrian forests
(some 180 million cubic feet) may be estimated at over 50 million
dollars annually.

1. _Property Conditions._

On the whole, property conditions developed not unsimilarly to those of
Germany. There were freemen and serfs to start with, developing into
barons, peasants, burghers; there were ban forests, royal domain,
forests of the mark, and private properties; rights of user or
servitudes and all the methods and conditions that were developed in
other parts of Europe are also found here, only perhaps differing in
time and rate of progress in their development.

As a result of gradual changes, the present distribution of property
resulted, in which the State ownership is comparatively small, namely,
in Austria proper not more than 7.3% (with 2.8 million acres of which
nearly one-third is unproductive land), while private ownership
represents over 58.6%. Of this, 34% is in large landed estates, among
which those of the princes of Liechtenstein and of Schwarzenberg with
round 350,000 acres and 290,000 acres respectively are the largest; and
25 others with from 50,000 to 230,000 acres may be named. By the middle
of the 19th century, at least 75% of the forest area was in large
compact properties, a guarantee for the possibility of forest
management; the industrial development of the last decade has, however,
led to considerable exploitation. In upper and lower Austria and in the
Alpine regions small private ownership prevails. The communal forest
comprises 13%, entailed forest 8%, and the rest belongs to church and
other institutions. These so-called _Fondsforste_ are in part under
government administration.

2. _First Attempts at Forest Control._

The oldest record of attempts at an orderly management in any part of
the empire seems to date back to the 12th century, when the city forest
of Vienna had been placed under management. During the 16th and 17th
century this property appears to have been managed upon the basis of
careful surveys and estimates. We also find a definite forest
organization in the forests attached to the ducal salt mines in Styria
by 1524, and the dams, canals and water works for floating timber
developed by 1592 through Thomas Seeauer were the wonder of the times.

In 1524 also, Archbishop _Mathæus Lang of Wellenburg_ issued a forest
ordinance which was full of wise prescriptions, probably little heeded.
A forest ordinance of 1599 refers to burning of tops and care of young
growth in fellings.

Generally speaking, as in Germany proper, forest ordinances were issued
from time to time, by the dukes under the theory of the _Forsthoheit_,
applying to limited territories and attempting to regulate forest use.
No uniformity existed.

The iron industry in the more northern provinces had led early to a more
conservative use of forest properties for fuel, and since the mines were
regal property the dukes had a special interest in their conservation.

In the Alp territory, especially in Styria, the regal right to the mines
combined with the _Forsthoheit_ led early to the reservation by the
dukes of whatever forest was not fenced or owned by special grant for
the use of the mines. In addition, a superior right was asserted by them
in some of the private forests to all the forest produce beyond the
personal requirements of the owners, for use of the mines at a small
tax; and what other private property existed was burdened by innumerable
rights of user. The exercise of these rights, and the warfare against
irksome restrictions led to widespread illegal exploitation and
devastation, which as early as the 15th century had proceeded to such an
extent that in Tyrol associations for protection against the torrents
were already then in existence. Yet in this province, scantily
populated, with one-third of its area unproductive and one-third
forested, wasteful exploitation continued until recent times.

In Krain, which was unusually well wooded, forest reservations were
made for the use of the mines and furnaces in 1510 and 1515, these
reservations comprising all forest lands within a given radius. The
balance was mostly divided among small owners, whose unrestricted,
unconservative exploitation continued into the latter half of the 19th
century.

In Styria, nearly one-half wooded and one-third unproductive, a
regulated management was attempted as early as 1572, and by subsequent
forest ordinances of 1695, 1721 and 1767 devastation was to be checked.
But the resistance of the peasants to the regulations and the
inefficiency of the forest service were such that no substantial
improvement resulted.

In Galicia, unusually extensive rights of user in the crown forests led
to their devastation, and the attempts to regulate the exercise of these
rights by ordinances in 1782 and 1802 were unsuccessful.

The forest area along the coast of the Adriatic in Istria and Dalmatia
had furnished shiptimber even to the ancients. The Venetians becoming
the owners of the country in the 15th century declared all forests
national property, reserved for shiptimber, and placed them under
management. They instituted a forest service, regulated pasturing, and
forbade clearing. The oak coppice was to be cut in 8 to 12 year
rotation, with standards to be left for timber, etc. A reorganization of
this service with division into districts is recorded in the 16th
century, when Charles V, in 1520, instituted a “forest college,” i.e.,
administration. But the district officers, _capitani ai boschi_, being
underpaid, carried on a nefarious trade on their own account, and by
1775, the whole country was already ruined in spite of attempts at
reform; the “_Karst_” problem remained unsolved; and, when Austria
secured Dalmatia, in 1897, that country too was found in the same
deplorable condition, the forest area, there in the hands of the
peasants, having suffered by pasture and indiscriminate cutting.

It was the work of Maria Theresa to reform the administration of the
various branches of government, and wholesome legislation was also
extended to the forest branch by her forest ordinance of 1754, which
remained in force until 1852. It relieved the private owners, who held
most of the forest area, from the restrictions hitherto imposed, except
in the frontier forests. These, for strategic reasons, were to be
managed according to special working plans prepared by the “patriotic
economic society.” The management of communal forests also was specially
regulated. Otherwise the ordinance merely recommended in general terms
orderly system and the stopping of abuses.

In 1771, another forest ordinance proposed to extend the same policy of
private unrestricted ownership to the Karst forests, with the idea that
thereby better conditions would most likely be secured; but, since here
the property was not as in Bohemia in large estates but in small
farmers’ hands, the result was disastrous, as we shall see later: it
merely led to increased devastation.

The same result followed the increase of private peasant ownership which
came with the abolishment of serfdom in 1781. In 1782, an ordinance full
of wise prescriptions against wasteful practice intended for the
Northwest territory sought to check the improvident forest destruction.

A further wholesome influence on private forest management was exercised
by the tax assessment reform in 1788, when not only a more reasonable
assessment but for the first time a difference was made in taxation of
managed as opposed to unmanaged woods and the epoch-making fertile idea
of the normal forest was announced (see p. 115). At the same time the
hunting privileges and other burdens, hampering forest properties were
abolished, and measures for the extinguishment of the rights of user
enacted.

3. _Development of Forest Policy._

As appears from the foregoing sketch of early attempts at forest
control, no uniformity existed in the empire, each province being
treated differently and the regal rights being applied differently in
each case.

Originally the regular circuit or district governments had charge not
only of the management of State forests but also of the forest police
and the regulation of the management of communal forests. This
supervision was exercised by the political administration, often without
technical advisers, and the different provinces had developed this
service very variably. While in some provinces no special effort was
made to look after these interests, the laws remaining mainly dead
letters, in others a better system prevailed. In Styria, for instance,
in 1807, five forest commissioners and 20 district foresters were
employed; but this organization was of short duration. A loose
administration of the forest laws was most general. The movement for
reform and to secure a general law for the empire controlling forest use
dates from the year 1814; but, only after the political reaction of
1848, and when the severe floods of 1851 had forcibly called attention
to the unsatisfactory state of things was the necessity of change
recognized. In 1852, such a general law was enacted, supplanting all the
forest ordinances (with minor exceptions).

This law, which in the main is still in force, distinguishes between ban
forests and protective forests. The former are such as require in their
management consideration of their protective value to adjoining private
or State property and personal safety, e.g., to prevent landslides,
snowslides, avalanches, etc. Protection forests are specially located
forests which for their own continuance as well as for that of
neighboring ones must be managed under special restrictions, e.g., on
sand dunes, shores of waters, steep slopes. The dangers which they are
to prevent being more of an indirect or hidden nature, and only produced
by their mismanagement, the control also is of a more general nature,
the owner being allowed to manage his property within general
prescriptions, while the ban forests are protective forests of a higher
order and are more strictly and more directly controlled by the
authorities. The declaration of a ban forest and the prescription for
the conservative management depend on the findings of a commission
assisted by experts (since 1873).

The execution of the law however, being left to the political
administration of the provinces, jealousies between imperial and
provincial governments, and fear of resistance and ill will of forest
owners prevented a strict and uniform application of the law. Hence,
from time to time, we find ministerial rescripts, and special provincial
legislation to secure a more energetic enforcement of the law.

At first, the reform had reference mainly to the Alp districts, which
had suffered the most, and, in Tyrol, at least, an organization was
created in 1856 which was to manage the State forests, supervise the
management of corporation forests and exercise the forest police. Not
until the years 1871-74, however, was a similar service extended to
other portions of the empire, but at the end of that period the entire
empire had been placed under the administration of a “forest protective
service.” an organization quite distinct from the State forest
administration.

In 1900, there were placed under this service nearly two million acres
of protective, and somewhat over 150,000 acres of ban forests, but some
5 to 6 million acres of private or communal forest was under some other
restrictive policy.

In 1888, this service consisted of 14 forest inspectors, 56 forest
commissioners, 63 forest adjuncts and 80 assistants and forest guards;
in addition 252 special appointees and officers of the State forest
administration were doing duty in this service, so that altogether
nearly 500 persons were then employed in carrying on the protective
forest policy of the State. In 1910, there were 388 technical attachés
to the provincial authorities employed, and 124 on reboisement work,
while the State administration employed only 297 officials of the higher
grade.

The law declares the function of this technical service to be: “to
assist the political government by technical advice and observation in
supervising forest protection, and in the application of the forest
laws.”

In 1883, the functions of this organization were extended “to instruct
and encourage forest owners in forest culture, and to manage forests
designated to be so managed.” The service has been so satisfactory that,
while at first much complaint against the enforcement of the regulations
was heard, owners now ask constantly for its extension.

The details of the duties devolving upon this organization are found in
a series of laws, applicable to different parts of the empire, which are
based upon the recognition of protection forests, in which sanctioned
working plans regulate the management. Forcible reforestation and
employment of competent foresters in these are obligatory. Now,
altogether about 60% of the Austrian forest area is managed under
working plans.

A special reboisement law for the extinction of destructive torrents was
the result of unusual damage by floods in Tirol and Karinthia, in 1882.
The basis for this legislation was laid by a translation from the French
of Demontzey’s great work on the reboisement of mountains, by v.
Seckendorff in 1880, and a subsequent report by the same author in 1883.
A law, similar to that of the French was enacted in 1884, for the
regulation of torrential streams. A special fund for the work was
created to which the interested parties are required to contribute,
assisted by annual subventions from the State. The contributions of the
State have averaged from 40 to 60%, of the provinces 20 to 50%, the
interested parties having contributed 30% of the round five million
dollars expended on this work by 1901. In 1910, the contribution to the
melioration fund by the State had grown to 1.6 million dollars. At the
same time, for the regulation of the lower rivers an appropriation of
$1,350,000 was made, of which $400,000 was to be used for reforestation
work.

This work as well as the reforestation of the Karst (see p. 173) under
the laws of 1881, 1883, 1885, is carried on by the forest protective
service.

On the whole, the forest policy of Austria tends toward harmony with
forest owners and liberation of private property. By reduction of
railroad freights, which are under government management, by abolition
of export duties, by reasonable tax assessments, etc., the wood export
trade (now exceeding 30 million dollars) is favored; by the extinction
of rights of user under liberal laws improvement in forest management is
made possible, the Emperor setting a good example by having renounced,
in 1858, his superior right to forest reservations in the Alp districts.

The best exemplification of the spirit of the Austrian forest policy and
of the methods of forest organization and administration is to be found
in the administration of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina
described in a volume published in 1905 by the veteran Austrian
forester, Ludwig Dimitz.[6]

[6] _Die forstlichen Verhältnisse und Einrichtungen Bosniens und der
Herzegovina_, LUDWIG DIMITZ, Vienna, 1905, pp. 389. See Forestry
Quarterly, Vol. III, p. 113.

Here, the Austrian government has in the short time of 25 years
succeeded in bringing orderly conditions into the forest management.
Until 1878, these countries were provinces of Turkey and were placed
under Austrian suzerainty as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. The
Turks had already attempted a management of the forest lands, which were
in their entirety claimed by the Sultan. Property conditions being
entirely unclear when the Austrians assumed the administration, these
questions had first to be settled by a survey. This survey resulted in
showing a forest area of 6.3 million acres, 51% of the land area, of
which probably all but about 1.5 million acres is private or communal
property; half of the state property is fully stocked and it is
estimated that about 100 million cubic feet is the annual increment.

4. _State Forest Administration._

The State domain in the first half of the 19th century had been reduced
by sales from nearly 10 million acres to 4.5 million acres, and to a
little over 3 million acres in 1855. In that year, about one-half of
this property was handed over to the National Bank to secure the State’s
indebtedness of $30,000,000, and between 1860 and 1870 further sales
reduced the domain to about its present size of 1.8 million acres
productive forest. In 1872, however, a new policy, and the present
organization were instituted.

Before 1849, the forest properties which the Crown or State owned in the
various territories were not managed as a unit or in any uniform manner,
but a number of separate provincial or territorial forest
administrations existed which were often connected with mining
administrations and were placed under the Minister of Finance. These,
under the influence of the educated foresters issuing from the newly
established forest school, had, to be sure, been much improved;
nevertheless the Cameralists, as in Germany, were at the head of affairs
and kept the technical development back until after the revolution of
1848, when the accession of Franz Joseph I brought many reforms and
changes in methods of administration.

A ministry of Soilculture and Mining was created in that year, and, as a
branch of it, a forest department, separated from the department of the
Chase. To the head of this forest department was called a forester,
_Rudolf Feistmantel_, who elaborated an organization. But, before much
had been accomplished, the Ministry and its forest department were
abolished (1853) and the forest domain again transferred to the Ministry
of Finance.

Feistmantel returned in 1856 as Chief of the forest division in that
Ministry, and his organization of the forest property of the State into
forest districts under forest managers and into provincial “forest
directions” was perfected.

Matters, however, did not thrive, and, only when public attention and
indignation had been aroused by a policy of selling State property, a
change of attitude took place in 1872 which led to the present
organization. This places the State forest administration in the
Department of Agriculture, with an “Oberlandforstmeister” and two
assistants as superior officers, and the rest of the organization is
also very nearly the same as that in vogue in most German States, each
province having a directive service of “Oberforstmeister” with
“Forstmeister” as inspectors, and “Oberförster” with the assistance of
“Forstwarte” as executive officers. In addition a special corps of
“forest engineers” and “superior forest engineers” is provided for the
elaboration of working plans. Lately (1904), a re-organization of the
central office provided, besides the department of administration of
State and Funds forests, a department of reboisement and correction of
torrents, and a department of forest policy charged with the promotion
of forest culture, including the education of foresters and similar
matters.

Most of the State property is located in the Alps and Carpathian
mountains at an elevation above 2,000 feet, hence financial results do
not make a good showing.

Since 1885 it has been the policy to add to the State forest area by
purchase, and by 1898, over 350,000 acres had been added to it.

5. _Progress of Forest Organization._

Since 1873, working plans according to unified principles have been
prepared for most of the State property, so that, by 1898, about 82% was
under regulated management.

The progress made in bringing forest areas under organized management
varied greatly in the different provinces.

In northeastern Austria, the first methods of regulated management
consisted, as in the neighboring territories of Germany, in a simple
division into felling areas. The example of the neighbors was also
followed later in the northwestern provinces, and in both regions this
method was improved upon by allotment according to the propositions of
Hartig and Cotta. In addition, since 1810, the method of the Austrian
“Kameraltaxe” with the new and fertile idea of the “normal forest” began
to be employed (see p. 115). The new method now largely employed is an
area allotment checked by the normal forest formula.

* * * * *

Especially in Bohemia, most of the large baronial properties had, by
1848, been put under a regular system of management according to Saxon
and Prussian precedent. The influence of the former was especially
strong, and Saxon foresters were largely employed to regulate the
management. Most prominent among these was _Judeich_, who became the
Director of the Austrian forest school at Weisswasser, (afterwards of
Tharandt). By 1890, over 83% of the total forest area of Bohemia capable
of such management had been placed under rational working plans
according to the most modern conception, and nearly the same proportion
in the neighboring provinces of Moravia and Silesia.

In the Alps territory and in the Danube provinces, the regulation of
forest management has not progressed with the same rapidity, partly
owing to the existence of the many hampering rights of user; only here
and there, are properties managed intensively. By 1890, only 23% were
managed under rational working plans (40% state and 60% private and
communal property), mostly regulated by a combined area and volume
method.

In Styria, in the forests attached to mines, we find already in 1795
quite a remarkable effort in the matter of working plans. Such a plan by
an unknown author deals with volume tables and sample area methods for
determining the stock. But the fine plan was stowed away in a cupboard,
and when, in 1830, forest counselor _Wunderbaldinger_ proposed to apply
a similar plan he had to wait seven years before permission for a trial
was granted. He continued, however, the organization of these forests
until 1848, using Hundeshagen’s “use per cent.” in the selection forest,
and volume allotment for the woods managed under clearing system.

In lower Austria, the Vienna state forest of 70,000 acres had for a long
time received attention; the first thorough forest survey and yield
calculation being made in 1718-20, revised in 1782-86, and regulated for
the shelterwood system in 1820. Within the last 50 years, the method has
been changed again and again, until in 1882 the present Austrian method
based on normal stock principles was applied. Since in this province 50%
of the forest area is small peasant property and communal forest, which
are usually managed without systematic plans, the 33% under working
plans represents more than half of the area capable of such management.

In upper Austria, where the salt works are situated, the attempts at
regulated management in connection with these date back to the middle of
the 16th century, and, after various changes, these forest areas were,
by 1888, placed under working plans of modern style. Over 50% of the
forest area of this province is so regulated. One of the most modern
working plans based upon Pressler’s soil rent theory and a most
intensive silviculture, is that of the Baron Mayr-Melnhof on his estate
Kogl.

These details are merely brought forward to illustrate the great
variation both in the progress of development and in the present
conditions in different parts of the empire, similar differences being
found in other portions. Suffice it to say that in round numbers about
fifteen hundred thousand acres are managed under more or less intensive
working plans, and of the balance seven million acres are farmers’
woodlots on which only silvicultural treatment is necessary.

6. _Development of Silviculture._

The necessity for conservative forest use and reforestation did not
arise as early in Austria as it did in Germany. It was not until the
middle of the 19th century that this necessity became apparent in most
of the provinces, when German experiences in silviculture could be
readily utilized.

In Bohemia, the clearing system with artificial reforestation, mostly by
seed, had been introduced at the beginning of the century for the
conifer forests, planting as a rule being resorted to only in fail
places. For this planting, wildlings were mostly used. In the
broad-leaved forest, the selection system, and to some extent the
shelterwood method, were largely followed. The strip system was also
much employed, and, as the felling areas were often made too large,
undue increase of undesirable softwoods resulted. During the last 50
years, silvicultural theory and practice developed very much on the same
lines as in Germany, more intensively in the densely populated and more
accessible regions, and less so in the more distant and thinly settled
mountain districts.

The most noted work of reforestation which has occupied Austrian
foresters for the last forty years or more is that of the “Karst,” a
name applied to the waste lands in the mountain and hill country of
Istria, Trieste, Dalmatia, Montenegro and adjacent territory skirting
the Adriatic Sea. It is a dry limestone country of some 600,000 acres in
extent, stony and rough, and overdrained. Originally well forested with
conifers and hardwoods, it had furnished for ages ship timber and other
wood supplies to the Venetians. Through reckless cutting, burning and
pasturing by the small farmers it had become almost entirely denuded,
natural reforestation being prevented by these practices combined with
the dryness of the soil, intensified by the deforestation.

For centuries, countless laws were passed to stop the progress of
devastation, but without effect.

The first attempt at planting was made by the city of Trieste in 1842,
and found some imitators, but with meager result.

In 1865, the Austrian government, acting upon representations of the
Forestry Association, undertook to encourage and assist private
landowners in reforesting their Karst lands by remitting taxes on
reforested lands for a period of years, by technical advice, and by
assistance with plant material and money.

By this move, so much land was withdrawn from pasture and taxation that
opposition was aroused among the cattle owners, which led to additional
legislation during the years 1882 to 1887, and finally to the creation
of a commission charged to select the lands which in the interest of the
country required reforestation, and empowered to enforce this
improvement within a given time, the State expropriating the lands of
objecting owners. At the same time, the Commission brought about the
division of pasture lands which were held in communal ownership.

By 1909, of the 75,000 acres selected by the Commission as of immediate
interest 15,000 acres had been planted, mostly with Austrian Pine, at an
average cost of $8 to $16 per acre, the cost including stone enclosures
for the plantations, to protect them against cattle and fire, and the
repairs, which sometimes equalled the original expense. In addition,
some 50,000 acres of natural growth were brought into productive
condition merely by protection.

While this activity refers to the northern portion of the coast region,
the Karst of Dalmatia farther south, being oak country, was mainly
recuperated by protective measures. Here, in 1873, the pasturing of
goats was forbidden on areas of over one million acres in extent which
were found capable of reforestation. In 1876, the partition of communal
holdings was ordered, and portions were designated for forest use, to be
planted. As a result of these measures, nearly 400,000 acres have been
recuperated.

7. _Education and Literature._

The first forest schools in Austria were established through private
effort, namely one in 1800 in Bohemia by Prince Schwarzenberg, and
another one in Moravia by Prince Liechtenstein, these two being the
largest forest owners in Austria. In 1805, another private forest school
was opened in Bohemia, and at the same time the state institute near
Vienna came into existence. This was, in 1813, transferred to
Mariabrunn, and, after various changes in the character of the teaching,
was, in 1867, raised to the dignity of an academy with a three years’
course. In 1875, it was transferred to the _Hochschule für Bodenkultur_
at Vienna, an agricultural school, which had been instituted in 1872,
intended to give the higher scientific education in both forestry and
agriculture by a three years’ course. The course was, in 1905, increased
to four years. During the years from 1875 to 1904, over 2,600 students
in forestry alone had attended this excellent school at which over 70
professors and instructors are employed.

* * * * *

For the lower grades of foresters, schools were from time to time opened
in addition to the private ones first mentioned. Such so-called “middle
schools,” were founded at Eulenberg (1852), Weisswasser (1855)
transferred to Reichstadt, and Lemberg (1874), at which latter the
course is two years in the Polish language, and one at Bruck (1900),
where the course is three years. At present, there are five middle
schools in operation.

For the education of guards, three Forstwart schools were instituted in
1881 and 1883, one each for Tirol, Styria and Galicia, where, in an
eleven months’ course, 15 forest guards at each receive instruction. In
addition there are five schools of silviculture where the course is one
year. Besides these schools, courses in forestry of shorter duration are
given at three other institutions.

Besides these schools, the promotion of forestry science is, as in
Germany, secured by forest experiment stations, which came into
existence as a result of the earlier deliberations of the German
foresters. The first proposition to establish such a station was
submitted in 1868, but its establishment was delayed until 1875, when
such a station was instituted at Vienna in connection with the school
there. The results of the investigations are published from year to year
and have enriched the forestry literature in the German language with
many important contributions.

* * * * *

A very active association life exists in Austria, largely due to the
influence of the many large private forest owners. Curiously enough, the
first attempt at forming a society of foresters in Bohemia was
suppressed by the authorities, probably for fear of revolutionary
tendencies, and the effort simply resulted in a literary or reading
association to obviate the need of private purchase of books. Not until
1848, the very year of the revolution, did the Bohemian forestry
association become a fact, and, under the leadership of the large forest
owners among the nobility, it has become the strongest in Austria,
issuing a bi-monthly association journal from the beginning. Another
strong local association which dates its beginning as a society for
agriculture back to 1770, is the Moravian-Silesian Forestry
Association, which segregated from the mother society in 1850, first as
a section, and, having by 1858, attained a membership of 1,000, it
constituted itself as a separate association in 1886. Besides these,
many smaller ones exist in Austria. In 1852, a general Austrian forestry
association was founded, which, in 1854, began the publication of a
quarterly journal and held sessions in various parts of the empire; but,
by and by, the interest seemed to flag, the attendance at the meetings
became smaller and smaller, and finally the association was abandoned
after a rival, the Austrian Forestry Congress, had been organized in
1874, which later became the _Oesterreichische Reichs-Forstverein_.

In Galicia and in Bukowina, the foresters meet as a section of the
Society for Soil Culture. The same method of forming forestry sections
of the agricultural societies is followed in other parts of the empire,
and at least a dozen or more other local foresters’ associations might
be mentioned, in which owners of forest properties are as fully
represented as professional foresters; and their activity is not only to
be found in literary labors, but also in practical work. In addition to
the meetings of these local societies, representative congresses have
met annually at Vienna since 1876, and have become powerful agents for
improving legislation and practice.

* * * * *

Although, as was natural, owing to the difference in conditions the
forestry literature in Austria began much later than that of Germany, a
very active progress is noticeable since the middle of the last
century, and the Austrians are vying successfully with the Germans in
this direction. The names of _Fioceli_, _Pokorny_, _Böhm_, _Wiesner_,
_Molish_, _Willkomm_, _Hempel_ and _Kerner_ in the direction of forest
botany, _Wessely_, _von Lorenz-Liburnau_, _Feistmantel_, _Dimitz_,
_Wachtl_ (Entomology), _Dombrowski_ (encyclopedia 1886), _Exner_,
_Janka_ (wood technology), _Guttenberg_ (forest mensuration and
regulation), _von Seckendorff_, _Schiffel_ (forest mensuration),
_Cieslar_, _Reuss_, _Böhmerle_, _Hufnagl_, _Marchet_, and many others
are familiar to all German readers. In addition a very considerable
literature in the Bohemian language is in existence, some in the Italian
by Austrian authors, and some in the Slavonian.

The magazine literature began with publications by various forestry
associations which became active after 1848. At the present time weekly,
monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, yearly and irregular publications to the
number of not less than 14 in German, in addition to several in
Bohemian, may be counted, among which the monthly _Centralblatt für das
Gesammte Forstwesen_, in existence since 1875, and the weekly
_Oesterreichische Forstzeitung_, since 1883, are perhaps the most widely
known.

HUNGARY.

Hungary is mainly a fertile plain, traversed by the Danube and Theiss,
an agricultural country, with the forest confined to the hilly portions,
to the mountainous southern provinces of Slavonia and Croatia, and to
the Carpathians, which bound it on the north and east. Nevertheless,
while wood in the plain is scarce, the total forest area, including that
of the two mentioned provinces, is but little less than that of Austria
proper, namely, 23,000,000 acres (28%). Large areas of shifting sands,
and, along the Danube and Theiss rivers, swamps, partly created by
deforestation, are interspersed with the heavy black prairie and compact
clay-soils.

At present, of the 23 million acres of forest the State owns 16%,
corporations somewhat over 20%, churches, cloisters and other institutes
7.5%, and the balance, over 13 million acres, is owned privately. The
administration of the State forests is in the Department of Agriculture
but some are still under the control of the military and railroad
departments.

All but the private forests are under State surveillance. Of the private
properties the majority consists of large holdings and about ten per
cent. are entailed, a hopeful condition for conservative management. Yet
with an export of 10 to 12 million dollars or more, exploitation would
appear still to be general, and devastated areas abound. It is claimed
that half the area is under working plans, and that the 1000 million
cubic feet of annual cut do not approach the annual increment. The State
forests yield now in the neighborhood of $600,000 net.

Although naturally influenced by Austrian precedent, forestry matters in
Hungary like all matters of administration are largely independent of
Austria, the connection being only in the identity of the ruler.

The forests, which had been for the most part the property of the kings
of the Arpad dynasty, had by them been turned over from time to time in
donations to the churches, cloisters and to colonists, so that when the
Hapsburgs succeeded on the throne, in 1526, only a small portion
remained undisposed, and this became State property.

In the forests which were necessary for the working of the royal mines
and furnaces, an attempt was early made to secure systematic treatment
under an ordinance (1565) which gave instructions as to the order of
fellings, the reservation of seed trees, etc. But, otherwise, the
government did not make much effort at regulating forest use until the
middle of the 18th century, and then, largely owing to military
considerations, urged by General von Engelshofen commanding on the
frontier against the Turks. The planting of forests for defense was
ordered (1743) by Maria Theresa, but this order was probably never
executed.

About this time, however, movements of reform in various directions are
noticeable. Complete working plans were made for the Kremnitz forest in
1750, and for the Schemnitz forest in 1763. The forest ordinances of
1770 and 1781 and the law of 1791 attempted to regulate the use of
communal forests, and ordered the reservation of devastated forest
areas. Other legislation followed in 1807, designed to arrest the
further extension of shifting sands.

Although, since 1809, forest inspectors had been employed to look after
the execution of the forest laws, mismanagement and forest destruction
by promiscuous cutting, pasture and fire remained the rule, and with
the advent of the railroads, in 1850, increased apace.

Political troubles prevented any attempts at improvement until, in 1867,
comparative peace and the new régime had arrived, and finally, in 1879,
it became possible to pass a reform law, which is the basis of present
conditions.

A general forest law had been enacted in 1807; this was superseded in
1858 by the adoption of the Austrian law of 1852. But, in 1879, a new
law reorganized forest policy and forest service. In that year, the
State interests were placed under the administration of the
Department of Agriculture with a technical forester at the head
(Oberlandforstmeister), assisted by four section chiefs, one in charge
of the State forest administration, one for the administration of
corporation forests, one for the elaboration of working plans, and one,
with the assistance of 20 forest inspectors having supervision of the
execution of all forest laws. Otherwise the general features of German
administrative methods prevail, except that for purposes of executing
the protective forest laws, committees composed of three members chosen
from the country officials co-operate with the government service.

The law of 1879, modified and intensified in 1898, provides government
supervision of the management of corporation and of protection of
forests, and prescribes that land unfit for farming, i.e., absolute
forest soil (three-quarters of all forest land), no matter by whom
owned, is to be reforested within six years after having been stripped,
and no new clearings may be made on such soils. Mountain forests, which
are classed as protection forests (around one million acres or 5.4% of
the forest area so classed), as well as entailed properties, must be
managed according to working plans approved by the forest department.
The declaration of protective forests was to be made by a commission
within five years of the enactment of the law. New planting for
protective purposes could also be ordered, and this under certain
conditions may be done by the interested, i.e., protected parties, which
may associate themselves for this purpose. Violations of this law are
liable to be punished by a fine for each acre, imposed annually as long
as the offense continues. Two-thirds of the whole forest area is thus
more or less under State supervision, and working plans for over 12
million acres have been, or are to be prepared by the government. An
area allotment method with a normal forest formula as a check has been
mostly employed in this work, which is by no means as yet completed.

To promote forest planting several nurseries have been established by
the government, from which around 10 million plants are annually
distributed free of charge, and subventions for reforestation of wastes
are also granted annually. It is interesting to note in this connection
that more than 170,000 acres have been planted to Black Locust, which is
managed as coppice for vineyard stakes.

In 1884, a special fund for the purchase of forest land by the State was
instituted by turning all moneys received from eventual sales of forest
land into that fund. Another fund for forest improvement is accumulated
by placing four-fifths of all penalties collected for forest trespasses
into a separate account for that purpose. These funds have not
accumulated very fast, the forest improvement fund, in 1896, being only
about $120,000.

Similar to the Landes in France, there exist in various parts of Hungary
extensive sand wastes and shifting sands, partly caused by
deforestation. Ever since 1788, legislation has attempted to secure a
rehabilitation of these waste areas, which cover in all some 600 square
miles. In 1817, a first systematic beginning was made in the Banat, on
the “Alföld” of the Magyars, under the forest director _Bachofen_,
similar to _Brémontier’s_ undertaking in France. By 1842, the total
plantations amounted to about 12,000 acres, and by 1869, some 20,000
acres had been reforested, and parts of the plantations had begun to
yield profits. But even to-day, there are still large areas in a desert
condition.

A classic volume in German by _Joseph Wessely_, Hungarian forest
director, _Der europäische Flugsand und seine Kultur_, describes in
detail the principles and methods of reclamation of shifting sands.

Most of the Hungarian forestry literature being written in the Magyar
language, is inaccessible to the rest of the world.

Efforts by private endeavor to promote forestry education date back as
early as 1796, when Forest Inspector _Vizner_ opened an elementary
forest school and wrote a forestry catechism.

This effort was followed, in 1806, by introducing the subject in the
agricultural school at Keszthely, and, in 1808, in the school of mines
in Schemnitz (Selmecz banya), a German forester _Wilkins_ filling the
chair, while a special forest school was established at Hermannstadt in
1817.

The forestry courses at Schemnitz were enlarged and the school
re-organized in 1846 and again in 1872; one of the changes being the use
of the Hungarian language in its instruction, which had originally been
in German. In 1904, the course, which was 3 years and only optionally 4
(one year for engineering education), was made 4 years for all, and is
obligatory for all higher grade State officials.

In Croatia-Slavonia, which is in many respects separately administered,
an agricultural and forestry school exists at Kreutz (Körös) with a
three-year course.

For the lower service four schools of two-year courses have been
established by the government, the instruction being given by
practitioners, and some of the students receiving free tuition.

A forest experiment station was established in 1898; it issues a
quarterly magazine, _Irdeszeti Kiserletek_, in which its results are
recorded.

A Hungarian forestry association was formed in 1866; it issues a monthly
journal, distributes pamphlets, gives prizes for literary effort, etc.,
and is, with over 2000 members, an active agent in the work of reform. A
separate forestry association, which also publishes a monthly in the
Slavish language, exists in Croatia.

SWITZERLAND.

A very good brief statement of present conditions of forestry in
Switzerland with some historical references may be found in
_Handwörterbuch der Schweizerischen Volkswirthschaft_, Berlin 1903,
with two chapters by DR. J. COAZ and Prof. C. BOURGEOIS.

F. FANKHAUSER, _Geschichte des bernischen Forstwesens bis in die
neuere Zeit_, Bern 1893, gives insight into the developments in one
of the cantons, beginning in 1304.

LANDOLT, _Ueber die Geschichte der Waldungen und des Forstwesens_,
Zürich, 1858.

_L’évolution forestière dans le canton de Neuchâtel,
Histoire-Statistique_ 1896.

BURRI, _Die kulturgeschichtliche Entwicklung und wirthschaftliche
Bedeutung des schweizerischen Waldbestands_, Luzern 1898.

MEISTER, _Die Stadtwaldungen von Zürich_, 2d ed, 1903, exhibits on
225 pages in great detail the history and methods of management of
this remarkable city forest of only about 3,000 acres.

_Report of the British Foreign Office on Swiss Forest Laws_, by
CONWAY THORNTON, 1888, gives a very satisfactory exposé of the
earlier legislation.

The interest which we have in the development of forestry in this small
territory, of somewhat less than 16,000 square miles with over three
million people, lies in the fact that it is a republic, or rather an
aggregation of republics, the oldest in existence, and that, occupying
an Alpine mountain country, it has developed a unique co-operative
policy of forest protection. Being largely German by origin and
sentiment, German influence on the development of forestry methods,
outside of the administrative measures, has here been as strong as in
Austria.

Switzerland did not exist as a power in name until the 17th century, and
as a unit not until the reconstruction of 1815, and in its present
settled condition and constitution not until 1848, although the nucleus
of its political existence dates back at least 600 years, when, in 1291,
the people of the three forest cantons, Schwyz, Uri and Unterwalden,
formed their first league to resist encroachments on their rights by the
church and by the feudal barons.

The country became settled, similarly to Germany, by Germans, and
especially Burgundians, a free people; but when the control of the
Obermärker over the free communities began to ripen into feudal
superiority, it found resistance in the forest cantons, and these formed
a league to fight the duke of Hapsburg, who partly as feudal lord,
partly as Reichsvogt, the emperor’s representative, claimed obnoxious
rights. Through admission of neighboring lands and cities to the league,
the number of confederates had by the middle of the 14th century grown
to eight, and when, by the battles of Sempach (1386) and Næfels (1388),
the Austrian Hapsburg supremacy had been permanently destroyed, the
number of allies grew, and, by conquest and annexation and otherwise,
their territory attained nearly the present size by the middle of the
15th century; the war against feudalism being the cause for this growth.

These various small republics, however, always formed a part of and owed
allegiance to the German Empire, although they resisted the arms of the
Emperor as Archduke of Austria--until, with the peace of 1499, this
connection became entirely nominal. The final separation from the German
empire and acknowledgement of independence was not pronounced until the
peace of Westphalia, in 1648.

The league of cantons was only a very loose confederation without any
central power, although a diet, to which each canton sent a delegate,
had deliberative functions. Almost immediately after the alliance was
formed it became fatally divided, especially when religious differences
arose, and throughout the 16th and first half of the 17th century,
continuous warfare existed between the different allies.

It must not, however, be understood that the peasants in the different
cantons were entirely free from the ancient tyrannies. With the
exception of the three forest cantons, which were truly democratic
republics, the majority of the Swiss peasants, free in the eyes of the
outside world, were mere serfs until the beginning of the 18th century,
and secured their freedom only after many revolts.

After nearly 500 years of this loose federation, it was reserved to
Napoleon to proclaim the Helvetian Republic one and indivisible, in
1798, after a short struggle of 74 days. This constitution fell with the
fall of Napoleon, and gave place, in 1815, to a reorganized federation,
in which the former sovereignty of each canton was re-established, the
inviolability of the territory being guaranteed by the European powers.
Finally in 1848, the seventh and last phase of reconstruction brought
into existence the “Bund,” the Confederation of Switzerland, very much
after the pattern of the United States, the constitution then adopted
being once more revised in 1874.

The country is divided into 19 entire and 6 half states or cantons,
which are a unit towards foreign powers, but have as much independence
among themselves as each of the United States, each self-governing. A
parliament (_Bundesversammlung_) of two chambers--the _Nationalrath_ of
145 members corresponding to the House of Representatives, the
_Standesrath_ with 44 members, equivalent to the Senate--represent the
interests of the whole federation. The administration of the cantons
lies in the hands of the “great” and “small” councils, with an executive
ministry of three members chosen for two years by the former council.
The administration of the Bund is in the hands of the _Bundesrath_ of 7
members, elected by the parliament, which also elects one of the members
as president for one year. The Referendum, which, if 30,000 voters
demand it within 3 months, requires reference of any law to the direct
vote of the people is used as a check on legislation.

Although the larger part of the population of 3 million people is
German, parts of Switzerland are French, and other parts Italian.

From this brief statement of the political development of the country it
will appear that the development of forestry must also have varied.

1. _Forest Conditions and Property Rights._

Topographic and soil conditions necessarily had also their influence on
this development. In the plains, the plateau, and the hill country, the
distinction of forest and field as it now exists had been in general
attained in the 15th century, while in the mountain country, forest
destruction began only in the 18th century and continued till the middle
of the 19th century, stimulated by the development of the metal
industry and the improvement in means of communication. The clearings
made here were turned into pasture and, being overpastured, became waste
lands. Thus, owing to topographic and soil conditions, a very uneven
distribution of forest has resulted and we find a variation in forest
area from 9% (Genf) to over 39% (in the Jura) of the total land area of
the different cantons, the average being 20.6%, leaving out of
consideration the area above timber limit (5,000 to 7,500 feet) and the
waters and rocks below. This is less than in Germany and Austria, more
than in France; but, if allowance is made for unproductive soil which is
included in the German area statements, the percentage of forest area on
productive soil would about equal that of Germany. In the last 25 years,
the area has increased by 10 per cent. to 2,140,000 acres. This area is
insufficient to supply the demand, from 15 to 25% of it being imported.
In 1907, the imports had risen to nearly 25 million cubic feet, valued
at $9 million.

Property rights developed at first similarly to those developed on
German soil, except that, as we have seen, feudal conditions were not
allowed to gain foothold to the same extent, and liberty from serfdom
was secured earlier. In 1798, seigniorial rights had pretty nearly been
extinguished. At present, ownership is still largely communal: nearly
67% are so owned, making this property of highest forest political
importance; private owners hold only 28.5%, and the cantonal forests
represent but 4.6%; the Bund as such owning none. It is also to be noted
that communal property is constantly increasing by purchases from
private holdings.

2. _Development of Forest Policy._

No doubt, in some parts the first beginnings of care for forest property
and forest use date back even to Roman times. Charlemagne had his forest
officials here as elsewhere, and the number of ban forests seems to have
been especially great, some 400 “bannbriefe,” documents establishing
them, having been collected at Bern. The first forest ordinance
regulating the use of a special forest area in Bern dates from 1304. But
the first working plan seems to have been made for the city forest of
Zürich, the so-called _Sihlwald_, in 1680-1697, and to this day this
corporation property, with its intensive and most profitable management,
is the pride of all Switzerland. The Bernese cantonal forests were first
surveyed and placed under management from 1725 to 1739, and fully
regulated by 1765.

An excellent forest code for Bâle was drawn up in 1755 by Bishop Joseph
William; and in 1760, through the propaganda of the two scientific
societies of Zurich and Bern, the teaching of forestry was begun, and
forest organization in the two cantons secured in 1773 and 1786. The
canton of Soleure (Solothurn) was the first to start a regular system of
instruction, two citizens from each woodland district being given the
opportunity to qualify themselves as foresters.

Each canton had, of course, its own laws protecting forest property
against theft and fire; in the latter respect especially great care was
exercised and burning of brush could only be done by permit and under a
force of watchers.

The example of Zürich and Bern in organizing the management of their
forest areas was followed more or less by other cantons, but a real
serious movement is not discernible until the beginning of the 19th
century, when with the impetus of modern life and trade the value of
forest property increased, and most cantons issued regulative forest
laws.

Forest ordinances had from time to time attempted to prevent the
decrease of forest area by forbidding clearings, regulating pasture, and
forbidding wood export to other villages or cantons, a local timber
famine being dreaded. But, only when a severe flood, in 1830, had
accentuated the protective value of forest cover, were the forest
ordinances more strenuously enforced, and a general movement for better
management began in the various cantons. This was partly signalized by
sending young men to the forest schools of Germany.

Largely through the influence of a lively propaganda carried on by such
men as _Landolt_ and _Coaz_, backed by the Swiss forestry association,
(founded in 1848), and through the increase of torrential floods,
especially in 1834 and 1868, was it made clear that a central power
would have to be clothed with authority to regulate the use at least of
the alpine forest.

In 1857, the Bund ordered an investigation of the mountain forests in
all parts; this was made by Landolt. But opposition by the cantons
against restrictive measures prevented any legislative result. At the
same time, an annual vote of $2,000 was made to the forestry
association for reforestation and engineering works in the Alps. This
grant was changed, in 1871, by voting an annual credit of $20,000 to be
expended by the Bundesrath for similar purposes. The floods of 1868
brought such distress in certain cantons that contributions from all
other parts were required to assist the flood sufferers; and $200,000 of
the collections were appropriated for reforestation. Finally, in 1874,
through the effort of the forestry association, it was determined to
create a central bureau of forest inspection for the whole Bund in the
Department of the Interior, and an article was inserted in the
constitution declaring the superior right of oversight by the Federation
over the water and forest police in the high Alps, at the same time
proposing to aid in the engineering and reboisement work necessary to
correct the torrents, and to take measures for the preservation of these
works and forests.

The result was the installation of a federal forest inspector with one
assistant, in 1875, and the enactment of a law, in 1876, which
determined the area within which the federal government was to exercise
supervision. The execution of the law was, however, left to the
cantons--the jealousies of State rights as against federal rights being
even more strongly developed in Switzerland than in the United States.
Each canton proceeded in its own way, or neglected to proceed, and hence
no uniform progress in applying the law was made. Indeed, not a single
prescription of the law was applied within the prescribed time, although
again and again extended, and even to-day some cantons have not yet
complied. Stubborn opposition to the law continues even to date in some
cantons.

Besides the unwillingness to submit to federal authority, the lack of
technically trained foresters--their employment being a requirement of
the law--and the objection to their employment by the cantons, who
looked on them as disguised policemen, impeded the progress of the
reform. Until 1884, each canton held its own examinations for forest
officials, but in that year a standard was enacted for employment within
the federally supervised territory.

The most frequent quarrel was as to what was to be considered forest and
what pasture, so that finally as a compromise a classification between
the two, called pasture woods, was introduced.

It will be noted that the federal surveillance was to extend only to the
High Alps above a certain limiting line. This limitation was removed, in
1898, by resolution of the Council, and change of the constitution, by
which the federal exercise of water and forest police was extended over
the whole country, and a bill to carry this into effect was introduced.
Finally, in 1902, a revised law was passed establishing fully the
present Federal forest policy.

This law places the surveillance of all forest police in all forests of
Switzerland in the Bund, the private forests as well as the public,
i.e., State and communal or corporation forests. But, as there are
distinctive differences in the manner of this surveillance, a
differentiation of ownership conditions and forest conditions was to be
made by the cantons within two years.

The forests are to be divided into protection and non-protection forests
(by the cantons with sanction of the Bund), the former being such as are
located at headwaters or furnish protection against snowslides,
landslides and rockfalls, floods, and climatic damage. Most of this
segregation had already been made and mapped in consequence of the law
of 1876. In 1904, 71% of the total forest area had been classed as
protective forest; nearly 80% of the communal, and over 50% of the
private forest property.

All public forests are to be surveyed and their corners permanently
marked by the cantons according to instructions by the Bund, the latter
furnishing the needed triangulation survey, and inspecting and revising
any older surveys free of charge.

The surveyed public forests are to be fully regulated according to a
sustained yield management, under working plans made according to
instructions by the Cantons, to be sanctioned by the Bundesrath. For the
unsurveyed forest areas at least a provisional felling budget is to be
determined, as nearly as possible representing the sustained yield. In
protection forests the working plans must conform to the objects of
these forests, and clearings in these are as a rule forbidden. The
fellings are to be made under direct supervision of foresters, and,
after being cut, the wood must be measured. Sale on the stump is
forbidden, otherwise no interference in the management is intended.

Up to 1902, under the law of 1876, working plans for 540,000 acres had
been made. In 1907, 90,000 acres of State forest, and over one million
acres of corporation forests were under working plans.

For other than protection forests the law provides a number of
restrictions, such as the following: Pasture woods may not be decreased
in area except by permission of the cantons. Communal forests are not to
be subdivided without consent of the cantonal government, except where
two or more communities have joint ownership, nor are they to be sold
except with such permission. Rights of user in public forests,
especially in protection forests, may be forcibly extinguished by the
cantonal government, but under appeal to the Bundesrath. Money
equivalents are to be the rule, territorial equivalents to be given only
by special permission. By 1902, over $300,000 had already been spent in
extinguishing 2,842 different rights of user. The establishment of means
of transportation, roads, etc., is encouraged by subventions from the
Bund and in other ways.

Private forests as far as they fall under the classification of
protection forests are subject to the same supervision and rules as the
public forests as regards their survey, the prohibition of clearings
except by permission of the Federal Government, of diminishing pasture
woods, the extinguishment of rights of user, the prevention of damaging
use, and assistance in establishing means of transportation. The
cantonal government is obliged to insure the execution of these laws.

In addition, while the law encourages co-operative forest management of
small holdings as larger units, the Bund paying for the cost of
effecting such co-operation, it empowers the canton or the Bund to
enforce such co-operative management of protection forest areas in
specially endangered localities as at the headwaters of torrential
streams. Otherwise, in the non-protective private forests, only the
prohibition of clearing except by permission of the cantonal government,
the obligation of reforesting felling areas within three years, and of
maintaining existing pasture woods is ordered. Wherever on private
properties conversion of forest into farm or pasture is permitted (after
report of the forest administration of Canton or Bund) an equivalent
reforestation of other parts may be ordered. Wherever by the
reforestation of bare ground protective forest areas can be created,
this may be ordered, the Federal or the Cantonal government contributing
towards such work; or else, if the owner prefers, he may insist upon
having his ground expropriated by the Canton or other public
corporation; the federal government assisting in the first case to the
extent of 30 to 50% of the cost, and in establishing new protection
forests to the extent of 50 to 80%.

Before 1902, under the law of 1876, some 16,000 acres had been
reforested and put in order at an expense of over one million dollars,
the federal government contributing just about fifty per cent. In 1910,
the area of planted protection forest had grown to 25,000 acres.

Besides the various restrictions with provisions of penalties for
disobedience (from $1 to $100 for each transgression) and enforced
execution by cantonal government, there are a number of directions in
which the Federal Government makes contributions for the purpose of
encouraging conservative management. For the salaries of the cantonal
higher forest officials 20 to 35 per cent. are contributed, for the
higher corporation and co-operative association officials 5 to 25 per
cent., for the lower forest service 5 to 20 per cent. The Federation
participates to the extent of one-third in the accident insurance of
forest officers; a minimum salary of the officials and also their proper
education being made conditions. To secure the latter the Federation
pays for teachers and demonstration material under prescribed
conditions.

In 1901, the federal contributions amounted to $100,000 in all. In 1903,
the total appropriation was $126,000, namely, $9,000 for the
Inspector-General’s office; $26,000 towards salaries of cantonal
foresters; $80,000 towards reboisement; $8,000 towards survey. The
cantonal governments contributed about the same amount outside of the
cost of their forest administrations. It is estimated that the budget
will have to be increased by $50,000 annually for some time to come. By
1910, the federal government had altogether contributed $2 million in
the 35 years towards the execution of the law, outside its
administrative office.

* * * * *

The organization which is to carry out this forest policy is still the
one which originated with the law of 1876, somewhat modified by the law
of 1892, namely, a forestry division in the Department of the Interior,
with one Superior Forest Inspector and three assistants.

The Cantons have their own administrations, mostly under one forester of
higher grade (called variously Oberförster, Forstinspektor,
Forstmeister, Oberforstmeister). Bern has three co-ordinate
Forstinspektor. The Cantons are or are to be districted into forest
circles (Forstkreise), the subdivision to be approved by the Bundesrath,
and some are further subdivided into ranges (Unterförsterei). These
forest districts, from 7,500 to 45,000 acres each, are to be managed by
properly educated and paid foresters elected by the people. The
eligibility depends upon an examination, the theoretical part of which
is conducted by the forest school, the practical part, after a year’s
practical work, is conducted by a commission of foresters, after
completion of which the candidate becomes eligible; the election being
for three years, and re-election being usual, unless there are good
reasons against it.

In 1903, there were employed as administrators or managers 119 State
(Cantonal) foresters and 33 Communal foresters, besides 11 Federal
forest officials. In 1909, the total number had grown to 193, besides
1091 under-foresters, to whose salaries the Bund contributed. The State
foresters are allowed to manage neighbouring communal properties.

3. _Forestry Practice._

The timber forest is the most general form of silvicultural management.
Selection forest with 150 to 200 year rotations is practised in the Alps
and in the smaller private forest areas. Shelterwood system in
compartments is in use in other parts (with a rotation of 60 to 80 years
in the deciduous, and 80 to 120 years in conifer forest), supplanting
largely the clearing and planting system which had found favor during
the middle of last century.

In corporation forests, large areas are still under coppice with
standards, but will probably soon be converted into timber forest, a
policy favored by cantonal instructions. Pure coppice is only rarely
met, usually confined to the overflow lands and small private holdings.
In some of the public forests in the French territory it is practised
with a “double rotation” (_furetage_) according to French pattern.

Artificial means to secure complete stands in natural regenerations is
favored by the cantonal regulations, but thinning operations are still
mostly neglected, except where local market for inferior material makes
them advisable, which is mostly in the plains country, where the annual
yield from thinnings may represent 30% of the total harvest yield.

Conversion from coppice and coppice with standards into timber forest,
and change from clearing systems to natural regeneration (proper for
mountain forest), and from pure to mixed forest have become general
provisions of the working plans.

The average cut in the State forests during four years prior to 1893 was
over 64 cub. ft. p. acre, and 42 cub. ft. for the corporation forests;
an average for all the public forests of round 45 cub. ft.,--not a very
good showing as yet. So far, the collection of material for yield tables
and for a statement of increment and stock on hand in the country at
large are still insufficient, although, in 1882, Prof. Landolt estimated
the annual product at little less than 500 million cubic feet, or 50
cubic feet per acre.

Only for the intensively managed city forests of Zürich and the cantonal
forests of Bern are more accurate data available. In the latter, the
State forests yield 50 cubic feet in the plateau country, 73 cubic feet,
in the middle country, and 76 cubic feet in the Jura, while the communal
forests of that canton yield 15, 66 and 56 cubic feet respectively.
Prices for wood are higher in the low country than the average in
Germany and have been steadily rising for the last 40 years, especially
for coniferous saw material which at present brings stumpage prices of
12 to 15 cents.

Owing to these high prices the gross yield of some Swiss forests is the
largest known in Europe; the city forest of Zürich, exhibiting yields of
$12, and the city forest of Aarau as much as $14 per acre on the
average, although in the Alps forests the gross yield sinks to $3 and
$4. The more intensively managed city forests mentioned spend on their
management $6 and even $7 per acre, while most of the State forests keep
their expenditures within $2.50 to $3.50, and in some places down to
$1.50 per acre. The net yields vary therefore for the State and communal
forests of the plateau country between $3 and $6.50 for some of the city
forests from $6.50 to $8 and $9.

Switzerland has long ago ceased to produce its wood requirements, and
imports from 8 to 9 million dollars annually of wood and wood
manufactures.

4. _Education and Literature._

For the education of the higher forest officials the Federal government
instituted a two year course at the Polytechnicum at Zürich which was
founded in 1885, the course being, in 1884, increased to three years.
Three professors of forestry besides the faculty of the institution in
fundamental and accessory branches are active here, the number of
students averaging in the neighborhood of thirty-five.

Two examinations, a scientific and a practical one, the latter taken
before a special commission, tests the eligibility of candidates,
foreigners not excluded, for positions. For the education of the lower
grade foresters, the Cantons themselves are responsible, the Bund only
contributing by paying for teachers and demonstration material (about
$1,250) to carry on cantonal or intercantonal forestry courses. The
courses usually last from two weeks to two months, in succession or
divided into spring and fall courses; they are mainly practical, and
require candidates to be not less than 18 years of age and to possess a
primary school education. Their number must be at least 15, and not more
than 25. There have also been instituted specially conducted excursions
and progressive underforesters’ courses, as well as additional
scientific courses which the Bund subsidizes.

In connection with the Zürich school, forestry science and art are
furthermore advanced by a well-endowed central Forest Experiment
Station, with several substations and an annual budget of $10,000.

The greatest credit for the advancement of forestry and forest
legislation is due to the Swiss Forestry Association (365 members in
1911), which was founded in 1843, meeting annually in various places,
managed by a Committee of five elected for 3 years. This Association is
subsidized by the Bund for its educational work. _Schweizerische
Zeitschrift für das Forstwesen_ (begun 1850) is its organ, with _Dr.
Fankhauser_ as editor.

In 1898, an association of underforesters with a special organ, _Der
Forstwirth_, came into existence (526 members in 1902), and several
cantonal foresters’ associations are also active.

* * * * *

In the literature, which is largely in German, with some French and
Italian volumes, notable works have appeared and real advances in
forestry science especially with reference to management of mountain
forests are due to Swiss writers.

In 1767, the _Société d’Economie de Zurich_ published a foresters’
manual, and during the first quarter of the nineteenth century,
_Zschokke_ and _Kasthofer_ developed silviculture in the Alps.
_Landolt_, in 1860, published the results of his investigations (under
the order of the Bund of 1857) into the forest conditions of the Alps,
and contributed other volumes along similar lines.

He was succeeded by the now venerable _Dr. J. Coaz_ as Inspector-General
of the Bund (still active at 90 years of age), who also contributed to
the science of mountain reboisement and in other directions. The work on
the management of the City forest of Zürich by its long-time manager
_Meister_ is classic. Under the active direction of _Anton Bühler_ for
many years, the publication of (now under _Dr. Engler_) _Mittheilungen
der eidgenössischen Centralanstalt für das forstliche Versuchswesen_,
since 1891, have become important contributions to forestry science. In
the direction of wood technology the name of _L. Tetmajer_, who is
conducting timber tests, should be mentioned.

FRANCE.

No complete monographic history of forestry in France is in
existence, and mainly incomplete notes scattered through various
volumes were at the disposal of the writer.

The work which contains the largest amount of historic information
is G. HUFFEL, _Economie Forestière_, 3 volumes, 1904-1907, pp. 422,
484, 510, perhaps the most ambitious work in the French language,
which has been largely followed in the account here given. It is a
collection of ten studies, historical data being interspersed
throughout the three volumes, the third volume containing one study
entirely historical.

L. F. A. MAURY, _Les forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France_,
1867, 501 pp. is mainly descriptive, but full of interesting
historic data and detail up to the revolutionary period.

JULES CLAVÉ, _Etudes sur l’économie forestière_, 1862, 377 pp.,
12^o, while mainly a propagandist essay, rehearses to some extent
the history of forest practice, policies, etc., and gives a good
insight into conditions at that time.

_Die forstlichen Verhältnisse Frankreichs_, by Dr. A. V.
SECKENDORFF, 1879, pp. 228, furnishes a few historical notes.

Three English publications by JOHN CROUMBIE BROWN, _Pine Plantations
in France_, _Reboisement in France_, 1876; _French Forest Ordinance
of 1669_, 1882, are profuse and not entirely accurate, but give
hints of historic development.

CH. GUYOT, _L’enseignement forestier en France_, 1898, 398 pp.,
gives an insight into the development of forestry education and a
complete history of the school at Nancy, and throws much light on
other developments.

_Code de la législation forestière_, _par_ PUTON, contains all the
legislation having reference to forests.

An article on _L’idée forestière dans l’histoire_, by L. F. TESSIER,
in Revue des eaux et forêts, 1905, Jan., Feb., gives on 26 pages an
interesting brief survey of the history of forest policy in France.

_Forestry in France_, by F. BAILEY, in the _Indian Forester_, 1886,
61 pp., describes well conditions at that time.

France is one of the countries in which forestry has been practised for
a long time and forestry practice has been almost as highly developed as
in the preceding Teutonic countries.

