A Brief History of Forestry.
by B. E. Fernow · English · Gutenberg #48874 · 859,660 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Brief History of Forestry.
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: A Brief History of Forestry.
Author: B. E. Fernow
Release date: May 4, 2015 [eBook #48874]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48874
Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A BRIEF HISTORY OF FORESTRY. ***
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
BY
Bernhard E. Fernow, LL.D.
Dean, Faculty of Forestry
University of Toronto
REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION
UNIVERSITY PRESS
TORONTO
AND
FORESTRY QUARTERLY,
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
COPYRIGHT, CANADA, 1911,
BY B. E. FERNOW.
_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
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48874