Germany’s neighbor to the West has evolved, however, forest policies and
practices which are different in some respects from those of Germany,
although the early history of forestry in France was largely analogous
to that of Germany. Indeed, until the end of the ninth century, the two
countries being undivided, the same usages existed more or less in both,
except that in the Gallic country Roman influence left a stronger
imprint, Gallia having been long under the dominion of Rome.

The fact that France has for nearly a thousand years been a unit, while
Germany has until recently been split up into many independent
principalities, did much for uniform, albeit less ambitious, development
in forestry matters.

Most of the forest policy as it exists to-day was inaugurated during the
monarchical regime, which came to an end in 1871. Since that year, a
republican form of government, with an assembly of 584, a senate of 300
members, under a President elected by the legislature for seven years,
has been in existence.

The country is principally a plain, mostly below 1200 feet in altitude,
sloping to the north and west; the mountain ranges (Pyrenées, Alps,
Jura, Vosges) are confined mainly to the south and east boundaries, with
secondary ranges (Cevennes, Côte d’Or, Auvergne, etc.,) in the southeast
part of the country.

Of the 204,000 square miles of territory, just about 18 per cent. is
wooded, which, with a population of nearly 40 million, leaves only about
.6 of an acre per capita.

In its present condition this area does not produce more than one-third
of the home demand, which requires on the average an import in excess
over export to the amount of about 25 million dollars ($33 million in
1902), representing over 110 million cubic feet annually, mostly
workwood, while the export is of mine props and railroad ties at about
half the value of the imported wood.

Since, in 1892, there were still nearly 12% (over 15 million acres)
waste land, opportunity for enlargement of the forest area seems to
exist. It appears that about two-thirds of this waste land is capable of
bearing forest, and the existing forest area is capable of much larger
production than the present; three quarters of the production being fuel
wood.

The distribution of forest area is very uneven, varying from 3.5 to 56
per cent. in the various departments. Only about 20% of the area is
located on the mountains, 19% in hill country, and 60% in the plains.

Six forest regions may be differentiated according to Huffel, which,
however, are mainly geographical divisions: the northeast; valleys of
Seine and Loire; northwest and central; southwest and Pyrenees;
Mediterranean and Pre-alps; Alps.

Hardwoods, oak (40%), beech and ash, etc., occupy fully 80%, while
pine--the two species _silvestris_ and _maritima_, largely
planted--represents the bulk of the 20% of coniferous forest area, fir,
spruce and larch in the mountains forming a very small part.

Only 25% of the forest area is timber forest, 38% is coppice, and 35%
coppice with standards, 2% being in process of conversion into timber
forest. In the State forests alone, however, 68% are timber forest or in
process of conversion to that form.

Of the 227 million acres, hardly more than one-third, belonging to
state and communities, are placed under the _régime forestier_, i.e.,
supervised and managed under working plans. The larger area is under
coppice.

Three-fourths of the communal and one-sixth of the state’s timber forest
is managed under selection system. Combinations of farm and forest
culture (_sartage_ and _furetage_) are still quite extensively
practised. The production of saw-timber under these practices is
naturally small. Of the 40 cubic feet of wood per acre produced in the
better class of managed state and communal properties, only 10 cubic
feet are saw-logs, and if the private forests were taken into
consideration, the average product, on the whole would appear still
smaller, the private properties being mostly small, poorly managed, and
largely coppice. Neither the owners, nor their managers and guards have,
as a rule, any professional education, although the means of obtaining
it exist in the schools at Nancy and Barres.

Blessed for the largest part with a most favorable climate and with rich
soil of tertiary formation, the difficulties in forestry practices
experienced by other, more northern and continental countries are hardly
known. Hence many practices which are successful in France might in
Germany prove disastrous, and such yields as some of the oak forests
show, unattainable.

The greatest interest for the forester attaches to the methods of
conversion of coppice into timber forest, to the extensive areas
reforested during the last century, which probably exceed 3 million
acres, and to the reboisement work in the mountains.

1. _Development of Forest Property._

As in Austria, private ownership of forest property is largely
preponderant, while state property is small.

In ancient Gaul, the Romans found the forest outside of holy groves as
communal property. After the conquest, all the unseated lands,
especially the extensive mountain forests, were declared either State or
imperial property--more than half the whole territory--and were managed
as _res publica_ by the administrators of public affairs. And while
later, with the advent of the German hordes, property conditions shaped
themselves somewhat according to their ways, the influence of the Roman
law and institutions were never quite eradicated.

* * * * *

The country, outside of the public property, was by the Romans divided
into communities, called _fundus_, each placed under a Gallic seigneur
(_eques_), a former chief, now proprietor, his tribesmen and the
remnants of the earlier sessile population becoming serfs. One-third of
the _fundus_ was handed to the serfs as their property and divided among
them--the first private property--; another third was retained by the
seigneur and utilized by means of the service of the serfs (_corvées_),
but usually also burdened by rights of user on their part; and the last
third became common property of the community at large. There remained,
however, here and there, also, some of the original free communes or
Mark (_vicus_), so that five different property classes were in
existence.

The 5th century saw the Teutonic tribes, Suevi, Alani, Vandals and
Burgundians, overwhelm the Romans, who had for 500 years kept the
Gallo-Celtic population under their rule; and these were followed by
Visigoths and Franks, who in turn took possession of the country. The
conquerors did not drive out the Gallo-Romans, but merely quartered
themselves on them under the euphemistic title of “guests,” assuming to
themselves two-thirds of each estate, and leaving the remainder to their
“hosts.” On these lands, undoubtedly, similar economic and social
institutions were developed as in Germany. Communal ownership under
these was at first developed to such an extent that the Salic laws
declared all trees which were not reserved by special sign as subject to
the use of all and any of the Markers. But later, as in Germany, the
socialistic Mark was followed by the feudal system with its ban forests
and the creation of great landed proprietors or lords.

When Clovis, the king of the Franks, in the first decade of the 6th
century defeated the Visigoths and took possession of the country (see
p. 29), he found communal forests of the villagers (_vicus_), property
of seigneurs (_equites_), royal forests and State forests, remnants of
Roman origin. The latter properties and much of the Mark forests he
claimed for himself and divided two-thirds among his vassals; but the
larger part of the other third became also gradually property of the
nobility and church, so that, by the 12th century, only a relatively
small royal property remained. Afterwards, the royal or State property
grew again in various ways, as the power of the kings grew. In 1539,
Francis I declared the same inalienable. But neither himself nor his
successors paid heed to this self-imposed prohibition and, whenever
financial troubles made it expedient, they disposed of some of their
holdings.

By the ordinance of 1566 (_Edit de Moulins_), King Charles IX again
declared the domain of the crown inalienable. Nevertheless he himself in
the same year, and repeatedly afterwards, sold parts of his domain.
Henry III, in 1579, renewed the ordinance of non-alienation and restored
some of the last parcels to the domain by the exercise of the royal
right. Himself and his successors, however, continually broke this
contract, and the royal domain decreased while that of the seigneurs
grew. Similarly to what happened in Germany, the church property was
taken by machination or force to increase the holdings of kings or
seigneurs. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the revolution in 1789, the
royal domain comprised not more than 1,200,000 acres, producing a net
income of 1.2 million dollars. Then followed an era of ups and downs,
continuous changes of policy, increases and decreases of the property
until with the inauguration of the republic, in 1871, comparative
stability was secured.

In 1791, after the revolution, the royal property became national
domain, and by further spoliation of church property, and otherwise,
attained an area of 4,300,000 acres. In the law of 1791, a distinction
was made between the inalienable domain, which comprises roads, canals,
fortresses, harbors, etc., and the alienable national domain, including
the forest and other property derived from royal or crown domains. To
this national domain was added, by the law of 1792, the forest property
of the refugees of the revolution which was, however, later for the most
part restored or indemnified. Finally, when, by the treaty of Basel
(1795), the French frontier had been pushed to the Rhine, the total
state forest had grown to around 6,500,000 acres, nearly one-third of
the total forest area.

But, through sales and otherwise, this area had, by 1815, been reduced
to 3,200,000 acres, and during the period until 1872, the area had been
further again reduced to less than 2,500,000 acres. At present (1905) it
comprises 2.9 million acres, or less than 12 per cent., of the total
forest area, 55 per cent. of which comes from the original royal domain,
22 per cent. from original church property and 23 per cent. from recent
acquisitions, secured under the laws of reboisement of mountains, sand
dunes, etc.

The communal property developed largely in a similar manner as in
Germany, from the Mark, and through the feudal system, with its rights
of user as a result. In the twelfth century, the grandees or seigneurs
were active in colonizing their domains, acquired as fiefs or otherwise,
with serfs and others, giving them charters for villages with communal
privileges and rights. Under this method, another kind of communal
forest property grew up, by written instruments or contracts, in which
limitations and reservations of rights are imposed by the seigneurs. One
of the most usual conditions of the contract was the prevention of
clearing or sale; at the same time a new set of rights of user, this
time on the part of the seigneur, brought new complications. One of the
worst features originating in the 14th century as an outgrowth of feudal
relations, was “the right of the third” (_triage_), which gave to the
seigneur, whenever he wished to exercise it, one-third of the property
free of all rights of user. In this way, the communal area was
diminished until, in 1667, the widespread abuse of this right led to an
ordinance abolishing it. It was, however, re-established by the
ordinance of 1669 in all cases where the forest had been gratuitously
ceded by the seigneurs, or when the remaining two-thirds was deemed
sufficient for the needs of the parish. Not until 1790-1792 was this
exorbitant right finally abolished.

As an outgrowth of the revolutionary doctrine of 1793, the most radical
legislation decreed presumptive ownership by the municipal corporations
of all lands for which the claimant could not show a deed of purchase,
excluding any title acquired as a result of feudal relations. The day of
revenge of all old wrongs had come, and, appeal to justice being
useless, the municipalities increased their holdings freely. Although
later legislation attempted to arrest this public theft and to restitute
some of the stolen property, much of the communal forest area of to-day
consists of this kind of ill-gotten property.

Another method of increasing municipal properties was by exchange of
territory for the rights of user. Efforts to get rid of these rights,
which grew up as described and to prevent their extension were
instituted much earlier than in Germany, Philip of Valois expressly
forbidding such extension as early as 1346. Nevertheless they continued
to grow so that, by the middle of the 18th century, they were as general
and afforded as great a hindrance to forest management, as in Germany.
The ordinance of 1669 also provided for the extinction of these rights,
apparently without much success, and the troublesome times after 1789
increased their number. Only when the orderly regime following the reign
of Napoleon gave rise to the Code Forestier (1827), was a systematic
attempt for their extinguishment by the cession of territory and cash
payment begun, and by this time the extinction may be considered
practically concluded, at least for the state and communal property.

Private property, not seignorial, was but little developed before the
16th century; after that the frequent sales by the kings and barons gave
rise to small forest owners, so that, by 1789, over 10 million acres
were in such possession. During the 19th century this grew by purchase,
by cessions, and by reforestation of waste lands to double that amount,
not less than two million acres being added by the latter cause alone,
while some decrease came from clearings.

In 1905, private holdings comprised 15 million acres or 65 per cent. of
the total; the communal and institutional forests 4.8 million acres or
21 per cent., leaving for State forest 2.9 million acres, or a little
over 12 per cent. of the total of 22.7 million acres. Twenty-two per
cent. of state and communal property is, however, waste land, and such
areas in private hands may be six times as large; there being altogether
between 14 and 15 million acres of waste lands.

2. _Development of Forest Administration._

In the earlier times, and, indeed, into the 18th century, the most
important use of the forest was in the mast from oak and beech for the
pigs and pasture for the cattle, besides firewood, for which mostly the
soft woods were used. This was given free from the royal domain, and the
administration consisted mainly in regulating this use. The main
incentive for the regulation of forest use on the part of the king were
the interests of the chase.

Towards the end of the ninth century, special forest officers,
_forestarii_, are mentioned in Charlemagne’s celebrated _capitularium_,
which describes in detail the administration of the public domains.
These were, to be sure, only lower rank officials, working under mayors,
intendants and the count (_comes_), who was the administrator and soon
independent arbiter of the royal domain as well as of the administration
of justice in general. His office early became hereditary.

The first mention of “forest masters” (_maîtres des eaux et forêts_)
dates back to 1291, and later ordinances mention higher officials. But
the credit for a full and detail organization and regulation of
management belongs to Charles V, the wise Valois, in his ordinance of
1376. This organization, after various changes, by the end of the 16th
century, under the reign of Henry IV, took about the following form:

Under a general superintendent of forests, titulary head of the forest
service, a number of _grands maîtres_, _généraux réformateurs des eaux
et forêts_, some 17, were appointed by the King to watch over the
conduct of the _maîtres_ and _gruyers_, officers in charge of the forest
districts (_maîtrises_). All of these officials had their deputies and
lieutenants under various designations (_procureur du roi_, _greffier_,
_gardemarteau_, _sergent du garde_, etc.)

A stamping hammer (kept by the _gardemarteau_) was employed for marking
trees which defined the boundaries, or which were to be reserved in the
fellings. In addition to these regular officers there were employed a
great number of _capitaines des chasses_ whose functions, as the title
indicates, related mainly to the chase. The function of the
forestmasters did not stop with the supervision of the use of the forest
and sale of wood, but included also the jurisdiction of all misdemeanors
and crimes committed in the royal, and later, in all forests. They
became thus gradually a privileged class of immense power. Graft and
sale of offices became the order of the day. Sometimes the offices were
made hereditary, and again were limited to three or four years’ tenure,
in the endeavour to break up the shameful practices. For nearly three
centuries all efforts at reform were failures.

The method of prescribing the rules and regulations during the 12th to
17th century was by ordinances like those issued by the German princes;
the first ordinance on record being that issued by Louis VI in 1215.
These ordinances usually appeared under the name _Le fait des eaux et
forêts_ (the matters of waters and woods), curiously enough thus
suggesting the relation of the two. The latter term was used exactly
like that of the German _Forst_, designating the reserved territory
under the ban, while _bois_ is used to designate actual woodland
(silva).

In 1376, Charles V, in his endeavor to build up a navy against England,
made reservations for naval timber and also issued the ordinance of
Melun, a general forest code, the provisions of which lasted largely
until the reform of 1669. In 1402, the many ordinances, often
contradictory were codified under one text, and another codification was
made under Francis I in 1515.

By the middle of the 17th century the devastation of forests had
progressed so far, and the abuses in the management of the royal domain
had become so evident that Louis XIV’s great minister, _Colbert_, was
induced to make the historical remark “France will perish for lack of
woods.” Again the needs of the navy was the prime incentive of the
vigorous reform which he instituted after a most searching
investigation. The result was the celebrated forest ordinance of 1669.
For this purpose he appointed, in 1662, a commission which not only
investigated conditions but was clothed with power to reform the abuses
which it might discover. For this work he selected four trusted men
outside of the forest service, to whom later more were added, and gave
them the aid of technical advisers, among whom _Froudoir_ seems to have
been most prominent. Colbert himself gave close attention to this work
of reform. As the first act, the commission recommended the ceasing of
all cutting in the royal forests, and, after deliberation and
consultation with interested parties through eight years, the final law
was enacted, a masterpiece whose principles and prescriptions to an
extent have persisted into the 19th century. The commission from time to
time made reports, giving their findings in detail, and these form a
most interesting record of conditions prevailing at that time. As one of
the historians (Joubain) puts it, “the commissioners did not recoil
before long hours of inspection nor high influence, they neither
hesitated to declare against, nor prosecute, great and small alike, nor
to pronounce a most serious sentence.” A thorough cleaning up was done
and a complete reorganization secured.

By this ordinance, three special courts of adjudication in matters
pertaining to the forests were established, with special officers whose
duties were carefully defined, namely the courts of the _Gruries_, of
the _Maîtrises_ and the _Tables de Marbre_. The first named, lower grade
courts took cognizance of the lesser offences, abuses, wastes and
malversations, disputes in regard to fishing or chase, and murders
arising out of these; _gruries_ being the woods belonging to individuals
in which the jurisdiction and the profit from such jurisdiction belonged
to the king, or at least to the seigneurs. The courts of the maîtrise
referred to the forest territory placed under administration of the
_maîtres particuliers_ (Forstmeister), and were established near the
many royal forests as courts of appeal in forest matters. A final appeal
could be made to the _tables de marbre_ (courts of the marble table),
which also decided on the more weighty questions of proprietorship by
whatever term held, and especially civil and criminal cases relating to
the _eaux et forêts_; the wrong doings in the discharge of official
duties (_abus_), contraventions to the orders and regulations,
misdemeanors or depredations (_délit_); and all kinds of fraud not
included under those cited (_malversations_).

The whole country was divided into 18 arrondissements of
_grandes-maîtrises des eaux et forêts_ and these were divided into 134
_maîtrises_, each under a _maître particulier_, with a _lieutenant_, a
_garde-marteau_, a _garde général_, two _arpenteurs_ and a number of
_gardes_. A financial branch for the handling of moneys, and the
judicial branch represented by the three courts described above,
completed the organization, which lasted until the revolution, albeit
some details were changed soon after its enactment, and the offices
became again purchaseable and hereditary.

The sale of royal forests was again forbidden, penalties being provided
for the eventual purchaser. Theft and incendiarism were severely
punished, and specific rules of management were established.

Clearings could only be made by permission even on the part of private
owners. The methods of sale and harvest were determined. The
prescriptions of older ordinances were renewed to the effect that at
least 13 to 16 seed trees (_baliveaux_) per acre in the coppice, and 8
seed trees in timber forest, were to be reserved in all forests without
exception. Private owners were not to cut these seed trees before they
were 40 years old in the coppice, and 120 years in the timber forest,
while in the public and church forests these seed trees were treated
like reserves. Similarly, the prescription that no woods were to be cut
before 10 years of age was revived from former ordinances, the time
later (1787) being increased for public forests to 25 years. Also the
obligation to keep one-fourth of the forest in reserve, which Charles IX
had decreed in 1560, was renewed for the public forests (those belonging
to corporations and other public institutions). For the fir forests of
the mountains, which had become important as furnishers of ship masts,
special regulations were issued, and the mast timber reserved for the
crown.

There was lively opposition to the enforcement of these prescriptions,
especially where they interfered with property rights, nevertheless they
persisted until the changes brought about by the revolution of 1789.

Certain prescriptions, as for instance the exclusion of sheepherding
were never enforced, and this practice continues even to-day in certain
sections.

As a result of the reform, however, the revenues from the royal forests
trebled in 20 years.

During the 18th century, several famines occurred and led to the
encouragement of extending farm operations at the expense of the forest,
notably in the sixties, when among other similar efforts some 200
families returning from Canada after the English conquest were colonized
in the forests of Poitou. At that time, also the “declaration” of 1766
exempted those who cleared land for farm purposes for 15 years from all
taxes. As a result of this invitation some 750,000 acres were cleared,
and the practice of clearing for farm use continued until the middle of
the 19th century. In this way, by inconsiderately exposing soil which
would not everywhere be found adapted to farm use, wastes naturally
existing were greatly increased.

The revolution brought with it sudden and disastrous changes. The law of
1791 abolished not only the jurisdiction of the _maîtrises_, but removed
all restraint, and thereby inaugurated widespread destruction and
devastation of forest property against which legislative attempts of the
republican government were entirely powerless. Not only did the peasants
take advantage of the disorder, and the municipalities cut their
reserves without hindrance but extraordinary fellings in the state
forests were necessitated by the needs of the navy and the exchequer. In
1801, after various previous attempts at organization, Napoleon
reorganized the service, with five administrators, 30 conservators, 200
inspectors and 8,600 inferior officers. At that time, it appears that
the revenue from the public forest domain amounted to $6,000,000, a sum
justifying such elaborate organization. But otherwise the methods of
Colbert’s ordinance were revived. Devastation, however, continued.

Incompetence in the service, was again introduced when in 1811 half the
number of officials was recruited from superannuated army officers. In
1817, the whole forest service was abolished, and the properties placed
in the hands of the fiscal agents of the government without any
technical knowledge. The old order of things was, however,
re-established in 1820, and soon after the final organization which has
lasted to date was effected.

3. _Development of Modern Forest Policy._

In 1822, a commission composed of foresters was instituted to revise the
ordinance of 1669, which, here and there modified, had continued to be
valid, except during the revolutionary period. The result of the work of
this commission was the _Code Forestier_ (1829) which is the law of the
present day. In it, principles are laid down under which the state,
communal and other public forests are to be managed.

All forests submitted to the _régime forestier_, namely, the state and
communal forests and those belonging to public institutions, are
entirely managed by the state forest administration, the communities or
other public forest owners paying for the service not to exceed 9 cents
per acre, or 5 per cent. of the revenue. All jurisdiction and execution
of forestry laws is in the hands of the officials of the Forest
Administration. The foresters of the state have the exclusive
responsibility of making and executing working plans, without
interference by the municipalities after the plans have once been
submitted and approved by them. The corporations have not even the right
to appoint their own guards, all such being appointed by the prefects of
the departments upon recommendation by the forest department.

The fellings, usually performed by the purchaser, (the wood being sold
on the stump), are supervised most rigorously, making even the smallest
deviations from the conditions of the contract sale, which otherwise
would only entail the payment of damage, punishable by fine; and the
responsibility for any trespass which may occur on the land reaches 250
yards beyond the limits of the purchaser’s territory, unless he gives
proper warning and tries to find out the perpetrators of the same. Legal
proceedings are brought before the courts of correction, and are greatly
simplified, as is customary in Germany.

The public forests may not be sold, mortgaged or divided, and the
product can be sold only through state foresters. As in the olden times,
one-quarter of the stands in the timber forests, and one-fourth of the
felling budget in the coppice is placed in reserve for urgent or
unforeseen needs.

In addition to these and other restrictions which refer to the _public_
forests, there are prescriptions which apply to _all_ woods in general.
All foresters employed, even on private properties, have sheriff’s
power. Walking in the woods with axe, saw and wagon outside of the
public roads which pass through them, is forbidden; the making of fires
is forbidden; the making of fire lines, 20 yards wide, between private
forests can be enforced by either owner, and railroads, along their
rights of way, are required to make such. By special law of 1893, the
setting of fires even within 200 yards of a wood is forbidden in certain
regions, and the punishment of infractions of these laws is very severe.

The rights of user are gauged by the administration according to the
possible yield, even in private forests, and are surrounded by many
other restrictions; the wood falling under such rights of user is cut
and delivered by the forest agents, and the rights can be forcibly
extinguished by exchange of territory.

The supervision of the communal forests which had, indeed, existed since
the 16th century was by no means an easy task. The opposition to it
which had always existed and was, in earlier times, justified by the
incompetence and graft of the officials, continued even after this
justification of it had ceased. Thanks to the tact and efficiency of the
officials of the modern period, the opposition has been largely
overcome, and, thanks to the progress made in enforcing these rigorous
laws, their necessity has almost vanished, and, at present, relatively
few infractions need to be investigated and punished. Moreover, the
rigor of the original law was somewhat abated by the law of 1859.

There are, however, voices which proclaim that the supervision by the
government is not as thorough as it should be, and that the conditions
of the communal property have deteriorated.

While the supervision of the management of communal property is mainly
based on fiscal considerations, the _Code forestier_ also authorizes the
administration to interfere in the management of forests whose influence
on the public welfare can be demonstrated.

In order to assure the possibility of such interference, every private
owner who desires to clear land is required to advise the government of
his purpose, when the administration can prevent such clearing, if
deemed necessary to prevent landslides, erosion and torrential action,
to protect watersources, sand dunes, _for defensive purposes at the
frontier_ (!), and for public health. Otherwise, the management of
private forest is unhampered.

By special legislation, enacted in 1860 and 1882, however, the special
cases of torrential action were taken care of in a special manner, which
will be set forth in following pages. The reboisement law of 1882
authorizes the administration to acquire by expropriation mountain
forests or mountain slopes needed for reforestation for the sake of
safeguarding them and preventing torrential damage.

For Algiers, the same authorization to expropriate was extended by law
of 1903 to include all such areas on which according to the _Code
forestier_ the administration might forbid clearing, and such extension
is advocated for the mother country.

As a rule the administration has been able to avoid expropriation and
secure the territories by voluntary sale at less than $10 per acre.

At present, the forest service is under the Minister of Agriculture as
President of the Forestry Council, with a Director-General as Vice
President and technical head, and three _Administrateurs Vérificateurs
généraux_, chiefs of the three bureaux into which the administration is
divided, each with two chiefs of sections, Inspectors, and the necessary
office staff. For purposes of the local administration the forest area
is divided into 32 conservations, each under charge of a _Conservateur_
equivalent to the German Oberforstmeister. These are again subdivided
into _Chefferies_ or _Inspections_, two to twelve in each conservation,
which are administrative units, under the supervision of Inspectors
(200) and Assistant Inspectors (210). In addition, a special service for
forest-organization and reboisement employs 14 inspectors and some 20
assistants. The forest districts or _cantonments_ (ranges) finally are
under the direct charge of _Gardes généraux_ (162), with the assistance
of _Gardes généraux stagiaires_ (67) and underforesters or guards
(_Brigadiers_) (3,650); altogether a personnel of over 4,400 officials.
While this is a larger force per acreage, yet the expense for personnel
per acre is less than one-half that of the Prussian forest
administration, and one-quarter of that in several of the other German
state administrations.

In 1909, a reorganization was effected improving to some extent the
salaries.

The legislation of 1909 also further strengthens State influence by
placing certain private properties under the control of the
Administration, and allowing the latter to undertake the management of
private properties at the request of owners for a consideration.

The budget for 1911 places the total expenditure for the Forest
Administration at 3 million dollars (98 cents per acre), of which
950,000 for reboisement and other improvement work. The receipts for the
last five years have averaged near 7 million dollars, so that a net
result of $1.60 per acre seems attained, considering the expense of
reboisement as new investment.

4. _Work of Reforestation._

The most noted work of the forest administration, and one for which it
deserves high credit, has been that of the reclamation of waste lands,
of which, in 1879, it was estimated there were still 20,000,000 acres
in extent. Especially the “reboisement” work in the Alpine districts, as
a result of the law of 1882, has become celebrated.

The movement for recovery of waste lands dates from the beginning of the
19th century, and to-day reforestation by state, communal and private
effort encouraged by legislative acts during the last sixty years, has
restored well-nigh more than 3,000,000 acres of ground which had been
lost to forest production.

There are four definite regions of large extent in which systematic
effort in this direction has been made, namely, the sand dunes of
Gascony and the Landes of Southwestern France; the sandy plains of La
Sologne; the limestone wastes of Champagne; and the mountain slopes in
the Vosges and Jura-Alps.

* * * * *

The sand dunes on the coast of France comprise around 350,000 acres;
those on the coast of Gascony in Southwest France alone have an extent
of nearly 250,000 acres, these being the most important and having for a
long time endangered the adjoining pastures and fields. It seems that
the land occupied by dunes was originally forested, and that these were
created by deforestation.

As early as 1717, successful attempts at reforestation were made by the
inhabitants of _La Teste_, and from that time on sporadically small
plantings came into existence. But the inauguration of systematic
reforestation was begun only after a notable report by _Brémontier_,
who, in 1786, secured, as chief engineer of the department of Bordeaux,
a sum of $10,000 to be employed in ascertaining the possibilities of
draining the Landes by means of a canal, and of fixing the dunes. As a
result of this beginning, the method for their recovery having been, by
1793, experimentally determined by Brémontier, 275,000 acres of moving
sand have been fixed during the last century. The revolutionary
government, in 1799, created a Commission of Dunes, of which Brémontier
was made president, and annual appropriation of $10,000 was made, later
(in 1808) increased to $15,000. In 1817, the work was transferred to the
_Administration des Ponts et Chaussées_. The appropriations were
increased until, in 1854, they reached $100,000 a year, and in 1865, the
work being nearly finished, the dunes were handed over to the forest
administration. There being still about 20,000 acres to be recovered,
this was achieved in 1865, when 200,000 acres had been reforested at an
expense of about $2,000,000, and an additional expense of $700,000 to
organize the newly formed pine forests--_Pinus maritima_ was entirely
used. These, at present, with their resinous products and wood are
furnishing valuable material. An unfortunate policy of ceding some of
these forest areas to private and communal owners, who claimed them as
of ancient right, and also of sales was inaugurated just as the planting
was finished, so that at present only 125,000 acres remain in the hands
of the state. The returns from the sales, however, reimbursed the cost
of the reboisement in excess by $140,000, so that the state really
acquired for nothing, a property, now estimated to be worth
$10,000,000.

A similar plantation on moving sands, of 35,000 acres, is found north of
this tract.

To the eastward of this region of dunes stretch the so-called _Landes_,
a territory triangular in shape, containing 2,000,000 acres of shifting
sands and marshes, on which a poor population of shepherds (on stilts)
used to eke out a living. In 1873, _Chambrelent_, an engineer of the
administration of bridges and roads (_administration des ponts et
chaussées_), conceived the idea of improving this section by
reforestation, and at his own expense recovered some 1,200 acres in the
worst marsh by ditching and planting. The success of this plantation
invited imitators, and, by 1855, the reforested area had grown to 50,000
acres. This led, in 1857, to the passage of a law ordering forestation
of the parts of the land owned by the state as well as by the
communities, the state at the same time undertaking the expense of
building a system of roads and making the plans for forestation free of
charge. The communities were allowed to sell a part of the reclaimed
land in order to recover the expense, and sold some 470,000 acres for
2.7 million dollars, of which less than $300,000 were used to forest the
250,000 acres belonging to them. From 1850 to 1892, private owners
imitating the government and communal work, altogether nearly 1,750,000
acres were covered with pine forest at a cost of $4.00 to $5.00 per
acre, or, including the building of roads, for a total expenditure of
around $10,000,000. In 1877, the value of the then recovered area was
estimated at over $40,000,000, this figure being arrived at by
calculating the possible net revenues of a pinery under a 75 years
rotation, which was figured at $2.50 per acre, with a production of 51
cubic feet per acre and 200 quarts of resin (at $3). An estimate of
recent date places the value of the recovered area at $100,000,000.

* * * * *

Centrally located between the valleys of the Loire and the Cher, near
Orleans, lies the region of _La Sologne_, a sandy, poorly drained plain
upon an impenetrable calcareous sub-soil giving rise to stagnant waters;
this region too had been originally densely wooded, and was described as
a paradise in early times; but from the beginning of the 17th century to
the end of the 18th it was deforested, making it an unhealthy, useless
waste. By 1787, 1,250,000 acres of this territory had become absolutely
abandoned.

About the middle of the 19th century, a number of influential citizens
constituted themselves a committee to begin its work of recovery, the
Director General of Forests being authorized to assume the presidency of
that committee. As a result, a canal 25 miles in length and 350 miles of
road were built, and some 200,000 acres, all non-agricultural lands,
were sowed and planted with Maritime and Scotch Pine, the state
furnishing assistance through the forest service and otherwise. A
set-back occurred during the severe winter of 1879, frost killing many
of the younger plantations, which led to the substitution of the hardier
Scotch Pine for the Maritime Pine in the plantings. The cost per acre
set out with about 3,500 two-year old seedlings amounted to $5.00. An
estimate of the value of these plantations places it at, not less than
$18,000,000, so that lands which 50 years ago, could hardly be sold for
$4.00 per acre, now bring over $3.00 as an annual revenue.

* * * * *

In the province of _Champagne_, South of Rheims, a plain of arid
lime-stone wastes of an extent which in the 18th century had reached
1,750,000 acres is found. About 1807, the movement for the recovery of
these wastes began; first in a small way, gaining strength by 1830 after
some sporadic experiments had shown the possibility of reforestation,
and to-day over 200,000 acres of coniferous forest (mainly Austrian and
Scotch Pine), largely planted by private incentive, are in existence,
the better acres being farmed. It is interesting to note that land which
50 years ago was often sold without measurement by distance, “as far as
the cry would carry,” and rarely for more than $4.00 per acre, is to-day
worth over $40.00 at a cost for planting of less than $25.00. The
stumpage value of a thirty years’ growth is figured at from $50 to $100,
the total forest area is valued at $10,000,000, with net revenue from
the 200,000 acres at $2.00 per acre.

* * * * *

France is unfortunate in having within her territory, although so little
mountainous, the largest proportion of the area in Europe liable to
torrential action. Not less than 1,462 brooks and mountain streams have
been counted as dangerous waters in the Alps, the Cevennes, and the
Pyrenees mountains; or two-thirds of the torrents of Europe. An area
nearly 1,000,000 acres in extent, of mountain slopes, is exposed to the
ravages of these waters by erosion.

Here the most forcible demonstration of the value of a forest cover in
protecting watersheds was furnished by the results of the extensive
forest destruction and devastation which took place especially during
and following the years of the Revolution.

Long ago, in the 16th century, the local parliaments had enacted decrees
against clearing in the mountains, with severe fines, confiscation and
even corporal punishment, and these restrictions had been generally
effective; but during the Revolutionary period all these wholesome
restrictions vanished; inconsiderate exploitation by the farmers began,
and the damage came so rapidly that in less than ten years after the
beginning of freedom, the effect was felt. Within three years (1792),
the first complaints of the result of unrestricted cutting were heard,
and, by 1803, they were quite general. The brooks had changed to
torrents, inundating the plains, tearing away fertile lands or silting
them over with the debris carried down from the mountains. Yet in spite
of these early warnings and the theoretical discussions by such men as
Boussingault, Becquerel and others, the destructive work by axe, fire
and over-pasturing progressed until about 8,000,000 acres of tillable
land had been rendered more or less useless, and the population of 18
departments had been impoverished or reduced in number by emigration.

A young engineer, _Surell_, was the first to study the possibility of
coping with the evil and proved in his _Etude sur les torrents_, in
1841, its relation to forest cover, and the need of attacking it at the
sources. The first work of recovery was tentatively begun in 1843, but
the political events following did not promote its extension, until, in
1860, a special law charged the Forest Department with the mission of
extinguishing the torrents. There were recognized two categories of
work, the one, considered of general public interest being designated as
obligatory, the other with less immediate need being facultative; the
territories devastated by each river and its affluents on which the work
of recovery was to be executed were known as perimeters. In the
obligatory perimeters, private lands were to be acquired by the state by
process of expropriation, the communal properties were to be only for a
time occupied by the state and after the achievement of the recovery
were to be restituted on payment of the expense of the work; or else the
corporation could get rid of the debt by ceding one-half of its property
to the state.

In the facultative perimeters, the state was simply to assist in the
work of recovery by gratuitous distribution of seeds and plants, or even
by money subventions in some cases. It appeared hard that the poor
mountaineers should have to bear all the expense of the extinction of
the torrents, and much complaint was heard. In response to these
complaints, in 1864, a law was passed allowing the substitution of
sodding instead of forest planting for at least part of the perimeters,
with a view of securing pastures; but this method seems not to have been
successful and was mostly not employed.

Finally, by the reboisement law of 1882, the complaints of the
mountaineers were properly taken care of by placing the entire expense
of the reboisement work on the state. The attitude of the mountaineers,
which was at first hostile, due to the restriction of the pasture, has
been overcome by the beneficial results of the work, and now the most
hostile are ready to offer gratuitously their territory to the Forest
Department. Wherever necessary the state has bought territory, and from
year to year has increased its holdings, and continues to acquire land
at the rate of 25,000 to 30,000 acres per year, the budget of 1902, for
instance, containing $1,000,000 for this purpose; that of 1911, only
$40,000.

Altogether the state had, up to 1900, acquired 400,000 acres, of which
218,000 have been planted, and it is estimated that about 430,000 acres
more will have to be acquired. The total expense, outside of subventions
to communities and private owners, up to 1900 has been over $13,000,000,
of which somewhat over $5,000,000 was expended for purchases, it is
estimated that round $25 to $30 million more will be needed to complete
the work. Of the 1,462 torrents there were in 1893, 163 entirely
controlled, and 654 begun to be “cured.” Among the former, there were 31
which 50 years ago were considered by engineers incurable. It is
estimated that, with the expenditure of $600,000 per annum, the work may
be finished by 1945. The names of Matthieu and Demontzey, especially the
latter, are indelibly connected with this great work.

Lately, however, Briot in his classical work _Les Alpes françaises_
criticizes severely as improperly extravagant the large expenditures in
places where the result does not warrant them, and proclaims as illusory
some of the methods adopted.

5. _Forestry Science and Practice._

Until the 16th century, whatever regulations had been issued regarding
forest use were merely of administrative or police character and had
nothing to do with management or silviculture, except perhaps so far as
the number of _baliveaux_, reserved trees to be left, might be
considered as bearing upon the subject. The _réformateurs_ who were from
time to time appointed had to deal only with judicial questions and
abuses; and usually the ordinances referred only to special forests, but
in 1563, the _Table de marbre_ of Paris issued instructions which were
to serve in all forests.

A futile attempt to secure statistical knowledge of the forest domain
was made, apparently with a view to regulation of the cut, by de Fleury,
the chief of the forest service in 1561. In default of data from many of
the _maîtrises_, a provisional partial order to regulate the cut was
issued in 1573, which remained in force for a hundred years, and was
regularly disregarded, extraordinary cuts being made without authority
and with the connivance of the officers.

An ordinance of 1579 describes the deplorable condition of the forests
at length, and calls for statistical data, but again without result. A
number of further ordinances also made no impression upon the callous
and corrupt officials of the forest service.

A first class attempt to secure more conservative forest use and to
regulate the cut was made by Henry IV in instituting a commission, and,
as a result of its report, issuing his general order of Rouen, in 1597,
a highly interesting document giving insight into conditions and
opinions of the foresters of that period. It also remained without any
result whatsoever.

Repeated replacement of the higher officials had no more effect than the
issuance of ordinances.

Not until Colbert’s vigorous reform in 1669 came a change in conditions.

Meanwhile, some forestry notions had been developed: a sequence of
felling areas in the coppice, and hence an area division, an idea of
rotation and of the exploitable age (10 to 20 years, although sometimes
down to 3 and 4 years), the leaving of overwood, which became obligatory
in the royal domain, and a kind of regulation of its age (40 years--too
short according to one writer of the time to furnish valuable trees),
and some proper considerations of its selection.

In the timber forest, the fellings proceeded by area in regular order
from year to year, leaving a prescribed number of marked seed trees, at
least 6 to 8 per acre, on such areas as were outside the rights of user
and removed from the likelihood of depredations; the felling age being
at least 100 years, under the notion that the oak, the most favored
species, “grows for one hundred years, keeps vigorous but stands still
for another hundred, and declines in a third hundred.” Sowing of acorns
on prepared ground was also ordered in the 16th century, and perhaps
occasionally done. Young growths were sometimes protected by ditches or
fences against cattle, although objections were raised against the
former as impeding the chase. A diameter limit sometimes reserved all
oak and beech two feet in circumference at six inches from the ground,
the height of the stump. Even improvement cuttings (called _recépages_)
are on record in Normandie, mainly for the purpose of cutting out
softwoods and freeing the young valuable reproduction, repeated in
decennial returns. Later, thinnings assumed the character of selection
fellings and, indeed, received the name of _jardinage_. They were
continued until the time for final cut and regeneration had arrived. In
the coniferous mountain forests, selection cutting, pure and simple, was
the rule.

It appears, then, that quite sane notions of silviculture existed,
albeit they may not have been very generally and very strictly carried
out. Especially during the 16th century, the maladministration of the
royal domain brought with it a decadence of the practice in the woods;
the area of the coppice increased by clear cutting at the expense of the
timber forest, and, by Colbert’s time, all forestry knowledge had
wellnigh become forgotten.

The forest ordinance of 1669 attempted to reform not only the
administrative abuses but to improve the method of exploitation hitherto
practised; at least it put in writing, codified as it were, the best
usage of the time. A commission of 21 was instituted to make working
plans and prescribe the practice.

The prescriptions had reference both to management and silvicultural
practice. A felling budget (_état d’assiette_) was prescribed annually
by the _grand maître_ for each _garderie_ (district), and felling areas
were also, sometimes, but not always, definitely located. Besides,
extraordinary fellings might be ordered.

The _garderies_ were divided into _triages_ (now called _cantons_),
management classes or site classes under different rotations, and the
fellings proceeded in each _triage_ in sequence.

In each felling area, as had supposedly been the practice, at least 8
seed trees per acre, and generally 16, besides those under the diameter
limit, were to be left--the method _à tire et aire_.

Intermediary fellings--thinnings--were avoided and frowned down upon,
probably because of the abuses to which they had given rise. Meanwhile
their need grew more and more, especially in those places where the
felling method did not produce satisfactory regeneration, and softwoods
impeded the development of the better kinds. To improve the chances for
valuable regeneration and to keep the softwoods down, the foresters
proposed the reduction of rotations from 100 to 50 and even 40 years,
and, as with each felling the number of reserve trees had to be left,
the forest assumed a form resembling the coppice under standards.

In the coniferous woods of the mountains (fir), which in Colbert’s time
appear almost like a new discovery to his reformers, the selection
forest with a diameter limit (e.g., 6 inch at the small end of the
21-foot log) was the method most generally in vogue, and is still to a
large extent the method in use, but somewhat better regulated and
modified, sometimes with improvement fellings added. In some parts,
especially in Lorraine, for a time, artificial regeneration and a strip
system were tried, and even a group selection with a regeneration period
of probably 25 to 30 years and an exploitable age of 100 years, was
practised in the 18th century.

Buffon, in 1739, proposed a treatment for the pineries to secure natural
regeneration by cutting one-third to one-half, leaving 40 to 50 seed
trees per acre, while Duhamel (1780) considers selection method best for
larch and pine as well as fir, although pine might, like oak, be readily
reproduced by sowing.

While system and orderly progress of fellings in selection forest had
gradually been established, during the revolution this was largely
disregarded and unconservative fellings became the order.

_Guiot’s Manuel forestier_, published in 1770, gives a good idea of the
status of forestry at that time. It appears that for timber forest,
mostly royal woods, rotations varying from 60 to 200 years, for coppice
from 10 to 20 years, were in use on the royal domain; that fellings were
regulated according to species, soil quality and the most advantageous
yield. To facilitate regeneration, a superficial culture of the soil is
also advocated.

The prescription of Colbert’s ordinance to leave a certain number of
seed trees, no matter for what species or conditions of soil or climate
had as early as 1520 been pointed out as faulty by one of the grand
masters, _Tristan de Rostaing_, who had recommended a method of
successive fellings. This prescription, applied pretty nearly uniformly
as a matter of law, removed from the officials all spirit of initiative
and desire or requirement of improving upon it. No knowledge beyond that
of the law was required of them, hence no development of silvicultural
methods resulted during the 17th and 18th century. The seed trees left
on the felling areas grew into undesirable and branchy “wolves,”
injuring the aftergrowth, or else were thrown by the wind or died, and
many of the areas became undesirable brush. Not until the first quarter
of the 19th century was a change in this method proposed through men who
imported new ideas from Germany.

When the inefficiency of the _méthode à tire et aire_ was recognized,
the only remedy appeared to lie in a clearing system with artificial
reforestation (recommended by _Réaumur_ and _Duhamel_); and, indeed, the
ordinance of 1669 recognized the probable necessity of filling up fail
places in that manner. Yet the success of the plantings in waste lands
does not seem to have brought about much extension of this method to the
felling areas. As late as 1862, Clavé, complaining of the conditions of
silviculture in France, and of the ignorance regarding it, refers to the
clearing system as _méthode allemande_, the German method. The
shelterwood system, _la méthode du réensemencement_, which was
introduced in theory from Germany by Lorentz in 1827, was hardly applied
until the middle of the century. Indeed, the promulgation of this
superior method cost Lorentz his position in 1839, and other officers
suffered similarly for this “German propaganda.” (see p. 242)[7]

[7] In this statement we follow Clavé and other authors. Huffel
takes exception to this conception of the origin of the shelterwood
system, because he finds in some documents allusion to a modified
application of the _tire et aire_ method which might be construed
into shelterwood regeneration. Indeed, Guiot (1770) and Varennes de
Fenille (1790) describe methods of procedure which resemble somewhat
this method of regeneration. But as the method of successive
fellings was practised in Germany since 1720, and fully developed in
all its detail by 1790--Hartig formulating merely into rules what
was long practised--it is likely that the French authors had heard
of it. Moreover, in another place (vol. III, p. 271) Huffel says:
“At this time (1821) one made several tentative regeneration
cuttings by successive fellings according to the new formula--but
without success.”

At the present time large areas of coppice and of coppice with standards
characterize the holdings of the municipal and private owners, and the
selection forest still plays a considerable part even in the State
forests; the method of shelterwood in compartments, being still more
under discussion than found in practice.

The main credit for advance in silvicultural direction which belongs to
the French foresters in particular is the development of new and fertile
ideas regarding the operations of thinnings; here the differentiation of
the crop into the final harvest (_le haut_) and the nurse crop (_le
bas_) (see page 105) and the differentiation of the operations, _par le
haut_ and _par le bas_, seems to have been for the first time described
by Boppe in 1887. Indeed, the theory of thinnings, at least, seems to
have been well understood by Buffon, who advanced his theories in a
memoir to the Academy of France, in 1774, and gives a very clear
exposition of the value of thinnings and improvement cuttings.

Nevertheless, thinning practice, while often accentuated in the
literature, is too often omitted in practice, or exercised only in long
intervals, while otherwise silvicultural practice is excellent,
especially in the coppice. Most valuable lessons may be had especially
from the experience in converting coppice into timber forest.

At the International Congress of Silviculture, convening in connection
with the Universal Exposition in 1900, supposedly the best home talent
was represented, but it cannot be said that anything new, or striking,
or promotive of the art or science transpired. The desirability of
establishing experiment stations outside the one in existence at Nancy
(established in 1882), and the desirability of constructing yield tables
still required arguments at this meeting.

In the direction of forest organization, it is stated by Clavé that in
1860 only 900,000 acres of the State domain were under a regulated
management, namely 380,000 acres in timber forest and 520,000 in coppice
with standards, leaving about 1,500,000 acres at that time still merely
exploited. The same writer states that of the corporation or communal
forests hardly any are under management for sustained yield, and private
forest management is not mentioned in this connection. Even to-day less
than one-third of the total area is under systematic control. In 1908
still, about 14% of the State forests were without working plans, and
15% in selection forest.

The method of forest organization employed, outside of the crude
determinations of a felling budget in the selection forest, is an
imitation of Cotta’s combined area and volume allotment, with hardly any
attempt of securing normality, introduced in 1825. Characteristic, and
differing from the German model, is the practice of actually
collocating in each district (_canton_) the periodic felling areas
(_affectations_) on the ground so as to secure a schematic felling
series or periodic block (_séries_). This is done often at great
sacrifice. Lately, various, more pliable modifications have come into
vogue (_méthode de l’affectation unique_) and freer methods (_méthode du
quartier de régénération_), somewhat similar to Judeich’s stand
management, are proposed. Altogether working plans, such as are
elaborated in Germany, are rare, and yield tables are still looked upon
by Huffel as doubtfully useful.

The management of the State forests is extremely conservative, large
accumulations of old stock, the holding over of one quarter for reserve,
and high rotations--only apparently based on maximum volume production,
since the statistical data are scanty--are characteristic. The opposite
conditions appear in the private forests.

6. _Education and Literature._

In the earlier times the service established was as we have seen, often,
nay mostly in incompetent hands; the offices of forestmasters were
purchasable, were given to courtiers as benefices, and became
hereditary. In all these, higher professional knowledge was unnecessary.
The ignorance of the subordinates was as great as that of their German
counterparts, but lasted longer. Hardly any book literature on the
subject of forestry developed before the 19th century, and educational
institutions had to wait until long past the beginning of that century.

The first, and up to the present, only forest school, came into
existence after a considerable campaign, directed by Baudrillart, Chief
of Division, Administration Générale des Forêts, and professor of
political economy. His campaign in the _Annales Forestières_, the first
volume of which appeared in 1808, and in other writings as in his
_Dictionnaire des eaux et forêts_ (1825), led to the establishment of
the forest school at Nancy in 1825.

The first director of this school, _Bernard Lorentz_, having become
acquainted with and befriended by G. L. Hartig, and his assistant,
afterward his son-in-law and successor, _Adolphe Parade_, having studied
under Cotta (1817-1818) in Tharandt, this school introduced the science
of forestry as it had then been developed in Germany; but later
generations under _Nanquette_, _Bagneris_, _Broillard_, _Boppe_ and
_Puton_, imbued with patriotism, attempted in a manner to strike out on
original lines.

As a consequence of the “unpatriotic” German tendencies of its first
directors the continuance of the school at Nancy was several times
threatened, there being friction between the administration of the
school and the service, which in 1844 came to a climax, agents in the
service being employed without preparation in the school, a condition
which lasted until 1856.

Even to date an active service of 15 years is considered equivalent to
the education in the school for advancement in the service.

In 1839, Lorentz was disgracefully displaced, in spite of his great
merits, because he advocated too warmly the application of the superior
system of regeneration under shelterwood to replace the coppice and
selection forest, an incident almost precisely repeated in the State of
New York in abandoning its State College at Cornell University; and in
other respects the two cases appear parallel.[8] Parade, the successor
of Lorentz being imbued with the same heretical doctrines was constantly
in trouble, and in 1847, a most savage attack in the legislature was
launched which threatened the collapse of the school. This condition
lasted until Parade’s death, in 1864, when _Nanquette_ assumed guidance
of the school and steered in more peaceful waters by avoiding all ideas
at reforms and innovations, but otherwise improving the character of the
school and introducing the third year study. But he, too, was much
criticized and in difficulties until 1880; nor was _Puton_, his
successor, free from troubles, until in 1889 a new regime and new
regulations were enacted.

[8] According to others (a reviewer of this volume), the
difficulties which befell the institution were financial ones, “the
too rapid conversion into timberforest reducing receipts, which the
Minister of Finance resented.” Guyot’s history of the school,
however, leaves little doubt of the above interpretation being
correct. In the case of the State College at Cornell University, a
later historian might similarly claim financial difficulties, the
school having actually been closed for lack of appropriation;
nevertheless political trickery was the real cause of this lack.

The school is organized on military lines. The students, who intend to
enter the State service are chosen from the graduates of the Institute
national agronomique of Paris, only a limited number being admitted. It
has 12 professors, two for forestry, two each for natural science,
mathematics, and one each for law, soil physics and agriculture, for
military science and for German. A three year course, which includes
journeys through the forest regions of France, leads to government
employment; indeed, the first paid position as _garde général stagiaire_
is attained after two years study and before leaving school.

For several years, (1867 to 1884) English students preparing for the
Indian service received their instruction here, and 380 foreigners have
received their education in this school since its foundation.

For the education of the lower grades, an imperial rescript ordered the
establishment of several schools, which were, however, never organized.
In 1863, were proposed, and in 1868, opened, four schools, where
efficient forest guards were to secure some knowledge that would assist
them to advancement; three of these schools persisted until 1883. In
1873, an additional school for silviculture for the education of
underforesters was organized at Barres-Vilmorin, where annually a
limited number of students are permitted to enter. This institution has
persisted to date.

* * * * *

The French _forestry literature_ has never been prolific, and to this
day occupies still a limited amount of shelf room. The first book on
record is a translation of the well known volume of the Italian, Peter
de Crescentiis, translated at the instance of Charles V in 1373. In the
16th century we have reference to an encyclopædic volume, probably
similar to the German Hausväter, by _Oliver de Serres_, _Théatre
d’Agriculture et Mesnage des Champs_, in which a chapter is devoted to
the forests. During the 18th century, just as in Germany the
cameralists, we have in France a number of high class writings, not by
foresters, but by savants or students of natural history, the names of
Réaumur, Duhamel, Buffon and Micheaux appearing with memoirs transmitted
to the Academy of France, the highest literary and scientific body of
men, on subjects relating to forestry. _Réaumur_, in his _Réflexions sur
l’état des forêts_, in 1721, recommended the conversion of coppice
forests into timber forests by a system of thinnings, but it is evident
that his words were not heard beyond the Academy. _Duhamel_ (in 1755,
1764, 1780) repeats the recommendation of Réaumur in his three memoirs,
_Semis et Plantations_, _Exploitation des Bois_ and _Traité de la
Physique des Arbres_, in which he exhibits considerable learning, while
_Buffon_, the great naturalist, in 1739 and after, presented several
memoirs on forestry subjects full of excellent advice. _Varennes de
Fenille_, another one of the Academicians, but also one of the
conservators is on record with two memoirs (1790, 1791) on the
management of coppice and timber forests in which also the theory of
thinnings was well developed. But among the foresters of the service
there seems not to have been sufficient education to appreciate these
writings, or, with the exception of _Guiot_ with his _Manuel forestier_
(1770), to bring forth any contributions to the literature and art,
until the 19th century. In 1803, we find the first encyclopædic volume
in _Traité de l’Aménagement des Forêts_, which was followed, in 1805, by
a very incorrect translation of Hartig’s _Lehrbuch_, both by
Baudrillart, professor of political economy, who also published in 12
volumes his _Traité Général des Eaux et Forêts_. _Perthuis_, in 1796,
and _Dralet_, a forester, in 1807, also brought out treatises on forest
management, which include all branches of the subject.

According to Huffel, the foresters of this period (Louis XV and XVI)
were of superior character, and forestry in France the first in the
world; the writings of French authors were being translated into German
and studied by foreign foresters. He has to admit, however, that the
majority of these authors were not really members of the forest service.

In 1836 appeared _Parade’s_ _Cours Elémentaire de Culture des Bois_, an
excellent book, recording the teachings of Hartig and Cotta. This seems
to have been all-sufficient until 1873, at least. Such things as yield
tables are still a mere wish, when _Tassy_ wrote his _Etudes, etc._, in
1858, while _de Salomon_ a little later reproduced Cotta’s yield tables,
and to this day this needful tool of the forester is still almost
absent, at least in the literature of France. _Nanquette_, _Broillard_,
_Bagneris_, _Puton_, _Reuss_, _Boppe_, all directors or professors at
the forest school, enriched the French literature by volumes on
silviculture and forest management, and _Henry_ on soil physics. He also
translated from the German Wollny’s _Décomposition des matières
organiques_. It is claimed by _Guyot_, that a truly “French science” (!)
of forestry dates from _Broillard’s Cours d’aménagement_ in 1878.
_Demontzey’s Reboisement des montagnes_, 1882, is a classic volume. Of
more modern book literature may be mentioned three voluminous
publications, namely _Traité des arbres_ by _Mouillefert_ (1892-1898) in
3 volumes, and _Traité d’exploitation commerciale des bois_ by _Matthey_
in two volumes, and _Guyot’s_ _Cours de droit forestier_ in two
volumes. A very complete work on valuation of damage under the
misleading title _Incendies en forêt_ was published by _Jacquot_ in
1903.

But the latest and perhaps most ambitious work in the French language
and especially of intense interest from the historical point of view,
tracing not only the development of forest policies but of silvicultural
and managerial practices in France, is _G. Huffel’s_ _Economie
Forestière_ in three volumes published 1904-1907.

There should not be forgotten as among the non-professional promoters of
forest questions, _Chevandier_, a chemist and manufacturer, who, in
1844, made investigations regarding the influence of irrigation on wood
growth and on the influence of fertilizers, and in connection with
_Wertheim_, laid the foundation for timber physics.

* * * * *

One bi-weekly magazine, _Revue des Eaux et Forêts_, in existence for 50
years, the successor to the _Annales forestières_, begun in 1808,
satisfies the needs of current literature, besides the journals of
various forestry associations, among which the Bulletin de la Société de
Franche Comté et Belfort has for a long time taken a prominent rank.

A very active propagandist literary and association work has within the
last decades been inaugurated, and forestry associations of local
character abound. Among these the “Touring Club,” a sporting association
with some 16,000 members in 364 branches is active by writing out prizes
and promoting waste land planting. Through its agency some 4000 acres
had been planted by 1910, some 900 nurseries furnishing plant material.

An active Section of Silviculture in the _Société des Agriculteurs_ some
time ago absorbed the forestry association and is also doing practical
work in the direction most needed, improvement of forestry practice
among private woodland owners.

7. _Colonial Policies._

The French possess extensive colonies in Africa, Asia, America and
Oceania, covering not less than four million square miles with over 90
million people, to some of which at least they have extended some
features of their forest policy, notably in Algeria, Tunis, Indo-China
and Madagascar.

_Algeria_, which was conquered in 1828, is about four-fifths of the size
of France, but only 5.5 per cent. is forested. Besides the desert, there
are two forest regions, the northern slope, the so-called Tell, abutting
on the Mediterranean, which, with 20 per cent. forested, contains the
most valuable forests of Cork Oak, various other oaks, and Aleppo Pine;
and the high plateau to the south, a region of steppes with about 6%
forested, mostly with brushwood. The adjoining _Tunis_ also contains
some 2 million acres of forest, a part of which clothed with the
valuable Cork Oak.

Although the population does not exceed 5 million, import of wood from
Sweden and elsewhere to nearly one million dollars in amount is
necessary. The first advance of civilization led to wide-spread
destruction of the originally larger forest area; fire and pasture
being specially destructive.

Before the French occupation, the 8 million acres of forest were all, as
usual in the mussulman’s empires, the property of the sultan, but were
used like communal property by the people. By 1871, the larger portion,
some 6 million acres remained in possession of the state, much
encumbered by rights of user.

At the same time, considerable areas (some 700,000 acres) had been ceded
to communities outright, and others (1.25 million acres) had been sold
to private parties. At first, these latter lands were let for
exploitation of the cork oak on 40 year leases, later extended to 90
years with indemnities for damage by fire--an incentive to allow these
to run, until in 1870, the fire damage having become onerous, all areas
burned after 1863 were gratuitously ceded to the contractors, more than
one-third the areas involved, and the other two-thirds were then sold at
a ridiculously low price and under the easiest conditions of payment, in
the same shameful manner in which the timberlands of the United States
were given away.

In 1836, a forest administration for the state domain was inaugurated,
but the unfortunate division of powers between military and civil
authorities was a hindrance to effective improvement of conditions. The
fire ravages of 1871 led to a thorough re-organization under the
direction of Tassy, in 1873.

Nevertheless, in 1900, Lefebvre, Inspector of Forests, in his book, _Les
forêts de l’Algérie_, still complains that the forests are being ruined,
especially by pasturing, the means allowed the administration being too
niggardly measured.

The Forest Code of the home country and special laws enacted from time
to time applies. The administration of the state and communal forest is
directly under the home department and is regulated in similar manner.

A re-organization and a special forest code for Algiers was enacted in
1903. This legislation relies still largely on the general principles of
the Code of 1827. The most interesting features are the provision for
expropriation and addition to the state domain of forests the
preservation of which is of public interest, and the rigorous forest
fire legislation, which permits the treatment of incendiaries as
insurrectionists, makes the extinction of forest fires a duty of the
forest officials, and provides the forcible establishment of fire lines
(rides) between neighbors.

In the forests placed under the forestry regime, permits from the
governor-general are required for clearing. For the administration of
these properties, the state receives ten per cent. of the gross yield.
Reforested hilltops or slopes and sand dunes are relieved from taxes for
30 years, burnt areas for 10 years.

* * * * *

In the other African possessions, unregulated exploitation of the
tropical forests, largely for by-products, like caoutchouc, kola, and
fine furniture woods, is still the order of the day, except in
_Madagascar_, which with 25 to 30 million acres of tropical forest area,
was, in 1900, provided with a forest service, which is under the
Minister of Colonies. Here, a license system is in vogue, giving
concessions to exploit limited areas for a given time, at an annual rent
of less than one cent, per acre per year. The concessions run from 5 to
20 years, and on 12,500 acres or more, the time of their duration being
extended from the lowest term for one year for every 2,500 acres. Police
regulations and fines are intended to check abuses, and to regulate the
rights of user exercised by natives.

* * * * *

In _Indo-China_ (Cochin-China, Cambodia, Anam, Tonquin) the total forest
area is still unknown. Only that of Cochin-China with 2.5 million acres,
and of Cambodia with 10 million acres can be stated, and Cochin-China
seems to possess the only approach to a forest service. Although it is
estimated that in 1901 in the whole of Indo-China, with 18 million
people, some 85 million cubic feet of wood were cut (nine-tenths fire
wood) an import of over $200,000 worth of workwood from Europe was
needed.

The first attempts at regulating forest use in these Asiatic possessions
date back to 1862, when exploitation was confined to delimited areas.
The administration, however, remained inefficient, and under
impracticable and heterogeneous orders, which were issued from time to
time, devastation progressed with little hindrance.

For Cochin-China, a more definite forest policy was formulated in
1894-5, when not only the State domain but also the private forest
property was placed under the _régime forestier_. The supervision of the
private forests consists in requiring the marking of trees to be cut by
government agents, and a permit for their removal.

The State forests are of two classes: Reserves in which all cutting is
forbidden, only some 200,000 acres; and those in which licenses to cut
may operate. Such licenses are given for one year and for a price of 100
piastres. The villagers have free use of the less valuable woods, their
only obligation being to assist in protection against fire and theft.

A real forest service was not instituted until 1901 a director with four
assistants being placed in charge under the Department of Agriculture.
Until recently reports of the deplorable condition due to absence of
technical management reached the outside, but lately (1911), the
Governor-General discussing the situation not only speaks approvingly of
the forest service, which on the two million acres under its immediate
management had, by 1909, trebled the revenue, but talks of extending its
activities to planting up waste places in order to secure favorable
water conditions for irrigating lands.

The rest of the colonies are being merely exploited.

RUSSIA AND FINLAND.

_Les Forêts de la Russie, Ministère de l’Agriculture, Paris
Exposition Universelle_, 1900, pp. 190, gives a very detailed
description of forest conditions, markets and management, with a few
historic points.

_Russlands Wald_, by F. V. ARNOLD, Berlin, 1893, pp. 526, contains
historic notes and a profuse discussion of the law of 1888.

_The Industries of Russia: Agriculture and Forestry_, issued by the
Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Crown Lands, at World’s
Columbian Exposition, translated by J. M. CRAWFORD, 1893, contains a
chapter on Forestry by ROUDZSKI and SHAFRANOV, professors at the
Forest Institute, in 35 pp.

Annual reports by the Russian Forest Administration are published
since 1866.

Four diffuse volumes, by JOHN CROUMBIE BROWN, treat of Russian
conditions, namely,

_Forests and Forestry in Poland, Lithuania_, etc., 1885;
_Finland, its Forests and Forest Management_, 1883;
_Forestry and Mining districts of the Ural Mountains_, 1884;
_Forests and Forestry of Northern Russia_, 1884.

Numerous articles and Reviews by O. GUSE, scattered through the
German forestry journals, give insight into Russian forest
conditions.

An excellent idea of prevailing forestry practice can be gained from
an extended article by DR. SCHWAPPACH, _Forstliche Reisebilder aus
Russland_ in Zeitschrift für Forst- und Jagdwesen, 1902.

For Finland an article by B. ERICSON in Forstwissenschaftliches
Centralblatt, 1896, and another article by P. W. HANNIKAINEN in
Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 1892, both native foresters, give
considerable information.

_Finland: Its Public and Private Economy_, by N. C. FREDERIKSEN,
1902, 306 pp.

While Germany and France were forced into the adoption of forest
policies through necessity, after the natural woods had been largely
destroyed or devastated, Russia started upon a conservative forest
management, long before the day of absolute necessity seemed to have
arrived.

Indeed, even to-day Russia is one of the largest and increasingly
growing exporter of forest products in the world, its annual export
having grown in the five years, 1903 to 1908, from 4 to 6 million tons
and from 35 to 62 million dollars. A vast territory of untouched woods
is still at her command, representing roughly two-thirds of the forest
area of Europe.

* * * * *

The vast empire, second only to the British empire in extent, gradually
acquired since the 15th century, occupies in Europe (including Finland)
somewhat over 2 million square miles with over 120 million inhabitants,
and in Asia somewhat over 6.5 million square miles, with only 30 to 40
million people.

Until 1906, when as a result of a revolution, a kind of representative
government was secured, the hereditary Czar was ostensibly and by title
an autocrat, governing with the assistance of four great councils and 12
ministers, but in reality the government was in the hands of a
bureaucracy and court cabal, to a large extent corrupt, and hence the
many good laws and institutions of which we read, may not always be
found executed in practice as intended.

The European section of the country is divided into 98 governments or
provinces, each under a governor, who is, however, largely dependent on
the central power. The large territory of Siberia is divided into three
governor-generalships, much of it, as well as of the other Asiatic
provinces, is still unorganized, undeveloped and unexplored, or at least
little known. Originally used mainly as a penal colony for criminal and
political exiles, since the completion of the great Trans-Siberian
railway, the country has been peopled by Russian farmers.

Both European Russia and Siberia are in the main vast plains, the
former sloping northwestward from the Ural mountains in the East and
from the Caucasus in the South, and the latter from the Altai, Lyan and
Yabloni mountains north to the Arctic Ocean. Both sections exhibit in
the southern ranges the effect of continental climates, prairie and
plains country: the steppe; and in its northern ranges the effect of an
arctic climate, short hot summers and long, severe winters: tundra and
swamps.

1. _Forest Conditions and Ownership._

Both the forest area and the ownership conditions vary very much
throughout the empire. Russian statistics are very unreliable and are
based on estimates rather than enumerations, and vary from year to year.

So little is known of conditions in Asia, where Russia occupies a
territory three times as large as its European possessions, that we can
dispose of them briefly. There exists a vast forested area, almost
unknown as to its extent and contents, or value. This area is mainly
located in Siberia, and although its extent is uncertain, it is known to
exceed 700 million acres, but it is also known that its character is
very variable, and much of it is “taiga” or swamp forest, much of it
devastated, and much of it in precarious condition, fires having run and
still running over large portions, destroying it to such an extent that
in several of the provinces within the forest belt, the question of wood
supplies is even now a troublesome one. The natives are especially
reckless, and devastation difficult to control. The railroad has only
increased the evils.

Here, in Siberia, the first attempt at a management was made in 1897 in
the government forests, which are estimated at over 300 million acres;
in addition about 400 million acres have been declared reserved forests.
Not one-third, however, even of the government forests is well stocked
and less than 4 million acres are under some form of management.

In European Russia, the forest area comprises about 465 million acres,
or 36% of the land area. The population being now over 120 million
(nearly one-half escaped from serfdom only since 1861), the forest area
per capita is only about 4 acres, somewhat less than in the United
States, half of what is claimed for Sweden and Norway, although seven
times as large as that of Germany or France.

It will be seen, therefore, that Russia, although still an exporting
country, has reasons for a conservative policy, even if only the needs
of the domestic population are considered, which alone probably consumes
more than the annual increment of the whole forest area; and the
consumption is growing with the growth of civilization as appears from
the increase of wood consuming industries, which in 1877 showed a
product of 8 million dollars, in 1887, of 12½ million, in 1897, of 50
million dollars.

This assertion, that the era of over-cutting has actually arrived, may
be made in spite of the stated fact, that in the northern provinces only
two-fifths of what is supposed to be a proper felling budget, is cut and
marketed, and that other most uncertain estimates make the cut 17 cubic
feet per acre of productive forest area, and the annual growth, on
still more uncertain basis, 31 cubic feet.[9] The same reasons that
operate in the United States contribute to wasteful practices, namely
uneven distribution of forest and population.

[9] An idea of the supposed productive conditions may be gathered
from the estimates which have been made, in 1898, for the State
forests and the operations in these.

In the two northern provinces, in which the state owns nearly the
entire forest area it is estimated that 8 cubic feet per acre would
be available felling budget, but only 10 per cent. of this is
actually cut and sold. Outside of this territory the available
felling budget is calculated at 24 cubic feet per acre, but only 60
per cent. or 14 cubic feet is being cut. Altogether in 1898 there
were cut in the State forests (somewhat over 300 million acres),
1,860 million cubic feet, say 6 cubic feet per acre or 40 per cent.
of the estimated proper felling budget. The administration claims
that three-fifth of the projected felling budget is saleable. In
1906, the budget was placed at 345 million cubic feet, but only 130
million were cut.

An estimate of the cut in the communal forests with 12 cubic feet,
in the peasants holdings with 20 cubic feet, and in the private
forests with 40 cubic feet per acre, brings the total for the
country to round 10 billion cubic feet, worth round 100 million
dollars for stumpage. It is assumed that 30 cubic feet should be the
annual increment per acre, when it would appear that only 70 per
cent. of the increment is cut.

The cut in the State forests was sold for 21 million dollars (1898),
or at an average of less than 1c. per cubic foot. The highest price
paid in the Vistula district was 2.5 cents, which scales down to 1c.
in Siberia and to one-third cent. in the Caucasus. This refers to
stumpage, nearly all sales being made on the stump to wood merchants
by bids, the trees being marked in some parts, in others the area
only being designated. The transportation is almost entirely by
river. From 1883 to 1901 the net revenue from the State forests
increased from 16 to 47 million dollars, while the expenditures
dropped from 29 per cent. of the gross revenue to 18.4 per cent. The
gross result is 46 cents per acre. In 1906, the returns were $27
million, and expenses $5 million.

As in the United States the East and West are or were well wooded, with
a forestless agricultural region between, so in Russia the North and the
South (Caucasus Mountains) are well wooded, with a forestless region,
the steppe, between. This leads, as with us, to an uneconomical
exploitation of the woods, the inferior materials being wasted because
not paying for their transportation in one section, and dearth of timber
and fuelwood in the other section.

The two most northern provinces of Archangel and Vologda, in size equal
to all Germany, are wooded to the extent of 75 and 89 per cent.
respectively, and the 14 northern provinces together contain nearly
one-half the entire forest area. Here the forest covers 64 per cent. of
the land area, and nowhere below 20 per cent., and the acreage per
capita ranges from 3 to over 200.

These largely unsettled provinces are the basis of the active wood
export trade, and, as in the similarly conditioned areas of North
America, the territory is devastated by fires, which sweep again and
again over large areas without check.

Southern Russia (excepting the Caucasus), is largely prairie or steppe,
forest cover sinking below 20 per cent. on the whole, down to 2 per
cent., and less than one-half acre per capita.

Altogether, one-half the country and three-fourths of the population
are, with less than 14 per cent. of the forest area, exposed to a dearth
of timber.

* * * * *

The northern forest, the most important economic factor, is composed
largely of pure or mixed coniferous woods (74%), principally Norway
Spruce (34%) and Scotch Pine (29.5%) with only slight admixtures of
larch and fir, and more frequently White Birch. Open stand,
comparatively poor development, and slow growth, characteristic of
northern climate, reduce its productive capacity, while frequent bogs
and other natural waste places outside of those produced by
mismanagement reduce its productive area by not less than 20 per cent.

Toward the south, deciduous species are more frequent, oak finally
becoming the prevailing timber and forming forests, with beech, maple,
ash and elm as admixtures. As the plains are approached pure deciduous
forest indicates the change of climate. The forest of the Caucasus is
principally of coniferous composition.

* * * * *

There are six classes of forest property: the government domain; the
apanage or imperial family (crown) forests; private forests; peasant or
communal forests; institute or corporation forests; and forests of mixed
ownership in which government and private owners participate.

The larger part of the forest area of European Russia is in control of
the Crown or State, namely, nearly 278 million acres, or a little less
than two-thirds of the whole, and a similar amount in Asia, besides the
so-called apanage forests of 14 million acres set aside for the support
of the court. Especially the northern forest is in government control,
in some governments (Archangel) the entire area; 67% of the domain
forest lies in the two governments of Archangel and Wologda.

In the less wooded districts State property, is insignificant. The area
under government control in Europe and Asia is estimated in the official
report for 1908 at around 957 million acres. This is, however, not the
exclusive property of the State; only about 260 million acres are so
claimed, the larger balance includes 170 million acres which are to be
apportioned to the liberated peasants, 200 million acres in which the
government is only part owner, or the ownership is in dispute; and the
rest is only temporarily placed under the management or surveillance of
the administration. Yet, 60% in Europe and 13% in Asia is exclusive
State property. In 1907, the area in Europe under working plans of the
Forest Administration, however, was only 48 million acres, 86 million
having been examined for working plans. Of the State property in Europe
34% is spruce forest, 30% pine, and 26% mixed conifer forest; altogether
88% of coniferous timber. The Asiatic area is also over 80 per cent.
coniferous.

The apanage or crown forests, the yield of which goes toward maintenance
of the imperial family, comprise about 16 million acres, or 3.4%.
Private forest property to the extent of over 100 million acres (23%) is
most developed in the Baltic provinces and along the Vistula. Mining
corporations and other institutes own about 7 million acres.

The peasants, who until 1861 were mere serfs and had no ownership of any
kind, being supplied with their necessities by the landed proprietors,
still largely supply themselves in the northern provinces by the
exercise of rights of user from the public domain on designated areas.
In the central and southern provinces, farm and forest land, the latter
to the extent of nearly 40 million acres, were given to them in communal
ownership. As stated above, about 170 million acres classed as
government domain still awaits partition and cession to the peasants.

2. _Development of Forest Policy._

The first record of attention to the woods as a special property dates
from Michael, the founder, and Alexis, the second of the house of
Romanoff, the former becoming Czar in 1613, the latter in 1645. He it
was who began to introduce Western civilization. He confined himself,
however, to regulating property rights, which up to that time had
remained somewhat undefined, the forest, as elsewhere, being considered
more or less public property. He issued deeds of ownership, or at least
granted exclusive rights to the use of forests, somewhat similar as was
done in the banforests. Soldiers alone were permitted to help
themselves, even in private forests, to the wood they required.
Protection against theft and fire was also provided.

The peasants, being serfs, were bound to the glebe, and had, of course,
no property rights, being maintained by the bounty of the seigneurs.

Alexis’ successor, the far-seeing Peter the Great, who in his travels in
Germany and other European countries had, no doubt, been imbued with
ideas of conservatism, inaugurated in the end of the 17th and beginning
of the 18th century a far-reaching restrictive policy, which had two
objects in view, namely economic use of wood, which he had learned to
appreciate while playing carpenter in Amsterdam, and preservation of
ship timber, which his desire to build up a navy dictated. All forests
for 35 miles alongside of rivers were declared in ban, and placed under
the supervision of the newly organized Administration of Crown forests.
In these banforests, the felling of timbers fit for ship building was
forbidden. Minute regulations as to the proper use of wood for the
purposes for which it was most fit were prescribed, and the use of the
saw instead of the axe was ordered. These rules were to prevail in all
forests, with a few exceptions, and penalties were to be exacted for
contraventions.

This good beginning experienced a short setback under Catherine I
(1725), Peter’s wife, who, influenced by her minister, Menshikoff,
abolished the forest administration and the penalties, and reduced the
number and size of banforests. But the entire legislation was re-enacted
within three years after Catherine’s death (1727) under Anna Ivanovna’s
reign, and many new prescriptions for the proper use of wood were added
and additional penalties enforced.

At this time, under the influence of a German “forest expert,” _Fokel_,
the increase of forest area by sowing oak, etc., in the poorly wooded
districts, was also inaugurated; and this planting was made obligatory,
not only on the administration of crown forests, but also upon private
owners, who in case of default were to lose their land and have it
reforested by the forest administration. To Fokel’s initiative is also
to be credited the celebrated larch forest on the Gulf of Finland.

These restrictions of private rights and the tutelage exercised by the
forest administration were abolished _in toto_ by Catherine II, in 1788,
and although it was reported by the admiralty, concerned in the supply
of shipbuilding materials, that as a consequence the cutting,
especially of oak timber, was proceeding rapidly, no new restrictive,
but rather an ameliorative policy was attempted, such as, for instance,
the offering of prizes for plantations in certain localities by the
provincial governors.

Upon the abolishment of the serfdom of the peasants, under Alexander II,
in 1863, lands, both farm and woodlands, were allotted to them, and in
this partition, in some parts as much as 25 to 50% of this forest
property was handed over to them. Immediately a general slaughtering,
both by peasants and by the private owners, who had suffered by losing
the services of the serfs, was inaugurated, leading to wholesale
devastation.

Servitudes or rights of user also prevailed in some districts and proved
extremely destructive.

By 1864, complaints in regard to forest devastation had become so
frequent that a movement for reform was begun by the Czar, which led to
the promulgation of a law in 1867, followed by a number of others during
the next decade, designed to remedy the evils. This was to be done by
restricting the acreage that might be felled, by forbidding clearings,
and by giving premiums for good management and plantations. Finally, in
1875, a special commission was charged with the elaboration of a general
order which, after years of hearing of testimony and of deliberation,
was promulgated in 1888, a comprehensive law for the conservation of
forests, private and otherwise, which in many respects resembles the
French, in other respects the Swedish conservation laws.

The devastation and its evil consequences on waterflow and soil
conditions had been especially felt in the southern districts adjoining
the steppe, and these experiences were the immediate cause for the
enactment of the law, which, however, was framed to apply conditionally
to the entire European Russia.

The law makes an interesting distinction between “protective,”
“protected” and non-protective, or unprotected forests, as well as
between different ownership classes, and it makes distinction of four
regions as to the extent of its application. In the far northern
governments, densely forested (60%) and thinly populated, only the
protective forests are under the operations of the law. In the Caucasus
also, none of the restrictions of private property except in protective
and communal peasant forests are to apply, perhaps because the forest
area (averaging not over 17%) is there largely owned by members of the
imperial house and by nobles. In certain districts adjoining the
northern zone (with 37% forest) also only the last two classes of
forest, namely protective and communal properties, with institute
forests added, are subject to the provisions of the law. The rest, a
territory of over one million square miles with only 12% in forest, is
subject to all the provisions of the law, which is remarkably democratic
in treating State, imperial and private forests alike.

This law declares as “protective forests,” to be managed under special
plans prescribed by the Crown forest department, those forest areas
which protect shifting sands and dunes, the shores of rivers, canals
and other waters; and those on the slopes of mountains, where they serve
to prevent erosion, landslides and avalanches.

Conversion of these protective forests to farm use is forbidden, and the
use of a clearing system in forest management, as well as pasturage and
other uses supposed to be detrimental, may be interdicted, and the
method of management may be prescribed. An instruction regarding the
execution of the law promulgated in 1889 prohibited clear cutting in
conifer forests, permitting only selection forest, and in especially
endangered localities only the use of the dry wood and such trees as
interfere with natural reproduction.

“Protected” forests are those which are located at the head waters and
upper reaches of streams and their affluents. Here the rules as regards
clearing, mismanagement, reforestation and pasture applicable to the
non-protective forests, prevail, except that clearing may be prohibited
or permitted, if the committee deems it not dangerous owing to the small
size of the clearing.

In forests, which are not protective forests, conversion into farms or
clearing with the sanction of the committee is permitted, if thereby the
estate is improved, _e.g._, if the soil is fit for orchards and
vineyards. Such clearing may also be allowed if the soil is fit for
temporary field use, but in that case the area must be eventually
reforested. Clearing is also permitted, if another formerly farmed
parcel of the same size has been reforested at least three years prior
to the proposed clearing; or if in artificial plantations the growth is
not yet 20 years old; also in a few special cases where property
boundaries are to be rounded off, roads to be located, etc. If after six
months from the time of the application the committee has not forbidden
the clearing, it is considered as permitted. It is also forbidden to
make fellings which prevent natural regeneration, and the running of
cattle in young growth is prohibited. Private owners are not required,
but are permitted, to submit working plans, and if these are accepted,
they are exempted from any other restrictions. Such plans may be
considered as accepted if the committee does not express itself within
one year. All clearings made in contravention to the committee’s
decision must be replanted within a prescribed time or may be forcibly
reforested by the committee.

The most interesting feature, because thoroughly democratic, is the
creation of the local forest protection committees, which are formed in
each province and district, composed of various representatives of the
local administration, one or two foresters included, the justice of the
peace or other justice, the county council and two elected forest
owners, in all nine to eleven members, under the presidency of the
governor.

This committee is vested with large powers. It decides, without appeal,
what areas are included in protective forests and approves of the
working plans for these as well as for the unreserved forests; it
determines what clearings may be made, and exercises wide police powers
with reference to all forest matters working in co-operation with the
Forest Administration, which latter has the duty of making working
plans free of charge for the reserved forests, and, at the expense of
the owner for the private unreserved forests. Owners of the latter are,
however, at liberty to prepare their own plans subject to approval.
Appeal from decisions of the Forest Committees lies through the
Committee to the Minister of Crown lands and Minister of the Interior.

In case the owner refuses to incur the extra expense arising from
measures imposed upon him, the domain ministry may expropriate him, but
the owner may recover within 10 years by paying costs with 6% interest
in addition to the sale price. In addition to the above cited and other
restrictive measures, some ameliorative provisions are also found. All
protective forests are free from taxes forever; those artificially
planted also for 30 years.

Some of the best forest officials are detailed to give advice
gratuitously to forest owners (forest revisor--instructors) and prizes
are given for the best results of silvicultural operations. At the
recommendation of the Forest Committees, medals or money rewards or
other distinctions are given to the forest guards and forest managers of
private as well as public forests. Plant material is distributed free or
at cost price, and working plans for protective forests are made free of
charge.

The Imperial Loan Bank advances long term loans on forests, based upon
detailed working plans made by the State, which insure a conservative
management. In 1900, over 7,000,000 acres were in this way mortgaged
under such management.

The minutest details are elaborated in the instructions for the
execution of this most comprehensive law. How far this law is really
executed and what its results so far have been, it would be difficult to
ascertain. It is, however, believed that it has worked satisfactorily.
By 1900, 1.5 million acres had been declared protection forests, nearly
2 million protected or river forests, and nearly 100 million private and
communal forests had been placed under the regime. In 1907, the total
area under the regime had grown to over 136 million acres. Of private
forests, 18 million acres in 6015 forests were being managed according
to working plans made or approved by the forest committees. In these
plans, usually, the strip system or seed tree system with natural
regeneration under 60 year rotation for conifers, and at least 30 year
rotation for broadleaf forest, is provided.

In 1903, the application of the law was extended to the Caucasus, the
Trans-caucasian and other southern provinces, but in the absence of
suitable personnel and in a half civilized country, no result for the
immediate future may be anticipated.

The surveillance of the execution of this law lies, with the assistance
of the Forest Committees, in the hands of the State Forest
Administration.

This latter, centralized in the Department of Agriculture, consists of a
Director General with two Vice-Directors and a so-called bureau of
forests with seven division chiefs, a number of vice-inspectors and
assistants. The local administration in the governments is represented
by the Direction of Crown lands with a superintendent or supervisor and
several inspectors. The crown forests, divided into some 1260
administrative units, are under the administration of superintendents,
with foresters and guards of several degrees.

The whole service comprised, in 1908, about 3790 higher officials, some
850 of whom in the central office at St. Petersburg, and over 30,000
lower officials some 20,000 of whom are educated underforesters.

Large as this force appears to be, it is small in comparison with the
acreage, and inadequate. Although the net income from the 300 million
acres of State forest which are actually worked is now close to thirty
million dollars, the expenditures being near 6 million, the pay of the
officials is such as to almost force them to find means of subsistence
at the cost of their charges. Perhaps nowhere else is there so much
machinery and so much regulation with so little execution in practice.
Nevertheless, progress is being made in gradually improving matters, and
the forest property, or at least the cut, has become more and more
valuable. While in the middle of the last century the income from the
domain forest was only $500,000, by 1892 it had grown to $10,000,000, by
1901 to $23,000,000, in 1908 to nearly $30,000,000, besides several
million dollars’ worth of free wood. In 1908, the department spent over
half a million dollars on planting and assisting natural regeneration.
Timber is sold as a rule to contractors by the tree or acre, and a
diameter limit is almost the only restriction. In 1897, however, an
arrangement was made by which the lumberman was obliged to reforest, or
at least to pay a certain tax into a planting fund, and a part payment
of $2 to $4 per acre as guarantee must be made before cutting. This
order has, however, remained mostly a dead letter, the buyer preferring
to allow his guarantee to lapse. In 1906, there stood $3,000,000 to the
credit of this planting fund, and only half of it had been applied.
Meanwhile the unplanted area increases, since natural regeneration
generally proves a failure.

3. _Education and Literature._

The attempts at forestry education date back to the year 1732 when a
number of foresters were imported from Germany to take charge of the
forest management as well as of the education of foresters, each
forstmeister having six pupils assigned to him. This method failing to
produce results, the interest in ship timber suggested a course in
forestry at the Naval Academy, which was instituted in 1800. Soon the
need of a larger number of educated foresters led to the establishment
of several separate forest schools, one at Zarskoye Selo (near St.
Petersburg) in 1803, another at Kozlovsk in 1805, and a third at St.
Petersburg in 1808. This latter under the name of the Forest Institute
absorbed the other two, and from 1813 has continued to exist through
many vicissitudes. Now, with 15 professors and instructors and an
expenditure of nearly $250,000, and over 500 students, it is the largest
forest school in the world. It prepares in a four years’ course for the
higher positions in the forest service. “The history of this Forest
Institute is practically the history of forestry in Russia.”

A second school at Novo-Alexandria, near Warsaw, was instituted in 1860.
In these schools, as in the methods of management, German influence is
everywhere visible.

In addition to these schools, chairs of forestry were instituted in the
Petrovsk School of Rural Economy in Moskau and in the Riga Polytechnic
Institute, and also in seven intermediate schools of rural economy.

In 1888, ten secondary schools were established after Austrian pattern
for the lower or middle service, rangers and underforesters; their
number, by 1900, having been increased to 30 and, in 1908, to 33, with
460 students. These are boarding schools in the woods, where a certain
number of the students are taught free of charge, the maximum number of
those admitted being 10 to 20 at each school. The course is of two
years’ duration, and is mainly directed to practical work and
theoretical study in silviculture. The total expense of such a school is
about $3,300, of which the State contributes $2,500, the total
expenditure, in 1908, being $84,134.

A number of experiment stations were established in various parts of the
country by the Administration of Crownlands, and a very considerable and
advanced literature testifies to the good education and activity of the
higher forest service.

Two forestry journals, _Lesnoj Journal_ (since 1870) and
_Lessopromychlenny Vestnik_, the first bi-monthly, the latter weekly,
besides several lesser ones, keep the profession informed.

There are in existence several general societies for the encouragement
of silviculture. Probably the oldest, which ceased to exist in 1850,
was the Imperial Russian Society for the Advancement of Forestry which
was founded in 1832. It published a magazine and provided translations
of foreign books, among which the Forest Mathematics of the noted German
forester König, who also prepared yield tables for the Society. (See p.
135.) A society of professional foresters was founded at St. Petersburg
in 1871, another exists in Moscow, and recently two associations for the
development of forest planting in the steppes have been formed.

* * * * *

Among the prominent writers and practitioners there should be especially
mentioned _Theodor Karlowitsch Arnold_, who is recognized as the father
of Russian forestry. He was the soul of the forest organization work,
for which he drew up the instructions in 1845, and as professor,
afterwards director, of the Institute for Agronomy and Forestry at
Moscow since 1857, he became the teacher of most of the present
practitioners. Finally he became the head of the forest department in
the Ministry of Apanages where he remained until his death in 1902. He
is the author of several classical works on silviculture, forest
mensuration, forest management, etc., and, in conjunction with _Dr. W.
A. Tichonoff_, published an encyclopædic work in three volumes. In the
first volume, _Russland’s Wald_ (1890), which has been translated into
German, the author makes an extended plea for improved forestry practice
and describes and argues at length the provisions of the law of 1888. In
1895, he published a history of forestry in Germany, France and Russia.
Of other prominent foresters who have advanced forestry in Russia we may
cite _Count Vargaci de Bedemar_, who made the first attempt to prepare
Russian growth and yield tables in 1840 to 1850.

_Professor A. F. Rudzsky_, who was active at the Forest Institute until
a few years ago, developed in his volumes especially the mathematical
branches and methods of forest organization. The names of _Tursky_,
_Kravchinsky_ and _Kaigodorov_ are known to Russian students of
dendrology and silviculture, and among the younger generation the names
of _Morozov_, _Nestorov_, _Orlov_, and _Tolsky_ may be mentioned.

It is well known how prominent Russian investigators have become in the
natural sciences, and to foresters the work of the soil physicists,
_Otozky_ and _Dokuchaev_ would at least be familiar.

4. _Forestry Practice._

While then a very considerable activity in scientific direction exists,
the practical application of forestry principles is less developed than
one would expect, especially in view of the stringent laws. So far not
much more than conservative lumbering is the rule.

Generally speaking, the State and crown forests are better managed than
the private, many of which are being merely exploited; and in the
northern departments large areas remain still inaccessible.

Some notable exceptions to the general mismanagement of private forests
are furnished by some of those owned by the nobility, like those of
Count Uwaroff with 150,000 acres under model management by a German
forester, and of Count Strogonoff with over 1,000,000 acres under
first-class organization with a staff of over 230 persons.

A regular forest organization was first attempted in the forests
attached to iron furnace properties in 1840. By this time some 100
million acres have come under regulated management, half of the area
being government forests. The method of regulation employed is that of
area division and sometimes area allotment according to Cotta. In some
regions a division by rides into compartments, ranging from 60 to 4,000
acres each, according to intensity of exploitation, has been effected.
It is estimated that at the present rate of progress it would take 300
years to complete the work of organization.

The selection method is still largely employed, a felling budget by
number of trees and volume being determined in the incompletely
organized areas; while a clearing system with artificial reforestation
is used in most cases where a complete yield calculation has been made.
The rotations employed are from 60 to 100 years for timber forest, 30 to
60 years for coppice.

In the pineries, the strip system in echelons is mostly in vogue, the
strips being made 108 feet wide, leaving four seed trees per acre, and
on the last strip, which is left standing for five years, this number is
increased to eight which are left as overholders. This method, according
to some, seems to secure satisfactory reproduction. To get rid of
undesirable species, especially aspen and birch, these are girdled. In
spruce forest, 50 to 60 per cent. of the trees are left in the fellings,
when after three to four years the natural regeneration requires often
repair, which is done if at all by bunch planting; after eight to ten
years the balance of the old growth is removed.

While for a long time natural regeneration was alone relied upon, now,
at least, artificial assistance is more and more frequently practiced.
Yet, although over 2 million acres were under clearing system, not more
than 5% of the revenue, or $100,000, was in 1898 allowed for planting as
against 7.5% in Prussia; the total budget of expenses then remaining
below 3 million dollars.

But, ten years later, over half a million dollars was employed by the
government in planting, the planting fund contributed by the lumberman
(see p. 269) furnishing the means.

* * * * *

The forest administration of the province of Poland, where the State
owns over 1.5 million acres was for some time independent, but, about
1875, was reorganized and placed under the central bureau at St.
Petersburg. Although the forests of Poland are the most lucrative to the
government and, with good market and high prices for wood, which are now
rapidly increasing, would allow of intensive management, the stinginess
of the administration, the low moral tone of the personnel, and long
established bad practice have retarded the introduction of better
methods. The private forests of Poland comprise over 4.5 million acres,
and are mostly not much better treated than the State forest; in the
absence of any restrictive policy they have diminished by 25% in the
last 20 years.

Considerable efforts have been made towards reforesting the steppes in
southern Russia, first as in our own prairies and plains by private
endeavor, but lately with more and more direct assistance of the State
forest administration.

This planting was begun by German colonists at the end of the 18th
century, but without encouraging results, although over 25,000 acres had
been planted by the middle of the 19th century. Since 1843, the
government has had two experimental forest reserves in the steppes of
the governments of Ekaterinoslav and Tauride, on which some 10,000 acres
have been planted; the originator of this work being _von Graff_, a
German forester, whose plantations, made with 8,000 plants to the acre,
are still the best. Later, the number of plants was reduced to one-half,
and the results have not been satisfactory. Altogether, planting on
large areas on soils unfit for the purpose and by wrong methods has
produced poor results. At present the policy is not to create large
bodies of forest, but to plant small strips of 20 to 80 yards square in
regular distribution, which are to serve as windbreaks, and the result
has been satisfactory, especially in the government of Samara. There are
now annually 2,000 acres added to these plantations.

The reclamation of shifting sands and sand dunes has also received
considerable attention and, to some extent, the reboisement of mountain
slopes in the Crimea and Caucasus. Of the former, some 10 million acres
are in existence in European Russia, and in the province of Woronesh
alone each year 100,000 acres are added. For 50 years sporadical work in
their recovery was done. Not until 1891 and 1892, when two droughty
famine years had led to an investigation of agricultural conditions, was
a systematic attempt proposed, and this was begun in 1897. By 1902, some
80,000 acres had been fixed, and by 1904, 150,000 acres. In this work
the government contributes 36% of the cost, the benefited communities
the balance. In addition, 1,500 square miles of swamps in Western Russia
were reclaimed by extensive canals and recovered with meadow and forest
at a cost of $300,000, of which the Imperial Treasury paid one-third,
the owners one-half, the local government the balance.

While rational forest management, as we have seen, is far from being
generally established, the government tries at least to prevent waste
and to pave the way from exploitation to regulated management.

FINLAND.

The Grand Duchy of Finland in the northeast of Russia is still in some
respects independent of Russia.

Finland, the “land of a thousand lakes” and of most extensive forests,
is hardly less important as a wood producer than Russia itself; its wood
exports amounting at present to around 200 million cubic feet and over
25 million dollars in value, represent over 50 per cent. of its trade,
and its most important resource.

Settled in the 7th century by an Aryan tribe, the Finns, congeners of
the Magyars, who subdued the aboriginal Laplanders, Finland became by
conquest in the 12th century, and remained for 500 years, a province of
Sweden. In the wars between Sweden and Russia; parts of this province
were conquered by Russia, and finally, in 1809, Sweden lost the whole;
but the Finns succeeded in preserving national unity and partial
independence under a constitution, adopted in 1772 and recognized by the
Czar.

Finland stands very much in the same relation to Russia as does Hungary
to Austria, the union being merely a personal one: the Czar is the ruler
or Grand Duke, but the administration is otherwise largely separate from
that of the empire, under a Governor-General, appointed by the Czar, and
a Senate of 18 members at Helsingfors, with a national parliament of the
four estates, nobles, clergy, burgers, peasants, which convenes every
five years; the Czar having the veto power over its legislation. The War
Department of Russia, however, is in charge of military affairs, and
other departments seem to be under more or less supervision of the
Russian administration. Lately repressive measures are threatening or
have nearly accomplished the destruction of this autonomy.

Of the 145,000 square miles of territory, nearly 50% is occupied by
lakes and bogs, marshes or tundra; less than 9 million acres (9.7%) is
in farms, and 37.5 million acres or 42%, is forestland, actual or
potential; The major part of this is located in the northern and eastern
sections, where the population is scanty, agriculture little developed,
and sand soils prevail. Beyond the 69th degree, forest growth ceases,
and naturally near the forest limit the scrubby growth partakes of the
character of all northern forests. Not more than 2.5 million acres,
mostly in the southwestern sections, are actually under cultivation; the
population being short of 2.5 million.

The rigorous climate makes a large consumption of fuelwood necessary,
and, since houses are also mostly built of wood, the home consumption is
over 32 cubic feet per capita. Over 10 million cubic feet of pine are
consumed in making tar, and a like amount for paper pulp. The total cut
is in the neighborhood of 370 million cubic feet, four-fifth of which
comes from private forests of the middle and southern area, and over
one-third of it is being exported.

The country generally is a tableland with occasional low hills. The
forest consists principally of pine, the latter a variety of the Scotch
Pine (or species?), called Riga Pine which excels in straightness of
bole and thrifty growth, and of spruce (10 per cent. of the whole,
mainly in the southeast). Aspen, alder and birch, especially the latter,
are considered undesirable weeds, and fire is used to get rid of them
where coniferous aftergrowth is desired, although birch is also employed
for fuel, bobbins and furniture, and aspen for matches. Basswood, maple,
elm, ash and some oak occur, and larch (_Larix sibirica_) was introduced
some 150 years ago.

Long, severe winters and hot, dry summers produce slow growth, the pine
in the north requiring 200 to 250 years, in the middle sections 140 to
160 years to grow to merchantable size.

Fires, used in clearing, have from time to time run over large areas and
have nearly killed out the spruce except in the lowlands, but the pine
being more resistant has increased its area and in spite of the
deterioration of the soil by fire reproduces well.

* * * * *

Originally the forest was communal property, but in 1524, Gustav Vasa
declared all forest and water not specially occupied to belong to “God,
King and the Swedish Crown,” although he allowed the usufruct to the
people free of charge or nearly so. These rights of user are still the
bane of the forest administration. Being left without supervision it
mattered little who owned the land, the forest was ruthlessly exploited.
Later, the rights of user thus originating were bought off by ceding
lands to the peasants.

Not until 1851 did an improvement in these conditions occur when a
provisional administration of the State forests was provided in
connection with the Land Survey; but a rational organization
materialized only after an eminent German forester, v. Berg, Director of
the forest school of Tharandt, had been imported (1858) to effect a
reconstruction. His advice was, however, only partially followed, and
the organization was not perfected until 1869.

Almost immediately, a powerful opposition to the administration
developed, because it could not at once show increased profits, and the
personnel which had been scanty enough, was still further reduced, the
large districts into which the State property had been divided were
still further enlarged, and to this day, improvement in these respects
has been only partial.

The State forest area, situated mainly in the north is stated as between
35 and 45 million acres (variable because of clearing for farms and new
settlements), but it contains about 15 million acres of bogs and moors
and much other waste land, which reduces the productive forest area to
about 12 million acres (35%), leaving 65% of the productive forest area
to private ownership.

This State forest was divided (1896) into 53 districts, the districts
being aggregated into 8 inspections, and the whole service placed under
a central office with a forest director and 5 assistants under immediate
control of the Senate. The forest guards numbered 750, their ranges
averaging 50,000 acres, while the districts average 600,000 acres and
several contain as high as 2.5 million acres; the Forstmeister in charge
may live sometimes 200 miles from the nearest town and 60 miles from the
nearest road. His function is mainly to protect the property, to
supervise the cutting and sales, and to teach the people the need of
conservative methods. In spite of this insufficient service,
considerable reduction in forest fires and theft has been attained.

Beyond restriction of waste by axe and fire, and conservative lumbering
of the State forest, positive measures for reproduction have hardly yet
been introduced, both personnel and wood values being insufficient for
more intensive management.

At present, with a cut hardly exceeding 100 million cubic feet, the
revenue is still almost nominal, say $600,000, and hardly the annual
growth is cut.

* * * * *

Selection forest is, of course, the rule, but since no trees are marked
and cut less than 10 inch diameter at 25 feet from the ground (!), at
least the possibility for improved management will not be destroyed
when, through the exhaustion of the private forests and increased wood
prices, more intensive management has become practicable.

When the market is good, a clearing system with 100 to 160 year rotation
is practised; on the clearings about 20 seed trees are left, and after 6
years the natural regeneration is repaired by planting.

This latter method is especially prescribed on the government farms.
These form an interesting part of the State property, some 900 small
farms with woodlots aggregating over 500,000 acres, mostly in the
southern districts. These came into existence in the 17th and 18th
centuries, being granted as fiefs to officers of the army as their only
compensation. They reverted to the State and are rented for terms of 50
years upon condition that the woods are to be managed according to rules
laid down by the State department; and special inspectors are provided
to supervise this work. This system, in vogue since 1863, at first met
with opposition on the part of the renters on account of the impractical
propositions of the department. At present the department manages many
of these woodlots directly, as well as those which the clergy have
received in lieu of emoluments.

Since 1883, a corps of forest surveyors has been occupied in making
working plans based upon diameter accretion at the curiously selected
height of 25 feet from the ground. A commission was also instituted some
years ago to segregate forest and farm soils in the State domain with a
view of disposing of the latter preparatory to improved management of
the remaining forest area.

The State has also in a small way begun to purchase absolute forest
soils in the southern provinces with a view to reforestation.

The private forest areas, located in the more settled southern portions
are found mostly in small parcels and in peasants’ hands, although the
nobility also owns some forest properties, but the size of single
holdings rarely exceeds 1,000 acres. These areas are mostly exploited
without regard to the future, furnishing still four-fifths of the large
export, and according to competent judges will soon be exhausted.

Although attempts have been made from time to time to restrict the use
of private forest, practically little has been accomplished, and such
restrictions as have been enacted are hardly enforced.

A law, enacted in 1886, forbids clearing along waters adapted to
fishing, and orders the leaving of seed trees or “providing otherwise
for regeneration,” if more than 12 acres are cut at one time.

The method of utilizing the ground for combined forest and farm use,
which is still frequently practised, was forbidden on the light sandy
soils of the pineries, or was otherwise regulated. Forest fire laws are
also on the statutes.

Propositions for further restrictions, made in 1891, were promptly
rejected by the parliament.

* * * * *

Educational opportunities are offered in the Forest Institute at Evois,
first established in 1862 as a result of v. Berg’s visit, and
re-organized in 1874. It accepts new students only every second year for
the two years’ course. It has had a precarious existence, being left
sometimes without students, and is naturally not of a high grade,
practical acquaintance with woodswork being its main aim.

Since 1876, a school for forest guards and private underforesters has
been in existence, where 6 students are annually accepted for a two
years’ course.

In addition there are two instructors provided by the government,
wandering teachers who are to advise private owners. Premiums are paid
for the best managed woodlots on the government farms.

The Finnish forestry association, which is in part of propagandist
nature, was organized in 1877. It supplies, besides an annual report,
other forestry literature, and employs an experienced planter to direct
efforts at reforestation.

A forestry journal (quarterly) is also published, and a professional
literature is beginning to start into existence.

* * * * *

It may be of interest in this connection to cite a rough calculation
made by Dr. Mayr of the available material in European Russia and
Finland combined, which he places at 4,500 million cubic feet, and of
which he considers one-half available for export.

It is impossible to prognosticate what position Russia and Finland,
together the largest wood producers in Europe, will take in the future
world commerce, and how rapidly better practices, for which the
machinery is already half started, will become generally adopted. At
present, especially in Russia proper, the general corruption of the
bureaucracy is an almost insurmountable obstacle to improvement.

THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

In the English language the _Report on Forestry in Sweden_, by Gen.
C. C. ANDREWS, U. S. Minister at Stockholm, 1872, revised 1900, 35
pp., gives a statement of present conditions with historical notes.

A very good idea in detail of the wood trade of Sweden may be
obtained from _The Wood Industries of Sweden_, published by TIMBER
TRADES JOURNAL of London in 1896.

_La Suède, son Peuple et son industrie_, by G. SUNDBARG, 1900, 2
vols., contains several pertinent chapters. It is an official work,
very complete, and was translated into English in 1904.

_The Economic History of the Swedish Forest_, by GUNNAR SCHOTTE,
1905. 32 pp., in Swedish, published by the forestry association,
gives a brief account of conditions and data of the forestry
movement.

_Norway._ Official publication for the Paris Exposition, 1900,
contains a chapter on Forestry by K. A. Fauchald, pp. 322-350, with
a map of forest distribution.

_Skogsvaesenets Historie_ ved Skogs direktoren, I Del, Historik,
1909, is an official publication of the Norwegian Forest
administration, giving a full account of the development during the
50 years from 1857 to 1907, with notes of the earlier history.

_Le Danemarc. Etat Actuel de sa civilization et de son organization
sociale_, by J. CARLSEN, H. OLRIC and C. N. STARCKE, 1900, 714 pp.

_Denmark, its history and topography, etc._, by H. WEITEMEYER, 1891.

_Bidrag til det Danske Skovbrugs Historie_, by O. LÜTKEN, 1900, was
not accessible to the writer.

Extensive notes are found through the German, Austrian and French
forestry journals. Especially an article in the Centralblatt für das
gesammte Forstwesen, 1905 (briefed in Forestry Quarterly, vol. III,
p. 292) and another (briefed in same Quarterly, vol. IX, p. 45)
gives extended accounts of forest conditions in Sweden.

Under the name of Scandinavian States we may comprise the countries of
Sweden, Norway and Denmark, which were settled by the same group of
German tribes, the so-called Norsemen; they originally spoke the same
language, which only later became more or less differentiated. The
settlement of the country by these tribes seems to have been
accomplished in the main by the end of the 8th century; and the
separation into the three several kingdoms in the ninth to twelfth
centuries, during which time they were sometimes united, or at least
under one ruler, sometimes at war with each other, and always torn by
interior dissensions bordering on anarchy.

In 1397, by the Calmar convention, a more permanent union into one
kingdom was effected between Sweden, Norway, and Denmark under Margaret,
“the Semiramis of the North.” After another period of variable fortunes,
Sweden, about 1523, became an independent constitutional monarchy under
Gustav Vasa, and Norway remained joined to Denmark under Frederick I.

Sweden then started on a career of conquest, being almost continuously
at war with all her neighbors and especially with Russia and Poland,
whereby, especially under Gustavus Adolphus and the adventurous Charles
XII, her territory was greatly enlarged. With the treaties of Stockholm
and Nystadt (1720 and 1721) she came into more peaceful waters, but
permanent peace and a settled policy was not attained until the election
of Bernadotte, one of Napoleon’s administrators, to the kingship, and by
the peace of Kiel, in 1814, Sweden became a constitutional hereditary
monarchy in the modern sense. At the same time, Norway was taken away
from Denmark and forced to a union with Sweden, which persisted until
1907, when a peaceful separation took place by the action of the
Norwegian people. The union has always been hateful to the Norwegians,
although only the king and the department of foreign affairs (in which
Norway was represented by a delegation from its Council) were in common,
all other matters of administration being separate as well as the
parliaments (Storthing in Norway, and Riksdag in Sweden).

Denmark, powerful in the 11th century under Canute, who subjugated not
only Norway but England, losing both these countries shortly after his
death, was shorn by Sweden of much of its territory in the 17th century,
and, in 1814, was separated from Norway. Originally an elective
monarchy, largely dominated by the nobility, the crown in 1661 became
hereditary and absolute, and Sweden did not become a constitutional
monarchy until 1849.

SWEDEN.

This country is of greatest interest to the world at large in forestry
matters, because it has been until lately the largest exporter of wood
and has only just fully waked up to its need for a conservative forest
management: the law of 1903 promises to bring about very decided
changes, and to curtail the exports upon which other European nations so
much rely.

Sweden, with 172,876 square miles, occupies the eastern two-thirds of
the Scandinavian peninsula. It is not like Norway, a mountain country,
but the greater part consists of low granitic hills. The mountain range
(Koelen) which forms the boundary towards Norway falls off in a long
slope towards the gulf of Bothnia and the Baltic sea, the coast being a
broad level plain, with a series of islands, larger or smaller, girdling
the outer coast line and forming an archipelago.

The country is cut into numerous water sheds, the many rivers (called
elfs), furnishing means of transportation, expanding frequently into
lakes (sjö) in the upper reaches, and falling with cataracts into the
lower plain, giving rise to fine water powers. Eight per cent. of the
total area is in lakes. Only 12 per cent. of the land area is in farms.
The forest area, with nearly 50 million acres, occupies nearly 48 per
cent., leaving 40 per cent. waste land or otherwise occupied.

Half of the population of over 5 million pursues agriculture, while iron
manufacture and the lumber industry occupy one-quarter.

Of the three main divisions of the country, the southern, Götaland, is
richest in lowlands and agricultural soils, and, as it has also a
favorable maritime climate, farming is the main industry. Here, a
population of 50 to 60, and in parts up to 190 per square mile is found.
Beech and oak are here the principal trees, with spruce occasionally
intermixed.

In the central part, Svealand or Sweden proper, the forest region
begins, with pine and spruce, pure or in mixture, covering the granite
hills and plateau; birch and other hardwoods, oak, beech, elm, basswood
and aspen being found in the river valleys; but the third division,
Norrland, is the forest region of commercial importance, the seat of the
extensive export trade. It is a vast, almost unbroken forest country,
with hardly more than 3 people to the square mile, in the northernmost
part, called Lapland, Laps and Finns forming a not inconsiderable part
of the population. Pine and spruce are the timber trees, with White
Birch intermixed. Towards the northern boundary the pine increases, in
more and more open stands as one goes northward into the drier climate.
An open stunted growth of birch and aspen forms the transition to the
treeless tundra.

A treeless alpine region occupies the northwestern frontier, fringed at
lower elevations by a belt of birch in natural coppice, a result of
repeated fires. The northeastern part is a level coast plain, but the
climate is too severe for agriculture and the forest growth also is
short and of inferior quality.

Large areas of swampland are found in nearly all parts, recoverable for
farm or forest use, and mismanaged and devastated forest areas are found
all over the country.

The forest, nearly 10 acres per capita, on account of its accessibility
to the sea by means of the many rivers, plays an important rôle in the
economy of Sweden, not only because it covers such a large area and
favorable composition (80% coniferous), but because it has long been a
prominent source of income. Especially after the abolition of the
English import duties, in 1866, and of the Swedish export duties which
had restricted trade, in 1863, did a rapid increase in wood exports take
place, until in 1900, it amounted to over 54 million dollars (of which
12 million for woodenware), being the leading export article and
representing over one-half of all exports.

In addition to this export which may represent at least a round 300
million cubic feet of wood, there are about 250 million cubic feet of
pulpwood and 150 million feet used for charcoal, besides the domestic
fuel consumption. The total draft on the forest may be estimated to
come near to 1,200 million cubic feet which is believed far in excess of
the annual growth, much of the nearly 50 million acres of forest area
having been devastated or deteriorated by axe and fire and being located
in a northern zone where the growth is slow (1 inch in 12 to 15 years).
According to others, the cut remains below the increment by about 25 per
cent., the latter being figured at 25 cubic feet per acre. In the State
forests, to be sure, mostly located in the more northern tiers, the cut
is kept between 6 and 7 cubic feet effective, but here a waste of
sometimes 40% is incurred in the exploitation due to the difficulties in
transport.

1. _Property Conditions._

It was Gustav Vasa who, in 1542, declared all uncultivated lands the
property of the Crown. Parts of them, however, were given to colonists,
and these as well as the resident population had the right to use the
neighboring forest to supply their needs for wood and pasture. By the
continued exercise of this right, the forest came to be considered
commons, proprietary rights remaining long in doubt. Finally, a division
came about, some of the lands becoming the property of the parishes,
others of smaller districts (the hundreds), others again encumbered or
unencumbered property of the State, and some remained in joint ownership
of State and private individuals under various complicated conditions.

The State now owns somewhat over 16 million acres, of which, however,
only 70% are really forest, and controls more or less 4 million more, of
which about 900,000 acres are ecclesiastical benefices and forests
belonging to public institutions, and 2.7 million acres in State farms,
which are rented.

Since 1875, the State has pursued a policy of purchase, which has added
over 500,000 acres (at $7 per acre) to the domain. Lately, this policy
has found considerable opposition. In this way, by reforesting, and by
settlement of disputed titles the State property in absolute possession
of the government has grown by nearly 5 per cent., to 10 million acres.

In Lapland the entire forest area used to belong to the State, but in
order to attract settlers these were given forest property for their own
use, from 10 to 100 times the area which they had cleared. This forest
area the settlers disposed of to wood merchants (lumbermen), until the
law of 1873 intervened, restricting the settlers to the usufruct alone,
the government taking charge of the cutting of wood for sale and
limiting the cut to a diameter of 8 inch at 16 feet from the base.

This interference with what was supposed to be private rights seems to
have been resented, and has led to wasteful practices, in the absence of
a sufficient force of forest guards. Nevertheless the law was extended
to Westerbotten in 1882.

In other provinces, Wermland, Gestrikland, etc., the government vested
in the owners or ironworks the right to supply themselves with charcoal
from State forests. But about the middle of the 19th century, when,
owing to railroad development in other parts, some of the ironworks
became unremunerative and were abandoned, their owners continued to
hold on to the forest privileges, and by and by exercised them by
cutting and sawing lumber for sale, or even by selling the forest areas
as if they were their properties; and in this way these properties
changed hands until suddenly the government began to challenge titles,
and commenced litigation, about 1896.

Grants of certain log cutting privileges on government lands were also
made to sawmills in past times, usually by allowing sawmillers to cut a
certain number of logs annually at a very low price. In 1870 these
grants, which were very lucrative, were modified by substituting the
right of an increased cut for a stated number of years at a modified
price, after which the grant was to cease. In 1900, there were still
some 300,000 acres under such grants.

No wonder that under these circumstances the value of the State forest
property was, in 1898, assessed at only $1.60 per acre; the net income
being $1,680,753, or about 12 cents per acre; the expenditures for
administration, supervision, and forest school amounting to $423,659, to
which should be added an undetermined amount for the participation of
the domain bureau, the agricultural department and provincial
governments, all taking part in the forest administration.

Many of the towns and country districts (_haerad_) have received
donations of forest areas from the Crown, which have been a considerable
source of revenue to them. The parish of Orsa, e.g., realized from its
forest property some 2.5 million dollars, and other similar results are
recorded.

These communal and institute forests of various description comprise
somewhat over 2.6 million acres, or 5.5%, and are placed under
management of local committees, with the governor of the province as
chairman. The management consists in selling stumpage of all trees over
13 inches in diameter 5 feet above ground, to be cut by the purchaser
under regulations.

In the years from 1840 to 1850, the government sold to English wood
merchants considerable tracts of timberland, and in the latter part of
the 19th century, as the sawmill industry expanded, many mill firms
acquired wood-cutting leases for 50 year terms for prices which were
often realized from the forest in the first winter. At present longer
leases than for 20 years are prohibited by law. The diameter limit of 12
inches, 18 or 20 feet above ground, was usually the basis of the leases;
and as the owners could then lease away other sizes, it might happen
that 2 or 3 persons besides the original owner would have property
rights in the same forest. Of late years many of the mill owners have
endeavored to get rid of the resulting inconvenience by buying the
fee-simple of the land. This movement has resulted in the aggregation of
large areas in single hands or more often in the hands of large mill
companies.

By the acquisition of these properties a certain amount of cultivated
land is usually included, which is then left to the former owner at a
nominal rent, provided that he pays the taxes on the whole; thereby
creating a class of renters in lieu of owners of farms. The area thus
privately owned, mostly by sawmill companies, must be over 25 million
acres; the total private forest area, which includes the bulk of the
commercial forest, is about 30 million acres (61.3%), unreclaimable
waste lands swelling the figure to over 50 million.

2. _Development of Forest Policy._

From the times of Olaf Tratâlja, the first Christian king of Sweden
(about 1000 A.D.), who gained fame by the part he took in exploiting the
forests of Wermland, down to the 14th century Sweden suffered from a
superabundance of forest. Nevertheless, by the end of that century
restriction of the wilful destruction by fire was felt necessary, and an
ordinance with that object in view was promulgated.

It is questionable whether this order had any effect in a country, where
the homestead law provided, that a settler might take up “as much
pasture and arable land as he could make use of, twice as much forest,
and in addition on each side of this homestead as much as a lame man
could go over on crutches without resting.”

Not till 1638, do we again find an attempt at forest conservancy, this
time in the interest of supply of charcoal for the iron industry, by the
appointment of overseers of the public forests.

The first general forest code, however, dates from 1647, which among
other useless prescriptions made the existing usage of planting two
trees for every one cut obligatory, and this provision remained on the
statutes until 1789. In spite of this and other, restrictive, laws,
exploitation by the liege lords and the communities continued until, in
1720, a director of forests for the two southern districts, Halland and
Bohus, was appointed, and, at least in this part of the country, the
execution of the laws was placed under a special officer.

This appointment may be considered the first germ of the later forest
department.

A policy of restriction seems to have prevailed during the entire 18th
century, although it is questionable whether the restrictions were
enforced since there was no personnel to watch over their enforcement,
and the governors, in whose hands the jurisdiction lay, had other
interests, more engrossing. A law, enacted in 1734, restricted the
peasant forest owners in the sale of wood from their own properties,
and, in 1789, this restriction and other supervision was extended to
those of the nobility.

It appears that soon after this a considerable sentimental solicitude
inside and outside the Riksdag was aroused regarding an apprehended
deterioration of climate as well as scarcity of wood as a result of
further forest destruction--in the light of present experience a rather
amusing anticipation. These jeremiads, however, after an unsatisfactory
attempt at legislation in 1793, led, in 1798, to the appointment of a
commission which reported after 5 years of investigation. A new set of
forest regulations was enacted as a result in 1805.

In further prosecution of these attempts at regulating forest use a
commissioner, Prof. F. W. Radloff, was sent to Germany, in 1809, to
study methods employed in that country. Long before that time, about
1762, some of the iron masters, owning large forest areas had imported
a commission of German forest experts (among them von Langen and
Zanthier, the same who had done similar work in Norway and Denmark) with
a view of systematizing the forest use; but apparently without result.

After much discussion of Radloff’s report, and consultation with the
provincial governors, who suggested the propriety of different plans for
different localities, new legislation was had in 1810, 1818, 1823, and
new regulations for the crown forests were issued in 1824.

Yet at this very time not only the partition of the communal forests but
also the sale of town forests was ordered; and this policy of
dismemberment lasted till 1866, over 1 million acres having been sold by
that time. Nor was any diminution in wasteful practices to be noted as a
result of legislation, and it seems that, while on the one hand
restrictive policies were discussed and enacted, on the other hand
unconservative methods were encouraged. Indeed, in 1846, the then
existing restrictions of the export trade were removed; apparently a
reversion of restrictive policy had set in, and exploitation increased,
in the belief of inexhaustible supplies. On the other hand,
encouragement of reforestation was sought by giving bounties for
planting waste land and for leaving a certain number of seed trees in
the felling areas, also by paying rewards for the best plantations; all
without result.

Meanwhile a check to the wood trade had occurred through the imposition
of exorbitant customs duties by Great Britain, and at the same time the
government imposed an export duty to discourage export from Norrland,
and this was not abated until 1857.

A further project of forest supervision was attempted through a report
by a new commission appointed in 1828, which formulated rules for the
control of public and private forests, and recommended the establishment
of a Central bureau for the management of forest affairs, as well as the
organization of a Forest Institute, for the teaching of forestry. This
Institute was established at Stockholm in 1828, but, instead of
organizing the bureau, the director of that institute was charged with
the duties of such bureau. Again for years, committee reports followed
each other, but led to no satisfactory solution of the problems.

In 1836, however, a forestry corps (_skogstaten_) was organized for the
management of the State forests under the direction of the Forest
Institute, and, as a result of persistent propaganda, the central bureau
of forest administration (_skogsstyrelsen_) was created in 1859 with
_Björkman_ at the head, charged with the supervision of all the State,
royal, communal and other public forests, and the control of private
forest use.

The law of 1859, however, did not settle upon any new policy of control
over private forest properties. Again and again, forest committees were
appointed to propose proper methods of such control, but not until 1903
was a general law enacted, which was to go into effect on January 1,
1905.

Previous to this, locally applicable laws were enacted. In 1866, a law
was passed which referred only to a particular class of private lands,
namely those forests of Norrland which the State was to dispose of for
ground rent, or which had been disposed of and on which the conditions
of settlement had not been fulfilled. In 1869, a law applicable only on
the island of Gotland provided a dimension limit, and that in case of
neglect of regeneration on private fellings the owner may not cut any
more wood for sale, until the neglect had been remedied.

Exactly in the same manner as the homestead and other colonization laws
in the United States have been abused to get hold of public timber
lands, so in Sweden large areas of government land had been taken up for
settlement, but actually were exploited. It was to remedy this evil that
in 1860 an examination of the public lands was ordered with a view of
withdrawing portions from settlement and of making forest reservations.
The royal ordinance of 1866 resulted, which was to regulate the cutting
on settled lands and in such new settlements as were thereafter allowed.

Here, private owners at first were allowed to cut only for their own
use, and the new law prescribed the amount of yearly cut and required
the marking of timber designed for sale by the government officers.

This “compulsory marking” or “Lapland” law with a dimension limit, was,
in 1873, extended to all private forests in Norbotten, and in 1888, to
Vesterbotten. This law limits the diameter to which fellings are to be
made (8 inches at 15 feet from base), and if the cutting of smaller
trees is deemed desirable for the benefit of the forest these are to be
designated by forest officials.

The law for Gotland was renewed in 1894, adding a reforestation clause,
the governor being authorized to prohibit shipping of timber under 8
inch diameter, and that not until new growth was established; or at
least no new fellings may be made until this condition is fulfilled. The
same law applies to sand dune plantations in other, southern districts.
Altogether one-quarter of the private forest property was in this manner
subjected to restrictions, until the present conservation law came into
existence.

This law, of 1903, which became operative in 1905, was the result of a
most painstaking, extended canvass by the legislative committee,
appointed in 1896, which reported in 1899, and of a further canvass by
the Director of Domains, who reported in 1901. A large amount of
testimony from private forest owners, sawmill men, provincial and local
government officials, etc., was accumulated, and it may be reasonably
expected that this new legislation will be more effective than most of
the preceding seems to have been.

The law requires in general terms the application of forestry principles
in the management of private woodlands. For this purpose, a Forest
Protection Committee, one for each province, is constituted which has
surveillance over all private forests, an institution similar to that
existing in Russia.

The Committee, or Forest Conservation Board, consists of three persons
who are appointed for three years, one by the government, one by the
County Council, one by the managing committee of the County Agricultural
Society. In addition, where the communities desire, elected Forest
Conservation Commissioners may be instituted to make sure of the
enforcement of the law. The Board secures the services of an expert
adviser from the State forest service paid by the government but leaves
to the Board discretion as to the interpretation of the law which is for
the most part expressed in general terms, to secure conservative
management. Hence different Boards have worked in different ways, but
gradually all are coming to similar methods, and all apply persuasive
means rather than force.

The law requires regeneration, but does not prescribe detail methods as
to how re-growth is to be obtained, leaving these to be determined by
the Board in consultation with the owners. If no agreement can be
arrived at, or if the measures stipulated are not taken by the owner,
the Board may enforce its rulings by Court proceedings, in which
injunctions to prevent further lumbering, confiscation of logs, or of
lumber, or money fines may be adjudged.

The time of contracts for logging rights is reduced from 20 to 5 years.
Short courses of instruction to forest owners, and the issuing of
popularly written technical publications (_Folkskrifter_) is one of the
efficient methods of securing the result, which seems to have been
attained in the few years since the law is in operation, namely in
arousing such interest that opposition has become very small.

An export duty (4 to 8 cents per 100 cubic feet of timber, 8 to 14 cents
per ton of dry wood pulp) is levied for the purpose of carrying out the
law the export duty amounting to over $160,000, and a more general
export duty is under contemplation.

The management of communal forest is to be placed under the State forest
administration, the corporations paying 1.6c. per acre; but this feature
does not seem entirely settled.

Protective forests under special regulations are established at the
alpine frontier and on the drift-sand plains, which are planted up.

3. _Forest Administration and Forestry Practice._

The central forestry bureau as it exists now was organized in 1883 as
the Domain Bureau in the Department of Agriculture with, at present, a
forester as General Director, and under it a forestry corps
(_skogstaten_) (reorganized in 1890) which has charge of the public
forests, and also of the forest control in the private forests where
such control exists outside of the Conservation Boards. For the purpose
of this administration the country is divided into 10 districts, each
under an inspector (or _öfverjägmästare_); the districts are divided
into ranges (_revir_), now 90, each under a chief of range (or
_jägmästare_) with assistants and guards (_kronojägare_); the
nomenclature of the officers suggesting the hunt rather than the forest
management. In addition, 6 forest engineers are employed on working
plans, engineering works, and in giving advice and assistance to private
owners who pay for such service.

When it is stated that the ranges in the northern provinces average over
300,000 acres of public and 400,000 acres of private forest; in central
Sweden 150,000 acres of public and 145,000 acres of private forest, and
in the southern provinces nearly 55,000 acres of State and communal
forest, it will be understood that the control cannot be very strict.

The net revenue from the State forest during the last 30 years has
increased from $300,000 to $1,750,000.

The management of even the State forests can only be very extensive. The
State still sells mostly stumpage, rarely cutting on its own account.
The lumbering is carried on very much as in the United States by logging
contractors, and the river driving is done systematically by booming
companies. Selection forest is still the general practice, now often
improved into group system, although a clear cutting system with
planting has been practised, but is supposed to be less desirable,
probably because it entails a direct money outlay or else because it was
not properly done. A seed tree management preferred by private owners
for pine seems frequently not successful. Of the State forests 90% are
under selection system, and of the private forest 60%.

In the southern provinces where planting is more frequently resorted to,
2-3 year old pines and 2-5 year old spruces, nursery-grown, 2,000 to the
acre, are generally used or else sowing in seedspots is resorted to,
which is more frequently practised in the middle country.

Some 10,000 acres were, for instance, planted by the forest
administration in 1898, at a cost of $2 per acre, and the budget
contains annually about $20,000 for such planting.

That private endeavor in the direction of planting, has also been
active, is testified by a plantation of over 26,000 acres, now 35 years
old, reported from Finspong Estate.

Complete working plans are rare even for the State forests, a mere
summary felling budget being determined for most areas, the trees to be
cut being marked.

Under instructions issued in 1896, working plans for the small
proportion of State forest management by clearing system are to be made.
In these an area allotment method is employed with rotations of 100 to
150 years.

Forest fires are still very destructive, especially in northern Sweden,
although an effective patrol system, greatly assisted in some provinces
by watch towers, has reduced the size of the areas burnt over. The
coniferous composition and the dry summers in the northern part together
with the methods of lumbering are responsible for the conflagrations. In
this direction too, the activities of the Conservation Boards have been
highly useful.

4. _Education and Literature._

Among the propagandist literature, which had advanced the introduction
of forestry ideas in Sweden it is proper to mention the writings of
_Israel Adolf of Ström_, who after extensive travels in Germany
established the first private forest school in 1823, and was
instrumental in securing the establishment of the State Forest Institute
in Stockholm (1828).

In regard to education a most liberal policy prevails.

At the Institute the tuition is free and in addition 4 students receive
scholarships of 250 dollars per year; appointment to assistantships
follows immediately after promotion, and in 10 years the position of
jägmästare may be attained. The number of students is limited to 30. The
director of this school is also general adviser in forestry matters.
Besides the director, six professors are employed. The course at this
school is two years of 11 full months.

There are now a higher and a lower course, the former requiring previous
graduation from another preparatory forest school, either the one at
Omberg (founded 1886), or that at Kloten (1900), where a one-year
course, mainly in practical work, is given.

For the lower service there are not less than 6 schools in various parts
of the country, each with one teacher and assistants, managed under a
chief of range. In these, not only is tuition free but 10 pupils receive
also board and lodging; the course lasting 8 months. These schools
prepare for State service, as well as for managers of private forests.

* * * * *

A forest experiment station was organized in 1903, an independent
institution in the Domain Bureau, under the direct charge of a
practitioner. Every third year, a commission is to determine what work
is to be undertaken. The appropriation, which so far is hardly $5,000
per annum, will not permit much expansion. The first number of its
publication, _Meddelanden fran Statens Skogsförsöksanstalt_, was issued
in 1904, and work of a superior character has been accomplished since
then.

* * * * *

That a forestry public exists in Sweden is attested by a forest
association with an organ _Skogsvards Föreningens Tidskrift_, which was
founded in 1902. This journal is really the continuation of an earlier
magazine, _Tidskrift for Skogshushallning_, a quarterly, begun in 1869
and running until 1903. A forestry association for Norrland alone which
also issues a yearbook, was organized a few years ago. A periodical for
rangers, etc., is also in existence under the name of _Skogsvännen_.

In 1902 also, there was formed a lumberman’s trust to regulate the
output, which the forest owners proposed to meet by an associated effort
to raise stumpage charges. The attempt of the lumbermen to restrict the
cut in 1902 was, however, a failure, for the export of that year was 10%
larger than the previous year.

It is expected that the new law will have the tendency of decreasing the
cut and of inaugurating a new era in forestry matters generally.

NORWAY.

Originally divided up among a number of petty kings, Norway was brought
under one rule by Harold in 863; and united to Denmark in the 11th
century, becoming gradually a mere dependency. Its later political
fortunes and changing relations with Denmark and Sweden have been
referred to on p. 286. The history of the forestry development, however,
has proceeded more or less independently of the other two countries.

Norway, occupying with 124,445 square miles over one-third of the
Scandinavian peninsula, is for the most part a mountainous plateau with
deep valleys and lakes. Its numerous fjords and water ways make
accessible much of the interior mountain forest, yet a large part of the
inland area still remains inaccessible and trackless.

More than 75% of the country is waste land and water; only 3% in farms,
leaving for the forest area 21%, or little over 17 million acres.
According to latest data (1907) from this productive area a further 2
million acres must be deducted as non-producing.

The distribution of this forest area is most uneven. The bulk and the
most valuable portion of it is found in the south-eastern corner around
Christiania in eight counties, in which the forest per cent. exceeds 40
to 50, with conifer growth (pine and spruce) up to the 3,000 foot level.
Again in the three counties around Trondhjem a large and important
forest area is located at the head of the fjords. But the entire western
coast and the higher elevations are devoid of valuable forest growth and
the northern third of the country (north of the Arctic circle) is mostly
heath and moors with only 7% wooded, mainly birch growth of little
commercial value.

The commercially important forest area is, therefore, locally confined.
It is estimated that one-half of the territory has to import its lumber,
one-quarter has sufficient for home consumption, and the excess which
permits exportation is confined to the last quarter. This export, mostly
in logs and staves, which amounts to nearly 20 million dollars (40% of
the total export) half of it woodpulp is estimated to represent only
one-fifth or one-sixth of the total cut, which is stated as about 350
million cubic feet, or at the rate of 23 cubic feet on the productive
area while the annual growth is estimated at less than this amount,
namely at the rate of nearly 21 cubic feet in the southern districts,
and in the northern not over 12 cubic feet.

Scotch Pine is the principal timber, and occurs beyond the Arctic
Circle--the northernmost forest in the world--where its rotation becomes
150 to 200 years, with Norway Spruce more or less localized, these two
species forming 75 per cent. of the forest growth; oak, ash, basswood
and elm occurring sporadically, and White Birch being ubiquitous.

* * * * *

Forest property developed on the same lines as in Sweden and in other
European countries, hence we find State, communal, and private property.

When in the ninth century, upon Harold’s accession, the commons were
declared the property of the king, the rights of user, both to wood and
grazing, were retained by the _märker_, and the so-called State commons
(_stats-almenninger_) remain to date encumbered by these rights, similar
to conditions in Sweden. From the end of the 17th to the middle of the
19th century it was the policy of the kings to dispose of these commons
whenever their exchequer was low, and the best of these lands became, by
purchase, property of the districts (_bygdealmenning_), provinces, city
and village corporations, or else became private property on which the
rights of user continued (_privatalmenninger_).

At present the State owns, largely in the northern districts, somewhat
over 4.8 million acres (28.5%); but of this hardly 2 million acres are
productive, and of these productive acres half a million consists of
encumbered commons from which the State receives hardly any income. The
district commons or communal, and other public institute forests
comprise around 7,800,000 acres (46%); but here again only 580,000 acres
are productive. The balance then, or a full one-quarter is in private
hands.

* * * * *

Export trade in wood had been very early carried on, and had been
considerably developed in the 13th and 14th century. By the middle of
the 17th century the coast forest of oak had been cut out by Dutch and
English wood merchants who had obtained logging privileges under special
treaties of 1217 and 1308, and by Hanseatic cities, especially Hamburg
entering this market in the middle of the 16th century.

There are records which would make it appear that at least some of the
now denuded coast was forested in olden times. The development of the
iron industry increased the drain on these supplies, which forest fires,
insects and excessive grazing prevented from recuperating.

As early as the middle of the 16th century we find attempts to arrest
the devastation by regulating the export trade and supervising the
sawmills, forbidding especially the erection of sawmills intended to
work for export only.

In the 17th century, various commissions were appointed by Christian IV
to make forest reconnaissances and elaborate rules for proper forest
use. In 1683, Christian V issued a forest ordinance increasing the
number of forest inspectors instituted by his predecessor, and giving in
detail the rules governing forest use, many of which proved impractical.

In 1725, a commission, the socalled forest and sawmill commission, was
appointed to organize a forest service. It functioned until 1739, when
the first _Generalforstamt_ was established and the first attempt at
real forest management was made. This came into existence through the
efforts of two famous German foresters, J. G. von Langen and von
Zanthier, who with six assistants were called in from the Harz mountains
(as also afterwards to Denmark and Sweden), during the years 1736 to
1740, to make a forest survey and organize a management. Descriptions
and instructions were elaborated in German and the service was largely
manned by German “wood foresters” (_holzforsterne_). The strictness of
the department which had been organized after von Langen’s departure in
1739, made it, however, unpopular, and, in 1746, it was abolished, von
Zanthier returning to his country, the sole survivor, the other
assistants having succumbed to scurvy. The administration was again
placed in the hands of a commission which continued till 1760.

Only the forests connected with mines remained under the administration
as instituted, and those belonging to the copperworks of Roras continued
under its forest inspectors until 1901.

In that year, 1760, another shortlived attempt to organize a forest
administration was made, but the new organization did not fare any
better and was superseded in 1771. Then followed an interim regimen,
during which the general government and district officers were in
charge.

The old orders under which forest use had been regulated remained mostly
in force until in 1795 all the reasonable and the unreasonable
obstructions to export were removed. The sawmill privileges, under which
English lumbermen held large areas for long terms and devastated them
without regard to the impractical regulations, were, however, not ended
until 1860. The wood industries were then relieved entirely from
restrictions, and forest destruction progressed even more rapidly with
the increasing facilities for transportation.

This final cessation of the destructive policy was the outcome of a
campaign which started once more with a forest commission instituted, in
1849, to take stock and make new propositions. This commission reported
in 1850, and pointed out not only the necessity of terminating the
sawmill privileges, which was done in 1854, giving time till 1860, but
also very wisely accentuated the need of technically educated foresters
if anything for forest recuperation was to be done.

To meet this latter want, young men were sent to Germany at government
expense to study forestry. Some 10 or 12 men were educated in this way
during the next decade and thereby the basis for a technical forest
management was laid. In 1857, the first two professional foresters,
Mejdell and Barth, were placed in charge of affairs under the Interior
Department, and when in 1859 a new commission was charged with
organizing a forest service, these two men were members. Gradually an
organization took shape under the direction of these two
_forestmeisters_, and, finally, in 1863, the modern forest department
and forest policy was established by law, placing the State domain and
other public forests under an effective management, making provision for
the extinction of the ruinous rights of user and also for reducing the
mismanagement of private forests.

The forest service, as now constituted after a reorganization in 1906,
is in the Department of Agriculture under a director (_Skovdirector_)
and 4 _Forstmeister_ or inspectors with some executive officers under
various names, and 360 rangers (_skogsvogternes_), including the rangers
employed in the public forests outside the State domain. The ranges are
so large, sometimes several million acres, and many of them so
inaccessible that only the most extensive management is possible; the
officials being poorly paid and poorly educated, the management is, of
course, not of a high order.

Besides a “forest engineer,” who is a public lecturer, the officers of
the forest department are under the obligation of advising private
forest owners in their management, under contracts somewhat similar to
the present practice of the U. S. Forestry Bureau, the owners agreeing
to follow the advice.

Since 1860, the State has begun to purchase forest lands for
reforestation in the forestless districts and where, for protective
reasons, it is desirable. In late years, regular appropriations of
$15,000 to $20,000 were annually made for this purpose, besides
extraordinary grants. In this way, the cut-over lands, neglected by
their owners, are cheaply acquired by the State. Besides its own
planting, the State assists private owners by advice and money grants
and plantmaterial in reforesting their waste lands.

The communal forests are under government supervision; they are usually
worked under plans and under supervision of foresters with a view to
supply the needs of the community. Only when the area is more than
sufficient may they obtain the right to cut for sale outside of their
parish; on the other hand all fellings may be prohibited by the
government, if this is found desirable. As regards private property
there seems to be little or no supervision, although the law of 1863 had
declared _Kulturplight_ and _Kulturtvank_, i.e., the duty of
reforesting, but it had not defined that duty, and the law remained a
dead letter.

In 1874, a special commission was charged to consider the forest policy
which the public welfare required. The commission reported in 1879 with
propositions, which were submitted to the officials of the department
and the district. A new proposition was worked out and submitted in
1882, but it was pigeonholed until 1891, when the forest administration
brought in not a general law but one merely forbidding the export from
Nordland, Tromsoe and Finmarken, the thinly forested northern provinces.

Finally, in 1893, legislation was had enabling municipalities to protect
themselves against destruction of forests needed for their protective
function. This gives to them the right to formulate rules which are to
prevent devastation, as for instance a diameter limit for felling, or
reforestation of clearings. But the costs of such restriction must be
borne by the municipalities as well as half the cost of inspection, the
other half being paid by the State. The procedure to determine the
protective quality of forests and the financial difficulty have left the
law unused.

In 1878, however, a committee of private owners formed itself, to fix
the sand dunes, which with the State subventions started work the
following year.

* * * * *

Many of the State forests are so burdened with rights of user, which
were granted to help in developing the country, that the financial
results of the forest administration and the conditions of the State
property are most unsatisfactory, and the application of silviculture
greatly circumscribed.

The silvicultural system applied is most generally the rough selection
forest or an approach to group system, relying upon voluntary
reproduction entirely. Management is much hampered by rights of user to
certain dimensions, and in the more distant districts by the difficulty
of disposing of any but the best sizes. An orderly organization is still
almost unknown. The stumpage is sold and removed by the buyer and the
axe is still mainly used.

* * * * *

Higher forest schools there are none, but three schools for the lower
grades had existed for some time, the first having been established in
1875 at Kongsberg; one of them was abandoned in 1889. Forestry is also
taught at two farm schools.

Until recently the higher class foresters had to get their education in
Germany, or in the Swedish Forest Institute at Stockholm; but in 1879,
a chair of forestry was instituted in the Agricultural college at
Kristiania.

In 1881, the first forestry association was formed, which by 1898 had
over 500 members, and then was re-organized with a special view to
elevate private forestry practice. It has now (1907) 1,500 members, and
employs a forester paid by the State, to give professional advice, and
works with State aid. It has set out over 50 million trees besides
sowing 8,000 lbs. of seed. It publishes a journal _Tidskrift for
Skogsbruk_, and a Yearbook. There is also another journal, _Forstligt
Tidskrift_, and a professional Society of Foresters.

Altogether forestry is not yet on a high level in this country, but the
subject is now being brought even into the primary schools, and the
efforts to improve conditions are widespread.

DENMARK.

Forestry in Denmark is of interest especially on account of the
intensive methods developed on small areas, and of the efforts at
reforestation of sand dunes, moors and heaths.

Greatly curtailed in area when, as a result of the war of 1864, Prussia
detached the provinces of Schleswig and Holstein, Denmark now has an
area of 15,360 square miles with 2.5 million people (or 163 to the
square mile). It is largely a farming country, 80 per cent. being
productive, only 6.3 per cent. of it, or less than 600,000 acres being
under forest, and this also mostly on soil capable of farm use; hence an
import of over 7 million dollars worth of wood material is required.

In addition, there are about 75,000 acres of heaths and other wastes in
process of reforestation. Especially on the island of Själland, on which
the capital Copenhagen, is situated, the forest area is now increasing
by planting. The balance, or nearly 20 per cent. of the land area,
consists of heaths, moors, peatbogs and sands.

Half the forest area is located on the islands, and as these represent
about one-third of the total area, they are twice as densely forested as
the peninsula of Jütland. This latter along the north and west coast for
200 miles represents a large sandbank with extensive sand dunes,
shifting sands, heaths and moors, a desolate almost uninhabited country
of sterile downs, called Klitten, the recovery of which has been in
progress for a hundred years. According to some, this once bore a
coniferous forest, more likely it was never forested.

While originally beech was and is still the predominant timber (60%)
with considerable additions of oak (7%) and other hardwoods, a conifer
forest of spruce and pine, covering more than 20% of the forest area,
has been established by planting. This planting has been mainly done on
the dunes and sandwastes, and in the reclamation of the extensive heaths
and moors or peat bogs, especially in the northern Limfjord district,
which occupy one-sixth of the unproductive area.

* * * * *

As was natural, the forest stocking on good farm land had to yield
early to plow and pasture. Attempts at conservative use of the forest
area date back to 1557 when Christian III issued a forest ordinance
directing his vassals or liege lords to permit the peasants to secure
their domestic wood requirements at a cheap rate, but not to permit
cutting for sale or export, and reserving to himself all returns from
such sales. There were also regulations for the pasture, especially as
to goats, and for the use of the mast, which then formed more than
one-quarter of the income from the royal forests.

In the 18th century the need of forest management was recognized, and in
1762 the two eminent German foresters, von Langen and von Zanthier (see
p. 88) were invited to visit Denmark and Norway (see above) with a view
of organizing such management. In 1760, eight young Danes were sent to
von Langen in Wernigerode to study his methods for three years, and
these with the two German foresters returned in 1762, and under the
direction of von Langen organized the Seeland forest areas and started
the first plantations of conifers, which are now the pride of Danish
foresters.

In 1781, the State forests were altogether placed under an organized
administration.

By the beginning of the 19th century the reduction of forest areas had
progressed to such an extent that, in 1805, a law was enacted providing
that the then existing forest area containing beech and oak should be
maintained as such forever, or at least that for any new clearing an
equivalent area be planted to forest. This law was perhaps the result of
a journey in 1802, to Germany made by two leading officials of the
forest department, German influence through Cotta and Hartig being at
this time visible everywhere.

Other restrictions in the disposal of peasants’ farms or woodlands and
in the manner of farming the large estates (otherwise than by renting to
farmers), were also enacted in order to secure stability of the peasant
class. It was at this time that the accumulative taxing of landed
estates now under heated discussion in Great Britain, was used
effectively to break up the aggregation of landed property and changed
the country from one of baronial estates to small farmer’s holdings. In
this reform movement the name of Count _Reventlow_, Chief of the State
forest department, appears as the leading spirit.

The forest area, which until 1820 was on the decrease, has since that
time increased steadily, and is especially now increasing through
reforestation of waste lands.

At present, most intensive forest management is practised in the State
forest as well as in the communal and private forest areas, which latter
as stated, are largely in farmers’ wood lots since the law forbids the
union of small farms into large estates. There is little communal
property, and large private estates are also rare. The State owns about
24% of the forest area or 142,000 acres, of which one third is
nonproductive or otherwise occupied, and one third consists of
coniferous plantations. Excepting in the beech forest, most of the
timber is of the younger age classes, below 60 to 80 years, and it is
anticipated that the cut will have to be reduced, and the import of
wood and woodenware increased.

* * * * *

Artificial reproduction is the most general silvicultural practice
except in the beech forest which is reproduced naturally after
preparation of the soil and sowing acorns for admixture at the same
time, spending altogether $12 to $15 per acre in this preparation. Since
1880, thinnings have been based on the idea of favoring final harvest
trees somewhat after the French fashion; they are begun in the twentieth
to thirtieth year and are repeated every three years, aided by pruning.
Then in each subsequent decade the return occurs in as many years as the
decade has tens. Especially in the direction of thinnings, the German
practice and even theory is outdone, the thinnings being made severer
and recurring more frequently.

More than a hundred years ago the State began the reclamation work of
the dunes and heaths, but it progressed more actively only since the
sixties of last century as a result of legislation had in 1857. In 1867,
a special Dune Department was instituted, and through the effort of a
State engineer, Capt. _Dalgas_, an association was formed for the
reclamation of heaths and moors. A small subvention of $600 started the
work of the association, in its useful campaign under the advice of
Staats planteur (State forest planter) _Jensen Tusch_. The State
subvention now amounts to about forty thousand dollars annually, and the
success of the association has been such that it has become almost a fad
for large land owners and others to buy up these waste lands and have
them planted through the agents of the Heath Association. The planting
is mainly of spruce in plow furrows at a cost of $10 to $12 per acre; 60
to 80 year old stands of earlier plantings testifying to the possible
results.

In the last 40 years nearly 200,000 acres of heath have been planted, of
which over one-half are to the credit of the association.

* * * * *

For the education of the higher grade foresters a department of forestry
(now with two professors) was instituted in the Royal Veterinary and
Agricultural High School at Copenhagen in 1869, with a course of five
years including one and a half year of practical work. This education is
given free of charge.

The Heath Association educates its own officers, including in their
subjects the management of meadows and peatbogs.

A Forestry Association, composed one-half of forest owners, with its
organ _Tidskrift for Skovvaesen_, in existence since 1888, and a
valuable book literature, in which the problems of the heath are
especially fully and authoritatively treated, places Denmark in the
foremost rank in the forestry world in these particulars.

Among the prominent contributors are to be mentioned, besides Reventlow
and Dalgas, _P. E. Müller_, well known by his discussions of the
problems of moor soils. From 1876 to 1891, he issued a magazine, in
which _Oppermann_ contributed a history of Danish forestry. The latter
author also, in co-operation with _Hauch_, published in 1900 a Hand-book
of Forestry.

THE MEDITERRANEAN PENINSULAS.

Geographically, and to some extent climatically, the three peninsulas of
the Mediterranean Sea, the Iberian, Italian, and the Balkan, are
situated alike. Their people, if not in race, are in temper and
characteristics, and in their political economy more or less alike. They
represent the oldest civilization in Europe, and in their long history
have been frequently in collision with each other. Their forests,
through centuries of abuse, are wherever accessible, in poorest
condition. Long-continued political disturbances, which have prevented
peaceful development, and poverty, have been the greatest hindrances to
economic reforms like the recuperation of forests, which require
sacrifices. Ancient rights of user, and the necessity of politicians to
respect them are also responsible for the fact that, while praiseworthy
attempts in legislation have been made, execution has been usually
lagging behind.

The accessibility to sea, permitting readily importation, the temperate
climate, the simple life and abstemiousness of the people, and the lack
of industrial development have made the deficiency of wood material less
felt than it would otherwise be, but the detrimental influence of forest
destruction is being repeatedly experienced in floods and drouths.

There is probably no more potent cause of forest devastation in all
this section of the world than the pasturing of the woods, especially
with sheep and goats.

While Italy is now a united country, and only two peoples, Spain and
Portugal, occupy the Iberian peninsula, the Balkan peninsula is occupied
by eight separate peoples, if we include all the country south of the
Danube River and East of the Carpathian Mountains.

TURKISH AND SLAVISH TERRITORIES.

The Turks for centuries warred with, had under vassalage or otherwise
controlled, and misruled all the Slavish States, as well as Macedonia
and Greece--a territory of around 170,000 square miles and 16,000,000
people--until, by the Congress of Berlin (1878), ending the
Russo-Turkish war, these States were recognized as independent kingdoms,
namely Bulgaria, Servia, Montenegro, Roumelia, and Roumania, while
Bosnia-Hercegovina was placed under Austrian administration (see page
155 and 166).

With the exception of Roumania, these people are still in the lower
stages of civilization, the countries undeveloped, the forest still
serves largely for the mast and pasturage, probably less than 24 per
cent. of the country being forest covered, mostly with deciduous trees,
oak, beech and walnut, etc.

Roumania alone has systematically taken advantage of her freedom from
Turkish rule in developing a modern civilization, and can also boast the
beginning of a forestry system.

_Roumelia_, comprising _Macedonia_, _Albania_ and _Thrace_, the Turkish
possessions in Europe, with 67,000 square miles and 5,000,000 people,
contain large areas of untouched forest (not less than 5,000,000 acres
in Macedonia alone[10]) with valuable oak and walnut, which have
remained unused owing to their inaccessibility and the undesirability of
developing them under Turkish rule. Where accessible, the forest is
maltreated or destroyed.

[10] Lacretelle, Rapport sur les forêts de la Macédoine, 1893.

_Bulgaria_, to which, in 1885, East Roumelia was attached, represents
now 38,000 square miles and over 4,000,000 people, independent under a
German prince as king since 1879. The forest area[11] of 7.5 million
acres (30 per cent. of the land area), mostly deciduous (oak, beech,
walnut, etc.), and largely confined to the mountains, is one-half in
communal ownership, one-sixth in private hands, mostly small woodlots,
and one-third State property; but ownership rights are still much in
doubt, and until 1869 the State forests were freely open to the use of
all, when some sort or regulation of the cut according to the needs of
different communities was attempted. Since within 10 years such rights
of user establish ownership, endless litigation has resulted, until in
1883 a law was enacted ordering the stoppage of rights of user,
substituting money payment (10 per cent. of value), and another
restricting the diameter to which the most valuable export timber,
walnut, may be cut. Changes in detail were made in 1897, but political
exigencies, absence of an adequate organization, and other undeveloped
conditions have largely prevented enforcement of these laws, and rough
exploitation continues in spite of the nominal State control.

[11] _Forstliche Rundschau_, 1903.

Owing to inaccessibility of many of the agricultural districts to the
wooded mountains, a large import was necessary, but lately export almost
equals the import, and indeed the export of walnut has increased
fourteenfold in a few years. The forest administration is vested in a
bureau under the Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, with a chief, an
inspector general, and two assistant chiefs. When it is stated that in
1905 the entire budget for forestry was $150,000, the inefficiency of
the service is apparent.

_Servia_, a kingdom with 19,000 square miles and 2,000,000 people, has
over 42 per cent. (five million acres--according to others only 32%)
still in untouched forest, with valuable oak and walnut, the forest
being mainly used for hograising. Over 36% is State forest, over 43%
communal and institutional forest, leaving about 20% in private hands;
but, just as in Bulgaria, property conditions are still somewhat
unsettled. Like Bulgaria also on account of the uneven distribution of
forest area, lack of transportation and systematic development--a large
part of the population are more cheaply supplied by importation, which
amounts to near one million dollars. Curiously enough, by the law of
1891 only the wood cut from State and church forests could be exported
free of duty. This export duty was abolished in 1904, and the first
attempt was made by the Minister of Agriculture to bring order into the
forest administration by importing German foresters.

The law of 1891, with various subsequent additions and changes, placed
private forest property located on exposed mountain slopes or on
shifting sands, or on bogsoils under government surveillance, and
relieved plantations made under direction of the government of taxes for
10 years.

_Roumania_,[12] with 50,000 square miles and nearly 6,000,000 people,
under the capable administration of a Hohenzollern prince, King Charles,
was in Roman times as _Dacia felix_ one of the most prosperous
provinces, half of it hilly and mountainous, the other half in the rich
alluvial valley of the Danube, now largely deforested. The hill and
mountain country was until the end of the eighteenth century still well
wooded. A rapid depletion then took place by the demands of the Turkish
markets, until now not quite 17 per cent. (according to others 18 or 20
per cent.) of the area is forested, and multifarious rights of user,
which made commons of the woods, have naturally led to widespread
devastation in the accessible parts. In 1847, the National Assembly
attempted regulation of the cut and of the rights of user, but with
little effect. In 1894, the total area had decreased to less than 5
million acres (according to others 6.7 million acres), of which
two-fifths is in private hands, two-fifths State property and Royal
forest (formerly, until 1863, in the hands of the monks), the small
balance belonging to communities and institutes. In the higher
mountains, fir and spruce with some pine and larch form the forest; but
broadleaf forest, especially oak and beech is the prevailing type
occupying the middle altitudes and the hill country. The private forest
of small owners is being rapidly depleted, only the State forest and
that of large proprietors being in good condition.

[12] _Die forstwirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse Rumaniens_, Von Mihail
Vasilescu, 1891. _Notice sur les forêts de Roumanie, in Statistica
pâdurilor Statulin._ 1903.

In 1863, when the cloister property was secularized and taken over by
the state, the rights of user in this property were suspended, and sales
at auction to contractors were inaugurated, under condition that a
certain number of seed trees per acre be left. There was little
enforcement of this rule.

The first comprehensive law organizing the State property and
inaugurating a protective policy was enacted in 1881. This law
recognized State, Royal and Communal property as of public concern, and
also placed such private property under supervision as was situated on
steep slopes, near watercourses, and near the boundaries (of strategic
importance). These areas, coming under the protective policy, comprise
84 per cent. of the whole forest area. They were not to be cleared
except by special permit, and not to be exploited except under specially
approved working plans.

In 1885, three French foresters were called in to organize a State
forest department and to inaugurate the making of working plans. The
personnel (25 inspectors and 89 district officers) being insufficient,
and wood prices low (the income from state property being not over
$400,000), the progress of the work was slow. Although, in 1894, the
income had doubled, the administrative forces had not been enlarged to
any great extent (137 foresters of various grades), and by that time
only 150,000 acres had been brought under working plans. By 1900, about
200,000 acres of State property, or 14 per cent., and 500,000 acres of
private forest, or 22 per cent., were organized in some fashion. Lack of
means of transportation, however, prevents a really well regulated
management. Altogether only 65 per cent. of the State property is
accessible so that it can be worked, and the working plans consist
mainly in leaving a number of seed trees.

In 1889, a Forestry Association (_Progressul Silvic_) was formed, which
with its organ, _Revista pâdurilor_, pushes the propaganda. In 1890, an
energetic Minister of Domains, Carp, sought strenuously to bring
improvement into the situation. A budget of $500,000 for foresters’
dwellings was secured to bring the forest managers into closer contact
with their charges, a planting fund of $100,000, later increased to
$140,000 per annum, was voted, and reforestation and reclamation of sand
dunes was begun. A forest improvement fund was inaugurated in 1892 by
setting aside 2 per cent. of the gross forest yield. But, in the
political struggles, Carp’s party was displaced, and, depression in
agricultural prosperity causing financial distress, an era of increased
exploitation followed, so that the export of forest products, largely
cooperage, (mainly to Greece, Italy and France) which had been declining
to less than half, rose again to about four million dollars annually.
The financial embarrassment of the State led even to a proposition to
sell State forests, but, before contracts for this purpose were
consummated, relief came and the danger was averted.

The State cuts about 22,000 acres annually, yielding about $1,000,000,
the administration costing (in 1903) $240,000, leaving a net yield of 30
cents per acre. In 1898, the Forest Department, in the Direction of
Domains under the Ministry of Agriculture consisted of a Forest Director
with 156 foresters academically educated (mostly in France, and since
1892 in the Agricultural Institute at Bucharest), and over 2,500
underforesters and guards. Of some 30,000 acres of sand dunes, one-half
belonging to the State, about 18,000 acres have been recovered by
planting Black Locust, and some 9,000 acres of plains country have been
reforested, for which 330 acres of nurseries furnish the material. In
spite of all these efforts, excessive pasturing, although forbidden in
the State forest, and fires continue to devastate the property.

Private forestry is, of course, much less developed; yet some large
properties (Princess Schoenburg, with 20,000 acres) are under efficient
German forest management. Here, money is spent on developing means of
transportation, and a better revenue is secured than in State forests.

GREECE.

DR. CHLOROS, Waldverhältnisse Griechenlands. Thesis for the
Doctorate at Munich. 1884. 45 pp.

ANDERLIND, Mittheilungen über die Waldverhältnisse Griechenlands.
Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung. 1884.

The history of the country has been so unfortunate, and political
conditions so unsettled that only lately efforts at improvement in
economic conditions could hope to receive attention. For centuries after
Greece had become a Roman province (146 B.C.), it changed rulers,
Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Venetians following each other, until,
between 1460 and 1473, it came under the Turkish yoke. As a result of
an insurrection started in 1821, freedom, but no settled order as yet,
was attained in 1829 through the assistance of Great Britain, France and
Russia, and the elected kings, Otho (of Bavaria), Alfred (of England)
and George (of Denmark) successively tried to secure social order and
efficient constitutional government.

By the time this new era had arrived there was probably little valuable
forest worthy of the name left, except in the inaccessible mountain
districts.

1. _Forest Conditions._

Although certain districts, like Attica, were already practically
denuded in Plato’s time, there is little doubt that originally the whole
of Greece with small exceptions was a continuous forest. The destruction
of the forest, protected by thousands of gods and nymphs in holy groves,
proceeded slowly under the regime of the ancient Greeks, until the
fanaticism of the Christian religion led to a war against these pagan
strongholds, and the holy groves were reduced by axe and fire. Turkish
misrule for centuries, over-taxation, reckless cutting, extensive
herding of goats and sheep, and fires have reduced the forest area until
now it occupies only 12 or 14 per cent. of the land area (25,000 square
miles). In 1854, a survey developed about 2 million acres of woodlands
(probably an excessive figure) for the now 2.5 million people, while 67
per cent. of the surface is a useless waste, and only 20 per cent. under
cultivation, so that the general aspect of the country is desolate. The
many islands are entirely deforested, and so are the seashores. “Where
in olden times dense shady poplars stood, now only infertile sand and
dreary rock waste remain.”

The forest in northern and middle Greece is confined to the two rugged
mountain ranges with numerous spurs which run parallel, north and south,
with Mt. Olympus (nearly 9,000 feet) and Mt. Pindus (6,000 feet) the
highest elevations. The large fertile plains of Thessaly and Boeotia are
forestless. So is the large Arcadian plateau of the Peloponnesus, and
the other smaller, hot but fertile plains and plateaus. The most
valuable conifer forest is found on the higher ranges between the 2,500
and 5,000 foot level, below the snow-clad mountain tops, where
especially two species of fir, _Abies Apollinis_ and _Abies reginæ
Amaliae_ (a species remarkable for its sprouting habit), with other firs
and several species of _Juniperus_ and _Cupressus_, form sometimes
extensive forests. Other common trees are chestnut, sycamore, several
species of oak and poplar, and, on the coast, _Pinus halepensis_.

The firs occupy about 35 per cent. of the forest area, oaks and
deciduous forest 45 per cent. Among the forest products which are
exported, we find galls, vermillion and sumach prominent.

It is believed that Greece in ancient times was more fertile than it is
now, and that the deterioration is due to deforestation. Undoubtedly
soil conditions favored such deterioration, for, with the exception of
the Pindus range, which is composed of metamorphic rock, a poor, dry
limestone is characteristic of the country except where fertile,
alluvial and diluvial deposits cover it in valleys along the coast. The
climate is, however, so favorable that even the poor soil would readily
reclothe itself if left alone. The winters are short, hardly three
months, and with hardly any snow or ice except on the high mountains,
making the vegetative period nine months; and, with temperature ranges
from 20 to 106 degrees F.; rainfall average 400 mm.; the summers, to be
sure, rainless and dry, but the other seasons humid, somewhat less than
in middle Europe, rapid growth is the result of these conditions. But
the continued pasturing of goats and sheep--some six million--prevents
any natural reforestation. Increased taxation on this industry has had
no effect, and the practice of permitting the people to gather dry wood
for fuel is an incentive for making dry wood by setting fires, which
also serve to improve the pasture; perhaps nowhere are forest fires more
frequent, in spite of heavy penalties. That a baneful influence on the
water condition and river flow has been the result is historically
demonstrated by Chloros.[13]

[13] See _Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 1884_, p. 183 ff., and
1887, p. 327 ff. for interesting details.

In the mountains some fine and quite extensive bodies of fir still
exist, lack of transportation having preserved them. Elsewhere the
rights of user, and the herding of goats are so well established that
reforms appear, indeed, difficult.

Firewood, 3 loads for each person, supposed to be taken from the dead
or otherwise useless trees, and small dimension material is free to all.
For the right to cut workwood, the government charges a tax of 25 to 30
per cent. of the value of the material, the price for this being
annually determined. On the material cut in private forests, the
government also levies a tax of from 12 to 18 per cent. of its value.
This pernicious system of promiscuous cutting leads to the most wasteful
use imaginable, not only high stumps, but large amounts of good material
are left in the woods so that it is estimated that hardly 50 per cent.
of what is cut is really utilized. The cut, as far as the tax gives a
clue to it, amounts to around 2.7 million cubic feet workwood, but with
the firewood included it was estimated that near 90 million cubic feet
are cut annually. Importation to the amount of 1.5 million dollars,
mostly from Austria and Roumania, makes up the deficit in work material,
especially for the box factories which manufacture the packages for the
large export of currants, some 2 million boxes. The tax during the
decade from 1862 to 1871 produced an annual income of $600,000, a little
less in 1895.

The forest has been from olden times, and is now almost entirely, State
property (some 80 or 90 per cent.) and in nearly all the remaining,
private, communal and cloister property the State has a partial
ownership or supervision. The waste land of probably 3 million acres
extent also belongs to the State, the whole State property covering over
30 per cent. of the land area.

2. _Development of Forest Policies._

A first definite attempt to regulate matters was made by Otho, who being
a German, took a personal interest in this forest property, and
instituted for each province forest inspectors (dasarchys) under one
chief inspector, with forest guards, to prevent devastation by fire and
theft. The mistake was made of employing in these positions
superannuated Bavarian army officers, who were merely a burden on the
treasury. No management or even regular fellings were attempted. The
population could, as before, supply its needs upon permits, always
granted, from the governor of the province, one of the forest guards
being supposed to vise these, and to see that the wood was properly
employed, not, however, to supervise the cutting.

In 1877, further legislation was had, instituting in the Ministry of
Finance, a forest inspector, technically trained, with two assistant
inspectors, also technically trained, to superintend the outside work. A
forest survey was begun in 1879, but interrupted in 1880 for lack of
funds and personnel. The same law placed the duty of guarding the State
property in the hands of the general police or gendarmerie, 50 officers
and some 340 guards, and during the fire danger (June to October) 110
more, being detailed for this service under direction of the Minister of
War. The pernicious permit system, however, was continued.

Dr. Chloros, who obtained his education in Germany, became finally
Forest Director and was responsible for securing further legislation in
1888, the object of which was, as a first step towards improvement, to
survey and delimit and round off the State property. It provided that
enclaves, and all absolute forest soil was to be expropriated. If no
amicable agreement with the owner could be reached, the price was to be
determined by the net yield which had been obtained from the property
during the last five years, capitalized at 5 per cent. No attempts,
however, at an efficient organization or change of the destructive
permit system were made.

By general law, the State has the right to surveillance of private
property, although the extent of this right is not fully defined. The
government may take for its own use, by paying for it, upwards of
one-sixth of the annual cut; it collects a tax of 12 to 18 per cent. for
all woodwork cut; it forbids the pasturing of woods that have been
burned within 10 years, and obliges all owners of over 1200 acres to
employ forest guards. This and other interference with property rights
naturally acts as deterrent to private forest management. A notable
exception is the small private royal forest property near Athens, which,
since 1872 under a Danish forester, appears to have been managed under
forestry principles.

A thorough re-organization of the forest service was effected in 1893,
when 20 district foresters were employed, the number of forest
inspectors was increased to four, and a regular Division of Forestry was
instituted in the Finance Department. The general police or gendarmerie
was continued as forest guards. Until a native personnel could be
educated by sending young men to Germany, foreigners were to be
employed for the making of working plans.

Yet in 1896, the then Director of the Forest Department, a lawyer, still
complains of the absence of a proper organization and of any personnel
with forestry knowledge. Apparently no progress had been made. In that
year, however, the gendarmerie was to be replaced by forest guards (52
superior and 298 subaltern) who were to be appointed from graduates of a
special secondary school, which had been instituted at Vytina some two
years before. This replacement could, of course, not be effected at
once, since hardly more than 25 men could be graduated annually; hence
even this improvement in the lower class police would not be completed
for six or eight years. No steps had been taken to educate officers for
the higher grades, and in this direction, propositions merely were
discussed.

In 1899, a change in the permit system was made, but hardly for the
better, justices of the peace being empowered, under certain conditions,
to issue such permits. Nor do we find in 1901 anything more than
expressions of good wishes, and desire for further legislation, besides
some attempts at popular education through the formation of
tree-planting associations under the patronage of the Crown Princess. In
1905 no change in conditions are reported. Forest fires still continue
as a common occurrence.

While the government makes efforts to improve conditions, the
indifference, stupidity, cupidity, and malevolence of the people, and
the long established abuses prevent rapid progress at reform.

ITALY.

_Bolletino ufficiale per l’amminstrazione forestale Italiana._

_Direzione generale dell’ Agricoltora: Relazione interno all’
amministrazione dei boschi domaniali inalienabili._

Various essays by Prof. VITTORIO PERONA of Vallambrosa in German
magazines; notably in _Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung_, 1882,
1888.

_Archeologia forestale. Dell’ antica storia e giurisprudenza
forestale in Italia._ A. DI BERENGER. 1859.

MAFFEI, _Revista forestale_.

_Italy._ By Prof. W. DEEKE. 1904.

_Il rimboschimento dello Appennino meridionale_, by LUIGI SAVASTANO,
1893. An exceedingly well written popular treatise on silviculture,
which gives also briefly insight into forest conditions and forest
practices.

_I boschia e la nostra politica Italiana_, by BERTAGNOLLI, 1889.

_Italia moderna._ 1904, article by LUNADONI.

The efforts to secure improvement in the treatment of forest resources
have been more active and strenuous in Italy than in Greece. They were
induced especially by the urgent need of protecting watersheds, the
rivers throughout Italy having been turned into torrents by
deforestation. But, owing to the weakness of the government and to
poverty, the actual execution of the very good laws has lagged behind.
Indeed, while ample legislation has been enacted, the people,
overburdened with debt, and needing the small income that can be derived
from pasturing or renting the pasture in the woods, make it difficult to
carry on any reform, and the enforcement of the laws has again and again
led to serious trouble. “Forestry is a sore point in the national
economy of Italy, as it involves sacrifice of money and time.” Italy,
therefore, is still in the transition period from forestal rapine to
forest culture.

Densely populated (33 million on 110,600 square miles), with fully
one-fifth of its area unproductive, or at least unused, and one-quarter
of this almost or quite beyond redemption, no country offers better
opportunities for studying the evil effects of deforestation on soil and
waterflow. As a result of the combination of geology (slates and
limestones), topography (steep slopes), climate, and forest devastation
or destruction, mainly by pasturage of goats (two million), the Italian
rivers are invariably flooded in March and mostly dry in summer; the
melting of the snow coinciding with the heavy spring rains turns them
into raging torrents (_fiumare_), silting over the fertile lands in the
valleys and occasional landslides in the mountain country, where
extensive tracts are nearly bare of vegetation. Especially the rivers
around Bologna, which in 1897 again caused damage in excess of one
million dollars, are dreaded.

1. _Forest Conditions._

Situated similarly to Greece as regards accessibility and climate, and
similarly torn by wars and political strife, and in unstable conditions
for centuries, Italy has in proportion to population, if not to area,
reduced her forest resources even more than Greece; less than one-third
of an acre per capita remains, with a total of somewhat over twelve
million acres, or about 17 per cent. of the land area, and this includes
much useless brushland, over 2 million acres. Apparently, if the
uncertain statistics may be relied upon, a reduction of several million
acres has taken place even since 1870. Some 15 million acres of waste
land and swamps offer ample opportunity for increasing this forest area
without infringing on the 42 million acres of usefully employed
agricultural soil.

Of the forest area, 25 per cent. is to be found in the Alps, about 50
per cent. on the Apennines, the one mountain range which forms the
backbone of Italy; less than one-quarter is distributed over the plains,
and the small balance is found on the islands, especially Sicily, which
is a hill and mountain country, once magnificently wooded, now largely
denuded (4 per cent. wooded), and on Sardinia, which, with nearly 45 per
cent. under forest, is the best wooded part of Italy, although the
condition of the forest is here no better than elsewhere.

With the exception of the slopes of the Alps (2.5 million acres of
spruce, fir, beech, larch), and the tops of the Apennines and remote
plateaus (4.5 million acres), and of a few special places on which now
and then even magnificent remnants of virgin forest may be found--lack
of transportation having preserved them--most of the area is occupied by
miserable brush forest, coppice or else open forest with scattered trees
among a shrub undergrowth of thorns, hazel and chestnut (called macchia,
i.e., chaparral), so that most Italians have never seen a real forest.
Nevertheless, Italy is by no means as treeless as this condition of
forest would imply, for trees (poplar, ash, elm) are dotting the plains
and slopes, planted for vine supports and boundaries, unshapely through
pollarding and lopping the branches for firewood. Olive and chestnut
groves on the hills (of the former 2 million acres, of the latter over
400,000 acres planted for the fruit), and 8.5 million acres in vineyards
add to the wooded appearance of the country and to the wood supply. The
annual product of firewood from these planted trees is estimated at 6
million cords.

On the sand dunes and near the seashore, especially in the marshes, the
Maritime, the Aleppo Pine, and the umbrella-shaped _Pinus pinea_, and
picturesque Cypresses are sometimes found in small groves, while the
calcareous hills in this region up to 1200 feet are studded with olives,
cork and evergreen oak. Osier growing is here also quite extensively
practiced. In the mountains, above the 2700 foot level, conifer forest,
composed of _Pinus silvestris_ and _laricio_, and _Abies pectinata_, has
been reduced to less than 7 per cent. of the whole, mixed conifer and
deciduous forest represents 4 per cent., the bulk being deciduous forest
of oak (several species) and beech, with chestnut. Forty-eight per cent.
of the forest area is in coppice (_ceduo_), and of the 52 per cent. of
high forest, the bulk is managed under selection system (_a scelta_), a
small part under clearing system (_ad alto fusto_), although management
can hardly be said to exist except in small groves.

That supply of workwood is insufficient for the needs of the population,
and is decreasing, is attested by the fact that the importations more
than doubled in the decade from 1892 to 1903 to near 14 million dollars,
80 per cent. of which was saw material, in addition to 2 million dollars
of wood manufactures, while nearly 5 million dollars’ worth was exported
in the last named year, mostly cork, casks, thin box-boards, olive wood
manufactures, and charcoal. No better picture of the forest conditions
can be had than by a statement of the home production, which, in 1886,
(last official data) was placed at 48 million cubic feet of workwood,
valued at 3.4 million dollars, 223 million cubic feet firewood, valued
at 4.1 million, 106 million cubic feet charcoal, worth 3.6 million, and
by-products to the large amount of 6.4 million dollars, altogether a
little less than 17.6 million dollars. Firewood and charcoal, which
represent over 80 per cent. of the product, are, of course, furnished by
coppice, and in addition by the pollarded material, almost the only fuel
to be had.

The ownership of the forest area is for the greater part private (53 per
cent.) and communal (over 43 per cent.), the State owning a little over
400,000 acres, less than 4 per cent. The State property being so small,
supervision of communal and private forest has become the policy.

The State forest is of two classes, the alienable, under the Department
of Finance, the larger part, about 375,000 acres, and the inalienable,
so declared by law of 1871, which was then about 115,000 acres, and was
placed under a forest administration in the Department of Agriculture;
but of this about 20 per cent. is not forest, and even in 1896, some of
this small area was sold so that now only 40,000 acres remain. This area
is to serve for demonstration of model management, and to supply
government needs. Beech and oak with fir, pine and larch, mostly in
timber forest, characterize this property, which is managed mostly in
selection system. Curiously enough, in 1888, the difficulty of disposing
advantageously of the old timber is complained of, due to lack of means
of transportation. The personnel of the administration consists of a
central bureau with one Inspector General, three Inspectors, and a
Council. For each province, and in some cases for two or more provinces
together, an Inspector with several Sub-inspectors and a number of
guards or _brigadieri_ are charged with the management of the State
property and the enforcement of the forest laws.

2. _Development of Forest Policy._

For centuries, since the fall of the Roman Empire (476 A.D.) until the
end of the eighteenth century, Italy has been the victim of war and
strife with neighbors or within its borders, being divided into
numberless commonwealths, almost each city being independent. Hence, no
economic improvements could take place until, under the influences of
the French Revolution, the regeneration period began. Not, however,
until the seven or eight states, which the Congress of Vienna (1815) had
established, were moulded into one united Italy under Victor Emmanuel,
during the years 1859 to 1870, could an effective reconstruction be
inaugurated.

It is true that some of the republics in earlier times paid attention to
their forest property. Notably in Venice, old forest ordinances[14] date
back to 697, and, in 1453, a regular forest administration was
instituted, especially to take care of the large forest area in Istria
and Dalmatia, which fell into the hands of the Venetians about 1420. A
tolerably conservative management continued here until the beginning of
the eighteenth century when, in consequence of political complications,
supervision became lax, and devastation began which continued through
the century, leaving to the new century, and finally to the Austrians,
the legacy of the Karst (see p. 173).

[14] BERENGER, Saggio storico della legislacione Veneta forestale,
1863. An excellent source.

Florence too, managed to prevent the deforestation of the summit of her
mountains until the beginning of the eighteenth century, and in other
republics, kingdoms and duchies, similar efforts at forest
administration existed. Yet Genoa, which in Strabo’s time was the
principal timber market of Italy, had by 1860 nearly all its mountain
slopes denuded.

Before the general legislation for all Italy was enacted there were at
least a dozen laws in operation in the various provinces; in Lombardy,
the law of 1811; in Naples, the law of 1826; in Rome, of 1827; in
Umbria, of 1805; in Bologna, of 1829; in Tuscany, of 1829; in Piedmont,
of 1833; in Sardinia, of 1851; etc. If these had been heeded much better
conditions would have been inherited by the new kingdom.

With the arrival of a national spirit, many schemes for the promotion of
forestry and of forest policy were discussed. The academies of Florence,
Milan, Modena, Palermo, and Pesaro offered premiums for reforesting of
mountains, and called for popular treatises on silviculture. A forestry
journal came into being, furthering the propaganda. In 1860 a very well
written account of “Present Conditions of Forestry and Production of
Sulphur in Sicily,” a collection of reports, was published by Shiro. In
1860 also, an investigation of forest conditions in each province was
ordered by royal decree, and propositions for their improvement were
called for, which led to legislative proposals, introduced in 1862, and
legislation enacted in 1863.

The law of 1863 still treated each province independently: forest
inspectors for each province, and for Naples an Inspector General, with
district foresters and a large number of forest guards were appointed.

Another law, applicable only to certain parts of the Kingdom, was
enacted in 1874, intended to check the progress of deforestation and
prevent turning waste woodlands into pasture; these absolute forest
soils were to be reforested within five years. The law remained a dead
letter, yet it is still in force in part, with modifications enacted in
1886.

The final unification of the country as far as legislative unity is
concerned, was completed in 1877, and in that year the first general
forest law for all Italy was also enacted.

This law, which has mainly in view the protective influence of forest
cover as a factor in the public welfare, leaving all private property
not falling under the character of protection forest entirely free,
established provincial forest commissions--conservation boards--unpaid,
who were to enact rules and regulations best adapted to their
localities. The Board of Commissioners consisted of the prefect of the
province, _ex-officio_ president; an inspector of forests, the technical
officer who administers the government property; an engineer appointed
by the governor; and three members chosen by the provincial council; in
addition, each communal council was to send one member to take part in
the deliberations of the board as far as his particular commune was
interested.

By this law the country is divided into two sections vertically, namely
the territory above the limit of chestnut, and that below this limit,
the latter representing the farming country, the territory above being
unfit for agricultural use. To the former the restrictions of the law
apply as a rule (_terreni soggetti al vincolo forestale_--ban forest),
to the latter, as exception, namely where the removal of forest or brush
cover might cause landslides, or affect stream flow or health conditions
unfavorably. The chestnut limit naturally varies in different parts,
but, generally speaking, lies between 1,800 and 2,000 feet elevation.
The determination of these areas was to be made by the provincial forest
committees, and it is significant to note that in these the State forest
administration did not have the majority.

The territory under restriction, was in 1887, after various revisions,
established as comprising 7.5 million acres of forest and 2.5 million
acres of brush and waste, nearly 71% of the forest area being thus
placed under restriction; leaving 2.5 million acres of forest and over 2
million of brush and waste outside the working of the law; these latter
areas are left entirely without restrictions, except as general police
regulations apply. The execution of the law and regulations is left to
the State Forest Department with an organization of forest guards (some
3,000 in 1883), appointed by the prefect of the province with the advice
of the forestry commission, but acting under the State forest
administration. Their pay was to come to the extent of two-thirds from
the communes, the other third from the provincial treasurer.

In the forests placed under the law, clearing and agricultural use is
forbidden. Fellings and cultures must be made under direction of the
Committee. No compensation is made for this limitation in use except
where hygienic influence was the basis for placing the forest under ban.

If the regulations of the commissions had been observed to their full
extent, all would have been well in time, but it is evident from
subsequent legislative efforts that the execution of the laws was not
what could be desired. Political exigencies required leniency in the
application of the law. An interesting report on the results of the
first quinquennium shows that during that time 170,000 acres were
cleared, over 40,000 without permission, and by 1900, it was estimated,
deforestation had taken place on about 5 million acres.

Wrangling over the classification of the lands under ban has continued
until the present, and local authorities have continued to favor private
as against public interest, to withdraw lands from the operation, and to
wink at disregard of the law. Moreover, rights of user to dead wood,
pasturage (goats are by law excluded) and other privileges continued to
prevent improvement, although several laws to effect their extinction
had been passed.

The devastating floods of 1882 led to much agitation, and, upon a report
of a special commission in 1886, the law of 1874, which had obligated
the communities to reforest their waste lands within five years or else
to sell, was revived, extending the term of obligatory reforestation in
the endangered sections to ten years. By that time, out of 800,000 acres
originally declared as requiring reforestation, not more than 40,000
acres had been planted, but the acreage involved had also been gradually
scaled down by the forest committees to 240,000 acres. The report, on
the other hand, found that the area needing reboisement was at least
500,000 acres, requiring an expenditure of 12 million dollars. The law
of 1877 did not contemplate enforced reforestation of banforests; it
sought to accomplish this by empowering either the Department of
Agriculture or the provinces or the communities or special associations
to expropriate for the purpose of reforestation. Results were nil.

A revision and broadening of the law led to the general reboisement act
of 1888,[15] which has in view the correction of torrents, fixing of
mountain slopes and sand dunes--one of the best laws of its kind in
existence anywhere.

[15] For details see _Fernow_, in Garden and Forest, 1888, page 417.

The principal features of the law are: obligatory reboisement of
mountains and sand dunes according to plans, and under direction of the
Department of Agriculture, the areas to be designated by the department,
with approval or disapproval of the forest committees; contribution to
the extent of two-fifths (finally raised to two-thirds) of the expense
by the government; expropriation where owners do not consent, or fail to
carry out the work as planned; right to reclaim property by payment of
costs and interest, or else sale by government; right of the department
to regulate and restrict pasture, but compensation to be paid to
restricted owners; encouragement of co-operative planters’ associations.
The area to be reforested was estimated at somewhat over 500,000 acres
and the expense at over 7 million dollars.

The execution of the law was not any stricter than before. In 1900, the
Secretary of Agriculture reports that “the laws do not yet receive
effective application.” The difficulty of determining what is and what
is not necessary to reforest, what is and what is not absolute forest
soil made ostensibly the greatest trouble and occasioned delay, but
financial incapacity and political influences bidding for popularity are
probably the main cause of the inefficiency.

Meanwhile the forest department tried to promote reforestation by giving
premiums from its scanty appropriation and distributing from its 130
acres of nurseries, during the years from 1867 to 1899, some 46 million
plants and over 500 pounds of seed, and furnishing advice free of
charge.

In 1897, again a commission was instituted to formulate new legislation.
This commission reported in 1902, declaring that all accessible forests
were more or less devastated, accentuating the needs of water
management, and proposing a more rigorous definition of ban forests, a
strict supervision of communal forests, and the management of private
properties under working plans by accredited foresters or else under
direct control of the forest department, the foresters to be paid by the
State, which is to recover from the owners. It was found that in the
past 35 years of the 125,000 acres needing reforestation urgently only
58,300 acres had been planted at an expense of $1,340,000.

In 1910, conditions seem not to have much improved, for again a vigorous
attempt at re-organization and improvement on the law of 1877 was made
by the Minister of Agriculture; so far without result.

It is to be noted that Italy is perhaps the only country where forest
influence on health conditions was legally recognized, by the laws of
1877 and 1888. The belief that deforestation of the _maremnae_, the
marshy lowlands between Pisa and Naples, had produced the malarial fever
which is rampant here, led the Trappist monks of the cloister at Tre
Fontane to make plantations of Eucalyptus (84,000) beginning in 1870,
the State assisting by cessions of land for the purpose. A commission,
appointed to investigate the results, in 1881, threw doubt on the
effectiveness of the plantation, finding the observed change in health
conditions due to improvement of drainage; and lately, the mosquito has
been recognized as the main agency in propagating the fever. The new
propositions, however, did not any more recognize this claimed influence
as a reason for public intervention. Incidentally it may be stated that
to two Italians is due the credit of having found the true cause of
salubriousness of forest air, namely in the absence of pathogenic
bacteria.

3. _Education and Literature._

The first forest school was organized by Balestrieri, who had studied in
Germany, at the Agricultural School near Turin about 1848, transferred
to the Technical Institute in Turin in 1851. This school continued until
1869, and from 1863 on, had been recognized by the State, assuring its
graduates employment in State service. In 1869, the State established a
forest school of its own (_Institute Forestale_) at Vallambrosa near
Florence, with a three years’ course (since 1886, four years) and, in
1900, with eleven professors and 40 students. In spite of the State
subvention of $8,500, it appears that some peculiar economies are
necessary, for owing to the absence of stoves the school is closed from
Nov. 1 to March 1. In spite of the existence of this school, the State
Service is recruited also from men who have not passed through this
school.

The legislative propositions brought forward in 1910 also provide for
transfer of this school to Florence, leaving only the experiment station
in Vallambrosa, and also for raising the standard of instruction. At the
same time, however, there was at the old institution ordered a “rush
course” to be finished in 15 months, since it appeared that not enough
foresters were in existence to carry out the proposed re-organization.

In 1905, a school of silviculture for forest guards was instituted in
Cittaducale, the course being 9 months.

Besides the technical school at Vallambrosa, agricultural schools have
chairs of forestry or arboriculture, as for instance the Royal school at
Portici. As an educational feature, the introduction of Arbor Day, in
1902, _la festa dei alberi_, should also be mentioned.

The existence of a forest school naturally produces a literature. While
a considerable number of popular booklets attempt the education of the
people, who are the owners of the forest, there is no absence of
professional works. Among these should be mentioned Di Berenger’s
_Selvicoltura_, a very complete work, which also contains a brief
history of forestry in the Orient, Greece and Italy. G. Carlos Siemoni’s
_Manuele d’arte forestale_ (1864), and the earlier _Scienza selvana_ by
Tondi (1829) are encyclopedias of inferior quality.

In 1859, R. Maffei, a private forester, began to publish the _Revista
forestale del regno d’ Italia_, an annual review, for the purpose of
popularizing forestry in Italy, afterwards changed into a monthly, which
continued for some time under subventions from the government.

A number of propagandist forestry associations were formed at various
times, publishing leaflets or journals, one of these _L’Alpe_, a
monthly, in 1902. In 1910, the two leading societies combined into a
federation _Pro montibus ed enti affini_, merging also the _Rivista
forestale italiana_ with _L’Alpe_, which serves both propagandist and
professional needs.

SPAIN.

_Revista de Montes_, a semi-official journal, established in 1877,
is the best source.

_El Manuel de Legislacion y Administracion Forestal_, by HILARIO
RUIZ, and _Novisima Legislacion Forestal_, by DEL CAMPO, 1901,
elaborate the complicated legislation up to 1894.

_Dicionaro Hispano-Americano_, 1893, contains an article (_montes_)
on the administrative practice of the forest laws.

_A Year in Spain_, by a young American (SLIDELL) 1829, gives an
excellent account of physical conditions of the country and
character of the people at that time.

_Das Moderne Geistesleben in Spanien_, 1883, and
_Kulturgeschichtliche und Wirtschaftspolitische Betrachtungen_,
1901, by GUSTAV DIERKS, details character of institutions and
people.

“Poor Spain” is the expression which comes to the lips of everybody who
contemplates the economic conditions of this once so powerful nation,
almost the ruler of the world. Once, under the beneficent dominion of
the Saracens, a paradise where, as a Roman author puts it, “Nil otiosum,
nihil sterile in Hispania,” it has become almost a desert through
neglect, indolence, ignorance, false pride, lack of communal spirit,
despotism of church, and misrule by a corrupt bureaucracy.

With the exception of a narrow belt along the seashore, the whole of the
Iberian peninsula is a vast high mesa, plateau or tableland, 1,500 to
3,000 feet above sea level, traversed by lofty mountain chains, or
sierras, five or six in number, running parallel to each other, mainly
in a westerly and southwesterly direction. These divide the plateau into
as many plains, treeless, and for the most part, arid, exposed to cold
blasts in winter, and burning up in summer. They are frequently
subjected to severe droughts, which sometimes have lasted for months,
bringing desolation to country and people. The rivers, as they usually
do in such countries similar to our arid plains, form cañons and
arroyos, and, being uncertain in their water stages, none of them are
navigable although hundreds of miles long, but useful for irrigation, on
which agriculture relies. The great mineral wealth had made Spain the
California of the Carthaginians and Romans, and it is still its most
valuable resource.

Spain awakened to civilization through the visits of Phoenicians and
Carthaginians followed by the Romans. During the first centuries of the
Christian era there occurred one of the several periods of extreme
prosperity, when a supposed population of 40 million exploited the
country. After the dark days of the Gothic domination, a second period
of prosperity was attained for the portion which came under the sway of
the industrious and intelligent Moors or Saracens (711 to 1,000 A.D.)
who made the desert bloom, and whose irrigation works are still the
mainstay of agriculture at present. Centuries of warfare and carnage to
re-establish Christian kingdoms still left the country rich, when, in
1479, the several kingdoms were united into one under Ferdinand and
Isabella, and the Moors were finally driven out altogether (1492). This
kingdom persisted in the same form to the present time with only a short
period as a republic (1873). Spain was among the first countries to have
a constitution.

After the Conquest of the Moors, and with the discovery of America,
again a period of prosperity set in for the then 20 million people, but,
through oppression by State and Church (Inquisition), which also led to
the expulsion of the Jews and large emigration to America, the
prosperity of the country was destroyed, the population reduced to 10
million in 1800, and the conditions of character and government created
which are the cause of its present desolation. Since the beginning of
the century, the population has increased to near 18 million, but
financial bankruptcy keeps the government inefficient and unable to
accomplish reforms even if the people would let it have its way.

1. _Forest Conditions._

It has been a matter of speculation whether Spain was, or was not, once
heavily wooded (see page 11). In Roman times, only the Province of La
Manca is reported as being unforested, and, in the 13th and 14th
centuries, extensive forest zones are still recorded. The character of
the country at present, and the climate, both resembling so much our own
arid plains, make it questionable to what extent the forest descended
from the mountain ranges, which were undoubtedly well wooded.

At present the forest is mainly confined to the higher mountains. The
best is to be found in the Pyrenees and their continuation, the
Cantabrian mountains.

The area of actual forest (_bosques_) is not known with precision, since
in the official figures mere potential forest, i.e., brush and waste
land, is included (_montes_), and the area varies, i.e., diminishes
through new clearings, of which the statistics do not keep account.
Moreover, the statistics refer only to the “public forests,” leaving out
the statement of private forest areas, if any.

In 1859, this area was reported as over 25 million acres or 20 per cent.
of the land area (196,000 square miles); in 1885, the acreage had been
reduced to about 17.5 million acres; and, in 1900, about 16 million
acres, or 13 per cent. of the land area remained as public forest, and
the total was estimated at somewhat over 20 million acres.

The following peculiar classification, published in 1874, gives (in
round figures) at once an insight into the meaning of _montes_, and the
probable condition of the “public forest” area:

_Acres._
State Reserves 865,000
Salable State Property 4,550,000
Public Institute Forest 20,000
Communal Forest 9,860,000
Open Commons for Wood and Pasture 1,880,000
Common Pasture for Draft Animals 425,000
----------
Total 17,600,000

An estimate of the actual forest (timber and coppice), does not exceed
12 million acres for a population of 18 million, or .7 acres per capita.
The latest official figures claim as State property around 600,000
acres, and municipal institutional property 11.5 million acres; these
constituting the public forests. According to official classification,
these public forests are to the extent of 5.3 million acres high forest,
3 million coppice, the balance brushwoods.

In spite of this evident lack of wood material, except for firewood or
charcoal, the importations in 1903 did not exceed 13.5 million dollars,
accentuating the absence of industrial development. The official
statement of imports reports 6.5 million dollars more than the above
figure, but this includes horses and cattle enumerated as forest
products--products of the “montes.” These also figure in the
exportations of 15 million dollars, which to the extent of one-half
consists of cork (some 5 million dollars from 630,000 acres) and
tanbark, while chestnuts, filberts and esparto furnish the balance. In
1908, the imports of lumber and staves alone amounted to $7,382,000.

In 1882, all the public forests produced from wood sales only $900,000,
but the value of the products taken by rights of user was estimated at
nearly twice that amount. In 1910, the average income of the forest
service was reported as having averaged for the decade in the
neighborhood of 2 million dollars, and the expense approximately 1
million, a net yield of about 30 cents per acre on the area involved
resulting, the total cut being 5.7 million cubic feet annually.

The forest flora and its distribution is very similar to that of Italy,
and is described fully in two volumes prepared by a special commission
appointed for this purpose.

2. _Development of Forest Policy._

Spain is noted for its comprehensive legislation without execution; it
is also known that official reports are rarely trustworthy, so that what
appears on paper is by no means always found in reality, hence all
statements must be accepted with reservations.

The forest laws of Spain are somewhat similar to those of Italy, yet
show less appreciation of the needs of technical forest culture. The
value of forest resources and need of economy in their use was, indeed,
recognized early. Recommendations for their conservative use are
recorded from the 13th century on. An ordinance of Pedro I, in 1351,
imposed heavy fines upon forest destroyers. Ferdinand V, in 1496,
expressed alarm at the progressing devastation, and, in 1518, we find a
system of forest guards established, and even ordinances ordering
reforestation of waste lands, which were again and again repeated during
the century. In 1567 and 1582, notes of alarm at the continuing
destruction prove that these ordinances had no effect. The same
complaints and fears are expressed by the rulers during the 17th and
18th centuries, without any effective action. In 1748, Ferdinand VI
placed all forests under government supervision, but in 1812, the Cortes
of Cadiz, under the influence of the spirit of the French Revolution,
rescinded these orders and abolished all restrictions.

An awakening to the absolute necessity of action seems not to have
arrived until about 1833, when a law was enacted and an ordinance
issued, at great length defining the meaning of “montes,” and
instituting in the Corps of Civil Engineers a forest inspection. At the
same time, a special school was to be established in Madrid. This last
proposition does not seem to have materialized, for, in 1840, we find
that several young men were sent to the forest school at Tharandt
(Germany).

No doubt, under the influence of these men on their return, backed by
_La Sociedad Economica_ of Madrid, a commission to formulate a forest
law was instituted in 1846, and in the same year, carrying out
ordinances of 1835 and 1843, a forest school was established at
Villaviciosa de Odon, later (1869) transferred to the Escurial near
Madrid. This school, under semi-military organization, first with a
three-year, later a four-year, course, and continually improved and
enlarged in its curriculum (one Director and 13 professors in 1900), is
the pride of the Spanish foresters, to all appearances deservedly so. It
was organized after German models by Bernardo della Torre Royas as first
Director.

The creation of a forest department, however, _Cuerpo de Montes_, had to
wait until 1853. This department, under the Minister of Public Works
(now under the Minister of Agriculture), is a close corporation made up
of the graduates of the school as _Ingenieros de Montes_, acceptance
into which is based upon graduation and four years’ service in the
forest department as assistants besides the performance of some
meritorious work. The school stands in close relation to the department
service.

The first work of the new administration was a general forest survey to
ascertain conditions, and especially to determine which of the public
forests, under the laws of 1855 and 1859, it was desirable to retain.
The investigation showed that there was more forest (defined as in the
above classification) than had been supposed, but that it was in even
worse condition than had been known. The public forests, i.e., those
owned by the State, the communities and public institutions, were
divided into three classes according to the species by which formed,
which was the easiest way of determining their location as regards
altitude, and their public value; namely, the coniferous forest and
deciduous oak and chestnut forests, which were declared inalienable; the
forests of ash, alder, willow, etc., naturally located in the lower
levels, therefore without interest to the state, which were declared
salable; and an intermediate third class composed of cork oak and
evergreen oak, whose status as to propriety of sale was left in doubt.
In 1862, a revision of this classification left out this doubtful class,
adding it and the forest areas of the first class which were not at
least 250 acres in extent to the salable property. The first class,
which was to be reserved, was found to comprise nearly 17 million acres
(of which 1.2 million was owned by the State), while the salable
property was found to be about half that area.

Ever since, a constant wrangle and commotion has been kept up regarding
the classification, and repeated attempts, sometimes successful, have
been made by one faction, usually led by the Minister of Finance, to
reduce the public forest area (_desamortizadoro_), opposed by another
faction under the lead of the forest administration, which was forced
again and again to re-classify. In 1883, the alienable public forest
area was by decree placed under the Minister of Finance, the inalienable
part remaining under the Minister of Public Works (_Fomento_); very much
the same as it was in the United States until recently. The public debt
and immediate financial needs of the corporations gave the incentive for
desiring the disposal of forest property, and, to satisfy this demand,
it was ordered, in 1878, that all receipts from the State property and
20 per cent. of the receipts from communal forests were to be applied
towards the extinguishment of the debt.

The ups and downs in this struggle to keep the public forests intact
were accentuated on the one hand by the pressing needs of taking care of
the debt, on the other hand by drought and flood. Thus, in 1874, the
sale in annual instalments of over 4.5 million acres in the hands of the
Minister of Finance was ordered, but the floods of the same year were so
disastrous, (causing 7 million dollars damage, 760 deaths, 28,000
homeless), being followed by successive droughts, that a reversion of
sentiment was experienced, which led to the enactment of a reboisement
law in 1877. This law, having in view better management of communal
properties, ordered with all sorts of unnecessary technical details, the
immediate reforestation of all waste land in the public forests,
creating for that purpose a corps of 400 cultivators (_capatacas de
cultivos_). To furnish the funds for this work the communities were to
contribute 10 per cent. of the value of the forest products they sold or
were entitled to. But funds were not forthcoming, and, by 1895, under
this law only 21,000 acres had been reforested (three-fourths by
sowing).

The financial results of the management of the public forests, although
the forest department probably did the best it could under the
circumstances, had, indeed, not been reassuring. In 1861, a deficit of
$26,000 was recorded; in 1870, $600,000 worth of material was sold, 1.3
million dollars worth given away, and $700,000 worth destroyed.
Altogether, by fire and theft, it was estimated that 15 per cent. of
the production was lost. In 1885, this loss was estimated at 25 per
cent., when the net income had attained to 15 cents per acre, or, on the
17.5 million acres to less than three million dollars.

When it is considered that the governors of provinces and their
appointees, besides the village authorities, had also a hand in the
administration, it is no wonder that the forest department was pretty
nearly helpless. While, under the law of 1863, the department was
specially ordered to regulate the management of communal forests and to
gauge the cut to the increment, the political elements in the
administration, which appointed the forest guards, made the regulations
mostly nugatory.

At last, in 1900, a new era seems to have arrived, a thorough
reorganization was made, which lends hope for a better future. The
technical administration was divorced from the political influence and
placed under the newly created Minister of Agriculture. The machinery of
the _Cuerpo de Montes_ was remodeled. This consists now of one Chief
Inspector-General, four Division Chiefs, ten Inspectors-General for
field inspection, 50 chief engineers of district managers, 185
assistants, and 342 foresters and guards, the latter now appointed by
the department, instead of the Governors, and not all, as formerly,
chosen from veteran soldiers. The better financial showing referred to
above was the result.

In 1910, a special reboisement service, the _Servicio Hidrological
Forestal_, was also placed on a new footing, the country being divided
into ten districts for this purpose, and an engineer placed in charge
of each. But from a statement that, in 1910, of some 300,000 acres
planned to be recovered only 31,000 had been completed it may be
inferred that financial difficulties still retard the work.

Private forests, which had been without any interference, were, in 1908,
placed under government control so far as located within a defined
protective zone (_zona protectora dasocratica_). Such must be managed
under plans provided by the Forest Service, and in case of refusal on
the part of owners expropriation proceedings are provided, but the money
for taking advantage of this provision would probably not be in the
Treasury. Indeed, according to Professor Miguel del Campo at the
Escurial forest school, results so far are nil.

* * * * *

Since 1896, popular education is attempted through Arbor days, various
associations fostering the idea; in 1904, _La Fiesta del Arbol_ was made
a national holiday, and premiums are distributed for plantations made on
that day.

The _Revista de Montes_, a semi-official monthly journal, began its
publication in 1877, and serves the purpose of propaganda, as well as
the professional needs. A considerable book literature is also
developed.

PORTUGAL.

A pamphlet written for the International Exposition at Rio de
Janeiro in 1908, contains a chapter written by a forester, Borges,
which gives most recent and authentic information.

Besides notes scattered through the literature, an article by L.
Pardée, a French botanist, in Revue des Eaux et Forêts, 1911, gives
an extensive description of forest conditions and especially of the
forest of Leiria.

The small kingdom which occupies the west coast of the Iberian
peninsula, with 34,000 square miles and 6 million people, is in many
respects similar to Spain, except that a larger portion is fertile,
being situated in the litoral region, the climate less excessive, and
the people somewhat more enterprising. Not much more than one-half of
the country, however, is utilized; nearly 15,000 square miles being
waste.

Three sections or zones are recognized, the northern, bounding on Spain
which is mainly mountainous but also contains extensive sand dunes, is
the best wooded; the central, which is hilly and less well wooded,
contains (in Estremadura and Beira) one of the most desolate regions of
Europe and at the same time the best managed forest; the southern, the
richest in farm lands, with semi-tropic climate and flora, the zone of
evergreen broadleaf flora.

About 10% of the land area, or 4 million acres are under forest,
although 2 million more are wooded with olive, fig, almond plantations,
or open woodlands and brushwood. Of the actual forest area the State
owns only 82,000 acres, 30,000 of which reforested areas or sand dunes
in process of recovery.

The composition is nearly one-half of pine (_Pinus maritima_ and
_pinea_), one-fifth, cork oak “with pastures,” a little over one-fifth,
other evergreen oaks “with pastures,” and the balance, chestnut and
deciduous oaks.

The fact of the extensive private ownership and the reference to the
pastures in the enumeration of forest areas suffice to give an idea of
the condition of most of them. The oak forest is also to a large extent
still used for hog raising.

Besides the native forest areas, there are in existence a number of
parks and plantations of exotics, the climate of Portugal in parts
resembling that of California and permitting a wide range of
introductions, even tropical. There is perhaps nowhere such a good
opportunity of seeing the most varied forest flora in fine development
as the forest parks of Montserrate, of Bussaco, and in the various
botanical gardens.

Extensive Eucalyptus and Acacia plantations, some 1500 acres, of high
economical value, near Abrantés, are the enterprise of a private
landowner, W. C. Tait.

The deficiency of wood supplies is covered by an importation of about
1.5 million dollars against which there is an export of a little over
half a million, mainly cooperage stock. The best developed forest
industry is the growing of cork giving rise to an export of around 5
million dollars. A considerable naval store production is also
developed.

* * * * *

The first attempt at a real management of the State’s property dates
from 1868; a regular organization, however, did not take place until
1872, when, under the Director-General of Commerce and Industries, a
forest administrator with a technical staff of three division chiefs,
corresponding to the three sections of country, and six forestmasters
were installed.

At present, the staff of the Inspector consists of 8 technically
educated assistants, each in charge of some branch of service. Under
these, there are a number of field agents or supervisors (some 14 in
1903) with less education, and underforesters and guards.

The only really well managed forest, the pride of the Portuguese
foresters, is the forest of Leiria in Estremadura, a planted pinery of
about 25,000 acres, on which over 50 men of various grades are employed,
with naval store distilleries, impregnating works, and saw mills. Its
management (in natural seed tree system) dates from 1892.

Besides attending to the management of the State forests, a committee
composed of the administrator and some of the technical staff, were to
examine the country and decide what parts needed reforestation. As a
result of a very full report, in 1882, a reboisement law was enacted
under which some of the sand dunes were fixed.

In 1903, a more thorough organization of this work took place, which,
with liberal appropriations, promises more rapid progress.

This law recognizes two ways of placing private property under a
forestry regime, namely obligatory and facultative or voluntary.
Territory in the mountains and on dunes may if deemed by the superior
Agricultural Council as requiring it from the point of view of public
utility be placed under the regime by royal decree. Or else private
owners may ask to have their properties so placed, either merely
securing police protection, obligating themselves to keep the property
wooded, or working under a working plan or reforestation plan provided
by the Forest Service.

In either case the owner is obliged to pay the guards and at the rate of
about 2 cents per acre for the working plans. Planting material is
furnished free or at cost price, and exemption from taxes for 20 years
is granted for reforested lands. Expropriation of waste lands declared
as of public interest is provided, if owners object to enforced
reforestation. Some 275,000 acres have so far been placed under the
forestry regime.

There are provisions for forestry education in the School of Agriculture
at Lisbon, or the education for the higher positions in the forest
service may be secured at German or French forest schools, and some have
secured it at Vallambrosa.

GREAT BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES.

_Historical Inquiries concerning Forests and Forest Laws_, by
PERCIVAL LEWIS, 1811, gives a full account of the practices in the
old ban forests.

_English Forests and Forest Trees_, 1853, anonymous, gives an
interesting account of the old ‘forests’ and their history.

_Our Forests and Woodlands_, by JOHN NISBET, 1900, has a chapter on
the historical development of forest laws.

WM. SCHLICH, Manual of Forestry, vol. I, 3d ed., 1906, brings in
convenient form an account of conditions in various parts of the
British Empire.

SCHWAPPACH, _Forstliche Zustände in England_, Zeitschrift für Forst-
und Jagdwesen, 1903, is an account of forest conditions from the pen
of a practical observer.

B. RIBBENTROP, Forestry in India, 1900. Also various reports of the
forest departments of the various British Colonies.

It is a remarkable fact that the nation which can boast of the most
extensive forest department in one of her colonies, has at home not yet
been able to come to an intelligent conception even, not to speak of
application, of proper forest policy or forest economy.

One of the English authorities on the subject writes still in 1900:
“With so much land of poor quality lying uncultivated in many parts of
the British Isles, the apathy shown towards forestry in Britain is one
of the things that it is impossible to understand.”

If we should venture to seek for an explanation, we would find it in
geographical and physical conditions, but still more in personal and
political characteristics, historically developed, such as also in the
United States make progress of forestry slower than it would otherwise
be.

Due to her insular position with which in part the development of her
naval supremacy is connected, England can readily supply her needs by
importations. Situated within the influence of the Gulf stream, the
climate is much milder than her northern location would indicate, and is
in no respect excessive. The topography is mostly gentle, except in
Scotland and Wales, and the riverflow even all the year. Hence the
absence of forestcover has not been felt in its physical influences.

Britons, Picts, Scots, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons and Normans are the
elements which have amalgamated to make the English people. Through
endless warfare and political struggle the three countries, England,
Scotland and Ireland had, by the year 1600, come under one ruler,
although final legislative union with Scotland did not take place until
1707, and with Ireland not until 1800.

Theoretically, forming a constitutional monarchy, practically, an
aristocracy with republican tendencies, the history of the islands has
been a struggle, first to establish race supremacy, then to secure the
ascendency of the nobility and landholders over the king and the
commoners, in which the former have been more successful than the barons
in other parts of Europe.

Politically, the Englishman is an individualist, jealous of his private
interests and unwilling to submit to government interference for the
public welfare. Hence, State forestry, which is finally the only
solution of the forestry problem, appears objectionable. Commercial and
industrial enterprise rather than economic development appeals to him;
the practical issue of the day rather than demands of a future and
systematic preparation for the same occupy his mind. He lacks, as Mr.
Roseberry points out, scientific method, and hence is wasteful.
Moreover, he is conservative and self-satisfied beyond the citizens of
any other nation, hence if all the wisdom of the world point new ways,
he will still cling to his accustomed ones. In the matter of having
commissions appointed to investigate and report, and leaving things to
continue in unsatisfactory condition he reminds one of Spanish
dilatoriness. These would appear to us the reasons for the difficulty
which the would-be reformers experience in bringing about economic
reforms.

1. _Forest Conditions._

Cæsar’s and Strabo’s descriptions agree that Great Britain was a densely
wooded country. The forest area seems to have been reduced much less
through long-continued use, than through destruction by fire and
pasture, and by subsequent formation of moors, so that it is now,
excepting that of Portugal, the smallest of any European nation in
proportion to total area, and, excepting that of Holland, in proportion
to population.

Of the 121,380 square miles, which Great Britain and Ireland represent,
less than 4 per cent., or 3 million acres, (880,000 in Scotland, 303,000
in Ireland) are forested, one-fourteenth of an acre per capita; but
there are nearly 33% of waste lands, namely over 12 million acres of
heaths, moors and other waste lands capable of forest growth, and
another 12 million acres partly or doubtfully so, while the
agricultural land in crops and pasture comprises about 48 million
acres. The waste areas re-forested, it is believed, could meet the
consumption now supplied by importations. Notably in Scotland, extensive
heaths and moors of many hundred square miles in the Northern Highlands
and the Grampian mountains--well wooded in olden times, the woods having
been eradicated supposedly for strategic reasons--are now without farms
or forests, and are mainly used for shooting preserves. In the last
thirty years, the land under tillage has continuously decreased, and now
represents less than 25 per cent. of the whole land area, grasslands
occupying 38 per cent.

The agricultural land as well as the mountain and heath lands, are to
the largest extent owned by large proprietors (in 1876, 11,000 persons
owned 72 per cent. of the total area of the British Islands). With the
exception of 67,000 acres of crownlands, the entire forest area is owned
privately, and that mostly by large landed proprietors, there being no
communal ownership, except that the municipality of London owns a forest
area (Epping Forest) devoted to pleasure, and the Water Board of
Liverpool has begun to plant some of its catchment basins.

Practically the entire wood supply is imported, and the rate of
importation is rapidly increasing. While in 1864 it was 3.4 million
tons, in 1892, 7.8 million tons worth 92 million dollars; in 1899, 10
million tons and 125 million dollars; in 1902, it had grown to 138
million dollars, and in 1906 to 141 million (700 million cubic feet) in
which $7.4 million of wood manufactures, against which an export of $19
million mainly wood manufactures, must be offset. This makes England
the largest wood importer in the world, Germany coming next, and the
amount paid to other countries exceeds the value of her pig iron output.
Nearly 90 per cent. of the import is coniferous material, from Sweden,
Russia and Canada. The home product, mostly oak ties, mineprops, etc.,
satisfies about one-sixth of the consumption. In addition to timber and
lumber, over 10 million dollars of wood pulp, and 60 million dollars of
by-products are imported. The total wood consumption per capita is
between 12 and 14 cubic feet, half of what it was 50 years ago.

* * * * *

Pine is the only native conifer of timber value, and oak is the most
important native deciduous tree, found mostly in coppice or in old,
overmature, straggling pasture woods. Compact larger forest areas are
entirely absent, but there are many small plantations and parks. For,
while Englishmen have not been foresters, they have been active
treeplanters, and the mild climate has permitted the introduction of
many exotics, especially American conifers. Most of these plantings have
been for park and game purposes. The most noted forest plantations are
found in Scotland, among them the larch plantations of the Duke of
Athole (begun in 1728), of at one time over 10,000 acres, the ducal
woodlands now covering over 20,000 acres; the pinery of 25,000 acres,
belonging to the Countess of Sealfield, the best managed forest
property, partly in natural regeneration, and others. But these
plantations too are mostly widely spaced and trimmed, hence not
producing timber of much value, so that timber of British production is
usually ruled out by architects.

2. _Development of Forest Policies._

The Saxons and Normans were primarily hunters, and this propensity to
the chase has impressed itself upon their forest treatment into modern
times.

The Teutonic Saxons undoubtedly brought with them the feudal and
communal institutions of the Germans, under which territory for the
king’s special pleasure in the chase was set aside as ‘forest’, and this
exclusive right and privilege was on other territory extended to the
vassals, while the commoners were excluded from the exercise of hunting
privileges on these grounds.

The Normans not only increased the lands under ‘ban’, but they increased
also in a despotic manner the penalties and punishments for infraction
of the forest laws, and enforced them more stringently than was done on
the continent. The feudal system was developed to its utmost. Besides
‘forests’ in which the king alone had exclusive rights, and in which a
code of special laws, administered under special courts, was applied,
there were set aside ‘chases’, hunting reserves without the pale of the
forest laws; ‘parks’, smaller, enclosed hunting grounds; and ‘warrens’,
privileged by royal grant or prescription as preserves for small game.
Whole villages were wiped out, or lived almost in bondage to satisfy
this taste for sport. In the ‘forests’, of which in Elizabeth’s time not
less than 75 distinct ones were enumerated, withdrawing an immense area
from free use, both ‘vert’ and ‘venison’,--wood and game,--belonged to
the king; a host of officers,--stewards, verderers, foresters,
regarders, agistors, woodwards,--exercised police duties, and oppressed
and ground the people by extortions, while special courts,--‘woodmote’,
‘swainmote’, ‘court of justice seat’,--enforced the savage and cruel
laws. The first of these laws was supposed to date from Canute the
Great, in 1016, but was eventually found to be a forgery perpetrated by
William I in order to lend historical color to his assertion of ‘forest’
rights.

A partial reduction of forests, and a modification of the cruelty and
unreasonableness of the laws was obtained by the _Charta de Foresta_, in
1225, which formulated the laws into a code, and again by the Forest
Ordinance of 1306. But not until 1483, under Edward IV, were the people
living within ‘forests’ permitted to cut and sell timber, and to fence
in for seven years portions of the reserved territory. The last
territory was ‘afforested’, i.e., withdrawn for purposes of the chase,
under Henry VIII, but he had to secure the consent of the freeholders.
The Long Parliament, in 1641, stopped at least the extension of forests,
and modified the application of the laws to a more reasonable degree.

The forest laws are still on the statutes, but have fallen into
desuetude; the last ‘forest court of justice seat’ was held under
Charles I. The ‘forests’ themselves have also almost entirely vanished,
some being abolished as late as Queen Victoria’s time, by act of
parliament, but the last action under the ‘forest laws’ was had in 1862
when the Duke of Athole tried to establish his right as ‘forester’ for
the crown. A full account of the forest laws is contained in Manwood’s
volume, the title page of which is here reproduced.

[Illustration:

A
TREATISE OF THE LAWES OF THE FO-
rest: Wherein is declared not onely
_those Lawes, as they are now in force, but also the ori-_
ginall and beginning of Forests: And what a Forest is in
his owne proper nature, and wherein the same doth dif-
fer from a Chase, a Parke, or a Warren, with all such
things as are incident or belonging there into, with
their seuerall proper tearmes of Art.

ALSO A TREATISE OF THE
Pourallee, declaring what Pourallee is, how the
same first began, what a Pourallee man may do, how he may hunt
and vse his owne Pourallee, how farre he may pursue and fol-
low after his chase, together with the limits and bounds, as
well of the Forest, as the Pourallee.

Collected, as well out of the Common Lawes and
_Statutes of this land, As also out of sundrie learned auncient Au_-
thors, and out of the Assises of Pickering and Lancaster,
by IOHN MANVVOOD.

_Whereunto are added the Statutes of the Forest, a Trea_-
tise of the seuerall offices of Verderors, Regardors, and Fore-
sters, & the Courts of Attachments, Swanimote, & Iustice seat
of the Forest, and certaine principall Cases, Iudgements,
and Entries of the Assises of Pickering and Lan-
caster: neuer heretofore printed for
the publique

LONDON,
Printed for the Societie of Stationers,
_Anno Dom._ 1615.

_Cum Priuilegio._

Facsimile of Title page of Manwood’s celebrated volume.

(Original, the property of Mr. Joly de Lotbinière).]

In Scotland the same usages and laws existed, only very much less
rigorously enforced, until, in 1681, the extension of ‘forests’ was
discontinued by parliamentary act.

It will be understood that the term forest did only distantly refer to
woodland and that no economic policy had anything to do with the laws.
Only incidentally was forest growth protected and preserved for the sake
of the chase--the same medieval policy which still largely animates the
forest policy of the State of New York.

The woods outside the ‘forests’, which had mainly served for the raising
of hogs, and for domestic needs, experienced at various times unusual
reduction by fire. General Monk, among others, laid waste large areas on
the Scottish borderland in Cromwell’s time.

The first serious inroads by extensive fellings occurred under Edward
III in the first half of the 14th century to enrich the treasury for the
French wars. Again, Henry VIII in the 16th century, when he seized the
church properties for his own use, turned them into cash. A hundred
years later, James I reduced the forest area, especially in Ireland, by
his colonization schemes. Yet both, Henry VIII and James I, are on
record as encouraging forest planting for utility. Charles I, James’
successor, always in need of cash, alienated many of the crown forests,
and turned them into cash, besides extorting money through the forest
courts. During the Revolution, beginning in 1642, and during Cromwell’s
reign a licentious devastation of the confiscated or mortgaged
noblemen’s woods took place.

Finally, under Charles II, the needs for the royal navy forced attention
to the reduction of wood supplies, and as a result of the agitation to
encourage the growth of timber, a member of the newly formed Royal
Society was deputed to prepare an essay, which, published in 1662, has
become the classic work of English forest literature, namely John
Evelyn’s _Sylva_, or “_A Discourse of Forest Trees_,” which has
experienced eleven editions. It should, however, be mentioned that an
earlier writer, whom Evelyn often quotes, Tuffer, before the reign of
Elizabeth, in 1526, published his “Five Hundred Points of Husbandry,” a
versification in which treeplanting received attention. Ever since that
time, periodically and spasmodically, the question of forestry has been
agitated, without much serious result.

From 1775 to 1781, the Society of Arts in London offered gold medals and
prizes for treeplanting, and in the beginning of the 19th century a
revival of arboricultural interest was experienced, perhaps as a result
of an interesting report by the celebrated Admiral Nelson on the
mismanagement of the forest of Dean, concern for naval timber giving the
incentive, in which he recommended the planting of oak for investment.

At that time, a Surveyor-General, with an insufficient force, was in
charge of the crown forests. In 1809, the management was placed under a
board of three Commissioners, one of whom being a member of the
parliament was to be changed with the administration. Under this
management, graft became so rampant that, in 1848, a committee of the
House of Commons was appointed, whose report revealed the most
astonishing rottenness, placing a stigma on government management such
as we still uncover in the United States from time to time. A
reorganization took place in 1851. At that time the royal forests and
parks, reduced in extent to about 200,000 acres, showed a deficiency of
$125,000, mostly, to be sure, occasioned by the parks. There was then
still a tribute of some 600 bucks to be delivered to various personages,
as was the ancient usage.

At present there are some 115,000 acres classed as royal forest, but
only 67,000 acres are really forest, consisting of more or less
mismanaged woods, under the administration, not forest management, of
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, with Deputy Surveyors in charge
of the ranges. Although there are a few notable exceptions in the
management, it is to be noted that the same stupid ignorance, which
introduced the clause into the Constitution of the State of New York,
was enacted into law in 1877 by the English Parliament, forbidding in
the New Forest all cutting and planting. In 1900, there existed just one
planting plan, made by a professional forester, namely, for a portion of
the forest of Dean, while now only two other State properties and two or
three private estates are managed under working plans.

In 1887, a Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of
this property, expressed itself most dissatisfied, but a Committee of
Parliament in 1890 whitewashed the administration and reported that the
management was satisfactory.

These committees, as well as an earlier one, in 1885, were also to
recommend measures for the advancement of forestry. They laid in their
recommendations the main stress upon education, but no action followed,
and it can be said that the government has never done anything for the
advancement of forestry in the home country, whatever it may have done
for the dependencies. A Departmental Committee again reported in 1902
with all sorts of recommendations, which have remained unheeded.

The interests of forestry as far as the government is concerned are at
present committed to the Board of Agriculture, an unwieldy body created
in 1889, from which this Departmental Committee was appointed. There is
now, however, a strong movement on foot, led by foresters returned from
India, to commit the government to some action with reference to the
waste lands, and towards providing for educational means.

Another committee, appointed in 1908 to enquire into prospects of
afforestation in Ireland, reported in favor of acquiring 300,000 acres
of wood and 700,000 acres of unplanted land, dwelling especially on the
benefit to be secured by providing employment and a check upon
emigration of the rural population. Instead of acting upon this
proposition the government directed the Royal Commission on Coast
Erosion, which had issued its first report in 1907, to suspend its
inquiry into the inroads of the sea and apply themselves to the inquiry
as to “whether in connection with unclaimed lands or otherwise it is
desirable to make an experiment in afforestation as a means of
increasing employment during periods of depression, and how, and by whom
such experiment should be conducted.”

In 1909, the Royal Commission on Afforestation and Coast Erosion
reported at length, proposing the reforestation by a special Commission
of nine million acres of waste land at a rate of 75,000 or 150,000 acres
a year to be acquired by purchase--an elaborate plan, which so far has
remained without result.

The government, although various committees have recommended it, has
remained also callous in respect to educational policy, except that, in
1904, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests instituted a school (one
instructor) in the Forest of Dean for the education of woodsmen and
foremen.

As illustrative of the government’s peculiar attitude to forest policy
in general, we may note a curious anachronism, namely the act of 1894,
which relieves railway companies from liability for damage from
locomotive fires, if they can prove that they have exercised all care,
although traction engines cannot offer this excuse.

The first attempt to secure educational facilities dates to 1884 when a
chair of forestry was established in the Royal Engineering College at
Cooper’s Hill, an institution designed to prepare for service in India
purely. Through private subscriptions, another chair of forestry was
instituted in 1887 at the University of Edinburgh, and several
agricultural colleges, notably that of Cirencester, as well as the
Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, had made provisions for teaching
the subject in a way, but outside of Cooper’s Hill no adequate education
in forestry was obtainable in Great Britain, until 1905.

In 1905, the forest department in Cooper’s Hill was transferred to
Oxford, the three years’ course--one year to be spent in the forests of
Germany or other countries--being as before designed mainly for
aspirants to the Indian forest service. Now, besides Oxford, some nine
other institutions offer courses in forestry--the reason for this
educational development being difficult to imagine.

The name of Sir William Schlich, a German forester, and for some time
the head of the Indian forest department now in charge of this school,
is most prominently connected with the reform movement.

* * * * *

Altogether forest management and silvicultural practice are still nearly
unknown in England, and, until within a few years, the useful idea of
working plans had not yet penetrated the minds of owners of estates.
This apathy is, no doubt, in part due to the fact that the government is
in the hands of the nobility, who prefer to keep their “shooting
ranges”, and do not see even a financial advantage from turning them
into forest as long as they can derive a rent of from 10 to 40 cents per
acre for shooting privileges.

* * * * *

Private endeavor has been active through the two arboricultural
societies, the Royal Scotch, founded in 1854, and the Royal English,
beginning its labors in 1880. The transactions of these societies in
annual or occasional volumes represented the current magazine
literature on forestry since the monthly Journal of Forestry and Estates
Management, which began its career in London in 1877, transferred to
Edinburgh in 1884, ceased to exist in 1885.

At present, a very well conducted Quarterly Journal of Forestry, started
in 1907 by the Royal English Arboricultural Society replacing its
Transactions and that of the Irish Forestry Association, also the
Journal of the Board of Agriculture, occasionally, supply the needs of
the continuously improving chances for development on forestry lines.
Until within a short time the English professional book literature has
been extremely meager, although a considerable propagandist,
arboricultural, and general magazine literature exists. Schlich’s
_Manual of Forestry_, first in three volumes published from 1889 to
1895, now in its second to fourth edition, enlarged to five volumes, is
the most comprehensive publication. Another author deserving mention is
John Nisbet, known by his _Studies in Forestry_ (1894), who also
engrafted continental silvicultural notions into later editions of James
Brown’s _The Forester_, an encyclopædic work of merit. Several German
and French works have been translated into English, notably K. Gayer:
Die Forstbenutzung; R. Hess: Der Forstschutz; H. Fürst: Waldschutz.

John Croumbie Brown’s sixteen volumes on forests and forestry in various
countries may be mentioned among the propagandist literature. The
Arboricultural Societies mentioned also make a brave effort to advance
professional development of forestry in their publications.

INDIA.

While so neglectful of her forest interests at home, Great Britain has
developed in her possessions in the East Indies a far-seeing policy,
and, under the lead of German influence, has established there one of
the largest, if not most efficient, forest departments in the world.

Contrary to a frequently expressed idea that the conditions and problems
of India are comparable to the conditions and problems of the United
States, so that the example of Great Britain in India rather than that
of any European country might serve us in the United States, the writer
thinks that the very opposite is true. Not only are the natural
conditions for the most part different, India being mainly tropical with
an entirely different flora and different conditions of growth, but
industrial, cultural, social and political conditions are also entirely
different; all of which entails difference in methods of procedure.
There are, to be sure, a few points of similarity: the large size of
country under one government, and that in the hands of an English
speaking race; the fact that the fire scourge, as with us, but from
different reasons, is still the greatest problem; that there are arid
regions and deserts (not over 10 per cent.), and irrigation problems and
flood dangers to deal with; and finally the long delay in establishing a
definite forest policy. Although this policy was inaugurated over 40
years ago, India has not yet, and will by the nature of things, not soon
pass out of the first stage of development which we may confidently
expect to pass through much more rapidly, due to the conditions in
which we resemble Europe more closely.

The greater part of India, namely 62 per cent. of the 1,773,000 square
miles, is under British administration, and is peopled by a subject race
of nearly 240 million, without a voice in their government, which is
carried on by a small handful of the conquerors (about 100,000
Englishmen are living in India), while the balance, around 700,000
square miles with 53 million people, is divided among a large number of
more or less independent native States, very different in their
civilization from ours.

Industrially, the difference will appear from the statement that about
70 per cent. of the population is engaged in agricultural pursuits,
hence there is no active wood market as with us, except for domestic
purposes, and, as the woods, like those of most tropical forest, are
mainly cabinet woods, even the export trade is insignificant, amounting
to hardly 3 million dollars, while minor forest products (lac, cutch and
gambier, myrobalan, caoutchouc, etc.) represent about 12 million
dollars.

Climatically, as is to be expected, on such a large territory, great
variation exists, which is increased by differences in altitude from the
sea level to the tops of the Himalayas. The climate is, of course,
largely tropical, with a rainfall which varies from the heaviest known,
of 600 inches, to almost none at all.

Nevertheless, in spite of these differences from our conditions, much
may be learned from Indian experience in the matter of organization,
both to follow and to avoid, and the fact that this can be done without
the need of a foreign language will be attractive to most Americans.

* * * * *

The British, like other nations, gained a foothold in India for trading
purposes during the 17th century. This they extended during the 18th
century, especially after they had attained the ascendancy by Clive’s
subjection, in 1757, of the great Mogul, one of the most powerful native
princes. By conquest and amicable arrangement, the territory of British
influence was gradually increased through the agency of the East India
Company, until, in 1858, the British government in India was formally
established by royal proclamation; and, in 1877, it was declared an
empire.

As stated, native princes still control, under British influence and
restrictions, over one-third of the country, or a territory of nearly
700,000 square miles, divided into 13 feudatory states. The total area
under direct British control and government is 1,087,000 square miles,
of which 25 per cent. (280,000 square miles) is probably forested and
waste, some 232,000 square miles or nearly 150 million acres of which
are so far declared government property.

The British territory is divided into three presidencies (Madras, Bombay
and Bengal) and nine provinces, each with a separate government under a
governor, or commissioner, with a council, and all subject to control by
the resident governor-general or viceroy and his council, and he in turn
is responsible to the Secretary of State at home.

There is, however, little centralization of government functions, the
provincial governments being to a large degree at least semi-autonomous,
like the states in the United States, and considerable variation exists
in the conduct of affairs. The difficulties in introducing something
like a uniform forest policy were, indeed, not small, and much credit is
due to the wisdom and tact of the three German foresters, who in
succession filled the difficult position of head of the Imperial Forest
Department and organized the service--Brandis, Schlich and Ribbentrop.

1. _Forest Conditions._

In the tropics, rainfall conditions more than any other factor determine
forest conditions. The rains of India depend on extraordinary sea winds,
or “monsoons,” and their distribution is regulated by the topography of
land and relative position of any district with regard to the mountains
and the vapor-laden air currents. Thus excessive rainfall characterizes
the coast line along the Arabian Sea to about latitude 20 degrees N.,
and still more along the coast of Lower Burma, and to a lesser extent
also the delta of the Ganges and the southern slopes of the Himalayas. A
moderately humid climate, if gauged by annual rainfall, prevails over
the plateau occupying the larger part of the peninsula and the lower
Ganges valley, while a rainfall of less than 15 inches occurs over the
arid regions of the lower Indus.

The rainfall, so unevenly distributed territorially, is, moreover, as
unevenly distributed through the year. In most districts the principal
rains are experienced in summer, the rainy season being followed by a
long dry season. But on the Eastern coast the summer rains are slight,
and the principal rainy season is delayed into October and November,
while in Northern India and the Himalayas, also winter rains occur,
irregular and of short duration.

Even where a relatively large rainfall prevails, the climate is dry on
account of the high temperature, hence some 30,000,000 acres of the
cultivated acreage (which comprises 225,000,000 acres in all) depend on
irrigation, over half of this irrigated area lying in the tropical zone.

Roughly speaking, at least four climatic zones with many sub-types, may
be recognized: the truly tropic, intensely hot and wet (over 75 inch
rainfall), prevailing on the plains and tablelands of the lower half of
the peninsula; the hot and dry (below 15 inch rainfall) climate of the
Northwestern Indus plain and plateau; the moderately warm and dry to
humid (30-75 inch rainfall) climate of the Ganges plain and central
plateau; and the temperate to alpine, humid climate of the Himalaya
mountains, with snow and ice in winter, and moderate heat in summer.

In keeping with this great diversity of climate, both as to temperature
and humidity, there is a great variation in the character and
development of the forest cover. At least six types can be recognized,
namely the evergreen forest, found along the West coast, in Burma,
Andaman Islands, and the sub-Himalaya zone, which is composed of
broadleaved species with a dense undergrowth of small trees and tangled
lianas (vines), but few shrubs, as is characteristic of most tropical
forest; the deciduous forest, mainly in the interior of Central India,
with Sal, Teak and Ironwood as characteristic trees; the arid region
forest, found in the Punjab, in Raiputana, and in Sindh, of varying
composition, from the open shrub forests of the latter province,
composed of acacias, tamarisk and mesquite, to the denser, more
diversified, dry, low tree forest of the former; the alpine coniferous
forest of the Himalayas and of the mountains of Afghanistan,
Belutchistan, and Burma, composed of pine, deodar, juniper, with oak,
walnut, boxwood, approaching our own forest types. In addition, there
may be segregated the coast forest, of small extent, composed of trees
which, like the mangrove, will bear salt water; the overflow forest
along rivers; and river forests in the desert regions, of which latter
large areas exist.

The natural differences in the forest cover are emphasized by the action
of man, who for many centuries has waged war against the forest,
clearing it permanently or temporarily for agricultural purposes, or
else merely burning it over to improve grazing facilities, or for
purposes of the chase.

Statistics, except of government properties, are somewhat doubtful.
Apparently, the forested area of the whole of India comprises somewhat
over 40 per cent. of the land area. The government forests, settled and
unsettled, represent at present about 24 per cent. of the area under
British rule (149 million acres), not over 20 per cent. being under
cultivation, leaving about 56 per cent. either natural desert, waste, or
grazing lands.

The great forests of India are in Burma; extensive woods clothe the
foothills of the Himalayas and are scattered in smaller bodies
throughout the more humid portions of the country, while the dry
northwestern territories are practically treeless wastes. Large areas of
densely settled districts are so completely void of forest that millions
of people regularly burn cow dung as fuel, while equally large districts
are still impenetrable, wild woods, where, for want of market, it hardly
pays to cut even the best of timbers.

The great mass of forests in India are stocked with hardwoods, which in
these tropical countries are largely evergreen, or nearly so, although
the large areas of dry forest are deciduous by seasons; only a small
portion of the forest area is covered by conifers, both pine and cedar,
these pine forests being generally restricted to higher altitudes in the
Himalayas. The hardwoods, most of which in India truly deserve this
name, belong to a great variety of plant families, some of the most
important being the Leguminosæ, Verbenaceæ, Dipterocarpeæ, Combretaceæ,
Rubiaceæ, Ebenaceæ, Euphorbiaceæ, Myrtaceæ, and others, and a relatively
small portion represented by Cupuliferæ and other families familiar to
us. The most important, valuable species are Teak, Sal, and Deodar.

In the greater part of India the hardwood forest consists not of a few
species, as with us, but is made up, like most tropical forest, of a
great variety of trees unlike in their habit, their growth, and their
product; and, if our hardwoods offer on this account considerable
difficulties to profitable exploitation, the case is far more
complicated in India, several thousand species entering into the
composition. In addition to the large variety of timber trees there is
a multitude of shrubs, twining and climbing plants, and in many forest
districts also a growth of giant grasses (bamboos), attaining a height
of 30 to 120 feet, which is ready to take possession of clearings. These
bamboos, valuable as they are in many ways, prevent often for years the
growth of any seedling trees, and thus form a serious obstacle to the
regeneration of valuable timber. The growth of timber is generally quite
rapid, although to attain commercial size, Teak requires usually a
rotation of 150 years. But in spite of their rapid growth and the large
areas now in forest capable of reforestation, India is not likely--at
least within reasonable time--to raise more timber than it needs. In
most parts of India, the use of ordinary soft woods, such as pine, seems
very restricted, for only durable woods, those resisting both fungi and
insects (of which the white ants are specially destructive), can be
employed in the more permanent structures, and are therefore acceptable
in all Indian markets.

At present, Teak is the most important hardwood timber, while the Deodar
(a true cedar) is the most extensively used conifer. Teak occurs in all
moist regions of India except the Himalayas, grows usually mixed with
other kinds, single, or in clumps, is girdled two or three years before
felling, is generally logged in a primitive way, commonly hewn in the
woods and shipped--usually floated--as timber, round or hewn, and rarely
sawn to size.

In 1905-6, the cut in the State forest area was 240,000,000 cubic feet,
timber (25%) and fuel, of which 20 per cent. was given to grantees or
those holding rights of user free of charge, and less than 2 per cent.
was exported. In addition, over 200 million bamboos and nearly two
million dollars worth of by-products, such as lac, caoutchouc, cutch,
gambier, myrobalans, were secured.

2. _Property Conditions._

Prior to the British occupation, the native rulers, or rajahs, laid
claim to a certain proportion of the produce from all cultivators of the
soil. They also reserved absolute right to the forests, and to all
unseated or waste lands, although usually the people were allowed to
supply their needs from these. The English government, by right of
conquest, fell heir to these rights as well as to the properties, but,
without care in asserting its rights, the unimpeded use of unguarded
forest property led to the assertion of rights of user by the people,
and such were also sometimes granted by the government. “Joint village”
communities in some parts, i.e., settlements which occupy contiguous
areas, claimed and occupied large areas of forest and waste as commons,
and in general the original property rights of the government became
uncertain.

The necessity of bringing order into this question led to various
so-called settlements, by which the rights were defined, properties
de-limited, and payment in kind changed into cash payments.

After attempts to regulate these matters by local rules, the first
general Indian Forest Act, passed in 1865, modified by the Forest Act of
1878, laid down the basis upon which the rights of forest property were
to be settled. These acts divide the forests into three classes, namely,
those in which the right of the State is absolute; those in which the
State has property rights, but which are burdened with prescriptive or
granted rights of user; and those which are private property, but on
which the State reserves the right to cut certain kinds of trees for
government use, Teak, Sandalwood, and in some parts Deodar, these being
considered “royal trees.” The forest act being throughout applicable
only at the choice and under the construction of the provincial
governments, modified acts, applicable to different parts of the Empire,
and different in details, were passed from time to time, and many
different local rules were issued by the provincial governments, but all
agree in fixing one definite policy, namely declaration or demarcation
of government forests, after inquiry into all existing rights, and
division of the declared government forests into three classes, reserves
or permanent state forests, protected forests, and unclassed, the latter
two still open to change in ownership, and adjustment in rights of user,
etc.

The absolute and relative areas of government property, therefore, are
continuously changing. In 1900 the reserve forests comprised 81,400
square miles, or 8.6% of the total territory controlled by the British
government; the protected forest 8800 square miles, and the demarcated
but unclassified area, 117,000 square miles. These figures had, in 1904,
changed to 91,567 for permanent reserves (58 million acres), 9865 for
protected, and 131,269 for unclassed, showing the rapid change now
taking place in the status of classification.

The name of B. H. Baden-Powell, at one time conservator of the Punjab
and Acting Inspector-General of Forests during 1872-4, is closely
connected with placing this forest legislation on a sound basis. The
object of this legislation was mainly to settle the question of
ownership and rights, hence reserved forests are not necessarily set
aside for forest purposes like the forest reservations in the United
States, although ultimately this will probably be their condition.

Rights of user were under this legislation regulated or commuted. In
some parts, even on the reserved forest areas, there are still retained
rights to cut _taungyas_, i.e., to make partial clearings for temporary
agricultural use, under the restriction of not destroying teak trees
over 18 inches in diameter, and with the right of the cultivators to
supply their domestic needs, under obligation to cut out fire traces,
burning the brush, and instituting similar protective measures.

The title to the forest property having been secured, its permanent
demarcation and a survey of the same were the next steps; the first
having gradually been nearly accomplished, the latter being still far in
arrears.

The area of private and communal forests is not precisely known, but,
including waste land and lands of uncertain conditions, there are at
least 500,000 square miles so owned, including those of feudatory rulers
within the provinces. Of these, some 500 square miles or more of forest
are leased to the government and under its control; and in some cases
forest administrations are instituted by the rajahs themselves.

In the Act of 1878, there was a clause calling for protection of private
forest property against trespass and encroachment, but this remained a
dead letter. By later legislation the government is entitled to exercise
control over private forests and lands, if it appears necessary for the
public weal, or if the treatment which such forests have received from
their owners affect the public welfare or safety injuriously; but in
such cases the owner can require the government to expropriate the land
in question.

The forest act also provided that the government may assign to village
communities from the reserved forest area so-called village forests, and
make rules for their protection, use and management. How far this policy
has been applied does not appear.

There are still areas the ownership of which is not settled, and rights
which are still in doubt, the work of the so-called forest settlements
still going on, several thousand square miles being annually changed in
status, and several thousand dollars annually spent to quiet rights of
user.

3. _Development of Forest Policy._

Through the long history of India that preceded the arrival of the
Mohammedans in the 10th to 12th centuries, it appears that the forest
area was only slowly encroached upon by the Hindoo civilization. Even
when the invaders, nomads by habit, drove many of the native race into
the jungle to eke out a precarious existence, owing to the remarkable
recuperative powers of a tropical nature the impression made was not
permanent. Although much forest growth was then destroyed, cleared or
mutilated, changes took place only slowly.

It has been claimed, that in consequence of the destruction, which was
incident to the nomadic life of the Mohammedans and the shifting
agriculture of the aborigines, climatic changes were produced, but the
proof for this assertion has remained questionable.

When in the 18th century the British entered India in rivalry with the
French and other European nations, it was, of course, only for purposes
of exploitation, and for a long time after the British had attained the
ascendancy and had subjected most of the territory now ruled by them,
not much concern was had about the forests; they furnished but small
values, excepting in one particular, namely supplies of Teak for naval
purposes. In the beginning of the 19th century the Government became
concerned regarding these supplies, which under the rough exploitation
threatened to become exhausted.

The first step towards securing some conservative management dates back
to 1806, when Captain Watson was sent to India as Conservator of
Forests, to look after the interests of the East India Company in this
direction. His inability to compromise with those who had secured timber
privileges led to his removal and an abandonment of the office, in 1823.
Ineffective, sporadic efforts at administration by the provincial
governments then followed.

In 1839-40, the government of the Bombay Presidency stopped the cutting
of Teak trees on government property. In 1834, M. Connolly, Collector of
Malabar in the Madras Presidency, began to plant Teak on a large scale
at Nilambur. In 1847, Dr. Gibson was appointed Conservator of Forests in
Bombay; from 1848 to 1856, Lieutenant (now General, C. S. I.) James
Michael conducted the government timber operations in the Anamalai Teak
forests (Madras), and made the first recorded attempts to protect Indian
forests from injury by annual jungle fires.

In 1856, Dr. Hugh Cleghorn was appointed Conservator of Forests in
Madras. He checked the destructive practices of temporary cultivation in
the government forests of that Presidency, a measure, which at first was
strongly opposed by the people, but his well-known desire to promote
native interests inspired the rulers of the country with confidence, and
finally his measures were successful.

Various attempts at some kind of regulation of the exploitation by
lumbermen were also made by the general government, after various
examinations and reports, and, in 1847, even a small and ineffective
forest department was organized.

The annexation of the Province of Pegu in lower Burma, in 1852,
introduced a new complication, and proved the turning point in forestry
matters. In this province, the right to cut Teak had been reserved by
the native princes, and hence became a right of the crown, but private
lumbermen began to cut this timber, and, after an investigation and
report, it was decided to take definite steps to regulate the use of
these valuable Teak forests at least.

Lord Dalhousie, the then Governor-General, upon the basis of the report
of the superintendent of forests at Pegu, Dr. McClelland, in 1855 laid
down in statesmanlike manner an outline of a permanent forest policy for
the government, and introduced the first professional adviser.

In 1856, a German forester from Hesse, Dietrich Brandis (afterward Sir)
was installed as superintendent of forests for Pegu with wide powers
under contract for 10 years, at a liberal salary, and pension after
retirement. The only possible check that could at first be applied was
to force the lumbermen to make contracts, limit the diameter to which
the exploitation was to be allowed, and mark the trees to be felled.
This was done, naturally not without a large amount of friction.

The result of this experiment in forest conservancy, as the English are
pleased to call it, was so satisfactory, that, in 1862, it was decided
to organize a forest department for all India; Brandis was entrusted
with the organization, and, in 1864, he was appointed head of the new
department under the Secretary of Public Works with the title of
Inspector-General, acting as adviser of the various provincial
governments.

The forests of India during the next 20 years during which Brandis held
office, were, province by province, brought under the regime of the
Imperial Forest Department, although the provincial governments retain
full and independent administrative power.

The first problem was to settle ownership conditions, which was done in
the manner described before, by the act of 1865, and by later acts.

The discontent which was created by this act came very near wrecking the
whole enterprise, and much difference of opinion between the local and
general governments existed, the government of Madras going so far as to
declare the impossibility of establishing State property in view of the
acknowledged rights of the villagers over waste lands. The general
policy, however, finally prevailed, and an increasingly harmonious
cooperation of the provincial governments has allowed the development of
an efficient forest service.

Various provincial legislation was considered, passed and repealed,
until, in 1878, the Indian Forest Act VII settled the policy at least
for the majority of the provinces, Madras and Burma and some minor
districts still declining to extend its provisions to their forests. The
Burma government enacted, however, similar legislation in 1881, and the
Madras government in 1882, and, much later, the other outstanding
governments followed (1886 to 1891), so that, while the detail of
application varies not inconsiderably, the general policy regarding
forest property of the State is the same throughout the empire. Whatever
of uniformity exists had to be secured mainly by persuasive means.

The forest acts, as stated on a previous page, contain certain
provisions regarding formation of village forests and control of private
forest property, but no interference with private forest property has
been attempted, although in some parts this is more important and larger
than the State holdings. Most of the owners merely exploit their
property, but some of the larger, more enlightened native princes have
established forest administrations, imitating the example of the
Imperial government. Those of Mysore and Kashmir and Hyderabad have
placed this administration under an imperial forest officer, furloughed
for this purpose, and derive handsome revenues; the Kashmir forests of
about 2500 square miles yielding round $180,000; those of Mysore, near
2000 square miles, over $330,000, this largely derived from sales of
sandal wood; those of the Nizam of Hyderabad, with 5200 square miles in
reserves and 4400 in protected forests, deriving a revenue of $75,000,
seven times what it was ten years before.

4. _Forest Organization and Administration._

The condition of affairs in the forest department can be briefly
summarized as follows for the year 1909.

Total area under government control: 241,774 square miles, namely,
Reserved, 94,561; Protected, 8,835; Unclassed, 138,378.

Officials (in 1905): Higher grades, 312; Lower grades, 1,663; Guards,
8,533. The controlling staff was in 1909 increased by 34; and numbers in
all other grades increased.

Rounded off Expenditures, $4,500,000; Revenues, $8,225,000; Net
Proceeds, $3,675,000 (45% of gross). Variation in the value of the rupee
makes comparison with earlier years uncertain.

In spite of the many difficulties, a poor market (no market at all for a
large number of woods), wild, unsurveyed, and practically unknown
woodlands, requiring unusual and costly methods of organization and
protection, the forestry department has succeeded, without curtailing
the timber output of India, in so regulating forest exploitation as to
insure not only a permanence in the output, but also to improve the
woodlands by favoring the valuable species. It has prepared for an
increase of output for the future, and at the same time has yielded the
Government a steadily growing revenue, which bids fair to rank before
long among the important sources of income.

In 1865 the net revenue was only $360,000, it had about doubled by 1875,
and more than trebled by 1885, and since then has more than quadrupled.

While in the period of 1870 to 1874 the expense of the administration
was still 70 per cent. of the gross income, it has gradually been
reduced to near 45 per cent., while the outturn in material has in the
last five years increased by 35% over the preceding quinquennium.

At first, the department and its operations as well as its finances were
Imperial, the local governments having no control over its officers or
over the revenue derived, but, in 1882, decentralization was effected,
the local governments obtaining a direct interest in the revenues. As a
result the financial interest overruled the conservative policy, and
over-cutting was the consequence. In 1884, the general government
recognized the need of a change. After some struggle, the Imperial
department was placed at least in charge of preparing the working plans,
and pressure for their execution if not direct enforcement can be
brought through appeal to the general government by the
Inspector-General, which, however, has never been necessary to use.

The organization of the forest service passed through various stages,
and the arrangement in the different provinces is even now not quite
uniform.

The forest service, then, is peculiarly organized as regards division of
responsibilities and relationships between the imperial and the
provincial governments, the autonomy of the latter being jealously
guarded. It is divided into the Imperial and the Provincial Service, the
former consisting of the higher grade officials entirely recruited from
England, the latter, the executive service, being in administrative
functions independent of the former.

An Inspector-General, directly under the Secretary of Revenue and
Agriculture, (for some time under the Home Department) is the head of
the service, and acts as professional adviser both of the Imperial and
the Provincial Governments. But this head of the service is shorn of
most of executive functions, all administrative matters being reserved
to the provincial authorities.

The Inspector-General has charge only of the forest school
administration, of forest surveys, and of the making of working plans,
which later, after approval by the Provincial government, are in their
execution inspected and critically supervised by him, but without power
to enforce them, or to give direction directly to the Conservators in
charge (at least in Madras and Burma). He also watches over and reports
on the progress of all forestry matters in the empire.

Peculiarities and great variety are also found in other official
relations and in the appointing power, the general and provincial
governments exercising certain rights in this respect.

The Controlling Staff (57 officers in 1869, now about 300) under the
Inspector-General, consists of Conservators, Deputy Conservators and
Assistant Conservators. The Conservators, now some 20, so far as they
are not directly acting as assistants in the Inspector-General’s
office, are the heads of the provincial departments and
conservatorships, and in that capacity directly subordinate to the local
government, which in Madras and Bombay also has their appointment; each
is in charge either of the entire forest business of the Province, or of
a circle forming part of a Province and the administration unit in
India. These are, therefore, the most influential and most responsible
agents in introducing forestry practices. Conservatorships are divided
into divisions, each in charge of a divisional forest officer, a member
of either the Imperial or the Provincial Controlling Staff; but these
have to acknowledge subordination to the Chief Civil officer, the
Collector of the district in which they are located, in order to
harmonize the financial and forestal interests.

About 80 per cent. of the Controlling Staff in the Imperial Service are
appointed by the Secretary of State from graduates formerly from the
forest school at Cooper’s Hill College, now Oxford, the remaining 20 per
cent. from Englishmen in the provincial service, the members of which
have passed through the Dehra Dun forest school and through the lower
branches of the service. In addition to this Superior Staff, a
Subordinate Staff of Extra Deputy Conservators and Extra Assistant
Conservators forms the Provincial Service, which is mainly recruited
from the natives.

The districts are divided into ranges, for which an Executive Service is
organized, of rangers (over 400), who are now selected from graduates of
the forest school in Dehra Dun. Deputy rangers and foresters, a lower
grade (some 1700), and guards, having their separate beats (over 8500),
form the Protective Service, mostly or all recruited from the better
class of natives.

5. _Forest Treatment._

With the irregular distribution of forests, the peculiarities of Indian
government affairs and population, and the wild and difficult forest
conditions themselves, it is but natural that the work thus far has been
chiefly one of organization, survey, and protection.

In the protection against unlawful felling or timber stealing and
grazing, the Government of India has shown itself fully equal to the
occasion by a liberal policy of supplying villagers in proximity of the
forests with fuel, building material, pasture, etc., at reduced prices
or gratis. Over $1,500,000 worth is thus disposed of annually, the
incentive to timber stealing being thereby materially reduced. A
reasonable and just permit system for grazing, where again the needs of
the neighboring villagers are most carefully considered, not only brings
the government a yearly revenue of over $800,000, but enables the people
to pasture about 14,000,000 head of animals in the State forests without
doing any material damage to tree growth. Thirty-one per cent. of the
total forest area is open to grazing.

The work of preventing and fighting fires can with the means available
not be carried on over the entire forest area, of which large tracts are
not even crossed by a footpath, and in a land where the regular firing
of the woods has become the custom of centuries, and where, in addition,
intensely hot and dry weather, together with a most luxuriant growth of
giant grasses, render these jungle fires practically unmanageable. Each
year, however, additional territory is brought under protection. In
1902, nearly 37,000 square miles, or nearly 40% of the area in reserve,
but only 12% of the total government forest area, were under protection
at a cost of $4.00 per square mile or less than one cent per acre, half
of what it was 10 years before, and over 2 per cent. of the gross
revenue. Nearly 5,000 fires occurred, to be sure, which burnt over
3,000,000 acres, that is to say over 90 per cent. of the area the
protection was effective. For nearly half the fires the cause remains
unknown. Danger from fire has, however, become less in protected areas
because of the changes in herbage and moisture conditions. Yet it costs
still about two per cent. of the gross revenue to protect the area, and
the figures just cited show that this expenditure is only partially
effective. In 1909, the protected area had increased to 43,000 square
miles, the cost to $5, the efficiency to 94 per cent.

The first successful attempts to deal with forest fires were made in
1864 by Major (later Colonel) G. F. Pearson, who was then Conservator of
Forests in the Central Provinces, and who devised a system of cleared
fire lines or “fire traces,” surrounding the areas to be protected,
which were cut and burned over early in the season, a system now in
vogue in all India. In the jungle forests the traces must be broad; the
grass often taller than an elephant must be cut and burned before the
grass on either side of the fire lane is dry enough to burn.

This protection forms the most important duty of the forest officials,
a trying one as it has to be carried on during the hot season.

A separate branch of the forest service carried on the work of surveying
and mapping the forest area instead of the regular Survey of India, with
the result of cheapening the cost. Some 74,000 square miles had been
mapped on the scale of 4 inch to the mile, the standard, some smaller
areas on smaller scale, at the rate of $25 per square mile. In 1908,
however, this work was handed over to the Survey.

_Silviculture._ Silvicultural practices are naturally but little
developed. Protection against fire, grazing, overcutting has been the
first requisite. The unregulated selection system with a diameter limit,
which Brandis introduced, still prevails mostly, although beginnings of
a compartment and group system in converting miscarried selection forest
of Deodar, Pine and Sal have been made, or rather of an improved
selection method, which seeks to secure reproduction in groups.
Clearcutting with seed trees held over is practised in the coniferous
mountain forest. Coppice and coppice with standards (reserves of
sprouts) is a natural condition over large areas, especially with Teak
and Sal. Even improvement cuttings or sowing on barren hillsides with
remarkable success, are not absent.

The attempts at securing reproduction, especially in the truly tropic
forests have often miscarried, inferior species filling the openings.
Girdling of inferior species to favor the better classes has hardly had
the desired result. In the deciduous forest, the same difficulty of
undesirable aftergrowth is experienced, deteriorating the composition,
except in the case of the gregarious Sal tree (_Shorea robusta_), the
treatment of which for reproduction has, after many failures, been well
established. Other gregarious species also can be satisfactorily
reproduced. The culled and burned-over forests, of which, there are
many, are re-habilitated in a manner by merely removing the old
overmature and defective timber, with comparative success.

In some parts, the large gregarious bamboos are a serious obstacle to
reproduction. Here, the only chance for reproduction exists when they
flower and die. Killing the bamboos by cutting the annual shoots proved
a failure, but burning over the whole area and sowing seems to be
followed by success.

In other parts, as in the large Teak forests of Burma, as well as of
other provinces, the useless kinds of trees are girdled, huge climbers
are cut off, and a steady war is waged against all species detrimental
to teak regeneration with satisfactory results. With Teak, even planting
on a larger scale is resorted to, especially by means of _taungyas_,
i.e. plantations, where the native is allowed to burn down a piece of
woods, use it for a few years as field (though it is never really
cleared) on condition of planting it with teak, being paid a certain sum
for every hundred trees found in a thrifty condition at the time of
giving up his land. Similarly, the department has expended large sums in
attempting to establish forests in parts of the arid region of
Beluchistan, and, on the whole, during 1894-95 about $150,000 were
expended on cultural operations, which up to that time involved about
76,000 acres of regular plantations and 36,000 acres _taungyas_ (mostly
teak,) making a total of 112,000 acres, besides numerous large areas
where the work consisted merely in aiding natural reproduction.

But, in 1909, the plantations seem to have been reduced to 59,000 acres,
(probably through failures), the taungyas however increased to 84,000
acres, and the budget for plantings and other cultural measures formed a
little over two per cent. of the gross revenues.

We see then, that though the forests of India are now, and will continue
for some time to be little more than wild woods with some protection and
a reasonable system of exploitation in place of a mere robbing or
culling system, yet the work of actual improvement steadily increases in
amount and perfection.

In disposing of its timber the Government of India employs various
methods. In some of the forest districts the people pay merely a small
tax and get out of the woods what and as much as they need. In other
cases, the logger pays for what he removes, the amount he fells being
neither limited in quantity nor quality. The prevalent systems, however,
are the permit system, when a permit is issued indicating the amount to
be cut and the price to be paid for the same, and the contract system,
when the work is more or less under the control of government officers
and the material remains government property until paid for. To a
limited extent the governments carry on their own timber exploitation.

* * * * *

_Working Plans._ Only a relatively small part of the total forest area,
each year, however, increasing, is as yet worked under plans. In 1885,
only 109 square miles, in 1899, 20,000 square miles, and in 1903, nearly
30,000 square miles, about 13 per cent. of the total, or 30 per cent. of
the reserved area, were operated under working plans, and each year
about 4000 square miles are added, so that now (1909) over half the
reserved area is under working plans.

Only gradually was the character of these plans brought into practical
form, and their execution, in spirit at least, enforced, the
Conservators having the right to deviate from the plans.

A map, prepared by the survey branch naturally forms the basis of the
plan. The form of the plan is prescribed by the provincial regulations,
and the preparation is also carried on by the provincial service under
advice and supervision of the imperial department. The “strip valuation
survey,” which Brandis introduced, covering sometimes as much as 30 per
cent. of the area, is employed in determining number of trees and sizes,
growing stock and cut, modeled after the European practice, except that
little, perhaps too little, money is spent on their elaboration,
especially on determining the proper amount of cut. That the cut is
controlled at all is the most important result.

6. _Education and Literature._

In 1866, Sir Dietrich Brandis selected as assistants two young men who
had been trained in the forest schools of Germany--in turn his
successors--and at the same time arrangements were made for the training
of young Englishmen in the Forest schools of France and Germany. At the
end of 1875 the professional education was entirely transferred to
Nancy. The present force of Conservators is composed largely of these
men. For some reason, the training of men in Germany and France became
unpopular, and this objection finally led, in 1884, to the establishment
of a chair of forestry at Cooper’s Hill College for Engineering in
England. At first, the course of study extended over 26 months, during
22 of which the candidates prosecuted their studies at the college; the
remaining four months being spent under suitable supervision in selected
British and Continental forests.

In 1905, this department was transferred to Oxford University and the
course extended to three years, one year to be spent in continental
forests. At present this time may, however, be reduced to two years and
the vacations in continental forests. This is a government affair, and
probationers receive stipends from the government.

Mr. Brandis as early as 1869 saw also the necessity of providing the
means of giving the natives of India some sort of technical education in
forestry. The first step in this direction was to place natives,
selected ones, under one or two officers of the Imperial Service who
were deemed fit to instruct them, and in this way a few good men were
turned out. Another experiment, after the German pattern, was made by
apprenticing likely young men under some forester for a year or two and
then sending them to an engineering school for theoretical instruction.
This was also a failure. After much hard work, the Indian forest school
at Dehra Dun was established in 1878, the forests between the Jumna and
the Ganges rivers were set aside as training grounds, formed into a
special Forest Circle and placed under the control of the director of
the school. These forests have been subjected to regular systems of
management, based on European experience, and excellent results have
been obtained. The first course of systematic theoretical instruction
was opened on the 1st of July, 1881. In 1884 the school was made an
imperial institution by the Government of India, and the
Inspector-General of Forests was charged with its supervision, under a
Board of Control, consisting of the Inspector-General, the Director, and
three Conservators, with the Assistant Inspector-General as secretary.
This board meets once a year at Dehra, conducts the examinations, and
looks into all of the workings of the School very carefully. There were
two courses--one in which the teaching was given in English for rangers,
the other in which the instruction was given in the vernacular for
foresters; courses extending over 24 months. In 1906 the school was
raised to the rank of a college and the course in the vernacular
abolished. The graduates may aspire to the rank of division officers.
The training of lower grade officers is left to the provinces. The
Bombay Presidency had for some time their own forest school in
connection with the Engineering College at Poona, but this is now
abandoned. Another school, however, is located at Tharrawaddy, with a
two-year course in Burmese, and one in Madras with a one-year course; so
that the education of lower grade officials is well attended to.

Forest Experiment and Investigations have never been systematically
instituted, being left to individual initiative, but lately (1909)
provision has been made in this direction in connection with the Dehra
Dun school by the establishment of an Imperial Research Institute.

Besides a monthly journal, the Indian Forester which came into existence
in 1875 through Schlich’s initiative, and the annual reports of the
various conservators and of the Inspector-General, a small book
literature has developed within the last ten or fifteen years.

Descriptive volumes of note are J. S. Gamble’s _Manual of Indian
Timbers_, new edition, 1902; _Trees, Shrubs and Woody Climbers of Bombay
Presidency_ by W. A. Talbot, 1902; Ribbentrop’s _Forestry in British
India_, 1900, and the earlier publication of H. R. Morgan, _Forestry in
Southern India_; Brandis’ _Indian Forestry and Distribution of Forests
in India_. Of professional interest are E. E. Fernandez _Manual of
Indian Silviculture_, unfortunately out of print; the same author’s
_Forest Industries_; D’Arcy’s _Manual of Forest Working Plans_; C. C.
Roger’s _Manual of Forest Engineering in India_, and B. H. Baden-Powell,
_Forest Law_.

The influence of the development of the Indian Forest Service on the
forest policy of other British colonies and of the home country has been
considerable and is growing, Indian forest officers being detailed to
assist in developing forest policies in these other parts of the British
Empire.

CANADA.

_Report on the Forest Wealth of Canada_, by the Statistician of the
Department of Agriculture, 1895.

Reports of Crown Lands Departments, of Bureau of Forestry of
Ontario, and of Forestry Branch of the Dominion.

DEFEBAUGH’S _History of the Lumber Industry of America_, Vol. I,
1906, brings together much information on this phase of the subject.

HOUGH’S _Report on Forestry_, Vol. II, 1880, has a compilation of
earlier statistics.

_An Analysis of Canada’s Timber Wealth_, by B. E. FERNOW, in
Forestry Quarterly, Vol. VI, 1908, attempts a differentiation of
commercial forest areas.

The largest single colony of Great Britain and the most important as
regards forest supplies, both as to quantity and character, Canada has
been for a long time supplying the mother country with a large
proportion of her imports.

Although in size larger than the United States, its land area being
estimated at over 3,600,000 square miles, Canada has so far attained
only one-fifteenth of the population of her neighbor, namely less than 7
million, although now rapidly growing. Much of her territory is still
unknown, and will remain for a long time unavailable for civilization
owing to its inhospitable climate. Indeed, as yet not one-third of its
territory may be considered opened up to civilization, and not much more
than 100,000 square miles can be said to be occupied, one-half improved
in farms, and two-thirds of this in crops.

Much of the northern country remains unorganized and the vast North West
Territory (2,656,000 square miles) between Hudson’s Bay and the Rocky
Mountains, as well as Labrador, are for the most part uninhabited except
by Indians and a few military and trading posts.

The central interior region, dotted with lakes and intricate river
systems, is a continuation of the forestless arid and subarid, plains
and prairies of the country West of the Mississippi River, toward the
north changing by steps into lowlands studded with open treegrowth, and
barren tundra frozen all the year, a million square miles answering to
this last description. The Pacific Slope is a rough and lofty mountain
country, the extension of the Rockies and Coast Ranges, with a variable,
in part humid and temperate, in part dry and rigorous climate, more or
less heavily wooded, about 600,000 square miles, with the Fraser River
in the South forming the most important drainage basin.

The Atlantic portion, south of the plateau-like, bare, or scantily
wooded Hudson Bay and Labrador country, with a climate, somewhat similar
to North Eastern Germany, is formed by the slopes of the watersheds of
the Great Lakes and of their mighty outlet, the St. Lawrence River and
its Gulf; the slopes rising gradually northward to the low range of the
Height of Land, a plateau with low hills, not over 1500 feet elevation,
which cuts it off from the northern country and forms the limit of
commercial forest. This region, the bulk of the provinces of Ontario and
Quebec--a belt of not exceeding 300 miles in width and about 1500 miles
in length, altogether 300,000 square miles--with 93,000 square miles in
the maritime provinces, around 250 million acres in all, represents,
outside of British Columbia, the true forest region of Canada, and at
the same time the centre of Canadian civilization.

Although the Cabot brothers discovered Cape Breton and Labrador in 1497
and 1500, the first settlement of Canadian territory was not made until
1541 by French colonists, after the first Captain-General of Canada,
Jacques Cartier, the discoverer and explorer of the St. Lawrence (in
1534), had taken possession of the country for Francis I; but not much
progress in colonizing was made until Champlain’s arrival in the first
years of the next century. Quebec was founded as early as 1608, and
Montreal in 1611, but Ottawa dates its first beginnings not farther back
than 1800.

The northern country around Hudson’s Bay was, under the name of Rupert’s
Land (after Prince Rupert, the head of the enterprise), undefined in
limits, granted by Charles II, in 1670, to the Hudson’s Bay Company, a
powerful fur-trading corporation which had not only a commercial
monopoly but, except for occasional interference by the French, held
absolute governmental sway over the country through 200 years, its
jurisdiction at one time extending to the Pacific Coast.

Friction and warfare with the English resulted in the latter acquiring
by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, Newfoundland, and settling their
rights on Hudson’s Bay. The final conquest of “New France” by the
English ended French rule in 1763, but the French colonists remained
peacefully, and their descendants form to-day, at least in Quebec, the
predominating influence. Indeed, in 1774, by the so-called Quebec Act,
the first permanent system of self government was established much on
the lines of the French feudal system, and the French civil law was
retained.

At first, under English rule, the territory, then including the States
of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, formed
one colony, but after the war of the Revolution, in 1791, the territory
remaining English was divided into two separately governed provinces,
Upper and Lower, or West and East Canada. They were re-united in 1840,
and continued so until 1867 when the so-called Union or British North
America Act effected the present organization of the Dominion of Canada,
a federal union, comprising only the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia. After various combinations and subdivisions
all of the British Possessions in North America, except Newfoundland and
its dependencies in Labrador, came into the union, and, in 1882, the
union was completed with the then seven provinces (those mentioned with
Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia) and all the
organized and unorganized territory.

In the same year, four territories, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta
and Athabasca, in 1895 the territory of Ungava in Labrador, and in 1898
that of Yukon were organized, with a view of their eventual elevation
into provinces, the relationships of the federation being quite similar
to that of the states and territories in the United States.

In 1905, the Western territories were organized into two provinces,
Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The government, although practically much like a republic and largely
independent of the home country, is theoretically a limited monarchy,
the king being represented by a Governor-General, appointed by the
king, and a privy council selected by the governor. The latter also
appoints (now 81) senators for life to form the upper house of the
Parliament or legislative body, while the lower House of Commons is
elected by the people. Besides this imperial government, each province
has its own separate government with a lieutenant-governor, appointed by
the Governor-General, and an elected legislature; this autonomy being
somewhat similar to that of the states of the United States and the
division of functions between federal and provincial governments being
also similar.

Although the home government retains the veto power, the supreme
jurisdiction and various other powers, and although apparently, by the
appointment of officials, its influence is guarded, practically the
party management as exercised in Great Britain prevails, and
independence from imperial influence and from the home government is
continually increasing. In regard to the crownlands, including forests,
this division as well as this relationship becomes important. Each
provincial government except those of the three middle provinces
administers the crownlands within its boundaries in its own way, yet on
similar lines, while the Dominion government controls only the lands
located outside of the provinces together with those of the middle
provinces and the so-called railway belt in British Columbia. These
latter lands were mostly acquired by purchase from the Hudson’s Bay
Company, the Company relinquishing its territorial rights in 1868, and
the transfer being completed in 1870 upon payment of £300,000.

1. _Forest Conditions._

The forest area has at various times and by various authorities been
roughly estimated as between one and a quarter and over one and three
quarter million square miles, which would make the forest per cent. at
least over 32. But this includes the open woodlands of the northern
territory and of the prairies, which, while of great importance to the
local settlers, are for the most part probably or surely not of
commercial value. Commercially valuable forests, actually or
prospectively, are found almost only in British Columbia and in the old
provinces, the two forest regions separated, just as in the United
States, by a forestless region, except that north of the prairie region
a continuous belt of open woodland extends to near the mouth of the
Mackenzie River. A careful examination of the sources of information has
led the writer to the conclusion that less than 350,000 square miles or
round 200 million acres would cover fully the commercially valuable
forest land, although the wooded area of the provinces in which the
commercial timber occurs is stated officially as around 450 million
acres, two-fifths of which is to be found in British Columbia.

Indeed, although we are accustomed to look upon Canada as a great forest
country, it really possesses about 60 per cent. less commercial forest
area than the United States, and about one-quarter of the mature timber
of that country. It will be understood that all such statistics are
merely rough estimates, the data being slim, and eked out by conjectures
based on geographical conditions which predicate the character of the
country. Most unreasonable speculations and calculations[16] as to
amount of timber standing and value have been made on impossible
assumptions.

[16] As an instance, one statistician by mere mathematical figuring,
namely, deducting the known crop and pasture area from the total
land area would make the forest area of Quebec alone over 209
million acres. This includes the country north of the Height of
Land, of 163 million acres, which by another mathematical
calculation is made to be able to furnish over 65 billion feet of
lumber, besides over 600 million cords of pulpwood and 370 million
railroad ties; but under present conditions, owing to topography and
character of the timber it cannot be utilized and its commercial
value is altogether problematic. This calculation would leave as
really or potentially available forest land south of the Height of
Land 46 million acres in addition to over 5 million on farms. It is
claimed that this forest area may still produce some 110 billion
feet of coniferous and 1.5 billion feet of hardwoods, or 2500 feet
to the acre.

The chief of the provincial Forest Service lately made the forest
area of the province 131 million acres, including 2 million acres of
waste land.

While by the change of standards and by local needs, forest areas may
become commercially valuable which were not so considered before, and
thereby the above figures may be eventually increased, from the
standpoint of valuable lumber supply for the world trade, the above
named area may be assumed to set the limit for the present.

A computation based on slender information has placed the country with
open woodlands in the central region as exceeding 280,000 square miles.
The Director of Forestry estimated that 150,000 square miles of this
area might contain nearly 200 billion feet merchantable timber.

The southeastern territory south of the Height of Land was originally
all densely wooded. From it a farm area of round 25 million acres has
been cut out, less than 7 per cent. of the land area included.
Especially the south-western half of Ontario, between the Great Lakes,
which contains the most fertile land, is densely settled, as also the
shores of the St. Lawrence. A large part of the remaining forest area is
cut over and culled, especially for pine; the amount of White Pine
remaining according to estimates made in 1895 would now be less than 20
billion feet. Extensive areas have been turned into semi-barrens by
repeated fires.

The Statistician of the Dominion in his report made in that year comes
to the conclusion that “the first quality pine has nearly disappeared”
and that “we are within measurable distance of the time when, with the
exception of spruce as to wood, and of British Columbia as to Provinces,
Canada shall cease to be a wood exporting country.”

The composition in general is the same as that of the northern forest in
the United States: hardwoods (birch, maple and elm prevailing) with
conifers mixed, the latter, especially spruce, becoming occasionally
pure. The nearly pure hardwood forest of the southern Ontario peninsula
has been almost entirely supplanted by farms, and here, even for
domestic fuel, coal, imported from the United States, is largely
substituted for wood. Although White Pine, the most important staple is
found in all parts of this forest region, the best and largest supplies
are now confined to the region north of Georgian Bay. Unopened spruce
and fir lands still abound especially in Quebec on the Gaspé peninsula
and northward. Spruce forms also the largest share in the composition of
the New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland forest, the pine in the
first two provinces having practically been cut out. Extensive, almost
pure Balsam Fir forest, fit for pulp wood, still covers the plateau of
Cape Breton, while Prince Edward Island is to the extent of 60 per cent.
cleared for agricultural use.

Much of this Eastern forest area is not only culled of its best timber,
but burnt over, and thereby deteriorated in its composition, the
inferior Balsam Fir appearing in largest number in the reproduction.

North of the Height of Land, in Ungava and westward, spruce continues to
timber line, but, outside of narrow belts following the river valleys,
only in open stand, branchy, and stunted, hardly fit even for pulp, for
the most part with birch and aspen intermixed. This open spruce forest,
interspersed among muskegs continues more or less to the northern tundra
and across the continent to within a few miles of the mouth of the
Mackenzie River and the Arctic Ocean, the White Spruce being the most
northern species. In the interior, northern prairie belt, groves of
aspen, dense and well developed, skirt the water courses and form an
important wood supply.

The forests of British Columbia partake of the character of the Pacific
forest of the United States, the Coast Range along the coast for about
200 miles being stocked with conifers of magnificent development,
Douglas Fir, Giant Arborvitæ, Hemlock, Bull Pine and a few others, the
Rocky Mountain range also of coniferous growth, pine and larch, but of
inferior character, large areas being covered with Alpine Fir (_Abies
lasiocarpa_) and Lodgepole Pine, important as soilcover and for local
use in the mining districts, but lacking in commercial value.

If much of the forest area in the settled provinces is burnt over and
damaged by forest fire, much more extensive destruction is wrought in
this northern forest by fires sweeping annually over millions of acres
unchecked, many of them said to be started by lightning. About 50 per
cent. of this country is said to be fire-swept.

Among the large notable forest fires the great Miramichi fire in New
Brunswick in 1825 destroyed more than 6,000 square miles in a few hours.
In 1880 the loss by forest fires in the Ottawa valley alone was still
estimated at $5,000,000 annually. In 1909, reports indicate over half a
million acres burnt over in that year.

The river systems of Eastern Canada, with the mighty St. Lawrence
permitting sea-going vessels to come up to Montreal, have been most
potent factors in the development of the lumber industry and export
trade, without the need of railroads. Yet although, as a consequence
this trade was early developed to a relatively large figure, it has not
grown at as rapid a rate as might have been expected, and to-day with an
export in excess of imports of less than 40 million dollars is
considerably below that of the United States.

The small export trade of earlier times, having been stimulated by
exempting Canadian timber from paying duties in the home country, or at
least allowing it a preferential tariff, had by 1820 grown to 15 million
cubic feet, all squared timber, and sent to England. In 1830, it had
crept up to only 20 million cubic feet, but by 1850, it amounted to over
50 million cubic feet, two-fifths of which was sawed material, the 2632
mills being reported by the Census (1851) as having cut 776 million feet
B.M. By 1867, when the Dominion was formed, the total export of forest
products had advanced in value to $18 million; the next decade, with a
climax year in 1873 of $26 million, saw an increase to $20 million in
the average, the proportion of sawn material being nearly three times
that of hewn wood, and the entire cut of Ontario going to the United
States. At that time it was computed that the waste of value in shipping
square timber amounted for the province of Ontario alone still to over
$350,000 annually. At present sawed lumber, deals, boards, planks, etc.,
form 70 per cent. of the total export.

In the last 20 years a steady increase in exports at an average rate of
about 3 per cent. per annum is noted, the total in 1903 culminating at
nearly $41 million, but in the following year sinking to 36.7 million.
In 1910, the total export amounted to $53 million, against which an
import of nearly $16 million is to be offset, nearly double what it was
three years before. Adding wood manufactures, the net export must be
increased by some $36 million. The bulk of the export goes, of course,
to the United States. But, while exports of forest products thus
increased absolutely, relatively to other exports they have considerably
declined, i.e., the lumber industry has not grown proportionally to
other developments, for while, in 1868, forest products formed 34 per
cent. of the total export, in 1904 they represented only about half
that figure.

The same conclusion, namely that the lumber business has not increased
rapidly in the last 25 years, may be derived from the report of the
Decennial Census. While, for 1890, the total cut amounted to over 5
billion feet and its value to nearly $80 million, in 1900, the cut or at
least the Census report fell below 4 billion and its value to $53
million. In 1909, the total lumber cut was reported as 3.8 billion feet
B. M. and its value $62.8 million.

A measure of the depletion of the great staple White Pine is found in
the statement that from 1865 to 1893 the average size of pieces
decreased by one-quarter to one-third, and that, in 1863, over 23
million cubic feet were exported from Quebec as against 1.5 million feet
in 1904, while the price had more than quadrupled in that period. Spruce
has here taken the place of pine, and Ontario is now the main producer
of pine. Yet in 1909, the White Pine cut in amount almost equaled that
of spruce, and in value exceeded it by 40 per cent. Spruce, and
especially pulpwood, forms an ever increasing item in cut and export,
export of pulpwood having increased sevenfold in the last decade, to
nearly $2 million, and of woodpulp to over $4 million.

A notable economic improvement has taken place during the last ten or
fifteen years in that the proportion of raw materials exported,
especially logs and square timber, has decreased in favor of
manufactures.

While originally the home country took the bulk of exports of forest
products, the cut of Ontario has been always, duty or no duty, sent
almost entirely to the United States. In the last six or eight years,
the export to the United States has been doubled, amounting now to about
half of the total export, and as the States return of its own forest
products largely in the form of manufactures to the extent of about 6
million dollars worth, a balance of trade for the Canadian forest
product of 12 million dollars is left.

2. _Ownership._

When the French took possession of the country, all the land belonged to
the king, and could be held by others only under feudal tenure, i.e., as
a gift under obligation of counter service. The whole country was placed
as a fief under the rule of the Hundred Associates, a company which also
exercised a trading and colonizing monopoly, but made no success, and
was dissolved in 1663. It was then that Richelieu introduced the system
of seigniorial tenure, the land being divided into portions of from 100
to 500 square miles, usually with a certain amount of river front, and
given outright to younger noblemen, favorites of the court, and clerics,
who were, however, obligated to subgrant to colonists, thereby becoming
so many immigration agents. These not only treated their colonists as
tenants, exacting rent and service, but exercised nearly absolute
jurisdiction within their domains, the colonists becoming virtually
serfs or retainers of the seigneurs. This condition continued until
1854, when an adjustment of rights was formulated by the Seigneurial
Tenures Act, and the government aided the “habitans” to secure their
freedom by indemnifying the seigneurs, or else by paying rent, which
was done mostly.

Under English rule, the granting of lands, without, however, the
seignorial rights, was continued. In 1784, such grants were made along
the St. Lawrence and the Bay of Quinte to veterans of the loyalist army,
some 20,000, in lots of 200 acres for privates up to 5,000 acres for
field officers. In 1791, every seventh section was ordered to be set
aside as Clergy Reserves for the support of the Protestant Church, a
measure which created much friction, and formed, especially in the Roman
Catholic province of Quebec, a chief grievance in starting the Papineau
rebellion of 1837. Some 3,300,000 acres were gradually withdrawn for
this purpose, and as far as possible leased to secure an income. Some of
these lands were sold after 1827, and finally, in 1853, a statute was
passed to sell the remainder and turn over the proceeds to
municipalities for educational purposes and local improvement.

Extensive grants and sales were made to lumbermen and speculators. In
this manner, by the granting of 13,000 acres to an American, Philemon
Wright, in 1800, the great lumber industry of Ottawa was started, and,
in 1836, another American syndicate secured about a million acres of
grants. Out of the 50 million acres granted in aid of railroad
construction, some portion must also have been in timber. By all these
methods as well as by small grants and sales to settlers a large area of
uncertain extent has become private property.

In Nova Scotia, nearly the entire government domain has passed by grant
and sale into private hands, some 6 million acres, one-half in small
holdings. Of the lands remaining in the crown at least two-thirds is on
barrens. Similarly, in Prince Edward Island, the 800 square miles of
woodland remaining are almost wholly owned privately, the 14,000 acres
of state land being, like most of the private property, stripped of its
value.

In New Brunswick over 1.6 million acres, mostly woodland (containing
over 10 billion feet) was granted to the railway company and another
million acres or so is in other private possession; a liberal disposal
of lands having been continued until 1883, when about 7¼ million acres
of timber and waste land remained to the crown.

In Quebec some 6 million acres are estimated as privately owned, mostly
in woodlots on farms. In Ontario the private woodland area of commercial
character may be over 5 million acres.

Besides the large grants which were and still are probably to the
greatest extent in timberlands, the farms in the various provinces,
according to the Census of 1901, have from 22 to 57 per cent. in
woodlots, or altogether probably in the neighborhood of 30 million
acres.

The total area privately owned may then be placed at not to exceed, say
40 million acres, and the largest part of the forest area, is still
crown lands, the government of the different provinces and the Dominion
government in the territories and in the middle provinces administering
them and deriving the revenue therefrom. This condition has prevailed
since 1837, when the home government gave up its claim to land and
revenues.

The provincial ownership extends over about 500,000 square miles. The
Dominion government owns an area of 20,000 square miles in the railway
belt of British Columbia, 20 miles on each side of the railway for 500
miles, which contains good timber, and some 722,000 square miles of land
in the middle provinces which contains practically only timber suitable
for local use.

3. _Administration of Timberlands._

In the development of ownership conditions, the realization of the
valuable assets in timber growth had not been overlooked by the home
government, care of supplies for naval construction giving, as in the
United States, the first incentive to a conservative forest policy.

Even under the early French rule, the grants of land were made under
reservation of the oak timber fit for naval use, as is evidenced from a
landgrant made in 1683. This reservation led to considerable friction as
it hampered the colonists in making their clearings on the best lands.
Later, the reservation was extended to include other timber needed for
military purposes, and when the British occupation began, these
established rights of the crown were not only continued, but
reservations of larger areas for the timber were ordered, notably around
and north of Lake Champlain. In 1763, and again in 1775, the home
government ordered reservations to be set aside in every township.

But the great timberwealth seemed so inexhaustible that the governors
paid little attention to the wise instructions of the home government
for the creation of reservations, and whatever regulations regarding the
cutting of timber were made, failed to be strictly enforced. In 1789,
the policy of reserving to the crown all the timber as far as not
granted, and giving licenses to cut, was inaugurated; but not until 1826
was even the revenue feature strongly enough realized to attempt
systematically to secure the benefit of it, namely by allowing anyone to
cut timber “such as was not required for the navy” who would pay a fixed
rate for what was cut; a surveyor-general of woods and forests being
appointed to collect the timber dues with the aid of qualified “cullers”
(1811). There was even an attempt made to prevent waste by doubling the
rate of timber dues on all trees cut which would not square more than 8
inches; this restriction probably remained a dead letter for lack of
supervision.

Lumbermen, however, found it cheaper to buy the land, making only part
payment, and after cutting the best timber, forfeiting the land;
contractors who had the monopoly for cutting the timber for the royal
navy cut also for their own account; corruption and graft pervaded the
administration, which enriched its followers with the revenues obtained
from the timber licenses and otherwise. The strong hand which, in the
absence of a strong government, lumbermen were driven to use in order to
protect themselves from piracy by their neighbors, or else to
perpetrate such, brought about many bloody conflicts. The general
maladministration of the so-called “Family Compact” besides other
grievances, caused the revolution of 1837, which, although readily put
down, led to the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in
1841, and to reform of the abuses. It was then, that, after the new
governor-general, Lord Durham’s admirable report on the situation, the
home government turned over the administration (in part at least) and
revenues of the crownlands to the several provincial governments. At
that time in New Brunswick, where a thriving export trade had been early
established the dues on $2 million worth of production were involved,
and in Quebec and Ontario the income amounted to between $200,000 and
$300,000.

But even then, the immediate revenue, and not any concern for its
continuation animated the administration of the public or crown forests.
The free-hand sales for nominal sums were changed into licenses to cut,
and in order to secure larger returns these were by and by put up at
auction for competitive bids, the premium or “bonus” being paid for the
limits, (i.e., a limited territory on which the holder or licensee had
the exclusive right to cut), in addition to the fixed dues or charges
per unit for the timber actually cut. Later, to discourage the holding
of timber limits for a rise of prices, an annual cut of first 1,000,
then 500 feet per square mile of holdings was required. To still further
accelerate the use of the licenses to cut, the Crown Timber Act of 1849
limited the license to one year, and provided for an eventual limit in
size of the grants. All these provisions forced to more rapid cutting
and overproduction, and depression in the lumber market was the result,
the supply in 1847 being 44 million feet to meet an export of 19
million.

New rules were promulgated in 1851, introducing a ground rent system, a
set price being paid per square mile of limit, and doubling the ground
rent for unused limits each year. Needless to say, the impracticability
of this geometric progression in ground rents became visible in a few
years.

The final present systems in the disposal of timber limits, varying in
detail, were gradually perfected in varying manner by the several
provincial governments, but they agree in general principles, in that
they grant limits for a certain time, some by the year, others by
periods, usually 21 years, during which certain conditions as to
establishment of mills and amount of manufacture without waste must be
fulfilled, and a ground rent, a bonus, and timber dues for all timber
cut are to be paid by the limit holder, details and prices varying and
being changed from time to time. A diameter limit below which trees are
not to be cut also mostly prevails. Lately, sales by the thousand feet
B. M. have been inaugurated in Ontario, and sale by the mile is to be
abandoned.

As a rule licenses become negotiable and can be transferred upon paying
a small fee per square mile.

The governments reserving absolute rights to change conditions of this
contract at any time, the interest of the licensee is to cut as fast as
he can; other unsatisfactory conditions leading in the same direction.

A Department of Crown Lands in the Dominion government and in each
province (in Nova Scotia the Attorney-General acting as head)
administers the lands. Scalers or cullers attend to the measuring of the
cut. The revenue derived by this system by all the provinces amounts now
to round 4.5 million dollars per year, Ontario leading with about 20,000
square miles now under license, (mostly pine), producing in 1910,
$1,835,000; the yearly average for the decade ending 1910 was 1¾ million
dollars, and some 41 million dollars have altogether accrued since 1867;
Quebec, with over 70,000 square miles under license, (mostly in spruce,)
producing only about $700,000, nearly 30 million dollars having accrued
during the 43 years, or at the rate of $418 per square mile, two-thirds
of which from dues.

Since land for settlement is, as in the United States, obtainable by
homestead and other entries, a good many fraudulent applications under
guise of settlement have curtailed the revenue, until now closer
scrutiny of the fitness of land for settlement is made.

The retention of the lands by the government is naturally a feature
which would permit and should have earlier induced conservative forestry
methods, but the immediate revenue interest has had and still has a more
potent influence than considerations of the future.

4. _Development of Forest Policy._

The impetus to introduce conservative features seems to have largely
come through the influence of the forestry movement in the United
States, and, although, voices of prominent Canadians, like that of
James and William Little, and Sir Henry Joly de Lotbinière had been
heard before in advocacy of a more far-seeing policy, the meeting of the
American Forestry Congress at Montreal in 1882, (see p. 480) may be set
as the date of the inception of this movement in Canada.

The definite result of that meeting was the inauguration of forest fire
legislation in the various provinces. In the Province of Ontario, the
Fire Act of 1878, which had until then remained a dead letter, was
improved, in 1885, by inaugurating a fire ranger system, in which limit
holders pay one-half the cost of the rangers. The force of fire
fighters, 37 in the first year was gradually increased until, in 1910,
nearly 1000 were employed at a cost of $300,000. In that year a change
was made, the whole service including inspection being charged against
the limit holder. In New Brunswick, a fire law was passed in 1885,
followed, in 1897, by the introduction of the Ontario ranger system. In
1883, Nova Scotia passed a forest fire law, which, like that of New
Brunswick, remained ineffective for lack of machinery; this was not
provided until 1904, and since then has worked most satisfactorily.
Recently a forest survey of this Province was made. Quebec also enacted
fire legislation in 1883, but did not provide means to carry it into
effect until 1889. Since at first only $5,000 annually was allowed for
its execution, and by 1901-2 not more than $7,226 was expended for fire
protection over an area of 40 million acres, its effectiveness may be
doubted. But in 1905, a special Forest-Protection Branch, with a
Superintendent and a ranger system after the Ontario pattern was
organized, and the service has become more effective.

The need for more organized effort and advice led to the establishment
of special bureaus of forestry. In Ontario, a Clerk of Forestry was
established in the Department of Agriculture in 1883, and, in 1895, he
was replaced by a Clerk in the Crown Lands Department, later named
Director of Forestry (Mr. Thomas Southworth). This office, later, was
changed to a Bureau of Forestry and Colonization, and a technically
educated man was appointed as Provincial Forester, with a view of
developing a forest management, at least in the Reserves. This movement,
however, soon collapsed for lack of appreciation; the office was
transferred back to the Department of Agriculture, which does not
control any timberlands, the Forester resigned, and the bureau was,
finally, in 1907, restricted to the colonization work, the forestry part
being deliberately abandoned.

Meanwhile the Province of Quebec pursued a more enlightened course. To
control the cut, a Culler’s office was established in 1842, which,
however, only checked the square timber, then the principal material. In
1873, after various futile attempts to secure better supervision, a
corps of forest rangers was created; but as they worked without
organization the results were only partial until, in 1889, they were
placed under seven chiefs or superintendents. In 1897, the number of
superintendents were reduced to one, but having to work with incompetent
men, political appointees, this improvement in headship did not produce
much result. In 1907, a re-organization took place by introducing two
professional foresters educated at government’s expense at American
colleges of forestry who upon their return were employed to supply the
technical supervision of cutting on licensed lands, and otherwise to
forward forestry reforms. In 1910, the logical sequence occurred by
placing the entire forest service except the protection against fire
under one of these technical men as chief, with the other one as his
assistant, and a corps of three civil engineers, 40 forest rangers and
six scalers, besides 20 student assistants--the first organized
provincial forest service in Canada, administered under the
Superintendent of Woods and Forests in the Department of Crownlands.[17]

[17] See Report of Canadian Forestry Convention, 1911.

In 1898, the Dominion government had also recognized the need of more
technical administration by instituting a Forestry Branch in the
Department of the Interior under a superintendent with a view of
developing improved methods. At first manned without technical advisers,
who were, indeed, not in existence, gradually the professional element
was introduced, and the scope of the Branch enlarged, the irrigation
interests of the country being added. Under the able guidance of the
present director--whose task under the political conditions surrounding
it is not an easy one--this department may in a few years also become
fully organized with technical men, of whom there are now seventeen
employed, besides student assistants.

These various government agencies and other propaganda produced at
least the important result of committing the governments to see the
propriety of setting aside permanent forest reserves.

The first movement in this direction was made in 1893, and in 1895, the
first Dominion reservations were made by Executive Order through the
Minister of the Interior. These, to be sure, were located in the thinly
timbered parts of the province of Manitoba, the Turtle Mountains and
Riding Mountain, mainly for the protection of water supply.

Several other similar reserves were set aside by the Minister, but to
give more stability to these reservations, an Act of Parliament was
passed in 1906, declaring their permanence and placing them, 3,380,000
acres, under the administration of the Superintendent of Forestry. There
are so far, some 26 Dominion Forest Reserves created, or in the act of
creation, comprising an area of over 25,000 square miles. The Forestry
Branch is making a brave beginning to survey and manage these reserves
under forestry principles.

Of the provinces, Ontario was the first to recognize the principle of
reservations in 1893, when a partially cut over, partially licensed
territory of over one million acres was set aside as the Algonquin
National Park in the Nipissing District, but the first definite
establishment of a forest reserve policy dates from the Forest Reserve
Act, passed in 1898, which authorizes the Executive, as in the United
States, to withdraw lands for reserves. Some eight reserves and two
parks have so far been established, and the reserved area amounts to
around 20,000 square miles.

Of management on forestry lines on these reserves there is so far little
to be heard, except an effort to keep fires out.

Quebec has followed this example of Ontario, first by setting aside the
Laurentides Park in the Saguenay region, (1,634,000 acres), which, like
Algonquin Park, was more in the nature of a game preserve. During
1906-7, however, under a law authorizing the Lieutenant Governor to set
aside forest reserves, over 100 million acres were placed in reserve.
Apparently, however, no administration of this preserve in the forestry
sense is as yet attempted.

British Columbia, which until lately was only concerned in disposing of
the well timbered crownlands, after having disposed of the best parts,
has placed under reservation the balance, and a forest commission of
inquiry has been constituted to devise further measures in the interest
of forestry. Its report, appearing in 1911, gives a very clear statement
of conditions in the province and the promise of active organization of
a better service.

Of other attempts to foster forestry interests may be mentioned a law in
Quebec, passed in 1882, providing a bonus of $12 per acre for tree
planting, which seems to have remained without effect; another,
providing for a diameter limit of 12 inches on the stump for pine and 9
inches for other kinds (these dimensions are now varied) inaugurated in
1888, may have preserved some young growth on the limits, although,
since pulpwood is now the main product, and supervision has been
inefficient, not much may be expected from such laws. Indeed, the chief
of the forest service reports that 60% of the regeneration is of the
inferior balsam fir.

In Ontario, a very competent Commission was created in 1897, with a
noted lumberman, Mr. Bertram as president, to formulate methods of
reform; but the able report remained barren of results.

The Dominion has been active in encouraging tree-planting in the
prairies. The Agricultural Experiment Station at Ottawa not only set out
object lessons by planting some 20 acres of sample plots, but for a
number of years distributed plant material to settlers. This work was
later taken over by the Forestry Branch and increased to a larger scale,
some 85 acres being in nursery, and the distribution having grown to
15,000,000 seedlings in 1910.

Ontario, under the direction of its Department of Agriculture and in
co-operation with the Agricultural College at Guelph, has lately
embarked in two movements of amelioration, namely, establishing a State
nursery from which plant material at cost, with advice as to its use, is
given to farmers, and purchasing and reforesting waste lands in the
agricultural section.

Tariff legislation is another means which is in the hands of the
Dominion government to be used for encouraging forest conservancy. It
has, however, so far not been used directly for such purpose, fiscal and
commercial policies being uppermost. But the provinces have in this
respect helped themselves by encouraging manufacture rather than export
of raw materials, Ontario leading in this matter by prohibiting export
of unmanufactured logs from Crownlands in 1898. Other provinces impose
an export duty on pulpwood cut on crownlands, as does also Ontario.

At present writing, a reciprocity agreement with the United States is
under contemplation, which would admit wood products from Canada free of
duty--an arrangement which whatever its commercial advantages bodes no
good for a conservative forest policy.

Meanwhile private limit holders, here and there, had begun to see the
need of conservative methods, and by 1908, at least two large Paper and
Pulp concerns had placed foresters in charge of their logging
operations.

5. _Education._

Until 1900, associated effort to advance forestry in Canada had relied
on the international American Forestry Association. In that year,
largely through the officials of the Dominion Forestry Branch (Mr. E.
Stewart), the Canadian Forestry Association was formed.

This Association has grown more and more vigorous, and having escaped
the period of sentimentalism which in the United States retarded the
movement so long, could at once accentuate the economic point of view
and bring the lumbermen into sympathy with their effort. In 1905, a
quarterly magazine, the Canadian Forestry Journal was started by the
Association, making its work of instruction and propaganda more
effective. The technical literature, as yet slightly developed is found
mainly in Bulletins of the Forestry Branch.

A most promising convention held in January 1906, with the Premier of
the Dominion presiding, participated by prominent officials and business
men, seemed to foreshadow the time when a real rational forest
management, at least in some parts of the Dominion would be inaugurated.

But it can hardly be said that the expectations were realized, and
another such convention was held in 1911, which may perhaps be followed
by better results.

In 1909, following the precedent of the United States, a Conservation
Commission was appointed for the Dominion under federal support, manned
by the leading officials and prominent representative men from all
provinces, and here the forestry interests may find at least educational
advancement. The first two years of the existence of this Commission
have, however, produced little advancement.

While the Ontario government had directly discredited the forestry
movement by abolishing its bureau of forestry, indirectly it laid the
foundation for a sure future, in 1907, by establishing in its provincial
University at Toronto a Faculty of Forestry, with full equipment. A year
later, the Province of New Brunswick also established a chair of
forestry in its University, while some time earlier, the Guelph
Agricultural College had introduced the subject of farm forestry in its
curricula. The latest development in educational direction is the forest
school organized in 1910 by the government of Quebec in connection with
its forest service for the purpose of educating its own agents.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Newfoundland, probably the first discovery of America by the Norsemen,
remained a mere fishing station until modern times, and, except for the
open coast, unknown as regards the wooded interior, which was supposed
to be largely barren. It became a possession of Great Britain in 1713.
Development did not begin until 1880 when the first railroad was built,
and has progressed more rapidly since the Newfoundland Railway
traversing the entire island was opened in 1898. It was found that,
while the shores and a considerable part of the West and South coast are
barren or poorly timbered, and on the interior plateau large moss
barrens exist, there are extensive timber areas of mixed growth, White
and Red Pine, Balsam and Spruce, with White Birch. A lumber industry,
which by 1904 had grown up to probably not less than 100 million feet,
is rapidly extending over the whole island, and an extensive paper pulp
industry is preparing to establish itself, on timber limits under a
license system similar to that applied in other parts of Canada. Some
5000 square miles are now under license. Forest fires have repeatedly
devastated large areas, especially in 1904. The experience of that year
led to the enactment of a forest fire law, but without any agency to
make it effective.

No forest policy exists, except the commercial restriction of the
license system. A forestry association has lately been formed.

OTHER BRITISH POSSESSIONS AND COLONIES.

Under the influence of the Indian forest service, or stimulated by its
success, some of the other British Colonial governments in Africa and
Australia have attempted and sometimes succeeded in establishing a
forest policy.

Of East Indian territories, _Ceylon_, the nearest neighbor to India,
with over 25,000 square miles, of which 42 per cent. wooded, mostly with
second growth forest of small value, attempted long ago an organization
with the aid of Indian foresters, but by 1900 had of over 10,000 square
miles only 431 in reserves, in addition to nearly 1800 acres planted.
One Conservator and 8 Assistant Conservators produce a net revenue of
less than $30,000, there being an import of $250,000 necessary to eke
out the wood requirements of the 3.5 million people.

* * * * *

_The Straits Settlement_, an area of 1526 square miles, had, by 1900, a
reserved state forest area of 138 square miles under an experienced
Indian forest officer. Gutta percha, rubber and gums are here the most
valuable products.

* * * * *

The _Federated Malay States_, with 26,350 square miles, and heavily
wooded, after a report by the Indian Inspector-General, have begun to
reserve forest areas, some 100,000 acres having been set aside, which
are administered by the Conservator of the Strait Settlement’s reserves.

* * * * *

The government of the island of _Cyprus_ also employs a forest officer
and guards to look after its 700 square miles of forest.

* * * * *

In _Africa_, during the last few years small forest departments have
been established by the governments of the Soudan, East Africa, Nigeria,
Transvaal, Orange River and Natal, mostly for the purpose of planting on
the treeless plains.

* * * * *

The government of _Mauritius_ had made attempts at conservancy for many
years, but without notable success.

* * * * *

The most successful attempt in Africa so far is reported from _Cape
Colony_, which as early as 1819 had a Superintendent of Lands and Woods,
and in 1876, a Department of Forests and Plantations, neither of which
have left much of record.

In 1881, a new forest department under a French forest officer was
started, which has grown until now its consists of one Conservator (D.
E. Hutchins), 22 Assistant Conservators, 84 European foresters, and a
few native guards. In 1888, the needed legislation was had for
regulating the working of the nearly half million acres of forest area,
which, in 1902, was declared inalienable government property. Since the
wood imports amount to over two million and a quarter dollars annually,
the need of conservative use is appreciated especially as climatic
conditions are unfavorable to reproduction. Some 24,000 acres have been
planted during 22 years, at a cost of $1,500,000, the first plantations
beginning to yield a substantial revenue, and it is believed that
another 40,000 acres of such plantations would supply all the timber
needed in the Colony. Treeplanting by private land owners and
municipalities is encouraged by furnishing advice gratis and plant
material at low cost, and to municipalities in addition government aid
is extended to the extent of half the cost of planting.

* * * * *

The seven _Australian_ colonies are very variously situated regarding
timber supplies, three of them, Queensland, Western and South Australia
being poorly wooded, the others more or less heavily forested,
especially Tasmania with 65 per cent., and New Zealand with 31 per cent.
Generally speaking the forest areas are confined to the coast in
narrower and wider belts, the interior being forestless or with scrubby
growth. This portion is large enough to reduce the total forest per
cent. to less than 6.5. The mountains and hill ranges facing the
Eastern, Southern and Western coasts are especially heavily wooded with
magnificent Eucalypts, Jarrah and Karri while the Kauri pine is the most
valuable tree in New Zealand.

The one successful attempt at a forest policy was made by the almost
forestless colony of _South Australia_, which in 1882 reserved its
scanty forest area of 217,000 acres and started to plant, (now 13,000
acres planted), employing a Conservator and six Foresters.

In the other colonies at various times unsuccessful beginnings were
made, and there exist in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria
so-called Forest Branches or departments, but mostly without power or
equipment, and no intelligent conception of forest policy seems
practically to exist.

In _Queensland_, since 1897, the Governor in Council may reserve forest
lands and regulate the cutting by diameter limit. One and a half million
acres have been reserved, but no staff for administration exists.

In _New South Wales_ six million acres were withdrawn from settlement,
but it is mostly used for pasture, and withdrawal may be revoked at any
time. No effective system of control exists.

In _Victoria_ five and a half million acres have been declared reserves
under act of 1890, nearly half the forest area. There exists a forest
department of one Conservator, two Inspectors and 25 Foresters, but no
plan of management. Four State nurseries of doubtful value seems the
whole result.

The other colonies still merely exploit their forest resources under
loosely managed license systems, without even an inefficient attempt at
intelligent treatment.

JAPAN.

_Forestry of Japan_, 1904, published by the Imperial Bureau of
Forestry in connection with the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, and a
reprint with additions in 1910, contains most of the information
utilized above.

_Aus den Waldungen Japans_, by Dr. Heinrich Mayr, 1891, gives a full
account of the forest geography, which is also to be found in J. J.
Rein, _Japan_, 1886.

_Der Wald in Japan_, an article by Dr. Hefele in
Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 1903, gives an insight into
forest conditions from the point of view of a forester.

A very clear analysis of the development of property rights is to be
found in an article by Dr. Zentaro Kawase in Allgemeine Forst- und
Jagdzeitung, 1894.

An article in Zeitschrift für Forst- und Jagdwesen from the pen of
Prof. H. Matsuno, the first professional forester of Japan, gives a
brief account of the development of forestry, especially in earlier
times.

A report by Special Canadian Trade Commissioner W. T. R. Preston,
1908, contains valuable statistics on the lumber trade.

The modernization of this remarkable island empire of Niphon (the native
name), which began in 1868, included the organization of a forest
department after German models. Curiously enough, there are other
noteworthy points of similarity to be found in the historic development
of forestry in Germany and Japan.

The empire comprises four larger islands--Kiushiu, Shikoku, Hondo or
Honshiu, and Hokkaido or Yesso--and a host of smaller ones, stretching
in a chain of nearly 3,000 miles north and south along the Asiatic
shore, the width of land being nowhere over 200 miles. It comprises an
area of nearly 150,000 square miles, with a population approximating 50
million, largely engaged in fisheries and other sea industries.

The islands are of volcanic origin--part of the “girdle of fire” which
reaches from the Alaska peninsula through the Philippines to the
Antilles--with many active craters, subject to frequent disastrous
earthquakes and tidal waves; mountainous, with numerous ranges of high
hills and with lofty central ridges, with numerous short rivers, apt to
turn into treacherous torrents, while hurricanes and waterspouts,
typhoons and equinoctial gales sweep the surrounding seas frequently.

The soil is nowhere particularly fertile, but the patient and
painstaking labor of the Japanese has brought every available foot of
it--little more than 10% is arable--into producing condition, wherever
the climate compensates for the infertility, especially in the most
densely populated part, the southern half of Hondo.

Extending through 30 degrees of latitude, the climate naturally varies
from the tropical one of Formosa, through all variations of the
temperate, to the alpine one of the high mountains and the nearly arctic
one of the Kurile islands. The Japan current skirting the eastern coast,
and the mountain ranges, with elevations generally not exceeding 6,000
feet, occasionally up to over 13,000 feet, which cut off the dry
continental west winds, also produce great climatic variations between
east and west coasts. In general, however, the climate of the whole
empire is characterized by a high percentage of relative humidity and
ample rainfall, especially during the hot season, producing luxuriant
growth.

1. _Forest Conditions, and Ownership._

Due to these great variations in climate, four climatic regions being
differentiated, the forest flora of Japan almost rivals in variety that
of the United States, with over 200 deciduous, and more than 30
coniferous species of size (besides a large number of half-trees),
although not more than some 50 or 60 are of silvicultural importance,
and not more than 10 or 12 species form the basis of forest management
and of the lumber trade, which requires some two billion cubic feet
annually, and supports an export of over six million dollars. The value
of the total cut was, in 1907, placed at over 17 million dollars, of
which six million was to the credit of the State Treasury.

In the tropical districts, bamboos form the main staple; in the
subtropical region, the most densely populated and hence also almost
forestless, the broadleaf evergreens, especially several species of oak,
furnish desirable fuel wood, and two species of pine are most valued for
timber, one, the Red Pine (_P. densiflora_) extending its realm rapidly
over waste areas; camphor tree and boxwood furnish ornamental wood.

The region of temperate forest furnishes, out of over 60 species, some
14 conifers and 19 broadleaf trees of value, the former mainly of the
cedar tribe, with _Chamaecyparis obtusa_ and _Cryptomeria japonica_ the
most widely used, while of the broadleaf species, which occupy more than
50 per cent. of the forest area, _Zelkowa keaki_, of the elm tribe, a
chestnut, a beech, several oaks, a walnut, and an ash count among the
most useful.

Spruce, Fir, and White Birch are the trees of the northern forest.

Mixed forest forms 45%, broadleaf 25%, conifer 21%, and 9% is rated as
blank or thinly stocked.

The forest area, which, over the whole, covers, with the addition of the
newly acquired island of Saghalien, 67% of the land area, or around 75
million acres (1¼ acres per capita), is quite unevenly distributed
according to topography and population, being mostly confined to the
mountain ranges and hills which form the backbone of the country, and to
the northern provinces, which contain still large, untouched areas.
Hokkaido, which was opened up to colonization only 35 years ago, now
with a population of only 20 to the square mile, has 63% of forest, 15
acres per capita; the northern part of Hondo has a somewhat greater area
per cent., mostly on the high steep mountains, but only 1.2 acres per
capita; on the southern portion, the low ranges of hills and valleys the
forest area has been reduced to 53%, but shows only three-quarter acre
per capita; and Okinawa, with 26%, and less than one-third acre per
capita, shows the lowest.

Of this forest area, however, almost one-half is “hara,” brush forest,
chaparral, or dwarfed tree growth--the result of mismanagement,
excessive cutting and fires--and in the southern districts, impenetrable
thickets of dwarf bamboo, which crowd out tree and even shrub growth
wherever such mismanagement gives it entrance. These extensive haras are
cut every two or five years for the brush, which is used to cover and
furnish manure for rice fields.

Fire, which, until lately, ran over 5 or 6 million acres annually, and
ruthless cutting, have in the past and are still deteriorating the
forest area.

Grassy prairie and barrens due to natural conditions are not absent, and
are due to excessive drainage through loose coarse-grained rock soil;
they are found, not extensively, at the foot of volcanoes, and on
highest elevations. The differentiation of land areas is not quite
certain. In 1894, there was still 30.5% of grassy prairie reported, but
some of this, no doubt, was forested, probably one-half.

The bulk of the forest area is owned by the State and the Imperial
Household. Communal forests are estimated to aggregate, in 1904,
somewhat over four million acres (7.5%), in 1910 reported as 11%, and
private property some 18 million (26%; in 1910, 22%) leaving 30 million
for the State and for Imperial or Crown forest (66%), the latter
comprising some 5.5 million acres.

These figures are liable to variation, due to sales of the latter class,
and to adjustments of the somewhat obscure property rights.

The ownership by the State and a conservative use of the mountain forest
is necessitated by the protective value of the forest cover, the
cultivation of the extensive rice fields being dependent upon
irrigation.

2. _Development of Forest Policy._

The history of Japan dates back to 660 B.C., when the empire was founded
on the island of Kiushiu by the warrior king Jimmuteno. He established a
kind of feudal government, with the daimios (knights or barons) holding
their fiefs from the mikado, who was considered the sole owner of the
soil, or at least all exercise of ownership rights emanated from him.
Private property seems then not to have existed at all, the people
having merely rights of user. Colonization of the islands brought under
the mikado’s dominion progressed rapidly, and with it, not only arable
portions but even mountains were denuded.

With the beginning of the Christian era, the need of better protection
against floods seems to have been recognized, and, in 270 A.D., we find
the first forest official appointed, a son of the royal house, who with
assistants was to regulate the use of the forest property, which, under
the rights of user granted by the mikado, was being excessively
exploited and devastated.

In the fifth century, the feudal method of giving fiefs of land and
forest to the deserving vassals had come generally into vogue, and
later, with the rise of Buddhism, forests were assigned to the temples
and priests, who, as in Germany the monks, were assiduous in cultivating
and utilizing them.

Soon the daimios, similarly to the barons in Germany, began to assert
exclusive property rights, and, notwithstanding various edicts, issued
from time to time to secure free use to the people, more and more of the
forest area was secured by daimios, and by priests as temple forests.

In the ninth century, deforestation and excessive exploitation had so
far progressed that not only the need of protecting watersheds was
recognized by edicts, but fear of a timber famine led even to planting
in the provinces of Noto.

A period of internal strife and warfare during the following centuries
which left forest interest in the background, led, in 1192, to the
establishment of the rule of the shoguns, the hereditary military
representatives of the mikado, who made him a mere figurehead, and
exercised all the imperial functions themselves, until the revolution of
1868 restored the mikado to his rights.

The effort at conservative forest use was renewed with increased
harshness when, after a period of warfare and devastation, the great
shogun family of Tokugawa (1603) assumed the rule of the empire,
enforcing the restrictive edicts with military severity. Even at that
early age, the protective influence of forest cover on soil and
waterflow was fully recognized, and a distinction of open or supply
forest and closed or protection forests seems to have been made, the
latter being placed under the ban of the emperor or shogun, and
withdrawn from utilization. The extensive forests of the province of
Kiso, the best remaining, owe their preservation to these efforts. The
daimios, 260 in number, each in his district, enforced the edicts in
their own way, giving rise thereby to great differences in forest
administration; yet in the absence of technical knowledge, deterioration
continued. The severity of punishments for depredations etc., reminds us
of those of the German Markgenossen, a hand or finger being the penalty
for theft, death by fire that for incendiaries.

The idea of protecting or reserving certain species of trees, which was
practiced in India by the rajahs, we find here again in the beginning of
the 18th century, the number of such protected species varying from one
to seven and even fifteen in different districts. Another unique and
peculiar way of encouraging forest culture was to permit peasants who
made forest plantations in the State forests, to bear a family name, a
right which was otherwise reserved to the knights or samurli, or to wear
a double-edged sword like the latter. Arbor days were also instituted,
memorial days and festivities, as at the birth of children, being marked
by the planting of trees.

While in Germany the love of hunting had led to the exclusion of the
people from the forests, in Japan it was a question of conserving wood
supplies that dictated these policies.

It is claimed that to these early efforts is due the preservation of the
remaining forests. But, while this may be true in some instances, as in
the province of Kiso, more probably their distance from centers of
consumption and their general inaccessibility preserved those of
Hokkaido and of the northern mountains. Certainly the brush forests
south of Tokyo do not testify to great care.

The detested shogunate was abolished in 1867 by a revolution which
brought the mikado to his rights again and crushed the power of the
daimios, whose fiefs were surrendered, and their acquisitions of forest
property, as well as (a few years later) those of the priests, were
declared State property, with the exception of some which were
recognized as communal properties.

Similar to the experiences of France, the disturbances in property
conditions, which implied instantaneous loss by the people of all rights
of user in the State property as well as removal of all restrictions
from private and communal properties, led to wholesale depredations from
the State domain, and to widespread deforestation and devastation, an
area of a million acres of burnt waste near Kofu, west of Tokyo,
testifying to the recklessness of these times.

Without any force to guard property rights, stealing on an extensive
scale, similar to past experiences in the United States, with the
accompanying wastefulness, became the order of the day, and is even now
not uncommon.

A first provisional administration of State forests was inaugurated, and
a forest reconnaissance ordered in 1875 in order to secure insight into
the mixed-up property relations, and restore to their rightful owners
such portions as had been wrongly taken by the State.

In 1878, the State forests were placed under a special bureau organized
by Matsuno, who had studied forestry in Germany (Eberswalde) for five
years. But it was not academic knowledge that was needed in the
situation; it was necessary first to mould public opinion in order to
secure means for administrative measures.

This he set himself to do through public addresses and pamphlets, and by
organizing a society of friends of forest culture, and finally, in 1882,
by establishing an experiment station at Nishigahara, and, a year later,
a dendrological school, which four years later was combined with the
agricultural school at Komaba; five years later both were joined to the
University of Tokyo.

With the transfer of the forestry bureau to the Department of
Agriculture and Commerce in 1881, and a reorganization in 1886, a new
era seemed to be promised, yet a substantial progress in organized
forest management of the State property does not seem to have been made
for another decade at least, the slow progress being largely due to lack
of personnel and the continuance of mixed property conditions, which
involved not only uncertainty of boundaries, but also mixed ownerships.

Although this last trouble, namely of mixed ownership by State and
private individuals, had been recognized as inimical to good management,
it was deliberately increased by the law of 1878 in a curious way,
reviving an old custom, namely by permitting private individuals to
plant up clearings in the State forests; in this way, these individuals
secured a certain percentage, usually 20 per cent., of the eventual
profits arising from the results. Some 200,000 acres were planted under
this arrangement.

To remove the boundary difficulty, a survey of the boundaries of State
property and adjustment of property rights, as well as segregation of
the State lands to be disposed of, namely small lots and others not
needed, was ordered in 1890.

It was then also that the first provisional working plan for the
fellings on State lands was elaborated, and gradually with the progress
of the survey, more permanent plans were adopted for district after
district.

By 1899, the adjustment had progressed far enough to begin the
restoration of properties, which the State had improperly claimed, to
their proper owners. It was then also that the Imperial forests,
intended for the support of the Imperial household, were increased to
about 5 million acres.

Meanwhile, the personnel had increased in numbers and improved in
character. In 1904, the organization of the forestry bureau under the
Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, arranged somewhat after German
models, consisted of one director and four forest commissioners with ten
clerks, forming the head office; the sixteen districts into which the
State forests were divided were presided over by 32 conservators and 80
inspectors, while 325 district officers with 880 assistants and 626
guards, altogether over 1,800 employes, formed the field force. In 1910,
the number had increased to 2500, mainly by additional rangers. This
organization applies to the State forests under control of the
Department of Agriculture. Strangely enough, those in Saghalien,
Hokkaido and Formosa are not under that department, but under the
supervision of the Minister of Home Affairs, and are merely exploited,
while the Imperial forests are under the Household Department. In 1907,
only 7 per cent. of the State forests were under working plans.

The need of supervision of the ill-managed private and communal forests,
mostly located near the settled portions, early attracted the attention
of the new regime, mainly on account of their protective value. Annual
losses through floods to the amount of four million dollars, and
similar losses due to unchecked forest fires gave the incentive to the
passage of a law, in 1882, simply forbidding all forest use in
protection forest, which simple prescription evidently did not work
until a further revision was made in 1897. This latter does not confine
itself to legislation for protection forests alone, but also authorizes
the supervision of supply forests, under the special control of the
local governors. Under this law, which also extended the assistance of
local authorities to would-be planters, aided by reforms in the
corporation system, remarkable activity in planting waste lands ensued,
so that in the next two years not less than one million acres of
communal property was set out with trees, numbering over 800 million,
while in the State forests, some 400,000 acres of vacant land had been
planted by 1970. Some sand dune planting and reboisement works are also
the result of this legislation. Further legislation more closely
defining State control was had in 1907.

In connection with this planting, it may be of interest to record the
attitude of Japanese foresters toward natural regeneration: “This is no
longer popular in these days when the knowledge of forest management
possessed by foresters has become highly developed, for if that method
is the easiest and least troublesome, nevertheless it is not advisable,
in view of the necessity of effecting a thorough improvement in our
silvicultural conditions. Only on steep slopes and for protection
forests is it applicable.”

In 1897, also, some eight experiment stations were organized, in
addition to the earlier one at Nishigahara organized, in 1882, by
Matsuno.

Education in forestry has lately run riot in Japan as it has in the
United States. Since the first school, organized in 1882, not less than
62 institutions had seen the need of offering the opportunity to become
acquainted with that subject. By 1910, these had been reduced to 47.
Here, however, different grades are frankly acknowledged. There are
three collegiate institutions whose diploma admits to the higher
service, four are of secondary grade, nineteen give special courses, and
the rest treat the subject merely as a subsidiary of a practical
education including agriculture, stock-farming and fishery. A ranger
school, which was instituted under Matsuno’s guidance, controlled by the
forestry bureau, came to an end during the Russian war for lack of
funds, but has probably been revived again.

A forestry association now with 4000 members carries on propaganda and
publishes a magazine, and co-operative associations among small owners
to facilitate better management are being formed under the law of 1907.

In conclusion, we may say that Japan has done wonders in reorganizing
its forestry system in a short time, but, according to one competent
observer, while all the Japanese care for detail and love for
orderliness is apparent in the office, not all that is found on paper is
to be found as yet in the woods, and that, for similar reasons as have
been indicated for Russia; many things happen in the woods that are not
known in the office.

KOREA.

The latest move in forest reform in this part of the world, as a result
of Japanese influence, is to be recorded from Korea. Indeed, in 1910,
Japan annexed Korea, and will doubtless apply her own methods in the new
province. The forest area of Korea comprises only about 2,500,000 acres,
out of an area of nearly 53 million acres of very mountainous country. A
concession for the exploitation of the northern forests to a Russian,
which included the re-planting with “exotic” tree species, was the
immediate cause of the Russo-Japanese war. In 1907, by co-operative
arrangements with Japan, a conservative forest policy was to be
inaugurated by laws similar to those of Japan.

Drouth, floods and erosion of soils have been common experiences. The
preservation of forest cover, especially at the headquarters of the Yalu
and Tumen in the northern part of the country, is aimed at.

For this purpose the government has taken all forests under its care.
All private owners or lease holders must report their holdings and have
their property listed, and in case of failure to do so the property is
forfeited. The government may then expropriate, or else regulate the
cutting, or, where protective functions of the forest cover require it,
may forbid cutting altogether.

A forestry school is also part of the program.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

_Report upon Forestry_, 1878-9, by Dr. F. B. Hough; contains
references to the earlier history of forest development.

_History of the Lumber Industry_, by J. E. Defebaugh, 1906-7; is
valuable as a reference to statistical matter.

_Report upon Forestry Investigations of the United States Department
of Agriculture_, 1877-1898, by B. E. Fernow. House Document No. 181,
55th Congress; contains amplifications of the matter contained in
this chapter.

Annual and other reports issued by the Department of Agriculture, by
the various State Forest Commissions, and Forestry Associations.

For latest developments, consult _Conservation (American Forestry)_
and _Forestry Quarterly_.

The great and exuberant republic of the United States, vast in extent
and rich in natural resources generally, excelled and still excels in
extent, importance and value of her timber resources; and, having only
lately begun to inaugurate rational forest policies, promises to become
of all-absorbing interest to foresters.

The marvelous growth of the nation, which from three million in 1780 had
attained to a population of 76 million in 1900, and, by the last Census
numbered around 92 million people, has been the wonder of the world by
reason of its rapid expansion; and yet the limit is far from being
reached. Annually some three-quarters of a million or more immigrants
from all parts of the world arrive, and there is still room and
comfortable living for at least another 100 million, if the resources
are properly treated.

The large land area of nearly two billion acres (over three million
square miles) is undoubtedly the richest contiguous domain of such size
in the world, located most favorably with reference to trade by virtue
of a coast line of over 20,000 miles, and diversified in climate so as
to permit the widest range of production.

While a simple mathematical relation would make the population at
present about 31 to the square mile, such a statement would give an
erroneous conception of economic conditions, for the distribution of the
population is most uneven, a condition which must eventually diversify
the application of forestry methods in different parts of the country.
In Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined, for instance, the density of
population is 428 to the square mile, exceeding that of the
similar-sized State of Würtemberg in Germany, while in the neighboring
State of Maine it is not 25; the Atlantic Coast States south of South
Carolina, a territory slightly larger than Germany, show about half, and
the Central agricultural States about one-third the density of that
densely populated country; on the other hand, some of the Western
States, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico have less than
three to the square mile.

Similar unevenness is found in the distribution of resources, especially
of timber wealth, and, to some extent at least, the present populational
distribution is explained by the uneven distribution of farm soils and
timber.

Outside of the unorganized territory of Alaska and the disfranchised
District of Columbia, the country is divided into 46 States and two
Territories which will eventually acquire statehood. In addition, there
are a number of insular possessions under the direct control of the
federal government. Each State being under the Constitution sovereign in
itself as far as its internal administration is concerned, it is evident
that no uniformity of policies can be expected, except so far as
imitativeness, in which the American citizen excels, may lead State
after State to repeat the experiment attempted by one. The federal
government has no direct jurisdiction in matters concerning the
management of resources within the States, except so far as it still
owns lands in the Western, so-called Public Land States, and a few
parcels in the Eastern States over which it still retains jurisdiction.

The severest test of democratic institutions is experienced when the
attempt is made to establish a policy which shall guard the interests of
the future at the expense of the demands and needs of the present.
Democracy produces attitudes and characteristics of the people which are
inimical to stable economic arrangements looking to the future, such as
are implied in a forest policy. The vast country with an unevenly
distributed and heterogeneous population presents the greatest variety
of natural, as well as of economic conditions; the immediate interests
of one section naturally do not coincide with those of other sections;
particularistic and individualistic tendencies of the true democrat are
antagonistic to anything which smacks of “paternalism,” the attitude
under which alone a persistent, farsighted policy can thrive. Frequent
change of administration, or at least the threat of such change, impedes
consistent execution of plans; fickle public opinion may subvert at any
time well laid plans which take time in maturing; the true democratic
doctrine of restricting State activity to police functions, and the
doctrine of non-interference with private rights, as well as the idea of
State rights in opposition to federal power and authority--all these
characteristics of a democratic government are impediments to a
concerted action and stable policy.

That, in spite of these antagonistic interests, conditions and
doctrines, substantial progress toward establishing at least a federal
forest policy has been made, is due to the fact that the American, in
spite of his reputation as a materialistic, selfish opportunist, is
really an idealist; that he responds readily to patriotic appeals; that,
in spite of his rabid nationalism, he is willing to learn from the
experiences of other nations; that, indeed, he is anxious to be
educated. Finally, much credit is due to the men who with single purpose
devoted their lives to the education of their fellow citizens in this
direction.

It must, to be sure, be added that remarkable changes in the political
attitude of the people have taken place in the last 30 years since the
propaganda of forestry began; changes, partly perhaps induced by that
propaganda, which have aided this movement, and which, if they persist,
promise much for the future development of forest policies. A decidedly
paternalistic, if not socialistic attitude has, lately been taken by the
federal government; and by skilful construction of the Constitution as
regards the right to regulate interstate relations, has led to an
expansion of federal power in various directions. A similar
paternalistic attitude has developed in the legislatures of several
States to a noticeable degree. Even the judiciary has taken up this new
spirit, and is ready to sanction interference with private property
rights to a degree which, a decade ago, would have been denounced as
undemocratic and tyrannical. Two courts have lately ruled that owners of
timberlands may be restricted, without compensation, as regards the size
of trees they may fell on their property, if the welfare of the State
demands such interference.

The argument of the Roman doctrine _utere tuo ne alterum noceas_, which
forestry propagandists have so strenuously used, seems finally to have
found favor, and the inclusion of the community at large, present and
future, as the possibly damaged party does not appear any more strained.
The idea of the _providential function_ of governments, as the writer
has called it, seems to have taken hold of the people. The democratic
doctrine of State rights, and restriction of government functions has,
even among Democrats, been weakened through the long continued reign of
the Republican party, the party of centralizing tendencies, to such an
extent that the latest Democratic platform of a Presidential campaign
(1908) outdid the Republican platform in centralizing and paternalistic
propositions.

It is proper to emphasize the growth of this socialistic attitude, as it
is bound to influence, and influence favorably, the further development
of forest policies.

Nevertheless, it is still necessary to keep in mind that the States are
autonomous, and that, while the federal government, in spite of the
antagonism in the Western States, in which the public lands are
situated, has been able to change its land policy from that of liberal
disposal to one of reservation, it alone cannot save the situation.
While a few of the States have made beginnings in working out a policy
to arrest the destruction of their forest resources, which are mostly in
private hands, still much water must flow down the Mississippi before
adequate measures will be taken to stave off the threatening timber
famine, and the energy of the various local and national Conservation
associations will need to be exercised to the utmost.

1. _Forest Conditions._

Three extensive mountain systems, running north and south, give rise to
at least eight topographic subdivisions of the country, going from east
to west.

1. The narrow belt of level coast and hill country along the Atlantic
shore, from 100 to 200 miles in width with elevations up to 1,000 feet,
but especially low along the seacoast from Virginia south; drained by
short rivers navigable only for short distances from the mouth; a
farming country, with the soils varying from the richest to the poorest;
some 300,000 square miles.

2. The Appalachian mountain country, nearly of the same width as the
first section, with elevations up to 5,000 feet; the watershed of all
the rivers to the Atlantic, of several rivers to the Gulf, and of the
eastern affluents of the Mississippi; a mountain country, of about
360,000 square miles extent, rich in coal, iron and other minerals,
except in its northern extension formed of archean rock.

3. The great river basin of the Mississippi, a Central plain of glacial
and river deposit, rising gradually from the Gulf to the headwaters for
more than 1200 miles, and nowhere over 1,000 feet above sea level; the
richest agricultural section, 700,000 square miles, more or less, in
extent.

4. The plateau, rising towards the Rocky Mountains from 1,000 to 5,000
feet above sea level, some 870,000 square miles in extent, a region of
scanty rainfall, hence of prairie and plain, but mostly rich soil of
undetermined depth, capable of prolific production where sufficient
water supply is available.

5. The Rocky Mountain region, rising from 5,000 to near 10,000 feet
(except some higher peaks), an arid to semi-arid district of rugged
ranges, covered mostly with forest growth, often open and of inferior
kind, with tillable soils in the narrow valleys, requiring irrigation
for farm use; a mining country, rich in gold and silver, extending over
150,000 square miles.

6. The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, including the Coast Range, rarely
over 7,000 feet elevation, arid to semi-arid on the Eastern slopes;
humid, and supporting magnificent forest growth on the Western slopes;
some 190,000 square miles.

7. The Interior Basin, lying between the two preceding mountain ranges,
some 400,000 square miles; for the most part a desert, although in parts
supporting a stunted growth of pinon and juniper, and, where irrigation
is possible, productive.

8. The interior valleys of the Sierra, comprising about 30,000 square
miles, which, under irrigation, have become the garden spots of the
Pacific.

To these topographic subdivisions correspond in part the climatic and
the forest conditions, although variation of soil, and of northern and
southern climate produce further differentiation in types, and in
distribution of field and forest.

The first three sections were originally densely wooded--the great
Atlantic forest region--but farms now occupy most of the arable
portions; the fourth and seventh are forestless, if not treeless, while
the fifth and sixth were more or less forested--the Pacific Coast
region.

Floristically also, these topographic conditions are reflected, namely
in the wide, north and south distribution of species, unimpeded by
intervening mountain ranges, and in the change in composition from east
to west. The two grand floristic divisions of the Atlantic and the
Pacific forest, having but few species in common, are separated by the
plains and prairies. The Atlantic forest is in the main composed of
broadleaf trees with conifers intermixed, which latter only under the
influence of soil conditions form pure stands, as in the extensive
pineries of the South and North, and in the northern swamps and on
southern mountain tops. The central region west of the Alleghanies
exhibits little conifer growth in its composition, and is most widely
turned to farm use. White Pine, hemlock and spruce are the important
coniferous staples of the northern section, and a number of Yellow Pine
species, with Bald Cypress and Red Cedar, are the valuable conifer
species in the South. As regards valuable hardwoods, there is but little
change from north to south.

The Pacific forest flora is almost entirely coniferous, but here also
climatic conditions permit a distinction of two very different forest
regions, the Rocky Mountain forest being mostly of rather inferior
development, and the Sierra forest exhibiting the most magnificent tree
growth in the world.

Nearly half the country is forestless, grassy prairie and plain, some
400 million acres being of the latter description, while open prairie
and brush forest, or waste land occupies 600 million acres.

Within the forest region of the East some 250 million acres have been
turned into farms, leaving still two-thirds of the area either under
woods, or else wasted by fire. Although any reliable data regarding this
acreage are wanting, the area of really productive woodland in this
section may probably be set down as not exceeding 300 million acres,
which would be nearly 40% of the total area, varying from 13% in the
Central agricultural States to 50% in the Southern States; Maine, New
Hampshire and Arkansas being most densely wooded, with over 60%. The
Rocky Mountain and Sierra forests, each with 100 million acres, would
bring the total productive woodland area to a round 500 million acres,
or about 26% of the whole. (Later estimates including brushlands of
doubtful productive capacity, increase this area to 550 million acres.)

It is almost idle to attempt an estimate of the timber still standing
ready for the axe; not only are the data for such an estimate too
scanty, but standards of what is considered merchantable change
continuously and vitiate the value of such estimates. The writer’s own
estimate, made some years ago, of 2,500 billion feet, which by others
has been treated as authoritative and forming a basis for predicting the
time of a timber famine, and which was lately sustained by an extensive
official inquiry, must nevertheless be considered only as a reasonable
guess, ventured for the purpose of accentuating the need of more
conservative treatment of these exhaustible supplies, in comparison with
the consumption which represents around 45 billion feet B.M., and
altogether 23 billion cubic feet of forest-grown material, the ultimate
value of all forest products reaching the stupendous sum of around 1,250
million dollars. And, as in other countries, this lavish consumption of
forest growth, from five to fifteen times that of Europeans, has shown
in the past a per capita increase of 30 per cent. for every decade.

The bulk of the standing timber is to be found along the Pacific Coast,
in the Sierra, and in the Southern States with their extensive pineries;
the Northern and Eastern sections are within measurable time of the end
of their virgin supplies of saw timber. The practice of culling the most
valuable species has changed the composition in the regeneration, making
it inferior, and large areas have been rendered worthless by fires.

The loss by fire, the bane of American forests, as far as loss in
material is concerned probably does not exceed 2 or 3 per cent. of the
consumption, and may be valued at say 25 million dollars per annum. But
the indirect damage to forest and soil, changing the composition, baring
the soil, and exposing it to erosion and washing, turning fertile lands
into wastes, and brooks and rivers into torrents, is incalculable.

There is no doubt that at the present rate of consumption the bulk of
the virgin supplies will be used up in a measurable time, which will
force a reduction in the use of wood materials; a more or less severe
timber famine is bound to appear,--indeed, has begun to make its
appearance; and all recuperative measures will not suffice to stave it
off, although they may shorten the time of its duration.

2. _Early Forest History._

The early colonizers, settling on the Atlantic Coast soon after the
discoveries of Columbus, did not, as is usually believed, find an
untouched virgin forest. The aboriginal Indians had, before then, hewn
out their corn fields, and had supplied themselves with fuel wood and
material for their utensils; and fires, accidental, intentional, or
caused by lightning, had, no doubt, also made inroads here and there.
The white man, to be sure, is a more lavish wood consumer; his farms
increased more rapidly, his buildings and his fireplaces consumed more
forest growth, and carelessness with fire was, as it is still, his
besetting sin. Moreover, a trade in timber with the Old World developed,
in which only the best and largest-sized material figured. Wastefulness
was bred in him by the sight of plenty, and the hard work of clearing
his farm acres incited a natural enmity to the encumbering forest.

The first sawmill in the New World was erected in 1631 in the town of
Berwick, Maine, and the first gang saw, of 18 saws, in 1650 in the same
place,[18] while, before that time, masts and spars, handmade cooperage
stock, clapboards and shingles formed commonly parts of the return
cargoes of ships. By 1680, nearly 50 vessels, engaged in such trade,
cleared from the Piscataqua River. The ordinances on record which were
issued at the same early times by the town governments of Exeter (1640),
Kittery (1656), Portsmouth (1660), and Dover (1665), restricting the use
of timber, remind us of the early European forest ordinances; they were
probably not dictated by any threatening deficiency of this class of
material, but merely intended to secure a proper and orderly use of the
town property.

[18] See Forestry Quarterly, vol. IV, p. 14.

The appointment of a Royal Surveyor of the Woods for the New England
colonies in 1699, and the penalties imposed in New Hampshire (1708) for
cutting mast trees on ungranted lands ($500 for cutting 24-inch trees),
and in Massachusetts (1784) for cutting White Pine upon the public lands
($100), were probably also merely police regulations, to protect
property rights of the Crown or commonwealth. That this last move was in
no way conceived as a needed conservatism is proved by the fact that two
years later the Legislature of Maine devised a lottery scheme for the
disposal of fifty townships; and 3,500,000 acres were disposed of in
this way during the twelve years following the war. Altogether the
States sacrificed their “wild lands” at trifling prices.

But, when William Penn, the founder and first legislator of the State
which represented his grant, stipulated, in 1682, that for every five
acres cleared one acre was to be reserved for forest growth by those who
took title from him, that may properly be considered an attempt to
inaugurate a conservative policy, dictated by wise forethought,--an
attempt, which, however, bore little or no fruit.

Thoughtful men probably at all times looked with pity and apprehension
upon the wasteful use of the timber as they do now, yet squander went
on, just as it still does; but the apparently inexhaustible supplies in
those early times called for no restriction in its use.

At the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, a
fuel-wood famine must have appeared in some parts of the country, just
as in Germany at that time and for the same reasons, the wood having
been cut along the rivers, which were the only means of transportation,
and hence, the distance to which wood had to be hauled increasing the
cost.

This was probably the reason why the Society of Agriculture, Arts and
Manufactures of New York, after an inquiry by circular letter, issued in
1791, published, in 1795, a report on the “best mode of preserving and
increasing the growth of timber.” This condition probably also led the
wise Governor of New York, DeWitt Clinton, of Erie Canal fame, in a
message in 1822, to forecast an evil day, because “no system of economy”
for the reproduction of forest supplies was being adopted; and he added:
“Probably none will be, until severe privations are experienced.”

Like Great Britain at that time, the federal government became
concerned as regards supplies for naval construction, and, by act
approved in 1799, appropriated $200,000 for the purchase of timber fit
for the Navy, and for its preservation for future use. Small purchases
were made on the Georgia coast, but nothing of importance was done
until, in 1817, another act renewed the proposition of the first, and
directed the reservation of public lands bearing live-oak or cedar
timber suitable for the Navy, as might be selected by the President.
Under this act, a reservation of 19,000 acres was made, in 1828, on
Commissioners, Cypress and Six Islands, in Louisiana. Another
appropriation of $10,000 was made in 1828, and some lands were purchased
on Santa Rosa Sound, where, during a few years, even an attempt at
cultivation was made, including sowing, transplanting, pruning, etc.
This was done under a more general act of 1827, by which the President
was authorized to take proper measures to preserve the live oak timber
growing on the federal lands. Under these acts, altogether some 244,000
acres of forest land were reserved in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and
Mississippi.

But, although another act, of 1831, provided for the punishment of
persons cutting or destroying any Live Oak, Red Cedar, or other trees
growing on any lands of the United States, no general conception of the
need of a broad forest policy, or even of a special value attaching to
the public timberlands dictated these acts, except so far as the
securing of certain material, then believed necessary for naval
construction, was concerned. Indeed, the act of 1831 remained for 60
years the only expression of interest in this part of the federal
domain.

In those early times, the extent of our forest domain was entirely
unknown, and the concern of occasional early voices in public prints
regarding a threatened exhaustion of timber supplies can only be
explained by the fact that, in the absence of railroads, the supplies
near centers of civilization, or near drivable and navigable rivers,
were alone of any account.

That the earlier propagandists of forest culture received scant
attention was due to the fact that conditions soon changed; and with
these changes the evil day seemed indefinitely postponed, and the
necessity for forest culture apparently vanished. These changes were
mainly wrought by the opening up of the west, by extending means of
transportation through canals and railroads, and by distributing
population, whereby the need for near-by home supplies was overcome; a
continental supply of apparently inexhaustible amount was brought into
sight and within reach.

Meanwhile the population began to grow, immigrants began to pour in by
the hundred thousand, and the westward stream opened up new country and
new timber supplies, and a lumber industry of marvellous size began to
develop. The small country mill, run in the manner of, and often in
connection with, the grist mill, doing a petty business by sawing as
occasion demanded, to order for home customers or export, gave way to
the large mill establishment as we know it now; and with the development
of railroad transportation and the settlement of the western country,
especially the forestless prairies, the industry grew at an astonishing
rate.

It is worth while to briefly trace the history of this industry, for the
sake of which the need of conservative forest policies is essential.

That the petty method of doing business lasted until the middle of the
century is evidenced by the census of 1840, which reported 31,560 lumber
mills, with a total product valued as $12,943,507, or a little over $400
per mill. By 1876, the product per mill had become $6,500; by 1890, with
only 21,000 mills, it was $19,000; in 1900, nearly the same number of
mills as were recorded in 1840 (33,035) furnished a product of 566
million dollars, and in 1907, the banner year of production, the cut of
28,850 mills was reported at over 40 billion feet, and the gross product
per mill had grown to $23,000, or a value for all of $666,641,367.

In 1909, 48,112 mills cut 44,509,761,000 feet valued at $684,479,859.
Nearly half this product came from the Southern States.

In the fifty years from 1850 to 1900, the value of all forest products
harvested increased from $59 million to $567 million, and in 1907 the
value had risen to $1,280 million, representing a consumption of over 20
million cubic feet of forest-grown material.

Especially after the Civil War, the settlements of the West grew as if
by magic; the railroad mileage more than doubled in the decade from 1865
to 1875, and with it, the lumber industry developed by rapid strides
into its modern methods and volume. How rapidly the changes took place
may be judged from the fact that, in 1865, the State of New York still
furnished more lumber than any other State; now it supplies only
insignificant amounts, a little over two per cent. of the total lumber
cut.

In 1868, the golden age of lumbering had arrived in Michigan; in 1871,
rafts filled the Wisconsin; in 1875, Eau Claire had 30, Marathon 30, and
Fond du Lac 20 sawmills, now all gone; and mills at La Crosse, which
were cutting millions of feet annually, are now closed. By 1882, the
Saginaw Valley had reached the climax of its production, and the lumber
industry of the great Northwest, with a cut of 8 billion feet of White
Pine alone, was in full blast. The White Pine production reached its
maximum in 1890, with 8.5 billion feet, then to decrease gradually but
steadily to less than half that cut in 1908. Southern development began
to assume large proportions much later; at the present time, the lumber
product of the Southern States has grown to amounts nearly double that
of all the Northern States combined.

But not only the unparalleled and ever increasing wood consumption,
which now has reached 260 cubic feet per capita, five times that of
Germany and ten times that of France, threatened the exhaustion of the
natural supplies. Reckless conflagrations almost invariably followed the
lumberman and destroyed generally the remaining stand, and surely the
young growth. So common did these conflagrations become, that they were
considered unavoidable, and though laws intended to protect forest
property against fires were found on the statute books of every State,
no attempt to enforce them was made.

No wonder that those observing this rapid decimation of our forest
supplies and the incredible wastefulness and additional destruction by
fire with no attention to the aftergrowth, began again to sound the note
of alarm. Besides the writings in the daily press and other non-official
publications, we find the reports of the Department of Agriculture more
and more frequently calling attention to the subject.

In a report issued by the Patent Office as early as 1849, we find the
following significant language in a discussion on the rapid destruction
of forests and their influence on water flow:

“The waste of valuable timber in the United States, to say nothing
of firewood, will hardly begin to be appreciated until our
population reaches 50,000,000. Then the folly and shortsightedness
of this age will meet with a degree of censure and reproach not
pleasant to contemplate.”

In 1865, the Rev. Frederic Starr discussed fully and forcibly the
American forests, their destruction and preservation, in a lengthy
article in which, with truly prophetic vision, he says:

“It is feared it will be long, perhaps a full century, before the
results at which we ought to aim as a nation will be realized by our
whole country, to wit, that we should raise an adequate supply of
wood and timber for all our wants. _The evils which are anticipated
will probably increase upon us for thirty years to come with tenfold
the rapidity with which restoring or ameliorating measures shall be
adopted._”

And again:

“Like a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand just rising from the sea,
an awakening interest begins to come in sight on this subject, which
as a question of political economy will place the interests of
cotton, wool, coal, iron, meat, and even grain, beneath its feet.
Some of these, according to the demand, can be produced in a few
days, others in a few months or a few years, but timber in not less
than one generation. The nation has slept because the gnawing of
want has not awakened her. She has had plenty and to spare, but
within thirty years she will be conscious that not only individual
want is present, but that it comes to each from permanent national
famine of wood.”

The article is full of interesting detail, and may be said to be the
starting basis of the campaign for better methods which followed.

Another unquestionably most influential, official report was that upon
“Forests and Forestry in Germany,” by Dr. John A. Warder, United States
Commissioner to the World’s Fair at Vienna in 1873. Dr. Warder set forth
clearly and correctly the methods employed abroad in the use of forests,
and became himself one of the most prominent propagandists for their
adoption in his own country.

About the same time appeared the classical work of George B. Marsh, our
minister to Italy, “The Earth as Modified by Human Action,” in which the
evil effects on cultural conditions of forest destruction were ably and
forcibly pointed out.

Among these earlier publications designed to arouse public attention to
the subject, should also be mentioned General C. C. Andrews’ report on
‘Forestry in Sweden,’ published by the State Department in 1872.

The Census of 1870 attempted for the first time a canvas of our forest
resources under Prof. F. W. Brewer, as a result of which the relative
smallness of our forest area became known.

All these publications had their influence in educating a larger number
to a conception and consideration of the importance of the subject, so
that, when, in 1873, the committee on forestry of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science was formed and presented a
memorial to Congress, pointing out “the importance of promoting the
cultivation of timber and the preservation of forests, and recommending
the appointment of a commission of forestry to report to Congress,”
there already existed an intelligent audience, and although a
considerable amount of lethargy and lack of interest was exhibited,
Congress could be persuaded, in 1876, to establish an agency in the
United States Department of Agriculture, out of which grew later the
Division of Forestry, a bureau of information on forestry matters. Dr.
Franklin B. Hough, one of the signers of the memorial, was appointed to
the agency. It is to be noted as characteristic of much American
legislation, that this agency was secured only as a “rider” to an
appropriation for the distribution of seed.

While these were the beginnings of an official recognition of the
subject by the federal government, private enterprise and the separate
States also started about the same time to forward the movement. In
1867, the agricultural and horticultural societies of Wisconsin were
invited by the legislature to appoint a committee to report on the
disastrous effects of forest destruction. In 1869, the Maine Board of
Agriculture appointed a committee to report on a forest policy for the
State, leading to the act of 1872 “for the encouragement of the growth
of trees, exempting from taxation for twenty years lands planted to
trees, which law, as far as we know, remained without result. About the
same time a real wave of enthusiasm regarding the planting of timber
seems to have pervaded the country, and especially the Western prairie
States. In addition to laws regarding the planting of trees on highways,
laws for the encouragement of timber planting, either under bounty or
exemption from taxation, were passed in Iowa, Kansas and Wisconsin in
1868; in Nebraska and New York in 1869; in Missouri in 1870; in
Minnesota in 1871; in Iowa in 1872; in Nevada in 1873; in Illinois in
1874; in Dakota and Connecticut in 1875; and finally the federal
government joined in this kind of legislation by the so-called
timber-culture acts of 1873 and 1874, amended in 1876 and 1877.

For the most part these laws remained a dead letter, excepting in the
case of the federal government offer. The encouragement by release from
taxes was not much of an inducement; nor does the bounty provision seem
to have had greater success, except in taking money out of the
treasuries. Finally, these laws were in many or most cases repealed.

The timber-culture act was passed by Congress on March 3, 1873, by which
the planting of timber on 40 acres of land (or a proportionate area) in
the treeless territory, conferred the title to 160 acres (or a
proportionate amount) of the public domain. This law had not been in
existence ten years when its repeal was demanded, and this was finally
secured in 1891, the reason being that, partly owing to the crude
provisions of the law, and partly to the lack of proper supervision, it
had been abused, and had given rise to much fraud in obtaining title to
lands under false pretenses. It is difficult to say how much impetus the
law gave to _bonafide_ forest planting, and how much timber growth has
resulted from it. Unfavorable climate, lack of satisfactory plant
material, and lack of knowledge as to the proper methods, led to many
failures.

A number of railroad companies, opening up the prairie States, planted
at this time groves along the right of way for the sake of demonstrating
the practicability of securing forest growth on the treeless prairies
and plains.

There was also considerable planting of wind-breaks and groves on
homesteads, which was attended with better results. Altogether, however,
the amount of tree planting, even in the prairies and plains, was
infinitesimal, if compared with what is necessary for climatic
amelioration; and it may be admitted, now as well as later, that the
reforestation of the plains must be a matter of co-operative, if not of
national, enterprise.

At this time also, an effort was made to stimulate enthusiasm for tree
planting among the homesteaders and settlers on the plains by the
establishment of arbor days. From its inception by Governor J. Sterling
Morton, and its first inauguration by the State Board of Agriculture of
Nebraska in 1872, Arbor Day gradually became a day of observance in
nearly every State. While with the exception of the so-called treeless
States, perhaps not much planting of economic value is done, the
observance of the day in schools as one set apart for the discussion of
the importance of trees, forests and forestry has been productive of an
increased interest in the subject. Arbor days have perhaps also had a
retarding influence upon the practical forestry movement, in leading
people into the misconception that forestry consists in tree planting,
in diverting attention from the economic question of the proper use of
existing forest areas, in bringing into the discussion poetry and
emotions, which have clouded the hard-headed practical issues, and
delayed the earnest attention of practical business men.

Private efforts in the East in the way of fostering and carrying on
economic timber planting should not be forgotten, such as the offering
of prizes by the Massachusetts Society for the Promotion of Agriculture
(as early as 1804 and again in 1876), and the planting done by private
land holders at Cape Cod, in Rhode Island, Virginia, and elsewhere.
These efforts, to be sure, were only sporadic and unsystematic, and on
no scale commensurate with the destruction of virgin forest resources.

A touching attempt of two noble Frenchmen to teach their American hosts
a better use of their magnificent forest resource, although of little
result, should never fail of mention. André Michaux and his son, André
Francois, who, between 1785 and 1805, explored and studied the forest
flora of the United States, and published a magnificent North American
Sylva in three volumes, left, in recognition of the hospitalities
received, two legacies of $20,000 for the “extension and progress of
agriculture and more especially of silviculture in the United States,”
which bequests became available in 1870. The American Philosophical
Society at Philadelphia, a trustee of one of the legacies, has devoted
its income to beautification of Fairmount Park, providing a few lectures
on forest botany and forestry, and collecting a forestry library, while
the other legacy has been used by the Massachusetts Society for the
Promotion of Agriculture to aid the botanical gardens at Harvard and the
Arnold Arboretum, besides offering the prizes for tree planting referred
to above.

3. _Development of a Forest Policy._

This first period of desultory efforts to create public opinion on
behalf of a more conservative use of forest resources was followed by a
more systematic propaganda, in which the Division of Forestry, growing
out of the agency in the Department of Agriculture, took the lead. This
it did officially as well as by assisting the American Forestry
Association, soon after organized with a view of educating public
opinion. For 15 years, the chief of the Division acted either as
Secretary or Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Association.

The first forestry association had been formed on January 12, 1876, in
St. Paul, Minn., largely through the efforts of Leonard B. Hodges, who
was the first to make plantations in the prairies for the St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad. This association was aided by State appropriations,
which enabled it to offer premiums for the setting out of plantations,
to distribute plant material, and also to publish and distribute widely
a Tree Planters’ Manual, revised editions of which were issued from time
to time.

In 1875, Dr. John A. Warder issued a call for a convention in Chicago
to form a national forestry association. This association was completed,
in 1876, at Philadelphia, but never showed any life or growth.

In 1882, a number of patriotic citizens at Cincinnati called together a
forestry congress, incited thereto by the visit and representations of
Baron von Steuben, a Prussian forest official, when visiting this
country on the occasion of the centennial celebration of the surrender
of Yorktown.

A very enthusiastic and representative gathering, on April 25, was the
result, lasting through the week, which led to the formation of the
American Forestry Congress. In the same year, in August, a second
meeting was held in Montreal, under the patronage of the Canadian
government, and the name was changed to the American Forestry
Association. In 1898, it began the publication of a propagandist
journal, The Forester (later changed to Forestry and Irrigation then to
Conservation, and now again to American Forestry). It has now a
member-ship of over 5,000. Much of the early educational propaganda was
done through this association. Indeed, this association, holding yearly
and intermediate meetings in different parts of the States, became the
center of all private efforts to advance the forestry movement. Twelve
volumes of its proceedings contain not only the history of progress in
establishing a forest policy, but also much other information of value
on forestry subjects.

Other local or State forestry associations were formed from time to
time, more or less under the lead of the national association, and exist
now in almost every State, while several other societies, like the
Sierra Nevada Club and the Mazamas of the Pacific coast, and State
horticultural societies in various States, made the subject one to be
discussed and to be fostered. The most active of these associations,
since it was formed in 1886, publishing also a bi-monthly journal,
Forest Leaves (at first less frequently), is the Pennsylvania State
Forestry Association, which has succeeded in thoroughly committing its
State to a proper forest policy, as far as official recognition is
concerned.

Usually as a result of this associated private effort, the States
appointed forestry commissions or commissioners. These commissions were
at first for the most part instituted for inquiry and to make reports,
upon which a forest policy for the State might be framed. Others have
become permanent parts of the State organization, with executive, or
merely educational functions. Such commissioners of inquiry were
appointed at various times, in Connecticut (1877), New Hampshire (1881
and 1889), Vermont (1882), New York (1884), Maine (1891), New Jersey (in
Geological Survey 1894), Pennsylvania (1893), North Carolina (in
Geological Survey 1891), Ohio (1885), Michigan (1899), Wisconsin (1897),
Minnesota (1899), North Dakota (1891), Colorado (1885), California
(1885).

It was but natural in a democratic country that these movements
sometimes became the play balls of self-seeking men, political wire
pullers, and grafters, or more often of ignorant amateurs and shallow
sentimentalists, aided by half-informed newspaper writers. Infinite
patience was required to steer through these rocks the ship of true
economic reform, and to educate legislators and constituents to its true
needs. The very first forestry congress was really conceived with a view
of advancing political preferment of one of its organizers, and many
another “forestry” meeting was utilized for a similar purpose, the new,
catchy title attracting the gullible.

One of the first State forest commissions, well endowed to do its work,
soon fell into the hands of grafters, and created such scandals that
they led to its abolishment, and to a set-back in the movement
everywhere. Arbor day sentimentalism discredited and clouded the issue
before the business world; the movement was in constant danger at the
hands of its friends. Antagonism of the lumber world was aroused by the
false idea of what the reform contemplated, and, in the absence of
technically trained foresters to instruct the public and the amateur
reformers, and to convince legislators of the absolute need of
discontinuing old established habits, progress was naturally slow, and
experienced many setbacks.

It was a hard field to plow, grown up with the weed growth of prejudice
and custom, and means and tools for the work were inadequate.

The federal government was naturally looked to to take the lead. The
first two agents, employed in the Department of Agriculture to “report
on forestry”, unfortunately lacked all technical knowledge of the
subject, the first, a most assiduous worker, being a writer of local
histories and gatherer of statistics, the second a preacher. The third,
the writer himself, had at least the advantage of this technical
training, but, at the same time, the disadvantage of being a foreigner,
who had first to learn the limitations of democratic government. Only
the paltry sum of $8,000 was at his disposal for plowing the ground, and
even after the agency had been raised to the dignity of a Division in
1886, for years no adequate appropriations could be secured, and hence
the scope and usefulness of the work of the Division was hampered.

The Forestry Association, inaugurated with such a flourish of trumpets
and with such a large membership at the start, had in the first two
years dwindled to a small number of faithful ones, and was without funds
when the writer became its secretary.

In spite of these drawbacks, the propaganda had progressed so far in
1891, that, through the earnest insistence of the then Secretary of the
Interior, John W. Noble, who had been won over to the views for which
the Division and the Association stood, a clause was enacted by Congress
in “An act to repeal timber-culture laws and for other purposes,” giving
authority to the President to set aside forest reservations from the
public domain. Again, this important legislation, which changed the
entire land policy and all previous notions of the government’s
functions concerning the Public Domain, was not deliberately enacted,
but slipped in as a “rider”, at the last hour, in Conference Committee.
In this connection the name of Edward A. Bowers, in 1887 Special Agent
in the Department of the Interior, and later Assistant Commissioner of
the General Land Office, deserves mention as most active in securing
this reservation policy.

Acting under this authority, Presidents Harrison and Cleveland
proclaimed, previous to 1894, seventeen forest reservations, with a
total estimated area of 17,500,000 acres.

The reservations were established usually upon the petition of citizens
residing in the respective States and after due examination, the
Forestry Association acting both as instigator and as intermediary.

Meanwhile no provision for the administration of the reserves existed,
and the comprehensive legislation devised by the Chief of the Division
of Forestry, which included withdrawal and administration of all public
timberlands, failed to be enacted, although in the Fifty-third Congress
it was passed by both Houses, but failed to become a law merely for lack
of time to secure a conference report. But the purpose of the advocates
of forestry was to create such a condition as would compel Congress to
act, by continually withdrawing forested lands that would lie useless
until authority was given for their proper use and administration.

In order to secure influential support from outside, a committee of the
Forestry Association induced the then Secretary of the Interior, Hoke
Smith, in 1896, to request the National Academy of Sciences, the legally
constituted adviser of the government in scientific matters, to
investigate and report “upon the inauguration of a rational forest
policy for the forested lands of the United States.” After an
unnecessary so-called “junket” of a committee of the Academy to
investigate the public timberlands, a preliminary report was submitted
recommending the creation of thirteen additional reservations, with an
area of over 20 million acres, and later a complete report was made
with practically the same recommendations which had been urged by the
Forestry Association.

President Cleveland, heroically, proclaimed the desired reserves all on
one day, Washington’s birthday, 1897, without the usual preliminary
ascertainment of local interests, and immediately a storm broke loose in
the United States Senate, which threatened the overthrow of the entire,
toilsomely achieved reservation policy; and impeachment of the President
was strongly argued in a two-day (Sunday) session. Congress, however,
came to an end on March 4, before it had taken any action, but, as it
had also failed to pass the annual Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, it
was immediately recalled in extra session.

Then, again, by a clever trick and in an indirect and surreptitious
manner, instead of by open, direct and straightforward consideration and
deliberation of a proper policy, most important legislation was secured
in the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, which provided for the temporary
suspension of the reservations lately set aside until they could be more
definitely delimited, private claims adjusted, and agricultural lands
excluded, by a survey, for which $150,000 was appropriated to the United
States Geological Survey. The agricultural lands were then to be
returned to the public domain for disposal. At the same time, provisions
for the administration of the remaining reservations, much in the sense
of the legislation advocated by the Division of Forestry and by the
Forestry Association, and especially for the sale of timber, were hung
on to this appropriation clause. Under this act the reserves were
administered until 1904.

If the interior history of this bit of legislation were revealed, it
would probably appear that, not conception of the importance of the
subject, but the need for the employment of a certain organized survey
party in the Geological Survey was at the bottom of it.

While this law had set aside one year and a limited sum to accomplish
the survey, this could not, of course, be done, and hence appropriations
were continued, and the date for the segregation of the lands was
deferred _sine die_. For years this forest survey continued, giving rise
to magnificent volumes, issued from the Geological Survey, describing
the forest reservations--a very useful, educational piece of work, not
at all contemplated by the legislation--for which not less than $1.5
million have been expended. By 1905 some 110,000 square miles had been
examined when this work was handed over to the Forestry Bureau.

Thus it happened, almost by accident, that finally the aims of the
reformers were realized, the appointment of forest superintendents,
rangers, etc., to take charge of the forest reservations was secured,
and rules and regulations for their administration were formulated by
the Commissioner of the General Land Office, marking the beginning of a
settled policy on the part of the United States government to take care
of its long neglected forest lands. In this work of first organization
the name of Filibert Roth, a German-born forester, deserves mention.

Meanwhile, the Division of Forestry had continued to bring together and
distribute in the shape of reports, bulletins, circulars, addresses and
letters, such information useful for the education of the public, of
wood consumers, and timberland owners, as its limited appropriations
permitted, undertaking also some scientific investigations, especially
in the line of timber physics.

Soon after, in July, 1898, when the writer resigned his position as
Chief of the Division of Forestry, to organize the first professional
forest school, the New York State College of Forestry, Mr. Gifford
Pinchot, took charge of the division. Young, ambitious, aggressive, with
some knowledge of forestry acquired in Europe and with influential
connections and a large fortune, he easily secured the first need for
effective sowing on the well-plowed field before him--appropriations.
Whatever had been feebly begun could be broadly, sometimes lavishly,
extended, and the new idea of making “working plans” for private
timberland owners could be developed--a great educational work, which,
earlier, when even co-operation with State institutions was considered a
questionable proposition, would have been turned down as too paternal.

In five years the appropriations had increased tenfold, to over
$250,000; and in the first decade of the new regime, around $3,000,000
had been spent on forestry investigations, not counting expenditures on
forest reservation account.

A further strong support came into the field, when Mr. Roosevelt became
President of the United States, in 1901, and unreservedly threw his
overpowering influence into the balance, to advance forest policies.

Owing to his interest, the withdrawal of public timberlands from entry
proceeded at a rapid rate: by 1902, the reservations had grown to 65
million acres; in 1905, there were over 100 million acres included; and
by the end of his administration, 175 million acres had been placed in
reservation.

The anomalous condition, which placed the survey of the forest reserves
in the Geological Survey, their administration in the Land Office, and
the scientific or technical development of forestry in the Department of
Agriculture, was finally ended in 1904, when, on February 1st, the whole
matter was placed in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, with
its Forestry Division, which had been changed into a Bureau of Forestry,
and then changed its name again to Forest Service.

With this transfer, it may be said, the federal forest policy was fully
established, at least for its own lands, and all that remains to be done
is the perfection of details in their administration and the development
of silvicultural methods.

With appropriations which now (1907) exceed $950,000 for investigating
work alone, limitless opportunity seems to be open to extend the many
directions of inquiry and solve the silvicultural problems, and satisfy
the educational function of this government agency.

But, besides the administration of the federal timberlands and the
educational and other assistance of private owners, a further expansion
of the Forest Service is developing under the paternalistic and
socialistic tendencies referred to before, which may ultimately lead to
the purchase and federal control of forest reserves in the Eastern
States. Such expansion, was, indeed, proposed in the establishment of
reserves in the White Mountains and the Southern Appalachians,
propositions which have been resisted by Congress for the last seven
years, but with ever weakening resistance. Finally in 1910, success was
attained, and the federal government placed in position to acquire these
forest areas, to the amount of $10,000,000.

Meanwhile the single states have begun to develop their own policies.

Outside of legislation aiming at protection against forest fires--which
nearly every State possessed from early times, ineffective for lack of
machinery to carry it into effect--and outside of the futile attempts to
encourage timber planting referred to, no interest in timberlands was
evinced by State authorities for the first two-thirds of the century,
since practically all these lands had been disposed of to private
owners, and the authorities did not see any further duties regarding
them.

The first State to institute a commission of inquiry was Wisconsin, in
1867; but with the rendering of the report, prepared by I. A. Lapham,
one of the active early propagandists--the matter was allowed to mature
for thirty years.

The next State to move, in a feeble way, in 1876, was Minnesota, the
legislature making an annual grant of money to its forestry
association.

The appointment of commissions of inquiry then became fashionable.

New Hampshire appointed such a commission in 1881, which reported in
1885, without result, and another commission in 1889, whose report, in
1893, led to the establishment of a permanent commission of inquiry and
advice, with a partial supervision of forest fire laws. Vermont followed
suit with a commission of inquiry, in 1882, whose report made in 1884,
remained without consequences.

In Michigan the expedient was resorted to of constituting the State
Board of Agriculture a commission of inquiry, whose report, published in
1888, had also no consequences except those of an educational character.

Similarly, the State of Massachusetts ordered the State Board of
Agriculture in 1890, to inquire “into the consideration of the forests
of the State, the need and methods of their protection,” with similar
results, or lack of result.

In New Jersey, the matter was referred to the State Geologist, who,
since 1894, has made reports on forest conditions and needs. Similar
reference of the subject was made in the State of North Carolina, in
1891, and in West Virginia.

The first more permanent State institution deliberately established as
an educational and advisory agent was the Forestry Bureau of Ohio, in
1885, which published a number of annual reports, but eventually
collapsed for lack of support.

In the same year, three important States, New York in the East, Colorado
in the Middle States, and California in the West, seemed simultaneously
to have awakened to their duty, largely as a result of the propaganda of
the American Forestry Association.

In California, a State Board of Forestry was instituted, with
considerable power and ample appropriations, which, however, eventually
fell into the hands of unscrupulous politicians and grafters, the
resulting scandals leading to its abolishment in 1889.

In Colorado, which when admitted to Statehood in 1876, had, in its
Constitution, directed the general assembly to legislate on behalf of
the forestry interests of the State, these interests were rather tardily
committed to a forest commissioner, who was charged to organize county
commissioners and road overseers throughout the State as forest officers
in their respective localities, to act as a police force in preventing
depredations on timbered school lands and in enforcing the fire laws.
Col. E.T. Ensign, who had been most instrumental in bringing about this
legislation, was appointed commissioner, and, with singular devotion, in
spite of the enmity aroused by his activity, which eventually led to a
discontinuance of appropriations, tried, for a number of years to
execute this law. With his resignation from the office, this legislation
also fell into innocuous desuetude.

In New York, concern in the water supply for the Erie Canal, had led
such a far sighted statesman as Horatio Seymour, twice Governor of the
State and once running for the Presidency, to conceive the need of
preserving the Adirondack watershed in State hands. Accordingly a law
was passed, in 1872, naming seven citizens, with Horatio Seymour
chairman, as State park commission, instructed to make inquiries with
the view of reserving or appropriating the wild lands lying northward of
the Mohawk, or so much thereof as might be deemed expedient, for a State
park. The commission, finding that the State then owned only 40,000
acres in that region, and that there was a tendency on the part of the
owners of the rest to combine for the enhancement of values should the
State want to buy, recommended a law forbidding further sales of State
lands, and their retention when forfeited for the non-payment of taxes.

It was not until eleven years later, in 1883, that this recommendation
was acted upon, when the State through the non-payment of taxes by the
owners of cut-over lands had become possessed of 600,000 acres.

In 1884, the comptroller was authorized to employ “such experts as he
may deem necessary to investigate and report a system of forest
preservation.” The report of a commission of four members was made in
1885, but the legislation proposed was antagonized by the lumbermen’s
interests. The legislature finally passed a compromise bill, which the
writer had drafted at the request of Senator Lowe, entitled “An act
establishing a forest commission, and to define its powers, and for the
preservation of forests,” the most comprehensive legislation at that
time.

The original forest commission, appointed under the act of 1885, was
superseded in 1895, by the commission of fisheries, game, and forests,
which brought allied interests under the control of a single board of
five members appointed by the Governor for a term of five years. In
1903, the commission was changed to a single commissioner, and another
backward step was taken in 1911 by handing over the work of this
commissioner to the newly created State Conservation Commission,
consolidating with it several other commissions.

Here, then, for the first time on the American continent, had the idea
of State forestry, management of State lands on forestry principles,
taken shape; a new doctrine of State functions had gained the day. Not
only was the commission charged to organize a service, with a “chief
forester” and “underforesters,” to administer the existing reserve
according to forestry principles, but also from the incomes to lay aside
a fund for the purchase of more lands to constitute the State forest
preserve. Unfortunately, instability of purpose, the characteristic of
democracy, spoiled the dream of the forester. Both, commission and chief
forester were, of course, political appointees, and, rightly or wrongly,
fell under the suspicion, when proposing the sale of stumpage, that they
were working into the hands of lumbermen. A set of well-meaning but
ill-advised civic reformers succeeded, in 1893, in securing the
insertion into the Constitution, then being revised, of a clause
preventing the cutting of trees, dead or alive, on State lands,
declaring that they shall forever be kept as “wild lands.” Later, this
constitutional provision was deliberately set aside by the commission,
which began to plant up some of the fire-wasted areas, the legislature
appropriating money for this breach of the Constitution because it was
popular: and lately permission has also been granted by the legislature
to remove trees from burnt areas in order to reduce the fire danger--the
foolish objection of a Constitution notwithstanding.

In 1897, new legislation was passed to authorize the State to purchase
additional forest lands within a prescribed limit, to round off the
State’s holdings, a special agency, the Forest Preserve Board, being
constituted for that purpose. Under this law, some $3,500,000 have been
spent, and by 1907, over one and a half million acres had been added to
the State Forest Preserve. This large area is withdrawn from rational
economic use, reserved for a pleasure ground of wealthy New Yorkers, who
have located their camps in the “wilderness” under the avowed assumption
that the State can be forced to maintain forever this anomalous
condition.

In later years, private planting has been encouraged by the Commission
selling plant material from the State nurseries at low rates.

The most important administrative function of the Commission has been
the reduction of forest fires, in which, also owing to political
conditions, only partial success has been attained. The legislation of
1885 for the first time attacked this problem in a more thorough manner,
providing for the organization of a service, and this served as an
example to other States who copied and improved on it. Notably the
forest fire legislation of Maine (1891), of Wisconsin (1895), and of
Minnesota (1895) was based on this model.

Another of the large States to start upon and, differently from New
York, to develop consistently a proper forest policy, was the State of
Pennsylvania. As a result of a persistent propaganda by the Pennsylvania
Forestry Association, formed in 1886, and especially by its active
secretary, Dr. J. T. Rothrock, a commission of inquiry was instituted in
1893. Before its report was established, the legislature of 1895
provided for an executive Department of Agriculture, and included in its
organization a provision for a Division of Forestry, the botanist member
of the previous commission, Dr. Rothrock, being appointed Commissioner
of Forestry at the head of the Division. Two years later, the final
legislation, which firmly established a forest policy for the State, was
passed namely for the purchase of State forest reservations. All later
legislation was simply an expansion of these propositions. By 1910, the
State had acquired by purchase, wild, mostly culled lands to the extent
of over 900,000 acres, and the Commission had progressed far towards
providing for their management and recuperation.

The unusually disastrous conflagrations of 1894; the growing conviction
that the pleaders of the exhaustibility of timber supplies were right,
accentuated by a rapid decline in White Pine production and a rapid,
and, indeed, almost sudden, rise in stumpage prices; the example which
the federal government had set in withdrawing public timberlands from
spoliation; together with an increasing number, not only of advocates of
saner methods, but of technically educated men, who came from the
schools lately organized--all these influences had worked as a leaven in
all parts of the country so as to bring in the new century with a
realization of the seriousness of the situation. And, within the first
seven years of the century, the change of attitude, at least, was almost
completed in all parts of the country, and among all classes, the
lumbermen and others depending directly on wood supplies becoming
especially prominent in recognizing the need and value of forestry.

State after State came into line in recognizing that it had a duty to
perform, and in some way gave expression to this recognition, so that,
by 1908, hardly a State was without at least a germ of a forest policy.

Two principles had been recognized as correct and were brought into
practice, namely, that the forest interests of the State called for
direct State activity, and that eventually the State must own and manage
at least portions of the forest area. The first principle took shape in
appointing single State foresters, [as in Maine (1891 and 1903); in
Massachusetts (1904); in Connecticut (1903); in Vermont (1906); in Rhode
Island (1906)]; or Commissions or Boards [as in New York (1885), changed
to a single commissioner with Superintendent and State foresters in
1903; in Pennsylvania (1901); in New Hampshire (1893); Maryland with a
State forester (1905); Wisconsin, with a State forester (1905); Indiana
(1901-03); Louisiana, with a State forester (1904); Michigan (1899);
Minnesota (1899); California (revived, with a State forester, in 1905);
Washington, with a State forester (1905); Kentucky (1906); in New
Jersey, with a State forester (1904); Alabama (1907).]

A very important feature in these appointments was the fact, that, more
and more professional or technically educated men displaced the merely
political appointees, or were at least added to the commissions.

The idea of State forests found expression, more or less definitely, in
setting aside forest reservations or else in enabling the State to
accept and administer donations of forest lands. Among the States
recognizing this principle were New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, California.

Where neither of these two principles had as yet found application, at
least some agency was established to give advice and investigate or
experiment in matters of forest interests, and sometimes to offer
assistance to private woodland owners or planters, as in Delaware, Ohio,
North Carolina, etc.

Meanwhile, largely through the influence and with the co-operation of
the federal Bureau of Forestry, private owners had begun, if not to
apply, at least to study the possibility of the application of forestry
to their holdings. The Bureau prepared “working plans” which were now
and then followed in part, or at least led to attempts at a more
conservative method of logging. Notably, various paper and pulp
manufacturers realized the usefulness of more systematic attention and
conservative methods in the use of their properties. In this connection
the object lesson furnished by Mr. G. K. Vanderbilt on his Biltmore
Estate in North Carolina, which was begun by Mr. Pinchot and conducted
by Dr. C. A. Schenck, a German forester, requires special mention as the
first, and for nearly 20 years continued experiment in applying forestry
methods systematically in America. At present writing the continuance
of this experiment is in doubt.

With the second decade of the century, we shall enter upon the flood
tide of development, when no more need of argument for its necessity,
and only the question of practicable methods, will occupy us.

* * * * *

So far, silviculturally, the selection forest, i.e., culling the best
and the stoutest, practiced hitherto by the lumberman, without reference
to reproduction, but carried on somewhat more conservatively, is still
the method advocated in most cases by the Forest Service. This so-called
conservative lumbering is, to be sure, the transition to better methods.
According to reports of the federal Forest Service in 1907, some million
acres of private timberland were under forest management or
conservatively lumbered.

Planting of waste or logged lands, as distinguished from planting in the
prairies, which had, sporadically and in a small way, been done by
individuals here and there for many years, is practised in ever
increasing amount, both by State administrations and by private owners;
the New York State College of Forestry starting such planting in its
College Forest on a larger scale and systematically, in 1899. At present
writing, the forestry department of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company is
perhaps the largest single planter in the country, having set out over
four million trees (by 1910), with the avowed purpose of growing
railroad ties.

By 1908, popular interest in forest conservation had become so keen, and
at the same time paternalistic tendencies so fully developed by the
Roosevelt administration--the federal government having entered upon
extensive plans of reclaiming lands by irrigation, and preparing to
develop water powers, and inland waterways,--that the time seemed ripe
to bring all these conservative forces into unity.

The President called together in conference the governors of all the
States with their advisers, together with the presidents of the various
national societies interested, and others, to discuss the broad question
of the conservation of natural resources.

As a consequence national and State Conservation Associations and
Commissions were formed in all parts of the Union, and a new era of
active interest in economic development seems to have arrived.

4. _Education and Literature._

The primary education of the people at large and of their governments in
particular, the propaganda for the economic reform contemplated by the
forestry movement, was carried on, as stated, by the federal Division of
Forestry and especially by the forestry associations, which sprang up in
all parts of the country, by means of their annual and special meetings,
aided by the general press and sometimes by special publications.

The first _Journal of Forestry_, a monthly publication, ventured into
the world as a private enterprise, edited by Dr. Hough, soon after the
Forestry Congress in Cincinnati, but it survived just one year,
vanishing for lack of readers. This was followed by irregularly
appearing _Forestry Bulletins_, of which the writer prepared four under
the aegis of the American Forestry Association.

In 1886, the Pennsylvania Forestry Association began the publication of
a bi-monthly journal, _Forest Leaves_, which has persisted to this day.
In 1895, Dr. John Gifford launched another bi-monthly, the _New Jersey
Forester_, soon to change its name to _The Forester_, and under that
name, three years later, taken over by the American Forestry
Association, continued as _Forestry and Irrigation_, changed to
_Conservation_ and now again changed to _American Forestry_. Now, half a
dozen or more similar publications emanate from the various State
Associations. In this connection there should not be forgotten the
journal, _Garden and Forest_, edited by Professor C. S. Sargent, which
for ten years, from 1888 to 1897, did much to enlighten the public on
forestry matters.

Some provision for technical education was made long before opportunity
for its application had arisen, and, indeed, before any professional
foresters were in existence to do the teaching. The new doctrine
attracted the attention of educational institutions, and the desire to
assist in the popular movement led to the introduction of the subject,
at least by name, into their curricula; the professor of botany or of
horticulture, adding “forestry” to his title, and explaining in a few
lectures the objects, and, as far as he knew them, the methods of
forestry; or, at least some lectures on dendrology and forest geography
were introduced in the botanical courses. By 1897, twenty
institutions--land grant colleges--had in this way introduced the
subject.

Perhaps the first attempt to present systematically a whole course of
technical forestry matter to a class of students was a series of twelve
lectures, delivered by the writer, at the Massachusetts College of
Agriculture in 1887, and another to students of political economy at
Wisconsin University in 1897.

The era of professional forest schools, however, was, inaugurated in
1898, when the writer organized the New York State College of Forestry
at Cornell University, and almost simultaneously Dr. Schenck opened a
private school at Biltmore.

A year later, another Forest school was opened at Yale University, an
endowment of the Pinchots, father and sons. In 1903, the University of
Michigan added a professional department of forestry, and then followed
a real flood of educational enthusiasm, one institution after another
seeing the necessity for adding the subject as an integral part to its
courses. Before there were enough competent men in the field, some
twenty colleges or universities called for teachers, besides private
institutions. An inevitable result of this over-production of forest
schools and of foresters all at once must be an overcrowding of the
profession with mediocre men before the profession is really fully
established.

Brief reference to the history of the first school, established by the
State of New York, may be of interest, as exemplifying in a striking
manner the political troubles besetting reforms under republican
conditions. But for a similar occurrence in France (see p. 242), this
case might be unique in the history of educational institutions.
Although the school thrived almost beyond expectation, having in its
fourth year attained in numbers to 70, larger than any French or German
forest school at the time, and readily finding employment for its
graduates, it suddenly came to an end in 1903. Its appropriation,
unanimously voted in the Legislature, was vetoed by the Governor, on the
alleged ground that the silvicultural methods applied in the
demonstration forest of the College “had been subjected to grave
criticism.” It is true the only silvicultural method officially
sanctioned (by the Forest Service), the selection forest, had not been
applied, yet the war against the College being waged by two wealthy
bankers of New York and the well-known character of the then Governor
suggest that other “considerations” than mere criticism of professional
judgment were at the bottom of his action.

As from the start, the federal Forestry Bureau naturally continued in
ever increasing degree to be the educator of the nation, not only as
regards popular conceptions and attitudes, but as regards technical
matter. Its bulletins, circulars, and reports on the subjects which come
under investigation form the bulk of the American literature on the
technical side of the subject. During the first 20 years of its
existence, some 20,000 pages of printed matter were produced, and the
next decade increased the crop of information apace. At first intended
for popular propaganda, the matter printed was naturally argumentative,
statistical and descriptive, but gradually more and more technical
matter filled the pages, and now most of the publications are of
technical nature.

One of the first extensive and important lines of investigation
undertaken by the Division was that into the characteristics and
strength, the timber physics, of American woods, which in its
comprehensiveness commanded the admiration of even the Germans, and gave
rise to a series of reports. The biology of American species, more or
less exhaustively studied, was also begun in the old Division, as well
as forest surveys, etc.

By 1902, enough professional interest was in the country to make the
publication of a professional journal possible and desirable, the
_Forestry Quarterly_ being launched by the writer, with a Board of
Editors chosen mainly from the forest schools.

The first association of professional foresters was formed in 1900--the
_Society of American Foresters_--which issues from time to time
proceedings containing technical discussions.

The technical book literature, partly due, no doubt, to the overpowering
publication facilities of the federal government, is still scanty, and
good textbooks especially are still lacking in most branches.

A series of ephemeral popular books answered the demands of earlier
days, but outside of Professor _Henry S. Graves’_ volumes on _Forest
Mensuration_ and lately on _The Principles of Handling Woodlands_, and a
few minor aid books and lecture notes, there is as yet nothing of
permanent value to be recorded. The writers’ own publication, _Economics
of Forestry_, is intended less for foresters than students of political
economy.

Three monumental works can be mentioned in the dendrological line,
however, namely the 10th volume of the XII Census (1880) on the _Forests
of North America_; Micheaux and Nuttall’s _North American Silva_ in 5
volumes, 1865; and C. S. Sargent’s _Silva of the United States_, in 14
magnificent volumes,--three publications which can take rank with any
similar literature anywhere.

INSULAR POSSESSIONS.

The Spanish War, in 1898, brought to the United States new outlying
territory, over 150,000 square miles, in three locations, the
relationship as regards government varying in the three cases, namely
Porto Rico, the Sandwich Islands, and the Philippine Islands, besides
several smaller islands in the Pacific Ocean.

While the latter are only temporarily under control or tutelage of the
United States, and are expected sooner or later to attain complete self
government, Hawaii was annexed as a Territory in the same sense as all
other Territories, the inhabitants having become citizens of the United
States, while Porto Rico is a dependency with partial self-government,
but its inhabitants do not enjoy citizenship in the States.

All these islands are located in the tropics and hence the composition
of the forest is of tropical species.

Commercially, the forests of Porto Rico and of Hawaii are relatively of
little value, but their protective value is paramount, and a
conservative policy is needed in order to preserve the water supply for
agricultural use (sugar plantations in Hawaii) and to prevent erosion.

For Porto Rico, a beginning of forest policy was made by setting aside,
in 1903, the Luquillo Forest Reservation, some 20,000 acres in the
Eastern mountainous part of the island, which is under direct control of
the United States government. The rest of public lands and forests was
placed under the Department of the Interior of the island.

In Hawaii, even before annexation, a movement on the part of the Sugar
Planters Association was made in 1897, to induce the insular government
to devise protective measures. The result was the appointment of a
Committee who made a report in which the writer had a hand. But not
until 1903 was a Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry
established, a Superintendent of Forestry appointed, an organization of
district foresters effected, and a number of forest reservations
established. The principle of State forest was fully recognized by
planning the gradual withdrawal of some 300,000 acres and by beginning
the extension of forested area by plantations. In 1910, 23 reserves with
an area of 575,000 acres had been made. Distribution of plant material
and of advice to planters is also part of the policy. Annual Reports are
issued which attest the good common sense in the administration.

In the Philippine Islands, a territory of 120,000 square miles, largely
mountainous, not only the protective but the commercial value of the
timberlands is considerable. The extent is variously estimated as
covering between 40 and 50 million acres (50% of total area), much of it
virgin, and 16 million acres of it commercially valuable. Of the seven
hundred odd species of trees, mostly heavy woods, composing the forest,
some 160 are marketable at home and in China; yet almost fifty per cent.
of the home consumption is imported from the States, owing to absence or
inaccessibility of softwoods, and high cost due to excessive expense of
present logging methods.

When the United States took charge of the islands it was found that the
Spaniards had since 1863 a forestry service, manned by Spanish
foresters, and in the lower ranks by Filipinos. To be sure, the
activities of this forestry bureau went hardly beyond the collection of
dues for timber licenses, which yielded little more than the cost of the
service, although on paper excellent instructions were found elaborated.

It so happened that an officer of the American army, Captain George P.
Ahern, had for some time given attention to forestry matters in the
States, and he naturally was placed in charge of this bureau, in 1900.
There were found to be around one million acres private and church
property, the rest being considered State lands, but all private owners
were required to register their holdings before being allowed to
exercise their rights. A system of licenses for cutting timber, and of
free use permits to the poor population was continued after Spanish
models. Not only was an efficient administration gradually secured, but
the technical side of dendrological and silvicultural knowledge was
developed as rapidly as possible under the able administration of
Captain Ahern, a continuously growing literature being the result.

INDEX.

ADMINISTRATION, Austria, 167; Canada, 424; Denmark, 316; Finland, 281;
France, 217, 219, 223, 224; Germany, 80, 120ff; Great Britain, 375;
Greece, 332, 333; Hungary, 181; India, 396; Italy, 339; Japan,
450ff; Norway, 309, 311; Portugal, 362; Roumania, 325, 327; Russia,
268, 269; Spain, 359; Sweden, 291, 301, 302; Switzerland, 197;
United States, 485, 486, 488.
Africa, 439.
Alabama, 496.
Albania, 322.
Algiers, 223, 250.
Allmende (Germany), 28.
Allotment methods, 73, 114, 120, 303.
André, 115.
Andrews, 474.
Arabia, 15.
Arborday, Germany, 63; Italy, 348; Japan, 449; Spain, 360; United
States, 477.
Area allotment, Austria, 170; France, 240; Germany, 114; Sweden, 303.
Area division, France, 240; Germany, 40, 69, 70, 74; Russia, 274.
Arnold, 272.
Artaxerxes, regulations by, 10.
Aschaffenburg, 146.
Asia Minor, 10.
Associations, Austria, 176; Canada, 435; Denmark, 319; Finland, 284;
France, 247; Germany, 148; Great Britain, 378; Greece, 334; Hungary,
184; Italy, 349; Japan, 454; Norway, 314; Roumania, 326; Russia,
271, 272; Sweden, 305; Switzerland, 201; United States, 479, 480,
481, 503.
Australia, 440.
Austria, 152.

BADEN, 120.
Baden-Powell, 390, 408.
Bagneris, 242, 246.
Balestrieri, 347.
Ball planting, Germany, 65.
Banforest, Austria, 163; Germany, 21; Great Britain, 370; Italy, 343,
344, 346; Japan, 448; Russia, 261; Switzerland, 190.
Barres, 244.
Baudrillart, 242, 245.
Baur, 133, 137, 138, 140, 147.
Bavaria, 119.
Bechstein, J. M., 131, 140, 141, 142, 148.
Beckman, J. G., 73, 76, 87.
Beckman, J., 90, 91.
Bedemar, 273.
v. Behlen, 140, 150.
Behm, 136.
Bein and Eyber, 138.
v. Berlepsch, 67, 88.
Berlin forest school, 83, 84.
Bern, 200.
Bernhardt, 150.
Bertram, 434.
Betulomania (Germany), 66.
Biermans, 107.
Biltmore, 497.
Bohemia, 170, 172, 176.
Boppe, 242, 246.
Borggreve, 112, 131, 138, 140, 150.
Borkhausen, 140.
Bose, 140.
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 155, 166.
Bowers, 483.
Brandis, 383, 394, 402, 405, 406, 408.
Braun, 132.
Brémontier, 225.
Brewer, 474.
Breymann, 134.
v. Brocke, 89.
Broillard, 242, 246.
Büchting, 87.
Buffon, 237, 239, 245.
Bühler, 202.
Bulgaria, 322.
Bunch planting, Germany, 108.
Burgsdorf, 84, 105.
Burkhardt, 108, 131, 140, 150.
Butlar, 107.

CALIFORNIA, 491, 496, 497.
Calipers, 134.
Cameralists, Austria, 168; Germany, 57, 81, 122, 143.
Canada, 409.
Cape Colony, 439.
Carlowitz, 64, 68, 86.
Catalpa (Germany), 66.
Cato, 19, 20.
Ceylon, 438.
Champagne, reboisement (France), 229.
Chevandier, 247.
Church forests, 14, 46, 55, 93.
City forests (Germany), 34, 46, 56.
Clavé, 238, 239.
Clearing system, France, 218; Germany, 108; Italy, 338; India, 402;
Sweden, 302.
Cleghorn, 393.
Cleopatra, 10.
Cleveland, 484, 485.
Clinton, 468.
Cloister forests, Germany, 37, 46, 55, 93.
Clovis, 29, 30.
Coaz, 191, 202.
Cochin China, 251.
Code forestier, 220, 222.
Colbert, 215.
Colbert’s ordinance, France, 235, 238.
Colerus, 85.
Colonies, (French), 248-252; (Great Britain), 380-441.
Colorado, 490, 491.
Columella, 19, 20.
Commissions, Austria, 162, 174; Canada, 434, 436; France, 215; Great
Britain, 375, 376, 377; Hungary, 181; Italy, 342, 344, 345; Norway,
308, 309, 312; Russia, 263, 266; Spain, 355; Sweden, 295, 297, 299;
United States, 475, 481, 489, 492, 493, 494.
Communal forests, Austria, 158, 174; France, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,
220, 221, 222, 240; Finland, 280; Germany, 28, 46, 56, 94, 127;
Hungary, 180; India, 390, 391; Italy, 339; Japan, 446; Norway, 307,
312; Russia, 259, 260; Sweden, 291, 293; Switzerland, 195.
Compartment method, Germany, 61.
Conifer planting, Germany, 65.
Connecticut, 496, 497.
Conservation, United States, 499.
Conservation Board, Sweden, 299.
Consumption, world, 4.
Coopers Hill, 378, 406.
Coppice, France, 234; Germany, 60, 110; India, 402; Italy, 17, 338;
Switzerland, 199.
Corporation forests, see Communal Forests.
v. Cotta, 83, 99, 102, 104, 110, 113, 119, 130, 131, 135, 138, 140,
144, 145, 170, 242, 246.
Cramer, 89.
de Crescentiis, 85, 244.
Cyprus, 10, 439.

DALHOUSIE, 393.
Dalmatia, 161.
Dankelmann, 140, 150.
D’Arcy, 408.
Dehra Dun, 407.
Delaware, 497.
Demontzey, 246.
Denmark, 314.
Diameter limit, Canada, 427; France, 235; Germany, 40, 49; Sweden,
293, 298.
pricemaker, Germany, 74.
Diodorus, 14, 16.
Doebel, 75, 86.
Dokuchaev, 273.
Dombrowski, 131.
Dralet, 245.
Draudt, 136.
Duhamel, 237, 238, 245.

EBERMAYER, 142.
Eberswalde, 146.
Egypt, 14, 16.
Eisenach, 146.
Endres, 144.
Ensign, United States, 491.
Entail, Germany, 129.
Entomology, Germany, 142.
Ethiopia, 14, 15.
Evelyn’s Silva, Great Britain, 374.
Experiment stations, Austria, 176; France, 239; Germany, 147; Hungary,
184; Italy, 348; Japan, 453; Sweden, 304; Switzerland, 201.
Exports, see Imports.
Export trade, Canada, 418, 419.

FAUSTMANN, 134, 139.
Feldjäger, 81.
Felling time, Germany, 78.
Femelschlag, Germany, 61.
Fernandez, 408.
Feudal system, France, 208, 210; Germany, 33; Japan, 447.
Finland, 277.
Fires, Canada, 418, 429; France, 221, 250; Germany, 48; India, 400,
401; Sweden, 303; Switzerland, 190; United States, 465, 494.
Fischbach, 140.
de Fleury, France, 233.
Forest area, world, 4.
Forest conditions, ancient, 9; Austria, 155ff; Canada, 414-417;
Denmark, 314, 315; Finland, 279; France, 205, 206; Germany, 24, 47,
96, 109; Great Britain, 367; Greece, 328, 329; India, 383-388;
Italy, 336; Japan, 444; Norway, 306, 307; Portugal, 360; Russia,
254-258; Spain, 352; Sweden, 287, 288; Switzerland, 188; Turkey,
322; United States, 461-466.
Forest courts, France, 216; Germany, 32; Great Britain, 370, 371.
Foresters, Forestarii, 32, 36.
Forest influences, Austria, 163; France, 230; Germany, 129, 144;
Italy, 342-347; Russia, 264; Switzerland, 191, 194.
Forest management, ancient, 16.
Forest ordinances, Austria, 158, 161; France, 212-216; Germany, 37,
38, 52.
Forest organization, Austria, 169-172; France, 239, 240; Germany, 113-
120; Japan, 452; Russia, 274; Sweden, 303.
Forest police, Austria, 164-166.
Forest protection, by ancients, 16, 18; Germany, 141, 142.
Forest rent, Germany, 118, 139.
Forest schools, Austria, 175; Canada, 436; Denmark, 319; Finland, 283;
France, 241, 242-244; Germany, 83, 84, 90, 145; Great Britain, 377,
378; Hungary, 183, 184; India, 405; Italy, 347, 348; Japan, 450,
451, 454; Norway, 310, 313; Portugal, 364; Russia, 270, 271; Spain,
355, 356; Sweden, 303, 304; Switzerland, 190, 200; United States,
487, 500, 501.
Forest service, see Administration.
Forest use control, early, Austria, 158; Denmark, 316; France, 213ff;
Germany, 36ff, 49, 50, 55, 56; Hungary, 180; Norway, 308; Sweden,
294.
Forestry congress, Canada, 429; United States, 480.
Forestry council, Germany, 149.
Forestry journals see Journals.
Forestry, origin, 2, 41.
Form factors, Germany, 134.
Form quotient, Germany, 135.
Frederick the Great, 72.
French revolution, 126.
Frontier forests, ancient, 13, 15.
France, 222; Germany, 28; Hungary, 180.
Fürst, 131, 132, 142.

GALICIA, 160.
Gamble, 408.
Gayer, 108, 131, 132.
German influence, Denmark, 317, 332; France, 242; India, 380; Russia,
262; Sweden, 295; Switzerland, 191; United States, 480, 497.
Germany, 22.
Gibson, 393.
Gifford, 500.
Giessen, 146.
v. Gleditsch, 84.
Göchhausen, 86.
Goeppert, 112.
Graves, 503.
Great Britain, 365.
Grebe, 142.
Greece, ancient, 10, 14, 16.
modern, 327.
Grenzmark, 13.
Guiot, 237, 245.
Guyot, 243, 246.
Gwinner, 131, 140.

HARRISON, 483.
Hartig, G. L., 83, 94, 98, 110, 113, 121, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136,
138, 139, 140, 145, 149, 170, 242, 245, 246.
Hartig’s rules, 102, 104, 105.
Hartig, R., 112, 141, 136.
Hartig, Th., 132, 141.
Hauch, 319.
Haug, 112.
Hausväter, 85.
Hawaii, 505.
Hennert, 72, 74, 75.
Henry, 246.
Hess, 102, 142.
Heyer, E., 138.
Heyer, G., 102, 117, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146, 150.
Heyer, K., 101, 106, 111, 116, 130, 131, 134, 147.
Heyer, K. method, 120.
Historical periods, Germany, 25, 26.
Hodges, 479.
Holy groves, 13, 15, 16.
Hossfeld, 112, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138.
Hough, 475.
Huber, 115, 134, 136, 137.
Huffel, 239, 247.
Hundeshagen, 100, 111, 116, 125, 130, 131, 135, 137, 140, 147, 171.
Hungary, 154, 178.
Hunting grounds of Romans, 13.
Hygienic influences, Italy, 344, 347.
Hypsometer, Germany, 75, 134.

IMPORTS, CANADA, 418; Denmark, 315; Finland, 277; France, 206;
Germany, 24, 126; Italy, 338; Great Britain, 368; Norway, 308;
Spain, 353; Sweden, 289; Russia, 253.
Improvement fellings, France, 235; Germany, 110.
Increment measuring, Germany, 75.
Index per cent. Germany, 117.
India, 14, 380.
Indiana, 496, 497.
Indo-China, 251.
Information bureau, Germany, 128.
Isaiah, reference, 10.
Israelites, 10, 13.
Istria, 160.
Italy, 11, 335.

JACOBI, 70.
Jacquot, 247.
Jaeger, 112, 138.
Jaeger, holzgerechte, Germany, 56, 81, 86.
Japan, 442.
Jews, 10, 13.
Josephus, reference to forest destruction, 10.
Journals, Austria, 178; Canada, 435, 436; Denmark, 319; Finland, 284;
France, 247; Germany, 149, 150; Great Britain, 379; Hungary, 184;
India, 408; Italy, 349; Norway, 314; Roumania, 326; Russia, 271;
Spain, 360; Sweden, 304, 305; Switzerland, 202; United States, 480,
481, 499, 500, 503.
Judeich, 117, 140, 170.
Judeich and Nitzsche, 142.
Jung, 90.

KAIGODOROV, 273.
Kaiser, 132.
Karl, 138.
Karlsruhe, 146.
Karst, 156, 161, 173, 174.
Kauschinger, 142.
Kentucky, 496.
Klipstein, 114.
Kogl, 172.
König, 100, 111, 112, 116, 132, 135, 136, 138, 272.
Korea, 455.
Krafft, 112, 133, 140.
Krain, 159.
Kravchinsky, 273.
Kregting, 73, 113.
Krohne, 75.
v. Kropf, 72, 74, 75.
Kuntze, 136, 137, 138.

LANDES, reboisement, France, 226, 227.
Landolt, 191, 202.
v. Langen, 68, 70, 88, 309, 316.
Lapham, 489.
v. Lassberg, 88.
Laurop, 142, 144, 148.
Lefebvre, 249.
Lehr, 140, 144.
Leiria forest, Portugal, 363.
Literature, ancient, 19; Austria, 178; Denmark, 319; France, 244-247;
Germany, 22, 41, 67, 84-91, 130ff; Great Britain, 379; Hungary, 183;
Italy, 349; India, 405; Russia, 271, 272; Sweden, 303; Switzerland,
202.
Litter, 51, 133.
Logslides, Germany, 79.
Lorentz, 238, 242.
Lorey, 112, 131, 136, 137.
Louisiana, 496.
Lumber industry, United States, 471; Canada, 419, 420.

MACEDONIA, 11, 322.
Maine, United States, 494, 490.
Malay States, 438.
Manteuffel, 63, 107.
Maria Theresa reforms, Austria, 161, 180.
Mark forests Austria, 154; France, 207; Germany, 27ff, 37, 44, 46, 95;
Norway, 307; Sweden, 290ff.
Marsh G.P., 474.
Maryland, 496.
Massachusetts, 490, 496.
Matsuno, 450, 453.
Mauritius, 439.
Mayer, 141.
Mayr, 132.
McClelland, 394.
Mediterranean countries, 10, 12, 320.
Meister, 202.
Mensuration, Germany, 73, 78, 133ff.
Mercantilistic system, Germany, 42, 53, 126.
Mesopotamia, 10.
Méthode à tire et aire, Germany, 58, 217; France, 236.
Meurer, 85.
Meyer, 144.
Micheaux, 245, 478.
Michigan, 490, 496, 497.
Mine forests, Austria, 159; Hungary, 180.
Minnesota, 489, 494, 496, 497.
Moreau de Jonnès, 130.
Morozov, 273.
v. Moser, 89.
Mound planting, Germany, 107.
Mount Lebanon, 10, 14.
Mühlhausen, 132.
Müller P.E., 319.
Müller, U., 138.
Münden, 146.
Munich, 84, 146.
Municipal forests, 14.

NANCY, 242, 406.
Nanquette, 242, 243, 246.
Napoleon, 219.
Natural regeneration, development in Germany, 39, 58ff.
Navy reservations, Canada, 424; France, 215; Great Britain, 374;
Russia, 262; United States, 469.
Nestorov, 273.
Newfoundland, 437.
New Hampshire, 490, 496, 497.
New Jersey, 490, 496, 497.
New York, 490, 491-494, 498.
New South Wales, 441.
Ney, 131.
Nisbet, 379.
Noble, 483.
Noerdlinger, 132, 138, 156.
Normal forest, Austria, 170, 171; Germany, 115; Hungary, 181.
North Carolina, 490, 497.
Norway, 305.
Nurseries, ancient, 20; Germany, 106, 107; Hungary, 182.
Nursetree method, Germany, 60.

OETTELT, 68, 70, 74, 76, 77, 134, 136.
Ohio, 490, 497.
Oliva de Serres, 244.
Ordinances, Austria, 158, 161, 165; France, 214, 215, 216, 217, 233;
Germany, 33, 38, 47, 48, 49ff, 62; Italy, 340; Japan, 447; Norway,
310; Spain, 355; Sweden, 294; United States, 467.
Orlov, 273.
Otozky, 273.
Oxford University, 378, 406.

PALESTINE, 9, 13.
Palladius, 19.
Parade, 242, 246.
Paradises of Persians, 13.
Pasture in forests, Greece, 331; India, 400; Italy, 346.
Pasture woods, Germany, 62; Switzerland, 193, 195, 196.
Pathology, Germany, 141.
Paulsen, 115, 136.
Pearson, 401.
Pennsylvania, 495, 496.
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 498.
Persia, 14.
Perthuis, 245.
Peter de Crescentiis, 41, 244.
Pfeil, 101, 104, 111, 126, 130, 131, 132, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145,
150.
Physiocratic doctrine, Germany, 43.
Pinchot, 487, 497, 501.
Philippines, 505, 506.
Planting, Austria, 172, 173; Denmark, 318, 319; France, 224ff;
Germany, 39, 62, 65, 66, 82, 166ff; Great Britain, 369; India, 404;
Japan, 451, 453; Portugal, 362, 363; Russia, 276; Sweden, 302;
United States, 476, 477, 478, 498.
fund, Germany, 65; Russia, 269; Spain, 358.
budgets, Germany, 66.
Plant material distribution, Germany, 128; Hungary, 182; Italy, 346;
Portugal, 364; Russia, 267; United States, 498.
Pliny, 19, 20.
Poland, 275.
Polewood management, Germany, 61.
Portugal, 360.
Porto Rico, 504.
Pressler, 111, 112, 117, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140.
Private forests, ancient, 15; Austria, 158, 162; Canada, 423; Denmark,
317; Finland, 283; France, 206, 207, 212, 224, 240, 241; Germany,
29, 55, 128; Greece, 333; Hungary, 179; India, 390, 391; Italy, 339;
Japan, 447; Norway, 308; Portugal, 361, 363; Russia, 273; Spain,
360; Sweden, 293; Switzerland, 195, 196.
Property conditions, ancient, 12; Austria, 157; Canada, 422, 423, 424;
Denmark, 216, 217; Finland, 280; France, 212; Germany, 27-36, 42-47,
92; Great Britain, 375; India, 388; Italy, 339, 342; Japan, 447,
450; Norway, 307; Portugal 361; Russia, 259, 260; Spain, 352;
Sweden, 290ff; Switzerland, 189; United States, 458, 461.
Protection forest, Austria, 163; France, 222, 250; Hungary, 181;
Italy, 342; Japan, 453; Norway, 312, 313; Russia, 264, 265, 266;
Switzerland, 194, 196.
Puton, 242, 243, 246.

QUEENSLAND, 441.

RAILROAD planting, United States, 479, 498.
Ramann, 142.
Ratzeburg, 142.
Réaumur, 77, 238, 245.
Reboisement, Austria, 150, 159, 165; Denmark, 317; France, 223, 224,
229, 232, 238; Germany, 62, 106; Great Britain, 377; Hungary, 181;
Portugal, 363; Russia, 269, 275, 276-277; Italy, 344, 345; Norway,
311; Russia, 276; Spain, 358, 359.
Reforestation, see Planting and Reboisement.
Reservations, Canada, 424, 425, 432; United States, 469.
Reum, 140.
v. Reuss, 118, 134, 246.
Ribbentrop, 383, 380, 408.
Richter, 134.
Rhode Island, 496.
Rights of user, ancient, 15; Denmark, 322; France, 206, 210, 211, 221;
Germany, 21, 32, 44, 47, 96, 128; Greece, 331; India, 388, 389, 390,
391; Japan, 447; Norway, 307, 313; Sweden, 291; Switzerland, 195.
Road building, Germany, 132.
Robinia, Germany, 66.
Roger, 408.
Romans, forest conditions, 11.
wood markets, 12.
management, 12.
ownership, 16.
Roosevelt, 487, 499.
Rostaing, 338.
Rotations, France, 234, 237; Germany, 139, 140; Russia, 274.
Roth, 486.
Rothrock, 495.
Roumania, 321, 324, 327.
Roumelia, 322.
Royal trees, India, 389; Japan, 448.
Rudzsky, 273.
Runnebaum, 132.
Russia, 253.

DE SALOMON, 246.
Sand dune planting, Denmark, 318; France, 225, 226, 250; Germany, 65;
Hungary, 180, 183; Italy, 338; Russia, 276.
Sargent, 500.
Saxony, 119.
Saw, use, Germany, 77, 78.
Scandinavia, 285.
Schenck, 497, 501.
Schiffel, 135.
Schilcher, 113.
Schlich, 378, 379, 383, 408.
Schneider, 138.
Schoener, 134.
Schroeder, 142.
Schuberg, 137.
Schwappach, 132, 137, 138, 144.
v. Seckendorff, 165.
Seebach modified beech forest, Germany, 109.
Seed tree management, France, 234.
Seed tree methods, Sweden, 302.
Seigniorage, Austria, 159; Germany, 32, 43, 44, 54, 92.
Selection forest, Austria, 172; Finland, 281; France, 206, 235, 237,
239; Germany, 40, 58, 62, 108, 110; India, 402; Italy, 338; Norway,
313; Russia, 274; Sweden, 302; Switzerland, 198; United States, 498.
Senft, 142.
Servia, 323.
Servitudes, see Rights of user.
Seutter, 137, 139.
Seymour, 491.
Shelterwood system, Austria, 172; France, 238, 239, 242; Germany, 102,
107, 105, 108; Switzerland, 198.
Shifting sands, see Sand dunes.
Siberia, 254, 255, 256.
Sihlwald, 190.
Silviculture, Austria, 172; France, 235-240; Denmark, 318; Germany,
57ff, 68, 102-112; India, 402; Romans, 16, 17; Russia, 274; Sweden,
302; Switzerland, 198.
Slavish countries, 321.
Smalian, 134, 135.
Smith, Adam, 93, 143.
Smith, Hoke 484.
Soil knowledge, Germany, 142.
Soil rent, Germany, 117, 138, 139.
Solitude, school, Germany, 84, 90.
Sologne, reboisement, France, 228.
South Australia, 440.
Southworth, 430.
Sowing, Germany, 63.
Sowing cones, Germany, 64.
Space number, Germany, 135.
Spain, 9, 11, 349.
Späth, 110, 136.
Stahl, 84, 89, 91.
Starr, 473.
State foresters, Canada, 431; France, 220; Germany, 120; United
States, 496; Switzerland, 198.
State forests, Austria, 167, 168; Denmark, 317; Finland, 280, 281,
282, 283; France, 210, 218, 219; origin in Germany, 92; Great
Britain, 374, 375, 376; Greece, 331; Hungary, 180, 181, 182; India,
388, 396; Italy, 339; Japan, 450, 451; Norway, 307, 311; Portugal,
362; Russia, 256; Spain, 357, 358, 359; Sweden, 290, 291, 292.
State supervision, Austria, 161-165; Germany, 144; Greece, 333;
Hungary, 181; France, 220-223; Finland, 283; Denmark, 316; Italy,
342ff; Japan, 452; Norway, 312; Portugal, 363; Russia, 263ff; Spain,
360; Sweden, 297, 299ff; Switzerland, 193.
v. Steuben, 480.
Stoetzer, 132.
Straits Settlement, 438.
Strip system, Austria, 172; Germany, 59; Russia, 274.
Styria, 159, 160, 162, 171.
Successive fellings, Germany, 61, 102.
Supplies, of world, 4.
Swamps reclaimed, Russia, 277.
Sweden, 287.
Switzerland, 185.
Syria, 10.

TARIFF, Germany, 126.
Tassy, 246, 249.
Taungya, Germany, 65; India, 403.
Tax release, Austria, 173, 174; France, 218; United States, 476.
Technology, ancient, 18, 19; Switzerland, 202.
Tharandt, 84, 146.
Thrace, 322.
Theophrastus, 19.
Tichonoff, 272.
Thinnings, Denmark, 318; France, 236, 239; Germany, 67, 110-112;
Switzerland, 199.
Thirty years’ war, Germany, 48.
Timber culture acts, United States, 476, 477.
Timber famine, Germany, 3, 40, 49, 97, 126, 144; United States, 466,
468.
Timber licenses, Canada, 425, 426, 427.
Timber Physics, United States, 503.
Tire et aire method, France, 236, 238, 241.
Tolsky, 273.
Torrents, Austria, 165; France, 229-232; Italy, 336, 345.
Transportation means, Germany, 79.
Tree marking, Germany, 51.
Triage, 211.
Trunk, 75, 90.
Tübingen, 146.
Tuffer, 374.
Turkey, 321.
Tursky, 273.
Tyrol, 159.

UNITED STATES, 456.
Urich, 136.
Utilization, Germany, 132.

VALUATION, Germany, 138.
Vanderbilt, 497.
Varro, 19, 20.
Venice, 161.
Vergil, 19.
Vermont, 496.
Vienna forest, 171.
Vizner, 183.
Volume allotment, Germany, 73, 113.
Volume tables, Germany, 75, 76, 135.

WAGENER, 112, 131, 140.
Wagner, 132.
Waldfeldbau, Germany, 65, 109.
Walther, 140.
Wangenheim, 97.
Warder, 474, 479.
Wartenberg dibble, 107.
Washington, 496.
Waste lands, Canada, 434; France, 224; Japan, 453.
Weber, R., 137, 142, 144.
Wedekind, 143.
v. Wedell, 71, 74.
Weise, 137.
Weisswasser, 170.
Wellenburg, Lang von, 158.
Wertheim, 247.
Wessely, 183.
West Virginia, 490.
Wiedenmann, 130.
Willkomm, 141.
Wimmenauer, 134.
Wind danger, Germany, 59.
Wisconsin, 489, 494, 496, 497.
Wollny, 142.
Wood chopper, league, Germany, 79.
Wood prices, Switzerland, 200.
Working plans, France, 235; Germany, 113, 121, 122; India, 405;
Japan, 451.
World, wood supply and consumption, 4.
Württemberg, 119.

YIELD, regulation methods, 68.
Yield tables, Germany, 76, 115, 136.

V. ZANTHIER, 68, 70, 76, 77, 83, 88, 91, 309, 316.
Zürich, 109, 200.

Transcriber’s Notes

This ebook follows the text of the original printed work, except as
mentioned below. Inconsistencies (spelling, œ/oe/ö, diacritics,
hyphenation, capitalisation, compound words, single/double l, etc.)
have been retained.

Various pages: German (nick)names ending in -man: the original
spelling has been retained (e.g., Beckman is usually spelled Beckmann
(Johann Gottlieb, 1700-1777 and Johann, 1739-1811)).

Page 36. “its removal theft”: as printed in the original work.

Page 63, Mitfasten (Easter): Mitfasten is not Easter, but half-lent.

Page 134: (Reuss, Wimmenauer, etc.): there seems to be no reason for
the parentheses.

Page 244, “translated at the instance of”: as printed in the original
work; possibly an error for another word (instigation?).

Page 442, “utilized above”: as printed in the original work, this
appears to refer to the first two paragraphs only (“The modernization
... other sea industries.”)

Page 476: closing quote mark missing, this should possibly be inserted
after “lands planted to trees”

Index: not all entries are in alphabetical order; this has not been
changed.

Changes made to the text:

Several chapters have a list of literature at the bottom of the first
page. This list has been moved to directly below the chapter header.

Minor obvious typographical and punctuation errors (including French
and German diacritics) have been corrected silently.

Various pages: chaussé changed to chaussée; Forst und Jagd... and
Forst-und Jagd... changed to Forst- und Jagd...; Bremontier changed to
Brémontier; v. Kropf changed to v. Kropff; B. C. changed to B.C.

Page v: order of Introductory and Preface reversed

Page ix: 207 changed to 203 (2x)

Page 21: Beranger changed to Berenger; giurisprudenzia changed to
giurisprudenza

Page 24: a round 35 million changed to around 35 million

Page 29: became extent changed to became extinct; separation of from
France changed to separation from France (cf. 1st edition)

Page 39: 30 or 30 to the acre changed to 20 or 30 to the acre (cf. 1st
edition)

Page 63: wildings changed to wildlings

Page 130: Moreau de Jonnés changed to Moreau de Jonnès

Page 136: Oetellt changed to Oettelt

Page 180: von Engelshoffen changed to von Engelshofen

Page 214: sergen changed to sergent; closing parenthesis added after
etc.

Page 252: Les forêts de la Gaule l’ancienne France changed to Les
forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France

Page 258: parenthesis added after Caucasus

Page 276: 2.000 acres changed to 2,000 acres

Page 277: 80.000 acres changed to 80,000 acres

Page 319: historal changed to historical

Page 331: round 2.7 million changed to around 2.7 million

Page 337: chapparal changed to chaparral

Page 349: Rivista forestate italiana changed to Rivista forestale
italiana

Page 364: Leira changed to Leiria

Page 372: transcription added

Page 426: over one and three quarter million and changed to and over
one and three quarter million

Index page vi: Moreau des Jonnès changed to Moreau de Jonnès

Index page ix: Stœtzer changed to Stoetzer

Index page x: Wellenberg changed to Wellenburg; Wiedenman changed to
Wiedenmann

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Brief History of Forestry. - in Europe, the United States and Other Countries" ***

Home